The 112 richest man in the world has a pretty good idea for America's energy problems.

 

http://www.pickensplan.com/

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-05-08-natural-gas-usat_N.htm

So is Natural Gas like LPG (Liquefied petroleum gas) which gets promoted a lot in this country?

 

It's a good idea, but Hydrogen fuel-cell technology will be better once they fine-tune it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas

 

There's the definition of Nat gas. We have a bunch of it here in the states, and it burns relatively clean. (For an equivalent amount of heat, burning natural gas produces about 30% less carbon dioxide than burning petroleum and about 45% less than burning coal.)

 

T. Boone Pickens is a hedge fund manager who makes over a billion dollars a year (in a good year). He owns a bunch of nat gas properties and companies associated with its delivery, so he stands to profit significantly if its demand increases.

 

Personally I think we should go heavily into solar and use 100% electric cars. But the dirty truth is that oil is currently heavily overvalued. It stands to fall significantly over the next several months/years. It's already fallen 13% in the last few days and I expect it to keep coming down, at least to 80 dollars a barrel. This should give us a temporary lull in the demand for alternative energy.

:rolleyes:;)I have to agree with Jay!

Solar is true energy independence, and the cells last for decades. If we want a future that's not controlled by a few billionaires, with their desire to maintain empire, I think we would be wise to choose energy independence.:cool::sunny:

David, the Natural Gas we're currently getting is being shipped into special ports - it's contained in those enormous spherical globe-shaped tanks on the deck. It's liquefied, but unlike propane or butane (found in LPG), it has to be kept very, very cold, and under high pressure to stay liquid.

So is Natural Gas like LPG (Liquefied petroleum gas) which gets promoted a lot in this country?

 

It's a good idea, but Hydrogen fuel-cell technology will be better once they fine-tune it

 

The thing about hydrogen fuel cells is that they aren't an energy source at all, they're just elaborate, expensive, inefficient batteries. There isn't much pure hydrogen on Earth, and producing it takes a lot of energy. That energy could come from solar panels, but it's much easier to just put energy from solar panels in regular batteries. Fuel cells are a big waste of resources in the short term, and probably not that helpful in the long term...but they still get a lot of attention for some reason. :(

Could you imagine the size of the solar panels needed for the car to give it enough power?

 

Plus the added weight.

 

What is so funny (for me) is when people buy electric cars in which they plug into the mains (you know, 8 hour charge for about 40 miles), and then they say they are 'green' as they don't produce any co2.

 

Which is true, they don't produce any co2 directly, but they produce co2 indirectly (via the power stations used to generate the electricity needed to power your car) and the batteries can't be good for the environment when they are finally dead

Could you imagine the size of the solar panels needed for the car to give it enough power?

 

Plus the added weight.

 

The solar panels don't have to be on the car if it has a big battery, or a hydrogen fuel cell engine. But you do have to make sure the electricity/hydrogen didn't come from burning coal or something.

 

I still think batteries work better, though, even if you have to throw them away eventually; at least they don't need rare minerals like platinum to work well enough. And pure electricity is much faster and cleaner to transport than hydrogen.

Hmm.. Well one could incorporate some so solar cells into the finish of the car, and that would add some energy while driving, or recharge while parked. But yes, panels everywhere else, and charge a storage device in the auto. If we're being smart about it, the modern way of doing it is to use common element cells - those utilizing carbon nanotube capacitors, aluminum cells, or even hydrogen storage in synthetic zeolites would be vastly better than the current battery technologies.

All the current battery metals are rare - platinum is extremely rare, but then there's lead, zinc, cadmium, lithium, and nickel. Rare enough that trying to use them in the global vehicle fleet would be impractical, if not nearly impossible, as they are not all that common in the Earth's crust.

At present, Fuel Cells have their caveats. However, not too far into the future, they will be more reliable, and less dependent on rare metals, such as platinum.. Currently, a redesign of the basic internal combustion engine should yield double or triple the efficiency, and this would result in hydrogen being even more practical as a fuel, provided it is stored efficiently and safely.;)

So is Natural Gas like LPG (Liquefied petroleum gas) which gets promoted a lot in this country?

 

It's a good idea, but Hydrogen fuel-cell technology will be better once they fine-tune it

 

Ok but in the meantime it would be a good solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas

 

There's the definition of Nat gas. We have a bunch of it here in the states, and it burns relatively clean. (For an equivalent amount of heat, burning natural gas produces about 30% less carbon dioxide than burning petroleum and about 45% less than burning coal.)

 

T. Boone Pickens is a hedge fund manager who makes over a billion dollars a year (in a good year). He owns a bunch of nat gas properties and companies associated with its delivery, so he stands to profit significantly if its demand increases.

 

Personally I think we should go heavily into solar and use 100% electric cars. But the dirty truth is that oil is currently heavily overvalued. It stands to fall significantly over the next several months/years. It's already fallen 13% in the last few days and I expect it to keep coming down, at least to 80 dollars a barrel. This should give us a temporary lull in the demand for alternative energy.

 

He's a smart man with a good solution. The only solutions will be made by those making a profit. Solar electric cars aren't the solution.

 

On the note of oil, it's funny how when the barrel prices raises gas stations are so quick to increase the price but when it drops, im noticing they're taking a lot longer to lower prices.

:rolleyes:;)I have to agree with Jay!

Solar is true energy independence, and the cells last for decades. If we want a future that's not controlled by a few billionaires, with their desire to maintain empire, I think we would be wise to choose energy independence.:cool::sunny:

David, the Natural Gas we're currently getting is being shipped into special ports - it's contained in those enormous spherical globe-shaped tanks on the deck. It's liquefied, but unlike propane or butane (found in LPG), it has to be kept very, very cold, and under high pressure to stay liquid.

 

Solar will not be as effective as other things thus it will not stick.

smarter future yields more results..

 

Go Solar:sunny::sunny::sunny:!!!

Newer processes are coming along to make the cells in a safer way, and reduce the energy embodied in their manufacture. Based on risk, I'm betting more on solar than on the rest; although wind complements solar nicely. Storage issues are a problem to be solved as well, but those are issues being addressed.

We really don't need more fuels of any type, so much as we need better designs for efficient use of fuels, and we could have fewer worries if we simply put the effort into efficiency by incentives. The answers are right before us, but so often we're after either a quick fix, or the constant push to find more resources; so much so that it's a dysfunctional approach to a vibrant economy.

 

Who said anything about placing the panels on the car's body?

 

I'm thinking more along the lines of incorporating solar panels in the pavement of our highways and streets. The surface area would be enormous and easily enough to power every car on the streets.

 

Tesla Motors has a car that charges in 3.5 hours and gets 250 miles per charge. It can go from 0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds, the same as a Lamborghini. So it's not so far fetched.

 

I have no issue with the profit motive, I just think we should view any proposal with a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

As time goes on, batteries will get better, solar panels will get more efficient, and all this stuff will get cheaper. The future isn't in wind or natural gas, it's solar electricity.

water cars?

Who said anything about placing the panels on the car's body?

 

I'm thinking more along the lines of incorporating solar panels in the pavement of our highways and streets. The surface area would be enormous and easily enough to power every car on the streets.

 

Tesla Motors has a car that charges in 3.5 hours and gets 250 miles per charge. It can go from 0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds, the same as a Lamborghini. So it's not so far fetched.

 

I have no issue with the profit motive, I just think we should view any proposal with a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

As time goes on, batteries will get better, solar panels will get more efficient, and all this stuff will get cheaper. The future isn't in wind or natural gas, it's solar electricity.

 

Who is going to pay for this? who is going to do massive amounts of repairs?

 

If our government could do something right we could afford this and not have to raise taxes.

Who is going to pay for this? who is going to do massive amounts of repairs?

 

If our government could do something right we could afford this and not have to raise taxes.

 

Whoever wants cheap, sustainable energy. A stretch of highway 1 mile long currently costs over 4 million dollars as it is, so I don't see how this would involve a much larger investment than currently exists. As I said, the technology will come along soon, and there will be competition for government contracts.

 

Our involvement in the middle east has done nothing to stabilize the price of oil, and it has cost us trillions over the years, not to mention the loss of human capital.

 

Watch out for John McCain's bizarre admonishment that we "win the war", whatever the hell that means.

Hmm.. Well, I like the idea of solar panels spaced over the roadways, suspended on metal webs that arch over, with plenty of light still getting through (who wants the sun blaring down on them anyways?). Placing the cells in the pavement -embedded? - they're just not quite that durable, although they could be embedded inside clear glass paving blocks, with roughened upper surfaces for traction. It's an idea alright! And it would negate the need for some steel or aluminum web above to suspend the cells. But the downsides might be maintenance related to road wear, weather, replacement intervals, lower efficiency, etc. Still, it's worth considering.;)

Jay, you're right! Highways are incredibly expensive, and as energy prices rise, they will become even more so (in part because of the energy put into the surfacing materials, and economic costs that increase with fuel as well..) If enough solar were incorporated over highways, parking lots, etc. the volume of production would drastically reduce manufacturing costs, and newer methods are in the works for clean, green ways to make the cells. And the refueling stations offering a solar-electric recharge would be the most efficient use of the electric - right off the main line!

 

Put the Horse before the Cart

 

I'm beginning to think there's more of a common-sense crisis, than an energy crisis. If the US vehicle fleet gets an average of 20 miles per gallon of gasoline (or 7.3 Kilometers per Liter of gasoline), we have some serious issues with missing the mountain while seeing the pebbles.

My (now ancient) 1984 Cavalier gets 36 miles per gallon on the highway. Since engines are very inefficient (25-30% max. efficiency), start there. Exhaust components, valves, manifolds, etc. get very hot because the engine is very wasteful. Just by allowing for the full expansion of the hot combustion gases, we could easily double engine efficiency. That would make my old beater jump to 72 mpg. Now, the next step is aerodynamics. The big part of the equation is a cubic function relating to vehicle speed through air. As one speeds up, based on the drag of the body, the energy required to "push through the air" goes up to the power of 3. This is, by far, the biggest energy drain a vehicle has. Now, we could all go slower.:laugh3: Ya, right, you say!:P LOL, I know! (slower does help a lot, but most drivers prefer to go fast, and the highways require a certain amount of movement to prevent traffic jams, and so perhaps 5mph slower is about all most drivers would be willing to slow down).

So, it's perfectly reasonable to assume we can improve body and undercarriage shape to double the efficiency here as well. 72 mpg then jumps to 144 mpg! Drive a little slower, and this again could be 160mpg or greater! (~60 Km/L for those of you in the metric-wise world;)).

Now, future autos may not be running on gasoline or diesel, but the concept is all the same. Design right, and no matter what you choose, the energy requirements will be a quarter or a fifth of what they currently are. And with no loss of services!

This makes solar practical, biodiesel acceptable with much less cropland dedicated to fuel, and newer battery designs both affordable, and offers expanded mileage before recharges. All it takes is some common sense, and the newer technologies become a natural fit.:chef:

He's a smart man with a good solution. The only solutions will be made by those making a profit. Solar electric cars aren't the solution.

 

On the note of oil, it's funny how when the barrel prices raises gas stations are so quick to increase the price but when it drops, im noticing they're taking a lot longer to lower prices.

 

Yep

 

I wish Andover had another supermarket fuel station, to give Tesco some competition (because at current Tesco and the other stations around fix their prices higher than the surrounding areas).

 

Fast as putting up prices, not-so fast at reducing prices

On the side of motorways on the embankments, they have started to install solar panels. Although for the time being they power the signposts

I'm beginning to think there's more of a common-sense crisis, than an energy crisis. If the US vehicle fleet gets an average of 20 miles per gallon of gasoline (or 7.3 Kilometers per Liter of gasoline), we have some serious issues with missing the mountain while seeing the pebbles.

My (now ancient) 1984 Cavalier gets 36 miles per gallon on the highway. Since engines are very inefficient (25-30% max. efficiency), start there. Exhaust components, valves, manifolds, etc. get very hot because the engine is very wasteful. Just by allowing for the full expansion of the hot combustion gases, we could easily double engine efficiency. That would make my old beater jump to 72 mpg. Now, the next step is aerodynamics. The big part of the equation is a cubic function relating to vehicle speed through air. As one speeds up, based on the drag of the body, the energy required to "push through the air" goes up to the power of 3. This is, by far, the biggest energy drain a vehicle has. Now, we could all go slower.:laugh3: Ya, right, you say!:P LOL, I know! (slower does help a lot, but most drivers prefer to go fast, and the highways require a certain amount of movement to prevent traffic jams, and so perhaps 5mph slower is about all most drivers would be willing to slow down).

So, it's perfectly reasonable to assume we can improve body and undercarriage shape to double the efficiency here as well. 72 mpg then jumps to 144 mpg! Drive a little slower, and this again could be 160mpg or greater! (~60 Km/L for those of you in the metric-wise world;)).

Now, future autos may not be running on gasoline or diesel, but the concept is all the same. Design right, and no matter what you choose, the energy requirements will be a quarter or a fifth of what they currently are. And with no loss of services!

This makes solar practical, biodiesel acceptable with much less cropland dedicated to fuel, and newer battery designs both affordable, and offers expanded mileage before recharges. All it takes is some common sense, and the newer technologies become a natural fit.:chef:

 

This is where the U.K. system of duel-metric/imperial measures falls apart. Distances are in Miles, but you buy litres from the fuel station (so logically you would assume the economy figure would be Miles per Litre), but the economy figure is Miles per Gallon (or KM/L) However the UK (4.54609 Lts) and US (3.78541 Lts) gallon are different, so when comparing MPG figures from an American car in America to a UK car in the UK, you have got to remember to factor in the gallon difference

David, that's a good sign!! Here too, but very limited solar panels - tiny ones just for lights to light up a town's marker, etc. The numbers of panels could be quite significant, and the power run along to the filling stations..

And naturally, prices fall slowly at the pumps, after they drop in the market. How much is lag-time, and how much is gouging, I am no expert at telling that - but I'm sure someone's reaping the extra profits where they can..;)

Which brings me round to markets - sure, the profit motive is fine, as long as there's an honest referee in the game. I wonder when billionaires get involved - they're often the ones tilting the playing field unfairly in their favor, and to the detriment of most everyone else..

Tesla's got the car, but it's in need of a production boost to get the prices down. And electrics are just part of the picture - I think the future will be a mix of energy options for vehicles, which is a good thing since if any one energy source has a problem, the switch-over to another technology will go more smoothly, after sufficient "Kroisening".

This is where the U.K. system of duel-metric/imperial measures falls apart. Distances are in Miles, but you buy litres from the fuel station (so logically you would assume the economy figure would be Miles per Litre), but the economy figure is Miles per Gallon (or KM/L) However the UK (4.54609 Lts) and US (3.78541 Lts) gallon are different, so when comparing MPG figures from an American car in America to a UK car in the UK, you have got to remember to factor in the gallon difference

Oh, I see! I knew that some of the older measures were kept in the UK, but I was unaware that it was "mixed" like that!:laugh3: (sorry, but it just seems rather odd!). Oh, and that's right - the gallons are different!:laugh3: The conversion book says that too, and I never gave it a solid thought! UGH! I think I'll just stick to telling it in Km/L then, as metrics are universal. And you would think that a gallon is a gallon is a gallon. How bizarre! I recall an old saying my dad would say, "a Pint's a Pound, The World Around." - but now I wonder about that too!:laugh3::laugh3: (but at least it rhymes!)

Anyhow, thanks for the clarification David, and let's set the quart to a liter, so that at least we'll still have the "feel" for a 4-quart gallon, without the headache!;) (unless of course, it's a gallon of beer, in which case the headache follows the measuring process.):P

But the problem with telling it in Km/L is the conversion from Miles to Kilometres.

 

Miles per Litre would be the best, as we fill the car up with litres and drive miles.

 

*thinks*

 

A car doing 30 mpg in America (using US gallons) is better than a car in this country doing 30 mpg (UK gallons) I think.

 

(Some petrol stations have solar-panels fitted to the top of their canopies and some supermarkets have solar-panels on their building to generate elecric)