Slashdot Mirror
US Wants Natural Gas As Major Auto Fuel Option
coondoggie writes "Natural gas has never been much of an option for U.S. car drivers, and it's going to take a lot of effort by the government and auto manufacturers to make it a viable alternative to gas. But that's just what a $10 million program from the Department of Energy's advanced project development group The Advanced Research Projects Agency — Energy (ARPA-E) aims to start anyway. ARPA-E's Methane Opportunities for Vehicular Energy (MOVE) program wants to develop a system 'that could enable natural gas vehicles with on-board storage and at-home refueling with a five-year payback or upfront cost differential of $2,000, which excludes the balance of system and installation costs.'"
Given that a significant amount (enough to have a noticeable effect on prices) of our natural gas is coming from hydraulic fracturing (fracking) this will undoubtably affect the demand for NG produced by fracking. Given that so many questions are being raised about environmental and safety concerns about the process, is this a good idea?
This is a boring sig
Toronto's transit system bought a bunch of natural gas-powered buses a decade or so ago, and they were great until the price of NG skyrocketed. Those are gone, and we now have hybrid electric ones, which seem to work just fine. NG is not a mass-market vehicle fuel.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Let's invest in fossil fuels instead of public transit, better urban planning, and pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. Our grandchildren will thank us.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
The biggest problem, in my view, is that when cars start demanding lots and lots of natural gas to run, the prices will skyrocket - which in turn will make using Natural Gas for any other thing extremely hard.
Demand for natural gas is not really a major problem. Oil is at peak production and demand is predicted to skyrocket as China, India and various other countries continue to grow their middle class. So the next best (as in what we could use with *existing* technology) alternative has the same problem.
The advantage of natural gas is really that it is a domestic source that can last for quite a while. It could be the bridge that we need to get us through the decades of research and development that solar, wind, tidal, etc still needs. It keeps the money spent on fuel in the US. That is not just jobs but national security as well.
you might want to figure out where a lot of your oil comes from. Trust me, those of us in Canada don't hate you that much....
But if you do that, then oil will get cheaper relative to alternatives, delaying the adoption of said alternatives. And since the reason you released some of the strategic reserves to begin with was that other supplies were insufficient, once the surplus has been burned you're right where you began, except that other supplies have been further depleted and you're short some strategic reserves which need to be refilled, making things even worse.
Or you could release strategic natural gas reserves (do those exist?), but that'll drive down the price of natural gass, making methane capture less attractive option, agian leaving you worse off in the end.
Just bite the bullet and let enery costs rise. They will anyway, and not trying to stop it will cause a slow and steady rise, which has the best chances of stimulating alternative sources while not causing sudden market crashes, while leaving you the strategic reserves for emergencies.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
No heat control means you have a poor appliance. A modern induction stove gives you perfect control. Much better than any gas stove; even commercial ones, and way better than conventional resistance heat electrics.
You do have to have the right cookware though...
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html