Guest Post by Eric Peters
It’s interesting to speculate about why solutions that would have actually worked – which did work – seem to always just kind of . . . go away.
Not the fabled 100 MPG carburetor. That probably never existed.
But how about cars powered by compressed natural gas (CNG)?
They did exist. And – much more interesting – they worked.
Several car companies – including GM and Ford – offered them, briefly, back in the late 1990s. Including CNG-powered versions of their full-size sedans (the Impala and Crown Victoria, respectively) with room for six and a V8 engine under the hood.
Beats hell out of a four cylinder hybrid.
And not just 0-60.
These CNG-powered cars didn’t cost a fortune – which made their economics much more sensible than most hybrids (and all electric cars).
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
They didn’t have functional gimps, either – and thus, were practical. Most could operate on either CNG or gasoline, so no worries about running out of CNG (as opposed to battery charge) and being stuck.
No range anxiety. No hours-long waits to refuel.
Even the infrastructure to provide for CNG refueling is already largely in place in most urban and suburban areas, because natural gas lines are already in place. If your home has a gas furnace or gas appliances you could also refuel a CNG-powered vehicle at home – and in minutes, not hours.
Massive government subsidies are not required. Not for the vehicles, not for the infrastructure/refueling facilities. As opposed to what would be absolutely necessary in order to make electric cars as mass-production vehicles functionally viable and leaving aside all the other considerations. Billions would have to be mulcted from taxpayers to erect a vast network of high-voltage “fast” chargers along the highways and secondary roads in order to keep hundreds of thousands – potentially, millions – of electric cars ambulatory.
And even if that were done, the Wait Issue remains.
Imagine it: Millions of people stuck for at least 30-40 minutes (best case scenario) to recharge their electric cars. The country – the economy – would literally come to a halt.
And – the really big one – CNG-powered vehicles run clean.
Much cleaner than today’s already very clean-running cars – because of the clean-burning nature of CNG. They may even run cleaner, in the aggregate, than so-called “zero emissions” electric cars – which may not emit emissions at their nonexistent tailpipes but the utility plants that burn oil and coal to produce the electricity that powers them most certainly do produce lots of emissions.
The fact that this is almost never brought up by the media doesn’t mean it’s not true.
One must also take into account the emissions generated during the very labor (and machine) intensive process of earth-rape necessary to manufacture electric cars and to obtain and process the raw materials used to make them and which are not needed to make CNG-powered cars.
Which are just like other cars, no hundreds of pounds of toxic batteries on board.
CNG-powered vehicles not only run cleaner, they run longer without needing things like oil changes. Service intervals can be increased by several thousand miles because burning CNG is clean; fewer contaminants are produced, so the oil doesn’t need to be replaced with fresh as often.
That’s good for the Earth, too.
CNG is also a fuel that exists in vast, almost unfathomable oceans underneath the United States – as opposed to under the control of Middle Eastern sheiks. And which doesn’t have to be refined from a precursor substance, such as petroleum.
CNG is therefore inexpensive.
It is estimated that there is enough natural gas in the United States alone to last for the next several hundred years, at least. Probably longer, because current estimates do not take into account the likelihood that additional vast oceans of natural gas will probably be found, to double or triple the currently known reserves.
An interesting thing to consider:
If say a third of the vehicles in circulation were CNG-powered, it would reduce the national demand for oil by an equivalent amount, with the likely effect that gasoline would become even cheaper than it already is (about $2.20 a gallon as of late June). That would make electric cars even more economically absurd than they already are.
It would also do exactly what the chorus singing constantly the virtues of electric cars and hybrid cars warbles about: It would greatly reduce the country’s “dependence” on foreign oil.
Reserves would not be sucked down the national gullet so hungrily. There would be more gasoline – and for longer and for cheaper.
You’d think there’d be a clamor . . .
Almost any existing vehicle – including full-size trucks and SUVs – can be modified to run on CNG. The existing engine (and transmission) can be used. No re-engineering is necessary. No elaborate, expensive technology is necessary.
No diminishment of capability is involved.
All that is necessary is modifying the vehicle’s fuel delivery system to accommodate the CNG and reprogramming its ECU – the computer that controls the fuel system – for CNG operation.
No big – or expensive – deal.
The biggest thing – and it’s a small thing, really – is the CNG tanks. These are similar in look and size to SCUBA tanks and while they do take up a lot of space (usually, trunk-space) that can be counterbalanced by the simple expedient of making the trunk – or the vehicle – larger.
Mark that. Size, weight. Capacity, capability and performance. None of these things have to be sacrificed or even compromised
CNG is perfectly adaptable to large, powerful and capable vehicles. Full-size sedans and truck and big SUVs with big V8s.
And that is very interesting, indeed.
It may explain what happened to CNG-powered vehicles.
They worked too well. Were too practical, too efficient.
They opened up a way for the average person to continue driving large, powerful and capable vehicles. Cars like the six-passenger/full-size Ford Crown Vic and Chevy Impala (old model, rear-wheel-drive and powered by V8, unlike the current model, which is front-wheel-drive and comes standard with a four cylinder) and – potentially – large SUVs and trucks, also with V8s.
And at a reasonable price – less than the cost of a hybrid and far less than the cost of an electric car.
It could have changed everything – and for the better.
Instead, the cartel force-feeds us hybrids and electrics that make little if any economic sense. But which do make sense from a different perspective. Of course, that perspective isn’t our perspective.
Once you adjust perspective, it all makes sense.
And becomes very interesting, indeed.
I shudder to think of what happens to a CNG tank in the middle of a 120 degree arizona day. I wouldnt want to be driving around with that under me.
That’s an understandable, but incorrect fear. A half empty gasoline tank: now THAT’S dangerous! (fumes)
What happens to a CNG tank in 120F ambient temperature is that it ends up at 120F. Nothing else happens of consequence.
During compression, the gas reaches 270 degrees. 120 ambient is not a problem.
Back in the 90’s petrol suddenly became very expensive & there was a big push to drive alternative fuels in India : LPG & CNG
I drove my 4 cylinder car on LPG (liquefied Petroleum Gas – very similar to Propane gas) & CNG & a 4×4 Jeep as well on LPG & CNG, for more than 5 years in the hot Indian summers with 45+ deg C temperatures (120 deg F) & never had any issues.
At the push of a button, I could switch between gasoline & LPG / CNG, it was seamless & never had a problem.
No worse than those propane tanks and tank trucks you see everywhere.
How many times has your gas BBQ tank exploded out on your patio in Arizona?
Pressure, which is the issue you are worried about, is a function of absolute temperatures. Thus, a tank filled with natural gas at 0 degrees Farenheit increases in pressure by only 25% when the tank is warmed to 120 degrees Farenheit.
Is compressed natural gas the same as natural gas?
Lots of utility trucks/vans around here are using them.
The continent of Africa has more CNG vehicles than the U.S. Think about that for a moment, a continent where the majority of the population has an IQ which classifies them as mentally retarded has more CNG vehicles than the U.S. Do an internet image search for CNG mopeds in India. All South American taxis and buses run on CNG.
Natural Gas is an American fuel. The U.S. spends $500 billion every year importing energy from overseas. Just the state of Pennsylvania has enough natural gas in the Marcellus layer for the entire U.S. for about 4 centuries. Below the Marcellus is the Utica layer, and another 4 centuries of supply.
Natural gas is much cleaner than diesel, in fact it is the only fuel which meets Clean Air Standards for the Model Years 2021 -2027.
Economical, clean, green, and American, natural gas is the way to go. Fuck the hajjis, let’s stop sending our hard-earned dollars to those goat fuckers.
Most buses, taxis and many cars in Bangkok are fueled with CNG and many stations have a CNG “pump”. Natural gas is cheaper than gasoline there (like here). I imagine some of the other cities have it too (but don’t know). Bus and taxi fares there are very cheap.
In so-called advanced societies, like American cities, whose mass transit bus services are city-run monopolies, you have to wait 45 min or more for any bus (in my town of Houston for instance). Heaven forbid if you have to get a transfer! So, few people use them except drunks taking a ride or the poor. Meanwhile, we have 19 lanes on a major freeway (I-10) thru Houston and THAT’S NOT ENOUGH! Imagine the $BILLIONS that 19 lanes cost??? And it’s not enough! No one can figure out the problem because the local government is brain dead!
And bus route coverage here is very, very limited too. There are far too FEW buses. It’s because “government” sucks! And it’s expensive. Taxpayers don’t know that local governments give old age pensions to their unionized bus drivers! Imagine if taxpayers knew about it?? Plus the fare is $2 or $3 for crappy service.
In contrast, private enterprise buses in Thailand cities come every 2 or 3 minutes or you just get a taxi for $1 or $2 for local rides—not like the US with very high taxi rates (also monopolies). Everyone uses the buses because they are cheap and convenient. They are cheap because, in part, they are using CNG!
Bus services in Thailand are not monopolized by government entities. Instead, there are many bus companies and individuals with vans to offer transportation. It’s open to intense competition. You only have to wait 3 minutes for a bus in Thailand — not 45 min in “so-called advanced” America. If you have to get a 2nd bus, no problem! And a bus ride is only 20 cents! And a taxi that runs on CNG costs a couple of $dollars equivalent.
It’s not just their ability to adapt quickly to alternative transportation fuels, but Thai people know MUCH more about economic freedom than Americans or Europeans with micro-business stalls lining most streets. Not many Thai people are waiting for corporations to give them jobs; they just go set up a table to sell noodle soup, or trinkets, or tools, or clothes to the passerbys. They know they are responsible for themselves —like America used to be.
This is all the result of economic freedom and high levels of competition. Most Americans now have no idea now of what economic freedom looks like! We’ve been led to believe that various governments are the answer to too many things. Governments ARE the problem. Americans ARE also the problem. We’ve completely lost our way!
Only for information: Not here to voice an opinion.
2% to 5% of the energy goes to compress the CNG gas. LNG uses at least 10% of the gases energy to compress it.
CNG at 250 bar has energy density of 9 MJ/liter. Gasoline has an energy density of 34.2 MJ/liter. Gasoline can store 3.8 more energy per liter than CNG plus it does not require a heavy special tank. For short trips around the refueling area it might be ok. The buses where I live use CNG. They just have to go back to base more often for refueling.
Interesting, but I think a better figure would be the ratio of energy per mass. When you compare these figures, CNG is actually slightly favorable compared to gasoline, at 53.6MJ/Kg vs. 46.9MJ/Kg.
But of course, you also have to factor in the weight of the fuel tank. I’m assuming gasoline tanks are lighter and smaller, so CNG would become more favorable as the requirement for tank size increases. Which is maybe why you tend to see CNG vehicle appear more often as city buses than personal vehicles.
Energy per mass? Maybe you are confused. That is ok when the tank size is not a consideration. For the same energy, CNG needs at least 3.8 times the tank size assuming no consideration for the high pressure. All the buses here using CNG have special bigger tanks on the roof to compensate for lower energy/volume density.
Imagine a kg of a gas and how much volume that takes up. Image a liter of fluid and how much volume that takes up. CNG is only compressed, not liquefied. Water has a density of 1kg/liter, but as a gas it is 1000 times more voluminous.
It is like hydrogen cars. Hydrogen has a very high energy to mass density but hydrogen gas does not take compression very well and it is very difficult to get the energy/volume ration you get out of gasoline. (at least that is what learned in high school physics and mechanical engineering at Purdue)
I’m not confused, mass and volume are two different things. Volume has to do with space, and mass has to do with the energy required to change it’s momentum. Depending on the required range and power of a vehicle, CNG actually becomes worth considering in certain situations. As it’s less massive per MJ, it does not increase the weight of the vehicle per MJ. Lower mass requires less energy to move, so, as the vehicle size increases, CNG becomes more favorable.
Yes, it takes energy to compress a gas away from it’s state of equilibrium, but in certain situations that may make sense based on it’s intended use. For personal vehicles, gas may only be a viable energy source if it’s sufficiently compressed – hence compressed natural gas (CNG). Below a certain pressure, it would be too impractical for use in most personal vehicles.
The point the author was making is that yes, the tanks are larger compared to gasoline tanks, but in terms of mass for their given compression, they’re comparable. During times when natural gas and the cost of compressing them are cheaper than gasoline, they may make more economic sense when compared against gasoline. Perhaps this is the reason they are increasingly utilized in many countries.
Depending on the situation, there will be a point where larger tanks become impractical or compression beyond a certain pressure becomes uneconomical. These are often referred to as “engineering trade offs”, and are subject to different design requirements depending on the situation.
From what I understand, the plan is to buy or steal all the fuel from the rest of the world, then be the last man standing, so to speak, with the fuel reserves.
That has ALWAYS been the plan. And BOTH major parties have signed on to support it.
My neighbor a couple houses down when I was growing up in the 70’s had a propane conversion kit on his pickup. He could flip a switch and go from propane to gasoline and back. I’m guessing kits like that became popular during/after the fuel crisis. It’s not new or special tech; no reason not to do it. I’d prefer to have a propane or cng tank behind me than a hydrogen fuel cell.
They’ll never go for it and they’ll use the excuse that burning CNG produces CO2 just like gas.
Yes but there’s an answer for that! Just have every vehicle have a little algae farm connected to the tailpipe. The CO2 becomes food for the algae and you produce fuel while you drive!
I will assume the energy content from the previous post are correct.
Methane has a molecular weight of 12+4 = 16 CH4 +3O2 = CO2 + 2H2O –> M53.6 MJ/kg
Methane is 12/16 carbon (75% by weight). You produce one CO2 for every CH4 you burn. So for every kg of methane you burn (.75 kg carbon) you get 3.6 kg of CO2 (44/12). You get 53.6/3.6 =14.8 MJ/kg CO2.
Assume gasoline is C8H18 C8H18 = 8CO2 + 9H2O –> 46.9 MJ/kg
Gasoline has a molecular weight of 12 x 8 + 18 = 114 Gasoline is 84% carbon by weight.
1 kg gas burnt yields (,84)(44/12)=3.08 kg CO2. 46.9MJ/3.08 KG CO2 —> 15.7 MJ/kg CO2.
Burning methane you might get 14.8/15.7 or 94% of the CO2 for the same energy as with gasoline, disregarding energy to compress the CNG in the first place.
If you want clean, hydrogen is the way to go.
Anonymous, hydrogen is a very expensive manufactured product whose input is NATURAL GAS. So, it cost a fortune to make it and only has 1/4 th of the energy of methane (nat gas). So it make no economic sense at all: just burn the methane!
Hydrogen can be made many ways, one of the simplest is to split the water molecule, which is the product of various chemical reactions.
Can you get more energy from combusting the hydrogen than was required to split the hydrogens from water?
very expensive to split,
Doug, this is the 21st century not the 19th.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/solar-paint-prototype-to-offer-endless-energy-from-water-vapour-20170612-gwpnoq.html
All kinds of other ways to make hydrogen including bio reactors that don’t need anything other than algae and bio waste to produce hydrogen.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141022905005053
If hydrogen were cheap, it’d be widely used. The cost can’t compete with 19th century fossil fuel (nat gas). Wind and solar power don’t make sense on a large-scale either–they r too expensive and have too many problems; http://gulfcoastcommentary.blogspot.in/2017/06/large-scale-solar-wind-power-too-many.html
Substituting expensive energy for cheap energy is like trying to make water flow uphill….it’s not going to work.
90% of hydrogen today is cracked from Methane.
You could make it from electrolysis. It is energy and water intensive. You need 9 kg of water for every kg of hydrogen and you have to add all the energy plus a little more that you will get out of it from the oxidation (burning process) 120 MJ/kg. One KG liquid hydrogen (-253C) is 2.36 KWhr.
You need to factor fuel cells and their efficiency into your thoughts.
Along with zero emissions in their use, and the very low or no emissions that are possible in the production of the hydrogen (relative to any other energy source).
Americans have forgotten what economic freedom looks like. We have a lot to learn from Thai people, they rapidly take advantage of cheaper CNG and so much more:
http://gulfcoastcommentary.blogspot.com/2017/06/american-have-forgotten-what-economic.html
CNG is obviously a more effective economical way to power our private vehicles . It does not require taxpayers to be raped pilliaged and plundered to subsidze corn alcohol or billionaire owners of companies that would otherwise be bankrupt and the car companies would not require any massive retooling to make it happen along with fuel suppliers that would require a modest investment in equipment that would be recoverable from sales volume ! Yes it makes perfect sense all around so fuck that the Schumerites Pelosites and Obamanites would rather bankrupt the nation and import people that want to kill us before any common sense support for anything viable ! Remember the solar cell mfg we as taxpayers bankrolled under Obamas energy department as the CEO and board of directors Road off into the bankrupted sunset in a Bentley crying on camera and laughing till they wet their pants in private .
I know they did it for the children !
We had trucks in the 1970’s converted to natural gas. The biggest problem was the Iowa winters. It got so cold the valves would freeze up and the vehicle would not work. Same problems with propane forklifts in an unheated 10-20 below environment. Also, the motors would not generate as much horsepower, I believe.
The vehicles were converted back then because of the price of oil due to the embargo. Later on as prices moderated natural gas was worth the differences in price
CNG/LPG etc etc is O K for use in municipal vehicles(buses, trams, etc) but NOT passenger vehicles. Big oil put a stop to that in the mid 80’s with legislation by the EPA(for our protection of course.)
Internal combustion engines were designed to run on fuel VAPOR not atomized fuel(carburators, fuel injection). BIG difference.
The burn/efficiency rate on an average V8 internal combustion engine is around 27%… the rest is waste. Smaller engines are a little better at around 32% How does/did Detroit fix that? With catalytic convertors to finish cooking the unburned fuel! We’re(EPA) ONLY worried about CO emissions…. not efficiency(fuel economy).
As far as the 100 mpg carburator is concerned…. it DOES exist! When I was a student) we toyed around with similar concepts back in auto mechanics(vocational) in the late 70’s.
Wanna see what a live example looks like? There’s one on display at the Don Garlits Drag Racing Museum in Ocala, Florida.
Conspiracy theory??? You bet! $$$$ (follow the money)
George C. Scott said to the oil executives in the movie The Formula, “you’re not in the oil business, you’re in the oil “shortage” business. hmmm….?
Great movie by the way…
Volkswagon has the diesel 1.9 TDI that gets 92mpg but they are NOT allowed for sale in the U.S. They ARE however, assembled in South Carolina for export to South America. Do a YouTube search and you’ll find out more for yourself.
Crazy place here….
Where in South Carolina is there a working VW plant?
put a politician in your tank and you can run on methane from all the bullsh…
“They” are not interested in what works or what is good for the country. “They “are only interested in how much money favored people can make from a government policy.
Travel around long enough, and you realize how far behind the US is in a lot of respects, and how much Americans overpay needlessly for common things. Can blame the politicians, corrupt corporations, and monopolistic practices.
On a side note, the estimates for how long energy supplies last may be misleading. If we’re assuming exponential growth and energy appetite, which has been the trend barring a malthusian collapse, 400 years of reserves can quickly turn into 80 when assuming exponential instead of static demand.
but you have cheap ipads.
I suspect some will poo-poo him because of his tribal affiliation, but that not withstanding, Kunzler elucidates the pro/con arguments for gasoline alternatives (incl. CNG) in his book, The Long Emergency.
Peters glibly trivializing the transition/retro-fit costs past the pipelines to the filling stations, which are material, doesn’t pass muster.
In my home town years ago, I noticed the buses and cop cars had signs stating they ran on CNG. In my current town, the buses are running CNG, too. My spouse is from Eastern Europe and their family car was running CNG about 10-20 years ago. That rattletrap thing ran for a long time, too, before they replaced it. No reason why we can’t do that, especially since the renewable energy people were promoting it so much just a few years ago.