DOCSLIB.ORG

City & County of San Francisco Alternative Fuel Vehicle Readiness Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
City & County of San Francisco Alternative Fuel Vehicle Readiness Plan California Energy Commission City & County of San Francisco Alternative Fuel Vehicle Readiness Plan Prepared for: California Energy Commission Prepared by: City and County of San Francisco Department of the Environment and EV Alliance California Energy Commission Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor February 2017 | CEC-XXX-XXXX-XXX i California Energy Commission Primary Author(s): Richard Schorske EV Alliance 2606 Albany Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Contract Number: ARV 13-053 Prepared for: California Energy Commission Jessie Denver City and County of San Francisco Department of the Environment Project Manager Suzanne Loosen City and County of San Francisco Department of the Environment Project Coordinator Patrick Brecht Commission Agreement Manager Robert P. Oglesby Executive Director DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees, or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors, and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The planning process for the San Francisco Alternative Fuel Vehicle Readiness Plan was initiated by the City and County of San Francisco in cooperation with the Electric Vehicle Alliance. This California Energy Commission grant has been administered by the San Francisco Department of the Environment. The planning process has been supported by members of the San Francisco Alternative Fuel Readiness Technical Advisory Committee. The Technical Advisory Committee includes representatives of CALSTART, Clean Energy Fuels, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the San Francisco General Services Administration (Fleet Services), Propel Fuels, the San Francisco Department of Environment, Recology, and Veritable Vegetable. The goals of the AFV readiness planning process are to accelerate adoption of AFVs and promote the deployment and use of alternative fuel infrastructure in the City and County of San Francisco and immediately surrounding areas. ii PREFACE Assembly Bill 118 (Núñez, Chapter 750, Statutes of 2007), created the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (ARFVT Program). The statute, subsequently amended by Assembly Bill 109 (Núñez; Chapter 313, Statutes of 2008), authorizes the California Energy Commission to develop and deploy alternative and renewable fuels and advanced transportation technologies to help attain the state’s climate change policies. The Energy Commission has an annual program budget of about $100 million and provides financial support for projects that: Develop and improve alternative and renewable low-carbon fuels. Enhance alternative and renewable fuels for existing and developing engine technologies. Produce alternative and renewable low-carbon fuels in California. Decrease, on a full-fuel-cycle basis, the overall impact and carbon footprint of alternative and renewable fuels, and increase sustainability. Expand fuel infrastructure, fueling stations, and equipment. Improve light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicle technologies. Retrofit medium and heavy-duty on-road and non-road vehicle fleets. Expand infrastructure connected with existing fleets, public transit, and transportation corridors. Establish workforce training programs, conduct public education and promotion, and create technology centers. The California Energy Commission provided funding opportunities under the ARFVT Program to produce a comprehensive Alternative Fuel Vehicle Readiness Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. iii ABSTRACT This Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) Readiness Plan for the City and County of San Francisco is intended to guide the development of the City’s AFV readiness policies and infrastructure. The development and deployment of AFVs ready infrastructure, policies, and incentives are intended to encourage local residents and fleet managers to utilize AFVs with reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and toxic air contaminants. Key benefits of adopting Alternative Fuel Vehicles include improvement in local air quality, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that impact climate change, increased use of renewable energy and sustainable biofuels, more efficient use of existing grid energy via off-peak Plug-in Electric Vehicle charging and energy storage, and increased energy security through reduction in the use of petroleum fuels. Keywords: California Energy Commission, Plug-In Vehicle, AFV Readiness Plan, City and County of San Francisco. Please use the following citation for this report: Schorske, Richard, 2017. Alternative Fuel Vehicle Readiness Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. California Energy Commission, Publication Number: CEC-XXX-XXXX-XXX. iv Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. xiv CHAPTER 1: Overview and Key Recommendations .......................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 The San Francisco AFV Readiness Plan in State, Regional, and Local Context ...................... 2 1.3 Key Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Plug-in Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure ......................................................... 5 1.3.2 Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles and Hydrogen Infrastructure .................................................. 12 1.3.3 Natural Gas Vehicles and Infrastructure .............................................................................. 13 1.3.4 Biofuel Vehicles .......................................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER 2: Policy and Market Context for Alternative Fuel and Vehicle Planning ............... 16 2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Policy Leadership of California ..................................................................................................... 17 2.2.1 Vehicle Emissions, Fuel Standards and the ZEV Mandate ................................................ 17 2.2.2 Creation of the Air Quality Improvement Program and the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program ............................................................. 18 2.3 San Francisco Clean Transportation Policies and Goals .......................................................... 22 2.3.1 GHG Emissions Goals: San Francisco’s Climate Action Plan ............................................ 22 2.3.2 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Goals .................................................... 23 2.3.3 San Francisco Transportation Plan Goals ............................................................................ 24 2.3.4 The San Francisco Clean Air Plan – Zero Emissions 2020 ................................................ 25 2.3.5. Existing Policies to Reduce Transportation Emissions and Promote AFV Use in San Francisco ..................................................................................................................................... 25 2.4 Vehicle Overview –San Francisco .................................................................................................. 26 2.4.1 San Francisco Vehicle Ownership and Registration Overview ......................................... 26 2.4.2 Private Fleets Domiciled in San Francisco ............................................................................ 27 2.4.3 Trucks in California and San Francisco ................................................................................ 28 2.5 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Type Overview and Citywide Inventory .......................................... 32 2.5.1 Plug-in Electric Vehicles ........................................................................................................... 32 v 2.5.2 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) ...................................................................... 34 2.5.3 Biofuels ........................................................................................................................................ 35 2.5.4 Natural Gas Vehicles ................................................................................................................. 36 2.5.5 AFV Fueling Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 38 2.6 AFV Environmental Impacts and Market Trends ...................................................................... 40 2.6.1 Emissions Comparison of AFV Types ................................................................................... 40 2.6.2 Long Term Adoption
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]
  • 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]
  • Master Thesis
    Master Thesis Designing Value Propositions for Disruptive Innovations; Exploring Value Proposition Design in the Case of Electric Vehicles Author: J.G.A. (Jilles) Visser Student number: 10475699 Supervisor: dr. R. Bohnsack Date of submission: July 2, 2015 Study programme: MSc Executive Programme in Management Studies Track: Strategy Faculty: Faculty of Business and Economics Statement of Originality This document is written by Jilles Visser who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents. Abstract From disruptive innovation theory as well as from business model theory it has been argued that a good business model can compensate for the technological shortcomings that hinder further market penetration of a disruptive innovation. However little empirical research about this phenomenon exists. Because the value proposition is considered to be the central part of the business model, this thesis explores how value propositions are designed to increase the attractiveness of a disruptive innovation for the mainstream market. The electric vehicle, which is an example of a disruptive innovation, serves as the context for this study. By studying the value proposition, this thesis tries to respond to the quest to add more empirical insights from diverse disciplines about what factors contribute to success of the electric vehicle. Using a multiple case study approach, the value proposition of thirteen electric vehicles that are sold in the Netherlands and/or United States is analyzed.
    [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]
  • Accelerating Electric Vehicle Adoption: a Vision for Minnesota
    Accelerating Electric Vehicle Adoption: A Vision for Minnesota Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2019 Great Plains Institute 2 Acknowledgements Authors Fran Crotty, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Brendan Jordan, Great Plains Institute, Drive Electric Minnesota Dane McFarlane, Great Plains Institute Tim Sexton, Minnesota Department of Transportation Siri Simons, Minnesota Department of Transportation Data Analysis Anne Claflin, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Anne Jackson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Dorian Kvale, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Amanda Jarrett Smith, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Contributors Katelyn Bocklund, Great Plains Institute Matthew Blackler, ZEF Energy Larry Herke, State of Minnesota Office of Enterprise Sustainability Pat Jones, Metro Transit Jukka Kukkonen, Plug-in Connect Diana McKeown, Great Plains Institute Sophia Parr, Duluth Transit Authority Rebecca Place, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Lisa Thurstin, American Lung Association in Minnesota, Twin Cities Clean Cities Coalition Andrew Twite, Fresh Energy Denise Wilson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Photographer Will Dunder, Great Plains Institute Layout & Graphics Siri Simons, Minnesota Department of Transportation Accelerating Electric Vehicle Adoption: A Vision for Minnesota 3 Table of Contents 2 Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary 6 Introduction 7 Collaboration Advances EVs 8 EV Basics 12 What are the Benefits of Electric Vehicles in Minnesota? 18 What are the Challenges? 20 Strategies to Advance Electric Vehicles 31 Utility Electric Vehicle Programs 32 Looking to the Future 35 Appendices 35 Appendix A 35 Appendix B 36 Appendix C 37 Appendix D 39 Appendix E 40 Appendix F 41 Appendix G 42 Appendix H 43 Appendix I 4 Executive Summary A STATEWIDE VISION FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES The goal is admittedly ambitious.
    [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]
  • May 2021 Newsletter
    May 2021 Newsletter Utah Clean Cities Announces Drive Electric Utah A partnership of the U.S. Department of Energy Clean Cities Programs recently won over $1.8 million in DOE funding to significantly advance electric vehicle (EV) adoption in states across the nation. Learn more about what this statewide Drive Electric Utah project is doing: DRIVE ELECTRIC UTAH WEBSITE PRESS RELEASE Working Together for a Cleaner Utah Utah is making tremendous progress on advancing smart mobility solutions to help protect the environment and improve air quality across the state. In both the public and private sectors, Utahns are coming together in the spirit of collaboration to help build a cleaner, more sustainable energy future by investing in Read full article! forward-thinking strategies and technologies. T a m m i e B o s t i c k Executive Director Utah Clean Cities Utah Clean Cities, PERC and Utah Stakeholders discuss how propane is being used by Utah fleets. Learn how propane could be used in your organization and the benefits to making the switch to a clean fuel. Additional Speakers: Chris Hussey Ed Dumire Steve Whaley T a m m i e B o s t i c k PERC Director of Autogas Executive Director Vice President Business Business Development Business Development Utah Clean Cities Development - Lancer Energy Manger – Western Region Frank Austin Mark Rich Tom Clark Transportation Coordinator - Executive Director- Fleet Manager - Zion Rocky Mountain Propane National Park Uintah School District Association Upcoming Webinars MAY 4, 2021 ON DEMAND ELECTRIC TRUCK
    [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]
  • Fleet Efficiencies and Upgrades
    INNOVATIVE Fleet Efficiencies and Upgrades As a top three provider of LTL freight service in components as carmakers ramp up production. North America and the owner of one of the largest We’re also exploring the promise of electric SWITCHING TO road fleets in Europe, XPO has the responsibility vehicles in our own fleet, particularly as a zero- PREMIUM DIESEL to take an industry-leading role in innovation and emission alternative to diesel for urban deliveries sustainability. We continue to focus on reducing in areas where tailpipe exhaust rules are growing In 2021, XPO is switching our carbon footprint as well as to improving the stricter. XPO’s first electric truck is expected to to 100% premium diesel. overall efficiency of all resources we consume. enter service in 2021 in the US and represents a Higher in cetane — valuable pilot to advance our understanding of With operations spanning North America and how and where to best use electric vehicles. analogous to octane Europe, XPO has the scale to experiment locally, in gasoline — premium and expand industry-leading improvements In the past year, XPO continued to roll out diesel can burn cleaner, continuously. Ongoing initiatives include innovations guided by the understanding that lubricate better and run modernizing and upgrading our tractors, trailers decisions we take today will impact our business and facilities, deploying cleaner fuels such as for years to come: more smoothly. premium diesel, natural gas, biogas and electricity, where practical, and deepening our use of data ■ Europe. In 2020, XPO’s European fleet benefited On the road, this and software analytics to improve the efficiency of from significant upgrades and investment, translates into fuel routing, loading and handling.
    [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]