Posted on 01/24/2010 5:30:32 PM PST by thackney
Looks to me like a lot of Texas is happy with and expanding their Natural Gas Vehicle fleet.
Texans are Busy with NGVs
http://www.ngvglobal.com/texans-are-busy-with-ngvs-0120
I am not sure you are right, but in places like Fort Worth and soon Dallas, the bus system is all natural gas and so too most of the city cars...thank you Barnett Shale. The huge find off LA coast - oil and gas - as well as the Haynesville in NE. Tx, AR and NW LA is adding more and more gas. So, they will be pumping it at a rate that is beyond belief - Alaska’s pipeline will bring more. Then in 2012 nukes come back - to power industry - with a republican who has some grit.
And where are the hydrogen wells or hydrogen mines? How many nuke plants would be needed to generate hydrogen from water? Or maybe how many coal and natural gas fired electric plants?
Hydrogen is a very small molecule and leaks through stuff that a larger molecule like CH4 won’t.
How can it be possible be more practical to use something that’s harder to deal with, and more expensive to obtain?
The only possible advantage might be in finding a non-compressed storage facility for the H2 that can’t be found for CH4. Such things exist, but I don’t think they are cheap.
I am assuming you mean you are NOT into flammable gas under pressure any where near you. Thank God you live in an area of the country that doesn't use Natural gas to heat homes then, eh? I thought large parts of the country had natural gas pipe lines running to homes and businesses, I may be mistaken and that my house is the only one that uses Natural Gas, under pressure, to heat, cook and heat my water.
BTW, vehicles that run on Propane(a gas under pressure)have been around for years and years. I know several people that have them and they run on either gasoline or propane. Not to mention the fact that many homes have large tanks containing propane under pressure sitting in their yards.
Fear of Natural gas as an auto fuel is unreasonable.
For trucks why not use steam? The only failing is you have to build up a head of steam and that takes 20 minutes. BUT Long Haul Truckers would not have a problem with this and the savings would be dramatic. There is that exploding thing and scalding to death thing (Listen to the Wreck of the old 97).
How do natural gas vehicles behave in crashes? The strength of the natural gas cylinders and fuel system generally avoids any leakage or fire. For example an accident involving a CNG-powered pick-up…proved to be a testimonial to the safety of CNG tanks. As reported in the May 1995 edition of Automotive Fleet:
“When the 1992 CNG pick-up was broadsided in Midland, Texas, the most vulnerable part of the fueling system bore the brunt of the hit. While the force drove an imprint of the tank safety valve into the side of the truck, the CNG tanks did not rupture, and driver Jimmy Oden walked away.”
“And in a tragic 1998 accident, a stopped bi-fueled Honda (a vehicle which could run on either natural gas or gasoline) was impacted by another vehicle moving at nearly 100 mph and a fire fed by gasoline broke out. The 50-liter natural gas fuel tank was intact and remained secured in its support brackets.” (Reported in a June 1998 BC Gas press release).
==>”...even without a spark natural gas presents an explosion hazard.”<==
A small fraction of the hazard presented by Hydrogen! The explosion hazard is represented by the range between the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) and Upper Explosive Limit (UEL). For gasoline, the numbers are 1.4% and 7.6%, range 6.2. For Methane (nat. gas.) they are 5%, 15%, and 10. For Hydrogen, they are 4%, 75%, and 71! Only a very few fuel gases exceed that range - Table at ( http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/explosive-concentration-limits-d_423.html ).
However, the total hazard should also reference the leakage hazard for Hydrogen, which is lighter - and leakier - than any other molecule. In addition, Hydrogen is chemically a metal. It can penetrate some metal tanks and pipes, and weaken them to the point of failure.
There’s no such thing as rupture proof containers. Eventually they’ll pop.
If CNG gas tanks were built to the same standards as liquid fuel tanks, I could see your point, but they’re not, so how they fare in a collision is apples to oranges.
It’s a simple concept, nothing is indestructible. Whenever we start thinking something is (like say the Titanic) very bad things happen. Put them in enough vehicles, give them enough accidents, enough lack of maintenance, some nice salt rust, they will start popping.
I drove forklifts powered by propane for years. These should be more dangerous than passenger vehicles because the tank is exposed and the machine is used in an industrial area around other, heavy machinery. My initial worries proved to be totally unfounded.
How often did your forklift get into an accident at 75MPH with another vehicle doing 75MPH?
The problem with natural gas as a motor fuel is its density. The range of these vehicles is limited. Not as bad as electric, but still a definite disadvantage. The Civic GX pictured has a 170 mile range.
Your planet sounds very dangerous, with all those popping and rupturing and burning and exploding things.
Have you considered relocating to Earth?
Keep the Government out of it: let the market decide which
type of fuel is best.
>Hydrogen is a much more practical solution, IMHO.
Hydrogen presents a number of challenges:
1) It burns hot, REALLY hot, such that conventional engine manufacture may not be very effective.
2) Storage: under pressure or in a uranium-lattice [IIRC] are the standard ways of having a fuel tank. The former presenting safety-issues and the latter getting the “OMG! Uranium!” effect.
3) Production-transport-storage, like petrol today, but a lot touchier.
I actually think that the CNG/Diesel either-or type of vehicles are a good idea. Biodiesel in particular is a better bet than ethanol, IMO, because it can be produced from byproducts of our food industry from fast-food joints to meat-chop-shops [as well as other industries, I’d wager] and doesn’t consume a lot of food-stuffs that would go to either people or animals AND all it requires in addition to almost any diesel engine is the addition of a fuel-filter.
Regarding electrics it seems to be a waste until you get some cheap-and-reliable production going... Solar just isn’t there; it would take solar panels of 90+% efficiency rate to even be feasible as a [mass-market] power source. Nuclear though, are incredibly good deals energy-production-wise.
Um, ok, I’m done rambling.
>All we need is Congress and Obongo to get off their @$$ and make it a reality.
Why should we look to Congress/President/Government to do everything?
Yeah, but you’re thinking about using it in an internal combustion engine, which you can. BMW has shown that it can be done, and with conventional engine manufacture.
However, where it comes into its own is with cars like the Honda FCX Clarity. The hydrogen is used in a fuel cell to generate electricity.
Sorry you feel the need to resort to insults. Out here in reality it’s a dangerous place where things break, it’s a less dangerous place if the breaking things don’t have a bunch of under pressure gas in them. Now if your next reply is going to be just insults don’t bother to make it, we both have better things to do with our time.
>How often did your forklift get into an accident at 75MPH with another vehicle doing 75MPH?
Every day; just like when I was in Iraq and my M9 would jump out of its holster and kill people. [/sarc]
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.