Natural gas in vehicles traditionally was a range/life extender/fuel cost saver. After conversion a typical small car retains it's petrol tank and becomes bi-fuel, so you'd have your 600 km range on petrol plus 400-500 km range on natural gas. Apart from the lower cost of purchase of natural gas, another important saving is the dramatically extended engine life.mem wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:32 amInteresting link. Didn't really see much about mileage or range directly but was sufficiently discouraged about each if the forms drawbacksat46 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:01 amhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_vehicle
Either you need a massive tank on the car larger than a regular fuel tank, or the tank you need has to be kept cold, or in the case of propane and there is a leak it can accumulate in a pocket under the car and then explode
Add to that I dont know of any LNG or CNG stations within 100km of where I live in region 9 and its DOA
Batteries are starting to look like the make more sense, especially when so much energy is needed just to operate a CNG station due to the extreme pressure needed.
I can see why in general the push is to do electric with batteries. In terms of the weight of the batteries versus the tanks for CNG/LNG I dont think that is much of a difference.
I heard someone say it's not the speed of travel that excites people, it's the speed of acceleration. Natural gas vehicles lower that speed, while EVs raise it. That's obviously the foundation of Tesla's marketing campaign, to take just one notorious example. EV manufactures basically hook your body up to a sensation that's so desirable you'll pay through the nose to have it, wife and kids be damned.