They are typically dedicated stations for propane, they also supply the propane for the remote household tanks.
the thing over here is that it is a high octane fuel, and generally more octane means a faster cleaner burn but just like e85 you physically are pumping more fuel thru the engine to do this, and at 90c a liter compared to regular juice at $1.30 per liter it is actually just as expensive these days considering that most 60-70L tanks will last about 300-400kms (using a 2003 ford falcon with an inline 4L six as an example) where as using regular juice you will get closer to 700kmâs out of a tank. Of coarse the majority of conversions (or even factory fitted LPG) down under still use a single mixer throttle body pumping the LPG thru the intake manifold (which results in backfires and poor fuel distribution even to the point where a factory LPG ford falcon had the air-box designed to work as a sheer plate releasing pressure when a backfire occurred) You can get individual injector LPG and this is much better (think mech inj) but very expensive to retrofit.
It might briefly be a fuel source down under but on a large global scale as there is a push for a renewable future I think it will die quickly
It has been a fuel source here since the early 80âs so its not some new fad. If people were really smart (and heartless) we would kill two birds with one stone. Make all beef and dairy an inside affair andcollect the huge amount of methane gas that cattle produce. Refine this and use it as fuel. Yes we are still using a fuel that will pollute the air however most gh gases are produced by livestock not automobiles⌠OMG SHOCK
1 Like
I heard the figure was like a 20-25% contribution to total effect was methane from cows, and I was like wow, thatâs a shitload!
#dabumtish
4 Likes
At a local shop (Morrisonâs) petrol is about 111p a litre, and LPG is about 51. Seems like a very large saving to me if youâve got something like a Land Rover.
With that said, there are some properly shit LPG conversion kits out there so youâve gotta be careful when buying used LPG converted cars.
1 Like
Adding the conversation, itâs actually more efficient to convert the LPG to hydrogen and then use it in a fuel-cell with an electric motor than to use an LPG engine. Honestly, I donât get why so many people are anti-electric, the efficiency, the reliability, the acceleration, Itâs just amazing
2 Likes
can totally agree with you here the hybrid Camryâs are fast very very fast and much funner than the 4cylinders we get down here
No argument about those pros. Itâs the cons of environmental costs incurred by manufacture, plus the fact that we still rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity either because recently industrialised countries are trying to catch up any way they can. And the establishments of corporation run countries are currently fighting as hard as they can to destroy sustainable energy programs because big oil and coal, yâknow?
1 Like
Well the anti nuclear camp isnât helpful eitherâŚ
Maybe not, but the anti-nuclear camp tends to be pro solar, wind and hydroelectric. The former two of which we canât even tap any of the potential even after debate because a zero sum game that edges further towards some entropy event horizon profits the 1%.
I sound like an occupywallstreet protester 
The former two canât provide consistent power reliably though. A society can never fully run on just solar and wind even if they have 100% efficiency IMO.
Hydroelectric has itâs own share of problems but still a very good idea.
I agree (as things currently stand), and the cost in land space to do so would be a massive problem in itself.
This does not justify, for example, the aggressive slashing of all environmental sustainability project funding that weâve seen the Australian government embark upon, as part of a concerted effort to, again I reiterate, preserve the coal industry which, for the most part, only stands to benefit Gina Rinehart and people she hands out kickbacks to in the long term, including but not limited to slashing carbon offset pricing (the original policy was âa flawed compromiseâ so it was instead replaced with sweet fuck all), and saying no to a coal mining tax while it was at its peak because again, the 1% controlling the money would simply pass the cuts onto their workers, which was the real meaning behind their ludicrously extensive, protracted and expensive TV campaign lobbying against the coal mining tax claiming that it would cost the workers and their families. That would have been the responsibility of none other than the company administrators themselves.
You have to really examine not just the thinly veiled justifications for rejecting a solution, partial as it is, because the hidden aspect of cost-effectiveness: the willingness to invest on the basis of which agenda is profitable to whom and costly to whom else, is currently the big factor deciding most of the policy decisions in OECD countries.
Edit: Good god that was a long run on sentence.
Good old mining tax lol that was a good idea killed by big girls. Gina owns most of the land around here and employs a total of zero people from this area to run them (which is for a whole different conversation) she owns Australia literally owns this country and what lies under its soil and oceansâŚdont get me wrong I am pro farming and pro mining (to a point) but this bitch (i have met her and she is a mecha biatch) will even throw her own family to hell if she can make a dollar!!! Grrr i hate that bitch
Letâs not turn this into a hate piece on Gina Rineheart 
, but, for everybody else, you get the idea. Now apply this to the USA and parts of Europe.
Ye but I donât think energy companies have a monopoly on any resource in the US AFAIK. Donât know much but the US has preetty strong anti monopoly laws.
Youâre gonna be living there right? This will sound ultra condescending for somebody whose main source is merely a brother whoâs lived there for several years considering there are heaps of US citizens on this forum but⌠go travel the states, and talk to the locals some. Hopefully youâll find out exactly who has a monopoly on what⌠and more importantly, who will have a monopoly on everything after next year.
If youâre talking about say internet and communications you would be correct and thatâs currently being upset by Googleâs expansions.
But companies like Microsoft and Intel had to bail out their competitors just to avoid said monopoly laws. Iâm sure something as regulated as power
and energy will not allow for any monopolies.
Spez: Nvm US energy is deffo a monopoly.
2 Likes
When youâre talking about a corporatist nation which the US essentially has become (some may disagree, we can duke that one out sometime), you donât even have to restrict yourself to something as narrow as âpower and energyâ.
One notable debate, which is actually relevant to this thread, is about the âRailway Conspiracyâ, or, more generally, the battle for dominance between auto manufacturers and the public transit systems (notably in LA). The debate about exactly what, if any, and how much role the likes of GM etc. played in the demise of the street car system. Was it simply a matter of economical superiority, or, were the calculated (and legal) moves done by the auto industry to establish a dominance of petroleum dependent vehicles an exercise in flagrant populist propoganda and public manipulation in poor faith?
Related to this is a nifty anecdote about a certain auto company buying a railway in metropolitan LA and then dismantling it, because they owned it and wanted to keep people dependent on cars (which, some would say, is why even the homeless in LA have a car⌠because if you donât have a car youâre really up shit creek). Now that sounds like one hell of a conspiracy theory so bear with me a while so I can determine if itâs a real story or the ravings of an anti-establishment loony.
EDIT: ok Iâm finally finding some material. This presents one side of the story: http://www.trainweb.org/mts/ctc/ctc06.html Note that itâs written by a pro-rail advocate, presumably. There are countless sites like these that state similar theories and sources, but obviously Iâm not about to try and claim that simply because many people believe one theory means itâs true. Iâd have a hard time appeasing the monotheists.
1 Like
guys this isnât about hydrogen or electric cars anymoreâŚ