It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pennsylvania Set To Dole Out $20 Million For Natural Gas-Fueled Vehicles

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:32 PM
Was watching my local news tonight when I caught wind of this story in my home state of Pennsylvania. It's an interesting idea to me, as an alternative to gasoline and diesel powered engines. A few excerpts from the website:

The new impact fee law, Act 13, provides $20 million in grants for purchasing natural gas-fueled vehicles, or converting cars and trucks so they run on compressed natural gas, or CNG.

DEP has set up a website with information about the grant program. The portal says the agency will hold forums on natural gas-fueled vehicles over the coming months. Governor Corbett has said that Pennsylvania will do everything it can to expand the market for natural gas consumption. Putting more CNG-powered cars on the roads is part of that plan. Corbett told a Philadelphia radio station last month that he wants to, “start con­vert­ing the fleets of cars…to nat­ural gas vehi­cles. …So that [drillers] have a mar­ket so they can go to Detroit to get Detroit to start build­ing the vehicles.”

Original article can be found here:

An interesting idea in my mind, as I am just learning about this. Anything in my mind that pulls us away from foreign oil and dependence on thereof, I am a proponent for. This is only the start of such a program, as it would take a good length of time to make this something standard for the state, but it's a move in a different direction at least. What do other ATS'ers think?

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:34 PM
Any idea if natural gas fueled cars have lower emissions than gasoline or diesel? This isn't a loaded question,
I'm actually curious.

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:40 PM
I found a site that articles the kinds of emissions compressed natural gas engines give off. It states that it burns cleaner and aids in lower tailpipe emissions overall. From the site:

Natural gas burns cleaner than conventional gasoline or diesel due to its lower carbon content. When used as a vehicle fuel, it can offer life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions benefits over conventional fuels, depending on vehicle type, drive cycle, and engine calibration. In addition, using natural gas may reduce some types of tailpipe emissions.

Site source:

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:42 PM
edit.. Beat me to it op.
edit on 12/3/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:45 PM
Nice!! Sounds ok to me then.

I'm guessing the downside is the fracking to get to Natural Gas, or at least to some of it.

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:50 PM
A star for the OP...and good for Corbett (and the other PA pols who are supporting this). Maybe for once some PROGRESS and economic good will come out of Harrisburg.

I live in SW PA...Marcellus Shale (and Utica Shale in OH) can make the US ENERGY INDEPENDENT within a few short years...we have several hundred years of gas, shale, and oil. Refineries and pipeline will NEED to be built (bringing back the speciality steel industry and fabricating mills)...this means jobs, job, jobs...the trick will be keeping the Obama EPA OUT of PA, OH, and WV (upstate NY is a lost political cause).

The draconian Obama EPA has destroyed thousands of jobs the the "War on Coal." Look what they did with the Keystone Pipeline. What is happening in the "rust belt" is real, needed, safe (fracking has been done for over 60'years...SW PA is pretty solid bedrock) and CHEAP. Compare the 20 mil to be spent here on CNG to Solyndra, LightSquared, etc. and you get a pretty clear picture of how natural gas IS the real "green industry."

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:12 PM
I am from SW Pennsylvania as well; I see this as not a bad alternative to fossil fuels. The frakking to get to some of it though as a previous poster stated, I am not a major fan of either to be honest.

top topics


log in