[americandream]

For the moment, we are talking about energy and climate. Ideally, we want to reach 100% renewable energy and an atmosphere with less than 350 ppm CO2. Discussion of the ideal society could be discussed in another thread.

You don't get off that lightly pal. Your thread is directeed at the most cornucopian society in denial, the US. The clear inference is that with NG, the US will skate easily through.....I don't know what! More of the same cornucopianism with a green face it would seem given your silence on the broader issue as you try and skate through reality.

This website is visited by a number of visitors worldwide, some not so nuanced on the niceties of your clearly inconsistent logic. You my friend are peddling false hope in a world that needs not hope, but a large dose of REALITY.

There is no transition phase, no renewable cornucopiua. We simply don't have the resources to run wind milled Walmart style shopping or even a lite version which your postings seem to infer. For all we know, given the precarious state of surrounding resourcing, its debatable whether NG will have any use in the future other than to run what few technological assets we can maintain on cannabilised left overs ala Cuba.

Unless of course you believe differently and foresee a future of endless China made pumpkins resourced from commodities shuttled in from the moon. Which is where you need to come clean chum. What is this renewably energised, atmospherically clean utopia of yours look like given the evident enthusiasm for globalised cornucopia worldwide..

[copious.abundance]

Your man at SA lost me when he calculates 24,375,000 CNGvs as replacing 1/2 of the US vehicle fleet.

That's not the # of NG vehicles he's assuming will be needed, that's the # of NG tanks which would need to be filled every day. People don't fill their tanks every day. There are about 240 million vehicles in the US. Assume half of those - 120 million - are converted to NG. 24 million NG tanks is 20% of 120 million vehicles. In other words, that would assume people would fill their NG tanks about once every 5 days on average. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[americandream]

For the moment, we are talking about energy and climate. Ideally, we want to reach 100% renewable energy and an atmosphere with less than 350 ppm CO2. Discussion of the ideal society could be discussed in another thread.

In fact you owe it to me, now that you have filled me with hope, to explain precisely what we are transitioning into.

A bald assertion of optimism is not enough and confuses. I after all am optimistic for our species but I'm damned sure that not many of us are going to make it. Now you tell me that NG is going to save the day. WTF!!

I get the feeling that with the right fuel mix, you believe that we can both deal with AGW and current fuel imbalances WITHIN the current paradigm. Is that correct?

[Graeme]

OF2, You might be interested in these maps.

[TheDude]

TheDude, I'll help ya out here. What he did was to assume that all gasoline in the US is used for vehicle transportation (reasonable, and pretty close to reality), then he assumed that half of that gasoline consumption would be converted to NG, and converted the energy content of that gasoline consumption to natural gas using assumptions on mileage, etc. I have no doubt it's off (especially with the all-Civic-equivalent fleet), but as I said it's just an order-of-magnitude estimate.

Alright, if the average vehicle needs to refuel every two days we arrive at roughly the same number. I don't muck around with btus much. Also I just skimmed the article and am digging through the comments a little.

A 200 mile range will be unfeasible for some commuters:

* In a year, 3.3 million Americans "stretch-commute"
* More than one out of 10 (13 percent) long-distance trips are for commuting
* Just over one out of five (22 percent) long distance trips between 50 and 99 miles are for commuting

BTS | National Household Travel Survey - "Stretch Commute" Quick Facts

For instance there a smattering of stations along I5 in Northern CA, none at all on the coast, so as it stands your options are somewhat limited if you have a long drive to work.

A disproportion of NG vehicles in the US right now are government truck and bus fleets, so I'm not sure your current consumption / vehicle number is a particularly useful indicator.

Why not? Maybe it's a bit on the high end compared to most users, maybe not. You'd need to analyze commuter statistics to see if that really holds.

As for your CNG stations, in a single year (last year) 764 CNG stations were built in Pakistan. If they can build that many CNG stations in a poor nation like Pakistan in one year, it should be a breeze to do it in the US in 10 years.

I agree - in 10 years the US will likely build about 746 CNG stations. Glad to see we're on the same page for once.

Pakistan's a nation where only 8% of the population own a car in the first place, and which suffers from electricity shortfalls. When fresh supplies of gas arrive bets are the grid will be fed first. The economics are there for the wealthy in Pakistan to drive CNGs, as it is they're a niche in the US owing to oil's history of cheap plentifulness. Don't forget they have a $6 billion+ tab with KSA for crude deliveries as well, which may well explain their populace wanting to diversify away from petroleum.

[americandream]

Remembers recent New Zealand history when we ripped up our entire CNG network nationwide as it was not financially viable for the petrol companies to operate.

Waits patiently for a reply from "mr uber optimist green alls well in the world cos we got our techno fixes".

[Graeme]

For the moment, we are talking about energy and climate. Ideally, we want to reach 100% renewable energy and an atmosphere with less than 350 ppm CO2. Discussion of the ideal society could be discussed in another thread.

In fact you owe it to me, now that you have filled me with hope, to explain precisely what we are transitioning into.

A bald assertion of optimism is not enough and confuses. I after all am optimistic for our species but I'm damned sure that not many of us are going to make it. Now you tell me that NG is going to save the day. WTF!!

I get the feeling that with the right fuel mix, you believe that we can both deal with AGW and current fuel imbalances WITHIN the current paradigm. Is that correct?

Yes but you will have to look for the answers yourself just as I am. NG alone will not do it but it is an important part of the "solution". We are at the beginning of the transition whether you like it or not. I get the impression that you will just continue to argue with me and we will get nowhere. Change is always stressful. Try to relax. I won't respond to you any further unless you say something positive.

[copious.abundance]

A 200 mile range will be unfeasible for some commuters:

Agreed. But that's probably why he assumed only half of vehicles would run on NG.

On the other hand, if half of US vehicles ran on NG you would see A LOT more CNG stations built, which would solve the problem of filling up for long-distance commuters.

Also, if that many people started buying NG vehicles, car companies would almost certainly start designing vehicles specifically with NG in mind, including giving them bigger tanks. Imagine a Ford Taurus with its back trunk a foot longer, or something like that.

[americandream]

For the moment, we are talking about energy and climate. Ideally, we want to reach 100% renewable energy and an atmosphere with less than 350 ppm CO2. Discussion of the ideal society could be discussed in another thread.

In fact you owe it to me, now that you have filled me with hope, to explain precisely what we are transitioning into.

A bald assertion of optimism is not enough and confuses. I after all am optimistic for our species but I'm damned sure that not many of us are going to make it. Now you tell me that NG is going to save the day. WTF!!

I get the feeling that with the right fuel mix, you believe that we can both deal with AGW and current fuel imbalances WITHIN the current paradigm. Is that correct?

Yes but you will have to look for the answers yourself just as I am. NG alone will not do it but it is an important part of the "solution". We are at the beginning of the transition whether you like it or not. I get the impression that you will just continue to argue with me and we will get nowhere. Change is always stressful. Try to relax. I won't respond to you any further unless you say something positive.

This is bullshit and you know it! I ask you to explain what this transition that contemplates a widespread infrastrructural switch to NG looks like and you tell me YOU DON'T KNOW!

Thats not good enough. You clearly have in mind a paradigm that warrants the widespread usage of NG. What is it sunny jim? Widespread war? Masses of sheep coasting down freshly paved motorways worldwide to the local drive through. What sort of society is it your noggins contemplating meeting current envirnoment targets if it isn't contemporary, allbeit a mom and pop green one?

You and your mates in the hope movement are why no one is bothered to change. Why change when we've tons of NG to clean up the atmosphere and shop whilst we're doing it!

You might as well peddle drugs mate!

[copious.abundance]

I ask you to explain what this transition that contemplates a widespread infrastrructural switch to NG looks like

Here's what it would look like:

>>> CNG filling station in Argentina <<<
>>> CNG filling station in Brazil <<<

[americandream]

I ask you to explain what this transition that contemplates a widespread infrastrructural switch to NG looks like

Here's what it would look like:

>>> CNG filling station in Argentina <<<
>>> CNG filling station in Brazil <<<

Your stupidity is stunning if only for the breadth of its naivete!

Show me the CNG resourced plastic pumpkin Chinese factories.

Where did you get the notion that my outrage is limited to issues concerning how we continue to run Hummers now that the Chinese have a taste for them. This debate is much bigger.

Its all about dope (sorry..I meant "hope") peddlers peddling half assed remedies for a problem that goes wayyyy beyond what sorta tiger you gonna put in your tank.

[americandream]

What pisses me off with you Graeme is your coming up with these half assed remedies for running machinery that are themselves manufactured from resources that are rapidly being depleted. We don't need anymore hope mate. We need fear.

We need to be scared shitless into winding back globalisation of cornucopia. The Chinese don't need renewable hope, they need the galvanising power of unadultarated fear, enough of it to drive them back to the land and away from the wasteful western model.

You do your children and grandchildren a greater disservice by peddling hope in transforming what in effect is a terminally cancerous way of life.

[copious.abundance]

"The only thing to fear is hope itself!"

[americandream]

"The only thing to fear is hope itself!"

The only thing to fear and confront is unfounded hope.

I'm all for hope. However, I also believe that running and increasingly pervasive global economy dependant on unrestrained waste of finite resources without any proof to date that we can sustainably replace that dependancy is tantamount to societal sucide. In fact as a marxist, I believe that a collectivised spciety will be forced to rise from the ashes of individualism.

These peddlers of hope in contrast, strike me as suffering from the Dutch boy and finger in the leaking dike syndrome.

They are happy to peddle hope without addressing the bigger issue of what are we meant to place our hope in.

The fact that there is enough NG to run our cars or the fact that technology will transition us to something thats a nice green version of what we have now.

If so, what are we going to replace (to name one rather important resource we all take for granted as an example of the short sightedness of the hope merchants) our dependancy on plastics with, nano techonology plucking plastics out of fresh air. You think China is going to spontaneously switch to NG to run factories unable to source plastic pellets?

[copious.abundance]

Don't worry americandream, they'll find lots of unconventional natural gas in China, too.

>>> LINK <<<

China's First Shale Gas Discovery Announced Today By PTR.V
VANCOUVER, May 20, 2009

Petromin Resources Ltd. is pleased to announce that Terrawest Energy Corp. has tapped into what may be a massive new unconventional natural gas resource in China. The company discovered significant gas-bearing shale and multiple coal seams in its LHG 08-03 well drilled in November 2008.

TWE holds a 47% interest in a production sharing contract (PSC) with China United Coalbed Methane Corp. Ltd. (CUCBM). The project, called Liuhuanggou, is located in Xinjiang province and the PSC is located adjacent to the capital city of Urumqi. The project covers over 162,000 contiguous acres (TWE approximately 77,000 net acres) in the southern Junggar Basin. The Junggar Basin is an active hydrocarbon producing area but no shale gas discoveries have previously been announced. The Liuhuanggou discovery is likely to heat up natural gas activity in the area.

"The fact that the discovery is in an easily accessible area and near existing pipeline infrastructure is an enormous benefit to development prospects," said Ross Gorrell, TWE President & CEO. "TWE has been working to establish a multi-play project at Liuhuanggou for several years and now it appears we have what could become one of the most significant natural gas finds in China."

[...]

>>> LINK <<<

Q&A with John Shelton
China energy pact puts company in position to help environment
Published: May 28, 2009

Q: What is the potential of shale gas in China?

A: There has been no shale gas development in China. However, initial analysis indicates the likelihood of huge reserves. Discovery of commercial quantities would significantly increase availability of hydrocarbons and possibly do much to relieve the global energy crisis. The opportunity to produce shale gas in China is very similar to what has already taken place in the U.S., such as in the highly productive Barnett Shale.

[...]

Don't worry, they're gonna find these things just about everywhere. No need to worry about Chinese plastics production.

[americandream]

All of those peddlers of single remedy hopes in the face of a system seriously at odds with what this planet has to offer...you might as well take your kids and grandkids out and shoot them.

You are abysmally failing them in avoiding the critical question as to whether what we have now is even remotely capable of being renewably transitioned.

Everyone who clearly sees the converging perfect storm of resource failure and not just simply peak oil is OBLIGED to tell it like it is or else they simply aren't getting it. It's that simple.

We've either got the goods or we haven't. If you believe we have the goods, then you've no place here and should be out there going about your daily life exuding the golden sunbeams of hope.

[americandream]

This is one big joke innit OF2?

I simply cannot fathom the mentality of someone who finds the risk facing humankind of terminally peaking COMMODITIES, amusing.

Especially given that we coexist with whole generations of as yet to mature humans utterly dependant on us to exercise stewardship of their birthright.

[TheDude]

A 200 mile range will be unfeasible for some commuters:

Agreed. But that's probably why he assumed only half of vehicles would run on NG.

On the other hand, if half of US vehicles ran on NG you would see A LOT more CNG stations built, which would solve the problem of filling up for long-distance commuters.

You have a chicken and an egg there, of course. And Fitzsimmon's article starts out with him griping about Chu's monumental blaseness, which will hold things up for at least one administration at least. Not that things couldn't change at some point but you'll get no where focusing purely on this as a geologic issue. Nixon promised energy independence by the end of the 70s, too, and Chu's convinced we can grow our fuel in vats, as devastatingly criticized by Dave Cohen: Steven Chu's Energy Miscalculations.

Oh dear, the Honda Civic GX is only available in California and New York.

I know what a CNG pump looks like.

Also, if that many people started buying NG vehicles, car companies would almost certainly start designing vehicles specifically with NG in mind, including giving them bigger tanks. Imagine a Ford Taurus with its back trunk a foot longer, or something like that.

Also from my link:

As a daily driver, the GX retains the comfortable, smooth-running and well-rounded appeal of the Civic’s other trims, though its cramped trunk (because of an oversized CNG tank) won’t be able to store too many groceries.

Again, not a deal breaker but things like that will turn off consumers.

americandream - waste of time. OF2 believes hydrocarbon energy resources won't peak for decades, if ever.

[mos6507]

CNG is probably going to be part of our peak oil mitigation just because it avoids the food vs. fuel debate of biofuels and the bad EROEI and environmental issues of CTL, shale, tar-sands, etc... For those with gas service, they can fill up from home just like a plugin hybrid so even a lack of filling stations is not necessarily a dealbreaker. But unlike plugins, they leverage existing internal combustion cars without as much up front cost. Batteries are still a budget-breaker. So while there are limitations, I think people are just going to have to buck up and deal with it. Gas prices will erode any and all reservations about using alternative fuels unless people would rather use public transit (assuming it's available). It's just a matter of passing the appropriate pain threshold. What I don't like about CNG is that it's still a fossil fuel and it is still producing CO2 emissions. But I would prefer we use it as a bridge rather than seeing the social turmoil involved with the abrupt end of affordable personal transportation.