To: thackney; MrB
But, I would be on $2 LNG lasting a lot longer than $2.7 gasoline. I think the more useful measure would be how far you could travel on say $50 of fuel. Most people have a pretty good idea of how much it takes to fill their car and how many miles they normally can get on a tank.
31 posted on
11/19/2014 6:30:29 AM PST by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: wagglebee
I think the more useful measure would be how far you could travel on say $50 of fuel. Most people have a pretty good idea of how much it takes to fill their car and how many miles they normally can get on a tank. You need to compare the energy/dollar content.
You don't get the same tank with gasoline, LNG or CNG.
32 posted on
11/19/2014 6:33:17 AM PST by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer.)
To: wagglebee; thackney
That’s why we were examining “energy content”. This should be a good indicator of how far you can travel, unless a gas vs natgas engine has a vastly different efficiency factor.
BTW, with gasoline at $3, the numbers tighten up quite a bit, at 37kBtu vs 35kBtu.
33 posted on
11/19/2014 6:33:55 AM PST by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson