Why I Think Natural Gas is the Logical Future of Energy

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

EVs make more sense than people assume.  I recall everyone claiming that Prius batteries would die quickly and cost too much to replace.  As it turned out, they're sufficiently durable for commercial use (taxis), tend to last the life of the vehicle, and became cheaper to replace as time progressed.  The same appears to be true of today's EVs.  

There's also the "convenience" you mention.  EVs have advantages over CNG vehicles: 

1)  You can plug it into your wall.  If you have an exceedingly long commute, you might have to install a dedicated charger to the tune of a few hundred bucks.  I believe CNG compressors run in the thousands. 

2)  Regenerative braking.  Brake maintenance is a significant vehicle cost; regenerative braking almost completely eliminates it.  I asked a Tesla rep how long the brake pads last.  They don't know yet; haven't had to replace enough to get good statistics.  

3)  No engine maintenance.  A CNG vehicle is just an ICE with lower fuel costs; you're still paying regular maintenance costs. An EV is nigh maintenance free.  

As for wearing out batteries, these will become warranty items just like engines and transmissions.  Hybrids are already demonstrating average battery lives comparable to the life of the vehicle.  Tesla invested in R&D to extend battery life.  I believe they've achieved 500k, pending real-world data, and are aiming for 1 million.  It won't be an issue any more than blown engines & transmissions are an issue.  

Electric vehicles are practical if driven only locally. They are not practical for long range driving, but many might have two or more vehicles. The other problem is the overall cost. The vehicle cost difference is high enough to pay for years of gasoline in a similarly sized ICE vehicle. I just bought a three cylinder Mitsubishi Mirage for my daughter. It averages around forty MPG. It cost $13,400. It generates only 78 HP but has a continuously variable transmission, and air conditioning. MPG is 37 city and 43 highway. 

Eight least expensive electric vehicles https://www.autotrader.com/best-cars/8-least-expensive-electric-vehicles-234077

Electric vehicles owners pay for their fuel also. It is added to their electric bill. 

They will become more popular when they are economical and have the needed range. Their current popularity is partially due to taxpayer funding for their buyers. 

Natural gas will produce most of the electricity that they will use so it is a win-win for me. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Deleted.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Dan Warnick

[ronwagn + 6,290]

I just got it, so look at some other sources too. I think the Nissan Leaf is the lowest priced at about $30,000.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Deleted.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Dan Warnick

[NatGasDude + 94]

Replacing batteries on a Nissan Leaf costs about 5.5K. Most users experience a severe reduction in miles per charge after 5 years, the average 2011-2013 used Nissan Leaf can drive 30-50 miles before needing a charge. This is the problem. EV's still have a long way to go, and I also am a firm believer that the auto industry needs to move towards making longer lasting, higher quality vehicles rather than 3 year disposables and leasers.

If these realities are rejected, then we will face an immense battery disposal/replacement problem, and an even more serious car junking problem than we face today because of the shorter lifespans of modern vehicles. The industry needs to look towards refurbishing existing vehicles. Most consumer reports that reflect on buying used EV's point out that verifying range on the battery is one of the deal breakers. ICE engines do not have this problem, as a well maintained ICE can churn out 100k+ miles without engine repairs in the 5.5k range. The savings in fuel cost by charging from home is offset by the more expensive cost of purchasing the vehicle as well as replacing batteries when range becomes unacceptable.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

29 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Liberals - who are mainly concentrated in big cities - complain about pollution and demand nation-wide regulation because they want everyone else to subsidize their personal problem.  If they want to pack millions of people into small areas, that's their business.  I didn't make that mistake; it's not my responsibility to pay for it. 

 

30 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Many families do, in fact, have two vehicles.  The other possibility is owning an EV and using ride-sharing for the rare, long trips.  I already see people doing this.  That said, Teslas are already capable of long trips, battery charge times are coming down, charging networks are expanding, and the entire industry is jumping into EVs.  EVs may exceed your expectations; we'll have to wait and see.  

 

36 minutes ago, mthebold said:

As for your daughter's Mitsubishi Mirage, that works fine for a college student, but no decently-employed adult will drive that.  The cramped feel, noise, vibration, harshness, lack of amenities, and unprofessional look of it are untenable. You're correct that compact cars are economical and will be the last to electrify, but they're less than 12% of the market in the United States. 

 

37 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Greenies have missed the point entirely by focusing on pollution, and everyone else has miscalculated by focusing on purchase & fuel prices.  As a pragmatist, skeptic, and conservative, my guess is that the tidal wave of electrification will be limited only by the speed of battery manufacturing.  It will consume commercial and luxury vehicles before trickling into mid and low end consumer vehicles - assuming those haven't been replaced by autonomous ride-sharing.

Many great points.  It is inevitable, we will move in this direction until and unless some even better technology makes it to the forefront and renders them both dinosaurs of this modern age.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 hours ago, mthebold said:

I agree about the research, except that placing research in the public domain allows China to steal it.  That's not to the public's benefit..  A better idea: get the government out of research & let private markets handle it.  You'd end up with more research funding to boot. 

Vehicle pollution is a problem unique to big cities; rural areas are perfectly fine at current emissions levels.  In particular, CA whines about vehicle pollution because their unique geography creates static bubbles of smog over their cities.  If particular cities or states want vehicle emissions controls, then they should pool their money for the R&D and then set local regulations.  The rest of us need not get involved.  

Liberals - who are mainly concentrated in big cities - complain about pollution and demand nation-wide regulation because they want everyone else to subsidize their personal problem.  If they want to pack millions of people into small areas, that's their business.  I didn't make that mistake; it's not my responsibility to pay for it. 

 

Many families do, in fact, have two vehicles.  The other possibility is owning an EV and using ride-sharing for the rare, long trips.  I already see people doing this.  That said, Teslas are already capable of long trips, battery charge times are coming down, charging networks are expanding, and the entire industry is jumping into EVs.  EVs may exceed your expectations; we'll have to wait and see.  

To get a better handle on this, let's talk about total life-cycle costs.  EV cost has focused on two issues: 

1)  Purchase price: higher for EVs - for now.  As battery prices decrease, it will become surprisingly difficult for ICEs - with their thousands of unique parts - to keep up.  
2)  Fuel: EV fuel cost is 25-50% that of an ICE, depending on where you live, what you drive, cost of fuel, etc.  For people with esp. long commutes, the EV already makes economical sense on this alone.  

There's a third, equally important factor: maintenance.  The single greatest maintenance expense on a car is brakes.  Thanks to regenerative braking, EVs require effectively none.  They also don't require oil, oil filters, air filters, spark plugs, timing chains/belts, and the inevitable repairs that come with complex ICEs.  The way to think about this is "marginal cost of driving".  I.e. "The cost of driving one more mile".  My car costs at least $0.13/mile.  Half of that is fuel; the other half is maintenance & repairs.  I would save $0.03-0.04/mile in maintenance & repairs by switching to an EV.  Add that to the $0.03-0.05/mile I'd save in fuel, and we have significant savings.  

The midpoint of savings is $0.075/mile
If you drive 15k miles/year, that's $1125/year in savings.
If you drive your car 250k miles (design life of a consumer vehicle), that's $18750 in total savings.  

These savings aren't for the "average vehicle" either.  I just compared an EV to the diesel Jetta - a particularly small, low-life-cycle-cost vehicle.  I also assumed the owner does all the maintenance at home - the lowest possible cost.  If we compare to something more average, EVs look even better.  Also consider families, contractors and other people who need large vehicles.  The larger & less efficient your vehicle is, the more sense an EV makes.  Expect trucks, SUVs, luxury cars, and other gas-guzzlers to quickly become EVs \w range extenders - if not pure EVs.  

The final factor is time.  ICEs require regular maintenance, even if just for an oil change.  If you're a working professional, you make anywhere from $30-$500/hour.  How much money are you spending driving to the mechanic, waiting for service, dealing with warranty claims, and other nonsense?  Once people realize how convenient EVs are, I expect everyone making decent money will adopt them.  

As for your daughter's Mitsubishi Mirage, that works fine for a college student, but no decently-employed adult will drive that.  The cramped feel, noise, vibration, harshness, lack of amenities, and unprofessional look of it are untenable. You're correct that compact cars are economical and will be the last to electrify, but they're less than 12% of the market in the United States.  

In summary, I agree with you that EVs are expensive for now.  However, cursory analysis of vehicle applications and life-cycle costs suggest there's a tidal wave of electrification coming.  Greenies have missed the point entirely by focusing on pollution, and everyone else has miscalculated by focusing on purchase & fuel prices.  As a pragmatist, skeptic, and conservative, my guess is that the tidal wave of electrification will be limited only by the speed of battery manufacturing.  It will consume commercial and luxury vehicles before trickling into mid and low end consumer vehicles - assuming those haven't been replaced by autonomous ride-sharing.  

Air pollution travels around the world and affects our oceans as well as our land. I lived in Bakersfield California for seven years. It is mainly a rural area.  Our pollution mainly came from other areas of California. Salt Lake City has similar problems to Los Angeles due to topography. The whole world suffers from pollution in China, India, and Europe. Air pollution is not just a local concern. I provided a link to worldwide air pollution problems. Ideally, cities would move toward natural gas and electric vehicles. 

Worldwide Air Pollution https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NwglGIAHP9lCTGgmUxz7sD5l1qUQqN3o0IwwXsqAb1U/edit

Regarding the Mitsubishi MIrage, some people like economical vehicles and some don't care. We have a range up to A NIssan NV3500 but mainly prefer minivans which are somewhere in between. I would be happy to drive the Mitsubishi Mirage cross country if we did not need to carry so much luggage. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 hours ago, mthebold said:

I agree about the research, except that placing research in the public domain allows China to steal it.  That's not to the public's benefit..  A better idea: get the government out of research & let private markets handle it.  You'd end up with more research funding to boot. 

Vehicle pollution is a problem unique to big cities; rural areas are perfectly fine at current emissions levels.  In particular, CA whines about vehicle pollution because their unique geography creates static bubbles of smog over their cities.  If particular cities or states want vehicle emissions controls, then they should pool their money for the R&D and then set local regulations.  The rest of us need not get involved.  

Liberals - who are mainly concentrated in big cities - complain about pollution and demand nation-wide regulation because they want everyone else to subsidize their personal problem.  If they want to pack millions of people into small areas, that's their business.  I didn't make that mistake; it's not my responsibility to pay for it. 

 

Many families do, in fact, have two vehicles.  The other possibility is owning an EV and using ride-sharing for the rare, long trips.  I already see people doing this.  That said, Teslas are already capable of long trips, battery charge times are coming down, charging networks are expanding, and the entire industry is jumping into EVs.  EVs may exceed your expectations; we'll have to wait and see.  

To get a better handle on this, let's talk about total life-cycle costs.  EV cost has focused on two issues: 

1)  Purchase price: higher for EVs - for now.  As battery prices decrease, it will become surprisingly difficult for ICEs - with their thousands of unique parts - to keep up.  
2)  Fuel: EV fuel cost is 25-50% that of an ICE, depending on where you live, what you drive, cost of fuel, etc.  For people with esp. long commutes, the EV already makes economical sense on this alone.  

There's a third, equally important factor: maintenance.  The single greatest maintenance expense on a car is brakes.  Thanks to regenerative braking, EVs require effectively none.  They also don't require oil, oil filters, air filters, spark plugs, timing chains/belts, and the inevitable repairs that come with complex ICEs.  The way to think about this is "marginal cost of driving".  I.e. "The cost of driving one more mile".  My car costs at least $0.13/mile.  Half of that is fuel; the other half is maintenance & repairs.  I would save $0.03-0.04/mile in maintenance & repairs by switching to an EV.  Add that to the $0.03-0.05/mile I'd save in fuel, and we have significant savings.  

The midpoint of savings is $0.075/mile
If you drive 15k miles/year, that's $1125/year in savings.
If you drive your car 250k miles (design life of a consumer vehicle), that's $18750 in total savings.  

These savings aren't for the "average vehicle" either.  I just compared an EV to the diesel Jetta - a particularly small, low-life-cycle-cost vehicle.  I also assumed the owner does all the maintenance at home - the lowest possible cost.  If we compare to something more average, EVs look even better.  Also consider families, contractors and other people who need large vehicles.  The larger & less efficient your vehicle is, the more sense an EV makes.  Expect trucks, SUVs, luxury cars, and other gas-guzzlers to quickly become EVs \w range extenders - if not pure EVs.  

The final factor is time.  ICEs require regular maintenance, even if just for an oil change.  If you're a working professional, you make anywhere from $30-$500/hour.  How much money are you spending driving to the mechanic, waiting for service, dealing with warranty claims, and other nonsense?  Once people realize how convenient EVs are, I expect everyone making decent money will adopt them.  

As for your daughter's Mitsubishi Mirage, that works fine for a college student, but no decently-employed adult will drive that.  The cramped feel, noise, vibration, harshness, lack of amenities, and unprofessional look of it are untenable. You're correct that compact cars are economical and will be the last to electrify, but they're less than 12% of the market in the United States.  

In summary, I agree with you that EVs are expensive for now.  However, cursory analysis of vehicle applications and life-cycle costs suggest there's a tidal wave of electrification coming.  Greenies have missed the point entirely by focusing on pollution, and everyone else has miscalculated by focusing on purchase & fuel prices.  As a pragmatist, skeptic, and conservative, my guess is that the tidal wave of electrification will be limited only by the speed of battery manufacturing.  It will consume commercial and luxury vehicles before trickling into mid and low end consumer vehicles - assuming those haven't been replaced by autonomous ride-sharing.  

The only things I have against electric vehicles is that they have short ranges and cost way too much over their lifetime. They do even worse in cold climates.  They are about as small as my daughters Mitsubishi Mirage which Cost $13,400 and she could get $17,000 dollars worth of fuel before she even matched the price of a similar electric vehicle. Their owners will still have to pay for the electricity which will probably come from natural gas. A lot of interest could be earned by saving the difference in price. No comparison in my opinion. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

58 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Pollution is only a problem above some threshold.  Again, it's an urban problem.  Let those in and around cities deal with it. 

Drive cross-country in a compact vehicle and then come talk to me.  

Drive cross country in an electric vehicle and we can compare notes. 

[DA? + 301]

10 hours ago, mthebold said:

Pollution is only a problem above some threshold.  Again, it's an urban problem.  Let those in and around cities deal with it. 

Drive cross-country in a compact vehicle and then come talk to me.  

Ask a baby in a push chair in a rural area if pollutions a problem as she goes with her elder sibling on the way to the village school with passing cars directing their exhaust directly at them?

As for the augment cherry picking a small sector of the market to try to cover the entire area it doesn't work. Friend of my brothers just drove down from Norway in his EV to the UK, no problem, lots of charging points, quick charging with a decent long range battery that will last for many years. A friend just gave me a lift in his EV (van) loves it, perfect for his work, also based on a Nissan Leaf and hardly lost an capacity for charging although it's 4 yrs old.   

[DA? + 301]

2 minutes ago, mthebold said:

I grew up in a rural area; we didn't have this problem.  If it's a problem in your area, then your area should regulate it.  Handling pollution at the state level would be an acceptable solution, but it certainly isn't a federal problem.  

The argument proposed is, "We'll only get pollution regulations if everyone chips in.  Therefore, everyone must chip in."  That sounds compelling, but it misses an alternative, market-based solution: if people don't like city pollution, they can move to smaller cities & towns.  It's what society did before, and it worked just fine.  If we make use of all the available cities & towns and there's still a pollution problem, then you'll have no trouble getting everyone in your state on board with regulations.  

Some environmental regulation is necessary, of course, but we need to stop this nonsense where cities have a local problem, refuse to do anything about it themselves, and then demand that the rest of the country pay to fix it.  It's childish.  

Cars are everywhere, I grew up country and pollution is every where. Even when you can't see it, even if it's not emitted there.

The poor are far more exposed to pollution and it's far harder for them to move to a rural area.

We are all responsible to look after the planet and let our children inherit a better place than we found it. Regulation is needed as companies/organisations/people can not be trusted to do the decent thing as the past shows us.

[DA? + 301]

43 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Your statements are becoming progressively vaguer, which doesn't bode well for your position.  

Cars are everywhere, but in different concentrations.  If I live in a small/mid sized town, I don't need the same stringent regulations people in big cities do.  E.g. where I live would do just fine on the last-gen diesel emissions technology, allowing me to avoid the cost of selective catalytic reduction.  The moral of this story is that it's quite expensive to live in cities, and the rest of us shouldn't be forced to subsidize that cost.  

On that note, cities have higher average cost of living.  By that reasoning, it should be quite easy for people to move to smaller towns.  And no, this is not difficult.  Anyone can go to a public library and apply to jobs around the country.  They can also buy a bus ticket or hop in their car and drive there.  If they're really so poor, they shouldn't have enough possessions for moving to be difficult.  

Yes, some regulations are necessary.  This is why persistent organic compounds, heavy-metal based pesticides, and leaded gasoline are illegal.  In the case of vehicle emissions, your argument is a straw man.  These chemicals are not persistent; they pose no threat to future generations.  They are an immediate and local problem only.  As I said before: local problems should be handled by local government.  If your area has a pollution problem, get involved and convince your community to fix it.  

Maybe I am poor at putting my argument across, in fact I know I am, communication is not my strong point. And I am sorry I don't do justice to my position.

Have you ever been to a village school and watched those babies in the pram just at the level of those exhaust pipes. Harming those most vulnerable that can't change whats happening. Last-gen diesels aren't as clean as they where thought to be, ask Audi's exboss. Not sure how it is where you live but I've lived and worked in many countries across the world living in cities to very rural and the cost of living in the cities is less (maybe not the bits you go to). It is also cheaper per person for a country to have it's population in cities. Rural areas are often a burden that needs subsidies. If a person is only just managing to feed themselves moving is extremely expensive, I guess you've never tried it with a couple of dollars to keep you and the family going.

It's not just the emissions that come from the exhaust that do the damage, the oil industry creates all sorts of pollutants that spread. Tribalism, thinking only about yourself isn't a healthy option. Also pollution does cause damage not just to theperson that's breathing it but also often to their children, the future generations.

Local government often does not have the power to regulate or the power to stand up against large companies, leadership has to come from the top.

I suggest trying to look for some further education on these subjects. There are many free online course from many top universities available online. Have to mention Edx.org as my sister inlaw works at MIT which is one of the many.   

[leo i 0]

gas has a problem with storage. it is more difficult to deal with then liquid. some do not even store that. they pump gas, using pipe lines. it is I think a problem for transporting that on ships. liquid so far looks better.                    

[DA? + 301]

9 hours ago, mthebold said:

Now you're making assumptions about my background, education, and morals - which is a bit insulting, rude, and manipulative.  

I'm neither being selfish nor promoting "tribalism".  "Tribalism" shouldn't be conflated with expecting responsible behavior from people.  To wit, people who are barely scraping by are irresponsible when they have kids.  They should first get their life and career in order.  Only then should they have kids.  The community I grew up in raised me to follow this rule, which is why we don't experience the poverty and hardship you speak of.  We reap what we sow.  

Next you'll claim that I should be more compassionate and help people anyway.  I would, except that there would be no end to the suffering.  Until people learn to behave responsibly, no amount of wealth and advantage we throw at them will help.  Even lottery winners go broke within a few years - not because circumstance conspires against them, but because they're irresponsible.  If you want to help the poor, you'll promote the only viable solution: responsibility.  I doubt you'll do that though.  You were more interested in using guilt to manipulate me than you were in understanding the problem.  A bit sociopathic, if you ask me.  

As for those babies in the pram, you're using emotional hyperbole again.  A whiff of exhaust doesn't hurt people - and if you think it does, don't stand next to the d*** tailpipe.  Or mandate that trucks in your quiet village shall extend their tailpipes above the roof of the vehicle - a far more affordable solution than the modern pollution controls.  If you truly believe in helping the poor, you'll consider it important to ease this financial burden on poor, rural communities.  

What does hurt people is 24/7 immersion in the exhaust bath we call big cities.  This is why densely populated areas are so keen on pollution regulation.  Again, rural areas don't have this problem.  You propose to subsidize expensive, irresponsible city behavior by forcing poor, rural people to pay for pollution controls.  I would propose that, if city life demands all this expensive technology, people should spread out more.  Let the market work.  

As a final note, I would recommend learning to think and communicate clearly before moralizing.  

I am suggesting you look in some courses because although you may well be highly educated, you seem to have not have an education in environmental and human health issues. Also possibly sociology (social economics especially) and phycology could help you understand why poor people act as they do.

I'm suggesting we all act with more compassion and responsibility for all. I have a fair understanding of the issues and yes we should fell guilty for many of our actions or inactions. Maybe I'm a sociopath, but that doesn't mean I am wrong.

I do get emotional when I see the helpless been harmed, again you may need to update your education on how pollutants affect the human body, especially carcinogens, a whiff of exhaust can kill.

The market is working by people going to live in cities where the work is and as I pointed out cheaper per person for the government.

As my final note, I'm sorry you took offence at my posts, I do not mean to single you out but aim what I say generally for everyone. We all could do with being a bit more widely educated and acting better in our actions. I don't see this as moralizing but just pointing out how to be a decent human being.

 

[DA? + 301]

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 5:18 PM, mthebold said:

I think you overestimate your own understanding of why poor people do what they do.  

You're also equating "cheaper for government" with "cheaper for society".  They're not the same.  Broaden your analysis to the total costs involved for all players, and you'll see that regulations always have unintended costs.  

I have lived and worked with some of the poorest in this world, I have a pretty good idea.

I think you need to look at the economics of population densities. Of course there are unintended costs but the alternative is worse, as has been shown many times. Go out and broaden your education and world experience, by what you say it needs it.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 10/25/2018 at 6:22 PM, NatGasDude said:

I agree with your point, and you are totally right mtthebold. My point was not 'call to action'  to rush CNG/LNG infrastructure and vehicles, rather I was stating the potential implementation options given the existing gas lines in urban areas, etc. It is important to keep in mind that the market controls the realm of what is profitable and feasible, and when the demand is not present, there is no need to be forcing alternatives down the consumers' throat.

You are correct that because of our gas prices it is not extremely urgent to begin an infrastructure overhaul in favor of CNG passenger cars. If oil trends higher, that urgency will certainly arise as you mentioned and influence the market to start implementing multi fuel vehicles along with more EV options being rushed to market. CNG cars have convenience, cost, and durability benefits over electric cars, the market appears to be skipping over the CNG opportunity in favor of monstrous lithium battery carriers (with the short battery life span, and VERY high replacement cost). I believe it is because of the 'clean novelty' of EV's that appeals to the current rhetoric and belief systems of the 'green consumer market'. Which is fine, and it is important that the affluent and 'activist' buyers drive demand for innovation in alternative transport methods.

 

As EV's become more mainstream and a more diverse income demographic has experiences with EV's however, high cost of ownership and inconveniences will come to light and impact owner satisfaction. (It's not the same for a Tesla owner who earns 6 figures to deal with high battery replacement costs, and will likely just sell the  Tesla for a new one after 2-3 years, vs a lower income driver who may intend on owning the vehicle for up to 10 years and will find those costs prohibitive to continued ownership.)

 

At the end of the day, the cost of ownership and fuel, as well as convenience to the consumer will be the driving forces behind methane power in passenger cars, and it's good to raise awareness about these cleaner choices that take advantage of  US's abundant natural resources. $100+ WTI would certainly play a role in accelerating the market for CNG conversion kits and multifuel vehicle sales in the US, but we are not there yet.

 

2016 map of CNG stations, California leads the pack, followed by Texas. I'm sure there are much more as of 2018. What is missing is the market for conversion kits, and original manufacturer designed multifuel vehicles.

I forgot to mention that the world is full of all the parts and technology needed for natural gas vehicles. The problem seems to be in overregulation of the parts business. China and Brazil have no problem with CNG, LNG, or multifuel parts. I am sure they would be happy to meet any need. cngchat.com members would be happy to discuss the situation with you. I have not been an active member lately.