Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles: Financially Viable Option?

Abstract

Natural gas vehicles are being developed because of increasing concerns about energy dependence, air quality and emissions, and, more recently, climate change. The major advantage of natural gas vehicles is their lower fuel cost. Several economic and technical factors such as limited range and availability of relevant infrastructure prevent widespread adoption of natural gas vehicles. A model for the financial analysis of the possibility of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles being competitive with gasoline-powered vehicles is offered. The model evaluates the extent to which commuters find adoption of CNG vehicles to be economically viable in the United States. The results indicate that the percentage of commuters who would adopt CNG vehicles is small, even if fueling infrastructure were fully developed and CNG vehicles were widely available for purchase. A larger number of vehicle miles traveled and increased gasoline prices encourage commuters to adopt CNG vehicles, while higher fuel economy and purchase price differentials result in lower adoption rates. In some cases, which vary in accordance with the values of the model’s parameters, commuters purchase a CNG vehicle as their second car and keep a gasoline-powered car as their first.

Impacts of Telecommuting on Nonmandatory Activity Participation: Role of Endogeneity

“…Several empirical studies have addressed the role of endogeneity (in either form) in transportation planning, ranging from general demand and supply frameworks to different aspects of travel behavior, including safety (21,22), vehicle ownership and fuel consumption (23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28), urban form and residential location impacts (14,(29)(30)(31), and activity scheduling and time use (32).…”

Adsorbed Natural Gas Storage for Onboard Applications

“…[ 3 ] Powered by low‐cost NG (28–57% the price of gasoline for the same energy content), [ 23–25 ] natural‐gas‐fueled vehicles (NGVs) can meet demands for transportation while releasing cleaner emissions than gasoline. [ 26,27 ] Specifically, a vehicle running on compressed natural gas (CNG) emits 70% less carbon monoxide, 87% less nonmethane organic vapors, and 20% less CO 2 than a vehicle running on gasoline. [ 26 ] In addition, NGVs have decreased cold‐start emissions, off‐cycle emissions, evaporation emissions, and running‐loss emissions.…”

“…[ 26 ] In addition, NGVs have decreased cold‐start emissions, off‐cycle emissions, evaporation emissions, and running‐loss emissions. [ 27,28 ] Yuan et al. [ 29 ] found that even after accounting for methane leakages across the NG supply chain, NGVs (namely passenger cars, transit buses, and heavy‐duty trucks) emit less greenhouse gas throughout their lifecycle.…”

“…[ 22 ] For instance, factors such as the increased fueling frequency and vehicle weight, reduced storage space in the vehicle, lack of refueling infrastructure, and high initial price have hindered the widespread adoption of NGVs. [ 23,27,36 ] Therefore, to facilitate the transport and use of NG, it is necessary to store it under ambient temperature and pressure. [ 18 ] While numerous authors have reviewed the performance of adsorbents for NG storage, this article offers a perspective into the requirements and challenges that hinder vehicles fueled by adsorbed natural gas (ANG) from becoming commonplace.…”

The Impacts of Telecommuting on The Time-Space Distribution of Daily Activities

“…The success of a major city and its population growth together invariably impacts transportation, society, and ultimately all individuals. Transportation issues, including congestion and increased vehicle emissions, can be mitigated with careful planning (Heaslip et al, 2015;Soltani-Sobh, 2015;Soltani-Sobh et al, 2016;Motamed, 2016;Sharifi and Shabaniverki, 2016) but the end is an inescapable truth; the transportation infrastructure can only serve a finite volume of users at a given time.…”