Natural Gas versus Propane Gas - BTUs!

jmercer

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
12,334
Folks, I cannot find any information comparing natural gas to propane in terms of btu efficiency. It's my understanding that there is a difference between the two, so that a device rated at one btu output will actually produce less depending on which fuel is used.

Can anyone help? I can't find anything useful about it on Google...
 
Folks, I cannot find any information comparing natural gas to propane in terms of btu efficiency. It's my understanding that there is a difference between the two, so that a device rated at one btu output will actually produce less depending on which fuel is used.

Can anyone help? I can't find anything useful about it on Google...

Well, I have a nifty lil program that has all sorts of neat-o info on it. It's called Engineering Power Tools.

One of the charts it has is Heat of Combustion. From that I see:
Methane has a gross heat of combustion of 23891 BTU/lb
Propane has a gross heat of combustion of 21653 BTU/lb. Bear in midn that I'm a EE, not a ME, so this might not be the info you want, but it looks right...
 
That helps quite a bit, Kmortis - thanks! :)

So it appears that natural gas (methane) is more efficient than propane?
 
Um, well, it has a higher heat of combustion, so per pound, you get more heat. So, yeah...it's more efficent.

Can I ask why this came up?
 
A comparison of methane to propane is appropriate as a gauge for the heat of combustion of natural gas compared to that of propane; natural gas is generally around 95% methane, according to this.

It's worth mentioning that methane, ethane, propane, butane, and pentane are all essentially similar- they are a chain of carbon atoms linked one to the next by single bonds, with the outer bonds all linked to single hydrogen atoms. These are all called "alkanes." Their generic structural formula is CnH(2n+2), where n is the number of carbon atoms. Methane CH4; ethane is C2H6, propane C3H8; butane C4H10; and pentane C5H12. Clearly, the ratio of hydrogen to carbon decreases as the inverse of the complexity of the molecules. As these molecules get heavier and heavier, they eventually stop being gasses at room temperature; heptane and octane are liquids. In fact, octane (actually, isomers of octane) is gasoline.

The "iso-" forms indicate that rather than being in a straight line, at least one carbon atom is connected "off to the side." These are called "isomers," thus the "iso-" form. Obviously, this is impossible for methane and ethane, and there is only one topologically distinguishable way to do it with propane; butane and pentane have two distinguishable forms, one with the "bend" at the end, and the other with it in the middle. Hexane (C6H14) has three distinguishable iso- forms. You will all be familiar with the equivalent percentage of isooctane as the "octane number" of gasoline; in fact, the precise isomer of octane used is 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane; that is, pentane with two methyl radicals (CH3s, that is) tacked onto the second, second, and fourth carbon atoms in the chain. Isooctane is mixed with neo-heptane (or n-heptane), which is the "straight-chain" version of heptane, and the percentage of isooctane that duplicates the anti-knock qualities of gasoline is assigned as the "octane number" of the gasoline. Because the chain is not straight, isooctane burns more slowly than n-heptane, and therefore it is less likely to explode or "knock" inside the cylinder of an internal combustion piston engine during the compression stroke. This explosion is bad, because it does not distribute the pressure well across the piston's stroke, or may even occur before the piston has reached the top of the stroke, thus robbing the engine of power or even counteracting it, and because it can damage the engine.

It will be obvious that petroleum is made up of very high concentrations of alkanes, and this is why we always find natural gas associated with petroleum; and extracting the "octane" fractions is the operation undertaken to manufacture gasoline. Kerosene (mostly used for jet fuel today, but also useful for heaters and lights before the advent of electricity) is from heavier fractions, in the twelve- to fifteen-carbon range. Diesel is composed of heavier fractions yet, along with some isomers that are circular ("cyclo-") rather than straight or branched, and some aromatic hydrocarbons, which are six-carbon rings arranged in various ways; we'll come back to that. Diesel is compounded such that it is capable of detonating in a controlled manner under high pressure and heat as found in a diesel engine, without the use of a spark plug to control the detonation. The alkane components of diesel can also be distilled to make paraffin, composed of 20- or more carbon alkanes, which is solid at room temperature, yet gives off volatile fractions under relatively mild heating, making it useful for candle waxes. Heavier fractions yet, but with different isomers included to make them liquid rather than solid, are used to make lubricating oils; these will burn, but not readily, as their molecules are sufficiently heavy that they are not volatile at room temperature, or even more intense heating than paraffin. Some heavy fractions, not useful for any of these purposes, are used as heating oil; this was quite common in the former Soviet Union, where these fractions were called "mazut." The heaviest fractions can be used to make plastics, after appropriate treatment.

These alkanes are all related to alcohols and ethers. An alcohol has the same carbon chain, but instead of capping the end with a CH3, they cap it with an OH radical, which is just water with one hydrogen atom taken off. It's generic formula is CnH(2n+1)OH. So methyl alcohol, also called methanol, is CH3OH; ethyl alcohol (which is the stuff you can drink, though pure ethanol is pretty poisonous and not very tasty- you usually get it mixed with water and various impurities; this is called "whiskey," "rum," "brandy," or whatever) is C2H5OH; and so forth. Beginning with propanol, iso- forms are also possible for alcohols.

Ethers replace both of the hydrogen atoms in a water molecule. Their generic structural formulae go CnH(2n+1)OCmH(2m+1); they have two alkane radicals, which can be the same or different. Thus, we have dimethyl ether, CH3OCH3 (or C2H6O, if you prefer), methyl ethyl ether, diethyl ether, and so forth, and again, iso- forms begin with one or both of the alkane radicals being propyl- or greater, with the obvious topological implications.

I mentioned aromatic hydrocarbons earlier, and their six-carbon rings. The simplest of these is benzene, which has six carbon atoms arranged in a ring, with alternating single- and double-bonds between them; this leaves one unused valence bond for each carbon atom, which is taken up by a hydrogen atom. The chemical formula for benzene is thus C6H6. Two such rings can share a pair of the carbon atoms, making napthalene, C10H8. More complex interlockings of the rings, and the replacement of the hydrogen atoms with different radicals, makes a whole bunch of interesting chemistry, most of which yields useful solvents and fuels.

The replacement of the hydrogen atoms in alkanes, alcohols, ethers, and aromatic hydrocarbons with nitro- radicals, NO2, allows some types of explosives to be made; for example, toluene is an aromatic hydrocarbon made by replacing one hydrogen atom in a benzene ring with a methyl radical: C6H5CH3; if three other hydrogen atoms are replaced with nitro- radicals, one obtains trinitrotoluene, TNT, a high explosive.

A whole bunch of interesting chemistry devolves from these simple ingredients. The connection with carbohydrates, particularly sugars, implicit in the cyclo- forms of the alkanes, is particularly interesting. Have fun.
 
Um, well, it has a higher heat of combustion, so per pound, you get more heat. So, yeah...it's more efficent.

Can I ask why this came up?

Sure. :)

Our old electric stovetop (in a countertop) needs to be replaced, and we decided to go with gas instead of electric. We have natural gas in our home; after shopping around, we decided on a unit where one "heavy-duty" burner is rated at 18,000 btus. She (the salesperson) claimed that we should probably get about 15,300 btus if we went with natural gas. That didn't seem quite right to me... I had always thought that natural gas burned a bit hotter than propane - thus began my fruitless internet search. :)

Interestingly enough, you can find all sorts of stuff about air mix requirements, changes in nozzle sizes, etc... but nothing specific about natural gas vs. propane in terms of heating efficiency.

Thanks to all for your answers - and Schniebster... that's one helluva dissertation. I was educated - thanks! :)
 
Last edited:
While everything here is fascinating stuff, the question you're asking is "how much power is produced?" (tricky Imperial units imply you want energy, but that's actually BTU/hr). If you'll permit me some basic equations:

P=E/t = (E/m)*m/t = (E/m)*V/t*p

or: power = energy/time = energy/mass *mass/time = energy/mass * volumetric flow rate * density

Methane might have a slightly higher BTU/lb than propane, but propane is 3x denser than methane. Depending on the flow rates, either could come out ahead, but it shouldn't be too difficult for propane to beat methane.

It is likely that methane has a higher combustion temperature, because that also depends on the amount of air needed. Because methane has more hydrogen and less carbon, less oxygen is needed, which means less air is needed, so the energy can go into a smaller amount of gas. More energy per volume means a higher temperature.
 
It is my experience that propane gives a much hotter flame than natural gas. This is based on several appliances that were converted from propane to natural gas.
 
@Schneibster, you might be interested to know that the prefix n does not mean neo; it means "normal" or straight chain. neo-pentane is actually 2,2-dimethylpropane, n-pentane (a liquid at RT) is CH3CH2CH2CH2CH3. The iso, sec, and tert prefixes also refer to specific isomers of a given (lower order) alkane, alcohol etc.

As regards the original question C-H bonds are more energetic and more easy to oxidise than C-C bonds, hence in principle methane should be a better fuel. This is also the reason why saturated fats/oils (i.e more C-H bonds) are less healthy than unsaturated fats/oils (more C=C bonds) as they provide more energy.
 
Ah! Ok. So it appears that propane is less energetic than methane on a mole-for-mole basis, but when we consider other factors it actually yields a hotter flame.

So perhaps the salesperson was correct after all.

Thanks!
 
No problem. anytime I can give questionable information base soley on a total misunderstand of the topic at hand...I'm your man. :D
 
As regards the original question C-H bonds are more energetic and more easy to oxidise than C-C bonds, hence in principle methane should be a better fuel. This is also the reason why saturated fats/oils (i.e more C-H bonds) are less healthy than unsaturated fats/oils (more C=C bonds) as they provide more energy.

That's not the reason. Straight chains react differently and contribute to heart disease more than cis fatty acids. I think it has to do with the straightness of the fatty acid, which would also explain why trans fatty acids are worse, health wise.

The energy difference is insignificant when you measure fats by mass.
 
That's not the reason. Straight chains react differently and contribute to heart disease more than cis fatty acids. I think it has to do with the straightness of the fatty acid, which would also explain why trans fatty acids are worse, health wise.

The energy difference is insignificant when you measure fats by mass.


I think you are mistaken here, I know very little of biochemistry but something of organic chemistry. Saturated hydrocarbons are much more efficient stores of energy than unsaturated ones by reason of C-H bonds. I don't have the figures to hand but I expect the energy difference upon oxidation to be substantial.
 
No problem. anytime I can give questionable information base soley on a total misunderstand of the topic at hand...I'm your man. :D

Heh... well, I suspect that I share at least part of the blame for not spelling out the entire scenario. :)
 
I think you are mistaken here, I know very little of biochemistry but something of organic chemistry. Saturated hydrocarbons are much more efficient stores of energy than unsaturated ones by reason of C-H bonds. I don't have the figures to hand but I expect the energy difference upon oxidation to be substantial.

It's actually a pretty small change, and furthermore the fatty acids are different lengths, which changes the relative saturation of the whole triglyceride. Even if there are differences, I'm not sure humans have the metabolic pathway to exploit it. Beta oxidation is a bit beyond me at the moment, though.

The link is between saturated fat and cholesterol. Eating more saturated fat is linked to higher cholesterol, and higher cholesterol is linked to more heart disease. The exact reason doesn't seem to be agreed on, but I'm not much of an expert.

If it was just a matter of energy, then the type of fat shouldn't matter, only the amount consumed, but http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html is telling me that the type matters, at least as far as predicting cholesterol is concerned.

In particular, this paper
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/5
reviews current evidence. The first figure shows, for an isocaloric intake, the effect different fats have on coronary heart disease risk.
 

Back
Top Bottom