MIT report "The Future of Solar Energy"

[Sunking]

Compressed natural gas is only 20% less energy dense than diesel. There's no land or water based form of transportation where CNG/LNG can't work well. The commercial transporter uses diesel today as the most cost effective fuel in existing equipment. You can buy a CNG truck today.

Diesel is best for constant RPM applications. Even light commercial trucks have moved to gas engines for lower life cycle cost. Diesel may be economic in cars where it is not regulated for particulate emissions. Diesel engines produced in the U.S. before 2006 were great performers, and great polluters. But cars were still not a great application for an engine like diesel that has a limited RPM range of operation.

Locomotives are electric motor driven anyways. It just a question of where and how the electricity is produced. There's no fundamental requirement in a locomotive for the energy density of diesel.

Complete BS.

Natural gas emits far worse emissions than diesel. NG leaks methane like a sieve.

Diesel engine power is unmatched, and heavy trucks cannot use CNG because they lack the torque and power. Secondly is Energy Density is the amount of energy by volume. CNG is 1/4 that of diesel meaning a diesel engine can travel 4 times further on a liter than CNG. Don't come back with LNG because you loose that debate also because LNG only has 1/2 of diesel.

As for freight trains you are smoking crack. It is true diesel locomotives use electric motors, the reason they have to use electric motors is there are no transmission or clutch assembles that could withstand the mechanical forces. Heavy freight trains use 2 or more locomotives to generate enough power to move heavy freight. A single locomotive generates up to 6000 Hp times how many engines. There is no possible way to transport that kind of electrical power at usable voltages for the electric motors. Not to mention the extreme danger put on the public at such high voltages that would be required to transport such high power levels. But guess what? If it were possible, what is the fuel source for that electricity and how much is lost transporting it?

[Sunking]

Venture capital funds back a number of startups, fully expecting that many of them will fail.

BS, they know there is a risk, but expect a gold mine. Government is the only fool who expects complete failure.

[russ]

Compressed natural gas is only 20% less energy dense than diesel.

bberry - You come up with more inane BS than most - CH4 is about 50% of diesel

[russ]

, their immediate response is Solyndria.

One big reason for that is that Solyndra was considered a dud by the community long before Chu was throwing money at it.

[bberry]

Complete BS.

Well, I guess I must have learned nothing in my time actually working in locomotive manufacturing. The primary problem with propulsion that electric motors solved is not large mechanical forces. Keep guessing.

Do you not know how to use google? Goolge CNG trucks. Google LNG locomotives.
I'm not a proponent of either. Just making a point concerning your black and white views.

Farm tractors, skid steer, excavators and similar require many movements and operator visibility that make very high energy density fuels desirable. Less so with truck tractors and locomotives. Lots of empty space on the typical American OTR truck tractor to fit lower density fuel tanks.

natural-gas-powered-kenworth-truck-image-flickr-user-truckpr_100425652_m.jpg

[bberry]

bberry - You come up with more inane BS than most - CH4 is about 50% of diesel

volume or weight?

[russ]

Well, I guess I must have learned nothing in my time actually working in locomotive manufacturing.

Apparently not

[Sunking]

Well, I guess I must have learned nothing in my time actually working in locomotive manufacturing. The primary problem with propulsion that electric motors solved is not large mechanical forces. Keep guessing.

No guessing pure facts. There are two reasons one I left out TORQUE you Dork. Electric motors deliver full Torque at 0 RPM. There is no clutch assembly that can take that kind of heat and abuse to fully engage without stalling the motor, burning up Clutch friction plates, or blowing out hydraulic systems.

Do you not know how to use google? Goolge CNG trucks. Google LNG locomotives.
I'm not a proponent of either. Just making a point concerning your black and white views.

Farm tractors, skid steer, excavators and similar require many movements and operator visibility that make very high energy density fuels desirable. Less so with truck tractors and locomotives. Lots of empty space on the typical American OTR truck tractor to fit lower density fuel tanks.

Sure I know how to use Google do you? If you did you would know CNG is for short local delivery distances. No range and lacks power. A CNG rig cost $100K, and diesel 75K you are full of green BS. CNG is OK for local buses and light local deliveries. Useless for heavy transportation. Bu tyou pollute more with CNG so no real benefit.

[Sunking]

volume or weight?

Energy Density means by VOLUME. CNG has 1/4 the Energy Density of diesel. A diesel will go 4 times further for a specific volume. You cannot make a tank big enough to replace diesel for like mileage.

[bberry]

Energy Density means by VOLUME. CNG has 1/4 the Energy Density of diesel. A diesel will go 4 times further for a specific volume. You cannot make a tank big enough to replace diesel for like mileage.

I wasn't asking you, I was asking Russ

........ If you did you would know CNG is for short local delivery distances. No range and lacks power. A CNG rig cost $100K, and diesel 75K you are full of green BS. CNG is OK for local buses and light local deliveries. Useless for heavy transportation. Bu tyou pollute more with CNG so no real benefit.

Except that there are actual 8B class 80,000 GVWR tractor trailers running right now in the U.S.
Maybe not where you live.
But as I said, I'm not a NG proponent in transportation. My point was that lower energy density work fine in most applications. The argument for liquid fuels necessity is over played.

[Sunking]

Except that there are actual 8B class 80,000 GVWR tractor trailers running right now in the U.S.

Over short distances for local deliveries.

Look a Class 8 rig loaded over average terrain on highways you are looking at 6 to 7 mpg using diesel. Class 8 rigs are equipped with with twin 150 gallon tanks yielding a range 800 to 900 miles. A like CNG truck range is cut to 200 to 250 miles which is Local Deliveries on surface streets.

Is there any benefit? Not that I can see other than Public Relations which is false PR. UPS and other local carriers use such tactics to get the public Green Label. To get that they are using public funds or corporate welfare, and when it comes to harmful pollutants NG is not a winner as they leak like sieves. If you would have read one of my earlier links clearly state the sudden rise in Methane levels in the atmosphere over the last 5 years is from the use of CNG vehicles. Methane is a nasty pollutant and an extreme green house gas.

Personally I do not care if a carrier uses CNG or diesel. What I do know is CNG has some severe limits and only fits niche applications. It is not the God Send some make it out to be.

[russ]

I wasn't asking you, I was asking Russ

My point was that lower energy density work fine in most applications. The argument for liquid fuels necessity is over played.

1) You got your answer - is it different coming from Sunking?

2) Lower energy density works so well? BS -