15%?
No wonder they are looking for a subsidy!
15% is not enough savings to cover the higher expense of the conversion, loss of capacity and range due to heavy/bulky fuel tanks being required, lost power (less dense fuel, less HP per gallon) lack of supporting infrastructure (need THOUSANDS of fueling stations), etc.
It’s a great fuel for fixed route operations, perhaps the USPS, UPS, Fed-X, etc. can adopt it.
Great for running electrical generation, fixed location so the fuel can be tanked to the generator by truck or rail.
I have some experience with the advantages and pitfalls of such a system, it is very similar to the Propane my 4x4 GMC runs on.
Except, that is is even LESS efficient as a fuel in a vehicle that has to operate in regular traffic.
Oh, it’s a GAS. not a liquid, if you run out for any reason you have to call a tow truck!
To get beyond fixed routes and generators the difference would have to be more like 50% - 70%.
Propane systems have been available for decades, very few are in use by the public, so that’s a clue to how well this will be received without it being FORCED on us.
I’m looking forward to taking the Propane system OFF my truck and putting it BACK on gasoline, despite Propane currently being cheaper.
The lost power and range are intolerable.