Chrysler declared last week that it will commence marketing compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles by 2017. But why is the car manufacturer committing in yet another substitute technology when electric fomites have car companies, charge-station producers, and also the government on their side? The answer is invariably and usually money.
One of the simplest and general reasons is that compressed natural gas fomites are more inexpensive than electric cars. The fomites comprise of compressed gas storage tanks as an alternative to costly lithium-ion batteries. Honda’s Civic GX CNG fomite is priced at $25,490. This price is by far less when it is compared to most reasonably charged new batch of electric cars like Chevy Volt costing $41,000 before tax credits, or the Nissan Leaf, which has its starting price from $32,000 before credits.
The CNG fomites also are on the threshold of receiving government backing, making them even less costly. A recently-put in Natural Gas Bill in Congress has 154 patronizes, and if authorized, it will permit the government to put forward credits to encourage and develop compressed natural gas fomites, same as it does with electric fomites.
Chrysler is also perhaps attempting to circumvent its stakes lest this whole electric-vehicle thing comes down flat on its face in another10 years. And it is not only Chrysler resisting to just stay with electric cars. Other companies are furthermore gradually beginning to get into the market. Honda has programs to trade with its CNG-powered Civic in 50 states following year, and GM began selling natural-gas fomites to fleet purchasers last year. And for Chrysler, this is a reasonably gentle movement because its parent company Fiat is already selling natural gas-powered vehicles in Europe and South America.
Thus we can say that not all car manufacturers have hugged electric cars as the ultimate eventual future, yet. They just assume they are part of a branched out portfolio. But each crumb of R&D capital that goes to make a compressed natural gas car is just an exhausted dollar that is not altering your electric car’s series or battery life.
Possible clients should be cautious of yet another petroleum option. The quantity of compressed natural gas refueling stations will have to level up radically if the technology is to get off the ground. And with a lot of companies cooperating on enlarging the EV substructure, that may take a moment, or just not at all occur. In California, for instance, there are 448 EV charging stations and only 217 CNG stations according to the DOE.
Yet another disadvantage of compressed natural gas is that it is not a renewable source. Electric vehicles can often charge up with electricity got from coal or even natural gas, but they at any rate have the alternative of refueling with renewable.
Bob Lee, who is Chrysler’s vice president for engine and electrified propulsion systems, said in an interview in Detroit that “The technology is very actively being worked on.”
Fiat, which possesses 30% of Chrysler and contrives to step-up the holding to 51%, has engines utilizing compressed natural gas in Europe. Chrysler administrators have researched getting that Fiat technology to the U.S.
Lee at the SAE 2011 World Congress, an automotive engineering convention in Detroit further added that “It’s a good way for some diversity in the market in terms of fuel use.”
Fred Diaz, head of the truck unit, said in February that “Chrysler is looking at the possibility of adding compressed natural gas-powered engines to its Ram brand. I’m eager and very interested to see what we can do with CNG in our truck applications.”