I'm all for natural gas vehicles, and would love to see more of them available, with the higher volume reducing the prices.
But the nat gas angle does raise something that may be relevant to the original topic of weight reduction....given that larger, heavier tanks will be required to store it, how exactly does that reconcile with the move to downsize and make lighter? Is that a hint that nat gas cars are set to take a step back in favor of meeting CAFE for conventionally powered cars?
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Nothing
kinda like e85? it's cheaper but requires more to burn to get the same mileage
|
Not quite. Volume-wise, nat gas is less energy dense, so it will need a larger tank. But, nat gas is cheaper than gasoline, E85 is more expensive. Nat-gas has an existing pipeline infrastructure, ethanol doesn't. Nat-gas is cleaner, E85 increases some pollutants. Nat gas is not corrosive, E85 is. Nat gas will not require nearly the entire corn crop to be sacrificed just to displace about 10% of gasoline use, E85 does. And, large amounts of nat gas are required to produce the ethanol, so why not just burn it directly in cars, anyway, instead of losing energy having extra steps in the process?