Natural gas has been tried before in the US. The giant explosions that resulted were why it hasn’t been popular since.
Also, it should be noted that this means that the price of natural gas would rise due to demand, thus increasing the cost of electricity and home heating.
Not scalable for passenger cars at the number driven today.
Good article, I work in the natural gas industry very close to the Haynsville Shale. Natural Gas refueling would require a big investment in infrastructure, probably a mandate by government to build refueling stations. Since I don’t like mandates from the government and believe that prices will dictate changes we will just have to wait. To much oil in the ground yet but America has more Natural Gas than it realizes. Potential is there.
I would love to purchase one of those CNG Civics (actually assembled here in Indiana at the new Greensburg plant).
My problem is there are just a handful of CNG filling stations around central Indiana, and from what I’ve read the home refueling compressor rig is expensive and short lived.
(I did install nat gas and 220v in my new garage in anticipation of some day being able to try this).
I don’t mind folks experimenting with NG, but don’t expect me to subsidize it. We’ve had enough of that.
I’m just into the whole flammable gas under pressure in my (or anybody near me) car. Just seems like a bad idea.
Ford has a Crown Vic version that runs on Compressed gas. Almost bought it but thought it would tough to travel longer distance.
Let them convert our trains to natural gas first. If that works, then try semi trucks.
Remember that Natural Gas Solution article you posted here about 5 years ago?
Those who heat their homes will not be thrilled with the price jump if this happens.
Any kind of gas is explosive under the right condition. The Liberals and environmentalist really do not want any kind of alternative energy that will disrupt the mating habits of the bind, deaf asexual mud worms.
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.
As a daily driver of a Propane fueled 1/2 ton pick up, I can tell you the real reasons these “alternate” fuels are not popular.
Cost. My propane cost more per gallon than Supreme!
Availability. I cannot take my truck on a long trip, if I run out of fuel it means an expensive tow to be refueled.
Lack of power. The propane (or natural gas) contains less BTU per gallon, so the vehicle has less power, particularly bad in mountain driving, towing, or carrying a load.
Poor mileage. In addition to the issues above, there is a 20% reduction in MPG.
Overly large fuel containers. The propane tank uses nearly half the bed space of my truck.
Combine all the above, I can state without reservation, from personal experience, that “alternative fuel’s” SUCK!
They can be made to work well for fixed route fleet use, they can be made more palatable with generous subsidies, but in the end they are not practical for general use by individuals.
I am going to cut MY fuel bill by removing the propane conversion and going back to gasoline!
I was able to buy this truck for about a third of what it would have sold for if it still ran on gasoline. No one else was willing to deal with the propane hassle.
There are formidable barriers to the use of both CNG and LNG in passenger vehicles.
This article exploits the math ignorance of most of the public.
Does everyone grasp the fact that if the use of both forms of natural gas combined increased by minuscule amounts for a rousing grand total of 2% of the total use of energy used for transportation? Embarrasing, when you consider that most of the use is for buses, trucks and vans, where the hidden subsidies don't count because it's "taxpayer" money.
Once passenger cars are suckered into using the stuff, if they can't manage to hide the subsidies, government will tax the snot off of it and the idiot drivers will have no way out,