Natural Gas Car Highs and Lows: What's your opinion?

Natural gas costs less and burns cleaner than gasoline. But the Honda Civic GX is the only natural gas-powered vehicle available for retail sale, and only in California and New York. Are you one of the many people frustrated by that fact?

Here are more facts:

Natural Gas Car Highs: Cleaner and Cheaper than Gasoline

Natural Gas Car Lows: Cost versus Effciency

Since natural gas burns so cleanly and in today's market is cheaper than gasoline, it seems to make sense that we would see more natural gas cars coming in the future.  But, instead, we've seen them fall by the wayside.  Now it looks like we're as far away from natural gas cars becoming mainstream as we've ever been.  I think it's time the hybrid supporters wised up to the benefits of natural gas.

The problem is natural gas availability.  Until the government/private industry invest the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to cover the U.S. with natural gas filling stations, the cars will never take off

 I understand your point, but this kind of infrastructure change is exactly what is being proposed to service hydrogen fuel cell cars, and a lot of people are on board for that.  To me, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to fuel cars with natural gas, which is in a high percentage of homes already, than setting up a hydrogen infrastructure.  Especially when most of the hydrogen we use in the U.S. today is made from natural gas.  Plus a natural gas-burning internal combustion energy is much cheaper to build than a hydrogen fuel cell.

Agree with eveything you say regarding comparisons between hydrogen and natural gas, but the issue remains that energy companies have too much invested in fossil fuel. I know it's been proposed but until "someone", whether it's the government or private industry actually implements the proposals and solve the "chicken or the egg" dilemma, I remain a skeptic. By the way up until this latest correction in energy prices, natural gas prices has gone up more, as a percentage, than oil this year.

One thing I think all this points to is there is likely still a lot of life left in fossil fuels. The investment in infrastructure is largely there already. We're actually tearing down more gas stations than we're building. And there is still a lot of oil in the ground. A major complicating factor is "global warming." If global warming is indeed harmful (a debatable point) and it is caused by, in large part, auto exhaust (also debatable) then oil is very problematic. But otherwise, gasoline still has numerous advantages -- the main one being we already use it.

 I agree with Dave Hu that the problem with natural gas is availability, but not in way he suggested.  Natural gas supplies are finite and shortages and price increases will parallel those of oil in the future.  The benefits of burning natural gas are undeniable, but living in a climate (Minnesota) where 70% of us heat with natural gas, I have problems with any proposal treating natural gas as "the answer to (fill in the blank...)"   In all post-carbon discussions we need to be careful of unintended consequences.

 Hai.

As the compressed natural gas costs less and burns cooler than gasoline it is better to use compressed natural gas,as Honda unix company is only the company which started the production of CNG cars in california and Newyork,it will be more useful if these type of CNG cars are produced world wide.

=========================================

peterheins

Used Cars

 For some reason the automakers don't seem to be very interested in CNG cars and trucks. They put much more emphasis on hydrogen fuel cell technology, which makes far less sense in many ways. And today hydrogen is made mostly from natural gas, so why not burn CNG as you say?

 Natural gas would be a wonderful fuel except for two problems. One, we already import around 21% of the natural gas we use so this fuel would not move us closer to energy independence while increased demand will raise the price and the cost to heat your home or business. Two, using natural gas is just another in the endless series of methods to stretch oil based fuels and might replace around 30% of gasoline demand. Seems like the effort to convert vehicles and put a delivery system in place, given the vehicle modifications and infrastructure are the same for hydrogen that can replace 100% of oil based ground transport fuels, is not efficacious. Recent research from several American Universities suggest an efficient, highly cost effective means of producing hydrogen from water without the use of steam reformation are easily achievable and the vehicles are already on the road. Using a "gas" to power transport is a highly viable notion but nat gas is simply the wrong gas.  

baffledu2:

 Natural gas would be a wonderful fuel except for two problems. One, we already import around 21% of the natural gas we use so this fuel would not move us closer to energy independence while increased demand will raise the price and the cost to heat your home or business. Two, using natural gas is just another in the endless series of methods to stretch oil based fuels and might replace around 30% of gasoline demand. Seems like the effort to convert bosch auto parts vehicles and put a delivery system in place, given the vehicle modifications and infrastructure are the same for hydrogen that can replace 100% of oil based ground transport fuels, is not efficacious. Recent research from several American Universities suggest an efficient, highly cost effective means of producing hydrogen from water without the use of steam reformation are easily achievable and the vehicles are already on the road. Using a "gas" to power transport is a highly viable notion but nat gas is simply the wrong gas.  

So what's the pros and cons of using natural gas to our vehicle? Natural gas burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels and its very economical. Also, very practical to use.. Though it can be predicted that there would come a time when the demands get higher, then the price will get higher too.

 

quote== Natural gas would be a wonderful fuel except for two problems. One, we already import around 21% of the natural gas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  No. That is a non-issue. The whole point of the concept of "energy independence" is to make the US less vulnerable to events in ME, Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc.

  The imports of NG come from Mexico and Canada. Not exactly security threats. However, we should keep one eye on those troublesome Canadians !   kidding.

  That article was misleading on the subject of supply. They quote domestic production without Mexico and Canada. Easily 100+ year supply in North America, not the absurd figure given by whomever that author was. BTW, 100 years is on the low side, not the high side. There are some estimates putting the supply in the multi hundreds of years for North America. Again, being "energy independent" is irrelevent in the context of NG.

  For me, the biggest problem is lack of horsepower in Honda's tiny engine. I could use PHIL and fuel up in my garage, so if NG car is used for normal commutes, fuel availability is also a non-issue.

  But come on. 113 horsepower ? Not a chance. 

Running through this thread a year after it started, I feel compelled to reply.  Dave and Tom had a nice exchange about the infrastructure needed vis-a-vis hydrogen, with Dave speculating that "hundreds of billions of dollars" would be needed. If I invented a car that ran on water, would we have to lay water lines all around the country to service them? NO! But if I invent one that runs on hydrogen, every intersection in town will be torn up to install the pipes to supply the stations/homes that use it. The natural gas lines are in place to serve over half the homes in the US.

If Wiki is right, there are 135 million cars in America. So if 10% could burn CNG, and the gov't provided FREE compressors for home refueling @ $3000 each, that would only cost $40 billion. That is if the recipient didn't contribute a dime. Currently there are tax incentives, but they are like mail-in rebates (spend your money now, get it back in April). If the gov't paid direct to the manufacturer, the est.$2000 vs.$3000 (pre-rebate) cost would be more palatable for the consumer.

Fully geared up, with absolutely no more R&D, Detroit could make any model CNG capable for, ummm, $3000 more (wild a-- guess).The tanks are expensive, but it's amazing the discount you get when you place a firm order for 200 million tanks.

Just checking, the Civic Si sedan lists @ 22k, the hybrid @ 23.6k, and the NGV @ 25.1k. So $3000 more than the Si gets you CNG.  I suspect the hybrid is still losing money for Honda, but the Cng model only would only lose money because it is a limited run (not R&D or advertising it's green/politically correct while non-viable commercially).

(Off on a tangent here).

Lead for batteries is mined in Canada, refined in Europe, prepared in some forsaken place in India or Cambodia, and made into batteries in Japan/Tawian, then shipped to you new home in (Canada).  Can you think of ANYTHING less efficient than shippin tons of lead ALL the way around the world????

Back to rant...

Boykin530 sums it up nicely, Natural Gas is domestic and plentiful. It's not the total answer for all eternity, but will give us much more time to figure out the meaning of life and transportation.  And if he can get a new 2010 Camaro with a 100 mile range (pedal to the metal), he'll buy one!

Full disclosure.  I have a 2000 ford contour bi-fuel factory job, and a 1997 ford aerostar conversion. Gasoline last year hit $3.80 and cng was $1 in oklahoma.  These suckers are paying for themselves!  But the $3000 for an inhome refueling station is daunting, so my peeve is I can't get one yet.

Since very few are looking, and it's easier than setting up my own website, I think I'll just pwn this thead. Anyone that hasn't read Richard Bryce "Gusher of Lies" is excluded. (not really, but you should read it!).  Anyone that hates Boone Pickens just because he's rich is excluded.  (not really, but the old fart can't be doing this for money! He can't possibly spend what he has, and he wouldn't be giving away millions to colleges/charity if he were all that hungry for toys (look up who owns the largest yachts in the world.. microsoft and oracle guys)).

Dang people, it's like a plug in, but into a gas line, not an electrical outlet. To hop into the car every morning with a full tank (100-200 miles) would be Great for the majority of us. No more 'need to stop and gas up' at the packed QuikTrip on Friday.  Over half of us have gas lines running into our homes right now!

This whole "energy independence" thing is out of perspective. Energy Is. Who has it sells it to who doesn't. Investment into wind, tidal, or solar is great because it lessens the dependence on oil, but it doesn't reduce the demand for the energy itself. If you want to help America, you'll use a product that is produced in America, thereby keeping the costs and profits in this country.

oops, company came over so in the words of the Governator, "I'll be Back".