Comments on: Pickens Plan Promotes Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles

By: elsapeyton

elsapeyton — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:16:52 +0000

The post is very nicely written and it contains many useful facts. I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post.
clubmz e-spy

By: joyceabril

joyceabril — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:41:26 +0000

Intimately, the post is really the greatest on this worthwhile topic. I match in with your conclusions and can eagerly look forward to your next updates.
cell phone spy software

By: jeff M

jeff M — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 01:08:33 +0000

Which Oil Company do you work for, ???

By: Bryce

Bryce — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:35:43 +0000

Actually, if you took a chem or enviro sci class, you would know that methane released into the atmosphere un-burned is actually a more effective green house gas than any CO2. It is usually released during the mining process, up to 25%. The other most common release is from cows.

Just to clarify. : )

By: anonymous two

anonymous two — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:51:04 +0000

It incenses me that you can post a comment but have no idea what you are talking about. First off, it's not methane that's bad, it's CO2 after it is burned, but you really have no idea when it comes to the residue of natural gas in terms of Green house gases produced by burning it compared to Diesel or Oil. It is the cleanest burning fossil fuel in terms of particulate matter. Before you slag something you should educate yourself, instead of saying "BAD, MORE CARBON".. when in really it has significantly less Carbon emissions then Diesel and gasoline. We don't have the technology to use 100% renewable energy right now...how do you think all those electric cars will be charged??? Do you not know that most of electricity in North America is created from Coal and Natural Gas fired plants?? So let's just add 500 million electric cars to the grid and see what happens. We must learn to walk before we run.

The first step in reducing our carbon footprint is to get rid of the vehicles that produce the most ghg's.... diesel and gasoline vehicles. Efficient natural gas vehicles can reduce particulate matter by 35% and we don't have to be held hostage by radical dictators for their oil, why not go to natural gas vehicles, or hybrids that use natural gas?

By: Bryce

Bryce — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 22:56:06 +0000

controversy makes money and gains readership….lol. The fact that his plan focuses on commercial applications (because he himself has admitted that a massive conversion of peoples cars wouldbe silly and infeasible because it would require a huge infrastructure change) and wind energy is often ignored or forgotten. It is too bad. As for pickens getting rich, I am pretty sure Bill Gates got pretty rich when he brought computing to the masses. Same can be said for others with ideas……they do it to make MONEY!

By: Bill Green

Bill Green — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:52:29 +0000

The Pickens Plan is about 20% wind energy by 2030. It is also about solar and other renewable energy sources, though I don’t the timeframe or percentages. It is mainly about reducing our dependance on foreign oil! I believe that oil is our #1 import and hundreds of billions of dollars are spent to support some very undesireable regimes. I served 20 years in the U.S. Navy, and most of that time was spent ensuring that oil deliveries from various parts of the world were maintained. We get about 20% of our oil from the middle east. This 20% all flows through a very narrow straight between the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. What happens if that flow is stopped? What happens if we loose 20% of our oil? I believe the real cause for most of the wars we’ve had are because of oil. Sure T. Boone and others will get rich and I know it will not fully replace oil as our primary energy source. But it’s a big step in the right direction, then we could limit oil imports to North America! Also Picken’s plan is more about converting commercial vehicles to CNG than about cars. Also, why did you pick only the most contraversial part of the Pickens Plan to write about?

By: kes

kes — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:13:32 +0000

hybridcars says:
For one, if the GX is any indication, these cars are likely to remain more expensive than their hybrid counterparts, even though their emissions are higher and the fuel savings they offer are relatively nil compared to hybrids. The Civic GX is $2,000 more expensive than a Civic hybrid, and $7,000 more expensive than a standard Civic.
--
Wouldn't it be fair to consider some more details here? How would this comparsion look like if the CNG infrastructure (fuel stations, dealers, shops) would be comparable to gasoline? How do the greenhouse-gas-emissions compare for smooth highway driving, how does the total development spend for Hybrid/gasoline compares to CNG and how does the car production rate affect price?

Kind regards
-- Klaus

By: Brooks

Brooks — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:47:55 +0000

You may want to check out Debatepedia’s pro/con article on the Pickens Plan (under development) and on Natural Gas vehicles:

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:_Pickens_US_energy_plan

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:Natural_gas_vehicles

By: D.V

D.V — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:37:02 +0000

Don’t think coversion to CNG from gasoline is so great compared to replacing batteries (big money) and limited use in miles with the electrics. Think CNG is the way to go for now.