• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New GM pickup will have natural gas option

Batteries in cars catch on fire and present electrocution risk to people in crashes and first responders. [...]
Except in the most odd and extreme of situations, no they don't. Try sourcing your claims instead of making them up.
 
Except in the most odd and extreme of situations, no they don't. Try sourcing your claims instead of making them up.

Will this do?

The large, high-voltage batteries used in plug-in vehicles can be more easily damaged in a crash than traditional car batteries and create more potential to electrically shock occupants and rescuers. The Volt’s 400-pound, T-shaped battery extends under the middle of the car and between the back seats rather than fitting under the hood with the engine of a gas-powered vehicle.


“Based on the available data, N.H.T.S.A. does not believe the Volt or other electric vehicles are at a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles,” the agency said in a statement. “In fact, all vehicles — both electric and gasoline-powered — have some risk of fire in the event of a serious crash.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/b...xamine-electric-car-batteries-after-fire.html
 
I'm not sure it's an efficient way to go, it's fine in cities to lower pollution. But otherwise, not sure it the best approach.

Mostly, I like the idea because natural gas is plentiful in the US, and doesn't put us at the mercy of the Iranians in the Strait of Hormuz.

To be honest, I don't think it's a good idea to have most of our transportation energy coming from one particular commodity. Diversifying the fuel sources we use means that oil prices don't have as much potential to be a drag on the economy. I don't think we want to move our whole transportation system over to CNG, but it's certainly good to have options.
 
Aww not even 1 in my state.


None here either but 34 states do have at least one. It will make traveling an adventure again just like the old days. (diesel is everywhere)
 
As to diesel, it burns dirtier than gasoline (particularly with particulate emissions), and biodiesel has less energy content than regular diesel, although thermodynamically diesel is a more efficient internal combustion fuel than gasoline. Again, common knowledge . . . . .

You can go out to my car right now and run your finger around the end of the exhaust and you get nothing. To say that biodregular diesel has less energy content compared to regular diesel means nothing. It still has more than RUG. I know that those who run a blend say that their mileage improves. Bio has better lubricity than ULSD.
 
Will this do?

The large, high-voltage batteries used in plug-in vehicles can be more easily damaged in a crash than traditional car batteries and create more potential to electrically shock occupants and rescuers. The Volt’s 400-pound, T-shaped battery extends under the middle of the car and between the back seats rather than fitting under the hood with the engine of a gas-powered vehicle.

“Based on the available data, N.H.T.S.A. does not believe the Volt or other electric vehicles are at a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles,” the agency said in a statement. “In fact, all vehicles — both electric and gasoline-powered — have some risk of fire in the event of a serious crash.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/b...xamine-electric-car-batteries-after-fire.html
Yes. It is sufficient to debunk your assertion that cars carrying batteries are similar in risk of explosion as cars carrying tanks of compressed flammable gas.

Propane tank explodes when car hits food truck in TriBeCa | 7online.com
 
You can go out to my car right now and run your finger around the end of the exhaust and you get nothing. To say that biodregular diesel has less energy content compared to regular diesel means nothing. It still has more than RUG. I know that those who run a blend say that their mileage improves. Bio has better lubricity than ULSD.

Also depends on what you mean by "dirty". Diesel produces considerably less CO2 and less carbon monoxide per gallon than a comparable gas burner.
 
You can go out to my car right now and run your finger around the end of the exhaust and you get nothing.
I can think of several things that you could run your finger around the end of that would prove exactly as much as what you are trying to infer above.

To say that biodregular diesel has less energy content compared to regular diesel means nothing.
So, you deny the functions of the laws of thermodynamics. Interesting.

I know that those who run a blend say that their mileage improves. [...]
I now know people who stick their fingers stuck up their exhaust pipes and make similarly unverified and anecdotal claims.

Bio has better lubricity than ULSD.
Not in dispute, but I feel uncomfortable discussing lubricity in light of the general thrust of your post.
 
That is what I have heard too, new diesel motors burn cleaner than gasoline

diesels produce higher particles which cause smog,gas engines produce less particles and more c02 and carbon monoxide.the reason for that is compression and fuel type.higher compression engines burn fuel more efficiently and produce less carbon dioxide,but produce more particles which causes severe health problems,low compression produces opposite numbers for both.

natural gas is no different than propane or butane in that it leaves practically no emmissions,thats why fork lifts use one of the three fuels,so people in warehouses dont die of carbon monoxide or from choking.california has used natural gas in their buses for over a decade now with success.how natural gas propane and butane burn so clean is because they all boil at room temperature,causing 100 conversion from liquid to gas for combustion.gasoline only partially evaporates at room temperature and needs heat and compression to vaporize,but it never fully turns to vapor.diesel and other oily fuels need extreme compression to atomize enough to ignite,anywhere from 18-1 to 25-1,whereas gasoline needs 7.5 to one to run 87 octane.


arguing on whether natural gas will work or not is pointless,because lp gas has been used for decades with success and natural gas is not far from lp gas.infact if i remember correctly hippies used to convert vw vans and beetles to run on emissionless propane in the 60's and 70's.
 
This is hardly new technology. CNG and Propane powered vehicles have been around since at least the 1970s. The US Air Force started a program in the 1980s to use CNG and since then, a large number of their buses and many of their pickups have been CNG (yes, they came from GM then also). However, the explosive potential of CNG vs Diesel or Gasoline would severly limit it's use in combat vehicles. The only real thing that is new is that the factory is installing the system and it will be covered by your warrenty instead of invalidating that warrenty.

But one problem that may limit the expansion of CNG vehicles is that the natural gas industry is currently under attack by enviromental groups (yes, the ones who want cleaner engines but seem to only accept electric as an alternative). They are concerned with the contamination of ground water from the fluids that are used to hydralically fracture the shale inorder to extract the natural gas. There is currently a big battle between Pennsylvania and the EPA over this right now.

Problem number two is that BP (yes, that BP) siezed control of large amount of our natrual gas production during the melt-down in 2008. In otherwords, an oil company will have to ramp up production to provide that CNG at a reasonable price but would be cutting it's oil profits by doing so. BP is not the only oil company controlling CNG. So, unless they are going to see equal or greater profits from CNG, we probably will not see it become easily available. While I, as a general rule, do not like government intervention in industry, I am afraid that in this case, the government would have to be the one to force the change. Unfortunately, you have both oil and enviromentalist fighting against it in this case.

Someone mentioned that we could not get full use out of CNG with gasoline compression. The current limit on compression for gasoline engines is the available octane rating, higher compression needs higher octane, however, the government and enviromentalist have been working hard since the 1960s to reduce the octane ratings. E-85 gasoline should have an octane rating of over 100, however it is blended to keep the octane down. Alchohol has a natural high octane rating which is why it has been used in racing for decades, however it also burns much hotter making it impractical for use in standard motors. We have had the technology to use pure alchohol for a longtime now, however, the cost of those engines are a bit high (or at least thats the claim).

Someone also mentioned Bio Diesel, sounds good, just one problem, in order to produce that bio diesel we have use or displace food crops. This is also the problem with Ethanol, however they are finding ways around this for Ethanol production. There may be a viable solution out there for Bio Diesel also.

Overall this is a step that has been needed to be taken for at least 30 years now, but don't expect the enviromentalist or those backed by the oil industry rushing to embrace it anytime soon.
 
diesels produce higher particles which cause smog,gas engines produce less particles and more c02 and carbon monoxide.the reason for that is compression and fuel type.higher compression engines burn fuel more efficiently and produce less carbon dioxide,but produce more particles which causes severe health problems,low compression produces opposite numbers for both.

natural gas is no different than propane or butane in that it leaves practically no emmissions,thats why fork lifts use one of the three fuels,so people in warehouses dont die of carbon monoxide or from choking.california has used natural gas in their buses for over a decade now with success.how natural gas propane and butane burn so clean is because they all boil at room temperature,causing 100 conversion from liquid to gas for combustion.gasoline only partially evaporates at room temperature and needs heat and compression to vaporize,but it never fully turns to vapor.diesel and other oily fuels need extreme compression to atomize enough to ignite,anywhere from 18-1 to 25-1,whereas gasoline needs 7.5 to one to run 87 octane.


arguing on whether natural gas will work or not is pointless,because lp gas has been used for decades with success and natural gas is not far from lp gas.infact if i remember correctly hippies used to convert vw vans and beetles to run on emissionless propane in the 60's and 70's.

Sounds like another yes vote for ng.
 
Someone also mentioned Bio Diesel, sounds good, just one problem, in order to produce that bio diesel we have use or displace food crops. This is also the problem with Ethanol, however they are finding ways around this for Ethanol production. There may be a viable solution out there for Bio Diesel also.
.

I think they can make biodiesel using previously used vegetable oil. Basically get the used stuff that McDonald's uses to make fries, blend it in and voila! Wouldn't need to be diverted from food at all.
 
I think they can make biodiesel using previously used vegetable oil. Basically get the used stuff that McDonald's uses to make fries, blend it in and voila! Wouldn't need to be diverted from food at all.

vegable oil and used vegetable oil require seperating the glycerine or goo from the oil,not very practical as a replacement.i think we can be a little more genius in diesel alternatives,ive seen diesel engines run off of used oil,used transmission fluid,aftershave,kerosene and jet fuel,infact diesels can run off of nearly anything similar to oil so long as its combustible at high compression.

i think weve only scratched the surface of what could be run in a diesel engine,but i dont see america eating enough french fries to power everything,i could be wrong though the way fast food is growing we might have to convert used cooking oil just to dispose of it.
 
That's all true beerftw, and used fryer oil would hardly make a dent in the oil supply. Unless you separate the glycerin, you can only use the WVO in a hot engine because the glycerin will gum up the injectors. Even then, you can only use it in older common rail diesel engines, which is why old Mercedes Benz cars from the 80's command so much money in the used market because they are ideal for such "greasel" conversions.

Because of the very high pressure that diesel fuel is injected with into the combustion chamber nowadays, it's really no longer true that you can burn practically anything in a diesel. Those extremely high pressures help to atomize the diesel better and make a more complete burn when it ignites from the hot compressed air, and thus have allowed diesels to become more efficient and significantly less polluting.
 
I think they can make biodiesel using previously used vegetable oil. Basically get the used stuff that McDonald's uses to make fries, blend it in and voila! Wouldn't need to be diverted from food at all.

I think a couple of people have already pointed out the process, but do you think we could actually make a measurable dent in our diesel fuel consumption from fast food resturants? Diesel is used for tractors and harvesters, semi trucks, trains, mixed with karosene and naptha (if I remember right) as part of making jet fuel, RVs and Diesel pickups (used for RVs, hotshot rigs and small deliveries), delivery trucks and personal automobiles. While the total produced by fast food recycling into biodiesel might help with the passenger cars and some RVs, there just is not enough from that source to make an appreciatable difference in out National Daily consumption of Diesel. We need massive amounts of it, and that would mean using corn, soybean and other vegetables to make it.

Does anyone know if you can make Biodiesel from a Yucca Cactus? If so, that would go a long way towards a good supply. Think of the Desert Southwest where most of the land is useless without massive and costley irrigation, yucca grows there.
 
I think a couple of people have already pointed out the process, but do you think we could actually make a measurable dent in our diesel fuel consumption from fast food resturants? Diesel is used for tractors and harvesters, semi trucks, trains, mixed with karosene and naptha (if I remember right) as part of making jet fuel, RVs and Diesel pickups (used for RVs, hotshot rigs and small deliveries), delivery trucks and personal automobiles. While the total produced by fast food recycling into biodiesel might help with the passenger cars and some RVs, there just is not enough from that source to make an appreciatable difference in out National Daily consumption of Diesel. We need massive amounts of it, and that would mean using corn, soybean and other vegetables to make it.

Does anyone know if you can make Biodiesel from a Yucca Cactus? If so, that would go a long way towards a good supply. Think of the Desert Southwest where most of the land is useless without massive and costley irrigation, yucca grows there.

yuca plants and joshua trees used to grow native where i was in cali,im pretty sure yuccas are a protected species and i know for a fact even damaging a joshua tree is against federal law.
 
Back
Top Bottom