CNG Truck Storage Design Obviates Need For LNG

[ronwagn + 6,290]

LNG is far more expensive than piped gas. Here is one more advancement in CNG trucking that offers over a 1,000 mile range. Trucking companies can save money and drivers can save stops, which they , supposedly, hate. CNG is also much more widely available and can be compressed from any natural gas pipe. http://www.ngvglobal.com/blog/agility-brings-cng-range-versatility-to-uk-market-0501#more-111541

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

LNG is far more expensive than piped gas. Here is one more advancement in CNG trucking that offers over a 1,000 mile range. Trucking companies can save money and drivers can save stops, which they , supposedly, hate. CNG is also much more widely available and can be compressed from any natural gas pipe. http://www.ngvglobal.com/blog/agility-brings-cng-range-versatility-to-uk-market-0501#more-111541

 

Clever.  It raises questions though:
1)  Would it be inconvenient for a driver to refill separate fuel tanks?
2)  How durable is the natural gas line between the trailer tanks and the tractor? I don't imagine an exposed, flexible fuel line would be easy to engineer.
3)  How much does it weigh? 

[Keith boyd + 178]

I see the solution to the range problem sir! What is that? Add moar tanks!!

Nat gas is the clear winner on fuel economy however....

I see these trucks being successful in niche markets.  The company owning both truck and trailer, trailer stays on the tractor, regular scheduled deliveries to known locations, easy  access to refuelling, and hire and train new drivers who haven't driven diesel trucks and wont know what they are sacrificing driving a gas truck. 

Downfalls to this truck: it's not compatible with regular trailers!! At least not without losing so much range it cant be used for long haul. Trucks hook and unhook different  trailers almost daily. Without its dedicated trailer it's dead in the water. 

Time is money. If it takes even 5 minutes longer to refuel drivers will demand more money to drive it if paid by the mile. Hourly pay solves this. 

Any driver over 40 will refuse to drive this POS piss banging abomination of a truck.

Power rating? Can it haul a tri axle over the Rockies? 

Heating the bunk. Oh wait it's got tanks full of natural gas on board throw a mini furnace on er! File this one under benefit. 

Accidents:  I imagine the tanks are  engineered to prevent explosions. 

 

 

 

[Keith boyd + 178]

The trucking industry is very set in its ways. Also very low margins and very little money to use experimenting on technology. 

North America still hasn't solved the brake drum paradox I will explain:

Brake drums are standard on trucks in north America. Brake shoes are far superior to drums. They dont overheat and fade and cause runaway trucks in the mountains. Why is no company switching to shoes?

Answer: because shoes are WAY BETTER AT BRAKING! I will explain. If you are a trucking company you own tractors and trailers. Your trailers are pulled by your trucks but also many other companies trucks. Your tractors pull trailers owned by many other companies too. 

If you are the first company to switch to brake shoes instead of drums and other companies dont, then you have a mis match of truck and trailer drum and shoe. Your equipment with shoes will do the majority of the braking while the other company equipment drums will not apply nearly as hard. This causes 2 problems. One, an imbalance in braking power. And the real reason, your equipment will burn through brake shoes while your competitors drums barely wear at all. 

 

No one is willing to make the switch first. Hence drums are still standard in north America. In Europe brake shoes have been used on trucks for 40 years. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Clever.  It raises questions though:
1)  Would it be inconvenient for a driver to refill separate fuel tanks?
2)  How durable is the natural gas line between the trailer tanks and the tractor? I don't imagine an exposed, flexible fuel line would be easy to engineer.
3)  How much does it weigh? 

All good questions but I am sure they meet the high European specifications needed for road use. Natural gas conversions are not a new thing at all. This is a very well advanced technology. It is a worldwide industry also. Many nations charge about half of what American converters do, and handy people can even do the conversions themselves with approved parts and cylinders. Cylinders are being continually improved to make them lighter. There are four grades of cylinders from steel (used in many less advanced countries) To very high tech cylinders wrapped in fibers. All tanks are integrated to be filled simultaneously. Dual fuel systems are also available if the customer wants to be able to use diesel if he can't get to a natural gas station. 

https://www.cngunited.com/cng-tanks-2/

http://www.cngprices.com/station_map.php

Edited May 6, 2019 by ronwagn

[ronwagn + 6,290]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

1 hour ago, Keith boyd said:

I see the solution to the range problem sir! What is that? Add moar tanks!!

Nat gas is the clear winner on fuel economy however....

I see these trucks being successful in niche markets.  The company owning both truck and trailer, trailer stays on the tractor, regular scheduled deliveries to known locations, easy  access to refuelling, and hire and train new drivers who haven't driven diesel trucks and wont know what they are sacrificing driving a gas truck. 

Downfalls to this truck: it's not compatible with regular trailers!! At least not without losing so much range it cant be used for long haul. Trucks hook and unhook different  trailers almost daily. Without its dedicated trailer it's dead in the water. 

Time is money. If it takes even 5 minutes longer to refuel drivers will demand more money to drive it if paid by the mile. Hourly pay solves this. 

Any driver over 40 will refuse to drive this POS piss banging abomination of a truck.

Power rating? Can it haul a tri axle over the Rockies? 

Heating the bunk. Oh wait it's got tanks full of natural gas on board throw a mini furnace on er! File this one under benefit. 

Accidents:  I imagine the tanks are  engineered to prevent explosions.

 

 

 

Dual fuel tractors are available for fleet managers or independent drivers. You can easily switch to diesel and spend more money on fuel whenever you please. Natural gas will take giant ships around the world and an eighteen wheeler is nothing compared to those. It will also fuel locomotives and aircraft. 

Independents and fleets will both benefit greatly due to far lower fuel prices. The public will benefit from lower transportation by getting lower prices from big companies that switch to natural gas. Peoples lungs will stay healthier longer and get less cancer from diesel which is a dirty fuel by comparison and contains known carcinogens. Natural gas is used for in home cooking and restaurants. It can be used, in most states, unvented. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

2 hours ago, Keith boyd said:

The trucking industry is very set in its ways. Also very low margins and very little money to use experimenting on technology. 

North America still hasn't solved the brake drum paradox I will explain:

Brake drums are standard on trucks in north America. Brake shoes are far superior to drums. They dont overheat and fade and cause runaway trucks in the mountains. Why is no company switching to shoes?

Answer: because shoes are WAY BETTER AT BRAKING! I will explain. If you are a trucking company you own tractors and trailers. Your trailers are pulled by your trucks but also many other companies trucks. Your tractors pull trailers owned by many other companies too. 

If you are the first company to switch to brake shoes instead of drums and other companies dont, then you have a mis match of truck and trailer drum and shoe. Your equipment with shoes will do the majority of the braking while the other company equipment drums will not apply nearly as hard. This causes 2 problems. One, an imbalance in braking power. And the real reason, your equipment will burn through brake shoes while your competitors drums barely wear at all. 

 

No one is willing to make the switch first. Hence drums are still standard in north America. In Europe brake shoes have been used on trucks for 40 years. 

Thanks for the insider information. I know that there is a lot of inertia. I figure that the bean counters in the offices of the trucking companies will eventually figure it all out. The desire for less pollution will help, especially in Asia. I believe that China will lead the way, except that they still have to import LNG. Iran is the number two transportation user of natural gas and they have plenty of their own. India is going to be a leader also. South Americans have used CNG for decades as have Americans. It all started back in WW! with gas bags on top of vehicles!

http://www.cngprices.com/station_map.php

Edited May 6, 2019 by ronwagn

[Keith boyd + 178]

I am surprised more companies aren't trying harder to switch to natural gas fuel. The name of the game when I was trucking was how do we deliver this trailer 2% cheaper then our competitor. We were trained to shift ultra low RPM to save a few gallons per trip, they put aerodynamic skirts on the trailers to improve fuel economy by 3%, and the one I hated, low resistance tires that saved a few percent in fuel in exchange for being just terrifying to use in the winter as they were designed to be smooth rolling tread which meant terrible traction.  

They went to electric bunk heaters to save a few bucks in fuel at night which froze you to death because they were so weak, I would get up at 2aam idle the truck for an hour and go back to bed. No fuel savings there it was a bad idea.

They even encouraged gliding to stops when possible and brake just at the end. Automatic transmissions were programmed to shift to neutral called "eco roll" as the truck would glide farther in neutral then in gear. 

And as I mentioned before even the primitive pilot project natural gas trucks were still beating diesels on fuel economy even though they had the aerodynamics of a farm tractor with extra tanks strapped all over it. 

The barrier is compatibility. The trucking industry depends on equipment being universally exchangeable for any other equipment. How to Integrate natural gas trucks into a diesel fleet  is the million dollar question.  

 

 

 

 

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

36 minutes ago, Keith boyd said:

I am surprised more companies aren't trying harder to switch to natural gas fuel. The name of the game when I was trucking was how do we deliver this trailer 2% cheaper then our competitor. We were trained to shift ultra low RPM to save a few gallons per trip, they put aerodynamic skirts on the trailers to improve fuel economy by 3%, and the one I hated, low resistance tires that saved a few percent in fuel in exchange for being just terrifying to use in the winter as they were designed to be smooth rolling tread which meant terrible traction.  

They went to electric bunk heaters to save a few bucks in fuel at night which froze you to death because they were so weak, I would get up at 2aam idle the truck for an hour and go back to bed. No fuel savings there it was a bad idea.

They even encouraged gliding to stops when possible and brake just at the end. Automatic transmissions were programmed to shift to neutral called "eco roll" as the truck would glide farther in neutral then in gear. 

And as I mentioned before even the primitive pilot project natural gas trucks were still beating diesels on fuel economy even though they had the aerodynamics of a farm tractor with extra tanks strapped all over it. 

The barrier is compatibility. The trucking industry depends on equipment being universally exchangeable for any other equipment. How to Integrate natural gas trucks into a diesel fleet  is the million dollar question.  

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently, the problems have already been worked out by many fleets. One of the best ideas is to lease a few trucks as a test. The lessor will take care of the maintenance etc. UPS is one of the largest fleets that use quite a few natural gas trucks. Many fleets use them all over the world. 

I see several factors that will be primary drivers toward natural gas fuel. One is the price of low sulfur diesel. Another is diesel pollution in general. The third is the price of diesel in general. The fourth is the continuing growth of the CNG and LNG infrastructure worldwide. Biogas has an additional feature, it is more acceptable to greenies. It is also a good way for dairymen and hog farms to get rid of their animal waste, Garbage dumps can tap natural gas from their hills of old trash and use them on to fuel their dump trucks. Sewage plants can do the same. The residue left over can still be used as fertilizer. The natural gas can also be made into ammonia fertilizer. 

Better products often take a long time to catch on but I presume that logic will eventually win over habit. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Apparently, the problems have already been worked out by many fleets. One of the best ideas is to lease a few trucks as a test. The lessor will take care of the maintenance etc. UPS is one of the largest fleets that use quite a few natural gas trucks. Many fleets use them all over the world. 

I see several factors that will be primary drivers toward natural gas fuel. One is the price of low sulfur diesel. Another is diesel pollution in general. The third is the price of diesel in general. The fourth is the continuing growth of the CNG and LNG infrastructure worldwide. Biogas has an additional feature, it is more acceptable to greenies. It is also a good way for dairymen and hog farms to get rid of their animal waste, Garbage dumps can tap natural gas from their hills of old trash and use them on to fuel their dump trucks. Sewage plants can do the same. The residue left over can still be used as fertilizer. The natural gas can also be made into ammonia fertilizer. 

Better products often take a long time to catch on but I presume that logic will eventually win over habit. 

There's another, overlooked benefit. Burning methane instead of diesel, even in the same engine causes far less wear and tear. The downside is energy content, there just isn't as much energy in CH4 as in those long chain molecules