• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Pros - Cons of CNG

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
There already are vehicles that run off of compressed natural gas. We just need a little boost in infrastructure investment

moved to it's own thread..

on the surface I like the proposal, but I do not like the idea of giving billionaire Pikens a $100,000 per refueling station..

PROS:

Vehicles converted to CNG are more cost-effective than those running on traditional gasoline engines. The cost of CNG can go as little as a third of the price of a gallon of gasoline,

CNG is a cleaner fuel than gasoline. Compared to gasoline, using CNG reduces carbon monoxide emissions by as much as 90 to 97% and decreases nitrogen oxide emissions by 35 to 60%.

CNG is safer than gasoline. CNG is a clean burning fuel. Since natural gas is lighter than air, leaks dissipate into the atmosphere rapidly. On the contrary, gasoline leaks are dangerous because the fuel pools in the ground creating a fire hazard. Meanwhile, CNG tanks are designed to release gas slowly. It will not explode even if subjected to a round of shots from a rifle.

CONS:

Converting a car to CNG can be costly

CNG stations may not be available in some areas. There is also a limited number of refuelling stations throughout the US.

To install a CNG conversion kit into your gasoline powered vehicle, you may have to sacrifice a big chunk of the car trunk or cargo space.

Congress encourages CNG conversion by offering tax cuts of up to 50%, the conversion still needs an EPA certification to qualify for the tax credit. Getting this certificate can cost companies tens of thousands of dollars and six to eight months time.

gee.. the biggest hindrance.. the US EPA.. who would have thought that?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Honda is quietly pushing another alternative: a Civic that runs on compressed natural gas (CNG). The Civic GX was initially offered as a 1998 model to fleet customers, but Honda began limited sales to California consumers in 2005 and has since expanded the car’s retail reach to New York.

the Civic GX is priced almost $7,000 higher than a similar gasoline-powered version

The cost of a Phill refueling unit at $3,400 plus the installation cost, upwards of $500, and the premium could easily top $10,000.

so it will only set the average buyer back by $17,000 tops...

Tax and other incentives. The federal government offers a tax credit to buyers of CNG-powered vehicles. That credit is $4,000 for buyers of the Civic GX. States may offer additional credits for both the vehicle and a home-fueling device. Some California residents have been offered a $2,000 credit toward the $3,400 cost of a Phill unit by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee.

and if you move to California you can get back some of it.. $7400 max..

Even though a CNG tank is larger than a gasoline tank, you get fewer miles per tank. With the Civic GX, roughly half the trunk capacity is given over to the tank, with 6 cubic feet left for your luggage. Miles-per-fillup also drops, from 400-plus miles to between 220 and 260 miles.

3) The energy density of natural gas and CNG is low, thus the performance of the engine reduces.

so the basic math.. it cost a third less..

and gets half as much miles..

and with increased demand will the price still be a third less?

reported up to 15% power loss when compared to gasoline. This is because unlike the gasoline system which delivers full power until empty, CNG vehicles typically achieved similar power to gasoline when the CNG tank is under the full pressure of 3000psi, but when pressure drops to 300-400psi you may have difficulty going up hills. When power is required there is always the option of switching back to gasoline at the flick of a switch, so this may not be a real problem.

You may experience a mileage loss per full tank of 35% as compared to regular gasoline.

reported that acceleration of their vehicle using CNG may not be as good as when running on gasoline and you have to floor the pedal more.

so even near empty... you can maybe get to a gas station.. no actually.. a CNG car would need to be at least partially full or it will lose efficiency?

by what I have read, most of the test results on "comparable" to a gas fueled car, are taken with a "FULL" tank.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
Reminds me of all the irrrigators around here. Years ago they used Nat gas, then they all switched to electricity. That lasted a few years and then it was on to diesel engines. That didn't las long and now they are back to electrcity.

I am sure that if you needed some nat gas engines you could pick them up reasonable along with some diesel engines.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
I don't think we need to throw money at billionaires for it either. Throwing money at a problem or a child only makes the situation worse.

Just because I suggest we need infrastructure for something like this doesn't mean I would support the outrageous ideas that some throw out there to get there.

The technology needs to be proven first before market incentives come in and that takes research and maybe real working models that fit the technological requirements of safety all the way to economic commercial application. I am not sure it is the total answer but it needs to be investigated. At some point that Venezuelan oil or world oil might get pretty expensive. It would be nice to know that our country already did the groundwork to deal with those kind of issues instead of being broadsided.

I really don't like the thought of throwing money to billionaires or large companies. Natural gas is piped to many homes in the U.S. already so systems to use that natural gas distribution system, especially in the summer when it isn't being used, should be investigated.

CNG does not have the energy density of petrofuels and it is stored in the vehicle at high pressures which makes it more dangerous in some ways. I don't know if this is a total limiting factor or if it could be worked around. We need to find these answers.

Tex
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
Tex said:
The technology needs to be proven first before market incentives come in and that takes research and maybe real working models that fit the technological requirements of safety all the way to economic commercial application. I am not sure it is the total answer but it needs to be investigated.

Tex

Would that be a subsidy like ethanol?
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Larrry said:
Tex said:
The technology needs to be proven first before market incentives come in and that takes research and maybe real working models that fit the technological requirements of safety all the way to economic commercial application. I am not sure it is the total answer but it needs to be investigated.

Tex

Would that be a subsidy like ethanol?

No. The ethanol subsidy, which is a gas blender's fee, is paid whether or not they need it. It is like giving welfare income to someone who does not or should not qualify because they have a job and don't need it anymore. This is what the program has become when the price of gas is higher than the price of ethanol production. We don't need to keep subsidizing something that doesn't need to be subsidized.

They need to keep the floor on ethanol but not an add on that continues whether or not it is needed.

Same with loan rates and subsidies on corn. When the price of corn is so high that it doesn't need to be subsidized, it doesn't need to be subsidized.

You might remember that in the 70s and in the 80s, anytime there was an infant industry developing because of the high price of oil, OPEC would increase production and cut prices to kill those industries. I think we need protection from that kind of activity by foreign suppliers.

The problem in Congress is that they don't run these programs competently because they get paid off too much to run them incompetently.

Once you teach a kid how to ride a bike, you don't keep your hand on his seat steadying him, you let him go. The letting go part has not been handled very well so we have republicans who say don't even teach the boy how to ride the bike. Complete and utter incompetence.



Tex
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Once you teach a kid how to ride a bike, you don't keep your hand on his seat steadying him, you let him go. The letting go part has not been handled very well so we have republicans who say don't even teach the boy how to ride the bike. Complete and utter incompetence.

there are alot of kids who learned to ride without help..

so I wouldn't say not helping is complete and utter incompetence.

in any debate a person must try to shift the bar to his reasoning,.. to do so they often have to take a position further then they actually want to go just to get the bar to move.

right now you want the bar moved to the right in fiscal policy, yet you are shooting every horse that is out of step with your policy ideas., even when they are the horses pulling the hardest in your direction.. and taking the least feed..
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
Tex said:
Larrry said:
Tex said:
The technology needs to be proven first before market incentives come in and that takes research and maybe real working models that fit the technological requirements of safety all the way to economic commercial application. I am not sure it is the total answer but it needs to be investigated.

Tex

Would that be a subsidy like ethanol?

No. The ethanol subsidy, which is a gas blender's fee, is paid whether or not they need it. It is like giving welfare income to someone who does not or should not qualify because they have a job and don't need it anymore. This is what the program has become when the price of gas is higher than the price of ethanol production. We don't need to keep subsidizing something that doesn't need to be subsidized.

They need to keep the floor on ethanol but not an add on that continues whether or not it is needed.

Same with loan rates and subsidies on corn. When the price of corn is so high that it doesn't need to be subsidized, it doesn't need to be subsidized.

You might remember that in the 70s and in the 80s, anytime there was an infant industry developing because of the high price of oil, OPEC would increase production and cut prices to kill those industries. I think we need protection from that kind of activity by foreign suppliers.

The problem in Congress is that they don't run these programs competently because they get paid off too much to run them incompetently.

Once you teach a kid how to ride a bike, you don't keep your hand on his seat steadying him, you let him go. The letting go part has not been handled very well so we have republicans who say don't even teach the boy how to ride the bike. Complete and utter incompetence.



Tex

What you are proposing is for the government to have a floating subsidy to kick in and out as the market fluctuates. That is the problem with all the market today, thgovernment meddling and trying to blaance the market. Heck they can't even get a market with the cattle and grain on hand right. They sure don't need to be manipulating the markets.
 

Latest posts

Top