Natural gas stations coming soon

General Discussion
61

Docnick…I don’t disagree with anything you say. But for us to talk about the price for a gallon of gasoline as being dependent upon the price of oil per barrel with no mention of public policy which accounts for differences as much as 5 dollars and more per gallon between countries is still tough for my little mind to wrap around.

Then, we automatically assume that natural gas prices when used for transportation, will somehow be dramatically less, with still no mention of public policy…still tough to follow.

62

Dagosa - you’re absolutely right, significant NG use in transportation will increase demand, and will require some tax mechanism, all increasing price. But it’s still domestic and lower CO2 than gasoline or diesel.

Also, large increases in NG use will require more pipelines and distribution, but those are known technologies, often fairly easy to implement.

63

And then, to complicate the issue, as handling and distribution of a liquid for most users seems to me to be preferable to that of a gas, here is this…http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21261/

If this cheaper conversion process produces a liquid fuel that burns as clean as the natural gas it is derived from and runs in existing cars and trucks, we could be in for a historic development that may make us more independent, but will do what should not be done. For many of we gasoline engine lovers, it may delay the use of EVs for personal use keeping us in the perpetual dependence on major corporate produced fuel. We will still could be at the mercy of volatile fuel prices as we will continue to ship this product overseas in an already developed infrastructure…little may change much price wise.

If only we do it right and treat it as a temporary 10 to 20 year conversion fuel and make the apropriate public policy decisions…maybe.

64

“But for us to talk about the price for a gallon of gasoline as being dependent upon the price of oil per barrel with no mention of public policy which accounts for differences as much as 5 dollars and more per gallon between countries is still tough for my little mind to wrap around.”

Unless you’re going to drive to Europe why is it even an issue?

65

@dagosa

I don’t disagree with you either. The selling price of gasoline has a high tax content in many parts of the world. Or subsidies in case of Saudi Arabia (25 cents/gallon), Venzuela, Iran and other countries where dictators and absolute monarchs use cheap gas to stay in power.

Canada and Norway are both oil exporting countries, and both have more expensive gas than the US. Norway by a great deal, since the goverment does not want its citizens to get hooked on big vehicles and cheap gas. Norway uses its oil and gas revenue taxes to finance free university education and free health care.

In Holland the $9 gas price contains about $4 per gallon in taxes. The road tax there for powerful and heavy vehilces is also excruciating. A V8 Jeep Grand Cherokee sells for about $95,000 vs about $50,000 in the uUS for the similar model. But a Volkswagen Golf with a small engine sells for about the same. In a small country with 14 milllion peole large vehicles would make driving a nightmare.

Every country has to balance its trade books. The US has an enormous trade deficit and is a massive importer of manufactured goods and energy. One way to address this imbalance is to 1) drill for more oil domestically, 2) drill for more gas domestically, 3) import cheaper oil from Canada than from Venezuela, Mexico, and the Middle East, and 4) Use less oil.

In addition, add 50 cents a gallon sales tax and stiff gas guzzler taxes on big vehicles. The unions want the goverment to get the US to stop importing stuff from China, a true pipe dream.

Obama’s Energy secretary Chu utters platitudes and said cheap gas was not his goal. He thinks alternative fuels will lower gas prices later. For a guy with a PhD and access to all statisics this shows either profound ignorance or a bald faced LIE.

The reality is that cheap gas is a thing of the past (even Venuzuela and Saudi Arabia will have to increase the price) and the public should be nudged in the direction of buying more fuel-efficient cars. We had this exact same discussion in 2008 or so and it shows the public has a very short attention span when it comes to gas prices. If you buy a new car today figure gas will cost at least $6-$7 a galllon over its 20 year lifetime even without additional taxes. Then figure how fast your income will rise over that time.

66

@dagosa

I hope the Synfuel process pans out. It is another way that natural gas can be a widely used fuel. Of course, with pilot plants just opening, it will be 5 to 10 years before anyone contemplates a large refinery. That means at least 10 years before a large refinery is built.

67

@jtsanders

“Gas to liquids” plants are well proven, and are often built where the natural gas is “stranded” and it makes more sense to turn it into liquid motor fuel for export. There is a major plant already operating in Sarawak (Borneo) that takes excess gas and gas liquids (light fractions in the gas) and exports the product to the rest of Asia. Don’t confuse this with coal liquifaction, which is a very messy and energy intensive process and was only sucessfully used by Nazi Germany and South Africa under embargo during the Apartheid era.

The technology is generic, and refineries do not need to be completely rebuilt to do this. The fuel also lends itself to blending with normal gasoline. This technology makes a great deal more sense than biofuels and does not compete for valuable cropland. But the envronmental lobby will argue that it will generate greenhouse gasses.

Ten years from now the goverment will have to strike a balance between what the country can afford to import and the environment, as well as what users can afford to pay. The green lobby will be considerably less powerful than it is now.

68

"The green lobby will be considerably less powerful than it is now."
Doc…if conditions remain constant and we continually deny our part in climate change, absolutely. But, it could be stronger if NASA, our military and the largest world scientific society AAAS, continue to assert otherwise.
I struggle to think we would even consider a balance between driving our polluters and early extinction. We all including the most avid greeny hopes we are in a position to be less powerful. That means things are moving the right direction.

But you know scientists…they say things like…it’s 90% probable we are contributing to climate change. Statements that are not absolute and always leaves room for compromises which is not always in the best interest of everyone.

69

@dagosa;
Climate change is not cataclysmic, unless the earth is hit by a large meteor or there are 1000 or so simultaneous volcanic eruptions. A good little book on Climate Change is “Cool It” by Bjorn Lomborg. He is a climate scientist and outlines the REDUCTIONS and MITIGATIONS we need to make to ADAPT to climate change, which is certainly happening but not at the pace Al Gore would like it to take place.

Please buy the book and sleep better. The point I was trying to make was that for the next 20 or 30 years about 75% of our energy will come from FOSSIL FUELS; oil, gas or coal. For the last 10 years the globe’s average temperature has not increased, so the overall increase is by no means steady.

If the whole Greenland Ice Cap melted, the sea level would rise 7 meters, according to scientists. What they do not tell you is that would take 2000 years, plenty of time to adapt and move inland. By that time our fossil fuels might be used up and climate chnage will stop.

Sure, we are contributing to climate change, but don’t know the exact amount. Over the years the Earth has gonme through many cycles of climate. Petrified trees are found in the high Canadian Arctic. Polar bears have been with us for many thousands of years through various climate cycles. We shaould just stop hunting them.

If you want to feel “comfortable” about climate change take a trip to Holland. One third of that country is below sea level, and the sea is defintely rising, although not very fast. The Dutch will show you how they have raised the level of theior dikes, and have gates that can close off the sea arms in heavy storms. They also have a lot of high tech windmills, but they generate most of their electricty from natural in very efficient power plants. They use a little biofuel in their cars, but most cars are small gasoline or diesels with stick shifts.

Al Gore, if he lived there, would be called an immoral wastrel for the size house he lives in and all the fuel he burns flying around. World food supply is a more serious issue now than global warming, in my opinion. In the long run, taking cropland for fuel production is immoral and counterproductive.

In short, please read Lomborg’s book; I met him at a University lecture on climate change and he makes a lot of sense. Driving a Lincoln Navigator on biofuels does not make any sense.

70

Doc…I need to see a common consensus among a majority of scientists in the recognized scientific communities. My last statement is relative to my opinion on climate change without trying to be too verbose. Our definition of cataclysmic is not the same and with respect to your points, and given your point of view, I see nothing I disagree with.

I am a firm believer though, at some point, especially dealing with the polar cap melt and change in salt concentration, there will be a tipping point where regardless of what we do, nothing will change the path that mankind has set forth.,Once reached, can we slow it down, yes, stop it, no. That is my definition of cataclysmic. Third world countries, some through no fault of there own will have destinies set that could easily include thousands of deaths that don"t have to occur. It is pretty selfish on our part defining cataclysmic in our terms when their’s is the loss of a village.

Just reversing the ozone layer depletion which had the SAME naysayers about economic doom has saved thousands of lives. I see Al Gore as an awareness agent but not an expert as his is just an opinion, supported by those he agrees with. The same for Lomborg. I have formed my own opinion in readings and talks with people who still work in government and universities. Both have majorities that are moving forward under the assumption we are a contributing cause and we should do everything possible to mitigate it…If the rest are of the opinion, they are just out to make money, so be it. They do not have the same tract record as corporate opinion which routinely allows people to die respect to the products they produce in the name of profit.

Yes, I trust enough to read Al Gore, Ralph Nader and other advocates and perhaps Lonborg and will give them more courtesy concerning climate change then CEO’s of vested corporations and their paid lackys.

“Sure, we are contributing to climate change, but don’t know the exact amount.” this I fully agree with. But just because I don’t know how much, does not mean I listen to Rush Limbaugh and his opinion either on what to do. We do everything we can BECAUSE we don’t know the exact amount. That’s where we differ I guess.
I didn’t mention nat gas once so I have a big fat “off topic”.

71

@ dagoisa; good response. I sit on a climate change committee at the local university, and we get speakers like Lomborg and other capable scientists. We don’t want to hear from Green Peace, the Sierra Club, David Suzuki and Al Gore, who all have their own specific agenda. Green Peace has degenerated into an eco-terrorist organizaion, and as been delisted as a charity by a number of governments. We recently had the VP of a major oil company talk about alernative energies and his company’s involvement. It was quite significant. Energy companies eventually will have to phase out fossil fuels and many want to be ready with alternatives. It would be nice to have Ralph Nader as a speaker too; he was recently in town, but we could not get him in the schedule. Here is a man who will not profit from his ideas.

The contributors to this Cartalk panel, of course, have to practice what they preach. It would be nice to get some feedback as to what has been achieved so far. In case you wondered, our family has made significant reduyctions in both energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

We started in 2005 and compared the figures from 1990 (the reference year of Kyoto) to the present and achieved the following:

Greenhouse gas reduction:

  1. Transportation 51% reduction (2- 4cylinder cars vs 2- 8cylinder cars)
  2. Heating (space and water) 49% reduction through better insulation, sealing and high efficiency furnace, less water used
  3. Electricity use; 28% reduction through more energy-efficient appliances, timers, CFL bulbs, LED Christmas lighting, etc.

The actual energy reduction as billed and used, was similar:

  1. Transpoertaion 45% reduction
  2. Heating 42% reduction
  3. Electricity 26% reduction.

All this was achieved without a change in lifestyle. In fact we now have 1 more computer and one more television. We have no solar panels or windmills. I’m still waiting for a politician of any stripe to address the above possibilities. I don’t think Obama understands the terms discipline and dedication. And Chu should be talking about the above poossibilities every chance he gets.

All the above reductions can be speeded up with tax credits.

72

We’ve had some reductions in fuel use. About a year ago, we went to a 9/80 schedule at work. I work 9 hours Mon-Thu, 8 hours one Fri and take the other Fri off. That’s a 10% reduction in gasoline. But other that that, there has been little reduction in the last 12 years. We’ve always set the thermostat at 64F during the winter, and hardly run the AC in the summer. When we do, it’s set at 80F. We bought our new house 12 years ago, and purchased energy miser appliances at that time. We cook and heat with gas. We haven’t changed our energy use habits, and I don’t think we need to. We’ve always been a frugal lot. When we had the house built, the developer asked if we wanted 9’, 10’, or 11’ ceilings. We said no thanks; standard 8’ is high enough and the extra space just needs to be heated.

73

Doc… People like you are the real catalyst for practical and well informed change. Whether we disagree or not, you are on the side of truth seeking along with a good dose of skepticism. It is good to hear you practice what you preach.

I struggle too with dedicated groups who want to preach instead of inform, on both sides. That’s why I have a problem too with those groups you mention. I do believe they serve a purpose, but any ideological group has to be looked at with a doubtful eye the same as any group who benefits financially from their point of view, regardless of who they are. They are welcome to give me information but little more.

Thanks for informing us in what you have done. I have taken measures too, but admittedly not as successfully due to my chosen life style. We are dedicated “water people”. We built an over insulated house, converted my outboards to 4 stroke, kayak and sail as much as possible…but, the grand children like to tube and water ski and I pollute too much on their behalf.

Tax credits, I agree are long over due. It’s sad that we get a tax credit for a Volt that still remains over priced, but can’t get one for adding insulation to our homes. .

74

Conservation is the key right now, we certainly do have have our priorties wrong.It amazes me how some people work at being wasteful.one of my Hobbies is keeping a stretch of road litter free(looks good for awhile,then some brave soul chucks out a beverage container,cigarette pack or a fastfood wrapper and before you know it the "Litter seeds sprout and it looks like crap again) 90% of the litter is packaging off of convenience items,would take little effort not to throw this stuff out) Been watching some shows were people rebuild and flip houses,seems like R-19 insulation is the standard for ceilings and roofs even in New England.Time to get serious Folks?-Kevin

75

Oh man " kmccune"; you have the same problem we do on the other section of road we have to travel on…the wastefulness in attitudes and maintenance on the road we must travel makes the use of nat gas pale in significance as a make up for their ineptitude…I feel a lot of digression comming on. You have my sympathy. Funny, they are really nice people, but they just don’t get it. On this end we call them “flatlanders”. Their attitude is to fix it when it when it needs it instead of doing it right the first time. Very costly and energy wasteful attitude that may work with cars but never with roads.

lAnd the trash ! When we walked the 1.5 miles out to get the mail, wife used to make a point of keeping the road side clean…it’s so bad, she can’t keep up. So we now roll the windows up and drive by the mess. It looks much worse walking then driving…they seldom walk and that’s the problem. Don’t mean to be critical, but it seems the fitness level is proportional to how far towards the lake you live…lower fitness level people in my experience, tend to use more energy; necessarily so by injury when I’m and others grow old or are recouping but by choice by the “flatlanders”…

76

Well lets consider the fact that silicon solar cells are heirloom quality and factor in the predictions that soon PV power will approach 6 cents a KWH things look pretty good down the road.Of course electric vehicles contribute to pollution but isnt it easier to to control the emissions from a few central plants then millions of people movers?Another thing ,why not build the power plants at the coal mines? Transmission lines are probaly no more expensive in the long run then first class roads(plus the materials can be recycled at the end of the powerlines useful life-metals generally appreciate in value over time) and why are those stack gases at oil wells and refinerys not spinning a turbine? Well maybe its time to privatize more public roads and let capitalism work its magic.the Government reminds me of some of these so called charities where most of the money is absorbed within the organization-Kevin

77

Kevin…transmission lines do loose efficiency over distance that is significant enough to make it a worth while update, but very expensive proposition. Nothing IMO, beats localized power, tailored for the service area. Tidal power immediate to coastal community. River current power (not necessarily dams) solar and wind are ALL more beneficial when in close proximity. These strategies scare large power producers who are the biggest lobbies against their implementation.

78

Ah,Dagosa remember a few years back when there was an excited buzz about localized power.Seems to me like there is a fuel cell generator manufacturer,promoting that very thing,And you are right,appropiate power for appropiate locales.(I dislike looking at transmission lines also) interesting story around here during the REA days how the big boys were fighting the local co-ops,Kevin

79

Just did a search on CNG stations in my area, and to my surprise there is a Shell station with a CNG pump that is 2.5 miles from my house. Now only if a car manufacture would produce a CNG hybrid.

CNG Prius a good idea?

Honda already makes a CNG 2012 Civic

80

americar “CNG Prius a good idea?” With a plug in capability too. Why not. Why not one fossil fuel hybrid car that can be powered by Electricity, Nat gas, gasoline and alcohol based fuels (and cow dung). Well within our technology. When it comes to fossil fuels, if we must burn them, the more options the better, all in the same car. Now where do we put that darn Nat Gas tank and nasal filter ?

Kevin “Well maybe its time to privatize more public roads and let capitalism work its magic” My only problem with that is with the stupidity of management. On our private road end, we get local govt. help in road engineering, matching funds projects and reduced costs of materials. Our road association dues are voluntary and we always have a surplus we are begging to spend from our donations.

The “conservative” end wants NO govt. involvement, designed by scare tactics of the few at the top of their food chain , is forced by a corporate Road agreement to perpetuity to pay more than twice as much per year, still pays taxes that benefit us and not them, and drives through mud.