Featured UPS investing $450 million more into CNG

I know they exist, but how far out are they from market? The only ones actually available in the US is ethanol and biodiesel*. Modern diesel engines can't handle 100% biodiesel. Ford and GM allow up to B20 in their trucks, and the European makes were just B5. My understanding is that the issue is with the emission systems now required, and biodiesel gels up at much higher temperatures than diesel, making it unusable in places with a winter. So an engine that can use B100 would need something else to burn in the cold.

The EROI of ethanol has improved, we botched the implementation here. The flexfuel engines offered didn't take advantage of ethanol's higher octane, so fuel efficiency that was going to drop on it was worse than it needed to be. CAFE and other policies played a part in that. The engines also can't use E100. Brazilian flex fuel cars run on E20 to E100. Honda might have an engine that can do E0 to E100.

So in the US, the ICE that can be bought now that can run a 100% renewable fuel with a good chance of that fuel being available, is one running CNG. Now, the CNG is currently a conversion, but so would any hybrid or plug in be at this time.

*There is a chain of stations in California selling 2nd gen bio/renewable diesel that is a drop in replacement for diesel. I think made by Neste.

The announcement was for 6000 trucks by 2022. They will be replacing 20 to 30 year old, worn out trucks that are no longer as efficient nor clean as when they were new.

The three, off the top of my head, companies working on commercial BEV trucks are Tesla, Volvo, and M-B. I'm sure there are Chinese companies, but UPS will need trucks that meet US regulations. None of those three have a truck available for UPS now. i don't think they even have units available for UPS to evaluate. Some of those 6000 trucks will be class 7 or higher. Only two of those companies are working on a BEV semi. Neither will be suitable for long haul trucking, which a CNG truck can do.

UPS is also putting in CNG stations. Choosing which BEV company and charging standard to support now could be a costly mistake.

From motorcycles to heavy duty trucks, UPS has around 123,000 ground vehicles. They also have test fleets of electrics. I'm sure they'll invest in more when they are viable for them. BEVs won't viable for every role though, and even if they become so, demand will outstrip supply in the near future.

UPS does have a preorder for 125 Tesla semis. UPS has a large fleet though, Tesla alone won't meet their needs.
UPS reserves 125 Tesla semi-trucks, largest public pre-order yet - Reuters

Far more than the Russians are making biobutanol, and some are working with the original organisms used in the ABE process developed during WWI.
BioButanol - Biobutanol Producers: Gevo, Butamax, Cobalt,

Butamax, using a yeast, and Gevo, an E.coli. are the two major companies making biobutanol in the US. The genes for their organisms likely came from the Clostridiums originally used. If they got out into the wild, what would most likely happen is that organisms would revert to their native metabolism, or get out competed by wild types.

It seems a refinery can blend 16% biobutanol with gasoline and call it E10 for legal purposes.
It seems most of Gevo's production is used for making jet fuel.
Alternative Fuels Data Center: Biobutanol

Fossil fuels were made from organisms that were once alive, aren't they bio fuels? And nature doesn't stop X feet below the ground.

With wind or solar electricity, we can turn water and CO2 into methane or even liquid hydrocarbons. Audi actually has a pilot plant or two doing so. It is 100% renewable(well, until we run out of water) while being 0% bio; it is a pure chemical reaction sans any organism. Prefixing the methane, diesel, and gasoline made from that process with bio would be diluting the bio term. I think Audi went with blue diesel.

When the renewable fuel is exactly the same as the fossil one, people might conflate the two, or they might take language another way. i can see people referring to renewable diesel as biodiesel simply because it is easier to say.

The real concern is with legal definitions, which could give a fossil fuel unneeded support. I think a state(Conn.?) defined hydrogen as renewable even when made from natural gas.

If you want people to change their ways, it has to be feasible.

BEVs will not work for all roles. More importantly, BEV production and charging infrastructure will take time to ramp up to completely meet transportation demands.

So ICEs will stick around for now. We can continue refueling them as we are now doing until EV production can meet the majority of needs, and then continue with the fossil fuels for those uses in which BEVs won't work. Or we can start switching those ICEs to fuels that emit less GHG and other pollutants.

Again, for the public to support this, the alternative fuel needs to be something feasible. Ideally, the replacement will be a direct drop in for existing fuels so existing infrastructure and vehicles can be safely used with it. Ethanol can't be shipped in existing oil pipelines. Likely neither can biodiesel. Other renewable diesels can, but production amounts are limited, and diesel vehicles require extra cost or emit unacceptable amounts of other pollutants.

There is no drop in renewable gasoline even on the market. Biobutanol may work as one, but the largest amount to enter the US fuel supply in a year was 125,000 gallons. The UPS will using about 33 million gallon equivalents of renewable natural gas a year.

 

Yes. When a fuel is made by such a process, or from another non-fossil source, how will calling it renewable dilute the term?