Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Natural Gas Vehicles Won't Decrease Oil Dependence
SeekingAlpha ^ | 7 Feb 10 | Eamon Keane

Posted on 02/11/2010 6:21:54 AM PST by shove_it

Natural gas is the fossil fuel du jour. At Davos, BP CEO Tony Hayward described unconventional natural gas as a 'complete game changer'. The rest of the panel agreed. In December Exxon Mobil (XOM) bought XTO Energy for $41bn to access its resource base of 45tcf (trillion cubic feet) of unconventional natty. Some see this as Exxon pivoting away from difficult to find oil into where the future fossil fuel growth will be. America is now apparently awash in a 100 year supply of nat gas. Why not use that for transport and stop the annual outflow of some $300bn out of the American economy, much of it to supposed enemies, all while creating those elusive green jobs?

Seeking Alpha author Michael Fitzsimmons has for a long time been passionately advocating natural gas as a panacea for the prospective peak oil problem. Many here agree, decrying Secretary Chu's "agnostic" stance towards its use for transport. T. Boone Pickens, in his Pickens' Plan redux, suggests that by transferring 18 wheelers and buses to natural by 2020 we could cut OPEC import dependence in half. I decided to take a quick look under the hood myself. My straw man will be that the US can stop all oil imports by 2035.

I find graphs are a powerful way to cut through the rhetoric and get down to the quantitative basics so I'll try to supply a few here.

[...]

The likely result of Pickens' plan being successful would be that by 2020 heating diesel and jet fuel would get cheaper (distillates are made with the same molecules) or else the diesel would be exported. The exposure to crude oil wouldn't change.

[...]

Are there any inaccuracies so far? Perhaps a refining expert could weigh in.

(Excerpt) Read more at seekingalpha.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: energy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last
To: milwguy
Oil shale was recoverable at $40 per barrel according to the Denver Post. EPA has banned most efficient foreign diesel engines. We have some of the largest supplies of oil on earth but the democrats have decided to shut them down. Why not just drill and get back to Clintons $20 bbl oil? Because the dollar is tied to crude oil and the democrats want to pay off the saudis with $250B last year.
41 posted on 02/11/2010 11:56:28 AM PST by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: naguszed

“20% better MPG”

Likely because a gallon of gas has 20% more BTU in it than a gallon of CNG. Good grief a gallon of gas must weigh a lot more than a gallon of CNG, which is not liquid, correct?

Seems like liquid propane would be preferable to LNG. Why am I wrong?


42 posted on 02/11/2010 12:14:53 PM PST by frposty (I'm a simpleton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: frposty

CNG & LNG are different. CNG is gaseous. LNG is chilled to reduce its volume.

I could be wrong on the whole BTU thing. all i know is CNG is less efficient than gas in the engine i have, which is a gas engine.


43 posted on 02/11/2010 1:30:53 PM PST by naguszed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

You still need jet fuel.

You still need asphalt.

You must have lubrication oils.

Even though plastics take a small amount of a barrel percentage wise, they are essential to our way of life.

You are not going to make all of the computers, cell phones, etc ., out of wood, aluminum (which is now being harassed by EPA), etc.

Rayon, nylon, polyesters, etc., are here to stay.

As I understand it, you can’t turn an entire barrel of oil into these products as these are products of the refining process, more or less depending on whether the crude is light or heavy.

So we will end up with the need for huge amounts of crude even if we throw away that part that we now make into gasoline....

Now that well may be an exaggeration to make a point, but there is enough truth in it to kill the idea that we are going to end our love of crude oil.

The real solution is to develop every single means of finding and recovering oil deposits.

Obviously natural gas has its place and I am all for using it in its place, but we are kidding ourselves if we think our need for oil will go away.

The poster who said that it is fine for trucks, buses and fleets but not for me is correct. It will only be used in private vehicles when it is the only thing left.


44 posted on 02/11/2010 1:55:34 PM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon
Two points.

First point...any of the items you list can be synthesized from other sources of feedstocks. It just takes energy. Ultimately, we could make all that stuff from CO2 in the air, and water. It is just a lot easier to derive it from the more convenient form that is petroleum. Before the first oil well was ever drilled, most organic chemicals were synthesized from coal and its byproducts in industrial-scale quantities.

Second point...if we divorce ourselves from oil-derived transportation fuels, we will have plenty of our own petroleum for the uses you list.

45 posted on 02/11/2010 3:04:12 PM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel (NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson