My Plan for Eliminating America’s Dependence on Foreign Oil
by David Fessler, Energy and Infrastructure Expert
Friday, April 2, 2010: Issue #1230
Why isn’t the U.S. government doing more to get us off foreign oil?
Great question. It’s one I ask myself all the time.
It was clearly on the minds of many attendees at the Investment U Conference in San Diego a couple of weeks ago, too. I lost count of the number of times people asked me about it – and what the United States should be doing to address the problem.
So I decided to see what it would take to drastically cut our oil dependence.
How could we get to the point where we could get by on the oil we have here? To get to the point where it wouldn’t be necessary to import it from anyone. Not even Canada…
Getting America Off Foreign Oil… Now
Let’s start with a few “crude” facts:
- The world produces about 85 million barrels of oil per day (BPD).
- Of that amount, the United States uses 25%, or about 21 million BPD.
- Breaking that down even further, the transportation sector gobbles up about 70% of the United States’ daily use, or 14.7 million BPD.
Now, here’s the crux of it…
- We import about 75% of what we use, or about 16 million BPD. So it’s easy to see that if the transportation sector can switch from oil to other fuels, we can get rid of 93% of our oil imports. But how?
The Mandate That Could Solve America’s Oil Dependence Problem
When you think about the U.S. Congress, “energy” isn’t the first thing that springs to mind.
And when it comes to the energy sector, our elected officials in Washington are in a collective slumber.
But let’s assume for a crazy second that in a stroke of simplicity and common sense, Congress issues a mandate to all vehicle manufacturers.
The Mandate:
- Of the 10 million cars, SUVs, light trucks and heavy-duty trucks that will be produced in 2012, a minimum of 5% will operate on natural gas. (This is a much easier design issue than an all-electric vehicle, by the way.)
- It will also give auto manufacturers a tax credit of $1,000 per car over the first five years.
- Manufacturers must also increase their natural gas-powered vehicle production by 5% per year, with the goal that by 2015, natural gas will power 20% of all vehicles produced.
- The mandate increases by 20% per year, so that by 2019, all new vehicles produced will run on natural gas.
In 10 Years, America’s Oil Imports Could Be Dramatically Reduced
The total U.S. vehicle fleet is roughly 254 million. Of that, 135 million are cars, 99 million are SUVs and/or pickup trucks and roughly nine million are larger trucks.
And with that mandate in place, 10 years from now, vehicles that run on natural gas will have replaced 76% of all the gasoline and diesel vehicles.
The result?
- We’ll have shaved at least 13.8 million BPD – about 86% – off our daily oil imports.
- Our annual trade deficit will drop by about $94 billion, or 25%.
And what about the $10 billion in incentives that the government would shell out to auto companies?
We could phase in a progressive “legacy fuel” tax on gasoline and diesel to offset the tax incentives. It could either be phased out after five years, or left in place to continue to discourage gasoline and diesel use. That would hasten the switch to natural gas.
Of course, with all these natural gas vehicles, we’ll need places to refuel them. So the 167,000 gas stations across the United States will need natural gas pumps alongside the gasoline ones.
In that regard, the government would offer incentives to gas station operators, right along with the ones to auto companies.
That means companies like Clean Energy Fuels (Nasdaq: CLNE) can step up right now and begin installing their refueling stations around the country.
It’s Time for “Somebody” to Get Going…
As the old saying goes, “This ain’t rocket science.”
Perhaps now that the focus on healthcare reform is behind us, we can get back to the business of addressing the rest of America’s crucial issues. And undoubtedly, increasing our energy independence is one of them.
The crude oil import problem reminds me of the old joke about “Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.”
- Everybody thinks ending our dependence on foreign oil needs to be done.
- Somebody will do it.
- Anybody could put a plan together to end our dependence.
- But Nobody has.
The U.S. government needs to step up and be that Somebody.
My scenario is a simple way to solve it… right now. But we’ll never get there if we don’t get started.
C’mon, Congress… wake up.
Good investing,
David Fessler
Investment U… Extra: Why Natural Gas?
Unlike crude oil, the United States is awash in natural gas. We have nearly 2,100 tcf (Trillion Cubic Feet), which equates to a 100-year supply. That’s 33% higher than just three years ago.
And you can bet that figure will rise further. In fact, with technological improvements, I fully expect that estimate to double over the next three to five years.
So how much gas do we need? One trillion cubic feet is enough to run 12 million cars per year. Replace 75% of the U.S. vehicle fleet (190 million vehicles) and we’re still only talking 15 tcf per year.
While electric cars might be the ultimate alternative to fossil fuels, switching to natural gas-powered vehicles gets us a long way down the road towards energy independence.
More importantly, it buys America valuable time to replace power generation with alternatives, further reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
Any investment contains risk. Please see our disclaimer.
71 Responses to “My Plan for Eliminating America’s Dependence on Foreign Oil”
Comments
By submitting your comment you agree to adhere to our Comment Policy and Privacy Policy.
Check out our selection of daily investment research:
 |
 |
David Fessler is the energy and infrastructure expert for Investment U.
Great plan. T. Boone would love it. In addition to the huge economic benefits, it improves our national security. It would also reduce carbon emmissions significantly, so normal folks would view that as a good by-product. Not the environmental wackos.
Reply
Not sure who the “environmental wackos” are but in places where natural gas is a fuel source, environmentalists don’t have any problem with that.
Prejudices like that don’t help progress.
Reply
You totally miss the point, we have a well polluting the gulf of Mexico “the most beautiful water in our country that seems to have enough oil for our needs,” then why are we dealing with these Arab nations? They hate us and we hate them, so let them drown in there oil, besides why does an English co. own that well on our property? Are we paying them too?
Reply
Actually, BP (not British Petroleum but now called Beyond Petroleum) is owned mostly by America these days. And the US only contains about 3% of the world’s oil reserves… While the US produces about 5.1million barrels a day, it consumes 21million barrels a day. So, i think you might need to persist with the “Arab nations” a bit longer, since they contain about 56% of the worlds oil- and that’s only the oil reserves they have declared publicly.
Reply
Another solution is to synthesize gasoline or diesel from natural gas. DOE spent several large grants to develop specialized catalyst attached to fixed porous tubes to make the synthesis in one step. Its intention was to make small “refineries” to capture natural gas from oil wells too isolated for pipelines. I haven’t seen any commercialization of this massive work.
Remember Amoco White Gas? Same principal.
Reply
In the gas shortage of the 1970′s, I had my van converted to run either on gasoline or propane, at the flick of a switch. There was no difference in mileage, acceleration, etc. There was no problem finding a propane dealer when I needed to re-fuel. And re-fueling was very rapid.
In short, conversion could occur right now.
Reply
When I was going to college in the early 1950′s I used to catch a ride with another student who had converted his car to run on propane (a component of natural gas)or gasoline. If it were technologically feasible 60+ years ago, it certainly should be feasible now.
Reply
Propane is a component of Crude Oil.
Reply
Natural gas is about 85% methane, which is
H
H C H
H
Propane is
H H H
H C C C H
H H H
I believe propane has more energy. Propane’s boiling point is about -44 deg F. Methane has boiling point -259 deg F. Liquifying natural gas would be much harder than propane.
Reply
I’ve been listening about this plan at least for more than 4 years and still nobody do anything, in fact, if I want to adapt my car to run w/ natural gas and is almost impossible, because the systems is only for military and public used…
Reply
I agree with #3,Mr Loeffler, I had 4 F150s and a Towncar converted to LP or gasoline in the 70s and it worked like a charm, flip the switch and go and as I remember only $150 for the carb. kit (then)
and a day to install the tank. Flip a switch in the cab and go from one to the other as needed. We ran LP on the highways and gasoline off road.(the tank kinda took over the trunk of my towncar though)
Reply
According to one of your Agora articles on the Bakken oil find under North Dakota et al. the US geological institue roughly figured there is a 2,140 yr. supply of sweet crude oil in there which can be extracted at about $16.00 a barrel.
Why isn’t there a national drive to get this headline in every newspaper in the United States.
Furthermore–keep your hands off my natural gas that keeps my furnace running all winter. It beats the hell out of trying to heat this house with just the fireplace that is located way on one wing of the ranch home.
Best regards;
Captain Jack
Reply
This is a great idea. Albeit not a new one. The trick here, I believe is the infrastructure. If oil companies, and their lobbyists controlled the natural gas drilling, production, and distribution, I dont believe this would be an issue. We would, no doubt have a natural gas system already.
This would be something a thoughtful congress and president would have to mandate as you suggest. Unfortunatly we have neither a Congress nor a President who thinks about what will work, rather they prefer a politically expedient discussion. A discussion which gets them elected next go around. I hope people begin to read, listen and suggest to congress the best things to do. regardless of the political expediency. Chip
Reply
Great idea;
now how do we get the politicians on board?
Reply
Throw the recalcitrant ones overboard in November!
Reply
I totally agree. My suggestion is to have everyone mail a copy of your letter to their representatives and to the president. Maybe, just maybe, someone will read it, see its merits and introduce something similar as a law. I intend to do just that. This would be one law that I could whole heartedly support.
Reply
The oil companies who work on the North Slope of Alaska have been pumping natural gas back into the ground for decades, having been unable to secure the permitting and backing to get the gas to market via a pipeline to southern Alaska. It would seem an incentive by the government, instead of roadblocks would be sensible.
On another note, the conversion from gasoline to natural gas is a relatively simple one, is being done for a few hundred dollars per vehicle.
Reply
Natural Gas is being shipped directly from Alaska to Japan in Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) ships.
Reply
If I understood correctly, this commentator/investor wants more government involvement in a large economic sector, with more “progressive taxes” as a punishment, er, incentive for those who continue using gasoline powered cars to switch. Is this guy working for the Obama administration? The real answer is to get the government out of the way, and let the free market decide what kind of energy it prefers. Get rid of the EPA with it’s bogus “climate change” fanatic experts who continue to prohibit private citizens and companies from buying oil-rich lands which can supply more of our domestic needs.
Reply
It is just a matter of getting people that think like you elected to Congress to add some common sense to that bunch. Sounds like you have a business background which should be a requirement in order to run for Congress.
Reply
Ford has been making Natural Gas vehicles for almost 2 decades. On the West Coast of Canada Natural Gas vehicles were popular in the 90′s.
The downside of NG is it shortens engine life, finding a refill station could be a problem on a trip. Also the size of the fuel tank is an issue. In order to have a NG tank capable of holding the equivalent of 20 gals of gasoline . . . it would be huge. Natural Gas and Propane have fewer BTU’s, so it takes more to produce the same power. Propane is more popular here and more available.
Natural Gas is better suited for home heating, generating electricity, and other commercial uses where it can be piped into a location, unless it could be kept in a condensed state (LNG) then a quart could run a vehicle a very long time, but keeping it that cold is a large hurdle to overcome. The reality is NG vehicles fall into the same category as Windmills and Solar Panels, can be useful in some applications (ie: the farm or summer home), but will never be the predominent source of energy.
The fact is that there is enough oil and natural gas in the US for 100 to 200 years . . . somebody just needs to go and get it. As long as the enviro-whacks are controlling the message, look at the great job they did in Californistan, could this be the model for the entire US?
Reply
The Natural Gas Conversion of Vehicles, is the same thing T. Boone Pickins, has been embracing,but so far, it appears to be too mindane to be “Obamanized?”
We feel this is the most sensible approach for our country to use, to transition to “Warp Drives” in the 22nd Century.
Good Luck!
Reply
Congress is aware of NG and all the statistics given in this article but the fact is you Congress belongs body and soul to the coal and oil lobbiest. Getting elected is job-1 for our politicians and campaingns are paid for by the coal and oil interest. Our Energy secretary is “agnostic” about NG and talks about that oxymoron “clean coal” being an option and our President gives the go ahead to drill baby drill.
Yes, getting off the addiction to foreign oil is here and now, possible but not probable.
Reply
Let’s keep the socialists in Washington out of it and let competition in the market place drive it. People buy hybrids because they can get 40+ mpg. The current technology cannot get us a family car with a 500 mile range between fill ups. The existing fleet vehicles using natural gas are limited range. But LNG may be a good choice in a hybrid. If you want to get real creative let’s use wind-up cars and use natural gas for the winding stations. Thanks, David, for you inspiring thoughts. Let the inventors get busy.
Reply
I’ve also been told that there are Nat Gas conversion kits. Where can I get some for my 1989 International Diesel engine in my 1989 Ford Pickup trucks. I’ll take 5 please.
Until then, I’m really looking forward to the new plug in electric vehicles for 2010. Especially the Nisson Leaf.
Reply
Make you own biodiesel out of cooking oil. It’s cheaper than natural gas, and you can get the cooking oil from local restaurants for free. Another benefit, you won’t be at the mercy of market price fluctuations as it would be with natural gas. 100% biodiesel has NO harmful emissions, and the byproduct from production can be used to make soaps. Several local classes are taught across the country on how to make your own biodiesel. Happy fueling!
Reply
I agree 10,000% (100% x100%) that conversion of COMMUTER CARS in the suburbs is one way to go – why is it that Honda offers Civic autos that run on natural gas in only a few states – somebody yelps about the lack of infrastructure – this should not be only for corporate fleet cars – how about putting a lot of plumbers back to work by getting them certified to install natural gas refill kits in attached garages of persons who buy a new auto (or a converted one) thqt runs on it (and NOT compressed – just the regular NG0). T-B0NE Pickens wants to put long-haul truck fleets on NG – that requires building lots and lots of infrastructure to make it available! Can autos that now run on gasoline be readily converted to run on natural gas? I hope so!
Reply
have any of you studied any mathematics at all? the author claims that we current technology we can double the current estimate of 2100 tcf of oil in the us. so in three to five years we would have about 4200 tcf of ng. if we increased our usage of this ng by 10% per year for transportation only, in 21 years we would be down to 525 tcf, and that’s if we could recover every cf of natty, which we can’t, and use natural gas for no other reason, such as electricity production, and heating and cooling. an alarm should go off in your heads whenever you hear how many years we have left of a commodity. they are just using how we produce or consume, and dividing that by an estimate of how much we believe we have, not what we will ultimately recover. you invoke this plan, and in 15-20 years at the most, the us will be right back in this dependency situation. in addition this increased natural gas production will further tax dwindling oil supplies. i am not saying that using natural gas, in addition to crude oil for transportation is without some merit, but if you think it is a panacea for energy independence imo you are wrong. why blame the current crop of politicians, this problem has been known about for decades, and has been kicked down the road.
Reply
WHAT hAPPENED TO Rz AND GEOTHERMAL ENGERY? wE HAVE IT IN ALMOST EVERY STATE. iT IS WORKING IN CITIES IN CALIF. NOW. INDONESEA IS WORKING ON THIS NOW. ANY THERMAL HEAT GENERATER CAN BE IN OPERATION IN A YEAR WITH NO POLUTION. IT IS MUCH CHEAPER AND HAS BEEN PROVED IT WORKS. LOOK UP RZ AND YOU WILL SEE THAT IT IS WORKING AND FURNISHING POWER TO ANAHIEM, CALIF NOW.
Reply
More mandates and a tax to reduce our oil imports. How unique. Is Fessler a sitting member of con-gress? This is almost as brilliant as the ethanol – “Lets burn our food” policy.
One more “A little, temporary tax) article and you guys are off my site for good.
Reply
I agree. Every temporary tax ends up becoming a permanent one. Once politicians find a new way to tax us they never let go. By the way, why should we be taxed in the first place? Don’t the oil companies make enough profit? Billions and trillions of dollars? And the government, how much taxes do we pay with every fillup? We are being milked dry and you suggest a new tax? Somebody is not living among those who suffer daily trying to fill their tank so they can go to work.
Reply
I am so 100 % behind the push for oil independence and absolutely FOR the switch to Natural Gas. It is completely foolish for us to be literally ignoring a 100 year supply on NG. Even if the estimates are off by 50%, 50 years worth is more than enough supply for N.G. to be a transitional fuel until a more permanent and renewable alternative can be put in place. Call your congressman and tell him/her to push harder for pro Natural Gas legislation.
Reply
Natural gas as a transitionary fuel, ready for immediate use, is a no brainer to most everyone but congress. The oil lobby that owns congress is not interested in what is best for America, but rather what is most profitable. As soon as all oil companies own their own XTO (Exxon’s nat gas co.), we will get our natural gas.
Andy Porter
Reply
Number 8 and 12 have it right and Drexel in 15 exposes why it “ain’t gonna happen” till we “get the bums out of congress” and totally eliminate lobbying and earmarks only possible by refusing to vote for an encumbent.
{as “no government at all” is far superior to what we’ve got now.)
getting the guv out – including especially “no subsidy for fuelingstations -{and all such “invitation to do damage” as that profit item should take care of itself …”very nicely” why does ‘thjst guy’ ( and so many) want the guv to “do it all” ??? – Energy company prodites are quite adequate if the guv gets out of the way and lets private cpital do the entire thing. “with the guv out of it. “The guv ruins everything it touched -especially “cap’n trade’ ( just like congress stealing 2.5 tril of s/s funds “to use for pork” .)wth the possible exceptin of the early internet.
If T.Boone Soros (Gates?)and buffet (OK “top-ten in wealth) were given free reign with no guv restrictions this and more could eliminate “oil dependence in a year’s time. Not ten.
… “hus’sayin’ it like it is”. – D. Denver
Reply
Yes, the plan would eventually do the job. But it relies on Detroit and the convesion of America’s transportation fleet to new vehicles–a gradual process, at best. I say, concentrate on providing the following incentives:
1. To create liquid natural gas (LNG) refueling stations and
2. To convert used vehicles to run on either gasoline or LNG (as Frank Loeffler says “at the flick of a switch” in response #3).
The prospect of big fuel cost savings (along with government incentive)would cause a stampede of vehicle conversions.
Reply
Natural gas is a wonderful, convenient fuel, but I think it is best used in home heating. Most enclosed parking garages will not allow gas-fueled cars below ground due to the danger of leakage. A moving vehicle, which vibrates and bounces on rough streets, invites gas fittings to be compromised, especially as it ages. This could be dealt with by regular mandatory inspections. For home heating, gas fittings are not subject to road vibration, and are much safer.
The energy content in a given amount of natural gas is much lower than for gasoline, calling for more frequent fillups.
These are not complete deal-breakers, but are things that must be considered. Altogether, I think a shift to smaller and more efficient vehicles, and a move toward more use of rail, would be a better solution. Piping gas to urban areas for home heating, or to power plants for production of electricity, would also make sense.
D. Gudmundson, P.Eng.
Reply
I agree 100% with David Fessler that we need to get off the use of gasoline for our country’s vehicles. In the late 1970′s I used methonol in some of our company vehicles as I believed then, as I do now, that we must go to an alternative fuel. Due to smog controls in our vehicles we had some problems. We should have gone with a conversion to natural gas, as that was being used by some companies at the time. Since natural gas is in abundance in our country, I fully support the switch. The feds need to “get with the program!”
Reply
Last month I traveled to Sydney, Australia. All of the city buses, which provide a great public transportation system, run on LNG. I believe this is also true of one of the Scandanavian countries.
Bonus: no diesel fume odors. There is some real life experience out there with these vehicles to draw upon. I hope that our moribund American auto makers will take the lead here.
Victoria
Reply
Why is shifing to natural gas such a big deal?
There is enough light sweet crude oil in the oil shale deposits to last for 30 or more years. There is no need to require costly vehicle changes or to experience $7-8.00 gasoline in the mean time. The gasoline engine has been a very eficient machine and will continue to be so if we just continue to develop the shale sources. Battery development still has a ways to go and recharging stations still require electricity or at present a very heavy battery. Stick with what we know best. Global warming is turning out to be one of the biggest hoaxes ever foisted on the American public. CO2 is not all bad and is needed in our environment.
Reply
NO MANDATES – Everything the government does it messes up. If natural gas makes ecomnomic sense, people will convert voluntarily. A typical free enterprise thing is that a few applications that make sense wil start it, like maybe company vehicles that stay in a local area or comuter vehicles. The producers will then get more efficient and spread it.
Why do so many people talk about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, then come up with every strange idea except drill for US oil? We have many year’s supply in Alaska, offshore, in North dakota, etc.
#2 talked about a method to convert natural gas to gasoline. I read that many places in the world natural gas is flared off because it’s to difficult to transport to where it’s needed. This sounds like a solution also.
Reply
Sounds like a great concept, despite then various practical issues brought out in the comments. But I have had and have one question: why does burning NG produce less CO2 than burning oil, per BTU or other measure of energy ?
Reply
Natural gas is a non starter as a auto fuel. It might have some limited fleet application.
There was a filling station near where I lived in the 1970′s but it was a flop and is long gone. It is a great motor fuel but to get a significant amount into a tank requires very high pressure, like welding gases. The tanks are heavy, expensive, potentially dangerous and require expensive inspection and certification. The filling station requires expensive and inefficient high pressure compressors. These are used to fill a battery of high pressure tanks which are cascaded into the vehicle tank until it is full. The tanks then have to be recharged. before the next customer can be filled. This makes it too slow and inconvenient for general use. Careless operation could be very dangerous.
Liquefied natural gas is constantly boiling in the tank and must be vented to prevent explosion. It is way too dangerous for the public to use. Ordinary cars are dangerous enough.
Reply
I am not an American but likes reading news like this about making life better and I quite agree with what is being said here it is surely about time that America wakeup and start running not walking to use alternatives and their own resources and leave the Arabs with their oil.
Have they really put all that money they made by selling oil into good use? Look at the backwardness of their countries.
Reply
In the summer of 1972 I had a job at the General Services Administration entering data for the Dual Fuel project. The idea was to test the feasibility of running vehicles on compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, or liquefied propane. The “Dual Fuel” tag was because the vehicles retained their gasoline capability, and could switch over if they ran out of the gaseous fuel, and get back to the motor pool.
Summing up the results, the conversion cost about $500 and the fuel cost per mile was very nearly the same for all four fuels. Emissions were not tested, but it was noted that the gaseous fueled vehicles could go longer between tuneups and oil changes since they were not burning the cruddy leaded gasoline of the time.
I don’t know how feasible a similar conversion would be in today’s fuel injected engines compared to the carburetor based engines of 1972, but this idea sure sounds like a potential bridge technology – like an EV with on-board gasoline generator such as the Volt.
Reply
Remeber what happened in the 1990′s when all the Independent Power Producers were building gas fired power plants as fast as they could. Gas promptly went from $2 to $12, and most of them went bankrupt. A lot of that was distribution related, there just isn’t enough pipeline to carry the volume where it is needed. Major changes in fuels need to be done gradually and regulated by market forces.
Better to just tax the ‘bad’ thing, imported oil. Put a variable tax of $100 minus market price only on imported oil. That tells every investor if he can find a domestic energy source that competes with $100 a barrel oil he can make money, and not have to worry about the Saudis dropping the price. Then let inventors solve the problem.
Reply
I live in Thailand where they have been using NG for cars and trucks for the last few years. It costs about 1/10 of what gas costs and all of the taxis in the country use it. You can also buy any car that you want all ready set up for it. It doesn’t take up all that much room as one e-mail was complaining. Even in the smaller cars there is still room in the trunk where the tank is for your suitcases. It took about 2 years of building but now everywhere you go there are filling stations so no problem finding fuel. But of ciourse instead of doing it like a progressive country such as Thailand the US will just sit on its behind and do nothing except write about it. With a perfect solution all ready working right before your eyes we will continue down the road oblivious. Best bet if you want to see this excellent solution where you live is to move somewhere else avoid the last throes of the dying dinosaur that is the US.
Reply
I do not know why no one has mentioned hydrogen for fuel. Right now we have technology that uses water to extract hydrogen (electrolysis) to power engines. Honda has a 100% hydrogen (water fuel) car. I also believe some european manufacturers have the same technology. Can you imagine what would happen if cars no longer required fossil fuel to run? The thoughts taht come to mind are just too complex to describe. I am sure you can picture it in your mind.
Reply
Hi, fellow commenters. Interesting all this about instant fuel production and the somebody who should do it.
Ever heard of vested interest. Heard about all the parties who grow fatter by not doing anything except confirming the status quo.
Also many of these comments make me feel that the USa thinks it is the only country on the globe who has a problem. The whole world is collectively consuming its unreplacable resources at a rate of knots, impoverizing itself into a standstill, aggravated by an unstoppable, exponential increase of people, all demanding by birthright, their share of the pie.
The so-called leaders in this world are acting like ants in a ant-heap in which order of life has been disturbed. Running around, not knowing what to do.
My suggestion: Control procreation. Stop encouraging consumption beyond need.
Reply
SMART THINKING, GET IT DONE.
Reply
AWAITING MODERATION, WHEN I AM CONGRATULATING YOU FOR THE IDEA, ? GET IT DONE , IS THE NEXT STEP.!
STOP POLLUTING THE WORLD.
Reply
I visited Lima, Peru last year after 10 years of living in the US. I was amazed to see all the cars using natural gas. The owners were required to have them converted and the cost is paid at the pump over time. I thought if they can do it, what is the matter with the USA not doing something like that.
Reply
Why doesn’t anybody realize that this crack pipe dream will never happen, given that the N.W.O.’s Dad, the Rockefellers et al, own not just oil – but the governments their ill-gotten gains set up. Witness Agoniland, Nigeria for a classic example of what an oil company puppet government will do to it’s own people to suppress and OPPRESS them. It’s said that there’s nothing new under the sun, and to prove it, look no further than this link, and ask yourself – whatever happened to Will Garret’s electrolytic carburetor?
http://www.h2-hydro-gen.com/CharlesGarrett.html
Or better yet, to Nicola Tesla’s electric Pierce Arrow, that ran for FREE!? Without batteries on board?! And inducted free energy from the ‘ether’via it’s radio antenna?!
Ask yourself if tricky Dick Cheney would’ve allowed anything to interfere with the profiteering he enjoyed with Haliburton, over the dead bodies of the 9-11 victims, and the consequent Iraqi victims of that horrendous mass-murdering hoax. To quote Joan Rivers – “Oh grow up”! You know it was a hoax, – ask any of the majority of New Yorkers. Or if you really don’t know it was a hoax, watch Michael Ruppert’s “Truth & Lies of 9-11″. As a former top narc with L.A.’s South Central Division, he knows how to put together an air-tight indictment. If you’ve got the stomach for it, follow that up with Loose Change’s, “2nd Edition” & “Final Cut”. It won’t be a perfect world ’til our risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ sets up His millenial reign on earth. And trust the Bible, it’s gonna get a whole lot WORSE here before it gets better!
Reply
Amen! You’ve nailed it. But how would propane fit into this scenario? There are may trucks already modified to burn it.
PLEASE SEND THIS TREATISE TO EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS. They haven’t listened to Boone…maybe they will hear you.
Reply
Mr. Fessler’s article makes complete sense. However, I do have much hope with the cognitive impotence of our congressional representatives. Their lack of insight is frightening. I hope I am wrong.
Reply
Why not taking the full step to compressed air engines.
You fill up at home, no pollution.
The natural gas as well as the oil will come to an end or become more expensive .The compressed air requires electricity but no matter how it is produced.
The natural gas risk problem does not apply to compressed air.
We will soon see the first models of these cars in Europe.
When will we see them in the US ??
Reply
I am truly shocked that David Fessler would advocate that the Fed/Gov do anything but “GO AWAY!” The Fed/Gov has deliberately created this whole foreign oil dependency crisis, therefore, the Fed/Gov is the LAST source to resolve the crisis! Contrary to the “Peak Oil” BS, the lower 48 and Alaska is LOADED with oil! All that is needed is to start building the pumps and pipelines, and to tell the Fed/Gov to just GO AWAY! GET GUTS PEOPLE!
Reply
Switching from gasoline and diesel to natural gas is good, simple, sensible, and quite easy to do.
Standing in the way of this switch are mis-informed environmental groups and certain others who are making billions of dollars by milking the status quo such as the carbon offset business owned by Al Gore and his partners at Goldman Sachs.
Reply
I believe Dr. Scott Brown should do a better job of researching of what he has assumed to be the case.
The 2008 Congress LIFTED the ban on offshore drilling of the east coast & gulf of mexico, (please check your facts and history)(President Obama under the guise of seeming to do this (and everyone seems to have believed the PR hype) Actually RESTRICTED offshore oil drilling by reaffirming the (Bush & Congress) ban removal of 2008 and excluding certain areas from the 2008 ban lifting. Oil companies who had been granted drilling rights (they paid a lot of money for these auctions) in the NOW BANNED areas will be allowed to proceed with their drilling programs as the Govt apparently cant rescind these contracts.
So please dont at face value believe the double speak out of DC and the Press that touts the propaganda and check the actual facts
Reply
Who cares about eliminating the USA’s dependence on foreign oil?
Why oil? Why not eliminate dependence on foreign computer chips, cars, or any one of a dozen strategic industrial metal or materials?
Have you ever asked truly yourself this question?
Her is the answer that I formulated after doing so: Because importing oil from the middle east limits the USA government’s ability to interfere with even more military adventurism in that region.
This is the fundamental impulse behind all the “energy independence” propaganda.
Reply
You have really hit the nail on the head. I don’t kn why anybody would build a nuclear reactor with all the regulations and capital required. Its possible for energy companies to lock in low gas prices now for a year or so, then gas prices will rise steadily. Hope they are smart enough to do it. Canada and the USA have as you say enough gas for may years. I am presently changing my heating from oil to gas.
best
bob
Reply
MY PLAN FOR ELIMINATING AMERICA’S DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL…. AND GAS.
I completely and respectfully Disagree with Mr. Fessler. Additionally this article is grossly flawed. Further research in to a cost effective means of mass producing 100% biodiesel without the destroying forests or utilization of food commodities is a much smarter as sustainable. Natural Gas is Not viable option. In fact, natural gas is a very BAD Idea. The EPA has launched an investigation into the a natural gas process called, “fraking”. It is destructive and the “Fraking process” poisons underground water supplies with “hydrochloric acid, benezene”, and other known toxins. Colorado cattle ranchers have reported livestock died from drinking the water, birth rates are lower, and an in flux of livestock birth defects. And that’s just for starters. Just wait..there will more horrific cases which will pop up.
Our best bet is to continue perfecting biodiesel which can power passenger jets (Boeing), fighter jets (airforce), tanker, ships, cars, trucks, home furnaces…. and the potential additional products powered by biodiesel is endless. Additionally, we can Power our homes and businesses with wind,solar and biodiesel in tandem with strong conservation measures such as; heavily insulated or extra thick walls, and windows. I highly encourage you to check out Amory Lovins Chief Scientist and Green Home owner on Wall Street Journal Online at:
#1. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124959929532112633.html)
You’ll be Amazed at what we can do with conservation, wind, and solar. And by the way, let’s not forget the benefits of geothermal and other biomass energy sources!
#2. (online.wsj.com/…/SB10001424052748703915204575103261360695290…)
Bottom Line: We wouldn’t have to drill for natural gas,oil, build nuclear power plants, burn coal, or even build thousands of miles of smart grid transmission lines, if we were to convert America’s homes and buildings to very high levels of energy efficiencies, i.e., conservation measures. Coupled with homes and businesses SELF PRODUCING their own energy needs by wind and solar. A small percentage could be supplemented with 100% biodiesel or geothermal. GOODBYE OIL, NATURAL GAS, AND NUCLEAR. And finally, we would have energy security and less cause to worry about foreign terrorists sabotaging our power plants when Americans are self producing-generating their own energy needs. Great for EV (powering your own electric vehicles too)>
reference: (http://splashdownpa.blogspot.com/2010/03/university-of-pittsburgh-scientist.html)
(www.propublica.org/…/epa-launches-national-study-of-hydraulic-fracturing)
Reply
About your comments on converting to an NG powered transportation economy, I remember reading about how to have made internal combustion engines far more fuel efficient than what they were. I.E. about one half the fuel consumption per horsepower/hour compared to present day engines. The test engines were using about one-third a pound of fuel as against two-thirds to one pound an hour for engines of that time 1958-59. The differences was mainly porting and greater expansion of gases in the cylinder before exausting. This would have worked with oil and NG engines as well. Another very promising technology for drastically cutting fuel comsumption, is the six-stroke engine which has already been run successfully. This type of engine uses a jet of water injected into the cylinder of the engine after the exhaust stroke to give an extra power stroke after the firing stroke. These engines required a far smaller radiator for a given horsepower output. This would also work for NG. I believe the technology already exists to totally cut off the fuel supply from abroad, it just requires the will to do so.
Reply
We have had LNG stations in Bogota Colombia for years as well as in other parts of the country. It costs about one third of the gasoline prices here to run your car (Gas at US $3.50) . . . it would make sense for the US as the article describes . . . but what would be the knock-on effect for the world (as less USD´s would be floating around) and the US companies that have built their business on exploring and bringing home oil from overseas?
Reply
OK, you free market types…if we did away with all the tax incentives given for oil exploration and production today and required Big Oil to pay taxes on profits from overseas, the price of gasoline at the pump tomorrow would be high enough to make natural gas competitive. Likewise if the price of refined products reflected the cost of cleaning up the air, water pollution and the health care costs associated with their use, most alternative fuels would be competitive now. But we know that aint gonna happen! Joe sixpack is only concerned with what it costs him to fill his tank today, not the long term costs (example: 1 Trillion dollar war in Iraq) of our petroleum based foreign policy. If it takes a new tax to prevent billions of US dollars from flowing to the Saudi’s and others who then use those dollars to attack us it sounds like a good idea to me!
Stop drinking the Tea!
BTW. My company’s experience with natural gas fueled vehicles is that they are more difficult to fuel than gas or diesel models and have a much smaller range. They might work in cities, but large swaths of the US are not connected to a natural gas system, so fueling options will be very limited outside of cities.
Reply
Brown & Fessler are only half right. As a Chemical Engineer with 40 yrs. experience in combustion, Nat.Gas is a feedstock for propane 2590 BTU/CF and the infrastructure is available country wide. NG (CH4) is only 1013 BTU/CF. Propane retrofit is cheaper-more BTU/CF smaller tanks. NG is also a feedstock for diesel fuel by the Fisher-Tropsch process and we don’t need to re-design the entire truck fleet’s diesel engine. The GREEN MOVEMENT NEEDS FLUSHING!!!
Reply
Greetings all from the land down under. It’s interesting that this debate almost mirrors one we had here this week, basically along the lines of “what incentives can we (government or society) introduce to get people to stop driving cars?” Your argument is closely related, although you are seeking a way to reduce the cost of travelling and therefore the dependence on foreign oil, whereas our debate was framed more along the lines of ” how do we reduce the need and consumption of oil?” Personally I think the critical mind shift for cities needs to be elevating public transport to be the preferred means to get from A to B.
Tell me, is it possible to implement a public transport system such that anyone within 20 miles of the city can get to work in under one hour? Further, would the population support a levy (ie tax) on cars to support bus or rail transport? If we can make that ideological leap we might be a chance of turning around our current wasteful habits (eg, 80% of cars in Perth, Aus only carry one person). I’m sure most of you can draw a parallel to your own city…
Also, at the risk of sounding cynical, you can’t elect a Pres and VP who are both Texas Oil Execs and think that alternative fuels are going to get a fair go. As long as DC is flooded with lobbyists throwing bags of cash around, the system is going to be corrupt. Everyone thinks they have morals, but everyone has their price too. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, “Politics is the second oldest profession, but more and more I see the similarities to the oldest”; or something like that…
God bless america; the world needs a strong leader who can overcome short term self interest and look to the future.
Reply
After reading all of the comments, I find it interesting that some are still proponents of gasoline and “green” energy sources. We are going to run out of oil someday in the near future. Electric cars will never be acceptable in our lifetime, if ever. We need to make a change NOW! Whether it be natural gas, hydrogen or another source of energy, government must promote it. And that, my friends, is the biggest problem! In every election, vote for those that want to get this country off the dependence of oil – and state that they will work toward doing so.
Reply
Link to a Hydrogen Generator wich can improve vehicles MPG and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Reply
To those who don’t think anyone in Congress is listening: I am not certain of the bill number, but last year, Reps. John Sullivan and Dan Boren introduced the NATGAS Act, which would set up a framework for converting our truck and auto fleets to using natural gas. So the legislation has been proposed; write your legistlators and tell them to support the NATGAS Act; my representative already is, since he proposed it.
Reply
were plain ignorant for not making a bigger effort to switch everything over to natural gas!
Reply
There is technology available that can increase the output we get from current oil and natural gas reserves. This trigen technology from Maersk oil, Siemens and Clean Energy Systems is a closed loop system that can increase output by 20% or more. The byproducts are pure water and industrial grade CO2. Check it out.
Reply