Not necessarily a new plan, but proposed in a way that makes more sense.

I suggested a number of years ago something similar, just not tied to wind power...

NYC taxi cabs... WHY can't they be CNG?? Busses... City vehicles. Why not NG?? Any other "fleet" type vehicle, including an option for rental cars that don't plan on using a full tank of gas... Limited new infrastructure required because there is generally a central feuling station. Also (IMO) truckers... and not just fed ex... but long haul truckers. Put a solar panel on their roofs tied to a bank of batteries in the floor to run their AC and tv as they sleep at night (or their ng generator).

We generate something like 30 or 40% of our own gasoline. If we didn't use it for anything but existing cars, we wouldn't need to import so much (or any) from all these crazy countries... especially if we also import /grow sugar ethanol and blow off this corn lunacy. Importing sugar ethanol isn't as big a deal as importing oil... LOTS of countries (including our own) can grow more sugar/switch grass/whatever. You can't grow oil.

This would obviously create an excess demand for NG and run THAT price up for gas, and thus electricity, but it can be countered by wind as T Boone suggests... or all these other sources we keep talking about.... solar, geothermal etc. etc.


We need to stop trying to solve ALL of our issues at once, and simply start solving issues. As we do, I'm convinced we'll find that we can better solve all those issues that seem so daunting now.

As I understand it, the technology to convert gas engines to cng is available and relatively affordable.

what is "CNG"?

Compressed Natural Gas - i.e. propane

My father ran his farm tractors on LNG in the 1960s. There are all sorts of technologies lying around that could be used.

The problem that people don't seem to understand is the sheer scale of the numbers. It's going to require technologies that not only work, but can be reproduced in massive quantities, to make a dent in the problem. Getting from "this works in the lab" to "we can make 150 million gallons a day of it" is a much more daunting process than many realize.

Let's just convert everything to biofuels. All well and good, except that some bio-something somewhere has to be produced in sufficient quantities to provide an adequate fuel supply. As we've seen with a minimal effort to convert to corn ethanol, we've distorted the world food market enormously. At the same time, we've come pretty close to exhausting our capacity to produce corn for ethanol purposes, unless we're willing either to denude our forests or give up producing much of anything else. The situation gets a bit better with sugar cane, which is far more efficient than corn for making ethanol, and if we open up to supplies from the Caribbean Basin, we can actually provide enough ethanol to make a difference.

In the short run we have to do the most we can with existing technologies. This means import sugar cane/ethanol, drill here/drill now (although I woudl exclude ANWR for now), develop oil shale, cover 30,000 square miles of the western desert with solar panels, put a windmill everywhere there is wind, build 50 new nuke plants, use every other alternative to the maximum extent that we can, and send pricing signals to favor conservation wherever possible.

In the long run, we need technology solutions--alternative fuels (but instead of picking one now, send market signals to the private sector to spur active development of all of them), better nuke disposal technology (this may require nothing more than repealing Carter's ban on remanufacturing, something that we are just about the only country to have, or recombining waste materials with inert matter and putting it back in the mines it came out of), better coal liquifaction/gasification technology (getting rid of CO2 is major issue), converting natural gas to gasoline as Pickens suggests, etc.

Hambone10 Wrote:Compressed Natural Gas - i.e. propane

CNG isn't propane. It's methane. If you want to be correct about it, CNG, propane, butane, etc. are all LPG (liquefied petroleum gas).

Methane is produced by plants, so it's not necessarily a fossil fuel, but it can be drilled for underground.

perunapower Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:Compressed Natural Gas - i.e. propane

CNG isn't propane. It's methane. If you want to be correct about it, CNG, propane, butane, etc. are all LPG (liquefied petroleum gas).

Methane is produced by plants, so it's not necessarily a fossil fuel, but it can be drilled for underground.

Isn't it also produced by farts?

Gore's nutty idea

Quote:This would of course require utilities to mothball hundreds of existing power plants as they launched a crash construction program of solar plants, wind farms and transmission lines costing hundreds of billions and perhaps trillions of dollars. (To put this in perspective, T. Boone Pickens, another fellow who's caught the wind-power bug, claims on his Web site, "Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20 percent of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.")

This is a cheaper alternative to increasing US production of Natural Gas and Crude Oil through drilling in Anwar and Off Shore?

Quote:Gore would subject 300 million people to an experiment in which baseload power that is needed 24 hours a day to keep the economy - and our livelihoods - humming is replaced willy nilly by power sources still susceptible to natural disruption (such as lack of wind or lingering cloud cover), that cost more (at least in the case of solar) and are far less plentiful in some regions than others

Sorry T. Boone, I think you've found a new niche to make BILLIONS off of... National hysteria over Global Warming.

perunapower Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:Compressed Natural Gas - i.e. propane

CNG isn't propane. It's methane. If you want to be correct about it, CNG, propane, butane, etc. are all LPG (liquefied petroleum gas).

Methane is produced by plants, so it's not necessarily a fossil fuel, but it can be drilled for underground.

While you are correct, I was actually trying to make the point that compressed natural gas as fuel can be a number of things, and most people are familiar with propane tanks for their gas grills... it IS a compressed gas, which is what I understand causes it to liquify. I was using CNG as the "generic" term for fuel that is a natural gas, not a byproduct of some form of oil.

69/70... I wasn't trying to pick one... (not saying you accused me of that)... but rather than simply say, we need more LNG or Hybrid cars... I was proposing we pick an industry/segment of the economy that consumes a significant amount of fuel and provide targeted incentives.

In my mind... relatively easy alternatives for gasoline:

not saying this will SOLVE the problems... just that it will make a dent and start a trend... once the trend is started, it will be easier to continue.

-Require all new cars to be, and establish guidelines to convert existing car engines to run on flex-fuels and mixes. I haven't completely thought this through, but rather than have the government simply pay for the conversion of those who can't afford it, I'd have the government pay for those who use the most. I mean, a car with only 2 years of usable life left that only drives 5,000 miles a year isn't really worth converting, is it?? At leaast not as much as the new Lincoln that drived 60,000 miles a year. Keep things "fair" by requiring pricing by the amount of energy produced... i.e. if pure gasoline = 100% and E-85 is 90%, then E-85 MUST be 10% cheaper... The number of gas stations would keep the general prices fair, and this way, you are paying for "power", rather than for a gallon of fuel which may or may not be as efficient as a different gallon of fuel.

-make and/or import sugar ethanol and other efficient bio-fuels.

-convert fleet vehicles, maybe even things like trains to other readily available fuels like natural Gas that simply lack efficient delivery infrastucture to be used by the general public. These generally use centralized fueling stations, and wouldn't require as much transportation and infrastructure.

Not as easy, but do-able:

- Convert electrical generating plants to run off of something other than automobile and fleet fuels... i.e. no more or at least fewer gas/oil turbines.... This is done by using wind/solar/nuclear/oil shale/coal whatever can create energy, but doesn't easily convert to something that can move cars and trucks.

The thing about technology is that it is generally easier to make something work than it is to make it work and portable. portability usually comes with time, and with the actual USE of the inefficient early products. Did we set out to build a laptop computer, or did we start with one the size of a house, and then find more efficient ways to produce the same capabilities over time?? Rather than try and create efficient electric cars and batteries TODAY... As an example... Why don't we use the relatively inefficient solar and battery technology we already have to generate electricity to add to the power grid TODAY... at least in part easing the demand created by converting trucks and trains to LNG... and work on making it practical as a "fuel" for transportation later. Make large processing plants for more difficult fuels, and because the production is centralized... make its use centralized... like creating electricity.

BTW... I am not an expert in what converts easily to automotive fuels as opposed to what doesn't, so I am not trying to put things in order...

T Boone has good ideas, but let's don't forget where he's coming from.

He has huge investments in wind farms and in wells that produce a lot of natural gas. One thousand cubic feet of natural gas has about 1/6 the energy content of one barrel of oil, so at least in theory natural gas prices should be about 1/6 of oil prices. If oil is at $120, then natural gas should theoretically be $20. Actually, it's around $10. Increasing demand for natural gas would drive that price up and make T Boone a wealthier man. Increasing demand for wind-generated electricity makes T Boone a wealthier man.

That's not to discount his ideas. They are good ones. They are not, by themselves, enough to solve the problem, but they are helpful parts of the mix. The fact that he might make a profit on them is no reason to reject them. Plenty of people profited off the space program, and it put a man on the moon (several, actually).

Rebel Wrote:

perunapower Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:Compressed Natural Gas - i.e. propane

CNG isn't propane. It's methane. If you want to be correct about it, CNG, propane, butane, etc. are all LPG (liquefied petroleum gas).

Methane is produced by plants, so it's not necessarily a fossil fuel, but it can be drilled for underground.

Isn't it also produced by farts?

Don't go there. That's an old Army Barracks trick. A few wound up in sick bay or whatever you call it. Real bad case of the "Red AZZ" ! !

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:T Boone has good ideas, but let's don't forget where he's coming from.

He has huge investments in wind farms and in wells that produce a lot of natural gas. One thousand cubic feet of natural gas has about 1/6 the energy content of one barrel of oil, so at least in theory natural gas prices should be about 1/6 of oil prices. If oil is at $120, then natural gas should theoretically be $20. Actually, it's around $10. Increasing demand for natural gas would drive that price up and make T Boone a wealthier man. Increasing demand for wind-generated electricity makes T Boone a wealthier man.

That's not to discount his ideas. They are good ones. They are not, by themselves, enough to solve the problem, but they are helpful parts of the mix. The fact that he might make a profit on them is no reason to reject them. Plenty of people profited off the space program, and it put a man on the moon (several, actually).

Good stuff. Utilities have been running their fleets for YEARS on CNG. Bottle Gas companies run their fleets on LPG (Propane) . Both work pretty well. LNG is powerful stuff in liquid form. That will be available for years from overseas. The biggest bang for the buck is still petroleum products, as stated previously.

A combo deal will do well for us ... in the future ... out there... but not now. WE NEED TO DRILL IT, REFINE IT, AND HAVE IT BE OUR OWN AND WE NEED IT NOW.

Stay on the pathetics in DC to make it happen. If the obstructionists (Democrats/Environuts) are not hung out to dry on this, the entire country deserves what they get. HIGHER AND HIGHER GASOLINE AND FUEL OIL PRICES.

NEXT ! !

Quick - E85 is 85% Ethanol, M85 is 85% Methanol, with the remainder being gas.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:T Boone has good ideas, but let's don't forget where he's coming from.

He has huge investments in wind farms and in wells that produce a lot of natural gas. Increasing demand for wind-generated electricity makes T Boone a wealthier man.

Bingo - Cato's criticism of him is that he's advocating public funding for a scheme that uses wind power to free up natural gas to a new market in personal transportation, benefiting him on both ends.

I don't like the plan because of the infrastructure costs and vehicle modifications that tie them into CNG. I'd rather leverage existing infrastructure by converting gas and/or coal to Methanol (at a cost of 45-50 cents per gallon), and go the flex-fuel conversion route.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_...b_id=17451

Quote:How U.S. can Solve the Energy Crisis

By Steve Huntley

Chicago Sun-Times
June 27, 3008
Web site: http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/102...27.article

Today's political debate over energy is, to put it mildly, uninspiring. Republicans want to drill for more oil in environmentally sensitive places such as the oceans or the Arctic, only underscoring our reliance on a fuel of which we have limited reserves. Democrats, believing the world is divided into villains and victims, seek to penalize U.S. oil companies with a "windfall profits tax" and scapegoat free markets by saying speculators drive up gas prices, ignoring the realities of supply and demand in the energy-gulping economies of China and India.

New ideas are few and far between from the political class. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, stands out by proposing the government establish a $300 million prize for the development of a break-through battery to revolutionize hybrid-vehicle technology.

I and others have written the country needs a Manhattan Project to free us from a dependence on overseas oil that only enriches countries that wish us ill, like Iran and Venezuela, and funds hostile ideologies such as fanatical Islamism. In short, energy is a national security issue requiring government intervention in the economy of the type that conservatives like me normally don't like.

The Manhattan Project was the World War II effort to produce an atom bomb before the Nazis could. Another example was the 1960s program to put a man on the moon before the Soviet Union could.

These required new technologies, and my thinking on energy tended to focus on finding new technologies. Others with better minds have come up with a Manhattan Project for energy that requires no scientific breakthroughs and uses current infrastructure. Those are the guiding principles of "A Blueprint for U.S. Energy Security" from Set America Free. It's a coalition of individuals and organizations across the political spectrum ranging from social conservatives to environmentalists, or, as one of them puts it -- "tree huggers, do-gooders, sodbusters, cheap hawks and evangelicals."

Its four-year blueprint calls for the government to spend:

• • $2 billion to pay half the cost for automakers to make 40 million cars flexible-fuel capable, meaning they can burn alcohol, gasoline or any combination of the two. It costs $100 per vehicle to do this.

• • $1 billion to place alcohol fuel pumps in at least a quarter of the nation's gas stations.

• • $2 billion in tax breaks for consumers who buy hybrid autos.

• • $4 billion for loan guarantees to help automakers develop for the marketplace fuel-cell battery technology and plug-in hybrid vehicles. The coalition says a combination flex-fuel/plug-in hybrid electric car running on an 80 percent alcohol, 20 percent gasoline fuel could get up to 500 miles per gallon of gas. Since plug-ins can be recharged overnight when electricity use is down, current power plants could support up to 30 percent of U.S. cars being plug-in hybrids.

• • $3 billion for public-private cost-sharing projects to build 25 commercial-scale demonstration plants to make non oil-based liquid fuels. It notes America has hundreds of years in supplies of coal, and a Department of Energy project showed "clean coal" technology can produce methanol alcohol for less than 50 cents a gallon.

That comes to $12 billion -- compared with the $20 billion in today's dollars spent on the original Manhattan Project and $100 billion on the Apollo moon program. Set America Free asserts that switching American drivers to hybrid autos by 2025 could reduce oil imports by 8 million to as much as 12 million barrels a day. Currently, the United States imports 11.6 million barrels a day, and that's projected to reach almost 20 million by 2025.

Transforming what Americans drive in 17 years sounds like a tall order. Yet, the surge in popularity of SUVs began about that long ago. Set America Free's blueprint is limited, short-term government intervention to push the marketplace toward energy security. It merits a look from our political class.

http://www.setamericafree.org/blueprint.pdf

edit: if you assume that distribution, etc makes methanol $1.00 per gallon, M85 would run about $1.45/gallon.

Agreed I45, but I WOULD support the idea of increasing the overall supply of "gasoline" by producing ethanol and/or methanol... By reducing the demand for gasoline by converting static engines (like pumps) to electricity (or something else not suited for transportation like geothermal), and those engines that only need a single common refueling spot (like busses or cabs or construction or farm vehicles or perhaps BIG trucks) to a fuel other than gasoline (like natural gas) and then use nuclear, solar, wind or whatever other source of power is available for electric generation... but unrealistic for transportation.

We're not talking about increasing overall demand. We're talking about reducing our dependance on sources of fuel that have limited competition... like oil.

I don't think its realistic to install 40,000 LNG pumps across the country... but I don't think it would take much infrastructure to convert existing gas pumps to pump m/ethanol... or to convert engines to run them.

MOST of the things I've read suggest that e50 or even e60 can be run in just about any car produced this century without modification. If we simply said that ALL gasoline will now be e50 (as opposed to the current e15 or 20, and assuming we had that much available) we would make a significant reduction in the overall demand for petro based gasoline.

Why does it have to be e85 "today"?? Let's offer E50 instead of 89 octane gasoline.