Now we come to the last part of our Alternative Fuel Sources series and look at one of the most promising alternative fuel sources of all, Hydrogen. Hydrogen is number one in our hearts and number one on the periodical table of elements, so you know it’s got to be good. The main benefit of Hydrogen is that it burns clean, and has zero GHG emissions. We’ll take a look at the good, the bad, and the ugly of Hydrogen in this article.

There are two ways to extract the energy from Hydrogen and use it to fuel vehicles.

1. Simple combustion in ICE’s or turbine engines
2. Converting it to electricity in a fuel cell

As you can see, the two types of Hydrogen fuel delivery are quite distinct. One approach uses a Hydrogen powered ICE and the other introduces fuel cell technology to cars. The difference between the two approaches largely centers around implementation of a strategy for building “filling stations” that can be done on a nationwide basis and remain economically feasible. Supporters of Hydrogen ICEs think their approach is best.

“Part of the attractiveness of the hydrogen ICE is that it allows a rapid deployment of hydrogen-fuel vehicles, helping to make a hydrogen refueling infrastructure economically viable and cost-effective,” said Bob Larsen from the Center for Transportation Research at Argonne National Laboratory. “Because hydrogen ICEs can be manufactured more cheaply than fuel cells, only about 15% more than conventional gasoline engines, and we already have the production facilities in place to make them by the millions, these may be the first vehicles that take us into the hydrogen economy — at least until fuel cell vehicles are proven reliable and affordable.”

The idea between the introduction of Hydrogen ICE is the vehicles that support Hydrogen will also be able to run on and a blend of Hydrogen and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). This dual operational ability will make the car more attractive to consumers, who would rightly be concerned about the ability to “gas up” on Hydrogen.

Proponents of Hydrogen ICE say that there’s not a heck of a lot of difference between burning petroleum based gasoline or Hydrogen, so the engineering feat required to convert auto makers over to making such engines would be minimal. This advantage would also translate into a quick national ramp up of service, assuming a nationwide distribution apparatus could be built concordantly.

Hydrogen ICE also hit the wall when you consider Hydrogen has to be stored in larger tanks than traditional gas. It would take a design breakthrough to improve the current issue of Hydrogen distribution. That said, BMW, who has long been a fan of Hydrogen fuel has produced a new model called the “Hydrogen 7″ which seems to overcome some of the past limitations of the technology. So far, the car is still in the world of “claims” more than reality.

Hydrogen Fuel cells are another possible alternative fuel

We also need to take a look at Hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen fuel cells are an alternative to the ICE, offering a whole new type of engine. The amazing thing about fuel cells is that they were first invented in 1839, yet are nowhere in widespread use nearly two centuries later. One of the main reasons is that fuel cells were never a very efficient source of producing electricity. The primary element that has stopped fuel cells from being successful is the cost.

Since 1998, Iceland has attempted to build a Hydrogen Economy around hydrogen fuel cells, so there efforts serve as a teaching aid for anyone interested in the subject. Iceland is the first country to ever try and wean themselves completely from fossil fuels and build a state of the art hydrogen economy. The country is well known for its’ hot springs, geysers, and large reserves of H2. If only the could tap the energy of H2, they surmised, they could lead the world into a new era of energy independence.

So far, the dream of Iceland becoming energy dependent has not manifested in reality.

“Icelanders drive gasoline-powered cars, and big ones at that. In May of 2006, gasoline prices in Reykjavik stood at close to $7 a gallon, and yet large SUV’s are still a common sight on the roadways. Despite the nation’s high hopes for an emissions-free economy, it now stands as the largest greenhouse-polluter per capita in the world (2). However, Iceland is a very well run country, with almost non-existent unemployment, and a comprehensive welfare program, so people can afford to drive big cars, whilst paying some of the highest prices for gasoline of any population”.

Iceland has done quite well in reducing GHG emissions and is a nation highly rated for environmentally friendliness. Their experiments with Hydrogen are mixed, and the country has a very small population base, so it’s unclear just how much of their model could be exported worldwide.

Let’s take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of Hydrogen as an alternative fuel.

First, the drawbacks of Hydrogen as an alternative fuel (both Hydrogen ICE) and Hydrogen Fuel Cells.

1. The cost is still prohibitive
2. The technology is inadequate for a global rollout
3. The low density problem. Some experts say that Hydrogen tanks will have to be three times larger than current tanks
4. Liquid hydrogen is dangerous! One false move at the pump and BOOM!
5. There is no national plan for “filling stations”, therefore distribution of Hydrogen based fuel is impossible on a wide scale
6. Hydrogen evaporates. Imagine consumers realizing that their expensive fuel evaporates at the rate of over 1.5% daily.

Advantages of Hydrogen as an alternative fuel

1. Hydrogen is abundant.
2. Will reduce the dependency on foreign oil
3. Hydrogen is a very clean fuel and would lower GHG emissions immensely

Hydrogen is an alternative fuel source that has its’ share of supporters, especially in the auto making industry. But so far no real “killer app” using Hydrogen as an alternative fuel has been introduced. Sure, Hydrogen has some distinct advantages and is very clean, but it’s hard to see where the will to outfit the “filling stations” will come from, other than a few commercial sectors. Right now there’s just no good way to distribute Hydrogen as an alternative fuel in the kind of numbers needed to have an actual impact on the environment, or the dependence on foreign oil.

This is the last part of our Alternative Fuel Sources Series.

Today, in our fifth installment in the Alternative Fuel Sources series, we take a look at oil shale. People get excited when they talk about this potential alternative fuel source, because it’s one natural resource that the world (and in particular, America) has a lot of. But you don’t have to look for long to find plenty of critics of oil shale. As usual, we’ll attempt to examine the issue by looking at both sides of the equation.

Oil shale is a pet project of several Western U.S. states because they have vast reserves of the substance. But many energy experts say oil shale is a marketing strategy and can never be an efficient energy source.

Oil Shale is a hotly debated alternative fuel source topic

Oil Shales – Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock containing significant amounts of kerogen (a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds), from which liquid hydrocarbons can be extracted. The first bit of controversy concerning oil shales comes into play when you consider the name “oil shale”. Some have said the name is used simply to facilitate marketing of the product.

“Bankers won’t invest a dime in ‘organic marlstone,’ the shale’s proper name, but ‘oil shale’ is another matter,” according to Geologist Walter Youngquist.

The State of Colorado is vigorously exploring exploitation of their vast reserves of oil shales. Even the Federal government seems pleased with the development of oil shales, because most of the nation’s oil shale reserves fall squarely under their control. In a sense, since the government is always looking for a way to strengthen its’ global position and reduce the nation’s foreign dependency on oil, this would be a way to accomplish it. That is, if there was a clean, energy efficient way to convert oil shale into usable fuel for existing vehicles. As usual, the argument is largely an economic one.

“The technical groundwork may be in place for a fundamental shift in oil shale economics,” said the Rand Corporation. “Advances in thermally conductive in-situ conversion may enable shale-derived oil to be competitive with crude oil at prices below $40 per barrel. If this becomes the case, oil shale development may soon occupy a very prominent position in the national energy agenda.”

Of course, with crude over $130 a barrel, the argument becomes even more convincing. In Colorado, the oil shale project is being run by Shell. They are using some heavy duty technology to try and overcome the traditional problems of oil shale production. If they can do it cheaply enough, the product they produce will be consumed by American motorists relatively quickly, and it would help put oil shale on the map as a legitimate alternative energy.

Disadvantages of Oil Shale

“An “oil shale” contains neither oil nor shale; it is an ordinary petroleum source rock that has never been buried into the oil window [converted to oil]…The rock has to be mined, crushed and heated in closed containers. The leftovers after the oil is recovered fluff up to more than their original volume; the hole where the rock was mined isn’t big enough to hold the waste.”

– Kenneth Deffeyes

1. Strip mining. In order to get at the energy, a lot of mining needs to be done. Increased mining is generally bad for an area. – Note: the Shell project (In-situ Conversion Process) does not require mining.
2. Oil shale production take high heat and a ton of water and is not particularly environmentally friendly
3. Mining oil shale requires a ton of electricity
4. Without major technological improvements, oil shale production can only replace a small part of domestic gas consumption

Advantages of Oil Shale

1. The U.S. controls vast deposits of oil shale
2. Domestic oil shale production would not only reduce dependence on foreign oil, but would also potentially be vast enough that the U.S. could become a net exporter of energy again.
3. Fuel derived from oil shale could potentially cost much less than petroleum.

Right now, the jury is out on Oil Shale. The critics are vociferous in their opposition.

“Oil shale is such a marginal long shot that we ought to let oil companies spend their own money on it,” he said. “Leaving it to the private sector brings a discipline to oil-shale investments that we did not see back in the ’70s and ’80s when we had a lot of federal price supports for shale, ” said energy expert Randy Udall.

And oil companies have tried before. Exxon Mobil invested over $5 billion into an oil shale project that failed in 1982. It’s really up to the Shell Mahogany Project to see if success is possible.

“On only a 30 x 40 foot testing area, Shell successfully recovered 1,700 barrels of high quality light oil plus associated gas from shallower, less-concentrated oil shale layers. Our research to date has demonstrated that our In situ Conversion Process (ICP) works technically on a small scale – what remains is to prove it can work commercially,” says Shell.

Now the only question is on what scale can it be done. As many experts predict that oil is running out, a lot depends on these questions being answered reasonably soon.

Continued from: Alternative Fuel Sources – Part Four – E85. Continued in Alternative Fuel Sources – Part Six – Coal to Liquid.

E85 is an alternative fuel source with lots of support from powerful backers. E85 is ethanol which can be used in modified gas engines in a mixture of up to 85% ethanol . The advantage is that the use of E85 can be used by millions easily, hence creating an immediate net positive effect on the environment. We’ll examine both the good points and the bad points about E85 in this article.

E85 is already in widespread use in the Brazil and Sweden, and is being deployed rapidly in many parts of the United States. E85 is already becoming more prevalent in the Midwest due to the prevalence of corn farms. Ethanol investment has risen sharply in recent years, and a number of new ethanol production facilities have opened. All of these developments would seemingly point to bright prospects for E85 in the United States.

E85 runs on so-called “flex fuel” engines.

Flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) are designed to run on gasoline or a blend of up to 85% ethanol (E85). Except for a few engine and fuel system modifications, they are identical to gasoline-only models.

A lot of people already own flex-fuel vehicles, so that’s one big advantage to the E85 movement. But most “filling stations” don’t offer E85, and it is estimated it would cost $200,000 per station to retrofit the pumps. This has been the main sticking point that has prevent nationwide proliferation of E85.

In 2007, federal agencies purchased 45% more vehicles capable of using alternative fuel sources, but end using gasoline for almost of them because of the lack of pumping stations. There are a total of 1,400 E85 stations in the U.S., with most concentrated in Illinois, Minnesota and Iowa.

Advantages of E85

1. E85 diminishes the current foreign dependence on crude oil because it can be produced domestically
2. Many Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) already exist, so a transition to E85 makes sense and won’t be painful for most consumers
3. E85 is cleaner that gasoline, with some studies saying E85 can cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by as much as 46%.
4. E85 is around the price of gasoline, so people wouldn’t have to pay much more for a cleaner alternative

Disadvantages of E85

1. 1,400 filling stations in the United States is far too few and $200,000 per station is far too much to expect station owners to pay for an upgrade. The government will probably end up having to subsidize the upgrades.
2. E85 is less efficient as a transportation fuel than gas and costs nearly as much
3. E85 is basically a corrosive solvent, so it can do great damage to holding tanks, making transportation and storage more difficult than with normal gasoline.
4. Deployment of E85 may affect land use and could cause food shortages and price increases

As with most of the other alternative fuel sources I’ve researched, E85 holds much promise but has serious challenges which have to be addressed in order to be successful. Whether E85 can totally replace gas is doubtful, but it does represent a cleaner fuel in many applications, and undoubtedly the move towards E85 is better than doing nothing. The U.S government says that government owned cars have to increase their use of alternative fuel by 10% each year, so that could very well spur faster development of subsidies.

Continued from: Alternative Fuel Sources – Part Three – Biomass to Liquid (BTL). Continued in: Alternative Fuel Sources – Part Five – Oil Shale ]]> http://www.ourgreenempire.com/alternative-fuel-sources-part-four-e85/feed/ 0 http://www.ourgreenempire.com/alternative-fuel-sources-part-three-biomass-to-liquid/ http://www.ourgreenempire.com/alternative-fuel-sources-part-three-biomass-to-liquid/#comments Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:55:12 +0000 Darren http://www.ourgreenempire.com/?p=83

Another movement in alternative fuel sources is Biomass to Liquid, commonly referred to as BTL. Biomass to Liquid is a process by which biomass (in the guise of food byproducts or food crops) can be converted into a liquid that can be used to fuel automobiles. There is no current Biomass to Liquid technology being used commercially in the world today, but the idea is popular in Germany, where Choron Industries has built the world’s first commercial BTL plant.

Choron Industries is using a unique process they’ve developed called “The Choren Carbo-V Process“. This process has the following advantages:

1. Low temperature gasification
2. High temperature gasification
3. Endothermic entrained bed gasification

During the first stage of the process, the biomass (with a water content of 15 – 20 %) is continually carbonized through partial oxidation (low temperature pyrolysis) with air or oxygen at temperatures between 400 and 500 °C, i.e. it is broken down into a gas containing tar (volatile parts) and solid carbon (char).

During the third stage of the process, the char is ground down into pulverized fuel and is blown into the hot gasification medium. The pulverized fuel and the gasification medium react endothermically in the gasification reactor and are converted into a raw synthesis gas. Once this has been treated in the appropriate manner, it can be used as a combustible gas for generating electricity, steam and heat or as a synthesis gas for producing SunDiesel.

When all is said and done, the process will leave the company with SunDiesel, which can fuel automobiles.

The advantages of Biomass to Liquid are: (SunDiesel from Choren)

1. SunDiesel is CO2 neutral.
2. Can be used by normal cars without infrastructure changes
3. Has very low emissions and does not stink
4. Has a higher ignition performance than conventional gas engines

SunDiesel has attracted a lot of attention from Daimler AG and Volkswagen AG who are working with Choren Industries on making the product commercially available. Choren completed their plant on May 9th of this year.

Even Shell is getting in on the act, entering a BTL fueled car into 24 Hours of Le Mans.

This year, the fuel will also contain BTL – biomass to liquid. Shell says it represents the next stage of the development of sustainable low-carbon fuels. Developed in Germany by CHOREN Industries, it could produce up to 90 per cent less CO2 compared with regular diesel. CHOREN hope to market the fuel within a year.

Richard Karlstetter, Shell’s global technology manger of racing fuels, said: “It is still early commercial days for BTL but Shell sees motorsport as a technical test bed and we are excited about demonstrating the performance of Shell V-Power Diesel race fuel with both GTL and BTL.”

GTL is already available in Europe at 7,000 pumps. BTL is still in the initial stages of commercial production, but you have to see quite a bit of potential for the fuel. Choren has signed on some big partners to help market the product, and production on their plant is complete.

BTL also has its share of critics, of course. Using cellulose based food stuffs is a cause for concern because it changes the land use of high quality agricultural land from food production to energy production. And, of course, it takes energy to make energy.

Other disadvantages are:

1. Biomass to Liquid will take many years to deploy
2. It’s unknown how good the energy yield is for BTL, especially on a mass scale
3. Scalability is a major issue

Biomass to Liquid is a lot like E85. It will take quite a while to get production ramped up to a level that could affect gasoline sales. And in the meantime, food prices worldwide are spiking due to the re-allocation of resources of land for crop production to land for energy production.

Claude Roy, a French biomass to liquid expert says we need to be realistic about the technology.

“Using prairie land, or worse, destroying a forest, releases considerable quantities of CO2 that have been stored in the soil and the trees, and the outcome could be catastrophic,” said Bal.

Cautioned Roy: “Even if we find the Holy Grail, biofuels will not replace oil. At best, they will be part of the range of options to diversify energy supplies.”

Continued from Alternative Fuel Sources – Part Two – Diesel. Continued in Alternative Fuel Sources – Part Four – E85

Let’s take a look at diesel fuel, which many people don’t immediately associate with being alternative fuels. Diesel has long been the only alternative source of fuel, but has generally suffered from a bad reputation.

Diesel in its’ most prevalent form is a specific fractional distillate of petroleum fuel oil, and would generally not be considered “green.”

But diesel is the starting point for several fuel alternatives that not derived from petroleum, but can power diesel engines.

These synthetic diesel fuels fall into the following categories:

1. Biodiesel
2. Biomass to liquid (BTL)
3. Gas to liquid (GTL)

In order to keep these new fuels separate in our minds, folks have started calling old fashioned “diesel” fuel “petrodiesel”, in order to indicate it’s a petroleum derivative.

One of the big problems with these diesel fuels is always related to availability. So far, no one has been able to present a plan that will be scalable enough to stop the current reliance on oil. The German government has been a strong supporter of such research, but the country has found several initiatives they were bullish on have fallen short of their expectations.

So far synthetic diesel looks promising, but is no where near ready for mass consumption. The trouble is, synthetic diesel has a ton of disadvantages, including poor combustion performance and high cost. Most consumers won’t pay more for weaker performance, no matter how good it might be for the environment.

We’ll take a look at each of the synthetic diesel fuel types in more detail in coming articles.

Continued from: Alternative Fuel Sources – Part One – Overview

The hunt for alternative fuel sources is on. Gasoline is at a record price, and the economic pressure is forcing almost everyone to take a good, hard look at alternatives. This series of articles is designed at shedding some light on the issue of what alternatives to gasoline are out there, and which ones could eventually break the grip of the dominance of oil.

We’ll look at each of the emerging alternative fuel technologies (replacements for the common gas-powered engine):

• Diesel
• Biodiesel
• E85
• Oil shale
• Coal to Liquid
• Hydrogen

Any alternative fuel technology will have some pretty steep requirements in order to help mankind transition into a greener future.

1. The fuel will need to be clean, as near to zero greenhouse gas emissions as possible.
2. The fuel must be affordable and abundant
3. Society must be have a way to transition to the new fuel
4. The will of leadership to succeed

In order to switch billions of consumers from gas powered engines to alternative fuel engines will require a seismic shift in people’s thinking. Without a strong will from both the business and political sector, this shift can not possibly occur.

Continued in: Alternative Fuel Sources – Part Two – Diesel