happycajun

Testing Plug-In Hybrids: What the Results Mean

Not too sure about the methology used by Google here. First, the "cost" is understated when taxes are taken into account. The cost per gallon of gasoline includes certain taxes that are not levied on residential electric power, hence cannot be compared in determining the longer term economic impact of the "plug-in" cars. Secondly, while the write-up of Google's "rechargeIT" test is extremely vague on this point - the mpg calculation is based solely on gallons of gasoline consumed in the test. Hence, the fully charged battery pack is running the vehicle more and less gasoline is burned. No attempt was made to log charging times, indeed the report shows that users were discouraged from taking a vehicle that was not fully charged. The "energy cost" sections do take into account the cost of electricity used to charge the vehicles - based on residential electrical rates from the EIA. No attempt is made to calculate the emissions resulting from increased power generation at the powerplant. There is no indication as to how electric energy consumption was measured in the study. I would need to see a stronger analysis of the data before I drew any solid conclusions from this test.

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.