T. Boone Pickens laid out his grand ‘Pickens Plan’ on Tuesday (accompanied by a Web 2.0 media blitz) with the suggestion that natural gas could provide over a third of U.S. transportation fuels. While natural gas vehicles (NGVs) have been used for awhile in city-owned car […]

T. Boone Pickens laid out his grand ‘Pickens Plan’ on Tuesday (accompanied by a Web 2.0 media blitz) with the suggestion that natural gas could provide over a third of U.S. transportation fuels. While natural gas vehicles (NGVs) have been used for awhile in city-owned car and bus fleets, and even a selectively sold consumer car, the Honda Civic GX, natural gas hasn’t been getting as much attention as other forms of alternative vehicles recently from the big car companies and innovative startups. Electric vehicle-to-grid technology and biofuel vehicles have both received a lot more attention from the investment community, the media and interested entrepreneurs.

But there are a lot of opportunities — as well as a variety of drawbacks — for vehicles powered by natural gas. Here’s our take on 10 things you should know about natural gas-powered vehicles:

1). Infrastructure bottleneck: Like the “hydrogen highway” compressed natural gas vehicles need fueling stations. According to the natural gas vehicle trade group the Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVA) there are over 1,100 stations in the U.S. That might sound like a lot, but only half are available to the public, and compare that to the around 200,000+ U.S. gas stations. The U.S. would need a lot more natural gas stations to power a third of its vehicles. Who’s going to be the first to make that investment?

2). Greenhouse Gas Reductions: The NGVA also says that natural gas vehicles produce 20 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than a standard gas vehicle. That’s about the same as corn-based ethanol, which according to the EPA has a greenhouse gas reduction of 21.8 percent compared to gas-powered cars. So for greenhouse gas reductions its pretty good—but not perfect.

3). “Natural gas is the cleanest transportation fuel available today”: That’s what Pickens and the EPA say about natural-gas powered vehicles. It’s because, in addition to carbon dioxide reductions, NGVs also emit less carbon monoxide, non-methane organic gas and nitrogen oxides.

4). Natural gas is still a fossil fuel: Natural gas might be cleaner-burning than oil but it’s still a hydrocarbon that has to be taken out of wells and is in limited supply. The California Energy Commission says that with the rising demand for natural gas (accompanied by high oil prices) more than 15 percent of our natural gas will be imported from countries other than Canada and Mexico by 2025.

5). The Honda Civic GX: The natural gas consumer car that costs $24,590. It’s sold in California and New York and has a 170 mile fuel range.

6). Smaller Range: Natural gas vehicles have a shorter driving range than regular gas-powered vehicles, because natural gas has a lower energy content compared to gas.

7). State and Federal Incentives: Honda says the Civic GX is eligible for a combination of federal (under the Energy Policy Act of 1992), state and local incentives that could help reduce the price tag by several thousand dollars. Natural gas vehicles can also drive in the carpool lanes in some states like California.

8). With Gas Prices High, Natural Gas is Cheap, For Now: With the price of gas rising, the demand at the natural gas fuel stations that are out there is way up — like this one in Salt Lake City. That’s because, as Cleantechnica puts it “natural gas now costs about half as much per unit energy as gasoline and has an even greater cost advantage over diesel fuel.” Though natural gas prices are also going up.

9). City Fleets: The GX might get a lot of press, but a significant portion of the natural gas vehicles on the road in the U.S. are owned and maintained by cities and companies. Companies like UPS have placed orders for hundreds of natural gas vehicles; several cities in California have converted their fleets to NGVs.

10). Home Fueling: A company called FuelMaker makes a natural gas home refueler called Phill. Seriously, that’s what they named it.

  1. Chris Morrison Wednesday, July 9, 2008

    Nice one, Katie — beat me to it ;) Interestingly, CNG cars are already popular in some areas. I believe it was Utah or Idaho that I’d read about people buying them up in. But the supplies for transportation are so limited that just putting a few thousand CNG vehicles on the road noticeable pushes up the price. Can’t imagine it would be any better than the price of oil if Pickens got his way.

  2. Lets put it this way. The big money criminals are just looking to put us in another market they control. If GM was going to start selling natural gas cars to the public, Wall Street would have billions invested waiting for the price of natural gas to triple. We need to Invest in Algae based bio-fuel, and electric cars that are charged by a tiny engine that runs on that bio-fuel. If you make plug in cars, the price of coal is going to double, then we are back to square one. The oil industry is going to do everything they can to keep us in the stone age. The time has come for us say we had enough.

  3. Environmental Capital – WSJ.com : Green Ink: Hokkaido Hangover and Slim Pickens Wednesday, July 9, 2008

    [...] Romm at Climate Progress—but using natural gas for vehicles is just silly. Earth2Tech looks at the pros and cons of natural-gas vehicles, while Energy Outlook crunches all the numbers and explains the plan’s main appeal and its biggest [...]

  4. Electric companies are installing mostly small natural gas ‘peaking’ turbines as their newest generating capacity. A major reason is that only natural gas turbines are fast enough to compensate for the extreme variations in power put out by wind turbines as the wind dies and surges, most notably during the evening and morning calm periods.

    Pickens’ wind turbines will just cause more gas turbines to have to be built and then run in continous stand-by mode, thereby causing additional CO2 to be made.

    Wind turbines are not so good if you are concerned about overall CO2 emissions. Clouds create a similar situation with solar installations. Pumped hydro needs to be added to large wind and solar installations to smooth out their electricity. As far as I know, while many utilities around the world use pumped hydro, not a single wind farm has done so. They just dump this problem on the grid they are attached to. I suspect Pickens will do the same.

  5. T. Boone’s ideas are good; using nat-gas as a short term replacement for transportation fuel is a good idea. It keeps BILLIONS of $ in our economy which would produce a [much needed] economic stim unlike any we have seen. That said, nat gas as transport fuel is a very short term solution. Plug-in hybrids & all electric vehicles, are the very obvious long term solution. Large commitments to improve battery technologies, wind, solar, power storage and grid infrastructure improvements are all needed.

    Regardless of your opinion on T. Boone, trying to make energy the top federal and state agenda is [in IMO] key to rescuing our economy and perhaps the future of the U.S.

    Big kudos to T. Boone for spending his own money to try to focus our elected leadership on the $700 billion vampire that’s draining the blood out of the U.S. economy. We need someone to step up and execute a much needed rescue before we become Europe’s Mexico.

  6. You are omitting perhaps the biggest advantage of NG vehicles – the cost of developing methane (the main component of NG) from renewable biomass sources is FAR lower than other biofuel alternatives such as ethanol, biodiesel, biobutanol, or even methanol. It is also far more efficient; for a given amount of biomass, you get about twice the energetic content in methane fuel compared with producing ethanol.

    Anaerobic digestion of biomass or cow dung produces methane from a waste stream currently poisoning our lakes and streams. The by-product is richer in nitrogen, so it makes a more effective fertilizer.

    Methane can even be synthesized from wind/solar sources. Water is electrolyzed to produce hydrogen, which can then be reacted exothermically with carbon dioxide (we have plenty of that!) in the Sabatier reaction. The result is a useful fuel with and extant infrastructure already in place.

    The optimal vehicle in the future would be a PHEV capable of both NG and gasoline fueling. This allows the vehicle to play with the existing gasoline infrastructure, and provide additional range. We should be building these yesterday.

    T. Boone is a bit off if he doesn’t acknowledge the important role the PHEVs will play in the future of our transportation. They can even be powered with his intermittent wind farms.

  7. I think most of the Flying Js in California have compressed natgas at them. That would make natgas a viable fuel for cars in that state.

    Ford built natgas vehicles for a while. I was filling up at a Flying J and a guy pulled up and filled a late model Taurus (?). He said it was very cheap to operate. That was in March. Natgas has gone up since then.

    The Utah stations have terrific natgas pricing. Kudos to Utah for setting up the infrastructure. Other governments could take a lesson from them. Other natgas suppliers engage in price gouging due to the infrastructure investment, ie the compressor, necessary to fill a car. Residential natgas could be an inexpensive fuel for a car, however it must be compressed to 3000 PSI to be used for transportation. That is what the Phill does.

    If you are going to use the infrastructure argument against natgas, then you use it against all alternative fuels: biodiesel, E85, electricity, hydrogen, etc. What comes first, the chicken or the egg ? (The alternative fuel car or the infrastructure ?) Sooner or later we need to realize that we are running out of liquid hydrocarbons and that other fuels must be supplied to consumers.

    I could say a lot more on this, but I will stop there.

  8. For the record…

    1. Fleet use of natural gas today (taxis, shuttles, govt., trucks & buses) opens up the opportunity for the general public. Private/public stations are being built all over the country and is a great model for growing the industry starting with the vehicles that are using the most fuel, thus emitting the most pollutants. Strategic locations negate the need for a station on every corner.

    2. The GX gets an estimated 30 mpg or so. With a 7+ gallon tank system that’s actually over 200 mile range. Fuel economy compared to gasoline is the same and totally dependent on the driver and driving conditions. 200-250 mile range is typical for light to medium-duty NGVs (taxis, shuttles, etc.).

    3. Natural gas for vehicles at public stations is typically sold in gasoline gallon equivalents providing an “apples to apples” comparision with gasoline. It’s not energy content that reduces range for NGVs, it’s the amount of NG that can be stored on-board a vehicle. Naturally, the larger the vehicle, the more storage capability and increased range. LNG is also used for heavy duty fleets and increases on-board storage as NG is much denser in its liquid form.

  9. There are promising developments being made in the application of adsorbed natural gas (ANG) storage. For a good explanation of this, read the article titled “Adsorbed Natural Gas (ANG): Emmerging Fuel Storage Solution” published on the Green Energy News website on December 18, 2007. Much more information on this can be found simply by doing a Google search on “adsorbed natural gas storage for vehicles.”

  10. Take a look at China Natural Gas (ticker: CHNG.ob) and SNEN (ticker: sine.ob). Both run CNG filling stations in China and are growing very rapidly. They also do gas to CNG vehicle conversions.

    China is leading the way right now.

    We have a friend who owns a CNG car, they fill up their gas at PG&E, and they are thinking about getting a fueling station at home but it costs a few grand. May be worth it in the long run, and it would be nice to fill up at home.

Comments have been disabled for this post