Letter to the editor:

U.S. should look at natural gas for fuel

David Adams, Las Vegas

Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2009 | 2:03 a.m.

I agreed with the Las Vegas Sun’s Tuesday editorial about the Energy Department’s efforts regarding research on clean energy, “Support long overdue,” but I have a problem with part of its conclusion. There was an inordinate emphasis on “geothermal, wind and solar” energy being the solution to our country’s energy needs and a way to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

I ask myself: How is “geothermal, wind and solar” energy going to power the 18-wheelers that deliver our food and other commodities? Will we have geothermal-powered trucks? Wind-powered tractors? Solar buses?

Seriously, how many power plants in this country are fueled by oil? Most are either coal-fired, natural-gas-fired or nuclear. Virtually none uses oil.

So “wind, geothermal and solar” energy will help us in the generation of electricity, but will do virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We will still need oil to produce fuel to supply our nation’s fleet of trucks and, for the foreseeable future, most passenger vehicles.

The U.S. has reserves of clean-burning natural gas that are among the world’s largest. Natural gas vehicles have been operating for many years, used mostly by utility companies and city buses. It could be used as a fuel for 18-wheelers, but only if there were an adequate number of refueling stations across the nation.

That, in a nutshell, is the challenge, and the ultimate solution to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. A nationwide network of refueling stations followed by a conversion of our truck fleet to natural gas.

This would require government tax concessions or outright grants for construction of refueling stations and for conversion of vehicles, but ultimately our need to import oil would be significantly reduced, if not entirely eliminated, in favor of U.S.-based resources.

Until we find a way to deliver our goods and move our citizens that doesn’t require oil as a fuel, we’re going to be dependent upon imported oil.

Discussion: 6 comments so far…

By Vegasvampire

10/28/09 at 5:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

The only problem I have with Natural Gas for cars is how do you refuel? It's enough that some idiot is smoking and pumping gas at the pump and almost blow themselves up; how is that going to be different with natural gas?
By SgtRock

10/28/09 at 6:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Solar and wind are not reliable 24/7 soures of energy and can not add much to the core capacity of energy. We would have to build duplicate reliable sources of energy to kick-in when these fail to deliver (I guess we could just sit in the heat or dark or cold.)

Since, we are not investing in real reliable 24/7 sources of energy, like coal and nuclear our electrical base will struggle just to keep with demand.

It would be inpractical to add a tons of elecrtrical energy sourced cars on top of that.

For cars, it is better that we turned to natural gas or hydrogen unless we can get real 24/7 reliable energy production plants like coal or nuclear.

Solar and wind will have little effect to move cars off oil.

The down side to natural gas is that we will still have to import some of it and also it has wide swings in prices even more than oil.
By lemahj

10/28/09 at 8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Natural gas must be stored at high pressures . . . > 1000 psig . . . and requires expensive pumps that could be dangerous if used improperly during the filling process. Additional risk exists during an accident, over an above what exists when using a liquid fuel.

NH3, ammonia, is an interesting way to store hydrogen for use as a liquid, room temperature fuel, @ ~ 100 psig. It is also interesting for fuel distribution because it can use wind and solar power to produce the ammonia, where the power is then distributed in the liquid form.

If the problem we are attempting to solve includes replacing oil as a fuel for vehicles and using a fuel that does not produce carbon dioxide then hydrogen hence ammonia is a solution. Unlike propane, ammonia does not produce CO2, and unlike hydrocarbon fuels, ammonia can be made directly from renewable energy sources with out the need for an electrical distribution system.

http://www.ammoniafuelnetwork.org/
By jlb101

10/28/09 at 9:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

In my college years I drove a fork lift during the summer. They were fueled by propane and there was never a problem filling them up. We were adequately trained and knew the consequences of doing the wrong thing. I see people gassing up at the local station and they are smoking, talking on their cell phone (yes, it can ignite a bad fire) and doing other crazy things. If we went to natural gas, I think we would have to go back to having attendants fill the tanks. A per cent of the driving public (although a small one) is not capable of doing it for themselves wihout blowing themselves up. Darwinism is fine but not when the idiot can take a whole city block with him.
By cignettis

10/28/09 at 9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

The biggest problem is not the natural gas but the idiot environmentalists that refuse to allow drilling. Until this group is corraled and shutdown we will continue to decay.
By lemahj

10/28/09 at 10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

jlb101 wrote:

"We were adequately trained and knew the consequences of doing the wrong thing"

You are right, and to puncuate the thought.

Refilling a propane tank would be simular to refilling an ammonia tank, as both are stored at a relitivally low pressure ~100 psig in the form of a fully saturated vapor and liquid.

Natural Gas on the other hand would be stored at comparitivally high pressures as a gas . . . > 1000 psig.

The amount of energy in the "tank" would be low for a gas (Natural Gas) as compaired to a liquid (propane or ammonia).

Of course, the energy content of gasoline or diesel is greater than any of the fore-mentioned fuels.