Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Propane Fuel”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Operational Energy Life Cycle Data Development for the National Institute of Standards And Technology (NIST) Building Industry Reporting and Design for Sustainability (BIRDS) Neutral Environmental Software Tool (NEST)

For this analysis, regionalized life cycle assessment (LCA) results for environmental impacts (using the Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and Other Environmental Impacts [TRACI] 2.1) and cumulative energy demand (using the Federal Life Cycle Analysis Commons Elementary Flow List [FEDEFL] Inventory Methods v1.0.0) were evaluated for the production and utilization of electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, and propane as commodities within residential and commercial buildings. These results can used as a framework for future research into net zero, high-performance buildings, such as done here for the Building Industry Reporting and Design for Sustainability (BIRDS) database by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Engineering Laboratory. The geographical results were assigned to each United States (U.S.) Zone Improvement Plan (ZIP) code based on the ZIP code location and corresponding Balancing Authority Area, natural gas basin, and Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADDs). Additionally, previously developed models were utilized to develop future life cycle profiles. Projections were based on data available from the U.S. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2022 through 2050 (AEO 2022). Electricity LCA models were updated based on AEO 2022 projected annual generation mixes, while the natural gas baseline model was updated based on projected shares of natural gas types (conventional, shale, tight, and coalbed methane). Projections of crude oil production rates and export rates were applied to the petroleum baseline model in five-year increments to investigate their effects on the life cycle profile of fuel oil and propane. While only 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWP-100) with climate carbon feedback (CC-FB) and Cumulative Energy Demand are shown in Section 4: Results, the complete results, including Acidification Potential, Eutrophication Potential, Freshwater Ecotoxicity Potential, GWP-100 without inclusion of CC-FB, Human Health Impacts Potentials (Cancer, Non-Cancer), Ozone Depletion Potential, Particulate Matter Formation Potential, and Photochemical Smog Formation Potential, are tabulated for each ZIP code in the Excel worksheets that accompany this analysis. For the Excel spreadsheet tools associated with this report, please go to https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/details?id=f8890fac-be55-44ac-aaa9-e2888bfabe93

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

Autoignition Delay Time Measurements of Dimethyl Ether at 110 Bar Inside a Shock Tube

Fuel mixtures of propane and dimethyl ether have been proposed as potential diesel substitutes for use in compression-ignition engines. There is an interest in phasing out diesel fuel because its combustion byproducts are harmful to the environment. Propane and dimethyl ether burn cleaner and produce significantly less carbon dioxide than diesel. The combustion of these fuels at engine-relevant conditions must be characterized to create an engine capable of running on propane and dimethyl ether. In this work, IDT measurements of stoichiometric neat DME diluted in 75% argon were completed for temperatures spanning 800-1200K at 110 bar. A shock tube will be used for all experiments in this work. Experimental IDTs were then compared to simulated values using several well-established mechanisms in the literature.

Guenther, Aaron C. [University of Central Florida]↗
DOE OSTI2023

Physics model validation of propane and methane for Hydrogen Plus Other Alternative Fuels Risk Assessment Models (HyRAM+)

HyRAM+ is a toolkit that includes fast-running models for the unconstrained (i.e., no wall interactions) dispersion and flames for non-premixed fuels. The models were developed for use with hydrogen, but the toolkit was expanded to include propane and methane in a recent release. Here, in this work we validate the dispersion and flame models for these additional fuels, based on reported literature data. The validation efforts spanned a range of release conditions, from subsonic to underexpanded jets and flames for a range of mass flow rates. In general, the dispersion model works well for both propane and methane although the width of the jet/plume is predicted to be wider than observed in some cases. The flame model tends to over-predict the induced buoyancy for low-momentum flames, while the radiative heat flux agrees with the experimental data reasonably well, for both fuels. The models could be improved but give acceptable predictions for propane and methane behavior for the purposes of risk assessment.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Sources of Propane Consumed in California

Project Scope: The objective of this study is to specify the sources of propane consumed in California. It answers the questions, where does the propane used in California come from and how was it produced? The results of this study provide comprehensive, transparent, and verifiable estimates, based on the 2018 market. The information provided in this report is suitable for use to assess the life cycle carbon intensity of propane used as a transportation fuel in California. As the 2009 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) aims to reduce California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other smog-forming and toxic air pollutants, the appropriate designation of carbon intensity for propane as a transportation fuel is important for evaluating propane’s potential to contribute to GHG goals and understandings in the context of various actions. This study focuses on estimating the shares of total propane consumed in the state of California produced from petroleum refineries, natural gas plants, and bituminous sands sources inside California and elsewhere. Results: An estimated 590 million gallons of propane were consumed in California in 2018, of which, 59.5% originated from refinery production and 40.5% originated from natural gas plants. The majority of this was sourced from refinery production in California, 334 million gallons. Most of the propane imported to California for consumption was sourced from natural gas plants, 113 million gallons, with over half of the imported volume sourced from Canada. The volume sourced from bituminous sand upgrader and fractionator operations was negligible. Details from this analysis are presented in the table below which provides an overview of the propane flows estimated in this study by region and production method. The shares and volumes presented here represent a snapshot for 2018. A significant increase in propane demand, such as could be caused by increased use of propane as a transportation fuel in the state, would affect California’s propane production, imports, and exports. The method and data sources used for the estimates provided in this report also provide the framework which could be used for future updates. Key Method Considerations: The values presented here are based on a two-step approach where the first step was to determine the flows of propane into and out of California from different regions and the second step was to estimate the propane production methods in each region. A volume balance approach is used as the primary method for tracking the volume of propane in and out of California as propane production and import volumes are available by Petroleum Administration of Defense District (PADD) from EIA and neither inter-PADD propane transfers nor state-specific non-prime supplier consumption are available from a public data source. The volume balance performed for this study covered PADD 5 (the West Coast), which includes Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The volume balance used all available public datasets to determine propane production, imports, exports, and consumption. Volumes unaccounted for by these datasets were estimated using the resulting volume balance by assuming market equilibrium. Consumption within each state in PADD 5 was estimated based on known import, export, and production volumes and this amount was used to develop the volume balance. EIA only tracks consumption at the state level by prime supplier sales. The volume balance approach provides the basis to correct for additional propane consumed in-states where propane is transferred to California. To determine the California propane sources and trade in 2018. volume of propane consumed in California, the volume balance approach is again used where it was estimated all imported volumes not specifically flagged for re-export were consumed, and the remaining consumption was produced in-state. The California Energy Commission (CEC) provided the total volume of propane imported and exported from California in 2018; this volume data set along with commodity tracking from the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) which tracks port of entry and final destination was used to determine where propane originated from and where it was ultimately consumed. For example, the CER tracks propane leaving Canada and entering each state within the U.S. Imported propane from Canada to California – marked for California – is assumed to be consumed in California. When no further data were available, import volumes were assumed to be consumed in California without pass-through (i.e., no propane imported to California was directly sold and exported). In most cases, the production method for each propane source region was applied to the volume of propane transferred to California. In other words, the shares of propane sourced from natural gas and refineries for each production region was assigned to California imports based on their contribution to the total volume flows into California to determine the production method for propane consumed in-state. For volumes imported into California from PADD 4, Washington State, Canada, and the rest of the world (Argentina, Chile, Norway, Peru, South Korea, and Trinidad and Tobago), the volumes sourced from petroleum refineries and natural gas plants reflect the either production ratio for the region or, in cases where the sources specific to the amounts exported to California could be determined, the sources specific to the volumes transferred to California.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2025

DME-to-Propane Mixture Effects on a Light Duty Compression Ignition Engine

Fuels that can be produced in a sustainable manner are of high interest because they can provide an essential step toward net zero emissions vehicles. This study examines the combustion of two such fuels, Dimethyl Ether (DME) and propane, in a compression ignition, 4-cylinder, 2.2L engine running with mixtures of DME-to-Propane ranging of 100%-0%, 85%-15%, 75%-25%, and 65%-35% by weight. Testing was conducted at 2000rpm - 100Nm, an important representative point in the FTP certification cycle. For each fuel mixture, conditions tested include sweeps of boost, EGR and injection pressure. Here, tests are mainly conducted at a constant combustion timing with CA10 of -1 deg with respect to TDC, with an engine controller combustion feedback system based on in-cylinder sampling of pressure. Trends of NOx, HC, and CO are similar for the range of DME-to-propane, from 100%-0% to 75%-25%. Boost and injection pressures had the most notable impact on the heat release traces. Higher boost, from stoichiometric to lean resulted in approximately a 3-5% increase on cycle efficiency. Fuel injection pressures resulted in about 1% gain per 200bar. Results also illustrated that EGR is effective in reducing NOx but causes notable degradation of cycle efficiency. The emissions for DME-propane mixtures with 65%-35% had a different trend, with CO and HC exceeding the runs with lower propane content by 2 to 3-fold. As propane content increases, the pressure rise rates become higher, and with 65%-35% mixtures, rates easily exceed 12bar/deg. The increased rise rates correlate with early injection timings but the rates can be reduced, with higher boost and lower injection pressures. The result of the approach, however, leads to lower thermal efficiencies, decreasing efficiency by over 5% between neat DME and the highest propane ratios.

Combustion and combustion processes↗
DOE OSTI2024

Refueling Infrastructure Deployment in Low-Income and Non-Urban Communities

The U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization identifies the need to invest in infrastructure supporting low- and zero-emission vehicles, especially in low-income and overburdened communities, to eliminate nearly all greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector by 2050. The alternative fuel vehicle refueling property tax credit (26 U.S. Code § 30C) includes eligibility criteria intended to encourage investment in underserved communities based on the economic characteristics or urban character of the census tract in which the fueling infrastructure is installed. Eligible census tracts are those that qualify for the New Markets Tax Credit or that are not located within urban areas as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. This study quantifies how many fueling-related amenities are currently located in census tracts that qualify and do not qualify for the 30C tax credit based on IRS Notice 2024-20. For existing electric vehicle charging stations, 51% of Level 2 and 60% of Direct Current Fast Charging public stations are located in eligible census tracts. 73% of natural gas, propane, and hydrogen fueling stations are in qualifying census tracts and 75% of biodiesel and renewable fuel stations are in qualifying census tracts. This compares with 73% of existing gas stations in eligible census tracts. For deploying the refueling infrastructure to satisfy future demand, this study shows that truck stops (94%), commercial truck stops (92%), and Federal Highway alternative fuel corridors (89%) are predominantly located in eligible locations. Additionally, significant percentages of the population (62%), light-duty vehicle registrations (64%), and medium- and heavy-duty vehicle registrations (68%) fall within eligible areas.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2020

An experimental investigation of flame and autoignition behavior of propane

We report autoignition delay time data are one important means to develop, quantify, and validate fundamental understanding of combustion chemistry at low temperatures (T<1200 K). However, low-temperature chemistry often has higher uncertainties and scatter in the experimental data compared with high-temperature ignition data (T>1200 K). In this study, autoignition properties of propane and oxygen mixtures were investigated using the University of Michigan rapid compression facility in order to understand the effects of ignition regimes on low-temperature ignition data. For the first time for propane, autoignition delay times were determined from pressure histories, and autoignition characteristics were simultaneously recorded using highspeed imaging of the test section through a transparent end-wall. Propane mixtures with fuel-to-O 2 equivalence ratios of φ = 0.25 and φ = 0.5 and O 2 -to-inert gas molar ratios of 1:3.76 were studied over the pressure range of 8.9 to 11.3 atm and the temperature range of 930 – 1070 K. The results showed homogeneous or strong autoignition occurred for all φ = 0.25 experiments, and inhomogeneous or mixed autoignition occurred for all φ = 0.5 experiments. While a limited temperature range is covered in the study, importantly the data span predicted transitions in autoignition behavior, allowing validation of autoignition regime hypotheses. Specifically, the results agree well with strong-autoignition limits proposed based on the Sankaran Criterion. The autoignition delay time data at the strong-ignition conditions are in excellent agreement with predictions using a well-validated detailed reaction mechanism from the literature and a zerodimensional modeling assumption. However, the experimental data at the mixed autoignition conditions were systematically faster than the model predictions, particularly at lower temperatures (T< ~970 K). The results are an important addition to the growing body of data in the literature that show mixed autoignition phenomena are important sources of the higher scatter observed in the low-temperature autoignition data for propane and other fuels. The results are discussed in terms of different methods to capture the effects of pre-autoignition heat release associated with mixed autoignition conditions and thereby address some of the discrepancies between kinetic modeling and experimental measurements.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Boosting the performance of reversible solid oxide electrochemical cells with a novel hybrid oxygen electrode, Pr 1.39 Ba 0.14 Sr 0.53 Co 1.48 Fe 0.76 O 6- δ -Ba 0.66 Sr 0.34 CoO 3- δ

Solid oxide electrochemical cells (SOECs) stand out as a highly promising clean energy technology that offers several benefits, showing significant potential to play a pivotal role in the transition towards a sustainable and low-carbon energy future. SOECs can efficiently convert the chemical energy stored in fuels to electricity in fuel cell mode, and produce various chemicals from abundant feedstocks (e.g., CO 2 , H 2 O) and intermittent solar/wind-based renewable electricity. Despite extensive efforts that have been devoted to designing novel materials and optimizing SOEC manufacturing processes, aiming to achieve enhanced energy efficiency, the current SOECs still suffer from poor performance, which is mainly due to the sluggish oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) and oxygen evolution reaction (OER) kinetics. To address this challenge, in this work, we have successfully designed an in situ formed hybrid oxygen electrode material (Pr 1.39 Ba 0.14 Sr 0.53 Co 1.48 Fe 0.76 O 6- δ -Ba 0.66 Sr 0.34 CoO 3- δ ), which significantly improves the surface oxygen exchange coefficient and bulk oxygen-ion diffusion coefficient, enhancing the OER and ORR electrocatalytic activities. Further, the SOECs equipped with this newly developed oxygen electrode achieved exceptional performance for power generation using both hydrogen and propane as the fuels. At 750 °C, a peak power density of 2.4 W cm -2 was obtained with H 2 as the fuel. Additionally, the SOECs attain unprecedented performance in steam electrolysis mode. A current density of 4.4 A cm -2 was achieved at 1.3 V and 750 °C, which represents the highest performance among all yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ) electrolyte-based SOECs. The SOECs also deliver remarkable stability during the accelerated stability testing, highlighting the great potential of Pr 1.39 Ba 0.14 Sr 0.53 Co 1.48 Fe 0.76 O 6- δ -Ba 0.66 Sr 0.34 CoO 3- δ as a high-performance oxygen electrode for next generation SOECs.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2025

Clean Cities and Communities Partnership 2023 Activity Report

This is the 2023 report for the Clean Cities and Communities (CC&C) partnership. It tracks the metrics that have been reported by individual coalitions and aggregated to the national level. It looks at the various outreach activities, grant activities, and implementation of clean transportation technologies. Such technologies include natural gas vehicles, electric vehicles, propane vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, biodiesel, ethanol, idle reduction technologies, fuel economy improvement technologies, vehicle-miles-traveled reduction technologies, and off-road technologies. The CC&C partnership had an energy use impact of over 1 billion gallons in 2023 and reduced emissions by nine million tons. Outreach, engagement, and training activities increased 18% from last year.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Propane Basics

This fact sheet answers frequently asked questions about propane as a transportation fuel.

alternative transportation fuel, AFDC, fuel, trans↗
DOE OSTI2020

Numerical study on spray collapse process of ECN spray G injector under flash boiling conditions

This work features a numerical study of the spray collapse process that occurs under flash-boiling, gasoline-direct-injection conditions. The Engine Combustion Network's Spray G injector was modeled, and iso-octane, n-hexane, and propane were used as fuels with the goal to investigate fuel property effects. The development of individual jets and jet-to-jet interaction were analyzed to reveal the physical mechanisms of spray collapse. The results agreed qualitatively well with the experimental data of propane available from the literature and the predictions revealed the model's ability to capture the near-nozzle shock structures witnessed in the experiments. Simulations showed that the flow development of flashing sprays was strongly tied with the fuel properties. Specifically, under-expanded jets were not observed with iso-octane due to the fuel's low vapor pressure. In the case of n-hexane, the jets were under-expanded, and a low-pressure core was observed inside the jets due to the flow expansion. With propane, the very strong expansion caused the flow to become transonic and generate a unique shock structure near the nozzle exit. The shock structure revealed the formation of primary shock cells within the jets and secondary shock cells induced by jet-to-jet interaction. Based on the results, the spray collapse under flash boiling conditions was mainly attributed to two effects, i.e., the decrease in pressure at the spray center induced by the low-pressure cores inside and between the jets, and the isolation effect due to the jet-to-jet interaction which contributed to maintain the pressure differential between the spray center and the ambient.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Q1 2020)

The US. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2020 (Q1). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the amount projected to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Second Quarter 2020

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2020. Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the amount projected to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the second report in a new series. The first report for the first calendar quarter of 2020 can be found in the publication databases of the Alternative Fuels Data Center and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Third Quarter 2020

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the third calendar quarter of 2020. Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the amount projected to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the third report in a new series. Reports for the first two calendar quarters of 2020 can be found in the publication databases of the Alternative Fuels Data Center and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Q4 2020)

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the fourth calendar quarter of 2020 (Q4). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the projected amount needed to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the fourth report in a series. Previous reports for the first (Q1), second (Q2), and third (Q3) calendar quarters of 2020 can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: First Quarter 2021

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2021 (Q1). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the target infrastructure volume for 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the fifth report in a series. Previous reports from 2020 can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Second Quarter 2021

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2021 (Q2). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the target infrastructure volume for 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the sixth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Third Quarter 2021)

The U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private nonresidential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the third calendar quarter of 2021 (Q3). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the seventh report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗