ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 31 (2003) 1573–1577

Viewpoint
LPG: a secure, cleaner transport fuel? A policy recommendation
for Europe
Eric Johnson*
Atlantic Consulting, Obstgartenstrasse 14, Gattikon CH-9136, Switzerland

Abstract

LPG should play a greater role in road-transport-fuel policy in Western Europe, because (1) it is more secure than conventional
and most alternative road-transport fuels; (2) it is superior to most road-transport fuels with respect to public health and
environmental impact, and (3) it is available commercially today, which most alternatives are not. Policy makers should target a
2010 market share for LPG (known as Autogas when used as an automotive fuel) at 3–5% of road-transport fuel, up from its current
level of about 1%.
r 2002 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Energy security; Environment; LPG

1. Transport fuels: increasing concerns of security and
public health
In the past 3–4 years, energy security has revived itself
as a policy issue. Over the past decade, concerns about
the health impacts of road-transport pollution have
grown. Governments believe they can attack both
problems simultaneously, while also cutting the impact
of such pollution on the environment.
1.1. Energy security is back in fashion
Ever since oil prices soared in 1999–2000, European
governments have revived their interest in energy
security, which had died during the glut years of 1985–
1999. As Helm points out: ‘Energy policy is suddenly
back in fashion’ (Helm, 2002, p. 173). Every time fuel
prices spike this topic will grab headlines—and politi-
cians’ attention. And price spikes are more likely and
frequent today than they were a few years ago, especially
given the current tensions in the Middle East.
In response, governments in Western Europe are
pursuing ambitious plans to:
* slow demand growth for energy;
* reduce dependence on imports from ‘instable’
sources; and
* lower in general the vulnerability of energy supplies.
The EU Directorate general for Energy and Transport’s
main policy aims are to encourage conservation and to
increase alternative fuels’ market share to 20% by 2020
from less than 2% today. To support this, preferential
tax regimes have been prescribed for biodiesel (Eur-
opean Commission, 2000, 2001a).
UK policy is being led by DTI, DEFRA and the
Cabinet Office. The latter’s Performance and Innovation
Unit issued a 218-page report (UK Cabinet Office, 2002)
in February 2002, that is more an analysis than an
action plan. It calls for conservation, carbon trading and
more use of renewables in power generation. Specific
policy is supposed to be recommended in a White Paper,
which the government says it will issue by the end of
2002.
Other EU national governments are pursuing similar
programmes, but in all cases the policy debate is still at a
very general level. Most of the details of actual policy
have yet to be determined. And of course, it is these
policy details that will have ramifications for all fuels in
terms of tax rates, subsidies, environmental regulations
and commercial standards.
1.2. Growing concerns about road-transport and public
health

*Tel.: +41-1-772-1079. The impact of road-transport pollution on the

E-mail address: eiar@ecosite.co.uk (E. Johnson). environment has been a policy concern dating back at

0301-4215/03/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 0 1 - 4 2 1 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 2 3 - 9
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1574 E. Johnson / Energy Policy 31 (2003) 1573–1577
least to the passage of the US Clean Air Act in 1970. In
the past decade or so, policy concern has become less an
environmental issue and more explicitly a public health
.
issue (Kunzli et al., 2000; Stedman et al., 1999; Beer
et al., 2000; Johnson, 2002a; Warren, 2000).
The public health issue is fairly straightforward:
regulators are concerned about the effects on humans
of inhaling exhaust fumes. The primary concern is
particles (also called ‘particulate’ or ‘PM’ or ‘soot’),
which are seen to be responsible for and/or to aggravate
respiratory ailments such as asthma; plus they are
classified as carcinogens. (The California Air Resources
Board says diesel particles are a known carcinogen, the
US EPA says they are a likely carcinogen, and the
German Environmental Agency says they are a
suspected carcinogen.) Naturally, regulators are dispro-
portionately concerned about particle emissions in
urban areas, where they are most likely to be inhaled.
(The residence time of particles in the atmosphere is
typically only 3–5 years (Jacobson, 2001), much shorter
than most other pollutants, most of which are gaseous.)
Although environmental impacts (or health of ani-
mals, plants and inanimate objects) and public health
are very much intertwined, human health usually is
perceived as more important. Consequently, govern-
ments reach consensus more easily to spend money or
take action to protect public health (consider the recent
outbreaks of foot and mouth disease and BSE).
Environmental programmes are much more open to
cost–benefit debates. For instance, the US automobile
industry argued passionately against the 1975 manda-
tory introduction of catalytic converters, contending
that the economic costs would outweigh the environ-
mental benefits.
Because of their health impact (less so because of their
environmental impact), reducing concentrations of
particles in urban areas has become a key aim of road-
transport emissions policy in Western Europe and
North America. The other key aim in Europe is to
reduce CO2 emissions. By contrast, this clearly is an
environmental aim (as opposed to a public health one),
and consequently it is subject to more cost–benefit
debate—as currently carried out by governments of
North America and Western Europe.
In any event, European governments also believe they
can reduce health and environmental impacts while
simultaneously bolstering energy security.
1.3. Full benefits of LPG (Autogas) not recognised
Noticeably missing from both the EU and the UK
policy debate is LPG (known as Autogas when used as
an automotive fuel). The EU dismisses LPG’s benefits as
‘limited or uncertain’, whilst the UK loses LPG some-
where in discussions of the gas and refined products
markets. In the consultation rounds surrounding both
the EU Green Paper and the UK Energy Review, there
does not appear to have been any consultation with the
LPG industry except from integrated oil and gas
producers, for which LPG is a minor interest.
Nevertheless, Autogas could play an important role in
boosting supply security in the Western Europe, as
discussed in Section 2. Moreover, its wider use would
represent a marked benefit in public health and
environmental impact, as outlined in Section 3.
Why has this not been spotted by policy makers?
Autogas’s lack of policy profile is due to lax marketing
by the LPG industry, contends a recent report from the
International Energy Agency (IEA, 2002, p. 90). Says
the report: ‘Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) is in some
ways similar to CNG1 but offers some advantages in
terms of performance, cost, and range, etc. LPG also
offers good emissions performance, including low NOx
levels in engines optimised for LPG. However, until
recently the LPG industry has not consistently pro-
moted this fuel’.
2. How secure is Autogas?
Among alternative road-transport fuels, Autogas and
biodiesel are probably the most secure. In heating and
electricity markets, LPG’s security advantage to other
fuels is less obvious.
2.1. What is energy security?
Energy security or energy-supply security as applied
to types of fuels traditionally rests on three factors, in
descending order of priority (Lovins and Lovins, 1983,
2002; Gannon, 1996):
* Dependence—How dependent is supply of fuel on
potentially hostile producers such as Iran or even
Russia? What sort of redundancy, storage and spare
capacity is available to compensate?
* Decentralisation—How concentrated, hence vulner-
able, is supply to attack? For instance, the Lovins
(2002) seriously argue that the trans-Alaska pipeline
can be put out of action by a moose hunter’s stray
shot. Pipelines are perceived to be almost inherently
insecure.
* Destructiveness—How much of a weapon is the fuel
itself? Kerosene obviously showed its potential in the
terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. By contrast,
photovoltaics are pretty harmless.
For current policy purposes we would suggest a fourth
factor:
1
Compressed natural gas.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Johnson / Energy Policy 31 (2003) 1573–1577 1575

Table 1
Security of motor fuels to 2010, UK

Security factors

Dependence Decentralisation Destructiveness Availability

Conventional fuels
Petrol By 2010, significant net High pipeline need, High Very high
importer centralised
Diesel By 2010, significant net High pipeline need, Medium Very high
importer centralised

Alternative fuels
Biodiesel Potentially self-sufficient High pipeline need, less Medium Moderate
centralised
Compressed natural gas By 2010, significant net High pipeline need, less High Low
(CNG) importer centralised
Fuel Cells or hydrogen Fossil-fuelled, e.g. likely High pipeline need, Low–moderate for fuel Very low
to be net import decentralised cells, high for hydrogen
LPG Net exporter through Low pipeline need, High Moderate
2010. Generated as by- decentralised
product

* Availability—At what scale is the fuel available, in Table 2

terms of both supply and demand, for commercial Surplus LPG, UK ð1000 t=yrÞ
use? Year 1999 2010a

Production 6450 4708

2.2. Security: Autogas versus other motor fuels
Based on the above factors, we compared LPG
against other motor fuels in the UK (Table 1) based
on public data (UK Cabinet Office, 2002; Purvin and
Gertz, 2002; European Commission, 2001b). By inspec-
tion, it can be inferred that Autogas is highly secure
among the alternative fuels. Its security is comparable to
biodiesel’s and greater than CNGs or fuel cells/hydro-
gens. Its moderate availability suggests that Autogas is
not by itself a complete answer to energy security, but
part of a package of answers. We have neither quantified
the analysis here nor summed the result into a unitary
ranking of each fuel, because no obvious method for this
is available. This might be an area for further research,
but for policy purposes, we do not believe it to be
necessary. The ship of state does not turn on such a tight
radius.
To further elaborate on the first column of Table 1,
here is the UK surplus of LPG out to 2010 (Table 2),
based on Purvin and Gertz (2002) and WLPGA (2001).
An additional security feature of Autogas only hinted at
by this table is that LPG is generated as a by-product,
either of oil and gas production or refining. Even under
relatively dramatic circumstances, it will continue to be
produced, even if hostile gas suppliers shut the taps or
fewer oil tankers can land crude.
Rather than run through a similar analysis country by
country (which would require more space and detailed
data than we have to hand), we would extend the
argument to Western Europe as follows. In 2000,
Of which
Refined 1500 1500
Associated gas 4950 3208
Consumption 3140 3828
Surplus 3131 880
a
Pessimistic case for production as presumed in ’: Consumption
assumed to grow at 1990–1999 average of 2% pa.
Western Europe produced 24; 264 kt and consumed
21; 608 kt of LPG; net excess was 2656 kt or nearly 11%
of production (WLPGA, 2001). Another 6700 kt were
consumed as refinery and petrochemical feedstocks;
perhaps two-thirds of this, 4500 kt; could be displaced
by processing and feedstock adjustments. Thus, the
available excess could be in the range of 2500 þ 4500 or
7000 kt; which is nearly one-third of current consump-
tion. By contrast, Western Europe imports about one-
half of its oil and one-third of its gas consumption.
Deliberately we have posed this argument in broad
terms using public data. Hairs may be split, but the
overall picture is that Autogas is one of the more secure
transport fuels—and it is available now.
2.3. Non-motor fuel markets
Power generation and heating are much less depen-
dent on oil-based fuels, which are by far the most
insecure. Because of scale economies they also are better
able to cope with dirty fuels. Thus LPG’s security
advantage in these markets, if there is one, is less
decided.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1576 E. Johnson / Energy Policy 31 (2003) 1573–1577
3. What does increased Autogas usage do for public
health?
Particle emissions would be cut substantially if
Autogas were substituted for diesel as a road-transport
fuel. Due to the chemical composition of diesel fuel,
when combusted it generates greater amounts of
particles than other automotive fuels such as petrol or
LPG. In conventional engines today, particle emissions
from diesel cars are about 10 times higher than petrol
and 100 times higher than LPG (Beer et al., 2000; Wang,
1999; Wang and Huang, 1999). Thus, substituting
Autogas for diesel would be a more effective policy
than would substituting petrol, at least in terms of
public health.
Even if diesels were to install filters that lower particle
emissions by an estimated 90% (DEFRA, 2001), a
switch to LPG instead of installing filters on diesels—
just in the UK—would cut transport particle emissions
by another 2–7% in 2010. In the UK alone this
reduction in particle emissions causes 100–400 fewer
hospital admissions for respiratory problems and 20–80
fewer premature deaths over the period of environ-
mental impact. It also reduces the costs of particle
damage to property by nearly d1 million per year
(Johnson, 2002b).
If Autogas substituted diesel, carbon dioxide emis-
sions probably would decline. Why only probably?
Because on balance, existing studies show that Autogas
and diesel are about equal in global warming terms.
Two studies show Autogas about equal to diesel (Wang,
1999; Wang and Huang, 1999). Two show LPG as a
clear winner (Beer et al., 2000; LPGA, 2001). One shows
diesel winning by a 3% margin (ETSU, 1996). All of
these studies are based on bi-fueled Autogas vehicles
(which are less efficient than dedicated ones), and they
do not account for the global warming effect of black
carbon in diesel particles (QUARG, 1993; Jacobson,
2001). Both of these factors would favour Autogas.
4. A target for Autogas: 3–5% of road-transport fuel by
2010
Based on its secure supply and its potential benefits
for public health and the environment, we believe a
reasonable EU target for Autogas market share is 3–5%
of road-transport fuels by 2010, compared to a share of
about 1% today. This is based on two considerations:
* Existing EU policy for alternative fuels promotion—
The EUs action plan (European Commission, 2001a)
targets an 8% market share for alternative transport
fuels by 2010 and a 23% share by 2020, up from less
than 2% now. Individual-fuel shares in 2010 are:
biodiesel, 6%; natural gas, 2%; and hydrogen, 0%. A
3–5% share for Autogas, which has been ignored in
the action plan, could improve results significantly in
this period and meaningfully in the longer haul.
* European capacity for LPG production—A tripling or
quintupling of Western European Autogas consump-
tion, currently at around 2 million tonnes per annum
(WLPGA, 2001), can be absorbed without compro-
mising the security of the market. Not all of the new
demand need come from new production. Several
million tonnes could be shifted from chemical and
refinery sector demand, which has the flexibility to
move to other feedstock sources.
References
Beer, et al, 2000. Life-cycle emissions analysis of alternative fuels for
heavy vehicles, stage 1. CSIRO Atmospheric Research Report C/
0411/1.1/F2 for the Australian Greenhouse Office.
Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2001. An
economic analysis to inform the review of the air quality strategy
objectives for particles. A Second Report of the Interdepartmental
Group on Costs and Benefits. Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs, London.
Energy Technology Support Unit, 1996. Alternative Road Transport
Fuels: A Preliminary Life-Cycle Study of the UK. ETSU Report
R92. HMSO, London.
European Commission, 2000. Green Paper—towards a European
strategy for the security of energy supply’ (COM (2000) 769 final).
29 November 2000.
European Commission, 2001a. Action plan, promotion of bio-fuels
and other alternative fuels for road transportation. Directorate
General for Energy and Transport, October 2001.
European Commission, 2001b. 2001—Annual Energy Review. Office
of Official Publications of the European Communities, ISBN 92-
894-3110-5, Luxembourg.
Gannon, J.C., 1996. A global perspective on energy security. Presented
to the Energy Council Conference on Energy and the Environment.
Helm, D., 2002. Energy policy: security of supply, sustainability and
competition. Energy Policy 30, 173–184.
International Energy Agency, 2002. Bus Systems for the Future—
Achieving Sustainable Transport Worldwide. IEA, Paris, ISBN 92-
64-19806-7.
Jacobson, M.Z., 2001. Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state
of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols. Nature 409, 695–697.
Johnson, E., 2002a. Diesel’s particle problem. Atlantic Consulting.
Gattikon, Switzerland.
Johnson, E., 2002b. Reducing diesel particle emissions. A switching
comparison: particle traps versus LPG vehicles. IAIA Conference
2002 Annual Proceedings, International Association for Impact
Assessment, The Hague.
.
Kunzli, N., et al., 2000. Public-health impact of outdoor and traffic-
related air pollution: a European assessment. The Lancet 356, 2
September 2000.
Liquified Petroleum Gas Association, 2001. Meeting the Green Fuels
Challenge. Submitted in response to the UK Government’s ‘‘Green
Fuels Challenge’’ of 14 Dec. 2000. Reigwood, UK.
Lovins, A.B., Lovins, L.H., 1983. The fragility of domestic energy. The
Atlantic Monthly, November 1983, pp. 118–119.
Lovins, A.B., Lovins, L.H., 2002. Energy forever. The American
Prospect 13(3) February 11.
Purvin, Gertz, L.L.P., 2002. World LPG trade shows signs of recovery.
Alexander’s Gas & Oil Connection 7(7, 8) April. www.garandoil.
com
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Johnson / Energy Policy 31 (2003) 1573–1577
Quality of Urban Air Review Group, 1993. Diesel vehicle emissions
and urban air quality. Second Report, Sponsored by the UK
Department of Environment.
Stedman, J., Linehan, E., King, K., 1999. Quantification of the health
effects of air pollution in the UK for the review of the national air
quality strategy. AEA Technology Environment, Harwell, UK.
UK Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit, 2002. The
Energy Review http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2002/
energy/report/index.htm.
Wang, M.Q., 1999. Greet 1.5—transportation fuel-cycle mode.
Argonne National Laboratory.
1577
Wang, M.Q., Huang, H.S., 1999. A full fuel-cycle analysis of energy
and emissions impacts of transportation fuels produced from
natural gas. Argonne National Laboratory.
Warren, J., 2000. Health effects of diesel exhaust: an HEI perspective.
Presented to the Diesel Engine Emissions Reduction Con-
ference August 2000, Health Effects Institute. Organized by the
US Department of Energy’s Office of Science and Technical
Information.
World LP Gas Association, 2001. Statistical Review of Global LP Gas
2001. WLPGA, Paris.