Now Is The Time: Pass the NAT GAS Act
I've always said that the most important quality of a good leader is that you've got to be willing to make a decision. Too often, people fall victim to what I call the "ready-aim-aim-aim-aim" syndrome. Everything has got to be absolutely perfect. The truth is sometimes you've got to be willing to pull the trigger. Only afterward does it become apparent that the time was right.
Yesterday, I witnessed what leadership is all about firsthand. My good friends, Senators Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch, signed on as cosponsors of Senator Robert Menendez's new bill: the NAT GAS Act. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be introduced in the Senate over the last 40 years. It goes right to the heart of the question I've been asking since I launched the Pickens Plan a year ago on July 8:
When are we going to put in place the energy plan this country needs and deserves?
Now is the time.
The NAT GAS Act will extend and increase tax credits for natural gas vehicles and refueling. It will help encourage the development of natural gas vehicles, a much needed step for our beleaguered auto industry. NAT GAS will also save consumers thousands of dollars on fuel costs and protect our environment by utilizing cleaner burning natural gas.
This bill is the only way I know to quickly and effectively reduce our dependence on foreign oil. No other fuel can replace diesel and power a big semi or a garbage truck, including batteries. For too long, our dependence on foreign oil has been one of the leading factors influencing American foreign policy. If we can eliminate that issue by using our enormous domestic natural gas resources, I am confident that it will benefit our national security, our economy, and the environment.
As I have said many times before, natural gas is cleaner, cheaper, it's abundant, and it's American. That's why Senator Menendez's bill enjoys exceptional bipartisan support, starting at the top with Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch. The House version, which was introduced by Dan Boren, John Sullivan, and John Larson, now has a total of 71 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. We're pulling together on this one. Not as Democrats. Not as Republicans. But as Americans.
For almost four decades, this country has been floundering without an energy plan. Is now the best time to put one in place? No. The best time to do that was back in the 1970s when we were importing a small fraction of our crude from overseas. But as these leaders are demonstrating, now is the right time.
Follow T. Boone Pickens on Twitter: www.twitter.com/boonepickens
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
TBP is very good at crafting an argument for things that will make him and a small group like him even wealthier. If you like his approach, you are either an employee, a supplier, a pipeline owner or a major stockholder.
If you are not, then the strategy of manufactured consent has done it's job.
If we could make a car that would run on those plastic shopping bags that's caught in all of those trees and fences, then we'd be golden!
BioChar.
Ride a bike -- that way, the only emissions will be coming from YOU! (I've been wanting to say that!)
T. Boone Pickens has also stipulated that natural gas is to be used ONLY IN THE INTERIM, not as ongoing source of fuel. The way we extract natural gas right now is having devastating effects on the earth and surrounding water supplies. Underground blasts cause all types of gases like benzene to ooze into an area's streams. There are populations of people throughout the U.S. who know all too well what is happening near these areas. We need a better way to extract natural gas.
As far as saving us hundreds on our heating bills, T. Boone needs to come to Michigan in the winter. My bills were sky high last year even though natural gas prices were supposed to be cheaper. The U.S. is not a free country. We are controlled every which way. As soon as natural gas even looks like it will be our main staple, Wall St. will speculate prices up, up, up. The only way to get beyond this control is to spend money up front to utilize solar and wind in our own homes and cut all ties to big speculative business entities that provide us power. There should be profit sharing in this country as in Germany for any home that equips itself to put energy back into the grid. Making money on power every month instead of paying astronomical bills would be quite an enticement for everyone to move forward.
Natural gas is here now and ready to go - the infrastructure is already in place. Many auto's could be simply converted as they have been for years with propane. It is the most viable choice for a bridge to cleaner energies.
Plus it's here and we don't have to import it and converting auto's and trucks to it would create millions of jobs across our nation.
Pickens is not the only guy in this country that realizes the potential role here for clean natural gas - he is just the guy who has been promoting it.
It would be much easier to make the switch to biodiesel, and phase out gasoline engines. If we switch to natural gas powered vehicles every vehicle in America will have to be replaced. Producing a new fleet of automobiles would have a huge carbon footprint. Not to mention the fact that the energy used to create the new cars would likely come from coal powered electrical plants.
Wrong on two points.
A) You can only convert diesel engines to BioDiesel.... a small fraction of existing motors. And Biodiesel requires crops... which will effect the food supply... including the cost of grains which also feed livestock.
B) Conversion kits can be made for existing gasoline vehicles. GSA has fleets of CNG cars.
CNG is cleaner than a hybrid... it doesnt use ANY gasoline.
Coal should be outlawed, along with the term "Clean Coal"
Edit:
"B) Conversion kits" = (CNG Conversion kits)
Somebody deleted my response to this nonsense. I will try again.
Biodiesel CANT phase out gasoline engines.... it can only phase out DIESEL engines. And not very practically at that.
It requires crops (which requires energy to produce) and affects food prices.
I am not going into all the detail that was so crassly deleted before because it may just be deleted again.
Honda Civic GX (Natural Gas ehicleV) named “America’s Greenest Car” of 2008:
ACE3 Award:
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/reviews.aspx
""The environmentally responsible natural gas-powered Civic GX uses no gasoline, earning it the title of "America's Greenest Car" from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). The fast-selling GX has quite a bit of experience in this top position. The Civic GX was first ranked at the top of the ACEEE list in 2000, and has held the title of "Greenest Car" for five consecutive years. That’s more than any other vehicle. The Civic GX stays ahead of the green competition because of its squeaky-clean and gasoline-free near-zero-emissions performance—which is great news for you and the environment.""
Yup. And eventually switching from bio diesel to say used "vegetable oil," or animal waste is the next natural step that would take little modification to said vehicles. A company called Centia has already mastered the production of jet fuel made from semi solid fats from restaurants that does not require ANY modification of the jet engines. Running on the waste we produce is absolutely do--able.
With the wherewithal to build a bridge to somewhere, more so than some, I say let's do a pilot project as part of a SWOT analysis to see if the strategy has teeth. A great idea always needs to be tested within the context of the market and environment in which it will be implemented. Short term benefits are easy to understand, but I want to hear more from a broader range of qualified individuals about the long term implications and how this dovetails with other energy alternatives as part of a sustainable global plan that affects us all over the next 200-1,000 years. We've got the brains and the supercomputers so let's get serious about the future of the biosphere. I especially want to know where the other 'energy' companies (petrogiants, nuclear, Utilities, etc.) stand and what there role and vision is related to an atmospherically threatening energy source such as methane is concerned. Show me the data... financial, social, economic and environmental.
Natural gas is a good short term move.
Quit pickin on pickins . ( I just wanted to say that ).
Mercedes makes a Sprinter Van with a 1.8 liter gas engine that also runs on natural gas. It would be great if Daimler decided that the American consumer was worthy of their most fuel efficient models, for once.
.
Short-term. Exactly. And we need to stop thinking that way and start thinking long-term. Leaving it to future generations to figure out just perpetuates the cycle of irresponsibility.
I agree.
Build a trillion dollars of windmills and use the surplus electricity to power hydrogen combustion engines.
Darn the torpedos.
All it takes is someone at the top to pull the lever.
.
There are many serious problem with what Pickens proposes. To start, the potential for tapping wind energy is not distributed properly. There is almost none in the South. On the east coast, most of it is on the very edge of the coast. Are people going to stand for the visual pollution? Use nuclear power- that would make better sense for replacing wind turbines and getting rid of the use of natural gas for power generation. Pickens' plan would also run the price of gas sky-high, and remember it is a fuel that is used in a very large portion of homes. As for trucks, put them on the railroads. Rebuild the railroads. Also, start redesigning large scale communities to utilize mass transit (rail). We don't have to spread out over half of Georgia, and commute by car. Pickens' plan need a lot of engineering and economic analysis. Right now it is a half-baked sales promotion.
I think the idea of revitalizing the railroads is brilliant. The infrastructure is already there in many places, it would create new jobs. We would not have to spend as much money rebuilding our highways either. Also, no one who drives a small car likes being surrounded by 18 wheelers.
Mr Pickens,
I have a great deal of respect for you as manager and businessman. Over the years you have clearly demonstrated your skills in these domains to both yours and your stakeholders' benefits.
Neither do I question your integrity: I assume it is no better nor worse that other in your field of work and, since I would rather believe the best out of people, I chose to believe your integrity to be impeccable. I have seen no reasons to think otherwise.
But where you serve your interests and that of your stakeholders with diligence and assiduity, allow me to seriously doubt that your priorities and mine are convergent.
You are successful, I have made mistakes and lost it all. You are respected by your peers, I am middle-ages, unemployed and forced to dissect my resume in small, easily chewable morsels to get any job and pay my rent, without being considered overqualified and discarded.
Certainly, you mean well by this paper and support this legislation. But your goal and that of so many folks in the same situation as mine are not the same.
Offer some concrete plans to help the willing and able to get back to work and gain back our pride and we will listen. Until then, you comments will remain as irrelevant to us as a recent study on turtle shells.
Good on T Boone on this one its not a great solution to reducing the co2 emissions from heavy transport, but its the only viable one in the near term as the cost of fuel cells make them economically unviable and battery energy density is nowhere near high enough..
As for biofuels they'll only work on a small scale unless you can address the environmental impact these feed crops have
Actually, the energy density of batteries and the cost of fuel cells become feasible when you reduce vehicle weight. By switching auto production to composite/thermo plastic modular designs, we can produce a car that carries 5 passengers, getS the equivalent of 150 plus MPG, weighs less than 1,200 pounds and is 12 times stronger than steel. The modular design eliminates 3 of the 4 stamping dies currently used in auto manufacturing. It eliminates the paint shop, It eliminates high tech welding machines. All of the above significantly offset the higher cost of composites/thermo plastics. The weight reduction reduces the size of fuel cell and battery requirements and hence the cost.
Se Amory Lovins MIT Video: Winning the Oil Endgame, to see the hypercar.
It would help if Pickens would disclose his interest in natural gas futures when he writes these articles.
Ethanol, biodiesel, wind, solar, and our current US petroleum and hydro electrical power supplies are adequate with proper management. We just need to cut back on our gas guzzling engines, and up our ethanol and biodiesel production for the next 15 years until hydrogen combined with batteries take control of our vehicles. Frankly, massive adoption of natural gas would be profitable for Old T. Boone, but not for the rest of us. It would be a national security nightmare. Remember how Texas and the Gulf States shutdown when there is a big storm, and how often they and their refineries have failed to get fuel to us afterward? You can't blame T. Boone, he's just wants to make huge amounts of money - but at the expense of the USA.
See the link below for my many reasons for not putting all our eggs in the Texas basket of BigOil and old T. Boone. Such is dangerous. The site gives us an alternative plan.
http://www.squidoo.com/whitleyhodges7
An open letter to Mr. Pickens:
1) How much did Senators Reid and Hatch cost you?
2) Natural gas is a fossil fuel. It is not a bottomless well of energy for anyone, especially our own nation;
3) I thought you were promoting renewable energy resources these days? What happened?
4) This is a short term gain for you, a long term loser for everyone else.
5) Nice try, but we're not fooled.
You're spot on, Tom.
Even If the "Pickens plan" were a good idea, it would be suspect because of the history of the messenger. Mr. Pickens is not an honorable man and should not be the front man for any "green" initiative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_challenge
Pay up Mr. Pickens ... pay up now ...
Natural gas is a transition fuel to give us time to develop renewable sources. I''m sorry he didn't explain that. He has explained that to a lot of people.
Natural Gas for big rigs makes sense on every level as does converting smaller fleet cars to propane. In many third word countries, propane is becoming a popular fuel for trucks. My dad converted a cop car to propane some 25 years ago with a kit. The main downside of a propane car is the tank takes up half of the trunk. Besides reducing imports for diesel, natural gas trucks are cleaner and do no belch out particles that cause smog and soot. School buses are another candidate for cleaner fuels in particular hybrids since they make frequent stops.
How much CO2 and/or other greenhouse gases does Natural Gas emit, and how does that compare to gasoline or diesel fuel? That's the most important question, now that we are at a tipping point in Global Heating.
About half of oil and one third of coal.
glug glug glug
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
