EVs Cost-competitive With Gas-powered cars by 2017?

I'm questioning this part of their analysis. PHVs and BEVs costs will benefit from decreasing battery prices, and the PHVs will be insulated from rising fuel prices to an extant. The ICE only car will suffer with rising fuel prices. That all seems to be a correct conclusion.

But how will the TCO drop with hybrids? They will benefit from lower battery prices, but not to the scale a plug in will do to the smaller packs they use. While they use of it, petro-fuel is the sole source of their motive power. While not has fast as the ICEV, their TCO should rise with price increases of their fuel supply.

 

sure and with the lowest price leaf and spark selling at under $20K in california after incetives, I would say in at least one state, if you don't take long trips tco is already lower California with NY and Conneticutt should have the continental US's highest gasoline prices (alaska and hawaii are higher because of transportation costs).

Lithium batteries, motors, and control electronics should drop with plug ins. Other hybrid equipment like electronic air conditioning, electronic power steering, low rolling resistance tires are going down in price as they become a bigger part of the fleet, and other efficient cars must pay for these too. I suspect after anouther design round in 2018, the hybrid premium on a camry or fusion hybrid should drop another 30%. It all depends on how much gas prices rise to determine if plug-ins versus hybrids have lower tco in a given year.

Key to plug-ins TCO are gas prices, plug-in premium, and federal and state incentives. There should be inversion points, perhaps in 2017 when they cost less than similar non plug-ins, then incentives run out and they become more, then gas prices go up and they again become less expensive.

 

EV's and PHEV's are great, they diversify your fuel supply away from foreign (~50%) towards domestic (99%) not to mention lower emissions.

But as far as TCO, I think a CNG/gasoline dual-fuel car could very well do the same, and give PHEVs a run for their money.
I think the only reason this hasn't been done so far is that most of the PHEVs out there now were a result of designs from 2007-2008, before the potential of the shale-gas revolution was known.

Imagine a "Volt CNG"......a CNG/gasoline car that has all the qualities of the Volt, but no battery.......
- first 40 miles on CNG, then switches to gasoline for the next 300+ miles
- the ability to go months and months without ever using gasoline
- the ability to fuel at home
- AND: the ability to re-fuel faster ~in 5 minutes (at a public station), prolonging the CNG range

I have a hard time believing that a good CNG tank is going to cost more than even the cheapest lithium ion batteries that offers similar range/volume. Ditto for the home-compressor refueling station compared to an L2/240v EV charger. I haven't seen a good comparison of the $$ yet though

 

IMHO the cng civic is all you need to know about when thinking about if cng will be sucessful in small cars. It just doesn't make sense to trade off the volume at today's gas prices. cng though could work better in larger vehicles like SUVs and Trucks. The picken's plan to replace diesel with lng for trucking would probably be the least expensive way to use the fuel.

The other alternative to use natural gas is the open fuel standard, allow methanol blends to be used in cars. That would be especially effective in hv and phevs.
Alternative Fuels Data Center: Methanol

 

Not quite an apples-to-apples comparison.
Civic CNG can only run on CNG. No gasoline backup. Makes it very impractical for road trips, meaning it's more a commuter car for those who have 2nd and 3rd cars, much like Leaf-range EV's.

Methanol is a refined fuel, needs to be made at a dedicated facility.
Chicken-and-egg and all that (though I support methanol, and wish congress would pass OFS).
CNG home refueling station can turn CNG driver's garage into a fueling station.
CNG = Home re-fueling, just like an EV.
I see methanol more as a top-down "big" solution that will be blended into the nation's gasoline supply (much like ethanol, except with proven, cheaper feedstock) at larger percentages once OFS is passed
I see CNG as more of a bottom-up "small" solution that is initiated one driver-at-a-time, much like EVs.

 

And it would have no motor, just a combustion engine, right? So no regen. It would still idle when stopped, right...so no quiet drive. It is still probably a good idea, from an engineering and fuel diversity point of view. But I doubt any early adopters would want this car with all the EVs and PHEVs out there.

Mike

 

The lack of cargo space is going to make a duel fuel car impractical for road trips.
The Civic GX loses a good chunk of its trunk to the CNG tank, and it doesn't have a gasoline tank. The dual fuel Silverado CNG tank takes up the place where those bed boxes you see go. The good news for CNG tanks is that they can now be certified for a 20yr shelf life. The bad news is that they are still difficult to mount in a unibody chassis without compromising space.

 

Not at all! You're forgetting the Civic Natural Gas has an unusually large CNG tank precisely because it doesn't have a gasoline tank.....it's the only way to give it decent range.

Here is some data on the regular gasoline Civics:

According to fueleconomy.gov,
2013 Civic HF and 2013 Civic Hybrid both have a 13.2 gallon tank of gasoline. (The hybrid loses -only- 1 cubic foot of trunk space for the battery)
The HF can go 392 miles and the Hybrid can go 523 miles on a tank of regular gasoline.

Let's make that 13.2 gallon tank a 14 gallon tank. (I am assuming this should be no difficulty, you probably wouldn't even lose trunk or passenger space.)
Well, if you want to make this a "CNG Volt", you need to give it at least 40 miles of range using just CNG.
Again, according to fueleconomy.gov, the Civic HF achieves 33mpg combined and the Civic Hybrid 44 mpg combined. So, depending on whether we make this dual-fuel car a hybrid or not (and lose a cubic foot of trunk space in so doing), we will need about 1 - 1.3 gallons of gasoline-equivalent in CNG.
@ 3000 psi, natural gas will take up about 4x the space of gasoline, so the CNG tank is ~4 gallons. We use the remaining volume from the space needed for a 14-gallon tank to house a 10-gallon gasoline tank. This is used most likely on the highway for long-distance road trips, so I'll use the highway numbers for the Civic HF: 41 mpg, the Civic hybrid is 44 mpg.
So, easily 400 miles on those 10 gallons.
Of course, the CNG is probably thicker than a standard gasoline tank and having two tanks is not as space-efficient, but as you can see, we could lower the gasoline tank all the way down to just 6 gallons, and still get 240 miles highway (280 if the gas station has CNG, and you don't mind filling up twice), with the ability to fill with gasoline minutes and get right back on the highway.....just like the Volt.

And when on the highway, one could use the CNG to boost the mpg/range on gasoline, instead of using it first and then switching to gasoline only when the tank runs out.
This simultaneous use of both CNG and gasoline would be akin to the "charge hold" function of the Volt.

I couldn't pin down the range on CNG-only. Web search says it has 650 miles combined range, which is overkill. Half that would do, and you could put both tanks in the space of a conventional gasoline tank, as long as all you need is 40 miles of CNG range.
The Silverado is best for those who want CNG prices, but have a compelling need for 650 miles. I'm thinking driving in the Western states somewhere, with a full load, and towing, while doing 80 going uphill into a headwind. In those conditions, 650 miles can become more like a still-decent 400 miles or so. So large tanks worth it here, but not for casual pickup driver who only wants CNG over a daily commute of 40 miles or so.

Big issue is cost. I don't see a reason CNG tanks wouldn't be cheaper than even the lest expensive lithium ion cells.

 

I don't see why your couldn't add a hybrid drivetrain.
See my post above.
I found that both Civic HF and Civic Hybrid have 13.2 gallon gasoline tanks (Hybrid loses 1 cubic foot of trunk space).
Well, 14 gallons is more than enough to put in a small CNG tank good for 40 miles, and another tank for gasoline.

And this might be a good thing! Skip the early adopters, and go right for the mainstream, the people who are doing a hard-nosed TCO comparison, rather than being partial to the latest technology.
Plus, semi-trucks using LNG and the 10-year history of the Civic GX will give people confidence in natural gas as vehicle fuel.

 

You overlooking the physical properties required for storing a gas under high pressure, and how this dictates the shape of the tank. Gas cylinders are a cylinder for a reason. To contain the pressure with the least amount of material, and thus cost and weight, the sphere is the best shape. Cylinders are simply more practical for transport and installation. I think the Civic GX uses a disc/donut shaped tank, which is really just a squat cylinder.

Liquid fuel tanks can be shaped to fit around the various frame shapes and components. The HHR is the same size as the Matrix or xB. GM stuffed a 16.5 gal tank into it. Making a pressure vessel for a gas in an odd shape like a gasoline tank, if possible, will mean needing to reinforce the corners and other potential weak spots. In the case of steel, it will mean increased weight of something that is already heavy. With a composite carbon fiber and metal or plastic tank, the price goes up.

The Civic GX tank holds 8 GGE. A rule of thumb for a CNG tank is that its volume is 3 times that a gasoline tank for every gallon gasoline equivalent. So the Civic tank should be around 24 gallons in size. It's a conversion of a liquid fuel design, so Honda likely didn't go cutting big holes in the frame to make use of trunk space, and the space where the gas tank was. So the tank is plopped into the trunk. 24gal is about 3.2 cubic feet. So the trunk should lose 4 cubic feet at most. The car loses 6, or about another 15 gallons worth of space.

Some of that space loss is do to the required plumbing and venting for the tank, but a large part is do to dead space made in fitting a round peg into a square hole. Now, a CNG or gaseous H2, car meant to be so from the beginning can be designed around the tanks. This will limit the space cost of the tank, but there are still going to be compromises versus the 'make it fit' ability of a liquid tank. IIRC, the FCV Toyota is bringing out only seats 4.

Your dual or bi fuel 'Volt' could still work. It probably end up being a four seater, or least losing more cargo space, before adding hybrid components, though.

This was a nice primer on CNG tanks.

The smallest tank they sell is a 2.7GGE type I(steel). It's 11inches in diameter by 30 in length, and weighs 75 pounds. The lighter weight composite tanks are only offered in larger sizes. My guess is do to unfavorable material cost to volume ratio. But it's a site for CNG conversion kits, and mass production economics can be different.

 

I like the idea of the bifuel cng/gasoline car that can be filled at home. There are a few things standing in the way. I think each could be overcome.

The natural gas compressors are quite expensive. I do not know if they can be made much less expensive
BRC FuelMaker Again Selling Phill Home CNG Fuel Station - AutoObserver

I have no idea how much incentive money is applied to potential competitors but they may be able to do it much cheaper


Refueling at Home | Natural Gas

The next problem is the cost of the car. I have no doubt if honda or another company developed it, they could make a good bifuel cng vehicle. The honda civic gx is much more expensive than the gasoline honda though, which is why even with incentives it doesn't sell well. I don't really know how much it will cost, but this likely would be an initial adopter car because of cost of the systems while they bring it down.

Finally there is the regulatory problems. I would think a bifuel car would lower dependance on foreign oil and lower emissions levels. But the big push for lower pollution CARB states will not recognize most of the savings because of the ability to burn gasoline. It then becomes a political problem. I agree these things would provide most of the goals of phevs, but are likely to not provide automakers the credit like single fuel cng vehicles.

Update: partial answer, and we should get more data from ford
According to the information from ford, the changes to the engine are minor - $350 on a truck. I would think it would drop to less than $200 on a cars 4 cyclinder engine. The expensive part is the tank, and this should be less expensive on a small tank that holds only enough for 40 miles on an efficient car, but that is where prices need to fall. Toyota seems to be working a great deal with cf tanks for its fuel cell vehicle. It is likely over kill in this application, but perhaps they could build one for $1K-$2K in volume for this application.
Ford details maintenance for CNG/LPG F-150, says truck can be specced for either fuel, plus gasoline, but not both | Equipment World | Construction Equipment, News and Information | Heavy Construction Equipment

 

Huh? Here's the link I though I had in my previous post.
edit: Here's the link to copy and paste:
ewsews.com/tanks.php
No idea why it won't show up.

It wasn't just the upfront cost for the Phil. IIRC, it required an annual maintenance service to replace various gaskets and seals than ran about $1000.

Perhaps. The above link sells CNG conversion kits. The smallest TypeIII, which is a metal completely wrapped with CF, that they sell is 8.8gge. You'll notice that the big price jump for tanks is in going from type II to type III. The type III decreases the amount of metal used and increases the CF content. Smaller can be made, but the materials cost is going to be a higher percentage compared to the volume. The advancements in CF manufacturer for car bodies can probably help in tank construction to help lower prices.

A type II tank sized for 2.7gge should weigh about 60 pounds, and be around $200 to $300. Heavy compared to a liquid tank, but lighter than the traction battery in the Prius. That should be fuel for 60 to 70 miles of range in a typical small car ICE, and should take about 5hrs to fill with a home refueling station. It takes up about 8 gallons of space, or little more than a cubic foot, but it's a 11in dia x 30in cylinder. It will be a little awkward placing it.

A smaller tank will be better for packaging. There is going to be some efficiency compromises in a dual fuel ICE though. Likely on the CNG side. The ICE will need to have advanced valve control, and likely direct injection to make the most of the CNG. Otherwise you'll have the same situation with flex fuels. An engine designed for regular octane, running a high octane fuel, and NG is higher octane than ethanol.

 

If a sphere is the most economical option for a CNG tank, so be it.
What I am envisioning is a dual-fuel gasoline/CNG version of the existing Civic Hybrid.
Though, as you said if a new car were built around this capability, it should be easier to create a design that takes away no luggage or passenger space.

I believe such a car could easily fit:

-a CNG spherical tank containing enough energy for 40 miles, along with
- a gasoline tank with enough gallons for at least 240 miles @ highway mpg

And that it could fit both of them into the space of about 14-16 gallons.
Perhaps the tanks together would resemble the planet Saturn, with the CNG tank being the 'planet' and the gasoline tank forming a donut or half-donut around it as the 'ring'.

The Civic Natural Gas stores 8 GGE which is way more than is needed to give a Civic Hybrid 40 miles of all-CNG range. More like 1-2 GGE, which translates to about 4-8 gallons in volume. And then another 6-10 gallons to ensure 240+ highway miles.

Even 2.7 GGE is overkill in this application.
On a side note, I am not so sure about your hypothesis of the relationship between the correlation of volume and material costs to the fact that there is no large market for CNG takes under 2.7 GGE. Perhaps that is the case, but it is also possible that no one had ever previously requested such a small tank in an automotive application, because no one had envisioned using CNG in this way. Perhaps they were focused on much larger tanks in order to give range approximating gasoline; that could be a reason for the dearth of small CNG tanks, or it could be economics - I haven't read up enough on the topic.

 

My thoughts exactly. Half that -about 1.35 gge- would be sufficient to give a Civic Hybrid 40+ miles of CNG-only range. This makes it less awkward; a larger, heavier vehicle would obviously need the bigger 2.7gge, but they would also have more room to put the tank w/o cargo/passenger compromise.

The ICE in such a vehicle should be high-comression, and use premium gasoline, as in the Volt.
This would allow it to maximize mileage while using CNG, and still get decent mileage when using premium, (which should be rarely depending on driving patterns and distance between CNG fill-ups.)

Also, when on a long-distance road trip, as long as CNG is available at each gas station along the way, the driver could set the CNG to 'boost' the premium gas by using them simultaneously rather than concurrently. This would overcome a lot of the disadvantage of dropping the octane when going from CNG to premium.

It would seem a bit inconvenient to fill up twice at each station, but the 5 minutes or so it takes for a fast CNG fill-up would easily return an extra 30-40 minutes of highway driving, so still worth the hassle.

 

Thanks. Didn't have the information.

Yes if its going to work, someone like ge needs to make it much cheaper.

That type II tank would work well. Maybe you could fit it by the back seat like the prius battery. Only problem I see is on the chart Type I and Type II only go to 3000 psi, I would think you would want a 3600 psi tank. If you need cf to go there, Type III may be the best way to go.

 

I haven't read this thread or even the article, but Phill and home refueling came up, which some Civic GX users used to do.

Honda's been saying this for awhile now (from 2012 Honda Civic - Frequently Asked Questions - Official Honda Website):

 

I used the 2.7 since we had hard numbers for it without me doing math. A smaller tank would better for packaging. I would go with 1.5gge, because the ICE will take an efficiency hit when using NG. A cylinder with a diameter smaller than 11in might be best in fitting into a vehicle. Route the exhaust towards one side, and the CNG tank could go on the other side, or even the center of the underside. Depending of the weight savings elsewhere, A cheaper type I tank could used to help lower the center of gravity.

I like Saturn concept with the sphere tank and all. However, there is a but, you want the CNG tank accessible for inspections, and also potential replacement. In 2007 CNG shelf life certifications went up to 20 years. There is still likely plenty of 15 year tanks being made though. So there is a possibility that the car will still be on the road when the tank expires. A slight advantage for using a standard sized CNG tank is in replacement cost to the owner.

The Volt has 10.5:1 compression ratio, which is about average for premium fueled port injected engines. The Mazda Skyactiv-G is probably the highest compression direct injected consumer engine. It is 14:1 in countries in countries whose regular is equal to our premium in octane. The Civic GX is likely port injected and has a compression ratio of 12.5:1 for CNG only, which has an octane of 150. To make the most of CNG with DI, the ratio could go up to 16:1.

Our hypothetical car will be stuck with an engine designed for gasoline. In the first generation at least. So there will be an efficiency hit when using CNG.

It appears the type II and IV are also rated 3000psi. I know the Civic GX tank is called 3600psi in articles, but I wonder if this is its actual rating. Fro what I gleaned, it appears CNG tanks are rated 3000psi. The pumps can go up to 3600psi to facilitate faster refueling. It could be a common practice among users to overfill the the 3000psi tanks to 3600psi.

Barring some physical property of NG, it shouldn't be a problem using the higher rated tanks for H2. It would increase tank cost, but reduce size or increase range. Reason not not too is that you would need new CNG pumps for those pressures. It would likely also increase and not decrease the cost of a home fueling station.

It could just be CYA one Honda's part, but we would probably have to go with a type II or IV tank. Which will greatly increase cost. Not a big issue, but the type IV will need a vented bag around it if installed in the trunk. Apparently, the odorant could permeate through the tank. Enough so that it is noticable in the small space of a car cabin.

 

I wonder if EV's will become a premium priced vehicles like hybrids have become here in the UK?

Toyota offer a hybrid version on most of their UK range but they all cost significantly more. They're all top of the range on specifications and cost. Now they're never going to become mainstream until they're just an option such as having a petrol or diesel version.

EV's here are all premium priced and highly specced. A good example is the PIP. It's the most expensive Prius and most highly specced. What's wrong with a low spec version?

So until manufacturers make EV's truely affordable to all and not just 'trophy' vehicles, they'll never become truely competitive with traditionally powered vehicles.

 

The cng tanks I have seen in trucks are all 3600 psi. It just makes sense, as it avoids operator error at pumps that are higher. I don't know if there is an issue with type I and II. CF is used in hydrogen partially because it can take higher pressure, but perhaps you just need a thicker heavier type I or type II.

DI should only cost about $100/engine. The other stuff will cost more. You may do something like port injection + direct injection. If it is a 40-75 mile tank and you can fill at home (that is the big if), then I would tune it for cng. In di gas mode, you would use variable lift and variable valve timing (this is in skyactiv, bmw etc) to provide a partial atkinson cycle to avoid detonation.