By Bertel Schmitt
While Chrysler has a few plug-in vehicle experiments ongoing, it is not known to be strong in the electrified sector, and now its CEO has come out in favor of CNG as an effective end for America’s reliance on foreign oil.
Fiat and Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said during the weekend before last at an industry convention in China that it is “most shocking” that the United States auto industry is not throwing its might behind natural gas, which has been found in abundance in its home country.
“A rapid adoption of CNG as a fuel source for automotive applications would almost instantly kill the reliance on foreign oil, and it would bring about a substantial reduction in emissions,” said Marchionne. “Those are opportunities that need to be grabbed and they need to be industrialized. Especially with large vehicles like pickups and large SUVs, we could probably accommodate the installation of CNG tanks within the next 24 to 36 months.”
As we saw last week also, Chrysler’s Ram brand has just launched a bi-fuel, CNG-capable light-duty production truck.
But though Marchionne’s newsworthy views were offered on the sidelines of the convention in Shanghai, his talk about the paradigm-shifting potential of CNG was not reported. Instead reporters chased down answers to politicized questions as to whether Jeep production would be outsourced to China.
Concerns by reporters focused on whether production priorities would cost jobs in the U.S., or Italy. Both of which Marchionne answered for the umpteenth time with a “no.”
Poor reporting by unscrupulous bloggers has been partially blamed for the rumor that Jeep production would be outsourced from Toledo, Ohio, to China. Actually an original story on Oct. 22 by Bloomberg had the facts straight, but others overstated the purported sell-out to the Chinese story to the point that even Mitt Romney got it wrong.
This in turn was a setback for Romney as he used the incorrect info in an Ohio ad to strike at Obama for selling Chrysler to the Italians who planned to move Jeep production to China. That miscue led to him being quickly censured in the media, including by Bill Clinton who has been quoted as saying Romney’s assertion is “the biggest load of bull in the world.”
But while reporters were chasing the seeds of that false Jeep-to-China report with Marchionne in Shanghai, they missed a true story on his considered views on how to cure U.S. dependence on foreign oil and to curb global warming.
And while he is at it, Marchionne says he doesn’t think ethanol has much future in the U.S. He said alcohol works as a fuel for Brazil where, “from a global standpoint, producing ethanol probably is the most efficient use of their sugarcane.” It was tried in Africa, and it failed. And, said Marchionne, he is “making no comments on the U.S. side of ethanol production which relies on grains.” We take it, Sergio doesn’t think it’s a good idea.
Asked to explain the cause for why alternative fuels aren’t adopted in wholesale fashion the world over, Marchionne started to say “the dominance of oil …” Then he checked himself, took a big breath, and said “I am not pointing fingers on big oil being responsible for anything.”
Instead, he continued on more benignly, saying the existence of oil production as a big business with established refinery capacity in most developed countries is a force to be reckoned with.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 6th, 2012 at 5:55 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+17
Nov 6th, 2012 (6:42 am)A switch to CNG for semi-trucks and the like would take many years, so we should start on it now. In addition to getting America off of foreign oil, which is crippling economically and which also places our energy security at risk, CNG is clean.
It is quite interesting that Marchionne felt he had to check himself; evidently the truth is dangerous to utter.
Thank you for covering this story, Jeff. I had missed this in the white noise of the election.
+12
Nov 6th, 2012 (6:49 am)If we are to use CNG as a fuel source, then we must use it in a fuel cell, not in a ICE! Burning fuel which causes global warming is the first reason we need to electrify our transportation. A solid fuel cell (20KW or more) that can convert CNG into electricity, water, and carbon dioxide will generate no nitrogen contaminants, no noise, very little heat, and very few moving parts (valves, pumps and fans), and the vehicle will need very little lubricants. Maintenance will be very easy, clean, and simple for the DIY.
So if GM developed a CNG fuel cell, it can replace the ICE range extender in the Voltec system. Then every vehicle in GM’s lineup (except the BEVs like the Spark) can be converted to the new Voltec system, use any type of room-temperature gaseous fuel, convert it to electricity, store some in the battery, and power the electrical motors. The 2009 Fuel Cell Equinox showed the way. Go GM, get rid of the ICE!
Raymond
+2
Nov 6th, 2012 (7:37 am)If we had something like a PHNGEV Or Plug-In-Hybrid Natural Gas Vehicle Half Electric and Half Natural Gas I’m sure that would be way better than a traditional PHEV when it still comes to burning traditional gas or ethanol or even diesel though it’s more fuel efficient then gas but the problem is your still going to need oil when it comes to diesel and that’s not a good thing plus you still emit co2.
So do you think a PHNEV would be a great idea for the future when it comes to cars and trucks let me know what you guys think of that?
Bye
+4
Nov 6th, 2012 (7:44 am)We already burn natural gas to power vehicles. They’re electric vehicles powered by Nat Gas electric generators which have come online this year to push NG past coal as the #1 electricity source in the country.
Raymond’s right – CNG Fuel Cells would be more efficient in a genset than burning it. If Bloom could do something in that area for the auto industry like they did for power generation in the larger scale industrial generators, we would have something there. Heck – even Gasoline fuel cells would be better than burning it in current gensets.
Nov 6th, 2012 (7:49 am)The issue is that globally gas is not good alternative to the oil. Particularly LDV’s would be of interest jus for US market. In Europe NG price is at least five fold higher than US and heavily dependent on Putin mood. I do not understand why US forgotten DME option. DME could be global compromise.
+8
Nov 6th, 2012 (7:57 am)Great article as always. Keep in mind natural gas won’t be cheap as rigs have been shutting down this past year because they need higher prices to support the energy intensive drilling practices now in use…. Also, gas wells peak very fast. lack of fueling station infrastructure is another issue. Remember, everyone already has an electric outlet (for the most part)…
MrEnergyCzar
+7
Nov 6th, 2012 (8:14 am)Fleet use is already on the way. Given the lack of infrastructure I don’t see NG for personal vehicles any time soon. There are only 7 public NG stations near me and thousands of gasoline/diesel/E85.
We only have to displace 20% of imports to lock out OPEC. A reverse embargo?
Nobody knows for sure how much NG is accessible in the US. IMHO it’s better to produce electricity and associated infrastructure than put all the eggs in an NG basket.
Solar research has hit ’1/3 sun’ or 33% efficiency.
+3
Nov 6th, 2012 (8:28 am)Even though I agree with using energy sources in fuel cells as others here have stated, I think the short term may see CNG used in an ICE for financial reasons. The technology already exists in CNG generators (electric cars, emergency generators, etc.). But I do see a possible transition from gasoline ICE to CNG ICE to perhaps fuel cells. Boy did GM hit the nail on the head with the Voltec drive train which is ideally suited for this transition. Hmmm, wonder if they were just flying below the radar? It all depends on timing as to when any transition would be practical.
Nov 6th, 2012 (8:34 am)Man I will be glad when today is over. Cant even read a CNG story at GM-Volt.com without a anti-Romney commercial in the middle of it. This story could have easily stood on its own and the business about whether or not Chrysler moves some, all or no Jeep production to China and Romney’s comments about it seem very disconnected from Chrysler’s CNG plans.
+18
Nov 6th, 2012 (8:35 am)First at OT:
Don’t forget to vote today.
Second; regarding natural gas.
Why not just use it to make electricity instead of using trucks to ship it around to everyone so they can somehow put it in their cars? I’d rather plug in, than go to some place to change my natural gas tanks.
+4
Nov 6th, 2012 (8:45 am)When GM announced they were going to offer a consumer ready CNG truck I thought, “All right! My next truck!” Then I saw the price of the option. WUMP, Wump, wump, wha. They priced that option into obsoletion right out of the starting blocks. Others have made the point that we are better off using this natural gas to produce electricity and then recharge our cars with it. That is a true fact for cars like the Volt and such but for larger vehicles and vehicles that need to travel further there is not currently a quick charge infrastructure that would support the electrical needs and won’t be for some time. Whereas a CNG infrastructure at truck stops along the freeways could be in place in relatively quick order and the vehicles so equipped could switch back to gasoline or diesel if CNG wasn’t available. An electric vehicle (except for EREV cars like Volt, Fisker) cannot. This would work in North America as we have an over supply of natural gas right now. Right now of course is a relative term but remember the average vehicle is in use only about 7 years or so. Natural gas isn’t nor does it need to be the answer forever.
Nov 6th, 2012 (8:51 am)JamesMcQuaid,
JamesMcQuaid,
T. Boone Pickens has proposed this way back in 2008 and it has gained in acceptance in recent years..Go to: http://www.pickensplan.com/
A bill to get us onto CNG has been around for years also but the House has been stimied by Republican refusal to pass any productive legislation under Obama’s administration. T. Boone being Republican doesn’t mention that the bill was overwealmngly supported by Democrates. I even tried to get my republican representatives to support its passage but ended up with no response from them here in Texas.
The trucking industry is moving forward with CNG though.
http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=78493
is a good example of what is going on ight now and for some time.
Now what is needed is legislation to move its use forward. Picken’s has been pushing H.R.1835 – Natural Gas Act of 2009.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Pickens-expects-approval-of-key-natural-gas-1599644.php
but it was defeated in Congress.
http://www.humanevents.com/category/energy-environment/
Lets hope that the newly elected Congress can get this passed.
+10
Nov 6th, 2012 (9:00 am)“A rapid adoption of CNG as a fuel source for automotive applications would almost instantly kill the reliance on foreign oil, and it would bring about a substantial reduction in emissions,” said Marchionne.
So would making Voltec trucks and suvs like VIA Motors does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5STy6HRZEQ&feature=player_embedded
NPNS!
Volt#671
+11
Nov 6th, 2012 (9:13 am)IntoTheFuture,
Check your facts. How could a Republican congress stymie this when Democrats had both the House and the Senate the first two years of Obama’s administration? It was 2 years ago with the 2010 election that Republicans took control of the House. The date of your bill was April 2009. At that time Obama was President and had a Democrat controlled House with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and Democrat Senator Harry Reid as the Senate Majority Leader.
Now if you are a champion of this bill you can certainly point to particular individual politicians, both Democrat and Republican and criticize them for not supporting this bill but if you want to lay blame on a particular party then it has to be the party that had control and that would be the Democrats.
+1
Nov 6th, 2012 (9:20 am)Yes,
The gas companies have capped a very high percentage of the wells in order to drive up prices. Also they have large scale plans to build huge LNG shipping ports to export LNG to foreign countries. So betting on the long term case for cheap NG is probably not that good of a bet. Electric companies have been bitten by this before.
+10
Nov 6th, 2012 (9:22 am)Natural gas is considered by some people to be part of the solution to climate change. This is because energy from natural gas results in half as much CO2 emissions as energy from coal. The problem with natural gas is methane leakage.
Methane is the main component of natural gas. Methane has 25 times more warming effect as carbon dioxide over a 100 year time period. (Methane is actually 75 times more heat trapping as CO2 but methane breaks down over time.) If the natural gas leakage rate is between 2% and 3% natural gas has the same warming effect as coal. Some experts believe the leakage rate is 4% or higher but nobody knows for sure because the natural gas industry is suing the EPA to keep leakage rate data from being made public. If the natural gas leakage rate were zero, natural gas would still result in 10 to 50 times more greenhouse gas emissions from wind and solar energy.
Nov 6th, 2012 (9:22 am)Not sure I agree with that CCNG (combined cycle…gas turbine with steam cycle bottoming) plants are 60% efficient.
+5
Nov 6th, 2012 (9:31 am)agreed!
That is the more efficient approach…especially with combined cycle plants…..it’s 60% vs 35% on cycle efficiency
+7
Nov 6th, 2012 (9:34 am)Since gas drillers continue to poison our water supply through fracking, I do not support natural gas in cars. I can’t believe that in order to reduce global warming and get clean air, we have to poison our water supply instead. It would also be too costly to build out an infrastructure for it just as it would with hydrogen. We already have the electric grid and can plug in electric cars. The paradigm shift to electric cars has already started. Chrysler should either get on board or get left behind instead of making comments about how CNG is the greatest thing since sliced bread since they don’t have the technology to compete in the electric car arena.
+1
Nov 6th, 2012 (9:37 am)Most of what I’ve read on Bloomboxes is that they can convert natural gas to electricity at 80% efficiency. (however wiki has it at 52% and Bloombox will only state >50%. Also from Wiki Another competitor that already has product in-market in Europe and Australia is Ceramic Fuel Cells,[48] with an efficiency of 60% for the power-only units; these fuel cells are based on proven technology spun off from Australia’s CSIRO.)
Bloom also recycles the steam heat.
One technical challenge with this type of fuel cell is that they operate at very high temperatures. That allows for greater efficiency in energy conversion but also requires engineers to deal with high heat. Bloom has designed the system to recycle the heat generated from the energy conversion in the process of mixing incoming natural gas with steam, which is needed with this type of fuel cell. So instead of using the heat to make hot water, for example, the heat is fed back into make electricity, according to the company.
Does the 60% for the power plants also take into consideration line losses to deliver power to homes?
EDIT: Just ran across this
How clean is it? Bloom Energy says that its fuel cells convert about 50 percent of the energy in incoming fuel into usable power, which is the equivalent of a 40 percent to 100 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions compared to centralized power generation. Fuel cells, which operate without combustion, greatly reduce or eliminate smog-producing and other air pollutants as well. But IDC Energy Insights analyst Sam Jaffe points out natural gas power plants can operate near 60 percent efficiency, making the overall efficiency about the same as a Bloom box even after losses of energy in transmission lines are figured in.
Nov 6th, 2012 (9:42 am)Interesting thing I just ran across. (Don’t think it’s going to happen, but still interesting)
Japan
Japan has also seen trials of hydrogen fuel cells for CHP, with the hydrogen coming from reformed natural gas. The cells are leased for 1 million yen (US$9,500) for a 10-year period from Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Toyota, Honda and Toshiba are all also working on fuel cells, usually as part of efforts to develop fuel cell vehicles.
The Japanese Government is spending 2.4 billion yen (US$310 million) per year on fuel cell development and plans for 10 million homes (25% of Japanese households) to be powered by fuel cells by 2020.
+2
Nov 6th, 2012 (9:49 am)Any hydrocarbon fuel in a fuel cell has a tendency to leave soot in the cell, gradually inactivating the active surface, and generally gumming things up. NG has less of a propensity for this due to the single carbon atom in it’s molecule, but “coking” is still a concern; especially in designs with elevated temperatures (typical for those intended to break down hydrocarbons). More complex HC fuels require a separate onboard “reformer” to mitigate this problem somewhat, which adds to the overall expense of the system.
In principle, I agree that NG is best used in an EREV which can also be recharged at home. What may be forgotten though is that a fuel cell cannot contribute mechanical power at higher speed and load as an internal combustion engine would. Use of a Fuel Cell in an EREV would require a stronger serial mode than is possible today; and this awaits the development of more robust batteries.
NOTE: While it is possible to refuel from natural gas at home, the device required is more expensive than a 220V charger; and is less efficient since electricity must also be used to re-compress the gas into the car. A single system for maintaining pressure at a station would be inherently more efficient than a lot of single-point motor driven compressors.
America and Canada represent a huge contiguous market for which the development of NG vehicle power is practical (just as Ethanol fuel is practical for Brazil, which can produce it more efficiently). I’m not worried about regional fuel type, especially when the fuel is local to the region.
Nov 6th, 2012 (9:56 am)CNG and LNG have been moving forward for semi-trucks for a couple of years – to the point where stations are numbered in 3-figures, 4 and 5 in a couple of years. And there are several strong players in that market.
The only thing lacking has been serious government support to match what was done with the conversion to diesel generations back.
People don’t often see what is directly in front of them. I have kin who live the RV life since retirement and they didn’t think there was a rollout at the trucks stops they visit – till I emailed an article naming stations and franchises. After seriously peering around, they realized the infrastructure is already on the way.
JamesMcQuaid,
+4
Nov 6th, 2012 (9:59 am)Early attempts at fracking were done at depths which turned out to be too shallow for protection of the water table. There is no reliable evidence that drillers “continue” to poison ground water supplies. The larger issue is the inherent weakness of the technique verses conventional natural gas wells; the production peaks quickly and trails off faster, as the reservoirs created have lower internal volume. While there is a lot of gas down there, it will take a lot more drilling to bring up than most people appreciate. While water contamination isn’t as likely these days, more wells do mean greater opportunity for an exception, so I’ll go with you at least this far.
Are the risks of current fracking technology worth the rewards? Barring a major accident in the near future which would cast doubts on current practice, I am inclined to think so. Don’t forget that the alternative, petroleum, has had more than it’s share of ecological accidents.
I like to speculate that the next frontier for NG will be somehow ‘mining’ methane hydrates on the continental shelf. Since hydrates can vent methane to the atmosphere naturally, collecting it could reduce this outgassing before it has a chance to happen. Harnessing a valuable resource could actually reduce heat-trapping emissions.
+6
Nov 6th, 2012 (10:14 am)I guess I am going to take the more cynical view on the comments by Chrysler.
In simple reality, Chrysler is WAY behind in any type of electric vehicle development, so lets talk about something that sounds good but is not available.
CNG vehicles have no infrastructure in place, but it wouldn’t they be a great alternative?
And then there are fool cells. We will talk about those, because they are always about 5-10 years off from having a small, high power, and inexpensive version available.
I am surprised they didn’t announce an investment in EESTOR!!!
Chrysler can say they are “working towards” being green and helping the country achieve energy independence. It gives them good sound bites, while still just selling big gas hog trucks. And the (F)ix (I)t (A)gain (T)ony small commuter cars.
I just don’t see Chrysler/Fiat in all that good of a position right now.
JMHO
C-5277 – The Best Car I Have Ever Owned!
+4
Nov 6th, 2012 (10:44 am)There are some advantages of NG for EREV which haven’t been mentioned:
1) The “stale gas” issue goes away
2) A relatively small amount of gas could provide heat in cold climates much more efficiently than could electricity. This would also be useful for battery conditioning.
+5
Nov 6th, 2012 (10:51 am)ronr64,
ronr64,
Appearently, you didn’t bother to check the links I provided. Look at the dates when the bill was in and out of commitee. Also, do a google search; you wil find reference to additional bills since H.R. 1836 and their Senate versions which were passed. So tell me: Who voted the bills down. Not Democrates.
You may not like what I am saying but look at the facts. I am hopeful that who ever is elected that the two parties together with Independants can get together and do what’s good for the country. There is no other alternate fuel other than CNG that will work for our transporation fleets which use about 50% of our petroleum consumption. Don’t thnk that the oil companies didn’t have a pronounced influence on passage of this bill. I support T. Boone Pickens on his plan to get us off of petroleum as fuel for transportation and as a member of Pickens Army, saw firsthand how the oil baron elected officials of Texas ignored the legislation. Look at the record of how Republican Congressmen and Senators voted on the handful of natural gas bills. Despite all the resistance the executive branch and the industry are working together to move this forward.
Nov 6th, 2012 (11:13 am)Jackson,
Why to invest into heavy infrastructure and limited market vehicle instead exporting precious raw product or doing some other valuable things? Moreover my statement was limited to LDV’s. Heavy truck propulsion has lesser options – just NG and and may be DME. Besides CNG compact car range would be limited as well like pure BEV due to big fuel volume therefore CNG range extender would be nonsense.
Ethanol is realy local fuel for Brasil and has very limited market outside. Ethanol and gasoline are much more cpmpatible than CNG and gasoline.
+1
Nov 6th, 2012 (11:28 am)Question:
Is CNG cleaner than gasoline when used in an ICE vehicle? If not, why does California give the CNG cars a clean air sticker to drive in the HOV lanes?
I agree that EV is better, but couldn’t some new ICE cars and trucks use CNG to get us off imported oil faster? One other option are the CNG conversions that allow both CNG or gasoline to allow travel across the US. Adds flexibility during the build up of CNG stations.
Talk about consumer choice. The service stations in OKC offer biofuels, 10% Ethanol gasoline, 100% pure gasoline and CNG. There are two public charge stations at Whole Foods. Tesla plans a Supercharger in OKC within two years. One way bikes are available downtown to rent. Segway rentals exist too. Amtrak trains, city buses, trolleys, horse drawn carriages, water craft, pedicabs and a future light rail round out the other options.
-12
Nov 6th, 2012 (11:35 am)(click to show comment)
+1
Nov 6th, 2012 (11:47 am)yes Jackson,
There are some climate scientists that think we may end up seeing these methane hydrates released as we warm thereby causing a catastrophic increase in global warming!
Could we be on our way the the 2nd Permean extinction??
+6
Nov 6th, 2012 (11:56 am)Why can’t we bottle up all the HOT AIR our candidates for public office expel? With this yet untapped natural resource we could go far because, unlike CNG, it seems to be a renewable resource, and God knows we have plenty of it!
RECHARGE! ,
James
+3
Nov 6th, 2012 (12:12 pm)#10
Second the motion. +1
There’s going to be a nationwide CNG refuelling infrastructure just about the same time is there is an effective nationwide BEV charging station infrastructure. AKA not in my lifetime.
EREV rules! Go Volt! Go GM!
+1
Nov 6th, 2012 (12:12 pm)IntoTheFuture,
Pickens *is* an oil barron. His holdings are mostly in NG.
+2
Nov 6th, 2012 (12:38 pm)“Fiat and Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said during the weekend before last at an industry convention in China that it is “most shocking” that the United States auto industry is not throwing its might behind natural gas, which has been found in abundance in its home country.
“A rapid adoption of CNG as a fuel source for automotive applications would almost instantly kill the reliance on foreign oil”
I can’t believe how ignorant, or what a liar Sergio is. He should know full well that fracked gas will not make us independent and that it takes decades to switch a transportation fuel in significant proportions.
Is he really that obtuse? Regardless, the world will find out that the fracked gas solution will not be able to scale as much as they thought and that the prices will not be as low as they hoped. The low price was due to over drilling and the current price cannot support such a low EROEI resource. The drilling rate has already gone down.
In a few years, after the hype settles down, the real costs surface and the fast depletion rate of these wells become common knowledge, there will be many people backtracking as to why NG will not solve the world energy crisis. Not by a long shot.
+2
Nov 6th, 2012 (1:27 pm)Jackson,
Tell that to all the people who have gotten cancer and have died from drinking well water with fracking fluid and to the people who can light their well water on fire and can’t drink it. Fracking is inheritantly unsafe and should be banned completely.
http://www.dangersoffracking.com/
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/fracking/
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/
Nov 6th, 2012 (1:35 pm)IntoTheFuture,
You can spin this any way you like. Obama was elected Nov 4th, 2008 and sworn in on Jan 20, 2009. He then had 2 years with a Democrat House and Senate. After the 2010 elections the Republicans took control of the House while the Democrats retained control of the Senate and obviously the Presidency. This means out of the last 4 years/2 election periods, the Democrats have controlled 5 out of 6 possible branches of our legislative government. So if you want to lay blame for the party that had 1/6 control over the last 4 years I certainly cant stop you but don’t expect me to agree with you either.
Lets say one party has 60 Senators and the other 40. If a resolution fails 45 yes, to 55 no, because the party with 60 has 25 vote no and the party with 40 has 30 vote no – which is to blame? You would argue that the minority party with only 40 votes was to blame because they were the larger quantity of “No” votes. But that is BS. That is conveniently attaching a party label to one group of individuals and collectively blaming them all (the party) for the no votes of some while not doing so for the other party that in reality had enough votes that if they had acted collectively could have passed it entirely by themselves. You want it both ways. Even if the minority party had all voted no the concept still stands. If you want to assign blame/credit via party affiliation then it has to go for both sides. The party in charge always has to get the most credit/blame for what happens. Either because their legislation wasn’t even attractive enough to their own members to pass or because they didn’t compromise enough with the minority party to get enough of their votes. Now notice I said most because there is almost always enough blame/credit to go around but the lion’s share has to go to the majority.
+5
Nov 6th, 2012 (2:00 pm)I work for a natural gas company. We are so over regulated that we can’t even ship NG overseas (we’ve been trying for years) where it’s running in some countries as high as $13.00 per mbtu and there is a big need for it. Auto makers are also facing major hurdles with EPA regulations when developing CNG autos. Between being over regulated on exports and over regulated on development we now have an extreme surplus of NG in this country. Several NG companies have folded or been sold to larger companies because they can’t make a profit. This is not good for this country and the businesses that hire people. The company I work for has cut 60% of its staff to try and survive. Estimates are that if things don’t turn around in 2013, we’re not going to be around either. While I’m an environmentalist and I know there is a need to regulate, what we have in this country today is killing business, not encouraging development of low to no polution autos and domestic energy.
Nov 6th, 2012 (2:15 pm)The EPA hurdles to make a CNG conversion kit adds $20k to the cost of the kit (which should be a couple hundred plus tanks.) I read somewhere that it’s on the order of $1M to certify a kit for one engine family for one model year. The next year, another $1M.
+1
Nov 6th, 2012 (2:31 pm)#35
I fear that you are correct. +1
+1
Nov 6th, 2012 (2:35 pm)Loboc,
I don’t doubt this. I remember the LP conversions in the 70′s. Most were great until the EPA stepped in and said they must be tested to meet air quality standards. From the article I remember reading and independent testing (not the feds) only a few didn’t show to be cleaner than gasoline, but most did, many by a long shot. Because those small companies couldn’t afford the testing for the EPA, they went bye bye.
+3
Nov 6th, 2012 (2:37 pm)#34
Yeah, your point is well taken. +1
I really see this whole “Pickens Plan” thing as a self serving attempt to get the Feds to help him make a few more millions.
The guy is a genius at working the bonanzas of corporate welfare. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall that he is working equally hard to get the public to subsidize the transmission infrastructure to help him market his wind power initiatives. Not to mention pipelines to allow him to market water proposed to be “mined” from ranch lands in Texas and sold to Dallas, if memory serves.
Taxpayers should cling tightly to their wallets when Boone comes in to view IMHO.
+7
Nov 6th, 2012 (2:42 pm)#30
I humbly apologize to bloggers for accidentally hitting +1 on this bit of paranoia/propaganda when I meant “-1″. I guess I’m just too in the habit of +1s. I call BS on this particular bit of BS. It really does scare me to see stuff like this.
+2
Nov 6th, 2012 (2:57 pm)The problem is infrastructure. It would take many years to get enough infrastructure in place where it becomes more practical to have a CNG vehicle. So for the average person that means refuelling stations all over the place. It’s actually much easier than gas because all you need is to be close to a pipeline. The stations can compress the gas onsite. However, saying we could get most vehicles converted in 3-5 years is only part of the equation.
+3
Nov 6th, 2012 (3:16 pm)Everything I read is that the gas companies over drilled and that is the reason for the low prices and the gas companies going out of business and capping wells.
+2
Nov 6th, 2012 (3:55 pm)Also, the hammer fracas of the infrared feedback loop is inversely proportional to the rate of psychotropic degradation. Failure to allow for this “doppelganger infra-doodle effect” can result in copious copras piling into virtual mountain ranges of bovine excrement.
Just sayin’.
+1
Nov 6th, 2012 (4:11 pm)CNG propulsion is an overall good idea.
When teaching L-1 advanced emissions content to one of the local CNG Conversion contractors here in Austin, several issues became apparent which need further attention by OEM’s as well as the petroleum industry.
Most people recall the other day when I really slammed the American Petroleum Institute for apparently having Romney be closed-off from green industrial development, which development is essentially paying off huge dividends in all ways with one or two extremely minor exceptions. Green industries being in their infancy still, are 99% being consistently fiscally-impressive with today’s tight banking standards.
Mr. Ryan used the term “green pork” during his appearance, which indicates that neither him nor Romney have any comprehension of what is working well for the far, far greater good of far, far more citizens. The citizens represented by API have plenty of job security, as we all VERY well know!!!
One of the true issues that the API *could* become aware about from my work is the need for a new classification and formulation of synthetic motor oil which is compatible with the use of CNG.
This is not going to be an easy task, since there are irregular components in natural gas that must be recognized where oil sludge buildup can occur. Particularly with the PCV system’s calibrations, the changeover (gasoline to CNG) sensitivities must be addressed, as well as the occasional need for WOT when passing, for instance, and a potential for below-idle engine speeds resulting in lag or stall. Moisture buildup must also be monitored as well. The Genisys scanner can cross reference graphed parameters to exclude all other factors with the Automated Systems tests it has on board, which commands all the OEM PCM’s to do these comprehensive “one button press” test reports.
API research interests ought to be only using the
Genisys for their research, as nothing else comes anywhere close to the quad-graph cross-reference power of it. (eg, 4 O2 sensors, 4 fuel trim PIDS, etc.).
So, there is respectable work for the interests of API in many regards, but not respectable would be the attempt to disenfranchise the world about the need for green industries of all kinds. (And, green jobs of all kinds.) Servicing the modern array of emissions systems thoroughly and properly is indeed a green industry job after all.
One possible influence to address the motor oil sludge situation would be to thoroughly heat up the engine oil as measured by an oil temp parameter subroutine, then change over to the CNG from gasoline more further into the heat up process.
The worst thing any uninformed (and/or not wanting to be informed) candidate can do is to throw the half washed baby out one direction, and toss the dirty bathwater to his opposite direction.
+1
Nov 6th, 2012 (4:12 pm)Jackson,
Amen…well said…+1
haroldC
Nov 6th, 2012 (4:14 pm)Gas prices look to be where they were at in 2003.
+5
Nov 6th, 2012 (4:47 pm)Electricity is a universal energy carrier.
You say the US has plenty of natural gas ?
Well, 317.6 trillion cubic feet of reserves at the start of 2011:
http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/
That sounds like plenty, right ?
Uh oh, the US consumed 24.285 trillion cubic feet in 2011:
http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/monthly/pdf/table_02.pdf
That’s only 13 years of NG left – BEFORE we try to run our fleet of vehicles on it.
Russia has 6 times the NG that the US does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_proven_reserves
Maybe they should convert their vehicles to run on NG.
The US has some NG, some coal, some fission power, some windpower, some solar power, some hydropower – whatever is out there, it can be used to make electricity.
If our vehicles all ran on electricity, then we wouldn’t have to convert them all when fusion power is finally cheap and abundant.
Of course, batteries aren’t quite up to the task of powering fully loaded 18-wheelers, yet. We’ll need some diesel for the next few decades… And some jet fuel.
Nov 6th, 2012 (4:59 pm)#46
You got that right! +1
Nov 6th, 2012 (5:05 pm)OT, but “Inside EVs” is carrying an interesting thread right now about A123/Johnson Controls asking the bankruptcy court to void their contract with Fisker. Oh, oh.
And I wonder what this may mean for the Spark EV?
Nov 6th, 2012 (7:01 pm)It seems that electric utility cos should convert their coal burning plants to NG driven… Govt cud provide some help for the conversion. Sell the coal to China and other BRIC countries… where pollution dont matter or they dont care. Using the NG thru electric generating plants or using the fuel cell is the best option rather than using NG in ICE cars.
Nov 6th, 2012 (7:23 pm)They already are.
Nov 6th, 2012 (7:54 pm)Failure to develop an proper hybrid technology results in these kind of statement from CEOs.
A CNG hybrid can be more efficient than a regular CNG engine also
+1
Nov 6th, 2012 (8:12 pm)#53
Pollution there DOES matter. Global warming is GLOBAL. It doesn’t respect borders or geography. Particulate pollution from coal burning in China crosses the ocean to California and other western states, if not the whole USA.
Some days in CA 25% of the particulate pollution, which is known to cause cancer, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and low birth weight with all of the future health impacts which flow from same, just to name a few of its health “end points”, can be traced back to China.
We ignore these issues at our peril.
And that’s not even counting all of the massive diesel pollution which would be generated by the ships, trains, and other vehicles shipping the stuff. Diesel pollution is just as deadly as coal pollution, if not more so.
+5
Nov 6th, 2012 (11:51 pm)Well GM lost another Volt sale for December! Obama will have to wait till 2016 to buy his Volt.
+1
Nov 7th, 2012 (8:14 am)Someone may have already said it but the main problem is that the EPA requires each engine to be certified for natural gas use. This is reportedly very expensive and no manufacturer is going to have engines certified for cars that have been out a long time. This EPA requirement is what prevents us from going to our neighborhood parts store and buying a natural gas adaptor kit (which I hoped to do). Natural gas is a good idea except for the government bureaucracy.
Nov 7th, 2012 (11:59 am)Loboc,
Loboc,
No kidding!
Nov 8th, 2012 (12:12 pm)“A rapid adoption of CNG as a fuel source for automotive applications would almost instantly kill the reliance on foreign oil, and it would bring about a substantial reduction in emissions,” said Marchionne. “Those are opportunities that need to be grabbed and they need to be industrialized. Especially with large vehicles like pickups and large SUVs, we could probably accommodate the installation of CNG tanks within the next 24 to 36 months.”
Well Mr. Marchionne a lot of people talk about it so maybe you will be the one to actually do it.
In the meantime, there are tens of thousands of EV’s on the roads that were not there a few years ago, from people who are currently doing more than just talking about their great ideas,