cwerdna
Well-known member
http://jalopnik.com/5610184/korean-cng-bus-explosion-caught-on-camera" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Above link contains a video.
Above link contains a video.
Korean CNG Bus Explosion Caught On Camera
- Thread starter cwerdna
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
Herm
Well-known member
I'm surprised it did not do more damage or ignite..
cwerdna
Well-known member
Someone on Priuschat from Australia posted this in response to my post...
http://wakeup2thelies.com/2011/10/19/sydneys-entire-green-gas-bus-fleet-taken-out-of-service-after-bus-explodes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The incident in Korea happened in August of 2010... I can't find any information on the investigation results, if any, but I found this indirectly:
So basically they neglected safety and even knew that some tanks were bad. Good job, guys. Good thing nobody was killed.
Re: Sydney bus fire: The "explosions" sound more like tires popping. Also looks like the pressure relief valve opened up (the noise starting at 0:34). Despite the fire, the tanks seem to have held... would have been one hell of a boom if they didn't.
Here's an official preliminary report (PDF) - investigation is still in progress. Fire started in the engine compartment.
Bonus: Picture of post-fire remains. Notice the fuel tanks on the roof appear to be intact!
And who the hell let that car and motorbike drive past the burning vehicle?
=Smidge=
So basically they neglected safety and even knew that some tanks were bad. Good job, guys. Good thing nobody was killed.
Re: Sydney bus fire: The "explosions" sound more like tires popping. Also looks like the pressure relief valve opened up (the noise starting at 0:34). Despite the fire, the tanks seem to have held... would have been one hell of a boom if they didn't.
Here's an official preliminary report (PDF) - investigation is still in progress. Fire started in the engine compartment.
Bonus: Picture of post-fire remains. Notice the fuel tanks on the roof appear to be intact!
And who the hell let that car and motorbike drive past the burning vehicle?
=Smidge=
mxp
Well-known member
cwerdna said:
Wow... that's one pretty insane video of the blast. Would it be just as bad on smaller CNG tanks like in the Honda CNG?
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
would be sad if this caused CNG to be used less. but then again, if it allowed more money, investment, etc to EVs then...maybe not so bad
travisty
Well-known member
CNG is not the future.
No one thing is "the future" - each technology is merely a component towards a sustainable goal. CNG is absolutely a vital component. So are electric vehicles and many other things. The trick is to apply each technology based on its merits and fit to the specific problem to be addressed and not for bullsh*t political reasons.travisty said:
=Smidge=
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
i agree in that CNG is not the end product because we dont innovate based on an "end" product. the transportation product farther down the line is one that is currently not in existence.
so to stop using a product that is currently in existence which is in existence due to a multi billion $$ investment by several companies based on a handful of incidents is pretty silly. but many consumer decisions have been pretty silly especially ones fueled by unbalanced reporting.
so to stop using a product that is currently in existence which is in existence due to a multi billion $$ investment by several companies based on a handful of incidents is pretty silly. but many consumer decisions have been pretty silly especially ones fueled by unbalanced reporting.
Herm
Well-known member
We can make methane from atmospheric CO2 and plentiful fusion electricity.. so why cant it be the future?.. granted we can make methanol out the methane pretty easy and use our existing cars without many changes.
Drivesolo
Well-known member
Whoa... interesting. Probably didn't catch fire cuz the stoichemtric value of the fuel was too high and luckily not enough of a heat source from nearby car. Same reason why a full propane tank won't explode when hit w/ even a tracer round. Now.... if it had been hydrogen in those tanks (ie: Hydrogen Fuel Cell) instead of 17 injuries there would most likely be 17 (or more) corpses.
travisty
Well-known member
Herm said:
It can't be the future for the very reason you said in your statement, "...and plentiful fusion electricity..."
It doesn't matter the source of the power but the power in a pure electric vehicle will be exponentially better than creating and carrying/transporting methane. Not to mention the energy required just to compress the gas in the first place.
NG is much more efficiently used to generate electricity to charge EV's, and much safer, than pumping it into individual ICE vehicles to be burned inefficiently, while also using large amounts of electricity to compress it into vehicle tanks.Smidge204 said:
http://ephase.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-not-natural-gas.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
AndyH
Well-known member
Unicorns and pixie dust - Herm! I didn't think you believed in supporting future tech! Isn't "Remember Solyndra!" the battle cry? :lol:Herm said:
If we had fusion electricity, we wouldn't NEED to make CH4! But we don't have fusion - and we don't have those little nukes. And we're not likely to have them in my lifetime - and since I suspect I'm younger than you, that doesn't bode well for your lifetime either.
Besides, all this 'make methane from thin air' stuff will be moot once we have reactors on the moon and connect the ends of those really long copper cables to the global power grid. :lol:
Efficient? Yes. But until I see a Class 7 or 8 truck that runs on electric and travels more than 20 miles from home, or an electric aircraft that can carry more than the pilot, or electric buses that aren't confined to locations with appropriate overhead wires and/or short urban routes, etc... electric alone will not solve all of our transportation needs. CNG/LNG has specific and volumetric energy densities 50+ times greater than lithium based battery storage or super capacitors. In very pragmatic terms, carbon based fuels are not going anywhere... the choice is if that carbon comes out of the air or the ground.JRP3 said:
=Smidge=
Fair enough but if we have to use NG we should use it most efficiently, in generating plants to power passenger EV's. This will free up other fuels to be used where they are needed, such as long distance heavy vehicles. I'd also like to see more trucking done by rail, which is far more efficient.
Herm
Well-known member
It turns out we have so much NG that we will likely export a lot of it, I would prefer to burn it in trucks than importing oil.
If we use it, more efficiently, in generating plants to charge EV's that displace ICE's then we won't need to import as much oil. It's not that we have so much NG that we have to export it, it's that other markets will pay more than the home market so we export some. Just as we actually export some oil, even as we import more.
I'm advocating biomethane. Gasoline can be displaced with electricity using largely non-carbon sources, while the remaining petroleum fuels can be displaced with methane. Burning methane produces less CO2 and less pollutants, so that is an important factor not related to efficiency to consider.JRP3 said:
Rail would be nice, and you can even electrify rail, but that costs money and nobody likes to spend money regardless of how many decades of dividends such an investment would pay.
=Smidge=
