[baldwincng]

It is well known that cars, buses, trucks, trains, boats can and do run merrily on compressed natural gas (CNG) all over the world. Growth is huge as there is lots of gas out there and LNG trade is booming, bringing stranded gas (ie untouched reserves!) to market.

(re LNG by the way look at this.....
http://www.reflexpublishingme.com/offsh ... 5_0206.htm
Qatar Petroleum is expected to place orders for 52 LNG tankers in total by early 2007)


I have previously said that you cannot run aeroplanes on CNG. Well, apologies for that, you can

http://www.ngvglobal.com/index.php?opti ... =2&lang=en

The world is full of natural gas and its still being made (bio-gas). We can relax, roll on $100/bbl oil. No need to worry about all that hydrogen fuel cell nonsense. Don't waste natural gas in making hydrogen, its time to set fire to it in our vehicle engines, no technology or infrastructure issues of any consequence. Who needs petroleum?

Sorted.

[Devil]

I have little doubt that NG CAN be used in both piston-engined and reactor aircraft. However, imagine what would have happened in Toronto if the fuel tanks had contained NG instead of kerosene: 309 fried persons in a fireball instead of 309 who walked away from the accident.

I come back to the fact that, holistically, fossil NG, used for any application, causes more greenhouse gas emissions, causing climate change, than any other fossil fuel and this is something you cannot escape from. I have shown this in other threads here.

We must minimise all fossil fuel use as rapidly as possible, NOT seek ways to expand it.

[The_Toecutter]

Cutting airlines and drastically cutting car use while switching the remaining cars to alternative fuels is one of the best ways to cut fossil fuel use.

CNG or not, planes are history. America's airline industry can't even stay afloat without big government giving them a hefty chunk of our hard earned tax dollars. People could use that money. The airline industry should be left to either evolve or die based on its own merits in the marketplace, help from the USSA government removed.

[EnviroEngr]

I have little doubt that NG CAN be used in both piston-engined and reactor aircraft. However, imagine what would have happened in Toronto if the fuel tanks had contained NG instead of kerosene: 309 fried persons in a fireball instead of 309 who walked away from the accident.

I come back to the fact that, holistically, fossil NG, used for any application, causes more greenhouse gas emissions, causing climate change, than any other fossil fuel and this is something you cannot escape from. I have shown this in other threads here.

We must minimise all fossil fuel use as rapidly as possible, NOT seek ways to expand it.

I'm assuming by now, you caught wind of this: http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic11012.html

[Googolplex]

I have little doubt that NG CAN be used in both piston-engined and reactor aircraft. However, imagine what would have happened in Toronto if the fuel tanks had contained NG instead of kerosene: 309 fried persons in a fireball instead of 309 who walked away from the accident.

I find it a bit hard to believe that NG is more explosive or more dangerous then kerosene...

[Devil]

I find it a bit hard to believe that NG is more explosive or more dangerous then kerosene...

In which case, you must be pretty thick-skulled.

1. Flash point: the flash point for methane is -180°C. The flash point for kerosene Jet A fuel is typically +40°C. As the fuel in the wing tanks of a plane flying at 10,000 m is usually at somewhere between -20°C and -40°C after 30 minutes of flight, the answer on this score is obvious.

2. Kerosene is a slow-evaporating liquid, which would spread from a rupture with very little flammable vapours formed initially. This gives time before a fire really takes hold and this time was what allowed the passengers to walk away with only a few minor injuries. CNG is a gas and therefore escapes instantaneously from a rupture of the tank as a highly flammable gas cloud. Even LNG, with a BP of -163°C, will volatilise instantaneously and the slightest spark would cause it to fireball.

For the anecdote, a gas turbine jet engine can be designed for any kind of fuel. I think it was Sir Frank Whittle who said that it would work on anything from hydrogen to peanut butter. His first trials used aviation gasoline but he switched to kerosene because it was more easily obtainable during the war. The first US jet fighters also used gasoline, but were switched later to kerosene because of the lower fire risk (and that was the only reason).

In Europe, and probably many other countries, there is a mix of NG and LFO, which is a low-grade kerosene blend, used for central heating boilers. There are perhaps a dozen fatal explosions/fires per year for NG installations, but I've never heard of an explosion or fire started because of LFO.