Natural Gas Transportation Is a Win-Win Technology

Because of the stock market’s dramatic drop in 2008, investors, commentators, and analysts are all discussing whether or not the days of investing for the long term in American equity markets are over. Despite mutual fund companies’ best attempts in advertisements and commercials to convince us otherwise, I believe long term investing in the American stock market is a failed strategy. One can make an argument for long term investing in energy stocks and gold, but little else.

As I have said before in previous Seeking Alpha articles, the future doesn’t look good for the S&P500. Anyone who makes a long term bet on an S&P500 index fund (no matter how small the management fees) is surely to lose money over the long haul. In fact, over the past 10 years, after inflation and the falling dollar are taken into account, the S&P500 is substantially in the red. In fact, just recently the S&P500 was at the same level it was in 1997, over a decade ago.

I contend the major reason behind this woeful performance in the S&P500 over the past decade has been, and will continue to be, American dependence on foreign oil. Importing 70% of our oil requirements in an era when worldwide oil supply will not keep up with worldwide oil demand is a poor (pun intended) and dangerous economic strategy.

I know, I know, current gasoline prices are back under $2/gallon and are actually $1.55 in my neighborhood. However, no one should be deceived here: the current low price of oil is not due to some new huge supply coming online or that the peak oil theorists are wrong! Today’s low oil price is simply due to a dramatic fall-off in worldwide oil demand as the financial crisis rolls around the globe. Assuming the US and the world economies can claw their way out of the hole we’re in today, I can assure you low oil prices are a temporary phenomenon which will last only until economic growth is revived.

Any American who has already forgotten $145/barrel crude and $4.50/gallon gasoline is simply short-sighted and in denial of America’s oil crisis. After all, despite oil at $145/barrel, worldwide oil supply never got much above 86 million barrels a day. Due to the current financial crisis and the low price of oil today, many oil exploration and production projects are being delayed or canceled. However, existing oil reservoir depletion rates don’t rest and large reservoir discoveries have slowed drastically in the last 20 years. All this means the next oil super spike could likely make this year’s look relatively mild.

Energy, particularly oil in the US, is the lubrication of the economy. It provides our main source of transportation fuel. Oil is used in the production of chemicals and plastics. It is used for home heating and for many industrial uses. Currently, oil is quite simply indispensable and irreplaceable to the US economy.

There has been much research and many articles correlating a country’s access to energy as being a main factor in determining its economic vitality and economic evolution. The great oil fields of Texas and Oklahoma were a significant factor in the Allies' WWII victory. Similarly, the lack of oil was a strategic impairment to both Nazi Germany and Japan. The US was able to capitalize on the Axis’ lack of fuel oil, which was known to US generals, as it was the main factor driving those two countries’ war strategy toward the latter stages of WWII. Therefore, access to oil is critical both economically and from a national security perspective.

So, where am I going with all this? Well, I am worried. I had great hope that Obama would be a big change from the oil centric energy policy of the Bush administration. Sure, Obama has made some comments about wind and solar energy. He has also spoken of electric and hybrid automobiles. Now, before I continue, anyone who has read my energy policy can see that I am also a big fan of wind and solar energy. I am also a big supporter of electric cars and Project Better Place. We need electric cars, and we need wind and solar energy to power them. And we need to be working full steam ahead on these projects. But currently there are some problems here.

First off, electric vehicles are simply not available yet in mass quantities for middle class Americans and it will be awhile yet. The current crisis has caused a cut-back in funding for solar and wind energy projects. Additionally, I still don’t see government recognition or solutions to upgrading the nation’s electric grid and getting this alternative energy from the wind and solar sources to large demand centers.

While these problems are being worked on, US dollars continue to leave the country to wind up in the hands of unfriendly countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, and Russia. Common sense says the US needs to reduce its foreign oil dependence as quickly and economically as possible. Common sense also tells us that we will need all alternatives to oil powered transportation if we are going to reduce the tremendous energy content of 14-15 million barrels of foreign oil.

My question is a very simple one: why in the world isn’t the US embracing natural gas powered transportation? In spite of a very prestigious economic team including a plethora of PhD's, I have yet to hear one Obama economic adviser even mention natural gas transportation as a priority. Nor have I heard any Congressmen question the “big” three auto CEOs about natural gas cars and trucks. Why? Since the economic case to use natural gas for transportation is so obvious, there must be some technology, cost, or environmental reason why policy makers are not supporting such a common sense solution. Let’s discuss these issues one at a time.

Natural gas vehicles (NGV) are an old and proven method of transportation. Fleets of buses, cars, and trucks have been proven to be reliable and cost effective in cities across the country and across the world for decades. There is no rocket science here. Most any car or truck in America can be converted to run on natural gas by simply installing a more robust fuel tank (the natural gas must be under pressure) and a different fuel delivery system – there is no change to the basic gasoline powered internal combustion engine.

Oil exporters like Iran and Brazil are quickly converting their cars to natural gas so they can sell more oil to America. If oil exporters are doing this, why isn’t the world’s largest oil importer doing likewise? There is no huge “re-tooling” investment needed as the big 3 would have you believe. Not only are they making natural gas vehicles today, but it is basically the same engine! Only the gas tank, the fuel delivery system, and the engine controller are affected. Also, it is not a range issue that is often raised with electric cars – a typical NGV like the Honda Civic GX has a range of 200 miles. So, from a technology perspective it is clear: NGV’s are a mature, reliable and viable form of transportation

From a cost standpoint, when gasoline was $4/gallon, most areas of the country could run a vehicle on natural gas for less than half the cost of gasoline on a mile per mile basis. Today, on an energy equivalent basis, natural gas can be found from $0.70-$1.10 /gallon equivalent in many parts of the country. However, when you throw in the unsuccessful oil war in Iraq (Iraq’s government voted last week to demand a US withdrawal by 2011 with no long term military bases allowed on Iraqi soil) and the fact that natural gas is produced domestically, natural gas is in reality an even cheaper alternative.

Switching 10% of US cars and trucks to natural gas would create many thousands of domestic jobs in the oil patch, pipeline business, and refueling stations. Every dollar spent refueling a car or truck with natural gas would be a dollar staying in the USA instead of going to our enemies overseas.

Now, the natural gas powered Honda Civic costs more than the gasoline powered Civic, by about as much as the tax rebate. Add to that the cost of the home refueling station (the “Phill” by Fuelmaker) of $4k and the cost of a natural gas powered vehicle has some initial pain. However, mass production of these vehicles and a second source for the home refueling appliance would bring the cost of both the vehicles and the appliance down considerably. So, NGV cost is not an issue, and in fact would save consumers money on every tank refill.

From an environmental angle, NGVs are a big improvement over gasoline powered cars and trucks. According to the EPA, compared to traditional vehicles, vehicles operating on CNG have reductions in carbon monoxide emissions of 90-97%, and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of 25-30%. Nitrogen oxide emissions can be reduced by 35 to 60 percent, and other non-methane hydrocarbon emissions could be reduced by as much as 50 to 75 percent. In addition, because of the relatively simple makeup of natural gas in comparison to gasoline, there are fewer toxic and carcinogenic emissions from natural gas vehicles, and virtually no particulate emissions. While NGV aren’t the environmental Holy Grail of a fully electric car, there is no doubt that switching from gasoline powered cars and trucks to NGV will be a positive development.

From an availability standpoint, we have a big problem. Currently, the only NGV sold to the general public in any volume that I can see is the Honda Civic GX, and that is only available in California, New York, and Utah. Interestingly enough, Utah leads the nation in friendly natural gas transportation policy by providing tax incentives, refueling stations, and natural gas conversion shops. Read about Questar Gas support for NGVs.

So, we have a chicken and egg problem with NGV availability. The auto makers and dealers don’t want to stock and sell NGVs because consumers won’t buy them unless there are places to refuel them. Entrepreneurs and natural gas utilities don’t want to build natural gas refueling stations if there are not enough NGVs refueling at the stations to make them economically viable.

This is where we need the government to take action. A good start would be to require natural gas providers to build enough natural gas refueling stations along the interstate highway system such that a person could drive coast-to-coast, east to west, north to south, in a NGV. Since the range of NGV is roughly 200 miles, this would require a minimum of one station per every 50 miles or so along the interstate system. Once the number of NGV and refueling stations reached critical mass, entrepreneurs around the country would take over as the profit incentive would be there. We just need to jumpstart the system.

Why on earth should the government bail out the auto makers with our tax-payer dollars without first requiring them to build nat gas vehicles, or at least require them to sell the same ones they sell in Europe and Asia in the US? The government should also require each “big” 3 auto company to design and manufacture a nat gas refueling appliance for the garage in order for competition to reduce the current high cost of the sole sourced “Phill” appliance.

To summarize then, NGVs are viable from a technology, cost, and environmental perspective. NGVs are the fastest way to reduce American dependence on foreign oil. The biggest issues facing NGVs are their availability and lack of refueling stations. Both these issues can and should be addressed by Obama within his economic stimulus program. Now is the time! Why on earth would we spend more money on new roads without first spending money to insure Americans will be able to travel on those roads with American fueled vehicles? Why on earth should we be bailing out GM, Ford (F), and Chrysler without first imposing the condition that they make NGVs available around the country and install a natural gas refueling station at every dealership? These are simple, common sense approaches to solving America’s biggest economic issue: reducing our reliance on foreign oil. These suggestions could begin making a serious dent in our foreign oil addiction with 12 months. Within 3 years, we could easily be saving millions of barrels of oil.

I can’t understand American indifference on this issue. No doubt the current economic crisis was caused in part by financial deregulation (albeit I call what Moody's, S&P, and Fitch did by slapping AAA ratings on repackages sub-prime debt by its real name: fraud). That said, I believe it is America’s addiction to foreign oil that has put the nail in our economic coffin. Think about it. When Jimmy Carter was elected President in the 1977, America imported 9 million barrels of oil a day. After Carter’s energy policies were enacted, the country reduced this amount by 50%. Now, in 2008, America imports between 14-15 million barrels a day, or 70% of our total oil usage!

This is an abomination. It is causing us to fight foreign oil wars and shaping a disastrous foreign policy that has the majority of the world viewing the US as the “most terrorist nation on earth”. Economically, as T. Boone Pickens so bluntly put it, it is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world (i.e. from the USA to foreign oil producers, most of whom are unfriendly toward us). So, we are funding both sides of the “terrorist conflict”. If it wasn’t so serious, such a flawed economic and foreign policy would be viewed as naïve, sophomoric, and laughable.

Meanwhile, China is taking a much wiser approach. Just last week it was reported that China is seeking to invest $10 billion dollars in Petrobras (PBR) in an effort to gain access to the 80-100 billion barrels of newly discovered Brazilian oil. Makes a lot more sense than invading Iraq doesn’t it? The way the US has been behaving under Bush, Brazil’s officials actually expressed concern that the US will invade it at some point. It just shows how far the US has fallen in the eyes of the world. It’s all due to our over-addiction to foreign oil. So, why aren’t we adopting policies to fix our Achilles heel? It quite simply baffles me.

The larger point is this: I don’t care what industry the reader is in: Wall Street investor, banker, hotel owner, doctor, tourism, engineer, school teacher, lawyer – you name it, all Americans have a vested interest in supporting natural gas transportation. It is smart economic policy for every US citizen. All Americans will suffer a reduction in their standard of living (and are suffering now….) due to the lack of a US strategic long-term comprehensive energy policy. The US has enough natural gas reserves to power our transportation needs for the next 60-75 years.

So, let’s build hybrid and electric cars. Let’s build electric mass transit. Let’s power it with wind and solar energy. In conjunction with these efforts, let’s begin a simple, effective, and proven strategy to immediately and significantly reduce our use of imported oil: expand the deployment of natural gas powered cars and trucks. Nothing is more important to the future of our country, its national security, and its economic vitality.

Until the US addresses its addiction to foreign oil in a significant and effective way, there is no reason at all to be a long term investor in American equity markets and the S&P500. If the US doesn’t solve its dependence on foreign oil, US equity markets will continue the slide of the last decade and it will accelerate as the price of oil continues its upward climb. Americans will once again, as we did this year, suffer the twin ravages of a falling currency and rising inflation. The American economy (and equity markets) will sink into the abyss and America will join the long list of world power “has beens”.

America used to be a pragmatic country which embraced science, technology and prudent fiscal and foreign policies. We need to get back on track and begin implementing common sense approaches that benefit middle class Americans. America can only be strong if its middle class is strong. The middle class can only be strong if we throw off the shackles of foreign oil addiction. Time is running out. Contact your local, state, and federal politicians as well as the Obama team directly at http://change.gov/ and demand action to increase the availability of NGVs running on domestically produced natural gas. Help reduce the US addiction to foreign oil and at the same time boost your domestic investment returns. No matter how you look at it, natural gas transportation is a win-win for all Americans and for the American investment environment.

Comments

[leh:]

Great piece and spot-on. This summer's gas prices were a global wake-up call augering desperate times ahead if we continue to rely so heavily on oil. Nat gas is one excellent alternative that can be implemented fairly quickly while PHEV battery tech matures. Let's get with the program!

2008 Dec 11 08:58 AM

[bluesmoke:]

As usual good article. We could take this a step further - since the oil companies got rich selling fuel to all these vehicles over the last 50 years, perhaps they should be the ones bailing out the big three. My bet is due to the abundant availability of natural gas, the oil companies would be much more willing to shift gears and switch to nat gas it at their NATIONWIDE service stations.

Otherwise, they won't get paid back! Now that's a win-win solution.

2008 Dec 11 09:05 AM

[User 283977:]

Finally, someone that gets it!!!

The American automotive industry needs to be revitalized. That change process needs to be integrated with a national energy policy. That integration would NEVER have happened if the American automotive industry was in good financial condition. However, with the appointment of an Automotive Kaiser, the United States has an opportunity to make major changes in an obviously dysfunctional industry. Its dysfunctional in many ways, but in this instance, its dysfunctional because it builds mostly gasoline powered vehicles which conflicts with what should be our countries fundamental goal, ending our dependence on foreign oil.

One of MANY possible scenarios… Immediately start building natural gas distribution stations all over the US. Now mandate that say X % of all new American vehicles only run on natural gas. Now start expanding the distribution stations… now increase the natural gas made American vehicles… Now pass laws that X % of foreign imports must run on natural gas… keep expanding the natural gas distribution stations… Keep this up until this country no longer allows new gasoline vehicles to be sold in this country. Who owns those natural gas distribution stations? In the end, they should be sold in an IPO, but I suspect private capital would probably enter the market as soon as the game changing aspects of a plan like this were known.

2008 Dec 11 09:20 AM

[Mmarrkk:]

Fitz: Great article! I wish your man "O" would read it, or at least assign one of his advisors to read it! However, you say that he has "...a plethora of PhD's..." advising him. There might be the problem!!! PhD's don't equate to good common sense! Smart guys no doubt but just not always the most practical. And your plan is practical. The new Energy Secretary nominee is a really smart fellow but I really don't see him as a help to the transition period in our energy journey. He's an alt energy guy and a big global warming guy. Nat Gas is still evil to his ilk; not as evil as oil or coal, but still evil! I'd have rather see T. Boone take that job...but we'll see pigs fly before we see a real oil & gas man in this administration or any future one! T. Boone gets dismissed because he's making money on the wind portion of his plan. Funny, no one dismisses Al Gores "award winning" powerpoint presentation movie on global warming even though he's started up a business and is making millions off of cap-and-trade gimmicks!

Today, I decided to re-think my disdain for all of the global warming folks; the Al Gores and all of his scientists. Maybe they're right and I'm wrong (and the over 650 recognized scientists who also disagree with the theory of global warming). But then, I'm sitting on Galveston beach and its SNOWING!!! Uhhhh, yeah, global warming! I'll just wait around another 20 years and we'll be back to our 1970's/80's worry about global cooling/ice ages! We do seem to flip from one to the other! In the end, we are but a pimple on this big old planet's behind. We only wish we had that much power to influence.

2008 Dec 11 10:17 AM

[Mmarrkk:]

And again, my barbs about clilmate change aside, AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE! I'm waiting for the NG pick up truck to haul materials and tools around between oil and gas properties!!!

2008 Dec 11 10:19 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

I haven't talked to the president-elect lately, or for that matter ever, and neither to his team, but this thing with natural gas is not as certain as some people think. By some people I am referring to Mr T. Boone Pickens, who published a short article in a special edition of Newsweek praising natural gas as a win-win resource for the transportation sector.

I keep my eyes and ears open where energy is concerned, and most of the people I have talked to prefer to believe that the situation with natural gas is not much better than that of oil. I prefer to put my faith in that opinion rather than some fly-by-night idea of Mr Pickens, who also has been talking about a wind power corridor from the Mexican to the Canadian border. He also seemed to believe that where natural gas is concerned, the US could be 100% independent. Of course, my skepticism might be prejudice on my part, since I lost my enthusiasm for Mr Pickens when I heard that he was a one man support group for the Swift Boat Captains when John Kerry was running for president of the US.

Let me conclude by saying that this is an interesting and in some respects important article, and there might be a place for a great deal of natural gas in the US transportation scene, but it is far from certain. A kit if research is still necessary here..

2008 Dec 11 10:40 AM

[jerrydd:]

NG has it's good points though I'd start with semi's, trucks, buses, not cars. Until widespread NG filling stations are available for cars, it will be problematic. One thing left out is the cost of electricity Phil uses, enough for an EV to go a long way. It takes a lot of power to compress NG to 3000psi.

EV's can be built cheaply if they are lightweight, aero because that drives down the cost of the battery, EV drive and body/chassis. A 100 mile rage, 80 mph EV using inexpensive lead batteries could be built by Detroit for under $10k with a good profit using older tech. I build, drive EV's every day at around $.06/mile!! I do composites, EV's for a living and what I say here is doable now and could have been done 40+ yrs ago.

Lightness by using composites can have a ripple effect cutting material, weight out of every other car part no matter which motor system is used.

A good example is the Ultra-lite GM show car but done in medium tech fiberglass instead of carbon fiber, increasing weight only 50 lbs while cutting costs 90% on the body/chassis. It has an inter-changable rear drive pod where you could switch between EV and ICE units in a couple minutes..

Why NG, EV's are not being used is Detroit can't change, it's not in their DNA. Better to let them go into prepackaged bankruptcy before giving them aid . Turn Chrysler over to the Unions, break GM up into 3-4 companies with new leaders is a better bet to get the vehicles we want, need. Ford looks like it will be OK.

We need instead to use the $25B for start up of EV, other fueled like NG, wet ethanol cars, subcar companies. Why do we need 4000lb cars to move 1 person around? It doesn't make sense.

A good 2 seat safe EV subcar could be start up in composites for $1-10M
because composite tooling cost 1/100 what a steel car needs. Now add the savings from lighter weight and eff $10-15K EV, fueled can be very profitable.

Certainly NG buses, delivery trucks are needed everywhere along with semi's is NG's best targets in the near future as they use the most fuel/vehicle so the greatest, easiest oil savings. Plus existing ones can be converted even faster..

jerryd

2008 Dec 11 10:56 AM

[longoil:]

A very enjoyable read, well researched !!

I agree with you on NGVs, but it must part of a larger comprehensive energy plan (as you have mentioned countless times). New technology is available to extract previously unaccessable tight gas deposits. But remember natural gas is used for many things besides electricity and heating, it is also used to create fertilizer. For example, if Obama continues or augments further the misguided corn ethanol subsidies program (which requires huge amounts of fertilizers), the natural gas liberated from electricity generation (as per the Pickens plan) could be swallowed by fertilizer production for corn ethanol. The Obama administration could also have go the GTL route (like they do in Qatar) to create liquid fuels and bypass NGV altogether.

2008 Dec 11 11:02 AM

[jerrydd:]

NG has it's good points though I'd start with semi's, trucks, buses, not cars. Until widespread NG filling stations are available for cars, it will be problematic. One thing left out is the cost of electricity Phil uses, enough for an EV to go a long way. It takes a lot of power to compress NG to 3000psi.

EV's can be built cheaply if they are lightweight, aero because that drives down the cost of the battery, EV drive and body/chassis. A 100 mile rage, 80 mph EV using inexpensive lead batteries could be built by Detroit for under $10k with a good profit using older tech. I build, drive EV's every day at around $.06/mile!! I do composites, EV's for a living and what I say here is doable now and could have been done 40+ yrs ago.

Lightness by using composites can have a ripple effect cutting material, weight out of every other car part no matter which motor system is used.

A good example is the Ultra-lite GM show car but done in medium tech fiberglass instead of carbon fiber, increasing weight only 50 lbs while cutting costs 90% on the body/chassis. It has an inter-changable rear drive pod where you could switch between EV and ICE units in a couple minutes..

Why NG, EV's are not being used is Detroit can't change, it's not in their DNA. Better to let them go into prepackaged bankruptcy before giving them aid . Turn Chrysler over to the Unions, break GM up into 3-4 companies with new leaders is a better bet to get the vehicles we want, need. Ford looks like it will be OK.

We need instead to use the $25B for start up of EV, other fueled like NG, wet ethanol cars, subcar companies. Why do we need 4000lb cars to move 1 person around? It doesn't make sense.

A good 2 seat safe EV subcar could be start up in composites for $1-10M
because composite tooling cost 1/100 what a steel car needs. Now add the savings from lighter weight and eff $10-15K EV, fueled can be very profitable.

Certainly NG buses, delivery trucks are needed everywhere along with semi's is NG's best targets in the near future as they use the most fuel/vehicle so the greatest, easiest oil savings. Plus existing ones can be converted even faster..

jerryd

2008 Dec 11 11:08 AM

[Stephanie:]

Michael,

There is a reason why we haven't gone completely alternative or NG - the American government is trying to run the hostile countries out of their oil so that they cannot militarily defend themselves against a conventional invasion, nor could the hostiles invade us. The government wants us to be the last country with any oil reserves (at least the allied countries). As soon as we shift over to NG, I'll bet you within a few years, the same American Peak Production story will float again, and we'll be importing NG just like we did in the late 80's, so that we can run the hostiles out of theirs. I know, because my dad worked in the field in south Texas, and he said that one day, in 1985, they went to him and said that the fields were to be shut down. Period. Never mind that they were still producing full force with no decline in evidence in the fields he worked in.

2008 Dec 11 11:09 AM

[jerrydd:]

NG has it's good points though I'd start with semi's, trucks, buses, not cars. Until widespread NG filling stations are available for cars, it will be problematic. One thing left out is the cost of electricity Phil uses, enough for an EV to go a long way. It takes a lot of power to compress NG to 3000psi.

EV's can be built cheaply if they are lightweight, aero because that drives down the cost of the battery, EV drive and body/chassis. A 100 mile rage, 80 mph EV using inexpensive lead batteries could be built by Detroit for under $10k with a good profit using older tech. I build, drive EV's every day at around $.06/mile!! I do composites, EV's for a living and what I say here is doable now and could have been done 40+ yrs ago.

Lightness by using composites can have a ripple effect cutting material, weight out of every other car part no matter which motor system is used.

A good example is the Ultra-lite GM show car but done in medium tech fiberglass instead of carbon fiber, increasing weight only 50 lbs while cutting costs 90% on the body/chassis. It has an inter-changable rear drive pod where you could switch between EV and ICE units in a couple minutes..

Why NG, EV's are not being used is Detroit can't change, it's not in their DNA. Better to let them go into prepackaged bankruptcy before giving them aid . Turn Chrysler over to the Unions, break GM up into 3-4 companies with new leaders is a better bet to get the vehicles we want, need. Ford looks like it will be OK.

We need instead to use the $25B for start up of EV, other fueled like NG, wet ethanol cars, subcar companies. Why do we need 4000lb cars to move 1 person around? It doesn't make sense.

A good 2 seat safe EV subcar could be start up in composites for $1-10M
because composite tooling cost 1/100 what a steel car needs. Now add the savings from lighter weight and eff $10-15K EV, fueled can be very profitable.

Certainly NG buses, delivery trucks are needed everywhere along with semi's is NG's best targets in the near future as they use the most fuel/vehicle so the greatest, easiest oil savings. Plus existing ones can be converted even faster..

jerryd

2008 Dec 11 11:12 AM

[isaac the t...:]

I want to purchase a NG/electric hybrid vehicle, maybe a mini-cooper like vehicle, and hopefully made by Ford, or Aptera The batteries made by A-123. The fueling station in my garage made by GE. The natural gas from Bakken or Marcellis, the electricity from solar/wind/nuc plants. I'd like to buy it on Amazon, and have the deal include a free trip to Denver to pick up the vehicle.
And I'd like my share of TARP money (the share of it I'm paying in taxes) to fund my purchase. It all makes sense. I'm an American, and therefore I am entitled to everything- even government paid for universal chiropractic manipulation and aromtherapy.(universal healthcare will be a massive failure unless it includes severe healthcare rationing- but I guess thats off topic).

2008 Dec 11 11:39 AM

[Onedip:]

I wholeheartedly agree, just one thing:
There is absolutely no need to mandate cars be built that only run on natural gas! In Brazil, natural gas cars come from the factory (yes, FORDs, GMs too) already tri-fuel, that is, they can run entirely on natural gas, gasoline or ethanol, the last two on any mix the custumer wants to run (40/60, 80/20, etc).
The addition to cost is negligible, and such cars could take advantage of the cheapest or readily available fuel on demand in any part of the US...
Cheers

On Dec 11 09:20 AM Bob Lunn wrote:

> Finally, someone that gets it!!!
>
> The American automotive industry needs to be revitalized. That change
> process needs to be integrated with a national energy policy. That
> integration would NEVER have happened if the American automotive
> industry was in good financial condition. However, with the appointment
> of an Automotive Kaiser, the United States has an opportunity to
> make major changes in an obviously dysfunctional industry. Its dysfunctional
> in many ways, but in this instance, its dysfunctional because it
> builds mostly gasoline powered vehicles which conflicts with what
> should be our countries fundamental goal, ending our dependence on
> foreign oil.
>
> One of MANY possible scenarios… Immediately start building natural
> gas distribution stations all over the US. Now mandate that say X
> % of all new American vehicles only run on natural gas. Now start
> expanding the distribution stations… now increase the natural gas
> made American vehicles… Now pass laws that X % of foreign imports
> must run on natural gas… keep expanding the natural gas distribution
> stations… Keep this up until this country no longer allows new gasoline
> vehicles to be sold in this country. Who owns those natural gas distribution
> stations? In the end, they should be sold in an IPO, but I suspect
> private capital would probably enter the market as soon as the game
> changing aspects of a plan like this were known.

2008 Dec 11 11:51 AM

[Mmarrkk:]

jerrydd: what are the safety statistics on your subcars, etc.? The current lfeet of large vehicles isn't going to disappear so at least for some time, we will need to be concerned about the outcomes of a fiberglass sub car with a Suburban! I'd drive a golf cart to the grocery store if a) it was allowed on the street or if the sidewalk was big enough, and b) I felt comfortable being rammed in the side by a car/truck/SUV. At this point, neither of these is a good deal!!

2008 Dec 11 12:06 PM

[fireball:]

hi fitz
even though we are at opposite ends on politics i sure do find you educational.
sorry about BO but his old extremist pastor got it right when barak was denouncing him. "the man is a politician, he will say what he needs to say to get elected." i am guessing he will try to hold on to the centrist image until the 2012 election is over. then the marxist will come out of the closet. this term will be socialism by stealth. one big target will be the destruction of the medical system. sneakier will be the destruction of national soveriegnty and he will follow in the bush-clinton footsteps of destroying the constitution and bill of rights.
it is a little strange to me to see so many investor/trader personalities asking for more govt. interference. look at the mess they make of everything they touch. even the space-program as a govt. program is full of foolish waste but luckily the tech. advances have more than offset the stupidity.
BO won't disapoint the uaw. to much money and to many votes at risk. the free market would let them die and clear the way for the new better solutions. oh well a free market never would have gotten in this pickle in the first place.
fred mentions the pickens plan. if you want some entertaining comedy go read some of the blogs. "i will allow drilling only under these conditions." or, "govt. must subsidise this" or, "it must demand, whatever for bailout money." as if they have any say in the matter. the funniest part to me is about half seem ignorant of where ng comes from. i may go back to read more sometime when i have time and need a laugh.
doesn't clne build ng fueling stations? if there is money to be made won't they continue.
the one thing i like most about boone was he kicked kerry in the backside. it's personal but from my perspective kerry betrayed the viet nam vets. a bunch of young guys forced to fight a un police action deserved better.

2008 Dec 11 12:17 PM

[User 283977:]

Onedip... The idea is NOT to produce vehicles that can use the most economical fuel, the overarching goal is to eliminate this countries dependence on foreign oil. Doing this stops all of the money going out of this country into other countries to buy their oil. By mandating that all new vehicles must use Natural Gas, all that capital stays in the United States.

This kind of a plan also coordinates well with ecological goals because natural gas vehicles run cleaner than gasoline vehicles. To those that say we will just run out of natural gas at some point in time, I argue that's a long time in the future. In the mean time, the country should be funding massive R&D into the development of fuel cell technology. You can run fuel cells off of natural gas or hydrogen. I think hydrogen is the natural clean fuel. So this kind of a shift would not be the final solution, but it would be a big step towards the final solution.

The problems that our automotive manufacturers are having is a God send…. if they were not having problems, they would be the people fighting most to stop any kind of plan that moved the US away from gasoline powered vehicles. Of course, the oil companies are going to hate this approach… I say its long past time that people started thinking about what is good for this country as opposed to what is good for big oil.

2008 Dec 11 01:16 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

hello all - thanks for reading and commenting on my thoughts. as usual the author would like to jump in and comment on the comments:

leh: wow, a fervent supporter - thank you! :)

bluesmoke: what i find very interesting is, in case you haven't noticed (it has been reported more-or-less under the radar) is that the major oil companies in the US (XOM, CVX, COP) have been peeling off and selling most all of their retail gasoline station businesses. i believe they have realized that the period of cheap gasoline is over, and they don't want future political ramifications of actually owning the stations any longer. so, they merely refine and sell the gasoline into the retail markets now.

bob lunn: zow-eee, another positive response? i must be dreaming...after my last article, i am still pulling the arrows out of my back ;) wrt building out the natural gas station infrastructure, i analyzed this a bit and figured if each local natural gas utility was responsible for building a few natural gas refueling stations in its local service area the cost would be minimal to them (and easily recouped if the NGV's were available). the biggest cost would be the land to build on, however, if they made agreements with existing service stations, most of which already have room for a new pump or two, then the cost is very minimal. this is what we should be doing, with government tax breaks and encouragement. if we can spend $700 billion on the fat cat bankers and wall streeters, we can spend $500 *m*illion on a great project like this.
but it is chicken and egg, we need the NGV and the refueling stations. so, it has to be a strategic iniative with the long-term goal in mind (reducing foreign oil imports). thanks.

Mmmmark; thank you, i have been flooding obama and his staff with emails for a year on this issue and it is really dissapointing that they are not listening (see, i *do* criticize democrats too!). with respect to his economic team, i am really impressed with them (especially compared to bush's..) except for on energy: specifically, this issue and windfall profits taxes. however, neither is dead yet and i am working hard by writing articles like this one to address both. despite all the recent headlines, energy is still the most vital issue facing american economics (and equity markets). as far as a "real oil and gas man" in this administration, i have had enough of them the past 8 years. they have been a complete disaster in terms of energy policy and foreign where we have gone bankrupt fighting an oil war and have nothing to show for it except body bags and debt and alot of mentally ill returning vets. if you don't believe in global warming, i guess i'll rank that along side your continued support of bush's policies: you simply are not looking at the facts.

fred banks: pickens is dead-right about NGV and wind power. unfortunately, the media is way too happy to write about the losses of his energy hedge fund and are using that as an excuse to say he was wrong about NGV and wind. he was NOT wrong. pickens is a true patriot with respect to energy policy, and if people still don't "get it" wrt of our funding both sides of the "war on terrorism" by importing 70% of our oil, then they simply do not understand economics nor national security issues. you say nat gas transportation is far from certain? how so? fleets have been running successfully on natural gas for decades. nat gas cars and trucks have been in use all over the world for decades. we produce natural gas here in the US. exactly what is the problem (other than refueling stations and availability of the cars, which is what my article addresses)?

jerrydd: your point that i neglected to mention the cost of electricity to run the Phill is a good one, and very constructive. that said, nat gas is still economical and if you want to include the cost of that electricity i suppose i could offset that by the fact that refueling in the garage negates having to tool into a gasoline filling station. trucks and buses are already running on natural gas around the country, so that has already started. to make a significant dent in foreign oil imports, we must get the NGV into the hands of the middle class and have the refueling stations. that is the focus of the article - if government is going to start "spending projects" to help get us out of this economic hole, NGV and the infrastructure to support them would be a strategic move that not only would create jobs, but long-term economic dividends. i agree, we don't need 4000lb cars to move around 1 person, it is simply unsustainable.

longoil: thanks yer support! and of course we are in agreement on the strategic long-term comprehensive energy policy, however, i have gotten *zero* feedback from any politician (local, state or federal) on it, so i have decided to attack each piece of it at a time. currently, i am trying to figure out why my local natural gas utility CEO won't even discuss the issue with me. i know he can't be out golfing, it is rainy, cold, and supposed to snow here later today. btw, it was bush who implemented the ridiculous ethanol mandates, and on one occaision i heard obama say, correctly, that alternative biofuels should be used "when economical" and not have mandates places on them to distort their use, especially when it is a new field under development. i dont think we should bypass NGV's altogether, we should be embracing them as quickly as possible!

stephanie: well...thanks for the comment...first off, i never said "completely alternative of NG", this is simply not possible, not economical, and unrealistic. we will be using oil for decades to come. not everyone can buy a new electric, hybrid, or NGV anytime they want (especially in a post-bush economy). however, we should be making strategic efforts to reduce foreign oil imports as quickly as possible, wouldn't you agree? wrt nat gas usage, i don't agree with your comments. the US has huge nat gas reserves, and the new technology and new shale discoveries (marcellus, haynesville shales) have huge potential. on top of that, if the US ever wises up and builds the trans-canandian alaskan-lower 48 natural gas pipeline (as my long term energy policy has been suggesting for years now), we will have enough natural gas to last for a half century. in addition, LNG terminals allow us to have extreme flexibility on importing natural gas as well. it is truely is a win-win situation for america. the reason your dad's field in texas was shut down in the 1980's was because the sauid arabians pumped the hell out of their fields and drove down the cost of crude oil to put everyone else out of the oil business and grab market share. this is yet another reason not to keep our economic future in the shackles of foreign oil producers, agreed?

jerrydd: ok man, got it the first time ;)

isaac the great: great minds think alike my man!! i only wish you and i were billionaires like buffet, gates, or the google guys, cause if i had that kinda money, i would make our dreams HAPPEN. i want my country to survive....

onedip: good point about flex-fuel, however, flex-fuel vehicles that run on natural gas as well as gasoline require two fuel tanks since the nat gas has to be stored under higher pressure. you would flip a switch to change from gasoline to nat gas. straight NGV are the most efficient, cost-effective, version. however, yeah, i have nothing against flex-fuel vehicles and in fact they are mentioned in my strategic long-term comprehensive energy policy:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
although there i use the term "open fuel standards"

fireball: sorry to hear you are still a fan of bush economic and foreign policy. apparently the current situation isn't enough evidence to convince you that he has been the worst president in the history of the country (please read the comments i made in the article prior to this one). you are again being sidetracked (pastor) by unimportant issues that the republicans use rush limbaugh (gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc) to keep your eyes off the real issues (the theft of your tax payer money and bankruptcy of the US treasury to give the ultra-rich even more money while taking away your individual liberties at the same time). the so called "conservative republicans" (in actually fascists) prey on people like yourself in order to propagate their madness on the country. all that said, i am so glad at least you are happy with the state of the union after 8 years of bush. you may be the only person left who is (outside of paulsen's wall street buddies)

2008 Dec 11 01:39 PM

[fireball:]

fitz
i'm no bush fan. my mention of him is not complimentary. i only give him some of the blame for our current state. there is plenty to go around. the loose credit policies started further back and the many congresses deserve their fair share. i don't think anything i said can be taken as approval for george jr. i don't listen to rush. i just think bo will prove to be the same kind of statist animal as the rest.
polecats stink. such is life. my comment on the rev. was just what the man said. i happen to agree on that one. politicians lie.
from the limited knowledge the public gets i would have followed a much harder policy on terrorism. it would have reacted slower and much stronger. i would not have put soldiers on the ground unless there was a need for covert surgical because the navy jets could not reach the identified targets. after retribution i would have simply warned that another terrorist attack would be dealt with in an even harsher manner. but i don't get to read intelligence reports so that is guessing.
i went back and reread my post to be sure. i don't see where you got your response. is it possible to not like bush, clinton or bo?

2008 Dec 11 02:32 PM

[yank:]

Fitz:
yeah things would have been just great these past 4 years with Kerry. That guy spends more time at the hairdresser than showing up for Congressional votes. Complete narcissist not to mention treasonous as well. He' s in the same camp with "Hanoi Jane" as far as I'm concerned.
But getting back to the subject of Bush. Yes, he has made some disastrous decisions these past 8 years. But if you think Obama is ready to lead this country during one of the worst economic times since the Great Depression, you are sadly mistaken. This guy is a mere "child". College grads have a thicker resume than this guy. Let's call a spade a spade. He is a manipulative, smooth-talking product of a "Tammany Hall" political machine (Chicago). He will sell out to all those "special interests" that just do wonders for our economy. You know, the greedy trial lawyers, the corrupt union bosses, and the nutty environmentalists. And if global warming is so certain why is there a petition signed by over one thousand respected scientists disavowing any claim that it is legitimate or can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Having said all that, I still agree with you that nat gas-powered vehicles would be good.

2008 Dec 11 02:41 PM

[fran:]

FITZ--

i recall rahm emanuel and d, boren[both of house reps]late this summer proposing NG use for transport--specific legislation HR# exist. a specific comment also made in SA piece[j. kingsdale, 8/11/08 SA archives-"study-US has 118 yr supply of NG]. SUGGEST ALSO SEARCH- RAHM EMANUEL, ALT ENERGY, that's how i brought back memory of incidence. so there is some BHO staff with sympathy for your NG subject.

i am also biased in your direction, as i own shs- CLNE, UNG, WPRT,CHNG-- becoming owner in may 2007


On Dec 11 01:39 PM The Fitzman wrote:

> hello all - thanks for reading and commenting on my thoughts. as
> usual the author would like to jump in and comment on the comments:
>
>
> leh: wow, a fervent supporter - thank you! :)
>
> bluesmoke: what i find very interesting is, in case you haven't noticed
> (it has been reported more-or-less under the radar) is that the major
> oil companies in the US (XOM, CVX, COP) have been peeling off and
> selling most all of their retail gasoline station businesses. i believe
> they have realized that the period of cheap gasoline is over, and
> they don't want future political ramifications of actually owning
> the stations any longer. so, they merely refine and sell the gasoline
> into the retail markets now.
>
> bob lunn: zow-eee, another positive response? i must be dreaming...after
> my last article, i am still pulling the arrows out of my back ;)
> wrt building out the natural gas station infrastructure, i analyzed
> this a bit and figured if each local natural gas utility was responsible
> for building a few natural gas refueling stations in its local service
> area the cost would be minimal to them (and easily recouped if the
> NGV's were available). the biggest cost would be the land to build
> on, however, if they made agreements with existing service stations,
> most of which already have room for a new pump or two, then the cost
> is very minimal. this is what we should be doing, with government
> tax breaks and encouragement. if we can spend $700 billion on the
> fat cat bankers and wall streeters, we can spend $500 *m*illion on
> a great project like this.
> but it is chicken and egg, we need the NGV and the refueling stations.
> so, it has to be a strategic iniative with the long-term goal in
> mind (reducing foreign oil imports). thanks.
>
> Mmmmark; thank you, i have been flooding obama and his staff with
> emails for a year on this issue and it is really dissapointing that
> they are not listening (see, i *do* criticize democrats too!). with
> respect to his economic team, i am really impressed with them (especially
> compared to bush's..) except for on energy: specifically, this issue
> and windfall profits taxes. however, neither is dead yet and i am
> working hard by writing articles like this one to address both. despite
> all the recent headlines, energy is still the most vital issue facing
> american economics (and equity markets). as far as a "real oil and
> gas man" in this administration, i have had enough of them the past
> 8 years. they have been a complete disaster in terms of energy policy
> and foreign where we have gone bankrupt fighting an oil war and have
> nothing to show for it except body bags and debt and alot of mentally
> ill returning vets. if you don't believe in global warming, i guess
> i'll rank that along side your continued support of bush's policies:
> you simply are not looking at the facts.
>
> fred banks: pickens is dead-right about NGV and wind power. unfortunately,
> the media is way too happy to write about the losses of his energy
> hedge fund and are using that as an excuse to say he was wrong about
> NGV and wind. he was NOT wrong. pickens is a true patriot with respect
> to energy policy, and if people still don't "get it" wrt of our funding
> both sides of the "war on terrorism" by importing 70% of our oil,
> then they simply do not understand economics nor national security
> issues. you say nat gas transportation is far from certain? how so?
> fleets have been running successfully on natural gas for decades.
> nat gas cars and trucks have been in use all over the world for decades.
> we produce natural gas here in the US. exactly what is the problem
> (other than refueling stations and availability of the cars, which
> is what my article addresses)?
>
> jerrydd: your point that i neglected to mention the cost of electricity
> to run the Phill is a good one, and very constructive. that said,
> nat gas is still economical and if you want to include the cost of
> that electricity i suppose i could offset that by the fact that refueling
> in the garage negates having to tool into a gasoline filling station.
> trucks and buses are already running on natural gas around the country,
> so that has already started. to make a significant dent in foreign
> oil imports, we must get the NGV into the hands of the middle class
> and have the refueling stations. that is the focus of the article
> - if government is going to start "spending projects" to help get
> us out of this economic hole, NGV and the infrastructure to support
> them would be a strategic move that not only would create jobs, but
> long-term economic dividends. i agree, we don't need 4000lb cars
> to move around 1 person, it is simply unsustainable.
>
> longoil: thanks yer support! and of course we are in agreement on
> the strategic long-term comprehensive energy policy, however, i have
> gotten *zero* feedback from any politician (local, state or federal)
> on it, so i have decided to attack each piece of it at a time. currently,
> i am trying to figure out why my local natural gas utility CEO won't
> even discuss the issue with me. i know he can't be out golfing, it
> is rainy, cold, and supposed to snow here later today. btw, it was
> bush who implemented the ridiculous ethanol mandates, and on one
> occaision i heard obama say, correctly, that alternative biofuels
> should be used "when economical" and not have mandates places on
> them to distort their use, especially when it is a new field under
> development. i dont think we should bypass NGV's altogether, we should
> be embracing them as quickly as possible!
>
> stephanie: well...thanks for the comment...first off, i never said
> "completely alternative of NG", this is simply not possible, not
> economical, and unrealistic. we will be using oil for decades to
> come. not everyone can buy a new electric, hybrid, or NGV anytime
> they want (especially in a post-bush economy). however, we should
> be making strategic efforts to reduce foreign oil imports as quickly
> as possible, wouldn't you agree? wrt nat gas usage, i don't agree
> with your comments. the US has huge nat gas reserves, and the new
> technology and new shale discoveries (marcellus, haynesville shales)
> have huge potential. on top of that, if the US ever wises up and
> builds the trans-canandian alaskan-lower 48 natural gas pipeline
> (as my long term energy policy has been suggesting for years now),
> we will have enough natural gas to last for a half century. in addition,
> LNG terminals allow us to have extreme flexibility on importing natural
> gas as well. it is truely is a win-win situation for america. the
> reason your dad's field in texas was shut down in the 1980's was
> because the sauid arabians pumped the hell out of their fields and
> drove down the cost of crude oil to put everyone else out of the
> oil business and grab market share. this is yet another reason not
> to keep our economic future in the shackles of foreign oil producers,
> agreed?
>
> jerrydd: ok man, got it the first time ;)
>
> isaac the great: great minds think alike my man!! i only wish you
> and i were billionaires like buffet, gates, or the google guys, cause
> if i had that kinda money, i would make our dreams HAPPEN. i want
> my country to survive....
>
> onedip: good point about flex-fuel, however, flex-fuel vehicles that
> run on natural gas as well as gasoline require two fuel tanks since
> the nat gas has to be stored under higher pressure. you would flip
> a switch to change from gasoline to nat gas. straight NGV are the
> most efficient, cost-effective, version. however, yeah, i have nothing
> against flex-fuel vehicles and in fact they are mentioned in my strategic
> long-term comprehensive energy policy:
> thefitzman.blogspot.co...
>
> although there i use the term "open fuel standards"
>
> fireball: sorry to hear you are still a fan of bush economic and
> foreign policy. apparently the current situation isn't enough evidence
> to convince you that he has been the worst president in the history
> of the country (please read the comments i made in the article prior
> to this one). you are again being sidetracked (pastor) by unimportant
> issues that the republicans use rush limbaugh (gay marriage, abortion,
> etc. etc) to keep your eyes off the real issues (the theft of your
> tax payer money and bankruptcy of the US treasury to give the ultra-rich
> even more money while taking away your individual liberties at the
> same time). the so called "conservative republicans" (in actually
> fascists) prey on people like yourself in order to propagate their
> madness on the country. all that said, i am so glad at least you
> are happy with the state of the union after 8 years of bush. you
> may be the only person left who is (outside of paulsen's wall street
> buddies)

2008 Dec 11 03:05 PM

[kebu77:]

A dissenting view - -

mcauleysworld.wordpres.../

"Pickens’ Natural-Gas Nonsense"
Friday, September 12, 2008
By Steven Milloy

2008 Dec 11 03:13 PM

[fran:]

FITZ--
simpler search on-- d. boren nat gas legislation[includes boren and emanuel references]


On Dec 11 01:39 PM The Fitzman wrote:

> hello all - thanks for reading and commenting on my thoughts. as
> usual the author would like to jump in and comment on the comments:
>
>
> leh: wow, a fervent supporter - thank you! :)
>
> bluesmoke: what i find very interesting is, in case you haven't noticed
> (it has been reported more-or-less under the radar) is that the major
> oil companies in the US (XOM, CVX, COP) have been peeling off and
> selling most all of their retail gasoline station businesses. i believe
> they have realized that the period of cheap gasoline is over, and
> they don't want future political ramifications of actually owning
> the stations any longer. so, they merely refine and sell the gasoline
> into the retail markets now.
>
> bob lunn: zow-eee, another positive response? i must be dreaming...after
> my last article, i am still pulling the arrows out of my back ;)
> wrt building out the natural gas station infrastructure, i analyzed
> this a bit and figured if each local natural gas utility was responsible
> for building a few natural gas refueling stations in its local service
> area the cost would be minimal to them (and easily recouped if the
> NGV's were available). the biggest cost would be the land to build
> on, however, if they made agreements with existing service stations,
> most of which already have room for a new pump or two, then the cost
> is very minimal. this is what we should be doing, with government
> tax breaks and encouragement. if we can spend $700 billion on the
> fat cat bankers and wall streeters, we can spend $500 *m*illion on
> a great project like this.
> but it is chicken and egg, we need the NGV and the refueling stations.
> so, it has to be a strategic iniative with the long-term goal in
> mind (reducing foreign oil imports). thanks.
>
> Mmmmark; thank you, i have been flooding obama and his staff with
> emails for a year on this issue and it is really dissapointing that
> they are not listening (see, i *do* criticize democrats too!). with
> respect to his economic team, i am really impressed with them (especially
> compared to bush's..) except for on energy: specifically, this issue
> and windfall profits taxes. however, neither is dead yet and i am
> working hard by writing articles like this one to address both. despite
> all the recent headlines, energy is still the most vital issue facing
> american economics (and equity markets). as far as a "real oil and
> gas man" in this administration, i have had enough of them the past
> 8 years. they have been a complete disaster in terms of energy policy
> and foreign where we have gone bankrupt fighting an oil war and have
> nothing to show for it except body bags and debt and alot of mentally
> ill returning vets. if you don't believe in global warming, i guess
> i'll rank that along side your continued support of bush's policies:
> you simply are not looking at the facts.
>
> fred banks: pickens is dead-right about NGV and wind power. unfortunately,
> the media is way too happy to write about the losses of his energy
> hedge fund and are using that as an excuse to say he was wrong about
> NGV and wind. he was NOT wrong. pickens is a true patriot with respect
> to energy policy, and if people still don't "get it" wrt of our funding
> both sides of the "war on terrorism" by importing 70% of our oil,
> then they simply do not understand economics nor national security
> issues. you say nat gas transportation is far from certain? how so?
> fleets have been running successfully on natural gas for decades.
> nat gas cars and trucks have been in use all over the world for decades.
> we produce natural gas here in the US. exactly what is the problem
> (other than refueling stations and availability of the cars, which
> is what my article addresses)?
>
> jerrydd: your point that i neglected to mention the cost of electricity
> to run the Phill is a good one, and very constructive. that said,
> nat gas is still economical and if you want to include the cost of
> that electricity i suppose i could offset that by the fact that refueling
> in the garage negates having to tool into a gasoline filling station.
> trucks and buses are already running on natural gas around the country,
> so that has already started. to make a significant dent in foreign
> oil imports, we must get the NGV into the hands of the middle class
> and have the refueling stations. that is the focus of the article
> - if government is going to start "spending projects" to help get
> us out of this economic hole, NGV and the infrastructure to support
> them would be a strategic move that not only would create jobs, but
> long-term economic dividends. i agree, we don't need 4000lb cars
> to move around 1 person, it is simply unsustainable.
>
> longoil: thanks yer support! and of course we are in agreement on
> the strategic long-term comprehensive energy policy, however, i have
> gotten *zero* feedback from any politician (local, state or federal)
> on it, so i have decided to attack each piece of it at a time. currently,
> i am trying to figure out why my local natural gas utility CEO won't
> even discuss the issue with me. i know he can't be out golfing, it
> is rainy, cold, and supposed to snow here later today. btw, it was
> bush who implemented the ridiculous ethanol mandates, and on one
> occaision i heard obama say, correctly, that alternative biofuels
> should be used "when economical" and not have mandates places on
> them to distort their use, especially when it is a new field under
> development. i dont think we should bypass NGV's altogether, we should
> be embracing them as quickly as possible!
>
> stephanie: well...thanks for the comment...first off, i never said
> "completely alternative of NG", this is simply not possible, not
> economical, and unrealistic. we will be using oil for decades to
> come. not everyone can buy a new electric, hybrid, or NGV anytime
> they want (especially in a post-bush economy). however, we should
> be making strategic efforts to reduce foreign oil imports as quickly
> as possible, wouldn't you agree? wrt nat gas usage, i don't agree
> with your comments. the US has huge nat gas reserves, and the new
> technology and new shale discoveries (marcellus, haynesville shales)
> have huge potential. on top of that, if the US ever wises up and
> builds the trans-canandian alaskan-lower 48 natural gas pipeline
> (as my long term energy policy has been suggesting for years now),
> we will have enough natural gas to last for a half century. in addition,
> LNG terminals allow us to have extreme flexibility on importing natural
> gas as well. it is truely is a win-win situation for america. the
> reason your dad's field in texas was shut down in the 1980's was
> because the sauid arabians pumped the hell out of their fields and
> drove down the cost of crude oil to put everyone else out of the
> oil business and grab market share. this is yet another reason not
> to keep our economic future in the shackles of foreign oil producers,
> agreed?
>
> jerrydd: ok man, got it the first time ;)
>
> isaac the great: great minds think alike my man!! i only wish you
> and i were billionaires like buffet, gates, or the google guys, cause
> if i had that kinda money, i would make our dreams HAPPEN. i want
> my country to survive....
>
> onedip: good point about flex-fuel, however, flex-fuel vehicles that
> run on natural gas as well as gasoline require two fuel tanks since
> the nat gas has to be stored under higher pressure. you would flip
> a switch to change from gasoline to nat gas. straight NGV are the
> most efficient, cost-effective, version. however, yeah, i have nothing
> against flex-fuel vehicles and in fact they are mentioned in my strategic
> long-term comprehensive energy policy:
> thefitzman.blogspot.co...
>
> although there i use the term "open fuel standards"
>
> fireball: sorry to hear you are still a fan of bush economic and
> foreign policy. apparently the current situation isn't enough evidence
> to convince you that he has been the worst president in the history
> of the country (please read the comments i made in the article prior
> to this one). you are again being sidetracked (pastor) by unimportant
> issues that the republicans use rush limbaugh (gay marriage, abortion,
> etc. etc) to keep your eyes off the real issues (the theft of your
> tax payer money and bankruptcy of the US treasury to give the ultra-rich
> even more money while taking away your individual liberties at the
> same time). the so called "conservative republicans" (in actually
> fascists) prey on people like yourself in order to propagate their
> madness on the country. all that said, i am so glad at least you
> are happy with the state of the union after 8 years of bush. you
> may be the only person left who is (outside of paulsen's wall street
> buddies)

2008 Dec 11 03:50 PM

[Ferdinand E...:]

Michael, Pickens and anybody else with the opinions that he has about wind are completely wrong. I read Danish and German and live close to those two countries, and believe me wind is the reason that the cost of electricity in those countries is at least three times as much as it is in Sweden. How could it be otherwise: the capacity factor of wind in Germany is at most 22%. In so far as gas is concerned, don't read Pickens. Read the Oil and Gas journal. Yes, he and perhaps you think that natural gas from shale is going to keep the energy wolf from the door, but I've heard that kind of talk before about oil from shale.

About his patriotism, he was a one man supporter club for the Swift Boat Captains, and those 'gentlemen' helped keep the man who should be president of the US now - John Kerry - out of that office. As for the War on Terror, I am on the side of Petronella Wyatt. She calls it a "cynical con", and suggests that there are better things to spend billions of dollars a month on. By the way, Uncle Sam doesn't lose wars, and if you are thinking about the two so-called wars he is fighting now, those wars were won years ago. It's time to call it a day and put the billions being wasted on those wars into moving 'toward' that energy independence..

But you are right about trying to do something about the import of energy resources that might - might rather than will - escalate in price at some point in the future. ONE OF THOSE RESOURCES IS NATURAL GAS, BECAUSE THIS BUSINESS OF THE US BEING INDEPENDENT WHERE THAT ITEM IS CONCERNED IS MOONSHINE. Here I put on my 'leading academic energy economist in the world hat', and more important, I can do the algebra needed to back that statement. .

About energy independence, One of the best energy economists in the US has called that an oxymoron, but to a certain extent I am with you and Mr Pickens on that. Obviously, it doesn't make sense to sit back and wait for the oil price to start up toward $200/b again. More natural gas will have to be used in the transportation sector, perhaps a lot more, although it is not going to be able to carry anything near the full load. The base of the US energy structure should be nuclear. How much? Well, slightly more than the present amount at least. I'm sure that e.g. Mr Pickens understands that as well as I do, but if it is so that his hedge fund has tanked, he has his popularity/reputation to think about and cant say so.

Professor Ferdinand E. Banks

2008 Dec 11 04:11 PM

[User 283977:]

On the dissenting view

"A new natural-gas-powered car, such as the Honda Civic GX, for example, is almost 40 percent more expensive than a conventional Civic ($24,590 versus $17,700)"

Of course buying a speciality, low production run model of anything is going to be expensive… these guys are also hiking that price with the "Green" premium for US suckers.

We are not talking about running off a few speciality vehicles, and we are not talking about expensive dual fuel vehicles either. We are talking about mass producing Natural Gas vehicles. Natural Gas vehicles that will NOT need expensive anti pollution control equipment. We are also NOT talking about costs for home filling stations… we are talking about natural gas filling points located in current gas stations.

In addition, the IRS provides tax credits for Hybrid vehicles…. the tax credit for the 2008 Honda Civic GX compressed natural gas vehicle: $4,000….

I saw an advertisement for a one-off natural gas modification price for a 2007 Chevrolet Silverado as $850. So how much could it cost? That question needs to be examined by some engineers, but I know its impossible that the cost would be $8,000 per vehicle… That's hog wash.

2008 Dec 11 04:22 PM

[Brahm:]

No option should be excluded. NG is a preferred option as far as I am concerned, and NG engine automobile should not have to be more expensive than a gasoline powered one. If it is now, it is most likely due to low volume sales and related service/distribution or marketing issues for the situation at present. However, there is no firm evidence on reliable supply issues for NG (quantity) on long term basis. No reliable resource estimates are available; hence NG should just be one of the options among others. It is better that way, and let consumers/ markets decide to the level and degree preference or use.

Electric is a complicated issue at this tyime. What is the basis for elctricity genration. NG? It would be folly of an extreme nature. Producing electricity from NG provides generation efficiency at the most of about 60% (using gas-fired combined cycle plants). Loss of 40%!! Tends to nullify the advantages of NG as a greenhouse controller. Then there is cost of (NG use) relating to inefficiency, investment i power plant and tgarnsmission facilities, etc and etc. Unless someone can show that the NG-electricity-electri... engine route is more efficient than an NG fired option car. Tall order!!! Transmission system problems are more easily resolvable than other problems I have indicated, becasuse costs for setting up a grid is not all that formidable an d other issues relatging to decision/regulation are not formidable.

However, begin focussing also on issues relating to storage batteries and the engine required. Current estimates I have seen say that this plug-in electric engine car is about $10K more expensive than a corrwponding gasoline fired car engine car. The public will not be amused of such price differences. That is why I say let all options be available, and we will probably need all for safety, economics/competition, etc and also limitations of fuel supply (NG, oil, environment if coal is one of the options).

2008 Dec 11 04:22 PM

[Old Wizard:]

Fitz, Your energy view is right on and as I've said before the best way to make progress is by instituting pilot programs and quickly. The opposition to the Pickens plan is as much political as it is sustantive as you see in Mr. Banks' comments. I am frankly tired of people thinking politically,first, and relegating solutions to the most important problem facing this country, second. That is why I have been a little critical of your legendary disgust of the Bush policies. The solutions you put forth should be politically color blind to all who genuinely want this country to prosper in the future. As I commented on your last article, I don't hear any comprehensive or innovative solutions coming from the rhetoric of the new crowd. As I said before, I am a proponent of the two bullet theory: If the first bullet is aimed at your head and you don't duck, it doesn't matter where the second bullet goes. Global warming may or may not be caused by man, but the economic problems in the near term caused by our energy dependence will lead to our demise much, much sooner.

2008 Dec 11 05:35 PM

[fran:]

FRED BANKS--

i also believe "energy independence" to be an unreachable end. we will need all arrows in the quiver[coal, nukes, oil, NG,solar, wind, etc. etc.]in flexible, ever changing efficiecies/applicatio... NG fits, today, well in fleet [car, bus, van,trucks]application... future application of NG or others? time, sourcing, cost and our ingenuity will be factors. nice about NG,gasoine, diesel-- they provide good degree of flex application w/o major overhaul.

the best read on the practical limits on "independence" aspect--GUSHER OF LIES, R. BRYCE, PUB BY PUBLIC AFFAIR BOOKS, IQ 2008


On Dec 11 04:11 PM Fred Banks wrote:

> Michael, Pickens and anybody else with the opinions that he has about
> wind are completely wrong. I read Danish and German and live close
> to those two countries, and believe me wind is the reason that the
> cost of electricity in those countries is at least three times as
> much as it is in Sweden. How could it be otherwise: the capacity
> factor of wind in Germany is at most 22%. In so far as gas is concerned,
> don't read Pickens. Read the Oil and Gas journal. Yes, he and perhaps
> you think that natural gas from shale is going to keep the energy
> wolf from the door, but I've heard that kind of talk before about
> oil from shale.
>
> About his patriotism, he was a one man supporter club for the Swift
> Boat Captains, and those 'gentlemen' helped keep the man who should
> be president of the US now - John Kerry - out of that office. As
> for the War on Terror, I am on the side of Petronella Wyatt. She
> calls it a "cynical con", and suggests that there are better things
> to spend billions of dollars a month on. By the way, Uncle Sam doesn't
> lose wars, and if you are thinking about the two so-called wars he
> is fighting now, those wars were won years ago. It's time to call
> it a day and put the billions being wasted on those wars into moving
> 'toward' that energy independence..
>
> But you are right about trying to do something about the import of
> energy resources that might - might rather than will - escalate in
> price at some point in the future. ONE OF THOSE RESOURCES IS NATURAL
> GAS, BECAUSE THIS BUSINESS OF THE US BEING INDEPENDENT WHERE THAT
> ITEM IS CONCERNED IS MOONSHINE. Here I put on my 'leading academic
> energy economist in the world hat', and more important, I can do
> the algebra needed to back that statement. .
>
> About energy independence, One of the best energy economists in the
> US has called that an oxymoron, but to a certain extent I am with
> you and Mr Pickens on that. Obviously, it doesn't make sense to sit
> back and wait for the oil price to start up toward $200/b again.
> More natural gas will have to be used in the transportation sector,
> perhaps a lot more, although it is not going to be able to carry
> anything near the full load. The base of the US energy structure
> should be nuclear. How much? Well, slightly more than the present
> amount at least. I'm sure that e.g. Mr Pickens understands that as
> well as I do, but if it is so that his hedge fund has tanked, he
> has his popularity/reputation to think about and cant say so. <br/>
>
> Professor Ferdinand E. Banks

2008 Dec 11 06:17 PM

[Mmarrkk:]

Fitz: my feelings on global warming are not tied to Bush. They are tied to the rebuttals of this theory by 650 scientists from around the world. But you keep on with whatever gets you there. I'll keep sweeping snow off of the beach in Galveston and trying to equate that to global warming! Remember 20-30 years ago it was global cooling and ice ages. When we are old and gray driving nat gas cars, it will probably be back to global cooling again!!

Keep pushing those letters to "O". Pretty sure he would not take any of mine.

As for the oil and gas guys in the white house, in reality there are very few if any real oil and gas guys in the administration. Cheney is not an oil man. GW was, but only at a management level, didn't work his way through the field, engineering, geoscience, etc. Why not get someone like Archie Dunham (ex CEO of COP) or the rich old guy from XOM or anyone with a lifetime of experience running oil and gas companies? They might actually know what oil looks like!

As for whomever made the comment that nat gas from shale is not believable, please do a search on PetroHawk and Haynesville shale. The just announced 3 wells producing over 20 MMCF/day each. Yeah, shale gas is just a pipe dream! Dr. Banks, you do know that almost half of the US's nat gas comes from unconventional resources like shale, coal and tight sands?? but its all a pipe dream, right??

2008 Dec 11 11:17 PM

[rks:]

Another relatively easy thing is to have a system where cars can easily catch the train between cities. Works best if train line is electrified. Electric cars could be recharged on the way. Need to standardize how it would work.

2008 Dec 12 02:15 AM

[fran:]

FITZ MAN--

interesting article by r. bryce, 12/11/08,energy tribune, new paradigm for NG in USA due to shale source volume. you must read if you haven't yet. feature article.

energytribune.com

2008 Dec 12 02:36 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

mmarrkk, I know exactly where US gas comes from, and that is NOT the issue. The issue is that decision makers, movers-and-shakers, shot callers, main men etc are trying to figure out where to put the terminals to take the LNG that they think the US cannot do without. Yes, there have been some pleasant surprises where shale gas is concerned, but I also know better than to believe management about the total exploitable amount of shale gas - unless, of course, I own some stock in those companies.

Suppose we simplify all this: energy independence is probably a fantasy, but WORKING TOWARD IT probably makes both economic and political sense.

2008 Dec 12 02:51 AM

[Alamo:]

Absolutely great article as was the follow up rebuttals, comments etc.

The ethanol boondoggle enforces the law of unintended consequences. One intended consequence was the effect it had on running up the cost of meat, chicken, milk, bread products, grains of all kinds---fewer acres planted to grains other than corn and on and on. As well as getting a bunch of farm belt politicians elected and re-elected---talk about a massive bail out, the ethanol disaster was one in spades. But the Corn Belt enjoyed it during its short life and it kept a lot of construction workers--some of whom were American, employed building ethanol plants across the upper midwest. The farm lobby loved their handiwork as well but I digress.

At this time our precarious economy cannot afford the dollar drain that foreign sources of crude oil entail. Couple that with the cost of maintaining the world's largest military machine that's required to protect and ensure that supply and the cost is clearly prohibitive. And don't forget to throw in the cost of the "adventure" in Iraq to the tune of 3-5 TRILLION dollars according to Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and its "doubly" prohibitive.

We need a better plan if we want to continue in the capacity we love to think of ourselves as, "Leaders of the world". We absolutely must get our economic house in order--hopefully first class order and as quickly as possible.

Utilization of the enormous natural gas reserves discovered in the last 10 years is a good first start. Whether the natural gas is used as a transportation fuel source as CNG or GTL is debatable---but the utilization is not and the necessity of powering our vehicles with an American fuel source is not as well. As several replys stated, there's nothing to "invent" except the national decision to get control of our economy and sinultaneously, improve our national security.

The "way" is right under our feet--about 2 miles or so-- we have to find within us the "will" to end our strangling dependency on foreign oil.

The "change" we need is to use American fuel, American wind and keep our money in our economy. Seems fairly simple from a policy standpoint, but as is often the case, the devil is in the details.

If we as a nation could go from scratch to the moon and back in less than 10 years powered essentially by strong leadership, certainly we can transform our national transportation system to one using vastly superior energy sources that are abundantly available---natural gas and wind.

2008 Dec 12 02:58 AM

[NOWHEREMAN:]

Thank you Fred and Fran.

Frankly I'm amazed that The US is the Only country in the world where CNG is seen as being an Oil Independent solution. If it were, others would be adopting it. They aren't.

Those of you who embrace the TBoone vision should know that even he believes that this is a Temporary solution, a stepping stone toward a better solution to be developed sometime in the future.

IMHO

2008 Dec 12 04:01 AM

[Old Wizard:]

Fran, I recently visited Copenhagen. They have 26 windmills strung along the approach to the harbor which provide about 20% of the electrical energy for the city. Holland has been using windmills for as long as I can remember and have now switched to the modern versions. Maybe this energy is more expensive in Denmark, but Sweden is in much tougher shape economically. I think the necessity to balance our current account should largely trump the cost effective arguments, and i believe that wind energy should be harvested where it makes the most sense. As I've said before, Cape Cod is a case in point.

2008 Dec 12 07:17 AM

[Michael Fit...:]

fireball: sorry, if i assumed you were a bush fan because you started off by saying we are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum - bush is that opposite end from where i sit. all politicians should be judged relative to one another. in that respect, i put clinton and obama way above bush. since this is an economic forum, we should judge the economic performance of the two admins, and that is what i quoted in the article.

yank: it's irrelevant to speculate on a kerry admin and a waste of time to do so. i obviously agree with you that bush has been a disaster, and i doubt a monkey in office could have done worse. if you are being racist with your "spade a spade", well, i feel sorry for you. what are obama's resume? for one, he's highly intelligent and anyone who watched the debates, looked at his appointees, and listened to his logic should agree with that statement. he is a graduate of columbia and harvard law. he was the first african american to serve as president of the harvard law review (again, not a position given to idiots). he taught constitutional law at univ. of chicago (while bush was undermining the constitution). he beat the clinton political machine as well as the far right so-called "republicans". he won and served as a senator. more importantly, if the country had listened to his speech on the senate floor denouncing the iraq war policy of bush we wouldn't be in half the trouble we are in now. now, compare that to bush, a low C student whose main contribution in college was as a male cheerleader. come on man, who is more qualified? give me a friggin break pah-leeeeze. glad you agree with my NGV argument...you have some reasoning skills ;)

fran: first off, please *stop* pasting the previous comments, everyone here can read and remember. you are taking up alot of space which eats memory and takes longer for the webpages to load and to scan through the comments. glad you like the NGV...although i am not sure owning the nat gas stocks are good at this point. production has climbed while demand has fallen. it could be around for awhile. long-term though, if you can hold, you'll be fine. sooner or later we'll be forced to use NGV - it's just a matter of time. the sooner we begin the switch, the less painful it would be. now is the time to build the infrastructure while we need to create jobs, and energy and materials are under price pressure.

kebu77: that is a good article, and it brings up several points which i neglected to mention in the article. first, wrt iran and lack of refining, sure that is one reason they are converting. but look at brazil and other countries - why are they doing it? because it just makes sense and is cheaper to run that gasoline. wrt to the Honda cost, i screwed up the wording. what i meant to say is, after you take the tax rebate, it is about $4k more, which is simply attributed to the low volume of production. there is absolutly no reason from an engineering or manufacturing perspective that a NGV should cost that much more than a gasoline vehicle, there would just be a slight increase because the fuel tank has to be built more robustly. all we need if *volume* production. not sure where the article got the $2k for the refueling appliance...i called FuelMaker and got a $4k price (installed). again, volume production and i am sure this device could be cut by 2/3. now, the bigger issue this article brought up, and one my good friend bill sent to me in a private email, is wrt refueling time. now, it is clear refueling with the "Phill" can take as long as 4 hours at home, and that is fine, just do it at night. but, it is a reason alot of folks, including apparently the nat gas utilities, site for not building nat gas refueling stations. that said, the engineer in me thinks this is a problem that has to have a pretty basic solution. nat gas is simply that, a gas. it needs to be pressurized to refuel a car. so, we use a compressor and pressurize it. i don't see the big problem unless the nat gas pipelines supplying the nat gas to the refueling stations lose pressure as large amounts are ciphened off the line while refueling. if that is the case, then we'll need to re-engineer the supplying lines. it's all solvable..it's not rocket science. am i missing something here? that said, a very constructive argument - thanks.

fred banks: sorry, i disagree. wind is being successfully, and economically, used in many countries that have much less wind profile than does the central plains of america. as far as nat gas production goes, sure, it was falling in the US and canada..until the price went up and they started drilling again. now look at the production data and the price. also, please note that a trans-canada alaskan-lower48 pipeline is a cornerstone of this plan. dont like the swift boat side of pickens, but i was referring to his courage in presenting his energy plan when he knew damn well the oil-centric idiots in the white house and big oil would be big powers against him. wrt to "energy independence", i don't think i have said anywhere in print that the US could reach that lofty goal. what i HAVE said is that the US had damn well better reduce foreign oil imports. we can make huge progress in that area, and we have to. i mean look what happened yesterday: oil jumped almost $4 just because saudi said they might cut 2 million barrels a day. so, we import 20 million barrels a day, so all of a sudden, a simple statement from the country that attacked us on 9/11 and we are paying $80,000,000 more a day in oil. it's ridiculous. i agree we also need to build out nuclear, but that will take a long time and we still would need electric cars in affordable mass quantity in order to reduce foreign oil imports. as i said before, NGV are the *quickest* and more *effective* way to reduce oil imports starting now.

boblunn: in utah, there are conversion stations that are doing the conversions for under $800. that said, most auto manufacturers void the *entire* warranty on these conversions - this is true of toyota, because i had a conversation with them about it. so, i wanted to buy their conversion kit for my Tacoma, but of course they dont make one. however, even if they did, i couldn't do it now because the home refueler cost and lack of refilling stations. bummer!

brahm: there is no difference in the engine, it is simply a more robust gas tank, the fuel delivery system is different, and the engine controller needs to be reprogrammed to run efficiently. the actual engine itself is identical. wrt nat gas data, there is evidence that we have plenty of nat gas. just look at the new production in the lower-48, the new COP pipeline from colorado to the midwest, and the huge reserves in alaska that could be piped down. and it is all US nat gas. if NGV were on the road, the price would go up, and more drilling would take place bringing on more supply.in addition, LNG terminals on both coasts would give us huge flexibility in supply. in short, the nat gas supply issue is *much* more favorable than the foreign oil supply issue! from an electricity generation point of view, NG is better than coal, but we should be building out solar and wind bigtime, but of course the transmission problem needs to be addressed as well as cost. that is why a back of the envelope calculation leads me to support nuclear...which i don't like, but i see no alternatives as the price of oil continues to climb in the future. the amount of BTU's needed to replace 15 million barrels of foreign oil a day is simply monstrous and i don't see how we get there w/o more nukes (and that assumes mass production of electric cars). in short we need ALL alternatives to oil (see my webpage for a *comprehensive* energy policy). as far as the cost of electrics go, it all depends on the size of the car and the range desired. in the long run, they will compete with gasoline cause gasoline is going to sky-rocket (even if you can get it, which will be an issue in the future). i am a big fan of electric cars. but right now, in the immediate, let's make a strategic strike at foreign oil imports with NGV.

wizard: yeah, well, i can't seem to get over/forget bush because americans are so dissapointing in that they even elected him once, let alone a *second* time after he had proven he was an idiot. that said, i took your point in an article awhile back that i polarize the audience by harping on it, so i have tried to stick to economic consequences of bush's policies. but i do veer off course. agree totally with you that energy policy should be non-political - it's simply hard for me to do when we have had such an oil-centric administration. from a global warming perspective, the science is in and man is responsible...that said, i totally agree that it is not the more immediate threat to the US, oil is. oil can economically deep-6 this country in the next decade. seriously, we could simply fall apart if we don't solve this crisis. look at what is happening now. is it just a coincidence that the $700 billion bailout plan is about equal to the $700 billion we sent overseas to buy oil? imagine if this $700 billion was spent on nat gas vehicles made by GM and Ford, and to nat gas companies and utlities in the US. think of the jobs in the oil patch, auto industry, distribution centers...and all that money stays here!

fran: agree we need all the energy arrows in the quiver. see my strategic long-term comprehensive energy policy and you will see that NGV is just one strategic component:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
again, please stop copying the already printed comments in your comments :)

Mmmarrkk: not sure what scientist you are listening to, but they are the wrong ones. this debate is so juvenial and i am not even going to spend time on it (read my previous articles that have CO2 calculations per gallon of gas etc. etc). simply because it still snows in winter time is not exactly a lucid argument. no one said the world will stop having winter. jeez. such simplistic analysis just cause me to roll my eyes in wonderment. cheney and bush are not oil men? my god man, have you lost your mind? at least we agree nat gas reserves are real and producing.

fran: already aware of nat gas production numbers and reserves. thanks.

fredbanks: there is no "probably" about it, we have no choice but to work toward reducing foreign oil dependence or economically, it simply is not sustainable to keep the country running. at some point, a US dollar simply won't be worth the paper it is written on.

alamo: thanks! agree totally on the corn ethanol mandates, another ridiculous attempt by bush on energy (and they knew it when they came up with it). like your military analogy, someone once told me that for the cost of iraq, we could have put 10,000,000 toyota prius' in american's garages, funded a health care system, and funded the buildout of solar and wind generation. instead we have.....NOTHING. in terms of US leadership in the world...i am afraid we have lost it the last 8 years...morally, financially, environmentally, and certainly with respect to energy. very very said where the country has fallen in such a short short period of time. glad you brought up gas to liquids...i need to do more research on that...my gut tells me that the cost of converting nat gas to liquids when you could just use the nat gas to power the car to begin with is a waste. that said, wrt the new refueling stations needed and the time to refuel, perhaps GTL does make more sense. i will look into this more...thanks. agree with all your comments toward the end there.

pautaut: yes, it is temporary. but we have to start somewhere, and we better start now. waiting for a fully electric transportation infrastructure will fail. waiting for hydrogen fuel cells will fail. staying where we are with oil dependency is a recipe for financial and national security disasters. NGV solves a whole lot of problems and buys us alot of time (half a decade at least).

wizard: there are many examples the world over where wind is being used successfully and economically. folks just dont want to acknowledge it. that said, in the US, the great plains hold great promise in this regard, but only if the government paves the way for cost effective transmission line buildout, which has to address the eminent domain issue.

thanks for all the great comments - i got some really good feedback this time. stuff to "work on"...refueling time and GTL and more. makes me feel somewhat useful while i am unemployed...

2008 Dec 12 11:32 AM

[NOWHEREMAN:]

Time, we have a year maybe less to get our oars working in the same direction, hopefully in unison.

Personally, short of a crisis, I don't believe any Congress has the willpower to do what is right for the Nation rather what they need to do to get re-elected.

But then being from Illinois, I may be getting jaded.

2008 Dec 12 01:13 PM

[longoil:]

Fitz,

I agree NG is a transitional solution that will only buy 10-15 yrs time (at best) until gas production peaks as well.

The next 40 to 50 years are critical. We need to go from less than 10% of the world's energy coming from non-fossil sources presently to 80-90% coming from non-fossil sources.

New O&G reserves and hybrids are also only transitional solutions. Conservation, cellulosic ethanol, fully electric cars, wind, solar and nuclear are the long term solutions.

Hydrogen and corn ethanol are net energy losers that should not be considered at all.

2008 Dec 12 01:27 PM

[fireball:]

hey fitz
don't get me wrong. i value your articles. i have been buying up ng and oil. i almost called chk's recent bottom and grabbed it.
i guess politically i am a constitutionalist. minimal govt.. i won't defend but a handful of federal "servants" because nearly all stink with corruption.
i appreciate that you come back and respond.
one of these days when we both have time we'll talk about clinton economics and bush/clinton treason.
last time we talked about something we disagreed on (global warming and ice core samples) i learned from it.
just in case you didn't catch my last note to you, sometime when you have time check out evacuated tube transport, et3. this looks like a viable solution to transportation energy. it is a huge improvement on the j-pod. last i heard the chinese were looking closely at the little company and were in talks with them.

2008 Dec 12 02:58 PM

[WhiteCane:]

I thought that PIcken's Plan seriously targeted the Trucking Industry for an opening salvo in a conversion to natural gas. It seemed that this idea offered the quickest and lowest incremental investment cost for one component of a multi-component program to move away from petroleum consumption?

If most of the following stats are anywhere near the ball-park, why would it not be prudent to mandate conversion of the trucking industry within the consumption/depreciati... cycle of truck purchases to a NG platform?

Movement of goods accounts for north of 40% and south of 50% of oil consumption. Natural gas pipelines parallel many of the major East/West trucking routes making fueling infrastructure requirements to NG substantially lower than most any other fuel alternative. Truck power unit economic life is around 5 years for most major trucking firms which could be the time horizon for the conversion within the regular capital cycle. If we add some of the major government vehicle depots to get more penetration of natural gas into large population centers, we may be able to establish the base layer for capitalism to expand upon if further proliferation made economic sense. Government vehicle contracts could be structured for multi-fuel consumption but place emphasis on the depots ability to justify pipeline extensions for NG.

Just curious if this is what a few commenting on NG for "trucks" were thinking?. It just seems that the trucking industry should be discussed in greater detail and urgency.

2008 Dec 12 04:18 PM

[Old Wizard:]

fitz, Since I have taught probability and statistics including estimation theory, I can't discount the greater than.95 correlation of the warming and cooling cycles of the earth with the amount of sun spot activity on the sun. I believe we will get a chance to test this correlation in 2008 and 2009, since photographs of the sun show practically no sun spot activity, presently. If the correlation is a correct predictor, then we should expect a cooler 2008 and 2009. In some of the earlier years of this decade sun spot activity was particularly high. The early data on ocean temperatues for 2008 do show some cooling. We'll see as more data becomes available.

2008 Dec 12 08:15 PM

[Ferdinand E...:]

Fitz, now that you have declared wind economical, why don't you just declare John McCain president. After all, wind gained its success in a popularity contest and not in the market.

Somebody said that they saw windmills in Copenhagen, and so I repeat: electricity in Sweden is not just less expensive than in Denmark, but much less expensive. As for Germany, by going into the EU and stringing power lines between Sweden and 'Balticum', the dumb Swedes gave the Germans - who had some of the most expensive power in the world - access to some of the most inexpensive power in the world. What Swedish voters generally fail to understand that they are subsidizing German (and other) rate-payers, but as a finance student once said to me, if the Germans gain and we lose then it's still OK. That is what is known as brainpower.

By the way, Fitz, when you have capacity factors as low as 10% at some places in North America, there is no point in trying to convince intelligent people who do not have a financial interest in wind that using a lot of it makes economic sense. I've made a point of trying to entice persons who have a different beliefs about wind than my good self to Uppsala to present their ideas in an open forum. Fortunately - for them - they don't make the mistake of giving 'us' a chance to enjoy their wisdom. On the other hand, I agree that there are places where wind power makes sense, and it should be used in those places, and used as soon as possible. The same is true of using natural gas to fuel vehicles. Let me add though that Senator Obama's energy team is about the worst imaginable, and shows once again that energy economics has a long way to go before it reaches the status of witchcraft.

2008 Dec 13 09:59 AM

[Michael Fit...:]

paultaut: yup, time is a biggee..and we've just lost 8 crucial years. congress is certainly a problem...that said, with the right executive leadership, and peer pressure from voters, even congress can change. as one politician in texas recently said "hell, used to be in texas if you were an environmentalist you were thought to be communist and couldn't get elected. now, if you aren't an environmentalist, you're considered a goober and can't get elected." things are changing...but too slow for me. short of a crisis? what in the world was $145/barrel oil and $4.50/gallon gas? don't be jaded by being from illinois...you have an exceptional president elect.

longoil: not sure where you're getting your NG peak production numbers, but the numbers i see from alaska and the lower-48 show me that we can power a significant # of cars and trucks for decades. besides, LNG terminals will provide alot of flexibility in supply from around the world where there are very significant gas deposits. regardless, there is certainly enough natural gas in the US to make a huge dent in foreign oil supplies as we make our way to more renewable solutions, would u not agree?

fireball: agree most politicians stink, so i am left to judge on "relative" schtank. relatively then, the last 8 years have been the worst in our country's history. haven't revisited the tube solution yet, but i can say that i am a big fan of mass transit.

whitecane: yes, pickens targeted fleets (cars or trucks) because they have refueling depots which get around the refueling station issue. it is the quickest bang-for-the-buck but there is nothing really new there...fleets have been used in cities for years and years. however, to make a serious dent in foreign oil reduction, we need to get nat gas transportation into the hands of the middle class. not sure you can mandate trucks to NG until the refueling station issue has been addressed - that is the biggest holdup along with refueling time. that said, i am all for trucking industry use of natural gas. the big truck stops are perfect for refueling stations as most have enough room already and could serve many trucks at a single location. your point is well-taken and i should have broken out small trucks from the trucking industry in my article. i will remember this as i am sure i will again be writing articles on this subject. thanks.

wizard: ok, well, pleast tell me what is the probability that 19lbs of CO2 coming out of a gasoline powered engine for every gallon of gasoline burned contributes to the warming of the earth?
according to the EIA, the US burns 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline a day, so, we are pumping 7.4 billion lbs of CO2 per *day* into the atmostphere. plug that into your statistics and probabilities and let me know what that tells you, ok? the science is in on global warming. it's yesterday's debate in my opinion...

fred banks: wind is economical and is being used in many places throughout the world. just use google, read, and learn. perhaps you can start with the wind farms in texas that are so successful they are steadily building more. obama's energy team is the worst imaginable? yeah, really sucks to have nobel prize winning physicists as opposed to dick cheney. i am not impressed with your arguments nor your positions. science and facts will once again become attributes of the US after the past 8 years of living in ignorance and hypocritical policy.

2008 Dec 13 10:33 AM

[Michael B. ...:]

While on the margin we are good on natural gas supplies, you conveniently leave out of the detail that the recent surplus in natural gas is caused by wells that have extremely rapid decline rates (shale) and only satiate our need for the near term (5 years). Rapidly, the marginal cost of production on nat gas will skyrocket and make natural gas an untenable long term *primary* alternate transportation fuel.

You can't build a long term fuel infrastructure based on that model, considering we already so heavily depend on it for industrial uses that tend to like fossil inputs, and home heating which is much the same.

Natural gas looks good because it is cheap now, but unlike crude, we actually can run out of it in interim periods. In the winter we already consume a ton more than we pull out. If nat gas is to be viable as a primary alternative transport fuel, we probably need to double storage capacity, otherwise if poorly managed people may be freezing in their homes in the winter.

Additionally nat gas has pipeline and flow constraint issues. Did you know spot new york nat gas has seen $50+/mmbtu (maybe $90? I forget) price tags in recent winters due to demand in record chills? We're talking about massive infrastructure investment in a commodity that will ultimately dwindle just as quickly as oil wells if used en masse like this.

The only tenable long term solution (besides just driving less and accepting less economic activity as a fact of life) is nuclear power and electric cars. If Bush can give nuclear power to UAE, I don't see why we can't do it here and just solve the problem altogether. Next step is to build a few hundred power plant and use reprocessing internally in the design infrastructure (so waste never moves away from the plants, and we have no short supply of uranium or thorium ore). Even if we decided not to use a breeder reactor model, the vitrification methods (glass pelletizing of nuclear waste) work and are indeed relatively safe. It is time to end the fear over nuclear.

2008 Dec 13 10:53 AM

[Old Wizard:]

Mr. Banks, I don't know what economic theory you favor but I will say that I regard much of macro economics as close to witchcraft. Those of us who had to make a living understanding applied Mathematics and probability and statistics understand the difficulty of using multivariate,non-linea... models to predict future events. Morever, we also understand the relationships between input errors and output variances. To believe that such models give significant future guidance without understanding the output uncertainty is very dangerous. It is also dangerous to ignore variables which in past eras were negligible, but have become much more important. To this point, Cost-effective arguments as to the efficacy of energy sources under the assumption of free market forces is probably not a good decision criterion when our current account balance is approaching a trillion dollarrs and our dependecy on foreign energy is one of the largest contributors. Further,the provision of oil is not really available in a free market sense and could easily be denied us either by hostile adversaries[ where the commodity is government owned], terrorist action or source country instability. Injecting wind and solar energy large scale pilot projects even if they are not now cost-effective by the Government is what a Government with vision and a desire to preserve a high standard of living for as much of our people as possible should do.The Appollo project was not cost effective but it gave birth to a host of new products and benefitted at least a generation of Americans. Are not these products cost-effective now?

2008 Dec 13 11:00 AM

[Old Wizard:]

Fitz, As I said before, the global warming issue is not even in my top five as far as importance to this country's survival, but if belief that it is man made leads to the right comprehensive energy policy, fine. If it doesn't which is what i"m afraid of, then I'm willing to debate the science of it, even with you. The over 30 years I've spent earning my living in engineering and systems should make me somewhat qualified to understand the scientific arguments. I've read your co2 argument and yield that you are correct in your numbers[without checking them]. I don't think this single calculation is enough to cinch the case, however, but I don't want to divert the discussion from the central energy issue and the economic and strategic issues we face.

2008 Dec 13 12:48 PM

[pockyclips ...:]

Another good article by Fitz. The politicians, producers, and the American people are already backsliding on realistic energy policy for the next 10 to 20 year timeframe. We should be using this break in energy price rises to fill the SPR to the brim, and get serious about NG powered vehicles.

2008 Dec 13 02:23 PM

[rrbatch:]

Interesting debate! Too bad the technology and investment ideas had to get mixed in with polemics. What are you Bush-bashers going to do for fun when W has retired to Texas? How about harassing BO for his corrupt Chicago connections and his miserable choices for Energy Secretary and energy czar.

The Pickens Plan gathered a lot of attention in the foregoing, but no one seems to have read the Seeking Alpha post from 11/17/08: "The Pickens Plan Changes Its Strategy". It points out that a cubic foot of CNG provides only one quarter of the energy of a cubic foot of gasoline. So for equal driving range, you'll need a fuel tank 4 times larger than your gas tank. This is the reason Pickens now favors CNG for trucks, which have less of a volume constraint than cars. Some of you may have seen CNG-fueled buses with large tanks strapped to their roofs. Do you want to drive a car with no trunk, no rear seat, or a tank on the roof?

There are over 200 million cars and light trucks on the road in the US today. If vehicles fueled with CNG were mandated, and the fleet were updated or replaced at the current replacement rate of 12-15 million cars per year, it would take about 15 years to convert the fleet. This won't happen in the foreseeable future, so we'll need liquid fuels for a long time to come. The ways we can reduce our imports (the largest part being from Canada and Mexico) are to develop our off-shore resources as soon as we can, at the same time developing syngas from NG and coal, and improving efficiency at a rate determined by economics.

Which brings me back to politics: I have NO confidence in the government prescribing what kind of fuel and how much of it I can use, including the ridiculous CAFE rules. The corn ethanol fiasco is a case in point. Let the cost of transportation determine what we drive, and let the market determine our options, free from subsidies. The auto industry gets beaten up for a number of sins, but they've basically been giving the public what they want to drive - big SUVs - until the price of fuel skyrocketed. Now they're retooling, but the lead time to bring a new product to market is more than five years. Meanwhile, with the price of gas back to where it was two years ago, people will again buy - guess what? - their big SUVs. When global economies recover and demand increases, the price of fuel will go back up and the market will look for better fuel economy.

The car companies (US and foreign) know this, so its more than likely that they'll market a mix of models that fit different economic situations. I drive a Ford Escape hybrid, and I figure it saves me money when the price of gas is over $2.75. I congratulated myself last summer, but the purchase premium isn't covered with the current local price under $1.50. This is an economic choice I made freely (albeit I did pocket a small subsidy when I bought the car), and the rest of us should have the same freedom of choice.

2008 Dec 13 02:28 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

Michael Krause: sorry to disagree with you, but i have seen no data implying the life of production from the relatively new haynesville, bakken, marcellus, and barnett shales wells is a mere 5 years. further, i doubt seriously that the partners laying the "rockies express" nat gas pipeline from colorado to ohio would have financed and built a project if they figured the life was a mere 5 years. further, i doubt COP & BP would be in serious discussions and planning a nat gas pipeline from alaska to the lower-48 if the nat gas volumes were not there to support a return on investment well into the future. i stand by my original comment that nat gas reserves, AMERICAN nat gas reserves are enough to power a significant portion of our transportation for decades into the future. i also believe that LNG terminals give us addition flexibility wrt imports. wrt to the storage issue you mention, i would sure as hell rather store american produced nat gas than foreign produced oil...and we seem to have no problem storing lots of that. the prices you quote for recent winters were not so much due to record cold as they were to do with hurricanes knocking out nat gas rigs and pipelines in the gulf of mexico. if you want to say that is a strategic weakness, i would agree. that said, LNG terminals and the alaskan/lower-48 pipeline do much to alleviate that problem. wrt nuclear, as you can see if you read my energy policy, i am all for nuclear power and electric cars. the problem is it will take awhile for those two infrastructures to get built out. what do u propose we do in the meantime? that is why nat gas is such a winning proposition...it is something we could do relatively quickly to immediate reduce foreign oil imports. again i say, we will need ALL alternatives to make up the energy in 15,000,000 barrels a DAY of foreign oil. neglecting nat gas because it is not perfect is a big mistake. i dont fear nuclear...i fear the long lead times, the licensing, the locality (no one wants them in their backyard), the waste storage, etc. etc. that said, i am all for nuclear and electric cars. i just want to do something effective and economical in the meantime.

wizard: global warming isn't in my top 5 "economic" issues either...that said, my energy policy helps to alleviate global warming because any policy the US adopts that reduces our burning of gasoline internal combustion engines reduces our CO2 emissions, which are, to put it mildly, gigantic.

pockyclips: thanks for the kind words, but dont give up on obama wrt energy yet. he might surprise you.

rrbatch: the FBI and other agencies went out of their way to specifically state that obama had nothing to do with the hijinx if the idiot govenor from the state of illinois. in fact, the tapes reveal that the govenor was pissed at the obama team because all they were offering was their "appreciation" if they were to appoint someone favorable to them. as far as his appointments go, i love em all so far. it's nice to have science and competence back in the whitehouse. i prefer nobel winning physicist of dick cheney, but i can tell where your support lies. nobody ever said a cu ft of nat gas was equivalent to gasoline, so that is just a ridiculous argument to make. the Honda Civic GX runs 200 miles per tank of nat gas. this is sufficient for many americans, so this argument is bogus as well. i did not suggest mandated CNG - so this is a bogus argument as well. i do agree with you about improving efficiencies. i did not suggest the government mandate CNG vehicles. what i said was the gov should encourage their deployment by tax incentives and building out the CNG refueling infrastructure. i also have said many times that bush's ethanol mandates have been disastrous. if americans want to buy new big SUV's, well, their idiots and unpatriotic. i don't mind debating, but please debate me on what i say, not your interpretation of what i said. if the auto companies come to congress wanting bailout tax payer money (from me!), then i have a right to say that my government should at least require them to build hybrid, electric, and yes, nat gas vehicles. i am not mandating people buy them (they will). the energy crisis in the US is proof that the "free market" system that some ideologues are wedded to simply is *not working*. i dont like government intervention either...but look what we have now:

1) we import 70% if our oil from foreign countries
2) it has enriched the countries that are antagonistic to the US: saudi, iran, iraq, venezuela, russia
3) so, we are in effect funding both sides of the "war on terror"
4) the oil war in iraq has bankrupted the US government and we still didnt get the oil we were supposed to (i.e. we lost the war).
5) the auto companies are bankrupt and want government assistance
6) as pickens has so correctly phrased it, we have seen "the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world".

so, if now isnt time for the government to take some control of the situation, when is?

carter, the much hated president that i respect so much, reduced american imports from 9 milion barrels a day to 5 million barrels a day through governmental policies. now that is action. that kind of action is needed today more than ever as now we import 15,000,000/barrels a day. you talk about freedom of choice, and that is what i want: freedom to purchase a vehicle that runs on American nat gas as opposed to arab foreign oil. right now, i don't have that choice.

2008 Dec 13 07:44 PM

[Ferdinand E...:]

A debate on science between Fitz and Old Wizard. Sounds great to me, although I prefer one between Cheney and Rumsfeld? I agree with many of your statements Mr Fitz. In fact I strongly agree, but in so far as wind is concerned, you simply don't know what you are talking about. Why doen't somebody tell Mr FItz that when you might have capacity factors as low as 10%, you can't possibly have profitability without excessive subsidies. And by the way, you DONT have to be the leading academic energy economist in the world, which I am, to know that wind is OK in some places but not in others. The evidence shows that for the most part it is NOT OK in very many places without heavy subsidies,

Mr Wizard, since you have taught statistics and probability, you can refer to me as Professor Banks, because I taught both of those in Stockholm, and mathematical economics in Sweden, Australia, Portugal and Senegal. I have also worked as a mathematician.. As for macroeconomics, I taught it for many years all over the world. For the most part I consider it a waste of time. BUT YOU ARE COMPLETELY RIGHT WHEN YOU SAY THAT IF BELIEF IN AGW RESULTS IN A COMPREHENSIVE (OPTIMAL) ENERGY POLICY THEN THE BEST THING IS TO BE OR TRY TO BE OR PRETEND TO BE A BELIEVER.

By the way Fitz, you should think about what Michael Krause said, and if you don't want to think about it ask Old Wizard to tell you what will happen if Pickens' gas policy is followed, given the boost in the growth rate of consumption . Furthermore, I don't see the point in people with a considerable interest and knowledge in these matters - like yourself - playing ego games with the rest of us. .

2008 Dec 14 02:36 PM

[User 283977:]

Fitz
My comment was in reply to another comment that implied the differential cost of a mass produced natural gas vehicle would be comparable to the price difference between the Honda Civic GX and the Honda Civic, which amounts to $7k. My example pointed out that even for a natural gas conversion kit, the cost was only $850.

I suspect the price of a NEW mass produced natural gas vehicle should be less than the cost of a gasoline vehicle. My reasoning is that if a conversion kit cost $850, then a mass produced new vehicle designed for natural gas from the get go must be less because it will not require a major portion of the very expensive anti pollution equipment.

I don't think home fuelling stations are practical. I think the solution is
to convert gasoline stations to natural gas stations, and if the oil companies don't cooperate in that, than open up new stations that only sell natural gas. What will happen next to the gasoline stations is the fate that befell the old leaded gas. Once a natural gas business plan has been shown to work, the government should do an IPO and sell the new fuelling stations to private companies. That way the tax payers get their money back with interest.

2008 Dec 14 06:51 PM

[User 283977:]

Of course, if a major portion of American vehicles convert to American natural gas, oil prices will drop. Oil prices might even drop below the cost of American natural gas.

At that point we would face two conflicting goals. The first goal is that of free markets where access to the lowest price drives everything. The second goal is a National Energy Policy that mandates that the fuel of choice for vehicles operating in the United States at that particular time would be Natural Gas.

In my opinion, the need to removing our dependence on foreign oil and keeping Americas wealth in America should have priority over letting everyone do their own thing based on a free market perspective.

But I can certainly see the other side of this issue as well…. what do you think about this issue?

Finally, I also have to point out that natural gas is not the end solution, it is only the starting point in weaning this country from its dependence on foreign oil. A national security issue of the utmost importance. We need to work on multiple energy resource solutions at the same time.

2008 Dec 14 07:16 PM

[Kaveh Hadjari:]

Sweden have been used to 8-9$/gallon during a very long time.

Sweden have always put a heavy tax on gasoline. The effect of these taxes are that it gets people to value fuel efficient cars and better public transporation which the taxes help to build. Many people here live in aparment houses even in the suburbs which makes road infrastructure cheaper as you don't have to build and maintain as many roads. Alot of us consider cars as a luxury and not a necessity and we build our communities with that in our mind and always have special lanes for bikes and parking lots for bikes.

But these facts doesn't change the fact that sweden is very much dependedant on Oil and on a strong U.S. economy.

These economic and enviromental issues facing the U.S and the Globe is a wake up call that we can't simply stand and let oil dictate our future, and U.S can't afford the empty mirage of the traditional american dream to stand in the way of a new and cleaner dream. A dream that everyone should share and build a reality from.

2008 Dec 15 02:31 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

Before I make my lonely way to the university today, and everybody leaves this discussion, I would like to make several more observations.

If you want energy independence in the US, forget about a massive reliance on wind and gas in the near future. Instead the mantra should be MORE WIND AND MORE GAS, as long as it makes economic sense. Nuclear should be the base of the new energy structure.

Something else is relevant here, since Mr Fitz thinks that the new Energy Secretary is the right man for the job because he is a Nobel Laureate in physics, I remember a conference on electric regulation/deregulatio... in which another California physics whiz thought that he knew the score. He was of course completely and totally wrong - just another bag of wind - as the citizens of that magnificent state later found out, although apparently it did not hurt his career.

According to what I have heard, this energy czar was chosen - or will be chosen - because of his 'green' credentials. Bad mistake you-all, because the engineers in the US - like the engineers in Sweden - know the difference between sense and nonsense, and what they are prepared to do and what they say they believe in doing are two entirely different things.

A question might also be asked as to how somebody can come to the conclusion that e.g. natural gas can save our bacon. It's simple: some journalist hack writes an article about the huge supply of natural gas that will soon be available, and a man with a billion or so dollars happens to see this article and as a result buys this fiction and spreads it all over the place. For people here who believe in fictions of that nature, I suggest that they take a closer look at the comment of Michael Krause. And Michael, if you get the chance, turn your comment into an article. Your message is apparently badly needed.

2008 Dec 15 03:08 AM

[Old Wizard:]

The discussion points out a salient fact about a lack of a comprehensive energy plan. It matters less whether nuclear is the ultimate solution or natural gas or wind,solar and electric cars and who is more correct. What does matter is that we create the plan and implement it with a sense of urgency and sufficient funding. That is why I favor Gov. sponsered large scale pilot projects that not only introduce wind and solar sources to selected metro areas but the creation of mono-rail spiders to change the structural driving habits around large suburban metro plexes. Nuclear power should be part of the long range plan. I don't think that picken's ever stated that wind and natural gas were the only or long range solution. In fact his ads explicitly stated that they were a bridge to a long term solution. "Professor Banks" I don't think Fitz ever claimed that natural gas was "the solution" either, but rather an important, near term and available element. The cost-effective arguments can't stop us from acting because as we've seen in the past disruption of our oil supply or skyrocketing energy cost will cripple our economy. Futhermore, we can't tolerate another ten years of our country having close to a negative one trillion dollar curent account balance and prosper. Keeping US dollars at home will trump most cost effective arguments and optimal is the enemy of required if it delays constructive action.

2008 Dec 15 08:04 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

Old Wizard, I agree with everything you say except your statement about the relevance of the ultimate solution. What we need is something that will work in the NEAR future, and as far as I can tell, in the near future we are talking about more nuclear. But I am not asking for a nuclear facility on every street corner. Just enough to provide the EXTRA energy that will make those other elements function the way that we want them to function. One of the smaller towns in Sweden, Växsjö, has apparently done extremely well in the renewable/new energy line, and they spend a lot of time clapping themselves on the back, but the key to this success is the nuclear that is available to provide EXTRA energy when it is needed. But note, nuclear is not a back-up. It is too capital intensive for that.

Fred.

2008 Dec 15 11:11 AM

[Michael Fit...:]

fred banks: well, if you prefer to send your money to saudi arabia, iran, iraq and iran for oil as opposed to GE to build wind turbines, not much i can do to convince you. wind is economic *when u factor in the total cost of oil* into the price of oil. this *total* price of oil would include the cost of our military to fight oil wars, the drop in the US dollar associated with sending $700/billion a year out of the country, and the fact that our economic short hairs are held in OPEC's hands. wind is being successfully deployed around the entire world, and in texas too. wrt load factors, did you ever hear me advise building wind turbines in places where the wind doesn't blow? yes, we need subsidies and tax breaks in the US to jump start the business, i'd rather do that than continue bankrolling countries that hate us and funding both sides of the "war on terror". you guys seem content to sit and do nothing and let the arabs control our fate. that is simply moronic. you can call it an ego game if you like, i call my views logical deductions from facts. perhaps you should go to the eia website and see some *facts* :
www.eia.doe.gov/basics...
if, after reading the production/demand data on this website you still want to give the arabs the means to checkmate our economy, then, well, that is a sad commentary on your either your patriotism or your abilities in the art of logic.

bob lunn: why don't you think home refueling is practical? these appliances that now cost $4k should be in neighborhood of $700 if they were multi-sourced in quantities. i think home refueling is great because you can do it at night, not pressed for time, and it is oh so convenient!
not sure that i agree you'll see a big drop in oil prices due to US conversion to nat gas...i still think the long term trend for oil is steadily higher (and much higher) assuming the world economy stays out of depression. i do think nat gas prices would go higher, but thats ok. i don't link energy mandates. they don't work (see ethanol). i do like tax incentives to help establish a "green economy" with wind and solar. i also obviously would like to see incentives in nat gas and nuclear. there are no "end solutions" here...to reduce our 14-15 million barrel per day oil import bill, we need all alternatives: electric cars, hybrid cars, nat gas cars, solar, wind, nuclear. as i said before, the amount of energy in 15 million barrels of oil is eye-popping.

kaveh hadjari: oh, i agree - i am a *big* proponent of increase gasoline taxes in the US to fund alternatives and incentivize demand destruction. it is part of my energy policy (see my website above). i very much agree with your post and your conclusions.

fred banks (again): what i said was that i am more impressed with obama's energy team than the oil centric cheney/bush/rumsfeld trifecta. if you like giving the arabs control of our economy fine, but i don't know why you insist on denegrating me because i don't agree with you. also, i wish you would stop with all the academic professorship stuff...most everyone on here is educated, has degrees...etc. etc. just stick with the debate - that is the best sign of intelligence and logic. i also take offense to your insinuation that an engineer cannot be "green". i am an electronics engineer, was for over 20 years. you can label me whatever you want, and if "green" is that label, i wear it proudly. i didn't say that natural gas can save our bacon, what i DID say was that it was potentially the quickest way to reduce oil imports. what is your plan fred? all you do is cut me down, without facts, and never introduce your own strategy. what is it? you dont like wind, you dont like solar, you dont like natural gas...you love nuclear but we dont have electric cars yet. all i can deduce from your arguments it that you love stay addicted to foreign oil and don't mind the economic consequences of such a trategic failed policy.

wizard: that you for your support. i love it when people actually read what i write.

fred banks: you agree with what wizard said, so, glad to learn that you now understand i didnt say natural gas was THE solution, but just part of the solution. apology accepted. wrt nuclear, who do more nukes help in the short term if we dont have electric cars and electric car recharging infrastructure? i still maintain nat gas powered cars and trucks are the quickest, most viable means to reduce foreign oil imports today.

ok fans, i am done with this article...time to move on to something new. thanks all for the comments.

2008 Dec 15 12:45 PM

[Ferdinand E...:]

The quickest way to reduce imports? well, I'll think about it when I'm paid to think about it. Let me also mention that all that talk about patriotism leaves me completely uninterested. I spent 5+ years in the US army, most of it in the infantry and artillery, and I worked as an engineer for the US navy at Great Lakes for a year. I also don't need any half-baked lectures about wind and natural gas. I know about those things and know what they can and can't do. I've also had enough of green hypocrites and ignoramuses.

On the other hand, a lot of what you say makes sense.

2008 Dec 16 04:06 PM

[Grandpa Grady:]

Wow..lots of opinions on this subject. It may have been said already ( I got tired of reading all of these!!), but what about "flex fuel stations"?? Why couldn't the old fashioned service station offer multiple types of fuel? QT offers a half dozen types of coffee these days and competes very well with Starbucks! Seriously though..why not???

2008 Dec 30 03:55 PM

[outtime:]

Your points are right on. You can tell from the comments many people do not understand that this is a renewable source, not just fossil fuel. Our landfills, water sanitation districts even our animal wastes can be turned into natural gas. I have one customer who uses manure from his diary farm to power his nine trucks he has to haul milk to the milk processing plant and to the cheese factory. Also another point, we have almost 1500 CNG stations across the US now and trucks and buses with a fueling capacity of 60 gallons for the heavier vehicles can go from station to station, East to West, as they do today already. Even natural gas school buses have been driven across the US for the last ten years. We are only some 5,000 stations away from making everyone feel comfortable about using natural gas daily. I have travelled over 530,000 over the last 13 years on dedicated OEM natural gas vehicles and have never run out of fuel.

So it is a matter of educating the public and congress on the benefits to help our country recover from the economic downturn and improve our national security. I would put a tax on gasoline and diesel products like Europe and have the monies generated go towards building NG stations, rebuilding our roads and bridges and fund production of OEM natural gas vehicles. GM makes 19 various CNG vehicles in other parts of the world, why can we make them do it here since they accepted our bailout.

2008 Dec 31 02:33 PM

[Poynte:]

There is only one answer.............Ple... look at the numbers, do the math and stop dreaming of a perfect energy world; Nuclear power, electric cars, electric homes and electric powered industry. All the renewable power is great and we need more but it will never replace fossil fuel.
We don't have the time to untie the knot and we have to cut it.
Nuclear Power and Electric Cars...NOW!

Jan 29 10:52 AM

[Poynte:]

It makes all the alternative power sources make sense. If you have an all electric home and all electric cars then it makes sense to have alternative power sources on your roof and in your back yard. The key is to go “all electric” everything, cars, trucks, trains, heat, cooling…everything without fossil fuel! Standardization of usage is key.
Nuclear Power and Electric Cars, NOW!

Jan 29 11:06 AM