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.'"
Would a car be considered a propane accessory?
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
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
the car propane conversion kit is as well as the tanks.
JOE JACK will help up.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WBiTnBwSWc&feature=youtu.be&t=15m48s
I remember when I visited my family in Pakistan back in 1999. My uncle had a switch under the dashboard of his car which switched the fuel source from gasoline to CNG (compressed natural gas) while he was driving, with the CNG being stored in a tank in the trunk. He'd switch to gasoline when driving around the mountains of the capital for the extra power but otherwise keep it at CNG because natural gas was cheaper. This car hadn't come with CNG - the conversion had cost a few hundred dollars (US dollars, I don't remember the price in rupees) for his 1980's model sedan.
Honda sells (or sold) a natural gas Civic. Home refueling equipment already exists.
Am I missing something, or is the government just way behind again?
Free as in speech, free as in beer, or free as in lunch?
in the late 70's early 80s it was a bootleg fuel that was commonly used on many leases and ranches. as long as you didn't cross pavement it was legal.
if you hit a formation high, you had a gas well like it or not. at that time natural gas pipelines didn't extend as far as they do now so you were forced to complete it and then cap it. they would run it thru what i guess you'd call a still. it was a series of compressors and refrigerators until it was liquid. add a quart of 30 weight for ever 55 gallons to stabilize it and it ran like gas. worked until they introduced catalytic converters.
- The after market conversion leaves the existing gasoline system intact and adds the natural gas package to the vehicle. The installation of a natural gas system includes a cylinder that is mounted underneath, in the back of the truck or in the trunk of a car. One 70-litre cylinder equals 18 litres of gasoline and weighs approximately 160 pounds.
Cost Based on a typical ½ ton truck
$9000 - Conversion w/ 2 - 70 litre cylinders
$1.0090 - Gasoline Pump Price per litre
$0.4790 - Natural Gas Pump Price per Litre Equivalent of Gasoline
$0.5300 - Savings per Litre Displaced
$2.409 - Savings per Gallon Displaced
15 mpg gasoline mileage
$160.63- Savings per Thousand Miles
56,031 miles - Miles on Natural Gas Required to Recover Cost of Conversion
I used to work for the local gas company. For decades they've had a compressed natural gas conversion for cars and a small compressor setup for the home at reasonable startup cost ($2,500 at the time). The range wasn't great, (for range you need LNG) but it was better than today's all electric cars and you could fuel up at home in a much shorter time than with electric. The fleet all ran on natural gas, filling up at their own company-maintained filling stations, and besides being cheaper and having lower emissions, as a collateral benefit they were getting exceptional life from the engines of their fleet vehicles.
As I was interested in this conversion myself and only learned about it by accident, I struck up a conversation with the head of marketing asking why they weren't promoting it, since it was an existing solution that people could buy for their own vehicles if they only knew about it.
And most importantly, in most areas the distribution network is already in place, something that Electric is currently struggling with.
He said that the company was under pressure not to promote a consumer compressed natural gas solution for automobiles. He was unwilling to say where the pressure was coming from. I always wondered about that.
So, in short, the solution already exists, exactly as described, and has since at least the nineties. As far as I can see, there's nothing to develop here, just remove the roadblocks to existing solutions.
Mind you, it works best for dedicated commuter and in-town cars, because to keep the cost and complexity down, the car *only* runs on compressed natural gas, and CNG does not have the energy per volume as either LNG or gasoline. But in my opinion CNG is more practical than electric in several respects, not the least of which there are no batteries to replace/recycle.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Must. Not. Tear. Hair. Out. Over. Painful. Forced. Acronym.
Natural gas cars tend to have half the mileage of a gasoline car. Better than electricity, but it is still less efficient energy storage than gasoline.
Of course, it is still a fossil fuel. That means there is a limit on how much exists and also that it pollutes, though not as much as gasoline does.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I would rather have (minor) damage to the environment than to continue to pay Hundreds of Billions of dollars a year to people who hate our guts and will kill after we (inadvertently) burn some of their holy books (despite our president's gracious apology).
From what I've read, the environmental damage is "minor; some low level seismic activity and perhaps some pollution of water supplies. So charge a little more for the natural gas coming out of these rural (low population density) communities and pay for piped in water or buy them out.
When you compare the TREMENDOUS costs our reliance on oil from the middle-east costs us (two wars, huge standing forces in bases all throughout that region, alliance with ethically dubious regimes) IN ADDITION TO the outrageous price we are paying for the oil, these minor concerns are nothing. (Remember all those jobs, money, infrastructure and technology developed will go right here in the old US of A). Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Also, natural gas is (much?) more carbon "lite" than Crude Oil.
CNG or Compressed Natural Gas vehicles are quite common in India. It started out a decade ago when the big cities in India started converting buses to run on CNG instead of diesel to curb pollution. Then, taxis got converted. Now, you can get your private vehicle fitted with a CNG conversion kit or you can directly buy a CNG version of your car from the manufacturer. I haven't driven one myself, but have spoken to lots of cab drivers. Even if you ignore the environmental benefits, the running cost of CNG is less than half of diesel or gasoline.
The other take on this is to have more power generation plants use CNG instead of coal. I find it highly inefficient to transport energy chemically instead of electrically. If you were developing software, this is how you would abstract your layers. Human beings suck at change. The only time we refactor anything in our lives is if we are forced to do it - like a war or an economic crisis or something similar.
As you may have heard, thanks to the advances in fracking, natural gas is now abundant and will remain so for some time. Probably decades. Yes, fracking sometimes contaminates groundwater, but it isn't the end of the world when that happens. Filters, pipelines, it's just a matter of recognizing the problem and solving it.
Economically, natural gas is the way to roll at the present time. We can run our cars on it and power our houses. We can also run 18-wheelers and trains off it. The only thing that natural gas isn't appropriate for are airplanes, because it has slightly less fuel density and because airplanes are incredibly expensive.
Furthermore, at some future data, renewable solar energy may become cheap as the sand the solar cells are made from. We might be able to cover whole deserts for very little money. At that point, one easy way to store and use the power is to use it to synthesize natural gas (by electrolyzing water to hydrogen and combining it with CO2). Could get the CO2 from existing natural gas burning power plants and coal burning plants.
The CO2 from burning natural gas may contribute to global warming, but it does NOT harm the ozone layer and it does NOT give people lung cancer. Those are rather significant advantages over burning coal.
Just rezone residential tract suburbs. Put a small commercial zoning glob in the middle, compensate adjacent owners for the depreciation that comes from being adjacent to commercial zoning. The new zoning is inclusive of a list of services beneificial to the community (e.g., groceries, dentists, offices, restaurants, etc.) so that businesses will understand from the get-go what they can and cannot do there.
Then let the somewhat freer market take care of this. We will see automotive passenger-miles reduced DRAMATICLY.
The best solution is a combination of wise government action and the free market. That's why we will never come anywhere clost. It doesn't fit the ideological molds of either extreme.
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.
What happens to my heating bill when everyone suddenly decides to use CNG for transportation? Do we have anything near the kind of production to maintain the current low cost of CNG, or would we suddenly see CNG going for comparable prices to gasoline?
If you want to know the future of energy, listen to this Chris Martenson lecture, I believe scary times are ahead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WBiTnBwSWc
As for natural gas.... right now proven world reserves stands at stands at 191T m^3. The US has about 7T m^3, and a huge chunk of the rest is in Russia and Iran, which are not exactly friendly to us nor have we exactly been cultivating decent relationship with them. Since China is scouring the globe for energy sources, I assume they have or will get long term contracts from one or both of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_proven_reserves
Our world usage last year was 168T ft^3 according to this:
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/nat_gas.cfm
Google tells me that is equal to 3.2T m^3.
So at current rates, assuming 100% extraction, we have 60 years of Natural Gas. The best case at current usage for proven reserves, much of which are in hostile countries.
The IEA predicts a 2.2% increase in demand annually. Using the rule of 70, that's a doubling time of ~32 years. That cuts down the best case scenario for Natural Gas down to 39 years, at current uses, meaning we don't start leaning on it heavily for transportation and the like.
Now, the scientist in my top link talks about how if everyone switched over to electric cars, they would have to go from 300 generating plants to 3,000. One order of magnitude, 10x. Without doing specific calculations, perhaps we can assume that could carry over to natural gas if used extensive for personal transportation. How many years then?
Yes, NG can be used in conjunction with oil and other energy sources and carry us for a while longer until we find a real solution.
converting current auto fleet from gasoline to ethanol is an amazingly simple process; some new gaskets, rejetting the injectors, and adjusting the timing. Most modern CC, FI vehicles probably wouldn't require anything more than a quick reprogramming.
So replacing all the rubber seals is simple?
Interesting that we see many optimistic posts on /. about alternative energy sources regularly, electric cars, etc. but the post about using Natural Gas as fuel begins with this pessimism "...Natural gas has never been much of an option for U.S. car drivers, and it's going to take a lot of effort by the government and auto manufacturers to make it a viable alternative to gas..."
-Styopa
He said that the company was under pressure not to promote a consumer compressed natural gas solution for automobiles. He was unwilling to say where the pressure was coming from. I always wondered about that.
He was most probably talking out of his ass.
It doesn't matter if someone is an industry peon. They know shit.
Period.
Anymore than us IT guys who worked in the mortgage industry knew that shit would have hit the fan.
We're and they're peons.
The folks that really know won't say.
Those that do know, won't say and they'll take their money.
Keep in mind to get good efficiency out of natural gas you need to significantly up the compression, similar to E85. Leaving the engine bone stock low compression to run modern piss gas (87 octane) that most vehicles run, or even 93 octane, would leave a lot of power and MPG on the table.
This is not about what the US wants. This is about what one part of the US government wants -- specifically, the part of the US government that gains power from natural gas as an auto fuel.
Actual US citizens just want cheap transportation options. We will switch to natural gas or any other fuel when the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
same thing in Lebanon... but the government needs to revise a careful standard, and safety laws for this. in lebanon, it was all done chaotically, in private specialist shops, in ways that adhere to no safety standards at all, resulting in a lot of nasty accidents. same thing for converting cards from normal fuel to red or green gasoline. if not done appropriately, you could total the engine.
my sig pwns your sig
This need shouldn't be a surprise. We've known for one reason or another that we needed less foreign energy dependence since 1973. Pile onto that the needs for cleaner air, less carbon, etc because we've known about that too.
Sadly, the President who could've really capitalized on this was Jimmy Carter. He was the first President elected after the 1973 embargo when it was still somewhat fresh in the public's mind. If he had started us down the road of CNG then, this would be a done deal. Sadly he either didn't want to do it or was too incompetent to do it (based on everything else he screwed up, I'd guess the latter.)
No President since Carter has had any interest in doing that (especially those that were Texas oilmen,)
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
in before joke about farts.
Bumper Sticker I've seen: SAVE GAS - FART IN A JAR
Ah, yes. Perhaps if we redesign landfills to harvest natural gas from then they'll be taken over by Exxon, BP, et al.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
As energy subsidies go, this is so small as to be not worth discussing.
Over the last century, oil and gas subsidies have averaged ~$4 billion a year. So this is nothing.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Subsidies-For-Oil-Gas-Nuclear-vs.-Renewables/
So replacing all the rubber seals is simple?
You don't have to replace all the seals... technically, there's no requirement to change any, but I recommend changing out the seals and gaskets for the fuel system itself, to avoid cross contamination.
In which case, yes, it's relatively easy.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It's exactly the same thing in Argentina.
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
The water that gets dissolved into ethanol screws the crap out of outboard motor carburetion systems. Don't think I want to convert to 100% ethanol in my car.
Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
From your link. The first three crops depend on technology that doesn't exist. The fourth crop can't be grown in the US. The 5th crop (corn) is ridiculously inefficient as in requires 2 to 7 times the land as the other crops with very high inputs. Oh wait, the 5th crop might be better with, yup, you guessed it non existent technology
So your post was satire right?
You want to change how we use Fuel, increase the price of gas to $10 a gallon. That will cause people to make changes, I guarantee it!
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Here in Italy, we do have cars that have both a gas tank and a natural gas "bottle" as a standard, factory - equipped car. Fiat, which now has a controlling stake in Chrysler, builds a number of compact cars equipped with both tanks, so transfering the manufacturing technology to the US would be straghtforward.
the big issue here, in my view, is that natural gas is too good a energy source to waste it in combined cycle gas fired plants, which have become a staple generating plant here in Italy. Since other available energy sources (i.e. coal) are less easily used for trasportation purposes, I think the purpose is to encourage use in order to diminish dependency on oil.
One small aside: I live in Turin, and we've had natural gas distribution for transport here for three reasons: we've had one of the first cogeneration plants here in Italy just outside the city, publice buses here have also been converted to natural gas, and another similar plant has been built recently on the other side of the city since over 50% of the homes draw heat from the waste water of those plants. Apart from that, Fiat has its headquarters here, and I think it had a subsidy to put into production a hybrid gasoline/natural gas range of cars.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
Come on man, we just need one more hit of petroleum. Then we'll quit tomorrow, we promise.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Anybody who doesn't own their own home cannot use at home fueling. This is one of the reasons why Electric vehicles are less popular than they should be (the other being the inability to take road trips). For any new fuel to reach the American public, fueling must be available from convenient commercial or government stations.
He effected a bored affect.
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.
The conservatives have been going ape shit about light bulbs. Their reaction to this is giving me a preemptive headache.
Isn't this the same old plan T Boon proposed. http://www.cnbc.com/id/46403675/T_Boone_Pickens_Natural_Gas_a_Game_Changer
It all starts at 0
I'm not sure where you live, but in Argentina CNG is very common. All the Taxis in Buenos Aires run on CNG and their are plenty of gas stations with CNG pumps. If you are in the US, well you're SOL until the infrastructure changes.
From your link. The first three crops depend on technology that doesn't exist. The fourth crop can't be grown in the US. The 5th crop (corn) is ridiculously inefficient as in requires 2 to 7 times the land as the other crops with very high inputs. Oh wait, the 5th crop might be better with, yup, you guessed it non existent technology
Actually, the technology does exist, and has for over 100 years. Looks like Wikipedia needs to start fact checking... itself.
So, your post was... what, exactly?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Seriously, the NAT GAS act will spend 5B over 5 years for NEW commercial vehicles to switch to natural gas. Why? Because it builds up the manufacturing infrastructure. Many of the semi's get 5-8 miles to the gallon. If they get new vehicles to switch to Natural gas, then it will make a massive impact on imports as well as re-fueling stations. In particular, we will see truck stops pick up natural gas refueling to supply those vehicles. That will lead to more natural gas cars.
But all of this gets better. Multiple technology is being developed that converts coal to methane. These will allow for coal to compete directly against drilled natural gas. With the various technologies (electric cars, bio-fuels like Joules Unlimited, and now natural gas), America might no longer be importing oil within a decade. It is possible for us to no longer import oil except from out top 3 producers within 5 years, or less.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You can buy a natural gas powered car now, and have been able to for quite some time.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
When it can compete on it's own without subsidies, then yes that will be fine. Until then it's a niche fuel.
Om, nomnomnom...
Ah, yes. Perhaps if we redesign landfills to harvest natural gas from then they'll be taken over by Exxon, BP, et al.
"When shit becomes gold, the poor will have no assholes."
-- an unknown but astute source
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
I'm afraid, when we have CNG cars, the price of beans will skyrocket!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
A couple of years ago here in Massachusetts, all the service stations had to retrofit to duel hulled gas tanks. MA provided all kinds of zero or low interest loans. Apparently in the bill there was a line item that would have required any service station that had street access to NG to make one NG pump slot available. However, there weren't many NG vehicles on the road at the time and the gas station owners go together and lobbied to get it stripped from the bill with the argument that it would effectively deprive them of income. As someone who heats / cooks with NG, I'd be very happy to buy a NG equipped car. I could fill it up at my house!
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Gas gets carbon kudos for power generation because it emits half the CO2 of coal plants (per kWh), but gasoline has less carbon, so NG is only 25% less CO2 than a gasoline engine.
BUT - NG itself, basically methane, is acknowledged to be 20X as heat-retaining a GHG as CO2 is - so if even 1% leaks out, on the entire trip from wellhead to burning in the engine, it's about a wash. The gas industry claims it doesn't have anywhere near 1% leakage - but then, they would. Distribution to cars, and use in cars, can only add to the odds that leakage is 2% or more...and you're doing more environmental damage than with gasoline.
For those that scorn the global warming theory, though, it'll be a cheaper fuel for a few decades to come, courtesy of fracking.
With sufficient energy you might as well use the H and atmospheric CO2 to synthesize methane, which is a lot easier to work with than H2.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
How much longer can we burn carbon for fuel and do only "minor" damage to the environment? If we're going to switch away from gasoline, it makes sense to use the opportunity to switch away from carbon entirely.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Oh, I don't think ExxonMobil, Shell, BP et al. hate your guts as such. I think they're just happy to take your money, and don't want to pay for the physical and economic costs they've managed to externalise over the past 100 years or so.
And I don't think that you could really call Theory of Political Economy a holy book...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Natural Gas (Methane) is likely the worst[0][1] possible choice for replacing gasoline. I don't understand how they arrived at this conclusion, other than by lobbyist funding from Big Oil/Big Energy to remain relevant with existing infrastructures.
[0] - http://www.epa.gov/methane/
[1] - http://www.google.com/search?q=methane+worse+for+climate+change&btnG=Search
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
NG is more chemically reactive than CO2 and disappears from the atmosphere much faster. Half-live is a couple decades while CO2 may stay for centuries. Thats why its important to get a handle on CO2 quickly. Many natural chemical processes degrade methane such as UV and oxidation.
The chemical/fertilizer run off to produce Ethanol is highly toxic to the environment. While your end use in the vehicle might be better, you're killing the Earth and our waterways with the creation of Ethanol.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/05/MNF91E84SL.DTL
From what I've read, the environmental damage is "minor; some low level seismic activity and perhaps some pollution of water supplies. So charge a little more for the natural gas coming out of these rural (low population density) communities and pay for piped in water or buy them out.
Clean water is far more precious than cheap fuel.
The latest water number I could find is from 2005: Americans use 410 billion gallons of water per day (~9,762 million barrels)
The latest oil number I could find is from 2010: Americans use ~19.2 million barrels of oil per day
Based on usage, we can tolerate higher oil prices far easier than we can tolerate even slightly higher water prices.
Screw with our fresh water supply at your own peril
IN ADDITION TO the outrageous price we are paying for the oil,
Arguably, most of that price is the direct result of speculation and has nothing to do with actual supply/demand issues.
I recall reading somewhere that, in the past, the oil futures market was 70% actual demand and 30% speculation.
Now it's 70% speculation and 30% actual demand. If you want cheaper oil, force the speculators out of the market.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
My local landfill has been doing that for a few years now. It's a good idea and all landfills should be doing. All of that methane they capture used to be released to the atmosphere. The problem with adding natural gas (or the oil they get from fracking) is that it does nothing to change the energy prices we are paying right now. You have to factor in how much time it takes to refine anything you get. I've heard one expert say it can take at least 5-7 years to get to market. Demand is always an issue too. We need to release some of the strategic reserves to drive down the cost. It is an election year so who knows when he will do it.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
Perhaps if we redesign landfills to harvest natural gas from then they'll be taken over by Exxon, BP, et al.
This is already being done. Garbage trucks that run on natural gas are being fueled by the natural gas collected at the very facility at which garbage is dumped. California has over 1,000 trucks running on landfill gas already.
The one big problem with landfill gas in internal combustion engines is the siloxanes. When they're burned, they deposit a layer of hard silicon dioxide that can build up inside an engine and eventually destroy it. It was my understanding that it was still difficult to filter them out. Do you know if the trucks have specially made engines, or do they have a good method of processing/filtering the gas?
And, I refuse to cook on electric....no heat control.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You can buy NG futures instead. They are almost giving the stuff away at the moment.
Also. Home filling systems already exist for CNG vehicles which already exist in the auto market.
This is from 2005...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgcNJWaO_Fw
So... not sure what the research is all about. You can buy conversion kits for most modern vehicles as well.
Deleted
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....
We've had the option for Natural Gas and Propane as vehicular fuel for quite some time now. Most taxi cabs in these parts (the Niagara Peninsula) run on propane already. Dual fuel, mind you. (Propane switchable to gas.)
This produces a few things: smelly cabs (namely the exhaust fumes), the increased prices for propane and Natural Gas (supposedly, due to increased demand), and limited options for refueling such vehicles.
The Good News: Natural Gas seems to be much more efficient and slightly less polluting than gasoline. Propane, not so much, but easier to get ahold of.
My guess is this: the US 'passes gas' and starts mass producing conversion kits and gets them all rolled out. Next step, watch the prices for said alternate fuels SOAR, as the Greed Factor(tm) kick into high gear, rendering the advantages null, while driving up the cost of heating and cooking in more remote rural areas off the charts. Some houses, farms and businesses have propane tanks as supply for their non-electrical heating needs, after all.
So, what exactly is this move supposed to accomplish? Diversification of the fuel choices? OK, I guess. More profit for the Greedy? Most likely.
What's next? All Electric cars that have been promised for a while now. Next to skyrocket? Electricity, as the demand for Vehicles causes that to jump as well.
How come there aren't vehicles and buildings covered with solar cells to recharge storage batteries, and a wind-generator in every back-yard yet?
Not that it'll make one lick of difference to actual cost-of-living, since the increased prices will just about make all of those things mandatory in the not-so-distant future...
Sorry. Just a wee bit cynical today ;)
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.
Does he kill it by DISEMBOWELMENT?
They automatically switch from CNG to gas when the CNG runs out. You can also already get home filling compressors which will fill the vehicle at home from the domestic supply.
Thing is, you should probably look up "petrodollar" and "dollar hegemony" to understand how America's world dominance is tied to oil.
Deleted
When it can compete on it's own without subsidies, then yes that will be fine. Until then it's a niche fuel.
Just like oil, right?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The article you linked to specifically states that the ecological damage is a result of over-fertilization of corn crops, "about a third of which is made into ethanol[.]"
So, not so much a result of ethanol production as much the result of greedy farmers.
Your post is a classic strawman.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Have to be seen to have been doing something.
It's so that when the other side say but what did you do about Natural Gas, they can say, we invented the Internet, we invented Natural Gas. etc. Plus they get to show how wonderful they are to be investing in R&D... Even if that R&D means going out and buying a Honda & blowing the rest of the tax money on beer, coke and hookers.
Re civic: just checked it's still on the market.
Deleted
A good set of cast iron pots and pans makes cooking on electric bearable.
I would rather have (minor) damage to the environment than to continue to pay Hundreds of Billions of dollars a year to people who hate our guts and will kill after we (inadvertently) burn some of their holy books (despite our president's gracious apology)..
I didn't realize Canadians hated us so much. It would be helpful if you actually knew where our oil comes from, the largest exporter of oil to the US is Canada, followed by Mexico. If we spent all the money we do on our "oil wars" on renewable technology we wouldn't be so worried about oil exports. It's not about oil, it's about making men rich, oil is just a means to an end.
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
"not really a problem" based on what?
This has happened in countries that tried to adopt other things as fuel. Brasil had a law passed that demanded alcohol be used and they had to cut it precisely because of this situation (for them it was the sugar prices, I believe).
It doesn't matter how much natural gas you have, supply and demand will fixate the prices. It won't take a year, or even two, but in 10 you'll be feeling it...
There is no real solution to this problem, but I strongly believe natural gas is not the way.
Another car (not CNG) that is fuel efficient will not be sold in the USA in 7-passenger version (Ford C-Max).
So for 7-passenger vehicles I am left with minivans that use tons of gas.
I do not care if car is better 30MPG because of "MPG illusion": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_MPG_to_L-100km_v2009-10-08.svg
From http://www.cars101.com/fuel_economy.html If your car gets an average of 70 MPG you used 214 US gallons driving 15,000 miles and it cost this much per year (divide by 12 for what it costs monthly): 48 mpg (uses 312 US gallons to go 15,000 miles) 45 mpg (uses 333 US gallons) 41 mpg (uses 366 US gallons) 38 mpg (uses 395 US gallons) 35 mpg (uses 429 gals) 33 mpg (uses 455 gals) 31 mpg (uses 484 gals) 29 mpg (uses 518 gals) 27 mpg (uses 556 gals) 25 mpg (uses 600 gals) 23 mpg (uses 653 gals) 21 mpg (uses 715 gals) 18 mpg (uses 834 gals) 15 mpg (uses 1000 gals) 12 mpg (uses 1250 gals) 8 mpg (uses 1875 gals)
continue to pay Hundreds of Billions of dollars a year to people who hate our guts and will kill after we (inadvertently) burn some of their holy books (despite our president's gracious apology).
Are you F**CKING kidding me? They don't hate our guts for burning a holy book. They hate our guts for killing their civilians by automated drones. As far as I know, our president has not yet to apologized for any of the civilians killed by the unmanned drones.
I mean by that, you put some shit in a barrel, keep it warm and the gas bubbles out as micro organisms digest the organic material in the fluid. You take the water, CO2 and hydrogen sulphide out of the gas and you can burn it in an engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas
Deleted
Energetically, 6000 sq. ft of natural gas = 1 barrel of oil, and anything that makes the transportation sector as a whole less dependent on liquid hydrocarbons (i.e. oil based petroleum), is desirable if you want to keep something resembling modern civilization going beyond the next 50 years or thereabouts.
I'm not saying we should keep modern civilization going, mind you, just that we need to diversify transportation fuel types to do it.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
A little perspective, the Key Stone pipeline represents a $2bn tax subsidy for refineries based tax loop hole (which lord knows Congress isn't about to fix). Key stone represents taking oil sands, one of the most expensive sources of oil on the planet, and ships it to gulf coast refineries. Let there be no mistake, very little of that gasoline will sold in the US. Yes, the US imports 9bn barrels of Crude a day, but we're on track to export more than that amount in refined Gas, Diesel and Jet Fuel.
So I would suggest instead putting a mear $10m into a DoE project we put $2+bn into NG and LNG for comercial vehicles. And while we're at it, since Hydrogen is one of the major byproducts of NG and LNG production, why not work on putting that infrastructure in too at the same time for consumer vehicles?
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.
I sort of agree with your statement however in the short term if we release oil in small increments it will help the economy. I just don't see innovation through necessity happening here. At least not in America. We're too backward a country to lead in alternative fuels just yet.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
Based on the fact that its competitor, oil, will also experience greater demand and increasing prices. So increased fuel prices occur regardless of whether we continue with oil or switch to natural gas. It doesn't seem to be much of a negative in this light. However natural gas remains domestic, in great supply, has cleaner emission when burned, etc.
And if you want to look out 10+ years there is a greater threat with oil prices than natural gas prices. You have referred to demand, but with oil being past peak production oil will also experience decreased supply. Keeping the transportation system on oil is far more risky than moving it to natural gas.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just extract the natural gas from the debates in congress?
Daily read for tech news: Freezenet.ca
I didn't realize Canadians hated us so much. It would be helpful if you actually knew where our oil comes from, the largest exporter of oil to the US is Canada, followed by Mexico. If we spent all the money we do on our "oil wars" on renewable technology we wouldn't be so worried about oil exports. It's not about oil, it's about making men rich, oil is just a means to an end.
It doesn't matter where our oil comes from. Oil is traded on a global market, so problems in the Middle East raise our oil prices, because if they stop producing and we don't pay more, Canada will ship that oil to China or Europe. I suspect you know this and are replying to hyperbole with more hyperbole, but it's not helping.
I hear this argument.....I'll believe it when I see PRO kitchens, in restaurants, in chef's homes and on TV chefs using them.
I suppose it is what you're used to...but with gas, I can get instant on....instant high BTU's....and it doesn't cycle like electric stoves trying to keep the element on or off enough to try to keep the heat.
That and you can't discount the visual either...I can 'see' the gas flame and know where I'm at.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
CNG / gasoline dual fuel vehicles became popular in New Zealand in the late 1970's, when government subsidies were available for conversions. These days LPG is more popular due to the longer range (and the fact that LPG can be transported in tankers, so is available everywhere, not just where the natural gas pipelines go).
Yeah, but can you blame 'em for hating us? We keep making fun of the way they pronounce "about", winning the Stanley Cup, and calling them "America's Hat".
(Less than a quarter of the oil we import comes from the Middle East.)
The problem with adding natural gas (or the oil they get from fracking) is that it does nothing to change the energy prices we are paying right now.
What the fuck are you talking about. The price, per BTU of Gasoline is roughly 5 times the cost of Natural gas.
It also pollutes less, is more domestically sourced, and is super easy on engines
And it's not like if we don't frack our oil and gas will magically show up at our door. ALL oil and gas exploration has an impact. It's actually, you could make the case that domestic production is a more responsible alternative, rather than passing it off as just a problem for the brown people half a world away that we buy it from...
250 miles on one tank is more than good enough for me..
and you can even design an engine to be dual fuel. That way you can do your day in day out workaday commuting on nat gas, and then if you ever have the need for extreme range you can go over to gas
Right, and all those canadian oil sands just magically turn themselves into gasoline, no environmental impact there, no none at all
I would rather have (minor) damage to the environment than to continue to pay Hundreds of Billions of dollars a year to people who hate our guts and will kill after we (inadvertently) burn some of their holy books (despite our president's gracious apology).
Those aren't the choices. The choices are: a, huge subsidies and wars to support the oil industry; or b, huge subsidies and wars to support the oil industry plus polluted groundwater and other environmental damage from fracking.
Oil emits far more pollutants than natural gas per equivalent barrel of oil, so if using natural gas reduces oil usage, it actually reduces damage to the environment.
How much longer can we burn carbon for fuel and do only "minor" damage to the environment?
Sounds like several centuries at the least.
If we're going to switch away from gasoline, it makes sense to use the opportunity to switch away from carbon entirely.
We should have good reasons for doing so first. Coal is a fairly plentiful fuel while petroleum has somewhat greater supply issues.
Clean water is far more precious than cheap fuel.
Not in the least. For starters, clean water is a lot cheaper per gallon by about a couple orders of magnitude which is a very good indicator of its actual value.
Based on usage, we can tolerate higher oil prices far easier than we can tolerate even slightly higher water prices.
"Usage"? Like watering lawns, flushing toilets, and just letting water leak? I can't prove it, but I bet demand for oil is more inelastic than demand for water is.
Arguably, most of that price is the direct result of speculation and has nothing to do with actual supply/demand issues.
Speculation often is an expectation of actual future supply/demand issues. It often guesses wrong, but there's no reason to treat it as something completely disengaged from the normal functions of a market.
I recall reading somewhere that, in the past, the oil futures market was 70% actual demand and 30% speculation. Now it's 70% speculation and 30% actual demand.
These are numbers pulled out of someone's ass. Nobody knows trader motives to the extent they can make claims like that.
If you want cheaper oil, force the speculators out of the market.
Doesn't work that way. Think about it. What's the incentive to explore oil sources that aren't subject to the uncertainty that speculators are trading on? Answer is that it's the current high price of oil.
If you drive out the people who are thinking about the future rather than the now, then you will end up with a market that doesn't respond well to potential future problems.
Obviously you have no idea on the performance of LPG (propane) cars. My car preforms almost exactly the same on petrol and LPG. Even towing heavy loads up hills is just not an issue.
The reason people hate the US is more complex than burning a few korans. Support for Israels theft of Palestine, bombing 19 coun tires since WW2 war based on lies in Iraq, hopeless muddling in Afghanistan are some of the reasons. You could try not interfering in other countries affairs for bloody once.
Always thought it was funny that releasing reserve oil lower prices....but drilling for more oil dose not. Natural gas cars is never going to happen, like Obama's stupid Alge running cars (using alge to make oil is any quantity is impossible). Even electric cars are worse then gas. We have enough oil in the US to support ourselves, if only the democrats would get out of the way and let us drill. Oil companies can only get to 2% of the oil the US has because the democrats are blocking the drilling.
Do you know if the trucks have specially made engines, or do they have a good method of processing/filtering the gas?
If filtering the gas is expensive and difficult then they probably design or modify the engine to account of the use of the contaminated gas. A larger upfront capital investment on a modified or purpose built engine in what's already a purpose built garbage hauling truck is likely to be economical over the lifetime of the vehicle when fuel savings are accounted for.
I have a car, a V6, that by the flick of switch (factory installed) changes from LPG to petroleum and back again. There is zero detectable performance difference. I stomp the pedal it throws you back in the seat. It goes up mountains just fine. Fuel injection, oxygen sensors and timing chips are the great advantages in modern engines. The only noticeable difference is that LPG is half the price and if you keep the car in idle for a couple of minutes it automatically switches fuel until you get moving again.
CNG has the energy density of an old man farting into the intake manifold, whereas LPG (outside the US at least) half the price of gasoline & 3/4th as dense as gasoline. Still, why would you want this shit when biodiesel is right fucking there...
We're not addicted to oil, we can stop whenever we want to. :)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Sorry, the notion that the Civic is a "tiny" car is ridiculous. The Fit, the Mazda 2, the Fiat 500 - those are tiny cars. The Civic is a reasonable size for anyone who doesn't have a family of more than 4.
My good friend bought a CNG Civic. She lives in a hilly part of northern California, and hasn't had any problems. She's also saved a boat-load of money and only needs an oil change once every some ridiculously high number of miles (because burning CNG produces virtually no particulates).
Actually an induction stove (like suggested by parent) is more instant on, than a gas stove. As the heating takes place by induction in the pan it self, there is no need for thermal transfer between flame and pan.
If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
We don't have the tech to switch away from carbon NOW.
What we need to do NOW is to do the cheapest thing we can, so we have the money left over to develop the right thing.
The right thing is electric cars, and the right source for electricity is probably solar and/or geo. If we erect windchargers for as far as we can see no matter where we stand in the USA, it might be enough, but probably not. We can probably use solar-thermal in the SW deserts to do electric cars 100% if we just keep building. That might best be effected by charging electric car batteries right at the solar farm site, and shipping the charged batteries by rail (extremely energy effficient) to where they need to be to be changed out from the electric car that has spent batteries, and shipping those spent batteries back to the solar farm for charging. Eliminates the need for building power wire distribution systems, with their IR losses as well.
....Be aware of the downsides of using compressed natural gas as motor fuel:
1. You need bigger fuel tanks to get decent range, which will impede on interior space of a motor vehicle.
2. The fuel tank has to be made strong, either by using heavier metal or quite expensive composite structures.
3. People need to be aware that natural gas is EXTREMELY explosive (a natural gas explosion is much more destructive than a gasoline explosion) and will need far stricter safety procedures for refueling CNG tanks.
CNG works best for public transit such as buses, minibuses and taxis, where very long range is not so much an issue.
And regular gasoline engines can be relatively cheaply converted to run on NatGas.
The best part being that simply installing a compression and pumping station in your garage will allow you to fill up at home and simply transfer your former gasoline expenses to your home heating bill.
The only issue is travel. Like many alternative fuels, traveling causes problems due to the lack of public fill stations. Thankfully, in the case of Nat Gas there is already a delivery infrastructure in place. It's just a matter of setting up the pumps and connecting them to existing lines. So it's far cheaper an alternative to set up than electric due to fast fill times, and easier to swap to due to close compatibility with existing technology.
I still prefer diesel, but Nat Gas (or even LP) are good second choices.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Just like oil, right?
Oil doesn't get subsidies. And most of the time, it doesn't even get tax breaks. Most of those go to exploration, and drilling. But hey, don't let reality worry you.
Feed-in-tariff ringing any bells?
Om, nomnomnom...
No. Not even remotely endless.
Because of their biology, cattle are the predominant source: landfills, wastewater treatment, etc. add up to a roughly equal amount, so let's say 12 million metric tons of methane from all biological sources total.
In contrast, the US consumes about 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year, which works out to473 million metric tons/year.
All the farts in the nation add up to just 3% of the amount of natural gas we burn. In fact, in the US cows release less methane than the amount that accidentally leaks from natural gas pipes!
A modern induction stove gives you perfect control. Much better than any gas stove
With an electric stove I have to trust the number on the knob, but I can tell how hot my gas stove is simply by looking at the flame. I have to agree with the GP, every electric stove I've ever used sucked and sucked hard.
Free Martian Whores!
Oil doesn't get subsidies.
Yes, they do. Where did you hear such a ridiculous fallacy? The Cato Institute?
And most of the time, it doesn't even get tax breaks.
Wait, are you talking about the substance itself? Surely no one would intentionally be that obtuse... anyway, oil companies most definitely receive tax breaks, to the tune of billions every year.
Most of those go to exploration, and drilling.
Well gee, Wally, care to explain why companies who break their own records for pure profit every single quarter actually need those "exploration" tax breaks?
But hey, don't let reality worry you.
Doesn't seem like I'm the one having trouble with the concept...
Feed-in-tariff ringing any bells?
No, since the term has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of oil subsidies.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You do have to have the right cookware though...
So not only are induction units more expensive to buy than equivalent gas units, and more expensive to operate (electricity around here is ~3x more expensive per BTU than natural gas and it's expected to go to ~4x soon and stay there based on the rate of discovery and production) but I also have to replace my pots and pans that are probably worth more than the stove? Yeah, big selling points for a technology that is at best slightly better.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Oil is fungible, to the point where Mexico is sending crude to US refineries to be cracked using natural gas and then the finished petroleum products are being shipped back to Mexico.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
"Free" public transportation will reduce 50% demand on imported crude oil.
Casteism
A recently published review article suggests Australia would benefit from a proposed move to NG for light commercial and passenger vehicles, so why not? http://www.qscience.com/doi/full/10.5339/stsp.2012.1#fulltextTab%23
It also pollutes less
You should tell that to the people out in western Pennsylvania that are consistently having their well water polluted. People have been trying for months to get the oil companies to clean up their mess to no avail. The "OIL" that comes from fracking (or any source) isn't ready to be used in cars etc when it comes from the ground. It has to be refined. Most of our domestic refineries have been closing due to cheaper costs overseas. Maybe you didn't know that only 2 of the highest producing refineries (per wikipedia) are located in the United States. And those two are producing the lowest volume of refined oil. So now you can see why that oil takes a while to get to market.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
The second that you resorted to a adhom with a fallacy attached to it, you lost what little credibility you had. But yes feed-in-tariffs had as much to do with the topic at hand as anything else.
Om, nomnomnom...
Sayeth the one whose original premise is nothing but ad hominem and fallacy.
If anything has negatively affected my credibility, it was the initial act of responding to such obviously false contentions.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
no form of petroleum extraction is benign
from the Persian Gulf? Nope
from the Gulf of Mexico? Nope
Filthy tar sands from Canada? Not a chance
and all these take massive amounts of energy (that crude oil doesn't boil itself, you have to burn a lot of natural gas, or a lot of electricity, just to get it into a form that can burn in your engine)
Most of our domestic refineries have been closing due to cheaper costs overseas
Nope, sorry, wrong. The oil refineries that have been shut down in the country over the last 20 have been shut down because they are aging, inefficient designs which are easier to replace then upgrade... Amongst all that, we have excess refining capacity in this country http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/02/us-exported-more-gasoline-than-imported-last-year/1#.T1FpJ3LhfnA
This notion that we have a refinery shortage in this country, caused be evil filthy liberals and overregulatory desires, and that is what is causing high gas prices, is an idiotic Republican meme..
And electric is a much less efficient and more expensive method of producing heat. The local electric just might be generated by burning natural gas anyway.
The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.