The Current Stagnation of Natural Gas Vehicles in America

Most of you already know I believe natural gas transportation is the key to ending US reliance on foreign oil, protecting the America from the economic and social implications of peak oil (some of which we are experiencing today), and meaningfully reducing CO2 emissions. With a desire to practice what I preach, I embarked on a mission to study the non-fleet (consumer) NGV status quo in America and determine how I can obtain and refuel a NGV. Here’s what I found out.

It’s well known both GM and Ford (F) manufacture and sell NGVs in Europe and elsewhere. However, they refuse to build and sell these vehicles in the US. The only natural gas car sold in America, the Honda (HMC) Civic GX, is not available in my state and is only sold in CA and NY.

My favorite vehicle these days is Toyota's (TM) concept car.

Yet Toyota’s announcement, after listing all the reasons why this car makes sense, then states the company has no plans to manufacture them(!?). That statement is emblematic of the current state of affairs in the NGVs: the technology is proven, uncomplicated, cleaner, will reduce foreign oil, has a readily available US produced fuel, and yet I cannot buy one! What ever happened to the Toyota of the 1970’s that produced fuel-efficient, economical, and reliable small compacts? It seems it has chosen to imitate the US auto makers and focus on large trucks, expensive luxury cars, and increasing market share.

The next logical step was to investigate converting my current vehicle, a 2002 Toyota Tacoma, to run on natural gas. After a few googles, I found a document listing all vehicles for which an EPA and California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified vehicle conversion kits are available.

The first thing to note here is that all legal conversion kits are made by small volume manufactures (SVMs) as opposed to the original auto manufacturer. Secondly, the list is limited to a few Ford and GM models. There is no legal EPA/CARB certified conversion kit for my Toyota Tacoma. There are no certified kits available for any Toyota or Honda.

Undaunted, I sent out a handful of emails to a few of the references listed at the end of this document. One response was very informative. I’ll list the key points here:

• Once a vehicle is 10 years old or has accumulated 120,000 miles, the EPA’s jurisdiction no longer applies as the vehicle has passed the threshold of “useful life”. There are small conversion shops that will convert these vehicles to natural gas.
• Toyotas are notoriously bad performers following aftermarket conversion kits and there could well be serious drivability issues.
• Natural gas conversion kits affect all aspects of fuel delivery, combustion, and emissions.
• An engine control module (ECM) contains a microprocessor to control fuel/air mixtures, ignition and spark advance among other control factors to compensate for temperature, pressure, altitude, and driving habits. The ECM software must be optimized for natural gas operation, and therefore new code must be downloaded as part of any conversion process.
• Catalytic converters are highly tuned to vehicle fuel and ECM operation. An incompatible ECM/catalytic converter combination can yield an NGV that has worse emissions than its gasoline counterpart. This despite the fact that natural gas is a much cleaner fuel than gasoline to start with.
• The EPA treats SVMs as though they are OEMs and insists they are a “neutral” regulator. However, the $100-150k cost for EPA certification, and the $300k CARB costs, effectively favors OEMs, who obviously aren’t interested in manufacturing NGVs or conversion kits. Net-net, EPA regulations support big oil and more pollution. No wonder Robert Kennedy Jr. calls the EPA the “Environmental Destruction Agency”.
• Aftermarket CNG conversion companies are required to get an emissions multiplicative deterioration factor (DF) applied while the OEMs do not. So, the EPA effectively further stacks the deck against NGV conversions.
• The EPA charges an annual recertification fee, which further increases cost for SVMs.
• CARB has been adopted by many other states like NY, Maine, and Massachusetts, further decreasing the market for SVMs by increasing conversion costs in those states.

The root of some of these barriers to NGV conversion kits lies in memo 1A of the “Clean Air Act”.

This Act effectively subsidizes and protects the oil companies and hampers NGV availability. How hypocritical that the “Clean Air Act” basically ensures the US will continue to pollute our air and water. Further, what politician would stand up and fight against the “Clean Air Act”? It’s the “Patriot Act” all over again, and it would be political suicide because uninformed public voters react off headlines.

Now let’s take a look at the refueling side of the chicken-n-egg NGV/nat gas refueling equation. Here is a website detailing the US CNG refueling locations and current price.

If you zoom all the way out on this map, it's clear things look pretty good – if you live in California, Utah, or Oklahoma. Most states don’t have a single public CNG refueling station on this map.

Switching to the home front, the only garage appliance for refueling a NGV in your garage is the “Phill” made by Fuelmaker.

Fuelmaker is a Canadian firm. Apparently the US can put a man on the moon but cannot manufacture a device which simply compresses natural gas. Further, the “Phill” is fairly difficult to obtain and is not “supported” in most states. It cost over $4000 (uninstalled). I’d bet you $100 I could design a unit and place an order in China (after all, the US can’t seem to manufacture anything real any longer) for a million units and sell them profitably for $1250.

The bottom line here is NGV availability and the necessary natural gas refueling infrastructure in the US today is effectively non-existent. There are many roadblocks to insure this remains the case. In my state (TN), it is impossible for me to buy a natural gas vehicle or to legally convert my existing vehicle. That is the situation in over 90% of the United States.

In spite of all the rhetoric by both political parties to reduce foreign oil imports and to fight a “war on terror”, the US has instead enacted legislation to keep us addicted to that foreign oil and to guarantee we continue to fund the terrorists. The guns of peak oil and terrorism are pointed directly at our head, and all that is needed to sink the US is another peak oil price spiral to pull the trigger. US law not only insures the gun remains pointed at our heads, it has actually focused the crosshair right between our eyes. All the while we stand on top of huge US natural gas reserves and NGV technology is readily available. What a dangerous and moronic state of affairs.

Natural gas is the only domestic fuel that can be scaled-up for transportation and meaningfully reduce foreign oil imports as well as CO2 and particulate emissions. The US has an abundant supply of clean and affordable natural gas. A 2.2 million mile natural gas pipeline grid is already in place. It delivers natural gas to most major cities and to homes and businesses in every state. 63 million American homes are connected to the natural gas grid where 130,000,000 cars and trucks go every night and could be refueled while their owners sleep. A large percentage of gasoline stations are already on the natural grid and could easily be outfitted with a CNG pump. We could create millions of jobs with a natural gas centric transportation policy:

• In the automobile industry, both building NGVs and converting existing cars and trucks
• Manufacturing and installing home refueling appliances
• Building CNG refueling stations
• Manufacturing compressors and pumps for these CNG stations
• Exploring, drilling, and producing natural gas
• Keeping $700 billion/year from leaving the US for foreign oil
• Providing thousands of US landowners and farmers with natural gas royalty checks instead of funding our terrorist enemies with our energy dollars

At the same time, NGVs emit 30% less CO2 than do gasoline powered vehicles. Just as important, natural gas doesn’t have any of the toxic particulate emissions of gasoline. Environmental “purists” who continue to support only fully electric vehicles and electric hybrids are foolishly misguided. A significant increase in electric cars prior to a build out of green wind and solar electrical generation capacity will increase the very toxic coal emissions these same environmentalists want to limit. Most electric hybrid vehicles only get 40 or 50 miles on their electric motors and then switch over to gasoline. Again, what the auto manufacturers should be building are electric/natural gas hybrids, not gasoline based hybrids.

The US should embark on a broad natural gas centric transportation policy, with a goal of migrating half of all US cars and trucks to natural gas over the next 5 years. This policy would not only reduce foreign oil imports by 7-8 million barrels a day, it would pay for itself over a short period of time, and then pay dividends to all US citizens for decades - much as the interstate highway investment did. More importantly, it would rally the country behind a meaningful goal that everyone could understand. It would increase our own confidence in the future, and show foreign governments that we were serious about tackling energy issues head on. It would strengthen the US dollar, our financial system, and protect our economic future from the crisis of peak oil.

I give the new Obama administration credit for the wind, solar, and electric grid elements of his stimulus plan. I also applaud the effort to reopen the California emission issue in the court system. However, the truth of the matter is the Obama administration has not enacted robust natural gas policies. Is this because Obama comes from a coal producing state? I certainly hope not. What else could explain their hesitancy? President Obama, like every President since Richard Nixon says he wants to significantly reduce foreign oil imports. Yet, he hasn’t enacted the common sense policies in order to do it. We are not talking about rocket science or splitting the atom here. Natural gas transportation technology has been around for decades!

What a shame we are going through another natural gas price collapse with natural gas prices hovering just over $4. The economics of such cheap nat gas means marginal players will be sidelined or go out of business. Many jobs will be loss. Production rates will decline and prices will pop again in the future. What we need is a predictable long term comprehensive energy policy which would take us off this economic roller-coaster of foreign oil and yield a more sustainable, stable, and secure economic environment. I have updated my energy policy recently after reading Robert Hefner III ground-breaking book “The GET: Grand Energy Transition”. The changes are significant, so please give it a quick re-read.

What can you do to change things? If you agree that a natural gas transportation policy is vital to the future of American economic, environmental, and national security success, please write to President Obama and his administration officials - Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and EPA chief Carol Browner at:

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

I believe letters delivered by US mail to be much more effective than are online emails which are many times simply electronically processed with the result that you will get a campaign contribution solicitation email in your Inbox. Tell them you want the following policies:

1. Require US auto manufactures make NGVs and home fueling appliances available (bundled together) in the US as a condition of tax-payer bailout funds.
2. Require US auto manufacturers to sell OEM conversion kits for their top 5 volume models sold in the US over the last 10 years.
3. Give tax-credits for natural gas conversions, natural gas home refueling appliances, CNG refueling station construction, and natural gas purchases at CNG refueling stations.
4. FIX the EPA’s ridiculous regulatory roadblocks and at least level the playing field if not slanting it directly toward natural gas.
5. Begin a nationwide policy of building CNG refueling stations on the interstate highway system to allow easy cross country travel by NGV.

Contact your local politicians and natural gas provider as well.

Similarly, contact the auto companies (by letter and online customer service) and demand NGV and home refueling appliance availability:

Ford Motor Company

Customer Relationship Center

P.O. Box 6248

Dearborn, MI 48126

http://www.ford.com/owner-services/customer-support

General Motors Corporation

P.O. Box 33170

Detroit, MI 48232-5170

http://www.gm.com/utilities/contact_us/contact.jsp?deep=contact

American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Honda Automobile Customer Service

1919 Torrance Boulevard

Mail Stop: 500 - 2N - 7D

Torrance, CA 90501-2746

1-800-999-1009

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

19001 South Western Ave.

Dept. WC11

Torrance, CA 90501

800-331-4331

http://toyota.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/toyota.cfg/php/enduser/ask_intercept.php

Disclosures: the author is long COP and natural gas. The author would buy Toyota Motor, TM, in a heartbeat if they would make the Camry electric/natural gas concept vehicle referred to in this article.

Comments

[optionsgirl:]

Michael- I guess you didn't see Tim Geitner's comments, as reported in thestreet.com. Here is a bit of it:


Geithner said that U.S. oil and gas companies should not receive federal subsidies, including tax incentives for exploratory drilling for new energy resources, because their operations contribute to global warming.


Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
"We don't believe it makes sense to significantly subsidize the production and use of sources of energy that are dramatically going to add to our climate change," Geithner said to the Senate Finance Committee. "We don't think that is good economic policy and we think changing those incentives is good for the country."

Geithner made no distinction between oil drilling and natural gas drilling in his address to Congress.

----------------------...
Obama doesn't want to utilize natural gas, so all this talk about fueling stations and vehicle conversion kits will come to nothing.

Mar 08 09:44 PM

[optionsgirl:]

On Mar 08 09:44 PM optionsgirl wrote:

> Michael- I guess you didn't see Tim Geitner's comments, as reported
> in thestreet.com. Here is a bit of it:
>
>
> Geithner said that U.S. oil and gas companies should not receive
> federal subsidies, including tax incentives for exploratory drilling
> for new energy resources, because their operations contribute to
> global warming.
>
>
> Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
> "We don't believe it makes sense to significantly subsidize the production
> and use of sources of energy that are dramatically going to add to
> our climate change," Geithner said to the Senate Finance Committee.
> "We don't think that is good economic policy and we think changing
> those incentives is good for the country."
>
> Geithner made no distinction between oil drilling and natural gas
> drilling in his address to Congress.
>
> ----------------------...
> Obama doesn't want to utilize natural gas, so all this talk about
> fueling stations and vehicle conversion kits will come to nothing.I hope your mail campaign helps, but really, I don't believe any "grass roots" attempt to sway Obama and his people will be effective. It's just more spitting into the wind, but I wish you well - your heart's in the right place. Obama's, well, that is the subject for another time. I would be interested in hearing whether you are still enamored of him.
>
>

Mar 08 10:38 PM

[leapingcat:]

As some of you may know, I live in England and here there is a growing use of CNG and LPG vehicles. CNG needs a large tank, so tends to be used mainly for buses and larger vehicles operated in cities by local authorities. LPG is more common on vehicles such as SUVs, again a larger fuel tank is needed as well as a gas tank for when there isn't a convenient LPG station. Interestingly Vauxhall, the UK arm of General Motors, sell new cars ready converted to run on LPG, and with a normal warranty.
I think that the future will lie not with one fuel, but with a variety, each used where it is the most suitable alternative. So do keep up the pressure (no pun intended) to ensure that these alternative can play their part.
Disclosure (if that is the right word): my home uses propane gas for central heating and cooking. I am warm and well-fed, and so far it hasn't caught fire or exploded.

Mar 09 05:16 AM

[H. T. Love:]

Michael Fitsimmons

"HardLove: well, you certainly can produce hydrogen from oil or natural gas, but you can also generate hydrogen very cleany by using wind/solar generated electricity via electrolysis."

Yeah, but I discounted that for several reasons. Least important, resistance from folks complaining about their pristine views being ruined by all those windmills. Regardless of that, there is one that I do consider significant. Water shortage. With all natural inland sources of water under duress, I suspect that using it to generate hydrogen may nopt be tenable. That woulkd leave only the ocean as viable source. Then we get into increased cost (which I have not investigated) for desalinization and purification before the molecules can be "cracked" without damaging the equipment. I have no idea how much this affects cost or production rates.


"wrt infrastructure, a hydrogen economy will reuse much of the natural gas infrastructure (both are gases and need to be compressed)."

Possibly, but I think not. The hydrogen molecule is much smaller than those that typically flow through existing infrastructure and is notorious for escaping all but the least porous containers. These *may* need substantial expensive upgrades to keep leakage and safety to acceptable levels. This is not including considerations of security from terrorists, etc. Also keep in mind that pipelines flow to major storage locations. Trucks to carry it to fueling stations would also need upgrading and drivers would need retraining in safely handling the material. Not insurmountable problems, but additional considerations.

" wrt focusing on fleets, this simply doesn't reduce foreign oil imports nor CO2 emissions to the extent we must do."

As I mentioned, it is not the final solution. Here I guess we disagree on the feasability of swallowing the whole pie in one gulp or eating it a slice at a time. I'm with Boone: it's a transition process and probably the only viable process.

" long term, i think we'll be on hydrogen transportation, not electric, or at least a hybrid of both. wrt solar, sure i am all for it, but while we wait for the solar infrastructure to build out, we could be replacing coal plants with nat gas and save millions of tons of CO2, not to mention all the toxic particulates."

And as utilities converting to NG satisify current and ever growing demands, we get Catch 22: NG prices rise substantially due to consumption by utilities and becomes less economical for the daily commuters you want to immediately convert. Or because you convert the private fleet, it becomes uneconomical for the utilities unless the home electric rates skyrocket.

As to polution, it is not my *primary* concern ATM. So our solutions diverge just on that basis. My primary concern ATM is reduction of $700 billion/year leaving here. I think it is nice that it also helps the environment and certainly support that goal as well.

" wrt signicant imports, are you telling me the 130,000,000 cars that go home every night where they could be refueled while their drivers sleep wouldn't have a bigger impact t han fleets? sorry, but i respectfully disagree."

I didn't say that. In summary, I focused on immediacy of beneficial impact and economic feasibility. I stated that I did not think Boone was correct about electric being the solution for the private fleet. By implication, some other solution, such as NG or hydrogen or hybrids, would be the ultimate solution for the private fleet. You must have confused someone else's position with mine.

"when you speak of sound economics of power generation, don't forget to add the *external cost* of gas and coal (environmental, military, health care costs, gov subsidies, etc) when you do that you'll see that nat gas is waaaaay cheaper to the nation"

Agreed. I specifically did not include those as the individual companies that might need to convert will look at *their* economics to make the business case. As such, I do not presume to know the extent of effects of national social policy, which could affect those economics. If national policy became that draft horses would be used to spin the generators, the economics would change. I don't know to what degree.

HardToLove

Mar 09 08:23 AM

[Douglas Hvi...:]

> We are the only nation in the world that boycotts our own domestic
> energy production.
True. However, it is possible to do some things on the local level. I've dropped heating costs by over half, using 18th century technology. This has given me the resources to try out some 20th century technology. The primary problem is that much work is involved.

>NO country in the history of the world
> has been economically successful without utilizing its own least
> cost domestic energy reserves.
True again. Note that families can have a different least cost pattern - in August, you can't walk through our back yard without stepping on some garden plant or other, it is so thick. A big help in finances, and cuts down on fuel usage by eliminating shipping.

>untested EV's instead.
Better to look at stored energy vehicles in general. Look up "zero pollution motors" on some search engine and examine the flow-aire vehicles which should be out about the same time. Efficiency is a bit lower, but first costs are much lower.

>Their real goal is to CONTROL THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION
> of our nation's energy, transport, banking, medicine, education and
> anything else they can get their hands on.
>
> How silly of me. That would mean we're headed to becoming a Socialist
> society. And we all know that's not possible.
They don't have any requirements for understanding and being able to make things work, either. On the other side, most entrepreneurs fail with their first three to five businesses before succeeding. This ability to learn from their mistakes is a primary need for business victory. However, entrepreneurs are notoriously hard to control, why they actually tend to use disruptive technologies that are more useful. How dare people like Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton and their fellow workers get rich using the underhanded methods of being more useful, while those using the tried and true methods of forcing control over the peasantry are made poor! ;-)


Suggest getting and reading, "The mystery of capitalism," by Hernando de Soto. He got interested in the question of why some communities do well, and others are poor, even when settled with the same peoples, at the same time, and with similar resources. The book is likely to rank in history with the other top major studies on economies. Eventually!

Mar 09 08:40 AM

[Douglas Hvi...:]

> Long after people have downsized their cars, changed over to electrics
> and hybrids, and moved closer to work, we will still have to heat
> our homes.
Um. I'm working toward using a heat pump (there is a new design with almost twice the SEER coefficient - development stage) to move summer attic heat into the ground under and around the house. At present, thermostat controlled fans are moving summer air through the basement and up into the house - cheap cooling and warms the soil a little. But the other, although more work, can do much more. Do a search on "annualized geo solar,"

Mar 09 08:51 AM

[john s. gordon:]

mediapro -

you have identified tax subsidies to big oil.

these are only the tip of the iceberg.

you must also consider the annual cost of all the armed forces we have to keep in the middle east (tanks. planes, hmvs, carriers, soldiers etc. as well as future costs of wounded veterans care). also cost of repair/replacement of all the damaged military equipment over 2002-2009. these are a subsidy to big oil as well.
> jack

Mar 09 12:27 PM

[Old Wizard:]

Hi Fitz, Very well thought out article and I will write to the president. I did use the e mail medium and got no reply. As I've said before, I don't believe that the powers to be in Washington are capable of dealing with problems that have more than one variable. The president so far has displayed very little of his often extolled superior intelligence in the energy arena. His rhetoric that states that renewable generation facilities will double the amount of energy generaton in 3 years sonds good, but that will take us from.9 to 1.8 % of our energy supply.Further, the money to do this is to be borrowed, largely from the Chinese and the sovereign funds. Maybe this is why foreign oil is not to be taxed. Again, without significant goals like 5 million barrels less/ day in 5 years all alternatives can be argued as feasible and the tower of babble about the best solution for energy independence goes on ad nauseum. Fitz, While I am in agreement with your focus on natural gas,I can't spot a viable solution forthcoming from washington on energy independence. No one seems to relate any of our problems to the country's current account and its negative operating cash flow of which your 700b[assuming oil is$140/ barrel] would be the largest negative component.

Mar 09 04:36 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

optionsgirl: i don't think the government should be subsidizing oil and gas exploration. or subsidizing coal. that is what got us into this mess in the first place - not paying the true cost of energy. i hate it that natural gas is lumped into the group "fossil fuels" with the company of oil and coal. as robert hefner says in his book GET, the term "fossil fuels" has the effect of mixing the problems (oil, coal) with the solution (natural gas). as far as the talk about conversion kits and CNG refueling coming to nothing, i don't believe it. although it is apparent to some of us now, it will become apparent to everyone within the next few years the US simply has no alternative but to switch over to US produced natural gas transportation. we can either be smart and proactive and do it before the crisis, or we can be typically american, forget about it, and then try to recover once the crisis hits. the later will have very broad economic and social distortions of a kind americans are naive to think can't happen here. history tells us it can, and it will, if we aren't smart.

leapingcat: thanks for your post. i get *many* emails from americans living in countries that *export* oil to the US (canada, mexico, brazil, even iran) where NGVs and refueling stations are readily available. how sad that GM and F sell NGV's in canada and not in the US while at the same time we have to send our dollars there for oil sands! ridiculous. the only way i can get an NGV legally in my state is over ebay or some such. americans have just been fooled by the oil companies and media to think NGVs are dangerous or dont work or dont have enough power yada yada. but things are beginning to change..just not fast enough for me.

HardLove: you say electrolysis uses too much water, have you checked out the water usage in canadian oil sands production? wrt infrastructure, i disagree - much of the infrastructure for natural gas works fine with hydrogen. why are you talking about trucks transporting natural gas? we have 2.2 million miles of pipelines alread in place. with respect to fleets, that is not a new transition. fleets in the US have been operating on natural gas for decades. boone just wants more of it. my point is that if we want to significantly reduce the 12-23 million barrels of oil and distilates we import every day, we have to get to the consumer's garage. sure nat gas prices would rise, but the money would STAY IN THE COUNTRY. after $145/barrel oil, do you not think oil too will rise? you say your primary concern is the $700 million leaving our country for foreign oil, yet you seem to be grasping at straws to find weakenesses in the NGV story. why dont you instead acknowledge the logical case for NGVs and just support me on it? :)

Wizard: i totally agree that if the goal of reducing foreign oil imports by 5 millions barrels a day would make everything crystal clear. there is no electric vehicle solution that could do this without being fueled by coal (bad idea). there is no way biofuels or bio-diesel or anything like that could do it. pickens' plan won't do it. the only way we can reduce foreign oil imports by 5 million barrels a day is a massive switch to natural gas vehicles, which means building out the natural gas refueling infrastructure and getting F, GM, TM, and HM to understand that the US is open to their natural gas designs which they sell in most other industrialized country except the country that needs it most: U.S.A.!

Mar 09 06:44 PM

[tireman63:]

Palm Desert, California has done more work with alternative fuels for its fleet than any other community in the US. They have received tens of millions of dollars in grants from the Feds, State of California, and interested industry participants. I visited the garage facility last year and talked with personnel very familiar with all aspects of alternative fuels. Here are the results: 1. Hydrogen made from electrolysis of water, even with solar energy, is much too costly. Hydrogen fuel cells are NOT ready for prime time--maybe in ten years. LNG vehicles are proven, trouble free, and economical. CNG busses and cars work very well--I watched a bus fill up in less than six minutes. You can make any piston engine run on hydrogen. They get their hydrogen from cracking natural gas (methane). Of course, this is the same process that oil refineries use to make motor fuel all over the world. The hydrogen buses use a piston engine driving a generator driving an electric motor for a powertrain. If Stan Ovshinky gets his hydride tank fueling system right, you won't need 5-10 thousand psi tanks, lines, and compressors. I hate ethanol, and am rooting for new battery technology (not lithium) for the salvation of the true EV automobile.

Mar 09 11:22 PM

[User 343860:]

One quick question: Based on today's prices, what is the cost per mile of ngv's? If this national conversion were to happen what would be the end result of NG prices and the end result in cost/mile?
Ecology is great but the REAL "green economy" is cash.
If It Ain't cheaper it ain't gonna happen.

Mar 10 10:47 AM

[Michael Fit...:]

User343860: on a gasoline equivalent basis, my understanding is that natural gas at present prices range from slightly cheaper than gasoline to substantially cheaper (like in Utah). that includes the cost of electricity to run the Phill. certainly if the US significantly moved to NGVs demand would go up, prices would go up, and exploration and supply would go up.

however, the important point in this discussion is the true cost of gasoline, which americans don't pay. consider:

- the economic costs of sending $700 billion a year overseas for our oil
- the cost of maintaining a military to fight oil wars and to secure oil deliveries on the high seas
- the cost of government subsidies to oil companies
- the environmental costs
- the health care cost of CO2 and particulate emissions

all of these costs are not included in what the consumer pays for gasoline. same story with coal. if the US consumer payed the true costs of oil and coal, natural gas would be far and away cheaper. since the government won't acknowledge and fix the legislation and policies responsible for this trifecta of problems (economic, environmental, and national security), it is up to americans themselves to take action. otherwise, when the next peak oil spike comes, and it will, imagine the "cost" of owning a gasoline powered vehicle in which either the cost of the gasoline is so high you cannot afford it (since you are out of a job because of the economic affect of peak oil shut down your business, as is happening now...), or, you simply cannot get gasoline at all. at the point, i believe you would find a natural gas car in your garage connected to a Phill to be a life saver.

Mar 10 11:59 AM

[Old Wizard:]

Fitz, You are asking everyone to do a real cost analysis that accurately computes cost using all factors. What a novel idea! The one thing I would add is that a large contributer to our current economic problem is the an increasingly negative current account balance since 1991. In practical terms the only way we balance the negative cash flow is by borrowing from the providers of our energy and China. In order to keep the chinese lending us money, we buy everything from toys to furniture to solar panels from them. Even if natural gas fuel would be more expensive by 20% now and it was produced in the USA, we need to prceed with a sense of urgency, to break the cycle. Encouraging consumption, which in turn causes us to buy more from China and import more energy, so that we can borrow more money from China and other dangerous folks is myopic at best and disasterous at worst for the future of our country.

Mar 10 04:34 PM

[gottgreen:]

I think I am the only one to chime in here to say that I have a converted CNG vehicle. It is an after-market conversion and not EPA approved--it costs some money but it is a statement that my husband and I wanted to make. Luckily, we live in the Southern California area where there are plenty of fueling stations so that makes it easier (until we decide if we will spring for the home filling station) CNG now costs about $1.85 here as opposed to $2.25...however, when gas was up to $4+ per gallon...CNG was only slightly over $2. Technically our vehicle is a hybrid gas/cng...that is the only way it is "legal" to do a conversion that is not approved. Otherwise you start messing with the catalytic converter and smog test issues and they just don't know what to do about it...if our vehicle needs a smog test...it can be done as normal because everything there to run on regular gas is still there. By the way, CNG is safe...that seems to be a huge issue for everyone. The tank must be inspected every three years and it is hugely tested to begin with...NG rises (as was noted before) unlike propane or gasoline so if there is a puncture it would go straight up like a tiny torch, not spread on the ground and blow up the vehicle. Anyway, we are presently writing a report about the conversion with tons of photos --we paid a company to install it-and hope to have that up on our website in about a week if anyone is interested. coachellavalleygreen.c...

Mar 10 05:17 PM

[drgoodwrench:]

Too bad you don't own an old Diesel Truck and wanted it converted to CNG, you could have had it done tomorrow and be completely legal in TN, which has no "Smog" check for such a vehicle.
An American Company,Omnitek (OMTK:OtcQX) based in California, the home of CARB, is the WORLD LEADER in diesel to natural gas engine conversion kit production and installation.
Recently they have formed an alliance with CARB to reduce the pollution from off-road diesel powered engines in the San Joaquin Basin, a federally designated "non-attainment area" for air cleanliness standards, which costs the State of California millions in lost federal funding.
Sempra Energy, the largest supplier of Natural Gas to California is also pitching in to make this work.
So while the Big 3, Big Government, and Big Oil may be working against bringing natural gas as an engine fuel to fruition, other key players ARE moving forward.

Mar 10 07:55 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

gottgreen: wonderful post! thank you so much. i love hearing "hands-on" success stories. if i still lived in southern cali i too would be driving a NGV. can't wait to check out your website.

drgoodwrench: wow, another great post from california! thanks, and keep spreading the word. as you said, it's up to regular americans to get the infrastructure in place because the government and big oil have been, and continue to be, putting up all kinds of roadblocks. eventually when enough of the success stories come to light, there will be a ground swell of support and the government must cave and proactively support NGVs and the refueling infrastructure. obama missed a huge opportunity with the stimulus plan, but perhaps he learned a lesson and next time he'll do better.

Mar 11 03:18 PM

[Old Wizard:]

Fitz, How about today's announcement by AT&T? They are going to use some620+ million of their money to convert their vehicle fleet to natural gas. Imagine what the federal and state governments could do by using just 25b to converting all their vehicles in the next 5 years and buying them from GM, Ford and Chrysler. Maybe Obama will do better next time if he has the time and money for next time,but where is the sense of urgency. The AT&T announcement just goes to prove that Washington has neither the competance,vision nor political will to address our most pressing problems in a meaningful,efficient or timely way. AT&T has shown the way to a real stimulus plan.

Mar 11 06:03 PM

[Roswell vet...:]

I have witnessed the results of a gasoline leak from a gasoline engine which destroyed a sewage pump station because there was a nearby source of ignition. Fortunately there were no casualties other than a few individuals with singed hair. I was one of those individuals with singed hair. Perhaps a problem of more consequence is the weight size and positioning of the CNG fuel tank. What do you know about the location and size of the Civic GX fuel tank?


On Mar 08 01:31 PM Augustus wrote:

> Natural Gas Vehicles have a few problems that gasoline fueled ones
> do not hae. Have you thought about the consequences of a very small
> NG leak. You can very easily have a pretty dramatic event occur without
> any warning. However, a leak of gasoline is not going to cause the
> same problem.

Mar 21 02:49 PM

[bfo:]

The middle east and other oil countries depend on our oil volume and dollars. We've made them rich! We've exported our jobs to foreign countries and lowered the QUALITY of products we purchase as well as the number of jobs. We EMPLOY and provide FREE SUPPORT to ILLEGAL aliens (provided by our tax paying citizens) leaving many citizens out of work and/or with very little and 'hard to obtain' support.

We SHOULD be investigating what benefits the US, corporations, and it's politicians are receiving, and from whom, in exchange for not becoming more productive and self-sufficient.

May 02 11:29 AM

[Chickenpookie:]

How about Fiat motor company? You know, the company that is "buying" Chrysler. Don't they have a natural gas automobile technology? The answer is YES!

BTW, I don't see why the hydrogen couldn't be extracted from NG by catalytic processes, it might be easier to accomplish than many other production methods.

Or, perhaps the promise of cold fusion will become the answer? That would be bullish for palladium, by the way.

May 02 09:04 PM