

Car CNG conversion licenses cost $10k from the EPA - paddy_m
http://gas2.org/2009/07/31/natural-gas-conversions-could-cost-a-couple-hundred/

======
ams6110
The existence of absurd EPA regulations is not a surprise. However the claim
that a car can be converted to CNG for "a few hundred dollars in parts and
labor" is unbelievable. You can't just throw a couple of barbeque grill tanks
in the trunk. A DOT-approved CNG tank will be roughly $2000 - $3000 all by
itself, based on prices at <http://www.cngconversionsonline.com/>

Add in other parts and labor and I'd ballpark it at around $5,000 minimum. And
it has to be done properly: you don't want a CNG leak in your garage
overnight. Some sort of certification of installers is warranted.

~~~
dchest
It costs "a few hundred dollars in parts and labor" in Moscow, Russia ($400
[Lada] - $1500 [Chevrolet Suburban], Russian, Polish, and Italian parts),
based on price lists on the web. Labor is cheaper here, but it takes from 4
(most cases) to 12 (non-standard cases) hours to install.

~~~
khafra
You're also probably ok without an EPA license in Russia or India. The
complaint's probably valid in the context where it matters. But either way--
taxing 300% or 3,000%--that's a travesty for an organization that's
purportedly dedicated to preserving the environment.

~~~
FraaJad
New vehicles in India have to confirm to a Euro IV emission standards
(equivalent).

GM sells an LPG version of a small city car in India [1]. Just so that you
understand the level of market awareness and "capitalism" in play.

[1] [http://indianautosblog.com/2009/06/chevrolet-spark-lpg-
launc...](http://indianautosblog.com/2009/06/chevrolet-spark-lpg-launched-in-
delhi-price-and-specification)

------
bioweek
Why would natural gas make less carbon emissions?

~~~
mmt
Short answer: because it has a lower carbon:hydrogen ratio.

NG is mostly methane (minimum 88% if I recall the stickers on the PG&E
"pumps"), with 1 carbon and 4 hydrogens. The rest is made up primarily of also
fairly short (2-4 carbon) chain hydrocarbons.

Traditional gasoline is heptane (7 carbon) and octane (8 carbon).

Methane's ratio is 0.25.

Heptane's ratio is 0.4375, and octane's is 0.4444. (Longer chains
asymptotically approach 0.5).

~~~
ams6110
But, you'll burn more methane than gasoline to get the same energy. I wonder
how close it ends up in reality.

~~~
mmt
Acutally, it's the other way around.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent#cite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent#cite_note-0)

CNG is 5.660 pounds (2.567kg) per GGE.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Density>

Gasoline is 6.073 pounds (2.755kg) per gallon.

I get the same economy (30-33 mpgge) in my Civic GX as in my gasoline Civic.

However, let's compare carbons based on molar mass (16.042 g/mol for methane
and 100.21 g/mol for heptane and octane is 114.23g/mol). That's 160 moles of
methane per GGE and 27.5 moles of heptane per gallon. That's a ratio of
160:192 of carbons. For octane, that's 24 moles per gallon, about the same
ratio. It's not 1:4, granted, but these are just hand-wavey approximations for
the gasoline, which has the added complication of ethanol. I'm also assuming
_complete_ burning, which is patently false, considering that, before modern
emissions controls, it was possible to commit suicide by carbon monoxide
poisoning from engine exhaust.

Edit: Molar mass

