Why does Pickens not recommend CNG conversions and cars?
I am a big Pickens plan supporter. Nothing would thrill me more than seeing America end it's dependance on Foreign oil. I have watched Pickens repeatedley in interviews and I don't understand one comment he keeps making. He keeps saying don't convert cars and he doesn't want the "car" angle of the CNG part of the plan. He only seems to be concerned with big trucks. Now the other day, he gave a little more info by saying that you we need the CNG to power trucks that you can't get down the road using batteries. But why does he over and over again discourage cars & car conversions? What would the harm be if the cars took the lead in this effort?
Views: 0
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Tidman on -
Boone is learning also. Give him a break, he can change his mind too.
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin Marvel on -
I guess I didn't do a very good job explaining my position. I am not down on Boone (like alot of others here). I am a huge supporter. I think the effort he is making is heroic. I just don't understanding where he is coming from with the discouraging NG car /conversion angle. Other than the batteries can't get a big truck down the road explaination, I don't understand his position. I know this effort will evolve over time, and the end picture might not be what it looks like today. I don't care as long as it get America off foreign oil, doesn't harm the environment any worse than gasoline & deisel, helps us move to clean sustainable energy that puts our people to work. I don't understand enough about the chemistry/engineering angle of this right now to know where the problems are. So when he says we don't want to convert cars or focus on cars I ask myself why? from a technical perspective.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Tidman on
-
Converting overweight vehicles with 30% efficient engines uses up resources that could be used to get us off oil completely. The longer we take to make the change the more energy we waste. When electricity is transmitted long distances up to 2/3 of the energy used to produce the stuff gets lost. Local electric generation supplying a local grid will save enough energy to power all our vehicles with electricity, and if that generator was driven by a natural gas turbine we would have the back up system in place for any alternate energy system. A turbine engine can also run on hydrogen,methane captured from garbage or sewage or syngas. It will also run on coal oil, bio oil jet fuel.
Rail transport is 100x more efficient than road transport and diesel electric locomotives can be converted to gas turbine electric. A train is bigger than a truck and it is driven with electric motors. With less road traffic we will need less oil used for tires.
-
Permalink Reply by Frodo Baggins. on -
Because the cost of converting cars exceeds the savings? FMVSS and EPA make conversion nearly impossible, they have to be made CNG from the factory.
It is far easier to target commercial OTR truckers. They really don't have any lobby to be of resistance and since they have the image of being in-bred Jeds, the proletariat will not be roused to pitchfork frenzy. You know, "let them eat cake"?
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin Marvel on
-
Thanks ! I had read some things that lead me to believe converison was a relatively easy process, but if there problems with the EPA...... It's a shame though, because there are alot of cars that will be around for quite a while commiting us to more foreign oil. As soon as they can figure out how I can take an electric car on a trip vice just commuting or be able to recharge it quickly, Im on board. Thanks again for the explaination.
-
Permalink Reply by steve on -
One thing too, is pickens backing electric cars. He does support CNG in general I believe. I do think rail is a more efficient solution too our transportation needs, however most of our instructure is built for individual vehicles. It will take time to build the infranstructure needed to run trains.
-
Permalink Reply by Frodo Baggins. on
-
Rail has been in decline for the past 50 years. Yes, it is efficient but SLOW. Most industry runs on JIT inventories, with rail taking a week longer than the 5 days necessary to pull a trailer from the Port of Los Angeles to the Port of Wilmington DE.
The current issue with diesel has been the 2006 changeover to ULSD. This crimped supply even though only those vehicles made after 2006 require its use. Fortunately, rail is a large enough consumer that they can still get the 50 ppm sulfur diesel, at a considerable cost savings (upgraded #2 fuel oil) and the fact they are exempt from federal and state motor vehicle fuel taxes. They own their own roads....
Since the RR pays nearly wholesale #2 fuel oil instead of ULSD, the cost savings and motivation to switch to NG just isn't that great. With crude at under $50 a barrel, it would COST the RR to use NG instead/in addition.
NG isn't a drop-in conversion for diesel engines. And while there ARE dual fuel engines, most automotive/rail prime movers are NOT meaning a complete engine swap. $50,000 for a truck, $500,000 for rail. Each. And they still need diesel so it isn't a 100% swap. Sure, as much as 90% of the energy needed can be from NG.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Tidman on
-
The Russians are using gas turbines in their locomotives. Canada's bombardier has a jet train too. In an emergency a turbine /electric train could be parked on a siding and plugged into the grid.
If the program is to reduce oil consumption converting one locomotive could save more than converting a dozen trucks. Convert the units as they reach their design life.
We should not be thinking price of a gallon of oil, we are choosing a system that will provide the cheapest energy over the next 20 years, and since we do not know what we will be charged for a gallon of oil in ten years time there is no argument for maintaining the status quo.
-
Permalink Reply by Frodo Baggins. on
-
Are you serious? Turbines are horribly inefficient. The only reason they are used in aviation is WEIGHT. And in rail, weight is traction.
Diesel is far more efficient than turbines. And the use of regenerative braking to store the kinetic energy instead of wasting it in the resistor banks common to all diesel-electric locomotives IS being implemented.
The reason we have wide swings in petroleum price is the delay from increased demand to increased production. It happened in 1998 after the Asian market collapse. Oil fell to $11 a barrel. And now? The Asian export economy took it HARD. The industrial shut-downs demanded for air quality pre-Olympics was the final nail in the coffin. China had been building a strategic petroleum reserve, now they cannot afford to stockpile crude and began selling when exports dropped. This only added a positive feedback mechanism, further eroding demand.
© 2013 Created by PickensPlan.
Powered by
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
