(03-14-2013 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 09:22 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Well, since I was talking about trucks and not cars, it's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be. I don't think we'd ever be able to completely switch from gasoline to natural gas. Trucks and trains, however, could easily switch. You only need a couple of stations in each metro area, along major freeway routes, to allow significant numbers of trucks to switch from diesel to natural gas. Not sure why you're anti-natgas, since we drill 100% of what we use here instead of buying it from Canada or Saudi Arabia

Number one, I'm not anti-gas in the slightest. We just have to use it where it makes the most sense. It was Jimmy Carter's anti-gas stance that caused a lot of the problems we have today. But for Carter and his energy policy, a lot of what you want would likely already be here.

What really makes sense for trains is electric, like Europe. Gas would require frequent refueling stops, plus my own considerable experience with natural gas engines is that they are at least marginally less powerful and less torquey, which would be drawbacks for trains.

The best application for natural gas is local fleet operations--like Fed Ex delivery operations. Fuel overnight at a central depot, then run all day the next day. You'd need way more than a couple of stations per major metro area to support significant over-the-road truck operations. Basically everywhere you see a truck stop today would have to add the natural gas infrastructure.

Gasifying local truck fleets and electrifying trains could save us about 3 million barrels of oil per day. That's a huge impact.

Of course, start doing that and those 300 years worth of natural gas aren't 300 years any more. The 300 years is at current usage levels, and when you increase the denominator the fraction gets smaller.

I think switching railroads over to CNG would be easier than electrification. Building a CNG refueling station in every train yard would be infinitely easier and cheaper than building overhead electrical lines across the country (not to mention the insane number of spur and side tracks that exist)

(03-14-2013 01:09 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 04:53 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Article from WSJ yesterday. We've seen similar discussion previously but it's good to have the numbers in one spot so you can do your own math (weak on sources though). No surprise: Batteries are NOT green.

I don't have a problem with poking holes in the "electric cars will save us from AGW" argument, but it's not fair to imply these cars might not be green. So much focus has been placed on CO2 and warming, there seems to be much less thought given to those emitted compounds that we all agree are harmful. As a resident of the most air-polluted metroplex in the US, I absolutely appreciate the non-CO2-related benefits of an electric (or even hybrid) car. We don't have the volume of smog alerts we had when I was a kid but the air here still sucks through much of the summer. And lets face it: There are PLENTY of peer-reviewed and credible studies of the adverse health affects of smog. Of course, we haven't figured out how to rig the system so that smog abatement can be monetized...

Interesting, I would prefer most electricity come from nuclear power plants. That is really clean energy, as long as the radioactive wastes are disposed off properly. Nuclear energy really has no peer in this regard. Nuclear enery will really control CO2, and sea levels will stop rising. Coastal areas will be at less risk of flooding. Polar ice caps are expected to be fully melted by 30 years.

I have no problem with today's Nuclear energy. Unfortunately we are way behind the curve in building facilities and the damn start ups costs are almost prohibitive. We should have been building them for decades.
Nuclear energy is wonderful..but..IMO it is going to take a comprehensive strategy on multiple fronts It is my understanding that livestock create a chitload of C02. What do we do about that?

As long as fossil fuel is the most efficient and least cost way to produce energy...nothing is going to change significantly. If the marketplace can come up with a better alternative?..then we will use it. I don't see that happening in my lifetime. Let's not forget that the oil producers have the ability to lower prices a great deal in order to stay competitive. I'm afraid some really crazy technological advance is going to be necessary to end burning fossil fuels. Maybe we should concentrate on burning it cleaner? None of this has an easy answer today.

(03-14-2013 01:45 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 09:22 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Well, since I was talking about trucks and not cars, it's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be. I don't think we'd ever be able to completely switch from gasoline to natural gas. Trucks and trains, however, could easily switch. You only need a couple of stations in each metro area, along major freeway routes, to allow significant numbers of trucks to switch from diesel to natural gas. Not sure why you're anti-natgas, since we drill 100% of what we use here instead of buying it from Canada or Saudi Arabia

Number one, I'm not anti-gas in the slightest. We just have to use it where it makes the most sense. It was Jimmy Carter's anti-gas stance that caused a lot of the problems we have today. But for Carter and his energy policy, a lot of what you want would likely already be here.

What really makes sense for trains is electric, like Europe. Gas would require frequent refueling stops, plus my own considerable experience with natural gas engines is that they are at least marginally less powerful and less torquey, which would be drawbacks for trains.

The best application for natural gas is local fleet operations--like Fed Ex delivery operations. Fuel overnight at a central depot, then run all day the next day. You'd need way more than a couple of stations per major metro area to support significant over-the-road truck operations. Basically everywhere you see a truck stop today would have to add the natural gas infrastructure.

Gasifying local truck fleets and electrifying trains could save us about 3 million barrels of oil per day. That's a huge impact.

Of course, start doing that and those 300 years worth of natural gas aren't 300 years any more. The 300 years is at current usage levels, and when you increase the denominator the fraction gets smaller.

I think switching railroads over to CNG would be easier than electrification. Building a CNG refueling station in every train yard would be infinitely easier and cheaper than building overhead electrical lines across the country (not to mention the insane number of spur and side tracks that exist)

I am no expert..but..I have a feeling that CNG may not lend itself well to locomotive engines. There is a reason they are diesel.

I just heard the other day an airline(think it was KLM) was going to be using 1/4 tank of recycled fry oil in thie planes.

(03-14-2013 01:57 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I just heard the other day an airline(think it was KLM) was going to be using 1/4 tank of recycled fry oil in thie planes.

You sure it was not KFC?

Buffet is putting major money into coverting his trains over to CNG

(03-14-2013 02:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Buffet is putting major money into coverting his trains over to CNG

Yes...A quick search finds that testing of LNC is going on both here and in Canada. Thanks for the update.

They're diesel because that was what came after steam. CNG wasn't a thing in the 50s. There's no technological reason not to, the economics just have to be such that it's worth the investment in switching the diesel engines to CNG engines and building the fueling infrastructure. Locomotives run on electricity in the end, so it doesn't matter if it's a diesel or CNG that is generating it.

I've got a friend in WV who has been driving a CNG vehicle for over 30 years now. He works for Columbia Gas, though, and gets his natural gas for free. So it behooves him to drive a car he can get free fuel for...

(03-14-2013 02:14 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  They're diesel because that was what came after steam. CNG wasn't a thing in the 50s. There's no technological reason not to, the economics just have to be such that it's worth the investment in switching the diesel engines to CNG engines and building the fueling infrastructure. Locomotives run on electricity in the end, so it doesn't matter if it's a diesel or CNG that is generating it.

Yes...It seems it is a viable technology for locomotives. I know that one of the things about diesel engines is the amount of torque they generate. LNG engines must be comparable.

If you are looking for a fairly cheap energy source for fuel cells try methanol. Stable, easy to store, easy to make from natural gas.

I work in the Diesel engine industry. NG is coming in the form of dual fuel technology. You can get a 70% gas substitution rate for diesel and lose 0% of your typical diesel performance. We have units running on frac rigs in Texas. It is very viable. The only thing holding it back is LNG availablity. We are working on running on well head gas but due to differences in methane and quality of the gas it's still a challenge.

Also let me add that these frac engines are 2300 horsepower and are fully EPA emission compliant.

The world moving to using natural gas as fuel would really help the Russian economy. They hold about 70% of the world's natuaral gas reserves...

Anyone know what percentage the US holds? Thought it was significant.

(03-15-2013 08:28 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The world moving to using natural gas as fuel would really help the Russian economy. They hold about 70% of the world's natuaral gas reserves...

Serious question... I don't know.

How transportable (internationally) is nat gas? I realize you can build pipelines, but from a US centric perspective, is it as fungible as Oil? IOW, is it practical to ship across oceans? Or is it more of a "regional" product?

The Russians would certainly benefit from an increase in global availability of engines that run on Nat Gas, but could they really become net exporters outside their region?

My assumption is that US Nat Gas would primarily fuel north America, and likely not much else.

(03-15-2013 11:43 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 08:28 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The world moving to using natural gas as fuel would really help the Russian economy. They hold about 70% of the world's natuaral gas reserves...

Serious question... I don't know.

How transportable (internationally) is nat gas? I realize you can build pipelines, but from a US centric perspective, is it as fungible as Oil? IOW, is it practical to ship across oceans? Or is it more of a "regional" product?

The Russians would certainly benefit from an increase in global availability of engines that run on Nat Gas, but could they really become net exporters outside their region?

My assumption is that US Nat Gas would primarily fuel north America, and likely not much else.

If it could make us energy independent I could live with that.

(03-15-2013 11:43 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 08:28 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The world moving to using natural gas as fuel would really help the Russian economy. They hold about 70% of the world's natuaral gas reserves...

Serious question... I don't know.

How transportable (internationally) is nat gas? I realize you can build pipelines, but from a US centric perspective, is it as fungible as Oil? IOW, is it practical to ship across oceans? Or is it more of a "regional" product?

The Russians would certainly benefit from an increase in global availability of engines that run on Nat Gas, but could they really become net exporters outside their region?

My assumption is that US Nat Gas would primarily fuel north America, and likely not much else.

There's been some serious discussion about building a tunnel from Alaska to Siberia, and any natural gas pipeline would be incorporated into the tunnel project. The Russians recently gave their go ahead for the project. But natural gas is as easy to transport on sea as oil is, and weighs far less, which makes it cheaper to transport by sea or any other means...

I don't have a link to a source, but I heard on the radio that the US has an export problem with gas..IE, we have tons of it (something like a 300 year supply) but no real good way to export it. That's good for us as consumers, and it also makes the gas market different than oil. We're producing tons more oil, but it doesn't make a dent in prices because the world market is so integrated.

Also, low gas prices are helping the US manufacturing segment, because natural gas is a huge input into chemical production. There's a big lobby from chemical producers that don't want to see increased export of US gas because it would cause an increase in prices, which would cause an increase in manufacturing inputs. The gas boom + lack of export capability is helping fuel the rebound in US manufacturing

(03-15-2013 04:29 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I don't have a link to a source, but I heard on the radio that the US has an export problem with gas..IE, we have tons of it (something like a 300 year supply) but no real good way to export it. That's good for us as consumers, and it also makes the gas market different than oil. We're producing tons more oil, but it doesn't make a dent in prices because the world market is so integrated.

Also, low gas prices are helping the US manufacturing segment, because natural gas is a huge input into chemical production. There's a big lobby from chemical producers that don't want to see increased export of US gas because it would cause an increase in prices, which would cause an increase in manufacturing inputs. The gas boom + lack of export capability is helping fuel the rebound in US manufacturing

The USA can't export it because we can't compete with foreign gas exporters. They can produce and ship it far more cheaply than we can...

If history is any guide, Toyoto will come up with a good plug-in model first. GM will be, as usual, a few years behind, and behind the curve in both sales/marketing and technology.