The Picken's Plan is no good

Samuel,

Do you truly believe that 4.4 billion people will starve to death because our fossil fuel supply will run out in 20 years?

If you do, why are you driving a car, even a Prius? You live in LA, you could take public transportation and save oil to help feed the next generation. You are taking food out of people's mouth with each gallon you pump and killing people to make your life a little more convenient.

I'm curious to hear your reply.

Jason

 

If the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth in the absensce of oil (hypothetical/scenario) is only 1.6 Billion people, then my consumption of a gallon of gasoline today will not affect the number "1.6B," it will effect the number of hours of life remaining for those who will INEVITABLY die. I am not killing them; I am just shortening their lives by 6 hours, for example.
HOWEVER, as a biochemist myself (who happens to be doing graduate work on genetically modified (GM) crops), I can inform you that the main component used in the synthesis of ammonium nitrate (fertilizer) (nitrogen is most always the most limiting factor in plant growth), is hydrogen gas (which is mixed with nitrogen gas over a catalyst to yield ammonia (the Haber process)). The hydrogen gas is currently derived from methane and naptha in crude oil.
HOWEVER, hydrogen gas can also be produced via electrolysis from water. (I think we have enough water on earth) Yes, electrolysis consumes a lot of energy; however, a century ago, before crude oil became as common as water, many European nations used to produce hydrogen gas from electrolysis of water, powered by hydro-electric dams (a constant, renewable resource).

(for the rest of the comments on this thread that were a reply to a comment of mine, your responses were brilliant. I will respond when I get more time)

 

Pickens doesn't look very public spirited to me:

Consider that Pickens owns the rights to billions of gallons of Ogallala aquifer water in west Texas. For some years now he's been unable to buy up the rights-of-way for the pipeline needed to move that water to the Dallas area. But if he builds wind turbines there, suddenly the state will condemn the right of way for him, nominally for electric power transmission lines. And, oh hey look, there's plenty of space under those pylons for pipelines... By far the best (strongest and most reliable) wind power resources in the US are a few miles offshore, especially the Pacific, Northeast, and Gulf coasts, and essentially all of the Great Lakes. I don't see Pickens financing any offshore projects.

Also note that Pickens tried hard but failed in the last election with California Proposition 10, which would have required the state and others to spend up to $5 billion on infrastructure and vehicle conversions so that Pickens-owned gas companies would profit tens of millions. That sounds to me less like public spirit than war profiteering.

 

Powering the US with no fossil fuels requires a few million wind turbines or a couple thousand square miles of Solar power collectors, plus the transmission lines needed to distribute that rather inconveniently located power and (more so in the case of Solar) several million megaWatt-hours of energy storage capacity. Doable but certainly not cheap. The only thing more expensive would be not doing it. Adding geothermal and nuclear to the mix would drop the cost considerably because they can operate continuously and can be placed closer to consumers.

Rooftop Solar collectors would be an extremely and unnecessarily expensive solution. Even if Solar photovoltaic cells were as cheap as paper we have a lot more people than we have rooftops, and Solar power has very low availability in much of the country.

As for vehicle fuels, as others have alluded we can manufacture hydrocarbons from water and CO2. Using carbon-neutral power sources (nuclear, wind, geothermal and Solar) to run those processes, those fuels would also be carbon-neutral.

 

I have some stock in energy firms in Canada that drilled and found natural gas. Those wells are capped, waiting for a market for the gas. While on the surface I relish a rise in the recently depleted stock prices because of this market, I have some concerns.
First, Natural gas contains sulphur dioxide which needs to be removed before it can be transported by pipeline, and this creates mountains of yellow elemental sulphur, for which there is little market.
Secondly, I remember the trend to propane powered vehicles in the 80's and nineties.
There were stations all over the place to refill, and now (with the advent of tank exchange?) those stations have disappeared. In my city of 200,000, a friend with a propane-powered van tells me there is one refilling station 15 km away from his solar-and-wind-powered home. Is it sustainable, where propane was not?

 

Yes but is it common because you happen to be near it and notice it? Or is it common because there are many industries using rail? While yeah I'm sure the rails are full or close to it, I'd like to see a major shift, not just a lets use what's available method.

I wonder how much it'd cost. I know the cross country rail infrastructure is there, or used to be. Apparently it'd cost 30-40billion for a high speed rail from the San Francisco Bay area to the Los Angeles area, but that is high speed. It's really hard to image the costs of some of these projects... but then again, people say the loss of jobs will be astronomical (I'm quoting not believing...) if any of the big three go under and don't get their handout... but I do not know I seem to recall a particular president a while back started a public works package during the depression... built stuff like Hoover dam.... do not know if that could work again though

 

If off-shore wind development was the same cost as on-shore I'd find your argument more persuasive.

I'm no picken's fan, ever since I read that he bankrolled John Kerry's swift-boating. I also don't doubt Pickens has ulterior motives, and is looking to profit as much as he can. But I try to judge his alternative energy plans on their merits, and infrastructure development of wind from Texas to the Dakotas is the best idea I've heard in a long time.

I am much less enamored of his LNG proposals, mostly because I think that community money is better spent on electrified rail, with rail-to-store run on (cleaner) bio-diesel.

 

I'd disagree with the idea that previous presidents, other than Carter, knew or did much about conserving fuel. Reagan was able to destabilize Russia in large part by pursuing an all-out arms race while promoting cheap oil, which Russia depended for much of its hard cash. Russia basically went bankrupt and couldn't quash uprisings when they were still small. Cheapest oil ever was during Reagan's term. Clinton did a little lip service and formed the PNGV, but the good economy in his term depended on cheap oil.

The latter part is absolutely true, but we're not going to have a sudden cliff edge in petroleum supply. Oil will continue to get more expensive as the supply curve drops below the demand curve, but we're never going to run out. We've got tons of it in oil shale in the U.S. for instance, but it's too expensive to use, the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is worse than corn ethanol, so it will only make sense to use it for something other than an energy source (like fertilizer), if and when it comes down to that. But it would still make food too expensive for a large part of the human population. When you consider that 50% of our corn goes to livestock production in large feedlots, all we have to do is change our eating habits to include much less meat, and we can continue to feed at least ourselves. I do see the possibility at some point of rationing diesel and gasoline to ensure farmers and essential services continue to operate.

Okay, this is totally off. I used to be a fan of hydrogen about 6 years ago, but have since become educated on it. It's been a boondoggle and will continue to be a boondoggle, but more people are becoming enlightened. Iceland was pushing hard for this, but see where they are now. Rather than converting electricity to hydrogen, transporting it in some-yet-undetermined fashion, storing it under extremely high pressure, and converting it back to electricity using fuel cells that cost about 6 figures for a standard family sedan, why not just store the electricity in batteries and ultracaps directly? Much cheaper, better EROEI and doesn't require multiple breakthrough technologies to become feasible.

[/quote]
Yep, totally agree

 

Can you imagine running out of high fructose corn syrup ?

kidding

 

The Picken's Plan is not understood

So a successful businessman finds a way to make money and solve our energy problems at the same time and the capitalists are crying foul? I don't get it. I haven't followed the acquifer situation, I'll keep that in mind.
Building windmills in water is much more expensive than on land and needs an electrical connection. The Great Plains have some of the best wind resources on the planet, it makes perfect sense to tap into that. Pickens is not doing anything radical in that regard. Overnight use can charge our EVs and PHEVs, as Pickens is promoting (the name of the thread to the contrary), saving natural gas for truck traffic.

But geothermal is really overlooked - much of the western U.S. can be powered by this, add in solar thermal (better than solar photovoltaic), wind and hydroelectric, there is no need for our west coast to use any fossil fuels for electricity.

It is common for rail lines to haul trailers across the country, offload them near their destination and semi tractors pull them the rest of the way (intermodal transport). It's a shame we ripped up so many railroads during the 70's and 80's, but we've still got a lot of transportation happening over rail, about 15% of all cargo for the U.S., European countries have 60% or better of goods transported by rail.

Living in the Chicago area, we see many trains each day passing thru, they can be a mile long each. (As well as smaller passenger trains for public transportation and AmTrak). Right now there's a battle going on in the western suburbs over a train deal where CN wants to buy a smaller regional rail line that was underutilized so they can bypass the congested Chicago area, but residents don't want the increase in train traffic. (Pure NIMBY, but they've got valid concerns like ambulance delays). Here's an interesting article on general train traffic in the U.S. and how congestion is affecting it as well.

 

I've said it before, but I will repeat. The Picken's Plan is a political initiative, not an energy plan. Specifically, he is trying to get the government to pay for infrastructure changes that make natural gas a much more critical commodity....and here he sits ready to profit if this political initiative is undertaken....while the cost of these changes is paid for by (.....not Pickens!)

 

This is an energy plan - our nation has a lot more natural gas than it does oil, and it's an easy conversion to get trucks to use natural gas instead of diesel (and trucks are the messiest polluters on the roads, might as well start with the low-hanging fruit if we want to improve things). EVs are promoted for commuter use. So we clean up the air, use efficient vehicles, less money goes to Al Qaeda and the unneeded mega-cities in Dubhai, and our economy is protected somewhat from the vagaries of some of the world's most unstable and unfriendly countries. It may not be perfect, but it's light years ahead of the lack of planning that has existed the last 8 years.

I don't really care if Pickens makes money or even claims he's a terrorist bent on destroying this country. His personal objectives are irrelevant. This plan is the best we've seen in a long time, and large portions of it should be implemented, and quickly (but in a well though-out manner).

 

Think this through.
1) Who was unaware that we have a problem with oil addiction till Pickens enlightened us? I'm pretty sure you do not fall into this group.
2) Which is a better choice for technology focus; Electric Cars or Natural Gas Powered Cars? What is the private sector working on? Why?
3) Is the Pickens Plan a permanent solution?
4) Why did he pick wind power and skip solar power?
5) Who pays and who benefits....when the actual exchange of money is looked at closely.

I have found the following sites to be vastly better in terms of forward thinking energy policy:
The City College of New York :: Publications for the Clean Fuels Institute
Rocky Mountain Institute : Publications

I really worried that the work of many hard working individuals on efficiently using natural gas and developing wind power will be mistakenly attributed to Pickens. Don't mistake a cheerleader for a leader.

 

Well, not quite. No matter whether your power lines are AC or DC, you lose power in them proportional to the square of the current that's flowing. (Joule's law says power = voltage x current, while Ohm's law says current = voltage divided by resistance; putting the two together gives power = current squared x resistance.) To reduce the amount of power loss, you decrease the current, which is only possible for a constant power by increasing the voltage.

For AC, voltages can be changed efficiently using a transformer, which is basically two coils of wire on a common iron (or other magnetic material) core. The output voltage is dictated by the ratio of the number of turns of wire on the two coils, and the input voltage. The efficiency is typically over 99%. The input coil generates a magnetic field in the core, which induces current in the output coil. Magnetic fields are generated as the input voltage changes, which is why this doesn't work for DC.

Long-distance power lines run at hundreds of thousands of volts (kilovolts, kV). These voltages are very dangerous which is why they're stepped down to somewhere between 100 and 250 volts for household consumption (still dangerous, but not quite so much).

To convert a DC voltage to another in the 19th century, you basically needed a motor and generator on the same shaft, which was very expensive and not very efficient. We now have electronic switching converters - DC-DC converters - that are substantially better. There's one in the Prius to step down from 200V (HV system) to 12V (low-voltage system to run ECUs, lights, accessories and charge the auxiliary battery). Still, electronics largely don't like very big voltages.

Reportedly HVDC transmission is actually more efficient than AC, once the voltage conversions are dealt with. See Wikipedia: High-voltage direct current (I would link, but I haven't made enough posts yet.)

 

If we decentralize power production, by eliminating the billion-dollar power plants and billions of miles of transmission lines, and let people generate THEIR OWN electricity (for the 50% of the nation that can do so), then we won't need those inefficient transmission lines. Does every house and every apartment building own a television? A microwave oven? A refrigerator? Well, then why the heck can't everyone buy a solar panel or two? Maybe T. Boone Pickens should invest his money in a MASSIVE solar-panel manufacturing plant, locate it in Texas, and pay American workers? (maybe Obama's plan can make renewable energy businesses tax exempt)

(FYI: a guy on the other side of my neighborhood has several solar panels, a wind turbine, and a "thermal turbine" (my words) - basically mirrors heat air that then rises upward and turns a turbine. Every time I drive by his house, both turbines are spinning. I have driven by at minimum thirty houses in Orange County that have solar panels on them. There is absolutely NO reason why every house should not have at least one solar panel on it.)

 

Exactly. I haven't read about these new "HVDC" that you mention, but I suppose it's worth reading about.

ScubaGypsy,
The third image on the right is an original, authentic post card from the 1893 World's Fair, in which Westinghouse beat out Edison for the contract to light the fair. The middle image is the back of that card. The image on the left is the Westinghouse Exhibit from the 1939 Worlds Fair. I bought these post cards when I was in Chicago this past summer, when I got to go inside one of the original buildings from the 1893 Worlds Fair.

 

I added the link for ya. And yes you are certainly correct in that HVDC is now quite capable although it certainly wasn't in 1887! The U.S. Navy has been using it for over 50 years. The point of my post (#6) was that to successfully incorporate the concept of a centralized solar plant in the southwest, and/or centralized wind turbine farms in the midwest and offshores, that the basic U.S. transmission distribution systems need to be significantly redone to allow long range DC voltage transmissions. HVDC is likely the method that will provide this capability.

At the minimum we should begin with solar water heating. It is frustrating that such technology has not already been incorporated. I still see a number of solar collector systems around New England where 90% or more of these are from the Carter era (late 1970s-early 1980s) when the tax incentives were available. The technology has advanced and is quite capable in even harsh environments (see the thread Happy days - new solar hot water system installed! from which the following history was presented in post #10).

Interestingly, California had solar hot water systems in the late 1800s until the discoveries of natural gas in the Los Angeles basin during the 1920s and 1930s killed the local solar water heater industry. The Solar Water Heater Company was established in Florida in 1923. By 1941, nearly 60,000 hot water heaters had been sold in Florida where 80% of Miami’s new homes had solar hot water heaters and more than 50 percent of the city used them. Solar water heaters were also used in north Florida, Louisiana and Georgia. At the start of World War II, the government put a freeze on nonmilitary use of copper, stalling out the solar hot water heating market. After the war, the rise in skilled labor and copper prices made the collectors less affordable. Electric prices dropped in the 1950s, making electric water heaters more appealing. Installation and initial cost was also cheaper than solar hot water heaters. The tank was automatic too. Solar water heating was not the same bargain anymore in the United States, especially when oil import limits were allowed to surpass 50 percent. There are still a few of these early collectors in use around Miami and Orlando. A similar scenario happened later in Japan when it began importing oil in the 1960s. The peak year for Japan’s solar hot water sales was 1966. Throughout history, solar energy is popular until abundant sources of fossil fuel become available. Interest in solar energy surged during oil embargoes in 1973-74 and 1979. Today, more than 1.2 million buildings have solar water heating systems in the United States. This doesn’t include 250,000 solar-heated swimming pools. Japan has nearly 1.5 million buildings with solar water heating in Tokyo. In Israel, 30 percent of the buildings use solar-heated water. Now most recently, Hawaii has mandated that ALL new homes must have solar hot water.

Nice postcards indeed, thanx for sharing.

 

Why not just convert the DC from the solar panels to AC before transmitting to the power grid that already exists?

(note: the myriad household, industrial, and commercial appliances that we already have in our homes, offices, and factories operate on AC current. I don't think it would be practical to convert everything to DC.)

 

considering that a GREAT majority of those "AC" appliances convert the AC power to DC power before actually using it, i have to say.., probably would not be all that difficult

also, i have worked in several manufacturing environments...in my experience, DC is probably much more common as a power source