Talk:Liquefied petroleum gas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liquefied petroleum gas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Implementatifactor

"Implementatifactor to such use is the supply of LPG." What?! --ozzmosis 17:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LPG can stand for

Laboratoire de Planetologie, Grenoble, France

Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaft (German, obsolete/historical)
Llanfairpwll railway station, Wales; National Rail station code LPG.
LPG (band)
LPG (group), an acronym for "Long Pretty Girls"
LPG (hip hop group), an American hip-hop group
Land and Property Gazetteer; see Local Land and Property Gazetteer and National Land and Property Gazetteer
Lowest Price Guarantee
LALR Parser Generator

but not for Liquefied petroleum gas. You can`t liquefied a liquid. Gasoline or petrol is a petroleum-derived liquid mixture, primarily used as fuel in internal combustion engines.

Petrolem is manufactured during the refining of crude oil, or extracted from oil, and comes in a liquid form. When we mix petro and ethanol,benzene,toluene,iso-octane and lead, to increase its octane rating then we have gasoline.

Most current or former Commonwealth countries use the term "petrol", abbreviated from petroleum spirit. In North America, the word "gasoline" is the common term, where it is often shortened in colloquial usage to simply "gas". It is not a genuinely gaseous fuel (unlike, for example, liquefied propane gas, which is stored under pressure as a liquid, but returned to a gaseous state before combustion).

propane is a three-carbon alkane, normally a gas, but compressible to a transportable liquid. It is derived from other petroleum products(Methane) during oil or natural gas processing. It is commonly used as a fuel for engines, barbecues, portable stoves and residential central heating. so the real LPG,LP Compressed natural gas (CNG) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.96.53 (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No matter if it is technically right or wrong, LPG is the name used by industry and by common people. Stepho-wrs (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The adverb "liquefied" applies to the gas, not to the petroleum. In this usage, "petroleum" is an adjective, not a noun. Stupid comment.—Quicksilver^{T @} 17:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of Autogas section

I've created a new page at Autogas (replacing a redirect to here) and will shortly move the content of the Usage in cars section to that page. I will also be moving some of the references at the same time.

This may create the need for other cleaning up in this article. If you spot something, feel free to fix it. :) --Athol Mullen 06:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forklifts?

Some (small) warehouse forklift trucks have red gas bottles mounted on the back? Does anyone know about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.216.130 (talk) 10:04, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

A Yep some forklifts shore do run on LPG one from a joinery plant used to always come an fill up at the local gas station wen i was there, some use 9kg 4.5kg bottles were as this one i remember had a big 45kg bottle Maximum effect (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flash point?

The article used to include a section on the use of LPG as a refrigerant. That said:

in highly refined form it [propane] exhibits a relatively high flash point of 891 °C (1635 °F)

This means that below 891 °C, if you mix propane with air and try to ignite it with a match, then you will fail, no matter what the concentration. I don't believe this. Perhaps they didn't know the difference between the flash point and autoignition temperature?

I removed the whole section, since it was confusing, and I don't know enough about the subject to fix it. If someone does then it would be nice if they could replace it with correct information.

Refrigeration

This mentions that LPG is better than refrigerants such as 134a because it doesn't deplete ozone, but accourding to R134a, neither does 134a. RobertDahlstrom 10:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I've reviewed several references and the issue with HFC134a is greenhouse effect, not ozone depletion. Hence, I've removed reference to ozone depletion from the refrigerants section. --Athol Mullen 23:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the links in the refrigeration section do not lead to the point where they were originally. The links aren't broken, but they don't work properly. This section needs to be updated. JSR 18:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSRoberts99 (talk • contribs)

LPG

WHY? YOU USES LPG AT HOME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.69.205 (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for use in homes

LPG is sometimes used in homes that cannot be supplied by mains gas. This could be because they are too far away from any gas mains. For this purpose, the LPG can be stored in underground/above ground tanks. --N (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just because of remote locations. In some suburban areas in Australia, there are sections of suburbs with reticulated natural gas, and other sections of the same suburb just a few streets away that do not have reticulated gas. People in the latter locations who want to use gas have no option but to use bottled LPG. --Athol Mullen (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to better say this

Current article reads Air source heat pumps extract heat from the surrounding air to produce energy. Again, LPG can be used as a supplementary heat source. I think I can see what that is supposed to mean, but these heat pumps don't actually produce energy from the surrounding air. Needs restatement IMO. Andrewa (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heat pumps simply move heat from one place to another. If the heat is used to power a heat motor, it would be appropriate to say "concentrate energy" instead of produce energy. If the heat pump is simply used to heat something (air, water, whatever), then "concentrate heat" would be more appropriate. --Athol Mullen (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. One problem is that energy has several possible meanings here of which the strict thermodynamic meaning is only one. In this sense, producing energy is a nonsense as energy is conserved. In the sense of energy resources it's also inaccurate. Hmmm... Andrewa (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

It looks as the external links section has a good bit of commercial promotion. Deleting the obvious and will leave the remainder to the powers that be. Mtt124 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an internal page (from a commercial site) has relevant information directly related to LPG, an external link is appropriate. Otherwise, I believe, this page is ABOUT Liquefied Petroleum Gas, not about its distributors. Correct me if I'm wrong.Mtt124 (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the cull that you've done. It was overdue. Any external links on any page should point to something directly relevant to the subject. For example, the web site of a company marketing LPG is not appropriate, but a sub-page with technical information might be. In that type of case, the sub-page, not the top page of that site should be linked. Before culling sites, I like to look through to see if there is a worthwhile sub-page to change the link to rather than removing it, but wikipedia is not a directory, either, so if multiple sites have similar information, we really don't need all of them! --Athol Mullen (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better

So which is better? LPG, CNG (compressed natural gas) or LNG (liquefied natural gas)? Up and over for a six! (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what your criteria are. If they are range and performance, LPG is better. If it is overall running cost for a vehicle that stays close enough to its base not to have problems accessing refuelling facilities and power output is not critical, it's CNG. The answers will also vary depending what country or part of a country it's in due to variations in pricing and availability of fuelling facilities. Obviously, it'd be nice to have this sort of stuff in one or more of the relevant articles but it'd need to be adequately referenced... --Athol Mullen (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Safety

Why is the safety section so disproportionately long compared to the others. It makes it sound like you are going to die if you are anywhere near this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.38.111 (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest carbon?

"LPG is the lowest carbon emitting hydrocarbon fuel available in rural areas, emitting 19 per cent less CO2 per kWh than oil, 30 per cent less than coal and more than 50 per cent less than electricity." Does that take into account the carbon emitted by the transport of the gas, and of the empty bottles? I suspect not, and that would rapidly eat up the carbon savings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.228.174 (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the point you are making here. If you're in a "rural area" then you are presumably out of reach of the mains gas grid, so any fuel would need to be transported. Are you saying that the transport of LPG would be more energy-intensive than transporting the equivalent amount of oil or coal? (And, if so, do you have a reference?)

As for the empty bottles, LPG can be supplied in a bulk tank and refilled by direct tanker delivery which eliminates the empty canisters. In any case, though, any empty bottles are not usually discarded: most suppliers will take them back for refilling, so their contribution to the carbon cost is not straightforward to calculate.

(The comparison with electricity does seem spurious, though, since electricity is not a "hydrocarbon fuel".) 88.109.165.150 (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution natural gas, oil, coal or any fuel costs energy. Even the transport of electricity through the grid costs energy.

LPG is not different in that aspect. Jaho (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renewable energy

The section about LPG and renewables is over-long, apparently designed to make this fossil fuel appear greener than it is. Any fuel can be used as an alternative to renewables. A simple statement that LPG can be so used and can be available where mains electricity and gas are not is sufficient, IMHO. Any more is NOT A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW unless there are strong specific references to back up any claim. 91.84.111.246 (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's not NPV... and honestly, it's not information about LPG except perhaps in the context of marketing (and NPV does not attach to marketing copy, virtually by definition). Substitute the term "firewood" for LPG in most of those sentences, and they are still true. "Air source heat pumps extract heat from the surrounding air to concentrate heat. Again, firewood can be used as a supplementary heat source." Or "Firewood can, however, be used in conjunction with renewable technologies, releasing less carbon dioxide than purely fossil fuel alternatives." For this reason I am going to boldly remove this section from the live article. Erie lhonan 03:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps trying to use this article to greenwash LPG its now being described as low-carbon - subjective. BTW, Erielhonan, I get your point and agree but firewood *can* be a great renewable source of energy *if harvested from a sustainable source* it's actually carbon neutral - the growing trees recapture the carbon that is released when burnt (and results in woodland as a nice by product).IanOfNorwich (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid in cylinder

Question - when carried in the gas cylinder ,is LPG in liquid form? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.112.184 (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes, but not all is liquid. Because it needs pressure to make it liquid, there will be some LPG vapour in the the top of the cylinder and the rest will be liquid. --Athol Mullen (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Composition versus Impurities

In the third paragraph (Vapor Pressure and such), I feel that the mention of the effect of chemical composition is important, but slightly irrelevant, as this article is only about propane. Now, if the article were talking about the difference in vapor pressure due to impurities, I feel that would be interesting to note. For example, some data (or charts) could be provided for vapor depressions due to the mixing of propane with other common refinery materials, such as hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide or various amines.

66.104.46.178 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this article is about LPG, which can be either "nominally pure" propane or a blend of propane and butane. In some specifications I've seen, it even allows for propene and butene, etc.. As such, characteristics of varying blends are relevant. I agree that mixtures with other materials would be interesting although perhaps not as relevant as commonly occurring commercial blends. --Athol Mullen (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fire safety section

Most of the section applies mainly to the canisters themselves, not the gas as such. Surely it shouldn't be on this page 81.156.175.217 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LPG + Diesel

There's a statement in this article that LPG has been used in diesels, and the statement is followed by a citation-needed tag. As best I can tell, you can't run a diesel solely on LPG (at least, not without effectively converting the engine to spark ignition), but there are quite a few people who describe running an engine simultaneously on diesel and LPG, and the possible benefits thereof:

Study on Diesel-LPG Dual-Fuel Engines
http://alternativefuel 4x4.com/lpgdiesel_how_does_it_work.htm LPG/Diesel How Does It Work
Can Diesel engines be converted to run on LPG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiml (talk • contribs) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Diesel" or "Diesel engine" refers to a compression-ignition engine. Sure, it's possible to run a Diesel engine on LPG, and a wide range of other fuels, as long as the fuel-injection system and compression ratio are appropriately chosen. This may mean that an engine designed to run on Diesel fuel can't run on LPG, but not that another Diesel engine couldn't be optimized to run on LPG. Spark ignition is not needed at all.—Quicksilver^{T @} 18:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viareggio train burst

I have updated the death toll: 29 deaths and approx 30 injuries. Unfortunately I still don't know how to put references!

--Khrulghan (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

I was searching for information on LPG use in power stations, and came across the CO2 emmisions data in the opening paragraphs of this article. Unfortunately there is no source referenced so I can't use it. I added a citation needed tag, but then I realized that there are a lot of statements in those first paragraphs that don't have sources. Is it because they are the sort of facts that can be found in a text book and so considered 'common knowledge'? I thought I would ask here before putting in a half a dozen 'citation needed' tags. Thanks!WindyHaven (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LPG deathtrap?

This paragraph:

"If a container bursts, the LPG first spreads out as a supercooled liquid. This freezes anything within range. Then it boils into the atmosphere and become an oxygen-displacing gas, which asphyxiates any creatures in the affected radius. This gas spreads out to cover several hundred times more area than the liquid from which it comes. A single tank of LPG can cause oxygen displacement of many square miles. At some point this gas is diluted by the atmosphere. It will then reach a point of an ignitable mixture. When this happens, a fireball of many square miles will consume everything in the area."

paints a grim (and, seemingly, somewhat exaggerated) picture of what might happen if an LPG container should rupture. Absent any references for those claims, I suggest that this paragraph should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.165.150 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the size of "a container". The 1944 Cleveland East Ohio Gas Explosion "destroyed a one square mile area".

The EAST OHIO GAS CO. EXPLOSION AND FIRE took place on Friday, 20 Oct. 1944, when a tank containing liquid natural gas equivalent to 90 million cubic feet exploded, setting off the most disastrous fire in Cleveland's history. Homes and businesses were engulfed by a tidal wave of fire in more than 1 sq. mi. of Cleveland's east side, bounded by St. Clair Ave. NE, E. 55th St., E. 67th St., and the MEMORIAL SHOREWAY. At approx. 2:30 P.M., white vapor began leaking out of Storage Tank No. 4, which had been built by the East Ohio Gas Co. in 1942 to provide additional reserve gas for local war industries. The gas in the tank, located at the northern end of E. 61st St., became combustible when mixed with air and exploded at 2:40 P.M., followed by the explosion of a second tank about 20 minutes later. The fire spread through 20 blocks, engulfing rows of houses while missing others. The vaporizing gas also flowed along the curbs and gutters and into catch basins, through which it entered the underground sewers, exploding from time to time, ripping up pavement, damaging underground utility installations, and blowing out manhole covers. The immediate area surrounding the burning district was evacuated and refugees were sheltered in Willson Jr. High School on E. 55th St. where the Red Cross tried to care for approx. 680 homeless victims.

Encyclopedia of Cleveland History

I remember a comment in The Nine Nations of North America, that the scale of the explosion wasn't appreciated because in 1944 they had nothing to compare it to. If I haven't dropped a decimal point, 180 million cubic ft of gas has the energy of a 40-kiloton bomb, though obviously it wasn't released all at once.

The LNG Disaster Movie, Lloyd's executive likens LNG attack to nuclear explosion, Liquified Natural Gas Explosion Hazards — Are They Real?

—WWoods (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, I guess a "big enough" quantity of gas could indeed produce damage over an arbitrarily large area. In that case, perhaps the paragraph should clarify how large a container would likely be needed to produce the effects it describes. The Cleveland explosion (180 million cubic feet of gas) seems to have resulted in a fire over an area of one square mile or a little more, so it would appear that something significantly larger would be needed to yield the described "fireball of many square miles". Are there any documented instances of this occurring, or reliable sources to indicate that it is a feasible hazard with existing tank sizes?

Also, the article on the Cleveland incident makes no mention of damage caused by freezing due to contact with "supercooled liquid", or by asphyxiation due to oxygen displacement. Clearly, asphyxiation is a risk in the immediate locality of a ruptured tank, but it is not obvious that there is a realistic asphyxiation hazard over the area of "many square miles" claimed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.165.150 (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. LPG, not LNG. LPG is liquefied by slight pressurization, not by cooling.

—WWoods (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bunch of bullshit added by an incompetent anonymous editor on July 22, 2008. LPG isn't supercooled, and tends to boil, not become supercooled when pressure is released. The writer obviously had no idea what the term means. I'm surprised that the paragraph, unreferenced as it is, has survived this long in the article. At best, it's an anecdote; at worst, it's misinformation.—Quicksilver^{T @} 18:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fire risk and mitigation" section

This section consists almost entirely of original research in the form of anecdotal detail, personal observation and prescription. The editor who originally added much of the questionable material has tried to justify this on my talk page by asking if I was personally experienced in the area: this is irrelevant. All material in articles should be adequately referenced to given secondary sources, preferably with inline citations, and our articles should neither devote undue coverage to certain sub-topics relative to the length of an article as a whole (as the safety section does here: it comprises almost 50% of the article length) nor contain material of a prescriptive nature. This is not a safety manual, nor an essay: it simply describes the subject. I believe that much of the prescriptive or anecdotal material in that section is unnecessary to understand the subject, and as such I'm going to try to remove it in the near future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. See my comment in the section immediately above, regarding "supercooled LPG".—Quicksilver^{T @} 18:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I primarily came to look at a basic overview of fire risks and safety protocols in place to prevent them. I was treated to a entire treatise on what the most horrendous doomsday scenarios were associated with LPG. I suggest the entire section be re-written from scratch, since it appears its more than half irrelevant to the topic at hand. 182.178.66.201 (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks

LPG is stored in cylinders or spheres, not tanks. Although the colloquial English word "tank" is frequently used, it is technically incorrect. A tank is an ambient-pressure storage vessel, with or without a roof, such as a "water tank" used as a reservoir for city water or a tank used for storage of crude oil. Due to the pressure vessel nature of LPG containers, they are always of circular cross-section. A "tank" can have an arbitrary cross-section. The word "tank" will be summarily removed from this article and anyone who uses it here will be banished to elementary school.—Quicksilver^{T @} 17:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, the vessels manufactured by most US manufacturers for yard vessels are called tanks. American Welding & Tank is one example. ASME vessels used for LPG residential and commercial service are all called tanks in most propane and NFPA literature. JSR (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened External Links Again

I looked through all the links, and selected a few of the more important and useful looking ones. May well not need any at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientific29 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Chemistry

Firstly there is no "isopropane" so I have removed the "iso." (Three carbons - as propane has - cannot be arranged in a "T" such as butane, C4H10 can. Hexane is the first in the series with more than one iso- formula - pentane, like butane, is either linear or has one alternative structure) One can only surmise this nonsense originated with some chemistry-deficient PR flack somewhere and has been incorporated into this article (and the one on propane, and who knows how many other articles on propane as a refrigerant.) "Isopropane" is a trade term (unfortunate) for a refrigerant containing small amounts of isobutane.

I came here today looking for information related to natural gas engines. There is a dearth of clear information on the internet. It appears proposals for natural gas engines refer to propane or propane/butane mixtures. This is relevant because methane is the least CO2-generating fuel per unit energy, propane significantly more so.

"Liquified petroleum gas" is a poor term. We are apparently stuck with it. Wikipedia can be more analytical than trade expressions, however.

Molecular diagrams would vastly increase the informative content of this article! I'm not savvy on these Wikipedia matters, however. Help from an experienced editor would be good! Mydogtrouble (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation not needed

For the remark that LPG has a lower energy density per volume than gasoline (petrol) or fuel oil, where someone put a "cite" tag in, all that needs to be done is to specify the actual figures for gasoline or fuel oil. I don't believe this would be a violation of "no original research" because these are measurable physical quantities and thus held to be common fact. --208.181.64.45 (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

This Fire Risk and Mitigation section has been in this topic and contested for a long time and we need to finally deal with the issue. I would suggest moving the topic to the fireproofing section, where it fits a little closer. The LPG article is focused mainly on fuel issues and does not discuss manufacture, storage or transportation in any significant detail. This section then becomes a bit confusing as we have a discussion regarding 30,000 gallon vessels in a topic primarily focused on 5-500 gallon vessels.JSR (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editor responding to RfC here. The section is completely unsourced. The few links are to regulations, which are primary sources that do not even mention the parts of the section they supposedly reference, and most of it has no citations at all. Delete the entire section, and if anyone wishes to re-add it, insist that every claim be backed up with a citation to a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Guy Macon. It seems the best solution to delete now and, if necessary and properly cited, re-add the basic summary. Beagel (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be too hasty. The section looks like it was written by someone with in-depth knowledge of the subject. Should definitely be trimmed down, but a source search is in order, and possibly a rename of the section to "safety". -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 04:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The situation is a bit messy. All three have good points. I disagree with the idea of substantially trimming the section, because most of its contents seem relevant. I agree with the desirability of getting supporting citations anyway, but they are not really really urgent, though the need could be justification for moving the section to where there are already similar needs, thereby concentrating the problems in one place. Other articles such as Passive fire protection and Fireproofing seem to be much along the same lines, with few or no refs, but containing authoritative material. Whether the material referred to is primary material or not, if it is a body of regulations, that should not matter as long as it is referred to as regulations, and not as matters of technical or scientific claims. Eg. if I say: "...to prevent a BLEVE, NYS regs state that..." then a ref to the published material is quite in order, just as I don't need a secondary source to quote a poem or a dictionary definition. If instead I state "The best way to prevent a BLEVE is... which is why NYS regs demand it" then I certainly would need a citation to more than the regs, unless the regs themselves contain the necessary citations (which commonly they do not). Then there is the thing about using links instead of citations. Some folks get very itchy about this, but as long as the required citation is in the linked article, that often should be in order. To insist on the same citation in every article that links to the substantive article simply adds an extra burden of separately maintaining the authoritative citation in both the article making the technical claim (which is proper) and in another article in which the technical claim is irrelevant, but incidental to the material referred to.

This said, the article does contain plausible, but flat, statements that IMO do need citation and are not even linked to anything, and statements linked to articles that in turn are light on refs.

I am inclined to recommend moving the section as is to one of the articles mentioned, and linking to that article. Anyone (including yourselves) wishing to edit it with the necessary citations (or even citation-wanted notes) could then proceed to do so without concerning this article's editors. Some of the uncited statements I mentioned are too important to omit, but too specialistically technical for anyone to deal with in an article where they are peripheral unless he has a special interest in fire control. In a fire control article there should not be much trouble finding someone to add the citations. Why not just move it as it stands? JonRichfield (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what's wrong with WP. This an unsourced, wordy, pontificating, POV, soapbox essay by a sole single issue editor - and you're debating if this should not be removed until it can be improved. Jeez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.221.32.10 (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the section should be compressed to about 1/5 of its current length. The content seems tangential, so it does give undue weight to the safety aspect. I also think that parts border on giving advice, which violates my reading of WP:NOTMANUAL. Some of the content could be moved to other articles that describe bottled gas or gas cylinder with appropriate see also" notes. I am ok with the idea of moving some content moving to fireproofing. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not toxic?

The article had a part where it stated LPG isn't toxic so there's no chance of poisoning. A brief glance at our articles (or any MDSS) on LPG's component gases will tell you how silly that particular statement was. I've removed it. Peter Greenwell (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is more or less true. It isn't good to be exposed to propane at sufficiently high concentrations, but all exposure limits are based on flammability and not toxicity.JSR (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PG, not knowing what you had in mind, I cannot criticise your decision -- yet. However, I think you owe us an explanation before demanding that we accept your decision. What toxicity did you have in mind? It certainly is true that you can poison someone with sufficient propane, but you could do the same with sufficient argon or nitrogen or oxygen too. Would you accept that we publish statements such as that Nitrogen is toxic? If not why not? And if yes, then what would you accept as non-toxic? I am not asking for anything formal, you understand, but... JonRichfield (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LPG is not considered to be toxic. Toxic compounds take an "active biological" role in causing "bad effects," such as cyanide interfering with the cell's ability to use oxygen ( see "Cyanide poisoning".) The primary cause of harm of compounds such as nitrogen, argon, LPG, etc. is the displacement of oxygen causing asphyxiation.OneNemesis (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the word "important" from the phrase "an important greenhouse gas" in the section "Environmental effects"

Important is a very over used "opinion" word. Given the usage, one could say "important" about methane, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, etc. as all of these are greenhouse gases (see "IPCC list of greenhouse gases". Conspicuously absent, however, is the largest component, water vapor, which comprises ~95% of the greenhouse gases. OneNemesis (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed original research

Removed this - appears to be WP:OR, or at the very least unsourced:

For mobile tanks (propane, LNG, oxygen) You might want to consider this: Have 2 tanks with one inside the other the inside one contains the product, it will have 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 rows of unsightly and non aerodynamic Pressure Relief Valves (PRV's) attached to the outside depending on the diameter of the tank this way if the tank rolls off the truck or truck rolls over there will be valves in a position to vent the gas. Make sure that BOTH ends have valves to in case the tank winds up on end.
EACH row of PRVs will have 3 or more valves set to go at different pressures in case a fire heats the product so much that even with the valve open the pressure could still cause an explosion. Since when a higher pressure valve opens a lower pressure one MIGHT close in order to vent more gas _ THE DIAMETER OF EACH VALVE MUST BE LARGER THAN THE VALVE BEFORE.
The will be pipes going from the PRV 's to the good looking and aerodynamic outside shell. The ends will be shaped to be flush with the shell.^[1]

^ TO ME this is common sense. YES, there will be more tankers on the road __BUT __ they will be a lot safer.

- added by @SB3972:. Note that I'm not disagreeing with anything, just saying that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's policy against original research, WP:OR. I left in the paragraph on BLEVEs and release valves by the same contributor, as I thought it made sense, though it's also unsourced. --Chriswaterguy talk 05:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liquefied petroleum gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805150605/http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ozone/pdf/hcfc_technical_meeting_summary.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ozone/pdf/hcfc_technical_meeting_summary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TABLE-India's petrol, diesel, kerosene and LPG prices

(For related analysis, click on [ID:nSGE613099])

Feb 4 (Reuters) - An Indian government panel on Wednesday

suggested ending controls on retail prices of petrol and diesel. It has also suggested raising prices of kerosene sold through the country's public distribution system and the 14.2-kg liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinder.

Here are revisions since 1989 in the retail prices of four

sensitive petroleum products in Delhi. Petrol, diesel and kerosene prices are in rupees per litre, while LPG prices are per cylinder.

 YEAR          PETROL  KEROSENE   DIESEL      LPG
-------------------------------------------------
Apr 1  1989      8.5    2.25       3.50      57.60
Mar 20 1990     9.84     --        4.08       --
Oct 15 1990    12.23    2.77       5.05       --
Jul 25 1991    14.62    2.52        --       67.90
Sep 16 1992    15.71     --        6.11      82.75
Jan 12 1994      --      --         --       98.30
Jan 14 1994      --      --         --       93.05
Feb 02 1994    16.78     --        6.98       --
Jul 03 1996    21.13     --        9.04     119.95
Jul 07 1996      --      --        8.02       --
Sep 02 1997    22.84     --       10.34     136.00
Nov 07 1997      --      --       10.29       --
Dec 12 1997      --      --       10.39       --
Mar 01 1998      --      --       10.25       --
Apr 04 1998      --      --       10.01       --
May 20 1998      --      --        9.87       --
Jun 03 1998    23.94     --         --        --
Jan 09 1999      --      --        8.89       --
Feb 01 1999      --      --         --      152.00
Feb 28 1999    23.80     --        9.94     146.00
Apr 20 1999      --      --       10.37       --
Oct 06 1999      --      --       13.91       --
Jan 15 2000#   25.94     --       14.04       --
Mar 23 2000      --     5.55        --      196.55
Apr 03 2000 *  26.07     --         --        --
Sep 30 2000    28.44    8.35      16.55     232.25
Nov 03 2000 ** 28.70     --         --        --
Nov 22 2000      --     7.35        --      222.25
Mar 03 2001***   --      --       17.06       --
Jan 12 2002    27.54     --       17.09       --
Mar 01 2002    26.54    8.98      16.59     259.95
Mar 17 2002      --      --         --      240.45
Jun 04 2002    28.94     --       17.99       --
Jun 16 2002    29.18     --       18.23       --
Aug 16 2002    29.00     --       18.05       --
Sep 01 2002    29.20     --       18.34       --
Sep 16 2002    29.66     --       18.68       --
Oct 01 2002    29.91     --       18.91       --
Oct 17 2002    30.24     --       19.23       --
Nov 01 2002    30.26     --       19.25     241.20
Nov 16 2002    29.57     --       18.57       --
Dec 01 2002    28.91     --       18.06       --
Jan 03 2003    29.93     --       19.07       --
Jan 16 2003    30.33     --       19.47       --
Feb 01 2003    30.71     --       19.84       --
Mar 01 2003    32.10     --       21.21       --
Mar 16 2003    33.49     --       22.12       --
Apr 16 2003    32.49     --       21.12       --
Apr 27 2003    31.49     --       20.12       --
May 01 2003    31.50     --       20.13       --
may 16 2003    30.40     --       19.18       --
Jun 01 2003    30.30     --       19.08       --
Jun 26 2003     --      9.01        --        --
Sep 01 2003    32.40     --       20.33       --
Oct 01 2003     --       --         --      241.60
Oct 16 2003    31.70     --       19.73       --
Dec 16 2003    32.70     --       20.73       --
Jan 01 2004    33.70     --       21.73       --
Mar 01 2004    33.71     --       21.74       --
Jun 16 2004    35.71     --       22.74     261.60
Aug 01 2004    36.81     --       24.16       --
Nov 05 2004    39.00     --       26.28     281.60
Nov 16 2004    37.84     --         --        --
Jun 21 2005    40.49     --       28.45       --
Jun 25 2005      --     9.08        --        --
Sep 07 2005    43.49     --       30.45       --
Apr 01 2006    43.51     --       30.47       --
May 25 2006      --     9.09        --        --
Jun 06 2006    47.51     --       32.47       --
Nov 30 2006    44.85     --       31.25       --
Feb 16 2007    42.85     --       30.25       --
Mar 01 2007    42.85     --       30.25       --
Jun 06 2007    43.52     --       30.48       --
Sep 27 2007      --     9.16        --        --
Feb 15 2008    45.52     --       31.76       --
May 24 2008    45.56     --       31.80       --
Jun 05 2008    50.56     --       34.80    346.30##
Jul 18 2008    50.62     --       34.86        --
Sep 12 2008     --      9.22        --         --
Dec 06 2008    45.62     --       32.86        --
Jan 29 2009    40.62     --       30.86      279.70
Jul 02 2009    44.63     --       32.87         --
 # Sales tax revision in Delh on diesel from 11 percent to 12

percent

 * petrol with 0.05 percent sulphur introduced.
 ** petrol with 0.05 percent sulphur and 1 percent benzene

introduced.

 *** Diesel with 0.05 percent sulphur introduced in adjoining

areas to Delhi

 ## Effective retail price was 304.70 rupees per cylinder from

June 9, 2008 as the Delhi state government provided a subsidy of 40 rupees/cylinder

($1=46.1 rupees)
(Compiled by Nidhi Verma in NEW DELHI; Editing by Clarence

Fernandez)

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles Love Killer (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LPG pressure = 220 kilopascals (32 psi) = Eh? = 2.2 Bar = Ah ok, now I understand

"LPG is liquefied by slight pressurization, not by cooling." "The pressure at which LPG becomes liquid, called its vapour pressure, likewise varies depending on composition and temperature; for example, it is approximately 220 kilopascals (32 psi) for pure butane at 20 °C (68 °F), and approximately 2,200 kilopascals (320 psi) for pure propane at 55 °C (131 °F)." => LPG pressure = 220 kilopascals (32 psi) = 2.2 Bar, that's indeed not a lot. Can I add that it is 2.2 Bar? I think more people will understand that, don't you agree? Cheers, SvenAERTS (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American?

How prevalent is LPG use in USA? Drsruli (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that country it is called "propane", being entirely made from propane (as opposed to a mixture of propane and butane), and unless it's being used to heat a house or fuel a car, you'll generally find it in use as fuel for a barbecue. That said, talk pages on Wikipedia are not intended for the discussion of the subject in the related article, only the article itself. Ellenor2000 (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance to an encyclopedia of "#Lpg prices around the world" near the top

It's useful to have a directory of sourced prices of an important fuel in a place people will be looking, but I suspect Wikipedia isn't the place for that. I'm not going to blank that section lest I start an edit war, but I would like to raise this as a question. Ellenor2000 (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's questionable whether detailed international pricing is of encyclopedic significance. It's now more than a year out of date, if valid. It's largely sourced to URLs such as http://gas.test/lithuania/lpg-prices which not only don't exist now, but probably never existed, as there is no ".test" top-level domain (TLD) on the internet. I'll remove it. NebY (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] TO ME this is common sense. YES, there will be more tankers on the road __BUT __ they will be a lot safer.

[1]