![](http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:R8sR7daexSBGmM:www.ted-kyte.com/3D/Pictures/Spark%2520Plug.jpg")
Rest In Peace, old friend, your work is finished.....
If you want ON or OFF the DIESEL ”KnOcK” LIST just FReepmail me.....
This is a fairly HIGH VOLUME ping list on some days.....
Posted on 05/02/2011 5:24:23 AM PDT by thackney
Next thing will be the Swiss developing a cheese with holes in it!
Rest In Peace, old friend, your work is finished.....
If you want ON or OFF the DIESEL ”KnOcK” LIST just FReepmail me.....
This is a fairly HIGH VOLUME ping list on some days.....
“Such a massive plant would likely take 15-18 years to complete, he said”
The 15~18 year comment was based upon:
“ If the entire 4.5 billion cubic feet a day of North Slope gas... were instead to be converted into gasoline, it would result in gasoline production of 450,000 barrels a day.”
Why not just use nat gas as a motor fuel ?
And there is an Alaskan Pipeline that has surplus capacity along with an expected growing production of the heavy oil. The methanol would help thin the heavy oil and make pumping easier.
Too difficult to transport, store, and refuel a car with natural gas. CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) has its supporters, but it is very low energy density compared to liquid gasoline, so your range is severely limited. Having to compress it to a very high PSI makes it slow to refuel.
It is used in some fleet vehicles, but not something that grandma can do herself at the filling station.
Nobody likes to carry a tank pressurized to 5k-6k lbs pressure. CNG works fine, but there is always the "bomb" factor. LNG has the temp problem also. If we are going "green with solar and wind, use that juice to make the gasoline from coal and nat gas to save money. If we could cure the fuel problem for 200-300 years, we must use coal and NG and whatever the cost would be better than depending on the ME for fuel. Having a stable cost and supply for fuel would trump any costs involved over the long haul.
Because even when pressurized to 3600 psi, the storage energy per unit of volume is roughly 1/3 that of gasoline. Heavy, dangerous high pressure tanks, short driving range.
You can only get that BTU comparison by chilling Natural Gas it to -260° F and turning it into a liquid. The BTUs of compressed natural gas varies by how much you compress it.
Using the Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE), you need .5 cu. ft. of CNG at 3,600 PSI to equal one gallon of gasoline. So to replace an 18 gallon gasoline tank, you need to store 36 cubic feet of CNG at 3,600 PSI.
Correct. It can work OK for fleet vehicles that return to a central depot where they can be refueled frequently, but becomes inconvenient for regular folk used to having some real range / time between refueling stops.
The average person has trouble filling their tires with 35 pounds of air pressure.
You really want that same person filling their fuel tank with 3600 pounds of explosives?
You should be able to tank replace like you do for your Gas grill!!!
That would require your the car to be designed for CNG replacement tank
Gasoline’s not explosive ?
This makes my point. Commuting, ten-20 miles daily, with a fill connection to nat gas at home (where homes have natural gas.)
Gasoline is flammable, not explosive, furthermore, it’s comes out of the nozzle at only a couple of pounds pressure, not 3600 psi.
It is a long way from 1/4 psi (delivery pressure into most homes) to 3600 psi. I should take some time and calculate the energy input required for compression, and see if it is at all comparable to the energy content of the natural gas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.