Posted on 05/14/2011 5:45:17 PM PDT by mnehring
Republicans in the House of Representatives are flocking to support a bill to extend and create a number of taxpayer-funded subsidies for manufacturers and buyers of vehicles powered by natural gas. Nearly eighty House Republicans (and a hundred Democrats) have signed up as sponsors of H. R. 1380, the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act (or NAT GAS Act). Just call it the T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill.
Many conservative Republicans in the House, particularly a number of new Members with Tea Party connections, have sworn that the fiscal and economic crisis confronting America requires a radical change in federal policies. Out-of-control spending must be stopped; spending earmarks must be abolished; crony capitalists on the prowl for corporate welfare must be sent packing; subsidies for special interests must be abolished; government must stop interfering in the economy and let free markets work.
That big talk doesn’t seem to apply when the spending is being earmarked for a crony capitalist who is one of the biggest contributors to Republican candidates in history–billionaire T. Boone Pickens. Apparently, some subsidies are good if they benefit the right special interests. And government interference in the economy is wonderful if it is done in the name of reducing oil imports.
H. R. 1380 would extend the tax credit of 50 cents per gallon of liquid natural gas (or its equivalent of compressed natural gas) when used for fueling vehicles and provide purchasers of natural gas vehicles with credits ranging from $7,500 to $64,000. The lower end is for passenger cars and the upper end for big trucks. There are also credits for natural gas vehicle manufacturers and for installing natural gas fueling stations.
Why are billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded subsidies needed? According to T. Boone Pickens’s web site, it’s because natural gas vehicles are cheaper to operate than gasoline or diesel vehicles: “Even with higher initial costs (which will disappear as manufacturing ramps up) the life-cycle costs of NGVs [natural gas vehicles] are significantly lower. Fuel costs are at least 15 percent less using natural gas rather than gasoline or diesel.”
So people need to be paid in order to make them want to buy vehicles that will save them money. Yes, that makes sense: I always prefer the more expensive product unless there is a government rebate for the cheaper one. Call it the Boonedoggle bill.
As for getting us off foreign oil, this claim is trotted out to support every payoff to special interests in the energy sector. It’s a claim for which little evidence is ever produced. What will reduce our dependence on foreign oil is producing more of it in this country. What the bill will do is increase demand for natural gas, which will tend to increase prices for natural gas, which means a big payoff for T. Boone Pickens, who has invested heavily in–you’ll never guess–natural gas.
It’s sad to look at the list of conservatives who claim to be principled who have signed up to support the Boonedoggle. Here’s the complete list of Republican sponsors as of today. The chief sponsor is Rep. John Sullivan of Oklahoma. Most surprising and perhaps most disappointing is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who claims that he votes against everything that isn’t in the Constitution. I seemed to have missed the section of the Constitution that allows taking billions of dollars from taxpayers to give to fatcat billionaires and corporate welfare queens. Call it the Pickens-Your-Pocket bill.
This stampede by conservatives, including several freshmen who identify with the Tea Party, to support the T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill makes a mockery of their claims to want to cut federal spending, eliminate subsidies to special interests, and get government out of people’s lives. We’re very close to returning to business as usual in Washington.
The goverment will drive up the cost of gasoline until we are begging for natural gas and hybrid cars. If you donj’t believe that this is their goal, I have a bridge to sell you.
I don't think he's got enough money for that! Would that make her a high-priced woman?
I don’t think Windfarms is mentioned in the Constitution...
A lot of duck tape may help.
If all that is true it'll happen, and it'll happen a darn lot faster and more efficiently, and without further enriching multimillionaires, if the government just gets out of the way. I feel someone "Pickens" my pocket.
If it needs to be subsidized, then its STILL not economically feasible
“it’ll happen a darn lot faster and more efficiently, and without further enriching multimillionaires, if the government just gets out of the way”
True.
The distribution issue gets muddy though. The logistics of it is fragile.
I learned of a conversation with a friend’s client, a trucker. In MARCH, the guy paid $3500 for fuel.
wRONg PAUL is a shrimp.
I agree, cars can be converted to have a natural gas tank and be made to run on both gas and natural gas and for only a few thousand. we need to do this to keep our money out of the arab states
Looks like Ron Paul is against war with other countries, but it's OK if it attacks our own...
It does for the simple reason that Detroit isn’t going to ramp up production of NG or multifueled vehicles without something in place to get buyers into the showroom. Ford’s effort tried and died years ago. This is the one single thing that can severely curtail gasoline usage in and oil imports to this country meaning OPEC is screwed.
This should have been done during the oil embargo of the early seventies. The technology has been around since the 50s.
If you have a natural gas distribution system in your area, it’s already in place. Just install a NG filling station and pipe it up. You can set one by the air compressor in many convenience stores that sell gasoline.
15%?
No wonder they are looking for a subsidy!
15% is not enough savings to cover the higher expense of the conversion, loss of capacity and range due to heavy/bulky fuel tanks being required, lost power (less dense fuel, less HP per gallon) lack of supporting infrastructure (need THOUSANDS of fueling stations), etc.
It’s a great fuel for fixed route operations, perhaps the USPS, UPS, Fed-X, etc. can adopt it.
Great for running electrical generation, fixed location so the fuel can be tanked to the generator by truck or rail.
I have some experience with the advantages and pitfalls of such a system, it is very similar to the Propane my 4x4 GMC runs on.
Except, that is is even LESS efficient as a fuel in a vehicle that has to operate in regular traffic.
Oh, it’s a GAS. not a liquid, if you run out for any reason you have to call a tow truck!
To get beyond fixed routes and generators the difference would have to be more like 50% - 70%.
Propane systems have been available for decades, very few are in use by the public, so that’s a clue to how well this will be received without it being FORCED on us.
I’m looking forward to taking the Propane system OFF my truck and putting it BACK on gasoline, despite Propane currently being cheaper.
The lost power and range are intolerable.
Currently in California you can fill an NG car for about $1.30 for the cost of the natural gas and the cost of the electricity to pump into the car using a home comrpessor. With a multifuel vehicle you can use either gasoline or NG meaning when the usual suspects drive up the price of gasoline for Memorial Day, Labor Day or whenever they find some other lame ass excuse, you can cruise by the gasoline pumps and flip them the bird.
This IS a very good idea, aand it will have a major impact on our import of foreign oil, especially for use as diesel fuel. We consume 3 million barrels per day utilized for diesel consumption, much of which goes into long haul transportation.
This type of legislation will have a substantial impact on reducing oil imports.This will spur industrial development, that is conversion and maintenance of diesel trucks to run on compressed gas and build out of a supply system along major freeways at truck stops. On a run from Atlanta to Miami which is 660 miles or 1,320 miles round trip consumes 1,320 miles @ 8 mpg = 165 diesel gallons at US$4.00 per gallon = $660.00. Compressed gas will probably shave this by several hundred dollars. Spot nat gas is currently priced at half the cost of diesel fuel per energy equivalent, so cannot guess the retail price BUT it will be much cheaper than foreign oil AND it will be very stimulative to local gas production and transportation fleets. Assuming you get 10% penetration of transport fleet within the first year you save 109,500,000 barrels and shave US$10.95 billion annualized, that is paid out to foreign oil sources PLUS you create tens of thousands of good paying, home grown jobs across the country.
This is NOT like building windmills or solar panels. IF we convert half the fleet in 5 years we save 547.5 million barrels or around $55 billion per year on our oil bills PLUS the kick in effect on smaller vehicles takes hold, where cars and small trucks switch over. Again assuming similar penetration rates on smaller vehicles we end up with total cuts on imports approaching several million barrels per day within the first year or two. This will have a major impact on reducing oil prices.
Detroit won’t build the NG powered cars because people won’t install the NG filling stations because Detroit won’t build the NG powered cars. Get the point? You have to kick start the demand. Ford tried building NG cars and trucks years ago. A local gas supply company tried installing NG filling stations around WV. There wasn’t enough demand. With high gasoline prices this is the best time to kick OPEC in the nuts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.