BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?

Subject: RE: BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Aug 12 - 12:53 AM

As to the matter of "moving the pollution away to a generating plant," it strikes me that powering an automobile with CNG does essentially the same kind of thing (moving the pollution elsewhere), considering what fracking is reported to do to ground water.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 10:09 PM

The current interest in CNG is because there are lots of places where there apparently is a lot of natural gas, and the current direct cost of getting it out of the ground is fairly low. (Ignoring all the trivial details generally grouped together as "environmental impacts," and whatever else is necessary to sell the idea.)

A problem for those who see it as a place to make a profit is that current production supports all the current uses for it, and pulling up more of it would create a supply glut, which would drive down prices, and make even the current production unprofitable.

It is thus "necessary" to find more ways to use it, and to convince enough people that it's "better" so that enough more people will "buy" into it to keep the price up.

CNG is sufficiently "cleaner" than coal to justify conversion of electric generating plants, and the cost could be fairly low in many places. Handling transport, storage, and use of CNG in a stationary plant does not pose many technical problems or risks, if sources aren't too far removed from the plant.

Other generating plants that are deeply integrated with existing coal extraction, shipping, and storage systems could face very high costs for a conversion, so it needs to be a case-by-case decision unless they can convince the people using the electricity to just turn everything off(?).

Many of the plants that would be too expensive to convert to CNG could be cleaned up quite dramatically by applying known upgrades to existing equipment to achieve much cleaner handling and burning of coal, but costs for that also depend on what's there already.

The lower energy density of most "alternate fuels" makes them competitive with existing usage only for a fairly few special purposes, mostly not including general purpose vehicles.

The reason that nearly all "electric" autos are hybrids is that the is NO CURRENT WAY to STORE electric energy in the quantities and at a density that permits an electric vehicle to have a reliable useful range (ignoring load capacity completely) without some kind of backup system.

A home solar supply can use common lead-acid batteries for storage, but for the amount of storage required a useful auto would need at least a couple of tons of batteries. (Even a fork lift useful for half a day at a time in a reasonably busy warehouse carries around 800 lb of Lead batteries?)

The Lithium batteries currently used in most "electric" vehicles provide higher storage density, but THERE ARE NO available batteries that can operate beyond about 1,000 recharge cycles (most much fewer) and replacing the batteries in a typical electric car will cost (now) on the order of one-third (or more) of the original (subsidised) cost of the vehicle.

IF (should print that as a bigger IF) an auto battery set can meet the "design goal" of 1,000 cycles, recharging daily means the vehicle is dead in 3 years or less, without a complete replacement of the batteries. Accidentally running the batteries dead ONCE can reduce their capacity by as much as 50%, but the mfrs claim they've protected against that(???).

The basic materials used, even at current usage levels, are considered "critical supplies" with Lithium being available only from a very few places with "unstable governments," and without development of alternate materials or alternate sources for the ones now used, any widespread use of Li batteries for massive energy storage likely will drive prices to astronomical levels. (My checkbook indicates 3200 mah Li rechargeable AA batteries for my camera are already 3.2 times the price they were 4 years ago, but I haven't bought any for a while so I haven't researched current price spreads.)

So far as is now known, THERE AIN'T NO GOOD ANSWERS - YET, and although some "possibly helpful" new things do appear from time to time, leaping in the air in unbounded enthusiasm just means you'll eventually come down hard.

(Small happy hops are permitted, if reasonably restrained - but checking to see who's watching is recommended to avoid later embarrassment.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 05:39 PM

Increasingly electricity is made with CNG in this country. The coal companies are concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 05:31 PM

The problem with CNG (and LPG, for that matter) is that a gallon of either (CNG is worse) contains much less energy than a gallon of gasoline. THe basic problems with electric cars are a) battery cost, weight, and service life and b) emissions created by generation of electricity. Electric cars, for the most part in the US are coal-burners or, to a lesser extent, nuclear powered.

Subject: RE: BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?
From: Gurney
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 04:48 PM

Don, my own objection is that it IS a hybrid. It's neither nowt nor summat, as they say in Yorkshire. Since we want the car to be as light as is reasonable, to save fuel, carrying an engine and transmission that is not in use, or a set of heavy batteries and motor that are not in use, -one or t'other applies- means that we are carrying unnecessary weight at all times. As you say, the Prius seems to work very well, but it is only moving the pollution away to a generating plant, and carrying those batteries/engine. You are still paying for fuel, just paying someone else.
Another point is that I once replaced a set of forkhoist batteries. Hugely expensive, very heavy. It will happen to Priuses, too.

Some hybrids have an engine just to charge the batteries, it doesn't drive the car at all, so if anything in either system goes wrong, nothing works! However, that means that the engine has to be big enough to continuously charge on long fast journeys, so then the electric motor is only in use for the first part of the journey. I don't think anyone's made one like that yet.
No, my idea of a car is one that has one motive power, quickly refillable/instantly rechargeable, capable of commuting AND long journeys. Then, strapping the moose to the roof, driving home.

Subject: RE: BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 02:08 AM

Nobody has yet explained to me what's wrong with electric cars. I have a couple of friends with a Toyota Prius, and they love it!

It's a hybrid, yes. But they charge it with household current and fill the gas tank with an eye-dropper.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?
From: Gurney
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 01:04 AM

One of the considerations is that it is stored under high pressure, both in the garage/filling station and in the car. There was some concern about the danger, but the sturdiness of the tanks allayed that. Hence the weight in the car. The filling stations who supplied it had to install suitable equipment, different from the LPG equipment, at considerable expense.

Subject: RE: BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 10:21 PM

Well, people saying that the next big war will be over water so...

...what the hell we doing taking the next "bubbly crude" and pollutin' it to get natural gas???? I mean, there will come a point where we lookin' around for water and there ain't none...

Hmmmmm??? Wonder where the water went???

This is insanity...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 10:13 PM

I think the only impetus behind the CNG car in the present is the low prices and abundance of fracked gas.

Subject: RE: BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 10:00 PM

Although LP has been more frequently tried, CNG experiments have been fairly constant for at least 40 or more years. Nearly all testing considered "successful" (often based on hallucination rather than observation) has been in "local fleets" such as taxis where wide speed ranges - and associated need for variable acceleration - were minimized. There have been multiple tests in (local) passenger/transit buses that have claimed some benefits, but tests in heavy haulers have been disasters, as a rule.

Although fairly popular with some truckers (for patriotic reasons?) the agri-fuel also as a rule reduces fuel mileage compared to petro-diesel by amounts estimated at 5 to 15%, according to the truckers who use it enough to know so that even though burning a pound of the ethanol spiked stuff gives slightly less polution than a pound of ordinary diesel, you have to burn enough more pounds of the home-brew stuff that the net difference "per ton-mile" in the better of the current engines at least is pretty marginal.

Continued investigation of alternatives to the current fuels is worthwhile, as long it offers the likelihood of improving something, but many of the infinitely repeated announcements of "new applications" are just rehashing what's already failed to produce any significant results.

Someone will report the "new use" of the "ultra-flywheel" system again within six months or a year, and it will be tried again, quite probably with the same results as in 1954.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?
From: Gurney
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 09:10 PM

This is heading for the basement. Surely my less-than-happy experience isn't the only opinion out there?

I'm not completely opposed to CNG at all, just that duel-fuel gave me a couple of worrying moments in a car that was basically tuned for petrol. The weight problem was a matter of bad distribution.
Refuelling was more complicated that petrol, but the whole thing was much more sensible (to my mind) than purely electric cars.

Subject: RE: BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Aug 12 - 07:25 PM

Yeah, I would imagine that the car could be turbocharged or whatever. Certainly automotive technology has progressed in 30-40 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?
From: Gurney
Date: 03 Aug 12 - 06:58 PM

Oh. CNG is Methane Gas, here. LPG is Propane Gas, here. Mostly.

Subject: RE: BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?
From: Gurney
Date: 03 Aug 12 - 06:54 PM

We had a compressed-natural-gas-for-automotive-fuel system (CNG) here in NZ in the 70/80s, and I had a car which had it as alternative fuel.
Natural gas gives noticeably less power than petrol, and in this installation, particularly pick-up acceleration.

I was less than impressed. After a couple of incidents where I forgot which fuel I was using and tried to accelerate through a gap in oncoming traffic, and instead CRAWLED through the gap to horn accompaniment, I removed the CNG installation.

Another problem, in this installation, was that the car was a station-wagon, so the (large, heavy) tank was inside the load space, and right over one rear wheel at that! The installers had fitted an extra leaf in the spring on that side, and adjustable shock absorbers as well, but it upset the handling of the midsize european car so much that I lost trust in its ability to swerve in an emergency.
Afterwards, my wife drove the car until it died. It became her 'favourite-ever.' 'Judy's Red Rocket.'
So, I'd suggest that CNG should be fitted only to specifically-designed cars, and as the only fuel, but that opinion is based on one aftermarket installation. Your authorities could also benefit by consulting the NZ experience. I haven't seen a CNG filler pump for many years.
We also have dual-fuel vehicles using LPG, liquified Petroleum Gas, which is much more powerful. Most fork-hoists use LPG, and it is also used for camp stoves and is readily available.

Subject: BS: Fracking Good! CNG cars?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Aug 12 - 04:55 PM

This is an interesting development.

Since I had heard of companies and municipalities using CNG cars in the 80's and 90's, and withe the higher fuel standards on the horizon I am surprised this has not come sooner.