Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
9 <br />locally is also very positive. However, there aze very few of these cars around now.. If we could <br />get Chapel Hill and the University to commit some resources to ethanol, it might be worth it to <br />look into setting up this system as an intermediate goal. Ethanol storage location would be a <br />concern, as the Public Works facility does not now have an extra tank that could be converted to <br />Ethanol storage. Anew tank and pump mechanism would have to be added. <br />Recommendation for Vehicle Selection <br />A final determination of which AFV options are best for Orange County includes a comparison <br />of all the data presented so faz. In order to provide a simple overview of all of the eazlier charts <br />and tables, each of the chazacteristics and considerations have been combined loosely together in <br />the following advantage/disadvantage table: <br /> _ r <br />lectric 'd ower emissions than the other AFV options. ery limited range. Longer refueling time. Not <br /> ower maintenance costs than gasoline powe vailable locally. Must be leased and serviced from <br /> ehicles, much cheaper re-fueling, less initial ut-of--state dealer. Less powerful. Limited networ <br /> apital outlay for refueling equipment than f refueling options. <br /> G option. Smooth and quiet <br /> Solar era emissions. Completely renewable power igh up-front start up costs. Very limited range. <br /> ource. Free charging after initial investment in nger charging/refueling time. Not available <br /> olar equipment. Refueling center is moveable ocally. Must be leased and serviced from out-of- <br /> d easily added to for larger fleets. tale dealer. Less powerful. Limited network of <br /> efuelin o lions. <br />NG edicated ower emissions than bath ethanol and ge of vehicle reduced. Limited network of <br /> asoline. Cheaper fuel. Less vehicle efueling centers. Still a nonrenewable fuel source. <br /> intenance cost. Still a reasonable travel xpensive up-front costs for refueling facility. <br /> ange for many county vehicles. CNG fuel and <br /> ehicles becoming increasingly popular (Town <br /> f Chapel Hill has several vehicles and is <br /> aining their mechanics to work on them). <br /> imilar power to gasoline engine. <br /> i-fuel Same as dedicated CNG, but added convenience sers may choose to use gasoline often and <br /> f being able to use gasoline when CNG is not herefore, no real air quality benefits come from <br /> vailable. No loss of range. caning this vehicle. These vehicles are not <br /> referred b DENR for MSERG fundin . <br />thanol (E85) renewable resource fuel. Maybe available for ecause ethanol absorbs water, it can only be sto <br /> urchase from breweries. Lower emissions th or a short time. This means we can only buy small <br /> asoline. As powerful as a gasoline engine. ounts and may not get the best price. In fact, it <br /> ome cars can run on it right now with no y nat be any cheaper than gasoline. Finally, it <br /> justments necessary (Ford Ranger, Taurus). higher emissions than other alternative fuels. <br /> hapel Hill and UNC interested in Ethanol. <br />Based on all the above information (and the factors identified as important -low emissions; <br />reliable, versatile vehicles; regional collaboration), it seems that CNG vehicles aze the best <br />option at this point. These vehicles have sufficient range, very low emissions, and a readily <br />available and stable fuel supply. CNG-fueled vehicles have already been partially funded in <br />Chapel Hill and other nearby azeas through earlier NCDENR Mobile Source Emissions <br />Reduction Grants, the same funding source the County is hoping to access. <br />Ethanol could be a good option to explore further as part of the workgroup's intermediate goal, if <br />we can decide how to set up the refueling infrastructure and if we are willing to settle for only <br />