The cost for a vehicle to run on methanol is thousands of dollars cheaper than running it on CNG or LNG in both the light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle sectors. In addition, recent MIT work by Cohn and his colleague, Leslie Bromberg, has indicated that a flex fuel-type passenger vehicle running on methanol could be potentially 30 percent more efficient than a vehicle powered by gasoline.
Electric cars may not help much
Electric vehicles powered by natural gas-generated electricity, or power derived from renewable sources such as wind and solar, could also help reduce U.S. oil dependency as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Cohn, however, said he doesn't see electric cars saving the United States from an oil crisis anytime soon.
"I don't think there's any way electric vehicles can have any significant impact in the foreseeable future on the world oil market when you take into account the high vehicle cost," he said. "They're a difficult sell in the U.S. and even more difficult in places like China and India."
But the business case for natural gas vehicles may not end up being all that attractive, either. Bloomberg New Energy Finance anticipates that natural gas prices will increase over the next 24 months and could reach as much as $6.50 per million British thermal units by 2020, up from $2.75 at the end of last year.
Indeed, the natural gas industry needs prices to go up in order to see a return on its investments, said Ethan Zindler, head of policy analysis at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. "A lot of people will lose a lot of money if gas prices stay at $3.50 [per million British thermal units]," he said.
In the last Congress, the Energy Security Council helped propose the "Open Fuel Standard Act," which would require that no less than half of every auto manufacturer's fleet by 2014 be able to run on non-petroleum fuels in addition to, or instead of, petroleum-based fuels (ClimateWire, Oct. 26, 2011).
Electric and natural gas vehicles would qualify to help meet the quota, but feasibly so, too, would cars that can run on liquid fuels derived from coal, which are much worse in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
Seeking more bipartisan support
The bill had bipartisan support, but failed to pass. Yesterday, the Energy Security Council vowed to renew lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill and to look for more allies in the private sector.
Increasing the number of alternatives is important not just for the transportation sector, but across the energy sector, said John Block, former secretary of Agriculture under President Reagan.
"I think we need to make it easier to drill for gas and oil and mine for coal," he said, adding that ethanol is also an important energy source in the transportation sector. By minimizing subsidies, reducing regulation and opening up U.S. trade, entrepreneurs will find creative solutions to America's oil crisis, he said.
But retired Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy, cautioned that energy security and national security should not be achieved at the expense of environmental security.
Natural gas is a win environmentally because it produces less local pollution and less carbon dioxide emissions than traditional petroleum and electricity generated from coal, he said. But it's necessary to consider the degree to which natural gas should replace other types of energy sources and the full life-cycle emissions associated with fuels derived from natural gas.
"We could find ourselves years down the road with a price on carbon, and if we are overinvested in a portfolio of transportation energy that's overly carbonated -- to use that term -- I think it would really be a mistake," he said.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentNatural Gas is a dry fuel and does not wash the oil from the cylinders of the engine. The engine lasts a lot longer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is little or no sludge build up in the oil. So the engine efficiency is maintained and oil change periods can be extended. Saving oil and service costs.
The future is EV's for those so short minded that can't see the Forest for the trees.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBattery technology is on the way which will allow the Tesla to have thousands of miles of range and EV's like the Leaf to have at least a 350 mile range. But soon they will have coast-to-coast range of 2000 to 3000 miles when combined technologies are implemented.
And when this happens ALL internal combustion engines are obsolete.
Don't believe this will happen?
Then your not paying attention to the research being done in our Universities, etc.
Read these and get sobering facts:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/01/28/nanoparticle-sets-world-record-for-battery-storage/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111114142047.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=better-battery-lithium-ion-cell-gets-supercharged
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/fuel-economy/8-potential-ev-and-hybrid-battery-breakthroughs?click=pm_news#slide-1
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121101073146.htm
In Utah the state gas utility is required by law to provide gas in the form of CNG at home delivery cost at selected gas stations all around the state. You don't need the extremely expensive "Phil" station which is really just a dirt cheap scuba compressor with an explosive safe electrical system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the rest of the county T Boone Picken's has bought off all politicians and sells the CNG for close to same cost as gas in his Clean Energy outlets.
While electric transpo is a great idea, dirt cheap nuke based hydrogen synfuels are also part of the solution. China's new HTGR plant under construction for 2017 service has 70% of its output reserved for synfuel production.
Nuke hydrogen combined with Biomass or cement production carbon can produce all the worlds needs for liquid fuels at a cost less than $30 a barrel. Right now Shell's first of kind GTL plant in Qatar is doing better that using natural gas.
Nuke powered EV's and other green nuke synthetic fuels like ammonia (propane substitute) ensure dirt cheap clean and green zero environmental cost fuel supplies in perpetuity.
Nuke power is the only way forward for the national's energy future - payback period to the nation for a 100% fossil to nuke conversion is 3 years over a 30% rate of return on investment.
roads will be destroyed if what I read is correct.Massive earth upheavals are predicted.Not even horses will survive that. The I.C.E. will be banned for pollution . Therefore, future transport will need to be cheaper air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs our primary objective to dramatically reduce co2 emissions in order to have some positive impact on global warming, or are we only interested in reducing dependence on foreign oil providers, reducing the impact of oil reserve depletion and achieving economic stability for the multinational fuel industry, national and multinational economies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe later has been an unachieved political and economic objective since the OPEC fuel crises of the 1970s. While still important to short term economic stability, achieving a stable fuel supply does virtually nothing to reduce co2 emissions or reduce global warming.
There will be no economic stability in a global 'climate' of environmental instability.
Nope
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause natural gas distribution systems are notoriously leaky spewing the 75 times as GHG potent as CO2 methane all along their length, natural gas is almost as dirty as just burning coal. NG also spews deadly fine particulate pollution which is more deadly than the coarse particles from burning coal.
Gas kills thousands even year,nuke power not a one in its entire history. Now which did you say was dangerous.
Gas in north america currently selling at the 30% the cost of production is the same cost as nuclear unless a public power company is building the nuke. Then its way more. Overseas nukes are far cheaper.
Gas still filthy/deadly just not as bad as coal.Nice!!!
In Brazil there is no scarcity of ethanol, but gas is being used increasingly, as it is even cheaper and cleaner. Taxis and vans use it almost exclusively.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill prefer EV and multifuel, though (electic + compressed air, electic + flywheel, etc)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf anyone doubts the EV is a mature tech, watch:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho Killed the Electric Car
at
movie2k(.to)
Natural gas is fine, but until we determine where and how to get it without destroying our water resources, all this hoopla is a little pre-mature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "Haliburton Ammendment" allowed the fracking industry to take off before the science was in. We better play catch up fast with science and serious regulation of fracking or our water supplies may be destroyed.
I believe the future is Electric Vehicles, not Natural Gas Vehicles. Also, I think Electric Vehicles will soon have several removable battery packs (maybe the size of skateboard) that can be swapped out at gas stations, like swapping out a propane tank. The gas stations can have solar panels or wind generators on site used to re-charge their store of battery packs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut how do we disposed of the batteries?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe cannot avoid catastrophic warming if we don't stop burning fossil fuels. Natural gas is a fossil fuel. We must stop thinking incrementally and take the leap to renewables. We have the technology. We lack the political will and courage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRAS LAFFAN INDUSTRIAL CITY, Qatar — The compact assembly of towers, tubes and tanks that make up the Oryx natural gas processing plant is almost lost in a vast petrochemical complex that rises here like a hazy mirage from a vast ocean of sand.
Image: ORYX GTL
The Sasol plant in Qatar makes 32,000 barrels of liquid fuels daily. Experts say the economics of the process are challenged.
John Broder/The New York Times
Marjo Louw, the president of Sasol Qatar, at its Oryx gas-to-liquids complex in Ras Laffan Industrial City, Qatar.
But what is occurring at Oryx is a particular kind of alchemy that has tantalized scientists for nearly a century with prospects of transforming the energy landscape. Sasol, a chemical and synthetic fuels company based in South Africa, is converting natural gas to diesel fuel using a variation of a technology developed by German scientists in the 1920s.
Performing such chemical wizardry is exceedingly costly. But executives at Sasol and a partner, Qatar’s state-owned oil company, are betting that natural gas, which is abundant here, will become the dominant global fuel source over the next 50 years, oil will become scarcer and more expensive and global demand for transport fuels will grow.
Sasol executives say the company believes so strongly in the promise of this technology that this month, it announced plans to spend up to $14 billion to build the first gas-to-liquids plant in the United States, in Louisiana, supported by more than $2 billion in state incentives. A shale drilling boom in that region in the last five years has produced a glut of cheap gas, and the executives say Sasol can tap that supply to make diesel and other refined products at competitive prices.
******
I saw "diesel" on the list of natural gas fuels, but no other mention made of it.
For those of you that have never had a natural gas vehicle we had two (converted) back in the 80's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey lacked power, had a limited range and required filling 2x daily with normal usage (125-150 miles).
There were few filling stations requiring frequent detours many miles out of the route.
The tanks were compressed to about (if memory serves me it has been 20 years) 3000 lbs psi which represented a danger if the vehicle was in an accident. The car had the tank taking up the trunk and the truck had it slung under the back fender.
They may improve the technology but based on what we experienced back then I wouldn't touch one again.