Nancy Pelosi the new fossil fuels expert?....

[watchamakalit]

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapit ... ssil-fuel/

 

Discuss.

[mvusse]

Natural gas prices have been going up along with oil prices. Anyhow, the biggest obstacle with using natural gas as a vehicle fuel is storage. It can not be liquefied unless cryogenically frozen. So usually it is stores at 4500psi to be able to at least take a "almost usable" amount with you. The tank to hold it (has to withstand 4500 psi) costs $5000+ and in a 4 cylinder car that might get you 100 miles. Less on larger vehicles.

 

The rest of the conversion is less expensive.

 

LPG (mostly propane, commonly called propane) is a better choice. It burns just as cleanly, and liquefies under moderate pressure allowing a much cheaper tank to hold a much larger quantity. An unmodified gasoline engine runs just fine on it, but wastes most of the available energy, and cost (at least in the USA) is prohibitive. Why a waste by product of refining gasoline costs more than the gasoline itself here is beyond me. Another waste by product (called diesel) is also more than gasoline here :nuts:

 

Now in a diesel vehicle natural gas and LPG make more sense. Diesel engines run high enough compression to actually use the available energy and stability of the fuel. LPG or natural gas injection into a diesel engine can easily yield 150 more peak HP in a Duramax, I imagine comparable in a 7.4 powerstroke or V10 Magnum Cummins. This is called a dual fuel application, as the gas is added to the fuel, instead of replacing the fuel (like in a gasoline engine). The reason is that natural gas and LPG are too stable to ignite of their own in a diesel engine, so the superheated air ignites the diesel fuel, and the ignited diesel fuel in turn ignites the LPG or natural gas.

 

And again, LPG would be the cheaper choice because of the high cost of the tank to store natural gas at extremely high pressures.

 

Anyhow, natural gas is just as a much a fossil fuel as coal and oil.