DOCSLIB.ORG

Propane Vehicles: Status, Challenges, and Opportunities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Propane Vehicles: Status, Challenges, and Opportunities ANL/ESD/10-2 Propane Vehicles: Status, Challenges, and Opportunities Energy Systems Division About Argonne National Laboratory Argonne is a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. The Laboratory’s main facility is outside Chicago, at 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439. For information about Argonne and its pioneering science and technology programs, see www.anl.gov. Availability of This Report This report is available, at no cost, at http://www.osti.gov/bridge. It is also available on paper to the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, for a processing fee, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 phone (865) 576-8401 fax (865) 576-5728 [email protected] Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor UChicago Argonne, LLC, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, or UChicago Argonne, LLC. ANL/ESD/10-2 Propane Vehicles: Status, Challenges, and Opportunities by M. Rood Werpy, A. Burnham, and K. Bertram Center for Transportation Research Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory sponsored by DOE, Office of Vehicle Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy May 2010 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... v GENERAL ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................. vi 1 STATE OF THE TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................... 1 1.1 Vehicle Specifications ............................................................................................... 1 1.2 Safety ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Fuel Quality ............................................................................................................... 3 2 CURRENT MARKET STATUS ........................................................................................ 4 2.1 World and U.S. Transportation LPG Usage, Availability, and Pricing .................... 4 2.2 Current Vehicle Availability, Pricing, and Niche Markets ....................................... 7 2.2.1 Propane Niche Markets ................................................................................. 9 2.2.2 Propane Stations and Cost ............................................................................. 12 2.2.3 World and United States-Canada Propane Supply Trends ............................ 13 3 AVAILABLE FEDERAL AND STATE INCENTIVES ................................................... 14 3.1 Oveview .................................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Model State Example ................................................................................................ 16 4 EMISSION BENEFITS ...................................................................................................... 17 5 PETROLEUM AND CARBON BENEFITS ..................................................................... 18 6 CURRENT AVAILABLE RESOURCES, ACTIVITIES, AND STRATEGIES .............. 20 6.1 PERC Research and Deployment Initiatives ............................................................. 20 6.2 Clean Cities ............................................................................................................... 21 6.3 Other Agencies .......................................................................................................... 22 7 BARRIERS IN THE MARKETPLACE AND TECHNOLOGY NEEDS......................... 23 7.1 Product Availability and Conversion Technology Process and Cost ........................ 23 7.1.1 Lack of Emission Data .................................................................................. 23 7.1.2 Lack of Interest or Knowledge to Promote Propane Vehicles by Small-Scale Propane Fuel Distributors ......................................................... 24 7.1.3 Volatile Organic Compound Emission Leaks in Refueling Infrastructure ................................................................................ 24 iii CONTENTS 7.1.4 Adequate Number of Refueling Stations ...................................................... 24 7.1.5 Price of Fuel .................................................................................................. 24 8 OPPORTUNITIES IN THE MARKETPLACE ................................................................. 25 8.1 Propane Supply and Price of Fuel ............................................................................. 25 8.2 New Product Availability and the Cost of Vehicles and Infrastructure .................... 26 8.3 Niche Markets ........................................................................................................... 27 8.4 Tax Credits Extensions .............................................................................................. 28 8.5 Increased Interest in Transportation Propane by Fuel Distributors ........................... 28 8.6 Rebate Program for Low-Emission Refueling Equipment ....................................... 28 8.7 Clean Cities ............................................................................................................... 28 9 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 31 10 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 32 FIGURES 1 The Number of Propane Stations by State .......................................................................... 5 2 United States LPG Distribution System ............................................................................. 25 TABLES 1 Countries Ranking Highest in LPG-Fueled Vehicles ......................................................... 4 2 Monthly Average Price of Gasoline, Diesel, and Propane ................................................. 6 3 Monthly Average Price of Propane at Public and Private Stations .................................... 7 4 On-Road Propane Vehicles, Engines, and Systems ............................................................ 10 5 Available Federal and State Incentives ............................................................................... 14 6 Energy Use and GHG Emissions of Gasoline and LPG Vehicles ...................................... 19 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The sponsorship of the content of this report, by Linda Bluestein and Dennis Smith of Clean Cities, each within the Office of Vehicle Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, is gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks are extended for critical reviews by Leslie Brown Garland, Curtis Donaldson, Bob Myers, Jack Patriarche, and Chris Saricks. The authors are responsible for the content of the report, not the U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, nor our able and meticulous reviewers. v GENERAL ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AFDC Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center AFV alternative fuel vehicle AFVi Alternative Fuel Vehicle Institute API American Petroleum Institute APTA American Public Transit Association ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics CARB California Air Resources Board CEC California Energy Commission CO carbon monoxide DOE U.S. Department of Energy EERE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy EIA Energy Information Administration ELPGA European LPG Association EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GGE gasoline gallon equivalent GHG greenhouse gas GM General Motors GREET Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation ICFI ICF International LDV light-duty vehicle LPG liquefied petroleum gas LPI liquid propane injection MY model year NG natural gas NMHC non-methane hydrocarbon NOx nitrogen oxides NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority OEM original equipment manufacturer PERC Propane Education and Research Council PM10 particulate matter measuring between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter vi SAFETEA LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users TCPA Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts TDOT Texas Department of Transportation UCS Union of Concerned Scientists VSI vapor sequential injection VOC volatile organic compound WLPGA World LP Gas Association
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]
  • Natural Gas Vehicle Technology
    Natural Gas Vehicle Technology Basic Information about Light -Duty Vehicles History Natural Gas Vehicles 1910’s : Low-pressu re bag carried on a trailer (USA) 1930’s Wood-Gas (Germany) © ENGVA, 2003 1 Gaseous Vehicle Fuels LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) Propane, butane, mixture 3 – 15 bar (45 – 625 psi) at ambient temperature CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) Methane CH 4 200 bar (3000 psi) at ambient temperature LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) Methane CH 4 Cryogenic : Liquefied at -162°C (typical for vehicle use -140°C @ 3 to 5 bar) H2 (Hydrogen) CH 2 (350 bar (5150 psi) compressed) or LH 2 (liquefied, -253°C) © ENGVA, 2003 CNG system overview Light-Duty Typical CNG Components in a Natural Gas Vehicle Fill receptacle Storage tank(s) Piping and fittings High Pressure Regulator Fuel-rail CNG injectors ECU Source : Volvo © ENGVA, 2003 2 CNG storage Storage in gaseous phase Storage under high pressure : 200 bar / 3000 psi Storage in one or more cylinders LPG storage Source : Barbotti, Argentina Storage in liquid phase Storage under low pressure : 3 - 15 bar Storage (mostly) in one cylinder Source : Opel © ENGVA, 2003 CNG fuel systems Light-Duty Mono-Fuel CNG only (dedicated) Bi-Fuel Source : Fiat Auto Spa CNG & Petrol © ENGVA, 2003 3 Mono-Fuel system Light-Duty Advantages Optimised engine possible Higher power output Lower fuel consumption Better exhaust gas emissions More available space for CNG tanks Better access to incentive programs Disadvantages Higher system price Restricted (total) range Dependency on filling station availability Source :
    [Show full text]
  • Report to Congress
    REPORT TO CONGRESS Effects of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act CAFE Incentives Policy PREPARED BY: U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency March 2002 Table of Contents Highlights.............................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary.............................................................................................................vi I. Introduction.....................................................................................................................1 II. Background.....................................................................................................................3 III. Availability of Alternative Fuel Vehicles.....................................................................13 IV. Availability and Use of Alternative Fuels....................................................................27 V. Analysis of the Effects on Energy Conservation and the Environment...................................................................................................37 VI. Summary of Findings and Recommendations............................................................49 Appendices.........................................................................................................................52 Appendix A: Summary of Federal Register Comments Appendix B: Listing of CAFE Fines Paid by Vehicle Manufacturers Appendix C: U.S. Refueling Site Counts by State
    [Show full text]
  • 2002-00201-01-E.Pdf (Pdf)
    report no. 2/95 alternative fuels in the automotive market Prepared for the CONCAWE Automotive Emissions Management Group by its Technical Coordinator, R.C. Hutcheson Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement Ó CONCAWE Brussels October 1995 I report no. 2/95 ABSTRACT A review of the advantages and disadvantages of alternative fuels for road transport has been conducted. Based on numerous literature sources and in-house data, CONCAWE concludes that: · Alternatives to conventional automotive transport fuels are unlikely to make a significant impact in the foreseeable future for either economic or environmental reasons. · Gaseous fuels have some advantages and some growth can be expected. More specifically, compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) may be employed as an alternative to diesel fuel in urban fleet applications. · Bio-fuels remain marginal products and their use can only be justified if societal and/or agricultural policy outweigh market forces. · Methanol has a number of disadvantages in terms of its acute toxicity and the emissions of “air toxics”, notably formaldehyde. In addition, recent estimates suggest that methanol will remain uneconomic when compared with conventional fuels. KEYWORDS Gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, CNG, LNG, Methanol, LPG, bio-fuels, ethanol, rape seed methyl ester, RSME, carbon dioxide, CO2, emissions. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This literature review is fully referenced (see Section 12). However, CONCAWE is grateful to the following for their permission to quote in detail from their publications: · SAE Paper No. 932778 ã1993 - reprinted with permission from the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (15) · “Road vehicles - Efficiency and emissions” - Dr. Walter Ospelt, AVL LIST GmbH.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying the Potential of Renewable Natural Gas to Support a Reformed Energy Landscape: Estimates for New York State
    energies Review Quantifying the Potential of Renewable Natural Gas to Support a Reformed Energy Landscape: Estimates for New York State Stephanie Taboada 1,2, Lori Clark 2,3, Jake Lindberg 1,2, David J. Tonjes 2,3,4 and Devinder Mahajan 1,2,* 1 Department of Materials Science and Chemical Engineering, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA; [email protected] (S.T.); [email protected] (J.L.) 2 Institute of Gas Innovation and Technology, Advanced Energy Research and Technology, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA; [email protected] (L.C.); [email protected] (D.J.T.) 3 Department of Technology and Society, Stony Brook University, 100 Nicolls Rd, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA 4 Waste Data and Analysis Center, Stony Brook University, 100 Nicolls Rd, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Public attention to climate change challenges our locked-in fossil fuel-dependent energy sector. Natural gas is replacing other fossil fuels in our energy mix. One way to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of fossil natural gas is to replace it with renewable natural gas (RNG). The benefits of utilizing RNG are that it has no climate change impact when combusted and utilized in the same applications as fossil natural gas. RNG can be injected into the gas grid, used as a transportation fuel, or used for heating and electricity generation. Less common applications include utilizing RNG to produce chemicals, such as methanol, dimethyl ether, and ammonia. The GHG impact should be quantified before committing to RNG. This study quantifies the potential production of biogas (i.e., Citation: Taboada, S.; Clark, L.; the precursor to RNG) and RNG from agricultural and waste sources in New York State (NYS).
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Gas Fleet Toolkit
    Alternative Fuel Toolkit for Fleets Why is it important to learn about alternative fuels? Not only are local governments thinking about alternative fuels, but there are several state‐level Alternative fuel vehicles can become an integral part of policies and strategies that promote the increased use a fleet. These vehicles offer long‐time cost savings and of alternative fuels. have the same performance quality of internal combustion engine vehicles, but without the air How do I use this tool kit? pollution that comes with it. This toolkit provides resources that fleets have identified Policies for the acquisition of alternative fuel vehicles as being very desirable for further training and may already be in your organization’s larger long‐term assistance in the transition into alternative fuel vehicles. energy plan or Climate Action Plan. A majority of The toolkit involves the following resources: municipalities and public agencies throughout the San Diego region have already referenced the increased Guidance on availability of funding for procurement of alternative fuel vehicles as a way to alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause installation projects climate change. Fact sheets or reference guides on general information about alternative fuels Estimated Total Cost of Ownership Comparison for Mid‐Size Light‐Duty Vehicle Options with 120,000 Lifetime Miles, United States: 2012 Case studies of jurisdictions or private fleets that use alternative fuels Source: Pike Research, Forbes.com NATURAL GAS Natural Gas FACTS ABOUT NATURAL GAS On a well‐to‐wheels basis, natural gas vehicles (NGVs) What is natural gas? produce 22% less greenhouse gas than comparable diesel vehicles and 29% less than Natural gas used as a transportation gasoline vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Evaluation and Assessment of CNG/LPG Bi-Fuel and Flex-Fuel Vehicle Viability C-ACC-4-14042-01
    May 1994 • NRELffP-425-6544 Technical Eval ·on and Assessment of C !LPG Bi-Fuel and Flex-Fuel V cle Viability J .E. Sinor Consultants, Inc. Niwot, CO •.. •... ···� �=- ·-· ·��-· National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617• Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Operated by Midwest Research Institute for the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract No. DE-AC02-83CH)0093_____ _ _ NRELffP-425-6544 • UC Category: 335 • DE94006925 Technical Evaltil*ion··:·:·:·:·:·:·:·: and ·, Assessment of C , /LPG Bi-Fuel and Flex-Fuel Vell�le Viability J J.E. Sinor Consultants, Inc. Niwot, CO technical monitor: C. Colucci NREL �·� .,!!!!!�-· ·� �--­ .. •.·-· ···� National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 A national laboratory operated for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract No. DE-AC02-83CH10093 Prepared under Subcontract No. ACC-4-14042-01 May 1994 Thispub lication was reproducedfrom thebest available camera-readycopy submitted by the subcontractor and received no editorial review at NREL. NOTICE NOTICE: This reportwas prepared as an accountof work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or processdisclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • MC Report V2
    Managing Motorcycles: Opportunities to Reduce Pollution and Fuel Use from Two- and Three-Wheeled Vehicles ! ii Managing Motorcycles: Opportunities to Reduce Pollution and Fuel Use from Two- and Three-Wheeled Vehicles The goal of the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) is to dramatically improve the environmental performance and efficiency of personal, public and goods transportation in order to protect and improve public health, the environment, and quality of life. The Council is made up of leading regulators and experts from around the world that participate as individuals based on their experience with air quality and transportation issues. The ICCT promotes best practices and comprehensive solutions to improve vehicle emissions and efficiency, increase fuel quality and sustainability of alternative fuels, reduce pollution from the in-use fleet, and curtail emissions from international goods movement. www.theicct.org ! October 2009 The International Council on Clean Transportation Design layout and format by Yulee Kim Printed on 100% recycled paper with soy-based ink iii Managing Motorcycles: Opportunities to Reduce Pollution and Fuel Use from Two- and Three-Wheeled Vehicles Authors: Fatumata Kamakaté Program Director, the International Council on Clean Transportation Deborah Gordon! Transport Policy Consultant Primary research was conducted during 2007 and 2008. Advances in policy development in 2009 may not be reflected in this report. The authors would like to thank our many colleagues around the world that have generously contributed their time and insight in reviewing and commenting on the draft version of this report. We are especially grateful for Mr. Narayan Iyer’s thorough review of the report’s initial draft.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Concerns of Natural Gas Vehicles: Do We Know Enough?
    8 Transportation Research Record 1049 Environmental Concerns of Natural Gas Vehicles: Do We Know Enough? MARGARET K. SINGH ABSTRACT Vehicles powered by natural gas are currently used in the United States and other parts of the world. Although the number of such vehicles in the United States is small, there is a potential for substantial growth. An overview of natural gas vehicle technology, markets, and environmental concerns is provided, The environ­ mentC:1l (.;OnC~LuS discussed aLe u.atu~al gao supply, ::~icci~~=, .e.~d safet~,". !t is concluded that more research is required in the areas of exhaust emissions and safety; no comprehensive data base exists in either area. The availability of natural gas does not presently appear to be a crucial issue. Vehicles powered by compressed or liquefied natural The CNG cylinders are the dominant i terns in the gas (NG) are currently in use in the United States natural gas vehicle system, accounting for much of and other parts of the world. The number of vehicles the added weight, volume, cost, and operational con­ in the United States is small; estimates range from straints (!.). Current CNG cylinders typically weigh 20,000 to 30,000, all in fleets (1,2). However, the 100 lb or more and have a capacity of 325 standard Gas Research Institute (GRI) has projected that by ft' (scf) , or the equivalent of approximately 2. 6 the year 2000 from l to 4 million natural gas fleet gal of gasoline. A two-cylinder system, which adds vehicles might be operating in the United States (2_).
    [Show full text]
  • Costs Associated with Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Infrastructure
    Costs Associated With Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Infrastructure Factors to consider in the implementation of fueling stations and equipment Margaret Smith, New West Technologies (DOE HQ Technical Support) John Gonzales, National Renewable Energy Laboratory This document has been peer reviewed by the natural gas industry. September 2014 Introduction This document is designed to help fleets understand the cost factors associated with fueling infrastructure for compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles. It provides estimated cost ranges for various sizes and types of CNG fueling stations and an overview of factors that contribute to the total cost of an installed station. The information presented is based on input from professionals in the natural gas industry who design, sell equipment for, and/or own and operate CNG stations. The total cost of developing a CNG fueling station depends on a number of factors, including the fuel demand from the fleet and other users, the fleet's applications and duty cycles, site conditions, the complexity of equipment installation, and permitting processes. Consequently, costs can vary widely from one project to another. This document outlines the primary cost factors for fleets' consideration but is not intended to serve as a tool for estimating the cost of an individual project. To obtain an estimate for a specific project, contact a CNG equipment supplier or CNG vehicles using time-fill posts in Oyster Bay, New York. Photo engineer who specializes in CNG from Greater Long Island Clean Cities, NREL 23853 station design. CNG Station Overview CNG stations receive fuel via a local utility line at a pressure lower than that used for vehicle fueling.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fuel Vehicles
    ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) CNG consists of mostly methane and is a clean burning alternative fuel. Natural gas can be formulated into CNG or liquefied natural gas (LNG) to fuel vehicles. Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) NGVs are bi-fuel vehicles with multi-fuel engines capable of running on two fuels. On internal combustion engines (ICEs), one fuel is gasoline or diesel and the other is an alternate fuel such as CNG, Liquefied Propane Gasoline (LPG), or hydrogen. The two fuels are stored in separate tanks and the engine runs on one fuel at a time. Advantages Disadvantages • Approximately 87% of natural gas used in • Limited availability America is produced domestically • Natural gas is less readily available than gasoline • Less smog-producing pollutants & diesel • Less greenhouse gas emissions • Limited driving range as compared to gasoline • Less expensive than gasoline vehicles Ethanol Ethanol is an alcohol-based fuel made by fermenting and distilling starch crops, such as corn. It can also be made from "cellulosic biomass" such as trees and grasses. The use of ethanol can reduce U.S. dependence upon foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ethanol 85 Flex Fuel Vehicle (E85) An E85 flexible-fuel vehicle (FFV) or dual-fuel vehicle (colloquially called a flex-fuel vehicle) is an alternative fuel vehicle with a internal combustion engine designed to run on more than one fuel, usually gasoline blended with either ethanol or methanol; both fuels are stored in the same common tank. Advantages Disadvantages • Reduces the use of imported petroleum • Only compatible with flex-fuel vehicles because it is domestically produced • Lower mileage per gallon compared to gasoline • Lowers air pollutant emissions vehicles • Increases resistance to engine knock • Similar to slightly-higher costs compared to gasoline vehicles • Same cost as gasoline Propane or Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) LPG is a clean-burning fossil fuel that can be used to power internal combustion engines.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Intersection of Hydrogen Fuel Cell and Natural Gas Vehicles
    TRANSITIONING THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR: Exploring the Intersection of Hydrogen Fuel Cell and Natural Gas Vehicles September 9, 2014 American Gas Association 400 N. Capitol St., NW, Washington, DC 20001 Organized in partnership by: Sandia National Laboratories, AGA and Toyota, in support of the U.S. Department of Energy i Organizing Committee Reuben Sarkar, Department of Energy Dawn Manley, Sandia National Laboratories Sunita Satyapal, Department of Energy Kathryn Clay, American Gas Association Mark Smith, Department of Energy Fred Joseck, Department of Energy Fuel Cell Technologies Office Ned Stetson, Department of Energy Craig Scott, Toyota Motor Sales Benn Tannenbaum, Sandia National Laboratories Jacob Ward, Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Office Mike Veenstra, Ford Todd West, Sandia National Laboratories Todd Wetzel, GE Bob Wimmer, Toyota Participants Frank Wolak, Fuel Cell Energy Glen Andersen, National Conference of State Legislatures Don Anton, Savannah River National Laboratory Workshop Assistance Jim Bruce, UPS Cover Design and Publication – Daniel Strong Gerry Conway, Plug Power Administrative – Melissa Tallion and Sue Swann Bill Craven, Mercedes-Benz Greg Dierkers, National Governors Association Prepared by Catherine Dunwoody, California Air Resources Board Dawn Manley Matt Forman, Chrysler Sandia National Laboratories Joseph Guzzo, GM 7011 East Avenue Will James, Department of Energy Mail Stop 9054 Siddiq Khan, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Livermore, CA 94550 Jim Kliesch, Honda (925) 294-4589
    [Show full text]