by HumbleScribe » Sat 08 Aug 2009, 09:44:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')'m not suggesting that finding alternative ways of doing things defies physical laws. What defies those laws is the notion that economic growth can continue indefinitely, that we can indefinitely consume resources beyond their renewal rates and that we can continue to damage our environment with impunity.
Those are two different things. In post-industrial societies like ours, economic growth is largely a function of productivity growth, which is about doing things more efficiently.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')hat all of these substitute schemes are attempting is the impossible - to have BAU continue indefinitely. If that is not so, why are such schemes proposed?
Took me a while to figure out what you meant by BAU. I'm not up on the local jargon. 'Business as usual', I assume.
I don't see many people here advocating that 'BAU' can continue indefinitely. But I do see dozens of chicken littles who think that because we are in a period of transition, the world is going to hell in a handcart. Yet if you argue against them somehow you become a Big Oil Global Warming denying capitalist running dog lackey for even daring to suggest that the future might not be as bad as they paint it. This thread title is a case in point. No, natural gas won't be able to completely replace declining oil reserves, but it can do some of it, and other things can do other parts, and reducing our consumption will do the rest, enabling us to move on as we move - eventually, decades down the line - to a society without much oil.
If you think that, in the past, there was some golden age of pleasure and plenty to which you would, if you were able, transport yourself, let me say one single word: "dentistry." P.J. O'Rourke
by MattS » Sat 08 Aug 2009, 12:53:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattS', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')BTW, yes I do have a CNG filling station along my commute
I like the idea of filling in the garage myself, but I haven't bought the Civic yet. The wife wants a Prius instead.
If you have $50,000 for a 5,000 psi compressor then you might make it all the way to work. Otherwise with the 500 psi paint-sprayer kind you might make it to the corner and back.
Not all of us are ignorant of what type of compressor is required to fill a basic LNG tank. Links to such types of equipment has been presented to you before. Why do you pretend to have forgotten?
by MattS » Sat 08 Aug 2009, 12:57:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'A')s we all know (due its inherent gaseous limitations) natural gas is difficult to deliver in a calorically dense state, and is thus used relatively near the main delivery trunk line (i.e in dense cities).
Tell it to the people in nowhere Montana who have a natural gas line straight to their door. Stop being ignorant of reality.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pstarr', '
')Also it must be compressed at its final destination. (That is why a bladder of gas at atmospheric pressure is useless.) Of course this expends a great deal of energy and thus the net-energy returned in such conditions is lousy and NG is not competitive for distributed auto use. (This is exasperated if the final destination is off the NG delivery grid. Then the gas must be compressed and trucked, decompressed into a local NG grid, and compressed again into the auto tank for decent mileage)
That same natural gas line and a fueling buddy means that here in the middle of nowhere Montana I can easily fill up any particular NG powered car to drive back and forth through Glacier NP. Stop being ignorant of reality.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PStarr', '
')What do you cornies think?
That you have been a hermit in the woods for too long.
by HumbleScribe » Sat 08 Aug 2009, 13:12:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')What do you cornies think?
To paraphrase Mississippi Burning:
"For a moment there Mr Starr it almost sounded as though we were on the same side."
If you think that, in the past, there was some golden age of pleasure and plenty to which you would, if you were able, transport yourself, let me say one single word: "dentistry." P.J. O'Rourke
-
HumbleScribe
- Wood
-
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Tue 04 Aug 2009, 11:11:09
- Location: London, UK
-
by Gerben » Sat 08 Aug 2009, 15:21:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'A')s we all know (due its inherent gaseous limitations) natural gas is difficult to deliver in a calorically dense state, and is thus used relatively near the main delivery trunk line (i.e in dense cities).
Not necessarily a main delivery line. A smaller line works as well. Ofc. if you have a lot of cars running on natural gas, you'd have to expand the network.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lso it must be compressed at its final destination. (That is why a bladder of gas at atmospheric pressure is useless.) Of course this expends a great deal of energy and thus the net-energy returned in such conditions is lousy and NG is not competitive for distributed auto use.
It takes only a relatively small amount of energy. The net-energy return is much better than for oil to gasoline. Energetically and costwise NG is competititve for distributed auto use.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '(')This is exasperated if the final destination is off the NG delivery grid. Then the gas must be compressed and trucked, decompressed into a local NG grid, and compressed again into the auto tank for decent mileage)
That's why trucks leave their trailers at the gas station to fill the cars there. No decompression required.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever (and this is good news for you cornies out there) there is a potential transport application for
un-compressed natural gas. That would be trains. Just as trains are capable of carrying their own coal fuel under advantageous conditions, so to might trains be capable of relying on (carrying) un-compressed gas. Why???? Because the main trunk could follow the train line and the trains could stop relatively often to refuel. The issue of expensive distributed end-use gas lines is mitigated.
What do you cornies think?
Let's hear it for public transportation! Hip hip hoorray!
Wait. Public transportation is socialistic. Never fly. forget it
by TonyPrep » Sat 08 Aug 2009, 17:36:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')'m not suggesting that finding alternative ways of doing things defies physical laws. What defies those laws is the notion that economic growth can continue indefinitely, that we can indefinitely consume resources beyond their renewal rates and that we can continue to damage our environment with impunity.
Those are two different things. In post-industrial societies like ours, economic growth is largely a function of productivity growth, which is about doing things more efficiently.
Two different things but very much linked. It is the pursuit of growth that has caused us to damage the environment. I don't know what you meant by your second point, at least in relation to what I wrote.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')hat all of these substitute schemes are attempting is the impossible - to have BAU continue indefinitely. If that is not so, why are such schemes proposed?
I don't see many people here advocating that 'BAU' can continue indefinitely.
You haven't been here long. Almost all of the resource optimists do nothing but try to convince themselves, and others, just that.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', 'B')ut I do see dozens of chicken littles who think that because we are in a period of transition, the world is going to hell in a handcart. Yet if you argue against them somehow you become a Big Oil Global Warming denying capitalist running dog lackey for even daring to suggest that the future might not be as bad as they paint it. This thread title is a case in point. No, natural gas won't be able to completely replace declining oil reserves, but it can do some of it, and other things can do other parts, and reducing our consumption will do the rest, enabling us to move on as we move - eventually, decades down the line - to a society without much oil.What transition do you think is underway? Is it a transition to a sustainable civilisation? That's not what any of the resource optimists want; they want to continue economic growth and not have to adjust too drastically to a resource constrained world. Your characterisation of how the resource optimists are treated is off the mark. They are argued against because they appear not to understand that the earth is finite. They appear not to understand that, in general, the low hanging and best fruit is picked first. Certainly, most are AGW denialists, but only because that allows them to propose schemes such as we've seen here.
by HumbleScribe » Sat 08 Aug 2009, 19:20:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')t is the pursuit of growth that has caused us to damage the environment.
Yet the environment in western countries is pretty clean nowadays. And in the meantime we're much richer than we were.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')ou haven't been here long.
And therefore my opinion can safely be discounted.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'A')lmost all of the resource optimists do nothing but try to convince themselves, and others, just that.
What do you class as an optimist? Is it 'optimistic' to suggest that peak oil (with the usual caveat that we may not be there) is not the end of Civilisation As We Know It? The resources are there, especially gas and coal. I am in favour of some adjustment to the way we consume them, but not because I think we are running out and we need to conserve them, but because I think otherwise the dislocation caused by climate change will be expensive.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')hat transition do you think is underway? Is it a transition to a sustainable civilisation? That's not what any of the resource optimists want; they want to continue economic growth and not have to adjust too drastically to a resource constrained world.
by TheDude » Sat 08 Aug 2009, 20:51:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattS', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')Do you have numbers that counter my assertion?
Why? It appears your ability to add two numbers together and get the same answer on consecutive occasions is in doubt. You have been presented with both the approximate cost and requirements for an in-garage compressor to fuel a NG Civic in the past and pretend like A) you didn't check the link B) aren't capable of remembering having been provided the link or C) refuse to accept the reality of the world as presented through the link.
Can you run that by us again? I look for experienced info like this:
Why I passed on Phill - Natural Gas Vehicle Owner Community$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ack to Phill, here is why it did not make sense for me:
Price:
$3,982 (list - dealers have no room to come down on this nor any real incentive to sell the product).
Again, used FM2's and FM'4s abound for about the same price. For $500 or so you can get one professionally refurbished.
Fueling Rate:
1/2 gallon equivalent per hour.
FM2's and FM'4s fill at 1 gallon equivalent per hour. If you often drive 100+ per day in your commute, little Phill simply won't keep up.
Lifespan:
Times out at 6,000 hours (3,000 gallons). Must send back to Fuelmaker for a $2,000 refurbish.
FM2's and FM'4s time out at 4,000 hours (4,000 gallons, equivalent to 8,000 on a Phill) but are infinitely rebuildable via a simple on site visit.
Would like to hear your experiences, did you knock something together DIY? Might make a good thread on its own, too.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ompression is easy. Natural gas lines into quite a few American homes is historical fact. The combination of these two obvious pieces of information means I can fuel a NG car in my house, and if the operating cost of such a configuration is substantially less than me putting expensive, post peak oil into the tank of my car, I'll go do it, and someone will sell me the system
