Pickens Plan District Group UT-03

Comment

Comment by Anton Tolman on November 5, 2009 at 1:49pm

Your turns!

Comment by Anton Tolman on November 5, 2009 at 1:49pm

Here's part of a letter I just sent to Jason Chaffetz:

Dear Mr. Chaffetz:

...according to the latest information I have, you are not a cosponsor of H.R.1835 New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2009. I would strongly urge you to become a co-sponsor of this bi-partisan bill. With the current climate in Washington, it is a rare and hopeful sign to see so many from both major parties supporting this legislation. I trust that you are also aware that Senator Hatch co-authored an Op-Ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribute with T. Boone PIckens who is very supportive of this legislation. You are probably aware that most of the oil we import is used as a transportation fuel - cars, trucks, aircraft, boats and trains. About one barrel out of every five is used as diesel fuel to power heavy trucks - 18-wheelers. This bill is a step in the right direction, not a total solution to our problems. We desperately need to increase the development of battery and fuel cell technology or some other emerging basis for transportation, but neither batteries nor hydrogen are ready for widespread distribution to our national fleet of approximately 250 million cars and light trucks. A battery also won't push an 18-wheeler. The only fuel which is available to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is domestic natural gas. This is an issue that is not limited to trying to improve our environment; it is not limited to enhancing our domestic economy and creating new jobs; it is also about national security and moving us off of dependence on foreign oil. Please sign up to co-sponsor this legislation and help to make it a reality.

Comment by John Purvis on November 4, 2009 at 6:49pm

But I do have to mention, you are "right as rain", so I can't dispute, but can definitely argue.

Comment by Anton Tolman on November 4, 2009 at 6:23pm

John, you are clearly educated and understand a lot of things. To some degree, the system is engineered, if I may say that, to slow down and *prevent* rapid change. We praise our system of checks and balances for preventing tyranny, but the drawback is that it also delays needed improvements. Just think what it takes to get a new bill passed! It has to make it through committee, then it has to get to the floor and make it there. Then it has to go to the other side (House or Senate), then there is a compromise bill process. At ANY of these stages, it can be derailed, changed, amended, etc. The fact that the Democrats have 60 senators and still cannot count on preventing a fillibuster in the Senate is a good example of this. Now, let's throw in special interests, lobbying, etc. Now let's throw in worries about being re-elected, and power grubbing, and torpedoing another idea just because it is not your own or because you think you can gain votes, power, or contributions for doing so. It is amazing that Congress can get ANYTHING done. No successful company could, or would, operate this way -- you are right, but companies are not government, and we created the system the way it is, and we praise it at times. However, when we desperately need change as we do, it is VERY frustrating. This is why Pickens has mobilized this army -- we need to have a collective voice, and we need to be calling our senators, congressmen/women etc. because that is the only chance we have.

Comment by John Purvis on November 4, 2009 at 5:38pm

I really liked the comments. This site has some sharp and educated people, and I'm not being condescending. As I wrote earlier, a plan is essential, but the US has none that I know of. I've worked alot of BIG engineering projects, and there's always a plan - with objectives, approach, schedule, budget, issues, problems. Why does our government do things in a way no successful company would ever consider? Is this really how all lawyers work? And to Anton: I only thought about that train connection yesterday after seeing an interview with Warren Buffett after he just bought a good portion of Burlington Rail. Makes sense to me, and I'm sure others are working it, but WHY is this not in a government plan (oh yeah, as I said, no plan exists). No agreed on plan, but yet they submit bad bill after bill. No wonder no good stuff gets done and no wonder we spend so much for so little. How does one take simple and great thoughts like you guys and girls have and transfer that to people we rely on to lead this country. Solutions are not tough and don't have to be expensive, and thats where Pickens comes from. I'll bet so many of those lawyers running our country just see him as a country hick, and are too self-centered to realize that they are the really stupid ones.

Comment by Anton Tolman on November 4, 2009 at 2:59pm

Jim, thanks for the clarification on this. Do you know what is the impact on manufacturer warranties on new vehicles if they are switched over to CNG? I also appreciate John and Robert's calls for improvements and change. As we all know, though, watching the healthcare debate -- funding is largely a political process, subject to all kinds of distortions and compromises. I think John's ideas of railroad hubs leading to CNG truck fleets makes a lot of sense. Is there any way to get this into the Natural Gas act as an amendment? Would our reps be willing to add that in? Has anyone asked them?

Comment by younkin on November 3, 2009 at 11:47pm

This is an article I wrote a while ago, read more at my blog
younkincng.com
younkin@gmail.com
801 427 2284
Who's Afraid of the Big Bad (EPA) Wolf

After several meetings with the EPA along with my own research and numerous discussions with others in the CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) Conversion Industry, I have come to the conclusion that the EPA is not the Big Bad Wolf some people have made them out to be.

Opinions are as the saying goes "a dime a dozen". Like most things and especially a new technology or a new way of doing things there are always many opinions. I have learned to take all opinions with a "grain of salt"; all opinions except my own, of course; it holds a little more weight with me.

Over the years I have personally owned over 50 vehicles, from a 21 Window VW Micro Bus to a Turbo Charged 5-cylinder Audi 5000. In all of that time I have never worried about whether or not any of these vehicles were "EPA Certified". I have had to do emission tests and some safety inspections but no EPA anything. In my more than 30 years of automotive repair I have worked on thousands of vehicles in 3 different States doing anything from tune-ups to complete vehicle restorations. It wasn't until last year (2008) that I had even heard of CNG and CNG conversions. As I researched this topic I became concerned about what people were telling me about the EPA hoops a person must jump through in order to have a supposed "legal" CNG Conversion and what EPA Certification really is.

As I searched forums and the internet I started hearing blanket statements like "All CNG Conversions must be EPA Approved" or "non-EPA CNG Conversions were not legal to drive on the streets", and "the EPA will fine you $1000's of dollars if you are caught converting or owning a 'NON-EPA' CNG Vehicle". Over the past few years I know that this type of rhetoric has kept hundreds if not thousand's of individuals from converting their vehicles to CNG because of fear of the EPA. An incongruity began to form in my mind. Why was it that CNG vehicles and CNG Conversions had come under so much more scrutiny than any other group of vehicles? I began to question the sources of these EPA Certification statements. Where were these statements coming from? Was it anyone who actually had any authority over me or were they just self appointed bullies and safety monitors? As I dug deeper a pattern arose, those raising the "EPA only" banner usually sold or developed "EPA Certified" CNG Vehicles or Systems. The EPA when asked about the EPA Certification of CNG Vehicles was unusually silent or ambiguous on the subject. Since I have a background in the legal field I noticed that there was something about the broad blanket statements about "EPA Certification" that didn't seem right.

Over the next year I researched the EPA Code and website searching for the one rule stating that "All CNG Conversions must be EPA Certified". It was nowhere to be found. It just didn't exist.
As these false statements about the requirement for "EPA Certification" began to spread people began looking for EPA Approved Installation Stations and EPA Approved Technicians. There were none to be found. They just don't exist. As I learned later, after numerous meetings with the EPA, the main purpose EPA Vehicle testing division is to Certify OEM (Original Equipment Manufacture) vehicles to meet Emission Standards for "the useful life (100,000 miles or 10 years)" of the vehicle.

In the late 90's due to inefficient CNG conversion systems the EPA was tasked with "certifying" CNG Conversions. Since their testing procedures were for NEW OEM Vehicles, they used a similar standard for the CNG Conversions. The EPA can't and never will certify anything other than new vehicles due to deterioration factors and the vehicles useful life.

What exactly is EPA Certification? It is a series of tests that show that a vehicle will continue to run clean for the specified time. It is not a guarantee or warrantee, it is just certificate given after a series of tests have been completed. While we are talking about EPA Certified CNG Conversions lets take note that any EPA certification expires beyond a specified time (the useful life of the vehicle). Just like any other vehicle, all CNG Vehicles need to be re-tuned, maintained and re-tested from time to time.

Aftermarket CNG System manufacturers go through stringent testing procedures since they build their systems for various vehicles. These companies use inputs from the vehicle's own sensors and electronic control units. Most of the new generation of CNG kits have independent MAP (manifold absolute pressure) sensors, coolant temp sensors, natural gas pressure and temperature sensors. I would venture to say that these new generation systems can outperform most "certified" CNG Systems on the road today. In fact, if a person was to compare the components of a "Certified" and a "Non-certified" conversion system it would be hard to tell the difference.

To summarize:

1. No CNG Conversion is required to have EPA Approval. Individual companies can choose to have their CNG System certified by the EPA.
2. The EPA can only certify new vehicles (CNG or other) for the useful life of that vehicle.
3. All EPA Certifications expire after the useful life of that vehicle.


So are you still afraid of the Big Bad EPA Wolf? I'm not, and hopefully you aren't either. In a recent meeting with Marty R. from the EPA in the question and answer portion I asked why the EPA Certification sticker was not removed after the vehicles "useful life". Marty responded that indeed no one recertified their vehicles. When I asked how many "Illegal CNG Conversions" had the EPA's enforcement division prosecuted and fined the answer was "None, not a one".

There is room for both EPA Certified and Non Certified conversions in this industry. It is not necessary to intimidate people with threats and lies. As we look to the future of the CNG Industry we all need to check our facts. Whether a manufacturer chooses to go through the process of EPA certification or decides to have their CNG component certified for safety through an independent testing lab and then train their installers to insure a safe and clean installation should be their own decision. We all want an alternative to gasoline that is safe and clean but we need to be proactive in verifying facts about what exactly is required and also in accomplishing verification of safe clean installations.

Comment by Robert Schultz on November 3, 2009 at 8:35pm

John,
Good to hear some of your ideas. You do write with a sharp pen, and yes things have lost quite a bit of momentum around here. I am in Eastern Washington, and I tried to get a NW Regional group together http://push.pickensplan.com/group/nwrenewableenergygroup But there hasn't been much dialogue there either. I keep an eye on several Ning sites, and will comment on various groups from time to time.

You make an excellent point about Pickens missing the Train, so to speak. This is something I have commented on around here as well. GenSet engines deliver great ton-miles/gallon of diesel, and utilizing rail for heavy cargo, then distributing from rail hubs using CNG 18-wheelers would make a lot of sense. That should be part of a comprehensive plan for American Energy Independence. Why isn't that being developed and promoted!?!

Education and job training are essential. R&D is all over the place, lots of good ideas not getting funded, and some not so good are funded. Again, a plan is needed to bring things together for real solutions. If we did these things with conservation and recycling, we could avoid having to use nuclear power. I know the energy production and recycling processes are improved, but mining Uranium creates as many hazards as mining coal. I could live without either.

Clean air and clean water are essential for life. Massive amounts of energy are not.

Comment by John Purvis on November 3, 2009 at 5:09pm

Oh, and while I'm here, and we want to put our money where are mouths are, if we can afford it. I am an owner of Clean Energy (CLNE), of which Madeline Pickens is a major owner. I bought at about 5.5 in December...sold at 12 due to a poorly thought-out stop. If you want to pool money where it can do great good in the PP, this is a good place. But I do warn, this is still speculative, even though I've doubled money. You don't trust me as you should not, but I'm buying back in before Nov 9th, when I think they announce earnings. I expect good, but am not that sure. If you don't know how to review a 10K report, avoid it. Just thought I'd tell you, since many want to make $$ off whats going on, and I think they should when their mind is in the right place.

Comment by John Purvis on November 3, 2009 at 4:57pm

Guys and girls. Sorry, I get carried away and I tend to write with a very sharp pen. Jim asked a very good question; if I had all the money I needed, what would I do? First, a frustration is that even if you did, you'd run into horrendous regulatory and other problems. But putting that aside, what should we, and especially our government and our adminstration do, and it really doesn't require money, at least initially.

By the way, I’ve been a chemical engineer working energy issues and related issues for 35 years now, and so have an opinion about any of it, so bear with me. I tend to be wordy.

First, have a plan. As far as I can tell there is none, at least not publicized. Obama has none, Chu has none except to paint roofs white. Pickens does, but its still immature - needs some fleshing out. For example, we look at putting the truck fleets on NG. But he fails to get the trains involved, not that they should run on NG….they should stay on diesel. But they still ship at a small fraction of the energy use and cost (and, of course, CO2 output) of NG powered trucks on a per pound per mile basis. One thing I would try to do is optimize the use of existing rails (no installations) and optimize distribution of goods from their main terminals using the NG powered trucks. Therefore no need for X-country NG stations. That’s just one of many ideas, but who really is working a plan? Now maybe people are working this (I’m sure they are), but it sure isn’t part of any national plan. Again, there is none. Elements of my plan would include: a) education, b) conservation, c) better use of existing energy sources, d) alternate energy. Implementation would not be in series, but staged to assure best implementation and buy-in by us. I totally agree with the Nat Gas Act (H.R. 1835), but its being pushed without a plan and somewhat in conflict with that other NG bill (I think its 1408). I think a lack of a plan, and careful staging of the objective I just proposed can jeopardize these bills, to our detriment.

A) Education is the first element of any plan I’d put in place – not only of the public at large, but specifically the people that are supposed to lead our country, write and pass laws and budget. As a whole, we are extremely ignorant of the realities concerning oil, NG, nuclear, coal, wind, solar, whatever. That’s mainly because our mainstream media tends to perpetuate poorly researched, but currently politically correct myths. I won’t go into these, but they are both left-leaning and right-leaning. I swear, there are still plenty of people out there that think electricity is non-polluting!! People, most of our electricity comes from coal, which is polluting. Also, when we talk nuclear, everyone thinks about 3-mile island or Chernobyl. It won’t and can’t happen with new designs. One needs to study the direction DOE took with reactor design years ago (and they knew better then), to know why these things occurred and why they can’t with the dozens of reactors China is putting into service. People also worry about waste. To my knowledge, the US has never recycled, but France does it routinely. And I agree with the “not in my backyard” argument (I do live in Utah), but nationally, here or Yucca mountain makes so much better sense as a nation then this stuffing sitting in so many unsecure swimming pools scattered around the nation. Enough examples. I would hope an education plan would rely on our existing media. I bet if done well, the air time would be very cheap, or even free, or even make money, as the advertisers would flock to fund it. If done poorly (which we’re REALLY good at), the education would be extremely biased and therefore, useless. This latter statement is a huge obstacle in my opinion. Told ya’ I was wordy.

B) Conservation is a way to almost immediately get our costs and energy use and CO2 use down 10%, maybe more, but few pay attention to it. They’re all out looking for cool solar tech, or geothermal or some such expensive nonsense. If we relied on solar and wind only, it would be many decades before we could cut 10% even with energy use kept constant, but with education we can do it about immediately. I really disliked J Carter, but wearing a sweater is good. With the energy you save, you could easily afford a very nice cashmere sweater. Also house insulation. Might as well take advantage of the stuff out there. How may have put in attic insulation at zero cost, courtesy of all the taxpayers. How many still use SUVs? How close do you live to work (my commute is 5 mi)? Have you insulated your water heater (only $20)? Have you developed good temperature tolerance? When I lived in Wyoming, we kept our house at 50F in the winter….friends couldn’t handle it, but we’re walking around in t-shirts. I don’t do this anymore (getting old??), but I’ll bet I could get used to it. Also lived in sweltering temperatures in the Far East and got used to 95F without air. I suppose I could get used to it too. One thing. I sure don’t hope anyone regulates this kinda stuff on us, but it could happen. Lots of ways to conserve.

C) Better use of existing resources kinda depends on “B”, but did you know the oil industry flares a good portion of usable NG, because they can’t do anything else with it? And this objective also includes nuclear materials recycle. And also home waste recycle. I currently have a recycle bin for paper, plastic and metal. But no glass, no organic stuff (grass, leave). These go into general trash which are land-filled. I DO NOT want anyone to go tapping the resources at Yellowstone under this section. These are energy “farts” the world produces at our enjoyment, and should NEVER be touched. Now that I think about it, this is a weak objective.

D) Alternative energy implementation. Because this is the only thing that seems to get so much attention, I won’t give it much. Personally, for the near term it doesn’t deserve much. And I don’t consider NG, nuclear, etc., to be alternate energies.

Well, my stuff is breaking down so I’ll quit. By now, you should know I’m quite passionate about this stuff. But my biggest issue is that I’m totally upset about how this country is dealing with it. In fact, right now I’m trying to figure out where I’d like to retire, and the U.S. is not in the equation. I’m am disgusted and disappointed with the performance of our country. I hope we can help change my opinion.

If I made typos or errors, sorry. My typing is trying to keep up with my rambling thoughts.

John

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last