CNG Civic GX vs. Leaf EV (elec from NatGas)

Don't forget to take into account the road use tax (Fed and Local) that gasoline (and diesel oil) pays, but for the moment is not charged on CNG, Propane or Electric.

JeffD

ps. You can run a Prius on CNG or Propane to get the hybrid benefit over the Civic GX.

 

I serve on my town's recycling commission and had to recently work up a proposal for a new trash truck - here in eastern PA gas is $1.36 per cch (hundreds of cubic feet) and as you said the GGE of CNG is 126.67 cu ft (1.267 cch). So just multiplying the two I'd get the price for the GGE of natural gas being $1.72.

So if the Prius gets 50mpg that means gallons per 100 miles would be 2 so at $3.85 a gallon the cost would be $7.70. If the Civic GX gets 26 mpge the equivalent gallons per mile would be 3.8 and cost $6.61. So a bit of a savings assuming that I did not mess anything up.

As far as I know it, the big market for CNG cars is Utah - the state has a substantial subsidy on natural gas - I read an article about it a few years ago.

 

Actually Mr. Picken's grand plan is to lessen our dependence on foreign oil by switching a large part of the transportation energy usage to locally produced nat gas. He doesn't emphasize any overall cost savings. It also doesn't hurt that he would make a lot of money in the process.

JeffD

 

The idea is non CO2 polutants, but the prius is really low on those. California only recently got the right to regulate CO2. I can't say the CARB rules make much sense, but prius or civic GX or leaf do reduce the dangerous pollutants in LA.

Since the civic already has similar substitutes, not nearly as much oil is displaced as it would be on heavy trucks or busses. The piken's plan is forward looking when we need to reduce gasoline usage, it reduces future possible shocks of oil shortages. It would probably cost money over the next 5 years, but this may be worth it to reduce oil dependance. Having plug-in diesel hybrids would also greatly reduce oil use.

 

Auto propane is road taxed in most places that I know of.


Icarus

 

You may have heard that. The plan is supposed to take a decade to implement, so you need to estimate the cost of CNG and gasoline 10 years out. The pickens plan would use a great deal of federal money to build wind farms and transmission lines. If wind is substituted for natural gas on the grid, and then this gas is used to power trucks, perhaps cng price will rise slower than oil. Its a big if. I'm sure pikens will profit from the plan if implemented, but he stands to profit more from the wind power transmission more than the cng.

 

I'd say its a little high. Certainly the newer combined cycle plants are that high, but most of the peaking plants are simple turbines, and worse in california they have many gas steam turbines which have the lowest efficiency. Marginally when we are talking long term its 50% for EVs powered by natural gas, but while the grid is being built out I would use 40%-45%.

 

I live in Utah and own a Prius and a CNG Civic. I commute 100mi a day all hyw at 70mph. Civic gets 30mpg. Prius gets 45mpg. CNG cost $1.25 gge. Gas cost $3.50 gal. Approx. Cost $3.75 for CNG, $7.00 for gas. Only when gas gets down to $1.85 a gal will the Prius be better.
Now when I drive out of state the Prius shines. The CNG infastructure is not as good as Utah in other states.

 

Appears to be 40% as of 2010 in CA. Has been steadily improving at nearly 1% year for the last decade thanks to the addition of combined cycle plants - was only 33% in 2001.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011publications/CEC-200-2011-008/CEC-200-2011-008.pdf

Efficiency of different types of plants for 2010:
New Combined Cycle: 47%
Aging Plants: 30%
Peaker Plants: 30%
Cogen Plants: 30%
Other: 41%

Combined cycle plants are currently around 65% of total gas fired output, cogen plants are around 28%, aging plants are around 5% and peakers less than 1%.

Note that cogen plant efficiency does not include the heat used from those plants - so actual efficiency should be much higher. I think it'd be safe to assume that those plants are at least as efficient as CC plants (given that their output has remained fairly constant around 25-30% the last 5 years). A quick google search shows that many cogen plants can reach 90% overall efficiency. Given that CC and cogen plants consist of 91% of total generation I think for all useful purposes one could assume that the actual efficiency of gas plants in California is at least 45% and could be significantly higher.

The paper above lists heat rate in Btu/kWh. To calculate efficiency I assumed that 100,000 BTU == 29.3 kWh which would be 100% efficiency.