AND 
GM, Natural Gas, and the Volt
Natural gas has rising potential for use as an alternative fuel for vehicles. Indeed natural gas vehicles already exist using compressed gas (CNG) as a fuel.
Reserves of natural gas are considerable, cost is low, and domestic supplies are twice as large as that of petroleum. This had led many here to speculate that natural gas would make a great range extender option for the Volt, or as a primary fuel source for other vehicles. As well, oil tycoon T Boone Pickens has been promoting a plan to move the US to CNG vehicles.
GM Europe President Carl-Peter Forster said that he wanted European governments to encourage the use of CNG, stating “we need a policy that creates concrete action now to make…CNG widely available.”
GM already has the capability of making natural gas vehicles, but unlike Honda, has no models available in the US. I asked GM spokesperson Dee Aleen about GM’s US CNG car production plans. Dee stated, “In Europe we have the CNG Opel Zafira and Astra, and Chevrolet LPG, and I believe some models in Asia — but nothing in the U.S. ”
I also asked whether CNG would make for a good range extender in the Volt. He replied, “Let us get the original version out before we start having variants. As we’ve said from the beginning, even when no one believed we were even serious, the range extender can be gasoline, E85, diesel, hydrogen, cooking oil, solar, whatever . . . as long as it can efficiently regenerate the electricity in the battery.”
97 Responses to “GM, Natural Gas, and the Volt”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- New York Times Report on the Chevy Volt Generator Mode Driving Experience
- CNBC Test Drive of the Chevy Volt in Charge Sustaining Mode
- Chevy Volt Will be Able to Hit 104 MPH
- Chevy Volt and Battery Program Update
- GM to Announce Initial Volt Markets at LA Auto Show
- Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
- Op-Ed: GM Reports a $1.2 Billion Loss, but Has the Cash To See Volt Well into Production and Beyond
- Three Chevy Volt Paint Color Finalists Announced
- What BMW Has Learned from the MINI E Program So Far: That They May Need to Build EREVs
- GM: EVs are Cool, but EREV’s are Really Cool
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]BigCityCat
- Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]omnimoeish
- First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]admin
- Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]Texas
- New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]srschrier
- New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]srschrier
- New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]srschrier
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2009 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
October 12th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Getting the Volt out is top priority, but it would be great to have natural gas as an alternative.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I think this is where GM will make their mark. The E-flex system where any source of power can be used to move the car is the right path to go down. CNG is just another fuel that will eventually run out. With the E-flex system though, there is no need to even consider this an issue for GM, since they can easily switch to whatever the next hot fuel source may be. Somebody drink a beer, I need the can for my Mr. Fusion reactor!
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I would LOVE to see the second generation Volt pioneer natural gas as well! Or, if things move quickly before 2010, maybe even in the first!
The Volt is still too much of a mystery to GM representatives.. I know it was just a tiny blurb, but Dee said the extender needs to be capable of regenerating the battery. If he’d have said ‘drive the electric motors’ or something along those lines, it might have pushed the EV aspect of the volt more. Or maybe the word ‘battery’ invokes the idea of EV more..
Either way, GM needs to focus on the accuracy of spokespeople, salesmen, everyone. If everyone is concretely on the same page, average people can TALK about the Volt, instead of discussing differences in details. The word on the street on the Volt will be that much stronger.
NPNS! =D~~
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Pickens has 1,000,000 people backing him now and I’m one of them. I think the car companies should consider CNG as an option for most of their vehicles because eventually it might benefit them a lot to build them.
However…
Pickens himself has said that CNG for cars is important but the most important role of CNG is in big rids, buses, trash trucks etc where conservation cannot occur, while we can simply switch to more fuel efficient cars or drive less to reduce gasoline consumption in the personal vehicle market.
My personal opinion is that these large trucks should switch over a large percentage to CNG while car companies should put out more diesel models so SOME of the extra diesel freed up is used to reduce gasoline consumption.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:01 am
LPG is no different than Oil in the long run. Demand and supply are going to run inversely with price paid the onerous issue for many. Extending the range by better batteries is a soluble answer. Battery changing/charging stations will prove viable and catapult America back to the fore of strength.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:03 am
My winter heating bill (cng) is already too high. I’m all for alternatives to gasoline as a fuel. But, I believe that converting millions of vehicles to cng will cause our furnace bills to go, well, through the roof!
I heard on the media in Aug. how people are having to choose between gas and food (I think that was a bit overplayed). Now, people will be choosing between driving their cars and heating their homes (then, George, that is also a bit overplayed).
And please, not another bail-out (this time for people who can’t afford to pay their higher heating bills).
Perhaps as was suggested, it would be ok as a range extender, but NOT as primary fuel. Anyway, I would push much harder for more clean ethanol (E85) like GM’s Coskata plant, which doesn’t use food crops, and should be coming on-line next year.
=D~~~~
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:04 am
GM is causing some confusion (as evidenced in this and other web sites) with statements like “… as long as it can efficiently regenerate (sic) the electricity in the battery.” This phrase implies that the main job of the ICE is to recharge the battery. We, the disciples of Volt Nation, know that the main job of the ICE is to generate electricity to drive the car’s electrical traction motor, with minimal charging of the battery to ensure that most battery charging occurs when the Volt is plugged in. (OK, OK, maybe there’s a Pike’s Peak switch. Lyle, when are we going to find out for sure?!?)
There should be some internal GM education on standard phrases like: (and I don’t claim wordsmith perfection at this point, though I think the ideas are correct)
“… as long as it can efficiently generate the required electricity for the Volt’s electrical traction motor and opportunistically keep the battery charged at some minimal amount, around 30%.”
And for those who never bothered to find out (from http://www.dictionary.com):
sic-A Latin word for “thus,” used to indicate that an apparent error is part of quoted material and not an editorial mistake: “The learned geographer asserts that ‘the capital of the United States is Washingtown [sic].’”
I used “sic” above because I think that it’s best to say “charging the battery”, and leave the term “regenerate” for regenerative breaking. Sorry, maybe some will think that I am being picky, but I believe that consistent and clear use of language will contribute to accurate knowledge and understanding of the Volt, which in my view will help it more than hurt it.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:04 am
As for T Boone Pickens, he truly is a capitalist with the slant of a monopolist. He owns considerable swaths of CNG and is buying up, and locking up considerable water rights throughout the Colorado Texas arena counting on someday commanding whatever premiums he wants us to pay when no other options prove available.
Renewable non-Middle-East sources are the answer. Years away, I know. A government that sold us out with Oil, I know. Car manufacturers who are trying to change – I know. Let’s bring out the Volt. I’ve lost enough in the stock market to pay for several Volts and I’m still more than ready to buy one.
America first – CHEVY VOLT: American-made, American-FUELED.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:07 am
jdsv #3 and Shaft #7
===============================================
jdsv, I worked quickly and diligently, only to find that you beat me to the punch! And much more simply and to the point. Darn!
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Talk is the Paris auto show had considerable EV cars on display. Anyone have a good link to the models? If GM goes out of business, I want to be ready for an alternative.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Doesn’t an infrastructure need to be built for CNG?
I can’t think of a single place where I can buy it.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Law # 4 says,
My personal opinion is that these large trucks should switch over a large percentage to CNG while car companies should put out more diesel models so SOME of the extra diesel freed up is used to reduce gasoline consumption.
————-
While I agree with the first part of your sentence, I disagree with the second part. Car companies don’t need to concentrate on the many different fossils fuels they can use for their cars. They need to concentrate on the many different NON fossils fuels they can use.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:21 am
2. Todd
“I think this is where GM will make their mark. The E-flex system where any source of power can be used to move the car is the right path to go down.”
While it is correct that GM could switch the fuel source by switching the engine, how is that different than any other vehicle? E-flex is just marketing hype in the greatest sense of marketing hype; just assign a fancy sounding name to something that everyone already has.
For example, the Honda Civic already has a gas and a CNG version. To bad Honda didn’t give it a name… perhaps the “Gassier System”.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:31 am
We are importing CNG if I recall correctly. Where is this abundance of CNG? I heated with natural gas for 26 years and the price rose constantly like everything else. In the very cold winter of 1994 the natural gas supply was so short in Washington DC that customers had insufficient pressure to run their furnaces. Somebody is trying to spook the American public into another boondoggle. We don’t need CNG powered big rigs either, we need trains for heavy shipping. The money saved from less damage to highways and saved fuel would probably go along way toward providing funds for upgrading the RR business.
#7 Sic is a Latin word for thus but sic in text means ’spelling is correct’ i.e (id est) that’s not a misprint you just read.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:35 am
It makes sense to use CNG. Gasoline and Ethanol have relatively short “shelf lives”. Plus, millions of homes have natural gas piped to them. Get a small filling unit right in your garage & bingo! No more trips to the gas station!!
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:41 am
#14, Shawn
You are correct, but I was using “sic” in a more general sense of a strange use of a word or phrase, not an incorrect spelling. I think that the use of the word “regenerative” is off, as I explained in #7.
Another definition from dictionary.com to make this point clearer:
sic-so; thus: usually written parenthetically to denote that a word, phrase, passage, etc., that may appear strange or incorrect has been written intentionally or has been quoted verbatim: He signed his name as e. e. cummings (sic).
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:52 am
#7 Shaft — You are right Careful and consistent use of words is important when new ideas are explained. GM does not quite have its act together.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I agree with both views. Getting the Volt out will prove that the E-REV vehicle is very real and practical, not just a pipe dream. However…I feel that it will be the variants that will bear the attraction to GM new lineup. The problem withj current hybrids is that they’re only sold in certain markets. Nissan’s Altima Hybrid isn’t available here in Alabama unless I go to Boston and buy it and drive it back. Then there’s no guarantee that Nissan dealerships here can work on it, especially since its not for our market. Alabama does, however, have an overabundance of natural gas. So an E-Flex (or rather a ENG-Flex) vehicle would sell like crazy. Thank goodness GM at least envisioned the E-Flex architecture for variant versatility.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I know frist hand that the oil companys have wells that are drilled and are just waitting for the wheel to be turned on so that we could all have oil right now! if they were permitted to. every year the oil companys come down and do their yearly up keep but nore a drop of oil flows. this is in southern Fl a place in the south of naples called oil well road. but it is also in the everglades but their are a lot of people that don’t want you to know that you could have the oil that you need right now why??:
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
To your other posters: Natural Gas is available from sources IN THE UNITED STATES – if we do not do something about our economy vis a vis we’re not going to be able to develop anything new. That requires BUDGET !!!
And let me tell you Americans will lose their effete nature about coal | nuclear | oil drilling on the continental shelf when / if our economy really hits the skids. There will be no room for green daintiness at the table if our economy does a 30’s style slump. No politician no matter how far to the left will dare utter a word under those circumstances.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Pickens now says he looks at CNG only for trucks and other large commercial vehicles (watch his interview with Leno).
We don’t have enough natural gas to generate needed electricity AND to power cars. We should concentrate on replacing coal power plants with renewables and Gas – where gas can be used very efficiently compared to a CNG car.
Cars need to be powered by electricity.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Ask any of those fleet drivers that currently use CNG in their buses or trucks. IT HAS NO RANGE !!!
They can barely make it back to the distribution point for a much needed fillup. CNG is the wrong choice.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Natural Gas is more stable than Gasoline and can be held in tanks for years without any degradation. This would be a very good option for an electric car that might only use the ICE every few months.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
#6 George K
“My winter heating bill (cng) is already too high” [not sic]
Oops, I meant (ng) “natural gas”.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
5.
jbfalaska Says:
October 12th, 2008 at 11:01 am
“LPG is no different than Oil in the long run. Demand and supply are going to run inversely with price paid the onerous issue for many. Extending the range by better batteries is a soluble answer. Battery changing/charging stations will prove viable and catapult America back to the fore of strength.”
______________________________________________________
14.
Shawn Marshall Says:
October 12th, 2008 at 11:31 am
“We are importing CNG if I recall correctly. Where is this abundance of CNG?”
______________________________________________________
Natural gas is methane (CH4), and yes it has historically it been pumped from natural gas fields in the ground because it was easy to access and often co-located with oil. But Methane can be manufactured from renewable sources like switch grass, manure, waste, and landfills…
http://asae.frymulti.com/abstract.asp?aid=25191&t=2
…using biological means (microbes call Methanogens).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanogen
It can also be made from non-renewable rescources such coal (either mined or in situ) without releasing CO. Keep in mind that the United States has more BTUs of coal than the middle east has in BTUs of oil. I know, coal is a “dirty fuel” and will destroy the environment – but it doesn’t have to be combusted.
http://www.arctech.com/micgas.htm
For example, Mic-Gas microbes convert coal to methane gas and humic acid. Humic acid is the key ingredient to fertile soil (it’s what allows soil to retain water, nutrients, and microbes, and humic acid sequesters carbon atoms with strong ionic bonds). When humic acid derived from coal is applied to soil, plant biomass growth is doubled. This has the added benefit of absorbing C02, arguably more CO2 than is released from “burning” the methane that is co-produced. Thus coal has the potential to become a “carbon sink” with this technology.
But why in the world would you want to burn methane in an engine anyway, when a fuel cell is so much more efficient? Methane is one of the richest molecules in Hydrogen (one carbon atom to 4 hydrogen atoms), and it is much easier to store than Hydrogen, making it an ideal “fuel” to power an electric fuel cell in the Volt!
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-fuel-cells.html
Lastly, keep in mind the above technology is public, the really advanced technology is proprietary behind closed doors.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
why cant they put a small nuke device to run the gen. that would do it, they put big ones in battleships and smaller ones in submarines
No Nuke No Sale
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Just a small thought but why do you not put out one now that has the gas and generator power with a battery hook up for later when they get produced ???? But what I like is a car today that can run on the moon or mars in the neer future . Perhaps the battery is not all ready but make a plugin and get the car out .
GOD BLESS
a good big one from me.
Edwin Mang Jr.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
26.
Casey Says:
October 12th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
why cant they put a small nuke device to run the gen. that would do it, they put big ones in battleships and smaller ones in submarines
________________________________________________
Ha Ha!
Of course, they could build nuclear powerplants on military bases, where they would have that added security layer of gate guards with M-16 rifles…
Just a thought.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
26,
The answer is nuclear but not some small nuke. That would be too expensive to get past the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Trust me on that one.
The answer is many more nuclear plants. These things run for 18-24 months before refueling and the safety of the new designs is 10X to 100X better than the current fleet.
We need to get fools like Harry Reid in the Senate to stop blocking the transfer of spent fuel to Yucca Mountain and then allow fuel re-processing to take place.
If we were serious in this country about energy, Nuclear plants would be under construction now. Its almost all American Jobs and American technology (Although we have lost a lot of ground in the last 25 years).
There would be plenty of power to go around. Heat pumps for your house would be cheaper than oil or natural gas to operate. All we would need is a good way to transport this power to lawn mowers and cars, etc. (ie: we need battery developments to continue).
Politicians want to tell us to inflate our tires and turn down our heat. How about telling us they have a plan to provide us with cheap affordable power to keep our country rolling.
If we had enough Nuke plants, we could all put “Nuclear Powered” bumper stickers on our Volts.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
HEY dems you can have Obama but get rid of Harry and Nancy PLEASE!!!!!!
NO PLUG, NO NUKE, NO WAY, NO SALE =D—$00.00
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
There are Chevy Cavalier bi-fuel vehicles available NOW that I can buy used on eBay for around 8 grand. I am extremely tempted to pick one up for use in the interim until 2011…..
Natural gas in Ohio is half the cost of gasoline.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
CNG vehicles make sense. Although cng vehicles are not new and do not involve new technology, they do cost slightly more. The Honda Civic GX costs about $7000 more than the similar Civic LX. This additional cost is offset in part by a federal tax credit. Large scale production with competition from other manufacturers would probably bring the additional cost down to a few thousand. Adding the cost of a cng engine or bi-fuel cng and gasoline ICE to the cost of the VOLT probably does not make sense yet.
Natural gas supplies are huge. Currently more than 98% of the natural gas we use is produced in North America with about 80% from the U.S. and almost all of the difference from Canada. New technology in the last few years has completely revised our estimates of how much recoverable gas is available in the U.S. New horizontal drilling and fracing (fracturing) techniques have made production from gas shales economically viable. Look at the Haynesville, Barnett and Marcellus Shale discoveries. In the last few years we have gone from a total estimated recoverable gas of 276 Tcf (trillion cubic feet) to more than 1000 Tcf. At the current rate of use, recent studies indicate we have at least 80 years of known reserves with existing technology in the U.S. Existing technology allows recovery of only about 30% of the gas in place in gas shales.
Using more ng moderates the price of oil. Ng and oil prices are related, but the difference is that gas can still be produced economically in almost unlimited amounts at $8 per mcf which is equivalent to about $48 per barrel of oil. There is still a lot of oil in the world but it is expensive to produce and most in not in the U.S.
CNG vehicles have their problems. The ICE must be redesigned to take advantage of the 130 octane of ng. If this is not done the engine produces less hp for the size of the engine. Maximizing a cng engine can be done by increasing the compression ratio with turbocharging or supercharging. GM produces the bi-fuel cng and gasoline Opel Zafira in Germany. For 2009 they have now have a new 1.6 l turbocharged cng engine which produces 150 hp. CNG vehicles also have range anxiety issues since most areas have few cng stations. Making the vehicle bi-fuel helps with this problem as does the availability of home refilling units (Phill unit)
The VOLT concept of using the grid to power the first 40 miles make sense for cng vehicles. CNG tanks are fairly large and heavy. GM could use a relatively small cng tank in a Chevy Cruze with a bi-fuel capability. The CNG tank could take the vehicle for the first 60-120 miles and be refilled at home daily with the Phill unit. The backup gasoline tank would take care of the range anxiety issue.
The technology is already here and is proven. Natural gas is abundant, inexpensive (generally less than $2 per gallon equivalent) and most importantly is American. GM should lead not follow on cng vehicles.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
CNG makes no sense.
CNG has the worst emissions. CNG is worse that gasoline. CNG is worse than fuel cells (a.k.a. Fool Sells). CNG is worse than diesel.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf
(See page 4)
CNG requires a completely new infrastructure (like fool sells). Probably take 25 years to roll out.
CNG engines are extremely inefficient. That’s why emissions are so high.
Now, if you come from big oil, and you see the writing on the wall – oil is running out – then you would think CNG is great. It will allow you to hold on to your monopoly. Electricity and ethanol can made made from lots of sources,
http://www.coskata.com/EthanolFeedstockPotential.asp
so that’s way too much competition for an oil man.
But if you’re not an oil man, CNG is a really bad idea.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
In 1990 you could convert any car of truck you wanted to cng for aboun $1400.00 I don’t know what it is now.
NO PLUG, NO NUKE, NO CNG, NO SALE NO WAY, =D—$00.00 OIL (Nobama)
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
#32 keith Says: “Natural gas is abundant, inexpensive (generally less than $2 per gallon equivalent) and most importantly is American.”
————————————————————————————-
Much of the natural gas consumed in the U.S. is imported from Canada and Mexico. If we were looking for a U.S. fossil fuel to power transportation, coal would be a much better choice.
By the way, if you burn natural gas to make electricity that powers an electric car, the same amount of natural gas would go 3 times as many miles as a CNG engine car. That’s how inefficient CNG engines are.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I sure would NOT be looking at LPG as a fuel source. I have heated my home with LPG for over 35 years. It used to cost me between $350 and $400 to fill my 400 gallon tank. This year it cost $1200.
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
The Volt is the perfect solution because electricity is the ultimate flex fuel. LP, CNG, gasoline, diesel, solar, even everyone’s favorite bomb, hydrogen, can generate electricity. Electric cars, like the Volt, are desperately needed because YOU decide how you power it–coal, gas, solar or even a mouse on a wheel.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Boy, can anyone say expand the range of the Volt’s battery and then go:
nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, WHATEVER. The bottom line is that fossil fuels are dead like the dinosaurs.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
CNG? No way! CNG is what makes air-fuel bombs! Gasoline is bad but CNG (compressed natural gas) is a true disaster waiting to happen! If my gas tank leaks gasoline my garage MIGHT explode. If my CNG car leaks natural gas my garage WILL explode (ask yourself where is your hot water heater, or do you have an electric garage door opener [i.e. source of ignition] ) most likely destroying my house and possibly my neighbors!
Say NO to CNG!
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Thanks Lyle for the post and all of you for your comments.
Rooster #25
Thirty years ago my wife and myself were doing research on manure generated CH4 and the possibility to use it in different situations.
The results we got were similar to your comments, except one : the insurance companies did not want to cover the CH4 reservoir of individual producers (farmers, coop.,etc.) ….I do not know if they have changed their minds today ….
BTW Opel was giving the home compressor for free with the first 25 CNG cars they sold in 2008.
For those who are interested, look at this link (in French) ;
http://www.opel.be/contact/magazine/page.asp?page=125&news=MilieuMag
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
CNG is still a fossil fuel. That is the bottom line. So what do we do? Trade one fossil fuel (oil) for another (NG)?
I disagree with this completely. Battery range needs to be extended by a factor of 10 at least. Quick charge needs to be perfected to about a 5 minute time frame. If the US government can bail out those very bad little boys on Wall street, the US government can surely afford to buy the best minds on the planet that can achieve this goal. In other words, another “Manhattan project”.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
The GM Daewoo Kalos, a best seller in Europe,
is a dual fuel car with both CNG and gasoline capability. Why not transfer this design on the Volt? CNG when you have time to go to the special station, and gas for emergency.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I’m still thinking that cellulosic E-85 is the way to go. NG is great for heating homes and for electric power plants. I can see were other parts of the world would choose otherwise. But E-85 seems tailor-made for the USA. Drive down the cost of E-85 and lithium batteries, and life should be good. On second thought I suppose some parts of the States would be suited to CNG. I think many folks will be satisfied with a BEV — 100+ miles per charge battery especially if remote quick charging is possible. I think Detroit is going to be shocked by the number of people ready to give up their gasoline burner.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
This is were US car makers are off the boil. The new technology is iLP. Injected liquid LPG. This is just as efficient as normal 92octane petrol for performance and economy with the added benefit of being much less polluting. LPG is half the price of petrol in Australia!
Couple this with direct injection and we are on our way to 21st century technology. The VOLT wouldn’t need a 1.4ltr ice for battery charging. 1ltr or less could do the job with a “modern” motor.
But who am I to talk about wasted oportunity!
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
A CNG range extender would be great… unless you went on a really long trip.
Unless it were a dual fueled range extender (eg gasoline/CNG capable), you couldn’t drive to visit relatives etc.
Now, a dual fueled range extender would be perfect (CNG won’t sour if unused for months).
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Why bother with a CNG Volt?
The entire idea of the Volt is that the electric charger typically eliminates 80% of the need for gasoline. So, we can save 80% using a system where the infrastructure (gasoline and electricity) is already in place. Given that, why go to a lot of expense to get that last 20% – especially if ethanol is a potential fuel?
I can see using CNG as a motor fuel, but not for cars. The extra cost for a CNG-version of a Volt won’t pay for itself ever. Instead, look to use CNG for large, industrial vehicles such as trains and busses. Both of these are fueled at central facilities where the cost of the CNG fueling equipment could be paid for in the fuel savings.
Finally, I agree with some of the previous comments that using CNG for vehicle fuel could drive up the cost of natural gas for heating. That’s likely, but it won’t be a big jump if we really have the surplus that Pickens says we have. I’m no expert there, so I can’t comment on this.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
#43 jan Says: “I’m still thinking that cellulosic E-85 is the way to go. NG is great for heating homes and for electric power plants. I can see were other parts of the world would choose otherwise. But E-85 seems tailor-made for the USA. Drive down the cost of E-85 and lithium batteries, and life should be good.”
————————————————————————————-
Yes, well said.
If you haven’t already, check out the coskata site:
http://www.coskata.com/EthanolFeedstockPotential.asp
They use a gasification process for cellulosic ethanol that costs as little as $1/gallon. GM is a major investor in this company.
Using this process, they can make ethanol from wood chips, switchgrass, corn stalks, old tires, etc. These sources can make enough ethanol to replace 35% of our current gasoline consumption. This seems like the perfect solution for longer trips with E-REVs. It’s a good thing the Volt runs on E85.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
#46 swimdad623 Says: “Why bother with a CNG Volt? The entire idea of the Volt is that the electric charger typically eliminates 80% of the need for gasoline. So, we can save 80% using a system where the infrastructure (gasoline and electricity) is already in place. Given that, why go to a lot of expense to get that last 20% – especially if ethanol is a potential fuel?”
————————————————————————————–
Yes, I agree.
We already have the infrastructure for liquid fuels like like gas, diesel, and E85. The infrastructure for compressed gas fuels does not exist, and will take 25 years to roll out. Why bother? E85 is much better than CNG.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Pickens may be a great oil man but he’s lousy on the general topic of energy. We really have 2 aspects of the energy problem. Most simply stated we have Stationary Power and Transportation fuels. What Pickens proposes with Wind Mills is only for Stationary power currently. If Volt works then electricity can be used for transportation. It is used for transportation on a limited basis today (commuter trains, etc.). However Wind is not practical as the Danes are starting to discover. The maintenance cost of Wind Turbines is far greater than advertised. The Blades are exposed to tough weather conditions and deteriate MUCH faster than was first believed. This is especially true if located near salt water-a double whammy! Wind Turbines will not pay for themselves before they break or the maintenance cost will kill you. The same for Solar-simply too intermittant and unreliable. We desperately need to go nuclear in a very big way. We need to stop generating elecricity with natural gas (CA gets 45% of electricity with Nat Gas) and use natural gas for transportation. Using Nat Gas to generate electricity IS A SIN AND OUGHT TO BE A CRIME. Also using Nat Gas for ethanol is utter madness but that’s what we are doing in Mid-West. Stupidity squared! The Volt and the other Plug-in-hybrids that will follow will have a great impact on helping the US in the reduction of fossil fuels used for transportation but we also need more Nat Gas and Oil for a while. Everything depends on Nuclear Power. We have no future without it. If the madman Obama gets elected we WILL NOT HAVE Nuclear Power. WE WILL HAVE NO FUTURE. Think about it Nov 4.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
[...the range extender can be gasoline, E85, diesel, hydrogen, cooking oil, solar, whatever . . . ]
I was reading about how stinkweed might be a future source of biodiesel and was thinking how that might solve the problem of people not hearing an approaching noiseless Volt.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Casey #26 says,
why cant they put a small nuke device to run the gen. that would do it, they put big ones in battleships and smaller ones in submarines
——————–
Yes and all that radiation leakage would be a lot of fun during an accident.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I’d like to argue about whether it makes sense or not for the Volt to have this option, but it is likely arguing whether the Volt should also be able to time travel or be able to achieve a low altitude orbit of the earth.
“Let us get the original version out before we start having variants”
—indeed
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I put this in the other thread, before I realized this one was out as well, so I’m going to repost:
————————————-
GM apparently is going to the fed next week to try and hit them up for 5 billion. I guess if you can’t get that additional ‘15 billion’ to help liquidity, you just go to the window and get a 5 billion dollar loan from the government.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081012/business_us_gm_funding.html?.v=5
/seems simple enough.
..and now we know why Wagoner kept saying, “this is not a bailout” on that 25 billion, because this is. How long did it take for them to go back for more? A week and half?
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Before we switch to CNG for some cars it would be best if we first replaced the natural gas for electricity. But as has been stated already lets convert to electric instead of moving in two directions at once by pushing CNG in a vehicle. If the electric car or EREV can get moving then the use of CNG woulndn’t be needed or advised.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
I like the Volt the way it is now. CNG will be fine for 3rd gen vehicles. And nuclear is not out of the question. The main hurdle I see with using nuke is the weight of the shielding. A mini nuke generator/ICE is do-able and a ‘win’ for large 4 wheel drive work vehicles. You could work out in the wilderness for weeks and not worry about fueling up.
The best thing that could happen now is for GM to introduce the D/ICE platform in the 3rd quarter of 09′. If this takes cutting the R&D budget on Sierra and Canyon then so be it. Keep production moving on the current winners: Malibu, Impala, Cruze, Camaro and the Corvette (430 HP ~ 16 city / 26 hwy mpg).
Volt D/ICE release = positive cash flow
=D~
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
I am still betting that GM is too big for the Govt. to let fail at this point just like the yahoo article (in Static’s post 53) mentions.
Our congress is in “emergency management” mode and our debt to GDP ratio has not been driven up to the point where China simply takes over. So, in the mind of Congress, they still have plenty of money to give out.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Nuclear is not an option.
Even though the NRC has tested spent fuel transportation issues under extreme conditions and they never fail, people still don’t want the fuel transported along their states.
http://crashtestvideos.magnify.net/video/Used-Nuclear-Fuel-Transportat
These casks are 8-10 inch thick steel (22 tons) and very safe as seen in the video.
Anything suitable for a car would be much less safe (no way to carry around the shielding in these casks) and therefore impossible to get approved. (Given that we can’t get these things in the video rolling now).
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
From reading Picken’s ideas, it seems tobe a matter of T. Boone wanting to find some way to use the rather unreliable electricity that all those windmills he’s been buying are generating. As I recall, he wants to use wind electricity to replace natural gas, which can then be used in vehicles. That sounds to me like there isn’t all that much natural gas around – we are importing LPG from abroad and natural gas from Canada, all of which leads me to wonder just how much natural gas there really is. The prices have not been cheap over the past 6 years or so. Recently the two nuclear generators in Texas set a record by averaging over 100% capacity for a year , refueling in less than 15 days and producing juice at less than 2 cents per kilowatthour ( that’s at least 8 times cheaper than California pays)
and with fuel cost component of less than .4 cents per kilowatthour. Last figure I saw for natural gas electrical production pegged the price at around 10 cents per kilowatthour.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
#53 statik on GM trying to borrow from the fed
======================================
It’s ridiculous, but in the present environment it likely will happen.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
jbfalaska # 5
“LPG is no different than Oil in the long run Demand and supply are going to run inversely with price paid the onerous issue for many. Extending the range by better batteries is a soluble answer.”
*** *** ***
You are correct about LPG and gasoline, but they are also non renewable as opposed to ethanol, and they’ll be controlled by the same oil companies we do business with today. It’s a mistake overestimate the advancement of battery technology and that’s one reason we really need a renewable liquid fuel to GUARANTEE the success of EVs, and we’ve already got 1200+ 85 stations to build upon.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
The NRC is recieving license applications for new plants. It is interesting that they are all in a band from Maryland, down the east coast and then accross to Texas. The rest of the country is not interested apparently. In 10 years, many in the northeast, midwest, and west will be pissed when they are paying 3-10X the rates for electricity because they have a no-nuclear policy.
It will be much cheaper to drive the Volt in the Washington DC region and around to TX as compared to the rest of the country. Nuclear, since it runs 24/7 also encourages the use of time of day billing since the power is much more plentiful at night. Wind and solar are the opposite. They have less and/or no capacity at night.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Casey #26
“why cant they put a small nuke device to run the gen. that would do it, they put big ones in battleships and smaller ones in submarines”
*** *** ***
Just what Al-Quaeda needs…to get it’s enriched uranium from a chevy off the lot. Psssst…carriers and subs are part of the DOD.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
When choosing the best fuel for the range extender ICE for a PHEV, the most important consideration is convenience. Depending on your driving patterns, the Volt will get 100-300 miles per gallon, so the cost of the fuel is not really an issue. A CNG range extender would make no sense, because you cannot count an being near a CNG auto refueling station when you need fuel. Even if CNG catches on in a big way in the future, we are still 10 years away from a pervasive automotive CNG infrastructure.
The same applies to E-85, except the situation is worse since unsubsidized E-85 is so much more expensive than gasoline. We are a long time away from an E-85 retail fuel infrastructure. Before E-85 can even be considered a viable transport fuel, there would have to be a technological breakthrough in the production of non-cellulose based ethanol. This breakthrough might not ever happen.
A diesel range extender would make sense in the European market, where diesel is priced competitively with petrol, and enjoys a good reputation. In the US, a diesel range extender would be a marketing fiasco. People are suspicious of diesel, and forcing them to accept a diesel engine if they want a PHEV car would torpedo sales.
So for the next 5-10 years, the best range extender for the Volt is a gasoline ICE. The 40 mile AER negates the high cost of gasoline, and the pervasive network of filling stations makes it the most convenient fossil fuel.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
I’m still thinking that cellulosic E-85 is the way to go.
——————————————————————–
Wishful thinking, I.m afraid. There is no commercially viable process for producing ethanol out of cellulose. It is certainly possible that one will be discovered, but as of now, hoping for cheap ethanol from cellulose is the same as hoping for cheap energy from solar or thermonuclear.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
i thing the randr extender should be dirty diessl
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
#33
Dave G Says:
October 12th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
CNG makes no sense.
CNG has the worst emissions. CNG is worse that gasoline. CNG is worse than fuel cells (a.k.a. Fool Sells). CNG is worse than diesel.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf
(See page 4)
————————————————————————
There are close to 100 posts on this thread, but if you read only one, check out #33 from Dave. Follow his link, and get some real facts on CNG.
And don’t forget, if CNG is needed for transportation, the cost will skyrocket, and become similar to gasoline.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
What if gas continues to drop in price (saw it in NJ today for $2.89) will this slow down the volt project or reduce the number of people willing to spend extra on an electric car?
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Dee Aleen is right. One step at a time! I won’t consider a CNG car until I can name a CNG station to refuel!
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
A diverse supply of energy helps keep prices down because switching costs are lower with available alternatives. Electricity is so great because it can be produced with dozens of different sources. So if NG spikes in price, plants move to coal or nuclear or wind. One reason oil got so high was because the oil demand curve is relatively inelastic. With more available energy supplies, the curve becomes more elastic, reducing the power of the energy suppliers and therefore the price. So, CNG is fine with me. I wouldn’t buy one now but at face value it sounds good.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
its my first post: I may not be in relation with the subject today but I see in Bell satelite TV. Ontario province start a TV publicity for future plug in vehicule with current malibu and something look like very similir to the current volt plug see herehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1vxlNSrJ88
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
40.
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
October 12th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Thirty years ago my wife and myself were doing research on manure generated CH4 and the possibility to use it in different situations.
The results we got were similar to your comments, except one : the insurance companies did not want to cover the CH4 reservoir of individual producers (farmers, coop.,etc.) ….I do not know if they have changed their minds today ….
———————————————————————————–
Jean-Charles,
I would think this is more applicable to commercial applications where the product is delivered to homes via home Natural Gas lines, and you would purchase a compressor if you needed CNG in a DOT approved tank, rather than creating & capturing it at home.
Presently, a lot of research is being done on identifying the gene sequence that constitutes a methanogen, so we can engineer more efficient methanogens, and custom design them for in situ application. There is a lot of potential in this field, and there are a lot of big names pursuing this behind closed doors.
Burning CNG is inefficient, where as using it to general electricity in a fuel cell is not. In fact, it could be cheaper to generate electricity from natural gas using a Methane fuel cell. Methanogens can generate a 1 million BTUs of methane from coal for around $2 US.
(Quote)
October 12th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
tom harwick #53
“Before E-85 can even be considered a viable transport fuel, there would have to be a technological breakthrough in the production of non-cellulose based ethanol”
*** *** ***
Tom,
The technological breakthrough has nothing do with “non” and everything to do with cellulosic. We’re in the infancy stages and we’ll work with what we’ve got for now, expand infrastructure and continue on the path of cellulosic. I’m tired of hearing the ridiculous “we can’t” and “we won’t” we need to make a commitment and the only arguments against ethanol seem to be made by oil industry lobbyists/publicists.
I’m even tempted to look into my own gassifier and work with Coskata on a royalty basis to get this on the road in my area of the country. WE CAN DO this, just don’t accept what you’ve been told…..that we can’t!
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 1:01 am
#21… actually Pickens in all interviews I’ve seen (CNBC, Larry King, etc) since he started advertising his plan (http://www.pickensplan.com/about) he’s been consistent that he wants to convert trucking fleets to CNG, not general transportation.
And correct to the person who pointed out that we are already a net IMPORTER of natural gas. See http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc_s1_m.htm for where we are importing it from. And the percent we are importing is increasing every year. We are simply replacing one imported non-renewable fossil (and hence green house gas producing) fuel with another if we convert general transportation over, and tied to the same big oil/gas companies. As for offering CNG as an option in the Volt, that’s ok, the Volt will be using mostly domestic electricity.
Also thumbs up to the person who also correctly pointed out that natural gas prices this past decade have gone up many fold (600% I think?). Significantly increase demand by switching from gasoline/diesel to natural gas (CNG) can only push prices significantly in one direction. All those folks who heat their homes in the winter with natural gas should really be concerned….
Just say YES to part of the Pickens Plan… to build up significantly wind power, as well as upgrading our electrical infrastructure (ie. transmission lines), but NO to CNG for wide spread transportation. As another poster said, we shouldn’t be replacing natural gas fired electric power plants with wind power… the wind power that comes online, instead we should be shutting down the dirtiest and least efficient (the older) coal fired plants instead, replacing them with wind or natural gas in the interm.
By the way, GM’s series hybrid 1998/9 prototype, like Volvo’s 1993 ECC series hybrid prototype, had a turbine engine… same engine could burn all the fuels Lyle mentioned, very flexible fuel… but remember folks… electric power is the ultimate flex fuel of all. Let’s not replace one inflexible non-renewable fossil fuel infrastructure (gasoline) with another (natural gas).
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 1:08 am
#67 (Mark C)
The bigger problem than falling gas prices is how long the economy stays in recession, or worse, falls into depression… early adopters won’t be able to afford the Volt or other BEV’s.
However when the economy does recover we are likely to see oil and gasoline prices also rebound as demand goes always goes up in a growing economy (and we won’t see CAFE numbers go up enough to balance that). And while people do usually have short memories, I think this time folks will remember, or at least I hope so.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Thanks Rooster #70,
I think Lyle could write en encyclopedia with all the educated comments he got.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 3:05 am
Jeff M. (#72) Says:
Just say YES to part of the Pickens Plan… to build up significantly wind power, as well as upgrading our electrical infrastructure (ie. transmission lines), but NO to CNG for wide spread transportation. As another poster said, we shouldn’t be replacing natural gas fired electric power plants with wind power… the wind power that comes online, instead we should be shutting down the dirtiest and least efficient (the older) coal fired plants instead, replacing them with wind or natural gas in the interm
______________________________
NO NO NO Jeff,
You have it completely wrong. You could not be more wrong. As I have stated Wind Power is very overated! It is unrealiable and it far more costly than first advertised. Because the turbines are on top of towers and exposed to elements, the wear and tear on the blades are far greater than at first thought. The Danes are starting to discover this with their Wind Turbines. We need Nuclear for generation of electricity. We can use Natural Gas for transportation. We can also gassify coal via the Fischer Tropsch process for liquid fuel for about the equivalent of $3.00/gal. Under NO circumstances should we use nat gas for electricity. As I have stated this should be criminal! The only solution is Nuclear Energy. We must educate the public on nuclear energy and tell the anti-nuke nuts to go take a hike. Nuclear Energy is the cleanest, cheapest, and safest way to generate electricity. Without Nuclear Power we might just as well shut down the country.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 5:26 am
#72 Jeff M Says: “Just say YES to part of the Pickens Plan… to build up significantly wind power, as well as upgrading our electrical infrastructure (i.e. transmission lines), but NO to CNG for wide spread transportation.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes, I agree.
If anything, use the natural gas saved by wind power to replace home heating oil and other fuel oil used in industry. This would probably replace as much oil as the Pickens Plan, and without a whole new infrastructure of filling stations.
CNG for cars is a bad idea. See post #33 for details.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 5:49 am
#67 Mark C Says: “What if gas continues to drop in price (saw it in NJ today for $2.89) will this slow down the volt project or reduce the number of people willing to spend extra on an electric car?”
————————————————————————————-
Yes. If gas prices go way down, that would tend to kill the electric car, again.
In the movie “Who Killed The Electric Car?”, did they ever blame OPEC? In late 90s, OPEC increased production dramatically, which lowered gas prices to less than $1/gallon. And by the way, OPEC also lowered gas prices in the late 70’s to kill ethanol, and then again in the late 80s to kill small cars that were becoming popular. In every case, the low prices lasted just long enough to kill the competition, and then went back up. So how can we imagine they won’t do it again?
I believe the U.S. should set a minimum price on oil. If prices fall below that point, import tariffs should be raised to hold that minimum price.
This would not only keep OPEC from killing the Volt, but it will also promote new investment in alternative fuels in general.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 5:59 am
On “Who Killed The Electric Car?”, lets be fair here. It was the CA Legislators.
They made it a law to build these types of vehicles at a time when they made no sense economically (ie: they forced the industry to do this). Then they took away the mandate.
Blaming lobbyists or oil companies is ridiculous. The Legislators can and do whatever they deem fit and they pulled the plug on the electric car. If lobbying can buy them off then they are still to blame. If the legislators continued with the mandate, there would be many more electrics on the road today.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 6:20 am
#75 truthguy Says: “Under NO circumstances should we use nat gas for electricity.”
————————————————————————————-
I’m not sure how the power companies would work without some natural gas. Power companies today use the following strategy:
1) Baseline power production – Nuclear, Hydro, & Coal
2) Slow ramp up / down production – Coal
3) Fast ramp up / down production – Natural Gas
Electricity can’t be stored easily, so production has to change dynamically according to demand. With nuclear power, the output power is not very dynamic, so it doesn’t work well for peak load.
Natural gas is one of the most expensive fuels for electricity, but it is also the most dynamic, so power companies use natural gas mostly to cover short peaks during the day.
Solar actually works fairly well for peak load, since electric consumption is much higher during daylight hours. This is especially true in the summer, when sunny days mean more air conditioners. The economics of solar panels are not there yet, but there are ways of making solar electricity without solar panels, and this is cost effective now.
Wind is effective for baseline production, but since wind is unpredictable, it would have to be augmented with a slow ramp up/down fuel like coal.
In the end, I’m not sure how we’ll eliminate fossil fuels from electricity production, but wind, solar, and nuclear power could reduce coal and natural gas use significantly.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 6:36 am
#78 nuclearboy Says: “On “Who Killed The Electric Car?”, lets be fair here. It was the CA Legislators.”
————————————————————————————-
The legislators were fooled by the promise of fuel cells. That’s why they call them Fool Sells.
Also, remember that gas prices were around $1/gallon back then. If gas prices were $2.50 instead of $1, I think the legislators would have had a lot tougher time eliminating the mandate. So I still believe OPEC had a lot to do with it.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 6:57 am
I was ready to buy one of the Honda’s 2 years ago before I started making Biodiesel. CNG is not a perfect system. Besides that you cannot fill up at every station (you can if your using biodiesel). If you find a CNG station they must have the same pressure delivery as your tank, else it might not fit in the plug.
Biodiesel needs no conversion (need to have a discussion on this some day, oil companies are spreading the horrendous myth that you need to convert your car to run biodiesel. When in fact that you do NOT need to). CNG is not as dangerous as people portray. Fleet vehicles have been using it for years. The problem is the infrastructure. CNG needs to be built up all over the country. Whereas everyone in the US has access to a wall outlet at some point in their day.
What gets me are the executives at the car companies that dont “get it” with regard to driving on a battery. At some point during the week they are going to go play golf and drive a vehicle that has batteries and an electric motor. Maybe if they practiced a bit of mindfulness once and a while they may be more apt to “get it”.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Yes to nuclear power too!
I worked near one for 6 years on a ship in the Navy. If it was safe enough to float around the ocean in during wartime, then I trust it in my neighborhood. Its all about education. People are often lazy about learning the facts about things.
“Biodiesel needs conversion to run in a diesel engine” – false
“Nuclear power will explode and kill everyone”- false
“Fuel cells are the wave of the future”-False
“Obama is a Muslim” – False
See, false statements can spread through the nation unopposed due to general ignorance of the facts.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Any alternative fuel should pass 2 tests:
Higher demand means lower prices – resource not limited
Safe for the environment
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Regarding the safety of Nuclear Power. I heard McCain touting how safe it was since he was onboard a nuclear ship in the Navy yet later in his life he has had many bouts with cancer. How does he explain this.
Also…Around the radius of Nuclear Power plants Cancer rates are much higher than normal.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 7:42 am
I would love to see the next version be hydrogen. Nothing as simple as filling up your car with tap water!!!!!
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 8:28 am
LPG and CNG are not the same. There is some confusion here. LPG is Liquefied Petroleum Gas and is derived from crude. Natural gas is methane and while it can be a byproduct of oil drilling it also can come from gas fields and landfills.
CNG needs to be in the proper air / fuel ratio to explode. It is unlikely a ventilated garage with a CNG leak from your tank will explode. It is not like a natural gas mail continuously pumping in gas. There’s lots of CNG vehicles on the road. They have even been in accidents. Guess what — no boom!
CNG has range issues. The Honda Civic GX takes up a huge hunk of its trunk with the very safe CNG tank *but* it only provides the equivalent of 7 – 8 gallons of gas. However you cannot ‘use’ all the gas in the tank since at low fuel levels the pressure is too low to keep the engine turning. As a result the GX has very limited range. This may not be an issue in the Volt (other tan reduced trunk space) as its smallish tank is 8 gallons and it has the battery to provide the hunk of its range.
My suggestion to those who say no way to CNG is to get the facts on CNG. Your garage is not going to go boom with any more risk than your conventional fuel car.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 8:34 am
#85 TCook Says: “I would love to see the next version be hydrogen. Nothing as simple as filling up your car with tap water!!!!!”
————————————————————————————-
You’ve been scammed. The oil companies are pushing hydrogen and fuel cells because they know it will never work. That’s why they call them Fool Sells.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
http://planetforlife.com/h2/h2conclude.html
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 9:29 am
77.
Dave G Says:
October 13th, 2008 at 5:49 am
Yes. If gas prices go way down, that would tend to kill the electric car, again.
In the movie “Who Killed The Electric Car?”, did they ever blame OPEC? In late 90s, OPEC increased production dramatically, which lowered gas prices to less than $1/gallon. And by the way, OPEC also lowered gas prices in the late 70’s to kill ethanol, and then again in the late 80s to kill small cars that were becoming popular. In every case, the low prices lasted just long enough to kill the competition, and then went back up. So how can we imagine they won’t do it again?
I believe the U.S. should set a minimum price on oil. If prices fall below that point, import tariffs should be raised to hold that minimum price.
This would not only keep OPEC from killing the Volt, but it will also promote new investment in alternative fuels in general.
______________________________________________________
Dave G:
I agree whole heartedly with you on this point, but I will add that the floor must also include refined petroleum products (gasoline). If the floor is only applied to imported oil, then oil companies would move to import refined petroleum products to avoid the tax and thereby increase profit margins, assuming a world market price for petroleum below the floor at some point due to reduced demand.
I also think PHEV’s will have a huge impact on oil demand as they penetrate the market, which will also serve to suppress oil prices. At the very least, they will serve to increase OPEC’s ability to manipulate oil supply, as the net effect of reduced demand will be to give OPEC more excess capacity. I believe the lack of a floor will spell the doom for alternative fuels like cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel and algae. A floor would help these alternative products get established and recover their capital expenses – and that’s the key to getting them into the market, so that we have a real market in “refined energy products suitable for automobiles”.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 10:18 am
The primary job is to get the Volt out onto to market place for us to start using. After a couple of years use, GM can and should explore alternative fuel sources. The alternative plan should be well thought out and coordinated with government and fuel suppliers. You can’t develop alternative fuel sources without really planning the strateqy.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 11:01 am
#88 Rooster Says: “If the floor is only applied to imported oil, then oil companies would move to import refined petroleum products to avoid the tax and thereby increase profit margins,
…
I believe the lack of a floor will spell the doom for alternative fuels like cellulosic ethanol, bio diesel and algae. A floor would help these alternative products get established and recover their capital expenses – and that’s the key to getting them into the market, so that we have a real market in “refined energy products suitable for automobiles”.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes, I agree. All good points.
The tariff would have to encompass all (or most) liquid petroleum products.
Yes, setting a floor would have a huge positive impact on bio-fuels and plug-ins. Also, in the near term, if people know for sure gas prices will never go back down to what they were 8 years ago, that would discourage the purchase of huge gas guzzling cars.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I stopped by my Honda dealer to get details on the Civic CNG for a talk I gave at the Texas Renewable Energy Roundup (9-28-08) in Fredericksburg, TX. (about the way Hybrids are holding-up mechanically and electrically).
The Honda sales rep told me that Honda mainly sells the Civic CNG to fleet operators. This in part was due to the fixed daily driving needs of fleet vehicles. He mentioned that the CNG carbon-fiber tank holds 3,600 psi and gets very hot if filled at a station, (as opposed to the 5 hour overnight top off or an 8 hour complete fill). In Texas Summers, quick filling at a station may add significantly to heat load on the AC inside the vehicle,
But in attempting to calculate how much electricity that it would take to compress the 1 and a half PSI Natural Gas available at home into the 3,600 psi of the tank, an Electrical Engineer friend of mine estimated that it may take one to one and a half kilowatts to fill it if the garage were at the typical 110 degrees on a typical Texas Summer evening. Typical Texas Summer evenings tend to happen 6 months of the year.
Also, the 5 to 7 thousand dollar compressor system which hangs onto your garage wall to fill it has a 3 year warranty, and is the cost of ownership which is essentially rebated back to the home owner via the Gas Company here.
(But it is an expensive piece of equipment were it to break down).
As a range extender for the Volt, well, the combined complexities and issues are inviting Murphy’s Law a little too much, it seems to me.
As far as Wind Turbine blade stress, research is going on currently regarding carbon fiber blades. Carbon fiber can be generally 3 times stronger than steel, and, since the weight of the mass is far less, Wind torque may likely be the only factor in their stresspoints at the hubs. Research centers are being built in or near Corpus Christi I believe.
The only constant in the Universe is Change. Economics usually changes things for the better. When something turns out to have a flawed design, the option is not to take it all down, it is to make improvements, to use your brain, to enjoy an aggressive attack on the problem, which we all need to do.
Even if you believe we may be “well past the tipping point” for climate change, our responsibility would then be to work as hard as possible to remain in a position to stay in control to not go past the “adaptation point”.
The dinosaurs had no option when the meteor suddenly struck.
But unless we use our brains, our open mindedness, and cut the the politics, we are no better off than yeast placed in a bottle of wine in order to make it champagne. Yeast organisms merrily producing bubbles of carbon dioxide to their ultimate poisoning and their ultimate deaths.
We have no choice but to succeed.
Dan Petit Austin, TX.
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Let’s put it all together.
1) No nuclear power, PERIOD. Using nuclear power should be a capital crime, punishable by death.
2) No burning ANYTHING – no CNG, no E85, no hydrogen, no gasoline, no diesel. If heat is needed, use electricity.
3) One child per family, enforceable by forced abortion – NO exceptions. There are too many people demanding energy. Further decreases in population would also be caused by normal accidents and violent crime.
4) Only wind or solar power production should be allowed – any production of energy that produces carbon dioxide should be illegal.
5) Forced relocation to cities should be allowed. Instead of inefficient surburban sprawl, cities can easily be serviced by electrically powered mass transit.
The need for private ownership of motor vehicles would end. (You could still own a car as a museum piece, after the destruction of the drive train has been certified by the government). By using the above steps, we would be well on our way to a bright, enviromentally-sustainable future.
There are always those who care more about themselves than the enviroment. The goverment would have re-education centers where the mental problems of these people could be addressed, so they could be cured of their self-centered view of the world. After all, not caring about the enviroment is ultimately suicidal – and suicidal people need help.
There’s only one man I would trust with ther fate of our enviroment and our country – Obama. No oil, no blood for oil, no nukes, and no C02 – let’s get back to nature again and use renewable solar, wind, and tidal power. Our lives depend on it.
President Obama in 2009 ! Obama ! Obama ! Obama ! Obama ! Obama !
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Well, I made it to #6, and just had to post my thoughts..
I agree, we need to get off of fossil fuels, and Natural Gas IMO not an option. Why? I called my utility company, and got the skinny on my current bill. Our Natural gas bill has gone up 80%……. I don’t want to spend an arm and a leg, and now my 1st and 2nd born child to fuel my car, come on guys, For those who live down south where you don’t use Natural Gas, consider yourself lucky!
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
NG is a polluting fossil fuel that just rised to $1.70/therm in Portland. Compressed NG has to also be, well, compressed. There are many docks that have “NO CNG” plates to avoid terrorist targets since the US still insists on importing the gas (I assume from Canada, but I’m not exactly sure where it is imported from, but it is shipped down the rivers of the NW).
Why I would be okay if it happened: It is better than oil, especially oil imported from countries that cause political unrest like Venezuela and the middle east.
Why I don’t want it to suceed: It still conttributes to global warming and I don’t have enough trust in the car companies to use this as a temporary alternative while the car is being electrified. Plus, biofuels are more net zero, home grown and will not intefer with home heating costs (and no, the cost of food is going up because of shipping cost, not biofuels!!!).
(Quote)
October 13th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
CNG is good but no one tunes a motor to it. It needs 11:1 or more compression. Better still would be 14:1
(Quote)
October 15th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Vector 256: #93
Your five Step Program is excellent! But there are a few Steps you’ve left out:
6) Any who resist relocation to cities go to labor camps in cold, arid areas.
7) ANY production of CO2 must be outlawed. This would first require making soda, beer and wine illegal. And to eliminate the exhalation of human CO2, absorbent masks must be worn in public at all times.*
8 It will be allowable to purchase a second child at a rate tied to a multiple of aggregate commodity food costs and a derivative of CO2 credit costs.
* Masks to be manufactured by Shortbreth LLC. a division of Algor Enterprises.
(Quote)