Pickens Plan District Group UT-03

Comment

Comment by John Purvis on November 3, 2009 at 6:57pm

Guys and girls. Sorry, I get carried away and I tend to write with a very sharp pen. Jim asked a very good question; if I had all the money I needed, what would I do? First, a frustration is that even if you did, you'd run into horrendous regulatory and other problems. But putting that aside, what should we, and especially our government and our adminstration do, and it really doesn't require money, at least initially.

By the way, I’ve been a chemical engineer working energy issues and related issues for 35 years now, and so have an opinion about any of it, so bear with me. I tend to be wordy.

First, have a plan. As far as I can tell there is none, at least not publicized. Obama has none, Chu has none except to paint roofs white. Pickens does, but its still immature - needs some fleshing out. For example, we look at putting the truck fleets on NG. But he fails to get the trains involved, not that they should run on NG….they should stay on diesel. But they still ship at a small fraction of the energy use and cost (and, of course, CO2 output) of NG powered trucks on a per pound per mile basis. One thing I would try to do is optimize the use of existing rails (no installations) and optimize distribution of goods from their main terminals using the NG powered trucks. Therefore no need for X-country NG stations. That’s just one of many ideas, but who really is working a plan? Now maybe people are working this (I’m sure they are), but it sure isn’t part of any national plan. Again, there is none. Elements of my plan would include: a) education, b) conservation, c) better use of existing energy sources, d) alternate energy. Implementation would not be in series, but staged to assure best implementation and buy-in by us. I totally agree with the Nat Gas Act (H.R. 1835), but its being pushed without a plan and somewhat in conflict with that other NG bill (I think its 1408). I think a lack of a plan, and careful staging of the objective I just proposed can jeopardize these bills, to our detriment.

A) Education is the first element of any plan I’d put in place – not only of the public at large, but specifically the people that are supposed to lead our country, write and pass laws and budget. As a whole, we are extremely ignorant of the realities concerning oil, NG, nuclear, coal, wind, solar, whatever. That’s mainly because our mainstream media tends to perpetuate poorly researched, but currently politically correct myths. I won’t go into these, but they are both left-leaning and right-leaning. I swear, there are still plenty of people out there that think electricity is non-polluting!! People, most of our electricity comes from coal, which is polluting. Also, when we talk nuclear, everyone thinks about 3-mile island or Chernobyl. It won’t and can’t happen with new designs. One needs to study the direction DOE took with reactor design years ago (and they knew better then), to know why these things occurred and why they can’t with the dozens of reactors China is putting into service. People also worry about waste. To my knowledge, the US has never recycled, but France does it routinely. And I agree with the “not in my backyard” argument (I do live in Utah), but nationally, here or Yucca mountain makes so much better sense as a nation then this stuffing sitting in so many unsecure swimming pools scattered around the nation. Enough examples. I would hope an education plan would rely on our existing media. I bet if done well, the air time would be very cheap, or even free, or even make money, as the advertisers would flock to fund it. If done poorly (which we’re REALLY good at), the education would be extremely biased and therefore, useless. This latter statement is a huge obstacle in my opinion. Told ya’ I was wordy.

B) Conservation is a way to almost immediately get our costs and energy use and CO2 use down 10%, maybe more, but few pay attention to it. They’re all out looking for cool solar tech, or geothermal or some such expensive nonsense. If we relied on solar and wind only, it would be many decades before we could cut 10% even with energy use kept constant, but with education we can do it about immediately. I really disliked J Carter, but wearing a sweater is good. With the energy you save, you could easily afford a very nice cashmere sweater. Also house insulation. Might as well take advantage of the stuff out there. How may have put in attic insulation at zero cost, courtesy of all the taxpayers. How many still use SUVs? How close do you live to work (my commute is 5 mi)? Have you insulated your water heater (only $20)? Have you developed good temperature tolerance? When I lived in Wyoming, we kept our house at 50F in the winter….friends couldn’t handle it, but we’re walking around in t-shirts. I don’t do this anymore (getting old??), but I’ll bet I could get used to it. Also lived in sweltering temperatures in the Far East and got used to 95F without air. I suppose I could get used to it too. One thing. I sure don’t hope anyone regulates this kinda stuff on us, but it could happen. Lots of ways to conserve.

C) Better use of existing resources kinda depends on “B”, but did you know the oil industry flares a good portion of usable NG, because they can’t do anything else with it? And this objective also includes nuclear materials recycle. And also home waste recycle. I currently have a recycle bin for paper, plastic and metal. But no glass, no organic stuff (grass, leave). These go into general trash which are land-filled. I DO NOT want anyone to go tapping the resources at Yellowstone under this section. These are energy “farts” the world produces at our enjoyment, and should NEVER be touched. Now that I think about it, this is a weak objective.

D) Alternative energy implementation. Because this is the only thing that seems to get so much attention, I won’t give it much. Personally, for the near term it doesn’t deserve much. And I don’t consider NG, nuclear, etc., to be alternate energies.

Well, my stuff is breaking down so I’ll quit. By now, you should know I’m quite passionate about this stuff. But my biggest issue is that I’m totally upset about how this country is dealing with it. In fact, right now I’m trying to figure out where I’d like to retire, and the U.S. is not in the equation. I’m am disgusted and disappointed with the performance of our country. I hope we can help change my opinion.

If I made typos or errors, sorry. My typing is trying to keep up with my rambling thoughts.

John

Comment by Anton Tolman on November 2, 2009 at 5:11pm

Dani, do you know if Chaffetz is a co-sponsor? With Hatch on board, I wondered if Chaffetz also said Yea.

Comment by Dani Lanz on November 2, 2009 at 4:09pm

Let’s get to 120 by 11/20/09

Army:

What a couple of weeks it’s been and I have lots to report and something very important to ask.

There’s a new Natural Gas Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives which is headed by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) and Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK). The more than 40 bi-partisan members of the caucus held a major hearing on Capitol Hill. The Natural Gas Caucus talked about how the development of America’s natural gas resources will help set America on a path to energy independence and create millions of new jobs. It was a great event and an important message to get out there.

But here’s the really important part.

We’ve got just under 100 cosponsors of the NAT GAS Act (H.R. 1835) in the House—and that’s great—but I think we can educate more Members of Congress, build on that support and do a lot more.

Click here to email your Member of Congress and ask them to become a cosponsor of the NAT GAS Act.

I think we can get at least another 20+ cosponsors in the coming weeks so I’m calling on every member of the Army to reach out to their Member of Congress right now so that we can get to at least 120 sponsors by November 20th. I’m calling it 120 by 11-20.

I’m going to be working the phones and I need you to as well. Army, we can get this done and show Congress that it’s time to end our dependence on foreign oil.

Click here to email your Member of Congress and ask them to become ...
Stay tuned because we’re going to post regular updates about our progress and highlight those members who are working to get us off foreign oil.

Let’s keep the pressure on!

– Boone

P.S. We recently ran an ad in the news publications which cover Capitol Hill. Click here to view the short video we did about this really unique ad. It’s getting people’s attention.

Comment by younkin on November 1, 2009 at 8:16pm

John, Why don't you tell it like it really is? I too am frustrated with politicians and salesmen. If you had all the money you needed how would you solve the problems? Jim

Comment by John Wesley Nobles CA State Ldr on November 1, 2009 at 3:26pm

Well said Anton!

Comment by younkin on November 1, 2009 at 2:24pm

John, Anton, Thanks for the support, it has been a hard year for CNG Conversions due to the Economy and the the low Gas Prices. I am still pushing forward but don't look to Government handouts to help. There are always strings attached and I don't like to be tied down. To me personally electric and hybrids are no starters and out of my price range. I am going to build a VW CNG Hybrid Van. I will keep everybody informed, This dialogue is good, Jim

Comment by Anton Tolman on November 1, 2009 at 2:05pm

John, I think you are mis-targetting your audience. (I'm not that upset, I just think you are missing the boat). The group here is a group who has stepped up to support the Pickens Plan, conservation, and alternative energy sources. You are preaching to the choir. My concern is that if you start to preach to the non-choir audience, a strident voice will turn people off instead of getting more people to get on board. And I'm not sure why you think that no one on this list hasn't already done a lot on an individual basis. We all need to support the Pickens Plan, write our letters, call our reps, senators, etc. That is how change happens -- if we send more letters, vote more than the other side, we win.

Comment by Anton Tolman on November 1, 2009 at 9:53am

Go, Jim, go! I'm pretty sure that the reason T. Boone is pushing CNG conversions for our commercial fleets is the sheer amount of fuel that fleet uses. I think we need to encourage what you do -- converting family vehicles to CNG as well, but the auto market is also beginning to shift towards plug-in hybrids which is an improvement over what we have now. I don't think the commercial fleets will change away from gasoline without legislation that gets them to move in that direction. The fact that Hatch co-authored that Op-Ed piece with T. Boone Pickens suggests that we may be close to achieving some kind of legislation that will push this issue forward. We should still keep moving forward on private conversions as well, no question. And we need many more plug-in hybrids. We also need to get the infrastructure updated and get turbins, etc. turning.

Comment by younkin on November 1, 2009 at 12:16am

Over the past year I have been able to convert about 6 vehicles to CNG and have done numerous extra tank installs. I have had meetings with the EPA and have promoted CNG conversions through my Blog at younkincng.com and my CNG business alternativefuelconnection.com We have CNG kits in stock for under a $1000 right here in Utah. I have looked into converting Semi's to CNG and it is expensive. To me it is a no brainer, just convert the smaller vehicles (cars and pickups) to CNG, once the filling stations are in place then go for the bigger trucks. Boone may have money but he is not practical about CNG Conversions, he is no mechanic either. Over the past year and a half I have met CNG Converters who have converted 100's of vehicles here in Utah to CNG, most of them were not EPA Certified. The EPA "Certification" myth is a straw dog, the EPA has never prosecuted or fined anyone for an "illegal" non-certified CNG conversion and they never will. Lets get the kits, find those still interested in converting and move forward, Jim
younkin@gmail.com
801 427 2284
sign up for newsletter at younkincng.com

Comment by Robert Schultz on October 31, 2009 at 3:02pm

Thanks Anton. I don't like to make negative comments, but I had to respond to the 4 very negative comments with a bit of sarcasm.

One of the best things about the Pickens Plan is that it tries to work as a non-partisan organization, drawing support from everyone interested in promoting American Energy Independence. President Obama's administration has been much more active promoting alternative energy than the Bush administration ever was. Part of the reason for Obama's continued "campaigning" is that he is trying to maintain support from the voters of this country, to continue contacting their Congressional representatives and voicing their opinions. This is the first administration to actively use the internet to communicate with the American people. We should use this opportunity to actively bring more influence to the American people, instead of just idly watching as our elected representatives follow the money from big business and PAC's, until they have to put on their "voice of the people" act for re-election campaigns.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page