Government
Auto, oil industries join forces to study clean fuels Lois R. Ember, C&EN Washington
Three of the nation's largest automakers and 14 of its major oil refiners have joined ranks in an expensive study of alternative fuels and alternative-fueled cars and trucks. The two-phase study, their first ever cooperative venture, is a major effort to influence Congressional debate over how to control the seemingly intractable problem of urban ozone, especially in the nine most smog-ladened cities. President Bush's answer in his clean air proposal is to have the auto industry build and sell 500,000 alternative-fueled cars in those nine cities beginning in 1995, and to increase this to 1 million vehicles to be sold annually from 1997 on. Bush's proposal is not generally accepted as being fuel-neutral—it relies primarily on methanol as the alternative to gasoline. Methanol, the fuel of choice for Indianapolis 500 drivers, is a cleaner burning fuel, producing less hydrocarbon emissions than gasoline. It is less volatile than gasoline and thus less likely to contribute to smog through fugitive emissions at refueling stations or when a vehicle is idling. Because of more complete combustion and a higher octane rating, engines powered by methanol produce up to 20% more horsepower. But because of its molecular structure methanol yields only 60% as much energy per gallon as gasoline, meaning more refueling stops. Methanol is also highly corrosive, which means that fuel tanks have to be made of stainless steel and hoses have to be made of Teflon— or something equivalent—wrapped in stainless-steel mesh. Methanol has other major drawbacks. It burns with a colorless flame. Imbibed, it can cause blindness or even death and when burned it produces formaldehyde, a possible human carcinogen. For economic reasons neither the auto nor the oil industries wholly support the Bush proposal. The auto industry is not anxious to build vehicles powered solely by methanol or any other alternative fuel. But seeing the writing on the wall, the
industry for years has been developing flexible-fuel cars that can run on gasoline or methanol or blends of the two. For their part, oil refiners are hoping to devise a cleaner burning gasoline that can be produced in existing refineries. But until that happens the two industries are employing heavy lobbying to detour the Bush methanol bandwagon. Their wooing of the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Health & the Environment, plus disorganization within the Administration, has paid off. Recently the subcommittee voted to delete the alternative fuels proposal from the Bush package of Clean Air Act amendments. In its place the subcommittee substituted language calling on the automakers to certify that they "have the capacity to produce, distribute, and offer to sell" clean-fueled vehicles. In an odd alliance, ardent environmentalist and subcommittee chairman Henry A. Waxman (D.Calif.) for once found himself siding with the Administration. Pitted against them were full committee chairman John D. Dingell (D.-Mich.), who represents the Detroit automakers, and ranking subcommittee Republican Norman F. Lent of New York. Dingell and Lent also just happen to be the House sponsors of
Dingell: no mandate on vehicle sales
Waxman: backs Administration's plan President Bush's clean air bill H.R. 3030. The Senate has yet to address this issue and could vote to retain some language calling for cleaner fuels and clean-fuel cars and trucks. Waxman has already promised to push for a reinstatement of clean fuels and vehicles language on the House floor. Regrouping its efforts, the Administration has offered a new option to try to resurrect the mainstay of its ozone-fighting proposal. Instead of requiring that automakers sell 1 million alternative-fuel vehicles annually by 1997, the new requirement would have Detroit "offer" such vehicles for sale. Dingell has repeatedly said that there was no way the government could mandate the sale of alternative-fueled vehicles. Auto and oil industry officials realize that some type of alternative fuels requirement is likely to be part of a final clean air bill. Hence the rationale for their study. "We hope the results of our joint research will produce sufficient scientific data to enable government and the public to make the best possible decisions on the fuels and technologies needed to make further progress in improving air quality," says Joseph M. Colucci, cochairOctober 30, 1989 C&EN
17
Government man of the study and head of fuels and lubricants at General Motors Research Laboratories. The first phase of the study, which is to be completed by mid-1990, is a fact-finding task to determine the availability and pollution-cutting potential of reformulated gasoline (created by varying aromatics, olefins, oxygenate levels, and the quantity of components with higher boiling points), methanol, and ethanol added to reformulated gasoline. Industry officials estimate the cost of this phase at $11.3 million. Costs for the completed studies are to be shared equally by both industries. The second phase is scheduled to begin within a month or two and run through 1990. It will delve more closely into advanced, cleaner burning vehicles and fuels. There is no estimated cost for this phase of study. The goal of the two-part study is to "permit objective assessment of relative reductions in vehicle emissions and improvements in urban air quality, especially ozone, achievable with reformulated gasolines and with methanol fuels," says Keith McHenry, study cochairman and senior vice president of technology at Amoco. The first phase will test several methanol fuels used in prototype vehicles (some of which will be able to switch from gasoline to methanol), and reformulated gasolines used in 1983 to 1985, and 1989 cars. Using these various fuels, the study will analyze tailpipe, evaporative, and running losses (idling) emissions. The auto and oil industries would prefer to use reformulated gasolines because they can be produced in volume in existing refineries and can be used in existing or slightly modified cars and trucks. The methanol/gasoline mixture of 85% methanol to 15% gasoline to be tested can be used in flexible fuel vehicles that can run on methanol mixtures or straight gasoline. Specific chemical constituents of the various emissions will be characterized using gas chromatographic techniques. These data will be cranked into atmospheric-chemistry and air quality models to discern potential cuts in urban ozone. In 18
October 30, 1989 C&EN
A glance at the pros and cons of using methanol as fuel Methanol, or wood alcohol, is not the only possible alternative fuel to gasoline. But at the moment it appears to be the most promising substitute—at least to the Bush Administration. It is a liquid fuel and requires no pressurization. And it can be dispensed at filling stations at pumps similar to those delivering gasoline. Currently the U.S. chemical industry produces about 1.5 billion gal of methanol annually by extracting methane from natural gas and combining it with steam under high pressure and temperature. This output is almost entirely used by the chemical industry today. Methanol, of course, also can be made from coal, but at an environmental cost—much higher emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Methanol has its virtues and vices. It is safer, offers more horsepower, and generally is cleaner than gasoline. Cars powered by methanol are less likely to explode during a collision, a fact noted by Indianapolis 500 drivers
addition, cost /benefit relationships using the various fuels will be ascertained. Data from the first phase will be fed into the second phase, which is still being developed. This second tier of studies will test advanced methanol and reformulated gasoline fuels in vehicles of the future. Here the reformulated gasolines will require refinery changes and will be usable only in gasoline-powered prototype cars with sophisticated emission control systems. This second phase also may test compressed natural gas as an alternative fuel. Fuel blending will be done by Phillips Petroleum Co., a sponsor of the program. Test vehicles are to be purchased by the program. Some e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s have charged that the hidden agenda for these studies is to promote petroleum-based reformulated gasolines over alcohol or other alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas. McHenry vehemently disputes this. "The program has no bias as to which fuels are best for air quality." To ensure that the studies are biasfree, the industry consortium has
who have been using the fuel for years. Its more complete combustion and higher octane rating—105 compared with 87 to 93 for gasoline—permits an engine running on the fuel to produce more horsepower and significantly less ozone. According to Environmental Protection Agency figures, a gasoline engine powering a 3000-lb car with 50,000 miles on the odometer would produce 1.4 g per mile of ozoneproducing hydrocarbons. A methanolpowered engine would produce 0.15 g to 0.25 g per mile. A gasoline-powered engine produces the human carcinogen benzene. But a methanol-powered engme produces formaldehyde, a potential human cancer causing agent. Methanol also is highly corrosive and will eat through conventional aluminum fuel tanks and rubber hoses. A gallon of methanol produces less energy than a gallon of gasoline—about 4 0 % less. These facts translate to heavier and larger fuel tanks and/or more trips to the refueling station.
set up an advisory panel of researchers from academia who are experts in air quality, combustion/emissions, and statistics. Those who will peer review the program are John B. Heywood, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; John H. Seinfeld, California Institute of Technology; Robert F. Sawyer, University of California-Berkeley; J. Stuart Hunter, emeritus professor, Princeton University; and Jack Calver, National Center for Atmospheric Research. Appropriate government agencies are also being asked to advise and comment on the program and its findings. These include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Department, California Air Resources Board, and Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, among others. There are hints that methanol may not prove to be the panacea for cleaner vehicles and cleaner urban air the Bush Administration hoped for. The oil and auto industries are putting big bucks into a project they trust will produce top-notch science proving that reformulated gasolines are the fuels of the future. •
