View Single Post
Old 03-14-2013, 12:45 PM   #77
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,049
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 View Post
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?
__________________
2022 1SS 1LE (Arrived 4/29/22)
"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."
. 2022 1SS 1LE (Coming Soon)
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote