|
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
|
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
Truck and bus fleets work quite well and at lower cost using
natural gas as opposed to #2 diesel. --------------------------------------- "Leon" wrote: And when everyone switches to natural gas, what do you think is going to happen to natural gas prices??? LOL -------------------------------------- Do you ever read and understand a post prior to responding? Since when does "Truck and bus fleets" mean "everyone"? Lew |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
"Just Wondering" wrote:
It's not a realistic alternative to the millions of gasoline powered private vehicles. --------------------------------- That's your misguided opinion. Reducing the demand for #2 diesel will certainly have an impact on gasoline supplies. Lew |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
wrote: Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. --------------------------------- Obviously can't comment on the Waterloo situation; however, Los Angeles is quite happy with their natural gas bus fleet. The changeover took over 10 years to accomplish. Lew |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
wrote: Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project. The converted diesel engines were failing at a very high rate. Don't know if it ws due to lubrication issues, valve issues, or what - but the engines were apparently good for about 1/4 the normal life of a diesel. The cyl heads are heavily modified and they need spark ignition - all of which could have been involved in the failures. And the intitial conversion price is gawdawfull too!!! --------------------------------- Can't imagine how a natural gas conversion from diesel could be cost effective. L/A chose a different approach. When it came time to rebuild and/or retire a diesel, it was replaced with a natural gas engine. Just one of the reasons it took over 10 years to accomplish. Lew |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 12:05 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote: It's not a realistic alternative to the millions of gasoline powered private vehicles. --------------------------------- That's your misguided opinion. Convince me. Explain why my opinion is misguided. Explain how natural gas powered vehicles is a realistic alternative to the millions of gasoline powered private vehicles. Describe a realistic means of replacing every gasoline powered private vehicle with a natural gas vehicle. Also describe a realistic means of creating a whole new infrastructure to distribute fuel to all those vehicles, and to maintain the engines in those vehicles. Explain how you can realistically increase the demand for natural gas as a vehicle fuel a thousand-fold without raising fuel prices past the point of affordability for low income drivers. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 12:45 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote: Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project. The converted diesel engines were failing at a very high rate. Don't know if it ws due to lubrication issues, valve issues, or what - but the engines were apparently good for about 1/4 the normal life of a diesel. The cyl heads are heavily modified and they need spark ignition - all of which could have been involved in the failures. And the intitial conversion price is gawdawfull too!!! --------------------------------- Can't imagine how a natural gas conversion from diesel could be cost effective. L/A chose a different approach. When it came time to rebuild and/or retire a diesel, it was replaced with a natural gas engine. Just one of the reasons it took over 10 years to accomplish. You can't simply extrapolate that experience to the entire nationwide fleet of private vehicles. For one thing, the infrastructure to distribute fuel on such a massive scale simply doesn't exist. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 01:35:01 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote: You can't simply extrapolate that experience to the entire nationwide fleet of private vehicles. For one thing, the infrastructure to distribute fuel on such a massive scale simply doesn't exist. But the infrastructure can be greatly improved. I'd be fearful of taking a NG vehicle on a vacation trip, but for cab fleets, delivery fleets, police cars, it is a snap to do. Most of those never travel more than a quarter tank of fuel from home so re-fueling from a central point is easy. In cities, there is some practicality for private use too. Don't forget, there was a time that plain old gas stations did not exit but the demand for them cause them to be built. NG would be no different. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 1:02 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Truck and bus fleets work quite well and at lower cost using natural gas as opposed to #2 diesel. --------------------------------------- "Leon" wrote: And when everyone switches to natural gas, what do you think is going to happen to natural gas prices??? LOL -------------------------------------- Do you ever read and understand a post prior to responding? Since when does "Truck and bus fleets" mean "everyone"? Lew Well then Lew since apparently not every one is included in your alternative fuel program/wish list I suppose you are now satisfied. So why don't you stop trolling now. Or is your constant complaining something you just like to do? |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/29/2012 11:38 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:38:21 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/29/2012 7:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:48:20 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: "Just Wondering" wrote: There is no other realistic alternate energy source for private motor vehicles. ------------------------------- Truck and bus fleets work quite well and at lower cost using natural gas as opposed to #2 diesel. That's some low hanging fruit to get started. Lew Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. I am seriously curious as to why maintenance costs were higher. Do you know? The converted diesel engines were failing at a very high rate. Don't know if it ws due to lubrication issues, valve issues, or what - but the engines were apparently good for about 1/4 the normal life of a diesel. The cyl heads are heavily modified and they need spark ignition - all of which could have been involved in the failures. And the intitial conversion price is gawdawfull too!!! DOH, I was not thinking diesel. Yeah, I would imagine converting diesel to natural gas would have its issues. I suspect way too much compression was being developed unless the heads allowed for a larger combustion chamber. I suspect Waterloo regional transit is a government transportation system? |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 2:35 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/30/2012 12:45 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote: wrote: Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project. The converted diesel engines were failing at a very high rate. Don't know if it ws due to lubrication issues, valve issues, or what - but the engines were apparently good for about 1/4 the normal life of a diesel. The cyl heads are heavily modified and they need spark ignition - all of which could have been involved in the failures. And the intitial conversion price is gawdawfull too!!! --------------------------------- Can't imagine how a natural gas conversion from diesel could be cost effective. L/A chose a different approach. When it came time to rebuild and/or retire a diesel, it was replaced with a natural gas engine. Just one of the reasons it took over 10 years to accomplish. You can't simply extrapolate that experience to the entire nationwide fleet of private vehicles. For one thing, the infrastructure to distribute fuel on such a massive scale simply doesn't exist. Well perhaps it is more readily available that you might think. Add a pump to many homes and you have your source. Granted the pump would be an initial costly expense but I suspect that improved fuel economy would eventually pay for that expense. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 5:08 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 01:35:01 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: You can't simply extrapolate that experience to the entire nationwide fleet of private vehicles. For one thing, the infrastructure to distribute fuel on such a massive scale simply doesn't exist. But the infrastructure can be greatly improved. I'd be fearful of taking a NG vehicle on a vacation trip, but for cab fleets, delivery fleets, police cars, it is a snap to do. Most of those never travel more than a quarter tank of fuel from home so re-fueling from a central point is easy. In cities, there is some practicality for private use too. Don't forget, there was a time that plain old gas stations did not exit but the demand for them cause them to be built. NG would be no different. The recent creation of the cellphone network infrastructure comes to mind. -- Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes. To reply, eat the taco. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/ |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:38:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 5/29/2012 7:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:48:20 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: "Just Wondering" wrote: There is no other realistic alternate energy source for private motor vehicles. ------------------------------- Truck and bus fleets work quite well and at lower cost using natural gas as opposed to #2 diesel. That's some low hanging fruit to get started. Lew Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. I am seriously curious as to why maintenance costs were higher. Do you know? Since CNG engines outlast gasoline engines, I'm willing to bet that it was the switch from diesel to CNG IC engines which caused the maintenance shift. -- When a quiet man is moved to passion, it seems the very earth will shake. -- Stephanie Barron (Something for the Powers That Be to remember, eh?) |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
Or is your constant complaining something you just like to do? Pot. Kettle. Black. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 1:00 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet writes: Or is your constant complaining something you just like to do? Pot. Kettle. Black. Bull****. Leon is the most non-complaining participant in this group. -- Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes. To reply, eat the taco. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/ |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
Steve Turner writes:
On 5/30/2012 1:00 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet writes: Or is your constant complaining something you just like to do? Pot. Kettle. Black. Bull****. Leon is the most non-complaining participant in this group. I beg to differ. He complains incessently about California. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/12 2:07 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Steve writes: On 5/30/2012 1:00 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet writes: Or is your constant complaining something you just like to do? Pot. Kettle. Black. Bull****. Leon is the most non-complaining participant in this group. I beg to differ. He complains incessently about California. What's not to complain about? :-) -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 2:50 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 5/30/12 2:07 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: Steve writes: On 5/30/2012 1:00 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet writes: Or is your constant complaining something you just like to do? Pot. Kettle. Black. Bull****. Leon is the most non-complaining participant in this group. I beg to differ. He complains incessently about California. What's not to complain about? :-) +1 -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
"Just Wondering" wrote:
It's not a realistic alternative to the millions of gasoline powered private vehicles. ------------------------------ "Just Wondering" also wrote: Convince me. Explain why my opinion is misguided. Explain how natural gas powered vehicles is a realistic alternative to the millions of gasoline powered private vehicles. -------------------------------- Come up to speed and get on topic which covers bus and truck fleets, not personal transportation vehicles. Lew |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
"Just Wondering" wrote: You can't simply extrapolate that experience to the entire nationwide fleet of private vehicles. For one thing, the infrastructure to distribute fuel on such a massive scale simply doesn't exist. --------------------------------------- When is the last time you were in a private hub terminal? Think any grocery chain such as Kroger, Safeway or any bakery chain. They already have diesel fueling stations. Adding natural gas is no biggie. Lew |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 4:08 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 01:35:01 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: You can't simply extrapolate that experience to the entire nationwide fleet of private vehicles. For one thing, the infrastructure to distribute fuel on such a massive scale simply doesn't exist. But the infrastructure can be greatly improved. At what cost? Who is going to spend the mammoth cost to install a nationwide NG system when the demand isn't there? And haw are you going to create the demand without a ready supply? Explain why this is not an insurmountable Catch-22. I'd be fearful of taking a NG vehicle on a vacation trip, but for cab fleets, delivery fleets, police cars, it is a snap to do. Most of those never travel more than a quarter tank of fuel from home so re-fueling from a central point is easy. In cities, there is some practicality for private use too. Don't forget, there was a time that plain old gas stations did not exit but the demand for them cause them to be built. But even then you could carry extra fuel in a gas can. You can't do that with NG. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 5:55 AM, Leon wrote:
On 5/30/2012 2:35 AM, Just Wondering wrote: On 5/30/2012 12:45 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote: wrote: Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project. The converted diesel engines were failing at a very high rate. Don't know if it ws due to lubrication issues, valve issues, or what - but the engines were apparently good for about 1/4 the normal life of a diesel. The cyl heads are heavily modified and they need spark ignition - all of which could have been involved in the failures. And the intitial conversion price is gawdawfull too!!! --------------------------------- Can't imagine how a natural gas conversion from diesel could be cost effective. L/A chose a different approach. When it came time to rebuild and/or retire a diesel, it was replaced with a natural gas engine. Just one of the reasons it took over 10 years to accomplish. You can't simply extrapolate that experience to the entire nationwide fleet of private vehicles. For one thing, the infrastructure to distribute fuel on such a massive scale simply doesn't exist. Well perhaps it is more readily available that you might think. Add a pump to many homes and you have your source. Granted the pump would be an initial costly expense but I suspect that improved fuel economy would eventually pay for that expense. That would work only if the demand was miniscule. If you created a massive increase in demand, the cost of NG would inevitably rise, eliminating any "improved fuel economy". |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Tue, 29 May 2012 23:15:21 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote: wrote: Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. --------------------------------- Obviously can't comment on the Waterloo situation; however, Los Angeles is quite happy with their natural gas bus fleet. The changeover took over 10 years to accomplish. Lew And LA does not need to contend with wildly extreme climate conditions. Up here they were a disaster. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Tue, 29 May 2012 23:45:59 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote: wrote: Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project. The converted diesel engines were failing at a very high rate. Don't know if it ws due to lubrication issues, valve issues, or what - but the engines were apparently good for about 1/4 the normal life of a diesel. The cyl heads are heavily modified and they need spark ignition - all of which could have been involved in the failures. And the intitial conversion price is gawdawfull too!!! --------------------------------- Can't imagine how a natural gas conversion from diesel could be cost effective. L/A chose a different approach. When it came time to rebuild and/or retire a diesel, it was replaced with a natural gas engine. Just one of the reasons it took over 10 years to accomplish. Lew These "natural gas engines" are factory converted diesels. Exactly what RoW had. These were NOT field conversions. They were built by Cummins. RoW bought 23 busses in 1996 from New Flyer Industries (same supplier as their diesel busses) 20% more on-road breakdowns, 25% more reported defects, 50% higher maintenance costs, Normal replacement cycle is 18 years - after 12 years they HAD to be replaced. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 05/29/2012 11:15 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote: Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. --------------------------------- Obviously can't comment on the Waterloo situation; however, Los Angeles is quite happy with their natural gas bus fleet. The changeover took over 10 years to accomplish. Lew According to the anti drilling folks, ten years is too long to be of any use. Of course, they forget that the entire 800 mile Alaska pipeline and fields were developed and in production in three years. -- "Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" -Winston Churchill |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 06:08:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 01:35:01 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: You can't simply extrapolate that experience to the entire nationwide fleet of private vehicles. For one thing, the infrastructure to distribute fuel on such a massive scale simply doesn't exist. But the infrastructure can be greatly improved. I'd be fearful of taking a NG vehicle on a vacation trip, but for cab fleets, delivery fleets, police cars, it is a snap to do. Most of those never travel more than a quarter tank of fuel from home so re-fueling from a central point is easy. In cities, there is some practicality for private use too. Don't forget, there was a time that plain old gas stations did not exit but the demand for them cause them to be built. NG would be no different. Here in Kitchener Waterloo there were some taxi fleets that tried CNG, as well as a few companies local delivery vans. It sure did not catch on - the one delivery van I am aware of was on the fueling station all the time it was not on the road, and they still had to delay intown deliveries on occaision. Propane vehicles were a LOT more successfull (LPG) |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 06:52:03 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 5/29/2012 11:38 PM, wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:38:21 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/29/2012 7:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:48:20 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: "Just Wondering" wrote: There is no other realistic alternate energy source for private motor vehicles. ------------------------------- Truck and bus fleets work quite well and at lower cost using natural gas as opposed to #2 diesel. That's some low hanging fruit to get started. Lew Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. I am seriously curious as to why maintenance costs were higher. Do you know? The converted diesel engines were failing at a very high rate. Don't know if it ws due to lubrication issues, valve issues, or what - but the engines were apparently good for about 1/4 the normal life of a diesel. The cyl heads are heavily modified and they need spark ignition - all of which could have been involved in the failures. And the intitial conversion price is gawdawfull too!!! DOH, I was not thinking diesel. Yeah, I would imagine converting diesel to natural gas would have its issues. I suspect way too much compression was being developed unless the heads allowed for a larger combustion chamber. I suspect Waterloo regional transit is a government transportation system? It is "city transit" - Region of Waterloo encompasses Waterloo, Kitchener, Cambridge, Woolwich Township, and Wilmot Township. and the engines were built BY CUMMINS as natural gas engines - using mostly off-the-shelf diesel engine parts - but with a modified cyl head and other parts. NOT Field Modified. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:30:12 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote: At what cost? Who is going to spend the mammoth cost to install a nationwide NG system when the demand isn't there? And haw are you going to create the demand without a ready supply? Explain why this is not an insurmountable Catch-22. Only insurmountable to a pessimist. Look at all the big inventions that we take for granted today and had no infrastructure. The telegraph, Television, the electric grid, natural gas for heating and cooking, telephone, cell towers, containerized shipping, railroads, and the list goes on. The fact that NG is running under much of the country already makes is very practical. Home charging stations are already available. Take that line running down the street, tee off to a gas station, install the compression equipment and yo are good to go. But even then you could carry extra fuel in a gas can. You can't do that with NG. Are you sure? Look at all the gasses now carried in tanks. Acetylene, nitrogen, oxygen. I don't now the practicality today, but we put a man on the moon, we can come up with a simple spare CG can. As for infrastructure, take a look at FedEx. Do you know how many packages are carried each day? Do you know how many packages were carried the first day it started service? ONE. But they had the infrastructure and grew into it. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 2:19 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote: It's not a realistic alternative to the millions of gasoline powered private vehicles. ------------------------------ "Just Wondering" also wrote: Convince me. Explain why my opinion is misguided. Explain how natural gas powered vehicles is a realistic alternative to the millions of gasoline powered private vehicles. -------------------------------- Come up to speed and get on topic which covers bus and truck fleets, not personal transportation vehicles. That statement is SO wrong. Here's the starting point of this subthread, which as you can see was directed specifically to private motor vehicles: On 5/25/2012 5:41 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote: "Lew Hodgett" wrote: Gas was $3.55/gal at the local cash& carry Arco on Friday afternoon (02/26/11). --------------------------------------------- Same bat time, same bat place except one week later (03/04/11). Gas is $3.77/gal at the local cash& carry Arco on Friday afternoon (03/04/11). --------------------------------------- CLIPPED A WHOLE SNOTFLOAD FOR BREVITY ------------------------------------- Wednesday afternoon, (05/23/12), the price of gas is now $4.15/gal at the local cash& carry. ------------------------------------- Friday afternoon, (05/25/12), the price of gas is now $4.09/gal at the local cash& carry. Nobody here but you cares about the price of gas at your local cash and carry. FWIW, local gas prices in my neck of the words are about $3.65 per gallon. But probably nobody here but me cares about that, either. The chain jerking continues. Alternate energy anybody? There is no other realistic alternate energy source for private motor vehicles. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 3:41 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:30:12 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: At what cost? Who is going to spend the mammoth cost to install a nationwide NG system when the demand isn't there? And haw are you going to create the demand without a ready supply? Explain why this is not an insurmountable Catch-22. Only insurmountable to a pessimist. Look at all the big inventions that we take for granted today and had no infrastructure. The telegraph, Television, the electric grid, natural gas for heating and cooking, telephone, cell towers, containerized shipping, railroads, and the list goes on. The fact that NG is running under much of the country already makes is very practical. Home charging stations are already available. Take that line running down the street, tee off to a gas station, install the compression equipment and yo are good to go. But unlike all those other things, there is no DEMAND for a NG vehicle fuel delivery system. If the demand existed, someone would already be supplying it. You have said absolutely nothing to challenge my statement that NG is not a REALISTIC alternative to gasoline-powered private vehicles. But even then you could carry extra fuel in a gas can. You can't do that with NG. Are you sure? Look at all the gasses now carried in tanks. Acetylene, nitrogen, oxygen. I don't now the practicality today, but we put a man on the moon, we can come up with a simple spare CG can. As for infrastructure, take a look at FedEx. Do you know how many packages are carried each day? Do you know how many packages were carried the first day it started service? ONE. But they had the infrastructure and grew into it. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:26:11 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote: "Just Wondering" wrote: You can't simply extrapolate that experience to the entire nationwide fleet of private vehicles. For one thing, the infrastructure to distribute fuel on such a massive scale simply doesn't exist. --------------------------------------- When is the last time you were in a private hub terminal? Think any grocery chain such as Kroger, Safeway or any bakery chain. They already have diesel fueling stations. Adding natural gas is no biggie. Lew Except for long-haul they'll need a pup just for their fuel - and the'll need to exchange them rather than wait for refilling. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:32:52 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote: On 5/30/2012 5:55 AM, Leon wrote: On 5/30/2012 2:35 AM, Just Wondering wrote: On 5/30/2012 12:45 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote: wrote: Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project. The converted diesel engines were failing at a very high rate. Don't know if it ws due to lubrication issues, valve issues, or what - but the engines were apparently good for about 1/4 the normal life of a diesel. The cyl heads are heavily modified and they need spark ignition - all of which could have been involved in the failures. And the intitial conversion price is gawdawfull too!!! --------------------------------- Can't imagine how a natural gas conversion from diesel could be cost effective. L/A chose a different approach. When it came time to rebuild and/or retire a diesel, it was replaced with a natural gas engine. Just one of the reasons it took over 10 years to accomplish. You can't simply extrapolate that experience to the entire nationwide fleet of private vehicles. For one thing, the infrastructure to distribute fuel on such a massive scale simply doesn't exist. Well perhaps it is more readily available that you might think. Add a pump to many homes and you have your source. Granted the pump would be an initial costly expense but I suspect that improved fuel economy would eventually pay for that expense. That would work only if the demand was miniscule. If you created a massive increase in demand, the cost of NG would inevitably rise, eliminating any "improved fuel economy". When it comes to actual "fuel economy" not considering price, there IS no advantage. distance per liter is poorer than propane. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
: On 5/30/2012 2:35 AM, Just Wondering wrote: On 5/30/2012 12:45 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote: wrote: Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project. The converted diesel engines were failing at a very high rate. Don't know if it ws due to lubrication issues, valve issues, or what - but the engines were apparently good for about 1/4 the normal life of a diesel. The cyl heads are heavily modified and they need spark ignition - all of which could have been involved in the failures. And the intitial conversion price is gawdawfull too!!! --------------------------------- Can't imagine how a natural gas conversion from diesel could be cost effective. L/A chose a different approach. When it came time to rebuild and/or retire a diesel, it was replaced with a natural gas engine. Just one of the reasons it took over 10 years to accomplish. You can't simply extrapolate that experience to the entire nationwide fleet of private vehicles. For one thing, the infrastructure to distribute fuel on such a massive scale simply doesn't exist. Well perhaps it is more readily available that you might think. Add a pump to many homes and you have your source. Granted the pump would be an initial costly expense but I suspect that improved fuel economy would eventually pay for that expense. Except the NG infrastructure is not built with the capacity to deliver the volume required. First cold spell and everyone would freeze their ass off... ;o} |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
Larry Jaques wrote in
: On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:38:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/29/2012 7:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:48:20 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: "Just Wondering" wrote: There is no other realistic alternate energy source for private motor vehicles. ------------------------------- Truck and bus fleets work quite well and at lower cost using natural gas as opposed to #2 diesel. That's some low hanging fruit to get started. Lew Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. I am seriously curious as to why maintenance costs were higher. Do you know? Since CNG engines outlast gasoline engines, I'm willing to bet that it was the switch from diesel to CNG IC engines which caused the maintenance shift. Show me something that would indicate that the general CNG engine will last longer. My experience, albeit 20 years ago, is completely opposite of that. I've taken apart converted engines that were nothing but scrap metal. Rebuilders refused to take them as a core when purchasing a short/long block. CNG has no lubricating properties that most internal combustion engines depend on, even the small amount that gasoline delivers. Larry |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 30 May 2012 23:07:12 GMT, Larry wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in : On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:38:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/29/2012 7:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:48:20 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: "Just Wondering" wrote: There is no other realistic alternate energy source for private motor vehicles. ------------------------------- Truck and bus fleets work quite well and at lower cost using natural gas as opposed to #2 diesel. That's some low hanging fruit to get started. Lew Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. I am seriously curious as to why maintenance costs were higher. Do you know? Since CNG engines outlast gasoline engines, I'm willing to bet that it was the switch from diesel to CNG IC engines which caused the maintenance shift. Show me something that would indicate that the general CNG engine will last longer. My experience, albeit 20 years ago, is completely opposite of that. I've taken apart converted engines that were nothing but scrap metal. Rebuilders refused to take them as a core when purchasing a short/long block. CNG has no lubricating properties that most internal combustion engines depend on, even the small amount that gasoline delivers. My info was circa 1984. The body shop's Chevy wrecker was a CNG conversion. The paperwork which came with it stated that the conversions lasted longer because they didn't have liquid gasoline washing the oil off the cylinders every other stroke on the carbureted models. I wasn't interested enough to research it. (That was before the Internet.) Got cites to current info on the difference? I know that the newer injected engines don't suffer from the stated malady. -- When a quiet man is moved to passion, it seems the very earth will shake. -- Stephanie Barron (Something for the Powers That Be to remember, eh?) |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
|
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:57:05 -0500, Swingman wrote:
On 5/30/2012 2:50 PM, -MIKE- wrote: On 5/30/12 2:07 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: Steve writes: On 5/30/2012 1:00 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet writes: Or is your constant complaining something you just like to do? Pot. Kettle. Black. Bull****. Leon is the most non-complaining participant in this group. I beg to differ. He complains incessently about California. What's not to complain about? :-) +1 Hey, I love California. It's the next best thing we have to NYC. YOu can buy -anything- in CA, except all the things they _ban_ ;) and it's closer to me, so shipping is usually 1-2 days. It has lots of wonderful and majestic parks, deserts, and mountains. And it has gorgeous, bikinied babes galore, all 12 months of the year. (THAT I miss.) What I don't miss are the fruitcakes, the HelL.A. smog, and the traffic. And we have an overabundance of Liberals up here in Oregon, too, so I unfortunately can't miss them, either. sigh -- When a quiet man is moved to passion, it seems the very earth will shake. -- Stephanie Barron (Something for the Powers That Be to remember, eh?) |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
"Dave" wrote: That's entirely different. EVERYBODY complains about California. ------------------------------- Except those of us who live here. Must admit, the propaganda machine helps to keep out the undesirables. Lew |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 05/30/2012 05:31 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Dave" wrote: That's entirely different. EVERYBODY complains about California. ------------------------------- Except those of us who live here. Must admit, the propaganda machine helps to keep out the undesirables. Lew Good thing too - many of those that are leaving are those undesirable rich taxpayers. Good luck! -- "Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" -Winston Churchill |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter