Gasoline prices are at a six-year low. Thanks to an oversupply of oil, they look to stay depressed for the year ahead. Big SUV and truck sales are charging up faster than an electric vehicle’s battery. And with more than 90% of new light-duty vehicles running on gasoline, it’s one big gorilla to beat. All in all, it’s a tough time to be an alternative to a cheap, widely available fuel.
But alternative fuels continue to inch along. To keep track of the competition, CSP Fuel will regularly feature the latest developments providing momentum to each of the fuels. First, let’s get familiar with the contenders.
Click "download" button below to see an infographic of this information.
1. Ethanol
- E85: 3,000 fueling sites, more than 17.4 million flex-fuel vehicles
- E15: 179 fueling sites, more than 183 million vehicles model year 2001 and newer
Pros: Domestically produced and renewable; lower greenhouse-gas emissions
Cons: For E85, fuel economy up to 30% lower; ethanol prices tied to corn crop performance; political and popular resistance to growing market share
2. Biodiesel
232 fueling sites, 7.4 million diesel-powered vehicles
Pros: Domestically produced and renewable; interchangeable with conventional diesel; lower greenhouse-gas emissions
Cons: Price often at a premium to conventional diesel; limited availability; possible performance issues in cold weather
3. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
More than 1,500 fueling sites, more than 153,000 vehicles
Pros: Natural-gas prices more stable than gasoline; lower greenhouse-gas emissions
Cons: High fueling infrastructure costs; natural-gas vehicles priced at premium to conventional
4. Electric
More than 11,400 charging stations, more than 291,000 vehicles
Pros: Zero greenhouse-gas emissions; lower ownership costs; ability to charge at home
Cons: Limited range on fully charged battery; limited public charging infrastructure
5. Hydrogen
More than 10 fueling sites; “several hundred” fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) in California
Pros: Similar range and fill-up time to gasoline and diesel; FCEVs emit only water vapor and air, offer instantaneous torque
Cons: Very high fueling infrastructure costs; very limited fueling sites; consumer fears about hydrogen’s explosiveness; current method of producing hydrogen—steam reformation of natural gas—is energy-inefficient and fossil-fuel-dependent
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center; Renewable Fuels Association
Members help make our journalism possible. Become a CSP member today and unlock exclusive benefits, including unlimited access to all of our content. Sign up here.