Comments on: Green by Necessity

Green by Necessity

Afroblanco — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:55:29 -0800

Green by Necessity : Armenia is blazing a trail in the move to cleaner fuels -- but not by choice.

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:03:02 -0800

The transport ministry estimates that between 20 and 30 percent of vehicles in Armenia run on natural gas. That compares to just over 3 percent in the Netherlands, a front-runner in gas-powered transport, according to the World LP Gas Association.

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:04:11 -0800

So the cost of oil products has gone up in Armenia, causing businesses to look for cheaper fuels? That seems like a textbook illustration of a basic economic concept. What's the big deal?

By: wumpus

wumpus — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:07:03 -0800

At first I read Armenia as America. It was quite a shock.

By: Steven C. Den Beste

Steven C. Den Beste — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:51:16 -0800

They're switching from use of petroleum (from out of the ground) to the use of natural gas (from out of the ground). How is that "greener"? It's still fossil fuel.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:58:29 -0800

Steven Beste, you old greenie. You're right of course. Switching from petrol to LPG is fundamentally about price, not being clean or renewable.

By: reklaw

reklaw — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 05:13:30 -0800

It does go to show, though, that as soon as one fuel becomes uneconomic, the switch to another isn't that painful. It will happen sooner or later with the switch from fossil fuels to green -- it'll be about price, nothing more, nothing less.

By: eustatic

eustatic — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 11:52:43 -0800

It will happen sooner or later with the switch from fossil fuels to green -- it'll be about price, nothing more, nothing less. ...when you find the magic green fuel that doesn't require us to overhaul the fuel-delivery infrastructure. And there is so much economic information not in the price.

By: TheOnlyCoolTim

TheOnlyCoolTim — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 14:06:38 -0800

How is that "greener"? It's still fossil fuel. Natural gas produces less pollution, I believe. There's still carbon emissions and peak natural gas to deal with.

By: ryanrs

ryanrs — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:51:26 -0800

Natural gas has a higher hydrogen/carbon ratio than gasoline or diesel. So for a given heat output, burning natural gas releases less carbon dioxide and more water. Also, an internal combustion engine fueled by natural gas may produce fewer non-carbon dioxide pollutants than a similar engine fueled by gasoline. (But I'm not certain this is true).

By: Western Infidels

Western Infidels — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:44:26 -0800

It does go to show, though, that as soon as one fuel becomes uneconomic, the switch to another isn't that painful. I would look at this the other way; this changeover is happening in Armenia because its particular circumstances make it relatively painless. Armenia is small, which makes fuel distribution easier. Armenia happens to be awash in NG, which makes it cheap. Armenia probably has a higher percentage of fleet vehicles (taxis, busses) on the road than richer Western countries, and fleet vehicles are uniquely well-suited to using alternative fuels. And it just so happens that converting a gasoline engine to run on CNG is pretty simple; in fact, many fleet vehicles in the US have been using CNG fuel for years. Those factors don't all apply to a project like converting a significant portion of US autos to CNG, alcohol, hydrogen, bio-diesel, etc. Unfortunately, the fact that Armenia is having an easy time of this doesn't imply that anyone else will.

By: ryanrs

ryanrs — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:25:57 -0800

In California, the residential natural gas network is about as extensive as the sewer network. Is the situation much different in other states? Natural gas fueling stations in California.