Posted on 02/17/2020 6:13:29 AM PST by ConservativeDude
Natural gas--the bridge fuel to our renewable future--is cleaner and cheaper than oil. If it’s the clearly green fuel and already widely used to generate power, why isn’t the whole world driving natural gas-powered cars in larger numbers? And can natural gas one day replace oil?
Gas is so cheap right now that many producers are struggling to turn in a profit. Last year in the United States, gas prices actually went below zero on several occasions. There could hardly be a better time for a gas push, to use until carmakers bring their EVs into a more affordable range that can rival that of internal combustion engine vehicles.
(Excerpt) Read more at oilprice.com ...
I see local government vehicles, usually the larger ones, running on LNG. Is a large fuel tank needed for a decent mileage range?
Nothing beats the BTU conversion of gasoline.
NG and propane get less gas mileage per gallon.
The concept of either or is wrong
The correct thought is both.
The decision will be based on price and availability and convenience.
Oil and LNG have been in battle for at least 50 years.
LNG is winning today.
However, they have severe bottlenecks in getting their product to market as liberal/progressive states have blocked new or upgrades to pipelines.
You don’t get natural gas without oil so the question is nonsensical.
I don’t know the answer to that, no doubt someone here does.
But from a more macro perspective, that sounds to me like an invention which is doable and when utilized on a larger scale will give more fleets with greater distances thus overcoming one of the (current) competitive disadvantages of EVs.
(I guess you would say that EVs have a similar problem...battery technology, which as we know, is in constant upgrade...but the problem is that the upgrade needs to be pretty dramatic to get to the next level of truly wide scale use).
Thanks for commenting. I think this is an important topic.
There is a hugely big problem with gasoline/diesel as transportation fuels. They have superior energy density, are very safe to store and handle and are easily turned into locomotion through economical engines.
Because of their superior properties they pose a technical and economic hurdle for any politically in vogue alternative. So we have to kill them off. It's for the planet.
However, they have severe bottlenecks in getting their product to market as liberal/progressive states have blocked new or upgrades to pipelines.”
That’s the foolishness of the green religion. Lower carbon is sacrificed for the green religion of decarbon....
We already tried this in the 1970s and natural gas vehicles have been available since. LNG has many problems for the surface vehicle fleet, not least of which is the fact that you’re not going to fit an LNG system into your typical car.
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/how-do-lng-cars-work
CNG is what smaller vehicles currently use and it’s pretty limited in what people will accept as there are performance and range disadvantages.
There’s no way to estimate North American gas reserves but North American coal has 350 years of drilled, proven availability.
Why walk away from known quantities ?
Nothing beats the BTU conversion of gasoline.”
absolutely. It is in so many respects, when you consider the entire supply chain, an optimal solution for human energy.
However....working on the assumption that the myth of climate change driven by human emissions continues and grows into the future (appears to me to be the case...which is frustrating b/c I don’t buy it...but I/we can’t change the world’s thinking)...then if we have to play along with the make believe story, this seems to be the next relevant question.....
LNG does okay for Class 7 and 8 trucks, but the systems are generally too large to fit to a smaller vehicle. This is why the smaller vehicles use the simpler CNG systems.
Coal should be kept in emergency reserve. Burning coal releases radioactives that filters can only cut down on but not eliminate.
My 2019 Jeep HEMI V8 wants Ethanol Free 90oct gasoline.
The correct thought is both.”
The headline is misleading. That’s really what the author speculates. natural gas as a transition fuel.....not an Alternative, at least not in the shorter term....maybe very long term, but if used on a very large scale, then not necessary to completely kill oil
Mileage is a single calculation.
Cost per mile is another....and that is where LNG/CNG shine.
Citation please
You are wrong.
There are gas only wells.
I think one thing the author is implicitly assuming is that LNG can be regasified prior to being transported to the pump.
The LNG piece is for the big transport move, I think. With the CNG being the fuel that is consumed.
A lot of midstream stuff that she doesn’t explain. That’s what I think is going on.
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.