Thank you for your comment and thoughtful criticism. I appreciate it.

I took a look at AmericanEnergyIndependence.com. I certainly agree that energy independence is an important goal, if not the most important, for our country now, for many, many reasons. And, as I have looked at the Pickens Plan, it is more clear that the plan is indeed focused on achieving energy independence.

A single focus on energy independence, without recognizing other intrinsically related issues (water, food, climate, population, and several others) will tend to result in an outcome that may solve one problem but exacerbate the others. We have a long history of failing to address the root problem in our political and economic policies (witness the failures of various housing subsidies for examples).

Failing to address climate change, for one, is as likely to put the US in a vulnerable strategic position in the world as is failing to address our oil dependence. Currently our failure to neither lead nor even to cooperate in global efforts to address climate change have put the US at odds with much of the rest of the world. As the effects of climate change, population growth and others are felt around the globe, our failure to lead would isolate us even more than it already has.

Yes, the Pickens Plan indirectly accomplishes many of the same climate change benefits as other plans, but it is, in several ways, in conflict with policies that would also address climate change, and some of the other major issues noted earlier.

For example, even though natural gas has a reputation for being clean, for a given unit of power, CNG still releases 75% as much CO2 as gasoline (source: http://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/Energy_From_Fossil_Fuels.htm). Yes, this is a big improvement, but, for example, not as much as I get from the Prius I drive and which is very much in production today, which results in 50% as much CO2 as a standard car, simply because of efficiency. Sure, we could have CNG/Electric hybrids, but any fossil fuel, when burnt, is going to release CO2.

To be clear, I understand the current limitations of electric cars; I own one (a Prius) and see that while a significant step forward, it is only a step. Other cars are in development that take some big next steps.

While CNG vehicles are certainly feasible to mass-produce, I am not sure “now” is any more realistic for gas than electric. One issue with CNG is that the distribution network is not in place. And obviously, some non-trivial retooling is needed by the car makers; as far as I know only Honda has their Civic GX, which has some limitations of its own.

I think it’s a mistake to compare electric cars with hydrogen. Electric motors are, for one, a drive system, not an energy storage system (like a battery, or for that matter like gasoline or CNG). Hydrogen powered cars in prototype has used an electric drive system. Hydrogen is a much more distant technology, and always has been compared to CNG or electric; anyone who was lining up behind hydrogen in the past didn’t get the whole picture.

I am not arguing that either infrastructure nor production of CNG vehicles is unfeasible, just that it’s not really quite as far along as I think we might believe. Further, I think plugin gasoline-electric hybrids (including new Prius, Chevy Volt, others) are well along and strongly supported by manufacturers, if only because hybrid designs overcome many significant transition issues.

Back to energy independence, let’s also look at how much gas we actually have. Actual current know reserves are not that large. Mostly, we have what is referred to as unconventional gas, and if you look at that, we also have a great deal of unconventional oil. The reason they are unconventional is that they require a great deal more effort to extract than their conventional counterparts. Yes, we have a lot (of both, actually), and probably gas is the better alternative.

But does gas really advance energy independence? Yes, it probably does. Is it the best way? I don’t think so. The question I would have is whether a significant effort to transform our passenger fleet to CNG is the best use of our resources — I don’t think so. I do think CNG should be a bridge fuel alternative to coal, diesel and gasoline for larger vehicles.

One of those future technologies is electric cars. You talk as though the technology is fully developed. It is not. There are many red flags being raised, a reminder of red flags that were ignored years ago when hydrogen was the promise of the future.

Cost, performance, range, over-night charging – are all problems that consumers will not like.

CNG cars are proven technology that every manufacturer could mass produce now. But they are not going to do that if the CNG is not available, or the price of gasoline drops back to $1.05 per gallon.

Energy Independence is within our reach. Let’s not forget why we are reaching for it.
http://www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com