Biofuels Digest Readers for Energy Independence

Add a Comment

Comment by Jim Lane on July 16, 2008 at 2:55am

An article of importance from Ed Wallace, a highly respected automotive journalist, who raises concerns that others are likely to point out. What are your thoughts? Are these points fair and balanced?

I’ve always found it tough to get too mad at T. Boone Pickens. Sure, just a few years ago he warned the world that we are at or close to Peak Oil — while simultaneously making billions of dollars betting on oil futures. Which led some to make specific comments during Congressional testimony, to the effect that his public doomsaying was a posture designed to drive the market for oil — and therefore his personal profits — higher.

At the same time, T. Boone gives away a sizable part of his earnings to charity. Besides that, he’s 80 years old and still out there speaking firmly, promoting big and fantastic energy ideas like a man half his age. Pickens’ demeanor shows that he doesn’t just love playing the game decades past the age when most retire; more than anything, he loves being the one making the rules by which everyone else has to play.

As of his last public pronouncements, the oil problem that concerned him most seemed to be the $800 billion we are currently sending out of the country to buy crude; fears for the end of the oil age apparently are now a lower priority. Yet now T. Boone wants America on wind-generated electricity — to solve "our oil problems."

Pickens’ plan is slightly complicated, but I’ll try my best to decipher it for you. What he envisions is building $1 trillion worth of wind generators across the American Midwest, from the Texas Panhandle to the Canadian border, known as America’s "Wind Alley." Pickens believes that these wind farms can provide enough electricity to reduce the amount of natural gas we need to run the more conventional power generation stations. In turn, we can use the natural gas that that move frees up for electricity to power automobiles — and that in turn would reduce our demand for foreign oil.

OK, that sounds great in theory, especially when Pickens notes that in 1970 we imported 24 percent of our oil and today that figure is nearly 70 percent. But Pickens also claims that investing $1 trillion in wind generators is far smarter than spending another $10 trillion on imported oil over the next decade.

Any radical plan to alter the equation for our energy needs involves pitfalls. Most of them are serious with this windy plan.

For one thing, refueling stations for natural gas vehicles are nearly as scarce as those for E85 ethanol. So you can’t consider just the $1 trillion it would cost to span the Midwest with wind generators — you also have to add in the infrastructure costs to make natural gas refilling stations convenient to the average consumer.

Bear in mind too the cost of all the new electric transmission lines that we’d have to build to get the wind power to major metropolitan areas from hundreds of miles away.

And then there’s the fact that Honda once offered its Civic GX natural-gas-powered automobile here in Texas: Demand was so poor that today you can only purchase them in certain regions of the country.

None of these disadvantages is a deal breaker, should it be proven that our best energy option is moving in this direction. Sure, maybe more than a few individuals will be put off because Honda has put a $25,000 list price on its Civic GX, particularly when the base model Civic sedan costs just over $15,000. Counterbalancing that, of course, is that the cost of natural gas for automobiles is still substantially less than the cost of gasoline.

The government’s figures show that someone driving 15,000 miles per year in a Civic is spending $1,875 for gasoline, compared to only $798 if the Civic uses natural gas. Still, even at that rate it would take 10 years of ownership to break even — probably longer, given how high the price of natural gas has soared this year.

But the deal-breaking disadvantage of wind-powered electricity is well known. Its most serious problem is the fact that the wind doesn’t always blow — and even when it does, it takes a 13-mile-an-hour wind to power a large-scale wind power generation farm.

Moreover, the peak months for electricity demand are during the summer, and that’s exactly when the wind will not cooperate. Ask anyone who works outdoors in Texas what they’d give to have any breeze at all on a 100-degree day; if they half-laugh, it’s because they know that just doesn’t happen here often, if ever.

Making matters worse, because wind farms are an unreliable source for electricity, users still need complete backup power generation, whether it runs on coal, natural gas or nuclear power. And these plants are never really offline; as Robert Bryce pointed out in Gusher of Lies, his exceptional book on America’s energy needs, these other plants are sitting in what is known as spinning reserve. Kept ready to take over from the fickle wind patterns around the world, they use energy themselves: The real net savings of using this alternative electricity source just keep shrinking.

Bryce also noted that in 2004, England’s Royal Academy of Engineering released a report concluding that when one factors in all of the costs for wind power — including keeping the more traditional generation sources online — the cost of electricity from wind is more than twice the cost of electricity from coal, natural gas or nuclear power.

Closer to home, last year the Electric Reliability Council of Texas reported that wind power could be counted on as being reliable just 8.7 percent of the time during periods of peak demand. Say that again: 8.7 percent reliability for a trillion-dollar investment? Yes. And we would still to have to build more conventional generation plants to cover our future electrical needs — to cover that 91.3 percent of the time when there isn’t enough wind to generate electricity.

I haven’t even mentioned that the cost of installing a land-based wind generator has risen 74 percent over the past three years; it’s now pushing $2.6 million per megawatt hour. And there’s no reason to believe that these associated costs won’t continue to rise if some Congressional Mandate forces wind-powered electricity on us.

http://www.star-telegram.com/104/story/761664.html

Comment by Jim Lane on July 15, 2008 at 6:41pm

This is an inspiring video blog from Boone Pickens!
http://www.pickensplan.com/news/

Comment by Nathan Campbell on July 12, 2008 at 12:29pm

Why are my comments so troubling? It means that petroleum based fuels are inferior to biofuels, and this is against the interests of big oil if more people come to understand that.

Comment by John D. Cochran on July 12, 2008 at 10:44am

Thank you, Jim. Now that we have the high school bickering out of the way…

We need to get Biofuels Digest visibility on the PickensPlan.com home page. Groups seem to appear as a function of the number of members, ergo “Organizers and Leaders” appears first, with [at about 12:24 CDT on July 12] 790 members, followed by “We want to invest in the Pickens Plan” with 308 people. “Striving for Energy Independence” is that last of the eight groups shown on the home page with 53 members. “Biofuels Digest” has 33 members; is therefore shunted off the home page. It looks as though “Biofuels Digest” needs to maintain more than about 6.25 percent of the “Organizers and Leaders” total to maintain this visibility. Thus, recruit all the people you can, to join the “Biofuels Digest” group at your earliest opportunity.

Comment by Jim Lane on July 12, 2008 at 8:24am

Tom, Nathan et al,

Can I ask respectfully that we take the debate on ethanol and engine efficiency offline. It's important to a discussion of national energy independence but I doubt if we have found a good forum for this debate.

Also, can I ask that people refrain from questioning the knowledge base of others in this forum. It is neither productive nor nice.

Regards,
Jim

Comment by tom Kuchnicki on July 11, 2008 at 8:25pm

I think Nathan better start talking to some automotive engine people because he is severly lacking in engine technology.

Comment by Nathan Campbell on July 11, 2008 at 5:50pm

energy department energy facts

The primary fossil fuel input for corn ethanol is natural gas, which the Picken's plan will make more available.

Comment by Nathan Campbell on July 11, 2008 at 3:48pm

Tom-
You are so wrong about so many things, except that "thermal efficiency is the engines ability to convert the energy of the fuel into useful power."
Ethanol does run more efficiently in a gasoline engine. Thermal efficiency of up to 40% can be achieved using ethanol, which is about as high as for diesel engines.
http://www.swri.edu/4org/d03/engres/spkeng/sprkign/pbeffimp.htm

Turbochargers do compress the air going into the engine using the force from exhaust gases. This creates higher compression in the engine, which causes higher thermal efficiency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger#Advantages

Finally, no one thinks that ethanol has a net energy loss. That has been proven false. More energy is derived from ethanol conversion than is needed to produce it.
http://www.change2e85.com/servlet/Page?template=Myths

Comment by John D. Cochran on July 11, 2008 at 9:56am

Kuchnicki is undoubtedly correct: “It takes more … energy to make ethanol than the energy derived from the conversion…”; in this infant stage of the industry. After all the +/- rhetoric has run its course, technology must prevail to make biofuels feasible. Technology transfer points must be addressed all the way from the agricultural inputs to the exhaust pipe.

Comment by tom Kuchnicki on July 11, 2008 at 6:13am

Mr. Cambell is confused on his energy theory.

Thermal efficiency is the engines ability to convert the energy of the fuel into useful power.
All gasoline engines are between 20 and 28% efficient.

This ability to convert fuel to power doesn't change with the type of fuel being used.

Turbocharging doesn't change the thermal efficiency of an engine.
Turbo charging uses exaust energy to spin a wheel to force more air and fuel into the engine , thereby creating greater power.

One of the biggest arguments against ethanol is how much energy it takes to convert feed stock into ethanol.
I would estimate that over half of the scientists in the world would tell you the process of manufacturing ethanol is a NEGATIVE energy gain.. It takes more fuel oil energy to make ethanol than the energy derived from the conversion and we haven't even touched on the hugh amounts of water required in the process

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last