January/February 2004

  

Can we have an inexhaustible, environmentally clean, locally produced source of vehicle fuel one day? The argument for creating this future, if it is possible, is compelling. It includes slowing or stopping global warming, reducing pollution, preparing for the day when fossil fuels are all used up and avoiding wars and international tensions over control of remaining supplies of oil. 

Perhaps you don't connect the US war in Iraq, with its huge human, environmental and strategic costs, with driving your car. 

Consider this: at the end of 1999, OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) countries accounted for 77.8 percent of worldwide oil reserves , according to OPEC's website ( www.opec.org ). The major portion (90 percent) of that oil is under the ground in seven Arab countries, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Libya and Qatar (listed in order of the quantities of their petroleum reserves). The US currently imports one-seventh of its oil from Arab OPEC countries. If oil is our energy future, it sits in the hands of seven politically unstable Arab countries, whose citizens are currently almost unanimously anti-American. Perhaps we can avoid this scenario . 

To help us answer the question, "Can alternative fuels eventually replace petroleum fuels," we spoke with David Green, PhD, a corporate fellow at Oak Ridge National Labs in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. He specializes in transportation energy policy analysis. A good part of his work has to do with fuel economy, fuel economy standards and pricing policies to improve fuel economy. He also researches alternative fuels. His project is run by U T-Battelle, a consortium of the University of Tennessee and Battelle Memorial Institute, and is housed within the US government funded Oak Ridge National Labs.

Green told Nexus, "Some claim it is possible (to replace our reliance on using petroleum in vehicles with alternative fuels). But the problem is the quantity of land required. If we displaced 10 to 20 percent of our current transportation energy use with alternative fuels we would start to compete seriously with other land uses, such as food production. I am not saying we shouldn't pursue alternative fuel production, just that we can't rely on it completely." He predicted a future that blends the use of cleaner fossil fuels in more efficient engines with increasing reliance on alternative fuels as technology progresses. To create the best possible energy future, Green suggests that we:

. Speed up research on production of ethanol (alcohol, currently mixed with all gasoline in Colorado during the high-pollution winter months) from cellulose (plant fibers) instead of the way it is now being produced, which is from corn. 

Advantages : Cellulose is preferable because its conversion into ethanol gives off  no carbon, whereas ethanol production from corn produces lots of carbon; in fact, it produces 70 percent of the carbon that is produced by gasoline and diesel production. Further, farms that produce cellulose-rich crops require much less energy, fertilizer and other agricultural chemicals than do farms producing corn, resulting in less pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. 
Problem: The corn states (Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska, Illinois, South Dakota, etc.) want us to keep using corn for making ethanol. Also, no plant has been built that produces ethanol from cellulose, although several organizations have said they would build one. 

. Speed up production of bio-diesel from all sources, soybeans, oil-rich seeds and nuts (like sunflower seeds), used cooking oil and waste animal fats. 

Advantages: Reduction of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide emissions by 100 percent, and other important reductions in pollutants. Can be "home-brewed" or made in small-batches, simplifying collection of raw ingredients, such as used cooking oils. 
Problem: Can potentially replace only about 10 percent of our current transportation fuel use because wide-scale production would require so much land. 

. Speed up research into fuel cells and hydrogen production and distribution. Hydrogen is currently made mostly from natural gas, but could be made from a variety of biomass (plant-based) sources, as well fro m water by breaking it down into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity or very high heat. The electricity for this process could be derived from solar or wind energy. 

Advantages: Hydrogen can potentially be made in larger quantities than ethanol or bio-diesel. It can be nonpolluting (depending on source materials used) and doesn't contribute to global warming. 
Problems: Currently un-economical because it is costly to produce and distribute. Wide-scale conversion to hydrogen would require an expensive new infrastructure. Current projections show distribution costs exceeding production costs. We need a number of new technological advancements to be able to use hydrogen economically. 

. Continue developing more efficient engines, cleaner burning fuels, and lighter vehicles. 

Advantages: It reduces our use of fossil fuels comp a red to other scenarios, reducing carbon emissions and other pollutants. It uses the existing infrastructure for production and distribution. Plus efficient vehicles are already being sold: Ford produces a "PZEV" car, meaning "partial zero-emission vehicle," and currently sells it in New York, Vermont, Massachusetts and California (a Ford Focus with a PZEV engine will soon be available in Colorado). Toyota's new Prius hybrid also meet PZEV standards. In California, other PZEV cars are available now: the Honda Accord, Toyota Camry and BMW 325. And we a l ready know how to make "squeaky clean" fuels from petroleum and natural gas, at somewhat greater cost  than fuels we use now. 
Problems: "A huge social policy problem getting there," Green says. Part of this is resistance from automobile manufacturers.

 . Develop production of vehicle fuels from unconventional fossil fuels, which are coal, shale oil, oil sands, tar sands and heavy oil. 

Advantages: Global reserves of these fossil fuels could supply our needs for one hundred to two hundred years. Canada says they have as much oil sand reserves as Saudi Arabia has oil reserves. This option uses the existing infrastructure. It is already happening: Canada and Venezuela are producing fuels at competitive prices from these sources now. 
Problems: Extracting unconventional fossil fuels from the ground and turning it into motor fuel will be environmentally costly: in gaping strip mines and temporary mining towns in remote are a in polluted water, and in carbon dioxide emissions. These problems are somewhat manageable, accept for carbon emissions. 

Green thinks global warming that's a result of carbon dioxide accumulation in our atmosphere could be a serious problem. If global warming is even somewhat likely to cause dire impacts, like displacement of millions of people, as many scientists think it will, we should, Green says, slow down creation of a future that continues to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That's what our current course of using up petroleum and developing unconventional fossil fuels does. Slowing down may give us time to develop clean alternative fuels. To ward that end our government needs to start making significant changes and needs to spend more on research to solve this problem. 

"I am neither a disaster person nor a rose-colored glasses person," says Green. But, he says, "I think we are creating some serious problems for ourselves going down this path of  more and more fossil fuels." 

Additional resources for this story included The Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colorado (www.rmi.org ), Electric Vehicle World's website, www.EVWorld.com, and Ford Motor Company's website, www.ford.com.