Are current renewable energy strategies worth it?

[Trakar]

Mamma mia! CNG is not adopted by the average user by random reasons. CNG is adopted by users having vehicles that travel a lot mostly in an area with plenty of points to refuel, like taxis, delivery trucks, etc.

That is the point, even though we (people in the U.S.) really aren't setup for an immediate major conversion to CNG as fuel for a large fraction of our transportation sector, we do have extensive NG infrastructure penetration nationwide. Both residential and commercial NG systems and extensive CNG outlets for everything from topping off RV cooking and heating systems to fuelling our BBQ grills. Many, if not most homes, have NG systems (we like it for cooking and heating) at least in urban and suburban settings. If you live far enough out in the rural areas (like many of us prefer - neighbors are okay, but they are best far enough away that you don't have to worry about seeing or hearing them unless you want to), you generally have a large LPG tank and a delivery service that tops it off once a month or so.

In dealing with vehicles, there are currently only some ~140,000 NG vehicles on the roads in the US and most of these are Fleet vehicles (municipal buses, UPS trucks, and several secondary delivery service vehicles), while fleet NG vehicles are on the increase, private NG vehicles have actually been declining over the last couple decades. Back in the seventies, my grandfather had a couple of dual fuel NG trucks that he drove all the time. The dual fuel works better than straight NG in vehicles because you can use gasoline to warm up the engine and then switch to the NG (its hard to start a cold NG only vehicle). A lot of warehouse vehicles and construction equipment run on NG.

Nobody "lucky" *** enough to do 5,000 miles a year -highway or equivalent while revving in neutral waiting for the missus to leave the beauty parlour- have or should have any incentive to switch to natural gas.

Now, now, Mrs. T only goes to the beauty shop when we are travelling, and I don't think she needs it then, but it makes her feel good so who am I to begrudge her? You are correct, however, dramatically reducing your overall mileage and getting as many MPG as possible does a fantastic job of providing economical private transportation. Don't forget buses, trains and bicycles where possible! Most of these dramatically reduce one's carbon footprint as well, for those interested in that incentive.

Besides, the 40,000 miles a year IS the reason of the 10 million vehicles and not 60 million.

I guess I'm still not clear on that point??

In countries where CNG is successful and it was incepted at least 2 decades ago the penetration reaches 20% of the vehicles that make 50% of the total mileage.

Can you expand and clarify this sentence?

A lot of disparage countries are on that way. The only common factor is that they wouldn't let the car industry to monopolize CNG. In fact, in many car importers CNG was an opportunity for the local light industry.

That rather makes sense. This said, there are no real technological nor economic reasons that CNG vehicles (especially dual-fuel NG systems) could not be more widely deployed in nations equipped with extensive existing NG infrastructure, which is why I listed it as an example of a potentially viable near-term alternative (not really a renewable) fuel.

IOW, it isn't a technology that should be considered a white-paper fantasy

 

[jimbob]

Now, now, Mrs. T only goes to the beauty shop when we are travelling, and I don't think she needs it then, but it makes her feel good so who am I to begrudge her? You are correct, however, dramatically reducing your overall mileage and getting as many MPG as possible does a fantastic job of providing economical private transportation. Don't forget buses, trains and bicycles where possible! Most of these dramatically reduce one's carbon footprint as well, for those interested in that incentive.

My annual commute distance is about 5500 miles (25-mile round trip), which looks to be quite a bit more than the median (or mean) distance for commuting in the UK and even for the US. Or indeed the median journey (i.e. not just commute) distance.

My pie in the sky fantasy is that if a significant fraction of these shorter journeys might be made by bicycle, the roads would be a lot more pleasant.

I have little hope of it happening , although bicycles make sense for a lot of journeys under 5-miles.

Using a bicycle for my commute means that it is practical for us to be a one car family. I accept that my commute is somewhat long, but it isn't much longer than driving, given the local congestion, it is more reliable (about once a quarter the roads get completely snarled up and cycling is far faster then) and I also regard commuting time as that which I can devote to keeping fit - I find gyms boring.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Only in your august judgement Alec....which in this case is worthless, pardon the pun...why don't you go tell the major corporations that are engaged in EVERY SINGLE LINK I POSTED that they are spending money on kitchen table satellites.

Are you sure? Why don't you check your sources?

I've followed some of these technologies ( especially hydrogen ) for decades as I have in the technological world I inhabit and make my living from.
I have to sort out emerging worthwhile tech in a much faster paced area of change than we are talking about here.....they and I make their money being mostly correct about this

You've followed, like a kid following his favourite sport team. The "technological world" you "inhabit", probably a fancy placeholder for advise about what computer system to chose in the arch of McIntosh and selling the parts, it seems to be a pretty innumerate world -except for the $ sign- because of your constant uncritical link dropping all over the place and the rest of us having to find their errors regarding chemistry, physics, economics or whatever, which your wonderful Technologyland seems to fail to provide.

DIss all you want, wll not change my posting up technologies that I think have some worth..

Which is a corruption of the thread's topic. Not that you care.

CNG is NOT well loved in North America for the real dangers it represents....there is a reason the terminals are miles out to sea.

If that's your idea of a missed opportunity pardon my laughter. A reasonable summary


http://www.bankrate.com/finance/auto/natural-gas-vehicles.aspx

exactly

an impractical suggestion.....not worth it when it comes to replacing personal vehicles.
Got anything less fanciful?

Well, with your uncritical manners you certainly bought that and place yourself together with the hardcore global warming denialists that have questioned CNG in a couple of threads on the subject arguing "it leaks" and methane is a powerful greenhouse gas -yes, they aren't very coherent, nor are you-.

Since the CNG for vehicles started here almost 30 years ago, the death toll in car accidents have been something between 210,000 and 240,000. CNG related, a few, let's exaggerate and say 30. Hundreds have died or burned horribly in car crashes and that is always because of gasoline tanks. The last accident I recall was here some weeks ago, about one mile from home -that's why I read more than its headline-. A taxi driver crashed and died in a fire. His NCG container was obviously undamaged as it happens practically without exception. A whole battery of protective measures trigger in case of accident. The gas line may have broken, it doesn't matter at all, as it contains just a few grams of NG and in instantly dissipates in the air below its LEL (if that doesn't belong to your Hi-Tech Wonderland, quench yourself here). The gasoline line broke and spilled all the tank content below the burning engine. Kaput. Gasoline did it again.

About CNG you have been sold crap like everyone from Texas to Nunavut. You even dared to suggest a few days ago in this thread that empty containers are replaced by full ones like it's usual with those containing propane or butane for home use. That is the level of your knowledge and critical skills that place you in the worst position ever to judge what is worth here.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Not sure if you realize this, Alec, but your posts make you seem like an arrogant know-it-all. Scolding other users as in your last few posts detracts from the point you're making and pisses people off.

 

[macdoc]

He's been told often enough and no better example than above.

•••

The interesting thing is the CNG has been around far and away long enough to have a strong uptake for vehicles and has been judged by people with their wallets to be lacking.
I suggest he didn't even read the analysis of cost.

The Origins Natural Gas Vehicles
Natural gas-powered vehicles can be traced back to World War I and World War II, when the shortage of gasoline was felt worldwide. Developed out of necessity, “Gas Bag Vehicles” began to appear in France, Netherlands, Germany and England.

http://blog.westport.com/2012/04/first-natural-gas-vehicles.html

At best it's a stop gap technology and is far far better used to replace coal power generation.

GM has produced multiple CNG vehicles as have others...they don't sell in North America to the general public despite the fuel cost savings.

http://www.gmfleet.com/overview/alternative-fuel-vehicles.html

It's clearly an emerging economy approach

The leading countries for NGV vehicles are Iran with 3.5 million, Pakistan with 2.8 million, Argentina with 2.3 million, Brazil with 1.8 million, and China with 1.6 million

versus

The U.S. has about 140,000 NGVs on the roads today,

And some municipaliities have restrictions on them like this.

In Germany, LPG cars are banned from underground parking areas.

and you cannot drive an CNG vehicle through the Eurotunnel...not even a dual fuel vehicle
http://www.eurotunnel.com/uk/site-information/lpg/

Major CNG terminals for shipping are by law far off shore.

Like all technologies there is a risk and reward and except for limited cases with fleets CNG vehicles even with their long development history have not proved worthwhile in North America....yet it has been widely accepted and implemented for home heating with very high efficiencies...my home is heated that way.

There is very stringent controls on installation and certification of installers and companies providing the components.
That stringent control make fueling reasonable for fleets...and a risk for everyday private vehicles.

Use it to make electricity and home heating...great efficiencies in both.
Worst of all....it's not even a "renewable" strategy making it entirely off topic in this thread.

I generally support natural gas as a strategy to replace coal. It's not a renewable.

Globally, the fleet of electric vehicles is much smaller, but it is growing rapidly. The U.S. has the largest fleet at about 200,000 vehicles. The global fleet of electric vehicles has been estimated to be about 350,000 vehicles, but growth rates in the triple and high double-digits have been reported in the Netherlands (338%), Norway (129%), Germany (105%) and the U.S. (81%).

Fleet penetration for electric vehicles in the U.S. stands at about 0.6%. Thus, if the rapid growth rates of recent years continue, the U.S. could have respectable penetration of electric vehicles in 10 years.

Hybrid vehicles saw relatively slow sales in early years, but much higher gasoline prices boosted sales which have now topped 3 million vehicles less than 15 years after initially being introduced.

bring it on
http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2014/05/20/the-biggest-markets-for-natural-gas-and-electric-vehicles/

That is a renewable strategy that is worthwhile at the individual vehicle level tho each family and business has to evaluate the costs and limitations like range ....which are being dealt with.

 

[Trakar]

My annual commute distance is about 5500 miles (25-mile round trip), which looks to be quite a bit more than the median (or mean) distance for commuting in the UK and even for the US. Or indeed the median journey (i.e. not just commute) distance.

My pie in the sky fantasy is that if a significant fraction of these shorter journeys might be made by bicycle, the roads would be a lot more pleasant.

I have little hope of it happening , although bicycles make sense for a lot of journeys under 5-miles.

Using a bicycle for my commute means that it is practical for us to be a one car family. I accept that my commute is somewhat long, but it isn't much longer than driving, given the local congestion, it is more reliable (about once a quarter the roads get completely snarled up and cycling is far faster then) and I also regard commuting time as that which I can devote to keeping fit - I find gyms boring.

I share your vision, but there is room for less healthy, but nearly as effective in other respects, transportation alternatives. High MPG personal vehicles and alternatively fuelled mass transit systems being two such options that are often available right now. For many office type jobs, technology often offers an even better option of e/tele-commuting.

 

[Trakar]

The primary problems with CNG powered vehicles are similar to some of the problems with H2 powered vehicles; low energy density, the requirement of a pressure vessel to contain fuel, and the lack of petrol's ubiquity. LPG would address some of the low density issue but it would be countered by the need for a cyro containment system. These problems reduce NG's attraction for use as private transportation fuel, particularly in an era where government subsidies and deliberate lack of sufficient environmental regulation artificially suppress petrol costs.

 

[macdoc]

North America has often been challenged by lack of density but certain in the major urban areas more can be done.

Copenhagen is my ideal as a very liveable city - they've had the courage to hammer the hell out of ICE vehicles with punitive taxes but also to offer fantastic alternatives.

Even Barcelona was an eye opener...much better mass transit that Toronto but half the size and fully supportive of a bicycle and scooter culture instead of being ICE dominated.

I really like Carshare which one of my associate staff uses. He always gets a Prius and for most uses he can stay within the EV only.

Sprawly NA cities are hard to shift tho Portland Oregon is a model for green and part of that is a headspace....people refusing to buy their pizza from companies that don't deliver with EV vehicles for instance and having a city department fully devoted to sustainable practices and building codes for the city.

Greater Tokyo has about the same population as all of Canada. That kind of density empowers mass transit and also just about mandates stiff anti- pollution controls that works well to promote non ICE vehicle choice.

I would on a rough guess figure if we could get the major world cities to non-ICE based it would make a serious dent in emissions....since urbanization has reached over 50%.

That represents an attractive potential market for companies developing sustainable products.
But cities need to make the effort as well and not depend on larger national bodies to set up favourable conditions for replacing ICE.

This is where the anti-science right wing is so damaging as it is in Toronto where we have an idiotic mayor who is hell bent on dismantling even the small show of bike friendly we have.

 

[Trakar]

North America has often been challenged by lack of density but certain in the major urban areas more can be done.

Copenhagen is my ideal as a very liveable city - they've had the courage to hammer the hell out of ICE vehicles with punitive taxes but also to offer fantastic alternatives.

Even Barcelona was an eye opener...much better mass transit that Toronto but half the size and fully supportive of a bicycle and scooter culture instead of being ICE dominated.

I really like Carshare which one of my associate staff uses. He always gets a Prius and for most uses he can stay within the EV only.

Sprawly NA cities are hard to shift tho Portland Oregon is a model for green and part of that is a headspace....people refusing to buy their pizza from companies that don't deliver with EV vehicles for instance and having a city department fully devoted to sustainable practices and building codes for the city.

Greater Tokyo has about the same population as all of Canada. That kind of density empowers mass transit and also just about mandates stiff anti- pollution controls that works well to promote non ICE vehicle choice.

I would on a rough guess figure if we could get the major world cities to non-ICE based it would make a serious dent in emissions....since urbanization has reached over 50%.

That represents an attractive potential market for companies developing sustainable products.
But cities need to make the effort as well and not depend on larger national bodies to set up favourable conditions for replacing ICE.

This is where the anti-science right wing is so damaging as it is in Toronto where we have an idiotic mayor who is hell bent on dismantling even the small show of bike friendly we have.

Excellent post! I hate to quote so much and respond so meagerly, but that deserved repeating!

 

[macdoc]

Thanks but I think a simple thumbs up would do. There IS an edit button

What I'd like is to see what percentage the major megalopolis' represent for vehicle emissions.

 

[Trakar]

Thanks but I think a simple thumbs up would do. There IS an edit button

What I'd like is to see what percentage the major megalopolis' represent for vehicle emissions.

Sources I've looked at put the figure for major urban sites at upwards of 70% in total for CO2 emissions, but this is where most power generation and industry are centered, and I'm not aware of any breakdown of just vehicular contributions. I'll look around and see if I see anything more specifically addressing vehicle emissions.

 

[macdoc]

Sweden is having a tough time moving the transport section to carbon neutral.

I'm actually less concerned about oil than I am about coal use.

Some of the technolgy of ICE engines...hi-tech diesel in particular is astounding and still more to come.

For 42 euros I could drive a superb mid size SUV diesel 950 km.!!!!
That's astonishing given fuel prices in Europe.

But again that's not a renewable approach ...however it gives biodiesel an edge which can be a renewable strategy if it can be divorced from food crops and habitat destruction.
Needs an algae or waste from agriculture feed stock plus a wickedly good catylist.

••

I'm kind of interested to see if there is an achievable closed loop from fossil fuel, capture CO2 at the power plant and back to hydrocarbon fuel.

 

[Trakar]

Sweden is having a tough time moving the transport section to carbon neutral.

I'm actually less concerned about oil than I am about coal use.

Some of the technolgy of ICE engines...hi-tech diesel in particular is astounding and still more to come.

For 42 euros I could drive a superb mid size SUV diesel 950 km.!!!!
That's astonishing given fuel prices in Europe.

But again that's not a renewable approach ...however it gives biodiesel an edge which can be a renewable strategy if it can be divorced from food crops and habitat destruction.
Needs an algae or waste from agriculture feed stock plus a wickedly good catylist.

••

I'm kind of interested to see if there is an achievable closed loop from fossil fuel, capture CO2 at the power plant and back to hydrocarbon fuel.

Again, agreed. I think algal fuels (particularly, engineered algal strains to produce the feedstocks for a variety of fuel blends) is definitely a way of taking maximal advantage of existing technologies and infrastructure elements. In general, it is a much more simple process as the refinement and production steps are combined. Its not as sexy as radio-isotope battery powered flying cars, but the basic ICE has 200 year history of continuous development and improvement, it'd be a shame to not take as much advantage of what we already know as well as pushing forward into the tabletop satellites that make it to orbit.

I think algal fuels could easily be a 5-10 year big player, and I see existing petroleum industries, perhaps teamed with AG/Biotech partners making this play in the very near future.

 

[macdoc]

Yet hydrogen also makes use of that tech as it works with the existing fleet of vehicles ( with small adaptation ) and really gives an ideal outcome....water vapor. I suspect that's one reason DOE is after a solid storage medium and the loop is tantalizing.
Water abundant.
Solar power abundant
Hydrolise to fuel.
Burn to power vehicles.
Repeat as needed.

No question the existing liquid fossil fuel industries will be ( and are to some degree ) players in this.
Whether the coal industry could be is very questionable as that's a big stretch in any sense to be "renewable".

But the distribution and refining facilities of the liquid petroleum industries retain their value.

The other aspect of course is what to include in "renewables".
Fusion or fission??

For instance in the case of lithium batteries - if rolled on a scale that the current ICE occupies - does that not present an unsustainable approach as well?
Or is it trading one set of unsustainable for another?

 

[Trakar]

Yet hydrogen also makes use of that tech as it works with the existing fleet of vehicles ( with small adaptation ) and really gives an ideal outcome....water vapor. I suspect that's one reason DOE is after a solid storage medium and the loop is tantalizing.
Water abundant.
Solar power abundant
Hydrolise to fuel.
Burn to power vehicles.
Repeat as needed.

Largely agreed, but even NG requires quite a bit of change in both engine and fuel handling (H2 much moreso - cryo fuel that burns much hotter and with less combustive force).

No question the existing liquid fossil fuel industries will be ( and are to some degree ) players in this.
Whether the coal industry could be is very questionable as that's a big stretch in any sense to be "renewable".

But the distribution and refining facilities of the liquid petroleum industries retain their value.

The other aspect of course is what to include in "renewables".
Fusion or fission??

Agreed not technically renewable. Fission isn't even particularly sustainable, but it is largely untapped as of yet as well, so it is certainly a transition technology that could help us through the next millennia or so. Fusion, not nearly as limited depending upon what version is finally adopted for commercial power plants (provided commercial fusion power generation is ever demonstrated to be technically and economically viable)

For instance in the case of lithium batteries - if rolled on a scale that the current ICE occupies - does that not present an unsustainable approach as well?
Or is it trading one set of unsustainable for another?

Probably more the latter than not, in the long run. Lithium is actually more abundant than lead, but it is a very reactive element and tends to form polar salts making it very soluble in water. There are a lot of such salt deposits but high concentration salt deposits containing commercially viable feedstocks of lithium are relatively rare in the surface rocks of the planet. There is a huge amount in the oceans but you have go through a lot of seawater to recover a little lithium. Low concentration salt deposits would probably be viable a long time before seawater extraction. Then again, even Lithium Air batteries may turn out to be more fad that mainstay in the longer term consideration of electric personal transportation.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Not sure if you realize this, Alec, but your posts make you seem like an arrogant know-it-all. Scolding other users as in your last few posts detracts from the point you're making and pisses people off.

You do understand there's a compromise to talk about what you or any other participant know about the topic, don't you? The goal is the thread's content, not the comfort of its participants. And certainly the goal is not my "fame", I cannot care less what everybody think of me. Besides, the fact that many posters here act like this is a casual chat room with texts that stay for a surprisingly long time is very telling. If that were the case, I would join with my best smile and enjoy the unstructured lively conversation plenty of jokes, as the goal is just having a good time and learn something now and then, pretty much like TV. This is not the case in fora, but in the lower level ones, like hipforums.

Being pissed off is the minimum some should experience, with their constant fooling around in the fringes of the thread's topic and clearly acting to satisfy themselves and not to build any repository of knowledge for others to use within the most informal possible setting. The constant uncritical posting of press releases, with the consequent fail to read, understand or accept any criticism, must cease. Anyway, I don't put any hope on it because lots of people have shown incapacity to experience shame.

I have a few posts pending to reply, and for that purpose I'll have to repeat what I said 10 or 400 posts earlier in this thread, in one case, for the fourth time, because one symptom of that deleterious approach to knowledge of many here is a lot of people forgetting what was already told.

 

[aleCcowaN]

He's been told often enough and no better example than above.

•••

The interesting thing is the CNG has been around far and away long enough to have a strong uptake for vehicles and has been judged by people with their wallets to be lacking.
I suggest he didn't even read the analysis of cost.


http://blog.westport.com/2012/04/first-natural-gas-vehicles.html

At best it's a stop gap technology and is far far better used to replace coal power generation.

GM has produced multiple CNG vehicles as have others...they don't sell in North America to the general public despite the fuel cost savings.

http://www.gmfleet.com/overview/alternative-fuel-vehicles.html

It's clearly an emerging economy approach



versus


And some municipaliities have restrictions on them like this.



and you cannot drive an CNG vehicle through the Eurotunnel...not even a dual fuel vehicle
http://www.eurotunnel.com/uk/site-information/lpg/

Major CNG terminals for shipping are by law far off shore.

Like all technologies there is a risk and reward and except for limited cases with fleets CNG vehicles even with their long development history have not proved worthwhile in North America....yet it has been widely accepted and implemented for home heating with very high efficiencies...my home is heated that way.

There is very stringent controls on installation and certification of installers and companies providing the components.
That stringent control make fueling reasonable for fleets...and a risk for everyday private vehicles.

Use it to make electricity and home heating...great efficiencies in both.
Worst of all....it's not even a "renewable" strategy making it entirely off topic in this thread.

I generally support natural gas as a strategy to replace coal. It's not a renewable.



bring it on
http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2014/05/20/the-biggest-markets-for-natural-gas-and-electric-vehicles/

That is a renewable strategy that is worthwhile at the individual vehicle level tho each family and business has to evaluate the costs and limitations like range ....which are being dealt with.

You are repeating yourself.

For the fourth time I say to you: CNG is small in the United States because of the monopoly given to car manufacturers: CNG equipped in manufacturer. No modifications allowed.

We had here the same problem, but in what is called a "natural monopoly": cars with diesel engines. Local manufacturers offered models with diesel engines that weren't more expensive than those using gasoline -provided the same scale of production-. But manufacturers saw a good business in charging part of the fuel savings and the same model with a diesel engines did cost 20 to 30% more than the gasoline model. The result was family cars with diesel engines were just a fraction of the total sales, and they become even more expensive because they used to produce and sell just a few thousands of each model of diesel engine a year, making costs of production to rise.

Does it ring a bell? If you look at the figures in the US' market you'll find something similar. CNG is not going to lift off never because of structural reasons, not technological or economic ones.

I repeat, I told this here before and I addressed you, but you keep ignoring what was said and start everything all over again.

You may add all the links to blogs and quotations from press you want, but that won't make CNG less efficient and safe. The "risk of explosion" is a fake in the context of modern regulations, and you may show any city or country banning them the same way that Germany is getting rid of all the nuclear power stations for their supposed damaging nature. There's no conceptual difference between than and what you are parroting here. Or maybe, there is one: nuclear is much more risky than CNG on historical basis.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I guess I'm still not clear on that point??

As CNG is convenient for vehicles that travel a lot in a small area, hence the 40,000 miles average and the 10 million vehicles -the are not so many delivering vans, taxis, and folks having long commutes daily-.

Can you expand and clarify this sentence?

I have no recent data, but this is the evolution of fuel used in the transportation sector in Argentina.

http://www.energia.gov.ar/contenido...os/eficiencia/imagenes/consumo_transporte.jpg

Electricity is less than 1% as only the underground and suburban trains are electric. The rest is: light blue diesel oil, that is mostly trucks and freight trains, and a small part -maybe 12% of it- are vans and family cars. Yellow and rosewood are family cars.

You can see how the fuel consumption by cars remains pretty constant in spite of the total of cars rising from 2 million in 1970 to 5.2 million in 2005. The reason is gasoline becoming expensive -including heavy taxes- and vehicles increasingly smaller and more efficient in the use of gasoline.

When I was a toddler my father had a Kaiser Carabela -a vehicle manufactured here (not assembled with imported parts) and designed after the Kaiser Manhattan-. It weighed almost four thousand pounds and it only gave 120 km with 20 litres in highways (something like 13 miles per gallon). Later it was substituted by a Rambler Ambassador -made in Argentina- and later, in 1973, by a Chevy -also made in Argentina, the car I learnt to drive-. 150 kg less and 2 miles per gallon more in each change. Now the typical local car weighs 1,000 kilograms and gives 28/30 mpg.

So, the number of cars rises, the fuel used not so much, but compressed natural gas comes to be 50% of the energy consumption. If you compare the 5 million cars with the 1.38 million cars using natural gas in 2005, you see how the average car using CNG consumes about 2.5 times the energy of those using gasoline, and that has to do with 2.5 to 3 more mileage.

Again, for umpteenth time, CNG is good for vehicles doing tens of thousands of miles a year. So, you can take 20 million vehicles in the States and by spending 10 thousand million dollars have them converted to natural gas -probably saving more than 10% of carbon emissions from vehicles just in one step-. That is impossible because of the regulations chosen to make it impossible.

By the way, in that graphic, if you compare carbon emissions from cars, they are about the same in 1970 than in 2005, and that with a x2.6 fleet.

Of course, in 2012 there were here 11.5 million vehicles (some 9 million cars) and I'm sure the use of fuel and carbon emissions have risen. Even the percentage of natural gas has decreased, probably to a 35-40% of the total energy, because of internal prices -natural gas has become much more expensive and taxes on gasoline haven't been adjusted in spite of inflation-.

But the local strategy includes this:

Diesel oil is cut with biodiesel -from soybean-. Until last December 31st it was an 8%. This years is 10%

Gasoline is E7 -7% ethanol from sugar cane or corn. It has been asked to be raised to E10 during this year. Only government approval is awaited.

A few hundred posts above, I cite the case of the first CNG filling station processing its own hydrogen to mix with the natural gas. It generates hydrogen from electricity generated by windmills by night or on Sunday. The plan is having all CNG cut with 2% of Hydrogen -which means 6% of the energy content- from renewable sources. It's not going to happen fast, but it's local development.

That means that about 7% of all the fuel is from renewable sources and it'll probably become some 15% in 10 years. And all of that with all the past and future crisis, corruption and resting on our laurels. What cannot do those who think to be the first world?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I have a few posts pending to reply, and for that purpose I'll have to repeat what I said 10 or 400 posts earlier in this thread, in one case, for the fourth time, because one symptom of that deleterious approach to knowledge of many here is a lot of people forgetting what was already told.

Ironic. And how many times have you been told that no one elected you King of the Thread?

 

[aleCcowaN]

What is this? Pierwsza Rzeczpospolita? ****

Back to the topic, I would like to see more like that state policy of using wind power to generate hydrogen and inject it both in the CNG facilities and eventually in the main gas pipelines during those periods mills would be stopped -like midnight to 6 a.m-. State policies is what count as "current strategies" that may be or be not "worthwhile".

For instance, there's a long entry in Wikipedia: United States Hydrogen Policy. I don't know how complete or real is that (after all, there are wiki articles mostly written by Red Baron Farms or other habitués here). Is that set of policies worthwhile and strategically sound?

**** --------------------------------

Ironic. And how many times have you been told that no one elected you King of the Thread?

Yeah, because that is "knowledge" and the kingship of the thread is a career goal .

If you and other buddies contributed something meaningful, minimally scrutinized before writing about or linking it, and on-topic, these things would never happen (time 5:30)