Energy Security Four Decades After the Arab Oil Embargo

• The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973-74 focused our attention on energy security and set in motion drastic changes in the way we produce, trade and consume energy.
• With US energy output approaching or exceeding 1970s levels, some experts now advocate prioritizing competition from non-petroleum fuels over reducing oil imports.

Forty years ago this month the United States and other Western countries experienced a new phenomenon as an embargo on oil deliveries from a group of the world’s largest oil exporters took effect. The embargo was a response to the military support that the US and some of its allies were providing to Israel during the Yom Kippur War then underway in the Middle East. A recent session hosted by the US Energy Security Council commemorating these events included a fascinating conversation between Ted Koppel and Dr. James Schlesinger, US Secretary of Defense at the time of the embargo and later the first US Energy Secretary.

The other, related purpose of the meeting was a presentation and discussion on the proposition that fuel competition provides a surer means of achieving energy security than our pursuit of energy independence for the next four decades following the Arab Oil Embargo. This idea warrants serious consideration, since energy independence, at least in the sense of no net imports from outside North America, is finally beginning to appear achievable.

The 1973-74 embargo was the first oil shock of a tumultuous decade, and it triggered a true crisis. The US had relied on oil costing around $3 per barrel (bbl), not just to fuel our transportation system, but also for 17% of our electricity generation and numerous other uses. The US was then one of the world’s largest oil producers but required imports comprising about one-third of supply to balance our growing demand. With the sudden loss of over a million barrels per day of oil imports from the Middle East, and lacking the sort of strategic petroleum reserve that was established a few years later, an economy already battling inflation was tipped into recession.

The embargo rattled more than the US economy; it challenged basic assumptions of American life, including our sense of entitlement to cheap and plentiful gasoline. Before the oil crisis, gasoline prices hovered around the mid-30-cent mark, with occasional local “gas wars” taking the price down to the high-20s--the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $1.60 per gallon now. Of course with average fuel economy around 13 miles per gallon, the effective real cost per mile wasn’t necessarily lower than today’s.

Within a year gas was over 50¢ at the pump, and by the end of the decade it passed $1.00/gal. for the first time. The gas lines that resulted from the unexpected supply shortfall and the federal government’s efforts to limit the ensuing increase in prices were an affront to drivers, a category that encompassed most of the over-16 population.

That first oil crisis and the subsequent energy crisis resulting from the Iranian Revolution in 1979 set in motion a number of important changes, including a sharply increased focus on energy efficiency, a deliberate effort to diversify our sources of imported oil, a pronounced shift away from oil in power generation — to the point that it now makes up less than 1% of US power plant fuel — and the beginnings of our search for affordable, renewable alternatives to oil.

The US Energy Security Council is an impressive group that includes many former government officials and captains of industry. They’ve clearly spent a lot of time studying this issue, and their report is worth reading. As I understand their conclusions and recommendations, they regard high oil prices as a bigger risk to the US economy than oil imports, per se, because of the impact of oil prices on consumer spending and the balance of trade. They have concluded that the most effective way to apply downward pressure on prices is not simply to reduce US oil imports, but to introduce meaningful fuel competition into transportation markets, where oil remains dominant with a share of around 93%.

The group doesn’t dismiss the benefits of increasing US oil production from sources such as the Bakken, Eagle Ford and other shale formations, but because these are relatively high-cost supplies, they have concluded that their leverage on global oil prices is limited. That means that higher US oil output couldn’t provide a path back to the price levels that prevailed before the Iraq War, when West Texas Intermediate crude averaged $26/bbl in 2002 and gasoline retailed for $1.35/gal.

This is a reasonable argument, though it’s worth considering that a return to $75/bbl might be feasible, if US production kept rising. That could yield US retail gasoline prices around $2.75/gal., equating to $2.15 in 2002 dollars. This isn’t as far-fetched as it might seem, because the global oil price is determined not by the entire 90 million bbl/day of world supply and demand, but by the last few million bbl/day of incremental supply, demand, and inventory changes.

The Council’s view also appears to emphasize the direct impact of oil prices on consumer spending without recognizing that rising production and falling imports shield the economy as a whole from the worst effects of high oil prices. With oil’s contribution to the trade deficit shrinking steadily, the main impact of higher oil prices is to divert money from consumers to shareholders of oil companies — of which I should disclose I am one. While exacerbating income inequality, that should at least result in a smaller impact on GDP and employment than the combination of rising oil prices and rising imports.

If the discussion had stopped at that point, the meeting would have been just another interesting Washington gabfest. However, the group’s analysis includes a set of actions it has identified as necessary for achieving their desired outcome: US energy security extending beyond the current US oil boom, underpinned by an expanding unconventional gas revolution that is widely expected to last for decades.

Their recommendations include giving fuels like methanol derived mainly from natural gas the chance to compete with gasoline made from oil, and with biofuels.They would start with revisions to the current US Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to give carmakers incentives — not cash subsidies or mandates — to make at least half of all new vehicles fully fuel-flexible, capable of tolerating a wide range of blends of methanol, ethanol and gasoline. That seems like a no-regrets approach that could be achieved at a very low incremental cost per car. Even if you never bought a gallon of E85, M85, or M15, it could pay for itself by protecting your car from the damage that might result if you inadvertently filled up with gasoline containing more than the 10% of ethanol that carmakers believe is safe for non-flex-fuel cars. Other recommendations include easing regulations for retrofitting existing cars for flex-fuel and forming an alcohol-fuels alliance with China and Brazil.

Yet while I repeatedly heard that the group wasn’t promoting any single fuel, talk of methanol dominated the conversation. The moderator, Ann Korin, even joked that the session sounded like an “alcohol party.” As I later pointed out to her, there wasn’t a single mention of drop-in fuels — gasoline and diesel lookalikes derived from natural gas or biomass. I regard that as a crucial omission, because such fuels would be fully compatible with the billion cars already on the road, rather than just the 60 million or so new cars produced each year. They could provide greater leverage on oil prices by producing pipeline-ready products with which consumers are already familiar, from sources other than crude oil.

Part of the appeal of methanol seemed to be the potential for producing it from shale gas at a cost well below the cost of gasoline, even on an energy-equivalent basis — an important caveat, because a gallon of methanol contains half the energy of a gallon of gasoline. I hear the same argument in support of various pathways for producing jet fuel from non-oil sources, and it subscribes to the same fallacy: that market prices are set by manufacturing costs rather than supply and demand.

Fuel is a volume game. For a non-oil gasoline substitute to drive down oil prices –and thus motor fuel prices– as far as the Council apparently envisions, it would take at least several million barrels per day, on an oil-equivalent basis. Producing six million bbl/day of methanol from natural gas would consume 20 billion cubic feet per day of it. That’s 30% of last year’s US dry natural gas production, requiring 100% of the Energy Information Administration’s forecasted growth of US natural gas production through 2034. A number of other entities have their eyes on that same gas for other applications.

As many of the speakers at the Energy Security Council event reminded us, the world is a very different place than it was in 1973. Among other changes, US energy trends are headed in the right direction, with oil demand flat or declining, production rising and imports falling. That alone makes us more energy secure than we were, either five years ago or in 1972. Future oil supply disruptions are also unlikely to look much like the Arab Oil Embargo.

The Council is certainly correct that our unexpected shale gas bonanza, producing large quantities of new energy at a price equivalent to oil at $25 or less per barrel, provides a unique opportunity to weaken OPEC’s influence on oil prices. In pursuing that goal, however, it’s essential to remain flexible concerning the best pathways for gas to compete in transportation fuel markets, whether as CNG or LNG, or through conversion to electricity, methanol, or petroleum-product lookalikes. Consumer acceptance could prove to be the biggest uncertainty governing the ultimate outcome.

A different version of this posting was previously published on Energy Trends Insider. 

Ex-Shell Chief Hofmeister Promotes US Fuel Diversity

Alternative fuels have lost some of their luster in the US, lately, for understandable reasons.  Oil production here is booming based on shale resources that keep expanding, while the market for ethanol, our most successful alternative fuel, has stalled at the long-anticipated "blend wall", resulting in ethanol plant closures and bankruptcy filings.  More advanced cellulosic biofuel is still only available in minute quantities, and last year's sales of electric vehicles will displace less than 24 million gallons per year of gasoline--around 0.02% of US gasoline demand.  With all this in mind, it seemed like an excellent time to speak with former Shell Oil Company President John Hofmeister, who recently joined the advisory board of the Fuel Freedom Foundation, a group dedicated to expanding fuel diversity. 

I don't conduct many interviews for Energy Outlook, but I wouldn't have missed the opportunity to discuss energy with Mr. Hofmeister.  Given the focus of Fuel Freedom Foundation, which arranged the call, I started by asking him what kind of changes he expects in the US fuel mix over the next 10 years.  Mr. Hofmeister replied that his outreach efforts at Fuel Freedom, together with Citizens for Affordable Energy, which he founded after retiring as head of Shell's US operations, are intended to "make sure something has changed 10 years out. Left to our own devices, not much will change."  With plans and "enablers of change" from government, he sees an opportunity to "transform the nation in 10 years." He went on to describe what that transformation might include, in the form of further decreases in our dependence on imported oil and more "inward investment".  He also clarified that he includes domestic oil in his list of alternatives. 

When I asked him about the barriers impeding the fuel diversity that he advocates, he immediately mentioned the interest groups that spring up, pro and con, whether concerning oil, natural gas, the lifecycle and materials for advanced vehicle batteries, or infrastructure for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.  He would like to see federal and state governments enable change and "tell the interest groups to back off."  He observed that despite the shale revolution, "we still rely on imports and can't agree on creating new markets for natural gas" or to build the Keystone XL pipeline.  These disagreements stifle development. Together with federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing, this results in "government as disabler", not enabler of change.

We had a lively conversation about some of the specific fuels that would make up the more diverse mix Mr. Hofmeister would like to see in the marketplace, such as methanol, ethanol, natural gas and electricity.  I expressed some of my own concerns about the energy-equivalent cost of methanol and the safety risks involved in its use on the service station forecourt.  He replied that with expanded supply based on abundant US natural gas, the price of methanol could fall significantly from today's level of $1.60/gal. (equivalent to wholesale gasoline at $3.25/gal.)  That's certainly conceivable, because at a typical 70% conversion efficiency, the natural gas feedstock to produce a gallon of methanol would only cost about $0.37 at recent industrial gas prices.  He also envisioned fuels like this being dispensed in a closed system, to maximize safety.

We discussed natural gas as a bridge fuel for vehicles and whether it might be hard to get off this bridge, later.  In response he pointed to what he called the "EV lifestyle"--the improved convenience and driveability already experienced by EV owners who don't need extended driving ranges--and seemed to agree with my own view of electrification as  a given in the long-run.  He also suggested that this transition could be promoted by a coherent and comprehensive plan.  Earlier, he had pointed out that the administration's "all of the above" approach was just a concept, not a plan, because it lacks the targets, milestones and accountability necessary for a real plan--a point on which an ex-CEO and current strategist were bound to agree.

I couldn't end the interview without asking Mr. Hofmeister whether the tremendous recent turnaround in US oil production had led him to alter his idea, expressed in various talks and in his book, "Why We Hate the Oil Companies," for the US to establish an energy equivalent of the Federal Reserve Bank.  "I'm convinced it's the way to go," he said. "There's too much politics in energy policy now." He believes an "Energy Reserve Board" would stimulate the economy with investments focused on short, medium and long-term goals.  "What energy needs is consistency."

My half-hour conversation with him validated my view that John Hofmeister isn't your typical oil guy.  His ideas are grounded in the scale and complexity of the energy industry, but not bound by its conventional wisdom.  Although I didn't agree with all of them--particularly concerning the degree of government intervention necessary--his responses to my questions were forthright and reflected long and careful analysis, along with a strong sense of the benefits available to the US from a more rational and planned approach to our national energy endowment and opportunities.

Breaking Oil's Monopoly on Transportation

I've been thinking about an op-ed in Tuesday's New York Times written by a former National Security Advisor and a former CIA chief. They propose breaking oil's monopoly on transportation fuels by introducing more fuel competition at the point of use. This isn't a new idea, nor is their preferred tactic of requiring all vehicles sold in the US to be flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) capable of running on a variety of fuels. I looked at this in April, following another op-ed by Mr. Woolsey, and several times previously in conjunction with the Open Fuel Standards Act, a piece of unpassed--so far as I know--federal legislation designed to put such competition into effect. The idea is as interesting as it has always been, though several trends pose new challenges for its ultimate success.

The op-ed was apparently timed to mark the introduction of a new group called the United States Energy Security Council, the membership of which constitutes a who's who of national security and energy leaders. The Council's issue statement is worth a read and stands apart from some other similarly-well-intended efforts for its clear recognition that our energy security problem with oil has nearly nothing to do with electricity, and thus won't lend itself to leverage from renewable electricity sources until large numbers of electric vehicles are on the road. That could take decades, as I've noted elsewhere. However, I wish the group had spent more time pondering the source of oil's natural monopoly in transportation energy, because I think it might have given them pause concerning methanol, one of the competing fuels they're trying to promote.

The sources of that natural monopoly--the reasons oil continues to dominate the transportation energy market 93 years after the introduction of the Model T Ford--owe little to the market power of OPEC, and much to the energy density and convenience of storage, transportation and distribution of petroleum products. Making fuels like E85 ethanol and methanol as readily available as gasoline, and making cars as compatible with them as they are with unleaded gasoline, won't affect the miles per gallon and range advantage that gasoline enjoys. That advantage is especially evident relative to methanol, which packs just under half the BTUs per gallon in gasoline.

Even though the abundance of shale gas could conceivably alter the economics of fuel methanol enough to put it into serious competition with gasoline, it would face an even more serious marketing challenge than E85, with its smaller but still significant range and mpg penalties, and its miles-per-dollar penalty that could expand significantly when the ethanol blenders credit expires at the end of the year--or sooner. Without substantial engine modifications to take advantage of methanol's other properties--modifications that wouldn't be compatible with fuel flexibility, as I understand it--both mpg and range would reflect a similar ratio as energy content. And unless methanol (with all appropriate federal, state and local motor fuel taxes applied) could be delivered to your corner gas station at less than half the cost of gasoline, then not only would its range be inferior, but also the miles delivered per dollar spent. Consumers tend to notice such things after a while. And that is aside from my long-standing concerns about the mass-market use of methanol.

The group's focus on alcohol-based fuels also goes against another recent trend in the biofuels industry towards what are called drop-in fuels: fuels that despite their non-petroleum origins are 100% compatible with engines designed to run on petroleum products. Despite all the hype about cellulosic ethanol, it is looking increasingly likely that the main fuels we will get from non-food biomass could closely resemble today's gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. And drop-in fuels don't require vehicles to be modified as FFVs.

When viewed from a technical perspective, I don't find the Council's arguments for mandating FFVs especially persuasive. However, I think there's a more compelling argument to be made, relying on option value. If it costs $100 to modify a car to run on other fuels besides gasoline, then that investment would still have value even if in practice the car's owner never actually bought those fuels, as has been the case with the vast majority of the cars already capable of using E85. The option still has value because it provides an insurance policy against some future circumstance in which the only fuels available (or affordable) are non-petroleum ones, for whatever reason: an oil embargo, peak oil, pipeline failure, or some weather-related catastrophe, take your pick. That kind of competition for oil doesn't even require large sales of non-petroleum fuels before having an impact in the market. The key question is whether it's worth enough to us as a society to require the collective expenditure of roughly $1.2 billion a year (adapting all new cars) or up to $24 billion (retrofitting the entire light-duty vehicle fleet) to force it to happen, as opposed to leaving this as the consumer and manufacturer choice that it is today.

Ammonia As An Alternative Fuel?

In the last seven years I've written extensively about a wide variety of alternative fuels, including ethanol, methanol, and higher alcohols like butanol, along with compressed and liquefied natural gas (CNG and LNG), hydrogen, and electricity, but I find I haven't said anything about anhydrous ammonia. It turns out that there is a small but enthusiastic group of people promoting its use as an alternative fuel, going back to at least the 1940s. Much of the recent interest in this stems from the fact that ammonia releases little or no greenhouse gas when burned, and that it's possible to produce it by means that involve minimal GHG emissions throughout its lifecycle. However, when you dig into this a little deeper, you discover that almost all ammonia today is produced by the Haber process, using hydrogen sourced from natural gas. And if that weren't enough of a deterrent, the physical properties of ammonia render it an unattractive candidate for a mass-market fuel.

So-called "green ammonia" would avoid natural gas by substituting hydrogen from electrolysis using wind, solar or other renewable electricity. As long as natural gas remains abundant, it's hard to envision this growing beyond a small niche, because the price of ammonia will ultimately be set by the price of natural gas, which remains a cheaper source of hydrogen than electricity from any source, let alone from expensive renewable power sources. Moreover, electricity is fungible, and the best use of renewable or other low-emission power (e.g., nuclear) is probably in backing out power from higher-emitting sources, rather than diverting it into inefficient production of chemicals. As a result green ammonia, like green power, would require subsidies for at least the near-to-medium term if it is to compete with conventional ammonia, which seems like a crucial prerequisite for competing with conventional fuels. And without green ammonia, the whole rationale for an ammonia fuel-and-vehicle network looks questionable--why not just use the gas as CNG or LNG instead, with a fraction of the headaches?

Even if that weren't the case, ammonia faces serious obstacles as a consumer fuel, compared to either conventional fuels or to many other alternatives. Start with energy density, which is less than half that of gasoline by weight, and about 40% by volume. So a gallon of ammonia would only take you about 40% as far as a gallon of gas, even if you could burn pure ammonia in your engine--and from what I've read it still requires help from another fuel to sustain combustion. (That means two fuel tanks, which constitutes another major hurdle with consumers.)

Then there are the economics. Ammonia itself isn't exactly cheap, if you adjust for its energy content. The price of bulk ammonia for agricultural use appears to be around $550-$600/ton, which equates to $1.55-1.70/gal. But when you factor in its lower energy density, that raises it to at least $3.85/gal. of gasoline equivalent, without any fuel taxes. And while a distribution system exists to supply farms with ammonia, this is a long way from what would be required to fuel anything beyond farm vehicles. Because ammonia boils well below ambient temperature, it must either be refrigerated or stored under pressure, and dispensed through special equipment. And if all that weren't daunting enough for any service station owner considering adding an ammonia pump on the forecourt, the safety aspects of ammonia handling look even worse.

A glance at a typical material safety data sheet (MSDS) for anhydrous ammonia reveals that the recommended exposure limits are very low, under 50 parts per million in air, and the consequences of exposure include caustic burns and much more serious outcomes. Gasoline has its own issues, but spilling some on your hand won't send you to the hospital, and a larger spill or leak doesn't require first responders in hazmat suits. I simply can't imagine any fuel retailer wanting to take on the liabilities that would go along with this, even if there were an attractive margin in it, which there doesn't appear to be.

I concluded long ago that we're heading into a period of much greater fuel diversity, and that certainly seems to be true, with LNG catching on for big-rig trucks and CNG for a few cars but more fleet vehicles and buses, and even hydrogen appearing in a few places for fuel cell vehicles. However, it's very hard to imagine a substance with as many drawbacks as ammonia coming into wide use for consumers or even fleets. Our range of alternative fuel options seems sufficiently broad already, without having to consider a fuel that turns into a poison gas at atmospheric pressure and temperature.

"Over a Barrel" - Part II

Picking up where I left off in Friday's posting addressing the issues raised by ABC's recent "Over a Barrel" report, concerning what Americans ought to know about oil, let's turn to the products that we get from it. Over the course of a century and a half of production--this month marks the sesquicentennial of Drake's well--petroleum has provided us with a cornucopia of fuels, lubricants, and raw materials for industry, many of which grew out of the search for substitutes for other, scarcer commodities or the availability of low-value byproducts from earlier, less-sophisticated refining techniques. In recent years, however, we've acquired a greater awareness of oil's adverse consequences, and it has attracted its first serious competition in many decades in its primary transportation fuels market.

The gasoline we put in our cars, the diesel that fuels trucks and buses and heats many homes, especially in the Northeast, and the jet fuel we can sometimes smell when the plane on which we're traveling has just refueled together accounted for 74% of the 19.5 million barrels per day of petroleum products consumed in the US last year. Throw in propane, lubricants, asphalt, petrochemical feedstocks and solvents, and you're up to around 90%, with most of the remainder coming out as heavy fuel oil for ships, petroleum coke (a solid, coal-like fuel,) and the fuel used by refineries in their processing. The average US refinery is 90% efficient, meaning that 90% of the energy that goes into it comes out in the products it sells, while the other 10% is consumed along the way. Greenhouse gas emissions follow a similar pattern, with the majority occurring not during processing but in the subsequent use of the products.

That's a crucial factor in the effort to reduce emissions. In the recent estimate of last year's US CO2 emissions, nearly 80% of oil's 42% share of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels came from the combustion of transportation fuels. That means that by far the largest opportunities to reduce emissions from oil are associated with vehicle efficiency, not changes in refinery processes, which are already quite efficient. So while reducing direct refinery emissions by 1/3 would only cut total oil-related emissions by about 3%, increasing the efficiency of cars, trucks and planes by 1/3 would reduce those emissions by 26%. That is a realistic possibility, because most of our vehicles use these fuels so inefficiently. Although we can't easily reduce the 20 lb. of CO2 emitted from the combustion of each gallon of gasoline, we can certainly reduce the number of gallons we burn per mile.

If you asked most people why gasoline has been such a successful fuel for the last century, you'd get a variety of answers, including some entertaining conspiracy theories, but relatively few would zero in on the fuel's remarkable capacity to deliver lots of energy in a compact and easily portable form. Every gallon of E10 gasoline (10% ethanol blend) you put into your car carries roughly 110,000 BTUs, compared to 82,000 BTUs for the E85 ethanol/gasoline blend, or 66,000 BTUs for an 85% methanol/gasoline blend. Those extra BTUs translate into range and convenience, even though the typical internal combustion engine vehicle throws away roughly 80% of them as waste heat and other losses. That's why there's such a big opportunity for hybrids, advanced engines and transmissions, and other technologies to improve the fuel economy of most cars, if consumers are willing to pay the higher up-front costs. It's sobering to think that the advanced battery pack for GM's highly-anticipated Volt plug-in hybrid will hold the energy equivalent of just a half-gallon of gasoline, though the car's electric motor will use that energy much more efficiently than an internal combustion engine would.

So what are you buying when you fill up at the pump? If you watched "Over a Barrel", you probably got the impression that you are paying for an entirely generic fuel, a moderate slice of taxes and dealer margin, and a whole bunch of advertising and other marketing expenses. That's misleading on a couple of levels. It's true that the basic fuel is indeed generic--"fungible" in industry parlance--for the very good reason that this facilitates efficient pipeline shipment and inter-company purchases and exchanges to cover refinery problems and demand fluctuations, while reducing bulk transportation costs. However, there are real differences in the additives injected when the tank truck picks up a load of fuel at the distribution terminal, when the fuel becomes some company's branded product. If you own a newer car with a sophisticated engine, spending a little more to get a major oil company's additive package could pay off in better performance and reduced maintenance costs down the line.

But while the company from which you buy your gas might not have refined every gallon themselves, they must still stand behind it, and in my estimation that's the most important extra you're paying for. If you get a tank of bad gas or one blended with 20% ethanol instead of 10% and need to have your car's entire fuel system rebuilt, you stand a much better chance of getting compensated for the repair by a major gasoline brand than an independent or discount station. I consider myself fairly thrifty, but that's worth an extra 5-10 cents per gallon to me. I'll admit to a bias against buying gas from even a big supermarket chain for the same reason.

Finally, in terms of competition, it's ironic that the most viable competitor to gasoline at the moment is another petroleum product, diesel, which has captured half the new-car market in Europe and is getting a closer look here, thanks to some new technology. While biofuels hold great promise, they are still only available in relatively modest quantities, as explained in Friday's posting, and more as "hamburger helper" for traditional fuels than as fully independent alternatives to oil. While ethanol advocates would doubtless take issue with the characterization of E85 as a failure, so far, its sales have probably been hampered more by its poor value proposition--offering fewer miles per dollar than conventional fuels--than by infrastructure constraints and limited numbers of flexible fuel vehicles. In the long run, electricity looks like the strongest challenger, assuming battery prices come down and mainstream consumers find the trade-offs involved in recharging in hours rather than refueling in a few minutes acceptable.

If "Over a Barrel" accurately reflected Americans' frustration at being dependent on a commodity they feel they no longer control, it also highlighted oil's continuing indispensability. Petroleum and its products aren't about to disappear any time soon, though their dominance is starting to slip. From all indications, US oil demand has peaked, and the industry's remaining growth prospects are centered on developing Asia. The pressure to reduce oil consumption in developed countries is growing, and alternatives that were once dismissed will soon erode oil's share of the transportation energy market. However, absent a technology breakthrough, that transition seems likely to stretch out for decades, and it's a virtual certainty that the economics and geopolitics of oil will continue to frustrate us for many years to come.

The Wrong Flex-Fuel

An article in today's Wall St. Journal highlighted another of the more obscure provisions of the mammoth climate bill recently passed by the House of Representatives. The section in question relates to the "Open Fuel Standard", which would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to require auto makers in the US to build a specified proportion of "fuel choice-enabling automobiles", including flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) that can run on fuel blends containing a high percentage of methanol, as well as the more common E85 ethanol blend. This harkens back to previous efforts to launch methanol as a consumer fuel. Fortunately, those failed to gain traction, and we should hope that continues to be the case. Methanol makes a fine racing fuel but is entirely unsuited for mass market application.

I'm perplexed why one member of Congress would be quoted as saying he wouldn't have supported the Waxman-Markey bill without its methanol provision. A simpler alcohol than ethanol, methanol is produced mainly from natural gas, rather than from biomass, and it is a common industrial chemical. Because its economics depend on low-priced sources of natural gas, much of the world's methanol is produced in the Middle East, and some plants in North America have closed. It's not clear that increased US methanol demand would be met by either domestic or non-hydrocarbon sources, so its efficacy in addressing either energy security or climate change looks questionable. That's just as well, because methanol offers an inferior way to deliver energy to vehicles, even compared to ethanol, and its toxicity makes it a poor choice for a consumer fuel.

Start with the energy side of these drawbacks. Turning natural gas into methanol consumes around 1/3 of the energy content of the gas, similar to producing hydrogen from natural gas. As with H2, there's no way to recover those losses when burning methanol in an internal combustion engine, so while direct emissions might be lower, indirect emissions negate most of that benefit. We'd be much better off just putting the natural gas directly into cars. Then there's fuel economy. Even after you modify a car to run on a 50% (M50) or 85% blend (M85) of methanol and gasoline, you can't compensate for its lower energy content without precluding operation on ordinary gasoline. While a car running on E85 typically uses 40% more fuel per mile than on gasoline, you'd need 75% more M85 to go the same distance, because methanol's energy content is 25% less than ethanol's and less than half that of petroleum gasoline. So a Ford Fusion FFV that gets a combined 21 city/highway mpg on gasoline and 15 mpg on E85 would deliver a paltry 12 mpg on M85. Even with the car's generous 17.5 gallon fuel tank, its range on M85 would be barely 200 miles.

As if these practical considerations weren't a sufficient disqualification, methanol's handling risks ought to put it out of the running for our future fuel mix. The basic problem is that, unlike gasoline or ethanol, methanol is a neurotoxin. Ingesting even a small quantity can lead to blindness or death, as described in the Material Safety Data Sheet from Methanex, one the world's largest methanol producers. Its vapors aren't much safer, and it can even be absorbed though the skin. These properties create serious concerns for both bulk handling and at the point of sale. Gasoline is hardly as safe as water, but at least if you spill some on your hand, you don't need to be hospitalized. While methanol can be handled safely by trained personnel in industrial facilities and storage terminals, that doesn't extend to the gas station forecourt, where it would pose a hazard to both customers and employees.

Consumers have rejected methanol fuel before, and I am pretty confident they'll do so again, but possibly not before the government imposes another expensive mandate on an automobile industry that surely doesn't need such distractions. The inclusion of this half-baked idea in the House climate bill is a further indictment of its managers' approach of garnering votes one special interest at a time. The Senate has an opportunity to avoid this trap by stripping out all these extraneous provisions and sending a bill to the eventual House/Senate conference committee that focuses squarely on reducing emissions without making concessions to every member's pet idea.

Multiple Choice Process

This morning's email included a link to a Business Week article about a slate of new, non-traditional ethanol projects, including several based on the gasification of biomass. One of the great things about gasification is its ability to handle a wide variety of feedstocks, extending beyond oil, coke and coal to include, in this case, yard waste, wood chips and citrus peels. Although the article isn't very clear in describing the path from feed to gasification to end product, it suggests that some of these projects will gasify biomass to make hydrogen, ethanol and methanol. This has me scratching my head, because once you have the synthesis gas, or "syngas", that a gasifier produces, you can make essentially any hydrocarbon you want, particularly the long, straight-chain hydrocarbons of diesel fuel. Why use this expensive process to make challenging and problematic fuels, instead of one that is 100% compatible with current energy systems?

One of the biggest problems plaguing alternative fuels is infrastructure and end-use compatibility. Ethanol cannot be shipped through petroleum products pipelines, so it gets to market via costlier truck, rail and barge routes. Methanol faces similar constraints, and is a neurotoxin, as well. The logistical challenges facing hydrogen are even more daunting. Then, once these fuels reach a retail facility, the only current option for their use is in specially modified gasoline engines--or in the case of ethanol in low-volume blends with gasoline, in which the lower energy content of ethanol reduces fuel economy and vehicle range. This hardly sounds like the way to maximize the energy benefit of biomass.

Synthetic diesel fuel is another story. Compression ignition engines are typically 30% more efficient than the spark-ignition ones used with gasoline, and the properties of ultra-clean diesel from the Fischer-Tropsh synthesis process allow them to run optimally, with lower pollution than from petroleum diesel. If European-style diesel cars, with state-of-the-art particulate cleanup technology, take off in the US, demand for this kind of fuel will grow rapidly. It would also blend nicely with biodiesel, which still can't be used year-round in many northern markets, because of its poor low-temperature properties.

In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, since every carbon atom in the biomass gasification feed will ultimately result in a molecule of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere--without sequestration at the gasifier--the differences in overall emissions for the various fuel options described above depend on the efficiency of transportation and end use. Diesel handily beats hydrogen and alcohols on both counts, unless the hydrogen is feeding a fuel cell. All of this suggests that we may need to rethink our definition of biofuels to encompass any fuel from biological sources, not just those that chemically resemble current-generation biofuels, such as ethanol from corn or cane.

Biomass-to-diesel looks like a promising way to tap the environmental and energy security benefits of biofuel, even though its product is hard to distinguish from diesel made from non-renewable feedstocks. However, before climbing on the "BTL" bandwagon, we should withhold judgment until some of these plants have been built and run for a while. The solids-handling end of the gasification business can be tricky, particularly when dealing with material of inconsistent quality and characteristics. That could turn out to be a much bigger challenge for biomass gasification than the molecular engineering process that sits on the back end of these facilities, but which has been proven in over 80 years of application to oil and coal.