Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Feb 2011, 3:34 pm

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Well, yes, but (from my first post) the EPA has determined more ethanol use in vehicles is "good""


The article you linked to uses a Wash Post article as a source. That source says:
the EPA has said a congressional mandate for increased ethanol use can't be achieved without allowing higher percentage blends. Congress, driven by a broad coalition of members from farm states, has required refiners to blend 36 billion gallons of biofuels, mostly ethanol, into auto fuel by 2022.


As a matter of practice, an agency of the gov't that is implementing a policy made by congress, will put the best face on it. Congress said the nation had to do this, the EPA is working toward that end, and they are doing it with a smile on their face. As you know, many environmentalists think corn based ethanol is a weak or even counterproductive solution, including many at the EPA, but they can't say anything about that. Congress has spoken. The EPA as an agency of govt is implementing their policy. I say again, if you don't like it, point the fingers at the right people, and that's congress.


First, was that a Democratic or Republican-controlled Congress?

Second, did the Act mandate 15% ethanol? That is what the EPA said it was going to implement.

Third, I oppose subsidizing ethanol because I think it drives up food prices, lowers the need to both produce oil domestically and look for serious alternatives, and because the government interfering in this market has had many unintended consequences.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 03 Feb 2011, 7:51 pm

danivon wrote:The problem with CNG is that it's hard to deliver and set up the infrastructure. Conversion of existing vehicles is also pretty hard.


Regarding your first sentence, I'm under the impression that the infrastructure is fairly easy. My house is heated with natural gas and I've been told that I can buy a device that could enable me to take gas from my house and put it in my car. Gas is plentiful in the US, and I'll guess over 30% of our homes use it.

I believe your 2nd sentence is accurate. But that's no different than buying an all electric car. Either way, I fill it up at home, either by plugging it into the wall, or by refueling from my gas line. Most of Massachusetts' electricity comes from burning natural gas but I believe some comes from coal, so CNG makes more sense ... or am I missing something?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 04 Feb 2011, 2:45 pm

Ray Jay wrote:
danivon wrote:The problem with CNG is that it's hard to deliver and set up the infrastructure. Conversion of existing vehicles is also pretty hard.


Regarding your first sentence, I'm under the impression that the infrastructure is fairly easy. My house is heated with natural gas and I've been told that I can buy a device that could enable me to take gas from my house and put it in my car. Gas is plentiful in the US, and I'll guess over 30% of our homes use it.
A device to take mains gas andpressurise it to 200bar? Excuse me if I avoid the neighbourhood when you are using it. Do you mean adsorbed gas, which is at about the same pressure as mains domestic supply?

I believe your 2nd sentence is accurate. But that's no different than buying an all electric car. Either way, I fill it up at home, either by plugging it into the wall, or by refueling from my gas line. Most of Massachusetts' electricity comes from burning natural gas but I believe some comes from coal, so CNG makes more sense ... or am I missing something?
True enough. It is also contains less energy by volume than diesel.

Now liquid petrol gas is an alternative as well, but the process to create it is pretty energy intensive. It has higher energy density than CNG, but still less than diesel.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 04 Feb 2011, 7:33 pm

danivon wrote:The problem with CNG is that it's hard to deliver and set up the infrastructure. Conversion of existing vehicles is also pretty hard.


Well, my response to that is that how many gas stations were there in 1906?

As for delivery, from they way it was explained to me it isn't a system like gas stations were a tanker comes in and fills up underground tanks but rather a pipe system similar to that used to bring natural gas to houses. (there are even home units that you can mount on the wall of your garage that uses the gas coming into a house to slow fill the vehicle over night.

GMtom wrote:maybe a temporary transition fuel is needed, but I would say it will only prolong our dependence on oil. What's that saying, Necessity is the mother of invention


Well because most of the serious long term options are not viable yet. FCV are at least 20 years away from being commercially available and while EV's are out there they are not really viable for long term travel. Therefore, if are trying to reduce carbon emissions as soon as possible, you need a transitionary fuel until the alternatives are ready.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 04 Feb 2011, 7:55 pm

I actually posted before I saw JJ response. In the mean time, here is a site that gives an example.

http://www.cngnow.com/EN-US/Vehicles/Pa ... tHome.aspx

Also, the conversion of a gas car to a CNG car isn't really that complicated. The last I heard it cost about $5,000 for the conversion.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Feb 2011, 11:08 am

archduke
Well, my response to that is that how many gas stations were there in 1906?


MArket expectations of automobiles were different in 1906. No one expected to be able to drive easily across the country. They were a luxury item.
today, market expectations are different. Making a conversion to gas more difficult. I beleive T Boone believes it can be accomplished with public transportation and commercial vehicles first...Where they know their inteneded range for the day and can budget for fill up at home base every day...
If he's right it would take away the need for oil exports from the Middle East. But not wholly replace petroleum which would still be a mainstay of individual owners until a web of refills can be buiilt over 20 years....
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 05 Feb 2011, 5:28 pm

T Boone Pickens is also running a program where he will build a public use CNG refueling station if there is a guarantee of X number fill ups a week (I forget the number). There is a local organization that is trying to get that in my area. They are focusing on municipal fleets to get the station built.

There is also a bill that was just or is about to be introduced that would require CNG filling stations at all rest stops along the PA Turnpike.