Open Letter to Boone Pickens

Dear Boone,

I was very excited when you brought high-profile support for natural gas transportation and wind energy. I enthusiastically joined your “army” and still participate regularly on the PickensPlan website. We certainly could use more wealthy Americans helping to solve our foreign oil addiction crisis by patriotically supporting such critical energy initiatives. Buffett, Sergey & Larry, and Gates - are you listening?

Overall, Boone, you’ve done a great job! I heartily applaud your efforts. However, each of us can always improve, right? Therefore, I am writing you today in order to offer some constructive criticism.

You often say that natural gas transportation is critical in solving the economic and national security challenges facing the United States due to its 65% addiction to foreign oil. I totally agree with you (I’d also add environmental challenges to the list). That being the case, let me suggest that you begin by supporting political candidates that agree with your viewpoint. After all, as you yourself say, energy independence is such a critical matter it needs governmental support and encouragement. So why vote to elect politicians who disagree with your vision and oppose the necessary legislation? We need politicians who will craft legislation that removes the subsidies enjoyed by the oil and coal industries in order to level the playing field and allow greater adoption of natural gas for transportation.

Secondly, if you really want to reduce foreign oil imports and greenhouse gas emissions, you should support natural gas transportation for everyday cars and trucks. Why limit the effort to fleets and large trucks? There is a 2.2 million mile natural gas pipeline grid in America connected to 63,000,000 homes where 130,000,000 vehicles park every night. Doesn’t it make sense to utilize this tremendous and existing American asset to reduce foreign oil imports, reduce CO2 emissions and create millions of American jobs at the same time? What better way to prepare all Americans for the next peak-oil price spike (which will probably make 2008’s $145/barrel oil look like child’s play) than to enable them to refuel their cars and trucks at home with US produced natural gas?

My third piece of advice: support natural gas electrical generation. You keep saying you want to build wind farms so it will “free up natural gas for transportation”. But the US has an abundant supply of natural gas! So I suggest you begin supporting replacing dirty coal fired plants with natural gas generators. Although it is a bit too late, a bold statement would be to start with the Kingston Fossil Plant in TN where on Dec. 22, 2008 1.7 million cubic yards of toxic coal ash and sludge was spilled. Much of it ran into the Emory River, which feeds the Clinch River, which runs into the Tennessee River…but I am getting off topic here - back to NGVs.

In order to use existing home natural gas connections to refuel a vehicle in the garage, the consumer requires a home refueling device. The problem here is the only company to make such a device (the “Phill” by the Canadian firm Fuelmaker), does not service many states. Most people simply cannot buy a Phill no matter what the cost. That said, even if they are lucky enough to be in a state where the Phill is sold and serviced, it would cost around $4,000 uninstalled (!).

The engineer in me said, hey, I bet I could design a similar device, order 500,000 units from China (after all, we can’t seem to make anything in the US any more), sell them for $1,250 and still make a profit. Before starting the detailed design work, I thought it wise to research any patent protection the Phill might have in place. The first thing I learned in the patent search was that Fuelmaker is still owned by American Honda Motor Company (HMC). Apparently, last year’s attempted purchase of Fuelmaker by your firm, Clean Energy Fuels (CLNE), fell through.

There is a rumor in the NGV world that Honda is very close to finalizing a deal to sell Fuelmaker but the buyer is not confirmed. With 18 US patents and applications and 75 international patents and applications, Fuelmaker looks well protected by critical IP. The barriers to market participation by competitors are therefore quite formidable. Still, it is amazing there can be so many patents protecting a process (compressing natural gas) that man has been doing for nearly 100 years.

In summary - I can’t design my own refueling device without potentially getting sued, I can’t buy a Phill in my state, and even if I could buy a Phill it would cost me over $4k, probably closer to $5k installed. This is a very sad state of affairs if the goal here is to transition Americans off of foreign oil and onto US produced natural gas. Would you not agree?

In light of these realities Boone, my advice to you is: buy Fuelmaker, lower the price of the Phill, and expand its availability to all 50 states. Home refueling of NGVs is imperative to solving the chicken-n-egg problem of NGV/refueling. Alternatively, after purchasing the Fuelmaker, you could give me a written patent waiver absolving me of any competitive liability. Competition is what is needed here to make the device affordable for all Americans! After all, it’s critically important and patriotic that we get Americans using natural gas transportation, right?

The Phill is only one of two formidable availability issues in my state. I can’t even buy an NGV here! Of course there is only one NGV for sale anywhere in the US today, the Honda Civic GX, but only if you live in California or New York. So, how come I don’t hear you mentioning this fundamental barrier to widespread natural gas transportation? Please use your bully pulpit to mention this obvious barrier to natural gas transportation: most Americans simply cannot find an NGV to buy! What a sad commentary it is that Americans cannot buy an NGV at the same time that both Ford (F) and GM sell NGVs in Canada - a country that exports tar sands oil to the US! What a country… At the same time, conversion kits are very expensive and hampered by the EPA as well as federal and state regulations and certification issues.

In conclusion, in order to reduce foreign oil imports, CO2 emissions, and to enable the transition to natural gas transportation and NGVs, you can and should:

1. vote for politicians that support natural gas transportation
2. support natural gas for fleet AND non-fleet cars and trucks
3. buy Fuelmaker, reduce the price of the Phill, and expand availability nationwide
4. publicly chastise the automakers for not making NGVs available nationwide

It’s ironic the simple changes you yourself could make in order to better promote the policies you say are so critical to solving US economic, environmental, and national security problems. All that said, keep up the good work Boone!

Best regards,

Mike Fitzsimmons

Ps. Boone, once CLNE purchases Fuelmaker is there any chance you could send me a Phill for my birthday?

Pss. Then all I’ll have to do is find a Canadian with an NGV on eBay (EBAY)…

Psss: You-tube video of the Phill refueling a Honda Civic GX:

Disclosures: the author does not own Clean Energy Fuels or Honda Motor Corp, but he would invest in both companies if the Phill and the Honda Civic GX were available nationwide. He would also load up on Toyota Motor (TM) stock if Toyota would manufacture their electric/natural gas hybrid concept vehicle in volume for sale in the US.

Comments

[bluesmoke:]

Michael, good letter. You and I are in 100% agreement. And NG doesn't get the respect it deserves. I'm assuming you sent it?

Mar 17 10:37 AM

[belseware:]

GET REAL. "We need politicians who will craft legislation that removes the subsidies enjoyed by the oil and coal industries in order to level the playing field"

FUEL Subsidy
SOURCE per MWh
Oil (?)
Coal $0.44
Natural Gas $0.25
Nuclear $1.59
Biomass $0.89
Geothermal $0.92
Hydro $0.67
Landfill Gas $1.37
SOLAR >>>$24.34<...
WIND >>>$23.37<...
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

OK, I agree promoting NGVs beats heck out of stuffing wind and solar down our throats.

Mar 17 11:07 AM

[AlexS:]

So instead of getting your fuel from the Middle East (and the U.S.) and your Phill from Canada, you propose to get your fuel from Canada (and the U.S) and your Phill from China. I'm not sure I see the advantage. As you say, though, the EPA is certainly an impediment to getting all this done, including I suspect even allowing NGV from being imported into the U.S. And I'm not sure that a Phill per household is a very good investment. A couple thousand per household vs an installation cost of zero for a gasoline or diesel fueled vehicle. Maybe it would be better to convert that natural gas to gasoline and diesel and leave the infrastructure alone.

Mar 17 11:15 AM

[User 283977:]

The overarching goal for our countries people is energy independence from foreign oil. Its hard to believe that most of our power plants are not natural gas powered. NEW Natural gas powered vehicles should be designed and manufactured by American manufacturers, and we should have a mandated program that requires all new vehicles sold in the US (Domestic and Foreign) to run on natural gas in 10 to 15 years. This is a goal for the good of our society, and in fact, all the people on our planet. This is a goal who's execution is in our societies interests, and therefore the implementation of this goal is the responsibility of government by the people.

The fact that Pickens or anyone else owning natural gas companies will profit is absolutely irrelevant. Who do you think profits from foreign oil dependence? The selection of natural gas makes scientific/ economic/ national security / and ecological sense. Read "The GET: Grand Energy Transition" by Robert Hefner III.

Right on Fitz!!

Mar 17 11:21 AM

[longoil:]

Belseware,

Don't forget these other subsides as well.

Clean Coal ==> $29.81 /MWh
Ethanol and biofuels ==> $5.72 /MBTU

Mar 17 11:24 AM

[AlexS:]

Why do we need to be energy independent? We haven't done it so far. And we haven't declared that we need to be anything else independent. We haven't decided, for instance, to be food independent. Why energy? And besides, with Congress and Interior stomping on oil and gas drilling, and the enviros still shouting "Three Mile Island" whenever anyone says nuclear, and bad mouthing coal to the bank, we have about as much chance of being independent in energy as ..... as ..... well, you get the point. Heck, we're not even independent on defense material.

Mar 17 11:49 AM

[Respirate:]

Hi AlexS --

I won't even try to launch into a diatribe on the critical importance of energy independence. It's as basic as weighing the importance of energy to our economy, national security, and (comparatively luxurious) way of life.

Conversely, energy Dependence weakens our nation in every way.

Energy independence is an incredibly important factor guiding our foreign policy. Lack of energy independence puts the US and our closest allies in a subservient position and limits our freedom of political movement with major oil producing nations much as the case with debt and China. Energy dependence cripples our relations with middle eastern nations and the Sov ... , I mean Russia. (Cold war's over, right? Ha ha haha ... hahaha ...)

As providence would have it, much of our cash outflow goes to unfriendly, perhaps dangerous nations and organizations. How much terrorism against the US and our allies have we funded ourselves, directly and indirectly? You're a smart guy so I'll spare the lecture.

Failure to achieve energy dependence is the greatest single blunder of the US in at least the last 50 years.

Regards,
R

Mar 17 12:29 PM

[AlexS:]

R, regardless, if we had politicians in charge who actually cared about energy independence, we would pushing nuclear, offshore U.S. drilling, extending tax credits and deductions for domestic exploration. Instead we have Ken Salazar shutting down shale development, Congress pushing higher taxes on Gulf of Mexico exploration, sitting on the fence with nuclear energy, and constantly threatening to put our domestic coal industry out of business. In fact, if I had to guess, I would say that DECREASING energy independence is a goal of this Congress and this administration. Maybe it has to do with all that Mid East money flowing into the Clinton Foundation.

Mar 17 01:57 PM

[longoil:]

Alexs,

Clinton's buddy Al Gore is all for alternative energy. And there is a good reason behind it, he stands to profit greatly from it.

Check out the following article:
"Al Gore Purchases Carbon Credits From A Company He Himself Owns"

www.digitaljournal.com...

Mar 17 02:06 PM

[AlexS:]

Thanks, longoil. I'd heard that before. Actually the variation I've heard has the company giving credits to its officers and employees, so the idea that Gore "purchases" anything never enters into it.

Mar 17 02:16 PM

[User 378048:]

I have a something what if the goverment with only a peice of the stimuis pk has the the big three make ngv cars and let people trade their gas cars in for a new ngv? the car they trade must be worth atlest 8000$ It would help our car industry and our enviorment and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. also it would create maybe a million jobs what do you think?

Mar 17 03:07 PM

[Wise Gas:]

Just a couple of corrections - I often hear you say that you can only buy a Honda Civic GX in New York or California, but that's not true. In fact, you can buy them in my own state of Florida easily. And, while it's true that the Phill runs around $4k - there is a $2k tax credit for purchasing it which helps tremendously. I'm not sure what state you are in, but I can tell you that Florida's CNG program is growing...we'll be opening several CNG stations across the state this year and the first is already in planning and permitting.

Mar 17 04:46 PM

[wind4me:]

just BUILD some Wind Farms vs talking about it!!! Plain and simple, do more , TALK LESS!

Mar 17 06:52 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

oops - surprise, they printed my boone letter after all! sorry i am late..and happy st. patrick's day! i'll dive in now:

bluesmoke: thanks and, no, i didn't...i suppose i could send it to CLNE headquarters. i'd be vain to think he'd actually read it on SA. i have posted similar thoughts on pickensplan.com and, of course, never heard a word.

belseware: please take another shot at comparing oil and coal subsidies (and legislative red tape and barriers to entry) with that of natural gas (which is the comparison i alluded to in the article). then reread the statement you quoted and reply again. be sure you add the *external* cost of oil subsidies (i.e. military, low royalties, direct subsidies etc. etc.). for coal, please add the environmental damage (not just CO2, but mercury in the ground water, the toxic waste now in the entire tennessee valley, etc. etc.) and health care costs. let me know what you come up with. thanks.

AlexS: no, incorrect statement! what i WANT is phill's, NGV's and natural gas *from the US* (haven't you been reading my articles??). but you know what? i cannot get them where i live because the government makes it soooo friggin hard and none are available here! so, as we head into peak oil will i take a phill from china if i can't get one from Fuelmaker or a US company? you're damn straight! will i buy a ford or GM nat gas vehicle on ebay from someone in canada because ford and GM won't sell their NGV's in the US? you're damn straight! and next time gasoline is at $4.50/gallon, and it is coming (and even higher) i'll be sittin pretty. of course the country probably can't withstand another peak oil price spike, will collapse, and we'll all go down the tubes together because, unfortunately, the majority of folks apparently think like you. convert natural gas to gasoline???!! surely you jest! wow.

User283977: YES!! thank you. you keep me going...AlexS is just wearing me out.

longoil: exactly...ethanol mandates..jeez, just another bush legacy screw-up to keep us addicted to oil (oh-ohh, did i just get political?). that said, where the hell is obama's robust nat gas transportation policies? answer: *nowhere* to be found. what a huge dissapointment.

AlexS: you seriously do not see the problem with importing 65% of our oil, the corresponding trade deficit that is sucking the life blood of capital out of the country, funding oil wars, funding both sides of the "war on terror"? are you serious man?? come on...

respirate: exactly...i could have written 10 pages to AlexS, but since he asked the question to begin with, there is no chance he'd listen to me, so i bailed on it. good post.

AlexS: no, we'd have politicians pushing NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTION. it is the *only* US produced fuel able to be scaled up to significantly reduce foreign oil imports over the next decade. you have been reading my articles, right? i ask that question seriously because some of your comments seem like you really don't read them...

longoil: if al gore really cared about reducing CO2 levels on planet earth, he'd be a huge supporter of natural gas transportation. the fact that he doesn't, makes me wonder .... could it be that he is just another cog in the machine to keep us addicted to oil and gasoline? it's a BIG machine....and sticking with solar and wind simply has no chance of signficantly reducing CO2 levels within the next decade. only natural gas can be scaled up to do so. but we need phills and we need NGVs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

User378048: well, i wrote earlier that the gov should have rquired ford and GM sell the NGV's the make and sell in canada in the US as a condition on getting US taxpayer bailout money. and you know what? not ONE congressman even muttered the words "natural gas vehicles" in all of the testimony. that just goes to show you about the conspiracy against natural gas transportation that exists in the halls of our government. it's disgusting.

Wise Gas: ok, good point, and i am busted. here's what happened: i called honda and asked them why i couldn't buy the GX in my state. i was told on the phone that individuals could only buy the GX in california and new york (the honda rep told me that). later, i found out that many states can buy the GX if you have a *fleet*. now, IF you are an individual, and you can buy a GX and florida, please send me an email with the name of the dealer and i will be indebted to you. i am aware of the tax rebates, but like i have written before they do me absolutely no good because Fuelmaker does not sell (nor service) the Phill in most states, including mine. glad to hear CNG in florida is gaining traction...if you have a NGV vehicle count, i'd love to see it. unless things have changes, FL numbers were very low considering the state's population. maybe things have changed since the numbers i last saw. hope so. thanks for the post and info.

wind4me: love wind energy, but there is simply no way wind alone is going to *significantly* reduce foreign oil imports and therefore CO2 emissions over the next decade. the only thing that can do it in the US is natural gas transportation. and i'll debate anyone, anywhere, any time on this - as long as my transportation, food, and lodging is paid for by the challenger :)

Mar 18 12:43 AM

[scottld:]

I agree 90%. The key to this entire plan is that we produce the energy source ourselves. Being dependent on China and Canada for the machines we use is just as bad as being dependent on foreign oil. What do you think would happen if they stopped selling us the machines and we didn't have the infrastructure to mass produce them ourselves. Ultimately you'd be exchanging one dependency for another. And furthermore, we need the jobs that come along with the mass production of these machines to put our people back to work.

Mar 18 09:13 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

Mr Pickens' ideas about wind energy are strictly off the wall. Accordingly, I think that his contributions to the energy independence debate should be minimized.

Mar 18 09:43 AM

[dolfen:]

The fact that alternative energy technology exists that will solve all our energy problems cleanly and affordably continues to elude all your conversations. These technologies are here now but receive mostly ridicule and little or no support from the "knowledgeable" public and politicians in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry and its immensely successful spinmeisters. The fact is that "clean" natural gas still adds to atmospheric greenhouse loading which further exacerbates the ever increasing problem of global climate change and warming. Please take some time to explore these alternate technologies and then ask why is it that we continue down this path of self destruction by polluting the very biosphere that supports us and our children. Where is the political will to make the necessary changes that will allow the implementation of technologies that already exist that will solve all these perplexing problems of clean energy production and clean transportation? Where is the outcry that will overcome old thinking that just won't and can't solve the problem? Must every child be on an inhaler before we wake up? Wake up...

Mar 18 10:40 AM

[La Marque:]

Pickens spent his own money on the plan, it is only part of an energy solution. Does anybody see the politicians jumping on board?

Everything that I have read on CNGVs is that they are difficult to get, expensive and certification of a conversion is a nightmare. Does anybody see the politicians jumping on board?

Michael Fitzsimmons has many good points, but the politicians in the local statehouses and the US Congress is going to have to take the lead. Does anybody see the politicians jumping on board?

Mar 18 10:43 AM

[Wise Gas:]

I sat through the Exxon-Mobil 2009 Energy Outlook recently and listened to their speaker tell a room full of people that Energy Independence was a "distraction" and that we needed to focus on carbon-recapture programs. They also explained they were opening no new refineries in the US because all the demand is now in China.

It was hard to listen to...

Mar 18 10:53 AM

[BOBBY CURTO:]

Mike,
I believe everything you said is 100% correct.
Permit me to add my 3 cents.
I sent an email to Boone a long time ago, told him everything you said, plus.
I did not even get an Auto Response.

Phill is not the problem.
Even if he gave them away free, what are you going to plug it into ?
Convert your car ? That costs a lot, I forget how much.
For a Company to get a permit to convert your car, it cost, I forget 100K, 200K ?
BUT the permit is only good for ONE Model.
If you wanted to cover every car.....what would it cost
100 mil, 200mil ?

Also if you wanted to install your free Phill, in an indivdual Home, I guess you would have to get permission from your local Dog Catcher.

I would not even dream of asking my Condo if I could install a Phill, next to my Parking Space.
They would probably evict me for asking.

I would welcome anyone to correct any mistakes I made.

Thank you,
Bobby Curto
Ft. Lauderdale

Mar 18 11:17 AM

[longoil:]

La Marque,

Fitzman has been on a relentless crusade ever since I have been following his articles and has sent his comprehensive energy plan (which includes NGVs) to countless politicians (including the Obama team) with no responses or solicitations requesting campaign donations in return. Michael can expand further on this .

It is a very futile battle, even with determined politicians leading the charge in Washington. Roscoe Bartlett, Congressman from Maryland, is aware of Peak Oil. He gave a speech in April of 2005 entitled "Our Dependence on Foreign Oil." The speech was also an open letter to the president signed by many prominent people including 12 retired generals and admirals, five Secretaries of Defense, and several retired Senators and Representatives. In his speech he ruefully admits that had he given his speech a few years earlier, he would have been consigned to the same loony bin reserved for wackos.

For more information on Bartlett bartlett.house.gov/

Mar 18 11:22 AM

[BOBBY CURTO:]

Mike,
I forgot to add:

Ps is P.S.
Pss is P.P.S.
Psss is P.P.P.S.

Thanks,
Bobby Curto

Mar 18 11:31 AM

[yank:]

Interesting in that now that we have had a global "cooling" since 1998 "global warming" has been replaced with the term "climate change". Al Gore at a recent California lecture was challenged by a scientist skeptical of the "climate change" fiasco. Sadly, Al declined to converse with the dubious scientist. Of course going unchallenged on a daily basis is the list of thousands of accomplished scientists from all over the world who very clearly have stated that "climate change" like evolution is an UNPROVEN THEORY and not fact. Spending billions of dollars that we don't have on solving an unproven problem sounds like the very definition of "insanity" to me.


On Mar 18 10:40 AM dolfen wrote:

> The fact that alternative energy technology exists that will solve
> all our energy problems cleanly and affordably continues to elude
> all your conversations. These technologies are here now but receive
> mostly ridicule and little or no support from the "knowledgeable"
> public and politicians in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry
> and its immensely successful spinmeisters. The fact is that "clean"
> natural gas still adds to atmospheric greenhouse loading which further
> exacerbates the ever increasing problem of global climate change
> and warming. Please take some time to explore these alternate technologies
> and then ask why is it that we continue down this path of self destruction
> by polluting the very biosphere that supports us and our children.
> Where is the political will to make the necessary changes that will
> allow the implementation of technologies that already exist that
> will solve all these perplexing problems of clean energy production
> and clean transportation? Where is the outcry that will overcome
> old thinking that just won't and can't solve the problem? Must every
> child be on an inhaler before we wake up? Wake up...

Mar 18 01:37 PM

[fran:]

give the Fitzman the relative reference and websites. post here. be a contributor. share!


On Mar 17 04:46 PM Wise Gas wrote:

> Just a couple of corrections - I often hear you say that you can
> only buy a Honda Civic GX in New York or California, but that's not
> true. In fact, you can buy them in my own state of Florida easily.
> And, while it's true that the Phill runs around $4k - there is a
> $2k tax credit for purchasing it which helps tremendously. I'm not
> sure what state you are in, but I can tell you that Florida's CNG
> program is growing...we'll be opening several CNG stations across
> the state this year and the first is already in planning and permitting.

Mar 18 01:51 PM

[AlexS:]

Of course I read your articles, Fitz. And for the record I am gung-ho all in favor of nuclear energy, nukes, breeders, etc., and I think that's really the only answer we have to long term energy. All else (solar, wind, biofuels, etc.) is at this point just a distraction. Oh, and I very much think we should drill for more oil and gas here. Unfortunately, the people in power do not think these things (not my doing, I assure you). So, actually, it really doesn't matter what I think. Like the rest of the masses, I get to draw a couple of lines on a ballot every 2 years. And post stuff on the web.

Mar 18 04:18 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

Dear god - please flood the earth again so we can replenish our oil, coal and gas natural (sic) resources. forgive us in how we mismanaged what you gave us the first time.

earthman.

Mar 18 04:57 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

PS - and help us to not continue to ignore your wind, and most importantly, your sun (sic and no sic).

Mar 18 05:00 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

all - thanks for reading and the comments. here we go for another jog around the block:

scottld: you betcha, and if you read between the lines of my articles you'll see that i obviously want a garage refueling appliance made in the USA. one reason the natural gas transportation story is so economically vital, relevant, and necessary is the number of good, industrial style jobs it would create by reindustrializing a country that has lost it (the US). thanks for posting.

banks: i support wind energy 100%. obviously, i have some problems with pickens' total energy policy.

dolfen: i disagree with your first comment. if you take the time to read my energy policy (see my website link), you'll see that i totally support renewable energy. the problem i have with "environmental purists", and i put you in that camp not to berate you, but because of your views: anything but 100% renewables is bad. the problem with this unpragmatic view is ** it is keeps us addicted to oil **. as i said before, the only US produced fuel that can **significantly** reduce foreign oil imports AND greenhouse gases over the next decade or two is natural gas. instead of supporting this fact, and taking the 30% decrease in CO2 emissions and 100% decrease in particulate emissions, you guys cling to 100% renewable and effectively are keeping us 100% addicted to OIL and therefore shooting yourselves in the foot!! i AM an environmentalist and its kills me to see this fully electric, fully hydrogen fuel cell, fully solar, fully wind mentality keep us from adopting a natural gas transportation policy that, over 10 years, could not only reinvigorate the US economy, but could reduce CO2 emissions by 30% (a HUGE number) and particulates by 100%. what we need is realism and pragmatism. otherwise, your policy keeps the oil status quo fully intact and fully polluting. bad bad bad. i would tell you my friend, please take a look at the energy required to replace the 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline we burn in the US every day. now, please explain how over the next 10 years we do that with solar and wind? then, get back to me and tell me who should "wake up" ok? you are supporting a policy that will INCREASE CO2 emissions and particulates of the next decade or two, not decrease them. please, be realistic. that's the problem i have with gore, who i swear must be working as a cog in the big oil machine. keeping natural gas out of the transportation sector is just killing us.

LaMarque: no i don't see any politician supporting nat gas (shows you how much money the oil and coal lobbies have to spread around: no one's palms go ungreased - including EPA officials who should be friggin jailed). that is the biggest dissapointment of all wrt obama, he is just like the rest: bought off by oil and coal. severely dissapointing. he also put shapiro in charge of the SEC which is a friggin joke. like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coup!

WiseGas: have you read hefner's book "The GET"? if you want to see a real turning point for mankind, you'll see it in the testimony before congress back in the 70's during the energy crisis. hefner gives details on how an Exxon VP convinced congress we were running out of natural gas. it is both fascinating and very disturbing. let their be no doubt of the power behind the EPA's regulations that have been constructed as a barrier to NGVs. ironic that Exxon runs the EPA, is it not? that is some serious power. in fact, Exxon is so powerful that i recently read that credit default insurance on Exxon was lower than it was for the US government treasuries(!). can you imagine?

BobbyCurto: well, thanks for the 100% comment but i got a personal email from WiseGas who told me of a fairly significant error in my articles recently: Honda GX's *are* available in states other than NY and CA. i was repeating what a honda rep told me (!) which had been my experience also. but, go here:

automobiles.honda.com/.../

type in your zip code, and it will tell you the nearest GX dealer. as WiseGas said, florida is one state, and i found a dealer 140 miles from my house in NC that has 6 GX's on the lot for sale to individuals. (always click on "fleet" because the webiste is still set up for fleets even though they will sell GX's to individuals. i can buy one in NC, 140 miles away. i still have the Phill problem though. i tell ya, if i worked for Honda Marketing, i could earn that company a billion dollars over the next 5 years!! American Honda Motor company is sitting on a gold mine! they own Fuelmaker, the patents on the Phill, and the Honda GX. they just need the Fitzman to market that action. and market it i could!

LaMarque: have you read my energy policy (see website) since i read hefner's book "The GET"? if not, please do as i made the most significant changes in a long time after reading that book. thanks for the support - i too am amazed by the lack of response by a multitude of politicians. obama has been the biggest dissapointment on nat gas transportation matters as i actulally though we had a good shot with him. unfortunately, on nat gas transpo, he's turned out to be just like all the rest.

bobbycurto: thanks, i have been doing that ps dance for years. old habits...

yank: well, if you think the world is cooling, then i can't spare the time. besides, the big case for natural gas transportation is ***ECONOMIC***, it just so happens that NGV's are 30% lower in CO2 emissions and 100% lower in particulates than are gasoline powered ICE.

fran: WiseGas did - i was sent a personal email that led me to a wealth of information and good contacts. see above post on honda website. i apologize for my error of repeating what a honda rep told me without looking into it further. and, thanks to WiseGas: I always have to type the second part of this user name over because, for some strange reason, i type something else first ;)

pvdl: not sure what you meant to say and the link is broken.

AlexS: so what you are saying is you have read them, but i have not convinced you. please tell me how nukes are going to power cars and trucks and reduce foreign oil imports? answer: over the next decade or two, they are not. only natural gas transportation can solve our energy crisis. please re-read my NGV related articles and refamiliarize yourself with the logic behind the previous statement. thx.

Mar 18 05:03 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

nakedjaybird: you really should just give in and read Hefner's book "The GET". if you did, you would understand that we have an *abundance* of natural gas, enough to power both transportation and electric generation for 100 years. this fact is critical to the energy debate. to not understand this is to not understand the policies we need to implement today. please, just get and read the book. then, let's talk after. thx.

Mar 18 05:07 PM

[ACEMAN:]

Y'all got to understand is that Mr T-Bone Slim Pickens is a fraud, a Bernie Madoff of energy and he's been clowning around with OPM for over forty years. Why y'all believe this charlatan is beyond me; but better, why don't y'all ask the good folks who lost their hard earned cashola in the lastest Boone Pickens Private Placement, just look it up and find out yourself. The other rhetorical absurdity is the term: "Energy independence." What a rediculous mantra to be shouting from your mountain top. Since the 1950's every president from Eisenhower tothe incumbent Mr Obama calls for this so-called independence. Y'all interpret energy independence as being free of oil and substituting something else in its stead, if I might assume. On the other hand, if you truly believe in the the actual fact of peak oil, then y'all should be shouting for increased drilling all over the world including the North and South pole and deep water in between because by the time that the Saudi oil fields dry up gas and alternative energies cannot replace the daily amounts consumed. And it will be greater in 50 years when the world's population will have doubled. T-Bone is a friendly guy, I've met him and had a nice talk some twenty years ago when we were putting together land deals. But he ain't no savior. In fact he is still motivated to sell you a wildcat rig on that plot of scrub land in your backyard. that's why he is called T-Bone Slim Pickens.

Mar 18 05:08 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

ACEMAN: i can only assume you haven't been persuaded that our 65% addiction to foreign oil is creating economic contraction, environmental degradation, and national security issues. and yes, i do believe in peak oil, and yes i do want to replace oil with something: NATURAL GAS.

Mar 18 05:32 PM

[Econ 101:]

Fitz,

I like your ideas but I have a problem with Pickens. I think all he really wants is a right of way to transport the water resources accross mid america. Selling water is his real goal.

Second why dont you look at Thorium as a nuclear fuel? I understand the pols dont really want nuclear as a source of energy, but Thorium adresses many of the current objections and even solves the waste problem!

Mar 18 06:21 PM

[AlexS:]

Agreed, Fitz, nuclear is longer term. Oil and gas in the shorter term. We have a lot of natural gas resources here in the U.S. We have a lot of untapped oil resources as well. So those three areas are what need to be developed. We can talk about using natural gas directly for transportation or liquifying it. A comparison of those two would need cost numbers, etc., which I don't have with me now, and which I don't see in so many discussions of those options. Sad to say, the people in power are not talking about nuclear, and they going to raise taxes and use their power to delay companies finding and developing oil and natural gas. I don't think you and I have an issue with the fact that we need more fossil fuel development. We did have an issue some time back about politics and political parties, but the election is over now (yes and I did read your later piece about your unsuccessful attempt to influence the Obama group). My side lost (they may not have been much better but maybe) and we are now getting very bad "energy policy". It's very frustrating.

Mar 18 06:43 PM

[Alamo:]

Fitz,
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that we should be doing everything we can as a nation to develop natural gas as our primary transportation fuel.

The dollar drain on our economy; the negative foreign policy entanglements; the national security issues all represent crises that must be addressed and utilizing natural gas is a doable and available solution to solving those problems.

No one believes that natural gas is the ultimate energy solution, but we need to have a functioning mobile nation while we transition to solar, wind, geothermal and other sources of energy. If we have as the experts have stated, something like 50 to a 100 years' worth of natural gas reserves, that should give us a sufficient time to perfect future energy technology. (And install the infrastructure that will be required to support the new technolgy) Added exploration is INCREASING American gas reserves--not so for crude oil.

Continuation of the "policy" (?) of importing 12 million barrels of crude every day is endangering and ultimately bankrupting America not to mention the disastrous foreign policy catastrophies we have witnessed in support of such idiocy.

Congress must be forced or threatened into action as their inaction since the Arab oil embargo of 1973 rather proves they won't do a damn thing without holding their collective feet to the fire.

Thanks for the excellent post.

Mar 18 06:56 PM

[AlexS:]

Fitz, GTL (Gas-to-Liquids) is a commercial technology. Shell is a leader. Sasol in South Africa takes coal to syn gas to gasoline. They take natural gas to diesel. As an competitor to direct natural gas fueling of vehicles, the GTL advantage is that you don't have to modify your vehicle and you don't have to duplicate service station infrastructure. All in all it might be a good solution for the U.S. But the oil companies will have to scramble just to deal with political pressures on oil drilling and political pressures on CO2 emissions.

Mar 18 07:04 PM

[mediapro:]

Thanks for posting these little-known subsidy facts. Since you left a "?" beside oil, please factor in the following when considering how generously we taxpayers currently subsidize the "free market" Captains of Industry:

Consider the following four giant effects on tax policy that those who only look at the income tax seem to conveniently forget:

1. Our effective cost per gallon of gas is ~$10.00 when one factors in the roughly $30 billion dollars in tax subsidies ANNUALLY provided to the oil and gas industry. This is the most egregious, downscale tax imaginable. Moreover, the oil and gas companies simply need to bid and secure future leases and INTENT to drill for the largess we reap upon them every year. This ponzi scheme against the American taxpayer is one of our dirtiest tax secrets.

The attempted movement away from an oil-based economy is long overdue. Eliminating these subsidies and replacing them with a carbon tax and offsets would be a dandy replacement for current outlays while returning the investment towards modernizing the electrical grid and smart energy technologies while contributing towards deficit reduction. Even an oil guy as puerile as T. Boone Pickens has attempted to wake up and smell the coffee.

2. Add to that tax subsidy the protectionist import rules on sugar, milk, etc. Removing sugar tariffs alone and replacing this supply with a much more efficient cane sugar ethanol source could end the corn producer/fertilizer manufacturers stranglehold on the taxpayer's neck. If one wants to make the small farmer argument, then set resdiency, gross receipts and size requirements on farm subsidies. This reward for planting inefficient crop supply and for NOT PLANTING crops drawfs even the oil subsidies.

3. For people who don't count the payroll, FICA, SUI, etc. automatic worker payroll contributions while conveniently ignoring the offshore accounts, shell businesses, and other manipulative uses of the tax code by those who can afford tax attorneys, don't be so quick to condemn the extra pittance through earned income tax credits, adjusted rate schedules for wage earners and such put into the pockets of those who actually contribute a day's labor for a fair wage vs. the incredible sums paid to those who move money through the system. Look where that system of rewards has put us.

4. Finally, would someone please explain to me why there is a ~$100 K cap on wage contributions to Social Security?


On Mar 17 11:07 AM belseware wrote:

> GET REAL. "We need politicians who will craft legislation that removes
> the subsidies enjoyed by the oil and coal industries in order to
> level the playing field"
>
> FUEL Subsidy
> SOURCE per MWh
> Oil (?)
> Coal $0.44
> Natural Gas $0.25
> Nuclear $1.59
> Biomass $0.89
> Geothermal $0.92
> Hydro $0.67
> Landfill Gas $1.37
> SOLAR >>>$24.34<...
> WIND >>>$23.37<...
> Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
>
> OK, I agree promoting NGVs beats heck out of stuffing wind and solar
> down our throats.
>

Mar 18 09:08 PM

[mediapro:]

Here's the odd thing about your observations. GM currently successfully markets a NGV in Canada, but refuses to market that same vehicle here. My guess is that it's because there is no fueling infrastructure. Ask yourself why Canada can develop a readily available fueling station infrastructure in a geography that has many more roadway gaps and less population.


On Mar 17 11:15 AM AlexS wrote:

> So instead of getting your fuel from the Middle East (and the U.S.)
> and your Phill from Canada, you propose to get your fuel from Canada
> (and the U.S) and your Phill from China. I'm not sure I see the
> advantage. As you say, though, the EPA is certainly an impediment
> to getting all this done, including I suspect even allowing NGV from
> being imported into the U.S. And I'm not sure that a Phill per household
> is a very good investment. A couple thousand per household vs an
> installation cost of zero for a gasoline or diesel fueled vehicle.
> Maybe it would be better to convert that natural gas to gasoline
> and diesel and leave the infrastructure alone.

Mar 18 09:12 PM

[Mike125:]

Possible conflict of interest: I am an engineer with Honda.

We love the GX, we love the Phil, but they really are only worth marketing aggressivly in New York and California. We basically are selling the car for what it costs to manufacture, as a point of pride as much as anything else.

It was the same way with the orginal Insight, we sold it at a loss so that every list of fuel efficiency had the name Honda at the top.

For me fossil fuels are capital, and you don't spend more capital than necessary for day to day needs. You invest the capital in order to get a return that is used to meet daily needs. Solar thermal is probable one of the best examples, the Chinese are building water and space heaters as fast as possible. I would have to order one from New York and have it shipped 1000miles, or build my own.

Widespread use of CNG would likley cause coal gasification to become profitable, which might someday lead to biomass gasification etc.

Here is a site that tracks CNG gas stations.

find.mapmuse.com/inter...

Mike

Mar 18 09:22 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

Econ101: well, i obviously have a problem with pickens too (thus the tongue in cheek article). i am not as sure that water is pickens' true angle on natural gas/wind although there is no doubt he has picked up alot of water acreage in texas. i really believe he sees foreign oil as a big big problem, so i gave him some advice he needs to follow if he really wants to do something about it. but to your comment, even if the feds did declare eminent domain for electric power lines, does it follow that it would extend for water aqueducts? good question. that said, if dallas and austin went dry (and the current drought IS playin havoc with the water table around austin right now), who knows? maybe u are correct - someone else mentioned that same theory to me last year. as far as thorium goes, i must admit to be uneducated on that subject. i'll google it later if i get the time and dont forget. thx.

AlexS: ok, you are beginning to see the light. as far as LNG goes, it is definitely more expensive to liquify nat gas and what is the need to do so? going with LNG would negate the biggest advantage to natural gas transportation and one of americas best assets: the existing 2.2 million mile natural gas grid that connects 63,000,000 homes and 130,000,000 cars and trucks. that is the key. which is why i believe the Phill is the key. my energy policy is all for oil drilling and exploration, however, it is a huge mistake to think we can drill our way out of a 65% foreign oil addiction, and again, what is the need? we have a cheaper, cleaner, abundant fuel which is technically proven to power cars, trucks, and heavy duty vehicles. the problem is political, legislative, and the EPA is the biggest opponent. it's ironic considering if the EPA did its job, it should be natural gas transportation's biggest supporter! we'll be forced to go to natural gas sooner or later, the question is will we do it sooner, or, wait for the next peak oil spike crisis and then try to do it all after the economy is in shambles (again)? NOW is the time. wrt your last comment, we definitely share in the lack of an energy policy by our "leaders".

Alamo: perfect! i couldn't have said it better myself. the only thing i would note is congress was not completely inactive. unfortunately, the legislation they have put in place has neutralized America's greatest energy advantage: abundant natural gas resources and an existing 2.2 million mile natural gas pipeline grid. so, the action they did take has been exactly opposite of that which is needed.

AlexS: yes, i am aware of GTL, but my question is why? if a car or truck can run on natural gas (and they can), why go through the costly hassle of GTL? it's a good point you make that GTL doesnt require vehicle modification, but at some point we need to make the transition to a cheaper, cleaner, more abundant fuel (natural gas). in the long run, the economics of natural gas used as is via the nat gas grid dwarf the short term addiction to gasoline or GTL or biodiesel or ethanol or any of the liquid sources. if the oil companies want to escape the political pressure on oil drilling and CO2 emissions, the solution is clear: natural gas. that said, the oil companies have much more invested in oil E&P and refining, so they are the ones bankrolling the officials in the EPA to construct the barriors to natural gas transportation. big oil won't support natural gas transportation until peak oil really comes down bigtime and the majority of their reserves are in natural gas. of course by then it will be waaaay too late to build the infrastrucure and vehicles (imho). we'd never survive it economically. jeez, we are barely surviving now after the $145/barrel run last year.

Mar 18 09:36 PM

[BOBBY CURTO:]

ECON 101,

Right on !
I have a small amount of Stock in Thorium Power Ltd.
They have a way to go to build a Commercial Nuclear
Power Plant, but they are working on it, (with Russia
no less.)

If you want to know about the future of Nuclear Power,
Google:
Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactor.
Meltdown ?
Impossible !

Bobby Curto
Ft. Lauderdale
Ps. To Mike.
Thanks for your response.
So you are only 99% correct, I can live with that.
Could you transplant a nose on your smiley ? :-)





















































On Mar 18 06:21 PM Econ 101 wrote:

> Fitz,
>
> I like your ideas but I have a problem with Pickens. I think all
> he really wants is a right of way to transport the water resources
> accross mid america. Selling water is his real goal.
>
> Second why dont you look at Thorium as a nuclear fuel? I understand
> the pols dont really want nuclear as a source of energy, but Thorium
> adresses many of the current objections and even solves the waste
> problem!

Econ 101,

Right on !
I have a small amount of stock in Thorium Power Ltd.
They have a way to go to build a Commercial Nuclear Power Plant, but they are working on it, (with Russia no less.)

If you want to know about the future of Nuclear Power
Google:
Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactor.
Meltdown ?
Impossible !

Bobby Curto
Ft. Lauderdale
Ps To Mike
Thanks for your response.
So you are only 99% correct, I can live with that.
Could you transplant a nose on your smiley ? :-)

Mar 18 09:55 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

there were a couple post made while i was composing my last response, so let me backtrack a bit:

mediapro: ok, you are responding to belseware because we are in agreement on the subsidy problem (and did you factor in the military cost of the pentagon/petroleum relationship?). as far as the $100k SS cap, you're still looking for an answer :) plz let me know when u get one. while you're at it, find out why multimillionaires still get SS checks every month. i mean if we are bankrupt (we are), let's get pragmatic and make some easily rationale tradeoffs. puerile (def): juvenile, childish.

mediapro (2): well, the infrastructure would be there with a Phill. 95% of american trips are way under the 200 mile range of a NGV like the Civic GX. so, as a second car, they would sell (imho).

Mike135: wow! a honda guy. glad to have you and thanks for posting. as far as being marketing tools only, i can tell you from the personal emails i have been getting on my NGV blogs you guys are sitting on a gold mine and, quite simply, blowing it. there are thousands of people out there who can't buy a honda civic GX or a Phill. that is a problem. i swear, you get me a job at honda, and i will turn your NGV and Phill business into a multi-billion dollar revenue generator within 5 years! CNG would make gasification profitable?? how do you figure that? mining and converting coal would be cheaper than sinking a well into the haynesville shale? no way, i don't even have to run the numbers to know that. natural gas is ABUNDANT. biomass is also ridiculous when natural gas is ABUNDANT. sorry for the big letters, but it is the truth. look at the price now (under $3.80). sure some of that is a big drop in demand, but another part of that is the huge increase in supply. the natural gas is there. no need to liquify, convert from coal, mix it with something else. it is CJ4, it is methane, it is cheap, clean, and abundant. you guys at honda are sitting on a gold mine because you don't know how to make the Phill and the car available to the thousands of people around the country who would love to have a CNG car but can't acquire the car or the phill or both. once you get the phill and the car out there in quantity, then the CNG stations come, then you *really* have a gold mine. it is going to happen sooner or later. honda is currently in the drivers seat, but if you blow it (as you are now), you'll be in the backseat watching someone else run off with the market you owned. just ask motorola how easy that is. i mean come on, American Honda Motor was going to sell out to Pickens' CLNE!! why on earth would they do something like that when they have the GX and the patents covering it? they could be printing cash if they knew how to manage these assets. i live in middle tn, the local honda dealer (30 miles away) wont sell me a GX. the Phill isnt serviced or sold by anyone in my state. this is the norm, not the exception. just think if honda put a CNG refueling station on or next to their dealerships and made getting a Phill part of the experience of buying the GX? sure, there are some regulatory issues here, but they are all solvable. the synergies are unbelievable.

Mar 18 09:59 PM

[BOBBY CURTO:]

Mike,

Sorry for the duplicate.
Can you delete one ?

Thanks,
Bobby Curto

Mar 18 10:40 PM

[HALFTRACK:]

HEY GUYS;WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE PROPANE RUNNING CARS AND TRUCKS IN THE 40's ,50's, and 60,s :THEY WHERE SIMPLE TO RUN !! COSTS WERE ABOUT $1000 PER UNIT TO INSTALL INCLUDING CARBURATER SETTINGS USING A REGULAR GASOLENE ONE {THEY ARE STILL IN SERVICE IN VARIOUS STATES BUT HARD TO FIND } THIS WOULD BE CHEAPER THAN THOSE "PHILL UNITS " BUT ALMOST THE SAME WORKINGS INSIDE!!!!!! REMEMBER WE STILL HAVE PROPANE ALL OVER THE USA :READY TO EXCHANGE WITH YOUR EMPTY ONE!!!!!!!!!!!

Mar 18 11:16 PM

[HALFTRACK:]

HEY GUYS;WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE PROPANE RUNNING CARS AND TRUCKS IN THE 40's ,50's, and 60,s :THEY WHERE SIMPLE TO RUN !! COSTS WERE ABOUT $1000 PER UNIT TO INSTALL INCLUDING CARBURATER SETTINGS USING A REGULAR GASOLENE ONE {THEY ARE STILL IN SERVICE IN VARIOUS STATES BUT HARD TO FIND } THIS WOULD BE CHEAPER THAN THOSE "PHILL UNITS " BUT ALMOST THE SAME WORKINGS INSIDE!!!!!! REMEMBER WE STILL HAVE PROPANE ALL OVER THE USA :READY TO EXCHANGE WITH YOUR EMPTY ONE!!!!!!!!!!!

Mar 18 11:16 PM

[HALFTRACK:]

HEY GUYS;WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE PROPANE RUNNING CARS AND TRUCKS IN THE 40's ,50's, and 60,s :THEY WHERE SIMPLE TO RUN !! COSTS WERE ABOUT $1000 PER UNIT TO INSTALL INCLUDING CARBURATER SETTINGS USING A REGULAR GASOLENE ONE {THEY ARE STILL IN SERVICE IN VARIOUS STATES BUT HARD TO FIND } THIS WOULD BE CHEAPER THAN THOSE "PHILL UNITS " BUT ALMOST THE SAME WORKINGS INSIDE!!!!!! REMEMBER WE STILL HAVE PROPANE ALL OVER THE USA :READY TO EXCHANGE WITH YOUR EMPTY ONE!!!!!!!!!!!

Mar 18 11:16 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

Boohoo, boohoo, boohoo.....but what about after year 100?...boohoo,boohoo, boohoo.......then use coal for the next 200 years after that,....boohoo, boohoo, boohoo,......... and then?????......... then the flood,........... boooooooohoooooooooo,....

Mar 18 11:52 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

Oh yes, and by then I still will not have read Hef's book.

Mar 18 11:54 PM

[AlexS:]

It would be interesting to have more history on the Canadian experience. Here's a link (don't know the date of the posting) suggesting they had some problems:
www.uniongas.com/about...
Of course that was in the 1990s, I guess. A big part of the problem is the energy density. A CNG tank with equivalent range takes up about 4 times the space of a gasoline tank. So unless you have a vehicle specifically built (where the tank covers a large area under the car) it means bye bye to trunk space. And I think natural gas also has an infrastructure problem, which limits the ability to utilize it. They call that "stranded gas", meaning it's there but there's no good way to economically transport it. But .... that doesn't mean it can't be explored. It does mean that it needs more calculation than back-of-the-envelope.

Mar 18 11:59 PM

[mediapro:]

What a nakedly obvious quip, Mr. Bird.!!!

Like a Japanese Koan you distilled the entire debate about the move to alternative energy into a visual poem.

Here we are reading a most informed author, a few followers, and people keenly interested in arranging the proverbial deck chairs. It is as if everyone and no one have an answer to how we remove our mouths from the oily tit or kiss our ass goodbye.

Your style is what this site needs more!






On Mar 18 04:57 PM nakedjaybird wrote:

> Dear god - please flood the earth again so we can replenish our oil,
> coal and gas natural (sic) resources. forgive us in how we mismanaged
> what you gave us the first time.
>
> earthman.

Mar 19 01:08 AM

[mediapro:]

This nut case post is another example of Friedman-neo-con thinking. Believe in nothing than gets in the way of "free markets" and get out of the way so that they can do their work. Thirty years of this unfettered, simple-minded thinking has left us where we are today

Just watched a 2008 special last night on the National Geographic Channel showing the actual ocean water temperature measurements over the last decade and their effects on glaciers. Warmer sea waters intruding on the glacial shelf forms ponds within the glacier and this water seeps down to the bottom of the glacier. That forms an effect similar to grease on skids, increasing the speed of galcier creep by as much as 1"/day. The result is a prediction, based on current rates, of an 80% depletion of the Greenland ice sheet alone by 2020. If all glacier melt were accelerated at such a rate, we could expect a sea water rise of as much as 20 feet by the middle of this century.

Hope the poster doesn't own any land in Florida or Manhatten!

As for what's a theory, perhaps the poster needs a trip back to grammar school. A theory is a testable hypothesis (repeatable over time) demonstrating confidence of the theory over many years and many situations, such that it is a predictive model of expected results. This allows scientists to look a real world outcomes.

Though he didn't mention the alternative, as most of these nut cases seem to forget when they make such outlandish claims, "intelligent design theory" (it is neither a theory nor a very good name for an hypothesis) is a circular argument. Their claims amount to: "Look at the complexity of organisms (events, animals, nature in general). Evolution theory could never explain how these intricate mechanisms developed. Therefore, they must be a result of design by an unknown intelligence."

The problem with this apriori approach is that it is an untestable hypothesis (at best) because when something is "created" out of thin air, that's the best explanation possible. It cannot be tested, repeated, nor ever proven. Such a possibility only exists in the minds of the gullible and ignorant.

The same can be said of its economic equivalent, the Laffer Curve.


On Mar 18 01:37 PM yank wrote:

> Interesting in that now that we have had a global "cooling" since
> 1998 "global warming" has been replaced with the term "climate change".
> Al Gore at a recent California lecture was challenged by a scientist
> skeptical of the "climate change" fiasco. Sadly, Al declined to converse
> with the dubious scientist. Of course going unchallenged on a daily
> basis is the list of thousands of accomplished scientists from all
> over the world who very clearly have stated that "climate change"
> like evolution is an UNPROVEN THEORY and not fact. Spending billions
> of dollars that we don't have on solving an unproven problem sounds
> like the very definition of "insanity" to me.

Mar 19 03:57 PM

[AlexS:]

Oil and Gas Journal article about Obama's tax proposals and their likely effects on natural gas production. Read it and weep.

www.ogj.com/display_ar...

Mar 19 05:57 PM

[Wise Gas:]

I'm working hard to make it worth your while to market in Florida too :) And yes, I know Honda actually loses $4k per GX which bewilders me - but don't you guys dare give up selling them. No one is going to forget you guys were first to market with this.



On Mar 18 09:22 PM Mike125 wrote:

> Possible conflict of interest: I am an engineer with Honda.
>
> We love the GX, we love the Phil, but they really are only worth
> marketing aggressivly in New York and California. We basically are
> selling the car for what it costs to manufacture, as a point of pride
> as much as anything else.
>
> It was the same way with the orginal Insight, we sold it at a loss
> so that every list of fuel efficiency had the name Honda at the top.
>
>
> For me fossil fuels are capital, and you don't spend more capital
> than necessary for day to day needs. You invest the capital in order
> to get a return that is used to meet daily needs. Solar thermal is
> probable one of the best examples, the Chinese are building water
> and space heaters as fast as possible. I would have to order one
> from New York and have it shipped 1000miles, or build my own. <br/>
>
> Widespread use of CNG would likley cause coal gasification to become
> profitable, which might someday lead to biomass gasification etc.
>
>
> Here is a site that tracks CNG gas stations.
>
> find.mapmuse.com/inter...
>
> Mike

Mar 19 07:02 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

HALFTRACK: propane has some serious disadvantages when compared to natural gas. first, it doesn't have the 2.2 million mile pipeline already connected to 63,000,000 homes where 130,000,000 cars and truck park every nite. secondly, propane is a result of oil refining or natural gas processing, so not as cheap. lastly, propane is C3H8, and therefore not as clean as natural gas CH4 (methane).

nakedjaybird: you still don't get it: natural gas is the bridge to the renewable and hydrogen futures. 100 years isn't good enough for you? you'd rather stick with dirty foreign oil. i know you won't have read the book, which is why i continue to read your imbecilic posts on here.

AlexS: if you convert a gasoline car, and leave the gasoline tank in so you can run bi-fuel, then yes, you will take up some room with the CNG tanks. if you buy a new NGV with the CNG tanks built in, you won't have this problem. i have covered the refueling infrastructure ad nuseum so i won't address that issue over again other than to mention with a Phill you simply refuel in your garage. so, if you think of it that way, gasoline is actually harder to obtain (i.e. it doesnt come to your house, you go to it).

mediapro: i've completely given up on that one....and he refuses to read a book that could help lead him out of the darkness he likes living in. hard to feel sorry for someone that refuses to help himself after being shown how...

AlexS: you seem so happy about this news, when it is you and your country that will suffer from what this article has to say. so, have fun whistling past the graveyard.

WiseGas: because of your assistance, i just got off the phone with Honda's AFV consultant. he said honda is doubling their yearly production of GX's and they are already sold out for the year. they plan on doubling again next year. i find it hard to believe myself that they are losing so much on each GX because the price is already fairly stiff and so many of the car parts are reused from the gasoline Civic. oh, and he also said he knows a honda dealer that DOES bundle the Phill with the car, and can finance both into a single loan. so, at least some states can do this and i am really wondering about the Honda dealer that told me it was against state law to do so. honda is sitting on a gold mine. the GX and the Phill, together, could easily be a multi-billion dollar business within 3 years.

Mar 19 07:46 PM

[AlexS:]

Fitz, clearly I'm not happy about this news, as you say. I did everything I could to prevent this guy from getting in office. But somebody should point out the likely effects, since so much of the country (and the press) seems to be in never-never land. I think it's sad that much of what you propose has little or no chance of being enacted, including increased use of domestic natural gas. And you're right - we will all suffer for it.

Mar 20 03:29 PM

[Mike125:]

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply but I wanted to ask around and think for a bit on your comments.

Honda is a wonderful company to work for but expanding GX production, while worthwhile eventually, would be expensive and risky. Especially in the current market.

And while Honda does place a priority on community responsibility it also places a high priority on its responsiblity to protect the livelyhood of its employees and the assets of its shareholders. It is a major mark of pride to all of us that Honda has NEVER laid off an employee.

That means the responsible way to increase production is slowly and with careful attention to the market. Yes that means it's not going to happen as soon as we all would like, but if the market is there it will happen.

Honda never does anything quickly, it just not our way. As a result we don't make an SUV, thank god. But when we do something we do it right, as a result every model in Honda's lineup, including the GX, is capable of being made on the same presses and equipment that are in every Honda plant. Remember the multi-billion dollar loan to retool that the government gave to the big 3, we laughed at Honda because all we would need to do it have dies made and every Honda plant in the world could switch to another model. We are proud of the fact that the 2010 models will roll down the line intermixed with 2009's with one car length in front and behind them, not a month of downtime that is required by the big 3.

We can ramp up production anytime to almost any level we want to. As a result we can afford to be careful in how many we make. And it means that we can produce the next generations of GX or Insight as the designs get more cost efficent and the production technology for the parts is developed and commercialized.

There is no conspiracy to suppress the technology, just a very deliberate attempt not to overextend ourselves. The fact that the deal with Picken's was killed is actually a good sign as far as I can tell since it says Honda wants to stay in the mix.

As far a coal gasification goes, if the price of coal goes down as the price of wind goes down and the price of natural gas goes up as more and more of this type of car is on the road, gasification will happen. Coal production capacity is simply too large for the profits not to become obvious to the mine owners. Why explore for gas when the price per KWH still favors coal and gasification is 75% efficient. Do you expect them to idle capacity rather than gasify?

Biomass gasification has to do with ethanol, why hydrolysis and ferment cellulose when you can convert it directly to syngas for use as automotive fuel. Its lot cheaper and more efficient. And the price per acre beats the heck out of soybeans. Natural gas used to be called "town gas" and a lot of farmers produced it in gasifiers as a side business.

Mike

Mar 21 01:18 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

Mediapro - thks for expressing some wisdom.

I had completely forgotten about the SS cap at $100k since I stopped contributing and started getting the benefit, taxed or not.

The cap should be removed. No limit to SS contributions,

And it should be applied to all sources of income, bonus payments, parachutes, retention contracts, any payments in lieu of cash be they options, stock, warrants, or even perks, land, goods, property, etc.,

And then, they should apply the tax to capital gains above $20,000/yr be they from stock et,al, coins, stamps, antiques, art, autos, etc.

And then beef up the audit staff and/or build more jails.

Mar 21 03:52 PM

[aquaculture:]

physorg.com/news155489...

Mar 23 03:47 PM

[User 381715:]

On Mar 17 11:07 AM belseware wrote:

> GET REAL. "We need politicians who will craft legislation that removes
> the subsidies enjoyed by the oil and coal industries in order to
> level the playing field"
>
> FUEL Subsidy
> SOURCE per MWh
> Oil (?)
> Coal $0.44
> Natural Gas $0.25
> Nuclear $1.59
> Biomass $0.89
> Geothermal $0.92
> Hydro $0.67
> Landfill Gas $1.37
> SOLAR >>>$24.34<...
> WIND >>>$23.37<...
> Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
>
> OK, I agree promoting NGVs beats heck out of stuffing wind and solar
> down our throats.
>
At Docklands Science Park in Melbourne, Australia, we do have the Environmental Engine (EE) with compression ratio variable by a factor of two, i.e. from 9 to 18:1 so it can run on any normally available fuel.
Playing around with natural gas at compression ratios of less than 14:1 is a waste of a lot of fuel. EE will automatically set the compression ratio to gain the highest heat release, regardless of the fuel or fuel mix. With gaseous fuels you need variable compression.
See our website "docscipark.com.au".

While Phill may be OK, we have a compressor which does not add oil to the gas so emissions are greatly improved and a claim of natural gas enthusiasts is better emissions.

Your own DOE states that propane is the best alternative fuel. On emissions and economy, we agree.
Propane is largely obtained as a by-product of producing natural gas from wells, plus petroleum refining and there is normally little propane in coal bed methane gas.

We think Boone and others need to ensure the equipment is there to burn the fuel to best advantage. Variable compression means that you can go to the best (emissions) and cheapest source of hydrocarbon fuels. A number of tanks in the vehicle may be useful, or a multi-fuel tank the like of which we are yet to see!

John

John

Mar 25 08:46 PM

[The Bald Eagle:]

Hello, World,

Our energy problem could have been solved 67 years ago.

Apr 02 05:33 AM