Jump to content

5 Reasons Why You Should Switch to CNG!


Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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 by dwightlooi
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 1/5th 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.

post-12-0-20360100-1384788268_thumb.jpg

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

post-12-0-22344000-1384788266_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 1/5th 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Social Stream

  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      Despite it being outed only a few days before its reveal, the debut of the Volkswagen Atlas Tanoak concept was quite the surprise at New York. But many of us are wondering the same thing: Why?
      "We really showed this as a concept without a clear production plan behind it. Our intention [is] to demonstrate that we very seriously look into the American needs. ... Volkswagen wants to be part of this market much more seriously than in the past," said Volkswagen's North American CEO, Hinrich J. Woebcken during a media briefing.
      Volkswagen's North America office wants to take more control as how the brand is run over the home office. We already saw some inkling of this when the main office in Wolfsburg allowed them to change the name of their three-row crossover from Teramont to Atlas.
      The Tanoak also shows how far Volkswagen can take their MQB modular platform. It already underpins a number of models from the Jetta all the way to the Atlas.
      Of course, the question arises whether or not Volkswagen plans on making the Tanoak a reality. Woebcken said the company has "definitely not decided," partly due to a number of factors.
      "It all depends now if this market will appreciate more unibody pickup trucks. The C segment ... is a very high commercial use segment. Almost 70 percent of those vehicles are used in a commercial environment," explained Woebcken.
      He could see a production version having "a higher chance on the lifestyle side," but even then, "we still have to study how that would work."
      Source: Roadshow

      View full article
    • By David
      G. David Felt
      Staff Writer Alternative Energy - www.CheersandGears.com
       
      Tesla has set the auto world on fire with their sedan and now their Tesla X CUV. While most of us cannot afford a $100,000 dollar plus auto, what about our older auto's? Does it make sense to convert a traditional gas powered auto to an EV? Should I wait till a lower priced EV arrives like the Chevy Bolt?
      Many states have come out strong in their support for CNG home and business fueling equipment such as Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and Texas. Other states have come out strong pushing to having people go electric and add electric chargers to your home such as Washington and Oregon. One large state pushing CNG, Electric and Hydrogen, is California. The average conversion on a petrol powered auto to CNG tends to run $10K to $15K depending on the size of the CNG tank and then you have fueling equipment if you want to fuel from home that runs from $5K to $10K depending on size. This means an average person converting an auto to CNG is looking at $15K to $25K price and can be even more if you buy a new CNG auto.
      You have many choices in the EV field such as the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Spark EV, Fiat 500 EV and a few others that all run in the 60 to 80 mile range of electric auto's. The upcoming Chevy Bolt is a 200 mile range EV which many feel will make an impact on autos sales. These are the EV's that are all in the $25K to $35K range depending on federal subsidies.
       
      So with thinking about the current EV's on the market and what is coming, does it make sense to convert an existing auto to electric? What is the cost of conversion and what are my options as I hear about AC versus DC driven autos? What should I have at my home to charge the auto? This is what I took as I thought about my own auto's I own and realizing that a big 6'6" 280lb man who drives full size SUV's, GMC Suburban and Escalade, finds it hard to find a greener solution in the full size SUV arena. As such, I choose to research what it would cost to convert my 1994 GMC SLE Suburban which has a modified 402 V8 500HP, 551lbs of Torque engine that requires Premium fuel or CNG to drive.
       
      In researching this I found that there are many pros and cons of AC versus DC motors. AC or alternating current electric motors and DC or Direct current electric motors are both able to achieve the job of moving an auto but are engineered a bit differently. DC current will not work with an AC motor nor will a AC current work with a DC motor.
      AC motors are divided into single phase and three phase motors. Single phase AC is what you typically find in a home, triple phase is commonly found in factory or commercial space, but can also be installed at a home. Today OEM auto makers are mostly using AC motors.
      DC motors also find themselves split into three types, brush motors, brushless motors and stepper motors. Brushed DC motors as found on Golf carts and many other small electric driven carts are easy to build and cost effective but their large drawback is that the carbon brushes used to transfer electrical current wear over time and eventually end in motor failure. Stepper motors are a brushless DC motor most commonly found in robotics/ automation. Not something you would use in an auto. The DC brushless motor eliminates brushes, is more costly to build and requires a complicated electronics system to operate but has long life and is usually what you find in EV's either converted or OEM built for the auto industry.
      So now that we know what the difference is between AC and DC motors, what are the advantages and disadvantages of these motors?
      Advantages of DC (Direct Current) motors are as follows:
      1) Provide excellent speed control for acceleration and deceleration.
      2) Easy to understand and design.
      3) Inexpensive drive design.
       
      Disadvantages of DC motors are as follows:
      1) High maintenance
      2) Vulnerable to dust which decreases performance
       
      Advantages of AC (Alternating Current) motors are as follows:
      1) Low cost due to simple design of the motor.
      2) Generally smaller form factor.
      3) Reliable operation, due to low maintenance, very rugged.
       
      Disadvantages of AC motors are as follows:
      1) Low speed challenges
      2) Back EMF (electromotive force) issues. This is where current in the loop of the motor that slows down the motor and has to be overcome.
      With all the advantages and disadvantages there are some situations that still demand a DC motor or a high performance AC motor. For long life and performance cooling is a requirement. This requires a premium efficient or energy efficient motor with proper air or liquid cooling.
      So knowing what I have in my suburban and wanting to keep it as true as possible as an auto that has its heaters, AC and the rest of the electronics ended up leaving me with the following parts list.
      EV Conversion Part List and Cost as supplied by www.electriccarpartscompany.com.
       
      This is a parts list with cost not including shipping or installation.
      2 - Warp11 72-156v 453amp DC Motors will cost $5810.00
      1 - Dual Motor Siamese adapter for Warp11 motors will cost $599.00
      1-Air Conditioner Compressor will cost $864.00
      1-Electric Power Steering Pump kit will cost $985.00
      2-1000amp Zilla Motor controller will cost $3717.00
      1-PB2 Pot Box Throttle will cost $99.00
      1-Motor Adapter Plate and Spacer Ring will cost $450.00
      1-Interconnecting Hub will cost $365.00
      1-55amp DC-DC converter will cost $124.00
      1-500A Fuse will cost $65.00
      1-Fuse Holder will cost $65.00
      1-12v 500amp contactor will cost $72.00
      1-Inertia Switch will cost $57.00
      1-Amp/Voltage meter with 500amp shunt will cost $108.00
      1-QET 2000 watt 144v model P charger will cost $603.00
      1 - 250V, 10-30A Locking Plugs, sockets, inlets & Bezel - $105.00
      1-Orion BMS configured for 48 cells will cost $1131.00
       
      Part Cost $15,219 which gives me an EV motor solution of 1000lbs of torque with near identical HP.
       
      90 mile battery pack
      48 -180Ah Calb CA180FI cells with bus bars, bolts and washers will cost $11,448.00
       
      200 mile battery pack
      48 - 400Ah LiFePo4 Lithium Prismatic cells with bus bars, bolts and washers will cost $28,032.00
       
      90 Mile Solution
      Installation cost approximately $20,000.00
      Part Cost approximately $15,219.00
      90 mile battery pack $11,448.00
      Total Cost $46,667.00
       
      200 Mile Solution
      Installation cost approximately $20,000.00
      Part Cost approximately $15,219.00
      200 mile battery pack $28,032.00
      Total Cost $63,032.00
       
      With an overview of AC versus DC motors and having researched the installation, parts and battery pack, I have two options, a $47K 90 mile option or a $63K 200 mile option. Knowing that a new Suburban can run from $40K to $75K dollars, which makes sense? Buy a new petrol suburban or rebuild my existing Suburban to be EV?
       
      I think this really comes down to a personal choice as you have to decide if your old auto is worth more to refit as an EV or stay with petrol and drive a new one. Personally, I am leaning towards the EV conversion as my 94 GMC SLE Suburban is in mint condition, paid for and the cost of conversion would give me a 30Amp quick charging solution that long term would end up paying for itself I believe.
       
      In the end if you are interested in converting your auto to electric, you have a number of choices. The following web sites offer a complete catalog of parts for those that want to engineer the complete solution. They also offer Conversion kits that cover many popular cars and trucks. Which is right for you, can only be decided by your own choice of what you want to accomplish.
       
      http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/electric-car-conversion-kit.html
       
      http://www.evwest.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=40&osCsid=ve0hk6f1hpvnt5mk78pvuqosk2
       
      http://www.electriccarpartscompany.com/
       
      The final alternative is a new Hybrid Suburban offered by VIA Motors. Pure electric for 40 miles, then gas kicks in to balance and you end up with a 24mpg suburban but at a starting price of $79,000.
       
      Via motors web site is here:
       
      http://www.viamotors.com/
       
      TopSpeed review is here:
       
      http://www.topspeed.com/cars/others/2013-via-vtrux-suburban-ar133014.html
       
      News on Via here:
       


      View full article
    • By David
      By G. David Felt
      Be for or against EV autos one cannot help but acknowledge that they are here to stay. California has long been one to push the industry in one direction or another. With change often came some interesting observations such as Tesla who has been funded and helped by government grants and yet for being in a state that pushed auto companies to build EV autos they lack a solid growing infrastructure for the Electric Highway in comparison to other states.
      Electric Highway Map Washington & Oregon
      Electric Highway Map California
      While Tesla has done wonders for pushing their own charging stations, what about support for non-Tesla EVs? This is where a quick study of the Electric Highway Map shows that Oregon and Washington State has surpassed California for making much of the state and the major highway usable for electric road trips. The map shows an easy to understand network of charge points for going on an EV road trip.
      I-5 is essentially the backbone of the EV highway on the west coast with the map showing the various supported state and federal highways with charging locations and type. California, while focused on San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego loves to show off that they have an electric system, much of it is still in a planned stage leaving really only Tesla with a solution of getting around long distance.
      The focus of the West Coast Green Highway project which is funded by Federal, state, city and business dollars is to give “Range Confidence” to those that choose to purchase an EV auto. This project is an extension of the Federal’s current and long-running EV Project which was funded in August 2009 and covers 9 states with chargers installed in Major cities and Metropolitan areas. The Chevrolet Volt and Nissan LEAF are partners in this long running project. Owners of these autos could apply and those that qualify could get a free residential charger at no cost. As of March 11 2013, the EV Project had met it currently funded goal for residential charging units and is no longer accepting applications. EV Drivers can still sign up and join in the monitoring project of the public charging units to help better understand the use, need, and type of chargers.


      Click to Enlarge
      Map via WestCoastGreenHighway.com


      The layout of charging stations show that most are 20 to 30 miles apart with some being 50 to 60 miles apart which would require one to carefully and efficiently plan their driving. The one item that this map does not show is topography. The Pacific Northwest is a mountainous area that is also home to strong winds of which both can and do affect range of these autos.
      Fortunately many will find that the West Coast Green Highway site covers all of North America with alternative Fueling station locators. The Electric Highway is a part of a broader effort by the Department of Transportation for Washington, Oregon, and California to expand the use of Natural Gas, Biodiesel, Ethanol, and Hydrogen options along the 1,350 miles of I-5 from the US border with Canada to the US border with Mexico.
      In a drive for those that wish to help reduce greenhouse gas, clean up the air we breathe and give mother earth a break, the West Coast Green Highway project is a solid step in the right direction supporting many alternative transportation fueling options.

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      William Maley
      Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com
      October 19, 2013
      Automakers are throwing a fair number of alternative fuels in a effort to improve mileage and emissions to see what sticks. General Motors announced this week that they are introducing Bi-Fuel Impala that will be available to fleets and consumers starting next summer. The company points out that the Impala is the only manufacturer-produced, full-size bi-fuel sedan in North America.
      The Bi-Fuel Impala can run on compressed natural gas (CNG) and gasoline. The vehicle features two tanks for the fuels and has a total range of 500 miles. The driver can change from CNG to gas and vice versa thanks to a button on the dash.
      We'll have more details on the 2015 Bi-Fuel Impala when we get closer to summer sale date.
      Source: General Motors
      William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at william.maley@cheersandgears.comor you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.
      Press Release is on Page 2
      Akerson Announces Bi-Fuel Chevrolet Impala Sedan
      2013-10-16
      -GM to offer only manufacturer-produced full-size bi-fuel sedan in North America
      -Designed to capitalize on plentiful clean, domestic natural gas
      -Will be sold to retail and fleet buyers as a 2015 model
      -CEO repeats call for consumer-driven national energy policy
      WASHINGTON, D.C. – General Motors will build a Chevrolet Impala sedan for retail and fleet customers that operates on either gasoline or compressed natural gas (CNG), GM Chairman and CEO Dan Akerson announced today.
      It is the only manufacturer-produced full-size bi-fuel sedan and expected to go on sale next summer as a 2015 model. Akerson announced the car during remarks at an energy summit marking the 40th anniversary of the OPEC Oil Embargo.
      "OPEC Oil Embargo + 40: A National Summit on Energy Security," was sponsored by the nonpartisan group Securing America's Future Energy, or SAFE. Prominent political, business and military leaders assessed the current state of America's oil dependence since the 1973 oil embargo
      Akerson said the bi-fuel Impala is an example of using affordable technology to reduce oil consumption and save consumers money at the pump.
      "We know that U.S. energy security won't come from a one-off moonshot," Akerson said. "It will flow from our systematic investment in technology and innovation... our drive to get more from existing energy sources and renewables... our commitment to conservation... and it will be assured by fully and safely exploiting our shale gas reserves."
      Natural gas is a cleaner-burning transportation fuel compared to petroleum products, and costs significantly less than gasoline at current prices. CNG vehicles typically have 20 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline-powered cars, according to the California Air Resources Board.
      The Chevrolet Impala bi-fuel sedan addresses the range anxiety issue associated with vehicles that run only on natural gas, Akerson said. It features a factory-engineered and fully warranted powertrain that switches seamlessly from CNG to gasoline. Total range is expected to be up to 500 miles.
      Akerson said that in addition to advanced technologies and alternative fuels, achieving energy security will require productive partnerships between energy companies, utilities, environmental groups, labor unions, universities and manufacturers.
      GM, he said, is working closely with 14 of the country's largest unions and environmental groups through the Blue-Green Alliance, and has relationships with regulators that are "more constructive than ever."
      Akerson also reiterated a call he made earlier this year for the Administration and Congress to create a new, consumer-driven national energy policy from a position of strength and abundance.
      For its part, GM is committed to saving 12 billion gallons of gasoline in its 2011 to 2017 model year vehicles – offsetting nearly a year of crude imports from the Persian Gulf – with technologies that include lighter materials to reduce vehicle mass, alternative fuels, clean diesel and electrification.
      In addition to the Chevrolet Volt, Chevrolet Spark EV and the upcoming Cadillac ELR, GM is introducing start-stop technology standard on the 2014 Chevrolet Malibu helping the midsize sedan achieve 25 mpg city/36 mpg highway, and using electrification to boost fuel economy in the Buick Regal and LaCrosse sedans, which both get EPA-estimated 36 mpg hwy.

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      William Maley
      Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com
      July 31, 2013
      Ford announced today that the 2014 F-150 pickup equipped with the 3.7L V6 will come with a CNG/LPG Prep package, making it the first light-duty pickup in the class to come with this feature. The package includes hardened valves, valve seats, pistons and rings. The CNG/LPG Prep package will set you back $315.
      That doesn't mean you can head to your nearest CNG/LPG station and fill up though. You will need to visit a Ford Qualified Vehicle Modifier which will install the CNG/LPG-specific fuel tanks, fuel lines and fuel injectors. When all is said and done, the conversion will set you back $7,500 to $9,500.
      Ford says an F-150 running on CNG/LPG gets 23 MPG on the highway and has a range of more than 750 Miles.
      “Businesses and fleet customers have been asking Ford to make F-150 available with CNG capability to take advantage of the fuel’s low price and clean emissions. With the money saved using CNG, customers could start to see payback on their investment in as little as 24 to 36 months,” said Jon Coleman, Ford fleet sustainability and technology manager.
      Source: Ford
      William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at william.maley@cheersandgears.comor you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.
      Press Release is on Page 2
      JUL 31, 2013 | DEARBORN, MICH.
      FORD F-150 TO OFFER ABILITY TO RUN ON COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS; SALES OF FORD CNG-PREPPED VEHICLES CONTINUE GROWTH
      2014 Ford F-150 will offer a gaseous-fuel prep option on the 3.7-liter V6 engine; it will be able to run on compressed natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas
      With the addition of F-150, Ford will have eight vehicles available to run on clean-burning, inexpensive CNG/LPG. Sales continue to grow rapidly, with Ford expecting to sell more than 15,000 CNG/LPG-prepped vehicles this year
      Ford Qualified Vehicle Modifiers offer a wide variety of CNG options to help customers find the best, most cost-effective solution to their diverse operating needs

      Ford, America’s truck leader, will offer the 2014 F-150 with the ability to run on compressed natural gas, making Ford the only manufacturer with an available CNG/LPG-capable half-ton pickup.
      The 2014 Ford F-150 with 3.7-liter V6 engine will be available this fall with a factory-installed, gaseous-fuel prep package that includes hardened valves, valve seats, pistons and rings so it can operate on either natural gas or gasoline through separate fuel systems.
      When the 3.7-liter V6 F-150 is equipped with a CNG/LPG engine package, it is capable of achieving more than 750 miles on one tank of gas, depending on the tank size selected. The Ford F-150 averages 23 mpg on the highway.
      “Businesses and fleet customers have been asking Ford to make F-150 available with CNG capability to take advantage of the fuel’s low price and clean emissions,” said Jon Coleman, Ford fleet sustainability and technology manager. “With the money saved using CNG, customers could start to see payback on their investment in as little as 24 to 36 months.”
      CNG/LPG engine prep from the factory costs approximately $315 before the customer chooses a Ford Qualified Vehicle Modifier to supply fuel tanks, fuel lines and unique fuel injectors. Upfits run approximately $7,500 to $9,500 depending on fuel tank capacity.
      CNG conversions can provide stability against fluctuating fuel prices as well as lower vehicle operating costs for fleet administrators. CNG sells for an average of $2.11 per gallon of gasoline equivalent, and is as low as $1 in some parts of the country, representing a significant savings over unleaded regular fuel. The national average for unleaded regular fuel is $3.66 per gallon.
      In the next year, Ford will offer eight commercial vehicles with a gaseous-prep option, a number no other full-line manufacturer can match:
      Transit Connect van and wagon
      Transit van, wagon, cutaway and chassis cab
      E-Series van, wagon, cutaway and stripped chassis
      F-Series Super Duty pickup and F-350 chassis cab
      F-Series Super Duty chassis cab (F-450, F-550)
      F-650 medium-duty truck
      F53 and F59 stripped chassis
      2014 F-150 light-duty pickup

      Customers are enthusiastically responding to this powerful array of choices. Since reintroducing the option in 2009, Ford has established itself as the leader in CNG/LPG engine sales. Ford is on pace to sell more than 15,000 CNG/LPG-prepped vehicles this year, an increase of more than 25 percent from 2012.
      AT&T is one of many Ford customers that are finding value in CNG. The communications giant recently purchased 650 F-350 chassis cabs with the CNG-prep option.
      “We’re almost halfway to our company-wide goal of deploying 15,000 alternative-fuel vehicles by the end of year 2018,” said Jerome Webber, AT&T vice president, global fleet operations. “Vehicles such as CNG F-350s from Ford have helped us avoid purchasing 7.7 million gallons of gasoline over the past five years while reducing our fleet’s emissions.”
      Qualified Vehicle Modifiers
      Ford has established a rigorous qualification program for alternative-fuel vehicle modifiers. The QVM program is intended to help modifiers achieve greater levels of customer satisfaction and product acceptance through the manufacture of high-quality vehicles.
      QVMs offer a wide variety of CNG/LPG options to help customers find the best, most cost-effective solution to their diverse operating needs. Ford maintains the engine and powertrain limited warranty (five years or 60,000 miles); the modifier is responsible for the system component warranty.
      Compressed natural gas
      Compressed natural gas is mainly composed of methane. It is stored and distributed in hard containers at a pressure of approximately 3,600 psi. About 85 percent of the CNG used in the United States is produced domestically.
      Another benefit of this alternative fuel: Cleaner emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency certifies CNG usage can result in up to 30 percent less greenhouse gas emissions.

      View full article
  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...