The silent/self paced version with appendices. A slide show of the slide in the above voice annotated one above but with appendices. There are a few words over the appendix in the YouTube version. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-G8Kj5594w&feature=plcp

1. Bob Falco, PhD
Pete Sheehey, PhD
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness
Presented to the LAC Transportation Committee 12 July 2012

2.  The EPA has researched the use of high percentages of
alcohol in engines
 Scientifically prescribed path to easy introduction of
methanol
 MIT Engine Lab and Lotus Engineering
 The path utilizes the availability of current Flex Fueled
Vehicles (FFV)
 There are over 11,000,000 FFV in the US
 All new vehicles purchased by Los Alamos County are
Flex Fuel Capable
7/12/12 Institute for Energy Resourcefulness 2

3.  High cost of vehicle conversion
 High cost of pumping stations
 High cost of maintenance
 Lower efficiency/power of vehicles
 No easy transition path
 Locked into a single technology and fuel
at a time of rapidly developing fuels
technology

4. 40%G 10%E 50%M Lotus Engineering Research
7/12/12
4 Institute for Energy Resourcefulness

5. G=$
3.11
%
methano
l
G=
$3.73
Lotus Engineering

6. • Can be made from natural gas (100-120 yrs)
• No competition with food
• No water use issues
• Cheaper to make than gasoline
Additional advantages
• Engines can be optimized to run with higher
efficiency than diesels
• Lower CO2,
• CO2 neutral if bio methanol
• CO2 negative if solar energy is used
• Methanol can be made renewably
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness 6 7/12/12

9.  Reduce engine system costs (engine plus exhaust
treatment) by $10,000 - $15,000.
 The engines cost less (diesels are more expensive)
 No need for either the Diesel Particulate Filter or the
Urea Filter (NOx)
 Reduced maintenance
 Fuel costs less
 Better mileage – up to 5% better fuel economy
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness 7/12/12 9

10. EIA Nov 08 100 -120 years supply
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness

11. COWS------ > BIOGAS----- > GASIFIER -- > METHANOL---- > VEHICLES
Landfill
NET EFFICIENCY = .70*.85 = 59.5%
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness 11 5/30/12

12. COWS---- > BIOGAS--- > SOLAR FURNACE -- > METHANOL--- > VEHICLES
Landfill
Maximum theoretical efficiency = 1.3*.85 = 1.10%
12 5/30/12
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness

13. A Way Forward for Economical
Environmentally Responsible Transportation
Policy in Los Alamos County
• Do a test on an older E-85 vehicle. Buy methanol on open market and establish
the use of GEM mixtures.
• If successful run a small test fleet
• Mix locally at airport pumping station?
• Expand fleet using GEM mixture
• Contract for a long term methanol price (see supplemental slides)
The above can be done with existing vehicles
• Buy all new vehicles with capability of 100% methanol usage
• Passage of the “Open Fuels Act” will mandate this
• Renewable methanol from LA landfill gas emissions
• Use classical gasifiers to make methanol from landfill gas
• In the future, add solar gasifiers to make additional methanol
• Gain 30% in available energy
• Utilize all of the CO2 emitted
• Apply for Federal Production Tax Credit
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness 7/12/12 13

14.  CNG $2.54*200,000/5 = $101,600
 LNG $1.70 * 200,000/5 = $68,000
 Diesel $3.91 *200000/5 = $156,400
 Methanol $2.64*200000/5 = $105,600
 $75,000 cost increment to convert a full sized bus to CNG
 ---------------------------------
 Over 200,000 miles --
 Converting to Methanol Saves:
 Diesel – Methanol = $156,400 - $105,600 = $50,800
 Converting to LNG Saves:
 Diesel – (LNG + $75,000) = $156,400 – ($68,000 + $75,000) = $156,400 – 143,000 =
$13,400
 ----------------------------
 Additional cost of CNG fuel pumps $300,000-$500,000
 Additional cost of methanol dispenser/tank from $25,000 to $50,000
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness 7/12/12 14

15.  CNG $2.54*200,000/5 = $101,600
 LNG $1.70 * 200,000/5 = $68,000
 Diesel $3.91 *200000/5 = $156,400
 Methanol $2.64*200000/5 = $105,600
 $75,000 cost increment to convert a full sized bus to CNG
 ---------------------------------
 Over 200,000 miles --
 Converting to Methanol Saves:
 Diesel – Methanol = $156,400 - $105,600 = $50,800
 Converting to LNG Saves:
 Diesel – (LNG + $75,000) = $156,400 – ($68,000 + $75,000) = $156,400 – 143,000 =
$13,400
 ----------------------------
 Additional cost of CNG fuel pumps $300,000-$500,000
 Additional cost of methanol dispenser/tank from $25,000 to $50,000
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness 7/12/12 15

16.  Transportation costs can be reduced using existing vehicles
– hundreds of dollars vs. tens of thousands per vehicle.
 Future vehicles can be less expensive to purchase and
operate if run on GEM mixtures.
 Methanol can be contracted from NM farms or purchased
cheaply on long term contract.
 Maintenance is traditional, not the complication of CNG
 Flexibility in fueling
 Cellulosic ethanol production breakthrough can immediately be accommodated
 Butanol production breakthrough can be accommodated
 Flex Fueled hybrids are a natural extension for increased mileage
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness 7/12/12 16

18. Experience with Methanol
In California
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness 5/30/12 18

19. Methanol is much cheaper
The contract pricing is
substantially less than market prices
as the California experience shows
from
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness 5/30/12 19

20. Let’s look at the Carbon Dioxide Emissions
from methanol fuel production
Gasoline refining
renewables
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness 5/30/12 20

21. Safety
GASOLINE
METHANOL
• In the California test (15 years), with over 200 million miles of methanol
driving, there was not a single case of accidental methanol poisoning.
• For M100 a 90% reduction in fuel related automotive fires is projected.
P. A. Machiele, Summary Of The Fire Safety Impacts of Methanol
as a Transportation Fuel, SAE International paper 901113

22. Solar Methanol will use no water
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness 5/30/12 22

23. Volumetric vs. gravimetric energy density
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness 23 5/30/12

24.  Supports national policy/renewable fuel initiatives
 Vehicle demonstration program
 High efficiency hybrid (hydraulic)
 Heavy-duty Class 6 delivery truck
 Captive fleet
 High efficiency engine program (neat alcohol fuels and
blends with gasoline)
 Ethanol or Methanol engines
with high efficiency (>40% peak)
 Lends itself to exhaust thermal energy
recovery in the form of chemical
and mechanical energy
 Combined system yields fuel cell
efficiency (>55% peak) at a
significantly lower cost
24

25. Bromberg, L. and Cohn, D., "Alcohol Fueled Heavy Duty Vehicles
Using Clean, High Efficiency Engines,”
SAE Technical Paper 2010-01-2199, 2010, doi:10.4271/2010-01-2199.
Author(s): Leslie Bromberg - Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Daniel Cohn - Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness 25 5/30/12

26. EPA Brake Thermal Efficiency Comparison
engine fueled on 100% same engine run in its
methanol native diesel mode (1.9L VW
in spark ignition mode TDI diesel)
39%
42%
Typical 1.9L gasoline engine has 22-25% BTE
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness 26 5/30/12

27. Ethanol/Methanol can give diesel engine efficiencies
without the need for high pressure injection systems and
either DPF or Urea NOx reducing exhaust treatment.
Test in a VW TDI 1.9 L diesel engine which was converted to spark ignition
for the ethanol tests. The compression ratio was 19.5 to 1.

28. “Combined with an optimized conventional drivetrain, the
efficiency gain shown in the previous slide for E30 should
yield an estimated 10% - 12% gain in fuel economy. Thus it
more than compensates for the approximately 8% loss in fuel
energy density of E30 vs. straight gasoline.”
EPA

29. Even Ethanol/Gasoline mixtures as low as
E30 can give engine efficiencies that
approach those of a diesel.
These SI engine efficiencies are 25% greater
than attainable in current gasoline only fueled engines

31. Contact
Bob Falco
Institute for Energy Resourcefulness