It is a chicken before the egg problem. LNG fueling station are not economic without LNG vehicles to purchase their fuel. LNG vehicles are not practical/economic, without sufficient fueling stations.
It is a growing market, but it is slow growth and regional at first.
.B. Pickens has been the lone big voice promoting the concept and was met with failure to lobby Congress to pass Federal subsidies.
He is not the only voice, but certainly the loudest, particular after he set up his LNG fueling company.
However, there has been some activity among municipally owned bus and truck operations to contract with private enterprises to operate them, somewhat like the municipal electric power and phone companies of the early 20th century. What do you think of this approach?
There has been a "lot" of growth in this area. Fleet service type vehicles like metro buses, garbage trucks, are easier to break into the LNG since they return every night to the same location and have a large enough use to justify a dedicated fuel system. Some have added commercial public vehicle fueling as the cost to add a public lane outside the fence is rather minimal after the fleet service is built.
I don't understand the analogy to power and phone.
There has not been anywhere near sufficient growth to become a profitable business opportunity for the two major players in the field -- WPRT & CLNE.
I don't understand the analogy to power and phone.
You and I have had many debates over the years about government subsidies of the power business. My position has been that without government subsidies, the electrification and the communication infrastructure would have never occurred that made the USA the world leader it became. You consistently oppose ANY AND ALL forms of government subsidy. Where would we be today without those subsidies and the Interstate Highway System paid for by either government subsidies or outight direct funding?