modest Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 I've been looking into converting my cars into CNG or propane and I find that while it's being done all over the world in the good old USA it's illegal to convert a car newer than 1987! Yes there are new cars available, two or three, a pickup truck (several models but still the same truck) one car and a mini van or something like that. Of course all you see on TV is pie in the sky hydrogen or battery powered cars even though a CNG or propane car could run on hydrogen too but not the other way around. Conspiracy is beginning to smell right to me. No one seems to want to allow a car that can be filled up at home and run with far fewer emissions than gasoline even as a next step to hydrogen. Wow. Nothing newer than 1987 - That's a federal statute? That seems odd. Have you considered converting to ethanol? ~modest Quote
Moontanman Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 edit: actually there appear to be a number of conversions available that have been approved by the EPA.It is not illegal to do the conversion, you just have to get it approved by the EPA.The full list can be found here: Natural Gas vehicles/conversions Oh, and there are government rebates available as well. If you read closely you will find that the conversions are very limited to what vehicles can be converted and where. Most of them are trucks a few cars. Your link wasn't very helpful if you didn't own one of the few vehicles mentioned nor was it helpful if you wanted to convert to propane. The obstacles that have thrown up in front of this process are formidable. Why is that I wonder? Quote
freeztar Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 Why is that I wonder? There's no market/investors for it. Quote
Moontanman Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 Wow. Nothing newer than 1987 - That's a federal statute? That seems odd. Have you considered converting to ethanol? ~modest I'm getting conflicting reports on that. the people who do this for a living won't touch a car newer than 1987, other sources say you can do it if you get it approved by the EPA others say this is next to impossible and very expensive. ethanol would be a step backward, it's not a very good fuel from many stand points but the most important is that it's not available widely except as a gasoline mix. making your own would be far to expensive and tedious. CNG or even propane are not only available at my house they also make a car last longer and pollute much less. Quote
Moontanman Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 There's no market/investors for it. I wonder why that is? Why is there a market and investors for hydrogen? Hydrogen will not be practical for many years no matter how fast we try to go to it. CNG is available now. (has been for the 40 years of the gas crisis) It's because it hasn't been hawked on every TV show for the last several years like hydrogen has. CNG hasn't been the darling of environmental causes because it is just a stop gap measure but sometimes stop gaps are what we use to go somewhere else. If your boat had a hole in it would you use a two stroke gasoline powered pump to bail it out or would you refuse until you could get a solar powered water pump to do it for you? If you wait you might drown waiting for the perfect sump pump. Quote
modest Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 I'm getting conflicting reports on that. the people who do this for a living won't touch a car newer than 1987, other sources say you can do it if you get it approved by the EPA others say this is next to impossible and very expensive. I see what you're saying ---> http://www.ngvc.org/pdfs/FAQs_Converting_to_NGVs.pdf EPA rules It looks like if you don't use a converstion kit that they've certified then you must submit to testing of some sort - no doubt involves bending over and... ethanol would be a step backward, it's not a very good fuel from many stand points but the most important is that it's not available widely except as a gasoline mix. From the "cost of gasoline" standpoint it really wouldn't be a step in any direction. Ethanol and petrol cost about the same. From an environmental or ecological standpoint - I like it. From a national economic standpoint, I like it even more. I, however, see your point. Any given person (me included) could get a lot out of a NGV including filling up at home and lower cost of driving. From a personal perspective, It is beneficial. When national gas reserves run out, it will be far less beneficial personally, economically, or any other way. ~modest Quote
modest Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 Yeah, WOW, 40 years since the big push to go to NGV and now we have one little car I would also point out again that there are many many NGVs:List of natural gas vehicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That is not a complete list. There are over 40 manufacturers of natural gas vehicles - and there are quite a few on the road: 130,000 in the US and more than 2.5 million world wide. ~modest Quote
Moontanman Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 When national gas reserves run out, it will be far less beneficial personally, economically, or any other way. ~modest Actually methane (natural gas) is not a limited resource. Yes we have plenty of it now from the ground but methane can be generated from almost anything organic (even excrement) methane can be harvested from land fills, from yard wastes, farm wastes. Methane can be generated in ways that will not impact the worlds food supplies and it will give us time to go to things like electricity or even hydrogen if a way can be found to make hydrogen in quantity for a reasonable price. The idea is to get away from imported oil. NG is a way to do that now, not 50 years from now. Quote
Zythryn Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 Come on dude, I've said it before, the conspiracy thing is tongue in cheek,... Sorry, I didn't get the tongue in cheek part. Misunderstanding of intent or sarcasm are easy to make. Might I suggest a few of or ;) to get that idea across? There are a number of hurdles to cross. None the less, the cars and conversions do exist and can be made. It is not "illegal to convert a car newer than 1987" as you say. It is just illegal to do it without having the EPA approve of the final product.The amount of regulation is daunting and it does make it more difficult for anyone to create cars on any alternative fuels. No argument there. I am just saying that if you are willing to look, they are there. And if enough people let businesses know they want something, they will get built. Quote
Moontanman Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 I would also point out again that there are many many NGVs:List of natural gas vehicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That is not a complete list. There are over 40 manufacturers of natural gas vehicles - and there are quite a few on the road: 130,000 in the US and more than 2.5 million world wide. ~modest Again I have to ask when was the last time you heard NG vehicles being hawked on television? 130,000 vehicles is a drop in the bucket and refueling them anywhere but home is problematic at the very least. Again technology for something not useful now is being hawked at the expense of something that could be used now. CNG could be used in every vehicle in the US, all we need is a network of filling stations but more effort is being put into hydrogen than is being put into NGV even though hydrogen is years away and NG is now! Quote
modest Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 Actually methane (natural gas) is not a limited resource. Yes we have plenty of it now from the ground but methane can be generated from almost anything organic (even excrement) methane can be harvested from land fills, from yard wastes, farm wastes. Methane can be generated in ways that will not impact the worlds food supplies and it will give us time to go to things like electricity or even hydrogen if a way can be found to make hydrogen in quantity for a reasonable price. The idea is to get away from imported oil. NG is a way to do that now, not 50 years from now. Getting methane from anything but natural gas would be crazy expensive. The real benefit of natural gas is that its currently cheaper. If supply of natural methane were to run out it would no longer be cheaper. In that situation the better alternatives to gasoline would clearly be ethanol, electricity, and (hopefully) hydrogen. Once again, if you don't like ethanol, how can you like bio-gas? ~modest Quote
Moontanman Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 Sorry, I didn't get the tongue in cheek part. Misunderstanding of intent or sarcasm are easy to make. Might I suggest a few of or ;) to get that idea across? There are a number of hurdles to cross. None the less, the cars and conversions do exist and can be made. It is not "illegal to convert a car newer than 1987" as you say. It is just illegal to do it without having the EPA approve of the final product.The amount of regulation is daunting and it does make it more difficult for anyone to create cars on any alternative fuels. No argument there. I am just saying that if you are willing to look, they are there. And if enough people let businesses know they want something, they will get built. It wouldn't hurt to have more people informed that they are available. TV commercials consistently telling people that hydrogen is the only choice they have do not help. I have been told that the environmental movement is at least partly to blame for this. They oppose CNGV because they still operate on "Fossil" fuels. They have demanded a complete break from such fuels and for years and a stop gap measure like CNG is unacceptable to them. I know I've read articles to this effect but I don't really know how much this has contributed to the lack of demand. Quote
modest Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 130,000 vehicles is a drop in the bucket and refueling them anywhere but home is problematic at the very least. Once again, I will point out that that there are over 1,300 fueling stations that accommodate natural gas vehicles. It is clearly a viable alternative - people are using them as a viable alternative. I like the idea. They pollute less and cost less to operate. But, it must be stressed that natural gas is not a renewable resource. I lived in an apartment that was built in the '80's. It had electric heating because when it was built people were concerned that natural gas wouldn't last much longer. This is a valid concern. Current estimates have gas running out in about 70 years. If we significantly increased the demand then it would run out significantly quicker. Where would we be then? Ethanol doesn't have this fossil fuel / non-renewable resource problem. Hydrogen doesn't have the carbon emission problem that both Ethanol and Methane have - neither does electric. So, there are reasons hydrogen, ethanol, and electric are supported by the greens out there. There are good reasons. People should not get the impression that NGVs are the solution to either environmental problems nor depletion of fossil fuel problems. At best, it could be a temporary stop-gap against both. ~modest Quote
Moontanman Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 Getting methane from anything but natural gas would be crazy expensive. The real benefit of natural gas is that its currently cheaper. If supply of natural methane were to run out it would no longer be cheaper. In that situation the better alternatives to gasoline would clearly be ethanol, electricity, and (hopefully) hydrogen. Once again, if you don't like ethanol, how can you like bio-gas? ~modest Ethanol is made primarily from corn or other food stuffs, this has contributed to world wide food shortages already. Methane can be generated from excrement and is generated anyway no matter what you do, why not use it? Some sewage plants actually use the methane they make to power their own plants and have methane left over. Methane is not crazy expensive to make, do you really think hydrogen will be cheap. Methane producing bacteria can be used to make methane from almost anything organic, right now it might not be cost effective but technology changes and at least the same type of infrastructure that uses methane can be converted to use hydrogen. I am not at this time promoting the biological generation of methane, it's current expense shouldn't be a reason not to use it in the short term while we are developing other technologies. If indeed we do manage to generate bio-methane cheap enough it is a renewable resource and is carbon neutral when made this way. Quote
CraigD Posted June 23, 2008 Report Posted June 23, 2008 Does $4 gas signify the beginning of the ending of a civilization of adolescent life styles divorced from the reality principle? Does it presage the beginning of the ending of a self-absorbed and largely fictional pattern of social behavior?Before, I think, one can address these heavily implied claim-laden questions, one must consider what a cost of $4.00/gallon signifies about the price of gas in the US. From a historic perspective, inflation adjusted into year 2000 dollars, $4.00 is $3.17, an all-time high, surpassing the 1980 year average peak of $2.49, and the 2007 year average of $2.37, and nearly triple the all-time low year average of $1.12 for 1998. By comparison, inflation-adjusted, gas cost $1.95/gal in 1949, the year that the US DOE’s easily-accessible records begin tracking it, and fluctuated very little between 1930 ($1.85, from anecdotal sources) to 1978 ($1.66). Though the economic details are complicated beyond the scope of this thread, they can be summarized as an example of the classical economic scenario of demand for a commodity exceeding supply. Despite similarities in inflation-adjusted price, however, present times don’t seem likely to be a repeat of the 1982 price peak. IMHO, that peak was due to political instabilities and a “price war” between crude oil suppliers (primarily OPEC members) and consumers (primarily US oil refining companies), where the consumers chose to not meet demand in order to gain lower prices from the suppliers, while suppliers intentionally limited production to force prices higher. This resulted in a short period of actual fuel shortages and rationing, known as the 1979 energy crisis. Nowadays, the high cost of crude oil is not due to a sharp drop in supply nor a supplier vs. consumer dispute, but because demand genuinely exceeds supply. As this condition doesn’t appear likely to change soon, predictions of $10/gallon gas by 2010 are not unwarranted, and might even be understated. Note that the above comparisons are based on a cost index, only one of many possible bases of comparison, and arguably not the best for predicting societal and cultural impact. Another obvious (though more complicated, due to its variability) index is income. As a fraction of average income, 1000 gallons of $4/gal gas is 9.35% of the average annual income. This is not an all-time high, but an increase from the historic low of 3.67% in 1998 to a number typical of the 1950s. In summary, we can say with some confidence that $4.00/gallon gas in June 2008 ($3.17 in y2k$s), while determined by the same empirical laws of economics as $1.42/gallon gas in May 1981 ($2.68 y2k$s), involves unique economic circumstances. While it may not be the beginning of the end of anything except perhaps the exceptionally low gas prices of the 1990s, or the beginning of a period similar to the 1950s or earlier, IMHO it is not, as some pundits have suggested, insignificant. In one sense, we appear to be moving forward into new socioeconomic territory, in another, moving backward into old. Other analogies and unusual uses of terms in the original post’s questions are numerous and thought-provoking, but so varied in subject that their calling out and examining is better left for subsequent posts. Sources:ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt (homepage Bureau of Labor Statistics Home Page);Consumer Price Index Summary;Table 5.24 Retail Motor Gasoline and On-Highway Diesel Fuel Prices, 1949-2007 (Dollars per Gallon);Table 5.18 Crude Oil Domestic First Purchase Prices, 1949-2007 (Dollars per Barrel);http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/pdf/table17.pdf;All Countries Spot Price FOB Weighted by Estimated Export Volume (Dollars per Barrel);National Average Wage Index;How much was gasoline in the 1930s | Answerbag.com;Political Calculations: Average Wages in the U.S.;USATODAY.com - Gas prices too high? Not by historical standards, compiled into a single table: Gas Oil CPI Gas Oil Gas Avg Inc 1000 gal Year $/gal $/bar y2k y2k$/gal y2k$/bar % oil $ /avg inc 1930 0.18 0.10 1.85 1949 0.27 2.54 0.14 1.95 18.38 10.63 1950 0.27 2.51 0.14 1.93 17.93 10.76 1951 0.27 2.53 0.15 1.79 16.76 10.67 2799.16 9.65 1952 0.27 2.53 0.15 1.75 16.44 10.67 2973.32 9.08 1953 0.29 2.68 0.16 1.87 17.28 10.82 3139.44 9.24 1954 0.29 2.78 0.16 1.86 17.80 10.43 3155.64 9.19 1955 0.29 2.77 0.16 1.86 17.80 10.47 3301.44 8.78 1956 0.30 2.79 0.16 1.90 17.66 10.75 3532.36 8.49 1957 0.31 3.09 0.16 1.90 18.94 10.03 3641.72 8.51 1958 0.30 3.01 0.17 1.79 17.94 9.97 3673.80 8.17 1959 0.31 2.90 0.17 1.83 17.16 10.69 3855.80 8.04 1960 0.31 2.88 0.17 1.80 16.75 10.76 4007.12 7.74 1961 0.31 2.89 0.17 1.79 16.64 10.73 4086.76 7.59 1962 0.31 2.90 0.18 1.77 16.54 10.69 4291.40 7.22 1963 0.30 2.89 0.18 1.69 16.26 10.38 4396.64 6.82 1964 0.30 2.88 0.18 1.67 16.00 10.42 4576.32 6.56 1965 0.31 2.86 0.18 1.69 15.63 10.84 4658.72 6.65 1966 0.32 2.88 0.19 1.70 15.31 11.11 4938.36 6.48 1967 0.33 2.92 0.19 1.70 15.05 11.30 5213.44 6.33 1968 0.34 2.94 0.20 1.68 14.55 11.56 5571.76 6.10 1969 0.35 3.09 0.21 1.64 14.50 11.33 5893.76 5.94 1970 0.36 3.18 0.23 1.60 14.11 11.32 6186.24 5.82 1971 0.36 3.39 0.24 1.53 14.41 10.62 6497.08 5.54 1972 0.36 3.39 0.24 1.48 13.97 10.62 7133.80 5.05 1973 0.39 3.89 0.26 1.51 15.09 10.03 7580.16 5.15 1974 0.53 6.87 0.29 1.85 24.00 7.71 8030.76 6.60 1975 0.57 7.67 0.31 1.82 24.55 7.43 8630.92 6.60 1976 0.59 8.19 0.33 1.79 24.79 7.20 9226.48 6.39 1977 0.62 8.57 0.35 1.76 24.35 7.23 9779.44 6.34 1978 0.63 9.00 0.38 1.66 23.77 7.00 10556.03 5.97 1979 0.86 12.64 0.42 2.04 29.98 6.80 11479.46 7.49 1980 1.19 21.59 0.48 2.49 45.12 5.51 12513.46 9.51 1981 1.31 31.77 0.53 2.48 60.18 4.12 13773.10 9.51 5/1981 1.42 2.68 1982 1.22 28.52 0.56 2.18 50.89 4.28 14531.34 8.40 1983 1.16 26.19 0.58 2.01 45.28 4.43 15239.24 7.61 1984 1.13 25.88 0.60 1.87 42.89 4.37 16135.07 7.00 1985 1.12 24.09 0.62 1.79 38.55 4.65 16822.51 6.66 1986 0.86 12.51 0.64 1.35 19.66 6.87 17321.82 4.96 1987 0.90 15.40 0.66 1.36 23.34 5.84 18426.51 4.88 1988 0.90 12.58 0.69 1.31 18.31 7.15 19334.04 4.66 1989 1.00 15.86 0.72 1.39 22.02 6.31 20099.55 4.98 1990 1.15 20.03 0.76 1.52 26.39 5.74 21027.98 5.47 1991 1.14 16.54 0.79 1.44 20.91 6.89 21811.60 5.23 1992 1.13 15.99 0.81 1.39 19.63 7.07 22935.42 4.93 1993 1.11 14.25 0.84 1.32 16.98 7.79 23132.67 4.80 1994 1.11 13.19 0.86 1.29 15.33 8.42 23753.53 4.67 1995 1.15 14.62 0.89 1.30 16.52 7.87 24705.66 4.65 1996 1.23 18.46 0.91 1.35 20.26 6.66 25913.90 4.75 1997 1.23 17.23 0.93 1.32 18.49 7.14 27426.00 4.48 1998 1.06 10.87 0.95 1.12 11.48 9.75 28861.44 3.67 1999 1.17 15.56 0.97 1.21 16.08 7.52 30469.84 3.84 2000 1.51 26.72 1.00 1.51 26.72 5.65 32154.82 4.70 2001 1.46 21.84 1.03 1.42 21.24 6.68 32921.92 4.43 2002 1.36 22.51 1.04 1.30 21.55 6.04 33252.09 4.09 2003 1.59 27.56 1.07 1.49 25.79 5.77 34064.95 4.67 2004 1.88 36.77 1.10 1.71 33.52 5.11 35648.55 5.27 2005 2.30 50.28 1.13 2.03 44.33 4.57 36952.94 6.22 2006 2.59 59.68 1.17 2.21 50.98 4.34 38651.41 6.70 2007 2.85 68.41 1.20 2.37 56.81 4.17 40672.88 7.01 2008 3.36 102.00 1.26 2.67 81.08 3.29 42800.07 7.85 6/2008 4.00 136 3.17 107.94 2.94 9.35 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.