Jon Stewart had T. Boone Pickens on thurs. Pickens idea to fuel cars with Natural gas is half right

[Bill USA]

T. Boone pickens on Jon Stewart a couple nights ago was pushing his idea to use natural gas to fuel our cars as a way of gaining energy independence from imported oil. Given the obvious tragectory of oil prices and the fact that when gas hits $4.00 a gallon we will be headed back into a deeper recession his idea deserves some consideration.

The only thing is, as good as this idea is in concept, his method of execution is lame-brained at best. He's saying we should build cars that can burn natural gas as fuel. This would entail building an infrastructure to distribute compressed gas to millions of drivers...at a cost in the Billions of dollars. There is a MUCH MORE PRACTICAL way to enable natural gas to power our cars and thus reduce our dependence on foriegn oil...and provide protection to our economy from rapidly rising oil prices.

Natural Gas can be made into Methanol. This is a liquid fuel which can be burned in our current internal combustion engines with minor modifications ($100 -$500 retrofits required). New cars could be built already equipped to handle the alcohol fuel. This liquid fuel would not require new infrastructure to handle pressurized natural gas and we wouldn't be driving around cars with pressurized tanks of natural gas on board.

This really is an idea whose time has come. Oil/gas prices are only going to keep going upward with increasing demand from China and India. If gas prices go above $3.50 a gallon we will see our incipient recovery stall. As gas approaches $4.00 a gallon we will be going back into a deeper recession with lower job growth and increasing unemployment. This is something we can't let happen.

Use natural gas as a source of fuel for our cars but convert the natural gas into methanol which is much easier to use in our cars and won't require the enourmous invesstment required to distribute compressed natural gas to millions of drivers. There would be the cost to retrofit or replace in-ground tanks to handle alcohol gasoline blends. But this would cost approximately $25,000 (retro-fit) to $50,000 (to replace) each tank. This would be much cheaper than building equipment for storing and dispensing compressed natural gas to millions of drivers.

... or we can sit back and watch gas prices go to $4.00, and more, a gallon and watch our economy go into... the tank.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/28/daily-show-interviews-t-b_n_815576.html

This has a strategic security aspect to it too. The recent events in Tunisia and Egypt show that the political situation in the mid-East could change very quickly and produce unpredictable geopolitical changes which could affect our access to andor the price of oil. This places even greater importance on the need to reduce our dependence on imported (especially mid-Eastern oil).

[jwirr]

1. Does Pickens use fracking to get the natural gas he sell us?

[randr]

3. Yes. And he lied through his teeth that no well has ever caused ground water pollution

John called him on it saying "their are others who would disagree".

[Bill USA]

9. Pickens thinks it's fine to frack. fortunately we don't have to use fracking to get natural gas.

Fracking should only be allowed after legitimate scientific analysis of the technique is completed and it is proven to not foul ground water.

Fortunately using natural gas to make methanol does not require use of fracking.

[jwirr]

20. That is good to hear as our community is pretty much hooked into

natural gas. Has been for years.

[ashling]

2. Oh frack!

...

[maxsolomon]

4. Natural Gas won't save our road-based economy

At best, it's a stopgap measure. We must use the little the planet can afford for us to burn wisely.

[Bill USA]

10. This is only needed to preclude sinking back into a deeper recession due to increases in oil prices.

It's going to take a while to get the longer term adaptations/solutions (adequate supplies of renewable fuels and supply of electric cars - plus electric power production using significantly less fossil fuels) to be fully in place (note that electric cars charged by a power grid based 50% on coal is less than a perfect solution too. So we need to reduce the amount of electricity generated by burning fossil fuel to get full benefit from Plug-ins).

[Bill USA]

15. If we could possibly double the number of people driving very fuel efficient cars in say 10 years

that might work. But it's not really possible to make that big a change that fast. People used keep cars about 5-7 years before buying a new one. Now, because of the Republican Dystopia, they are keeping them longer. They can't afford to buy a new car every 5- 7 years anymore. And that's the people who buy new cars. Many people can't afford to buy new.

[Lint Head]

5. Pickens promotes anything he has money in. He doesn't give a rats ass about the environment.

We could have natural gas cars and spigots that catch on fire.

[bluescribbler]

6. There's another way to do it.

Use the natural gas to generate electricity, and build more electric cars.

[Bill USA]

13. Unfortunately, what almost nobody wants to face is it will take years to get enough Plug-ins on the

road to make much of an impact on gas consumption and GHG emissions.

Two studies recently completed by Bloomberg New Energy Finance and J.D. Powers forecast electrics will be 9% of NEW CAR SALES (not % of fleet) in 2020, and 22% of New Car Sales in 2030. This would correspond to approximately 7.5% of the total fleet in 2030. IF electrics got 55% reduction in gas consumption (this is a very optimistic number, it's probably going to be more like 45%) that would mean the reduction in gas consumption due to electric cars would be about 4% of the gas consumed for light duty transportation (.075 8 .55 = .04125 = 4.125%.

... and that's twenty years from now. My point is to avert a recession/depression from rising gasoline prices we need gas consumption reductions much sooner than 20 years. We can replace the fuel much faster than we can replace the cars that burn the fuel.

PHEVs forecast to be 9% of auto SALES (not % of fleet) by 2020; 22% of sales in 2030

[barbiegeek]

7. Pickens OWNS 90% of the US Natural gas reserves

I bet he does. He's only advocating for his own wealth

[Bill USA]

14. I really don't care how much he owns of it. We are headed for a deeper recession/depression when

gas prices go to around $4.00 a gallon. Going back into recession we do not need. (this will increase chances of Corporate Lobbyist Party taking over again.).

[barbiegeek]

24. Pickens is a Corporate hag. They already invented hydrogen pellets to replace gas

No more gas, and we don't have to modify our cars.

the article is in DU under $1.50 gallon gas.

[Bill USA]

26. Hydrogen pellets? please provide link if you know of post. Hydrogen pellets is not feasible as a

way of dealing with the coming rise in oil prices (within the next several years). Hydrogen pellets can be investigated as a long term option but it is not realistic as a short term response to the oil supply/price rise problem.

I don't like Pickens. But this has nothing to do with whether he is a nice guy or a schmuck (I vote for the latter). We will be going into a deeper recession in a few years as oil prices rise enough to impact our economic growth. We can either do something to preclude that or we can watch it happen and jeopardize investments in all the more advanced technologies we need to invest in. (when I say jeopardize investments, I don't mean eliminate but rather slow down the rate of investment and adoption)

[barbiegeek]

27. Nope, they did it & don't have to modify our cars.

Sorry, it is called Beads not pellets. Yes, it's real. Go to the company website listed in this discuss & google the story too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x283004

[Bill USA]

29. Well, this is interesting but we are not going to see this go from laboratory to 10 billion gallons

in the next few years. One thing you will find out is that new developments are reported in magazines.... 1) 9 times out of ten, they never come to fruition because the developers are not considering practical things which make something that looks good in the lab not very practical for use by millions of people, or 2) it can be a practical reality but it turns out it takes years and years of further technical work and enormous investments (often under appreciated by the inventor) to bring it to a practical reality.


This obviously sounds very interesting. But I wouldn't get my hopes up that this will be a commercial reality in the next few years, and they aren't likely to be producing enough to replace say, 10 billion gallons of gasoline (or more) in the next few years so as to keep the price of gasoline from rising fast enough to kill off our recovery. We consume about 140 Billion gallons of gasoline blended with ethanol each year.

[barbiegeek]

31. Well, I don't expect the US to buy it, but I think the EU & China will

Besides, this is England and they don't have oil there (drilling like the USA). There is a ton of money for the UK to make if they continue this. I look at it as England's way of creating a new market with them in the lead.

They wouldn't have come out with the invention if they hadn't already filed international patent rights.

[Bill USA]

34. being a patentable technology, I'm afraid, has nothing to do with whether it will prove practical.

As I said, taking something from 'discovery' or from the black-board or laboratory to industrial scale takes years of effort and usually considerable capital investment.

Again, I am talking about a problem that needs to be addressed in the next several years. Gasoline prices will be going up in the next few years enough to drag our economy down (to no-growth levels). We should do something that will get results right away. Unfortunately, as I have predicted before, and I'll say it again - We will not do what needs to be done and we will see our economy (and our standard of living) take a hit for it.

[barbiegeek]

35. I think the Brits will do it!

I'm optimistic.

[JohnWxy]

43. What I have seen is that it does take a good deal of time to develop a new

technology. But I am glad that you are optimistic.

[barbiegeek]

46. New Technologies is the only way we can break the monopolies

Making their products obsolete is the ONLY way.

That is why the Repugs hate Science.

[GillesDeleuze]

30. LOL one disaster to the next.

not very strategic, eh.

[Chemical Bill]

8. The US imports natural gas as well as petroleum.

This is not an answer.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc_s1_a.htm

Bill

[Bill USA]

11. Natural gas, Domestic Production Nov 2010: 1,818 Bil cu ft, Net imports 180 Bil cu ft

Domestic production about 10 times as much as imported.

got any alternative which can be used to preclude near term recession/depression?

I'm all ears.


NOte we do not have to replace ALL the gasoline consumed to keep price rises tolerable. I'm no expert but I think an increase in the fuel supply from alternative fuels from the current 7.6% now, to 15% in several years, rising to perhaps 20% to 25% in maybe 10 to 15 years probably would be enough. This of course depends on just how much extra growth in demand for oil China and India produce.

[Chemical Bill]

17. >got any alternative ...

I'm partial to biodiesel from algae myself. I started using biodiesel in 2003, and currently heat my house with biodiesel from cooking waste. The money that we've spent on war in the mideast could have easily developed a renewable source of biofuel, as opposed to your non-renewable natural gas.

BTW, the fact that we import any natural gas means that consumption exceeds domestic production already. Any more consumption would mean more importation.

Bill

[unapatriciated]

19. ...

:thumbsup:

[Bill USA]

25. How long to get biodiesel to say 10% of light transport fuel needs? can that be done in 10 yrs? I

don't think so. I certainly am for pushing biodiesel's production and adoption but it can't be ramped up as quickly as producing more methanol from natural gas. I would take several times as long. But let's do both. We need more biodiesel, absolutely. but it can't be brought on line fast enough to preclude the economic damage to be wrought by the coming oil price increases.

Compared to oil natural gas supply is in much better shape to handle increased demand. If I had to bet on which fuel to count on NOT killing off our recovery with price increases, I would take natural gas over oil in a heart-beat. While we import 10% of our natural gas we import we import over 50% of the oil we consume. Which of the two is more likely to cause our economy problems with a price increase?? I don't think this needs to be a multiple choice question.

[Chemical Bill]

41. >"I don't think so."

It's hard to argue with that, but didn't your post 11 say "I'm no expert..."?

We have infrastructure in place to deliver the biofuels to cars. We need the manufacturing, which is where investment comes in. Methanol from natural gas needs the same investment in manufacturing. You sure are stuck on natural gas. What's your dog in this fight?

Bill

[Bill USA]

48. there are manufacturing facilties which turn out about 40 million gallons of methanol now.

that's about 39,960,000 more gallons than current production of biodiesel.

methanol blended with gas can be distributed with the same infrastructure that we use for gasoline.

I would like to seee bio-diesel fast tracked too, but we can get methanol production ramped up faster than bio-diesel. We should be doing both.

Large Scale Production of Methanol from Natural Gas

My "dog in the race" is that I would prefer to NOT see us slide into deeper recession in the next few years due to rising gasoline prices. My suggestion in OP is NOT a long term solution although it should be part of a long term solution (to the extent needed). IF (actually, "WHEN" - since I know we will not do the things needed to preclude the coming energy price induced deeper recession) we do not mitigate the rise in gas prices, we will slide into a deeper recession with little to no economic growth and little to no job growth. This will compromise and slow down our efforts to invest in and realize long term solutions (cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, electric cars, fuel cell cars). Taking advantage of those things that can help us in the short term will help our progress to the longer term solutions.

But I am confident we will not do this. We will see a energy price induced deeper recession in the next few years, increasing chances we will see the Fascists gain WH and more power in Congress further slowing the development of the longer term solutions.

Somwhere between $3.50 to $4.00 a gallon we will see people restrict their slightly growing spending. This will lead us into deeper recession which will significantly impact our development of the longer term solutions spoken of above.

[Chemical Bill]

56. You can buy drigas and fill your tank now if you want.

But I don't recommend it. Methanol is poison, and causes problems even if inhaled:

http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m2015.htm

But please, be my guest, put your money where your mouth is.

Bill

[Bill USA]

61. Note: "there are manufacturing facilties which turn out about 40 million gallons of methanol now."

NOte that this is the title of my comment to which you responded with:

"You can buy drigas and fill your tank now if you want."....

I thought my title "There are manufacturing facilties which turn out about 40 million gallons of methanol now."

...would have clearly indicated to anybody reading it that methanol is currently being produced.

Which makes me wonder why you thought writing: "You can buy drigas and fill your tank now if you want." was anything but an echo of what I just wrote. ;)


Maybe my comments did not make it clear that I am talking about blending methanol with gasoline and the ethanol we currently blend with gas. Understand that blending means that the amount of methanol used would be LESS THAN 100%. Probably 5% (added to the 8%-10% of the fuel supply coming from ethanol over the next few years) would be enough to hold gasoline price increases in check for a few years.

The objective here is to find a way to reduce demand for gasoline relatively quickly (well, in less than ten years... 'quickly'). Since I am one of 191 million licensed drivers in the U.S. I don't think my using say, 5% methanol would make much impact on the total demand for gasoline. If you can come up with an idea that has a chance of making a difference I'd cetainly be interested in reading it.



...Now, here are some thoughts on making use of methanol as an alternative fuel from a couple guys from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology):

http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library1/catalog/reports/2010/10rr/10rr012/10rr012_full.pdf">Methanol as an alternative transportation fuel in the US: Options for sustainable and/or energy-secure transportation

L. Bromberg and W.K. Cheng

Plasma Science and Fusion Center
Massachusetts Institute of Technology]

Methanol has been used as a transportation fuel in US and in China. Flexible fuel
vehicles and filling stations for blends of methanol from M3 to M85 have been
deployed. It has not become a substantial fuel in the US because of its
introduction in a period of rapidly falling petroleum price which eliminates the
economic incentive, and of the absence of a strong methanol advocacy. Methanol
has been displaced by ethanol as oxygenate of choice in gasoline blends.
Nevertheless, these programs have demonstrated that methanol is a viable
transportation fuel.

• Large scale production of methanol from natural gas and coal is a well developed
technology. Methanol prices today are competitive with hydrocarbon fuels (on an
energy basis). There is progress on the economic conversion of biomass to
methanol using thermo-chemical processes. Sufficient feedstock of natural gas
and coal exists to enable the use of non-renewable methanol as a transition fuel to
renewable methanol from biomass. A variety of renewable feedstock is available
in the US for sustainable transportation with bio-methanol.

• Analysis of the life cycle biomass-to-fuel tank energy utilization efficiency shows
that methanol is better than Fischer-Tropsch diesel and methanol-to-gasoline
fuels; it is significantly better than ethanol if a thermo-chemical process is used
for both fuels.

~~
~~

• Methanol has attractive features for use in transportation:

 It is a liquid fuel which can be blended with gasoline and ethanol and can
be used with today’s vehicle technology at minimal incremental costs.

 It is a high octane fuel with combustion characteristics that allow engines
specifically designed for methanol fuel to match the best efficiencies of
diesels while meeting current pollutant emission regulations.
4
 It is a safe fuel. The toxicity (mortality) is comparable to or better than
gasoline. It also biodegrades quickly (compared to petroleum fuels) in
case of a spill.

 Produced from renewable biomass, methanol is an attractive green house
gas reduction transportation fuel option in the longer term.

 Multiple ways exist for introduction of methanol into the fuel
infrastructure (light blends or heavy blends) and into vehicles (light duty
or heavy duty applications). The optimal approaches are different in
different countries and in different markets.

[Chemical Bill]

63. Yes, I was agreeing that you can do this now.

I have bought 55 gallon drums of methanol, have you?

Like I said, go ahead and put your money where your mouth is.

Bill

[Bill USA]

66. Like I said, give me a better short term solution to gas price increases.. more than the action of

just one individual. That won't do much.

Put some content where your mouth is.

I'll repeat this but read it real slow so you 'get' it, come up with something that will work to minimize the impact of coming gasoline price increases. The actions of 1 person out of a couple hundred million, well, isnt' going to make too much of an impact on U.S. gasoline prices.

So, got any good, practical ideas on how to minimize, in the short term, increases in the market price of gasoline?

Go ahead, surprise me!!

[Bill USA]

67. FFVs can run on ethanol E85 or methanol M85 see link:

http://www.aa1car.com/library/alternative_fuels.htm

E85 (85 percent ethanol alcohol and 15% gasoline) and M85 (85% methanol alcohol and 15% gasoline) currently are the only alternative fuels that have some availability (though limited) because they can be burned in specially-equipped "flex-fuel" vehicles. Flex-fuel vehicles can run on anything from straight gasoline up to 85% ethanol or methanol alcohol.


The up front costs for converting a vehicle to propane range from $1500 to $3000, and $2500 to $4000 for compressed natural gas depending on the application. This only includes the cost of modifying the fuel and ignition system, and does not include any costs associated with "optimizing" the engine through internal modifications (which we'll get to later).

[Mopar151]

12. Methanol is a great motor fuel

And a horrible pain in the ass! The cost estimate above is quite "sunny", IMHO. Methanol is more corrosive than ethanol, and must be run richer (less MPG). It's very hygroscopic - will pull humidity right out of the air! And, pure, it hates cold (<45^F) starts.
M50 or M85 might be partial answer, or blends with isobutanol - but it's by no means ready for street use now.

[Bill USA]

22. I'm only considering blended methanol along with ethanol in gasoline. The problems you cited are

mostly if you are talking pure methanol. Pure methanol isn't realistic. I'm thinking of something that can be done quicker than building an infrastructure to handle compressed gas (far more expensive than using methanol blends). We do not need to replace ALL gasoline to keep gas price from killing the recovery or sending us into deeper recession. Probably 15% to 20% of total fuel supply would do it.

[Mopar151]

47. I have used methanol blend racing gasoline for 25 years

CAM2 (now Sunoco Race Fuels "Standard") contains some methanol - as well as acetone and tolulene. It needs to be jetted a little richer than conventional gas - about like E10 (aka RFG). It is definitely harder on any nonmetallic parts in the fuel system, and, under some circumstances, will strip zinc plating off the bowl screws, lodging it in the metering block. The car {my friend's ex-Greenwood Corvette vintage racer}had no functioning idle circuits left, until I spent 5 hours getting all the crap out of it.

[Bill USA]

50. any idea what % is methanol? I checked link and there appears to be all kinds of 'exotic'

chemicals in there that I don't think you'd find in 'street' gas.

http://www.foxvalleykart.com/fuel5.html

Chart #2

Propylene Oxide Nitro Methane, Nitro Propan, Ethyl Ether, Toluene, Xylene, Dioxane, Hi-Rev, Klotz Coxoc.


Wonder how this stuff affects engine parts?

[Mopar151]

53. The 1st 4 are not in race gas. (oxygen bearing)

Tolulene and Xylene are mild solvents (often used as paint thinners), less volatile than gasoline base stock. Dioxaned is an oxygen bearing addative, not in race fuel (will not pass fuel check). Hi-rev and Klotz are brand names.

Read the article, dude - it's about checking fuel with a dielectric meter for oxygen bearing additives, and thresholds of detectability of same. Nothing to do with what is in race gas or methanol....

Straight methanol must be handled and stored very carefully to pass this sort of fuel check, as a small amount of water will make it fail the test.

[Bill USA]

54. You didn't answer my question ..What % methanol is CAM 2?

http://www.bazellracefuels.com/racingfuels.htm#CAM%202

"Cam 2" is the generic name used for Sunoco Race Fuels. You can expect the same consistent high quality performance from Cam 2 Racing Gasoline that you get from Sunoco Race Fuels because the names are interchangeable. It is the same product, made in the same facility by the same people. We use this name wherever the "Sunoco" brand name cannot be used, such as gasoline outlets which carry a competing brand of street gasoline. Cam 2 is available in 110, 112, and 116 octane leaded, and 100 and 104 unleaded.

[Mopar151]

58. I did not find the data on the web - I'm very hands- on with race stuff

It's somewhere in my (truckload size) stash of racing magazines, not readily accessible - there was an article in Circle Track with mass spectrometer analysis of most leading race gas, but it was at least a decade ago.
But I'll tell you this - it is enough that you can smell it! Both in the vapors and the exhaust - Methanol has a distinct sweet smell when burned - Cam 2 had that smell, and several other brands of race fuel did not. It is possible that Sunoco Race Fuels has reformulated their various grades of race gas in the past year or 2.
As for the %age, it's pretty likely under 10% I do recall that CAM2 has more "high aromatic" petroleum distillates (gasoline base stock) than most of it's competitors - Sunoco owns their own refinery!

[Bill USA]

55. here's some more on methanol: Methanol, The New Hydrogen - MIT Tech Review

http://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech/wtr_16629,296,p1.html


Hydrogen has been getting plenty of hype as a potential replacement transportation fuel, for cutting carbon dioxide emissions and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. But methanol would be far better than the more reactive and volatile hydrogen, argues George Olah, a chemist and Nobel laureate, in a new book, Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy.


Olah notes that methanol, a clean-burning liquid, would require only minor modifications to existing engines and fuel-delivery infrastructure (see http://www.technologyreview.com/search.aspx?s=Olah&searchSubmit=Searchhttp://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech/wtr_16466,296,p1.html">"The Methanol Economy"). And manufacturing it could even make use of carbon dioxide, a source of global warming. Methanol's benefits have long been understood -- now recent advances in methanol synthesis and methanol fuel cells could make this fuel even more attractive.

[Bill USA]

57. some more on methanol from MIT scientists

http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library1/catalog/reports/2010/10rr/10rr012/10rr012_full.pdf

Methanol as an alternative transportation fuel in the US:
Options for sustainable and/or energy-secure transportation

L. Bromberga and W.K. Cheng

Plasma Science and Fusion Center

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Cambridge MA 02139 USA

Prepared by the

Sloan Automotive Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Large scale production of methanol from natural gas and coal is a well developed
technology. Methanol prices today are competitive with hydrocarbon fuels (on an
energy basis). There is progress on the economic conversion of biomass to
methanol using thermo-chemical processes. Sufficient feedstock of natural gas
and coal exists to enable the use of non-renewable methanol as a transition fuel to
renewable methanol from biomass. A variety of renewable feedstock is available
in the US for sustainable transportation with bio-methanol.

• Analysis of the life cycle biomass-to-fuel tank energy utilization efficiency shows
that methanol is better than Fischer-Tropsch diesel and methanol-to-gasoline
fuels; it is significantly better than ethanol if a thermo-chemical process is used
for both fuels.

• The thermo-chemical plants for generation of methanol are expensive — they are
approximately 1.8 times that of an equivalent (in terms of same annual fuel
energy output) bio-chemical ethanol plant.

• Methanol has attractive features for use in transportation:

 It is a liquid fuel which can be blended with gasoline and ethanol and can
be used with today’s vehicle technology at minimal incremental costs.
 It is a high octane fuel with combustion characteristics that allow engines
specifically designed for methanol fuel to match the best efficiencies of
diesels while meeting current pollutant emission regulations.
4

 It is a safe fuel. The toxicity (mortality) is comparable to or better than
gasoline. It also biodegrades quickly (compared to petroleum fuels) in
case of a spill.

 Produced from renewable biomass, methanol is an attractive green house
gas reduction transportation fuel option in the longer term.
 Multiple ways exist for introduction of methanol into the fuel
infrastructure (light blends or heavy blends) and into vehicles (light duty
or heavy duty applications). The optimal approaches are different in
different countries and in different markets.

• To introduce methanol significantly into the market place, both methanol vehicles
and fuel infra structure have to be deployed simultaneously.

[Mopar151]

59. As I said, in MIT's words:

"• To introduce methanol significantly into the market place, both methanol vehicles
and fuel infra structure have to be deployed simultaneously."

"It is a high octane fuel with combustion characteristics that allow engines
specifically designed for methanol fuel to match the best efficiencies of
diesels while meeting current pollutant emission regulations."
We're not talking a few tweaks in the fuel map here - we are talking about major changes in the engine's architecture - pistons, combustion chambers, valve and piston ring materials,fuel system componemts, intake and exhaust port sizes.

[Bill USA]

62. Flex Fuel engines could handle 5% to 10% methanol along with 10% ethanol.

Cost per engine about $500 compared to standard ICE. GM and Ford don't charge any extra for FFV. (don't know about Chrysler).


http://www.aa1car.com/library/alternative_fuels.htm

"Flex-fuel vehicles can run on anything from straight gasoline up to 85% ethanol or methanol alcohol."

from the other link I provided to the MIT Tech Review article

http://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech/wtr_16629,296,p1.html?a=f

Olah notes that methanol, a clean-burning liquid, would require only minor modifications to existing engines and fuel-delivery infrastructure(see http://www.technologyreview.com/search.aspx?s=Olah&searchSubmit=Searchhttp://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech/wtr_16466,296,p1.html">"The Methanol Economy"). And manufacturing it could even make use of carbon dioxide, a source of global warming. Methanol's benefits have long been understood -- now recent advances in methanol synthesis and methanol fuel cells could make this fuel even more attractive.

[Veronica.Franco]

16. Did anyone see the fire in Neil Young's garage a few months ago?

His LINC VOLT exploded when it had been left connected to the charger unattended ... the car has had a couple of engines ... they were in the process of converting it BACK to biodiesel and away from natural gas ... I think the natural gas engine was still in the vehicle when the explosion took place ...

Natural gas is highly volatile .. and don't think for a moment they wouldn't crank up the price of natural gas and exploit that form of fuel if we went to it ...

We're only here to create the market ... they're here to exploit our choices ...

If we went back to horses the price of HAY would mysteriously quadruple ... and the insiders market would be betting on it's collapse to make money on both sides of the equation ... again ...

[swilton]

18. With the electric cars

the infra-structure is closest to being a reality vis a vis 'filling stations' available to recharge batteries....With this available, we are a breath away from solar powered cars...The only thing keeping us from making this a reality is distractions such as Pickens and also bio-fuels and hydrogen fuel cells. The latter two require up front energy investing with minimal energy output as dividends. They serve as a suitable distraction so that bigwigs like Pickens can keep milking the country with tax subsidies for as long as possible and American consumers remained tied to their combustion engines....

I might also add that this is a major distraction from investing in mass transit.

[Bill USA]

23. this really is too ridiculous to respond to. IT will take 20 years to get enough electrics on the

road to make much of an impact. It will take about 40 yrs to replace a significant amount of the coal power generation with wind and solar. THis is not something that is a "a breath away".

PHEVs forecast to be 9% of auto SALES (not % of fleet) by 2020; 22% of sales in 2030

We need practical people to start pushing for some practical approaches. Although I am convinced that will not happen. We won't see the natural gas - methanol approach implemented. In two to five years oil/gas prices will cripple our economic growth. With higher unemployment there will be even fewer people to buy expensive electric cars slowing there adoption.

Will check back in future to document our demise ala rising gas prices.

[swilton]

33. If the investments misplaced in hydrogen fuel cells and bio

fuels were placed in solar and wind, the reality of the electric cars would be here a lot sooner. Toyota is already selling electric cars here and there are ways to make them totally electric. Granted, in the technological sense, the toughest nut to crack is having these cars transition to a solar battery, but the transition is much closer to reality than the 40 years that you forecast.

The problem is having drivers switch away from gasoline powered engines to a less polluting form of combustion. Whatever the target energy source, it is no more feasible with natural gas than it would be with total electric vehicles.

Natural gas is not a viable replacement for electric - they are as finite as petroleum and if you look at the world supplies of natural gas, they are in areas politically hostile to the interests of the US.

[Bill USA]

36. How many people would have to buy electric cars in the next 7 years to replace

enough gasoline to stop gas price rises? and how many electric cars would have to be purchased (and therfore, built) to eliminate, let's say, 15% of the gasoline we currently use? That would be 21 billion gallons (15% of 140 Billion gallons).

Now, let's assume, for simplicity, we are talking about pure electric cars like the Leaf. That would mean electric cars would reduce gasoline consumption 100% for each electric car driven in place of an ICE powered car. A comparable car (weight and payload) getting about 33 mpg would consume 364 gallons of gas per year (assuming 12,000 miles driven per yr). So how many electric cars (for example, Nissan Leafs) would be required to eliminate 21 Billion gallons of gas consumption?.....57,750,000 (21 Billion gallons divided by 364 gallons). That would be 23% of the fleet). That many Leafs would cost $1.9 Trillion. Do you really think we are going to sell 58 million electric cars in the next several years? Do you think the world has the production capacity to make that many electric cars in that period of time?

Try to understand this, The price of oil/gas is going up right now. In the next few years it will go up enough to stop our recovery and put us back into a deeper recession. When we go into a deeper recession with sustained high unemployment, like we have now, how many $33,000 Leafs or $42,000 Volts do you think we are going to sell?

...we need to use an approach that will reduce gas consumption in the next few years. Not 20 years in the future.
Electric cars are a long term proposition. They won't be able to help us reduce gasoline consumption much within 10 or 20 years.

If you had read the post I provided a link to you would see that it is estimated by Bloomberg New Energy and J.D. Powers that we might sell enough electrics in 2020 to equal 9% of new car sales and 22% of new car sales in 2030. If we are selling enough electrics to equal 22% of new cars in 2030 that would mean that electric cars would equal about 7.5% of the TOTAL FLEET in 2030. That's a good deal short of the 23% of the fleet I mentioned above that would be needed to eliminate 15% of our gas consumption (for the light transport sector).

[jmowreader]

21. I think this is a decent-enough idea

Infrastructure isn't a huge problem. Natural gas is already broadly distributed. Yes, there are places where natural gas will never be distributed to (like the town I grew up in) but in most of America, there is gas. A LOT of service stations and convenience stores use natural gas for heating and/or cooking. Natural gas dispensers for automobiles exist because they already run cars on it. (It consists of a natural gas compressor, and a thing that's like a gasoline pump but gasoline isn't what comes out of it.) Take one of those dispensers, put it on a fuel island, hook it into the store's point-of-sale system, and you've got the infrastructure needed to sell natural gas to cars.

The cars are also not a huge problem. You can get a kit to turn your own car into a CNG burner. It would HAVE to be less expensive to make a CNG car on the assembly line.

There are a lot of problems with it--making T. Boone Pickens richer than he already is, that you'd be competing with heating and feedstock applications for your motor fuel, fracking, etc., etc., etc.--but on a purely technical level this is something very doable.

Methanol? Bad, bad, bad idea for three reasons:

it is extremely corrosive
it is extremely hygroscopic
it burns with an invisible flame

[Bill USA]

28. the negatives you raised about methanol applies to 100% methanol. These problems would go away if

you are talking about say 20% or 30% methanol blend with gasoline.

The alternative is we can watch our country sink back into deeper recession, which will compromise our investment in and deployment of other technologies as longer term solutions such as cellulosic ethanol, electric cars, and fuel cell cars.

Making compressed gas available to millions of drives would involve constuction of a vast infrastructure for distributing the compressed gas. Not only very expensive but more time consuming than distributing gasoline with methanol, ethanol blended in. Yes, tanks would have to be retrofitted or replaced but this isn't as expensive as putting in a huge number of compressed gas storage tanks all over the country.

[jmowreader]

38. Umm...you don't distribute it compressed

Instead of creating a huge infrastructure to compress, store, and distribute to retailers compressed natural gas, why not just put a CNG compressor right at the point of sale? (This is what it looks like: http://www.mckenziecorp.com/refueling_station.htm) A largish convenience store has enough room to house this setup. We know how to do it already; there are 1500 CNG stations in America right now that are set up exactly this way. In reality, the only "infrastructure" issue is convincing enough convenience store owners to install the system.

On the 20 to 30 percent methanol blend: last week there was a thread about the oil companies considering upping the ethanol blend in gasohol from 10 percent to 15, and it was revealed in the article that only a limited subset of the cars on the road could deal with this much ethanol in their gas. Now you want twice as much of a more-corrosive alcohol? Ain't gonna work.

[Bill USA]

49. I wonder why Waste Management spent $7.5 million building a CNG dispensing facility?

http://gas2.org/2009/02/11/waste-management-builds-fleet-of-natural-gas-garbage-trucks/


Cars running on natural gas will have a shorter range. (Honda NG car: 170 miles). NOt a deal breaker but using a liquid fuel gets you much more range.

The distribution facility you referred to does sound interesting. I just wonder why WM spent $7.5 million to build theirs. Is it possible that to handle a significant volume of fillups you need more robust equipment? Couldn't find figures on cost of facilities talked about at your link.


The fraction of cars approved for 15% is any car built since 2001: http://www.1011now.com/political/headlines/EPAS_E15_APPROVAL_WILL_GROW_NEBRASKA_JOBS_AND_RENEWABLE_ENERGY____114379619.html . NOte this is Gov regulation as to the MAXIMUM that can be blended. Right now across the country people are using 10% or less. The ethanol we produce now is only 7.6% of total fuel usage.

NOTE that it would take a few years to get up to 15% and higher (the ethanol we make now is about 7.6% of total consumed). You can't boost methanol production THAT fast. It does take some time. In that time, we should require ALL cars sold to be Flex fuel cars. Cost is about $500 per car. GM and Ford do not charge anything extra for FlexFuel cars (don't know about Chrysler). It certainly isn't necessary to use 15% in any car to grow your alcohol % to 10%-12%. As I said it would take a few years to get up to 15% of total fuel volume.


We should have required ALL cars made/sold in U.S. to be Flex fuel vehicles starting ten years ago. We should have lower alcohol fuels (nomore than 10%) available for legacy cars.


NOte there is heated debate going on about how much alcohol you can safely use. There are those who say you can use 20% in cars made since 2000.

The main reason I am for natural gas into methanol over direct use of Natural Gas is because I think you could get methanol use up faster (and cheaper) than the direct use of natural gas. If you think Natural Gas could be deployed faster I would be for that, but I just don't think it can be done (mainly because of infrastructure build-out and investment).

This is about time. We need to replace the gas some 5% to 10% in as short a time as possible in order to preclude an energy cost induced Recession/Depression.

[Bill USA]

32. I think CNG for Fleet operators is a practical idea since you are not talking about building

the number of CNG storage and dispensing facilities that would be needed if you were trying to supply drivers of personal use vehicles.

Here is an article about Waste Management's exploring the use of CNG to power their trucks. The article notes that Waste Management invested $7.5 million to build a compressed natural gas fueling station in Seattle Wash.


http://gas2.org/2009/02/11/waste-management-builds-fleet-of-natural-gas-garbage-trucks/


..also what I am talking about is an approach which would replace some of the gasoline we use ..quickly.. like in the next few years (less than ten anyway). Building infrastructure to dispense that much natural gas would not only be expensive but involves more time than we have for this purpose.

As a longer term option...sure, let's consider it. But what I am talking about is the immediate problem of rising gas prices in the next few years adversely impacting our economy.

[jmowreader]

40. I don't think the problem can be solved in the short term

The quickest and most effective short-term fix would be to make little cars cool again.

Check here: http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2010/112_1004_america_top_10_best_selling_vehicle_comparison_2009_2000/index.html

Note one significant fact: of the top 10 vehicles for 2009, exactly two of them got at least 25mpg city.

The reason for this is pretty simple: it is cheaper to build a truck than a car. The safety standards are lower, and so are the emissions and fuel economy standards. Take the small-block Chevy. It winds up in cars like the Camaro, and in trucks like the Silverado. But it's more expensive to put that engine in a Camaro than a Silverado because the emissions and economy standards for the Camaro are more stringent. Same engine, two rulebooks. So...the automakers do the only logical thing and promote the hell out of trucks because they can make more money from them.

How to make the automakers stop doing this: decree that because trucks are being sold as passenger cars they have to conform to passenger car standards in emissions, safety and fuel economy.

[Bill USA]

51. Well, yes and no. consider how long it takes to replace a significant % of fleet.

[SnakeEyes]

37. invisible flame can be solved with an additive

to add color to the flames.

[jmowreader]

39. Would you happen to know what the additive would be?

The United States Auto Club, CART and the IRL have been looking for such an additive for the last fifty years, and haven't found it yet.

The additive has to do three things: make the flame visible, not damage the car more than the fuel already does, and not make the fuel more hazardous or radically more expensive than it already is. If there was an additive that would work they'd be using it--invisible flame is a massive safety issue in racing.

So...if you can find this additive, please let the Indy Racing League know. You can set up a factory and become rich beyond your wildest dreams, and I'm not being sarcastic here.

[SnakeEyes]

44. This is an old and outdated argument.

They came up with a additive for color solution in the late 90s after the usual slight blue haze was seen when they started having night races. The same is done with the ethanol they use now.

It's an obvious looking roaring fire? No. Is it visible? Yes. Orange. See Kanaan's fire in the pits at Edmonton in 2009. It was still on youtube recently

[concreteblue]

42. quick, easy answer to automotive fuel costs....

http://www.mdi.lu/english/
These guys have developed a car that runs on compressed air, awaiting safety certification in the USA....no, i am not a stockholder, but i will be!

[Mopar151]

45. Don't bet the grocery money

What form of energy will you use to compress the air? Air tools are widely used in industry and auto repair, but efficency is the least of their virtues - it takes 3-5 horsepower of compressor to run 1 hp of air motor/

[JohnWxy]

68. Very interesting info at link. These guys are serious. Right now, this is just for city driving

and quite small. But they have plans to bring out a couple larger models.

Very interesting. Wouldn't count this out, for urban applications.

http://www.mdi.lu/english/moteurs.php

[benld74]

52. Pickes KNOWS what he is doing in life is WRONG,,,,,

that is the REASON behind him givens MILLIONS to OK State and Texas.
Trying to make it seem as though he is a good guy.

[4dsc]

60. See this Debate about Natural Gas.

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/651

[Bill USA]

64. Each acre of corn produces enough biomass to convert the grain to ethanol

http://www.mncpoe.org/Previous_events/Redwood_ppt/CMEC%20Gasification%20Project-Cecil%20&%20Michael-modified.pdf#page=10

"Each acre of corn produces enough biomass to convert the grain to ethanol"

Something that hasn't really been explored very much is using biomass (e.g. corn stalks, cobs) to proviide the thermal energy to convert corn to ethanol. With Combined Heat and Power design you can almost eliminate the natural gas used in a Dry Grind Ethanol plant.

... the result is you get a net energy gain (compared to fossil fuel inputs) in the ball-park of that predicted for cellulosic feed-stock ethanol.....at a fraction of the cost and, need I point out.. unlike cellulosic ethanol ....it's currently do-able! It's just a matter of taking the time and trouble and putting in some extra up-front investment (ahhhh, there's the rub!).

[Bill USA]

65. Combined Heat and Power using natural gas (no biomass) 90% reduction in CO2 emissions

http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/2007_fuel_ethanol_ws.pdf#page=16

                             Net CO2 emissions lb/gal
                       Base Case             Combined Heat & Power
                       (no CHP)               with export of
                                               surplus power
Net CO2 
  Emissions, lb/Gal      1.81                      0.13

The CO2 emissions is a good measure of how much fossil fuel is used in making the ethanol

[JohnWxy]

69. Honda Civic GX (natural gas ) sedan $25,000, Standard Civic Sedan (auto) $16,600

http://automobiles.honda.com/tools/build-price/models.aspx?ModelID=&ModelName=Civic%20GX&ModelYear=2011