Summer gas?

[Professur]

Nobody said they didn't pollute. Looks like a pretty good alernative though and we don't have to rely on foreign countries for the fuel.

This is a point where you have to really be careful. Remember, it wasn't really all that long ago that the US didn't rely on foreign countries for oil either. Right now, the US isn't even self sufficient in Electricity, never mind anything else. Any future fuel has to be something with two properties: self sufficient today and self sufficient tomorrow. Developing alternatives lacking those two properties has to be limited to stop gap status. LP and natural gas fall into that catagory.

 

[GrandCaravanSE]

O.K. well why is there not a blend for all seasons, and don't they produce the gas before the "winter blend", and "Summer blend", is even need? i am pretty sure that if they are sitting in tanks waiting to be sold, why does the cost go up, and why the hell is oil down , but the prices have not changed?

 

[jimpeel]

O.K. well why is there not a blend for all seasons, and don't they produce the gas before the "winter blend", and "Summer blend", is even need?

There is no all-year blend because gasoline reacts differently to different ambient temperatures. Evan before the EPA and state air quality standards, gas had additives that were for various reasons -- anti-knock, octane, lead for valve lubricity, etc.

i am pretty sure that if they are sitting in tanks waiting to be sold, why does the cost go up, and why the hell is oil down , but the prices have not changed?

That's the sixty-four-thousand dollar question. I read articles every day on how there is a glut of oil and the price is plummeting yet the cost of gas is rising. No one seems to have the answer but prices are coming back down -- slowly..

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i5TtajgUpSm7KY5jf-lCJGHBB-tAD96I1J401

Oil well below $40; consumer confidence plunges

By DIRK LAMMERS – 4 hours ago

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — Oil hovered below $39 Tuesday with the release of more bad housing news and dismal consumer confidence numbers.

Prices, however, rose slightly after a broad sell-off to start the week.

Benchmark crude for April delivery gained 18 cents to $38.62 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, following the Dow Jones industrials, which rose 60 points after falling 3.4 percent to new 10-year lows a day earlier.

"Right now, it's all about the stock markets," said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. "A little pop on stocks means a little pop on oil. If things start looking bad, then we start looking down."

The Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index shows home prices tumbled by the sharpest annual rate on record in the fourth quarter and in December. Prices are now at levels not seen since the third quarter of 2003.

"Seeing that the market was able to stay up in spite of that, there's a sense maybe some of the bad news is already priced in," Flynn said.

Retail gasoline prices have fallen every day since they neared $2 per gallon one week ago, and prices fell again overnight.

The national retail average price for a gallon of regular gas fell a penny to $1.90 a gallon, according to auto club AAA, the Oil Price Information Service and Wright Express. That is 5.5 cents a gallon above what it was a month ago, but $2.21 below last July when prices peaked at $4.11 per gallon.

[more]

 

[jimpeel]

Okay.

Further on my contention that using LNG will create more pollution due to less work potential.

SOURCE

1 gal of 87 octane gas contains 125,000 btus of energy.

1 gal of CNG contains 90,800 btus of energy.

The difference is 34,200 btus of energy.

1 horsepower hour is 2542.47 btus (mean)

This means that one gal of gas holds 49.16 horsepower hours of energy.

Conversely, one gal of LNG holds 35.71 horsepower hours of energy.

One would have to burn 1.38 gal of LNG to achieve the same horsepower hour output as one gal of gas.

With all conditions equal, (displacement, rpm, etc.) it would take 1.38 times as long, timewise, to burn the equivalent of LNG as it takes to burn the same amount of gas and reach the same horsepower hour output.

If the LNG creates only 80% (20% less) of the CO2 that gas does, but it takes more of it to achieve the same result, the output of LNG would be (.80*1.38) = 110.4% of the output of CO2 that comes from a gal of gas.

Still sick. Gotta go. If you have any ?? I'll be back tomorrow.

 

[randomJACKASS]

Why the hell are you trying to convince us about the virtues of normal gas, since you contend that we can rape the environment anyway we wish, and it's all gonna be fine because we are too insignifigant to cause climate disasters?

You can't have it both ways Jim, so which is it?

 

[GrandCaravanSE]

There is no all-year blend because gasoline reacts differently to different ambient temperatures. Evan before the EPA and state air quality standards, gas had additives that were for various reasons -- anti-knock, octane, lead for valve lubricity, etc.

O.K. instead of making a differnt blemnd for every state, why don't the just produece it for the states that have drastic change in tempature? i see no reason to change the gas in Arizona, or Texas, due to the same tempatures almost all the time.

 

[Gonz]

Winter is winter....specifics only change.

Phoenix Summer high 118 Winter high 55...thats a 63 degree change

Chicago Summer high 100 Winter high 28 that's 72 degrees

 

[spike]

If the LNG creates only 80% (20% less) of the CO2 that gas does, but it takes more of it to achieve the same result, the output of LNG would be (.80*1.38) = 110.4% of the output of CO2 that comes from a gal of gas.

"You made an assumption there that the 20% was based on burning the same amount of fuel and not driving the same amount of miles."

 

[jimpeel]

Why the hell are you trying to convince us about the virtues of normal gas, since you contend that we can rape the environment anyway we wish, and it's all gonna be fine because we are too insignifigant to cause climate disasters?

Glad you agree with me. We are insignificant. The climate changes (Notice they don't use GW since the planet has been cooling for the last decade? - j) are natural phenomena. The models do not take into account cloud shading, sunspot activity, water vapor -- the most plentiful GW gas -- or the greening of the northern hemisphere. How do we solve the "problem" of water vapor? Do we concrete over the oceans?

You can't have it both ways Jim, so which is it?

GW is a scam, a farce, and a hoax. Get used to it. I have.

Name one -- just one -- viable alternative fuel that is anywhere near being able to take the place of petroleum to fuel transportation.

• LNG? LNG is a petroleum product.
• LPG? LPG is a petroleum product.
• Hydrogen? Hydrogen does not exist in the natural environment. It must be extracted and, according to the law of conservation of energy, the amount of energy it will produce will not exceed the energy expended to extract it. READ THIS
• Fuel cells? Way in the future.
• Electric cars? How will you charge tens of millions of electric cars using the existing grid?
• Wind power? This has been discussed on these boards and they are not efficient, the coal/gas power plants have to be kept on line to make up for the times the wind doesn't blow.
• Photovoltaic? Not even close to being an alternative due to cost, processing, materials, etc. It won't run a delivery truck, either.
• Diesel? Diesel is a petroleum product.
• Pedal cars? There isn't enough room for all the people you would need to pedal it.

Sorry, but petroleum is the only game in town and the government is selling our country down the river because they hate the industry.

By the way, did I mention the enviro groups which will fight your every effort to product alternative energy?

 

[jimpeel]

"You made an assumption there that the 20% was based on burning the same amount of fuel and not driving the same amount of miles."

I assumed nothing. The figures are tailpipe emissions not energy, rpm, displacement, etc. You confuse emissions with the mechanism which creates them.

The 20% less figure is from your link in POST #14.

 

[GrandCaravanSE]

Winter is winter....specifics only change.

Phoenix Summer high 118 Winter high 55...thats a 63 degree change

Chicago Summer high 100 Winter high 28 that's 72 degrees

But it is not a huge drastic change in arizona it is 63* granted, but it really shouldent effect the way you should produce it.

 

[spike]

I assumed nothing. The figures are tailpipe emissions not energy, rpm, displacement, etc. You confuse emissions with the mechanism which creates them.

The 20% less figure is from your link in POST #14.

You're assuming the tailpipe emissions are based on buring the same amount of fuel and not driving the same amount of miles.

GW is a scam, a farce, and a hoax. Get used to it. I have.

Name one -- just one -- viable alternative fuel that is anywhere near being able to take the place of petroleum to fuel transportation.

No, it's not a farce and there are plenty of viable alternatives to start transitioning off of oil.

 

[GrandCaravanSE]

You're assuming the tailpipe emissions are based on buring the same amount of fuel and not driving the same amount of miles.



No, it's not a farce and there are plenty of viable alternatives to start transitioning off of oil.

And that E85 crap is not the answer!

 

[jimpeel]

You're assuming the tailpipe emissions are based on buring the same amount of fuel and not driving the same amount of miles.

Emissions tests are done on fixed dynomometers. They are not done on a "mileage" basis. You cannot confuse work done with emissions created. They are not the same thing and they are NOT related.

The fact is that to achieve the same amount of work you must burn 1.38 times the amount of CNG as gas. This means that the engine, all things equal -- displacement, rpm, etc. -- will have to operate for a longer period of time to achieve that work. It is the TIME that the engine runs which determines the amount of emissions created. An engine that is not running creates zero emissions and will do so for the entire time the engine is not running.

Now, there IS this to consider if you will:

An engine running on alcohol must have the carburetor jets modified to a larger size due to the difference in BTU output. The same should be true of CNG. This means that the use of the 1.38 gallons of CNG would, indeed, burn in the same time frame as a gallon of gas. HOWEVER ...

ONE gallon of CNG, by known standards, would not create the same amount of work nor carry the vehicle the same distance as ONE gallon of gas. The vehicle running on CNG would find itself stalling out and stopping far behind the vehicle running on gas.

Let's take two vehicles which run on the two types of fuel. They both have exactly one gallon of fuel. They both start at the same point and travel at the same speed until the one gallon of fuel is depleted.

Let's say that the vehicle running on gas gets 100 mpg. When the one gallon of gas in this vehicle runs out the car will stop 100 miles from where it started.

The same vehicle running on LNG, which has only 72% of the BTU output of the gallon of gas, will only travel 72 miles before coming to a stop.

At this point, you have to put in another .38 gallons of CNG to get to the same point as the vehicle which runs on gas. The time to get to that point will be 1.38 times the amount of time it took the gas vehicle to get to where it now rests. During this time, the CNG vehicle will be creating emissions.

If the emissions are only 80% of the amount created by the gas vehicle, but the car takes 1.38 times as much time to travel as far, then the emissions will exceed the amount produced by the gas vehicle by 10.4% (.80*1.38 = 110.4).

You simply cannot discount the amount of time that an engine is running regardless of the amount of work produced. The engine produces emissions only when running and it runs for a period of time.

 

[spike]

Jim, there is no evidence yet that the 20% less CO2 number is based on the amount of fuel used and not the amount of miles driven or work done.

 

[jimpeel]

Jim, there is no evidence yet that the 20% less CO2 number is based on the amount of fuel used and not the amount of miles driven or work done.

Okay. I'll try this one more time.

Tailpipe emissions are COMPARATIVE. They compare two different fuels at the SAME SET of specifications. If the specifications were different, there would be no comparison. The tests are done on static equipment ie: a dynomometer.

We are talking laboratory results here.

The car is NOT in motion.

The car is NOT producing useful work.

In fact, there may be no car at all. There may be nothing more than an engine mounted on a stand.

Fuel in;

Fuel is burned;

Emissions out.

Very simple.

I'm done. If I have not been able to couch my explanations in terms which you can accept or understand, then beating this dead horse again is not gonna help.

 

[Gonz]

No, it's not a farce and there are plenty of viable alternatives to start transitioning off of oil.

Just curious, do you own (or currently have a loan for) an "alternative fuel vehicle"?

 

[spike]

Okay. I'll try this one more time.

Jim I'll try this one more time. The link says that NG vehicles can reduce CO2 emmissions by 20%. You are making an unfounded assumption that they have not already taken into account the reduced gas mileage.

Therefore it is very possible that you may be applying this reduced work potential for a second time.

Here's some more on NG emmissions....

Are there emissions benefits from using natural gas in vehicles?
Yes. For heavy trucks and buses, a new (Model Year 2004) natural gas vehicle can cut toxic soot pollution by 75 to 90 percent, while smog-forming pollution is reduced by about 25 percent compared to conventional diesel. Diesel soot is extremely toxic, containing over 40 chemicals that California has declared as toxic air contaminants. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates that diesel exhaust causes 70% of the state's cancer risk from airborne pollution.

For passenger vehicles, natural gas also offers emissions benefits. For example, Honda's 2004 Civic GX runs on compressed natural gas (CNG) and as of January 1 of this year is the cleanest federally certified passenger vehicle available, with the exception of zero emission electrified vehicles.3 It is also one of a handful of vehicles including gasoline and hybrid electric vehicles that meet California's strictest emissions standards.4 Another emissions benefit of natural gas vehicles is that there are no evaporative emissions during refueling.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicle...line_and_diesel/natural-gas-vehicles.html#Are

 

[spike]

Just curious, do you own (or currently have a loan for) an "alternative fuel vehicle"?

Not yet, my car is about 16 years old. But then again I take public transportation for the most part.

 

[jimpeel]

Jim I'll try this one more time. The link says that NG vehicles can reduce CO2 emmissions by 20%. You are making an unfounded assumption that they have not already taken into account the reduced gas mileage.

Therefore it is very possible that you may be applying this reduced work potential for a second time.

An engine running on a certain fuel at ideal running conditions puts out a reading for a certain number of emissions at certain rpm and load conditions. This reading does not take into account the work produced nor the miles per gallon output. This is especially true of a standing power plant (An engine mounted in a laboratory on an engine stand).

The engine will put out these emissions at the specified rate, for as long as it is running, regardless of how far it travels. Tailpipe emissions, while not independent of load and RPM conditions, are a constant at whatever speed or load is applied.

Let's say that the gas engine puts out 313.3964 GPM which is the reading from my latest smog report for my T-Bird.

80% of that is 250.7171 GPM. That is what the reading for a V-8, 5.0L LPG engine would be.

Both engines would perform the function; but the LPG engine would produce only 72% of the output of the gas engine, would ostensibly travel only 72% as far, and would have to run 1.38 times longer to equal the work of the gas engine -- all the while spewing 250.7171 GPM of CO2.

250.7171 * 1.38 = 345.9896 GPM which is higher than the output of the gas engine over the same distance.

I don't know what else to tell you other than to call or write the CARB and ask.

California Air Resources Board
100 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 322-7061
http://arb.ca.gov