Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Gas-to-Liquids (GTL)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby TheDude » Sat 08 Aug 2009, 21:02:08

Regarding Pakistan, NationMaster says 8 vehicles per 100 people - 112nd out of 134 nations. That's a fleet of 14,099,436 for their population of 176,242,949. If the US had a comparable percentage of cars it would be 24,324,778 total.

Clean burning NG? BBC NEWS | South Asia | Pakistan 'faces pollution crisis'

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')raffic woes

The survey, released by the government's principal economic adviser, lists an increase in the demand for energy and an unprecedented growth in the number of vehicles in Pakistan as the key reasons behind growing levels of air pollution.


Air pollution levels in Pakistan's most populated cities are among the highest in the world, causing serious health issues in the process
Pakistan Economic Survey

The number of vehicles on the roads has increased five times in the past 20 years.

The biggest increase in the automobile sector is seen in two-stroke vehicles and diesel-powered goods lorries which are among the most polluting in the world.

Besides, more people are using cheap, inefficient and highly polluting fuels to meet their energy demands, the survey finds.


"In the cities, widespread use of low quality fuel, combined with a dramatic expansion in the number of vehicles on the roads, has led to significant air pollution problems," it says.

The government has been encouraging the use of vehicles powered by the less polluting compressed natural gas (CNG).

At present, CNG vehicles in Pakistan are estimated at just under one million, making Pakistan's CNG fleet the third largest in the world after Argentina and Brazil.

But lengthy bureaucratic procedures have impeded the growth of CNG filling stations, slowing down the expansion of the CNG fleet.


This story is a couple years old, btw. It illustrates that people will adopt whatever is economical first and foremost. Auto pollution hasn't gone away with the shift to NG: Meeting to finalise strategy on raising awareness | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')Nowhere in the world local governments spend money in widening roads,” said Rafay Alam, lawyer and member of LBT. He said: “Everyone in the world has woken up to the fact that automobile dependent cities are unsustainable.” Alam pointed out that Lahore had recently been recognised as being the most polluted City in Pakistan. He said that the government had allocated Rs 35 billion for education and health in the previous budget, but had allocated Rs 45 billion on the construction of roads and bridges. “Less than 20 per cent of Lahore’s population has access to cars,” said Alam, “but all our money is being spent on roads that only the automobile elite have access to. When people get sick because of the air pollution, the reason they have no good hospitals or doctors to go to is because all the government’s money is being spent on the automobile elite.”
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby Maddog78 » Sat 08 Aug 2009, 21:07:25

pstarr, when you refuse to acknowledge posts that answer your objections like you haven't even read the links or the posts, it becomes impossible to reply in good faith, be it ideas or ideology.
it seems like you are the one trolling and in fact you have made several statements about that admitting that you just enjoy baiting people.

I like TheDudes posting style much better.
He's asking concise questions about links provided.

Speaking of which, I agree we are starting virtually from scratch but it wasn't that long ago that gas was very cheap and it is still cheap. It was only high for what? 6 months or so.
That isn't nearly long enough to get politicians and peoples attention to make serious changes or even start to make real changes. Let's face it, very few buy into the peak oil scenario yet.
When more do, changes with regards to using n. gas as a transportation fuel will move quickly.
User avatar
Maddog78
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon 14 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby Gerben » Sat 08 Aug 2009, 21:22:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')hat compression uses a lot of energy should be obvious to you if you have ever run a compressor. The waste heat must be bled off by cooling fins and radiators. This is precisely why your household refrigerator is such an energy hog--it relies on compression.

Do you have numbers that counter my assertion?

It's about 3% for a large compressor like you find at http://www.asprognc.com (just pick one of their compressors and check how much power it needs for a certain CNG capacity and fill in the energy content of NG (kW / m3/h *3600 / kWh/m3). Worst case is a home refueler which uses about 6% of the delivered energy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gerben', '')$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 makes no sense. Examples?

http://www.neogas.us/technology/index.html
User avatar
Gerben
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed 07 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Holland, Belgica Foederata (Republic of the Seven United Netherlands)
Top

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby Gerben » Sun 09 Aug 2009, 03:40:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')he site in in a foreign language. Are you saying that only 3% or 6% of the energy content of the uncompressed gas is lost to compression? I find that hard to believe.

Select English. This is the global market leader for CNG compressors.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gerben', 'h')ttp://www.neogas.us/technology/index.html
This appears to be a special niche application, not a solution to peak oil.

You are right. Trucking CNG and transferring it at high pressure is a niche market. It is only usefull if you have no pipelines and a point of use (like a CNG filling station) that requires high pressure. That was what we were talking about: transfer without decompression.
User avatar
Gerben
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed 07 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Holland, Belgica Foederata (Republic of the Seven United Netherlands)
Top

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby Gerben » Sun 09 Aug 2009, 03:48:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gerben', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')he site in in a foreign language.

Select English. This is the global market leader for CNG compressors.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')re you saying that only 3% or 6% of the energy content of the uncompressed gas is lost to compression? I find that hard to believe.

The electrical energy required to compress the gas is ~3% of the energy content of the gas. There is also loss of energy to convert fossil fuels into electricity. (Or to make solar cells.) So you'd probably double that number in a Well to wheel analysis.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gerben', 'h')ttp://www.neogas.us/technology/index.html
This appears to be a special niche application, not a solution to peak oil.
You are right. Trucking CNG and transferring it at high pressure is a niche market. It is usefull if you have no pipelines and a point of use (like a CNG filling station) that requires high pressure. That was what we were talking about: transfer without decompression.
User avatar
Gerben
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed 07 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Holland, Belgica Foederata (Republic of the Seven United Netherlands)
Top

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 09 Aug 2009, 04:53:38

Wow, you're starting off well.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', '')$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.
Are you suggesting that the environment has, in no way, deteriorated as a result of human's way of life and drive for economic growth? That sounds like a belief system.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')ou haven't been here long.
And therefore my opinion can safely be discounted.
Only the opinion you expressed that prompted my response. Unless, of course you've done tons of reading of forum posts in the few days you've been a member.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', '')$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.What do you mean by "are there"? What's your best guess at the peak global production rate and when it will be reached. Recent coal studies suggest peak coal within a couple of decades. The resource optimists assume either that some critical resource (say oil or gas) will not peak for a very long time or that substitution will be easily managed by the markets for as far out as anyone cares to look. I call those assumptions wishful thinking, for one very good reason: we live on a finite planet.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', ' ')I am in favour of some adjustment to the way we consume them, but not because I think we are running out and we need to conserve them, but because I think otherwise the dislocation caused by climate change will be expensive.Well so long as you have a reason. So your comment at the top, about how wonderful the environment of western countries is, had what purpose?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', 'A')nd that's the point of difference between us I think. I don't think that a susitainable civilisation is of necessity one that forgoes economic growthHow do you think the economy can grow indefinitely? Is our biosphere a subset of the economy, or the other way round?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', 'o')r means living like medieval peasantsMe neither.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', 'o')r watching most of the world dieMe neither. However, the last scenario becomes more likely, the longer people think that the first scenario is true.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', 'Y')ou can live as profilgately as you like on renewable energy/resources.Err, no.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', 'T')hat is the transition we need to makeWe need to make a transition but to a sustainable civilization, not to wishful thinking.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby HumbleScribe » Sun 09 Aug 2009, 05:49:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')ow, you're starting off well.


Wow, I love being talked down to! It makes me all warm and fuzzy. Disagree with me all you like, but don't condescend. It makes me ratty.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', ']')Are you suggesting that the environment has, in no way, deteriorated as a result of human's way of life and drive for economic growth? That sounds like a belief system.


Define 'deteriorated'. The environment went through a pretty rough phase in these isles around 150-50 or so years ago, but it's looking much better now. The fact that we have spare resources to clear up the mess caused by industrialisation is a facet of the economic growth we have enjoyed. The air we breathe is back almost to pre-industrial levels, the water we drink is far better than at any time in human history, the food we eat more abundant if not always as good as it could be. The environment has changed, for sure. The woodland that once covered the entire British Isles is now fields and meadows - and woods. If you are arguing that we should try to return to a state that existed pre-humanity, then I think that is a somewhat extreme point of view.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')hat do you mean by "are there"? What's your best guess at the peak global production rate and when it will be reached. Recent coal studies suggest peak coal within a couple of decades.


Links?
Reserve: production ratios for coal are hundreds of years. Or are you only talking about the US?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he resource optimists assume either that some critical resource (say oil or gas) will not peak for a very long time or that substitution will be easily managed by the markets for as far out as anyone cares to look. I call those assumptions wishful thinking, for one very good reason: we live on a finite planet.


It's far more wishful thinking to assume that resources are going to suddenly fall off a cliff.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', ' ')So your comment at the top, about how wonderful the environment of western countries is, had what purpose?

I think we're using 'environment' to mean different things. I was talking of what I see outside my window. I assumed you were talking about pollution, spoil heaps, acid rain, habitat destruction etc. Of course global warming is an environmental effect as well, but it's not localised in the same way as the environmental effects I was thinking of. I can almost write your sneery comeback to this even as I'm typing, but you surely can't deny that our local environment has improved as regards the things I've mentioned.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'H')ow do you think the economy can grow indefinitely? Is our biosphere a subset of the economy, or the other way round?

You're taking an incredibly simplistic view of what constitutes 'growth'. If an investment grows in value by 5%, that adds to GDP. If a hairdresser is successful and takes on a new apprentice, that adds to GDP. If Microsoft write some code that you buy, that adds to GDP. If your house increases in value, that adds to GDP. If I write an article that you buy (seems unlikely, I know, but stay with me...) that adds to GDP. In a post-industrial economy, GDP growth doesn't just mean producing more widgets.
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
Wood
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue 04 Aug 2009, 11:11:09
Location: London, UK
Top

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 09 Aug 2009, 06:34:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', 'D')efine 'deteriorated'.
Adverse climate change is a biggie. Asthmatic problems are increasing, so air quality is not necessarily improving except visually. All sorts of other ecological problems are ganging up on us like aquifer depletion, topsoil loss, a huge increase in the extinction rate, and so on.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', 'I')f you are arguing that we should try to return to a state that existed pre-humanity, then I think that is a somewhat extreme point of view.
I wasn't arguing that.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')hat do you mean by "are there"? What's your best guess at the peak global production rate and when it will be reached. Recent coal studies suggest peak coal within a couple of decades.
Links?
Reserve: production ratios for coal are hundreds of years. Or are you only talking about the US?
What does the R/P ratio have to do with it? Do you honestly believe that the production rate will stay the same for a couple of hundred years and then stop? As for links, Richard Heinberg has a new book out (much of the material was posted in free museletters on his site prior) called Blackout. A past museletter cites a couple of studies which he used in his book. Coal reserves data are very unreliable (basically, a postal survey to coal producing countries which may or may not reply with unaudited numbers) so to assume we have hundreds of years at whatever rate might be needed is a bit misguided.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he resource optimists assume either that some critical resource (say oil or gas) will not peak for a very long time or that substitution will be easily managed by the markets for as far out as anyone cares to look. I call those assumptions wishful thinking, for one very good reason: we live on a finite planet.It's far more wishful thinking to assume that resources are going to suddenly fall off a cliff.That wouldn't be wishful thinking, more like a nightmare. However, I didn't even suggest such a thing. That's two positions that you've accused me of holding but which I've never stated. That is a common tactic of the resource optimist.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', ' ')So your comment at the top, about how wonderful the environment of western countries is, had what purpose?I think we're using 'environment' to mean different things. I was talking of what I see outside my window. I assumed you were talking about pollution, spoil heaps, acid rain, habitat destruction etc. Of course global warming is an environmental effect as well, but it's not localised in the same way as the environmental effects I was thinking of. I can almost write your sneery comeback to this even as I'm typing, but you surely can't deny that our local environment has improved as regards the things I've mentioned.No sneery comeback. Hopefully, we're on the same page, on this.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HumbleScribe', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'H')ow do you think the economy can grow indefinitely? Is our biosphere a subset of the economy, or the other way round?
You're taking an incredibly simplistic view of what constitutes 'growth'. If an investment grows in value by 5%, that adds to GDP. If a hairdresser is successful and takes on a new apprentice, that adds to GDP. If Microsoft write some code that you buy, that adds to GDP. If your house increases in value, that adds to GDP. In a post-industrial economy, GDP growth doesn't just mean producing more widgets.All of the things you mentioned require more widgets (or their services equivalent) or increases the demand for more widgets. I take a simplistic view because it's really very simple. Economic growth means that more stuff or services are made/offered, delivered, purchased, used and scrapped. How does that investment grow (by the way, I don't think investment growth is part of the GDP measure) and what is done with that growth? My house increasing in value does nothing to the GDP until I sell it (even then I'm not sure it does) when someone has to come up with the money. And what do I do with the money? I either buy another house (maybe get one built), often borrowing more or spending more, or spend the money on something (eventually). Economic growth requires more resources. The economy operates within a finite world, not the other way around.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby Maddog78 » Sun 09 Aug 2009, 17:42:41

Things have changed a lot in the N.G. world since 2007.
User avatar
Maddog78
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon 14 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby Maddog78 » Sun 09 Aug 2009, 18:51:19

Gas bills at home in the U.K?
Check and see how much of that is taxes.

Hub prices, storage levels, shale gas plays and n. gas rigs being shut down tell the real story.
User avatar
Maddog78
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon 14 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sun 09 Aug 2009, 21:12:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GASMON', 'T')herfore, TRUE, Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves, as natural gas reserves, though larger, are also decreasing.

What do you mean by "reserves?"

If you mean the total known and unknown amount of natural gas in the ground, then yes, they've been "decreasing" ever since the very first natural gas well was drilled. But so what? With such a huge resource base, it's not as if we have to worry about running out of the stuff any time soon. It's like worrying about running out of sand for silicon chips.

On the other hand, if you meant "proven" or even P1-P3 reserves, no they have not been "decreasing."
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sun 09 Aug 2009, 21:19:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GASMON', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Maddog78', 'T')hings have changed a lot in the N.G. world since 2007.


Or so we are led to beleive. My gas bills at home tell the true story.

The figs are in fact 2008, from the 2009 survey

http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?cat ... Id=7044622

Gasmon

According to your link, world proven reserves of natural gas have risen from 81.63 trillion cubic meters in 1980 to 185.02 trillion cubic meters in 2008, even as production and consumption have both risen steadily.

In 2008 alone they rose 4.5% over 2007. That's a nice-sized jump for one year.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sun 09 Aug 2009, 22:16:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GASMON', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Maddog78', 'T')hings have changed a lot in the N.G. world since 2007.


Or so we are led to beleive. My gas bills at home tell the true story.

The figs are in fact 2008, from the 2009 survey

http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?cat ... Id=7044622

Gasmon


As far as the gas bills, even if you're talking about the US - welcome to ineffective government (yet again). The PSC SHOULD be pushing the rate folks pay for the actual gas (not the transmission) WAY DOWN, since the market price for dry NG has fallen dramatically. Even with the mild winter in central Kentucky, my mom's gas bill rose significantly while her usage tended to shrink - the gas company claimed it would adjust rates downward "in the future". Nice.

Don't let something like short term heavily regulated bills distort your view on NG supplies. If you want to dispute the well established decade+ long trends in the supply reports like the IEA publishes - be my guess, but I suspect they're a decent overall view.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY
Top

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby Maddog78 » Mon 10 Aug 2009, 09:03:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ven with the mild winter in central Kentucky, my mom's gas bill rose significantly while her usage tended to shrink - the gas company claimed it would adjust rates downward "in the future". Nice.


I agree this is not right. The cheap hub price should be passed on to consumers as quickly as possible.
Her bills should be much lower this coming winter. It will be interesting to see how that works out.
User avatar
Maddog78
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon 14 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby Pops » Mon 10 Aug 2009, 10:22:48

This is a good adult discussion right now, let's keep it that way, no name calling and turd throwing OK?
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby Maddog78 » Mon 10 Aug 2009, 13:13:32

More LNG on the way.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he news comes just days after Shell Australia Chairman Russell Caplan reiterated that Prelude remains a "strong contender" to be the first major Shell development using new floating LNG technology.

It also comes a week after Samsung Heavy announced that it has received a US$5 billion order from Shell to build a floating LNG facility, and awarded exclusive rights to build another nine for Shell over the next 15 years.
User avatar
Maddog78
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon 14 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby TheDude » Mon 10 Aug 2009, 13:27:03

Image

RIGZONE - Shell Gas Find Supports W Australia Floating LNG Plan

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')itigroup said July 29 that since the world's first floating LNG terminal opened in 2005, the floating LNG industry has grown and is now a major focus of LNG development.

It said expenditure on floating LNG facilities is forecast to reach US $27 billion between 2009 and 2015, quoting independent research firm Douglas Westwood.

If Shell goes ahead with the Prelude project it would add to the near-dozen LNG projects planned in Australasia to 2015.


Where's all that Australasian gas shipped to? Australasia?
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby isgota » Mon 10 Aug 2009, 15:41:26

$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)


I think you have forgotten that making oil products consumes huge quantities of energy (about 10% of the energy in a refinery). Anyway since you've asked for numbers, I'm going to give you a pair a well-to-wheels studies:

- American study (see section 4.1).

- European study (both well-to-tank and tank-to-wheels).

To sum up the results for CNG, total energy consumption is a little less than gasoline and a little more than diesel, but in both cases reduces pollution.
User avatar
isgota
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Spain
Top

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby Maddog78 » Mon 10 Aug 2009, 16:01:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '
')Where's all that Australasian gas shipped to? Australasia?


Good question. Highest bidder? I'm not sure what their intended market is.
I'm sure a lot of these guys thought they'd make money shipping to the U.S. but they will have to beat shale gas drillers on costs to do that.
User avatar
Maddog78
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon 14 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.

Unread postby HumbleScribe » Mon 10 Aug 2009, 17:17:03

Japan, Korea and possibly ultimately China or India. The Far East is the biggest LNG market in the world.
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
Wood
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue 04 Aug 2009, 11:11:09
Location: London, UK

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron