Discuss these critiques of the Pickens Plan
Hello all. I recently heard several critiques of the Pickens Plan that seemed sound to me. So I would like to hear from you a rebuttal to these points. (I am asking this as someone who is very enthusiastic about the Pickens Plan, but always interested in the "other side" of the argument as well.) These rebuttals come from the testimony which followed that of Mr. Pickens' before the Senate.
(1) Assuming that we generate the equivalent of ~22% of our current electrical demand from Wind, there is no mechanism by which we can dictate that the "freed up" natural gas moves to the transportation sector. For example, the Wind power could displace Coal instead - it really depends on the underlying economics.
(2) The United States only has about 3% of the world's proven and unproven reserves of natural gas. The nations that have most of it? It's the very same nations that currently have most of the world's oil. So is a dependence on natural gas actually any better, from the geo-political / security standpoint?
Thanks and I look forward to your replies.
(1) Assuming that we generate the equivalent of ~22% of our current electrical demand from Wind, there is no mechanism by which we can dictate that the "freed up" natural gas moves to the transportation sector. For example, the Wind power could displace Coal instead - it really depends on the underlying economics.
(2) The United States only has about 3% of the world's proven and unproven reserves of natural gas. The nations that have most of it? It's the very same nations that currently have most of the world's oil. So is a dependence on natural gas actually any better, from the geo-political / security standpoint?
Thanks and I look forward to your replies.
Tags: Pickens, Plan, Senate, criticism, debate, hearing
Views: 28
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by William M. (Butch) Green, P.E. on -
Bettie since the Public Service Commission is the entity that controls that here you will probably have to address it with them.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Bancroft on -
Very interesting - I commend you for taking such initiative and thank you for sharing your account. How much do you figure you will save on electricity for the year? And what was the initial investment on your part, if you don't mind my asking?
It's a shame the power companies are keeping your surplus, but looking on the bright side, at least you have made your operating cost zero. :)
My suggestion is similar to Rex. Find others that have done / are interested in doing what you have done. Group up, coordinate by phone or internet or mail, and launch coordinated call-in campaigns with your representatives, senators and the appropriate regulatory agencies.
Be prepared for a lot of frustration, but only through the continued and persistent application of pressure will you get anywhere with these folks. Try to visualize the ocean slowly but surely turning rocks into sand, and you'll have a good idea of what you're up against. But you can win if you are persistent and numerous/loud enough.
-
Permalink Reply by Charles Russell on -
Bob,
The data below indicates that we have a lot of gas in the unproven reserve category. Another huge point is that North America is currently self sufficient in Natural Gas. The current consumption of NG in North America is approx. 24 tcf per year. This translates into about a 50 year supply whith current estimates of all reserves at current consumption rates.
I would conclude from this data that Pickens' is correct when he states that shifting NG from power generation to transportation is a viable step to take in a comprehensive energy stategy for energy independence. I think Pickens is suggesting that Government and Industrial fleets would be the main application for CNG not neccessarily so much private vehicles (see interview on CNBC). I think he also sees this as a bridge to more permanent solutions. It also would involve a lot of drilling at least for NG. Hopefully, this helps with item 2 on your list.
As for Item 1, if the bulk of the vehicles are from Govt. fleets market forces might not be so important to achieving the results the plan calls for.
Natural Gas Technically Recoverable Resources
Natural Gas Resource Category
(Trillion Cubic Feet) As of January 1, 2000
Nonassociated Gas
Undiscovered 247.71
Onshore 121.61
Offshore 126.1
Deep 81.56
Shallow 44.52
Inferred Reserves 232.7
Onshore 183.03
Offshore 47.68
Deep 7.72
Shallow 39.96
Unconventional Gas Recovery 369.59
Tight Gas 253.83
Shale Gas 55.42
Coalbed Methane 60.35
Associated-Dissolved Gas 140.89
Total Lower 48 Unproved 990.89
Alaska 32.32
Total U.S. Unproved 1023.21
Proved Reserves 167.41
Total Natural Gas 1190.62
Source: Energy Information Administration - Annual Energy Outlook 2000
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Bancroft on
-
Writing to belatedly thank you for responding with real data.
I cross-checked and can confirm your point.
"According to the EIA, 19.28 Trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of dry natural gas was produced in the United States in 2007. This represents about 90 percent of total domestic consumption. Compared to crude oil, only about 25 percent of consumption is met by domestic production. The United States is much less reliant on other countries for its natural gas supply than it is for its supplies of crude oil. "
source: naturalgas.org
I think you're right (and I have kind of been arriving at the same conclusion) that the only way this works is if the government mandates its own fleets, and certain transportation fleets, to shift to NG for fuel. This greatly mitigates the issue of changing our fueling-infrastructure, since consumer vehicles are not in the mix. But you could still reduce your dependence on oil imports by the ~20-40% figures that people are talking about.
If NG turns out to be such a great thing, and with limited fueling infrastructure in place to support those fleets, consumers might wind up hopping on the bandwagon after all. But, if they do, you will find yourself with NG prices driven just as high as gasoline prices, and you'll be just as dependent on foreign imports for that sector.
It remains a mixed bag with a lot of unknown variables in my opinion.
-
Permalink Reply by Rob Block on -
I have the same concerns as Mike H. about conversion of cars to run on NG. We couldn't even convert to the metric system in this country, how are we going to convert our entire transportation sector.
It seems like other oil-reducing alternatives are ahead of NG, notably hybrids and the plug-in versions due to come out in the next few years. They will still use gas from oil, but only a fraction of cars with traditional engines, so they have the potential to drastically reduce fuel consumption while not requiring any new filling infrastructure. (Most people would be able to charge their batteries from their garage outlet, and fill up with gas on the road when they need to.) That can serve as the egg (cars that can take electricity for fuel in addition to gas) that seeds the chicken (electrical charging stations throughout the country). Once the latter infrastructure is widely in place, consumers will feel more comfortable purchasing all-electric vehicles that take no gas at all (the second generation egg, if you will).
The one major requirement the above scenario shares with the Pickens Plan is the need for much more electricity. To satisfy that need, wind farms would be a great supplement to NG and coal to generate that extra energy. (And throw in nuclear to boot!)
-
Permalink Reply by Debra Goldenberg on -
"We couldn't even convert to the metric system in this country, how are we going to convert our entire transportation sector."
LOL, true, we have had trouble switching to metrics. Maybe it's our love of football, what would become of 100 yards?
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Bancroft on
-
I think you're spot-on with the comparison to going metric.
-
Permalink Reply by Todd Slaughter on -
I have had these very same thoughts. Lets throw a few fact around. The US consumes 20 mbd and produces 5 mbd. In order to achieve energy independence we have to close the gap. Using EIA stats we consume 9.7 mbd of gasoline and 3.9 mbd of diesel and 1.6 mpd of Jet fuel. This comes to 15.2 mbd for transportation purposes. Is it realistic that we an completly eliminate the use of oil for all our transportation needs a replace it with natural gas. I do not think so.
However, I think if we use PEV/PEHV for consumers and B80 for commerical purposes then we have reduced our transportation usage by over 80%. Then use the wind and solar to replace the coal plants. Use the coal then to produce coal to liquid diesel. These refineries would have the advantage of having carbon capture technology.
-
Permalink Reply by Debra Goldenberg on
-
"I think the biggest hurdle for all of us is getting use to the idea of developing the village mentality throughout America and lending a hand to one another. At the Apartment complex where I live, in Georgia, I am seeing the development of just such a social condition. We everyone was once, individual minded and able to afford that mentality, they are now asking each other for help in many ways: getting to work, to the food store, babysitting while parents hunt for another jobs, borrowing the old-time-honored cup of sugar from their neighbors, and combining their dinners together with their neighbors. This is starting to be fun, and a good sense of village is developing."
Wow, very inspiring!
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Bancroft on
-
Rex,
I love your paragraph about a village mentality. But aside from that, I don't agree with much of your economic analysis. :P
Yes, stable energy costs would be better for the economy than rising energy costs. But cheap energy would be better still. So your notion that "we need to force everyone to accept the higher prices, but keep them at a stable level" is way off (and frankly it is not in line with how America works when we are working at our best).
Anyway, the good (or bad) news is that oil prices have been on the decline again, and it seems to be the markets' reaction to all the renewed political emphasis on alternate energy and energy independence. And the bad (or good) news is that prices will likely stay high regardless. Demand continues to rise. And it will do so indefinitely.
As far as America's overall economic recovery, it will come, and energy issues may help, but our economic troubles are not limited to this. Nor are the high energy prices even the main cause of the trouble we're in now (which has much more to do with the financial services sector.. ie the housing crisis.. than energy).
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Bancroft on
-
Just to be clear, Boone never said he would cut foreign imports completely. I believe the figure he uses in his whiteboard presentation is 38% (citing from memory, could be wrong).
So, his point is simply that he has the best plan for taking out the biggest chunk of foreign imports in the least amount of time. But he never claims that this wind/NG combo will completely alleviate it. That, he says, will wait until electric and/or hydrogen cars are ready.
-
Permalink Reply by Dr Mark on -
Pumped Storage Hydroelectric generation solves all the problems wind power has.
Check this out at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity#Worldw...
it is in widespread use all over the world and can easily be added at any existing hydroelectric dam.
To back up a bit, I'm talking about the problem that peak electric demand is usually during the day and wind power is mostly produced at night; or just the basic problem that you can't turn the wind on and off when the power demand changes. We need to store the energy for later use and pumped hydro is the generally accepted way to do this.
Coal and nuclear plants are running at low efficiency at night just to avoid shutting down the big steam boilers, while natural gas turbines are kicked in to supply peak demand because they start up and shut down much more easily. So the only way wind power can give us peak power on demand is if we use it to pump water to a higher elevation during the night. If we're carrying Pickens Plan power from the Midwest to the coasts there is amply opportunity to take advantage of elevation changes and water availability along the way, preferrably as close as possible to where the electricity will be used; and that will be the best way to displace natural gas use in the industry and make it available for vehicles. QED.
Dr Mark
© 2013 Created by PickensPlan.
Powered by
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
