By Peter Forman
Published: September 15, 2008
New York—(To skip to the answer, click HERE.)
We've all seen the ads. Energy independence in three simple steps:
1) Replace the natural gas used to produce electricity with wind power.
2) Use that newly freed-up natural gas instead of gasoline in converted cars.
3) Say goodbye to our need for foreign oil.
With a $56 million ad campaign and this ambitious formula, T. Boone Pickens has caught the attention of everyone from Nancy Pelosi and John McCain to the prime-time television audience and concerned citizens in general.
But is his plan feasible or full of gas?
While there are some positive attributes to it, there are bigger problems. Let's review the hard facts.
About 30% of the 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas we consumed in 2007 went to generate electricity.[i] If wind power replaces ALL of that natural gas, a challenging feat in itself, we could use that natural gas to replace one third of the gasoline we use in our vehicles. This would free up 1.2 billion barrels of oil per annum.
Sounds great initially. But since we import 4.5 billion barrels of the 7.5 billion barrels of oil that we consume each year, the first question to ask is whether or not we can have a transportation system that is 1/3 natural gas and 2/3 petroleum.
Problem #1) It is not practical to have a transportation system that is split substantially between two different fossil fuels. The infrastructural costs for the retail distribution and pumping of a gas versus a liquid and the challenges faced by drivers would likely prevent its adoption.
Problem #2)
To convert completely to cars and SUVs fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG vehicles) would require three times the amount of natural gas we would free up from installing wind power. We would now need to import an additional 14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
On that basis, whereas we are currently importers of only about 14% of our natural gas needs, we would become importers of 46% of our natural gas. With Iran and Russia as the world's largest producers of natural gas, we would be proverbially jumping out of the pot and into the fire.
Some argue that we can and will simply explore for more natural gas.
Other experts remind us that American production has been in decline since 2002 and that world demand is increasing and will increase dramatically more so after CNG become more of an international standard.
Pickens advocates his plan as a "bridge" to a cleaner future energy economy. And wind power is widely hailed as an important future source. But it will require a substantial upgrading of the electric transmission grid to support this generation of electricity-an investment that will be required even for nuclear power or electric cars. Therefore it is not a wasted or duplicative effort.
As for CNG, it may be more appropriate for the "fleet" sector of transportation from taxis and busses to UPS trucks, These vehicles are each large consumers of fuel with shorter vehicle lifespans that travel in a narrow geographic area, and which are easier for government to target with incentives to convert. Then again, it may make more sense for fleet vehicles to move directly to electric power.
So here is the report card:
√ Making people aware of our dependence issues
√ Support for wind power now
√ Support for long-term clean energy
√ Support for upgrading the electrical grid
X Moving to natural gas for part or all of our cars and SUVs.
If we wish to solve our dependence issues we cannot do so by moving from one dependence to another; we will simply need to move to domestically generated and diverse bio-fuels and electricity for cars; we will need to move beyond oil.
References ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[1] U.S. Energy Information Administration
MoveBeyondOil.org
The bi-partisan, not-for-profit source for energy independence information and solutions.
