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: 9
Latest Activity: Aug 21
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
Start a Discussion
Nobody has added any discussions yet! Add a discussion to get started.
Comment Wall
Comment
-
Comment by DubleDeuce on July 3, 2009 at 6:21pm -
Hey David, STOP posting others peoples conversations on the board as if they were part of the dialoge. They ARE NOT. But IF you must qoute a point, at least take the time to highlight or somehow differentiate THEIR input from YOUR input. I don't listen in on the party line and that is exactly what this is.
The Deuceman
-
Comment by david epps on July 3, 2009 at 1:36pm -
NEW TALKING POINTS
I think that Richard Barnard forget that only 51% of voting Americans need to be fools And you forget that 40M voting Americans are 18-29 year old idealistic, full of energy, brainwashed kids while 137M voting Americans are 30-64 year old complacent, ho hum, burned out adults.
I wish I shared your optimism. 50% of all these people are living on the government dole and most will be influenced by ACORN who received $4B in the stimulus. Then there is the above 64 aged who are being relentlessly barraged by national health care activist proponents again funded by the government. And the vast majority of the 30-64 year olds still think this is politics as usual, negative ads, mud slinging, and etc.
Also checkout the side bars at Focusonz.com
http://www.focusonz.com/wherewewere.htm
The best thing that OPEC could have done is disrupt US politics and take the attention off gasoline prices. Many of the thought police on the message boards visited by the 18-29 year olds during the last election cycle were not from this country. Cap and tax is not focused on energy nor on GHG but it is marketed as if it is and I am just dispelling another myth.
The NRA is the only real threat but they cannot carry the day alone.
Attend your local tea party.
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/?state=California
-
Comment by david epps on July 3, 2009 at 12:50pm
-
Richard Barnard has sent you a message on PickensPlan
Mr. Epps:
You have all the talking points down from fascism to the decline of America, etc. All politicians are aware of these talking points. All talk show host and media are aware of these talking points. You are talking to the choir. What’s your point in regurgitating them on the Pickens Plan? Cap and Trade will not pass in the Senate regardless of efforts made by Mr. Gore and others. Special interest will see to that. The current administrations agenda is destined to fail. Not all Americans are fools. Popularity has nothing to do with economics. Special interest and their constituents will dictate our energy independence.
OPEC is our enemy and FINALLY most are aware; i.e., economist, politicians, special interest, insiders, etc. It’s all about money and power and we are finally heading in the right direction. It’s all about manipulating or should I say tweaking the outcome. Can’t you see what’s happening? Can’t you see the fear finally happening with an awareness of the power OPEC? Energy independence is the only weapon against OPEC. Most western countries are now aware and change will happen. Nationalization in America will not happen except with the few exceptions already implemented. GM and Chrysler will never be profitable. GM will be building a peoples car for decades but that doesn’t mean America has failed as an Industrialized Nation. I have to comment on your comment about Mr. Pickens. He is an industrialist and all he has done was manipulate and tweak a little. That’s his job and he and other industrialist in America will keep our American dream alive and well. It’s called Capitalism and it won’t diminish in America. Keep the faith!! Thank God for our Constitution and our forefathers. No politician can change our forefather’s vision – our dream.
Richard Barnard
-
Comment by david epps on July 3, 2009 at 12:43pm
-
Eric Koch has sent you a message on PickensPlan
I'm not saying your wrong David,
Your view of the situation, from where you sit, is likely very accurate.... from the chair i'm sitting in ( not rich and powerful)...quite the opposite...the little i have is invested in producing a HOME for myself ,never owned one of those before, as well as for others...that will allow a carbon a neutral existence.
i have a felling 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..and if it doesn't stop we are going to turn into coal...
sorry,the american dream is the problem...you can't expect it to last.
MY REPLY
What gives you that feeling. Have the fear mongers finally beat you down to the point that you have no hope? Try these changes on for size.
'40 a day could die by end of summer 2009 in London'...
Hong Kong finds 1st case of H1N1 resistant to Tamiflu...
Flu epidemic 1918 killed 50 million people.
Rising sea levels and temperate zone bread baskets shifting toward the poles due to a CO2 in 2050 to 2100 is trivial in comparison.
My chair is nearly identical to you I am not rich and powerful any more ( the politicians stole my wealth) I too am building a carbon neutral home I am building it by hand. All you see in picture below is free except glass and corrugated steel (shingle as shown). The pine logs are those damaged in the February's record ice storm
Of course my land does not have a backdrop of rocky mountains just in earth contact.with forested Ozark hills.
-
Comment by david epps on July 3, 2009 at 12:42pm
-
The tone of burbank's is now starting to enter into the lexicon of the left.
"We won! It is our turn now so all you righties need to shut up."
Wah, Wah, Wah!
Well the lefties (marxists) only won by brain washing the 18 to 29 year old kids on the internet message boards. Does this suggest some relationship building is needed on the the part of parents?
The political scientists have come up with a cap and tax bill which proves them and that oxymoronic. If the dems would abide by the rule of KISS (keep it simple stupid) everybody could get what they want, gas in our cars and less CO2 in the air but oh no they have to come up with some science of economics. I wonder if they have taken the time to actually computer model the 13000 page cap and tax bill so they could clearly see how the CO2 is going to be eliminated at a paltry cost of a postage stamp per day.per person. Well it can't be done and I don't need a calculator to know that.
You have got to ask yourself then just what are they doing? The answer to that question is below and I am sure more answers to come above.
Comment by Dr. Paul A. Curto on June 28, 2009 at 10:00am
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. The outrage is that environmentalists and alternative energy groups have been suckered in to support the game being set up and secretly promulgated by Big Carbon and its minions.
-
Comment by david epps on July 3, 2009 at 5:17am
-
dan burbank has sent you a message on PickensPlan
I guess you could sit down and make similar arguments about the right wing of the country. Now I could be wrong, but I thought we were trying to solve the energy problem here and not degenerate into partisan politics. It is a damn shame we made it though the elections with very little of this tripe. Now that the "other side" won, Mr. Epps has decided to rip apart the collation in the name of a bad taste in his mouth. What has happened to this place that this is being tolerated? I thought we worked hard at not allowing this stuff. When the left was standing and decrying the bush administration, we all stopped them. When the right started in, we all stopped them. I am calling on all of you to stop this stupid blather and get back on message. Have we lost our perspective by getting drunk on cheap oil again?
-
Comment by david epps on July 3, 2009 at 5:02am
-
DubleDeuce you are so right
"This ie the ONE piece of modern equipment that has been hammered into a purely democratic tool for the masses. It is the ONE part of the equation that lets us ALL be individuals. They (dem Dems) can't get rid of it. God knows they have tried. They have, from as far back as 1962.."
The dead cat links
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therm
assume ICE efficiency about the same gasoline vs CNG
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/specifications.aspx
confirmed the cat is dead
http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.asp
NG is clean SO2 and NOx way down from coal and gasoline
NG helps the grass grow a lot.
Pelosi might consider short selling her TBP's NG interests.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12764.html
Motor heads love PP GHG paranoids and dem Dems (marxists) don't
-
Comment by DubleDeuce on July 2, 2009 at 9:07pm
-
<<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.>>
Hey David, you throw number around like my Lab throws a dead cat in the yard. Where did you get THIS calculation?
The Deuceman
-
Comment by DubleDeuce on July 2, 2009 at 8:53pm
-
I appreciate your starting this group David. I for one am NOT predisposed to getting active in a LOT of different controversies. I like to pick my fights carefully. This Cap and Trade bill is one of those "Over the Top" stupid beauracratic concoctions that makes NO SENSE to anyone. WHY should we give it (the bill) ANY of our time?
Unfortunately, the West Coast lefties and the Eastern elitist are JUST dumb enough to plunge us into this abyss so... I better find a spare rampart and man the wall. Here I am.
Let me start by saying WHY the sponsorship of this bill is dangerous. They are dangerous because of their LONG term advocacy of wanting to get rid of the ICE engine. This ie the ONE piece of modern equipment that has been hammered into a purely democratic tool for the masses. It is the ONE part of the equation that lets us ALL be individuals. They (dem Dems) can't get rid of it. God knows they have tried. They have, from as far back as 1962, attempted to put strangulation hold type legislation on this product and have failed miserably.
In 1962, California (the incubator of the loony left) cried foul when they noticed that the ICE had an open plenum crankcase draft tube to "vent" the unburned combustion gases from the crankcase of an engine. This was an abomination they said. Get RID of the fumes or GET RID of the engine. the think THAN was that this problem could NOT easily be overcome and that IF it where to be overcome, the price of the new technology would render it prohibitive and a lesser number of cars would be on the road. WRONG!
The technology to cure this problem was a simple hose and valve arrangement we now call a PVC system, or Positive Crankcase Ventilation system. Works Great, Less Filling (in the crankcase of course)
THAN, in 1967, they came up with the new EPA rules that have dominion over the automobile tailpipe emissions. They stepped gingerly into this arena at first and all we had were "limiter blocks" on the carb adjusting screws. But it was not too long before their incessant clamoring on NOx and Hydrocarbon emissions brought us lower compression ratios (a hallmark of the engineer for getting efficient power out of an engine) catalytic converters, (and the requisite unleaded gas) and more automobile expense, both upfront AND in maintenance.
THAN, after several years of rest, the bueauracrats came back at us with even MORE stringent hydrocarbon emission standards. There SEEMS to be no way to ameliorate this demand. The engine engineers fought this over and over again, NOT on political grounds, but on technical grounds. The left THOUGHT for a while that they had finally WON the battle against the insidious little engine that gave power to the people in large and efficient quantities. BUT, technology came through again in the form of an obscure little invention called the O2 sensor, or the oxygen sensor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_sensor
This devise gave the engineers the needed tool to "computerize" the ICE. Again, high and unobtainable emissions standards were met through the haze of technology. To day the automobile is 98.5% CLEANER that it was in 1970. THAT is an astounding achievement in and of itself. But it is NOT enough for the lefties.
Today they modis operandi is to attack the mileage efficiency of the ICE. Here, there is not much technology can do as the basic computation is that "ass moves mass" and it takes energy (fuel) to move mass.
The issue though is no longer on the table about the viability of the ICE. THAT is their target. And as such, they are not going to be content to sit around and dream up impossible economy and emission numbers as their means of destroying this product. Nothing but a wooden stake THROUGH THE HEART of the ICE is good enough for them now.
SOO. The conversation naturally turns to the one certain way to kill this engine. Attach it at its Achilles heel, its' inefficiency. BUT, technology has an answer in the background just WAITNIG for an opportunity to show its head. It is called Carbon Fiber Technology. This COULD be the element that causes the ICE to be a part of out continued "personal propulsion" (GAWD, how they hate that connotation) into the teens and twenties.
But, the lefty loonies have already got this technology angle checked. It is called a Tax on Carbon Production.
Once the Tax is on the books for coal it will not be too far off (the Supreme Court has already DIRECTED that the administration-thought the EPA-has legal jurisdiction over the green house gas carbon dioxide) before they will tax the carbon output of the conventional gasoline powered ICE.
But WAIT. We (technology) have a solution to all of this carbon spewing. We have natural gas. Yep. NG is DEMONSTRABLY cleaner in the carbon dioxide department by a WHOPPING 80%. So, IF the issue is CLEANNER AIR, why not go to natural gas? Simple folks. The ISSUE AIN'T a matter of CLEANER. The issue is the destruction if the ICE engine.
One of the things that is holding off the barbarians at the gate on this issue is the price of technology. I LOVE the skewered comment "If we can send a man to the moon...why..." put in your own pet peeve.
The fact is YOU DON"T WANT A PROJECT equivalent to going to the moon....but you are about to get a project that will COST the equivalent of going to the moon. You just ain't gonna be able to reach down and scoop up some moon dust.
And for WHAT? What value accrues to us when all of this cap and trade comes into being. Well, for one thing, the cost of dying is going to look pretty cheap in comparison to the cost of living-or should I say the cost of EXISTING. You see, NO ONE has the magic bullet to make us energy independent. ONLY through a combination of the private sector and the public consumer, will available energy policy/commodity be ACCOMPLISHED. Whether that commodity is a singular one or multiple ones is NOT the subject of this group OR this forum. The issue is FAR too complex for such simplicity. But what IS known is THIS, without a plan, a direction, a goal, the US government is a dangerous entity when it holds the power (thought Cap and trade) to collect money and distribute it via fiat (I HOPE they don't get into this crap) We will ALL loose because the selection process will NOT be based on need, merit, or efficiency, but on graft and special interests. Look at the ethanol fiasco. We have SEEN the devil in this product and STILL not one congressman has moved to negate the legislation that makes this crap possible. WHAT industry bearing WHAT promise will come forth on the teat of the US government to provide us with the energy we as a country MUST have in order to be who we are?
OR! Maybe that is part of the deal we will make with the devil, our national soul in exchange for an energy supply. It COULD happen. Obama has already set the stage for our downfall by going around to all of the nations and begging their forgiveness. He BOWS at the feet of the King of Saudi Arabia and he insults the Prime Minister with a CD collection of his speeches that the poor British cannot play on their CD players. AND he insults the Queen with the same thing. (I better warn him, he F**KS with the queen too much, he'll be sleeping out in the shed with the horses of the Queens Royal Mounted Patrol)
So, NOW you have the reason for all of this political puffery by the left Think I am WRONG? Think about it. Never is there EVER a compromise with these people. It is THEIR way or the highway. Well, I too am of that same policy. Only one can be left standing at the end of the day.
The Deuceman
-
Comment by david epps on July 2, 2009 at 5:35pm
-
WALTER REED has sent you a message on PickensPlan
'Joined. The Cap & Trade is just another moronic act of an out-of-control government. To cap it off, we are entering a 20-30 year cooling period of our earth! This has even been acknowledged officially by the EPA! Yes, the Sun's solar flares have finally calmed down, as now will be our solar system - including earth. In fact, many of these scientist are now suggesting that at the end of this upcoming cooling cycle, that we may be on the doorstep of a mini-ice age; a far more onerous prospect for our grandchilden. CO2 is basic to our atmosphere and is plant food. Also, has anyone paid attention to the rash of volcanoes popping their cork over the past 20 years? The numbers are huge - can also see a Space Lab view of a very recent one on a Russian Island exampling the mega-tons of CO2 and far more serious pollutants.
The answer is to fire Congress; the whole lot, both D&R at the upcoming Congressional Elections. This will be the only way that 'We the People" will ever be heard by the corrupted 'Belt-Way Boys in DC. We need to clean up pollution, but Cap & Trade is no way to do it! First, our country must be 'energy independent' which will be a blend of cleaned up fossil fuels with an aggressive movement toward all green energies. Of the 99 Trillion Dollars of unfunded dept that we now face, not a .0001 % is being spent on new inventions, manufacturing capacity, greener energy or product development; just fire Congress - the whole lot.
Walter
Featured Discussion
Twitter Feed
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
You need to be a member of PP Members Energy Plan (PPMEP) an Alternative to Cap and Tax. to add comments!