Ralph
I agree with the natural gas approach. I am surprised it has not got wider attention.
I'd say hybrid NG electric is better than NG gasoline, but either will do
- ample supply
- low price
- domestic supply reduces trade imbalance and foreign debt
- less pollution
- national distribution network is in place via the Phil spigot in your house
- relatively low cost to convert existing fleet
- known technology, so no new technology required
- fleet conversion program would create jobs

... whats not to like?

so my prediction is, when high oil prices start to bite in 2010, and the oil/NG ratio goes to an even wider extreme, this will suddenly be discovered by the MSM. so what are the companies that stand to benefit when the herd stampedes in this direction? who makes the conversion kits?

A couple of points:

I'm not sure about 'ample' supply. Unconventional gas is more expensive to drill than conventional, and it is not clear how much supply could be ramped up before the price goes exponential. As documented on TOD, the current glut has led to half the NG drilling rigs being idled. That alone could cause a sudden shortage in a year or two if we have a cold winter or hot summer. Large scale investment would be needed.

I would run a mile from anyone trying to fill their CNG tanks from a domestic spigot. The supply needs to be compressed, the compressor is not on the vehicle. Domestic gas line pressure would very quickly fall to dangerously low levels if every house in a street pulled that trick.

You need to spend money on the infrastructure.

I think it is actively suppressed by the car/oil companies. It is given a 'third world' and 'unsafe and unreliable' image.

It will not be a cheap option, but a lot cheaper than all the others.

Electric cars, natural gas burned in an electrical generator can be captured.
d

Has anyone paid any attention to the hydrogen car developed in Britain that is about to hit the streets soon? BBC World has a story released today at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8103106.stm

That appears to be the Pickens plan, pretty much.  I'm not sure what's left of it, after the maker of the Phill went bankrupt.

I still think it is a huge mistake to subsidize vehicles with lousy fuel economy, whether they're topers or huffers.  Natural gas is only cheap at the moment, due in part to the collapse in US industrial demand and the sunk costs of a large amount of LNG infrastructure in places like Qatar.  Producing new shale gas in the USA needs prices around $8 per million BTU.  This is cheap compared to gasoline, but expensive compared to the historical prices of home-heating and industrial fuel.  Shifting enough demand to NG will push prices up to that level and keep them there.  Instead of trading food for road miles, it's the economy being traded for road miles.  Then there's the question of what happens when there are NG shortages and vehicle usage is cut off to keep houses warm and the lights on.  All the dual-fuel vehicles switch back to petroleum, running up prices there and perhaps creating secondary shortages (though less severe than without fuel-switching).

If we were talking about vehicles like the Honda Civic GX, this wouldn't be such a big issue.  However, the incentives to replace these "clunkers" go to monsters only a bit less thirsty than my neighbor's 14-MPG Durango.  More flexibility may help, but failing to promote economy is just piling new problems upon the old ones.

Hence the final line in my original comment :)