Talk:Propane
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Propane article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 22 May 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved from Propane to Liquefied natural gas. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
MJ/kg
[edit]This expression should has the equivalent value in BTU,maybe in ( ).BrianAlex (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please see {{convert}}. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Heating value is currently in MJ/kg should be represented in BTU/lb for English units. BTU/gal is not a good conversion because a sample volume of gas varies with respect to temperature and pressure. No reference state (temp. and pressure) is listed with the figure. Mass is constant. BeastRHIT (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- In the US, propane is commonly sold by the gallon, as liquid in the tank. But yes, weight would be a better way. As liquid, it is much less compressible than gas, though there might be some difference. In the tank, though, in equilibrium with gas, the pressure depends pretty much only on the temperature. In any case, BTU/gal should be used for liquid and not gas. Gah4 (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Use as a compressed gas/aerosol propellant
[edit]This article has no mention of the use of propane as a compressed gas for applications which previously used CFCs, such as aerosol propellants and canned air. In Germany at least, aerosol deodorants, canned air, etc. are typically labeled as using propane as the propellant, whereas Aerosol_spray#Aerosol_propellants says "The most common replacements of CFCs are mixtures of volatile hydrocarbons, typically propane, n-butane and isobutane." I don't know whether actual consumer applications in 2021 tend to use propane or a mixture, or if this varies by country or application.
Now, I see that Airsoft lists the compressed gases commonly used in the sport as "e.g. propane ("green gas"), 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane or CO2". How green is propane? Methane is, famously, a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2; is unburnt propane a greenhouse gas? What is its environmental fate - does it degrade without producing methane as an intermediate product?
This article should therefore have a section on the use of propane as a compressed gas, either alone or in a mixture. 1) What are the relevant properties of propane, e.g. vapor pressure? 2) What are its pros and cons compared to alternatives? (Nontoxic, but flammable, etc.) 3) What is the environmental effect of unburnt propane? 4) What is the scope of use of propane? (E.g. consumer applications or also industrial? Germany or Europe or worldwide? If there are regional differences, is this due to legislation or availability or...?) SSSheridan (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Like usual aerosol propellants, propane is liquid under pressure in cans, so is not commonly included as a compressed gas. But yes, it should be discussed as appropriate. Gah4 (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Proposed move of content from Propane article to LPG article
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At the moment this article is confusing since it discusses two different subjects:
- Propane, a pure chemical substance with chemical formula C3H8; used as a refrigerant and called R-290 in this context.
- Liquefied petroleum gas, a mixture of chemical substances, which may contain propane, butanes or other constituents; also called propane in some parts of the world; used as a fuel for heating, cooking and transportation.
I would like to propose that this article should focus on subject #1, to the extent possible, and that material about subject #2 should be moved to the Liquefied petroleum gas article. Dmoews (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree! Bernardirfan (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, but we should also probably add a hatnote for readers looking for information on liquefied petroleum gas. TypoEater (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Affirmative. I also got confused initially because the writer was talking about propane which is purely a constituent of Petroleum and also LPG. Cennir (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Requested move 22 May 2026
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against moving this article to LPG or LNG. Alternative solutions are the way to go here. (closed by non-admin page mover) ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 09:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
– Reopening the discussion Talk:Propane#Proposed move of content from Propane article to LPG article. This time with proper listing on RM. Pinging involved in previous discussion @Dmoews @Cennir @CoconutOctopus @Bernardirfan @TypoEater —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 09:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
- oppose This would be a disaster, it would would get rid of the article about the compound and Liquefied petroleum gas and Liquefied natural gas are different things! We can just throw a 'main article' that points to liquefied petroleum gas into the uses section—blindlynx 13:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
- My bad, I linked the wrong article, It was supposed to link to LPG, not LNG. I am sorry —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 01:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- And also I am not familiar with the move request process and I meant to only move the LPG sections to the other article —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 02:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah that would be a good idea... Would you object to withdrawing this rm? —blindlynx 23:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per Blindlynx. Absolute disaster. Srnec (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
- oppose This would be a disaster, it would would get rid of the article about the compound and Liquefied petroleum gas and Liquefied natural gas are different things! We can just throw a 'main article' that points to liquefied petroleum gas into the uses section—blindlynx 13:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: Per Blindlynx. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔 16:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)- Oppose. Propane is the WP:COMMONNAME and the correct name for the article. Propane and LPG are not even the same thing. Propane is only one component of LPG, which already has its own article. Propane is also used for things other than LPG. We need to retain the separate articles about these two separate topics. By the same logic, LNG and Methane are also two distinct topics that need to have separate articles. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm not one to throw a trout, but I must give a monster WP:TROUT to CoconutOctopus for suggesting above that an RM discussion was the correct venue to discuss moving content between two extant articles on well-known topics. The suggestion insinuates that the entire article now at propane is really about a different topic, which is a ridiculous proposition. I don't really see a need to have formally closed a stale normal talk page discussion anyway. But as for the question at hand, of course material that would better at the LNG or LPG articles can be moved there by rough consensus after discussion (see WP:SECTIONMOVE) or even boldly via WP:BRD, following guidance at WP:CWW. But an RM just creates confusion and is the incorrect proposal in the incorrect venue. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- IIRC, I closed it after it was listed at requested closes... I'm not sure how else I would have found it. CoconutOctopus talk 08:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)