Plug-In Natural Gas Hybrid Vehicles: A Game Changer 24 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
There are many reasons an author might pen Seeking Alpha articles. One reason motivating the Fitzman is reader feedback via the comments section. Many times the comments section is better than the article itself - at least this is true for a few of my submissions. Recently I wrote an article, "Obama 'Shines' Natural Gas," wherein I criticized President Obama's first major energy policy speech for its serious omission of natural gas transportation initiatives. I maintained in that article that no energy policy can be serious about significantly reducing foreign oil imports, and oil demand itself, without taking advantage of US produced natural gas in the transportation sector.
Typically I get a lot of great feedback in the comments section of my articles and this piece was no exception. Of particular note was some feedback received from SA contributor "isaac the terrible" who said:
"Fitz- keep up the pressure, but add "plugin hybrid natural gas vehicle" to your mix. That would be an awesome game changer."
For this comment "issac the terrible" got four thumbs up, and one thumb was mine. A hybrid car or light truck powered by a combination of plug-in electricity and natural gas would indeed be a game changer! Both energy sources could be replenished in the home garage. Both sources of energy are cleaner burning than gasoline and would immediately reduce foreign oil imports. The car is both economically and technically feasible today. If producing such a vehicle were a condition under which US automakers would receive tax-payer money it would be a win-win for the automakers, labor, the environment, and the tax-payer. If combined with a Sematech like initiative for battery research and manufacturing, the US automakers would instantly become automotive technology leaders once again.
Great idea Isaac! I have added it to my energy policy.
A plug-in natural gas hybrid vehicle is the first major change to my energy policy in some time. Is anyone in the Obama administration or in Congress listening?
From an investment standpoint, such a vehicle would be reason enough to invest in CHK, BP, and COP from a natural gas perspective. On the electricity side, consider AEP, FPL, SO, EXC, and ETR.
Disclosure: The author owns COP and BP.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 24 comments:
note how the USPS keeps their fleet outdoors.
> jack
1) You would be asking current auto manufacturers to take risks on two new technologies. Even something as simple as a NGV is only being made available by Honda. They are resistant to even making cars use that only one of these technologies: PHEV or NGV
2) Another problem is weight: 400 lbs in lithium batteries and the NG tanks weigh at least 200 lbs each and you would probably want to have two tanks for extended range. This extra 800 lbs minimum would certainly make the car less efficient than a standard ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) car.
If you can count alot of vote capturing behind the new debt spending you are in business. But you need alot of votes - after all it is apparent now the coal and nuclear and oil industry shouldn't hold their breath. But don't forget they still need the midwest states therefore the ever "efficient" ethanol is still in their sites.
It looks like lawyers and their industry are still in charge of this party.
Business as usual with the added carnage of cynically capturing voting
Your gas hybrid is an excellent solution and solves many problems - but from the recent details of the spending bill one can gather that we can put to bed that it is big oil holding up the process and conspiring.
One thing I have not heard is that if we spend money on a poor solution or one that is too speculative and doesn't pan out - many generations still have to pay for this - there should be a benchmark of not just job creating but sustainability and payback otherwise these are our last chips.
Under Kennedy we went to the moon. The same kind of dedication will have to go into this natural gas project and I am all for it.
This is a way to create real jobs using government support. The government will have to give long term loans to business in order to ensure the success of the project.
Convert the natural gas to methanol, a simple partial oxidation (exothermic reactionan and use the heat for water or home heating) and run the methanol through an on board fuel cell or if you want add a little gasoline and make M-85 a good auto fuel that has has a natural octane of 114 for high compression efficiency.
Fitz- I've always been impressed with your pattern of reading the comments and thoughtfully considering them. Great job.
-how soon can Detroit begin to sell NG powered cars?
-what will a NG powered vehicle cost to buy?
-can we keep NG prices at reasonable levels, if the USA promotes gas exploration and drilling, hence abundance in our own country, and NG fuel purchases will not flow US $ into the Middle East.
Conversly, the hybrid concept has eventual positives, but
-how soon will Detroit begin selling NG/EE hybrids?
-What will they cost?
-What will be the cost of maintainence?
Answers to these 3 would seem to put a cooler note on the hybrid concept, at least for a decade, hence, I wrote for the simple, cheap and abundantly fueled with USA drilled NG powered car, this solution is right in our hands, we should take it.
thanks for your cleaver thoughts.
The case for NG vehicles is so obvious to the informed, that it tells us something about our politicians and the political industry.
The rest of the world is already using NG fueled vehicles by the millions. And we can't even get our president and our politicians to talk about it. We'll spent many millions on alternative energy R&D for the Hell ov-it, while the interim mid term solution is ignored by everyone save Boone Pickens. And he has been taken in by the wind mill subsidy that we can't afford.
How about applying a little engineering and economics to all these alternatives? Does anyone actually consider the amount of energy we need?
The wind solution is too costly and too feeble, solar is the same. Doesn't work very well in vehicles either. Nor will we never grow enough biofuel. Hydrogen fuel comes from nat gas. How in the world can we prefer hydrogen to nat gas, unless we go to nuclear FUSION to make the stuff?
Plug in electric will come from coal fired electric power plants, because they haven't (and maybe won't) let us build nukes. That is until we decide the weather is too warm. So we have to generate power from nat gas, which seems to work damned well! In fact it always has worked damned well.
Fitz You are a brilliant ray of sunshine in this dark environment. I hope you are never silenced!
If I can help I will.
-nearterm and practical, direct use of NG in IC engines, featuring economy, available in nearterm, abundant supply of fuel in our country (USA),
-longterm, more ideal, significant innovation, considerable opportunity for success and for failure, lower air pollution, if we get more NG and nuclear power plants.
To my point of view, in the current economic collapse, we should be putting emphasis on economy, security (using American fuels), and something that has little risk of getting to market quickly.
My money is on NG fueled IC engines, an effective distribution system (eg So Cal Gas?, and others across the country).
john s. - sounds like we need a sensor & alarm.
longoil: neither technology is new here. the prius has been shipping for many years now. nat gas cars and trucks have been used for decades.
wrt the weight, i think you are double counting. a prius already has a battery pack, so the only weight differential would be the difference in weight between a regular gasoline tank and a CNG tank. that delta is certainly way under the 800 lbs you quote, would u not agree?
finmah: yup, i understand the alt energy is not the biggest item in the list. at the same time, i am not sure Obama can turn a blind eye to the realities of the economy today, and the effect it is having on millions of middle class americans who have had no income increases over the past 10 years, have lost their savings in the market, and have lost their jobs due to no fault of their own, but to idiotic fiscal and economic policies by our recent "leaders". so, would i like more energy? u bet - especially nat gas centric. that is the real shame about the last 8 years: the country was not only bankrupt, we have nothing to show for it. and now, instead of fixing our energy problems, we are spending money on *alot* of other stuff that is broken and in the ditch. as far as your last comment on creating jobs and sustainability, i agree - and building out the nat gas infrastructure and transportation creates good jobs and will pay dividends for decades (not to mention stop sending our money to foreign energy producers). it's a win-win all around.
longoil: hell, it's obvious the saudis (and add bush & cheney...) want to keep us addicted to oil, and we are helping them! as far as the gov giving loan to business to ensure the success - that is what they are doing now: billions to GM and chrysler. at the same time, we have NO nat gas related strings attached. MISSED OPPORTUNITY.
bindlepete: why go through all those steps when the folks in utah, brazil, and asia are quite happy simply burning the nat gas in it's simplest form - straight out of existing nat gas distribution networks and in their garage?
long ball: exactly! i first investigated converting my toyota truck to nat gas. toyota tells me it will void all my warranties because they don't provide a conversion kit and dont support after market. so, i told them i would go buy a honda. i called honda - you cannot buy a honda civic GX in my state, *no exceptions*. the conspiracy would be comical if it wasnt so serious and detrimental to our country. anyhow, you are dead-on with your observation (and kudos for trying to nat gas your fleet!). it reminds me of the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car". if you havent seen it, you should check it out:
www.sonyclassics.com/w.../
clearlead: ok, i have been getting alot of email (directly to my email account as opposed to on here) jumping my butt for this article and sticking to the 100% electric vision. here is my problem with that strategy:
1) pure electric cars are simply not available in quantity today.
2) even if they were, the US is not making the batteries, so we are trading foreign oil addiction to asian battery addiction
3) even if the cars and batteries were available, the public is slow to buy them
5) even if electric cars were available, and even if the public did buy them, if one looks at replacing a significant portion of the 390,000,000 gallons of gas with electric substitutes, the US currently doesn't have the electric generation to support this. for instance, say we substitute 20% of our gasoline usage with electric cars (78,000,000 gallons of gasoline). now, calculate the number of BTU's in that amount of gasoline and convert to electric MW and tell me, where is that power going to come from?
6) even if we DID have the electric cars available in quantity, and even if the public DID buy them, and even if we DID have the electrical generation capacity, we DON'T currently have the transmission grid capacity to distribute that power!.
now, i support project better place, i support electric cars, and i support wind and solar and nuclear electric generation. it's all in my energy policy:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
*but* electric cars will take time to produce, nuclear will take years to build-out, wind and solar will take TIME and so will building out the grid. not to mention the funding is drying up in many areas right now. so, sticking with the "pure electric car" strategy is simply not realistic. compared to a nat gas/electric hybird (which could be built today), we are wasting time and:
1) continue to send 70% of our oil dollars to foreign producers (most unfriendly to the US)
2) continue to burn gasoline at 19lbs of CO2 per gallon
3) continue to neglect US produced nat gas here at home
4) continue to see our automotive companies sink deeper and deeper.
we need to be realistic about the timeframes for electric cars, wind and solar infrastructure, and building out the electric grid. it is very dangerous not to because all it does is keep us on the oil centric path we have been on and this is NOT WORKING in sooo many ways.
grampa jim: thanks!
isaac: hey man! hope you don't mind me including you in the article - i figured you'd be ok with it, but i suppose i should have contacted you first (didn't think about that til later). i have a saying for things that i really like. regarding your suggestion "good action!" and it is a separate bullet in my energy policy now.
jack kreg: sorry if i neglected to notice, and mention, that you had earlier recommended to me a nat gas, electric hybrid. i don't recall.
john peterson: thanks! i have read and enjoyed many of your articles and comments as well. as far as everyone waiting for the "perfect solution", i couldn't agree more (please see my comment above to clearlead which lists the reason why simply waiting for a 100% electric car is dangerous and keeps the status quo in place). as far as testing, i would *love* to see toyota make a plug-in prius with nat gas as a concept car and test the heck outta it. i would volunteer as a guinea pig :) thanks for the comment.
old wizard: oh yeah, municpal nat gas fleets are already widely available and this is in my energy policy as well. it's a no brainer isn't it? yet some folks still think nat gas powered transportation is "new" technology. it is decades all and very mature.
red raider: thanks for the comments bud, but with all due respect i have to say i would disagree with your conclusions on wind. it's economical today, and is making money in germany, texas, and many other locations. sure there is an infrastructure transimission issue, and tax incentives are needed short term, but wind is real, and it will keep progressing. if the strategy for charging plug-in electrics is coal, as you said, then we are all doomed. talk about pumping alot of CO2 and mercury into the air...wait til we depend on coal to replace the 390,000,000 gallons of gas we burn every day. that is *alot* of MW!!
anyhow, thanks for your compliments.
jack kreg: yup, nat gas vehicles and electric/nat gas hybrids are the way to go in the nearterm if we want to:
1) reduce foreign oil imports significantly in the next 3-5 years
2) we want to reduce CO2 emissions
3) we want to create jobs and an infrastructure that will pay dividends for decades
4) we want to renew the competitive advantage of our auto makers
thanks jack.
isaac: maria cantwell huh? wow, i have some cantwells in my family tree from the old irish settlements in western NY and northwestern PA. wonder if she's a cuz? anyhow, thanks for forwarding it on. maybe some senator, someday, will actually read it on the floor of the senate. wouldn't that be something? :) thanks again for your great feedback on the subject!
The positive paybacks are enormous in most all of these areas, and there is no time to waste!
Coal and Nuclear are more problematic.
If you don't think so, then you should live in the Tennessee Nuclear Valley for awhile. There you will be availed of the constant thrills and delights of your lakes , rivers, streams, roads , farms, schools, and homes under the constant onslaught of every conceivable kind of massive leaks and spills into the environment from coal and nuclear toxic waste, and for now , I will spare the reader the graphic details of these periodic , frequent, and almost regular occurrances. It would take a very large world class encyclopedia to accomplish that.
The event descriptions are , however, available from all the news sources if you wish to research and verify them for yourselves. If you are unable to do this but remain interested then I will be glad to offer my assistance on an as needed basis.
An excellent and useful article, and the comments were indeed interesting stimulating, and encouraging.
Congratulations to all for a job well done.
seeking truth: i agree with your first statement, however i don't see how we get around building more nuclear plants if we make a big jump in electric cars. coal should be stopped in its tracks.
i DO live in the tennessee valley area, and don't get me started on the spill, or on Senator Corker who even though he is from Chattanooga, it apparently doesnt seem to bother him that the residue from the spill (mercury, arsenic, lead, beryllium, and cadmoum among other goodies) will simply go down the emory river, into the clinch river, and then dump into the tennessee river, and go right down the valey to bob corker's water spigot in chattanooga. no wonder the cancer levels in the tennessee valley area are so high. but i am sure senator bob will have his water imported from france. btw, the kingston coal plant was the biggest coal plant in the world when it was built over 50 years ago. the amount of toxic ash spilled was enough to cover 3,000 acres 1 foot deep, or, 48 times the volume of the exxon valdez oil spill. dump trucks were called in to "clean it up", but where were the dumptrucks taking the crap? we couldn't find out because of course the police had everything tied off. however, we did see the water in the lake glowing at night, that very weird green glow...scary as shit man. but yeah, the TVA says the water quality is fine, no problem, Corker was against Federal money to clean it up (but note at the same time he was pushing for the money to "bailout" all the banks, insurance, and financial institutions - but oh, that money just went for bonuses to millionaires who already have too much money). what a friggin country man.
oops, i did get started on it. i apologize. anyhow, thanks for your nice compliments truth seeker.
koolsool: yes, they are. honda, gm, and ford all make them. they have been in use for decades. it is a mature technology inspite of the misconceptions of americans. that said, the cars and trucks just aren't widely available in the US, nor are the refueling stations. thus, my call for federal action. yet, obama blew his big chance.
old wizard; agree with everything you said except i am not sure about the last line on corp tax rates. honestly, i think most corporations have loopholes to get around paying any taxes at all. but, that is just a gut feel, i have no data, and therefore should say no more. thx.
owners who may agree to set up Natural Gas pumps. Something like $90,000 tax credit each. Anyone heard about that ?
www.autoblog.com/2008/.../