Burning natural gas is less harmful than burning coal, sure. Some of the methods used to extract the "new vast deposits" of natural gas (which we've known about for decades, they're only just now economical to collect) are iffy, however. Fracking basically involves sandblasting the shale bedrock and dissolving it with harsh chemicals to release the natural gas trapped underneath. The gas will rise to the surface for collection, however it's not the only thing in the ground. Other, heavier materials are also trapped in the shale and will seep into the groundwater when released.
We don't know the long term effects fracking will have as it releases unknown levels of toxins like lead and arsenic into rural wells, not to mention the chemicals introduced by the process itself. We can't expect the companies mining the gas to finance the cleanup, either... not because they shouldn't have to, but because they won't. Already the EPA is being cockblocked in its efforts to institute water testing. [link]
"Cockblocked"? The companies aren't volunteering to do something that would open them up to lawsuits even if the tests are favorable. (And I don't mean the companies in general, I mean the specific company that cooperated; other companies could delay action until legislation or the EPA forced it.) They'd be morons to volunteer.
no, to name 1 style is the adams motor/generator, hummingbird/sundance generator, there r a few more but i am currently away from my references. the key point in most of them is they run so efficiently that they only use a fraction of the energy they produce once they get up to speed.
They said they have found new vast deposits of natural gas and the car makers are rushing to get Natural Gas powered autos out. They say use gas, it's cheaper but our gas bills are more than our electric bills. If they put a drain on Natural Gas the prices will not be cheaper coal which is unfortunate seeing as how dirty coal is.