Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
. I .1 <br />Table 2 -Travel Range for Selected Vehicles/Types <br />Vehicle t~r}altie and kypc' <br />r 'tw i i~" a r„ fuel type°~~ { ' <br />c 4 ,r ~:~, w ~iF'r Engine '~' ~~ ~~ <br />Y'i~ .i}1w 'i~.a ected~ auge per till up/charl;e <br />~ s iii r „~ <br />Dodge Ram (Van) CNG dedicated V8 200-300 mi. <br />Crown Victoria (Car) CNG dedicated V8 100-175 mi. (extended range avail.) <br />Ford F250 (Truck) CNG dedicated VS 150-200 mi. (extended range avail.) <br />Ford Ranger 4x2 (Truck) Electric (PbA) 3-phase AC motor 50 mi. <br />Chevrolet Cavalier (Car) CNG/Gas $i-fuel 4-cyl. 180 rni. <br />Ford F150 (Truck) CNG/Gas Bi-fuel V8 100-200mi (400 mi. if gasoline is also <br />used <br />GMC Sierra (Truck) CNG/Gas Bi-fuel V8 550 mi. (150 on CNG/400 on Gas) <br />Source: www.afde.doe.goy <br />1: There are multiple types of batteries in use. Each one allows for a different vehicle range. Lead Acid (PbA) batteries are more <br />traditional and have a fairly low range. According to Bill Terry of Chapel Hill Public Works, only Lead Acid batteries are <br />available in NC right now. <br />Bi-fuel vehicles have the highest travel range, but only when gasoline is used (because the CNG <br />fuel supply has been used). However, when vehicle operation is shifted to gasoline, the <br />emissions of air contaminants are increased. As a result, the advantages of the alternative fuel are <br />lost. This fact, plus the possibility that operators will preferentially use gasoline instead of CNG <br />in the bi-fuel vehicles, makes them less desirable than dedicated CNG vehicles. Applications for <br />the Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grants that include bi-fuel vehicles are not as likely to <br />be funded as those proposing dedicated CNG vehicles. <br />Casts• <br />In addition to emissions and vehicle performance, cast considerations must also be factored into <br />a decision about the selection of AFV options. Although they are still more expensive than <br />gasoline vehicles, AFVs are becoming more and more affordable. Greater scales of production <br />and new technology have decreased the costs of these vehicles substantially. If one compares the <br />costs of the vehicle; costs of the fuel and fuel facility; and maintenance costs, however, the <br />purchase of many AFVs is not yet cast effective over the short-run. Long-run costs, though, are <br />much closer, and if the monetary value of improved air quality is included, some AFV options <br />can be cost-effective. A complete cost~benefit analysis of individual options has not been <br />completed, but information developed regarding the costs associated with acquiring and <br />maintaining an AFV is given in the Table 3 below. <br />6 <br />