happycajun

Compressed Natural Gas: Key to American Energy Independence?

DKB2 - the more correct term would be "reforming" the lighter end hydrocarbons (HC's) into longer chains. I know that several producers did some research into "GTL" or gas-to-liquid technology as an alternative to LNG for transporting "stranded" natural gas. I had transitioned into law by that time, so have no first hand experience - but the basic concept was to create a sort of "gasoil" or Diesel type fuel from the methane. Refinery catalytic reformers certainly do perform the kinds of reactions you characterize - but more typically, those units were designed to take low octane number paraphins and make them into higher octane number cyclics and aromatics (I'm not a refining process guy - was involved only in very high level planning involving refinery location & specification in the international arena - my experience was more in gas, gas liquids pipelines and gas processing & export facilities). Back in the '80s the so-called "full conversion" refinery was the hot ticket - it could take a wide array of crude oil feedstocks and make just about any product slate (mix of mogas, napthas - jet A1, JP4, etc - gasoil/diesel) at some cost of how hard you ran the catalyst units. This allowed such a refinery to take the cheapest crude oil and make the most desirable products - this is an oversimplification, but this is the idea. Short version - what you describe is absolutely technically feasible. GTL is the current market manifestation of the concept - and I suspect at some level and oil price it will be econically feasible.

Compressed Natural Gas: Key to American Energy Independence?

PaulK - I think we are generally on the same page - I'm probably a little less optimistic about particular outcomes - but I think we agree on the "balance of trade" regarding payment for a huge portion of such an important economic building block (we are closely alligned on the definition of the problem - our views of the solution are not that far apart either, just more a matter of degree and timing). I am in ABSOLUTE agreement regarding the Gov. picking winners & losers - they have to play a role at the "policy" level - not so much concerned with how we get to the solutions - but in determining what we support internationally and domestically (faciliting a climate receptive to drilling, pipeline construction, R&D in diverse areas of energy use for transport (addressing some of the problems with storing wind and solar for example at the "blue water" research level). I'm real suspicious of measures like our current grain-for-ethanol incentives - those things get so political so fast they lose sight of real, beneficial goals and instead have hidden agenda that serve the politician more than the public.

Compressed Natural Gas: Key to American Energy Independence?

fran - read my posts - BURNING NG is rather old tech - in fact technology is not particularly an issue wrt NG as a serious fuel. Supply and distribution is the issue, and hence economics. Pure and simple.

PaulK - I've never worked for GM or any automobile co. Have worked in the upstream & midstream oil & gas industry (the folks who produce, process and distribute natural gas and gas products), including hitches in operations and in strategic planning, domestically and internationally. Indeed, I once had need to keep a large number of small internal combustion engines running on natural gas in stationary service - and that was over 25 years ago. I'm an engineer who has moved on to the practice of law - principally commercial litigation. I'm used to hearing "theories" and puff pieces on what might be - but hard facts - business plans backed by credible data - that sort of thing impresses me. I have not yet seen anything of the sort.

AGAIN - my position is that all this 'silver bullet' crap is wishful thinking. Energy is going to be an ongoing issue for years. Use heavy taxes or subsidies? That will create perverse incentives - wish I was wrong - I've always liked fairy tales, but find them useful for entertainment only. PaulK - still waiting to see your CV posted to bolster your cred as an "alpha" author.

Compressed Natural Gas: Key to American Energy Independence?

redbaron is correct - any differential highway tax treatment will operate as a subsidy which cannot persist for long without distorting the true economic equation. Tax preferences that act as a catalyst to get over a barrier to entry or make things happen faster are fine - when they are integral to feasibility, they are goverment wealth transfer programs that distort the natural rent seeking behavior of capital investors.

Compressed Natural Gas: Key to American Energy Independence?

ziz - you make the same mistake I comment on above - LNG = Liquified Natural Gas, LPG = Liquified Petroleum Gas. Two different things. LNG requires cryogenic temperatures to stay liquid - very expensive and not viable on board a vehicle for transport - hence CNG - Compressed Natural Gas. The phase equilabrium of different hydrocarbon fractions vary considerably from one compound to another with major technical considerations related to the facilities needed to distribute and dispense fuel to a typical personal transport vehicle.

Compressed Natural Gas: Key to American Energy Independence?

Cristian - let your goat rest. propane (C3H8) is an entirely different fuel from natgas (predominantly methane (C1H4). Propane is vastly superior in terms of being easier to store sufficient quantities onboard a vehicle in liquid form. Natgas is supercritical (i.e. gas and not liquid at any pressure) at earthly temperatures, thus it must be stored at extremely high pressures on the vehicle - much added expense and weight. The filling station is similarly more complicated, and potentially hazardous. The problem with Propane, is supply. It is only a small fraction of crude oil and natural gas pruduction. If vast numbers of cars started using propane, then supply would tighten and price would go up to parity with gasoline (mogas) in short order - this is similar to what we saw years ago with diesel. It has a higher btu content than mogas, and had a price advantage - that has changed and diesel is no longer cheaper. There is NO WAY going to propane would "virtually doubles the supply base." As I have posted elsewhere on this subject, the laws of thermodynamics stand as serious constraints in this area - not absolute bars to implementation, but inconvenient realities that make multi-fueling supply side issues very problematic. The "solution" won't be some modern day philosopher's stone - but rather a mix of technologies, the fundamentals of which are well understood today, and continued dependance on crude oil for a major portion of world energy supply for some time to come.

Natural Gas & Wind Power - The Pickens Plan

Gasoline heating value is around 125,000btu/gal. 20gallon tank holds 2,500,000btu's. NG is about 1000btu/ft3 - using 80cuft scuba tanks @ 3000psi require 32 tanks to hold the same btu equiv. Weight of the tanks is about 1,120 lbs. NG takes a lot of energy to compress - cost $$$ tanks - about $5,000 extra . Just a thumbnail analysis - but shows that NG has some of the same problems as electric - distribution, "fill up" time - (ever had a standard 80 filled? how about 32 of them). In otherwords - we would be using them if economical. Differentials in price/btu tend to be transient - with eventual equilibrium at some ratio - Regarding PaulK's 5m cars - he cites no authority firstly. But more importantly - ever notice how many mopeds, vespas and such you see in europe & far east? Not so here - the US has massively different transport issues that vary by location. Like said above - CNG may play a role - but in more of a niche. I think things like GTL probably make more sense (gas to liquids) for the US market - llikely more efficient at the bottom line at some future gasoline-gas cost ratio. I just think that CNG has inherent limitations been involved in this stuff before the first "energy crisis."

Natural Gas & Wind Power - The Pickens Plan

If the technology to use CNG is so simple, and the economics so compelling, and being that NG has been a nuisance by-product of oil production from day one (I still have photos of the huge flares in Saudi from back in the '70s).... then why hasn't some Einstein done hooked us up in bulk?! Don't blow smoke about it being a great conspiracy - Don't BS about it being less hazardous than alternatives. If it is cheap, safe, easy and worth doing - why hasn't it caught on for the last 80 years?

Natural Gas & Wind Power - The Pickens Plan

What you are seeing in Russia is LPG fueled vehicles - VERY OLD tech - and long used as farm and fleet fuel in the US. It is LIQUID propane or butane. As a liquid, it stores much more energy at relatively low pressure in a normal sized container. CNG which Scott mentions is a completely different delivery system, while the combustion end is similar. NG is commonly used in stationary pump or generator installations with hard-piped NG. BUT to store enough NG in a portable container on board a vehicle is another matter. It requires very high pressures - think SCUBA tank - which are very heavy in sizes big enough to hold reasonable amount of fuel. Gas follows the "ideal gas law" or PV=ZnRT which roughly means to store as much NG BTU's in a given volume as propane requires compressing the stuff to something like 700 atmospheres - or about 10,000 psi. Longish time to fill up, more complicated procedure than gasoline, etc..... and importantly - the infrastructure to deliver same is not in place. That is why CNG would be best suited to fleet usage (busses, taxis, UPS trucks, etc.....)

If Russian filling stations were delivering 10,000psi NG to the general public - you would see occassional "light ups" at the stations....

Natural Gas & Wind Power - The Pickens Plan

and now the wind generation is environmentally suspect - first there are those butt-ugly windmills all over - second - they will kill birds like crazy and now - it harms people - the low frequency beat of the spinning prop is causing problems. See: www.oregonlive.com/new... Scott is correct that the intermittency of wind means duplication of generation capacity - the very fast variation in wind velocity also makes for serious distribution problems - power surging up and down with wind gusts is problematic. Ol' Boone has skinned a number of folks over the years - his green-mail of the '80s was what made him rich - not being an "oilman" as he likes to portray. (he's also not a Texan - like Troy Aikman he is a transplant from Henrietta Oklahoma). During the oil crash of the mid to late '80s, Boone was forcing Oil companies to cut core staff and to get out of R&D, all of which has resulted in oil companies getting tuned to do one thing - find and produce oil - mostly using conventional or incrementally innovative technology. Heck, the some of the greatest "tech" innovations came from cheap, fast computers that allowed more use of more sophisticated 3D seismic. There will be no easy, single "answer" to the energy problem - it will involve "conservation" which I think of as continued improvements in efficiency - it will involve finding and producing oil and gas - it will involve nuclear (fission and someday, fusion) - it will involve solar and wind and hydro ... there will be no simple solution.