In a May article entitled Russian Energy and US Implications, I touched on the Honda (HMC) Civic GX. This is a natural-gas-powered automotive solution (more information about the car may be found here). I'd like to revisit this issue.
First, I'll repeat the suggestions I sent to Honda after investigating this car:
- Make the Honda website for the GX a one-stop information solution center. More information on "Phill", the home refueling tool, more specifics on nat gas capacity and mileage, etc.
- Include the nat gas fuel tank capacity in the "Specifications" section
- Bundle the purchase price of the "Phill" with the automobile
- Be clear about the costs associated with refueling at home.
- Honda (and any nat gas auto supplier) should have a 24-hour natural gas refueling station at all dealerships throughout the country.
That would be a good and dependable start.
Recently I investigated retrofitting my Toyota Tacoma to run on natural gas just to see what the investigation would uncover. I quickly found out that Toyota (TM) does not have such a kit, is not planning to have such a kit, and warned me that any natural gas retrofit on my vehicle would void ALL Toyota warranties. Wonderful.
(I also found out that Utah for some reason is head-over-heels in love with natural gas auto retrofits and that many people and businesses there are retrofitting their cars to run on nat gas. Why Utah? Who knows, but some Googling pops up a lot of Utah folks.)
Anyhow, the warranty issue, cost of a home refueling tool, and the lack of nat gas filling stations are keeping me from making the change. Such a shame that an efficient, clean burning alternative that can run on US-produced natural gas and reduce our country's reliance on imported oil has so many issues associated with making it happen.
I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations: for the money the US has spent in Iraq, we could have (at least) 80 million natural gas powered CXs and the "Phills" to refuel them in American garages. Can you imagine how THAT would reduce our foreign oil bill, strengthen the US dollar, make oil wars unnecessary and strengthen our national security? Doesn't that make the war in Iraq seem completely ludicrous in comparison?
How should US policy change in order to encourage natural gas powered autos?
Well, the first step would be to standardize the refueling tools, nozzles, gas cap fitting, etc. etc. Perhaps this has already been done, but if not, it is certainly STEP1.
STEP2 would be to give any American buying a natural gas powered vehicle a governmental rebate of $2500. This would insure the "Phill" refueling tool was mass produced so that the price would come down. I mean, if Bush can give Bill Gates and Warren Buffet tax cuts, can't we give middle class Americans incentives to buy clean-burning, fuel-efficient cars that run on American natural gas? If every owner had a refueling tool in his garage (many houses in the US already have natural gas hook ups), this would reduce the number of public refueling stations needed to some fraction of the number of gasoline stations today. STEP2 would therefore be to strategically populate the US interstate highway system with nat gas refueling stations, enabling coast-to-coast nat gas traveling. Over time, entrepreneurs would open up stations wherever making a profit on it was possible.
These seem like common sense steps to take in order to mitigate financially strengthening the oil producing countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela with our American dollars. I wonder why Congress and the industrial companies are so against it? Why isn't there more public support for Pickens' plan by environmentalist and economists?
I also wonder why NBC initially turned down Pickens' latest commercial on how the Iranians are converting their autos and trucks to natural gas. This is even harder to understand when one considers Pickens recently ordered 667 wind turbines from GE worth over $2 billion dollars(!).
Wouldn't you think the recent economic chaos of our financial system, the huge growth in the US fiscal and trade deficits, and the weakness in US equity markets would be reason enough to start making smart, logical, and strategic energy policy? One would think so... Of course, natural gas powered transportation is only part of America's energy solution. The only solution for a country currently importing 15 million barrels of foreign oil a day (70% of overall US consumption) is a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy like this one.
But that seems to be a pipedream.Congress, the President, and the media all seem to ignore comprehensive solutions while meantime promoting such idiotic ideas as windfall profits taxes, gasoline tax holidays, tapping the SPR, and ethanol mandates. Barron's magazine gives full-page print for these opinions, yet I have been trying to get them to print the strategic long-term comprehensive energy policy for at least a year now. No luck. Can anyone say censorship?
Disclosures: The author does not own HMC, but would own TM if they produced nat gas powered vehicles or natural gas retrofit kits (are you listening, Toyota?). The author does hold stock in some natural gas producers such as ConocoPhillips (COP), the largest producer of natural gas in the US. The author also supports the PickensPlan.
Related Articles
|
This article has 45 comments:
-
AlexS
-
192 Comments
Sep 13 06:26 PM-
teejcee44
-
2 Comments
Sep 13 10:14 PM-
mdmrjsds
-
94 Comments
Sep 13 10:20 PMBetter to perfect electric vehicles so we can use electricity directly for transportation. The electric grid already goes most places you need to travel. Put the money we would use for the temporary natural gas infrastructure into battery research.
Or use electricity for hydrolysis, then use the hydrogen to cat crack coal to get a liquid fuel. Liquids are just so much better for transportation fuel than gases. And we have hundreds of years of coal supply, instead of 30 to 40 for natural gas. And the distribution system already exists for liquid fuels.
It just isn't good economics to turn away from oil yet. Yes the cost is high, but the cost of the alternatives is higher at this point. I know the idea of retreating into a cocoon is comforting, but the world won't let us do that. The US is too important on the world stage, and we depend too much on that world. We have to be engaged.
As far as government coming up with a solution, forget it. The skills required to get elected seem to be mutually exclusive with the skills required to formulate good public policy. And their time frame is way too short - the next election. They aren't statesmen and stateswomen, they're politicians. Most of them probably care about the country, but they care about getting reelected more. And why do they think that way. Because we reward them for thinking that way. "What!!! You're going to take away my freebies for long term betterment of the country??? I'm voting for someone else."
-
The hand
-
780 Comments
My Website
Sep 13 11:04 PMand no subsidies. the wrong people always make money. just start taxing energy sources we want people to exit from.
-
Michael Fitzsimmons
-
304 Comments
My Website
Sep 14 12:00 AMisaac: not that you mention it, a plug-in hybrid nat gas vehicle sounds like a wonderful idea and to be honest, i have never heard (nor thought) about it! what a great idea. i'm gonna have to google that one! wrt batteries, i don't know alot ... except that the electric vehicles on the drawing board now are planning on using industrial-strength versions of the lithium-ion batteries (similar to you laptop's) as opposed to the older nickle-metal-hydride batteries in today's prius, for example. the energy density, staying power, and performance of these batteries will be better. the next generation hybrids will be more like all-electric cars than today's prius, whose gas engine cuts in at speeds above 10 mph or so.
AlexS: bingo - that's exactly what i wanted to do with my Toyota Tacoma: dual fuel capability for flexibility and cost/benefit decision making. wrt dealership refueling, i have gone a couple rounds with the folks at honda...the number one excuse people have for not buying their nat gas car is refueling concerns, so what not somewhat alleviate that by having a 24-hr refueling station on site (run at a profit no less). maybe some day. i also think the gov. should give rebates for the "Phill" nat gas home fueling tool.
teejcee: i have not heard about the length of time to refuel, could you give me an estimate? certainly it must be quicker than recharging batteries on an all-electric car huh? (not that i am against all electric cars, i am not!). just curious is all...
mdmrjsds: yes, the energy density is lower, but it burns cleaner. wrt to the infrastructure, there are alot of nat gas pipelines throughout the country. there are alot of nat gas capable subdivisions (home heating). so, if most nat gas car buyers bought the home refueling tool, then basically (in my simple mind), all that would be needed is to outfit the interstate highway system with nat gas refueling points. it would be years and years before the nat gas demand would reach that of gasoline (but hopefully short). as fas as nat gas being gone, i disagree. oil will have critical shortages before nat gas. first, we have *alot* of nat gas in the US. with a transcanada nat gas pipeline and LNG terminals on both coasts (as my energy plan proposes), we could easily supply nat gas for transportation for US and foreign sources for 100 years. wrt electric vehicles, i am all for them. but, there are some problems with range, batteries, not to mention the infrastructure of the grid and the power sources it would take to power say 25 million vehicles every day. we need ALL alternatives to gasoline powered internal combustion engines. so, i am for ALL solutions: nat gas and electric and hybrid vehicles. coal is dirty to mine and to liquify (CTL), as far as i can tell. sequestion is a joke (how the hell do u pump CO2 into the earth and keep it there? perhaps i'm an idiot, but i don't get it).
as far as economics goes, i completely disagree with you. the economics of sending $700 billion to russia, iraq, iran, and saudi is my first argument. second, we are fighting wars to get the oil (we could have 100,000,000 prius' for what bush has spent on iraq..think about that for a second). the cost of nat gas cars is not higher, it's less!! you say we "have to be engaged", i agree, the rest of the world has been turning to wind, solar, and nat gas powered vehicles for years. unfortunately, we've had bush and so we haven't been. the last 8 years have been "lost". wrt gov being involved, i don't think the magnitude of the problem leaves us a choice. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have shown us what "free enterprise" has done in energy policy: hummers and SUV's. give me a joke. now these same automakers want $50 BILLION in taxpayer money to help them design the cars they should have been designing for the last 20 years. give me a break. capitilism in the US auto market is dead. apparently it will be socialised just as bush and paulsen did with bear stearns, fannie, freddie, and probably lehman brothers.
the hand: i agree on nat gas with you. subsidies, i'd like to see the gov give a rebate to help the consumer pay for the "Phill" nat gas home refueling tool. these are expensive now due to volume. after a year or two, take them away. the market needs a kick in the butt to get going. if bush can give bill gates and warren buffet tax breaks, we can give tax breaks to get nat gas cars going.
-
dadlivonia
-
11 Comments
Sep 14 07:35 AMWhy is it that we are always long on rhetoric and short on facts?? We allow the airlines to blame their problems on fuel costs, while reality shows that only 18-22% of their costs are fuel related, significant but not the implied deal-breaker.
Give people enough information to make decisions or we wind up with specious arguments with hole big enough to drive large trucks through.
-
john s. gordon
-
709 Comments
Sep 14 08:07 AM> jack
-
redbaron
-
174 Comments
Sep 14 08:21 AMThe questions raised here, in a brief time, show that natural gas is not yet ready for everyday use by ordinary Americans.
I own Clean Energy Fuels, CLNE, and their model is marketing, selling, and supplying natural gas for large fleets of locally based vehicles; vehicles like garbage trucks, local delivery trucks (UPS, FedEx, etc.), metropolitan locally based buses, and the like. And that model is just now being tested, and may well take some time to be fully implemented and adopted. Once that model is up and running, and is profitable, perhaps one can see a little further into the future, and see how the CLNE model can be adapted to everyday use by ordinary consumers.
Perhaps, it is walk first, then trying walking faster, then try running.
Just, IMHO.
-
optionsgirl
-
61 Comments
Sep 14 08:33 AM-
optionsgirl
-
61 Comments
Sep 14 08:40 AM-
NOWHEREMAN
-
1499 Comments
Sep 14 09:37 AMWhat percent of all households use NG as the principle heating/cooling component? How many of those people would convert NOW if they had to bear the upfront costs of such a conversion in the midst of looming foreclosures and job loses?
Will Congress even consider funding for what would be a stopgap measure? I doubt it very much.
Personally, while I can afford such a conversion, I would not be able to use it without having an abundance of refilling stations and filling times comparable to those of gasoline. I live in an all electric Condo highrise. And even if it utilized NG, how would all of us be able to refuel enmass considering the refueling time and the inability to distinguish between users.
It is not a panacea, it is a stopgap for some users now, maybe more in the future but definitely not to all.
-
DanielNC
-
1 Comment
Sep 14 09:39 AMjohn s. gordon is a paranoid schizophrenic. Bush/Cheney '08! Hey, the libtards don't recognize his first two terms as being legitimat, so technically, that means he can run again. I'm sure he'd beat Hussein.
Most importantly, batteries are crap. There's been little to no advancement in decades that would lead any sane person to believe anyone would claim McCain's $300 million prize. A bet on batteries is an aid to the Sheikhs.
NG is a great bet, even if it meant converting power plants to run on NG then delivering that electricity to an electric vehicle. Electric vehicles run on (duh) electricity and those electrons don't come from magic jelly bean fields full of hopes and dreams. Use NG in plants until solar or wind catches up or they perfect oil from algae, which is substantially closer than the battery mumbo-jumbo.
-
longoil
-
188 Comments
Sep 14 09:53 AMI am all for for the Picken plan for converting cars to natural gas, but I think liability reaons will confine NG refilling to designated natural gas stations like CLNE.
-
harley
-
1 Comment
Sep 14 11:15 AMCongress doesn't solve problems, in my opinion, because a solution takes away the tool to bash the other guy and get oneself reelected.
CNG is a coool idea. Let's get people in Congress who really want to help us. Next time around, if no solution has been achieved and our Senator and/or Representative haven't gotten on the CNG bandwagon, let's dump the do nothing idiot and find someone that wants what we want.
-
Didz
-
1 Comment
Sep 14 11:51 AM-
Paul Killinger
-
1025 Comments
Sep 14 11:56 AMWell done! You hit most of the high points in the NG transport discussion. Here are a few additional thoughts on the subject -
1. There is likely more than a 40 year domestic supply of NG available for U.S. transport. We have over 100 years of proven NG reserves at current rates of usage. And once gas hydrates come to market a decade or so from now, our NG supply will be virtually inexhaustible.
2. However, it is not a universal solution. While residents of UT and OK fill up for the equivalent of less than $1 a gallon, that is the result of ample NG production facilities there. It costs more in some other places ($1.50 to $2.00 on average), and in others it is unavailable.
3. The best part about NGV's is they are a 60 year old, proven, safe and clean technology. The EPA says the Civic GX is the cleanest vehicle they ever tested, including the Prius Hybrid.
4. And EV's may not be the panacea they're cracked up to be, either. They have definite technological, cost and safety issues (battery fires), and there are relatively little known lithium reserves in the world, ALL of which are imported here (from countries like Chile and China).
5. Converting existing vehicles like your Toyota to run on CNG is costly, and there are attendant issues here, as well. Onboard storage capacity is a problem, as most CNG vehicles can only hold the equivalent of 12-14 gallons of fuel. U.S. conversions also require EPA "certification,&q... and you already learned about warranty exclusions.
6. The Detroit 3 all built "dual-fueled"... (CNG + gasoline) trucks, vans, and a few passenger models in the U.S. between 2000-05, which were sold mostly as fleet vehicles. There are estimated to be 6-8 million NGV's in use throughout the world today (19 models are sold in Canada alone!), but only 150,000 or so in the U.S. ALL major automakers (including the Japanese, by the way!) build them. (Of course, if you import one, that also voids the warranty.)
7. There are already tax advantages in place for buying NGV's. The feds provide a $4,000 tax credit (...it's curious that the Civic GX costs exactly $4,000 more than its twin hybrid, isn't it ?). And states like Utah offer a $3,000 credit for new or used NGV's registered there. (And CA has a $5 billion ballot initiative underway to get drivers to use more NG vehicles, which is likely to pass this year.)
8. And the "Phill" is not a realistic substitute for NGV refueling capabilities. It is expensive to buy and install even if you have NG available. And it only works very SLOWLY, as it takes about 12 hours to refill even a Civic. We are going to need thousands of CNG filling stations, which will refill NGV's in a few minutes, to resolve this dilemma.
9. Frankly, government intervention (other than tax credits) makes me nervous. After Hillary went to Brazil and saw their (sugar) ethanol refueling stations (their government mandated them throughout their country), she came home and wanted to require this for our (corn) ethanol here. What a DISASTER that would have been! More lately she's suggesting we do this for CNG, instead. This type of "flavor of the month" political approach isn't the answer. Private sector profit motivation is all we need to accomplish this worthwhile goal!
In conclusion, the Pickens Plan is EXECTLY what we need to begin to wean ourselves off imported oil, gasoline and diesel fuel. (When it comes to understanding the many related problems involved, Boone is clearly the smartest man in the room.) I understand your impatience (mine, too!!) with the time it will take to make this transition. But when we look back in a few years, I believe we'll be pleasantly surprised by the growing ascendancy of NG powered transport and its many benefits for our nation's economy.
-
Paul Killinger
-
1025 Comments
Sep 14 12:36 PMP.S. There is more support in the environmental community for NGV's than you might think. The Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council (two of their largest, most influential organizations) are both supporters of the Pickens Plan. And the California initiative is being led by such groups.
And your automaker/dealer supported NGV refueling network proposal is a TERRIFIC idea, by the way. While there may be serious liability issues involved, it beats the heck out of going broke, which is where many of them are now headed.
-
fran
-
244 Comments
Sep 14 12:41 PMspend some time. it's fun!
-
IggyDalrymple
-
5 Comments
Sep 14 02:26 PMPlus money left over for a mosque with blaring loudspeakers in every neighborhood.
-
rhj123
-
42 Comments
Sep 14 02:52 PM-
fran
-
244 Comments
Sep 14 03:34 PMread my response above. you've got work to do if you wish specifics, buy they'r available.
ngvamerica.org
-
Michael Fitzsimmons
-
304 Comments
My Website
Sep 14 04:03 PMaction.pickensplan.com...
it requires your name and address and zip code...
now to the feedback:
dalivonia: you criticism is constructive and valid! i was attempting to do prior to my first article mentioning the CIVIC GX. i wanted to take a direct comparison in cost, fuel efficiency, and refueling cost in order to present the case. i wasn't able to do so at that time do to lack of specs on the websites. meanwhile, i did contact some folks who owned the GX and kit converted cars. they convinced me they were seeing between 1.5x and 2.5x more miles per $. this varies so widely due to the specific auto, and the fact that nat gas prices around the country vary wildly from the wholesale commodity price quote on wall street. all that said, some of the other feedback comments made me go back and check some of the websites i looked at beofre and i realized there is more information now and in some cases i missed some information the first time. the information is now there for me to do the calculations (i'm too lazy to do the nat gas at 3,600 psi calculation at the moment). i promise a consolidation of all the info in my next article on this matter (assuming SA doesn't get bored with the subject and publishes it), or, as a comment later on this thread. thanks.
johnsgordon: cheney seems much more interested in europes energy issues wrt BTC pipeline than he does with america's foreign oil addiction. then again, perhaps he is just trying to prolong europe's foreign oil addiction...that way, the powers that be will be able to control the peoples of both continents when oil gets scarce...
redbaron: thank you. yes, CLNE is focused on fleets which is the logical first step due to centralized refueling and the fact that trucks will have a most difficult time going electric. that said, i am making the case for more widespread use of nat gas autos, as in brazil, venezuela, italy and iran, for instance. there is no reason why not.
optionsgirl: thank you. i blew it and missed this in the FAQ. zow-ee, that's along time and on a par with re-charging electric battery powered cars. i am sure they could speed this up (it's just gas), but that would probably increase the price of the Phill and the auto.
here's the Phill website for those of you wanted to read more about it:
www.myphill.com/
paultaut: yes, but temporary as defined in decades. according to the EIA website:
tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...
there are 64 million residential nat gas consumers, and over 5 million commerical users.
wrt who would do this conversion now, as i mentioned, not many. in my case, i void my Toyota warranty with a kit installation, an issue which I am going round-n-round with Toyota on (I want them to have a kit available). costs for kits vary wildly and who knows if they are competent? that is why i didnt quote and kit costs or manufacturers. next, the Phill, from my understanding, is $3-4k to purchase and install yet the rebate is only $1000 in most cases. next, the refuel problems. as i said those, there are solutions to all these if we just get our act together. i never said it was a panacea. what i have said is that the US needs ALL alternatives to gasoline powered transportation if our economy is to survive what oil prices will be doing in the next 10 years.
DanielNC: glad you support sending $700 billion a year (a number that is sure to grow) to the same people (iran, iraq, russia, saudi arabia...) in which you apparently want to wage war on! don't you understand current bush policy is funding both sides of the war as we go deeper into debt, our financial system is crumbling, and our standard of living declining?! this is simply insanity. it's the same answer i have to the Jewish support for bush and the republicans: do they not understand bush policy is strengthening their opponents much faster than it is yourselves (or, as pickens so elequently states: fostering the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world)? wrt batteries, let's look at facts: even the old nickle-metal-hydride batteries in the prius enable it to get 50 mph. wow, that really sucks huh daniel? my laptop's lithium-ion batteries let me work in my bed for an hour and a half at night without any wires attached. what a drag, huh? FYI: battery technology advancement in the last 2 years has been nothing short of phenomenal. is it fully ready for mass production cars yet? very close, but no. will it be? of course. you see, despite limbaugh and the like, science does exists. so does innovations that can help use move away from oil and clean up our air. i'm surprised you like nat gas though, most of pickens' republicans buddies are running like hell from him now. after all, nat gas aint OIL, and to be a real man, and a real republican, you gots to like OIL (the majority of it imported...)
longoil: liability is an issue i never really thought about, but thanks for bringing it up. that said, i assume that the Phill is under the same regulation oversight as say a nat gas hot water heater. besides, the engineering of shut-down valves based on pressure (i.e. leaks or bad connections) has been around since the turn of the century. the people i exchanged emails with that own the Phill simply love it.
harley: not our current president, and i can send you many examples where that is true. but let's keep this on nat gas transpo as every time i speak my political mind everything turns haywire. i agree we must make congress understand we support this (see my link above to contact YOUR representatives..). the only thing they understand is RE_ELECTION and we must make it clear that they will NOT be RE_ELECTED if they don't get on the stick!
Didz: i respectivefully disagree with your conclusions, however i do agree that the decline rates of existing fields are very high, and so too with canada. that said, check out this EIA data:
tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...
we're pumping out more nat gas this year than last year, and much more than in 1980. now, we also now have two huge US shale deposits which new technology is allowing access and coming online. in addition, if our friggin government would just get behind and support a trans-canadian nat gas pipeline (as my energy policy suggests), we would have access to abundant nat gas from alaska. i have seen data that suggests that, even if the US put 50,000,000 nat gas cars on the highway, US reserves alone would power these for 30 years. that's a damn good start in the right direction. also, don't forget, LNG terminals on the coasts would allow importation. not so good if it is imported, but, in a future where i expect oil prices to skyrocket, access to cheap nat gas will be a better alternative.
paulk: thanks for your points, info, and support of NGV. and yes, i liked my idea of dealership refueling depots as well. i mean they can turn a profit on it! seems like a no-brainer to me.
fran: yeah, the problem i have with honda wrt GX is that they should make their website a one-stop shop with all the answers, costs, and comparisons with a gasoline powered car. in other words, do an example fill up comparison between gasoline and nat gas and do the mileage based on the combined city/hwy average. state the costs of the Phill purchase and installation (better yet, bundle it with the purchase of the car). etc. etc. even an engineer like myself could market that car and create a better website than what they have. heck, the first time i looked at their website, i didnt even see the 8.03 GGE (Gallons of Gasoline Equivalent, i suppose) spec, and i think they have added it since i jumped their case a few months back.
Iggy: heh heh heh, hilarious.
bobjou: well, sorry there aren't more specifics. read these comments. look at fran's site. USE GOOGLE. my next article though will have an refuel example and costs.
fran: thx for the site!
-
Paul Killinger
-
1025 Comments
Sep 14 04:29 PMYour comment is PRICELESS! Thanks, buddy.
-
billp37
-
168 Comments
My Website
Sep 14 04:36 PMwww.prosefights.org/pn...
Non-conventional natural gas production is hoped accelerate.
Price volatility of naturnal gas is scary. Amaranth guessed wrong.
PNM plans to use natural gas to meet electric demands in New Mexico starting about 2012.
We will see home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/pnmelectric...
If we are still alive, of course.
-
Alamo
-
27 Comments
Sep 14 04:36 PMBut regardless of my meager involvement in the natural gas industry, I would be for any rational, doable plan that will lessen our strangling dependency on OPEC. Can anyone explain the sanity in sending our "petro-dollars&qu... to provide the financial means to fund Islamic terrorists? Simply, there is no sane explanation.
With the recent so-called "unconventional&q... natural gas discoveries, reservoir engineers--the guys that calculate what gas formations are capable of producing have indicated that currently there is enough American natural gas at current usage rates to power this nation for as long as 118 years. If those projections are overly optimistic half their projection would be almost 60 years---surely a more than sufficient time to develop to develop solar based alternatives.
Natural gas as compressed natural gas (CNG) is a cleaner, cheaper and abundant motor vehicle fuel and All American to the Boone 'er, Bone! The quicker we convert the country to CNG the sooner we can give OPEC that one finger salute. For me, that can't come too soon.
-
fireball
-
294 Comments
Sep 14 04:59 PMhey paulk. how ya liken palin?
i thought tbp was advocating lng.