[cripplecreek]

So what happens to home heating costs for those of us who heat with gas?

[Vaquero]

we need to tap the huge gas reserves in PA and elsewhere....we need to tap ANWR and our costal oil reserves....we have the fuel....we need a leader who is not trying to turn Amercia into his beloved Kenya.

[mountainlion]

Natural gas liquefies around 3500 pounds where propane is about 150 PSI. The cost of liquefying natural gas uses as much energy as you liquefy. 50% efficiency is not good next to 100% with propane. Would you like a ride on a bus setting on high pressure flammable container? Why not drill for oil and make more refineries? That would be the easy out!

[mysterio]

Increasing demand for NG tenfold will make heating bills unaffordable. No thanks.

[IYAS9YAS]

Thread hijack - I remember when the greenies used to tout natural gas as a clean fuel because the primary emissions were water vapor and CO₂. Now, with CO₂ being a goblin of "climate change", they condemn natural gas as being a contributor because of the very reason they loved it in the before time.

[squarebarb]

Bookmark

[jaydubya2]

I’ve considered a nat gas vehicle. The problem is there are no public refueling stations near me, and a home fueling station is too expensive.

[Big Horn]

We were using L.P. gas back in the fifties and it worked well. It is higher octane but less btu’s. It is a perfect fuel for many things and to valuable to use in trucks.

[naguszed]

I have a bi fuel vehicle that uses CNG & Gasoline. There are practical problems to using cng as the main fuel source.

First, you have to be confident enough to drive around with a tank of COMPRESSED fuel. If that thing leaks or is struck, it aint just going to spill on the ground.

Second, the CNG is less efficient than gas when you look at miles per BTU. This also translates into the CNG tank system taking up more space in the vehicle for less miles per tankful. This has something to do with how much the cng is compressed, but it’s nothing anyone would have control over to change. The mileage per btu is better by with gas than CNG.

Third, the BTU problem also translates into difficulties starting the vehicle when it’s cold out. The engine will crank literally 9 or 10 times under just chilly or damp conditions. Luckily, the bi-fuel computer in my vehicle figures this out and switches to gas when it detects this condition. (as long as you know it will do this if it cranks 10 times in a row) Then it starts on one or two cranks.

I would add the bi-fuel doesnt help much. I’ve got two fuel tanks, and little trunk space. Gas is better.

[Darteaus94025]

To my mind, the solution revolves around numerous nuclear power plants and electric cars.

[Paco]

Enough of this drivel about petroleum! Let’s just skip to cold water fusion and be done with it! You know we can do it! It’s just big oil and Halliburton standing in the way!!! /s

[Gondring]

We need to stop looking at energy by itself. As the corn ethanol debacle should have shown people, you can’t just raid another sector without consequences.

Corn is better used as food, and natural gas is better used as chemical feedstock for industry. If we burn it faster, watch prices of other goods shoot up. Watch us eventually have to use alternatives to produce necessary industrial materials.

[shove_it]

Here's Michael Fitzsimmon's reply to the author of this article from the Seeking Alpha 'comments' section:

"How can you justify such a title when simple math shows running half the American car and truck fleet on natural gas would *reduce* oil consumption by around 6 million barrels a day? Let me recommend a better (yet long-winded) title which is much more accurate:

"Natural gas vehicles won't decrease oil consumption because American policymakers prevent NGVs, natural gas refueling stations, and the "Phill" home garage nat gas refueling appliance from being available to the American public."

There, that's about right.

Meanwhile, in 2009, the US: - Imported 4.35 billion barrels of oil - which was 63% of total oil consumption - for which we sent $265 Billion overseas

Apparently, the "policymakers" "solution" to this moronic US energy crisis is to print more fiat money in an wrong-headed attempt to address a commodity problem (oil) with financial tom-foolery. It simply won't work in the future (and isn't working now). America's dependence on foreign oil is its #1 economic problem from which all others emanate. Instead of addressing the root problem by switching transportation to American produced natural gas and thereby: 1) keeping hundreds of billions (and in the future trillions..) of dollars at home 2) creating millions of good paying jobs in the auto, energy, and infrastructure sectors 3) paying royalties to landowners and farmers instead of foreign oil producers (many whom don't like us too much) 4) removing the need to fight oil wars 5) prevent funding both sides of the "war on terror"

Oh, and just for a kicker, we reduce CO2 emissions 30% and particulate emissions by 100% (over gasoline powered cars and trucks). Yeah boy, that's alot of "rhetoric". But your charts are very fancy, i'll give ya that.

Here is the real solution - a long-term, comprehensive, strategic energy policy:

thefitzman.blogspot.co...

And I repeat: Energy Secretary Chu should resign or be fired. Any energy secretary who believes in the oxymoron of "clean coal" and is agnostic about America's cheapest, cleanest, and most abundant source of energy (natural gas) has obviously risen to the level of incompetence. Feb 07 11:21 AM !"