Natural Gas: An Enticing Alternative
By Larry Burns
GM Vice President, Research & Development
Volatile oil prices have been dominating the news lately, underscoring growing unease about the automobile’s heavy dependence on petroleum. As these concerns reverberate from Main Street to Wall Street, General Motors is working toward new solutions that will answer the growing demand for personal transportation in an affordable and sustainable way.
Because GM believes there is no single technology solution to displace petroleum, we are aggressively pursuing biofuels such as E85 ethanol and leveraging other efficiencies such as advanced engines and hybrids. We also are developing entirely new technology solutions that do not rely on petroleum, such as the Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle and fuel cell vehicles.
Another alternative, natural gas, is enticing because it is abundant, affordable and relatively clean. This week in Washington, D.C., the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming listened to testimony on the role natural gas can play in our nation’s transportation sector.
In the near term, we can use compressed natural gas (CNG) in internal combustion engines. Mid term, we can leverage natural gas to create electricity for the Volt and future variants. In the long term, natural gas could be an excellent source for making hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles, either at the filling station or in people’s homes.
GM already has extensive experience with natural gas vehicles. Our Opel Zafira CNG is among the leaders in Europe, where gasoline and diesel fuel are costly, and we are exploring a dual-fuel approach with natural gas and gasoline for U.S. customers. While we are not ready to commit to a future production plan, we are taking a serious look at natural gas in the U.S. as yet another way to diversify our portfolio of affordable and sustainable transportation energy solutions.
From our experience with ethanol in Brazil and the U.S., we believe that dual-fuel vehicles provide the kind of flexibility that gives consumers the confidence to purchase them. Just as owners of our flex-fuel ethanol/gasoline vehicles have two fuel choices, purchasers of natural gas/gasoline vehicles could also buy either fuel.
If natural gas is to make a measurable impact, many vehicles need to use it, and it must be readily available. Collaboration with the energy industry and governments is key. Governments will likely need to provide incentives to encourage early adoption of the technology and to jump-start the fueling infrastructure.
Ultimately, the cost of vehicle technology and fuel will determine whether customers embrace natural gas as an automotive fuel. What we all can agree on is that the future of automotive transportation – and the global economies that depend on it – will not continue to thrive in a petroleum-centric world.
- Posted in Business
Bill M
Honda sells a CNG Civic (at $2000 more than the hybrid Civic).
Are there any GM models available in the US equipped to run on NG?
Edwin
Thankfully, GM is leading the way to solve the obvious supply/speculation problem and not a consumption/demand problem.
Gereon (Germany)
Dear Mr. Burns,
GM latest efforts regarding the design of alternative propulsion concepts really do impress me. However, I would not rely on CNG as a fuel for internal combustion-engines, at least not before the extraction of methane clathrate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate) is technologically feasible and economically viable.
Nowadays LPG for sure is the better alternative. That’s a statement based on our personal experiences. My wife and me both are driving LPG-fueled GM-Vehicles: a 2006 Chevrolet Aveo (LPG-System as an OEM-Solution from Chevrolet Deutschland) and a 2001 Oldsmobile Alero, which I got retrofitted nearly 2 years ago. In the meanwhile we have been driving ten-thousands of miles and LPG simply turned out as the best solution. In contrast to CNG the LPG-Tank requires clearly less room inside the car, at the same time the additional weight is lower. LPG is stored at just 8 bar (113.8 psi), versus CNG at 200 bar (2845 psi). Further important advantages of LPG vs. CNG: There’s no notable reduction in engine-performance in contrast to CNG, at the same time you get a wider range with one filling of LPG. The price for LPG remained much more stable in recent years, whereas CNG was going up significantly (at least here in Germany). In addition, over here are vastly more fueling-stations (4000 LPG/800 CNG). The retrofitting of a vehicle also is clearly cheaper, if you choose a LPG-System. Not to forget, the benefits for the environment are about the same. LPG also is burning extremely clean. Its pollution is that low, that it’s even allowed for the indoor-use of fork-lifters! And now the big point: LPG already is produced by the USA and other western nations at considerable amounts. You don’t have to rely on CNG-producing countries, which mainly are no democracies. LPG is just a incidental product, which comes up automatically during the processing of crude oil. The USA should start calculating in MPG of CRUDE OIL, not miles per gallon of gasoline. Using LPG for heating-purposes or barbeque’s is an incredible waste in my opinion. It’s a precious fuel for transportation. 97% of all German drivers, who have decided to retrofit their cars, opted for a LPG-solution, only 3% for a CNG-solution. 98% of all drivers (me included) who gathered experiences with LPG-driven cars, would do it again with LPG. Oh, I almost had forgotten to mentioned the costs at the pump! Running on LPG, my 2001 Olds Alero compares to a Prius and my wife’s Aveo is running even cheaper than a Smart! Don’t believe it? Come over and visit Germany.
motorman
the state and federal govt. will not support this because with a compressor at home you can fill up without paying the road taxes. i own gas wells and would buy a compressor and a car if GM would sell one. i am entitled to hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of natural gas free in my contracts. i will not buy a honda.
Rum Doodle
~ “Another alternative, natural gas, is enticing because it is abundant, affordable and relatively clean.”
People on this blog — led by Gereon from Germany — have been saying that for a long time. Why then has it taken GM so long to get off top-dead-center with respect to natural gas?
Instead, you’ve wasted time and resources messing around with E-85 flex-fuel vehicles which you could have better spent on CNG and LPG. It’s unfortunate Congress has never established a natural gas loophole in the way CAFE is computed as as they did for E-85.
Justin Weber
Mr Burns,
As the owner of a Flex Fuel vehicle I always appreciate efforts made to assist the technology. I am hoping to read more regarding GM’s partnerships with ethanol companies; in particular companies which are (or plan to) produce ethanol from non-grain substances, and also cheaply. At fifty-cents a gallon less in my area, and adding in the reduced MPG’s, the fuel is at a break-even point for me price-wise when compared to regular gas. If these new technologies bring ethanol’s pump-price down to say two-bucks a gallon, I think it’ll take off.
John Eacobacci
Dear Mr. Lutz
As I know you will never read this I will post it anyway:
As a American car enthusiast (and Volt follower) I got to thinking of how a Volt logo might look like. This is one of my suggestions for how Chevy should brand the volt. (although not polished, I think you get the point)
The symbolism here is simple yet powerful. Part of it is that the Volt changes the Chevy brand by shocking it back to life. Or it symbolizes that the Volt runs through the Chevy brand. It is electifying how GM makes cars. Take your pick.
But most importantly this logo is a revehersal of thought: Currently all automobile models are branded to a particular line up. But this is difference. Instead of branding the Volt to Chevy …this is an opportunity to do the unthinkable and brand Chevy to the Volt. ” what??! Did he say that right? ” Yes.. I repeat, this an opportunity to brand Chevy to the Volt!
http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/8296/chevyvoltjelogoen2.jpg
Changing the game has always be a part of GM’s industry leading DNA . Lets remember that these are the people that brought us the Corvette!
Hey GM…if you going to try to build and sell a “game changer” you might as well go all the way!!
Rum Doodle
~ “If natural gas is to make a measurable impact, many vehicles need to use it, and it must be readily available.”
Mr Burns,
It is readily available. More than half of the houses in the U.S. (53% to be exact) already have natural gas piped to them to use for home heating, water heaters, and stoves.
That means at least each one of those houses could have something like the Honda Phill in the garage which would allow someone with a natural gas car to fill up overnight at home. (Although as motorman so ably pointed out, the politicians wouldn’t like that until they figure out how to tax it*.)
Meet Phill, the first home refueling appliance available to owners of natural-gas vehicles.</b
——————————
* Which brings up the question of how politicians will tax the electricity that goes to recharge a Volt’s battery? Will they have to install a separate electric “road tax meter” on the outlet in my garage from which I recharge my Volt? Wouldn’t there be an incentive to run an extension cord to my Volt from an untaxed outlet? Could I be fined or arrested if I recharge my Volt from an electric socket that doesn’t have a road tax meter on it?
Fred
Well that’s great. Now make it happen please.
Gary Dikkers
Justin said: “At fifty-cents a gallon less in my area, and adding in the reduced MPG’s, the fuel is at a break-even point for me price-wise when compared to regular gas.”
Justin,
If your are paying only 50 cents less a gallon for E85, you are not getting any bargain. As a rule of thumb, it takes four gallons of E85 to do the work of three gallons of straight gasoline.
In my town, regular gasoline is now $3.89 per gallon, and it’s probably close to that where you live. That means you’re paying approximately $3.39 per gallon for E-85.
3 x $3.89 = $11.67
4 x $3.39 = $13.56 (buying E85 is more expensive — supply the exact numbers for where you live and tell me what you get)
Unless four gallons of E-85 cost less than three gallons of gasoline, it is a wiser play to buy the gasoline. The reason is because of the lower energy content of E-85.
The AAA has a website where they keep track of the price of E-85 adjusted for its lower energy content: AAA Fuel gauge report
Charlie H
Your emphasis on FlexFuel vehicles has been driving up food prices as corn is converted to ethanol to support road dinosaurs. Now you want to fuel more road dinosaurs with natural gas, thus making it more expensive than ever to heat my house.
I suppose my best plan in the face of on-going support for road dinosaurs is to give up my fuel-efficient car, buy one of your road dinosaurs, live in it, sell my house and use the proceeds to buy ethanol for the road dinosaur and food for me.
That’ll work. Kinda cozy but do-able. Where do I sign?
George Diebel
For every action there is a reaction, true too, in philosophy. There is an antonym to everything. Some are fully supportive of alternative fuels, and can’t wait, while others pick out the dark side of every opportunity. Perhaps more important than what corn costs, or how we tax the air, is what it does for human well being. We have a hysterical market of short term instant gratification investors who have given up on manufacturers, choked on the housing market, and are cleaning up on oil futures. This is the root of our economic environment. It is not so much what we do as an alternative, as it is that we have one. The cost of producing oil has not changed, just the price.
Clearly, drilling for more oil is not going to solve the oil problem, but only extend it. Global unrest greatly revolves around oil today, and that is as important as its price and polluting characteristics. Ethanol, natural gas and electricity are great potential short term fixes, and we need to embrace them if they are to be effective. There will be no long term fix if industry is not funded to develop it. Second guessing anything that has been done in the past is wasted time, since it cannot be undone. We need to work in the present moment where we have an impact on what will be the past, as we create the future. Hydrogen, the sun, and the wind, are at our disposal, if we can just learn to focus our energies (pun).
Peter B.
What a great posting by Gereon!
kevin
LPG is the winner between it & CNG. Technology for conversions already exists and costs to retro fit a vehicle are lower because of the lower pressures. The CNG refilling network in the USA is very small compared to the availiblity of LPG. The vehicles can be left as bi-fuel instead of dedicated one way or the other. Downfall is the road tax collection with both CNG & LPG unlike gasoline or E-85. Both fuels are cleaner burning than gas resulting in lower emissions. LPG does not need to be pressurized like CNG does. Unfortunitely, we are still wanting a 1 size fits all answer for something that there multiple possibilities. Build me a truck that is E-85 and has LPG conversion. Room for both fuels, reduce emissions & 600 mile/tank range. I’ll drive it.
Craig
Gereon said: “Using LPG for heating-purposes or barbeque’s is an incredible waste in my opinion.”
In the rural area where I live, LPG is really the most cost-effective option for heating my home. Natural Gas is not available. Heating oil is closer to $5/gallon. Wood is affordable for supplemental heating - but not for a primary heat source. Electicity - not even close to affordable.
Let me assure you that propane prices in the U.S. climbing steadily. In the 2006-07 heating season, we paid $1.47/gallon. Today the discounted “lock-in” rate is $2.62/gallon.
The thought of extra demand for LPG caused by widespread automotive use scares me.
Living in a colder northern climate, propane costs are a huge burden and we have no viable alternatives for heating our home.
Brandon Boozer
Charlie H,
“Your emphasis on FlexFuel vehicles has been driving up food prices as corn is converted to ethanol to support road dinosaurs. Now you want to fuel more road dinosaurs with natural gas, thus making it more expensive than ever to heat my house.”
Both of these statements are incorrect but I will leave it up to you to do the research and find some actual FACTS for next time you post.
At any rate I do agree that GM has had this technology for some time now and the fact that it is comercially available in Europe means that it is a viable option in the U.S. Regrettably GM doesn’t really have the funds at the moment to invest in putting a technology which probably won’t help their bottom line on the market. Despite this I feel that a test fleet - much like “project driveway” - of these CNG or LPG vehicles would help to level the playing field with respect to consumer perception of GM as a green company. E-85 and Hydrogen are great alternatives which GM is THE leader in, but as has been said many times there is no single solution for replacing (reducing) oil consumption as a transportation fuel.
The bottom line is this. I see the Honda Civic CNG advertised as one of the many “Green” cars honda makes and all the praise people throw at their feet for being inovators, while GM gets bashed for being the patriarch of gas guzzling “Road Dinosaurs”. I see this and think to myself, If we had the technology 5 years ago, why don’t we have a few cars (200?) on the road soaking up all the glory. If GM wants a “Green” campaign why not follow the old adage of “Lead by example” and save a few hundred million in advertising by just putting the technology we already have on the road? Seems like a decent idea to me!
Joe H
I agree with GM’s position that no one fuel type is the answer. Natural gas is one more option but I don’t understand why diesel isn’t being pushed more. With today’s diesel engines they are cleaner, more economical and you can use biodiesel. Turbo diesel technology is in Europe, why can’t it be in the U.S.? I have a small farm, I don’t need a huge pickup I can’t afford a Silverado but if GM ever offered a Colorado or Canyon turbo diesel work truck with increased hauling and towing capacity plus the increase in fuel mileage(especially if you can get it up to 30 mpg). If you keep the price around $22k it would sell!! I might be completely wrong but it just seems that GM is missing another opportunity.
Ken W.
The billionaire T. Boone Pickens has proposed a plan that readers of this blog may find relevant to the discussion. John McCain even mentioned this proposal during his town hall meeting at the GM Tech Center. Essentially the idea is a national policy change intended to reduce a large portion of America’s foreign oil imports by utilizing abundant American natural gas resources. The gist of the proposal is this:
1) Create a fleet of CNG cars in the US market (this reduces need to import foreign oil)
2) Install a large number of wind generators in the US (this keeps natural gas prices low)
Pickens has started Step #2 by putting his own money into a huge wind-farm project. The success of his proposal, however, would require governmental and commercial buy-in also. He and others who support the plan are trying to build momentum by advertising Pickens’ website “www.pickensplan.com”.
Advantages of CNG, according to the aforementioned website and its kin:
- CNG, filled from your home, only costs the equivalent of US$1.50 a gallon (or less)
- CNG, due to clean burning, results in longer engine life (i.e. 500k)
- the technology is proven: existing used CNG cars (like CNG Chevy Cavaliers) are in demand
- ability to fill these cars at home with “Phill” device is already available (cost around US$4000)
- United States has abundant supplies of natural gas; no need to import any
- CNG cars, from a fuel leak standpoint, are safer than gasoline (CNG dissipates if tank ruptured)
- CNG burns cleaner (”reduces your carbon footprint” more) than E-85
The plan is intended as a short-term “time-buying” solution that can be implemented quickly using existing technology. Eventually other solutions will come online (fuel cells, etc.) but those solutions are 20-30 years away.
If this plan ever gains serious traction in the public mindset, surely GM will want to participate by offering CNG vehicles to the American public. A great amount of good PR could be achieved, similar perhaps to that gained by GM’s “patriotic” discounts in the wake of the 9-11 attacks. Currently only Honda offers a CNG product in the US market (Civic GX), but they only make 1000 units/year and only sell them in California and New York.
GM offered several CNG products in the early 1990’s, including pickups, SUV’s and cars, but by the early 2000’s all were discontinued. No new technology is required to bring them back — only the will to do so, and a public ready to buy them.
John Baldwin
Something interesting is happening with natural gas. I’m a long time gas industry professional who, since 2001, has been promoting CNG vehicles in the UK. It has been hard work but we are finally making a breakthrough because of a number of factors:
high oil price (the gas between oil and natural gas has never been as large as this)
less use of natural gas in the long term for heating and electricity due to plans to generate electricity from wind and nuclear
liquid biofuels out of favour due to impact on food prices and rainforests
reduction in cost of making and moving LNG due to larger ships and re-gasification efficiencies
CNG as most efficient way to store excess wind energy
new and high quality NGVs being produced by OEMs
the range issue has fallen away as vehicles become more efficient and OEMs hide CNG tanks under the floor
EU taxation favouring low CO2 transportation
EU target of 95 g/km for 2020 can be met with a CNG – hybrid, even for larger cars
growth of biomethane as the first and most economic 2nd generation biofuel (ie not made from food crops)
The new CNG Passat from VW comes out later in 2008 and will be the best CNG car ever made I think - with the Passat we are moving into new uncharted territory, smaller engine, turbocharged, range on natural gas of 420km with almost the same again from the petrol reserve. 0-60 in 9.3 seconds.
Why aren’t the US car companies making CNG cars….GM are for Thailand:
http://blog.gmnext.com/?p=15&print=1#Print
The new Zafira CNG due out in 2009 wil have a turbo, should sell in large numbers..we want it in UK! Mr Burns, can we have it please?
HotCarNut
Gary Dikkers said: If your are paying only 50 cents less a gallon for E85, you are not getting any bargain. As a rule of thumb, it takes four gallons of E85 to do the work of three gallons of straight gasoline.
In my town, regular gasoline is now $3.89 per gallon, and it’s probably close to that where you live. That means you’re paying approximately $3.39 per gallon for E-85.
Gary,
I’m curious where you’re coming up with your conversion ratio for E-85 and gasoline. Most of the numbers I have heard say that E-85 nets about 15% lower fuel economy. Your ratio implies that it is actually significantly lower than that (more like 25-30% worse fuel economy). I know that it contains 25% fewer BTUs (thanks to the AAA website), but is that directly correlated to MPG?
Also, I can’t believe how widely the price of E-85 varies across the country. It seems like here in the Midwest, it’s well below the national average.
Gereon (Germany)
Hi Peter,
Hi Kevin,
thank you very much for your agreement. This link will lead you to a company, which is specialized on the installation of LPG-Systems. http://www.autogas-akademie.de/beispielfahrzeuge.html
It’s not far from where I am living (close to Frankfurt, some GI’s also may know Friedberg very well).
As you can see, also some US-Cars have been retrofitted. Unfortunately this website only is available in German, but maybe you can get it translated via Bablefish or similar. At least the pictures might be interesting for you. The German government grants tax-incentives on LPG until 2018. Currently this means, LPG is about 55% (!) cheaper than gasoline or Diesel over here. In the Netherlands the contrast is even stronger. LPG just costs about 35% of the price for gasoline there. In Germany there are currently more than 200′000 vehicles running on LPG. That’s a 78%-increase versus last year. This is our reality in Germany, so there’s no need to discuss.
Ken W.
HotCarNut:
Here’s some real world data to consider — I collected it myself.
I filled my flex-fuel car with ethanol and observed the mileage for a week. I then filled with regular unleaded for a week, and noted the mileage with that. I then repeated the whole two-week cycle, and got the same results.
With regular unleaded, this car got 21.5 miles/gallon
With E-85, the car got 16.5 miles/gallon
I drive about 400 miles/week. My driving patterns, and destinations, are consistent from week to week. Thus, from my test, it would appear that E-85 (in this car at least) gets 23% worse mileage than regular unleaded.
I do know that flex-fuel cars are optimized for regular gasoline, so some of the mileage decrease can be explained by the inefficiency of the engine in burning E-85 instead. It would be nice if flex-fuel customers could have the option of having their vehicles optimized for E-85 instead… Maybe this only requires a software change?
Gereon (Germany)
“Living in a colder northern climate, propane costs are a huge burden and we have no viable alternatives for heating our home.”
Hi Craig,
I absolutely could comprehend your worries. However, if I am not mistaken, you are heating up your house with pure Propane. But LPG (”Autogas” as we are saying), as a fuel for cars, only consists of 40% to 60% of Propane, the other part is Butane. So I don’t think, it would have such a big impact on the prices as you may fear. Anyway I think, the government has to grant support for those people, who have difficulties to afford the constantly rising heating-costs. Also due to the shortsighted German “Dieselmania”, heating-oil became pretty expensive, so, over here as well, a lot of people with lower income are worried how to pay the invoices from their oil-suppliers. Here the politicians clearly are in charge on both sides of the big pond.
David B
Excellent blogs and great discussion in the comments. This is exactly what we need, people talking factually about the issues at hand. I know that for myself, CNG has proven to be a great alternative to regular gasoline.
Mr Burns,
We are listening and we are watching. Make the cars, they will sell. Use some of your big-company leverage to lean on congress/senate to push some bills like what Chicago, Rep. Rahm Emanuel is pushing (google EMANUEL ANNOUNCES NEW PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE USE OF NATURAL GAS … I couldn’t find a bill number)
Push for more tax advantages for fuel stations who provide alternative fueling solutions.. Push the government to subsidize the deployment of fueling infrastructure. Push Push Push. 90% of america still isn’t listening, we need to make ourselves heard. They want the solution, but are too lazy to look for it.
Well, this is a step in the right direction.
Luis
Is this technology going to be available in Mexico soon?
Gary Dikkers
HotCarNut asked: “I’m curious where you’re coming up with your conversion ratio for E-85 and gasoline.”
HotCarNut,
Two ways of deriving the same ratio:
EPA Mileage Figures
One source is the EPA mileage figures. Look at the values for flexfuel cars in the EPA charts and you will find the ratio of 4 gallons of E85 = 3 gallons of gasoline is consistent.
Here is a specific example for the 2009 Chevrolet Avalanche 1500 2WD: Its combined mileage rating using E85 is 12 mpg; while its combined rating burning gasoline is 16 mpg. On three gallons of gasoline, that Avalanche could go 48 miles. It would take four gallons of E85 to go the same distance. (3 x 16 = 48 :::: 4 x 12 = 48)
Energy Content
Looking at the energy content of the fuels leads to almost the same ratio:
* One gallon of gasoline contains 115,000 Btu
* One gallon of E85 contains 83,260 Btu
Three gallons of gasoline would contain 345,000 Btu, while it would take 4.14 gallons of E85 to deliver those same 345,000 Btus.
Rule of Thumb comparing gasoline and E85
It takes four gallons of E85 to do the work of three gallons of gasoline. Unless four gallons of E85 costs the same or less than three gallons of gasoline, consumers would come out ahead buying gasoline.
It is true a specially-designed, high-compression engine optimized for E85 could deliver better mileage, but unfortunately that engine couldn’t then burn gasoline. As long as gasoline is our dominant fuel and cars must have engines that can burn both E85 and gasoline, the rule of thumb is valid.
Lee K. Shuster
NEW LEGISLATION TO INCREASE THE USE OF NATURAL GAS AS TRANSPORTATION FUEL
Washington, D.C. – Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Rep. Dan Boren will introduce legislation today to increase the use of natural gas vehicles in America over the next ten years by providing incentives to consumers to purchase natural gas vehicles, automakers to manufacture natural gas vehicles in America, and service stations to install the infrastructure necessary to fuel natural gas vehicles. By providing an array of incentives, the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions (NAT GAS) Act establishes a framework to achieve the goal of increasing the percentage of natural gas vehicles on the road to 10% of all vehicles by 2018.
“This proposal is a hat trick for America: it’s good for our environment, good for our national security and good for families,” said Emanuel. “Our addiction to oil has only gotten worse and drivers are suffering each time they fill up their tank. Encouraging the use of natural gas will help end our dependence on foreign oil and save money for families across the country.”
“By fully utilizing our nation’s vast natural gas resources, we have a real opportunity to make a positive and sweeping impact on our energy and economic future. Coming from a producing state, I believe this legislation will spur economic growth and job creation. Most importantly, it will increase the nation’s energy independence while providing hard-working Americans with a cheaper, cleaner alternative to the rising cost of gasoline,” Boren said. “There are also provisions that greatly encourage market development so that current and future NGV owners have more locations that serve their vehicles.”
“It is important to break the monopoly of the oil industry at the service station, and to offer drivers freedom of choice when it comes to how they power their vehicles,” added Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope.
Emanuel and Boren’s legislation would provide incentives to encourage automakers to make 10% of their fleet vehicles that run on natural gas by the year 2018. The bill would also offer new incentives to make natural gas more readily available for drivers and could enable the construction of natural gas pumps at 20,000 gas stations across the country. The legislation:
- Offers a $90,000 tax credit to encourage gas station owners to install natural gas fuel pumps.
- Provides $2.6 billion in bonding authority to states to provide no or low-interest loans to service stations to install natural gas pumps.
- Requires the gas stations owned by the major oil companies to install at least one natural gas pump in each station by 2018.
- Includes consumer tax credits for the purchase of natural gas vehicles and the cost of converting their cars to run on natural gas.
- Provides consumer tax credits for Americans to purchase home “Phill” units, a simple device that can be installed in a garage that allows drivers to use their home natural gas line to refuel their car.
- Creates a production tax credit to encourage car companies to manufacture natural gas vehicles in the United States.
- Provides $5 billion in bonding authority to encourage the re-tooling of U.S. manufacturing facilities to produce natural gas vehicles.
Currently, natural gas costs about half of the price of gasoline and produces approximately one-third less emissions. Additionally, 98% of the natural gas Americans currently consume is produced in North America, and current estimates indicate that America has a 118 year supply of natural gas.
American automakers have the proven technology to produce vehicles that run on natural gas. General Motors currently makes four different natural gas vehicles in Europe and Asia, and both GM and Ford previously manufactured a wide range natural gas vehicles for sale in the U.S.
The NAT GAS Act would also create jobs and help offset recent declines in the SUV and light truck market. Estimates indicate that increased demand for natural gas powered vehicles and natural gas production could create 500,000 US energy industry jobs.
Consider Natural Gas and their three E’s and everyone a triple winner:
- 1) ECONOMY (50% below the cost of OPEC Oil-based Petrol & Diesel. Our fuel $$$ stay in America’s economy. Nat Gas is already piped to 70% of American homes.
- 2) ECOLOGY: Low Carbon, CH4, Clean Fuel - Clean Air; great “Well-to-Wheel” LCA, transistion to no carbon H2 and
- 3) ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - Say goodbye to gasoline forever and the OPEC Oil required to refine it.
C’mon Larry — don’t take the “One-Trick Pony path with the Volt, give us a range of fuel options.
“There are no Silver Bullets — just lotsa Siver Buckshot.”
Christopher Piper
CNG is far and away the best near-term vehicular option. I would suggest that GM also offer a dedicated CNG platform, as in many states this would offer the added incentives of higher tax credits and HOV lane access. Bi-fuel is nice, and would satisfy a majority of customers, but for the average commuter, who drives the same route every day, more would be gained by a dedicated vehicle. Costs less than bi-fuel, and can actually shorten a commute (HOV lane).
Gereon (Germany)
This also sounds really promising (thinking of the Chevy Sequel FCV):
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN3145191020080731?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10001
Gereon (Germany)
“Build me a truck that is E-85 and has LPG conversion.”
Hi Kevin,
here’s the evidence, that it is doable:
http://home.mobile.de/home/fahrzeuge-sirowalogistikservicegmbh.html
See this Chevy Silverado LTZ “FlexFuel (E85) und Flüssiggas” (Flüssiggas is the German word for LPG). That’s an offer from a used-car dealership near Frankfurt, which is specialized on the import of younger, used US-Vehicles. Don’t get confused: US-Cars are more expensive in Europe than in the States, so the price has not much to do with the retrofitting. At the end, US-Cars are still much cheaper than the European competition. The Corvette ZR1 costs about twice as much in Germany in comparison to the US, but it’s still clearly a hot deal in comparison to anything else, offered by a European manufacturer.
freedml
The question is not whether GM will offer a CNG vehicle any time soon, but why did you STOP making CNG cars like the Bi-Fuel Cavalier?
If you have a successful European CNG model, why not make the necessary changes (or engineer them into the car in the first place) to import them into the US?
In the US, LPG/Propane is expensive compared to Natural Gas. The filling stations tend to be open 8-5 Monday - Friday and there is virtually no such thing as ’self-serve’. There is, in fact, much more practical infrastructure today for driving CNG vehicles than LPG vehicles.
LPG is a byproduct of refining and not renewable. CNG is Methane which can come out of the ground but also is produced by landfills, wastewater plants, manure and other sources, so it is renewable as well.
Lee K. Shuster
Let’s Clear the Air and look at some Alternative Fuel Facts: Both Pro and Con
There seems to be plenty of opinions being thrown around on this blog. Keep in mind these facts pertain primarily to the USA fuel scene. Your mileage and preferences will vary (depending on regional worlwide conditions).
Gasoline (Petrol):
Widely available, Escalating costs. Harmful emissions. Heavily dependent upon imported oil.
Diesel:
Widely available, Escalating costs. More toxic(more complex carbon chain) than gasoline. Heavily dependent upon imported oil.
Biodiesel:
Domestically produced fuel manufactured from vegetable oils, animal fats or recycled restaurant greases. Can be used in diesel engines. Increases NOx emissions. Displaces some petroleum, still heavily dependent upon imported oil.
Natural Gas (Compressed Natural Gas and Liquidfied Natural Gas) —
(Note this is NOT LPG (propane) - see below)
CNG/LNG are two of cleanest (low carbon - CH4 - methane) burning alternative fuels available. Virtually non-toxic, contain almost no smog-forming hydrocarbons. Can be used as feedstock to extract hydrogen. 1,600 natural gas fueling stations in US, vs. 190,000 gasoline stations. Can be range-limited. Good safety record world-wide, lighter than air. Has 130 Octane rating. At present, natural gas vehicles (NGVs) cost more than comparable gasoline or diesel vehicles. Very suitable in medium and heavy-duty vehicles.
Propane (Liquefied Petroleum Gas or LPG):
Produced from natural gas processing and crude oil refining. Production limited due to refining capacity. Inefficient use of feedstock. Heavier than air, dangerous to use. Costs prone to seasonal price fluctuation. Niche market in rural areas.
Electricity:
No tailpipe emissions. Likely upstream emissions at power generation from coal. Lower maintenance costs than gasoline- powered vehicles. Very expensive. Development stalled as battery storage technology is inadequate. Niche off-road market or range-limited.
Hybrid gas/electric:
Effective near-term solution for light-duty vehicles. Gasoline engine combined with batteries/electric motor increase MPG. Not widely available for heavy-duty vehicles. Escalating costs for gasoline used. Harmful emissions. Heavily dependent upon imported oil.
Ethanol Alcohol-based liquid fuel derived primarily from (US) corn:
Reduces dependence on foreign oil. Requires massive use of cropland to supply meaningful power. Huge government subsidies, otherwise more expensive than gasoline.
Methanol (CH3OH) Extracted from natural gas as feedstock. Produces formaldehyde, poisonous. Takes two gallons of natural gas to make one gallon of methanol.
Hydrogen (H2):
Potentially, may be produced in virtually unlimited quantities. Currently most commonly produced from Natural Gas feedstock supplies. Could address concerns about energy security, global climate change and air quality. Hydrogen-fueled vehicle development and fuel processing technology just getting underway. May not become commercially meaningful until 2015-2020 or later.
===========================================================================
IMHO:
The bottom line is America is sitting over a 120-year supply of RECOVERABLE Natural Gas. It will be the low-carbon keystone of our future economy and future energy independence. Fact is you will use Natural Gas as the upstream CLEAN energy source to power your PLUG-IN electric-hybrid, as the renewable sources or Nuclear sources will take years to develop. Natural Gas will be the transition bridge to an H2 economy, as well.
Bob
Hi Kevin,
GM ought to look at regional markets where there is a decent CNG infrastructure and see that there is a mini revolution in CNG going on at a grass roots level. Areas like Utah and Oklahoma have decent CNG filling infrastructure. CNG is less than half the cost of gasoline across the country (www,cngprices.com). Here in Utah it is $85 cents per gallon and some dealers (Larry Miller Ford) are converting new vehicles to CNG and taking advantage of the rebates.
If GM wants to save the SUV and Truck cash cow CNG is the key as it is a domestic and plentiful fuel source that also happens to be clean. Let Chrysler guarantee Gasoline at $2.99 and GM can offer an even cheaper fuel without any subsidy.
Instead of a huge incentive to sell trucks GM could offer dedicated CNG vehicles and a Phil Fuel Maker for home CNG and the tax rebates from Fed and many states for dedicated CNG vehicles ($4K federal and $3K in Utah and nearly that in many other states) would make sense for many users. CNG is a very logical bridge to the future and still provides a means for those of us who need a truck or SUV for heavy use.
I drive a CNG vehicle and it is the first domestic vehicle I have ever owned. If GM built one I would consider buying it as would many others.
T. Boone Pickens Has Got To Like This « Mercury Rising 鳯女
[...] into extended range using compressed natural gas, all refuel-able at home. That’s what Larry Burns at GM has in mind when he says: In the near term, we can use compressed natural gas (CNG) in internal [...]
Nate
This is the first reasonable thing i have heard from GM in a while. I’m not sure of my thoughts on dual fuels… I think maybe triple fuels would be better, or only one fuel.
Though I think GM has the whole hydrogen concept completely backward. It makes far more sense logistically to convert hydrogen to natural gas since storage of natural gas is easier then pure hydrogen. If GM creates a bunch of vehicles that can perform as well as today’s cars on pure NG then they have something.
If only we could free up all the homes and power plants which are eating the precious supply of natural gas. I personally feel cars are a better use of CNG then homes or power generation. Both of which can be solved with alternatives that are more efficient and just as clean while leaving CNG for cars.
GM when will the day come that I can fill my car up at home with my CNG line?
I’m excited to see something running CNG…. how about a Diesel Caddy CTS AWD running CNG (in the US no less). That’d be quite impressive. Or maybe a turbo version of the high feature V6 that runs on CNG. (I would stand in line for that).
Just my thoughts.
Phil
GM’s commitment to alternative fuels is to be commended.
In the meantime. Let’s be sure to do EVERYTHING possible to PUSH FORWARD the intro if the Chevy Cruze (which should still be called Cobalt, especially now that the SS is so acclaimed! Hey, it worked for Malibu! )
Get it’s production to start in September ‘09 BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!!
Are you listening RICK & BOB? This car should have been ready for THIS OCTOBER to keep the Momentum going at Chevy. 4-year redesign worked REALLY WELL for Malibu.
Joseph Arkeder
Nice to know you are listening. As GM closes its truck and SUV plants, Honda is marketing their CNG fueled GX with the convenience of the Phill home filling appliance. California is offering a tax credit to offset some of the costs of operation. GM has been marketing their CNG Bi-Fuel vehicles to fleets for years, why not to the general public?
With CNG costs as low as 91 cents a gallon in some parts of the country and the option of filling up at home with the Phill appliance in the garage, maybe GM can still sell Americans the large trucks and SUV’s they love.
Think about it…Please.
Jim Wilson
Mr. Burns,
I agree with your statement concerning the production of dual fuel (CNG/gasoline) vehicles. It is my opinion that CNG is a proven alternative on all fronts including econonomics, the enviroment and safety. While moving forward with this, I would encourage you to remember Billy Durants moto of ‘a car for every purpose’. In other words, when planning for dual fuel some customer needs may be met by a dedicated CNG vehicle, while others may desire a truly multifueled vehicle (CNG, Gasoline, E85, hybrid).
Best Regards,
Jim
Paul Lewis
Larry,
Forgive me for not calling you Mr. Burns. The phrase makes me think of the guy who owns a nuclear power plant on the Simpsons. Although you’re the VP of R&D at GM, I figure you’re still a normal human being of the American variety. Let me lay this out for you.
America’s consumption of transportation fuels is such that there are not enough corn fields, wheat fields or remnant vegetative material in this country that can be converted into ethanol to supply all the needs. Period. there just isn’t.
The reality is that SOMEONE is going to get our transportation fuel Dollars. I’d much rather it be an AMERICAN, (and when I say America I’m taking about the US AND Canada), than anyone who’s ideology includes the phrase, “DEATH TO AMERICA!!!”.
So let’s run through the technologies.
1.) Gasoline or Diesel = Bad.
2.) Gasoline or Diesel w/Hybrid = Better than Number 1.
3.) E85 w/Hybrid = Better than #2.
4.) CNG w/Hybrid = Better (cheaper) than #3.
5.) CNG/E85 Bifuel w/Hybrid = Pretty Good!
6.) CNG/E85 Bifuel w/ Plug-In Hybrid = Smoking! $0.12 a mile (@ 16MPG).
7.) CNG/E85 Bifuel w/ Plug-In Hybrid + Solar panels on my roof = $0.01 a mile.
All of this technology exists. Is it perfect? No, but it doesn’t have to be. Larry, people need change NOW. If the 2009 GM models all have a CNG option, either as a bifuel or as the only fuel, people will buy them like hotcakes. Do not worry if there aren’t enough Home refueling Appliances out there now. You build the car, the appliance makers will meet the demand. That’s why we’re America. Or did you forget?
Mike
When I read this post my first reaction was –Oh my god what is wrong with this management.
Look GM has a mild Hybrid, a Two mode Hybrid, Ethanol, Volt, and now they want Natural Gas. How much has the company spend on these technologies and how many of them have worked out? So far not a single one, aside from Volt (which is not for sale) GM is offering deep, deep discounts on every other type of technology, and all that during record gas prices. GM is offering $5,000 on Chevy Tahoe, and that is on top of the loss the company takes on the vehicle to begin with.
How much money was spent on developing and advertising all these systems, billions. Billions on technologies that show zero promise, financially, I am not even talking about environment here.
GM, Mr. Wagoner (MBA from Harvard), Mr. Lutz, Mr. Burns, just build a nice efficient engine and a nice little car to go with it, ala Civic, Corolla, Sentra, or is that too much to ask?
I want to stress out one more time, the company spend billions on technologies with it can not sell, now GM wants to add one more to that list.
C Austin
GM and other US auto manufacturers are in trouble. GM is a year away from running out of cash. If you wist to turn around your companies, offer the dual fuel (CNG?gasoline) vehicle and the PHILL home filling stations soon and you will have lines in your show rooms again. In the mean time, put your service departments to work converting cars to use CNG and add fast fill CNG stations on site.
Canadian gas utilities (ie: Enbridge) are converting cars to naturaL gas. If they can do it, why can’t we?
thomas evans
Well after crushing and shredding every EV1 ever made,…(a great all electric vehicle that was virtually maintenance free and with 70 mile range with a joke of a lead acid battery) GM now is going to save the planet by producing another electric vehicle? Will this one be for lease only too as the EV1’s were…………. so GM can show how green they are?…………but then destroy them after the marketing hype? After all, the eletric car is virtually maintenance free. Can’t make money selling cars that way.
Good luck, GM deserves everything that happens to it from here on out, including bankruptcy.
The Daily Five: Monday, 4 August, 2008 | EcoTech Daily
[...] is hinting that the company is highly interested in natural gas for automotive use. Larry Burns says that natural gas’ availability and relatively low cost makes it attractive for long-term [...]
Roger
The painful irony of this topic and string of posts is the GM did make CNG vehicles for public purchase! GM built Chevy Cavaliers and half-ton pickups with the capability of running on either gasoline or CNG. Just search eBay for alternative fule vehicles and you will find used GM built CNG vehicles for sale.
Maybe they were not previously popular, but if we did it once, why can’t we immediately do it again?
Lee K. Shuster
GM stopped offering fleets of dedicated and Bi-Fuel Nat Gas vehicles in the US market for one reason: The EPAct and it’s AFV “loopholes.” GM helped create the loopholes, which have ultimately worked against them. (Sometimes the public has the ultimate say - and refuses to buy the SUV’s and pickups).
The original EPAct (early 1990’s) mandated govt fleet managers to acquire a percentage of Alternative Fuel Vehicles. Once the industry and GM were allowed to fulfill these EPACt requirements with E85 FlexFuel vehicles, they took the “cheap & easy” way out. Blame the special interests their lobbies. In my mind having fuel flexability brings its own set of special problems compromises, and challenges. GM wasted a lot of PR/Marketing dollars trying to “brainwash” us with grenn/yellow-wash on the benefits of E85 Flexfuel. It’s time to admit it hasn’t been successful.
Case in point: In my “Pretty Great State of Utah,” fleet managers continue to meet the EPAct requirements with FlexFuel vehicles that have never seen a drop of Ethanol in this state. Meanwhile the general public is buying up every used CNG vehicle in the country and shipping them to Utah, since we have $0.85 Nat Gas fuel here.
For me personally (at least in Utah), dedicated CNG is the ONLY way to go. My 1996 Crown Vic NGV is a great example of safe and sensible packaging (safer in a rear-end collision than its gasoline brothers!), and with very economical operation - with observed 25 mpg highway/15-city with CARB ULEV/-ILEV emissions, years ahead of the industry. Where’s the GM Nat Gas product for the US market? GM (and Detroit) make it difficult for aftermarket upfitters with all the complexities of EPA approvals and unwillingness to share proprietary engine management software with third-party developers.
Apparently America Honda agrees as the Civic GX is approaching 12 years of continous production. Perhaps they see something in their Corporate vision that Detroit doesn’t?
Ken W.
Mr. Burns –
How about a CNG option for the range extender on the Volt? If any car can draw attention to CNG, surely it will be this one.
anthony
GM should build natural gas vehicles. E85 is not the way to go. Natural gas is already here and waiting for the public. I drive a natural gas Honda civic and its a great car. I would like to have options in CNG vehicles in America. It could be dedicated or Bi Fuel, but I would prefer dedicated. The infrastructure of Natural Gas refueling stations needs to be worked on. Utah has a good network of stations throughout the state where gas is a dollar a gallon. I wish other states could be like Utah, but its going to take people to buy a lot of natural gas cars to make it happen.
BTW, most likely when the Volt comes out how many people are going to be able to afford a 40k car or want to spend that much? Not to mention what the mark up will be at the dealer. I know not paying for gas is great if you have a local commute, but why not wait until another company comes out with an electric car that costs 27k?
Justin Weber
Gary said: “As a rule of thumb, it takes four gallons of E85 to do the work of three gallons of straight gasoline.”
Gary, I’ve heard of people getting 25% less MPG on ethanol as you referenced, but I’ve also heard of people getting much better results: near 5% less. I fill up both ways, pumping 87 octane petro when I cannot find ethanol. I get about 14% less MPG in my vehicle so at current prices in my area it’s basically break-even.
I do really like the fact that this fuel is domestically produced…That seals-the-deal for me on ethanol.
Chris R
Pickins’ plan sounds like a decent start, but I’m thinking he didn’t go far enough.
The plastics industry needs to start making their wares without the use of oil or petrolium products. It can be done, it’s just cheaper to do it the old way.
Homes, particularly on the east coast need to be converted from using home heating oil to natural gas or electric. Heating a home with heating oil is about like GM trying to sell the new Camaro with a Q-Jet on top of the engine instead of fuel injection. It no longer makes any sense to do so in my opinion.
Various communities that try to complain about how unsightly wind farms and solar arrays are need to be told to stuff it. We need the power, and if they don’t like the wind farms, then maybe they’d like a coal or nuclear power plant built instead. imagine how unsightly one of those would be.
GM should also partner with Ford and Chrysler on future propulsion systems. The E-Flex technology is exciting, but not if only one auto company gets to use it. Besides, perhaps one of the other two will be first to come up with a practical and inexpensive fuel cell to replace the piston engine that will initially be providing electrical power to recharge the system.
This is going to be a very exciting time for the American auto industry, though it will take some cooperation between “The big three” in order to decide on a direction, and set everything in motion.
Gereon (Germany)
“LPG is a byproduct of refining and not renewable” - comment by “freedml”
This can’t be said that easy. In the meanwhile there have been found bacteria in the deep sea, not far from the coasts of South-America, which reportedly are producing Propane. This should be a hint, that LPG could come out of bio-reactor in the not too distant future.
You seriously could believe me: At the moment there are vastly more advantages for LPG vs. CNG. We are driving LPG-Vehicles (see my first comment about this issue) and we really know what we are talking about. As I said, if you don’t believe it, come over to Germany and see the facts. Why are there only 3% CNG-Drivers versus 97% LPG-Drivers over here…? The US-Government could grant the same tax-incentives for LPG as the German government does. The infrastructure could be established fast and easily. LPG-Pumps over here are literally mushrooming.
Todd W
Why use natural gas as a source of hydrogen or even compress it when it can be converted into liquid fuels? There is a company called Syntroleum that has a Fischer-Tropsch Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) technology where they can produce gas onshore and in marine environments. Since the U.S.A. has a lot of natural gas resources harnessing GTL technologies could really aid in the quest for cheap, abundant, American-produced energy. Also consider that many oil wells produce natural gas that is merely “flared” off.
Gereon (Germany)
Sorry, I have forgotten to add the corresponding link:
http://www.marum.de/English/Lucky_find_off_Galapagos.html
Curt
Hello,
I’m not commenting as an expert. As far as the availability of LPG. There are places in Michigan such as U-Haul, RV dealers etc. who fill LPG tanks. There are some outfitters up North who fill LPG tanks for cabin lighting etc. Also, there are tank swapping racks for barbeque LPG around town. Is there a way to utilize these as a refueling source in an emergency situation. Can a bbq tank be used (however flimsy they may be) by being placed in a reinforced cavity?
Jay MCClellan, CFP
Forgive my ignorance, but having seen a number of cars running on LNG, I am wondering why CNG and not LNG? Isn’t an adaptation or conversion easier to LNG?
Is GM going to get on the Pickens Plan bandwagon?
thanks,
Gary Dikkers
Justin said: I do really like the fact that this fuel is domestically produced…”
Justin,
Well, yes and no. It’s true that the corn is grown here. But it is grown with synthetic nitrogen fertilizer that is usually imported into this country after being made overseas with foreign natural gas. (More than 90% of the nitrogen fertilizer corn farmers depend on is synthetic and made from natural gas feedstock. Over 60% of that synthetic nitrogen is made with foreign natural gas.)
The corn used to make ethanol is domestic — but over 60% of the nitrogen fertilizer used to grow the corn is made with foreign natural gas. I guess it depends on what the meaning of “domestic” is.
The truth is that corn ethanol is little more than recycled natural gas, and the majority of that natural gas is foreign.
We’d be better off using natural gas directly as a primary transportation fuel, instead of converting natural gas to fertilizer; then using the fertilizer to grow corn; and then using more natural gas to mill and distill the corn into ethanol.
Regards,
Gary Dikkers
Lee K. Shuster
Hi Jay,
Thanks for bringing up your excellent questions:
Okay — Too many ProPAIN-loving Hank Hills out there, (TV show “King of the Hill”),
Yes, LPG is an alternative fuel, but:
Let’s go over this one more time — L-P-G (aka autogas) The P stands for Petroleum — As in Petrol, as in a PROCESSED. It is REFINED primarily from Crude Oil (and sometimes Natural Gas feedstocks). Crude Oil = Big Oil = OPEC.
Do we all need reminded that we hit PEAK OIL in 1970? Aren’t we trying to kick our addiction to Crude? One could look at the specific characteristics of LPG (C3H8) with regards to pressure, costs required to build out infrastructure, ease of converting existing vehicles: including tank volume, range, combustion properties, benefit to environment etc. But in the end don’t we all want to consider the ultimate energy source of our transportaion fuel?
Okay the N in C-N-G or L-N-G stands for Natural. By definition, that essentially means little or no processing or refining required. It sits underground in North America in vast quantities. Essentially you drill to get it out (or as the Swedes have demonstrated reclaim RENEWABLE Methane from landfills), then you pipe it to your consumers, you add a little rotten-egg smell, and in the case of CNG, you compress it (often using natural gas to run the compressor). Nat Gas is primarily Methane or CH4. In other words, on the Carbon molecular content scale, (while H2 is best), CNG is lower carbon content than Propane, which is lower than Petrol (gasoline), which is lower than Diesel. Is there a pattern here?
The world-wide and regional differences not withstanding, (Germany andf Europeans have many more light-duty,high-efficiency Diesels), but at current US fuel prices, I don’t see Detroit rushing to introduce new Diesels, except maybe in the F-150 and possibly Honda/Acura SUV. We just haven’t embraced and subsidized Diesel fuel like the Europeans, but I digress. Heavy trucking and the airline industry are getting clobbored with high carbon, high cost fuel.
Propane as an alternative transportation fuel has some advantages in rural areas of North America and other parts of the world. It works great indoors as a fork lift fuel. But the odds are stacked against it as a major alternative fuel for most North Americans:
1) North Americans have a 120-year supply of RECOVERABLE NAT GAS directly under the major poulation centers of this country, that pardon the pun, is practically ready to use in its NATURAL state.
2) North Americans have the world’s best interstate Nat Gas pipeline system to move the product to market.
3) Over 70% of American homes and most of it’s major gasoline refueling infrastructure already are on the Nat Gas grid, making them easy candidates for home refueling or CNG stations. (Most residential zoning prohibts installing propane pigs & pumps.)
4) Lastly, CNG is cheaper than LPG (in most places) for use as a transportation fuel.
Jay, depending on what region lof the world or country you hail from the LPG conversions you have encountered were most likely older technology. The EPA doesn’t maker it easy or inexpensive to convert our existing gasoline or E85 vehicles to LPG or CNG. Sadly, they go after just about anything they feel is “tampering” with the vehicle’s OEM omission system. Our best bet is to push for affordable and innovative AFV’s from Detroit and not just more gasoline-consuming Hybrids and E85 Flexfuels.
The powertrain gurus and executives in charge at Ford and GM hold they keys to our nation’s current energy emergency/crisis. They alone can bet the future on alternative fuels. But it won’t be easy getting support for a comprehensive plan, regardless of who is sponsoring it. They have short-term memories. As soon as the presentr Crude Oil price-bubble deflates, they’ll be back offering us a steady diet of large SUV’s and 4×4 trucks for running our kids to afterschool football, because we’re gullible enough to buy them.
Andreas Lippert
This has been a great conversation so far with many insightful comments. I’d like to add a few comments on behalf of GM. Let me introduce myself briefly. I work at General Motors on Larry Burns’ team and my responsibilities include understanding energy developments in the US and globally.
I’d like to briefly comment on some of the discussion around CNG, LPG and LNG. Some of you are clearly knowledgeable about the differences, but for those who are starting to explore this, here are some brief facts:
• CNG is compressed natural gas – which itself consists predominantly of methane (CH4). So it’s a gas stored under pressure, but still a gas. Why compressed? Because a liquid fuel, like gasoline, has approximately a thousand times greater density than gaseous fuels. So to make up some of that difference, the gas is pressurized to about 200-220 times atmospheric pressure.
• LNG is liquefied natural gas – that is, natural gas which is cooled to a temperature low enough (-260 deg F or -163 deg C) for it to be a liquid under close to normal atmospheric pressure. So to keep storing it on the vehicle, the tanks need to be very well insulated, which make it less practical for passenger vehicles, although there are L NG trucks (see, for example, LNGtrucks.westport.com)
• LPG is short for liquefied petroleum gas, which consists of mostly propane, and some butane. Propane is what most gas grills run off of, so most of us are already a little familiar with the main element of LPG. LPG is often used for farms and remote homesteads where running a natural gas line just would not make economic sense. LPG is manufactured during the refining of crude oil, or extracted from oil or gas streams as they emerge from the ground. So, in fact, LPG is more connected to “imported oil” than CNG is.
So, the question is whether it makes more sense to use LPG or CNG for passenger vehicles. An earlier post already commented on the advantages of LPG versus CNG as far as the vehicle is concerned – mostly because of the higher energy density, and lower pressure required to store the same amount (methane is the lightest gas in that chemical family called “alkanes”, propane and butane are heavier siblings and hence liquefy more easily).
But let’s look at the supply of LPG versus CNG – or more simply, the supply of propane and butane versus the supply of methane in the US. Adding more demand to a particular energy supply chain can impact other users of that energy, so it is helpful to understand the size of the supply of each to see the relative impact. The sum of propane and butane produced in the US in 2007 was 19.4 billion gallons according to the EIA (www.eia.doe.gov). In energy terms, this is 1,670 trillion BTU. “Dry” natural gas production (i.e., without LPG and other condensates) in the US in 2007 was 19.3 trillion cubic feet. This had a total heating value of 18,900 trillion BTU. So the LPG supply is less than a tenth of “dry” natural gas in energy terms. In addition to residential and commercial heating, propane and butane are used as feedstocks for production of a variety of chemicals, such as plastics.
Another advantage of natural gas is that nearly most homes in urban areas are already connected to the natural gas supply, so a home refueling option is within reach of most homes for CNG.
Another post comments on using natural gas to produce liquid fuels via the Fischer Tropsch process. There are only a couple such facilities in the world on the scale that have commercial impact (Shell’s Pearl facility in Qatar, and Sasol’s Oryx facility), and such facilities are very capital intensive. So building a whole fleet of these would require a very significant amount of capital – of the order of $5-10 billion each, and one would need in the tens of these. So it is not a cheap option per se.
One final comment on CNG – namely regarding E85 versus CNG, which a number of readers brought up. For a CNG vehicle, the cost of the CNG tank(s) alone is a considerable additional cost – at least ten times as much as the entire cost to make a vehicle a flex-fuel (E85 capable) vehicle. There are also more changes to the base engine to make it gaseous-fuel capable than flex-fuel capable. That is not to say we should not consider both options. We need energy diversity for transportation and no one energy supply chain is *the* silver bullet.
John Catalano
Mr. Burns,
Why is it that a japanese company can figure this out and an american company can not?
Honda dealers are now selling the Civic GX for 30K, $5K over MSRP
And In the news this week:
Once Again - Record Profits for the oil companies / Record Losses for GM !
And the response from GM - “While we are not ready to commit to a future production plan, we are taking a serious look at natural gas in the U.S”
As other readers have posted, there is a CNG infrastructure - yes it needs to be expanded, but it’s there.
I can use my Civic GX to go anywhere I go during the normal routine week.
And another comment about that Japanese car company:
Guess who owns an equity stake in the company that makes the phill ?
http://www.fuelmaker.com/News/PressReleases/News__45.htm
GM needs to react - not stand idly by ( pardon the pun ) and watch what happens.
Do you remember American Motors ?
I challenge GM to market 3 models in CNG in 2009 - they will all sell out - like the Honda Civic GX.
Better yet, why don’t you do something radical like take one of your brands that is on the chopping block (http://www.globeauto.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080708.wibgm08/GAStory/specialGlobeAuto)and turn it into a completely A/F brand- let the consumer decide which fuel they want. Personally E85 still costs an arm and a leg- so don’t start building one for me.
Good luck to you guys, Your’e going to need it.
PS: My Corvette and Suburban spend most of thier time collecting dust nowadays.
Chris R
John Catalano, I agree that GM needs to be more proactive when it comes to alternative fuels. E85 is a nice idea, but until there is a viable non food source of ethanol, it probably won’t get as far as the folks at GM might like. CNG or LPG sound like decent alternatives to gasoline. I know that many cities run all of their vehicles on one or the other without problems and have been doing so since the 80’s in some cases.
As for AMC, they had other problems that ultimately led to their demise. A decade of oddly styled and somewhat unpopular vehicles (pacer, matador coupe) was the most visible reason why they were eventually bought by Renault, and eventually sold to Chrysler. Then there were the more invisible problems like internal squabbling that came from the various companies that merged to form American Motors in the first place. They wanted to be the leader in new technology, they just didn’t have the money to do it. From what I understand there were some rather astounding designs (for the time) on their drawing boards that never saw the light of day because of lack of funding.
BobBarker
Nice article, well written. But until GM “actually” begins to produce better quality more-fuel efficient vehicles and weans their decades-long fattened up SUV addicts into more efficient cars and wagons (yes, I said wagons, not SUVs) the only natural gas I smell right now is human produced methane (pun intended). Bets of luck to GM, I won’t hold my breath, or…maybe I better??
Dick Duffy
One of the reasons natural gas vehicles failed to breakout in the transportation market in the U.S is that automakers (GM, FORD, CHRYSLER,TOYORA, …and even HONDA) treated the use of CNG as something to be “stuffed” into existing platforms. The problem with that philosophy was that natural gas is not the same as gasoline. More space is required in order to carry an equivalent amount of fuel to approximate the range of gasoline ( and diesel). The end result has been to ask people to pay more for reduced cabin or trunk space and lower operating range.
Until OEMs make a commitment to natural gas (as they have to a degree overseas) and build something that takes this gaseous fuel’s characteristics into account, we’ll continue to plod along seeking a motor fuel that always seems to be just over the horizon. Natural gas, with all it’s inconveniences and mind-changing requirements, still beats all alternatives. There are only two primary-found-in-nature fuels: oil and natural gas. All the rest are either not found in nature or are not found in useable quantities or forms.
In the meantime, I’m on board with T. Boone Pickens. Having been in the business of promoting the use of natural gas as a transportation fuel, one thing T. Boone has said that hit the mark: We need a plan. Now, if we can finally get this government to commit to a plan that comes down on the side of one fuel and a plan to use renewables for generation…that’s a plan.
In the past, the politicians have been very reluctant to stray from their fuel neutral legislation policies, except where strong lobbies are at work. That is why there is no plan to date. We’ve been focused all over the place. The feds have to make hard decisions that will make one, perhaps two, alterantive transportation fuels winners and the rest losers.
Thoughts? Comments?
Gereon (Germany)
“LPG is short for liquefied petroleum gas, which consists of mostly propane…”
Dear Mr. Lippert,
I respectfully would like to comment: Your statement that LPG “mostly” consists of Propane, could be misguiding in my opinion. The most common mixtures of LPG (or better say: Autogas) in Germany are: 60% Propane/40% Butane or, during the warmer seasons, 40% Propane/60%Butane. A higher portion of Butane contributes to a higher fuel-economy and is added by the suppliers, as long as the outside temperatures (in spring and summer) make this recommendable. Only a minority of LPG-Pumps delivers mixtures of 95% Propane/5% Butane.
Thanks for paying attention.
Gereon (Germany)
“More space is required in order to carry an equivalent amount of fuel to approximate the range of gasoline ( and diesel). The end result has been to ask people to pay more for reduced cabin or trunk space and lower operating range.”
Dear Mr. Duffy,
interesting comment so far. Although I have to admit, that I am a supporter for LPG (see my previous posts), I am not BASICALLY sceptical regarding CNG-Use, but nevertheless, I once more would like to return to one decisive downside of CNG: The limited miles you can get with one filling of CNG. Even the mentioned Opel Zafira CNG, equipped with a modest 1.6 four-cylinder-engine, rated at 93 HP (17 sec. for 0-62.5 mph), will not go beyond 380 km (237,5 miles) solely on CNG! How will this look like, if you are running a midsize-sedan (e.g. Chevy Malibu), a crossover or even a pick-up, equipped with a decent engine, on CNG? I couldn’t imagine that those vehicles would offer significantly more room for additional or larger CNG-Tanks than the Opel Zafira does, considering that the Zafira already is far from being a small car.(http://www.opel.de/shop/cars/zafiranew/index.act).
Not to forget: The additional weight of the CNG-System may reduce the loading-capacity of the vehicles and will (of course) further negatively influence the overall vehicle-performance, which anyway could be reduced by 10% on CNG-Use.
Dear Mr. Lippert,
are there any solutions pending, regarding these, in my opinion, important issues? I could imagine that hardly any driver, who’s commuting longer distances to work, is willing to visit the CNG-Pump every second day or even daily.
The supply with CNG actually may be more favorable in the USA, as you are writing, than it is over here in Europe. However, living here in Germany, I am not keen on being a car-driver by the grace of Vladimir Putin. As I already said, the popularity of LPG vs. CNG here for sure is not pure contingency.
Dave H
Good to see someone from GM is following this thread.
I wrote down some random thoughts on the subject so sorry if this wanders a bit…
I think it would be wise for GM to get back into the CNG market. Here in Utah, which is probably leading the CNG market, a 7 year old Caviler is going for 14-15K. That’s about what a new Yaris is selling for. Demand is huge. Last I heard there was a 10 month waiting list for a new Honda GX.
I drive a 2002 Honda GX. My monthly gas bill for my Dodge diesel went from 300.00 a month to 20.00 a month driving the Honda. That was calculated a few months ago when I bought the car so those numbers have changed some. Still that’s over 3,300.00 a year!
Now Utah and Oklahoma are in unique situations and Utah’s gge for CNG is going up to 1.00 in October. However, even if CNG was only a dollar less than gasoline people would still be lining up for these cars. People line up for gasoline when it’s a nickel less a gallon than the gas station across the street! Add to that the fact they can stick it to foreign oil by running CNG and their engines will burn cleaner and last longer burning CNG. Ultimately it will put gasoline and CNG in competition until the prices start to even out. That’s not just competition at the fuel stations, it’s competition with home refueling as well. That should drive prices down quite a bit. Car’s running on CNG would have the same effect as flooding the market with millions of barrels of oil per day.
As far as making a bi-fuel car I think you guys are on the right track. At least initially. The biggest fear I hear from people about buying a CNG is where are they going to fill up, they won’t be able to take long trips and what if they run out of gas. The bi-fuel car addresses all of those. In addition GM could make these cars flex fuel (from what I understand that only adds 150.00 per vehicle). You could market the most fuel flexible car on the planet! Oh yeah, and running a Hummer on CNG burns cleaner than a Prius!
The clincher is the government rebates. Federal 4,000 and Utah 3,000 (your state may vary). That should justify the additional cost of the CNG upgrade. This technology is available now and the infrastructure including the home refueling option is waiting to be tapped. The state of Utah has begun to open several of their CNG refueling stations to the public. Companies like CE are starting to capitalize on the trend in many markets.
I really think GM has to look hard at this. They could quit being the victims of this oil crisis and become the saviors. There is a lot of public support and demand for CNG and you don’t want to miss out. GM ought to start converting some of the SUV’s and trucks on their lots to bi-fuel. With what they are discounting the trucks for now and the tax credits available it could move a lot of trucks and stop some of the losses. People still have those boats and campers to pull. A local Ford dealer is already getting in on the game.
In the end it’s a transition fuel until battery and hydrogen technology take over but CNG is going to be relevant for a long time (CNG cars can run on a blend of hydrogen). I think you guys would be crazy to miss the boat. Just look at the classified section under cars and limit the search to bi-fuel and natural gas and you’ll see what’s going on.
Thanks for taking on the subject and giving the public a voice on this.
Dave
Dave H
Classified section I am refering to is http://www.ksl.com
Oh yeah, just to clarify Utah is probably leading the U.S. CNG market, not the world market (but we’re trying)…
GM May Consider Natural Gas Vehicles Again | New Energy US
[...] Burns, GM VP Research & Development posted on his blog that Natural Gas may be one technology that they revive in the future. As he points out In the [...]
Brian Nettles
I hate to say this, but any fossil fuel including natural gas is a limited commodity. I agree with one of the guys above that by switching to natural gas, heating our home will be a lot more expensive.
Basing the automobile on Electricity makes sense. If an electric car can be made efficiently enough to work similar to a gas car of today then the electricity can be generated from the best available source whether that be gas, coal, oil, or SUNSHINE. I understand that with the advances being made in the Solar world, we may be only a decade away from being positioned to where our nation and the world will be able to truely exploit this replenishable resource.
Target Electricity. It is the only flexible plan out there.
Rick Rohde
It’s like business as ususal, why even have a lease program. It may sound good to a prospective customer, but ultimately GM and it’s stockholders pay the price.
Gereon (Germany)
For your information:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=130267#4
Jim Beyer
It’s great to see that GM is considering CNG vehicles again!
A few points that have not been mentioned, as far as I can tell.
The ultimate vehicle would be a tri-fueled CNG/gasoline PHEV. This would allow minimal cost of fuel usage and minimal cost of the vehicle that performs as vehicles do today and would basically use no gasoline at all. (The gasoline option is just to interface with extant infrastructure and to provide added range.) Over time, as the technology evolves, the proportions of these 3 fuel options can change as efficiencies of the various technologies (such as batteries or SOFCs) change and improve.
Secondly, one should remember that renewable methane (methane is the main component of NG) can be obtained from cellulosic biomass sources; far easily than producing ethanol from such sources. So a CNG vehicle IS a biofuel vehicle as well. The technology to produce methane from such sources is mature. Furthermore, one can obtain about twice the fuel (energetically) from a given amount of biomass in producing methane than one can in producing ethanol. This effectively DOUBLES our biomass resources with respect to fuel production. So, I think the cost of the tanks is worthwhile; as the cost of biomass-derived methane is halved.
Should electrolyzed hydrogen ever become affordable (I’m not holding my breath) then that can also be used to synthesize methane via the Sabatier reaction. This is also a mature technology. The only other component needed is CO2, and we have plenty of that around!
Hopefully, this is a sign that GM is finally putting its hydrogen hopes on the far back burner. The combination of PHEV/CNG produces ALL the benefits desired from the hydrogen economy including efficiency and access to biofuels/renewable resources, and uses technology that is viable and works today. (Burning methane from biomass sources is carbon neutral as well.) Adding a small gasoline tank completes the vision by adding additional range and access to the huge fueling infrastructure in place.
This is the right thing for GM to do.
BobT
Great if you start to use Natural gas my heating bill will go through the roof.
Its already increased about 50%. Natural Gas is another stop gap tech with a limited
life span. Thats the problem with it and OIL as we all have finally noticed.
Didnt the 70’s teach anyone anything? I GUESS not.
Happy CNG'er
I currently commute in a Chevrolet Cavalier Bi-Fuel car. It is cheap here in Utah - 85 cents\gge. So instead of driving a Geo Metro, 953 bucks a year in gasoline, I only spend 360 bucks a year on CNG\gasoline.
While I appreciate the comments of Mr. Burns above, I believe you are misleading people. If GM was taking CNG serious, we could buy a new GM CNG vehicle in the USA. As some know, GM stopped producing the Bi-fuel Cavalier about 4 years ago. Hhmmm that was short sited. Now Honda is taking your marketshare……
My point …with demand up for NG and CNG vehicles, GM should make CNG cars available again in the USA. Come on, be a part of the solution…..get on with it…. This may have been already mentioned in other posts, but here is more reason to do it - CNG is cheaper than gasoline.
Lee K. Shuster
I’d like to thank General Motors and Mr. Burns for generating a lively discussion on their future directions with Alternative Fuel Vehicles. It’s pretty clear we need to seriously look at ALL the AFV alternatives.
Certainly having different alternative fuel options that are tailored to the specific needs of consumers within broad geo-political boundries is important. While CNG may be inexpensive and readily available us in Utah, Autogas (LPG) may be very desirable in Maine, Germany or Australia. For those that live downwind of clean-burning, cheap Nuclear Power, PHEV’s probably do make the most sense.
Just within the United States, we have many diverse differences. Perhaps reading the next link will help us all better understand each other’s viewpoints. the report does give (in US$) cost differences among various alternative fuels, and is only slightly out of date (it’s the newest report available).
Please read the most recent (April 2008) Clean Cities Alternative Fuels Report Here:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afpr_apr_08.pdf
Lee K. Shuster
If GM won’t consider seriously re-consider building dedicated CNG Vehicles….
Then perhaps the resouceful, fast-reacting, third-party upfitter market will pick up the slack?
From: http://www.afvtech.com/content/view/21/3/
“The compressed natural gas Chevy Impala by AFVTech with a license to Natural Drive Partners, is the right choice for your taxi, state or personal fleet. It’s dependable, efficient and good looking. This is the first CNG vehicle to achieve over 300 miles between fill-ups on the highway, download the product brochure for more information! ”
- True Plug and Play Installation
- Factory PCM (Power-train Control Module) controls the natural gas fuel system, which is
recallibrated with AFVTech proprietary software and calibrations
- Under hood wiring can be completed in less than 30 seconds!!
- Will soon be available with our multi-state dealer network
- Fully OBDII compliant (that means EPA Approved!)
- AFVTech in-house technician training, vehicle operator orientation
And for Gereon (of Germany) Take Note: Of Impala’s impressive 300 mile (full CNG tank) range.
I am betting AVFTech will be back-logged for months, maybe years with orders.
Gereon (Germany)
“Happy CNG’er”,
if you put it this way, Honda also is misleading people and is not taking CNG serious. They are not offering a single model with a CNG-system here in Europe, although we are paying about 9$/Gallon for gasoline/Diesel. In contrast, Chevrolet Germany offers EVERY model with an optional (OEM) LPG-system (bi-fuel), what finally cuts our costs at the pump by more than 50%.
Chance
Larry
I think alternatives are a good idea. However the internal combustion engine has a lot gains to be had. Over the last 3 years our group has developed and prototyped an engine that we’re programming the amount of horse power and torque output in an un-throttled application. We’ve eliminated the traditional throttle, and the pumping losses associated with it. In a light load running condition we can increase fuel economy by 56%. We haven’t changed the basic engine. We have redesigned the upper end for low voltage programmable valve actuation. Low voltage is the key here. Imagine being able to drive to work at max fuel economy. Get home and hook up your boat and the engine responds to the added load on the fly. That’s what we’ve done. Just wanted you to know others are working on the solutions as well. You’d get a kick out this. To bad GM won’t let you look at it.
Gereon (Germany)
“And for Gereon (of Germany) Take Note: Of Impala’s impressive 300 mile (full CNG tank) range.”
Dear Mr. Shuster,
I have to admit, that’s really amazing. Assuming, that these numbers are correct, the next question is: What is Opel doing wrong, as obviously only 237.5 miles on one filling of CNG are possible with the much weaker motorised Zafira?
aussie
It looks like CNG and LPG have a significant future in the medium term in reducing emmissions and operating costs.
The largest gains are available in large cars / trucks, which lets face it the customers still want, they just don’t want to pay the additional running costs and destroy the environment in the meantime. (If the customer didn’t want them then they wouldn’t have been still buying them until fuel prices went up).
Shouldn’t GM be leveraging every resource it can to get these existing technologies LPG/CNG to the largest market it has? For Example, GM is selling the Pontiac G8 in North America, but where is the Duel Fuel (petrol and LPG) version that is readily available in the same Cars in Australia, where they are made (Holden Commodores)?
I am sure that there are many other examples of cars / trucks that other parts of GM are making and either importing into North America, or building the same vehicles in different locations to those made in NA, where something similar could be done.
From the sound of it LPG is readily available in NA but just needs a market to force the suppliers to provide the service of getting it into their cars. I think I heard the saying somewhere “IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME”. I think in this case it would be true. Get the product happening and the infrastructure will come.
Ronald J. Joachim
What does anyone at GM think about Hydrogen Gas Generators on board a vehicle to aid the combustion of gasoline in our present vehicles. For instance, I drive a 2006 Chevy Suburban that gets pretty good mileage for a large SUV. If I could get say a 25 to 40% increase in gas mileage with a H2 Conversation kit, I would drive my Suburban till the wheels fell off. And if this technology is indeed practical, why doesn’t GM put them on all thier vehicles? The cost factor is certainly considered a real bargain compared with the cost of a new vehicle,say with H2 fuel cells. The object is to get off some of the petroleum that the Middle East is holding over our heads. What do you think?
Ron…….
Gereon (Germany)
Dear Mr. Shuster,
in the meanwhile I also was browsing your mentioned “Clean Cities Alternative Fuels Report”. The numbers, regarding LPG, on table 2 “Overall Average Fuel Prices on Energy-Equivalent Basis”, hardly could be correct in my opinion! It’s common knowledge in Europe, that running a vehicle on Autogas instead of gasoline, leads to an increase in fuel-consumption just by 10-15%! This perfectly matches our 2 year old experiences with LPG. The consumption of our LPG-fueled vehicles turned out to be as follows: Olds Alero 2.4: formerly gasoline: 9 liters/100 km - now: LPG 11 liters/100 km. My wife’s Chevy Aveo: formerly gasoline: 6.7 liters/100 km - now: LPG 8 liters/100 km. So I seriously doubt, that LPG supposedly would be the relatively most expensive fuel.
Anyway I am wondering, that LPG (Autogas) seems to be considered as the very same like Propane in the US. As I already mentioned at previous posts, a certain mixture of Propane and Butane makes a lot of sense and is commonly used over here. No reasonable LPG-fueling-station in Europe would offer pure Propane for vehicle-fueling!
Andreas Lippert (GM)
The last few days’ comments have highlighted some important considerations:
(a) how do we use an energy resource (natural gas) most effectively and in which form (energy carrier or fuel - e.g. as a gas, converted to electricity upstream, etc.)?
(b) how do we move as quickly as possible to greater energy diversity that allows more renewable energy resources - and includes electricity as the primary “fuel” for the vehicle?
(c) how many fueling systems - and their storage tanks and/or battery packs onboard the vehicle - should we have on a single vehicle (and who installs them)?
(d) what effects does a greater use of an energy resource for transportation really have on other uses of that same resource - and can supply growth keep up to meet added demand at affordable prices?
These are all considerations we think about very seriously at GM before offering a propulsion system solution on a vehicle. And there has to be a business case as well such that it is an affordable, value proposition to the customer and not a loss to the automaker.
With regards to a greater use of electricity, I don’t think we - or anyone else - could be moving any faster than we already are on the Volt, and also on the Saturn Vue plug-in (see http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2008/07/gms_other_plug-in_the_saturn_vue.html). And with regards to CNG vehicles, just to give some perspective, the sales in the US per manufacturer - even Honda’s - have been in the few thousands compared to an annual market in 14-16 million vehicle range. But that could, of course, change.
Brandon Boozer
It’s in europe right now! I know this and it is no surprise to me. Bring it here Yesterday as an option on every model made ( or at least every Chevy and Saturn Made) don’t wait to market it first! “Use natural gas (cheap and abundant) to cut your gas price IN HALF! Sound like something your would like Mr. Toyondassan driver . . . come and get it at your local Saturn and Chevy Dealer TODAY!!!” I realize fully that this means several million . . . no probably tens of millions of dollars of cash going into a limited return (possibly none) project, but if GM wants to see a tangible turn around in their perception it is going to take product not propaganda! (Well both really but one is no use without the other.) It WILL take about 6 months to implement but hey thats spring in the U.S. (right aroud the time when NG prices go down for the summer! It’s just a thought but hey, the VOLT can’t pave the road alone and in the mean time this may just win a few valued converts. Just a thought!
Jim Hynes
T. Boone should meet up with GM executives. To have GM go public as a supporter, in principal, of the “Pickens Plan” would put substantial additional pressure on Congress to unite behind a cohesive, non-partisan program. Indicentally, the American Clean Skies Foundation has unveiled a study of America’s natural gas resource base that concludes America now has over 100 years (and climbing) of natural gas that can be economically produced. The study, which was conducted by Navigant Consulting, found the federal government has consistently under-estimated amount of natural gas trapped in unconventional places like shale rock. After extensive data gathering, the study concludes total U.S. recoverable NG resources amount to 2,247 trillion cubic feet, or 118 years worth of supply at current production levels.
Lee K. Shuster
In resonse to:
===========================================================================
“Happy CNG’er”,
if you put it this way, Honda also is misleading people and is not taking CNG serious. They are not offering a single model with a CNG-system here in Europe, although we are paying about 9$/Gallon for gasoline/Diesel. In contrast, Chevrolet Germany offers EVERY model with an optional (OEM) LPG-system (bi-fuel), what finally cuts our costs at the pump by more than 50%.
===========================================================================
Have you ever heard the saying: “When in Rome…..do as the Romans?”
To the contrary: As a Worldwide Corporation, Honda has the undisputed lead in Environmental vision among all automotive manufacturers. Don’t believe me? I would suggest you read their North American Corporate Ennvironmental Report:
http://corporate.honda.com/images/banners/environment/Honda_2007_North_American_Environmental_Report.pdf
As we have clearly realized in this interesting dialogue-discussion — Energy markets and regions vary dramatically around the world. All auto makers must take the local conditions into consideration with their products. Honda has promoted clean, quiet, efficient diesels in markets where it makes sense to and likewise for the Civic GX NGV in North America.
Gereon, if you seriously don’t think they (Honda) don’t take “CNG serious,” then I challenge you to read their Enviromental report. We could all learn by taking a few notes from their philosophy. Even their lawnmowers and portable generators reflect this corporate thinking. They are in joint venture with FuelMaker on the Phill home (CNG) Refueling appliance.
And Honda are in co-marketing inNorth American an energy saving Home Energy Station. Working with technology partner, Plug Power, Inc., Honda began operation of a Home Energy Station in October, 2003. Home Energy Station IV represents the latest evolution of the technology with a 70 percent reduction in size compared to the first unit, making it even more suitable for household installation. By combining Natural gas purification and power generation components, overall size reduction and efficiency gains are achieved, while enabling it to switch from hydrogen refining to (electrical) power generation when needed. See:
http://world.honda.com/news/2007/4071114Experimental-Home-Energy-Station/
Peace…bro.
Eric Poirier
“More space is required in order to carry an equivalent amount of fuel to approximate the range of gasoline (and diesel). The end result has been to ask people to pay more for reduced cabin or trunk space and lower operating range.”
Dear Mr. Duffy,
In order to improve the operating range or compactness of an on-board natural gas storage system, I believe GM may consider exploring the use of physical adsorbents. As noted elsewhere: “Sorption-based storage systems offer the possibility to achieve reversible storage of hydrogen with high volumetric and gravimetric densities at significantly lower pressures than compression storage. For example, [using an activated carbon adsorbent] the storage density of adsorbed natural gas can be 3/4 of compressed natural gas at 1/6 the gas pressure (assuming a 2400 psi cylinder), in addition to the advantage of allowing the use of onboard conformable tanks, and this at room temperature.” (E. Poirier et al. Appl. Phys. A 78, 961–967 (2004)). GM is currently putting research effort in investigating novel physical adsorbents for on-board storage of hydrogen. I believe these efforts could also fructify in a shorter term by considering simultaneously these adsorbents for natural gas storage. Essentially comparable physical and structural adsorbent characteristics are indeed needed to store either gas. I think a high performance gas storage system could provide an edge over the competition in a potential natural gas car market, especially for small cars in which little space is available for a storage tank.
George Diebel
To everyone pointing the finger at GM for a solution to high oil prices, please keep in mind that They are doing much more than our Government to remedy the oil crisis, economic disaster, and environmental impact that we (all of us) created. Nobody made us buy from foreign manufacturers, invest in real estate and now oil, or buy big trucks. Feel free to walk or ride a bicycle. Greed is what caused the problem, and greed is trying to drive the solution. Don’t point our fingers at GM until we look in the mirror (likely made in China). GM will not be in a position to offer the solutions we demand without our support. All the R & D to develop these alternatives is funded by GM. There is no government helping them like there is in other countries. Additionally, GM has as many if not more hybrids, bio fuels and economy models as any other manufacturer. They already offer models ala Civic, Corolla, Sentra with ‘nice little engines’. Advantages from foreign competitors products are perceived more than real, but they succeed because they have your support. If you know anyone who has lost a job, and possibly everything else in the past year, you see what I mean by perceived. As an economic and industrial leader of the world, the United States is falling faster than its automobile manufacturers. Do you see any trends towards your vision for our country?
GM is doing a commendable job of providing short term relief to the Wall Street oil glut by offering existing solutions that reduce oil consumption now, as we speak. They are not all cost effective, but they take pressure off the oil market. GM is also leading the industry in the real long term solution, electricity generated from hydrogen. The Volt is a step in that direction. Perhaps certain natural gasses are a great interim fix GM should embrace. If all these natural gas solutions are so simple and cheap, open up your own retro fitting operation. You’ll be a billionaire by next year. I am already put off by the fact that my home heating bill has doubled over the past two years…because of demand, not cost or supply. With all the great positive observations and suggestions in this blog, too bad we can’t team up and actually do something…or can we?
Gereon (Germany)
“Gereon, if you seriously don’t think they (Honda) don’t take “CNG serious,” then I challenge you to read their Environmental report.”
Hi Lee,
that’s not really a response to my statement, that Opel and others offer CNG-Cars over here, in contrast to Honda, and that Chevrolet Germany provides LPG-Conversions for the complete line-up. I am ready to give credit, where credit is due and for sure Honda deserves praise for its overall environmental efforts. But in this special case they fail over here. Diesels are for sure NOT a solution, at least unless they are equipped with the bluetec-technology, since conventional Diesels exhaust considerable amounts of NOx, which contribute to cancer. BTW, betting on Diesel finally leads to the fact, that heating-oil, what practically IS Diesel, reached prices, which makes people seriously worry how to afford a warm apartment in winter. Environmental issues play a big part over here, nevertheless Honda’s market-share in Germany is about just one percent.
Dave H
Gereon,
I don’t think anyone should argue with you about what’s best for Germany. LPG fueled cars may very well be the right choice in your area and it sounds like GM has responded with the Aveo. The circumstances in the U.S. are quite different however. In the U.S. it’s pretty much gasoline or diesel unless you have a car converted to LPG or CNG and a 6 month waiting list around here for the latter. Or you could buy a used CNG government auctioned vehicle for an outrageous price.
From what I see LPG in the U.S. is quite a bit more expensive. I believe it’s due in part to the supply, refining and delivery of the product. It is also very hard to find for vehicle use and I don’t think you can fill your own car without an attendant. LPG cars are available in the U.S. on the secondary market but they don’t make much economic sense and demand is low. In any case, I believe with this particular blog Mr Burn’s is exploring the idea of CNG cars in the U.S.
NG in the U.S. is abundant, requires no refining, no transportation charges, no loss of energy from the point of extraction to it’s actual use, is safe, self service and is available in approximately 50% of U.S. homes. And it is cleaner burning.
There are challenges to the car’s range but they can be overcome. Especially when you consider the bi-fuel option, and in the larger vehicles that many Americans love there is extra payload capacity for larger tanks.
As far as the price of NG going up, it’s like everything else. To sit on our hands however and continue to drive the demand and prices of oil up in an effort to keep our NG prices down IMO is disastrous. If this country and the world does nothing to relieve this oil crisis we will get more of the same and we’ll all be riding bicycles. Can we really wait 15-20 years for the electrical grid to come up to speed? Hybrids are nice but at this point we are still pumping gasoline in them. This is an energy supply crisis not a political crisis (as long as we can get our Congress to act).
If we can relieve the demand on oil by using NG, oil prices will come down further and that savings will eventually help to curb inflation and be reflected in the price of goods and services as well as the price of gasoline for our bi-fueled cars. I don’t look forward to paying 4.00 gge for NG if it ever comes to that but if it’s between 4.00 NG and sending hundreds of billions of dollars out of this country every year to foreign oil, I’ll pay it. Let’s keep the money at home and reduce the threat to our National Security. There are other ways to heat my house if needed and ways to make it more energy efficient.
I really think GM should explore this option and educate the public on it benefits. The U.S. Government is already willing to subsidize this technology by way of tax credits. It’s still just a drop in the bucket compared to the billions we subsidize big oil, but if some have their way and pull those subsidies we are really going to be left holding the bag. NG isn’t the fuel for our long-term future but it is the fuel for at least the next 15-20 years. The technology is here today so let’s get on with it.
How about a bi-fuel Malibu Mr. Burn’s? That could be an Accord Killer…
The Daily Five: Saturday, 9 August, 2008 | EcoTech Daily
[...] is hinting that the company is highly interested in natural gas for automotive use. Larry Burns says that natural gas’ availability and relatively low cost makes it attractive for long-term [...]
Dean Anderson
I would like to purchase a large new SUV running CNG in UT. A Cadillac Escalade would be ideal. Which ever new car company comes along to meet my needs will get my business. Most likely it will be Honda because GM never listens to customers.
craig
hey Big 3 ….better wake up! We “were” joiningT.Boome about 1000 people per day , now i see its around 1000 every 3 hours.
We played the game in the 70″s now its come back under a new name and it went to far this time…..may the best company win……… good luck!
Andrew Janson
This is quite an interesting debate. Down here in Australia, we have been using LPG for many years. Our government provides subsidies to people who convert vehicles to Petrol/LPG duel fuel, and both Ford and GM Holden offer LPG models on the locally built Falcon and Commodore. Almost every service station here has at least one LPG pump.
I personally have been running my vehicles on a “Gas Research” straight LPG system for many years. My current application is a 1979 5.7 litre small block V8 powered Holden Ute (Pick-up). It does a standing quarter mile in about 14.5 seconds and is cheaper to run than my wifes new 1.8 litre AH Astra.
The following link may be of interest to you all. It shows what we are up to down here at GM Holden with regards to LPG/Petrol applications in our HFV6 powered commodore, which is also sold as the Pontiac G8 in the US (although not with a duel fuel option)
Nate
Mike,
Actually this plan is a great idea. You are mistaken. GM needs to get its act together with future fuels. CNG is THE only sustainable fuel system. How do I say this? Well if a car will run on CNG it isn’t much more of a feat to reprogram it and change a few things to run on hydrogen. But thats even not really need. From a chemistry standpoint converting hydrogen to CNG is possible and when fuel prices get there it will happen. It may not look that way now but thats how it will probably go.
Now if GM builds the E85 and CNG infrastructure NOW when we need it in 5 or 10 years almost all the cars will already have the required equipment. That is SMART planning.
personally I’m disappointed when I pull up to a pump and don’t have 8 different fuel options. That tells me the free market isn’t working.
As to the money GM spends on these technologies. Who cares. Its a cost of doing business in the modern world. The mentality you speak of is what got GM where it is now. GM has been working very hard to get public image back. Cutting R&D is a big mistake because it ruins GM image and that ruins car sales.
The reason GM is losing on the Tahoe is probably more because of misjudged market and their inability to face reality. I doubt it has anything to do with the cost of flex fueled vehicles. They have saturated the market and people aren’t buying as many SUVs. It is that simple.
If you want a nice efficient engine with a car around it.. how about the Cobalt, G5, Aveo or maybe look to Toyota at the Yaris. GM is making nice small cars (thought they could use a bit of improvement) The trouble is small car’s don’t fit everyone’s needs.
Jim Beyer
Nate,
If GM wants to do this, then they should integrate PHEV technology (probably the parallel kind, not like the Volt) into the concept from the start. If they don’t, then they will spend billions on a vehicle which will eventually be needing a very expensive fuel as well. (NG will go up in price.) PHEV technology lowers fuel costs because 80% of the vehicle miles are run from electricity.
The small gas tank allows for access to the existing fueling infrastructure.
Lee K. Shuster
GM — Build this Car in North America as a Saturn, Please!
Just watch the video from Germany:
http://push.pickensplan.com/video/video/show?id=2187034:Video:651246
Albert Boykin
I understand the GM ships over a dozen CNG cars currently to South Africa. Is there any way I can get one of these? They have to be a good price and hopefully compliant with US safety standards
Lee K. Shuste