<Midweek Open Thread The Oil Drum A proposal for the windfall profits>

61 comments on One must expect dissent . . . .

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Leanan on October 28, 2005 - 10:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It sure sounded to me like he was talking about running trucks on natural gas.  Sounds dopey to me.  I drive a natural gas vehicle sometimes, and while it's in many ways comparable to a conventional car, the big drawback is range and power.  It doesn't go as far as a conventional car on a tankful.  The range is supposedly 150 miles, but if you are carrying a lot of stuff, have more than one person in the car, or are running the airconditioner or heater, the range is much less.  Of course it would be less of an issue if we had the NG infrastructure in place, and could fuel up on the road, but still...NG is a much more diffuse energy source than gas or diesel, and I can't imagine running an 18-wheeler with it.  At least, not very efficiently.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gloomy on October 28, 2005 - 1:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
That NG idea almost knocked me out. We will have NG shortage in US for heating this year and this guy suggests that we divert yet another substantial part of it for fuel! So invest more resources for infrastructure, etc. to compete for an ever declining supply of NG? What a brilliance of mind... Fortunately that idea people are not likely to buy.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Whitehall on October 29, 2005 - 5:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I didn't say I was arguing for it.  In fact, I've been a public critic of the diversion of NG for vehicles and electric generation for 15 years.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

61 comments on One must expect dissent . . . .

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version