Pickens Plan Update

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I am not so sure about NG anymore. It seems like every time I turn around there is someone on the news describing "what the explosion felt like". To sell NG you first have to get people to believe that there is ALOT of it. Then sell the idea that we can kick this NG can down the road for a very LONG time before it to becomes a problem as well. I am far more interested in permanent, sustainable policies that solve energy problems now. NG just seems like another set-up in the energy "shell game". Ooops, empty under that one, guy quickly swipes your dollar off the table :( .
 
I've been following the Pickens Plan as a casual observer for a while. Clearly he has deep domain knowledge in the oil industry, so he has street cred. Just a few observations. He does some things in talks which really annoys me. He talks about multiple concepts and metrics in such a way that the audience tends to conflate the information. For example, he talks about the 8 million trucks on the road, which is true. Then he'll say you can't run an 18 wheeler on electric, which today is also true. However, there are not 8 million tractor trailers on the road, which is the conclusion you may have jumped to, there are 2.3 million. So in reality, 5 million or so trucks could actually be powered by electric. EVI, for example, markets an electric medium duty truck today.

Second, Pickens saying the plan has been validated thriugh town hall meetings is nonsense. The average individual is simply not qualified to evaluate his proposal. Town halls may be great to promote the proposal, but not to provide any serious scientific or policy peer review.

Third, Pickens knows full well how the worldwide distribution of oil works. He wants to get rid of the 5 m BOPD from the middle east. He knows petroleum is a commodity and there are producers and consumers and it's like one massive punch bowl of oil. Producers worldwide pour oil in and consumers worldwide dip oil out. Big oil pours and dip to it's best financial advantage, because it costs to move and store oil. Did you know the U.S. exports oil? Yep, about 1.4 m BOPD. So why doesn't Pickens advocate hoarding that 1.4 m BOPD right now to reduce our middle east dependence by 28% over night? Because it's a commodity and it's cheaper for us to export as well as import to our best cost advantage. It's a commodity, it's not labeled "good oil" and "bad oil", it's just oil.

Fourth, I asked a fleet manager about CNG once. I don't know if he was correct, but I'll just share what he told me. So treat this as one data point. He said CNG has about 25% of the energy density of diesel. So for long haul trucking, it would require them to install a tank 4 times larger than the current tank in a tractor trailer. He said that would result in less cargo per load and so the economics didn't work.

Lastly, I thought Pickens was advocating wind energy. Has that been dropped?
 
He's in the right ball park - it's 3-4 times depending on the pressure at which the CNG is stored. (Perhaps the higher pressure to get to 3 times is not practical or safe to use for a vehicle.)
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afv_info.pdf

Pretty much. I guess he came to recognize that wind has its own set of problems.

indyflick said:
...

Fourth, I asked a fleet manager about CNG once. I don't know if he was correct, but I'll just share what he told me. So treat this as one data point. He said CNG has about 25% of the energy density of diesel. So for long haul trucking, it would require them to install a tank 4 times larger than the current tank in a tractor trailer. He said that would result in less cargo per load and so the economics didn't work.

Lastly, I thought Pickens was advocating wind energy. Has that been dropped?
 
Yodrak said:
He's in the right ball park - it's 3-4 times depending on the pressure at which the CNG is stored. (Perhaps the higher pressure to get to 3 times is not practical or safe to use for a vehicle.)
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afv_info.pdf

Pretty much. I guess he came to recognize that wind has its own set of problems
Great chart. Thanks for the pointer.
 
Yodrak said:
He's in the right ball park - it's 3-4 times depending on the pressure at which the CNG is stored. (Perhaps the higher pressure to get to 3 times is not practical or safe to use for a vehicle.)http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afv_info.pdf

Cng can be stored safely in tanks up to 5,000 psi in vehicles. However, the recommended pressure is 3600 psi. I used to get a fill close to 5K many times, but now with the different pumps, the highest has been around 4K.
 
leaffan said:
Yodrak said:
He's in the right ball park - it's 3-4 times depending on the pressure at which the CNG is stored. (Perhaps the higher pressure to get to 3 times is not practical or safe to use for a vehicle.)http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afv_info.pdf

Cng can be stored safely in tanks up to 5,000 psi in vehicles. However, the recommended pressure is 3600 psi. I used to get a fill close to 5K many times, but now with the different pumps, the highest has been around 4K.
Do you drive a CNG vehicle or is the CNG for some other application?
 
Yodrak said:
He's in the right ball park - it's 3-4 times depending on the pressure at which the CNG is stored.
I just remembered something else he said. Their thought was initially they would need even larger amounts of on-board CNG storage, until there was wider CNG distribution infrastructure. Once the infrastructure was in place they would remove the extra capacity and recover the cargo space.

You can imagine he wasn't a real big fan of the Pickens Plan, mostly due to the costs. He wanted government subsidies to cover his retro fit costs and the loss in revenue, due to the large tanks. If he could get some additional funding, he actually wanted to do a trial for a short period. They planned to preposition the CNG along specific routes.
 
sooooo... its pretty much a shell game and all the energy producers are in on it?!! Makes sense! Best solution; drive an EV charged by PV. Problem solved.
 
Xenalmorph said:
sooooo... its pretty much a shell game and all the energy producers are in on it?!! Makes sense! Best solution; drive an EV charged by PV. Problem solved.
+1 I think NREL did a good job on the Solar Tree design, for small commercial applications. Here's a PDF you can download on the Solar Tree. Every corporation in the U.S., or at least in the southwest U.S., ought to put in something like this for their employees to charge their EVs.
 
Wind is still very much in the mix - Pickens planted a lot of turbines in west Texas. He did cancel some of his last order a year ago, more or less, because Texas is way behind stringing the promised power lines from the west and from the Texas panhandle. (We can't get all the energy from west Texas wind farms now - new turbines would takes years to start making money.) The turbines were planted farther north instead.

He has a couple of large trucking companies on-board for the CNG 'highway'. A large fleet with regional fuel depots is a perfect candidate to move to CNG. One of the large companies I've consulted for runs Mexico to Canada. They have maintenance and fuel in their own facilities in El Paso, and up thru the middle of the country to Canada. The trucks don't need huge fuel tanks because the company can refuel on their own ground.

I agree that there's little point in converting every truck to CNG - and the Pickens Plan has never been about CONVERTING any vehicle - it's about REPLACING trucks thru attrition -- which has the added benefit of getting older, higher polluting trucks off the road.

Class-8 truck manufacturers are struggling to meet new emissions requirements - CNG makes that a home run. The NatGas act is supposed to have some off-set incentives to offset the initial purchase for end-users. The reduction is fuel costs and maintenance makes this a no-brainer for the large fleets that are the best fit for this type of program.

Andy
 
AndyH said:
He has a couple of large trucking companies on-board for the CNG 'highway'. A large fleet with regional fuel depots is a perfect candidate to move to CNG. One of the large companies I've consulted for runs Mexico to Canada. They have maintenance and fuel in their own facilities in El Paso, and up thru the middle of the country to Canada. The trucks don't need huge fuel tanks because the company can refuel on their own ground.
I'm confused, are they trucking long-haul from Canada to Mexico or a series of regionals over that area? The larger tanks apparently have to do with the mileage the truck is traveling rather than where it can fuel up. As I understand it, for long-haul to be competitive they need to go long distances between refuelings. For regional trucking, I'm more of a electric vehicle proponent.

AndyH said:
I agree that there's little point in converting every truck to CNG - and the Pickens Plan has never been about CONVERTING any vehicle - it's about REPLACING trucks thru attrition -- which has the added benefit of getting older, higher polluting trucks off the road.
I see, that's my misunderstanding of the plan. Thanks for the update.
 
AndyH, I would like your perspective of my fourth point a few posts back. It appears you in the middle of this plan and so your perspective would be very interesting to me. Thanks.
 
indyflick said:
AndyH said:
He has a couple of large trucking companies on-board for the CNG 'highway'. A large fleet with regional fuel depots is a perfect candidate to move to CNG. One of the large companies I've consulted for runs Mexico to Canada. They have maintenance and fuel in their own facilities in El Paso, and up thru the middle of the country to Canada. The trucks don't need huge fuel tanks because the company can refuel on their own ground.
I'm confused, are they trucking long-haul from Canada to Mexico or a series of regionals over that area? The larger tanks apparently have to do with the mileage the truck is traveling rather than where it can fuel up. As I understand it, for long-haul to be competitive they need to go long distances between refuelings. For regional trucking, I'm more of a electric vehicle proponent.

This is just one example company. Yes - long haul. They have depot in ElPaso, Dallas, somewhere in Missouri, and points north. The drivers don't stop at truck stops - they use company fuel border to border.

After buying a truck, the number one expense for a trucking company is fuel. According to this 2004 report, trucks that get 4.8mpg returned 4.3mpg equivalent on LNG. Considering LNG is ~$.50-$1.00 a gallon less expensive, that's a significant benefit for the company and/or owner-operator.

Plus it's a lot easier on engine oil - much cleaner burning means fewer contaminants, much lower quantities of abrasive soot in the oil, less engine wear, and longer drain intervals. A Cat C15 holds 11 gallons of engine oil...

indyflick said:
AndyH said:
I agree that there's little point in converting every truck to CNG - and the Pickens Plan has never been about CONVERTING any vehicle - it's about REPLACING trucks thru attrition -- which has the added benefit of getting older, higher polluting trucks off the road.
I see, that's my misunderstanding of the plan. Thanks for the update.
Glad to help!

http://www.peterbilt.com/eco/Design-LNG.htm
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/pge-adds-five-c.html
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/35427.pdf
 
From: T. Boone Pickens [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 11:37 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: We can dig ourselves out—if we act now.


From the desk of T. Boone Pickens

Army-

It's been an active week, to say the least. The 2010 midterm elections are all but finished, and tens of millions of Americans across the nation did their civic duty by voting.

People cast their votes based upon personal decisions - political ideology, certain policy issues and other matters that are important to their daily lives. According to the various exit polls and election experts, the strength of our nation's economy and national security were among the issues of greatest importance to America's voters.

That means our continued and growing reliance on foreign oil is at the top of the issues list - because it cuts across these two, and many other, issues that Americans are concerned about. Every day we spend $1 billion on imported oil - money that should be cycling through our economy is being sent to other economies and bankrolling many of this nation's enemies.

And the price of oil - and the money we spend to buy it - keeps climbing. This week oil prices hit a six-month high, rising to $85 per barrel, the highest price since May 3. Last December, I predicted $85 per barrel oil by the end of 2010 - we got there two months early.

We dug ourselves into this hole. And we can dig ourselves out - if we act now.

The day after the election, President Barack Obama talked about the need for our elected officials from both sides of the aisle to find common ground. The first such policy area he talked about was energy, in general, and natural gas, specifically. The president said:

"I don't think there's anybody in America who thinks that we've got an energy policy that works the way it needs to, that thinks that we shouldn't be working on energy independence. And that gives opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to come together and think about - you know, whether it's natural gas or energy efficiency or how we can build electric cars in this country - how do we move forward on that agenda."

He's absolutely right. Fortunately, many Members of Congress from both political parties have supported policies to get off OPEC oil and onto American resources like natural gas over the past two years. They've been cosponsors of the NAT GAS Act or integrated elements of its policies into other pieces of legislation. They know that our continued reliance on foreign oil presents a national and economic security issue for our nation and continue to work together to get this important legislative process over the finish line.

We can get this done this year if Congress finishes what it started when it returns later this month.

I have a saying that applies in this situation: The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time is today.

We can't turn back the clock. But we, supported by our elected officials, can start fixing the problem today. It can only happen if we have the strength and courage to act now - because we can't afford to wait any longer.

-Boone
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PICKENS ENCOURAGED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA’S CALL FOR A MORE SECURE AMERICAN ENERGY FUTURE

Dallas, TX - March 30, 2010 - T. Boone Pickens today released the following statement in response to remarks by President Obama at Georgetown University, where he outlined his plan for America's energy security:

"Today the President articulated the national security and economic threats associated with our escalating dependence on foreign oil. With the increasing price of gasoline, natural gas is an important domestic fuel at our disposal that can replace foreign oil to power heavy-duty fleet vehicles. Converting heavy-duty trucks and high-fuel use commercial fleet vehicles to natural gas can reduce our OPEC dependence now while we wait for technology to power the vehicles of tomorrow. It is clear President Obama is committed to weaning America off Middle Eastern oil, securing our own energy future and recognizes the role natural gas can play as a domestic transportation fuel. Recent unrest in the Middle East underscores the need to take action now and I'm encouraged by the President's promise to secure America's energy future and national security by reducing our dependence on OPEC oil."

The Pickens Plan to encourage more heavy duty fleet vehicles to run on domestic resources is included in the NAT GAS Act, which is being prepared for introduction next week in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman John Sullivan (R-OK), Congressman Dan Boren (D-OK), Congressman John Larson (D-CT) and Congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX). The pending legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support.
 
AndyH said:
.... because Texas is way behind stringing the promised power lines from the west and from the Texas panhandle. (We can't get all the energy from west Texas wind farms now - new turbines would takes years to start making money.)
Andy

Andy:

Do you know the status/plan for those new power lines? I spoke with friends near Denton who indicated the lines were supposed to run over their land. Do you know what the voltage will be? Are they planning for 10+ GW?


Reddy (and waiting for my Leaf in "Pending")
 
Reddy said:
AndyH said:
.... because Texas is way behind stringing the promised power lines from the west and from the Texas panhandle. (We can't get all the energy from west Texas wind farms now - new turbines would takes years to start making money.)
Andy

Andy:

Do you know the status/plan for those new power lines? I spoke with friends near Denton who indicated the lines were supposed to run over their land. Do you know what the voltage will be? Are they planning for 10+ GW?


Reddy (and waiting for my Leaf in "Pending")
Don't know Reddy. My in-laws are north of F'burg and they say the area electric co-ops are planning for towers and are installing substations. But there's been plenty of resistance...
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-e...ting-power-lines-protect-hill-country-vistas/

I don't have anything more recent, sorry.
 
Back
Top