Tuesday, May 02, 2006

How Do Alternative Fuels Stack Up?

High gas prices are here for at least 2-3 more years according to the Bush administration, and all of a sudden people are starting to look seriously at alternative fuels. Is one better than the other? Which ones are earth friendly? Popular Mechanics crunched the numbers on actual costs and performance of each major alternative fuel and rated their outlook. As they point out, "Before we can debate national energy policy--or even decide which petroleum substitutes might make sense for our personal vehicles--we need to know how these things stack up in the real world."

The article is rather long (8 pages), so I won't go into each alternative fuel at length. You can check it out yourself, but here are some of the highlights:
Ethanol/E85: Outlook: Hopeful--to a point. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 95 ethanol refineries produced more than 4.3 billion gal. of ethanol in 2005. An additional 40 new or expanded refineries slated to come on line in the next 18 months will increase that to 6.3 billion gal. That sounds like a lot--and it is--but it represents just over 3 percent of our annual consumption of more than 200 billion gal. of gasoline and diesel.

One acre of corn can produce 300 gal. of ethanol per growing season. So, in order to replace that 200 billion gal. of petroleum products, American farmers would need to dedicate 675 million acres, or 71 percent of the nation's 938 million acres of farmland, to growing feedstock. Clearly, ethanol alone won't kick our fossil fuel dependence--unless we want to replace our oil imports with food imports.

Methanol/M85: Outlook: Cloudy. The EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program is tasked with reducing methane emissions from landfills, and much of this methane is used to produce energy. As of December 2004, there were more than 325 operational landfill-gas energy projects in the States and more than 600 landfills deemed to be good candidates for projects. But the quantities involved are small. Methane also can be produced by processing biomass such as grass clippings, sawdust and other cellulosic sources.

Based on these important differences between ethanol and methanol--not to mention the power of the farm lobby--methanol has receded into ethanol's shadow as a gasoline replacement. The last M85 FFV in the States was sold in 1999. However, methanol may still have a future as a fuel. Nearly every major electronics manufacturer plans to release portable electronics powered by methanol fuel cells within the next two years.

Compressed Natural Gas: Outlook: Limited. Even though 85 percent of our natural gas is produced domestically, and there's already a distribution network in place, CNG faces a limited future as a gasoline or diesel replacement. For one thing, like petroleum, it is nonrenewable. More critically, perhaps, there's already a great demand for natural gas--and CNG requires major retooling of both cars and fuel-station infrastructure.

Biodiesel (Vegetable oils, rendered chicken fat and used fry oil.) Outlook: Good. Biodiesel has a viable future as a major fuel for transportation. According to the National Biodiesel Board, production of biodiesel in 2004 was about 25 million gal., tripling to more than 75 million gal. in 2005. The trend is solidly upward, thanks to government incentives, the growing number of new diesel vehicles for sale and a grass-roots groundswell of support.

Electricity: Outlook: Mixed. While interest in plug-in hybrids grows, the long-term future of pure electrics depends on breakthroughs in longer-lasting, cheaper batteries and drastically lower production costs for the vehicles themselves. And then there's the environmental cost. Only 2.3 percent of the nation's electricity comes from renewable resources; about half is generated in coal-burning plants.

Hydrogen: Outlook: Good--someday. The world's carmakers are deeply engaged in hydrogen fuel cell research. Some carmakers continue to work on hydrogen-fueled, internal-combustion engines. But, the stumbling block is finding a cost- and energy-effective way to produce hydrogen.
Popular Mechanics came to the conclusion that one size fits all is not the answer when it comes to replacing our dependency on oil.
[...]we believe that many households might have an electric or plug-in hybrid for short trips, an E85/electric hybrid sedan, SUV or minivan to squire the whole team, and a diesel pickup fueled by B30 or B50 to haul most anything else. All will reduce greenhouse gases and use renewable resources that come from inside our borders. By pursuing these multiple pathways, we can reduce our dependence on any single energy source--something we haven't achieved with petroleum.
Families without the resources to own multiple vehicles won't find this solution comforting. Our energy future may hold promise in the long-run, but for the short-term it will be anything but simple or painless.

5 comments:

Mark Prime (tpm/Confession Zero) said...

Great article! Love the alternatives (pun intended)... What two out of all seem very promising but the offset electricity (coal) is daunting, eh?

Thanks for the informative post!

Anonymous said...

I'd put my money on hydrogen. You're right, the technology isn't there yet. But I have faith in our engineers.

A couple of years ago I read a book called The Hydrogen Economy. It talked about a hydrogen-based power grid. If you generated more energy than you used, you sold the excess back to the grid.

Sounds futuristic, doesn't it? And then the other night, I heard Sir Ian McKellen on Bill Maher's show talk about generating solar-power electricity at his home in London and selling the excess back to the grid.

So this stuff isn't all that far in the future after all. All we need is the will to break away from our petroleum-based economy and invest in alternatives.

pissed off patricia said...

Hydrogen is best for the long haul.

I'm afraid all this talk will go away as soon as they can convince the public to allow drilling anywhere they want to in ANWR and all around the shores of my state, Florida.

Bush's oil friends have to be loving it.

Joe Garma said...

Hydrogen and Ethanol are only "good" alternatives if their production is not heavily dependant on fossil fuels. Corn-produced Ethanol requires a tremendous amount of fossil fuel (and derivatives -- pesticides), and of course it makes no sense to burn oil or gas to create Hydrogen. And yet, these forms of production are what some policy makers/energy producers intend. This is not acceptable!

Kathy said...

Abi, I've heard the same thing about solar and wind turbines generating excess power that gets sold back to the grid. In fact, my local energy provider buys excess energy from a wind farm in Michigan as part of its "green" program.

Thanks for dropping by Joe. I've read there are two choices when it comes to hydrogen: black and green.

“President Bush and the environmental community agree that hydrogen is America's future. We disagree on where to get the hydrogen from. The White House would like to extract hydrogen from coal and natural gas and by harnessing nuclear power to the task—locking us into a black hydrogen future. The environmental community would like to use renewable sources of energy like wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal to extract hydrogen from water or to extract hydrogen from biomass—a green hydrogen future. The issue of black versus green hydrogen is going to be the seminal environmental question of the coming century."

--Jeremy Rifkin, President, The Foundation on Economic Trends


I agree with you that producing hydrogen with fossil fuels is unacceptable, but if "green" methods prove viable then it would make sense. I would hope people would push to use only earth friendly, renewable sources.

Patricia, you bring up a good point about ANWR, but experts are saying the amount of oil there won't do anything to reduce our prices.

I've also read that oil from Alaska would be shipped over to China or Japan and won't go into our pipelines here in the lower 48 states. It's cheaper to send it across the ocean on an oil tanker than it is to truck it south or build a pipeline. That makes the whole idea even more ludicrous. The point is for oil companies to make money - not to save American's money or help build up our oil supply.