Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by 2s72s0k9mm8gd on January 14, 2012 at 7:07am

The Ultimate Rug Scrubber..................? LOL

Goggles , Beanie , and Scarf required!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on January 13, 2012 at 12:57pm

These developements are certainly a step in the right direction.  If the Big Three were listening to me, I would suggest that they produce vehicles to run on both gasoline and compressed natural gas to start with.  Planning should also be in those vehicles designs so that 5 to 10 years from now, the gasoline tank could be removed and a second natural gs tank retro fitted.  Consumers could buy a vehicle now if they have access to compressed natural gas and they would not be afraid of a limited travel radius because of limited fuel stations.  As more fuel stations became more common, thes customers would use more and more natural gas.  Hopefully, this would help to accelerate the addition of compressed natural gas availability.  Perhaps in 8 to 10 years, people would wish to run the vehicle exclusively on natural gas.  Of course the Big Three would wish people to buy a new vehicle with full natural gas usage, but these companies should realize that the days of most people buying a new car every two to four years are long gone. 

One problem that I see is that we are talking about natural gas in two different states.  Compressed natural gas is not really in a liqud form, I don't think.  The advantage of that is that the conversion of a gas engine to compressed natural gas is cheaper and simpler than liquified natural gas.  The disadvantage is that compressed natural gas takes up more room and thus shortens the range between fill-ups.   I think creating compressed natural gas is a simpler process and also cheaper than creating liquified natural gas.  Storage facilities at the pump may be cheaper to maintain also.

Liquified natural gas apparently runs better in deisel applications.  If the natural gas market begins with tractor trailors, then Interstate fuel stations will probably put in liquified natural gas pumps first.  I suspect making a gasoline car run on liquified natural gas requires some bulky and expensive modification that might not be practical costwise.  these are just some thoughts that i had without a lot of research to back them up.  anyone who has a cleare understanding of the mechanics involved or the specific properties of compressed natural gas and liquified natural gas, please speak up. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on January 13, 2012 at 3:33pm

Not really as I had stated earlier fork lifts run upon propane and even farm tractors and fleet trucks including pick up trucks. Biggest problem is the infrastructure has not been created for fueling the cars. Smaller stations but more in number might solve the problem or the use of these vehicles for local commuting. LNG has been used for the same purpose but as stated there is no infrastructure present to support its use.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on January 14, 2012 at 5:36am

Several stations have opened in the area recently and many more are planned. CHK announced they are investing $250 million to help Pilot and TA add 150 CNG stations to their truck stops.

One can already drive a big rig from LA to Denver on nat gas. Add another couple of stops and one can make it to St Louis. Won't be long until you can go cross country on nat gas.

The Navistar engine is a diesel/LNG hybrid that runs 85% on nat gas. Most passenger vehicles will be CNG so that divergence of technology will cause a problem in distribution. Is it possible to have a LNG tank with a conversion to CNG at the station so one system can fuel both types of vehicles?

Viva la Revolution!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by familyman on January 14, 2012 at 5:07pm

you are operating with two different systems, and right now technology doesnt let them mix, or at least the epa separates it. i think you will find cng dominating as it does thru the world, lng has advantages too, but the momentum is cng, no freezing , no daily loss of methane into the environment from the storage facility. i am more likely to believe you will see a station on the highways carrying both, even though cng will be easier

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on January 15, 2012 at 3:59am

It seems that the technology shouldn't be too difficult to perfect. A station could have a large LNG storage tank with a LNG fueling system. Have a separate line from the LNG tank pass though a system that warms the LNG enough to turn it into gas and keep it under the correct pressure for CNG systems.

Shouldn't be too difficult to do and should be cheaper than having to install and maintain two separate systems for LNG and CNG.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by familyman on January 15, 2012 at 10:14am

its not quite that simple because they are using cryogenics to liquify it, then if you dont use enough of it , it becomes wasted in the environment, and to warm it then pressurize it up to 4500 psi more or less still will require a four or five stage compressor and everything necessary to bring it to the dispenser, it would be cheaper and easier to take it directly off a medium pressure natural gas line to accomplish.

In essence you would be taking it from gas to liquid and back to gas again, and taking it to liquid is expensive also. So there doesnt appear to be a way to avoid developing two systems anyways. I do think the concept of creating a turbine and compressor could split it into both cng and lng but i dont know of a single manufacturer that is attempting that, and i am involved in building stations too. Your thinking is provocative and i think there may be a way to do it, i just dont know of any company trying it. Check out my site at www.cngonesource.com.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on January 15, 2012 at 1:11pm

If it can be done, it would be very beneficial. One reason is that LNG is a very dense energy package, making the shipping of it to fueling stations more economical. More energy/truckload. And one truckload to supply both end users. Plus, it would require only one storage tank. And take up less valuable real estate.

Which is safer to haul? Which is safer for the untrained public use?

Perhaps the onsite mechanics necessary to make it all work would be cost prohibitive. Just a thought I thought I thought.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by familyman on January 15, 2012 at 1:24pm

you are right. if it can be done. presently trucking lng is much more expensive, i am locating gas stations where i have natural gas, and we design the compressor, etc to work. the three cascade storage tanks dont take up much room, but there is the buffered speed fill that i hope works, because it is a small modular concept, therefore much better for tight locations. all in all, As far as safer to haul, we dont haul in transport cng vessels,because we compress it on site but there are companies that do , and it is incredibly safe, also , versus the hazards of liquid fuels.when the PrD opens, the pressure relief valve, cng , a gas rises and disperses safely into the environment. I am excited because i have understood temps and turbines for years as an airline pilot, but you have me wondering if a different type of system, turbine/compressor could supply to two different tanks by warm and compressing, and other stages chilling. i dont really know if the numbers can work, but your ideas get me thinking, what if. In the meanwhile, if you need a cng station think of my business. thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by owner on January 15, 2012 at 2:06pm

 

One other point that will make CNG cheaper to use is that CNG burns much cleaner than diesel fuel.  Modern diesel engines have to have a particulate filter and use urethea to clean the exhaust, these processes make the engine much more expensive.  CNG will not need these expensive cleaning devices, unless of course our congress and EPA again lower our emission standards!

Permalink Reply by George Brown on January 14, 2012 at 12:36pm

Check out this website regarding Natural Gas Vehicles.

http://www.ngvamerica.org/

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by familyman on January 14, 2012 at 5:02pm

and locally check out www.cngonesource.com. we would appreciate the good word, and support and anyone that wants a quality epa/carb approved cng conversion.

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page