Sam, I’m not arguing in favor of this proposal for wind generation. I see the same issues that you outline so well. However, I would like to explore further the possibility of CNG as a bridge to some (undetermined) alternative technology. (My preference inclines toward nuclear. Just sayin’…)
I may be mistaken (we don’t have any underground anythings here in Florida) but my memory of restrictions on CNG vehicles in other parts of the US had to do with tanks for accessory uses, like those on recreational vehicles. CNG or LP is commonly used for stoves, refrigerators, etc. These may indeed have problems with leaks, and my RV trip planner makes mention of restrictions in certain instances. But I do not recall any restrictions on vehicles actually powered by CNG, except for a couple of tunnels, where any and all high pressure tanks of any kind are prohibited. I recall being surprised myself, that this was considered to be such a safe and stable technology that any vehicle, including highly regulated school buses of all things, could easily retrofit approved systems.
And CNG or LP burning forklifts and such are exceedingly common in enclosed spaces like factories and warehouses. So I don’t think leaks would be an insurmountable problem. Please tell me if this is wrong.
The biggest problem with my fleet use was zoning restrictions on placement of large tanks to service the fleet. The city fathers of my own small town back then would not allow me to have a supply tank for my bus fleet. But the unincorporated county all around me would allow propane supply tanks at virtually any gas station or BBQ supply store. Our biggest problem in not having our own supply tank at our shop was fitting school buses into retail establishments intended for cars. And filling them up next to the BBQ tanks. We got some real strange looks!
To incorporate widespread automotive use of CNG we wouldn’t need to build any additional refinery capacity, as we would if we drill for more oil. (Let us not here debate the separate issues of the amount of petroleum that may or may not actually be available for new drilling. Or the time scale required for exploration, drilling, and refining to have any impact.) CNG does not require anything like the same kind of refinery technology as petroleum, and much CNG is already produced as a by-product of oil production.
(Much, in fact, is wasted in burn-off flares. And we also need not visit the possibility for bio-generation of such gases, as from landfills and/or co-generation power plants. These are tangential.)
Vehicle retrofit for CNG/LP dual fuel (think of it as a gasoline / CNG hybrid!) can be done on almost any gasoline burning vehicle for well under $1,000. Increased demand would probably lower the unit price, and either direct or indirect subsidies could be used to help encourage the changeover. This seems a perfectly acceptable price for the average consumer to pay on any relatively late model car, if it would free him/her from total reliance on gasoline. It might allow retention of a vehicle that otherwise would have to be traded in for a newer, more expensive, probably smaller, and definitely scarce and hard to obtain hybrid of some other kind. And it might allow Detroit to continue selling vehicles manufactured with existing tools and dies (assuming some small additional tooling for those carb plates and tanks) without closing whole plants for a complete change. I note that this changeover in manufacturing ability is being envisioned as possible bankruptcy for some of our auto manufacturers. This by itself might make CNG worthwhile. (Not that I’m a great protectionist for the auto industry-- but given the sad state of the economy, throwing a few hundred thousand more people out of work is likely not a really good thing just now.)
CNG/LP would require some additional production, and additional transportation, storage, and delivery infrastructure. But nothing like the kind of investment that would be needed to bring on, say, hydrogen fuel. As I noted above, CNG/LP is already widely available, albeit in quantities more suited to BBQs than vehicles. Still, simply ramping up the capacity and/or delivery frequency cannot be nearly as difficult and expensive as the totally different technology needed to produce and supply liquified hydrogen.
Big question seems to be, is there sufficient domestic reserve natural gas to replace a significant fraction (say 20 or more percent as a minimum) of our present highway consumption of imported petroleum?
Price point way back when (my experience in the 70s) made CNG very attractive versus gasoline. I do not know what the market is today. Nor can I predict what a high new demand might do to the price of CNG. That just isn’t my area of expertise. But it seems that, if the short term economics were even close to balanced, this would be a swift, comparatively cheap, and relatively simple way to dramatically reduce oil use almost immediately without requiring questionable and problematic breakthroughs in new technology, or exceedingly high initial deployment costs. (Cheap, light weight, high capacity batteries, anyone? Perhaps a fuel cell that actually produces more energy than manufacturing it requires? Or maybe you’ve got a pocket fusion generator coming out for the Fall lineup.) It would not be a cure, but it may provide the time needed to properly develop and widely deploy some more permanent alternative technology.
