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 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 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.
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
AFDC Update: News of the Alternative Fuels Data Center (Vol. 3, Iss. 2)
10/1/1994
This issue includes articles on: 1) emissions testing of Dodge Spirit FFVs; 2) the EPA's issuance of final gaseous fuel emissions standards; 3) the AFDC's new option for retrieving data; 4) emissions data which show varied results on 1992 CNG/gasoline conversions; 5) downloading files from the AFDC for non-internet users; 6) accessing the AFDC through the internet; 7) a new methanol video from DOE, NREL, and Los Angeles MTA; 8) an EPACT update; and 9) upcoming meetings and conferences.
Results of Combustion and Emissions Testing when Co-Firing Blends of Binder-Enhanced Densified Refuse-Derived Fuel (b-dRDF) Pellets and Coal in a 440 MW, Cyclone Fired Combustor
7/30/1994
This research project characterized the effects o f burning a combination of binder-enhanced densified refusederived fuel (b-dRDF1 pellets and coal in a commercial-scale electrical generating facility. Pelletized b-dRDF has been burned in coal combustors, but only in quantities of Jess than 3% in large utility systems. This research investigated using b-dRDF in quantities up t o 20%. Through this research, project participants gained operating, technical, and economic viability data that will be critical for the near-term commercial use of b-dRDF.
Authors: Ohlsson, 0.,; (Argon National Laboratory); National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Notes: This report contains the test data from the co-firing of b-dRDF pellets and coal in a MO-MW, cyclone- fired combustor. These tests were conducted under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). The CRADA partners included the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL); Argonne National Laboratory (ANL); Otter Tail Power Company; Green Isle Environmental, Inc.; XL Recycling Corporation; and Marblehead Lime Company. The report. is made up of three volumes. Volume 1 contahs a description of the test facility, the test program, test results, and study conclusions and recommendations; Volume 2 contains the field data and laboratory analysis of each individual run. Volume 3 contains other supporting information, quality assurance documentation, and safety and test plans. This multi-volume approach enables readers to find information at the desired level of detail, depending on individual interest or need.
Impacts of Alternative Fuels on Air Quality
6/1/1994
The objective of this project was to determine the impact of alternative fuels on air quality, particularly ozone formation. The alternative fuels of interest are methanol, ethanol, liquefied petroleum gas, and natural gas. During the first year of study, researchers obtained qualitative data on the thermal degradation products from the fuel-lean (oxidative), stoichiometric, and fuel-rich (pyrolytic) decomposition of methanol and ethanol. The thermal degradation of ethanol produced a substantially larger number of intermediate organic by-products than the similar thermal degradation of methanol, and the organic intermediate by-products lacked stability. Also, a qualitative comparison of the UDRI flow reactor data with previous engine test showed that, for methanol, formaldehyde and acetone were the organic by-products observed in both types of tests; for ethanol, only very limited data were located.
Authors: Taylor, P. H.;Dellinger, B.
AFDC Update: News of the Alternative Fuels Data Center (Vol. 3, Iss. 1)
4/1/1994
This issue includes articles on: 1) AMFA heavy-duty data which indicates that E95 and CNG fuel economies are virtually the same as diesel; 2) DOE funding of a heavy-duty demonstration program; 3) DOE funding efforts for a safe school bus; 4) hotline inquiries; and 5) the comparison of fuel economies of light-duty AFVs.
How Much Energy Does It Take to Make a Gallon of Soydiesel?
1/1/1994
Is more energy used to grow soybean feedstock and to process it into soydiesel than is contained in soydiesel fuel itself? This study addresses this question. This report concludes that soydiesel production in the United States is a net energy generator. Even under a worst case scenario, more energy is contained in esterified soybean oil and its co-products - glycerine and soy meal - than is used to grow the soybean crop and process it into soydiesel fuel and associated products. If soybean is grown as a rotation crop with corn using state of the art farm practices as much as four times the energy input can be realized from the various products generated.
Authors: Morris, D.;Ahmed, I.;Decker, J.