The American Spectator

Sean| 4.14.11 @ 7:00AM

Fine go natural gas, but leave out the government subsidies. No tax credits, no subsidies, ect. If its a good idea it will stand on its own.

Nancy G Murdoch| 4.14.11 @ 8:33AM

Exactly...crony capitalism doesn't smell any better when it's being promoted by the right.

Finbarr Moran| 4.14.11 @ 8:42AM

From your mouth to God's ear!

JohnK144| 4.14.11 @ 9:44AM

Under normal circumstances, I would wholeheartedly agree. But this is TRULY a national security issue. The Middle East is on fire, and it's NOT going to get any better for a while. The hapless obama is already throwing massive subsidies at ethanol, wind and solar, so if we shifted those subsidies to Nat Gas it wouldn't necessarily cost us any more. And the tax breaks/subsidies could be given a termination date just to cover the development stage. The fact is, Nat Gas IS viable for the marketplace, but we simply don't have the time to wait for natural market forces to make the change. It MUST happen sooner. It must start immediately.

D.Lukas| 4.14.11 @ 5:33PM

The environmentalists allreay have a new study out showing fracing pollutes more than coal.
Good luck on producing any new energy in the U.S. with the environmentalists and activist judges.

mames| 4.14.11 @ 11:01AM

This is not the solution. It requires retoolimg, conversion of engines, establishment of delivery systems and apparently Emmett thinks it is now ok to use subsidies. Drill baby drill IS the answer, we have plenty of oil, it is now thought to be renewing itself, we don't have to do any conversions to use it and when the ME sees we are serious OPEC will start to compete for a change. Just announce a SERIOUS program for drilling and exploration and we will see OPEC prices drop in anticipation of losing us as a customer.

JohnK144| 4.14.11 @ 11:33AM

You make a good point. I am all for domestic oil drilling, and I am no fan of government subsidies. But there are other considerations when it comes to Nat Gas. First is the "political misinformation battle" that the "progressives" have foisted upon us. "Oil is in limited supply." "It's a 'dirty' source of energy." "The 'future' is in Springtime breezes and sunshine." (And lollipops and unicorns)

The counter argument to all that nonsense is so easy to make that it gives us a natural opportunity to change the narrative. And changing the narrative is essential for changing the future.

As for "retooling," and "conversions," I see that as a major plus to the economy. As you may know, most of the major automotive parts manufacturers have been devastated by the downfall of the domestic auto manufacturers. Retooling to accommodate an enormous demand for new products is EXACTLY what they could use to reignite the industry, and those retooling investments would not have to come from government subsidy. Private investors would jump all over the chance to build that infrastructure if only there was a big expansion of Nat Gas availability.

And consider too, that millions of homes are already supplied with Nat Gas, and units can be installed in those homes for home refueling.

The potential benefits, including manufacturing economic activity, so far outweigh the initial costs that it is almost insane that we wouldn't start to move in that direction.

Macwell| 4.14.11 @ 7:24PM

Well John, you and I agree on most of what you said with the exception of refueling at home. The problem with a home refueling station is the fact that NatGas for the auto, or truck, must be pressurized. The pressure delivered to a home is about 4" of water column, or about 1/8 or 1/16 of a pound per square inch, which isn't going to pressurize anything. In fact, if a business wants higher pressure, they must ask and pay to get even 1 pound per square inch, which is still not even close to the pressure needed. Therefore, there would be a great need for refueling stations. It could be done pretty easily, but, Nat Gas companies would have to invest a lot in (retooling). Personally, I'd like to see us convert ALL of our cars and trucks to burn Nat Gas. Then we could tell opec to EAT THEIR OIL.

Big Tony| 4.14.11 @ 3:48PM

It's simply a tax break Sean. Not all tax breaks are good and not all are bad either. Do you begrude people getting a mortage deduction for buying a home? Are you old enough to remember how long it took the market forces to get diesel fuel into most gas stations? Short answer, a couple of decades! The US government is a mess no doubt, why won't they let us import the 68 MPG diesel Mini? Thank the EPA from what I've read. America is an economy that runs on fuel, the more and the cheaper the fuel the better the economy runs. This is a no brainer and if T. Boone gets even richer while the country gets fuel that's equal to a $1.50 gallon of gas more power to him.

p-squared| 4.14.11 @ 7:08AM

Why not let the invisible hand of the market put natural gas at the top of the energy heap? Seems strange that when liberals want to use tax credits, etc., to promote their favorite sources of energy (sun, wind, etc.) conservatives scream about the intrusion of the government in the free market, yet those same conservatives have no problem using those same methods to promote THEIR favorites. T Boone Pickens didn't get rich being stupid, and you can bet there is a huge payday waiting for him (and his pet pols?) at the end of this nat gas rainbow. His willingness to support the Nat Gas Bill with millions of his own money tells me everything I need to know. I'm not a liberal and I'm not an "environmental whacko", but I'm against any move by the government to pick winners. I don't know about you, but I've had enough government for one lifetime.

JohnK144| 4.14.11 @ 9:56AM

This goes WAY beyond anyone's "favorite" energy source. It goes beyond politics. Natural Gas is a PROVEN, high-yield energy source. The technologies are already existent, and the domestic sources are already known. This country is entirely capable of switching to domestic sources of fuel, with or without "subsidies," but we simply don't have the luxury of time to just "let it happen" through natural market forces. The Middle East could blow up tomorrow, and that source of oil diminished overnight. And would you still be arguing over T. Boone Pickens' potential profit on his investment?

NHLibertarian| 4.14.11 @ 7:11AM

Before waxing all sentimental over Mr. Pickens and his natural gas scheme - let's remember it wasn't a year ago that good ole boy Boone was pimping windmills as the answer to ALL our energy problems. I'm not against natural gas but I am pretty sure Boone's $80M ad buy will return 10-fold directly into his pockets.

JohnK144| 4.14.11 @ 10:06AM

Yes, and we hate it when someone actually makes a PROFIT on their investments, right? It's so "unAmerican." It doesn't matter if America falls off into the dungheap of history for lack of domestic energy. Just as long as no American businessman is allowed to make a profit.

America is all about people who take risks, and make investments in the hope of making a profit. The fact that this one just may secure America's future for the next century, I'd think we could be happy with Pickens earning a profit, rather than the Arab sheiks.

Storage Steve| 4.14.11 @ 1:30PM

Profit from a business venture is one thing but profit from gov't subsidies is just a redistribution scheme.

JohnK144| 4.14.11 @ 2:17PM

And it's a good thing we have no one "profiting" from government subsidies in wind, solar and bio-mass. All of which are black holes of economic loss.

You need to consider that there are areas of "subsidy" that actually profits the country. The interstate highway system is one. The building of locks and dams is another. AND, the building of a domestic energy infrastructure is another.

But for your statement, it would seem that if T. Boone Pickens were to rescind any profit from his investment, THEN it would be OK. As if that would make any difference to the nation's future.

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.14.11 @ 3:38PM

For me it speaks to his credibility. Nobody is saying making a profit is a bad thing.

calvin| 4.14.11 @ 5:09PM

Live Free; did not T. Boone back off his windmill tilt once it was clear he could not get congress to pay for the high voltage lines and right of way that would have made his green energy look profitable? It always looked to me like he needed the taxpayers to massively subsidze his patriotism.

scarygary| 4.19.11 @ 4:34PM

That may be true, but what matters is whether it's a good idea, not whether it nets him a profit.

Also, he's 80 years old, and has 4 billion dollars. I don't think he's overly concerned about making a killing in the market...

Bob K.| 4.14.11 @ 7:39AM

The natural gas industry has bought most of the politicians in PA, Republican and Democrat both.

It looks like most of the gas produced will be
piped out of the state and sold to NY City and Europe where the profits are higher. They also won't have to pay any Extraction Tax like they must do in other states and they are encouraged to Incorporate in Delaware to avoid PA's 9.9% Corporate Tax. The new Republican majority has no plans to lower the Corporate Tax and won't take action on the Extraction Tax.

Now it looks like the industry has set their sights on and intend to spread some of their money on the people who run Conservative leaning publications like "The American Spectator."

JFGalt| 4.14.11 @ 7:53AM

OBAMA! will veto this bill.

It goes against his purpose. Someone will be given the nod and a wink to attach something "sinister" to the bill and there will be an outcry that this bill must be defeated to save us all.

OBAMA! does not want us to be free.

He needs us in shackles. Besides do you think his big oil handlers will let it happen? They only make money when they keep us addicted to oil. We all saw how easily he went for Libya. Let that serve as a lesson of what he is really about.

Why can't people see that this guy is simply not what he says he is. You would think after all his broken campaign promises that people would speak up but no they won't. Especially minorities who tend to vote for a politician no matter how corrupt simply because he is one of them. I find it hard to believe that Wikileaks doesn't have something big on this guy. Speaking of which they have been pretty quiet lately.

JohnK144| 4.14.11 @ 10:16AM

I don't see this legislation being fast-tracked through Congress, so the mighty obama veto pen isn't the problem that you're thinking it is. But even if that were to happen, this would be a huge issue in the 2012 race, as some aspiring GOP candidate could take this issue and beat the "progressives" up with it. "Energy Independence." "Domestic Supply." "More Environmentally Friendly." "No More Financing of Arab States Who Sponsor Terrorism."

A trained monkey could take this issue and run all over obama with it.

Sam Levi| 4.14.11 @ 12:28PM

I have two words to back up what you say, Marion Barry

scarygary| 4.19.11 @ 4:39PM

I'm confused. What does the phrase, "the b**ch set me up" have to do with the nation's energy needs?

The Big E| 4.14.11 @ 8:23AM

If the time had come for Natural Gas to rule the road, then the market would be filling with vehicles designed to run on the stuff. Natural Gas may well be the heart of our energy future, but if it is, we will do nothing to bring that future closer by subsidizing it.

JohnK144| 4.14.11 @ 10:32AM

Tell that to UPS, who have retrofitted a large portion of their delivery trucks to run on Nat Gas. Tell it to the municipalities that have done the same thing.

I don't like "subsidies" for almost ANY reason. But when it comes to a proven, high yield, domestic fuel source, and coupled with the extreme instability of the world's major oil suppliers, the national security aspect of gaining energy independence trumps my concerns over "subsidies.

Besides the fact that we are currently "subsidizing" the most inefficient, and damaging "alternative fuel sources" in ethanol, wind, and solar, which drives up the price of food and shifts most of the profits to foreign interests, a simple shift of subsidies from "pixie dust" sources of energy to proven domestic fuels would not "cost" us any more than we are already "spending," and it would spur enormous economic activity, investment, and jobs in America.

And just remember this, we are at war with a good portion of the world that supplies our oil supply. As a nation, we should be on a war footing in the development of our own fuel supplies.

john| 4.14.11 @ 1:49PM

Subsidize ethanol at the rate of 45 c.p.g and put a tariff on Brazilian ethanol of 54 c. p.g.
Anybody home????? Yes they are, at Archer, Daniels Midland

The Big E| 4.14.11 @ 2:22PM

"Tell that to UPS, who have retrofitted a large portion of their delivery trucks to run on Nat Gas."

Thank you for making my point. To my knowledge, UPS is not doing this to benefit from any government subsidy. If I am wrong about that, please correct me, but that is exactly an example of natural gas entering the market because of MARKET forces, not subsidies.

I agree that energy independence is a national security concern - it always has been, though it has rarely if EVER been treated as one. But when you subsidize "innovation," you stifle it, because the market fills with people who are drawn in by the easy government buck, not the desire to actually innovate. Pickens himself, is a perfect example. If natural gas can compete, then why is he investing his money and time into securing a SUBSIDY for it instead of investing in technology to put it into the market? Is he really looking to innovate here, or is he just looking for a creative way to secure a government funding stream? In short, if Boone Pickens thinks natural gas is the future, he should put HIS money where is mouth is, not OUR money.

JohnK144| 4.14.11 @ 3:29PM

"Tell that to UPS, who have retrofitted a large portion of their delivery trucks to run on Nat Gas."

"Thank you for making my point."

That doesn't make your point. Nor does it contradict mine. I'm not advocating subsidy for the "conversions" that would take place as a result of a Nat Gas infrastructure. Businesses will invest for themselves, as will individuals for their own transportation, as the INFRASTRUCTURE to deliver that fuel is made available.

And just like the interstate highway system, an infrastructure system like that will happen most quickly when it's made a national project. THEN, you'll see the benefits that come with private investment into converting vehicles to run on Nat Gas.

UPS has only invested in converting their vehicles where they have also invested in storing their own supplies of CNG. Imagine how man businesses will make similar investments when the delivery system for Nat Gas is made national.

The Big E| 4.14.11 @ 4:57PM

And you haven't contradicted MY point. If a nationwide infrastructure for the distribution of natural gas for use in vehicles is so wonderful, and so incredibly profitable, why hasn't someone already invested in it WITHOUT a government subsidy?

JohnK144| 4.15.11 @ 9:02AM

The same reason nobody ever "invested" in an interstate highway system. It's called building infrastructure. It's then up to private industry to invest in exploration, extraction, and delivery into that infrastructure. We have a trucking industry. But trucking companies don't build the roads they drive on. Do they.

The Big E| 4.14.11 @ 2:42PM

Probably should have put this in my first reply, but I didn't think about it till after I hit the Reply button (which, by the way, I am SO glad to have back).

You said:

"Besides the fact that we are currently "subsidizing" the most inefficient, and damaging "alternative fuel sources" in ethanol, wind, and solar, which drives up the price of food and shifts most of the profits to foreign interests, a simple shift of subsidies from "pixie dust" sources of energy to proven domestic fuels would not "cost" us any more than we are already "spending," and it would spur enormous economic activity, investment, and jobs in America."

I'm completely in favor of cutting off all those subsidies as well, and for the same reasons. We will NEVER get marketable innovation in those areas through government subsidy because government subsidy stifles innovation. When something has to compete for its place in the world, it has to evolve, innovate, and grow. When its place is assured by a subsidy, all it has to do is exist to collect its money. We talk about that so often in relation to the welfare state and its negative impact on those who are its so-called beneficiaries, but the same principle applies here as well.

The fact that we could cut subsidies to ethanol, wind, and solar development and spend the money on natural gas subsidies and thereby not spend more money is utterly irrelevant. We should cut the ethanol, wind and solar subsidies anyway and let them compete in the marketplace (they can't). Furthermore, shifting those subsidies to another destination will not "create" any more jobs then are being created now with the subsidies on the "pixie dust" destinations. However, pulling those subsidies entirely and returning that money to the tax payers who earned it in the first place will create jobs - lot's of them.

oldfart| 4.14.11 @ 8:31AM

The EPA, and their wacko 'green' supporters, will keep this locked up the courts for years. I am sure the required 'environmental' documents will find some insect that requires 'protection'.

investorcs| 4.14.11 @ 8:53AM

Energy-wise this is a good idea... having not read the specifics of the bill, I am unable to ascertain what effects it would actually have on America's energy independence. The general approach is already working well in other countries. For example in Thailand, all commercial taxis and a large percentage of private cars and commercial trucks run well on LPG. Whenever petroleum prices start to rise, more private vehicles buy conversion kits at affordable prices and switch to natural gas. However, Thailand has little or no sources of either petroleum or natural gas, so ultimately the cost differential may be artifical. Instead of mandating one type of fuel or another along with price supports, it would make good sense for the US to allow all the various types to be used in autos sold here, then permit free market forces to find the winners.

born_n_texas| 4.14.11 @ 9:05AM

Here is the problem with this idea. In order to make natural gas as available and convenient as diesel, it will require pipelines, millions of miles of pipelines. Along with pipelines comes the inherent problems of maintenance.

I'm not saying it can't being done, I'm just saying there is a lot more to it than just engine conversion. BTW, horizontal fractional drilling is how we are getting all this natural gas and Obo's EPA is investigating to see if this method of drilling is contaminating groundwater supplies, and we all know the outcome of that investigation.

Macwell| 4.14.11 @ 7:35PM

Yes, yes, yes, millions of miles of pipeline. Just think of all those jobs we would have in order to build the infrastructure, the service stations, the pipelines, not to mention the conversion of the millions of cars that will need to be converted to run natgas, wow, what a disaster that would be, all those jobs.

Hillel| 4.14.11 @ 9:12AM

Pickens pushed windmills because their electicity is intermittent and would have to be backed up with natural gas turbines. Let's just skip the windmills.

JayDick| 4.14.11 @ 9:16AM

This proposal could also be called the "T Boone Pickens' Wealth Enhancement Act."

What about all those semis barrelling down the interstate with huge, highly pressurized tanks of natural gas? Seems to me like dynamite with a lit fuse. I don't want to be around when it goes off. The liability insurance for these trucks would be out of sight.

If this makes sense, the government doesn't need to get involved. Remember synfuels? Ethanol? etc., etc.

JohnK144| 4.14.11 @ 10:48AM

Jay, you need to do a little more research on the subject before you make assumptions.

Guess what. The risk of an "explosion" is multiplied times higher in gasoline powered vehicles than it is in a CNG powered vehicle. This has everything to do with the temperature of combustion for the two fuels, and the fact that a natural gas tank rupture releases its fuel as a gas that disperses into the atmosphere.

You should really do some reading on the topic.

born_n_texas| 4.14.11 @ 3:08PM

Have you ever heard of "Tank Bleve" ??? Maybe you need to do some research !!!! Ka-BOOM

JohnK144| 4.14.11 @ 3:31PM

"Ka-BOOM" ---- Winning!

Thank you Charlie Sheen.

mames| 4.14.11 @ 11:05AM

This is why no subsidies can be allowed. IF it is such a good idea it has to stand on its own. These kind of subsidies are in fact welfare for the rich and often welfare for bad ideas that would not survive without them. Also notice the "rush to get this done NOW" remember when we heard this regarding national health care. Sorry Emmett your have drifted from the fundamental principals of capitalism here.

Stormy| 4.14.11 @ 9:37AM

Farmers and Ranchers in the SW have been converting vehicles and tractors to run on natural gas for decades. And, they run perfectly fine. Natural gas is cheaper, plentiful, and it burns cleaner. The main barrier to greater use is the lack of refilling stations. Instead of building electrical charging stations, we need to get on with converting vehicles and gas stations to use natural gas. Come on, people, let's do it and now!

Most people have not noticed it, but environmentalists are trying to sabotage production of natural gas by peddling stories of how it pollutes the environment around production sources. They are also peddling stories about how it destabilizes the earth below. Watch "Gasland" to see a hit movie on natural gas.

JohnK144| 4.14.11 @ 10:53AM

Thanks Stormy. I'm about to go nuts reading the ignorant nay-sayers' comments on this subject. It's nice to see someone applying real-world examples, rather than the knee-jerk crap that I'm seeing here.

mames| 4.14.11 @ 11:08AM

NO! Lets get the government out of the way and let the industry do it - not via taxpayer subsidies. Not one taxpayer dollar for any industry - ever.

JohnK144| 4.14.11 @ 11:47AM

You get the government out of the subsidies for wind and solar and biofuels, not to mention the cost of sending trillions of dollars to the Middle East, and I will be happy to talk about "getting the government out of the way" when it comes to building Nat Gas infrastructure.

It would be nice to live in a "perfect world" tomorrow, where government subsidies are a thing of the past, and the free market was allowed to act, react, and flourish. We CAN get to that point. We MUST get to that point. But until you dismantle the government stranglehold on all the other energy subsidies, we are NEVER going to achieve a free-market solution to ANYTHING.

Understand this, unlike wind and solar and bio-fuels, the Nat Gas industry is entirely capable of supporting itself once it's in place. So without adding one dollar to current "subsidies," but merely shifting those investments to a potentially self-sustaining, domestic industry, we will be able to achieve a subsidy-free society in very short order; achieve energy independence; keep our energy dollars in the US; and so build up our domestic economy, that the very notion of government subsidies will one day soon fade off into our dark past.

The Big E| 4.14.11 @ 2:54PM

"You get the government out of the subsidies for wind and solar and biofuels, not to mention the cost of sending trillions of dollars to the Middle East, and I will be happy to talk about "getting the government out of the way" when it comes to building Nat Gas infrastructure."

You do realize that your argument is basically this:

1. I think subsidies are wrong, but despite that, we subsidize A, B, and C.

2. Therefore, we should subsidize D, even though I think subsidies are wrong.

In essence, you're saying that you oppose subsidies, except for when you don't. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense.

Macwell| 4.14.11 @ 7:46PM

Mr. E, while your point is taken, I believe the necessity of time isn't on our side. We should've been converting 25 years ago, in fact, longer. when we had the first (oil shortage) when Jimmy ( I never met a tax that I didn't like) carter was king. At that time, I was working on an experimental plant that was going to produce nat gas from naphtha, but, after spending over 100 million, (in 1972 dollars) to build the plant, they found naphtha was too expensive, so, the 100 million dollar plant was reduced to grass and weeds. Of course we didn't have the technology nor did we find the enormous vaults of nat gas that we now have.

Bob K.| 4.14.11 @ 9:42AM

Try flying a plane on it.

And will Mexican trucks be required to convert when they start bringing in products and competing with our own trucking industry?

And will foreign automobile manufacturers make special cars for the american market at the same low prices they already do.

And will Walmart convert all it's trucks without getting a government subsidy to do so?

And will all the people laid off in the gasoline industry find work in the brave new world of natural gas? Think of all the new government retraining programs!

And think of what a great target it will be for the Environmentalists and their Lawyers.

And on and on as the Law of Unintended Consequences goes into effect! What ever happened to "If it ain't broke don't fix it?"

JohnK144| 4.14.11 @ 11:05AM

Are you out of your mind, Bob? I could shatter every one of your feeble arguments using nothing more than a rudimentary understanding on the subject.

You're actually worried about Mexican truckers "competing" with Nat Gas fleets in America? You've got to be kidding. With average diesel prices hovering around $4/gal, and the comparable price of Nat Gas at around $1.40/gal, you think the Mexicans will be able to compete? Ridiculous.

And you think that Walmart (those "evil" profit mongers) wouldn't jump all over the chance to save billions in fuel costs without a "government subsidy" when the fuel is available nation-wide?

And you think the natural gas industry wouldn't retrain those laid-off workers on their own when the future of their industry depends on it?

To say your arguments are specious is to do a disservice to specious arguments.

But I truly "admire" your "can't-do" attitude. It's so "American." You know, like "South American."

Bob K.| 4.14.11 @ 1:35PM

Gotcha there John K! You sound scared.

You have no real answer to the "law of unintended consequences."

You know very well that we cannot make natural gas our prime source of energy and maintain our status as the world leader in freedom and in wealth.

We still have an abundance of Oil, Coal and Uranium for use and we should ignore your attempts to encourage us to abandon them and continue to pursue their further development rather than waste time, money and political will in attempting to compromise with Obama and his Socialist agenda and his retreat from America's greatness.

JohnK144| 4.14.11 @ 2:09PM

What on earth are you talking about? Compromise with obama? Abandon oil, coal and uranium?

Find ONE STATEMENT I made that advocates any of that. I dare you.

Sound scared? Your radar is way out of whack. I am resolute. And I am RIGHT.

Nothing you have said even challenges that fact. You should feel honored that I would even respond to your nonsense.

Bob K.| 4.14.11 @ 7:36PM

Here is what you wrote in various posts herein:

At 944 AM you state that we don't have the time to wait for natural market forces to take effect that it must start immediately.

At 956 AM you again indicate that we do not have the luxury of time to let it happen through natural market sources.

At 1032 AM you say that you do not like subsidies but national security trumps this concern.

At 1133AM you talk about the necessity to change the narrative in order to change the future.

At 217 PM you again support subsidies.

You will pardon me if I concluded from this that you were willing to negotiate with the Obama Administration.

In order to do all this it will REQUIRE negotiating with the Obama Administration which will be in power for at least 2 more years and possibly 6 years.

If by some miracle you and your supporters in congress come to an agreement on the Natural Gas Act with the administration it will be because they have received much in return and though we know not what they will want and will get in return we can be certain it will affect our freedoms.

You must also remember that after the Act comes to fruition the Obama Administration will control the agenda and the formation of the Bureaucracy which will make and enforce the regulations needed to oversee the Act. The effect of the "Law of unforeseen consequences" coming out of this can only be speculated on.

I don't consider rushing into something like this to be prudent conservatism. Far better to sit back and see what happens in Pennsylvania which has a thousand or so new gas wells and where a pipe line is being constructed to Northern Jersey to transfer the gas out of state, much of it to Europe, before deciding how to handle this new industry and the repercussions it will cause and is already causing in the electorate here.

In PA the Governor and the Legislature have settled on a laissez faire approach; rejecting an extraction tax, limiting environmental policing of the wells, and doing nothing to lower the 9.9% corporation tax so the exploration companies can incorporate in Delaware. I expect this attitude will severely damage the newly elected Republican Majority in the state come the next election in 2 years.

There is no point in making this a bigger issue involving many more states and including the interference of the Feds.

JohnK144| 4.15.11 @ 9:18AM

I also wrote that I don't see this bill making it through Congress on the fast track. Then I wrote that it could become a big issue in the 2012 election, and that a trained monkey could roll over obama with a plan like this.

Where do see any indication that I would want to "negotiate with obama" on ANYTHING? The fact is that this will NEVER happen as long as obama is in office, so the idea of "negotiating" is a moot point. And I wouldn't trust this administration with a project like this anyway.

As for utilizing subsidies, I am consistently against giving money directly to industry. But when it comes to building national infrastructure for the benefit of the country, it is entirely appropriate for government to play a role. Again I take you back to the interstate highway system. That was not built through "private investment."

You can continue to play the role of "contrarian" if you like. But you haven't made any progress in taking down my arguments.

The Big E| 4.14.11 @ 2:58PM

Is Natural Gas currently 1.40 per gallon? Bet that won't be the case when trucking companies are forced at the point of a gun to use it. Bet you that diesel would suddenly become a lot cheaper as well when there is no longer the same demand for it.

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.14.11 @ 3:52PM

There's the rub. As soon as ANY touted alternative energy solution becomes a reality the price of oil will plummet to the point of being the most viable. Don't think this is the Saudi's first day selling oil.

Bob K.| 4.14.11 @ 9:56AM

Mr. Tyrrell,
If you bring out a new edition of your book, "The Future that doesn't Work" consider adding a chapter on the ability of Natural Gas to supply the energy needed for a Nation with the ambition to continue being the Empire of both Freedom and Wealth!

West Houston Geo| 4.14.11 @ 10:32AM

The drilling and production of unconventional gas are well underway and have brought down NG prices to record lows. Really, no government action is needed IMHO.
However, there is a major, repeat major stumbling block, thanks to the EPA:

quoting gas2.com:
"EPA licensing requirement, says Marc Raush:
“For an individual (or shop) to be licensed to do a conversion, the person must pay $10,000 per year, per engine type, per year of manufacture. So that if a conversion shop wanted to do conversions in 2009 for Camrys for the years 1995 to 2005, the shop owner would have to pay the government $100,000 in licensing fees. “
Without that, conversions would cost a few hundred bucks each instead of thousands.

Now, if this bill does something about that, the we might accomplish something. Alas, I have a premonition that it does nothing of the sort.

JohnK144| 4.14.11 @ 11:13AM

That's a great point. And I have no idea if this bill addresses that problem. But assuming we can do away with that nonsense, can you imagine the down-the-line industries for conversions and conversion kits that would emerge if Nat Gas became widely available, and motorists could convert to a fuel source under $2/gal? Not to mention the boon to auto manufacturers who produce new Nat Gas vehicles? (Rather than the ridiculous "Volt")

And just as an aside, most conversions can be made so vehicles can run on either gasoline or Nat Gas, making the availability issue a moot point.

Natural Skeptic| 4.14.11 @ 9:17PM

Ok, I'd like a chance to clarify a bit. I work in fleet management & maintenence for a large public utility and have dealt with and worked on natural gas vehicles and conversions for my entire career.

First of all, yes you can actually rig a vehicle to run "dual fuel", however, there is a caveat. Natural gas is the functional equivalent of about 120 octane rating, and requires a pretty high compression ratio and a good deal of extra timing advance to really get an engine running well--akin to running aviation fuel. Most all gas engines on the road today are well below the compression and timing specs to really get the full potential of natural gas, and therefore you will suffer a noticeable power loss when you adapt a gasoline engine to natural gas. So you will always have a trade off with gasonline engines running on natural gas. Also, since the there is no practical way to store natural gas as a liquid in a road vehicle, natural gas must be stored on board in compressed form. The tanks are bulky, heavy, and you will never the get the range out of compressed gas to make the tradeoff worthwhile. You get better range than with an electric car, but I have yet to see a vehicle with compressed natural gas run as much as 200 miles on a fill, and most are less.

Natural gas works very well in a diesel, though, as they have the extra compression and turbo charging to take advantage of the methane. Again here, range is an issue.

JohnK144| 4.15.11 @ 9:53AM

All very good points. I know there are tradeoffs in making conversions in vehicles, but I also think improvements would be made to overcome some of the deficiencies. But not every tradeoff is a negative. Engine longevity is extended because of cleaner burning fuel, plus better lubrication. So decreased maintenance costs become a factor.

Also, what I've been advocating is building the delivery infrastructure, not just for automotive use, but for home heating, and power production using gas turbines.

Beyond the building of infrastructure, I would expect the market, industry and consumers, to decide on making the investment to convert or not. The biggest advantage I see in any of this is that the US has such an abundance of Nat Gas. The benefit to the domestic economy makes this something we really should be considering.

JimH| 4.14.11 @ 10:35AM

I'm sure the attentive readers here will correct me if I am wrong, but don’t think the energy density of natural gas is a high as gasoline and the tank has to be stronger as the contents are under pressure. Consequently you would need a larger fuel tank than you now have for the same range and power unless you can obtain greater efficiencies. Where space is not a problem, trucks, buses and large cars, this is not an issue. Given that in America at least, the reason people drive compacts is a combination of government pressure and an attempt at saving money on fuel, if the price benefit of natural gas is sufficient people will happily drive larger cars. These will have the added benefits of being more comfortable and safer. While in a free market I think natural gas would ultimately win out over gasoline, diesel and hybrids, I think since energy independence is as a matter of national security, while not favoring subsidies I would not object if the government purchased fleet vehicles powered this way. Down the road we might replace the conventional IC engines and running gear with a natural gas burning turbine driving a generator powering electric motors at each wheel.

John Navratil| 4.14.11 @ 12:46PM

JimH,

You are correct that the energy densities for natural gas based fuels is less than diesel. When comparing similar volumes, LNG (liquified) comes in at about 2/3 the energy density and CNG (compressed) has about 1/4 the density. If you are a long-haul trucker, this density is an issue. Imaging having to quadruple the number of tanks to use CNG - such tanks being pressurized to 200 atmoshperes (3000 psi). LNG seems a better bet, but LNG must be cleaned of acids, water, heavy hydrocarbons before it can be liquified and then it must be stored at -160C (damned cold) and kept in double-walled insulated tanks. It then requires heat to vaporize it (no problem, we are using heat engines).

In the short, and perhaps the long, run this isn't a good substitute for diesel in the long-haul world. Regulation limits the ability to transport compressed gases in tunnels. While the gas (methane) would dissipate in the event of a tank rupture, it would ultimately reach an explosive mixture in air and having boiling LNG running down the accident scene freezing whatever or whomever it comes in contact with isn't desired either.

The easiest problem to solve would be the infrastructure to deliver LNG, but it would be daunting to put an LNG refuelling capability at all truck stops.

This fuel is destined for local fleet operations where many vehicles travelling relatively short distances may use a central refueling facility - taxis, buses, UPS.

PS - T. Boone Pickens' wind investments were really a ruse to get a right-of-way from West Texas to Dallas so he could make a fortune piping in water. When the right-of-way became unobtainable, his interest in wind ran out of gas.

The Big E| 4.14.11 @ 3:05PM

So how does natural gas stack up with gas or diesel on a cost per unit of energy basis? Someone above said natural gas sells for 1.40 per gallon, but if that gallon has only the same energy as 1/4 gallon of diesel, then it really costs 5.60 for the same energy as a 4.00 gallon of diesel. Am I reading that right?

John Navratil| 4.14.11 @ 5:36PM

The Big E,

It should be cheaper as you have to do less to it and, at the moment, natural gas is cheap compared to crude. The problem is in comparing apples to oranges. It is convenient to measure liquid volume in gallons, but all you need to do to get more gas into the same volume is increase the pressure. There is a unit of measure - the Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) - which is intended to gauge any alternative fuel's energy content into the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. Recent data at http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/price_report.html indicates CNG to be priced at $2 per GGE. I wouldn't expect that to change directly with the price of gasoline except but rather against the price of natural gas and as demand shifts to CNG as a fuel.

JimH| 4.15.11 @ 7:58AM

John, intelligent information from people like you is why I participate in this blog despite trolls and the foul mouthed yahoos here. Thanks.

John Navratil| 4.15.11 @ 8:43AM

Thanks!

hardcard| 4.14.11 @ 11:03AM

Dear E.Bob,
This is the same T-Boone that was heavily invested and promoting wind-mills in Texas, a few years back. He is also a big fan (pun intended) of Slick Willie. What's going on?

Al Adab| 4.14.11 @ 11:56AM

Eliminate the D of Energy and free up the marketplace. Government regulation causes the shortages and the markets can correct it.

Dustoff| 4.14.11 @ 12:45PM

What I haven't heard yet. How do you get past the tank problem? It must be round and withstand high pressure.

I have nothing against it, but most cars & trucks that I have seen convereted lost their trunk or bed of the truck for the tank.

John Navratil| 4.14.11 @ 12:52PM

Dustoff,

Correct. See my 12:46 post, above.

deserttrek| 4.14.11 @ 12:59PM

NO NO NO. NO tax credits, NO government involvement, NO lining T Bones pockets at our expense. If this or any other alternative is competative, let a free market decide.

Storage Steve| 4.14.11 @ 1:28PM

I think natural gas can play a bigger role in our energy use. That said this bill also has subsidies for wind and solar and Mr. Pickens has quite a few wind turbines he has had to store as he thought the bill would pass much quicker in 2008. If it is economical the market will switch to natural gas as it has now in power generation replacing coal where transmission allows but we don't need any more subsidies.

OLDRAY| 4.14.11 @ 1:31PM

OK for natural gas blitz, but lets eliminate subsidies for wind,solar ethanol and electric toy cars. AND, natural gas may be the ticket for large vehicles ,but we still need gasoline and oil to fuel cars ,small trucks and to heat houses today. There is oil available so DRILL, DRILL, DRILL.

Joe D.| 4.14.11 @ 1:42PM

I like it except the cost to the tax payers. We are in no mood to help subsidize another or 2 industries.

With the insentive to save money, why don't the truckers do this without subsidies. Why don't the gas stations do this to make money they will lose in gasoline.

The left will bring this up. So I think it is better now to discuss.

Keep On Truckin'| 4.14.11 @ 1:48PM

Has it really been SIX years since Peter Huber and Mark Mills published “The Bottomless Well---the twilight of fuel, the virtue of waste, and why we will never run out of energy”?

This BIBLE of truth regarding the human race using all kinds of fuel proved its case to me, way back then. And, what has happened since 2005, as concerns all ways of energizing our lives?

Yes, the PHYSICAL and MENTAL facts never make much FAST difference, because of vested interest. The most vested interest around is---politicians, usually progressives.

Which means that the ones with a case of the SLOWS, the retards in D.C., continue to stifle the wise use of extant scientific findings, as portrayed in the above book.

I just scanned what they had to write about natural gas, and their key assumption was that the price was unlikely to come down.

Well, the recent realization that the USA is loaded with pools of natural gas actually enhances their basic finding---that we will never run out of sources of energy. So, the real decisive debate is between the nay saying fools, or bureaucrats and politicians, and those who want to increase productivity as cleanly and safely as possible.

Expect the worst and hope for the best.

Oldefarte| 4.14.11 @ 2:25PM

Bob's entirely correct, but we should also domestically produce/drill the bucket loads of oil that we have [and priortize all of these sources for our own domestic use initially]. As stated, the retailing of natural gas's supply to consumers would require conversion or establishment of gas [natural] stations, but this should be easy due to its financially rewarding nature. The essential point of Bob's argument needs to be restated, and that is that the energy that we're currently importing/buying from foreign sources are controlled by OUR ENEMIES [actual or potential]. What is the entire middle east ends up in radical Muslim terrorists' hands, with same controlling their vast/dominating oil field supplies of this source? Every factory, utility, houshold, mode of transportation etc in this country [and the world] is DEPENDENT UPON OIL/ENERGY at present, and these terrorists could use their control of oil to the complete destruction of our country and the world. Think about it folks [and not just from an economic standpoint]!!!!!!!!!

dave| 4.14.11 @ 2:26PM

if anything is that viable and that good of an idea, why do we have to extend tax credits or subsidies.

it should be able to stand on its own feet.

dave| 4.14.11 @ 2:26PM

if anything is that viable and that good of an idea, why do we have to extend tax credits or subsidies.

it should be able to stand on its own feet.

Hawker | 4.14.11 @ 3:09PM

A lot of points made here are good but the way I see it the billions and billions being spent for forg. oil could be invested here . I say tax the forg. oil and spend it on the inferstructure here . At the point where nat. gas takes care of the imports of oil then no more tax is paid and the nat. gas is in place . Problem solved of relying on forg. sources.

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.14.11 @ 4:01PM

The solution doesn't solve the problem. Bottom line for me: I'm willing to support a viable alternative once it's needed, currently it's not. We have plenty of oil, what's needed is the political will to drill.

Willy| 4.14.11 @ 6:44PM

Why are we required to subsidize commodities that should be able to perform profitably in the private sector? So we are going to pursue this while paying farmers and ADM to convert food into fuel. Our priorities are totally screwed up.

ChooseFreedom| 4.14.11 @ 6:54PM

Diversifying the fuel choices can only help. Using money we don't have to make it happen? Not so good. Has anyone asked the independent owner of a spanking new $500,000 rig if he minds throwing that away within the next few years to buy a natural gas model? So, I don't like the timeline of 5-7 years either.

Thom| 4.14.11 @ 7:47PM

As several have touched on here, there are three inherent technical problems with NG that simply can’t be dismissed out of hand given the shear scope and volume of the problem at hand.

The first, energy equivalent per equal volume of gasoline difference is not insignificant. The Honda Civic NG powered car gives up part of its trunk space to hold just 4.3 units of gasoline equivalent at a safe pressure. That limits it road range to just over 200 miles. Such limitations aren’t as much as a factor in local based fleet use such as buses, delivery trucks, etc but are entirely impractical for long haul trucks. At a safe pressure using the same volume of fuel storage now found hung off tractor trailer trucks those trucks would have to refuel three times a day vs. once. That loss in driving time coupled with the increase in the number of fueling stations required to support that are not something that can be overcome in a short period of years. The same problem would hold true for passenger cars, SUV, etc to the tune of two hundred million of such having to refuel at least twice as often as with gas. My 1989 car will go nearly 500 miles to the “E” routinely on the road with 12-13 gallons of gas. There is no way to force more range into existing passenger cars without giving up useable space and/or storing NG as dangerously compressed levels. Getting useable Qtys of NG to the “filling station” is going to suffer the same inefficiency of storage problem if done in gas form. Converting NG to LNG adds an another entire layer of cost and complexity to this problem. Not far from where I live is an LNG storage facility that takes in pipeline gas and liquefies it for storage. What you get with such a storage facility is one very large thickly insulated tank storage unit that is located well away from civilization and hopefully out of range of RPGs. Now multiply that problem by the tens of thousands of just tractor trailer truck stops and a hundred trucks lined up most of the day into the night to get their next 200 miles of fuel…..

Second, that same Honda Civic takes a 20% hit in horsepower on NG because NG has less energy density. That car is affordable because it uses existing engine technology converted to NG. I’m driving a 22 year old car. Most people keep their cars over 10 years. It would take 20 years to replace the passenger car fleet alone at normal annual replacement rates. A 20% loss in power isn’t going to have much “utility” value for certain types of vehicles not the least of are heavy long haul trucks. Upping the horsepower levels would in effect mean larger, heavier engines that won’t fit in current vehicle designs and loss of MPGE. Like Ethanol, flex fuel vehicles use a third more E85 to go the same distance as gasoline offsetting the slight price break you get with E85. Short of high compression Ethanol only fueled engines you can’t get the same horsepower out of the same cubic inch ICE engine and likewise NG isn’t going to give you more regardless. Dropping a tractor trailer engine from say 450 horsepower to 360 is going to put said trucks lined up for miles in the right lanes trying to climb over all the grades they encounter in long haul service. The trucking industry has stayed profitable over the last couple of decades of fuel increases by going from 40 foot trailers, to 45 to 48 and now to 53. 53 foot trailers are about the max the existing road networks can support. Cut the horsepower out of these rigs and they are going to have to cut back both capacity and load weight to maintain schedules. No free ride here.

The third problem is the one that killed the Blimps…. As dangerous as gasoline is as a fuel it can be handled safely as a liquid if its vapor level is kept below a flash point. Gasoline stored is not a bomb at rest. NG and all the other compressed gases are in enclosed spaces like a garage. The current safety standards for compressed flammable gases require very strong, heavy and costly steel containers. There is no way around that. Fleet NG vehicles like buses typically store their NG tanks on top of the bus to protect them and get the space needed to have enough fuel without enlarging the bus to carry the volume needed. That NG and similar compressed gases are in productive use for specific purposes is a fact but as to Emmett’s belief long haul trucks can be converted to this in short order (within the warranty period of most trucks) lacks some insight into what it takes to move an 80,000 lb tractor trailer around this nation. I just don’t see three times the volume of compressed storage tanks strapped all over the tractor to get the current range nor do I see trucking firms or independent truckers wanting to stop to refuel every 3 hours either. They make or break being able to make 10 hours a day and the miles that come with that. Adding another hour or so to the day isn’t going to make them profitable with the current freight rates. Someone is going to pay for the loss in efficiency here.

Unseen and unintended consequences loom large when you talk about repowering an entire fleet of tractor trailers with a fuel that has significantly less energy per safe volume of storage capacity and the distribution method and cost to the truck stops isn’t trivial pursuit either. By all means we need to diversify our energy sources and expand them but NG is not a silver bullet solution across the board.

As for subsidizing this, why? If NG is truly cheaper than gasoline/diesel use it would pay for itself given the warranty and useful life (500,000 miles) of the long haul tractor fleet. I suspect some of the technical problems mentioned here and by others has a few hidden cost factors that aren’t being properly looked at here.

John Navratil| 4.14.11 @ 10:06PM

Thom,

Yup, it's just hard to beat high-density fuel requiring little in special handling for transportation. As someone above mentioned, try fueling a plane with natural gas.

Maybe we could take a lesson from the Navy and build nuclear powered big rigs. At least we wouldn't have the refueling problems, but I haven't worked out the cooling problem yet :)

Chris Pedersen| 4.17.11 @ 7:07AM

Please write an article concerning the cost of a convertion kit, and what the kit entails.

Went I was young my grandfather had an old dodge pickup, you could flip a switch and go from gasoline to propane or visa versa. It was cheap to retrofit, and 50 gallons back in the 1070's I believe cost him under $20.00, lasting more than 6-7 months on the farm and going to town for supplies, food, etc.. They are doing this already in Springfield Missouri for the puplic entity of Community Utillity[CU] vehicles, electric,water, etc.

WM| 4.18.11 @ 5:48PM

Wait, are we socialists now? We are going to use taxpayer funds for solar, wind, and natural gas because some friendly goof with an accent and a background in the oil business tells us to? Is that how it works? Go along to get along? Be team players? What's a little wealth redistribution between friends?

Here's a better idea. How about crypto-socialists like T. Boone Pickens shove his wealth redistribution schemes where the sun don't shine, and we stick with our support for a free market in energy.

shipley130| 6.16.11 @ 8:14PM

I'm glad Ethanol is beginning to die on the stalk. Using a food source for fuel just doesn't seem like a good idea, and those that supported it should have known better, too.

Creative Recreation| 8.10.11 @ 10:20PM

is good