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?

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?
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!!!

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

"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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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/

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?)

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:

Or is your constant complaining something you just like to do?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

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/

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.

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

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

"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

"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

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.

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".

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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}

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

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?)

On 30 May 2012 19:07:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
I beg to differ. He complains incessently about California.

That's entirely different. EVERYBODY complains about California. I
even hear Canadians complaining about California. But then, we
complain about everything anyway.

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?)

"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

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