Energy Secretary Steven Chu Should Be Fired for NatGas Views

Any U.S. Energy Secretary that says he's "agnostic" about natural gas transportation should be fired. Period. Secretary Chu, Nobel Prize or not, is turning out to be just another incompetent policy wonk. Here's the story as reported by Platt's.

Also, Platt's reports in Wednesday's "Gas Daily" that Honda (HMC) has pulled the plug on the Canadian manufacturer of the "Phill" - Fuelmaker. This is the home garage refueling appliance that I have written so much about. This is terrible news for the NGV market and for the US middle class who so desparately need to be building an infrastructure alternative to foreign oil. This would be a great opportunity for an American company to swoop in and buy the IP for the "Phill". It's amazing to me that a company with the resources of Honda:

1) didn't leverage the advantage of the "Phill" and package it with purchases of the Honda Civic GX

2) don't realize the strategic advantage they had over every other automobile manufacturer with their Civic GX and Phill products.

The war on the middle class continues unabated... these twin headlines are very disturbing.

Comments

[nakedjaybird:]

Fitz - not quite. If we do the above (plus the ultimate small battery biodiesel hybrid which was mentioned several responses earlier), the amount of oil required for transpostation will be reduced some 30-35 Quads to 5-10 annuallly; some 70%. Which means we could supply demand with domestic oil, for mixing etc. We'll still need some 5 Quads annually for products like plastics, etc., which domestic could also be used for. But eventually, we will be using biofuels and syntehsized organics and not need hardly any oil (nat gal or coal). However, tthe balance of payments will be balanced, and I believe we should still use others oil and keep ours in the ground, so we'd continue to send money offshore to help the world economy without damaging ours. But we would no longer be addicted and dependent on oil, period.

Fitz, you are riding a nat gal loser. It's at most a temporary fix, not an industry to build your long term future on. Not even 10-20 years (knowing full well that that may be long enough for you, based on the fact that you're willing to redo with nat gas what we've "just" done with oil, use it up; which is your own words would be 100 years. And then we could put our future generations into another tailspin like we have currently and have been practicing for, yes, over 30 years (while other countries have shown us there are more logical and financially and economically wise ways, greed aside).

Apr 13 11:13 AM

[Michael Fit...:]

naked: you are still missing the point. natural gas transportation is the solution to reduce foreign oil imports while at the same time we begin to build out the wind, solar, and EV infrastructures to do the same. this will take a minimum of a decade or two. meanwhile, many parts of this natural gas infrastructure will be reusable in eventually what will be a hydrogen based economy.

you say i am riding a "nat gas loser", yet you *still* have not explained to me how your biofuels or "synthetic organics" are going to *significantly* reduce foreign oil imports. you keep missing this basic point: unless we REDUCE foreign oil imports SIGNIFICANTLY over the next decade we're quite simply sunk from an economic, environmental, and national security perspective. you keep making the same failed arguments over and over again but simply have not proven, or even tried, to explain exactly how you are going to realistically and economically reduce the 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline america uses every DAY without using abundant, clean, and cheap US produced natural gas as the substitute. the reason you haven't is because it is impossible to do so over the next decade without natural gas being the primary solution.

Apr 13 11:33 AM

[Old Wizard:]

Naked, Fitz's above logic addresses the heart of the problem. We don't have decades to solve the operational negative cash flow problem that the USA faces without a severe downgrading of our economic well-being and[ projecting other very plausible scenarios] a strategic problem that might easily result in a large war.The refusal of the current administration and for that matter the last four administrations to define a comprehensive energy policy with significant near term oil importation reduction goals is a travesty. As to the world rejecting the natural gas transportation solution, how do you explain the Iranian's conversion of their cars to natural gas fuel, the buses in D.C. and in D.C. and in europe that run on natural gas and the light trucks in Great Britain that are natural gas powered? As I've commented before, the stimulus package is self contradictory in that it is encouraging the building of new roads which will increase the use of cars and trucks,while asserting that they want to decrease our reliance on oil. The structural problem of our large city-suburban complexes is that mass transportation is insufficient to serve the work commuter problem. A set of electrically driven monorail siders that would connect large suburban residential areas with existing mass transportation hubs would be a creative solution that would really stimulate the economy and might even make electric cars that go 40 miles at 45 mi/hr appealing. Imagine the job creation of lasting jobs that the conversion to natural gas -driven vehicles, mono rail spiders and eventually all-electric cars that have limited range[ and cost] that would result. Oh by the way, doubling the electrical generation from wind and solar from .9% to 1.8% of today's supply in three years , a goal set by the president with his stimulus plan, doesn't seem consistant with any real sense of urgency. Instead of the 40b/yr in the plan over ten years, it would seem that 200 to 300b/year would probably get us to 20 to 30% of today's electricity generation capability and would hardly replace that which is generated using coal, natural gas and oil today by a longshot. My only investments in anything remotely connected to natural gas are a small investment in piedmont natural gas and marathon oil, which i have had for well over 8 years. Those investments are less than 20k and have nothing to do with my belief that natural gas for transportation is the best near term strategy to be employed.

Apr 13 12:46 PM

[Pstoneki:]

I think we should stay on oil. Let the oil producing countries use up all of their resources, thereby decreasing the supply, then jack up the price. That will help bring the end of the World's oil economy that much sooner. To everyone stating we should move to CNG vehicles, I say great tactical thinking. That solves some immediate problems. Of course, it will quickly cause other problems. Remember the big jump in natural gas prices when power plants switched from pure coal to burning coal / natural gas? What do you think the jump will be like when we switch over the vehicle fleet? How will people be able to afford to heat their homes? Also, it doesn't solve any of the CO2 issues which quite honestly are all I really care about. In fact, they make them worse because those oil-burning cars, trucks, buses, planes, ships, and trains are still going to be around for a long time after CNG vehicles are widespread. It will just decrease their asset value, Being old technology, but technology that still works, will allow them to be transitioned out of the US as used, commodity equipment. Not to the scrap yard, of course, because vehicles are so well built today that most will still be on the road 20 years after they are made. So they'll be sent to used car dealers around the 3rd world where more folks will be able to afford our CO2 spewing castoffs. Hence, more total vehicles on Earth burning more fossil fuels and emitting more CO2.

Chu has it right - we need to leap frog away from fossil-fuel burning vehicles rather than take a series of baby hops. Electrification through batteries or fuel cells is the only thing that will allow us to do that.

Apr 13 01:08 PM

[Old Wizard:]

Pstoneski, You must be one of those single variable people. I have said before that I believe in the two bullet theory, " If the first bullet is aimed at your head and you don't duck, it doesn't matter where the second bullrt goes". You still don't see that the country is on the verge of bankruptcy and you keep prioritizing your single variable above all others. I don't believe that natural gas should replace the coal generation electrical plants. Coal is a source of energy we have in great supply and is not responsible for the country's negative operating csh flow, oil is- in a significant way. In the immediate future natural gas conversion of most cars could be done relatively cheaply as could buses, trucks, etc. The technology for new car manufacture and conversion exists, now and as Fitz has pointed out many times natural gas fueled vehicles create 1/3 less co2 than gasoline powered cars. The timeline to replace our currently existant coal-fired electrical generation facilities with wind and solar is at least 20 years and will take over 4 trillion in investment to provide electrical generation that even approached the 51% that coal does today. That said we should strive to bring these sources on line as quickly as the technology allows. The story to date has been that even where wind and solar make sense today , the political and legal obstacles are stalling progress. Just to give a concrete example, you should research the Cape Wind project on Cape Cod. You may prioritize Global warming as your number one issue, but some environmentalists there think that aesthetics are more important or the possibility that birds will be killied is number one and even though over 60% of the people there favor the project it has been stalled in a licensing morass.This, in the face of the reality that there are 26 large turbine-blade wind mills to the approach to Copenhagen's harbor which are both relatively visible and have flocks of birds flying around. Your variable is all you care about, but I for one care about the future of this country and see the natural gas solution as, not only solving the country's number 1 problem but also reducing the green house gases, creating more and lasting jobs quickly and making significant impact within 5years. We then might have time to get to your hydrogen world without dying from a head wound.

Apr 13 06:40 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

Fitz & Wiz - I tried to 'splain it to youse. The rest of the story is somewhere between mystery and Top Secret, so yunses will jus have to watch it unfold. Of course, you may have to open your eyes for that.

Apr 13 10:23 PM

[Pstoneki:]

Intimately aware of all the good things Cape Wind is doing. I've been working on that project for years. In fact, most Cape Cod-based environmentalists that understand the science are now on board. As is the state and federal government. The Kennedy's are still an issue but they care more about the remote possibility of seeing the towers off shore (which, at 30 miles out is unlikely) from their ocean front estate. Still don't see how using natural gas for motor vehicles will help. I have owned converted natural gas vehicles (a Range Rover and an Audi) in Europe. Great idea. However, any way you look at it the natural gas is going to get burned. Either to heat our homes, cook our food, produce electricity, or power our vehicles. And the price is going to go up, the supply is going to go down, and we'll shortly be right back where we started. The gas pipeline in Alaska is still a dream but I would bet a dollar that, if it is ever built, none of that gas will be used to power cars. After all, who is going to pay for the infrastructure to allow you to reliably refill your CNG vehicle anywhere in the US? I'd rather see us switch dirty coal fired plants to burn natural gas. At the same time move everyone to electric cars, trains, buses, and heavy intracity (though probably not intercity) trucks. We already have most of the infrastructure and the cars (not matter what the automakers tell you) are ready to go. My 2001 Toyota Rav4 EV, with 135,000 miles on the original battery when I sold it, was still running like new. Note the year - 2001. The technology works and I could recharge it anywhere with a plug.


On Apr 13 06:40 PM Old Wizard wrote:

> Pstoneski, You must be one of those single variable people. I have
> said before that I believe in the two bullet theory, " If the first
> bullet is aimed at your head and you don't duck, it doesn't matter
> where the second bullrt goes". You still don't see that the country
> is on the verge of bankruptcy and you keep prioritizing your single
> variable above all others. I don't believe that natural gas should
> replace the coal generation electrical plants. Coal is a source of
> energy we have in great supply and is not responsible for the country's
> negative operating csh flow, oil is- in a significant way. In the
> immediate future natural gas conversion of most cars could be done
> relatively cheaply as could buses, trucks, etc. The technology for
> new car manufacture and conversion exists, now and as Fitz has pointed
> out many times natural gas fueled vehicles create 1/3 less co2 than
> gasoline powered cars. The timeline to replace our currently existant
> coal-fired electrical generation facilities with wind and solar is
> at least 20 years and will take over 4 trillion in investment to
> provide electrical generation that even approached the 51% that coal
> does today. That said we should strive to bring these sources on
> line as quickly as the technology allows. The story to date has been
> that even where wind and solar make sense today , the political and
> legal obstacles are stalling progress. Just to give a concrete example,
> you should research the Cape Wind project on Cape Cod. You may prioritize
> Global warming as your number one issue, but some environmentalists
> there think that aesthetics are more important or the possibility
> that birds will be killied is number one and even though over 60%
> of the people there favor the project it has been stalled in a licensing
> morass.This, in the face of the reality that there are 26 large turbine-blade
> wind mills to the approach to Copenhagen's harbor which are both
> relatively visible and have flocks of birds flying around. Your variable
> is all you care about, but I for one care about the future of this
> country and see the natural gas solution as, not only solving the
> country's number 1 problem but also reducing the green house gases,
> creating more and lasting jobs quickly and making significant impact
> within 5years. We then might have time to get to your hydrogen world
> without dying from a head wound.

Apr 14 08:33 AM

[Pstoneki:]

I've also seen the wind turbines in Denmark. Also Germany, Finland, and huge farms in California and Minnesota. Current industrial strength turbine designs have almost zero impact on birds as the long blade length and slower speed of the turbine is very easy for birds to miss. Older designs had a major flaw regarding bird impacts but these are mostly gone now thank goodness. Aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. I'd much rather see a wind turbine than a coal plant.

Unfortunately, I see energy as a symptom rather than our country's number 1 problem. The # 1 problem is one of unsustainable consumption, not production. Same problem is causing the symptoms in the financial sector. Bottom line - most people in this country act like children who think they can have it all without paying the true cost. They want the new plasma TV they can't afford, buy it on credit, then wonder why they are in debt. They buy an oversized SUV (or, like the English call it, a Chelsea tractor) to haul themelves around then complain when the price of gas goes up. Wait till a carbon tax is imposed. They also moan about the trade deficit when they directly contributed to it by buying foreign goods and imported fuel. They set their thermostats at 74 degrees in the winter rather than admitting that winter is cold and they could save a lot of heating fuel by wearing a sweater. Then they complain when demand goes up along with the price. They complain that medical insurance is too expensive but do nothing to take care of their health except pop every pill their doctor recommends. Bottom line is most people in this country, although they are nice enough people, basically act like children and couldn't actually support their life style if they had to pay the true cost.

Apr 14 08:51 AM

[Buck East:]

Why don't you think there is not enough gas. What do you estimate the potential U.S. recoverable reserves to be?


On Apr 09 04:59 PM Neil1947 wrote:

> What, you would fire an official for saying he is not sure which
> options are going to work, so we should work on all of them?
>
> Natural gas can help to reduce the use of oil, but there is not enough
> to replace all transportation and use for heating and for electricity
> generation. For first priority replace the 800,000 barrels/day fuel
> oil used for heat with electric heat pumps, next replace natural
> gas used for heat with electric heat pumps, keep natural gas for
> peak electric demand, and any surplus use for vehicles that cannot
> run on electricity(long haul trucks) until replaced by electric rail.
>
> That way we should still have some NG in 30 years to help smooth
> out wind powered electricity.

Apr 14 09:18 AM

[Old Wizard:]

The germans, japanese and the US carmakers are rolling out cars that are some form of hybrid and there are some like the mini cooper that is all electric. All have limited range and are 30k and above. The germans are even rolling one out that has over 100m range and is a hybrid for 87k. Do you think the overconsuming public is going out and replacing their existing vehicles with these vehicles in 1yr, 5yrs, 10yrs? Even if every new car bought was all electric and an average of 12million were bought a year it would take the better part of ten years to replace just the passenger cars, without addressing the trucks, buses and other gas fueled vehicles. Conversion of existing vehicles to natural gas powered could be accomplished in less than 5yrs, especially if the stimulus package and tax incentives were focused on this solution. All electric cars are going to require a step increase in our electrical generation capacity and this infra-structure creation problem is not obviously simpler than natural gas delivery modification since most areas already have a natural gas delivery system in place.Surely as a starter, school buses, UPS,FEDEX and other pooled fleets like rental cars, taxi cabs, city buses, police cars, etc which are garaged in central facilities and are ready made for conversion for starters since their refueling can largely take place at a central location and one tankful matches up well with daily usage. By the way, I live for part of the year in Cape Cod and as of Oct the Cape Wind project has recived but 4 of the 11 permits it needs to proceed after 5 years and 50 million inexpenditures. It is not only Kennedy who is opposed, but John Kerry [SEN] and Congressman DeLa Hay . Barney Frank is de facto in support of this group, even though the Gov of Mass. is for the project. Now the battery technology of the future is most likely lithium based for all electric cars. Is lithium a comodity that is plentiful in the USA or will we have to import that fom places like Boliva or Russia and if the world goes all electric will we compete with everyone else for these resources. A long term solution for this country's negative operating cash flow problem can't be to trade one import commodity for another. I guess ,additionally, that those of you who believe our problem is consumption, don't agree with the president's stimulus plan that has a major tenet the immediate encouragement of consumption. Just another evidence that we haven't yet ascertained what is a coherent economic and energy policy and realized that the two are very much connected and require specific and near term goals that are consistent with solving the problem over the short and long term.

Apr 14 01:09 PM

[Pstoneki:]

Check the Cape Cod Times, Boston paper, NYTs, WSJ. Things have moved forward a lot since October.

Regarding the Kennedy's, I've had personal conversations as late as August on that. That was their position then. No indication it has changed.

Regarding natural gas infrastructure, sure one exists. However, it is not in a form that the government will allow the masses to use to fill their vehicles. They have to tag and distribute the gas in a manner that can identify it as taxed. A home hook up won't allow that. This is one of the few issues we encountered in Europe when I was driving converted-to-CNG cars. In addition, getting people to take the time to get the conversion was not easy. Getting people to take the time to get their oil changed, car washed, or tires inflated is difficult enough. Giving up their car for 1-2 weeks while a shop converts the vehicle will be near impossible. And where are these shops here in the states? I haven't found one near me here in Ohio. If I had I would have converted my cars long ago since I have a natural gas well on my property which provides more than enough gas to run my cars and trucks (plus heat my house and barn, etc).

Like I said, I have little concern for balance of trade issues from a personal standpoint. I've lived all over the world and will most likely continue to do so. Until money starts leaving the planet (now that would be an interesting balance of trade issue). Right now I am concerned about CO2 and other green house gases and their impact on the climate of this planet.

See you in Chatham this summer.

Apr 14 02:23 PM

[Old Wizard:]

I am a brewsterite, but chatham isn't that far. Perhaps we can band together to advance the Cape Wind project. I would like to understand your priorities over a cup of coffee and why you see the perils of global warming more alarming than the demise of the economic well being of this country and why a solution which is beneficial to both problems in the short term is not a top priority. As I indicated, the conversion process could start with pooled vehicles and proceed to personal vehicle conversions. Refueling from home might not be the first option for personal cars. With the right focus from the Gov. this conversion could easily be expedited. I believe one of the companies, I think it is AT&T, has already announced plans to convert their vehicles to natural gas on their own money.

Apr 14 09:13 PM

[ripskii:]

Old Wizard: The movement toward NG fuel is moving forward even if it hasn't yet been blessed by the Feds yet. All the buses and other public transport in Las Vegas is NG. On the west coast several major ports (LA, Long Beach & Oakland) have mandated LNG fueled trucks as the only trucks that will be permitted to access the marine terminals to reduce the air pollution in the region. All the buses in San Diego are CNG fueled. Newer Waste Management trash trucks are CNG fueled. Australia has decided to use Westport engine powered long haul trucks fueled by LNG to supply their needs. I see USMC Honda GX's on the road. It is happening even if at a slower rate than most of us would desire.

Apr 14 09:50 PM

[adamnb:]

Where in the world are you getting 250 m/p/gal from diesel; semi's are lucky to get 6 m/p/gal, and almost all of them are diesel driven.


On Apr 12 01:09 PM nakedjaybird wrote:

> Fitz- simply, here are several good reasons (250 mpg on diesel which
> is an automatic 80% reduction in emissions, etc.) why we don't need
> to push natural gas transportation: try diesel nowl! (biodiesel next,
> and then biofuels! No nat gas req'd.)
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>
> PS: show me your evidence that Chu is being paid off (other than
> his salary).

May 28 05:48 PM

[adamnb:]

I think you spend too much time demeaning people like Chu, who knows much more about energy than anyone of us ever will, and too little time listening. If peak oil is the US worst problem, I don't think that substituting ng for gasoline buys you much. On this very blog, you have Banks, the world's leading energy economist (self proclaimed, of course) stating that US natural gas supply is, like oil, undergoing significant depletion, with near enough to take over transport. The fact is shale resources deplete much faster than traditional resources. Nor do you hear the enormous costs that it would take to build-out a nat gas infrastructure. I think it's time to take into consideration what critics are telling you: nat gas is no magic fix.

May 28 06:08 PM

[adamnb:]

P.S. Fuel Maker just sold major assets, including Phill, to Fuel Systems Solutions Inc. I suspect the FM is on the way to "el-foldo",

May 28 06:26 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

adamnb: chu may indeed know more about particle physics than i do, but anyone who repeats "clean coal" every chance he gets doesn't know more about energy than i do. if you believe in the myth of clean coal, then great, chu is your man. also, if like chu you don't support natural gas transportation, then please tell me what is your solution to significantly reduce foreign oil imports over the next 5 years (let's say by 5-7 million gallons a day)? just as i expected and just like obama and chu, there is <no logical reply>. so, i maintain, chu should be fired and would be fired except for obama is just as wrong-headed on energy and also supports the oxymoronic claim of "clean coal" and likewise apparently does not support nat gas transportation. as far as FM is concerned, please realize that you are reading a dated article and i have written several since then. one of them you may like to read is titled "do we have enough natural gas". you also may want to have a conversation with your man banks after you read it.

May 28 07:55 PM

[greggw3:]

The reason Obama doesn't like natural gas is because it is produced by OIL & Gas Companies.
In his policies to punish "Big Oil" he did the direct opposite. The multinationals haven't been affected in the least, even in this downturn; he hurt the juniors and the "mom & pop" companies in the E&P arena.
Doesn't it bother anybody that many of the proponets of this Global Warming BS and the Cap & Trade bill are the utilities with the most exposure to coal (the free permits).
We have the gas here, we have the infrastructure all we need are the vehicles.

Jun 01 11:52 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

greggw3: yes, we need the vehicles (obama blew it by not making NGVs a condition of taxpayer bailout money for GM), but we also need availability of the home garage nat gas refueling appliance - the "Phill" now owned and distributed by Fuel Systems Solutions (FSYS).

Jun 02 10:31 AM

[greggw3:]

I agree but wouldn't it be a good idea to first start at the workplace, malls, etc. (places masses of people go)
As I said I am biased as an indepedent petroleum landman, our employment situation has been as bad or worse than the general economy, we don't show up in the statistics because most are self-employed (I have been working rather steady).
As mentioned before, when BO changed the tax code to "punish the majors" (do you think the multi-nationals changed their business plan over this?), he hurt the small & medium E&P companies, along with the affects of the credit crunch. Many of the people that start large seismic projects (onshore, many can't even begi to get into the offshore end because of the expense involved) are small companies (would have to write a diissertation to explain this, but the root is dealing with legal departments at the larger firms), with the owners' ass on the line, then as the ball gets rolling then your CHK's, XTO's get involved.
Thanks for your good work, maybe people will wake up before it is too late.
BTW, Pickens has plenty of money to live his life, at his age I don't believe money is his No. 1 motivation.

Jun 02 11:01 AM