High oil prices, increased domestic natural-gas production, and a well-publicized push from a former oil man have all boosted interest in natural-gas vehicles in the United States lately. This spring, the natural-gas equivalent of a gallon of gasoline was selling for about $1.50 less than gasoline on average nationwide. And in some places like Utah, where vertical integration of natural-gas utilities keeps prices unusually low, the difference is even larger. Energy independence enthusiasts in and out of Congress are (naturally) gassed about the possibilities. Right now, the U.S. only imports some 2 percent of its natural-gas supply and new drilling techniques that extract natural gas from shale deposits have analysts predicting a sustained boom in domestic production for years to come. However, a dearth of natural-gas pumps at gas stations is a major hurdle to increased use of the cleaner cars; less than 1 percent of U.S. gas stations carry natural-gas pumps for vehicles. Another infrastructure problem is the lack of commercially available natural-gas vehicles. Honda's Civic GX is the only model currently available, though GM has said it might also get into the biz.
Revolution by 'Natural' Selection
Consumers express renewed interest in natural-gas vehicles 20
-
Posted 5:52 AM on 27 Aug 2008
-
Posted in
-
Read More About
Related Stories
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
guade00 Posted 6:31 am
27 Aug 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:52 am
27 Aug 2008
Did you follow the links?
Do you know how much natural gas was just discovered domestically?
If I were back on the streets of Queens, with my friends from South Ozone Park, playing scully on the 124th street, we would call such a find a S***Load. As in a whole lot.
And, everyone but the maid has been convince...hydrocarbons in the Earth are plentiful and abiotic.
Permalink
solarwind Posted 10:42 am
27 Aug 2008
So a switch to using nat gas as a fuel source would what - lower fuel prices for automobiles? - slightly (I use this carefully) reduce auto carbon emissions from terrible to just-better-than-terrible....And it's another non-renewable resource, so as both population and energy consumption per capita continue to rise, demand will continue to grow as well. Fact of the matter is that we will eventually run out of our plentiful reserves. Bottom line is that even if nat gas were two cents a therm (i.e. much cheaper than petrol, coal, etc.), we still should not be combusting it.
Think of it as an avoided cost - when we price renewable energy generation systems (solar, wind, etc.) for clients, we like to calculate the avoided cost, which is their savings. This is the kWh that the R.E. equipment generates for free (no fuel costs) that would have been purchased from a utility company at a set rate. Compare that to your capital cost, and there's your simple payback. So let's try something similar and try to justify using renewables over petroleum or nat gas by calculating the avoided costs of the future damage of climate change - the costs we would have to pay to build levies to combat rising ocean levels, billions in increased health care costs, skyrocketing food and water prices as droughts and floods wreck agriculture and infrastructure, bla bla bla. A report prepared for Defra and the Treasury estimates that each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted costs about $35 in environmental damage.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:34 am
27 Aug 2008
Who said we would burn the natural gas?
You know that natural gas can be put directly into fuel cells, right?
In fact, I've bought stock in a company that makes fuel cells that can do just that, as well as make electricity directly from things like wastewater and sewage. It's called fuel cell systems (FCEL) and they have been selling fuel cell "power plants" like crazy!
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 1:45 pm
27 Aug 2008
Permalink
metoo Posted 10:41 pm
28 Aug 2008
We have free energy from the sun that doesn't require us to dig, only harness. We need to keep working on that, and be patient. When a pharmacuetical company has an idea for a drug it take about 15+ years in research and testing until it goes to licence if it's brand new. I would say most drugs don't even make it to trial. Even if we have little now, it is important to get working on it now.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:37 pm
28 Aug 2008
plus the cost of natural gas fueling infrastructure, high pressure fuel tanks, safety systems, conversion of engines, and on and on. We are now importing ammonia from Russia, that fertilizer is made from natural gas.
All (ethanol fuel farming) signs point to soaring fertilizer demand and cost, soaking up lots of natural gas. No way around it, plugin hybrids are the only way to lower fuel prices, by drastically cutting demand, 80 maybe even 90%.
Yeah those solid oxide fuel cell/turbine generators might be a backup for plugin hybrids someday? The multi fuel, anti-fouling copper/ceria based kind are most likely to be the ones adopted. Those are 6 or 5 times the efficiency of ICEs.
But once fuel consumption is reduced to 90% of present levels in your car, will reducing that last 10% to 2% be a high priority? Hard to tell, will gas go to 10 bucks by then? Or 50 bucks? Will china and India adipt the plugin hybrid drivetrains they are manufacturing for northe america and europe, or go with gas guzzling?
They will have vast wealth after all. But the average citizen will still be poor compared to US standards. I bet they will go right to plugin hybrids without passing go.
Permalink
sanitycheck Posted 11:40 pm
28 Aug 2008
You do NOT "set up natural gas mining" -- natural gas is NOT mined, it is drilled. Mining implies either strip mining across hundreds of acres (like for coal) or deep ground mining (also for coal) - both of which involve huge land operations. Drilling for natural gas takes up less than one acre (usually less than 1/2 acre) for each well on 30 acres of land. The fact is your neighbors could have several natural gas wells and you may not know it, if you live in a farm/rural area.
Concerning the "free energy from the sun that doesn't require us to dig, only harness" -- yes, there is "free energy from the sun" but the harnessing part and being able to generate electricity on a utility size scale is the real issue. If you are really interested, follow this link:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/ilands/fig1 ...
This shows what areas of the country are suitable for solar power generation. In order to make solar power plants that are commercial viable (even with the government subsidies in place) you need 7kWh/m2/day+ land. And it takes huge tracks of land to do this -- approximately 100 acres to generate 1000kW (1MW) using solar thermal techology. To generate the equivalent of a 600MW coal plant would take 600,000 acres!!! I'm sure that you don't want that "near my home in PA" either, which BTW has almost 0 potential for solar power as does over 90% of the US.
Just so you know, I have a BSME from Penn State (that is a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering)...and have worked in the power generation industry for over 20+ years.
Permalink
sanitycheck Posted 11:51 pm
28 Aug 2008
Concerning your statement "Right now, the U.S. only imports some 2 percent of its natural-gas supply" -- you could not be more wrong. Perhaps you should check other sources than the extremely liberal Washington Post and New York Times? Let's check with the Energy Information Administration, the official energy statics department of the US government shall we?
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_sum_lsum_dcu_nus_m.ht ...
Total "Dry Production" for US sources is approximately 1,700,000 MMFt3 per month. We import approximately 350,000 MMFt3 per month. Total consumption is approximately 2,050,000 MMFt3 per month.
350,000 / 2,050,000 = 17% imported...You claim 2%?!?
If you can't get your statistics/facts correct, and you obviously can't, how are we supposed to believe anything else that you write in your articles. That's right, we can't...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:53 pm
28 Aug 2008
There is enough roofspace and space over parking lots (with 40% conservation savings) to power the US. Then there are all the other renewable energy sources to tap. Wind, 20% of present power grid use in a few years. Offshore wind/wave power, another big chunk. Biogas from waste, another 10%, and suitable for backup power.
Ocean and river and tidal current power, another huge source. Hydroelectric, existing damns can host pumped hydro power energy storage.
Permalink
sanitycheck Posted 12:14 am
29 Aug 2008
I won't even get into the whole "climate change" argument on this page.
However, concerning "This is the kWh that the R.E. equipment generates for free (no fuel costs)" -- it is always interesting how "greenies" conveniently leave out the capital costs of building the renewable energy power plants from their analysis. Yes, the fuel is free, but the costs to build these R.E. power plants is anything but free. It is usually 3x-4x the price of traditional thermal power plants. Even when amortized (look it up) across the 30 year life of a plant, all the "free" fuel still doesn't make these plants economically viable. AND you didn't include/mention any routine maintenance and repair costs, which are very high in solar and wind plants.
Plus, the fact that a wind turbine as a "capacity factor" of less than 30% AT BEST, it is one of the absolutely least reliable sources of energy there is. Look up what "capacity factor" means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
Typical thermal power plants (coal-fired, natural gas fired) have capacity factors of over 95%. That is why your lights stay on EVERY DAY.
Solar and wind cannot and will not ever be viable baseload power production alternatives? Why? Because they are not dispatchable to the power grid demands. Because the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine.
Solar power plants can only generate electricity from about 10AM until 6PM. What about the other 16 hours? Are you going to shut off all of your lights, air conditioning, heating, refrigerator, computers, washer/dryer for 16 hours per day? Can the entire US economy only function from 10AM until 6PM? With NO electricity usage from 6PM to 10AM the next day?
"Solar power plants are intermittent because of the daily rotation of the earth and because of cloud cover. Solar power has a typical capacity factor of about 20%." What about the other 80%?!?
Wind power is just as bad of a solution. The 30% capacity factor I quoted above is from a Kansas City Power & Light report -- right in the heartland of the county where T. Boone Pickens says we can generate much of our electricity needs. What a joke. Again, for the 70% "non-capacity" time, what are you greenies going to use? Methane from cow farts???
"Wind farms have typical capacity factors of 35%."
If you do not understand this, then you are not remotely well educated enough on this subject.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 12:23 am
29 Aug 2008
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/08/28/boon ...
The ad says Iran is going all-out to put more natural-gas vehicles on the road, while "we're not doing a thing here." The Pickens Plan is to use wind power for electricity and free up natural gas for transport fuel. NBC says Mr. Pickens has to "prove" the U.S. is doing nothing; otherwise the ad is misleading.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:38 am
29 Aug 2008
The central power grid, 100% dispatchable, baseload paradigm falls to almost any GHG intensified weather event. Try and keep those powerlines up. Maybe you could face Crawford, kneel down and pray?
Yeah, that'll work, about as well as the Katrina evacuation "plan" worked.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 12:42 am
29 Aug 2008
Renewables can provide baseload power. We need a smart electric grid, and we need energy storage mechanisms. Two forms of energy storage are already in vogue (a) barraged lakes in mountainous regions (b) hot rocks with solar thermal power. Baseload can also be provided by biomass and hydroelectric.
These are not perfect, but they can theoretically power a completely renewable economy. All we need to do is to put in the capacity factor in the energy production variable, and construct the required number of renewable plants to satisfy all our energy demand.
Finally, natural gas is not the only way to get baseload power. If we are concerned about global warming, we should use 4th generation nuclear power which emits no greenhouse gases (breeder reactors burn existing nuclear waste, and eliminate the need for further uranium mining).
I think natural gas (the cleanest fossil fuel) needs to be used preciously for the next couple of decades, to ease our society into a non-fossil-fuel economy. But I hope we won't be burning all our gas reserves in the process, as this might exacerbate global warming.
Permalink
sanitycheck Posted 1:03 am
29 Aug 2008
And mentioning the Katrina evacuation plan? What is the point of that?
Seriously, come up with some good arguments and I'll listen but you've come back with nonsense.
Finally, having worked in the power generation industry for over 20+ years, meeting with Sr. VP's and other Sr. level executives of the biggest utilities in the county does give me some of the best perspective on the US energy needs. I am a VP of a International Fortune 50 company that deals with solar, thermal, and nuclear energy.
What is your background?
Permalink
sanitycheck Posted 1:14 am
29 Aug 2008
a) I assume you are speaking about pump-storage hydro here. That is not renewable, by the way. It takes more energy to pump the water back up to the storage lake than you get from releasing it through the hydro-turbines. But it is a great solution to peaking power demands and for keeping the nukes operating at full capacity during low power demand times at night.
b) Geothermal is also an interesting option but like other renewables, it takes thousands of acres of land to achieve the same out put as a single thermal power plant.
PS I am involved in hydroturbine as well as geothermal turbine business with multiple utilities.
Concerning nukes, I absolutely agree that we should be building as many of these as possible. This is one of the BEST options for the future energy needs of the US. But look at how the greenies fight these too.
Permalink
sanitycheck Posted 1:29 am
29 Aug 2008
You have greenies wanting wind power and greenies fighting wind power ("bird choppers", "low frequency rumbling", etc.)...
You have greenies wanting nuclear power and greenies fighting wind power ("no CO2" vs "no nukes")...
You have greenies wanting solar power and greenies fighting solar power (yes, believe it or not, since thermal solar plant literally cover hundreds of square miles of desert land, there is a greenie movement to ban solar power in the deserts, where it is most productive)...
As far as I am concerned, please, build all the R.E. you can. I am personally involved in multiple geothermal and solar thermal power plants -- on-going negotiations for dozens of power plants. The more, the merrier...
Same goes for hydro-turbine and pump storage plants as well. Build all that you can. Hydro is a great source of energy.
And for nukes...that is another division that I am not directly involved with but I'm more for nuclear power than any other source.
Wind and solar do have very limited applications but go ahead and build them. Just be ready for the very high cost of power vs nuke/coal/natural gas/hydro. The consumer cost for wind and solar is at least 3x other non-renewable resources. Do you want to triple your electricity bill?
I'm not making this up and these aren't scare tactics...this is reality. There are simple economic realities that go along with how power is generated.
Aside from nuclear and hydro, all other R.E. sources have huge pricing disadvantages when compared to thermal power, which currently generates over 75% of US power (nuke is about 20% more).
All the greenie rhetoric in the world isn't going to change that.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:37 am
29 Aug 2008
Yeah, it's pefectly sane to take your word for all this, since you are "personally involved in multiple geothermal and solar thermal power plants -- on-going negotiations for dozens of power plants."
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 1:47 am
29 Aug 2008
"Coal is now twice the cost of wind per kwh."
Permalink
solarwind Posted 8:45 am
29 Aug 2008
I'm probably wasting my time explaining this, but since I'm almost done I'll continue - renewables are completely viable for firm, dispatchable electric generation. Mr. Hostility, you mentioned you work with geothermal? I'm assuming you mean large-scale geothermal power plants? Well then, you'd know that there's more than enough resource to supply the U.S.'s needs with that technology alone. And here's the crux - it's dispatchable. And CSP with TES (esp. molten salt) can obtain capacity factors of 70% or more. God, man, do your homework. And you claim to be the CSP guru! Wind - yeah, you're not going to get capacity factors much better than 30%...but the idea is that you spread enough out over a wide area, these local fluctuations and rapid transients more or less cancel out and the generation profile becomes much more predictable.
I don't understand, Mr. BSME, Mr. 20+ years in the industry, how you can't see how the combination of geothermal (firm) + CSP w/ TES (firm) + wind (non-firm) + distributed gen PV (non-firm) won't work? Add-in additional energy storage in the form of PEV's and/or utility-scale pumped-hydro, CAES, a smart grid...
These are not technical issues - they are policy issues. And policy can decide any price of electricity they want for renewables. Even today, the LCOE we compare isn't a true LCOE. We include incentives and subsidies. How else do you think coal is so incredibly cheap (aside from the astounding chemical energy density)? Incentivize more, and you're not raising the price that consumers pay at all.
Lastly (god, why did I waste so much time on a blog), my concerns for this specific article (which my first post makes quite clear, I believe) relate to the carbon emissions from extracting energy from fossil fuels... and yes, jubilao, even nat gas fuel-cells release CO2 as a biproduct. CH4 -> CO2 + H20 + (a little)CH4
There's no panacea, but renewables are more than capable.
Permalink