NGV Global

USA, California

Following is an edited version of a report filed by IANGV Technical Committee Chair, Alex Lawson, on the US Natural Gas Vehicle Technology Forum recently re-established after a hiatus of several years. 

Background

This Forum grew from its precursor, the Next Generation NGV program (NGNGV) held prior to 2002.  One goal of the activity was to develop advanced, commercially viable, medium- and heavy duty natural gas engines and vehicles that would meet EPA 2007/2010 heavy-duty emission levels. Another goal was to develop production-intent natural gas engines that meet current emission levels and can be deployed commercially in the near term to gain immediate petroleum displacement and emission reduction benefits.

The NGNGV meeting then became the NGV Technology Forum (NGVTF) with the goal of technology exchange between NGV stakeholders and government/industry partners.  The NGVTF concept involved co-funded development and deployment of NGVs with the NGV industry, fuel suppliers, Department of Energy (DOE), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and National Labs, and the California Energy Commission (CEC) State agencies.  The NGVTF was set up in 2002 by DOE through NREL and the (Clean Vehicle Education Foundation) CVEF had a task in its contract to manage the NGVTF.  The Forum was discontinued after 2005, about the same time as many of the OEMs exited the NGV business. 

It has now been restarted with the same CVEF management responsibilities.  The NGV RD&D Roadmap prepared for CEC’s PIER program included the recommendation to support the NGVTF as an advisory body, and also as a sounding board for the California bill AB118 on alternate fuel vehicle deployment.  One outcome from the meeting is that the CEC’s PIER program be considered as a National roadmap with input from the NGVTF.

Highlights of the Meeting

In general, most people felt that this was a good introductory meeting to review the current status of the industry, and plan for moving forward.  It was concluded at the meeting that breakout sessions are required to focus on specific topics, and it was suggested that webcasts, or conference calls should be held starting December with focus groups.  These could be, for example, a cylinder session, a heavy duty session, a light duty fuel systems session, etc, and the output of RDD&D needs would be fed to the PIER program to develop RFPs.  This would provide advice and focus for the PIER program and input into the larger AB118 deployment program.  The CEC Road Map will provide the base for rolling out technology development for the NGV industry. 

Funding levels are based presently on four sources:

•    AB 118 ————$120 million per year
•    PIER program —-$6 – 8 million per year for ATFs
•    Clean Cities ——$12 million for deployment, which leverages about $50 million
•    DOE —————$6 million over two years

It was recognized that considerable changes to this could occur after January 20th with inauguration of the new President   There is certainly an opportunity for increased NGV deployment in the US arising from:

•    The desire to use domestic resources such as the large volumes of shale NG being developed in the mid US through new technology (over 100 years supply)

•    The strings which will be attached to any bail out funding of the auto industry requiring more fuel efficient cars to reduce oil dependency

•    The role which NGVs could play in reducing oil dependency

•    The culture of using large cars in the US could be maintained to some extent if they use NG, offering an easier transition to the use of electric, smaller cars, etc.

•    Extension of the California low carbon fuels standard nationally.

Other highlights and findings from the meeting are itemized below.

•    The heavy duty diesel engine manufacturers have decided that they will use a urea based SCR system to meet 2010 EPA emissions standards.  This is similar to what is being used in Europe to meet heavy duty emissions standards.

•    The Westport Innovations dual fuel NG High Pressure Direct Injection (HPDI) engine used in Class 8 trucks is certified to meet 2007 emissions standards.  For 2010, however, it will be certified using an SCR urea based emission control system. Post 2010, the plan is to develop a Homogeneous Charge Direct Injection (HCDI) engine which will not require SCR urea emission control.  This is an important development activity, since the use of a urea emission control system clearly removes a significant advantage of such a heavy duty natural gas engine.  Westport Innovations was urged to accelerate development of this technology as soon as possible.  Currently trucks with this engine are being demonstrated in the Port of Los Angeles.

•    The CWI ISLG natural gas engine continues with its popularity and increased sales in N. America.  It has better torque than the equivalent diesel engine, and the efficiency gap is closing between the NG version, and its diesel counterpart.  Currently the ISLG is 5 – 15% less efficient than the diesel, but by 2010 the difference will be reduced to single digits.  It currently has a lower total fuel cost than the equivalent diesel engine.  The ISLG is capable of being certified to 0.04 g/bhp NOx, and in this configuration produces what is termed sub-ambient emissions, that is, the exhaust is cleaner than the intake air in California.  Discussions are underway with CARB to determine their level of interest in certifying to such a low number.

•    The CWI B Gas Plus engine was planned to be withdrawn, but there is some re-thinking of this in view of current customer demand by UPS for 2011.

•    Sterling trucks announced that they will be closing their doors, and the NG expertise will be transferred to Freightliner

•    Biomethane fuel quality was discussed, and it appears to be simply equivalent to pipeline gas.  In order for the biomethane to be injected into the pipeline, however, data must be produced showing that siloxanes, for example, are less than 100 ppb in concentration.  So there are specs. to adding this fuel to the pipeline.

•    On the light duty side, Toyota introduced its hybrid natural gas vehicle at the LA Auto show, which captured a lot of interest

•    Honda indicated that sales volume of its CNG Civic GX has increased in N. America to 2000 units per year

•    The activities of IANGV on harmonization of standards were presented and well received.  This should facilitate the introduction of European NGVs into N. America to expand the range of available vehicles.

•    Also presented was the need for development of a fuel composition sensor (introduced by an OEM) for light duty vehicles.  If an OEM develops a light duty NGV, it should be a world capable vehicle to expand the market volume, justify its existence, and reduce the cost.  Variable gas composition around the world is a big issue if the vehicle has to continue to meet emissions and performance standards in different countries.  For example, Thailand has increasingly stringent emissions standards, but gas composition which varies from 65% to 95% methane.  Europe has the same problem.   Germany wanted to set a fuel composition spec. which the gas industry could not meet.  N America is fortunate in having reasonably consistent gas composition, but the world car requirement makes it a global issue.
What we need is development (to begin with) of a gas composition sensor to feed back information to the vehicle computer, which can make adjustments for changes in fuel quality.  It does not matter if the sensor is expensive initially (the fuel flex ethanol vehicles had a $100 sensor to begin with), because ultimately it will all be done by software in the computer without a sensor.  The computer measures various existing engine parameters, senses from these changes in fuel composition and makes adjustments.  Software development is very expensive, and comes later in the cycle, hence the need for a sensor initially.  This would solve the German problem and other problems around the world.

•    Another harmonization activity was raised by the US DOE for IANGV to tackle. Considerable confusion exists in N. America over the terminology for bi-fuel and dual fuel engines. Both EPA and CARB use the opposite definitions for these technologies than is used in many other parts of the world.  For example, a dual fuel engine is considered an engine which operates separately on either fuel, while a bi-fuel engine uses both fuels at the same time.  The confusion with government supported projects is a problem, and IANGV was asked if this could be straightened out.  The first thing might be to establish what is the norm with this nomenclature around the world.
Editors note – Upcoming draft amendments on ISO 15500-1 include proposed definitions for these. We will report on this amendment when the draft is available for comment.

•    There was discussion of bringing the European style Type Approval process into N. America.  This process allows a wider range of engine families to be included in one certification, based on the master/slave system for NGV conversions.  It was also indicated that a 50 state gasoline based VECI label on a vehicle will permit conversion to NG based on an EPA certificate being issued to the NGV converter.  Hopefully, progress is being made on this front

•    Rick Kolodziej (NGVAmerica President) presented his wish list to go to congress including grants to OEMs for NGV production, and NGV infrastructure development.  These will appear on the NGVTF web site under presentations

•    The California Low Carbon Fuel Standard was discussed, and favours the use of NG as a transportation fuel. Starting with the baseline of Cal RFG with a carbon intensity of 96.7 g CO2e/Mj, producers of gasoline must reduce their carbon intensities from 96.7 to 86.5 g CO2e/Mj by 2020.  Since NG is already at 68g CO2e/Mj, there is a clear advantage to including NG in the fuel infrastructure mix.