Arguments for natural gas

Steven Scarpetta

is an energy analyst in Scranton

One of the most frustrating facts about energy in our country is that we have the technology and the resources to significantly cut our vehicles' carbon dioxide emissions, but we lag on implementing changes. Due to a lack of infrastructure, we remain stalled on converting vehicles to natural gas, wasting money and hurting the environment.

In terms of technology, trucks, buses, and cars that run on compressed natural gas already exist and, although initially more expensive than their diesel and gasoline counterparts, they pay for themselves rapidly. In terms of resources, consider the pockets of natural gas in our country, specifically the Marcellus Shale deposit, one of the largest in the world. The missing piece is infrastructure, the fueling stations needed to make conversion to natural gas a reality, which are currently limited by cost and lack of demand.

Pennsylvania and other state and local governments have invested significant amounts of money in nearly every other form of alternative energy (wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels). Most were poor investments. None of these sources of energy can hold a candle to the potential of natural gas. A glaring example of careless government spending was the conversion of buses in San Francisco to biodiesel hybrid fuels. "Biofuels" are made from corn, which is made by water, seed, and fertilizer (all of which require money and energy to pump, transport, and create). Take that corn, add even more energy, and you have just the "biofuel" part of that hybrid. Bad move on the fuel side, but they were on the right track in terms of a starting point.

If you begin an alternative fuel strategy with fleet vehicles - shuttles, buses, taxis, trucks - the revolution can extend from the municipal to the commercial level, and then to the common man. Once fueling stations are in place, investors will have an incentive to create additional infrastructure, as the frequency of alternative-fuel vehicles increases and extends geographically. Given that Pennsylvania and the United States have shelled out for wind, solar, and corn, it makes even more sense for them to further invest in natural-gas infrastructure. This would not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil and give Mother Earth a breather; it would also create jobs.

The Glastein Job Calculator predicts 1.6 "direct" jobs for every natural-gas truck. Clean fuel technology jobs can be related to vehicles (production, training, service, and operation), stations, or facilities. In terms of "indirect" jobs, include anyone investing in the alternative-fuel network. These employment opportunities are not time-specific or static; growth would continue with the expansion of the network.

The argument for natural gas as the future of transportation fuel has already been decided:

It emits 30 percent less carbon dioxide than diesel and gasoline. Period.

It's selling at about $2 per DGE (diesel gallon equivalent). Period.

Pennsylvania has one of the largest deposits of natural gas in the world. Period.

As the policies on extracting and processing natural gas are sorted out, lawmakers, taxpayers, and voters must focus on how to make the transition, not if. Billions in tax revenue and tens of thousands of Pennsylvania jobs depend on it.