Download - Wayne Arden April 14, 2011 info@arden ... - Methanol Fuelsmethanolfuels.org/.../Introduction-to-Renewable-Methanol-W-Arden.pdf · renewable methanol (made from sources other than

Wayne ArdenApril 14, [email protected]

Senator Akaka’s staffSenator Hoeven’s staff

mailto:[email protected]�

Renewable fuels: fuels derived from renewable resources rather than non-renewable resources such as fossils or nuclear materials. Conventional fuels include petroleum (oil), coal, natural gas, and nuclear materials such as uranium.

Substitution of renewable fuels for conventional fuels can advance two independent but overlapping policy goals:

1. Increase energy independence and improve the U.S. economya. U.S. imported 51 % of petroleum consumed in 2009 (data from EIA)b. 41% of crude oil imports (21% of total consumption) were from OPEC countries - many are

unstable or not aligned with the U.S. c. In 2009 the U.S. imported 18.7 million barrels a day. At $100 per barrel, that amount equates to

transferring $683 billion each year to other countries.

2. Reduce emissionsa. Depending on which fossil fuel is replaced, substitution of an alternative fuel may reduce

emissions of sulfur, mercury, particulates, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide), and other pollutants.

4/14/2011 Arden Consulting Copyright 2011 2

Renewable fuel is the broadest category.

Bi0fuel – a renewable fuel made from recently dead plant matter (biomass).

Alternative fuel – any substance that can substitute for the fossil fuel that was originally specified for a machine.

An alternative fuel is usually a renewable fuel but not always. An electric car substitutes electricity for gasoline, but the electricity may be supplied by a

power plant that combusts fossil fuels. Compressed natural gas is an alternative fuel for buses, which normally run on petroleum

diesel.


U.S. RFS2 (2010) recognizes these general renewable fuel types:

Ethanol (since is always made from biomass, could also be called bioethanol)

Biodiesel Renewable diesel Biobutanol

E.U. Renewable Fuel Directive (RED) (2010)

Includes RFS2 fuels, but also recognizes additional renewable fuels, including biomethanol.

Moreover, biomethanol is advantaged: “the contribution made by biofuels produced from wastes, residues, non-food cellulosic material, and ligno-cellulosic material shall be considered to be twice that made by other biofuels.”

It is likely that RED will include renewable methanol (made from sources other than biomass) as well.


Blends: renewable fuels are often blended with fossil fuels. The blend abbreviation specifies the percentage of renewable fuel; the percentage of fossil fuel is implicit. E10 = 10% ethanol, 90% gasoline. Bu85 = 85% butanol, 15% gasoline. RM3 = 3% Renewable Methanol. My apartment building in New York City uses B20 = 20% biodiesel, 80% heating oil #2.


Uses Fossil Fuel Renewable Fuel

Home or commercial heating Fuel Oil #2, #4, #6 Renewable diesel/biodiesel

Engine for electrical generator Diesel Renewable diesel/biodiesel

Compression vehicle engine Diesel Renewable diesel/biodiesel

Compression vehicle engine Natural Gas Renewable DME or bioDMEfrom renewable methanol or biomethanol (see later slide)

Spark Ignition (SI) vehicle engine Gasoline Renewable methanol/biomethanol, ethanol, biobutanol

Commercial airplane jet engine Kerosene Aviation biofuel

Methanol is the simplest alcohol, CH3OH, versus ethanol’s C2H5OH or gasoline’s average, C8H18. Distribution networks exist for each fuel. Methanol is most commonly used as a feedstock for the chemical industry, also as a feedstock for

making biodiesel (ethanol can be used as well). Butanol is the alcohol most similar to gasoline. Energy is stored in C-H bonds in hydrocarbons. Methanol has less energy than other alcohols but is a

simple molecule, in general requires less energy to make.

4/14/2011

Note: gasoline sold in the U.S. is normally 90% gasoline 10% ethanol (E10). A fuel with a high percentage of methanol would be M85 (85% methanol, 15% gasoline). In this case methanol’s (M85) energy content is 60% of gasoline (E10).

6

Alcohol Carbon Atoms

Gasoline Energy Content (by volume)

NormalSource

Use existing gasolinepipelines?

Methanol 1 50% Natural gas, sometimes coal (China)

No

Ethanol 2 66% biomass No

Butanol 4 91% petroleum Yes

Arden Consulting Copyright 2011

DME is the simplest ether, CH3OCH3 ; is similar to propane. DME is usually made from methanol by removing water or made directly from syngas derived from natural gas;

similarly bioDME is usually made from biomethanol. Can be used as a propane substitute, diesel substitute in transportation, or for power generation. Unlike biodiesel, DME cannot be mixed with petroleum diesel; a compression engine must be dedicated to DME. Liquid density of DME is 80% of diesel. Combined with lower energy content means a compression engine must use

twice as much DME as diesel fuel for same engine power output. Due to the lack of C-C bonds and the high oxygen content, combusting DME produces little soot or particulates and

also may lower nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions. Many manufacturers of gas turbines support DME for power generation, including GE, Siemens, Westinghouse.

Some vehicle manufactures have developed DME prototype trucks (see Q&A in appendix).


Ether Carbon Atoms

Diesel Energy Content (by volume)

Normal Source

Use existing pipelines?

DME (can be used as a gas, also as a liquid at low pressure, 60 psi)

2 70% Natural gas or coal

Yes; could use LPG or natural gas pipelines; blending DME with these fuels.

Renewable fuels can make a strong contribution towards lowering U.S. oil imports, but they are only a partial answer.Assuming a high yield of 1,000 liters/hectare (107 gallons/acre) for rapeseed (canola), if a biofuel crop were planted on all U.S. arable land and harvested once a year, the resulting biofuel would satisfy only 26% of annual U.S. petroleum imports. (Note: 2nd generation biofuels are based on plant matter that is not human food. 3rd generation biofuels, based on algae, have much higher yields, perhaps up to 100,000 liters/hectare, but they are not commercially proven.)

Therefore the U.S. must pursue multiple strategies simultaneously: Substitution: Of renewable fuels for fossil fuels, plus: Of electricity for fossil fuels (electric vehicles) Of a plentiful alternative fuel (natural gas) for imported petroleum

Increase efficiency, where machines do the same amount of work using less energy (use of hybrid technology, more efficient electronics, appliances, electricity distribution, etc.)

Research, to further improve crop yields (second and third generation biofuels), battery performance, efficient distribution of electricity, etc.


The Nature Conservancy did not analyze renewable methanol in the 2009 paper, “Energy Sprawl or Energy Efficiency: Climate Policy Impacts on Natural Habitat for the United States of America.”

However, regardless of how Renewable Methanol (RM) is manufactured, it has a low land intensity. RM does not directly depend upon the cultivation of crops. RM made by recycling carbon dioxide does not depend on crops at all.

RM ’s low land intensity is a key advantage versus other renewable fuels.Production of RM does not compete with food production, and avoids loss of biodiversity.


Many experts argue that the growing use of (first generation) biofuels has increased food prices worldwide. Opinions on causality range from little to no effect, to a substantial effect. See “Rush to use Crops as Fuel Raises Food Prices and Hunger Fears,” Elisabeth Rosenthal, New York Times. April 7, 2011. Also, “A Note on Rising Food Prices,” Donald Mitchell, The World Bank, Development Prospects Group, July 2008.

One could argue that BioMCN and Chemrec indirectly depend on cultivation, since their manufacturing processes are downstream of businesses that depend on crops and forestry. But, they are optimizing byproducts that are underutilized.


Company Country Approach Product Primary Feedstocks

Suppliers Produc-tion Start

BioMCN Netherlands From biomass

Biomethanol Glycerin Biodiesel plants

July 2009

Carbon Recycling Inc.

Iceland Chemical synthesis

Renewable Methanol

CO2, water Industrial CO2 emissions

Spring 2011

Chemrec Sweden From biomass

Biomethanoland BioDME

Black Liquor Pulp & Paper plants

Sept. 2010

BioMCN process: BioMCN uses glycerin as a feedstock (input) to create a biosyngas. The biosyngas can be used to generate power, or converted into biomethanol. Biomethanol can then be used as a fuel, or converted into bioproducts such as formaldehyde or acetic acid.

BioMCN’s biomethanol manufacturing process is synergistic with the production of biodiesel: Production of biodiesel (using the transesterification process) requires an alcohol as a feedstock (usually methanol). A byproduct of manufacturing biodiesel is glycerin. BioMCN uses glycerin as a feedstock to manufacture biomethanol.

BioMCN’s 2010 capacity was 250 million liters/year (66 M gallons). The E.U. RED requires that by 2020, 10% of the energy consumed in transport be from renewable fuels. In 2010, the capacity of BioMCN’s plant was equivalent to the Netherlands’ 2010 target of 4% biofuel content in gasoline.

CO2 emissions reduction: BioMCN claims biomethanol reduces CO2 emissions by 78% in comparison to regular methanol on the basis of a life cycle analysis.

Employees and investors: Currently about 90 employees. Investors are Dutch and Japanese.


USC Distinguished Professor, Founder USC Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, 1994. Member National Academy of Sciences.

In “Beyond Oil and Gas, the Methanol Economy,” (Wiley-VCH, 2006), Olah proposed widespread use of methanol as an energy carrier. In the future: “following nature’s example, mankind will be able to capture excess CO2 from the air and to recycle it to generate hydrocarbons and their products.”

Manufacturing methanol from CO2 reverses the normal process: when hydrocarbons are burned they produce CO2. Carbon recycling takes advantage of methanol’s simple molecule, CH3OH, and mimics photosynthesis in nature.

Olah pioneered advances in Direct Methanol Fuel Cells, vs. hydrogen fuel cells.


Also: “Chemical Recycling of Carbon Dioxide to Methanol and DiMethyl Ether: From Greenhouse Gas to Renewable , Environmentally Carbon Neutral: From Greenhouse Gas to Renewable, Environmentally Carbon Neutral Fuels and Synthetic Hydrocarbons., ” George A. Olah, Alain Goeppert, G.K. Surya Prakash, JOC Perspective, Jan 16, 2009.

CRI process: The CRI manufacturing process is based on George Olah’s work and added proprietary technology. CRI uses concentrated CO2 (from industrial emissions), water, and electricity from a renewable source as inputs. The outputs are renewable methanol and oxygen.

CRI plant: CRI’s first industrial scale plant, 5 million liters/year (1.3M gallons), will begin production during the spring of 2011. CRI has begun planning for a larger plant, 100 million liters (26 M gallons), also in Iceland.

CO2 emissions reduction: CO2 emissions reduction approaches 100%. CRI is using as a feedstock CO2 emissions from an Icelandic geothermal plant that would normally be vented into the atmosphere. Even though the renewable methanol will be combusted, and CO2 re-released into the atmosphere, similar to gasoline, the emissions from the geothermal plant are eliminated.

Industrial emissions: CRI requires a concentrated source of CO2 emissions from an industrial process such as a geothermal, cement, or aluminum plant. Olah‘s vision is for carbon recycling technology to mature so CO2 could economically be removed from a diluted source – the atmosphere.

Investors: Investors are primarily Icelandic and American. CRI’s plant will be the largest plant built so far to produce renewable methanol by recycling carbon. Mitsui built a CO2 to methanol plant in Japan in 2010; its capacity is 125,000 liters a year. Although not widely known, open cycle geothermal power plants are not a 100% clean energy source, emitting carbon dioxide and often hydrogen sulfide.


Net Energy Balance (NEB): Energy Outputs – Energy Inputs of a process of system. If NEB is is positive then energy is released; if NEB is negative then energy is absorbed. Net Energy Ratio (NER) = Outputs / Inputs

Biofuel NEB and NER: The NEB of manufacturing most biofuels (cultivation, manufacture, distribution) is greater than zero. Biofuels benefit from free energy: photosynthesis driven by the sun. Plants user water, sunlight, and CO2 to create energy in the form of various types of sugar, stored in plant matter.

Ethanol’s NER: 2.3 (USDA, “2008 Energy Balance for the Corn-Ethanol Industry,” June 2010) Biodiesel ‘s NER: 4.4 (USDA, “Energy Life-cycle Assessment of Soybean Biodiesel,” Sept. 2009)

Electricity, Gasoline, and Renewable Methanol NEB and NER: electricity, gasoline and RM all have a negative NEB and an NER less than one.

Electricity’s NER: about 0.45 Gasoline’s NER : 0.805 RM (made by carbon recycling ) NER: 0.62 (from a public source)

Conclusion: Production of RM by carbon recycling only makes environmental sense if electricity is provided by a renewable energy source. Basic tradeoff: very low land intensity vs. NEB < Zero


Iceland Basics: 311,000 people, 93% live in cities, 64% in Reykjavik. The population is stranded: the distance between

Reykjavik in the south and Akureyri in the north, Iceland’s second largest city, is about 400 km (250 miles ). 99.9% of Iceland's electricity production is from renewable energy sources: 70% hydro-electric and 30%

geothermal. Iceland creates jobs and exports electricity by attracting power-intensive industries: aluminum smelters

and a ferrosilicon plant.

Iceland and carbon recycling: CRI’s plant is adjacent to a geothermal plant and purchases electricity from the power plant . CRI will initially distribute RM through one lceland’s leading fuel distributors, Olís. Olís will blend RM with

gasoline at a 3% level (RM3) and sell RM3 at Olís petrol stations. The recycling of carbon from water and CO2 is creating knowledge-based jobs in a tough economy.

What will be determined in 2011: Can CRI manufacture RM at a price that is competitive with other renewable fuels and be profitable? When used by Icelandic drivers in existing vehicles, will RM meet standards for volatility (evaporative

emissions) , durability (materials compatibility), drivability (hesitation or improved octane) ?

Potential to virtually eliminate gasoline: Through the use of electric cars and Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) that run on M85, Iceland could virtually eliminate imports of gasoline.


Chemrec technology: Chemrec technology focuses on black liquor gasification, gas cleaning and pulp mill integration. Their intent is to transform pulp mills into biorefineries. Chemrec’s business model includes licensing technology to pulp and paper companies.

Chemrec’s existing plant: Chemrec’s first pilot plant, in Piteå, Sweden, starting producing BioDME in September 2010. Volvo Trucks developed 14 heavy-duty trucks with engines adapted for DME fuel.

Chemrec’s new plant: In January 2011 the E.U. approved a $78M R&D grant awarded by the Swedish Energy Agency towards construction of an industrial scale plant in Örnsköldsvik, Sweden. The plant will be based on the Chemrec technology for black liquor gasification combined with technology from the petrochemical industry. Capacity will be 150 million liters (40M gallons) per year of BioDME and Biomethanol.

CO2 emissions reduction: Chemrec claims biofuels produced using its gasification technology reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 95% compared to gasoline or diesel and replace imported fossil fuels with renewable fuels.

Employees and investors: The new plant will generate over 100 on-going jobs. Chemrec’s investors include VantagePoint Vintage Partners (California), AB Volvo, and other E.U. investors.


Energy carrier: Neither hydrogen nor methanol are primary energy sources – they must be manufactured. On earth hydrogen is nearly always combined with other elements, and rarely exists in natural form (H2). Using electricity to produce hydrogen does not make sense if the process of manufacturing hydrogen is inefficient and electricity can be distributed and used directly.

Storage: Once produced , storage of hydrogen is difficult and expensive, whether as a liquid (-434o F boiling point), compressed, or stored in solids physically (physically or chemically bound). Methanol is easily stored as a liquid (-144o F freezing point ; 148o F boiling point) and if there is no interaction with external contaminants, it will not deteriorate or decompose.

Distribution: A worldwide distribution system already exists for methanol. Developing an extensive distribution system for hydrogen would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Hydrogen fuel cells are not viable for mass transportation: Despite two decades of investment by leading vehicle manufacturers, a fuel-cell stack is still at least 10 times more expensive than a two-liter, four-cylinder gasoline engine. The range of Honda’s four-passenger FCX Clarity prototype is 240 miles. By contrast, Tesla Motor’s all-electric Model S seats 5 adults and 2 children, has a model with a range of 300 miles (at $77,000), and will begin production summer 2012.


Until hydrogen can be produced economically in large quantities by Generation IV nuclear reactors (not expected for at least 20 years), hydrogen only make senses in specialized applications.

Methanol has more hydrogen than hydrogen: It’s true that by weight, hydrogen’s energy content is three times that of gasoline. But by volume, a limiting factor in vehicle design, methanol contains 40% more hydrogen than hydrogen.

Fuel cell industry: Fuel cell manufacturers are focusing on specialized markets, such as premium power for the military, remote sites, the construction industry. Fuel cells are unlikely to compete successfully with grid electricity (from power companies) for many years.

Direct Methanol Fuels Cells (DMFC): Current DMFCs are limited in the power they can produce, but can still store a high energy content in a small space. DMFC companies are focusing on portable applications, in particular consumer electronics.

In the unlikely event….In the unlikely event that fuel cell technology competes successfully with electrical batteries as a means of storing energy in vehicles, using methanol as the fuel for fuel cells is in general more feasible to implement on a large scale than pure hydrogen. Direct Ethanol Fuel Cells (DEFC) exist as well, although there has been less R&D in DEFCs than DMFCs.


Methanol, rather than hydrogen, can be used as the fuel in fuel cells. Methanol can be first converted into hydrogen, or used directly to generate electricity.

Capturing stranded renewable energy: There are many cases where promising sites for renewable energy are far from population centers and not near electrical distribution lines. Often construction of the electrical distribution lines need to reach the renewable energy site is too expensive, making the business case for renewable energy infeasible.

Using geothermal, solar or wind energy to manufacture renewable methanol is a possible solution to this problem, as long as the renewable energy site has access to roads, a railroad, or a harbor.

Carbon recycling technology does not require a constant supply of electricity 24 hours a day. The most electricity-intensive processes can be performed at night, when rates are lower.

A safer means of importing natural gas than LNG: About 98% of the natural gas consumed in the U.S. is from the U.S. or Canada, and nearly all of this gas is distributed by pipeline. However, the U.S. does import natural gas using LNG terminals in Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, and Texas. Methanol’s fire intensity (rate of releasing heat in a fire) is about 1% that of LNG, lessening risk in urban areas. At some Mitsubishi production sites Mitsubishi converts natural gas to methanol, ships the methanol to Japan, where it is used directly or converted into DME for use in power generation, household or industrial use (replacing LPG), or diesel trucks (nascent market).


In addition to being a fuel for transportation, one of the more promising applications of methanol is as an energy carrier.

In 2007 China became the world’s largest producer and consumer of methanol.

China’s primary focus is on producing methanol from coal, rather than making renewable methanol. About 85% - 90% of the methanol produced in China is from coal.

Much of the adoption of methanol has been at the provincial level, with varying blends, including M5, M10, M15, M85, and M100, with M15 the most common. A lot of blending has been illegal, driven by economic factors.

Shaanxi Province expects to blend methanol into all gasoline sold in the province by end of 2010.

In Dec. 2009, China approved a national standard for M85. An M15 standard should occur in 2011.

Several domestic car companies are ramping up production: FAW Group: 30,000 vehicles ; Geely Group (Shanghai Maple): 100,000 vehicles These production volumes are much higher than in 1993-1998 during the U.S. production of methanol FFVs (see

appendix and MIT Study reference).


China’s big problem: In 2009 China imported 51% of its petroleum, or 4.1 million barrels/day (35% of U.S. 2009 imports). The IEA has forecasted that by 2030 China will import 79% of its oil, consuming 15 million barrels/day. China’s domestic oil production is currently declining.

Of the 35 U.S. national carbon sequestration projects, only three focus on CO2 use and reuse (CO2 utilization).

Looking at 55 state carbon sequestration projects, only three projects focus on CO2 utilization.

See DOE/NREL, “Carbon Sequestration Projects – National Map,” and “Carbon Sequestration Projects by State,” 2010 Portfolio.


Purifying a gas: The manufacturing process used by Chemrec and CRI includes purifying a gas. In Chemrec’s case, CO2, and other impurities are removed from syngas derived from black liquor. In CRI’s case, impurities are removed from geothermal power plant exhaust and CO2 is concentrated.

Modest U.S. Research on Reuse of CO2: The technologies above are consistent with the first step of most carbon sequestration projects that also propose to remove CO2 and other impurities from industrial flue gases, transport the CO2, and store it underground (geological storage). However, proposals to sequester CO2 underground may not be able to guarantee that the sequestered CO2 is not released in the future. Relatively little U.S. funding is focused on advancing technologies that use CO2 as a feedstock.

The three largest sources of concentrated carbon dioxide are power plants that combust fossil fuels (especially oil or coal), iron and steel production, and cement production. Any state with one of these CO2 sources, a sufficient supply of water, and a relatively inexpensive source of renewable energy, has potential for carbon recycling.


State Likely Renewable Energy Source

Carbon Dioxide Source

California Geothermal, wind, solar Power or cement plants

Colorado wind, solar CO2 pipeline

Hawaii geothermal, wind, solar Power plants

New Mexico wind, solar CO2 pipeline

North Dakota wind CO2 pipeline

Oklahoma wind CO2 pipeline

Texas wind, solar CO2 pipeline

Wyoming wind CO2 pipeline

The above figures are taken from the EIA Monthly Biodiesel Report, December 2009. The top ten U.S. states comprise 76% of total U.S. biodiesel production. These states are candidates for manufacture of biomethanol from glycerin, similar to BioMCN. Of these states Illinois, Minnesota and Washington have also passed mandates to accelerate the use of biodiesel.


State Number of biodiesel plants

Capacity in millions of gallons per year

Texas 14 456

Iowa 9 223

Illinois 6 218

Indiana 5 120

Minnesota 5 110

Missouri 5 105

Washington 1 100

Mississippi 3 88

California 8 71

Arkansas 3 70

The above figures are taken from the “U.S. Wood –Using Mill Locations – 2005,” Jeffrey Prestemon et. al., USDA Forest Service. The top ten U.S. states comprise 61% of all pulp plants in the continental U.S. Thirty states had pulp mills. These states are candidates for the manufacture of biomethanol or DME from black liquor, similar to Chemrec. Pulp mills (rather than paper mills) produce black liquor as a waste byproduct.


State # of pulp mills (2005)

Wisconsin 17

Alabama 16

Oregon 14

Washington 14

Georgia 13

Maine 11

Louisiana 10

North Carolina 10

South Carolina 10

Virginia 9

In 2012, the U.S. should assess Europe’s use of renewable methanol (including biomethanol) in vehicles and consider adopting a similar policy.

If the European experience is successful, consider amending RFS2 to include renewable methanol and biomethanol as renewable fuels.

Allowing RM3 could save up to 68.5 million barrels; 6% of U.S. petroleum imports.

Issue: methanol is somewhat more corrosive than ethanol. If a vehicle’s engine supports E15, it will support a somewhat lower combination of ethanol and methanol with gasoline, probably E10M3 (10% ethanol, 3% methanol, 87% gasoline). Requires EPA analysis, testing of emissions.

Over time the U.S. could allow renewable methanol to be mixed with gasoline at levels higher than 3%, to further reduce petroleum imports.


If Policy #1 is implemented, the U.S. should also consider regulations that motivate biodiesel producers to use renewable fuel as a feedstock when manufacturing biodiesel.

Even though biodiesel is considered a renewable fuel, manufacture of biodiesel according to the transesterification process (the most common process) requires an alcohol as a chemical input (feedstock), usually methanol, ranging in amount from 6% - 14% of the volume of biodiesel produced. Most biodiesel plants use normal (fossil-based) methanol because it is the least expensive alcohol, although ethanol or butanol could be used instead.

For example York City specifies that heating oil #2 be B2: contain a minimum of 2% biodiesel. New York City could charge biodiesel producers a (moderate) fee based on the alcohol-based feedstock that is not a renewable fuel.


Ethanol proponents should favor this proposal because it will expand the potential market for ethanol. A policy that gives an advantage to RM over normal methanol would put RM and (bio)ethanol on the same footing. Biodiesel made with ethanol or butanol has better cold temperature characteristics than biodiesel made with methanol. Policy #1 and #2 should be proposed together. However, the fee should be structured so that biodiesel made with normal methanol is still competitive with diesel if RM or ethanol is not available.

U.S. renewable fuels policy should be technology and feedstock-neutral. The U.S. will need contributions from a variety of renewable fuels; no one fuel is optimal or can be produced in sufficient volume.

All plug-in hybrid electric vehicles should support A85: 85% of any combination of renewable methanol, ethanol, or biobutanol, plus 15% gasoline.

The additional cost of supporting A85 is small compared to the much greater cost of supporting plug-in hybrid technology.

The Ford Fusion hybrid already supports E85. Lotus developed a tri-fuel version of the Exige 270E supporting any combination of methanol, ethanol, and gasoline with a minimum of 15% gasoline.

The EPA would need to do additional emissions testing. For example, combusting a fuel with a high percentage of methanol (M85) reduces many pollutants, but greatly increases one, formaldehyde, requiring possible changes to catalytic converters.

Thus, fuel pumps for alcohol-based fuels should be flexible, supporting any alcohol-based fuel (A85), rather than dedicated to a specific fuel (e.g. E85).


The Open Fuel Standards (OFS) Act, introduced in 2008 in the 110th

Congress: “To require automobile manufacturers to ensure that not less than 80 percent of the automobiles manufactured or sold in the United States by each such manufacturer to operate on fuel mixtures containing 85 percent ethanol, 85 percent methanol, or biodiesel.”

In summary, a more incremental and technically feasible policy, recognizing that use of renewable fuels can only partially reduce petroleum imports, would be:

All vehicles with plug-in hybrid technology must also be A85 FFV vehicles. Perhaps phased in over time, all FFVs (for vehicles with SI engines) must support A85. Regarding renewable diesel or biodiesel, vehicle compression engine technology should be

required, in a series of steps, to support a higher percentage of renewable diesel or biodiesel . ▪ The first step would be B33, where vehicle and off-road equipment engines could support any

combination of petroleum diesel and renewable diesel or biodiesel. Most vehicle manufacturers currently support B20 (see appendix).

▪ A second step would increase the percentage of renewable fuel to B50. Electrical generators and heating boilers should be required to support B100. Many European

manufacturers of compression engines for electrical generators, plus John Deere, support B100.


Benefits: 1. Would create a new industry in the U.S., and new jobs, in many states. 2. Would reduce oil imports and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.3. Has low land intensity; does not compete with food production.4. Also, would support investments that U.S. automobile manufacturers must make

anyway to be successful in China.5. Also, would increase investment in technologies that purify industrial emissions

and reuse carbon dioxide. 6. Also, would support use of renewable methanol as an energy carrier, which could

make renewable energy installations (especially geothermal or wind) in remote sites more feasible.


Caveat: Renewable Methanol (including biomethanol) is a nascent market in Europe, pursued mostly by young companies. Young companies can fail for many reasons. Nevertheless, RM is likely to make a significant contribution to European energy security, and also lower emissions.

Subject to a successful outcome in Europe, the U.S. should amend RFS2 to recognize renewable methanol-biomethanol as a renewable fuel. (Implement Policy #1 and Policy #2 in the near future; consider Policy #3 over time.)

Also, the U.S. should immediately require that new electrical generators and heating boilers be capable of combusting B100.

Benefits: Would reduce oil imports and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Would stimulate employment in agriculture, biodiesel manufacturing plants. Easier application than requiring B100 in vehicle combustion engines (see

appendix).

For more information on this topic, and the military’s possible use of biodiesel, see “Producing and Using Biodiesel in Afghanistan”, Arden and Fox, June 2010, www.biodieselinafghanistan.org


Question: Since renewable methanol (and biomethanol) are chemically the same as normal fossil-based methanol, should regulations allow normal methanol to be blended into gasoline as well?

Answer: No, for several reasons. Normal methanol is normally produced from natural gas. It is more efficient to use

natural gas directly as a fuel for larger vehicles such as trucks, vans or buses, rather than incur energy loses by first transforming natural gas into methanol (or in another step, from methanol into DME). Note that natural gas is not a feasible solution for smaller cars. The tank need to store the compressed natural gas is heavy; it would comprise a high percentage of a smaller vehicle’s weight. Also unlike a gasoline tank, a tank for compressed natural gas must be cylindrical, limiting design choices.

Renewable methanol can be produced economically to compete with other renewable fuels, but is not yet competitive with methanol made from natural gas. An optimal approach would be to allow only RM for transportation applications, but allow either normal methanol and RM (or normal DME and bioDME) for power applications. (Also ethanol proponents are more likely to agree to this policy).


An alternate policy would be one allowing both renewable methanol and normal methanol to be mixed in gasoline, with a minimum percent being renewable methanol. Over time that percent could be increased. This policy balances the somewhat conflicting goals of lowering petroleum imports as much as possible and lowering the use of fossil fuels as much as possible.

A variation would be only to allow renewable methanol to be blended in all gasoline but normal methanol would be permitted in A85 used by FFVs.

Note that it would take a number of years for renewable methanol production volumes to grow in the U.S.


Question: Does it make sense to use renewable methanol for transportation given that the NEB (Net Energy Balance) of manufacturing renewable methanol using carbon recycling is negative? Shouldn’t electricity only be used directly for electric cars, rather than used to manufacture renewable methanol?

Answer: No, for the foreseeable future we should take advantage of all approaches: 100% electric cars, plug-hybrid cars that support A85, and flexible fuel vehicles that support A85.

Electric cars have a fairly severe limitation: they are limited by the weight and energy density of batteries. Methanol’s ability to store energy is about 38 times better than a lithium-ion battery. However, electrical motors convert electricity into productive work more efficiently than internal combustion engines convert fuel into work. Correcting for this difference, a hybrid methanol-electric vehicle can store and use energy nearly 15 times more effectively than an all-electric vehicle. Until battery storage density improves by a factor of 10 or more, the range of an electric vehicle will be limited.


Electric cars have other limitations versus conventional cars: the battery cannot charged quickly compared to the ease of filling a tank with fuel. Few charging stations currently exist. And the performance of batteries in cold weather, and thus similarly electric vehicles, is significantly degraded. Finally, electric cars are, in general, more expensive than conventional cars.

Consequently, the adoption of electric cars by the public is likely to be a very gradual process. Honda released the first hybrid-electric car in the U.S. in 1999, the Insight. Toyota launched the Prius in 2000, and Ford a hybrid-electric version of the Escape in 2004. In 2010, the U.S. market share of hybrid-electric cars was under 3%.

Lastly the performance of electric batteries is not yet good enough for larger vehicles, or any commercial vehicle that carries heavy loads. Electric vehicles will be limited to a subset of the market for many years.

Also vehicles that operate either part of the time or all of the time using renewable fuels should compete on an equal basis. (The U.S. Government should not care whether renewable methanol is manufactured using carbon recycling or from biomass, as long as minimum standards for reduction in petroleum imports and emissions are met.)

Key point: adoption of RM as a renewable fuel is a relatively inexpensive hedge against the likely scenario that battery technology improves only incrementally, or consumer resistance to the disadvantages of electric vehicles is widespread.


Question: Should the U.S. focus more effort on DME as an alternative fuel or bioDME as a renewable fuel?

Answer: Yes, to a certain extent. The U.S. need for DME is not as strong as Europe’s or Japan’s, since North America has a large supply of natural gas and propane. DME appears to be a more attractive fuel for heating and power applications in the U.S. than for transportation.

DME could be an attractive fuel in parts of the U.S. that do not have access to either a natural gas pipeline or a LPG (Liquid Propane Gas) pipeline.

Using methanol as an energy carrier (and then converting to DME) may be a safer alternative than LNG in densely populated areas where the populace is concerned about LNG terminal safety.

A number of truck manufacturers, including Mitsubishi Motors, Hino Motors, Isuzu, Nissan Diesel, and Volvo are working on DME-fueled trucks, however the trucks must be dedicated to DME, and cannot mix DME and diesel fuel.

One reason for the U.S. to accelerate research and development in DME is so U.S. firms and universities do not fall behind, given increasing interest in DME in China. According to one account, annual production in China is expected to grow from 2 million metric tons to 20 million metric tons by 2020. Most of the new Chinese production is expected to be used for transportation. However, it appears that Chinese interest in methanol as a transportation fuel is more advanced than in DME.


One example: Hawaii has the highest electricity prices in the country (in 2010 26.02 cents per kilowatt hour across all sectors). Hawaii could consider replacing its coal-fired power plant on Oahu (the coal is imported from Indonesia) with DME or bioDME.

Recommendation: In the near future, the U.S. should focus more energies on persuading major U.S. truck manufacturers, PACCAR, Navistar, and Daimler/Freightliner, Navistar, PACCAR, Volvo/Mack , on increasing investment in hybrid technology and supporting a higher blend of biodiesel (B33 initially; B50 or higher over time) rather than supporting DME.

. It is unclear how competitive bioDME is with normal DME without renewable fuel mandates. In either case, between 5% - 15% of energy content is lost in conversion from methanol to DME.


Support of high percentages of biodiesel, up to B100, is easiest for boilers and furnaces. Next in degree of difficult areinternal combustion engines that run at steady state, such as generators. The challenge of supporting B100 is toughest for vehicle and off-road equipment compression engines. Some engine designs must be significantly altered to both support B100 and meet EPA emission requirements, especially nitrous oxide emissions.


Uses /companies Example Renewable Fuel Blend

Home or commercial heating Most boilers B20

Ford compression engines Super Duty trucks B20

GM compression engines Chevrolet, GMC trucks B20

Chrysler compression engines Ram trucks B20

Caterpillar compression engines Off-road equipment, generators

B20; B30 for larger engines

Cummins compression engines Vehicles, off-road equipment, generators

B20

John Deere Agricultural equipment, generators

B100

AGCO, Case New Holland (CNH) Agricultural Equipment B100

Daimler/Freightliner, Navistar, PACCAR Trucks B6 - B20

About 3.25% of the vehicles on the road in the U.S. are FFVs. Note that the automobile industry is challenging the EPA’s 2010 decision to increase the allowable percentage of ethanol in gasoline from 10% to 15%.


Uses Examples Renewable Fuel Blend

All U.S. SI vehicles Any car with a “gasoline” engine

E10

All U.S. SI vehicles built 2001 or later

Some Chevrolet ImpalasNo Chrysler Cirruses All Ford Fiestas

E15

All U.S. FFV (Flexible Fuel Vehicles)

Chevrolet Tahoe Chrysler 300Ford EscapeNissan TitanToyota Tundra(Most FFV models are made by Chrysler, Ford, GM)

E85

Current U.S. regulations allow up to 16% of the fuel for SI engines to be blended with biobutanal (Bu16). Given that the EPA has approved E15 for recently-built vehicles, it would follow that a higher blend of biobutanol, Bu24, may also be approved. In November 2010 Cobalt Technologies signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the U.S. Navy to develop a technology to convert n-biobutanol into jet and diesel fuels.


Advantages: • Requires little to no modification of SI engines.• Blends well with gasoline.

Challenges:• Large scale production is unproven.• Biobutanol production has suffered from low yields.• Has exceeded price of gasoline.

Leading biobutanol firms: • Butamax, a JV between DuPont and BP (technology demo plant in U.K.; first commercial plant in 2013) • Cobalt Technologies (1.5 MGPY expected by 2012) • Gevo (18 MGPY plant under development)

Butanol is not yet blended in gasoline in significant volumes.Commercialization is at least two years or more in the future.

The above figures are taken from the EIA “Net Generation from Wind by State by Sector” (Year-to-Date through December 2010). The top ten U.S. states comprise 75% of total U.S. wind generation; 36 states generate electricity from wind. These ten states are candidates for manufacture of renewable methanol from CO2, similar to CRI. This list may be somewhat misleading; some states could be attractive candidates for wind power but lack an electrical distribution network near promising wind power sites (e.g. Alaska).


State Thousands of megawatt hours

Texas 26,132

Iowa 8,799

California 6,614

Minnesota 5,231

Washington 4,652

Illinois 4,492

North Dakota 4,175

Oregon 3,919

Oklahoma 3,701

Kansas 3,456

The above figures are taken from the EIA “Net Generation from Geothermal by Census Division by Sector” (Year-to-Date through December 2010). In addition, per the Geothermal Energy Association “U.S. Geothermal Power Production and Development Update,” March 2009, there are new projects underway in Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico and Oregon. The states with ground temperatures of 100°C or higher, appropriate for electric power generation, include most of the western states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii. Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming.



California 12,958

Nevada 2,140

Utah 274

Hawaii 201

Idaho 94

The above figures are taken from the EIA “Net Generation from Solar by Census Division by Sector” (Year-to-Date through December 2010). The top ten U.S. states comprise 99% of total U.S. solar generation by utilities and independent power producers. Thirteen states generate electricity from solar. Per NREL most of Arizona, southern California, southern Colorado, most of New Mexico, southern Nevada, west Texas, and southern Utah have the greatest average solar radiation per month. These states then are especially promising for large centralized solar power plants, using either thermal radiation or photovoltaics.



California 822

Nevada 220

Florida 99

Colorado 33

New Jersey 28

Ohio 26

Illinois 20

Arizona 16

North Carolina 13

Pennsylvania 8

The U.S. FFV methanol program was successful, but interest waned due to declining petroleum prices, strong advocacy for ethanol.

Early Testing: Early program, 1980 – 1990, tested dedicated methanol vehicles (M85). Late 1980s – 1992 tested FFVs (methanol – gasoline). Ford built the most vehicles, 705, in four models:

Escort , Taurus, Crown Victoria, Econoline van. Established that FFV methanol technology was applicable to any engine/vehicle in light duty market.

Vehicles produced 1992 – 1998: 1992- 1998: U.S. automakers manufactured four FFV methanol production models: Ford Taurus, Chrysler

(Dodge Sprint/Plymouth Acclaim, Chrysler Concorde/Intrepid), GM (Lumina). Vehicles purchase mostly by governments, rental fleets. Vehicles were offered at same price as gasoline counterparts.

In 1993 over 12 million gallons of methanol were consumed. In 9997 M85 FFV peaked with 25,000 vehicles, with 15,000 in California, California had 100 refueling

stations. New York also demonstrated a fleet of vehicles, with refueling stations along the NY Thruway. In 2005 California canceled the methanol FFV program after 25 million miles of operation.

“Methanol as an alternative transportation fuel in the U.S.: Options for sustainable and/or energy secure transportation,” L. Bromberg and W.K. Cheng, Sloan Automotive Laboratory, MIT, November 2010.


Using renewable energy to manufacture an energy carrier, which can then be transported by road, rail or ship, could address several problems that financiers of renewable energy projects often face:

Breaking a vicious cycle: Power companies are reluctant to invest billions of dollars in building power lines to a renewable

energy company that does not have assured financing, but: Renewable energy companies are unlikely to gain financing to build plants without an assurance

that transmission lines will be built.

Over coming barriers: Transmission is the responsibility of each state, and each state has its own energy pricing policies.

This decentralization can lead to difficulties when the generation of electrical power is in one state, and the demand is in another: how should the cost of building transmission lines be divided?

Gaining rights to build power lines in tribal areas can be difficult.

Benefit: Using renewable energy to produce an energy carrier could offer a temporary or long term solution

to the problems stated above. Renewable methanol may not be feasible where water is scarce.


Renewable Energy is 10.6% of U.S. power generation.


45%

23%

20%

1%

0%0%

1%0%

7%

0%2% 1%

Percentage of Power GenerationCoalNatural GasNuclearPetroleumOther GasesOtherBiomassGeothermalHydroelectricSolarWindWood

Renewable Energy is 24.1% of New York’s power generation.


10%

31%

33%

2%0%

1%

21%

2%0%

Percentage of Power Generation

Coal

Natural Gas

Nuclear

Petroleum

Other

Biomass

Hydroelectric

Wind

Wood

Renewable Energy is 13.1% of North Dakota’s power generation.


87%

0%0%

0% 0%4%

9%


Coal

Natural Gas

Petroleum

Other Gases

Biomass

Hydroelectric

Wind

Renewable Energy is 7.4% of Hawaii’s power generation. (Solar is very small, only 0.01% of power generation).


14%

75%

0%3% 3%2%

1%0% 2%


Coal

Petroleum

Other gases

Other

Biomass

Geothermal

Hydroelectric

Solar

Wind

The residential population (without tourists) is 177,835 (2009 census); gasoline consumption is about 76.5 M gallons/year. Circumference is about 320 miles.

The Big Island’s Puna geothermal power plant, 25MW – 25MW of capacity, supplies 20% of electricity for the island. 8MW of additional capacity are planned.

40 MW has the potential to produce about 8M gallons per year of Renewable Methanol, equal to about 10.5% of gasoline consumption.

But if RM is used in A85 plug-in hybrid vehicles, the combination of electrification and RM could dramatically reduce gasoline consumption.

Hawaii’s two oil refineries are on Oahu. If the Big Island adopted A85, many fewer deliveries of gasoline to the Big Island would be needed. (Distance from Honolulu to Hilo is 216 miles.)

Note: the range of the all-electric Nissan Leaf, per the EPA, is 73 miles. Tourists might have to recharge multiple times a trip using all-electric vehicles. Charging time is seven hours, although a 30-minute quick charge can get batteries back up to 80% of full power.

Also, another geothermal plant is being considered for Maui. Other Hawaiian islands may be more suitable for other renewable fuels.


EPA vehicle emission regulations have historically limited emissions of nitrous oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), Non-Methane Organic Gas (NMOG), Particulate Matter (PM), and formaldehyde (HCHO). Some of these pollutants overlap with greenhouse gas emissions. Below is a table summarizing the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of various greenhouse gases. Only water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide can occur naturally. The rest are only present in the atmosphere due to industrial processes.


Gas Symbol GWP 100 year Time Horizon

Carbon Dioxide CO2 1

Methane CH4 23

Nitrous Oxide N2O 296

Chlorofluorocarbons CFC-11 (example) 3,400

Hydrofluorocarbons CHF3 (example) 12,000

Fully fluorinated species SF6 (example) 22,200

Ethers and Halogenated ether HFE-125 (example) 14,900

I have worked as a consultant periodically for Carbon Recycling International from 2009 – 2010. I do not have an ownership stake in the company, and have not collaborated with CRI in developing this presentation. The opinions stated in this presentation are solely my own.

For more information please contact [email protected]

Wayne Arden


mailto:[email protected]�