Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Use of Natural Gas-Powered Vehicles Promoted

April 27, 2013

MORGANTOWN — Due to the abundance of relatively cheap natural gas because of Marcellus and Utica shale drilling, Kathryn Clay believes its time to use the fuel to power more vehicles....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(15)

mikeyd

Apr-27-13 11:42 PM

well ain't california where most of the top ten polluted cities are?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Apr-27-13 9:10 PM

Well WHERE would you go to fuel up? I check there were only two filling stations between Columbus and Washington PA on I-70. Kinda of far to fill up, eh?

Now in SoCal they are about 7 miles apart but we have had CNG buses and trucks for 30 years, so the infrastructure is in place.

THAT'S the problem.

Auto engines last 300,000 miles on clean CNG but get about 25% less fuel economy because of the energy density difference from gasoline to CNG.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

UNCOMMONSENSE

Apr-27-13 5:14 PM

SORRY I'm still not drinking the koolaide!!

As I stated many times "If this was such a money saver, why do gas company vehicles burn gasoline and diesel?"

ALL the trucks that haul material for the well pads and the pipeline are DIESEL powered!!

And I've yet to see ONE worker driving a vehicle that burns their OWN fuel!!

PURE PROPAGANDA!!!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Apr-27-13 3:57 PM

It's true that the Barnett Shale play in Texas has left a LOT of unhappy land owners speculators companies et al because it played out way earlier than many estimated.

Now the lawsuits and fingerpointing begin.

But also the natural gas potential of the OV 40 years ago was vitually ZERO.

New technology comes along, like fracking, that make the previously impossible possible.

THAT is why earth never runs out of oil.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVEXPAT

Apr-27-13 3:40 PM

WVU, Got it! Thanks for the clarification! Makes more sense to me now! The collective "we" bring interesting points to this forum.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

richardwhee

Apr-27-13 1:44 PM

Just look at what these people represent. They are trying to sell us a bill of goods, or is it like a used car.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Apr-27-13 1:29 PM

WVEXPAT: "We" are a seriously disabled ex-WV coal miner/WVU-educated, one-time professional geologist and his caretakers/givers.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Apr-27-13 1:27 PM

A University of Maryland study, "Compressed Natural Gas Bus Safety: A Quantitative Risk Assessment", by S. Chamberlain and M. Modarres, found that Compressed Natural Gas, CNG, "buses are more prone to fire fatality risk by 2.5 times that of diesel buses, with the bus passengers being more at risk by over two orders of magnitude." In other words, the driver is at less risk than the passengers, who are, as we read it, 100 times, "two orders of magnitude", i.e., ten by ten, more likely to get toasted, and it all averages out to a CNG bus fire fatality "risk" that is "2.5 times that of diesel buses". No one got hurt, thank Heaven, the driver somehow managed to get the kids off; but, back in November, 2011, a Tulsa, OK, CNG school bus erupted. Search for: "School Bus Fire Spreads Concern Over CNG Buses".

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVEXPAT

Apr-27-13 1:17 PM

WVU,

While I appreciate your science background (I don't always agree w you). I am curious. When using "we" are you employing it the editorial, author's, royal or patonizing sense? I exist in the business world so I'm not overly familiar w/ an individual referring to one's self in that manner.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Apr-27-13 10:50 AM

Someone clicked "disagree" on our first comment, below. If you disagree about the size of the shale gas resource, we think we're right on that. Fairly recent US Geologic Survey estimates of the resource have been buried; and, more recent USDOE Energy Information Administration estimates are simply compromises between the USGS and the claims the industry is making, which industry claims are all that the press is repeating. The real lie is in the fact that the public accounts don't differentiate the numbers as commercially-recoverable, technically-recoverable or total reserves. Those are standard petroleum industry measures. A responsible resource recovery company wouldn't publish reserve numbers without labeling them as being one or the other. Within the past five years the USGS published a commercially-recoverable estimate for the Marcellus that's less than twenty percent of what's been touted by the industry and repeated in your press.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Triton

Apr-27-13 9:59 AM

This is not a new idea, in fact decades ago when OPEC was choking us, the NR converted a large part of their delivery trucks to CNG. Not difficult, or expensive. And (per EPA) if all public transit converted to CNG air pollution levels in cities would roll back nearly 30% in a year, thats astronomical. But we have deluded greenies. The Sierra Club once promoted the use of clean burning CNG but that was when they were against coal. But NOW we actually have huge reserves of natural gas and we have to protest that. OMG we cannot lose our negative views or give up big feeling protests no matter how contradictary they are! Its a stupid view and the baloney used to justify their completely reverse positions is insane. NO diesel on the streets of our cities? Thats a real goal. Chanting, singing protest songs? Thats just an ego lifestyle. When you live on the right/left fringe you become equally stupid. If only mass transit converts it reduces pressure on oil/diesel and reduces pollutio

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Apr-27-13 9:11 AM

And, has anyone, anywhere, taken the capital expense of converting the fleet to run on CNG, much less the cost of building out the CNG supply infrastructure for vehicle fueling, into account? There's no sense in trying to include reference links here, since the site won't allow it; but, converting a vehicle to run on CNG can range between $5,000 to $23,000, depending on the vehicle, engine, size of CNG tanks needed, and who does the converting. And, how many vehicles do we have to convert to make any of this make any sense whatsoever? And, how much, in total, would all of that cost? It might make some sense for commercial or government fleets operating in urban areas with their own refueling centers. For the rest of us, it's nuts.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Apr-27-13 8:38 AM

And, don't be misled by speculative "costs", or "prices", "per gallon" of liquefied nat gas contrasted, or compared, with the price per gallon of gasoline or diesel. The energy density of compressed gas is much less than that of naturally liquid hydrocarbons. If the gasoline and nat gas costs per gallon are equal, the per-mile driven costs of nat gas will be much higher. It will cost more to drive the same distance. This is all just more tulip mania nonsense.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Apr-27-13 8:24 AM

Pressurized, 70 mile-per-hour Hindenbergs. Just what we need. And, the gas glut is transient. The folks reported on herein have been under-instructed, just like just about everyone else, on the distinctions between commercially-recoverable gas reserves, technically-recoverable reserves, and total reserves. There, simply, will not, in the end, be nearly as much gas available from the shales - - gas that anyone can afford - - as everyone has been so willingly misled into believing.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikeyd

Apr-27-13 7:57 AM

propane sure ain't cheap.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 15 of 15 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: