An idea by T. Boone Pickens who's time has come under Trump

[WVPATX]

Pickens has a terrific idea (after he lost billions on windmills, lol). We have the world's largest natural gas reserves. We have the world's largest fleet of trucks carrying cargo all across this country. They generally burn diesel fuel.

Why not covert that entire fleet, over time, to run on natural gas? It is much better for the environment. It would create an enormous number of jobs to retrofit these engines. It would take an enormous build out of infrastructure to equip each truck stop with natural gas pumps. The jobs alone would be incredible. So, we get a cleaner environment, reduce our dependence on oil and create millions of high paying jobs?

Seems like a no brainer.

 

[Boomboom521]

Pickens has a terrific idea (after he lost billions on windmills, lol). We have the world's largest natural gas reserves. We have the world's largest fleet of trucks carrying cargo all across this country. They generally burn diesel fuel.

Why not covert that entire fleet, over time, to run on natural gas? It is much better for the environment. It would create an enormous number of jobs to retrofit these engines. It would take an enormous build out of infrastructure to equip each truck stop with natural gas pumps. The jobs alone would be incredible. So, we get a cleaner environment, reduce our dependence on oil and create millions of high paying jobs?

Seems like a no brainer.

And who does this exactly? You're saying the government requires the entire trucking industry to convert to natural gas engines? And the government then forces truck stops to hold natural gas for refueling?

 

[Boomboom521]

Pickens has a terrific idea (after he lost billions on windmills, lol). We have the world's largest natural gas reserves. We have the world's largest fleet of trucks carrying cargo all across this country. They generally burn diesel fuel.

Why not covert that entire fleet, over time, to run on natural gas? It is much better for the environment. It would create an enormous number of jobs to retrofit these engines. It would take an enormous build out of infrastructure to equip each truck stop with natural gas pumps. The jobs alone would be incredible. So, we get a cleaner environment, reduce our dependence on oil and create millions of high paying jobs?

Seems like a no brainer.

Well let's just nationalize the trucking industry, and all the gas stations, and......

Left is a fun way to go if you believe in the cause and the President leading you there hunh?

 

[WVPATX]

And who does this exactly? You're saying the government requires the entire trucking industry to convert to natural gas engines? And the government then forces truck stops to hold natural gas for refueling?

As like with most government actions, we create incentives. How can you possibly be against this Boom? Better for the environment, check. Better for job creation, check. Reduce the use of oil, check?

Only a ideologue would not at least consider this idea. You don't like it because it still means we use fossil fuels. Buddy, I hate to tell you but they will be around for a long, long time.

 

[op2]

Pickens has a terrific idea (after he lost billions on windmills, lol). We have the world's largest natural gas reserves. We have the world's largest fleet of trucks carrying cargo all across this country. They generally burn diesel fuel.

Why not covert that entire fleet, over time, to run on natural gas? It is much better for the environment. It would create an enormous number of jobs to retrofit these engines. It would take an enormous build out of infrastructure to equip each truck stop with natural gas pumps. The jobs alone would be incredible. So, we get a cleaner environment, reduce our dependence on oil and create millions of high paying jobs?

Seems like a no brainer.

How about just start switching over to electric cars? We don't have to retrofit anything, just transition to electric. Safer. More fuel efficient. Other than when you're on trips you never even have to stop to refuel since you just plug it in to recharge each night.

 

[moe]

Pickens has a terrific idea (after he lost billions on windmills, lol). We have the world's largest natural gas reserves. We have the world's largest fleet of trucks carrying cargo all across this country. They generally burn diesel fuel.

Why not covert that entire fleet, over time, to run on natural gas? It is much better for the environment. It would create an enormous number of jobs to retrofit these engines. It would take an enormous build out of infrastructure to equip each truck stop with natural gas pumps. The jobs alone would be incredible. So, we get a cleaner environment, reduce our dependence on oil and create millions of high paying jobs?

Seems like a no brainer.

Ten years has passed, time to trot his plan out again. Perhaps he should have left the windmills to others and stuck to something that he understood better.

 

[moe]

How about just start switching over to electric cars? We don't have to retrofit anything, just transition to electric. Safer. More fuel efficient. Other than when you're on trips you never even have to stop to refuel since you just plug it in to recharge each night.

Hydrogen fuel cells is the ticket.

 

[WVPATX]

How about just start switching over to electric cars? We don't have to retrofit anything, just transition to electric. Safer. More fuel efficient. Other than when you're on trips you never even have to stop to refuel since you just plug it in to recharge each night.

Why not let the marketplace decide. Let them do their own cost/benefit analysis. If electric is a cheaper, better fuel choice, go for it. It would still mean enormous construction of gas pipelines and gas/coal production to produce the enormous surge in energy demand.

I am not opposed at all.

 

[WVPATX]

Ten years has passed, time to trot his plan out again. Perhaps he should have left the windmills to others and stuck to something that he understood better.

LMAO, yeah you know that Pickens knows nothing about natural gas. He's an idiot.

 

[op2]

Why not let the marketplace decide. Let them do their own cost/benefit analysis. If electric is a cheaper, better fuel choice, go for it. It would still mean enormous construction of gas pipelines and gas/coal production to produce the enormous surge in energy demand.

I am not opposed at all.

Is the marketplace deciding now? Because it seems to me that it's slanted towards gasoline cars because they've been around so long.

I don't know why electric cars would mean construction of gas pipelines. I don't know the details of how the electricity is created but electric cars just use electricity. Anywhere you have electricity you can have electric cars. And if the transition is gradual you wouldn't need a surge. In a system this big any change would be gradual.

Also I think more and more of this will be able to done with solar power. Tesla has 800 superchargers across the country (each with a half dozen or so charging stations) and it's my understanding that it's all solar powered. You use sunlight to create electricity than you put the electricity into the batteries the electric cars run on. If you wanted to you could do nothing but drive around the country for years on end and not use any gasoline or natural gas or coal.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Why not let the marketplace decide. Let them do their own cost/benefit analysis. If electric is a cheaper, better fuel choice, go for it. It would still mean enormous construction of gas pipelines and gas/coal production to produce the enormous surge in energy demand.

I am not opposed at all.

Electric motors produce huge amounts of torque, that's why train engines use DC motors to drive the trains, the diesel motor drives the generator for electricity, not the train itself. Convert these to NG and you've got something. Might also work for long-haul trucks, but huge expense.

 

[Boomboom521]

As like with most government actions, we create incentives. How can you possibly be against this Boom? Better for the environment, check. Better for job creation, check. Reduce the use of oil, check?

Only a ideologue would not at least consider this idea. You don't like it because it still means we use fossil fuels. Buddy, I hate to tell you but they will be around for a long, long time.

First- who said I was against it?

Second- you bark bark bark about free market and no government manipulation. And then you start talking like this idea is awesome - even though there would have to be an enormous amount of government influence to make it work. If Obama proposed something like this....I bet you'd be raving.

 

[WVPATX]

Is the marketplace deciding now? Because it seems to me that it's slanted towards gasoline cars because they've been around so long.

I don't know why electric cars would mean construction of gas pipelines. I don't know the details of how the electricity is created but electric cars just use electricity. Anywhere you have electricity you can have electric cars. And if the transition is gradual you wouldn't need a surge. In a system this big any change would be gradual.

Also I think more and more of this will be able to done with solar power. Tesla has 800 superchargers across the country (each with a half dozen or so charging stations) and it's my understanding that it's all solar powered. You use sunlight to create electricity than you put the electricity into the batteries the electric cars run on. If you wanted to you could do nothing but drive around the country for years on end and not use any gasoline or natural gas or coal.

Of course the market place is deciding. The truck company owners have made that call, how can you claim otherwise?

We would need much more power generation, right? These rigs, thousands and thousands of them would use an enormous amount of electricity. To power those plants we need more gas or coal. That means more construction of gas pipelines.

Electricity is created in power generation plants, mostly gas or coal. These plants can be located at relative far distances from the suppliers of coal or gas. Thus, as new generation comes on line, it will mean more capacity needs and thus more pipeline construction.

Solar is uneconomical. Again, let the marketplace decide. No subsidies, remember? If solar is the cheapest, best source for powering these huge rigs, I am certain the rig owners will adopt them.

The problems with solar are legendary. First, we need the sun to shine. Second, the places where the sun shines may be no where near to places where electricity is needed. Third, to transport electricity from these remote locations, there is electricity loss in the power lines. The further the transportation, the more the loss.

Again, the marketplace will decide which option is best. They know their costs. They can calculate their benefits.

 

[WVPATX]

Electric motors produce huge amounts of torque, that's why train engines use DC motors to drive the trains, the diesel motor drives the generator for electricity, not the train itself. Convert these to NG and you've got something. Might also work for long-haul trucks, but huge expense.

Great, again if the rig owners do the cost benefit and electric motors save them money, they will move in that direction. We would still need an enormous increase in power generation (coal or gas) and need pipeline construction to bring that gas to the generating stations.

 

[WVPATX]

First- who said I was against it?

Second- you bark bark bark about free market and no government manipulation. And then you start talking like this idea is awesome - even though there would have to be an enormous amount of government influence to make it work. If Obama proposed something like this....I bet you'd be raving.

Wrong, my friend. When you make assumptions, you make an *** of yourself. I have been in favor of this type of action for years. I don't care if it is natural gas. I don't care if it is electric. The rig owners can decide. But if electric is used, don't assume you won't need lots more coal and natural gas to power the extra electricity generation needed to produce that energy.

If Obama proposed something like this, he would have had my FULL support.

You posted:

Well let's just nationalize the trucking industry, and all the gas stations, and......

Left is a fun way to go if you believe in the cause and the President leading you there hunh?

Sure sounds like your against it to me.

 

[moe]

LMAO, yeah you know that Pickens knows nothing about natural gas. He's an idiot.

Is English a second language for you? Obviously he's an idiot when it comes to windmills. He made his fortune in nat gas, not sure what you're attempting to say.

 

[WVPATX]

Is English a second language for you? Obviously he's an idiot when it comes to windmills. He made his fortune in nat gas, not sure what you're attempting to say.

Pickens is no idiot. Perot was heavily involved. Buffet was investing big time in wind mills. Are they idiots?

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Pickens is no idiot. Perot was heavily involved. Buffet was investing big time in wind mills. Are they idiots?

• Wind provides roughly 30% of generation capacity in Denmark.
• Wind provides over 45% of generation capacity in four major German states and roughly 11% nationally.
• Wind generation capacity in some provinces in Spain reaches close to 100%.
• In South Australia wind has provided more than 46% of total generation.

It is a viable technology in some parts of the world, perhaps due to the higher costs of electricity generation in these areas. With cheap electricity in the U.S., wind may only be economically efficient in some regions. Sometimes it can be hard to justify an investment or make money from one.

 

[moe]

Pickens is no idiot. Perot was heavily involved. Buffet was investing big time in wind mills. Are they idiots?

Remedial English classes still have openings, it's not too late. Show me where I said that investing in windmills is/was a bad idea (not counting Pickens). I guess Pickens is a genius about windmills cause he lost his *** on them, is that what you're telling me? It's pretty obvious that he stepped all over his dick on that one. Some people (not Pickens) know how to turn them into good investments or they wouldn't be popping up like flowers across the nation.

 

[op2]

Of course the market place is deciding. The truck company owners have made that call, how can you claim otherwise?

We would need much more power generation, right? These rigs, thousands and thousands of them would use an enormous amount of electricity. To power those plants we need more gas or coal. That means more construction of gas pipelines.

Electricity is created in power generation plants, mostly gas or coal. These plants can be located at relative far distances from the suppliers of coal or gas. Thus, as new generation comes on line, it will mean more capacity needs and thus more pipeline construction.

Solar is uneconomical. Again, let the marketplace decide. No subsidies, remember? If solar is the cheapest, best source for powering these huge rigs, I am certain the rig owners will adopt them.

The problems with solar are legendary. First, we need the sun to shine. Second, the places where the sun shines may be no where near to places where electricity is needed. Third, to transport electricity from these remote locations, there is electricity loss in the power lines. The further the transportation, the more the loss.

Again, the marketplace will decide which option is best. They know their costs. They can calculate their benefits.

The costs of something in any given marketplace isn't necessarily the cheapest possible. Vested interests capture the marketplace and change the rules so that their interests have an advantage. Have you never heard of this before? It's called "the oldest trick in the book." You're "No subsidies, remember?" line is funny and childlike in it's naivete.

The Sun always shines. I don't know why you fight change so much. It's not 1979 anymore. I tell you there are already thousands of electric car charging stations that are solar powered and you just have no interest in even engaging the reality.

 

[WVPATX]

• Wind provides roughly 30% of generation capacity in Denmark.
• Wind provides over 45% of generation capacity in four major German states and roughly 11% nationally.
• Wind generation capacity in some provinces in Spain reaches close to 100%.
• In South Australia wind has provided more than 46% of total generation.

It is a viable technology in some parts of the world, perhaps due to the higher costs of electricity generation in these areas. With cheap electricity in the U.S., wind may only be economically efficient in some regions. Sometimes it can be hard to justify an investment or make money from one.

At what cost? Even Buffet admits it is not cost effective. You can point all you want to other countries use of wind power. Let the market decide. If wind ever becomes cost effective, I am certain you will see electric companies moving toward it in droves.

“That’s the only reason to build them,” Buffett said of the wind tax credits in 2014. “They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

 

[WVPATX]

The costs of something in any given marketplace isn't necessarily the cheapest possible. Vested interests capture the marketplace and change the rules so that their interests have an advantage. Have you never heard of this before? It's called "the oldest trick in the book." You're "No subsidies, remember?" line is funny and childlike in it's naivete.

The Sun always shines. I don't know why you fight change so much. It's not 1979 anymore. I tell you there are already thousands of electric car charging stations that are solar powered and you just have no interest in even engaging the reality.

I have said I am fine with rigs converting to electricity. What part of that statement do you not comprehend? But you seem to lack even basic knowledge of what would be required from a power generation standpoint, lots and lots of gas and coal.

Overtime, a business will move to lower cost products if it helps their bottom line. That is called capitalism. It isn't perfectly efficient but it is much more efficient than government.

And I thought you and I agreed to do away with all corporate subsidies. Am I not remembering this correctly? You are in favor or continuing corporate subsidies to oil and gas and other energy providers?

You said:

The Sun always shines.

No, the sun doesn't always shine. We have things called clouds and nighttime. Why are solar facilities built in desserts? Because they get more sunshine. This is not rocket science. And BTW, what about all those birds killed by solar power generation facilities. Burned to a crisp, even endangered birds. How do you prevent that from happening if you even care?

 

[moe]

If wind ever becomes cost effective, I am certain you will see electric companies moving toward it in droves.

What you guess about has been happening for a long time. Most if not all power companies have a portfolio of renewable power resources of which wind is just part of it. For example, AEP has had wind resources since the mid 1990's. Some own the windmills, others just buy the electricity from wind farms.

https://www.aep.com/environment/climatechange/renewableenergy.aspx

 

[op2]

I have said I am fine with rigs converting to electricity. What part of that statement do you not comprehend? But you seem to lack even basic knowledge of what would be required from a power generation standpoint, lots and lots of gas and coal.

Overtime, a business will move to lower cost products if it helps their bottom line. That is called capitalism. It isn't perfectly efficient but it is much more efficient than government.

And I thought you and I agreed to do away with all corporate subsidies. Am I not remembering this correctly? You are in favor or continuing corporate subsidies to oil and gas and other energy providers?

I am against subsidies but OTOH I live in the real world. In addition to actual subsidies existing, there exist de facto subsidies, such as the US Dept of Defense spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to keep Middle East oil flowing. That is, in effect, a subsidy. And don't mention US oil production because if oil stopped flowing in the Middle East then there would be an oil shortage and the price of oil produced in the US would go up.

And I know you don't believe fossil fuels cause global warming but for people that do believe it, not having a carbon tax or cap and trade or something to deal with it is again in effect a subsidy.

 

[WVPATX]

Remedial English classes still have openings, it's not too late. Show me where I said that investing in windmills is/was a bad idea (not counting Pickens). I guess Pickens is a genius about windmills cause he lost his *** on them, is that what you're telling me? It's pretty obvious that he stepped all over his dick on that one. Some people (not Pickens) know how to turn them into good investments or they wouldn't be popping up like flowers across the nation.

They are popping up due to government subsidies. Buffet admits as much. And for someone with your intellect to claim that Pickens is stupid is laughable. Let's compare how successful he has been vs. you, for example.

Something tells me it's not close.

 

[Boomboom521]

Wrong, my friend. When you make assumptions, you make an *** of yourself. I have been in favor of this type of action for years. I don't care if it is natural gas. I don't care if it is electric. The rig owners can decide. But if electric is used, don't assume you won't need lots more coal and natural gas to power the extra electricity generation needed to produce that energy.

If Obama proposed something like this, he would have had my FULL support.

You posted:

Well let's just nationalize the trucking industry, and all the gas stations, and......

Left is a fun way to go if you believe in the cause and the President leading you there hunh?

Sure sounds like your against it to me.

The government would not just have to provide substantial money for retrofitting rigs, they would have to provide incentives or seed money for gas stations, for the transportation and insurance of the fossil fuel, and all would have to initiated simultaneously with the initiative to retrofit.

I'm all for it, anything that helps the environment. I'm all for the government using BIG money to fit our BIG problems. With all the power you seem to be happy to give our government (a major overhaul like this as well as tax incentives and tariffs to manipulate the global production market), might want to register democrat

 

[moe]

Pickens is stupid is laughable

Ok for the third time, he's an idiot about windmills. He may understand them now but he didn't when he lost his financial *** over them. Do you read like every third word or something?

 

[WVPATX]

I am against subsidies but OTOH I live in the real world. In addition to actual subsidies existing, there exist de facto subsidies, such as the US Dept of Defense spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to keep Middle East oil flowing. That is, in effect, a subsidy. And don't mention US oil production because if oil stopped flowing in the Middle East then there would be an oil shortage and the price of oil produced in the US would go up.

And I know you don't believe fossil fuels cause global warming but for people that do believe it, not having a carbon tax or cap and trade or something to deal with it is again in effect a subsidy.

You and I agreed that the U.S. should stop all subsidies. Are you going back on your word?

You're Middle East claim is absurd. There are and were no subsidies. Your definition of subsidies is absurd.

You're right, if oil stopped flowing from the Middle East prices would go up. All the more reason to stop our dependence on Middle East oil, right? Do you remember the Carter years? The oil. boycott? The gas lines? The prices? We have enough reserves of oil, gas and coal to become truly independent of the Middle East oil all together. That is why Keystone was important.

When we have PROOF that CO2 is causing global warming, I will be there with you. But we are a long, long way from proof. And the recent NOAA whistleblower should give everyone pause that we are being sold a bill of goods.

 

[WVPATX]

Ok for the third time, he's an idiot about windmills. He may understand them now but he didn't when he lost his financial *** over them. Do you read like every third word or something?

What do you do for a living? I am not asking to denigrate you. Each job is valuable.

Pickens is an investor. He runs an investment company. All investment companies make bad investments. It is the nature of that business. It doesn't mean they are stupid. It means that in their analysis, their assumptions may have been flawed, their forward price curves may have been wrong, etc. That in no way makes them stupid.

And if you are not in business, particularly investments, you would have no idea.

 

[moe]

What do you do for a living? I am not asking to denigrate you. Each job is valuable.

Pickens is an investor. He runs an investment company. All investment companies make bad investments. It is the nature of that business. It doesn't mean they are stupid. It means that in their analysis, their assumptions may have been flawed, their forward price curves may have been wrong, etc. That in no way makes them stupid.

And if you are not in business, particularly investments, you would have no idea.

Ok you're right, he's a windmill genius. You laughed at him in your opening post, I guess you feel sorry for him now. Are you related to him or something or is this just your way of changing topics?

 

[op2]

I have said I am fine with rigs converting to electricity. What part of that statement do you not comprehend? But you seem to lack even basic knowledge of what would be required from a power generation standpoint, lots and lots of gas and coal.

Overtime, a business will move to lower cost products if it helps their bottom line. That is called capitalism. It isn't perfectly efficient but it is much more efficient than government.

And I thought you and I agreed to do away with all corporate subsidies. Am I not remembering this correctly? You are in favor or continuing corporate subsidies to oil and gas and other energy providers?

You said:

The Sun always shines.

No, the sun doesn't always shine. We have things called clouds and nighttime. Why are solar facilities built in desserts? Because they get more sunshine. This is not rocket science. And BTW, what about all those birds killed by solar power generation facilities. Burned to a crisp, even endangered birds. How do you prevent that from happening if you even care?

I don't want to scare you but I feel it's my duty to tell you that the Sun does shine at night even though we can't see it. Just because solar facilities are often built in places to maximize their efficiency doesn't mean they can't be built elsewhere and as they increase in efficiency it makes more and more sensible to put them in more and more places.

As far as birds being killed by solar power facilities, that's too bad but realistically any method of generating power is going to have some animal or human casualties, especially since we're generating power on such a large scale.

Oops, I almost forgot to add the link from the news story that just came out today. Tesla is working on an electric semi-truck.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-says-tesla-making-153206529.html

 

[WVPATX]

The government would not just have to provide substantial money for retrofitting rigs, they would have to provide incentives or seed money for gas stations, for the transportation and insurance of the fossil fuel, and all would have to initiated simultaneously with the initiative to retrofit.

I'm all for it, anything that helps the environment. I'm all for the government using BIG money to fit our BIG problems. With all the power you seem to be happy to give our government (a major overhaul like this as well as tax incentives and tariffs to manipulate the global production market), might want to register democrat

Actually, I don't agree. They could provide advanced depreciation for example. Provides an incentive, but we still capture our tax revenue over time. Who said anything about tariffs? You're logic eludes me. How would this "manipulate" the market? This stuff happens all the time. It is called a disruptive technology. You're not in business so I realize that this is foreign to your training.

 

[WVPATX]

I don't want to scare you but I feel it's my duty to tell you that the Sun does shine at night even though we can't see it. Just because solar facilities are often built in places to maximize their efficiency doesn't mean they can't be built elsewhere and as they increase in efficiency it makes more and more sensible to put them in more and more places.

As far as birds being killed by solar power facilities, that's too bad but realistically any method of generating power is going to have some animal or human casualties, especially since we're generating power on such a large scale.

So when the sun goes down over the U.S. where do we get our solar energy from? China, where the sun may be shining? Can't do it. As importantly, look at the U.S. sun maps. It shows you where the sun shines the most. For example, Pittsburgh and Cleveland have very poor sunlight percentages. You want to locate your solar stations where the sun shines almost constantly. Transportation then becomes a huge issue. Very, very difficult to store electricity as opposed to storing natural gas or coal which is very, very easy.

Somehow, I think you would care about those endangered birds if it didn't involve "green energy."

 

[op2]

You and I agreed that the U.S. should stop all subsidies. Are you going back on your word?

You're Middle East claim is absurd. There are and were no subsidies. Your definition of subsidies is absurd.

You're right, if oil stopped flowing from the Middle East prices would go up. All the more reason to stop our dependence on Middle East oil, right? Do you remember the Carter years? The oil. boycott? The gas lines? The prices? We have enough reserves of oil, gas and coal to become truly independent of the Middle East oil all together. That is why Keystone was important.

When we have PROOF that CO2 is causing global warming, I will be there with you. But we are a long, long way from proof. And the recent NOAA whistleblower should give everyone pause that we are being sold a bill of goods.

The US Government (which is the taxpayers) spends a large amount of money on the military in the Middle East and that in turn keeps gasoline cheaper. If you don't want to call it a subsidy then call it something else but the end result is the same, namely the government spending money that benefits an industry.

Also, whether we're dependent on Middle East oil or not isn't the point because the price we pay for oil is dependent on Middle East oil. If Middle East oil goes away then supply drops and thus the price goes up. Even if the oil we consume is produced by a US oil company there still going to charge us market rate.

 

[Boomboom521]

Actually, I don't agree. They could provide advanced depreciation for example. Provides an incentive, but we still capture our tax revenue over time. Who said anything about tariffs? You're logic eludes me. How would this "manipulate" the market? This stuff happens all the time. It is called a disruptive technology. You're not in business so I realize that this is foreign to your training.

No, I'm saying you're Republican but for Trumps tax and tariff system of manipulating the market to keep production jobs in the US. And now for a vast and expensive government incentive program to manipulate the market into creating an overhaul of fuel supplies for the commercial transportation industry. These are not exactly Republican ideals at work here paxx. Is that clearer for you?

 

[op2]

Okay, correction, it seems it's not true that all Tesla supercharger are solar powered, or at least not as of a couple years ago. I thought that maybe sounded too good to be true.

 

[va87eer]

Natural gas is more likely to be an interim step for that kind of application. As gas technology is mature and battery technology is not, gas still offers the better short term alternative. In the medium and long run (let's say 10-20 years and onward), a much cheaper, and cleaner alternative will be to use batteries for vehicles and gas for power plants. Gas power plants also work well in combination with renewables due to their quick startup times.

I'm not sure how aware the general public is of the rapid advances in battery technology, other than for cars. They are being used more and more in marine applications with some local ferries not even having main engines now. There are some fairly large scale applications being installed for commercial power power plants

 

[PriddyBoy]

How about just start switching over to electric cars? We don't have to retrofit anything, just transition to electric. Safer. More fuel efficient. Other than when you're on trips you never even have to stop to refuel since you just plug it in to recharge each night.

I'm not so sure about 'more fuel efficient.' Batteries draw their energy from electric power which is generally derived from fossil fuels unless the power comes from nuclear or hydro. I'm leaving out wind and solar while recognizing they could add to the grid when wind and sun are available, provided that these power sources can be produced somewhat competitively on the power market. When electricity is moving through power lines a small amount of energy is lost.

The Sun always shines.

Are you going on a mission to the Sun? "I'm going to the sun at night when it's cooler" said the Polish Astronaut.

 

[WVPATX]

The US Government (which is the taxpayers) spends a large amount of money on the military in the Middle East and that in turn keeps gasoline cheaper. If you don't want to call it a subsidy then call it something else but the end result is the same, namely the government spending money that benefits an industry.

Also, whether we're dependent on Middle East oil or not isn't the point because the price we pay for oil is dependent on Middle East oil. If Middle East oil goes away then supply drops and thus the price goes up. Even if the oil we consume is produced by a US oil company there still going to charge us market rate.

First of all, you Middle East subsidiary is absurd. Where are we now spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the Middle East?

Secondly, if a huge assumption that Middle East oil is going away. How would this happen? They would intentionally destroy their own economies for what purpose? And again, all the more reason to exploit all of our energy to become independent. Prices may well rise, but the government could decide to reinstate the law that we can't export oil any longer. Prices would not be impacted that much if we did that.

 

[eerdoc]

And who does this exactly? You're saying the government requires the entire trucking industry to convert to natural gas engines? And the government then forces truck stops to hold natural gas for refueling?

deleted