Michael Fitzsimmons

Green Investors: Stop Hating Coal; Carbon Capture and Storage Here to Stay

correction: "....than does??" should be "...than does natural gas??" point being, if sequestration is so expensive and works (i would agree with the expense, not the "works"), then natural gas is 50% more efficient without spending a dime (as compared to coal)!!

Green Investors: Stop Hating Coal; Carbon Capture and Storage Here to Stay

as i was saying... CCS is a myth except in those cases where CO2 can be pumped into the Earth in order to get something out (like natural gas). since the vast majority of existing coal plants are not near natural gas reserves, they will continue to spew pollutants into the air and water. even if sequestration works (it doesn't), what are you going to do with the cocktail of toxic remnants (mercury, lead, etc. etc.) leftover from burning coal? if you don't think this is a problem, go catch some fish in the Tennessee River and eat them. further, even if sequestration did work (it doesn't) wouldn't it be idiotic to start with a fuel (coal) that has 50% more CO2 emissions than does coal?? coal is a failed 20th century fuel. natural gas is abundant, clean, and cheap! make way for the 21st century clean gaseous fuels: solar, wind, natural gas, and hydrogen.

Green Investors: Stop Hating Coal; Carbon Capture and Storage Here to Stay

CCS is a myth except in those cases where it

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

adamnb: question back at you: what is the cost of being addicted to foreign oil (i'll give you a hint, the S&P500 for the last 10 years is *negative*).

adamnb2: why should the oil companies build a *very* expensive natural gas pipeline from alaska to the lower-48 if they cannot obtain agreements by the state of alaska and the US government with respect to taxes and cooperation? russian and chinese energy companies get help from the government with such large projects. that said, if we ever wise up and get natural gas transportation gets going in the US and if we ever make the decision to shut down all the coal plants that are killing our lakes, rivers, streams, and oceans - you'll see that pipeline get built because demand and economics will rationalize the investment. that said, as far as i know, COP and BP are going forward on the denali pipeline project as we speak (type).

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

pragmattist: i certainly hope you are right wrt the fiat bi-fuel vehicle. time will tell.

old-wizard: i heard about the GE battery announcement but have not read it. do you know if the batteries are along the line of plug-in electric solutions or, for something like the toyota electric/nat gas camry concept vehicle (or prius for that matter), or both? just curious. i bet john peterson will write something about this soon. i think it would be great if GE would manufacture battery solutions for a camry elect/nat gas hybrid! and yeah, oil is going up sooner than i expected...i wouldnt be surprised by a pullback. that said, long-term, yeah, we agree on what is happening. it pains me greatly to see the idiotic ethanol programs when what we should be doing is pumping that money toward nat gas transpo.

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

pragmattist: i certainly hope you are right. that said, i disagree with obama's tactics. the economic, environmental, and national security arguments to support US produced natural gas transportation are so sound, so compelling, and so obvious, that all he need do is articulate them from his bully pulpit and the american people and industry would kick some ass and get it done. his failure to do so is a big dissapointment for me. perhaps i am just naive about politics and strategy, if his strategy does succeed, i'll be the first one to give him credit and eat some crow. that said, the urgency and pace of progress, at this point, is entirely too slow to meet the magnitude of the challenge and the severity of the consequences as a result of failing to adopt robust natural gas transportation policies. foreign oil consumption is proceeding unabated exactly as it did for 8 years on george bush. further, i see no obama policies to change that course. so, obama has defacto supported the status quo: US addiction to gasoline derived from foreign oil. in the era of peak oil, it is simply a recipe for economic ruin and all that historically follows...

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

pragmattist: if obama and chu were really behind electric/ng hybrids, they would have invited the CEO of toyota to the white house and given broad and public support for the camry hybrid vehicle. they would have done the same with ford, GM, and chrysler during the tax-payer money giveaway. you apparently have a theory that obama and chu are being publicly quiet about ng transportation while moving stealthily behind the scenes to make it happen. i don't agree. i think they are just like bush: keeping us addicted to gasoline and foreign oil. what is needed is a true leader that can clearly articulate the economic, environmental, and national security issues facing the country as a result of foreign oil addiction. it should be job #1. obama and chu are obviously not the leaders to do this. while i support wind and solar, they generate electricity, not gasoline.

OldWizard: i agree almost completely except pragmattist is correct, there are some tax credits for building NG refueling stations. that said, without the NGVs policy support, i think it's basically meaningless. the administration quite simply does not have a robust and coherent NG transportation policy. period. therefore there has been no **change** and we remain addicted to gasoline and thus remain addicted to foreign oil. at the end of the day, it might as well be bush in office, because from an oil consumption perspective, absolutely nothing has changed imho.

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

pragmattist: well, all i can say in response to your many references is that i have yet to hear obama say "natural gas transportation". i watched the recent energy summit in washington DC with many top obama administration in attendence (including chu), and i never once heard any of them utter "natural gas transportation". at the same time, they keep repeating "clean coal". if obama and his team really are for natural gas transportation, why aren't they speaking out about it? why don't we pick up the paper and read about the need to reduce foreign oil imports and the best way to do that is by NGVs powered by US produced natural gas. biofuels is a waste of time, distorts the food markets, and wastes vital water supplies. why do it when we have clean, abundant and cheap natural gas. chu obviously is not convinced on NGVs, and obama isn't either. they sure love "clean coal" though. i stand by my comments that chu should be fired and that obama needs to take bold and agressive actions to deploy NGVs in america. now is the time to do it when energy prices are low and raw materials needed to build out the infrastructure are relatively cheap. if we wait until the next peak oil price spike, and it is coming, we'll be in panic mode and the magnitude of the problem is such that we dont have the time to waste. imho.

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

pragmattist: i meant to type "i don't follow that logic" (not "u").

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

pragmattist: yes, aber was saying bi-fuel as in gasoline and natural gas (not gasoline and biofuels or some such) and i am not sure i see obama officials supporting that, although it would be a welcome start from the "agnostic on NGV" administration. of course fiat does make pure NGVs, and that is why FSYS will kick ass in italy. i never knew until recently how advanced italy was in NGVs and CNG refueling. i guess that is what happens when you dont have alot of oil. you bring up a good point wrt gov taxing of transportation fuel, and perhaps that is the real reason behind US gov anti-NGV stance. however, it's obviously an idiotic approach for the US gov to take: supporting foreign oil imports while at the sametime artificially reducing demand for US produced nat gas - simply idiotic. as far as the statement that the physical refueling device isnt the value, it's the engineering behind the device. well, what good is the engineering behind the device if you cannot monetize that engineering in products? u don't follow that logic. so, i disagree and i bet FSYS, who gets 85% of its revenue from foreign sources (i think i heard that % right on the call this morning) will kick butt over-seas with the Phill. if the US ever wises up, and FSYS can distribute, install, and service the Phill successfully in the huge US market in combination with an NGV, their stock will go to the moon.

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

OilFinder: good action! not only am i glad that you ordered Hefner's book and will read it, but i am also happy to know the book is available on borders. please let me know what you think of the book. obviously, i think it is fantastic and one of the most important books of our day.

Mmmark: yup, natural gas prices are "local" and NG prices in asia are higher than US. that is why i keep preaching that US natural gas reserves and our 2.2 million mile pipeline grid together are the single best competitive advantage over foreign countries when it comes to energy (which, after all, is the basis of economic prosperity). that is exactly why it pains me so much when fellow americans comment on my NG related articles so negatively. we should all band together and support our greatest competitive weapon in the war against foreign oil imports! we could be making great progress immediately if we'd just come together and have the will and the mindset to reduce foreign oil imports by leveraging US produced natural gas. at the same time, NGVs are an environmentally superior alternative to gasoline powered internal combustion engines, so NGVs really are a win-win. as far as toyota is concerned, longer term i'd love to see a CNG powered toyota truck so i could haul my teardrop trailer to CO and catch some trout.

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

john peterson: btw, with respect to your comment on the 51 mpg mileage of the plug-in prius, i have a friend who routinely averages over 45 mpg with a standard prius! what we should be doing instead of putting these batteries in a standard or plug-in prius is put them in an electric/nat gas hybrid! now we have removed gasoline (foreign oil) from the equation while also lowering the CO2 and particulate emissions from the gasoline.

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

WisdomvsInfo: not sure i can follow your logic: asia doesnt have pollution or oil consumption problems? chu recognizes that americans need to replace infrastructure to solve american foreign oil dependence and the environmental problems caused by coal and oil consumption, and therefore decides to stick with our oil and coal consumption patterns? that makes about as much sense as chu's "clean coal" mantra (that is, no sense at all). further, if you think the price of toilet paper and iphones is high now, wait until the next peak oil price spike (coming soon) after chu follows your advice and does nothing to address our foreign oil dependence. "consumption is worse for the ecology than pollution" you say? what if you are consuming hydrogen which only emits water and heat? that is simply a ridiculous statement to make. sure, i will grant you my "scheme" increases consumption of natural gas, but it *decreases* consumption of foreign oil and *decreases* CO2 and particulate emissions (after all, that is the entire point of the plan). the logic of your post induced a slight headache and i wish i hadn't read it.

realold: actually, they don't have to compromise their feeble minds about GW religion as the natural gas solution would significantly cut CO2 and particulate emissions, that is, it's a win-win solution. as you insinuate, i do agree there seems to be a US government conspiracy to use gasoline (foreign oil) as a mechanism to master and subjugate the american middle class. i also agree the US is in for a big drop in its standard of living if we dont cut foreign oil imports drastically over the next 5 yrs (and thus my push for NG transportation and my strategic long-term comprehensive energy policy). as far as people being clueless to climate change policies, my concern is the much more imminent threat that most americans are clueless on: foreign oil addiction in the age of peak oil. where do you sign up? well, i suggest you sit down and write your elected officials letters and tell them you won't vote for them unless they support HR 1835 and other pro nat gas transportation legislation. that would be a great start.

old wizard: i like your thinking, however the real punchline to the environmental purists would have come if you continued in the analysis to calculate just how much coal consumption would have to increase in order to recharge the electric cars given the growth rates you assume for wind/solar along with the number of electric cars on the road. that is what the environmental purists don't seem to understand, and from their comments on here, nothing i can say will make them sit down and do the calculations themselves. they appear content to just say "yes to EVs" and "no to NGVs" without even understanding the true consequences their simplistic ideology will have on the very environment they pretend they want to protect. bottom line is that you and i are in agreement that we need to fix the foreign oil problem very soon (next 5-7 years) and that NG transportation can do that, AND reduce CO2 and particulate emissions at the same time. it's a win-win proposition!

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

jack: i agree if someone is driving 900 mi/day in an area where CNG refueling stations aren't available, an NGV makes no sense whatsoever. however, the driving profile of the average american is that over 90% of their daily trips are less than 40 mi, so i believe an NGV and Phill make perfect sense for a large majority of americans. as far as NG and hydrogen infrastructure being compatible, definitely there needs to be a long term view toward engineering refueling solutions such that they work for both fuels. i do not believe the extra cost of such engineering is prohibited since both fuels are gases to begin with and the pressures we are dealing with are similar enough as to not require completely separate redesigns. i maintain much of the new NG infrastructure needed could be reused for future hydrogen solutions, especially for power generation when natural gas fueled systems might someday be replaced by hydrogen. another example - today Honda makes a refueling system that generates hydrogen from natural gas.

nakedjaybird: you are certainly entitled to your opinion. if you think "clean coal" is possible, chu is definitely your man. i obviously think "clean coal" is a myth. we do appear to agree on the need to reduce 5-7 million barrels of foreign oil a day. however, if you believe the steps 1-4 can do that, we disagree on that. all my research leads me to the conclusion that the only realistic way to reduce 5-7 millions BPD of foreign oil over the next 5 years, without jacking up coal consumption off the charts, is NG transportation.
that said, i am a firm supporter of continuing to build out the solar and wind infrastructures along with an intelligent and efficient transmission grid to transport that renewable power to end-users. i just wish we'd get some pragmatic and realistic energy policies which take into account that today, despite the huge year-over-year growth rates of solar and wind, together with ALL other renewable energy sources they are less than 3% of total US electrical supply. replacing 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline a day is *alot* of energy, and the only domestic fuel that can be scaled up over the next 5 years to do it is: you guessed it - natural gas. it would take decades to build out wind and solar to do that, and we simply *don't have the time to wait*. peak oil will see to that. so, let's get real.

hey john: thanks for the link i wil check it out. btw, i read your article recently on the performance of some of the energy storage stocks you were recommending awhile back. i considered of couple of them as they looked pretty good from a risk/reward basis, but alas, i didn't take the plunge as i was more worried about the overall market dynamics. *big* mistake! anyhow, great job on your predictions in that space!

macsmart: yes, definitely, write (letters with stamps - "snail mail", i have a sneaking suspiscion form based emails on the web to elected reps end up in cybertrash or get a canned response). even better, call your reps or visit with them in person. thanks for your proactive involvement.

fran: thanks, i keep trying to address your "what now?" question from long ago. thanks for the stock mentions, i will look into them. we certainly need asia, and china in particular, to jump on the NG bangwagon as well!

rip: yes, i was shocked as well. edwin black has alot of credibility in past articles, so i don't think it is just internet rumour. it's very strange too, when i spoke to the honda's consultant for AFV, he said honda was ramping up GX production over the next few years, doubling it in 2009. how does that jive with what they were doing with Fuelmaker? all over a measley few million bucks? it's mind-boggling a japanese company would behave like that. and man, do i wish FSYS would make a deal with Toyota and offer a Phill with a elec/nat gas Camry hybrid. if that combo was widely available throughout the US, it would be a huge game-changer, and foreign oil imports would begin dropping significantly as sales rose. it would be wonderful for the american economy, the environment, the US dollar, and US national security.

prariedog555: right on. utah is miles ahead of almost every other state. main reasons:

1) a very proactive governor and state policymakers
2) questar's willingness to build the refueling stations
3) and i believe, the mormon work-ethic and survival instinct

you're exactly right, utah is a "blueprint" for successful nat gas transportation. according to cngprices.com, the folks in utah are filling up today at from $0.73-$0.97 GGE. how sweet that must be. they have trout in utah too!

blu: yes, you are correct. i just wanted to add the caveat that long term, if solar and wind are built out significantly, or if hydrogen fusion becomes a reality, that i support EVs as a partial solution to reducing foreign oil imports. to reiterate, my favorite vehicle today is the toyota electric/nat gas hybrid vehicle that toyota won't make. thanks for your support and comments.

Making Natural Gas Transportation a Reality

aber: you are very lucky to be able to buy natural gas vehicles in italy. i too hope the fiat/chrysler deal enables their partnership to offer nat gas vehicles in the US. the key, once again, comes down to that little garage refuelling appliance, the Phill - otherwise broad-based sales probably won't materialize due to the lack of CNG refueling stations across large areas of the US. of course, a bi-fuel nat gas/gasoline car would be a solution for those living in areas where there are some nat gas refueling stations, but i yearn for the day when an electric/nat gas hybrid like the toyota concept vehicle is available with a Phill in a package deal.