home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!gumby!yale!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu!lusky
- From: lusky@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Jonathan R. Lusky)
- Subject: Re: Natural Gas Power - Good or Bad???
- Message-ID: <1992Aug18.043953.6932@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
- Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
- Organization: /etc/organization
- References: <1992Aug13.162206.28621@PacBell.COM> <12130052@hpmwga.sr.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 04:39:53 GMT
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <12130052@hpmwga.sr.hp.com> jefftb@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Jeff Brown) writes:
- >Pacific Gas and Electric has an experimental fleet of LNG ( is that right?)
- >trucks. It's is very clean but I believe they have a very short range. The
- >application in mind are service fleet vehicles that can come home every night
- >for refueling. You might want to contact PG&E, but I think any wide spead
- >use of natural gas as a motor fuel is at least years away.
- >
- >Jeff Brown
-
- LNG is liquified natural gas... not very cost effective due to the difficulty
- in liquifying methane. Every natural gas company I know of have most of their
- vehicles equipped to run both gasoline and compressed natural gas (CNG).
- CNG tanks do need to be fairly large to get a good range, compared to gasoline.
- CNG range/tank volume isn't much worse than methanol, though. Bye far,
- the most expensive component in any CNG conversion is the tanks themselves.
- However, the primary reason you haven't seen factory CNG fuled vehicles
- is emissions. Conversions don't have to meet federal emissions standard
- (in fact, they are specifically exempt). I know GM has got a handle on the
- emissions problems, and is suppsed to be building several thousand CNG fueled
- 1/2 ton pickups for state and federal governments.
-
-
-
-