Why is nobody talking about natural gas powering cars?

[Pawel K]

I watched a segment on MSNBC yesterday about alternative fuels for cars, they mentioned coal, water, even nuclear power. However, not a mention about natural gas. I don't hear Republicans nor do I hear Democrats talking about this, why? In Poland where most of my relatives are they already converted many of their cars to natural gas, something very simple and affordable to do. It is a lot cheaper than conventional gasoline, puts out about 85% less carbon-monoxide, and you can even have a device installed that will allow you to fill up in your own garage. This is also a trend around the rest of the world, including Australia. This is the most viable alternative fuel source we have at this point that would solve so many of our problems with high gas prices and global warming, why is nobody talking about it?

[SiriusLiberal]

1. Doesn't Honda sell a natural gas powered Civic?

nt

[Rosemary2205]

2. Judging by natural gas prices/volatility in my neck of the woods

I don't see this as a viable alternative for the masses in my locale.

[AZCat]

3. It is still a hydrocarbon.

Global warming is at least in part caused by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so having a car that runs on natural gas will not cut down on CO2 emissions.

[Pawel K]

4. I didn't know that. But wouldn't it still be a lot cleaner than gasoline?

[AZCat]

5. Cleaner in what sense?

Carbon monoxide? Nitrous oxides? These things are all products of incomplete combustion and in our case (IIRC) don't have anything to do with emissions.

[FloridaPat]

6. Natural gas is getting scarcer than oil - much faster. We'll run out

of natural gas before we run out of oil

[1monster]

7. I know of one sightseeing tour company that uses propane powered

trolleys. They had some mechanical trouble with them when they first started using them about three or so years ago, but have since worked them out. These trolleys are on the road eight to ten hours a day even days a week, except for maintenance.

[eallen]

8. Only makes small difference to carbon emissions.

NG produces less particulates, because it is a cleaner fuel. It produces less carbon monoxide (CO), because it burns more cleanly. Those are both important issues for air quality in urban areas. But CO is a minor result of combustion. The major carbon emission from an internal combustion engines is carbon dioxide (CO2). And all hydrocarbon fuels produce that when burned. The chemistry is pretty easy:

CH4 + 2O2 ==> CO2 + 2H2O

Methane is the most carbon efficient hydrocarbon, because it has the most hydrogen bonds per carbon. The EPA says LNG conversion results in an engine that produces about 75% of the CO2 compared to burning gasoline. That's 25% is a savings. But it's not a panacea to carbon emissions.

It's also not a panacea to energy costs. Natural gas has the same origin as oil: it comes from a hole drilled in the ground. The US imports natural gas. Most of that comes from Canada, which is the only major NG exporting nation with pipelines to us. As US demand for NG rises, we have to import more and more NG by tanker. That's a bit of an issue, because there are only four regassification terminals now operating in the US, and there is a very large NIMBY factor in building more. Maybe NG will return to the $3/mmcf it cost only a few decades ago. I suspect it is more likely to hit double digits. If all engines were converted to NG, that would increase the demand for it, and lower the demand for oil. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what that would do the relative price.

So, yes, natural gas engines help improve urban air quality. But they don't solve the problem of carbon emissions. And I'd think twice before thinking it is a long-term solution to energy costs.

:hippie:

[Richard Steele]

9. It's only a temporary, stopgap measure.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel, just like gasoline.
It is a LIMITED resource- once it's gone, there
won't be any more.

I would prefer that time and effort be spent on
developing PERMANENT alternatives to fossil-dependency,
not simply trading one for another.

We need to be CONSERVING non-renwable fuels; we are going
to need the last remnants of them to power the factories
to build renewable-energy infrastructure for an entire planet.