Do We Need a Stopgap Fuel?
It’s becoming clear that energy and energy independence — you have to love that term — will be a major focus of the upcoming presidential election. While most of us are sick of the dog-and-pony shows and pundits of the past few weeks, we are also sick of the all too-easily dismissed ease of both parties’ energy policies.
Do we drill more? Do we import less? Do we use ethanol? Should all cars be flex-fuel?
There are two end goals, it seems: independence from foreign oil and eventually independence from non-renewable fuels.
I’m going to try and tackle just the first one today, and in doing so I think it might become clear that ethanol and natural gas are stopgap fuels that we just don’t need to become energy independent.
The reason I got to thinking about this was the upcoming Senate bill that would require every car to be flex-fuel — to the layman, that means capable of running on both gasoline and ethanol E85. It seems everyone is ethanol-crazy and doesn’t understand that there is very little infrastructure to support massive ethanol use nationwide; there are 1,500 E85 pumps in the U.S., versus 167,000 gas stations. Adding thousands of new pumps will be expensive. E85 is also less efficient, and while it emits less carbon monoxide and other toxins than gasoline, it produces more of other types of toxins. My thinking is we don’t even need it. My alternative? It’s not a new one: We go all-hybrid, and fast. And guess what? If we do, we don’t need to import any more oil from OPEC.
Well, maybe we don’t go ALL hybrid, but we move the real average mpg close to 40 mpg instead of 35 mpg. That would double efficiency and cut demand for gas by 50%, thus cutting the need for oil by 50% (assuming that it’s a true relative relationship).
I’ll get to how we do this in a second, but check out the numbers. According to the U.S. Office of Energy Statistics, the U.S. imported 401 million barrels of oil in June 2008, 182 million of which were from OPEC. That’s really who we don’t want to import from when we’re looking to be energy independent. I don’t think we’re too worried about Canada, Mexico, the U.K. and the rest of the non-Opec countries, except maybe Russia. Throw Russia’s imports into the OPEC number and you get a nice round 200 million barrels of oil imported from those nations, versus 200 million barrels of oil from the non-Opec ones. The U.S. in June 2008 produced 153 million barrels of oil on its own.
So we don’t really need to reduce use by 50%, but let’s just say we did; then we’re doing even better. How do we do it? We don’t need E85 or biodiesel. We’d need more-efficient cars running on regular gasoline. I’m not a hybrid fanatic and would take a BMW M3 over a Toyota Prius any day, but if politicians want answers on how to go energy independent, this is it. And guess what? Consumer choice is going to matter most of all.
Consumers will have to start buying hybrids, diesels and other cars that get 35 mpg or higher (and there aren’t many of those today) in large numbers over the next 10 years to achieve a 50% drop in gas consumption. Otherwise, by some numbers it’ll take until 2034 until we’re all-hybrid.
We’ve already seen a rather significant 4.7% drop in travel just due to high gas prices reducing travel. We’ve also seen huge spikes in fuel-efficient car sales because of high gas prices. But can the government force everyone to buy in? Of course not. It can only incentivize it with tax credits, like it did for early hybrid-adopters.
If those tax credits are extended and expanded and more hybrid models hit the market, like the new Honda Insight and its expected sub-$20,000 price tag, the tables could shift quickly. There are hybrid options for buyers of trucks and large SUVs that get 40% better mileage as of today, but they’re pricey. Besides sports cars, most segments already have hybrid alternatives. By 2010, the number of hybrid offerings will double from what we have today, including plug-in electric vehicles from GM and possibly Toyota. We expect more automakers will join in that trend. The cost of hybrid technology is falling, while the seamless nature of the hybrid vehicles themselves is improving.
We could actually see real-world fuel economy rise 50% by 2015 if buyers make this shift. We could say goodbye to OPEC and let China and India become its new top consumers. Let’s not get delusional; we’re still going to need oil for the foreseeable future, possibly the next century. The goal is to reduce overall demand and lower prices at the pump.
So when we hear about making flex-fuel capability mandatory on all cars because it only costs $300 a car to do it — with no mention of the millions, if not billions, it would take to expand ethanol infrastructure — we don’t get it. Just like when we hear that natural gas — which needs to be drilled for just like oil and is used to heat homes — is a viable fuel for propulsion, we scratch our heads. Why split our focus on stopgap measures? If we’re all headed toward using alternative energy sources — wind, solar, thermal, wave — to produce electricity for electric cars and electric hybrid cars, than promoting another liquid fuel that is inefficient to produce and inefficient to burn makes little sense, especially if hydrogen is really the best long-term solution and we already need millions and billions for that infrastructure.
I will say that if cellulosic ethanol or ethanol produced from algae or some other cutting-edge technology can hit mass production — and it might in the next 10 years — then flex-fuel should be more common. But we’ve been hearing about these techniques for years with no breakthroughs for real-world consumption.
So what am I saying? Keep it simple. Plan for renewable energies to take over in the future, but focus on efficiency today. Then we could reach our lofty goals without going broke on stopgap measures.
Previous
Subscribe to our feed
Email us your tips!
You say that the ethanol infrastructure is not here and there would be a need to install thousands of new pumps. This is not true. In fact if the gas stations just got rid of the mid-grade and used the existing tanks for E-85 the problem is solved and a cheaper cost. Hybrids will help but how about hybrids that also use E85 when not using the battery. E85 is here and made in the USA. It has shown to cut emissions by a good amount. The hard earned American money would stay here where it belongs America and not in the deep pockets of our enemies and the deep pockets of big oil. E85 burns cleaner and has actually shown to keep an engine cleaner than burning gasoline.
My company sell E85 Flex fuel conversion kits for non-flex fuel vehicles. These kits also work on Hybrids which truly makes them Green. Lately there has been such a negative machine against ethanol funded by the very people that know it will hurt business and that is Big Oil. The Infrastructure is here with just moderate improvements and the USA can be energy independant within 2 years using Ethanol.
JH,
As far as I understand it, you can not use regular gasoline tanks and pumps for E85. Perhaps they can be retrofitted, but they can't just be switched from one to the other on a simple refill.
John,
The bigger picture clearly shows the other impacts of going to ethanol. You can't dispute the amount of natural resources involved to generate the corn/soy/grass to then convert to ethanol. Think of the billions of gallons of water, fuel to process, etc it takes to generate that gallon of ethanol. It's just as big if not worse when we look at the overall impact to the environment. Alternative energy of solar, wind, batteries to be recycled seems much more of a long term solution when you look at renewable resources.
Major car companies are working their fingers to the bone in order to manufacture cars that will use hydrogen, and with drilling in the Arctic Circle, Gulf and off shore, we will have sufficient hydrocarbon to make the transition seamless.
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY - Hydrogen
The Truth About Hydrogen
Wild promises abound, but can the simplest element in the universe really power our homes, fuel our cars and reduce our contribution to global warming? PM crunches the numbers on the real hydrogen economy.
By Jeff Wise
Read More..
A fuel cell is an electrochemical energy conversion device. It produces electricity from various external quantities of fuel (on the anode side) and oxidant (on the cathode side). These react in the presence of an electrolyte. Generally, the reactants flow in and reaction products flow out while the electrolyte remains in the cell. Fuel cells can operate virtually continuously as long as the necessary flows are maintained.
Fuel cells are different from batteries in that they consume reactant, which must be replenished, while batteries store electrical energy chemically in a closed system. Additionally, while the electrodes within a battery react and change as a battery is charged or discharged, a fuel cell's electrodes are catalytic and relatively stable.Many combinations of fuel and oxidant are possible. A hydrogen cell uses hydrogen as fuel and oxygen as oxidant. Other fuels include hydrocarbons and alcohols.
More than 2500 fuel cell systems have been installed all over the world � in hospitals, nursing homes, hotels, office buildings, schools, utility power plants - either connected to the electric grid to provide supplemental power and backup assurance for critical areas, or installed as a grid-independent generator for on-site service in areas that are inaccessible by power lines. Fuel cell power generation systems in operation today achieve 40 percent fuel-to-electricity efficiency utilizing hydrocarbon fuels. Since fuel cells operate silently, they reduce noise pollution as well as air pollution and when the fuel cell is sited near the point of use, its waste heat can be captured for beneficial purposes (cogeneration). In large-scale building systems, these fuel cell cogeneration systems can reduce facility energy service costs by 20% to 40% over conventional energy service and increase efficiency to 85 percent.
Is it possible for hydrogen to compete with oil in a global market?
Hydrogen fuel can be implemented as a renewable energy medium with immense potential. When utilized properly, it has the potential to entirely replace fossil fuels altogether. Transforming our largely oil based economy, to a new hydrogen economy, which will provide sustainability throughout the 21st century, and beyond, for as long as the sun continues to shine.
Read More..
Hydrogen is the simplest element known to man. Each atom of hydrogen has only one proton. It is also the most plentiful gas in the universe. Stars are made primarily of hydrogen.
The sun is basically a giant ball of hydrogen and helium gases. In the sun's core, hydrogen atoms combine to form helium atoms. This process�called fusion�gives off radiant energy.
This radiant energy sustains life on earth. It gives us light and makes plants grow. It makes the wind blow and rain fall. It is stored as chemical energy in fossil fuels. Most of the energy we use today came from the sun's radiant energy.
Hydrogen gas is lighter than air and, as a result, it rises in the atmosphere. This is why hydrogen as a gas (H2) is not found by itself on earth. It is found only in compound form with other elements. Hydrogen combined with oxygen, is water (H2O). Hydrogen combined with carbon, forms different compounds such as methane (CH4), coal, and petroleum. Hydrogen is also found in all growing things�biomass. It is also an abundant element in the earth's crust.
Hydrogen has the highest energy content of any common fuel by weight(about three times more than gasoline), but the lowest energy content by volume (about four times less than gasoline). It is the lightest element, and it is a gas at normal temperature and pressure.
FST Energy Demonstrates Product that Eliminates Fuel Cell Dependence on Bulky Hydrogen Cylinders
Hydrogen Cassette
SAN FRANCISCO--July 27, 2006--FST Energy, Inc. (www.fstenergy.com), a hydrogen storage, transport, and distribution company, today announced a significant breakthrough for the emerging fuel cell market by eliminating the need for metal hydrogen storage cylinders. Read More..
Hydrogen Buses -
Over the last four years, more than 50 fuel cell buses have been demonstrated in North and South America, Europe, Asia and Australia. Fuel cells are highly efficient, so even if the hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels, fuel cell buses can reduce transit agencies� CO2 emissions. And emissions are truly zero if the hydrogen is produced from renewable electricity, which greatly improves local air quality. Because the fuel cell system is so much quieter than a diesel engine, fuel cell buses significantly reduce noise pollution as well.
Planes -
Fuel cells are an attractive option for aviation since they produce zero or low emissions and make barely any noise. The military is especially interested in this application because of the low noise, low thermal signature and ability to attain high altitude. Companies like Boeing are heavily involved in developing a fuel cell plane.
Use H2 as fuel save fossil water to drink with Ethanol!
A multi State fossil water Aquifer, (Ogallala) will be pumped dry without any way of renewing it while inflating commodities and fuel cost. Over two million people will not only be with out water to drink, prepare food and for hygiene. Therefore, large areas will be left in ruins much as the Anasazi; in addition of their Parallels between Moche and Maya or other Mesoamerican, when they disappeared, because of drought. I suggest the energy and money spent on ethanol be used to develop and use an ultimate fuel that cleans carbon out of atmosphere and leaves only pure water as a waste product, Hydrogen the Ultimate fuel.
Bill Gordon L. Stafford
in the future please do not paste long responses from other sources. Links will do just fine. Thanks.
Hydrogen is the most common element on earth, but so what. It is tightly bound to other elements, and takes a lot of energy and money to free up.
Only until we have lots of cheap solar electric power, so we can cheaply and locally produce hydrogen, without long pipelines, will hydrogen be viable.
Aluminum is the most common metal on earth, but it is much more expensive than steel.
Silica is very common, but glass blocks are not the cheapest building material.
Processing costs trump availablity.
Thanks for this common sense. Hybrid tech is here, is very, very good, and requires no new investment in infrastructure. It's an excellent mid-term solution. It just needs to be deployed as broadly as possible to be effective.
It's too bad that car companies have been so slow to respond. They couldn't have anticipated the need or even benefit of bringing more hybrid models to market 5 years ago? It's not like they're making money on gasoline sales, right...?
(I understand the trouble with the added cost in a competitive environment, and I agree. That's where policy can step in to advance the national interest. Our failure on that count has contributed to our economic strain.)
Hydrogen is the most common element on earth, but so what. It is tightly bound to other elements, and takes a lot of energy and money to free up.
Only until we have lots of cheap solar electric power, so we can cheaply and locally produce hydrogen, without long pipelines, will hydrogen be viable.
Aluminum is the most common metal on earth, but it is much more expensive than steel.
Silica is very common, but glass blocks are not the cheapest building material.
Processing costs trump availablity.
Bernie,
That's why I say in the post Hydrogen is the LONG term solution when those renewable electric (or nuclear) sources are in place.
Here are some of the answers to some questions...
$11,237.00 Median Cost of converting an existing tank with new or retrofit despenser(s)
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/42390.pdf
On average, the production of one gallon of ethanol requires three gallons of water. It takes approximately 2.5 gallons of water to produce one gallon of gasoline. However, with new cellulosic developments, it is estimated that it will take between 2 -2.5 gallons of water for each gallon of ethanol. Did you know it takes 1,851 gallons to refine one barrel of crude oil? Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
http://www.drivingethanol.org/media/pdf/2008WaterUseFactSheet.pdf
Hydrogen along with solar and wind will be the future but there 10 years plus in being cost effective. Ethanol is here now and can be used as a bridge to better long term solutions.
As far as Oil. Here's a simple experiment. Fill a big bowl with peanuts still in the shell. Take a minute a unshell as many as you can while keeping everything in the bowl. Pretty easy. Now repeat and see how many you can unshell. Now repeat for a third time. See how hard and how very few you can find to unshell. The third time shows how Oil production is becoming now. What the public has to learn is that Oil is a finite source that when burned stays in our atmosphere. When Biofuels like Ethanol are produced and burned the byproducts gets reused by the same crops and production year after year completing a cycle.
http://www.jonnyenergy.com
Current research prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory), indicates a 38% gain in the overall energy input/output equation for the corn-to-ethanol process. That is, if 100 BTUs of energy is used to plant corn, harvest the crop, transport it, etc., 138 BTUs of energy is available in the fuel ethanol. Corn yields and processing technologies have improved significantly over the past 20 years and they continue to do so, making ethanol production less and less energy intensive.
John H
So if you figure 11K a pump times 100,000 stations or so that's a billion dollars to retrofit pumps? How quickly do you think that can be done on that scale? 5 years? 10 years?
That's kind of my point. E85 is a stop gap and by the time you spend all the money on infrastructure it might be surpassed. Plus betting on cellulosic is not a sure thing as it hasn't been proven on large scales.
Hybrid sounds good until you take into account the free market.
Producing more oil domestically will not reduce the price if the oil companies are allowed to continue to work within the free market. If we produce more OPEC can just produce less and the world wide demand will maintain the $100+ a barrel price.
The only way an increase in domestic production will reduce prices is if the government nationalizes the US oil industry and can set the price it sells to itself and thus to us.
Supply and demand rules the free market. So whether we buy from the Middle East or not (#1 importer of oil to the US is Canada by the way) the price can be manipulated.
"So if you figure 11K a pump times 100,000 stations or so that's a billion dollars to retrofit pumps? How quickly do you think that can be done on that scale? 5 years? 10 years?"
The problem now is that most gas stations are franchises of Big Oil companies. Through my experience the ones that have E85 are told from Big Oil they can not advertise or promote it. The US would only have to do about 20,000 or so stations which would make E85 more readily available. IMO that number would only take 2 to 3 years to do. The Fact that our Tax money is spent to the tune of Billions annually to protect our Foreign Oil interests I don't see the problem. Existing tanks would not take long to be converted over unlike Pikens plan where there is no infrastructure at all. Many Stations I have talked to about getting E85 have stated that not enough cars can use it so it is not worth it. I currently am running E85 in my non flex fuel vehicle and am currently getting about 7% less in Fuel Milage. I am paying 13% less for it. My vehicle runs great and my emissions are cut 40%. I feel awesome for using it as I know I am doing my part for the US and keeping money here where it is needed.
but like i said before. who cares if opec reduces production? we are still going to use the amount of oil anyway right? but if we drill, more of that oil will be from us and we won't depend of other countries and more of the money stays here.
and down the line we get hydrogen or ethanol that actually works or solar cars that will go 500 miles before using the gallon of oil (or none at all) it has for another 100 miles.
and we keep checking the tire's pressure. funny how people forgot that.
Great article :-)
Why don't we just mount a buying strike on newly factory produced fossil fuelled motor cars?
Surely, the car companies would then be forced to get moving to produce something we actually want and which will save the planet?
GM 's sudden stewardship of the environment is simply a way to continue to make gas guzzlers thanks to E85 an extremely inefficient fuel. The CAFE standards call for all car companies to achieve an average MPG for all vehicles. I believe the most recent number is 27 MPG. Well if you make the biggest money off of 10 miles per gallon SUV's you would hate to say good bye to them wouldn't you?
The CAFE standards has a loophole, that being that an E85 vehicle operating on E85 miles per gallon are ONLY figured against the actual amount of gasoline in the blend (15%) if you divide 100% fuel by 15% gasoline you get the multiplier to the mpg (666) therefore a gas guzzling 10 MPG SUV is given credit for 66.6 MPG. If you sell one SUV like this you can have 5 vehicles only achieving 20 MPG and this gas guzzling SUV and you average more than 27 MPG overall while not one of their vehicles really met the standard.
GM is not the only one taking advantage of this free ride Ford and Chrysler are too. The big three are heading down the toilet and this is just their hands clinging to the rim.