Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 503–513

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A review of liquefied natural gas refueling station designs

⁎
crossmark
Amir Sharafian, Hoda Talebian, Paul Blomerus, Omar Herrera, Walter Mérida
Clean Energy Research Centre, The University of British Columbia, 2360 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z3

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: The majority of operational liquefied natural gas (LNG) refueling stations in the world have no boil-off gas
Liquefied natural gas (BOG) management and rely on regular LNG delivery to condense the BOG. To reduce the pressure of LNG
Methane venting tanks onboard vehicles prior to filling, the BOG is vented to the atmosphere, is collapsed in the tank, or is
Boil-off gas management returned to the refueling station. In this study, different onboard LNG tank architectures are discussed, and the
Refueling station
design strategies for LNG conditioning and BOG management technologies employed in LNG refueling stations
Onboard LNG tank
Fuel supply system
are analyzed. The critical analysis of different designs of LNG refueling stations indicates that 44% of designs
have no BOG management, 28% of designs rely on liquid nitrogen condenser or a liquefier to condense the BOG,
and 28% of designs compress the BOG to produce compressed natural gas. Our research shows that in China
and the U.S., where stations with BOG management are rare, the number of LNG refueling stations has
increased by 32 and 3 times, respectively, between 2010 and 2015. This study highlights the fact that as heavy
fuel oil and diesel are replaced by LNG, it is critical to pay proper attention to the design of the LNG supply
chain and LNG refueling stations to minimize or eliminate BOG venting and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

1. Introduction options will remain incomplete.

Climate change is one of the main concerns of the 21st century [1],
and eliminating the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from industrial
and transportation processes is one of the most pressing challenges
[2,3]. For many years, natural gas (NG) has been proposed as a
transitional, low-carbon fuel [4]. More recently, renewable natural gas
[5–10] has emerged as a potential link between existing distribution
infrastructure and renewable energy sources. The benefits associated
with NG use have been reported by several authors focused on
economic and market growth [4,9–19]. However, and despite this
significant body of work, the overall benefits associated with NG use
remain uncertain.
The announcements at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) in
Paris indicate that reaching the 2 °C scenario targets would require
immediate and significant changes over the next three decades (as
opposed to changes occurring over centuries) [20]. The relative impact
of methane (the main component in NG) compared to CO2 may have to
be revised to accommodate these more aggressive targets. More
importantly, the reduction in CO2 emissions from NG use must be
compared to the impact of the corresponding methane emissions. We
illustrate the importance of these considerations by reviewing the state-
of-the-art in liquefied natural gas (LNG) refueling stations. Without
reliable data on the actual deployment technologies, most of the models
and analyses comparing widespread NG use to the existing energy
NG is composed of methane (83–99.7%), ethane, propane, butane,
and nitrogen [21], and has the lowest carbon-content compared to
petroleum fuels, such as diesel and gasoline [22]. During combustion,
NG emits less CO2 and lower levels of criteria pollutants than diesel.
Fig. 1 shows that the replacement of diesel with NG can potentially
reduce CO2 and NOx emissions up to 20% [23,24] and 90% [25,26],
respectively, and SOx and particular matter emissions by almost 100%
[24]. By regulation in Europe and North America [27,28], ultra-low-
sulphur diesel (ULSD) was phased in for on-road vehicles between
2006 and 2010. This regulation came into effect in North America for
off-road, rail, and inland waterway marine applications between 2007
and 2014 [28].
NG is delivered in two forms to consumers who are not connected
to gas pipelines: compressed natural gas (CNG) and LNG. LNG is about
600 times denser than gaseous NG at atmospheric pressure, and as a
result, LNG is the most efficient way of transporting NG across long
distances when pipelines are not available. The volumetric energy
density of LNG at −162 °C and 90 kPa is 22.2 MJ/L which is about 60%
that of diesel and 2.45 times higher than that of CNG at 25 MPa
(3,600 psig) [6]. This makes LNG an attractive fuel for heavy-duty
trucks [29–31], trains [22,32,33], and ships [25,34], where fuels with
high energy densities are required.
LNG is a cryogenic liquid stored at temperatures as low as −162 °C.
Heat transfer from the environment to the LNG causes the evaporation

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: walter.merida@ubc.ca (W. Mérida).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.186
Received 13 April 2016; Received in revised form 26 September 2016; Accepted 12 November 2016
1364-0321/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Sharafian et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 503–513

Nomenclature LCNG Liquefied-compressed natural gas

LNG Liquefied natural gas
BOG Boil-off gas LN2 Liquid nitrogen
CNG Compressed natural gas NG Natural gas
GHG Greenhous gas MAWP Maximum allowable working pressure
GWP Global warming potential ULSD Ultra-low-sulphur diesel

by 4–5% over a 100-year period. However, in a 20-year time horizon,

100
NG emissions corresponded to 19–24% increase in the GHG emissions
90
compared to diesel.
Air pollution reduction %

80 In 2015, Burnham et al. [41] analyzed and compared the methane

70 leakage in four links across the NG value chain (Table 1). They used the
60 GREET model 2015 for their analysis.
50 Table 1 shows that, on average, 8.40 to 8.68 g methane/ m3 NG is
40 emitted to the atmosphere across the NG value chain. This is equivalent
30 to emissions of about 605 to 625 g CO2 equivalent/ m3 NG in a 20-year
20 horizon [42]. Table 1 also indicates that the transmission and storage
sector contributes to 33–35% of methane emissions, and the distribu-
10
tion sector, which includes refueling stations, fueling process, and
0
CO2 NOx SOx Particular
onboard LNG tanks, contributes to 28% of methane emissions. This
matter shows that the transmission, storage, and distribution sectors are the
largest contributors to the methane emissions in the production and
Fig. 1. Air pollution reduction% by combusting NG instead of diesel.
distribution chain. As a result, preventing heat transfer to LNG and
controlling BOG release will significantly reduce the GHG emissions
of LNG, generation of boil-off gas (BOG), and consequently, an increase
from these sectors.
in pressure [35]. To maintain the LNG at low temperatures and
A survey of the available literature shows that the BOG release rate
pressures, LNG carriers release the BOG to atmosphere [36], re-liquefy
from different designs of LNG refueling stations had not been
it, or consume it in their engines [37]. In small LNG facilities, such as
quantified accurately. Powars [38] reported that the average methane
LNG refueling stations, the BOG gradually increases the pressure of the
venting from stations was about 1 vol% per delivery of unsaturated
storage system. By regularly delivering “unsaturated” LNG to these
LNG to the stations. Using a lumped-body model, Powars showed that
refueling stations, the BOG is condensed and the storage tank pressure
a 15,000 gal capacity LNG station with a 1,000 gal LNG/day dispensing
reduces before reaching its maximum allowable working pressure
during a 4-hr window remained under the MAWP of 1.3 MPa
(MAWP) [38]. Unsaturated LNG refers to the LNG at a less than
(175 psig), whereas the same capacity station with a 500 gal LNG/
−143 °C and 0.34 MPa (35 psig) [39]. The MAWP of LNG storage tanks
day dispensing during a 2-hr window reached the MAWP within 15
is set at 1.3 MPa (175 psig) [38]. In LNG refueling stations with low
days. In 2015, Hailer [44] measured the methane emissions from two
fuel delivery rates, the BOG generation causes the pressure of LNG
LNG refueling stations. Hailer reported that one of the operating LNG
storage tanks to rise and the chance of BOG release rate to the
stations had a methane emissions of 0.1% to 1.5% of fuel dispensed to
atmosphere increases [38].
vehicles and the second station had a methane emissions of 0.9% to
CO2 and methane emissions account for 92% of global GHG
5.3%. Hailer also pointed out that the methane emissions from LNG
emissions [2]. Methane is the main constituent of NG [21]. Recent
refueling stations were not necessarily due to the heat transfer to the
studies [30,40] showed that the well-to-wheels methane emissions
LNG storage tanks. The BOG returned from vehicles to the station also
from NG value chain (including LNG) had up to 72 times more impact
caused a sudden pressure rise in the LNG storage tank and pressure
on climate change than CO2 in a 20-year period due to higher radiative
relief valves were activated.
forcing of methane. Delgado and Muncrief [30] used the concept of
Prior work has highlighted the importance of mitigating the release
global warming potential (GWP) and the data available from the
of methane along the supply chain [7]. However, there have been
Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in
limited studies on the technological aspects of methane abatement in
Transportation (GREET) model 2014 to compare well-to-wheels
the NG delivery chain. The main focus of this study is therefore on the
GHG emissions of NG and diesel. With total emissions of 1.12% and
technological aspects of LNG refueling stations and fuel supply systems
1.19% for conventional NG and shale gas, respectively, their analysis
of LNG-fueled vehicles, and how these technologies contribute to
indicated that switching from diesel to NG reduced the GHG emissions
reducing methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain. In this

Table 1
Methane emissions across different sectors.

Sector g methane/ m3 NG (vol%) GREET Model 2015 [41] g CO2 equivalent/ m3 NG Global Warming Potential [42,43]

Conventional NG Shale gas Conventional NG Shale gas

20-year horizon 100-year 20-year horizon 100-year horizon

horizon

Gas field 2.16 (0.30) 2.44 (0.34) 156 54 176 61

Processing 0.92 (0.13) 0.92 (0.13) 66 23 66 23
Transmission and storage 2.93 (0.41) 2.93 (0.41) 211 73 211 73
Distribution (station pathway) 2.39 (0.34) 2.39 (0.34) 172 60 172 60
Total emission 8.40 (1.18) 8.68 (1.22) 605 210 625 217

504
A. Sharafian et al.
study, we investigate different onboard LNG tank architectures, designs
of LNG refueling stations, and mechanisms employed to manage and
mitigate the BOG release rate. Also, we study current and future status
of LNG refueling stations in different countries.
2. LNG refueling station and onboard fuel tank
fundamentals
LNG tanks on vehicles or vessels are required to supply NG to the
engine at the appropriate temperature, pressure, and flow rate. A
variety of strategies can be employed. In the simplest embodiments, the
fuel supply system relies on the pressure in the tank to provide
sufficient pressure to overcome the losses in the heat exchangers and
piping, and supply enough fuel to the engine. To improve fuel flow
performance, especially in the case of high-performance spark ignition
engines, these simple onboard tanks are filled with so-called warm or
saturated fuel [45]. Saturated LNG has been heated prior to filling, to
increase the saturation pressure, and therefore, supply the required
fuel flow rate. Other, more sophisticated tank systems are capable of
accepting so-called cold or unsaturated fuel which has not been pre-
conditioned. LNG dispensing systems at stations are therefore required
to provide unsaturated fuel, saturated fuel, and in some cases, super
saturated (super warm) fuel, depending on the fuel supply system of
the destination vehicle.
Unsaturated LNG is dispensed at a less than −143 °C and 0.34 MPa
(35 psig), and saturated LNG is dispensed at −125 to −131 °C, and 0.69
to 0.93 MPa (85 to 120 psig) [39]. Unsaturated LNG has a higher
density than saturated LNG, and as a result, more LNG can be stored
onboard with longer LNG holding time. However, the unsaturated fuel
in an onboard LNG tank has a low pressure, and auxiliary equipment in
the vehicle fuel supply system are required to increase the fuel pressure
before it enters the engine.
It was shown that fueling a vehicle with unsaturated LNG compared
to saturated LNG increases the driving range up to 12% and the LNG
holding time from 5 to 10 days [46], as shown in Fig. 2. According to
SAE Standard J2343, the holding time of onboard LNG tanks in North
America is 5 days [47]. Holding time refers to the time an onboard
LNG tank holds the LNG without venting [30].
Table 2 shows different vehicle fuel supply systems with capability
of running on saturated and unsaturated LNG. As shown in Table 2,
system (a) is the simplest vehicle fuel supply system that operates only
by using saturated LNG. During fueling, LNG is sprayed from the top of
the onboard LNG tank to condense the existing BOG at high tempera-
ture. During operation, the LNG is transferred by the pressure gradient
from the higher pressure tank to the vaporizer and engine [38,45].
However, this fuel supply system may not be able to sustain full fuel
flow at continuous high fuel demand.
Vehicle fuel supply system (b) shown in Table 2 is equipped with a
pressure-building circuit. The pressure-building circuit evaporates a
portion of LNG to increase the BOG pressure in the vapor space and
create a pressure gradient between the tank and the engine [45]. Using
this fuel supply system, LNG does not require to be conditioned at the
refueling station. However, this fuel supply system has two technical
limitations: (1) It is impractical to maintain the BOG at high
temperature separated from unsaturated LNG at low temperature
due to vehicle or vessel vibrations, and (2) the pressure-building circuit
requires time to evaporate the LNG and increase the onboard LNG tank
pressure if the tank pressure is initially low [45].
To resolve the latter issue associated with the vehicle fuel supply
system with a pressure-building circuit, a compressor can be used to
quickly increase the BOG pressure in the vapor space. The maintenance
and capital cost of the fuel supply system (c) with a compressor should
be considered. Besides, the mixing of the higher temperature BOG with
the remaining LNG in the onboard tank quickly increases the tem-
perature of the entire mixture. To resolve this issue, the vehicle fuel
supply system can be equipped with a cryogenic pump (fuel supply
505
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 503–513
system (d) shown in Table 2). The pump is driven either electrically or
hydraulically. The pump pushes the LNG from the tank to the vaporizer
and engine under any saturation conditions. It should be noted that
cryogenic pumps are generally expensive and the durability of compo-
nents can be problematic [45].
To prevent the pressure in onboard LNG tanks from exceeding the
MAWP and BOG being released to the atmosphere, an economizer can
be added to the vehicle fuel supply system [45], as shown in Fig. 3. The
dashed box in Fig. 3 can be any of fuel supply systems (a)-(d) depicted
in Table 2. The economizer permits a portion of BOG to be transferred
to the engine thereby removing energy from the tank and reducing its
pressure. This helps the pressure of the onboard LNG tank to remain
below its MAWP and reset the LNG holding time of the fuel tank.
However, drawing the BOG, which is mainly composed of methane, for
sustained periods exclusively leaves the heavy hydrocarbons in the
LNG tank [38,45]. This enriched fuel with low methane content may
present problems for the engine when the economizer is disabled and
the system switches back to conventional LNG fuel supply mode.
Table 3 summarizes further advantages and limitations of fueling a
vehicle with saturated and unsaturated LNG.
To manage the BOG at high pressure in onboard LNG tanks, the
BOG should be 1) condensed by the unsaturated LNG during fueling, 2)
vented to the atmosphere prior to fueling (an undesirable action), or 3)
transferred by a vapor return line to a station. In some tank designs,
this vapor return line is routed through the fill receptacle, e.g., Refs
[48–51]., and in other designs, it is provided with its own connection,
e.g., Refs [52–56]. Therefore, the designs of LNG refueling stations and
dispenser equipment must accommodate these different vapor return
architectures. When an onboard LNG tank is required to be filled from
a station, the operating sequence can be:
1. No vapor back to station: Use the station pressure to overcome the
tank pressure and condense the BOG (only possible if the tank
pressure has sufficient margin below the relief valve pressure and the
station pump has sufficient discharge pressure available).
2. Vapor back to station: Use a vapor return line routed through the fill
receptacle or a separate vapor return line to reduce the tank pressure
and then commence filling.
3. Vapor back to station and continue to vapor back during fill
operation (only possible with a separate vent return line): Transfer
the LNG from the refueling station to an onboard LNG tank and the
BOG in the tank returns to the station by the vapor return line. In
this method, the LNG pressure at the station does not need to be too
high.
The BOG returned from onboard tanks to refueling stations mixes
with the BOG produced by the LNG station, and to prevent venting, it
should be condensed by an onsite LNG liquefier, liquid nitrogen (LN2)
condenser, or be purged to a pipeline nearby the station with a
1250 11
Driving range 10
Holding time 9
LNG holding time (day)
1200
Driving range (km)
8
1150 7
6
1100
5
1050 4
3
1000 2
1
950 0
Unsaturated Saturated LNG Super saturated
LNG (3 bar) (10 bar) LNG (15 bar)
Fig. 2. Effects of unsaturated, saturated, and super saturated LNG on vehicle driving
range and LNG holding time [24].
A. Sharafian et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 503–513

Table 2
Different vehicle fuel supply systems and their capability of running on saturated and unsaturated LNG.

Vehicle fuel supply system Required fuel

Saturated (warm) LNG Unsaturated (cold) LNG

(a) Fuel supply system with a simple architecture[38,45]

Yes No

(b) Fuel supply system with a pressure-building circuit[45]

Yes Yes

(c) Fuel supply system with a compressor

Yes Yes

(d) Fuel supply system with a pump[38]

Yes Yes

compressor. These pieces of equipment add to the cost of the refueling

Fig. 3. Schematic of an economizer added to LNG fuel supply systems shown in Table 2.
station. In LNG refueling stations with sufficient LNG delivery to
vehicles, each delivery of unsaturated LNG to the refueling station
serves the same purpose as a liquefier or LN2 condenser.
Liquefied-compressed natural gas (LCNG) refueling stations can
also be used to manage the BOG, e.g, Refs [51,53,55,57,58]. LCNG
stations deliver CNG by pressurizing LNG. They are supplied with LNG

506
A. Sharafian et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 503–513

Table 3 Table 4
Advantages and limitations of fueling onboard LNG tanks with saturated and Comparison of LNG bulk and on-the-fly conditioning [45].
unsaturated LNG.
LNG bulk conditioning
Saturated LNG fueled in onboard tanks with a simple architecture [45]
Advantages Limitations
Advantages Limitations • Straightforward, simple, and • Mass of fuel stored in the station is reduced.
• Fueling system is simple, reliable, • Fuel conditioning at station increases robust. • LNG holding time is reduced and risk of
durable, and less expensive. station cost and complexity. • Fully proven and is in venting is increased.
• Lower fuel density and shorter driving
range.
common use. • Cannot
vehicles.
deliver unsaturated LNG to

• Fuel starvation or choking at sustained

high loads. LNG on-the-fly conditioning
Advantages Limitations
Unsaturated LNG fueled in onboard tanks with a compressor or • More fuel is stored at station. • More complicated than bulk conditioning.
pressure-building circuit [45]
Advantages Limitations
• Increases the LNG holding
time.
• Requires higher heat transfer rate to
condition LNG when it is transferred to
• Does not need fuel conditioning •
Compressor or pressure-building circuit vehicle.
at station. is needed. • Requires good heat exchangers and precise
•
Delays between refueling and pressure
build are required to supply fuel to
control systems.

engine.

Unsaturated LNG fueled in onboard tanks with a pump [38]
Advantages Limitations
• Does not need fuel conditioning
at station.
•
Pump is needed.
• Denser low-pressure fuel and
longer driving range.
• Provides longer LNG holding
time.
and can also deliver LNG to vehicles if equipped with a LNG dispenser.
Combined LNG/LCNG refueling stations are capable to deliver CNG to
light- and medium-duty vehicles, and LNG to heavy-duty vehicles.
Also, they have lower capital and operating costs than similarly sized
CNG refueling stations [59]. However, high-pressure reciprocating
LNG pumps used to generate the CNG require extended cooldown
time which generates significant quantities of BOG. This BOG must
then be processed using a compressor and added to the CNG reservoir.
The compressor can also compress the BOG generated in the LNG
storage tank and the BOG returned from vehicles to produce CNG.
To fuel vehicles with different fuel supply systems, LNG refueling
stations filled with unsaturated LNG should be able to deliver saturated
LNG by conditioning the unsaturated LNG. LNG conditioning is a
process in which temperature and pressure of LNG increase to meet set
values. Two methods of LNG conditioning at refueling stations are bulk
and on-the-fly conditioning. Fig. 4a shows a simplified schematic of a
LNG refueling station with bulk conditioning. The refueling station is
comprised of a storage tank, sump tank, pump, heater, dispenser, and
vapor return line. After filling the storage tank, the pump sends the
LNG to the heater to rise its temperature and pressure. This process
continues until the LNG pressure stored in the storage tank reaches a
set point.
In contrast, a LNG refueling station with on-the-fly conditioning
increases the pressure and temperature of LNG simultaneously with
the fueling process, as shown in Fig. 4b. This method helps the storage
tank to store more LNG with higher density for a longer time. However,
the heater needs to be precisely designed to heat the LNG on-the-fly
within a short time without adding too much heat. Linde North
America Inc. designed and installed the first generation of LNG
refueling stations with on-the-fly conditioning in the U.S. in 2014
[61]. Further information about advantages and limitations of LNG
bulk and on-the-fly conditioning are summarized in Table 4.
Currently, several vendors are involved in the design and installa-
tion of LNG and LCNG refueling stations. NorthStar, Inc. (Clean
Energy) [62], Chart Industries [63], CryoStar [64], ENN Canada
[65], and Linde Group [66] are the main suppliers of LNG and
LCNG stations with different technologies. Fig. 5 shows schematics of
LNG and LCNG refueling stations manufactured by Chart Industries. It
can be seen in Fig. 5a that the LNG refueling station has a heater for

Fig. 4. LNG conditioning at a refueling station: (a) bulk conditioning method [45] and (b) on-the-fly conditioning method [60].

507
A. Sharafian et al.
Fig. 5. Schematic of (a) a LNG refueling station and (b) a LCNG refueling station
manufactured by Chart Industries [63].
Fig. 6. Schematic of a LNG refueling station with on-the-fly conditioning and LN2
condenser manufactured by Linde North America Inc [61].
LNG bulk conditioning with no BOG management. This is the simplest
and probably the most economical LNG refueling station design. As
shown in Fig. 5b, an LCNG refueling station is equipped with a high
pressure pump to increase the LNG pressure, a vaporizer to convert
LNG to CNG, and a CNG buffer storage tank to store the CNG for
fueling vehicles.
A schematic of LNG refueling station with on-the-fly conditioning
and an LN2 condenser manufactured by Linde North America Inc. is
shown in Fig. 6. This station can manage the BOG if LN2 is regularly
supplied to the refueling station.
508
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 503–513
3. LNG refueling station design survey
In the following section, different designs of LNG refueling stations,
which were obtained by analyzing published patents, are studied in
detail (Table 5). These designs have been analyzed in terms of
technologies employed in LNG refueling stations to condition LNG,
and BOG management in onboard LNG tanks and refueling stations. In
order to create the data set for this study, all published patents
describing a LNG station were included. However, patents that only
described individual components of a LNG refueling station were not
included in this analysis.
In order to compare the different refueling station designs, they
have been classified based on the following criteria: delivering LNG or
LNG and CNG, LNG conditioning at the refueling station, BOG
management in the onboard LNG tank, and BOG management at the
LNG refueling station. The results of these classifications are shown in
Fig. 7.
Fig. 7a demonstrates that 72% of refueling station designs analyzed
deliver only LNG and 28% of those deliver both LNG and CNG. In
terms of LNG conditioning, Fig. 7b shows that 83% of LNG refueling
station designs analyzed can deliver conditioned LNG and 17% of
refueling station designs deliver only unsaturated LNG. Of the LNG
refueling station designs with LNG conditioning capability, 33% of
them perform bulk conditioning, 17% of them condition LNG in small
portions in a sump or secondary tank, and the remaining 33% of
station designs condition LNG on-the-fly.
In terms of BOG management in an onboard LNG tank, as shown in
Fig. 7c, 28% of station designs support simultaneous vent to station
while filling, 17% of station designs support vent through the fill line in
advance of filling, and the remaining 55% of station designs have no
capacity to receive tank vapor and must rely on the collapse of vapor
upon filling or vent to the atmosphere to manage the tank pressure
during filling.
Fig. 7d compares different station designs in terms of the BOG
management at refueling stations. It can be seen that 56% of LNG
refueling station designs have the capability for BOG management at
the station. Half of these station designs compress the BOG to produce
CNG and the rest of them are equipped with a liquefier or an LN2
condenser to liquefy the BOG. 44% of the LNG refueling station designs
have no BOG management. This means that the BOG generated over
time must be collapsed upon delivery of the next load of LNG or be
released to the atmosphere.
Based on fundamental concepts discussed in this section, the
following criteria should be considered in the design of a LNG refueling
station with minimum BOG emissions:
• Flexibility in fueling vehicles with different fuel supply systems.
• Minimize heat transfer to the LNG during dispenser cooldown.
• Increase the frequency of unsaturated LNG delivery to the station.
• Make a provision for the BOG processing when this is required.
4. LNG refueling stations around the globe
The vast majority of LNG refueling stations are distributed along
the roads where heavy-duty vehicles travel. There are a limited number
of LNG refueling stations for inland waterway vessels and off-road
vehicles. Table 6 shows the existing and proposed LNG refueling
stations for on-road vehicles in different countries. China has the
largest number with 3,200 LNG refueling stations [74] followed by the
U.S. with 122 LNG stations [75]. The total number of LNG stations in
Europe is currently 46 and 6 more stations are either proposed or are
currently under construction in Portugal, France, and Italy.
The rate of LNG deployment varies around the world. Fig. 8
indicates that in China, the number of LNG refueling stations has
increased from 100 in 2010 to 3200 in 2015 (a 32 fold increase) [74]. It
is expected that the number of LNG refueling stations in China will
A. Sharafian et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 503–513

Table 5
Different designs of LNG refueling stations reported in the literature.

Ref. Focus of the design Components Technology Advantages Limitations

employed in LNG
refueling station

Cieslukowski [48] No loss single-line LNG • Storage tank • Conditioning in the • It can deliver LNG at • Complex design for the sump tank
refueling station • Sump tank with a sump tank different pressures and and fuel delivery system
flexible roof • Single line for vapor temperatures • No pump to overcome the pressure of
• Liquefier
tank)
(LN2 return and LNG
fueling
• It conditions LNG on
demand
the remainder of BOG in the onboard
LNG tank
• Saturation coils • Delivering saturated • It can liquefy the BOG • management
High dependency on LN for the BOG
• Single fueling line
2
LNG
Gustafson [67] No loss LNG refueling • Storage tank • LNG bulk • It precools the pump and • The eductor cannot effectively remove
station • Centrifugal pump conditioning pipes by recirculating LNG the BOG at low LNG flow rates
• Eductor • Vapor collapse • It removes a portion of the • The pump and pipes are in direct
• Saturation coils method BOG generated in the LNG contact with the environment leading
• Flowmeter • Delivering saturated storage tank by the eductor to high heat transfer to LNG over time
LNG • Single fueling line • No reliable BOG management
Goode [52] LNG refueling station and • Storage tank • LNG bulk • It precools the pumps and • ItThehaspump
a sophisticated control system
its control system • Centrifugal pump conditioning pipes by circulating LNG • the environmentand pipes are exposed to
• Saturation coils • Vapor return method causing extra heat
• Flowmeter • Delivering saturated transfer to LNG
LNG • No BOG management
Kalet and LNG refueling station and • Storage tank • conditioning
LNG on-the-fly • It delivers unsaturated LNG • Itwhich
requires an overflow tank on vehicle
Gustafson [68] configuration of vehicle • Pump to collapse the BOG and then adds to the cost, complexity of
onboard fuel tanks • Vaporizer • Vapor collapse vaporizes LNG to increase fueling system, and weight of vehicle
• Pressure transducer method the pressure of onboard • ItLNGrequires high power to vaporize
• Microprocessor • Delivering saturated LNG tanks within a short time to increase
• tank
Vehicle overflow and unsaturated • Single line fueling the onboard LNG tank pressure
LNG • No BOG management
Powars [69] LNG refueling station • Storage tank • No conditioning • BOG management • The LNG refueling station only
driven by LN2 • LN tank • Vapor collapse • Single line fueling operates with LN
• LN vaporizer • for
2 2
method LN is directly in contact with LNG
• Delivering
2 2
condensation of BOG and
unsaturated LNG generating pressure
• No LNG recirculation in the LNG
storage tank which causes LNG
stratification
Barclay [53] LNG and CNG refueling • LNG liquefier • conditioning
LNG on-the-fly • It converts NG to LNG onsite • It requires a NG supply pipeline with
station with onsite LNG • Vaporizer • BOG management enough pressure
liquefier • Storage tank • Vapor return method • It has high construction costs due to
• Expander • Delivering saturated onsite liquefier, two vaporizers, and
• Pump and unsaturated an expander
• CNG buffer tanks LNG • Itandliquefies the NG to produce LNG
then convert LNG to CNG. This
process increases the energy
consumption of the station
Gustafson and No loss LNG and CNG • Storage tank • LNG conditioned in • The compressor can remove • The CNG compressor is expensive. As
Kalet [57] refueling station • Two LNG
conditioning tanks
two conditioning
tanks
the BOG from storage tank
and reset the LNG holding
an alternative, a high pressure pump
can be used.
• Vaporizer • Vapor collapse time • It requires a precise control system to
• Saturation coils method • CNG is used to increase the adjust pressures in different parts of
• Compressor • Delivering saturated pressure and temperature of the station because there is no pump
• Flowmeter and unsaturated LNG in the conditioning in the design
• CNG buffer tanks LNG tanks • It has high construction costs due to
compressor, vaporizer, saturation
coils, and two conditioning tanks
Dehne [54] Zero-vent LNG refueling • Three storage tanks • LNG bulk • It can deliver saturated and • It requires 3 storage tanks of the same
station • Pump conditioning unsaturated LNG size which add capital costs
• Saturation coils • Vapor return method • It stores significant amount of
• Delivering saturated
and unsaturated
conditioned LNG for a long time that
contributes to BOG generation
LNG • No BOG management
Preston et al. [70] Self-contained LNG • Storage tank • LNG bulk • It is a mobile system • No BOG management
refueling station • Sump tank conditioning • No precooling is required.
• Saturation coils • Vapor collapse The pump and flowmeter
• Pump method are submerged inside the
• Flowmeter • Delivering saturated LNG sump tank
LNG • Single fueling line
Forgash et al. [49] Four different designs for • Storage tank • LNG bulk • It uses a compressor to • Using compressor adds to the station
Kooy et al. LNG refueling station • Pump conditioning remove the BOG from LNG cost and maintenance
[50] • Saturation coils • Single line for vapor storage tank and purge it to • The BOG removed from the LNG
• Compressor return and LNG LNG fueling line onboard tank flows only by pressure
• Flowmeter fueling gradient which may not be enough to
• Sump
(recommended)
tank • Delivering saturated
and unsaturated
remove the BOG properly

LNG
(continued on next page)

509
A. Sharafian et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 503–513

Table 5 (continued)

Ref. Focus of the design Components Technology Advantages Limitations

employed in LNG
refueling station

Bonn and Gram

[71]
LNG refueling station • Underground
storage tank
• LNG
conditioning
bulk • It is buried underground to
reduce heat transfer to LNG
• Itcoilsrequires electricity for saturation
which increase their energy
• Sump tank • Vapor collapse • No precooling is required. consumption
• Pump method The pump and flowmeter • No BOG management
• Saturation coils • Delivering
LNG
saturated are submerged inside the
LNG sump tank
Emmer et al. [72] LNG refueling station • Storage tank • conditioning
LNG on-the-fly • It delivers unsaturated LNG • The station needs information from
• Sump tank to collapse the BOG and then vehicles about their LNG onboard
• Positive
displacement pump
• Vapor
method
collapse conditions LNG to increase
the pressure of onboard fuel
tank pressure, temperature, tank size,
and fuel level which may not be
• Flowmeter • Delivering a tanks provided by all vehicles
• Venturi combination of • Single line fueling • Microprocessor calculates the amount
• Saturation coils saturated and
unsaturated LNG
of LNG that should be conditioned for
addition to unsaturated LNG in the
onboard tank which may not be
always accurate
• No BOG management
Ursan and Gram Pumping LNG and BOG • Storage tank • conditioning
LNG on-the-fly • Replacement of centrifugal • Difficulty in control the portion of
[73] simultaneously in vehicle • Reciprocating pump with reciprocating LNG and BOG removed from the
fueling system or LNG pump • Vapor collapse pump for removing the BOG storage tank
refueling station • Saturation coil method • It liquefies the BOG at high
• Accumulator • Delivering saturated pressure
and unsaturated
LNG
• Resets the storage tank
holding time
• Single fueling line
Bingham et al. LNG and CNG refueling • Storage tank • conditioning
LNG on-the-fly • Its construction cost is less • It adds LNG to CNG to reduce its
[55] station • Pump than conventional CNG temperature which requires an extra
• Vaporizer • Vapor return method stations pump to overcome the pressure
• CNG buffer tank • Delivering saturated • It controls the LNG difference between LNG and CNG
• two flowmeters and unsaturated temperature by adding CNG • It cannot supply LNG and CNG at the
• two mixers LNG same time
Emmer et al. [51] LNG and CNG refueling • Storage tank • LNG conditioned in • It provides both LNG and • It requires several LNG and CNG
station • LNG conditioning the conditioning CNG tanks which add to the cost
tank tank • CNG is used to increase the • It required a precise control system to
• Reciprocating
pump
• Single line for vapor
return and LNG
pressure and temperature of
LNG in the conditioning
adjust pressures in different parts of
the station because there is no pump
• Vaporizer fueling tank in the design
• Two CNG
pressurizing tanks
• Delivering
LNG
saturated

• LNG level gauge

• Flowmeter
Gram and Ursan LNG and CNG refueling • Storage tank • No conditioning • ItCNGprovides both LNG and • The net positive suction head of the
[58] station • Centrifugal pump • Vapor collapse pump should be accounted in the
• Vaporizer method • Storage tank is buried to design
• Odorizer • Delivering
unsaturated LNG
experience less temperature • Single pump for both LNG and CNG
difference with the fueling
environment
• Itof reduces construction costs
conventional CNG
stations
• Single fueling line
Lee and Heisch LNG refueling station • Storage tank • conditioning
LNG on-the-fly • Itdifferent
can provide LNG at • It may not be able to set the
[60] • Pump temperature and temperature properly
• Saturation coil • Vapor collapse pressure • It is not a fast response system as
• Conditioning vessel method • Single fueling line LNG should be evaporated for heating
• Delivering saturated the LNG delivered to vehicles
and unsaturated • ItNohasBOGa high BOG generation rate
LNG • management
Lee et al. [56] LNG refueling station with • Storage tank • No conditioning • ofIt uses LN for condensation • The condensed LNG needs to enter
• LN • Vapor
2
LN2 condenser tank return method BOG returned from LNG from the bottom of the LNG storage
• Condenser • Delivering
2
onboard tanks tank by pressure gradient which
• Flowmeter unsaturated LNG cannot not be sufficient to overcome
the LNG hydrostatic pressure in the
storage tank
• There is no pump in the design and
pressure difference between the
storage tank and onboard tank may
not be sufficient to fully fill the
onboard tank
• No BOG management in the storage
tank

510
A. Sharafian et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 503–513

100 100
Fuel supplied by refueling station BOG status in onboard LNG tank in refueling process
90 90
80 80

% of refueling stations
% of refueling stations 72%
70 70
60 60 55%
50 50
40 40
28% 28%
30 30
20 20 17%

10 10
0 0
LNG LNG + CNG Vapor collapse Simultaneous vent to Vent through the fill
station while filling line in advance of filling

(a) (c)
100 100
LNG conditioning status at refueling station BOG management status at refueling station
90 90
BOG management by liquefier (LN2)
80 80

% of refueling stations
% of refueling stations

No
BOGBOG management
management by CNG production
70 70
60 60 56%
50 50 44%
40 33% 33% 40 28%
30 30
20 17% 17% 20
10 10 28%

0 0
Bulk conditioning Conditioning in LNG on-the-fly No conditioning BOG management No BOG management
sump tank or conditioning
secondary tank

(b) (d)
Fig. 7. Comparison of different refueling station designs in terms of (a) delivering LNG or LNG and CNG, (b) conditioning LNG at refueling station, (c) managing the BOG in onboard
LNG tank, and (d) managing the BOG at refueling station.

Table 6 reach 5000 by 2020. In the U.S., the number of LNG refueling station
Number of existing and proposed LNG refueling stations by country. gradually increased between 2010 and 2015 [79]., as shown in Fig. 8.
The number of LNG refueling stations in the U.S. increased from 40 in
Country Existing LNG LNG Stations proposed or Ref.
Stations under construction
2010 to 122 in 2015 (a 3 fold increase) and 54 more LNG refueling
stations are either proposed or are currently under construction.
China 3200 1800 [74] Based on this analysis and the number of LNG refueling stations
USA 122 54 [75] discussed, it can be concluded that LNG usage in the transportation
Canada 12 – [6]
Spain 12 – [76]
sector is increasing and will continue in the next decade. Equipment
Netherland 12 – [76] design along the LNG distribution chain will play a major role. New
Australia 10 – [77] scenarios in BOG management of LNG refueling stations and vehicles’
United Kingdom 9 – [76] onboard LNG tanks should be implemented to get short- and long-term
Sweden 7 – [76]
benefits of switching from conventional petroleum fuels to LNG.
Belgium 2 – [76]
Portugal 2 3 [76]
France 1 2 [76] 5. Conclusions
Italy 1 1 [76]
Japan 1 – [78]
LNG can replace diesel in heavy-duty vehicles, ships, and trains.
However, the unintended release of methane (the main constituent of
LNG) contributes more than CO2 to climate change in a 20-year
6000 horizon. Methane emission analysis across the supply chain indicated
No. of LNG refueling stations in U.S.
No. of LNG refueling stations in China

5000

China 140 that transportation, storage, and distribution sectors are the largest
122

5000 U.S. contributors to these fugitive emissions. LNG refueling stations and
120
vehicles’ onboard LNG tanks are the main parts of the distribution
103

4000 100 sector. Our analysis showed that BOG management in LNG refueling
3200

stations and onboard LNG tanks, flexibility of fueling vehicles with

84

80 different fuel supply systems, and minimizing heat transfer to the LNG
2500

3000
61

60 between the storage tank and dispenser were parameters that needed
1844

2000 to be considered in the design of LNG refueling stations. The majority

43
40

40 of LNG refueling stations available in the market had no BOG

management. Even patented designs included in our comprehensive
600

1000
20
200

literature review indicated that 44% of LNG refueling station designs

100

0 0 had no BOG management. Our analysis of the LNG refueling station

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 market showed that the number of LNG refueling stations in China
Year
increased by 32 times between 2010 and 2015. In the U.S., the increase
Fig. 8. Number of LNG refueling stations in China [74] and the U.S [79]. in number of LNG refueling stations was more gradual. The number of

511
A. Sharafian et al.
LNG refueling stations in the U.S. increased from 40 in 2010 to 122 in
2015. This showed a considerable movement towards LNG in the
transportation sector and highlighted the importance of LNG refueling
station and fuel supply chain designs to efficiently manage the BOG.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant
no. 11R24937) (NSERC) and the technical support of Westport Power
Inc.
References
[1] Richter B. Beyond smoke and mirrors: climate change and energy in the 21st
century. Cambridge University Press; 2014.
[2] Global greenhouse gas emissions data. US Environ. Prot. Agency 〈https://www.epa.
gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data〉; 2016 [accessed 15.04.
16].
[3] Sources of greenhouse gas emissions. US Environ. Prot. Agency. 〈https://www.epa.
gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions〉; 2016 [accessed 12.09.16].
[4] Van Den Broek M, Berghout N, Rubin ES. The potential of renewables versus
natural gas with CO2 capture and storage for power generation under CO2
constraints. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;49:1296–322. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.089.
[5] 2014 B.C. Best practices methodology for quantifying greenhouse gas emissions,
2014.
[6] Study on natural gas research and development priority setting for transportation
in Canada. Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance; 2014.
[7] A.M. Jaffe, R. Dominguez‐Faus, A. Lee, K. Medlock, N. Parker, D. Scheitrum, et al.,
NextSTEPS white paper: exploring the role of natural gas in U.S. trucking. 〈https://
www.ge.com/sites/default/files/2015 02 Exploring the Role of Natural Gas in US
Trucking.pdf〉; 2015 [accessed 19.09.16].
[8] Technology assessment. low emission natural gas and other altenative fuel heavy-
duty engines; 2015.
[9] Imran M, Yasmeen T, Ijaz M, Farooq M, Wakeel M. Research progress in the
development of natural gas as fuel for road vehicles: a bibliographic review (1991–
2016). Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;66:702–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2016.08.041.
[10] Hao H, Liu Z, Zhao F, Li W. Natural gas as vehicle fuel in China: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2016;62:521–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2016.05.015.
[11] Wang Q, Li R. Natural gas from shale formation: a research profile. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016;57:1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.093.
[12] Furuoka F. Natural gas consumption and economic development in China and
Japan: an empirical examination of the Asian context. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;56:100–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.038.
[13] Balitskiy S, Bilan Y, Strielkowski W, Štreimikienė D. Energy efficiency and natural
gas consumption in the context of economic development in the European Union.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;55:156–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.10.053.
[14] Wang J, Jiang H, Zhou Q, Wu J, Qin S. China's natural gas production and
consumption analysis based on the multicycle Hubbert model and rolling Grey
model. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:1149–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.09.067.
[15] Şevik S. An analysis of the current and future use of natural gas-fired power plants
in meeting electricity energy needs: the case of Turkey. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;52:572–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.102.
[16] Wang T, Lin B. Impacts of unconventional gas development on China's natural gas
production and import. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;39:546–54. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.103.
[17] Kakaee A-H, Paykani A, Ghajar M. The influence of fuel composition on the
combustion and emission characteristics of natural gas fueled engines. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2014;38:64–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.080.
[18] Wang Q, Chen X, Jha AN, Rogers H. Natural gas from shale formation ‐ The
evolution, evidences and challenges of shale gas revolution in United States. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2014;30:1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.065.
[19] Khan MI, Yasmin T, Shakoor A. Technical overview of compressed natural gas
(CNG) as a transportation fuel. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:785–97.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.053.
[20] 21st session of the Conference of the Parties, Paris, France, 2015. doi:FCCC/CP/
2015/L.9.
[21] Dobrota Đ, Lalić B, Komar I. Problem of Boil - off in LNG supply chain. Trans Marit
Sci 2013;2:91–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.7225/toms.v02.n02.001.
[22] Energy carriers for powertrains - for a clean and efficient mobility, Brussels,
Belgium . 〈www.ertrac.org〉; 2014 [accessed 08.03.16].
[23] McJeon H, Edmonds J, Bauer N, Clarke L, Fisher B, Flannery BP, et al. Limited
impact on decadal-scale climate change from increased use of natural gas. Nature
2014;514:482–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13837.
[24] International Gas Union.LNG as fuel. In: Proceedings of the 26th World Gas
Conference, Paris, France; 2015. p. 1–120.
512
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 503–513
[25] Æsøy V, Einang PM, Stenersen D, Hennie E, Valberg I. LNG-fuelled engines and
fuel systems for medium-speed engines in maritime applications. SAE Pap 2011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2011-01-1998.
[26] News, views and knowledge on gas – worldwide, in: World LNG Rep. - 2015 Ed.,
International Gas Union. 〈http://www.igu.org/sites/default/files/node-page-field_
file/IGU-World LNG Report-2015 Edition.pdf〉; 2015.
[27] J. Bacha J. Freel A. Gibbs L. Gibbs G. Hemighaus K. Hoekman et al., Diesel fuels
technical review. 〈https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/operations/
documents/diesel-fuel-tech-review.pdf〉; 2007.
[28] Diesel fuel standards & $2 rulemakings. United States Environ. Prot. Agency .
〈http://www.epa.gov/diesel-fuel-standards/diesel-fuel-standards-rulemakings〉;
2016.
[29] Bassi A. Liquefied natural gas ( LNG) as fuel for road heavy duty vehicles
technologies and standardization. SAE Pap 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2011-
24-0122.
[30] O. Delgado, R. Muncrief. Assessment of heavy-duty natural gas vehicle emissions:
Implications and policy recommendations; 2015.
[31] Nicotra A. LNG, a sustainable fuel for all transport modes; 2013.
[32] M.E. Dunn, V.N. LeBlanc. Two engine system with a gaseous fuel stored in liquefied
form, US Pat. 8,763,565, 2014
[33] Al Ali M. Development of novel energy systems for LNG locomotives. University of
Ontario Institute of Technology; 2015.
[34] Seo S, Han S, Lee S, Chang D. A pump-free boosting system and its application to
liquefied natural gas supply for large ships. Energy 2015. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2015.09.052.
[35] Chen QS, Wegrzyn J, Prasad V. Analysis of temperature and pressure changes in
liquefied natural gas (LNG) cryogenic tanks. Cryogenics 2004;44:701–9. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics.2004.03.020.
[36] Miana M, Legorburo R, Díez D, Hwang YH. Calculation of boil-off rate of liquefied
natural gas in Mark III tanks of ship carriers by numerical analysis. Appl Therm
Eng 2015;93:279–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.09.112.
[37] D. Holden. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) bunkering study; 2014.
[38] C.A. Powars. Best practices to avoid LNG fueling station venting losses, St. Croix
Research report prepared for Brookhaven National Laboratory; 2010.
[39] G. Roche. Fueling infrastructure for natural gas trucks. In: Faster Freight – Clean.
Air Calif. 2009 Conference, Long Beach, CA; 2009.
[40] Alvarez RA, Pacala SW, Winebrake JJ, Chameides WL, Hamburg SP. Greater focus
needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 2012;109:6435–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1202407109.
[41] A. Burnham, J. Han, A. Elgowainy, M. Wang. Updated fugitive greenhouse gas
emissions for natural gas pathways in the GREET1_2015 model; 2015.
[42] Direct Global Warming Potentials, Intergov. Panel Clim. Chang . 〈https://www.
ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html〉; 2016.
[43] Climate change The physical science basis. Fourth assessment report of the
Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC); 2007.
[44] Hailer JT. LNG station analysis for the prediction of pressure rise and vented
emissions. West Virginia University; 2015 〈http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?
url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1752230020?accountid=14656〉.
[45] Wiens J, Powars C, Pope G. LNG vehicle fuel pressure strategy alternatives. SAE
Tech Pap Ser 2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2001-01-1919.
[46] Westport Power Inc. 〈http://www.westport.com/〉; 2015.
[47] Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J2343: recommended practice for
LNG medium and heavy-duty powered vehicles. 〈http://standards.sae.org/j2343_
200807/〉; 2008.
[48] R.E. Cieslukowski. No loss single line fueling station for liquid natural gas vehicles.
US Pat. 5,231,838, 1993.
[49] D.J. Forgash, R. Korzonas, B.P. Neuhalfen, G.D. Rhoades, J.W. Sudduth, M.L.
Conrad, et al. Method and apparatus for fueling vehicles with liquefied cryogenic
fuel. US Pat. 5687776; 1997.
[50] R.J. Kooy, M.L. Conrad, D.J. Forgash, R. Korzonas, B.P. Neuhalfen, G.D. Rhoades,
et al. Method and apparatus for fueling vehicles with liquefied cryogenic fuel. US
Pat. 5771946; 1998.
[51] C.D. Emmer, J. Gamble, C. Zelasko, T.K. Drube. Liquid and compressed natural gas
dispensing system. US Pat. 7069730 B2; 2006.
[52] J.E. Goode. Liquefied natural gas fueling facility. US Pat. 5,360,139; 1994.
[53] J.A. Barclay. Integrated refueling system for vehicles. US Pat. 5505232; 1996.
[54] H.J. Dehne. Zero-vent liquid natural gas fueling station. US Pat. 5,699,839; 1997.
[55] D.A. Bingham, M.L. Clark, B.M. Wilding, G.L. Palmer. Method and apparatus for
dispensing compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas to natural gas powered
vehicles. US Pat. 6,899,146 B2; 2005.
[56] R.C. Lee, P. Jarrett, S. Foster. Methods for liquefied natural gas fueling. US Pat.
9181077 B2; 2015.
[57] K. Gustafson, G.W. Kalet. No loss fueling system for natural gas powered vehicles.
US Pat. 5537824; 1996.
[58] A. Gram, M. Ursan. Combined liquefied gas and compressed gas re-fueling station
and method of operating same. US Pat. 7,284,575 B2; 2007.
[59] Nimocks R. LNG vehicle markets and infrastructure. Zeus Development Corp;
1995.
[60] R.C. Lee, P. Heisch, Liquefied natural gas refueling system. US Pat. 2012/0102978
A1; 2012.
[61] Linde’s LNG fueling solutions: now available for fleets. 〈http://lindelng.com/pdf/
Linde_LNG_Fueling_Solutions-forFleets.pdf〉; 2014.
[62] NorthStar, Inc. 〈http://www.northstarlng.com/〉; 2016.
[63] Chart Industires. 〈http://www.chartindustries.com/〉; 2016.
[64] Cryostar. 〈http://www.cryostar.com/〉; 2016.
[65] ENN Canada. 〈http://www.enncanada.com/〉; 2016.
A. Sharafian et al.
[66] Linde Group. 〈http://www.the-linde-group.com〉; 2016.
[67] K. Gustafson. No loss fueling station for liquid natural gas vehicles. US Pat. 5,228,
295; 1993.
[68] G. Kalet, K. Gustafson. LNG delivery system. US Pat. 5373702; 1994.
[69] C. Powars. Liquefied natural gas transfer. US Pat. 5415001; 1995.
[70] D. Preston, M. Lutgen, T. Drube, P. Drube, T. Chrisfield. Self-contained liquid
natural gas filling station. US Pat. 5,682,750; 1997.
[71] J.W. Bonn, A. Gram. Cryogenic fluid system and method of pumping cryogenic
fluid. US Pat. 5787940; 1998.
[72] C. Emmer, T. Drube, K. Gustafson. System and method for dispensing cryogenic
liquids. US Pat. 6354088 B1; 2002.
[73] M. Ursan, A. Gram. Method and apparatus for pumping a cryogenic fluid from a
513
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (2017) 503–513
storage tank. US Pat. 6,640,556 B2; 2003.
[74] China’s gas-fueled vehicle population rose to the world top, L-NGVEXPO China
2016. 〈http://www.ngvexpo.com/msg.php?Id=1631〉; 2016 [accessed 16.01.16].
[75] Alternative fuels data center. U.S. Dep. Energy. 〈http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data_
download/〉; 2016 [accessed 20.01.16].
[76] LNG Blue Corridors. 〈http://lngbc.eu/〉; 2015.
[77] Krejčí M. Mobility in the city. In: Gtls Gas to Liq. Syst. - AHK Tschechien; 2013.
[78] Japan pushes LNG for transport to help climate, energy security, Reuters. 〈http://
www.reuters.com/article/japan-lng-transport-idUSL3N0YQ1NI20150618〉; 2015.
[79] US LNG station growth. Nat. Gas Veh. Am. 〈https://www.ngvamerica.org/stations/
〉; 2015.