Round 1 Emissions Test Results from Compressed Natural Gas Vans and Gasoline Controls Operating in the U.S. Federal Fleet
1/1/1996
The first round of emissions testing of light-duty alternative fuel vehicles placed in the U.S. federal fleet under the provisions of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act was recently completed. This undertaking included 75 Dodge B250 vans, of which 37 were dedicated compressed natural gas models, and 38 were standard gasoline controls. Data were collected on regulated exhaust emissions using the federal test procedures, and on a number of other quantities, through a statistically controlled program of investigation. All test vehicles were operated in routine federal service activities under normal working conditions, adhering as closely as possible to Chrysler's prescribed maintenance schedules. The data analysis conducted thus far indicates that the compressed natural gas vehicles exhibit notably lower regulated exhaust emission, on average, than their gasoline counterparts, and that these values are well within U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards. In addition, lower levels of toxic constituents are emitted by the compressed natural gas vehicles relative to their gasoline counterparts and they produce lower levels of ozone precursors as well. Performance measures include driver acceptance, fuel economy, operational cost, cost and level of maintenance, and emissions output. The most extensive effort of its kind, the AMFA evaluation program targets three alternative fuels - methanol, ethanol, and compressed natural gas (CNG) - and encompasses several different types of vehicles, makes, and models operated in a number of federal service applications at various sites around the country. This paper specifically addresses the emissions performance of light-duty federal fleet AFVs operating on CNG. The data represents solely from Round 1 of a three-round testing program (hence, emissions deterioration is not specifically addressed).
Authors: Kelly, K.;Bailey, B.;Coburn, T.;Eudy, L.;Lissiuk, P.
CleanFleet Final Report Vehicle Emissions, Vol. 7
12/1/1995
Measurements of exhaust and evaporative emissions from CleanFleet vans running on M-85, compressed natural gas (CNG), California Phase 2 reformulated gasoline (RFG), propane gas, and a control gasoline (RF-A) are presented. Three vans from each combination of vehicle manufacturer and fuel were tested at the California Air Resources Board (ARB) as they accumulated mileage in the demonstration. Data are presented on regulated emissions, ozone precursors, air toxics, and greenouse gases. The emissions tests provide information on in-use emissions. That is, the vans were taken directly from daily commercial service and tested at the ARB. The differences in vehicle technology among the three vehicle manufacturers (Ford, Dodge, Chevrolet) and differences in alternative fuel technology provide the basis for a range of technology options. The emissions data reflect these differences, with classes of vehicles/fuels producing either more or less emissions for various compounds relative to the control gasoline.
CleanFleet Final Report Vehicle Maintenance and Durability, Vol. 3
12/1/1995
CleanFleet is a demonstration of panel vans operating on five alternative motor fuels in commercial package delivery operations in the South Coast Air Basin of California. The five alternative fuels are propane gas, compressed natural gas (CNG), California Phase 2 reformulated gasoline (RFG), methanol (M-85 with 15 percent RFG), and electricity. Data were gathered on in-use emissions, operations, and fleet economics. This volume of the final report summarizes the maintenance required on these vans from the time they were introduced into the demonstration (April through early November 1992) until the end of the demonstration in September 1994. The vans were used successfully in FedEx operations; but, to varying degrees, the alternative fuel vehicles required more maintenance than the unleaded gasoline control vehicles. The maintenance required was generally associated with the development state of the fuel-related systems. During the demonstration, no non-preventive maintenance was required on the highly developed fuel-related systems in any of the unleaded gasoline production vehicles used either as controls or as RFG test vehicles. The maintenance problems encountered with the less developed systems used in this demonstration may persist in the short term with vehicles featuring the same or similar systems. This means that fleet operators planning near-term acquisitions of vehicles incorporating such systems should consider the potential for similar problems when (1) selecting vendors and warranty provisions and (2) planning maintenance programs.
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 Summary, Vol. 1
12/1/1995
The South Coast Alternative Fuels Demonstration, called CleanFleet, was conducted in the Los Angeles area from April 1992 through September 1994. The demonstration consisted of 111 package delivery vans operating on five alternative fuels and the control fuel, unleaded gasoline. The alternative fuels were propane gas, compressed natural gas (CNG), California Phase 2 reformulated gasoline (RFG), methanol with 15 percent RFG (called M-85), and electricity. This volume of the eight volume CleanFleet final report is a summary of the project design and results of the analysis of data collected during the demonstration on vehicle maintenance and durability, fuel economy, employee attitudes, safety and occupational hygiene, emissions, and fleet economics.
CleanFleet Final Report: Executive Summary
12/1/1995
CleanFleet, formally known as the South Coast Alternative Fuels Demonstration, was a comprehensive demonstration of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in daily commercial service. Between April 1992 and September 1994, five alternative fuels were tested in 84 panel vans: compressed natural gas (CNG), propane gas, methanol as M-85, California Phase 2 reformulated gasoline (RFG), and electricity. The AFVs were used in normal FedEx package delivery service in the Los Angeles basin alongside 27 "control" vans operating on regular gasoline. The objective of the project was to demonstrate and document the operational, emissions, and economic status of alternative fuel, commercial fleet delivery vans in the early 1990s. During the two-year demonstration, CleanFleet's 111 vehicles travelled more than three million miles and provided comprehensive data on three major topics: fleet operations, emissions, and fleet economics. Fleet operations were examined in detail to uncover and resolve problems with the use of the fuels and vehicles in daily delivery service. Exhaust and evaporative emissions were measured on a subset of vans as they accumulated mileage. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) measured emissions to document the environmental benefits of these AFVs. At the same time, CleanFleet experience was used to estimate the costs to a fleet operator using AFVs to achieve the environmental benefits of reduced emissions.
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
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.