propane

anyone thinking of converting to propane since fuel prices are going up so high? ive got a couple of the tank mounts and tanks that were on my Ns at one time that i may have to reinstall if I can find the regulators in this mess of a shop I have.If fuel prices go to where folks say they are,it may be the only way to justify doing any real farming with one of these old tractors we enjoy running.I figure alot of these machines of all brands will be parked in the barn in favor of larger newer more fuel efficient ones,it would be kind of hard to justify running a two and three row tractor with fuel so high,unless you were frarming a real small place.

Many of the newest tractors are no more efficient that some built 40 years ago -for overall use.

Is propane acutally cheaper where you are, then gasoline or diesel?

Not here. Price per gallon or pound is meaningless. All that counts is how many BTUs of energy a dollar buys. A gallon of propane has much less energy then a gallon of diesel or gasoline.

Here in New York -
Propane - $3.19 per gallon bulk
Gas - $3.23 per gallon reg.
Diesel - $3.09 (dyed #2)

That means -
Propane = One dollar buys 28,700 BTUs of energy.
Gas - One dollar buys 35,300 BTUs of energy.
Diesel - one dollar buys 42,000 BTUs of engergy.

Now, a comparison of fuel efficiecy ratings from three Case tractors - gas, LP and diesel. Propane is by the far the most inefficient.

#853 Deere 4020 LPG 90.4 horse, 8.95 HHGs
#1013 Deere 4020 gas 96.6 horse, 11.7 HHGs
#930 Deere 4020 diesel 94.8 horse, 15.8 HHGs


Propane has 21,500 BTUs to the pound
Propane has 91,500 BUs to the gallon

Gasoline has 20,400 BTUs to the pound
Gasoline has 114,000 BTUs to the gallon

Diesel has 19,300 BTUS to the pound
Diesel has 130,000 BTUs to the gallon

John

You always very informative

You should be teaching at Suny

Sean

yes I'm fully aware of the effeciency loss,(thats why I took them off in the first place!),but propane ,at least the last i bought is 2.45 here. Not a whole lot cheaper,but a lot easier to store,if you bought it in summer when price is traditionaly lower for sure than this new fuel that seems to go bad in the tank on tractors.And your right,some tractors arent that much more fuel effecient as far as engines go,but many more gears,even hydro drive make them more effecient,simply by matching the ground speed to conditions.My point is, I would wager you see larger tractors in smaller fields this year,anyone who thinks you can pull two bottoms as effeciently as you can six on the same amount of ground needs to check thier operating costs closely, time alone is a no brainer.. Even 30-40 cents a gallon could make a big difference,and most folks who run these tractors dont really work them as hard as we used to so the loss of effeciency probably wouldnt make a huge difference.I think its just simply going to be harder and harder justifying farming with these old machines.I didnt say i was going to quit running mine,but I 'm sure i'll run them less, more for chore work than primary farm work.For that type of work ,propane could make much more sense.

There are many, many variables. Here in our northeastern dairy farming area, the most successfull farmers I know now, and going back 30 years are the ones that rarely bought or buy new equipment and take good care of what they have.

There is very little difference in over-all efficiency from many tractors built in 1960 to the ones built in 2011. Many newer utilty-sized tractors built today actually worse. As to matching ground speeds? Many 8 speed tractors around from the late 50s do pretty well on smaller farms.

When you factor in the price of new equipment and what it take to maintain it - versus older IF you do the work in-house, there can be major savings.

One example - running a 5 foot brush hog that might need 15-25 horsepower, The higher the number, the more fuel efficient. An old Deere B or Ford 8N is almost twice as efficient as a new 160 horse Deere in this situation:

Deere B - 11.7 test rating
Ford 8N - 11.1 test rating
New Deere 7630 turbo-diesel - 6.5 test rating.

1947 John Deere B (two cylinder gas) tested making 25.79 horsepower for two hours and got a rating of 11.79. At 18.7 horse it was 10.9. At 14.8 horsepower it dropped to 9.5. At 12.8 horse it was 9.2, and when worked at only 6.4 horsepower it dropped way down to 6.

2007 John Deere 7630 turbo-diesel. When worked at 161.8 horsepower it is rated at 18.16. When worked at 92 horse it drops to 14.3. When worked at 62 horse it drops to 12.4. When only worked at 31 horsepower it drops way down to 7.6.

Note that an 8N Ford can make 25 horsepower with a rating of 11.l horsepower hours per gallon.


Now in other areas where 300-400 acre farms are considered small, I assume things can be quite different.

By the way, I've read though many draw-bar efficiency tests from the Nebraska Test Institute, and hydro-drives usually do poorly when compared to gear or hydraulic-clutch drives.

Also note that when somebody invests in big new tractor, and then uses at times for small low-power work, it's often turns into a dog on fuel. An old gas-powered 8N Ford can be more efficient running a brush-hog, then a brand new, 200 horse turbo-diesel tractor.

I'm thinking steam power might be the way to go back to ?

You can even fuel it with junk mail !

The EPA would really go crazy with all those emissions.

am paying $1.60 for mine in central indiana.

i dont know about where you live but around here if you can afford a 180hp tractor you can by a 20 plus ft bat wing bush hog type mower and use the power in that tractor i think your are compairing apples the oranges

I was just reading that some of the best steam cars made in the USA could be fired up and driven in 15, from a cold-start. If true, that is amazing.

You often hear about the Stanley Steamer, but it was not one the best.
The Doble was condidered the finest made. Came from California. Owned by many rich people, politicians, and movie stars in the 1930s. Doble was known for its "Flash Boiler." It could be driven from a cold start in 15 seconds, and after 80 seconds, be driven at a sustained 60 MPH. Has a top speed of over 100 MPH. Stanely Steamer took almost 12 minutes to get going. Doble when sold new came with a 100,000 mile warranty on the steam-generator, and the rest of the car for three-years.

very true,but like you say many variables..Theres many reasons for keeping these old tractors going,but I think in todays economy,and especially todays farm economy,you will see more and more of them doing light chore work such as running augers ,mowing small plots,moving hay,feeding cattle etc,while the primary work is done with others.When you do, propane being even slightly cheaper could make sense.Rarely do they run at full rated hp,they run for shorter times ,even sometimes not long enough to get warmed up good.That would (theoretically at least )lessen maintenance costs since it would be a more stable cleaner burning fuel.I dont know,fuel prices if they do what everyone is saying,is going to be a major deal,even for the big farmers.Propane might make more sense in the right conditions.When you consider gas or diesel storage costs,adding in your fuel stabilizers and all,or even the added costs of hauling fuel from town in cans, it may be even more viable.It may be worth looking into,could make a difference on a guy on a small family farm.

Propane has never been, and probaly never will be cheaper for any use or power level here in the northeast. And, since LP is a made from petroleum products, price trends over time tend be similar for all the petro-based fuels.

Now, I know there are places out west where propane and CNG can be half the price it is here. That can be a different story.

As to fuel storage problems? Not much a problem with diesel since it will keep 10 years pretty easy, if necessary. Gasoline stores pretty well up to a year if in a air-tight tank, and longer if you put preservatives in. I used some four-year old gasoline this summer that had been treated twice with Stabil and it was still fine.

Propane can be handy for people who already have big propane storage tanks, but not cheaper to run equipment. Propane can also be nice when hooked to equipment that rarely gets used, i.e. standy-by generators.

Why not consider using wood gas. It was used by Europeans during WW2. Doesn't take much to convert a gasoline engine over to run on wood gas.Google is your friend.Lots of plans and info to be found there.
If you are thinking total economic collapse, labor costs to run an old gasser or several gassers burning wood gas could be VERY cheap.

I looked at those a while back,it would be interesting to build one.I'm not thinking of a complete economic collapse,,if that happens farmers will be the first in this country go the way of the do-do bird ,simply because all the hungry folks think you have something.

I hear what your saying for using a big tractor for little jobs, but our 2 4455s raking hay burned next to nothing tooling along at 1200rpms all day pulling a sidebar rake. I ll take the AC cab and burn a little more fuel.lol Your right, on a big farm with several hundred acres it is a different story, You start trying to keep 4020s and the like running, you will lose money. Even if the tractor was rebuit from end to end its still a 40+ year old tractor. I really like our 4455s and the JD 8400 is nicer yet, but likes its fuel.

Do you go to suny?

I know you weren't asking me, but figured I'd chime in anyway. I'm a so-called "alumni" of SUNY, more specifically SUCO (Oneonta Campus). They've been sending me propaganda and calling me, every few months, for many years - always begging for donations.

Get rid of your jd's and you'll save alot on fuel.

Our CIH MXs burn more fuel with less power.

Maybe, but the Double was an incredibly expensive car. So they sold very few. I think that car collector Jay Leno has one.

The trouble with steam power is that it is not at all fuel efficient. Maybe it could be more so if a way was developed to store and reuse the heat that was always just lost to the air. People have worked on that problem, but I don't think anyone ever really came up with a practical solution.

I expect that more electric vehicles will be marketed and they will eventually have some sort of fuel cell to produce the electricity. That technology is developing rapidly, and as the prices of fossil fuels continue to increase, the higher fuel mileage numbers will make them more popular and salable.

I do not expect to see new steam powered vehicles for sale.

I wasn't alluding to steam power being viable for the masses. Steam power, or wood-gas-capture however, is something a person can use and get around with - during a petro-shortage - when all else is stopped in its tracks. A person or family can also run a tractor and farm. Wood-gas capture kept many an electric generator and farm tractor going during WWII.

If all fossil fuel products were cut off to the public tomorrow, what do you suspect would be happening in 3 months? Especially in cold areas during the winter. No gas, no LP, no NG, no coal, and no electricty. Many with no heat, and many more with no means of transportation. Unless you live next to a coal-mine, it's likely wood will be the most available local fuel. That and a few solar panels and wind-generators.

In regard to any new technology in the horizon that has even a hint of hope for long-term energy? I haven't seen anything yet.

At present, the idea of electric vehicles is rediculous. They are mostly, in effect, indirect coal-burners.

I'm wondering what sort of technology you think is "developing rapidly" that provides a long-term, sustainable energy plan? I try to keep up and when reading closely, I've seen nothing so far. And even in spite of that, collectively we've done nothing to cut back on energy waste.

I'm on 100% solar, and that works fine for me. But, I also know that solar provides NO promise on a mass-scale. I only got it, due the Federal and State incentive programs that force all taxpayers to subsidize it.

At present, a dollar spent on energy conservation has a much higher return-yield than a dollar spent on alernative fuels or alternative-fueled -cars. Note that an electric car is not using a new fuel. It's just using coal as the primary fuel-source - with a lot of tech inbetween the coal-mine and the car.

Perzactically the point I was trying to make a while back. (;>))

I agree that wood is probably the fall-back fuel that would be used if suddenly fossil fuels were cut off. Trees grow in most places, and there is wood around.

And yes, wood gas can be used to run an internal combustion engine, but doing so has a bunch of negatives. The worst problem, as I understand it, is getting the wood gas clean enough so it doesn't gum up your engine real fast. I have read that this problem sometimes caused the engines to need to be cleaned out manually after only a few hours of operation. Kind of like the creasote problem in wood stove chimneys. Also I wonder how the wood gas users kept the fuel/air mixture adjusted, as I don't think there were any carburetors made to use wood gas. My guess is that trying for any power or efficiency took constant fiddling with the mixture.

Solar space heating doesn't work worth beans in the area where I live. Because during the times of the year that lots of heat is needed, it is usually cloudy here. Solar cell generation of electricity works, but has the same problems with cloudy days. It is also way too expensive now.

I am concerned with just what will happen to individual transportation in this country. We have become accustomed to being able to go places fairly far away and fairly quickly. For most of my life, I have not thought that much about jumping in the car and driving from Spokane to, say Seattle. Doing so has been affordable and easy.

It isn't as affordable as it once was...even driving vehicles that get much better mileage than the ones we drove a couple of decades ago. Technology has made the vehicles of today much more fuel efficient and incredibly cleaner. But they also cost a lot more.

I am interested in electric and hybrid vehicles, although I don't own one--yet. My cousin has a Prius, and is very impressed with what it will do with a given amount of gasoline. But it does run the gasoline engine a good bit of the time and it cost nearly twice what I paid for my last new car.

The pure electric vehicles have the huge disadvantage of fairly limited range before they have to be recharged. If someone lived in town, and never planned to drive more than a 50 mile round trip, I suppose a pure electric might be OK, but that would not work well here in the open spaces of Eastern Washington. We drive too far. As you pointed out, the electricity for a plug in car has to be generated somehow (most of ours comes from hydroelectric dams, not coal burning).

But I am hoping that the automakers will be able to come up with affordable hybrid vehicles that get their over the road power from fuel cells, rather than combustion engines. This country has vast resources of natural gas, which supposedly would work great in fuel cells.

What we need is greater efficiency in using the fuels we have available to us. I think that hybrid vehicles using fuel cells might be one of the ways of achieving that kind of efficiency.

Interesting times, aren't they?

I live in one of the poorest sunshine areas in the country and our solar electric system always makes more in a year, then we use. To work, grid-tie is must. In the summer, most days we make twice what we use, and in the winter there are many days we make nothing. Without a way to store that excess, the system would be a waste. The power company is our "storage battery."

As to household heating? I'm wondering what people are going to do in cold areas when petro-prices go up 5X or 10X. You're correct that solar used for direct heating does not work in very cold areas. Geothermaal is also not cost-effective. So far, my only future ideas are having an underground house for winter-use. That and firewood, but it won't be too long when I'll be too worn out to cut all the wood we burn. I'm almost at that point now.

On the subject of wood-gas capture. I suspect if the need comes up again, most people will be unable to even try. You need a long stroke engine with a carburetor. How many people have cars and trucks with those features?