americandream, I'm not sure what you're asking. Would nuclear fusion do? There are many threads here on that. How about nuclear fission? Lots of threads on that, too. Solar? This forum is filled with threads on that. Or, are solar, fusion, fission and the like "dope" instead of "hope?" I'm not even sure what you think would be "hope" instead of "dope," so I do not know how to answer your question.
Thursday • July 16 2009
Current Events
Why unconventional natural gas makes the Waxman target easy
OilFinder2
Graeme
OK, I can get you started. I'm a novice although I'm interested in this topic. I've started threads in the Open and Economic Forums on sustainability. The literature on this topic is vast. I've read books by Paul Hawken and Amory Lovins. Try finding references by Herman Daly. Google economic sustainability. Hopefully, these will wet your appetite. Cheers. 
americandream
Do me a favour..the two of you. Quit trying to flog this dog with one fix remedies. You might want to add some qualifier to these sorts of postings in future Graeme rather than leave one with the impression that you have found the holy grail.
Neither of you guys have the foggiest notion as to where we will be in 2020 let alone put this gobshite out.
I'm outta here.
Neither of you guys have the foggiest notion as to where we will be in 2020 let alone put this gobshite out.
I'm outta here.
americandream
Oh yeah...I'm a green capitalist a cruisin down the highway in mah NG hummer and a munchin on mah organic Chinese apple.
yeahbut
americandream wrote:
Remembers recent New Zealand history when we ripped up our entire CNG network nationwide as it was not financially viable for the petrol companies to operate.
Exactly, I was thinking the same thing reading this thread...on a similar theme, Ports of Auckland and The MOT have come up with a brilliant new idea to reduce the number of trucks in central Ak and make freight movement from the wharves more efficient- can you guess what this amazing new development idea is? Yeah, it's to lay down tracks and move most of it out of the city by rail. Like they used to. I remember those tracks still being there in Quay St in the 80s, and I remember when they ripped them up...short-sighted frickin muppets
Tanada
TheDude wrote:
Tanada wrote:
And the proportion of the population commuting more than 100 miles each way to work on any given day is what exactly?
From an October 2003 sampling of 1978 people:
From BTS | OmniStats . Note the stats regarding "Stretch Commute" I linked to for OF2's benefit. Some of those people travelling >35 miles to work are driving ca. 100 miles. Many people where I live commute over 50 miles to Portland, and as I said there seems to be a paucity of CNG stations around here.
I pointed out the variability in fuel available as simply another minus that will deter potential buyers. This makes relying on CNG even more dicey.
Another reason for limited application of CNG/LNG in the US is that we have very exacting standards regarding safety, witness the recent bus explosion in China. This adds to the premium involved in buying, of course; the comments in the Honda Civic GX (natural gas) forum aren't surprising me at all, people want to buy these but their options are greatly limited by the system as it is.
I don't need any more of these global stats, OF2, I know that CNG autos work and are employed elsewhere, I'm calling into question their widespread acceptance in the US before shortages of oil cause a rush to buy them, emptying storerooms in an instant, the sort of simple 3 body arithmetic you seem steadfastly incapable of employing/understanding. Scooter stores in my locale were wholly out of stock last summer owing to the fuel spike; things were back to normal in the spring; no doubt they are getting more customers again. People don't look forward that much in this country.
OK people are weirder than I knew! The longest distance I ever regularly commuted was 32 miles one way when I got married the first time and moved before I found a new job closer to my first wife's family. She insisted in living close to them, I was young and in love blah blah blah. Before that I commuted 20 miles, once I found a closer job the most I have commuted is 8 miles and since 2004 when I bought this pest hole of a house it has been just over 6. Why anyone would spend over an hour every day trapped in a mobile metal box is beyond the psychology I understand.
Starvid
Quote:
Why anyone would spend over an hour every day trapped in a mobile metal box is beyond the psychology I understand.
True that.
:: ::
Speaking of the natural gas topic, I think I might have an if not unique then at least interesting perspective on this issue, as a Swede.
Why is that?
(Do note the usual screwy stats for nuclear in primary energy stats, essentially it provides as much power as the hydro, not three times as much, as two third of the energy is lost in the heat->power conversion.)
Only fully drawn lines exist, the striped ones are speculative unlikely stuff, with at least the ones crisscrossing Sweden are zero probability projects.
So essentially, with a few marginal exceptions, we use no natural gas at all. That is, we run our society without any gas at all, proving that it's not only possible but also pretty easy.
This shows that plenty of other gas dependent nations could do the same by emulating us, thereby freeing up vast amounts of natural gas which can then be used to fuel cars, thereby reducing the pressure on the global oil supply. I think that's one of the most important and also most ignored ways to deal with the Peak Oil issue.
TheDude
R-Squared Energy Blog: How Much Natural Gas to Replace Gasoline?
The U.S. currently consumes 390 million gallons of gasoline per day. (Source: EIA). A gallon of gasoline contains about 115,000 BTUs. (Source: EPA). The energy content of this much gasoline is equivalent to 45 trillion BTUs per day. The energy content of natural gas is about 1,000 BTUs per standard cubic foot (scf). Therefore, to replace all gasoline consumption would require 45 billion scf per day, or 16.4 trillion scf per year. Current U.S. natural gas consumption is 23 trillion scf per year (Source: EIA). Therefore, replacing all gasoline consumption with natural gas would require 39.4 trillion scf per year, an increase in natural gas consumption of 71% over present usage. Assuming for the sake of argument that the 2,074 trillion standard cubic feet cited in the study is accurate, and that the gas is economically recoverable, that is enough gas for 53 years of combined current natural gas consumption and gasoline consumption.
We can also calculate in terms of oil imports. Right now the U.S. imports about 13 million barrels per day of all petroleum products. A barrel of oil contains around 5.8 million BTUs, but oil only makes up 10 million of the 13 million barrel per day figure. Other imports include things like gasoline (4.8 million BTUs/bbl) and ethanol (3.2 million BTUs/bbl). Scanning the list of imports, I probably won't be too far off the mark to presume that the average BTU value of those 13 million bpd of imports is about 5.4 million BTUs/bbl. On an annual basis, this amounts to 25.6 trillion scf, an increase over current natural gas usage of 111%. Going back to the 2,074 trillion scf from the study, this would be enough to displace imports of all petroleum products (again, at current usage rates and not factoring in declining U.S. oil production) for 43 years.
My WAG of 15 tcf was for about half of total gasoline consumption, not expecting to replace every vehicle at once, just those critical to commuting.
Quote:
How Much Do We Need?The U.S. currently consumes 390 million gallons of gasoline per day. (Source: EIA). A gallon of gasoline contains about 115,000 BTUs. (Source: EPA). The energy content of this much gasoline is equivalent to 45 trillion BTUs per day. The energy content of natural gas is about 1,000 BTUs per standard cubic foot (scf). Therefore, to replace all gasoline consumption would require 45 billion scf per day, or 16.4 trillion scf per year. Current U.S. natural gas consumption is 23 trillion scf per year (Source: EIA). Therefore, replacing all gasoline consumption with natural gas would require 39.4 trillion scf per year, an increase in natural gas consumption of 71% over present usage. Assuming for the sake of argument that the 2,074 trillion standard cubic feet cited in the study is accurate, and that the gas is economically recoverable, that is enough gas for 53 years of combined current natural gas consumption and gasoline consumption.
We can also calculate in terms of oil imports. Right now the U.S. imports about 13 million barrels per day of all petroleum products. A barrel of oil contains around 5.8 million BTUs, but oil only makes up 10 million of the 13 million barrel per day figure. Other imports include things like gasoline (4.8 million BTUs/bbl) and ethanol (3.2 million BTUs/bbl). Scanning the list of imports, I probably won't be too far off the mark to presume that the average BTU value of those 13 million bpd of imports is about 5.4 million BTUs/bbl. On an annual basis, this amounts to 25.6 trillion scf, an increase over current natural gas usage of 111%. Going back to the 2,074 trillion scf from the study, this would be enough to displace imports of all petroleum products (again, at current usage rates and not factoring in declining U.S. oil production) for 43 years.
My WAG of 15 tcf was for about half of total gasoline consumption, not expecting to replace every vehicle at once, just those critical to commuting.
OilFinder2
Quote:
Therefore, to replace all gasoline consumption would require 45 billion scf per day, or 16.4 trillion scf per year
That's not far off from what the guy on Seeking Alpha estimated:
Quote:
Before you ask, remember that natural gas in the GX is compressed natural gas (CNG) at a pressure of 3,600 psi, which is why the gas tanks don’t need to actually be 968 cubic feet in size. Now we know how many GX tanks we need to fill every day, and we know how much natural gas is contained in each tank, so it’s easy to compute the amount of natural gas needed to power one half the cars in trucks in America for one year:(24,375,000 GX tanks/day)*(968 cuft/GX tank)*(365days/year)
= 8,612,175,000,000 cubic feet natural gas
= 8.6 TCF (trillion cubic feet) natural gas
His calculation was for half of US vehicles, so double that and you get 17.2 Tcf per year.
Not bad for a guy who was unsure-enough of his own calculation that he gave the following disclaimer at the bottom of his article:
Quote:
This is my first attempt at independently quantifying the natural gas supply and demand requirements based on my natural gas centric energy policy. I used the EIA website for all base data, which was taken from 2006 (the most up-to-date year all data was available). I had to make some assumptions, and while those assumptions are debatable, overall, I don’t think they meaningfully influenced the big picture. I am most concerned that I may have made an arithmetic or other miscue that influenced the results in a material way. If so, please respond with comments to the article in a constructive way. Any error was not intentional in order to support my own outspoken policy suggestions. I certainly encourage all readers to go through the numbers, verify their accuracy, or enjoy the pleasure of giving me a hard time if there are indeed errors. Thank you.
TheDude
Linked in the Dave Cohen article I posted today: Chapter 17a: Peak Oil - Natural Gas Vehicles—how much can they reduce oil imports? | Forums at Chris Martenson
onto a freeway with less than a half tank of gas. The gauge can plunge to “E” with alarming swiftness.
Stranded employees have no recourse but to call our garage for help. The garage cannot simply
send out a pickup with a gallon of gasoline, for they are not equipped to dispense CNG. They must
send a wrecker to tow the car to the fueling station. So it goes with CNG vehicles.
Long-haul truckers, whose livelihood depends on continual travel pulling full loads, do not want to
worry about making it to the next fueling station; few wreckers can tow a fully-loaded 18-wheeler. Nor
do truckers want to surrender 25% of precious cargo space to CNG tanks.
If our leaders are serious about displacing diesel fuel with natural gas, LNG is the logical direction for
future long-haul trucking. But LNG has its caveats. The existing LNG fueling stations scattered
around the country require highly-specialized, energy-intensive refrigeration and compression
equipment to chill the gas to -260 deg F and compress it to high pressure to liquefy it. But extensive expansion of LNG stations may not be economically feasible considering that the special equipment
might cost $1 million a pop(2). Most refueling stations take LNG deliveries by tanker truck. Truckers,
in turn, need insulated, high-pressure tanks on their rigs to maintain the temperature and pressure of
LNG. Rigs need roughly twice the tank volume to store LNG vs. diesel for the same driving range.
Quote:
Employees who drive the small CNG cars have learned from unpleasant experience not to ventureonto a freeway with less than a half tank of gas. The gauge can plunge to “E” with alarming swiftness.
Stranded employees have no recourse but to call our garage for help. The garage cannot simply
send out a pickup with a gallon of gasoline, for they are not equipped to dispense CNG. They must
send a wrecker to tow the car to the fueling station. So it goes with CNG vehicles.
Long-haul truckers, whose livelihood depends on continual travel pulling full loads, do not want to
worry about making it to the next fueling station; few wreckers can tow a fully-loaded 18-wheeler. Nor
do truckers want to surrender 25% of precious cargo space to CNG tanks.
If our leaders are serious about displacing diesel fuel with natural gas, LNG is the logical direction for
future long-haul trucking. But LNG has its caveats. The existing LNG fueling stations scattered
around the country require highly-specialized, energy-intensive refrigeration and compression
equipment to chill the gas to -260 deg F and compress it to high pressure to liquefy it. But extensive expansion of LNG stations may not be economically feasible considering that the special equipment
might cost $1 million a pop(2). Most refueling stations take LNG deliveries by tanker truck. Truckers,
in turn, need insulated, high-pressure tanks on their rigs to maintain the temperature and pressure of
LNG. Rigs need roughly twice the tank volume to store LNG vs. diesel for the same driving range.
OilFinder2
If CNG cars started selling well, they would also build more CNG stations, which would make that issue less dire. And as I said before, if they became popular enough they would start designing cars around larger gas tanks, which would help solve the problem of short driving ranges.
Another non-issue.
BTW, speaking of that 8-9 additional Tcf production needed each year to fuel half of US vehicles, somebody has already forecast just that amount:
http://www.cleanskies.org/upload/MediaF ... cippt2.pdf
Another non-issue.
BTW, speaking of that 8-9 additional Tcf production needed each year to fuel half of US vehicles, somebody has already forecast just that amount:
http://www.cleanskies.org/upload/MediaF ... cippt2.pdf
TheDude
Not to be confused with the Clear Skies Act, that bone the Bush White House threw to coal companies.
Where was that graph published?
Another non-reply. Do you have any knowledge of or interest in consumer behavior? Ask 48thRonin or Drew (both are truckers) what they would think of losing cargo space to make room for extra fuel, how that would cut into their bottom line. Ask some gas station owners if they're ready to spend $1 million bucks on providing LNG. Haven't sourced what the outlay for CNG is yet, but plenty of owners mark it up at the retail end to cover their costs, providing further disincentive for motorists.
Check out some of the 60-odd CNG vehicles marketed in Europe, too. Far as I know they generally don't retool the whole body design to make room for the tanks. Europe is more compressed than the US yadda yadda.
Where was that graph published?
Quote:
Another non-issue.
Another non-reply. Do you have any knowledge of or interest in consumer behavior? Ask 48thRonin or Drew (both are truckers) what they would think of losing cargo space to make room for extra fuel, how that would cut into their bottom line. Ask some gas station owners if they're ready to spend $1 million bucks on providing LNG. Haven't sourced what the outlay for CNG is yet, but plenty of owners mark it up at the retail end to cover their costs, providing further disincentive for motorists.
Check out some of the 60-odd CNG vehicles marketed in Europe, too. Far as I know they generally don't retool the whole body design to make room for the tanks. Europe is more compressed than the US yadda yadda.
OilFinder2
No one need lose cargo space to make room for extra fuel storage space. You only need re-design vehicles to accommodate larger fuel tanks. As I said before, imagine a Ford Taurus with its back trunk a foot longer, or something like that.
A truck is even more of a non-issue: Last time I looked, the fuel tanks in a semi truck did not even take up any room potentially dedicated to cargo storage at all!
And if even 10%-20% of US vehicles started running on CNG, you can be sure manufacturers would start re-designing their CNG vehicles to accommodate larger tanks. That would be too big a market for them to pay mere lip service to.
A truck is even more of a non-issue: Last time I looked, the fuel tanks in a semi truck did not even take up any room potentially dedicated to cargo storage at all!
And if even 10%-20% of US vehicles started running on CNG, you can be sure manufacturers would start re-designing their CNG vehicles to accommodate larger tanks. That would be too big a market for them to pay mere lip service to.
the48thronin
They are already running LNG trucks , more will appear soon now that freightliner and kenworth are both putting test trucks out in California. All that is needed are more government grants to pay for it all. So far all the LNG trucks I know about are running local.
Gerben
TheDude wrote:
Quote:
Employees who drive the small CNG cars have learned from unpleasant experience not to venture onto a freeway with less than a half tank of gas. The gauge can plunge to “E” with alarming swiftness. Stranded employees have no recourse but to call our garage for help. The garage cannot simply send out a pickup with a gallon of gasoline, for they are not equipped to dispense CNG. They must send a wrecker to tow the car to the fueling station. So it goes with CNG vehicles.Long-haul truckers, whose livelihood depends on continual travel pulling full loads, do not want to
worry about making it to the next fueling station; few wreckers can tow a fully-loaded 18-wheeler. Nor
do truckers want to surrender 25% of precious cargo space to CNG tanks.
Just like you'd need a jerrycan for carrying gasoline, there are also CNG bottles (with hose) for refueling stranded vehicles. Tow trucks however are there already so garages don't bother investing in it.
No idea where he got the 25% from. You don't lose space if you accept a lower driving range. Or could hang a zillion CNG bottles underneath the trailer. I've seen a truck with the back of the cabin full of CNG bottles to get normal range; you'd lose about 6 inches with this solution. I've never seen 2 foot length trailers.
the48thronin
Gerben wrote:
TheDude wrote:
Quote:
Employees who drive the small CNG cars have learned from unpleasant experience not to venture onto a freeway with less than a half tank of gas. The gauge can plunge to “E” with alarming swiftness. Stranded employees have no recourse but to call our garage for help. The garage cannot simply send out a pickup with a gallon of gasoline, for they are not equipped to dispense CNG. They must send a wrecker to tow the car to the fueling station. So it goes with CNG vehicles.Long-haul truckers, whose livelihood depends on continual travel pulling full loads, do not want to
worry about making it to the next fueling station; few wreckers can tow a fully-loaded 18-wheeler. Nor
do truckers want to surrender 25% of precious cargo space to CNG tanks.
Just like you'd need a jerrycan for carrying gasoline, there are also CNG bottles (with hose) for refueling stranded vehicles. Tow trucks however are there already so garages don't bother investing in it.
No idea where he got the 25% from. You don't lose space if you accept a lower driving range. Or could hang a zillion CNG bottles underneath the trailer. I've seen a truck with the back of the cabin full of CNG bottles to get normal range; you'd lose about 6 inches with this solution. I've never seen 2 foot length trailers.
Weight is often the critical factor in many trucking operations. Unless shipper expectations can be changed, the added weight I have seen on those LNG trucks will be a problem.
Over the years I have been trucking, we have gone from 40 ft trailers to 53 ft trailers and the PTB in the industry want 58 ft trailers now. Our weight has gone from 72,380 to 80,00 and they want 90,000 now.
1 MPG can be gained in most trucking operations with the simple expedient of adding a battery bank, sine wave inverter, and ac unit so that drivers will not have to idle the motor when sleeping. FEW trucking companies can afford the weight, in fact the less useful generator and ac units they sell on the market now have made little headway into the market until they allowed a 400 pound extra exemption for trucks so equipped.
My own operation is in an area where weight is seldom a consideration, but fuel availability is, and reliability is, and cold weather is. My brother has been propane driving for years and lives at 8000 ft in the mountains, winters can be real interesting with a propane vehicle, I am not sure of the LNG situation there.
As to the portable refills for LNG wanna tell me the pressure numbers of compress NG again? Gasoline spills are a small hazard in roadside encounters, now picture that hose after 3 years of riding around in the back of that service truck.... Possible in mounted reeled situations it might be only 10 times as dangerous as a gasoline can, but I can see the labor laws and lawyers and training requirements and.... oh regulation ad nauseoum right?
Just my thoughts
TheDude
Quote:
As to the portable refills for LNG wanna tell me the pressure numbers of compress NG again?
I'll answer that although I'm guessing you're being rhetorical: 3600 psi usually, although some passenger vehicle conversions operate at around 3k and there was a story in May about some newfangled approach to compression using carbon derived from, uh, corncobs, to bring the ratio down very low - ca. 500 psi. Still vaporware far as I've heard.
Another forum: Natural Gas Vehicle Owner Community . Hey, the World’s Largest LNG/CNG Truck Fueling Station Opens in California .
Guess that 25% number was pulled out of a posterior. But some of the pics I've seen make it look like the tanks really pile on the weight:
.jpg)
the48thronin
That is a conversion the new ones look much nicer.. The ones they had at the Vegas truck show last year had a 300 mile range. ( my truck has a 1400 mile per fill range).
Maybe I can find the pics of the test beds from the truck show.. if I can I will put them here. Meanwhile IF the rails could handle it, and the freight was all intermodaled, maybe the LNG trucks could be used efficiently. The plans now are to work them on the land bridge in Calif from the ports to the rail head about 30 miles round trip.
Maybe I can find the pics of the test beds from the truck show.. if I can I will put them here. Meanwhile IF the rails could handle it, and the freight was all intermodaled, maybe the LNG trucks could be used efficiently. The plans now are to work them on the land bridge in Calif from the ports to the rail head about 30 miles round trip.
Gerben
LNG and CNG storage are not the same. I don't think there is a portable refill for LNG trucks. There's mobile refueling trucks for that.
CNG can be stored in portable bottles (although you cannot carry enough to get far with a truck, that's just a solution for passenger cars) and no: you don't want to have one lying around in your car. Fill it, drive to the stranded vehicle, fill the vehicle then blow off the remaining gas from the bottle.
For CNG trucks you could use one of those trucks with enough range for 1400 mi and a special service hose as mobile station, just connect the hose and the pressure in both trucks will equalize making both trucks half-full. (No spilling possible, it's a closed system.)
For CNG you run into weight problems, because of the bottle weight. With LNG this is not a problem. LNG is preffered over CNG for long haul trucks even though it's not as cheap.
CNG can be stored in portable bottles (although you cannot carry enough to get far with a truck, that's just a solution for passenger cars) and no: you don't want to have one lying around in your car. Fill it, drive to the stranded vehicle, fill the vehicle then blow off the remaining gas from the bottle.
For CNG trucks you could use one of those trucks with enough range for 1400 mi and a special service hose as mobile station, just connect the hose and the pressure in both trucks will equalize making both trucks half-full. (No spilling possible, it's a closed system.)
For CNG you run into weight problems, because of the bottle weight. With LNG this is not a problem. LNG is preffered over CNG for long haul trucks even though it's not as cheap.
TheDude
Bill to Jumpstart Natural-Gas Vehicles in Utah?
The Menendez/Hatch Natural Gas Act (S. 1408) would extend the life of the CLEAR Act credits for natural-gas vehicles, natural-gas filling infrastructure and for the use of natural gas in vehicles. It also creates a new incentive for the manufacture of natural-gas vehicles and trucks.
"Utah has been a leader in the nation in pushing the use of natural-gas vehicles," Hatch said. "But there has been a shortage of natural-gas vehicles that are commercially available."
Quote:
"In 2005, as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, I was able to get the CLEAR Act enacted into law," Hatch said. "That legislation has promoted the purchase of alternative-fuel and hybrid vehicles, alternative-fuel infrastructure and the use of alternative fuels in vehicles. I have been very pleased with the growth in the use of hybrid-electric vehicles in this country since the passage of the CLEAR Act, but I have been less pleased with the growth in natural gas as a transportation fuel. I believe strongly an extra push is needed to spur the greater use of natural gas and to get more natural gas vehicles on our roads."The Menendez/Hatch Natural Gas Act (S. 1408) would extend the life of the CLEAR Act credits for natural-gas vehicles, natural-gas filling infrastructure and for the use of natural gas in vehicles. It also creates a new incentive for the manufacture of natural-gas vehicles and trucks.
"Utah has been a leader in the nation in pushing the use of natural-gas vehicles," Hatch said. "But there has been a shortage of natural-gas vehicles that are commercially available."
OilFinder2
TheDude wrote:
Quote:
As to the portable refills for LNG wanna tell me the pressure numbers of compress NG again?
I'll answer that although I'm guessing you're being rhetorical: 3600 psi usually, although some passenger vehicle conversions operate at around 3k and there was a story in May about some newfangled approach to compression using carbon derived from, uh, corncobs, to bring the ratio down very low - ca. 500 psi. Still vaporware far as I've heard.
Another forum: Natural Gas Vehicle Owner Community . Hey, the World’s Largest LNG/CNG Truck Fueling Station Opens in California .
Guess that 25% number was pulled out of a posterior. But some of the pics I've seen make it look like the tanks really pile on the weight:
BTW, encountered this recently:
>>> CNG Freightliner <<<
Just a regular truck:
>>> Business Class M112 <<<