The Benefits of Shifting to CNG for Fuel 38 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Below is a brief analysis of the beneficial effects of shifting to CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) as fuel for vehicles, instead of of power generation plants:
1. Use of CNG as fuel for electric power generation: Since nuclear power plants have become unpopular (due to security fears after 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear power plant accidents), coal burning power plants also became unpopular (due to concerns about global warming), and hydro-electric power generation has almost reached its natural upper limit. 40 years ago the US decided to use CNG as fuel for power plants built in the future. CNG is mostly methane (CH4); when burnt, each molecule of it releases one CO2 molecule and two water (H2O) molecules, so generating power by CNG is only about a third as damaging (in terms of CO2 releases) as generation from coal. Now a significant (about 20%) of our electricity comes from CNG.
2. The development of electric automobiles: We currently use over 15 million barrels/crude oil/day, over 70% of which is imported. Its price has surged dramatically to over $125/b, threatening to greatly increase our trade deficit and lowering our currency’s value. That’s why the search for alternate fuels for transportation vehicles has become very urgent and critical. In response, GM (GM) and Ford (F) have made massive efforts in developing electric vehicles. GM hopes its electric car Volt will hit market soon.
3. Is the electric car the solution to our problems?: Over 40% of the energy in natural gas is lost when it is burnt to produce electric power. Transmission of this electric power to your home loses another 10% or more. And finally, charging of the car’s batteries takes an additional bite out of the original energy in the natural gas that was burnt. The net result is that the efficiency of the electric car in energy usage is of the order of 25% or so. But natural gas itself is a highly portable fuel; it can be used as the power source for transportation vehicles directly. Many countries are already using natural gas as transportation fuel.
For example, in Delhi, India, all public vehicles (buses, scooters, taxis, etc.) are required by law to run on CNG. Well over 20% of private automobiles also use CNG as fuel too due to its cost advantage. In Delhi, converting a vehicle to use CNG requires installing a ``conversion kit’’ which incurs a capital cost of about 35,000 Rs (about 800 US$). At that time, they install a steel cylinder weighing about 55 kg by itself (normally kept in a corner of the trunk) that can hold 20 kg of CNG. With this kit installed, the vehicle can run on both fuels (gasoline or CNG, there is a change-over switch on the dashboard of the vehicle in front of the driver’s seat). Most drivers keep a few gallons of gasoline as reserve fuel to be used in emergencies.
Gasoline costs 50 Rs/liter (heavily subsidized by the government) and gives an average 15 km/liter in an average car in Delhi. An equivalent liter of CNG costs only 22 Rs and gives an average of 19 km in the same type of car (for comparisons, the exchange rate now is 1 US$ = 42-5 Rs). A full cylinder of CNG has a driving range of 400 km for this average car (about 275 miles). Typically, both CNG and gasoline can be purchased in the same gas stations in Delhi.
Existing gas stations in the USA can be augmented to sell both gasoline and CNG.
When we use CNG for transportation, almost 100% of the energy in it becomes available for transportation, instead of only 25% using natural gas generated electricity. We have adequate domestic resources to meet the increased demand for natural gas to switch over to CNG as fuel for vehicles, which will help to reduce our crude oil imports significantly.
4. Benefits to the US stock markets and economy: With increased demand, the price of natural gas stocks will go up. The opportunities of opening companies to manufacture conversion kits for vehicles to use both gasoline and CNG, and steel cylinders for storing CNG in vehicles, and the conversion of large numbers of gas stations to sell both liquid fuels and CNG, are great economic opportunities to revitalize the US economy. Since the demand for these products is going to be huge, the stocks of these companies are going to be great investment opportunities for investors.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 38 comments:
It is just too damn bad people don't realize life is not without risks. Nuclear energy is the best way to generate electricity, even the Japs utilize it.
When our so called government gets more involved, we will all suffer!
The idiots we put in office are not engineers, geologists, climatologists or in any other way qualified to make decisions involving these disciplines. Yet, in their limitless stupidity, they pass laws based on emotional decisions.
How many "Energy advisers" are supplied by the Big oil Co's, and how many by either public commuters interests or natural gas interests??.
Get the picture?? We're on our own, and will have to make our own
cures/relief. Our advantage is a lot of votes and consumer dollars,
use both judiciously.
That said, I definitely believe that a national conversion to natural gas or compressed natural gas (CNG) would be vital to America. This is because:
1) we have vast natural gas reserves right here in America
2) at the present time those reserves would adequately
provide us with 75 or more years' time to perfect direct
conversion to solar energy
3) free us of our dependence on foreign sources of crude
oil based gasoline which has unlimited negatives (wars,
economic and environmental devastation
4) CNG is a superior automotive fuel; cleaner burning with
far less residues than gasoline (imagine what would
happen if you burned gasoline in your gas kitchen
stove. The same thing is ocurring in your vehicle. Auto
engines will easily last 200,000 miles or more on CNG
5) All the technology needed to convert to CNG is already
in place--there's nothing to invent except the national
will to alter the infrastructure to create re-fueling
facilities similar to that of gasoline stations
6) we will gain control of our economic destiny by stopping
the estimated 700 BILLION DOLLAR annual outflow to
foreign countries. As that massive outflow of wealth
continues we are LOSING 700 BILLION DOLLARS that
could and SHOULD BE USED HERE AT HOME for positive
things like education, medical research, environmental
issues, healthcare, etc
So what do we need to do to regain our "economic destiny"? Write your Congressmen and demand federal legislation mandating that ALL automotive re-fueling facilities INCLUDE CNG. Write the big 3
automakers, GM, Ford and Chrysler urging them to increase the production of CNG powered vehicles. We can recover our economic future by simply demanding that our elected officials and our automotive (and truck) manufacturers rapidly convert this nation to a transportation system powered with AMERICAN fuel, COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS---the BEST fuel for AMERICA.
1. While electric cars sound wonderful, owing to cost and other barriers, they will only serve as "boutique" vehicles for the next
several years.
2. Nuclear power plants are a real answer, but they will take 20-30 years to build in any numbers.
3. We can (and ARE) utilize CNG (light duty) and LNG (heavy duty) to augment our fuel choices right now. Ask drivers of CNG cars (and conversions) in UT and OK if they like filling up for under $1 a gallon.
4. The rest of us can fill up at home if we have access to NG for about $1.50 until more fueling stations come on line.
5. Unlike other energy resources, the U.S. has DOUBLED its reserves of NG during the past 5 years. And MUCH more is on the way.
6. Pickens says he can build serious numbers of wind farms in just THREE YEARS to allow us to use more NG as a transportation fuel.
7. Does anyone have a BETTER idea that has a glimmer of a chance of running the gauntlet in Washington?
1) Nuclear is a solution - China is building 8-12 new plants; US has upwards of 15 being approved currently; don't forget France. Those that understand nuclear know that all reactors have upgraded since 3-mile Island; Chernobyl was not a commercial generating plant.
2) Even tho coal plants still waste 70% of the btu's as waste heat they are utilizing cleaner technology where desired.
3) We have not yet begun to consider hydro storage for peaking, etc., which utilizes the river feeder areas instead of the river's themselves.
4) Buning coal or crude or natural gas (CNG, LPG, etct.,,) results in 70% waste heat - loss of energy - non useful work - sure seems dumb to me. Seventy % of what we import is lost; that's like we need only 30% of the shipments!!!!!! That's like burning 70% of the money!!!!! Get it???
5) Co-generation projects up the conversion effeciency from 30% to 60%, but there is little of that in the US. Most uses are in industry process use not utility generation. No district heating in the US as in Europe.
6) Burning CNG loses 70% of the energy as waste heat, not just more than 40%.
Electrical transmission/distribut... losses are less than 10%.
7) The charge/discharge inefficiencies of battery power are losses indeed, whether from coal, nuclear, gas, cng, solar, wind, tidal. You should treat end-use losses separately from the generation equation. Of course, in solar and wind, etc., we need only convert a little more of the free stuff which is pure gain. There are basically no conversion ineffeciencies (losses) associated with solar, wind, etc.,; only conversion effeciencies (which are GAIN! Not so with burning coal, oil, gas, etc.
8) When we burn CNG in vehicles, we lose 70% of the energy as waste heat; only 30% of the energy is available for useful work. Unless of course you have a waste heat recovery device providing other useful work. Your statements are confusing.
9) When effecient solid state energy conversion devices make electricity directly from waste heat, burning NG in a can (a burner, not an engine) and all the energy becomes electricity, then we will have a super hybrid. That makes sense. And when that's available, I say let's burn biofuels and still leave the gas in the ground. See???
Why would you want to burn any natural source if alternatives provide it freely, forever, readily available??
Go do a heat balance on the electrical power generating plants using coal, gas, oil and then do the same for hydro, solar, wind, geo etc.:
100% btu's in fuel = 40% up stack as waste heat + 30% converted to electricity via HP steam + 30% waste heat in LP steam (which is recovered in co-generation plants).
With no co-generation or downstream use of the LP steam, 70% of the input energy is lost as waste heat.
Solar on the other hand converts 10-25% of the sun's free, readily available, forever energy at basically no waste: it's starting point is the same as the 30% converted to electricity in the above equation.
We've already eliminated 70% of the hydrocarbon energy losses.
If the electrical T&D losses are then as high as 10%, they're 3% of the incoming btu's to a hydrocarbon burning plant. End user losses detract from that as well.
Now you go do a heat balance on a NG powered vehicle to check your "should"; and by the way, compare it to solar generated electircy (or wind) - and then send it to Boone.
Isn't that actually 20+ MBD? Is 15 just for transportation, or ...?
Natural gas increases will have to come from unconventional sources, such as shale. That's the big one right now. But here again, the limitations are a heck of alot of water usage. Empasis on "heck of alot"
Enviro hawks will probably stop alot of unconventional gas recovery as well. Like it or not, we still need more domestically produced oil, which ironically, has the lowest enviro footprint if conventionally produced.of all the natural hydro carbons.
But the enviro nuts can't or won't talk about that.
for confirmation of water usage in shale and tight sands gas extraction see Argonne National Labs Report on same, either late last year or early this.
What i don't understand is why the USA has their head up their ass still . Could it be political or other?
www.prosefights.org/ga...
It is unclear that electrical utilities will be able to handle the load of PHEVs.
www.prosefights.org/pn...
And about lawyers.
Sunday July 27, 2008 18:49
Let's discuss visibility aka viz.
Contact all the papers, letters to the editor, call the investigative reporters.
This may not work. But this is true
These bottom feeders hate visibility.
Q What's the difference between a lawyer and a carp?
A One is a slimy, bottom-feeding, mud-sucking scavenger. The other is a fish.
Cheers
home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/index.htm
:)
Pickens owns a GX by the way, along with a "Phill," which is a device that refills CNG vehicles from NG in your HOME. So if you have access to NG, you can use it with any of the above vehicles to run on CNG today, or you can easily convert your present car or truck to do so.
This is not to say we shouldn't explore for more domestic oil and gas. Of course we should. Our so-called energy crisis is only a lack of will to GET WITH IT, then, and end OPEC's (and the Democrat's and Green's) control of our economy and way of life!
I read the article by David Hughes you referred to. As simply another "inconvenient truth," he conveniently OMITS mentioning the Barnett, Marcellus and Haynesville gas finds, the THREE LARGEST in our nation's history. PLEASE, wake up, man! If you don't, I can assure you the Greens have a plan for you, and you won't like it!
Sorry, didn't mean to. They buttress the point EXACTLY. They also support the notion our country is entering another FDR era already. What do you think?
As societies mature, they lose their economic zeal. A natural occurrence, perhaps. Look at Europe versus the BRIC countries, and you'll see exactly what I mean.
So Obama hasn't a chance in Montana. But look at NH, which still boasts "Live Free or Die" on their license plates, and Nevada, where gambling and gold mining are their major industries. Obama is running even in these states, and could easily carry either or both of them in November.
So, the nation's getting Bluer and Bluer. Makes me Blue, too!!
By the way, Shaw Group just announced they are building 4 westinghouse produced nukes in China and have them producing power in 6 years. If we could only get rid of our non-technical legislators (the Pelosi/Reid types) and environmentalist who keep clinging to 20 year old technological conditions.
Lawyers have been a plague since the days of the hanging gardens of Babylon. Irrigation kept that empire going until the necessity of maintaining the canals ceased to be recognized.
The big difference between a steam powered turbine and an internal combustion engine arises from the heat required to boil water, about half the total heat supplied in the boilers. The result is extraction of about 25 to 30% of the thermal energy as motive power; an internal combustion energy delivers about 40% with gasoline to about 55-60% with diesel fuel. The waste heat in the latter goes out the exhaust pipe.
I use the Energy Information Agency of Dept of Energy to follow crude usage. Refinery inputs are 15 million barrels a day (BOD), of which two thirds are imported, with most of the imports from the closest producers. Of the 5 MBOD produced domestically, about 20% comes from offshore oil in the Gulf.
LNG is a blend of natural gas that can be liquefied at moderate pressure. It does not require a super stout vessel for containment. Domestic gas, supplied by natural gas utilities tapping into the pipeline streams, is predominantly methane with a few percent of ethane and propane; it can only be liquified at cryogenic temperatures, or it can be compressed and held in stout vessels. Anyone familiar with oxygen systems may be aware of the ability to store liquid oxygen in a cryogenic container at nominal temperature. There are efforts being made to ship liquified methane from gas wells to existng pipelines, in cryogenic trailers, built like the liquid oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen tankers, as opposed to building new gathering pipelines to the nearest major pipeline.
Upshot here is that cryogenic storage of liquid methane may be a practical solution for fueling a fleet of natural gas driven vehicles. I might add that methane from coal, with basically no ethane or larger molecules, could also be tapped as a source for liquid methane.
One thing I don't understand is this hoopla about CNG distribution. From what I read, installing a contraption called Phill at home lets you fill up at home. So, if you're traveling away from home, use gasoline. Until gas stations see they can offer and sell you GNG.