Natural Gas a Gasoline replacement?

[silvrsvt]

I read an article a couple days ago claiming that the US would be "oil free" by 2030 due to Natural Gas deposits in the US. With that being said, how is that going to affect cars we drive?

 

From what I understand, LNG is a bitch to transport (outside of pipelines) and doesn't provide the same bang per buck in an Internal combustion Engine. Of course NG can be used to power Electric plants, which could power electric cars, but the range anxiety issue they have might not be solved in the next 10-15 years...

[Blacksheep]

I read an article a couple days ago claiming that the US would be "oil free" by 2030 due to Natural Gas deposits in the US. With that being said, how is that going to affect cars we drive?

 

From what I understand, LNG is a bitch to transport (outside of pipelines) and doesn't provide the same bang per buck in an Internal combustion Engine. Of course NG can be used to power Electric plants, which could power electric cars, but the range anxiety issue they have might not be solved in the next 10-15 years...

LNG is not really even viable in pipelines, most Natural Gas is transported in gaseous form around the country then transformed to LNG for storage purposes by local distribution companies. From what I have read, LNG has some viability in trucking but not necessarily for individual vehicles. I do believe, however, that over the next several years there will be an increase in the use of CNG vehicles, especially in fleets where the vehicles return to the same location every day.

[lfeg]

One thing that is being looked at, and I think is going to be built in either OH or PA is a refinery that will convert shale natural gas into liquid fuels. That would be the most expedient method for using natural gas for personal transportation. Busses and delivery trucks that are dispatched from central facilities are a natural for CNG.

[rkisler]

I read an article a couple days ago claiming that the US would be "oil free" by 2030 due to Natural Gas deposits in the US. With that being said, how is that going to affect cars we drive?

 

From what I understand, LNG is a bitch to transport (outside of pipelines) and doesn't provide the same bang per buck in an Internal combustion Engine. Of course NG can be used to power Electric plants, which could power electric cars, but the range anxiety issue they have might not be solved in the next 10-15 years...

 

It won't be LNG as you have to cool natural gas to -260F to get it to stay liquid at atmospheric pressure.

 

Not an expert, but here's a few things:

 

Plus

1. We have a lot of natural gas. Extraction has problems (fracking), but a lot less issues than diminishing oil reserves (tar sands).

2. Natural gas burns cleanly because it's primarily NH4. That means you are getting engergy from hydrogen and it reduces CO2 output..

3. I'm not sure if it's settled, but there might be incentives for natural gas power in the new CAFE legislation

 

Minus

1. Packaging -- The pressure tank takes up quite a bit of room which intrudes in luggage capacity. This means that you have to make a choice of going CNG or gasoline, but probably not both for cars. An example is the Honda GX which is CNG only (and also seems to be a pretty good product).

2. Range -- range is a shorter (around 200 miles) due to the energy density of compressed gas vs. liquid gasoline.

3. Infrastructure -- Where do you fill up? So, this combines with #2 to get you the same range anxiety you might experience with a BEV.

4. Home refueling -- It can be done, but the company Honda was working with (the "Phil" NG compressor) has had a troubled financial history. Compression takes overnight for a complete fill.

5. It's not in vogue -- If you look at the details of the latest California zero emissions mandate, they are projecting a market penetration of 50% hydrogen vehicles in the future. Sane people (like Dr. Chu) could argue with this logic, but it tells you where their emphasis will be in terms of infrastructure. They will be pushing for hydrogen filling at regular gas stations, with a lot less emphasis on CNG. Because, after all, CNG is just another nasty fossil fuel. Regardless of how we all feel, California with 5 other states hopping on board will influence the nationwide product offerings.

 

Ford and other manufacturers are going to be under a lot of pressure to improve fuel economy, and trucks are going to be especially difficult. If I'm correct that CNG will carry a "bump" in achieving fuel economy, then my guess is we'll see it as a factory installed option on the next-generation F-series. But that's just a guess.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Austin

[NLPRacing]

Personally, I would love to see more dual fuel vehicles (CNG and gasoline) then have a home refueling station for the CNG. With all the Barnett Shale here in North Texas, CNG is really cheap right now. I would love for more motorhome to run on CNG and gasoline.

 

[twintornados]

The main problem with any "home refueling station" is how would the various "road taxes" then be collected? We all know that when it becomes prevalent some politico will complain about it.

[aneekr]

Natural gas burns cleanly because it's primarily NH4.

You're probably thinking CH₄. NH₄⁺ is ionized ammonia.

[rkisler]

You're probably thinking CH₄. NH₄⁺ is ionized ammonia.

 

Duh!! Stupid me. Of course you're right.

[akirby]

Duh!! Stupid me. Of course you're right.

 

You were only off by one letter...........

[Noah Harbinger]

The main problem with any "home refueling station" is how would the various "road taxes" then be collected? We all know that when it becomes prevalent some politico will complain about it.

 

You mean the politico that has to budget highway construction and maintenance?

[rkisler]

You mean the politico that has to budget highway construction and maintenance?

 

Yes, you're right.

 

Of course, that's also a problem with electric vehicles. BEV operating costs are always compared with a gasoline car with full state and federal taxation. However, in today's climate, suggesting collecting road taxes for electric charging would probably lead to tarring and feathering.

 

Of course, you can use home heating fuel (no road taxes) to run a diesel car or truck. I'm not sure about the U.S., but in Europe where diesels are more prevalent, home heating fuel and auto diesel are colored differently. I happen to know, because I have an acquaintence who, ahem, was cheating and got caught by a roadside inspection.

 

I think in the U.S., the lack of taxation on natural gas and electricity are probably viewed as a good thing by some. It puts more and more pressure on traditional transportation fossil fuels to support infrastructure which would allow legislatures the argument that gas taxes have to be raised just to maintain infrastructure spending. Ironically, big steps in fuel economy also will have the same effect.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Austin

[FordBuyer]

One thing that is being looked at, and I think is going to be built in either OH or PA is a refinery that will convert shale natural gas into liquid fuels. That would be the most expedient method for using natural gas for personal transportation. Busses and delivery trucks that are dispatched from central facilities are a natural for CNG.

 

All the buses in Ann Arbor, MI are biodiesel. So I would think that the best applications for alternative fuels are in bus and short haul commercial fleets over next decade anyway. With railroads doing most the the long haul freight now and that looks to increase, alternative fuels for short haul big trucks look promising. Btw, railroads have always been way ahead of the times using electric hybrid technology for decades. They can carry a ton or more of freight hundreds of miles on one gallon of diesel fuel. Amtrak Acela passenger service in NE Corridor runs on electric only.

[SoonerLS]

Of course, you can use home heating fuel (no road taxes) to run a diesel car or truck. I'm not sure about the U.S., but in Europe where diesels are more prevalent, home heating fuel and auto diesel are colored differently. I happen to know, because I have an acquaintence who, ahem, was cheating and got caught by a roadside inspection.

We don't use home heating oil much, if at all, in this part of the country, so I can't comment on that, but we do have "off road" diesel for use in tractors and other agricultural/construction equipment. It doesn't carry the same taxes as "on road" diesel (based on the price difference, it may not include any taxes at all), and it is colored (red, IIRC) to distinguish it from "on road" diesel.

 

I think in the U.S., the lack of taxation on natural gas and electricity are probably viewed as a good thing by some. It puts more and more pressure on traditional transportation fossil fuels to support infrastructure which would allow legislatures the argument that gas taxes have to be raised just to maintain infrastructure spending. Ironically, big steps in fuel economy also will have the same effect.

Moving from gasoline/diesel to CNG would actually be to the benefit of the gov't, at least in Oklahoma (from the tax collection standpoint). The taxes on gas/diesel are a fixed amount, so they get the same pennies-per-gallon regardless of the price of the fuel, but NG is taxed on a percentage (I don't recall if it's fixed or sliding) basis, so the state gets "mo' money" as the price goes up. Of course, the sucky parts are that it should, in theory, drive up the cost of NG for heating my home, and that it will go from a nominally targeted tax to a general-revenue tax that the politicrits can spend on whatever they damn well please...

[Blacksheep]

Yes, you're right.

 

Of course, that's also a problem with electric vehicles. BEV operating costs are always compared with a gasoline car with full state and federal taxation. However, in today's climate, suggesting collecting road taxes for electric charging would probably lead to tarring and feathering.

 

Of course, you can use home heating fuel (no road taxes) to run a diesel car or truck. I'm not sure about the U.S., but in Europe where diesels are more prevalent, home heating fuel and auto diesel are colored differently. I happen to know, because I have an acquaintence who, ahem, was cheating and got caught by a roadside inspection.

 

I think in the U.S., the lack of taxation on natural gas and electricity are probably viewed as a good thing by some. It puts more and more pressure on traditional transportation fossil fuels to support infrastructure which would allow legislatures the argument that gas taxes have to be raised just to maintain infrastructure spending. Ironically, big steps in fuel economy also will have the same effect.

 

I do not know about the rest of the country but in NC there is a 50 cent excise tax on a gge of natural gas, I believe there was some form of a tax credit on it that has recently expired. To account for how much gas is used to fuel CNG cars, the local Natural Gas companies are installing a separate meter at homes for their fueling stations so the amount to be taxed can be accurately calculated.

 

The US also has different color diesel fuels for on-road and off-road applications. The green dyed on-road diesel and is taxed and the red dyed off-road diesel is not taxed and can be used in farm equipment, construction equipment, generators, etc. The fuels are the same and both can be burned an any diesel engine but the fines are pretty steep if the DOT catches you driving your truck on off-road.

[RichardJensen]

You're probably thinking CH₄. NH₄⁺ is ionized ammonia.

That is the interesting thing about natural gas, as compared to the other hydrocarbon fuels--much higher ratio of hydrogen to carbon (octane, for instance, has a ratio of 2.25 hydrogen atoms to every carbon atom)

 

This means (IIRC) that under 'perfect' oxidization, you'll get 2 water molecules for every one molecule of CO2 with natural gas (methane), as opposed to 8 CO2 molecules vs. 9 water molecules with octane (gasoline, more or less).

 

Diesel fuel has an even higher carbon:hydrogen ratio, which is why diesel's greater efficiency is not reflected in correspondingly lower CO2 emissions (which produces CO2 molecules at, typically, a slightly worse than 1:1 ratio as compared to H2O)

 

Of course all that data is 'ideal' combustion, and discounts VOCs (combinations of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon like formaldehyde), NxO and NOx, and CO.

 

This is just to give you a bit of a backgrounder on Austin's remarks about getting energy from hydrogen as opposed to carbon.

 

Again, IIRC, the energy stored in those hydrogen/carbon bonds is not as high as the energy stored in carbon/carbon bonds, and so energy density is lower in methane; however there's a lot of it, it's readily produced by biological processes, and so on and so forth

 

One more tidbit: energy from a variety of sources is stored in molecules when they're formed. When those molecules break apart, as in combustion, they release the energy that was originally stored in them. The issue with the growing demand for energy is how you put the energy in the molecules to begin with. 'fossil fuels' contain energy from the pressure of the earth's crust which forms petroleum, coal, etc. Biofuels contain energy stored by plants, etc.

 

The problem with fossil fuels is that we're using that energy up faster than the earth's geological processes can create it (it's not clear how much faster, but it's certain that the energy is being drawn down faster than it can be replenished). There are different problems with biofuels. Biological processes are also required to make energy for us (we use the same type of carbon-carbon and carbon-hydrogen chemical energy as cars), so more biological output directed to vehicles is less for us at any given time. Also, biological processes tend to require a lot of space to produce energy, as compared with mining/hydrocarbon extraction.

 

We're still using chemical energy because it's the best balance of cost and energy density; it's (right now) considerably more dense than the storage of electrical energy (basically, storing a surplus of electrons), but it's far less dense than nuclear energy (which, however, has its own problems).

 

Regarding the CARB prediction of 50% hydrogen vehicle market share: California residents, this is why people take such a dim view of California. It's not fair, I know, but this is why people think that the state is more or less permanently out to lunch.

 

Also, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and part of me thinks that you're not necessarily trading this set of problems for a better set by switching to gas. Possibly just a different set.

Edited February 12, 2012 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

That is the interesting thing about natural gas, as compared to the other hydrocarbon fuels--much higher ratio of hydrogen to carbon (octane, for instance, has a ratio of 2.25 hydrogen atoms to every carbon atom)

 

This means (IIRC) that under 'perfect' oxidization, you'll get 2 water molecules for every one molecule of CO2 with natural gas, as opposed to 8 CO2 molecules vs. 9 water molecules with octane.

 

Diesel fuel has an even higher carbon:hydrogen ratio, which is why diesel's greater efficiency is not reflected in correspondingly lower CO2 emissions (which produces CO2 molecules at, typically, a slightly worse than 1:1 ratio as compared to H2O)

 

Of course all that data is 'ideal' combustion, and discounts VOCs (combinations of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon like formaldehyde), NxO and NOx, and CO.

 

However, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and part of me thinks that you're not necessarily trading this set of problems for a better set by switching to gas. Possibly just a different set.

That's right but the water cycle is probably better to deal with than the carbon cycle, at least steam will cool and condense and fall back as rain.

In a funny sort of way, Methane is one step short of hydrogen fuel, yes it has a small percentage of carbon but probably enough for the

atmosphere to deal with compared to gasoline and diesel.

 

Interesting discussions can be developed regarding various electrical and chemical energy carrier mediums,

it's all so dependant on technology, efficient storage and release are key.

Edited February 12, 2012 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

Well, water vapor isn't the same thing as steam; would we want to deal with the added humidity that broad based natural gas combustion would likely produce?

 

To the extent that we would be introducing hydrogen into the surface environment, we would, I think, be introducing negative consequences.

Edited February 12, 2012 by RichardJensen

[AGR]

Of course NG can be used to power Electric plants, which could power electric cars, but the range anxiety issue they have might not be solved in the next 10-15 years...

The Tesla Model S will start rolling off the assembly line later this year with 300 miles range. Companies and research universities all over the globe(an example of each here in the US are IBM and MIT) are working on promising technologies for quick recharging batteries that would allow you to "refuel" in 10 minutes or less. It wouldn't surprise me to see this in production by 2020. After that, it's all about getting the costs down. These advances are brought to you in part by all these portable electronic devices we seemingly can't live without.

[silvrsvt]

These advances are brought to you in part by all these portable electronic devices we seemingly can't live without.

 

The first cell phone I ever used could go days without needing a charge...I can barely make it through a work day with my iPhone 4S LOL :P

 

 

 

 

[AGR]

Yeah, but just think of all the stuff you can do on a smart phone. I just a commercial for a new Sears Craftsman garage door opener that uses a smartphone app instead of(or maybe in addition to) a traditional remote. So if your kid is locked out, or if you're not sure you closed it...

[battyr]

I like the idea of using Propane (LPG) instead.

 

It has higher energy density. Rather that slowly pumping natural gas under high pressure, Propane can transferred very quickly as a liquid and stored under much lower pressure. I assume that when it is a liquid, Propane requires much smaller and lighter tanks than natural gas. Best of all, Propane can be manufactured from natural gas; you just add water and some heat.

[SoonerLS]

I like the idea of using Propane (LPG) instead.

 

It has higher energy density. Rather that slowly pumping natural gas under high pressure, Propane can transferred very quickly as a liquid and stored under much lower pressure. I assume that when it is a liquid, Propane requires much smaller and lighter tanks than natural gas. Best of all, Propane can be manufactured from natural gas; you just add water and some heat.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and the coffee mug. Back in the late '70s and early '80s, propane conversions were all the rage--my neighbor had a half-ton Chebbie running on propane, my grandfather converted his Ford 861 tractor (my dad also converted his Ford 4000 tractor), and if you looked in the bed of a random pickup, you stood a good chance of seeing a propane bottle. At the time, you'd use about twice as much propane as gasoline, but propane was less than half the price of gas; sometime in the mid-'80s, gas prices dropped and propane prices went up, and the conversion market crashed hard enough that it still hasn't come back almost 30 years later. (FWIW, the 861 went back to gas, the 4000 got converted to diesel, and the Chebbie is probably rotting away in a junk yard.)

[Noah Harbinger]

The first cell phone I ever used could go days without needing a charge...I can barely make it through a work day with my iPhone 4S LOL :P

 

 

If the 4S were as big as the old brick phones, it could probably last a month without a charge.

[flocig44]

LPG all the way. My 2010 F 150 runs on propane. It is a sophisticated, state of the art European equipment, a fully automatic dual system. Fuel injected, with a computer module more sophisticated then the one installed in the truck. It starts on gas every time and switches over to propane as soon as conditions are met, temperature and pressure. If runs out on either fuel, switches over to the other source. The switch over is seamless, there is no power loss, and uses the same liter/km or gallon/mile as it would using gas.

The only difference is that propane per liter is half price then gas in Canada.

So for a modest investment I'm driving for half price, saving the environment and making the engine last longer, a lot longer.

Did a lot of research before I made the decision

The setup SoonerLS mentions is as old as the brick size mobile phones we mentioned earlier

[jpd80]

Well, water vapor isn't the same thing as steam; would we want to deal with the added humidity that broad based natural gas combustion would likely produce?

 

To the extent that we would be introducing hydrogen into the surface environment, we would, I think, be introducing negative consequences.

It's definitely not water vapor when combustion occurs...not at that pressure and temperature..

Water is everywhere and Humidity is much easier for the earth to control than added CO2.

When the air gets too much water it rains...but then I guess clouds can be dangerous at times...

Edited February 13, 2012 by jpd80