I love listening to him he is a great speaker.

I didn't "think" anything, because I didn't know. LOL Thanks for the lesson.

T boone pickens just walked in

@radel096

2 жыл бұрын

Just joking

6:17 ...."$90 is the new floor" ha ha ha ha

Well said. I also think it was brilliant of TED to invite and present his story and point of view. How else can all the "enemies", "ours" & "theirs" get a good idea of this man's values & motivations.

In Mumbai & Delhi all public transport (buses & taxis) use CNG (compressed natural gas). The conversion of petrol engines to CNG is cheap - the problem is distribution - once there are enough stations distributing CNG the popularity will increase and even private cars will shift to CNG.

Good one Chris!

Ah, I see. That makes sense. I'd've still preferred it if he had said something less ambiguous though. Does the TED audience not extend that much outside the US?

@kenmacallister Did you just say renewable energy is "very affordable?" Before or after subsidies?

I've read somewhere that high tech modern steam engines (fired by whatever fuel source you want) are capable of producing immense amounts of power at high efficiency levels.

Q: What to do about transportation energy costs A: Solar Roadways (Its in development by the Department of Transportation currently)

The video about the new battery would be a good response to this video, it will make wind/solar work.

PDVSA needs to know about this. Venezuela has too much Natural Gas to get rid of while we work on alternative energy. Share this and make it viral. Please.

the man makes more sense than many others I have heard

I thought TED wasn't about people who consider that what will happen in 20 years isn't of their concern, nor people who consider a group of peaceful states as "enemies", nor people constantly separating "ours" and "theirs"... Though I must say that the speaker's explanation as to why the US police the world is crystal clear :)

Good one

Well said.

yes, but that is a long way to go. nat gas prices are like low right now. When do you think the u.s will export the stuff?

Please don't be so misinformed guys. Fracking isn't the problem itself. It's whats going on around the drill hole that causes problems sometimes. A newly released rapport from a study done by the university of Texas states: No Direct Link on Fracking, Contamination (google it and read the article at alcalde . texasexes . org ) And thumb this up so people get more informed - thank you :)

Not sure why there are so many dislikes... the talk was really just getting the point across that we have a source of cleaner (not clean, but cleaner) energy which will sustain us for a while. So really, we don't need to panic so much as we make these leaps and bounds into alternative energy. That's it... no need to dissect it any further.

Perhaps you should have started with that definition, my understanding was that a bridge fuel didn't necessitate a replacement fuel, just a replacement source of energy. In that case however, what I said was still correct. Oil and coal (old fuel) -> natural gas (new fuel) As you can see, oil and coal are a fuel that bridge the time until a replacement fuel, in this case natural gas. Your third sentence appears to be missing a word due to the grammatical implications of but...cont

It is already being done, in Europe and Japan and other nations, the best way to boost fuel economy is to put an economic imperative on it, and you do that by allowing the price of fuel to rise, by first phasing out the subsidies, and then taxing it more incrementally, which will cause consumers to demand higher efficiency and thus cause manufacturers to follow suit, and the market will adjust fuel efficiency accordingly, and the resultant revenue can be used to improve infrastructure.

You're only talking about the environmental aspects, and TBP was speaking about the political and economic realities. We need a bridge fuel because it is expedient, because it is available here, and because we need to buy time to design and build a long-term solution.

@love4JHWH I'm referring to the results of fracking, which tend to royally destroy the local watersheds, and depending, turn the air toxic, or near enough.

You're right- but we were too stupid to see that a century ago. Now, we're in a real pickle. No answer is ideal, but this is the best we have at the present time.

Either way - good or bad, we need to hear the bad ideas because some people just don't know. Mind you - a very large percentage of people still think this way and we need to hear these presentations and poke holes in them afterward. Hindsight is always 20/20.

@googie64 You may be right brotha, I guess my main my fear would be that it be used as an excuse for not progessing further but your right, thats not a good reason not to do it, thats just a hypothetical challange we may face further down the line cheers mate

@ennot Yes there is if you have efficient long distance batteries. You use the renewables to charge the batteries.

can a diesel engine run on natural gas? will it produce the same power?

The newer fracking chemicals are now enviromentally friendly. One such company producing this is Flotek. There may be more. ABS materials also make a fantastic water cleaner called Osorb worth checking out. Hopefully the days of polluting fracking chemicals are long gone..

@DSBrekus He's not talking about energy use in regards to things like solar and nuclear for home or commercial power use. He is speaking about energy for transportation.

@NewgroundsOwnSBB - I too was getting that cold war feeling from this talk.

@Gripfang Yes I want to save it as my 2nd part, but now you mentioned it. It happened millions of years ago during the time of dinosaurs before humans. Dinosaurs perished and buried along with vegetation that fermented in time, and formed pockets of oil with methane gas that was air trapped along with dead dinosaurs during the "big event". It's a long story, hope you know the rest.

It generates approximately %50 less emissions, if I recall correctly. However, it also generates far less energy, which is why we still burn so much coal. It's simply too cheap to ignore.

I think that Natural Gas is a great alternative.. People complaining about car accidents need to realize, they happen EVERY DAY. ALSO, I can tell you one thing, if people KNEW that if they got in a car accident their car MIGHT explode, I'm betting the majority of folks would start driving safer.

The key is bridge fuel. And realist: acutally taking an action and not just talking theories. All critique of renewables are well recognized in the industry. He discussing targeting trucks in trasnportation and shipping. If someone wanted to target residential or commercial electric us, air conditioning is about half of anyone's electric bill.

It all comes down to what your priorities are. Natural gas is usable cheaply with current technology and domestic sources, but isn't renewable. However, if your goal is continued economic viability in the near term, in light of the instability of our foreign oil suppliers, then Natural gas, and coal-based syn-gas are good choices.

No, I did not say that profit margins were less than zero, I said that they were almost always lower than the reduced efficiency you tend to get with a monopoly, and especially with a govt monopoly. Overall, corporate profits are about 7% of total revenue. But a relatively efficient govt bureaucracy loses around 30%. You tend to pay less in a true, competitive market than you do with a govt or private monopoly. Power lines can be shared.

@CalebHarlow As much as I support geothermal, it is a geographically limited energy source. It also requires fairly strict safety regulations, and much more patience then the American economy and government has sense for.

@Shalek Space solar power? How would you want to get the energy down? Or do you want to put up mirrors and just make solar power available during the night (not if there are clouds though). And how would wildlife and the vegetation react to electromagnetic energy around infrared up to ultraviolet being "online" during the night? Laser could make it less grave but they still get scattered at molecules so nature will still sense it regardless of the focus of the beam.

France, the UK and Russia operate aircraft carriers, Brazil used to as well. China and India are both pursuing aircraft carriers. They are about 2/3rds the size of a Nimitz class but they are still aircraft carriers. The U.S. operates more then double what the rest of the world operates but what he said was wrong..... very small point but it bothered me

The problem is, which most people don't realize and he neglects to mention is that most if not all our natural gas comes from the same process as getting oil. The only difference is we skim the natural gas off or near the pockets of crude oil and collect it. If we are going through all the trouble to get natural gas why don't we collect the oil too? So we are right back into the same problem. Don't even skip the can down the street, it's kicking it and it doesn't go anywhere.

Even with oil at over $100/barrel?

I'm skeptical of Gasland. I've seen situations where people can ignite their tap water where there has NEVER been any drilling/fracking. Methane can occur naturally in aquifers. I believe with strong regulations, adequate enforcement staff and strict monitoring and disclosure that fracking can be done safely.

the only way i see us getting off the oil addiction and not destroying the planet is if we embark on a project equal to when we build our high way system , we have to redo our entire transportation infrastructor , mag lev rail systems and magnitzed roads . When the power mat tech gets better i think we could put something like that in our roads and charge . There is also alot of progress in the compressed air engine which would in theory clean the air as it runs

Natural gas is NOT the way forward, it is simply going to maintain the dominance of combustion, not alleviate the problem, you need to (A) massively increase efficiency and (B) develop more and more in the way of fuel economy.

Clean, renewable energy technology is here now and very affordable. If the amount spent on Iraq and Afghanistan was spent on windmills, wave power and solar, the US would be well on its way to energy independence, now and for future generations.

watch GASLAND (2010) a documentary about the dangers of fracking

The opportunity costs of developing a non renewable resource and it's infrastructure as a bridge to renewables just slows down the development of the renewable sources. Not to mention the health and environmental costs of fracking. Natural gas extraction results in 25% of the methane entering the atmosphere which is a worse green house gas than CO2. None of these drawbacks justifies this as a bridge resource. we can't solve our problems using the same thinking that got us into this mess.

Yes, but when and how? It's not like we have decades to work on this. We're going to run into a problem before we can bring oil demand in line with supply.

I like this guy. He isn't bullshitting around like most of the people with a similar message.

Everyone downing ted talks surely didn't watch the entire video. Chris Anderson came out and drilled him with questions and skepticism about natural gas. go to 11:30

Wikipedia says there are currently 21 active aircraft carriers. It looks accurate. Is there something I'm not understanding? The main point is that we bear a disproportionate military cost, which is true, but bad facts take away from the argument.

I'm interested in what would replace jet fuel. It's a very valuable 'byproduct' of refining. You can't refine all crude oil to that quality, only a portion of each barrel. I think crude oil is going to be an energy and political problem until we can easily substitute each part of crude oil's refined products.

I noticed that he did not mention LFTR reactors. I wonder why, could it be because he has investments that include natural gas?

You sound so "Zeitgeist". Don't get me wrong- I like the idea of working together globally. It's simply not going to happen until a crisis occurs and people are forced to find another way. Maybe natural gas can ease the suffering during the energy crisis because, in reality, we have nothing else ready to fill the oil supply gap over the next couple decades.

@frunchzz I believe he was referring to super carriers. In that he'd be correct. The US is the only country operating them and China has a second hand Russian hull that they are refitting.

Not necessarily. I'm a treehugger for fracking. Although I don't think natural gas is ideal, I believe it's better than the other short term alternatives- oil and coal. I'm all for renewables- but I'm a realist. I understand the oil depletion rate will be brutal in the next decade. Unfortunately, we've simply waited too long to have a smooth transition to the alternatives. We may make the transition, but we're going to have to do it the hard way.

I wouldn't suggest only nuclear power plants, nor would I suggest putting them everywhere. They should be viewed as being as geographically limited if not more so, than hydro and geothermal. T.Boone himself stated quite simply that they shouldn't be built on areas prone to earthquakes, and I would add any kind of large scale natural disaster; hurricanes, tornadoes, maybe even floods.

Nice to hear a more 'realistic' take on that whole energy business thing.

What about the ecological issues that occur as a result of fracking?

Growth is good. For how long? It is the short sighted and small minded to believe infinite growth can continue forever on a finite planet.

That wasn't really an argument on your part at all The economy is how we evaluate the different values of different goods and services. The problem of pollution is because you don't have to pay for the damage you do, a negative externality. Windmills and solar power only becomes profitable if you exaggerate the damage done What do you think we want technological progress for? For higher effiicency that gives us a better standard of living I'm not a professor, thanks for the compliment though

because the u.s has lots of supply and nat gas prices are depressed there. many producers fail to make profit

@shandcunt He gets the point, but his pount is that other sources of energy are not viable due to public opinion, reliability, and lack of infrastructure at this time, so yes, we need this sort of short term solution.

This aged beautifully

Not only is that reply extremely vague, it's completely untrue. The current production processes, and many of the materials used in electrical supplies are inefficient. Recent trials on many electric vehicles have had high price tags due to inadequate, yet high priced, engineering. Electrical delivery (not production) has high price tags, because generation of said electricity has been handed over to a handful of corporations looking to profit *surprise*. The infrastructure is flawed.

@OrthodoxAtheist We need to do that. The problem is, you need energy and capital to build it. If we started attacking the oil depletion problem 20 years ago, our choices would be better. But we have done nothing. Natural gas isn't the ideal solution, but at this point, it's one of the only viable options to get us to renewables. It's the only off the shelf, ready to go technology that has the EROEI to get us to a sustainable future.

Its been around for a long time, but do we have a large resource of natural gas enough to power all the vehicles on the road today? How about methane gas from waste? And the retooling of the fuel system in each vehicle to convert them to run on natural gas from fossil fuel.

"that is your problem" was humorous, the first time, but after 3 times, it seemed to show how he really feels about global issues.

I run 2 cars on CNG Bi-Fuel a 2002 A6 twin turbo and a 2000 Nissan Extara CNG Bi-Fuel 6 cylinder.Update my Home fueling pump and storage system to give me 2-3 Gal an hour filling with a stand by fill of 2 Gal. Here is a video of my Nissan and home filling. I pay 60 cents a Gal of CNG at home filling.I save from $200 to $400 a month in fuel cost. At a rounded off $300 times 12 months is $3600 a year in cash or take home pay back in my pocket. .

so your saying the way they get the gas out of the ground is bad? why doesn't this stop then?

Pickens should buy tv time and do this as an infomercial......oh, wait- he already DID!

No, actually it wouldn't be. Poisoning the water supply is not the lesser of two evils. I'm not supporting nuclear as a bridge fuel (particularly because it's no more a fuel than solar or hydro; stored material, energy extracted for mechanical work), I'm supporting it because if you build the plants in the right places it's a safe source of steady backup power. Others include hydro and geothermal. The three are geographically limited in different ways, together they'd make it easier without...

How do you know they are safer? The Clean Water Act requires companies to disclose such information to the EPA, but since these companies are exempt that basically gives them free reign to lie through their teeth without consequences. Until they are forced to disclose the chemicals they usein fracking, no one is safe.

@Gripfang Being a NET exporter doesn't mean we don't import. And it's only gasoline that we're exporting. And it's not our choice. The gas companies are selling over seas because foreign countries pay more for it than we do. We can't force the gas companies to only sell in the US. It's why the Keystone XL pipeline is a bad idea. By using NG they won't need to sell to foreign countries to get the best price. We'll already be paying that.

Where's the Josh Fox Ted Talk?

we need a renewable resource, not a finite one. or a "constant" one: solar, wind, electromagnetism drilling will just cause environmental problems, because some of the sites will have poor regulation.

Why must it export - first use domestically and achieve more energy security, and reduce foreign debt (apart from the fact that it is a cleaner fuel when compared to petrol). This was also the aim in India which imports 70% of its petrol requirement at great costs to the economy.

When I first read your comment, I thought to myself, "who's this idiot posting unreadable, immature garbage???" But then I decided to stop judging and try reading it again. Then I said to myself, "hmm, this guy (or girl) is actually pretty smart." If you typed in complete sentences with decent punctuation, and worded your comments more clearly, I think you could be pretty influential. And reading your posts wouldn't be such a chore. You'll reach more people! Good luck.

@ennot No shit. That's why we have to develop them. I'm talking about the future. If we develop those batteries renewable energy can supply most of the energy we need. But Fusion is where we need to go and could be commercially viable in the next 30 years.

Looks like big oil dislikes this video. WELL I LIKE IT!

"I cannot imagine enough electricity generated to be able to lift the weight of the batteries it must carry." 1, that's because current gen batteries are not effecient enough yet, and 2,/wiki/Electric_aircraft which solves the problem by getting energy fed directly into the craft.

I took it to mean that he just wanted something produced domestically, not that those things were especially 'American', necessarily.

I'm sure there are more aircraft carriers in the world than that. Especially if you include any under construction. The UK are getting two, for example.

@substack No, theres 12 by 9 countries. The US has 20.

No, it isn't like saying that at all. This is power that fuels homes, hospitals, business', this is massive integration into the power network. If the Canadian plants go down, larges parts of America lose power. That's dependent. No country that still uses grossly outdated coal plants ubiquitously is in a comfortable position with respect to it's energy equation, unless it wants to be live in denial.

Could you be more specific?

T. Boone misrepresents the aircraft carrier bit. The UK had two until 2010, and are currently building more with the French to serve as carriers for both nations. France currently has one aircraft carrier. I'm sure there are other aircraft carriers out there. Point is, if he can get easily verifiable information wrong, what else can he get wrong?

Honestly i kinda agree with him i dont think renewable energy has reached a point where it can significantly reduce dependence on oil and until it has natural gas could be helpful in reducing oil use.

I don't get the dislikes. If you watch the whole video the guy makes a lot of sense. Hes saying that we will always need energy. We aren't going to just stop using energy so why not use a cleaner viable, cheaper energy while we search for new better energy solutions that hopefully don't have any co2 emissions. He seems like the guy to talk to if you have an idea like that. He lost 150 million and is willing to do it again and he displayed his distrust of the government.

we have to look past the money aspect people like him prevent technological progress because they are so worried about profit margins instead of progress

About 2 pallets apiece. We're so wasteful it's not even laughable.

@kaimialana As far as funding goes, scientists have to cooperate with economists in giving them estimates for completion ratios for research products where economists then evaluate it in regard to investment costs and priced product in the market. This is a cross-filed question, experience Pickens have in understanding the relevant inputs and understanding from different fields of science. This happens to be what I study, STS. UU, is ranked 66th internationally in ARWU.

Don't forget to mention the oil shortages that are coming in the next couple decades assuming there's no more "great recessions".

So not depending on oil anymore to depend on gas instead? Doesn't sound like a final solution to a problem, just a patch so you have to deal with the same problem later. We have to take the turn into a virtually endless source of energy, and that is the Sun.

That's sad considering we're less than 5% of the world's population.

@JIYkp we should not just trust him. We should help! Like he said, this is OUR world. One man can't change everything if we don't all pitch in!

Count me in. But there is still this little problem of liquid fuels for transportation.

@jayangli : I would offer that I'm extremely frustrated with "authorities" on energy that are viewed as such due to monetary success or business acumen. They overlook many of the real problems our entire planet is facing and look towards change with fiscal viability in mind. For example, the only thing keeping everybody from driving self-generating electric vehicles that are 100% recyclable is the time required to build them. Currently this time makes them prohibitively expensive. It shouldn't