Engineer has (re) released the flamethrower against the gpl

[momotopo]

On the site moteurnature.com, a new article with a flame thrower on the LPG has just appeared.

On the same day or almost the same, another article appeared on the new Peugeot engines emitting less CO2 than the old ones, although more than the LPG model of which he speaks in the first article and which is a minivan.

The first surprising thing is that it takes offense that a FORD c-max minivan emits 169 grams of CO2 per lpg while a C2 CITROEN emits only 141 gasoline and especially that the budget is the same.

After a quick calculation, he arrives at a conclusion concerning the rejection of 4800 kgs of additional CO2 over 150000 kms for the FORD c-max. The digression is interesting because if we take into account the CO2, it is the real CO2 that must be taken into account and not that a priori, because which proves to this dear sir that the owner of the C2 will not roll three times more at the same time. Nothing, absolutely nothing where, in my opinion, the complete aberration of a tax on polluting vehicles, a so-called polluting vehicle driving very little will be less polluting than the reverse.



A few comments :

- the comparison is biased because the two vehicles do not have the same utility. A father with his family will be in trouble with a C2. Or else he will go back and forth incessantly by double the kms.

- once again, the comparison of consumption in liters of fuel is misleading. If there was an engine engineer on this site, he could easily explain to us that the specific consumption of an engine is given in grams / kW, which never constituted a unit of volume, unless I am mistaken. You will retort me that the user sees liters scroll at the pump and that he pays liters, that his on-board computer, if he has one, gives him a consumption in liters. It is true but it does not contradict what is written above.

- in reality, it would be necessary to take the different mass pci and convert them to obtain a start of comparison, all other things being equal, which is not entirely the case, in particular in the way in which the fuel behaves on combustion.
- Gasoline PCI: 42700 kJ / kg ==> 31598 kJ / l (density: 0.74) 8,77 kW / l
- Diesel PCI: 42600 kJ / kg ==> 36200 kj / l (density: 0.85) 10,05 kW / l
- PCI LPG: 45800 kJ / kg ==> 25190 kJ / l (density: 0.55) 6,99 kW / l
which explains anyway a little the difference in consumption. The conversion kJ ==> kw is 3600

- now, with regard to the price at the pump and taxation because ultimately, this is essentially what annoys him the most, let's make a little comparison of the prices brought back to the kg compensated by the PCI which gives us a price at kw.
- petrol SP95 + - € 1,38 / 0.74 = € 1,865 / 8,77 = € 0,212 / kW
- diesel + - € 1,20 / 0.85 = € 1,411 / 10,05 = € 0,14 / kW
- LPG + - 0,75 € / 0.55 = 1,363 € / 6,99 = 0,194 € / kW

which gives a clear advantage to diesel and not to LPG. Sorry !!

- the argument according to which the LPG is sold more expensive without taxes than gasoline is certainly true but obviously, this fuel which I use for a long time for ecological reasons "there I begin to doubt" and economic "" now that I have made my reasoning, I also begin to doubt (': cry:') "", its use nevertheless initially requiring an investment, could not be enough to replace in quantity the other fossil fuels, its production being the consequence production of other fuels.

- what I noticed by using this fuel for a while with all kinds of technologies, is that, given its lower ignition speed, it is better to try to stay at fairly low speeds, which gives him time to burn properly with a certain control over consumption.

- this is the reason why I am doing pretty well in consumption with my V6 automatic gearbox with American-style driving, that is to say very quiet, optimized as we say now. I'm still under 10 liters per 100 lpg and 8,5 l in petrol.

- Regarding the concept of factory assembly or assembly by third parties, there frankly you made me laugh. Because in reality there is no difference. I personally had my latest vehicle fitted with the latest equipment from the person who equips the original equipment for SUBARU, SAAB and CHEVROLET.

- No manufacturer was really interested in the problem, with certainly good reasons (the same as for Pantone perhaps) and everything has always been outsourced. The quality was or was not according to the allocated budget. and when you know a little about RENAULT's purchasing policy, for example, you have concerns.
- I personally carried out pollution measurements giving a slight advantage to the LPG with regard to CO but without that being used as proof. So I have no complaints about the tests presented, I have no better in store.

- I still believe that the way of driving while favoring low revs, it is also true in diesel, allows me to improve the overall result because I do not exceed 15% of overconsumption.

- on a more general level, I agree that none of these three fuels suits me; I simply chose the one that suits me best according to the conditions of the moment. By cons where I register false, it is on the analysis it does on biofuels. If the Germans backtrack a little, it may be to try to rebalance their agriculture because, at the risk of displeasing you, Al Gore did a good job, his friends in the cereal lobby CARGILL and co saw the price of cereals soar, risking food problems worldwide. But it doesn't matter to them.

- we can hit the oil tankers and I will be the first to hit you, but they are unfortunately not the only ones we will be able to hit.

- to conclude, I am against any form of carbon tax on the automobile today. I will be for the day when I can freely choose my energy as I can already do for the heating of my home, the day when the vehicles will operate in hybrid-series, electricity or hydrogen or even we can dream of transport in common intelligent, etc etc ... Until there in transport, we make the user feel guilty while he is taken hostage in the system.

[Christophe]

At the engine level I say not the LPG is far from being "clean" but at the global level the LPG is either burnt in the flares of the refineries or in the cars so as much to valorize it in the cars.

The CO2 balance of an LPG car is therefore largely positive. In fact if you want it can be considered like no one...

[I Citro]

I will not compare the CO2 balance of LPG as zero ...

I don't think LPG is still burnt in flares these days almost all of the petroleum by-products are valued.

Even old landfill garbage dumps that stank for miles around and were fitted with flares to burn off foul-smelling methans have been modified to collect this free "biogas" now used in cogeneration to produce electricity and fuel. heater.

My cars consume more than 12L / 100 of LPG, that makes a lot of CO2 ... I use them as little as possible ...

[Christophe]

: arrow: I will not compare the CO2 balance of LPG as zero ...

I don't think LPG is still burnt in flares these days almost all of the petroleum by-products are valued.

Well I do not believe (I am even sure) that all the refineries in France produce LPG ... those that do not produce it = flare ...

Even old landfill garbage dumps that stank for miles around and were fitted with flares to burn off foul-smelling methans have been modified to collect this free "biogas" now used in cogeneration to produce electricity and fuel. heater.

Well, it's an obligation now, at least the capture and combustion in flare (CO2 better than CH4).

On the other hand, no one obliges oil tankers not to waste their resource ...

Everything that burns in a flare could be valued differently ...

My cars consume more than 12L / 100 of LPG, that makes a lot of CO2 ... I use them as little as possible ...

Well it would do infinitely more (reduced to km) if the LPG was burnt entirely in refinery ...

[momotopo]

Come on, I'm going to put a little oil on the fire, I see that it is choking

Look at that and tell me what you think!


http://www.barons-marques.info/article. ... automobile

[the middle]

Hello,
For those who do not know the refineries, I want to clarify, that in general, when we see all these white fumes, it is only steam ...
Vi, I work in this field ...
The vapor is even more visible when it freezes, there are lots of cans that are too cold, pipes too, so, we take pipes of dry steam, and we heat.
When it comes to burning certain gases, we always try to do it ...
We even get garlanded when we live too much in the flare ... by the chefs, and ... the neighbors ...
We are the operators, and little chefs
By the "big" leaders, pcq it is expensive to burn… they are losses…
By the neighbors..pcq, they are afraid, and also pcq they see the pollution.
When there is a big black flame at a flare, in general, it means that there is a problem.
Either the product is bad â € ¦
Either there is a machine stop due to a technical problem.
And sometimes there is a flame, which corresponds to a line canister purge; this flame never lasts long.
So what to look for is black smoke ... it is never a good sign.

[the middle]

And a few more details:
In the evening, you will always see a "small" flame at the top of the flares;
It's like a domestic gas stove, there is a small permanent flame, which allows the ignition of gases.
On the other hand, on oil extraction sites, there are big losses, but not big enough to be profitable ...

[bham]

- to finish, ...., the user is made to feel guilty while he is taken hostage in the system.

Completely agree with you, however concerning the carbon tax, it should not be forgotten that the motorist remains FREE to choose to buy a car greedy in fuels or on the contrary rather sober, and that qq is the fuel used, and therefore he chooses to pay a possible additional cost with the purchase of a new car (and only new).

[Christophe]

Come on, I'm going to put a little oil on the fire, I see that it is choking

Look at that and tell me what you think!

I think the coefficient 1.6 is false and erroneous...see https://www.econologie.com/equation-de-c ... s-638.html

For CnH2n + 2:

therefore the respective masses would be:
for CO2: 44n
for H2O: 18 (n + 1)

With methane, the best of fuels at the CO2 level, we would have a coef of 2.75 g of CO2 per g of CH4 burned. Assuming that the compressed methane has the same density as gasoline, ie 0.74 kg / L, we would therefore have 0,74 * 2,75 = 2,035 kg / L of burnt methane.

LPG is a mixture of butane and propane, so it is heavier than methane and therefore releases more CO2 ... then it's easy to cheat with liters of gas ...

Normally a liter of LPG is compressed so that it weighs as much as an L of petrol if I'm not mistaken ...so the coef. 1.6 it's rubbish ...

The LPG releases 30% less CO2 ... to the burnt mass ... I let you do the precise calculation with the link https://www.econologie.com/equation-de-c ... s-638.html

[I Citro]

Normally a liter of LPG is compressed so that it weighs as much as an L of petrol if I'm not mistaken ... [u]

The LPG releases 30% less CO2 ... to the burnt mass ... I let you do the precise calculation with the link https://www.econologie.com/equation-de-c ... s-638.html

A liter of lpg to a mass, according to the oil tankers 555g / liter is less than the SP95 which is given for 750g / liter.

Warning! these are average values ​​depending on the composition and the temperature because the volume of the hydrocabures varies enormously according to the temperature (at "ambient" pressure)

Personally, I "weigh" my LPG regularly and my readings are between 540 and 548g / liter, which is far from the "official" 555g / liter. Am I ripped off by the oil tanker who overdoses on propane or by the poorly calibrated pump ???