In an interview with the Dallas Morning News, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, said that he doesn’t think using compressed natural gas (CNG) in vehicles makes much sense.
While he sees a dramatically increasing demand for CNG in other applications such as centralized power generation, he said that it takes such a huge investment to convert fueling stations and cars (especially long haul trucks) over to CNG, that it just doesn’t pencil out.
Tillerson did remark that CNG makes sense for large fleet use where all the vehicles get refilled at a central, privately-owned station. But for long-haul truckers and daily drivers, the infrastructure in this country would require such a huge overhaul that he just “can’t make the math work on why anybody would do that” with each fueling station needing perhaps $1 million dollars in investment.
While he sees very little reason for growth in the vehicle CNG sector, Exxon has invested billions of dollars in its natural gas operations in expectation of high demand for much cleaner burning natural gas power plants.
What’s funny about Tillerson’s comments on why CNG will never work for vehicles is that the same argument could be applied to hydrogen. Although hydrogen has been heavily touted by the reigning oil industry as a way to make our transportation sector zero emissions, the sheer size of investment and infrastructure improvements needed to pull that off would make a natural gas infrastructure seem like child’s play.
So, is even the oil industry now getting realistic about our transportation future? By wisely acknowledging that batteries are the way of the future and that the demand for their products will come in the form of increased need for cleaner power generation, the oil industry seem to be reaching a new consensus.
Source: Dallas Morning News
Image Credit: ecastro’s Flickr photostream. Used under a Creative Commons License.
PDF 
Thats why they don’t use cng in Utah. It’s just too expensive to convert all the gas stations. Obama can certainly cure cancer, but even he couldn’t scrape up the money to ‘convert all the gas stations’. In fact, CNG won’t even work in cars. It’s been tried- Exxon tried to do it, just for consumers. But it didn’t work. So just keep using gasoline, and please stop asking about this.
Thats why they don’t use cng in Utah. It’s just too expensive to convert all the gas stations. Obama can certainly cure cancer, but even he couldn’t scrape up the money to ‘convert all the gas stations’. In fact, CNG won’t even work in cars. It’s been tried- Exxon tried to do it, just for consumers. But it didn’t work. So just keep using gasoline, and please stop asking about this.
Thats why they don’t use cng in Utah. It’s just too expensive to convert all the gas stations. Obama can certainly cure cancer, but even he couldn’t scrape up the money to ‘convert all the gas stations’. In fact, CNG won’t even work in cars. It’s been tried- Exxon tried to do it, just for consumers. But it didn’t work. So just keep using gasoline, and please stop asking about this.
I always love the massive amounts of money to change the infrastructure argument.
Unlike Petrol, which requires vehicular transportation to get to the end point user, natural gas is use heating and cooking throughout a good portion of the US being piped straight into the homes. For the infrastructure change in those area all the is required is larger piping from the local lines, a temporary higher compression liquid storage cylinder and new pumps.
The same could be done with hydrogen with the addition of a reformer from the natural gas line.
In both situations eliminating the need for truck transportation of the needed fuel and the traffic and pollution they create in turn. Making the whole infrastructure change issue a mote argument.
I always love the massive amounts of money to change the infrastructure argument.
Unlike Petrol, which requires vehicular transportation to get to the end point user, natural gas is use heating and cooking throughout a good portion of the US being piped straight into the homes. For the infrastructure change in those area all the is required is larger piping from the local lines, a temporary higher compression liquid storage cylinder and new pumps.
The same could be done with hydrogen with the addition of a reformer from the natural gas line.
In both situations eliminating the need for truck transportation of the needed fuel and the traffic and pollution they create in turn. Making the whole infrastructure change issue a mote argument.
I always love the massive amounts of money to change the infrastructure argument.
Unlike Petrol, which requires vehicular transportation to get to the end point user, natural gas is use heating and cooking throughout a good portion of the US being piped straight into the homes. For the infrastructure change in those area all the is required is larger piping from the local lines, a temporary higher compression liquid storage cylinder and new pumps.
The same could be done with hydrogen with the addition of a reformer from the natural gas line.
In both situations eliminating the need for truck transportation of the needed fuel and the traffic and pollution they create in turn. Making the whole infrastructure change issue a mote argument.
I don’t get it…We have been using cng for transportation in Europe for years…What’s theproblem???
I don’t get it…We have been using cng for transportation in Europe for years…What’s theproblem???
Elsewhere in the world: has been done for decades. In the US: not feasible? Give your head a shake.
Elsewhere in the world: has been done for decades. In the US: not feasible? Give your head a shake.
I love the clever link between the CNG infrastructure argument and the big oil promoted hydrogen hoax. Since most hydrogen is produced by splitting up natural gas the hydrogen route would still mean driving on natural gas BTW. Only a lot less efficient and with infinitely higher infrastructure cost.
I love the clever link between the CNG infrastructure argument and the big oil promoted hydrogen hoax. Since most hydrogen is produced by splitting up natural gas the hydrogen route would still mean driving on natural gas BTW. Only a lot less efficient and with infinitely higher infrastructure cost.
I love the clever link between the CNG infrastructure argument and the big oil promoted hydrogen hoax. Since most hydrogen is produced by splitting up natural gas the hydrogen route would still mean driving on natural gas BTW. Only a lot less efficient and with infinitely higher infrastructure cost.
No infrastructure needed… Anyone with a pipe into his business can now compete with the corner gas station.. no big underground tanks.. etc..
You can even pump the CNG from your home,,, Big oil is behind keeping this a secret