Natural Gas-Powered Cars Solve Nothing

I applaud T. Boone Pickens for embracing the future of wind power; however, I don't agree with his suggestion to convert cars to run on natural gas. It's replacing one non-renewable fossil fuel with yet another non-renewable fossil fuel. It's illogical.

We've already been reading in the news about rising natural gas prices (we hear about it especially every winter). Natural gas may be cheaper now compared to gasoline but that would change drastically once the transportation infrastructure is converted to natural gas.

Natural gas prices will skyrocket, people will have difficulty affording to heat their homes and we'll burn through yet another non-renewable energy source in less than 100 years. Not only that, we'll be forced to import more fuel from the very same countries we don't want to rely on (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc.), which puts us right back where we are now.

The solution isn't easy, I grant you that, but replacing one fossil fuel with yet another solves nothing. Find a way to power vehicles without using fossil fuels, and you'd be on to something.

Tags: cars, fossil, fossil fuel, fuels, gas, natural, natural gas, vehicles

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bill Tucker on September 23, 2008 at 1:25pm: I totally disagree with you as far as converting vehicles from refined oil to CNG. First disagreement is that it is only a stop gap not a permenant solution. NG price rises in the winter not due to shortages but to speculators, much like the rise in gas prices before and during Hurricane Ike. The natural gas reserves are ours, not imported, we will then not be sending our dollars overseas to people/governments that hate us. Second disagreement is that CNG vehicles while burning "fossil" fuel burn it cleaner with less carbon impact on the environment than gasoline or diesel. Third disagreement is that just because we switch to CNG doesn't mean we stop exploring and researching sustainable renewable sources of energy for our transportation needs. Though many people would like to see an instaneous switch to environmentally friendly, cheap, renewable fuel source that is not realistic. The will be a significant amount of time required to define, design, and establish, the standards for and the infrastructure to support that type of fuel. Brazil had a military government and it took them 30 years.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by neil cox on November 21, 2009 at 9:37am: Wind and CNG = compressed natural gas can divert 1% each of our energy needs from oil and coal each year, at reasonable cost, if we make the conversion efficiently. Other alternatives will take several years and enormous cost to add 1%. T. Boone Pickens made the best two choices. Some others such as algae in transparent pipes may look better in a year or two, but we may not have another year to show significant progress toward energy independence. Neil; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by T.J.R. on April 5, 2009 at 9:07am: i agree with mtSunk. continuing to use a system that is proven flawed and broken is the definition of insane. the expermint of fossil fuels to drive our way of life has proved disastrous. Einstine had a saying about being insane.i think we should just skip the whole NG debate, i live in Garfield county Colorado, and i watch daily as the gas companys suck every single last drop of NG out of the once beautiful landscape. its not gona work, there isnt enough to support all of us for any extended period of time. yes there is oil shale and NG here but at what cost. research the "canadian tar sands" if you want to know what my home will turn into. would you want to live with something like that right next door? http://ostseis.anl.gov/images/photos/TS-Open_pit_Suncor-600.jpg
http://tippingpointblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/tar-sands-more-...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by SJC on April 5, 2009 at 10:14am: We could solar thermally heat and cool buildings and homes to save natural gas. We can gasify biomass to methane to gain more non-fossil sources that are CO2 neutral or even negative. The technologies are here and proven. It is just getting this country off the dime and actually doing it. That is the challenge.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Killinger on November 20, 2009 at 6:38am: Too bad NG will ONLY last another 100 years. (As I recall, that's about how long we've seriously been using petroleum for transport in the first place.) But long before then, we'll be mining what is a virtually INEXHAUSTIBLE supply of methane (NG) hydrates, which exist in abundance in the offshore U.S. In fact, the Japanese expect to be using this fuel commercially in just a few years.

Wind, solar, and electric cars are nice. But they all have drawbacks, and are not likely to figure in our long-term energy strategy as a result. In the meantime, we can use NG to fuel our vehicles (BOTH cars and trucks) NOW, before we go BROKE buying foreign oil. Transferring $300B+ overseas each year when we don't have to makes no sense. Don't you understand we're selling off our ECONOMIC FUTURE doing this? Please, wake up!; ▶ Reply to This