Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Natural Gas for Cars (The key to ending OPECís control over the U.S. transportation industry)
National Review ^ | 08/26/2012 | T. Boone Pickens & R. James Woolsey

Posted on 08/27/2012 4:21:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Recent headlines provoked by two positive but modest developments — a slight early-summer decline in gasoline prices and a laudable increase in domestic oil production — have trumpeted that these developments mean we are on the verge of achieving “energy independence.”

Whoa.

Oil monopolizes about 95 percent of the world’s transportation, and OPEC — eight nations in the Middle East and four others — controls nearly 80 percent of the world’s conventional oil reserves. We cannot change anything fundamental if we continue to permit oil and OPEC, a monopoly with a cartel nested inside it, to maintain their dominance of the transportation-fuel market and if we relegate ourselves merely to working within the framework of that dominance to increase our share of the oil market. It’s true that by doing so we can improve our balance of payments and add some domestic oil-related jobs. Good. But this won’t fill the basic need: to break oil’s monopoly and OPEC’s cartel.

Why is that essential? Because oil is not just a commodity. It is a crucial strategic commodity, as salt was for many centuries when it was the only means of preserving food (to borrow Anne Korin’s excellent analogy). So long as transportation is almost exclusively dependent on oil, we are in thrall to OPEC and its decisions on how much to pump and what to charge us. OPEC has made the basic decision to maintain oil prices at a level where we borrow about a billion dollars a day — equivalent to a tax of some $4,000 a year on every American family. OPEC has this power to, essentially, tax us (without any more representation than George III provided our ancestors), because the Saudis and some others in OPEC can lift oil for less than five dollars a barrel, whereas for the U.S. and most other non-OPEC nations the cost is tens of dollars a barrel.

Saudi Arabia, the swing producer — the nation with large oil reserves that it can tap or not, as it wishes — has indicated that, to meet its domestic-welfare commitments, it needs oil’s price to be more than $90 per barrel. What it means is that, if the price of oil were lower, the Saudi government would need to go to the trouble of putting together an economy in which it couldn’t afford to keep a staggering half of its men unemployed and on the dole.

This low cost of lifting oil, especially in Saudi Arabia, and OPEC’s control of over three-quarters of the world’s reserves of conventional oil is why improved fuel economy for our vehicles, although a good idea, is not the solution to our central problem. Seeing us economize, OPEC can just cut production to keep prices up. We could never reclaim anything like the oil-market dominance we held in the Fifties and Sixties. OPEC would manipulate the market to plunge the U.S. deeper and deeper into debt and force us to spend the maximum it can wring out of us.

OPEC chooses to sell only about 31 million barrels of oil a day, almost exactly what it sold 40 years ago when both oil demand and the size of the world’s economy were about half what they are today. Like John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the 20th century, OPEC withholds oil from the market to keep the price up. It holds nearly 80 percent of the reserves of conventional oil, but only about a third of what is sold daily on the world market is sold by OPEC. We cannot escape the consequences of OPEC’s price-fixing by buying more oil from, say, non-OPEC Canada and less from Saudi Arabia. There is essentially one worldwide oil market. Other countries will just buy more from Saudi Arabia and less from Canada.

But suppose we become what many, inaccurately, call “energy independent” — that is, we produce about as much oil as we use. Wouldn’t that solve our problem?

No.

The U.K. was, by this distorted definition, essentially energy independent in 2008, and yet there oil hit the same peak, over $145 a barrel, that it hit everywhere else. The high price of diesel fuel in the U.K. led truckers there to strike.

A good idea would be the creation of a North American Energy Alliance. In the event of major hostilities that halted international shipping, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico could still share resources among themselves. Our two major neighbors are allies and good friends, and we should work with them when we can — for example, by permitting construction of the Keystone pipeline in an environmentally sound fashion — from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

We should not plan to secede from the world’s oil market. The problem is OPEC’s control of prices, not the fact of trade itself. As long as oil overwhelmingly dominates transportation and OPEC controls oil’s price, we cannot end OPEC’s control of oil prices simply by seceding from the world oil market. We do not become “energy independent” just by being able to produce as much as we use, as Britain learned in 2008.

“Independent” means “free from control by others” — not autarky, that is, shunning imports. We should neither move toward secession nor assume that our oil problems are solved merely because we produce more oil and improve our balance of payments. Instead we should follow Teddy Roosevelt’s example in dealing with Rockefeller’s Standard Oil monopoly and make OPEC’s cartel face competition. The only realistic way to accomplish this is to enable vehicles, in short order and with relatively little investment in new infrastructure, to operate on alternatives to petroleum products.

What are those alternatives?

Biofuels? Probably, to some degree. At present, the best candidates are mainly those made from algae. Biomass gasification to produce synfuels also shows some promise. Ethanol may have a role as well, as long as it can compete, unsubsidized, with gasoline.

Electricity? It has promise, but it won’t move 18-wheelers, and it will take years before all-electric cars and plug-in hybrids are a large-enough share of the vehicles on the road to substantially reduce the market for oil.

Other renewables? We are fans of an evolution toward wind and solar for electricity generation and will be more so as batteries or other electricity-storage systems grow more affordable. But what gets lost in the shouting on the cable-news talk shows is that since less than 1 percent of our electricity is generated by oil, the president’s call for renewable electricity generation to reduce oil consumption is more than 99 percent off base. Two-thirds of the oil we consume is used to move our 250 million cars and light trucks and 8 million heavy-duty vehicles. We can’t solve our oil problem without making it possible for people, realistically and soon, to choose a different transportation fuel.

The laboring oar in any practical, affordable, and near-term competition with oil will have to be pulled by a plan to enable drivers to choose between gasoline and fuels derived from natural gas.

Natural gas has become a game-changer because of horizontal drilling and hydrofracturing (fracking), which now make available huge reserves in shale-gas deposits. The effect of this combination on energy prices is stunning. There are about the same number of BTU’s in a million cubic feet of natural gas as in six barrels of oil. So some years ago, when oil and natural-gas prices tracked one another, if natural gas’s price (in mmcf) was at $8, oil would have been at about $48 — a ratio of 6 (barrels of oil) to 1 (mmcf of gas). But because of horizontal drilling, fracking, and OPEC’s thirst for U.S. dollars, natural gas at one point this year was under $2 per mmcf, while oil was well over $100 per barrel — a ratio of more than 50 to 1.

Fracking and horizontal drilling have caused the price of natural gas to plummet, and OPEC’s machinations have caused oil’s price to reach new heights, so the days of a 6-to-1 price ratio of oil to gas are largely gone. We are now in a world where the ratios are 30 to 1, 50 to 1, or even higher. This completely changes the energy picture.

Certainly drilling, including fracking, must be done in an environmentally sensible manner, but this is entirely feasible. The two of us grew up in Oklahoma, a few miles and a few years apart, hunting, fishing, and camping on land that had been fracked (although at that point fracking had not yet been combined with horizontal drilling). Except when you came across a small valve (a “Christmas tree,” named after its size and silhouette) surrounded by a small cyclone fence, you had no idea of what had taken place thousands of feet below you. Indeed, of the some 4 million oil and gas wells drilled in human history, about 3 million of them were drilled in Oklahoma and Texas. And hundreds of thousands of those, beginning in the 1940s, were fracked. The environmental issues that have understandably been raised about fracking are manageable if both sides are committed to reason.

Cheap natural gas, which is key to ending our vehicles’ oil addiction affordably and promptly, can destroy oil’s monopoly and OPEC’s cartel.

We need to move expeditiously to convert a large share of our buses, delivery vans, and other fleet vehicles to run on compressed natural gas (CNG); and trucks, to run on liqueified natural gas (LNG). The conversions will pay for themselves within a year or two because of the now-huge price advantage that natural gas has over oil. The market is already moving this way.

Moreover, innovative companies are rapidly devising methods for using natural gas as a feedstock for liquid fuels as well as for industrial chemicals. Stay tuned — these will not be limited to the old version of the highly capital-intensive Fischer-Tropsch process invented in Germany in the 1920s. Silicon Valley, Houston, Oklahoma City, and other venues are home to concentrations of very smart folks turning their attention to the goal of driving on liquid fuels made from natural gas. They are already beginning to change the energy game fundamentally.

Finally, the two of us agree that the U.S. should have an open fuels standard, a requirement that vehicles be able to use multiple fuels, not solely fuels derived from petroleum. An open fuels standard would inject fuel competition into the transportation sector. The two of us disagree only on one point: whether, as an alternative to gasoline for powering the family car, natural gas itself or methanol (“wood alcohol”) made from natural gas is likely to move faster into the market.

One of us (Pickens) emphasizes transitioning the nation’s heavy-duty and fleet-vehicle market to compressed and liquefied natural gas, a move that could create more than 400,000 new jobs and cut OPEC dependence by 70 percent. The other (Woolsey) stresses the low, one-time cost (under $100 per car), according to recent studies by MIT and General Motors, of making it possible to use methanol and gasoline in the same vehicle. But the point is not for policymakers, or the two of us, or indeed anyone to resolve these disagreements at the level of policy. The point is to do something OPEC won’t — let the market, the people, decide. Do as the Brazilians do and the Chinese are beginning to do — let drivers pull into a filling station and make their own choice about what to fill up with.

Do we really want to stay on our current path of being less willing than the government of Communist China to permit competition in the transportation sector of the economy?

Moreover, freedom to drive vehicles that run on fuels other than gasoline entail important health benefits. Driving on either natural gas or methanol removes the need to add benzene, which is carcinogenic, or other dangerous chemicals to our fuel tanks for the purpose of boosting octane. Published work by Boyden Gray and Andrew Varcoe shows how the use of benzene, like the use of lead in an earlier era, leads to huge medical costs — tens of thousands of shortened lives and well over $100 billion annually.

Our dependence on OPEC oil and the consequent strain on our national security and the undermining of our economic vitality add up to a problem that does, though, have a solution, if we just stay at it. Let’s choose some leaders who understand the issue and can lead the transition to natural gas as a clean, lower-cost, domestic replacement for today’s diesel, gasoline, and other fuels made from OPEC-controlled oil. And let’s arrange the transition so that the people decide how much natural gas replaces oil.

Let’s make a national commitment to this and bring forward the day when we can all cheerfully tell OPEC that if they don’t like it they can go play in their oil ponds.

— T. Boone Pickens is a longtime oil-and-gas-industry executive. R. James Woolsey is a former director of Central Intelligence, a venture partner with Lux Capital, and chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and of the Opportunities Development Group’s Advisory Board.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; gas; naturalgas; nturalgas; opec
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

1 posted on 08/27/2012 4:21:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“(The key to ending OPEC’s control over the U.S. transportation industry)” How about DRILL BABY DRILL and America could end OPEC’s control over the U.S. within five (5) years!

As long as there is a Muslim in the WH, OPEC will continue to control the U.S. transportation industry with the Unions controlling the TSA stopping and searching Americans and their vehicles.

Americans will never be free of Middle East oil until Obama is out of the WH period. Natural gas, crude oil, Nuclear power, and any other form of natural power that Americans can invent or develop without government control, and NAZI boots on the neck of refineries and oil pipelines will end OPEC’s control over the US!

2 posted on 08/27/2012 4:29:55 AM PDT by paratrooper82 (We are kicking Ass in Afghanistan, soon we will be home to kick some more Asses in Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I have seen T Boone on Cavuto make the case that we could become independent pretty much by fueling the heavy commercial fleet with natural gas.

He is basically a good ol’ boy, but a smart good ol’ boy. T Boone has spent a good bit of time as an elder good ol’ boy studying the problem. Being old and free from the restraints of those not retired frees one’s mind to think beyond the limits of day to day. He has done just that.

The problem now boils down to devising and implementing the transistion.


3 posted on 08/27/2012 4:33:17 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Present failure and impending death yield irrational action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Let me know when they develop the impact-proof fuel system first.


4 posted on 08/27/2012 4:33:26 AM PDT by SueRae (See it? Hell, I can TASTE November from my house!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Seriously? No. We already tried natural gas as a widespread fuel back in the 70s and again in the 2000s (though the second time it was used as a fleet-only fuel). It doesn’t work out at all the way this writer thinks, and there were many homeowners who could tell you about how bad an idea it was when their neighbor’s natural gas compressor for his car went on fire/exploded/leaked and blew up half the block back in the 70s.


5 posted on 08/27/2012 4:35:52 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

BUMP


6 posted on 08/27/2012 4:35:52 AM PDT by kitkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Boon Pickens wants to recoup the money he lost on his wind farms by driving up the price of his natural gas holdings. We have enough oil to fill all our domestic needs and to become an exporter. We just need to drill it.


7 posted on 08/27/2012 4:39:17 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

Used all the time in racing cars and aircraft, they are called fuel cells. Added with the current technology on the road for collision avoidance, and we have what you desire.


8 posted on 08/27/2012 4:39:56 AM PDT by mazda77 ("Defeating the Totalitarian Lie" By: Hilmar von Campe. Everybody should read it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bert

It should also be pointed out that natural gas is only this cheap because demand for it is relatively low. Throw the vehicle population of the US in there and watch prices skyrocket. Remember, the natural gas vehicles would then be competing with powerplants for the natural gas that’s out there. Then you can have expensive vehicle fuel and ridiculous electric bills at the same time.


9 posted on 08/27/2012 4:39:56 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: paratrooper82
I agree. There is a potential energy revolution coming that could take out nation to new, greater heights. The only thing that will stop or slow it is those that want to kill our nation.

The natural gas potential with the fracking of our shale deposits is hugh - and that's not including new oil production, coal, and nuclear. Look at what is going on in North Dakota and apply it to other shale trend formations. At least fifty good years of solid production if not 159 years in states that include Ohio.

10 posted on 08/27/2012 4:41:01 AM PDT by 103198
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
So who's going to line up to buy the new GM "Combustible"?

* crickets chirping *

Maybe if Toyota or Honda jump on board. Anything non-union's a candidate.

11 posted on 08/27/2012 4:42:23 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mazda77

Those are intended to contain liquid fuels, not gaseous ones under pressure. If you want an impact-proof gas cylinder, you will find they weigh more than the engine of the car does, empty.

To give you some idea of how long this has been promoted, watch this very early 80s video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irvktfQvu4M

Those lightweight tanks? Yeah, turned out they delaminated and ruptured after a while, which is why they never went anywhere in the marketplace.

For a given volume tank, you will get far less range on natural gas, as well.


12 posted on 08/27/2012 4:44:17 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

With capturing all of it instead of burning it off will also raise production and lower the cost. So why is it that your glass is twice the size it has to be? Dealing with a problem that is either a glass half full or half empty is not the way one should be looking at efficiency when it comes to dealing with engineering problems.


13 posted on 08/27/2012 4:44:34 AM PDT by mazda77 ("Defeating the Totalitarian Lie" By: Hilmar von Campe. Everybody should read it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob

Honda already sells a $25K natural gas powered Civic variant, the Civic GX.

Nobody except government agencies buys them.


14 posted on 08/27/2012 4:45:17 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: paratrooper82
...How about DRILL BABY DRILL...

Agree! My question is Why are we putting our oil on the OPEC commodities board and purchasing it back? This makes no sense to me.
15 posted on 08/27/2012 4:45:41 AM PDT by vet7279
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

NatGas folks have been dreaming of transportation demand for 30 years at least. And, with the 100% backing of enviro’s - at least throughout the 90’s and the early aughts. You’re right - the explosion risk is too scary and until that’s solved Boone should save his articles and get in the lab.


16 posted on 08/27/2012 4:47:13 AM PDT by major-pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mazda77

People have been trying to attack these “engineering problems” with NGVs for at least the past fifty years. Nobody’s solved them all and they’re still not very good.

Capturing it all isn’t even an option with the infrastructure we have now. We would need literally an order of magnitude more pipelines, etc., to even begin to feed the vehicle fleet.


17 posted on 08/27/2012 4:47:13 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Perhaps some will now understand why the environmental movement is trying to kill natural gas now.

Once natural gas becomes used for transportation fuel, it will be insane to reverse course and pursue subsidized electric, ethanol or algae.

Clean, domestic natural gas, produced by American workers earning above-average wages will become part of our culture in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York.

Turning the traditionally blue states of Pennsylvania and New York into energy proucers will also change the politics of those states......something liberals cannot allow.


18 posted on 08/27/2012 4:50:52 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

Power plants would then revert to coal and nuclear fuel. The reason for coal and nuclear not being used is political, not economic or scientific


19 posted on 08/27/2012 4:50:52 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Present failure and impending death yield irrational action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Natural Gas for Cars (The key to ending OPEC’s control over the U.S. transportation industry)

Geez, what dopey crap. Sounds as though it's written by someone heavily invested in natural gas. More than half of U.S. petroleum does not come from OPEC nations. 60% of world petroleum is non-OPEC petroleum. And since the beginning of oil production (1859), the world has used about 1 trillion barrels. The United States, in oil shale alone, has about 2 trillion barrels. This doesn't include what is out there on the continental shelf or in Alaska and other places. North America (U.S., Canada, and Mexico) dwarfs the petroleum reserves of the rest of the world.
20 posted on 08/27/2012 4:51:53 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

I personally think natural gas is a better electricity producer.


21 posted on 08/27/2012 4:54:40 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Personally I think we should realize our hydroelectric potential in the eastern USA and look at the gas as a cash crop.
22 posted on 08/27/2012 4:58:59 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SueRae; Spktyr; mazda77; Caipirabob; major-pelham
Let me know when they develop the impact-proof fuel system first.

They have. Only out-of-date, naive fools continue to promote the "explosion" risk of CNG tanks.

First, CNG is not as combustible as gasoline (1200F vs 600F)

Exposure to CNG is not dangerous, even if inhaled.....unlike gasoline.

CNG is lighter than air, which means it rises and dissipates quickly, unlike gasoline which puddles.

The design of the cylinders is subject to a number of "severe abuse" tests such as heat and pressure extremes, gunfire, collisions and fire. The systems are also fitted with valves and other safety devices to prevent leakage and eliminate the risk of an explosion - actually making them safer than the legal requirements stipulate.

Finally, a small rupture in a pressurized tank prevents ignition. It is the same reason why LPG tanks from your grille do not explode when pierced and exposed to fire....until the pressure is so low that it burns off the remaining product.

Most truck companies already have proven, safe CNG vehicles in their lineup.

Get up to date information and stop dwelling in the past wives tales of CNG.

23 posted on 08/27/2012 5:05:31 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

So your solution is to go back to the 70’s and start there? Or maybe it is to just throw your hands up and ride along in your crappy 70’s American car as well? The reason it went the way of the do-do bird in the 70’s and 80’s is because oil was relatively cheap then and there was no will to fund the R&D to refine the concept because Congress had eliminated most and eventually all R&D tax breaks for private investors to use as justification of minimal gains.

Fuel cells are also created to be the inner bladder for pressure vessels as well but most don’t know about them. The intent is to keep anything inside contained while the container it resides in is allowed to change shape even in blunt force altercations. Added to that is the use of propane fueled lift trucks in lots of industrial and distribution settings so it is not like nobody has been pushing this technology forward since the 70’s.

So, do we also ban the delivery of LP or propane because someone might hit the truck while texting, farding or painting their fingernails?

All that is required is the need for anything and the brightest minds in our country will find a way to deliver. Keep the government out of it and instead releases the entrepreneurial power of R&D tax breaks and it will be solved very quickly if it has not been done already for a totally separate industry. Doesn’t that also sound like something that Pickens would invest in?


24 posted on 08/27/2012 5:05:57 AM PDT by mazda77 ("Defeating the Totalitarian Lie" By: Hilmar von Campe. Everybody should read it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Pickens makes some very good arguments, but he has a financial interest in promoting natural gas. He may be totally on mark, but I'd like to hear an unbiased assessment of the benefits & RISKS associated with natural gas vehicles.

Unless things have changed since my motor-home owning days about 15 years ago, just filling up the tank can blow you to kingdom come by overfilling the tank. Either NG has got to become idiot proof, or gas stations are gonna have to go back to using (competent) attendants to fill your vehicle.

25 posted on 08/27/2012 5:09:22 AM PDT by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Geez, what dopey crap. Sounds as though it's written by someone heavily invested in natural gas.

Holy crap, I was right. It was written T. Boone Pickens. The best thing the U.S. could do is to toss out the environmental groups' ability to file third party suits to block nuclear plants and go full nuclear, like France. For all the fears about nuclear waste, it's way cleaner than coal (though that's not to say that I'm opposed to coal).
26 posted on 08/27/2012 5:13:07 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Greenies won’t support it. It’s still a ‘fossil fuel’ that produces greenhouse gases.

The vehicles are much slower with a range half that of current vehicles.

Like electrics, they are for special uses (which could be greatly expanded) and wealthy hobbyists.


27 posted on 08/27/2012 5:26:07 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

They use natural gas in Canada for their cars. Seems ok.


28 posted on 08/27/2012 5:28:32 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (ABO 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

Natural gas is even less popular in Canada than the USA.


29 posted on 08/27/2012 5:30:50 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
When I view the National Review article, the banner ad, from Chevron, says -- in colorful capital letters:

"We're spending over $8 billion dollars this year on
energy projects that move America forward"

The second line is in red, as if to enhance the socialist undertones, and it's alignment with the Obama campaign. Most of the Web pages I view seem to have an Obama ad on them, usually inviting me to dinner with Barack. This seems of a piece. My web browser must be infested with an Obama cookie.

30 posted on 08/27/2012 5:32:39 AM PDT by AZLiberty (No tag today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
Boon Pickens wants to recoup the money he lost on his wind farms ...
Bingo - we have a winner!
Seems like just yesterday when my TV screen was filled 24/7 with his ads touting wind power as the Second Coming.
31 posted on 08/27/2012 5:32:47 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There’s also room for the coal and nat gas to oil conversion. A pliot plant has been in operation and a commercial scale plant is being considered.The Fischer Tropf process I think it is called. Take the fuels we have in abundance, combine into a form we need.

Plus, there is shale all over the world including China. They will exploit whether or not we do.


32 posted on 08/27/2012 5:33:16 AM PDT by cicero2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Natural gas makes more sense for trucks. An increasing number of companies have trucks that can use Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) or diesel. Rather than needed natural gas refueling in every neighborhood, you just need it every 300 miles or so at truck stops on major interstate highways.

It is MUCH easier to cost-justify the more expensive dual-fuel engine on a commercial vehicle that consumes hundreds of gallons per month.

33 posted on 08/27/2012 5:38:12 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (A deep-fried storm is coming, Mr Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
Does anyone see this is article was written before and released on the Cusp of the GOP's Convention?

A Cowinkadink? I think not....

IMHO it is an Ipso-Facto endorsment of Team Romney/Ryan who would enable this, without having to endorse them. specifically....

34 posted on 08/27/2012 5:38:25 AM PDT by taildragger (( Palin / Mulally 2012 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mazda77

No, my solution is to use it as one of MANY feedstocks for hydrogen fuel cell cars. Going with hydrogen means you will never, ever be tied to one production industry or source type for your fuel - hydrogen can be made from source as diverse as applying electricity to water (as part of desalination), catalyzing it out of natural gas, chemically producing it from sewage waste, and the list goes on and on.

If we convert to pure natural gas, we’ll be right back where we are now at some point in the future. The liberal talking point about “Big Oil” will become “Big Gas” and prices ‘at the pump’ will skyrocket any time there’s a pipeline problem or a storage facility problem, etc., just like it does today. Worse, it will skyrocket any time generation demands go up.

Relying on a single-source fuel when a multi-source fuel is available is pretty dumb.


35 posted on 08/27/2012 5:39:07 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

“Let me know when they develop the impact-proof fuel system first.” - SR

Does your current gas tank scare you too?


36 posted on 08/27/2012 5:42:11 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SueRae
Let me know when they develop the impact-proof fuel system first.

They are here, a firm in Canada uses Aluminum rapped in Carbon Fiber, and unless I am mistaken 3M was partnering with someone to work on light weight tanks.

My "auto gnome" noticed that and found that very significant, when 3M gets involved it is the big time...

37 posted on 08/27/2012 5:46:04 AM PDT by taildragger (( Palin / Mulally 2012 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Did anyone notice a couple of weeks ago Waste Management had a press release denoting Gaseous Fuel Stations and will allow the general public to come and fill up as well?

That and Clean Energy's 150 filling stations @ Pilot Truck stops signifys the infrastructure is not only coming it is almost here...

38 posted on 08/27/2012 5:50:25 AM PDT by taildragger (( Palin / Mulally 2012 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

Natural gas is one of the best fuels for heating.

We used propane exclusively on our farm for 40+ years. It was cheap, it is not now. There was a time we used it in our farm trucks. Both worked fine. The cost differential of propane compared to diesel caused us to quit. Natural gas is similar to propane, but propane has a higher BTU content and can be liquified at much lower pressures than natural gas.

Engines running on propane develop no sludge. They are so clean burning that they last almost forever. We still have a couple of propane tractors that are now long in the tooth.

I am not sure LNG is practical for auto use because of the pressures involved.

Using CNG is not a bad idea for many forms of transportation.

Of course as long as Obozo is in power, nothing but high gas prices are on the horizon. He is the enabler of the Saudi part of the cartel. And supports all our Commie enemies.

Obozo MUST GO!


39 posted on 08/27/2012 5:51:30 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mazda77
The first thing we should do is get rid of fuel oil for home heating. All that can be used for trucking, because there isn't much difference between that and diesel fuel.

All home heating can convert to NG or LPG.

That frees up one he!! of a lot oil for trucks until they covert to something else.

40 posted on 08/27/2012 5:52:58 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

limited range or no cargo space due to tanks is a huge problem.

Another is refueling. in Minneapolis we have one public station.

Now.. if you run out of fuel.. we’ll your screwed. No carrying a gallon can of fuel to the car.

No thanks to nat gas cars.

Drill baby drill.


41 posted on 08/27/2012 5:54:34 AM PDT by cableguymn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
But suppose we become what many, inaccurately, call “energy independent” — that is, we produce about as much oil as we use. Wouldn’t that solve our problem?

No.

That's a little misleading. If the U.S. were to add enough petroleum capacity to become "energy independent" it is true that this oil would compete for customers at the world market price. And we would pay that price. But adding that much new oil to the worlds daily available supply would certainly result in less influence on the price of oil than is currently enjoyed by OPEC.

How much? I don't know but I wouldn't be asking T. Boone Pickens for my answer. He's pushing natural gas not oil.

42 posted on 08/27/2012 5:56:19 AM PDT by InterceptPoint (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
I seriously considered going CNG, but the lack of public refueling stations and the expense and limited number of EPA certified CNG conversion kits kept me on gasoline. I looked at the home fueling stations, but they are pricey and require a dedicated gas line from the meter. I researched used CNG vehicles but there are not many in my area.
I'd still consider CNG if the landscape changes. Even though you do lose some range, your MPG and performance is not greatly affected. And I'm comfortable with the safety of the tanks, they're probably about as safe as having 15 gal of gasoline under your car.
43 posted on 08/27/2012 5:57:38 AM PDT by jaydubya2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

I think with the Honda CNG you can buy a home fill kit IF you have NG available at your home.

Until someone invests in the infrastructure and car mfgs. make them more available, I think the Honda CNG is only available in CA and CT, we won’t see them in other areas. I wonder IF they can add CNG tanks at existing gas stations?


44 posted on 08/27/2012 5:58:17 AM PDT by Qwackertoo (Romney/Ryan 2012 The Future of Our Children and Their Children are at stake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven
“Boon Pickens wants to recoup the money he lost on his wind farms ...
Bingo - we have a winner!
Seems like just yesterday when my TV screen was filled 24/7 with his ads touting wind power as the Second Coming.”

Boone Pickens, and everyone else who invested in wind energy, did so knowing that it was not competitive and did not make any economic sense. They invested in wind energy only if two conditions were met:

1. Politicians forced utilities to purchase wind energy at prices far in excess of competitive options and would not require wind energy to be available when it was needed. Wind energy was always interruptible by the producer. Utilities and rate payers always had to pay for back up generation.

2. Politicians provided their project with huge taxpayer subsidies including loans that did not have to be repaid.

It appears Mr. Pickens has concluded that Obama will not win a second term and therefore taxpayer funded giveaways will not be available. This is why he is changing his position and promoting natural gas.

45 posted on 08/27/2012 6:17:59 AM PDT by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

bad an idea it was when their neighbor’s natural gas compressor for his car went on fire/exploded/leaked and blew up half the block back in the 70s.
..............
the technology has changed since then. a lot.


46 posted on 08/27/2012 6:25:31 AM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Qwackertoo
The fill at home kits cost around $5k for installation, but they have multiple problems. Takes all night to fill your tank, homeowners insurance issues, transportation fuel tax issues, upkeep and maintenance issues. Adding a bi-fuel conversion kit to a car or truck DOES make great economic sense, but a filling station is a crucial part of the equation.

The payback time required to make my car bi-fuel (gasoline and/or CNG) is about 3 years. Add to that the reduced maintenance costs due to cleaner burning CNG and added engine life and it makes sense...as long as I have a place to fill it up.

47 posted on 08/27/2012 6:26:42 AM PDT by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Triple

Actually, not as much as a propane grill flashback. Interested in learning about the fuel and ignition systems for vehicles.


48 posted on 08/27/2012 6:27:04 AM PDT by SueRae (See it? Hell, I can TASTE November from my house!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Triple
Does your current gas tank scare you too?

Mine does when I'm filling my car up and the gallon indicator on the pump is slowwwwwwwwwlllly going up, but the dollar amount indicator is spinning so fast, I can't even read it. Scares the crap out of me.
49 posted on 08/27/2012 6:27:53 AM PDT by crosshairs (America: Once the land of the free. Still the home of the brave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Sadly, the stupid users who caused the problems with the equipment back them have not. :P


50 posted on 08/27/2012 6:27:53 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson