Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Adsorbed Natural Gas Technology

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • KSneedsCNG
    replied
    Re: Absorbed Natural Gas Technology

    See the comments to WorkTruckOnline link that says the low pressure Adsorbed Tank technology is being developed by University of Missouri at Columbia and Midwest Research Institute (Kansas City) !!! It is called ALL-CRAFT (Alliance for Collaborative Research in Alternative Fuel Technology.

    Hoorah, this might have chance of making it since Exxon is not involved !!

    http://all-craft.missouri.edu

    Leave a comment:


  • 300mileclub
    replied
    Re: Absorbed Natural Gas Technology

    ANG storage tanks being developed by EnerG2, Seattle to be tested by NW Natural, a gas utility in Oregon. NW Natural announced plans to run bench trials followed by vehicle testing:

    http://www.worktruckonline.com/chann...e-systems.aspx

    Leave a comment:


  • natgasman2014
    replied
    Re: Absorbed Natural Gas Technology

    The adsorption rate is about 4%, too low to be practical. And the real problem is in getting the gas back out. Good idea just not ready for prime time.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Mitton
    replied
    Re: Adsorbed Natural Gas Technology

    BASF made a big splash at the NGV America conference a couple of months ago with a display booth and a Class 8 tractor as shown here:
    http://www.catalysts.basf.com/p02/US...-storage/index

    They offer the tractor for over the road trucking companies to borrow so as to get empirical data on improved storage densities. They wouldn't say what improvement they are seeing but word on the street is it provides up to 15 - 20% more fuel onboard.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alaska GX
    replied
    Re: Adsorbed Natural Gas Technology

    I spoke with GTI at an LNG conference about the status in low pressure/adsorbed technology last November in Houston. Sounds like things are proceeding slowly, it's easy enough to get the gas to adsorb , harder to get it to let go when you press on the gas pedal.

    Leave a comment:


  • ibrooks54
    replied
    Re: Adsorbed Natural Gas Technology

    Any new news on absorbed natural gas (ang) or metal organic framework (mof) for increasing storage capacity of on-board cng in cars and light trucks? BASF has been in trials for over 3 years. Energtek is selling small tanks in India for 3-wheelers. I'd like to get pellets to add to my high pressure cng tank to extend the range of my Scion xB beyond 90 miles. I love this car and it runs great on cng but don't have room for another high pressure tank. Any body know how I can extend my range?

    Leave a comment:


  • cowboy
    replied
    Re: Adsorbed Natural Gas Technology

    Originally posted by KSneedsCNG View Post
    If I were to pick . . . I'd choose option D . . . ALL of The Above!!

    Need: greater storage/range , more home VRA options (faster like FMQ2-36 / Coltri - - outdoor), plus low cost alternative to Phil (in garage), AND lots of vehicle options that run on CNG!!

    CNG industry needs to RUN, not walk, towards all these options and rapidly work out any bugs. Thomas Edison didn't figure out the lightbulb on his first try. Time to innovate and become world leader is now. President Obama speech today reinforced that USA needs to LEAD the way again!!
    just remember thomas edison found a thousand ways not to build a light bulb before he found 1 way to build it

    Leave a comment:


  • KSneedsCNG
    replied
    Re: Adsorbed Natural Gas Technology

    If I were to pick . . . I'd choose option D . . . ALL of The Above!!

    Need: greater storage/range , more home VRA options (faster like FMQ2-36 / Coltri - - outdoor), plus low cost alternative to Phil (in garage), AND lots of vehicle options that run on CNG!!

    CNG industry needs to RUN, not walk, towards all these options and rapidly work out any bugs. Thomas Edison didn't figure out the lightbulb on his first try. Time to innovate and become world leader is now. President Obama speech today reinforced that USA needs to LEAD the way again!!

    Leave a comment:


  • raskell
    replied
    Re: Adsorbed Natural Gas Technology

    This could become an enabling technology for future conversions in my view. Two big issues with conversions is the amount of trunk space lost for the tank and the high pressure 'stigma' in many peoples minds. This seems to address both, making it possible for smaller tanks to become 'tucked away' rathern than being the oversized pig behind the back seat. If I could get 200 miles range on even 1000psi-1500psi, instead of 3600, I would imagine that such a compressor could have a prolonged lifetime between rebuilds, compared to existing HRA's

    Leave a comment:


  • CraziFuzzy
    replied
    Re: Adsorbed Natural Gas Technology

    Originally posted by Curtis View Post
    There is new stuff afoot in this area of research. I met with a CNGChat member in Oct, who had a new material that would add 100 miles of range to a standard GX tank, when added into the tank. A partnership with a tank manufacturer to test the material was my suggestion. His goal was a smaller tank at lower pressure to get the same range, but bring the pressure to 500 psi, which would reduce the cost of the infrastructure to dirt cheap.

    So what would you rather have? 1) 100 miles more range, or 2) the same range and a $1500 home compressor, or maybe even $500, for a Phill style unit.
    There are pros and cons to each evolution. Yes, lower pressure would be idea, but what would that have to do to the existing infrastructure? Also, what is the adsorbtion time of the ANG material? Would this relegate it to only slow fill use? If so, then it is going to be useful for commuters only, who in most cases, don't need the extra range to begin with. You could, potentially still use the 3600psi fill connection, and then an onboard regulator to limit the fill to the 500-600 psi, but most likely this will result in just a small partial fill to 500, then it will shut off, and then, once that gas is adsorbed, you're back down to 200psi, and a nearly empty tank.

    For the commuter though, the cheaper home unit would be a huge benefit - but I'm wondering if it would really be that much cheaper. There isn't much difference in construction costs of a 4000 psi compressor, and a 500psi compressor. Just lower lawyer fees.

    Leave a comment:


  • Amfuel
    replied
    Re: Adsorbed Natural Gas Technology

    Sure would be nice to get the material to add to my tank. That might be a 500 mile range.

    The technology will get here, it is just a matter of when, this year or next decade?

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis
    replied
    Re: Adsorbed Natural Gas Technology

    There is new stuff afoot in this area of research. I met with a CNGChat member in Oct, who had a new material that would add 100 miles of range to a standard GX tank, when added into the tank. A partnership with a tank manufacturer to test the material was my suggestion. His goal was a smaller tank at lower pressure to get the same range, but bring the pressure to 500 psi, which would reduce the cost of the infrastructure to dirt cheap.

    So what would you rather have? 1) 100 miles more range, or 2) the same range and a $1500 home compressor, or maybe even $500, for a Phill style unit.

    Leave a comment:


  • twh_mn
    replied
    Re: Adsorbed Natural Gas Technology

    Anything new going on in the area of ANG? It would seem that the time is ripe for this technology to make it's way into production...
    Last edited by twh_mn; 01-19-2013, 08:47 PM. Reason: typo

    Leave a comment:


  • CraziFuzzy
    replied
    Re: Adsorbed Natural Gas Technology

    Originally posted by Curtis View Post
    From what I've read it requires heat, or electric current to get the carbon matrix to fully release to gas as the tank pressure drops. Is this something that has been resolved? It seemed easy for the matrix to uptake the gas, but not so ease to get it to release it.

    I've been waiting to see if anyone would commercialize this technology. It would seem to resolve so many of the issues surrounding high pressure gaseous fuels. Are you focused on adding the matrix to existing 3600 psi tanks and increasing capacity? If so, what are you using for the carbon bed? I know a number of different materials have been tried, from corn cob to walnut shell. I've been curious as to whether carbon nano tubes might have been a technically superior option.
    I know I'd love to dump a bunch of this stuff into my undersized cylinders on my expedition... :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis
    replied
    Re: Adsorbed Natural Gas Technology

    From what I've read it requires heat, or electric current to get the carbon matrix to fully release to gas as the tank pressure drops. Is this something that has been resolved? It seemed easy for the matrix to uptake the gas, but not so ease to get it to release it.

    I've been waiting to see if anyone would commercialize this technology. It would seem to resolve so many of the issues surrounding high pressure gaseous fuels. Are you focused on adding the matrix to existing 3600 psi tanks and increasing capacity? If so, what are you using for the carbon bed? I know a number of different materials have been tried, from corn cob to walnut shell. I've been curious as to whether carbon nano tubes might have been a technically superior option.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X