Run Cars on Green Electricity, Not Natural Gas

T. Boone is now advocating CNG for trucks and buses not cars. Batteries aren't close to running trucks and buses. CNG is probably better than oil for those uses, at least for local fleets.

Yeah, What Pickens is saying is that Natural Gas should be used for Heavy Duty Trucks and Transportation Vehicles. Pickens is all for Plug-in Hybrids for standard commuting. The problem is with the transportation of goods, and right now, without building a huge railroad infrastructure, Natural Gas is the only alternative fuel that can power these large trucks.

Thank you guys, for beating me to the punch. Pickens is becoming a fav of mine the more I learn about him

I agree on most points-- at least where the gas vs electric argument falls short. And that natural gas is far from a pure domestic supply source. It's going to be very global.

But another that I think we need to recognize early on is equally important-- and that is the cost/performance limitations of batteries, and the potentially false assumption that plugging in is a better way forward. (My vote is for 'swap out' models of refueling)

Cars are not iPods. Despite the hope/hype of all electric battery cars, it's only a stepping stone to a fully integrated electric motor system powered by a combination of batteries, fuel cells and capacitors. Not one device rules them all, and batteries are going to (eventually) find it difficult to compete against fuel cells.

I'm also very skeptical of the whole notion of 'plugging in'. I think it's short sighted to assume that electricity alone as a stream of electrons can be fully utilized. Nature stores energy in the form of chemical bonds, and so might we. I know that hydrogen is the ugly sister of the energy world since it hasn't lived up to the hype. But chemical bonds are a great way to store electrical energy... so solid state storage systems and 'swap out' distribution models could make those billions of dollars invested in 'plugging in' useless. I think we need to apply foresight here.. and not assume that plugging in will be cheap or easy. Both are unlikely. So let's not rule out chemical storage systems that utilize hydrogen.

But agreed with your focus on moving beyond the combustion engine!!! Well said..

Garry G
Editor
TheEnergyRoadmap.com
http://www.theeenergyroadmap.com

I think there is a pragmatic argument for CNG.

After all, running a car on CNG is a rather simple affair. Conversions can be had for a few thousand dollars after market. It would likely cost

While PHEVs and EVs are the likely future, we need to be realistic about the uptake of the technology. Hybrid cars have been on the market for 10 years now and only now represent 3% of all new car sales (during the period of $4/gas)

Assuming that PHEVs hit the market in 2011, it will likely take 20-25 years to gain main stream adoption.

After all the first car offered with an airbag was the Oldsmobile Toronado in 1973. When was the first car that you owned that had an airbag?

Until then, Pickens is right that CNG is a 'bridge' to these technologies as it has a short payback and is easy to implement.

Also considering that it is starting to appear that there is more natural gas than oil in the world, PHEVs 20 or 30 years from now might use CNG too.

"Not one device rules them all, and batteries are going to (eventually) find it difficult to compete against fuel cells"

There are already diesel fuel cells, so why not gasoline or natural gas fuel cells? Readily available fuel solves the infrastructure problem, and with higher efficiency and less pollution relative to an ICE. Can it be done cheap enough?

Agreeing with some of the comments above, T. Boone is advocating electric and plug-ins for cars and then CNG for the fleet industry including the long haul and buses. In the beginning he didn't directly say that but now he his.

I don't understand how people are still touting fuel cells like they are the thing. They suffer from massive inefficiencies at every step in the process. Batteries and caps are the only ones that show promise. Caps can be charged in seconds and some lithium technology batteries can be charged in the same time as a gas station stop, the problem is of course, creating a fueling station that can deliver over 250,000 watts for ten minutes.

For local delivery fleets hydrolic hybrid trucks show a lot of promise. UPS is testing them currently. Pickens doesn't mention these in his plans. It's probably because he does not make them, and therefore can not directly profit from them. But I think they have a potential.

You people seem to have a pathetically short memory. T. Boone Pickens doesn't care about the planet, he's trying to make a buck. A previous Treehugger articleWater Pipeline Not Wind Power, Real Reason Pickens Can Build Transmission Lines
T. Boone Pickens can go crawl in a hole somewhere for what I think of him and his plans.

I know that hydrogen is the sister of the energy world since it hasn't lived up to the hype. But chemical bonds are a great way to store electrical energy so solid state storage systems and 'swap out' distribution models could make those billions of dollars invested in 'plugging in' useless. I think we need to apply foresight here

Im fine with Pickens making a buck if it means clean air,less impact from global warming, less money going to rogue states etc. Capitalism isnt a bad thing, and its not like hes doing this with taxpayers money- hes investing a ton of his money ( i believe in the billions) in wind power projects. Why should Pickens be judged differently than companies like Google, Tesla,GE? All with green projects that they hope will be profitable at some point.

I'm excitedly waiting all the changes in technology and availability of vehicles in the near future!!!

@ Anon 2:10 AM
You're kidding right? Did you even read the article? Pickens has been buying up massive water rights from the already stressed Ogallala Aquifer and he wants to pipe that water to Dallas at huge profit, made possible by Texas water laws which place underground water rights in private hands. Unfortunately, pipeline right-of-way is pretty hard to acquire, so Pickens figured out a sneaky way to get some help: he formed a little water district headed by his wife and a friend and then convinced the Texas legislature that water plus wind electricity was a good enough reason to use its power of eminent domain to hand over the land to him for a song. Wind power was never really the motivation for this land snatch, it was just a political sweetener for a water deal.

Clever — and typically Texan, no? Still, why not just sell the electricity? Why the natural gas ploy? Turns out Pickens has a vested interest there too:


Along with being the country's biggest wind power developer, Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a natural gas fueling station company that is the sole backer of the underhanded Proposition 10 that was defeated on California's November ballot.

If you take a closer look you find a laundry list of cash grabs — from $200 million for a liquefied natural gas terminal to $2.5 billion for rebates of up to $50,000 for each natural gas vehicle. Much of the measure's billions could benefit Pickens' company to the exclusion of almost all other clean-vehicle fuels and technology.

So the windmills are a blatent excuse to sieze land for a water pipeline, and the natural gas piece of the plan benefits Pickens' NG fueling station company profits. And while natural gas burns cleaner than oil, it's still a fossil fuel that's found mostly in Russia and the Middle East. Increasing our dependence on gas does little in the long term to promote energy independence. In fact, it only switches the flavor of our addiction.

Now, for the most part, I don't have any problem with people making money from clean energy. That's the only real way to get business to move on it. But between his water-fueled eminent domain land grab in Texas and his support for a failed $5 billion bond measure in California, Pickens sure is using a lot of government loot to benefit himself. Even a complete moron has to admit there must be a better way to promote wind power than siding with this guy.

I just saw the successful completion of Louis Palmer's Electric Car world trip today.

He says the battery to power an electric car can be mass produced and bring the cost down to near $10,000 which is very affordable. This takes you 300 km at 100 km/h, and recharges in about an hour (time for dinner and a pee).

In short, the Electric car is available technology.

I just saw the successful completion of Louis Palmer's Electric Car world trip today.

He says the battery to power an electric car can be mass produced and bring the cost down to near $10,000 which is very affordable. This takes you 300 km at 100 km/h, and recharges in about an hour (time for dinner and a pee).

In short, the Electric car is available technology.

Basically he is arguing that we should convert half of our vehicles to run on coal. We will struggle to increase renewable energy sources to keep up with electricity demand for traditional sources, and he wants to add the burden of powering our vehicles too?

He also ignores huge costs like building new natural gas power plants to generate electricity to run cars. Building this type of infrastructure is a huge investment and will only serve to reinforce a dependency on fossil fuels for 50 years or more. Nobody will build a plant and then abandon it in 10 years when better technology comes along. People will however buy a car powered by natural gas, knowing that in 10 years electric powered vehicles might make more sense.

Finally, the specs I saw for the volt said 40 miles per 16kWh. That works out to 12kWh per 30 miles. Mr. Dorn claims that as of July 08, this would cost $.73. So, either Mr. Dorn pays 6 cents per kWh, or his numbers are made up.

There are many reasons to pursue alternative energy for cars.

But focusing on the idea of resource independence: Won't plug-in EVs require unprecedented amounts of lithium, which must also be imported?

If I recall, the largest source is Bolivia, whose government likes the U.S. about as much as, oh, Iran.

Has there been any discussion of this? Anyone know what the tradeoffs are?