5.3.1.3 Alternative fuels

Biofuels

The term biofuels describes fuel produced from biomass. A variety of techniques can be used to convert a variety of CO₂ neutral biomass feedstocks into a variety of fuels. These fuels include carbon-containing liquids such as ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, di-methyl esters (DME) and Fischer-Tropsch liquids, as well as carbon-free hydrogen. Figure 5.8 shows some main routes to produce biofuels: extraction of vegetable oils, fermentation of sugars to alcohol, gasification and chemical synthetic diesel, biodiesel and bio oil. In addition, there are more experimental processes, such as photobiological processes that produce hydrogen directly.

Figure 5.8: Overview of conversion routes from crops to biofuels

Source: Adapted from Hamelinck and Faaij, 2006.

Biofuels can be used either ‘pure’ or as a blend with other automotive fuels. There is a large interest in developing biofuel technologies, not only to reduce GHG emission but more so to decrease the enormous transport sector dependence on imported oil. There are two biofuels currently used in the world for transport purposes – ethanol and biodiesel.

Ethanol is currently made primarily by the fermentation of sugars produced by plants such as sugar cane, sugar beet and corn. Ethanol is used in large quantities in Brazil where it is made from sugar cane, in the USA where it is made from corn, but only in very small quantities elsewhere.

Ethanol is blended with gasoline at concentrations of 5–10% on a volume basis in North America and Europe. In Brazil ethanol is used either in its pure form replacing gasoline, or as a blend with gasoline at a concentration of 20–25%. The production of ethanol fuelled cars in Brazil achieved 96% market share in 1985, but sharply declining shortly thereafter to near zero. Ethanol vehicle sales declined because ethanol producers shifted to sugar production and consumers lost confidence in reliable ethanol supply. A 25% blend of ethanol has continued to be used. With the subsequent introduction of flexfuel cars (see Box 5.2), ethanol fuel sales have increased. However, the sugar cane experience in Brazil will be difficult to replicate elsewhere. Land is plentiful, the sugar industry is highly efficient, the crop residues (bagasse) are abundant and easily used for process energy, and a strong integrated R&D capability has been developed in cane growing and processing.

In various parts of Asia and Africa, biofuels are receiving increasing attention and there is some experience with ethanol-gasoline blending of up to 20%. Ethanol is being produced from sugar cane in Africa and from corn in small amounts in Asia. Biodiesel production is being considered from Jatropha (a drought resistant crop) that can be produced in most parts of Africa (Yamba and Matsika, 2004). It is estimated that with 10% ethanol-gasoline blending and 20% biodiesel-diesel blending in southern Africa, a reduction of 2.5 MtCO2 and 9.4 MtCO2 respectively per annum can be realized. Malaysian palm oil and US soybean oils are currently being used as biodiesel transport fuel in limited quantities and other oilseed crops are being considered elsewhere.

For the future, the conversion of ligno-cellulosic sources into biofuels is the most attractive biomass option. Ligno-cellulosic sources are grasses and woody material. These include crop residues, such as wheat and rice straw, and corn stalks and leaves, as well as dedicated energy crops. Cellulosic crops are attractive because they have much higher yields per hectare than sugar and starch crops, they may be grown in areas unsuitable for grains and other food/feed crops and thus do not compete with food, and the energy use is far less, resulting in much greater GHG reductions than with corn and most food crops (IEA, 2006a).

A few small experimental cellulosic conversion plants were being built in the USA in 2006 to convert crop residues (e.g., wheat straw) into ethanol, but considerably more R&D investment is needed to make these processes commercial. These investments are beginning to be made. In 2006 BP announced it was committing 1 billion US$ to develop new biofuels, with special emphasis on bio-butanol, a liquid that can be easily blended with gasoline. Other large energy companies were also starting to invest substantial sums in biofuels R&D in 2006, along with the US Department of Energy, to increase plant yields, develop plants that are better matched with process conversion technologies and to improve the conversion processes. The energy companies in particular are seeking biofuels other than ethanol that would be more compatible with the existing petroleum distribution system.^[22]

Biodiesel is less promising in terms of cost and production potential than cellulosic fuels but is receiving increasing attention. Bioesters are produced by a chemical reaction between vegetable or animal oil and alcohol, such as ethanol or methanol. Their properties are similar to those of diesel oil, allowing blending of bioesters with diesel or the use of 100% bioesters in diesel engines, and they are all called biodiesel. Blends of 20% biodiesel with 80% petroleum diesel (B20) can generally be used in unmodified diesel engines.^[23]

Diesel fuel can also be produced through thermochemical hydrocracking of vegetable oil and animal fats. This technology has reached the demonstration stage. In Finland and Brazil^[24] a commercial production project is under way. The advantage of the hydrocracked biodiesel is its stability and compatibility with conventional diesel (Koyama et al., 2006).

A large drawback of biodiesel fuels is the very high cost of feedstocks. If waste oils are used the cost can be competitive, but the quantity of waste oils is miniscule compared to transport energy consumption. If crops are used, the feedstock costs are generally far higher than for sugar, starch or cellulosic materials. These costs are unlikely to drop since they are the same highly developed crops used for foods and food processing. Indeed, if diverted to energy use, the oil feedstock costs are likely to increase still further, creating a direct conflict with food production. The least expensive oil feedstock at present is palm oil. Research is ongoing into new ways of producing oils. The promising feedstock seems to be algae, but cost and scale issues are still uncertain.

For 2030 IEA (2006a) reports mitigation potentials for bioethanol between 500–1200 MtCO₂, with possibly up to 100–300 MtCO₂ of that for ligno-cellulosic ethanol (or some other bio-liquid). The long-term potential for ligno-cellulosic fuels beyond 2030 is even greater. For biodiesel, it reports mitigation potential between 100–300 MtCO₂.

The GHG reduction potential of biofuels, especially with cellulosic materials, is very large but uncertain. IEA estimated the total mitigation potential of biofuels in the transport sector in 2050 to range from 1800 to 2300 MtCO₂ at 25 US$/tCO₂-eq. based on scenarios with a respective replacement of 13 and 25% of transport energy demand by biofuels (IEA, 2006a). The reduction uncertainty is huge because of uncertainties related to costs and GHG impacts.

Only in Brazil is biofuel competitive with oil at 50 US$ per barrel or less. All others cost more. As indicated in Figure 5.9, biofuel production costs are expected to drop considerably, especially with cellulosic feedstocks. But even if the processing costs are reduced, the scale issue is problematic. These facilities have large economies of scale. However, there are large diseconomies of scale in feedstock production (Sperling, 1985). The cost of transporting bulky feedstock materials to a central point increases exponentially, and it is difficult assembling large amount of contiguous land to serve single large processing facilities.

Figure 5.9: Comparison of cost for various biofuels with those for gasoline and diesel

Source: IEA, 2006b.

Another uncertainty is the well-to-wheel reduction in GHGs by these various biofuels. The calculations are very complex because of uncertainties in how to allocate GHG emissions across the various products likely to be produced in the bio-refinery facilities, how to handle the effects of alternative uses of land, and so on, and the large variations in how the crops are grown and harvested, as well as the uncertain efficiencies and design configurations of future process technologies and bio-engineering plant materials. Typical examples are shown in Figure 5.10.

Figure 5.10: Reduction of well-to-wheels GHG emissions compared to conventionally fuelled vehicles

Note: bars indicate range of estimates.

Source: IEA, 2004c; EUCAR/CONCAWE/JRC, 2006.

Ethanol from sugar cane, as produced in Brazil, provides significant reductions in GHG emissions compared to gasoline and diesel fuel on a ‘well-to-wheels’ basis. These large reductions result from the relatively energy efficient nature of sugar cane production, the use of bagasse (the cellulosic stalks and leaves) as process energy and the highly advanced state of Brazilian sugar farming and processing. Ongoing research over the years has improved crop yields, farming practices and process technologies. In some facilities the bagasse is being used to cogenerate electricity which is sold back to the electricity grid.

In contrast, the GHG benefits of ethanol made from corn are minor (Ribeiro & Yones-Ibrahim, 2001). Lifecycle estimates range from a net loss to gains of about 30%, relative to gasoline made from conventional oil. Farrell et al. (2006) evaluates the many studies and concludes that on average the reductions are probably about 13% compared to gasoline from conventional oil. The corn-ethanol benefits are minimal because corn farming and processing are energy intensive.

Biofuels might play an important role in addressing GHG emissions in the transport sector, depending on their production pathway (Figure 5.10). In the years to come, some biofuels may become economically competitive, as the result of increased biomass yields, developments of plants that are better suited to energy production, improved cellulosic conversion processes and even entirely new energy crops and conversion processes. In most cases, it will require entirely new businesses and industries. The example of ethanol in Brazil is a model. The question is the extent to which this model can be replicated elsewhere with other energy crops and production processes.

The biofuel potential is limited by:

• The amount of available agricultural land (and in case of competing uses for that land) for traditional and dedicated energy crops;
• The quantity of economically recoverable agricultural and silvicultural waste streams;
• The availability of proven and cost-effective conversion technology.

Another barrier to increasing the potential is that the production of biofuels on a massive scale may require deforestation and the release of soil carbon as mentioned in Chapter 8.4. Another important point on biofuels is a view from the cost-effectiveness among the sectors. When comparing the use of biofuel in the transport sector with its use in power stations, the latter is more favourable from a cost-effectiveness point of view (ECMT, 2007).

Natural Gas (CNG / LNG / GTL)

Natural gas, which is mainly methane (CH₄), can be used directly in vehicles or converted into more compact fuels. It may be stored in compressed (CNG) or liquefied (LNG) form on the vehicle. Also, natural gas may be converted in large petrochemical plants into petroleum-like fuels (the process is known as GTL, or gas-to-liquid). The use of natural gas as a feedstock for hydrogen is described in the hydrogen section.

CNG and LNG combustion characteristics are appropriate for spark ignition engines. Their high octane rating, about 120, allows a higher compression ratio than is possible using gasoline, which can increase engine efficiency. This requires that the vehicle be dedicated to CNG or LNG, however. Many current vehicles using CNG are converted from gasoline vehicles or manufactured as bifuel vehicles, with two fuel tanks. Bifuel vehicles cannot take full advantage of CNG’s high octane ratio.

CNG has been popular in polluted cities because of its good emission characteristics. However, in modern vehicles with exhaust gas after-treatment devices, the non-CO₂ emissions from gasoline engines are similar to CNG, and consequently CNG loses its emission advantages in term of local pollutants; however it produces less CO₂. Important constraints on its use are the need for a separate refuelling infrastructure system and higher vehicle costs – because CNG is stored under high pressure in larger and heavier fuel tanks.

Gas-to-liquids (GTL) processes can produce a range of liquid transport fuels using Fischer-Tropsch or other conversion technologies. The main GTL fuel produced will be synthetic sulphur-free diesel fuel, although other fuels can also be produced. GTL processes may be a major source of liquid fuels if conventional oil production cannot keep up with growing demand, but the current processes are relatively inefficient: 61–65% (EUCAR/CONCAWE/JRC, 2006) and would lead to increased GHG emissions unless the CO₂ generated is sequestered.

DME can be made from natural gas, but it can also be produced by gasifying biomass, coal or even waste. It can be stored in liquid form at 5–10 bar pressure at normal temperature. This pressure is considerably lower than that required to store natural gas on board vehicles (200 bar). A major advantage of DME is its high cetane rating, which means that self-ignition will be easier. The high cetane rating makes DME suitable for use in efficient diesel engines.

DME is still at the experimental stage and it is still too early to say whether it will be commercially viable. During experiments, DME has been shown to produce lower emissions of hydrocarbons, nitric oxides and carbon monoxide than diesel and zero emissions of soot (Kajitani et al., 2005). There is no current developed distribution network for DME, although it has similarities to LPG and can use a similar distribution system. DME has a potential to reduce GHG emissions since it has a lower carbon intensity (15 tC/TJ) than petroleum products (18.9–20.2 tC/TJ) (IPCC, 1996).

Hydrogen / Fuel Cells

During the last decade, fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) have attracted growing attention and have made significant technological progress. Drivers for development of FCVs are global warming (FCVs fuelled by hydrogen have zero CO₂ emission and high efficiency), air quality (zero tailpipe emissions), and energy security (hydrogen will be produced from a wide range of sources), and the potential to provide new desirable customer attributes (low noise, new designs).

There are several types of FCVs; direct-drive and hybrid power train architectures fuelled by pure hydrogen, methanol and hydrocarbons (gasoline, naphtha). FCVs with liquid fuels have advantages in terms of fuel storage and infrastructure, but they need on-board fuel reformers (fuel processors), which leads to lower vehicle efficiency (30–50% loss), longer start-up time, slower response and higher cost. Because of these disadvantages and rapid progress on direct hydrogen systems, nearly all auto manufacturers are now focused on the pure hydrogen FCV. Significant technological progress has been made since TAR including: improved fuel cell durability, cold start (sub-freezing) operation, increased range of operation, and dramatically reduced costs (although FCV drive train costs remain at least an order of magnitude greater than internal combustion engine (ICE) drive train costs) (Murakami and Uchibori, 2006).

In addition, many demonstration projects have been initiated since TAR^[25]. Since 2000, members of the California Fuel Cell Partnership have placed 87 light-duty FCVs and 5 FC buses in California, which have travelled over 590,000 km on California’s roads and highways. In 2002–2003, Japanese automakers began leasing FCVs in Japan and the USA, now totalling 17 vehicles. In 2004, US DOE started government/industry partnership ‘learning demonstrations’ for testing, demonstrating and validating hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and infrastructure and vehicle/infrastructure interfaces for complete system solutions. In Europe, there are several partnerships for FCV demonstration such as CUTE (Clean Urban Transport for Europe), CEP (Clean Energy Partnership) and ECTOS (Ecological City Transport System), using more than 30 buses and 20 passenger cars.

The recent US (NRC/NAE, 2004) and EU (JRC/IPTS, 2004) analyses conclude:

Although the potential of FCVs for reducing GHG emissions is very high there are currently many barriers to be overcome before that potential can be realized in a commercial market. These are:

• To develop durable, safe, and environmentally desirable fuel cell systems and hydrogen storage systems and reduce the cost of fuel cell and storage components to be competitive with today’s ICEs;
• To develop the infrastructure to provide hydrogen for the light-duty vehicle user;
• To sharply reduce the costs of hydrogen production from renewable energy sources over a time frame of decades. Or to capture and store (‘sequester’) the carbon dioxide byproduct of hydrogen production from fossil fuels.

Public acceptance must also be secured in order to create demand for this technology. The IEA echoes these points while also noting that deployment of large-scale hydrogen infrastructure at this point would be premature, as some of the key technical issues that are still being worked on, such as fuel cell operating conditions and hydrogen on-board storage options, may have a considerable impact on the choice of hydrogen production, distribution and refuelling (IEA, 2005).

The GHG impact of FCVs depends on the hydrogen production path and the technical efficiency achieved by vehicles and H₂ production technology. At the present technology level with FCV tank-to-wheel efficiency of about 50% and where hydrogen can be produced from natural gas at 60% efficiency, well-to-wheel (WTW) CO₂ emissions can be reduced by 50–60% compared to current conventional gasoline vehicles. In the future, those efficiencies will increase and the potential of WTW CO₂ reduction can be increased to nearly 70%. If hydrogen is derived from water by electrolysis using electricity produced using renewable energy such as solar and wind, or nuclear energy, the entire system from fuel production to end-use in the vehicle has the potential to be a truly ‘zero emissions’. The same is almost true for hydrogen derived from fossil sources where as much as 90% of the CO₂ produced during hydrogen manufacture is captured and stored (see Figure 5.11).

Figure 5.11: Well-to-wheel CO₂ emission for major pathways of hydrogen with some estimates of hydrogen production cost (numbers in parentheses)

Source: Toyota/Mizuho, 2004; NRC/NAE, 2004.

FCV costs are expected to be much higher than conventional ICE vehicles, at least in the years immediately following their introduction and H₂ costs may exceed gasoline costs. Costs for both the vehicles and fuel will almost certainly fall over time with larger-scale production and the effects of learning, but the long-term costs are highly uncertain. Figure 5.11 shows both well-to-wheels emissions estimates for several FCV pathways and their competing conventional pathways, as well as cost estimates for some of the hydrogen pathways.

Although fuel cells have been the primary focus of research on potential hydrogen use in the transport sector, some automakers envision hydrogen ICEs as a useful bridge technology for introducing hydrogen into the sector and have built prototype vehicles using hydrogen. Mazda has started to lease bi-fuel (hydrogen or gasoline) vehicles using rotary engines and BMW has also converted a 7-series sedan to bi-fuel operation using liquefied hydrogen (Kiesgen et al., 2006) and is going to lease them in 2007. Available research implies that a direct injected turbocharged hydrogen engine could potentially achieve efficiency greater than a DI diesel (Wimmer et al., 2005), although research and development challenges remain, including advanced sealing technology to insure against leakage with high pressure injection.

Electric vehicles

Fuel cell and hybrid vehicles gain their energy from chemical fuels, converting them into electricity onboard. Pure electric vehicles operating today are either powered from off-board electricity delivered through a conductive contact – usually buses with overhead wires or trains with electrified ‘third rails’ – or by electricity acquired from the grid and stored on-board in batteries. Future all-electric vehicles might use inductive charging to acquire electricity, or use ultracapacitors or flywheels in combination with batteries to store electricity on board.

The electric vehicles are driven by electric motors with high efficiencies of more than 90%, but their short driving range and short battery life have limited the market penetration. Even a limited driving range of 300 km requires a large volume of batteries weighing more than 400 kg (JHFC, 2006). Although the potential of CO₂ reduction strongly depends on the power mix, well-to-wheels CO₂ emission can be reduced by more than 50% compared to conventional gasoline-ICE (JHFC, 2006).

Vehicle electrification requires a more powerful, sophisticated and reliable energy-storage component than lead-acid batteries. These storage components will be used to start the car and also operate powerful by-wire control systems, store regenerative braking energy and to operate the powerful motor drives needed for hybrid or electric vehicles. Nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries currently dominate the power-assist hybrid market and Li ion batteries dominate the portable battery business. Both are being aggressively developed for broader automotive applications. The energy density has been increased to 170 Wh kg^–1 and 500 Wh L^–1 for small-size commercial Li ion batteries (Sanyo, 2005) and 130 Wh kg^–1 and 310 Wh L^–1 for large-size EV batteries (Yuasa, 2000). While NiMH has been able to maintain hybrid vehicle high-volume business, Li ion batteries are starting to capture niche market applications (e.g., the idle-stop model of Toyota’s Vitz). The major hurdle left for Li ion batteries is their high cost.

Ultracapacitors offer long life and high power but low energy density and high current cost. Prospects for cost reduction and energy enhancement and the possibility of coupling the capacitor with the battery are attracting the attention of energy storage developers and automotive power technologists alike. The energy density of ultracapacitors has increased to 15–20 Wh kg^–1 (Power System, 2005), compared with 40–60 Wh kg^–1 for Ni-MH batteries. The cost of these advanced capacitors is in the range of several 10s of dollars/Wh, about one order of magnitude higher than Li batteries.