Picking on Pickens’ Plan
The fossil-fueled portions of T. Boone Pickens' energy plan for the U.S. have had a rough ride.
By: Joan Melcher | October 17, 2008 | 10:15 AM (PDT) | 
7 Comments
Share:
You've probably seen the commercials: Legendary Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens touting his wind energy plan for America; Chesapeake Energy Corp.'s Aubrey McClendon chiming in, saying natural gas supplies (a key part of Pickens' plan) will be abundant in the future; the oil and gas industry assuring supply is there if they are allowed into drill; and nonprofits urging viewers to let their representatives know where they stand on alternative energy issues.
High gasoline prices, global warming concerns and fears that fossil fuel resources are likely nearing peak supply while global demand is surging have driven energy to near the top of the national debate.
No one has become more emblematic of the current energy discussion than Pickens, known for his prominence in business and oil industry circles (as well as for his role in the "Swift-boating" of Sen. John Kerry in the last presidential campaign).
His plan, which he is taking to the American people in the form of some $58 million in television spots and other marketing efforts, calls for bumping wind energy's contribution to the country's electrical total to 20 percent — roughly the amount lost when, in the second and more controversial part of this plan, compressed natural gas, or CNG, is taken out of the electrical equation and used to power cars and trucks.
His idea, as well the Solar Grand Plan, previously discussed here, and Al Gore's plan, which calls for renewable energy sources supplying all of the nation's electricity with a zero carbon footprint within 10 years, are based on some raw assumptions that no doubt will be challenged by basic practicalities and as-yet-unknown roadblocks.
Longtime advocates of wind, solar and other renewable energies have welcomed Pickens' entry into the debate. However, many see his plan as a glass half full. Some like his idea of harnessing wind energy over a wide swath of the center of the country and that he's funding construction a 4,000-megawatt wind farm in West Texas but don't agree that natural gas is the best way to power automobiles.
A Bridge or a Roadblock?
In a recent paper, Lester Brown, director of the Energy Policy Institute, wrote that "part two of Pickens' plan — to move natural gas out of electricity production and use it to fuel cars instead — just doesn't make sense."
He argues that plug-in electric cars are nearly ready for market and that wind energy, the fastest-growing energy source in the country, is positioned to provide electricity to power the cars. The price of natural gas is on its way up, he says, while costs of wind-generated electricity are falling.
Pickens sees natural gas as a bridge to an energy mix that will be largely renewable, but others, like Brown and Nobel laureate Gore, don't see the need for a bridge.
In a recent appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Gore noted, "There are vehicles running today on natural gas. Chattanooga, Tennessee, has natural gas buses. It's a respectable option. But I think that in the long term the better approach is to make this investment in a unified national grid that has low losses in transmission ... and shift over to renewable resources."
A central element in these plans, all of which call for a significantly bigger slice of the energy pie coming from electricity, is the construction of high-voltage transmission lines to connect a more diffuse system of suppliers to users. As Gore alluded to, the current "grid" wasn't built to be a grid at all; instead, it's a collection of regional or local power lines that can't really handle routine interstate transmission of massive amounts of electricity.
James Mason, an author of the Grand Solar Plan mentioned earlier, is an economist who focuses on crunching energy numbers. He likes Pickens' approach to wind energy development but sees a problem: There will be little reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in using CNG for vehicles. His figures show that only about 59 percent of the light-duty vehicles (four-wheel, single-axle cars, SUVs and trucks) in the country could be powered with the amount of natural gas that would be available. (See his and Bill Bailey's look at the coming oil supply crisis here.)
Another hitch is that wind power is intermittent energy that requires a backup (unless energy storage is built into the system); backup power is usually supplied by natural gas power plants.
He believes the problem with Pickens' plan "as well as most other energy plans being presented is that they fail to take into account the sheer enormity of the U.S. energy system."
When closely evaluated, Mason says, "they end up being only piecemeal attempts at a solution with huge gaps." What needs to be taken into consideration, he says, are compressed air energy storage to address the intermittent nature of wind and solar and a national high-voltage direct current (HVDC) electrical transmission system.
A Role for CNG
Mason does agree with the Pickens' idea of using CNG as a bridge — to cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells. Use of CNG will require a new system of delivery and pumping stations to refuel vehicles; those systems, he says, can be easily converted to deliver compressed hydrogen. Honda is making an electric hydrogen fuel cell car called the Clarity.
It faces the same roadblocks faced by CNG-powered cars: availability of fueling stations. And to offer CNG or compressed hydrogen to motorists, a service station first needs to have a pipeline for delivery and would have to install new fuel pumps.
One thing is certain with any plan: Infrastructure to support massive changes in energy supply, fueling and transmission will not come cheap.
Electric cars covering large distances will need to recharge along the way. Electric-car proponents say the infrastructure is in place nationwide for their autos and adapting stations for electrical recharging would be an easy retrofit. And, they say, although CNG is a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline, it does not get much better mileage and burning it results in only a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions.
General Motors, with its plug-in gas/electric hybrid Chevy Volt, and Toyota, with its plug-in Prius, plan to have their "charges" on showroom floors by 2010. Ford and Nissan also have plug-in hybrids in the pipeline.
The Honda Civic GX is the only U.S.-made car that runs on CNG at this time, although both Ford and General Motors currently manufacture CNG vehicles for the international market, and some Americans are converting vehicles to run on CNG.
On CNG's plus side, a homeowner tied into a natural gas line for home use could tap it for CNG at night (after investing in a refueling kit). And compressed hydrogen could be available for refueling at home as well.
The Clarity's Web site notes that Honda researchers are looking at ways to "c reate a home energy system that heats water for the home, produces hydrogen fuel for a fuel cell vehicle and sources the electricity to power everyday appliances." The other "plus" for a hydrogen-powered car is that the only tailpipe emission is water. A negative is that natural gas is likely needed for production of compressed hydrogen.
Although cleaner than gasoline as a fuel, natural gas is still a fossil fuel and a contributor to global warming. And, like oil, it's a finite resource. Currently, the United States imports about one-sixth of its natural gas. The U.S. Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2008 projects that high prices for natural gas will stimulate the development of new supplies and constrain growth in consumption through 2016, when prices are likely to increase.
Mason's predictions also show U.S. natural gas supply decreasing, beginning around 2014, with a likely sharp increase in price. Plus, the EIA report notes that "international market conditions" will cause "greater uncertainty in future U.S. natural gas prices." Sound familiar?
The end of natural gas is far away, says McClendon, chairman and CEO of Chesapeake Energy, centered in Oklahoma City. The company, which claims to be the nation's largest gas producer and most active driller, is taking a page out of Pickens' book with its own public campaign and Web site.
In a recent press release, McClendon claims "new technologies in natural gas shale basins ... have provided new evidence that our country has ample natural gas supplies to power America's economy for more than a century."
In this very theoretical discussion regarding CNG, hybrid plug-ins or electric fuel cell power, the possibility of increasing wind's share of the electrical grid from 2 to 20 percent in a couple decades is hardly questioned. That might indicate the grandness —and perhaps quixotic reaches of all of these ideas — and the enormous scope of the problems they seek to address.
Sign up for our free e-newsletter.
Are you on Facebook? Click here to become our fan.
We encourage you to share any articles or material you find on Miller-McCune.com with friends and colleagues. Please fill in the fields below with the name and e-mail address, separating multiple addresses with semi-colons (;). Then fill in the same information for you. Miller-McCune will not keep any information about you or your friend, and the e-mail your friends receive will appear to have come from your e-mail address. The asterisk (*) denotes a required field.
Post A Comment
We want your feedback but you must be logged in first.
Trenchant and snarky are cool but all comments are subject to approval/removal.
Want more space than a little box? Write for us!
Written By:Joan Melcher
Joan Melcher is a freelance writer and editor living in Missoula, Mont. Her work ranges from travel magazine articles to stories on breaking research.
Also By This Author
- 1 Deep Throat Meets Data Mining
- 2 Doctor: Vets Need More Basic Training
- 3 Attacking Alzheimer’s with a…
- 4 The Man Who Bridges Troubled Waters
- 5 Under Bush, Science Learned It…
- 6 Brain Injuries Linked to Spirituality
- 7 America’s Mental Health (Care)…
- 8 The VA Brush-Off
- 9 Cautious Optimism for Obama’s…
- 10 Graphic Anti-Meth Ads Ineffective
Comments
POSTED BY: Darrell Louden, November 15, 2008, 01:43 PM
As we look to the future for our country, could wind energy be the answer to our electrical needs of the future? But a roar is coming from those in the Cape Cod area, that it will interrupt the tourists coming to see their area, they want to see the same scenes the Pilgrims saw when they landed at Plymouth Rock. Yea, I am sure when the Pilgrims sailed in, they saw multi-million dollars homes. They don't want to see on their horizon 130 white, three-bladed turbines, each of them taller than the Statue of Liberty, their 161-foot blades churning at 16 revolutions per minute. They don't want to see those blades killing birds, the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) view of wind farms. But look at all the mansions people have built, they look just as ugly." Wind is the world's fastest-growing alternative energy resource. In the United States, wind turbines in 27 states create enough power for more than a million families. The Altamont Pass is home to the country's oldest wind farm, which is also the world's largest inland installation, with 7,000 turbines. But wind-power plants have been slow to take root in the Northeast, where open spaces are few and fossil fuels are still the electricity source of choice. Then there is the PIMBY (Put It in My Backyard) issue. The ranch country that extends from Texas north through the Dakotas. Each wind turbine on a rancher's land typically brings a royalty of $3,000 to $10,000 per year. Is the future for your home, a solar makeover? Or installing your own unit that will produce electricity to your home from winds as low as 12 MPH? Look for your electric bill to increase in the coming years, as the Obama administration, tightens the screw on coal fired generating plants that emit green house gases. So as the world turns, so we need to turn toward new technology to develop new sources of energy. The day of filling up your car at a gas station, will give way to plugging up your car to recharge the battery. Today we are seeing a decline in the price of crude oil, some say we may see $50.00 per barrel of crude for the next two years. But as other countries start to put more cars and trucks on the road, and the OPEC nations try to cut production, we may see the rise of crude oil again. So America doesn't need to take our eye off that prospect. For now, we need to keep the heat on our government, to require automakers to continue to increase fuel mileage. We need to reward those that come up with new ideas to take our dependence off foreign oil.
POSTED BY: Andrew Whaley, October 24, 2008, 08:18 PM
nat gas is both a fossil fuel AND a completely renewable resource. Let me repeat that. Natural gas is both a fossil fuel AND A RENEWABLE RESOURCE. Not only do we trap it off of landfills, but some particularly clever waste management engineers actually work at designing landfills to produce more nat gas. In India (among other places), raw sewage is treated in such a way that it produces natural gas off of the human waste. Now, here's a concept for ya. If we react human waste to make natural gas, we have a *population-based* fuel source. More people? More landfills and more poop...... I believe that different solutions are going to work better depending upon commute distances, and population density.
POSTED BY: Matt Gilbert, October 23, 2008, 08:33 PM
These are all legitimate concerns, each alternative plan to the status qua of dealing with energy demands has it's short comings. Yes, there is intermittent wind patterns but that's why we need such a large development of them. Yes, the Natural Gas is still a fossil fuel, but it is still necessary to operate the larger vehicles that can't be run off of battery power or hydrogen, not by a long shot! But all of these plans presented by Pickens, Gore, and Madison all have the almost the exact same goal in mind. And yes when your dealing with a problem this big in scale it will have to be based off of some raw assumptions. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, and we can't wait for everyone to agree... that will never happen and we all know it. We need leadership, from Washington, businesses, and local communities around the US and the world to start working in the same general direction and it must be done now!!! I believe these problems will be worked out one way or the other but we need to have the guts to face them NOW. Pickens Plan Supporter
POSTED BY: Paul Reeder, October 22, 2008, 08:03 PM
Ms. Melchers article brings up many energy points of discussion. Some I can agree with. Many I do not. Mr. Lester Brown is quoted about the Pickens Plan, saying ”... -just doesn't make sense” and he argues plug-in electric hybrids (PHEVs) are a better option. I contend that natural gas vehicles (NGVs) are also a better option. The Pickens Plan goal is to reduce our precarious dependence on imported oil. It is based upon proven, doable technology. Not something that is 'nearly ready for market'. If the 20% of our electrical generation burning natural gas was reallocated to vehicles, it would replace about 35% of our 385 million gallon per day gasoline consumption. PHEVs do not even come close. The basic problem is that electrics are small , commuter type vehicles. If their estimated 40 mile range is accurate, that means they will go 40 miles before a 6+ hour charge period is required. Further driving requires gasoline or ethanol. Because they are hybrids, they achieve about 40 miles/gallon when running on gasoline. That means that each day, each PHEV saves about 1 gallon of gasoline that is not imported. Personally, I think few people have a 40 mile commute, but for the sake of argument, lets maximize the electric displacement of gasoline. So, to displace 35% of our daily gasoline habit would require 135 million PHEVs. Give or take a few. One of the candidates for president has a goal of placing 1 million of these cars on the road by 2015. It sounds so green, but has little effect on our importing the black stuff. I do not write this because PHEVs are bad. They're just not a whole lot better than conventional hybrids. I think they could be pretty cool rides. Perfect for traffic jams when normal vehicles are burning fuel and going nowhere. They could be a very efficient transportation machines. They could be even better with natural gas as the back-up fuel. And they could be ready by 2010. Could be. To me, this is the proverbial rearrangement of the deck chairs. As the ship sinks, we pin our money & national security on the perhaps & the probable, not the proven & the practical. Today, battery power is limited to small to medium sized passenger cars. Natural gas can propel small cars through large trucks. Nat gas can displace both gasoline & diesel. That is why United Parcel Service recently ordered 300 nat gas delivery vans. A Mr. Mason is referenced, saying the Pickens Plan 'Only' eliminates the gasoline usage of 59% of light duty vehicles. Well, yes, that is the plan's goal: drastically reduce oil imports, not eliminate them. I am also puzzled by another reference of Mr. Mason that the Pickens Plan (among others) “... fail to take into account the shear enormity of the U.S. Energy system.” That's the point: the Pickens Plan is the only plan that does take a big bite out of gasoline needs. 35% of gasoline consumption is not “piecemeal”. I agree with Mr. Mason about the usage of nat gas for peak power. This is no small problem, particularly in the summer months. I would like to point out, though, that nat gas consumption for electrical generation basically doubles from winter to summer. That makes me think about half of nat gas electricity is baseline power (as opposed to peak power). I don't really know. One solution for the peak problem, though, is for baseline power plants to use their steam for ethanol distillation (versus the nat gas used now) or their electricity for electrolytic hydrogen production (which is grossly inefficient) but would give us valuable experience with large scale hydrogen production. When these “hybrid” power plants are required for peak power, they could rapidly switch back to electrical generation. Another problem with the Pickens Plan (not mentioned in the article) is nat gas for home heating. Although there is more than 300,000 miles of nat gas pipeline in the lower 48, during winter months, the pipelines cannot , by themselves, keep up with demand. Therefore, the nat gas utilities use the non-home heating months to fill large underground caverns with nat gas that can then be drawn upon to meet cold weather demand. I don't think this is a show stopper, but it must be dealt with. To conclude, I agree that hydrogen is the best alternative system for the future. This is what the United States should plan for. The debate seems to be the choice between PHEVs and NGVs. These choices should be a collaboration, not a confrontation, both a bridge to a sound, secure hydrogen future.
POSTED BY: hathaway rob, October 20, 2008, 10:02 AM
I agree with Jim VanNatta. Mr. Pickens has a viable solution here and now. One component of the Plan not often discussed is that it specifically calls for the modernization of the national power grid. The Plan also does not depend on the "family vehicle" conversion to natural gas--the primary goal is the conversion of fleet vehicles--trucks, buses, municipal and utility vehicles. Therefore a delivery system can be created in a more systematic and condensed form. Large refueling sites are not necessary and localization of sites can be accomplished in a timely manner. The Pickens Plan has a comprehensive solution to many of the current energy issues we face, first and foremost our nations dependence on foreign oil. The catalyst for the Pickens Plan is this dependence and it adds immediacy and urgency to coming up with a bridge/temporary solution now.
POSTED BY: Jim VanNatta, October 20, 2008, 09:17 AM
I'm glad to see more discussion about alternative energy and our need for energy independence. I wanted to point out that T. Boone Pickens is the only person in America with a real and viable energy plan. In some ways, it's like a family, or even a church. I agree with almost everything that Mr. Pickens is proposing, but there may be a couple of things that are open for discussion. But, I would like to comment on this article. The article seems to be so far in favor of electric vehicles, that it only begrudgingly accepts some of the Pickens Plan concepts. The experts cited state that electric car technology is nearly available. CNG is available now - today. The only downfall is the low number of refueling sites, but that is one of the programs that some of us are addressing. We can have a solution within weeks and months, not years. The experts also seem to have an "all or nothing" approach. One even criticizes Mr. Pickens for not grasping the scope. In fact, he not only "gets it," but his plan is built on the concept that states and local communities can start to make a difference right now. He sees the big picture as being made up of smaller, closely linked solutions. By the way, your readers should also know that CNG does work - there are 8.5 million vehicles in the world powered with CNG, but only 142,000 of those are here in the U.S.
POSTED BY: john orben, October 18, 2008, 01:30 PM
Regarding new energy solutions for our nation, I believe tat someone must step up and offer ideas for change. The only vehicle solutions available now seem to be in limited production. Comments about technologies ready for market should be disregarded as many vehicle manufacturers have made claims but most have not delivered a product. One can not believe the vehicle manufacturers claims until they make good and off the public a product. There are many energy solutions we can speculate about. Wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal all offer promises for new energy technology, but unless we do it, it is a waste of breath. Let's get off our rears and do something like Mr. Pickens suggests.