Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality 72 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
I’ve written extensively on the severe economic, environmental, and national security problems the US faces as a result of its dependence on foreign oil imports in an era of peak oil. A recent series of my articles published here on SeekingAlpha have built strong cases to support the following assertions:
- The transportation sector is 70% of total US oil consumption. To significantly reduce US foreign oil imports the US must reduce oil (gasoline) consumption in the transportation sector.
- The only US domestic fuel capable of being scaled up to significantly reduce oil consumption in the transportation sector over the next 5-10 years is natural gas.
- Natural gas vehicles emit 20% less CO2 than do gasoline powered internal combustion engines and none of the toxic particulates.
- Natural gas reserves in the US are abundant and can power US home heating, industrial, electrical generation, and transportation sectors for decades into the future.
- Vast US natural gas reserves and the nation’s 2.2 million mile natural gas pipeline grid are the best weapons in the war on foreign oil imports.
- Natural gas is an ideal bridge to a renewable energy future. Natural gas electrical generation is the preferred backup power supply for intermittent wind and solar energy.
- Natural gas electrical generators are more efficient and emit 50% less CO2 than coal-fired plants and none of coal’s very toxic particulate waste and ash.
- “Clean coal” is an oxymoron and a myth.
- Environmental purists who support only electric vehicles over the short term are shooting themselves in the foot by increasing demand on coal-fired electrical generation for recharging.
- Much of the natural gas infrastructure could be used by the future hydrogen energy based economy.
- The world economy is now riding a peak oil driven yo-yo. The consequences for the US, which uses 25% of worldwide oil supply and imports 65% of it, will be grave.
- The only solution to the severe economic, environmental, and national security issues facing the US is a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy to reduce foreign oil imports. In the short to mid-term, US energy policy should be centered on using US produced natural gas for transportation. Such an energy policy was published here on SA.
Not everyone agrees with all of these bullets. However, after much constructive debate in SA’s comment section, no evidence was presented that any other energy policy can significantly reduce foreign oil imports (say 5-7 million barrels a day) over the next 5 years.
So, what now? For those of us who believe a natural gas centric energy policy should be an urgent and critical priority for America’s future prosperity, how can we make it happen?
President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu obviously do not have reducing foreign oil imports high on their list of priorities. This is evident by the lack of legislation presented to effectively and significantly move the US away from gasoline powered automobiles. The electric car solution doesn’t work over the short term because EVs would be charged by coal-fired power plants. That is not an acceptable strategy. Equally disturbing is Obama and Chu repeating their oxymoronic “clean coal” mantra so often they have begun to believe it is actually possible. It is not. More worrisome is Energy Secretary Chu’s recent comment that he is “agnostic” about natural gas transportation. Clearly then, natural gas transportation supporters cannot rely on the Obama administration for a strategic energy policy or even a level playing field for natural gas vis-à-vis coal and oil. We must therefore accept the current political climate and take matters into our own hands. We must go straight to the American people with political activism, policy initiatives, while pressuring automobile manufacturers to deliver NGVs and refueling solutions. But exactly how should we proceed?
Political Initiatives
- Support H.R. 1835 – Legislation for Nat Gas Transportation
HR 1835 is a bi-partisan bill containing robust support for natural gas transportation initiatives. Refer to my earlier SA article on HR 1835. Everyone who works for an American company that makes automobiles or natural gas compressors or industrial equipment should support this bill. Everyone who works in the natural gas production or energy services businesses should support this bill. Every farmer or landowner that has natural gas on his property should support this bill. Every American who is tired of funding both sides of the “war on terror” should support this bill. And every environmentalist that wants to breathe cleaner air and view clearer skies should support this bill. Call or write (letters with stamps, not email) your elected officials. Let his or her know you want them to support this bill and that you will be watching energy policy voting very carefully.
- Call for Energy Secretary Chu to Resign
Secretary Chu’s top priority as Energy Secretary should be reducing foreign oil imports. That’s job #1. Nothing is more critical for the future prosperity of the United States. Secretary Chu’s recent comment on being “agnostic” about natural gas transportation are a great opportunity for the natural gas lobby, NGV supporters, natural gas producers, and natural gas infrastructure providers to band together and call for his resignation. They should take out half page ads in the WSJ, the Washington Post, the NY Times, and USA Today and demand he resign or for Obama to dismiss him. Is this an extreme measure? No, it is not. It’s extreme incompetence on Chu's part. Add Chu’s oft repeated “clean coal” mantra and you have a one-two punch of wrongheaded energy policy from the one person whose direct job should be to enact smart energy policy. A high profile campaign to oust Chu, even if unsuccessful, will enable a debate in the media. And that is a debate natural gas folks can easily win - if you need help, please contact me directly.
- Listen to US Energy Experts
Here is a video of Robert Hefner discussing energy policy and his new book The Grand Energy Transition (The GET) at the Aspen Institute.
Hefner asks a very simple yet telling question: Why is it that US policymakers believe Russian, Iranian, or Saudi Arabian energy estimates, yet won’t listen to fellow American energy experts with respect to US energy reserves? Ironically, Chevron’s (CVX) ad playing at the beginning of this video is very easy to hear. Yet, even with my laptop’s volume turned all the way up, I had to strain to hear the panel discussion with Mr. Hefner. This is probably a coincidence, but it is indicative of how difficult it is for an energy expert like Hefner to be heard in the US. However, I'd bet money the energy experts in Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are listening to Mr. Hefner!
Fuelmaker and “The Phill”
NGV owners were shocked and dismayed (not to mention really PO’d) recently by news that Fuelmaker was headed for bankruptcy. Here is an article that describes what happened.
This could be good news. The bankruptcy process should clean up Fuelmaker’s debt issues and make the company ripe for the picking. We can only hope an American corporation swoops in and buys Fuelmaker’s IP. The “Phill” (a natural gas vehicle refueling appliance for home garages) is a very simple yet critical piece of hardware for America to succeed in the war against foreign oil imports.
Home refueling is a key aspect of solving the chicken-n-egg dilemma with respect to NGVs and NG refueling station availability. If people can refuel their NGVs at home and get 200 miles per tank, an NGV immediately makes sense as a second car as a great majority of daily trips are less than 40 miles roundtrip. As gasoline prices rise in the next peak oil spike, that NGV may well become the family’s primary mode of transportation. With more NGVs on the road, public refueling stations will follow.
- Advice for Honda Motor Company (HMC)
If the executive quoted in the article is correct in his assertion Honda attorneys are at the root of unsuccessful Fuelmaker buyout offers, Honda executive management needs to take control of the situation. The Honda Civic GX is the only commercially available NGV sold in the US. Who has a larger incentive to see a successful Phill business than does Honda? Why would Honda’s management quibble about $25 million (with an “m”) for Fuelmaker IP when they stand to make billions (with a “b”) selling NGVs? I talked to a person connected with Honda manufacturing a few weeks back. He said Honda is doubling 2009 production of the Civic GX, and volume still isn’t meeting demand. Honda is being penny wise and pound foolish - and it's a pound of gold not British sterling. Honda should just sell Fuelmaker to the first company capable of expanding Phill production, distribution, sales, and service.
Honda also needs to design and mass produce an electric/nat gas hybrid vehicle like the Toyota (TM) Camry concept vehicle.
- Advice for Fuelmaker’s Buyer
The first thing the CEO of Fuelmaker’s buyer should do is contact Akio Toyoda, new President of Toyota and descendant of the company’s founder. They should discuss the electric/nat gas Camry hybrid concept vehicle Toyota unveiled at the LA 2008 Auto Show.
This car is the single best transportation solution for the US market. Think a Prius that runs on US-produced natural gas rather than gasoline derived from imported foreign oil. This car combined with a Phill home refueling unit is an absolute gold mine. I would be happy to be the first buyer!
After listing all the positive benefits of such a vehicle, Toyota then announced it had no plans to manufacture the vehicle for the US market! So, it is time the (new) manufacturer of the Phill, Mr. Toyoda, and a few of the US natural gas utility companies got in a room, shut the door, and hammered out some business agreements. It’s not complicated and there are billions of dollars to be made in this market. All it takes is some fairly simple business deals and a little capital. Ok, well, perhaps a lot of capital for Toyoda – but the business plan is solid, risk is relatively low (assuming a viable Phill manufacturer) and the potential ROI is huge. The market for a Toyota electric/nat gas hybrid combined with a “Phill” refueling appliance is worldwide since natural gas is abundant the world over.
Natural Gas Utility Executives Should Support Natural Gas Transportation
Clearly, whoever buys Fuelmaker should strategically align themselves with NGV manufacturers and natural gas distributors and utility companies. A consumer should be able to visit a local Honda dealer and finance a Civic GX and Phill together as a package deal. Further, the new “Fuelmaker” should investigate partnerships with local natural gas utility providers to distribute, install and service the Phill. Natural gas utilities should consider special promotions and incentives to motivate and give confidence to US consumers considering buying an NGV and home refueling device. A credit for one free tank refill a month for 12 months would be a good start. Perhaps let the consumer make interest free monthly payments on their gas bill to cover the cost of the Phill. There is a lot of room for creativity here and it will benefit everyone involved: the automakers, the Phill manufacturer, the natural gas producers, the natural gas utility companies – but most of all the US consumer and the country as a whole.
Energy Company CEOs Should Support NG Transportation
Oil executives like Jim Mulva, CEO of ConocoPhillips (COP), should join Aubrey McClendon and T. Boone Pickens and embrace natural gas transportation. Mulva runs a company with significant natural gas assets in the lower-48, Alaska, and Australia. COP and partner BP are planning to build the “Denali” natural gas pipeline from Alaska’s North Slope to the lower-48 and deliver some 4 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily to North American markets. Perhaps Mulva is simply protecting ConocoPhillips’ large investments in oil exploration and refining. However, is there any doubt these oil investments will continue to be huge money makers well into the peak oil future? Worldwide oil and gasoline demand won’t evaporate over night simply because the US makes a strategic decision to adopt natural gas transportation. There will always be demand for oil and higher future oil prices. Meantime COP’s large exposure to the natural gas market combined with the plunge in natural gas prices has caused the stock to take a beating. Yet Mulva remains silent on natural gas transportation. Why?
Who is more aware of the dire consequences of US dependence on foreign oil in the era of peak oil than US oil executives themselves? Do they think their friends and families in the US will be immune to the economic and social mayhem peak oil will cause (and is causing now)? This is baffling. One would think these executives would have collected enough money such that their attention might now switch to patriotic, family security, and environmental concerns. Besides, it’s not like foreign countries are welcoming US oil firms with open arms these days: in spite of $145/barrel oil and ever growing E&P budgets, oil production at many big US oil producers was down year-over-year in 2008. And what will those paper US dollars be worth if the US economy is built on an unstable foundation of foreign oil? Meantime, the US has an abundance of clean and cheap natural gas within its own borders. US oil, energy, and energy services companies should be all over natural gas transportation like flies on honey.
These initiatives will help solve the NGV and natural gas refueling chicken-n-egg problem while simultaneously helping to publicize the natural gas transportation solution.
If natural gas transportation doesn’t begin to take root soon in the US, peak oil and high energy prices will whack the US economy again. American investors should consider buying oil company stocks (XOM, CVX, COP, PBR, BP, [[STO], OXY), energy services companies like SLB and RIG, and gold bullion. In addition US investors should consider shorting the US dollar and going long the Canadian Loonie.
Here are some natural gas transportation related investment ideas if some of the initiatives in this article come to fruition:
- Natural gas vehicles: Westport Innovations (WPRT), Honda Motor Company (HMC), Toyota Motor (TM), and Clean Energy Fuels (CLNE). Consider investing in any publicly traded company that buys Fuelmaker’s assets.
- Natural gas infrastructure plays: General Electric (GE), Ingersoll Rand (IR), Fluor (FLR), Air Products & Chemicals (APD), and Jacobs Engineering Group (JEC).
- Natural gas producers: British Petroleum (BP), Chesapeake Energy (CHK), ConocoPhillips (COP), Range Resources (RRC), and Quicksilver Resources (KWK).
Disclosures: The author owns SLB, PBR, and COP.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 72 comments:
Buyers WERE able to buy a GX/Phill package from Honda dealers (in CA and NY) but the obstacles to installing a Phill are still significant. You have to own your own home, get approval from your local gas company, get approval from your local condo association (if any), and convince the local city building inspector that it's not going to blow up. Then, it isn't cheap. An extra $6k over what a standard Civic costs, $4k for the Phill, $1-2k to install it. Then, when it fails or needs service, another $1-$2k unless it's under warranty. Phill is not yet the solution, although it could be with some re-engineering to make it field repairable and sensible service/repair/install... policies.
I am aboard your bandwagon with one caveat to your statement:
"If natural gas transportation doesn’t begin to take root soon in the US, peak oil and high energy prices will whack the US economy again. "
I'm afraid it is already too late to prevent the high energy costs from whacking the US again.
That doesn't mean we don't continue to push for NG transportation.
It is hard to get this administration onboard because this concept is built upon common sense.
There's a huge shortage of common sense in Washington, D.C.
It is the initiative process in CA. In CA, we are addicted to it as gov at many levels is horribly unresponsive to plane old American people. They are responsive to large blocks of voters and those who will support their campaigns with funds.
So, I say to go after a series of well thought out initiatives, say 5 or 10 and raise the funds to get them on the CA election ballot during the coming decade. If you begin now, you might get an initiative on the 2010 ballot, so you are looking at the decade, 2010 to 2020.
Thats a high bar, but CA leads the country, we used Prop 13 to starve gov for a decade or more, it worked for a while. Still does in some sense.
I know some influental people in politics who might have interest in your proposition, I will send them your article links and see what they say.
Best of all to you. stay with it.
Clearly a national energy policy is required to accomplish these goals and it looks like it will have to come from the people as you noted.
Your comment regarding the oil and gas available to private energy companies worldwide is right on target. The great majority of reserves are in the control of foreign governments. I think that fact was behind Conoco's purchase of Burlington ang their move into more gas reserves. Hopefully Mulva will be a strong supporter of NG transportation as it is clearly in his interest. Russia's recent moves on the gas front are disquieting and should alert us develop our own resources for obvious reasons.
I remain convinced for a complete energy policy in addition to NG transportation we MUST get moving on advanced fast nuclear reactor development as soon as possible. NG is a bridge, but we need the foundation on the other end of the bridge to carry us forward. As has been discussed here before while wind, solar and geothermal are all good sources of renewal energy and must be expanded, their numbers are too small to become the major source of our base power needs in the near to intermediate term.
I agreed completely, our Dept of Energy has really dropped the ball here, when over the past few decades, we could have been performing R&D on advanced nuclear power, we have not.
We will need decades of effort in nuclear and materials, but in the end, we can have effective nuclear power for America and we need it badly.
Looking forward to your article. thanks for posting.
You've convinced me that we could be very close to reducing our gasoline use and foreign oil dependence IF the national will were there. Unfortunately ours is a reactive, not proactive society. Despite our self image as a forward thinking people, the reality is that precious little is accomplished proactively, little sacrifice for our future is made, unless it involves lining our personal pockets. Therein lies the key to acceptance of NGVs. It has to be advantageous economically, either now or projected into the immediate future.
Action may be forced upon us the next time oil prices skyrocket, or if (heaven forbid) crude supplies become interrupted. That's exactly the wrong time to find panic-driven "solutions" - a la ethanol, or spin-doctoring "clean coal" and other non-solutions. No, I'm not very optimistic for thoughtful planning to find intelligent solutions for our energy problems. Still, I'll voice my enthusiastic support for an NG bridge solution to my local legislators and others, using some of your text (with credit given) if that's ok.
I'm sick and tired of this great nation making bad choices and failing to take timely actions, leaving us at the mercy of outside forces. By acting now we can preserve our freedom of action and do better for our posterity.
--R
I have a feeling they aren't in the marketplace because they aren't economically viable yet.
Energy prices will continue to go up and down as economies hit the brick wall of surplus energy for growth.....but I am afraid this is how things work.
And I don't forsee complete disaster on the forefront....I used to be a more pessimistic peak oiler......now I guess I am more optimistic....although I still think a recession could occur.
If prices do rocket up......many people will have to make changes.....possibly the government will get some legitimate people in there who are fair and honest.....maybe a new technology will emerge that isn't NG for transport....possibly living on 50% less fuel for transportation is possible since prices are high....who knows all the answers.....but when I am driving around and look around....we sure do drive huge cars for the weight they carry....we sure do use a lot of water for agriculture....we sure use a lot of fertilizer....and a lot of cows sure produce a lot of methane.
I am willing to bet if we HAD to do something about the environment or about peak oil.....we could easily cut off 25% of demand without taking a huge hit to our lifestyle. The poor might get hit...or some people might not be able to drive......but it would be pretty easy to get most people from 20-25MPG vehicles to drive 35MPG vehicles. a reduction of 40% to 50% less fuel for most.
www.theautochannel.com...
however, the advice i gave to Fuel System Solutions is sound not too late (imho). some of the Phill negatives you list were addressed in the article: make natural gas utility company business agreements so that they install and service the Phill and meet local NG codes and regulations. the cost of a Phill will come down with economies of scale and wider distribution networks. the picture is not as dire as you paint. a much bleaker scenario is assured if we stay addicted to gasoline (i.e. foreign oil).
blu: you are correct - i have been recommending oil stocks in almost every article i've written: how can an american investor not own oil stocks in a peak oil era while the US is addicted to foreign oil? oil & gold. what else is left as peak oil plays out and the country is massively exposed? perhaps i am too pessimistic, but like chess, the endgame ends in "checkmate". ironic the persians invented chess isn't it?
freedml: not sure where you are getting your numbers. californians will filling up their civics at home for $2 back in 2008 when natural gas was 4 times its current price. folks in utah are filling up now for $0.88. anybody who believes gasoline reached at high in 2008 and won't go higher in the near future is simply whistling past the graveyard. the Phill easily refuels a Civic overnight in your garage while you sleep.
jack kreg: thanks for the kind words of encouragement. i used to live in san diego (ahh, the days of my youth!), but no longer. that said, california has been leading the country in emissions legislation...hopefully, they will continue that effort. apparently people out there can only put up with so much smog from the toxic particulate emissions of gasoline
redbaron: well, that is what some people tell me (that the Obama administration is more supportive than i say). however, i believe they are taking baby steps and what we need is a giant policy U-turn. note at the recent clean energy conference in DC - not one obama official uttered the words "nat gas transportation". note also the incessant "clean coal" mantra obama and chu repeat. note also there was no nat gas vehicle mandate given GM in return for middle taxpayer monies. perhaps i am too negative on obama, but i can only comment on what policy i actually see supported. some folks think there are backdoor efforts under way. the oil crisis is so severe, we don't need opaque backdoor policies - we need front page headlines that will bring all americans together to meet the objective (reducing foreign oil impors). this takes *leadership*. yes, CLNE is making great progress, however we need to cut 5-7 million barrels a day of foreign oil imports. this can only be done by moving half of all US cars and trucks to natural gas. we need a major policy thrust in this direction, and we need it immediately, and we need the leadership to make it happen - not to try and fail by spending billions on ridiculous "clean coal" projects. don't mean to be harsh, i am just very opinionated on the subject, and the harshness is not directed at you, but at the administration.
ripski: i hope you are correct wrt mulva! on the nuclear issue, i have not forgotten my promise to you that i would investigate and educate myself on the latest nuclear technology. i think i've done all i can do on natural gas transportation - although i am considering doing an article on natural gas storage issues. thanks for the support.
btw - jack kreg just had a great idea! ripskii - have you ever considered to write an article yourself?
respirate: thanks for the compliments and encouragement. you are right - i sure wish this country would get back to engineering and building smart infrastructure instead of letting the gov, financial, insurance, and mortgage folks rob the country blind. and you are also correct - despite $145/barrel oil in 2008, there was never an interruption in supply. this is bound to happen at some point in the future. and of course you are right again in that NOW is the time to fix this problem, while people are losing their jobs and while energy, steel, and raw material prices are low. good comments - i wish i had put some of them in the article. thx.
wheels.blogs.nytimes.c...
And that...Fiat initially would take a 20 per cent (now 35%) stake in the company in exchange for its small-car and engine technology. Initially Fiat would not invest any cash, but its technology is worth $8 billion to $10 billion, the person said.
209.85.129.132/search?...
Meanwhile...GSA will also target $15 million in an order to come by Sept. 30 for advanced technology vehicles -- compressed natural gas and hybrid buses, and all-electric vehicles.
www.joc.com/node/410690
And...Public transportation agencies across the country are joining in the celebration of Earth Day on April 22 with a variety of green initiatives and activities aimed at raising awareness and improving the environment.
www.pottstownmercury.c...
Along with many private fleets such as…AT&T converting to natural gas
www.tgdaily.com/conten.../
And…By converting only 10 percent of America’s fleets of trucks and buses to run on natural gas, we can reduce demand for foreign oil by $50 billion a year.
newsok.com/legislation...
Already…there are 1600 retail stations in the U.S. selling CNG.
scitizen.com/screens/b...
In Oklahoma…Boren, Sullivan and Benge have introduced federal and state legislation to provide responsible incentives for infrastructure and research that will result in the greater use of natural gas as a transportation fuel in the coming years.
newsok.com/legislation...
The State of Utah is taking new measures to firmly establish itself as one of the top purchasers of natural gas powered vehicles in the U.S.
www.oxfordprinceton.co...
The State of California's Air Resources Board yesterday adopted a regulation to implement Governor Schwarzenegger's Low Carbon Fuel Standard calling for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from California's transportation fuels by 10 percent by 2020. The regulation encourages the use of four primary low carbon alternative fuels for transportation: hydrogen, electricity, natural gas and biomethane.
www.azom.com/news.asp?...
Many Senators desire… NATURAL GAS AS A TRANSPORTATION FUEL.
epw.senate.gov/public/...
Obama pushes natural gas vehicles. Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois worked with Democrat Dan Boren of Oklahoma on a bill to help increase domestic production. Barack Obama introduced a very similar bill in the Senate.
mybossier.blogspot.com...
After the…EPA's CO2 Finding: Putting a Gun to Congress's Head
www.time.com/time/heal...
Reid suggested cap-and-trade legislation could clear the House by year's end,
www.smartbrief.com/new...
And…natural gas will be a clear benefactor of the cap and trade legislation
shareholdersunite.com/.../
Natural gas is likely to be the engine of growth in the foreseeable future, according to the US government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA).
www.businesstodayegypt...
Let’s Roll!
Freya: thank you for the compliment on the article. however, the negative comments *do* matter and that's why i began long ago answering them in this forum. as for your comments, has there ever been a "Nation on the entire planet" that has 5% of the world's population, uses 25% of the entire world's oil production, and imports 65% of that oil? what is your solution to reducing foreign oil imports? or, are you simply of the opinion that all is well and there is nothing to worry about? if you are so negative on NG transportation, please share with us all your solution!! if there is a better one, you can rest assured my next article will be supporting it.
"Natural gas reserves in the US are abundant and can power US home heating, industrial, electrical generation, and transportation sectors for decades into the future. "
www.pickensplan.com/act/
This is a major issue and won't be solved overnight. Pickens has gotten some momentum going...his 1st major step is to support the conversion of the trucking industry to natgas, from there we can follow with the conversion of cars as the trucks will establish the bare bones of a refueling infrastructure.
welcometowork: well, i recently wrote an entire article:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
the subject of natural gas abundance. please forward it to your friend and tell him to send me feedback on *exactly* what he disagrees with. saying the statement is "very incorrect" without expanding on that opinion doesn't impress me and doesn't support the point you are attempting to make.
Freya: Obama wants to eventually displace coal pwr generation? please cite an instance where obama said that. all i hear him and chu repeat is "clean coal" ... "clean coal"..."clean coal"...from their words, it sure seems to me they want to *expand* coal consumption. there are many "green groups" that support natural gas transportation!! in fact, i would go so far as to say ALL the "enlightened" green groups support it. supporting EVs while using coal to recharge them is such a wrongheaded environmental strategy i have to calm myself down just to type.
www.unctad.org/infocom...
The Sierra Club Comes Out in Favor of the U.S. Natural Gas Industry
www.prnewswire.com/cgi...=
1) his political history
2) his focus on fleets won't reduce foreign oil imports to the extent we need to
3) his desire to remove nat gas from electricity generation. i think we need to replace coal plants with nat gas plants.
i discuss these in greater detail in an open letter to boone pickens that was published here on SA:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
thanks for your comment and pointing out my omission.
I think I remember from way back in a physics class, that there was a rule, or somethin', that said when you convert energy from one form to another form you always lose some percentage from the original source.
I am just wondering how the hell an electric powered car can be as efficient as a car that burns hydrocarbons. Considering the fact that the electricity is mostly generated by hydrocarbons it would seem that it would take more hydrocarbons to generate vehicular electricity than it takes the amount of hydrocarbons burned directly in the vehicle with an internal combustion engine.
So my question is kinda simple. Is all this crap about EV's just another boondoggle like ethanol??
Are we gonna burn more (pollute more) hydrocarbons just so we can say we aren't polluting with our vehicles?
The greenies are already griping about disposal of flashlight batteries... what in heck are we gonna do with all those car batteries when they wear out...???
On May 06 04:52 PM pragmattist wrote:
> Natural Gas Reserves
> www.unctad.org/infocom...
>
> The Sierra Club Comes Out in Favor of the U.S. Natural Gas Industry
>
> www.prnewswire.com/cgi...;STORY=/www/story/03-0...
>
>
motor vehicles waste a lot of energy...they are really inefficient on so many levels. This goes for a lot of our energy use......I believe the energy in the cars we drive today are somewhere around 30% heat efficient or so but are pretty efficient at burning the amount injected into the engine.
the heat efficiency when burning fossil fuels for electricity is much more efficient.....so we aren't wasting as much in heat loss. As to the exact numbers...I am unsure.
But from a material stand point.....electricity uses a lot more materials. We need batteries, engines, more transmission lines, more components to store the electricity....if we go the alternative route...we will have wind turbines all over the place....it uses a lot more materials than today.
As to whats better and cheaper.....thats for the market to decide.
On May 06 06:17 PM blu wrote:
> I'm just a dumb ol' Texas oilman and need some education.
>
> I think I remember from way back in a physics class, that there was
> a rule, or somethin', that said when you convert energy from one
> form to another form you always lose some percentage from the original
> source.
>
> I am just wondering how the hell an electric powered car can be as
> efficient as a car that burns hydrocarbons. Considering the fact
> that the electricity is mostly generated by hydrocarbons it would
> seem that it would take more hydrocarbons to generate vehicular electricity
> than it takes the amount of hydrocarbons burned directly in the vehicle
> with an internal combustion engine.
>
> So my question is kinda simple. Is all this crap about EV's just
> another boondoggle like ethanol??
>
> Are we gonna burn more (pollute more) hydrocarbons just so we can
> say we aren't polluting with our vehicles?
>
> The greenies are already griping about disposal of flashlight batteries...
> what in heck are we gonna do with all those car batteries when they
> wear out...???
>
Rather than having the government kick this off....I still truely believe the greatest inventions come from need....or pushing the envelope of space or whatever it might be.
Just think of our greatest minds sitting around thinking about dark matter or whatever they are......or trying to prove if god exists or something....get them working on the problem...get the world working on the problem out of need....and things will get done. I just fear the government corruption is the only thing that will stop this flight to a new technology (for whatever reason).
I still think we could make a 100-200lbs vehicle with thin glass around the people.....carry two at a time with a small area for luggage...use a small engine.....and save a whole lot of fuel. get 100-200MPG's or more out of gasoline. we might only go 40-50mph max....but do we need to go any faster?
I think we need more freedom...less regulations.....and at the root of most problems are government.
The real price of oil today on an inflation adjusted price is much much lower than people think. In fact....oil has never been cheaper than this past year. We don't know how much inflation there truely is...unless you chart money supply growth....which is enormous...and somehow could track money growth from our banks creating money. Possibly rising prices isn't the problem...since almost all rising prices are rising because of monetary issues....nothing related to the underlying fundamentals.
It would be interesting to see a chart of gold vrs. oil is like....because gold historically trades to oil at a 10:1 price or so. chart below.
www.incrediblecharts.c...
www.ngvglobal.com/es/m...
and edwin black's must read:
www.theautochannel.com...
if black's article is true, i am very surprised a japanese company like honda would behave in such a manner over a few million dollars. unbelievable.
Andy: "oil has never been cheaper than this past year"?? surely you jest....
Freya: i have yet to hear obama say he supports natural gas power, all i hear him say is "clean coal". you say EVs have no emissions, but this is where "environmental purists" make their big mistake. today, all renewables together make up less than 3% of total US electrical power generation. what that means (if you had read my previous articles, you'd know this) is that a significant deployment of EVs (that is, enough to significantly reduce foreign oil imports by 5-7 million BPD) will be recharged by COAL which generates 50% more CO2 than does natural gas and 100% more toxic particulates. that's an environmentally friendly and "green" policy?? give me a break. it's foolish dogma and ideology. it lacks simple and pragmatic energy analysis. meanwhile, just like the hyrdrogen fuel cell, where are these fully electric cars? we just keep spewing CO2 from oil and coal.... so, environmental purists are ironically supporting policies that:
1) don't reduce foreign oil imports
2) increase toxic coal consumption
i guess in the modern day world of doublespeak popularity, this type of "environmentalism" is perfect. as one eye says above, there is room for both (i assume he refers to EVs and NGVs), but if we want to ***significantly reduce foreign oil imports*** AND reduce coal consumption over the next 5-10 years, natural gas and NGVs are the only way to do so. i am still waiting for someone to show me another way to do both. as i said before, if someone can, i will write my next article on the solution. EVs alone, today, and for the next decade, won't do it - they simply will require more coal burning, and that is a disastrous environmental policy imho.
i'm in Italy and i drive a bi-fuel (gasoline and natural gas) car ;
because here gasoline is like 6 US$ a gallon (!) , with ng i spend 55% less when refueling my car (and here in Italy we import ALL the nat gas)
I also agree with Michael Fitzsimmons assessment that environmental activists are pushing policies that encourage more oil, and maintain coal as a primary energy source. Almost makes you wonder if environmental groups are partially funded by oil companies.
While I like wind and solar technologies, these are small components of required energy needs. Without a smart grid system, system distribution integration, and energy storage systems, these technologies will be unable to break out of niche energy solution status. Natural gas does is not as burdened from implementation, though it is burdened by opposition.
On May 06 11:57 PM Freya wrote:
> Seems to me that I included Solar, Wind and Nat gas power as a necessary
> ingredient and something the Obama administration supports.
>
> No Green Groups support CNG, golly gee, who would have guessed. They
> support EVs, I wonder why. Must have something to do with Greenhouse
> gas emissions, EVs have none.
>
> Blu: Solar, Wind, Nat Gas power plants will be built to generate
> more electricity. They will replace the Coal fired plants eventually,
> years down the road. As an oilman, I would think you are biased against
> "anything" replacing the use of Hydrocarbons in vehicles, just an
> opinion on my part.
my car is a 1999 mitsubishi transformed to bi fuel (LANDI kit) , but FIAT , here in Italy , is selling natural gas cars "from the factory" like crazy , from small city car (panda) to minivan (multipla) ...maybe the FIAT-CHRYSLER deal will promote more of ng cars (i whis i had bought fiat at 3.9€ , now is like 8€ :-( )
the gold to oil ratio....just look at the spike in 2009. This is the time to be buying oil like no other.
Anything priced in dollars is distorted....since it has no value and its "perceived value" bounces all over the place.....it also has manipulation all over the place. Once things go back to normal....and the banks start lending to everyone again.....we should see oil rocket....massive inflation. we should also see interest rates increase to combat this.
But this past year....oil has never been cheaper....an ounce of gold could buy more oil than in history....besides possibly 2 other times in history.
As peak oil does approach...the gold to oil ratio should be more volitile....as demand and supply will be in and out of balance with each other in short periods.....and small surpluses will drive oil down substationally.....and small shortages up substantionally.
On May 07 02:07 AM Michael Fitzsimmons wrote:
> blu: EVs are indeed more efficient than gasoline cars. theoretically,
> if the solar and wind infrastructure was built out, and we had an
> efficient electric grid, they would be a great solution. and they
> will be some day. but today, the renewable energy and efficient grid
> aren't a reality. as i explained in previous articles, at less than
> 3% of total US electrical generation, to support EVs now at the expense
> of NG transportation is wrongheaded because it means the US would
> have to greatly increase its coal consumption. this is a common mistake
> the environmental purists make because they dont take the time to
> analyze total US electricity supply sources and make pragmatic and
> realistic conclusions. people who do take the time to do so realize
> natural gas is the perfect "bridge" fuel to a renewable future, to
> get us through the next decade or two while we build out renewable
> infrastructure.
>
> Andy: "oil has never been cheaper than this past year"?? surely you
> jest....
>
> Freya: i have yet to hear obama say he supports natural gas power,
> all i hear him say is "clean coal". you say EVs have no emissions,
> but this is where "environmental purists" make their big mistake.
> today, all renewables together make up less than 3% of total US electrical
> power generation. what that means (if you had read my previous articles,
> you'd know this) is that a significant deployment of EVs (that is,
> enough to significantly reduce foreign oil imports by 5-7 million
> BPD) will be recharged by COAL which generates 50% more CO2 than
> does natural gas and 100% more toxic particulates. that's an environmentally
> friendly and "green" policy?? give me a break. it's foolish dogma
> and ideology. it lacks simple and pragmatic energy analysis. meanwhile,
> just like the hyrdrogen fuel cell, where are these fully electric
> cars? we just keep spewing CO2 from oil and coal.... so, environmental
> purists are ironically supporting policies that:
> 1) don't reduce foreign oil imports
> 2) increase toxic coal consumption
> i guess in the modern day world of doublespeak popularity, this type
> of "environmentalism" is perfect. as one eye says above, there is
> room for both (i assume he refers to EVs and NGVs), but if we want
> to ***significantly reduce foreign oil imports*** AND reduce coal
> consumption over the next 5-10 years, natural gas and NGVs are the
> only way to do so. i am still waiting for someone to show me another
> way to do both. as i said before, if someone can, i will write my
> next article on the solution. EVs alone, today, and for the next
> decade, won't do it - they simply will require more coal burning,
> and that is a disastrous environmental policy imho.
much of my driving is long distance (up to 900 mi/day) & a NGV is not suited to that need.
use of NG infrastructure in the "future hydrogen energy based economy" - be careful, consider that H2 leaks thru pinholes significantly faster than CH4 and there may be safety considerations here.
> jack
All we need for an effective short term and long term reduction of 5-7 million barrels/day in oil consumption is to permanently implement the equibalent responses to the 1973 Oil Embargo:
1) for people (and some goods) movement: car-pooling, van-pooling, busses and transit systems for the folks within beltways; teleconferening, elimination of marketing jaunts; minimizing use of private planes and maximize full commerical flights; High speed trains; more rails (100% electric); install electrified ferries within interstate right of ways (local intra and express interstate).
2) for cargo and goods movement: put it on the steel wheeled rails and barges and get it off the rubber tired interstates.
3) electrify every end use.
4) install AMAP solar and wind.
So come on, next embargo; teach the folks a second time. Only keep the fixes in place and/or improve on them for permancey.
The City of Seattle has reported that its fleet of plug-in Prius retrofits only averaged 51 mpg over the last year as compared to the 100 mpg everybody expected. Apparently comparable results are being seen by the Idaho National Laboratory which is following a nationwide test fleet.
The title is priceless - Plug-in Hybrids: More Hype than Hope?
www.wired.com/cars/coo.../
On May 06 12:02 PM blu wrote:
> Mr. Fitzsimmons,
>
> I am aboard your bandwagon with one caveat to your statement:
>
> "If natural gas transportation doesn’t begin to take root soon in
> the US, peak oil and high energy prices will whack the US economy
> again. "
>
> I'm afraid it is already too late to prevent the high energy costs
> from whacking the US again.
>
> That doesn't mean we don't continue to push for NG transportation.
>
> It is hard to get this administration onboard because this concept
> is built upon common sense.
> There's a huge shortage of common sense in Washington, D.C.
nicely done for all.
anyone looking for NG entry in Asia of the types covered here could look into:
CHNG, OTC.OB
SNEN, NASDAQ
WPRT has already partnered up in China i believe.
Honda moved their talented diesel engine car designers to the new Insight design to counter the Prius. Perhaps Toyota will respond by going into production with their new NG/hybrid.
----------------------...
Your post:
blu: EVs are indeed more efficient than gasoline cars. theoretically, if the solar and wind infrastructure was built out, and we had an efficient electric grid, they would be a great solution. and they will be some day. but today, the renewable energy and efficient grid aren't a reality. as i explained in previous articles, at less than 3% of total US electrical generation, to support EVs now at the expense of NG transportation is wrongheaded because it means the US would have to greatly increase its coal consumption. this is a common mistake the environmental purists make because they dont take the time to analyze total US electricity supply sources and make pragmatic and realistic conclusions. people who do take the time to do so realize natural gas is the perfect "bridge" fuel to a renewable future, to get us through the next decade or two while we build out renewable infrastructure.
----------------------...
So you seem to be saying you agree that if EV's were to become a major mode of transportation we would be increasing the amount of hydrocarbons needed to fuel these vehicles, because the infrastructure for "alternatives" does not exist. You say coal consumption would increase....
So EV's are not logical or viable as a green solution until such time that the US can switch over to "alternative sources".
EV's would therefore be detrimental to our environment and economically unjustified.
so the answers to my questions would seem to be YES.
----------------------...
1) So my question is kinda simple. Is all this crap about EV's just another boondoggle like ethanol??
2) Are we gonna burn more (pollute more) hydrocarbons just so we can say we aren't polluting with our vehicles?
----------------------...
As posted earlier, I am on your bandwagon. I would just like to see some common sense used before spending more of my tax monies.
This is your very best written and reasoned article yet. Good work!
I would like to have seen you make two articles out of it and shorten your paragraphs a little; but nevertheless, this overall is very good writing.
And, as you can see by so many positive comments, your audience relates much better to a well-written, well-reasoned piece of work, because they understand your points so much better.
Rush and Bush would be proud of you, Fitzy. Hee, hee.
As always, I appreciate your honesty and passion for your position, and I hope you get your wish.
nakedjaybird: you are certainly entitled to your opinion. if you think "clean coal" is possible, chu is definitely your man. i obviously think "clean coal" is a myth. we do appear to agree on the need to reduce 5-7 million barrels of foreign oil a day. however, if you believe the steps 1-4 can do that, we disagree on that. all my research leads me to the conclusion that the only realistic way to reduce 5-7 millions BPD of foreign oil over the next 5 years, without jacking up coal consumption off the charts, is NG transportation.
that said, i am a firm supporter of continuing to build out the solar and wind infrastructures along with an intelligent and efficient transmission grid to transport that renewable power to end-users. i just wish we'd get some pragmatic and realistic energy policies which take into account that today, despite the huge year-over-year growth rates of solar and wind, together with ALL other renewable energy sources they are less than 3% of total US electrical supply. replacing 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline a day is *alot* of energy, and the only domestic fuel that can be scaled up over the next 5 years to do it is: you guessed it - natural gas. it would take decades to build out wind and solar to do that, and we simply *don't have the time to wait*. peak oil will see to that. so, let's get real.
hey john: thanks for the link i wil check it out. btw, i read your article recently on the performance of some of the energy storage stocks you were recommending awhile back. i considered of couple of them as they looked pretty good from a risk/reward basis, but alas, i didn't take the plunge as i was more worried about the overall market dynamics. *big* mistake! anyhow, great job on your predictions in that space!
macsmart: yes, definitely, write (letters with stamps - "snail mail", i have a sneaking suspiscion form based emails on the web to elected reps end up in cybertrash or get a canned response). even better, call your reps or visit with them in person. thanks for your proactive involvement.
fran: thanks, i keep trying to address your "what now?" question from long ago. thanks for the stock mentions, i will look into them. we certainly need asia, and china in particular, to jump on the NG bangwagon as well!
rip: yes, i was shocked as well. edwin black has alot of credibility in past articles, so i don't think it is just internet rumour. it's very strange too, when i spoke to the honda's consultant for AFV, he said honda was ramping up GX production over the next few years, doubling it in 2009. how does that jive with what they were doing with Fuelmaker? all over a measley few million bucks? it's mind-boggling a japanese company would behave like that. and man, do i wish FSYS would make a deal with Toyota and offer a Phill with a elec/nat gas Camry hybrid. if that combo was widely available throughout the US, it would be a huge game-changer, and foreign oil imports would begin dropping significantly as sales rose. it would be wonderful for the american economy, the environment, the US dollar, and US national security.
prariedog555: right on. utah is miles ahead of almost every other state. main reasons:
1) a very proactive governor and state policymakers
2) questar's willingness to build the refueling stations
3) and i believe, the mormon work-ethic and survival instinct
you're exactly right, utah is a "blueprint" for successful nat gas transportation. according to cngprices.com, the folks in utah are filling up today at from $0.73-$0.97 GGE. how sweet that must be. they have trout in utah too!
blu: yes, you are correct. i just wanted to add the caveat that long term, if solar and wind are built out significantly, or if hydrogen fusion becomes a reality, that i support EVs as a partial solution to reducing foreign oil imports. to reiterate, my favorite vehicle today is the toyota electric/nat gas hybrid vehicle that toyota won't make. thanks for your support and comments.
slower, less efficient CNG semis that have to refuel more often (and do not forget all the salaries of the jack-booted government thugs administering this program) means more expensive toilet paper at walmart (not to mention I Phones for you cool kats). the price of NG probably goes up a lot, based on historical oil supply/demand data. the economy contracts, the fed prints more money, consumption & pollution goes up again; this is nothing new, this is the cycle of the last 30 years.
consumption is worse for the ecology than pollution. if your scheme increases consumption, it may reduce pollution in the short run, or move it, but it will increase it in the long run
I truly believe that people do not understand how threatening thoughtless policies on climate change really are.
This country seems to always swing between ridiculous extremes. Time to start pushing the pendulum the other way.
Starting with state petitions is an excellent idea. Where do I sign up?
On May 06 12:10 PM jack kreg wrote:
> Michael F, I have quite enjoyed reading for information your articles
> over the past months, as well, appreciating your zeal for American
> prosperity. I concure that the present administration will not support
> your NGV concept. However, living in CA for over 50 years, I have
> an alternative.
> It is the initiative process in CA. In CA, we are addicted to it
> as gov at many levels is horribly unresponsive to plane old American
> people. They are responsive to large blocks of voters and those who
> will support their campaigns with funds.
> So, I say to go after a series of well thought out initiatives, say
> 5 or 10 and raise the funds to get them on the CA election ballot
> during the coming decade. If you begin now, you might get an initiative
> on the 2010 ballot, so you are looking at the decade, 2010 to 2020.
>
> Thats a high bar, but CA leads the country, we used Prop 13 to starve
> gov for a decade or more, it worked for a while. Still does in some
> sense.
> I know some influental people in politics who might have interest
> in your proposition, I will send them your article links and see
> what they say.
> Best of all to you. stay with it.
realold: actually, they don't have to compromise their feeble minds about GW religion as the natural gas solution would significantly cut CO2 and particulate emissions, that is, it's a win-win solution. as you insinuate, i do agree there seems to be a US government conspiracy to use gasoline (foreign oil) as a mechanism to master and subjugate the american middle class. i also agree the US is in for a big drop in its standard of living if we dont cut foreign oil imports drastically over the next 5 yrs (and thus my push for NG transportation and my strategic long-term comprehensive energy policy). as far as people being clueless to climate change policies, my concern is the much more imminent threat that most americans are clueless on: foreign oil addiction in the age of peak oil. where do you sign up? well, i suggest you sit down and write your elected officials letters and tell them you won't vote for them unless they support HR 1835 and other pro nat gas transportation legislation. that would be a great start.
old wizard: i like your thinking, however the real punchline to the environmental purists would have come if you continued in the analysis to calculate just how much coal consumption would have to increase in order to recharge the electric cars given the growth rates you assume for wind/solar along with the number of electric cars on the road. that is what the environmental purists don't seem to understand, and from their comments on here, nothing i can say will make them sit down and do the calculations themselves. they appear content to just say "yes to EVs" and "no to NGVs" without even understanding the true consequences their simplistic ideology will have on the very environment they pretend they want to protect. bottom line is that you and i are in agreement that we need to fix the foreign oil problem very soon (next 5-7 years) and that NG transportation can do that, AND reduce CO2 and particulate emissions at the same time. it's a win-win proposition!
The U.S. is blessed to have huge (huge with capital TCF's) NG resource in the ground. Most of the countries with populations in Asia do not. They also have even less infrastructure than the U.S. for nat gas. India still uses a large amount of LPG in tanks for their home use. Those nice little bottles of gas you use to power your gas grill...just a little bit larger and painted red! CNG will work there but will be more expensive than here.
I did hear yesterday that in those massive 0.5% budget cuts announced, oil and gas research was some of what was being cut! Thanks Dr. Chu! Way to stick up for us! Also nuclear power research was cut. Windmills and bio's are well funded though! Oh yeah, defense programs were cut, but that's not a surprise!
Good job Fitz! Keep it up! When my truck wears out I'll be looking for the NG powered truck. Probably won't be a Chevy again, as it looks like they'll either be gone or run by Obamma+UAW. That ought to be a jewel of a truck with those folks in charge! Hopefully Hyundai will make a truck here in the US, preferrably at a non-union plant. I'm not a big fan of the Toyota truck just yet!
On a lighter note, Artful Dodger, are you an english professor by any chance?
Mmmark: yup, natural gas prices are "local" and NG prices in asia are higher than US. that is why i keep preaching that US natural gas reserves and our 2.2 million mile pipeline grid together are the single best competitive advantage over foreign countries when it comes to energy (which, after all, is the basis of economic prosperity). that is exactly why it pains me so much when fellow americans comment on my NG related articles so negatively. we should all band together and support our greatest competitive weapon in the war against foreign oil imports! we could be making great progress immediately if we'd just come together and have the will and the mindset to reduce foreign oil imports by leveraging US produced natural gas. at the same time, NGVs are an environmentally superior alternative to gasoline powered internal combustion engines, so NGVs really are a win-win. as far as toyota is concerned, longer term i'd love to see a CNG powered toyota truck so i could haul my teardrop trailer to CO and catch some trout.
Am I the only one that sees the handwriting on the wall. Bi-fuel is the chosen bridge solution in the Obamanation.
Kill Phill. Transportation fuel must be taxed by governments. It is a fact of life. Would Honda risk its reputation and profits with its actions unless governments expressly told them that Fuelmaker is not a good company to sell by the numbers and if Honda didn't kill Phill that they would kill Phill?
“CNG is an old story in Italy,” he affirms. “It is now a big market. Fiat has a fantastic bifuel vehicle using CNG. Last year, Fiat sold about 80,000 of them for fleet and individual use in Italy. There are now more than 400,000 CNG vehicles of all kinds in Italy.”
Stunned, Staffler concludes, “Now I know why Honda put Fuelmaker in bankruptcy. It is obvious they bankrupted the whole company because Fuelmaker is not a good company to sell by the numbers, but only with their intellectual property.” Most industry sources agree the core of Fuelmaker’s value is not its physical refueling devices as much as the proprietary engineering that makes the devices work.
www.thecuttingedgenews...
Perhaps Staffler is only half right.
STEVEN CHU: “It’s a possibility. It’s something that I think T. Boone Pickens has popularized. I think, you know, I’m agnostic, really, about it . . . My first impression is, let’s decrease the use of personal transportation, our use, by going to more fuel efficient cars and other mechanisms . . The other path forward is to develop the biofuels . . . using agricultural lumber wastes and plants specifically designed for growing energy and making our transportation fuel that way, to offset the oil imports. I don’t know which one will win. I think we could look at both. But remember, if we significantly shift our use of transportation to use natural gas. that will put a strain on natural gas use for industrial uses, for heating and other things . . . it’s a complicated issue.”
blogs.wsj.com/environm.../
October 14, 2008 press release:
On September 16, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Comprehensive American Energy Security & Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 6899) to help increase domestic production, ensure a clean renewable energy future for generations, create new green-collar jobs, and help consumers struggling with high energy costs. Key provisions from U.S. Representatives Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and Dan Boren’s (D-OK) New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions (NAT GAS) Act were included in the bill, including tax incentives to build the refueling infrastructure for natural gas vehicles.
On September 22, 2008 Barack Obama proposed a similar bill in the Senate:
Democrat candidate and Illinois Senator, Barack Obama, still found time last week to introduce legislation (S.3506) that would increase the tax credit for individuals that purchase natural gas vehicles and extend the credit through to the end of 2017. The Senator proposes increasing the incremental price eligible for a credit from 50/80 percent to 100 percent for all weight classes of vehicle, and a doubling of the tax credit for fleets that purchase more than 100 NGVs in a year. This last provision is identical to one proposed by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) in the Congressman’s NAT GAS Act (HR 6570). In addition, the Senator proposed increasing the amount the EPA can pay for alt fuel school bus from 25 and 50 percent to 50 and 75 percent (depending on the vehicle’s emissions), and reauthorizing the Clean School Bus Program at $110 million per year from 2010 through 2015. The program is currently authorized to be funded at “such sums as are necessary” until 2010.
mybossier.blogspot.com...
The White House made its first major statement on ethanol on Tuesday, mustering three Cabinet members to outline a plan to shield corn ethanol producers from the credit crisis, work with them to cut their use of natural gas and coal in ethanol production, and nudge the auto industry toward production of vehicles that can use ethanol at concentrations of up to 85 percent…President Obama put the Agriculture Department in charge of the multi-agency effort — a strong signal that the ethanol program remains a program for rural economic development.
greeninc.blogs.nytimes.../
The White House is channeling money towards plug-in hybrids and taking away research funding for hydrogen powered cars.
blogs.wsj.com/environm.../
“CNG is an old story in Italy,” he affirms. “It is now a big market. Fiat has a fantastic bifuel vehicle using CNG. Last year, Fiat sold about 80,000 of them for fleet and individual use in Italy. There are now more than 400,000 CNG vehicles of all kinds in Italy.”
www.thecuttingedgenews...
One of the people said Fiat initially would take a 20 (35% now) per cent stake in the company in exchange for its small-car and engine technology. Initially Fiat would not invest any cash, but its technology is worth $8 billion to $10 billion
ca.news.finance.yahoo....
President Barack Obama announced on Thursday that Chrysler would head into bankruptcy with the aid of up to another $6 billion in US taxpayer money…As part of the deal, Chrysler is signing a partnership with the Italian company Fiat. The government will be an investor in the revamped Chrysler and will help choose its new directors
ibnlive.in.com/news/ob...
Fitz:
The White House is definitely for NG as a transportation fuel. And, they just PAID Fiat $6 billion to take 35% of Chrysler to get at their bi-fuel technology. Chu leans towards biofuels, but also says, "I don’t know which one will win. I think we could look at both."
The bi-fuel (not biofuel) Fiat technology already uses gasoline/NG and is ready now. NOW! By the time Chu has developed his non-food/non-fossil fuel produced biofuel, this same Fiat technology will easily accommodate the new biofuel.
From just observing, it seems they have already compromised to:
1. Bi-fuel (gasoline/NG) cars from Fiat to reduce oil imports, NOW, while giving tax credits for expanding NG refueling at existing stations.
2. Bi-fuel Plug-in Hybrids when ready.
3. Non-food biofuels to replace gasoline, and for rural development, when ready.
4. Biofuel/NG Plug-in Hybrid (Tri-fuel?) cars refueling/charging at existing stations.
1. Bi-fuel (gasoline/NG) cars from Fiat/Chrysler to reduce oil imports, NOW, based on the $6 billion the White House is investing to get that technology.
2. Expanding NG cars and refueling at existing stations, based on existing tax credits (as well as legislation that Obama and Emmanuel introduced in September 2008 as an indicator).
3. Bi-fuel Plug-in Hybrids when ready, based on the increase in research for plug-in vs anything else.
3. Non-food biofuels to replace gasoline, and for rural development, when ready, based on Chu's comments and the White House's new ethanol task force.
4. Biofuel/NG Plug-in Hybrid (Tri-fuel?) cars refueling/charging at existing stations, based on the culmination of the previous steps.
1. I doubt they see ev and bifuel as mutually exclusive.
2. Some stimulus money went to municipal cng fleets. 2005 Energy Bill tax credits for cng car and refueling stations still exist.
3. Maybe each automaker will specialize in different solutions?
OldWizard: i agree almost completely except pragmattist is correct, there are some tax credits for building NG refueling stations. that said, without the NGVs policy support, i think it's basically meaningless. the administration quite simply does not have a robust and coherent NG transportation policy. period. therefore there has been no **change** and we remain addicted to gasoline and thus remain addicted to foreign oil. at the end of the day, it might as well be bush in office, because from an oil consumption perspective, absolutely nothing has changed imho.
To "Increase Fuel Economy Standards" and
"Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard" and "Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years;" natural gas must be in the mix, there simply is no other way.
I think the Fiat bifuel is their first step.
As president, Obama will work with stakeholders to facilitate construction of the pipeline. Not only is this pipeline critical to our energy security, it will create thousands of new jobs.
my.barackobama.com/pag...
Fiat's bifuel will at least get the ball rolling to use NG as a transportation fuel. Drivers can take advantage of CNG when available but can use gasoline when not. As they sell ($7k tax credit?), I suspect more and more refueling stations for CNG and E85 will start popping up, taking advantage of their tax credits. Newer models would add the plug-in hybrid component, but the bifuel edition is ready now.
old-wizard: i heard about the GE battery announcement but have not read it. do you know if the batteries are along the line of plug-in electric solutions or, for something like the toyota electric/nat gas camry concept vehicle (or prius for that matter), or both? just curious. i bet john peterson will write something about this soon. i think it would be great if GE would manufacture battery solutions for a camry elect/nat gas hybrid! and yeah, oil is going up sooner than i expected...i wouldnt be surprised by a pullback. that said, long-term, yeah, we agree on what is happening. it pains me greatly to see the idiotic ethanol programs when what we should be doing is pumping that money toward nat gas transpo.
On May 06 02:01 PM pragmattist wrote:
> Don't forget that… Fiat is the biggest player in the market for natural
> gas engines.
> wheels.blogs.nytimes.c...
>
>
> And that...Fiat initially would take a 20 per cent (now 35%) stake
> in the company in exchange for its small-car and engine technology.
> Initially Fiat would not invest any cash, but its technology is worth
> $8 billion to $10 billion, the person said.
>
> 209.85.129.132/search?...;cd=3&hl=en&am...
>
>
> Meanwhile...GSA will also target $15 million in an order to come
> by Sept. 30 for advanced technology vehicles -- compressed natural
> gas and hybrid buses, and all-electric vehicles.
> www.joc.com/node/410690
>
> And...Public transportation agencies across the country are joining
> in the celebration of Earth Day on April 22 with a variety of green
> initiatives and activities aimed at raising awareness and improving
> the environment.
> www.pottstownmercury.c...
>
>
> Along with many private fleets such as…AT&T converting to natural
> gas
> www.tgdaily.com/conten.../
>
> And…By converting only 10 percent of America’s fleets of trucks and
> buses to run on natural gas, we can reduce demand for foreign oil
> by $50 billion a year.
> newsok.com/legislation...
>
> Already…there are 1600 retail stations in the U.S. selling CNG.<br/>scitizen.com/screens/b...;idContribution=2636
>
>
> In Oklahoma…Boren, Sullivan and Benge have introduced federal and
> state legislation to provide responsible incentives for infrastructure
> and research that will result in the greater use of natural gas as
> a transportation fuel in the coming years.
> newsok.com/legislation...
>
> The State of Utah is taking new measures to firmly establish itself
> as one of the top purchasers of natural gas powered vehicles in the
> U.S.
> www.oxfordprinceton.co...;title=Utah+emerging+a...
>
>
> The State of California's Air Resources Board yesterday adopted a
> regulation to implement Governor Schwarzenegger's Low Carbon Fuel
> Standard calling for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from
> California's transportation fuels by 10 percent by 2020. The regulation
> encourages the use of four primary low carbon alternative fuels for
> transportation: hydrogen, electricity, natural gas and biomethane.
>
> www.azom.com/news.asp?...
>
> Many Senators desire… NATURAL GAS AS A TRANSPORTATION FUEL.
> epw.senate.gov/public/...;FileStore_id=e211e475...
>
>
> Obama pushes natural gas vehicles. Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois
> worked with Democrat Dan Boren of Oklahoma on a bill to help increase
> domestic production. Barack Obama introduced a very similar bill
> in the Senate.
> mybossier.blogspot.com...
>
>
> After the…EPA's CO2 Finding: Putting a Gun to Congress's Head
> www.time.com/time/heal...;br/>
>
> Reid suggested cap-and-trade legislation could clear the House by
> year's end,
> www.smartbrief.com/new...;copyid=2B37DFF9-58AE-...
>
>
> And…natural gas will be a clear benefactor of the cap and trade legislation
>
> shareholdersunite.com/.../
>
> Natural gas is likely to be the engine of growth in the foreseeable
> future, according to the US government’s Energy Information Administration
> (seekingalpha.com/symbo...).
> www.businesstodayegypt...
>
> Let’s Roll!
On May 12 10:00 AM pragmattist wrote:
> Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.
>
>
> As president, Obama will work with stakeholders to facilitate construction
> of the pipeline. Not only is this pipeline critical to our energy
> security, it will create thousands of new jobs.
> my.barackobama.com/pag...
adamnb2: why should the oil companies build a *very* expensive natural gas pipeline from alaska to the lower-48 if they cannot obtain agreements by the state of alaska and the US government with respect to taxes and cooperation? russian and chinese energy companies get help from the government with such large projects. that said, if we ever wise up and get natural gas transportation gets going in the US and if we ever make the decision to shut down all the coal plants that are killing our lakes, rivers, streams, and oceans - you'll see that pipeline get built because demand and economics will rationalize the investment. that said, as far as i know, COP and BP are going forward on the denali pipeline project as we speak (type).
There is no such thing as "producing" more petroleum.
There is only a finite amout, when it is gone, it is gone.
Unless you want to hang around and wait a few million years while we whip up another batch.
Oh, and by the way, you have been lied to about how much oil there is available.
ANG fuel tanks contain activated carbon “sponges” that adsorb 160 times their own volume of natural gas. They can be made from Corncobs , which have a network of nanoscale passageways that remain after carbonization. One gram of this material has as much adsorbing surface area as a football field. When natural gas is adsorbed on a carbon surface it ceases to act like a gas. Dense storage at low pressure makes it possible to hide the much smaller tank inside the car's frame. Here are some links:
www.anl.gov/PCS/acsfue...
www.greencar.com/artic...