Natural Gas is the Cleanest and most Likely Source of Energy to Fuel the World.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Natural gas is largely ignored on our blogs and topics. It is, I assume, because most people prefer the fuels and vehicles that are covered by the mainstream media. I will be giving the alternative stories that are ignored. I have been studying energy and natural gas for nine years and have thousands of links regarding natural gas, natural gas vehicles, natural gas tanks, converting existing vehicles to natural gas, home fueling systems etc. 

I am not an engineer or knowledgeable about the complexity of how to build these systems myself. Any good mechanic could learn how to convert ICE vehicles to dual use fuel, whether it is natural gas and gasoline or some other fuel. Trifuel systems are sometimes used also, especially in Brazil where ethanol is well priced, natural gas and gasoline are the other choices there. 

Natural gas vehicles are often chosen because natural gas is clean. I currently use it in a heating stove in my living room and it can heat the whole house in cold weather. I have a whole house natural gas system which we only use when we go to bed as I don't want an open flame and don't need to keep the whole house as warm at night. I live in an average latitude just north of St. Louis about 60 miles. 

Vehicles that use natural gas range from huge ships to smaller ships, ferries, large trucks, pickup trucks, buses, cars, motor scooters, and other small vehicles. Some locomotives have used natural gas, and it could be used to fuel them.

Natural gas comes in three main forms: Piped natural gas which can range from huge pipelines that travel thousands of miles and feed into pipes for businesses and homes. Compressed natural gas (CNG) which can come from a normal house and be pumped directly into any natural gas vehicle with a special compressor, or a larger pump which can be used in a service station or trucking company. The range of installations runs the gamut of small to very large. The third form of natural gas is liquified natural gas (LNG). It requires special equipment of various scales that range from large installations that cost billions of dollars to service stations that operate much like a normal gasoline station but require the compression tanks and special nozzles etc. The natural gas can be piped or it can delivered by tanker trucks just as gasoline is delivered. 

From this point I will start entering many links and pictures over time. I make no money from my work, and am active on many blogs so it will take time to add a significant number of good links. Thanks to anyone who follows my information. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

http://www.ngvglobal.com/  This is one of my favorite sites and it covers a large gamut of vehicles and infrastructure.

http://www.ngvglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/cng-compressor-gnv-gigabox-th.jpgGalileo Technologies (Galileo) has expanded its presence in the United States with the launch of Galileo Compression USA, a division of the energy company’s compression business. Compression USA will focus on the sales and distribution of compression solutions and products, such as compressed natural gas (CNG). 

 

GRDF expressed an interest in evaluating HYGEN’s new liquid piston technology as it applies to CNG fueling of NGVs in a fleet application. In particular, the test was performed on the HYGEN+, a standalone system comprised of a dual liquid piston compressor, 200 BAR storage and dispensing system.  

Edited January 27, 2022 by ronwagn
reference

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.econnectenergy.com/articles/the-benefits-of-gas-to-power

[ronwagn + 6,290]

The IQuay enables quick gas-to-power projects and is applicable for both onshore and offshore infrastructure. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

http://www.easyenergyusa.com/fuel-cost-calculator.html Compare other fuel prices to natural gas. 

[markslawson + 1,057]

18 hours ago, ronwagn said:

to service stations that operate much like a normal gasoline station but require the compression tanks and special nozzles etc. The natural gas can be piped or it can delivered by tanker trucks just as gasoline is delivered. 

I fully agree that gas in its various forms is about the only option if coal is to be demonised and nuclear is rejected, and it is certainly cleaner than coal. It is also the only realistic alternative to petrol if we wish to get rid of petrol - however I have a mate who still drives a car which uses LNG, if and when he can get it refuelled. There was a surge of enthusiasm for such cars a few years back but the enthusiasm was not sustained and now few petrol stations have the refuelling points.. something to bear in mind if we go there again..  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, markslawson said:

I fully agree that gas in its various forms is about the only option if coal is to be demonised and nuclear is rejected, and it is certainly cleaner than coal. It is also the only realistic alternative to petrol if we wish to get rid of petrol - however I have a mate who still drives a car which uses LNG, if and when he can get it refuelled. There was a surge of enthusiasm for such cars a few years back but the enthusiasm was not sustained and now few petrol stations have the refuelling points.. something to bear in mind if we go there again..  

Are you talking about the United States or the worldwide situation? Also, are you sure he uses LNG not CNG? CNG is much easier to find and can be pumped from an ordinary home natural gas pipe into a safe compressor designed for the proper CNG pressure. It may cost one or two thousand dollars for the equipment to do that, but then you have cheap fuel. About six years ago our government granted Texas A&M and a large pump manufacturer millions of dollars to invent a good pump that would cost $500. I have not been able to find any information about what the research achieved. One could probably buy one directly from China for that without much trouble, but I am not qualified to recommend that. 

Here is a map of all the available CNG stations. https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/#/find/nearest?fuel=CNG

Here is a list showing the number of CNG stations in the various countries of Europe. 

http://cngeurope.com/

Russia

https://cng-stations.net/Russland.en.htm

Worldwide natural gas vehicles and stations by country. Guess who the leaders are! 

http://www.ngvjournal.com/worldwide-ngv-statistics

Worldwide NGV statistics

Country	Natural Gas Vehicles (a)	N/m³ monthly sales average	Refuelling stations	Refuelling stations under construction or projected
Country	Natural Gas Vehicles (a)	N/m³ monthly sales average	Refuelling stations	Refuelling stations under construction or projected
Afganistan	1.701		2
Germany	98.172	23.000.000	921	1
Algeria	215		4
Argentina	2.487.349	239.815.000	1.939
Armenia	244.000	26.520.000	345
Australia	3.110		52	10
Austria	8.332	13.500.000	180
Bangladesh	220.000	91.550.000	585
Belarus	4.600		42
Belgium	1.053		20	21
Bolivia	300.000	26.278.135	178
Bosnia & Herzegovina	35		3
Brasil	1.781.102	144.535.636	1.805
Bulgaria	61.320	15.000.000	110	7
Canada	14.205		89
Chile	8.164	3.200.000	15	70
China	3.994.350		6.502	2.913
Colombia	500.000	45.000.000	800
South Korea	40.532	93.000.000	201
Croatia	329	80.000	3	1
Denmark	104		7	3
Egypt	207.617	46.850.000	181
Ecuador	40		1
United Arab Emirates	4.179		18	54
Slovakia	426	1.000.000	14	4
Slovenia	58	8.200	7	1
Spain	3.990	94.060.000	86	12
United States	150.000	77.520.000	1.615	239
Estonia	340	20.000	5	1
Philippines	20		1
Finland	1.800	420.000	26	1
France	13.550	6.000.000	311	11
Georgia	80.600		100	25
Greece	1.000	1.330.000	7	7
Hungary	5.118	220.000	19	10
India	1.800.000	163.210.000	936
Indonesia	5.690		11	4
Iran	4.068.632	630.000.000	2.268
Ireland	3			9
Iceland	2.016	17.000	6
Italy	885.300	75.000.000	1.060
Japan	42.590		314
Kazakhstan	20		1	90
Kyrgyzstann	6.000	600.000	6
Latvia	29	3.000	2
Liechtenstein	143	100.000	2	1
Lithuania	380	200.000	5	4
Luxembourg	270		7	2
Macedonia	54	20.000	1	3
Malaysia	55.999	14.800.000	184
Mexico	2.620	1.375.000	8
Moldova	2.200	400.000	24
Montenegro			1
Mozambique	1.380	240.000	5	2
Myanmar	27.137		45
Nigeria	3.798		8	10
Norway	667	16.400.000	22	4
Netherlands	7.573		147	31
New Zealand	201		14
Panama	15
Pakistan	3.700.000	245.750.000	2.997
Peru	183.786	18.562.500	237
Poland	3.590	760.000	88	52
Portugal	586	1.160.000	5	1
Qatar	76		1
United Kingdom	663	3.000.000	22	5
Czech Republic	8.817	2.000.000	101	30
Dominican Republic	10.909		15	100
Rumania	2		2
Russia	90.050	33.750.000	253	15
Serbia	878	31.000	10	2
Singapore	4.638	1.030.000	3
South Africa	937		3	5
Sweden	46.715	11.700.000	213
Switzerland	11.640	1.610.000	167	3
Thailand	462.454	184.200.000	497
Tajikistan	10.600	4.130.000	53
Tanzania	55		1	2
Trinidad and Tobago	3.535	1.800.000	11	22
Tunisia	34		1
Turkmenistan			1
Turkey	3.850	4.200.000	14
Ukraine	170.000	52.000.000	325
Uzbekistan	450.000		213	50
Venezuela	90.000	8.152.054	166	300
Vietnam	462		7
Total	22.404.405	2.182.877.525	26.677	4.138

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by ronwagn
reference

[markslawson + 1,057]

21 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Here is a map of all the available CNG stations. https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/#/find/nearest?fuel=CNG

Here is a list showing the number of CNG stations in the various countries of Europe. 

Nope - I'm talking about Australia which is an enormous LNG producer (the US may overtake it in a few years, but for the moment it is the largest). And I'm pretty sure it was LNG - however, I haven't checked with him for some time I admit. I have noted your compressed gas map and, sure, it is a viable alternative to petroleum. Its just the question of how much political will governments will exert in pushing it and how many vehicles have to be converted before its convenience rivals that of regular petrol.. anyway, leave it with you.. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, markslawson said:

Nope - I'm talking about Australia which is an enormous LNG producer (the US may overtake it in a few years, but for the moment it is the largest). And I'm pretty sure it was LNG - however, I haven't checked with him for some time I admit. I have noted your compressed gas map and, sure, it is a viable alternative to petroleum. Its just the question of how much political will governments will exert in pushing it and how many vehicles have to be converted before its convenience rivals that of regular petrol.. anyway, leave it with you.. 

Australia could have been a great beneficiary of using it for vehicles, and still can be. On the other hand it is IMHO the best way to produce electricity also. Your governmental decisions in Australia never added up to me, but I do not know all the factors. 

Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas are about equal in Australia. Renewables are negligible despite claims by others. I still do not believe that buying components for renewables from China is a good idea . If it could be done in Australia it might make sense. You obviously have plenty of less prime land that could be used for wind and solar plus out of site off your shores beyond the horizon. I would appreciate any more insights you could provide. 

https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/australia

Edited January 29, 2022 by ronwagn
reference

[nsdp + 449]

21 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Australia could have been a great beneficiary of using it for vehicles, and still can be. On the other hand it is IMHO the best way to produce electricity also. Your governmental decisions in Australia never added up to me, but I do not know all the factors. 

Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas are about equal in Australia. Renewables are negligible despite claims by others. I still do not believe that buying components for renewables from China is a good idea . If it could be done in Australia it might make sense. You obviously have plenty of less prime land that could be used for wind and solar plus out of site off your shores beyond the horizon. I would appreciate any more insights you could provide. 

https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/australia

Ron, the reason we buy from China is because US business run by  stupid MBA's.A's worry about labor costs and not supply chain problems.  Coal and nuclear have two major strikes  besides CO2.  They exhaust a high Delta T into the atmosphere doubling down on heating the atmosphere and trapping heat. Any thermal device with cooling towers or ponds or dumping into a body of water is a major contributor to the heating problem.  Coal is wasteful of energy in transportation. Nuclear we don't know how to dispose of safely. https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/402002/leaking-nuclear-waste-dome-marshalls-consider-legal-action Our wonderful ideas on how to do this fail with the passage of time.   Based on today's technology,  each site will need 3 successive storage/containers to to reach the 250 year mark where less stringent protective standards should apply. As demonstrated in the Marshalls and at Hanford, concrete(as we mix it today) does not withstand nuclear radiation by Alpha and Beta particles well.  the rebar fails first then the concrete mix.

Edited January 30, 2022 by nsdp

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Thanks for that information. I was not aware of it. Here is my topic on nuclear plant problems:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp7yumkT6T1tEAdC4jb1K6LvO45rtoHwFbRcl08rrS4/edit

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.worldometers.info/gas/

Natural Gas left in the world (BOE)

The above does not include methane hydrates which are along the coastlines and have not been used yet. It does not include peat bog gas, coal seam gas, biogas etc. 

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

[markslawson + 1,057]

20 hours ago, nsdp said:

Nuclear we don't know how to dispose of safely. https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/402002/leaking-nuclear-waste-dome-marshalls-consider-legal-action Our wonderful ideas on how to do this fail with the passage of time.   Based on today's technology,  each site will need 3 successive storage/containers to to reach the 250 year mark where less stringent protective standards should apply. As demonstrated in the Marshalls and at Hanford, concrete(as we mix it today) does not withstand nuclear radiation by Alpha and Beta particles well.  the rebar fails first then the concrete mix.

Well, we do, but a clarification is required. We can store it with sufficient safety to rule out any problems now and in the future, but we cannot store it with sufficient safety to satisfy activists who will never be satisfied. The business about concrete and rebar breaking down is irrelevant as the idea is not to go near the storage units in the first place, and shows a certain lack of knowledge about radiation. alpha and beta radiation can be blocked by most things.. (ordinary rad suits should keep them out, at least for a time). Gamma radiation (Xrays) is the one to watch. But a very good start is to simply drop the control rod is a big box of Earth and put it somewhere well away from idiots who may want to interact with it. A big sign saying 'danger radiation' should help. Even over a century or the storage volumes would not be great, and the danger vanishingly small. But of course people just will not listen..  Gas power is really the only option in developed countries..  

[nsdp + 449]

21 hours ago, markslawson said:

Well, we do, but a clarification is required. We can store it with sufficient safety to rule out any problems now and in the future, but we cannot store it with sufficient safety to satisfy activists who will never be satisfied. The business about concrete and rebar breaking down is irrelevant as the idea is not to go near the storage units in the first place, and shows a certain lack of knowledge about radiation. alpha and beta radiation can be blocked by most things.. (ordinary rad suits should keep them out, at least for a time). Gamma radiation (Xrays) is the one to watch. But a very good start is to simply drop the control rod is a big box of Earth and put it somewhere well away from idiots who may want to interact with it. A big sign saying 'danger radiation' should help. Even over a century or the storage volumes would not be great, and the danger vanishingly small. But of course people just will not listen..  Gas power is really the only option in developed countries.. 

Until the disintegration of the Marshall Islands  and Hanford are solved you have no place in the crust of the earth that is deep enough  to drill beyond 30 KM depth. That means you are still in the earths crust.  May be if we drilled a hole and use  you and your ignorance as a packer for the hole we could start with Roman formula concrete as a plug above you.

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

Until the disintegration of the Marshall Islands  and Hanford are solved you have no place in the crust of the earth that is deep enough  to drill beyond 30 KM depth. That means you are still in the earths crust.  May be if we drilled a hole and use  you and your ignorance as a packer for the hole we could start with Roman formula concrete as a plug above you.

I thought the general process for deep geological disposal of high grade nuclear waste was vitrify in glass. Place in copper container. Embed in bentonite clay and cap off with concrete. You have multiple layers of protection there where if one barrier fails you have others as back up. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 hours ago, nsdp said:

Until the disintegration of the Marshall Islands  and Hanford are solved you have no place in the crust of the earth that is deep enough  to drill beyond 30 KM depth. That means you are still in the earths crust.  May be if we drilled a hole and use  you and your ignorance as a packer for the hole we could start with Roman formula concrete as a plug above you.

There are plenty of places in the Earth's crust that would be perfectly safe for nuclear waste disposal - off the top of my head, there are considerable portions of Australia, the Canadian Shield, the Baltic Craton, and large chunks of Africa which are/have been geologically stable for billions of years.  You don't have to get past/below them to get to a safe place - they already are safe places.  Just go down a few km, set it place, and you are done. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

59 minutes ago, NickW said:

I thought the general process for deep geological disposal of high grade nuclear waste was vitrify in glass. Place in copper container. Embed in bentonite clay and cap off with concrete. You have multiple layers of protection there where if one barrier fails you have others as back up. 

That's for shallow disposal - a few hundred meters.  Realistically deep disposal requires that you get at least far enough down that the rock you have put the stuff in is capable of plastic deformation/creep at a high enough rate that you don't need to worry about bentonite or concrete caps, because the rock itself flows around the waste.  Vitrification is still a good idea though. 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 1/30/2022 at 3:42 AM, nsdp said:

Ron, the reason we buy from China is because US business run by  stupid MBA's.A's worry about labor costs and not supply chain problems.  Coal and nuclear have two major strikes  besides CO2.  They exhaust a high Delta T into the atmosphere doubling down on heating the atmosphere and trapping heat. Any thermal device with cooling towers or ponds or dumping into a body of water is a major contributor to the heating problem.  Coal is wasteful of energy in transportation. Nuclear we don't know how to dispose of safely. https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/402002/leaking-nuclear-waste-dome-marshalls-consider-legal-action Our wonderful ideas on how to do this fail with the passage of time.   Based on today's technology,  each site will need 3 successive storage/containers to to reach the 250 year mark where less stringent protective standards should apply. As demonstrated in the Marshalls and at Hanford, concrete(as we mix it today) does not withstand nuclear radiation by Alpha and Beta particles well.  the rebar fails first then the concrete mix.

You've got to be kidding if you think that direct heating by power station exhaust is a thing. (This is so obviously BS that they had to invent the bad bad "greenhouse effect" instead)

The closed nuclear cycle is here, with nothing to dispose of.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

2 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

That's for shallow disposal - a few hundred meters.  Realistically deep disposal requires that you get at least far enough down that the rock you have put the stuff in is capable of plastic deformation/creep at a high enough rate that you don't need to worry about bentonite or concrete caps, because the rock itself flows around the waste.  Vitrification is still a good idea though. 

There is no need to dispose of anything. The "tails" are good fuel. Just not uranium anymore.

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

14 hours ago, nsdp said:

Until the disintegration of the Marshall Islands  and Hanford are solved you have no place in the crust of the earth that is deep enough  to drill beyond 30 KM depth. That means you are still in the earths crust.  May be if we drilled a hole and use  you and your ignorance as a packer for the hole we could start with Roman formula concrete as a plug above you.

Radioactive Waste Management

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx

[Eric Gagen + 713]

15 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

There is no need to dispose of anything. The "tails" are good fuel. Just not uranium anymore.

Some of it could be reprocessed for further use, but a lot of it is just 'hot' in the sense that it's not safe to be around, but not radioactive enough to actually be a useful fuel source.  In theory, you could try to 'capture' all that excess misc. stuff, but in reality, the amount of energy you would capture is pretty low for the effort, and at the end you would wind up with a bunch of misc radioactive elements of all sorts of odd things instead of easier to control and predict fuels.  

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

3 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Some of it could be reprocessed for further use, but a lot of it is just 'hot' in the sense that it's not safe to be around, but not radioactive enough to actually be a useful fuel source.  In theory, you could try to 'capture' all that excess misc. stuff, but in reality, the amount of energy you would capture is pretty low for the effort, and at the end you would wind up with a bunch of misc radioactive elements of all sorts of odd things instead of easier to control and predict fuels.  

The requisite reactor type is typically a breeder using MOX fuel. That is, anything less hot that U238 (aka depleted) is turned into more hot, like plutonium and U235. I thought that the difficult part is a small fraction of unknown radiative junk that is even hotter than Pu. See

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

for general discussion of reactors which produce more fissionable materials than they consume.

The Russians already have a serial design for a GenIV reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)

GenIV generally means closed fuel cycle, you use up all of it. They've also had operational fast breeders hooked into the grid since like 1963

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

Don't think that goes into series production, because this is what they also use to make more plutonium for nukes.

Last, but not least, there is an alternate approach which allows you to use bog-standard VVR-series reactor, involving the so-called

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

which basically means you give your fuel for reprocessing back to Rosatom indefinitely instead of having to bury it on your own.

All the new Rosatom plant contracts already come with used fuel takeback service, which has likely been a major selling point.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

22 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

There are plenty of places in the Earth's crust that would be perfectly safe for nuclear waste disposal - off the top of my head, there are considerable portions of Australia, the Canadian Shield, the Baltic Craton, and large chunks of Africa which are/have been geologically stable for billions of years.  You don't have to get past/below them to get to a safe place - they already are safe places.  Just go down a few km, set it place, and you are done. 

My major objection to nuclear disposal is just leaving it laying around all over the United States and other countries. Not being deeply buried. Where have we ever deeply buried it?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

10 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

The requisite reactor type is typically a breeder using MOX fuel. That is, anything less hot that U238 (aka depleted) is turned into more hot, like plutonium and U235. I thought that the difficult part is a small fraction of unknown radiative junk that is even hotter than Pu. See

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

for general discussion of reactors which produce more fissionable materials than they consume.

The Russians already have a serial design for a GenIV reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)

GenIV generally means closed fuel cycle, you use up all of it. They've also had operational fast breeders hooked into the grid since like 1963

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

Don't think that goes into series production, because this is what they also use to make more plutonium for nukes.

Last, but not least, there is an alternate approach which allows you to use bog-standard VVR-series reactor, involving the so-called

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

which basically means you give your fuel for reprocessing back to Rosatom indefinitely instead of having to bury it on your own.

All the new Rosatom plant contracts already come with used fuel takeback service, which has likely been a major selling point.

So, why is the United States or other countries not doing it themselves?

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

8 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

My major objection to nuclear disposal is just leaving it laying around all over the United States and other countries. Not being deeply buried. Where have we ever deeply buried it?

Give it to the Russians?