8 ms·
Natural Gas: Fuel for the future?
- easymovet 13y agoOne of the benefits of a pressurized fuel source is that you don't vent the petrol saturated air in your tank to the atmosphere every time you fill it up. About 4million cubic yards daily.
- adlpz 13y agoHumorous comment: When I read something like cubic yards I always think I'm reading about some crazy variant of golf. (I am used to the SI)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- tocomment 13y agoI've been very interested in converting my vehicle to run on natural gas but I haven't been able to find any services that do it, nor any price estimates. (US east coast) Is this an area to consider starting a business?
- svenkatesh 13y agoI don't mean to be a debbie-downer, but it probably isn't worth it. To convert your car to use natural gas, you would have to buy a natural-gas engine. These cost about 8k- 10k. You could recoup some of the money by selling your old engine, but it is still a steep upfront cost. Here's an article if you're interested in reading more: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/why-youre-not-driving-natural-gas-powered-car-yet/65009/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/why-youre-no...
- PeterisP 13y agoWTF? Normal engines are perfectly capable of running on natural gas, you need to install some hardware, but not an engine replacement. The original article states "Kits to do so cost anything from $12,000 to $18,000" which feels quite strange, as in Eastern Europe the major car service companies offer the kits for at most $1,200-1,500 with installation. Sure, the car mechanics earn a bit more in USA, but it's not really that much labor and the actual hardware should be cheaper in USA - all other hardware is, due to larger scale and smaller taxes.
- svenkatesh 13y agoNo, normal engines cannot run using CNG, without experiencing extensive wear and tear. Also, I think you'll find that the cost of things in Eastern Europe is commensurate with their earnings. You can't compare the cost of things there with the cost of things in America, just like you can't compare the cost of a home in India vs. the cost of a home in San Fransisco.
- VLM 13y ago"No, normal engines cannot run using CNG, without experiencing extensive wear and tear." Well, that's a new once, since everything I've ever heard is the exact opposite. I know propane conversions run forever.
- gngeal 13y agoCNG is methane, and propane is propane.
- stonemetal 13y agohttp://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/how-to/maintenance/should-you-convert-your-car-to-natural-gas http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/how-to/maintenance/shou... The lower-pressure gas travels to the engine, Chrysler's flex-fuel-capable Pentastar V-6. A flex-fuel engine is important, since it has hardened valves and valve seats, which are necessary for CNG operation. Suggests there is something to worry about in a conversion for regular cars.
- easymovet 13y agoDepends on the type of car (hackable computer, fuel injection) and weather you go for a complete conversion or run both petrol and cng (extra fuel rail or reuse old one). If you have a Honda you can easily reprogram the ECU to compensate for running a different type of fuel (you would simple need to replace the fuel system, which means just a high pressure tank and a regulator) I could see this working for ~$1500. On other cars you might need a piggyback computer. (source: I converted my car to ethanol which has a few similarities)
- to3m 13y agoSome off-the-cuff numbers. Let's say it costs $3,000 to have things converted. This is about the cost for an LPG conversion in the UK, though that might be an underestimate, as while LPG requires a bunch of stuff installing the engine still works in fundamentally the same way. How many gallons (x) will you have to buy before you've spent the same in both cases, and what will the cost have been (y)? Assume $4/gal petrol and $2.50/"gal" gas. 4.00x = y (petrol) 3000 + 2.50x = y (gas) So, 4x+-y=0, 2.5x+-y=-3000; 4x+-y=0, 4x+-1.6y=-4800; -0.6y=-4800; y=8000. So x=2000. At 20mpg, 2000*20=40,000 miles. That's quite a lot of driving. Don't most people change car every 3 years? And by that point you've only just broken even.
- beat 13y agoThe end result of the 21st century will be that we will use every single gram of fossil fuel of every type (petroleum, natural gas, coal) that can be dug up for less cost than wind/solar. The more reserves we find, the more carbon winds up in the atmosphere. Environmental handwringing will be about as effective as standing in front of an oncoming train and whispering "stop, please". At best, the environmentalists will succeed in slowing fossil fuel consumption down by a decade or two before we hit the inevitable wall of it no longer being economically viable. Meanwhile, we'll slam into Hubbert's Peak at the global level some years before the dinosaur farts run out, resulting in a steep drop in energy availability and a steep increase in cost. This will send shockwaves through the global economy, and set off resource wars the likes of which we've never seen. If we're very, very smart, and very, very lucky, we won't see half the population of the Earth wiped out in resource wars and famine during this century. :(
- rayiner 13y agoResource wars will, if anything, validate the American strategy of stockpiling more weapons than the rest of the planet combined. Don't get me wrong--I hope it doesn't come to that. I'm just saying I like our odds. China would do well to remember the power balance before they dig up and burn every piece of coal they can find.
- beat 13y agoIndeed. China doesn't have the practice of actually projecting military force the way we do. On the other hand, long distance fuel transport is a highly vulnerable situation. It doesn't take much to bomb a pipeline into uselessness. I fear the odds favor localized terrorism over massive force.
- JimJames 13y agoSome communities might even preemptively sabotage natural oil reserves if the alternative is a possible military occupation.
- 13y ago
- bitwize 13y agoNot if our supply of it depends on fracking.
- pond_lilly 13y agofunny how everyone chooses to ignore uber serious issues resulting from fracking and causing underground water sources contamination.
- gngeal 13y agoWell, natural gas, that's mostly methane. The good thing about methane is that there are reasonable pathways leading to it from waste inputs, so if we ever switch to synthetic methane, you won't have to upgrade your natural-gas-powered stuff.
- ambiate 13y agoThe article states: 'a licensed professional can only tamper with an emissions system.' This is obviously not true, because the person who stole my catalytic converter most likely did not have a license. Much like the hundreds of thousands of diesel based Mercedes Benz with a BB in the EGR valve to increase fuel economy, power, and smoothness. In Texas, I see a lot of trucks from the oil fields which are fitted to run on dirty diesel. Every once in a while, you see a natural gas truck, but it is rare. I was just looking into buying a natural gas dryer, water heater, and oven. I get the same feeling of buying a Nexus phone and choosing a carrier versus getting stuck in a contract. The initial lump sum will pay off in savings within a year. My only worries revolve around repairs.
- geedy 13y agoNatural gas prices are volatile at this point. Seems they have increased in recent months: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/coals-us-comeback/20453?tag=search-river http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/coals-us-comeback/2...
- justinhj 13y agoI was at first annoyed that coal was described as cheap in the article, and then relieved to hear that in the US the EPA is adding the environmental cost back into the equation. Hope that China follows in the reduction of coal fueled power.
- skittles 13y agoIt's almost impossible to build a new coal-powered plant in the US currently (EPA has driven up the cost). Current plants; however, produce cheap energy. Where the EPA causes trouble is with "new source review". They punish energy companies for improving existing plants. Want to make your plant more efficient and cleaner? Then the EPA says it is a new plant and subject to the new regulations. It is more cost effective to run dirty plants.
- maeon3 13y agoI have a 2012 Honda insight Hybrid for about a year now. In the Eco mode and normal driving it sustains about 48MPG mostly in city driving. With lots of highway it goes up to 52MPG. It does this with remarkable regenerative braking, running on electricity most of the time, turning off the engine while you are in low energy consumption modes, and only running the engine at target efficiency. The future of energy in America is Black Gold, aka Petroleum. Imported from various places in the world.
- beat 13y agoFuture for how long? 10 years? 25? 50? 500?
- maeon3 13y agoThis song of Oil running out has been playing constantly for the last 30 years. The reason you don't hear the "Peak Oil" song and narrative being played anymore by the propaganda agencies in America is because the globe has not even hit peak oil yet. Global production of oil fell from a high point in 2005 at 74 mb/d, but has since rebounded setting new records in both 2011 and 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil You and I will have vehicles drinking Petroleum for at least 10 years. At that point there will be slow shifts to other fuel technologies.
- beat 13y agoAh, but it WILL happen. Finite is finite.
- VandyILL 13y agoOne of the reasons the estimates for Peak Oil are off is because oil companies only project the amount of oil they can economically recover. However, because the price of oil continues to go up they start to consider more options economical, such as tar sands. If you read literature on how these companies determine the size of their reserves and how much oil is left that can be extracted economcally, the answer is pretty much consistent at 40 years, but this measure has never been an accurate account of the total amount of oil in the ground, its just a number that makes sense for their business.
- cfesta9 13y agoWe have seen a new fleet of taxi cabs here in Chicago. They run on compressed natural gas. I got to ride in a VPG a few weeks ago. The driver liked the car but said the biggest problem is mileage. 9-10 mpg in the city. I like the idea of CNG, of course there are kinks that need to be worked out. Forklifts have been running on CNG for years so why not cars. New Auto Company: Built in Indiana http://www.vpgautos.com/ http://www.vpgautos.com/ Chicago Article about VPG Auto: http://taxicabtimes.com/compressed-natural-gas-fuels-expansion-of-accessible-taxicabs-in-chicago-p1944-1.htm http://taxicabtimes.com/compressed-natural-gas-fuels-expansi...
- pavs 13y agoHere in bangladesh (I think to some extend in india too) CNG is being extensively used for the last 5-6 years. We have more CNG station than mobile stations here. The price used to be 1/3rd of mobile but because of CNG shortage it has gone up in recent times.
- amalag 13y agoIndia mandated CNG for taxi's in many cities to combat air pollution. It has had a significant effect to reduce air pollution.
- gngeal 13y agoThe driver liked the car but said the biggest problem is mileage. 9-10 mpg in the city. Since when is gas measured in gallons? Around here, we've always had it measured in cubic meters at atmospheric pressure.
- DennisP 13y agoIf we really want to use natural gas for transportation, an easier path might be to use it to synthesize gasoline and diesel. A barrel of synthetic oil from methane costs about $60. Before doing that, it might be a good idea to fix the methane emissions from fracking, and figure out how long those wells are really going to last. There's a lot of skepticism about that "100-year supply."
- VandyILL 13y agoI think tranisitioning to natural gas is silly. Its at best a bridge technology before an eventual tranisition to solar. Given the opportunity to leapfrog a generation of technology and infrastructure while doing less damage to the environment is a now brainer. Plus, investing in solar gives the US the opportunity to liquiefy the natural gas and export it, helping the trade imbalance and displacing the new coal fired plants being built abroad. When building a power plant the expected return is usually about 40 years. We shouldn't be asking ourselves what infrastructure we want in 5-10 years, but how we want our energy infrastructure to look in 30-50 years. In 30 years I'm pretty confident solar will be cheaper than natural gas, so why build out all this infrastructure to switch to natural gas cars etc? At best natural gas is a good resource for handling the intermittency problem with solar. Gas power plants fire up and shut down very quick and efficiently comared to other types of power. Thus they're a great compliment to a power source that currently cannot be stored for night time use.