Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on July 15, 2016
The Fuel That May Halt The Electric Car Revolution
Electric cars are often touted as the nail in the coffin for gasoline-powered vehicles. However, there’s another fuel revolution in the developing world, which is changing the economics of electric cars. Whether it’s CNG, LNG, autogas, or propane, gaseous-hydrocarbon fuels turn conventional cars into dual-fuel vehicles, and limit the uptake of electric cars in these economies.
Tesla and the lost supercharger stations
(Click to enlarge)
A quick look at the map of Tesla supercharger stations across the planet poses some interesting points: There are curiously few supercharger stations in south-central America, with only one in the Latin-speaking part of the new world. Few exist in Eastern Europe, Spain, Africa, the Middle East, India, or Oceania. This map can be correlated to GDP per capita, GDP, infrastructure, the country’s electric car incentives, and the uptake of dual-fuel vehicles. For the average consumer, it’s simple economics—their area of residence drives their vehicle fuel choices.
Balancing economics, power, and emissions
In developing countries, the choice to install a dual-fuel option is economics driven, rather than an environment-conscious one, according to the Natural Gas Vehicle Journal. According to the journal, most countries can expect a 40-60 percent reduction in fuel costs, which is more compelling in a second world where fuel costs are a larger portion of incomes.
(Click to enlarge)
The vehicle fleets in these countries tend to be aging, and the choice between going electric or going LPG or CNG is often not tied to buying a new vehicle. Developing countries opt for a mixer-type dual-fuel system ranging in cost from $300-$1,000 with an average 25 percent power loss, while those going to dual-fuel in first-world countries opt for more expensive injector-type systems that result in a slight power increase – these systems average $6,000. Those touting electric cars often consider lifecycle costs of purchasing two new vehicles, while consumers in second-world economies look for cost reductions in the vehicles they currently own.
(Click to enlarge)
Regardless of the type of dual-fuel system, these systems always have the side-benefit of reducing CO2 emissions. A 2009 EPA study found an 18-30 percent reduction in CO2, depending on the secondary fuel used. With a significant reduction in fuel costs, and tailpipe emissions, the economics for electric cars over dual-fuel cars becomes murky at best for many developing economies.
(Click to enlarge)
Simple modifications, non-standard fuels
Switching petrol cars to dual fuel is relatively easy. To do so, the following components need to be installed: a new filling point, tank, ECU, injectors, reducer, pressure sensor and an electronic switch. Dual-fuel vehicles have switches allowing them to go from petrol to gas. Related: U.S. Production Is Falling, Why Isn’t Oil Recovering Faster?
Despite the relative ease of modification, there is a challenge in fuel standardization across countries. LPG, composed of 60 percent propane and 40 percent butane is more common in Eastern Europe, propane is common in North America, while in South America CNG is preferred. Unfortunately the ingenuity of these second world economies doesn’t come without cost. The cheaper systems often installed in the developing world, lax enforcement of laws such as mandatory five-year tank tests, and lack of awareness lead to many explosions of these cheaper systems.
Worldwide spread
Many countries have opted for dual-fuel vehicles, with South America being the most prominent region. With Brazil’s uptake in natural gas vehicles, it’s no surprise that Sau Paulo is the world’s largest city economy currently without a supercharging station. In oil-abundant Iran, natural gas vehicles proliferate, and government subsidies contribute to natural gas fuel prices being 75 percent lower than gasoline.
China looking to break the trend
The Tesla map has one glaring exception to the GDP correlation—China. Despite having almost 4 million dual-fuel cars, last year China quadrupled its electric car sales to over 330,000 vehicles. This was largely driven by government incentives and a limit on the number of gas cars in large cities such as Beijing. Electric cars are often the only options for those looking to drive in larger cities in China, where officials are looking to reduce pollution in its megacities.
Navigant research forecasts that Asia-Pacific regions will become more important for the Li-ion electric vehicle market in the next decade. In a country like China that already has a significant amount of CNG cars, it will be interesting to see how the market dynamics will develop as three different technologies fight for market share.
Although electric cars have made significant inroads to wealthier countries, there have been adoption challenges in second-world countries. Currently this is largely driven by economics, with the lower entry costs of going dual-fuel outweighing the long-term savings of electric cars. These trends are compounded by a lack of infrastructure, such as Tesla’s superchargers.
Long-term, carbon emissions plans and the COP21 Parris accord and its CO2 neutral mandate could push these countries farther toward dual-fuel, rather than electric. The earlier adoption of dual-fuel vehicles was limited in the first world due to regulations driving up installation costs; while in the developing world, dual-fuel cars could have had a human cost linked to a lack of regulation. There is one given with both electric and dual-fuel vehicle adoption: the world’s oil consumption will be adversely affected.
Matt Slowikowski via OilPrice.com
19 Comments on "The Fuel That May Halt The Electric Car Revolution"
Plantagenet on Fri, 15th Jul 2016 9:32 pm
The entire New Delhi tuktuk fleet is converting to NG. The toothless Paris Accord has nothing to do with it….its occurring because NG is cheap.
CHEERS!
Outcast_Searcher on Fri, 15th Jul 2016 9:36 pm
First, one of the easiest ways to conserve fuel is simply to drive a small, efficient car.
Now, where does this extra tank GO for a small gasoline and NG dual fuel vehicle?
My understanding is that due to the low energy density, one of the disadvantages of using NG for a car is that one needs a big tank and still the range between fuel stops will be significantly reduced compared to gasoline.
So, unless I see a good explanation and stats with credible citations to explain this, I’m not buying it.
It’s one thing to have a sensor to let a car burn, say, E85 or gasoline or a mix. It’s another to have two complete fuel systems, manage all the extra parts and complexity, and make it cost efficient AND fuel efficient.
By the time you do all that, within a few years, an EV may well be a better alternative.
Oh, and the infrastructure to deliver the alternate fuels conveniently to motorists needs to be built out at considerable expense as well.
Kenz300 on Sat, 16th Jul 2016 8:14 am
Wind and solar power are safer, cleaner and cheaper form of energy production………the fossil fuel industry will not go quietly…….
Electric cars, trucks, bicycles and mass transit are the future…..fossil fuel ICE cars are the past…………..
Think teen agers vs your grand father…………………. cell phones vs land lines…….
NO EMISSIONS……..climate change is real………
Save money……no stopping at gas stations…..no oil changes……..less overall maintenance……
Plantagenet on Sat, 16th Jul 2016 12:40 pm
The Obama administration has been promoting the use of NG in the US to generate electricity. They claim it is a BRIDGE fuel on the way to wind and solar.
Its just more proof of how dumb the Obama people are.
Why not just go direct to wind and solar and skip the NG?
Cheers!
Rick Bronson on Sat, 16th Jul 2016 1:46 pm
First of all there is no single solution to a sector like Transport which is one of the biggest in energy consumption.
There are 100 million + alternative fuel vehicles in the World.
50 million Flex-fuel
25 million LPG
23 million CNG
10 million Hybrids
1 million Plugins.
It is this growth in AFV’s that punctured the OPEC’s dream of raising the oil prices to $130/barrel and instead brought it down to $50/barrel.
Natural gas is great and China is using it in the form of CNG, LNG & Methanol. But electric vehicles are growing much faster, thanks to advances in battery.
Lets keep using all alternatives and keep OPEC oil at bay.
GregT on Sat, 16th Jul 2016 2:25 pm
“Why not just go direct to wind and solar and skip the NG?”
Because TPTB pulling the strings in Washington DC can make a lot of money on NG.
GregT on Sat, 16th Jul 2016 2:38 pm
“There are 100 million + alternative fuel vehicles in the World.”
The are over 1.4 billion automobiles in the world Rick. I million plugins make up less than .1%. The rest of those so called ‘alternate fuel vehicles’ still run on fossil fuels.
The growth in AFVs is minuscule, and irrelevant. $130/bbl oil is not affordable to the world’s economies, and neither is $50/bbl oil. Our economies still cannot recover from
the global financial crisis that took hold in ’08, when oil prices reached $147/bbl. Even if oil prices pulled back to their historical rates of around $25/bbl, it would take a very
long time to work all of the accumulated debt out of the system. The damage has already been done. There is no going back now.
MikeX11.2 on Sat, 16th Jul 2016 2:50 pm
Problems with this article.
1) Infrastructure. The carbon infrastructure is 10X more expensive than an electric infrastructure.
2) Vastly more dangerous, as a terrorist target.
3) The carbon industry doesn’t get it. There is a global movement to SAVE our species, from Climate Change.
Solar and wind are now cheaper then Natural Gas.
It’s time the carbon industry starts to migrate to Clean Energy, out of Pollution Energy.
India Coal is already doing it. India Coal is investing in SOLAR. That’s how you stay in business.
You know, you guys DESTROYED yourselves when you set up your own propaganda news media. Dumbass Limbaugh and Fox Lose.
The thing with propaganda is you’re not supposed use it to Fool yourselves.
How an Expert uses Propaganda. You pay Fox Lose to put out Climate Denial, WHILE you buy up Solar and Wind assets for cheap prices. Then you “reveal” the truth, and make massive profits.
When you use propaganda to fool yourselves, YOU GO INTO BANKRUPTCY. Ask Peabody Coal.
MikeX11.2 on Sat, 16th Jul 2016 2:56 pm
As for saving up the money to buy a plugin hybrid.
40 MPG is your Friend. It’s close to the optimal speed, if not the optimal speed, for fuel savings. Puts your car in the highest gear with the lowest rpm’s ( engine revolutions per minute ).
MikeX11.2 on Sat, 16th Jul 2016 2:56 pm
As for saving up the money to buy a plugin hybrid.
40 MPH is your Friend. It’s close to the optimal speed, if not the optimal speed, for fuel savings. Puts your car in the highest gear with the lowest rpm’s ( engine revolutions per minute ).
Boat on Sat, 16th Jul 2016 3:42 pm
Mike,
“Solar and wind are now cheaper then Natural Gas”.
Prove solar is cheaper than nat gas please.
In areas I agree wind is cheaper but only areas.
Boat on Sat, 16th Jul 2016 3:47 pm
Mike,
40 mph? lol You wouldn’t last long in Houston.
My little Subaru gets 38 mph cruising at 70.
dave thompson on Sun, 17th Jul 2016 2:20 am
The most fuel efficient speed of any car is in the range of 47 to 48 mph. due to road drag on the tires and wind resistance. Any faster and you lose efficiency. Any slower and you lose the gear to rpm engine advantage.
dave thompson on Sun, 17th Jul 2016 2:23 am
The rule of thumb is every 5mph over 50 mph you lose 3% fuel efficiency. So boat your little Subaru would get over 40-42 miles per gallon at 50 mph.
Kenz300 on Sun, 17th Jul 2016 7:48 am
Sounds like the Koch brothers funding more fossil fuels propaganda………… Stories that are little more than paid opinion pieces or advertising for the fossil fuel industry…………
Just like Faux Noise……………no news FACTS just OPINION masquerading as NEWS…….. money buys a lot of opinion pieces……
Koch Brothers Continue to Fund Climate Change Denial Machine, Spend $21M to Defend Exxon
http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/22/koch-defends-exxon/
Big Coal Funded This Prominent Climate Change Denier, Docs Reveal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roy-spencer-peabody-energy_us_57601e12e4b053d43306535e
Pope Francis’s edict on climate change will anger deniers and US churches | World news | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing
Kenz300 on Sun, 17th Jul 2016 8:00 am
Faux Noise……where facts go to die…………
Watch The Climate Change Ad Fox News Didn’t Want Its Viewers To See
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-ad-fox-news_us_57892a37e4b03fc3ee50c207?section=
Boat on Sun, 17th Jul 2016 9:22 am
GregT on Sat, 16th Jul 2016 2:25 pm
“Why not just go direct to wind and solar and skip the NG?”
”
Because TPTB pulling the strings in Washington DC can make a lot of money on NG.”
No greggiet,
Growth or change in energy is driven by price, not conspiercy.
PracticalMaina on Tue, 19th Jul 2016 8:16 am
Thats why when people die from industrial accidents or pollution in Houston so much justice gets served, correct?
PracticalMaina on Tue, 19th Jul 2016 8:17 am
For you boat.
http://www.mytwintiers.com/life-health/study-fracking-wells-may-increase-asthma-attacks