Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Reaper who wrote (121203)	5/29/2009 11:04:08 PM
From: ChanceIs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206085

RE: NG Vehicles I don't have an answer. For sure we are talking compressed natural gas for vehicles. I am simply ignorant of the CNG storage system. It would have to be a strong, compact storage bottle. I am sure that it has been researched. A source of CNG is also a problem. I am reasonably sure that the pressure of CNG is much higher than for hydrogen, but you would have to c heck me. I saw some very interesting footage on hydrogen vehicles. They solved the storage bottle problem by using it as structural members beneath the seats - basically the floor pans. They torched a hydrogen car and a gasoline car side by side. The hydrogen car sent out a plume which seared the paint but basically burned off w/o too much collateral damage. The gasoline car burned somewhat slowly and harmlessly until the liquid gasoline spilled onto the pavement at which time the entire passenger compartment, tires, etc caught fire. Basically a complete fireball. If I am to believe that the test were a fair comparison, I would venture that the Hindenburg effect is way overblown. I would also much rather take my chances in a hydrogen car vice gasoline. I don't think that hydrogen would soak into your clothes or stick to your skin the way gasoline would. Same with NG.

To: The Reaper who wrote (121203)	5/30/2009 2:36:51 AM
From: upanddown	Respond to of 206085

yet nothing is being done for autos Well, close to nothing but they do have this.. automobiles.honda.com The usual excuse is lack of infrastructure but how much would it take to add an CNG pump to existing stations if the demand was there? I do know that there are already dozens of CNG refueling stations in the L.A. area. A couple of years ago, we were talking about peak gas. The shale plays have ended that talk and I read a recent estimate that we might have as much as 100 years of current production. Natural-gas-powered cars looks like a no brainer.

To: The Reaper who wrote (121203)	6/1/2009 10:01:46 AM
From: ezspkns	4 Recommendations Respond to of 206085

I've been around CNG for a long time. I think the reason the feds are not pushing CNG is it is a carbon based fossil fuel. It is an alternative which allows us to be in the type of vehicle we want. I also think there isn't an effective group with a major profit incentive. There are other profit / infratstructure issues as well, IMVHO. We drive a Honda CIVIC dedicated CNG car. Love it, the public station nearby is $.99/ GGE (Gas Gallon Equivalent - you buy CNG priced in an equal BTU basis to gasoline), the public pump at the transit station in Milwaukee is $.67/ GGE. The civic does a few MPG better than the standard gas job, with a minimum of 32 MPG up to 40+ MPG (equivalent BTU basis). Range is a bit less, as the CNG tank is 7 gallons. With the tank between the wheel wells, you loose a bit of trunk space, but the groceries ride nicely in the trunk, and we can get a baritone and a trombone in the trunk at the same time. Its a commuter vehicle and works great as such. A great next step would be for the feds to facilitate public billing / access to the private fueling stations around the region. It would extend the range nicely and start to fill out the fueling infrastructure hole. EZ Message 25658444 Message 25659285