5 Reasons Why You Should Switch to CNG!

[G. David Felt]

5 Reasons Why You Should Switch to Compressed Natural Gas

According to the Natural Gas Vehicles for America, there are now over 120,000 vehicles in the United States that run on compressed natural gas. Around the world, there are now more than 14 million natural gas vehicles or NGVs. And these numbers will continue to rise as compressed natural gas increasingly becomes the alternative fuel of choice. But what made almost 14 million vehicle owners all over the world decide to choose CNG vehicles over traditional? Let’s take a look at 5 of the best reasons why compressed natural gas should be your choice too.

• Compressed natural gas is ECO-FRIENDLY? Engines running on CNG produce less hydrocarbon exhaust emissions than gasoline-fuelled engines. In fact, compared to cars fuelled by gasoline or diesel, natural gas vehicles produce 70% less carbon monoxide (CO), 87% less non-methane organic gas (NMOG), 87% less nitrogen oxide (NOx) and 20% less carbon dioxide (CO2). And although natural gas vehicles do emit methane, one of the principal greenhouse gases, the methane emission is offset by the significant reduction in CO2 emissions.
• Compressed Natural Gas is SAFE? CNG is stored in spherical or cylindrical tanks that are much stronger than gasoline fuel tanks. In case of an accident, CNG will dissipate into the atmosphere unlike gasoline, which pools in the ground and becomes a dangerous fire hazard. CNG also has a narrower range of flammability, which means that natural gas will not burn in concentrations in air that is below 5% and above 15%. In addition, natural gas is not toxic or corrosive. And because any leaks dissipate into the atmosphere instead of the ground, CNG will not contaminate ground water.
• Compressed Natural Gas is EFFICIENT - Since natural gas is 90% methane, it has a substantially higher octane rating compared to gasoline. This allows for higher compression ratios that make the engines running on CNG significantly more efficient. Also, because CNG is a clean-burning fuel, it causes less wear and tear on the engine. This results to longer engine life and more savings from maintenance costs such as tune-ups and oil/ spark plug changes.
• Compressed Natural Gas COSTS LESS? Natural gas costs significantly less than either gasoline or diesel. In fact, CNG is available at a third of the price of gasoline on average. Also, the prices of natural gas are less volatile compared to oil prices. This stability makes long term cost planning easier. Reduction in engine wear and tear due to the clean burning characteristic of natural gas also helps NGV owners save up on expensive tune-ups, parts replacements and oil changes.
• Compressed Natural Gas is ABUNDANT and READILY AVAILABLE - The United States has an abundant supply of natural gas. There is also an extensive, well-established network of gas pipelines distributing natural gas to several areas in the country. Also, there are now more than 1,300 CNG fuelling stations across the US with more being built everyday. This makes CNG use convenient as NGV owners have easy access to natural gas fuelling stations.

With these five top reasons, it’s easy to see why CNG is an excellent alternative to petroleum-based fuels. Making the switch to CNG is easy even if you currently own a gasoline or diesel vehicle. Many CNG Companies offers the best conversion systems on the market- Auto Gaz the world leader of consistent top quality CNG systems, Versus another world leader of Bi-fuel auto switching CNG Systems. You can find a system to match most any vehicle from Ford - Chevy, Mazda - BMW, GMC - Volkswagon , local CNG conversion shops will handle it and your Local Fuel Maker Distributor can install Home CSA certified Fueling appliance. This alone usually keeps you under a Dollar a gallon.

Same MPG, More HP, More Torque, Considerably less Green house gas as it is a green fuel. Why not switch to CNG Today!

Need more proof, check out the NGVA site for an abundance of great facts on why America should move to CNG!

http://www.ngvc.org/index.html

[Intrepidation]

[G. David Felt]

You can do better than that, Your Intrepid would run so much better on CNG!

[Intrepidation]

The problem with CNG isn't the fuel itself, in fact for home heating oil I prefer it. However the problems are the methods in which it must be extracted, the pollution created in the process, and of course the chemicals used and the effects the process has on its surroundings.

Burning natural gas is cleaner than oil or gasoline, and it emits half as much carbon dioxide, less than one-third the nitrogen oxides, and 1 percent as much sulfur oxides as coal combustion. But not all shale gas makes it to the fuel tank or power plant. The methane that escapes during the drilling process, and later as the fuel is shipped via pipelines, is a significant greenhouse gas. At least one scientist, Robert Howarth at Cornell University, has calculated that methane losses could be as high as 8 percent. Industry officials concede that they could be losing anywhere between 1 and 3 percent. Some of those leaks can be prevented by aggressively sealing condensers, pipelines and wellheads. But there's another upstream factor to consider: Drilling is an energy-intensive business. It relies on diesel engines and generators running around the clock to power rigs, and heavy trucks making hundreds of trips to drill sites before a well is completed. Those in the industry say there's a solution at hand to lower emissions—using natural gas itself to power the process. So far, however, few companies have done that.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-3

Geochemists have found dangerous levels of radioactivity and salinity at a fracking disposal site near Blacklick Creek, which feeds into water sources for Pittsburgh and other western Pennsylvania cities.

The Duke scientists spent two years, from 2010 to 2012, taking soil samples upstream and downstream from the Josephine Brine Treatment Facility in Indiana County, PA. What they found was striking.

Even after waste water was treated at the plant to remove dangerous chemicals, radiation was detected far above regulated levels.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/fracking-leaving-radioactive-pollution-in-pa-2013-10#ixzz2ihLBjX11

Beyond that, there's the infrastructure which will cost billions to establish and there's none in my area. On top of all that CNG is at the end of the day, a fossil fuel. So while it does burn cleaner it is, at best, a bridge between petroleum and cleaner energy.

Concern has been expressed over the possible long and short term health effects of air and water contamination and radiation exposure by gas production.^{[154][200][201]} A study on the effect of gas drilling, including hydraulic fracturing, published by the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, concluded that exposure to gas drilling operations was strongly implicated in serious health effects on humans and animals ^[202] although scientists have raised concerns about that particular report.^[203] As of May 2012, the United States Institute of Medicine and United States National Research Council were preparing to review the potential human and environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing.^[204][205]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers radioactive material in flowback a hazard to workers at hydraulic fracturing sites. Workers may inhale radon gas released by the process, raising their risk of lung cancer. They are also exposed to alpha and gamma radiation released during the decay of radium-226 and to gamma radiation and beta particles released by the decay of radium-228, according to EPA. EPA reports that gamma radiation can also penetrate the skin and raise the risk of cancer.^[206]

A 2012 study concluded that risk prevention efforts should be directed towards reducing air emission exposures for persons living and working near wells during well completions.^[207] In the United States the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) released a hazard alert based on data collected by NIOSH that workers may be exposed to dust with high levels of respirable crystalline silica (silicon dioxide) during hydraulic fracturing.^[208] NIOSH notified company representatives of these findings and provided reports with recommendations to control exposure to crystalline silica and recommend that all hydraulic fracturing sites evaluate their operations to determine the potential for worker exposure to crystalline silica and implement controls as necessary to protect workers.^[209]

According to the United States Department of Energy, hydraulic fracturing fluid is composed of approximately 95% water, 4.5% sand and 0.5% different chemicals.^[54] These percentages are by weight, so hydraulically fracturing a well uses 4-7 million gallons of water (15000-27000 tons) and 80-140 tons of chemicals. There can be up to 65 chemicals and often include benzyne, glycol-ethers, toluene, ethanol and nonphenols.^[67][210] Some^[who?] have argued that although many of these chemicals are harmful, some of them are either non toxic or are non toxic at lower dosages.^[211] However, their concentration in hydraulic fracturing fluid have proven toxic to animals and humans.^[202] Many chemicals used in fracking, such as 2-BE ethylene glycol, are carcenogenic. This chemical is listed under chronic oral RFD assessment, chronic inhalation RFC assessment, and carcinogenicity assessment records of the US environmental protection agency’s website.

In a study done by Colborn and colleagues, they examined 353 out of 994 fracking chemicals identified by TEDX in hydraulic fracking operation. They found over 75% of the 353 chemicals affected the skin, eyes, and other sensory organs,52% affected the nervous system, 40% affected the immune system and kidney system, and 46% affected the cardiocascular system and blood.^[212]

In a second study done by Colborn and colleagues, they examined the airborne chemicals due to the fracking process. The group categorized the human tissue types into 12 categories and found 35 chemicals affected the brain/nervous system, 33 the liver/ metabolism, and 30 the endocrine system, which includes reproductive and developmental effects. The categories with the next highest numbers of effects were the immune system (28), cardiovascular/blood (27), and the sensory and respiratory systems (25 each). Eight chemicals had health effects in all 12 categories.^[213]

Airborne chemicals during the fracking process, such as benzene and benzene derivatives, naphthalene, methylene chloride, are either carcinogenic or suspected as a human carcinogen to the human body.^[213][214]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

[G. David Felt]

Yes and most of this study is based on fracking from the late 90's and now many of the chemicals used are no longer used. As such, the study's are behind the actual process and protection of extracting Natural gas.

On top of this, the Ring of Fire volcanoes spew out more toxic waste and green house gas than does fracking so do we find a way to extinguish the planet?

Nothing is perfect but at the reduced Green house gas creation and reduced toxic waste to the land, CNG is still a better way to go than petro. We have the worlds largest reserves and need a stepping stone towards a better life. I believe CNG is that stepping stone and for those that do not have fast fill yet around their house, that is why they have home Time Fill appliances so you can refuel your auto over night.

Same MPG

More Torque

More HP

130 Octane

Only 1/3 Green house gas production

Less pollution drilling gas than Oil.

Makes sense for America to get off Oil, go synthetic lubrication with CNG for cleaner, lower cost fueling.

[dwightlooi]

Counter Points: Five Reasos You shouldn't switch to CNG

(1) CNG is much less dense than Gasoline. At atmospheric pressure a given volume of natural gas has 1/1000th the density of gasoline. Even at 3,000 psi (204x the pressure of the air we breathe, CNG has about 1/5th (22%) the volumetric energy density of gasoline. What it means is that for a given size of tank, a CNG car will go 1/5th the distance between refuelings. Or, if it is to go the same distance it has to have 5 times the fuel tank volume.

(2) CNG is compressed to a high pressure. This means that tanks have to be cylindrical or spherical to effectively contain that pressure. Spheres and cylinders are much less space efficient than the kind of irregular shaped gasoline tanks cars use to tuck the fuel under the rear seats above and around the drive shaft and suspension bits.

(3) CNG is not as available as gasoline or even diesel at today's gas stations. If you drive CNG, you have to plan your refueling stops around stations that sell CNG. If you drive gasoline you just drive and pull over at any gas station when the empty light goes on.

(4) Converting existing engines to CNG has no performance or efficiency benefits. In fact, both are a little worse. CNG is best run with increased compression ratios, but most converted CNG engines simply replaces gasoline fuel systems and metering with a CNG compatible alternative without changing the engine internals. If you drive CNG, it is best to get a factory CNG vehicle with an engine designed from the ground up to use CNG. These unfortunately are few and far in between, limiting your choices.

(5) Today, US Natural Gas usage in vehicles is about 33 billion cu-ft compared to the total 23,400 billion cu-ft. That is 0.14% of the total usage; quite insignificant in the overall scheme of things. The USA uses a lot of NG and for good reasons we have a lot of it. Can we use more and be less reliant of imported oil? Sure. But is NG in vehicular use the best avenue to increase that usage? In residential and industrial heating, as well as power generation, the storage density issues (CNG's Achilles heels) are largely irrelevant since the fuel is pipe delivered in very mildly pressurized form. Most US powerplants are not NG fired. Many homes use electric stoves and heaters. A drive to convert these to NG has a much larger effect on NG usage than trying to use them in vehicles without all the compromises.

Edited November 16, 2013 by dwightlooi

[G. David Felt]

REBUTTAL – Dwight has given good information below, yet I believe he left it in an Apple to Orange comparison for some info rather than a true Apple to Apple

Counter Points: Five Reasons You shouldn't switch to CNG

(1) CNG is much less dense than Gasoline. At atmospheric pressure a given volume of natural gas has 1/1000th the density of gasoline. Even at 3,000 psi (204x the pressure of the air we breathe, CNG has about 1/5th (22%) the volumetric energy density of gasoline. What it means is that for a given size of tank, a CNG car will go 1/5th the distance between refueling. Or, if it is to go the same distance it has to have 5 times the fuel tank volume.

Rebuttal – True as it comes out of the ground, but then oil is not usable as a fuel either till refined. As such, Natural Gas is compressed (CNG) to 3600 psi that gives you a Gas Gallon Equivalent (GGE). This is how you then have a usable fuel for auto. CNG GGE = 1 Gallon Petrol. MPG = Same as Petrol, 130 Octane means you get more HP and Torque depending on the efficiency of the engine. Your example of only 1/5^th the distance on CNG is misleading, proven by the industry over and over.

(2) CNG is compressed to a high pressure. This means that tanks have to be cylindrical or spherical to effectively contain that pressure. Spheres and cylinders are much less space efficient than the kind of irregular shaped gasoline tanks cars use to tuck the fuel under the rear seats above and around the drive shaft and suspension bits.

Rebuttal – Yes the cylindrical shape is not as efficient in one large tank as a petrol tank, but thanks to carbon fiber, type 5 tanks allow multiple layouts by using multiple small tanks such as the Chevy Van that uses a 3 tank layout in the frame under the body to give you a impressive storage amount.

(3) CNG is not as available as gasoline or even diesel at today's gas stations. If you drive CNG, you have to plan your refueling stops around stations that sell CNG. If you drive gasoline you just drive and pull over at any gas station when the empty light goes on.

Rebuttal – All current OEM built autos have CNG fast fill stations clearly listed for ease of find a fueling station. In fact one can drive from Vancouver BC to Baja California, From LA to Florida and up and down the east coast rather easy with finding fast fill CNG stations. Even driving from San Francisco to DC across the middle of the US was done on a CNG road trip in a CNG only Honda Civic GX. The 2015 Bi-Fuel Chevy Impala, with Petrol and CNG, this car on sale spring of 2014 will have a 150 mile range on CNG plus the petrol range.

On top of this, with CSA certified CNG home fueling appliances, you can fuel for less than a dollar at home not having to bother going to a CNG station. As of 2009, 50% of all households in the US had Natural Gas available for use. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=49&t=8

(4) Converting existing engines to CNG has no performance or efficiency benefits. In fact, both are a little worse. CNG is best run with increased compression ratios, but most converted CNG engines simply replaces gasoline fuel systems and metering with a CNG compatible alternative without changing the engine internals. If you drive CNG, it is best to get a factory CNG vehicle with an engine designed from the ground up to use CNG. These unfortunately are few and far in between, limiting your choices.

Rebuttal – Todays conversion kits allow the modern day efficient engines to burn CNG so that one keeps the same MPG. Fuel delivery via the injectors, a fully functional computer brain that takes all sensors into account and adjust timing / dwell, etc. to maximize the burn of CNG.

Can the engines be tuned or built to be more efficient for CNG, sure and that has been done in markets like Italy and Brazil. In many places, these pure CNG engines are just that, the current Petrol engines tweaked to truly maximize CNG. Yet you do not loose MPG with a Petrol engine converted to CNG. One exception is older auto’s that have carburetors, the adapters used for these engines do reduce MPG, HP and torque due to the inefficient use of fuel via the Carburetor. Modern day engines with injectors loose no fuel loss and as such no loss of MPG, HP or torque.

(5) Today, US Natural Gas usage in vehicles is about 33 billion cu-ft compared to the total 23,400 billion cu-ft. That is 0.14% of the total usage; quite insignificant in the overall scheme of things. The USA uses a lot of NG and for good reasons we have a lot of it. Can we use more and be less reliant of imported oil? Sure. But is NG in vehicular use the best avenue to increase that usage? In residential and industrial heating, as well as power generation, the storage density issues (CNG's Achilles heels) are largely irrelevant since the fuel is pipe delivered in very mildly pressurized form. Most US power plants are not NG fired. Many homes use electric stoves and heaters. A drive to convert these to NG has a much larger effect on NG usage than trying to use them in vehicles without all the compromises.

Rebuttal – According to the EIA, 35% of electrical production is now by Natural Gas, 65% is an almost 50/50 mix of Coal and Nuclear. Natural Gas use has finally passed coal use for clean energy production. Natural gas is far more readily available to home users and with efficient CSA certified CNG appliances, Time Fill fueling at home is a reality. While we see many businesses such as UPS and Waste Mgmt. go to CNG fueled fleets, more and more trucks are being produced to run on pure CNG only by Kenworth and Peterbuilt for inner city deliveries as the cities require cleaner fleets. Cost of CNG for businesses and home owners who keep their auto's longer than 3 yrs makes sense to use this abundant fuel.

As one can see from the map below, we have an extensive network of Natural Gas pipelines and it is continually expanding.

Here is the compressor map showing the ability to move natural gas around the US.

[Drew Dowdell]

Can I get a converter kit to fuel my '81? It doesn't have fuel injection, it's just a 4-barrel carb. I ask this as a question leading up to another question.

[Robert Hall]

meh.

[G. David Felt]

Can I get a converter kit to fuel my '81? It doesn't have fuel injection, it's just a 4-barrel carb. I ask this as a question leading up to another question.

Yes you can get a kit.

Here is a reseller for me on Fuelmaker home fueling appliances who also sells and installs the conversion kits.

http://www.premiercngservices.com/Versus-Conversion-Kits.html

The versus conversion kits work great on fuel injector cars keeping same MPG, but more HP and Torque, with Carb versions you do loose some MPG, HP and Torque. The bonnet system work by installing between the Carb and the Manifold. You end up having a switch that turns off the gas flow and then allows the CNG to be sprayed into the manifold to be sucked into the pistons and ignition done to power the car. With the carb version you do loose some of the CNG to the normal evaperation process but the majority does go into the motor. This loss is why you loose MPG/HP/Torque.

You still need to buy a tank and that is more expensive than the conversion kit. Tanks run from 6 GGE to 42 GGE in size.

[Drew Dowdell]

Would this be a practical thing for drivers of classics?

[G. David Felt]

Yes and No, If you have a classic car with a big block V8 and you are not worried about how much Horsepower you have like in a classic Corvette, Camero, Muscle car, but instead you have a classic Caprice with a V8 and you like to cruise, then yes, the much lower cost of fuel with the small decrease in MPG, HP and Torque makes this a great way to go for driving around. Most people do not miss the 10 - 15% decrease. Performance driven folks would so you would want to either convert to pure Fuel Injection or leave it as is on petrol.

Today we have many various auto's that people love, they are not what you would call a collectors or classic model worth large dollars on the auction stand, but they hold sentimental value to their owners, are in various stages of shape that still have many years left of good use. So one willing to invest 3-6K dollars on converting to CNG and driving on cheap cleaner fuel versus traditional prices of petrol can make a large difference.

My 94 GMC SLE suburban is a perfect example. Yes it is very clean, but it is not what I call a collectors. I love the interior layout, the space and the way it drives when I go for long drives or camping. So with the built motor that requires premium, why not convert it to CNG, run on high octane low cost fuel and enjoy it. In my case, I have decided I will replace the Fuel Injected Throttle body carb setup with an actual true Fuel Injection top end to preserve the HP and Torque I know it will never get great MPG, but then I love my burb and it is all paid for, so why spend 50K + on a new one when I have what I love already.

[dwightlooi]

Rebuttal – True as it comes out of the ground, but then oil is not usable as a fuel either till refined. As such, Natural Gas is compressed (CNG) to 3600 psi that gives you a Gas Gallon Equivalent (GGE). This is how you then have a usable fuel for auto. CNG GGE = 1 Gallon Petrol. MPG = Same as Petrol, 130 Octane means you get more HP and Torque depending on the efficiency of the engine. Your example of only 1/5^th the distance on CNG is misleading, proven by the industry over and over.

Well, the Gas Gallon Equivalent is only used as a standard of measurement when filling up the tank. 1 Gas Gallon Equivalent (GCE) does not have the same energy density as a gallon of Gasoline and it doesn't take you as far in terms of driving range.

At 3,600 psi CNG has an energy density of 9 MJ / L. That is to say that 1 liter (0.26 gal) in volume of CNG at 3,600 psi has 9 mega Joules of energy. Gasoline on the other hand has an energy density of 33~34 MJ / L depending on the ethanol and additives in the blend. That's still about 1/4 of the energy for any given volume of fuel carried. So if the internal volume of the tank is exactly the same, CNG takes you 1/4 with engine efficiency being equal.

[SAmadei]

Would this be a practical thing for drivers of classics?

IMHO, yeah, can be. Its sure a clean fuel that the engine will run longer.

I have one of the kits and its pretty simple. I never used it because I didn't locate a decent tank... and back then, refilling stations where nonexistent. I bought it because in NJ you can forgo emissions if you have an alternative fueled car.

Every so often, you find the old kits popping up on eBay. Usually removed from a western vehicle undergoing restoration that no longer needs the kit.

[Drew Dowdell]

Would this be a practical thing for drivers of classics?

IMHO, yeah, can be. Its sure a clean fuel that the engine will run longer.

I have one of the kits and its pretty simple. I never used it because I didn't locate a decent tank... and back then, refilling stations where nonexistent. I bought it because in NJ you can forgo emissions if you have an alternative fueled car.

Every so often, you find the old kits popping up on eBay. Usually removed from a western vehicle undergoing restoration that no longer needs the kit.

I just like big old boats... If I were to win the Powerball some day, my first stop is not going to be the Cadillac dealership, but Ebay motors. I'd love to have some of the mid to late 80s Detroit iron, but power it with natural gas instead of gasoline.

[G. David Felt]

Would this be a practical thing for drivers of classics?

IMHO, yeah, can be. Its sure a clean fuel that the engine will run longer.

I have one of the kits and its pretty simple. I never used it because I didn't locate a decent tank... and back then, refilling stations where nonexistent. I bought it because in NJ you can forgo emissions if you have an alternative fueled car.

Every so often, you find the old kits popping up on eBay. Usually removed from a western vehicle undergoing restoration that no longer needs the kit.

I just like big old boats... If I were to win the Powerball some day, my first stop is not going to be the Cadillac dealership, but Ebay motors. I'd love to have some of the mid to late 80s Detroit iron, but power it with natural gas instead of gasoline.

Totally agree with you Drew that the old Iron is awesome, one reason of what I am doing with 94 GMC SLE Suburban. Big, Roomy and looks great even now 20+ years later.