Pickens is dead right to try to substitute as much Natural gas with wind as possible.

It is crazy to use any fossil fuel for electricity generation - they are far too valuable as transportation fuels and chemical feedstocks.

Using natural gas in cars is good, especially for cities as it is a very clean fuel.

We would like to see the electification of transport, but until we get te batteries, CNG is a good option.

So it sounds like a reasonable plan to me - either part of it, especially going to 30% wind + 70% gas for power generation.

For about 4 of those 8 it is really just greed regardless of the excuse that they use. For the other 4 it is often just sheer cussedness. In either case the lines being underground makes little difference. You are probably underestimating the cost increase involved in buried underground lines as well as the increased cost of legal action.
An alternative is to run the power lines along railroad right of ways in turn for aid in electrifying the railroad lines. That still doesn't answer the inequity between energy user and energy donor states though. Any way you slice it the Sierra Club will be on it like ugly on an ape.

Guys, be sure to sign up at http://push.pickensplan.com/ to make a difference in mass adoption of wind energy.

That still doesn't answer the inequity between energy user and energy donor states though.

The nationwide smart grid and the associated centralized production of energy to a region will be a sea change in the way utilities do business. How it will all resolve is beyond my comprehension but it will be fraught with turbulences and acrimony.

CNG path for transportation in America was professionally investigated thousand times over, beginning from 1970s. Three game stoppers:

1. CNG systems in cars are too expensive (comparable with price premium of full hybrid).
2. Without proper maintenance CNG system is subject to catastrophic failure – simply put explosion. This limits CNG application to high-mileage fleet vehicles.
3. US are already importing NG from overseas.

Additionally, one natural gas to liquid plant is 10 times cheaper than conversion of million cars to CNG and construction of 100 CNG refueling stations.

At least Methane (biogas, CNG) can much easier be produced from waste, plants etc. than ethanol and oil.

Also, using the sabatier process one can produce Methane from CO2 and H2 (e.g. from wind energy). (CO2 is not only generated in fossil fuel plants but always generated in biogas reactors.)

Methane is a better energy carrier than hydrogen.

I want to see more CNG powered vehicles. And I think we will see many. Picken's basic plan is good. And I don't care if he makes money.

But the D.C. Duo is just talking nonsense. Their plan is just toss bags of money in the general direction of their pals.

The first wants to give money to gas station operators and tell car makers what to build. The other wants to call a fossil fuel a renewable and add another bureaucracy to the DOE.

Pork and rules and campaign money and .....

So let me get this strait. You want tos spend billions on infrastructure to switch one net imported fossil fuel for another imported fossil fuel? And I'm sure the proponents of this are opposed to hydrogen, even though a natural gas ICE is ~20-25% efficent, while if you did steam reformation on that natural gas (~70% efficent) and used it in a fuel cell (~60% efficent) you'd get ~40% efficent system and would have the infrastruture set up to go carbon neutral. But then hydrogen is stupid, right?

Not to mention that you can use natural gas to produce electricity (~60% efficent) and use it to power electric cars (~80% efficent), giving you >45% efficency.

Not to mention that if there is a carbon tax/cap and trade system, natural gas prices will skyrocket. Not only will natural gas begin to displace coal, but natural gas will also be needed to make up for the variability of wind and solar, so natural gas might not be that cheap anymore. Wind wouldn't decrease our dependencey on natural gas for electricity, but rather increase it.

Not to mention the fact that once we start to rely on LNG from other countries, natural gas prices will skyrocket.

Am I the only one who has thought this thing through?

Nope.

Sulleny, it's a relief to not be alone.

I've checked EIA's Natural Gas Imports by Country page: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc_s1_a.htm We don't seem to be getting a lot of it from other countries and countries we are getting it from are mostly friendly ones. Does the naysayers have any answer for this?

Dan, on the subject of the variability of wind and solar, you forget that there are transmission, storage and maintenance technologies out there that can lessen that variability such as Flywheel technology (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/852/2490/00074758.pdf?arnumber=74758) & (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Beacon_Power_To_Provide_Flywheel_System_To_Support_Wind_Power_Integration_Project_In_California_999.html).

Gerald:
1) Yes, most of US natural gas is domestic (~80%) but the marginal cubic foot will be imported, which is really all that matters. Not only that, but as our natural gas supply increasingly comes from other countries, it will increasingly come from LNG which is far more expensive as Canada increasingly uses is's natural gas for oil sands. The US currently pays a lower natural gas price than does the world, and the US will have to pay the world price once we become dependent on LNG (which we will, judging by the numerous LNG terminals being built around the country).

2) Yes, there are storage methods for electricity that would be used to alternate variable supply, but they're not being used because they are signficantly more expensive than using natural gas peaking plants. If there were cost effective, natural gas peaking plants wouldn't exist, which obviously isn't the case.

Gerald

As Dan suggested you may want to look at the change in import cost for LNG. This is a good argument for continuing to build wind farms.

It bears repeating, no county has been able to build wind capacity fast enough to keep up with electricity demand. In other words, CHG may be a good idea but not to reduce ghg or dependence on foreign energy sources.

The price of natural gas will increase sharply because of the following:

• 13% of US homes are now heated by oil; they will be converted to gas in short order.

• The carbon cap tax will force electric utilities to switch from coal to gas for electric generation since gas is less carbon dense then coal.

• The switch from oil to gas for transportation will put huge demand pressure on gas price.

• Increase cost of domestic exploration and production costs since the off shore fleet will need to be replaced.

• LNG infrastructure will be expanded at a large expense.

• Imported LNG will increase in price do to large increase in demand.

Hydrogen can also be mixed with Methane (also called Hythane) and increase the efficiency and emissions of the combustion engine:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/city_of_barstow.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/10/10000_hythane_b.html

Needless to say: Plug-In hybrids with small, powerful inexpensive combustion engines also work with Methane and Hythane.
Fuel cell cars are also hybrids. Why bother about expensive fuel cells, when the power can essentially be drawn from the battery 90% of the time?

Heating badly insulated houses with oil or gas is a waste. Not using solar hot water capacity to reduce dependence on oil and gas is also a waste.
After all: A car does not run on hot water, but a shower and heating system does.

Heat and cool homes and buildings with solar thermal, gasify biomass to methane and run cars on the methane that you saved and made pumped into your garage via natural gas pipes that already exist. While we are at it, make flex dual fuel plug hybrids for sale that run on E10 or NG.

Wind provides baseload:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf

Sulleny said:
"Be aware however that CNG is a staple of coalbed methane producers (like BP and Shell) who are carving up pristine wilderness to drill wells (e.g. Flathead River Valley in BC, Canada)."

Have you ever seen a gas well before? I have. I know people who have them on their farms in Western PA. It's just a pipe and a meter. There's nothing to it. It's ridiculous to say that gas wells carve into pristine wilderness. Gas wells are very non-disruptive. After they've been there for a few years, you'd never know they were there until you're on top of them.

Whenever many more vehicles, home HVAC and power plants convert to NG, the Market place will take notice and the price will triple (+) very quickly. The expected ROI may never come true.

All those who spent resources to convert to NG will regret it within a year or two.

Only free energy sources like Hydro, Geothermal, Wind and Sun cannot be manipulated at will by the Market place.

Beware of energy sources at the hands of the Free Market place manipulators. Free Market is not neccessarily your best friend.

Electrified vehicles, with your own sun/wind e-sources, may be one of the way not to become a Market place victim.

We note that one comment referred to use of natural gas to generate electricity, instead of being used as a vehicle fuel.

More than 30 years ago, while an undergrad student in mechanical engineering, I heard the comment that using natural gas for so crude a purpose as power generation was equivalent to using a Cadillac, Lincoln Continental, Rolls Royce, etc. to haul garbage.

I don't care much for coal, but if we were to use nuclear power for providing our electricity, we could save fossil fuels and biofuels for transportation.

As for bringing natural gas into our nation from overseas: As an engineer I would much rather see that than to see NG wastefully flared. The very thought of flaring natural gas makes me sick.

There has been heavy administration political pressure on congress to open up the entire continental shelf to off shore drilling. The administration is responding to oil company interests to increase the return on investment (ROI) probability that will make it more attractive to the oil companies to rebuild their off shore oil exploration and production fleet.

The current fleet is rusted and obsolete and needs a major upgrade. Without an expanded base, the oil industry will not increase the current exploration and production efforts. The oil companies judge that any capital expansion in oil exploration and development is a risky investment considering the relatively low level of lease area that supports future revenue growth

The congress wanted to force the oil and gas industry to expand capital investment but was defeated by the administration. This standoff negates the prospect of any increase in gas reserves. Only significant increase in natural gas prices will motivate the oil companies to increase the current low levels of exploration.

Environmentalists are blamed for obstructing the development and deployment of nuclear electric generation. But the major problem has been extreme governmental vacillation of support. This has caused research reactors to be abandoned right after construction. This lack of consistent governmental support has resulted in the destruction of the nuclear industry infrastructure in the US as well as compromising their existing obsolete technology in the area of waste production minimization.

Without a consistent and long lasting governmental nuclear policy, any renaissance in the nuclear industry will come from foreign nuclear infrastructures.

I feel the move to natural gas fueled cars should not be pushed now since the primary route to reduced energy usage is through plug-in cars, or hybrid cars. When we have plug-in vehicles on the market, then we can decide what is the best range extension technology available at that point.