A Real Energy Plan
Recently while watching one of the cable news channels, Texas billionaire oil mogul T. Boone Pickens caught my attention with a plain talking ad about our country’s energy problem. With gasoline topping $4.00 per gallon, our national deficit skyrocketing, the dollar falling and our economy in a general malaise, it’s obvious one our fundamental problems is our dependence on foreign oil. Pickens points out that we will export $7 trillion to foreign countries for their oil in the next 10 years. He calls it the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. He makes his point well. Our country simply can not afford it.
What I liked even better is another video he released today on the internet. He lays out a common sense plan that could solve many of our country’s energy problems in that same 10 years. Cutting our dependence on foreigners (many that hate us) and putting our own natural resources to work right here. He has some novel ideas about wind power, natural gas, coal, nuclear, solar, and geothermal. I like his plain-talking plan. It is logical and doable. This is a man who knows the energy business.
I am sure there will be detractors who point out that Pickens is making a huge investment in Texas wind power up in the Panhandle. They will see his plan as self-serving. I don’t because I have been to the big wind farm in Sweetwater, I have seen it in action on a windy day with powerlines crackling with wind-generated electricity. I highly recommend investing five minutes of your time and watching this video. Like I said, T. Boone Pickens is a man that knows the energy business and he has a real energy plan.
Tags: energy plan, ksat, natural gas, nuclear, steve browne, wind energy
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
July 8, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Thanks Steve!! Good illustration! LPG is also a great fuel for vehicles. I have used it for decades, but it has been impossible to get very many on the band wagon. I wonder why Mr. Pickens hasn’t come up with a plan for our other trade deficits?
July 8, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I keep hearing windpower can provide 20% of our energy, which is peculiar if the US is the Saudi Arabia of wind. If that were the case, the US could provide enough energy to meet our own needs and that of much of the rest of the world too.
The US consumes about one trillion watts during peak hours (1000 gigawatts, 1,000,000 megawatts, or 1,000,000,000 kilowatts). A 2Mw wind turbine produces about half it’s ‘nameplate’ capacity on average, or 1Mw. 1 million x 1 million is 1 trillion. The square root of 1 million is 1000. So a 1000 x 1000 square of wind turbines would be enough. This might cover a chunk (not all) of the Great Plains.
One can make methane (natural gas) by combining hydrogen and pure carbon dioxide in a 4:1 ratio, under 10 atmospheres of pressure at 500 degrees celsius. One can make ammonia from wind power (this is being demonstrated at the University of Minnesota). Ammonia is typically used as a fertilizer, it can also be used as a substitute for propane in engines converted to run on propane. One can also combine hydrogen and carbon monoxide in various ways to make any hydrocarbon, including gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel.
A number of companies are claiming they are making solar cells at a cost of $1 per watt. At that price, solar power pays for itself in six years.
This list could get a lot longer, in fact it could fill several pages. There is no shortage of effective renewable technologies. There is merely a shortage of capital equipment required to collect or process it. Had American investors been pouring money into renewable energy the way they were into flipping houses, gas would be costing about $1.50 a gallon.
July 9, 2008 at 9:01 am
Of course someone will think it’s self serving. The one’s who are interested in keeping energy prices high and are invested in the global warming hoax. The only interest the politicians in Washington should have is the welfare of the american people.
This is America, we are Americans and history has shown that we can do anything and only God or those idiots in the senate and congress can stop us.
July 9, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I think Pickens is going in the right direction, away from fossil fuels and towards renewables. What will really make a difference, though, is for us to move away from centrally generated power and towards a distributed energy production model. Not only will this leave us less vulnerable to outages, but will greatly reduce the amount of energy lost when it’s transmitted over large distances.
July 14, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Public Discussion Forum for Pickens Plan : http://www.pickensenergyplan.com See you there !
July 18, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Pickens plan is admirable, however he has made the common mistake of many people of his wealth and stature and that is what happens when you start putting in the transmission lines? Who’s backyard are you going to set those in? I have one on my 15 acres in Marion, and let me tell you, when they place a tower, guess what? They own your land! Think they don’t? They can come into your property anytime they please. They can scare your livestock, horse or whatever you use as your livelyhood and if something happens like a horse or cattle get out into the road and get killed, they the public utility companies will not reimburse you and you have no legal recourse! That is the cold hard truth! I am all for renewables. Hindsight, we as a country should have done something about it back in the Carter Administration when things were 100 times worse!. Also, has anyone really looked at the number of days of useable wind in Texas? Better have a backup plan in case of HIGH PRESSURE! Correct me if I am wrong Steve Brown!
October 1, 2008 at 5:36 pm
CNG is a poor automotive fuel. Why? The energy needed to compress it adds to the cost, this is hidden in the Picken’s plan.
Most natural gas is sold wholesale. Your local utility uses this to advantage as they can store considerable volumes in their distribution systems keeping the price constant. The big variable with supply is electric generation which is biased to the summer months. During the summer, peak electric generation places demands on natural gas as aero-derivative NG fired turbine engines consume large quantities of gas. Can wind turbines compete in this market? Unlikely. Neither can nuclear. The key to peak generation is the command depenability.
Wind power only works with a massive reinvestment in transmission lines AND much more than 20% generated by wind. More like 50% What is needed is a high voltage DC interconnects. What this does is isolate the frequency issue in long-haul transmission. At the terminal end, this DC is then inverted to AC, matching the local gird frequency.
The cost? About $0.50 per kW-H. 4-5 times the current national average.
October 2, 2008 at 1:06 pm
One more thing, CNG is an inferior alternative. It may cost less per thermal equivalent but the true cost is greater. Costs like inability to remote fuel (run out of gas? You cannot fill a can with CNG), highly limited range, bulky tanks, increased vehicle weight..it goes on.
There IS technology to convert natural gas into conventional fuels. Called “gas to liquids” and it is old technology. Conversion rates based on energy content are no different than using CNG in modified vehicles. Why not? Because it would have to compete with CONVENTIONAL fuels. Without a captive market via government regulation, natural gas cannot compete.
Pickens only wishes to stack the deck in his favor. Get a rope.
October 3, 2008 at 3:29 am
Okay Keith, we get it. You think CNG is inferior. I think you are dead wrong. Here’s why.
Natural gas is a domestic energy source. We tap it from our own territory. It’s ours to tap. It’s ours to control. It’s ours for the taking. It’s ours to create our own jobs. Right here in the good old U.S.A. It’s our own resource that is not controlled by foreign interests. It’s ours. We control it!
Natural gas is also a relatively clean fossil fuel. It only contains one (1) carbon atom per molecule versus 7-10 carbon atoms per molecule for gasoline. Natural gas is CH4. That is four times more hydrogen atoms than carbon and many think that is important. Burning it releases water vapor (H20)=more clean rain, vs. Carbon Dioxide=more Global Warning, er Global Warming.
It contains more energy per dollar than gasoline. You admit that. Let’s see. I will take more energy per dollar every day at Wal Mart buying natural gas. And it’s cleaner! And it’s our jobs? That’s not terrific?
You can’t pour it? So? Attach your pressurized hose into a cylinder. Get over it already.
Your wind energy argument is a total disconnect. Cost per Kilowatt hour is competitive with anything out there including dirty coal. Go back and refigure.
November 6, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Right, Steve. Just like those “Sawtooth Maples” at Lost Maples SNA. Schadenfreude. It keeps me warm at night every time you talk about the Sawtooth Maples…
Consulting Texas A&M University, Acer grandidentatum is commonly known as Bigtooth Maple, Sabinal Maple, Western Sugar Maple, Uvalde Bigtooth Maple, Canyon Maple, Southwestern Bigtooth Maple. But not Sawtooth Maple.
Back to the subject at hand. The instant natural gas is diverted from established consumers to alternate uses, supply becomes tight. Meaning that savings per BTU drops.
Taxes. There are currently no motor vehicle fuels taxes in the pricing. That is $0.384 per gallon here in Texas. And remember propane? It was a natural back during our last shortage but it only made sense as long as there were no motor vehicle fuels tax. And that is why NISD used it in their Bluebird school buses. They continued the tax-exempt status.
Don’t think motor vehicle fuels tax is an issue? For commercial vehicles, it is a $10,000
FINE using tax free fuels (dyed red #2 diesel is available for refrigeration, construction equipment and back-up generators).
Yes, you are correct about methane being CH4. And natural gas is mostly methane. But the C-H ratio for trimethylpentane (iso-octane, the gold standard with 100 octane rating) is 8/18 compared to the 1/4 for methane. And the total energy from a HC fuel is a combination of the oxidation of BOTH the hydrogen and carbon. Gasoline has three times the volumetric energy density. THREE TIMES. Per mass, natural gas has a 15% advantage. Insignificant since you have to store it in HEAVY TANKS, making efficiency gains nil.
Compressed gases suffer in portability GREATLY. The energy used in compression is very great, further eroding the hypothetical savings. This also handicaps hydrogen which is why the only viable hydrogen systems utilize hydrides as in Bob Lazar’s project. Unfortunately, methane is too large to be stored in this manner. It does form clathrates with water, making a heavy ice which contains about 600 volumes of methane. But Pickens and McClendon (CEO of Cheasapeake Energy, the largest natural gas E&P company).
And finally, retiring our natural gas fired peak load power plants would lead to inevitable shortages unless there is a 4 fold oversupply in wind energy AND a means of interstate delivery. And the resistance to construction of such delivery systems is very high. Even CPS has problems with the northwest HV distribution lines. Location kills wind. Ever drive from Lubbock to Houston in one day?
Stick to weather. Native plants of Texas and power are definitely not your forte.
November 10, 2008 at 6:01 am
Well, cat got your fingers?
Yes, I did a little homework. On the REAL COSTS of compressing natural gas…CPS charges between 10 and 13 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, the energy source most commonly used to run a compressor. To charge 80 standard cubic feet of natural gas from the home meter to 3000 PSI, it would take over 19 kW-h of electricity. That 80 standard cubit feet has the energy equivalent of 2.5 gallons of gasoline. So figure on a break even point of a dollar per gallon equivalent.
Since natural gas is priced by the therm, or millon BTUs and gasoline contains 125,000 BTUs per gallon, the math isn’t too hard for an AMS certified meterologist. 8 gallons of gas per therm of gasoline. With the current price at $2 per gallon, that is $16 per therm. But remember, it takes $1 per gallon equivalent to make than natural gas CNG. Bam. Wholsale price for natural gas is what? About $8 per therm.
Net savings? Zero. And then you have the inferior, replacement goods issues like premium for conversion, home filling equipment, shorter range, lack of commercial filling stations, price fluctuations…
Someone didn’t think this out too well, did they?
November 20, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Well, retail NG is now $20 per therm and crude is $48.85 per barrel.
That means WITHOUT taxes or compression to 3000 PSI, NG costs about 25% more than gasoline. With taxes and the energy needed to compress it, you are looking at $4 per gallon equivalent.
January 20, 2009 at 11:52 am
I hear that NG is $.63 / gallon or so in Utah. That is at 3000 psi.
In CA, it is available at $2.34 per gallon.
To me, that seems cost competitive with gasoline!
May 20, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Neat internet site – i will visit soon=)