Would natural gas cars make sense?
A rough look at pricingToday, buying hybrid cars only makes sense if you think long term, and not even then in some cases. Inevitably, achieving even 10 percent hybrid market share will require far better cost-effectiveness.
So, what about natural gas vehicles?
My local Honda dealership is selling Civic GX natural gas vehicles for $25,388, while a Civic hybrid lists for $23,650.
Thus, those additional upfront costs would require much cheaper natural gas versus gasoline prices, which might be possible. Once the Rocky Mountain natural gas pipeline is fully functional - within a year - natural gas prices throughout the nation could see a significant drop. Still, might not demand eventually catch up to supplies and push prices higher?
On the other hand, economies of scale would seem to suggest that if automakers sold as many natural gas vehicles as hybrid vehicles, natural gas vehicle components would drop in price; therefore, natural gas vehicle pricing would also decline. Nonetheless, a natural gas vehicle would never be as cheap as conventional vehicle, but maybe hybrids.
What do you think? Could natural gas cars make sense?
Labels: Hybrid Vehicles, natural gas
posted by Dahcredyns at
7:30 AM
53 Comments:
Another thing to consider in this analysis would be the price of carbon. In a carbon-constrained world, a NG vehicle would have less of a additional carbon cost than say a gasoline powered car.
Have you seen this link on natural gas supplies, etc??
Almost certainly the supplies for cost-effective natural gas are available for many decades.
More interesting, if the government changes its restrictive policies on converting conventional vehicles to CNG vehicles, the potential for quick, massive change seems to exist for natural gas vehicles.
TMR-
I tried to keep this as simple as possible, but you are absolutely right. If some sort of cap and trade legislation passes, that would increase the cost-effectiveness of natural gas vehicles, and hybrid vehicles as well.
Great link. I only did a quick review, but it seems to imply that natural gas prices could be a bargain compared to gasoline. Moreover, if you add in security costs, the benefits go up even more.
Still, the downside is the costs of natural gas vehicles. I guess my question would be, how scalable is the technology in natural gas vehicles. Would these extra technology costs be recovered via economies of scale?
CNBC's The Call of the Wild just ran a piece on this topic (video should be available on CNBC within a few hours), and everyone on the panel believed that natural gas was good for fleets and large vehicles, but not passenger vehicles because of infrastructure limitations.
Likewise, one panelist suggested that if natural gas started competing with gasoline, futures traders could have a detrimental impact on natural gas prices.
I give you credit for keeping up the discussion - across the board - because ultimately.. that's what we have to do - to better understand the difference between realities and our own personal wishes...
comparing NG to Hybrid?
why not compare multiple hybrids - each using a different fuel?
NG Hybrid vs Gasoline Hybrid
Would a NG generator that produces electricity for a plug in be better than electricity from a coal plant?
Here's the deal.
Conventional Hybrids primary advantage over other non-hybrid cars is the fact that these vehicles can shut off when not moving...
that not only saves fuel but it reduces air pollution - and the carbon footprint.
plug-in hybrids are different critters....in my mind.
that's why I asked why we don't compare NG-generated electricity for a plug-in verses coal-generated electricity for a plug-in...
see... I think.. we have not got this stuff truly sorted out yet.
it's pretty complex... and there is more involved than just the scientific realm that trades off BTUs and energy efficiency...
bottom line - I don't think we have a clue - as to where we should be pointed for the future - yet.
"bottom line - I don't think we have a clue - as to where we should be pointed for the future - yet."
without doubt.
still, i think this is what cap and trade is aimed at achieving.
yet, if cap and trade is Obama's goal, why did he quickly jump into bed with the coal industry versus the natural gas industry?
politics. a game every politician must play to stay.
ultimately, that's why i think cap and trade cannot be the sole driver to America's energy paradigm, especially in the short to mid-term. for the first decade it will mostly be about politician-distributed carrots to big ventures - too big to fail ventures that lead $700 hammers.
we need to think more aggressively in the short term and i think we need to think way outside of the box.
along those lines, i'd like to see most "out of the box" incentives built around consumers, not corporations.
there must be a way to simply give consumers numerous incentives to be as efficient as possible.
a mass transporation tax credit. a car pool lane club tax credit. a 20 percent reduction in electricity consumption tax credit, etc.
i know that sounds massive and bureaucratic, but if we can't sell gas taxes and carbon taxes, then i'd rather develop our solutions around consumers, not corporations.
Continuing to use fossil fuels is a great idea. We're already starting to import natural gas. So why not starting importing more natural gasfor our vehicles to make us even more dependent on foreign sources of energy. Russia seems to treat its foreign customers with a great deal of respect:-)
Seriously, there's no logical reason to continue using more fossil fuels. We should be gradually moving towards a carbon neutral synthetic fuel economy using hydrocarbons fuels derived from nuclear energy and urban and rural biowaste. In fact, the US should be moving not only towards fossil fuel independence but also towards the direction of becoming a major exporter of clean carbon neutral gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, methanol, and dimethyl ether.
from my understanding that's purely a pipeline issue, not a supply issue. likewise, much of that will be taken care of once the rocky mountain pipeline is fully functional - by this time next year.
nuclear power, on the other hand, faces massive obstacles, particularly politically.
can we just bury our heads in the sand regarding that reality?
i think the real world dictates that there isn't a single solution, as cliche as that sounds.
natural gas can play a role, especially in the interim, especially when you take into account the massive resources expended on foreign resources as well as the military costs associated with them.
Interesting.
It seems the CNG Civic gets the same MPG as the regular Civic. I wonder how they calculate that. I've been under the impression that CNG cars get much poorer gas mileage due to lower energy density of CNG vs gasoline.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/noframes/25083.shtml
I'm going to have to get educated on CNG.
what's the truth about domestic supplies of NG?
we've got some dueling assertions here.
Are ya'll familiar with the Thorium Nukes?
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/nuclear_renaissance_coming_081015.html
if you believe the claims - they do not have the problems associated with more conventional Nukes.
Let's assume just for a second that the Thorium Nukes turn out to be the greatest thing since sliced break with no major fatal flaws...
and let's say it happens in 5-10 years...
how long would it take for it to move us ...let's say 50% away from existing fossil fuels?
And which ones would take the biggest hits?
coal? oil? natural gas?
Let's also say.. that just about the time the Thorium Nukes start to come online in number.. that a dramatic breakthrough in Solar panels occurs.. that triples their efficiency...
What then would become the last bastion of fossil fuels?
The day will come - perhaps not in some of our lifetimes when something along these lines will happen...
count on it.
but will it happen before the point of no return on GHG?
could the threat of GHG cause a massive shift to Thorium Nukes virtually overnight?
or.. has someone read some bad stuff about the Thorium Nukes?
re: running out of domestic NG...
geeze.. I'm skeptical if they're building a 5 billion dollar intercontinental pipeline...
@Dahcredyns
We pretty much have no choice but to go nuclear if we are to become independent of foreign fuels and are going to have any hope of mitigating climate change. It may be politically incorrect to advocate more nuclear power. But its the only hope, in the long run. The rest of the world understands this: Britain, France, Japan, Russia, China, India, Sweden, Spain, Italy, South Korea, Brazil and so on, and are rapidly moving towards expanding their nuclear capacity.
A majority of Americans also want an expansion of nuclear energy, but we have a powerful anti-nuclear minority in this country that will do almost anything to stop nuclear energy expansion. So the question is, how long will Americans continue to be intimidated by this minority.
I think a majority of Americans are open to nuclear power, but I think many would still be afraid of a project in their backyard.
And, while I agree that a small minority of nuclear-haters have almost completely squashed the nuclear conversation, it's the fringe on both the left and the right that run the political conversation in America. will that ever change?
still, i want action today that fits into a larger plan of tomorrow. in my opinion, natural gas can play a role as an interim technology in such an equation, whether the future is nuclear, solar or whatever.
nevertheless, a much louder and open national conversation regarding nuclear power seems needed.
how many tens of billions have been invested in ethanol, yet what has really been achieved?
it seems we need to get the pork out of Aemrica's energy paradigm.
but is that possible?
i'm no expert, but i did have some worries about these mini nuclear plants based around security.
from what I recall they need to be refueled every 10 - 15 years. Could that not open up the door to easy access to dirty bomb material if this technology proliferates? wouldn't it be easier to manage this risk by focusing on larger plants?
In Phoenix we have the Palo Verde Nuclear plant right outside of town.
Folks here don't even think about it....
I think the "not in my back yard" philosophy is being created by a very loud minority.
Gee.... Sounds a lot like the health care debate.
I just don't see CNG taking off for passenger cars with the lack of available fueling stations.
Where CNG really makes sense is for company fleet vehicles, taxis, etc., where companies can provide their own fueling station.
It also fits for large trucks and semi-trailers.
These vehicles represent a significant portion of the U.S. daily fuel consumption.
"These vehicles represent a significant portion of the U.S. daily fuel consumption."
And from what I understand, creating an infrastructure for such vehicles isn't that big of a deal, yet it affects a huge percentange of your oil consumption - at least 20 percent.
That should be the focus of natural gas.
Nonetheless, if consumers want to purchase such vehicles in markets where natural gas is plentiful, so be it, but let markets naturally figure that out.
I heard a talk by Professor Lewis (sp?) of Caltech compare the feasibility of converting our energy away from fossil fuels to various options, including nuclear, wind, solar, etc. I don't think he looked at natural gas, but he may have.
IIRC, the problem with nuclear is that the design, permit, and construction process are prohibitively slow and super expensive. You just will not get enough nuclear power online quick enough.
His bottom line solution was solar, due to the speed of installation. He also claimed that theoretically a solar plant the size of a county in Kansas would provide enough power for the entire country. Presumably he meant day time load.
I like solar because if facilitates a decentralized power grid and has potential for incredible economies of scale.
hmmmm......
" In order to match the total U.S. generation from all 104 nuclear plants, one would need enough solar cells to cover the total land area of New Jersey, or enough wind farms to cover an area equal to West Virginia."
http://www.nuclearinnovation.com/pdf/nuclear-techs-factsheet.pdf
How about diesel turbines?
http://lawhawk.blogspot.com/2009/08/nyc-mta-testing-new-hybrid-electric.html
I agree with the nuke idea.
and we have too many bad guy ideas swirling around in people's heads... IMHO..
but smaller nukes would be easier to encase in concrete .. moats... etc that big nukes being vulnerable to aircraft... just my view..
our problem besides the need/want conundrum is that there are no perfect solutions .. and some are just not solutions.. just wishful thinking and others.. like nukes have their problems but we can't as a society agree on a direction.
the rest of the world is going to use nukes... it's one of the few bright spots for American manufacturing since weknow how to design, build and operate them...
ironic.. in a way...
and I don't think our own folks including the greenies understand just how damaging the coal plants are to the environment.
We have mercury in our streams and in the critters .. at levels unsafe for human consumption.. and it's not going away... but getting worse.
Every additional ton of coal adds to the problem...
one teaspoon of mercury blown up a pressurized stack spreads over a 100 miles and is damaging even at those widely disbursed levels...
Nitrogen and phosphorous which is killing our streams and bays.. fully 25% of it comes from coal-burning plants.
..then we have GHG...
and yet the greenies oppose the nukes AND they oppose more coal plants AND they oppose wind turbines.. AND hydro...
about they only think they support is solar and I'd agree with solar if we were going to get on with it...
but like I said.. we ... Americans cannot seem to agree.. compromise is a better word .. on an approach or direction.
Every one of these technologies has downsides and then every group seems to veto one of the choices - until we have no choices left and no one is willing to give to get - yet.
re: " I just don't see CNG taking off for passenger cars with the lack of available fueling stations."
Most urban areas in the US have NG available through their regions at many.. residences...
If you can have an entire neighborhood of homes that use NG for heating.. I never understood why those same houses couldn't have a hose.
or at the least a corner refueling station...
why is that not possible in there is already a wide network of NG supply lines?
Larry, Larry,
It takes a certain hutzpah, some would say pompousness, to dismiss a Caltech professor.
But, you did catch an error I made in my summary of his talk, which in my defense was from memory.
Professor Lewis' figure was for the solar energy hitting land, not taking into account the efficiency of the solar panels themselves. That is to say, the sun delivers to an area of land the size of a county in Kansas the total energy needed to run the country. Actually he referred to North America, but you get the point.
Now, I will say this about all the other options discussed in the thread, and I wonder if we would all agree on this: in terms of which solutions make the most practical sense, the answers will come from our universities, not from industry. So, if in the end the public and Washington listen to industry lobbyists instead of our universities and national labs we will fail.
Fortunately, Obama has chosen Dr. Chu to head the Department of Energy. Dr. Chu is talking about nuclear, but it takes a long to ramp up nuclear. My sense is that energy will become Washington's focus next year after health care is done. Once that dialogue starts I'll be looking closely to see what comes out of our university researches and national labs scientists and policy wonks.
My guess after listening to Professor Lewis, is that solar will have a lot of proponents.
so the Professor was saying that IF we could make panels with 100% efficiency.. is that right?
well.. hells bells.. if we could do that with other existing energy sources.. we could essentially cut our use in half or better since there are also efficiency losses... up and down the supply chain and at the point of consumption.
So the professor is right - on a science basis - but it really does not address real world practicalities.
As far as scientific "breakthroughs"... my view is that there are tons of things that are "theoretically" possibly.. even replicatable in a laboratory but then they run into problems when trying to scale them for practical use.
Professors and Universities are pretty famous for not understanding the difficulties of scaling into practical uses the theoretical.
The folks who do this best IMHO, having been one of them, is the Civilian Military Research and Development Labs.
These are the same folks that brought us miniturization of electronic components, the internet, and a host of other thing that then made their way into society.
The recent DARPA autonomous vehicle challenge is a good example of taking something that in theory works - and challenging those same Universities to demonstrate it in a practical basis and the results sorta prove my point.
Depending on who you talk to and who you believe "cold fusion" has an even brighter future than 100% efficient solar panels.
so what I DO agree with you on is that private industry alone is not going to push the envelope sufficiently far enough, fast enough because fundamentally what private industry is about is profits from opportunistic leveraging of existing, proven technologies.
but I would not necessarily give more money to the universities but to the Govt Research Labs...
my bias...
Larry,
I guess I'll spell it out.
But, first, I agree that the National Labs are the best bet. Dr. Kevin Chu came from Lawrence-Livermore, so that is exactly what I had in mind. There is theory and their is practical feasibility. You need both to formulate policy, no doubt.
Now about the Lewis talk. Do you really think a Professor would make any kind of argument based upon something as ridiculous as 100% efficient solar panels? Could it be that the illustration he made about the energy density of the sun's radiation simply helps make the point that solar power is viable given the time, cost, and carbon reduction parameters Lewis included in his work? And of course that illustration was only one graphic slide, which stuck in my head, from a whole lecture.
To be fair, my summary was a throwaway summary and probably caused more noise than signal. I do think I got the conclusion correct, i.e. that solar was the most viable given the parameters of the study, but the parameters, which I didn't get into, are important. BTW, the professor did not bad mouth the other options, but he did attempt to rank them.
So, here's the link:
http://nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html
I'll go through the research for my own edification, and I'll share a better summary later in case any one is still interested. But it is annoying to see people dismiss out of hand data and research. On the other hand, questioning and critical thinking are highly enjoyable.
Conclusions:
Abundant, Inexpensive Resource Base of Fossil Fuels
• Renewables will not play a large role in primary power generation
unless/until:
–technological/cost breakthroughs are achieved, or
–unpriced externalities are introduced (e.g., environmentally
-driven carbon taxes)
http://nsl.caltech.edu/files/energy6.pdf page 11
but if the professor was not assuming 100% efficiency.. then what percent was he assuming?
a previous slide compares the different fuels in generating electricity and solar comes in at something like 25-50 cent a killowatt hour... and all of the others are under a dime (page 7).
right now.. my understanding is that solar is about 12-18%...
so to make solar competitive with the other fuels.. it would have to get to be about 5 times more efficient.. and even the most advanced work right now is looking at about 40%
http://www.reuk.co.uk/40-Percent-Efficiency-PV-Solar-Panels.htm
believe me.. if solar had the capacity to use the small footprint you claim and generate enough electricity of the nation... if that cost was at 25-50 cents an hour.. it would be a total no go... UNLESS we charge charging a carbon tax on fossil fuels.. then things might change...
so I don't dispute what the CalTec guy was saying.. I'm disputing what you purport to be his conclusion and the implications...
something got lost in translation...
you won't find anyone more hopeful of our ability to transition to a solar-central energy environment.
But we have to be for want of a better word - brutally pragmatic about the issues.
as far as I can tell.. the current viable technologies are around 15% efficient and at that level - the costs are 25-50 cents a killowatt hour.
Besides that cost being about 5 times higher than the competing technologies.. it is and off itself a rather dramatic number because we comparing it to other technologies that require extraction and transportation of the fossil fuels and then the distribution of the electricity - which is not cheap by any stretch...
but apparently the cost of the panel itself... and it's longevity before it must be replaced is such that - on that basis.. it's 5 times as expensive.
that's got to be a jaw-dropper
having said that.. I have virtually no doubt that at some point..this earth will be powered by solar...and it will be very efficient solar and it will be unobtrusive.. basically integrated and merged into infrastructure... as "skin".
i have to agree with larry's point about pragmatism.
americans, according to numerous studies, believe that foreign oil dependence, for instance, is a very important issue. likewise, they believe that hybrids are a good response to this issue.
unfortunately, according to these studies, the far majority of americans are not willing to pay ANYTHING extra to buy a hybrid.
inevitably, we must move aggressively forward with solar power, but we must also accept that solar is still decades away from serious impact, simply because cost-effectiveness is the primary american driver.
for fun, although slightly off topic, i'd like to see the end of solar farm talk for now. forget the farm and the trillion dollar super grid for now.
instead, i'd prefer distributed home and small business energy solutions. again, i'd like to empower people to lead, not corporations. make consumer tax credits for solar home and business solutions so tasty that homeowners can't ignore them and then let the solar companies compete for their business.
I don't think Solar will be implemented like conventional power generation with a central site and distribution to the grid.
instead .. it will be disbursed... integrated..into roofs, windows, carports, even siding ...etc...
there is a whole lot more chance that the cost issue will be mitigated sooner by NOT having to add on distribution costs IMHO.
Larry,
I have reskimmed Lewis' presentation, and I'm embarrassed to say I have found another error.
Lewis' does not claim that solar beats nuclear, as I incorrectly remembered, he claims solar beats all other Renewable Energy sources in a world where we have to cap CO2 emissions and need 28 TW of power production by 2050 vs 13 TW today. Nuclear and CO2 sequestration would also be needed. My apologies for the confusion.
Interestingly, Lewis has doubts about CO2 sequestration. Lewis also claimed in his verbal presentation that nuclear may have trouble ramping up for political and logistical reasons (I'll have to find the transcript to be sure) So both of those caveats make cheap solar all the more critical to achieve.
Here's what the abstract says about how he evaluated solar's viability:
A greenhouse gas constraint on total carbon emissions, in conjunction with global population growth, is projected to drive the demand for carbon-free power well beyond that produced by conventional supply/demand pricing tradeoffs, at potentially daunting levels relative to current renewable energy demand levels.
That said, the "conclusion" you cite on page 11 of a 73 page presentation (!), is just summarizing the "oil is cheap" data. What's the point of misrepresenting the overall thrust of the study? Strange.
I can pick a slide mid presentation that has conclusion in the title, too. Pages 21 and 22 introduce Lewis' survey of renewable energy sources:
Pg 21:
Hoffert et al.’s Conclusions
• “These results underscore the pitfalls of “wait and see”.”
• Without policy incentives to overcome socioeconomic inertia,
development of needed technologies will likely not occur soon
enough to allow capitalization on a 10-30 TW scale by 2050
• “Researching, developing, and commercializing carbon-free
primary power technologies capable of 10-30 TW by the mid-21st
century could require efforts, perhaps international, pursued with
the urgency of the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Space
Program.
Pg. 22:
Lewis’ Conclusions
IF we need such large amounts of carbon-free power, THEN:
• current pricing is not the driver for year 2050 primary
energy supply
HENCE,
• Examine energy potential of various forms of renewable
energy
• Examine technologies and costs of various renewables
• Examine impact on secondary power infrastructure and
energy utilization
Here's the Page 72 report summary:
Summary
• Need for Additional Primary Energy is Apparent
• Case for Significant (Daunting?) Carbon-Free Energy Seems
Plausible (Imperative?)
Scientific/Technological Challenges
• Coal/sequestration; nuclear/breeders; Cheap Solar Fuel
Inexpensive conversion systems, effective storage systems
Policy Challenges
• Energy Security, National Security, Environmental Security,
Economic Security
• Is Failure an Option? Will there be the needed commitment?
Finally, you wrote:
"believe me.. if solar had the capacity to use the small footprint you claim and generate enough electricity of the nation... if that cost was at 25-50 cents an hour.. it would be a total no go... UNLESS we charge charging a carbon tax on fossil fuels.. then things might change...
so I don't dispute what the CalTec guy was saying.. I'm disputing what you purport to be his conclusion and the implications...
something got lost in translation..."
I appreciate your taking the time to look at the study, but I don't understand why you are still unclear about the land area issue. It's on pages 38 - 40. 10% efficiency. About the conclusion, I admit the error about nuclear, but the thrust of his study clearly shows solar will likely be key.
In any case, the study stands on its own, and there is no need to rely upon my interpretations. Best we just discuss the data and analysis without unnecessary posturing. There is a lot be learned even about whether solar will be primarily roof top or centralized. Surprising conclusion there.
for me the key conclusion has to do with whether or not we decide to start pricing energy according to how much carbon it generates.
Because.. that's the only way that we would pay 25-50 cents per killowatt hour no matter what the land-efficiency ratio is.
the study proves that we have enough land to generate the power needs via solar...
but we knew that already whether it would take all of New Jersey or 1/10 of New Jersey...sort of a non-issue in the bigger scheme of things.
and even more so a non issue if you think in terms of solar using existing infrastructure footprints - buildings, bridges, parking lots, etc... so it's not even an issue of looking for sites that have enough acreage either.
It just simply boils down to a company for instance that has enough surface buildlings/land to be self-sufficient with solar power but it would cost 5 times as much as conventional grid power.
That company.. if it is competing against other companies cannot sell their products competitively if one of their major costs is 5 times more than their competitors major costs.
Same deal at home. If your current bill is $100 a month.. could you afford $500 month for solar .. no matter where it was located or how much land it took.
that's the real issue - no?
the only way we go to solar right now is if we put a carbon tax on the other fuels that end up making them more expensive than solar.. and you and I would be paying 5 times as much for electricity and everything we buy would have that five-fold cost added on to the price also...
and if we import goods from overseas that do not use solar and do not have a carbon tax then our companies over here will go out of business ..they'll lose the competition ...
it's not a gloomy scenario .... in my view.. it just means that we must be pragmatic about the realities and acknowledge and accept them as we make decisions...
it's a simple.. look before you cross the street mindset...
I think the central vs distribution solar is a no brainer... it's the one thing that is clearly an advantage over all the other fuels.
it can be for many locations right at the site of use - and by that virtue - the most efficient of the fuels because anything else has to be either more remote and/or have the fuel transported to it and/or have the product (electricity) move far from the generation site.
In terms of footprint, I read an interesting thing about Kentucky strip mines...
it was along the lines that once a strip mine was played out that you could then blanket it in solar panels... which is a cool irony.. implanting a renewable fuel on a dead fossil-fuel site.
couldn't this approach even negate the idea that we'd have to find virgin sites for solar?
one more -
we have a gazillion miles of highways... imagine everywhere you see a median or a guardrail that they get replaced by solar...
I just don't see a problem with finding enough land for solar... we already have it... probably without looking for more...
but that 25-50 cents per killowatt hour..that's a whole nother kettle of fish.. no?
you said it Larry, it's all about cost.
we've gone over this data in regards to hybrids and foreign oil dependency. the american consumer might have noble intentions, but inevitably cost-effectiveness is the key driver.
solar is going to move forward, but it's going to take a lot of time.
i guess that's why i'd like to see a focus on small, distributed solutions in the short to mid term, or at least until a few more advances occur.
I think solar's ace in the hole is that it can be distributed and not have distribution costs layered on top of it's already expensive base costs.
but I'm afraid we're going to need nukes in the interim until we find enough breakthroughs to bring down the cost of solar.
that's the thing here.. if we are going to go forward.. we will have to swallow some toads..
if we can't agree on those toads.. we're gridlocked on moving forward and all we get is the verbal equivalent of spinning our wheels.
what can we agree on - to move forward?
another thing we MIGHT could agree on is that we do not add any more coal baseload.
all new capacity has to come from something else - pick your poison but not from coal...
another thing to agree on - since it costs 7 times as much to provide peak power - why not charge 7 times as much for it so we can all learn not to use it at peak load times?
It would take Smart Meters in each home that would warn you when you were paying premium rates...and let you defer using the dishwasher or clothes dryer, etc...
you could even use smart meters to start up these appliances at the point where costs dropped back to the normal rate - at 10 or 11 or midnight.
these are things that would take minimal sacrifices and help us start to move in the right directions.. IMHO.
"that's the thing here.. if we are going to go forward.. we will have to swallow some toads..
if we can't agree on those toads.. we're gridlocked on moving forward and all we get is the verbal equivalent of spinning our wheels.
what can we agree on - to move forward?"
i don't know, larry, can our politicians and the lobbyists driving them "swallow some toads" and work together?
i mean how much lower do congressional ratings need to go before these people realize they have to leave their egos and power grab desires at the door and work towards achieving a positive step forward?
i really can't help but wonder if term limits are needed in Congress. i really don't believe spending most of your professional life in congress is a good thing, nor a thing that leads to serious out of the box thinking and ideas.
fortunately, smart meters are on the way. So that's a step forward!
unfortunately, it seems Obama had to make a political decision to embrace coal - in the guise of clean coal technology of course - so i doubt we'll see too many restrictions on coal anytime soon.
I live in Buenos Aires. Here, about 40% of the cars run on natural gas. Any (yes ANY) gasoline powered automobile can be converted to natural gas for about $1000. There are at least 10 shops within 1 km of where I'm sitting which will do it for you while you read the newspaper and have a coffee. The conversion takes about 90 minutes. The conversion cost also includes a switch so you can go back and forth to gasoline whenever you want, like if there's no natural gas fueling station handy. Why can't you do it in the U.S.? Because the EPA requires that conversion on your particular engine type be certified by them at a cost of $10,000. That's per engine type. Also, the certification process takes many months, and it will only be good for that EXACT engine, i.e. a 2003 toyota corolla 1.6 liter. If you have a 2003 toyota corolla with a 1.8 liter engine, well, add $10,000 and another six months. Then you need EPA certified mechanics to do the conversion, which is another whole process. Good old EPA, protecting the environment from the cleanest and cheapest fuel in the world.
amos-
i've heard about the EPA certs, but i'm a little surprised that the conversion seems so simple and relatively cheap.
do you know anything about the safety record of these conversions?
Well, I've lived here for 10 years, read the news every day, and I've never heard of a CNG car blowing up or even catching fire. I'm sure it's happened (as it happens occasionally with gasoline) but it's not even on the radar as a public safety concern. CNG stations are everywhere, refilling is fast and cheap and I'm sure if there were safety issues I would have at least heard about it. Every taxi I get into is running CNG and I don't think twice about it. As far as actual statistics are concerned though, no, I've never seen any (nor would I trust them if they originated with the Argentine government).
Thanks for that info.
Is home fueling available and if so, do you know anything about the costs?
I don't think home fueling is available, at least I've never heard of it. In any case it's irrelevant, there are CNG stations everywhere in the city and they're common throughout the country. Also, all conversions come with the switch to jump to gasoline, so even if you're in Patagonia and you can't find a station you just switch to the gasoline tank and run that until you find CNG or until you get back to the city. All of the common arguments against CNG are nonsense. I don't know if it's just ignorance or if it's disinformation, but lack of fueling stations is irrelevant. Once people started converting, the stations would be built, and in the meantime you just use gasoline whenever you can't find a station. And I've seen Ford model T's (there's a surprising number of them down here) running on CNG so it's not like you have to build special engines for it. Oh, and the U.S. has massive reserves of natural gas, the development of which would create jobs, reduce global warming, divert money from people who want all americans dead to americans themselves, etc. etc. But that would make too much sense....
slipped my mind, i forgot that these vehicles were dual fuel vehicles. nonetheless, those are still excellent points.
the conversion costs of these vehicles seem competitive. any estimate on the average price difference of a new dual fuel vehicle versus just a gasoline powered vehicle? it seems mass manufacturing would decrease the price difference even further, at least eventually.
what's the number one selling dual fuel car?
In fact, no cars are sold here as dual-fuel, it's not a manufacturers option like the Honda Civic that you can get in California. You just buy whichever gasoline model you like and convert it on your way home. So whatever you pay for any gasoline powered car, new or used, add $1000 for the dual-fuel model. (Less than 1% extra if you buy a Ferrari!)
What needs to happen is that in some right wing state like Texas or Alaska, someone needs to just start doing the conversions. When the EPA declares it illegal and fines or (better yet) arrests them, call the local news and say that the Federal Government is denying a red blooded, god-fearing American the right to power his own MADE IN AMERICA (let's make it a Ford F-150 for effect) pickup`with PRODUCED IN AMERICA Compressed Natural Gas!!!!
But more likely is that the government will increasingly subsidise japanese batteries which, while quite snazzy, are for the most part recharged every night by coal fired power plants. Oh, well, life goes on...
that's pretty funny, amos, even though I am a fan of hybrid cars.
still, everything seems to indicate that america should give natural gas a serious try. it doesn't have to come at the expense of hybrids. both can be part of a comprehensive solution.
I'm not against hybrids, I just feel that they're a rich persons answer to a proletarian question. Imagine that you work in a room with your colleagues doing whatever. One day you find a trap door and behind it a room full of people dying of thirst. You can't let them out (for some reason) but you certainly want to help if you can. So you and your collegues, back in your lab, frantically search for something to give them. There's a coke machine against the wall, but you have limited funds, unlikely enough to buy enough sprites to go around. You could also (being chemistst) mix a few things together that would in a few hours yield some concoction that might save them, but you're not completely sure. You all run around in despair and it never occurs to you that you could just walk over to the sink and fill a few glasses with WATER and hand them over. This is what I feel is going on right now. It's soooooo frustrating!
Still stuck on the land issue, eh, Larry? Can you do me a favor? Stop assuming that these minor issues are too difficult for other people to understand, and that you have to continue to harp on them? That includes the cost issue, as well. The study assumes cost, in fact it is the source of your cost figures, and deals with the realities of cost. Cost is so basic do you really think a Professor would not include it?
Anyway, let me shift this discussion a little to what I happen to think is the key result from the study. This includes cost, but I think the study shows that today's cost ratios are overshadowed by larger issues that emerge in the 2050 time frame.
In fact, one key is that this study is not looking at 5-10 years, which seems to be Larry's focus, but 2050. Maybe that explains the sense that we are talking past each other. So, I'm interested in discussing the study, and the study says interesting things about 2050.
1. Current global power usage is 13 TW and 2050 usage is estimated to be 28 TW. See page 15.
2. Global warming policy will lead to a significant CO2 emissions caps. See page 17.
Given 1 and 2, energy costs will rise, IMHO, because we will be forced (regardless of cost?) to essentially replace cheap coal electricity with something else. But if we wait for energy costs to actually rise to a point where solar is economically viable, whatever that cost may be, we won't have built out the solar energy/nuclear/coal sequestration capacity we would need to get to 28 TW "clean" energy by 2050. See page 20 - 21.
The final interesting point is that page 20 seems to show that nuclear, under current policy will grow more slowly than solar. Of course that is current policy.
This is the scenario that I find compelling. Any thoughts? Am I misreading the study?
I think natural gas is a good solution in the medium term future. It is widely available domestically at an affordable price, and the technology used to convert cars over to it seems less daunting then other emerging tech like fuel cells.
With that said, eventually we'll run into the same issue that we have now with oil: There's only so much to go around, and prices will continue to rise as supplies dwindle as the years drag on.
What amazes me is THIS: no one seems to be working on hybrids w/ natural gas engines (or diesel, even). Hello!? Car designers? I had thought of that with the EXTREME demand we saw here in the Phoenix area for Honda's natural gas Civic (which we weren't even technically allowed to get). Let's see: a car I can refuel @ home that should probably get about 100 mpg equivalents @ least. Disclaimer: I have NO idea how they calculate those for natural gas vehicles.
i absolutely believe that we should be pushing natural gas vehicles.
if the US announced a big push towards natural gas, i'd bet oil future's trading would get hammered.
likewise, there is no reason this technology couldn't be developed concurrently with hybrid technology.
and not just natural gas hybrids, but tax policies that favor natural gas versus gasoline in a way that makes either natural gas vehicles or gasoline hybrid vehicles more cost-effective than just pure gasoline vehicles.
The beautiful thing is that no tax incentives are needed. Right now the technology exista (at least here in Argentina) to convert ANY car for about $1000. It pays for itself in about a year based on average driving and the current price spread between CNG and gasoline. The US doesn't have to push anything, just make it legal to convert the cars and to drive them. The market will do the rest, best to keep the government out of it altogether.
Post a Comment
<< Home