Electric Cars, plug-ins? Why not CNG?

In summary, natural gas is being considered as a logical substitute for crude oil due to its similar mechanics to gasoline and availability of existing infrastructure. The US has significant reserves of natural gas and it is a major contributor to electricity production. However, there are concerns about the feasibility of using natural gas directly as a fuel for vehicles due to storage limitations and efficiency concerns. Burning natural gas to generate electricity is seen as a more practical option, especially with the high thermodynamic efficiencies achieved by gas-fired CCGTs. However, the high cost of natural gas may impact its overall economic viability. Additionally, using electricity from natural gas to power non-heating needs is seen as a more efficient use of the resource.
  • #1
Adrock1795
Natural Gas, It's the only logical substitute to Crude Oil. The mechanics of the vehicle are almost identical to gasoline, base infrastructure is already in place (pipelines), Although the major Oil producers also produce Natural gas, the US has reserves that match that of Saudi Arabia and UAE.

21% of all electricity in the US is produced by Natural Gas, 50% by Coal, 1% by petroleum

I don't get what the point is to use electricity created from natural gas to run a car, and not just use natural gas itself.

Just look at the numbers (all data from eia) This is just a rough estimate, world reserves accuracy isn't validated, and prices don't account for the different grades of product

NYMEX->1/21/09

Price
Oil - $40.34/barrel
Ngas-$4.6350/mbtu
Diesel-$1.3656/gal
Gasoline-$1.1340/gal

World Reserves
Oil- 1,332,000,000,000 barrels
Naturalgas- 61,941,925,400,000 mbtu

Market Cap
Oil-----$53,732,880,000,000
Ngas--$287,100,824,229,000

Total World btu
Oil-----7,725,600,000,000,000,000
Ngas--61,941,925,400,000,000,000

btu/$1
Oil-----143,777
Ngas---215,749
diesel---109,614
gasoline-110,229
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It is certainly a possibility, but the difficulty with natural gas is the storage. It is tough to get any kind of decent range with a pressurized tank.
 
  • #3
I don't get what the point is to use electricity created from natural gas to run a car, and not just use natural gas itself.

Perhaps efficiency - gas-fired CCGT power plants can achieve 60% thermodynamic efficiency, twice that of an internal combustion engine. I don't know the figures for gas turbine cars, but from general principle I doubt they're 60%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant#Gas_turbine_combined-cycle_plants

Natural Gas, It's the only logical substitute to Crude Oil.

Yes it is! Besides, of course, hydrogen fuel cells, hydrogen internal combustion engines, methanol combustion or direct methanol fuel cells, bioethanol (from miscnathus grass, sugar cane, or blue-green algae), biodiesel (methyl or ethyl esters of lipids), alkali metal hydrides (such as LiAlH4 or NaBH4), chemical electric batteries (Li ion or NiCad), ultracapacitors, synthetic hydrocarbons from biomass (via CO, Fischer-Tropsch), synthetic butanol, dimethyl ether (from methanol), solid boron, or ammonia. But besides those, it's the only logical substitute for oil.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
It's completely standard in europe. You can modify a gasoline engine for about $1000, it still uses gasoline as well (most can't start on LPG).
There were even grants to pay for it and LPG is about 1/2 the price at the pumps because of lower tax
The main reason for not doing it is the worry that once you have paid for the conversion they will put the same tax on LPG as they do on petrol/diesel.

CNG is a bit trickier. LPG gives about half the range of diesel and CNG about half again. It also needs high pressure tanks to store it rather than just a barbecue type propane cyliner
 
Last edited:
  • #5
I agree, we should work more towards natural gas. As russ said there is a range problem but for the typical daily commuter it is a cleaner/cheaper alternative to gasoline that can easily be used by the general public. More so than electric cars in my opinion. I'm a firm believer that burning a fuel is the most practical way to move a vehicle (and be able to provide enough heating & AC energy).
 
  • #6
Burning natural gas to make electricity is especially dumb.
The only reason to do it is that it is very cheap to build a gas fired plant compared to any other, you can even build a small 100-200Mw almost off the shelf by bolting together backup generator sized units.
Expensive to run and they only have a short life but if you manage the contracts for power generation wrongly this is what you get.
 
  • #7
Burning natural gas to make electricity is especially dumb.
The only reason to do it is that it is very cheap to build a gas fired plant compared to any other, you can even build a small 100-200Mw almost off the shelf by bolting together backup generator sized units.

It's not dumb at all! As I pointed out, gas-fired CCGTs achieve the highest thermodynamic efficiencies - 60% even. This is not a cheap off-the-shelf solution, it is a capital-intensive power plant which uses more than one thermodynamic cycle - for example, a high-temperature Brayton cycle (a gas turbine) with a lower temperature Rankine cycle (a steam turbine).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant#Gas_turbine_combined-cycle_plants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle

Together with the much lower CO2 intensity of natural gas (half that of coal), CCGT baseload power is a very reasonable short-term reduction strategy for GHGs. For example, a 60% efficiency gas-fired CCGT will emit 1/4th the CO2 per kWh of a 30% efficiency coal plant. It is less capital-intensive and much faster to construct than nuclear power, so it could be a transition strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BiodieselsCountryOfOrigin.jpg

Expensive to run and they only have a short life but if you manage the contracts for power generation wrongly this is what you get.

Utilities build (non-CCGT) gas power plants because they are economic for peaking power (fast, on demand load balancing in peak hours). This is because the upfront capital costs are cheap, so amortized, running gas power at very low capacity factor is cheaper than anything else at low capacity factor, except maybe hydroelectric dams. The fuel costs may be high, but at low capacity factor that is less important. See for instance:

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1472

e87oko.jpg
 
  • #8
It's not dumb at all! As I pointed out, gas-fired CCGTs achieve the highest thermodynamic efficiencies - 60% even.
Thermodynamic efficiency doesn't matter if your fuel is more expensive.

Then using that electricity to electrically heat houses and run stoves instead of piping gas directly to them is about as bright as burning diesel in a power plant to create electricity for plug-in EVs.
 
  • #9
mgb_phys said:
Then using that electricity to electrically heat houses and run stoves instead of piping gas directly to them

They are not mutually exclusive. The economy still has non-heating needs for electricity.

Thermodynamic efficiency doesn't matter if your fuel is more expensive.

It does, because less is needed as a result, which lowers the effective fuel costs. Additionally there is the large CO2 advantage of natural gas - add in a carbon tax and the economics change. For instance, from a 2008 Canadian study:

$/MWh vs. $/MTCO2 (Canadian $)
14mfjmt.jpg


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/Chapter1.4.1.shtml#1088555

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/toc.htm
 
Last edited:

1. Are electric cars more environmentally friendly than traditional gasoline cars?

Yes, electric cars produce zero emissions and do not contribute to air pollution. However, the production of electricity used to charge electric cars may still produce emissions depending on the source of the electricity.

2. How far can an electric car travel on a single charge?

The range of electric cars varies depending on the model and battery capacity. On average, electric cars can travel 100-250 miles on a single charge. However, advancements in technology have allowed some models to travel up to 400 miles on a single charge.

3. How long does it take to charge an electric car?

The charging time for an electric car depends on the type of charger and the battery capacity. A Level 1 charger (120 volts) can take 8-12 hours to fully charge a car, while a Level 2 charger (240 volts) can take 4-6 hours. Fast charging stations (DC fast chargers) can charge a car to 80% in 30 minutes.

4. Why choose an electric car over a plug-in hybrid?

Electric cars are fully powered by electricity and do not require any gasoline, making them more environmentally friendly. They also have a longer range compared to plug-in hybrids, which still rely on gasoline for longer trips. However, plug-in hybrids offer the convenience of being able to run on gasoline when the battery is depleted.

5. Why aren't more cars using compressed natural gas (CNG) as a fuel source?

CNG is a cleaner alternative to gasoline, but it requires a specialized fueling infrastructure which can be costly to implement. Additionally, CNG tanks take up more space in a car compared to batteries used in electric cars. This limits the number of CNG vehicles that can be produced and sold.

Similar threads

  • Electrical Engineering
4
Replies
117
Views
8K
Replies
133
Views
24K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
3
Views
3K
Back
Top