DOCSLIB.ORG

Autogas Evolution Pat Thornton

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Autogas Evolution Pat Thornton Then & Now AUTOGAS EVOLUTION PAT THORNTON In the late 1980s, Curtis Donaldson (in photo at right) was selling wholesale propane for Conoco in Oklahoma and Mis- souri when the company decided to begin offering propane at its company-owned gas stations. At that time, President George H. W. Bush had signed the Clean Air Act Amend- ments and several larger wholesale companies believed selling clean-burning propane was a good plan for a future with more people likely using cleaner fuels. Industry veteran Larry Os- good was at Phillips 66 at the time and that company was also giving strong consideration to installing propane dispensers alongside gasoline dispensers at its company-owned stations. Conoco and Phillips 66, which would later merge into one company, decided to launch an infrastructure program in Den- ver in the 1990s and Conoco even partnered with Firestone to meter-on-a-stick dispenser to an electronic gasoline-styled support making the conversion process simple and seamless. unit.” He thanks early adopters like Moore, Platz, and Wood Other oil companies, large multistate marketers, regional pro- as they help generate demand and challenge the industry to pane marketers, and several smaller retail propane marketers step up. were also taking an interest in propane as a motor fuel by “We initially offered a simple electronic fleet unit, but migrated 1991. Propane industry leaders including Donaldson; Os- to high-hose style with card reader technology so fleets could good; Bob Myers, formerly of Petrolane; Tim and Jay Wood self-serve—talk about a giant leap—then integrated propane of Northwest Propane (Texas); Gerry Misel of Georgia Gas hydraulics into a Gilbarco OEM gasoline pump for a total Distributors (Ga.); Steve Moore of Mutual Propane (Calif.); seamless operating unit at retail sites,” Donaldson explained. and Bill Platz of Delta Liquid Energy (Calif.) joined to form the “In those days, there would be trade shows where CFT would LP Clean Fuels Coalition. The executive director was Rick be the only company representing propane motor fuel and 50- Roldan, who later became CEO of the National Propane Gas plus companies focused on the CNG market. All the CNG enti- Association (NPGA). This small band of brothers would take ties came out of the gate with leading-edge technology. I think on the lobby efforts for the propane industry to promote pro- not having a history in the engine fuel market benefitted them pane as a clean transportation fuel and try to ensure equality to some degree…no baggage, if you will. It was overwhelming amongst all the alternative fuels vying for market share. at times, but we tried to maintain focus on helping our industry At about the same time, the Department of Energy (DOE) had jump technology hurdles to remain competitive in the eyes of formed the Clean Cities Coalition, with 91 cities now partici- the fleet customers. Despite the crowd of CNG players, CFT pating. “The Clean Cities Coalition provided excellent support became busy very quickly with a contract to work with North- for our industry, primarily in deploy- ment activities and grants,” Donald- son said. “They were very helpful as we made decisions about how to go after the propane market for mo- tor fuel.” For Donaldson himself, he opted to depart Conoco and launch Clean Fueling Technologies (CFT) in an effort to provide propane dispens- ers that were seamless to the gaso- line counterparts. “I’ll never forget when I started trying to convince the industry we needed to move on from what they themselves would call a Reprinted from Butane-Propane News March 2020 west Propane to install 100-plus dispensers for the Texas De- we were pulling the industry along.” Donaldson recalls talk- partment of Transportation (TxDOT), which was in the process ing to industry leaders about calling propane motor fuel what of converting 5000 of its 10,000 vehicles to propane.” his international customers called it, “autogas.” Although they While the TxDOT/Northwest Propane project kept CFT busy for didn’t give the name much credence then, the industry even- several years, the fact that there remained no original equip- tually moved that direction a decade later to help gain a bit of ment manufacturer (OEM) for propane engines in the U.S. con- a product differential in the marketplace. He also recalls trying tinued to limit the demand for vehicles and thus also for dis- to garner support to switch fueling connectors in the late ’90s pensers domestically. Donaldson made the decision that CFT to the European style given it would be easier for customers would need to expand internationally. “We had to pivot to focus to use when refueling. Again there was no buy-in at that time, on international markets to stay alive in the mid ’90s,” Donald- for a variety of reasons, including lack of manufacturers and son said. “Autogas was doing much better abroad.” In the U.S., fear of not gaining NFPA approvals, but here we are 15 or so CNG was more coordinated and continued to grow. years later and it is becoming the fuel nozzle of choice for many fleets and marketers. “In the U.S. in the ’90s, the most progress in growing propane motor fuel actually was accomplished by a Canadian compa- Challenges continued as the U.S. market only had conversion ny,” Donaldson said. “Superior Propane, under the leadership kits and no OEMs for propane engines. Warranties were be- of CEO Don Edwards, had added some 2000 fueling stations ing voided by 2002 if propane conversions took place. “We across Canada and had completed a lot of conversions as decided it was time to get into the propane engine business,” well. They decided to enter the U.S. market via acquisition of Donaldson said. “We talked GM into offering a propane en- Skelgas and marketed under the brand of ATFI.” ATFI shared gine program with their Medium Duty G Series MD Trucks. the vision to make autogas seamless to the traditional fuels. There was demand for a propane-powered bobtail as well as for school buses in Texas. We introduced liquid injection into ALONG COMES PERC AND CLEANFUEL USA the USA OEM market by launching the 8.1-liter platform in conjunction with GM, Monroe as upfitter, and 27 GM Medium With the passage of the Propane Education and Research Duty Truck dealers across the country. The bobtail program Act (PERA) in 1997, the Propane Education & Research launched in 2005 with 300 sold that year and 600 sold in Council (PERC) was put in place to begin supporting the 2006. In addition, PERC funded a $400,000 project to inte- growth of the U.S. propane market. “Milford Therell, who led grate the 8.1-L engine into the Blue Bird School Bus chassis. the process of getting PERA passed and [became] the first We sold 50 the first year, which was 2006-1/2, and in the first chairman of PERC, was a supporter of growing the motor fuel full year over 300 buses were sold.” School districts in Texas market,” Donaldson said. “In the early days of PERC, funds and a few outside that had been using propane through the were limited and not all in the industry saw the development years were back in business with an OEM product this time. of propane as a motor fuel a priority. Many independent retail propane marketers didn’t see value in developing the market, Just when the autogas movement was starting to feel like it had but a handful of independents as well as several multistate a tailwind, GM filed bankruptcy in late 2008 during an economic marketers, including AmeriGas, Suburban, and Thermogas, downturn in the U.S. and the medium-duty truck business was began supporting the industry efforts shut down. Engines were pre-ordered for our fuel to be a player in the alt fuel to carry pending bobtail orders and Blue mix. Also, several state LP-gas asso- Bird ordered enough to carry them be- ciations became very active advocates yond 2010 when they switched to a Ford and they have certainly had a big im- product. The engine eventually survived pact as autogas acceptance spread.” as GM emerged out of bankruptcy and industry advocates approached Freight- In 1999, CFT partnered with Ameri- liner Custom Chassis Corp. (FCCC) Gas and a few marketers to launch about continuing the medium-duty truck CleanFUEL USA. “The purpose of program on its S2 chassis for bobtails CleanFUEL USA was to target fleets and the C2 chassis for Thomas Built and both private and public fueling, a school buses. PERC worked alongside one-stop shop of sorts,” Donaldson ex- FCCC on these projects as well as oth- STEVE RELYEA plained. “By this time, PERC was rolling ers to help get them across the finish line along in its second year and my friend and launched into the marketplace. Roy Willis, the CEO, certainly saw the impact this market segment could have The biggest moment, however, was for the retail propane marketers.” in 2014 when United Parcel Service (UPS) opted to purchase over 1000 Nonetheless, there remained those propane-powered package cars in its on the Council who did not see the rural market centers. “It was the larg- value. “I’ll never forget the project to est deployment of propane vehicles in convert President George W. Bush’s history,” Donaldson said. “There were ranch truck to propane, the best proj- some 1400 units by the end with over ect ever,” he said. “I think the PERC 60 fuel stations in eight states. It was vote was like 12 to 9.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Refueling Vs Recharging
    recharging vs. refueling GET THE FACTS: REFUELING VS RECHARGING INSIDE LOOK: PROPANE AUTOGAS VERSUS ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE If your district operates — or is considering purchasing — electric school buses, charging up for the day could also mean draining budgets due to inefficient infrastructure. With its quick refueling and transparent costs, propane autogas provides a simpler and more convenient solution to the headaches of electric charging. THE PITFALLS OF ELECTRIC ∆ INSTALLATION: Even getting started with electric buses can hit your budget hard. The power requirements needed for multiple charging stations dramatically increase site preparation costs, on top of the trenching, conduits, cables, and repaving required to run a power line to the charging center. With propane autogas, you have options for infrastructure setups that keep your costs in check. ∆ DOWNTIME: Charging electric fleets around the clock means keeping those buses off the road for long periods of time — up to five hours, in some cases. Refueling a propane autogas bus is safe and quick, taking a similar amount of time as fueling with gasoline or diesel. ∆ RANGE: Because electric buses rely on frequent battery charging to stay mobile, their full driving range is limited (only up to about 120 miles on one charge) and often makes drivers anxious. Propane autogas buses can provide a range of more than 400 miles on a single refueling. ∆ POST-INSTALLATION: In the long term, electric fleets also have to install and pay for charging management software to adequately maintain charging schedules for multiple vehicles. Outside of routine maintenance, propane autogas infrastructure doesn’t require additional costs after installation.
    [Show full text]
  • HB-05002 Morrissey, T. Michael
    Testimony of T. Michael Morrissey Director of GOVT Affairs – Business Development 332 Strickland Street Glastonbury, CT 06033 860-280-8027 [email protected] ENERGY & TECHNOLOGY Committee Public Hearing Room 1B Legislative Office Building Thursday February 21, 2019 @ 10:00AM Connecticut General Assembly H.B. No. 5002: AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A GREEN NEW DEAL H.B. No. 5380: AN ACT REDEFINING "CLASS I RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE" TO INCLUDE CERTAIN USEFUL THERMAL ENERGY GENERATED FROM BIODIESEL AND CREATING A HOMEOWNER-GENERATED USEFUL THERMAL ENERGY PROGRAM. Chairmen Needlemen & Arconti, ranking members and distinguished members of your committee, I am Mike Morrissey and I am here in support of H.B. No. 5002 & H.B. No. 5380. First, here is the “deal” on the Green New Deal; 40% of all of Connecticut’s greenhouse gas emissions are caused by the transporation sector. Of this 40%, 44% of these emmisions are generated bythe medium and heavy duty vehicles. The reason we have such dirty air in Connecticut is because we simply use too much gasoline and diesel fuel to power this segment of the vehicle population, which primarly consists of trucks, buses and transit vehicles. Going forward, if we really want to start to clean up the air that we breath, we have got to find a way to more aggresively utlize the designated alternatives to conventional fuels. The Department of Energy sometime ago identified these following “alternatives” to conventional fuels; America’s Leading Alternative Fuels per U.S. Department of Energy1 1 https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ Although vehicle electrification is an option, for the medium & heavy duty vehicles, it is not viable and or affordable at the moment and into the forseeable future.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Markets for Hydrogen Vehicles: Lessons from LPG
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Spiral - Imperial College Digital Repository 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.
    [Show full text]
  • AUTOMOTIVE DISTRIBUTORS' ASSOCIATION Press Release
    AUTOMOTIVE DISTRIBUTORS’ ASSOCIATION Press Release nd July 2 , 2021 Hayri Erce, PhD Executive Coordinator 1 July 2nd 2021 Passenger Car and Light Commercial Vehicle Market (June, January-June 2021) Passenger car and light commercial vehicle market increased by %55.4 in January-June 2021. • Turkey’s passenger car and light commercial vehicle total market increased by %55.4 compared to previous year, to 394,701 units. • Passenger car sales went up by %52.4 in 2021, compared to previous year, to 310,325 units while light commercial vehicle sales went up by %67.2 to 84,376 units. Passenger car and light commercial vehicle market increased by %12.5, passenger car market increased by %9.3 and light commercial vehicle market increased by %25.6 in June 2021. • Passenger car and light commercial vehicle market increased by %12.5 compared to June 2020, to 79,819 units. • In June 2021, passenger car sales went up by %9.3 and were 62,348. Light commercial vehicle market increased by %25.6 and was 17,471 units. • Passenger car and light commercial vehicle market, in comparison to the average 10- year June sales, showed an increase of %12.0. • Passenger car market, in comparison to the average 10-year June sales, showed an increase of %12.8. • Light commercial vehicle market, in comparison to the average 10-year June sales showed an increase of %8.9. 2 Table 1: PC and LCV Market, 10-Year Average Sales, Progress Graphic by Years Table 2: PC Market, 10-Year Average Sales, Progress Graphic by Years Table 3: LCV Market, 10-Year Average Sales, Progress Graphic by Years 3 Passenger Car Market Analysis (June, January-June 2021) When evaluated according to segments; • %85.8 of the passenger car market segment consisted of the vehicles in the A, B and C segments.
    [Show full text]