DOCSLIB.ORG

Autogas Infrastructure Simple

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Autogas Infrastructure Simple Robert C. Little Director – Autogas Sales & Marketing [email protected] 972.849.9755 Autogas Infrastructure Simple. Flexible. Inexpensive. Foreign Oil • 2013 Priorities – Oil is an Unavoidable Cost Center • OPEC Oil: $147 Billion spent to Import from OPEC Nations • Veterans: $140 Billion spent on Veteran Affairs • Education: $72 Billion spent on Education • US Average Prices: 5/6/14 • Gasoline: $3.79 per Gallon • Diesel: $3.98 per Gallon • Autogas: $1.90 - $2.00 per Gallon • Transportation Demand: • 71% of US Imports Source: EIA Energy Timeline 1910: Propane Founded •Propane founded by Dr. Walter O Snelling – test sample from Ford Model T 1916: Conventional Fuels Challenged •“All the world is waiting for a substitute for gasoline.” Henry Ford, December, 1916 from a Detroit News interview. 1973: Oil Crisis •OPEC imposes oil embargo on the United States. At the time, 23% of our oil imported from OPEC Nations. Today ~40% 1990: Clean Air Act •Propane listed as an approved, alternative clean fuel in the 1990 Clean Air Act Listed again as an alternative fuel in the ‘ 92 Energy Policy Act 2008: Record High Prices •U.S. average retail price of regular gasoline reached $4.11 per gallon on July 7, 2008. On an inflation-adjusted basis (expressed in real December 2013 dollars using the Consumer Price Index) the highest monthly average price was $4.37 per gallon in June 2008. 2010: JP Energy Officially Launched •Gasoline Average Cost: $2.835 •50 Full Time Employees 2013 Steady Growth •Gasoline Average Cost: $3.575 • 900 Full Time Employees; 3rd Largest Cylinder Exchange Business in the USA •Associated Press Investigation shows Corn Based Ethanol is harmful for environment. EPA expected to reduce amount of ethanol required to be added to the gasoline supply. -CBS News 2020: Global Demand Rising •SE Asia , Indiana, China expected to register 2 billion “first time” automobiles. (Ford Global Research) Est. demand: more than 4 trillion gallons. JPE Overview NGL’s CRUDE SERVICES REFINED PRODUCTS Clean Clean Burning • 24% reduction in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. • 20% reduction in Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions. • 60% reduction in Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions. Clean Infrastructure • Non-EPA Regulated • Non-Carcinogenic • Not a Groundwater Contaminate • Zero Emission Fill Nozzle • Zero Risk of Spillage Domestic • 98% USA Produced • ~70% Sourced from Wet Natural Gas • ~30% Sourced from Crude Oil • Industry Stats • More than 56,000 US Jobs in Propane Industry • 83% of direct economic value of industry stays in the US Source: Study of Propane Value, Nov 2004 Abundant • Net Exporter of Propane • Billions of gallons exported each year due to vast supply • Largest Propane Inventory • More Gallons in Storage than ANY country in the world Abundant • 2,733 Autogas Stations in USA • 44% of all alternative fuel outlets in USA 25,761 USA Alt Fuel Stations Biodiesel CNG 5.2% 11.3% HY 0.2% LNG 0.9% LPG 43.9% E85 38.6% Biodiesel CNG HY LNG E85 LPG Source: AFDC Safe • Low Operating Pressure • 120-300 psi • Narrower Flammability Range • The range of air to vapor in which propane will ignite is narrower than that required for gasoline or diesel. Ratios for air to fuel ignition (rich limit ÷ lean limit): • Propane: 4.5:1 • Diesel: 12.5:1 • Gasoline: 5.5:1 • Auto ignition Temp (in Farenheit): • Propane: 850° • Diesel: 600° • Gasoline: 495° Source: PERC Flexible Splash Fill 1,000 gal. Scaleable 18,000 gal Relocate-able Redundant Capabilities Inexpensive Average more than $1.60 per gallon savings vs. gasoline Inexpensive – Sample ROI IC Diesel BB Diesel BB Propane Autogas Gallon Comparison Annual Miles 12,000.00 12,000.00 12,000.00 Total Miles in Life 180,000.00 180,000.00 180,000.00 Average MPG 77 Pass 6.00 7.00 4.00 Save Up to Gallons Consumed Annually Each 2,000.00 1,714.29 3,000.00 $44,000 in Gallons Consumed Total 30,000.00 25,714.29 45,000.00 Diesel Price Per Gallon $3.50 $3.50 Operating Costs Propane Price per Gallon $1.70 PM Comparison Oil Interval 3,500.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 Oil Capacity 30.00 17.00 7.00 Oil Filter Cost $28.00 $5.00 $5.00 Oil Cost per Quart $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 77 Pass DEF Gallons (2%) 600.00 514.29 DEF Cost per Gallon $1.89 $1.89 PM's per Year 51 30 30 Labor Hours per PM 1 1 1 Hourly Labor Cost $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 Fuel Filter Change Interval 12,000 12,000 50,000 Fuel Filter Cost $60.00 $20.00 $113.00 Total Filter Changes 15 15 3.6 Lifecycle Costs Annual Fuel Cost $105,000.00 $90,000.00 $76,500.00 Annual PM Cost $7,331.14 $3,087.00 $1,771.80 77 Pass TOTAL $112,331.14 $93,087.00 $78,271.80 THANK YOU Clean. Domestic. Abundant. Safe. Flexible. Redundant. Inexpensive. Rob Little JP Energy Partners Pinnacle Propane 972.849.9755 [email protected].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alternative Fuels, Vehicles & Technologies Feasibility
    ALTERNATIVE FUELS, VEHICLES & TECHNOLOGIES FEASIBILITY REPORT Prepared by Eastern Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Transportation (EP-ACT)With Technical Support provided by: Clean Fuels Ohio (CFO); & Pittsburgh Region Clean Cities (PRCC) Table of Contents Analysis Background: .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.0: Introduction – Fleet Feasibility Analysis: ............................................................................................... 3 2.0: Fleet Management Goals – Scope of Work & Criteria for Analysis: ...................................................... 4 Priority Review Criteria for Analysis: ........................................................................................................ 4 3.0: Key Performance Indicators – Existing Fleet Analysis ............................................................................ 5 4.0: Alternative Fuel Options – Summary Comparisons & Conclusions: ...................................................... 6 4.1: Detailed Propane Autogas Options Analysis: ......................................................................................... 7 Propane Station Estimate ......................................................................................................................... 8 (Station Capacity: 20,000 GGE/Year) ........................................................................................................ 8 5.0: Key Recommended Actions – Conclusion
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Air Emissions Through Alternative Transportation Strategies
    Reducing Air Emissions Through Alternative Transportation Strategies New Jersey Clean Air Council Public Hearing April 8, 2014 Hearing Chair: Sara Bluhm Clean Air Council Chair: Joseph Constance Editor: Melinda Dower NJ CAC 2014 Hearing Report Page | 1 New Jersey Clean Air Council Members Joseph Constance, Chairman Kenneth Thoman,Vice-Chairman Leonard Bielory, M.D. Sara Bluhm Manuel Fuentes-Cotto, P.E. Michael Egenton Mohammad “Ferdows” Ali, Ph.D. Howard Geduldig, Esq. Toby Hanna, P.E. Robert Laumbach, M.D. Pam Mount Richard E. Opiekun, Ph.D. James Requa, Ed.D. Nicky Sheats, Esq., Ph.D. Joseph Spatola, Ph.D. New Jersey Clean Air Council Website http://www.state.nj.us/dep/cleanair NJ CAC 2014 Hearing Report Page | 2 Table of Contents Page I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………… 4 II. OVERVIEW ……………………………………………………………………………. 4 III. RECOMMENDATIONS ……………………………………………………….……… 10 IV. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY† ………………………………………………….…… 14 A. Jim Appleton ………………………………………………..……….…… 14 B. Daniel Birkett ………………………………………………………….… 14 C. Andy Swords ……………………………………….…………………... 14 D. Matt Solomon ……………………………………………………………. 15 E. Julie Becker …………………………………………………..……..…... 16 F. Robert Gibbs, Esq. ………………………………….………………..….. 16 G. William Wells ………………………………………..………………..…. 17 H. Mark Giuffre …………………………………………………………….. 17 I. Jane Kozinski, Asst. Commissioner, NJDEP ……………………………. 18 J. Chuck Feinberg …………………………………………………………. 19 K. Raymond Albrecht, P.E. …………………………………………………. 19 L. Nicky Sheats, Ph.D., Esq.………………………………………………… 20 M. John Iannarelli ……………………………………………………….….
    [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]
  • Open PDF File, 176.5 KB, for 2018 Mass Clean Cities Annual Report
    2018 Transportation Technology Deployment Report: Massachusetts Clean Cities Expanded Edition March 2019 DRAFT The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Clean Cities program advances the nation's economic, environmental, and energy security by supporting local actions to reduce petroleum use in transportation. A national network of nearly 100 Clean Cities coalitions brings together stakeholders in the public and private sectors to deploy alternative and renewable fuels, idle-reduction measures, fuel economy improvements, and new transportation technologies, as they emerge. Every year, each Clean Cities coalition submits to DOE an annual report of its activities and accomplishments for the previous calendar year. Coalition coordinators, who lead the local coalitions, provide information and data via an online database managed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The data characterize membership, funding, projects, and activities of the coalitions. The coordinators also submit data on the sales of alternative fuels, deployment of alternative fuel vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles, idle-reduction initiatives, fuel economy activities, and programs to reduce vehicle miles traveled. NREL and DOE analyze the data and translate them into petroleum-use and greenhouse gas reduction impacts for individual coalitions and the program as a whole. This report summarizes those impacts for Massachusetts Clean Cities. To view aggregated data for all local coalitions that participate in the Clean Cities program, visit cleancities.energy.gov/accomplishments.
    [Show full text]
  • Operation & Maintenance Manual E85 Compact Excavator
    Operation & Maintenance Manual E85 Compact Excavator S/N B34T11001 & Above 6990616 (6-13) Printed in U.S.A. © Bobcat Company 2013 OPERATOR SAFETY WARNING Operator must have instructions before operating the machine. Untrained WARNING operators can cause injury or death. W-2001-0502 Safety Alert Symbol: This symbol with a warning statement, means: “Warning, be alert! Your safety is involved!” Carefully read the message that follows. CORRECT WRONG CORRECT WRONG P-90216 B-19792 B-19751 B-19754 Never operate without Do not grasp control Never operate without Avoid steep areas or instructions. handles when entering approved cab. banks that could break cab. away. Read machine signs, and Never modify equipment. Operation & Maintenance Be sure controls are in Manual, and Operator’s neutral before starting. Never use attachments Handbook. not approved by Bobcat Sound horn and check Company. behind machine before starting. WRONG WRONG CORRECT CORRECT Maximum Maximum MS-1784 MS1785 B-19756 MS-1786 Use caution to avoid Keep bystanders out of Never exceed a 15 slope Never travel up a slope tipping - do not swing maximum reach area. to the side. that exceeds 15. heavy load over side of track. Do not travel or turn with bucket extended. Operate on flat, level ground. Never carry riders. CORRECT CORRECT CORRECT CORRECT STOP Maximum TS-2068A NA-1435B 6808261 B-21928 NA-1421A Never exceed 25 when To leave excavator, lower Fasten seat belt securely. Look in the direction of going down or backing the work equipment and rotation and make sure up a slope. the blade to the ground.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Making Markets for Hydrogen Vehicles: Lessons from LPG
    Making Markets for Hydrogen Vehicles: Lessons from LPG Helen Hu and Richard Green Department of Economics and Institute for Energy Research and Policy University of Birmingham Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom Hu: [email protected] Green: [email protected] +44 121 415 8216 (corresponding author) Abstract The adoption of liquefied petroleum gas vehicles is strongly linked to the break-even distance at which they have the same costs as conventional cars, with very limited market penetration at break-even distances above 40,000 km. Hydrogen vehicles are predicted to have costs by 2030 that should give them a break-even distance of less than this critical level. It will be necessary to ensure that there are sufficient refuelling stations for hydrogen to be a convenient choice for drivers. While additional LPG stations have led to increases in vehicle numbers, and increases in vehicles have been followed by greater numbers of refuelling stations, these effects are too small to give self-sustaining growth. Supportive policies for both vehicles and refuelling stations will be required. 1. Introduction While hydrogen offers many advantages as an energy vector within a low-carbon energy system [1, 2, 3], developing markets for hydrogen vehicles is likely to be a challenge. Put bluntly, there is no point in buying a vehicle powered by hydrogen, unless there are sufficient convenient places to re-fuel it. Nor is there any point in providing a hydrogen refuelling station unless there are vehicles that will use the facility. What is the most effective way to get round this “chicken and egg” problem? Data from trials of hydrogen vehicles can provide information on driver behaviour and charging patterns, but extrapolating this to the development of a mass market may be difficult.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Vehicle (EV) Roadmap
    County of San Diego Electric Vehicle Roadmap October 2019 County of San Diego Electric Vehicle Roadmap iii County of San Diego Electric Vehicle Roadmap TABLE OF CONTENTS TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 1: EV POLICY FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................... 6 Summary of Key State Legislation ................................................................................................... 6 Summary of Key County Policies ..................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 2: EV TECHNOLOGY AND MARKET ........................................................................ 12 Summary of Technology and Market .......................................................................................... 12 Education, Outreach, and Regional Collaboration ............................................................... 21 Summary of Best Practices in EV Policy ....................................................................................... 22 Funding and Incentives for Electric Vehicle Market Development .................................... 26 SECTION 3: EV ROADMAP
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Report on the Department of Energy's Clean Cities 5-Year
    Summary Report on the Department of Energy’s Clean Cities 5-year Strategic Planning D. Welch and N. Nigro of Center for Climate and Energy Solutions July 2015 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Clean Cities Program Photo Credit: University of Rhode Island Photo Credit: Courtesy of Clean Airport Partnership, Inc. (This page intentionally left blank) Report Overview This report reflects stakeholder input to inform the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Clean Cities’ strategic plan. The report focuses on comments made by stakeholders on key market opportunities for each alternative fuel and petroleum use reduction strategy. This report will be followed by a strategic plan that further refines the stakeholder input outlined here. Clean Cities is a DOE program that advances the nation’s economic, environmental, and energy security by supporting local actions to reduce petroleum use in the transportation sector. DOE Clean Cities has displaced nearly 7.5 billion gallons of petroleum since its inception in 1993. The program has nearly 100 coalitions across the country and works with nearly 14,000 stakeholders, including fleets, fuel suppliers, local governments, vehicle manufacturers, national laboratories, state and federal government agencies, and other organizations. DOE hosted a public meeting in Washington, D.C., on February 25, 2015, to seek input from an array of stakeholders to inform DOE’s Clean Cities program Five-Year Strategic Plan. Stakeholders provided feedback on six alternative fuel and petroleum use reduction strategies: natural gas, biofuels, consumer fuel economy, plug-in electric and hybrid-electric vehicles, propane, and idle reduction. DOE national laboratory experts presented briefing papers to stakeholders on economic, behavioral, and technical issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Transport Fuels
    COMPARISON OF TRANSPORT FUELS FINAL REPORT (EV45A/2/F3C) to the AUSTRALIAN GREENHOUSE OFFICE on the Stage 2 study of Life-cycle Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles By Tom Beer1,2, Tim Grant3, Geoff Morgan4, Jack Lapszewicz5, Peter Anyon6, Jim Edwards7, Peter Nelson7, Harry Watson8 & David Williams7 1 CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Vic. 2 CSIRO Environmental Risk Network, Aspendale, Vic. 3 RMIT Centre for Design, Melbourne, Vic. 4 Southern Cross Institute of Health Research, Lismore, NSW 5 CSIRO Energy Technology, Lucas Heights, NSW 6 Parsons Australia Pty Ltd 7 CSIRO Energy Technology, North Ryde, NSW 8 University of Melbourne, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Parkville, Vic. in association with and Parsons Australia Pty Ltd Southern Cross Institute of Health Research Contact Dr Tom Beer Co-ordinator CSIRO Environmental Risk Network Private Bag 1 Aspendale, Vic. 3195 Australia Phone: (03) 9239 4400 Fax: (03) 9239 4444 International: + 613 9239 4400 Fax +613 9239 4444 e-mail: [email protected] EV45A_2P0_F3C_Part0 ii Table of Contents Acronyms..................................................................................................................................ix Glossary of Terms ....................................................................................................................xii Executive Summary..................................................................................................................xv Part 1 1. Background.....................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Vehicle Sales and Fuel Consumption Through 2025
    Tomorrow’s Vehicles An Overview of Vehicle Sales and Fuel Consumption Through 2025 Tomorrow’s Vehicles An Overview of Vehicle Sales and Fuel Consumption Through 2025 Executive Summary 2 Market Overview 4 Scope Methodology Findings 11 Gasoline and Ethanol Diesel and Biodeisel Electricity Hydrogen Natural Gas Propane Autogas Conclusion and Recommendations 19 About the Author 20 About the Fuels Institute 21 ©2017 Fuels Institute Disclaimer: The opinions and views expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the individuals on the Fuels Institute Board of Directors and the Fuels Institute Board of Advisors, or any contributing organization to the Fuels Institute. The Fuels Institute makes no warranty, express or implied, nor does it assume any legal liability or responsibility for the use of the report or any product, or process described in these materials. Tomorrow’s Vehicles: An Overview of Vehicle Sales and Fuel Consumption Through 2025 1 Executive Summary Low oil prices resulting from a sustained global oversupply are likely to rise, as production must eventually subside to balance demand. The balancing process will likely play out for some time as new vehicle fuel efficiency improvements and alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) make advancements to road transportation, oil’s largest market, limiting price gains from production constraints. Though low oil prices place downward pressure on alter- native fuels and fuel-efficient vehicles, growth of particular technologies in various vehicle segments will not likely abate. Both governments and consumers in major light duty and commercial vehicle markets have shown particular interest in electricity and natural gas, and automakers are responding accordingly.
    [Show full text]