JoeyM
JoeyM SuperDork
3/7/11 5:33 p.m.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110301122045.htm ScienceDaily (Mar. 5, 2011) — A pioneering program by one of the world's largest cities to switch its vehicle fleet to clean fuel has not significantly improved harmful vehicle emissions in more than 5,000 vehicles -- and worsened some vehicles' climate impacts -- a new University of British Columbia study finds.

[...]

Of the city's more than 5,000 auto-rickshaws with two-stroke engines -- a common form of transportation in Asia and Africa -- the study found that CNG produced only minor reductions in emissions that cause air pollution and an increase in emissions that negatively impact climate change. According to the researchers, the New Delhi's program could have achieved greater emission reductions at a cheaper price by simply upgrading two-stroke models to the cleaner, more fuel-efficient four-stroke variety. "Our study demonstrates the importance of engine type when adopting clean fuels," says lead author and UBC post-doctoral fellow Conor Reynolds. "Despite switching to CNG, two-stroke engine auto-rickshaws in Delhi still produce similar levels of particulate matter per kilogram of fuel to a diesel bus -- and their climate impacts are worse than before."
triumph5
triumph5 Dork
3/7/11 5:40 p.m.

and

JoeyM
JoeyM SuperDork
3/7/11 6:09 p.m.
The study finds that as much as one third of CNG is not properly burned in two-stroke engines, producing high emissions of methane, a major greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. CNG use also produced substantial emissions of high particulate matter from unburned lubricating oil, which can appear as blue smoke.
aircooled
aircooled SuperDork
3/7/11 6:11 p.m.

Two strokes suck at emissions... this is surprising news?

JoeyM
JoeyM SuperDork
3/7/11 6:23 p.m.

no, not at all. The mention of the oil, especially, was "same old, same old" If there's any surprise, it is that there's no magic bullet to change the situation

NGTD
NGTD HalfDork
3/7/11 7:49 p.m.

There was an article just recently in the Toronto Star that most retail CNG locations in Ontario have closed.

I think there are two left.

Storage is a bugger and the only way to take advantage of the strengths of CNG (140 Octane) is dedicated CNG, but they lack range and obviously now fueling stations.

z31maniac
z31maniac SuperDork
3/8/11 5:47 a.m.

CNG also has less BTU's per gallon equivalent as well, correct?

I'm just making these numbers up

So if it gets 20% less emissions, but you have to burn 20% more.......you aren't really getting anything out of the switch. Other than in the US we have a ton of natural gas.

pilotbraden
pilotbraden HalfDork
3/8/11 7:35 a.m.

I read in a newspaper last week that it takes $30 of CNG make the same BTUs as a barrel of oil.

alfadriver
alfadriver SuperDork
3/8/11 7:41 a.m.
pilotbraden wrote: I read in a newspaper last week that it takes $30 of CNG make the same BTUs as a barrel of oil.

A barrell? At today's $$, that's $30 of CNG up against ~$100 of crude oil. CNG needs a lot less work to use, too.

Seems low.

On a "GHG" tangent, what makes CNG tough is that it has a lot of methane in it. Which is a much worse GHG than CO2 is. In theory. So in the two stroke case, even if the CO2 was equal, the unburnt Methane is very bad. in theory.

CNG in 4 strokes are a good thing. Which is a better solution in many, many ways (the 4 stroke part, that is).

gimpstang
gimpstang New Reader
3/8/11 10:57 a.m.

ummm .. CNG is methane

NGTD
NGTD HalfDork
3/8/11 12:39 p.m.
gimpstang wrote: ummm .. CNG is methane

Well, not exactly - there are still trace elements of heavier hydrocarbons in CNG. It is about 94-95% methane.

alfadriver
alfadriver SuperDork
3/8/11 2:28 p.m.
NGTD wrote:
gimpstang wrote: ummm .. CNG is methane
Well, not exactly - there are still trace elements of heavier hydrocarbons in CNG. It is about 94-95% methane.

and 95-100% is a lot.

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
dgYUuMWf0SdL6rDhLx0MYhVrd3NBuP1QNQLcgDOjnexCbOfHEY8Fn0ArVJbI9msh