『Abstract
Compared with other alternative fuel vehicles (AFV), LPG vehicles
(LPGV) have lower economic and technological barriers, leading
to its faster growth in some developing countries in recent years.
By means of regulation, Shanghai managed to have nearly all taxis
converted to LPGV in the early 2000s, and all taxis and 80％ of
buses in Guangzhou are LPGV. Nevertheless, LPGV diffusion in China
(excluding Hong Kong) has been slow and even showing signs of
retreating. By 2008, less than 5％ of taxis in Shanghai were LPGV.
This paper looks into the problem by comparing the LPGV development
of Shanghai, Guangzhou versus that of Hong Kong where the LPGV
development seems to be running well. The obstacles of LPGV development
in China include a lack of policy coherence between the central
and local governments; insufficient price advantage of Autogas;
not enough fueling stations; and high maintenance costs due to
immature technology and poor quality control. Bi-fuel system has
further magnified the problems in China. In order to facilitate
the use of alternative fuel, efforts should be made to increase
the number of AFVs as well as to ensure the availability and price-competitiveness
of the alternative fuel concerned.
Keywords: LPG vehicle; Bi-fuel vehicle; Policy coherence』
1. Introduction
2. LPGV development in Hong Kong, Shanghai and Guangzhou
2.1. Shanghai
2.2. Hong Kong
2.3. Guangzhou
3. Problems of LPGV development in China
3.1. Price advantage for Autogas was too small
3.2. Bi-fuel system magnified the problems of LPGV development
in China
3.3. Insufficient number of Autogas fueling stations
3.4. Immature technology and poor quality control led to high
maintenance costs
3.5. Autogas price control mechanisms did not take into account
LPG cost
3.6. LPG buses are intrinsically less efficient than diesel buses,
thus difficult to promote when the price advantage of Autogas
is small (Guangzhou)
4. Comparison of historic factors between Hong Kong and China
4.1. An “isolated” vs. “connected” city
4.2. “Import” vs. “domestic” technology
4.3. “Diesel” vs. “gasoline” taxis
5. Conclusion
References