Chevrolet To Offer CNG-Powered Impala

I think in NZ, like Australia some other countries we used LPG. There is a significant difference between CNG and LPG. Don't confuse the two. The problem with the storage of compressed natural gas is the pressures involved to make it viable for endurance and its still not viable economically. The necessary accumulators for storage are extremely expensive and will always be so. Liquid petroleum gas or propane can be stored in liquid form. This is the gas that is better suited for the motor vehicle industry. Even LPG required large containment vessel, but CNG required very large, expensive containment vessels. CNG will have to be subsidised on a continuing basis to make it cost effective. Since it requires subsidisation it shouldn't even be considered as an economic form of energy for vehicles. Natural gas should be used as a greener replacement energy for power generation, domestic and industrial applications. Like I've stated massive amounts of money are wasted on EVs, hybrids, solar, wind, tidal, etc form of energy production and supply. America can't afford more subsidised industry. Someone is paying for these pie in the sky dreams and wastes of money. We have the same type of mentality here in Australia.

@Big Al from Oz I would hardly confuse ethane, butane and propane with methane. The first three are almost everywhere and most of the time more valuable and useful as petrochemical feedstocks than as motor fuel. Some people burn propane as cooking fuel (or even for space heating) in specialized situations. CNG is almost 100% methane, made from natural gas processed to strip out almost all ethane, butane and propane plus SO2 and other nasty impurities. Methane can substitute for oil as a refinery fuel, for space heating, as a fuel for generating electricity, as a heat source fuel in the petrochemical and a few other industries, plus in a some other stationary applications. Substituting for oil in the transportation sector (as in CNG) isn't a very big deal. Also, you might want to audit a first year economics course sometime and learn what an 'externality' is. No point in staying ignorant.

@jimbob457 "externality" You had better learn the most basic of economics! High School stuff, do you know about compound interest? :-) It's called profit and loss. Europe, US, Japan and many other countries have adopted carbon crap and other wasteful 'externality' programs and project. Guess what? They are broke. So your externality projects will reduce pollution by destroying an economy. Removing those wasteful windmills, EVs, Hybrids, Solar panels, etc and using the government subsidised money for infrastructure is called "investment". Investment is another word for gamble. As an economist I suppose you realise there are only 2 ways to make money. Creating something that doesn't exist (infrastructure) and investment (pie in the sky gambles similar to the examples I mentioned the above paragraph). Now creating a gas pipeline infrastructure will reduce greenhouse gases, create investment into future and large gas projects. Reduce the cost of energy to a wider audience in the US. Which means more people will be able to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint. So, you have creation and investment in one. And its a sure fire profit making venture. No negatives. The US would be greener and better if a more comprehensive CNG gas infrastructure was in place for all to use. No, I think you are a Wall St Greenie. The worst type, I bet you supported Solydra and all of the other loss making ventures. Look at all of these fantastic economies that are encouraging externality programs, carbon trading. In Australia we are dumping it, because it is wasteful. Creating regulation to create a new market is inefficient as the money wasted in that market can be of more benefit spent in a wiser fashion.

@Big Al from Oz Here in Texas, we have an old saying that applies to guys like you: "Buy 'em books and buy 'em books, and all they do is eat the covers."

@Big Al from Oz "Other wasteful externality programs?" Are you suggesting that fossil fuels don't produce external costs? Are you suggesting that the people who burn the most fossil fuels should be able to dump whatever external costs there are on the people who burn little just because they can? True free market economists would try to internalize the costs to reach an efficient production level. I'm struggling to find a civil name for the folks who either pretend the external costs don't exist or don't give a sh*t.

@Big Al from Oz Exactly. You wanna talk about 'externalities'? How about nukes? And I LIKE nukes. You just have to be realistic as possible about the risks. The San Onofre plant (and a few others) make me nervous. What happened at Fukiyama was just another wake up call. What could possibly go wrong? Earthquake. Tsunami. Maybe some idiot workman forgets and leaves a lit candle in some gloomy passageway? I dunno? Maybe my ex-wife will go on a rampage?

@jimbob457 & Conslaw I have never mentioned that. What I stated is the current method of resolving those problems could be better dealt with. Governments are pandering to lobby groups ie, auto industry, energy, greenies, etc to create policy for votes. These are inefficient and costly. Industries come and industries go. Let the older industries die and new ones develop. How many candlestick makers are their in your town? As for the 'less developed' economies that are adopting these 'greener' measures. Well look at it from an economic perspective instead of a subjective point of view. These economies don't have the polluting infrastructure we have in place. They are more or less starting with a clean sheet. So they naturally will have a much more efficient and less polluting economy, ie, use less energy and greener energy. In 100 years these 'lesser developed' economies will be confronted with the problems the mainly OECD economies are confronted with now. But hopefully they don't make the same mistakes we are making by giving in the interest groups to pretend we are doing something positive about pollutants. Infrastructure is needed to change the way we live. Taxes and carbon credits etc are only keeping unviable industry alive. If the US was serious about the levels of pollutants it would be chasing fuel taxes to reduce consumption. This would mean smaller vehicles. But can Detroit manage this? The energy industry needs infrastructure, can the US still have cheap energy if the energy infrastructure in the US is updated and modernised? It cost money. The money wasted on these bull$hit schemes only takes money away from where it's truly required. Nuclear energy is great and probably does less damage to the environment than any other form of energy.

@big Al Welcome to the real world. Grow up. Your kindergarten verities are mostly true, but they are only a starting place. Real players know so much more. In my world, you can't even get invited to play unless you get way beyond your level.

Thanks for posting that link. Once again, you've proven that you don't understand most of what you read. UNECE regulates the design of auto components. It doesn't deal with average vehicle fuel economy or greenhouse gas emissions within individual countries. They're separate matters. "maybe one day you can have a discussion with me at my level." If I had to stoop that low, I'd be lying on my stomach as I typed this.