Posted by
Catmman on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:00:40 AM
A lynchpin of the T. Boone Pickens national energy plan is to use America's natural gas resources to fuel our vehicles instead of using petroleum based fuels (gasoline/diesel).
Automakers have been trying to get the public to buy natural gas vehicles since the 1970s. Yet, despite millions in tax subsidies, today there is only one — count them: one — -compressed-natural-gas (CNG) product in America’s showrooms. It’s the Honda Civic GX and it ain’t exactly flying off the shelves.
No wonder. The CNG-powered Civic GX sells at a whopping $8,780 over the price of a comparable gas-powered Civic DX, yet has 24 percent less horsepower, is 2 seconds slower 0-60 mph, has half the trunk size (due to the huge CNG tank behind the back seats), and only goes 250 miles on a tank of natural gas vs. 400 for its petrol-powered sister.
Friedman is full of hot air on “America’s abundant natural gas supplies” (his own newspaper wrote on May 29 that the industry is looking abroad for more supplies “as production falls off in North America, where many fields are tapped out”), but natural gas is at least cheaper per mile than gasoline at current, $4-a-gallon, prices. So, assuming lousy performance doesn't phase you, how long would it take to recoup the GX’s premium in saved fuel prices? About 213,000 miles according to a Car & Driver calculation — or 14 years of normal driving.
“Obviously,” wrote C&D, “paying more for a (natural gas) Civic is not a financially driven choice but an environmentally driven one.”
This technology is available for those who wish to avail themselves of it, just as with a hybrid. What a lot of activists and pro-"green" pundits fail to realise is that the market (meaning the American people) as a group doesn't want it. It is still too cost prohibitive and an inconvenient hassle to use this technology (especially in the case of CNG). The cost/benefit just isn't there for the average American. The government does offer tax credits into the thousands of dollars, but even this still doesn't offset the initial or even long term higher costs for the use or purchase of this technology.
What makes this worse is that people like T. Boone (though I agree with his rhetoric on this issue) is also calling for massive government regulation and subsidies to make these technologies "more competitive". Anyone with half a brain knows where that will lead eventually. Of course to the wacko "greeny" that is the intention anyway - massive government regulation and mandating of technology use - all for the "greater good".
If people want to use/own supposed "green" technology, so be it. Let them pay for it and be happy. I should not be made to help pay for it in the form of taxation (which supplies the government subsidies), nor should I be mandated to use it if I deem it isn't worth it or affordable for me or my family.