Slashdot Mirror


Fuel Tanks Made of Corncob Waste

Roland Piquepaille writes "The National Science Foundation is running a story on how corncob waste can be used to created carbon briquettes with complex nanopores capable of storing natural gas. These methane storage systems may encourage mass-market natural gas cars. In fact, these 'briquettes are the first technology to meet the 180 to 1 storage to volume target set by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2000.' They can lead to flat and compact tanks and have already been installed in a pickup truck used regularly by the Kansas City Office of Environmental Quality. And as the whole natural gas infrastructure exists already, this new technology could be soon adopted by car manufacturers."

176 comments

  1. Further adaptions by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 3, Funny

    Perhaps they could use this technology for the tailpipe, too...

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:Further adaptions by AP2k · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because engines have to vent exhaust gases through a pipe with very little backpressure, that makes little sense. Can you breate through a brick of charcoal running a marathon, let alone sitting in your chair?

      Didnt think so. Thats why engines stall when you plug their exhaust pipes.

      As for the topic at hand, I am pretty excited about it. The volume of the average gas tank is 15 gallons, so that makes a 2700 gallon tank for methane thats the same size as a gasoline tank. 2700 gallons of methane makes approxiamately 360,000 BTUs. Unfortunately thats roughly equivalent to only 3 gallons of gasoline. But hey, you can make methane from biomass alot easier than gasoline and propane will yeild higher energy densities, assuming this breakthrough can be adapted to store propane with adequate storage compression.

    2. Re:Further adaptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, I think your sense of humor needs an emergency bypass. . .

      The GP was jokingly talking about a corn cob pipe (you know, and a button nose, and two eyes made out of coal). The tail pipe could be a corn cob pipe.

      Seriously, I think you need to go take a nap or drink a cup of coffee.

    3. Re:Further adaptions by drgonzo59 · · Score: 2, Informative

      A better way to recover the internal combustion dissipated energy is probably through some small steam engine. Didn't BMW try that? http://www.gizmag.com/go/4936/

    4. Re:Further adaptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AP2K, you're an idiot. You completely missed the joke and made yourself look like a total dork.

    5. Re:Further adaptions by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      It would certainly bring new meaning to the expression, "Shut your corn hole!"

    6. Re:Further adaptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of tailpipes, I can imagine an innovative use for corncobs and Roland P.

    7. Re:Further adaptions by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      A better way to recover the internal combustion dissipated energy is probably through some small steam engine. Didn't BMW try that? http://www.gizmag.com/go/4936/

      I did think about doing something similar to power an air conditioner. There is alot of wasted heat which can be used to generate engery.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    8. Re:Further adaptions by tobiasly · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they could use this technology for the tailpipe, too...

      Let's not be too hasty here... we all remember that tragic day over a decade ago when NASA's Straw Shuttle project ended in catastrophe. We must introduce these organic technologies very carefully when dealing with such explosive substances.

    9. Re:Further adaptions by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      Are you sure that's correct? I thought the 180 to 1 "storage to volume ratio" meant that the solid structure of the tank took up only 1/180 of the volume, not that it "compressed" the methane to 1/180 it's original volume. Plus, I think a gallon of natural gas means what would be 1 gal liquid if compressed sufficiently. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    10. Re:Further adaptions by Nf1nk · · Score: 1

      you can increase efficiency notably by replacing the throttling valve with a small turbine. It doesn't even matter if the turbine power is used for anything. Just changing from a constant enthalpy process to a constant entropy process will improve efficiency.

      It won't happen because you can make a throttling valve out of crimped piece of pipe, while turbines are still expensive little devices, and the energy savings are not large enough to justify the extra upfront cost.
      YET

      --
      I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
    11. Re:Further adaptions by jcorno · · Score: 1

      It would certainly bring new meaning to the expression, "Shut your corn hole!"

      What kind of sick porn have you been watching?

    12. Re:Further adaptions by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Actually, if they're burning natural gas (or bio-methane), there's no need; it burns cleanly.

      Use it with a quasiturbine (google it!), and the 500PSI head becomes an additional form of energy. Use a quasiturbine in detonation mode, and you get an engine efficiency which is close enough to Carnot to kiss him on the lips, in a nice light package producing higher-than-ICE torque.

      Unfortunately, the guy who's got the patent on the things hasn't finished prototyping a combustion model yet. This is really annoying, as he's held the patent for 7 years now. Let's hope he doesn't renew, and someone can do something useful with the design.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    13. Re:Further adaptions by samkass · · Score: 1

      Is there any setting in Slashdot preferences to automatically hide the first 1-liner "funny" post and all the inane replies for each topic?

      --
      E pluribus unum
    14. Re:Further adaptions by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Because engines have to vent exhaust gases through a pipe with very little backpressure, that makes little sense.

      They have to have a certain amount of back pressure, otherwise the engine won't run properly. This is why adding a coffee-can exhaust gives you less power and more noise.

    15. Re:Further adaptions by thc69 · · Score: 1

      Obviously goatse...

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    16. Re:Further adaptions by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

      The first one? Nope. But you can go to your preferences and ahutomatically lower any comment modded Funny. You can also Foe most of the culprits (you'd want to add me straight away since 90% of what I post to the main page is an attempt at pun-oriented humor). Finally, if you were being rhetorical, well, I annoy the kids when I answer their rehtorical questions, too;-)

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    17. Re:Further adaptions by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      No... in that case it would be something like "Shut your telephone hole" or "shut your can hole".

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  2. Infrastrucutre in place? by Lockejaw · · Score: 1, Informative

    There may be a production/distribution infrastructure already active, but we still have to wait for gas stations to actually carry this stuff. If nobody sells it, nobody can buy and use it.
    Speaking of which, how many have actually seen a gas station that sells E85?

    --
    (IANAL)
    1. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by AP2k · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      There is a site online that has a database telling the location of E85 or straight ethanol distributors. For my state, the only one is a space center. So much for corn ethanol. Ive been saying it for quite some time that corn ethanol is a pipe dream and will always be that, but thats for another topic. http://www.e85refueling.com/

    2. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      I have - in Minnesota. I've seen none in Iowa.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    3. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by josquint · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, how many have actually seen a gas station that sells E85?

      I live in a town of about 15,000 and we have 5 stations with e-85. Out of about 12-15 total This is minnesota though, and its pushed like crazy by the polititians.

      I've tried the stuff, and I broke even between the price/mileage drop. Its definitly less per gallon, but at only 2/3 the MPG and 2/3 the acceleration power, I'll take gasoline. Gas costs within $.015/mile of e-85 here, and the performance drop makes my car a sloth in commute traffic... Nice idea though...

    4. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by Radon360 · · Score: 1

      There are several in my area...but I live in a Midwest state that produces corn.

    5. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      ... What does ethanol have to do with natural gas?

    6. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by AP2k · · Score: 1

      Nothing... thats why the parent is modded offtopic. =/

    7. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      The carcoal stuff just stores the gas right? Don't need much in the way of infrastructure...just hook up a hose to your gas meter. (yes, I know the connectors and safety considerations are a bit bigger then that, but the general concept is there.

      And to answer the E-85 question, the fueling stations are still pretty sparse, but there are two regular gas stations in the Portland, OR area that carry it now. One of them is on my way home...if I had a compatable vehicle I would be fueling up there sometimes. For fueling stations in your area, look here: http://www.e85refueling.com/

      Also note that there is a difference between an E-85 compatable vehicle (FFV), and a vehicle specifically designed for E-85. Flex fuel vehicles (FFVs) actually get 5-20% less MPG vs. regular gasoline as the compression ratio isn't high enough in them to operate efficiently on E-85. Boosting the compression ratio to near 15:1 would allow them to get better MPG numbers then regular gasoline but then they would no longer be compatable with regular gas. Currently there are no vehicles sold in the USA designed specifically for running Ethanol (even though they are sold in other countries). It's a catch-22: carmakers dont want to sell the cars till there are sufficient pumps to support them and the pumps aren't popping up very fast because the flex[transition] vehicles are not very efficient so demand is small. With OPEC suddenly managing oil prices very tightly to make sure gasoline undercuts ethanol in the US and some other places, don't expect this situation to change very quickly.

    8. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Informative

      While I am not a big fan of ethanol I have to say the problems you are having are because E85 cars are flex fuel cars.
      If you knew that you where only going to run ethanol you could run a much higher compression ratio in the engine and or much more spark advance. That would give you mileage and performance much closer to gasoline.
      You can actually make more power running alcohol than gasoline that is why they use in at Indy and for dragsters. Top alcohol dragsters are faster than gas powered cars. Now Top fuel uses alcohol because it mixes better with nitro.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by Dancindan84 · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure about E85 in my area (Eastern Ontario, Canada), but a lot of houses have natural gas run to them. It has to be possible to use that already available natural gas to fill cars that use it.

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    10. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by iogan · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, how many have actually seen a gas station that sells E85?
      I've seen loads of them, in fact I would venture a guess that about half of them here do. Here being Sweden, by the way.
    11. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by general+scruff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Different engines react differently to E85. Saab has a 9-5 series car with a turbo that runs differently depending on what fuel is used. With regular Gas, it runs the turbo at around 9 Pounds (if memory serves), but with E85, which has a 105 octane rating, it bumps the PSI to 17-18. The performance numbers are not too shabby. The problem happens when you have these "Flex Fuel" cars that will run both, without changing any parameters. Right now, they are probably statically tuned to get more out of Gas, and not so much E85 (I can't back that statement up). But consider that the octane rating of regular unleaded is around 89. Timing becomes critical depending on the octane rating (the more octane, the more aggressively you can set your timing) and you are bound to have the type of performance degradation you were talking about.

      Feel free to rip this unsubstantiated post apart! =)

      --
      As a rule, I never trust dark brown ketchup.
    12. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 1

      CNG has been in fairly wide use for decades, mostly for fleets in areas with Air Pollution issues. Here's a site with locations for CNG, E85, Hydrogen, biodiesel, etc, etc...

    13. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      and the performance drop makes my car a sloth in commute traffic... Nice idea though...

      which is why i think that current flex-fuel vehicles are not a particularly optimal idea.

      ethanol has quite different characteristics to normal gas, the main thing being it has a much higher octane. getting the most out of this would require higher compression, forced induction, etc., but since these cars also need to be able to run on straight gas, you can't do that and thus performance goes in the crapper.

      ideally, some kind of sensor in the tank would be able to detect the octane of the fuel in the tank (straight gas (cheap, mid, premium?), straight ethanol, or something in between) and adjust such things accordingly, though I'm not a chemist or a mechanic, so i have no idea is this is at all possible and/or feasible to build.

      though i have heard of a dual-fuel engine (the Saab Biopower engine) that adjusts the turbocharger in such a manner and it gets a performance boost (about 36 more hp) when running on ethanol and also has the same mileage as it would running on straight gas.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    14. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by timbck2 · · Score: 1

      We have one (that I know of) here in Santa Fe (population 63,000).

      --
      Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
    15. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by Ericular · · Score: 1

      I have also broken even with mileage/cost ratio vs. gasoline... but I have seen no drop in performance (a slight gain, if anything). I assume this means that the engine (2001 Ford Taurus) is sensing the change and adjusting accordingly for optimum performance (as much as is possible in a flex-fuel engine). Can anyone confirm this?

    16. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by zanderredux · · Score: 1

      in this context... what does "aggressive timing" means?

    17. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      in this context... what does "aggressive timing" means?

      Advancing the spark relative to the piston stroke. Generally, if you start the burn earlier, the hot gasses will push the piston through a larger fraction of the power stroke, and you get more power and economy. However, too much spark advance for a given octane rating can cause detonation (pinging).

    18. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      There are plenty in and around the Twin Cities (Minneapolis/St. Paul). But then again, maybe it's because Minnesota's done things like already bring our emissions levels below Kyoto requirements?

    19. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a natural gas station right across the street from me in Ann Arbor. Some of the city's vehicles use it i think, but it is also open to the public.

    20. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by thc69 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a knock sensor could do the job.

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    21. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by GreyFlcn · · Score: 1

      BioEthanol is rather silly when compared with BioButanol.
      BioButanol works almost perfectly in existing cars and pump infrastructure.

      And it performs much better too, offering comprable mileage to gasoline.
      Rather than Ethanol which offers about 30% less mileage.

      Overall it shares all of it's benefits, and almost none of it's weaknesses.

      http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Butanol
      http://butanol.com//images/Bubbles%20with%20gas.JP G

      So far DuPont and BP are big backers of the tech.
      http://www2.dupont.com/Biofuels/en_US/FAQ.html

    22. Re:Infrastrucutre in place? by Melllvar · · Score: 1

      Dude. You haven't lived until you've lived within smelling distance of an ethanol plant. Here in St. Paul, we had a (now defunct) brewery that was so desperate for cash that it conned the city into letting it turn most of its production over to ethanol.

      It was barely a mile from downtown -- and upwind of it, too! I can't imagine how awful it must have been for them; I lived up a hill and two miles away from the joint (and away from the prevailing air currents), and I still smelled them half the time ... imagine a jillion bakery ovens, all cooking the sickliest-smelling, yeastiest bread ever, and you'll get an idea of what St. Paul smelled like for the few years it was operational.

      But, ya know, the thing's gone now. And the whole town's lousy with ethanol pumps; I'm well within walking distance of more than one of 'em. So as long as the plant is properly NIMBY'ed (say ... Fargo, or thereabouts), ethanol ain't such a bad deal for the Average Midwesterner.

  3. Fine, until... by gardyloo · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's all great, until I go out in the morning and find that the damned raccoons have eaten through my gas tank and drunk all my biofuel. Varmints!

    1. Re:Fine, until... by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 1

      Having had rats eat the insulation off my spark cables, I can see this as a problem.

      My only regret is that I wasn't able to crank the engine over why they were still gnawin'... ain't nothing like the smell of flash-fried rat.

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
  4. Between this and corn-derived ethanol... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    soon the whole vehicle will be made of corn! Finally science has found a way to let me eat my car.

    1. Re:Between this and corn-derived ethanol... by Perseid · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Hooey, it's hot in here. Hey, bob, what's that popping sound outside?"

      "Oh, my God! My car!"

    2. Re:Between this and corn-derived ethanol... by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      a car completely made of plant matter?

      Someone's been watching too much Cheech and Chong.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    3. Re:Between this and corn-derived ethanol... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're laughing, but Henry Ford made a car out of corn plastic and hemp fiber. Obviously parts of it were still metal but not the chassis or body. A famous picture (should be easy to google) has him attacking it with an ax and failing to make more than scuffs. Unfortunately Hearst and DuPont lobbied against hemp to protect their paper and plastics industries (respectively) and thus helped make marijuana illegal - quite a change from the pre-war "HEMP FOR VICTORY" etc.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Between this and corn-derived ethanol... by zobier · · Score: 1

      You're laughing, but Henry Ford made a car out of corn plastic and hemp fiber. Obviously parts of it were still metal but not the chassis or body. A famous picture (should be easy to google) has him attacking it with an ax and failing to make more than scuffs. Unfortunately Hearst and DuPont lobbied against hemp to protect their paper and plastics industries (respectively) and thus helped make marijuana illegal - quite a change from the pre-war "HEMP FOR VICTORY" etc. And not a day goes by that I don't curse the mother-fuckers; BTW: They're poisoning y'all with their Teflon coated fry-pans.
      Hemp is such wonderfully useful stuff and so easy to grow not to mention that Cannabinol is a nice pharmaceutical. Why TF do governments fight against it so hard?! Cannabis FTW!!One
      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    5. Re:Between this and corn-derived ethanol... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And not a day goes by that I don't curse the mother-fuckers; BTW: They're poisoning y'all with their Teflon coated fry-pans.

      Yes, I know it well. I use teflon in only one place: Liquid Wrench. I have a parrot and one thing I learned when looking up parrot-related information is that when teflon burns it kills birds. We used to use birds as signifiers in coal mines and shit like that. People are also susceptible, only less so - but a "teflon flu" is common when people burn the hell out of a teflon pan.

      Hemp is such wonderfully useful stuff and so easy to grow not to mention that Cannabinol is a nice pharmaceutical. Why TF do governments fight against it so hard?! Cannabis FTW!!One

      The War On Drugs makes a lot of money for a lot of people. That's pretty much the whole story.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Between this and corn-derived ethanol... by jhfry · · Score: 1

      Here's a question along that vein I'd love to get an answer to.

      If hemp is so valuable of a crop, why hasn't a hemp derived alternative that has no THC been genetically developed.

      No THC = no reason to ban it's production

      I have wondered this for a long time... seems trivial to me... I have friends, who are by no means intellegent, who have successfully cross bred plants to increase THC content. I'd imagine someone smarter could do the reverse until there was no measurable amount, while still maintaining the commercial benefits of the plant.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    7. Re:Between this and corn-derived ethanol... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If hemp is so valuable of a crop, why hasn't a hemp derived alternative that has no THC been genetically developed.

      There is no useful amount of THC in industrial hemp. Period. If you don't separate your plants you get a bunch of seeds instead of buds, anyway. (As a historical aside, George Washington recorded the separation of his plants by gender - you don't need to do this unless you're engaged in a selective breeding program, or you're smoking the product of the female plants.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Supply? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These methane storage systems may encourage mass-market natural gas cars.

    Do we even have enough natural gas for this to work? I thought it was expected to run low about the time petroleum was.

    1. Re:Supply? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Fossil fuel natural gas is also a finite source. But dont forget America alone has 100 million cows and about 120 million pigs. Cant guess how many million chicken. All their waste produced methane. Currently their wastes are a mixture of methane, nutrient rich fertilizer and small amounts of extremely stinky gases mainly H2S.

      If these can be seperated you get so many benefits. Pollution/odour abatement, organic fertilizer, auto fuel, green house gas emission reduction, etc etc. Last time I actually did the calculation I came up with six cows can keep one car running. With a million cow, we are talking about 15% reduction in oil consumption. Since we import 50% of the oil, this would represent 30% reduction in oil imports. Add the pigs and chicken, we can run our cars on their shit instead of importing oil from the middle east. On national security standpoint alone, we should be investing very heavily on recovering fuel from farm waste.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    2. Re:Supply? by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Without some major changes in our diet, America will never run out of methane.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:Supply? by quincunx55555 · · Score: 1

      Actually, from the data that I've seen, the natural gas supplies are far worse than our petroleum supply. If there's a new resource we should turn to, it should at least be more abundant than what we currently have. That is, unless we're able to use it so efficiently that we don't need as much.

      In most alternative-fuel cases the same engine we use today is still used, the same amount of explosion is required, so the efficiency hasn't changed (or is usually less than what gasoline can do).

      Why are these people bothering with fossil fuels anyway? Seems like a big waste of time considering how many alternatives are out there that will either work in a limited capacity initially, or are very close to becoming a reality.

    4. Re:Supply? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That would be awesome. If I was getting low on fuel, I could just pull over, pinch out a deuce, and I'd be set until I got to the next gas station.

    5. Re:Supply? by Radon360 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Biomass would be a good way to make methane renewable. However, the trick is removing all the impurities, such as carbon dioxide from the raw gas. Right now, that isn't very cost-effective, compared to some natural gas wells. Heck, the United States would have quite a bit more petroleum-derived natural gas for its use if an inexpensive way to remove carbon dioxide were developed (many sources of natural gas are contaminated with varing levels of carbon dioxide, some to the point that they are unusable).

    6. Re:Supply? by maxume · · Score: 1

      The are bothering with portable fuel storage.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:Supply? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
      What's a better alternative? I see storage as a potential problem as well with anything else. Liquids gas is just too convinient...

      In the future, I would probably opt for large nuclear power stations that regenerate their fuel (currently not allowed in US) with everyone driving small electrical vehicles. The vehicles could either be rechargable or standard batteries would be created so they could be swapped (equal for equals). They could either be recharged at home/at work, or have stations along the highways that would to that. If in the future we manage to harness nuclear fusion and have even more efficient power generation without much waste, the infrastructure will already be in place, ready to be used -- just replace the power stations.

    8. Re:Supply? by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 1

      Deuces are dropped. Loaves are pinched.

      Get your shit together (pun intended!)

      --
      evil adrian
    9. Re:Supply? by quincunx55555 · · Score: 1

      I understand that, but doing so with a fuel source that is already more scarce than what we are currently using. If I can power a vehicle with Dodo birds great, but if there aren't any, then my work would be mostly a waste of time.

    10. Re:Supply? by fastcoke11 · · Score: 1

      That shouldn't be too far off. I don't have a link to it, but I do remember hearing from a researcher in the field that they were working on getting a reactor together that works off Boron fusion. Not the same type of radioactivity as fission creates, so the danger is much much less - that is, the shielding isn't needed. He was giving an example of how they could create a reactor the size of a standard refrigerator. Also, with the world's supply of Boron, we could run ten times the world's energy consumption for 1 billion years through this process. Now THAT'S something we should be investing in.

    11. Re:Supply? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Two reasons:

      1. Natural gas is something that the US has a fair bit of. If we swap our natural gas for Middle East oil, it shifts the balances of power in a way that's very positive for the US, even if it does nothing for greenhouse gas emissions or long-term energy stability.

      2. Natural gas may be renewable. It's easier to produce biologically than gasoline is, and perhaps easier than ethanol. There's research to be done there, as well as on other natural sources like methane hydrates.

      So it may or may not be a long-term solution, but managing a national economy involves short-term as well as long-term solutions.

    12. Re:Supply? by quincunx55555 · · Score: 1

      A better alternative to natural gas?

      Electricity, as you mentioned. Which can be generated via wind, solar, geothermal, or all of the above. Hydrogen, obtained through electricity (generated by the previously mentioned methods). Pressurized air, biodiesel, grease/veg oil (already being used). Hemp hurds, processed into solid/liquid/gas fuels through pyrolysis. Alcohol (methanol, not ethanol).

      With some of these methods the only argument I've heard is, "You couldn't possibly exchange all of our current petroleum consumption with X". Which is true in almost every case. I think the solution is to start adopting as many clean (and sensible) methods as possible to diminish our current "dirty" paradigm, and to become more self-reliant on our energy needs.

      If using hydrogen can only handle 10% of the population, great, that's 10% less. What if alcohol can take care of 5% more? Biodiesel 30% more? Right there we're at 45% reduction in petroleum dependency, even if they could only handle 5% each it would still help.

    13. Re:Supply? by quincunx55555 · · Score: 1

      Ok, so what if our short-term solution depletes our natural gas supply entirely in 3-5 years (very possible, depending on scale of adoption). Then we crawl back to the Mid-East and have no way of heating many US homes? How is natural gas renewable, btw? That's new to me.

    14. Re:Supply? by KokorHekkus · · Score: 1

      Another good thing if you use biomass such as manure etc to make biogas in an anaerobic digester is that you actually cut back on methane (which is a greenhouse gas, 20 times more so than CO2 according to wikipedia) emissions into the atmosphere. If the used biomass would be left to decompose by itself it would emit the methane anyway. And it's not like you are wasting the fertilizing properties of the manure since one of the byproducts is methanogenic digestate which is an excellent fertilizer.

      More about anaerobic digestion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion

      P.S I live in a municipality (about 150 000 ppl) where buses, taxis and municipality vehicles are mostly biogas vehicles. So it scales reasonably and works well as far as I can tell.

    15. Re:Supply? by Elemenope · · Score: 1

      Natural Gas, being the generally used name for naturally occuring methane trapped in rock strata, is not particularly renewable (and is usually mixed up with smaller amounts of other gaseous alkanes). However, there are many processes, both biological and otherwise, that produce methane in decent quantities. So, yeah, methane is renewable. We're just stuck with partial homonymic terminology that confuses us.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    16. Re:Supply? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      There are cheap(ish) ways to remove carbon dioxide. Membranes have been around since the 80s that allow co2 through and keep methane behind. Maybe that's vice-versa. You just run pre-treated gas through the membrane under pressure and get purified gas.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    17. Re:Supply? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      If the term is three years, yeah, it's not a good plan. But if it buys us, say, two decades, that would be plenty of time to put the OPEC nations out of business.

      In fact, even partial adoption over a mere five years would be enough to sink the price of oil dramatically and reduce the free income of the OPEC nations. That would give the US considerably more breathing room in its foreign policy with those nations. It's all about margins: right now the margins are massive and they take in oodles of cash. Drop the price of a barrel of oil by half and you're reducing their profit by more like 90%.

      (I'm not trying to turn this political, at least not US political. I don't know if the President, either the current one or a future one, will be able to use that breathing room wisely or not.)

      I will admit to a bias that I don't like the way many oil producing countries (both Middle Eastern and Venezuela) have tremendous antipathy towards the US, and that the profits from oil help turn that antipathy into action. So for me, at least in the term of a decade or so, I care a lot about replacing oil with anything that is a net energy win.

      That certainly puts us at risk of other issues: another huge natural gas producer is Russia, and they're famous for not being real friendly with us, either. I'd pray that the US would be wise enough to use its time to develop even more technologies to free us from that, too, though I'm afraid that we've a history of being short-sighted.

    18. Re:Supply? by Radon360 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you were thinking of this.

      One-third of the natural gas reserves in the United States cannot be used because of excessive contamination with nitrogen and/or carbon dioxide. Engelhard Corporation had developed some adsorption system technology to address this. However, at the time the project was conceived in 1999, it was considered too preliminary and too high risk despite its potential benefits to the natural gas market. ATP support enabled the development of this promising technology, and provided the means for Engelhard Corporation to partner with universities possessing the special scientific and engineering expertise needed to bring the adsorption system technology to commercial fruition.
    19. Re:Supply? by pkulak · · Score: 1

      If someone can figure out how to take the impurities out of the air in my living room after I've come home from El Torito's, I'd call that a pretty good, renewable source of methane.

    20. Re:Supply? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      I going to stop procrastinating, starting tomorrow.

      Don't let it wait another day. Procrastinate now!

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    21. Re:Supply? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      No, adsorption is different - although molecular sieves are quite common, not for natural gas yet. There are several membrane technologies, here is an interesting one Membranes have been in use for a long time and have increased in performance over the years. It's pretty neat that a physical membrane can be made that sorts molecules based on their size. Sort of like the screens archeologists use.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    22. Re:Supply? by Benwick · · Score: 1

      In other words... someday people will say "What a load of shit!" and they'll mean it as a compliment!

    23. Re:Supply? by rachit · · Score: 1

      Last time I actually did the calculation I came up with six cows can keep one car running. With a million cow, we are talking about 15% reduction in oil consumption. Since we import 50% of the oil, this would represent 30% reduction in oil imports. Holy cow!
    24. Re:Supply? by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      The major problem with piecemeal adoption is the logistical problems of supplying Bob with methane while supplying Bob's neighbor Suzy with vegetable oil. It does work really well for baseload power generation, it's just hard to supply everyone with what they need when their needs cease to be cookie-cutter. Since we all use gasoline to power our cars, nobody has to worry about not being able to fill up because there aren't any methane stations around. It may not be a big problem in the long run, but there will be additional costs to maintaining infrastructure for several different types of fuel.

      --
      SRSLY.
    25. Re:Supply? by thc69 · · Score: 1

      El Torito's? Are you bootable?

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    26. Re:Supply? by thc69 · · Score: 1

      Read my sig...

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    27. Re:Supply? by quincunx55555 · · Score: 1

      Except we already do this with diesel. And a few places are doing it now with other fuels. Yes, there are more "pieces" to deal with, but it's hardly an issue since we're already doing it to some degree. It could easily start by regions having what is needed based on what type of energy is generated there. Then each type could "fan-out" as product and demand spread.

      If the methane distributor is coming to town, and the vegetable oil distributor is also, then what's the big deal. In fact, it's not too much of a stretch to think that the current energy distributors would take this on (meaning the methane and veggie oil distributor would be the same). Seems like Bob and Suzy could easily be taken care of.

  6. Scary by Perseid · · Score: 1

    I don't have any scientific reason for saying this, but that sounds...dangerous to me. A gaseous car fuel seems like asking for trouble.

    1. Re:Scary by CommunistHamster · · Score: 1

      How more so than a liquid one? Both will burn very well. In fact, a gas fueled car may be slightly safer in accidents. When the tank is punctured in an accident (and if the fuel doesn't explode), then it dissipates into the air, rather than pooling around the car to watch fire later.

    2. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to carrying around 20 gallons of highly flammable gasoline in one of the most accident prone areas of your vehicle?

    3. Re:Scary by Icarus1919 · · Score: 1

      What could possibly go wrong?

    4. Re:Scary by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's already being done. Been to Disney lately? Their trams and many other vehicles arlready run on natural gas. Same with the National Park Service in some areas. You probably have an LP tank sitting there under your back yard BBQ grill. When was the last time you heard of one of these blowing up? The problem with this is not the nature of the fuel, but in how you store it. Pretty strict regulations are in place in the US that regulate the manufacutre and limit the life of LP tanks (I think it's 12 years). I can't recall ever hearing of one of these accidentally exploding. Granted, adding it to a fast moving (highway speed) vehicle increases the danger but it's already in use in a lot of slower moving vehicles.

      --
      What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
    5. Re:Scary by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 1

      "You probably have an LP tank sitting there under your back yard BBQ grill. When was the last time you heard of one of these blowing up?"

      Last 4th of July, but that did involve alcohol (consumption) and a rifle...

    6. Re:Scary by fastcoke11 · · Score: 1

      Further evidence to support Darwin's theory of Natural Selection.

    7. Re:Scary by KokorHekkus · · Score: 1
      Here in Linköping, Sweden the overhelming majority of buses, municipality vehicles and taxis all run on biogas (i.e. methane made with anaerobic digestion) and safety has never been an issue. Translated from the FAQ:

      Question: Is it dangeour to fill the tank and drive with biogas?

      Answer: No. The cars are tested in the same way as petrol cars. The system is close with means that leaks are avoided while filling up the tank. The gas is lighter than air and non-poisonous and has a higher ignition temperature than petrol or diesel. The risk for fires or explosion in case of a traffic accident is because of that lower than if you compare with gasoline or diesel vehicle.
    8. Re:Scary by redtape · · Score: 1

      You do know that LP (Liquid Propane) is not the same as natural gas, right?

    9. Re:Scary by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 1

      Sure do, I wasn't commenting on that, I was commenting on the GP's post about LP tanks exploding.

    10. Re:Scary by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 1

      Sorry can't help you out there, no one has ever died (or even been seriously hurt) at our 4th parties, we can try harder this year though, if it's really important to you.

    11. Re:Scary by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      They're both alkanes that are served with added fragrance. Close enough!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    12. Re:Scary by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Natural gas is lighter than air and thus safer. My in-law's house burnt down because of a propane leak - it pools just like a fluid in still air.

      (I'm a mechanical engineer and, yes, I realize that it pools just like a fluid because it IS a fluid.)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gas has been powering cars in Australia for years now. Government recently introduced a $2000 refund for anyone modifying their car to run on gas. Cost of modification is between $1500 and $4000 depending on your car and which kit you go with.

      I don't see any reason to get excited about this new development, a decent tank does the job just fine and is very safe.

    14. Re:Scary by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Propane is only a liquid at room temperature under high pressure, but you're right about the density. I don't know which one is safer. Methane would tend to collect near your ceiling, propane near your floor. If you have the right concentration and a spark - kaboom! I've certainly heard of both causing explosions, but without knowing accident and usage rates I wouldn't hazard a guess. There are definitely lots of stories about natural gas leaks (usually pure methane) causing explosions on the news.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    15. Re:Scary by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Practically every fork lift you've ever seen being used inside ran on LP. If it were a serious danger likely to blow people up, some states (I'm thinking my home of California) wouldn't even let you operate them indoors. CAL-OSHA would be on your ass before you could say "liability".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Scary by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Bad combination: leaking ammonia plus leaking propane. Chemically, you wind up with something like TNT.

      Had a neighbour in Montana who had a travel trailer with an ammonia-cooled fridge (which tend to leak when they get ancient) and propane heat (which often leaks around the various connectors). One day the two got together and **!BOOM!** Nothing left of the trailer but the frame. Flattened the row of mature pine trees next to it, and the garage (which saved the house)... nothing left of that but matchsticks.

      I observed the debris from this debacle, went home, and disconnected my travel trailer's propane heater, which was situated unpleasantly adjacent to its ammonia fridge.

      I still have =my= trailer. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    17. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not -- it's far safer than filling a car up with a flammable liquid (like gasoline) in a tank made of thin sheet metal.

      I worked on a hybrid car team in the late 90's, and our car ran on CNG. The maker of the CNG tank provided us with a video showing how durable it was (we showed it during pizza parties).

      It showed the tank, filled and installed in a car, being dropped from a crane from 35, 50, etc. feet -- the equivalent of low- to high-speed crashes. Even when the engine completely broke loose from its mounts, the tank was fine.

      Then it showed the tank being shot at with a police pistol, a rifle, a machine gun, etc., up to the some UN-issued assault rifle -- both at the side of the tank, and at the valve.

      Finally, it showed the tank with 1/4 stick, 1/2 stick, and finally a full stick of dynamite taped to it. And then the same explosions, but with the tank frozen.

      Only one of the later tests caused the valve to vent the gas (I don't remember which one -- an assault rifle hitting the valve, I think), and even then it didn't ignite.

      That's not to say that these new tanks are as good yet, but they should be held to high standards. Good gaseous-fueled cars are perfectly safe. When you can strap a stick of dynamite to a tank full of gasoline and feel safe, get back to me.

    18. Re:Scary by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      In the context of an automobile crash, it's probably moot since there'd likely be enough wind to disburse either gas. This is not the case with gasoline. Electric cars scare the hell out of me, too. Nothing like a metal body section slicing into a high-voltage cable to surprise you in a crash!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    19. Re:Scary by tkw954 · · Score: 1

      A gaseous car fuel seems like asking for trouble.

      It's already being done. Been to Disney lately? Their trams and many other vehicles arlready run on natural gas. Same with the National Park Service in some areas. You probably have an LP tank sitting there under your back yard BBQ grill. When was the last time you heard of one of these blowing up?
      The "L" in LP is "liquid". It must first vapourize and mix with air before it can burn or explode.

      I'm not saying that CNG is inherently unsafe, but it is an entirely different storage problem than propane which has a vapour pressure on the order of hundreds of psi, compared to typical CNG storage pressures in the thousands.

    20. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, yeah, last I checked propane was a gas, the only reason it was liquid in the tank was pressure. Check wiki on it.

    21. Re:Scary by thc69 · · Score: 1

      This is news to me. My TT's propane furnace is directly underneath the fridge. Is ammonia gas lighter or heavier than air? Or does the ammonia leak in liquid form (and then how does it mix with the LP)?

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    22. Re:Scary by Reziac · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, ammonia sinks. But it probably doesn't matter if it's leaking as gas or liquid... it'll evaporate in due course. It's probably more of a risk if the fridge uses a propane flame to heat the reservoir, thus has both a potential leak point and ignition all in one handy spot, than when using an electric element. (I don't know which way my neighbour's worked. Mine swung both ways. Needless to say I disconnected that gas line too. :)

      You're probably okay so long as there's no rust on the fridge's coils.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    23. Re:Scary by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      You should go with a nice, safe flywheel-powered car. Or maybe a steam engine - nice safe wood or coal, no dangers there!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    24. Re:Scary by KC7JHO · · Score: 1

      Steam engines operate under very high presser. Many explosions have happened by boiler failure.
      Flywheel tech requires something to build up the momentum in the flywheel, perhaps a series of gears attached to a set of peddles? ;)

    25. Re:Scary by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I was joking. Steam engines would be about the worst to have in accident-prone vehicles. A flywheel with enough power to drive around for 100 miles would demolish a city block if it exploded, and an accident would place huge stress on it.

      A 10-gallon tank of gasoline has as much energy as 625 sticks of dynamite. Any portable energy storage will be quite dangerous should all that energy be released at once.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    26. Re:Scary by jhfry · · Score: 1

      In order to have combustion you need a way for the gas to quickly mix with oxygen. I believe the whole purpose of the briquettes is to prevent that from happening, otherwise a simple compressed gas cylinder would suffice.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    27. Re:Scary by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      You probably have an LP tank sitting there under your back yard BBQ grill. When was the last time you heard of one of these blowing up?

      A yard full of 'em blew up in North Las Vegas last summer. I lived a few miles away at the time, and the biggest explosion rattled the building.

      (Your point about the usual safety of this stuff is taken, but since you asked...)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  7. It is Now all about COST by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    Lots of talk in the article, but no hard dollar facts.

    Cost of methane.
    Cost of storage.
    Cost of transportation.
    Cost of local distribution & storage.
    Cost of the delivery pump & tankage system in the vehicle.

    1. Re:It is Now all about COST by compro01 · · Score: 1

      1. methane is natural gas (http://www.energyshop.com/es/homes/gas/gaspricefo recast.cfm)

      2. infastructure is already in place, as a lot of furnaces run on natural gas

      3. infastructure is already in place, as a lot of furnaces run on natural gas

      4. infastructure is already in place, as a lot of furnaces run on natural gas

      5. depends on how much this scheme costs.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:It is Now all about COST by hazem · · Score: 1

      infastructure is already in place, as a lot of furnaces run on natural gas

      The infrastructure is already in place to support the current use. But how much MORE use could that infrastructure withstand before major and costly upgrades? Could the existing system handle a 10% increase? 20%? 30%?

      And I know at least here a lot of people are very agitated about a proposed LNG terminal that would be installed off the Oregon coast. And with the recent explosion of an NG line in Washington, people may not be so excited about expanding that infrastructure.

      It's probably a good idea in a lot of ways but it's not just as simple using existing infrastructure.

    3. Re:It is Now all about COST by doctorcisco · · Score: 1
      The infrastructure is already in place to support the current use. But how much MORE use could that infrastructure withstand before major and costly upgrades?

      1) In the summer the current infrastructure is mostly idle.

      2) Increase the amount of storage reasonably close to major urban areas.

      3) IF there is even a capacity issue, use the summer slow time to build up supplies relatively close to the end user, and the demand for long-haul pipline capacity should not cause issues.

      4) Storage facilities could certainly include a few pressure tanks in the yard/garage. Rural areas still have lots of propane tanks where there are no natural gas lines.

      doctorcisco

    4. Re:It is Now all about COST by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The same problem will exist that dogs pure-electric vehicles: existing infrastructure for delivering power and fuel for industrial and residential purposes won't be able to handle the additional load of millions of automobiles. Designing a practical car that will run on some alternative fuel or even battery power is not especially difficult, but you do need to get fuel to all those cars. That requires a distribution network rivaling that for gasoline. The cost of that buildout has to be factored in, it would take decades whether you're talking electric, hydrogen, methane, you-name-it, and is probably more than we can afford at this point anyway. The private sector is unlikely to ever undertake such project without some overriding motivation, and let's face it: the end of petroleum won't do it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  8. Alt fuels by lonechicken · · Score: 1

    I for one am still waiting for the day when cars can run on used cans and banana peels. Then I can cruise down the Main Street strip with my homey Doc Brown and impress the chicks.

    1. Re:Alt fuels by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      Be warned, the only chick you'll impress with that gear is your own mom.

    2. Re:Alt fuels by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to pour out the beer and throw the *can* in...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  9. Natural gas is great fuel by asadodetira · · Score: 4, Informative

    Compressed natural gas (mostly methane and low C alkanes) has been in use in Argentina for years, it's cheaper and cleaner than gasoline, the autonomy of compressed gas is lower but for city driving it doesn't matter, and cars can still use gasoline because the engine has only minor modifications. This method seems to admit lower pressure in the tank, and might enable to store more gas without need of thick heavy steel was for containing it. Sounds like a good idea to me.

    1. Re:Natural gas is great fuel by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      This method seems to admit lower pressure in the tank, and might enable to store more gas without need of thick heavy steel was for containing it. Sounds like a good idea to me.
      500 PSI vs 3,600 PSI (steel tanks)
      It's still quite a bit of pressure.

      P.S. the captcha was "bicycles"
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Natural gas is great fuel by virtual_mps · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sounds like a good idea to me. Sounds like an idiotic idea to me. Natural gas was billed as a cheap, clean fuel years ago. So people started using it, for houses, electricity generation, industry, etc. Now natural gas is an overused resource, with oversubscribed pipelines, severe seasonal price shocks, etc. Why on earth would we start converting cars to use an energy source that's already overutilized? It's going to be a lot easier to deploy a more sensible alternative vehicle fuel (e.g., biodiesel) than to convert tens of millions of furnaces, power plants, and other durable consumers to use something else because the natural gas distribution network can't cope with the demand of a bunch of new cars trying to use it also.
    3. Re:Natural gas is great fuel by juancn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are forgetting that natural gas can be replaced by gas made from decomposing organic matter (i.e. trash), which is renewable (although the CO2 emmisions are still there, but it's the same with biodiesel).

      Adapting a regular gasoline car to natural gas, costs around U$S 700 in Argentina. The equipment pays itself after a year or so.

      The economics may be different in the US, though. For example, some year ago, before natural gas was widespread, we used a mixture of regular-gas and ethanol on some parts of the country (no modifications to the engine required, but as with natural gas, a thicker engine oil is needed). The biggest problem was that the fuel hoses and some plastics in the car worn out faster due to the ethanol.

      Brazil still has widespread use of ethanol mixed with the gas.

    4. Re:Natural gas is great fuel by asadodetira · · Score: 1

      Well, I see what you mean with the problems with natural gas in the US. But sooner or later you have to expand the infrastructure, the same goes for the electrical grid. All these new energy ideas are good, but true energy savings in transportation would take a re-thinking of housing and commuting patterns, which might take decades to happen, or a sustained large increase in gasoline prices. If you lived really close to the stores, your friends and your workplace what do you need cars for?.

    5. Re:Natural gas is great fuel by virtual_mps · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting that natural gas can be replaced by gas made from decomposing organic matter (i.e. trash), which is renewable (although the CO2 emmisions are still there, but it's the same with biodiesel). Natural gas from trash is nothing more than a novelty; there is no way you're going to fill a significant fraction of the world's energy needs from trash gas.

      Adapting a regular gasoline car to natural gas, costs around U$S 700 in Argentina. The equipment pays itself after a year or so. Apples and oranges. There are less than one million CNG cars in Argentina, compared to about 240 million cars in the US. There's something on the order of 10k km of natural gas pipeline in Argentina, compared to 330k km in the US. And Argentina's population density is such that those 10k km of pipeline cover the population better than the 300k km of (oversubscribed) pipeline in the US. The major natural gas reserves in the US are in Alaska, and there is no pipeline there at all. And, the economics in Argentina are influenced by the taxes on petroleum fuel which favor domestic natural gas for national security reasons. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is important to note that the CNG car costs significantly more than the gasoline car unless influenced by policy--and I have yet to see a good reason to push CNG by policy on a global basis. (E.g., the energy security argument is a good one for AR, but the US is projected to be a CNG importer in a decade or two...)
    6. Re:Natural gas is great fuel by virtual_mps · · Score: 1

      But sooner or later you have to expand the infrastructure, the same goes for the electrical grid.

      Or, you use something like biodiesel which wouldn't require millions of kilometers of new natural gas pipelines.

      true energy savings in transportation would take a re-thinking of housing and commuting patterns, which might take decades to happen, or a sustained large increase in gasoline prices. If you lived really close to the stores, your friends and your workplace what do you need cars for?

      Dreams that involve everyone leaving the suburbs to move back to the cities are, frankly, a waste of time. A lot of people live in areas where the settlement patterns evolved hundreds or even thousands of years ago and the settlements have survived remodeling, urban planning, invasions, etc. In places where there are big fires and floods, people tend to put their houses back in the same spots. Human nature is that once you have a house, you don't often just leave it. Beyond that, do you realize how high gasoline prices (and every other alternative) would have to get before someone could justify walking away from several hundred thousand dollars in real estate? That's not a couple of decades of greener thinking, that's a complete collapse of civilization. It's just not worth talking or thinking about, because if that kind of change happens your major concern will be finding another day's worth of food--it doesn't matter how close the store is if it's empty.
  10. It will be interesting to see by jdcool88 · · Score: 1

    how this all plays out. While the lower cost of natural gas sounds good, will it be offset by a lower efficiency? Are supplies of natural gas plentiful enough for a large-scale changeover? Will the oil tycoons simply create artificial scarcity to drive prices up, similarly to how they currently do with gasoline? How will the use of natural gas effect engines over extended use? As someone else said, there is a lot of talk in the article, but no hard facts. For now, I have a lot of questions as to the long-term viability of natural gas as a fuel for automobiles.

    1. Re:It will be interesting to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxi's in Australia have been using gas for years - in fact they dont run anything else. They get around 500,000 - 600,000 Km before replacing car - all done on the same engine.

  11. No no no by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 0

    The Democrat's agenda is to force us to use the expensive and more environmentally hazardous ethanol.

  12. Pickup truck? by Radon360 · · Score: 1

    So why does the Kansas City Office of Environmental Quality need a pickup truck? Or is this another technology that requires a larger vehicle to demonstrate any feasibility?

    1. Re:Pickup truck? by green453 · · Score: 1

      I saw this pickup just two days ago. It struck me as odd that it had a little "Powered by Natural Gas" sticker on it as I had never seen that on a passenger vehicle before.

      I know that a lot of environmental agency vehicles have to carry around a fair bit of testing equipment, so this one may have been filled with it. It definitely didn't have any extra racks or hoses on it like you sometimes see on water quality testing vehicles, but the bed may have had some equipment in it. I couldn't really tell though as my car sits pretty close to the ground and I was looking up at the thing. It did have rather a nice, environmentally friendly looking (color-wise) paint job, however.

    2. Re:Pickup truck? by chill · · Score: 2, Informative

      To demonstrate to the general public that it works with the vehicles they drive. Small pickup trucks are very popular and have lots of uses. It is a good way to show the public they don't need to drive some California-left-winger-little-wind-up-toy vehicle. Like it or not, that is the perception many people have hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles. It is a lot easier to simply say "no, it's a pickup truck" than try and educate everyone and change their tastes.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    3. Re:Pickup truck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw this pickup just two days ago. It struck me as odd that it had a little "Powered by Natural Gas" sticker on it as I had never seen that on a passenger vehicle before.

      Check the plates? Probably a city government car. Municipal fleets are easy targets for NG conversions, since they always refuel at the depot and never leave the city.

    4. Re:Pickup truck? by tkw954 · · Score: 1

      Pickup trucks are a better target because most fleets (e.g. utilities) use them more than cars, and fleets often have more predictable fueling requirements than personal vehicles.

  13. Yeah right... by CasperIV · · Score: 1

    Until you bust out the hover board and ski behind the thing.... then you will get noticed.

  14. What about people by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
    After eating my refried beans and a cabbage salad for lunch, in a couple of hours I would be quite ready to accomplish my civic duty of solving our energy crisis.

    1. Re:What about people by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 1

      ::drum roll::

      --
      evil adrian
  15. Beyond Thunderdome by jhines · · Score: 1

    Is a movie example of how it can be solved. Corn in, methane out, more or less.

  16. oblig by L.+VeGas · · Score: 1

    Yep. Corn gives you gas.

  17. Not my Missouri Meerschaums!! by Ikoma+Andy · · Score: 1

    Better stock up while you stil can!!!!

  18. Charging? by RockofSisyphus · · Score: 1

    To charge the device does one stick it in a bovine behind?

  19. Who owns the IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cornholio already owns the patent on this.

    He said he would share it if you give him TP for his bunghole.

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. It could be worse... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    ...they could be talking about putting hydrogen in cars.

    oops.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  22. One small change is needed by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope they also use mesquite in their charcoal. I like my car exhhaust to have that flavor that only mesquite can deliver.

    Will the new engines come with a grill?

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  23. Old technology, in fact by Flying+pig · · Score: 1
    The Still marine engine had Diesel cycle on the top of the piston and steam cycle under the piston (in a marine engine the wrist pin is not inside the piston but attached to a crosshead, with a rod attached to the piston, so this does not mean water in the crankcase.)

    Like every other single attempt to add complexity for a marginal gain in efficiency, it was not a success. All engineering involves tradeoffs: combining technologies with different metallurgical, thermal, gasflow etc. requirements means that none of the combined technologies ever function with peak efficiency. (The hybrid is a rare exception because the characteristics of internal combustion engines and electric motors are complementary, but even there it has taken something like 140 years of development of IC engine powered generator technology to make it work.)

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  24. Wait until they fart! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a 180 to 1 storage volume of methane, you're going to have a very big mess to clean up.

    That'll serve those little buggers right though!

  25. Frosty the snowman by Viceroy+Potatohead · · Score: 1

    Coal energy, corncob energy... I think the next space shuttles ought to run on old top-hats.

  26. How it's made by Mr.Sharpy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's a neat poster (pdf link) about how these briquettes are made.

    It looks ultra simple to do. This poster references only 120:1 storage ratio, so maybe there have been process changes that have improved storage capacity. Maybe this will also help with fuel cells that run on methane to provide portable electrical power too. I think this could be an exciting development.

  27. For those hand-wringing about eco issues by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...you're a bunch of alarmist buffoons.

    Anything you can do with natural gas from a well can be done with methane. It's very easy to produce. Here's how it works. You've got a pond with a tent over it. The pond is full of beneficial bacteria. "Fresh" water (can be contaminated) and sewage are introduced into the bottom center of the pond. Over time the system is colonized with algae. The algae and other organisms digest the sewage, resulting in lots of algae (a resource itself), fairly clean water, and methane (mostly.) The methane can be captured and the algae can be harvested; the algae can be used to make either alcohol or biodiesel depending on what kind it is - some have more carbohydrates, some have more oil.

    Right now, a lot of our sewage treatment systems, even the ones that look like oil refineries, are producing and flaring off methane. This is stupid. It should be captured and used. In fact a lot of agricultural producers of shit, like pig farms, are starting to use this technology to power their farms - and in many cases they actually produce enough power not only to run their operation, but to actually make a profit by selling excess to the grid. The resulting effluent has been "cooked" to the point where it can be applied directly to the crops as fertilizer. Normally this is achieved by storing it in an uncovered holding pond for months, where the methane simply escapes.

    If we simply applied this technology to waste treatment plants and forced it on those who have a lot of animal shit currently posing a health hazard, we could get a lot of power and it would actually save money for everyone involved.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:For those hand-wringing about eco issues by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny
      We could finally get the lights back on in Bartertown!

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:For those hand-wringing about eco issues by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Yeah they need to apply this to the sewer systems as well,
      I am curious how much just escapes right out the small holes
      on the manhole covers.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    3. Re:For those hand-wringing about eco issues by KC7JHO · · Score: 1

      Ok, with this being said, how hard would this be to adapt to a septic tank system in a rural home? For example, most rural homes in the south western US are too far from sewage systems and are required to have a septic system which appears to be very similar to your description except that is is a closed system buried in the ground with the liquefied waist overflowing the tank (algae vat) after the algae has reduced the solids to liquid, into pipes with holes in them to be absorbed into the ground. Seems to me all one needs to do is attach some methane reclamation system to the top of the tank and some type of storage system/pump that would make this gass available to the home/autos. Currently most of these homes require LP tanks or run off of electricity or both. Perhaps this would not produce enough gas to run the generator to run the house, but if it would run the water heater and furnace it would be worth $200 per month in the winter to me, and more than that if it would be able to handle cooking, clothes drying, fuel one or more cars, etc.
      Designing a system where you would use both on the same appliance doesn't work unless you have 2 separate burners as the jets are of different size and a CNG jet would not let LP through in quantity to be functional, where as an LP jet would burn the house down running CNG. Of course you could build custom valves which would handle each however the cost/complexity would increase as well. The jets are interchangeable however it is done by a licensed service rep or LP/CNG dealer.

    4. Re:For those hand-wringing about eco issues by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Not only are small-scale digesters common throughout the world but you can trivially build your own.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  28. Fuel Tank Made From Corncob?? by mikefitz · · Score: 0

    Corncob waste does NOT seem like the appropriate engineering material for fuel tank construction.

    1. Re:Fuel Tank Made From Corncob?? by KC7JHO · · Score: 1

      And wasted old moldy bread dose not seem like appropriate material for making medicine.

  29. it's in the ocean by SethJohnson · · Score: 1



    Methane is a gas created by animals and insects (termites). Currently it mostly escapes into the atmosphere where it damages the ozone layer. As other posters have responded, it can be harvested from pig farms or garbage dumps. Methane and other natural gas hydrates are also found frozen at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico in massive quantities.

    Unlike traditional fossil fuels like petroleum, methane can be generated in very short time spans and as a byproduct to other production activities (bacon). The problem remains that burning anything is not a clean energy source. Natural gas cars will still emit carbon dioxide, which is one of the main problems we're grappling with in terms of global warming. The plus side is that this fuel source might help Americans put fewer of their dollars in Middle Eastern pockets.

    Seth

    1. Re:it's in the ocean by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unlike traditional fossil fuels like petroleum, methane can be generated in very short time spans and as a byproduct to other production activities (bacon). The problem remains that burning anything is not a clean energy source. Natural gas cars will still emit carbon dioxide, which is one of the main problems we're grappling with in terms of global warming.

      Burning methane produced from shit is a clean energy source. Methane burns EXCEPTIONALLY clean, and it is carbon-neutral. The CO2 to make the plants, which became part of the poop, part of which became methane, came from the atmosphere to begin with.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  30. Alternative Energy? by Bo0bMeIsTeR · · Score: 1

    What exactly does this do for alternative energy, i thought we were attempting to avoid oil gas, and coal? How small exactly? Are we talking laptops powered with natural gas small? Or just a minimal reduction in size, either way, i don't see much benefit, couldn't those corn cobs be better used to make biodiesel instead?

    1. Re:Alternative Energy? by vtcodger · · Score: 1
      ***What exactly does this do for alternative energy, i thought we were attempting to avoid oil gas, and coal? How small exactly? Are we talking laptops powered with natural gas small? Or just a minimal reduction in size, either way, i don't see much benefit, couldn't those corn cobs be better used to make biodiesel instead?***

      Well, it's like this. Five or ten decades from now, gasoline from the ground is probably going to be a scarce and expensive resource. It may well be easier to make methane from biological sources than it is to make a mixture of medium chain length hydrocarbons -- e.g. gasoline, kerosine, and/or biodiesel from biological sources. This corn cob thing looks to maybe be a better solution to storing Methane in a vehicle than storing the stuff under pressure -- which is what is done nowdays for fleet vehicles.

      What could possibly go wrong? Plenty. the corn cobs could deteriorate over time, or breed nasty bacteria that convert Methane to something toxic, or ... the list is long and I doubt anybody's list of possible problems is really complete. Still, the list is probably less intimidating than for the simplistic solution -- hydrogen. [George W Bush thinks hydrogen is the fuel of the future. That should to be all anyone needs to know in order to suspect that it might not work out]. So, this is a possibly good idea. We'll know more in 5-10 years

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:Alternative Energy? by shokk · · Score: 0

      I'm more concerned that this is yet another scheme that continues to erode the remaining topsoil from our farmable areas. Sure, farmers can buy all the fertilizer they want, but that's petroleum based and doesn't really fully replenish the topsoil. These farms will eventually only be good for selling off to make more overpriced homes. Then what? That's a more immediate threat than global warming, because when these farms stop producing, there is going to be a lot of starvation.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    3. Re:Alternative Energy? by vtcodger · · Score: 1
      ***Sure, farmers can buy all the fertilizer they want, but that's petroleum based and doesn't really fully replenish the topsoil. ***

      A reasonable concern. But y'know what? Crops can be grown without fertilizer. The yield is substantially lower, but modern crop varieties are much more productive than those in use a century ago. And quite a lot of land that was under cultivation in say 1850 has returned to wilderness -- at least in North America. So maybe we'll muddle through. Or maybe we won't. It's far from an open and shut case that the demise of modern civilization would be a tragedy.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  31. Liquid fuel is worse by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    In a crash, gasoline will puddle under the vehicle you'd probably be trapped in. A gaseous fuel would dissipate in the air.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  32. Oh Geeze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they use up all the corn cobs how will I wipe my ass?

  33. Increased Storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article does not explain how you can take a cylinder containing nothing and store more in it when you put something else in it. If the pressure is the same how can micro-pores increase the volume?

  34. BOOM by Garridan · · Score: 1

    Gasoline is relatively safe because it's not explosive as a liquid. So, you pop the gas tank, and it leaks all over the ground, catches fire, and you can run away before the thing goes. However... if you have porous charcoal, there are problems. Impact the charcoal and little bits break off. Hit it hard enough, and significant portions get reduced to a fine powder. Suddenly, your low-pressure, high density tank turns into a high-pressure, high density tank that's only rated for low pressure.

    Add to that, the flammability of charcoal powder. And by flammability, I do mean explosive tendency in the presence of enough air. In review: impact increases pressure, adds explosive potential -- tank rupture is now imminent, and a gas / charcoal mixture is sprayed out in large amounts. Scary.

    1. Re:BOOM by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Where did you learn your chemistry? Gasoline is HIGHLY explosive, a gallon of gasoline is equivalent to a stick of dynamite. Although slightly more difficult to explode (than vapor, only in the sense that vaporized or atomized gasoline is probably as explosive and dangerous as running around shaking a bottle of nitroglycerin) the only modification required is a confined fire and you can turn it into a HUGE explosion. Stick a sock in a gallon gasoline container light the sock and walk away, that tank will explode like dynamite. Basically the confined fire causes the tank to explode under pressure vaporizing the gasoline and igniting it simultaneously. Anything that adds a lot of oxygen to the liquid is going to create the possibility of a large explosion because in it's liquid form gasoline is highly enriched without the oxygen to complete the burn whereas high explosives contain both the constituents needed to oxidize the components.

      So lets summarize, gasoline is HIGHLY explosive in all forms. It's one of the most dangerous substances we use in our daily lives. Every automobile accident where the gas tank is damaged has the possibility of an explosive combustion of the gasoline.

    2. Re:BOOM by Garridan · · Score: 1

      Yup. Takes quite a bit of energy to convert it from liquid to gas. You haven't said anything that contradicts what I did.

  35. Source, source, source... by cpotoso · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is the source... The "ALL-CRAFT" of the University of Missouri. http://all-craft.missouri.edu/

  36. Energon Cubes by ajlitt · · Score: 1

    Wow, it's just like Energon cubes, except I can fill them with farts.

  37. Domestic Animal waste for fuel? by Redrodan · · Score: 0

    I still would to see my dream of a car that could run on cat poop. Having two cats and two litter boxes, I'm sure other pet owners would understand where I'm coming from. The only problem I could see is going on long trips and having to wait for kitty to do his/her thing.

  38. Doc Brown was an ingenious idiot by frogstar_robot · · Score: 1

    In the third movie, Doc and Marty are trapped in the Old West without gasoline to get the DeLorean up to 88 MPH.

    "But Doc, what about Mr. Fusion?"

    "Mr. Fusion powers the flight circuitry and the Flux Capacitor but the internal combustion engine runs on ordinary gasoline. It always did."

    While Doc was having the car converted for flight, he could have chucked the combustion engine and replaced it with a motor/generator. Mr. Fusion could have then powered all systems in the car. For that matter, a bigass electric motor wouldn't have been beyond his means in 1855. Course he may have needed longer than that week he had to live but then he came up with those charcoal briquettes from hell for the train's boiler.

  39. FlexFuel... Non-Optimal... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Right now, they are probably statically tuned to get more out of Gas, and not so much E85

    Logically they'd have to be. Set the compression low enough for standard dino-gas and you burn ethanol inefficiently. Set the compression more for alcohol and you cause detonation, which will damage the engine. Which situation is worse? Thus - they tune it rather heavily to gasoline. Still, Josquint might have something wrong or poorly designed in his vehicle, as every review I've heard of has lower milage with E85 but MORE power.

    My mid-term idea for a solution: Have adjustable timing and set the compression fairly high. Require the user, if he's to use dino-fuel, to use premium(or visit the local airport).

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  40. Methane from Manure Systems by rohar · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I understand methane from manure systems are fairly common in Europe, but this is a North American example of a methane from pig manure system, installed in 2001.

    I want a corn cob and pig manure powered Ferrari. :)

  41. Re: charcoal... by friendswelcome · · Score: 1

    I hope they also use mesquite in their charcoal. I like my car exhaust to have that flavor that only mesquite can deliver.
    Will the new engines come with a grill? Ironically charcoal has been used to fuel cars. Charcoal, Wood and other biomass solids have been gasified into an engine fuel for cars, trucks and motor bikes. This technology was used in Germany during WW2 and reappeared in the united states as a reaction to the 1973 gas shortages.

    Some pictures of charcoal fueled vehicles:
    http://www.woodgas.com/images/Mel_Strand_Truck_and _TBR.jpg
    http://www.gengas.nu/bilder/werner/Bild313.jpg
    http://www.gengas.nu/bilder/werner/Bild120.jpg
    http://www.gengas.nu/bilder/werner/Bild287.jpg
    http://www.gengas.nu/bilder/rolf_barry_berg/rolf_b arry_berg.jpg
    http://www.woodgas.com/images/NASMotorcycle.jpg
    You could put a grill top on this open gasifier http://www.gengas.nu/bilder/pics/pv2.jpg

    This is the chop down the forest approach to keeping the cars running, but it does work on grass cuttings too. FYI the flammable gas mixture is N,H,CO. And there are some tricks to lower the amount of Nitrogen in the mix to get better performance. Staying on topic, it is also possible to convert this biomass derived synthesis gas into Methane or Methanol... And a corncob Methane storage tank might be much lighter to carry around then a gasifier system and wood...

    Personally though my favorite alternative fuel system is the wood burning turbine. It's a lot like Doc Browns Mr Fusion device, you put junk in and burn it... Very tempting to build. http://www.gas-turbines.com/nt6/index.html

  42. interesting eco accounting by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

    Drinky,

    I am intrigued by your carbon accounting system.

    The CO2 to make the plants, which became part of the poop, part of which became methane, came from the atmosphere to begin with.

    Isn't the oil and coal we burn part of the same cycle?

    Seth

    1. Re:interesting eco accounting by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Isn't the oil and coal we burn part of the same cycle?

      Are you stupid, or do you just hope that I don't know what I am talking about? If the carbon has been sequestered for millions of years, releasing it raises CO2 emissions. If it was just pulled out of the atmosphere last week, then releasing it is a neutral activity.

      If you cannot see the difference, perhaps you should go work for Exxon or some shit.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:interesting eco accounting by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

      Poo, Chill with the hostility. No need to call people stupid. We're just discussing some ideas here.

      I agree that it would seem to be the same CO2. But consider that the trees / plants that are burned or devoured by animals to create energy are ceasing to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere. The global trend is less-and-less foliage as the jungles and forests are being cleared. For each tree that's no longer scrubbing, it would be better if it weren't burned and contributing CO2.

      It's a very complex formula. I appreciate the thought you've given it.

      Seth