The Pickens Plan Changes Its Strategy [View article]
The cylinder or space issues for CNG is not a significant issue in the case of CNG fired trucks.. The author's suggestions on liquid fuels, also advocated by many others and Mr. Pickens himself, is in my view a foolish intellectual contribution to the whole idea of global warming or energy independence due to the following reasons and others.
Synthesis of liquid fuels (diesel) involves a thermal efficiency of about 50%. That means it takes about 2 MM BTU of CNG to produce one MM BTU of diesel! This chips off significantly the advasntage for a tacit objective of putting out less carbon to contain global warming. The author should not forget that rather than the volume of the tank it is the weight of the fuel and its BTU density which determines the overall performance (mpg) of the engine, if other issues such as engine burn characteristics, etc remain equivalent for the two fuels. BTU to BTU diesel is much more weighty than CNG!
There is an economic dimension to the issues I have raised. The fuel material input costs, i.e. the cost of natural gas input for diesel, is double that of CNG as a direct firing fuel (low synthesis efficiency!). In other words, the present $6 per MM BTU CNG becomes a $12 per MMBTU input cost for diesel. Add to this plant capital, depreciation, interest on capital borrowed, ROR, etc, you have $16 per MM BTU cost. Quite a lot more than $6 CNG!!! A massive shift to the use of this kind of diesel will roil gas markets, bring gas supply concerns, etc, etc and etc. MY guess is there would be no advantage vis-a-vis oil, especially if OPEC or other oil intersts turn themselves as upsetters of the apple-cart. Competition!!!
There are other profound issues which I will leave you, MR. Pickens and others to think and browse about. But there are there. Without good thinking we may go down a sticky wcket again. Please! Us, little people, and OBAMA does not need another mess on our hands through shoddy thinking and slickness. Please continue the good work with my blessings! And, if you have the energy to do it check it out with me. I am "retired", though, but would not mind giving my inputs
The Pickens Plan Changes Its Strategy [View article]
Synthesis of liquid fuels (diesel) involves a thermal efficiency of about 50%. That means it takes about 2 MM BTU of CNG to produce one MM BTU of diesel! This chips off significantly the advasntage for a tacit objective of putting out less carbon to contain global warming. The author should not forget that rather than the volume of the tank it is the weight of the fuel and its BTU density which determines the overall performance (mpg) of the engine, if other issues such as engine burn characteristics, etc remain equivalent for the two fuels. BTU to BTU diesel is much more weighty than CNG!
There is an economic dimension to the issues I have raised. The fuel material input costs, i.e. the cost of natural gas input for diesel, is double that of CNG as a direct firing fuel (low synthesis efficiency!). In other words, the present $6 per MM BTU CNG becomes a $12 per MMBTU input cost for diesel. Add to this plant capital, depreciation, interest on capital borrowed, ROR, etc, you have $16 per MM BTU cost. Quite a lot more than $6 CNG!!! A massive shift to the use of this kind of diesel will roil gas markets, bring gas supply concerns, etc, etc and etc. MY guess is there would be no advantage vis-a-vis oil, especially if OPEC or other oil intersts turn themselves as upsetters of the apple-cart. Competition!!!
There are other profound issues which I will leave you, MR. Pickens and others to think and browse about. But there are there. Without good thinking we may go down a sticky wcket again. Please! Us, little people, and OBAMA does not need another mess on our hands through shoddy thinking and slickness. Please continue the good work with my blessings! And, if you have the energy to do it check it out with me. I am "retired", though, but would not mind giving my inputs