Gas: propane vs natural gas
Thomas Goodwin
I have a question concerning the difference between propane and natural
gas. I am primarily interested in relative costs and efficiencies (i.e.
which burns hotter and how much energy is produces in calories/liter or
something like that). Also can gas stoves and hot water heater be
used with either type or gas without any modifications. Thanks in
advance for the advice.
Tom
Ron Carter
In article <58...@nigel.ee.udel.edu> goo...@udel.edu () writes:
>I have a question concerning the difference between propane and natural
>gas. I am primarily interested in relative costs and efficiencies (i.e.
>which burns hotter and how much energy is produces in calories/liter or
>something like that).
Propane burns somewhat hotter than methane, due to the greater
amount of carbon. It also has a greater heating value in
calories/liter (due to its greater density), but less heating
value in calories/gram.
> Also can gas stoves and hot water heater be
>used with either type or gas without any modifications.
No. The air/fuel mixture is considerably different for methane
and propane, and the fuel metering jets must be changed. Other
than that, most equipment can probably be made to run on either.
mmcd...@handel.helios.nd.edu
We just bought a new gas stove and it came with an extra valve and instructions for converting to LP gas (Might include Propane). I'd expect the same thing
with the heater and hot water heater.
Regards,
Mike
Paul Wexelblat
I have seen the several responses that directly respond to the questions
asked, but noone has addressed the relative safety of the choices.
Natural gas is lighter than air (unless I'm thinking of coal gas);
if a burner goes out it tends to dissipate.
Propane (which I use; no choice) is heavier than air; if a burner goes out,
or a small leak occurs, it happily sits in the basement awaiting a spark.
(Boom does not happen often, (any local fireperson will tell you of
SOME occurances) but you should be aware of the possibility.)
On the other hand, a big enough BOOM in the basement should serve to dissipate
the Radon also collecting there.
...Wex
Pete Bellas
Propane burns hotter but is usually orificed (is that a word) down so that
you get less Btus*. Most gas appliances are convertible to run on either.
In Natural Gas mode the regulator is set for 5" WC and a standard orifice,
in LP mode the regulator is set for 11" WC and the orifice size is reduced
2-6 "points". Kits are available for most appliances (when we moved in
to our new house we converted two furnaces, a dryer, a water heater and a
cooktop).
-Pete-
*ex: Our Dacor cooktop puts out 8000/12000 BTUs per burner on Nat Gas, when
converted to LP it has a smaller orifice and puts out 7000/11000
respectively.
--
* Pete Bellas "Cogito ergo spud" *
* Citicorp/TTI I think therefore I yam. *
* Santa Monica, CA *
* Path:{philabs|csun|psivax}!ttidca!bellas or bel...@ttidca.tti.com *
Ken Jongsma
>We just bought a new gas stove and it came with an extra valve and instructions for converting to LP gas (Might include Propane). I'd expect the same thing
^^ (LP := Liquidified Propane)
Although, as I recall, most bottle gas for cooking is not propane. For
reasons I don't remember, Butane is the gas of choice...
--
Ken Jongsma k...@wybbs.mi.org
Smiths Industries ken%wy...@sharkey.umich.edu
Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken
Thomas Rush
>mmcd...@handel.helios.nd.edu writes:
>
>>We just bought a new gas stove and it came with an extra valve and instructions for converting to LP gas (Might include Propane). I'd expect the same thing
> ^^ (LP := Liquidified Propane)
I've always wondered. How is "liquidified" different than
"liquified," and how does "liquid" differ from "liquified"?
Is this just the commentator-commentor phenomenon?
thomas rush uunet!cpqhou!thomasr
compaq computer corporation their employee,
deep in the hearth of texas not their opinions.
Ron Carter
>In article <6...@wybbs.mi.org> k...@wybbs.mi.org (Ken Jongsma) writes:
>>>We just bought a new gas stove and it came with an extra valve and instructions for converting to LP gas (Might include Propane). I'd expect the same thing
>> ^^ (LP := Liquidified Propane)
>
> I've always wondered. How is "liquidified" different than
>"liquified," and how does "liquid" differ from "liquified"?
Actually, it stands for "liquefied petroleum gas". "Liquidified" is
a Haigism. "liquefied" means converted to liquid, which IMHO distinguishes
LP gas from petroleum gases which are normally liquid (eg. gasoline
at elevated temperature).
Ken Jongsma
> I've always wondered. How is "liquidified" different than
>"liquified," and how does "liquid" differ from "liquified"?
> Is this just the commentator-commentor phenomenon?
Sigh. Since I wrote "liquidified", I went and looked it up in the dictionary.
There is no such word. I should have said "liquified."
Doug Rudoff
>They're all the same - sort of like the difference between nonflammable and
>inflammable (both of which mean the same thing).
Wrong.
Inflammable and flammable mean the same thing (combustable)
Nonflammable means noncombustable.
The orgins of inflammable are the same as inflame. My understanding is
that the use of flammable as synonym of inflammable arose because many
people automatically assumed inflammable meant non-combustable because
of the "in".
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Doug "One day I'll think of something witty to put in my signature." Rudoff
USENET:uunet!mdisea!rudoff INTERNET:rud...@mdi.com
Chris Lewis
>In article <1991Jul16.1...@cpqhou.uucp> tho...@cpqhou.UUCP (Thomas Rush) writes:
>>In article <6...@wybbs.mi.org> k...@wybbs.mi.org (Ken Jongsma) writes:
>>>>We just bought a new gas stove and it came with an extra valve and instructions
>>>>for converting to LP gas (Might include Propane). I'd expect the same thing
>>> ^^ (LP := Liquidified Propane)
>> I've always wondered. How is "liquidified" different than
>>"liquified," and how does "liquid" differ from "liquified"?
They're all the same - sort of like the difference between nonflammable and
inflammable (both of which mean the same thing).
>Actually, it stands for "liquefied petroleum gas".
The acronym LPG is a little closer. And "petroleum" might be a bit misleading.
Though commercially available propane isn't perfectly pure (there'll be traces
of butane, methane and even tiny bits of heavier molecules), the vast majority
has to be propane. Otherwise it wouldn't behave properly (freeze point,
condensation, combustion mixing etc). It's more correct to say that LP[G]
stands for "Liquid Propane [Gas]". The word petroleum used in this context
is archaic and very imprecise, and originated in the fact that most propane
is derived from petroleum drilling or refining. So is LNG (Liquid Natural Gas).
>"Liquidified" is a Haigism.
Agreed.
>"liquefied" means converted to liquid, which IMHO distinguishes
>LP gas from petroleum gases which are normally liquid (eg. gasoline
>at elevated temperature).
I've seen enough gasoline that boils off when you hold it in your hand to
know that it's not that simple. But you are right, "liquified" simply
means that the stuff would be gaseous at "normal" pressures and temperatures.
--
Chris Lewis; UUCP: ...!{cunews,uunet,latour}!ecicrl!clewis;
DOMAIN: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 416 832-0541
Psroff info: psroff-...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret mailing list: ferret-...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Craig Cockburn
|>From: rud...@MDI.COM (Doug Rudoff)
|>Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house,sci.lang
|>Subject: Flammable and Inflammable (was Re: Gas: propane vs natural gas)
|>
|>In article <23...@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
|>>They're all the same - sort of like the difference between nonflammable and
|>>inflammable (both of which mean the same thing).
|>
|>Wrong.
|>
|>Inflammable and flammable mean the same thing (combustable)
|>
To clarify:
In the UK, inflammable means combustible
In the US, it means the exact opposite.
As a result, use of the word is being discouraged and replaced with
Flammable for combustible and non-Flammable for non-combustible.
It doesn't help safety much if something I label as "inflammable"
(ie dangerous) gets treated in the US as if it's non-combustible!
Craig
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Cockburn, Digital Equipment Co. Ltd, Reading, England.
ARPAnet: cock...@system.enet.dec.com Suas leis
UUCP:..!decwrl!system.enet.dec.com!cockburn a' Gha\idhlig!
Views here are my own, and are not necessarily those of Digital
Scott Horne
<
<In the UK, inflammable means combustible
<In the US, it means the exact opposite.
Wrong. `Inflammable' is synonymous with the silly creation `flammable',
meaning `combustible'. Check an American dictionary.
And get this junk out of `sci.lang'.
--Scott
--
Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
ho...@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520
203 624-9263 Summer residence: 25 High St, Apt 32, New Haven, CT
"All reactionaries are paper tigers." --Mao Zedong
AMPH...@ysub.ysu.edu
professional firefighter.
Ed
Janis Maria Cortese
>In article <1991Jul19....@MDI.COM>, rud...@MDI.COM (Doug Rudoff) writes:
>|>From: rud...@MDI.COM (Doug Rudoff)
>|>Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house,sci.lang
>|>Subject: Flammable and Inflammable (was Re: Gas: propane vs natural gas)
>
>|>
>|>In article <23...@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>|>>They're all the same - sort of like the difference between nonflammable and
>|>>inflammable (both of which mean the same thing).
>|>
>|>Wrong.
>|>
>|>Inflammable and flammable mean the same thing (combustable)
>|>
>To clarify:
>
>In the UK, inflammable means combustible
>In the US, it means the exact opposite.
>
>As a result, use of the word is being discouraged and replaced with
>Flammable for combustible and non-Flammable for non-combustible.
>
>It doesn't help safety much if something I label as "inflammable"
>(ie dangerous) gets treated in the US as if it's non-combustible!
You can trust me on this one - I AM an American. Believe me, in the US
inflammable and flammable are the same thing. I wouldn't light a match
areound either one.
Giles Morris
>>They're all the same - sort of like the difference between nonflammable and
>>inflammable (both of which mean the same thing).
>Wrong.
>Inflammable and flammable mean the same thing (combustable)
Wrong again. Sort of.
The meaning of "inflammable" has changed over the years. Once it meant
nonflammable (same derivation as "invulnerable" et al) and then it came to
mean flammable. The confusion is why the word is seldom used now.
Giles Morris
R o d Johnson
>The meaning of "inflammable" has changed over the years. Once it meant
>nonflammable (same derivation as "invulnerable" et al) and then it came to
>mean flammable. The confusion is why the word is seldom used now.
I wonder why people are so ready to post misinformation on this topic.
"Inflammable" always meant combustible; it's derived from "inflame".
70 or so years ago, it was noticed that people were interpreting the
"in-" prefix as a negative and taking "inflammable" to mean
"non-combustible". Therefore the neologism "flammable" was contrived
as an ugly but unambiguous way to let people know something was
inflammable. This is a basic bit of linguistics folklore--supposedly
Benjamin Whorf was involved here, though I'm not sure if that's true.
At any rate, flammable = the traditional meaning of inflammable.
Followups to misc.consumers.house, please.
--
Rod Johnson * rjoh...@vela.acs.oakland.edu * (313) 650 2315
"No longer *wow* but *hmmm*." -- R Meltzer
Bruce Onder
>Therefore the neologism "flammable" was contrived
>as an ugly but unambiguous way
Frankly, I'd sooner have an ugly neologism than an ugly accident.
Bruce
--
Bruce W. Onder on...@isi.edu
Joel Wallach transmits cosmic energies that dissolve blockages within
you, boosting your inner power and radiance. Ten years experience.
John P. Curcio
[stuff deleted]
NO! Inflammable and Flammable mean the same thing-- nonflammable means the
opposite!
>
>>Actually, it stands for "liquefied petroleum gas".
>
>The acronym LPG is a little closer. And "petroleum" might be a bit misleading.
>Though commercially available propane isn't perfectly pure (there'll be traces
>of butane, methane and even tiny bits of heavier molecules), the vast majority
>has to be propane. Otherwise it wouldn't behave properly (freeze point,
>condensation, combustion mixing etc). It's more correct to say that LP[G]
>stands for "Liquid Propane [Gas]". The word petroleum used in this context
No it isn't. LPG stands for liquified petroleum gas, as it does
contain other molecules as you stated above. Call your local LP
dealer-- they should set you straight on this.
>is archaic and very imprecise, and originated in the fact that most propane
>is derived from petroleum drilling or refining. So is LNG (Liquid Natural Gas).
Hmmm. I was under the impression that natural gas (predominately
methane) was not a product of refining-- it comes out of the ground
as-is, in ready to use form. The only "treatment" it gets is the
addition of the odiforous (?) compound-- methand is odorless. In fact,
I know of a couple local farms that use the natural gas coming off of
cow manure to run the farms.
-JPC
--
John P. Curcio Philips Laboratories
j...@philabs.philips.com 345 Scarborough Road
(914) 945-6442,(914) 945-6345 Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510
Tom Wachtel
> Flammable / Inflammable actually refers to degrees of volatility - ask a
> professional firefighter.
Hey, if we keep squeezing this theme, we'll eventually get round to
Whorf and "empty"...
--
Tom Wachtel (wac...@canon.co.uk)
Chris Lewis
>|>In article <23...@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>|>>They're all the same - sort of like the difference between nonflammable and
>|>>inflammable (both of which mean the same thing).
I can't believe I said that. I *know* that they mean the opposite.
>In the UK, inflammable means combustible
>In the US, it means the exact opposite.
>As a result, use of the word is being discouraged and replaced with
>Flammable for combustible and non-Flammable for non-combustible.
I still can't believe I said what I did - my grandfather was a member
of the Transport Safety Board that mandated these changes on trucks
and rail cars years ago.
It isn't so much that the US treats the meaning the other way, it's that
the "in" prefix is often used as a negation of the following word.
As in "compatible" versus "incompatible". So people not really familiar
with the term might get it the wrong way around, whereever they live.
"non" is a more explicit and less mistakeable prefix.
Chris Lewis
>In article <23...@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>>>Actually, it stands for "liquefied petroleum gas".
>>The acronym LPG is a little closer. And "petroleum" might be a bit misleading.
>>Though commercially available propane isn't perfectly pure (there'll be traces
>>of butane, methane and even tiny bits of heavier molecules), the vast majority
>>has to be propane. Otherwise it wouldn't behave properly (freeze point,
>>condensation, combustion mixing etc). It's more correct to say that LP[G]
>>stands for "Liquid Propane [Gas]". The word petroleum used in this context
>No it isn't. LPG stands for liquified petroleum gas, as it does
>contain other molecules as you stated above. Call your local LP
>dealer-- they should set you straight on this.
Ahem. The acronym "LP" stands for "Liquid Propane". Certainly not
"Liquid Petroleum". (as you implied in the original posting where
you expanded someone else's "LP" into "Liquid Petroleum Gas")
As far as "LPG" goes, you missed my point: the term "Liquid Petroleum Gas"
is misleading, regardless of what LPG's original derivation is. (As is
"inflammable", oops ;-)
Butane is produced the very same way and the liquid could also be called
LPG. The British use "petrol", derived from "petroleum", for
gasoline. These terms date back to a time where there was only a few
things produced from crude oil - gas (burned off, there was no use for
it), gasoline, kerosenes and asphalt (a lot of which was discarded).
("Petroleum gas", "petrol", "naptha"/"kerosene"/"fuel oil" and
"bottoms"/"crud" ;-)
The technology has changed a lot since then, and so have the regulations:
- there are a few dozen products produced from crude oil simply
by fractionating towers, not to mention the hundreds produced
by other processes (crackers, alkylation units, hydrotreating,
wax processing etc.). Including, in the vein of this posting,
butane and propane being two separate products instead of one.
- There are two "petroleum gasses" - propane and butane.
- LPG is *mostly* propane - I used to work in a refinery test lab,
one of my jobs was doing gas chromatographs of the propane tanks.
If I remember rightly, the maximum impurity was about 3 percent
for one other gas (probably butane), and under 1% for
everything else and only slight or nonexistant traces of the
dangerous ones (eg: H2S). Impurities alter the physical, chemical and
burning characteristics, so the limits are there for safety
and efficiency - The other "petroleum gas", butane has different
properties.
- Not all propane comes from oil refining or even petroleum.
We should really be naming things for what they "are", rather than where
they came from, for as technology changes, the terms become obsolete,
misleading (ie: "wood alcohol" is generally not made from wood anymore),
and occasionally dangerous (which of the two "petroleum gases" am I supposed
to use in my barbeque? H'm, let's use the one that also says
"butane".... boom, or, the "in" prefix in "inflammable" means that it won't
burn... boom ;-).
We're just fortunate that propane and petroleum both start with a "p",
so we don't have to change the acronym.
>>is archaic and very imprecise, and originated in the fact that most propane
>>is derived from petroleum drilling or refining. So is LNG (Liquid Natural Gas).
>Hmmm. I was under the impression that natural gas (predominately
>methane) was not a product of refining-- it comes out of the ground
>as-is, in ready to use form. The only "treatment" it gets is the
>addition of the odiforous (?) compound-- methand is odorless. In fact,
>I know of a couple local farms that use the natural gas coming off of
>cow manure to run the farms.
A short introduction to Natural Gas:
- most is produced in gas wells.
- a signficant percentage sold is a byproduct of oil drilling, eg:
some of the Alberta light crude wells produce both in the same
drill hole. The separation is done at the well-head. Some
further amounts are produced in a refinery. Quantity depends
on the crude oil feedstock.
- some is produced in other ways - it is known as "swamp gas"
after all.
- Natural gas is usually not "ready to use". It is often wet,
"sour", or contaminated with heavier molecules that could
freeze out pipelines, so it has to be processed. It has to
be dried, the mercaptans (sourness) taken out and the heavier
stuff removed.
- Then, the "sourness" is added back in.
Mercaptans are a group of chemicals made out of sulfur, hydrogen and
sometimes carbon. The smallest weight member of the mercaptan group, H2S,
is not only very corrosive, it's also extremely poisonous. (My
grandfather, responsible for all ship and rail and shipments of Gulf
Canada, considered H2S to be the most dangerous stuff that they carried.
A whole new technology had to be invented to keep the H2S from eating its
way out of rail tank cars).
Most of the other mercaptans are poisonous too. A specific mercaptan
(ethyl mercaptan I believe), which isn't very poisonous or corrosive
in the concentrations they use, is mixed back in as the "warning stink".
They have to remove the other mercaptans because at the concentrations
they are frequently at, they'll eat the pipes and kill the customers. Not
to mention spewing sulfur oxides into the air.
Essence du Skunk is, by the way, a mercaptan.
Mercaptans are the smelliest chemicals known to man. Just opening
the cap of a 1 oz bottle of a liquid mercaptan is enough to render a
lab building approximately the size of a smallish school a very unpleasant
place to be. Nobody would talk to me for a week ;-)
Yes, perhaps Natural gas should be called methane, but the chance of
mistake is a lot less.