| |


Contact Joann Muller

Governors Press Detroit To Make Natural Gas Vehicles

2012 Honda Civic Natural Gas (Photo credit: Honda Motor Co.)

The governors of Oklahoma and Colorado, two states with a vested interest in the natural gas industry, were in Detroit Monday, making the case for why U.S. automakers should produce more natural gas vehicles.

Governors Mary Fallin of Oklahoma and John Hickenlooper of Colorado carved out some time between meetings with General Motors, Ford Motor and Chrysler Group to talk with Forbes about their campaign to promote natural gas vehicles. “If you squint your eyes, and look at the way the world is, and the way it could be,” said Hickenlooper, “if we had 20% of the country’s vehicles running on natural gas, that helps everybody.”

Motorists would save the equivalent of $1.50 to $2 per gallon on fuel, cars would pollute less and America would produce its own energy rather than relying on foreign oil, he said. “There are 26 states that have significant gas shale exploration so the jobs will be spread all over the country. Natural gas is cleaner, cheaper, keeps the world safer, and creates American jobs. So how do we get to that place?” he said.

Both Hickenlooper and Fallin know that CNG vehicles face a classic “chicken-and-egg” quandary: Consumers won’t buy them if they’re too expensive or too inconvenient to refuel. And carmakers won’t build them without adequate demand.

Washington has been unable to adopt a national energy policy, so Fallin, a Republican, and Hickenlooper, a Democrat, are leading a bipartisan commitment by 13 states to purchase thousands of natural gas vehicles for their fleets as both a cost-saving measure and as an incentive for the industry to develop them. With the combined purchasing power of 13 states, Fallin and Hickenlooper hope to create enough momentum to justify the investment as a win-win for everyone.

“Chrysler told us they need to sell several thousand CNG vehicles” to make the investment economically feasible, said Hickenlooper. “To us that seems doable. It does to them, too.”

Oklahoma this year plans to replace about 500 of the vehicles in its aging fleet of more than 11,000 cars and trucks, Fallin said. If every state did the same, the demand would be substantial, she said. Participating states include: Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Utah, Maine, New Mexico, West Virginia, Kentucky, Texas, Ohio, Mississippi and Louisiana.

The timing is right, added Hickenlooper. Many states have delayed their fleet purchases for the last few years because of budget shortfalls. So the pent-up demand is coinciding with the discovery of abundant new sources of natural gas in the United States. “If you can aggregate the demand, we think there will be a large order coming in,” he said. “It’s like a snowball going down a hill: once you get a few states to purchase cars, the costs come down….I don’t think anybody has done this before.”

The governors said they anticipate putting out a multi-state bid for the vehicles within a few weeks through the National Association of State Procurement Officials, which aggregates buying power for states on things like computers and other common purchases. They expect replies within a few months. It could take manufacturers a couple of years to develop the cars.

Aftermarket kits are already available to convert your car to run on natural gas, but so far, very few manufacturers sell factory-built CNG vehicles. Chrysler recently introduced the Ram 2500 heavy duty CNG pickup, and GM will soon start selling natural gas versions of its heavy duty pickups too. “Vehicles such as the Ram 2500 Heavy Duty CNG pickup meet today’s consumer needs without compromising tomorrow’s energy demands,” said Peter Grady, Vice President – Network Development & Fleet, Chrysler Group . “Also, ours is the only factory-built CNG-powered truck and is fully warranted by Chrysler Group.” Honda Motor is the only manufacturer selling a natural gas-powered sedan. So far this year, it has sold about 3,000 CNG-powered Civic compact sedans to fleets and dealers, but only  in limited markets.

According to Hickenlooper, Chrysler provided figures showing that a CNG Ram pickup would cost about $11,000 more than a standard gasoline truck, but the owner would save $20,000 in gasoline over a five-year period, for a net savings of $9,000.

“The United States has an abundant supply of natural gas resources that are currently supporting millions of jobs throughout the country,” said Fallin. “By promoting CNG use, states are supporting the production of an American-made energy source that creates American jobs and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. While Washington struggles to find a coherent energy policy, states are leading the way in promoting cleaner, more affordable, American-made fuel sources.”


Post Your Comment

Please or sign up to comment.


  • fredlinn fredlinn 2 years ago

    ——-” “Chrysler told us they need to sell several thousand CNG vehicles” to make the investment economically feasible, said Hickenlooper. “To us that seems doable. It does to them, too.”———

    Chrysler(owned by Fiat)–already produces the Fiat Siena Tetrafuel. It is made in Brazil for the South American market.

    The Siena can run on petroleum gasoline, gasoline and ethanol mixtures, pure hydrous ethanol, and/or CNG. The Siena has an onboard computer that automatically switches fuels to provide maximum power and economy under varying driving conditions. The computer automatically switches fuel configuration to meet power demands and preferentially use the least expensive fuel.

    The Siena can run indefinitely on petroleum fuel, petroleum mix fuel, or no petroleum at all. There is no problem with infrastructure—simply fill up with whatever is available.

    The Siena has been in manufacture, on sale to consumers and in use on the road since 2007. Demand has been higher than manufacturing ability to keep up.

    The MSRP for the Siena Tetrafuel is about $5,000 less than the similar size Toyota Prius.

    It is not a lack of technology or need for more research that is holding things back.

    Bi-fuel engine vehicles that can run on either petroleum or CNG at the flip of a switch have been around for many years. There are about 14 million on the roads right now.

  • hholme hholme 2 years ago

    “Chrysler provided figures showing that a CNG Ram pickup would cost about $11,000 more than a standard gasoline truck”. To build a methanol compliant tri-flex fuel truck would cost about $200 more than a standard gasoline truck, so CNG costs about 50 times as much extra.


    that would have the manufacturers make tri-flex fuel cars and trucks.

    The transportation market for natural gas is tiny now and can be huge with conversion of natural gas to methanol. The MIT White Paper, “Methanol as an alternative transportation fuel in the US: Options for sustainable and/or energy-secure transportation”
    found methanol “is a liquid fuel which can be blended with gasoline and ethanol and can be used with today’s vehicle technology at minimal incremental cost. THERE ARE NO TECHNICAL HURDLES. . . . . The “methanol economy” in the US has the potential to substantially decrease energy dependence, providing energy security using domestic feedstocks and labor, with substantially lower footprint to the environment ([Green House Gases or] GHG), with a product that seems competitive in the present markets.” At P. 25, that report says, “Assuming that 10% of the gasoline consumed in the US is replaced by methanol (approximately 28 billion gallons of methanol per year), the time to exhaust the proven reserves of . . . natural gas is” 429 years including shale gas.

    Tthe Open Fuel Standard, H.R. 1676, a two-page, bipartisan, bill that is pending in Congress. It would:
    · create hundreds of thousands of jobs in America,

    · not cost the government or taxpayers anything,

    · cut our foreign trade deficit by more than half,

    · stop paying more in monopoly prices to OPEC that have damaged America by $8 Trillion since 1970, even without considering military, strategic and political costs, and

    · reduce some of another half a trillion dollars a year we spend protecting Persian Gulf oil supplies.

    NY Times, Economist, and Wall Street Journal, and Economist articles supporting the Open Fuel Standard are:

    Former Homeland Defense Secretary Tom Ridge and former Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, “The Methanol Alternative to Gasoline.” NY Times Feb. 23, 2012. “Alternative fuels: Difference engine,” The Economist, March 9 2012. Former National Security Advisor Robert MacFarlane, “A Flex-Fuel Mandate is Pro Market,” Wall St. Journal March 2, 2012.

    As a Major Recommendation on P. 127, MIT’s comprehensive report on The Future of Natural Gas
    said, “The U.S. government should implement an open fuel standard that requires automobile manufacturers to provide tri-flex-fuel [methanol, ethanol, or gasoline, or mixtures of them] operation in light-duty vehicles. It should also consider methanol fueling infrastructure subsidies similar to those given to the fueling infrastructure for ethanol.” At P. 11, it said, “Energy density, ease of use and infrastructure considerations make liquid fuels that are stable at room temperature a compelling choice in the Transportation sector. The chemical conversion of natural gas to liquid fuels could provide an attractive alternative to CNG. Several pathways are possible, with different options yielding different outcomes in terms of total system CO2 emissions and cost. Conversion of natural gas to methanol, as widely practiced in the chemicals industry, could provide a cost-effective route to manufacturing an alternative, or supplement, to gasoline, while keeping CO2 emissions at roughly the same level. Gasoline engines can be modified to run on methanol at modest cost.”

    Methanol is a liquid, clean, inexpensive, and potentially domestic, transportation fuel for our new cars that can free us from our dependence on petroleum. Methanol can be America’s “Freedom Fuel.” Brazil reached energy independence with ethanol. China and Europe are already blending methanol into car fuels. One frequent question deals with Compressed Natural Gas or Liquified Natural Gas vehicles (Natural Gas Vehicles or NGV) in comparison with tri-Flex Fuel vehicles ( Gasoline, Ethanol, Methanol) vehicles. Trucks and fleet vehicles may drive enough miles to return the investment for NGV. MIT, and I, do not think non-fleet light duty vehicles will drive enough to return the investment in the expensive tanks necessary for CNG (perhaps $8,000 for a car) or LNG (more than $8,000), while they would quickly pay back the approximately $100-200 for methanol compliant cars. Further, the distribution system would be much easier for methanol than CNG or LNG.

  • Governers Hickenlooper and Fallin’s advocacy of natural gas re. vehicles makes sense….in fact its one of the few noteworthy ideas concerning energy policy. To date, we have drill baby drill and all of the above, neither of which is precise or strategic. I would go a further than the Governor’s and argue that methanol, a natural gas derivative, should also be endorsed as an alternative fuel to gasoline. We need to open up transportation fuel markets, lessen monopolistic conditions, seek an open fuels standard from Congress , and flex fuel automobiles. Hickenlooper and Fallin’s idea is a good start. Marshall Kaplan, Advisofr www.fuelfreedomfoundation.org.

  • eric dexter eric dexter 2 years ago

    methonal is already being used… It is mixed with veg oil for bio-diesel (or you can use ethonal)…. nat gas is only one possible feedstock but it also competes with diesel and the newer low sulfer engines won’t run on as high a percentage. I look for methonal in gasoline to go down…. As far as your alch’s…. you have ethonal, methonal, butinal and I see a company doing iso-butuanol up to 12.5% mix into gasoline. If you advocate it is good to know what you are advocating and what the consequenes are.

  • fredlinn fredlinn 2 years ago

    hholme—-methanol is extremely toxic. Ethanol is not.

    Methanol is can be absorbed by inhalation and skin exposure, ethanol is not absorbed by either route.

    Ingestion of even small amounts of methanol can be extremely damaging—severe gastrointestinal reactions, and bleeding, congestive inflamation and failure of heart and lungs, blindness, convulsions, and CNS depression.

    Ethanol on the other is safe enough to drink—-millions of people do everyday. Ethanol can cause damage of coarse—but it takes intentional exposure over prolonged periods. The types of exposure that would be encountered with ethanol used as a fuel would pose so little risk due to toxicity that it could be classified as non-toxic under those use conditions.

    Since the fuel properties of both methanol and ethanol are very close, the only wise choice for use as a fuel would be ethanol from a safety, handling and public health viewpoint.

  • I wouldnt want to drink or eat gasoline, natural gas, methanol, ethanol ….but managed carefullly by consumer, distributer and producer, all four are safe…as are batteries with lithium etc….we need to open up the gas market, now restricted by monopolistic conditions and offer choices to consumer….better for environment, better for price point, better for economy….anyhow I appreciate your willingness to do battle. Hope we meet…sometime. perhaps on a panel….keep thinking ….M

  • Most recent analysis by independent anaylsts (respected MIT faculty etc) note the safety of methanol. fred linn should look at numerous blogs on www.fuelfreedom.org summarizing safety issues concerning methanol reported by independent researchers. Methanol is safer and cleaner ( and cheaper) than gasoline. Folks writing about methanol being unsafe many times seem to come from oil and auto industry or supported by industry. anyhow I welcome Fredlinn’s comments. I believe the governors are on the right track. Use of Natural gas as a transportation fuel and its derivative, methanol, are ideas whose time has come. We should urge congress to pass an open fuel standard, reduce monopolistic conditions in the gasoline market, opt for flex fuel autos and flex fuels ( ethanol, methanol, natural gas, gasoline etc. Let the consumer choose. Simultaneous we should continue to support research and use of batteries. Regrettably at the presdent time , they are too costly, to large, and to limited as to mileage to be competitive. M

  • fredlinn fredlinn 2 years ago

    ———-” Folks writing about methanol being unsafe many times seem to come from oil and auto industry or supported by industry.”———-

    Wrong, I work in the health care field. I am a Registered Respiratory Therapist and a Certified Cardiopulmonary Technologist. I keep lungs breathing and hearts beating—-mainly in Emergency Room and Intensive Care Unit settings. My job is keeping people alive.

    I don’t care how big you are, a dose of as little as 10cc(about one tablespoon) of methanol can kill you.

    Methane, CH4,(natural gas) is biologically inert. It is not taken up or utilized in the metabolic pathways of your cells. About the only toxic danger of CH4 is oxygen displacement by accumulation. This can only happen in an enclosed environment—-methane is lighter than air. In an accidental release, with nothing to hold the methane in place, it would simply disperse harmlessly into the atmosphere. Even if you breathe some in, it is not absorbed by the body. In open conditions, the methane would quickly an harmlessly disperse in the atmosphere. Unlike petroleum fuels, that break down into VOCs(volitile organic compounds) that are quickly absorbed by inhalation or skin contact, and are extremely toxic and persistant due to liquid evaporation.

    Methane has a very narrow range of combustion. Methane will only support combustion between 6% to 14% mix with air—-11% being the ideal mix. Any mixture outside of the 6-14% range will not ignite. Petroleum fuels can ignite so long as any liquids remain—-and the fumes are heavier than air, they can settle into low places causing explosion hazards.

    Both methane and ethanol, are FAR safer to use, handle and be exposed to than either methanol or petroleum.

  • glad your from the health field. I respect your comments. But, I cannot but help believe that the preponderance of evidence from independence studies suggest that methanol is safe, environmentally better than gasoline and its cheaper….I will tell you what. I will look at the data once again, if you will look at the summaries in www.fuelfreedom.org and the cited studies concering safety in Over a Barrel. Is it a deal?

  • Hi…I really appreciated your thoughtful comments and since I am concerned with the safety issue of all fuels…here is a quote from the MIT study by Bromberg and Cheng (sept 27, 2010). “It is a safe fuel. The Toxicity (mortality) is comaprable to or better than gasoline. It also biodegrades quickly (compared to petroleum fuels) in case of a spill…” Later, methanol is being used “and has been widely used as windshield washer fluid without any major concernn…In the california test, with over 200 million miles of driving, there was not a single case of accidental metthanol poisoning.” there are other studies of this sort. Methanol also has a high combustability level.

    I think we can both agree given a review of safety issues associated with all fuels that methanol , like other fuels, is safe if managed correctly by consumers. And there are enviornmental and cost issues…that favor its use as a blend with gasoline. Natural gas is itself a welcome fuel, but at present time engine costs are rrelatively high. again thanks for your comments.

  • fredlinn fredlinn 2 years ago

    ——-” “It is a safe fuel. The Toxicity (mortality) is comaprable to or better than gasoline. “———

    Gasoline is also highly toxic if you drink it. Comparing methanol to gasoline and declaring it safe is false. Both are toxic. With the added toxicity factor that methanol is missible in water—–spill metanol in a water supply and the entire water table is rendered toxic.

    Methanol should not be used in windshield fluids either. Ethanol does exactly the same thing(melts ice) and is not toxic.

    ——-” It also biodegrades quickly (compared to petroleum fuels) in case of a spill…” ——-

    That is true, it does degrade faster than petroleum(which only degrades to a point—-residuals can persist for years(how long are you going to have to wait to get grass to grow on an asphalt paved parking lot?).

    However, since methanol is missible in water, spills can be even more dangerous than petroleum—-depending on the size of the spill and the use of the water it is spilled in.

    Even at low concentrations, methanol can make you blind. Methanol(wood alcohol) used to be added to fuel ethanol in very small amounts to produce “denatured alcohol” for use as a fuel and render it unsuitable for drinking. Look at a label for denatured alcohol—it can cause blindness. Denatured alcohol is intentionally poisoned with methanol.

    Is that something you want to get into your drinking water?

    Ethanol has all of the desireable fuel properties(or better) of methanol and none of the toxicity problems. Why on earth would we want to use methanol?

    We’ve been using ethanol as a motor fuel for well over a century. The first internal combustion engine that Henry Ford built ran on ethanol. The first internal combustion engine, invented and built by Nicolas Otto, ran on camphene—-lamp oil. Camphene is mostly ethanol with the addition of a small amount of turpentine to color the flame and give more light, since ethanol itself burns with an almost invisible blue flame.

    The fastest, most advanced race cars in the world run exclusively on ethanol fuels—the Indy League Racing Circuit. Indy racers run on 100% ethanol—and have for the last 49 years. Indy racers use ethanol fuel because it is far safer to use and handle than methanol.

  • JTomBailey JTomBailey 2 years ago

    The largest single switch to NG that would have the biggest impact on our oil consumption is our 8 million heavy 18 wheeler rigs.

    These rigs burn Diesel fuel (a less processed product of oil) which also creates more polution.
    These rigs log in thousands of miles in a month.

    Many are switching Large fleets over. We are moving to independance – but slowly.

  • Dave B Dave B 2 years ago

    A little over a year ago I bought a dedicated CNG Ford F150 with low miles from a government agency. Took me 8 months to get a new Civic CNG. Don’t tell me there is no demand. Of course this is California where we have more fueling stations than most if not all states. The Civic cost me $10,000 over a regular one which I have no hope of recouping, however, I do save $8 for every 200 miles or so. That will recoup me about $4000 over 100k miles. My point is I did it on principal. First to stop sending $$ every week to unfriendly nations and 2nd to dramatically (10 times less) reduce polluting the air. Why cant our leaders do it for the same reasons and oh yeah, our national security!!!