Washington D.C. – Mark P. Mills, a prominent energy expert and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, recently asserted the technical and economic viability of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles, particularly for larger applications. In a social media post, Mills highlighted the inherent advantages of these vehicles, while simultaneously criticizing what he termed the “anti-hydrocarbon lobby” for its perceived opposition to natural gas.
"You are 💯 right - CNG vehicles are technically and economically sensible, especially large vehicles. But the anti-hydrocarbon lobby has never liked more Nat Gas," Mills stated in his tweet.
Mills, who also serves as the executive director of the National Center for Energy Analytics and has a background in physics and White House science policy under President Reagan, is a well-known advocate for hydrocarbon-based energy solutions. His work often emphasizes the practicalities and economic realities of energy transitions, frequently challenging narratives that he views as overly optimistic about renewable energy's immediate capabilities. He has authored several books on energy and technology, including "The Cloud Revolution."
CNG vehicles offer significant benefits, including lower fuel costs compared to gasoline or diesel and reduced emissions of pollutants like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter. For heavy-duty vehicles such as buses and trucks, the economic advantages are particularly pronounced due to high fuel consumption. Many municipalities and commercial fleets globally have adopted CNG, citing its environmental benefits and operational cost savings.
Despite these advantages, the adoption of natural gas as a transportation fuel faces hurdles, including the need for specialized fueling infrastructure and higher upfront vehicle costs. The "anti-hydrocarbon lobby," as described by Mills, represents a broad coalition of environmental groups and policymakers advocating for a rapid transition away from all fossil fuels, including natural gas, due to concerns over greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. These groups often argue that natural gas, while cleaner than coal, is still a fossil fuel and its continued use delays the necessary shift to fully renewable energy sources.
The debate over natural gas's role in the energy transition is complex. Proponents, often from within the energy industry, view natural gas as a crucial "bridge fuel" to a cleaner energy future, offering a lower-carbon alternative to coal and providing grid stability. Opponents, however, contend that investing in new natural gas infrastructure locks in fossil fuel dependence for decades, hindering climate goals. This ongoing tension shapes policy decisions and public perception regarding the future of energy and transportation.