Republican answer for alternative energy and cheap gasoline

Brookes News ^ | May 8, 2006 | Jack Wheeler

[GeronL]

This week we’re going to refine the argument for natural gas as a comprehensive solution to high energy prices, energy pollution, and energy dependence upon foreign producers outlined in What Bush Can Do To Get Cheaper Gas. To summarize: the solution is for Bush to allow oil & gas companies to extract the vast amounts of NG we have within American boundaries, cut state residents in on the royalties, provide tax credits for folks to run NG in their cars, and before his presidency is over the equivalent cost of driving a car will be less than $1 a gallon.

Now for the refinement — of the argument, not NG, which unlike crude oil requires no refining. Seen those full page newspaper ads placed by Chevron trying to frighten you with the claim that the US only has three measly percent of the world’s natural gas supply? Whatever the Chevron’s agenda is, it’s not about telling you the truth.

The SEC makes it a federal felony for an energy company to claim gas reserves as assets if they’re not determined by obsolete technology, i.e., you have to drill a hole. Modern 3D seismic methods get a far better picture of an NG reservoir — but since you don't have to drill a hole, whatever reserves are found by 3DS, the SEC won’t allow it.

The government screws things up more — much more — by not allowing gas exploration companies to survey the offshore continental shelf of over 90 per cent of the US coastline excluding Alaska. They can survey along the coasts of Texas and Louisiana — but not Washington, Oregon, California, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and New England.

There’s likely as much gas off the mouth of the Columbia River as the Mississippi, possibly the same with Chesapeake Bay and the Hudson River. The gas companies know there are fantastic amounts of gas off California, Florida, and much of the eastern seaboard — but the government won’t let them have it.

Gas exploration is not allowed on much of federal land — and one third of the US is owned by the Feds. On what little land they can explore, with 3DS they are discovering huge amounts in “low-permeability reservoirs” — some 460 tcf (trillion cubic feet), tripling alone current US gas reserves.

Put this all together and you have US gas reserves ten to twenty times as greater as the 150 tcf or “3 percent” of world reserves. This is enough to last the US for decades to come, even if we double or triple NG use (which we will with the Natural Gas Solution — the US currently uses some 22 tcf a year).

It's also enough to provide a lot of mailbox money for residents of states producing NG on federal land or offshore. A one-third cut of all federal royalties will overcome state residents' NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) objections (1/3 to Feds, 1/3 to states/ 1/3 to state residents).

What NG we produce, we consume. Crude oil is different. However much more we produce, it will bid for by the world market, such as China and India, because oil is cheaply shipped by ocean tanker. (Japan buys a lot of our Alaska oil, for example).

NG has to liquefied to be shipped over oceans, a costly and dangerous procedure. The only cost-effective way to transport NG is by pipeline. NG extracted offshore just needs a few miles of pipe laid on fairly level ocean floor to hook it up to the existing pipeline network in any US coastal state. Neither the Chinese nor Indians nor other global folks will bid against it. NG is the way to achieve American energy independence.

And do so as an environmentalist’s dream, for NG burns so cleanly, reducing both CO2 emissions and air pollution. That’s because NG is 80 percent hydrogen. There are 4 atoms of hydrogen for every one atom of carbon in NG. There are only 2 atoms of hydrogen for every one atom of carbon in regular gas. Thus NG emits much less carbon in the atmosphere.

There’s a lot of futuristic talk about the “hydrogen economy,” hydrogen as an ultimate energy source. Given the same size/weight of the pressure tank, NG delivers far more energy than hydrogen: 16 pounds of NG take up the same space as 2 pounds of hydrogen. Your car's trunk isn’t big enough to handle a hydrogen tank capable of driving a few hundred miles — but it can do so with an NG tank.

What really nixes hydrogen is a feature called “embrittlement.” Hydrogen atoms ooze their way into grains of steel and make it as brittle as glass. So you need special high-nickel steel pressure tanks and pipelines. You can’t transport hydrogen in existing NG pipelines — you’d have to build an impossibly costly additional pipeline system, or lug it in special trucks and railroad tank cars like ethanol.

Which brings me to the ludicrous rip-off of ethanol. Ethanol is carcinogenic (cancer-producing). It releases known carcinogens into the atmosphere: acetyl-eldehyde, and peroxy-acetyl-nitrate/nitrite/nitrile, three powerful eye and lung irritants.

Ethanol has only 2/3 the energy of regular gas, so you get 1/3 less energy per gallon, which means it adds 33 percent to the gas-per-mile cost of driving. But there’s also the cost of ethanol transport, which is by truckload or railroad, much higher than by oil pipeline (which ethanol can’t use because it can’t handle any water seepage like oil can).

The argument that ethanol reduces emissions is a fraud. With a modern car engine’s oxygen sensors and computer-controlled fuel injection, there’s no difference in CO (carbon monoxide) coming out your tailpipe with regular gas or ethanol.

(Ever see the 1960s anti-war movie On The Beach? Remember when Fred Astaire kills himself by breathing the fumes of his prized sports car in his closed garage? A modern car doesn't emit enough CO for this to work anymore.)

The reason I’m discussing the ethanol fraud is that Archer-Daniels-Midland and the corn farmer lobby will go nuts in objecting to the Natural Gas Solution. Hell hath no fury than folks threatened with the elimination of their government subsidy. The question to ask the corn farmers is: if ethanol is so great, how come you don’t run your tractors with it and use (far more economical) diesel instead?

[mikeybaby]

Methanol is much more corrosive than ethanol.
My brother in law races carts that run on Metanol.
After each use, he has to shut them down on gas and change the oil.
Runs cool and you can use a high CR.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Methanol is much more corrosive than ethanol."

Correct, and less corrosive than water. And what that means is that some components in the fuel line need to be replaced with compatible materials. Not an insurmountanble conversion problem.

"My brother in law races carts that run on Metanol. After each use, he has to shut them down on gas and change the oil."

Sounds like these are pretty crappy engines, if they leak enough un-burned methanol past the rings to contaminate the oil. I doubt seriously if this is a problem in real auto engines.

"Runs cool and you can use a high CR."

Correct. So the BEST engine to use with methanol is one designed from the ground up to do so. But any gasoline engine can be converted to run on pure methanol.

[thackney]

Wow, this article is an eye-opener. I'm sold. I didn't realize we had a huge supply of NG.

Without changing our transportation fleet to Natural Gas, the US is expected to require very large imports in the future to meet our demands of Natural Gas. Adding transportation demands would only make this worse. Why would demanding on Russia and Qatar for our fuel be better than Saudi Arabia and Venezuela?

This is also based upon the drillers in the US being permitted to produce Natural Gas in quanity using methods not in widespread use today, including coalbed methane, tight sandstones, and gas shales.

A large proportion of the onshore lower 48 conventional natural gas resource base has been discovered. New reservoir discoveries are expected to be smaller and deeper, and thus more expensive and riskier to develop and produce. Much of the onshore lower 48 nonassociated (NA) conventional natural gas production in the reference case comes from existing large fields, as lower 48 NA onshore conventional natural gas production declines from 4.8 trillion cubic feet in 2004 to 4.2 trillion cubic feet in 2030 (Figure 73). Production of associated-dissolved (AD) natural gas from lower 48 crude oil reserves also declines, from 2.4 trillion cubic feet in 2004 to 2.3 trillion cubic feet in 2030.

Annual Energy Outlook 2006 with Projections to 2030, Oil and Natural Gas, EIA

[thackney]

100% of Alaskan North Slope oil is kept in America.

You beat me to it.

:-)

[thackney]

Brazil has greatly reduced their use of foreign oil by using domestically produced ethanol without the US government subsidizing it.

Please read this report from a couple months ago.

Brazil Sugar Ethanol Update – February 2006, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service

It reports that ethanol accounts for approximately 15% of the fuel used in Brazil.

What Brazil has done that made the biggest difference in the last decade was start producing much more of its petroleum resources. If you will look at the following link, you will see how they quit needing foreign oil.

EIA, International Petroleum (Oil) Production Tables

If we're going to use something up let's use up our nuclear fuels that are abundant in our country.

We import more nuclear fuel than we produce domestically.

Uranium Purchased by Owners and Operators of U.S. Civilian Nuclear Power Reactors, 1994-2005 Deliveries

EIA, Uranium Marketing Annual Report

I do believe you can burn coal in them too. Just don't burn the envelopes with the plastic windows in them.

Stoves need to be rated for coal. It will burn hotter than wood and destroy the stove if not designed for coal.

[mugs99]

NG is much harder to store than propane. You have to cool natural gas to -260F to make it a liquid.

That sure puts a bug in the ointment. I was thinking it would be as easy as propane.
.

[mugs99]

It drove OK, but was noticeably down on power compared to a gas engine

I run my Baja Bug, 1776 engine, on propane and gas. I see no noticeable difference in power or mpg.

If you ran out gas you had to call a tow-truck, you cannot get a ride to the station and fill a bucket or can with Propane, then pour it into the tank

LOL...don't run out of gas!
When you run dual fuel you can switch back to gas by simply throwing the switch on the dash.
.

[thackney]

Most Natural Gas is stored in depleted reservoirs. It is typically injected during warmer months and withdrawn during cold months to supply the seasonal heating demands.

Storage of Natural Gas

[lewislynn]

I can power the stove with a small inverter during power outages.

You have power outages often? You must not live in California, because if you did it would be worldwide news with several threads on FR everytime it happened for whatever reason.

[Old Student]

"You have power outages often? You must not live in California, because if you did it would be worldwide news with several threads on FR everytime it happened for whatever reason."

Not often, but often enough. I live in Tornado Alley. Oklahoma to most of the rest of the world. We also get the odd ice storm now and again, in winter-time.

Funny you should mention California; I left there in 1973 to avoid the way things were obviously going, even then...

[Richard-SIA]

Wagoneer V8, 5,000'-8,000' avg elevation, driving is uphill from here in most directions, reduced power was very clear, about 20%.

I never did run out of fuel, but was dismayed to learn that many fuel stations would not sell to me as they were not licensed to sell propane as motor fuel.
This forced me to use another vehicle for trips outside the immediate area.

How a service station can only be licensed to refill five gallon RV tanks, but not automobiles, makes no sense.
But it does illustrate one of the problems with "alternative" fuels.

Engine still runs great, oil never seemed to get dirty, but the body has disintegrated from rust.

It's still used as a ranch truck, but will never see the paved road again.

[mugs99]

Wagoneer V8, 5,000'-8,000' avg elevation, driving is uphill from here in most directions, reduced power was very clear, about 20%

I live in the Sierras so driving is uphill for me too. I'm running Omni-Pak ignition, so that could be why I'm not seeing a power loss. I installed the propane conversion when gas went over three bucks a gallon. Propane saves me over a buck per gallon.

I never did run out of fuel, but was dismayed to learn that many fuel stations would not sell to me as they were not licensed to sell propane as motor fuel.

I've had that problem too. I generally run on propane for trips to town and back. For longer trips I run on gas to save the hassle of trying to find a propane station.
.

[vikzilla]

Welllll, actually, you can get equal or better power from Ethanol IF the engine is specially built just to run on it

You're correct, I've used the E-85 periodically.

A little less mileage, but there is no reduction in power at all.

[Teacher317]

NG companies are going nutty lately with new construction and line improvements. (I have a friend who works in the industry. This is his say-so, but he assures me that the industry rags will back him up on it.)

[DB]

We're talking about storage in automobiles for use as fuel.

[thackney]

Sorry, missed that part.

It is tough to install a salt dome on a Honda.

Some larger vehicles like buses use compressed natural gas for fuel. But the tanks do take a significant amount of room.

Some manufactures are providing NG vehicles, like Honda
http://automobiles.honda.com/shopping/landing.aspx?GroupName=Civic&ModelName=Civic+GX&ef_id=1097:3:458d2d5cdec766af0005d621660a2c1e:sGd50NhWlWgAABa0BEMAAAAH:20060731230449

[308MBR]

Well, I wonder about a great many things.

First of all, from having been around a whiskey still or three, I KNOW the you can run off one batch of mash, save all the alcohol product and send it to a burner under a mash tank of equivalent size and lack enough fuel to make the second equivalently sized mash tank boil. It's simple physics because you must heat the stuff that's left in the bottom of the still that's fed to the hogs later, in addition to the watered down alcohol that is present in the "beer". Let's not even get into how many BTUs were spent on seed processing, pesticides, tractor fuel, transport, and crop processing to get the corn to the mash tanks. This is a black hole for energy production and another boondoggle to fleece the American taxpayers. Stop skinning your ignorance by asking such inane questions while alleging you really believe in such fairy tales in a public forum. Much better alternatives can be found in biodiesels for such things we already produce, like cottonseed oil, and coal gasification to make gasoline.

Second of all, fuel cells don't create MORE energy than is put into them as a fuel. One device on the planet does that, and it is called a Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor which is not within the scope of your question. The only advantages fuel cells have over regular old hydrogen tanks are; they weigh much less, can take multiple fuel types for inputs, and are much less likely to make so big of a boom when some soccer mom who hates to drive pilots her minivan into you at an intersection.

I come up with my knowledge about running methanol from actually having to operat MANY engines on it over the last 25 years of my life, and if the good Lord lets me live a few dozen more hours, there should be more of it sent under a spark plug by my hand this weekend, but I digress. I run my alcohol motors at 210 degrees F water temperature and do not use an oil cooler, yet I have drained enough "jamocha-shake" oil over time to float the QE2, have seen a pile of $150 each connecting rods rusted all over like junk sitting in the weather for years while they were six months old, have had to pull all the spark plugs out and ratchet engines over when they hydraulically locked due to condensed water collecting in the cylinders between hot laps and the heat race, have had many throttles lock wide open due to carburetor icing....top cylinder lubrication problems....40% of the fuel efficiency (hp/lb-hr terms)...I'm through telling my life's story. If you knew ANYTHING about Thermodynamics, had a grasp of what BTU/lb content of a fuel does to fuel mileage, or understood the concept of "Latent Heat of Evaporation", you wouldn't ask such things. On the other hand, if you ever get some leather shoes or boots that seem a little tight for your tastes, spilling some methanol on them while you stand in the offending footwear works wonders for the fit, but again, I digress.

If you can tell me how you cold start your methanol fueled daily driver and how you keep the aluminum and steel in the fuel and induction system from producing stalagmite/stalagtite/swiss cheese type corrosion due to constant contact with methanol and its vapors, I'd like to hear it. I'll call you a real Wonder then.

Until then, I will stand by my theory that, "Generally, burning anything besides gasoline in a spark ignition engine serves only to remind the experimenter of what a wonder fuel gasoline really is.", from A.W. Gardiner, Professor of Mechanical Engineering. I heard the dude say it in IC Engines class many years ago, and it's still true today!

I don't guess you want to know the difference between nitromethane and nitropropane, what a light touch of amyl nitrate does to both fuels, or why one shouldn't cook the water off a 20% solution of hydrazine using the kitchen stove while having a beer.

[308MBR]

Blown alcohol dragsters use METHANOL, not ethanol.

[308MBR]

And WTF is this about "concentrating" the hydrocarbons in alcohols? Does it make them "smarter"? ROTFLMFAO at my own joke!

Have you been hanging out with your local alchemist again? Does your FISH carburetor still work like it did when it was new? How's the cold fusion coming in the laundry?

[uglybiker]

Alot easier to convert to NG when you're running carbs and no electronics.