In the U.S. natural gas use has largely been confined to large institutional fleets, whether buses or garbage trucks, that return to local depots at night to refuel. The fleet vehicles are commonly fueled with compressed natural gas (CNG), which comprises the same methane molecules, albeit stored at lower pressures, which result in less dense fuel. Burning the compressed gas helps reduce pollution from these vehicles, and Clean Energy Fuels already operates nearly 300 stations dispensing CNG nationwide.
But compressed natural gas won't work for big rigs. "It's a simple physical problem," explains chemical engineer Patrick Davis, program manager for vehicle technologies at the U.S. Department of Energy, which also encompasses ARPA–E. "You can't package enough CNG on board a truck. It has to be LNG for no other reason than the density of the fuel. It's required for long haul."
Made in the U.S.A.
In a bid to wean the U.S. from the roughly $1 billion a day spent on importing oil, the Energy Department is funding a variety of efforts to develop natural gas–based alternative fuels. Miami-based start-up Vehicle Production Group also received an Energy loan guarantee for production of its minivan that runs on compressed natural gas burned in an engine built by Ford. For its part, MOVE is currently gathering applicants for $30 million in funding to explore better ways to store natural gas at both high and low pressures as well as opportunities to create affordable home refueling technology that might enable natural gas to become a fuel for the cars and trucks driven every day by Americans. The idea is to either find materials that can soak up methane like a sponge and store it at low pressures or to build a better (and cheaper) high-pressure storage tank.
Of course, one of the main reasons that natural gas itself remains cheap is that there are currently limited options for using it in the U.S. Either it must be burned in a power plant to create electricity or used in the chemical and fertilizer sector. Already, the federal government has approved plans to export liquefied natural gas as well as to begin to use it in vehicles—both of which would ultimately drive up its price, thereby making it less economically attractive as an energy alternative.
But if the U.S. were able to develop technologies to better use natural gas in vehicles, the nation could both reduce its trade deficit and potentially find a competitive advantage for the future. "If we can evolve robust technologies here and develop them for our domestic market, we can then export them to other places," Cizek argues.
And liquefying natural gas is only one of the ways to turn the gaseous molecule into a liquid fuel. "If we can convert it into a drop-in liquid fuel, that would be a great solution also," Cizek notes of alternative fuels that would not need pressurization and could directly substitute for petroleum-derived gasoline, diesel or jet fuel. "That's something we're investigating."
That would be a solution for the nation's largest single user of petroleum: the U.S. Department of Defense. "Natural gas won't work for us," Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said March 20 at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Summit, because it would require retrofitting the armed forces' many engines. "We need drop-in fuels."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
29 Comments
Add CommentI know that diesel fuel is relatively difficult to ignite - how do compressed LNG tanks work out in violent collisions? Will this make truck wrecks much more exciting for us innocent bystanders?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of wasting all that money on another overpriced fossil fuel, why don't they invest in a battery and turn those trucks electric. If an electric motor can pull a train, it can pull a truck.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think most trains are diesel-electric - a large diesel engine is used to power a large generator, which powers traction motors which drive the wheels. Electric-diesel end purely electric locomotives require those messy overhead power lines, since battery power is not currently feasible (as should be obvious). Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive#Motive_power or
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_locomotive#Transmission_types
Exactly. Some of the haul trucks used in mining also do the same thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terex_33-19_%22Titan%22).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is abundantly clear that natural gas will likely be the future of mass transportation and shipping. I am you on the safety aspect though. I have had a chance to work on and around natural gas vehicles and fueling stations and I am very concerned about the safety aspects.
Wow the cost will go up as soon as this is implemented.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It's also good for the environment because it's the cleanest fuel available for big-rig trucks."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is a loaded statement if ever there was one. Fracking for natural gas requires many more wells then petroleum to get the same amount of fuel. We have not yet begun to see the real damage fracking will do to the environment when the number of fracked wells reaches into the hundreds of thousands. Big rigs made for long hauls should have been outlawed decades ago. Trains are much more efficient for long hauls.
Dag-gone-it. Here I find myself agreeing with you again. Trains are even cheaper to operate since they can carry a lot more and take less maintenance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou must not have heard about the electric train Japan has and Europe is going to have. You are saying that because Obama wants to build super fast trains here in the US from coast to coast and the conservatives do not like anything Obama want to do to improve our economy and create jobs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am amazed at how little people know and understand. There are millions of wells that have been fraced since the 1950s.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many CHG trucks running now. There is a problem with the range but not much.
The environmental damage done by fracing is so small it is ridiculous to even talk about. All flowback water is disposed deep disposal wells.
I am very tired of all the chicken little running around telling untrue stories about how dangerous fracing is.
Thanks, but wouldn't a ruptured LNG tank depressurize, releasing a concentrated gas into a extremely hazardous situation? Don't houses blow up when gas concentrations reach critical levels and are exposed to an ignition source? Couldn't gas released into the atmosphere from a depressurized liquid state reach critical levels near the release site?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is very good, except it is not objective, it only presents the perspective favored by the petroleum industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe possible, and some say very real, drawbacks to fracking, leakage of chemicals used in the fracking process into groundwater used by locals in their wells is not addressed, not at all. More and more evidence is beginning to support the argument that fracking has a far greater negative impact than the petroleum industry is admitting.
A direct correlation between fracking and groundwater seepage will be very difficult and the petroleum industry has no reason to admit a connection between the two, if punitive judgements have not been established. Shame on the petroleum industry if they've supressed studies, which might help avoid genetic disorders, diseases and other horrible side-effects.
As stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas#Safety_and_accidents
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"For LNG to burn, it must first vaporize, then mix with air in the proper proportions (the flammable range is 5% to 15%), and then be ignited. In the case of a leak, LNG vaporizes rapidly, turning into a gas (methane plus trace gases), and mixing with air. If this mixture is within the flammable range, there is risk of ignition which would create fire and thermal radiation hazards."
Again, diesel fuel is very difficult to ignite - currently, most truck accidents present a low risk of explosion and fire.
Very dissapointing. I'm concerned about the impact of fracking on our water supply and the environment in general. I live in California and we have enough earthquakes already. Just had one this morning! I wonder why we aren't already using algae or even hemp fuels. If anyone lives in CA and wants to sign the petition to be sent to Gov. Brown to ban fracking in CA, here it is: http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9760
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems to me we have here yet one more case of buying into the irrational market-based understanding of what "cheap" means? Come on folks -- don't use that word unless it's based on "fully-loaded costing" -- i.e. what industry and the corporate world in general consider to be "externalities" (ie costs that are off their books) are *not* off the books when it comes to the common welfare... I had a professor at Georgetown in the 60's who liked to note that the planes taking off from (then) national airport and dumping their soot on our suits -- never calculated dry cleaning as a part of the cost of doing business. (And that of course is a trivial example... The 'externalities associated with fracking have not even been adequately described yet...)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Remember the Hindenburg. BOOM!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F54rqDh2mWA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Okay, so the Hindenburg was Hydrogen gas, not natural gas. But the lesson can and should be learned.)
2. All coal plants will quickly be phased out, being replaced by natural gas. So the increased demand for natural gas will soon drive up the price of natural gas, making it less of a bargain. (Electric utilities have essentially stopped building any new coal plants, not only because of the lower cost of the fuel, but because of EPA requirements for carbon capture and storage. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577307524051798192.html
Furthermore, a Wall Street Journal Editorial points out that whenever an existing coal plant upgrades, as all do eventually, they will then be required to implement a carbon capture and storage program. (Even though the official EPA carbon capture regulations would seem to apply only to "new' plants. http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/2012/04/coal-pointcounterpoint/
So again, don't expect cheap natural gas because of oversupply to exist for too long.
No, I'm saying that because my dad and his dad were railroad men & I got to ride in a diesel-electric engine & blow the horn when I was a kid. I got to ride on a caboose with a wood-burning stove, too! In the mid 1990s I was able to take a short trip on a Shinkansen in Japan - it exceeded 100 mph & was smooth & quite like an airplane, with similar accommodations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor law abiding citizens no problem using propane type tanks to hold LNG. It's virtually what they do with motorhomes. Crafty criminals though cannot be trusted. LNG goes into large spaces too easily. It could be piped into an empty mall at night with massive consequences. Licensing LNG distributors to video the exchange of tanks instead of "drop-in" type refueling would do much to quickly advance the changeover at the pick-up truck and personal vehicle level. As a consumer I would be happy to "buy-in" to being recorded when I pull in to exchange high-tech-Security-tanks. I get a receipt with my licensed distributors face etc. and he gets one of me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, what a biased article. Not a word about the environmental problems of fracking. Which gets protested everywhere it happens because of it's harmful effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElectric generated by diesel generators power trains - how many Nuclear plants would you support building so the cost would be low and force the change. No C02 output - LNG and regular electric [coal/gas] put out C02] no benefit -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFracked gas as road fuel:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Cons:
1. Investing and developing it further delays work on THE BIG PROBLEM: Global warming / excess CO2.
2. The cost by gas companies further entrenches them politically against work on GW / CO2.
3. Since it's rather cheap to convert existing engines to compressed gas, users will have little "skin in the game" of solving GW / CO2.
4. Unpredictable contamination of ground water, streams, air and biosphere as drilling becomes widespread and competitive.
5. Letting bigoil get away with influencing people with another BIG LIE: Natural gas is still FOSSILE CO2. It needs to stay in the ground.
Pros:
1. An intermediate step [hopefully short] between coal & oil and truly "green" energy.
2. Because it is cheaper [for now] then oil-based fuels, there is room for higher tax per gallon to subsidize research and the search for an algae or process that uses solar energy to take CO2 directly from the atmosphere.
This research could provide mucho work for Americans, the money will be there. "Throw" money at it if we must!
Sure, there may be corruption, graft, and make-work/kill-time, but over the long haul something, we know not what, will emerge out of the chaos.
This is not a moon race. It's substantially different, we have no idea yet what the answer will be, WE JUST NEED TO GET GOING.
Fracked gas as road fuel:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Cons:
1. Investing and developing it further delays work on THE BIG PROBLEM: Global warming / excess CO2.
2. The cost by gas companies further entrenches them politically against work on GW / CO2.
3. Since it's rather cheap to convert existing engines to compressed gas, users will have little "skin in the game" of solving GW / CO2.
4. Unpredictable contamination of ground water, streams, air and biosphere as drilling becomes widespread and competitive.
5. Letting bigoil get away with influencing people with another BIG LIE: Natural gas is still FOSSILE CO2. It needs to stay in the ground.
The Pros:
1. An intermediate step [hopefully short] between coal & oil and truly "green" energy.
2. Because it is cheaper [for now] then oil-based fuels, there is room for higher tax per gallon to subsidize research and the search for an algae or process that uses solar energy to take CO2 directly from the atmosphere.
This research could provide mucho work for Americans, the money will be there. "Throw" money at it if we must!
Sure, there may be corruption, graft, and make-work/kill-time, but over the long haul something, we know not what, will emerge out of the chaos.
This is not a moon race. It's substantially different, we have no idea yet what the answer will be, WE JUST NEED TO GET GOING.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an EV person NG is by far the best way to do trucking with so many benefits from polution, economic, national security, etc.
And the last thing to do with it is export it. We badly need it for the switch from coal and oil and the massive economic and environment damage they do. They just downgraded our reserves of NG as pervious ones were overdone. The wells while flowing nicely at first drops fast, only a couple yrs instead of the 10+ yrs they had thought in many tight gas sites the early estimates used.
To say no big NG motors is curious since a standard gas truck 500ci motor on NG and a 14-1 compression ratio easily gets 500hp. They have been racing NG dragsters for decades because it's such s high hp fuel.
But the real future for trucks is a 100hp NG motor with a 75kw altmotor and a 250kw E motor with 20kwhr of batteries would double the eff, mileage again.
My thoughts on the far future would be a high speed rail that trucks got on using ground effect suspension linking up to others into a train, all on electricity, far faster at 120-150mph at far better $/ton.
This would work for cars, RV's, etc that had the needed mating surfaces.
It makes much more sense to use Methanol as a fuel. It cost 3.1 cents per liter to convert NG to Methanol in large plants. Total cost of 5.2 cents per liter using the large volumes of flared NG in remote regions. The DOE built a clean coal IGCC Coal Power plant that produces Methanol from Coal for 50 cents per gallon. Methanol is the cleanest burning of all liquid fuels - and the most environmentally friendly. Spills are no problem whatsoever. It quickly evaporates into the atmosphere or dilutes completely into water. And natural bacteria consume it. They add millions of gallons of methanol to sewage treatment plant effluent to destroy nitrates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMethanol has 5.9X the energy density of the CNG they send down pipelines and double the energy density of CNG @ 3000 psi ( CNG vehicles). It would be far cheaper to send Methanol down a pipeline than CNG.
Methanol is also the best fuel for vehicles, and that's what we need most right now, a substitute for rapidly depleting Oil. Methanol burns at double the efficiency of gasoline, in a converted diesel engine, even more efficiently than diesel. Although Methanol has half the energy density of Diesel it burns more efficiently, with a much wider island of high efficiency than the diesel engine. And much lower emissions. It is also easier to convert diesel & gas engines to Methanol than NG or LNG. And easy safe fuel storage. And also easy to convert Oil & Gas furnaces & Gas Turbines with a 10% improvement in efficiency. The 43% efficient Methanol engine:
epa.gov/otaq/presentations/sae-2002-01-2743-v2.pdf
The EPA states replacing Gasoline with Methanol will reduce vehicle fire related deaths & injuries by 95%.
And Methanol to DME (DME is two Methanol molecules attached) - DME is the best fuel for Diesel Engines, much cleaner burning & highest cetane number(diesel effectiveness) of any fuel.
The World's #1 Expert on Fuels, the Nobel Prize Winning Chemist, George Olah, has concluded that we can replace Fossil Fuels with the Methanol Economy, and has written a book of the same name.
China is widely replacing gasoline & diesel with Methanol, which they produce from Coal for 13 cents per liter. Big Oil is blocking Methanol as a fuel in the west, any mention of Methanol Fuel and their teeth chatter in fear, knowing that Methanol can destroy their Energy Hegemony, and they are especially afraid of Coal or Biomass to Methanol. The most rational use of Biomass is to convert it to Methanol fuel, not stupidly burning it in Power Plants like the German Gullible Fools like to do.
Natural gas is also widely used residentially. I use it for central heat, heating water, and cooking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOceanogenic Power: clean, sufficient and cheap (10 cents CIF USA including UHVDC power lines, or superconductors, from Panama), in each place of reception would be refined sea water to produce hydrogen, oxygen and fresh water to do the thereof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLie #1: NG exhausts 1/2 the CO2 as oil. No. This article plainly states LNG produces slightly less than 2/3 the performance as oil in work. So 1-1/2 MORE LNG by volume must be combusted to equal the work accomplished by oil. Therefore LNG will exhause only 3/4 the amount of CO2 as oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut wait this brings to Lie #2: To frack, extract, compress, liquify, transport and store LNG will require as much or more than twice the CO2 as conventional oil. So converting to LNG as a primary fuel will ACCELERATE GCCC impacts.
This is lunacy. Pure and simple.
I once read that an attack on a large LNG transport ship would create a nuclear-scale explosion in a major harbor. If that is true, then it does seem unwise to store 18,000 gallons of the stuff above ground. Have the safety issues been thoroughly addressed here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a disgusting report. The cost of shipping might go down, but the cost of contaminating our country's groundwater will be exponential (considering how it's nearly impossible to clean). People with impacted wells will continue to suffer while these companies lobby the government to continue their destructive mining. There's a reason fracking is outlawed in other countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd speaking of OCEANOGENIC POWER,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiseveryone knows that in the output of any hydroelectric turbines, and worse in the tropics, is produces methane, 300 times cheaper to get it, with fracking of shale.