After chasing windmills our hero is now seen passing gas, and some hot air.

The use of CNG for OTR transport in class V-VIII vehicles is, by its energy density, an invalid argument. However, the use of LNG compares favorably with hydrogen as a means of "alternate fuel" in density and performance. The security ricks associated with LNG are large in confined spaces (ie tunnels and high residency or business occupancy areas). Mitigation of the stored energy is possible with some techno-wizardry, which would place this energy source on equal footing with hydrogen based transport.

The issue of methane transport is moot as most of the nationwide transport does travel by pipeline near most (but generally not next to) most freeway systems. Minor taps into these systems would benefit companies like North Natural Gas, Kinder Morgan, BP, Tenneco, Amerigas, etc. (Nothing like moving fuel!)

All that being said, we definitely need to follow the money. Obviously, TBP's capital reserves are high in natural gas and other petroleum assets. He also owns many other "potential windfall" areas for this plan as mentioned above.

The energy density problem is still the Achilles heel for most if not all alternate energy sources is the energy density/safety issue. Current petroleum/bio-sourced fuels are reasonably safe to handle for the less than 80 IQ gentry and still remain the highest energy dense commercially available.

http://reason.com/blog/2008/08/07/the-public-choice-economics-of

"Pickens wants to build his electricity transmission facilities on a strip of land 250 feet wide and 250 miles long that starts at his farm in Roberts County, Texas, and terminates in Dallas. Why that particular strip? Because Pickens has been buying up massive water rights from the Ogallala Aquifer and he wants to pipe that water to Dallas at huge profit. Unfortunately, pipeline right-of-way is pretty hard to acquire, so Pickens figured out a 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 reason to use its power of eminent domain to hand over the land to him for a song. Wind power wasn't really the motivation for this land snatch, it was just a sweetener for a water deal."

Just another abuse of eminent domain to help a billionaire make a killing while shifting his costs to to the public. (See also: New York's Atlantic Yards project, and pretty much every sports stadium ever built.)

I'd rather have the US prez holding hands as equals with the Saudi King than bowing to him.

Read up on how he got Government to subsidize his money making water pipeline by putting windmills on the pipe right-of-way that he needed them to seize for him. Called it a "green" project and the suckers lined up to fork over taxpayer dollars.

The world runs on oil. We have oil but the libs won't let us get to it. Try to fight a war with wind, solar power and batteries. The Green wackos seem to think we can power our war machines on recycled french fry grease.No one wants war but you better be able to fight one and win. I like the idea of alternative energy sources and when the world is ready to buy them they will be developed. But don't give me this BS about the world ending if we use oil. Oil is the now product. It produces jobs, wealth, and tax revenue now! You Dems talk down to conservatives about the evils of big business and then pee your pants with excitement over T. Boone
and his wind scheme. Dems love anything that can't work. The reason is that if it works, it makes a profit. If it makes a profit, it's evil.

Remember this about libs. They are what they accuse others of being, they do what they accuse others of doing, and they will say anything, do anything, to stifle wealth and independence.

With love from Tough Love.

when I was still in bizniss it was clear that bio-diesel was forbidden in my fuel tanks........

not that I wanted to "KILL" the planet...I wanted to "SAVE" my money.....whenever you dilute a proven fuel (diesel/gasoline) you reduce it's power to move......less power=less distance=more fuel=less profit.....any kwestions?????

My uncle worked for AGL years ago and drove one of the CNG F-150s. He had a 60 gallon tank on it and he said it went about 135 miles before running empty. Basically, a fill up every morning.

Since a semi gets roughly 25% of the fuel mileage of an F-150, I'd say you'd probably need a 250 gallon tank for the same 135 mile range, assuming it's a direct proportion.

He needs to preface darn near every facet of his plan with "Government needs to enforce...."

Everything he says is suspect and not to be trusted...it might even be that he has a good idea, but he's a snake oil salesman so beware. As they say "follow the money" and it always seems to flow to his pockets.

if you put all your eggs in one basket bad things will happen....

a new-cue-lar plant here, a dam there and solor and wind power over there.....great idea.

spread the power curve out to incliude every type of generation and no problem.....

we will only need coal/oil fired power plants to recharge our electric death box cars.........

Ivan knows I'm right.......right Ivan???

What happens to natural gas prices if we were to move forward with the Pickens truck fuel plan to force, through government intervention, the OTR (over the road) truck industry to use CNG or LNG motors instead? Natural gas is used for home heating, producing electricity, and for heat in manufacturing because of its low cost. How much would the increase in natural gas prices benefit Boon T., and cloud his judgment on the matter?

Diesel contains a little over 50% more energy per gallon than LNG, so your new Peterbuilt that could have had two 150gal diesel tanks now requires at least 450 gallons of LNG to travel the same distance. LNG is a cryogenic refrigerated liquid, which is -260F at atmospheric pressure, and boils itself constantly to maintain its liquid state, meaning that if you aren’t running the engine, you have to continuously vent it to the atmosphere. So if your truck is parked, it is continuously leaking fuel.

CNG is more commonly used in transportation for busses and other light vehicle fleets, where busses cost considerably more for the CNG version over Diesel. Stored at 3600 psi, CNG contains less than a quarter of the energy by volume that diesel does. So that 300 gallon truck needs over 1200 gallons of pressure vessel to accomplish the same range. Add the refueling time for that enormous heavy tank system, and the fact that every pound that the truck weighs reduces the cargo capacity, and thus the earning potential, and you can see why the OTR truck buyers haven’t yet been enticed on economics alone.

Does anyone know anything about this, www.theorionproject.org.

Evidently, they are working on zero-gravity sources of energy that would negate oil, natural gas, solar, wind, bio-fuels, etc.

Seems kind of Star Trekky but maybe we are on the cusp.

Keith, you sound like you know something about this subject, which is great, because I will be the first to admit that I know very little beyond the high-level basic concepts of this type of locomotion. I hear you that the technology needed to bring true dieselectric power to trucks seems unwieldy, but is it not possible to get the power/weight ratio down to the point where the torque needed to get the load moving could be generated economically? Once the truck got moving, generators (thanks for the correction, Jared!) would provide the power to the motors.

I'm no technical genius, but it seems to me that if it is POSSIBLE, then Boone's argument that natural gas is the ONLY replacement for diesel sounds absurd.

Pickens ("Mr. Big Ideas") has adopted the liberal bent of advocating the use of public money to plunk into expensive ventures without properly considering the risks. As someone else mentioned, he has boondoggled with his wind turbines yet is shamelessly bringing another "winner" to the people. Hit the road, Pickens!

I still prefer him over Al Gore, though.

Another problem with his plan is that if you bought a truck that runs on compressed gas, you could only drive the truck to areas that have compressed gas truck stops and visa-verse. Most of the truckers I know, get loads from all over the country, plus truckers will not convert until the fuel delivery systems are in place, and the truck stops will not spend the money to convert until the truckers do. This would take a Federally funded and mandated action to get it accomplished.

There are a few shortfalls of the Pickens Plan: Mainly that natural gas powered vehicles only get about 100 miles to the fill. Great for city driving, but not over the road.

I'm not against natural gas, but the thought that wind is our long-term solution for power production is laughable. Nuclear power is far more reliable and should be supplying the nation's base load capacity needs. For the record, I work for a large power company.....and Pickens has invested huge sums in natural gas and wind development. (Just so you know where his motivations may be coming from.)

Uh oh, much like conservative hatred of Warren Buffett, watch conservatives now hate T. Boone Pickens for trying to help the environment. Conervatives prefer arab oil and holding hands and walking with arab leaders rather than having clean resources of energy

Mr. Pickens claimed that batteries could not power an 18-wheeler, but batteries haul trains around the country. Granted, there is a diesel engine that recharges those batteries, but I refuse to believe that the same dieselectric technology could not be employed to power our over-the-road shipments. Dieselectric would greatly reduce the use of diesel fuel, as the diesle motor would only run to recharge the batteries, which would operate the electric motors that put power to the ground. I like Mr. Pickens, but saying that natural gas is the ONLY alternative for 18-wheelers is simply not correct.