# LPG opinions - What's stopping people converting?



## Tysonboss1 (13 July 2008)

I was driving around sydney today, and I was looking around to see how many cars on the road are running on LPG, and surprisingly there is not that many.

With petrol prices trending up for the last 5 years and every man and his dog complaining about petrol prices, why are lpg cars so few and far between.

I Myself have been driving on LPG now for over 3 years and think it's absouloutly fantastic.

I would love to here any one elses opinions on.

1, whats stopping you converting.

2, are you planning on converting.

3, what are your thoughts since converting. etc etc


----------



## tech/a (13 July 2008)

*Re: LPG opinions,.... What's stopping people converting.*

All vehicals I purchase are company converted.

Now to the real problem for businesses who run Trucks (most businesses do).
Diesel.
It costs me $535 a tank on my tippers and floats
$360 on each excavator.
I have a few.

If your running a B double its just rediculous.
If you want to see an economy grind to a halt just watch what diesel at $4 a litre will do.
Just try to imagine the implications.


----------



## CanOz (13 July 2008)

*Re: LPG opinions,.... What's stopping people converting.*



tech/a said:


> All vehicals I purchase are company converted.
> 
> Now to the real problem for businesses who run Trucks (most businesses do).
> Diesel.
> ...




We're living the implications here in China where we struggle to get diesel now. Diesel for irrigation comes mostly from the black market now. The problem is because Crude is so expensive in relation to the selling price of diesel, the refineries don't want to sell it at such a loss so they hold it back and wait for price increases. This is creating even more demand in the price. Its a vicious circle.

Cheers,

CanOz


----------



## nioka (13 July 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> 1, whats stopping you converting.




1. I need my boot space.
2. It would take too long to recoup the cost and by then the government will probably decide to tax gas at a higher level.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 July 2008)

nioka said:


> 1. I need my boot space.
> 2. It would take too long to recoup the cost and by then the government will probably decide to tax gas at a higher level.




These are the first 2 things people say in response to switching to lpg however,..

1, you really don't lose that much boot space,... in my commodore it's probally 30%,.... and when you think about it, is that extra bootspace really worth paying $50 a week more in fuel than you have to, and if you have to you can always get a tank under the car.

2, In response to recouping your money,... think of it like buying a $2000 investment that pays $50 a week dividends it pays for itself in the first year,... it also adds to the resale value.

3, Inresponce to fuel excise tax,.... Currently there is no excise on lpg, starting from 2011 Lpg  will have an excise of 2.5cents increasing each year till 2015 where it will be 12.5cents per litre,... unleaded curently is 38cents per litre. so even by 7years time your still paying less than half the tax of petrol.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 July 2008)

*Re: LPG opinions,.... What's stopping people converting.*



CanOz said:


> We're living the implications here in China where we struggle to get diesel now. Diesel for irrigation comes mostly from the black market now. The problem is because Crude is so expensive in relation to the selling price of diesel, the refineries don't want to sell it at such a loss so they hold it back and wait for price increases. This is creating even more demand in the price. Its a vicious circle.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> CanOz




Do they use autogas in china.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 July 2008)

Alot of people i talk to about it say safety is an issue for them, they think 
a gas tank is more dangerous than a petrol tank.:dunno:


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 July 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> Alot of people i talk to about it say safety is an issue for them, they think
> a gas tank is more dangerous than a petrol tank.:dunno:





yeah,... thats another thing that I here too,... although gas tanks are actually as safe or safer than petrol tanks,.... there have been numerous fuel tank related fires and stuff in accidents and refuelling.


----------



## gfresh (13 July 2008)

I will be converting soon.. Payback in 12 months, less if fuel prices keep going up, $2000 rebate by the government. Would seem absolutely crazy not too. 

It's probably the only way I would be able to sell my car eventually also, if fuel was say $3/L in 2-3 years, so I have been thinking of that aspect also. 

People have been purchasing a lot of smaller fuel efficient vehicles, but by the time you add up the depreciation soon as it goes out the showroom, LPG conversion on my existing larger car is much more cost efficient. Oh, and if a loan is required for purchase, interest rates right now are hideous, adding to the total cost of buying a new car.  

Seem to be a lot of falsehoods, and "I heard from a mate" regarding LPG - maybe this scares people off?


----------



## CanOz (13 July 2008)

*Re: LPG opinions,.... What's stopping people converting.*



Tysonboss1 said:


> Do they use autogas in china.




Yes, in some cities they do and they are developing the infrastructure to support more cities, mostly with mass transit though. 

Cheers,


CanOz


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 July 2008)

It doesn't really stack up in my case. Petrol costs me about $800 a year at the moment (premium at $1.649 per litre). 

Small car gets 15km on a litre (driving up to 110 so not being intentionally economical) and I don't drive that far. I'll be walking home from work tomorrow. 

Autogas at 83.9c per litre would be a saving but It's not huge and I'd lose a lot of functionality of the vehicle (fold down rear seats) so it doesn't really stack up for me.

I use LPG for cooking (stove top only - oven is electric) though. But then I wouldn't really want to try cooking in the house with petrol.  Seem to be using about 2.5 litres a month (roughly) at a price of $1.60 a litre at the hardware shop where I get it. It costs a bit more elsewhere. A bulk cylinder works out at $1.27 per litre but with low use and the rental charges as well it's not worthwhile. Also it wouldn't fit where I have the two small cylinders now.


----------



## moXJO (13 July 2008)

I saw a kit that uses the same gas as you use in your home. So you can pretty much have the refueling station at your house. The upside is that your car can be duel fuel so you don't get stuck without being able to fill up. I think it is a CNG kit maybe? I should probably have written it down.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 July 2008)

moXJO said:


> I saw a kit that uses the same gas as you use in your home. So you can pretty much have the refueling station at your house. The upside is that your car can be duel fuel so you don't get stuck without being able to fill up. I think it is a CNG kit maybe? I should probably have written it down.



Sounds like CNG. Allowing a bit for the electricity used to run the compressor, it works out at the equivalent of petrol at roughly 60 cents a litre so it's certainly cheaper than petrol, diesel or LPG.

You'll obviously need to have natural gas (not town gas or LPG) piped into your home in order to use the kit. And the price will depend on how much you pay for natural gas.


----------



## Julia (13 July 2008)

Had a company car several years ago that had been converted to gas.
It was like driving a tank, not to mention the loss of boot space.


----------



## gfresh (13 July 2008)

I am not quite sure the lack of boot space would be an issue for a 95% of people on their daily commute. I could count on my fingers the amount of times my boot has actually been fully utilised in about in the last 2 years. Does everybody pack their boot full every day?  What useful can you carry in a sedan anyhow? hmm, strange that this is considered an issue. 

LPG systems have also improved significantly over older ones, with direct injection leading to much less power loss.


----------



## moXJO (13 July 2008)

gfresh said:


> Does everybody pack their boot full every day?  What useful can you carry in a sedan anyhow? hmm, strange that this is considered an issue.
> .




Pram space


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 July 2008)

Julia said:


> Had a company car several years ago that had been converted to gas.
> It was like driving a tank, not to mention the loss of boot space.




what do you mean by "it was like driving a tank".


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 July 2008)

gfresh said:


> LPG systems have also improved significantly over older ones, with direct injection leading to much less power loss.




I have never been able to notice the difference in power between pertrol and gas,... I flick between petrol and gas at the press of a button any how.

when I first got my car converted i was always comparing petrol to gas on accelration, going up hills, towing my trailer trying to see if i could notice this "big power loss" you here people talking about ( mostly people that drive petrol cars) and I have never once been able to notice any difference,

the only main difference is that you burn about 20% - 30% more lpg than pertrol,.... but thats nothing, cause if you add 30% to the price of lpg at todays prices in makes it 78cents compared to petrol at $1.70,....... you would have to really love that boot space to keep paying that sort of premium.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 July 2008)

moXJO said:


> Pram space




the tank doesn't have to go in the boot,... you can get it mounted under the car,.... offcoarse that costs a bit more, but if you really need the boot then it's an option.

At the moment I am dual fuel, but I am actually thinking of getting rid of the petrol tank and replacing it with another gas tank, so my car is gas only.


----------



## Bloveld (13 July 2008)

I have been waiting for a gas system that gives close to petrol performance. Looks like its finally becoming available, liquid gas injection. I could never see the point of buying a fuel injected vehicle and then basically putting a carby on it to use gas.
Steve


----------



## moXJO (13 July 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> the tank doesn't have to go in the boot,... you can get it mounted under the car,.... offcoarse that costs a bit more, but if you really need the boot then it's an option.
> 
> At the moment I am dual fuel, but I am actually thinking of getting rid of the petrol tank and replacing it with another gas tank, so my car is gas only.




I have a couple of vans I might look at converting. I like the idea of CNG duel fuel atm.Is their an advantage of LPG over CNG or vise versa?


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 July 2008)

moXJO said:


> I have a couple of vans I might look at converting. I like the idea of CNG duel fuel atm.Is their an advantage of LPG over CNG or vise versa?




As far as I know there is no CNG systems for sale in australia,

The main difference is that LPG is readily available all over australia and has a smaller lighter fuel tank and because it's a liquid it carries more fuel so you get a similar range from a tank of lpg as you do from petrol...

CNG is Compressed natual gas and there is no commercial filling infrasture,.... Natural gas does not readily liquify under pressure as LPG does,... so CNG tanks are larger and heavyer because they are built to take higher pressures and they don't hold as much fuel because it's not in a liquid state,.... .

So CNG is cheaper than both petrol and lpg, But the cng cars have a heavy fuel tank and less range and there is also no filling infrasture in australia yet,.... however CNG is being used on some sydney buses and council trucks and is really big in japan and india and saudi arabia.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 July 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> the only main difference is that you burn about 20% - 30% more lpg than pertrol,.... but thats nothing, cause if you add 30% to the price of lpg at todays prices in makes it 78cents compared to petrol at $1.70,....... you would have to really love that boot space to keep paying that sort of premium.



Roughly 25 MJ per litre of LPG, 35 to 42 MJ per litre for liquid petroleum fuels (petrol's at the low end, high sulphur heavy fuel oil at the high end).

LPG is 83.9 at the pump down here so adding 25% or so makes it equivalent to $1.05. Still a saving if you use enough to make it worthwhile but CNG would be cheaper.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> LPG is 83.9 at the pump down here so adding 25% or so makes it equivalent to $1.05. Still a saving if you use enough to make it worthwhile but CNG would be cheaper.




Hopfully we will see CNG in australia in the not to distant future,... I wonder if it would be possible to replace my petrol tank with a CNG one day, So i would be duel fuel on LPG and CNG... that way I could be using CNG most of the time but on long trips flick over to LPG if I can't get to any CNG filling equipment.

83.9 cents a litre,.. that harsh. where abouts are you.


----------



## moXJO (13 July 2008)

Sorry for not having a clue on this subject.But is their a potential for CNG or LPG to not be able to keep up with demand if it were to become mainstream??


----------



## So_Cynical (13 July 2008)

CNG is available at 1 location in Canberra and i believe there's a trial underway 
in Melbourne....CNG is just compressed Natural gas, the same gas most homes 
use for heating and stove tops, hot water etc, except that its been 
compressed for vehicle use.

CNG gets u about 200 km on a full tank depending on engine size and driving conditions.



moXJO said:


> Sorry for not having a clue on this subject.But is their a potential for CNG or LPG to not be able to keep up with demand if it were to become mainstream??




Australia has about 100 years of reserves at current levels of use...as long as we stop selling 
it to the Chinese for 10 cents a liter....and lets all keep in mind that NG - Natural gas can be 
created by composting waste etc....so its defined as a renewable fuel.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 July 2008)

moXJO said:


> Sorry for not having a clue on this subject.But is their a potential for CNG or LPG to not be able to keep up with demand if it were to become mainstream??




No.

Austalia has more reserves of LPG than it does of oil,.... 20% of LPG comes from the refining of crude and the remainder is produced from gas and oil fields directly and there is plenty more LPG reserves left than oil reserves. And there is a general trend around the world that as companies are searching for oil the oil feilds they are targeting are having a much smaller ratio of oil to gas,... meaning that the oil feilds that are coming on line now are having a much higher out put of LPG than OIL.... 

As for CNG,... Natural gas is actually in abundance when compared to oil,... Australia actually has about 300 years supply of natural gas at todays production level if you include the coal seam methane,


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 July 2008)

Well it is "extracted" from crude oil and natural gas.



> Australia produces currently about 3,300 kt of LPG annually. Of these volumes, 80% is naturally occurring (i.e. extracted from oil and gas production) and 20% is extracted from crude oil in the refining process. Australia's production of LPG is projected to grow to 5,024 kt by 2020.


----------



## theasxgorilla (14 July 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> 1, whats stopping you converting.




LPG doesn't appear to be widely available in Europe.


----------



## wayneL (14 July 2008)

Because it's crap.

Diesel is the better option.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (14 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> Because it's crap.
> 
> Diesel is the better option.




I don't know about europe but in Australia LPG is far cheaper than diesel.

and I think in todays energy market we need to spread our usage accross to the under utilised fuels such as LPG and eventually CNG.


----------



## wayneL (14 July 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> I don't know about europe but in Australia LPG is far cheaper than diesel.
> 
> and I think in todays energy market we need to spread our usage accross to the under utilised fuels such as LPG and eventually CNG.




I've had LPG vehicles for years in Oz. IMO it's crap.

You lose power, you lose efficiency, maintenance is more costly. Give me diesel any day.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (14 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> I've had LPG vehicles for years in Oz. IMO it's crap.
> 
> You lose power, you lose efficiency, maintenance is more costly. Give me diesel any day.




1, You won't notice any loss of power in the new systems

2,if by efficiency you mean you burn 25% more then yes you do,... but it is 70% cheaper,

3, In three years I havn't encountered any extra maintance costs.

If you did your sums you would see Lpg beats diesel


----------



## SevenFX (14 July 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> 1, You won't notice any loss of power in the new systems
> 
> 2,if by efficiency you mean you burn 25% more then yes you do,... but it is 70% cheaper,
> 
> ...




Have To agree with all of the above Tyson and add a few extra points.

1. Diesels engines cost an absolute fortune (8k-15k on average)to rebuild, require specialist knowledge, tools & the single rails pump systems these days are throw away and have to be sourced new at $$$.

2. Diesel fuel is still the [worst] polluting fuel out there for the masses to run on while the industry is still working on keepin 100yr old combustion engine technology running on this dirty unrefined fuel.

3. With China, India & many other under developed countries tied to this fuel only, which are willing to pay more n more so can't see diesel prices coming down in the near future.

4. Petrol engine luckly are able to be converted to lpg, cng & possibly full hydrogen one day.

SevenFX


----------



## orr (14 July 2008)

If given the choice between changing their mind or proving why they shouldn't have to, most people will go about providing proof.


----------



## robert toms (14 July 2008)

With diesel ,do you need to get the vehicle serviced every 5000 km ? If you need to this it is a disincentive?This can prove inconvenient if under the manufacturers ' warranty...especially if you do a few miles.
Is this so ,or have I got it wrong ?


----------



## wayneL (14 July 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> 2,if by efficiency you mean you burn 25% more then yes you do,... but it is 70% cheaper,



Depends where you live. If you can get LPG 70% cheaper, it's worth it. I haven't seen it 70% cheaper for years... more like 40-50% cheaper last place I lived in Oz, making it only marginal and not worth the hassle.


----------



## Muschu (14 July 2008)

In WA there is a state subsidy to add to the federal one.  I converted a commodore 10 000 km ago.  The conversion was fully covered.  Generally LPG is 65 - 70c.
Car runs fine although not as well when initially started on a cold day.
2 friends have converted their Landcruisers.  1 tows a 22' caravan without any problems.


----------



## tech/a (14 July 2008)

> If you did your sums you would see Lpg beats diesel




Dont know about that.
I have had diesel trucks with over 1 mill km on them and never pulled down.
Never seen an LPG run motor come near to that.


----------



## So_Cynical (14 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> Depends where you live. If you can get LPG 70% cheaper, it's worth it. I haven't seen it 70% cheaper for years... more like 40-50% cheaper last place I lived in Oz, making it only marginal and not worth the hassle.




I was at the servo this afternoon...metro Sydney.

Pretty sure LPG was 68 cents, and i know that petrol was $1.59 so that's about 
60% cheaper :dunno:....im hopeless at maths.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (14 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> Depends where you live. If you can get LPG 70% cheaper, it's worth it. I haven't seen it 70% cheaper for years... more like 40-50% cheaper last place I lived in Oz, making it only marginal and not worth the hassle.




At the moment in sydney LPG is steady at 69.9 cents,.... where petrol is hiting highs of $1.72...


----------



## Tysonboss1 (14 July 2008)

tech/a said:


> Dont know about that.
> I have had diesel trucks with over 1 mill km on them and never pulled down.
> Never seen an LPG run motor come near to that.




Next time you jump in a taxi check how many km's are on the clock,... alot are not far off a million k's,... But even if you did have to do so work on the engine the fact that the fuel savings are so big you will still be way ahead.

If LPG didn't stack up then the taxi's wouldn't use it.


----------



## redsmartie (14 July 2008)

The ford e-gas 6 cyl motor has the same peak torgue as petrol but a few less kilowatts power, the station wagon holds enough LPG to drive in city traffic for over 700km per fill, it makes good business sense to use LPG, what else can I say?


----------



## wayneL (14 July 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Next time you jump in a taxi check how many km's are on the clock,... alot are not far off a million k's,... But even if you did have to do so work on the engine the fact that the fuel savings are so big you will still be way ahead.
> 
> If LPG didn't stack up then the taxi's wouldn't use it.




I guess a lot depends on the use of the vehicle too. The taxi example at the fuel prices quoted is a no-brainer.

But step up into say a 4 tonne delivery vehicle... you'll never see petrol/LPG use in that instance. Diesel is the no-brainer there.

Somewhere in between the equation intersects.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (14 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> I guess a lot depends on the use of the vehicle too. The taxi example at the fuel prices quoted is a no-brainer.
> 
> But step up into say a 4 tonne delivery vehicle... you'll never see petrol/LPG use in that instance. Diesel is the no-brainer there.
> 
> Somewhere in between the equation intersects.




yeah,.. horses for courses I guess


----------



## jtb (14 July 2008)

Bloveld said:


> I could never see the point of buying a fuel injected vehicle and then basically putting a carby on it to use gas.
> Steve




You don't need to wait for DGI Bloveld, as the gas is piped just upstream of your throttle body (EFI car) and a servo motor in the gas line will be operated by the gas ECU depending on your oxygen sensors feedback.

EFI and LPG are made for each other.

Wouldn't have anything else on my work car (>800k's a week).

Also, as Tyson mentioned LPG doesn't break your oil down, foul your plugs, wipe your cylinder walls on cold starts etc etc- hence taxi's (falcons anyway) have regularly seen a million k's prior to requiring a rebuild.  

Love it.


----------



## fordxbt (14 July 2008)

jtb said:


> hence taxi's (falcons anyway) have regularly seen a million k's prior to requiring a rebuild.Love it.




and because their falcons of course


----------



## Bloveld (15 July 2008)

It looks like diesels benefit from having a little lpg injected into the air intake. Better power and economy being reported by some users.
Steve


----------



## SevenFX (15 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> But step up into say a 4 tonne delivery vehicle... you'll never see petrol/LPG use in that instance. Diesel is the no-brainer there.




No So, what of the *10-20 tonne* buses running on natural gas, using converted diesels engines

TechA you may have ridden in one of them as these are local 2 you.
http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/environment/air_greenhouse/bus_greening.asp


_Advantages_ of using natural gas are
lower cost compared to diesel
lower emissions compared to equivalent diesel buses (especially particulates, NOx, CO and HC when using catalytic converter)
lower engine noise levels
use of local fuel resulting in less reliance on imported oil
reduction in Australia’s trade deficit
80% less carbon monoxide 
59% less hydrocarbons 
89% less nitrogen oxide 
95% less particulate matter 
with 50% less noise


----------



## Buddy (15 July 2008)

wayneL, you are not correct about using gas in a "4 tonne delivery vehicle".

In fact, Wesfarmers are conducting trials on using LNG in their heavy duty transport fleet, and other heavy duty transport companies are also considering it.  As for being a no brainer, I think you will find that LNG becomes part of the heavy duty transport fleet in Australia within a matter of years, if not now as in the case of Wesfarmers.

You might also want to think about buying shares in Wesfarmers, as their ideas on heavy duty transport have the potential to make Wesfarmers larger than some of the multi-national oil companies.  You might find in the future, that Wesfarmers will have the entire supply chain for gas powered vehicles within their reach.  If I worked for Wesfarmers, that would be my goal, anyway.

But back on the topic about converting to LNG;  I know a lot of people have converted to LNG but my view is that I think I will sidestep the LPG route. I believe the near term future should be to go straight to CNG powered vehicles.  If I could buy one now, I probably would.  Let me put the arguments in point fashion because there are lots of things to consider when using CNG:-

1) As I said above, heavy duty vehicles are already using natural gas, albeit in the higher energy density form of LNG. But it's still the same stuff.  Why use gas? Because it is much cheaper than diesel, much cleaner (from an environmental view), provides less engine wear, and in the form on LNG can allow large distance travel.  Wesfarmers are have already commissioned a small scale LNG plant at Kwinana, and are looking to install mini LNG plants all over the country.

2) As for motor vehicles, they way to go here is purchase factory made CNG vehicles rather than do the conversion.  It willl be cheaper to buy the factory made vehicle, and besides it is a totally engineered and integrated vehicle. Problem in Australia is, where to buy one? As far as I know it is not possible at the moment. Honda make one (Civic GX) as does Toyota (Camry) but they are not available in Australia yet.  This is where we need to get those dumb politicans such as krudd a parret, er garret, off there fat ar.....s, and do something real. Instead of of swanning around at talkfests, or taxing the blood out of people with this stupid ETS, they should be pressuring  and motivating car companies to introduce this technology into Australia. The polies really are dumb people, but dont get me going, I digress.

3) Yes, OK CNG cars do not have the same range as petrol (its about 1/3 to 1/2 currently.  But when you look at it, CNG is a perfect short term solution to city driving. And when Wesfarmers, or a company like that, set up a distribution hub, CNG will be viable for a most country (except remote) travel as well.

4) Now for the big advantage with CNG.  For city drivers where there is a town gas distribution network, you can fill up at home overnight.  There is a home fill up unit (Phill) available in the USA and Canada right now that can fill up your tank overnight.  I understand this unit is going to be introduced into Australia very shortly.  A bit expensive to install (maybe around $3-4K) and will need government assistance/rebates to get going. Plus may need some upgrade to town gas distribution networks, especially if everyone takes it up - more government help required.  But that's what the're supposed to be there for.

So the jigsaw is almost there.  We need the car companies to be prodded into supplying CNG cars to the Australian market. Why didn't krudd push this instead of giving away $35mill to Toyota for a technology that will probably not be viable long term? I cannot see hybrid cars as being the solution short term, let alone long term.  And the money should have gone to component vehicle infrastructure and smart ideas rather then a component assembler (ie Toyota).  The other thing krudd and parret should do is introduce rebates for CNG home fill up units, and remember to unshackle yourself from ALP dogma of envy and punishment of the wealthy ($150K per year is rich???? and those filthy rich people dont work either, and they obviously dont pollute). Yeah, I know the great unwashed Australia think krudd, parret, swan, giblet, etc, are really nice people. But really they are proving that they couldnt organise a p...up in a pub, let alone solve the fuel crisis/waste of materials/sustainability/greenhouse gas issue thing. Show some leadership you dicks, introduce CNG vehicle technology into Australia.  Off me soapbox now. 

Yes, until hydrogen powered vehicles (either internal combustion, or fuel cell) are available, using hydrogen generated by nuclear or fusion reactors situated in integrated chlor alkali & petrochemical industrial centres is available, I reckon CNG is the way to go.

So guys, there is a window of opportunity here.  Go CNG, and you will get really cheap fuel for a few years until the parasite polies jack up the fuel tax on natural gas.  And that is going to be really interesting to see how they do it, because they will also be taxing fuel used to cook the evening meal.  That should go down well.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 July 2008)

Buddy, isn`t LNG only for transporting/moving the gas (it`s cooled) and then has to be changed back to natural gas for use.
It is only liquefied for transporting.


----------



## subaru69 (15 July 2008)

I wonder if they'll want to convert these??

Ford seems fairly proud of the fuel economy on it's new V8.

http://www.fpv.com.au/fpv-range/gt/overview.aspx

_The GT is powered by the upgraded 5.4-litre Boss V8 engine, producing 315kW of power at 6,500rpm and 551Nm of torque at 4,750rpm.  Most importantly, the increased power *does not compromise on fuel economy* and in automatic guise; the GT *boasts fuel economy figures of 14L/100km *(ADR 81/01) a decrease in fuel consumption of 4.8 percent over the previous BF MKII model._

:knightrid


----------



## Buddy (15 July 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Buddy, isn`t LNG only for transporting/moving the gas (it`s frozen) and then has to be changed back to natural gas for use.
> It is only liquefied for transporting.




W, yes you are correct, although the gas is not "frozen", it's in a liquid state. Wesfarmers are building these mini LNG plants, to enable the gas to be transported to other sites (without using a pipeline).  Those sites are currently power stations (what a waste of gas, anyway............) and hubs for gas powered trucks, and maybe even trains.  My understanding of the heavy vehicles is that they actually have LNG on board as the fuel source. I think they are using the Cummins Westport ISL G engine.

This country has an abundance of natural gas but not much oil.  If we are going to be a smart country (now where have I heard that before?), we can move to a gas driven economy relatively easily and quickly.  It can be a combination of LPG (although that cannot be the overall solution), LNG & CNG (and of course oil based fuels will still be around for quite some time).  At least in the short term, until the science and technology catches up with other long term viable solutions. But above all, it will need leadership from government, and quite frankly the current one has demonstrated that they are not the one.


----------



## numbercruncher (15 July 2008)

The major reason I havnt yet converted is that it voids my manufactorer warranty ....... and I dont currently do enough klms to benefit from voiding this warrantly and save enough on LPG price .....


Seems my equation has the potential to change rapidly so we will see !


----------



## gfresh (15 July 2008)

tysonboss1 said:
			
		

> At the moment in sydney LPG is steady at 69.9 cents,.... where petrol is hiting highs of $1.72...




Similar for Brisbane.. ULP $1.519 L ..  LPG steady 68.9c. Massive difference. 



> So the jigsaw is almost there. We need the car companies to be prodded into supplying CNG cars to the Australian market. Why didn't krudd push this instead of giving away $35mill to Toyota for a technology that will probably not be viable long term? I cannot see hybrid cars as being the solution short term, let alone long term.




Not many major manufacturers are doing it for passenger vehicles, and god forbid our manufacturers to do anything innovative! Most of the cars "made" here are really just parted from the overseas parts bin and assembled here, so I can see the reluctance on their side.

CNG has some problems, in terms of efficiency it's energy per mass is a fair bit lower than LPG. It goes something like Diesel > Petrol > LPG > CNG...  CNG is methane, whereas LPG is propane & butane, so there are some differences. 

Ideally you'd have CNG/electric hybrid.. perfectly possible, and could result in costs of literally $10 a week for many hundreds of kilometers. Of course gumbyment wouldn't collect many taxes then - can't see them being that keen (this is the very sad thing about the western economies these days). 

There is some hope though, I read something over in the US the other day regarding CNG being considered over there. So no doubt if they lead, we'll follow  CNG is also utilised heavily in South America - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas

Korea is also big on LPG apparently, and a hybrid LPG/electric will be released over there soon, and talk is that it will be sold here. That may be the best for the moment unless CNG is pushed.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 July 2008)

jtb said:


> hence taxi's (falcons anyway) have regularly seen a million k's prior to requiring a rebuild.



If it were compared to any piece of industrial machinery we'd routinely see 6 million km for the vehicle life before a major rebuild and the standard servie (ie _check_ the oil, not necessarily replace it) would be 100,000 km. 

Diesel engines in power stations, ships, locomotives etc routinely last for decades, often running thousands of hours per year or even 24/7.

That's not an argument against LPG, I'm just saying that car engines (and for that matter the entire car) are in general mass produced throw away items not built to last. 20 years old and that's about it usually. Given that it spends most of that time sitting there doing nothing, that's not really a very long lifespan.


----------



## prawn_86 (15 July 2008)

gfresh said:


> Korea is also big on LPG apparently, and a hybrid LPG/electric will be released over there soon, and talk is that it will be sold here. That may be the best for the moment unless CNG is pushed.




Im in Korea at the moment and have to say that diesel is probably the fuel of choice, especially where i am as there are so many trucks.

LPG is slowly coming into vougue, but i wouldnt say anymore so than in Aus


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 July 2008)

Bloveld said:


> It looks like diesels benefit from having a little lpg injected into the air intake. Better power and economy being reported by some users.
> Steve



Dual fuel engine. Run up to 93% gas and the remainder diesel - both fuels used at the same time. Acheives efficiency higher than a straight gas engine but the downside is needing two fuels at once. Usually used for stationary applications - power generation etc.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 July 2008)

Buddy said:


> W, yes you are correct, although the gas is not "frozen", it's in a liquid state. Wesfarmers are building these mini LNG plants, to enable the gas to be transported to other sites (without using a pipeline).  Those sites are currently power stations (*what a waste of gas*, anyway............)



The great problem with gas is that we're so busy burning it all for power generation that there won't be enough left to use it to replace petrol and diesel as well.

Industry may well talk of 100 years of reserves etc. But look at how much they're planning to export plus the boom in gas-fired power generation and it's nowhere near such an abundant resource relative to proposed extraction rates.

Depending on which study you look at, we're somewhere around 20 years from peak gas in Australia. Quite a few others have already peaked - for example US, Canada, UK, NZ. 

I think we'll see the future of gas pricing as that of a petrol substitute rather than the coal substitute that many see it as today. That'll give us another energy price crisis - gas and electricity for home and business use as well as transport fuels.


----------



## Bloveld (15 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Dual fuel engine. Run up to 93% gas and the remainder diesel - both fuels used at the same time. Acheives efficiency higher than a straight gas engine but the downside is needing two fuels at once. Usually used for stationary applications - power generation etc.




Plenty of diesel vehicles are getting LPG injection. Mostly 4X4 but some commercial trials. And its primarily diesel with a small amount of LPG injected.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (16 July 2008)

Buddy said:


> My understanding of the heavy vehicles is that they actually have LNG on board as the fuel source. :




That would make sense,.... LNG has to be kept cold to stop it expanding back into a gas, In the big lng ships they have a slow release value that slowly lets gas escape which as most people that have worked with gas bottles know causes cooling of the cylinder,.... this small leakage is then burned to power the ship and further refrigerate the tank so it is not wasted.


----------



## aleckara (16 July 2008)

gfresh said:


> Similar for Brisbane.. ULP $1.519 L ..  LPG steady 68.9c. Massive difference.
> 
> 
> CNG has some problems, in terms of efficiency it's energy per mass is a fair bit lower than LPG. It goes something like Diesel > Petrol > LPG > CNG...  CNG is methane, whereas LPG is propane & butane, so there are some differences.
> ...





I'm waiting for that hybrid or a plug in one before I buy my first car. I'm going to drive the bomb I got for free until that time. I don't want to buy any 'petrol' car.

And no CNG is probably the most efficient with petrol being the least efficient. The main problem is that engines converted to CNG, LPG or whatever don't have their engine reworked to improve efficiency. You need to change the timing yes, but to get the full benefits you also need to increase the engine compression ratio significantly particuarly on CNG. Higher compression ratio = greater efficiency. Most conversions don't bother disassembing and reworking the engine to do so because it would be highly expensive. If cars were sold and designed for CNG originally however....

The advantage of diesel is that has a different method of lighting fuel such that the max compression ratio is always close to being achieved. Mercedes Benz has adapted the compression ignition of a diesel in petrol engines recently as well.


----------



## Buddy (16 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> The great problem with gas is that we're so busy burning it all for power generation that there won't be enough left to use it to replace petrol and diesel as well.
> 
> Industry may well talk of 100 years of reserves etc. But look at how much they're planning to export plus the boom in gas-fired power generation and it's nowhere near such an abundant resource relative to proposed extraction rates.
> 
> ...





Couldn't agree more Smurf. I think its wrong policy to use gas for power generation, and even worse for heat generation in industrial processes (e.g. Alumina industry).  It's far to valuable to send up the chimney stack.  Should be used as feedstock for petrochemical, and as I have advocated, as a transportation fuel.  But I doubt if there will be any change and Asia will still be plundering our (and others) gas reserves and sending it up chimneys, leading to the next energy crisis.

In the meantime, I still want to buy a CNG factory made car such as the Civic GX, and fill it up using towngas at home.  And instead of fluffing around like krudd and parret, have the government show some leadership on this issue. But they are so dumb I dont think the can grasp that there is a viable solution (yes OK, short term, but it gives us time to work on the long term solution) right in front of their noses, that can be implemented now.  I digress, but I think they are total idiots and I dont think Garnaut is far behind (why have we got an economist driving this highly technical debate).  I am hardly surprised that all he can come up with is another level of taxation that will probably destroy the Australian economy, will achive absolutely zip in the total world CO2 level, and force people to become cave dwelling luddites.


----------



## Buddy (16 July 2008)

aleckara said:


> I'm waiting for that hybrid or a plug in one before I buy my first car. I'm going to drive the bomb I got for free until that time. I don't want to buy any 'petrol' car.
> 
> And no CNG is probably the most efficient with petrol being the least efficient. The main problem is that engines converted to CNG, LPG or whatever don't have their engine reworked to improve efficiency. You need to change the timing yes, but to get the full benefits you also need to increase the engine compression ratio significantly particuarly on CNG. Higher compression ratio = greater efficiency. Most conversions don't bother disassembing and reworking the engine to do so because it would be highly expensive. If cars were sold and designed for CNG originally however....
> 
> The advantage of diesel is that has a different method of lighting fuel such that the max compression ratio is always close to being achieved. Mercedes Benz has adapted the compression ignition of a diesel in petrol engines recently as well.




Alec,
If you have a look at my posts you will see that I am pushing CNG factory made cars. Definitely not conversions - bad idea.  They already exist (Honda Civic GX and Toyota Camry) but not in Australia. That's what has to change.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (16 July 2008)

Buddy said:


> Couldn't agree more Smurf. I think its wrong policy to use gas for power generation, and even worse for heat generation in industrial processes (e.g. Alumina industry).  It's far to valuable to send up the chimney stack. .




Gas combined cycle plants operate at about 60% efficiency, so it's one of the best ways to make electricity, I think the internal combustion engine operates at 6%.

If we used electric cars it would be far mor efficient to burn the gas in a combined cycle plant then charge electric cars than burn the gas in a internal combustion engine to power the car directly you would lose about 10% efficiancy in transmission and charging but 50% is still far better than 6%.

Electric cars are a few years off but.


----------



## Buddy (16 July 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Gas combined cycle plants operate at about 60% efficiency, so it's one of the best ways to make electricity, I think the internal combustion engine operates at 6%.
> 
> If we used electric cars it would be far mor efficient to burn the gas in a combined cycle plant then charge electric cars than burn the gas in a internal combustion engine to power the car directly you would lose about 10% efficiancy in transmission and charging but 50% is still far better than 6%.
> 
> Electric cars are a few years off but.




Yes, I agree about the efficiency of gas cogen (but depends on whether you live in the North or South i.e. temperature). Not sure about the 6% for internal combustion though - maybe someone else has that number at their fingure tips.  But using gas for power generation, in my view, is the wrong way to go, especially for base load even if it is cogen. 

I think you are saying that generating electricity using gas, and then having electric cars is more efficient that just using gas directly in the vehicle. I'm not sure I can comment on that because it's a very complex issue - cost of infrastructure, life cycle cost of batteries, blah blah. You may be right though.  But I guess the point is that, it would take quite some time to build the cogen plants, plus electric vehicles still have some way to go before they are viable.  Gas powered cars are available now (but not in Oz), the gas is available (unless you live in WA, such as I do - ha ha) via towngas reticulation, and Wesfarmers are building mini LNG plants already to allow for country distribution. It's all there! Almost! Except for the government!


----------



## SevenFX (16 July 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> I think the internal combustion engine operates at 6%.




I thought they were much more effecient, more like 43%, but a quick search suggest the are more like 20-25% effecient.

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/Sarah_Carter/


----------



## Tysonboss1 (17 July 2008)

SevenFX said:


> I thought they were much more effecient, more like 43%, but a quick search suggest the are more like 20-25% effecient.
> 
> http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/Sarah_Carter/




The engine its self may operate at 20% but the is no way the car over the average trip will maintain over 20% efficency,... you have to factor in energy lost during braking and idling.

For example from the moment you switch your car on the engine is working at about 20% efficiancy, meaning 20% of the energy in the fuel is being used for mechanical work, the other 80% is being lost in heat, sound, friction etc,etc. however even though the engine is working at 20% you havn't even put it in gear yet so at this stage the car is operating at 0% because none of the fuel being used while you sit there idling is getting you to your destination.

once you accelerate away the engine is still working at 20% as you approach 70km/hr, but then you see a red light so you step on the brake there fore losing all that energy(fuel) that you spent to get to that speed, you then sit there at 0% efficiany while you wait for the light to turn green... so overall with all the braking and idling your effiancy would drop below 10%.

An electric car however doesn't sit there idling the electric motor won't draw power till you need to move,... and when you step on the brake, using regenerative braking it recaptures some of the energy back into the battery,.... also as mentioned earlier instead of burning the fuel in a 20% efficant combustion engine you are burning it is a highly efficiant combined cycle plant, so not only are you getting a larger amount of useful energy from the fuel in the first place but in an electric car you would be getting much better use out of the energy.


----------

