Do you own a SUV?

riptides · Sep 21, 2005

( I run a fleet of trucks, I could possibly switch them to propane or natural gas. The problems I would encounter are astronomical in terms of costs. While it is technically possible to convert my fleet, the cost per truck makes it prohibitive to do so. Then we enter into the logistics of refueling because that is not something that could be done just anywhere. And add to that the fact that the range the truck can travel is dramatically reduced. There is no viable option other than diesel for me right now and I looked. )

What a shame. A lot of you need to dig into the history of Liquified Natural Gas fuels. LNG. A whole lot of them. The government actually ran a dispensing program for two major commercial carriers, a pilot, before it was disbanded.

Some LNG fuels are classified as unlimited, naturally renewing sources of energy.

The entire, and I do mean, entire, program of LNG was lobbied out of exsistance in the US. Some very prominent people and scientists were ignored in the process. Within the past year, the last of the LNG US commercial dispensing stations was disassembled and shipped to asia.

We had the technology, we suppressed it and sold it away. The best cryogenic compressed NG storgage tank is now being developed and produced in asia.

It is a sad state of affairs we have today.

-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

gsxr1100 · Sep 21, 2005

going to ASIA? no way...(joking here; normal in today's selling of America)...

Maybe all the thousands and thousands of outsourced USA jobe to ASIA will help them speed it up the deisgn at 1/3 the cost.

Bob_Skurka · Sep 21, 2005

( I run a fleet of trucks, I could possibly switch them to propane or natural gas. The problems I would encounter are astronomical in terms of costs. While it is technically possible to convert my fleet, the cost per truck makes it prohibitive to do so. Then we enter into the logistics of refueling because that is not something that could be done just anywhere. And add to that the fact that the range the truck can travel is dramatically reduced. There is no viable option other than diesel for me right now and I looked. )

What a shame. A lot of you need to dig into the history of Liquified Natural Gas fuels. LNG. A whole lot of them. The government actually ran a dispensing program for two major commercial carriers, a pilot, before it was disbanded.

Some LNG fuels are classified as unlimited, naturally renewing sources of energy.

The entire, and I do mean, entire, program of LNG was lobbied out of exsistance in the US. Some very prominent people and scientists were ignored in the process. Within the past year, the last of the LNG US commercial dispensing stations was disassembled and shipped to asia.

We had the technology, we suppressed it and sold it away. The best cryogenic compressed NG storgage tank is now being developed and produced in asia.

It is a sad state of affairs we have today.

-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif ) )

Actually it was simply not feasible to switch to LNG unless you are:
1) running your own fleet
2) you have your own central refueling station on/near your property
3) your fleet only drives locally so it can stay within the vehicles new, much shorter range
4) your company has an inelastic price situation for its products and you can raise your prices to cover your added costs

When we looked at it, over 50% of our daily truck routes would have had the truck run out of fuel before they got back to a place where they could fuel up! We run a medium duty fleet, our typical route stays within a 100 mile radius of our building, some run farther, all return to the warehouse each night. There were no remote LNG fueling stations we could go to.

Basically, the LNG technology would be fine for an intercity government subsidized bus system, it worked for utility companies that had their own fuel stations and ran their own trucks locally, but even the H.D. trucks (class 7) that used them were very limited in capabilities.

The 3 very biggest problems were:
1) commonly available fuel delivery stations and infrastructure to support those stations.
2) limited range of the vehicles given the tank sizes that would fit without reducing cargo capacity or adding too much weight which also reduces cargo capacity.
3) cost to purchase the trucks configured for LNG and the added labor costs tied to more frequent refueling.

Personally, I don't see that it was 'lobbied' out of existance, I think it was simply not feasible at the time it was rolled out (and I still think it is not economically feasible today).

California · Sep 21, 2005

( It is actually cheaper to pay more for gas and operate a traditional small car like a Ford Focus than it is to operate and drive a Prius. )

Confirming what Bob just said.

I made this analysis and concluded the same thing: A Ford Focus has significantly lower initial cost and life-cycle cost compared to Prius or other ultra high mileage vehicle because of the premium price they ask for those.

A Toyota Echo might match Focus for overall costs but it doesn't have any cargo space.

Last fall after making this analysis I got a Focus Wagon for my second car. I like it, fourth time I have bought a car new and the first time I've found no flaws whatever. I haven't even had to put air in the tires in a year of ownership. My thanks to Okee Don since I never would have noticed Focus until he described his. Don, you do have a positive influence on others, please resume posting!

I was surprised to find another benefit for Focus that they don't advertise - it's an ultra low emissions vehicle matching the specs of a Ford Escape Hybrid and exceeding the Hybrid substantially in highway mpg. I think the EPA numbers show 32 hwy for the Focus and 26 hwy for Escape Hybrid. I guess I'm now a greenie and didn't even know it.

mwechtal · Sep 21, 2005

Mike,
OK, I'll bite,
Some LNG fuels are classified as unlimited, naturally renewing sources of energy.

What fuels are we talking about here? I couldn't find anything with Google.

On another note, does anyone know what percentage of crude oil is used in making plastics? I'm guessing it's much higher than most people realize.

Mike

dmccarty · Sep 21, 2005

Bob,

You are hitting the nail on the head. So many people dont understand the value of money. Years ago I took a three day class on building energy efficient houses. This class was aimed at builders, architects, etc who have to have continuing education during the year. I think I was the only homeowner type in the class even though I designed our house so I guess I'm not really a homeowner type. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

But many of the people in the class where "tree huggers". If you did not throw your can/bottle in the recycle bin they litterally pitched a fit. I was very curious as to what the solar power generation instructor was going to say. The bottom line on solar power generation is that it is only cost efficient when you are WAY off the grid. The instructor did say this which the greenies did not want to hear. Orange County where Chapel Hill NC resides, see the bike thread on the looneys who live there, forces builders to seperate their construction waste so that other people can go through it to pick out pieces. Now some builders are wasteful, others like mine has so little scrap left over it was amazing. But what the greenies did not understand is that IT COSTS MONEY to seperate the trash be it construction debris or plastic, or newspaper or bottles. I keep reading there is not a recycling program in this country that does not spend more money that it brings in from selling the waste. That means we are WASTING MONEY recycling. And likely wasting energy doing so... But the greenies think its smart to spend 30,000 dollars on solar power when the pay back on such an installation will be after they die.... Simply does not make sense...

And the reason we drive cars and trucks that are powered by oil based products is that it is the most cost effective power source. PERIOD. The only way power cells are going to work is if there are very cheap ways to generate power to produce hydrogen. Which means NUKES or maybe solar in some instances. But until we start building lots of Nuke plants oil is the best we got.

The WSJ the other day mentioned that since the 70's oil shock, the US GDP has DOUBLED while our use of oil has gone up less than 10%. While the US may use much of the worlds energy we also produce much of the worlds GDP.

Even with the high price of fuel think about it this way. This weekend I had to buy five gallons of diesel fuel for the tractor and a gallon of high octane to feed the Stihls. I did a little of this and a little of that on the tractor. I mowed down some brush that took 15 minutes. By hand it would have taken days. I moved four rocks that had to wiegh between 1,000 and 2,000 pounds. No way could I have done this by hand. Moving the rocks may have taken 1/4 cup of diesel. The gallon of gas will power my chainsaw for about 5 hours. I am not sure yet but it took about two hours of chainsaw time to cut some logs into rounds that looks like I will get maybe a cord of wood out of to keep us warm this winter.

The thought that hit me was how much was that 5 gallons of diesel and 1 gallon of gas worth. $50, 60, 100? To saw up the logs would have taken me many hours worth of hard labor. It was bad enough with the saw. It might take a good eight hours to do what I did without the saw. I am having to clear my septic field by hand with a weed sling since the installer told me to keep my tractor out of the field. I have put in four hours so far and I have at least two more to finish the field. I mowed an area in 5 minutes that was almost as big as my septic field. One gallon of diesel fuel gets me DAYS of back breaking labor done in one hour or even two. I think that is worth more than $3. Maybe a $200.... Don't know.

This is not to say I like to pay high prices. I don't but put it all in perspective. Park the car and go walk to work and see how much a gallon of gas really is worth. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Later,
Dan

riptides · Sep 21, 2005

Bob,

Good points, but.... it is the chicken and egg argument on infrastructure.

( The 3 very biggest problems were:
1) commonly available fuel delivery stations and infrastructure to support those stations.
2) limited range of the vehicles given the tank sizes that would fit without reducing cargo capacity or adding too much weight which also reduces cargo capacity.
3) cost to purchase the trucks configured for LNG and the added labor costs tied to more frequent refueling.
)

Storage tank size and capacity have improved 4 fold these past few years.

Refueling stations are of course a direct competition to gas/disel operations. Limit the stations, limit the competition.

No, station, no fuel. No business.

-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

riptides · Sep 21, 2005

( What fuels are we talking about here? I couldn't find anything with Google.)

Biogenic methane comes to mind.

-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Bob_Skurka · Sep 21, 2005

(
Good points, but.... it is the chicken and egg argument on infrastructure.

No, station, no fuel. No business.

-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif ))

But from the consumer point of view, and obviously I am just a consumer, the ONLY thing I can do is buy what is economically feasable and a big factor of economic feasability includes availability.

And while storage tank size technology may have improved over the past few years, I still cannot fill my trucks so what difference does it make?

The reality is nobody who has to make viable economic choices can logically buy a vehicle that he can't get fuel for. Nor can they afford to buy vehicles (regardless of the type of fuel) that cannot effectively do the job in an efficient manner. Let's be really blunt, as a business that is here for the sole purpose of making a profit, I would be nuts not to embrace any technology that can reduce my costs. The problem is that the LNG solution simply didn't make sense.

When I built my house 11 years ago, I seriously looked at solar panels on the roof, and I have looked at solar shingles recently. Again, it just doesn't make any sense for me to "invest" in doing it. I have a house that averages $290 in natural gas & electric bills per month. I could spend $10,000+ to get a basic solar array and my bill would probably fall down to $230 or so per month. Huh? Spend $10,000+ to save about $700 per year. Hmm. The average person lives in the US moves about every 7 years. Given that, there is absolutly no way to pay for the solar system while I would have owned the home, and while ultimately over a much longer period of time I would pay it off, I would have also had higher monthly mortgage payments . . . so it just doesn't work. Now if my house was off the grid, I could spend a lot more on a solar system and that would be potentially viable, but would require an entirely differnet electrical system, inverters, battery packs, etc. Hmmm.

The world is full of choices. Some simply don't make sense. SUVs are one choice, and based on this thread, I would say they DO make sense for many people.

I've actually looked at a lot of 'alternatives' and found that they really require sacrifices (usually in terms of monetary penalties) that 99% of the world would not choose to make.

riptides · Sep 21, 2005

The reality is the oil industry lobbied effectively to block and stymie the needed infrastructure to support the consumer.

The technology is viable.
The national distribution network exists.
The fuel is readily available.

The ONLY thing missing is the station for the end consumer to refuel at.

So in reference to you as an end user, I agree with you, you never had a chance to make a choice. The choice was never presented to us.

-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif