DOCSLIB.ORG

Using Natural Gas for Vehicles: Comparing Three Technologies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Using Natural Gas for Vehicles: Comparing Three Technologies Natural Gas for Cars Using Natural Gas for Vehicles: Comparing Three Technologies In the United States, natural gas is can also serve as the energy source in centrally-fueled fleets that use used primarily for electricity genera- for plug-in electric or hydrogen large quantities of fuel), but will not tion and residential, commercial, fuel cell electric vehicles. This fact be covered in this fact sheet. and industrial applications, but it sheet compares some efficiency and is also used as a fuel for on-road environmental metrics for three This comparison of pathways in vehicles, especially in medium- or possible options for using natural light-duty vehicles is based on a heavy-duty vehicles in centrally- gas in light-duty cars. detailed analysis (Wang and fueled fleets. Elgowainy 2015), which uses the The analysis presented here com- GREET model (Greenhouse Gases, It has been proposed for greater pares these pathways. It is not Regulated Emissions, and Energy use as a fuel for on-road vehicles, intended to recommend for or use in Transportation). Scientists particularly in light-duty vehicles. against increased use of natural at Argonne National Laboratory This can mean burning natural gas gas in light-duty vehicles. Related developed GREET to estimate in an internal combustion engine ongoing analysis considers use energy use and emissions across the like those used in most natural gas, ofnatural gas with these three entire fuel life cycle from extraction gasoline, diesel-powered vehicles on technology pathways in medium- to end use in transportation. the road today. However, natural gas or heavy-duty vehicles (for example, Natural Gas On-Road Vehicle Fuel: Three Technology Options Internal combustion Fuel cell electric Plug-in electric engine vehicle vehicle vehicle 1 2 3 BURNING REFORMING GENERATION COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS TO ELECTRICITY FROM NATURAL GAS HYDROGEN NATURAL GAS Figure 1. Compressed natural gas, natural gas to hydrogen, and electricity from natural gas 2 POLICY AND ANALYSIS Considering Life Cycle Efficiency Each of the three pathways for using natural gas has strengths and weaknesses that determine where efficiency losses and emissions occur across the entire life cycle. Vehicle efficiency determines only part of the story. Figure 2, which is based on GREET results, gives a look at the fuel life cycle for the three types of natural gas cars, showing how energy conversion efficiency at each major step leads to the ultimate system efficiency for each pathway. The percentages (light blue circles) show natural gas conversion efficiencies along steps of the life cycle. Below each pathway, the changes in the height of the light blue bar show how much of the energy92%* in one mmBtu of 99% 98% 16%** natural gas is used during each step. Natural gas internal combustion engine vehicles running on compressed natural gas (CNGV) have the greatest losses during combustion at the vehicle propulsion stage. Fuel cell 92%electric* vehicles (FCEVs) have the greatest99% losses 98% 16%** during hydrogen production via methane reforming andDrilling, during Processing, electricity generation and Transportation from hydrogen in the vehicle. NG Distribution NG Compression CNGV 175 92%* 99% 98% 16%** In addition, plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) have the greatest losses during electricity generation. miles per 1 mmBtu mmBtu Drilling, Processing, and Transportation NG Distribution NG Compression CNGV 175 natural gas 92%* 99% 98% 16%** miles per Drilling,CNGV Processing, and Transportation1 mmBtu NG Distribution NG Compression CNGV 175 93% mmBtu ** 72% 97% miles per 92% 35% 1 mmBtu natural gas mmBtu Drilling, Processing, and Transportation NG Distribution NG Compression CNGV 175 natural gas City Gate City miles per ** 1 mmBtu 93% 72% mmBtu97% 92% 35% Drilling, Processing, and Transportation naturalNG gasSMR** Plant H **Compression H T&D H Fueling FCEV 93% 72% 97% 92% 35%2 | 2 | 2 255 FCEV 93% 72% 97% Gate City 92% 35%** miles per 1 mmBtu mmBtu Drilling, Processing, Gate City and Transportation NG SMR** Plant H2 Compression H2 T&D H2 Fueling FCEV City Gate City | | 255 natural gas Drilling,Drilling, Processing, Processing, and and Transportation Transportation NG SMR** Plant NGH CompressionSMR** Plant H T&DH CompressionH Fueling FCEV H T&D H Fueling FCEV miles per 1 mmBtu 2 | 2 2| 2 | 2 | 2 255 255 mmBtu miles per 1 mmBtu miles per ** 1 mmBtu 93% mmBtu 50% 94% 85% natural gas 67% (including natural gas mmBtu charging losses) natural gas PEV ** 93% 50% 93%94% 85% 67%50%** (including 94% 85% 67% (including charging losses) charging losses) 93% 50% 94% 85% 67%** (including Drilling, Processing, and Transportation NG Power Plants*** Electricitycharging T&Dlosses) Charging PEV 325 Drilling, Processing, and Transportation NG Power Plants*** Electricity T&D Charging PEV | | 325 miles per miles per 1 mmBtu Drilling, Processing,1 andmmBtu Transportation NG Power Plants*** Electricity T&D Charging PEV mmBtu | 325 mmBtu natural gas miles per natural gas Drilling, Processing, and Transportation1 mmBtu NG Power Plants*** Electricity T&D Charging PEV | 325 mmBtu Eciency miles per 1 mmBtu natural gas Key Loss Steps Eciency mmBtu Figure 2. Fuel life cycle efficiency natural gas Remaining Energy Eciency Key Loss Steps Energy conversion efficiency Key loss steps Remaining energy Eciency Key Loss Steps Remaining Energy Key Loss Steps Remaining Energy * Efficiency of drilling, processing, and transportation varies slightly between pathways due to expected differences in pipeline distanceRemaining to use, as Energy shown in Wang and Elgowainy (2015). ** Actual end-use efficiency will depend on drive cycle and other factors. Efficiency values here are representative based on an estimate of 17% average efficiency of gasoline engines for typical drive cycles and the relative MPGGE of each vehicle. Drive cycle simulations adjusted for on-road performance were used to estimate miles/mmBtu. *** Primarily from natural gas combined cycle plants. Reference: Wang, Michael and Amgad Elgowainy (2015). “Well-to-Wheels GHG Emissions of Natural Gas Use in Transportation: CNGVs, LNGVs, EVs, and FCVs. Presented October 10, 2014. Argonne National Laboratory. https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-EERE-LCA-NG. POLICY AND ANALYSIS 3 Understanding Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions An accounting of greenhouse gas emissions involves more than vehicle fuel economy and life cycle system efficiency. With natural gas, a variable and uncertain portion of greenhouse gas emission occurs due to leakage of methane throughout the life cycle. Using GREET, greenhouse gas emissions can be compared across pathways with very different distributions205 miles per mmBtu of emissions across the fuel life cycle. natural gas In Figure 3, the grey bars show how greenhouse gas emissions (in carbon dioxide equivalents) are distributed across Drilling, Processing,different steps and of Transportation the life cycle for each pathway.NG DistributionThe figure also shows howNG the Compressiondifferent fuel economies in the lightCNGV blue 200 miles per mmBtu circles contribute to the final grams of emissions per mile shown in figures 3 and 4. ang(W and Elgowainy 2015). natural gas390 g/mi WTW CO e miles per mmBtu 2 * Drilling, Processing, and Transportation NG Distribution NG Compression205 natural gas CNGV emissions 14 kg CO2/mmBtu of NG 16 kg of CO2/mmBtu 19 kg CO2/mmBtu 80 kg CO2/mmBtu of NG of CNG of CNG Drilling, Processing, and Transportation NG Distribution NG Compression CNGV * 14 kg CO2/mmBtu of NG 16 kg of CO2/mmBtu 19 kg CO2/mmBtu 39080 kg CO2/mmBtu WTW CO2e of NG of CNG g/mi of CNG emissions: 390 g/mi WTW CO e miles per 2460 * emissions mmBtu H2 14 kg CO2/mmBtu of NG 16 kg of CO2/mmBtu 19 kg CO2/mmBtu 80 kg CO2/mmBtu of NG of CNG of CNG 452 miles per mmBtu H2 Drilling, Processing, and Transportation NG SMR Plant Gate City H Compression H T&D H Fueling miles per FCEV 2 | 2 | 2 460 mmBtu H2 260 Drilling, Processing, and Transportation NG SMR Plant H Compression H T&D H Fueling FCEV g/mi 2 | 2 | 2 WTW CO2e Drilling, Processing, and Transportation NG SMR Plant H Compression H T&D H Fueling FCEV emissions 2 | 2 | 2 260 9 kg CO2/mmBtu of NG 97 kg CO2/mmBtu 103 kg CO2/mmBtu 120 kg CO2/mmBtu 120 kg CO2/mmBtu g/mi of H2 of H2 of H2 WTWof CO H2e 9 kg CO2/mmBtu of NG 97 kg CO2/mmBtu 103 kg CO2/mmBtu 120 kg CO2/mmBtu 1202 kg CO2/mmBtu WTW CO2e emissions emissions: 255 g/mi of H2 of H2 of H2 of H2 9 kg CO2/mmBtu of NG 97 kg CO2/mmBtu 103 kg CO2/mmBtu 120 kg CO2/mmBtu 120 kg CO2/mmBtu of H2 of H2 of H2 of H2 miles per mmBtu 880 electricitymiles (including per mmBtu miles per mmBtu 861 electricity (including 880 electricity (including chargingcharging losses) losses) charging losses) Drilling, Processing, and TransportationDrilling, Processing, and TransportationNG Power Plants** NG PowerElectricity Plants** T&D Electricity Charging T&D Charging PEV BEV Drilling, Processing, and Transportation NG Power Plants** Electricity T&D | Charging | PEV | 200 200 g/mi g/mi WTW CO2e emissions WTW CO2e 11 kg CO2/mmBtu of NG 140 kg CO /mmBtu 150 kg CO /mmBtu 175 kg CO /mmBtu 175 kg CO /mmBtu 11 kg CO2/mmBtu of NG 2 1402 kg CO /mmBtu 2 150 kg CO /mmBtu2 175 kg CO /mmBtu 175 kg CO /mmBtu WTWemissions CO2e of electricity of electricity 2 of electricity 2 of electricity 2 2 200 g/mi 11 kg CO2/mmBtu of NG 140 kg CO2/mmBtu 150of electricity kg CO2/mmBtu of electricity175 kg CO2/mmBtuof electricity 175 kg CO2/mmBtuof electricity emissions: Figure 3. Fuel life cycle greenhouse gas emissionsof electricity of electricity of electricity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Gas Vehicles Myth Vs. Reality
    INNOVATION | NGV NATURAL GAS VEHICLES MYTH VS. REALITY Transitioning your fleet to alternative fuels is a major decision, and there are several factors to consider. Unfortunately, not all of the information in the market related to heavy-duty natural gas vehicles (NGVs) is 100 percent accurate. The information below aims to dispel some of these myths while providing valuable insights about NGVs. MYTH REALITY When specifying a vehicle, it’s important to select engine power that matches the given load and duty cycle. Earlier 8.9 liter natural gas engines were limited to 320 horsepower. They were not always used in their ideal applications and often pulled loads that were heavier than intended. As a result, there were some early reliability challenges. NGVs don’t have Fortunately, reliability has improved and the Cummins Westport near-zero 11.9 liter engine enough power, offers up to 400 horsepower and 1,450 lb-ft torque to pull full 80,000 pound GVWR aren’t reliable. loads.1 In a study conducted by the American Gas Association (AGA) NGVs were found to be as safe or safer than vehicles powered by liquid fuels. NGVs require Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fuel tanks, or “cylinders.” They need to be inspected every three years or 36,000 miles. The AGA study goes on to state that the NGV fleet vehicle injury rate was 37 CNG is not safe. percent lower than the gasoline fleet vehicle rate and there were no fuel related fatalities compared with 1.28 deaths per 100 million miles for gasoline fleet vehicles.2 Improvements in CNG cylinder storage design have led to fuel systems that provide E F range that matches the range of a typical diesel-powered truck.
    [Show full text]
  • Vehicle Conversions, Retrofits, and Repowers ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE CONVERSIONS, RETROFITS, and REPOWERS
    What Fleets Need to Know About Alternative Fuel Vehicle Conversions, Retrofits, and Repowers ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE CONVERSIONS, RETROFITS, AND REPOWERS Acknowledgments This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 with Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, the Manager and Operator of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. This work was made possible through funding provided by National Clean Cities Program Director and DOE Vehicle Technologies Office Deployment Manager Dennis Smith. This publication is part of a series. For other lessons learned from the Clean Cities American Recovery and Reinvestment (ARRA) projects, please refer to the following publications: • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – Clean Cities Project Awards (DOE/GO-102016-4855 - August 2016) • Designing a Successful Transportation Project – Lessons Learned from the Clean Cities American Recovery and Reinvestment Projects (DOE/GO-102017-4955 - September 2017) Authors Kay Kelly and John Gonzales, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Disclaimer This document is not intended for use as a “how to” guide for individuals or organizations performing a conversion, repower, or retrofit. Instead, it is intended to be used as a guide and resource document for informational purposes only. VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE | cleancities.energy.gov 2 ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE CONVERSIONS, RETROFITS, AND REPOWERS Table of Contents Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Vehicles Electric Vehicle Expansion Liquefied Natural Gas
    The Road to 1 Billion Miles in UPS’s Alternative Fuel and Advanced Technology Vehicles UPS is committed to better fuel alternatives, now and for the future. That’s why we recently announced a new goal –– to drive 1 billion miles in our alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles by 2017. With nearly 3,000 vehicles currently in our “rolling laboratory,” we’re creating sustainable connections and delivering innovative, new technologies on the road and around the globe. 1 000 000 00 0 miles by 2017 1 Billion Miles Our goal is to drive 1 billion miles in alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles by the end of 2017 — more than double our previous goal to drive 400 million miles. 295 Million Miles 212 Million Miles Base Year 100 Million Miles 2000 2005 2010 2012 2017 Electric Vehicle Liquefied Natural Gas Expansion Announcement x20 100x 2013 2013 Earlier this year we deployed 100 fully electric UPS announced the purchase of 700 LNG tractors in commercial vehicles throughout California. These 2013 and plan to ultimately have more than 1,000 in additions to our electric vehicle fleet will help our fleet. These tractors will operate from LNG fueling offset the consumption of conventional motor fuel stations in Las Vegas, Nev.; Phoenix, Ariz., and Beaver by an estimated 126,000 gallons per year. and Salt Lake City, Utah among other locations. Electric Vehicles Diesel Hybrid Hydraulic 2001 First tested in New York City in the 1930s, we 2006 took a second look in Santiago, Chile, in 2001. Harnessing hydraulic power sharply increases fuel Today, we have more than 100 worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuel Cells on Bio-Gas
    Fuel Cells on Bio-Gas 2009 Michigan Water Environment Association's (MWEA) Biosolids and Energy Conference Robert J. Remick, PhD March 4, 2009 NREL/PR-560-45292 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Wastewater Treatment Plants • WWTP operators are looking for opportunities to utilize biogas as a renewable energy source. • Majority use biogas through boilers for reheating • Interest is growing in distributed generation, especially where both electricity and fuel costs are high. • Drivers for the decision to purchase fuel cells – Reliability – Capital and O&M costs – Availability of Government Incentives National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas • Anaerobic digestion is a process used to stabilize Range of Biogas Compositions wastewater sludge before final disposal. Methane 50% – 75% Carbon Dioxide 25% – 50% • The process uses Nitrogen 0% – 10% microorganisms in the Hydrogen 0% – 1% absence of oxygen to Sulfur Species 0% – 3% convert organic Oxygen 0% – 2% materials to biogas. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future WWTP Co-Gen Market • There are over 16,800 WWTP in the U.S. • 615 facilities with flows > 3 mgd that use anaerobic digestion • 215 do not use their biogas but flare it instead. • California has the highest number of municipal facilities using anaerobic digestion, about 102, of which 25 do not use their biogas.
    [Show full text]
  • Morgan Ellis Climate Policy Analyst and Clean Cities Coordinator DNREC [email protected] 302.739.9053
    CLEAN TRANSPORTATION IN DELAWARE WILMAPCO’S OUR TOWN CONFERENCE THE PRESENTATION 1) What are alterative fuels? 2) The Fuels 3) What’s Delaware Doing? WHAT ARE ALTERNATIVE FUELED VEHICLES? • “Vehicles that run on a fuel other than traditional petroleum fuels (i.e. gas and diesel)” • Propane • Natural Gas • Electricity • Biodiesel • Ethanol • Hydrogen THERE’S A FUEL FOR EVERY FLEET! DELAWARE’S ALTERNATIVE FUELS • “Vehicles that run on a fuel other than traditional petroleum fuels (i.e. gas and diesel)” • Propane • Natural Gas • Electricity • Biodiesel • Ethanol • Hydrogen THE FUELS PROPANE • By-Product of Natural Gas • Compressed at high pressure to liquefy • Domestic Fuel Source • Great for: • School Busses • Step Vans • Larger Vans • Mid-Sized Vehicles COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG) • Predominately Methane • Uses existing pipeline distribution system to deliver gas • Good for: • Heavy-Duty Trucks • Passenger cars • School Buses • Waste Management Trucks • DNREC trucks PROPANE AND CNG INFRASTRUCTURE • 8 Propane Autogas Stations • 1 CNG Station • Fleet and Public Access with accounts ELECTRIC VEHICLES • Electricity is considered an alternative fuel • Uses electricity from a power source and stores it in batteries • Two types: • Battery Electric • Plug-in Hybrid • Great for: • Passenger Vehicles EV INFRASTRUCTURE • 61 charging stations in Delaware • At 26 locations • 37,000 Charging Stations in the United States • Three types: • Level 1 • Level 2 • D.C. Fast Charging TYPES OF CHARGING STATIONS Charger Current Type Voltage (V) Charging Primary Use Time Level 1 Alternating 120 V 2 to 5 miles Current (AC) per hour of Residential charge Level 2 AC 240 V 10 to 20 miles Residential per hour of and charge Commercial DC Fast Direct Current 480 V 60 to 80 miles (DC) per 20 min.
    [Show full text]
  • CASE Studies
    THE STATE OF ASIAN CITIES 2010/11 CASE STUDIES TRANSPORTATION POSITIVE CHANGE IS WITHIN REACH Transportation generates at least one third of greenhouse gas emissions in urban areas, but positive change is within reach, and much more easily than some policymakers might think. Cycle rickshaws remain a policy blind spot The cycle rickshaw remains widely popular in Asian cities and is a sustainable urban transport for short- distance trips (1-5 km). It can also complement and integrate very effectively as a low-cost feeder service to public transport systems, providing point-to-point service (i.e., from home to a bus stop). According to estimates, over seven million passenger/goods cycle rickshaws are in operation in various Indian cities (including some 600,000 in India’s National Capital Region) where they are used by substantial numbers of low- and middle-income commuters as well as tourists, and even goods or materials. Still, for all its popularity and benefits, this non-polluting type of transport is largely ignored by policymakers and transport planners. Recently in Delhi, a ban on cycle rickshaws resulted in additional traffic problems as people turned to ‘auto’ (i.e., motorized) rickshaws instead. The ban met with public outcry and opposition from many civil society groups. In a landmark decision in February 2010, the Delhi High Court ruled that the Municipal Corporation’s ban on cycle rickshaws was unconstitutional. State of Asian Cities Report 2010/11, Ch. 4, Box 4.17 Delhi’s conversion to natural gas and solar power In 1998 and at the request of India’s non-governmental Centre for Science and Environment, the country’s Supreme Court directed the Delhi Government to convert all public transport and para-transit vehicles from diesel or petrol engines to compressed natural gas (CNG).
    [Show full text]
  • Fuel Properties Comparison
    Alternative Fuels Data Center Fuel Properties Comparison Compressed Liquefied Low Sulfur Gasoline/E10 Biodiesel Propane (LPG) Natural Gas Natural Gas Ethanol/E100 Methanol Hydrogen Electricity Diesel (CNG) (LNG) Chemical C4 to C12 and C8 to C25 Methyl esters of C3H8 (majority) CH4 (majority), CH4 same as CNG CH3CH2OH CH3OH H2 N/A Structure [1] Ethanol ≤ to C12 to C22 fatty acids and C4H10 C2H6 and inert with inert gasses 10% (minority) gases <0.5% (a) Fuel Material Crude Oil Crude Oil Fats and oils from A by-product of Underground Underground Corn, grains, or Natural gas, coal, Natural gas, Natural gas, coal, (feedstocks) sources such as petroleum reserves and reserves and agricultural waste or woody biomass methanol, and nuclear, wind, soybeans, waste refining or renewable renewable (cellulose) electrolysis of hydro, solar, and cooking oil, animal natural gas biogas biogas water small percentages fats, and rapeseed processing of geothermal and biomass Gasoline or 1 gal = 1.00 1 gal = 1.12 B100 1 gal = 0.74 GGE 1 lb. = 0.18 GGE 1 lb. = 0.19 GGE 1 gal = 0.67 GGE 1 gal = 0.50 GGE 1 lb. = 0.45 1 kWh = 0.030 Diesel Gallon GGE GGE 1 gal = 1.05 GGE 1 gal = 0.66 DGE 1 lb. = 0.16 DGE 1 lb. = 0.17 DGE 1 gal = 0.59 DGE 1 gal = 0.45 DGE GGE GGE Equivalent 1 gal = 0.88 1 gal = 1.00 1 gal = 0.93 DGE 1 lb. = 0.40 1 kWh = 0.027 (GGE or DGE) DGE DGE B20 DGE DGE 1 gal = 1.11 GGE 1 kg = 1 GGE 1 gal = 0.99 DGE 1 kg = 0.9 DGE Energy 1 gallon of 1 gallon of 1 gallon of B100 1 gallon of 5.66 lb., or 5.37 lb.
    [Show full text]
  • China at the Crossroads
    SPECIAL REPORT China at the Crossroads Energy, Transportation, and the 21st Century James S. Cannon June 1998 INFORM, Inc. 120 Wall Street New York, NY 10005-4001 Tel (212) 361-2400 Fax (212) 361-2412 Site www.informinc.org Gina Goldstein, Editor Emily Robbins, Production Editor © 1998 by INFORM, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISSN# 1050-8953 Volume 5, Number 2 Acknowledgments INFORM is grateful to all those who contributed their time, knowledge, and perspectives to the preparation of this report. We also wish to thank ARIA Foundation, The Compton Foundation, The Overbrook Foundation, and The Helen Sperry Lea Foundation, without whose generous support this work would not have been possible. Table of Contents Preface Introduction: A Moment of Choice for China. ........................................................................1 Motor Vehicles in China: Oil and Other Options...................................................................3 Motor Vehicle Manufacturing........................................................................................................3 Oil: Supply and Demand...............................................................................................................5 Alternative Vehicles and Fuels........................................................................................................8 Natural Gas Vehicles.....................................................................................................8 Liquefied Petroleum Gas ..............................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Hydrogen Powertrains with the Battery Powered Electric Vehicle and Investigation of Small-Scale Local Hydrogen Production Using Renewable Energy
    Review Comparison of Hydrogen Powertrains with the Battery Powered Electric Vehicle and Investigation of Small-Scale Local Hydrogen Production Using Renewable Energy Michael Handwerker 1,2,*, Jörg Wellnitz 1,2 and Hormoz Marzbani 2 1 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Applied Sciences Ingolstadt, Esplanade 10, 85049 Ingolstadt, Germany; [email protected] 2 Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, Plenty Road, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Climate change is one of the major problems that people face in this century, with fossil fuel combustion engines being huge contributors. Currently, the battery powered electric vehicle is considered the predecessor, while hydrogen vehicles only have an insignificant market share. To evaluate if this is justified, different hydrogen power train technologies are analyzed and compared to the battery powered electric vehicle. Even though most research focuses on the hydrogen fuel cells, it is shown that, despite the lower efficiency, the often-neglected hydrogen combustion engine could be the right solution for transitioning away from fossil fuels. This is mainly due to the lower costs and possibility of the use of existing manufacturing infrastructure. To achieve a similar level of refueling comfort as with the battery powered electric vehicle, the economic and technological aspects of the local small-scale hydrogen production are being investigated. Due to the low efficiency Citation: Handwerker, M.; Wellnitz, and high prices for the required components, this domestically produced hydrogen cannot compete J.; Marzbani, H. Comparison of with hydrogen produced from fossil fuels on a larger scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Long-Term Evolving Patterns of Shared Electric
    Experience: Understanding Long-Term Evolving Patterns of Shared Electric Vehicle Networks∗ Guang Wang Xiuyuan Chen Fan Zhang Rutgers University Rutgers University Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced [email protected] [email protected] Technology, CAS [email protected] Yang Wang Desheng Zhang University of Science and Rutgers University Technology of China [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT CCS CONCEPTS Due to the ever-growing concerns on the air pollution and • Networks → Network measurement; Mobile networks; energy security, many cities have started to update their Cyber-physical networks. taxi fleets with electric ones. Although environmentally friendly, the rapid promotion of electric taxis raises prob- KEYWORDS lems to both taxi drivers and governments, e.g., prolonged Electric vehicle; mobility pattern; charging pattern; evolving waiting/charging time, unbalanced utilization of charging experience; shared autonomous vehicle infrastructures and reduced taxi supply due to the long charg- ing time. In this paper, we make the first effort to understand ACM Reference Format: the long-term evolving patterns through a five-year study Guang Wang, Xiuyuan Chen, Fan Zhang, Yang Wang, and Desh- on one of the largest electric taxi networks in the world, i.e., eng Zhang. 2019. Experience: Understanding Long-Term Evolving the Shenzhen electric taxi network in China. In particular, Patterns of Shared Electric Vehicle Networks. In The 25th Annual we perform a comprehensive measurement investigation International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (Mo- called ePat to explore the evolving mobility and charging biCom ’19), October 21–25, 2019, Los Cabos, Mexico. ACM, New York, patterns of electric vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • How Practical Are Alternative Fuel Vehicles?
    How Practical Are Alternative Fuel Vehicles? Many of us have likely considered an alternative fuel vehicle at some point in our lives. Balancing the positives and negatives is a tricky process and varies greatly based on our personal situations. However, many of the negatives that previously created hesitancy have changed in recent years. Below, we have outlined a few of the most commonly mentioned negatives regarding the two leading alternative fuel vehicle types: Flex Fuel vehicles and Electric/Hybrid vehicles. Then, you can decide for yourself whether one of these vehicle types are practical for you! Cost – How much does the vehicle cost to purchase and operate? Flex Fuel: Flex Fuel vehicles typically cost about the same as a gasoline vehicle.1 For fuel cost, E85 typically costs slightly less than gasoline, however, due to decreased efficiency has a slightly higher cost per mile than gasoline.2 Overall, a Flex Fuel vehicle is likely to be slightly more expensive than a gasoline counterpart. Electric/Hybrid: This situation varies quite a bit depending on where you live. Electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles often cost considerably more than a conventional gasoline vehicle. For example, a plug-in hybrid will cost around $4000-$8000 more than a conventional model.3 However, there are federal rebates and local rebates that can refund thousands of dollars from the purchase price. Electric/Hybrid vehicles also tend to save money on fuel, with the possibility of saving thousands of dollars over the lifetime of the vehicle.4 Whether these rebates and fuel cost savings will eventually account for the higher purchase price can be estimated with comparison tools.
    [Show full text]
  • EPRI Journal--Driving the Solution: the Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle
    DRIVING THE SOLUTION THE PLUG-IN HYBRID VEHICLE by Lucy Sanna The Story in Brief As automakers gear up to satisfy a growing market for fuel-efficient hybrid electric vehicles, the next- generation hybrid is already cruis- ing city streets, and it can literally run on empty. The plug-in hybrid charges directly from the electricity grid, but unlike its electric vehicle brethren, it sports a liquid fuel tank for unlimited driving range. The technology is here, the electricity infrastructure is in place, and the plug-in hybrid offers a key to replacing foreign oil with domestic resources for energy indepen- dence, reduced CO2 emissions, and lower fuel costs. DRIVING THE SOLUTION THE PLUG-IN HYBRID VEHICLE by Lucy Sanna n November 2005, the first few proto­ vide a variety of battery options tailored 2004, more than half of which came from Itype plug­in hybrid electric vehicles to specific applications—vehicles that can imports. (PHEVs) will roll onto the streets of New run 20, 30, or even more electric miles.” With growing global demand, particu­ York City, Kansas City, and Los Angeles Until recently, however, even those larly from China and India, the price of a to demonstrate plug­in hybrid technology automakers engaged in conventional barrel of oil is climbing at an unprece­ in varied environments. Like hybrid vehi­ hybrid technology have been reluctant to dented rate. The added cost and vulnera­ cles on the market today, the plug­in embrace the PHEV, despite growing rec­ bility of relying on a strategic energy hybrid uses battery power to supplement ognition of the vehicle’s potential.
    [Show full text]