Gas Prices

[REASON]

So, what would it take to push for Methane now? I find it interesting that Methane is never really included in discussions involving alternative fuel sources for automobiles, especially considering how plausible the two of you have just made it seem.

I have a few questions that may be answered in one of the links modest provided, but that I think would be good to discuss here.

1. What kind of modifications would be required in today's motor vehicles to allow them to run on Methane?

2. What are the primary sources of Methane gas?

3. Is there enough to supply the entire nation, or is something like this intended to be more of a supplement to fossil fuels?

4. Do we have to rely on natural sources of Methane, or can it be manufactured?

5. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Should we be concerned about increasing global warming if Methane fuel were to become widely used?

6. What are the advantages/disadvantages of Methane vs. Hydrogen as a fuel.

[freeztar]

7. How will methane-fueled vehicles affect gasoline prices?

[modest]

Originally Posted by REASON

So, what would it take to push for Methane now? I find it interesting that Methane is never really included in discussions involving alternative fuel sources, especially considering how plausible the two of you have just made it seem.

While I like the idea, it also needs to be pointed out that natural gas is a fossil fuel. It is not renewable. Well, let me qualify that. Natural gas is not the only way to get methane. Biogas refers to more renewable ways of obtaining it, which is also more expensive. Barring biogas, methane is not renewable. Like oil, natural gas reserves will run out.

Ethanol may be the better longterm solution.

Originally Posted by REASON

I have a few questions that may be answered in one of the links mocdest provided, but that I think would be good to discuss here.

1. What kind of modifications would be required in today's motor vehicles to allow them to run on Methane?

It's actually quite a few. The tanks that hold the gas are large and require a lot of space. They are also expensive as they need to be very durable. As moontanman pointed out, the fuel injection system must be different. This link also mentions:

The engine must be forged aluminum, needs high-compression pistons, hardened nickel-tungsten exhaust valve seats, and a methane-specific catalytic converter.

Originally Posted by REASON

2. What are the primary sources of Methane gas?

Natural Gas.

Originally Posted by REASON

3. Is there enough to supply the entire nation, or is something like this intended to be more of a supplement to fossil fuels?

It is a fossil fuel. Without an undue increase in demand, US reserves are estimated to last another 67 years.

Originally Posted by REASON

4. Do we have to rely on natural sources of Methane, or can it be manufactured?

See biogas link above. I would add that ethanol is easier to make from plants than methane.

Originally Posted by REASON

5. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Should we be concerned about increasing global warming if Methane fuel were to become widely used?

Good question! I'll look into it.

Originally Posted by REASON

6. What are the advantages/disadvantages of Methane vs. Hydrogen as a fuel.

If hydrogen is produced from nuclear power there is no carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Burning methane is in and of itself a greenhouse problem as CO2 is a product of the reaction. You also bring up the point of methane as a greenhouse gas.

I'll look more into this - perhaps we need a dedicated thread

-modest

[Moontanman]

Modest addressed most of these things but I would like to add a few qualifiers of my own.

2. What are the primary sources of Methane gas?

3. Is there enough to supply the entire nation, or is something like this intended to be more of a supplement to fossil fuels?

4. Do we have to rely on natural sources of Methane, or can it be manufactured?

Natural gas is currently the primary source of methane, I don't subscribe to the fossil fuel theory but it does mostly come from the ground. It can however be made by methanogen bacteria. i disagree that ethanol cam be made easier than methane. almost anything organic can be used to make methane the best ethanol producers have to have sugar in them or be able to be turned into sugar at some stage. Methane can also be recovered easier than ethanol from culture. Methane can also be produced from old land fills.

5. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Should we be concerned about increasing global warming if Methane fuel were to become widely used?

Accidental release of methane would not be significant compared to natural sources but hydrogen can cause significant ozone depletion problems on a par with or worse than chlorine containing chemicals. Hydrogen is also very difficult to contain and will migrate through even solid metal and is often lost at fill up time. Better electric cars with hybrid engines run off methane would seem to be the gold standard if batteries never come on line with enough capacity to power a long range car.

6. What are the advantages/disadvantages of Methane vs. Hydrogen as a fuel

.

Methane is easier to contain and make, spilling methane isn't a big deal compared to natural sources, hydrogen is difficult to contain, spilling hydrogen is a grave threat to the ozone layer, hydrogen must be stored at higher pressures and or lower temperatures than methane. some processes negate this difficultly but similar technology for methane would make methane better still.

[REASON]

By the way, I noticed there were several comments regarding the lack of new oil refineries as a factor in the so-called supply shortage that is generating these sky-rocketing gas prices.

I suggest, before we continue to completely give in to this notion, that we consider the words of J. Stephen Simon, the Director and Senior Vice President of Exxon Mobile Corporation, from an interview published in a 2006 edition of Exxon Mobile's marketing periodical, The Lamp, which is directed at existing shareholders and potential investors.

Q: How do you respond to those who want new refineries to be built in the United States?

A: There has been a lot of media attention on refining capacity recently, particularly here in the United States. While it's true the number of U.S. refineries has dropped over 50 percent over the past 25 years, refinery output has actually increased more than 25 percent, as remaining refineries have been expanding through debottlenecking, higher utilization and technology advancements.

For Exxon Mobile, our track record speaks for itself. Since 1995, our U.S. refining capacity has grown about 2 percent a year, faster than demand growth and faster than the rest of the industry. In fact, over the last decade, we've added the equivalent of three new refineries by expanding our existing facilities. We believe this is the right approach since it's a much faster way to increase supplies, and these expansions can be implemented at a fraction of the cost of building a new facility.

J. Stephen Simon
Director and Senior Vice President
Exxon Mobile Corporation

The Lamp, 2006, Vol. 88 No. 1, pg. 8

I recommend reading the entire article for more insight.

You see, I'm not convinced that the issue of new refineries is really an issue for industry insiders. Based on the last sentence in his statement, Exxon Mobile hasn't actually been seeking a site in someone's backyard to build any new refineries because they don't even see it as an economically viable alternative for increasing production.

New refineries aren't necessary, because they have been able to keep up with the increases in demand here in the United States, in fact, as he states it, "faster than demand growth."

While I agree on a global scale that demand has increased, particularly in China and India, the United States is still by far the leading purchaser and consumer of crude oil. And if the oil corporations are able to handle the increase in demand, then the notion of short supplies as the primary reason for the sharp increases in gas prices may be a bit of a red herring. If you really think about it, are there any indicators to suggest a decrease in supply due to an increase in demand, other than high prices? I challenge you to find a single gas station that has had to post a sign that says "Sorry. We're out of gas."

The notion of supply shortages was also the explanation for the stark increase in natural gas prices in 2001, and the rolling blackouts in California, both of which were shown to be examples of market manipulation due to deregulation, and greedy, conniving energy traders.

Currently, I'm focussing more on the aspect of Futures Trading, Market Speculation, Hedging and the Enron Loophole. Wall Street is blowing a bubble, and a lot of people are making tremendous amounts of money at our expense.

I will post more on this angle later.

[Buffy]

In fact there was quite a dustup several years ago when Shell shut down a refinery in Bakersfield, CA which as the article says the FTC (that is, the Bush Administration) determined was not going to have an effect on supply or prices--something that anyone with a passing understanding of Economics would laugh out loud at.

According to The Economist, the problem is also one of shifting demand:

Originally Posted by The Economist, "Double, double, oil and trouble" 5/29/08

The problem is exacerbated by a growing mismatch between the type of oil being produced and the refineries that must process it. The most common benchmark prices, including the one used in this article, refer to “light” crude, the least viscous sort, which produces the most petrol and diesel when refined. “Heavy” oil, by contrast, yields more fuel oil, which is used mainly for heating.

At the moment, diesel is in short supply and there is a glut of fuel oil. That makes processing heavy oil unprofitable for some refineries, since the gains from diesel are outweighed by losses on fuel oil. As refineries turn instead to lighter grades, it pushes their prices yet higher. The discount on heavier crudes has risen to record levels. But even then, points out Ed Morse, of Lehman Brothers, another investment bank, Iran is having trouble selling the stuff. It is storing huge quantities of unsold oil on tankers moored off its coast.

Presumably, Iran and other heavy-oil producers will eventually be obliged to drop prices far enough to make processing the stuff worth refiners' while. In the longer run, more refineries will invest in the equipment needed to crack more diesel out of heavy oil. Both steps will, in effect, increase the world's oil supply, and so help to ease prices.

But improving an existing refinery or building a new one is a slow and capital-intensive business. Firms tend to be very conservative in their investments, since refineries have decades-long life-spans, during which prices and profits can fluctuate wildly.... Worse, new kit is becoming ever more expensive. Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), a consultancy, calculates that capital costs for refineries and petrochemical plants have risen by 76% since 2000.

The oil companies do indeed like to keep capacity at a razor's edge of the demand: excess capacity is a direct deduction to the bottom line. Moreover as demand increases, they get immediate short-term benefit from the "shortages" although they do have pressure on them to keep from being to obvious--as with the first link above--from being the target of accusations that they are intentionally taking capacity off-line in order to cause the panic among traders that causes prices to spike.

One of the key unintended consequences of acquiescing to the demands of large corporations like the oil companies to allow them to "achieve economies of scale by merger" is that markets with a small number of participants can lead to each of the entrants realizing that *tacit* cooperation is just as good at causing market manipulation as *active* collusion in manipulating the prices in markets.

For some reason, even economists have not been very vocal about this because there is a fear among them about the uncertainty of the true effect of economies of scale and how many entrants are really required to provide true competition in markets and the effect of perturbations based on individual countries allowing their own native companies to consolidate and dominate the world markets.

Not for nothing that its called the "dismal science"....

First rule of Economics 101: our desires are insatiable. Second rule: we can stomach only three Big Macs at a time.
Buffy

[Buffy]

...oh and will drilling ANWR solve the problem? You be the judge:

Source: National Resources Defense Council

The thing that the promoters of these "drill more!" arguments don't seem to realize (or conveniently hide) is that it will not lower prices unless it has a significant impact on world-wide demand. If more is drilled, even if those in the US think its *their oil* and refuse to pay more (or rather drop demand locally) the oil companies will simply export it (or rather simply import less), causing the supply in the US to drop, thus causing prices to equilibrilize with the world price.

That's what they mean when they say that oil is a "fungible commodity"....its the world-wide market that determines the price, not the amount that's drilled here in the good 'ol USofA...

Although that will help our balance of trade deficit, thus strengthening the dollar and avoiding *inflationary* pressure on oil prices, that still doesn't get "real" oil prices to decline.

Britain is a world by itself; and we will nothing pay for wearing our own noses,
Buffy

[Boerseun]

The fear of methane as a greenhouse gas is a bit overstated, I reckon.

Methane can't exist in an oxygen-rich atmosphere for very long - oxygen just kills it, man. If you find oxygen in a planet's atmosphere, with significant amounts of methane, that is almost a sure indicator of life being present. The methane must be continuously replaced as it gets oxydised.

So, an accidental methane spill would just go up in the atmosphere like so many cow farts, and oxydise. And that would be it, I guess.

The real issue would be the products of that oxydation - what would that do to the atmosphere? What would be the exhaust gases of a methane vehicle? Mostly carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and water vapour. Which is mostly what regular petrol engines spew out. If the ratios are less than with regular fuel, sweet. If not, then its obviously a waste of time.

Also keep in mind that we've been running Hydrogen vehicles since the first automobile saw the light of day. A normal petrol engine is, in fact, a Hydrogen engine. We're just currently getting our Hydrogen in very dirty packaging, what with all that carbon an' stuff.

Realising that we're actually running on Hydrogen as it is might be a bit of a paradigm shift when we consider oil and fossil fuels in general, but its the truth. The petrol you consume is just a handy container for non-compressed Hydrogen. The carbon binds to it and makes it relatively stable until you compress it, introduce some oxygen, and light a fuse under its ass. Ever notice the water coming out of your tailpipe on a cold morning? That's the actual exhaust gas coming from what really drives your engine after you got rid of all the carbon packaging.

It's not our fuel that's destroying our atmosphere, its the packaging it comes in.

[Michaelangelica]

I think we should all start making our own alcohol for fuel.
For $2-300 retail you can buy an 'off the shelf' still.
Even cheaper if you do it yourself.
You then need to talk your greengrocer into donating some rotting fruit and you are away

[modest]

Originally Posted by REASON

5. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Should we be concerned about increasing global warming if Methane fuel were to become widely used?

Originally Posted by modest

Good question! I'll look into it.

Originally Posted by Boerseun

The fear of methane as a greenhouse gas is a bit overstated, I reckon.

Methane can't exist in an oxygen-rich atmosphere for very long - oxygen just kills it, man.

After looking this up, I quickly came to the same conclusion as Boerseun. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, but has a short atmospheric life of only approximately 12 years. Any given methane molecule that is released into the atmosphere will last about 12 years before decomposing into water and carbon dioxide:



A useful way of expressing the effect of a greenhouse gas is by calculating the Global Warming Potential. This was the agreed upon standard at Kyoto. The result of the calculation shows how harmful something is as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide over a period of time. Methane is:



Meaning that spilling an equal amount of methane as carbon dioxide is sixty two times worse over 20 years, 23 times worse over 100 years, and 7 times worse over 500 years.

Compared to some CFCs and HFCs which remain at hundreds or thousands of times worse than over hundreds of years, methane is not too awfully environmentally destructive.

I would, however, like to note again that burning methane or natural gas produces carbon dioxide no different than petrol. There are environmental advantages to using natural gas vehicles such as far less carbon monoxide and particulate pollution. But, natural gas has a carbon footprint like any fossil fuel. NGV's are therefore neither a completely clean nor completely green substitute.

As it relates to this thread on the other hand - natural gas vehicles cost a third less “at the pump”. That would be nice.