Posted on 03/28/2013 10:30:07 AM PDT by shove_it
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Truckers considering natural gas as an alternative to high-priced diesel say the cost of vehicles that run on the cheap and cleaner-burning fuel is still too high for them to see a timely payback on their investment. A push to run more of the nation's truck fleet on cleaner, domestically produced natural gas is rapidly gaining momentum. [...] Natural gas trucks' greenhouse gas emissions are about 20 percent lower than those of diesel trucks. But truck companies must fork over an extra $40,000 to $80,000 per natural gas truck - a big markup considering a heavy-duty diesel truck starts at about $100,000...
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
ROI?
Seriously?
That's such an antiquated concept.
The only thing that matters is how much of a subsidy you can get from the feral government, and the more economically catastrophic the energy source, the bigger the subsidy.
IIRC, there are conversion kits you can buy for a car to convert it from gasoline to natural gas.
Anything like that for diesel engines?
Diesel-to-Natural Gas Conversion System and Parts
http://www.omnitekcorp.com/altfuel.htm
Natruell CNG Conversion Kit - CNG Injection
http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/0905dp_natruell_cng_conversion_kit/viewall.html
Peake’s Diesel Nat Gas Conversion Kit
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/12/06/peakes-diesel-nat-gas-conversion-kit/
Natural gas trucks’ greenhouse gas emissions are about 20 percent lower than those of diesel trucks.
OK
Natural gas trucks’ greenhouse gas emissions are about 20 percent lower than those of diesel trucks.
Yup, I thought about it for a second. There have been LP conversions for cars, trucks and tractors for years. Tractors from the 1950s could run on LP.
Sounds like a great idea except for the huge cost of a conversion and the inability to find a station everywhere you go.
“feral government” subsidies do not appear to be in the cards. Local govt. subsidies appear to be more likely.
The energy density of diesel fuel is almost double that of LNG.
Savings/ROI depends on the price differential between diesel and nat gas, which is 4-2=2 $/GDE, and miles driven.
A truck that goes 120,000 miles per year, would spend $25,000 on fuel in a year on diesel, and only $12 on natgas. The life of a truck is what 800,000 miles? That is a fuel savings of $96,000 with a $2 GGE price differential over the life of the truck.
That is just about a 10% ROI - with these conservative figures.
What is the road tax for Natural Gas?
If it is on a per gallon basis, it would be double what is paid for diesel.
My former employer used a Ford F-150 that ran on CNG. We had two filling stations to use, one fast flow and one slow flow. The fast flow would fill an almost empty tank in about the same time as filling with gasoline. The slow flow filler took about 6 hours to fill the tank but the tank would hold about 3 times more fuel than with the fast flow method. I think it has to do with the friction of the gas molecules between the fast and slow flow and how that affected the gas being compressed in the fuel tank.
Anybody else experienced this?
I run 100,000 miles per year at 105,000 pounds. 5 mpg average, and I spend on average $10,000 per month in fuel. Lower my energy density with LNG, and make it so I can’t find fuel where I need it, when I need it???
No thanks.
Plus, at low temperatures, LNG has no vapor pressure unless you mix propane in it. The LNG systems used by public utilities in northern states use propane back up.
No for me on LNG. Propane I would consider. Readily available, winter capable, higher energy density per gallon.
Range with LNG would be the same as diesel.
CNG is less dense than LNG. That might be what you are thinking of.
With LNG your $10k / month would be $5k.
2500 gallons per month at 5 mpg is 150,000 miles per year.
You would get your money back on a LNG investment inside of 1 year.
The LNG network across the usa will be quite functional by the end of 2013.
Oh, and the hdmi engines and fuel delivery systems of Westport innovations are proving to be very reliable.
(
There isn’t a single LNG pump at any of the fuel stops I see in Washington State where I do most of my work. Not one.
There is also no distribution system in place - as in transports - to load truck stop storage tanks that currently don’t exist.
Network? Where? There is none out here.
I just bought a new tractor last year, and plan on another one next year. I am in the petroleum transport business, so I’m quite familiar with what’s going on in the energy world in this part of the country. This imaginary network would have to appear before I would ever consider buying a rig that has few options for refueling off of the major interstates.
Additionally, I have limited amount of space on my frame rails for larger fuel cells. Given that the BTUs per gallon of LNG is approximate half that of diesel, in order to maintain my 1000 mile range before fueling how many gallons of LNG would I need? No matter how you look at that, a certain number if BTUs are required to produce the same torque in any engine. Range is critical, since I don’t make money sitting at a fuel stop - only when the wheels are turning. The DOT makes sure to audit our time stamps on fuel receipts and compare them to our logs. Sitting is expensive.
And you still did not address the cold weather issue. LNG, like butane, has no vapor pressure at low temps. We get winter up here.
I get it that LNG is great in medium duty trucks that stay in the city, like local freight rigs. Out in the west, where things are much more distant, it doesn’t work. Much like rail - efficient at moving tonnage, but impractical and inflexible out here.
Back east solutions fall apart out here.
Thanks!
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.