Replacing Gasoline: Alternative Fuels for Light-Duty Vehicles September 1990 OTA-E-364 NTIS order #PB91-104901 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Replacing Gasoline: Alternative Fuels for Light-Duty Vehicles, OTA-E-364 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1990). For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (order form can be found in the back of this report) Foreword Among the several major issues that Congress has addressed in the process of reauthorizing the Clean Air Act, the future role of alternative highway transportation fuels in reducing urban smog is one of the more prone to argument. Past attempts to reduce pollution levels from highway vehicles have focused primarily on the vehicles themselves; adjustments to fuels were considered mainly when these were necessary to allow vehicular controls to work (eliminating lead from gasoline was necessary to avoid poisoning the catalytic converters on the vehicles). As vehicular emissions control efficiencies rose past 90 percent and further improvements became more difficult, however, attention turned to the idea that some alternatives to gasoline have combustion and/or other physical and chemical properties that might allow the achievement of ultra-low emissions levels. The fuels of interest include methanol (wood alcohol), ethanol (grain alcohol), natural gas, electricity, and hydrogen. In this report, requested by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which is part of OTA’s ongoing assessment of Technological Risks and Opportunities in Future U.S. Energy Supply and Demand, OTA gives a broad overview of the qualities of the competing fuels and examines in depth some of the most contentious issues associated with the wisdom of active Federal support for introducing the fuels. Areas of uncertainty that affect the debate on Federal support include fuel cost (including costs of building new infrastructure and modifying vehicles); the air quality effects of the new fuels; effects on energy security; other environmental impacts of the fuels; and consumer acceptance of the changes in vehicle performance, refueling procedures, costs, and other facets of the transportation system that would follow a large-scale introduction of any of the fuels. The report singles out for special examination the arguments concerning the costs, energy security implications, and air quality impacts of introducing methanol fuels into the fleet. However, the other fuels have similar levels of uncertainty and contentiousness. As this report goes to press, the oil-driven crisis in the Middle East mounts daily and could erupt at any time into major conflict. Alternative fuels will play a minor-to-negligible role in near-term responses to that situation, because the time required to make fundamental changes in our energy supply and demand require years, if not decades. In the longer term, however, if the United States desires to take advantage of the opportunities with alternative fuels to reduce the likelihood and impacts of future such events of armed conflict or to capitalize on the potential substantial environmental advantages inherent in these fuels, we must adopt a sensible, long-term national investment commitment to effect those changes. w Director Replacing Gasoline: Alternative Fuels for Light-Duty Vehicles— Advisory Panel John Sampson Toll, Chairman University of Maryland James H. Caldwell, Jr. Edwin Rothschild ARCO Solar, Inc. Citizen/Labor Energy Coalition Daniel A. Dreyfus Milton Russell Gas Research Institute University of Tennessee Frederick J. Ellert Maxine Savitz General Electric Co. Garrett Ceramic David R. Johns Charles A. Berg David R. Johns Real Estate Group Northeastern University David Lee Kulp Robert Wallace Ford Motor Co. Peabody Holding Co. Jessica Mathews Jack W. Wilkinson World Resources Institute sun co., Inc. Edward H. Mergens Robert Williams Shell Oil Co. Princeton University Nathan Rosenberg Mason Willrich Stanford University Pacific Gas and Electric Co. NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents. iv OTA Project Staff—Replacing Gasoline: Alternative Fuels for Light-Duty Vehicles Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA Energy, Materials, and International Security Division Peter D. Blair, Energy and Materials Program Manager Project Staff Steven E. Plotkin, Project Director Administrative Staff Tina Brumfield Lillian Chapman Linda Long Contributors Rosina Bierbaum, OTA Oceans and Environment Program Robert M. Friedman, OTA Oceans and Environment Program Jana B. Milford, University of Connecticut Contractor Energy & Environmental Analysis, Inc., Arlington, VA Reviewers David Greene Jerrold L. Levine Oak Ridge National Laboratory Amoco oil co. Mark DeLuchi Terry Reuner University of California, Davis Amoco oil co. Daniel Sperling Thomas J. Lareau University of California, Davis American Petroleum Institute James Mackenzie Alan C. Lloyd World Resources Institute South Coast Air Quality Management District Edward H. Mergens Michael Kelly Shell Oil Co. Jensen Associates, Inc. David Lee Kulp Christopher Flavin Ford Motor Co. Worldwatch Institute Eugene Eklund Nicholas Lenssen 12907 Asbury Drive Worldwatch Institute Dave Gushee John Young Library of Congress Worldwatch Institute Daniel J. Townsend Harry Schwochert ARCO Products Co. General Motors Corp. Michael Jackson Margaret A. Walls Acurex Corp. Resources for the Future Carl Moyer Robert Williams Acurex Corp. Princeton University William J. Schumacher Joan Ogden SRI International Princeton University Dixon Smith Brad Holloman Chevron U.S.A. Inc. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Bruce Beyaert Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Eric Vaughan Renewable Fuel Association Paul Holtberg Gas Research Institute Gordon Allardyce Chrysler Motors Charles L. Gray, Jr. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Barbara Goodman Solar Energy Research Institute Phil Lorang U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tom Cackette California Air Resources Board Julie Hayden U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Jana Milford University of Connecticut Robert Bruetsch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency K.G. Duleep Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. J. Dillard Murrell U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Thomas Bull Food and Drug Administration David Bartus U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Glyn Short ICI General Chemicals Robert P. Howell 19 Elkin Court vi Contents Page Executive Summary . 1 OVERVIEW . 1 Meeting Society’s Goals . 3 Other Key Issues . 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . 4 The Perceived Benefits of Alternative Fuels . 6 Introducing Alternative Fuels Into the Light Duty Fleet . 11 Chapter I. Introduction . ....** 23 Chapter 2. Why Support Alternative Fuels? . 31 OZONE CONTROL IN PERSPECTIVE . 31 Why Control Ozone? . .32 Ozone and Its Precursors . 33 Controlling Volatile Organic Compounds . 34 Controlling Nitrogen Oxides . 40 The Role of Alternative Fuels . 40 ENERGY SECURITY IN PERSPECTIVE . 42 Should Energy Security Be a Major Concern for U.S. Policymakers? . 42 Energy Security Effects of Alternative Fuels . 48 THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN PERSPECTIVE . 49 Introduction . .. 49 Key Uncertainties . 50 Benchmarkarming: The Effect of Doubled Cob . 53 Reducing C02 Emissions in the Near-Term . 53 The Transportation Sector and Global Warming . 54 U.S. Transportation Energy Use and CO2 Emissions . 55 Alternative Fuels . 56 Chapter 3. Substituting Methanol for Gasoline in the Automobile Fleet . 59 EFFECTS 0N AIR QUALITY . 60 Organic Compounds and Ozone Reduction. 61 Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) . 69 Carbon Monoxide . 69 Toxic Emissions . 70 Greenhouse Emissions . 71 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL/SAFETY EFFECTS . 72 COST COMPETITIVENESS . .73 INFRASTRUCTURE . 79 ENERGY SECURITY IMPLICATIONS . 80 METHANOL OUTLOOK AND TIMING . 83 APPENDIX 3A: FACTORS AFFECTING METHANOLCOSTS . 84 Feedstock Costs . 84 Production Costs . 87 Capital Charges . .. 88 Long-Distance Shipping . ..