Any of you know of some good sites for checking out natural gas powered autos? I hardly see mention of NG autos in articles for the US market.Why? At least from Billy's post NG looks to be a winner,at least for the foreseeable future.Must be political reasons for so little NG autos in the US huh.I know very little about the NG.Thanks.
Electric cars are a pipe dream
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Because NG isn't nearly as dense as gasoline, so your typical NG car doesn't have much trunk space left after converting from gasoline to NG.
http://cngconversionsonline.com/
http://cngconversionsonline.com/
Oh here is one with a lot of nifty links:
http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2010/03/peakoil3.html
That would be a serious problem for taxis as often their passengers have several bags of luggage. Thus, no trunk space is used. Instead, easily seen from behind, is a yellow reinforced fiber glass tank under the car at the rear. I would think that in start from scratch design, the space under a rear bench seat could be used, especially with front wheel drive. A flatter oval cross section tank would be only slightly more expensive for the same storage capacity and no more expensive if wall thickness were not constant but set by the wall stress requirements. One nice thing about CNG tank is that it fills even if higher that the gas entry point. See my later comments about it being the car's roof.
My still working professor wife is an expert in her field and often gives invited talks. One was at a fancy mountain resort / conference center. A CNG taxi picked us up at the distant airport for more than an hour long highway trip to the conference center. I am almost sure driver had filled the tank in the airport city and would soon need to again after he dropped us at the conference center's hotel. I think the "without refill" range is at least 120 miles, which is no problem for a car that mainly stays in a city with many CNG sales points.
I see no reason why for long trips thru region without such posts, the car could not have a more rented tanks installed on top just for the trip. CNG buses do have their permanent tanks on top and seem to run all day long without refill. CNG cars are not yet equipped for this as they are selling all they can make for in city use and don't want to have an "ugly image" associated with CNG. - See photo in post 895. AFAIK, never has there been a "start from scratch" designed CNG car. See next paragraph's comments about tank cost being independent of tank diameter. That grants huge design flexibility -e.g. 40 parallel small diameter tanks as the roof is OK.
The physics / math of pressurized long cylindrical tank design is simple and has interesting result that no more material is required to store a given amount of gas at a given pressure, in a bunch of small diameter tanks as in one large diameter tank. (Proving that I will leave as an exercise for the student.)
Thus, in the future a multitude of small diameter tanks could be hung under the car or make the roof structure, even with some gentile curve in it or an extruded metal unit, could be the floor board. I think the single tanks currently used by Sao Paulo taxis do reduce the ground clearance a couple inches, but again not a problem in the city. Many "low slung" sports cars have less.
PS: If looking for a business you could start, consider a home compressor of the house's natural gas to avoid all fuel taxes as our group's APL technician did more than 35 years ago.
Last edited by a moderator:
Where is that data from? And more importantly WHEN was it made? I have seen estimates that the US has 300 years of gas a current use rates. Here is a Bloomberg report, only 8 days old:
"... Last year’s long-term outlook predicted annual shale-gas production would rise to 6 trillion cubic feet by 2035, Newell said. The updated forecast is 12 trillion cubic feet, he said. ..." From: http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=apF5Laie1wUI
Note it is essentially meaningless to give the reserves in years as the usage is very likely to expand, just considering the conversion of coal fired power plants to natural gas on the demand side and the EPA rulings on the supply side as to what can be injected into the ground.
Last edited by a moderator:
That information came from a New Scientist article about a year ago. It was for natural gas globally, and I guess it is possible that the US has more gas resource than elsewhere. It stated quite clearly, though, that this was a resource in limited supply. It will run out.
Yes and simply replacing the 3 with 2 (after clicking on this link) gives their POV on electric cars, which mainly is:
"... John Petersen's cost-related arguments that PHEVs and EVs are over-hyped bad policy and are unlikely to form a substantial part of the vehicle fleet anytime in the next decade. From an economics perspective, the core of his argument is that batteries are a limited and valuable resource, and they can be used most effectively to reduce dependence on fossil fuels in HEVs, rather than PHEVs or EVs. While PHEVs or EVs can use no gas, they require as many batteries as ten or more HEVs. Ten hybrids will each save 20-50% of a normal car's gas consumption, for a total gas savings equivalent to taking two to five normal vehicles off the road. For a single PHEV or EV to save more gas than two to five normal vehicles, it will have to be driven two to five times as much as a normal vehicle when powered by electricity. This means the large battery packs of PHEVs and EVs will only make sense for vehicles that are driven much more than normal vehicles, and which can be recharged multiple times per day.
You can find another take on the economics of PHEVs and EVs direct from a Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory battery researcher here and here. (two links in the original did not copy). He reaches the same conclusions as John, but includes interesting technical discussions of the technological barriers to making batteries small and cheap enough for widespread adoption of PHEVs and EVs. ..."
In contrast, Sugar cane alcohol already has replace much of the Brazilian car fleet in less than a decade!
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, sit down. CNG & sugar cane alcohol both are more likely to be much more widely used.
Season's greeting to all: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=hN8CKwdosjE When that ends, click on the "next up"
to see even more from the more shy in Japan
Last edited by a moderator:
I was jumping all over the place today online and near as I can gather from a few sources,we have around 100 yrs worth of NG left.Give or take.Just saying is all,heck I don't know diddly.
From EF's post # 903 the link provided has a another link thru with a Man named Eamon Keane, a British Energy Systems Engineering Master's student,who gives a detailed reasoning on why we will very likely NOT be using NG for our future transportation needs.Also this Man claims using NG will not help us off our oil dependence.Interesting and as always much debate among people about what will provide for our energy needs.
From EF's post # 903 the link provided has a another link thru with a Man named Eamon Keane, a British Energy Systems Engineering Master's student,who gives a detailed reasoning on why we will very likely NOT be using NG for our future transportation needs.Also this Man claims using NG will not help us off our oil dependence.Interesting and as always much debate among people about what will provide for our energy needs.
Last edited:
I tend to agree with him.
NG will provide for much of our electricity needs, but general use as a direct fuel for transportation seems unlikely.
Arthur
Totally agree! I would be overjoyed if EVs represented even 5% of the market in 2020, that nowhere near substantial parts of the vehicle fleet, but its a start. Long term EV will be the winner, they have greater scalability than most biofuels, are the most energy efficient and solve several problems in one (becomes the grid storage solution with intermittent renewable, utilize what at present is wasted energy and energy capacity) so might as well get invest in them now. Natural gas transport will literally require two infrastructure changes, one to implement and one to de-implement once the price goes up and environmental regulations get stricter! Might as well just make Natural gas power plants and get twice the efficiency out of the stuff, that where its all going to right now anyways!
Or you could rent the battery out to the power grid as a grid storage device.
Again a scenario only possible for places like Brazil, or do I have to rape you with the numbers again?
That would be nice,
but due to recent developments (alternative uses of sugar cane alcohol), it soon will be true that despite Brazil having several times more abandoned pasture, which could in alcohol production than the land now producing sugar cane, Brazil may not have any capacity to send fuel alcohol to the US* unless it does begin forest cutting.That would require new crushing and distillation mills to be constructed near the new cane fields - probably on the the banks of the Amazon River as then River barges could deliver the cane to the plant and modest size tankers could take the alcohol produced to the ocean to off load it into huge tankers. These new plants would much be too far from Rio and San Paulo's markets to economically serve those large markets so they would only produce only for export (or for new chemical plants near them).
The new "alternative use" is as a chemical feed stock for plastic production. A 200,000 tons / year plant has been in operation for a few months now** and I think that is why alcohol is no longer significantly cheaper / mile driven than gasoline now - At some filling stations even slightly more expensive, compared to about half the cost per mile driven about a year ago. It is a good thing that ~85% of Brazilian made cars now are "flex fuel" as some will be switching back to gasoline. I filled tank with gasoline last time as the longer time between refills was more valuable to me (time saved) than the few percent cheaper alcohol at that station.
--------------
* Brazil already has some long term contractual obligations to send alcohol to Japan. For example San Martinho's newest and largest of three mills, "Bella Vista" was partially financed by the Japanese. I'm a stock holder and as I recall they get half of its production. Also a new Japanese / Brazilian company is building ocean tankers especially designed for alcohol transport, but AFAIK, none are yet at sea hauling alcohol.
** A second one of the same size will be in operation in 2012. One will make polyethylene and the other polypropylene, but I forget which is now producing. It is my understanding that they are barely competitive for these plastics against oil based production at current prices but should soon should be the most economical producers of these plastics as oil price rises.
Last edited by a moderator:
Briefly back on the problem of de-forestation associated with production of liquid fuels for cars:
SUMMARY: Don’t blame others for the forest damage you are causing.
Most falsely point the accusing finger at Brazil, but as I have many times explained not one tree in the Amazon rain forest has been cut for alcohol, produced from sugar cane. – Not only is that illegal, but much more effective prevention is it is not economically possible as cane is bulky and of low value. Trucking it even 50 miles to the distillation plants is not economically feasible. - It would cost more than it is worth! More than ten times more as the closest crushing and distillation plant is more than 500 miles from the closest part of the Amazon rain forest. (These plants are near the large markets of Sao Paulo & Rio so trucking the alcohol to market is cheap.)
No, instead of looking South (if you live in the USA) look North:
“… If {Canadian oil sands} are mined, vast amounts of water and heat are necessary to separate the oil from the sand. If they are extracted by well, it's often necessary to heat up the rock to get the thick oil flowing. Either way, extracting oil sands is considerably more energy intensive than pumping normal oil.
Oil sand extraction is also tough on the landscape, especially if it's mined. The mines are huge, roughly the size of Rhode Island. They have resulted in deforestation of hundreds of square miles of wilderness, at least until the sites are replanted.* On a lifecycle basis, from the extraction process on through to burning the stuff in a motor vehicle, oil sands are estimated to emit 5% to 30% more carbon dioxide than regular oil. …”
From: http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/23/news/economy/oil_sands_pipeline/index.htm?a=4
-------------
* Not likely to be done on such a scale and the top soil is gone, so even if done, most of the trees planted will die in a few years as the try to grow.
Billy T comment:
It is easier to blame other rather than acknowledges the truth, which is: It is mainly demand from the US which is destroying forest on a large scale. Parts of Brazil’s Amazon are being burnt to hide the fact that one or two beautiful wood trees were illegally cut. US’s growing oil demand is destroying even larger forest areas slightly north of the US border and soon to grow much worse when Venezuela stops supplying about 12% of US’s oil needs.
Although Chavez would love to cut the US off now, he cannot as his heavy oil can only be refined in the gulf coast refineries that were designed for it. Soon three such refineries will be operating in Venezuela. Two built by China and one by Brazil’s PetroBras, for 40% ownership of it. The US government is well aware, even if you are not, that soon these heavy crude gulf-coast refineries will be without a supply of crude. So the US's largest oil pipeline, from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, called the “Keystone expansion project” is about to get its final approval. It will be four times longer than the Trans Alaska pipeline and bigger in diameter (or at least as big – final design /economic studies not complete). Here is its route (dashed line) across the US:
Owners don't want to shut down Houston & Port Author refineries. The US needs their output. More on this at:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/23/news/economy/oil_sands_pipeline/index.htm?a=4
SUMMARY: Don’t blame others for the forest damage you are causing.
Most falsely point the accusing finger at Brazil, but as I have many times explained not one tree in the Amazon rain forest has been cut for alcohol, produced from sugar cane. – Not only is that illegal, but much more effective prevention is it is not economically possible as cane is bulky and of low value. Trucking it even 50 miles to the distillation plants is not economically feasible. - It would cost more than it is worth! More than ten times more as the closest crushing and distillation plant is more than 500 miles from the closest part of the Amazon rain forest. (These plants are near the large markets of Sao Paulo & Rio so trucking the alcohol to market is cheap.)
No, instead of looking South (if you live in the USA) look North:
“… If {Canadian oil sands} are mined, vast amounts of water and heat are necessary to separate the oil from the sand. If they are extracted by well, it's often necessary to heat up the rock to get the thick oil flowing. Either way, extracting oil sands is considerably more energy intensive than pumping normal oil.
Oil sand extraction is also tough on the landscape, especially if it's mined. The mines are huge, roughly the size of Rhode Island. They have resulted in deforestation of hundreds of square miles of wilderness, at least until the sites are replanted.* On a lifecycle basis, from the extraction process on through to burning the stuff in a motor vehicle, oil sands are estimated to emit 5% to 30% more carbon dioxide than regular oil. …”
From: http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/23/news/economy/oil_sands_pipeline/index.htm?a=4
-------------
* Not likely to be done on such a scale and the top soil is gone, so even if done, most of the trees planted will die in a few years as the try to grow.
Billy T comment:
It is easier to blame other rather than acknowledges the truth, which is: It is mainly demand from the US which is destroying forest on a large scale. Parts of Brazil’s Amazon are being burnt to hide the fact that one or two beautiful wood trees were illegally cut. US’s growing oil demand is destroying even larger forest areas slightly north of the US border and soon to grow much worse when Venezuela stops supplying about 12% of US’s oil needs.
Although Chavez would love to cut the US off now, he cannot as his heavy oil can only be refined in the gulf coast refineries that were designed for it. Soon three such refineries will be operating in Venezuela. Two built by China and one by Brazil’s PetroBras, for 40% ownership of it. The US government is well aware, even if you are not, that soon these heavy crude gulf-coast refineries will be without a supply of crude. So the US's largest oil pipeline, from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, called the “Keystone expansion project” is about to get its final approval. It will be four times longer than the Trans Alaska pipeline and bigger in diameter (or at least as big – final design /economic studies not complete). Here is its route (dashed line) across the US:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/23/news/economy/oil_sands_pipeline/index.htm?a=4
Last edited by a moderator:
I note that today the price of a gallon of gasoline in this area is $3.10 and they are forecasting it to rise to above $4/gallon by the summer. At the same time GM has decided to make many more electric vehicles in the next 4 years than they were originally going to make, including a Cadillac.
Cellulosic butanol made from available cellulose scrap/waste that is currently land-filled is the most viable bio-fuels option IMHO at this time. Using that in that new opposed cylinder 2 cycle IC engine would be a real step towards petroleum independence and increased efficiency on the way towards all electric vehicles.
Cellulosic butanol made from available cellulose scrap/waste that is currently land-filled is the most viable bio-fuels option IMHO at this time. Using that in that new opposed cylinder 2 cycle IC engine would be a real step towards petroleum independence and increased efficiency on the way towards all electric vehicles.
I like its potential too, better than Cellulosic alcohol, but AFAIK, not even one pilot plant scale plant has made any. There are several pilot plants producing cellulosic alcohol. One for several years. That company, in partnership with BP is now building their commercial scale production unit.
SUMMARY: We are more than a decade away from Cellulosic butanol meeting even 0.01% of US liquid fuel needs, and likely to never have any commercially available cellulosic butanol. If we do ever use butanol (or other short chain hydrocarbon as car fuel), I bet it is re-formed natural gas.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is likely going to depend on how quickly the technology is developed and deployed, and that will depend on the price and availability of petroleum.
I think that the Chinese and Indian moves to secure their own domestic petroleum supplies are going to force the West to speed things up. Hopefully soon.
You are likely right on butanol being made from NG though, at least in near term.
I think that the Chinese and Indian moves to secure their own domestic petroleum supplies are going to force the West to speed things up. Hopefully soon.
You are likely right on butanol being made from NG though, at least in near term.
Do you know what butanol cost now? I doubt the price will drop much.
I had a 1956 VW. As I recall the instruction manual listed butanol as an alternative fuel. They had big cylinder, relatively low compression, engines that delivered 36 HP. Thus, I am not sure it would work with no changes in modern high compression fuel injected engine. Do you know?
People have test butanol in existing cars without modification, it does work, certainly theoretically butanol is a superior fuel to ethanol, higher energy content (95% gasoline verse 66% for ethanol) lower corrosivity such that it could be pumped pure through existing gasoline pipelines and car plumbing. But sadly with so little investment in its development it has little chance of ever making it big.