Fuel Systems Solutions Conceptualizes a Better Energy Policy 41 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
A "Cash for Clunkers" bill is working its way through Congress. The basic points of the bill are:
- Rationale: stimulate new vehicle sales to help employment and the US government investments in GM (GMGMQ.PK) and Chrysler.
- Buyers can get a federal voucher for up to $4,500 by trading in their vehicle for one getting better gas mileage.
- Estimates predict 1 million cars could be traded in. That means the total price tag could be $4 billion dollars. This money will come from the Department of Energy funding in the already enacted in the $787 billion economic stimulus package.
- To qualify, you must trade in any car that has been registered for at least 1 year and gets a federal combined fuel rating of 18 mpg or less.
- The new car ($45k or less) must be rated at least 4 mpg better than the old to get you a $3,500 voucher. 10 mpg better wil get you the full $4,500.
- For trucks or SUV's, you only need to get 2 mpg better for $3,500 or 5 mpg better for $4,500.
The bill is currently in House committee and is supported by Obama. Senators from both parties are preparing to co-sponsor similar legislation.
So, Obama and Congress want to spend $4 billion dollars to swap vehicles that run on gasoline to, you guessed it, vehicles to run on gasoline! When will we learn? We are importing 65% of our oil from foreign sources, yet nothing we are doing here is going to significantly reduce that amount, let along transition us away from this economic, environmental, and national security problem. We've all just experienced $145/barrel oil, $4.50/gallon gasoline, and the worst economic contraction since the great depression. What will it take for our elected policymakers to get a clue about our dangerous addiction to foreign oil?
A closer look at the bill's proposal is scarier still. An SUV owner is going to get $3,500 of US taxpayer money to go from a vehicle getting 18 mpg to 20 mpg? Are you serious? This is lunacy.
What we should be doing is giving people the full $4,500 simply to convert their existing vehicle to run on clean and cheap natural gas produced right here in the USA! Converting a million vehicles to natural gas would cut foreign oil imports by 110,000 barrels a day. More importantly, the money spent to fill up on natural gas would go directly to American natural gas producers as well as US landowners and farmers for royalty payments (as opposed to foreign oil providers). Good jobs would be created in the energy and automotive industry. We would also be setting the trend and strategy for the future: getting OFF gasoline and significantly reducing foreign oil imports.
Here is a list of vehicles which have already have EPA certified conversion kits available:
Additionally, Fuel Systems Solutions (FSYS), an American company based in California, recently bought the rights to bankrupt Fuelmaker's "Phill", the home garage natural gas refueling appliance. The government's program should encourage adoption of this home nat gas refueling appliance by offering a voucher for it as well.
And, if Congress really wants to get serious about significantly reducing foreign oil imports, they would invite Toyota's CEO to Washington, DC to discuss how the U.S. government could entice Toyota into producing this electric/nat gas vehicle in mass quanities for the U.S. market. Better yet, combine this car with a Phill in a package deal for a $5,000 voucher. Now, that would be GOOD energy policy. Ten million of these cars on the road would reduce foreign oil imports by 1 million barrels a day ($25 billion dollars/year at todays oil price).
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
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 41 comments:
D. McHattie: yes, it makes so much sense it drives me crazy that Congress, our President, and our energy secretary ignore natural gas transportation as a solution not only to our energy crisis but our economic crisis as well. they can't plead ignorance any longer...$145/barrel oil and boone pickens ensure that americans won't soon forget (or, will they??). all i can figure is it's the power of the oil lobby. so, if you can't beat em, join em: invest in oil stocks cause oil is going sky high and i suspect most other stocks will go the opposite direction.
I actually place the blame where it belongs, on Obama's last two predessors for lack of action on CAFE.. The problem started in 1992, when Americans were duped into voting for Clinton /Gore and all their promises about a green future. Gore even ghost wrote "Earth in the Balance" to perpuate his green mystique. What happened next is these two characters buckled into UAW pressure to buy votes for 1996, scraped CAFE and brought us the infamous light truck exemption. Bush 43 followed and of course did nothing.
At least I will give credit to Obama for restarting CAFE from Bush 41. I agree with you that alternatives to oil would be best, but conservation is a very valuable action as well. A barrel saved is a barrel that does need to be produced from remaining active fields .
On Jun 11 05:26 PM user396040 wrote:
> I am still not certain which fuel direction (natural gas, plug in
> hybrid, diesel, biofuel) the auto industry will move in and I am
> very skeptical of any approach which involves a massive infrastucture
> investment. Natural gas automobiles have a big advantage as long
> as natural gas is a lot cheaper than petroleum but as more and more
> natural gas vehicales are deployed, the price between the two fuels
> may close. I think alternatives like natural gas and plug in hybrids
> work best for vehicles used almost entirely in a single metropolitan
> area - in China, the entire taxicab fleet is on natural gas. Once
> you start a cross country drive, you run into a real problem unless
> we deploy a nationwide array of natural gas filing stations. For
> this reason, and because of the enormous efficiency of the electric
> engine, my bet would be on the plug in hybrid. It would rely completely
> on electriciy for in city driving and yet could go across country
> filing up on readily available natural gas.
finance.yahoo.com/news...
> jack
user396040: well, i'd much rather spend money on infrastructure for which there is going to be an abundant fuel source than continuing to spend money on gasoline (foreign oil) based transportation that is bankrupting the country. at current oil prices we are sending $840 MILLION dollars out of the country every DAY.
isaac the great: *exactly*!! as hefner would say, 20th century dirty liquid technology instead of 21st century clean gas technology.
american-born: i don't care about my country? why do you think i have been trying for years to get america OFF of foreign oil and ONTO american produced natural gas. you simply don't understand the biggest threat to the american freedom and america's economic future: foreign oil. once you figure it out, get back to me and apologize for you accusation. thanks.
gordon: yes, and i am quickly finding out the illusion behind the "change" that obama was supposed to bring to US policy....
What this country needs is a fuel tax to push gasoline up to a minimum of $4.00 a gallon. People are not stupid; they will figure out what works for themselves. CAFE is just government heavy handedness and skews the marketplace.
On Jun 12 09:56 AM La Marque wrote:
> Longoil:
> What this country needs is a fuel tax to push gasoline up to a minimum
> of $4.00 a gallon. People are not stupid; they will figure out what
> works for themselves. CAFE is just government heavy handedness and
> skews the marketplace.
There's a CAFE discussion that it contributed to GM bankruptcy. As GM declined, CAFE required it to build little cars that it lost most money on while holding its own with SUV and bigger. Without CAFE GM could have left the little car market and limped along longer in big vehicle market.
Fitzman, your idea is a big step forward. Serving every market with Nat. Gas vehicles should not be a necessity. It will work very well where it can work and will grow based on its success. Nat Gas car drivers are paying around $1/gas equivalent.
One more thing. Nat. Gas conversions used to be very popular and accessible. Then EPA got involved and took over which cars could be converted and the cost went way up. I'll think you'll find a conspiracy theory there.
On Jun 12 10:18 AM ART005 wrote:
> All the CAFE talk seems useless to me. If someone wants a 45 - 50
> mpg car they can buy it today. My 1997 Accord gets 30 - 33 mpg cruising
> at 75 - 80 and comfortably seats 4 with a big trunk. 12 years old
> with better mileage than is the future CAFE. I have a hitch and utility
> trailer for big hauls from Home Depot. It does it all. It's worth
> under $5000 and costs a 15,000 mpy driver $1200/yr for gas. There's
> not much room in those numbers for gov improvement.
>
On Jun 12 11:19 AM nakedjaybird wrote:
> Duh! So as well as directly bailing out the autos, etc., with our
> tax dollars, we have an additional $4,500 tax dollar gift to specific
> individuals up-trading autos to help bail out the autos. Spread the
> wealth.
On Jun 11 11:41 PM american-born wrote:
> Sorry --- for writing a little long --- I have a lot more to say
> -- like too many American soldier have fought for more than seems
> to be happening in their and our Country ---- I'm gone
nakedjaybird 559 Comments Follow
Eric - where you been. Utilities have been subsidized for years to replace inefficient refrigerators - yes, the tax payer paid for them (utilities are guaranteed a fixed profit, remember?). Not only that, who do you think ultimately paid for all the yellow-lighted cities throughout our nation? Removing inefficiencies (yes, even autos so it seems) is fair game to take from the individual and 'SPREAD THE WEALTH" for the common good - that appears to be ____ (? what?).
PS: and the answer is: Democracy or Communism or.......?
ART005: the EPA (or, environmental destruction agency) has been paid off by big oil to INHIBIT adoption of natural gas vehicles. you can call that a conspiracy theory, or just one example of the power of big oil. same thing with EPA and coal. all at the expense of american's most abundant, clean, and cheap fuel: natural gas.
slowdown: because the electric/nat gas hybrid camry concept vehicle is the BEST automotive solution to solve the US's foreign oil import addiction. unfortunately, neither obama, our idiot energy secretary chu, or congress understands such a basic idea.
deweyp: i ask you, what can be more patriotic than trying to get americans OFF of foreign oil (gasoline) that sends money to saudi arabia (the *real* 9/11 perpetrators), russia, iraq, and iran? what is more patriotic than getting US automakers (and unions) to build natural gas vehicles that run on US produced natural gas? i don't understand why hard working people like yourselves in the auto industry don't see the damage that our addiction to foreign oil has caused your industry. building SUV's in an era of peak oil is, quite simply, idiotic. why not work more intelligently instead? this isn't a "liberal" issue, this is an *economic* issue. nothing threatens your economic well-being and your freedom more than this country's addiction to foreign oil (!). you can have just as good and well paying jobs building natural gas vehicles as you can making foreign oil based gas guzzlers. it's your choice. one will keep your job for decades, the other pretty much guarantees your out of work within 10 years. your choice. please, just think about what i am saying here.
No one I know in the auto industry wants to rip the tax payers off. The full intention was for 100% payback once GM and Chrysler is back on their feet. Hopefully Ford will not need assistance as it appears auto sales are on the mend.
1. Natural gas cars do exist. Fueling systems exist.
2. Adding regenerative braking to a natural gas car is not a technological hurdle.
3. PHEV (plug-ins) are a huge unknown based on world supply of battery materials, operating range, life/cost cycle, charge rate capacity, weather sensitivity, and all around market demand. The market/gov has to decide if PHEV are going to be light productive vehicles unable to meet current crash standards or PHEV will meet crash standards and give up most benefits of elec. car technology.
4. Almost 10 years ago practical analyst called for the bankruptcy of GM based on simple revenue vs. income charts. Union reps held their positions encouraging outlandish compensation and Execs. signed the contracts to keep the place going long enough for them to collect a few more years of million dollar salaries. The whole thing was a predicted scam publicized 9 years ago. Sorry you didn't get the memo! Details above in NakedJayBird.
5. GM had a 40 years head start on U.S. automarket. They blew that and everything else. Don't tell U.S. families paying their bills what social engineering now has to be done for U.S. auto industry to pretend they haven't destroyed themselves. U.S. auto industry doesn't build Nat Gas cars because they think they don't have to. Me thinks they doth protest too much!!
6. When you try to justify the value of an industry that killed itself, each auto worker you describe in your first post should ask themself would they pay themselves the rate to do the work for themself the rate they were being paid? The same applies to alot of U.S. workers.
On Jun 12 01:10 PM Deweyp wrote:
> Michael. I see 3 problems here.
On Jun 12 09:11 AM Michael Fitzsimmons wrote:
> longoil: well, i respectfully disagree. i think it is a giant leep
> in the wrong direction. spending this kind of money on cars that
> may only get 2 or 3 mpg more and still run on gasoline is, i think,
> crazy.
>
> user396040: well, i'd much rather spend money on infrastructure for
> which there is going to be an abundant fuel source than continuing
> to spend money on gasoline (foreign oil) based transportation that
> is bankrupting the country. at current oil prices we are sending
> $840 MILLION dollars out of the country every DAY.
>
> isaac the great: *exactly*!! as hefner would say, 20th century dirty
> liquid technology instead of 21st century clean gas technology.<br/>
>
> american-born: i don't care about my country? why do you think i
> have been trying for years to get america OFF of foreign oil and
> ONTO american produced natural gas. you simply don't understand the
> biggest threat to the american freedom and america's economic future:
> foreign oil. once you figure it out, get back to me and apologize
> for you accusation. thanks.
>
> gordon: yes, and i am quickly finding out the illusion behind the
> "change" that obama was supposed to bring to US policy....
The benefit is in redistributing the energy portfolio at a net benefit to the nation and probably the world. Illustrating more of what you question:
1. The limited market that can use a 30 mile/day PHEV will see their operating cost go way down compared to gasoline. Nuclear and Coal likely main source. Remember PHEV applies as much to bicycles and scooters as it does to cars.
2. Where nat gas market is strong those drivers will see their $/mile costs drop by almost 50%. For instance OK, TX, WY, MT, CA, others? Their less gasoline use benefits the other gasoline users just as with PHEV.
3. Geothermal Heat Pump HVAC can help offset some increased Nat Gas use with real savings.
4. Solar Hot Water at even the residential level is at least break even with Nat Gas, and much better than propane and elec.
5. Commercial scale energy alternatives usually can't match coal and nuclear but they help maintain a ceiling on the other energy prices to help keep their use more affordable. Wind, Solar Heat Elec., Geothermal Heat Elec. all provide elec. at under $0.10/kWhr.
6. Throw in more conservation education and it can be substantial. All we need is perception that oil prices won't always go up to run the speculators off. Right now the message is $100/bbl and then $200/bbl are guaranteed in the future. When that is believed it becomes selffullfilling (sp?) due to speculation.
On Jun 12 02:14 PM user396040 wrote:
"To qualify, you must trade in any car that has been registered for at least 1 year and gets a federal combined fuel rating of 18 mpg or less"
This is lousy policy 18 mpg or less. Also, if it wasn't to support the car manufacturers, this bill would allow used car swaps.
It also is only beneficial when the trade is worth less than the voucher, which someone estimated at 1984 or earlier.
The Japanese have increasing taxes on older cars to accomplish the same thing. In the USA, lieu taxes go down as the cars get older. Some mess.
user396040: in 2008 the US imported 3.58 TCF from canada out of 23.2 TCF, a small percentage. LNG was even smaller at .3 TCF as falling natural gas prices due to abundant US nat gas production doesn't make LNG imports profitable. data is from doe website:
tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...
so, we have plenty of US produced natural gas. most of the nat gas from canada is simply legacy, but we don't need it - we have massive US reserves. please read my recent article on this subject:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
as far as electric cars go, they aren't here. volt won't be out til 2010 and after 40 miles it still runs on ***gasoline***. so much for GM's big chance at reducing foreign oil imports. besides, it will take decades to build out solar and wind large enough to power a signficant number of electric cars. soooo, we end up burning more damn coal and polluting the earth. again, NGVs are the only solution in the near and mid term to signficantly reduce foreign oil imports.
thanks all for the comments!
On Jun 12 01:39 PM ART005 wrote:
> Deweyp, I don't think you have a technical background:
> 1. Natural gas cars do exist. Fueling systems exist.
> 2. Adding regenerative braking to a natural gas car is not a technological
> hurdle.
> 3. PHEV (plug-ins) are a huge unknown based on world supply of battery
> materials, operating range, life/cost cycle, charge rate capacity,
> weather sensitivity, and all around market demand. The market/gov
> has to decide if PHEV are going to be light productive vehicles unable
> to meet current crash standards or PHEV will meet crash standards
> and give up most benefits of elec. car technology.
> 4. Almost 10 years ago practical analyst called for the bankruptcy
> of GM based on simple revenue vs. income charts. Union reps held
> their positions encouraging outlandish compensation and Execs. signed
> the contracts to keep the place going long enough for them to collect
> a few more years of million dollar salaries. The whole thing was
> a predicted scam publicized 9 years ago. Sorry you didn't get the
> memo! Details above in NakedJayBird.
> 5. GM had a 40 years head start on U.S. automarket. They blew that
> and everything else. Don't tell U.S. families paying their bills
> what social engineering now has to be done for U.S. auto industry
> to pretend they haven't destroyed themselves. U.S. auto industry
> doesn't build Nat Gas cars because they think they don't have to.
> Me thinks they doth protest too much!!
> 6. When you try to justify the value of an industry that killed itself,
> each auto worker you describe in your first post should ask themself
> would they pay themselves the rate to do the work for themself the
> rate they were being paid? The same applies to alot of U.S. workers.
>
>
> On Jun 12 01:10 PM Deweyp wrote:
I noted the latest EIA NG storage report indicates we now have 30% more gas in storage than the long term average, so there is no shortage of available NG for transport use. The NG price is now at a historical low compared to oil, so there is a big financial incentive to use NG instead of gasoline.
I get 32-34 MPG on the highway and 25-26 around town on my 1990 Accord, so we haven't made much progress over the last 20 years in fuel economy. As gasoline rises over $3.00/gal on the west coast are we heading back to last years prices??
seekingalpha.com/autho...
On Jun 12 07:32 PM Deweyp wrote:
> You are right, I'm just a hard working grunt in the auto industry
> who heats his house with fuel oil, but I have an electric plug in
> my garage.
How much 10 million of these cars[natural gas conversions] would reduce foreign oil imports depends entirely on how much those ten millon cars actually consume, and what percentage of that is imported. Impossible to predict, you don't know any usage or consumption numbers. This is pure conjecture wrapped in statistics and presented as facts.
"There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics." -------Mark Twain
Secondly----there are only a handful of NG vehicles currently on the road---mostly shuttles in high pollution areas. There is no fueling or distribution service. There is no manufacturing capablity or distribution network to deliver and install 10 million vehicle conversions, nor acquire, store and distribute the added NG that would be needed. There is no service network available for repairs when things don't work
Third-------There are already 8 million Flex Fuel vehicles on the road that can use gasoline or E85 whichever is available. Flex Fuel vehicles cost no more than conventional gasoline vehicles and have been in production for about 20 years and are fully covered by new vehicle warranties. They use fuels that are completely compatible with current supply, and distribution infrastructure. Manufacturing, parts, assembly, service, distribution, repair and supply, are already onlne and in operation.
Simply mandate that all new cars sold in the US must be Flex Fuel capable. The cost is next to nothing----it is already being done, simply extend the capability to all vehicles sold.
Fourth-----a check with the Energy Information Agency shows that we are importing natural gas at the rate of 4 to 5 million MCF per year(that is million cubic feet units), meaning 5 million, 1 million cubic feet units---from 2005 to present. If we add a whole new area of usage, imports will rise accordingly. It will do us no good at all to trade imported oil for imported natural gas. If we had large stocks of domestic natural gas available, we would have no need to import 4 million million(that is not a typo--it is 4 million million) cubic feet of natural gas. That is 4 times the amount that was being imported in 1986.
Fifth--------diesel engines can run on biodiesel with no conversion at all. There is no need to change anything about our current system to replace petroleum diesel with biodiesel. We can even mix the two in any proportion from 2% bio to 100% bio to meet any supply demands. Biodiesel can be used in trucks, diesel cars, tractors, heavy machinery, railroad locomotives and marine diesel engines with no loss in performance.
------"> You are right, I'm just a hard working grunt in the auto industry
> who heats his house with fuel oil, but I have an electric plug in
> my garage. "---------
Biodiesel can also be used with or as heating oil to heat your house.
Natural gas comes no where near biofuels as a realistic approach to replace the need for petroleum.
your 2nd point: that was exactly the point of the article! FSYS makes a home natural gas refueling appliance. the country has a 2.2. million mile natural gas pipeline grid that already connects 60,000,000 homes in every metrolpolitan area. imagine how many of these devices $4 million dollars would buy. then, imagine once NGVs are deployed in these homes, how many gasoline station entrepeneurs would take advantage of tax breaks and install CNG refueling pumps to refuel these vehicles on longer trips (over 200 miles).
third: the majority of flex fuel vehicles in the US don't use natural gas. they therefore keep us addicted to foreign oil and don't solve the problem.
fourth: last year the US imported about 3 TCF out of about 23 TCF, which is around 13%. most of this is legacy canadian import. but it's not because we dont have the natural gas in the US, we do. look at todays production, today's prices, and reserve estimates of recent shale discoveries. if you would like to stay addicted to foreign oil, that is your choice - but you cannot use the excuse that the US does not have the natural gas! read this:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
fifth: biofuels is a failed strategy. not only does it cause distortion in the food market, it also is using huge amounts of every dwindling water supplies. biofuels is simply an effort to fool people into staying with a 20th century solution (liquids) instead of making the transition to a 21st century solution (natural gas).
so, although i can see you are ready to use any and every argument to keep the US addicted to foreign oil, and keep our economy on its downward spiral as a result, i think i answered each and every one of your questions to my own satisfaction, but i bet not to yours. this is the problem in america: everyone wants to stay with their gasoline powered vehicles in spite of the fact that it is quite simply building an economic future on quicksand.
1) peak oil and emerging market demand
2) abundant natural gas supplies
i keep reading from all the "experts" about how to trade based on this historical oil/natural gas ratio. believe me, it is history. of course, santoli disagrees as all US business media (CNBC, WSJ, Barron's, Business Week) are in denial about the oil crisis that is staring them right between the eyes every day. it's if ignoring it will make it go away. but like a bad tooth, it just keeps coming back and each time it will ache much more than before....
There IS no abundant domestic natural gas supplies.
The US has been a net importer of natural gas since 1958.
The US is currently importing between 16.0 and 16.5% of its natural gas usage.
Creating new demand for natural gas(as a transportation fuel) will only increase the percentage of natural gas imports.
Natural gas is no different than petroleum as a transportation fuel. You will only be trading one sinking boat for another sinking boat.
US Energy Information Administration Table 6.3 Natural Gas Imports, Exports, and Net Imports, 1949-2007
www.eia.doe.gov/aer/tx...
www.usatoday.com/news/...
Care for a couple of slim jims to munch on while you tool around town in your natural gas vehicle?
seekingalpha.com/artic...
for every natural gas explosion you can find, i can site just as many gasoline explosions in car and truck accidents. the natural gas "safety" issue is simply another tactic to keep us addicted to gasoline (foreign oil). in the countries that use natural gas for transportation, i am not aware of one credible statistical study that indicated natural gas cars and trucks are significantly more dangerous than gasoline powered cars and trucks. just more tactics so we can keep destroying our economy by importing foreign oil and sending our dollars bye-bye. end result: we are printing them as fast as bernanke and geitner can order the ink. what a moronic strategy for economic success. staying addicted to foreign oil in an era of peak oil is lunacy.