The U.S. natural gas industry is enthusiastic about alternative fuel vehicles. So is Congress and the Clinton administration.
They say increased use of alternative fueled vehicles (AFVs) will reduce oil imports and air pollution while providing economic benefits from greater use of domestic fuels.
But after a year long study, the General Accounting Office remains dubious.
The federal push to develop AFVs was launched in a 1988 law that required 75% of federal and 50% of state government fleet acquisitions to be AFVs by 1999.
CATCH 22
GAO reported to Congress that auto manufacturers still are reluctant to expand AFV production until fuel producers build more refueling stations. In a Catch 22 situation, fuel producers are reluctant to expand their service station network until automakers increase their production of AFVS.
GAO went through the laundry list of problems with various AFVs. Electric vehicles are expensive and have a very limited range, with doubtful environmental benefits because the electricity may have been generated with fossil fuels.
Flexible fueled cars use 85% methanol or ethanol and 15% gasoline but have discrete problems. The fuels cost more than gasoline, although subsidies make gasohol (10% ethanol and 90% gasoline) competitive.
Compressed natural gas (CNG) is cheaper than gasoline and can be used in light duty vehicles. But because of CNG's lower energy density, the size and weight of storage cylinders make it difficult to achieve satisfactory driving range.
Liquefied natural gas offers more range but needs bulky insulated cylinders that limit LNG use to trucks and buses.
Some fleets use propane in light vehicles because it is cheaper than gasoline and offers greater driving range than CNG, but propane supplies vary seasonally.
GAO said the government needs much more data and analyses of the economic benefits of AFVs.
It said most alternative fuels reduce carbon monoxide, ozone, and toxic air pollutants when compared with conventional gasoline. But it is unclear how they will compare with reformulated gasoline coming into use.
It said AFV life cycle expenses are higher than those for gasoline cars. Costs are higher for production or conversion, maintenance and repair, and for fuels like ethanol and methanol. AFV resale prices may be lower too.
FLEET USE
GAO is uncertain whether the federal government will achieve its goal of winning greater public acceptance of AFVs, especially because extensive use in fleets would total only as many as 10 million AFVs out of the 190 million vehicles on the road.
"For alternative fuels to make a significant contribution in providing energy security and environmental and economic benefits, their use must extend beyond fleets," GAO said.
It noted that the National Association of Fleet Administrators surveyed 167 California drivers of methanol AFVs in 1993. Most of the drivers said they would not buy an AFV for themselves due to refueling problems, reduced driving range, and higher fuel costs.
Copyright 1994 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
