How Natural Gas Can Save the U.S. Economy

US produced natural gas can literally save the US economy and usher in an era of economic prosperity reminiscent of the country’s glory days of the now seemingly distant past. This means it can also rescue the US equity markets. The other side of the coin is bleak: continuing US addiction to foreign oil in an era when worldwide oil supply won’t keep pace with worldwide oil demand is a recipe for economic disaster. In addition, the end of US economic prosperity due to its oil dependency will quite likely mean the end of democracy in the US. History is filled with examples of the ties between economic and political well-being.

A country with 5% of the world’s population that uses 25% of the world’s oil and imports anywhere from 60-70% of that oil is in a very precarious situation. Unfortunately, 2008’s $145/barrel oil and $4.50/gallon gasoline has not significantly affected US energy policy, the US media, or the US electorate. Even the financial turmoil suffered by the entire country, the US equity markets, and specifically US automakers haven’t fostered the kind of realistic energy policy debate the country so desperately needs. The US is going bankrupt trying to solve a commodity problem (oil) with financial tomfoolery. The cost of fighting foreign oil wars in a continuation of the pentagon/petroleum relationship that has dominated US foreign policy for decades has not shown a positive return on investment and has caused the US to top a 2008 world survey on a list of “most feared nations”.

These wrong-headed energy and foreign policies are one reason China is now in the cat-bird’s seat flush with foreign reserves (most of it US dollars) in which it can scan the globe and successfully buy up the energy reserves its economy requires. China’s energy deals in Russia, Brazil, Africa and elsewhere were all peaceful and amicable. What a contrast to the US’s militaristic approach. Before sending in your comments, I am a patriotic American and I do love my country. These are exactly the reasons which motivate me to speak out.

I’ve written many Seeking Alpha articles on why natural gas transportation is absolutely critical to the future well being of the US. Some of the more important articles are:

• Is There Enough Natural Gas?
• A Natural Gas Centric Strategic Long-Term Comprehensive Energy Policy
• America Needs a Natural Gas Transportation Infrastructure
  
• A Natural Gas-Centric Revitalization Program
  

In these articles, I have presented data and rationalization that our continued addiction to foreign oil will destroy our markets, economy, and democracy for why and how the US needs to adopt a natural gas centric energy policy and what that policy would look like.

I’ve reviewed Robert Hefner’s excellent book “The Grand Energy Transition” and detailed what America’s most knowledgeable natural gas expert believes to be our best way forward. I’ve presented the natural gas/electric hybrid concept car from Toyota (TM) and explained why this vehicle is an example of what US and foreign automakers should be doing with respect to personal transportation solutions and why the US government should support such vehicles and their manufacturers.

Despite valiant efforts by some Seeking Alpha contributors and comments to convince me of my energy policy faults, and that natural gas is not the way forward, I have yet to be convinced by anyone that the US can significantly reduce its foreign oil imports over the next 5 years without adopting natural gas transportation on a massive scale. Likewise, I continue to believe that it is exactly these foreign oil imports which are at the root of declining US markets, power, world influence, and its democracy. As Abraham Lincoln said, I’ll continue to persist with my opinion until someone can convince me otherwise.

All that said, where are we today?

Natural Gas is Abundant and Cheap

Natural gas is today trading at $3.65 per million BTU’s reflecting no simply the economic slowdown and reduced demand, but more importantly robust new supply from US shale plays. There is so much natural gas storage capability is just about maxed out despite a US rig count of 966, which is down over 1000 rigs from the same period in 2008 (Baker Hughes rig count). People in such natural gas enlightened states as Utah and Oklahoma are paying between around $1.05 per GGE natural gas while the rest of us in states that cannot even purchase an NGV and have no CNG refueling options pay 2.5x more for foreign oil derived gasoline. This is truly a sad state of affairs (except for those lucky NGV drivers in Utah, Oklahoma, and elsewhere).

click to enlarge

Environmental Status – Natural Gas is (still) much cleaner than Coal or Oil

Time has not changed the obvious environmental benefits of natural gas:

• 30% less CO2 emissions than foreign oil derived gasoline
• 50% less CO2 emissions than coal burning power plants
• 100% less emissions of toxic particulates of either coal or gasoline

Yet, still the “environmental purists” in the US continue to lump natural gas into the “bad” fossil fuel camp with its much more toxic counterparts coal and oil. Their lack of education, pragmatism, and logic continues to amaze me. Apparently, it is much better to bank on electric cars which aren’t here in volume, won’t be here in volume for decades, and will rely on coal power plants to recharge. This is quite simply idiotic environmental policy. Now, before the comments come flying in, I support electric vehicles. I support Project Better Place. I love the Toyota Prius. But, the Toyota Prius still relies on foreign oil while their Camry natural gas/electric concept vehicles relies on US produced natural gas.

Meanwhile, I have presented data in previous articles that show how banking on electric cars prior to building our adequate wind and solar infrastructure merely increases toxic coal emissions. You would think after the Kingston, TN coal fly-ash environmental disaster, one of the worst if not THE worst environmental catastrophes in US history, we would have started a massive program of replacing coal electric generation with natural gas. This is not happening, and the focus of attention with respect to the Kingston debacle is how the TVA could have allowed something like that to happen. This investigation completely misses the more relevant question: why on Earth aren’t we converting coal burning plants to run on natural gas instead? Natural gas has NO fly-ash or toxic combustion remnants to store, just 50% less CO2.

The Environmental Destruction Agency (EPA), oops, sorry, the Environmental Protection Agency still is not working to tear down the barriers to NGV conversions - a very sad example of a US government agency not doing its job. The only agency worse than the EPA is the SEC.

Political Realities

Sad to say, Americans who supported Obama are making exactly the same mistake as Bush supporters: they are ignoring obvious bad policy initiatives simply because “their man won”. While Obama has made some solar, wind and transmission infrastructure initiatives worthy of support, in truth he has done nothing to significantly reduce foreign oil imports over the next 5 years. He has appointed a Secretary of Energy in Stephen Chu who is “agnostic” about natural gas transportation, basically wasting America’s most abundant, clean, and cheap solution. Chu is incompetent and should be fired.

Obama supports “clean coal” and is spending billions on it when any rational high school student knows there is simply no such thing as clean coal. In foreign policy, Obama has simply traded in Bush’s oil war in Iraq for an oil war in Afghanistan. Let there be no doubt, the war in Afghanistan is not just over opium poppies, as explained in this Seeking Alpha article, it is about Caspian Sea energy reserves. And again similar to Bush, Obama is looking the other way at the financial fraud and there have basically been no persons sent to jail despite the evaporation of over 3 trillion dollars in wealth and a collapse of the US financial system. Obama is supporting and continuing the rich executive bailout plan as well as the Fed’s reflation strategy of printing as many US dollars as possible and continuing the massive deficit spending started under the Bush administration. Let their be no doubt. BOTH political parties are:

• having no rational energy policy to reduce foreign oil imports
• bought off by coal and oil lobbyists
• involved in the weakening of the middle class American citizens (is there a middle class left?)
• making unsound environmental policies
• engaged in deficit spending on an unprecedented level
• winking at corrupt and fraudulent financial executives
• sending US taxpayer money as bonuses to the most wealthy executives in the banking, insurance, and financial services industries
• supporting policies to insure US economic collapse (Yes we Can!)
• support martial law, increased surveillance, and policy state policies

Quite simply put, Obama is just as bad for all Americans as was George Bush – he simply looks better doing it, is much more intelligent, and gives much better speeches. But there is no doubt; it’s still Ivy League politics in charge at the White House. When will Obama be inducted into Skull and Bones? I would have rather wasted my vote on Ron Paul than knowing I supported a continuation of Bush policies. His goal of the US Congress appears to be US collapse such that instituting the S&B’s “new world order” can be more easily achieved if the millions of wealthy Americans no longer have wealth (or gasoline).

Meanwhile, most Americans are completely unaware of Senate bills 773 and 778 sponsored by Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) and cosponsored by Senators Olympia Snow (R-ME), Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Bill Nelson (D-FL). Soon, as in China, the US government will control when and what we can view on the internet and some say it won’t be long before the government will have access to everyone’s hard drives. Well, the Fitzman is putting his comment right here on Seeking Alpha for you to see – there’s no need to pry into my hard drive. Americans had better wake up and not be seduced by this constant partisan bickering. Pay attention to what is really happening while our government and media try to keep you distracted with trivia.

The Media

The US media continues to support every energy policy that won’t reduce foreign oil imports, keeps the US consumer addicted to gasoline (foreign oil), and continues to report irresponsibly on the realities of worldwide oil supply and demand. On the political horizon, there is a vast effort to convince Americans that health care reform is impossible despite the fact the US spends more on health care than any nation on Earth, is ranked 38^th the world rankings, and despite the fact that many countries on the planet have very workable health care systems with far fewer major flaws than our own.

Alternative Energy

While there are some good things happening in wind and solar, biofuels such as ethanol are obviously not the way to go: they use too much water and drive up food costs. I support wind and solar energy, and US energy policy has been botched for so long we’re now forced to build more nuclear plants. However, let there be no mistake, it will at least a decade before wind and solar can recharge a significant number of electric vehicles so as to make a dent in foreign oil supplies.

Meanwhile, we could be converting half of American cars and trucks to run on natural gas today and cut foreign oil imports by 6-7 million barrels a day within 5 years. And, just think of all the NGVs and CNG refueling stations could have been made available for the money the US government spent on “cash for clunkers”. Is it just me, or is it a joke for the US government to spend billions insuring that Americans buy more vehicles that run on foreign oil instead of US produced natural gas? Obama and Chu…what a team.

Conspiracy?

Has anybody seen those new Exxon Mobil (XOM) commercials about algae investments? Heh heh algae for gosh sakes? Hydrogen fuel cells, algae, what’s next - magic dust? Big oil will use anything to distract Americans so that they continue their gasoline addiction while waiting for the magic bullet of the future – always the future. Meanwhile, Exxon, Conoco (COP), BP, and Chevron (CVX) sit on truly massive reserves of natural gas. So, why are algae more viable than natural gas vehicles which have been around for decades and need no research dollars at all? We can and should start converting cars and trucks to natural gas and manufacturing NGVs and CNG refueling infrastructure immediately.

The Prudhoe Bay producers (XOM, COP, and BP) are even planning on building natural gas pipelines from Alaska to the lower-48. So, why are the CEOs of these companies not supporting Pickens and Hefner and others in their efforts to get the US off of foreign oil and onto US produced natural gas as a bridge to the solar, wind, and hydrogen clean energy future? Aren’t these CEOs American citizens (excepting BP’s CEO) and don’t they care about America’s future? It’s baffling to me. Sure they make more profits on oil, but they are still going to make big oil profits because the transition will take years and years and oil will still be around for decades. That said, if the US suffers economic collapse, what will their stocks trade for on the NYSE? What good is it for these CEOs to have mountains of US dollars if it collapses?

Inflation

Another effort by US media and investment “experts” is to convince investors that inflation is not and will not be a problem for years to come because employment is down and thus wage inflation will stay down. Poppycock. Did the Weimar Republic have full employment? Zambia? Various Latin American countries? Full employment is not a necessary or sufficient condition for inflation to flourish. Government spending and high commodities costs can accomplish inflation just fine on their own merits.

Oil is back to $70 which would have been considered an economic tragedy just 4 or 5 years ago. Now it’s psychologically “cheap” because it’s half of 2008’s $145/barrel. We’re still on an oil based economic yo-yo, boom and bust, on an every rising oil price trend line that will remain rising for the rest of human history. Oil based inflation will be as common as the wind and the rain. Unless, of course, we get transition transportation off of oil. But for reasons listed in this article, there’s no reason to expect that anytime soon. “No We Can’t”.

Investment Advice

So what should American investors do with their savings? Good question. Move to another country is one answer, but which one? What country will be least affected by US economic collapse? This is a serious question and I am soliciting comments. Ironically, after bad-mouthing the oil companies earlier in the article, what choice do we have except to buy XOM, BP, COP and CVX? I would add foreign oil companies StatOil (STO) and Petrobras (PBR) to this list, as well as OXY which is perhaps the most highly leveraged of them all to the price of a barrel of oil. These companies all have nice dividend yields and are making positive net incomes during this downturn despite financial press impressions to the contrary. Also, buy gold bullion. Not paper gold, not ETFs – take possession of some gold and bury it down by the creek or under grandma’s apple tree.

Buy gold, oil, and energy services (offshore deep oil is the best, like RIG) and stay out of everything else. The S&P has done nothing in 12 years (actually, it’s negative when one factors in inflation and the falling US dollar) and I doubt 12 years from now it will be positive from here, assuming the NYSE still exists. That is a risky assumption if we stay addicted to oil over the next 12 years. If that is the case, I sincerely doubt the NYSE will exist in 2015, let alone 2020. Even the oil stocks are risky in that scenario as the “new world order” government will at some point be forced to take over the oil companies in order to fuel and control the police state they are busily designing now. Witness the latest “studies” out of the UK recommending the government get directly involved in energy policy, production, and consumption because the free markets aren’t solving the energy problems likely to be faced in the near future.

Natural Gas Transportation and the “Phill” are Symbols of American Freedom

America’s most competitive advantage in the world today is its vast natural gas reserves and its 2.3 million mile natural gas pipeline grid which connects every major US metropolitan city and 63,000,000 American homes. Most Americans cannot even conceptualize who convenient and cheap it would be to refuel a car or truck in their garage using Fuel Systems Solutions (FSYS) “Phill” home garage natural gas refueling appliance. By the way, anyone see those awesome FSYS earnings announced last week? FSYS is up $2.83 today. Even if the US isn’t embracing natural gas transportation, many other countries are doing so and FSYS is in a prime position to capitalize on this smart trend.

Further more, most Americans don’t understand that the majority of US natural gas is produced by small independent producers. The largest producers (CHK, COP, and BP) produce less than 10% total of US natural gas consumption. What this means is that there is competition, and that the gas line will stay supplied and cannot be as easily controlled as oil. A reindustrialization based on these natural gas fundamentals could reinvigorate the US economy and US people as never before in history by providing a clean, cheap, and domestic resource as a primary transportation solution. The infrastructure built to provide CNG refueling could be done in such as manner as to prepare us for the hydrogen energy based economy of the future.

However, we are not going to get there with “clean coal” advocates Obama and Chu, and we are not going to get there if the American people stop paying attention to what the real goals of the President and Congress are. Further, despite popular American sentiment to the contrary, it matters not which political party the politician calls home – they are both incompetent and dangerous. Only breaking free from foreign oil and relying on domestic energy solution will the US be able to survive economically and democratically.

Disclosures: the author owns COP, PBR, and STO.

Comments

[Edvishnu:]

Mike is right on the money again. As a country we are running out of time. Its urgent to capitalize on natural gas to save a few million barrels of oil a day till a overall energy transformation can be completed. Whatever you think about Pickens, his plan is a great start. The bottom line is the majority of the US population are clueless and no politician wants the unevious task of educating them.
Looks like a " black swan " event with associated price spikes will be required to get the lumpens out of neutral.

Aug 12 12:18 PM

[mpherson:]

Great article! I'm new to this open discussion of the importance of using NG as central station power plant and vehicle fuel. Current price favors NG, but we will see the ratio change when the demand of the modified vehicles hits the road and central station gas-fired plants become the norm.
Exploration and production are in place, web of pipelines available to transport for power plant needs, but the retail facilites to dispense must be constructed. Will the majors front the change over at their retail locations? Will the government allow their auto companies to produce the modified vehicles?

Chesapeake (CHK) vision of initially selling NG for commericial vehicles would be a logical beginning followed by the service for passengers cars. What is the latest on the Chesapeake intentions?

Aug 12 12:37 PM

[H. T. Love:]

No, not "rather", but "before". This is because the trucking industry can make a *strong* business case for conversion sooner. This provides a stronger impetus to build out the needed infrastructure. This then makes it convenient for regular private passenger vehicles to switch.

Where infrastructure already exists, do the private passenger vehicles too.

Regardless, a legislative body that is *not* composed of bought and paid-for clowns is needed.

Want to change or society? Get rid of the "change" that so many bought into and get real change by getting more than two large and powerful political parties that really just swap masks at the party but are the same with the masks off.

HardToLove

On Aug 12 10:28 AM bertil wrote:

> Excellent and informative post and comments!
> Yesterday Mad Jim weighed in with comments and the question re Congress
> subsidizing NG as well as an interview with Andrew Littlefair of
> CLNE (www.cnbc.com/id/32375664) who build nat gas filling
> stations etc. It seems NG for big trucks (18-wheelers) rather than
> cars could be a real game changer...and that this concept is getting
> traction in Congress and beyond.
> CLNE is up 9% and UNG is down again ....

Aug 12 01:02 PM

[Jimbo:]

I think the main problem is in Washington. The current administration came into office on "Hope and Change". But the Nobel prize secretary of Energy says he is "agnostic" about natural gas. I am agnostic or, even atheist, about him and the rest of that gang. There are drawbacks to gas as a transportation fuel. We have had horrendous explosions of propane in tunnels, gas powered vehicles require more reinforced steel tanks, and ranges are shorter, compared especially to diesel vehicles. But we should be on a crash program to convert heavy trucks and buses to Natgas.

Aug 12 01:06 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

i was wondering why the number of comments was lower than normal this time, and i found out the yahoo feed didn't pick up this article(some bug on their end). anyhow, thanks to those of you who did read it and take the time to contribute a comment (or two).

WayneS: yup, agreed. Carter was the only president to signficantly reduce foreign oil imports (50%), yet the country seems to revere reagan instead and who did the opposite and ripped out the solar panels Carter had installed in the white house. that said, carter was somewhat responsible for the huge shift in electrical generation from nat gas to coal and for believing the exxon exec that US nat gas supply had peaked (instead of hefner who testified to the exact opposite). regardless, your point that the US has no energy policy due to our idiotic elected officials (count obama and chu in this group....) is correct. here is the energy policy the US so badly needs:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...

mc2406: agreed. very sad for a "democractic" country inhabited by so many very intelligent and educated people who know better but can't get congress to enact policies for the good of the many.

ART005: GM just doesn't want to build the volt, period. they are taking longer to build it than their first electric car the EV1. they are pricing it out of range. they are aware of the toyota nat gas/electric vehicle yet based the volt on gasoline. they aren't goint to build it in quantity. the volt is simply another distraction to keep the american public distanced from the real solution: NGVs and NG-electric hybrids (the best techincal and realistic solution, IMHO). and yup, NGVs are much cleaner (none of the particulates of gasoline).

john peterson: well, maybe all industrial users are switching to nat gas, but the biggest and most important are not (i.e. coal based utilities). in fact, in light of the Kingston disaster and the collapse in nat gas prices, they sill want to build MORE coal plants.....but yes, you are correct in that the fundamentals of oil and natural gas mean the traditional "ratio" is toast, and we are entering an era where big oil can no longer conceal the fact that hefner was right all along: natural gas is abundant.

rporter1: perhaps you can convince toyota to build the car. everyone i have contacted at the company has stone walled me -who can blame them, the US gov is stonewalling them!

bertil: thx for the compliments and i agree, the comments by SA contributors are sometimes as good or better as the article (espeically my articles). wrt CLNE, yup, they are making great progress and i fully support pickens and CLNE. that said, simply focusing nat gas on the trucking industry is not going to make the significant reduction in foreign oil imports the country needs. moving 50% of american cars and trucks over to natural gas would reduce foreign oil imports by roughly 6-7 million barrels/day, or, $450,000,000 US dollars per DAY @70/barrels. $1 billion a day at the old $145/barrel high. think about that amount of money staying in this country to feed our energy companies, farmers, and landowners who would receive the royalties instead of foreign oil producers who we then fight in the "war on terror". no-brainer huh?

jimkrow: nice post! and you're right, the majors don't want natural gas transportation because it would essentially mean freedom for the american people. freedom because most of the natural gas in the US is produced by small independent companies, and freedom because a Phill in the garage means americans could fill up at home. is it any wonder that the availability of the Phill is so limited?

baubau: not sure big oil can manipulate nat gas prices. note i explained that COP, BP, and CHK together produce less than 10% of total US nat gas production. nat gas production is dominated by small independent producers. btw, mass transit and conservation is in my energy policy:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...

Trane: thanks for the information, i don't check coal prices or the accuracy of your numbers because it is simply too expensive at any price, even free.

Elliot: ok, so you agree foreign oil imports is a problem. but you still haven't explained how we realistically and significantly reduce foreign oil consumption without using US produced natural gas in the transportation sector. if i may guess at the likely reason you have not done so, is because you, like me, haven't figured out any other way. so, there we are: natural gas transportation is the only domestic fuel that can be scaled up significantly and realistically enough to reduce foreign oil imports over the next 5 years. s, if you agree foreign oil imports are a big problem, then logically the efficiency issue you are focused on must take a back seat to the fact that natural gas transportation is the only way we can significantly reduce those foreign oil imports.

ART005: Elliot is also missing the following:
1) the time it will take to build out solar and wind technologies in order to recharge a significantly # of EVs
2) the time it will take to build out the transmission industry to move the solar/wind power to where it is needed
3) the problem of basic material supplies to make enough batteries for 100% electric vehicles of a significant quantity.
for those reasons, that is why i believe the nat gas/electric hybrid is the best solution for the next few decades. i fully support EVs and project better place, but anyone who believes we can signficantly deploy them over the next decade in significant enough numbers to significantly reduce foreign oil imports is deluded. even if we could get the cars built (and the batteries) it would mean drastically increasing coal consumption, and that is a terrible trade off the environmental "purists" in the US aren't pragmatic enough to acknowledge.

Aug 12 01:17 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

Trane250: thanks for the comment on railroads. the reason i dont focus on railroads is because it is imperative we solve the gasoline addiction for american cars and trucks. 70% of foreign oil imports are used in the transportation sector and we burn 378,000,000 gallons per day. that obviously must change.

Edvishnu: well said.

mpherson: ahh, the old chicken-n-egg problem of NGV and refueling infrastructure. that is why i feel the Phill is so important. the Phill would enable 2 car families to have one car simply refueled in the garage. if enough Phills were sold, the stations would come. note that majors like Exxon and COP have jettisoned most of their retail gasoline stations. the signs are still up, but they don't own them. they are preparing for government control of gasoline and dont want to be on the front lines when that battle breaks out (imho).

HTLove: i totally agree with you that it is now apparent, without a doubt, that both political parties in the US are completely incompetent and tied together at the navel. either one gives us a S&B's type ivy leaguer bent on "the new world order" with them of course at the steering wheel. china will have something to say about that. regardless, you are correct that we desperately need the american people to demand a 3rd party and i wish like hell i had pulled the lever for ron paul instead of obama. i actually have more respect for bush: he was very bad news, but at least he didn't even try to hide obama. obama is very bad news shrouded and concealing behind an intelligent mind and an engaging personality. so, obama will turn out to have been the more dangerous of the two (imho).

jimbo: totally agree with you washington (see the last couple sentences of the comment directly above). totally disagree with you on the "dangers" and problems you cite with respect to nat gas transportation. more propaganda to dis natural gas. there are many countries across the world that have signficantly adopted nat gas transportation, and there is NO statistical basis for the unsubstantiated claims that nat gas fueled cars and trucks are significantly more dangerous than gasoline fueled cars and trucks. i challenge you to produce a credible study by an independent entity that concludes otherwise.

Aug 12 01:31 PM

[Elliott:]

Art005 -- I'm taking storage efficiency into account.

We know that the Chevy Volt will be rated EPA about 230 mpg and the Nissan Leaf over 300 equivalent mpg. The most efficient CNG vehicle comes in at __ mpg? There's no way no how any CNG vehicle is going to be over 50 mpg. CNG is not in the same ballbark.

The problem is the internal combustion engine. It has too many moving parts, too much internal friction. It's an old technology that's served us well but it's time to move on.

The free market is answering the EV vs. CNG question: automakers are rushing new electric vehicles to market but are not rushing CNG. I think it's because the engineers know that electric cars are the next quantum leap in energy efficiency and low cost operation.

I say develop nat gas, nuke, coal, wind, etc. and make lots of electricity and use it to power small urban cars. Farmers, ranchers, big rigs, etc. can continue to use gasoline, diesel and CNG.


On Aug 12 11:56 AM ART005 wrote:

> Elliot, you are not taking into account the cost of the battery for
> a full service elec. car with on board generator. You are refering
> to a misleading definition of efficiency based only on electrons.
> If you include storage efficiency costs the picture changes dramatically!!

Aug 12 02:47 PM

[pragmattist:]

Natural Gas Act is going to pass in October
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3.../

Natural gas vehicle research bill passes House
www.forbes.com/feeds/a...

Hatch said at a Capitol news conference. "But I've been less pleased with the growth of natural gas as a transportation fuel. I believe strongly that we need an extra push to spur on the greater use of natural gas, to get more natural gas vehicles on our roads."

Reid, D-Nev., said natural-gas vehicles could save consumers money and help the environment at the same time.

"We must get serious about using cleaner burning natural gas and renewable energy, and this legislation is a strong step in the right direction," Reid said.
www.sltrib.com/busines...

A bipartisan group of senators—including Majority Leader Harry Reid—yesterday introduced the “Nat Gas Act,” which would provide incentives for natural-gas-fueled vehicles. A similar bill has been introduced in the House.
blogs.wsj.com/environm.../

Aug 12 02:49 PM

[ART005:]

Elliot, you are completely missing the point. The Volt can be rated at 2,300 mpg (no typo) and gasoline free for the lifetime of the car and it has the performance of a 25 mpg car at best. It is virtually useless. It's technically useless compared to vehicles having an on board generator and compared to other E.V. without on board generators it horribly underperforms. It is the worst of both worlds, hybrid and E.V.

You are repeating the baseless headlines. The Volt is only 230 mpg if you assume infinite life of the battery and all other costs of the car similar to conventional cars. In the real world the Volt will struggle to achieve over 25 mpg equivalent. You and the headlines assume the battery is a magic free box in which you charge electrons and when you need energy you just discharge what you need. Then you can say use of the charged electrons in the E.V. is more efficient than use of the fuel to charge those electrons if you use the fuel directly in a vehicle as thermal energy to drive a non E.V. Halleluiah, the world will be saved by EV, NOT!!

Every energy aspect of the battery has to be accounted for when evaluating the efficiency of the Volt. It's energy to manufacture, it's lifecycle, it's cost. The yachting industry is very intense in it's true evaluation of deep cell batteries whether they are charged by wind turbine, water turbine, solar PV, shore (grid) or diesel generator. The yachting industry currently factors about $1/kWhr battery cost not including the cost to generate the power going into the battery. Compare that to the real cost to use grid power ~$0.11/kWhr. The battery increases the cost of electricity around 10X. You and the headlines (230 mpg) can ignore it until you buy a Volt and then you'll have to pay for it!! Look at the Volt and CNG Camary discussion above. Counting added engine life, a CNG vehicle is about 90 mpg equivalent, the Volt is under 25 mpg equivalent.

Aug 12 03:42 PM

[ripskii:]

Fitzman: This article is your best yet and rises to a high in covering the entire issue of our excessive spending on imported oil. I noted that just this AM our monthly trade deficit was reported to IMPROVE to only a negative 27 billion $ due to declining imports as a result of our weak economy. If this doesn't underline you main point nothing will.

www.census.gov/indicat...

Aug 12 04:01 PM

[Bruce Vande...:]

Well said! Maybe the continuing escalation of gasoline prices to eventually spark the switch to NG to power our vehicles.

Aug 12 05:22 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

newamericanow: just got around to watching the video you referenced. and yeah, i should have mentioned the vaccination scam too as yet another bush/obamination plan gaining momentum....

Aug 12 07:49 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

Elliot: i hate to keep bangin on ya, but you say automakers are rushing EVs to market? is that right? where are they? nope - automakers are rushing *gasoline* cars to market (!) btw: the honda civic GX gets around 200 miles per tank, which is roughly 8 GGE, or 25 mpg (on an energy equivalent basis). but this comes at a 30% reduction of CO2 compared to gasoline with a 100% reduction in the toxic particulates of gasoline. and would be powered by US produced nat gas. you can call this inefficient if you want, but i'll take that in a heart beat (especially with CNG prices at about $1 GGE compared to $2.50 for foreign oil derived gasoline). but what really is inefficient is being bamboozelled into thinking EVs are, at the current time, the total solution when in fact the cars are not here in volume, the supply of materials to make batteries for 100% EVs in sufficient quantity is doubtful, and to recharge them in sufficient quantity prior to a buildout of solar/wind/nuclear and transmissions lines (which just about everyone agrees will take a minimum of 10 yrs, likely between 15-20) means we'll simply burn more coal, which is bad. further, you still have not shown me how your plan will significantly reduce foreign oil imports as fast and as significantly as a natural gas transportation plan. next, if you like the foreign oil derived gasoline version of the Volt, wouldn't a US produced natural gas version be better? lastly, i'd buy the toyota nat gas/electric concept vehicle in a heartbeat, and it wouldn't cost $40k like the volt, maybe $24k. as i said, GM doesn't want to make the Volt in quantity. it's just (another) smokescreen.

pragmatist: i hope you are right about the nat gas act. i'll believe it when i see it. as far as the research bill, what research is needed? NGVs have been around for decades. that's just what $30 million thrown out the window to give lip service to nat gas advocate? but comapre that to obama spending what, $5 billion (with a "b") on "clean coal". how much did congress spend on "cash for clunkers"? 3 billion? i don't think nat gas transportation isn't even on obama and chu's and congress' radar at this point. with all the money being thrown down the toilet, none if it is going toward the real solution: nat gas transportatoin. you are definitely more optimistic than i, but i truly hope you are right.

ripski: why thank you. you liked this article better than:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
?

Bruce: well, i would have thought $145/barrel and $4.50 gasoline would have done it (!) obviously it did not. the psychology now is that gasoline is cheap at $2.50. 5 years ago that would have been perceived as outrageous. the american people are somewhat dim-witted on this issue. that is why *leadership* is so important. that is why chu should be *fired* (obama too, i sure hope he doesn't win a 2nd term...). energy policy should be job #1 in washington, and as far as i am concerned, they get an F-. but again, i have come to the conclusion that they simply aren't trying to solve the problem because to control americans' mobility is to control americans. and that is what they are after. complete and total control. it's the only explanation, and rationalizes the patriot act, the martial law legislation, the executive orders, and the new proposed clampdown on the internet i referenced in the article. if congress and the president (and the "new world order folks") spent as much time trying to solve the foreign oil problem rather than planning how to control things when the problem blows up in our face, the country could solve the problem, remain free, and usher in an era of prosperity the ivy leaguers fear because then they couldn't control it and feed off it the way they are now. haha, i just realized i ranted all over you...sorry, don't take it personal..it just flows out my fingers sometimes.

Aug 12 07:49 PM

[ripskii:]

Fitz: You ask a difficult question. This current article imo encompassed the entire issue from an economic perspective. While I appreciate all your research and technical details articles and have learned a great deal from them, when it comes down to making the case for NG transportation fuel it must ultimately stand on its overall economic advantage. The ever increasing disconnect between oil and NG pricing seems to be pushing the solution toward NG more strongly than ever. Of course as you have previously discussed, a totally rational approach requires the addition of all the subsidized and hidden costs to each fuel in order to make a good decision. A good example of this problem is the failure to recognize that electric cars require expensive batteries and most seem to ignore the efficiency, cost and origin of batteries required to make them at all useful. If all the batteries for electric cars are imported which is largely the case now for hybrids are we better off than importing fuel? A total systems view of costs is necessary and you have provided that in this article.

On another point I don't believe the disaster at Kingston TN by the coal industry is well known and I've never seen a cost applied to it. This is just another example of ignoring the total cost of a particular solution.

Aug 12 09:24 PM

[pragmattist:]

the research bill, HR 1622, passed 393-35, shows strong support. its intent is to streamline the conversion of existing gasoline cars into NGV without having to spend as much money doing it as it currently takes. things like mechanic certifications to convert to NGV and other silly government hoops that need to be repealed because they are too expensive or obstructionist are being addressed as well.

1622 is how best to transition efficiently, not IF we should make the transition. i think it will inform the NATGAS Act implementation, which , yes, I believe will pass in October.

Aug 12 09:44 PM

[Shale Gas:]

here's an interesting article on natural gas staying below $4 for years:

www.rigzone.com/news/a...

Aug 13 06:56 AM

[Michael Fit...:]

ripski: yeah, i keep reading about lithium supply issues wrt building out a 100% EV. that is another reason i support the nat gas/electric hybrid solution. smaller batteries, clean, a longer range than a 100% EV, and doesn't depend on increasing coal consumption to recharge. i think the nat gas/electric hybrid is simply a no-brainer and i simply cannot understand why environmentalist in this country don't pound the table in support of that vehicle.

pragmistist: well, one thing is for sure: if congress doesn't pass the NATGAS act it will prove there is a conspiracy. they can no longer use the excuse that natural gas is in short supply or expensive. they can't argue it from an environmental perspective. the word is out: natural gas is abundant, clean, and cheap.

Shalegas: good article, and everything i read in it supports the US:
1) replacing coal electrical generation with nat gas generation
2) replacing foreign oil derived gasoline powered transportation with natural gas transportation
you would think that a country that has the economic, environmental, and national security issues the US has as a result of decades of coal and oil subsides would get a clue huh?

Aug 14 07:51 AM

[Michael Fit...:]

ripski: and yes, the TVA and coal industry have been very successful in covering up the Kingston disaster and keeping it out of the press. of course, it doesn't hurt to have obama and chu talking about "clean coal" every chance they get. it's an oxymoron and so are those two (removing the oxy).

Aug 14 07:54 AM

[pragmattist:]

www.pickensplan.com/bo.../

Aug 14 12:03 PM

[pragmattist:]

www.ens-newswire.com/e...

even Energy Secretary Chu referring to the potential of natural gas to solve America's energy crisis...Secretary Chu's approach seemed more sensible when he referred to the gas as a transition fuel to a transportation economy based on EVs running on biofuels.
www.examiner.com/x-290...~y2009m8d10-Natural-ga...

Aug 14 12:15 PM