IEA OECD ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ANALYSIS PROGRAM

IEA ETSAP www.etsap.org Technology Brief T03 June 2009

Liquid Petroleum Gas and Natural Gas Internal Combustion Engines

PROCESS
AND STATUS Internal combustion engines running on Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) are well-proven technologies and work much like gasoline-powered vehicles with spark-ignited engines. Natural Gas is typically used in sparkignition (i.e. petrol) engines for bi-fuelled cars but has also been used in compression-ignition (i.e. diesel-type) engines, as e.g. for heavy-duty vehicles. The Energy Content (Gross Heating Value) for LPG is 46,23MJ/kg. Bi-fuel LPG cars tests show around a 15% reduction of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions (per distance) as compared to petrol operation placing the level of greenhouse emissions between those from petrol and diesel. The Gross Heating Value for CNG is 46-49 MJ/kg and for LNG 25 MJ/L. The energy efficiency of engines running on Natural Gas is generally equal to that of gasoline engines, but lower compared with modern diesel engines. The conversion costs for LPG range from 1,130 to 2,740. The conversion costs for light duty NGVs are currently in the range between 1,640 and 2,190.

PERFORMANCE AND COSTS

POTENTIAL AND BARRIERS Today, more than 7 million Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs) were 2008 on the roads, with the largest number of NGVs in Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan, Italy, India, China, and Iran, with South America leading with a global market share of 48%. The number of LPG/CNG kits sold globally could reach up to 8.0 million by 2012. An appropriate infrastructure along with the required support from governments will accelerate the growth of LPG and CNG as alternative fuels globally. Bottlenecks to slow down the development and deployment of both LPG and Natural Gas are the considerably higher capital costs, a lack of appropriate infrastructure for distribution and refuelling and the increasing competition from other alternative fuels such as biofuels.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TECHNOLOGY STATUS AND PERFORMANCE

LPG vehicles work much like gasoline-powered vehicles with spark-ignited engines. LPG is stored as a liquid in a relatively low-pressure tank. The supply of LPG to the engine is controlled by a regulator or vaporizer, which converts the LPG to a vapour. The vapour is fed to a mixer located near the intake manifold, where it is metered and mixed with filtered air before being drawn into the combustion chamber where it is burned to produce power, just like gasoline. LPG injection engines, developed over the past 15 years, do not vaporize the LPG. Instead, the LPG is injected into the combustion chamber in liquid form. These systems have proven reliable in terms of power, engine durability, and cold starting. Natural Gas can be used as a motor fuel as either compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG). It is typically used in spark-ignition (i.e. petrol) engines for bi-fuelled cars but has also been used in compression-ignition (i.e. diesel-type) engines, as e.g. for heavy-duty vehicles. The following engines with the ability to run on Natural Gas have been developed: Stoichiometric combustion Lean Burn Single Point Injection Multi Point Injection Natural Gas is stored on-board either as compressed natural gas (CNG) or as liquefied natural gas (LNG), the latter cooled to -190 degrees Celsius. CNG is the most common option for cars, the gas being stored in pressurised cylinders (at 200 bar), which are located within the boot space. Cars are typically fitted with a single steel cylinder. Being pressurised these are heavier than conventional fuel tanks and increase a cars total weight by around 60 kg. [1,2,3] In the 1970s Toyota made a number of LPG-only engines for cars. Today, most LPG vehicles are conversions from petrol vehicles. Car makers offering conversions/bi-mode systems include: Citron, Fiat, Ford, Hyundai, General Motors, Daewoo, Holden, Opel/Vauxhall, Saab, Maruti Suzuki, Peugeot, Renault, Toyota, Volvo, and more recently Volkswagen. LPG enjoys popularity in countries

including Australia, the European Union, Hong Kong, India, South Korea, Serbia, the Philippines and Turkey and Armenia. The world leader is probably Armenia where 2030% of vehicles use LPG offering a cheap alternative to diesel and petrol. LPG engines and fueling systems are also available for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles such as school buses and street sweepers. E.g. the School districts in Dallas, Denton, Texas, Portland and Oregon rely on LPG run school buses. [4]

Figure 1: Natural Gas Vehicles by Regions (1991-2008)

Source: International Association for Natural Gas Vehicles (IANGV), 2009, http://www.iangv.org/stats/NGV-Statistics08.htm

As of 2008 there are worldwide more than 7 million Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs) on the roads, with the largest number of NGVs in Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan, Italy, India, China, and Iran, with South America leading with a global market share of 48%. The US has some 130,000 vehicles, mostly buses. Italy, with a long tradition in using CNG vehicles heads up the European market with more than 500,000 CNG vehicles at the end of 2008. Latest cars running on Natural Gas, which were successfully brought to the market include the Honda Civic GX Samand (CNG), GM do Brasil (capable of using CNG and E20-E25 alcohol/gasoline 1

Please send comments to Tom.Palmer@aeat.co.uk, Nicholas.Hill@aeat.co.uk, Johannes.VonEinem@aeat.co.uk (Authors), and to Giorgio.Simbolotti@enea.it and Giancarlo Tosato (gct@etsap.org) (Project Co-ordinators)

IEA OECD ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ANALYSIS PROGRAM

IEA ETSAP www.etsap.org Technology Brief T03 June 2009 blend aimed at the taxi market) and the Fiat Siena Tetra fuel (using CNG among others), Volvo C30, S40, V50, S60, V70 and S80 (all bi-fuel). [3] Urban buses are one of the most popular uses for natural gas, usually utilizing CNG but occasionally also using liquefied natural gas (LNG). Because the amount of mileage an urban bus travels does not vary much from dayto-day, the fuel requirements can be catered for quite easily. Storage cylinders for CNG, LNG or HCNG are often installed on the roof of a bus, allowing the weight to be distributed evenly over the chassis. Buses that run on Natural Gas include Volvo, Van Hool, Orion Bus Industries, New Flyer, Neoplan, MAN, Isuzu, Irisbus, Dennis, EvoBus (Mercedes-Benz). In the past, the weight of CNG cylinders in trucks has often limited its application on heavy vehicles. This is becoming less relevant as natural gas engines are becoming lighter compared with their diesel counterparts and CNG cylinders are available manufactured with lightweight composite materials. In some applications a fleet operator may choose a dual-fuel natural gas engine over a dedicated natural gas engine, giving them the option of switching to diesel if natural gas supplies become restricted. Trucks that run on Natural Gas include the Chevy Silverado (CNG), GMC Sierra (CNG), the Volvo FL and the Ford F-150 (runs on bi-fuel) The Energy Content (Gross Heating Value) for LPG is 46,23MJ/kg. The high octane rating and low carbon and oil contamination characteristics of LPG have resulted in documented engine life of up to two times that of gasoline engines. Because the fuel mixture is completely gaseous, cold start problems associated with liquid fuel are eliminated. Although LPG has a relatively high energy content per unit mass, its energy content per unit volume is low. Thus LPG tanks take more space and weigh more than petrol or diesel fuel tanks. The range of LPG vehicles is equivalent to that of petrol or diesel vehicles. It needs to be noted that the utilisation of LPG (in particular when it comes to the share between Butane and Propane) as an automotive fuel varies very widely within a country and from one country to another, depending on the cost and availability of the fuel in relation to alternative fuels, notably gasoline and diesel. Bi-fuel LPG cars tests show around a 15% reduction of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions (per distance) as compared to petrol operation placing the level of greenhouse emissions between those from petrol and diesel. Compared to petrol the best quality LPG bi-fuel engines produce fewer NOx emissions and virtually eliminate emissions of particulates. [7, 8]
3 The Gross Heating Value for CNG is 37-40 MJ/m (46-49 MJ/kg) and for LNG 25 MJ/L. The energy efficiency of engines running on Natural Gas are generally equal to that of gasoline engines, but lower compared with modern diesel engines. Gasoline/petrol vehicles converted to run on natural gas suffer because of the low compression ratio of their engines, resulting in a cropping of delivered power while running on natural gas (10%-15%). CNG-specific engines, however, use a higher compression ratio due to this fuel's higher octane number of 120130.

90%-97%, reduced carbon dioxide emissions of 25%, reduced nitrogen oxide emissions of 35%-60%, potentially reduced non-methane hydrocarbon emissions of 50%-75%, fewer toxic and carcinogenic pollutants, little or no particulate matter and eliminated evaporative emissions. Transit buses equipped with model year 2004 CNG engines produce 49% lower NOx emissions and 84% lower particulate matter emissions versus transit buses equipped with model year 2004 diesel engines. In a recent study of CNG and diesel United Parcel Service (UPS) delivery trucks, CNG trucks produced 75% lower carbon monoxide emissions, 49% lower nitrogen oxides emissions, and 95% lower particulate matter emissions than diesel trucks of similar age. [7, 8]

CURRENT COSTS AND COST PROJECTIONS Typically, for new LPG run car and car-derived vans, the additional purchase price or conversion costs are around 1,130 for a 4 cylinder vehicle, 1,300 for a 6 cylinder vehicle and 1,528 for a 8 cylinder vehicle and 2,740 for heavy duty vehicles in the UK. In the US the average cost of conversion of a light-duty vehicle from gasoline to dedicated propane fuel ranges from 2,990 to 8,960. [11]
Typically, for Natural Gas run cars and car-derived vans, the additional capital or conversion costs are in the range 1,640-2,740 in the UK. Additional capital costs are incurred if a refuelling compressor unit is installed, which costs 2,740 and more. It should be noted that in some cases costs are considerably higher. E.g. in the US the price premium of a Honda Civic GX compared with the gasoline version is 7,090 and it only lowered by a tax credit of 2,990. [8, 10, 11] Major Drivers for Performance (in particular to reduce emissions such as NOx, PM, and CO2) and Costs of LPG and Natural Gas driven cars are: Increasing oil prices, which may lower the running costs relative to diesel and petrol The availability of a sufficient infrastructure (i.e. refuelling stations) Government support (e.g. tax credits on capital investments)

POTENTIAL & BARRIERS An evaluation of global market potential for LPG and CNG Vehicles and Alternative Fuel Conversion Equipment reveals that the number of LPG/CNG kits sold globally was 2.9 million in 2006 and estimates this will reach 8.0 million by 2012. LPG kits will continue to mainly dominate the market in the EU, Russia and Turkey, and also other markets in the rest of the world. India and Iran accounted for 20 per cent of global sales of CNG kits in 2006. While aftermarket sales of LPG/CNG kits currently hold more than 85 per cent of total global kit sales, original equipment manufacturer (OEM) kit sales will steadily increase to reach more than 27 per cent of the total number of units sold by 2012.
An appropriate infrastructure (i.e. a sufficient number of tank stations) along with the required support from governments will accelerate the growth of LPG and CNG as alternative fuels. Currently there are 14,563 NGV tank stations worldwide, with 3,044 being located in the EU. LPG tank stations are more established: with more than 33,000 LPG tank stations in the Europe with Turkey and Poland being the leaders in numbers. [8] In the EU, CNG is currently a comparable niche-market technology, but due to stricter emission target within the EU 2

Compared to petrol, cars running on Natural Gas have the advantages of reduced carbon monoxide emissions of

Please send comments to Tom.Palmer@aeat.co.uk, Nicholas.Hill@aeat.co.uk, Johannes.VonEinem@aeat.co.uk (Authors), and to Giorgio.Simbolotti@enea.it and Giancarlo Tosato (gct@etsap.org) (Project Co-ordinators)

IEA OECD ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ANALYSIS PROGRAM

IEA ETSAP www.etsap.org Technology Brief T03 June 2009 there is a considerable growth potential. In Asia, India and Pakistan have enforced mandatory conversion to alternative fuels for all public transport in certain local regions. Around the world, 50 million vehicles could be using natural gas as their fuel inside 15 years, according to Juan Carlos Fracchia, vice president of the International Association for Natural Gas Vehicles (IANGV). If we consider the plans of the European Community, plus developments throughout Asia, we may have a spectacular scenario that would see 15 million NGVs by 2010 and 50 million in 2020. [5, 6, 8] The following bottlenecks are slowing down the growth in the sector [7]. Technical bottlenecks that have been observed during tests of Natural Gas vehicles (in particular HGVs) include difficulties due to the durability of some components (particularly natural gas regulators and onboard LNG tanks), problems with engine failures and a large variation in economic returns due to variations in operational performance. Storage: Most of todays CNG vehicles are dual fuelled. The CNG fuelling and storage equipment is added to the gasoline fuel system. While in buses and some commercial vehicles, the loss of storage volume is acceptable many consumers might not be prepared to accept this for their cars. Vehicle fleets are typically served from corporate-based filling stations, whereas consumers require CNG to be available at a large number of service stations. Awareness: People are generally often are confused about the difference between the LPG and CNG/LNG. This unawareness poses a safety problem to the user when using the wrong fuel. As mentioned above, an appropriate infrastructure along with the required support from governments will make the industry overcome technical bottlenecks, including an increased R&D, and accelerate the growth of LPG and CNG/LNG as alternative fuels globally. NGV fuelling infrastructure includes onsite compression (or insulated storage, in the case of LNG), storage facilities, containments, and vending equipment including status monitoring, measurement, controls, and connections. Refuelling infrastructure is currently very expensive, typically costing 375,000 to 750,000 for a fast-fill CNG refuelling station for road vehicles (refuelling time comparable to diesel), and 150,000 to 450,000 for LNG [15]. The cost of LNG, CNG, and liquefied to compressed natural gas (LCNG) infrastructure can be gradually reduced over the next decade, notably through manufacturing refinements and increasing scale-economies. In the coming decade, possible breakthroughs in practical adsorbent natural gas storage systems may occur, including storage on vehicles. This technology may or may not prove to be dominant over compression for NGVs in later years. The durability and reliability of CNG and LNG infrastructure can also be improved significantly within the decade, primarily through research and development of improved materials and manufacturing processes. A primer barrier for the development and deployment of both LPG and Natural Gas are the considerably higher capital costs, particularly when the oil price is relatively low. Secondly a lack of infrastructure for CNG run vehicles could prevent the market uptake. According to Shell an estimated 20,000 sites (at a cost of US$350,000 each) in the European Union need to be converted to meet the potential demand for NGVs. An investment of 5 billion plus the vehicle conversion cost - appears to be high, especially when compared to competitors like the clean diesel technologies industry, where these investments are not necessary. Thirdly, people are generally often are confused about the difference between the LPG and CNG/LNG. This unawareness poses a safety problem to the user when using the wrong fuel. Finally, a barrier able to challenge the growth of Natural Gas and LPG alternatives to fossil fuels in some cases could be the increasing competition from other alternative fuels such as biofuels. [13]

Table 1: Fuel Energy Content Fuel Energy Content (Gross heating value) CNG 37-40 MJ/m3 46-49 MJ/kg 120 LNG LPG

45,5MJ/kg 120

46,23 MJ/kg 92

Octane Number

Source: International Association for Natural Gas Vehicles (IANGV), 2009 http://www.iangv.org/natural-gas-vehicles/natural-gas.html

Table 2: Natural Gas Vehicle Growth since 2000 Region Average % NGV Growth since 2000 Asia 52.50% Europe 15.40% North America 0.40% South America 25.90% Africa 19.30% Total 29.80%
Source: International Association for Natural Gas Vehicles (IANGV), 2009, http://www.iangv.org/stats/NGV-Statistics08.htm

3
Please send comments to Tom.Palmer@aeat.co.uk, Nicholas.Hill@aeat.co.uk, Johannes.VonEinem@aeat.co.uk (Authors), and to Giorgio.Simbolotti@enea.it and Giancarlo Tosato (gct@etsap.org) (Project Co-ordinators)

IEA OECD ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ANALYSIS PROGRAM

IEA ETSAP www.etsap.org Technology Brief T03 June 2009

Table 3: Field Tests of Natural Gas Vehicle Emissions (US)

Vehicle Type Fleet Number of Alternative Fuel Vehicles Number of Diesel Vehicles Drive Cycle PM Reduction NOx Reduction NMHC Reduction CO Reduction CNG Mail Delivery Trucks United Parcel Service (UPS) 7 3 City Suburban Heavy Vehicle Route 95% 49% 4% 75% LNG Buses* Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) 15 5 Central Business District NSS*** 17% 96% 95% LNG Semi Trucks Raleys 8 3 Five-Mile Route 96% 80% 59% Less Than Diesel THC 263% LNG Refuse Trucks Waste Management (WM) 6** 2 WM Refuse Truck Cycle 86% 32% 64% Less Than Diesel THC 80% LNG Dual-Fuel Refuse Trucks City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation 10 3 Air Quality Management District Refuse Truck Cycle NSS*** 23% NSS*** NSS***

Source: USDoE, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, 2009, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/emissions_natural_gas.html

Table 4: Summary Table: LPG [19]

Technical Performance Energy Input Energy Output Base Energy Consumption (l/km) Technical Lifetime, yrs Environmental Impact (for bi-fuel cars) CO2 and other GHG emissions, g/km Costs Marginal Capital Cost, overnight, Euro/unit O&M cost (fixed and variable), Euro/km Economic Lifetime, yrs 122.0 141.7 216.7 0.051 12 Small Cars Medium Cars LPG Kilometres 0.059 12 0.090 12 Large Cars

1,130 0.03 12

1,300 1,528 0.04 12

2,740 0.05 12

Table 5: Summary Table: CNG/LNG [8, 10, 19]

Technical Performance Energy Input Energy Output Base Energy Consumption (l/km) Technical Lifetime, yrs Environmental Impact CO2 and other GHG emissions, g/km Costs Marginal Capital Cost, overnight, Euro/unit O&M cost (fixed and variable), Euro/km Economic Lifetime, yrs 1,640 - 2,190 0.03 12 N/A 0.04 12 N/A 0.05 12 57.4- 93.3 66.7- 108.3 101- 165.7 0.062 12 Small Cars Medium Cars LNG/CNG Kilometres 0.072 12 0.111 12 Large Cars

Table 6: Summary Table: Baseline Vehicle Gasoline [19]

Technical Performance Energy Input Energy Output Base Energy Consumption (l/km) Technical Lifetime, yrs Environmental Imapct CO2 and other GHG emissions, g/km Costs Capital Cost, overnight, Euro/unit O&M cost (fixed and variable), Euro/km Economic Lifetime, yrs 10,279 0.03 12 16,643 0.04 12 25,505 0.05 12 143.5 166.7 255.0 0.062 12 Small Cars Medium Cars Gasoline Kilometres 0.072 12 0.111 12 Large Cars

4
Please send comments to Tom.Palmer@aeat.co.uk, Nicholas.Hill@aeat.co.uk, Johannes.VonEinem@aeat.co.uk (Authors), and to Giorgio.Simbolotti@enea.it and Giancarlo Tosato (gct@etsap.org) (Project Co-ordinators)

IEA OECD ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ANALYSIS PROGRAM

IEA ETSAP www.etsap.org Technology Brief T03 June 2009 References and Further Information [1] International Energy Agency, 2008, Energy Technology Perspectives 2008, Scenarios and
Strategies to 2050, Paris. [2] Oltra, V. et al., 2008, Variety of technological trajectories in low emission vehicles (LEVs): A patent data analysis, Bordeaux IV University, Elsevier, Science Direct. [3] Ricardo, 2006, Global Perspectives, In-depth viewpoints on technology & business innovations that are shaping the transportation sector, http://www.totalvehiclefueleconomy.com/images/global_perspectives.pdf. [4] US Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Alternative and Advanced Vehicles, 2009, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/propane.html. [5] Frost and Sullivan, 2007, Evaluation of World Market Potential for LPG and CNG Vehicles and Alternative Fuel Conversion Equipment in the OE and Aftermarket, http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/461323. [6] Carle, G., 2004, Market potential of compressed natural gas cars in the Swiss passenger car sector, 2004, www.ivt.ethz.ch/oev/publications/papers/2004B_GC.pdf. [7] International Association for Natural Gas Vehicles, 2009, http://www.iangv.org/natural-gas-vehicles/natural-gas.html. [8] Norris, J. et al., 2009, Light Goods Vehicle - CO2 Emissions Study: Task Report for Task 5 - Assessment of the potential for CO2 emissions reductions, Report to the Department for Transport, AEA, Harwell, Didcot. [9] United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2007, Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2007, EPA420-S07-001, September 2007. [10] What Green Car, 2009, http://www.whatgreencar.com/cng.php. [11] United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2008, EPA Staff Technical Report: Cost and Effectiveness Estimates of Technologies Used to Reduce Light-duty Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emissions, EPA420-R-08-008, March 2008. [12] Pr Newswire, 2009, Global Focus on Reducing Vehicle Emissions Boosts Market for LPG/CNG Vehicles and Conversion Kits, http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=195406 [13] PwC Automotive Institute Analyst Briefing, 2009, 2009 Q1 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG): A Viable Alternative Fuel?, http://www.pwcautomotiveinstitute.com/. [14] Smokers, R., 2006, Review and analysis of the reduction potential and costs of technological and other measures to reduce CO2-emissions from passenger cars, TNO Science and Industry, Delft. [15] Srivastava, A. et al., 2007, Study on ZnO-doped tin oxide thick film gas sensors, Elsevier, Science Direct. [16] Earthtotech, 2009, 10 Things You Should Know About Natural Gas Vehicles, http://earth2tech.com/2008/07/09/10-thingsyou-should-know-about-natural-gas-vehicles/. [17] United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2008, A Study of Potential Effectiveness of Carbon Dioxide Reducing Vehicle Technologies, Prepared for EPA by Ricardo, Inc., Revised Final Report, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology/420r08004a.pdf, [18] Dipl.-Ing (FH) Horst Bauer, ed. (1996). Automotive Handbook (4th ed.). Stuttgart: Robert Bosch GmbH. ISBN 0837603331 - [19] Kollamthodi, S. et al., Transport technologies marginal abatement cost curve model - technology and efficiency measures, AEA Technology, 2008.

5
Please send comments to Tom.Palmer@aeat.co.uk, Nicholas.Hill@aeat.co.uk, Johannes.VonEinem@aeat.co.uk (Authors), and to Giorgio.Simbolotti@enea.it and Giancarlo Tosato (gct@etsap.org) (Project Co-ordinators)