The Picken's Plan is no good

This is a good article. Strong on facts. There are a lot of signs of pent up demand for electric transportation.
1) Tesla sales maxed out...on a very expensive car
2) Free market PHEV conversions of NHW20's
3) Prius sales always at the edge of production capability....for almost a decade!!!!
4) The incredible success of the Volt attention getting PR stunt.
5) Add your own.


My wallet is ready.

 

The article is interesting but I agree with most of the post article comments. I've seen a recent Picken's interview where he is advocating the use of EVs for automobiles and light trucks while using natural gas for heavy trucking and transportation. This could be an interesting direction for the next decade as it ideally will result in significantly decreased carbon emissions, decreased importing dependances, an increase in green jobs, development of renewable electrical generation and charging infrastructures, an increased awareness and acceptance of sustainability by the general public, etc.

Something that is not often mentioned is that Pickens owns and operates natural gas fueling stations from British Columbia to the Mexican border. Between this ownership and his pursuit of building the world's largest wind farm, it does appear that he is putting his money where his beliefs are though he is backing off for now due to presumed losses in the current credit crunch.

 

Excellent read! Thanks for sharing this.
One discrepancy that I find though is that this article alleges that the U.S. only holds 3% of the world's natural gas reserves. Over the past few years, I have been reading repeatedly that there are "trillions" of cubic meters of natural gas underneath the Appalachian Mountains. Is that a hoax? Is that real?
I agree with the logic of the article completely that it's much more efficient to burn the NG in a powerplant and then recharge millions of cars than to burn the NG in the millions of cars. That makes perfect sense. But, in the mean time, we need some type of fuel to get us off of foreign oil. Plug-in hybrids are great. All cars should be plug-in hybrids in 2009. It still needs a fuel source though, and NG would at least keep our dollars at home in North America. And, if we are using plug-in hybrids, then the amount of NG that each car would consume would be significantly decreased as compared to a non-plugin hybrid NG vehicle.

Something that I have said before, and I will say again, I think the improvement with the greatest energy-saving potential right now is to significantly increase the efficiency and capacity of regenerative braking.

What percentage of the U.S. can be sustained on wind, what percentage can be sustained on solar (360 days a year), and what percentage can Not rely on either for half of the year?
(For coastal states, I think harnessing the ocean's currents is going to be our best resource)

I don't think freight trucks ("eighteen wheel" or "semi trucks") will ever be able to get enough power from electric. Plus, these trucks often drive long distances. I might be wrong, but I think diesel fuel will always be the best fuel source for freight trucks (at least, based on today's viewpoint).

Pickens got his state, Texas, to approve $5 Billion to construct a massive wind farm. Regardless of what he's doing with natural gas, this guy has done more for green jobs and green energy than anyone else I know of !
(I am Not disagreeing with you. I think you and I are on similar pages)

 

Natural gas, a hydrocarbon, is not the way to go. We need least cost, end use or long-term investment in renewable, sustainable energy. This makes PHEVs the first choice when coupled with photovoltaics, wind, geothermal and small hydro. However, PHEVs are only a bridge, not a solution, as we need robust investment in walking & bicycle routes, electric light & high speed rail. We need to get away from "warehouses on wheels", diesel trucks and limit their use to short hauls between rail and cities. At the same time we need to work on "green goat" (hybrid) type locomotives and trucks for industrial transportation. Just as coal-based locomotives are major polluters, diesel exhaust is a carcinogen.

 

Scientific America had a feature article in January 2008 entitled "A Solar Grand Plan," which is claiming that a centrally located solar collector plant in the southwest of the U.S. could provide 69% of our electricity and 35% of our total energy needs. The predicted cost is $420B which sounded high until one considers that we just spent $700B for a bailout!

It seems that the remainder of our energy needs could be met with other renewables such as wind and hydropower as well as strong incentives for personal solar panels and water heating on residences and commercial buildings.

We have a local company that is producing high quality diesel from waste vegetable oil collected from local restaurants. We're using this oil now for our heating oil. It is also used by some of the local school systems for their buses. I expect that in the very near future we will see this business model throughout the country as it also addresses the need for removing wastes.

I too like Picken's Plan and am hopeful that he is able to continue. He not only has put his own money into his beliefs but perhaps most importantly is that he is able to present these concepts to a broader audience including politicians and key decision makers.

 

We need more choices not just one. The Pickens plan is a great plan but it just represents a piece of what we need.

Getting cars and trucks off of fossil fuel and onto natural gas is simple and WILL WORK NOW. Fleet and government vehicles first as fueling is easier <and already being done> and peoples home vehicles as they choose. This does not need technology we don't have and everything can be made here in the USA including the fuel. The pollution is lower and so is the CO2 then gas cars.

We need just as much effort in full electrics and plug ins. They are probably a better choice but they cost more and the battery manufacturing is not ready to move everyone to PHEVS or electrics.

 

any plan that advocates the use of trucks is not something i think we should do. electrified rail using renewable energy is the way to go for all long distance transportation of goods.

cost? astronomical. is it doable?? oh ya, technology is not really all that extreme. plus electrical power is home made, no longer a need to spend trillions to the middle east for the privilege.

 

For cars and light trucks, perhaps what we need next are PHEVs sourced by hybrid power systems.

EERE Consumer's Guide: Small "Hybrid" Solar and Wind Electric Systems

 

Excellent points, and the logic is concrete. I've been wondering lately though about the efficiency of renewable energy. Wouldn't it take a "gazillion" solar panels or wind turbines to power the entire U.S.? And if we did build a huge, centralized power system, how much energy would be lost through electrical lines across one thousand miles?

We already have railroads. However, just like highways, they do not connect every single location on the map. If you look at a map, you will see grocery stores and other large retail stores spotted all over the map. It wouldn't make sense to build a railroad track to every single grocery store and other retail store on the map. As long as roads exist, we will always need trucks.

UPS already has 300 hybrid trucks in their fleet. They look identical to any other UPS truck, except they are hybrids and say "hybrid" on them. It's already being done, and if I remember correctly, Freightliner is the manufacturer. For trucks that travel mostly on the highway though, there would be no regen on the highway, and they will continue to need hydrocarbon fuel. (which is not a big deal if we can get the rest of society off of crude oil)

Exactly. And from day one, for every barrel of Middle East oil that we do not need to buy, that much money will remain here in North America. We can continue to produce more and more hybrids (as we increase battery manufacturing capacity - something we do NOT have today), but we need the CNG today.

 

From the Scientific American "A Solar Grand Plan, the $420B includes funding a transmission infrastructure as it will require a new direct-current (DC) power transmission backbone. The excess daytime energy from the photovoltaic (PV) panels is proposed to be stored as compressed air in underground caverns that can be be tapped at night. They are also proposing the use of solar collectors in addition to the PV panels.

Interestingly, in 1887 direct current (DC) was king. At that time there were 121 Edison power stations scattered across the United States delivering DC electricity to its customers. But DC had a great limitation -- namely, that power plants could only send DC electricity about a mile before the electricity began to lose power. Edison had established direct current at the standard for electricity distribution and was living large off the patent royalties, royalties he was in no mood to lose when George Westinghouse and Nicola Tesla showed up with alternating current. So when George Westinghouse introduced his system based on high-voltage alternating current (AC), which could carry electricity hundreds of miles with little loss of power, people naturally took notice. A "battle of the currents" ensued. In the end, Westinghouse's AC prevailed.

 

Of all the sustainable energy proposals that have gotten attention, the building of massive solar concentration plants (not PV panels) and very high efficiency DC transmission lines is actually starting to happen. Here is one article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/business/businessspecial2/24GOLDMAN.html?_r=1&ref=businessspecial2

 

Wonder how much energy we'd save in transport if the railroads rose up, perhaps "merging" with trucking in such a fashion that rail takes goods on long hauls and trucks do all the short hauling.

I love solar, I really do. But plonking down $400(ish) billion for panels won't do us squat. All the infrastructure for transportation that will use electricity needs to be in place, or pretty close. IMO it's not. If history has told us anything usually when one industry tries to impose its will on another it gets messy for a while until one becomes dominant or they lay at a stalemate.

I'm more for localized distribution of solar. I hate to sound like a tin-foil wearing nutcase here, but the reason they don't just give everyone solar panels for their roofs (and by everyone I'm being speaking tongue in cheek) is because they want to be able to charge money for that power as well. $400billion is nice, but even nicer when it's making revenue, and who gets that? one power company? local power companies? The government?

 

Hi MikeSF,

I live next to a rail line. I can look out my window here and see freight trains/coal trains/ethanol trains/ Amtrack/ Commuter trains all go by. UPS, does what you suggest already. Its common to see a UPS trailer on a flat car, along with other unmarked trailers.

 

People ..... please consider the source .... Pickens. Then, just walk away.

... Brad

 

So if Pickens backed hybrids and electrics you would walk away?

Pickens didn't come up with the plan in the first place anyhow. Its a sound plan, but just part of the solution to our energy problems.

 

The same billions that GM et al are holding out the tin cup for, would make a great start on a rail system.

Ok, I considered the source. Ssooo, can you finish the mystery about what that means?

 

It's like quitting smoking: you don't peruse the market, pondering merits and demerits of available compliments and available substitutes. You need to slam on the brakes, save who may -- quit. Regardless of implications.

Carter knew this, as did Reagan, as did Bush (e.g., but not his son; too stupid), as did Clinton, as does Obama, as did America's big four (e.g., GM; FOMOCO: Chrysler; American Motors): we needed every remaining ounce of light-sweet crude -- saved. For other things (e.g., to be used for petrochemical fertilizer, for which to preserve current agricultural output).

No fossil fuel, carrying capacity of planet Earth, is 1.6 billion people... When we run out, in 20 years, 4.4 billion people are going to starve to death. Here we are, pissing what little remains, utterly clueless, shades of the 19th century lost generation, still pondering the merits and demerits of alternative supply chains?

Similarly so, every remaining ounce of natural gas needs being saved, for other purposes... it is not to be pissed away, going point-A to point-B. Fuel cell technology hydrogen, powered by photovoltaics, definitely the way to go.

Their time having long since come and gone, big three must (MUST) be allowed to fail (e.g., free-up those resources; liquidate those lobbies in Washington). The Pickens--Chesapeake Oil Company duoopoly, on self-service natural gas, similarly so (e.g., its lobby needs to be eliminated, as well).

Prognosis: regardless, whatever the available substitute may be, we need to stop doing what we're doing, now (e.g., emphasis on the word, now).

Or else...

Until we do, expect the deterministic component in the variance of light-sweet crude to grow exponentially, over the course of the next two decades, so much so, price variance will characteristically fluctuate, frequency and in wavelength, two to three dollars a gallon, between refills (e.g., trick is: refueling, when no one else has to).


Regards,
~ Samuel, '04 Prius