Flexible Fuel Vehicles – The Fuel

In an earlier post, The Path from Coal to Hydrogen, I discussed a House bill requiring auto engines to run on multiple fuels: ethanol and methanol blended with gasoline, gasoline only and biodiesel.

Since methanol and ethanol do not contain as much energy per unit volume, for example, a gallon, as gasoline, we have to look at it a little differently. Take a look at this simple table:

Heating Value	Gasoline	Diesel Fuel	Methanol	Ethanol
BTUs per gallon	116,090	128,450	57,250	76,330
BTUs per pound	18,676	18,394	8,637	11,585

The figures are from the American Petroleum Institute. When we think about gasoline, the standard we use is miles per gallon because we all buy a gallon of gasoline that contains a similar amount of energy. However, when we begin to use other fuels, a gallon is no longer a standard measure of energy content. We have to go back to the basic energy measure, the British Thermal Unit or BTU. As a refresher, a BTU is the amount of energy required to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit.

A gallon of gasoline costing $3.00 would require about two gallons of Methanol (theoretically costing about $1.50 per gallon) and about 1-½ gallons of Ethanol (costing about $2.00 per gallon). These would be the equivalent costs for the same amount of energy—BTUs—to fuel an engine.

Cost per BTU, just for purposes of illustration, would be $3.00 or 300¢ (cents) divided by 116,090 BTUs per gallon of gasoline or 0.0026¢ per BTU. A better way to look at it is in terms of cost per million BTUs, since a full twenty gallon gasoline tank contains over 2 million BTUs.

In that case, one million BTUs costs about $26.00, whether you are purchasing gasoline, diesel, methanol or ethanol. At 20 miles per gallon of gasoline, you’ll burn about 5,800 BTUs per mile. In a future post: Flexible Fuel Vehicles – The Engine.

Book Review: Quantum by Manjit Kumar

The word “Quantum” refers to Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Physics. A quantum is a little packet of energy—what the sun delivers to us incessantly. Quantum Mechanics is the theory of the infinitesimal atomic world—-the theory of what makes up all matter everywhere. The theory of the nature of the universe.

Quantum (published by W.W. Norton) is a novel-like account of a battle between two titans of physics: Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein. When I finished this book, I had a better understanding of a subject I briefly studied as an engineering student forty years ago. I liked this book so much, I wrote the author a snail mail letter congratulating him for his work and thanking him for his effort. There is much to this book and I enjoyed it immensely. However, what fascinated and captivated me most was the nature of the disagreement between them.

The debate between Bohr and Einstein was so profound, so polar opposite, it is difficult to understand how these two remained so far apart on the matter. Bohr believed that there was no reality of an atomic or subatomic world. Quantum quotes him as follows: “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum mechanical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.” Kumar goes on to say, “For Bohr there was no underlying physical reality that exists independently of the measuring equipment . . . .” What Bohr was saying is that observing an electron makes it real but if you are not observing it, it does not exist.

Einstein, of course, had the 180 degree view: “He based his assessment of quantum mechanics on his unshakable belief in the existence of a causal, observer-independent reality.” “‘What we call science,’ Einstein argued, ‘has the sole purpose of determining what is.’”

There is much heft in this book. Kumar’s detailed bibliography betrays a scholarly approach but a resultant work that is an easy, enjoyable read—a story. There are many other “characters” in this work: Max Planck, Ernest Rutherford, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, among others. I recommend it highly.

I am not a physicist, and I have no high intellect, but I feel strongly that I should side with one or the other of the combatants. It is difficult for me to acknowledge Bohr’s abstraction of the atom. I cannot believe that an object, infinitesimally small though it may be, only comes into existence by virtue of my observance of it. I cannot fathom that deep an abstraction.

I take Einstein’s side. If I am sitting at a table, I can grab it, lean on it, pound it. It is a physical reality. It has weight, dimensions, volume and it is visually observable. I know it is made up of atoms. And I know those atoms are made up of subatomic particles. Therefore, the table is observable because it exists independently of me. And, ergo, it follows that all of its component parts—-molecules, atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons—-also exist, whether or not I observe them. If I never look at the table, it still exists. And looking at it, does not cause it to exist.

The Path from Coal to Hydrogen

We hear about the Hydrogen Economy from time to time but we do not hear anyone articulate the elements of a plan to get from here to there. The first thing we must accept is that the path from coal to hydrogen is fraught with fossil fuels. There is no other alternative and it will take much time and resolve.

The first two things we must do is change the internal combustion engine and wean ourselves off of gasoline as a primary motor fuel. There is a bill in committee, HR 1476, introduced in March 2009 and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce where it currently awaits action. The bill requires (in all of only a refreshing 9 pages) that by 2015 80% of the vehicles manufactured or sold in the U.S. be capable of burning fuel that is 85% Ethanol, 85% Methanol or Biodiesel, in addition to 100% gasoline. This bill should be enacted as a first very good step toward the hydrogen economy.

The federal government can require auto manufacturers the world over to comply with this law, if they want to remain in the U.S. market. However, it is quite another matter to bring about the manufacture and use of other fuels that substitute for ubiquitous gasoline. The focus should be on methanol because in the first instance it can be made from coal and natural gas, which are abundant, and unlike ethanol, they do not compete for a foodstuff (corn) as a feedstock. Moreover, once established, the driving public will now have two liquid, competing motor fuels to choose from when they pull up to the pump. And those two motor fuels will be made from three feed stocks: Crude oil, coal and natural gas. The federal government, in order to induce a continuous manufacture of methanol, should provide considerable tax breaks to jump start this industry. I will go out on a limb and propose a ten year federal corporate tax moratorium, accelerated depreciation and investment tax credit for any commercial scale U.S. methanol plant that achieves a commercial operation date within a set period of time. This will attract needed capital, create many jobs to build the infrastructure and generate additional tax revenues from the equipment manufacturers and workers.

Let us prognosticate what things look like ten years down the road, after HR 1476 goals are realized. It is 2025, every car in the U.S. can and does burn gasoline and/or a methanol blend and the competition has kept fuel prices in check. Our coal industry is focused on competing with natural gas to offer methanol and the natural gas industry is no longer a seasonal player during the heating season, but a year round business providing fuels for heating, cooking and motoring. Furthermore, we have weaned ourselves from foreign crude oil and all of our gasoline needs are met with crude from U.S. wells. What should the federal government do next in order to help us transition to the hydrogen economy.

In 2025, a law should be enacted requiring that no automobile in the U.S. may be sold that contains an internal combustion engine by 2032. Furthermore, in 2040 no automobile in the U.S. may be operated with an internal combustion engine. The law should be crafted in such a way that the hydrocarbon based fuel cell will substitute for the internal combustion engine in all motor vehicles. Why is this possible and why should we do it.

Currently, there is research being done (significant amounts by the DOE) to make the fuel cell a reality and, more importantly, fuel cells that operate on methanol. The added benefit of fuel cell propulsion is that it is about twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine and less polluting. Very importantly, all of this can be achieved without changing the liquids based delivery system for motor fuels. We all still pull up to the pump and insert the same nozzle into the “gas tank.”

There is a parallel path that must be taken as well. We must reduce and ultimately eliminate coal as a power plant fuel. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission must facilitate a huge push back into nuclear power. More boldly, it must rekindle the breeder reactor program we abandoned in the 1980s in order to ensure we have enough power plant fuel to last into the future as far as we can see it.

Let’s look further down the road. It’s 2110 and we can see the end to the life of our fossil fuels. We have used them all and the date by which they will be gone can be estimated with a reasonable certainty. But we are prepared. We have the fuel cell. Not only is it propelling our motor vehicles efficiently but it had become a staple and a bulwark of the power plant industry, achieving twice the efficiencies of the power plants of a century earlier. And we have our nuclear infrastructure, both traditional light water and breeder reactors.

When the last drop of fossil fuel is gone, we will satisfy our need for electricity completely with nuclear power. And we will satisfy our needs for motor fuel with nuclear power as well. Every gasoline/methanol filling station of the 21st century will become a hydrogen generating station of the 22nd century. Electrolyzers will crack the hydrogen from water and compress it up for use in our hydrogen fuel cell based vehicles. And the only byproduct of hydrogen in a fuel cell is the production of water. Then we will have an endless, pollution free cycle to power us all. That is one alternative. The other potential is to use the abundant hydrogen we can make to chemically react with atmospheric carbon dioxide to make yet more methanol, but not from fossil fuels.

No matter what the future holds, we need an adaptable plan that ultimately puts our country on an energy cycle that is sustainable without fossil fuels. That, however, can only be achieved if our government institutes planning horizons that befit a country and not the time between its election cycles.

Energy: The Need vs. The Risk

“. . . one has to abandon altogether the search for security, and reach out to the risk of living with both arms. One has to embrace the world like a lover, and yet, demand no easy return of love. One has to accept pain as a condition of existence. One has to court doubt and darkness as the cost of knowing. One needs a will stubborn in conflict, but apt always to the total acceptance of every consequence of living and dying.”

Morris L. West, The Shoes of the Fisherman

The tragedy of the BP spill illuminates the risks we accept to satisfy our energy appetite. Hundreds of thousands of crude oil and natural gas wells (almost 500,000 gas wells in the U.S. alone) pump continuously. The world produces 72 Million daily barrels of crude oil. BP's Gulf spill has been estimated to be up to 60,000 barrels per day. In the scheme of world production, infinitesimal. In the dread of environmental damage and consequence, ostensibly infinite.

The risks do not end where crude oil emerges from the earth. That’s where risk begins. Risk in every facet of discovering, gathering, processing, storing, transporting and delivering energy.

Gasoline: The U.S. daily consumption is 360 Million gallons. Transported to nearly 118,000 filling stations by tanker truck, we give it not a first thought. We put that gasoline into 135 million passenger vehicles and transport it all over our country in our autos, consuming it.

Contemplate this:

• Billions of cubic feet of natural gas pumped through 300,000 miles of underground pipe each day.
• Billion tons of mined coal we transport and burn each year.
• Billions of tons of coal ash on the ground.
• Nuclear power, enriched uranium, its long storage and half life.
• Electricity above us in transmission lines, the largest carry 765,000 volts.
  

Risk is embedded in energy, whether we make the calculus or not. Why are we willing to accept these risks when the potential disasters are beyond our imagination, comprehension and calculation? We like the convenience our energy intensive world provides. We like the ability to fly to Tokyo today for a meeting tomorrow. We like our iphones, ipads, blackberrys, etc. We also accept that the risk is improbable.

Though painful, disasters are rare. Exxon Valdez was a disaster, yet we accept tankers, albeit now double-hulled, and safer. We accept trade-offs all the time. We risk flying because the convenience outweighs the infinitesimal risk. We risk an energy disaster because of its rarity. We accept environmental risks even though every form of energy we produce puts something bad, small though it may be, into the environment.

When a disaster occurs, we do not have to sit by and watch, stunned and perplexed. At an auto accident, first responders swing into action. Police, fire, EMTs and hazardous materials teams respond with all deliberate speed. They ask no questions about fault, how long it will take or who is going to pay for their response. They secure the roadway, put out the fire, tend to the injured and clean up the mess. They leave the questions and recriminations for later and others. We, the taxpayers, are perfectly willing to pay to have them ready at a moment's notice.

We should have a “SWAT” approach to oil spills. The industry should establish, fund, train, equip and deploy an international team of experts who will, with developed and proven methods, contain any gusher anywhere in the world——fast. Ultimately, consumers will pay for these “Hydrocarbon Emergency Responders” through higher prices. And that's fine, just as we are willing to pay for first responders to a highway accident.

Our government will propound strengthened laws, rules, regulations, practices, etc. to lower the already small probable risk of deep sea drilling. But "trust us" to get it right the next time is not the answer. Notwithstanding the rarity of a catastrophic event, we cannot eliminate it, no matter how good technology, rules and practices become. We accept that and the risks associated with energy as a technologically advanced society. That will not likely change because we are “. . . stubborn in conflict, but apt always to the total acceptance of every consequence of living and dying.”

Accept the consequence though we may, we cannot simply wait for the next catastrophe and allow the response to devolve to fortune and happenstance. Allowing the BP catastrophe to exist as a blip on the energy radar screen, chalked up as a bad experience, does not suffice. Out government’s response painfully demonstrates that there is no expertise in Washington.

Energy is a universal responsibility of the ordinary consumer, government bureaucrat, environmentalist and oil industry employee. Each of us, each stake holder, is responsible. Therefore, every one of us has accepted the risks associated with our gluttonous and growing appetite for energy. That growth is inexorable; it will not change easily and without the complete rethinking of energy policy (a subject for a different Op-Ed piece). Drilling for oil and natural gas is a brute force exercise. Although it is complex, it isn’t quantum physics. And although there is good science behind the advances in drilling technology, that science must be applied by good engineers with good engineering practices. Otherwise, how are we to entrust ourselves with more complex and riskier technologies that will emerge in the future, ultimately replacing fossil fuels.

“SWAT”——Special Weapons and Tactics——should, for oil and gas drilling, become “STTAT”——Special Teams, Tools and Tactics, a rapid response apparatus that world governments and the oil industry institute to suppress the next uncontrollable, deep sea gusher.