T. Boone Pickens: Let's transform energy -- with natural gas
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 сен 2024
- www.ted.com The US consumes 25% of the world's oil -- but as energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens points out onstage, the country has no energy policy to prepare for the inevitable. Is alternative energy our bridge to an oil-free future? After losing $150 million investing in wind energy, Pickens suggests it isn't, not yet. What might get us there? Natural gas. After the talk, watch for a lively Q&A with TED Curator Chris Anderson.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at www.ted.com/tra...
If you have questions or comments about this or other TED videos, please go to support.ted.com 
Наука
I love listening to him he is a great speaker.
6:17 ...."$90 is the new floor" ha ha ha ha
T boone pickens just walked in
Just joking
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
Q: What to do about transportation energy costs A: Solar Roadways (Its in development by the Department of Transportation currently)
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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
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.
The video about the new battery would be a good response to this video, it will make wind/solar work.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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
Haters gonna hate. I was told a smart thing once. "Don't come to me with problems. Come with problems and solutions" People say we need to get off fossil fuels entirely. I agree, but how? What's your solution? T. Boone suggests natural gas. This is a very viable option. Batteries are nowhere near what they need to be for heavy transport. We need something.
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.
watch GASLAND (2010) a documentary about the dangers of fracking
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.
It "can" destroy the environment, but not always. Oil drilling "can" pollute the Gulf of Mexico, but not always. If you told anybody posting on this board that they could mount a windmill on top of their car and go- we'd all be mounting windmills on the hood tomorrow. I don't think anybody "loves" the natural gas option, but I have yet to see an alternative viable near term solution.
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.
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.
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.
That may seem to be the case, but it isn't. Scientists saying natural gas is ok, are likely the ones with conflicts of interest, more specifically special interest groups representing corporations who are profiting from natural gas and in most cases also oil. Natural gas is polluting the water supply, and it's leaking methane from wells, and is barely a functional business model, even without any semblance of environmental regulation which makes it even worse.
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.
@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.
@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.
He said natural gas is a BRIDGE FUEL. Solar is the endgame.
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.
I find it disappointing that he began his speech by attempting to make us think he cares about humanity. He's a "believer" of global warming, but he's not willing to do any thing about it. He's in it for the money. Period. And he made this clear throughout the rest of the presentation. Especially the multiple times that he states, "that's your problem," or some variation. He contradicts himself.
Pickens should buy tv time and do this as an infomercial......oh, wait- he already DID!
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.
I didn't learn about peak oil until 2008- and only through my own research. People still think I'm crazy when I talk about our energy mess. What a shame that Americans have been so dumbed down and numbed to reality.
the man makes more sense than many others I have heard
"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.
Looks like big oil dislikes this video. WELL I LIKE IT!
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
"that is your problem" was humorous, the first time, but after 3 times, it seemed to show how he really feels about global issues.
Don't forget to mention the oil shortages that are coming in the next couple decades assuming there's no more "great recessions".
because the u.s has lots of supply and nat gas prices are depressed there. many producers fail to make profit
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...
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?
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.
Seems there's a lot of guys like you who didn't even watch the video.
Nuclear won't solve the primary energy issue in America, which is transport fuel, the largest chunk of which is trucks.
You could have 100% renewable electricity and that won't do shit about the fact you're burning up gas with trucks and cars.
T. Boone Pickens: Let's get out of the frying pan -- and into the fire
@kenmacallister Did you just say renewable energy is "very affordable?" Before or after subsidies?
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.
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.
Nobody is listening to what he's saying. It's a BRIDGE fuel source. Once we move towards natural gas we can STILL WORK towards renewable sources but in the meantime we AREN'T ADDICTED to foreign oil and our energy costs are way lower.
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.
Japan already has an experimental solar power collector in orbit - beaming free, clean, unlimited solar power down to the surface by laser beam. But let's keep focusing on fossil fuels, Picket.
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.
its sad to see that the audience of TED would rather bash their heads against a rock trying to figure out a renewable resource, rather than accept the fact that the technology isnt there yet and that we need something to use for energy.
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.
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.
@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.
I completely agree with pikens we must get rid of imprtation of oil lets keep all of the money here in America. we could convert current vehicles to natural gas it would more than pay for it self not to mention natural gas is way better for a combustion engine
@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.
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
I noticed that he did not mention LFTR reactors. I wonder why, could it be because he has investments that include natural gas?
Yeah because the biggest problem with oil is the cost?
This guy sort of misses the point but I'm glad he is talking about how unsustainable oil is....unfortunetly natural gas has the same sustainability problem - seems like a short term solution with the exact same issues as oil
@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.
@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.
What about the ecological issues that occur as a result of fracking?
@ennot Yes there is if you have efficient long distance batteries. You use the renewables to charge the batteries.
My thoughts throughout the talk:
0:28 "we have to get off oil purchase from the enemy" What the fuck? Is this talk from 2002/late 2001?
1:17 Are you seriously using the us/them rhetoric and expecting to be taken seriously after Bush Jr?
3:25 I can't believe he called the opec countries "the enemy"
7:44 I guess he has some points
7:45 I can't believe he called the opec countries "the enemy"
9:33 I can't believe he called the opec countries "the enemy", is this guy from the present?
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?
Oh boy “the days of cheap oil are over “ hahahahahah
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.
WE DON'T WANT FRACKING!! WE DON'T WANT TO DESTROY THE WATER TABLE FOR FUEL OK?
About 2 pallets apiece. We're so wasteful it's not even laughable.
so your saying the way they get the gas out of the ground is bad? why doesn't this stop then?
Count me in. But there is still this little problem of liquid fuels for transportation.
he has a very funny way of saying "light", "wind", "wave", "geothermal", "Thorium", or even "bio fuels"
I took it to mean that he just wanted something produced domestically, not that those things were especially 'American', necessarily.
I like this guy. He isn't bullshitting around like most of the people with a similar message.
The reality is that Americans need to learn to live with less energy not more. Growth is the problem that will destroy our civilization and our environment.
I think there should be a law that allows you to slap people that think all that matters is CO2 emissions and think energy is free. For that matter, add the conspiracy theorists that believe fracking is the cause of methane leaking.
Pickens knows what he is talking about. I talked to a similar energy expert that held high position in Vattenfall here in Sweden like 5 years ago, he said the same thing. Everyone knows Gas is the next thing.
Lol . . . most power we generate is done via steam turbine if there is a heat source as the "fuel." Nuclear power plants are efficient because the nuclear material generates heat nicely, which is used to vaporize water and spin turbines with the steam produced.
What did you think we do to generate electricity?
We don't need a bridge fuel, mostly because we already have one. That's the purpose oil and gas are already solving, we already have a bridge fuel. We currently have the capacity to move towards fulfilling our needs without fuels, without building new fuel burning infrastructure our acquiring new fuel sources, because such an infrastructure ALREADY EXISTS, and such fuel reserves ALREADY EXIST. No need to buy time, we've already wasted enough.
That's not your problem old man but the survival and advancement of the human species depends on it.
@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
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.
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