BioDieselNow - Renewable biodiesel fuel

What do you folks think? My biggest issue is his reliance on natual gas. We simply don't have that much... and while the plan mentions biofuels, it never actually details any of it.

America is addicted to foreign oil.

It's an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our national security. It touches every part of our daily lives and ties our hands as a nation and a people.

The addiction has worsened for decades and now it's reached a point of crisis.

In 1970, we imported 24% of our oil.
Today it's nearly 70% and growing.

As imports grow and world prices rise, the amount of money we send to foreign nations every year is soaring. At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone — that's four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.

Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion — it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

America uses a lot of oil. Every day 85 million barrels of oil are produced around the world. And 21 million of those are used here in the United States.

That's 25% of the world's oil demand. Used by just 4% of the world's population.

Can't we just produce more oil?

World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn't enough of it to keep up with demand.

The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.

What's the good news?

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of wind power.

Studies from around the world show that the Great Plains states are home to the greatest wind energy potential in the world — by far.

The Department of Energy reports that 20% of America's electricity can come from wind. North Dakota alone has the potential to provide power for more than a quarter of the country.

Today's wind turbines stand up to 410 feet tall, with blades that stretch 148 feet in length. The blades collect the wind's kinetic energy. In one year, a 3-megawatt wind turbine produces as much energy as 12,000 barrels of imported oil.

Wind power currently accounts for 48 billion kWh of electricity a year in the United States — enough to serve more than 4.5 million households. That is still only about 1% of current demand, but the potential of wind is much greater.

A 2005 Stanford University study found that there is enough wind power worldwide to satisfy global demand 7 times over — even if only 20% of wind power could be captured.

Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.

That's a lot of money, but it's a one-time cost. And compared to the $700 billion we spend on foreign oil every year, it's a bargain.

An economic revival for rural America.

Developing wind power is an investment in rural America.

To witness the economic promise of wind energy, look no further than Sweetwater, Texas.

Sweetwater was typical of many small towns in middle-America. With a shortage of good jobs, the youth of Sweetwater were leaving in search of greater opportunities. And the town's population dropped from 12,000 to under 10,000.

When a large wind power facility was built outside of town, Sweetwater experienced a revival. New economic opportunity brought the town back to life and the population has grown back up to 12,000.

In the Texas panhandle, just north of Sweetwater, is the town of Pampa, where T. Boone Pickens' Mesa Power is currently building the largest wind farm in the world.

At 4,000 megawatts — the equivalent combined output of four large coal-fire plants — the production of the completed Pampa facility will double the wind energy output of the United States.

In addition to creating new construction and maintenance jobs, thousands of Americans will be employed to manufacture the turbines and blades. These are high skill jobs that pay on a scale comparable to aerospace jobs.

Plus, wind turbines don't interfere with farming and grazing, so they don't threaten food production or existing local economies.

A cheap new replacement for foreign oil.

The Honda Civic GX Natural Gas Vehicle is the cleanest internal-combustion vehicle in the world according to the EPA.

Natural gas and bio-fuels are the only domestic energy sources used for transportation.

Cleaner

Natural gas is the cleanest transportation fuel available today.

According to the California Energy Commission, critical greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas are 23% lower than diesel and 30% lower than gasoline.

Natural gas vehicles (NGV) are already available and combine top performance with low emissions. The natural gas Honda Civic GX is rated as the cleanest production vehicle in the world.

According to NGVAmerica, there are more than 7 million NGVs in use worldwide, but only 150,000 of those are in the United States.

The EPA estimates that vehicles on the road account for 60% of carbon monoxide pollution and around one-third of hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions in the United States. As federal and state emissions laws become more stringent, many requirements will be unattainable with conventionally fueled vehicles.

Since natural gas is significantly cleaner than petroleum, NGVs are increasing in popularity. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach recently announced that 16,800 old diesel trucks will be replaced, and half of the new vehicles will run on alternatives such as natural gas.

Cheaper

Natural gas is significantly less expensive than gasoline or diesel. In places like Utah and Oklahoma, prices are less than $1 a gallon. To see fueling stations and costs in your area, check out cngprices.com.

Domestic

Natural gas is our country's second largest energy resource and a vital component of our energy supply. 98% of the natural gas used in the United States is from North America. But 70% of our oil is purchased from foreign nations.

Natural gas is one of the cleanest, safest and most useful forms of energy — residentially, commercially and industrially. The natural gas industry has existed in the United States for over 100 years and continues to grow.

Domestic natural gas reserves are twice that of petroleum. And new discoveries of natural gas and ongoing development of renewable biogas are continually adding to existing reserves.

While it is a cheap, effective and versatile fuel, less than 1% of natural gas is currently used for transportation.

The Mechanics

-->

1. Generate 20% of our electricity from wind power.	2. Use wind power to replace natural gas.	3. Use natural gas as a transportation fuel — replacing foreign oil.

We currently use natural gas to produce 22% of our electricity. Harnessing the power of wind to generate electricity will give us the flexibility to shift natural gas away from electricity generation and put it to use as a transportation fuel — reducing our dependence on foreign oil by more than one-third.

How do we get it done?

The Pickens Plan is a bridge to the future — a blueprint to reduce foreign oil dependence by harnessing domestic energy alternatives, and buy us time to develop even greater new technologies.

Building new wind generation facilities and better utilizing our natural gas resources can replace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports in 10 years. But it will take leadership.

On January 20th, 2009, a new President will take office.

We're organizing behind the Pickens Plan now to ensure our voices will be heard by the next administration.

Together we can raise a call for change and set a new course for America's energy future in the first hundred days of the new presidency — breaking the hammerlock of foreign oil and building a new domestic energy future for America with a focus on sustainability.

You can start changing America's future today by supporting the Pickens Plan. Join now.

 I like the emphasis on wind generation, but a glaring hole is the lack of vision for hybrid/electric vehicle development.  There is also large support for the existing corporate structure in petroleum, which cuts both ways -- it's unlikely to get support for any energy plan without them, but it's also unlikely to get any significant progress with them.

natescape:

A 2005 Stanford University study found that there is enough wind power worldwide to satisfy global demand 7 times over — even if only 20% of wind power could be captured.

The problem, as another thread here explains, is that the tremendous variability of wind power creates a significant load-matching demand for the power grid. Ultimately, that will limit the pecentage of our energy that we can get from wind significantly - 20% would be an optimistic goal, without a massive increase in bulk energy storage (and even with that, we probably couldn't go much above 20%).

Of course, he ignores the fact that oil is not used (much) for producing electricity. Reducing oil consumption means replacing it as a transportation fuel. FOr wind power or any other type of electricity to help there, we need electric vehicles. FOrtunately,the battery technology appears to now be ready for prime time - but he ignores that issue entirely.

Sure, if you ignore greenhouse gas emissions (which of course the EPA does). Of course, how realistic is your assessment though if you ignore the primary pollutant?

That's like saying coal power plants are clean - if you ignore greenhouse emissions, mercury, sulfurous, radioactive, particulate, and all the other emissions.

According to the California Energy Commission, critical greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas are 23% lower than diesel and 30% lower than gasoline.

What do they count as "critical" greenhouse gas emissions?

Natural gas vehicles (NGV) are already available and combine top performance with low emissions. The natural gas Honda Civic GX is rated as the cleanest production vehicle in the world.

According to NGVAmerica, there are more than 7 million NGVs in use worldwide, but only 150,000 of those are in the United States.

Of course, since the US can not produce enough NG to meet our current demand, shifting from imported oil use for transportation to natural gas for transportation would just mean replacing imported oil with imported natural gas.

Anyone who thinks *that* is a solution to "energy dependence" clearly isn't thinking straight, or is just trying to dupe you.

Since natural gas is significantly cleaner than petroleum, NGVs are increasing in popularity. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach recently announced that 16,800 old diesel trucks will be replaced, and half of the new vehicles will run on alternatives such as natural gas.

No, NGVs are "increasing in popularity" because there are massive tax credits and federal grants to pay for it. Our own university was earmarked around $1 million to pay for a natural gas filling station and some natural gas buses (we actually turned it down though eventually, when many of us pointed out the folly in encouraging greater use of natural gas as a means of reducing energy dependence).

Natural gas is significantly less expensive than gasoline or diesel. In places like Utah and Oklahoma, prices are less than $1 a gallon. To see fueling stations and costs in your area, check out cngprices.com.

*at the moment* it is cheaper. Significant federal credits and subsidies make a big difference.

Natural gas is our country's second largest energy resource and a vital component of our energy supply. 98% of the natural gas used in the United States is from North America. But 70% of our oil is purchased from foreign nations.

That is only because natural gas consumption is small compared to oil consumption - over the past 100 years, we've used a lot more oil than natural gas. Natural gas is a limited resource just like oil.

Natural gas is one of the cleanest, safest and most useful forms of energy —

That is laughably absurd.

While it is a cheap, effective and versatile fuel, less than 1% of natural gas is currently used for transportation.

How do we get it done?

The Pickens Plan is a bridge to the future — a blueprint to reduce foreign oil dependence by harnessing domestic energy alternatives, and buy us time to develop even greater new technologies.

natescape:

What do you folks think? My biggest issue is his reliance on natual gas. We simply don't have that much.

Simply, TBoone ran the numbers and liked what he saw. Im sure he could afford the best and the brightest to help him decide on where he can make the most $ in the shortest amount of time. Apparently he decided to stay with energy sector and focus on the # rich technologies.

 Pickens is a facinating character.  At least he's got something, his visions is clearer than what I hear from polititians.   Also, it would reduce carbon dioxide emmissions compared to our current 'model,' since the natgas would be theoretically moved from from power generation to transportation, and 20% of the oil being burned would be displaced.  Taken as a whole, Pickens' plan reduces total CO2 emmissions.(if it would play out as he suggests)  In that sense it should warm[/s] cool the cockles of Al Gore's heart.

It doesn't really bother me that he is invested in natgas and wind.  Pickens has put his money where his mouth is.   

One thing he often talks about is applying the Interstate Highway model to power transmission lines, building the infustructure to allow his vision for "wind and solar corridors" to distribute their power.    That part especially seems overdue.  Nuke plants and such could tie into the 'supergrid' also.  If we're going to power vehicles on electricity, we need an improved grid to handle the extra demand.

Just switching the entire transportation fleet to natgas from oil seems too simplistic, but it wouldn't be bad if a percentage of vehicles ran on natgas.....along with gas-electric hybrids......diesels......and pure electric.  Diversification is a good first step.  If nothing else, Pickens' plan is a start.

The Pickings Plan is both incomplete and inaccurate.

Mike Briggs has made the appropriate comments re: reliance on any fossil fuel, NG included.

Others have noted some of the holes in the proposal.

A proposal intended to be a reasonable replacement for the US national energy policy has to cover more ground, and do it more accurately, than the Pickens plan.

More later.

Voltaire:

The Pickings Plan is both incomplete and inaccurate.

He is just plain greedy, good ol' fashion capitalist oil man.

Oh, he's doing it to make money, no doubt. The main question is how much his effort would actually help... 

natescape:

Oh, he's doing it to make money, no doubt. The main question is how much his effort would actually help... 

Not much since even if he were able to double the current capacity of wind generation, it would not offset the current volume of nat gas used in electricity generation.

The answer is Nukes to replace both coal and natural gas  electric plants  freeing up the natural gas and coal to be liquified for motor fuels.  They we would not need to import squat for the ME.

cjheap:

... even if he were able to double the current capacity of wind generation, it would not offset the current volume of nat gas used in electricity generation.

True.

cjheap:

The answer is Nukes to replace both coal and natural gas  electric plants 

As far as EPG, we agree.

cjheap:

...freeing up the natural gas and coal to be liquified for motor fuels.

But here we part company.  Given our present scientific knowledge, using fossil fuels for transportation is still not smart.  Just less stupid than using them for EPG.

Finite supply.  exponentially increasing demand.  exponentially increasing and potentially irreversible ecological damage.

We should have started transitioning away as much as possible from fossil fuel use in the 1970's after the OPEC crisis.

Now it is going to be more painful.  The longer we wait, the more painful it is going to be when we finally do it.  And there can be no doubt that sooner or later we are going to have to abandon the use of fossil fuels as much as possible.

If we had started doing the right thing in the 1970's, we would not be in the trouble we are in now.  If we somehow avoid doing it now, the trouble our descendents will have to endure will be far worse.

Voltaire:

cjheap:

... even if he were able to double the current capacity of wind generation, it would not offset the current volume of nat gas used in electricity generation.

True.

cjheap:

The answer is Nukes to replace both coal and natural gas  electric plants 

As far as EPG, we agree.

cjheap:

...freeing up the natural gas and coal to be liquified for motor fuels.

But here we part company.  Given our present scientific knowledge, using fossil fuels for transportation is still not smart.  Just less stupid than using them for EPG.

Finite supply.  exponentially increasing demand.  exponentially increasing and potentially irreversible ecological damage.

We should have started transitioning away as much as possible from fossil fuel use in the 1970's after the OPEC crisis.

Now it is going to be more painful.  The longer we wait, the more painful it is going to be when we finally do it.  And there can be no doubt that sooner or later we are going to have to abandon the use of fossil fuels as much as possible.

If we had started doing the right thing in the 1970's, we would not be in the trouble we are in now.  If we somehow avoid doing it now, the trouble our descendents will have to endure will be far worse.

If we had kept building nukes from the 70's, we would not have the same set of problems we have today either...We would have a different set of problems.  As for Nat gas and coal, there is no short supply and if we were not using it for electricity generation we  would have enough to last for over 200 years at projected groth rates. And if you take the coal fired EGP's offline, the carbon footprint you are worried about is miniscule.

cjheap:

  If we had kept building nukes from the 70's, we would not have the same set of problems we have today either...We would have a different set of problems.  As for Nat gas and coal, there is no short supply and if we were not using it for electricity generation we  would have enough to last for over 200 years at projected groth rates. And if you take the coal fired EGP's offline, the carbon footprint you are worried about is miniscule. 

Woulda, coulda shoulda. We shouldnt have gone to war with Iraq. We shouldnt have let energy prices fall in the 80's and 90's. We shoulda developed more energy efficient systems in the 80's and 90's. We shoulda built and invested in the R&D of renewable energy... but we didnt. We let pure greed and economics get into the way of a real energy plan. And now here we are in 2008, trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Even tho this thread is not about nukes but about wind... let me digress a bit.

This is the nuke energy shill trying to say nuke is cost competative... 

This is greenpeace offering arguments as to why nuke power is not cost competative...

This is what the eggheads say...

I would list what the gov says but that changes as often as does the political winds.

It seems clear to me that nukes have issues that are hard to sort out like, Terrorist danger, cost, waste, location, liability. But it also seems clear to me that we could accomplish a mighty lot with nukes, like co-gen, production of advanced materials (medical) co-production, e' baseload...

In the end... I wish we would simply move to more distributive methods of producing e' like solar and wind.

IMO, our future energy use has to be a combination of nukes, wind, solar, and biofuels. But, unfortunately, coal will probably be a major player.

froggy:

In the end... I wish we would simply move to more distributive methods of producing e' like solar and wind.

Froggy wind and solar are very unreliable, cannot handle they dynamic loads, and no way to store the excess energy. Right now and for the forseable future only Nuke, Coal and NG can provide the base. Wish there was a way around it, but no other energy source exist that can do that.

dereckbc:

Froggy wind and solar are very unreliable, cannot handle they dynamic loads, and no way to store the excess energy.

Ok. But these are engineering and infrastructure issues, not necessarily technical issues. These are issues of economics and political will, not because of any technical issue you have discribed.

dereckbc:

Right now and for the forseable future only Nuke, Coal and NG can provide the base. Wish there was a way around it, but no other energy source exist that can do that.

Nukes are very expensive/KWH and are not carbon neutral. They are very hard to co-generate onto because of saftey and 'glowing produce or workers' (who would eat a tomato they knew was co-gen'ed from a nuke plant cooling waters?) Nukes are hard to place cuz of nimby as they should be. And lets face it, I dont think its fair to add more debt to our national credit card, this debt being hazardous dangerous and likely much more expensive than is being led on by the shills (there is not one superfund cleanup that goes down in price as time goes on...) nuke waste that could be a liability for 10,000's of years.

dereckbc:

Right now and for the forseable future

dereckbc:

Froggy wind and solar are very unreliable, cannot handle they dynamic loads, and no way to store the excess energy.

And ofcourse my favorite comment that is coming and will blow ppl away... CNT cables... 350x stronger than steel and 1000's of times faster than copper and cheap as turning CO2 into C into CNT's. My guess is that we backfill all this smart grid technology that we are developing and installing in the near term with CNT cable starting in ~ 10yrs.

We could have the CNT space elevator in under 20 if there was more $ into R&D. The SE will be the greatest single project undertaken by man, the biggest one step of our evolution taken yet.

OK Froggy I really admire your enthusiasm. I really hope half of what you wish becomes reality. But just how in the heck are you going to make the sun shine and wind blow just right 24 x 365?

IMHO that is not an infrastructure or technical issue, more like a GOD thing.

Again IMO the other things you mention are a bit futuristic Sci-Fi, and a long way off in the futre if possible at all. Until then we have to bridge the gap.

My vision is nuclear backbone, with wind and solar as supplemental peak shaving, and we drive EV's for personnel transportation. All but the battery tech is here now, and the battery tech is only a few years out, about the same time we bring nuke online. Heavy transportation will be via diesel while it last and CTL for the next two or more centuries. The CTL will be made from excess heat from nuke plants. In fact two nuke/CTL plants are being built in the USA right now.

Here's a short video of Pickens giving the presentation.  It's really only a summary of the written plan, though.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1641244028/bclid1641831933/bctid1653634930

dereckbc:

  But just how in the heck are you going to make the sun shine and wind blow just right 24 x 365?

IMHO that is not an infrastructure or technical issue, more like a GOD thing.

dereckbc:

   a bit futuristic Sci-Fi, and a long way off in the futre if possible at all.

dereckbc:

  Until then we have to bridge the gap 

What are some