T. Boone: Why Not Get Inventive?
T. Boone Pickens has been spending millions (actually, tens of millions) to promote The Pickens' Plan, which, while captivating to many, is a fundamentally flawed concept that could help nail the coffin shut on America's future rather than, as he promotes, set the stage for something better. There are worthwhile elements in The Plan. There is a basic value for having a prominent Republican oil man emphasizing that "this is one problem that we can't drill our way out of". Even with those values, Pickens is offering transitioning from one fossil fuel addiction (oil) to another (natural gas) when it comes to transport, without offering anything to cut America's other fossil fuel addiction (to coal for electricity generation).
Sigh ...
Sigh ...
T. Boone, however, could put his eloquence (and he is eloquent), knowledge, and resources to work for real solutions. Even real solutions that build on some of his thoughts when it comes to The Pickens Plan. And, even real solutions that would help him earn some money to help pay back those tens of millions in advertising and lobbying. To do so, T. Boone would have to become truly innovative in his thinking, moving beyond a stove-piped concentration on CNG (concentrated natural gas) vehicles. Here is one example of such a potential next step.
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Natural Gas School Buses (PHENGSBs)
Plug-In Hybrid Electric School Buses (PHESBs) simply make sense on multiple levels: reduce oil addiction, reduce health risks to America's school children, and provide wide-spread mobile emergency generators. But perhaps adding "NG" makes sense to make this an even better solution for America's school transport.
The benefits of PHESBs 
are compelling across a spectrum of arenas, from improving the electric grid to providing important emergency service capabilities around the country. (How might post-Katrina have gone differently with 1000+ school buses ready to serve as mobile power generators?) Going with PHESBs can help cut America's oil addiction and, as per T. Boone's mantra, going with CNG versions would do this even better. (And, relatively simply since they could be refueled at central bus depots and there is excess space appropriate for the NG tanks.)
For this discussion, however, let's look at just one angle: diesel fumes and childrens' health. While the exact degree of total impact is unclear, consider what happens with these buses each day
In the United States more than 23 million schoolchildren board school buses each day. Of the country's half million or so school buses, most are aging diesel-powered vehicles. We are all familiar with the black plumes of smoke billowing from the tailpipes of diesel trucks and buses, and just as we would not hand our child a cigarette, we would hardly allow our children to stand behind a smoke-belching school bus.
Yet ... yet ... yet ...
The truth is that tailpipe exhaust often seeps inside the bus, sometimes in concentrations far higher than the amount outside the bus, and diesel exhaust is linked to a host of public health hazards.
- Diesel fumes are known to cause cancer, especially lung cancer.
- Particulates/other elements in diesel exhaust cause respiratory illnesses and contribute to premature deaths
According to a study carried out in the Los Angeles area, the levels of diesel exhaust on a bus can be four times as high as those found in passenger cars driving just ahead of the bus. And the concentration of diesel fumes found inside the buses were more than eight times that of the average amount found in California's outdoor air.Let's put this into even stronger context. What about the idling, that burning of diesel that would basically be eliminated with PHENGSBs?
Idling buses often spew out higher concentrations of particles and carbon than moving buses, although buses may emit more when climbing hills or moving in heavy traffic.
Children are spending hour after hour exposed to diesel fumes, waiting for their school bus next to other idling school buses at the end of a long day at school. To give a feel for that impact,
Children on diesel buses breathe in more soot than everyone else in the surrounding metropolitan area combined, and up to 70 percent more soot than the average commuter. ... Kids not only face this increased risk from exposure; they are also more vulnerable to the impacts of air pollution. Research from the Harvard School of Public Health showed that young children's lungs will get two and half times the dose of soot particles as an adult's lungs.
Who is counting the health impacts on the children and
others in the community? How are an asthma sufferer's more frequent crises accounting in school transportation decisions as to whether to buy PHENGSBs? How do we account for the lung cancers that could be avoided?
Going with a PHESB offers a 70 percent -- according to preliminary testing -- reduction in riders' exposure to diesel fumes.
Going with, however, a CNG variant would offer the potential for eliminating that exposure to diesel fumes. Hmmm ... starting to get interesting.
But, then there is the next step. Just as there are "bio-diesel" options for diesel fuel, there are "bio" options for CNG.
Starting this September, Oslo, Norway, will be using methane-digesters to process sewage into methane for using in 200 CNG public buses.
Hmmm ...
We all remember our wonderful school lunches. What if, as part of the vision for PHENGBs, we looked toward developing methane digesters in America's schools to process food and other waste into methane that can be used to fuel the school buses?
In brief, T. Boone, look for the real solutions. Here is something that takes your vision for cutting into America's oil addiction and your knowledge (and investment) in CNG-transportation systems a step forward into the type of real solutions to America's problems.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
So, my question is: Why didn’t you do better research for your story? If you had researched a little harder, you would have actually discovered that the Pickens Plan holds much more forward thinking actions than you ever had imagined. After all, I was one of the principle authors of a study that you cited to make your misguided arguments and I left my environmental career, a career I continue to value significantly, because Boone has the vision this country needs. Unfortunately, reaching for the perfect as you suggest before you build a foundation, based on my experience, just leads to more of the same: foreign oil dependence. You have to learn how to walk before you run, even when it comes to clean transportation advancement. Thank you for your time and never hesitate to call if you would like to do a more factual future story on what this country can do to stop global warming, improve air quality and end foreign oil dependence.
Furthermore, Clean Energy has worked with General Motors to install a hydrogen fueling station at one of our many Los Angeles stations to help support its fuel cell car: the Equinox. In Canada, Clean Energy fuels Translink's buses with a hydrogen-natural gas blend that cuts an otherwise costly fuel (~$20/gallon) down to roughly ~$5 per gasoline gallon equivalent and the outcome is a cleaner running bus at a more affordable price. Further, Clean Energy is working with the electric vehicle industry with the hope to deliver natural gas passenger vehicles with hybrid and plug-in hybrid platform options to boost the efficiencies of natural gas vehicles in the future. An example of such a car would be Toyota’s demonstration Camry natural gas hybrid at last year’s LA Auto Show. If you would have only asked, did the research, you would have found all this out and much more.
This brings me to my last point. Whether you would like to hear it or not, Boone is thinking outside the box and his plan, contrary to your claim, is all about giving America a real, tangible energy future. If you follow the Pickens Plan at all, he clearly supports all things American, including the plug-in vehicles you mention and the electric car. Boone, however, is educated on the issues enough to know that you cannot effectively replace diesel with batteries due to cost, weight and the simple fact that batteries are still at a nascent technology stage for vehicles. That is why Boone is so intensively focused on how we, as Americans, get to a cleaner independent future for America. By starting with natural gas, you build the bridge to domestic clean energy (no pun intended). Clean Energy's core business is natural gas, but we also deliver biomethane into America's pipelines today to help further reduce the carbon footprint in America’s electrical grid and, one day, in our vehicles. Furthermore, Clean Energy has worked with General Motors to install a hydrogen fueling station at one of our many Los Angeles stations to help support its fuel cell car: the Equinox. In Canada, Clean Energy fuels Translink's buses with a hydrogen-natural gas blend that cuts an otherwise costly fuel (~$20/gallon) down to roughly ~$5 per gasoline gallon equivalent and the outcome is a cleaner running bus at a more affordable price.
If you researched a little more about school bus operations, you would quickly discover that they consume very little fuel: they pick up and drop off our children and run an occasional field trip. The rest of the day, they are parked. Such low volume fuel users typically cannot support an alternative fuel station alone and therefore must use timefill units (a cheaper but more time intensive fueling option) to refuel. Boone's focus on the heavy-fuel users, like big rigs, actually helps school bus fleets that run on natural gas because now, when they need a faster fueling option, they can go to a public fast fuel station that is supported by private business. It’s essentially a strategy that will in time create a public network of fueling facilities that also can also use biomethane or accommodate other clean low carbon fuel options like hydrogen.
So, this brings me to your overall point: ‘Why doesn't Boone just use his imagination and get inventive?’ First of all, I have met the man on several occasions as I work indirectly for him as Clean Energy’s Policy Director for which he founded and took public in 2007. For purposes of full disclosure (or is that fuel disclosure???), Clean Energy is the leading provider of natural gas and biomethane for transportation (yep, I said biomethane but I will get to that later). Trust me in that Boone is a very creative, inventive, and forward thinker at age 81. Not only is he genuine and passionate about his efforts to get this country off of foreign oil, he's been around the block a time or two. He knows that if you don't get the big fleets off of foreign oil and onto a domestic alternative fuel that is cleaner and cheaper, you don't have a chance to transition the country’s transportation system away from foreign oil that is climbing in price ($70.58/barrel as I type). Why? Because you need adequate refueling infrastructure in a region to make an alternative fuel a real alternative. Without it, your product in the transportation world is a limited option compared to foreign oil.
Now I would like you to think about natural gas as a gaseous fuel: a fuel that not only can be blended with biomethane feedstocks but also with hydrogen. Suddenly you see a bridge emerging from the very fossil based fuel that you criticized Boone of obsessing over that leads to a cleaner ultra low carbon future that includes biomethane, renewable electricity and renewable hydrogen. Now that would be something, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, your recommendation of the plug-in gasoline or diesel school bus, which still relies on foreign oil and electricity (that could also be generated by fossil based fuels like coal and natural gas), would cost a school district or the government or both conservatively $200,000+ a copy. In other words, you’re asking already struggling school districts and states with miserable budgets to essentially double their funding allocations for school bus fleets. Do you hear that age old chant from diesel manufacturers ringing the hallways of school administrations yet, "Books v. Buses, Books v. Buses!!!"??? Trust me, I fought these battles. Diesel will win without strong leadership and it almost did in 2000 even though natural gas was cleaner and cheaper when you considered lifecycle costs (i.e., fuel savings, batter replacement, oil change, etc.).
Fossil-based natural gas, based on a well to wheel analysis performed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), achieves roughly a 30% greenhouse gases benefit over gasoline. Again, according to CARB, biomethane derived from landfills can provide almost 88.1% fewer carbon emissions when compared to diesel (remember, California's and the President's 2050 greenhouse goals are to reduce greenhouse gases by 83% in 2050). Today's natural gas bus engines achieve the 2010 US EPA Heavy-Duty Emission Standards, something a diesel engine has yet to certify to (and probably won't until mid-2010 when their credits under the rulemaking run out). Comparatively, natural gas engines have achieved these 2010 near-zero emission levels since 2007 because natural gas is inherently cleaner. Imagine if these engines were combined with hybrid or plug-in hybrid platforms? Imagine if biomethane was blended with fossil-based natural gas or replaced natural gas entirely? Not only would these school buses of the future provide an ultra low carbon emission pathway for school buses, they would be practically zero in smog and particulate (soot) emissions.
Why natural gas? There are a number of reasons, including economics. California’s Lower Emission School Program, a program that I fought very hard for and received the top award from the California School Transportation Coalition, has a cost-effectiveness provision that biases most new purchases toward what I consider the dirtier option: foreign oil or so-called "clean diesel". The sad reality is that diesel buses cost $100,000 a copy and natural gas buses cost roughly $125,000 a copy. Surely, the schools would make up the incremental cost of a natural gas school bus through fuel savings, but the California Air Resources Board didn’t factor in things like energy independence or greenhouse gases when the performed the rulemaking in 2000. Sadly, the cards are stacked against our regulators when it comes to creative thinking and that's why your article came across so puzzling to someone like me when you suggested that future school buses be plug-in hybrid electrics because it was very clear that you did not do your homework in several areas of your story. Even when the state and local air districts pay 95% of the school bus cost, school districts still struggle to come up with the incremental funds because School Boards are more focused on class size and resources (teachers, books and special education programs). School districts are perhaps the last place you would want to push future technologies that are not even widely available on the market place today, like plug-in electric hybrids.
Dear Mr. Siegel,
First, I would like to thank you for citing a very important piece of research performed by the Coalition for Clean Air and Natural Resources Defense Council for which I am a principal author of: No Breathing in the Aisles: Diesel Exhaust Inside School Buses. This research, in addition to another report that lead to the creation of this study, Failing the Grade: How Diesel School Buses Impact Our Children's Health http://www.coalitionforcleanair.org/reports-failing-the-grade.htmll), eventually created the Lower Emission School Bus Program with then Governor Gray Davis. This program continues to help replace aging school buses that pose a significant health threat to California's children daily with cleaner school buses, like natural gas. You might note that in both reports mentioned above, the preferred alternative over buying newer diesels that are wrongfully termed "clean diesels", thanks to the successful marketing campaign performed by a particular engine manufacturer, is in fact a natural gas school bus.
Wide use of natural gas needs pipelines which will take years to build.
Future cars will need no fuel and can become power plants when parked.
Recent breakthroughs include the MagGen. These magnetic generators will initially make it possible to cut the cord on a plug-in hybrid so it no longer needs to plug-in. Later, they can replace the batteries in an electric car. Then, the MagGen can run when the car is parked and sell power to the utility. Prototypes are under development.
Next is a Self Powered Internal Combustion Engine - SPICE, which can power a hybrid. It will need no fuel and is another path to ending the need to plug-in. The engine can run when parked. Both systems can wirelessly transmit and sell power to the local utility.
The SPICE will be powered by Fractional Hydrogen - which lets a barrel of water equal hundreds of barrels of oil.
Scientists will doubt these technologies are possible until they have been validated by Independent Laboratories. That is an important step on the agenda.
Until now, car ownership has been an expense. Payments to car owners driving a hybrid with a SPICE, or powered by MagGen, are likely to be substantial.
The cost of many vehicles might be paid for by utilities, as they purchase power.
Parked cars each become decentralized power plants - a rapid, cost-effective path to winding down fossil fuels - and a rebirth of both the automobile industry and the world economy.
Mr. Siegel, the value of the Pickens proposal is that it can be done TODAY. Technology exists and is in use, it just needs to be replicated. Think of the jobs that could be created for the transition, think of the immediate 20-25% reduction in CO2 and a 99% reduction in particulate pollution, even more if we convert coal-fired plants. A huge percentage of homes in America have natural gas already supplied, so only a relatively simple re-fueling device needs to be added. By keeping our money at home, using domestic resources, we create jobs in the energy sector, construction, etc. The increased taxes could generate a revenue stream for R&D and infrastructure for alternative fuels.
No one objects to alternatives, but the most optimistic estimates I've seen show alternatives providing 25% of our needs by 2025. By opposing the Pickens plan, or something like it, you condemn us to a gasoline future, and to a continued drain of resources for imported oil.
Mr. Siegel,
Why not start to "Turn off" uneeded and wasteful lighting?
Remember what folks did for "Earth Hour"?
Why not put and end to lighting up the night sky?
There's a waste of at leaste $2 Billion per year in the United States alone not to mention the ecological problems that result from turning night into day.. Problems that we are just beginning to understand.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
