Extend Diesel Fuel with Natural Gas for Savings

Save up to 30% on farm diesel bill by blending natural gas into intake air.
Compiled by Farm Futures staff
Published: Oct 14, 2011

C&E Clean Energy Solutions is marketing add-on kits for stationary diesel engines that make it possible to blend less-costly natural gas into the fuel mix and save money on diesel fuel.

Brian Carpenter, the “C” in C&E Clean Energy Solutions, says by running a diesel on a blend of 50% to 70% natural gas, the diesel fuel bill can be reduced by 30%.

“The engine is started on diesel fuel and brought up to operating temperature, then the natural gas supply is turned on. Our kit draws natural gas directly from the pipeline that feeds it through a nozzle into the engine’s intake system based on the engine’s manifold vacuum.

Blending natural gas into the intake air stream of a stationary diesel engine is a simple and money-saving possibility with Clean Energy Solution’s new fueling kit.

“Because compression heat alone is not enough to reliably ignite natural gas, a reduced amount of diesel is injected at the top of the compression stroke to complete the ignition and combustion of the air/natural gas/diesel mixture. The engine’s governor automatically meters the diesel fuel at a dramatically reduced rate,” he explains.

The kits work on both naturally-aspirated and turbo-charged engines, and allow the operator to run the engine on straight diesel or a diesel/natural gas blend to take advantage of any fluctuations in fuel prices. Continue reading

German Company designs LNG dual-fuel LNG transport vessels

Hamburg’s TECHNOLOG, as a partner of the German engineering alliance IPP, develops the first LNG-Dual-Fuel powered offshore transport vessel for JIANGSU HANTONG SHIP HEAVY INDUSTRY.

This means that the ship can be operated both with conventional fuels as well as with very environmentally friendly LNG (liquid natural gas). The corresponding contract has now been signed. Project-related co-operation agreements were made with engine manufacturer MAN Diesel & Turbo as well as with the classification society Germanischer Lloyd. The new ship design will reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by around 33 per cent compared to conventional powered new constructions.

“With our support, the HANTONG Group will be able to offer a technologically first-class vessel to the world market that also meets the most stringent international regulations on environmental protection”, explains Hans-Jürgen Voigt, Managing Director of TECHNOLOG. Continue reading

Will New York Ever Allow Hydraulic Fracturing?

The New York Post asks a good question today about hydraulic fracturing:

Will hydraulic fracturing ever come to New York?

And if it does, will it be sufficiently commonplace to actually boost Upstate’s sadly dilapidated economy?

These are fair questions — given that the Cuomo administration has slowed the approval process for the controversial natural-gas-extraction method to a crawl.

And now comes word, via a careful leak to The New York Times, that Team Cuomo is pushing a plan that would severely limit both the number of drilling permits and their location to just a few counties.

And even that assumes that the process itself is approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation — which is still a mighty big if.

The article notes rightly that many depressed counties are missing out on a huge economic boom that would almost certainly result from the dwilling of wells, “Meanwhile, Upstate remains in desperate need of the economic revival that a vigorous fracking effort would bring.”
You can read the full article here.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/an_endless_stall_5jsbpf6lPgHmyPLqN7eIjN#ixzz1xnKPG8tS

Economic Impact of the Fayetteville Shale

The report says Fayetteville Shale activities of the oil and gas industry have been important to Arkansas because:

  • Average annual pay in the oil and gas extraction industry was $74,555 in 2010, twice the average pay of all industries in the state.
  • Mineral leases and royalty payments provide additional income to Arkansas residents. The study says that over the 2008-2011 period more than $1.2 billion in mineral
  • Continue reading

So Is There a CNG Station Near Me?

With all the interest generated by the Powerstroke CNG conversion project, some are wondering how and where they can buy compressed natural gas. Is there a CNG station near you?

Maybe. CNG Now! has an excellent site that shows you where every publicly available CNG fast fill station is in the whole United States.  There’s also an iPhone app and an Android app.

The Department of Energy also maintains a page with a list of both public and private stations, as well as those that are in the planning stage.

If not, you still have options. Home, business, or farm-based compression means that the investment in a CNG conversion will take a bit more time to pay for itself, but it still makes financial sense for a lot of individuals, businesses, and farms. The gas from one of these small compressors usually costs around half of the price of CNG at a public access station, and the slower fill times mean a more complete fill every time. C&E Clean Energy Solutions can help you decide if a small compressor makes financial sense for you. Contact them today.

Utility company execs see electricity rates rising

In a study by the construction firm Black & Veatch, utility executives see electricity rates rising:

Over 90% of the executives surveyed believe that rules requiring the use of more renewable energy and a cut in pollution from coal-fired power plants will lead to higher monthly utility bills for consumers.

Over half said these bills will rise significantly.

No definition of “slightly” or “significantly” was provided in the study. But Black & Veatch said “slightly” in industry parlance usually means a 1% to 3% increase, while significantly could mean up to 10% or so.

The executives surveyed also believe that the new rules on hydraulic fracturing will not cause a significant increase in natural gas prices. Continue reading

CNG and LNG vehicles see increased demand in U.S. and Canada

A recently completed analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Market found that while there are cost and infrastructure challenges to the broader use of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) vehicles, demand for natural gas vehicles has increased.

Using 2009 numbers, it was found that the amount of natural gas demanded for transportation use is 3.2 billion cubic feet, the equivalent of 27.7 million gallons of gasoline.

The analysis, conducted by TIAX, LLC, is a thorough and independent assessment of the key technical, economic, regulatory, social, and political factors and challenges that shape the market for natural gas vehicles. This week, the first portions of TIAX’s analysis addressing CNG and LNG Infrastructure were released and can be found on ANGA’s website.

The report sections on CNG and LNG infrastructure are the most comprehensive and technical assessments about the current state of CNG and LNG transportation. In these sections, TIAX confronts the “chicken and the egg” conversations about natural gas vehicles; namely, do we need more natural gas vehicles to spur infrastructure development or do we need more infrastructure to be developed so that more natural gas vehicles can be put to use?

Read more here.

Canada and U.S. go in opposite directions on energy

The Institute for Energy Research explains today how Canada and the U.S. are going in opposite directions on energy policy. Here are a few of the highlights:

  1. Canada is increasing oil production rapidly:

    One of the largest positive forces driving Canada’s economy is oil production and a recent oil production forecast from an analyst at CIBC World Markets captures show just how much oil production could increase. This latest forecast of Alberta oil sands production of 4.1 million barrels per day by 2020 is higher than the forecast made by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) that expected a more modest increase of 1.4 million barrels per day, reaching a total of 3 million barrels per day by 2020. But, just using the CAPP forecast, industry and government analysts expect Canadian oil production to bump up against current pipeline capacity by 2015 or 2016.

  2. Canada is building new pipeline infrastructure, for example:

    Enbridge is planning to spend C$3.2 billion ($3.15 billion) on pipeline expansions, mostly to get oil from Alberta and North Dakota to refineries in the U.S. Midwest and in Eastern Canada. East coast refineries are currently fed by foreign oil , which are more expensive than U.S. benchmark prices. According to Stephen Wuori, the head of Enbridge’s liquids pipeline business, “Refineries in Ontario and Quebec are paying premiums of $20 per barrel or more to obtain crude oil from the foreign sources they are currently largely dependent on. Access to Canadian and U.S. Bakken production will help level the playing field for these refineries, protecting their long term viability and safeguarding jobs.” The expansions are expected to be completed in 2014

  3. Continue reading

Should the U.S. export Nat Gas?

Ezra Klein at The Washington Post had a post on his Wonkblog this week that asked whether we should be exporting our natural gas reserves as LNG to the rest of the world. Here are some of the pros and cons:

As the Council of Foreign Relations’ Michael Levi has argued, boosting natural-gas exports could have both ups and downs. On the beneficial side, the United States could strategically use its gas to help Europe wean itself off its dependence on Russian exports. What’s more, other countries might find better opportunities to displace oil with natural gas than the United States can, which, in turn, could put much-needed downward pressure on world oil prices.

On the minus side, Levi notes, making U.S. natural gas more expensive could also make it harder for the United States to tackle climate change at home — after all, cheap natural gas is expected to displace some 9 percent of U.S. coal demand by 2035. That, in turn, would make it even less likely that the United States plays a crucial leading role in averting drastic climate change.

What do you think?