modest Posted June 18, 2008 Report Posted June 18, 2008 We had a Chance to start to move away from gasoline in the 70's and we choose not to. I couldn't agree more. This is why I brought up Brazil. They saw the problem in the 70's and decided to do something about it. Now they are so very much better off for it. Once again we see the problem today - but are we going to do something about it? It looks like we're not. It's going to be another duct tape solution with no real improvement. So discouraging. -modest Quote
Moontanman Posted June 18, 2008 Report Posted June 18, 2008 I couldn't agree more. This is why I brought up Brazil. They saw the problem in the 70's and decided to do something about it. Now they are so very much better off for it. Once again we see the problem today - but are we going to do something about it? It looks like we're not. It's going to be another duct tape solution with no real improvement. So discouraging. -modest the most puzzling aspect of this was the reasons we didn't start moving in the direction of something other than gasoline. At the time methane was very cheap and often burnt off as waste from oil wells and other places. Wells were drilled and capped waiting for the prices to go up. methane was judged to dangerous to use because it had to be compressed. this simply wasn't true but it was what most people thought. Methane was used in fleet vehicles with a very good safety record. It was assumed and often confirmed by people who should have known better than methane was too explosive and a leak would be disastrous. Like gasoline isn't. methane is much safer than gasoline, methane rises quickly and leaves the area of a leak gas pools and it's vapors travel across the ground almost like a liquid. It was also thought the government would have a difficult time taxing methane since you could fill your own tank from your home gas mains with a small compressor. (like the government couldn't figured a way) Mostly the gas companies didn't want to compete with an energy source that could be home based and by pass their network of gas stations. methane not only polluted less it also made engines last much longer. It was a great fuel with no development at all and could be used in cars with almost no modifications other than carburetor. Think of how methane powered cars could have been developed if the same amount of money had been invested in methane instead of gasoline. Methane started out far superior to gasoline, it didn't need to be refined or changed for use as motor fuel, it staggers the imagination to think where we might be with methane. At the very least we would be used to handling a gas instead of liquid when we want to go to hydrogen. Again the cars companies and oil companies did everything they could to kill the idea and it died. Now we are faced with cars that cannot run on anything but gasoline with out extreme modifications that would make the cars illegal to modify. we are stuck in a situation that almost completely prevents any one from modifying their vehicles in way, so much for the home based tinkerer. I really don't like conspiracy theories but in this case I think there really was a concerted effort to stop the development of methane as a motor fuel for the masses. Quote
modest Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Very interesting Moontanman. the most puzzling aspect of this was the reasons we didn't start moving in the direction of something other than gasoline. At the time methane was very cheap and often burnt off as waste from oil wells and other places. Wells were drilled and capped waiting for the prices to go up. methane was judged to dangerous to use because it had to be compressed. this simply wasn't true but it was what most people thought. Do you mean in the 70’s? I do not know the particulars of the history of natural gas production, but I know it was a useful and capitalized commodity earlier than the 70’s. Methane was harvested and distributed to the whole country. I can, however, imagine it being burned off at wells like you say. If the cost of collecting the gas at a particular well would have been higher than the profit of collecting it, then it would be disposed of. While that sounds reasonable to me, I do not know how common it was nor how indicative that was to the state of the natural gas market. Methane was used in fleet vehicles with a very good safety record. It was assumed and often confirmed by people who should have known better than methane was too explosive and a leak would be disastrous. Like gasoline isn't. There are currently many fleet vehicles that use natural gas (NGV fleets). I find references to school busses, taxis, trucks, shuttles, and others. methane is much safer than gasoline, methane rises quickly and leaves the area of a leak gas pools and it's vapors travel across the ground almost like a liquid. I agree. So does this link:HowStuffWorks "How Natural-gas Vehicles Work" It was also thought the government would have a difficult time taxing methane since you could fill your own tank from your home gas mains with a small compressor. (like the government couldn't figured a way) Mostly the gas companies didn't want to compete with an energy source that could be home based and by pass their network of gas stations. You can buy such a compressor. Honda makes this one:Phill natural gas refueling appliance - Phill home natural gas refueling appliance There are also over 1,300 fueling stations that accommodate natural gas vehicles. I'm pretty sure the same companies that profit from gasoline do so with natural gas as well - but, we would have to check. methane not only polluted less it also made engines last much longer. It was a great fuel with no development at all and could be used in cars with almost no modifications other than carburetor. Indeed, that is a good selling point for me. From the link above: The biggest advantage of NGVs is that they reduce environmentally harmful emissions. natural-gas vehicles can achieve up to a 93 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions, 33 percent reduction in emissions of various oxides of nitrogen and a 50 percent reduction in reactive hydrocarbons when compared to gasoline vehicles. NGVs also rate higher in particulate matter 10 (PM10) emissions. PM10 particles transport and deposit toxic materials through the air. Think of how methane powered cars could have been developed if the same amount of money had been invested in methane instead of gasoline. NGV cars have been developed. According to the natural gas coalition there are over 130,000 in the US and more than 2.5 million world wide. That isn’t many compared to the number of petrol and diesel vehicles - but it’s not nothing. Also, there are more than 40 manufacturers including Ford, Honda, GM, Toyota, Volvo. Methane started out far superior to gasoline, it didn't need to be refined or changed for use as motor fuel, it staggers the imagination to think where we might be with methane. Much like gasoline needs to be refined from crude oil, natural gas (including methane) needs to be processed when it comes out of the ground. Natural gas processing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia At the very least we would be used to handling a gas instead of liquid when we want to go to hydrogen. Again the cars companies and oil companies did everything they could to kill the idea and it died. They mostly all make NGVs which is hardly compatible with killing the idea. I also don’t see what their motivation would be. A car company makes a profit on either kind of car. Now we are faced with cars that cannot run on anything but gasoline with out extreme modifications that would make the cars illegal to modify. we are stuck in a situation that almost completely prevents any one from modifying their vehicles in way, so much for the home based tinkerer. I really don't like conspiracy theories but in this case I think there really was a concerted effort to stop the development of methane as a motor fuel for the masses. I think you might be wrong about the conspiracy theory. Check out wikipedia’s list of natural gas vehicles: List of natural gas vehicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -modest Let me stress this link again, which I think is really good:HowStuffWorks "How Natural-gas Vehicles Work" Quote
REASON Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 So, what would it take to push for Methane now? I find it interesting that Methane is never really included in discussions involving alternative fuel sources for automobiles, especially considering how plausible the two of you have just made it seem. I have a few questions that may be answered in one of the links modest provided, but that I think would be good to discuss here. 1. What kind of modifications would be required in today's motor vehicles to allow them to run on Methane? 2. What are the primary sources of Methane gas? 3. Is there enough to supply the entire nation, or is something like this intended to be more of a supplement to fossil fuels? 4. Do we have to rely on natural sources of Methane, or can it be manufactured? 5. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Should we be concerned about increasing global warming if Methane fuel were to become widely used? 6. What are the advantages/disadvantages of Methane vs. Hydrogen as a fuel. Quote
freeztar Posted June 19, 2008 Author Report Posted June 19, 2008 7. How will methane-fueled vehicles affect gasoline prices? Quote
modest Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 So, what would it take to push for Methane now? I find it interesting that Methane is never really included in discussions involving alternative fuel sources, especially considering how plausible the two of you have just made it seem. While I like the idea, it also needs to be pointed out that natural gas is a fossil fuel. It is not renewable. Well, let me qualify that. Natural gas is not the only way to get methane. Biogas refers to more renewable ways of obtaining it, which is also more expensive. Barring biogas, methane is not renewable. Like oil, natural gas reserves will run out. Ethanol may be the better longterm solution. I have a few questions that may be answered in one of the links mocdest provided, but that I think would be good to discuss here. 1. What kind of modifications would be required in today's motor vehicles to allow them to run on Methane? It's actually quite a few. The tanks that hold the gas are large and require a lot of space. They are also expensive as they need to be very durable. As moontanman pointed out, the fuel injection system must be different. This link also mentions:The engine must be forged aluminum, needs high-compression pistons, hardened nickel-tungsten exhaust valve seats, and a methane-specific catalytic converter. 2. What are the primary sources of Methane gas? Natural Gas. 3. Is there enough to supply the entire nation, or is something like this intended to be more of a supplement to fossil fuels? It is a fossil fuel. Without an undue increase in demand, US reserves are estimated to last another 67 years. 4. Do we have to rely on natural sources of Methane, or can it be manufactured? See biogas link above. I would add that ethanol is easier to make from plants than methane. 5. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Should we be concerned about increasing global warming if Methane fuel were to become widely used? Good question! I'll look into it. 6. What are the advantages/disadvantages of Methane vs. Hydrogen as a fuel. If hydrogen is produced from nuclear power there is no carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Burning methane is in and of itself a greenhouse problem as CO2 is a product of the reaction. You also bring up the point of methane as a greenhouse gas. I'll look more into this - perhaps we need a dedicated thread -modest Quote
Moontanman Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Modest addressed most of these things but I would like to add a few qualifiers of my own. 2. What are the primary sources of Methane gas? 3. Is there enough to supply the entire nation, or is something like this intended to be more of a supplement to fossil fuels? 4. Do we have to rely on natural sources of Methane, or can it be manufactured? Natural gas is currently the primary source of methane, I don't subscribe to the fossil fuel theory but it does mostly come from the ground. It can however be made by methanogen bacteria. i disagree that ethanol cam be made easier than methane. almost anything organic can be used to make methane the best ethanol producers have to have sugar in them or be able to be turned into sugar at some stage. Methane can also be recovered easier than ethanol from culture. Methane can also be produced from old land fills. 5. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Should we be concerned about increasing global warming if Methane fuel were to become widely used? Accidental release of methane would not be significant compared to natural sources but hydrogen can cause significant ozone depletion problems on a par with or worse than chlorine containing chemicals. Hydrogen is also very difficult to contain and will migrate through even solid metal and is often lost at fill up time. Better electric cars with hybrid engines run off methane would seem to be the gold standard if batteries never come on line with enough capacity to power a long range car. 6. What are the advantages/disadvantages of Methane vs. Hydrogen as a fuel. Methane is easier to contain and make, spilling methane isn't a big deal compared to natural sources, hydrogen is difficult to contain, spilling hydrogen is a grave threat to the ozone layer, hydrogen must be stored at higher pressures and or lower temperatures than methane. some processes negate this difficultly but similar technology for methane would make methane better still. Quote
REASON Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 By the way, I noticed there were several comments regarding the lack of new oil refineries as a factor in the so-called supply shortage that is generating these sky-rocketing gas prices. I suggest, before we continue to completely give in to this notion, that we consider the words of J. Stephen Simon, the Director and Senior Vice President of Exxon Mobile Corporation, from an interview published in a 2006 edition of Exxon Mobile's marketing periodical, The Lamp, which is directed at existing shareholders and potential investors. Q: How do you respond to those who want new refineries to be built in the United States? A: There has been a lot of media attention on refining capacity recently, particularly here in the United States. While it's true the number of U.S. refineries has dropped over 50 percent over the past 25 years, refinery output has actually increased more than 25 percent, as remaining refineries have been expanding through debottlenecking, higher utilization and technology advancements. For Exxon Mobile, our track record speaks for itself. Since 1995, our U.S. refining capacity has grown about 2 percent a year, faster than demand growth and faster than the rest of the industry. In fact, over the last decade, we've added the equivalent of three new refineries by expanding our existing facilities. We believe this is the right approach since it's a much faster way to increase supplies, and these expansions can be implemented at a fraction of the cost of building a new facility. J. Stephen SimonDirector and Senior Vice PresidentExxon Mobile Corporation The Lamp, 2006, Vol. 88 No. 1, pg. 8 I recommend reading the entire article for more insight. You see, I'm not convinced that the issue of new refineries is really an issue for industry insiders. Based on the last sentence in his statement, Exxon Mobile hasn't actually been seeking a site in someone's backyard to build any new refineries because they don't even see it as an economically viable alternative for increasing production. New refineries aren't necessary, because they have been able to keep up with the increases in demand here in the United States, in fact, as he states it, "faster than demand growth." While I agree on a global scale that demand has increased, particularly in China and India, the United States is still by far the leading purchaser and consumer of crude oil. And if the oil corporations are able to handle the increase in demand, then the notion of short supplies as the primary reason for the sharp increases in gas prices may be a bit of a red herring. If you really think about it, are there any indicators to suggest a decrease in supply due to an increase in demand, other than high prices? I challenge you to find a single gas station that has had to post a sign that says "Sorry. We're out of gas." The notion of supply shortages was also the explanation for the stark increase in natural gas prices in 2001, and the rolling blackouts in California, both of which were shown to be examples of market manipulation due to deregulation, and greedy, conniving energy traders. Currently, I'm focussing more on the aspect of Futures Trading, Market Speculation, Hedging and the Enron Loophole. Wall Street is blowing a bubble, and a lot of people are making tremendous amounts of money at our expense. I will post more on this angle later. Quote
Buffy Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 :cup: In fact there was quite a dustup several years ago when Shell shut down a refinery in Bakersfield, CA which as the article says the FTC (that is, the Bush Administration) determined was not going to have an effect on supply or prices--something that anyone with a passing understanding of Economics would laugh out loud at. According to The Economist, the problem is also one of shifting demand: The problem is exacerbated by a growing mismatch between the type of oil being produced and the refineries that must process it. The most common benchmark prices, including the one used in this article, refer to “light” crude, the least viscous sort, which produces the most petrol and diesel when refined. “Heavy” oil, by contrast, yields more fuel oil, which is used mainly for heating. At the moment, diesel is in short supply and there is a glut of fuel oil. That makes processing heavy oil unprofitable for some refineries, since the gains from diesel are outweighed by losses on fuel oil. As refineries turn instead to lighter grades, it pushes their prices yet higher. The discount on heavier crudes has risen to record levels. But even then, points out Ed Morse, of Lehman Brothers, another investment bank, Iran is having trouble selling the stuff. It is storing huge quantities of unsold oil on tankers moored off its coast. Presumably, Iran and other heavy-oil producers will eventually be obliged to drop prices far enough to make processing the stuff worth refiners' while. In the longer run, more refineries will invest in the equipment needed to crack more diesel out of heavy oil. Both steps will, in effect, increase the world's oil supply, and so help to ease prices. But improving an existing refinery or building a new one is a slow and capital-intensive business. Firms tend to be very conservative in their investments, since refineries have decades-long life-spans, during which prices and profits can fluctuate wildly.... Worse, new kit is becoming ever more expensive. Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), a consultancy, calculates that capital costs for refineries and petrochemical plants have risen by 76% since 2000. The oil companies do indeed like to keep capacity at a razor's edge of the demand: excess capacity is a direct deduction to the bottom line. Moreover as demand increases, they get immediate short-term benefit from the "shortages" although they do have pressure on them to keep from being to obvious--as with the first link above--from being the target of accusations that they are intentionally taking capacity off-line in order to cause the panic among traders that causes prices to spike. One of the key unintended consequences of acquiescing to the demands of large corporations like the oil companies to allow them to "achieve economies of scale by merger" is that markets with a small number of participants can lead to each of the entrants realizing that *tacit* cooperation is just as good at causing market manipulation as *active* collusion in manipulating the prices in markets. For some reason, even economists have not been very vocal about this because there is a fear among them about the uncertainty of the true effect of economies of scale and how many entrants are really required to provide true competition in markets and the effect of perturbations based on individual countries allowing their own native companies to consolidate and dominate the world markets. Not for nothing that its called the "dismal science".... First rule of Economics 101: our desires are insatiable. Second rule: we can stomach only three Big Macs at a time. :phones:Buffy modest 1 Quote
Buffy Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 ...oh and will drilling ANWR solve the problem? You be the judge: Source: National Resources Defense Council The thing that the promoters of these "drill more!" arguments don't seem to realize (or conveniently hide) is that it will not lower prices unless it has a significant impact on world-wide demand. If more is drilled, even if those in the US think its *their oil* and refuse to pay more (or rather drop demand locally) the oil companies will simply export it (or rather simply import less), causing the supply in the US to drop, thus causing prices to equilibrilize with the world price. That's what they mean when they say that oil is a "fungible commodity"....its the world-wide market that determines the price, not the amount that's drilled here in the good 'ol USofA... Although that will help our balance of trade deficit, thus strengthening the dollar and avoiding *inflationary* pressure on oil prices, that still doesn't get "real" oil prices to decline. Britain is a world by itself; and we will nothing pay for wearing our own noses, :cup:Buffy Quote
Boerseun Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 The fear of methane as a greenhouse gas is a bit overstated, I reckon. Methane can't exist in an oxygen-rich atmosphere for very long - oxygen just kills it, man. If you find oxygen in a planet's atmosphere, with significant amounts of methane, that is almost a sure indicator of life being present. The methane must be continuously replaced as it gets oxydised. So, an accidental methane spill would just go up in the atmosphere like so many cow farts, and oxydise. And that would be it, I guess. The real issue would be the products of that oxydation - what would that do to the atmosphere? What would be the exhaust gases of a methane vehicle? Mostly carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and water vapour. Which is mostly what regular petrol engines spew out. If the ratios are less than with regular fuel, sweet. If not, then its obviously a waste of time. Also keep in mind that we've been running Hydrogen vehicles since the first automobile saw the light of day. A normal petrol engine is, in fact, a Hydrogen engine. We're just currently getting our Hydrogen in very dirty packaging, what with all that carbon an' stuff. Realising that we're actually running on Hydrogen as it is might be a bit of a paradigm shift when we consider oil and fossil fuels in general, but its the truth. The petrol you consume is just a handy container for non-compressed Hydrogen. The carbon binds to it and makes it relatively stable until you compress it, introduce some oxygen, and light a fuse under its ***. Ever notice the water coming out of your tailpipe on a cold morning? That's the actual exhaust gas coming from what really drives your engine after you got rid of all the carbon packaging. It's not our fuel that's destroying our atmosphere, its the packaging it comes in. Quote
Michaelangelica Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 I think we should all start making our own alcohol for fuel.For $2-300 retail you can buy an 'off the shelf' still.Even cheaper if you do it yourself.You then need to talk your greengrocer into donating some rotting fruit and you are away Quote
modest Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 5. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Should we be concerned about increasing global warming if Methane fuel were to become widely used? Good question! I'll look into it. The fear of methane as a greenhouse gas is a bit overstated, I reckon. Methane can't exist in an oxygen-rich atmosphere for very long - oxygen just kills it, man. After looking this up, I quickly came to the same conclusion as Boerseun. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, but has a short atmospheric life of only approximately 12 years. Any given methane molecule that is released into the atmosphere will last about 12 years before decomposing into water and carbon dioxide: [ce]CH_4 + 2O_2 -> 2H_2O + CO_2[/ce] A useful way of expressing the effect of a greenhouse gas is by calculating the Global Warming Potential. This was the agreed upon standard at Kyoto. The result of the calculation shows how harmful something is as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide over a period of time. Methane is: [math]\frac{62}{20 \: years}, \frac{23}{100 \: years}, \frac{7}{500 \: years}[/math] Meaning that spilling an equal amount of methane as carbon dioxide is sixty two times worse over 20 years, 23 times worse over 100 years, and 7 times worse over 500 years. Compared to some CFCs and HFCs which remain at hundreds or thousands of times worse than [imath]CO_2[/imath] over hundreds of years, methane is not too awfully environmentally destructive. I would, however, like to note again that burning methane or natural gas produces carbon dioxide no different than petrol. There are environmental advantages to using natural gas vehicles such as far less carbon monoxide and particulate pollution. But, natural gas has a carbon footprint like any fossil fuel. NGV's are therefore neither a completely clean nor completely green substitute. As it relates to this thread on the other hand - natural gas vehicles cost a third less “at the pump”. That would be nice. Quote
Michaelangelica Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 According to a lecture, by environmentalist Tim Flannery (The Weather Makers), I attended last year; methane levels world wide have been dropping for 8 years. No one knows why. NZ says 40% of its GHG emissions are due to burping cows. Kangaroos don't burp and so their meat is a better deal GHG wise.Scientists are looking at their gut flora to see if it can be used to reduce Cow's GHG emissions. Be Green -Eat Kangaroo:) Quote
Moontanman Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Yes, methane is a socalled "fossil fuel" and it does result in cO2 then burned but it is easier to get than oil, cleaner than oil and could be a stepping stone to hydrogen. Hydrogen is not any where near as available as methane, it will take many years to bring significant levels of hydrogen to the market. Methane is here now and is a gas like hydrogen. changing from oil to hydrogen is a big step and we will have to depend on oil for a long time while we make the change. methane should have been started on a wide spread basis 40 years ago but it can still be used as a stepping stone while we change to another energy source. to go to hydrogen or battery power will require lots of electricity, Nuclear, solar, geothermal, all these will be necessary to make the switch to hydrogen but we don't have the capacity to generate even a fraction of the necessary hydrogen right now. Using Methane could do a lot to get us off the oil tit and allow us to change to other energy sources at the same time. Quote
modest Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Yes, methane is a socalled "fossil fuel" and it does result in cO2 then burned but it is easier to get than oil, cleaner than oil and could be a stepping stone to hydrogen. I agree with all. In particular - I also think natural gas vehicles could be a stepping stone toward hydrogen. HCNG (Hydrogen / Natural Gas) fuel blends are apparently being supported by the Department of Energy. It is described here. Like you, I wish they would put a few more eggs into that basket. It looks like they are supporting private industry and funding a single HCNG filling station in Phoenix. At the very least that will tell them if the infrastructure for a hydrogen / methane blend works. When it does then we will be one very real step closer to energy independence and significantly less pollution and carbon emission. -modest Quote
Michaelangelica Posted June 20, 2008 Report Posted June 20, 2008 Does it take a lot of energy to extract hydrogen from water? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.