-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The other day I called a friend but she didn't answer the phone. She returned my call a few days later and I said "Aw man, you shined me!" She said "Shine?? What does that mean?" In Fitzman vernacular "to shine" means to ignore, blow-off, or "diss". Which is exactly what Obama did when he delivered his first major policy speech on energy since becoming our Commander-in-Chief: Obama "shined" natural gas. There was not a mention, not even a mere peep about natural gas powered transportation in the new President's energy policy speech. Nada. A complete and total "shine".
Obama did say it's not going to be business as usual with respect to foreign oil imports. We're going to become energy independent he told us, and there's a new sheriff in town! Now don't get me wrong, anyone who has read my energy policy knows I am a big fan of wind, solar, and all oil alternative energy sources. Like Obama, my plan also supports building out the electric grid and my policy (please read it as your constructive feedback is always welcome) goes so far as to say the government should declare transmission lines a matter of national security such that they can declare eminent domain in order to build them efficiently and quickly. We're gonna need 'em! Obviously I too, like Obama, am in favor of higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. I would go so far as to say Congress has been criminally negligent not to have passed higher CAFE standards years ago, including the Clinton years (see, I can criticize Presidents other than Bush). You see, the US really does fund both sides of the so-called "war on terror".
However, if Obama was really serious about cutting US foreign imports, he would have at least mentioned the quickest, most cost effective, technologically feasible path to doing so: US produced natural gas powered cars and trucks. That is, the US producing both the natural gas, and the vehicles.
For instance, an energy policy that would have sent the message to Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, Iraq and Iran that the US was actually going to DO something about all the money that we currently send to them for oil would have been as follows:
- Mandate the US auto companies receiving taxpayer money make the natural gas cars and trucks they sell overseas available here in the US.
- Mandate the US auto companies make available natural gas conversion kits available for their biggest selling cars and trucks on the road today.
- Mandate the US auto companies each make a natural gas refueling appliance for the home garage.
- Begin a program of building out a natural gas refueling infrastructure on the nation's interstate highway system.
- Begin a project to partner with private oil companies to build a trans-Canadian natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower-48.
Now THAT is an energy policy that could potentially reduce US oil imports by 2-4 million barrels a day within 5 years! That is an energy policy that will create meaningful good paying jobs in the construction, automotive, energy, compressor, mechanical, and steel industries. That is an energy policy that would build an energy infrastructure that would pay back dividends for the next 50 years! That is an energy policy that is economically, technically, and environmentally sound. That is an energy policy that keeps American dollars buying US produced natural gas instead of going overseas to unfriendly governments and terrorists who are very glad for the funding. That is an energy policy that *achieves* something in a short time frame that will actually help the funk the US is in today and will protect us from the high oil price economic yo-yo that we are destined to ride unless we take control of the situation!
Don't believe me? Ask the good folks out in Utah. That state "gets it". It has built out natural gas refueling stations. It has many shops that convert gasoline powered cars and trucks to run on natural gas. It encourages natural gas transportation in Utah. Need more proof? Here's a document that lists its refueling stations, and it has plans to construct more, and more interesting reading about Questar Gas's efforts in NGV refueling.
Is it the Mormon ethic of survival planning? I dunno. But, ya gotta give Utah credit when credit is due! Why isn't the rest of the US on track with this common sense effort to reduce our foreign oil import bill? It quite simply amazes me. I was hoping that Obama would show some leadership here! He did not. He "shined" natural gas powered transportation completely in his speech. It's just more of the same. Not sure why T. Boone Pickens was sending out encouraging emails to the Pickens army about his meetings with Obama. I don't see it. Very disappointing speech. Meanwhile, Iran is converting all its cars and trucks to natural gas so it can sell more oil to the US. Wonderful.
Meanwhile American citizens who would like to jump on the NGV band wagon are stuck with only one NGV available in the US today, the Honda Civic GX. However, this car is not sold in my state and probably not in yours either. Even if you could purchase a Honda Civic GX, you'd have a lot of trouble driving across the country on your summer vacation due to lack of convenient and even inconvenient natural gas refueling stations.
Making matters worse for the NGV enthusiast, if you can buy a Honda Civic GX, you're stuck with a single source manufacturer (FuelMaker) for the garage natural gas refueling appliance, which they call the "Phill." The Phill will set you back about $4k to install. Imagine what a little competition by the "big" 3 could do to reduce that price. Please read my earlier Seeking Alpha articles which go into more detail on NGV economics and tradeoffs.
It seems to me before we spend billions of taxpayer money building more roads and bridges and such we had first better damn well understand what is going to power the cars and trucks that will ride over them (duh). Will it be yet more foreign oil or will it be US produced natural gas? Will it be cars and trucks powered by electric batteries made in the US or will we be trading our foreign oil addiction for foreign battery addiction? We better take the big picture view, be realistic about the time horizons for both the alternative energy and vehicle availability, and make prudent decisions now. My back of the envelope calculations tell me that even if we have electric vehicles today, we simply don't have the solar and wind to power them. So what does that mean? More coal will be burned to power our "clean" cars. We're heading toward the falls without a paddle folks.
Why doesn't someone contact the Fitzman and offer him a job in the Obama administration? They apparently need my help. Some of you will say, but hey, Fitzman, we're not stupid - we know you own COP and they are the biggest (2nd biggest?) US producer of natural gas. Well, you may have a point. On the other hand, it might be possible that I am also a patriotic American and I want to see my country and my countrymen prosper. It might be that I'd like to see Americans stop sending their fuel money overseas. It might be that I am tired of funding terrorists and unfriendly countries.
It might be that I am tired of US equity markets that have been negative (and badly so) over the past 10 years.
Why isn't everyone else tired of these things? Are Americans' memories so short term they cannot remember $145/barrel oil a mere 6 months ago? Even as we're stuck in a deep deep recession, aren't people ready for a change in our oil-centric energy policy? We'll be forced to change soon enough for the 1000 lb gorilla that is worldwide oil supply is simply not going to keep pace with worldwide oil demand (present economic slump excluded).
The big question is this: will the US have transportation solutions and infrastructure in place soon enough to protect our economy, our way of life (you could joke that we shouldn't protect that), and our national security from the next (and potentially last) oil super-spike? At the rate we are going, and given Obama's speech, that answer is an astounding "NO". Natural gas powered transportation must be a centerpiece of American energy policy going forward for the next 50 years. We have waited so long to address our foreign oil addiction, I don't see any other alternative.
Meanwhile, assuming the world economy someday gets back to normal (hard to define "normal" when the so-called "capitalistic" US economy has seen its banking, insurance, mortgage, and financial industries nationalized over the past 12 months), I'd have to agree with this week's Barron's magazine that "big oil" is a screaming buy. BP is yielding around 8%! The only worry I have with BP is the rumour swirling of BP taking over CHK. That said, look at BP's takeover of US energy assets - remember Atlantic Richfield? Amoco? BP knows what it is doing. Exxon (XOM) is sitting on mountains of cash and you just know it will pick up some choice assets on the cheap as we work our way out of this morass. StatOil (STO), ConocoPhilips, Total (TOT) - they are all very inexpensive these days and pay good dividends while you wait out the deflationary patch we're going through. And, we will work our way out. That is, the Federal Reserve and US Treasury will be successful in reflating the economy back to life.
I hear the market in "ink" is very bullish these days and also a good investment. And so it is with gold bullion as well. Now that is something I advise everyone to shine (in the traditional sense of the word).
Disclosure: The author owns all the energy stocks in this article (stocks or funds that own the stocks).
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 63 comments:
downright mysterious that not only are these ideas not ALREADY being implemented, but nobody nowhere seems to present any reasons at all NOT to.
almost enough to make me want to believe in conspiracies. but how do they even KNOW i own UNG??? :^)
with perhaps a $7 trillion infrastructure already built to service this type of energy, how are we going to be able to dump all of those and move to alternatives as quickly as the eco-crazies are demanding?
and from what i understand:
wind? not available everywhere in amounts enough to supply power.
solar? very expensive; and the metals it demands are rare and toxic.
natural gas? will require a huge new infrastructure to change over and the crazies hate it, too.
obama must try to please the crazies, who won't compromise one lick. so then, realistically, how does he make the US energy independent?
You wouldn't have to mandate anything then.
What is disturbing about these bozos, is that they are both clueless and ideologically motivated. At least Bush's miscreants were only thieves.
Consequently, I see a very long agony for the economy. I don't think the economy will croak outright, the little guy will pay dearly to prevent a collapse. But it is not going to be pretty.
We might be able to be independent from middle east sources eventually......but I don't know about totally independent from all countries.
One question I have wondered is.....let's say you have a demand for a 900 MW power plant.
You can build 1 nuclear plant or a coal power plant or even a NG power plant and know you can get that amount of energy from it.
Now with alternative energy sources.....how much do you need to build. Let's say you have to level load it and store the energy somewhere in the system. (If we can even strore the energy)......would you need to build 1,800 MW of alternative energy to supply a continuous 900MW worth of energy?
If storage isn't available......would you need to account for the total wind farm on an off peak time at 30% power of total power.....so for a 900MW output....you would need to build 3,000 MW worth of power.....or would it be 10% or 9,000 MW worth to yield a continuous 900MW of power.
The forms of energy we do have are already stored energy....when moving to alternatives....we would need to harness it, transmit it, harness it for storage....transmit the energy from storage...use it....or possibly store it again in a car battery or cell phone.....and then use it.
Thats a lengthy process....could be inefficient.....and requires a lot of extra materials and equipment.
The problem is people (including Obama) have very short term memory. Four dollar gas is a distant memory and energy independence (despite the campaign rhetoric) has been placed on the backburner.
As you mentioned the key problem is not the actual alternative energy technologies themselves (i.e. wind, solar, NG, PHEV) but the massive infrastructure needed to support them. Hundreds of billions need to spent on upgrading transmission lines to handle the huge demand that will come from electric and PHEV vehicles. Similarly, even a relatively simple solution like NGVs, needs billions in investment in local filling stations and home filling outlets.
Keep up the good work informing folks about alternative energy. The biggest threat to energy independence is the lying, ignorant, oil $$-soaked Republicans using their soap boxes to lie to & stir up the stupid people ... of which (sadly) there are far too many.
Why is it that no one discusses super conductivity? the technology has come a long way and its now possible at temperatures just below zero, up from -200+. Get it to operate at ambient temps and now you're talking major energy efficiency. Gov dollars are better spent on such research rather than meddling in markets.
Fitz: glad to see another post from you. They are always insightful and generate good debate and hard thinking! I wasn't surprised at all to see Obama shine NG. Just not on his Top Ten list. As I see it, based on his actions over his first few days, his Top Ten list is as follows, with many of these added for humor, kind of:
1. Support tax cheats and put them in charge of the IRS (anyone else would be a felon, this guy is Sec. of Treasury)
2. Close down Gitmo. Where we gonna put 'em? Dunno, let me get back to you but we darned sure need to close down gitmo.
3. Abolish Don't Ask/Don't Tell. That is very high on everyone's list of things that are wrong in the country, right?
4. Re-start the abortion machine funding around the world.
5. Up those CAFE standards so that GM/Ford will build more cars that no one wants to buy so we will have to pump more money into them. They are not completely nationalized yet but they will be soon!
6. Put those pesky Republicans in their place by teaching them that bipartisanship means all of you guys agree to do it our way! "I won; get over it. We'll compromise on a bi-partisan solution: do it my way! That's Democratic bipartisanship by golly".
7. Bump Rush Limbaugh.
Well I ran out of other things, so surely there would be room in there for a NG policy in his top ten. Maybe its just as an earlier poster said: No one in NG biz donated enough money to his campaign so he'll punish them?? After all, this is politics and its a "Pay to Play" system.
Keep pushing this Fitz; its vital to our country's future. Maybe one day we'll get someone honest in the White House that will listen to sense and logic. One day. Now that would be Change!
That said, I am also fo the opinion that the crude oil commodity maket was manipulated by some group. Whether for political or monetary gain I will leave to others to speculate.
My point: Let all your elected officials know how you feel people! Don't just talk about it here. And yes I will take my own advice!
1) NG burning emits more CO2 per BTU of energy produced than long chain hydrocarbons;
2) NG burning also releases more water per BTU than long chain hydrocarbons. Water is more powerful a "greenhouse gas" than CO2;
3) Additional NG production would result in much higher methane leakage than current rates, and methane is the most powerful naturally abundant "greenhouse gas" of all.
In terms of national security, you couldn't be more spot-on. We need more NG, more coal, more nuclear, and the infrastructure can be funded in part by excise taxes on petroleum imports from "Less Favored Nations"- a new trade category of unsavory fiefdoms (Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc.) that would rather we cease to exist. Biofuels, wind, and solar are cute ideas and should continue to be developed but are by no means ready for heavy hauling.
glad to see another article from you. though i don't agree how to get there our goals are the same.
did you ever get a chance to check out evacuated tube transport (et3)? i really think you would like the "improved j-pod."
sorry for your disappointment in bho. the reverend told us awhile back the man is a politician. i like seeing you go after both parties. there is plenty of blame for all.
i have access to spanish speaking news. one of the very first acts of bho was to ask castro and chavez for a meeting. yesterday he was kissing up to the muslims. that is no suprise to any who read his books. i don't know if these items have made it to the u.s. "press".
fitz i'd take you over most of what we have in washington. i might not like the implementation but at least it would be a coherent plan with a clear destination. the best part would be having an honorable thinking person at the helm who didn't lie and cheat for political expediancy.
Also, to deflect critics who say your just pumping up stocks that you own, you ought to sell all of your energy positions. Then I'm sure they'll take you more seriously.
Lastly, we need a buildout of not just the grid, but also the NG pipeline infrastructure- getting more gas from the shales towards the coastal markets.
What I see being added are methane gas capture from landfills, which is alread being implemented, but it is only in it's early stages. Tengasco (TGC) is one company that is just beginning to market landfill gas.
I could envision biomass collection from logging industry waste and farm crop byproducts. Also farm crops grown specificly for methane gas production.
I could also envision a do-it-yourself methane gas collection scheme, with the help of some new technologies. Here the average landowner could harvest methane gas from yard trimming or even small gardens grown to use as biomass to feed into a device to capture methane gas.
Imagine that, just like a gardener can grow his own food, on a supplementary basis, that he could also power his transportation vehicle, now that is an idea that would change things.
ktchnsnk: exactly, one has to consider conspiracies at work, and of course one always has to start with the two prime motivators: money and power. on the money front, the fact that in two days of testimony in front of Congress, i never once heard a "big 3" exec ask why their natural gas cars and trucks were never available in the US. i never heard a "big 3" exec questioned on why they were not prioritizing nat gas vehicles. i never heard a Congress person even mention natural gas powered cars and trucks as a requirement for tax-payer money. now, these congressmen and women are not stupid people (we can joke that they are..), they know the issues. so, from a money standpoint, there must be some serious big oil money under the table to prevent a conversion to nat gas vehicles. also, the pentagon/petroleum relationship is also there to contend with - the pentagon gets funding to fight oil wars in the middle east and asia. so, there's the money angle. from a power standpoint, what better way to exhibit power over the american people than to keep them addicted to oil which will, certainly within the next decade, become increasingly scarce and expensive? if americans remain addicted to gasoline powered transportation, they will be completely hosed. especially in an american society that has become increasingly suburbanized and has a deficit of efficient public mass transit. so, there are the angles: money and power. i tried to figure out how to get sex in there, but i am trying to keep things clean here.
alcatraz: couldn't agree more. very, very dissapointed in obama on this issue, which is, i believe, the most crucial issue and biggest challenge the US is facing.
blonde molly: but see, even the eco-crazies are wrong on this. burning a gallon of gasoline in an internal combustion engine produces 19 lbs of CO2. According to the EPA, compared to traditional vehicles, vehicles operating on CNG have reductions in carbon monoxide emissions of 90-97%, and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of 25-30%. 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. not only that, nat gas can be used as is, there is very little processing involved as opposed to all the energy used to refine oil into gasoline. the link on my website to "energy basics":
www.eia.doe.gov/basics...
shows that the US uses 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline a day. so, quick arithmetic will show you how much CO2 and greenhouse gases the US could REDUCE by switching to nat gas powered transportation. instead, we wait for electric cars (whose batteries are made in asia and which will require more coal burning since we havent built nukes). people simply are not being realistic on energy or the associated environmental issues.
wrt wind, i disagree, wind is economical today: just look at the data from texas, germany, and other big wind players. the big issue in the US is transmission to end user areas. same with solar, although solar currently is a bit more expensive.
WillyE: i agree with increasing gasoline taxes - it will help keep the price high and encourage migration away from it. at the same time, as my energy policy advises, the revenue raised should ONLY be used to help fund the nat gas infrastructure buildout, wind, solar, and build out of the electric grid. that said, a gas tax alone doesnt address the long-term peak oil issue that worldwide oil supply will not keep up with worldwide oil demand. so gasoline is going to sky, taxes or not. the only way to deal with high oil prices is a long-term, strategic, comprehensive energy policy:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
cristian: not sure any president could be as bad a george w. bush. just look at where we are after 8 years of that crowd. further, i applaud obama's policies on wind, solar, and the electric grid. he's doing much much better on energy than bush. the long term worry you have about the Amercican economy should be much more based on bush's bankrupting of the country and the associated fascist takeover of almost all finanancial, mortgage, banking, and insurance industries in the US. that was all done or in progress before obama's election.
andy1234: i agree the US won't become totally energy independent within the next 25 years or so. however, we can damn sure do alot better than today! shouldn't we make a start? wrt alternatives of wind and solar, absolutely they have outages during calm or cloudy periods. no doubt. that said, a smart grid and nat gas backup generation are known technical issues and have been solved in texas, germany and other places. they are economical and feasible. that said, my calculations show if the US wants to go to electric cars, not only does the grid need to build out *bigtime*, but nuclear will be a must (unless we want to build another 100 or so coal fired plants). please see my energy policy and also the website noted above about how much gasoline we use. for instance if we reduce gasoline use from 390,000,000 gallons a day by 20%, calculate the amount of energy (BTU's) in 78,000,000 gallons of gasoline and you begin to get a glimpse at the amount of energy we are going to need to charge batteries in electric cars. conclusion: we need nat gas cars and trucks to fill the void.
happycajun: i detect a note of sarcasm there, but the truth is, nat gas powered cars and trucks are CHANGE, and is an environmentally superior solution to gasoline powered internal combustion engines (see my emission comments above) as well as environmentally superior to electric cars when the alternative energy sources aren't there yet to supply the charge (i.e. that means more dirty coal).
longoil: agree with everything you said except the natural gas infrastructure. i am not so sure the numbers involved are out of whack with the numbers being thrown around for building more roads and bridges. certainly, a home refueling appliance could be designed and installed for well under $1000 (instead of the current $4000) allowing people to have a nat gas car as a second vehicle for trips under 200 miles. the car (Honda Civic GX), nat gas, and technology is available today.
Rocknbob: sorry, must be a SA editorial issue (i contacted them). here is the link:
www.questargas.com/Fue...
User27733: being smart isn't good enough - it needs to be translated into policy. i have been contacting him and his campaign for over a year now. when he first started his presidential run, his energy policy was very very poor. he realized quickly he needed to come up to speed after hillary kicked his butt in energy via the press. i supported obama, but on the two biggest issues (financial integrity, and energy) he has failed me. puting in shapiro as head of the SEC is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop. and dont get me started on the tax evader. you have read my thoughts on his energy. an improvement from bush? you bet (who wouldn't be). but C- on the overall energy effort. as far as energy policy, we can't blame it all on repubicans. clinton held both houses of congress and didn't raise CAFE standards, for instance.
User27733: at first i thought your next comment was to me and i was confused until i saw you were responded to blonde molly. thanks for your support. whoa doctor! i just saw your next response...maybe one less cup of coffee tomorrow :) just kidding.
TRS: not sure what US production data you are looking at, but the truth is US natural gas production is increasing due to the new horizontal drilling techniques that make the haynesville, bakken, and marcellus shales economical. this has happened just in the last few years. here is the EIA data:
tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...
now, that said, switching a decent percentage of US cars and trucks to natural gas will obviously mean a big increase in demand. therefore, my energy policy supports the transcanadian natural gas pipeline from alaska to the lower-48 as well as LNG terminals on both coasts and in the gulf of Mexico.
as far as superconductivity goes, it doesn't address energy supply issues, only energy transmission efficiency.
Mmarrkk: i agree with you on sec of treasury, and hate his pick for head of the SEC, i have written and criticized both. that said, obama has a LONG way to go to rape the US treasury like 8 years of bush. if you don't believe me, just look at the shape the country is in today after 8 years of sir george. i agree with closing gitmo. dont care in the least about abortion or dont ask dont tell. love increasing gas standards, after all, GM and ford opposing fuel efficient vehicles for years has only led to their bankruptcy, taking your tax-payer money, and let toyota and honda eat their lunch, but you'll never agree about that. and you're going to lecture me about bi-partisianship after 8 years of bush? give me a friggin break. rush limbaugh? jeez mark, only a fool would still be a supporter of bush and limbaugh. it is now proven: the bush administration will go down as the most harmful years of american democracy and capitalism in the history of the US. period. the verdict is in. you can keep fighting it all you want, but you can't change the facts. as far as honesty in the white house, if you can't see the difference between bush and obama, well, you're simply not paying attention. at least we agree on NGV as it seems we continue to disagree on everything else.
bluesmoke: thanks. however, i can't understand why people oppose the switch to nat gas vehicles because they think pickens will make money on it. the real beneficeries will be the shareholders of the biggest US nat gas producers: COP, CP, CHK etc. also, the US being more energy independent will be good for the equity markets, the US dollar, and the trade deficits. it is insane to be against nat gas because one doesnt want to see boone pickens make money. idiotic might be a better word.
jackarm: thank you. i was hoping that oil at $145/barrel and up over 500% since bush was inaugurated would be "the crisis mode". gasoline at $4.50/gallon? already forgotten. and i have been contacting members of congress, the financial press, and my local politicians and gas utility companies for years now. the silence is deafening...
whippet: thanks for your kind comment, but i must disagree with your emissions data and suggest you read up on the EIA emissions as i reported in an above comment or search yourself on:
www.eia.doe.gov/
therefore, i conclude that being against nat gas powered cars and trucks is being against a cleaner environment as it just means more burning of gasoline or more burning of coal to charge electric batteries (until the wind, solar, and nuclear infrastructure is built, which will take decades). people are not being realistic about the amount of energy it will take to replace a meaningful portion of the 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline burned in the US every *day*. not sure i agree with your water statement...never heard that one before. also don't agree with your statement on methane leakage, horizontal drilling doesnt emit methane leakage, and is in truth a superior drilling technology compared with the past as one well can now do the work of many. agree with your last paragraph, although, one day in the future wind and solar energy sources will be doing heavy hauling. if they are not, we are hosed.
ozarker: i just noticed you said in one sentence better than what i said in an entire article! thanks.
koolsool: well, i tend to agree with you. unfortunately.
Mmrrk: i agree with you production wise. that said, i don't agree with the statement that we have "too much natural gas". the reason we have so much supply now, is that after 8 years of your beloved bush industrial production is down so sharply that industrial demand for natural gas has just simply plummeted. same thing for oil. it's not so much that worldwide oil and gas supply increased, it's that after 8 years of faulty economic and fiscal policy has caused the US (and world) economy to quite simply shut down.
fireball: i have no problem with obama talking to castro, chavez, iran, israel, and anyone else. after the failed foreign policies of bush which has just gotten us bankrupted fighting oil wars, turned the entire world against us, and increased dramatically the number of terrorist who would love to see us harmed, obama is a breadth of fresh air. like alan abelson in barron's magazine said last week after witnessing cheney and bush making the talk show circuit to try and shine their legacies saying their big accomplishment was not allowing another terrorist attack since 9/11, abelson said: "could it be that bush and cheney did such a good job of wrecking the US on their own that the terrorist figured why bother?"
duffbeer: yeah, the day they use my treasured guinness for car fuel will be the day i start walking. as far as liability is concerned, good engineering can take care of that. i've looked into it, and it's a non-issue in my mind. pressure sensors can cut off supply on faulty interconnect, and the connection from nat gas source to the car is air-tight and actually much better than traditional gasoline pumps (which are not air tight and emit more fumes).
shined: good name :) there is always the option of conversion kits, which is what the rest of the world is doing. that said, when i looked into it for my toyota, toyota said that they would not supply a conversion kit and that an aftermarket kit would void ALL my toyota warranties (even under-carriage rust, etc). so, that is why i advised congress (they never listen to me) to encourage the big 3 (should we change it to little 3?) to make the conversion kits available, and i didn't mention stand by their warranties.
isaac: good point about plug-in hybrid nat gas vehicle. now that is a great idea! totally agree with you on nat gas pipelines, starting with one from alaska to the lower-48.....
silverwood: no innovation is needed. nat gas powered cars and trucks have been around for decades. GM and Ford have made them for years, they just dont sell them in the US. it's the chicken and egg problem (refueling stations, cars - which comes first? we need them both at the same time). therefore, we need the government's commitment.
wrt gardening, i am a big fan of gardening and put one in myself, however, i think the amount of methane needed to power a vehicle is much greater than that which the typical home garden could support. not to mention the cost of the infrastruture involved to gather and fuel the vehicle. that said, on a large farm basis, your ideas have merit and in fact are already being implemented successfully in alot of various ways.
suggest to your audience a write in campaign to Emanuel with cc to Obama and Pickens.
don't be "shy" or "shined" on the subject.
GO FITZMAN GO!!!
This figure ( https://eed.llnl.gov/f... ) is my basis for good energy planning for the US with the overall goals of:
I) eliminating wasted energy (56 of 97 Quads, or 58% of total US consumption is lost), and
II) leaving natural energy resources stored in the ground until we REALLY need them, while maximizing readily available and free forever solar and wind, and other alternatives (while eliminating trillions of foreign payments).
1. Reduce wasted energy in ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION (26 Quads or 68% of power generation energy is lost).
1.1. Promote Solar PV and Wind.
1.2. Promote pumped/stored hydro (and end-use storage technologies to handle the variability of 1.1. generation).
1.3. Permit steam-to-electricity generation only in combined cycle plants where low pressure steam is utilized (even if thermal solar; AND nuclear[?]. Nuclear is dense enough and safe enough to promote block heating in cities as in Europe, or process industrialized areas?)
1.4. Stop burning coal (and the networked supporting industries from mining, transportation, pollution, reclamation, maintenance, etc., without causing a depression - like, put them to work building solar and wind farms, and the new interstate power grid and ferries of 1.7 below; same for the oil, gas and auto guys, etc.). Do 1.1. and 1.7.
1.5. Stop burning natural gas. Do 1.1. and 1.2.
1.6. Don't even think about processing any tar sands, oil shale, or coal gasification and liquefaction methods which are ultimately burned for POWER GENERATION or TRANSPORTATION after adding cost (not to mention all the networked industry complexities as mentioned above for coal). Consider these only "when there is no other way" situations: like we run out of crude oil and need plastics.
1.7. Construct the new upgraded electric power grid in, above, below, or alongside the existing interstate highway right-of-ways which lead to major cities (where energy is used while passing thru the hinterlands within 50-100 miles of future solar and wind power farms).
1.7.1. Integrate within these same interstate right-of-ways ELECTRIFIED FERRIES for cargo, vehicles and people, both two-way high speed interstate express and two-way local intrastate travel.
2. Reduce wasted energy in TRANSPORTATION (21 Quads or 80% of transportation energy is WASTED):
2.1. Do 1.7. and 1.7.1. for intra- and interstate travel.
2.2. Promote local transit systems within congested urban beltways, linked to the interstate highway system of 1.7.
2.3. Promote hybrid and electric vehicles for personal commuting, local fleet service and commercial delivery.
2.4 Promote biofuels for hybrids, ground, air and water transportation.
Much of the above is currently valid for developing countries which are repeating the mistakes the US made which hopefully can be redirected - be it because of air pollution [China, India], government edict, new alternatives, etc.).
Much of the above already exists in Europe, Japan, and a little in China. So it can be done. It may take a permanent energy tax to fund the above; and as wasted energy is reduced, the tax goes away. A wonder we've not seen.
CH4 + 2O2 --> 2H2O + CO2 and about 1000btu/ cubic foot
C3H8 + 5O2 --> 4H2O + 3CO2 and about 2300btu/ cubic foot
Thus, burning propane produces 2.3 times the energy, but 3.0 times the CO2.... about 30% more CO2 per unit of energy.
I could be wrong, it's hard for an old lawyer to recollect this chem 101 reaction balance stuff.....
Things like abortion & gays in military were deemed more important that fixing the energy crisis. Telling repub's to rebuke Rush was more important, etc.
I judge someone's priorities by the actions they take and this seems to be telling me these things are more important that other things, like a sane policy regarding NG.
And my comment on "we have too much gas" was meant in context of today's demand. I agree if demand weren't down, we'd probably be looking at much higher nat gas prices, shortages of nat gas and hiring frenzies in the oil patch versus layoff's. But that's a correcting problem. We've dropped 25% of the land rigs drilling in the US over the last 3 months. This will have a direct impact on the amount of natural gas produced in roughly 3-4 months out. A lot of the new wells that have been added in the last year have been Shale Gas wells. These wells have 70% decline rates in the first year. So when you stop drilling a field, the rate craters in a hurry. Wells come on at 20 MMCF/day and by the end of the first year, they are only producing 6 MMCF/day. The drop in supply will be quick and we will rebalance our supply/demand, just in time for prices to go up and we start drilling like mad and over supply the market! Then prices collapse, and the cycle repeats!
And if the LNG imports start hitting at the wrong time, it really throws the cycle in a loop. Our imports of LNG have been very low over the last couple of years but with the worldwide recession, which I'm sure is Bush's fault along with everything else, more and more LNG will be pushed into the US market. Those multi-billion dollar liquifaction facilities need to recoup their costs so they can operate at their incremental operating gain rates and that's down int he $2/mcf range or so. Over the next 5 years there will be a huge bubble of LNG cargo's waiting for homes. That's the next "bubble", with the Qatari's leading the way! More than enough to keep these board's active!
On Jan 27 09:36 AM TRS wrote:
> On the NGV thing... A big impediment is the 35% decline rate of domestically
> produced natural gas, which is up in the last 5-years from 28% or
> so. Bottomline is its harder and harder to harvest natural gas. Especially
> when one considers the economic threshold for new projects is roughly
> $6/mmbtu. I suppose increased demand via the transportation pool
> would keep prices above $6 but it'll also continue the decline curve
> creep. What happens when it hits 40 or 50%?
>
> Why is it that no one discusses super conductivity? the technology
> has come a long way and its now possible at temperatures just below
> zero, up from -200+. Get it to operate at ambient temps and now you're
> talking major energy efficiency. Gov dollars are better spent on
> such research rather than meddling in markets.
He will only align himself with wind, solar and alternative fuels that provide jobs in the farm-belt states. He won't even drop the tariff on Brazilian sugar ethanol.
Aside of more stringent cafe standards, and European sized gasoline taxes, I expect we will see little progress moving to an alternative to imported oil.
From one of your other blitherings, note that the issues of Global Warming are still being debated. There is no consensus in the scientific community that a) global warming is real and b) that it is AGW vice natural GW. AGW has become the religion of the secular far left. In the meantime we still need energy and the best and cleanest ways of getting it on the scale needed is nuclear for electricity and CNG for transporation uses (as pointed out in the article). CNG can be implemented almost immediately vice the several years (not to mention the prohibitive costs) for electric cars. Note that the estimated selling price of the Chevy Volt will be around $40,000. As T.Boone and Aubrey pointed out, it's the only way to go in the short run.
On Jan 27 09:34 AM User 27733 wrote:
> Fools like you should just get the f&%@ out of our Country. You're
> too stupid to have the right to be an American citizen!
> FYI ... Bush's crowd were war criminals, Constitutional criminal
> and multiple felons who did more damage to America than any enemy
> foreign or domestic since the Civil War!
> What really threatens this 'great experiment' is the proliferation
> of gullible MORONS like you who have been brainwashed by Fox News
> and am radio.
>
> On Jan 27 08:08 AM cristian wrote:
For all you global warming freaks, give up - we are due for global cooling, and all the CO2 we can generate will not make up for a 1/2% reduction in solar output. The issue is not CO2 emissions, it is finding the fuel to burn to create the CO2. All oil and gas production is falling worldwide, and new reserves are not being found at anywhere near replacement rate. Higher prices will not result in higher production, only lower demand.
We have plenty of offshore oil. Drill, drill, drill. We can be energy independent for 30 to 60 years.
CO2? No problemo. It's a trace gas that has been proven harmless to animals at concentrations thousands of times higher than already exist in the atmosphere.
CO2 is good for agriculture. CO2 increases crop growth rates, increases crop resistance to drought and cold, and expands the range over which crops can be grown, and reduces water requirements.
CO2 a greenhouse gas? No way. Water vapor already absorbs all of the energy in the CO2 absorption band. Increasing CO2 does not increase the heat retained by the earth's atmosphere.
The earth's climate is most affected by the radiance of the sun. Current radiation from the sun is at an all time low, which explains the harsh winter we are experiencing around the world. Check out the sunspots. 2008 was the year of the fewest sunspots in 100 years.
Turbo diesel and hybrid vehicles are the best ways to reduce our need for gasoline. Increasing the price of gasoline for transportation hurts the entire economy. Our economy depends on our ability to move from our homes to work and the stores.
Summary: We live in a CO2 deficient atmosphere. We need more of this harmless, benefical trace gas. Abundant supplies of oil exist off our coastline. Utilization of this oil will lead to prosperity for America. Drill, use.
We don't need to conserve energy......we have the second law of thermodynamics and nature for the conservation of energy.
We need to perserve liquid fuels....use energy differently. But in the end....the money or energy saved in one spot....will be used or deployed somewhere else. Everything is a short term gain.....on a long term uptrend.
The ultimate solution of pollution and energy conservation is population reduction.
I find it difficult for energy consumption to decline over a long period of time with an exponential growth of population.
If this world wants to live a decent lifestyle....say one of a european country or the USA....we could cut our energy use in euro and USA by 50%....and bring the third world countries to our level of lifestyle....and still use WAY WAY WAY WAY more energy.
Throw on top of that another 50% more people in only 20 yrs....there is no way we can maintain our energy per capita usage.....its already declining.
I find it unlikely that we will be able to figure out a problem as large as our energy needs and have it be filled with alternative sources.....since the alternatives are pretty crappy. Solar and wind.......goethermal is limited to where its located.....and I would find it VERY difficult for these solutions to NOT have an impact on nature.
If you were to put solar panles all over the desert....and no sunlight hit the ground.....I find it weird that that wouldn't have a dramitc effect on the wildlife.
We put these huge wind turbines in the midwest.....in the middle of the wind belts....and thats the exact same wind that geese and other birds fly south in. We are killing geese and other birds at record amounts by placing thousands or possible millions in the future of wind turbines in these places. Whats the impact of a dramatic reduction in wildlife because of these options?
If he can, then our earth may "see" we are trying to help, and allow us to stay here longer than we deserved to stay earlier.
wizard: some funny stuff in your post and i agree with much of what you said. as much as i criticized obama lack of support of nat gas, i am still much much happier with his energy policies than the prior administration. at least we are prioritizing wind, solar, and the grid. that's a good start. a breath of fresh air after cheney and bush's oil centric and oil war strategey. however, in my mind, no president is realy serious about cutting foreign oil imports if he neglects US produced natural gas transportation.
gizmospal: hey, don't get me wrong i *like* electric cars. however, it will take some time to build out solar and wind to help charge them. if we don't do that, we will have to build more coal plants since nuclear buildout will take years and years. also, the batteries are produced in asia, so if we dont get on the stick (my energy policy proposes a battery consortium similar to the government's sematech organization for semiconductor research) and ramp up battery manufacturing, we'll be trading oil dependency for battery dependency. anyhow, the point is, we need a bridge to that time in which we'll have adequate wind, solar, and nuclear electricity to charge the battery. the bridge is US produced nat gas powered transportation.
fran: well thanks fran, but i *have* been writing those guys...on ever website and forum i can. all i ever get back is an email requesting a donation! why do they still want donations since they are in the white house!? i never, ever, get an energy policy related response. let's face it, the fitzman is on the outside looking in...but i keep plodding along...hoping someone someday will recognize my energy policy and get it in front of the "powers that be". however, conspiracy theory tells me they wouldn't buy in if they saw it... that said, thanks for your support!
nakedjaybird: leave nat gas in the ground until we really need it? please go to the EIA website, add up the total wind and solar electric production today, and tell me how many electric cars you could charge up overnight with that energy. now, project 5 years out and do the same. you will soon discover that we need to either a) build a boat load of new coal plants (bad) or b) migrate to nat gas powered transportation (good). many of your energy proposals are in my policy (have you read it?). you say stop burning coal, dont want to use natural gas, so you are being a bit naive in how fast the wind and solar infrastructure can be built out. please look at the numbers. dont forget, my energy policy is heavy in wind and solar, and i support it fully. but we cannot be unrealistic in terms of total power available and the timeframe.
happycajun: for the emissions debate, i would encourage all to go to the eia website and do some searching and comparing. natural gas emissions over gasoline emissions is a win-win all the way around on a multitude of levels.
Mmarrkk: ok, well, i obviously understood the lack of NG in obama's plan, after all, that was what the article was about :) that said, i still believe obama's energy policy is much more along the right track than the prior admin: prioritizing solar, wind, and building out the grid are *good* things. wrt nat gas prices, again, the problem isn't too much production, the problem is that industrial demand has fallen off a cliff due to the economic turmoil brought about by insane economic and fiscal policy. so, as you point out, exploration and development will fall off, as will supply, and when demand picks up, so will price. cyclical, i agree. LNG is more expensive, and imports will decrease as US prices fall. no problem, that is supply and demand and capitalism. all that said, i think the point we both agree on is that US produced natural gas powered transportation is a good way to reduce foreign oil imports, create jobs, and reduce emissions. agreed?
red raider: agreed, and i realize you are responding to a previous post. thanks.
carol chudy: i agree that nat gas prices are volatile. however, i totally disagree with you that nat gas is not the way to go. US produced natural gas can reduce our foreign oil dependency by 20%, very easily! US nat gas reserves in the lower-48, combined with a nat gas pipeline from alaska, could power nat gas cars and trucks for the next 50 years. will the price move up and down? why sure. hurricanes, supply demand, of course it will move. but have you looked at oil prices recently? would you rather pay volatile oil prices to foreign oil producers or pay volatile natural gas prices to US domestic producers? would you rather continue with gasoline emissions or reduce them by migrating to cleaner natural gas cars and trucks?
duude: you may be right..he may be a carbon loon. that said, i support his prioritization of solar, wind, and the electric grid. totally support that, and also higher CAFE standards. however, he cannot be serious about weening the country off of foreign oil if he ignores nat gas powered transportation. his nobel prize winning physicist energy chief is obviously bright enough to know this...so, i am back to my previous post about conspiracy theories of money and power.
old rick: actually, the global scienfific community has spoken on global warming, and the answer is quite clear.
darkstar: you are just dead wrong: natural gas has been successfully used in cars and trucks for decades. i also think you're dead wrong on global warming as well. btw, we have found a fuel to create CO2, it's called gasoline - 19 lbs of it per gallon. i am surprised we agree on one thing: oil production will be falling and reserves are not keeping up with depletion rates. if you understand that, it baffles me that you cannot see the logic in deploying nat gas for cars and trucks. where will americans be in 10 years when they can't fill up their cars with gasoline and we dont have alternatives?
sittingoutthisrecessio... first of all, how are you sitting it out? must be a much wiser investor than me! why are we talking about NG? because we dont want to enrich anti-american foreign gov and terrorists, we want to creat jobs at home, and we want to reduce gasoline emissions.
john peterson: thank you, it always helps to get endorsements from a top-50 commentor? how do you do that? i get slammed on my comments quite regularly! :)
tree-toe-bandito: how is it a non-starter when utah, brazil, iran, and many countries in asia are using it??? there is no data that shows that nat gas powered cars and trucks have an unacceptable safety rating. this talk about safety is all over-blown with no data to back it up. i do support offshore oil drilling, but if you think the US can somehow jump over saudi arabia and russia in oil production and produce 20 million barrels of oil a day, you live in a dream world my friend. won't happen. ever. the reserves are simply not there. we use 25% of the world's oil, and have only 3% of the world's reserves. with all due respect, you are also just as badly mistaken about your CO2 analysis.
andy: you are spot on with population control. please read STEP 5 of my energy policy:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
wrt wind and solar animal impact, the animals will adjust to these energy sources much better than they can from the CO2 and mercury emissions from coal fired plants. pick your poison - i'll go with wind, solar, and natural gas any day over coal and gasoline.
andy: i support increasing the use of nat gas and nuclear. worldwide oil supply will not keep up with worldwide oil demand, and we fund both sides of the war on terror (not to mention destroying the nation's wealth..what little we have left...by sending our cash to saudi, iran, iraq, russia, and venezuela) by sticking with an oil centric energy policy. it's unsustainable, not to mention simply idiotic economically.
bobbowhite: what you don't seem to understand is that NGV are LESS polluting than gasoline powered cars and trucks. what do you drive? a gasoline powered car or truck. my energy policy DOES seek a long-term solution: electric powered vehicles powered by wind, solar, and nuclear power. but don't discuss a utopian solution while at the same time being naive about the power available in the next 10 years from wind, solar, and nuclear. do some calculations: take the 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline he US uses per DAY, and figure out the energy content. now, figure out the entire energy produced today by wind and solar, and what is proejected to be in 10 years, and tell me how we make up that shortfall? it will do the US no good to be utopian in thought about energy, while the US economy dives into the abyss and causes chaos and violence like you cant even imagine. be real. be pragmatic. if you are, you will see NG is indispensible in solving our energy crisis. it's is the bridge until we ramp up wind, solar, and nuclear.
wizard: well, in his speech he SAID reducing foreign oil imports IS a top priority and it is no longer business as usual. however, we simply cannot do it without using natural gas for cars and trucks. no way, no how. the number of BTU's in the 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline we use in this country is simply way way too much for wind and solar to pick up. nuclear buildout will take too long. so, we either build a boat load more of coal fired plants (bad), or, we migrate cars and trucks to nat gas.
wrt your point on washington DC and having the countries best interests at heart, i could not agree more. in the past year, i have read books on john adams and abe lincoln. it's amazing the quality of statesmen the US has had in the past, and where we are today. it's all about greed and power now. that said, i still believe obama is miles and miles ahead of the prior administration on this issue. it's not even close. we'll be paying for the last 8 years for the next 20 years, and further, the survival of our financial system (and our country) is still not a given. we've simply been bankrupted the last 8 years of radical fascism (they are not, and were never, ever so-called "conservative republicans"). lincoln was a conservative republican, not bush. anyhow, i support obama while at the same time criticizing his energy policy, and not too pleased with timothyG and ms shapiro.
The most immediate use for NG as a transportation fuel in my opinion is in liquid form (LNG) for large trucks. This application is moving forward now at several west coast ports to clean up air quality. Long haul trucks are now available (Kenworth etc.) powered by engines fueled by LNG. With only a few (several dozen) LNG refueling stations carefully sited across the nation a large portion of the long haul trucking can replace diesel fuel at a substantial cost savings. Also engine life is considerably extended over normal diesel engine life. Market economies will push this application along and any incentives will make this option even better.
my main point was have you looked at et3 just because i thought you would enjoy it.
i have a problem with appeasement of tyrants, i.e. England pre-churchill. also i have many venezualan acquaintences who fled their country rather than get disappeared.
we can kiss muslim but all we want. they have made their definition of peace pretty plain. my problem with bush is for derailing retribution over 9/11. also i do not like risking american soldiers unnecessarily. we have the tech to hit every time they poke their heads out with our fighters. somehow you equate anything you don't grasp with reprobates and dumdocrats.
you brought up opec in your article. i mistakenly thought you were starting to get a clue that politicians lie and party makes little difference. i was trying to congratulate you for seeing past the facade. that fresh breeze is just another bo in power.
quite awhile back i came to you with a chemist/chemical engineers expanaition in laymens terms but that had to be wrong because it would mess up your algorerythms.
i read your response last night but decided to wait to answer because i would guess that not to many go back to the prior days articles. i rarely do. this was done out of respect. i still think you have a good mind. i would be wary of that extra sweet kool=aid bho is pushing. ww2 ended the depression not fdr's socialist programs. many opine that those policies prolonged the depression.
to sum it up. i guess discussion or debate upset you. i can't blame you. i would not want to defend the liberal stance. once the soudbytes are gone there isn't much to stand on. you quote a pundit to me. what was your point? the media is a joke.
if i comment on another of your articles i will always begin with the simplistic view that you wish.
bush-bad
obama-good
republirats- bad
dimocrats-good
i gave up on the parties long ago and now look for public servants and statesmen and i could care less about parties and labels.
anyway fitz it was still a good article with good observations.
hopefully not many will back-up to catch this response because my sense of decency prefers that.
You don't need a national policy to promote something that is already in wide use.
Same argument for nat gas, coal, etc.
Now if we were to build solar PV and wind farms and electrify the interstates as if "time were of the essense" and/or with Manhattan Project fervor, or the emphasis of a 10 year moon shot program, we would be at no coal, no oil, no natural gas etc., much sooner, and be better off for it.
I still suggest you try to fit your plan into mine. Your's is too difficult and confusing. I've tried reading it. You mix grass noise with the trees, etc. It's strategy v/s tatics v/s action plan etc., etc.
All of that said, I'd much rather use US gas for all of the reasons built into your plan! But the market is very efficient and 4-5 billion dollar investments will be forced to operate to genereate cash for the investors and that LNG will hit our market. The good news: some of that gas comes from more friendly countries like Australia and Trinidad. Bad news is that Qatar is the 300 pound pricing point gorilla as their gas costs almost nothing to produce into the liquefaction plant!
I assume the "stimulus plan" passed the house today. Thank goodness; don't think our economy could survive without those millions of dollars in there for condoms! Now that's some stimulating pork barrel spending. Both parties can't resist the urge to spend our money on crap while hiding it in legislation that is truly needed! Curses on them all!!
Nakedjaybird - very good and well organized ideas
Andy1234 - Your comment on energy conservation I hope was in jest. Otherwise, it is an incredibly stupid comment ina discussion of solutions to our energy problems. However, I applaud you and others who recognize that all the energy shortages, polution problems, etc are actually population surpluses. The effectiveness of population control has been demonstrated in China. Obviously, their methods would prove next to impossible in any democratic country. Education might help but many religeous people would object.
As far as solar collectors and wildlife, could you possibly not have noticed that most collectors are the roofs of buildings?
The Deaths of birds from Colliding with wind turbines might be solved with some sort of sonic warning in a frequency range that birds hear but most humans wouldn't. Research is needed for sure.
Anyone - name calling, for example,"carbon loon" or "Enviro-crazies" etc. block many readers from considering your ideas. The same is true for names liberals have for ultra conservatives like Rush L.
Most of the energy "consumed" in this country is wasted. Wasted in inefficient power generation and transmission, deplorably inefficient buildings (in design, construction, operation, lack of insulation and weatherization) inefficient vehicle design, powering, fueling, and poor traffic handling. In a typical american car, 6/10th of a percent of the latent energy in a gallon of gas actually is used to move the driver to his destination. The rest is wasted in the inherent inefficiencies if internal combustion engines, drive trains, excessive vehicle weight, friction, aerodynamic drag, etc.
One of the many beauties of solar collectors on the roof of a building is that no electricity is lost in transmission before it's used. Most of the electricity generated in this country becomes heat energy lost to the atmosphere while overcoming resistance in the transmission lines. This is another reason we need better conductivity in the grid. BTW, American Superconductor (Nasdaq - AMSC) has been selling super- conductive cable for several years, but it is still VERY expensive. Of course, mass production would bring down the cost. (I own 30 shares.)
BTW, PVC panel prices are dropping fast this year after polysilicon prices fell and a massive ramp up in production ran into a credit crunch coupled with a global economic recession. Look for a 30% cost savings for buyers (plus another 30% Federal tax credit plus whatever your state provides)
One great sideline to eventually having millions of PHEVs and EVs not mentioned is that they could provide a source of stored electric power in their very large capacity bateries. Electric utility companies could provide special parking spaces in urban parking garages where they could hook up to the grid. When the grid has peak draws, the vehicle's batteries would help smooth out the supply to the grid. When the demand on the grid slackens the grid would recharge the batteries for free. Currently the peak demands are met by keeping gas fired power generation plants running during daytime. During lulls in demand on the grid the energy generated by these reserve power plants is wasted because there is no easy way to store it currently. Ideally, the utility company would cover the garage roof with solar collectors, therby freeing up more Nat Gas for transportaion.
Rarely mentioned is the most practical use of solar as a source for thermal energy to heat water (20% of a typical home's energy bill). All of the previously mentioned tax credits apply.
Homes can be designed using passive solar heating principles for almost no addtional cost, saving most of the energy currently used for space heating.
These ideas make even more sense for schools and commercial buildings that are used mostly during the daytime hours.
Intelligent building design can also drastically lower air conditioning needs without sacrificing comfort.
All of the energy savings I"ve mentioned would reduce the need for more power plants to charge batteries in PHEVs and EVs, free up Nat Gas for transportation use, thereby reducing the amount of oil imported from unfriendly countries.
Look at the some second tier cities such as the monster city Chongqing, in China: all of their public transport running clean and on LNG.
ripskii: well, as i noted in the article, being against nat gas because of some personal grudge against boone pickens is idiotic logic. ALL of america can benefit from nat gas transportation. also, that theory doesn't explain the silence of non-pickens nat gas producers, pipeline operators, and local utilities to the concept. wrt "difficulties" with CNG transportation, again, why is it successful in brazil? asia? utah? nat gas cars and trucks have been around for decades. they are NOT new technology. it is very *mature* technology and all the over-blown worries about safety are simply not backed by any kind of statistical data saying nat gas cars and trucks are orders of magnitude more dangerous than any other. it's mature and it's safe. it is a perception issue only. sure trucking (and any other fleet) is a natural for nat gas, but if we want to seriously make a dent in foreign oil imports, and if we want to cushion the economic blow to individuals for future sky high prices of oil, we need to push natural gas into the individual transportation space. that was the main point of the article.
fireball: you seem to think i am attacked to political ideology. i am not. i am actually a *real* conservative republican. bush was a radical fascists and i tried to point that out because rush limbaugh does a great job of convincing people otherwise. i just wrote an article criticizing obama. i encourage people to *think* and throw of the shackles of blind religious and political ideology and start making *strategic* policies instead of ideological or religious based policy. and please, don't insinuate that i dont understand that politicians lie! you obviously haven't been reading my articles. don't reinterpret what i write based on what you want to believe me to have said. read my words for what they are.
otbricki: natural gas is not being used significantly in the transportation sector. that was the point of the article - we can use it to reduce foreign oil imports and the cost of transportation. so i strongly disagree with you. we need a national policy to promote this effort and to help build the infrastruture to make it possible, efficient, and widespread. otherwise, we just keep sending our money overseas, enriching our enemies, and going bankrupt. you seem to like this status quo. i do not.
nakedjaybird: we agree on solar and wind. it's in my plan. what we dont seem to agree on a realistic timetable on when the mega watts from wind and solar farms will be able to recharge electric cars on a mass scale. again, if one looks at the BTU's needed to replace a signficant portion of the 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline used in america everyday, it is simply not possible in the next 5-10 years without a major transition to nat gas powered transportation. it is dangerous to assume otherwise for a multitude of reasons:
1) keeps sending money to non-friendly nations
2) funds both sides of the "war on terror"
3) keeps us addicted to oil as we head into the era of peak oil
4) keeps pumping higher levels of CO2 into the atmosphere
you find my energy policy confusing? hmmm...it is a simple bulleted policy with emphasis on 5 areas. grass noise, trees? i am sorry you find the policy so difficult to understand. many others have been able to read it, understand it, and send me terrific constructive feedback. perhaps you should try again as repitition can be a useful learning tool. perhaps you could start just by reading only the 5 steps:
1) acknowledge the problem
2) conservation and energy efficiency
3) transportation initiatives
4) prioritize and invest in non-oil and oil based energy sources
5) social initiatives
after you master and remember these 5 points, perhaps you can delve deeper into the bulleted items underneath each of the 5 steps. here is the link for easy viewing:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
please give it any try.
Mmarrk: LNG shipped from overseas will be to expensive to work if US nat gas is under $5, which it is today. natural gas prices are "local" due to transmission infrastructure. US nat gas is always cheaper than asia nat gas due to this issue. i disagree with you that LNG will be shipped from overseas at anywhere near the current prices. it doesnt help recoup the cost of building the LNG plant by losing money on every shipment of LNG that costs more than local nat gas. it just makes them lose more money. what the eia website, and i bet you money that you will see LNG imports down in 2009 over 2008. bet me?
ariesl: you mention energy efficiency - please note efficiency is addressed in step 2 of my energy policy. step 1 is acknowledging the problem as no problem can be solved without first acknowledging it. btw, while i agree with the jist of much of what you said, be careful not to exagerate. for instance, it is not true that most of the energy used is wasted - total energy efficiency in the US is over 50%. that said, sure we could save millions of barrels of oil by increasing our efficiency - on that point we agree. similarly, electric transmission lines are also over 50% efficient, so, again the term you use ("most") is not tecnically correct. can we improve? yes. there are economically feasible transmission line designs which lose only 7% (see AEP's recent announcement on transmission line plans to bring south dakota wind energy to the chicago area). wrt to freeing up electricity to power nat gas transportation, that will only happen if we have the nat gas cars and trucks available, and the infrastructure to refuel them. that is what i was hoping obama would prioritize. he did not. so, we're still no closer to realizing this dream. "no we can't" seems to be obama's message wrt nat gas transportation.
TERN: agreed! this item is included in step 3 of my energy plan.
old wizard: hmmm....i guess i should read the plan again. the last time i read the plan it included initiatives to double wind and solar generated energy within 3 years in combination with transmission grid infrastructure to deliver the energy to consumers. did i miss something? i agree more of the package should be devoted to energy, but i think we can both agree that obama's package is certainly better headed in the right direction as compared with the previous administration. yes?
I like reading Seeking Alpha ariticles and sometimes their replies, but it would help if the article (and it's replies) focuses on saying more with less words.
-Nick
On Jan 29 01:22 PM Old Wizard wrote:
> Fitz, What I don't see is a real substantive plan that really jump
> starts the effort. Doubling the amount of energy from solar and wind
> is like making the pimple on the back of a hippopotamus twice as
> large. How many barrels of oil less will we import if this goal is
> reached? If wind and solar account for less than 5% of our energy
> now and not much of it will replace oil in the next 5 years where
> does that leave the country? We need to address the problem with
> much more urgency and with large enough pilot projects that will
> drive a focus on the R&D that makes this provision of energy
> competitive and practical. The economic crisis and the new majority
> have a golden investment opportunity. Since no comprehensive plan
> and specific goals have been articulated, I can't see closure and
> I'm losing confidence that the new people have the competence to
> implement your plan or my five and ten plan which largely agree or
> any of the variants discussed above. Implementing large enough pilot
> projects in mass transportation, wind, solar, natural gas usage etc.
> will force our governments to address right away issues,storage and
> regulation problems attendant intermittant energy supply and what
> control issues must be accomodated on the so called "build out' of
> the energy grid.
I researched costs associated with LNG several years ago when a new receiving facility was being built nearby to import gas to our area. At the time I determined that the cost to liquefy, transport and gasify it was about $1.20 per thousand cubic feet. I'm sure costs are somewhat higher now however. While large capital costs are required the effect is to make nearly worthless stranded gas available at reasonable cost to consumers in distant locations. cngnow.com list available CNG fueling stations presently available for reference and it is worthwhile to note what is available now,
User320063: luckily for you, there are many competent and interesting articles on SA with perhaps the style and content you like. if it is brevity you are after, then let me summarize: if the US does not leverage it's natural gas reserves in the transportation sector, we will continue to import 70% of our oil from foreign and unfriendly sources, bankrupting the country while funding the terrorists. there, is that any better?
ripskii: well, wrt a "very big increase" in infrastructure to distribute nat gas, it depends how you look at the problem. in my case, i believe there are many homes and families that could use a nat gas car or truck as a second vehicle for daily short trips around town. in this case, the garage refueling appliance is about all they absolutely must have. however, since the appliance is single sourced (Fuelmaker's "The Phill"), cost $4k and up, and is not even available in most states, we're blocked again! that is why i mentioned the big 3 (do we still call them that?) should not only be manufacturing nat gas and electric/nat gas hybrid vehicles, but also make a brand of the home refueling tool such that volumes go up and prices come down. there is no reason this tool should be available installed for hmmm...what, $1-2k? $4k is just crazy and a deal breaker for most. of course, if you can't get it or even the Honda Civic GX in your state, well, you can't deal without any cards.
i actually think LNG costs will be coming down in the future. currently, XOM, CVX, COP and others are pretty active in the middle east and asia. XOM has built some huge LNG tankers. thanks for that link, i had deleted that from my favorites list somehow and it is nice to have it back! note that, on a percentage basis, only california and utah are making what i would call significant progress. why isn't the Honda Civic GX and the fuelmaker Phill available everywhere? that would be the quickest way to reduce our foreign oil import levels, and we can do it now if we just had a government and media that would get behind it! as far as the CNG refuel stations go, most in my area are as you said government or private fleet oriented. imho, we must start at the home first to get the cars out there. then, there will be impetus to build out the CNG refueling stations, and i suggest we start with the interstate highway system such that someone could drive from maine to san diego, or seattle to miami in a NGV, no problem. thx again for that link.
However, my plan is still better. And my suggestion remains the same: you should attempt to place your elements within my plan; whatever is counter-to or doesn't fit, throw it away and stick to my plan. This is constructive criticism.
First you want to replace the 390,000,000 gallons of gas a day of which we waste 80%. We really only need to come up with 1/5th the energy for useful work. Look at my figure from Lawrence Livermore (the place where Obama's new Energy Czar, Steven Chu, was director - I'm sure he understands where I'm coming from; in fact, Obama sounds so much like me it scares me; this right-thinking guy [me] is wondering if he has become a non-capitalist Democrat).
You have no idea what we can accomplish with "time is of the essense" status (which means "no holds barred", regardless of the lobbiests, lobbys, power and/or greed attention or focus detractors....), yes, like the Manhattan Project, or the Moon Shot Program.
We acknowledged the energy problem in 1973; we knew the energy issue impact even ealier - ask the Germans. We just didn't get off the addiction following the 1973 embargo; we just found a different source (and rightfully so). However, the addict is still here; acknowledged.
Real LEADERSHIP, informed and doing what's best for the folks over the long haul is what we need. Rebrainwashed politicians? Whatever! They are all stupid sheep; and sheep are stupid, I'm not just name-calling. What sheep need is a REAL shepherd. One that leads them; and cares for them (not just themselves and their "friends"!).
Your Step 2: all old, tried ideas. Acts of persuasion and regulation. Look, just tax the oil, coal and gas. Like Europe. Everything else will fall in line. Almost self-regulation. Read my plan, near the end (it's the intended cause, not unintended consequence - and it will produce the results BEST desired! Yes, painfully necessary - pay me now or pay me later).
Real efficiency improvmements come by stopping the losses. Read my plan. You generally attack the efficiency of useful energy; whereas, I attack the basic inefficiencies. Please get familiar with my figure (and the plan!).
Your Step 3: You're getting warmer (except for NG). These are my steps 2.3 and 2.4 (I think).
Your Step 4: my steps 1.1, 1.2, and almost 1.7 and 1.7.1 (which amongst other elements of my plan, you seen to never fully acknowlege; even though they're exising practices in Europe, Japan and China's a comin').
I'm not sure H2 is the way to go, especially to burn it; nor 100% battery powered commuter vehicles. Hybrids, yes. And of course my favorite being the no-moving-parts biofuel injected burner encapsulated with solid state direct conversion to electricity powering the ChorusMotor with the only on-board stored energy being the GRASS TANK, refillable at 1/5 of the existing refueling stations that currently exist in the US, BECAUSE IT MAKES USEFUL 80-90% OF THE ENERGY INSTEAD OF JUST 20%.
Certainly, getting off of oil, gas and coal is my #2 priority. Eleminating waste, which is my #1 priority will help cause #2, as well as the imbalance of foreign payments, unemployment and retraining and reemployment, etc., etc.
And of course solar and wind at the "UTMOST PRIORITY" takes care of Power Generation. The electrifed interstates/intrastate... and intertwined power grid with electrified ferries takes care of distance transport; transits and hybrids take care of local transport. Go for it. Use my plan Fitz.
Yes, of course, Houston, Detroit, and all other greedy power folks including those whose hands are in their pockets and v/s are agaist this.
And, of course, we are not yet immune from the lastest practical technological breakthrough being squashed again, just like the windshield wiper material that would never wear out, which was bought and/or squashed because it eliminated all the existing wiper replacement business.
Beware of the foxes outside as well as inside the hen house; the hen house would have been more properly named the fox house. Which is fine if there are no hens.
Peace, and carry on.
https://eed.llnl.gov/f...
Willy, you hit the right button.
Gasoline has to be around $5.00 per gallon before
the American people even think about anything else.
That mentality got the USA into this terrible situation right now.
Most Americans are forgetful, never think long term, and never
seem to worry about the future. Especially the middle age group.
The real losses in electric generation are at the steam turbine; by not making use of the exiting low pressure steam (whether coal, gas or even nuclear generation is the source).
However, combined cycle power generation makes use of the low pressure steam which is what's left after the high pressure steam spins the turbine-generator. That's why combined cycle effeciencies approach 60% instead of the 30's% of most of the coal etc., plants in the US. You must get informed.
as far as me "spewing out misinformation" here is the AEP press release for their high voltage transmission lines project. please read the entire article so that you don't miss the discssion on line efficiency. then, you can apologize to me or else you are getting on my bad side real fast....
www.aep.com/newsroom/n...
i stated in my response that electric transmission line generation is "way over 50%", i used 50% because he had said "most". however, as this article states, the new high kV transmission lines will have losses less than 1%. why are you talking about steam turbines? where are the steam turbines in wind-to-transmission lines?? as far as i know, even most solar arrays are not using steam turbines any more?? you lost me man. don't preach to me about getting informed when you don't even understand the wind/solar transmission issue to being with. if you are talking about storage to regenerate electricity, that is a different issue, and most wind arrays are not even doing that because of storage costs. so, it is use it or lose it. the only other response to ariesl that i said was that generating electricity by solar and wind doesn't necessarily reduce our foreign oil imports (and in fact today does not). that will only be the case when we have a significant number of hybrid vehicles or natural gas vehicles on the road. and, we don't. why are you trying to make up ways to criticize me? i don't mind constructive criticism, but you're way off base on that post. read the AEP article and, to use your words, "get informed".