US Wants Natural Gas As Major Auto Fuel Option 377
coondoggie writes "Natural gas has never been much of an option for U.S. car drivers, and it's going to take a lot of effort by the government and auto manufacturers to make it a viable alternative to gas. But that's just what a $10 million program from the Department of Energy's advanced project development group The Advanced Research Projects Agency — Energy (ARPA-E) aims to start anyway. ARPA-E's Methane Opportunities for Vehicular Energy (MOVE) program wants to develop a system 'that could enable natural gas vehicles with on-board storage and at-home refueling with a five-year payback or upfront cost differential of $2,000, which excludes the balance of system and installation costs.'"
I should've kept all my Strickland Propane shares! (Score:3, Funny)
the car propane conversion kit is (Score:2)
the car propane conversion kit is as well as the tanks.
JOE JACK will help up.
Re: (Score:3)
You can buy NG futures instead. They are almost giving the stuff away at the moment.
You'd have to hate money to do this. Where I live in South Central Texas they are drilling wells and then capping them in anticipation of any rise in price. The supply that can come online in reaction to any rise in price will immediately bring it back down.
Re: (Score:3)
They are cutting production at the moment.
e.g.
http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/blog/2012/01/chesapeake-cutting-natural-gas.html [bizjournals.com]
Prices will hit bottom round about now. Sure they'll re-open wells but only as a result of demand.
Oh Frack! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh Frack! (Score:5, Informative)
CNG vehicles have been around forever, and fill up stations are somewhat common.
Getting people used to the idea of automotive fuels OTHER than gasoline, and the infrastructures to support it is an overall good thing, regardless of the fuel source. If you can convince the populace at large that 2-3 vehicle fuel sources are commonly available and easy to use, then it's less difficult to get another fuel source (say electricity or fuel cells) into the mix.
Re: (Score:3)
There's another benefit as well - when the cheap oil supplies run out - the economy won't crash. So much of our lives are powered by oi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Honda Civic GX has a range of about 200 miles on it's 8 "gallon" natural gas tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_GX [wikipedia.org]
Natural gas is a much better option than electric due to the ability to refuel on a road trip, or at home.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. The city buses in Atlanta run on CNG and go a lot further than 20 miles on a fillup.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm still not convinced fracking need be so bad.
It sounds like there are ways to use non-toxic chemicals (they just choose to use toxic chemicals). The earthquake risk seems minimal. Fracking is probably better than alternative energy sources such as mountain-top removal- but not as good as green sources.
I think currently the whole debate between fracking and not-fracking seems to be between overly sensitive tree-huggers who think we should stop all fossil fuel over night- and those in the energy industry
Re: (Score:2)
Should say:
Apples to apples- it's Probably still cleaner than other fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem has nothing to do with that (no matter what kind of fossil fuel you use, there will always be a con for the environment)
The biggest problem, in my view, is that when cars start demanding lots and lots of natural gas to run, the prices will skyrocket - which in turn will make using Natural Gas for any other thing extremely hard.
This is a bad, bad, bad idea.
Oil and NG will experience demand, but NG domestic (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest problem, in my view, is that when cars start demanding lots and lots of natural gas to run, the prices will skyrocket - which in turn will make using Natural Gas for any other thing extremely hard.
Demand for natural gas is not really a major problem. Oil is at peak production and demand is predicted to skyrocket as China, India and various other countries continue to grow their middle class. So the next best (as in what we could use with *existing* technology) alternative has the same problem.
The advantage of natural gas is really that it is a domestic source that can last for quite a while. It could be the bridge that we need to get us through the decades of research and development that solar, wind, tidal, etc still needs. It keeps the money spent on fuel in the US. That is not just jobs but national security as well.
Better (minor) damage to env. than pay terrorists (Score:5, Interesting)
I would rather have (minor) damage to the environment than to continue to pay Hundreds of Billions of dollars a year to people who hate our guts and will kill after we (inadvertently) burn some of their holy books (despite our president's gracious apology).
From what I've read, the environmental damage is "minor; some low level seismic activity and perhaps some pollution of water supplies. So charge a little more for the natural gas coming out of these rural (low population density) communities and pay for piped in water or buy them out.
When you compare the TREMENDOUS costs our reliance on oil from the middle-east costs us (two wars, huge standing forces in bases all throughout that region, alliance with ethically dubious regimes) IN ADDITION TO the outrageous price we are paying for the oil, these minor concerns are nothing. (Remember all those jobs, money, infrastructure and technology developed will go right here in the old US of A). Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Also, natural gas is (much?) more carbon "lite" than Crude Oil.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, I don't think ExxonMobil, Shell, BP et al. hate your guts as such. I think they're just happy to take your money, and don't want to pay for the physical and economic costs they've managed to externalise over the past 100 years or so.
And I don't think
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I would rather have (minor) damage to the environment than to continue to pay Hundreds of Billions of dollars a year to people who hate our guts and will kill after we (inadvertently) burn some of their holy books (despite our president's gracious apology)..
I didn't realize Canadians hated us so much. It would be helpful if you actually knew where our oil comes from, the largest exporter of oil to the US is Canada, followed by Mexico. If we spent all the money we do on our "oil wars" on renewable technology we wouldn't be so worried about oil exports. It's not about oil, it's about making men rich, oil is just a means to an end.
Re: (Score:3)
continue to pay Hundreds of Billions of dollars a year to people who hate our guts and will kill after we (inadvertently) burn some of their holy books (despite our president's gracious apology).
Are you F**CKING kidding me? They don't hate our guts for burning a holy book. They hate our guts for killing their civilians by automated drones. As far as I know, our president has not yet to apologized for any of the civilians killed by the unmanned drones.
Re: (Score:3)
The environmental risks are worth talking about, but there's something even worse that isn't getting attention: the lifetime of a fracked well.
Fracking is far more expensive than traditional drilling, but once a well is fracked, its gas output drops off *very* rapidly. The best sources I've found show it drops off exponentially with a half-life of around a *year*, two at the most.
The wells are petering out almost as soon as the drillers move to the next drill site, but they're drilling exponentially more w
Re: (Score:2)
is this a good idea?
Probably not. But when a junkie needs his fix, he NEEDS his fix.
Re:Oh Frack! (Score:5, Insightful)
Better idea - nuke plants. FAR better track record in North America than hydraulic fracturing.
Re: (Score:3)
In cars? Battery rapid charging and cost isn't anywhere near ready.
We're taking fuel here, not energy production.
Re: (Score:3)
What do batteries have to do with it? Put the reactor in the car. Refuel once every few years.
Okay, still a few details to work out, but....
Re: (Score:2)
This just in! Emergency responders must now be certified to work near nuclear equipment!
Re: (Score:2)
What? Methane cars and buses are quite common, and have been for years.
Re: (Score:3)
His point was cars may be ready for CNG, but CNG isn't ready for cars - the infrastructure just isn't there yet.
My neighbor has a CNG car, and he has to make a 20 mile round trip to the closest PG&E facility (after applying for a CNG refueling card, getting trained in the operation of the equipment, etc). It's just not practical right now for anything more than transit/public works vehicles and "hobbyists"...
Re:Oh Frack! (Score:5, Informative)
CNG has some real problems compared to gasoline in private vehicles, namely the fuel tank. I've been in a couple of these vehicles, and the main problem is that there's little or no storage space. Consumers aren't going to be too happy about that. In pickup trucks, the tank takes up about 1/3 of the cargo bed. So you can forget about carrying sheets of plywood and many other large objects. In small cars, the tank takes up the entire trunk, so you can forget about putting any luggage or groceries or anything else back there.
Basically, CNG has extremely poor energy density compared to gasoline, when you compare the size of a fuel tank versus the driving range that fuel tank gives you. The fuel is a compressed gas, which obviously isn't nearly as dense as a liquid, and because it's compressed it requires a tank with very thick, heavy-duty walls. So you end up with a giant tank consuming your whole trunk just so you can have a measly 100-mile range on CNG, when a simple 12-gallon gasoline tank gives you a 3-400 mile range. The only people here who have these vehicles are people who participated in Arizona's program back around 2000 where the state government gave them a giant discount on the cost of a car, plus a free conversion to CNG (dual-fuel; you can switch between the two). So people were buying these giant, expensive SUVs for 1/2 the normal cost, which had the spare tire replaced with a 5-gallon CNG (good for a 20-mile drive maybe) tank to qualify for this giant rebate. Other vehicles with more serious conversions of course were made too like the ones I mentioned above, but still the range wasn't that great and the tanks took up most of the useful cargo space in these vehicles.
The only way to make these vehicles practical would be to completely redesign the chasses for these giant tanks, but now you're talking about an enormous expense for the automakers, and a totally separate product line, for something that might do about as well as diesel cars have done in the USA (which is very, very bad for those who don't know). You just can't take a regular gas car and convert it to CNG with great results. At least with diesel, you can use the exact same chassis quite easily; you just need to drop in a different engine. Making CNG cars is going to be more like making electric cars (or also hybrid electric cars with very good all-electric range, a la Chevy Volt): for really good results, you'll have to make purpose-built vehicles, just like GM did with the Volt and Tesla did with their cars. Conversions using gasoline chasses just don't work out too well; you either end up with crap range because you're limited to how many batteries you can stuff into various voids in the chassis or engine compartment (which wasn't designed with these batteries in mind), or you end up with no cargo room because you've filled it with batteries (like the electric pickup trucks I've seen pictures of: they fill the cargo bed with batteries, which totally defeats the purpose of a pickup truck).
So if you're an automaker, and you'll have to spend a huge pile of cash to engineer an all-new chassis, would you rather spend that on a car that only runs on CNG (maybe with a tiny gas tank just in case the customer can't find a handy CNG station), or would you rather spend that on making a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle like the Volt that runs ~40 miles on electricity, enough for most commutes, and then has an efficient gas engine for driving cross-country, letting customers use the already-existing gasoline infrastructure?
This whole thing is just a bad idea. Electric is the way to go, hybrid at first, with some dedicated commuter cars like the Leaf, and full electric later when battery capacities are better and fast recharging options are better. The other thing our dumb government should be pushing for cities is a personal rapid transit system like SkyTran [skytran.net], which is all-electric, uses very little power, and would be perfect for shuttling commuters between suburbs and their workplaces. If they want to find something, they should be funding that instead.
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas [wikipedia.org]
LNG has to be cryogenically stored:
"LNG is principally used for transporting natural gas to markets, where it is regasified and distributed as pipeline natural gas. It can be used in natural gas vehicles, although it is more common to design vehicles to use compressed natural gas. Its relatively high cost of production and the need to store it in expensive cryogenic tanks have prevented its widespread use in commercial applications."
Re: (Score:3)
LPG is already pretty mainstream in the UK and EU. CNG shouldn't be any harder to support The best bit about it is that we will never run out because we can always make more - and clean up the worst greenhouse gas while we're at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it wouldn't be remotely cost effective to *make* NG to use in cars... the reason it's used today is that mining *is* still cost effective.
If we are going to bother researching a replacement "rapid filling" fuel for cars that we need to manufacture ourselves (assuming battery technology doesn't catch up and make this all moot), might as well put the effort into fuel cells...
Re: (Score:2)
As it is, it all just vents off from sewage works. We could use that. That would stop methane getting off into the atmosphere, and give us useful fuel.
Re:Oh Frack! (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, however, when fracturing goes wrong you have an underground leak of some toxic chemicals. Said chemicals are NOT radioactive, merely arrangements of carbon that can be removed from water with the right equipment. Furthermore, as long as you recognize the leak has occurred, it is straightforward to handle the problem. The ONLY reason this is even an issue is because captive regulators may NOT properly make the companies doing the drilling pay the bills when they screw up.
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't begin to quantify the 'potential' problems should worst case scenarios come to pass. There's a reason nuke plants cost so damned much. Because they simply can not be allowed to fail. And yet we see time and again, things that weren't expected do happen. It's not a good recipe for long term sucess.
Nukes will be required for another 50-100 years until we c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Producing energy is not completely safe no matter what method you use.
Tell me again what the safety issues are in the 'operation' of solar panels?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh I forgot that oil and gas equipment is made by the magical safety ponies. Everything has construction costs.
Solar has effectively zero operational issues since the panel literally just sits there. Shall we talk the cost of acquiring the fuel used by natural gases since solar also has zero for that too.
Re: (Score:3)
but the inconvenience...like when it is cloudy? Night? That's gonna be a bitch for you if you're on a road trip then....
There are these things called 'batteries', first invented a couple centuries ago.
Besides I'm quite sure people said the same things about cars and gasoline back in the day? Gonna travel across country huh? Where are you going to find gasoline in rural Kansas? My horse here can fill up wherever we go...
Re: (Score:2)
Producing energy is not completely safe no matter what method you use.
Tell me again what the safety issues are in the 'operation' of solar panels?
Well, maybe not in the operation of solar panels, but the production of said panels uses a lot of very toxic compounds
Re: (Score:2)
Our current President supports increasing fracking to boost production in the US
...thus instantly gaining votes of all Battlestar Galactica fans across the country for the upcoming elections.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It isn't a straw man. The original poster suggests that fracking raises a set of environmental and safety concerns about the process of energy production. In response I say that NO energy production is completely safe. They all raise their own unique set of environmental and safety concerns.
"Call me when your tap water is flammable and taking a shower presents a risk of explosion" is a nice straw man though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
30% of our natural Gas production in the US comes from fracking. Producing energy is not completely safe no matter what method you use.
Nice straw man, but nobody's saying it should be "completely safe." There's a wide array of values between completely safe and deliberately ignoring what may be catastrophic environmental damage to satisfy a year or two of energy demand. Call me when your tap water is flammable and taking a shower presents a risk of explosion.
On second thought, don't bother.
If you are referring to the three cases HBO highlighted, two of those were found to be unrelated to fracking. The third, of course, was an issue and that land owner was compensated, probably quite well. As for the other two, it turns out that their water wells were drilled through three coal beds and contain NATURALLY occurring gas.
So, the way I see it, yeah, this could be a problem, but it appears that the system is taking care of itself. As for the two that drilled through the coal beds, I would be on
Re: (Score:2)
If you are referring to the three cases HBO highlighted, two of those were found to be unrelated to fracking. The third, of course, was an issue and that land owner was compensated, probably quite well. As for the other two, it turns out that their water wells were drilled through three coal beds and contain NATURALLY occurring gas.
Sources? A serious request has I haven't seen anything that has ever mentioned alternative theories to the source of the gas in the water.
Re:Oh Frack! (Score:4, Informative)
Actual first hand story:
Back in the mid-60's a great-uncle of mine bought small farm in Southeastern Ohio. He had a well drilled to supply water for his livestock; but instead of water the driller hit natural gas. There wasn't enough to sell, but he did have the well capped and used the gas to heat his house.
Gas in water wells is very common. People who have gas in their water probably had it since the day the well was drilled. Testing it after a gas well was drilled a couple of miles away proves nothing unless they also had it tested before the drilling started.
Laffo (Score:4, Insightful)
Toronto's transit system bought a bunch of natural gas-powered buses a decade or so ago, and they were great until the price of NG skyrocketed. Those are gone, and we now have hybrid electric ones, which seem to work just fine. NG is not a mass-market vehicle fuel.
Watch this, it will change your view on the world (Score:2)
If Pakistan had it 13 years ago, why not America? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/03/brc-fuelmaker-again-selling-phill-home-cng-fuel-station.html [autoobserver.com]
Costs $3.5k to install so on top of a conversion you have to be doing some milage to make it worthwhile. Taxis possibly.
Honda (Score:2)
Honda sells (or sold) a natural gas Civic. Home refueling equipment already exists.
Am I missing something, or is the government just way behind again?
Re: (Score:2)
Conversion Costs vs Recovery Time (Score:5, Informative)
- The after market conversion leaves the existing gasoline system intact and adds the natural gas package to the vehicle. The installation of a natural gas system includes a cylinder that is mounted underneath, in the back of the truck or in the trunk of a car. One 70-litre cylinder equals 18 litres of gasoline and weighs approximately 160 pounds.
Cost Based on a typical ½ ton truck
$9000 - Conversion w/ 2 - 70 litre cylinders
$1.0090 - Gasoline Pump Price per litre
$0.4790 - Natural Gas Pump Price per Litre Equivalent of Gasoline
$0.5300 - Savings per Litre Displaced
$2.409 - Savings per Gallon Displaced
15 mpg gasoline mileage
$160.63- Savings per Thousand Miles
56,031 miles - Miles on Natural Gas Required to Recover Cost of Conversion
Re: (Score:3)
Any 1/2 ton truck should have a reliable lifespan of at least 150,000 - 200,000 miles. So if you switch immediately after initial purchase to CNG only you should be able to pay off the conversion at least 3 times over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In the United States, LPG is not "natural gas". Natural Gas is mostly methane and is normally delivered through underground pipes to residences. LPG is mostly propane and is sold in tanks which are used for cooking or welding.
Re: (Score:3)
LPG is nothing like natural gas. LPG can be stored as a liquid at room temperature under moderate pressure. For motor vehicle use, natural gas must be stored as a gas under extremely high pressure, or as a liquid cryogenically.
it's been tried (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to work for the local gas company. For decades they've had a compressed natural gas conversion for cars and a small compressor setup for the home at reasonable startup cost ($2,500 at the time). The range wasn't great, (for range you need LNG) but it was better than today's all electric cars and you could fuel up at home in a much shorter time than with electric. The fleet all ran on natural gas, filling up at their own company-maintained filling stations, and besides being cheaper and having lower emissions, as a collateral benefit they were getting exceptional life from the engines of their fleet vehicles.
As I was interested in this conversion myself and only learned about it by accident, I struck up a conversation with the head of marketing asking why they weren't promoting it, since it was an existing solution that people could buy for their own vehicles if they only knew about it.
And most importantly, in most areas the distribution network is already in place, something that Electric is currently struggling with.
He said that the company was under pressure not to promote a consumer compressed natural gas solution for automobiles. He was unwilling to say where the pressure was coming from. I always wondered about that.
So, in short, the solution already exists, exactly as described, and has since at least the nineties. As far as I can see, there's nothing to develop here, just remove the roadblocks to existing solutions.
Mind you, it works best for dedicated commuter and in-town cars, because to keep the cost and complexity down, the car *only* runs on compressed natural gas, and CNG does not have the energy per volume as either LNG or gasoline. But in my opinion CNG is more practical than electric in several respects, not the least of which there are no batteries to replace/recycle.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced about the commuter-only viability. In the 90s I knew a woman driving some Chrysler sedan with a CNG conversion kit. Several times a month she would drive round trip to Las Vegas from San Diego (300 miles each way) without the need to fill up. That's far better range than any gasoline/diesel equivalent unless you have a truck with spare capacity tanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Gahhhhhhhhhh (Score:2)
Range and price (Score:2)
Natural gas cars tend to have half the mileage of a gasoline car. Better than electricity, but it is still less efficient energy storage than gasoline.
Of course, it is still a fossil fuel. That means there is a limit on how much exists and also that it pollutes, though not as much as gasoline does.
Re: (Score:3)
Performance beats out gas in some cases, check out http://www.gotpropane.com./ [www.gotpropane.com]
Propane cars are better. burn cleaner, last longer, fewer oil changes, burn the fuel better too. Less horrible chemicals in the exhaust. Long term storage. Natural gas is difficult to store but propane is not. Somewhere I heard gasoline takes more refinement.
Pressure regulator decides on the gas so it can be easy to put in mixes or other gases if you adjust the pressure accordingly. I know a guy who regularly switched between LP a
CNG vehicles are quite common in India (Score:4, Interesting)
CNG or Compressed Natural Gas vehicles are quite common in India. It started out a decade ago when the big cities in India started converting buses to run on CNG instead of diesel to curb pollution. Then, taxis got converted. Now, you can get your private vehicle fitted with a CNG conversion kit or you can directly buy a CNG version of your car from the manufacturer. I haven't driven one myself, but have spoken to lots of cab drivers. Even if you ignore the environmental benefits, the running cost of CNG is less than half of diesel or gasoline.
The other take on this is to have more power generation plants use CNG instead of coal. I find it highly inefficient to transport energy chemically instead of electrically. If you were developing software, this is how you would abstract your layers. Human beings suck at change. The only time we refactor anything in our lives is if we are forced to do it - like a war or an economic crisis or something similar.
We've got the resource (Score:2)
As you may have heard, thanks to the advances in fracking, natural gas is now abundant and will remain so for some time. Probably decades. Yes, fracking sometimes contaminates groundwater, but it isn't the end of the world when that happens. Filters, pipelines, it's just a matter of recognizing the problem and solving it.
Economically, natural gas is the way to roll at the present time. We can run our cars on it and power our houses. We can also run 18-wheelers and trains off it. The only thing that na
Right idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's invest in fossil fuels instead of public transit, better urban planning, and pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. Our grandchildren will thank us.
Re: (Score:3)
Invest in all those things to create a granular set of options instead of expecting one type of "solution" to work across the board.
First Off, Listen to Chris Martenson (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to know the future of energy, listen to this Chris Martenson lecture, I believe scary times are ahead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WBiTnBwSWc [youtube.com]
As for natural gas.... right now proven world reserves stands at stands at 191T m^3. The US has about 7T m^3, and a huge chunk of the rest is in Russia and Iran, which are not exactly friendly to us nor have we exactly been cultivating decent relationship with them. Since China is scouring the globe for energy sources, I assume they have or will get long term contracts from one or both of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_proven_reserves [wikipedia.org]
Our world usage last year was 168T ft^3 according to this:
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/nat_gas.cfm [eia.gov]
Google tells me that is equal to 3.2T m^3.
So at current rates, assuming 100% extraction, we have 60 years of Natural Gas. The best case at current usage for proven reserves, much of which are in hostile countries.
The IEA predicts a 2.2% increase in demand annually. Using the rule of 70, that's a doubling time of ~32 years. That cuts down the best case scenario for Natural Gas down to 39 years, at current uses, meaning we don't start leaning on it heavily for transportation and the like.
Now, the scientist in my top link talks about how if everyone switched over to electric cars, they would have to go from 300 generating plants to 3,000. One order of magnitude, 10x. Without doing specific calculations, perhaps we can assume that could carry over to natural gas if used extensive for personal transportation. How many years then?
Yes, NG can be used in conjunction with oil and other energy sources and carry us for a while longer until we find a real solution.
comment bias is strong (Score:2)
Interesting that we see many optimistic posts on /. about alternative energy sources regularly, electric cars, etc. but the post about using Natural Gas as fuel begins with this pessimism "...Natural gas has never been much of an option for U.S. car drivers, and it's going to take a lot of effort by the government and auto manufacturers to make it a viable alternative to gas..."
US Government Wants (Score:3)
This is not about what the US wants. This is about what one part of the US government wants -- specifically, the part of the US government that gains power from natural gas as an auto fuel.
Actual US citizens just want cheap transportation options. We will switch to natural gas or any other fuel when the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. LNG/CNG are cost-effective transportation fuels, now. Contrary to the summary, we do not need a lot of effort by the government and auto manufacturers. The best thing would be for the US government to stop meddling. The nature of LNG/CNG fuels is that they are best used for fleet vehicles and long-haul trucks, not automobiles. The economic incentive in those applications exists today, without government subsidies. Fueling facilities are being installed across the country, as we speak. The gove
We've known we needed this since 1973... (Score:2)
Sadly, the President who could've really capitalized on this was Jimmy Carter. He was the first President elected after the 1973 embargo when it was still somewhat fresh in the public's mind. If he had started us down the road of CNG then, this would be a done deal. Sadly he either did
10 million? Is that all? (Score:2)
As energy subsidies go, this is so small as to be not worth discussing.
Over the last century, oil and gas subsidies have averaged ~$4 billion a year. So this is nothing.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Subsidies-For-Oil-Gas-Nuclear-vs.-Renewables/ [greentechmedia.com]
Simple Solution (Score:2)
we do have those cars over here (Score:2)
the big issue here, in my view, is that natural gas is too good a energy source to waste it in combined cycle gas fired plants [wikipedia.org], which have become a staple generating plant here in Italy. Since other
F*** At Home Fueling (Score:2)
Oh no. (Score:2)
T Boon Pickens plan (Score:2)
NAT GAS act is far more important (Score:2)
But all of this gets better. M
Available Now! (Score:2)
We could already have been there... (Score:2)
NG a greenhouse negative (Score:2)
Gas gets carbon kudos for power generation because it emits half the CO2 of coal plants (per kWh), but gasoline has less carbon, so NG is only 25% less CO2 than a gasoline engine.
BUT - NG itself, basically methane, is acknowledged to be 20X as heat-retaining a GHG as CO2 is - so if even 1% leaks out, on the entire trip from wellhead to burning in the engine, it's about a wash. The gas industry claims it doesn't have anywhere near 1% leakage - but then, they would. Distribution to cars, and use in cars
Re: (Score:2)
converting current auto fleet from gasoline to ethanol is an amazingly simple process; some new gaskets, rejetting the injectors, and adjusting the timing. Most modern CC, FI vehicles probably wouldn't require anything more than a quick reprogramming.
So replacing all the rubber seals is simple?
Re: (Score:2)
So replacing all the rubber seals is simple?
You don't have to replace all the seals... technically, there's no requirement to change any, but I recommend changing out the seals and gaskets for the fuel system itself, to avoid cross contamination.
In which case, yes, it's relatively easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When it can compete on it's own without subsidies, then yes that will be fine. Until then it's a niche fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
From your link. The first three crops depend on technology that doesn't exist. The fourth crop can't be grown in the US. The 5th crop (corn) is ridiculously inefficient as in requires 2 to 7 times the land as the other crops with very high inputs. Oh wait, the 5th crop might be better with, yup, you guessed it non existent technology
Actually, the technology does exist, and has for over 100 years. [wikipedia.org] Looks like Wikipedia needs to start fact checking... itself.
So, your post was... what, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind to get good efficiency out of natural gas you need to significantly up the compression, similar to E85. Leaving the engine bone stock low compression to run modern piss gas (87 octane) that most vehicles run, or even 93 octane, would leave a lot of power and MPG on the table.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where you live, but in Argentina CNG is very common. All the Taxis in Buenos Aires run on CNG and their are plenty of gas stations with CNG pumps. If you are in the US, well you're SOL until the infrastructure changes.
Re: (Score:3)
in before joke about farts.
Bumper Sticker I've seen: SAVE GAS - FART IN A JAR
Ah, yes. Perhaps if we redesign landfills to harvest natural gas from then they'll be taken over by Exxon, BP, et al.
Re:reserved (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, yes. Perhaps if we redesign landfills to harvest natural gas from then they'll be taken over by Exxon, BP, et al.
"When shit becomes gold, the poor will have no assholes."
-- an unknown but astute source
Re: (Score:3)
A good set of cast iron pots and pans makes cooking on electric bearable.
Re:reserved (Score:5, Insightful)
No heat control means you have a poor appliance. A modern induction stove gives you perfect control. Much better than any gas stove; even commercial ones, and way better than conventional resistance heat electrics.
You do have to have the right cookware though...
Re:reserved (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps if we redesign landfills to harvest natural gas from then they'll be taken over by Exxon, BP, et al.
This is already being done. Garbage trucks that run on natural gas are being fueled by the natural gas collected at the very facility at which garbage is dumped. California has over 1,000 trucks running on landfill gas already.
Re:reserved (Score:5, Interesting)
The one big problem with landfill gas in internal combustion engines is the siloxanes. When they're burned, they deposit a layer of hard silicon dioxide that can build up inside an engine and eventually destroy it. It was my understanding that it was still difficult to filter them out. Do you know if the trucks have specially made engines, or do they have a good method of processing/filtering the gas?
Re:reserved (Score:4, Insightful)
But if you do that, then oil will get cheaper relative to alternatives, delaying the adoption of said alternatives. And since the reason you released some of the strategic reserves to begin with was that other supplies were insufficient, once the surplus has been burned you're right where you began, except that other supplies have been further depleted and you're short some strategic reserves which need to be refilled, making things even worse.
Or you could release strategic natural gas reserves (do those exist?), but that'll drive down the price of natural gass, making methane capture less attractive option, agian leaving you worse off in the end.
Just bite the bullet and let enery costs rise. They will anyway, and not trying to stop it will cause a slow and steady rise, which has the best chances of stimulating alternative sources while not causing sudden market crashes, while leaving you the strategic reserves for emergencies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid, when we have CNG cars, the price of beans will skyrocket!
Re: (Score:2)
Come on man, we just need one more hit of petroleum. Then we'll quit tomorrow, we promise.