1. Not a single CNG station within the state of NJ, a state which prides itself on being environmentally progresssive,,, NJ does not have a single E85 station either… this is outrageous ! Natural gas lines exist all over the state IF someone ever intended on seriously opening a PUBLIC station for fueling (all are state owned or private). oquivej

2. The PHIL unit was another $ 5,000.000 on top of the prove of the car… with little or no subsidies from the state or Feds, the cost would have been $55,000 ! Again, this is outragerous. IF Honda and others saw a market for these cars, prices would drop, and more would be sold… but not until the fueling issue is addressed. Why not take some of those profits from Exxon and create a fund to subsidize alt fuel purchases and fueling infrastructure ?

3. When I wrote state officials asking then why no alternative fuel stations in NJ… my response was silence.

THEREFORE:

Mr Pickens has the right idea… we HAVE the natural gas, and there are many many like myself who would love to take advantage of it it it were made available. Clearly what is lacking is the political will to make widespread use of E85 or CNG a reality… if it takes individuals like Mr Pickens to make that a reality… so be it. If only NY/NJ politicians has some balls to to propose same…

Perhaps some references will help clarify this point:

The US has 3.4% of the world’s proven natural gas reserves. (BP)
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9023779&contentId=7044843

The US is already consuming gas equal to 11% of our own proven reserves annually. (BP)
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9023781&contentId=7044478

hubbertpeak.com is also a good source: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/gas/

I generally agree that government subsidies are wrong, but there are times when an investment can jump start a much need initiative. Anything that we can do to lessen our burden of foreign oil we should do immediately. It would appear to me that Prop 10 gives the incentive to the car buyer not Pickens. Pickens will only (as he should) make money if they use his fueling stations. I assume these are not cheap to erect and he needs some momentum behind CNG cars before he can build them. If individuals don’t want to buy their CNG from the stations they can always buy the Phil device for their garage.

Pickens and the other ranchers that Mesa Water represent own the rights to that land, they are not stealing the water. I know that you probably have a problem with people owning vast amount of land, but that is the reality. The other reality is that Dallas will have a serious water shortage in the future if the city continues to grow at the current pace. I don’t believe Mesa Water has found any buyers (North Texas cities) for their water and Mesa has postponed the right of way for the water pipeline so they can move forward on the power line transmission for the wind farm. Besides, many US cities pull water from aquifers today.

I’m not trying to be an apologist for Pickens but I find it hard to recognize the PR in his many of his philanthropy efforts. See http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2008/02/18/story6.html and http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-ymca_21met.ART.State.Edition1.4ae2975.html just to name a few.

If people make money on CNG so be it. Better for an American to make the money than some rich middle eastern country. PR is a tool that all entities use to advance their cause or business. Obviously you have been drinking the liberal cool aid for so long you hate anyone making money even when they are trying to solve a real problem.

“Most of the $2.9 billion in incentives are targeted toward CNG vehicle purchasers—both private and commercial—but a $2,000 rebate would also help to offset the cost of any vehicle that exceeds 45 mpg in fuel efficiency.”

I thought I would bring the facts into this. CNG is one of the major components to this legislation. I also don’t understand why cars that get 46mpgs should get a rebate. My question is why 46mpg??? If we can’t get beyond CNG (that is using it in small vehicles) and cars that get 46mpg as long term ideas we failed and those who love shiny things will get what they asked for.

There are two issues:

1. How do we power vehicles that need more torque and power. Right now we could look at CNG and biodiesel to help with this solution until something else like hydrogen or better electric systems come along.

2. How do we power cars and small SUV’s? These vehicles don’t need to be replaced by another fuel though clean diesel is out there.
Please when looking at both issues consider long-term implications

I think reading the comments I would say that Dan L’s comments are right on. “The public’s goodwill for environmental change is converted to anger and mistrust at being scammed.
It has happened before. Witness corn based Ethanol as a bio-fuel.”
So true…

You could even look at cellulose ethanol as a scam, if… we use waste stock great but if you grow crops for stock we get into all those problems with land resources and food issues. Sounds great but again look at the long-term problems of using fuel to replace fuel.

“Most of the $2.9 billion in incentives are targeted toward CNG vehicle purchasers—both private and commercial—but a $2,000 rebate would also help to offset the cost of any vehicle that exceeds 45 mpg in fuel efficiency.”

I thought I would bring the facts into this. CNG is one of the major components to this legislation. I also don’t understand why cars that get 46mpgs should get a rebate. My question is why 46mpg??? If we can’t get beyond CNG (that is using it in small vehicles) and cars that get 46mpg as long term ideas we failed and those who love shiny things will get what they asked for.

There are two issues:

1. How do we power vehicles that need more torque and power. Right now we could look at CNG and biodiesel to help with this solution until something else like hydrogen or better electric systems come along.

2. How do we power cars and small SUV’s? These vehicles don’t need to be replaced by another fuel though clean diesel is out there.
Please when looking at both issues consider long-term implications

I think reading the comments I would say that Dan L’s comments are right on. “The public’s goodwill for environmental change is converted to anger and mistrust at being scammed.
It has happened before. Witness corn based Ethanol as a bio-fuel.”
So true…

You could even look at cellulose ethanol as a scam, if… we use waste stock great but if you grow crops for stock we get into all those problems with land resources and food issues. Sounds great but again look at the long-term problems of using fuel to replace fuel.

Are the self-proclaimed environmentalists now objecting to wind power simply because one person has heavy investments in it?? Then as a matter of integrity, they need to clearly state this, and as a matter of consistency they need to oppose all wind power (unless, somehow, Pickens could not profit from it). With the variety of wind power manufacturers available, I find it hard to believe that a single person could “control” wind power, as the article seems to imply.

I have been a life member of the Sierra Club for over a decade, but this kind of activity is not supported by all members of the Club. The Sierra Club Board speaks for the Board, not directly for its members, and this should be clearly understood.

“CNG is a bridge technology that we need to get to energy independence.”

I fail to see why it needs such substantial government help. If it’s so good, cheap, and ready to be implemented then it should already be competitive with relatively little effort. Many people are very skeptical of controversial energy plans with heavy government backing, such as the ethanol corn debacle. Read some of the posts above yours.

“And I don’t know how you guys can question his investment in wind farms.”

His wind farms are a cover for a water rights access and a land grab so he can build water pipelines.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4275059.html

“I think he has proven through his gifts to universities that he is concerned with the next generation and our ability to solve our energy problems.”

When you are about to steal their water it helps PR greatly if you make big donations, less people question your actions. People like T. Boone use donations for political leverage, he could not care less about the next generation. T. Boone is a PR master, he was instrumental in the swift boating of John Kerry. Propaganda is his main tool and it looks like you fell for it hook line and sinker.