CleanFleet Final Report Project Design and Implementation, Vol. 2
12/1/1995
The CleanFleet alternative fuels demonstration project evaluated five alternative motor fuels in commercial fleet service over a two-year period. The five fuels were compressed natural gas, propane gas, California Phase 2 reformulated gasoline (RFG), M-85 (85 percent methanol and 15 percent RFG), and electric vans. Eighty-four vans were operated on the alternative fuels and 27 vans were operated on gasoline as baseline controls. Throughout the demonstration, information was collected on fleet operations, vehicle emissions, and fleet economics. In this volume of the CleanFleet findings, the design and implementation of the project are summarized.
CleanFleet Final Report Fleet Economics, Vol. 8
12/1/1995
The costs that face a fleet operator in implementing alternative motor fuels into fleet operations are examined. Five alternatives studied in the CleanFleet project are considered for choice of fuel: compressed natural gas (CNG), propane gas, California Phase 2 reformulated gasoline (RFG), M-85, and electricity. The cost assessment is built upon a list of thirteen cost factors grouped into the three categories: infrastructure costs, vehicle owning costs, and operating costs. Applicable taxes are included. A commonly used spreadsheet was adapted as a cost assessment tool. This tool was used in a case study to estimate potential costs to a typical fleet operator in package delivery service in the 1996 time frame. In addition, because electric cargo vans are unlikely to be available for the 1996 model year from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), the case study was extended to the 1998 time frame for the electric vans. Results of the case study are presented in cents per mile of vehicle travel for the fleet. Several options available to the fleet for implementing the fuels are examined.
CleanFleet Final Report Fuel Economy, Vol. 4
12/1/1995
Fuel economy estimates are provided for the CleanFleet vans operated for two years by FedEx in Southern California. Between one and three vehicle manufacturers (Chevrolet, Dodge, and Ford) supplied vans powered by compressed natural gas (CNG), propane gas, California Phase 2 reformulated gasoline (RFG), methanol (M-85), and unleaded gasoline as a control. Two electric G-Vans, manufactured by Conceptor Corporation, were supplied by Southern California Edison. Vehicle and engine technologies are representative of those available in early 1992. A total of 111 vans were assigned to FedEx delivery routes at five demonstration sites. The driver and route assignments were periodically rotated within each site to ensure that each vehicle would experience a range of driving conditions. Regression analysis was used to estimate the relationships between vehicle fuel economy and factors such as the number of miles driven and the number of delivery stops made each day. The energy adjusted fuel economy (distance per energy consumed) of the alternative fuel vans operating on a typical FedEx duty cycle was between 13 percent lower and 4 percent higher than that of control vans from the same manufacturer. The driving range of vans operating on liquid and gaseous alternative fuels was 1 percent to 59 percent lower than for vans operating on unleaded gasoline. The driving range of the electric G-Vans was less than 50 miles. These comparisons are affected to varying degrees by differences in engine technology used in the alternative fuel and control vehicles. Relative fuel economy results from dynamometer emissions tests were generally consistent with those obtained from FedEx operations.
Life-Cycle Costs of Alternative Fuels: Is Biodiesel Cost Competitive for Urban Buses?
11/1/1995
The purpose of this paper is to provide an expected cost comparison for operating a transit-bus fleet on three different alternative fuels - biodiesel, compressed natural gas (CNG) and mathanol. Petroleum diesel is the base fuel. Infrastructure, refueling, and maintenance costs are all part of running an urban transit bus. Additional expenditures would be needed to change fuel storage and delivery systems, as well as bus engines and fuel systems, to use methanol or CNG. Using a 5-percent discount rate, the present value per bus mile was calculated for the total cost (the sum of infrastructure, bus-alteration, refueling, and maintenance expenses) of a transit fleet over the estimated 30-year life cycle of a refueling infrastructure. Not surprisingly, diesel buses had the lowest cost at 24.7 cents per mile. As biodiesel is blended with diesel, the cost per mile ranged from 27.9 to 47.5 cents, depending on the amount of biodiesel used and its estimated price. CNG's cost varied from 37.5 to 42 cents per mile, while methanol's cost was 73.6 cents per mile. This analysis indicates that, although biodiesel and biodiesel blends have higher total costs than diesel fuel, they have the potential to compete with CNG and methanol as fuels for urban transit buses.
Authors: Ahouissoussi, N. B. C.;Wetzstein, M. E.
Alternative Fuels In Trucking, Vol. 4, No. 2
10/1/1995
This issue includes articles on: 1) heavy-duty trucks accelerating the growth of the American alternative transportation fuels market and 2) the U.S. Department of Energy alternative fuel heavy-duty vehicle program.
Fuel Economy Test Procedures Alternative-Fueled Automobile CAFE Incentives and Fuel Economy Labeling Requirements - Environmental Protection Agency - 40 CFR Part 600
10/1/1995
This final rule amends the fuel economy regulations to include alternative-fueled automobiles. The Alternative Motor Fuels Act (AMFA) of 1988 includes 1993 model year and later alternative-fueled automobiles (passenger automobiles and light trucks) in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program on a favorable basis to encourage the manufacture of these vehicles. The AMFA provides these CAFE "credits" for automobiles designed to be fueled with methanol, ethanol, other alcohols, natural gas, or dual-fueled automobiles designed to operate on one or more of these alternative fuels and gasoline or diesel fuel. Under the AMFA, these credits are only available for automobiles that meet certain requirements regarding: alternative fuel content (e.g., for alcohol fuels, a minimum of 85 percent by volume alcohol), energy efficiency, and driving range. Neither the AMFA nor the final rule will affect automobiles that do not meet these requirements; such vehicles would not receive the favorable CAFE treatment. Alternative-fueled automobile labeling requirements are also specified in the AMFA. This final rule codifies the requirements of the AMFA in 40 CFR part 600. Recently, AMFA was amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, to extend the CAFE credit to automobiles designed to operate on additional types of alternative fuels. However, this final rule does not include these additional alternative fuel types, as they were not included in the CAFE program at the time the NPRM was published and the final rule was developed.
Notes: Text of final rule to be published in the Federal Register
Alternative Fuels In Trucking, Vol. 4, No. 1
7/1/1995
This issue includes articles on: Ford liquefied petroleum gas-powered F-700 may set sales records; California considers fuel specifications; new ultra-safe LPG fueling nozzle; CNG 18-wheeler proves efficient; and alternative fuel alliance forms.
Federal Alternative Motor Fuels Programs - Fourth Annual Report to Congress
7/1/1995
This annual report to Congress presents the current status of the alternative fuel vehicle programs being conducted across the country in accordance with the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988. These programs, which represent the most comprehensive data collection effort ever undertaken on alternative fuels, are beginning their fifth year. This report summarizes tests and results from the fourth year.
Inspection of Compressed Natural Gas Cylinders on School Buses
7/1/1995
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is sponsoring compressed natural gas-powered school bus vehicle demonstrations in various locations around the country. Early in 1994, two non-DOE-sponsored compressed natural gas vehicles equipped with composite-reinforced-aluminum fuel cylinders experienced cylinder ruptures during refueling. Subsequent inspections revealed that the cylinder composite materials were damaged, which led to the ruptures. Ensuring the safety of the compressed natural gas vehicles it sponsors is of paramount importance to DOE, so the department directed the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to conduct inspections of DOE-sponsored vehicles nationwide. Following the inspections, the inspectors made the recommendations described in this report, which are currently being implemented.
Alternative Fuels in Trucking, Vol. 3, No. 3
7/1/1995
This issue includes articles on: 1) natural gas as a transportation fuel; 2) alternative fuels as an essential resource; 3) DOE's Clean Cities program; and 4) the Alternative Fuels Task Force.
Alternative-Fueled Truck Demonstration Natural Gas Program: Caterpillar G3406LE Development and Demonstration
6/1/1995
In 1990, the California Energy Commission, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the Southern California Gas Company joined together to sponsor the development and demonstration of compressed natural gas engines for Class 8 heavy-duty line-haul trucking applications. This program became part of an overall Alternative-Fueled Truck Demonstration Program, with the goal of advancing the technological development of alternative-fueled engines. The demonstration showed natural gas to be a technically viable fuel for Class 8 truck engines.
Clean Fuels Paving the Way for America's Future: A Source for Information on Clean Burning Alternative Transportation Fuels
4/1/1995
With so many alternative fuels being promoted by various groups, it is important for legislators, the public and all interested parties to understand the different fuels that are available, how they are made, how they are used and their impact on the environment. This brochure is intended to help legislators at all levels to make informed decisions and for the media, with a responsibility of informing the public, to be educated on these issues. The fuels covered in this brochure include: ethanol, ethyl tertiary butyl ether, methanol, methyl tertiary butyl ether, biodiesel, gasoline additives and combustion modifiers, electric vehicles, natural gas and propane. It also summarizes regional and state clean fuel policies and regulations.