Prospects for Bi-Fuel and Flex-Fuel Light Duty Vehicles
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Prospects for Bi-Fuel and Flex-Fuel Light-Duty Vehicles An MIT Energy Initiative Symposium April 19, 2012 MIT Energy Initiative Symposium on Prospects for Bi-Fuel and Flex-Fuel Light-Duty Vehicles | April 19, 2012 C Prospects for Bi-Fuel and Flex-Fuel Light-Duty Vehicles An MIT Energy Initiative Symposium April 19, 2012 ABOUT THE REPORT Summary for Policy Makers The April 19, 2012, MIT Energy Initiative Symposium addressed Prospects for Bi-Fuel and Flex-Fuel Light-Duty Vehicles. The symposium focused on natural gas, biofuels, and motor gasoline as fuels for light-duty vehicles (LDVs) with a time horizon of the next two to three decades. The important transportation alternatives of electric and hybrid vehicles (this was the subject of the 2010 MITEi Symposium1) and hydrogen/fuel-cell vehicles, a longer-term alternative, were not considered. There are three motivations for examining alternative transportation fuels for LDVs: (1) lower life cycle cost of transportation for the consumer, (2) reduction in the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint of the transportation sector (an important contributor to total US GHG emissions), and (3) improved energy security resulting from greater use of domestic fuels and reduced liquid fuel imports. An underlying question is whether a flex-fuel/bi-fuel mandate for new LDVs would drive development of a robust alternative fuels market and infrastructure versus alternative fuel use requirements. Symposium participants agreed on these motivations. However, in this symposium in contrast to past symposiums, there was a striking lack of agreement about the direction to which the market might evolve, about the most promising technologies, and about desirable government action. This lack of consensus is itself instructive, pointing to the paucity of data in the public domain about vehicle performance and emissions for a spectrum of fuel alternatives. Despite this lack of consensus, there was agreement on two overarching realities. First, the introduction of new technology will be greatly facilitated by “backward compatibility” with the existing fuel and vehicle infrastructure. Second, the key factor is the extent that the stock of LDVs on the road is compatible with a range of fuels. The sessions dealt with different aspects of the engine/fuel system. Prospects for bi-fuel vehicles The dramatic difference in the US of oil and natural gas prices on an equal energy basis is a strong incentive for examining alternatives to the motor gasoline internal combustion engine (ICE) (in today’s configuration and with future improvements, e.g., turbocharging). Participants discussed a wide range of different vehicle/fuel combinations. Here is a sample list: • Methanol fueled LDVs • Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) LDVs • Bi-fuel natural gas and motor gasoline vehicles • Ethanol-gasoline flex fuel vehicles (FFVs) in range of E-15 to E-85 • Tri-flex fuel vehicles fueled by gasoline/ethanol/methanol (GEM) mixtures. For each of these alternatives there was considerable discussion (but little agreement) about drivability, emissions, cost, and maintainability. 2 MIT Energy Initiative Symposium on Prospects for Bi-Fuel and Flex-Fuel Light-Duty Vehicles | April 19, 2012 One session of the symposium was devoted to consumer choice as expressed in various countries, e.g., ethanol in Brazil, Germany, and the United States, bio-diesel and propane-fueled vehicles in Germany, and CNG in Asia and Europe. Unfortunately, the symposium did not hear an assessment about how useful vehicle choice models, widely used by industry and government agencies, were for projecting vehicle fleet composition among a wide range of vehicle/fuel options under a variety of policy assumptions. Some interesting tentative conclusions were inferred from the discussion offered here, but it is important to stress that these conclusions are tentative and require both technical development and verification from field experience. 1. It is possible to manufacture LDVs capable of operating on a wide range of GEM mixtures, with a cost penalty under $1,000 per vehicle, possibly substantially less. 2. These LDV engine/fuel combinations may comply with prevailing and anticipated air emission standards over the wide range of expected driving conditions, e.g., start-stop, summer-winter. 3. There is insufficient field experience with many LDV engine/fuel combinations that are proposed. 4. Attention must be given to fuel efficiency, on-board electronic fuel controls, and super charging to optimize vehicle performance with respect to emissions, cost, and consumer satisfaction. The lack of agreement about the most promising fuel/vehicle combinations from the point of view of cost, sustainability, and environmental effects meant that no clear direction emerged for desirable federal or governmental policy. Individual participants did propose a wide range of mechanisms: fuel economy standards, vehicle fuel flexibility standards, and various mechanisms to subsidize rapid deployment of fueling infrastructure. However, there also was recognition that the government was neither in a position to select one preferred alternative vehicle direction nor to provide the funds to subsidize multiple approaches. There certainly are research, development, and deployment (R,D, & D) programs in alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) that deserve federal support although this topic was not sufficiently addressed to either endorse present programs or offer many concrete suggestions. There was general sympathy with the view that there was little field data for small fleets of AFVs and that a suite of properly instrumented small fleet (less than 100 vehicles) demonstration projects could yield valuable information about the cost, practicality, and consumer satisfaction of the tech- nology alternatives. John Deutch Institute Professor, MIT MIT Energy Initiative Symposium on Prospects for Bi-Fuel and Flex-Fuel Light-Duty Vehicles | April 19, 2012 3 MITEI Associates Program/Symposium Series The MITEI Associates Program/Symposium Series is designed to bring together groups of energy experts to examine, analyze, and report on critical and timely energy policy/technology issues with implications for near-term actions. The centerpiece of the program is a one-day symposium in which invited experts, under Chatham house rule, discuss the selected topic. Topical white papers, which are sent to the participants in advance, are commissioned to focus and inform the discussion. The information from these white papers is supplemented by work from graduate students, who generate data and provide background information. Potential symposium topics are solicited from MITEI members and are provided to the Steering Committee for consideration. Four MITEI Associate members — Cummins, Entergy, Exelon, and Hess — support the program with a two-year commitment and serve on the Steering Committee. After each symposium, a report is prepared and published, detailing the proceedings to include a range of findings and a list of recommendations. Two students are assigned to each session. They serve as rappor- teurs for the symposium and focus their master’s theses on topics identified from the symposium. This report is the fifth in the series, following Retrofitting of Coal-Fired Power Plants for CO2 Emissions Reductions, Electrification of the Transportation System, The Role of Enhanced Oil Recovery in Accelerating the Deployment of Carbon Capture and Sequestration, and Managing the Large-Scale Penetration of Intermittent Renewables. These reports are available electronically on the MITEI web site at http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/ energy-studies.html. If you would like to receive a hard copy of one or more of the reports, please send an email with your requested titles and quantities and your mailing address to [email protected]. MITEI extends its appreciation to these sponsors of the Symposium Series. 4 MIT Energy Initiative Symposium on Prospects for Bi-Fuel and Flex-Fuel Light-Duty Vehicles | April 19, 2012 CONTENTS –2 About The Report / SUMMARY FOR Policy maKerS –7 Section 1 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY 19 Section 2 VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY AND MANUFACTURING PERSPECTIVES Overview Dedicated Mono-Fuel Vehicles Bi-Fuel Vehicles Flex-Fuel Vehicles Vehicle Technology Modifications Economics of FFVs FFV/Fuel Combinations Introduction of Methanol into FFVs Environmental Performance of FFV/Fuel Combinations 35 Section 3 FUEL PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE PERSPECTIVE Introduction Gasoline Ethanol Natural Gas Methanol Pricing of Alternative Fuels Relative to Gasoline 55 Section 4 CONSUMER PERSPECTIVES Modeling the Attributes of Consumer Behavior toward Bi-Fuel and Flex-Fuel Vehicles Vehicle Performance Backward Compatibility Ease of Fueling Cost Competitiveness Lessons Learned from Alternative Fuels Experience in Other Countries Summary of Alternative Fuels Experiences in Other Countries Methanol Experience in China Tri-Flex Fuel Vehicle Experience in Brazil: Use of CNG Instead of Methanol 65 Section 5 POLICY ISSUES Historical Evolution of Alternative Fuels Legislation Discussion of the Key Current Policies Alternative Fuel Vehicle Credits in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program Alternative Fuel Mandates The Unsuccessful Effort to Incentivize the Introduction of Methanol Fuel Are Alternative Fuels Needed in the US Transportation Fuel Market? Possible Additional Areas for Government Intervention Open Fuel Standard Fuel Tax Government Fleet Programs Better Informing the Public Federal R&D Support CNG Refueling Programs Vehicle and Fuel