Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Supply and Demand (Score 1) 377

by wmaker (#39193631) Attached to: US Wants Natural Gas As Major Auto Fuel Option

let's say for a second CNG is adopted and prices rise to a gasoline equivalent price, but also we've eliminated our dependence on opec oil, created american jobs, and are using a cleaner fuel... is that a wash? or a success for America? I say a success. But to answer your question more directly, there is an incredible supply of Nat Gas under our feet here in US shale formations. Horizontal drilling and frac techology have opened a whole new world for us. That is why natural gas prices dropped from $16/mcf in 2008 to around $2.50/mcf today! This is just simply because the industry did too good a job at extracting gas and showing the supply abundance in proven and unproven reserves.

Comment: Re:Oh Frack! (Score 1) 377

by wmaker (#39192971) Attached to: US Wants Natural Gas As Major Auto Fuel Option

CNG is safer

"Although CNG is a flammable gas, it has a narrow flammability range, making it an inherently safe fuel. Strict safety standards make CNG vehicles as safe as gasoline-powered vehicles. In the event of a spill or accidental release, CNG poses no threat to land or water; it is non- toxic. CNG also disperses rapidly, minimizing ignition risk relative to gasoline. Natural gas is lighter than air and will not pool as a liquid or vapor on the ground. Nevertheless, leaks indoors may form a flammable mixture in the vicinity of an ignition source. CNG is primarily methane, however, which is a greenhouse gas that could contribute to global cli- mate change if leaked. Methane is slightly soluble in water and under certain environmental conditions (anaerobic) does not biodegrade; if excess amounts accumulate, the gas can bubble from the water, possibly creating a risk of fire or explosion.
Reported incidences of bus fires are related to engine failures, not the use of natural gas. Natural gas buses have onboard gas detectors and other safety devices, such as tank safety valves that allow fuel flow only when the engine is keyed on. Also, the tanks must be inspected and approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation after certain periods of use.
There are some different safety concerns with CNG buses than diesel fuel buses, such as greater breaking distance due to increased fuel storage system weight. This is a relatively small concern, however, because the fuel system is a small fraction of a bus’ total weight. CNG buses also might accelerate slower than their diesel counterparts."


Comment: Re:Oh Frack! (Score 2) 377

by wmaker (#39190475) Attached to: US Wants Natural Gas As Major Auto Fuel Option

There are quite a few CNG stations and there are more and more being built every day... Here's an iphone/android app that will find one for you:

Also, here is a standard webpage that lists all CNG stations in the USA:

You don't have to have a special refueling card to pump CNG, that is just a requirement by that one PG&E facility... There are public CNG fueling stations. You don't need a class, it is pretty easy. If you can operate a propane tank for your gas grill, you can fill up your vehicle. Here is a youtube video that shows how easy it is:


Comment: Re:Oh Frack! (Score 2) 377

by wmaker (#39190353) Attached to: US Wants Natural Gas As Major Auto Fuel Option

Just the facts:

Wells have been hydraulically fractured 1.2 million times since 1948.
Critics of the frac process have found only 2 alleged cases of groundwater polutions and industry experts disagree with those 2 cases.
Tens of thousands of jobs have been created, and billions in wealth for mineral owners because of fracing.
OPEC is bad.
Home heating, plastics, steel, fertilizer, electricity, and chemical production (to name only a few) are dependent on natural gas production in the USA.
CNG is currently $1.85/gallon equivalent, the gas station next door sells unleaded for >$3.50.
CNG tanks are safer than gasoline tanks.
Pumping CNG into a car is a much more efficient process (Very little, if any waste)
You can ALREADY put a pump into your garage that will fill your CNG vehicle (depending on where you live, this cost would be as little as $0.75/gallon equiv)
Electric cars are running off energy generated at electricity plants which means you're running your car off coal or natural gas anyway. Why not cut out the middle man.
We export $1,000,000 every minute to the middle east by purchasing foreign oil.
Wind and Solar can't compete with natural gas, because they are currently economically infeasible.

These are just SOME of the facts... please research as much as you can. Opinions aren't important, only the facts.... However:

“People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe.” - Andy Rooney

Comment: Re:Horizontal drilling is not a "US-developed" ran (Score 1) 745

by wmaker (#37670936) Attached to: Oil May Be Finite, But U.S. Production Is Ramping Up

Just an addition to your already informative post... Hydraulic fracturing has been done successfully over 1 million times since 1948 in the United States alone. These wells, however, were mostly vertical. The newness is in relation to combining hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling. This relatively new combination (horizontal drilling + fracture stimulation) has been hugely successful in the Barnett, Marcellus and Haynesville Shale plays here in the United States to release natural gas from "tight rock" (low permeable shale). This isn't to say that horizontal drilling and fracture are not used in wet (oily) plays as well. Recently, 21 discovery wells drilled in the Utica (Ohio) proved that its formations hold rich deposits of oil, wet gas, and dry gas from west to east respectively. 12 of these wells were drilled horizontally, 9 vertically (all were hydraulically fractured). When wells are properly cased before hydraulic fracture stimulation is performed, it is 100% safe, and there is zero chance of a water table being contaminated. There are scare tactics put forth by those whose agenda is to go cold turkey on fossil fuels; they usually lack an understanding of the drilling/fracturing process, and are unaware that alternatives (wind, solar, etc.) are economically infeasible at this time. I have seen multiple responses to this article that are marked "interesting", "informative", and "insightful", that have no scientific basis what-so-ever. Maybe I'm begging for a 'you must be new here', but really, slashdot, we can do better.
