Methane as a substitute for petroleum in combustion engines

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential for using methane as a substitute for petroleum in internal combustion engines. Participants explore the feasibility, historical context, and current applications of methane, particularly in relation to environmental concerns and infrastructure challenges.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why internal combustion engines have not been widely adapted for methane, citing abundant sources from waste and potential reductions in carbon emissions.
  • Others mention that while there are methane vehicles, they face limitations such as short range due to the need for compressed gas.
  • A historical reference is made to WWII when vehicles in the UK were converted to use coal gas, highlighting challenges with gas storage and the benefits of reduced carbon monoxide emissions.
  • Some participants note that Germany is actively pursuing methane use in a carbon-neutral manner.
  • There are mentions of the growing popularity of compressed natural gas (CNG) for highway freight haulers and the establishment of CNG fueling stations in the US.
  • Participants discuss the past popularity of CNG and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in fleet vehicles and taxis, questioning the reasons for their decline in use.
  • Some highlight recent initiatives in communities converting service vehicles to CNG, particularly for waste collection.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of natural gas infrastructure for commuter vehicles, which may hinder the adoption of methane as a fuel source.
  • One participant points out that methane is commonly used in stationary equipment, though less so in mobile engines.
  • There is a discussion about the impact of low oil prices on the demand for methane in commercial trucking and the growing infrastructure for CNG vehicles in certain areas.
  • Technical challenges are mentioned regarding the power output of natural gas vehicles compared to gasoline vehicles, with a reference to turbocharged engines designed to mitigate these issues.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the viability of methane as a fuel source, with some acknowledging its potential while others highlight significant challenges and limitations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader adoption of methane in internal combustion engines.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include uncertainties about the methane output from waste sources, the practicality of establishing fueling infrastructure, and the comparative performance of natural gas vehicles versus gasoline vehicles.

Aestheticia
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Dear engineering community:

For many years now I have wondered why our internal combustion engines have not been adapted for methane in place of the various forms of petroleum products we currently use. Why? (1) Because we have a gargantuan ever-renewing source of methane in human garbage and sewage, and (2) because it seems to me that this could do something about the methane-related carbon emissions into the atmosphere while we work on switching to solar-electric for our vehicles, which could take awhile. Anybody have answers to this? Thanks...
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
There are methane vehicles and they are great except for short range due to having compressed gas as fuel.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: OCR
During WWII many vehicles in the UK were converted to methane (coal gas strictly), busses and trucks had large gas bags on their roofs. Carrying enough gas for a decent run is a bit of a problem and keeping it in liquid form would be difficult. I believe it produces carbon dioxide instead of carbon monoxide which is some advantage.
 
Germany has been taking it seriously... in a carbon-neutral way.

Or spray those cars with some solar screen...
 
Aestheticia said:
Dear engineering community:

For many years now I have wondered why our internal combustion engines have not been adapted for methane in place of the various forms of petroleum products we currently use. Why? (1) Because we have a gargantuan ever-renewing source of methane in human garbage and sewage, and (2) because it seems to me that this could do something about the methane-related carbon emissions into the atmosphere while we work on switching to solar-electric for our vehicles, which could take awhile. Anybody have answers to this? Thanks...
This article discusses how natural gas is used to power a variety of different vehicles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_vehicle

It also discusses why LNG and CNG have not been adopted on a large scale as a fuel for road vehicles.
 
The use of CNG for highway freight haulers has recently been gaining popularity and there are some standard highway truck stops around the US that now have CNG fueling for those vehicles.
 
JBA said:
The use of CNG for highway freight haulers has recently been gaining popularity and there are some standard highway truck stops around the US that now have CNG fueling for those vehicles.

CNG and LPG were quite popular here some years ago; the government offered incentives to convert your vehicle and because of the lower running costs many fleet vehicles and taxis were converted. I don't seem to see many around now days though, I don't know what changed maybe the cost of LPG and CNG went up to be comparable with petrol.
 
Recently there have also been a number of communities and cities that have started converting their service vehicles, including waste collection vehicles to CNG.
 
Whenever gas prices go back up, methane (CNG) will become popular again. There just isn't a very good natural gas infrastructure for the purpose of filling up commuter vehicles.
 
  • #10
SteamKing said:
A very thorough article, I'm surprised they didn't mention methane fueled rocket motors. (I realize the thread concerns internal combustion engines but I was just commenting on the Wiki article)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine)

Raptor is the first member of a family of cryogenic methane-fueled rocket
engines under development by SpaceX. It is specifically intended to power
high-performance lower and upper stages for SpaceX super-heavy launch
vehicles. The engine will be powered by liquid methane and liquid oxygen
(LOX), rather than the RP-1 kerosene and LOX used in all previous Falcon 9
rockets, which use Merlin 1C & D engines. Earlier concepts for Raptor would have
used liquid hydrogen (LH2) fuel rather than methane.
 
  • #11
It is not at all uncommon for methane to be used in internal combustion engines. Maybe not mobile engines but stationary equipment is often powered by natural gas.
 
  • #12
The biggest hurdle at this particular moment is actually oil prices being so low. There was a lot more demand for it in the commercial truck space even as late as last year before the huge drop in oil prices. Infrastructure is growing, and it can be reasonably practical to have a CNG powered car in CA. We have plenty of fill stations around here.

As for methane formation from our waste, I know one local landfill captures it and feeds it into an onsite power plant. I don't know what the methane output of that landfill is and whether or not it would be enough to make installing a vehicle fill station nearby (in addition to whether or not it is actually a good location for it; the landfill is no longer open for taking in new waste so waste trucks are not driving into it anymore).

Lastly, NG vehicles tend to be less powerful than their gasoline counterparts. NG expands into the gas volume and displaces the air, so you don't get as much oxygen to burn in the combustion chamber. Gasoline takes up very little volume as it is still a liquid (atomized). Cummins makes a turbocharged motor for Commercial NGV applications which can help get the power back by forcing more air in the engine.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K