Ooh la la!

That's the response Mercedes-Benz is shooting for when it unveils its natural-gas powered B 200 vehicle at the Paris Motor Show later this month.

Mercedes is pitching a five-seater that will cost half as much to refuel as its gas-powered equivalent while emitting 16 percent less greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the 156-horsepower B 200 Natural Gas Drive will get the equivalent of about 56 miles per gallon and have a full-tank range of about 300 miles, all while delivering a 0-62 miles per hour acceleration time of 9.1 seconds.

Additionally, the vehicle will feature what Benz calls its "Energy Space" modular body concept, where part of the floor beneath the back seat can be removed to clear more space for natural-gas containers. Mercedes will start selling the Mercedes-Benz B 200 Natural Gas Drive in Europe early next year, though it didn't announce a price. We do have more details in the press release below.
Show full PR text
Efficiency class A, 115 g CO2/km. Saving the environment and your wallet: the Mercedes B 200 Natural Gas Drive
Stuttgart, Sep 06, 2012

Stuttgart. With 16 percent less CO2 emissions, significantly cleaner exhaust gases than petrol or diesel fuel and around 50 percent lower fuel costs than a comparable petrol model, the new Mercedes B 200 Natural Gas Drive featuring, as its name suggests, a natural gas drive, has a lot to recommend it. The latest model in the successful B-Class family is due to make its public debut at the Paris Motor Show (27 September to 14 October 2012).

The B 200 Natural Gas Drive is the first B-Class model to make use of the "ENERGY SPACE" modular body concept: a partial double floor beneath the rear seat bench creates space to accommodate one large and two smaller natural gas containers, holding a total of 125 litres of natural gas (corresponding to approx. 21 kg). Thanks to this intelligent packaging method, the five-seater model is able to retain the generously proportioned luggage compartment for which it is known.

In natural gas mode, consumption of the 115 kW (156 hp) B 200 Natural Gas Drive is just 4.2 kg/100 km – corresponding to CO2 emissions of 115 g per kilometre. As a result, emissions are around 16 percent lower than those of the B 200 BlueEFFICIENCY with petrol engine, which offers equal performance. The new model belongs to efficiency class A and meets the EURO 6 emissions standard, which is not due to come into effect for all petrol-engined vehicles until 1st September 2014. But the model not only spares the environment – it is also good on the wallet: converting the consumption of the B 200 Natural Gas Drive into the energy equivalent of petrol, the price per kilometre comes out at around 50 percent lower than the fuel costs of driving a petrol model.

Performance is also on a similarly dynamic level: the B 200 Natural Gas Drive can reach speeds of up to 200 km/h, and accelerates from 0 to 100 km/h in 9.1 seconds. The B 200 Natural Gas Drive works according to the monovalent+ principle. This means that its engine is basically operated using gas. For emergencies, there is a small 12-litre petrol tank on board. In the event that the gas tank should ever run dry, the vehicle switches over automatically, and imperceptibly, to petrol operation. And because drivers are not able to select petrol mode themselves, the B 200 Natural Gas Drive is taxed more favourably as a natural gas vehicle. The range in natural gas mode is around 500 kilometres.

The trip computer menu in the instrument cluster has been extended in the case of the B 200 Natural Gas Drive: the respective operating mode is displayed. In addition, a fill level indicator and remaining range are included for petrol mode. In gas mode, the driver has access to all of the regular trip computer functions.

Visually, the B 200 Natural Gas Drive also differs from other B-Class models in terms of a few details. Its main characteristics include the distinctive front bumper with strip-form LED daytime driving lights.

Vehicles fitted with natural gas drive are not only particularly environmentally friendly, they are also sustainable. This is because in addition to mineral natural gas, they can also be operated using biogas. Even synthetically produced gas can be used: this is produced using "excess" energy from solar power plants or wind farms, and in the future could help to resolve the storage problems encountered with alternative power generation. In this respect, overall the B 200 Natural Gas Drive can be considered to be emission-free.

The B 200 Natural Gas Drive is celebrating its world premiere at the Paris Motor Show and is optionally available with manual transmission as well as the 7G-DCT dual clutch transmission. It is due to arrive in dealerships at the beginning of 2013.

With the B 200 Natural Gas Drive, Mercedes-Benz is adding a particularly economical and ecological variant to the new B-Class family. Since its market launch in November 2011, the B-Class has enjoyed outstanding popularity among customers: by the end of June, more than 70,000 units had been sold worldwide.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 45 Comments
      paulwesterberg
      • 2 Years Ago
      Who Cares!? What about the Tesla-powered E-Cell!?
        Letstakeawalk
        • 2 Years Ago
        @paulwesterberg
        The B-Class was designed to incorporate a variety of drivetrains. Typical ICE, CNG, FCV, and BEV. Be patient.
      Rob J
      • 2 Years Ago
      This is his what we need, a vehicle that saves 50% on fuel but on saves 16% on GHG emissions. So in the end we will have people driving twice as much as before and a net gain of emissions. Woo-hoo.
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Rob J
        There is NOT a direct causation between cost of driving, and the amount of driving. There is a weak, indirect correlation.. but not much.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "So would you like to show me the evidence of that?" Actually, since you are making the assertion, you must provide the evidence. "efficiceny does not alway mean a direct reduction in net energy use." Yes, true. But that doesn't mean that the Inverse (consumption increases as much as efficiency to cancel out any gains) must be true. Neither is is direct relationship.
      ronwagn
      • 2 Years Ago
      http://ronwagnersrants.blogspot.com Natural gas is the future of energy. It is replacing dirty, dangerous, expensive coal and nuclear plants. It is producing the electricity for electric cars. It will directly fuel cars,pickup trucks, vans, buses, long haul trucks, dump trucks, locomotives, aircraft, ships etc. It will keep us out of more useless wars, where we shed our blood and money. It is reducing CO2 emissions. Here are over 1200 recent links for you: NbaKYme3bqOw0b6KMxXSjOLHLNeflalPy9gIAiTYhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1FMQ/edit
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 2 Years Ago
        @ronwagn
        Yay, now instead of ethanol shills, we get NG shills.
        Ford Future
        • 2 Years Ago
        @ronwagn
        They will replace CO2 with the MORE Dangerous Green House Gas: Methane.
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @ronwagn
        It's good news then that we have an infinite supply of it, at least according to you. In fact of course even in the US which has far more abundant supplies per capita than, for instance, China, where the vehicle fleet will be massively increasing, even the very optimistic estimates put supplies at 100 years worth. That is not 100 years of any level of use, but at present levels of use. Transport is by far the biggest user of fuel, and so using gas for that as well, aside from replacing all the coal and nuclear plants as some advocate, might reduce projected supplies to around 30 years worth. That means that after we had properly ramped up, in say 15 years, we would be on a declining slope of supplies. Even after conversion losses it is considerably more efficient to use fuel cells, and the hydrogen can also be obtained from other sources than gas. Since places like China have much less gas per person than the US it becomes clear why electrification is important. Nuclear fuel sources are around 1 million times as energy dense as fossil fuels, and the average cubic metre of the earth's crust contains around 188 times as much potential nuclear energy in the form of thorium aside from the uranium as a cubic metre of oil. That is why sustainability means nuclear, and solar, but only where it is sunny all year round, not gas.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          LTAW: Yep, I am keeping an eye on methane hydrates. Two potential 'game-changers' are that and coal to gas, perhaps underground, as you are talking about a very substantial resource base in both cases, enough to alter the overall energy supply picture. What is still unclear though is how much of the resource in either case can be converted into technically and economically exploitable reserves. In the case of hydrates it is unclear, for instance, whether resources are largely present in thin, heavily admixed layers where exploitation will not be possible. Estimates have trended heavily downwards for many years, with every successive estimate lower than the last. In energy policy since it is fundamental to the economy it seems wise not to bet the farm on speculative resources, so I am not counting on them as yet. All this is aside of course from issues of global warming. In contrast we know for a certainty that we can run an advanced technological society on nuclear power, that the resource base is fine, and that we can achieve very low emissions of CO2 that way, so anything which delays that seems to me highly negative for energy security and a working economy.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          "Methane hydrate isn’t a familiar term to most, but it is gaining popularity in the energy sector. In the realm of energy R&D, methane hydrates are being evaluated as a potential fuel for the future. Some believe there is enough methane in the form of hydrates—methane locked in ice—to supply energy for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years. " "Langley and ORNL Fossil Energy Program Manager Rod Judkins recently wrapped up a call for proposals for methane hydrate research. Research is already in progress: ORNL researchers currently are developing and producing hydrates in the Sea-floor Process Simulator in the Environmental Sciences Division and have completed support for the installation of a research well in Canada’s Northwest Territories. Data fusion and resource assessment activities are under way in the Computer Science and Mathematics Division to develop a model that will better estimate the resource. Proposed projects in crystallography by the Metals and Ceramics Division will provide hydrate structural data through neutron diffraction. “Estimates on how much energy is stored in methane hydrates range from 350 years’ supply to 3500 years’ supply based on current energy consumption. That reflects both the potential as a resource and how little we really know about the resource,” Langley says. " http://www.ornl.gov/info/reporter/no16/methane.htm "A pair of relatively small areas, each about the size of the State of Rhode Island, shows intense concentrations of gas hydrates. USGS scientists estimate that these areas contain more than 1,300 trillion cubic feet of methane gas, an amount representing more than 70 times the 1989 gas consumption of the United States. Some of the gas was formed by bacteria in the sediments, but some may be derived from deep strata of the Carolina Trough. The Carolina Trough is a significant offshore oil and gas frontier area where no wells have been drilled. It is a very large basin, about the size of the State of South Carolina, that has accumulated a great thickness of sediment, perhaps more than 13 kilometers. Salt diapirs, reefs, and faults, in addition to hydrate gas, may provide greater potential for conventional oil and gas traps than is present in other east coast basins." http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          All of the Above! NatGas needs to be part of the overall mix of vehicles.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Hmm, the tone of that was different to that which I intended. S/be: 'It's good news then that we have an infinite supply of it, at least according to you! ;-) Oh, for an Edit function!
        Ford Future
        • 2 Years Ago
        @ronwagn
        BULL. They are an EXPLOSIVE Idea though.
      ronwagn
      • 2 Years Ago
      http://ronwagnersrants.blogspot.com Natural gas is the future of energy. It is replacing dirty, dangerous, expensive coal and nuclear plants. It is producing the electricity for electric cars. It will directly fuel cars,pickup trucks, vans, buses, long haul trucks, dump trucks, locomotives, aircraft, ships etc. It will keep us out of more useless wars, where we shed our blood and money. It is reducing CO2 emissions. Here are over 1,400 recent links for you: NbaKYme3bqOw0b6KMxXSjOLHLNeflalPy9gIAiTYhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1FMQ/edit
      Rob J
      • 2 Years Ago
      So would you like to show me the evidence of that? Or you can't, because it is something which hasn't been studied much. But just as Jevon's pointed out 2 centuries ago, efficiceny does not alway mean a direct reduction in net energy use.
      Joeviocoe
      • 2 Years Ago
      Methane is not emitted. It is burned!
      Smith Jim
      • 2 Years Ago
      Many people believe natural gas is a good way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's been said and repeated by many that energy from natural gas results in half as much CO2 emissions as energy from coal. The problem with natural gas is methane leakage. Methane is the main component of natural gas. Methane has 25 times the long term warming effect of CO2. If methane leakage were between 2% and 3%, energy from natural gas would have the same warming effect as coal energy. Some experts believe the leakage rate could be 4% or higher. No one knows for certain because the natural gas industry is suing the EPA to keep leakage data from being made public. Even if the natural gas leakage rate were zero, energy from natural gas would result in 10 to 50 times more greenhouse gas emissions than wind and solar energy. It took decades for people to realize that ethanol from corn was oversold as a green fuel. I don't believe we have the luxury of waiting decades to reach the same conclusion about natural gas. Here are some links to stories about natural gas leakage. http://www.npr.org/2012/05/17/151545578/frackings-methane-trail-a-detective-story
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Smith Jim
        This actually happens in Spain.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Then we need some sort of International Panel.. on climate change perhaps. And agreements between nations, to curb such pollutions and emissions. Oh, and maybe leading countries should actually lead by example.
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Smith Jim
        It is more accurate to say that methane contributes to observed temperatures, rather than that it contributes to long term global warming. This is because the really bad effects of GW are likely to be over a time-span of multi-decades, and the methane combines into other chemicals after a few years: 'Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years.' http://www.epa.gov/methane/ It is also misconceived to contrast the warming effects of burning natural gas with those of solar and wind, since the latter are entirely dependent on fossil fuels, mainly gas but also coal, in any real world system to provide power. Effectively building renewables builds in fossil fuel use for decades to come. Check out the new monster 2.2GW lignite coal plant Germany has just opened, or the 18 others it plans, to get away from nuclear. We simply have no way of engineering renewables without in fact around 70% of the energy coming from fossil fuels.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          You basically see that,... 'for every 5 MW capacity of wind turbines, they also built 15 MW of Natural Gas CC Turbines.'... and conclude, see 'wind power requires 3 times as much fossil fuel'. Not understanding the demand, demanded 20 MW of new power for that area. Yes, 5 MW of which could afford to be intermittent, based on the needs of the region serviced and how it ties into other grids. But the other 15 MW was going to be needed anyway. It was either have 15 MW of fossil fuel power, or 20 MW. Thus, renewables work.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          You're attributing a causal relationship between building renewable and fossil fuel plants... instead of the proper correlation. The renewables are built to supplement the peak demands for the baseload that already exists. When more renewable plants are put online... the demand is already growing.... NOT BECAUSE the renewable plants now produce power... and therefore fossil fuel plants must be built to supply baseload power (when renewables are intermittent). Yes, renewables are intermittent, and therefore will only be useful if there is baseload power (nuke, fossil, hydro, thermo). But when demand for power grows (as it is always), sure they build renewable plants... and must build baseload plants too. But the reason for building baseload plants is NOT because they built renewables... it is because demand is growing. Bottom line, if all the MW capacity that renewables provide, suddenly disappeared from the Earth... that would NOT mean that you can start shutting down or throttling back the baseload fossil fuel plants. Demand would still be there. In fact, the fossil fuel plants would need to provide more peaking services, which tends to be dirtier and more expensive. ---------------------------- DaveMart, you have been reiterating this "renewables cause more pollution because they require more fossil fuel plants to be build" mantra for over a year now, I think. And I have asked you several times to explain this crazy logic... it still does not make sense. I still think you confuse correlation with causation, when they clearly have a common cause, demand for more power.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Joe, apologies if I have not directly addressed your critique. This forum has a difficult format to properly do so. Your statement: 'Yes, renewables are intermittent, and therefore will only be useful if there is baseload power (nuke, fossil, hydro, thermo).' indicates where the problem is, as it is not in fact what happens. I take Germany as my base case, as that is a major industrial country where the drive to go renewable is strongest. Places like Denmark with much lower populations can make use of very extensive hydroelectric capacity in Scandinavia to mitigate the effects of renewables. Germany currently has about the same solar capacity installed as it's minimum demand, which happens pretty much during the day in the summer, as air conditioning is not common. That means that Germany effectively has no true baseload capacity, as it is switched off to make way for prioritised solar. Similarly wind needs backing up with fossil fuels. With the switch from nuclear they are actually building large numbers of fossil fuel plants to provide it, and so it is built into the mix for the next 50 years or so. It is not only nuclear which is rendered impractical due to this option, but also geothermal, for instance, as it needs to run as baseload power to be amortised. Not only is fossil fuel use built into the system, but it is used relatively inefficiently as a supporting act for renewables. Heating boilers up to temperature and switching them off is not a very efficient way of doing things. Even without nuclear, had the ~130 billion Euros spent on solar panels been spent on upgrading housing stock with better insulation etc then it is far from clear that any burn at all of fossil fuels has been avoided. Doing things like putting home fuel cells/sterling engines into homes to make use of the previously wasted energy from gas burn to provide heating as well as electricity is also made more difficult or entirely impractical as you need to keep producing your electricity at home or you are out of hot water too, so what do you do with a higher flow from wind when there is a gale? BTW, solar is a totally different ball game within, say, 20 degrees of the equator, and the problems I outline apply at minimum less force there. A reality check on what is happening is that not only are German CO2 emissions higher than they were, but they admit that they are going to be way above their targets in future. That is not where the major build it taking place though, it is in northern areas problematic for renewables. So the basis of my argument is that baseload is taken out by renewables, which distort the whole energy production infrastructure to make them a supporting act for their intermittency.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          What you describe in Germany looks like a poor policy problem, but not a problem with wind or solar itself. If you try to over utilize renewables, it can end up looking like the culprit. It is easy to furl wind turbines in a gale so that demand does not have to be balanced. There is a lot of politics in renewables in Germany, mucking up what would be smart choices. But let's not blame the technology as it often seems to me, you do. Putting up Wind and Solar with proper planning WILL reduce the overall GHG emissions.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          "A commitment to renewables is in the real world a commitment to fossil fuels." If that is your point... I haven't missed it. It is just wrong. The commitment to fossil fuels is already there. It is happening... regardless of any commitment to renewables. Those plants ARE going to be built because they are needed to meet baseload demand. The addition of renewables can only slightly curb the amount of fossil fuel use during peak times. So it does help reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. But it is just backwards to think that building renewable energy plants, means that the you MUST build fossil fuel plants... as if the former CAUSED the latter. They were BOTH CAUSED by the thing you don't seem to mention or take into account.... increasing demand for power (most of which will always be baseload. Nobody in the engineering community has been saying that renewables can provide baseload. * Only IF proper storage and massive grid sharing can be done first (which they're working on). *
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          @DarylMC: In almost all locations the level where the gas is obtained is thousands of feet lower than where water is extracted from. Of course this environment is high pressure, so when fracking stops cracks are forced closed. Fracking fluids are heavier than water, so there is no tendency for them to migrate upwards or means for them to do so. Areas where, as in the film, methane has come into the drinking water have mainly been in places where it has always done so, as there are natural fissures leading to release. The film was a propaganda piece, not an evaluation. That is not to say that fluids can never get into drinking water. A leak in the casings can cause contamination. The biggest problem though has been that in some states there are no regulations at all for the disposal of the water containing fracking fluids after use. Like any industry it needs properly regulating, but the physics of the situation means that the problem given such regulation is relatively limited. If we want any energy at all there is some level of inescapable risk.
          DarylMc
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Hi DaveMart If methane breaks down over time that is a good thing. Thanks for mentioning that. If messing with the underground water table is as risky as some people suggest then I am wary of it. But in any case it is probably inevitable that it will be fully exploited to satisfy the demand for energy. The amount of work going on here in Queensland Australia to extract gas is huge (well at least compared to our population).
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Joe: BTW wind has the same effect, once it reaches ~10% of total capacity. At that level in a gale it will hit 100% of demand, and so you have no base load capacity left at all, you have to use everything else to load balance.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Joe: You are missing the point of my argument.Perhaps I have not explained myself well. Other than perhaps in the tropics where solar can largely itself become baseload, although at the moment the expense for these mostly poor countries other than for rural home installations would be many times fossil fuel or nuclear, solar and wind both kill baseload capacity. In Spain for instance it is not due to running the grid badly that their ~10% wind capacity means that you have not effectively got any baseload at all, but due to it's inherent nature. I have not argued that you increase fossil fuel burn by building solar and wind, although the reduction per dollar spent is often very limited, less than spending that dollar on conservation etc, but that you build fossil fuel into the system for decades to come, both because of the outlay on the fossil fuel plants and because there is no way on God's green earth that they can do without a massive input from fossil fuels. When we have an alternative available in the form of nuclear which has tiny CO2 emissions, then clearly the use of renewables supported by fossil fuels commits to massively higher emission for multi-decades. The touted alternative of renewables without fossil fuels does not exist in any engineering sense, nor is there any prospect at all that is will, whatever the rhetoric coming out of Germany. That is why they are building coal plants like crazy. A commitment to renewables is in the real world a commitment to fossil fuels.
          Ford Future
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          This is just the US picture of Drought: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu There's also a North American Drought, and a Global Drought. We don't need to wait for decades for global warming, it's here, now. The tipping point was, wait for it: 1980. Nineteen Hundred and Eighty, the year the glaciers started their melt. We are 32 years into global warming Today.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          A good analogy is this: PHEVs like the Volt are bad... because although you can plug them in, you cannot go on long trips without using the gasoline engines. So, "a commitment to plug-ins, is a commitment to gasoline". The first 40 miles in a PHEV is like the Peak demand for power plants (although many people can use the first 40 almost exclusively). The Engine must be built, just like fossil fuel power plants must be built. The 'capacity' must be available to the consumer. Wind and Solar are like the Plug-in part of the PHEV, yes, they still require Gasoline engines to be built... but the actual use is significantly LESS when compared to if the car was a conventional ICE vehicle. The bottom line is this: The Car WILL BE BUILT, because the consumer needs to drive a certain amount of miles. This is the increased demand. The purchase of a 40 mile battery pack does NOT 'cause' the engine to be built. The engine would need to built anyway. But with the existence of the battery and plug, the engine can be a bit smaller and get much less usage. Same for fossil fuel plants and renewables.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Joe, on your second comment the issue simply does not arise if you use nuclear. With modern technology such as heat pumps the vast majority of power can be provided by them, with perhaps some supplement from gas for peaking power. So the decision by Germany is leading to fossil fuel plants being built right now, which are going to be using it for many decades. In that time we could reduce carbon emissions massively. France already produces only about 2/3rds as much CO2 per capita as Germany, and that amount could be massively reduced by the use of heat pumps, better insulation and electric vehicles.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Smith Jim
        I'm more worried about the groundwater. The cure may be worse than the disease.
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Smith Jim
        Even if Methane leakage were a problem now... that doesn't invalidate the whole possibility of using CNG cars and trucks. Methane Leaks are NOT a natural, unavoidable pollutant in the process... It is like Oil Spills.... yes, they happen, yes, the EPA needs to have more power (don't vote to let the industry 'regulate themselves" anymore)... but that is not a show stopper. *Corn was simply an inefficient conversion medium for energy, the energy is lost through the system... and is not the same as incidents like spills and leaks. * Right now, people have a desire to reduce THEIR OWN emissions.. but really cannot help the upstream spills and leaks that happen. Let people drive on CNG... cause their GHG emission ARE IN FACT GOING DOWN... and at the same time, push for tougher regulations for the Oil/Gas companies.
      DSmithee
      • 2 Years Ago
      Saw a 'B' in South Florida--a Canadian model (tourists). Very neat little hatchback.
      goodoldgorr
      • 2 Years Ago
      Does their natural gas come from fracking because i learned recently that fracking destroy the environment.
      Rick
      • 2 Years Ago
      Give the Arabs the one fingered salute get your car converted to run on LPG Autogas and cut the massive huge US trade deficit at the same time. The way to go.
        Ford Future
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Rick
        Plane hybrids already OUT Preform these vehicles. Buy ourself the Civic Hybrid, for example. As someone from the polluted fresh water state of PA, I take these cars as an INSULT to America. They do absolutely NOTHING to help Global Warming Drought, and our food supply. They make it worse by releasing MORE Methane into the atmosphere. This is an Absolute FAIL.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Ford Future
          http://greet.es.anl.gov/results supports Ford Future's claim CNG is better than a conventional non-hybrid, but worse than a hybrid. I don't see how CNG 'releases' methane... since that is the main component of NG. It 'burns' it.. and makes water and CO2, but less CO2 than gasoline (of equal energy content). There might be some leaking Methane in the process of extracting it... but that needs to be, and can be fixed where it occurs. CNG may not help as much as a hybrid, but it does help compared to a regular ICE. They are working on CNG hybrids too... which should be better than either. Oh... and although it may not help much the the GHG... it is DOMESTIC! And that means A LOT to Americans. Pollution problems need to be addressed. But there are ways to get NG without fracking. The Gas companies may not like it, but the EPA should regulate tougher with them. • Oh... and I know millions of more Americans in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, who would gladly compare their Oil-based sorrow with your Penn state woes. • No form of energy, yet, is without its catastrophes. Not an "ABSOLUTE FAIL"... but not a huge win either. But since Rick was talking about the benefits of getting a domestic fuel source as part of our comprehensive plan... it cannot be ignored.
          Disgruntled Goat
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Ford Future
          You have been very angry lately. Life is too short. Smile...
    • Load More Comments