nakedjaybird

Total Rating:
+1 / -3

379 Comments

    • Fri Jul 25th 14:05 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The T. Boone Pickens Approach
      Actually, bot_feeder, the Manhattan Project and going to the Moon were probably more difficult than going to electric generation and transportation from wind, solar, geo, hydro and nuc, etc.,) with bio's for burnables and products (and by the way, in this case Fat Boy and Big Boy have to be dropped on the hydrocarbon industry(industries, et. al.).

      It's just a matter of emphasis, committment, LEADERSHIP, and us resourceful Americans (with wisdom, correct vision, mission, resources, etc., - the standard mantra properly focused).

      Just like France (83% nuc); Switzerland (electrified rails); Brazil (50% biofuel vehicles); Germany (40% solar), etc.....LEADERSHIP!

      Or, the other kind of leadership: USA (90% hydrocarbons with 70% of that wasted.....DUH!!)

      ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN: IF WE DON'T START WE WON'T GET THERE;

      ONE OTHER THING: IF WE DON'T DO IT LIKE A MANHATTAN PROJECT OR MOON SHOT WE WON'T GET THERE SOONER (which may be right on time)!

      ONE MORE THING: ANOTHER 70'S OIL EMBARGO MAY BE MORE EFFECTIVE TODAY.

      We have barely begun to focus on effective, efficient storage, from hydro to giant capacitors, flywheels, and other non-change-of-state high effeciency recovery methods.

      I'd be more than pleased with a 100% target and get to 90% in 10-20 years, leaving the final 10% for years 20 to 30, IF NECESSARY. I believe the conversion speed would mushroom long before it peters out - hence we arrive earlier but not necessarily complete: it's not like not reaching shore, it's like having only 90 pecent converted.

      We have to invert Prato's law and get 80% of it done in 20% of the time. That's the mission. Rather that 20% done in 80% of the time.

      Again: only 6 Quads of useful energy goes to Trnsportation. We already generate 12 Quads annually of electricity. So beef up the power generation 50% - that's nothing new nor impossible (Boone wants to do a good portion of that with his wind). Just have to do more of it for replacing the NG and coal.

      As for transmission and distributtion - we know how to do that.

      Timing issues and load sharing - we can handle those required improvements too. I'm not convinced we have really studied the total electric scenerio from NON-HYDROCARBON generation to final ELECTRIFIED USE including all storage rquirements east to west, north to south. [AND I'M NOT SO SURE THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE STUDYING IT - I'M FOR BOONE'S APPROACH AT THIS POINT IN TIME - PLACE YOUR BET; EAT A CHUNK OF THIS ELEPHANT (AND I GUARANTEE YOU, HE HAS STUDIED IT ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT IT IS A WORTHWHILE BET SINCE IT'S HIS MONEY [AND SOME OTHER FOLKS] - SO IT'S PROBABLY STUDIED EEEENNNOOOOUUUUGGGGHHH...

      Nor have we addressed all the possibilities for efficent conversion to electricity via effective recovery of waste heat in biofuel burning hybrids.

      Again, remember, we only use 6 Quads of useful energy in ALL transportation. We already annually generate 12 Quads of useful electric energy. There are many ways to skin this cat. Let's get on with it.

      Any KWH we generate from solar or wind etc., is worth 3x or more than from any hydrocarbon be it coal, NG, crude, oil shale, tar sands, etc.

      The conversion to electricity could be effective at $60 crude and $3 gasoline. There are only a few reasons we are at $130 crude and $5 gasoline, and they are not the economic and technical feasibility or the free, forever available alternatives, nor the practicality nor effectiveness of those alternatives: wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, nuclear generation use of electricty; and biofuels. It lies elsewhere, including may the fear of the above.

      Yes, we have some work to do and some scientific improvements are required. Needing them will help make them happen.
      View article »
    • Fri Jul 25th 12:53 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The T. Boone Pickens Approach
      Yes, bot_feeder, Gore finally got it right for the right reason; he moved the pieces around on the board and one finally fell into place; near phenonomen to a broken clock being right twice a day; happenchance or predictable depending on one's outlook.
      View article »
    • Fri Jul 25th 12:50 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The T. Boone Pickens Approach
      Come on Gordon - that LNG tank looks just like a lot of crude/gas tank farm stuff from a wooden boat with whatever.
      View article »
    • Fri Jul 25th 12:25 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The T. Boone Pickens Approach

      Jul 25 12:14 PM

      It's obvious from the comments that many of you need to come to an understanding of this chart:

      static.seekingalpha.co...

      Then, it should become more clear to you that Boon'es plus other's wind (and solar, nuclear, hydro...) should replace not only the natural gas in electric power generation (22% for primarily peak generation at 70% waste energy), but also the coal (50% of our power generated also at 70% waste); leave those hydrocarbons in the ground and use the free and forever readily available energy. That's the power gen side.

      On the Transportation side, Boone should not only leave his NG in the ground instead of powering cars (again at 70% waste heat), but we should go fully electric to replace the actual useful work (6 Quads our of 40 Quads) in all that crude with 6 Quads of electric; a 50% increase from the 12 Quads of electric we currently produce and distribute around the USA.

      So go ELECTRIC in Transportation: railroads, interstates, beltways with steel wheeled rails, EV's and hybrids with biofuels and leave all the hydrocarbons in the ground.

      Don't you get it folks? Seventy percent (70%) of all the hydrocarbons we burn is WASTE!!!! Duh!!!!
      View article »
    • Fri Jul 25th 12:14 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      'Pickens Plan' Comes in the Nick of Time
      It's obvious from the comments that many of you need to come to an understanding of this chart:

      static.seekingalpha.co...

      Then, it should become more clear to you that Boon'es plus other's wind (and solar, nuclear, hydro...) should replace not only the natural gas in electric power generation (22% for primarily peak generation at 70% waste energy), but also the coal (50% of our power generated also at 70% waste); leave those hydrocarbons in the ground and use the free and forever readily available energy. That's the power gen side.

      On the Transportation side, Boone should not only leave his NG in the ground instead of powering cars (again at 70% waste heat), but we should go fully electric to replace the actual useful work (6 Quads our of 40 Quads) in all that crude with 6 Quads of electric; a 50% increase from the 12 Quads of electric we currently produce and distribute around the USA.

      So go ELECTRIC in Transportation: railroads, interstates, beltways with steel wheeled rails, EV's and hybrids with biofuels and leave all the hydrocarbons in the ground.

      Don't you get it folks? Seventy percent (70%) of all the hydrocarbons we burn is WASTE!!!! Duh!!!!

      That means in simple terms, we need to only produce 30% of useful electric energy "for free" to replace 100% of all the stuff we burn. DUH!!!
      View article »
    • Fri Jul 25th 11:30 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The T. Boone Pickens Approach
      Mike, the difference between your talking or Al Gore's talking (even a stopped clock is right twice a day) and T. Booone Pickens talking, is that Boone's is not only deliberate, accurate and to the point, but he is doing something about it .
      View article »
    • Sun Jul 20th 14:42 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Offshore Drilling Isn't the Answer - Supply and Demand Is
      China and India have been hoodwinked to a degree. Any energy used for the past 60 years was patterned after many foreigners producing whatever in their country (chinese hydro) or their neighbors (the US has been consulting in India, etc., long before the 60's in chemicals, etc., plus many were educated and trained in the US, learning our ways). China recently announced they are not going to build 30 planned coal fired plants; they have made a commitment to solar, ...

      Solar, wind, tidal have not been the first choice; China and many developoing countries has learned what pollution does and that there are now alternatives. They will switch just as Europe, Brazil, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Holland when "foothold" power defeated - just as what the US is fighting right now in big oil, coal, etc. Alternatives have a difficult row to hoe. Just as defeating unions required elimination of mfg, outsourcing, etc. The energy transition will be slow but sure here and worldwide. Guess we just get to watch, should we live that long.

      Do you think hydro would have ever made it in the US if it was strickly based on private business push and cost/benefit analysis?
      View article »
    • Sat Jul 19th 19:54 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Offshore Drilling Isn't the Answer - Supply and Demand Is
      We have all been paying the freight for import, import, import and will also pay for drill, drill, drill, regardless; it just got a little more expensive recently. So we might as well pay for solar and wind now for a little while and then no more, which is not true for drill, drill, drill or import, import, import.

      Where were they and/or what happened to all the objectors to oil rigs during the last 100 years (while farmers throughout the Nation huggged and blessed their windmills)?
      View article »
    • Sat Jul 19th 12:47 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Offshore Drilling Isn't the Answer - Supply and Demand Is
      I hear you old wizard - yes, let's contine producing from what we already have in place and import all we can, while drill no new and we like crazy reduce the crude consumption via every possible method with as much emphasis as possible. Every reduction in consumption can come off our own production first (like it has for 30 years) if we want to keep our resources in the ground for the future for many reasons, and then apply our reductions in crude to imports (unless gasoline goes to $10/gas and the balance of trade becomes an even higher priority, which some say it is at $5, but I won't believe it until we start reducing crude consumtption seriously).

      We must address our consumption with more than mileage targets, clean air reasons, etc, and Al Gore tribe global warming noise. Deliberate conversion from crude to many free "somethings else" in parallel, like a house afire. Again, we are a very resourceful people under wise leadership.

      Hey, according to this mornings paper even Al Gore agrees with 1/2 of my argument (no hydrocarbons for POWER GENERATION; now if we can convince folks of no hydrocarbons for TRANSPORTATION). So, now we're getting somewhere; well the Democrats are. Goodness! If the drill, drill, drill Republicans are not careful this election will go to the Dems. And they (the Republicans deserve it -and I am one; well, have been one!).
      View article »
    • Fri Jul 18th 20:44 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Offshore Drilling Isn't the Answer - Supply and Demand Is
      Obviously, what sickens me is that too few folks address the fact that of all the consumed crude we both import AND produce which is then burned in TRANSPORTATION (85% of the ~20+ mbbl/day or the ~40 Quads/yr), only 7 Quads is actually converted to useful energy, while 80% of the energy is wasted in exhaust stacks, cooling water, tail pipes, etc.

      Whereas, if crude-based TRANSPORTAION were electrifed, requiring even fewer than those 7 Quads of useful enengy for the same work, and those < 7 Quads were supplied from "forever available on the surface" solar, wind, tidal, etc., at current conversion efficiencies which are pure gain, we would need only to add to the 12 Quads of electricity we already generate, transmit and distribute from source to end user.

      We know how to electrify and find wind, sand and water to do solar, wind and tidal, etc.

      We should strive much more to put solar and wind into place than to ever explore and drill or mine coal, oil, or gas, etc.; it would be simpler and easier, including the electrification of TRANSPORTATION, starting with the diesel-electric rails, and the others to be built, etc.......
      View article »
    • Fri Jul 18th 19:44 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Offshore Drilling Isn't the Answer - Supply and Demand Is
      And here's additional wind to existing facilities: successful.

      Siemens To Power Washington State with 130 Wind Turbines Apr 1, 2008 ... Siemens To Power Washington State with 130 Wind Turbines. ... wind farm and 58 for the Windy Flats wind farm near Goldendale, Washington. ...

      azom.com/News.asp?News... - 40k - Cached - Similar pages
      View article »
    • Fri Jul 18th 19:35 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Offshore Drilling Isn't the Answer - Supply and Demand Is
      Theoldwizard- here's some wind for you:

      www.pse.com/SiteCollec...
      View article »
    • Thu Jul 17th 22:00 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Offshore Drilling Isn't the Answer - Supply and Demand Is
      Ithinkbig - we'll get our answers in the future to the quandry you have and also those questions the rest of us have. U cn cont on it.
      View article »
    • Thu Jul 17th 17:05 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Offshore Drilling Isn't the Answer - Supply and Demand Is
      Right, Felix - I'm going to go mow the lawn while it's green and growing.
      View article »
    • Thu Jul 17th 17:04 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Offshore Drilling Isn't the Answer - Supply and Demand Is
      Alternatives may be our Nation's BEST DEFENSE!!
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»