Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

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.

Comments

[freedml]

Your advice to any 'potential FM IP' buyer is a little late as they have made a deal with Fuel System Solutions.

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.

2009 May 06 11:59 AM

[blu]

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.

2009 May 06 12:02 PM

[freedml]

Filling your NGV with Phill ends up costing $2-$3/gal (depending mostly on your luck whether Phill fails before it reaches its required service interval), so they're not going to fly out the door with gasoline in the low $2 range. It also isn't speedy, filling at 1 gallon every 3 hours or so.

2009 May 06 12:03 PM

[jack kreg]

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.

2009 May 06 12:10 PM

[redbaron]

Fitz man, when I listen to T. Boone, he doesn't seem as pessimisstic as you do on this administration and the NG for transportation concept. Is my observation correct, or has the situation become more negative just recently and I am not up to date? I agree with the concept, and NG will be used for transportation at some level. Whether or not it comes to home fueling soon, is another question however; CLNE is adding to their lists of contracts each month and the concept is gaining traction, or so it seems to me.

2009 May 06 12:17 PM

[ripskii]

Excellent article. You've brought together many diverse aspects of this problem into clear focus and outlined steps toward the solutions. I think the central focus is the main issue along with leadership (or lack of it) because most of the potential components view their prospects through the lens of their own company/industry. The auto industry is a good example of this as their attention is focused on their immediate survival, not looking to solve our energy problems.

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.

2009 May 06 12:36 PM

[jack kreg]

ripskii, "advanced fast nuclear reactor", you would appear to have volunteered to provide such an article, you might also consider the American Solutions.com, N Gingrich's site as another forum of knowledgeable contacts.
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.

2009 May 06 12:46 PM

[Respirate]

Michael, thanks for another exceptional article tying together the topics and constructive comments of the past several weeks. IMO this is by far the best written and most persuasive of the series.

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

2009 May 06 12:52 PM

[Andy1234]

my question is this....if NGV are so great....why aren't people driving them now? What is holding NGV's from coming to the market place?

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.

2009 May 06 01:34 PM

[Michael Fitzsimmons]

freedml: thanks, and you are correct, here's an article on the aquisition of Fuelmaker assets:

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.

2009 May 06 01:36 PM

[Michael Fitzsimmons]

Andy1234: i can tell you why i am not driving one: because i cannot buy an NGV or a Phill locally. if Toyota sold the Camry elect/ng hybrid - i would buy one in a NewYork second. the chicken-n-egg problem of NGVs and refueling solutions has to be solved in order for NG transportation to become a real option for middle class american garages. NGV's would be economically viable once the chicken-n-egg problem is solved. what we know is NOT economically viable is transferring the wealth of the USA to foreign oil producers - agreed? you say a "recession" could occur? hellooo. peak oil didn't go away because of current low oil prices. these low prices are simply a result of demand falling off a cliff due to the economic disaster in part brought on by peak oil! you watch, i bet oil will rebound very quickly if the world economy picks up steam, and we'll be right back where we were in 2008 - on the peak oil economic yo-yo. the US is terribly *exposed*. we are just like the japanese in WWII...needing oil and wondering where it will come from and hoping like hell it isn't cut off (the japanese can tell you what happened when it was).

2009 May 06 01:45 PM

[pragmattist]

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?...

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!

2009 May 06 02:01 PM

[Michael Fitzsimmons]

pragmattist: i have officially appointed you as "natural gas transportation commander-in-chief"!

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.

2009 May 06 03:26 PM

[welcome2work]

A personal friend whose studied Alternative Energy told me this statement is very incorrect.

"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. "

2009 May 06 04:26 PM

[CGP]

Why don't you reference the Pickens Plan explicitly? it is behind many of the initiatives you mentioned, is organized and is actively lobbying. To get traction support has to be concentrated.

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.

2009 May 06 04:44 PM

[Michael Fitzsimmons]

Freya: i support electric cars. but only if we first replace coal-fired plants with wind, solar, or natural gas electric generation. otherwise, EVs deployed in the US to reduce foreign oil imports by 5-7 million barrels a day will cause HUGE increases in coal consumption. see my articles for a breakdown of US electrical generation percentages. in addition, there are range issues and battery manufacturing issues (they all come from asia). how is this a better solution in the next 5-10 years? in the long run, sure. in the short term, very poor choice. fyi: tonite i am going to a city council meeting because the TVA and feds have decided my county is the best place to put the toxic coal ash from the Kingston, TN tragedy. "clean coal" is a myth and the phrase itself is an oxymoron. as far as your previous comment that NG trans will "NEVER" happen, you are proof that there are always skeptics to game changing technology. just as there were skeptics that fought against the interstate hwy system, the man on the moon project, and cross-country telegraph and telephone lines, you will be part of millions of americans that will benefit from NG trans for decades to come. it's just that right now you have trouble visualizing how nice it will be to refuel your vehicle at home, to breath cleaner air, and to imagine the prosperity possible in the US if we stop sending all our energy dollars to foreign oil producers and stop burning coal. EVs have a great future one solar and wind and nat gas generation are built out. until then, it just drives more toxic coal consumption, and that is *bad*.

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.

2009 May 06 04:50 PM

[pragmattist]

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...=

2009 May 06 04:52 PM

[Michael Fitzsimmons]

CGP: well, although i mentioned pickens in the article, i should have mentioned pickensplan.com and suggested folks sign up (i have). thanks for pointing it out - hopefully people will read your comment. as much as i like alot of what boone is doing, i disagree with him on a few major points:

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.

2009 May 06 04:56 PM

[blu]

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...???

2009 May 06 06:17 PM

[anarchist]

hell, that alone will sink the use of NG


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...
>
>

2009 May 06 06:21 PM