Crocodillian: glad you brought up chu's exact quote, because it is a perfect example of his wrong-headed thinking and why he should be fired:
first he says he is "agnostic" about using the most abundant, clean, and cheap energy resource in the US (natural gas) for transportation. nothing "nuanced" there. BAD ENERGY POLICY. ----------------------...
Did you miss the point: "But remember, if we significantly shift our use of transportation to use natural gas. that will put a strain on natural gas use for industrial uses, for heating and other things . . . it’s a complicated issue.”
The decision to divert natural gas for use as a transportation fuel requires a conversion of our combustion engine architectures and petroleum infrastructure -- with massive costs-- and would put pressures on the activities which are presently supplied by natural gas (heating and electric generation)
I'd submit that while this may (or may not) be a good idea, the numbers aren't there to demonstrate that, and Chu's assessment that "its a complicated issue" is more correct than your assumption that its a simple one.
Author writes: "If Obama is sincere about reducing foreign oil imports, why has he not embraced this vehicle and why has he not fired Energy Secretary Chu for saying he is “agnostic” about fueling American cars and trucks with the US’s best energy resource: natural gas?" ----------------------...
Here's the comment by Secretary Chu, far more nuanced and thoughtful than author suggests:
QUESTION: “What do you think of proposals to expand natural gas as a transportation fuel?”
STEVEN CHU: “It’s a possibility. It’s something that I think T. Boone Pickens has popularized. I think, you know, I’m agnostic, really, about it . . . My first impression is, let’s decrease the use of personal transportation, our use, by going to more fuel efficient cars and other mechanisms . . The other path forward is to develop the biofuels . . . using agricultural lumber wastes and plants specifically designed for growing energy and making our transportation fuel that way, to offset the oil imports. I don’t know which one will win. I think we could look at both. But remember, if we significantly shift our use of transportation to use natural gas. that will put a strain on natural gas use for industrial uses, for heating and other things . . . it’s a complicated issue.”
My Thoughts on Oil [View article]
first he says he is "agnostic" about using the most abundant, clean, and cheap energy resource in the US (natural gas) for transportation. nothing "nuanced" there. BAD ENERGY POLICY.
----------------------...
Did you miss the point: "But remember, if we significantly shift our use of transportation to use natural gas. that will put a strain on natural gas use for industrial uses, for heating and other things . . . it’s a complicated issue.”
The decision to divert natural gas for use as a transportation fuel requires a conversion of our combustion engine architectures and petroleum infrastructure -- with massive costs-- and would put pressures on the activities which are presently supplied by natural gas (heating and electric generation)
I'd submit that while this may (or may not) be a good idea, the numbers aren't there to demonstrate that, and Chu's assessment that "its a complicated issue" is more correct than your assumption that its a simple one.
My Thoughts on Oil [View article]
"If Obama is sincere about reducing foreign oil imports, why has he not embraced this vehicle and why has he not fired Energy Secretary Chu for saying he is “agnostic” about fueling American cars and trucks with the US’s best energy resource: natural gas?"
----------------------...
Here's the comment by Secretary Chu, far more nuanced and thoughtful than author suggests:
QUESTION: “What do you think of proposals to expand natural gas as a transportation fuel?”
STEVEN CHU: “It’s a possibility. It’s something that I think T. Boone Pickens has popularized. I think, you know, I’m agnostic, really, about it . . . My first impression is, let’s decrease the use of personal transportation, our use, by going to more fuel efficient cars and other mechanisms . . The other path forward is to develop the biofuels . . . using agricultural lumber wastes and plants specifically designed for growing energy and making our transportation fuel that way, to offset the oil imports. I don’t know which one will win. I think we could look at both. But remember, if we significantly shift our use of transportation to use natural gas. that will put a strain on natural gas use for industrial uses, for heating and other things . . . it’s a complicated issue.”
blogs.wsj.com/environm.../