Agenda - 11-21-2000-6c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

i • • • r • • + • • • • • • • • • •~ Final Evaluations (Electricl: In working through the options and maintaining an awareness of the goals, three key considerations have been found to be most important to the AFLEV Workgroup. They are 1) lowering emissions; 2) acquiring reliable and versatile vehicles; and 3) developing regional collaboration. Electric vehicles aze the best option for emissions reduction, although there are questions about indirect links to power plant emission. Additionally, fuel facility development costs are likely to be least for electric vehicles, because chazging/refueling equipment can be purchased for only one or two vehicles and can be easily upgraded later, while fiiel infrastructure for CNG and ethanol vehicles would be designed for many vehicles, leading to larger up-front casts. The major drawback for electric vehicles is their short driving range. This has been a major concern of the group. Even with their other emissions and fuel cost advantages, if they cannot offer a similar performance to gasoline vehicles, they may not be the best choice at this point. Some final concerns are 1) Electric vehicles aze often for sale only by small, lesser-known companies. This means they produce relatively few of them, which can keep the cost high. 2) The electric vehicles that use the latest and best technology are often only available in certain regions (generally California and the northeast). 3) Often electric vehicles must be leased (ex: Ford Ranger), and servicing must take place at dealerships in other states, which could lead to significant down-time in the case of needed repairs. In the short-term then, we could assume that the disadvantages of electric vehicles outweigh the advantages. However, there do appear to be two candidate vehicles in the County fleet replacement schedule that have short driving range needs-and thus might be appropriate for electric vehicle replacement. final Evaluations CNG and Ethanol All gasoline-powered vehicles manufactured since 1970 can run 10% ethanol fuel (90%gasoline and 10%ethanol) on their production engines. While this does lead to lower emissions, it is not considered a low emission fuel. To get to that category, the mixture must include at least 85% ethanol (E85). Most vehicles are not equipped to run on E85 at this point in time. However the Ford Taurus and Ford Ranger aze built ready to run on either gasoline or E85. For example, new Rangers purchased by the County in the last few years can run on E85 if there is access to this fuel. The State of North Carolina now has about 1,000 vehicles that will run on E85, but they are only using ethanol with about 100 of them (all in Raleigh) because the state does not yet have facilities set up to dispense this fuel. According to State DOT Equipment manager John Burns, there is no commercially available ethanol fuel available in North Carolina at this time, but plans are underway to make it so. Burns suggested that if the County wanted to run some of our vehicles on Ethanol, an arrangement could be worked out with the state. To do so, the County would only need a storage tank and a pump. This allows the County to immediately lower emissions on vehicles already owned, with limited up-front costs. It is important to note, though, that ethanol emissions, while lower than pure gasoline, are still not nearly as law as CNG emissions. Additionally, CNG engines (unlike ethanol) are available in many different horsepowers, so CNG could be used to run other equipment or vehicles in the future - making an initial investment in a CNG re-fueling facility a potentially good long-range decision. Another benefit of ethanol is that both UNC and the Town of Chapel Hill aze interested in using ethanol fuel. The fact that E85 cars aze already available locally and that the fuel is available