PP Members Energy Plan (PPMEP) an Alternative to Cap and Tax.
Information
An Alternative Energy Plan - Cap and tax will cause more mischief than it will solve. Can anyone say something significantly good about cap and tax? - The PPMP puts money in the peoples pockets.
Members: 8
Latest Activity: Feb 23, 2011
Get involved in the real science not the political non-science.
Cap and tax will cause more mischief than it will solve. It will make USA goods and services more costly, especially as business spends money to reduce emissions. More businesses will move over seas, as cap and trade will make it harder for USA workers to compete with imported goods and services.
Worse the 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide mentioned above is less than 1% of the natural emissions of carbon dioxide into Earth's atmosphere, so a halving or doubling of human emissions of carbon dioxide will change the Earth's temperature by perhaps one thousandth of a degree c = 0.0018 degrees f = negligible. Can anyone say something significantly good about cap and tax?
Well T. Boone now you have gone and done it.. By not standing against the global warming bill and not pushing/demanding NG vehicle conversions we will be exporting wealth for foreign oil and for air (CO2)!!!!! SUCH A DEAL!!!!
The CAP AND TAX will require us to send money overseas to pay for international carbon offsets totaling $15B in 2012 alone as shown by state in figure below.
Lets see. A 1MW windmill running at full load 24/7 produces 61000 megawatt hours per year. The US generated 2B megawatt hours giving off 2.5B metric tons of CO2. or about 1.25 metric tons per megawatt hour. Therefore 1.5B / 61000 / 1.25 = 19,672 1MW windmills are required if the wind blows all the time. double or triple that number for marginal wind resources.
How are you going to build 57,000 windmills??????? And at $2M a pop where are you going to come up with $114B. Do you intend to be among the top 10 companies of the Fortune 500?????
An inquiring mind wants to know!!!!
Windmill Plant cost. are $2M is correct/close see attached for 2008 figures.
tbl38.pdf
I found 2009 figures as well which confirms my capacity factors (double or triple that number for marginal wind resources.) as well See figures below from here.and here.
Lets look at another source of CO2
Lets see 1 gallon of gasoline releases 19.4 pounds of CO2. The US fleet of 244M vehicles consumes about 137B gallons per year releasing 1.3B metric tons of CO2. NG releases about 14 pounds per gasoline gallon equivalent. Therefore replacing the US fleet with new NG vehicles makes no significant difference on CO2 emissions.
Now if we don't drive any cars all year then we pretty much stop all exports of wealth. That's the ticket we walk to work for a whole year.
Now basically what it boils down to there ain't no way on Gods green earth that the US will not have to buy air on the international market. We certainly can't leave our cars parked all year!
So cudo's to our stupid government. Unless you guys can come up with another way to eliminate 1.5B metric tons of CO2 emissions using the tools that the government has given us this is an impossible mission. The cap and tax bill is a foreign aid bill in disguise.
Lets look at an all electric vehicle fleet.
At 25% efficient ICE and 0.033 megawatt hours per GGE and replacing 137B gallons gasoline per year then 1.1B megawatt hours is required if the entire 244M US vehicle fleet were electric automobiles. The CO2 released would be reduce by 1.3B metric tons by elimination of gasoline consumption while CO2 released from coal electric generation would be 1.25 metric tons per megawatt hour or a total of 1.4B metric tons
Again switching to all electric cars using coal generation does not reduce the CO2 emissions.
Cost 244M clunkers * replaced by putt putts @ $20,000 = $4T
Wait a second now!!!! There is a way to do it by tugging on a rope not yet yanked in all these energy bills of the last 2 years.
Nearly 50% of the 110M US households rent their homes.
The 50% of households or 55M decision makers will not in significant numbers utilize the residential energy tax credits and install GSHP's in the numbers need to reduce CO2 by 1.5B metric tons reducing electric consumption by 1.2B megawatt hours But offering only the 10's of thousands of landlords incentives to increase up to 55 M apartments heating efficiencies to 900% and cooling efficiencies to 400% using solar assisted GSHP's then apartment electric consumption would be reduced by nearly 85% assuming that the vast majority of apartments use electric resistive heat at 100% efficiency and 10 SEER A/C at 150% efficiency.
50% of residential energy consumption is 1.4B megawatt hours and 85% of the is 1.2B megawatt hours and at 1.25 metric tons of CO2 per megawatt hour that comes to 1.5B metric tons of CO2 not released.and is the 2012 target.
Incentives for the small number of landlords is a much easier task.
Each GSHP installation costs $5,000 ($2000 for the indoor equipment and $3000 for the ground loop) then the price tag is 55M * $3,000 = $110B ( We only consider the cost of the ground loop because the cost of the indoor equipment would be borne because the upgrade would occur at the end of the useful life of the existing furnace and heater)
CONCLUSION
Well T. Boone now you have gone and done it. WINDMILLS and General Electric ARE THE CLEAR WINNER. NOT!
57,000 windmills producing 1.2B megawatt hours of electricity replacing release of 1.5B metric tons of CO2 by coal fired electric generating plants and only costing a total of $114B plus one or ten billion dollars for transmission lines is the cheapest over any other candidates to include
1. Other electric generation methods detailed in attached document.
2. An all NG US vehicle fleet
3. An all electric US vehicle fleet
4. Replacing apartments HVAC with GSHP's
THE SIDE EFFECT IS THAT WINDMILLS WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL BUSINESS.
OH WELL I GUESS.
ARE YOU DONE YET.
I AM NOT DONE WITH A GSHP SOLUTION!!!!!!
The cost of your windmill electricity is on par with coal electric generation.
IN OTHER WORDS YOUR WINDMILLS HAVE NOT REDUCED THE CONSUMERS COST OF ELECTRICITY.
A solar thermal assisted GSHP reduces the consumer cost of electricity by up to 85%.
So if a consumer was to make the decision it is clear that he would rather spend $110B on the GSHP ground loop (the cost of the indoor equipment would be spent anyway so should not be used in a comparison) and save 85% of electricity costs year after year rather than spend $114B plus on windmills and save nothing but the CO2
GSHP IS THE CLEAR WINNER.
GSHP's are Cheaper to build out, reduces consumers electric bill with payback year after year, meets the CO2 target and is made in the good old USA by freedom loving people that need to get their hands dirty and live in their home town doing it and not out in the T. Boone Docks of Texas somewhere.
PS
Hey T. Boone
WHAT ABOUT EXPORTING WEALTH ON FOREIGN OIL?. IT HAS BEEN OVER A YEAR AND YOU HAVEN'T ACCOMPLISHED THAT GOAL YET. AND THIS CAP AND TAX BILL IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND YET, EITHER
PSS
Hey Obama
You kept the cost of cap and Tax low to start just so that would motivate T. Boone to lay out the money for wind mills and to keep it painless early on for the consumer. But you haven't told the consumer that Cap and Tax for CO2 starts low and gets very expensive very quickly so that T. Boone can get hsi ROI. . Well if you are gambling on the consumer being stupid you are very wrong.
PSS
Hey T. Boone
I should mention that your wind mills are great for certain states that generate base load electricity from NG. And those states should see a reduction in electricity rates with your wind mills electricity when you can get it to them. And I will support your wind mills for those states. But at $0.066 per kilowatt hour, leave my state of Missouri alone.
NOTES: and CALCULATIONS
Lets see 1 gallon of gasoline releases 19.4 pounds of CO2. The US fleet of 244M vehicles consumes about 137B gallons per year releasing 1.3B metric tons of CO2. NG releases about 14 pounds per gasoline gallon equivalent. Therefore replacing the US fleet with new NG vehicles makes no significant difference on CO2 emissions.
The dead cat links
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm
From this link 1 gallon gasoline when fully burned will release 19.4 pounds of CO2
isooctane (C8H18) has 2,421 grams per gallon of C and multiply this by the ratio of carbon in the molecule CO2 and converting units
Which is confirmed here as well.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html
From this link 1000 cuft NG when fully burned will release 117.5 pounds of CO2
We use a similar calculation for methane (CH4) except the units are in cuft
http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/resources/a/gge.htm
From this link we find equivalences in the BTU content of NG to gasoline
126 cuft of NG is equivalent to 1 gallon of regular gasoline
so 126/1000=x/117 solving for x= 126/1000*117 = 14.7 pounds of CO2
Can we assume ICE efficiency about the same gasoline vs CNG?
From this link we find the Honda GX an NG car has MPG of (City/Highway/Combined) 24 / 36 / 28
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/specifications.aspx
From this link we find the Honda DX an gasoline car has MPG of (City/Highway/Combined) 26 / 34 / 29
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-coupe/specifications.aspx
YES we can assume ICE efficiency is about the same NG and gasoline and gasoline mileage is actually 8% better with gasoline
We can stop here because you claimed that NG cars released 80% less carbon.
clearly this is not the case. NG release only 24% less CO2 (19.4-14.7)/19.4 = 0.24
Now NG releases 80% fewer pollutants (NOx and SO2) pollutants in this case not including the non-polluting CO2.
You fell into the trap of words. CO2 is now a pollutant, is dirty to some.
confirmed the cat is dead
From this link we find NG release about 28% less CO2 than oil on a BTU basis
Which is close enough for government work to confirm the derivation above.
http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.asp
from the above link we also find NG is clean SO2 and NOx way down from coal and gasoline
and we can also safely conclude that CO2 released from burning NG helps the grass grow a lot.
from the above link -"Natural gas can be used in the transportation sector to cut down on these high levels of pollution from gasoline and diesel powered cars, trucks, and buses. In fact, according to the EPA, compared to traditional vehicles, vehicles operating on compressed natural gas have reductions in carbon monoxide emissions of 90 to 97 percent, and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of 25 percent. Nitrogen oxide emissions can be reduced by 35 to 60 percent, and other non-methane hydrocarbon emissions could be reduced by as much as 50 to 75 percent. In addition, because of the relatively simple makeup of natural gas in comparison to traditional vehicle fuels, there are fewer toxic and carcinogenic emissions from natural gas vehicles, and virtually no particulate emissions. Thus the environmentally friendly attributes of natural gas may be used in the transportation sector to reduce air pollution."
Now for the student
This link reveals that the US consumes about 9M barrels of oil per day in 2007
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm
At 42 gallons per barrel of oil and 365 days in a year about 137B gallons per year
At 19.4 pounds of CO2 derived above gasoline consumption releases 1.3B metric tons of CO2.
1 metric ton is about 2000 pounds.
19.4 * 137B / 2000 = 1.3B metric tons of CO2.
If we replaced all gasoline consumption by NG
Then at 14.7 pounds of CO2 derived above in GGE NG consumption would release 1.0B metric tons of CO2.
1 metric ton is about 2000 pounds.
14.7 * 137B / 2000 = 1.0B metric tons of CO2.
So as to the question
If the US switched to NG vehicle fuel would the 2012 CO2 carbon reduction target of 1.5B metric tons mandated in the cap and tax?
The answer is clearly NO only 0.3B metric tons of CO2 reduction would be realized by the conversion to NG vehicles.
But given low labor and material cost of NGV conversions and price adder of NGV new vehicles
and the lower CO2 emissions
and given the lower cost of NG over gasoline
but reducing demand by other consumers of NG is essential to keep the NG cost low
then NGV's are win win, win, almost.
And further The answer is clearly NO
Because it is still against the law to do low cost NGV conversions so new NGV's will not make significant contribution to a near term (2012) CO2 reduction. The PP without low cost NGV conversions is not help period. No help to reduce imports of oil and no help to the Cap and tax mandate.
I didn't include in the derivation of the previous post the lower ICE efficiency using NG because I only had the EPA mileage for the Honda GX and DX production lines. If the 8% gas millage reduction for NG holds true across all ICE designs then the CO2 reductions resulting from NG fuel will be less than the 0.3B metric tons calculated.
david
The PP was to switch NG to vehicles and replace NG electric generation with wind mills.
So as to the broader question
Does the PP address all the CO2 reduction targets mandated in the cap and tax?
This link reveals that About 29% of CO2 releasing US electricity generation is from NG the balance is from coal and oil.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html
Given that coal/oil plant is about 30% efficient while most of the NG plants are about 45% efficient.
Yes the combined cycle NG plants can acheive 60% efficiency but the population in the generating fleet is low.
Noting that Efficiency is directly proportional to CO2 release.
This link reveals that about 2.5B metric tons of CO2 is released in electric generation
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p1.html
Solving the equations
71% * 2.5B + (45%-30%) * 2.5 = 2.15 metric tons CO2 from US coal electric generation
29% * 2.5B - (45%-30%) * 2.5 = 0.35B metric tons CO2 from US NG electric generation
So if the PP eliminates NG electrical generation and replaces it with wind mills then CO2 reduction of 0.35B metric tons would be realized.
That answer again is clearly NO. The PP can only reduce CO2 by 0.6B metric tons.
But as I stated the truth a long time ago wind mils replace base load generation ie. coal, nuclear, hydro not the peak load generation NG.
This link reveals a cross section of the states electricity generation
http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html
(See the map on right and click the state and then click the .xls file at table 5)
Missouri NG generation is 0.5% of total generation
Arizona NG generation is 3.2% of total generation
Florida NG generation is 13.7% of total generation
Massachusetts NG generation is 15% of total generation
New York NG generation is 16.3% of total generation
California NG generation is 44% of total generation
I know for a fact the Missouri NG electric generation is purely peak load.
And Arizona NG electric generation is mostly peak load. (heavier Air condition use increases peak load some what)
Clearly Florida and New York and California are deriving a large percentage of base load generation from NG
Florida and New York and California elected to use NG over coal for base load.
This link reveals the population of the US states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
These links reveals the state residential CO2 emissions and methodology
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/excel/tbl_statesector.xls
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/pdf/statemethod.pdf
Florida population 18M, CO2 1.9M = 0.1 metric ton per person
Arizona population 6.5M, CO2 2.1M = 0.32 metric ton per person
California population 36.7M, CO2 28M = 0.77 metric ton per person
Missouri population 6M, CO2 7M = 1.16 metric ton per person
New York population 19.5M, CO2 39M = 2 metric ton per person
Massachusetts population 6.5M, CO2 14.8M = 2.3 metric ton per person
Now CO2 emissions are effected by
A. amount of gasoline consumption for commuting
B. climate require home heating and air conditioning
C. and effected most greatly by the generation from nuclear and hydro
D. So if you use NG to heat your home you will get up 95% conversion efficiency
E. while electric resistive heating from coal is less than 30% efficient because of line losses.
As you should see wind mills replacement of NG generation won't help reduce CO2 for
FL or AZ ir CA as generation is predominately nuclear and hydro
CA might realize some benefit from cost reduction
MO as very little generation is from NG
But NY and MA would see significant reductions of CO2 and and electricity price
So the PP wind mills do nothing for FL, AZ, MO and little for CA but can significantly help NY, and MA.
From this cross section representing the various current energy generating mixes
It can be fairly safely concluded that the PP of replacing NG generation with wind mills overall is not a viable proposition.
So as I have said on numerous occasions replacing NG electric generation with wind mills to reduce demand keeping the cost of NG constant when it is fuel for cars just is unworkable and now I have shown that it is unworkable to significantly reduce CO2 reduction as well.
So TBP's only recourse to create a market for his wind mills is to tax the crap out of coal
But then TBP would not be one that is looking out for the peoples interests, Would he?
So then I ask why does he have a national campaign for wind mills when there are only effective in the NE states?
david
TELL'M WHAT YOU TOLD'M
I will tell you again about the failings of the PP switch of vehicles to NG as I have told you for over a year now.
1. Low cost NGV conversions must be permitted else oil imports won't be reduced in TBP's life time.
2. The utilities or city municipalities own the local NG pipeline and construction of competing pipelines will face insurmountable road blocks.
3. The NG utilities have a solid residential base of customers for home heating and don't need new customers and have limited capacity in those distribution pipes to push through more NG for NGV's anyway
4. The NG utilities therefore have no motivation to install compressors for NGV's except in selected and few convenient locations.
5. 300% to 900% efficient Electric ground source heat pumps (GSHP) replacing NG heaters is the only way to reduce local demand of NG which will motivate the NG utilities to market NG for V's having the excess capacity in their local pipeline infrastructure.
6. And now I have just concluded that diverting NG from electrical generation won't reduce demand enough to keep NG prices low and now it dawns that the utilities don't get vacant capacity in the local pipelines but only in the out of way places where NG electrical plants used to be.
I will tell you again the failings of the PP switch to wind mills to replace NG electrical generation as I have told you for over a year now.
1. NG electrical generation is for supplying peak loads in almost all states.
2. Wind mills by their nature want to generate electricity continuously when the wind blows which is ideal for base load.
3. The only states that use NG for base load generation are in the north east far away from the wind corridor.
4. So replacing NG electrical generation will not significantly reduce the demand for NG freeing it up for use in NGV's
And now I will repeat that PP fails to address the issue of CO2 emission amelioration
1. A vehicle fleet wide Switch to NGV's will only reduce CO2 by 0.3B metric tons.
2. A NG generator fleet wide switch to wind mills will only reduce CO2 by 0.05B metric tons.
3. The CO2 savings are only in the NE a long haul away from TBP's wind corridor.
And I will tell you again that the only solution to get off foreign oil and to not effect NG demand and now meet the 2012 CO2 cap is
1. Switch some NG residential and commercial users to electric GSHP's
2. Switch some electric residential and commercial resistive heat users to GSHP's
3. Allow low cost NGV conversions of the US fleet NOW!
This can all be accomplished in 4 years
1. Costing only $275B for 55M GSHP retrofits cost
2. Costing only $366B for 244M NGV conversions cost
3. but the US may be unable to borrow that money internationally because the US would be reducing oil income of those countries
4. and their might be a possible reduction in coal consumption and production and jobs depending on ratio of NG vs electric resistive heat replacement by GSHP's
5. Injecting stimulus at the base of the economy, the individual, where it puts lots of people back to work with money in their pockets
6. And the vast majority of those dollars is kept in the local economy as it is Installation and digging trenches and all GSHP and NGV equipment is made in the USA
7. for a total cost of $641B or $5,872 per each of 110M households.
8. AND CAN BE DONE WITH VERY SIMPLE LEGISLATION
So in summary
1. cap and tax will cause you electricity bill to "skyrocket" per obama and could cost each family upwards of $3000 per year
2. While a GSHP solution puts one time income of $5,872 in each of 110M US households.over 4 years
3. And reduces each household utility bill by up to 85% year after year
4. And meets the 2012 CO2 target cap.and more depending on the penetration of GSHP to the other 55M households and commercial buildings
5. Personally I don't want 57,000 wind mills across the plains to just go extinct like the buffalo.
6. There is a place for wind mills and that is here and here
7. And more than enough wind energy to completely replace NG base load electric generation in the NE
8. The lake effect snows of western NY my be reduced to a fraction of todays.
9 and for the future CO2 caps the wind mills in the wind corridor will be very valuable to supply energy to the electric vehicles in 2020-2030 traversing the western plains delivering products from sea to shining sea.
So do you want a cap and tax and have your electricity bill "skyrocket" and leave your community impoverished.
Or would you rather have income of $5,872 in each of 110M US households.over 4 years
and your electricity bill drop by up to 85%.
and meet the 2012 CO2 target,
not exporting wealth internationally in the form of oil imports and carbon credits.
Get involved in the real science not the political non-science.
Support PP members against Cap and Tax.
http://push.pickensplan.com/group/ppmembersagainstcapandtax
david
Worse the 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide mentioned above is less than 1% of the natural emissions of carbon dioxide into Earth's atmosphere, so a halving or doubling of human emissions of carbon dioxide will change the Earth's temperature by perhaps one thousandth of a degree c = 0.0018 degrees f = negligible. Can anyone say something significantly good about cap and tax?
Well T. Boone now you have gone and done it.. By not standing against the global warming bill and not pushing/demanding NG vehicle conversions we will be exporting wealth for foreign oil and for air (CO2)!!!!! SUCH A DEAL!!!!
The CAP AND TAX will require us to send money overseas to pay for international carbon offsets totaling $15B in 2012 alone as shown by state in figure below.
Lets see. A 1MW windmill running at full load 24/7 produces 61000 megawatt hours per year. The US generated 2B megawatt hours giving off 2.5B metric tons of CO2. or about 1.25 metric tons per megawatt hour. Therefore 1.5B / 61000 / 1.25 = 19,672 1MW windmills are required if the wind blows all the time. double or triple that number for marginal wind resources.
How are you going to build 57,000 windmills??????? And at $2M a pop where are you going to come up with $114B. Do you intend to be among the top 10 companies of the Fortune 500?????
An inquiring mind wants to know!!!!
Windmill Plant cost. are $2M is correct/close see attached for 2008 figures.
tbl38.pdf
I found 2009 figures as well which confirms my capacity factors (double or triple that number for marginal wind resources.) as well See figures below from here.and here.
Lets look at another source of CO2
Lets see 1 gallon of gasoline releases 19.4 pounds of CO2. The US fleet of 244M vehicles consumes about 137B gallons per year releasing 1.3B metric tons of CO2. NG releases about 14 pounds per gasoline gallon equivalent. Therefore replacing the US fleet with new NG vehicles makes no significant difference on CO2 emissions.
Now if we don't drive any cars all year then we pretty much stop all exports of wealth. That's the ticket we walk to work for a whole year.
Now basically what it boils down to there ain't no way on Gods green earth that the US will not have to buy air on the international market. We certainly can't leave our cars parked all year!
So cudo's to our stupid government. Unless you guys can come up with another way to eliminate 1.5B metric tons of CO2 emissions using the tools that the government has given us this is an impossible mission. The cap and tax bill is a foreign aid bill in disguise.
Lets look at an all electric vehicle fleet.
At 25% efficient ICE and 0.033 megawatt hours per GGE and replacing 137B gallons gasoline per year then 1.1B megawatt hours is required if the entire 244M US vehicle fleet were electric automobiles. The CO2 released would be reduce by 1.3B metric tons by elimination of gasoline consumption while CO2 released from coal electric generation would be 1.25 metric tons per megawatt hour or a total of 1.4B metric tons
Again switching to all electric cars using coal generation does not reduce the CO2 emissions.
Cost 244M clunkers * replaced by putt putts @ $20,000 = $4T
Wait a second now!!!! There is a way to do it by tugging on a rope not yet yanked in all these energy bills of the last 2 years.
Nearly 50% of the 110M US households rent their homes.
The 50% of households or 55M decision makers will not in significant numbers utilize the residential energy tax credits and install GSHP's in the numbers need to reduce CO2 by 1.5B metric tons reducing electric consumption by 1.2B megawatt hours But offering only the 10's of thousands of landlords incentives to increase up to 55 M apartments heating efficiencies to 900% and cooling efficiencies to 400% using solar assisted GSHP's then apartment electric consumption would be reduced by nearly 85% assuming that the vast majority of apartments use electric resistive heat at 100% efficiency and 10 SEER A/C at 150% efficiency.
50% of residential energy consumption is 1.4B megawatt hours and 85% of the is 1.2B megawatt hours and at 1.25 metric tons of CO2 per megawatt hour that comes to 1.5B metric tons of CO2 not released.and is the 2012 target.
Incentives for the small number of landlords is a much easier task.
Each GSHP installation costs $5,000 ($2000 for the indoor equipment and $3000 for the ground loop) then the price tag is 55M * $3,000 = $110B ( We only consider the cost of the ground loop because the cost of the indoor equipment would be borne because the upgrade would occur at the end of the useful life of the existing furnace and heater)
CONCLUSION
Well T. Boone now you have gone and done it. WINDMILLS and General Electric ARE THE CLEAR WINNER. NOT!
57,000 windmills producing 1.2B megawatt hours of electricity replacing release of 1.5B metric tons of CO2 by coal fired electric generating plants and only costing a total of $114B plus one or ten billion dollars for transmission lines is the cheapest over any other candidates to include
1. Other electric generation methods detailed in attached document.
2. An all NG US vehicle fleet
3. An all electric US vehicle fleet
4. Replacing apartments HVAC with GSHP's
THE SIDE EFFECT IS THAT WINDMILLS WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL BUSINESS.
OH WELL I GUESS.
ARE YOU DONE YET.
I AM NOT DONE WITH A GSHP SOLUTION!!!!!!
The cost of your windmill electricity is on par with coal electric generation.
IN OTHER WORDS YOUR WINDMILLS HAVE NOT REDUCED THE CONSUMERS COST OF ELECTRICITY.
A solar thermal assisted GSHP reduces the consumer cost of electricity by up to 85%.
So if a consumer was to make the decision it is clear that he would rather spend $110B on the GSHP ground loop (the cost of the indoor equipment would be spent anyway so should not be used in a comparison) and save 85% of electricity costs year after year rather than spend $114B plus on windmills and save nothing but the CO2
GSHP IS THE CLEAR WINNER.
GSHP's are Cheaper to build out, reduces consumers electric bill with payback year after year, meets the CO2 target and is made in the good old USA by freedom loving people that need to get their hands dirty and live in their home town doing it and not out in the T. Boone Docks of Texas somewhere.
PS
Hey T. Boone
WHAT ABOUT EXPORTING WEALTH ON FOREIGN OIL?. IT HAS BEEN OVER A YEAR AND YOU HAVEN'T ACCOMPLISHED THAT GOAL YET. AND THIS CAP AND TAX BILL IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND YET, EITHER
PSS
Hey Obama
You kept the cost of cap and Tax low to start just so that would motivate T. Boone to lay out the money for wind mills and to keep it painless early on for the consumer. But you haven't told the consumer that Cap and Tax for CO2 starts low and gets very expensive very quickly so that T. Boone can get hsi ROI. . Well if you are gambling on the consumer being stupid you are very wrong.
PSS
Hey T. Boone
I should mention that your wind mills are great for certain states that generate base load electricity from NG. And those states should see a reduction in electricity rates with your wind mills electricity when you can get it to them. And I will support your wind mills for those states. But at $0.066 per kilowatt hour, leave my state of Missouri alone.
NOTES: and CALCULATIONS
Lets see 1 gallon of gasoline releases 19.4 pounds of CO2. The US fleet of 244M vehicles consumes about 137B gallons per year releasing 1.3B metric tons of CO2. NG releases about 14 pounds per gasoline gallon equivalent. Therefore replacing the US fleet with new NG vehicles makes no significant difference on CO2 emissions.
The dead cat links
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm
From this link 1 gallon gasoline when fully burned will release 19.4 pounds of CO2
isooctane (C8H18) has 2,421 grams per gallon of C and multiply this by the ratio of carbon in the molecule CO2 and converting units
Which is confirmed here as well.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html
From this link 1000 cuft NG when fully burned will release 117.5 pounds of CO2
We use a similar calculation for methane (CH4) except the units are in cuft
http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/resources/a/gge.htm
From this link we find equivalences in the BTU content of NG to gasoline
126 cuft of NG is equivalent to 1 gallon of regular gasoline
so 126/1000=x/117 solving for x= 126/1000*117 = 14.7 pounds of CO2
Can we assume ICE efficiency about the same gasoline vs CNG?
From this link we find the Honda GX an NG car has MPG of (City/Highway/Combined) 24 / 36 / 28
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/specifications.aspx
From this link we find the Honda DX an gasoline car has MPG of (City/Highway/Combined) 26 / 34 / 29
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-coupe/specifications.aspx
YES we can assume ICE efficiency is about the same NG and gasoline and gasoline mileage is actually 8% better with gasoline
We can stop here because you claimed that NG cars released 80% less carbon.
clearly this is not the case. NG release only 24% less CO2 (19.4-14.7)/19.4 = 0.24
Now NG releases 80% fewer pollutants (NOx and SO2) pollutants in this case not including the non-polluting CO2.
You fell into the trap of words. CO2 is now a pollutant, is dirty to some.
confirmed the cat is dead
From this link we find NG release about 28% less CO2 than oil on a BTU basis
Which is close enough for government work to confirm the derivation above.
http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.asp
from the above link we also find NG is clean SO2 and NOx way down from coal and gasoline
and we can also safely conclude that CO2 released from burning NG helps the grass grow a lot.
from the above link -"Natural gas can be used in the transportation sector to cut down on these high levels of pollution from gasoline and diesel powered cars, trucks, and buses. In fact, according to the EPA, compared to traditional vehicles, vehicles operating on compressed natural gas have reductions in carbon monoxide emissions of 90 to 97 percent, and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of 25 percent. Nitrogen oxide emissions can be reduced by 35 to 60 percent, and other non-methane hydrocarbon emissions could be reduced by as much as 50 to 75 percent. In addition, because of the relatively simple makeup of natural gas in comparison to traditional vehicle fuels, there are fewer toxic and carcinogenic emissions from natural gas vehicles, and virtually no particulate emissions. Thus the environmentally friendly attributes of natural gas may be used in the transportation sector to reduce air pollution."
Now for the student
This link reveals that the US consumes about 9M barrels of oil per day in 2007
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm
At 42 gallons per barrel of oil and 365 days in a year about 137B gallons per year
At 19.4 pounds of CO2 derived above gasoline consumption releases 1.3B metric tons of CO2.
1 metric ton is about 2000 pounds.
19.4 * 137B / 2000 = 1.3B metric tons of CO2.
If we replaced all gasoline consumption by NG
Then at 14.7 pounds of CO2 derived above in GGE NG consumption would release 1.0B metric tons of CO2.
1 metric ton is about 2000 pounds.
14.7 * 137B / 2000 = 1.0B metric tons of CO2.
So as to the question
If the US switched to NG vehicle fuel would the 2012 CO2 carbon reduction target of 1.5B metric tons mandated in the cap and tax?
The answer is clearly NO only 0.3B metric tons of CO2 reduction would be realized by the conversion to NG vehicles.
But given low labor and material cost of NGV conversions and price adder of NGV new vehicles
and the lower CO2 emissions
and given the lower cost of NG over gasoline
but reducing demand by other consumers of NG is essential to keep the NG cost low
then NGV's are win win, win, almost.
And further The answer is clearly NO
Because it is still against the law to do low cost NGV conversions so new NGV's will not make significant contribution to a near term (2012) CO2 reduction. The PP without low cost NGV conversions is not help period. No help to reduce imports of oil and no help to the Cap and tax mandate.
I didn't include in the derivation of the previous post the lower ICE efficiency using NG because I only had the EPA mileage for the Honda GX and DX production lines. If the 8% gas millage reduction for NG holds true across all ICE designs then the CO2 reductions resulting from NG fuel will be less than the 0.3B metric tons calculated.
david
The PP was to switch NG to vehicles and replace NG electric generation with wind mills.
So as to the broader question
Does the PP address all the CO2 reduction targets mandated in the cap and tax?
This link reveals that About 29% of CO2 releasing US electricity generation is from NG the balance is from coal and oil.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html
Given that coal/oil plant is about 30% efficient while most of the NG plants are about 45% efficient.
Yes the combined cycle NG plants can acheive 60% efficiency but the population in the generating fleet is low.
Noting that Efficiency is directly proportional to CO2 release.
This link reveals that about 2.5B metric tons of CO2 is released in electric generation
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p1.html
Solving the equations
71% * 2.5B + (45%-30%) * 2.5 = 2.15 metric tons CO2 from US coal electric generation
29% * 2.5B - (45%-30%) * 2.5 = 0.35B metric tons CO2 from US NG electric generation
So if the PP eliminates NG electrical generation and replaces it with wind mills then CO2 reduction of 0.35B metric tons would be realized.
That answer again is clearly NO. The PP can only reduce CO2 by 0.6B metric tons.
But as I stated the truth a long time ago wind mils replace base load generation ie. coal, nuclear, hydro not the peak load generation NG.
This link reveals a cross section of the states electricity generation
http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html
(See the map on right and click the state and then click the .xls file at table 5)
Missouri NG generation is 0.5% of total generation
Arizona NG generation is 3.2% of total generation
Florida NG generation is 13.7% of total generation
Massachusetts NG generation is 15% of total generation
New York NG generation is 16.3% of total generation
California NG generation is 44% of total generation
I know for a fact the Missouri NG electric generation is purely peak load.
And Arizona NG electric generation is mostly peak load. (heavier Air condition use increases peak load some what)
Clearly Florida and New York and California are deriving a large percentage of base load generation from NG
Florida and New York and California elected to use NG over coal for base load.
This link reveals the population of the US states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
These links reveals the state residential CO2 emissions and methodology
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/excel/tbl_statesector.xls
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/pdf/statemethod.pdf
Florida population 18M, CO2 1.9M = 0.1 metric ton per person
Arizona population 6.5M, CO2 2.1M = 0.32 metric ton per person
California population 36.7M, CO2 28M = 0.77 metric ton per person
Missouri population 6M, CO2 7M = 1.16 metric ton per person
New York population 19.5M, CO2 39M = 2 metric ton per person
Massachusetts population 6.5M, CO2 14.8M = 2.3 metric ton per person
Now CO2 emissions are effected by
A. amount of gasoline consumption for commuting
B. climate require home heating and air conditioning
C. and effected most greatly by the generation from nuclear and hydro
D. So if you use NG to heat your home you will get up 95% conversion efficiency
E. while electric resistive heating from coal is less than 30% efficient because of line losses.
As you should see wind mills replacement of NG generation won't help reduce CO2 for
FL or AZ ir CA as generation is predominately nuclear and hydro
CA might realize some benefit from cost reduction
MO as very little generation is from NG
But NY and MA would see significant reductions of CO2 and and electricity price
So the PP wind mills do nothing for FL, AZ, MO and little for CA but can significantly help NY, and MA.
From this cross section representing the various current energy generating mixes
It can be fairly safely concluded that the PP of replacing NG generation with wind mills overall is not a viable proposition.
So as I have said on numerous occasions replacing NG electric generation with wind mills to reduce demand keeping the cost of NG constant when it is fuel for cars just is unworkable and now I have shown that it is unworkable to significantly reduce CO2 reduction as well.
So TBP's only recourse to create a market for his wind mills is to tax the crap out of coal
But then TBP would not be one that is looking out for the peoples interests, Would he?
So then I ask why does he have a national campaign for wind mills when there are only effective in the NE states?
david
TELL'M WHAT YOU TOLD'M
I will tell you again about the failings of the PP switch of vehicles to NG as I have told you for over a year now.
1. Low cost NGV conversions must be permitted else oil imports won't be reduced in TBP's life time.
2. The utilities or city municipalities own the local NG pipeline and construction of competing pipelines will face insurmountable road blocks.
3. The NG utilities have a solid residential base of customers for home heating and don't need new customers and have limited capacity in those distribution pipes to push through more NG for NGV's anyway
4. The NG utilities therefore have no motivation to install compressors for NGV's except in selected and few convenient locations.
5. 300% to 900% efficient Electric ground source heat pumps (GSHP) replacing NG heaters is the only way to reduce local demand of NG which will motivate the NG utilities to market NG for V's having the excess capacity in their local pipeline infrastructure.
6. And now I have just concluded that diverting NG from electrical generation won't reduce demand enough to keep NG prices low and now it dawns that the utilities don't get vacant capacity in the local pipelines but only in the out of way places where NG electrical plants used to be.
I will tell you again the failings of the PP switch to wind mills to replace NG electrical generation as I have told you for over a year now.
1. NG electrical generation is for supplying peak loads in almost all states.
2. Wind mills by their nature want to generate electricity continuously when the wind blows which is ideal for base load.
3. The only states that use NG for base load generation are in the north east far away from the wind corridor.
4. So replacing NG electrical generation will not significantly reduce the demand for NG freeing it up for use in NGV's
And now I will repeat that PP fails to address the issue of CO2 emission amelioration
1. A vehicle fleet wide Switch to NGV's will only reduce CO2 by 0.3B metric tons.
2. A NG generator fleet wide switch to wind mills will only reduce CO2 by 0.05B metric tons.
3. The CO2 savings are only in the NE a long haul away from TBP's wind corridor.
And I will tell you again that the only solution to get off foreign oil and to not effect NG demand and now meet the 2012 CO2 cap is
1. Switch some NG residential and commercial users to electric GSHP's
2. Switch some electric residential and commercial resistive heat users to GSHP's
3. Allow low cost NGV conversions of the US fleet NOW!
This can all be accomplished in 4 years
1. Costing only $275B for 55M GSHP retrofits cost
2. Costing only $366B for 244M NGV conversions cost
3. but the US may be unable to borrow that money internationally because the US would be reducing oil income of those countries
4. and their might be a possible reduction in coal consumption and production and jobs depending on ratio of NG vs electric resistive heat replacement by GSHP's
5. Injecting stimulus at the base of the economy, the individual, where it puts lots of people back to work with money in their pockets
6. And the vast majority of those dollars is kept in the local economy as it is Installation and digging trenches and all GSHP and NGV equipment is made in the USA
7. for a total cost of $641B or $5,872 per each of 110M households.
8. AND CAN BE DONE WITH VERY SIMPLE LEGISLATION
So in summary
1. cap and tax will cause you electricity bill to "skyrocket" per obama and could cost each family upwards of $3000 per year
2. While a GSHP solution puts one time income of $5,872 in each of 110M US households.over 4 years
3. And reduces each household utility bill by up to 85% year after year
4. And meets the 2012 CO2 target cap.and more depending on the penetration of GSHP to the other 55M households and commercial buildings
5. Personally I don't want 57,000 wind mills across the plains to just go extinct like the buffalo.
6. There is a place for wind mills and that is here and here
7. And more than enough wind energy to completely replace NG base load electric generation in the NE
8. The lake effect snows of western NY my be reduced to a fraction of todays.
9 and for the future CO2 caps the wind mills in the wind corridor will be very valuable to supply energy to the electric vehicles in 2020-2030 traversing the western plains delivering products from sea to shining sea.
So do you want a cap and tax and have your electricity bill "skyrocket" and leave your community impoverished.
Or would you rather have income of $5,872 in each of 110M US households.over 4 years
and your electricity bill drop by up to 85%.
and meet the 2012 CO2 target,
not exporting wealth internationally in the form of oil imports and carbon credits.
Get involved in the real science not the political non-science.
Support PP members against Cap and Tax.
http://push.pickensplan.com/group/ppmembersagainstcapandtax
david
Discussion Forum
This group does not have any discussions yet.
Comment Wall
Comment
-
Comment by david epps on July 4, 2009 at 7:06pm -
So do you want your energy bill to skyrocket with a cap and tax or do you want to enjoy high efficiency heating and cooling while stimulating you local economy and saving you money year after year?
Sweden has mandated GSHP for the entire country. And GSHP works almost everywhere in the US. Except in deep deep south (tip of Florida) the ground is just too warm for good cooling. I can visualize where whole city blocks are equipped with GSHP at the same time. And remember the GSHP are about 3 times as efficient in cooling mode than a 10 SEER A/C. Pumping solar heat in summer makes the ground to hot for cooling but a solar assisted GSHP is 900% efficient with the addition of 4X8 panel per every 17,000 BTU of heat needed.
Who will sqawk at this Energy plan
The NG suppliers - but we give then NGV's.
The coal suppliers - but we give them coal gasification to methane (NG)
The OPEC - but do we care.
The Big government - but do we care (they are screwing up on cap and tax anyway
The Big Oil - but they get increased industrial demand for US oil and exports to non-NG countries
The propane crowd - but propane is good auto fuel in certain unserviced NG areas and is derived from US oil and US NG anyway
The big oil ocean tankers - most are flagged in other countries anyway
The TBP - but he gets to sale more NG but his wind mills in Texas will have to wait for electric cars and that big battery
The farmers - but fertilizer cost should stay about the same switching from NG residential heat to NGV's
The big refineries - but they will make money refining for other countries as they do now quite a bit.
The big Canada oil sands - but Canada flies in formation on economic things with the US anyway and they ar already big on GSHP now.
The big EPA - not knowing what ramification of such a large scale installation of earth loops will have on sub surface conditions.
What will We the People get
Increased disposable income to apartment dwellers and landlords - that is abundance
Increased disposable income to all single family residence owners - that is abundance
Lower cost fuel for all vehicles - that would be a joy
Plenty of new jobs in the local area - it is fun to dig holes and get your hands dirty and make money
Plenty of new jobs in the US GSHP and NG conversion kit manufacturing businesses - it is fun to build stuff and make money
$5,872 new net income per each of 110M households.is just the initial build out - more and more money
Triple this to encompass all residences and all commercial property - more and more and more money
And all that addition disposable income from energy savings just circulates around and around and around.- 300M people pursuing happiness
And you get 1.5B metric tons of CO2 reduction by 2012 and more as the build out continues.- yip yip yipee
Get involved in the real science not the political non-science.
Support PP members against Cap and Tax.
Read more at
http://push.pickensplan.com/group/ppmembersagainstcapandtax
-
Comment by david epps on July 4, 2009 at 5:28pm
-
YOU CAN'T SALE WHAT IS NOT TRUE.
Gosh you are cranky. It is like you didn't read all those calculation that you demanded of me. they are about 5 posts back or just look above the comment box I added them to the end of the group intro. And I will post them to you page too
According to every calculation an ICE running on NG will not produce less CO2 then when it is running on gasoline. Now an ICE that was specifically designed and optimized for NG might but I don't know of such an engine today. And today is what we are talking about.
I don't give a s*** about CO2 either but I am trying to convince the global warming crowd not to support the cap and tax and so I have to lead them by the hand through why PP won't get them there (which is the way PP is leaning) and why the current cap and tax legislation won't get them there and gets them a whole lot of other heart ache and why there is a simple approach that is win win for everyone except the fascists.
Hey and you can go to H -E-double hockey sticks too.
-
Comment by DubleDeuce on July 4, 2009 at 4:36pm -
I will tell you again about the failings of the PP switch of vehicles to NG as I have told you for over a year now.>>
So this whole argument is about the FAILURE of the PP to reduce to some arbitrary level, the CO2 emissions. I COULD CARE LESS.
I have three things on my mind for the conversion to NG. 1. Availability 2. National Security 3. Far cleaner than gasoline. Forget all of your convoluted, cross bred, and bound up numbers on the CO2 emissions. NONE of your numbers are (as you so cryptiicaly state) cogent to the issue. They make for a GRAND statement of BTWBS (Baffle them with Bulls**t) but the FACT remains that a properly tuned ICE (all other things being equal) will deliver 80% less CO2 from the tail pipe than gasolins.
As whether or not the breadth of the groundswell to do these conversions is included with the PP or not, does NOT negate the fact of the CO2 performance of a single engine. Personally, I do not SEE the PP windturbine program EVER becomming a factor in our lifetime. But I DO see the usefullness and the effacacy of CNG as a significant energy source for the propelsion of our personal motorcar fleet. Whether we (the capatalist) see this and can exploit this oportunity is quite another story. Part of the solution is to get on with the actions needed to incorporate this fuel into our daily lives. If it FAILES to meet with your grand idea of a less carbon in the air, well at least the CNG crowd will NOT be a net contributor. So! What do you want, a move forward toward cleaner air or be an obstacle because you cannot get a 100% compliance with CO2 reduction. You sound to me like a an idealoge on the issue of CO2. Trust me, your position will never be realized. It is a physical impossibility.
The Deuceman
-
Comment by david epps on July 4, 2009 at 2:13pm
-
TELL'M WHAT YOU TOLD'M
I will tell you again about the failings of the PP switch of vehicles to NG as I have told you for over a year now.
1. Low cost NGV conversions must be permitted else oil imports won't be reduced in TBP's life time.
2. The utilities or city municipalities own the local NG pipeline and construction of competing pipelines will face insurmountable road blocks.
3. The NG utilities have a solid residential base of customers for home heating and don't need new customers and have limited capacity in those distribution pipes to push through more NG for NGV's anyway
4. The NG utilities therefore have no motivation to install compressors for NGV's except in selected and few convenient locations.
5. 300% to 900% efficient Electric ground source heat pumps (GSHP) replacing NG heaters is the only way to reduce local demand of NG which will motivate the NG utilities to market NG for V's having the excess capacity in their local pipeline infrastructure.
6. And now I have just concluded that diverting NG from electrical generation won't reduce demand enough to keep NG prices low and now it dawns that the utilities don't get vacant capacity in the local pipelines but only in the out of way places where NG electrical plants used to be.
I will tell you again the failings of the PP switch to wind mills to replace NG electrical generation as I have told you for over a year now.
1. NG electrical generation is for supplying peak loads in almost all states.
2. Wind mills by their nature want to generate electricity continuously when the wind blows which is ideal for base load.
3. The only states that use NG for base load generation are in the north east far away from the wind corridor.
4. So replacing NG electrical generation will not significantly reduce the demand for NG freeing it up for use in NGV's
And now I will repeat that PP fails to address the issue of CO2 emission amelioration
1. A vehicle fleet wide Switch to NGV's will only reduce CO2 by 0.3B metric tons.
2. A NG generator fleet wide switch to wind mills will only reduce CO2 by 0.05B metric tons.
3. The CO2 savings are only in the NE a long haul away from TBP's wind corridor.
And I will tell you again that the only solution to get off foreign oil and to not effect NG demand and now meet the 2012 CO2 cap is
1. Switch some NG residential and commercial users to electric GSHP's
2. Switch some electric residential and commercial resistive heat users to GSHP's
3. Allow low cost NGV conversions of the US fleet NOW!
This can all be accomplished in 4 years
1. Costing only $275B for 55M GSHP retrofits cost
2. Costing only $366B for 244M NGV conversions cost
3. but the US may be unable to borrow that money internationally because the US would be reducing oil income of those countries
4. and their might be a possible reduction in coal consumption and production and jobs depending on ratio of NG vs electric resistive heat replacement by GSHP's
5. Injecting stimulus at the base of the economy, the individual, where it puts lots of people back to work with money in their pockets
6. And the vast majority of those dollars is kept in the local economy as it is Installation and digging trenches and all GSHP and NGV equipment is made in the USA
7. for a total cost of $641B or $5,872 per each of 110M households.
8. AND CAN BE DONE WITH VERY SIMPLE LEGISLATION
So in summary
1. cap and tax will cause you electricity bill to "skyrocket" per obama and could cost each family upwards of $3000 per year
2. While a GSHP solution puts one time income of $5,872 in each of 110M US households.over 4 years
3. And reduces each household utility bill by up to 85% year after year
4. And meets the 2012 CO2 target cap.and more depending on the penetration of GSHP to the other 55M households and commercial buildings
5. Personally I don't want 57,000 wind mills across the plains to just go extinct like the buffalo.
6. There is a place for wind mills and that is here and here
7. And more than enough wind energy to completely replace NG base load electric generation in the NE
8. The lake effect snows of western NY my be reduced to a fraction of todays.
9 and for the future CO2 caps the wind mills in the wind corridor will be very valuable to supply energy to the electric vehicles in 2020-2030 traversing the western plains delivering products from sea to shining sea.
So do you want a cap and tax and have your electricity bill "skyrocket" and leave your community impoverished.
Or would you rather have income of $5,872 in each of 110M US households.over 4 years
and your electricity bill drop by up to 85%.
and meet the 2012 CO2 target,
not exporting wealth internationally in the form of oil imports and carbon credits.
Get involved in the real science not the political non-science.
Support PP members against Cap and Tax.
http://push.pickensplan.com/group/ppmembersagainstcapandtax
-
Comment by david epps on July 4, 2009 at 1:36pm
-
The PP was to switch NG to vehicles and replace NG electric generation with wind mills.
So as to the broader question
Does the PP address all the CO2 reduction targets mandated in the cap and tax?
This link reveals that About 29% of CO2 releasing US electricity generation is from NG the balance is from coal and oil.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html
Given that coal/oil plant is about 30% efficient while most of the NG plants are about 45% efficient.
Yes the combined cycle NG plants can acheive 60% efficiency but the population in the generating fleet is low.
Noting that Efficiency is directly proportional to CO2 release.
This link reveals that about 2.5B metric tons of CO2 is released in electric generation
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p1.html
Solving the equations
71% * 2.5B + (45%-30%) * 2.5 = 2.15 metric tons CO2 from US coal electric generation
29% * 2.5B - (45%-30%) * 2.5 = 0.35B metric tons CO2 from US NG electric generation
So if the PP eliminates NG electrical generation and replaces it with wind mills then CO2 reduction of 0.35B metric tons would be realized.
That answer again is clearly NO. The PP can only reduce CO2 by 0.6B metric tons.
But as I stated the truth a long time ago wind mils replace base load generation ie. coal, nuclear, hydro not the peak load generation, NG.
This link reveals a cross section of the states electricity generation
http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html
(See the map on right and click the state and then click the .xls file at table 5)
Missouri NG generation is 0.5% of total generation
Arizona NG generation is 3.2% of total generation
Florida NG generation is 13.7% of total generation
Massachusetts NG generation is 15% of total generation
New York NG generation is 16.3% of total generation
California NG generation is 44% of total generation
I know for a fact the Missouri NG electric generation is purely peak load.
And Arizona NG electric generation is mostly peak load. (heavier Air condition use increases peak load some what)
Clearly Florida and New York and California are deriving a large percentage of base load generation from NG
Florida and New York and California elected to use NG over coal for base load.
This link reveals the population of the US states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
These links reveals the state residential CO2 emissions and methodology
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/excel/tbl_statesector.xls
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/pdf/statemethod.pdf
Florida population 18M, CO2 1.9M = 0.1 metric ton per person
Arizona population 6.5M, CO2 2.1M = 0.32 metric ton per person
California population 36.7M, CO2 28M = 0.77 metric ton per person
Missouri population 6M, CO2 7M = 1.16 metric ton per person
New York population 19.5M, CO2 39M = 2 metric ton per person
Massachusetts population 6.5M, CO2 14.8M = 2.3 metric ton per person
Now CO2 emissions are effected by
A. amount of gasoline consumption for commuting
B. climate require home heating and air conditioning
C. and effected most greatly by the generation from nuclear and hydro
D. So if you use NG to heat your home you will get up 95% conversion efficiency
E. while electric resistive heating from coal is less than 30% efficient because of line losses.
As you should see wind mills replacement of NG generation won't help reduce CO2 for
FL or AZ ir CA as generation is predominately nuclear and hydro
CA might realize some benefit from cost reduction
MO as very little generation is from NG
But NY and MA would see significant reductions of CO2 and and electricity price
So the PP wind mills do nothing for FL, AZ, MO and little for CA but can significantly help NY, and MA.
From this cross section representing the various current energy generating mixes
It can be fairly safely concluded that the PP of replacing NG generation with wind mills overall is not a viable proposition.
So as I have said on numerous occasions replacing NG electric generation with wind mills to reduce demand keeping the cost of NG constant when it is fuel for cars just is unworkable and now I have shown that it is unworkable to significantly reduce CO2 reduction as well.
So TBP's only recourse to create a market for his wind mills is to tax the crap out of coal
But then TBP would not be one that is looking out for the peoples interests, Would he?
So then I ask why does he have a national campaign for wind mills when there are only effective in the NE states?
-
Comment by david epps on July 4, 2009 at 8:38am
-
I didn't include in the derivation of the previous post the lower ICE efficiency using NG because I only had the EPA mileage for the Honda GX and DX production lines. If the 8% gas millage reduction for NG holds true across all ICE designs then the CO2 reductions resulting from NG fuel will be less than the 0.3B metric tons calculated.
david
-
Comment by david epps on July 4, 2009 at 8:31am
-
Ain't we cranky!
Lets see 1 gallon of gasoline releases 19.4 pounds of CO2. The US fleet of 244M vehicles consumes about 137B gallons per year releasing 1.3B metric tons of CO2. NG releases about 14 pounds per gasoline gallon equivalent. Therefore replacing the US fleet with new NG vehicles makes no significant difference on CO2 emissions.
The dead cat links
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm
From this link 1 gallon gasoline when fully burned will release 19.4 pounds of CO2
isooctane (C8H18) has 2,421 grams per gallon of C and multiply this by the ratio of carbon in the molecule CO2 and converting units
Which is confirmed here as well.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html
From this link 1000 cuft NG when fully burned will release 117.5 pounds of CO2
We use a similar calculation for methane (CH4) except the units are in cuft
http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/resources/a/gge.htm
From this link we find equivalences in the BTU content of NG to gasoline
126 cuft of NG is equivalent to 1 gallon of regular gasoline
so 126/1000=x/117 solving for x= 126/1000*117 = 14.7 pounds of CO2
Can we assume ICE efficiency about the same gasoline vs CNG?
From this link we find the Honda GX an NG car has MPG of (City/Highway/Combined) 24 / 36 / 28
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/specifications.aspx
From this link we find the Honda DX an gasoline car has MPG of (City/Highway/Combined) 26 / 34 / 29
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-coupe/specifications.aspx
YES we can assume ICE efficiency is about the same NG and gasoline and gasoline mileage is actually 8% better with gasoline
We can stop here because you claimed that NG cars released 80% less carbon.
clearly this is not the case. NG release only 24% less CO2 (19.4-14.7)/19.4 = 0.24
Now NG releases 80% fewer pollutants (NOx and SO2) pollutants in this case not including the non-polluting CO2.
You fell into the trap of words. CO2 is now a pollutant, is dirty to some.
confirmed the cat is dead
From this link we find NG release about 28% less CO2 than oil on a BTU basis
Which is close enough for government work to confirm the derivation above.
http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.asp
from the above link we also find NG is clean SO2 and NOx way down from coal and gasoline
and we can also safely conclude that CO2 released from burning NG helps the grass grow a lot.
from the above link -"Natural gas can be used in the transportation sector to cut down on these high levels of pollution from gasoline and diesel powered cars, trucks, and buses. In fact, according to the EPA, compared to traditional vehicles, vehicles operating on compressed natural gas have reductions in carbon monoxide emissions of 90 to 97 percent, and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of 25 percent. Nitrogen oxide emissions can be reduced by 35 to 60 percent, and other non-methane hydrocarbon emissions could be reduced by as much as 50 to 75 percent. In addition, because of the relatively simple makeup of natural gas in comparison to traditional vehicle fuels, there are fewer toxic and carcinogenic emissions from natural gas vehicles, and virtually no particulate emissions. Thus the environmentally friendly attributes of natural gas may be used in the transportation sector to reduce air pollution."
Now for the student
This link reveals that the US consumes about 9M barrels of oil per day in 2007
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm
At 42 gallons per barrel of oil and 365 days in a year about 137B gallons per year
At 19.4 pounds of CO2 derived above gasoline consumption releases 1.3B metric tons of CO2.
1 metric ton is about 2000 pounds.
19.4 * 137B / 2000 = 1.3B metric tons of CO2.
If we replaced all gasoline consumption by NG
Then at 14.7 pounds of CO2 derived above in GGE NG consumption would release 1.0B metric tons of CO2.
1 metric ton is about 2000 pounds.
14.7 * 137B / 2000 = 1.0B metric tons of CO2.
So as to the question
If the US switched to NG vehicle fuel would the 2012 CO2 carbon reduction target of 1.5B metric tons mandated in the cap and tax?
The answer is clearly NO only 0.3B metric tons of CO2 reduction would be realized by the conversion to NG vehicles.
But given low labor and material cost of NGV conversions and price adder of NGV new vehicles
and the lower CO2 emissions
and given the lower cost of NG over gasoline
but reducing demand by other consumers of NG is essential to keep the NG cost low
then NGV's are win win, win, almost.
And further The answer is clearly NO
Because it is still against the law to do low cost NGV conversions so new NGV's will not make significant contribution to a near term (2012) CO2 reduction. The PP without low cost NGV conversions is not help period. No help to reduce imports of oil and no help to the Cap and tax mandate.
-
Comment by DubleDeuce on July 3, 2009 at 9:20pm
-
The POINT is David, IF these people wish to make their comments/opinions KNOWN to others, they seem perfectly capable ot doing so. Your ramdon and prolific posting of what is essentially SPAM serves NO purpose-other than as the recent poster stated, you can rant away to your hearts content about your Politics THERE and like-minded members can join you THERE
Your attempt at making intelligent conversation by use of the strawman approach is not gettin YOUR point accross. it is only piling on the verbiage and I might add, with NO CONTEXT. If THIS manufatured banter is the essence of your fight (setting up and than knocking down straw men) than I'll be outta here.
As to my questioning your calculations on the relative efficiencies of NG over gasoline, I did NOT ASK YOU FOR A SOURCE. I asked you for your PERSONAL calculations on the matter. You dump web sites as your "source" likeanigger hauling worn out furniture and trash in a pickup looking for a lone dump site. I don't have the TIME OR THE inclination to sort through your garbage as proof of your calculations. I KNOW your calculations on CNG v gasoline are WRONG. If you want to continue this argument, SHOW ME that you have the numbers to make the argument, otherwise find another place to dump your garbage.
This is a SITE for ideas and discussion NOT an encyclopedia of YOUR web site browsing.
And AS YOU SAY, these people don't want to join this group so WHY are you posting THEIR private correspondence with the world?
The Deuceman
-
Comment by david epps on July 3, 2009 at 8:51pm
-
oops saw you post to late. would have posted anyway
Did you understand the NG CO2 derivation?
These people don't want to join the group buy want to debate on the subject. They friended me at one time or another and I guess they don't want the universe to know that their position is contrary to the PP and what TBP has said.
But TBP may want cap and tax. Hell it may be good for his pocket book in the long run but he will likely be dead in ten years when real money starts rolling in to the government coffers if it gets passed.
-
Comment by david epps on July 3, 2009 at 8:46pm
-
amy oconnor has sent you a message on PickensPlan
Mr Epps. With All Due Respect - How about starting a Group called Sound Off and you can rant away to your hearts content about your Politics THERE and like-minded members can join you THERE - this way you do not subject innocent bystanders to this subject matter who do not wish to hear it nor discuss it ? This seems the Fairest way to ensure there are no further issues or hard feelings because as I stated previously, in vain, There Is No Room For Extremism or Politics Here...It only serves to offend people and throw us off track which derails us from our Objective - Which is not easy to begin with and with you stirring up the pot, its just getting harder !!!...And just so you know,,,I personally DO NOT LIKE you offending Mr Pickens so do not cast anymore of your dispersions at him from here Please and Thank You...IF you no longer enjoy this site then by all means, start your own.
And I beg to differ with you - I am not a Fool nor am I complacent or burned out but I did proudly vote for what you call this " Fascist-like " Administration to try and fix the last 8 yrs of financial free -for -all and 2 illegal conflicts started by Big Oil. But there you go again, lumping everyone together in 1 huge negative mess...I have too much Serious work to do to try and help save this planet for my 3 kids and their kids etc to give you the time of day anymore. Further messages will be blocked if you don't stop stomping all over everyone and preaching your Extremist viewpoints.
MY REPLY
amy oconnor -----
I have too much Serious work to do to try and help save this planet for my 3 kids and their kids etc
Eric Koch -----
i have a feeling even the lowest of the middle class lifestyles will soon prove themselves to be excessive...call it the up rocketing population curve piecing the down turning oil curve, that may have nothing to do with carbon, but our coal power generation does. sorry,the American dream is the problem...you can't expect it to last.
Dr. Paul A. Curto -----
Cap and trade is a shell game that only the rich and powerful can win. It is not a sensible approach, only a gambling window in the house now used for derivatives and commodity futures, designed to double or triple the cost of energy from all sources and bankrupt the people of all nations.
david epps -----
amy you are the one with the extremist viewpoint to think that you can change a planet of 6.6B people
and
as Eric Koch of your same persuasion is predicting that the lowest of the middle class lifestyles will soon prove themselves to be excessive for your children
and
as Dr. Paul A. Curto of your same persuasion is predicting double or triple the cost of energy from all sources will bankrupt the people of all nations which includes your children.
and
as you say you voted for what I call this " Fascist" Administration to try and fix the last 8 yrs of financial free -for -all and 2 illegal conflicts started by Big Oil. So far the Administration has or is trying to nationalize the banking, automotive, health care and energy industries. The only team members that the administration has on the planet are Castro (Cuban Fascist), Chavez (Venezuelan Fascist), Malaya (ousted Honduran wanna-be Fascist) and you!
It seems the only way the Administration thinks he can save the planet is by taking full control every facet of you and your children's and your children's childrens lives and that is Fascism. It is OK if you do not want to be a part of that!
© 2013 Created by PickensPlan.
Powered by
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
You need to be a member of PP Members Energy Plan (PPMEP) an Alternative to Cap and Tax. to add comments!