A Common Sense Alternative to Electric Vehicles

Let’s face it folks. Electric vehicles have a lot of problems. A whole lot. The technology necessary in order to make them practical and economically feasible just does not exist yet. They are far from being reliable. Electric vehicles are expensive to repair and maintain. There are few capable mechanics. They have very limited ranges, as to a single charge - and, when you do need a charge, there’s no charging station in site. Those states which do have sufficient charging facilities (I’m looking at you California) suffer from a big drag on the state’s electrical grid.

The lithium necessary for their batteries is incredibly bad for the environment both in its extraction and disposal. These batteries are not only incredibly costly, they are a genuine ecological problem. The amount of energy consumed in the production of EV’s is staggering. The cost for a battery alone can run upwards of $4000, and, counting disposal, can reach heights of $20K or more. The lifespan of the vehicle is basically that of the battery. It’s more economically feasible to trade them (if you can get any salvage value) or just dispose of them, than to pay the labor and material costs of repairing them.

Electric vehicles have a short projected life-span and depreciate much faster than traditional vehicles. They are especially susceptible to extremes in both hot and cold weather. They are nothing short of dangerous if used for off-road purposes. And, despite all the hype, they have their own issues with regard to emitting greenhouse gases and have surprisingly little positive impact on the environment.

Further, EV’s are incredibly expensive compared to vehicles with internal-combustion engines. To date, they have been subsidized by states or the federal government, but how long will these incentives last? Tax credits of up to $7500 have been proposed through the recently misnamed Inflation Reduction Act. However, many EV’s will not even qualify. Only about 50 of the 72 models available in America are eligible. A vehicle’s MSRP must not exceed certain limits, so luxury models like the GMC Hummer EV, Lucid Air, and Tesla Model S won’t qualify. Many will only qualify for a $3750 tax credit, half of that expected by most EV purchasers.

Other factors determining eligibility include where the EV’s are made, where their battery components and minerals come from (mostly China), how much buyers earn, etc. Some of these restrictions actually became more stringent this very year, further disqualifying many models and buyers. These percentages go up every year after 2024, which is also when vehicles with components from certain countries branded as “foreign entities of concern” are no longer eligible.

Currently, vehicles must be manufactured in North America (not the USA?) and fit into pricing schedules, which differ between SUV’s and sedans, wagons, or hatchbacks. Plug-in hybrids may qualify, while regular hybrids often may not. When the feasibility of a product is determined largely by the amount of available tax credits afforded to it, perhaps the vehicle does not really make sense economically. Capitalism is at the heart of our Democratic Republic, and it certainly does not revolve around government subsidies.

The market is slowing for EV’s as well. This week Toyota Motors announced its plans to slow production, cutting its global output forecast for 2026 to 1M cars, about 30% below previous sales forecasts for the same year. The announced reason for the decision? A marked slowdown in the global demand for EV’s. They now plan to produce only about 400K EV’s in 2025. Production will noticeably slow, compared with their previous announced plans. They had just announced plans to elevate sales globally to 1.5M or more by 2026. Those wishes will never be realized.

GlobalDate, a U.K. research firm, reports the global EV market to be significantly cooling. Sales reached 9.7M units in 2023, a 32% increase from the previous year but the growth rate continues to decline. 2022 had seen about a 65% rise in EV sales, amounting to approximately 7.5M vehicles.  Tesla, America’s largest EV producer, saw global sales fall about 7% during the first half of this year. This was the first time that their half-year sales have fallen from the previous year. It seems only China-based BYD is seeing a growth in their market.

Enough about the issues that exist with electric vehicles. Instead of trashing the project, let’s propose a common-sense substitute instead, one that will at least provide a bridge to when EV’s make more sense. Like solar energy, I am hopeful that technology will catch up and they will one day be an important part of our green energy efforts, but that day is nowhere in sight. Having good intentions and wishing to make our ecology incrementally better is all good and fine - worthy ideals indeed. However, that does not make things automatically better for America or the world in general. For now, at least, there are better alternatives.

Such as? Vehicles powered by natural gas. It is a little-known fact that companies such as UPS, FedEx and the USPS have converted their fleets to run almost exclusively on natural gas. UPS, for instance, has been using natural gas vehicles since the 1980’s, using aftermarket kits to convert them. What is also referred to as renewable natural gas is produced from bio sources such as landfills and dairy farms and is a similar and equally attractive fuel source. RNG can reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by up to 90 percent, when compared to conventional diesel vehicles. These vehicles run both quieter and cleaner than traditional internal-combustion engines. They also cost much less to operate, with cost savings on both fuel and estimated miles per gallon.

What’s the difference between CNG and RNG fuel? Each has its own advantages. CNG is the cheaper of the two and is much more readily-available today. However, CNG also requires more space and increased weight than LNG does. While LNG is much more affordable than diesel, it is not as affordable as CNG. The offset is that you can fit a lot more LNG fuel in a smaller space and weigh less at the same time. Their impact on MPG and vehicle emissions are remarkably similar.

Companies using natural gas trucks are afforded significant cost advantages versus those using a diesel-fuel-based fleet. Everyone knows natural gas has been remarkably cheap for many years now - so cheap that those who have converted their vehicles save about $1.50 - $2.00 per gallon, equivalent to diesel. That is especially important and of great benefit to fleets running 80K to 120K miles per year or more.

Regarding conversion, exactly what does that involve? Not nearly what you would likely expect. It’s often as simple as replacing the diesel fuel injectors with spark plugs connected to a suitable ignition system and providing appropriate throttle body on the intake manifold. I’m no mechanic, but it seems like something very doable for those who are. Less clear to me is what is involved in the installation of a ”waste gate and waste gate adaptor and a timing mask”. Images of the conversion, however, appear to be relatively simple in nature.

Other conversion methods are available, including one which involves an intake manifold - a cylinder head having one or more injector openings which receive a fuel injector and one or more pistons in corresponding cylinders. It’s a similar yet different approach to that discussed in the previous paragraph. Regardless of which approach you take, the conversion itself may cost as little as $1000 per vehicle. Admittedly, that is in a best-case scenario.

What about range and fuel capacity? These vehicles are limited somewhat in range, similar to EV’s. The most efficient EV’s have a range of about 300 miles between charging, whereas NGV’s are generally restricted to about 200 miles per tank of fuel. However, remember that we are comparing apples to oranges in that this range is projected for large and heavy vehicles (generally 18-wheelers) whereas the range of EV’s is for vehicles of regular size and weight, not anything commercial in nature.

As for miles per gallon, we again find natural gas vehicles to have significant advantages. Whereas a regular diesel or gasoline powered car averages 32 MPG, a CNG car of comparable size and weight averages 43 miles per gallon. Obviously, what is efficient for commercial vehicles is similarly advantageous for cars or pick-up trucks. Many of the E&P companies have already converted their pick-ups to run by means of a natural gas tank installed in the bed. It is similar in size to what one would expect from a tool box. I know Chesapeake Energy had already converted their vehicles 12 or more years ago, when I was working in Ohio and they were in pursuit of the Utica Shale.

There are actually three types of natural gas vehicles (NGV’s). A dedicated vehicle is designed to run only on natural gas. However, similarly to EV hybrids, a bi-fuel model is also available, having two separate fueling systems that enable them to run on either natural gas or diesel. This goes a long way toward my explanation that the conversion is not incredibly drastic in nature. A dual-fuel model is also an option, allowing vehicles to use natural gas as its primary fuel, but using diesel for ignition assistance. This is typically found only on the biggest and heaviest commercial vehicles.

So, what’s the catch? How about fuel availability? At present, natural gas is widely available in the US but there are only about 1600 public fueling stations in existence. Of these, about 700 offer CNG in lieu of LNG. Natural gas powers more than 175,000 vehicles here in America and roughly 23 million vehicles worldwide. There are at least 10 natural gas facilities to service vehicles in the dump that I presently call home. Can you image how many stations would be built, or converted, if we chose to subsidize them in the manner currently used for EV’s? They would be as common as a Circle K or 7-11. They are already prevalent in much of the world, particularly China, Pakistan, Iran, Argentina and Brazil. We are behind the curve proportionately, and that is not a good thing.

Now, about that mention of converting existing fuel stations to deliver natural gas…Natural gas is readily available almost anywhere in America. A station can simply tap into a local gas utility’s line at low pressure and compress it to high pressure. Viola – abundant CNG at your disposal. The station will then dispense it via one of two methods, being fast-fill or time-fill. Either is remarkably more efficient than any charging station anywhere to service EV’s.

CNG is sold at retail stations in gasoline gallon equivalents (GGE) with available access to both commercial and personal vehicles. The GGE is used primarily for fuel comparison purposes, which we have already stated to be quite attractive. Further, the costs are more stable, not fluctuating to the extreme as gasoline prices. The commodity cost of natural gas is only about 20 percent of the total cost of CNG at the pump, which insulates it from being affected as much. Conversely, gasoline has a commodity price of about 70 percent, resulting in bigger and most frequent spikes in fuel pricing.

Conversion of an existing fuel station to provide natural gas in one of the accepted forms is fairly easy, but not as commonplace as it should be. Commercial compression, storage and other related fueling equipment is available from multiple sources. Often, the compression equipment may have to be custom-built to site specifications. However, a number of equipment manufacturers offer standard, and affordable, packages for small to medium size installations. A Vehicle Refueling Appliance (VRA) or Home Refueling Appliance (HRA), known as the “Phill” unit, is also available for homes or small businesses, similar to private charging stations for EV’s.

America has more natural gas than any country on the planet. It is a clean-burning fuel and quite affordable. It’s uses are quite varied, much more so that electrical charging stations. And for the record, more often than not, that electricity that environmentalist love so much is produced by burning natural gas. Love it or hate it, fossil fuels are a necessary part of our economy and everyday life and that is surely not going to change anytime soon, despite all the doomsayers out there. We should seize the opportunity to rethink our energy needs and sources, while awaiting the EV technology to become economical and/or feasible.

I know this approach makes too much sense for most people. Many overthink both the problem and solution. However, in my opinion, it’s just good policy to follow and an attractive substitute to the alternatives. Perhaps you have a better idea. What’s your opinion?