Top of the world!
Posted on 01/24/2010 5:30:32 PM PST by thackney
You might not know it, but there’s already an alternative fuel for vehicles that cuts pollution, saves money and provides an “immediate solution to the nation’s energy security needs,” to quote the U.S. Department of Energy.
What’s that fuel? Natural gas.
For now, only about 2 percent of the energy used for transportation in the United States comes in the form of natural gas. But according to the DOE’s most recent Vehicle Technologies Market Report, the use of compressed natural gas grew by 40 percent in the middle of the last decade, and the use of liquefied natural gas jumped by 145 percent.
In all, there are more than 120,000 natural gas vehicles on the road today in the United States and about 10 million worldwide, according to Natural Gas Vehicles for America, a trade association promoting natural gas vehicles.
In the United States most natural gas vehicles are purchased as fleet vehicles by municipalities and businesses. Regular routes, high mileage and the opportunity for centralized refueling infrastructure make the vehicles attractive. According to NGVA, one in five transit buses sold today runs on natural gas. As of last July, UPS had the largest fleet of natural gas vehicles.
But individual consumers are starting to get in on the action, too. Honda, which sells the only major-manufacturer passenger vehicle that runs on natural gas, started marketing its Civic GX to individuals in 2005 and quickly saw retail sales top fleet sales. The company sold about 1,700 of the cars for the 2009 model year, said Todd Mittleman, a spokesman for Honda. The cars are sold on a retail basis in California, New York and Utah.
Natural gas vehicles typically perform similarly to their gasoline or diesel counterparts, but have a somewhat lower range because of the reduced energy storage density of natural gas. The Civic GX, for instance, has a range of about 220 miles.
Heavy-duty trucks typically use liquefied natural gas, while lighter-duty vehicles generally rely on compressed natural gas. The engines are similar to conventional gasoline and diesel engines, and some vehicles can even switch between natural gas and petroleum-based fuels. Both LNG and CNG vehicles require special, pressurized tanks and fuel systems.
Advocates of natural gas vehicles, or NGVs, tout many of the same benefits as advocates of electric vehicles—cleaner air and reduced dependence on foreign oil.
Most of the natural gas used in the United States is produced domestically, and almost all of the rest comes from Canada.
Natural gas vehicles also produce fewer harmful emissions than their gasoline or diesel counterparts, reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds, according to the DOE.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a research group promoting energy efficiency, has put the Civic GX at the top of its list of “greenest vehicles” for the last seven years running, above even Toyota’s fuel-efficient hybrid, the Prius.
Natural gas vehicles do release more methane than conventional vehicles, but government analysis has found that overall emissions of greenhouse gases, including methane and carbon dioxide, can be reduced with NGVs.
Because of the similarities between natural gas and hydrogen, NGVs are seen as a potential bridge toward vehicles running on hydrogen.
Cheaper fuel, if you can find it
NGVs generally cost more than conventional vehicles—the premium for heavy-duty vehicles can by $30,000 to $50,000—but can be significantly cheaper to operate. The DOE’s Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report from October 2009 found the national average price for compressed natural gas was about 78 cents less than gasoline on an energy-equivalent basis. In the Rocky Mountain region, natural gas cost about half as much as gasoline.
There are also federal incentives that reduce the cost of the vehicles, fuel, and refueling infrastructure. Richard Kolodziej, president of NGVA, said extending and expanding those tax credits is his group’s biggest priority now.
When asked about the modest retail sales of NGVS, Kolodziej pointed to the lack of infrastructure. The country has about 180,000 gas stations, he said, and only about 1,300 natural gas fueling stations (many of which are closed to the public).
The future of transportation?
Nonetheless, Kolodziej is hopeful about the future of NGVs. With the right incentives, natural gas could meet 20 percent of the diesel market in 10 or 15 years, he said.
Kolodziej added that T. Boone Pickens, whose widely publicized “Pickens Plan” calls for a large-scale shift to natural gas vehicles, has done a lot to educate the public and policy makers about NGVs. Before, Kolodziej had to start his pitch by simply explaining that it’s possible to run a car on natural gas, he said. “We don’t have to do that anymore.”
Honda’s Mittleman was cautiously optimistic, noting that said sales of NGVs and hybrid vehicles have tended to increase when fuel prices rise. “We foresee increasing sales,” he said, “but we also need to see the expansion of infrastructure to support greater sales.”
The same type of warning labels are on gasoline tanker trucks as well.
What happens when you rupture a tank that’s under pressure? Very bad things, whether the contents of the tank are flammable or not, and whether or not there’s a spark to set a flammable gas on fire, gas under pressure does nasty things when released in an uncontrolled manner.
Every time they poke a hole in the Marcellus formation they find more NG. And they just announced a major find in shallow water off LA, estimated at 2 to 6 Tri. CF.
Notice the difference in volume. ONE couple hundred pound tank of natural gas earns a warning label, compared to THOUSANDS of gallons of gasoline.
There is a convenience store/gas station here at the beach with a sign in the window that says: “EAT HERE AND GET GAS!”
Just like the electric car when recharging there is a possiblity of a blowup and fire and the costs of adding it to your electric bill might be astronomical. What happens if the grid goes out? I say experiment. That ethynal turned out to be a big dud and it’s good thing they found out before some idiot who has a piece rammed it down our throats in Congress.
Let them convert our trains to natural gas first. If that works, then try semi trucks.
Just wait until the first hydrogen fueled vehicle explodes.
Remember that Natural Gas Solution article you posted here about 5 years ago?
Top of the world!
Oh wow. um. That was a while back. It basically said we could replace gasoline a lot more efficiently than replacing power plants with wind and solar.
But that we just needed the infrastructure. Heck a tenth that stimulus could have done it.
Something like that.
But I will say part of my job is hazardous area classification. I deal with flammability hazards with gasoline, Pressurized Natural Gas and Pressurized Hydrogen in refineries every day. The hazards are not greatly different, each having some characteristics the other avoids.
We have a lot of city buses and other commercial trucks already running on compressed natural gas.
UPS Deploys 245 New “Green” Trucks
http://www.pressroom.ups.com/Press+Releases/Current+Press+Releases/UPS+Deploys+245+New+%22Green%22+Trucks?srch_pos=9&srch_phr=natural+gas
Atlanta, January 19, 2010
UPS (NYSE:UPS) today announced it has deployed 245 new delivery trucks powered by Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) to cities in Colorado and California.
The new CNG trucks have been deployed over the past month to Denver (140) and to four cities in California: San Ramon (18), Fresno (16), West Los Angeles (59) and Ontario (12). The vehicles are part of UPS’s continued effort to reduce its emissions from the use of fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel and lower its carbon footprint.
UPS began deploying alternative fuel vehicles in the 1930s with a fleet of electric trucks that operated in New York City. Today, UPS operates one of the largest private fleets of alternative fuel vehicles in its industry - more than 1,900 in total with these additions. Since 2000, the company’s “green fleet” has traveled more than 165 million miles.
“The greening of our fleet demonstrates the effectiveness of harnessing multiple technologies and applying the right vehicles to areas where they will provide the best advantage,” said Bob Stoffel, UPS senior vice president of supply chain, strategy, engineering and sustainability. “Compressed Natural Gas continues to be a sustainable technology for UPS’s fleet because natural gas is cost effective, clean-burning and abundant.”
UPS, a member of the EPA Climate Leaders, first deployed CNG-powered delivery trucks in the 1980s. At the time, UPS purchased traditional gas- or diesel-driven vehicles and converted them to run on compressed gas. The 245 trucks deployed over the past month were built from scratch as CNG vehicles. They join more than 900 CNG vehicles already in use by UPS worldwide.
The CNG truck bodies are identical externally to the signature-brown trucks that comprise the UPS fleet. Marked with decals as CNG vehicles, the trucks are expected to yield a 15 percent emissions reduction over the cleanest diesel engines available in the market today.
For its alternative fuel fleet, UPS has deployed CNG, Liquefied Natural Gas, propane, electric and hybrid electric vehicles in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Germany, France, Brazil, Chile, Korea and the United Kingdom. The company was the first in the industry to purchase hydraulic hybrid delivery vehicles and has conducted research with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
It probably won’t explode unless someone includes thermite in the paint of the container.
Also, NG has more energy than hydrogen, so a bigger boom. Natural gas is also heavier than air so it sinks to the ground and stays around a while; hydrogen is lighter than air so if there’s a leak, the gas will rise out of the immediate area and not lurk around to cause an explosion.
There’s a big difference between hazardous tanks in buildings than in cars, would you put those tanks you work with in the back seat of every car in a high school? That’s what this plan is, and that’s why the CNG idea is a non-starter, converting cars into bombs with under pressure tanks of gas is just plain a stupid idea.
Dallas bought a bunch of those for their cop cars and they’re slower than hell. Definitely unsatisfactory.
Again, we disagree. There are already a lot of CNG powered vehicles on the street today. If your concern was real, it would already be news. They have been driving our streets for decades. The bombs you claim exist do not seem to be going off.
At least hydrogen and natural gas disapate upwards into the air if their is a leak, rather than pooling in a spreading flammable puddle.
I do not see the danger level much different than what we use today.
You have a tank that will hold hydrogen without leakage? I don’t want one in my garage
Most of them are in large vehicles like buses. It’s a different matter entirely in cars. Again: would you put these tanks in the back seat of every single car in a high school parking lot?
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.