The Pickens Plan is too complex and expensive (not to mention self-serving).
It forces everyone to switch to a NEW platform of cars that are INCOMPATIBLE with normal existing gasoline fuel. So if you're driving your natural gas Pickensmobile, and can't find a natural gas station, you're out of luck.
That's why it requires that we massively overhaul our entire infrastructure.
And for what? Natural gas? Liquid fuel is far more practical, but natural gas is a GAS at normal pressure and temperature. So you have to compress it under high pressure (HUGE risk of leaks and explosions) or cryogenically chill it (energy drain, safety risk, high cost, catastrophic failure problems).
Especially pointless because that same natural gas he's pushing at us can be turned (via simple, generations-old chemistry) into a fuel that IS liquid at normal pressure and temperature: methanol.
Thus the real way forward is the Energy Victory plan put forward by former NASA engineer Dr. Robert Zubrin, which is to require that all new cars sold (not made) in the US have flex fuel capability.
Flex fuel vehicles are just like normal current gasoline autos of any size, shape, function, or performance level with one CHEAP ($100~$200, unlike hybrids which cost thousands more) but critical difference: they have an additional internal fuel sensor and modifications to the fuel line and electronic fuel injector software allowing them to also use alcohol fuel (such as methanol), in the same fuel tank, in any mix (or none at all) with gasoline.
Alcohol fuel burns cleaner than gasoline - no particulate emissions hence no smog; no CO2 hence no global warming, etc. Also if spilled from supertankers or leaked from underground storage at gas stations alcohol fuel dissolves readily in days into harmless components; whereas the Exxon Valdez is still killing wildlife.
The reason we need a mandate is to break through the chicken and egg dilemma. Even though alcohol capability is cheap to add and make cheaper fuel available, few customers know about it or bother to ask for it because few gas stations have an alcohol pump. In turn, few gas stations will bother switching a pump to alcohol when only 3% of cars on the road have flex fuel capability.
With a mandate, we'd have 50 million FFVs on the road in 3 years. All would be able to fill up on gasloline if they can't find alcohol, making them a PRACTICAL bridge technology. But having a vehicle that can burn CHEAPER, safer, higher-octane, cleaner-burning fuel that does NOT fund our enemies abroad will spur demand for gas station owners to add alcohol pumps. At that point wealth is massively redirected away from the Saudis, Iranians, Venezuelans, and Russians and toward peaceful farmers and domestic coal miners (yes, coal can be made into methanol too!).
Moving From Votes to Volts
As the election ends, Gingrich says the real energy challenges begin.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
During the presidential campaign, voters have heard endless talk about the candidates' plans to overhaul U.S. energy policy. Starting this week the winner will begin working to enact that vision—and, in the process, he'll confront the political and budgetary challenges that have constrained previous presidents from making the country more energy independent. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich understands these challenges better than most, and in a new book, "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less," he outlines his ideas for how America should take control of its energy future. Gingrich, now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, spoke to NEWSWEEK's Daniel Stone. Excerpts:
STONE: Haven't both candidates overplayed the notion of green jobs and green investment boosting the economy?
GINGRICH: No, I don't think so. One of the reasons I'm so angry about energy is because we were supposed to have our first future-generation coal plant by 2008. Now it's supposed to be 2016. Meanwhile, the Chinese will open their first plant next year. There's a very high likelihood that the technology that goes around the world and earns royalties will be Chinese. Now that is a terrible comment on American bureaucracy and red tape. These kinds of things can lead to dramatic economic growth. We need to have a very large infrastructure of energy. We need to be competitive.
With countries like China less concerned about the environment, can a better U.S. energy policy really make a big difference?
You actually can solve the environmental problems better in the U.S. [even] at a time when China is building one new coal-burning electric plant per week. [Solutions aren't] going to come from China and India and countries that won't give up growth for the environment. So I think the sound, healthy [policy] is to tax America's energy producers, because we are the country most likely to have very high environmental standards.
What happens to McCain's "all of the above" approach if the Democrats—who favor a more reserved strategy on drilling—take over multiple branches of government in January?
I think the challenge [the Democrats] have is that this is a center-right country. This is a country that would [like to] build nuclear-power plants. We would drill for oil offshore. This is a country that, by a 72 to 18 margin, has more faith in entrepreneurs than bureaucrats to solve our problems. The next time gas is $4 a gallon, people will look at their leaders. If Obama gets to be president, for his entire presidency, the majority of Americans will still have traditional internal-combustion engines.
What do you drive?
I drive an Escalade.
That's quite a guzzler.
Well, it's a hybrid. And I am very much in favor of more biofuels and hydrogen cars. I was driving a Tesla in San Jose and it's a terrific sports car—but it's also a long way from replacing 220 million vehicles.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss