ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Is alcohol the energy answer?

Posted: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:10 PM by Alan Boyle


DaimlerChrysler file
Daimler's NECAR 5 prototype gets a methanol fill-up
during a cross-country test drive in 2002. The
methanol powered a hydrogen fuel cell on the
experimental vehicle.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to free America from the grip of high-priced oil imports. Or does it?

Rocket scientist Robert Zubrin lays out the case for an alcohol-based fuel economy in a new book titled "Energy Victory" – and although ethanol is the best-known alcohol replacement for gasoline, Zubrin focuses on a different brew called methanol, also known as wood alcohol.

The concept behind “Energy Victory” is to go after energy independence as a means to cut off the flow of money through the Middle East to terrorists – and that concept surfaced just a few days ago in the presidential campaign, courtesy of GOP hopeful Mike Huckabee.

"Every time we put our credit card in the gas pump, we're paying so that the Saudis get rich - filthy, obscenely rich, and that money then ends up going to funding madrassas" - religious schools "that train the terrorists," Huckabee said last weekend on CNN.

As a result, American money ends up financing both sides in the war on terror, Huckabee argued - and that's why he says it's imperative to move to energy independence within the next decade.

That argument gets a thorough airing in "Energy Victory."

"The world economy is currently running on a resource that is controlled by our enemies," Zubrin declares on the first page. "This threatens to leave us prostrate. It must change - and the good news is that it can change, quickly."

I'm inclined to jump over the politics of the argument for a couple of reasons: First, the calculus involved in Middle East relations is incredibly complex, as evidenced by today's news about a Saudi anti-terror crackdown and progress on the peace front. Second, you don't have to use fighting words to convince me that energy independence and alternative fuels are very good things. But how easily and how quickly can things change?

Here's where the rocket-scientist background plays a part.

"I was actually a nuclear engineer before I became a rocket scientist, and was well-acquainted with energy policy" said Zubrin, who's best-known nowadays as the president of the Mars Society. "And furthermore, the work that I did relating to Mars taught me a lot about fuel synthesis. It became apparent to me that the Bush administration's hydrogen policy was completely unworkable, but the easiest liquid fuel to make would be methanol."

Methanol? Wasn't ethanol supposed to be the fuel of the future?

After the ethanol euphoria
Last year, ethanol fuel - alcohol that can be made from corn, sugar cane or other plants - was touted as the answer for what ails America's energy economy. With the price of oil rising, ethanol blends have become much more economical.

However, the ethanol boom has turned into something of a bust over the past year, as detailed today in The Wall Street Journal. Because corn is the primary U.S. crop for ethanol production, rising grain prices have sparked fears about a "food vs. fuel" dilemma. There are also environmental concerns, about stoking up air pollution as well as draining water supplies.  

To address the food-vs.-fuel issue, and boost the amount of biomass available for ethanol production, researchers are working on innovative processes that could convert plant cellulose into ethanol - with federal funding, of course.

Cellulosic ethanol production is currently the major research focus, but the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory is taking a long-term look at other fuels as well, including methanol.

Adding methanol blends to the mix would help close the gap, Zubrin said. "Methanol can be made from any kind of biomass without exception," ranging from raw plant cellulose to paper waste. It can also be made from stranded natural gas or coal, turning not-so-portable fossil fuels into liquid energy that could power a car or an airplane. In fact, methanol-powered cars passed technical tests at Ford 20 years ago, and at Daimler five years ago.

The current price equation is favorable to methanol as well, Zubrin said. "Methanol at 93 cents a gallon is like gasoline at $1.70," he said.

Switching to methanol, ethanol, biodiesel and other alternative fuels would make energy markets more competitive - and even though there's widespread worry about the effect of higher grain prices on the Third World, Zubrin argues that many developing nations would benefit as well.

"If we go to the alcohol economy, not only will we stop the current price rise and reverse the coming one, but we'll be able to shift a lot of money from OPEC to the world's agricultural economies," he said.

There are drawbacks, of course. Otherwise, we'd be driving alcohol-fueled cars already, right?

Problems and solutions
Unlike ethanol, methanol is toxic, which complicates handling (although Zubrin maintains that "people can handle that the way they handle gasoline"). It's also more corrosive than gasoline, which means fuel lines would have to be made of sterner stuff. What's more, methanol packs only half the punch per gallon that gasoline does, meaning that cars running purely on methanol would have to fuel up twice as often.

For these reasons, the Department of Energy's alternative-fuel database notes that methanol is currently "not commonly used or easily available." There would have to be a powerful incentive to gear up the production and distribution of methanol fuels.

Yet another factor to consider would be how oil exporters might respond to a substantial shift toward alternative fuels.  If such fuels start to take hold, oil prices could well start dropping - which would appear to be a good thing, but would also stall the momentum for embracing the alternatives and getting closer to energy independence. That's what happened in the United States after the energy crisis of the 1970s.


Courtesy Robert Zubrin
Robert Zubrin says
methanol, ethanol and
flex-fuel cars can get
America closer to energy
independence.

There's a simple solution to many of these drawbacks, Zubrin said: Require automakers to produce flexible-fuel cars capable of running on any blend of methanol, ethanol or gasoline. That could add hundreds of dollars to the cost of a car, but Zubrin said it'd be worth it.

The requirement should apply to BMW and Toyota as well as Ford and GM, he said. "The key policy here is mandating that all new cars sold, not made, in the United States would be flex-fueled," he said.

Zubrin's not the only one taking this stand: A coalition called Set America Free is working to get the alcohol economy, flex-fuel and plug-in hybrid vehicles on the political agenda as an international security issues as well as an economic and environmental issue.

So what about those plug-ins? If it takes electricity to turn biomass into alcohol fuels, why not focus completely on developing plug-in cars with super-duper-batteries?

Zubrin argues that the energy economy cannot live by plug-in hybrids alone. Even if we're able to wean ourselves off oil, liquid fuels will play a role into the foreseeable future, he said. And if you believe that energy independence is fundamental to winning the war on terror - as Zubrin, Huckabee and many others do - then alcohol fuels are the closest answers at hand.

"If I were writing a science-fiction novel about this, I could give everybody plug-in hybrids and nuclear power plants," he said. "If we're talking about taking this world right now and changing it to something else in a way that breaks the power of the oil cartel, this is the only way to do that."

Update for 5:15 p.m. ET Nov. 29: Rather than focusing on methanol, researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory are studying how to make ethanol out of a wider variety of materials - through new twists in biochemistry means as well as the gasification process that produces methanol.

That's the word from Richard Bain, principal research supervisor at NREL in Colorado. Bain's been at the lab for 18 years and is familiar with the latest trends in alternative fuels. For now, at least, methanol isn't one of those trends.

"I've been in the business long enough that I know ultimately the market will decide," he told me today. Gasification (of coal as well as biomass) is an up-and-coming technology that is well-settled for making methanol, and is currently being fine-tuned for making ethanol.

"You have a choice of which one the market wants to use," Bain said. "You can make both, but the automobile industry has accepted ethanol rather than methanol."

The fact that methanol is more corrosive than gasoline is a stumbling block, because as some commenters have already noted, a lot of components would have to be made of stronger materials. That goes not only for the vehicle itself, but for the plumbing that would deliver the methanol to your fuel tank.

"If you've designed for ethanol, you'd have to redesign for methanol. ... There is a cost associated with any fuel that doesn't fit in the normal distribution infrastructure," Bain said.

The good news is that more people are catching on to gasification as a means for producing not only methanol and ethanol, but other products with energy applications as well, such as butanol.

So Zubrin's basic message still holds: Flex-fuel cars are key to keeping our energy options open. And if they're plug-in hybrid electric flex-fuel vehicles (PHEFFVs?), so much the better. How does 250 miles per gallon sound? That's what Congress called for in Section 706 of the energy bill that was signed into law a couple of years ago - a section that sets aside money for research into HEFFVs and PHEFFVs.

Some have estimated that PHEFFVs could cut liquid-fuel consumption for transportation (as well as carbon-dioxide emissions) by more than half. What do you think?

Where do you stand on the energy equation? What roles do you see for biofuels, conservation, wind power, nuclear power, solar power, microbial hydrogen, algal oil and even more efficient fossil-fuel use? Add your comments below.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

this is long over-due. why am i still charged full price for 15% ethanol fuel at the pump? why isn't E85 type fuel more available? why are flex-fuel cars still largely a niche market? the future is now. let's move in the right direction.

This is not a new crisis.  We have had a lot of very good reasons to develop energy independence for years, but the profits from oil have been used to corrupt the leadership of this country. Energy independence is much more a political challenge than  a technical challenge.  Methanol might be one answer, but the key issue is electing leaders who are more beholden to the good of the country than to the interests of oil.  Without those leaders we will never mandate fuel-flexible cars or take the steps needed to free ourselves of our reliance on oil.  Future historians may well marvel that we could have been so blind for so long to the forces that are undermining our political and economic clout and destroying our environment.

 Eventually, the marketplace will solve this issue, but by then, without real leadership, we may well have lost our pre-eminent place in the sun.

RE the solution...forget the ethanol version...if we want real power here, do not purchase ethanol...corn $ in the hands of OilMantality has already grossly overinflated the value of Iowa corn producing land, and will lead to further genetic engineering of corn crops...and eventual, accidental cross pollinations, which lead who knows where...it ain't the oil, it's the oil man...unless one of these emerging technologies makes it to market sans Petro Chem $, it'll just become more of the same...really fast...
new oil, same as the old oil, eh?
The good thing about biofuels is the carbon is recycled. The plants take it back from the environment after it has been spewed from our exhaust. I would love to see this become a reality through genetically engineered yeast or bacteria that could use any type of plant materials. Being in economically depressed Eastern Kentucky, our farmers could grow tobacco (our best growing traditional crop)for a constructive use instead of destructive. Our economy has suffered tremendously from the lack of market for this traditional (and in my opinion destructive) crop. I also see lots of sawmill waste that must be disposed of or it spontaneously combusts. This idea of a biofuel economy could help our area greatly as well as our country. Lets get elected and do it!
this is not a good idea...
The issue with our leaders besides being beholden to Big Oil and the OPEC Cartel, is the devil's deal they've made in the name of national security.  It goes like this; 'we'll buy lots of your expensive oil if you let us keep bases over there because A) We're afraid of the Russians, B) we're afraid of the Chinese, C) we're afraid of the Iranians', etc.,.

This 'deal' is very similar to the one years ago with Osama & Co., to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan - 'here dudes, these are Stinger missles see, pretty wicked cool huh?', who morphed into Taliban and al Qaeda.

Yes! to energy independence from these atavistic bloodthirsty people.  We will ALL be better off for it and safer.  Let's do it now!
Produce methanol? Absolutely. Run it as striaight fuel? Absolutely not! As mentioned in the article, corrosion and double fuel consumption are both major drawbacks. The corrosion affects not just the fuel lines, but any metals the fuel touches, pump parts, injectors, throttle bodies, valves and the combustion chamber itself.

The better alternative would be to use the methanol in the production of biodiesel.

In a nutshell, you need 3 basic ingredients to make bio-D. Vegetable oil, lye, (sodium or potassium based) and either methanol or ethanol. ALL of these can be derived from plant sources.

Currently, depending on where you source your materials, biodeisel can be made in your kitchen generally for less than a dollar a gallon. Start producing it on a large industrial scale and the cost is bound to drop even more.

Biodiesel is biodegradeable, and its production waste products are glycerine, soap and the alcohol used as the catalyst, which can be recovered for use in the next batch.

Think about it, methanol and lye are both available from wood, as lye can be leached from ashes. Oil is available from a large number of plants. Farmers and loggers provide the raw materials. That equals employment. The materials are processed into fuel. More employment. Fuel can be sold at about half of  mineral diesel's current price. Farmers and loggers, truckers (and anyone else with a diesel) get to pay half as much for our fuel.

I'm not sure if there is currently a way to process biodiesel into jet fuel, but I'll bet one can be found, and how many gallons of that does this nation burn a year?

Consider also, home heating fuel. #2 fuel oil and diesel are very similar, certainly that switch could be made.

And then there is the option of using bio-D to fuel electric generators, the ones currently burning oil and gas....

Wow, how can we afford NOT to do this???

Cold fusion would be the ultimate fuel and would knock everything else including oil out of the market.  
If we start with Hydrogen fueled cars using Palladium as the hydrogen fuel tank it will then set the stage for the use of Palladium in cold fusion as we learn more about this metal's fantastic abilities.
The article lacks a quantitative analysis of energy inputs versus energy outputs and cost inputs versus economic benefits.  Put in simpler terms, with alcohol-based fuels, do you get out more than you put in?  Many serious analysts have answered that question with a resounding no.  It takes vast quantities of energy to fertilize soil, transport the fertilizer, build the trucks and facilities, transport the corn or whatever to the alcohol plant, produce the alcohol, and transport the alcohol to the customer.  I've read that it takes 3/4 gallon of gas to make 1 gallon of corn ethanol...without Congress's current fifty cent a gallon ethanol taxpayer-financed subsidy, an ethanol plant would operate in the red.  One recent proposal for corn ethanol plant in Minneapolis packed it in due to a reassessment of the economics.
Why is everone so afraid of (H) hydrogen.  Easy to make, store, clean burning?
I am in the food business and Ethanol production has had dramatic negative effects on food prices in some very strange ways.  It is not only food prices that have been effected, Ethanol from corn is bad science costing about the same in energy content to produce as the end result - how does this continue?  It continues by way of government subsidies.  Methanol production is very different, here any plant mass can work, wood, coal, leaves, grass clippings and it can do so with energy efficiency putting out way more in terms of output compared to input plus it can hit the numbers we need.  Corn prices doubled taking us to double the minimal output of ethanol we are at currently - a 900 gram package of wheat based pasta went from $.90 to $1.47 at retail over the span of nine months.  Why wheat I mean we are talkng of corn?  That is because less acerage is devoted to wheat and soy because more corn needed growing so the price of all grains rose the same percentage basis.  Chickens are raised on corn, milk cattle are in part fed on it too.  Turkeys?  You bet.  Food price inflation is just starting to show up and it will make a bit of a dent in all of our food budgets.  So tell me why both Republicans and Democrats are touting Ethanol production?  
Are we talking about another 'version' of the internal combustion (IC) engine?!?!  Why not use the methanol and separate its hydrogen atoms for use in a fuel cell (FC) engine? Rather than spewing out more exhaust from an IC engine, we can capture the by-product of the methanol and swap it out when we 'gas' up at tomorrow's methanol gas stations.  I am sure there will be innovative entrepreneurs in the future that will figure out a way to utilize the by-product elsewhere WITHOUT releasing it into the atmosphere. Even if FC technology is not as efficient as today's IC engines the more we use FC technology the more innovation will occur to make it more efficient. Over the past eighty or so years we have reached great strides in innovation with the IC engine that we are now talking about flex fuels. But the end resultant remains: We are still 'burning' the fuels to create energy.

We need to jump off the IC engine-bandwagon and move onto the next revolution in conveyance technology. IC engines (in my opinion) are so last century. I use internal combustion engines now, only because I can't get my hands on a fuel cell vehicle yet.

I quote the great Anthony Cumia: "This is the twenty-first century-where's my flying car?"
OPEC controls the supply of most of the oil in the world, but it is the big oil companies - Exxon, Shell, etc. - which control the prices we pay at the pumps.  Until they are guaranteed that their profits will continue there is little hope for alternative energy sources being developed.

Along with the auto makers and the internal combustion engine, they have a vested interest in promoting oil-based fuels, whether made out of petroleum, oil sands, oil shales, corn alcohol, wood alcohol, and those substitutes.  What we need instead is a distinctly separate power source, such as electricity derived not from burning fossil fuels, but from nuclear reaction producing heat to turn water into steam, to turn turbines, to pump electricity into a grid of wires making the power available through the existing system of service stations.  Nanobatteries under development now could be 'filled' up with new electricity in less time than it takes to fill up a tank with liquid gasoline which has to be carted with  us as we go.  Even the horse-and-buggy days were more efficient in that aspect as we did not have to have a haywagon on our trips with which to 'feed' the horse.
I feel that this type of fuel or others like it are the answer.  I think we now understand as a country that this is really beyond debate.  We do need to switch to a new and better fuel source for the future.  If this is to be done, probably sooner rather than later would be a good idea.  I think about how much time it would take for these vehicles to work their way into everyday life where even the used cars for sale in the local paper are fuel flexible.  It might take 20 years.  In the meantime, we could take advantage of the low gasoline prices to help carry us into this new fuel era.  
A better choice might be DMF. Quoting from a June 2007 Newswise release:

Reporting in the June 21 issue of the journal Nature, University of Wisconsin-Madison chemical and biological engineering Professor James Dumesic and his research team describe a two-stage process for turning biomass-derived sugar into 2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF), a liquid transportation fuel with 40 percent greater energy density than ethanol.... By chemically engineering sugar through a series of steps involving acid and copper catalysts, salt and butanol as a solvent, UW-Madison researchers created a path to just such a fuel.

"Currently, ethanol is the only renewable liquid fuel produced on a large scale," says Dumesic. "But ethanol suffers from several limitations. It has relatively low energy density, evaporates readily, and can become contaminated by absorption of water from the atmosphere. It also requires an energy-intensive distillation process to separate the fuel from water."

Not only does dimethylfuran have higher energy content, it also addresses other ethanol shortcomings. DMF is not soluble in water and therefore cannot become contaminated by absorbing water from the atmosphere. DMF is stable in storage and, in the evaporation stage of its production, consumes one-third of the energy required to evaporate a solution of ethanol produced by fermentation for biofuel applications.

Dumesic and graduate students Yuriy Román-Leshkov, Christopher J. Barrett and Zhen Y. Liu developed their new catalytic process for creating DMF by expanding upon earlier work. As reported in the June 30, 2006, issue of the journal Science, Dumesic's team improved the process for making an important chemical intermediate, hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), from sugar.

Let's face it, until the federal goverment steps in and says energy at a resonable cost is a national security issue, vital to the economy and mandates a date for energy independence nothing will get done. Nothing has been done by either political party since OPEC formed in 1974 and the problem has only gotten worse. Big oil (Exon, Shell etc) are all global companys and if they don't sell to the USA they will sell to China or India or whoever will pay the price. Why would they invest in USA refinerys when they can do nothing, claim a shortage of supply and drive the price up. The USA has untaped oil deposits in Alaska, the Gulf, vast oil shale deposits in the west and probably oil deposits off the East Coast. These oil reserves in conjunction with ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, nuclear power, geothermal and wind; there is no reason on earth why we are paying OPEC for their overpriced oil. No one energy source is the answer utilizing all options is.  I would rather pay an american farmer or a power plant construction worker who is not trying to kill me. Just think of the money that could be invested in this country, the jobs created if we stopped the flow of billions of dollars to OPEC. For 30 years I have heard nothing but talk about alternate energy, when will the elected do nothings in Washington wake up and stop talking and do something to solve the problem before this country is bankrupt.  
There are a whole lot of feasable ideas out there. There are people who can make them happen. We could live in a much better world. Big money will never let the politicians make them happen. AND THAT IS THAT!
America has possessed and had the ability to implement alternative fuel technologies for decades but without a firm commitment from the Federal Government which is in cahoots with big oil and auto manufactures things will never change.   The American people are also to blame because they continually vote for and accept the statuesque.  When Americans finally wake up and except the fact they are manipulated and governed by Corporate America, (Not our elected Government), and decide to do something about it, we are doomed.  Plain and Simple.

Do yourself a favor America, actually READ the Declaration of Independence; it’s not just words on a piece of paper or some acient ideal      
A lot of the comments and  "solutions" I read here and elsewhere sound good and might be workable in an ideal world--but we don't live in one. You cannot snap your fingers and change the way we have been doing things for a century--that is you cannot instantly go away from IC engines, for example. It concerns me that we are still blaming "big oil" and government for all of our ills--as Pogo once said, we have met the enemy and it is us. It is our own demands for cheap energy and fast, efficient personal private transportation that have driven all of this.  Oil, government and car companies, etc. respond to our demands--the majority demands [another illustration of why pure democracies are not the best systems].  I am all for alternative fuels and on an emotional level support any attack on the terrorists and their funding. Show me an alternative fuel that solves more problems than it creates and that is truely cheaper than oil and I will wholeheartedly support it. There are several reasons to wean ourselves off oil, including the fact that we will eventually run out of it, environmental reasons, national strategic considerations  and economics. The last one, or at least personal economics is the reason most folks give, yet it is the weakest. It also disturbs me when a new idera is put forward that folks immediatel start listing the "difficulties" as though they should kill the idea--a better approach would be to start thinking about how to solve the difficulties. But, you see, all this change takes TIME and people these days have little patience--they want instant solutions. The instant solution is to politically or militarily solidify sources of OIL.
Alan, we're never going to become energy independent until we get rid of the internal combustion engine. It simply is not an efficient user of fuel. If we are going to go to an alcohol fuel standard, we must switch over to fuel cell technology. But in the meantime, for pity's sake, increase the CAFE standards! Talking about energy independence while not dramatically improving auto efficiency is like planning to run two foreign wars without raising the revenues to pay for them. It simply doesn't add up.
It's easier said. Powerful governments the world over, developing & developed, are not going to wean easily from the great (oil money) that has fueled not just whole economies but influential individuals that have great control over policies.Humans usually need a Hiroshima of sorts to remind them of their humanistic responsibilities. From where i stand i doubt my government is putting any effort into the R & D needed to make alternative fuels viable.Theres always talk of crashing the system if these changes are taken too suddenly, But time isn't on break either.
I agree with alcohol/methanol but there is a reason they use corn to produce it. It's because the economics don't make it competitive with gasoline. As an example, if you compare corn against hemp, corn produces roughly 300 gallons of fuel per acre while hemp produces over 1300 using 1890's technologies. This is a 400% increase in efficiency and very much makes ethanol competitive with petrol. This is one reason why every first world country (from Canada, England, Germany, China, India etc) has legalized hemp production, especially since it is now and always has been legal to grow under international laws, treaties and trade agreements. Many people believe this is the real reason why "marijuana" is illegal today.
Our civilization powers itself with technologies developed during the 19th century. Given the accelerated pace of technological innovation, it seems that these fossil-fuel (or bio-fuel) burning power systems may be due for replacement. Using mehanol,ethanol, bio-diesel or hydrogen for power only skirts the edges of the basic issue of an ageing technology. Advances in solar cells and electrical storage batteries, as well as the development of fusion power, may make fuel issues obsolete.
In the meantime, while everyone argues and wastes precious time about what fuel we should use and what direction our energy policy should take, I have a great idea for the here and now:

CONSERVE, DON'T CONSUME.
I really hope this new approach gets approved fast, and that these new fuel(s) become more available to the public.  It would be awesome/wonderful to add some competition to the fuel industry! This will definitely resolve the gas price fluctuations.
If we discontinue using Mideast oil what will happen to these people? Do we really think that world turmoil will stop? What happens to all the Mideastern gas station owners? Eliminating oil purchases for problems in the Mideast will only create more problems. Kindest Regards
I think the idea is genius, methanol, ethanol, to help deter the oil cartel and to come out of the bondage of oil. But wasn't there a guy in Clearwater, Fl. who converted his car by using water? At the same token though I don't know why the expense of a car should go up hundreds of dollars for flex-o-tanks. It's ridiculous, the prices of cars, as it is. I'll probably never own a new car, so how can I help with the auto/environmental issue? There perhaps can be conservation automotive stores, to turn the old car into something less of an environmental hazard. Why does it have to cost so much? There are some people plus students who have come up with fabulous ideas. Is it about the money still, as our world falls into crisis with global warming, droughts, desertification, deforestation, dead spots in the oceans, melting glaciers. Manufacturers need to find simpler, less costly means for us to live without more destruction to the earth.At the same token too many people want to be rich and not just take life simply. So greed is one of the major pollutants of the earth as well.
1) meghan - wow thanks very thought provoking, what was I thinking?!
2) Hydrogen/fuel cell - another setup of producer/distributer/seller and infrastructure to build, maintain, and support.
3) Electric vehicles - the way to go long term as we already have the infrastructure etc. in place and in everyday usage - too bad about the storage problem (battery)
All of these ideas will need R&D and will cost money.  The entrenched powers (automakers/oil men etc) will not change faster than they have to.  They want to keep making their record profits (well, not the automakers currently).  Fortunately there are people out there (E. Musk et al) who are putting their huge profits to use developing new technologies/machines to leap frog the already established institutions.  I am hopeful that these people will become the new Fords, Rockefellers, etc. and save our butts.
I say we first make the push towards bio-diesel; as commercial traffic accounts for a far larger fuel consumption and air pollution percentage in our country than private cars. That will at least start to disrupt the flow of money to foreign (unstable) countries, allowing us to invest a bit more in ourselves and attain complete energy independance.
I note in all of the preceding that there is no comment given to a time frame to wean ourselves from petroleum based fuels.  I believe this process will take 25-50 years to happen. Currently, there is still a lot of money to be made off of oil, and there is no infrastructure in place to jump to hydrogen (or whatever).  The transition to a fuel that achieves all of our national security, economic, and environmental objectives will require several compromise steps that start with existing infrastructure and less optimal types of fuels (like ethanol/methanol/bioD).  The speed of our progress will ultimately be dictated by market forces; not political mandate. Early adoption of any of these fuel strategies would be a good first step.
This, like so many other "solutions" is a half step. It is a promising one for the short term, but a sustainable energy future should rely on plug in and solar cell technology for cars and wind and solar for homes and businesses. We must break our oil crutch before it breaks all of us. Ethanol and other alcohol fuels and additives take oil and energy to produce and actually raise costs in other areas such as food and paper production. It is interesting to see our president now has a wind generator at his ranch, too bad most of us cannot afford one. We need national and rational leadership on this issue, not half steps.
Ah, the hydrogen holdouts. Still too uninformed to know that hydrogen is incredibly energy-negative. So I'll explain:

In order to get hydrogen, it must be snapped off of other molecules (water, natural gas, gasoline, etc). To do this, one has to invest energy. And the hydrogen that is produced does not contain all of the energy that was invested (in other words, there is a net energy loss just producing hydrogen).

Once the hydrogen is produced, it may or may not need to be transported (depending on where it is produced, since a station can simply process natural gas on-site). If it needs to be transported, further energy must be invested.

Finally, once the hydrogen actually gets where it needs to be, it must be pressurized or supercooled, either of which also consumes energy. And then once it's in the vehicle, the vehicle must then capture the energy in the hydrogen (but remember, that energy originally came from the investment needed to snap it off of another molecule). Fuel cells have a theoretical (NOT real-life) maximum energy efficiency of 50%. In other words, only 50% of the hydrogen's energy actually makes it down to the wheels and onto the pavement. I don't know what the comparable efficiency figure is for a liquid-hydrogen internal combustion engine (like BMW's Hydrogen 7), but gas ICEs operate at 20 to 30 % efficiency.

The significant energy losses at each stage make hydrogen a complete waste of time. Any attempt to "green" the hydrogen (using solar/"green" power to generate it) is just a way to insert hydrogen into a process that already works better without it (it's ALWAYS more efficient to just use electric cars).

PHEVs (plug-in hybrid electric vehicles) are what will make all the difference. As for what liquid fuel they should use, corrosive liquid fuels sound like a bad idea to me. I like biodiesel better, since diesels get WAY better gas mileage, especially at constant loads (and a series hybrid, where the ICE is used solely to charge the batteries, can operate at constant load all the time). The biggest issue I have with biodiesel is the same one I have with diesel: particulate emissions, but of course the automakers are working on that.

I'd also like to see regular gas (or other liquid-only) cars in the future built with hydraulic regenerative braking (brakes that compress air, which can then be used to drive the wheels). This would significantly improve gas mileage, I think. That plus the impressive efficiency (238hp/296lbft and 40mpg from a 1.8L engine in an S-class!) that Mercedes recently achieved with its DiesOtto HCCI engine concept in the F700, even regular old gas cars can reduce their thirst.
People argue that the cost of producing these fuels make them economically impractical.  But you need to factor in other benefits.  Doing this will greatly reduce the trade deficit.  All that extra cash would stay in our economy.  Why not use some of this cash to subsidize the oil industries to invest in the future?  My son, 16, recently asked, "why can't we find a use for all the leaves that are picked up and thrown into the garbage?"  LOL.  At least the next generation is thinking in the right direction!
The great secret of biofuel research is another member of the alcohol family besides ethanol (2 carbon atoms) and methanol (one carbon atom) -- and it's butanol (four carbon atoms).  Butanol can be placed in existing auto gas tanks and burned just like gasoline, and needs no special equipment from the refinery all the way to your car's internal combustion engine, and can be produced from the same feedstocks (including cellulose) as ethanol -- and BP and DuPont are working on it, as is the UC Berkeley biofuels team as I type this.  Same BTU content as gasoline, same ability to separate from water as gasoline, and can be produced at the current distilleries currently pumping out billions of gallons of ethanol each year in the US.  All other biofuel solutions require a complete overhaul or replacement of the fleet of over 100 million cars on the road -- butanol DOES NOT.  Look it up on Google or Wikipedia.
I think that this is an awesome idea in a way it's kind of a win win we're not sending money to terrorists, which means more for us and what we need here in the US but also a way to utilize all the extras we don't use and just throw away heck why don't we just use them to run our cars...I love it....the only real downfall is that we would have to gas up twice as much so would we really be saving all that much? I guess we will just have to wait and see what they can come up with next
I think we're going to need a variety of strategies to make the free world independent of the mullah controlled - not so free one. Ways to use free sunshine where solar makes sense, bio desiel from fryer greese, Methanol and Ethanol where available biomass makes it economical, Geo-thermal where conditions warrant. The biggest risk, I see, is that big business tends to over use its resources for maximum profits. Its great to turn corn into ethanol but not so much that we can't afford to eat it anymore.

I also think that all of us, as individuals, have a responsibility to conserve energy where and when we can. It doesn't matter if it compact lightbulbs, extra insulation in our attics or combining trips in the family car, every little bit helps us individuals as well as all of us.
Actually there are a number of potential ways to handle the energy problem.  The easiest one and the most cost effective is simply to drive less.  During WWII gas was rationed and the government promoted driving less (Is this trip really necessary).  We are so used to getting into our cars and driving, often over the same path on the same day.  Driving 10 miles fewer a week would have the same impact as finding another Saudi Arabia.

Ethanol does have an energy plus of about 15-20% it's main problem is that it absorbs water and cannont be shipped the way gasoline can thus requiring trucking, but if it is viewed as a piece of solving the energy problem someone will develop a way to pipe it from where it is produced to where it is consumed.

Nuclear power is really the way to go, but people don't understand it.  Many think a nuclear power plant can explode like an atomic bomb, they don't realize the process of producing electricity and a nuclear explosion are opposites.  Then there is the issue of nuclear waste, which is political not scientific.  France creates between 70-80% of its electricity from nuclear power and they handle the waste with no fanfare or objection.

The least productive discussion centers on opinions that the oil companies have bought the government and stand in the way of developing other energy sources.  If you look at it logically, the oil companies will benefit from any energy source.  Suppose you could run a car on ocean water, are you going to go to Wal-Mart and walk out with fifteen gallons and fill your car up?  The oil companies have the pipe lines and distribution services (gas stations) any energy source will require.

Blaming the energy and automobile companies for the problem is counter productive.  Market forces will ultimately decide the issue.  The profit incentive is the motive responsible for virtually all advances in all fields.
what about harvesting CO2 from the atmosphere and ocean, converting it to carbon and oxygen and then making hydrocarbon fuels from the harvested carbon. i guess you could also make enthanol and methanol fuels in this way.
This is all fascinating, but has any body thought about reducing the use of oil in home heating and power plants that use fuel oil to make power. It seems much easier to start with replacing those first. Solar power to heat or cool homes and possibly the use of hydrogen in power plants that are now using oil. If we can shift the oil use out of the home and power plants, then this would greatly reduce our dependence on oil. Afterall, how many people are actually going to go out and buy a new car. it will take decades to phase out the present gasoline engines and make everything flex fuel or hybrid or whatever. My wife and I make over $100,000 combined and we don't have kids and I can't imagine going out and buying another car right now...cost of living is just too high. The government needs to get oil out of the homes and power plants to start with while the auto companies develop flex fuel, hybrid and electric vehicles that are dependable safe and efficient.

Also, I must say that using our corn to produce fuel is not the smartest thing to do. Points have already been made as to the cost and difficulties in the production of ethanol. The land can only produce so much and we do need to eat.

I understand that there is always cause and effect in everything, so I wonder what the lesser evil will be...if we use all the oil, there won't be any terrorist because they will all starve to death...this is one option. Considering wind power, this may change air currents due to drag and whole environments can change. Even solar may not be the ultimate answer. Imagine billions of square miles of solar panels absorbing the sun's rays instead of the rays being reflected back into space...this may ultimately end up changing weather patterns as well. Even with hydrogen, there is going to be massive quantities of water vapor produced and this will likely contribute to more storms and flooding in some areas, not to mention the environmental changes that may be caused in some areas. NYC might even have constant snow or ice buildup in the winter when the temperature is commonly below freezing.

I am glad that it seems we are on a mission to improve the quality of our lives through the use of cleaner and more efficient technologies, but I am afraid there may not be any perfect source of energy.
In the not so distant past, when one nation invaded another and took control, the victorious nation would claim some if not all of the defeated nations wealth (in whatever form that might be) to assist in financing the overthrow and further empowering the victorious nation and Iraq has tremendous wealth in form of crude oil.  Why in the hell don't we offset some of the enormous cost of this war by taking some of Iraq's oil?  For that matter, why don't we annex Iraq and then it's OUR oil!  We are already paying to liberate them, feed them, clothe them, rebuild their infrastructure, etc.  It's time to get something in return other than maimed and dead soldiers.  It's time for Iraq to pay for there new found freedom with black gold!  
Steve in Hartford, Ct:  You wrote of theoretical efficiencies for hydrogen being 50% and the IC engine at 20-30% efficient.  When the first IC engine was brought into the mainstream I don't believe even the first massed-produced IC engine efficiency was even measured except for horsepower. For now we can use the IC engine's current efficiency metric as a measurement to gauge against the fuel cell and you will see that certain parallels between the history of the IC engine and FC engine's technology is pretty close.  Don't totally discount FC technology; yes there is a supply/demand economic model that can be drawn between the two technologies that will reveal a prediction that when the cost of running an IC engine soars above the line of cost of running a FC engine will be the determining factor of when consumers switch to FC cars. This sorta happened with the advent of the hybrid electric car.  People were screaming for them these past two years.  I know because I was on a wait list for almost three months. When the consumer is driving the economics, the big businesses will follow or will die on the vine.

If properly nurtured, FC cars will continue beyond what the IC engined cars have done only because the fuel is more abundant.  When spoken about storing of hydrogen fuels at gas stations, there is no need to keep these tanks refridgerated; I see these 18-wheeler rigs that transport hydrogen already in compressed gas tanks, so you already have an infrastructure nearly in place. Burying tanks underground is nothing new; I have a propane tank 40 feet from my house heating my water and home.  If I had a propane converter I could separate the hydrogen atoms from the propane and create electricity through a home fuel cell module that could power all of my electric needs- to include charging my hybrid.  Just a thought...

PS:  There is already 'waste' just transporting gasoline and diesal fuels in rigs back and forth from the refineries to the gas stations...This cost is trickles down to the consumer and I can bet your bottom dollar that the consumers will absorb the cost of transporting any of these flex fuels, alternate fuels, etc. to these gas stations.  

It's the familiarity of supply and demand that dictates change- because we are used to/familiar with going to a gas station to fill up on 92-98 octane is the only reason why we will continue to do the same- only it will be for ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, etc.,  instead of an octane rating...
it's kinda depressing reading CosmicLog today -- specially the comments.  Everyone seems to be so anti-Arab. It's as if the only thing wrong with the world is Arabs...and that they are all terrorists.

I mean...you know, we have killed tens of thousands iraqis (if not hundreds) just in 4 years. In the eighties we helped both Iraq and Iran fight each other which killed a million people. We until today give Isreal 3 billion dollars a year while the Palestinians who lived on the same land and now live in squalid refugee camps/shanty towns get nothing.

It's stupid to think just changing our fuel sources will remove the threat from people don't like us. We need to understand why they don't like us -- and it's not because of "jealousy"
Some of the best blogging I've read on a site.  Some great ideas, some good considerations, and warnings.
I don't see Americans tightening their belt to use less energy as a means to fix anything. Car Pooling, driving less, etc. are noble, but seem unpractical for what our society has come accustomed to.

I'd like nothing else than to see the Middle East have to re-invent itself for a gross product because no one wants any of the oil they have left. I do believe that terrorism would subside if we stay out of their world, they'd be inclined to stay out of ours, and we can still co-exist until a Universal crisis brings us and binds us all together.

The first step toward reducing the energy crisis is to elect an Administration open to heavily pursuing alternatives.  This means no more Bushies.  There was not going to be any momentum put toward weaning off oil the last 8 years.  Not when the guy appointed to the Presidency and his dad are heavily financially involved in Penzoil.  Talk about shoot ourselves in the foot.  We might as well have elected Osama bin Laden to do away with Terrorism.  We gave the fox the keys to the hen house.

As others have so intelligently put it, we have to overcome powerful interest groups and lobbyists who are too selfesh and greedy for the common good.  We also have to get control of journalism again.  There are far and away too many individuals out there spewing out lies, intentionally to deceive, who are taken for gospel because they publish under a World recognized name.  Joe Klein at the Times is a classic example of what I'm talking about.  Fox made-up News Network is another.  This includes the talk show and radio show fanatics that are getting air time as well.
In other words, make it a crime to generate partisanship.  Its OK to disagree.  Its not and never should have been OK to misrepresent, lie, name call, deceive, or try to annilate your political opponents out of existence.  Republicans and Democrats are really not that far apart on issues, yet they are made out to be by over sensationlizing news people whos' motives are to reach a financial plane higher than the profession justifies and power from means not brought about through an election by the people.

We need organizations to be honorable again. Trustworthy again.  The White House, the News, Religion, Law Enforcement, etc.
We have to prosecute white collar crimes the same as any other crime and don't grant pardons and do overs to those who have been caught, that only propel others to do the same.

This means you have to give a bit more effort as an individual. Challenge the motive of anyone putting anyone else down.  Get involved with politics and support those who are willing to make change and not just talk about it.  Stop blogging and get active.
 MeOH as us in the Chemical field call it.  It is a derivative of water with a methyl replacing one of water's hydrogen!  This means it mixes well with water like in a gas tank! If you should have a MeOH fire, you can barely see the flames. It works pretty well in racing because the race engine can run higher Compression Ratio than your average car.  The energy needed to make it means your net energy output is small.  That does not take into account that if a Wino should drink the gas tank, they will experience a life threatening situtation.  
I think Hydrogen has the most promising future and I only see alcohol as a near term stop-gap measure. Hydrogen is so simple, clean and  eternaly available as well as versatile. The fact alone that it can be used two ways is persuasive, but  it is a down the road answer. Alcohol fills the bill for the near term, because the tech is readily available.
Why do people still think there is some conspiracy between oil companies to jack up prices? I will tell you, that "conspiracy" has a name: it's call a Free Market. You think oil company profits are too high? Build a refinery, sign a crude oil delivery contract with the Saudis, and compete with them! Go ahead! Nobody is stopping you.

The real problem is that any alternative energy sources need to be 1) cheaper than oil, and 2) available in similar quantities. There are two ways this is going to happen. First, we can do nothing and oil prices will continue to rise as demand rises and supplies diminish. Second, we can fund R&D to improve other technologies. In fact, we are already doing the latter. It is only a question of whether we are investing at the right levels and in the right technologies.

Personally, I think that when you factor in the quantity of energy needed, the only serious candidates right now to replace our oil imports are coal and nuclear. The technology we lack for these two is how to exploit them in an environmentally acceptable way that is still cheaper than oil. That's where I think our R&D investments should be stepped up.
How bout we drill for oil off of our own shores, eh?  What a novel idea!

Screw the Caribou....DRILL ALASKA
Oil companies do not control the price of oil.  They sell their oil according to what they can get for it on the market. This is a free market society, and we have the Options and Futures markets in crude oil, gasolene, natural gas, gold, sugar, corn, etc.  Speculators are driving up the price of oil and other commodities due to being scared and hoping for a profit.  If or when people feel like we will not have any disasters to our supplies, the prices will come down.  Prices rose a few days ago when the Canadian-US crude oil pipe line to Chicago burst, starting a fire ball which killed two workers.  Any tragic news will send the prices soaring.
Drag racing has been using Nitromethanol for the last 50 years because it produces more power than gasoline, but has always been more expensive. I think that there is probably a happy medium somewhere between methanol and nitromethanol that can be used.
James Stepp:  I read where "Industrial Hemp" is somewhat different than Marijuana in that it has a stronger fiber and less drug content.  It grows a lot faster than would corn and on a variety of soils.  It would be a lot better than corn for fuel as you say, but would still take up some of the space we need for growing food stock for us.  The quest for riches will be what drives us to a newer form of power.  Be it Oil Companies or the individual entrepreneur.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=485699

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google