Environmental Protection
Agency
SPECIAL REPORT
OFFICE OF MOBILE SOURCES
Analysis of the Economic and Environmental Effects
of Ethanol as an Automotive Fuel
April, 1990
-------
-------
Analysis of the Economic and Environmental Effects
of Ethanol as an Alternative Fuel
April 1990
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Preface
Executive Summary
1.0 introduction and General Concepts . l
8
2.0 Properties of Ethanol
3.0 Economic Analysis of Ethanol
3.1 Domestic Production . . . •
3.1.1 Fermentation From Grain . 15
3 l.l.i Previous Federal Studies ...... 15
o . j., j. _ „_, , •"--^•iuction ....
Ethanol ...
sill I'.l Cor rf and "Ethanol Production Economics . 19
3'l'l'2 Current"u"iT Ethanol Production .... 15
•t'i'i's Hydrous Versus Anhydrous Ethanol . . .16
"3lig'A* •* _ __.^ : 1 Ti__,«3**,**^4«-ivt V f+nT-it
3.1.1.5 Tax Subsidies
3.1.2 Ethanol Production From Natural Gas ^
and Petroleum ' ' ' ' 24
3/1.3 Non-Food Biomass
27
3.2 Imports ....•-.
3.3 Transportation and Marketing Costs ........ 30
3 3 l Delivery to Terminal or Bulk Plant . . . - - 30
3.3.2 Distribution to Consumers •.• • • •
3.4 Vehicle Hardware Costs .... 34
3.5 Vehicle Operating Costs • • •
40
3.6 Budget Costs of Ethanol .
4.0 Environmental Analysis of Ethanol . 44
4.1 Urban Ozone and PAN Levels • • • 44
'-- . - ...... 49
4.2 Air Toxics ' ' '
-, .... 49
4.2.1 Ethanol ...-•• 50
4.2.2 Benzene 50
4.2.3 Aldehydes 51
4.2.4 1,3-Butadiene • •
4.2.5 Other Air Toxics . . • •
(continued on next page)
-------
-------
4.3 Global Warming
Table o£ Contents, Continued
. . . . 52
'-
4.4 Agricultural Side Effects on the Environment ... 57
4.5 Other Environmental and Health/Safety Issues ... 58
.... 58
4.5.1 Spill Issues .... ........ 60
4.5.2 Leak Issues . . .............. 61
4.5.3 Fire Issues ....... • • ....... ' 62
4.5.4 Ingestion ...••• .........
Appendix A Summaries of Previous U.S. Government Ethanol
Studies
Appendix B Review Article on Ethanol from Non-Food Biomass
Appendix C Memo: "Cost Estimate for Ethanol Gasoline-
Equivalent Price"
Appendix D Memo: "Ethanol Fueled Vehicles - Experience to
Date"
-------
-------
PREFACE
in July 1989 the President submitted to Congress , his
Administration's proposals for revising the Clean Air Act. One
ma jo? component of his plan is the Clean Alternative Fuels
Program. This program would replace a portion of the motor
vehicle fleet in certain cities with new vehicles that meet
stringent air emission limits operating on clean burning fuels
such as methanol, ethanol, compressed natural gas, liquefied
petroleum gas, electricity, and reformulated gasoline,
This report, released by EPA, is one in a series of
reports that will discuss the economic and environmental issues
associated with each of these fuels. The Environmental
Protection Agency will prepare reports on the candidate fuels
according to the following schedule.
Fuel Final Report
Methanol released September 1989
Compressed Natural Gas released April 1990
Ethanol released April 1990
Liguefied Petroleum Gas to be released later in 1990
Electricity to be'released later in 1990
Reformulated Gasoline after receipt of formulation
The ordering for these reports does not represent any
preference by the Administration, but is the result' of the
status and availability of the information and research needed
to prepare the reports.
The economic and environmental analyses contained in this
and the other reports assume the full implementation of the
President's Alternative Fuels Program.
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report discusses aspects of ethanol use as -a motor
vehicle fuel at high concentrations (e.g., 85%-100%) in place
of gasoline. Lower level ethanol mixtures (10% ethanol and 90%
gasoline)' are already widely used. In fact, about 7.5% of
gasoline sold in the United States currently contains ethanol
at this level. This represents an annual ethanol production of
840 million galIons:
Ethanol has a number of properties which would make it a
good motor vehicle fuel. Its octane is higher than gasoline
which, together with other fuel properties, means vehicles
could be designed for improved efficiency (about 30% greater).
Its vapor pressure is much lower which would result in lower
evaporative emissions but would result in increased cold
starting difficulty with either 100% hydrous (i.e., ethanol
containing 5% water) or anhydrous ethanol. Its flammability is
also Tower which should help result in decreased number and
severity of vehicle fires. Anhydrous ethanol, as currently
used in low level blends, would be required to help prevent
phase- separation- if the ethanol is . to be used in flexible
fueled vehicles where the ethanol fuel could occasionally be
mixed with straight gasoline. However, in vehicles dedicated
to the use of high level ethanol fuels (e.g., 85%-100% ethanol)
it may be possible to use hydrous .ethanol, which requires
slightly less cost and energy to produce.
• About 95% of the fuel ethanol currently used in the United
States comes from corn. Corn is converted to ethanol by either
the dry-milling or wet-milling processes. The dry-milling
process involves milling the grain but not separating its
components before the "mashing" process forming ethanol. This
process yields distillers dried grains with solubles as a side
product which is a common animal feed." The wet-milling process
(accounting for about 67% of the' ethanol produced) -involves
separating the corn into its major components.. •_; The starch is
then converted into,: ethanol. The by-products from wet-milling^
are more valuable than those from dry-milling.
Under an expanded fuel ethanol program as considered in
this report the wholesale cost range for ethanol produced from
corn is projected to range from $1.00 to $1.50 per gallon.
The effects of increased corn ethanol production on farm
product prices, farm income, and Federal farm programs such as
the Department of Agriculture price support program are
relevant considerations" in formulating national policy on fuel
ethanol, but are not addressed in depth in this report. The
effect of increased ethanol use on tax revenues is also an
important consideration. When ethanol from renewable resources
is used in ethanol/gasoline blends of at least 10% ethanol, the
blend is exempt: from $0.06. per gallon of the $0.09 per gallon
-------
-------
gasoline excise tax, which in effect provides a subsidy of
$0.60 per gallon of ethanol. At 85% ethanol blend levels this
would not provide the depth of subsidy needed for ethanol
production'to be profitable. There is a blenders income tax
credit that provides a subsidy of $0.60 per gallon of ethano.l
regardless of the ethanol content of the fuel. Without,
subsidies such as .these, ethanol could not. compete with
gaspline.at current or most projected prices.
Ethanol can also be made chemically from either ethylene
or with more processing, ethane. Furthermore, ethanol can be
made from non-food bi-omass such as lignocellulosic material
from trees, grass,' waste paper, and cardboard. Ethanol made
from these sources is presently much more expensive than that
made from corn; estimates range from $1.35-$2.40 per gallon
according to information reported by the Department of Energy
(DOE). DOE has ongoing research that may eventually provide
improved technology for the conversion of bibmass to ethanol.
This research is working toward a long-term future goal of
producing ethanol for $0.60 per gallon (plant gate cost,
including capital recovery) without government subsidies. This
goal is based on reducing feedstock costs from $3.00-3.25 per
dry ton to $2.00 per ton. This depends on research success to
improve average wood yields on selected test sites to 9-12 dry
tons per acre per year from the approximate 7 tons per acre
currently achievable. In addition, it depends on. research to
improve crop genetics and large-scale cultivation. While the
long-term future cost of ethanol using these new technologies
is highly uncertain, DOE is confident that research will result
in significant cost reductions compared to the current _ cost of
using cellulosic resources to produce ethnol, which is about
$1.35 per gallon. DOE is continuing to work on future
technologies that will improve the yield rate, the rate and
concentration of the ethanol process, and lower the enzyme cost
through biotechnology, as well as on system optimization and
scale-up testing.[3-19,20] EPA has not independently
considered whether the $0.60 cost is a realistic estimate, and
EPA is aware that a number of organizations and experienced
observers are unconvinced that it is realistic. ;
The only other :country with a significant ethanol fuel
industry is Brazil J which makes ethanol from sugar 'cane at an
annual production rate about six times that in the U;S. Brazil
is currently experiencing a substantial shortage of ethanol
because sugar cane production from which ethanol is produced
has hot matched the market demand for the fuel. Government
planners have, not been able to match ethanol supply with demand
resulting in shortages of ethanol at the pump and irate
consumers. Brazil is now attempting to import ethanol to meet
demand. In addition, the high :subsidy cost of the. program to
Brazil has contributed to budget problems.
Ethanol is presently shipped by tanker truck, rail, or
barge and not by pipeline. In the long term, ethanol could be
shipped by pipeline, but some initial added costs would be
11
-------
-------
incurred to clean out and modify certain pipeline hardware for
compatibility with ethanol. Ethanol shipping costs are
estimated, to be about $0.06 per gallon for a neat ethanol
supplied to major ozonevnon-attainment areas, which compares to
about $0.03^-per gallon for gasoline supplied to, these areas.
However, -ethanol has : an energy content of 67% that of
gasoline. — -Counting -both transportation and service station
mark-up, the actual pump price of ethanol not including a $0.60
per gallon -Federal tax. subsidy is projected;, to be about
$1.28-1.30 per gallon when ethanol has a plant-gate price of
$1.00 per- gallon. This price would; be $1.78-1.80 per gallon
•with an ethanol -plant-gate price of $1.,50 per gallon. These
values do' not include the- 30% efficiency improvement for
vehicles optimally designed for 100% ethanol. -Incorporating a
factor for this improvement'and for-the lower energy content of
ethanol compared to gasoline (67%), the "gasoline-equivalent"
ethanol price becomes $1.47-2.07 per gallon for the $1.00-1.50
.per gallon ethanol plant-gate price without subsidy.
. _ • * " - -, • • - , _, -",-'-•' ' .• - - " * / >
• Due to the 30% increased--efficiency" possible with neat
'ethanol compared to gasoline, use of optimized vehicles fueled
with neat (or less so with near -"neat)- ethanol should allow use
of smaller, lighter .engines, and lighter suspension/body
components all of which will tend to decrease vehicle costs.
However, fuel system .modifications for neat or near-neat
ethanol might would tend to increase costs. Cold starting with
neat ethanol at low temperatures would require solutions
similar to those needed for neat-methane1 (e.g., separate fuel
tank using5 gasoline or propane jlist for cold start or a direct
fuel, injection "system). EPA assumes the savings and increases
will- balance-but to zero with no overall cost difference
between future optimized neat ethanol vehicles and gasoline
vehicles. Flexible-fueled vehicles though reguire a
fuel-sensor and do not have all the cost savings possible with
a neat ethanol vehicle.;; EPA assumes an extra cost of $150-300
for a flexible-fueled vehicle.
Ethanol-fueled vehicles are expected to- emit more ethanol
and acetaldehyde^than-,-a:" gasoliner-fueled -vehicle with some
. smarliec "increase^ "alsol^o^sTble- -for_-formaldehyde. The
increased" ^cetaldehyde^-emisslons should lead to higher PAN
(peroxyacet^l nitrate) "f but .possible- counterbalancing effects
have- not been- - explored;; The-limited non-methane hydrocarbon
specration., data- for ethano-1-fueled vehicles suggest that the
mix of nojvrmethane hydrocarbons are not dramatically different
for ethanoi>~methanol, and-gasoline-fueled vehicles.
The impact of the use of ethanol-fueled vehicles on urban
ozone has not yet. been" adequately studied* No quantitative
modeling studies^ of_ any U.S. city exist- involving 85-100%
ethanol in vehicles. However, it is possible to calculate the
relative. reactivity of the projected composition of
ethanol-fueled vehicle emissions versus that with gasoline.
Some preliminary calculations have been done by Ford Motor
Company and suggest about "equivalent ozone benefits from
vehicles fueled with ethanol-and methanol.
-------
-------
Use of neat ethanol-fueled vehicles is expected to result
in substantial air toxics benefits. For example, benzene is
projected to account for. about 20% of the carcinogenic
emissions "from gasoline vehicles in 2005 assuming .that gasoiine
--'-is not;'' tef drmulated. "to -reduce - toxic benzene emissions:,, while
combust i 011^41 ethanol fuel is expected to produce ins igni fie ant
-(if - any)v Benzene,., f Similarly, ethanol is not-: expected , to
-produce- any significant 1 ,3-butadiene, polycyclic , organic
matter:/ (POMfw or gasoline refueling; vapors, all of- which -have a
^substantial;;- carcinogenic impact . However-, as mentioned
previously,, ethanol fueled 'vehicles are expected : to, emit
-formaldehyde at a rate perhaps slightly greater than a gasoline
Vehicle, although .less than "that of a similarly 'engineered
methanol vehicle . /-,--•' ~ . ~''-~"\;'' .'-.-- '"''•--.''•:• "..-- ---^. .:•..--'
Carbon dioxide is a major "greenhouse gas" which results
-from; gasoline combustion. With ethanol , to the degree that it
if; Herived .-.- f rom vegetation (i.e., trees of agricultural
v products X the reabsorption of the carbon can be as fast as. it
;iis :eniitted>- resulting' in 'no net increase in: ;COi in the
atiinisphere . However, about 7, ^million BTU of fossil fuels -are
currently used "to grow one acre of corn, Including:, fertilizer,
-pesticidesv and grain/ drying. "Fossil fuel is- also used in the
1 production of: ethanol f roits ; that corn. There * -is some
- cpntroyersy on the quantities , of these fossil fuel reqiLiirements
andy:thus the resulting CO2 impacts. Newer ethanol plants arev
significantly "more efficient- -than older plants. -• Considering
the: amount; of energy used;, tor, /a newer plant (40 , 000 B'JU per
gallon of : ethanol >, it would "lie quite feasible to achieve a net
CG2 benefit of about: 21-22% \with incremental use; :df _ethanbl
compared; to gasoline^" If;: ceil lulosic biomass i^; "used; as a
feedstock instead1 of : opra, even lower energy input /per ." gal Ion
is possible, and the energy could:; be derived froin portions of
the biomassT- rather than. from a fossil fuel. >r - ' ;
; ; -Subs;taSitially increased ;^corn production for /additional
-;:v- - Ji;';ide effectsefects on
v^6e@31^onr^;; changes
" ~Mti&'
; fjinherent
biodegradabil ity 1 'aneksfei.at ive
allow: it /tO:l:0[uickl5r;^3:ilute
;f^rat^hs:^ disperse downstreamyv ahd^dedompose
.-.., -_.......,. ""r^|l^^S;,,;>/O£-.;.:.watei-/,://oj^y:^aporate:; and
;sp^iied;;/o|^-:lan^;;';areas .--•-' Thus,•.-:".- in ;man^/scietiarios,
pill.' /shbti.l:d;"'.-'not/'Jlbs-^s.s-~ hazardous asysajj;rp;etroleum
ri-^&HiLafflJ^^ iito the; ocean -shoul-severe
etha;n^i:,;^an' witl^
-------
-------
such as a river spill located very, near a drinking water supply
intake, ethanol may indeed contaminate a water supply that
• would have escaped contamination by a petroleum fuel.
" "Leaks "Into underground water are a potentially greater
concern with all. fuels because of the more restricted , dilution
conditions that can exist. Also, while bacteria are present in
soil and underground water supplies, they are sparser than in
the ocean-"and surface waters. Ethanol and petroleum fuels, have
different hydrological effects in soils and may migrate
'downward at different rates, providing more or less time, for
evaporation instead. Once in contact with the water table,
ethanol will tend to mix and dilute more guickly than a
petroleum fuel and to biodegrade more guickly, although there
may be a zone in which the ethanol concentration is too high
-for biodegradation to occur. If. ethanol reaches a drinking
water well, there is little health risk since consumption of
drinking water with low levels of ethanol should not be acutely
toxic, with the possible exception of fetuses and pregnant
.women. ,
Ethanol, like all combustible fuels such as gasoline,
poses a potential human safety risk from vehicle fires.
Ethanol's low volatility, relatively high lower flammability
limit, and low vapor density relative to gasoline cause it to
be much less likely to ignite in an open area following a spill
of fuel or release of- vapor. In addition, once it does ignite,
ethanol's low heat of combustion and high heat of vaporization
cause it to burn much more slowly, releasing heat at roughly
one-fifth the rate of gasoline. However, these same combustion
properties. cause ethanol to be in the flammable range • inside
fuel storage tanks under normal ambient temperatures, while
gasoline is virtually always too rich to ignite. Fortunately,
precautions can be taken to prevent either flammable vapor/air
mixtures from forming in storage tanks (e.g., nitrogen
blanketing, bladder tanks, floating roof tanks), or to prevent
ignition sources' from entering the tanks -.(,e..g,f flame
" arresters', removing or; modifying in-tank electrical devices)
thereby mitigating any? additional risk. , ,These actions will
increase costs. Also,- ethanol tends to burn with -a visible
flame- (much more ^visible than methanol but not q^ite as visible
as~gasoline). _ ; ,-._•.. .^V:V:;.:-'>1;^/;/;—; .:-.-.". ';;,-;
.'Most gasoline ingestions episodes "are" due, to adults
attempting"to siphon "gasoline- from a vehicle, or_ children
drinking^f^dm^small^ containers of gasoline intended for use in
small household engines or for degreasing. Ethanol-fueled
vehicles can be egiiipped with devices to prevent siphoning (and
the same ^dievice could serve as a flame arrester). Ethanol fuel
storage in homes should be rare, since household engines will
not run on. ethanol and ethanol would not be a good degreaser.
Also7 ingestions of several ounces of pure ethanol would not be
harmful to/most adults although it would be of concern for a
child. However, the denaturant may be toxic,: and . it is
important for the denaturant to have an unpleasant taste and
smell to discourage ingestion. -
-------
-------
Despite the presence of the denaturant, fuel ethanol may
be deliberately or mistakenly added to beverages. Incidences
with methanol were common in the past in the U.S., and
bootlegbeverages made with ethanol fuel could be of health
concern due to the denaturants. Unsophisticated users may not
understand the risk posed by the denaturant or may mistakenly
believe they have removed or neutralized it. Consumer
education is needed-, and as stated above, it is important for
the denaturant to have an unpleasant taste and smell to
discourage ingestion.
VI
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL CONCEPTS
In 1988 U.S. production of ethanol for use as a motor
fuel blend was about 840 million gallons. As such, ethanol is
the highest-volume alternative, i.e., non-petroleum motor
fuel It is also the only non-fossil, and therefore at least^
in part renewable, liquid fuel in commercial use. If thrs
volume of ethanol had been used only in its pure form rather
than as a blending agent, it would have been enough to fuel
almost a million vehicles, which is far more than the number of
vehicles operating on other alternative fuels such as
electricity, methanol, CNG, LNG, propane, or LPG.
Currently, however, there are no U.S. vehicles regularly
operating on neat or near-neat ethanol.* Rather, the ethanol
produced domestically, and a small quantity of imported
ethanol, is splash blended into gasoline at 10 percent
concentration. This allows the ethanol to be used by vehicles
originally designed to operate on gasoline. Sales of
ethanol-gasoline blends, or gasohol,, are geographically
non-uniflrm due largely to availability of state specific tax
subsidies. Gasohol's market share is low in the large urban
areas of the East and West Coasts. In many Midwest markets,
gasohol comprises about 30 to 40 percent of sales where states
provide significant subsidies in addition to the Federal
subsidy. Overall, the U.S. market share is about 7.5 percent.
Ten years ago it was essentially zero. The market share has
been relatively stable over the past two or, three years. This
level of use is a result of the $0.60 per gallon Federal
subsidy costing about $500 million per year plus state
subsidies ranging up to $0.40 per gallon and totalling roughly
$160 million per year. These subsidies are needed because the
current cost of ethanol is over two times that of gasoline on
an energy equivalent basis, and thus it is not economically
competitive with gasoline.
Ethanol production and its use in motor vehicles in the
form of gasohol have bee.n the subject of numerous ^studies,
political debates, and legal proceedings over • the 'last, ten
years, because of the many areas of public policy that are
involved: agricultural, energy security, highway funding,.
environment, tax, budget and economic costs, foreign trade, and
interstate commerce. The more important Federal studies are
listed later in this report. Due to all this existing
documentation on gasohol, this report will not address the use
of these blends.
* Pure ethanol will be referred to as "neat" ethanol or
"E100", and if blended with small quantities of gasoline
will be referred to as "near-neat" or for example "E85".
-------
-------
It should be noted, however, that a potential expanded use
of ethanol is in reformulated gasoline, where ethanol could be
used at low concentrations "directly or as ETBE (e.g., 10% by
volume for ethanol or possibly up to 22% for ETBE). A Federal
subsidy of $0.60 per gallon of ethanol would be needed since
ETBE is not economically competitive with MTBE, which is the
other oxygenated high octane component most likely to be used
in reformulated gasoline. Ethanol would provide needed octane
and oxygenation, and in the case of ETBE it would also provide
pipeline fungibility and aid in RVP reduction. This
application of ethanol is more appropriately addressed in a
study of reformulated gasoline, which is planned to be done
after specific reformulaition(s) have been determined.
This report focuses not on gasohol, but rather on the
potential use of neat (i.e., 100%) ethanol (referred to as
E100) or near-neat ethanol (e.g., E85) in vehicles specifically
designed for operation on ethanol or alcohols in general. Such
potential use is briefly mentioned in some of the past studies
that emphasized gasohol, but no comprehensive analysis relevant
to the 1990's and later timeframe has been published. This
report is reasonably comprehensive in that all considerations
currently known to be important are addressed to some degree or
at least mentioned. However, it is not meant to be a thorough
review of all the relevant literature, nor is it a complete de
novo analysis of issues on which the literature is inconclusive
or out of date. '
' '
The following paragraphs provide a conceptual context for
the remaining sections of this report. . .
It is necessary to recognize that there are several
possible scenarios as to how ethanol could be used as a motor
vehicle fuel. The cost and other impacts of these scenarios
may differ, from one another. On the fuel side, fuel-grade
ethanol can take several forms. The most "natural" form would
be hydrous ethanol, the mixture of 95 percent ethanol and 5
percent water that results from distillation of a fermented
liquid. This, usually with 3% gasoline as a denaturant, has
been the form of ethanol most widely used in Brazil, at least
up until a recent ethanol supply vs. demand shortfall, to which
the Brazilian government has responded by adding 5% gasoline t6
the ethanol/water mixture as well as importing ethanol. In the
U.S., hydrous ethanol would always have to be denatured by
adding poisonous or unpalatable ingredients to distinguish it
for tax purposes from beverage ethanol.
A vehicle designed to operate on hydrous ethanol could
differ from a gasoline vehicle in several respects (in some
respects it would have to-differ). Because of the lower energy
content of ethanol, the fuel delivery system would have to
deliver more fuel per engine cycle. Attention would also have
-2-
-------
-------
to be paid to material compatibility, although ethanol does not
pose any particular difficulties in this regard, since-
materials changes would be no greater than (and in some eases
would be less than) those needed for methanol vehicles.
Because of ethanol's higher octane, the compression ratio wouM
be higher than with gasoline, resulting in greater fuel
efficilncy and power density. Ethanol's combustion properties
(e a flame sceed) would also increase efficiency and power.
Combustion temperature and therefore oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
formation are expected to be lower with ethanol than with
gasoline. The water content of hydrous ethanol also works to
control NOx formation. This creates the possibility that a
fuel efficient lean-burn ethanol engine could meet the current
1.0 gram per mile NOx emission standard, and perhaps even a
more stringent standard, without catalytic aftertreatment for
NOx. (For NOx limits of 1.0 gram per mile or lower, gasoline
engines reguire catalytic aftertreatment for NOx, which in turn
dictates less fuel efficient operation at stoichiometry. )
There could or would also have to be other less significant
differences in emission, control system design, for example the
distance between engine and catalytic converter.
As will be discussed in the next section, pure hydrous
ethanol has a very low volatility, too low to allow a vehicle
to be reliably started if the starting system on the vehicle is
of the sort now used on gasoline vehicles. In Brazil, ethanol
vehicles have a separate smaller gasoline tank for starting
and operating until warm enough to tolerate the low volatility
ethanol. Other approaches for cold starting hydrous
ethanol-fueled vehicles are also possible. One would be to use
a gaseous fuel such as propane, LPG, or CNG instead of gasoline
as the starting fuel. ' With sufficient development, it would
also be possible to rely on engine hardware entirely, such as
direct injection with glow plugs rather than a second starting
fuel.[1,2] . .
Another approach to cold starting would be to blend the
ethanol with a second, more volatile fuel such as gasoline or a
low molecular weight hydrocarbon. If enough volatility is
added, a vehicle with a conventional starting system can be
reliably started on the ethanol mixture. This would be the
ethanol equivalent of "M85," a mixture of 85 percent methanol
and 15 percent gasoline. It would also make it simpler to
design a flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) that can operate on
gasoline or ethanol. In fact, the many FFV prototypes already
produced with M85 as the intended alternative fuel _could
operate on a mixture of gasoline and ethanol if the mixture
were volatile enough. The next section examines what mixture
would have enough volatility. • ,
-------
-------
One complication of a gasoline/ethanol mixture is thac
under certain conditions of temperature and gasoline cogent
the ethanol portion must be water-free, or anhydrous.
Otherwise the ethanol and gasoline will not stay mixed . This
^^.^?^ ^™& K
th -1 n ng
famine
Transition and application issues are important in any
consideration of an alternative fuel such as neat or near -neat
ethanol. There are some applications in W^ch_et^°n1olfu^nage
dedicated vehicles designed to operate only on ethanol car L be
introduced together, such as in dedicated delivery fleets.
Such fleets are or could reasonably be refueled at a small
53SS.
andr the ilityof ethanol vehicles to operate on g"
availa^U^ne^l^
- K
sist .o
gasoline. It would be more of an issue with ethanol than, say,
melnanol, in that the supply of .ethanol from p"!Seni on Iev2"
constrained and variable since it would be dependent on levels
of agricultural production that can vary widely with the
weather.
As stated earlier, an FFV designed for - MBS can also
operatl on an ethanol-gasoline blend if the v^por pressure of
the blend is within the seasonal range contemplated by the FFV
desianer Other FFV concepts are also possible. A neat
eXanol vehicle with special cold starting hardware (either a
lecond fuel or a special cold start approach) could rather
laSny be produced irl FFV form so that it could also operate on
gHoline o? mixtures of gasoline and ethanol Because of the
possibility of encountering in-tank mixing of fuels, any FFV
must use anhydrous ethanol.
Any vehicle designed to be able to operate on any
combination of ^gasoline, ethanol, or ethanol-gasoline mixtures
c
sss . -
-4-
-------
-------
set to accommodate the lowest octane fuel expected, or
timing retard musf.be used on the lower
lk -^ssr^uSiP fr^
ttSTfor both neat alcohols, and alcohols blended with a higher
volatility component.
The more important advantages , of a dedicated ethanol
vehicle over an FFV include lower first cost due to elimination
of gasoline-capable components (e.g. . fuer type s^*'!^
efficiency, generally less ozone potential from exhaust
emissions, and less evaporative and ^refuel ing emissions. On
the other hand, FFV' s have the advantage of greater fuel
availability. Also, if all the usable fuels are available in
high RVP form such as E85, vehicles designed for such fuels
would have the advantage of a less expensive means of low
temperature starting than dedicated E100 vehicles . or FFV s
designed to be able to start on E100.
While alcohol-dedicated vehicles would be superior to
flexible fuel vehicles for performance and emissions, they do
not necessarily have to be dedicated to a particular alcohol.
Because of the different stoichiometnc ratios of different
alcohols, some special features are needed for a multi-alcohol
vehicle that would not be needed on a vehicle designed for a
particular alcohol. For example, the same fuel type sensor
Ssed in M85 FFV's to distinguish gasoline from M85 (and
mixtures between the two) could distinguish methanol, ethanol,
and other alcohols well enough to allow for multi-alcohol
capability. Other approaches might also be possible. The
major cost difference from dedicated M100 vehicles would be the
fuel sensor just mentioned plus possibly a more costly low
temperature cold starting system for E100 capability.
The production of vehicles with multi-alcohol capability
miqht make several scenarios theoretically possible that
Otherwise would be more difficult to achieve because of scale
or transition problems. A detailed assessment of the costs is
not available. Methanol might be more economic than ethanol on
the east and west coasts, but ethanol with federal and state
subsidies might be moire competitive in Chicago, The Chicago
vehicle market might be too small to support the production of
special ethanol-dedicated vehicles. But if all or most
methanol vehicles were ethanol compatible, Chicago may prefer
ethanol instead of methanol. Also, multi-alcohol vehicles
might be purchased by government fleets and fueled with neat
-5-
-------
-------
f
e-nanox in corn belt states, or such states might offer local m
subsidies large enough to make ethanol fuel attractive even to
Private users. Another scenario would be that some or all •
areas begin with only a methanol fuel supply system, but §
ethanol would face no "chicken-or-egg" market entry barrier if
production economics shift in its favor or if public .policy .
changes "'to. more strenuously promote ethanol due ^ to its, |
renewability or other aspects not presently. valued by the
market. Pipelines, barges, tank cars, tank trucks, storage
tanks, and vehicles could be switched from methanol to ethanol •
virtually overnight. : '"
If multi-alcohol capability by vehicles were accompanied. •
bv a retirement for availability of both methanol • and ethanol . §
fuel in the same area, there would be costly duplication of
supply infrastructure. _ m
As a final note, there may be some engine types^for which ».
flexibility between ethanol and methanol would not be readily ,
fusible For example, ..the carbon-carbon bond in ethanol might |
present a smoke/soot problem in certain engine designs that J|
would not have such a problem with methanol.
It must be .noted that while a vehicle_ can 'be designed to |
operate on a range of alcohols with good driveabila:ty -and. fuel
economy on all, its emission characteristics will tend to be
dependent on the particular alcohol being used. Even more so, |
anPFFv that can Operate on gasoline or alcohol may have very «
different emission characteristics on the two fuels.
Although a good bit of ethanol vehicle development has |
been done in Brazil, those vehicles are not representative of
what would exist in the U.S.,. since the emission control-
technology in use there is equivalent to early 1970 s U.S. •
technology. In the United States much more vehicle development •»
has been undertaken for methanol than for ethanol. Section 2 .
discusses the properties of ethanol and the degree to which the |
me?hanSl development results are applicable to ethanol in light •
of the similarities in their engineering properties. 7
Sections 3 and 4 of this report then discuss the .economic.: •„ . j
and environmental considerations raised by the various
scenarios outlined above. M
I
-6-
-------
-------
References Cited in Section 1
x.
2.
- Work, : EPA Contract 68-C9-0002, _ "Glow Plug
inj-ectian ^MlOO vehicle, ."• lcer
,, start date January - 1 ,
-entorv Contract: 68-CO-0007, "fpark Ignited
InjSction- M^thanol Vehicle," Project Officer Robert
Xv\ Bruetsch^r start rdate March: i,, ^
$.'•.:
.-Ti~:.*-.a--.Sfri"
i-gsM-H^gs^ -"'"•
-.:'- .>--7V^-^::"T^7:.^t;'i\'
"^^^"t'f-'^ffx?:"?'":' :'
... ..,:;??«s-^.ji«;-H-=.-i----: ';•
..-7-
-------
-------
2.0 PROPERTIES OF ETHANOL
: '- Tablet-! lists the properties of ethanol relevant to its
use as a £uel along with those of methanol and typical gasoline
for comparison,' Whereas gasoline is a mixture of hundreds of
difflrTnt hydrocarbon compounds with a wide range of individual
proptr?iesr ethanol and methanol are single components with
well-defined properties.
As :~ shown in Figure 1, the vapor pressure of ethanol is
much lower than gasoline, and about half ^lat - °=
methanol. [1,23 The lav vapor pressure of ethanol, «^J*ed
with the high heat of vaporization (about 2/3 that of methanol)
relative tt? gasoline, means fthat low temperature. .taxability
and driveability would retire vehicle and/or fuel modification
to a -similar -or -greater extent than a methanol
vehicle. [2,3\4l* This could include approaches such as intake
system heaters, auxiliary startup fuel systems with, Pfopane or
gLoline, higher volatility fuel- additives (e.g., gasalineX or
use of a different engine- concept such as, direct injection.
[35-81 It also " raises the potential for even- lower
evaporative and running loss emissions than with methanal.
In the case of using only fuel modifications- "with no
-hardware changes to improve the cold startability of ethanol,
some insight into possible solutions .can. be g»^,**c«SKSJ
it to the methanol case. As one specific point of .comparison,
M85 made with 15V 9.0 psi RVF gasoline provide^ *? ™P of
roughly 8.0 psi. Using 9.0 psi gasaline would have the
advantage that it could be the same gasoline in general -use for
gasoline fueled vehicles; however, to achieve an RVF of 8.0
Isi in ethanol would retire 40% of a 9.0 psi RVP gasoline, but
this is not envisioned as a realistic solution since it would
negate much of the potential benefits of~ ethanol. - Another
approach could be to ule 15* of, a higher RVP gasoline, although
this would- present greater^ distribution problems due rto not
ts~RktB»T ^J**^**^^-1*"^*^^^**";^-^^"^^;^" ;~'i^^
pSl^;piaeifeahoi;/ i^^^^jOi^j^j^^^^
l^to;s^^i^metricv: ft^^al^oms^iST^r^^ '
to EtpK molecmiar:^e^g|^s^
tt-fher vapor ^ressur^^^*it%£^tpHi: only
'or^:metfeanoii - to ;'-"^n^'r*-"v' «^*"» * ««^^^
factors —''«'»*» >»«'-*iuK'a:-^*:*:ar , ._'-'-- -J
-------
-------
being able to use the generally available lower RVP gasoline.
In fact, due to the very low RVP of ethanol, a gasoline RVP
greater than 15 psi may be needed for an E85 fuel. Another
approach could be to use a high RVP blending component such as
butane or . isopentane, which might be more plentiful with the
reduced' gasoline RVP limits. In the case of isopentane, a
final RVP of- 8.0 psi could be achieved by adding roughly 7.5%
isopentane to ethanol or 4.5% isopentane to methanol.[1]
It has been technically demonstrated by the Nebraska
Ethanol Board that under summer conditions a lower. RVP E85 fuel
made from commercial gasoline of roughly 9.0-9.5 psi can
provide adequate startability in at least certain vehicle
designs. The final RVP of this fuel was not measured but
should have been below 8.0 psi. The vehicle used had been
retrofitted from gasoline rather than being a vehicle designed
and optimized for ethanol operation. This, of course, is not a
complete market based test over a range of consumers, driving
conditions and vehicles.
The heating value (energy content) of ethanol is about 2/3
that of gasoline and 1/3 greater than methanol. Since other
combustion related properties (e.g., high octane, high heat of
vaporization, and lean combustion capability) would allow
efficiency improvements similar to those of methanol, a given
vehicle operating range (miles per tankful) could be obtained
with a smaller fuel tank than with methanol. Alternatively, in
the case of an FFV, a given fuel tank size would allow a
greater operating range on ethanol than methanol.
The flammability limits and vapor pressures of ethanol
indicate that a combustible mixture of ethanol in air would
exist over the same temperature range as methanol. Therefore,
it is expected that a flame arrester would be called for on the
fuel tank fill neck of a neat ethanol vehicle as with methanol
vehicles to prevent ignition from a spark or flame entering the ^,
fill neck. However, in Brazil flame arresters have not been M
used r and no problems have been reported. (It is not known how "
systematically reports of any problems would have been
collected and- reported. > Another aspect of the flammability «
issue is the possibility of ignition from a source inside the Ji
tank such; as a sparfc from ait in-tank electric fuel pump and
built-up-- -static- electrical charge. Again, Brazil has not n
reportedrany problems of this type, but in general Brazilian •
vehicles;sare carbureted rather than fuel injected, and in-tarik ~,
fuel pumps^are only used with fuel injected vehicles. Another . ,-
possible factor in this flammability question is that alcohol •
fuels ha-ve a much higher electrical conductivity than gasoline m.:
and are thus less .prone to build up static charge. This could
result in a lower tendency to ignite than is suggested by their •
flammability limits. In the case of E85, the volatility would J|
be high enough to avoid a combustible mixture over a wide
temperature range. if
-9-
I
I
-------
-------
Methanol (MIOO) and ethanol
-------
-------
The lower volatility of neat ethanol relative to neat
methanol would tend to produce even lower evaporative
emissions. M85 and E85 of similar volatility would not
necessarily produce similar evaporative emissions. Since the
E85 would require a higher vapor pressure gasoline to operate
in the same type of vehicle, the evaporative emissions would
have a higher proportion of gasoline vapor than with M85.
Furthermore, if a cold-start system is used that uses a second
fuel such as gasoline, there would be added potential for
evaporative emissions from it. The expected effects of these
factors on ozone formation are discussed in section 4.1..
-11-
-------
-------
Table 2-1
Fuel Properties
Vapor Pressure, psi §100°F
Vapor Pressure, psi @115F
Vapor Pressure, psi @40F
Lower Heating Value, BTU/gal
Research Octane
Motor Octane
Heat of Vaporization, BTU/gal
Specific Gravity
Boiling Point (°F)
Molecular Weight
v . . •.
Grams Carbon/gal
Stoichiometric A/F Ratio
Flammability Limits (vol%)
Flash Point (°F)
Auto Ignition Temp (°F)
Ethanol
F 2.5
3.2
0.4
gal 76,000
111
92
'gal 2380
0.789
173
46.07
1558
9.0
3.3-19
55
423
Methanol
4.6
6.4
0.8
57,000
112
91
3390
0.796
148
32.04
1124
6.5
6.7-36
52
464
Gasoline
8-15 (RVP)
12.5*
3.1*
114,000
91-98
83-90
930
0.70-0.76
80-400
100-105
2421
14.5
1.4-7.6
-45
257
For typical 9.0 psi RVP gasoline, per ASTM Handbook.
-12-
-------
-------
0)
s-i
•H
&u
UJ
DC
DC _
UJ o
Q. C
5 <2
UJ £
H UJ
•B?
UJ
DC
cn
CO
UJ
DC
Q.
cc
o
Q.
(0
"o
CO
I
LL
£
3
0)
a.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
isd '
-13-
-------
-------
References Cited in Section 2
"A Motor Vehicle Powerplant for Ethanol and Methanol
Opera?ion/'HMenrad, III international Symposium on
Alcohol Fuels, May 28-31, 1979.
"Volatility Characteristics of Gasoline-Alcohol and
Gasoline-Ether Fuel Blends," Robert L. Furey, GM, SAE
Paper 852116, October 1985.
"Ethanol Fuel Modification for Highway Vehicle Use -Final
Report," U.S. Department of Energy, Report ALO-3638-n,
July, 1979.
"Vapor Pressure and Weatherability of Blends of Methanol
and Ethanol with Gasoline," A. L. Titchener, D. Hyde, and
A. Hoskin, VII International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels,
October 20-23, 1986..
Statement of Work, EPA Contract 68-C9-0002, "Glow Plug
Ignited Direct Injection M100 Vehicle," Project Officer
Robert I. Bruetsch, start date January 1, 1989.
Statement of Work, EPA Contract 68-CO-0007, "Spark Ignited
Direct Injection Methanol Vehicle," Project Officer Robert
I. Bruetsch, start date March 1, 1990.
"The Use of Ethanol from Biomass as an Alternative Fuel in
Brazil," H. Hertland, H. W. Czaschke, and N. Pinto, II
International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels, 1977.
"Aspects of 'the Design, Development and Production of
Ethanol Powered Passenger Car Engines," F. B. P. Pinto, vi
International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels, May 21-25,
1984.
-14-
-------
-------
3.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ETHANOL
3.l Domestic Production
3.1.1 Fermentation From Grain .., „ .
3.1.1.1 Previous Federal Studies
There are three major comprehensive studies that have been
done bv the Federal government on use of ethanol as a motor
fuel examining its economic and environmental aspects. These
studies were used to provide input, for this report as
appropriate.
1. "Fuel Ethanol and Agriculture: An Economic Assessment,"
U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 1986.[1]
2 "Fuel Ethanol Cost-Effectiveness Study," Final Report of
the National Advisory Panel on Cost-Effectiveness of Fuel
Ethanol Production, November 1987.[2]
3, "Ethanol - Economic and Policy Tradeoffs,".U.S. Department
of Agriculture, January 1988.[33
Copies of the executive summaries of the latter two more recent
reports are included in Appendix A.
A fourth reference is the August 23,. 1989 Department of
Agriculture press release titled "Ethanol's Role in Clean
Air."[4]
V. i.i.2.current U.S. Ethanol Production
Table 3-1 shows the amount of domestic ethanol produced
and used as a fuel blending agent from 1980 through 1988.
•-.-. Table 3-1 .
: Domestic Ethanol Used as Fuel
-:-.'• Fuel Ethanol C
Calendar Year (million gallons per year)
1979 20
1980 40
1981 75
1982 210
1983 375
1984 430
1985 625
1986 750
1987 825
1988 about 840
-15-
-------
-------
introduction of neat or near-neat ethanol for new vehicles
in certain areas of the country would require an expansion of
Jhis Droduc?ion by roughly a factor of two for approximately a |
million vehicles Llesl some of the current production were f
diverted ? Expansion beyond this number, of vehicles would
reo^irJ corrSpondingly larger expansion in; the amount of ft
' •'eSnSSl-'^SSSd. While there is already a ^significant amount |
of ^har^l^ being produced for blending with, gasoline ^n "%
^hS>l mixture^ ^thanol -aff ^ ^primary ^l^a. large -
°
resources »I place upilrd pressure On grain prices, thereby
increasing the cost of ethanol X and food)., ,
While it would be fair to say that the limit of production
f .
declined by over 30 percent - because of the |
-- -vr* .
1983 corn production dropped by about 50% from 1982 ievei.s cue •
^reater ovSnment land diver s ion incentives that §
if
I
^
flexibility, for alternative uses of the corn.
? T T i uyrfmns Versus Anhydrous Ethanol
M
The' ethanol used in making current 1°". lev?; *
I
i
-------
-------
The reason anhydrous ethanol is necessary
blends is the poor water tolerance of gasoiine-jthanol_blends
at low ethanol concentrations. ^ very small am^t^ofwater^ in
such blends can cause phase separation, _ in ^ ich. ™ «
pulls most of the ethanol out; of solution .- •£™
In the case of neat or ^near -.a.at. e^f^.^^ w^i|j V I
either no gasoline, or only enough gasoline to. .provide £
I
ranoe of ethanol /gasoline/water .; blends. [7] . . • ..At... . tnjs.
tS^erature, hydrous ethanol (190 proof, 5% water) couldV be
mixld Vi?h unto about 80% gasoline before phase separation .
woSld be^.^ioweve^ lower teVnperatures .are known to decrease fc
water tolerance. : '.'--., -. •''•;:;' ".. '."•-'.. "_-'" ../ ^/.'.' '',-"..,".- -.. ;' ' "
- : some limited water toleraiice test data for mixtures; of up
. _-o "r.^t...- -^Lh.^Mi ^i-h oasoline at temperatures down to
extrapolation greater ethanol concentrations would provide
at even lower temperatures. Another reference that
3 conclusion ^*<^-*$™i*ffi
and the tolerance was increasing greatly
concent rat ion. Therefore,
*«irt«'& 95V water; an te oer
w?ih"n?r£s^g ^k^o l^concent rat ion. Therefore, :«» *»* •*«
E85-probably have sufficient water tolerance to^all^ use of
hydrous (5.0% water) ethanol even at temperatures below 0 F.
e
n? iSaSr^tgr^Belor© "nydroas - ethanc-1 "could be used -a^tsxe.
S « in €ni winVer vSh--W added gasoline, researcfe: would be
-n4ide^ ^ t^on!i?^lhl ^IxactV^line- content versus temperature
limits" for acceptable water tolerance.
in "the case "of FFV's, which could be fueled with gasoline
55.1 'tS* af an to dilute the ethanol to a concentration of
separation of hydrous ethanoi;wnen \ise& in ^f's^
"•:•-•• •- '"-. - vvj:^/: ;-.• ••-.•-••••x-'.-V•-;•"•--17- : ; '•.•;-'.: •••-'
-------
-------
Another issue to be considered regarding _ the use of
ethanol would be maintaining separation of hydrous and
hydrous ethanol and gasoline. [9 J
Some very preliminary analyses have been done < =°en
of ethanol fuel use. ,
This is
Ueotropio technology is assumed.
-18-
-------
-------
3.1.1.4 Corn and Ethanol Production Economics
bushel of corn yields about 2.5-2.6 gallons of
JiSSr -of two processes is used to convert corn to
ethanol.
ethanol.
4-Ka Ar-v mil lino process which involves
process also yieias aisn .tiers UJ-£^ ' mi-rent technology
universal practice. [12]
The second process is the wet milling process which
£ 4-
t
" ^endir On the relative
o hgh-ructose c syrup (HFCS) ^pendir^ rOn the reative
mo?e complex and capital intensive than dry milling.
drought. [4] .
-19-
-------
-------
different segments o. _ s . Livestock producers who
ss ..
the same amount of high prot :ein ^ "JJ * for .corn couid be
Soybean P**™"*^;;*^^™^^*;- As long as some
hurt by competition fro™™ aj^ °Jg tne soybean meal supply
soybean producers can switch to wrn, tne Y meal prices
'Sat 4eul7\SccVrn?mSre^ornn^^ without . any drop in
soybean production.
per gallon of ethanol for ^ a six year ^verag^^.^ re
wet-milling plant. [33 The cos" E0t hij report also cites
somewhat higher at $0.60 per g«"<»- e?h|nol plants .in 1987
net operating costs excluding corn for L ^ftan£ |dients (other
especially low (e.g., *J-« ' P?r ™°J= ciy Of of greatly expanded
sSi-^A^^-^^^^'E^i.a;
ethanol arer about "-""*1'" ^oline-euivalent gallon
to existing wet or _ : *J3T "jjj «e much reater than those
-20-
-------
-------
New technologies having potential for commercial viability
include alterations in the yeast strain used £onr **™nt
anl use of membrane technology
T>*p-
is reasonable to expect that technological advan c®s *n.
separating these high value products from the ;"VnJ?h*uf° new
net corn costs and therefore ethanol costs. However, such new
technology might also be applicable to and have • a _ cost
advantage* with other complex mixture feedstocks, *o_ it is
uncertain that cost reductions will occur . Furthermore with
continued research in the utilization of cellulosic -fiber, this
part of the corn byproducts could also be converted into a
commercial product. Despite these cost reducing factors,
Sarklt prices are not necessarily established by the lowest
cost suppliers, so a large portion of , the ethanol • produce*
would need to take advantage of advances such as these for it
to have a large impact on market price.
Estimates of the production cost from new plants .built to
satisfy a large expansion of fuel ethanol use/ are rather
uncertain! in part because of the interaction with corn and
??om new medium-large plants of Average efficiency^to be ^
$1.50 per gallon for a corn cost of $2.50 per bushel. Higher
oil costs, greater demand for corn or increased supply of
byproducts would tend to raise this cost, while improved plant
efficiency or expanded extraction and marketing of byproducts
Juch as num\n glade DDG would tend to counteract these cost
increases. Based on this information, this report will assume
a wholesale cost range of $1.00 to $1.50 per gallon of ethanol
derived from corn.
been shut
In the past years, a number of small ethanol plants have,
'shut? do^ because even with the Federal Q^idy, «d in
•some cases a state subsidy, they were not economically viable.
JShoSS capitil costs of re-opening such plants are usually
much less than building new plants, the small size and prior
lack c? viability of these plants make them irrelevant in
considering future ethanol costs and supply.
-21-
-------
-------
3.1.1.5 Tax Subsidies
Starting in 1979, motor fuels with at least 10% denatured
ethanol derived from renewable resources were exempted from the
to 04 per gallon, motor fuel excise tax. At a 10% ethanol
ortArent?ation this is equivalent to $0.40 per gallon of
••SSSSSrJd ^ano¥ itself) As an aside, since the anhydrous
ethanSl is denatured with gasoline, this is equivalent^ to ^ 9.5%
ethtn'ol. A year later, an alternative credit of $0.40 per
aallon of denatured ethanol used as a motor fuel in any
Sncentrttion was established in the form of a credit against
thl Seller™ income tax. In 1983, the motor fuel tax was
increased to $0.09 per gallon with the. ethanol blend excise tax
extension of these subsidies.
Even assuming that the high ^anollev^l fuels Considered
ir, i-his recort would be treated as gasoline ;by the U.S.
of the fuel.
Other Federal subsidies for ethanol production have been
roughly «160
miUion.per^
Ijhe^^s^fidies"for ethanoi~ dan;ihaveia-substantial effect
•V!%E?wsEaViSSJ'3 -H
from c™ would neot be competitive with gasoline at its .current
and projected prices.
-22-
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
-------
i o m-
m-hanol Production From Natural Gas and Petroleum
Although virtually all th for
U.S. -«urr«it:ly Cornel I opsed ethanol), ethanol can
ethanol) or .other ^gar crops Ump Qle^ an^ ,naturai gas
also be, and, is *%H> intermediate step. This conversion
via;Va?-;e^^e.(-^ in
of- : ethylene to ethanoJ. is _aone r y x presence of
which ^^Oa|°| 1S^d^th t^^eStation approach, this
an aeid catalysr. AS ^j.*-i water which, then can be
3^^^^^ ^
this final dehydration :is unnecessary.; . ; - : :
" There are many' noiv-beverage and - rion-fuel ^actf
exemption. Also, ethanol ^^these tax subsidies.
^«»>—»r------- j_«_ ««+• rmalirv for mese .tax a\iuoj.^+^-* .
$1^20-1.50 per gallon. [11] .-.-•:. ;~ • :
-to ethanoi'%
Bthvlene" is most cheaply produced by reduction or stea.T
havrbeen^un?ing to heavier petroleum fractions, such as gas
• i _ __ £ ~~.At-^ i~.f*}rcf
Ai^fc-TT ^r- *^*^ »»»™ •—• — —•• ^
oils, as feedstocks.
-23-
-------
-------
,_ •«,*•' ien be- practical 'to make ethanol from direct
It should also b* practical J 1 ± similar to those
tion of e^*/19 Vs l^_5" thane in natural gas.. The ethane
ff^-* •««
ethanol. , . .•'"..'.'"•.. Jl
Also it may-be possible to oxidize, natural gas ^liquids "": •
^rn^1r»«S£«' i.
i
CS
.
levels. [18] ...'.-'. .- "-' . -•-. . §
3.1.3 Non-Food Biomass
crop. [12] M
!nexp4ns^ and plentiful as raw materials. -
•
•
re=Lo!oT=Vltl^vanWce"en«Cnifbcorn Ibices vere to increase to
$3.50-$4.00 per bushel. [3] £
-24-
-------
-------
4 ~ - •„
into P'0065*^'*1 is chemical modification of cellulosic
streams. **°£*L™ which can be easily used for fuel type
materials to Products *n the biotechnology for production and
applications. In genera ^ ^ f t Yy immature with much
conversion of cellulose tc > ** whereas the technology of
fS^SS co« into*^! is quite mature with much smaller
additional improvements likely.
Trc-imates of the future cost of ethanol from cellulosic
feedstocks are optimistic based on expected Advancements in
•'"
-
-
reductions compared to the currenr co« _ 35 per gallon.-
testing. [19,20]
Bother issue with . ethanol from c.n»lo.io materials ^
the theoretical potential ^""^.n has been very roughly
P°:enttei aStUPFo%y o°f th% "s gasolinf recrements tfi... u« of
estimated at 10% or ™ " ° Zential to replace much or all of
cellulosic biomass has the P°tent^al ^9,21,22] An average of
various, production reduction, %nhseer^rnment; land for which
prevention programs sponsorea oy ™"*-* ranqe, and forest lands
S
wlathe? variations unless buffered by
-25-
-------
-------
In addition to increasing the ethanol supply potential (at
>,»«- nSv be a hiah cost), cellulosic materials could be used to
what may °® * niA"d in the late 1970 's there were several
aTes ivaUable to convert cellulose and hemicellulose
noaes vaa
into^an ruminant animal feeding ration that had a much higher
carbohydrate to protein ratio than DDG or gluten feed from 1
arain In certain limited circumstances economic and J
InvSonmental factors may favor using corn or other grains for
?S production of ethanol and then using partially hydrolyzed *
ligno^ellulose to replace the needed carbohydrate energy to ]
balance the feeding ration. [23]
Ethanol from cellulosic biomass also has advantages over 1
corn in terms of the agricultural energy inputs required. This J
is discussed in section 4.3 in connection with the greenhouse ^
effect and carbon dioxide production. I
I
t
1
I
1
-26-
-------
-------
3.2 Imports
One aspect of ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel that is a
key attraction to some proponents is that it can be produced
domestically. Current domestic ethanol production for fuel of
MO million gallons per year displaces about 40,000 barrels per
day oil equivalent or 0.2% of total U.S. crude consumption, not
rakina into account the energy consumed in growing the corn and
converting it into ethanol. This small amount has no
no?iceabll effect on U.S. energy security. P^spite the
expandable domestic production capability, it may be desirable
at some point to admit overseas ethanol depending on demand,
domestic capacity, arid cost factors. This would most likely
involve reducing the tariff to allow imported ethanol to be
competitive with domestic ethanol, thereby authorizing U.S. tax
subsidies to other countries.
As discussed earlier in the section on fermentation from
grain, there may be some relatively high limit of domestic
ethanol production from grain beyond which food prices could
increase significantly. Such a high production level would
probably also be more than enough to satisfy any reasonable
goal for agricultural sector and rural economy stimulation. If
it is desirable to have even greater volumes of ethanol used,
for example because of global warming effects or other air
pollution benefits, overseas sources could be considered.
Temporary reliance on some overseas ethanol could also allow
U S consumption of ethanol to -exceed domestic production
during the period needed to bring more grain fermentation
plants on line, during droughts, or during the longer period
until production from non-food biomass becomes economical as a
result of a research and development effort. Foreign producers
may be unwilling to make the substantial capital investments
recruired to export ethanol to the U.S. only during droughts
that occur every five years or. so. Imports for any reason
could also have adverse impacts on the balance of payments and
the Federal budget as the cost of ethanol subsidies would
increase.
The only country other than the U.S. with a significant
ethanol fuel industry is Brazil, where ethanol is made frcr.
sugar cane. Brazil's annual production is about 5 .billion
-gallons per year, or about six times current US
production.[12] Much of this ethanol is hydrous which wou.-
have to be dehydrated if the U.S. market were based zr.
anhydrous ethanol, but there is also a substantial amount c:
anhydrous ethanol produced for gasoline blending. Due_ to t.-e
large amount of tillable land that is not under cultivation
Brazil could expand the acreage devoted to sugar cane an:
ethanol considerably while causing little or no food pr:;-?
increases. In recent years Brazil has placed more priority :-.
developing its oil resources and production because it is lc--e:
-27-
-------
-------
than ethanol. Brazil also has some flexibility to
tute 'pVtroleum- for ethanol for domestic. ^^^°^
-s
II n'o't in rPos\t\on » e^ort ethanol to the U.S.
!
•
expanding. •
-•'":^di:S"Sn^£ss"iSi .
producers to phase aown .suu»*»*j.«». .
.
-the U.8? at a competitive price without a subsidy. -
I
I
I
-28-
-------
-------
If the technology for ethanol production from cellulosic
Sbiomass develops sufficiently to allow domestic production
through this route instead of or alongside production from corn
(whose price may have been pushed up by increased ethanol
^ demandK. the potential for imports may also expand. While the
•g. U.S. might be able to produce sufficient biomass to meet a
given requirement for ethanol. other nations may have a natural
competitive advantage for sustained production due to factors
f such as longer growing season and more optimum rainfall. It is
difficult to predict which regions will be most efficient at
growing new. types of non-food crops. Some other nations might
| compete temporarily as they deplete their present biomass
1 cover, for example tropical rainforests, although there has
been no indication of plans for production of ethanol from
cellulosic materials in such areas.
- T ' . . - -
<* If ethanol from fossil-fuel ethylene becomes a significant
source, it is likely that overseas producers will have a cost
I advantage over domestic, producers. An exception might be
| domestic production from specific hydrocarbon fractions that
otherwise would have low market value. For example, surplus
-f. • butane might be converted to ethylene and then ethanol.
U.S. trade policy obviously will influence whether
overseas ethanol actually enters the U.S. The existing $0.60
1 per gallon tariff, whose purpose is to prevent importers from
m benefiting from the $0.60 per gallon Federal subsidy, makes
import uncompetitive except for those that gualify for an
| exemption, as in the Caribbean Basin case.
-29-
-------
-------
3.3 Transportation, and Marketing Costs • • ••• .
3,.3,ri Delivery to Terminal or Bulk Plant
Most of the ethanol in the U.S. is produced in the central
part of the'country close to farm states as shown in available
1987 production figures.. About 50 commercial-scale plants
currently-produce'ethanol from^grain;- the plants range in size
from 500,000 to 255,000,000 gallons per year. Even a 255
mi11ion galIon. ethanol plant is smal1 compared . to a modern
refinery, which can have an annual output well over 2,000
million gallon*, of refined product per,year. The plants are
located in about 20 states,, many of which are in the farming
sections of the central part of the 'United States .[2] if.
ethanol production increases in the future, it will likely be
through addition of more plants of.the largest size. They will
likely be geographically situated to minimize grain or biomass
shipment costs to ..the extent compatible with other economic
factors. . •
It is estimated that it presently,costs $0.06 per gallon
for gasoline shipment as a national average or $0.03 per gallon
for shipment to the the nine worst ozone non-attainment areas
(these 'figures : include both, long .range _ and local
"distribution). The lower cost is due to the proximity of the
non-attainment areas to major - ports and pipelines. The
projected figure for methanol given in the September 1989 EPA
methanol report is about $0.03 per gallon.[243
Ethanol is now shipped^ by rail car or/ truck for further
blending. The current production (about 840 million gallons
annually) represents about 0.8% of gasoline production in the
country as a whole (or 0.5% on an energy equivalent basis);
however, some portions of. the country such as Illinois have a
much higher market share (e.g,, about 3% ethanol which
represents about 30% gasohol) compared to-the average. These
states provide' an: ethanol subsidy in addition to the. Federal
subsidy.-'- If-neat orv near-neat, ethanol;/.'is. primarily used as a
fuel in areas with severe o^one-problems the nearest high-ozone
- market^ for-ethanol fuel'would-be the Chicago-Milwaukee region.
This "region" -would _J*ISG-_ feel --the- most expensive for shipping
imported methanol-. An ethanot vehicle"'sales fraction of about
15% in the Chicago-Milwaukee jregion would eventually consume
the current "TJ.S. production of ethanol, after full fleet
turnover. "Significant E85 or E100 sales in other high ozone
areas would- regttire much more of it to be transported from the
Midwest to the East, west, and Texas coasts than is now
occurring with ethanol.
Currently, in. the U.S. ethanol is not shipped" at all by
pipeline, .which is the least expensive mode, of transport^
'Thus, in the short term.the cost -of. shippinglarger volumes of
-30-
-------
-------
ethanol (presumably by rail car or barge) will be- greater
losSSly by severa/cents per gallon than that : for "J^^^tF
probably -no more than the current cost of shipping thanol .25
it' is not the current . practice, alcohols should
also: beae; to be shipped in pipelines ^ ^ld*^^& • ££
:
the East, but not to the West, in the long-term, a system of.
new^nnector type pipelines .would be- needed "Jo «mw«t .^a. the
-longdistance pipelines serving new eljanol ^markets |^side the
.farm states.; - However, due to .costs_ su°h .as ^.for ^system
preparation and maintenance/ shipment in . a .mu^~J!od£*
pipeline may not have the significant cost advantages for
.alcohols that it has for petroleum products, : ;;
One cost savings advantage in the distribution of- :ethanol
is that ethanol fuel would be a fungible product. .... Fungibilxty
is the ability to mix or interchange products from two sources,
as in the case of shipments through a pipeline, wxthout having.
a purchaser-discernible effect on the products. Currently,
qasoline may or may not be. fungible, depending on whether , it
^ets certain specifications set by pipelines. Crude; -oi^l- is
^usually not fungible unless it comes from the ; same;- field >:
because of the large chemical differences which: exist Between
the various types of crude oil. Ethanol production yields a
virtually pure single compound (or ethanol with water in ^ the
case of hydrous ethanol). Once exact specif icatjons^ for-^fuel
grade ethanol (E85 or E100> have been determined^ it, is
unlikely that pipelines \would place any ; .additional
specifications on the fuel- since it is so uniform a product •
Thus, for pipelines and other distribution, systems, ethanol
should be a -very .fungible product.
-~es points in the mstributfiorf system
thafc would- regu4reT--some -attention are, the storage^ tanks at
-te-rminali aHti ^ervi^e stations.- If; tanks are used Jffiat _ have
beeiTuse^for^gafioline, they -would in many- cases- need to be
dleaned^' out -of water and any buildup of scale, -or else the
solvent properties of the ethanol could result in fuel
contamination. This has been a standard practice for man>
mSketlrs of gasohol, so it is not expected' to present any
problems.ta-do^it for E85 or Eioo.
-31-
-------
-------
O • w • « ••*• *" ""•
,. *v« n*»d for segregation from gasoline, the
Other thanr;he^na distribution of ethanol to consumers
major factor. affectinf ^™t of ethanol needed due to its
would be the increasea aallon compared to gasoline. The
lower energy Content ^er^y determined by the^relative
actual quantity of «^*n°J- Ballon) of an ethanol fueled vehicle
fuel economy (inJiles per gai ^ Q On the energy
«««-«aT-ori to aasoline, WII-U-M «^jr- ,,«*,4«ia officiencv in
compared o gasoline, whac* ^ ^on the vehicie efficiency in
into useful wor*.
Ethanol has about .
iicrow or near—
onv* TW-, in an efficiency benefit compared to
^IW one .ight eSe=,: th,^^^.rgSSdS!. ; i
^Iruc^^e^ ^^^^^^0:^^-t^anol, ^n
ElOO vehicle has advantages that tena ^
_. . , tfr\f i nstrance.
ar_u
disadvantages. For ^jfj^rf' to obtain optimum efficiency,
decreased from stoichiometric to °otain op t^conbu8tipn
ethanol theoretically loses less of since ethanol has a
pressure benefit ^ than ^hanol . Also, ^ methanol, the fuel
greater energy density Knm3to%S)aIThe 30% figure represents vehicle as well as
than 30%.)_Tne su* y Qf no reasons why it
(or M100 7.eY.c'regt ata from moderately
estimate does not
1 UcShn5^eV^l™a7so "be" used
*0 ^ AA>^ ** .»•—-—• — — . ' ^ ^ — -— M.
with gasoline
-32-
-------
-------
Thus • for the purposes of this report,' the efficiency
i,provemIntsf0JithhethPanoPl are estimated I at about ^ ,ov for : neat
ethanol in a dedicated vehicle. and 2.5% f for near neat
-------
-------
3 . 4 vehicle Hardware Costs It
Use of an optimized vehicle fueled with neat (or less so
with near-neat) ethanol should allow use of a smaller, lighter |
•enaine which delivers the same power as the gasoline-fueled »
enlinl it replaces. The weight saved in the lighter engine
means that portions of the body structure and the suspension |
c!r be made lighter, especially if the engine/vehicle design is 1
as an entire system. The resulting vehicle will have
one as .
eaSivalent poer and weigh less than the vehicle it replaces; .
hfncV the resulting vehicle will have better performance. _The |
inSroved performance^ means that even further weight reductions
IS possible if the engine is resized for equivalent
performance. The smaller engine will allow powertrain weight •
and cost savings because the power transmitted will be reduced. m
The smaller engine size should lead to a smaller catalytic f
converter since most emission control systems use a certain 1
ratio of catalyst volume to engine displacement. Also, the
lower vapor pressure of ethanol compared to gasoline should -
result in savings in the evaporative control system. |
Ethanol 's combustion properties should be similar to those
of methanol which result in less heat being rejected into the |
engine's cooling system. The lower heat rejection and the 9
cooler exhaust leads to more savings. The neat ethanol fueled
engine will have to increase the sensible heat in the exhaust^ |
This will require exhaust port insulation which provides the §
appropriate exhaust conditions for effective, emission control^
Thi fact that not as much heat is rejected into the vehicle s
cooling system means that a smaller radiator can be used. |
However, fuel system modifications for neat or near-neat
ethanol might lead to cost and weight increases. Hydrous neat |
ethanol (95% ethanol and 5% water) vehicles may need more ft
•attSSion to material selection since this fuel has somewhat
greater rust forming tendencies than the anhydrous neat -
ethanol It is expected that any material changes implemented |
lor methanol vehicles would also be sufficient for ethanol
vehicles. • . m
Cold starting with neat ethanol at low temperatures would" •
recruire similar solutions as used with neat methanol due to the
SiSla!lv low volatility of ethanol. For instance, some |
SisiihgethSiol and methanol vehicles have used a separate 1
fuel system with a more volatile fuel (e.g., 9jsoline. or
propanK for starting and then switching to ****lcdhol.Kso.
with enough lead time, engine hardware will probably be |
Developed such as a sophisticated direct fuel inpection syster.
to assure cold starting [29,30]. The more sophisticated fue. _
• 1
I
I
1
-34-
-------
-------
greater energy density.
On an overall basis, there are several areas where cost
saving? and increases are expected. While there is uncertainty
on" the costs of vehicles designed for neat ethanol and higher
costs have been estimated by others such as Ford and GM,_ this
report assumes that in the long term the savings and increases
will balance out with no overall cost difference between future
optimized neat ethanol vehicles and gasoline vehicles. It
.should be noted that since some of the changes needed for a
fully optimized vehicle (e.g., the structural weight savings)
could only be realized with the design of a totally new
vehicle, achieving the -full efficiency potential of ethanol (or
methanol) fuel would require a lead time of at least 5-6
years As long as ethanol vehicles"are simply modifications of
their gasoline fueled counterparts as in Brazil, the full
benefit of potential weight reductions will not be possible.
For a flexible fuel vehicle operating on various fractions
of gasoline and ethanol, one does not have all the cost savings
Doslible with a neat ethanol fueled vehicle. Also, a fuel
lenlor is required. EPA is relying on the Ford cost estimates
olan extra $150 to $300 for a flexible fuel methanol vehicle
produced at high volumes; the Ford numbers were recently
updated to come up with this new range which is slightly lower
than the old numbers. [31,32] . An average cost of $300 per
vehicle (the high end of the range) will be assumed.
-35-
-------
-------
3 5 vehicle Operating Costs
'
asoline. For gasoline ••rpi.. of roughly $20 per
corresponding to currant «""• D;ice of $1.07 per gallon is
barrel. Foc com^"so° 9" oil price of about $35 per
If crude oil
section 3.1.1,4. I cru t increase
substantially in the future, i^ high etnawi pJoduGts in
beyond $1.50 per gallon due to the use ot P e ^ show a
corn farming/transport. A columi " |^o cellulosic
possible future cost of ethanol ae « vea dealer markup
sect ion 31. 3 in e
poss eaer ma
biomass, as described ^sect ion 3^1. 3^ in e nt total
SSJ?^°iri.1SS?J..fir tharSo6uVput mofnteathanogi (due to lo.er
energy content than gasoline). ]
r
a: ^^;«rr rr^ffis, t:
derived from the "tio of
!?!oe9salar°e o^lTtho^itua subicy since no subsidy is .-•_
anticipated in that scenario. 1
using the above ethanol g ^^I^^oUni
compares the annual fuel costs for ethanol re yeai; and 27 . 5 1
assuming accumulation, of 10,000 miles P^ y are shouT, j
?oSb1eineerteh%1VhlSermoreSloP«eerr '^"i-olin. costs depending on
the specific scenario. ]
-36-
1
-------
-------
Table 3-2
romarison for F100 without Subsid
Terminal or
Plant-Gate Price
Long Range and ...'
Local Distribution
Service Station
Markup"
All Taxes-
Subtotal
Distribution
Total Pump Price
Per Gallon Gasoline
Equivalent:
_ 30% Ethanol
- Improvement .
" Low Crude
(S20/bbl)
... Gasoline
•. , 0.69
Current
Low Cost High Cost
Ethanol Ethanol
1.00
0.:06(0.03).* ,- 0.06C
1.50
0.06°
0.09
0.24
0.39(0.36)
1.08
(1.05)
1.08
(1.05)
0.06-0.08 0.06-0.08 .
0.16 "0.16
0.28-0.30 0.28-0.30
1.28-1.30 1.78-1.80
1.48-1.50" 2.05-2.08
High Crude
($30/bbl)
Gasoline
1.07.,.-
0.06(0.03)
0.09
0.24
0.39(0.36)
1.46
(1.43)
1.46
(1.43)
(For the case of E85 with 2.5% improvement see next table.
since the cost of the 15% gasoline must be included.)
a)
b)
case is base* on increased corn price due^ to gr..tly
j.ii«."Ti« ------- _..v.,-«i T€ crude oil prices also increase
~..ii&&^:--'**^.^c^&S^:-fo^ ^habol cos| may increase beyond
*S^K^*ftl^oiihefshipped'%&: S- non-attainment
water;.or pipeline routes,
be sufficient
d)
e)
system wide basis.
l!s (BTU ratio) /I. Inefficiency ratxo)
1.154 x $1.Z8 =$1.48
= 1
-37-
-------
-------
•• ' • Table 3-3
^Ethahol Plant ;;
'Gate Price
Gasp1ine B1ending
E85
E100/ No
Credit For
•efficiency:
1.00-1.50
0
0.28-0.30
;. 28-1.80
E85
2.5% Better
Efficiency
1.00-1.50
-0". 05 to -0.12*
o.30-a.3ic
. -r- •
1.25-1.69
0.74-1.18*
Distribution,
Markup and Taxes
—.—— :— "
Total Ethanol
Retail Price ;
-$0.60/gal taxjcredit 0.68-1.20
on.EtOH portion
Gasbline-EgAiivalent vl. 50
: Ratio' '• . '. '---•;
, 92-2 70 1. 74-2-. 35-
Totar Gasoline- 1.922,/u
Equivalent .Ethanol ,r .-_.-... ,
Retail Price --.-•••:••
-$0.&0/gal tax credit 1.02-1.80 1.03-1.64
on EtOH portion
E10Q ,
'30% Better
Efficiency
1,00-1.50
..:•'• o.
0. 28-0;, 30
:l. 28-1. 80
0.68-1^20
• 1.154h;
^•i'.l •"
1.48-2.08
0.78-1.38
on Ji^wn jj^^<-^— _, -_ - ^ - -,- . ._-
•TfsfSa?*^ a
b) - without any- tax subsidy- These esjx . refalters would
- station- marXup as®umeT,^ aallln of ethanot sold than a
retire-a i^61;Pff^O toy the lower energy content of
gallon of gasoline^jJue^toj^ ^^ Q£ ethanool saies
c)
d)
adjusted
0.15(10.39) =$0.30 6o/gallon cost must
price on^JT' * d be borne by
qovernment ouageu aitu. ««= - **
SZlli wwiuw - — - -- 3
taxpayers in general. - ^
f) !BWg0ai8loi$0ga^Uni?;(BTO/gallon ethanol
for efficiency imP^Yf^fn? k - i 39
g) 0 85(1.5)/l.025 -H 0.15/1-025 - 1-39
h) 1.5/1.30 -.;1v1:54- , :
• - : •;-.-.' .",-'•- .'• .',.•' ^^v-.:-38-
,
.V
1
-*
I
\
I
1
I
I
I
i
1
-------
-------
a)
. Gasoline
Low High
$382 $520
$382 $520
Change
Relative TO
: Table 3-4
AnnualFuer_Costsa
$0.60/gal
Subsidy
No '
Yes
Gasoline Low
Gasoline High
No
Yes
No
Yes
E85
Low High,
$633 $855
$327 $553
+66% +124%
-14% + 45%
-1-22% +64%
-37% + 6%
El 00
Low High
$535 $753
$284 $502
+40% +97%
-26% +31%
+3% +45%
-45% - 4%
Gasoline-equivalent .assuming 10,000 miles/year, and 27. 5 MPG
-39-
-------
-------
3 6
would be very I»r9« b^?°* A " ethLnSl' production levels the
certain states. At JSi Sahwav Sd Mass Transit Trust Fund
SH-i< SSrSsJ: s-'a s
blenders income iilt«njr^ther *rSuc« the Highway and Mass
exemption, it w°ul<* J01-Ji5 reduce General Fund tax revenues
SSSiLc7eUaSS\nr?hened^af SSSlt unless compensating tax
increases are enacted. •
The issue of" state budget effects is less
range of tax subsidies, which fuels tne^app
a given state contains a ma: or ozone non ^ ^ ^^^
the ethanol vehicles would J>e us e^ ^ ^ ethanol
provide subsidies aver aging ^ 0.20 o.ju py Currently, only
Ind totalling roughly ^ "tainSenf ar Jas in the President's
two of the nine Jzon® ^^""^bsidies . .These are Illinois,
proposal have state • ^^L^" ^ ?,S and Connecticut, where -the
SiS^'i/fO.^^r g^UorTm ethanol blend (equivalent to
$0.10 per gallon of ethanol). ,
J
-40-
-------
-------
References Cited in Section 3
1. "Fuel Ethanol and Agriculture:., An Economic Assessment,"
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic
Report Number 562, August 1986.
2. "Fuel Ethanol Cost-Effectiveness Study - Final Report,'1
National Advisory Panel on Cost-Effectiveness of Fuel
Ethanol Production (page 1-2), November 1987.
3. "Ethanol Economic and Policy Tradeoffs," United States
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report .
#585, April 1988.
4. "Ethanol's Role in Clean Air," Department of. Agriculture
Press, 1989.
* "Feasibility of a Strategic Ethanol Reserve," USDA,
Department of Energy, report to Congress, March 1988.
s Telephone discussion with Steve Gill, USDA Agricultural
S?aMliz1tionand Conservation Service, March 30. 1990.
7 "Ethanol Fuel Modification for Highway Vehicle Use. Final
Report," U.S. Department of Energy, Report ALO-3638-T1,
July, 1979.
8 "Phase Separation and Cold Start Devices for Neat Ethanol
Vehicles The Brazilian Experience," .letter from^Plinio
NMtSri?' Ethanol Trade, S.A./SOPRAL, tc, Eric Vaughn,
Renewable Fuels Association, December 21, 1989.
9 "Energy Produced by Liquid Fuels of Regenerative .Sources
Taking as Model the Brazilian Ethanol Program," Paul
Baumgartl, General Motors do Brasil, presented at the
Hannover Fair - "Technologies for Objective Energy
Utilization," April 1984.
10. Telephone discussion with Dr. William Scheller, University
of Nebraska, October 19, 1989.
11. Telephone discussion with William Piel, ARCO Chemical
Company, October 10, 1989.
12 "U S. Gasoline Outlook 1989-1994: Changing Demands;
'values and Regulations," Information Resources, Inc. ,
1989.
13. "Energy and Precious Fuels Requirements of^Fuel Alcohol
Production, Volume II," H. Weinblatt, T. Ready,. and . A. =
Turhollow, Jr., prepared for' National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Contract DEN 3-292, for U.S.
Department of Energy, December 1982.
-41-
-------
-------
14 Telephone discussion with Carl Reede.r. Archer Daniels
Midland, October 19, 1989. ^ . ^
15 MOW Fuels Report, Information Resources, Inc., December .>
11, 1989. ,
is Letter from Clayton Yeutter, Secretary, U.S. Department of j
Agriculture, ; tqT Senator Bennett Johnston, November 3,
1989.
17 van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, Fifth^Edition, Van
Nostrand Relnhold Company, Edited by Douglas M. Considme, j
1976. 1 '
" " - • r - " • " **•
ia "Alternative Fuels: Progress and Prospects, Part 2," G.
Alex Mills and E. Eugene Ecklund, U.S. Department of -•
" Energy, Chemtech, Vol 19:10, pages 626-631. J
19 "Biofuels- A Strategy for Alternative Fuels," Stanley R.
Bull Solar Energy Research Institute, handouts and slides 1
?rom'presentation to U.S. EPA, November 30, 1989. *
20 "Five Year Research Plan, 1988-1992," U.S. Department of |
Energy, ?iofuels and Municipal waste Technology Program, f
DOE/CHI 0093-2 5,, DE88001181, July 1988.
21 "Review of the- Alternative Fuels Research Strategy," j
le?te? from Lee R. Lynd, Dartmouth College, tOQ Phil . • . •*
..... lorang, E!A Off ice of Mobile Sources, December 12, 1989.
Fuel Ethanol From Lignocellulose: Potential,
- SK:
and Chemicals, May 1989.
,
-
Mobile; Soiiicesf ^ovember IB, 1*&± ' _ .- - "• |,
Environ
•••
.... .. . . ..
25. "Petroleum Storage and Transportation;- Volume 2, National |
Petroleum Councils April 1989.
-42-
. 1
-------
-------
21. "Aspects of the Design Development and Production o£
Ethlnoi Powered Passenger Car Engines, F. B. P. J1-1^?: J1
International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels, May 21 25,
1984.
"
Sources, April 11, 1*90. .,.;•.• ,
if. statement of Work. «»
I. Bruetsch, start date March
25, 1984.
32 Letter from David L. Kulp, Ford- Motor Company to Eugene
Durman, EPA, September 26, 1989.
-43-
-------
-------
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF ETHANOL
The major effects of neat or near-neat ethanol vehicle use
are expected to be in the area of ozone formation and air
toxics. Using current vehicle emission control technology,•• NOx
and CO emissions can be equivalent to gasoline vehicle levels,
There is no reason to expect or require them to be Better,,
since vehicles meeting the applicable NOx emission standards
are- adequate for general attainment of the N02 standards, and
unlike CNG ethanol has no particular advantage with respect to
CO emissions.
4.1 Urban Ozone and Pan Level
Ethanol-fueled vehicles tend to emit more ethanol and
acetaldehyde than a similarly configured gasoline-fueled
vehicle. Formaldehyde emissions are also expected to increase
relative to a gasoline-fueled vehicle but not to as great an
extent [1] Compared to a methanol-fueled vehicle, a vehicle
run on ethanol is expected to emit less formaldehyde and
essentially no methanol, but more ethanol and acetaldehyde.
Non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) speciation data for
ethanol-fueled vehicles are limited to one study. [1] The test
vehicles were not specifically designed to run on ethanol.
Data were obtained with the vehicles operating on E85 and E95.
Data were also obtained with the same vehicles operating on
Indolene, M100, and M85. It does not appear that the methanol
and ethanol-blended fuels were matched for volatility. With
these limitations in mind, the mix of NMHC emissions from the
gasoline, methanol blends, and ethanol blends are not
dramatically different. .The ethanol-fueled vehicles tend to
emit more two carbon compounds such as ethane and ethene, but
less of other paraffins. ,
The impact of the use of ethanol-fueled vehicles on urban
ozone has not yet been adequately studied. Although
methanol-fueled vehicles have been studied in some detail, no
quantitative modeling studies of any U.S. city exist involving
the use of 85-100% ethanol in vehicles. Without a broad set of
such studies, the reactivity of emissions from an
ethanol-fueled vehicle relative to a gasoline-fueled vehicle
can only be estimated in a crude fashion by comparing the
reactivities of major emission components.
The reaction of compounds in the atmosphere with the
hydroxyl radical is often used as one measure of reactivity.
Table 4-1 gives hydroxyl rate constants for some of the major
components in methanol and ethanol exhaust, normalized to
gasoline NMHC.[2,3] (Hydroxyl rate constants strictly speaking
apply only to pure compounds. The rate constant for gasoline
NMHC used in Table 4-1 is actually a weighted average of the
large number of pure compounds that occur in gasoline vehicle
emissions. Hi] This simple approach assumes that ozone
production is based solely on the rate constant for the
-44-
-------
-------
Table 4-1
ivities Per Carbon*
Based on Based on I
Compound QH^ate_Constant-- Relative Reactivity"'
_. , , 0 21 0.76-0.87 1
Ethanol u./i 0 69
Methanol .0.13 •
0 7 70-331 1
X
Acet aldehyde 1.15
Gasoline NMHC 1.0
Normalized to gasoline NMHC carbon for easier comparison.
** The OH rate constant for gasoline NMHC is. 10.16 x 101
The OH rare const sue * hydroxyl rate constants
not exist Due to the numerous imitati-ons cited
potential of ethanol-fueled vehicles.
The relative reactivities of ethanol, methanol,
formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were taken from Tables 4a
aSd 4b in reference [7]. Relative reactivities at a
N^C/NO, ratio of 8 were used since the ozone maximum
,? ethane formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, 3) propane.
iormaldenyde and acetaldehyde, 4) ^^'^^l^
^ ac!?aid!hyde with NMHC, methanol, and ethanol as the
w-sistituted NMHC species were selected for this table.
-45-
-------
-------
reaction Of ou, -ith the
than the hydroxyl "ajL"1'"^ theompounds are emitted.
wil! not be considered
further in this report
incremental reactivity or P""; " =, reactivities have been
me'thanol, ethanol,
vc/No
1 £ormany p« copoun ,
calculated for many put v ERMA mo(Jel a
°ldy d •r.Vio.4* a^d initial conditions, «mxning
o
both one-day and two-day episodes. [2]
A third approach is to calculate the re^a^ reactivity
reactivity method, therefore, may oe ™a reactivity method
changes in organic «J««fnJ' the Affects of substitution of a
is also capable of lookig at the effects ^ approach to
mixture of or games j EP A_0^ntiai Of organic emissions from
evaluate the ozone-forming Pote^"y °T typical NMHC from
methanol-fueled vehicles f^lative to ^pica methanol
gasoline-fueled vehicles. ^flative "•ctw1^ les
!nd formaldehyde were based on modeling ^«« h" to calcuiat.e
number of °r9«ic ' a function of NMHC/NO,, ratios
,
-46-
-------
-------
be used to assess large changes in organic emissions,
the incremental reactivity approach, and 3) it " £0*
to the many limitations of the hydroxyl rate constant
hould be noted, however,
that the
cited creviouslv It should be noted, however, that the
reac?iv?t!es of Ypure compounds calculated Busing th« relative
reactivity and incremental- reactivity approaches agree fairly
well. [7]
in a recent paper , Ford has gone a step further and
" h t™
n a recen ,
calculated tZe "o-forming Potential (both . .
incremental reactivities) per carbon of .9" x»line and
alternative-fueled vehicles. [8] -Re-lative *ea°tlvl"e|8 per mile
can be derived by multiplying the total carbon emissions per
mile by the relative reactivities per carbon When this ; is
same
on
same ozone v^ne-pit- as an optimized M85 or
MlOO vehicle.
It should be noted that the magnitude of the ozone ^pact
of an ethanol-fueled vehicle is difficult to gu ant if y at this
time. Emissions data for a vehicle designed to run on Jthanol
are needed, as well as modeling using city-specific
conditions Exhaust emission characteristics in particular are
as strong. a function of vehicle design as of fuel type.
The ozone impact of an ethanol-fueled vehicle will be j
dependent upon the atmosphere into which it is introduced.
i!c?Srs suchP as the NMHC/NO, ratio will be important perhaps
even more so than for methanol-fueled vehicles. Ethanol-fueled 1
vehicles emit ethanol and acetaldehyde . The ethanol reacts in J
1-he atmosphere to form more acetaldehyde. Similarly,
m^hanll-fuelld vehicles emit methanol and formaldehyde, and -|
the methanol reacts in the atmosphere to form more J
formaldehyde At low and moderate NMHC/NO, ratios, borh
JormalShydS and acetaldehyde exhibit high reactivity due to
their high reaction rates with OH radicals and photolysis to J
form radicals. Formaldehyde photolyzes more rapidly than J
acetaldehyde. These factors become less important, and the
SI! removal characteristics become more "^'" "
t-Bls
£- r
meanol in .reference -[7] , ethanol is more reactive th.
-47-
-------
-------
methanol at the low and moderate NMHC/NO. **%°*£™£*™l
the ratio at which maximum ozone is formed) which reflects the
importance of ethanol 's higher reaction rate ^ with the hydroxyl
radical under these conditions. At h^her KMHC^O. "tios^
ethanol appears less reactive . than met Hanoi due tc | jhe
increased importance, of. the minor NO, sinks in ethanol s
photooxidation mechanism.
atmos^rr?^^^
Sir HS-M^^^
vehiclesnClead to an apparent increase in the f o™tionj:at^f or
PAN even in the vicinity of large sources of NO and otner
nitroaen oxides A more recent study measured ambient levels
of acl?aldehyll formaldehyde, and acetone in three ma: or urban
aLas of Brazil. [10] Acetaldehyde concentrations in urban
trSK of Brazil are substantially higher than those measured
Sse^here The authors- conclude that the most likely cause for
hi|h Sent levels of acetaldehyde is the large scale use of
ethanol as a vehicle fuel in Brazil.
It is difficult to extrapolate these results to the U.S.
because the Brazilian experience is not representative of U.S.
co^i?ions For example^ the vehicles, in Brazil are not
emaipped with catalysts, whereas most vehicles in the. U.S. have
SoW form of catalyst.. When properly operating, catalysts are
very effective at decreasing unregulated emissions such as
Icet aldehyde. [11, 12] Other differences that could
SiSlfiSStly alter the findings include climate, ^elevation,
population, vehicle age and age Distribution of the fleet
maintenance practices, driving .habits, and local industrial
activity in addition, a limitation of the studies appears to
be the lack of a good pre-ethanol. acetaldehyde baseline in
Brazil The studies can be used in a qualitative sense,
•howler, as suggestive of potential PAN and acetaldehyde
increases with the use of ethanol fuel.
-48-
-------
-------
4.2 Air Toxics
The emissions of air toxics from ethanol fueled vehicles
should be'similar in composition to those of methanol fueled 1
vehic?es As indicated in Table 4 of Attachment 5 -.of the I
Methanol Special Report [5], neat methanol (and thus neat
e?hanS?) vehicles can probably be engineered to have only 10% m
of the carcinogen emissions as gasoline vehicles, assuming §
successful commercialization of technology currently being •-.
?estld in prototype vehicles. For FFV's the benefits would not . -
bf as g?e!t?bu? would be roughly similar to those given in |
Table 4 of the Methanol Special Report.
sr^'thrfue^^ I
I Inline comlolition the 'same as current. Significantly •
different gasoline compositions would be considereo. to oe
reformulated gasoline, which is another alternative fuel to be |
covered in a separate report. •
4.2.1 Ethanol 1
Ethanol is not considered a toxic ' P°"utant^at ^cutl
likelv to be inhaled due to its use as a motor tuei. Acute
effects of exposure to ingested ethanol are less severe at I
• lxposu??llvels than methanol, and it is reasonable that •
4 exposureT would behave similarly. Some studies have
that ethanol has carcinogenic .**~i-«-«han maested.
nvr o
nS-thresh^o?d carcfnogenility model, even very low exposures of «
, any 'carcinogen are a potential concern.
sources of possible exposure to ethanol include fuel 1
••
or gasoline. - •
-49-
I.
1
-------
-------
4.2.2 Benzene
Benzene is projected to account for .about: 20% of the
carcinogenic emissions of gasoline vehicles inf 2°05-[14]
'
in the engine. This would not occur with a d^10**8^* *J°
vehicle. It is also possible that small amounts of benzene
could be generated when lubricating oil burns.
EPA cancer estimates include a minimal amount of ^exhaust
benzene to account for its possible formation. The _»/«
reduction in benzene for methanol vehicles relative to gasoline
which was used in the methanol report will also be assumed for
E100 vehicles. FFV swill emit benzene in quantities which are
related to the amount of aromatic hydrocarbons in the gasoline
and the amount of gasoline used. In the • case of E85, a
reduction of 85% can be used as an approximation, although
arguments can be made for somewhat smaller reductions.
4.2.3- Aldehydes
Directly emitted and indirectly formed formaldehyde is
Droiected to account for about 8% of the carcinogenic emissions
from gasoline vehicles in 2005. [14] Ethanol fueled vehicles
are expected to emit formaldehyde at a rate roughly^egual to or
sliqhtly greater than a gasoline vehicle, although much less
thin that of a similarly engineered methanol vehicle (whether
FF^ or neat alcohol fueled). Cl/15 - '79 SwRI blends report 3
However, in the absence of a catalyst system optimized for
aldehyde control, acetaldehyde emissions are expected to
inc?easl substantially relative to a gasoline vehicle, as is
tne" case SiS formaldehyde from a methanol . fueled vehicle,-
Acetaldehyde has a much lower carcinogenic potency than
fSSSShydS, so it is expected that, the ^^^"^J ™
aldehyde potency from "-- ethanol vehicles would .-be due .-to
f oSldlhydS^ andf tfats is not likely to be much- greater than
that, from a gasoline^yehiele. ,. ;^ ; ^~<^:,.:";--'_":^-^~l-':'-- ; '••-:"
Acute non-cancer effects possible^ troml aldehyde e^osure
include eye, nose, throat, and skin irritation, :as well as
headaches and nausea. Again, acetaldehyde effects: are expected
to be" !esl then formallehyde, and emiss ion ^ control measures
used for control of hydrocarbon compounds in ethanol vehicle
exhaust would also control aldehyde emissions.
-50-
-------
-------
4.2.4 i.3-Butadiene '--.-..-
1 3-butadiene is projected to account for about 30% of the
carcinogenic emissions of gasoline vehicles in 2005.[14] |
Ethanol combustion, is not expected to. produce any significant 1
1,3-butadiene. FFV s though will emit 1,3-butadiene in the
exhaust hydrocarbon portion. •
4.2.5 Other Air Toxics
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) emissions are projected^o I
account for about 22% of the carcinogenic.emissions of gasoline »
vehicles in 2005. [14] Although no POM emission data from ElOO
vehicles exist, the combustion of very low molecular weight |
ethanol
-------
-------
4.3 Global Warming . ..
Carbon Dioxide (CO,) is one of the ''greenhouse gases^
which means that _ it increases^ the^tendency °4^e ^^g6/6
average temperature of the
the end product
•in hydrocarbon
, ^,LJli^111, . = carbon
c
in? CO, thus minimizing the formation of ^f^6
combustion products (such as carbon monoxide, benzene,
l?3^tad?eneP POM, and other pollutants). Therefore use of
any carbon containing fuel causes CO, addition to the
Smosphere, and the issue is how much of that carbon can then
be removed from the atmosphere and be reconverted into
feedstock for future fuel. With fossil fuels such as petroleum
p?od5c?r the rite of CO2 addition to the atmosphere is much
areatlr than the rate the earth can reabsorb it and convert it
in?o petroleum, limestone, etc. since that takes _thousands of
vS«s However, with ethanol, to the degree that it is derived
f?o"'vegetation (i.e., trees or agricultural
-------
-------
Use o£ this figure results in rhe following amounts cf
fuel being consumed for each mile of vehicle travel.
Type of Fuel
Gasoline
100% ethanol
85% ethanol
Fuel Consumption
(gallons per mile)
0.0364
0.0418
0.0505
There is controversy on the inputs used to calculate the
amount of energy needed and C02 released in production and
combustion of gasoline and ethanol.[18,19] A point of
particular debate is the energy needed in ethanol production,
which can vary by almost a factor of two depending on the
process used and especially on whether waste heat is recovered
for Purposes such as cogeneration of electricity. A recent
draft EPA report examined the effects of fuel _ ethanol
production and use on carbon dioxide production and
emissions.[20] This report used as input. a number of non-EPA
reports.[21-233
Table 4-2 lists the draft EPA estimates of the amount of
C02 from production and use of a gallon of gasoline and
ethanol. The biggest variable in these numbers is the C02
emitted (from energy consumed) during ethanol production. The
typical range of energy needed for ethanol production is given
in various studies as 40,000-60,000 BTU per gallon of ethanol,
not including the energy needed for byproduct drying. There
ale competing estimates, but since expanded ethanol production
woSld be expected to use the best available plant technology,
?he lover munber (40,000 BTU per gallon) should serve as a
reasonable average. Combining this number with energy
efficiencies and other factors discussed in reference [20]
gives the 7.97 Ib CO2 per gallon shown in Table 4-2.
These figures and the gallons per mile numbers_ can be
combined to give the CO2 emission estimates shown in Table
4-3 for the current gasoline vehicle scenario and an expanded
ethanol vehicle scenario. These numbers show lower total C02
emissions in the ethanol vehicle case than in the gasoline
case The impacts of land use changes on C02 were not
explored but are potentially important in a large program. For
example, growing corn or other crops in areas that were
forested could affect the overall C02 balance.
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
-53-
-------
-------
Table 4-2
m Carbon Dioxide Emissions
from Fuel Production and Use
-} . - •
* • Pounds of CQ2 Per Gallon of Fuel
Source ' Ethanol' Gasoline
Gasoline production 3.23
Gasoline combustion , 19.27
Ethanol combustion [12.6]b
Corn farming 4.58C
Ethanol production 7.97d
By-product drying 4.19
< Credit for displaced
, soybean production* (1.37-1.47) ;
TOTAL 15.27-15.37 22.50
aTheseare per actual gallon rather than gasoline-
equivalent gallon. On a gasoline-equivalent basis the
ethanol numbers would be 15%-50% greater than shown,
depending on efficiency of the vehicle in which the
ethanol is used.
b COz released from fermentation and ethanol combustion
comes from C02 captured through photosynthesis in
growing the corn crop and therefore is not counted in the
total; also the C02 released during fermentation is
assumed to be recovered and to displace COz that would
have been generated from incremental fossil fuel. This
COz is not counted in the total. This number comes from
Reference [18].
c"~ Includes tractor and equipment fuel, fertilizer, grain
drying, and other energy uses such as pesticides.
d Low end of current typical range is shown, corresponding
to large new energy efficient plants fueled with coal.
e Increased ethanol production from corn and increased
byproducts would decrease the soybean market. The credit
comes from the decrease in fossil fuel use for soybean
farming. See Reference 20 for details. .
-54-
-------
1
-------
Table 4-3
wet <~
per V
Tvpe of Fuel
Gasoline
100% ethanol
85% ethanol
a This is total CO
production and coi
ethanol feedstock
fermentation C02)
economy of 27 . 5
efficient ethanol
is for a greatly e
OLi UUll i/ J. WAXVU7 iJill J. O a JL WAAO
;ile of Vehicle Travel*
CO 2 Emissions Reduction Relative
(grams per mile) . to Gasoline
371 0
290-291 -21 to -22%
350-352 ~5% to -6%
2 emissions per gallon from both fuel
ribustion (minus the C02 reabsorbed into
but no credit for commercial use of ,
, divided by a gasoline-equivalent fuel
miles per gallon. New large energy
plants are assumed, since this analysis
xpanded ethanol program.
II
II
1 1
1
I
1
1
I
•
1
1
I
-55-
-------
-------
A i *> impart nf Ethanol from Cellulosic Biomass
The energy balance for production of, ethanol^ from
cellulSIic materials is much better than for production from
•htnm*^ oroduction and conversion could come from the
ce?Tu!LicPrmdaUtCeri°al itself, although in theg ear^y stages of
commercialization this might not be the case Even so, the
ratio of fossil carbon burned to carbon available flor end use
has been estimated to be very low (e.g., 0.0-0.21).[24j
greenhouse effects, this means_that^the growing
emitted in Ythe prodSio^~of ethanol produced from
these sources. .
-56-
-------
-------
•••••••l"^™™'
increases in ethanol production, the agricultural
•A ff«^s on the environment must also be considered. Some
side .effects on the ejyj.ro™ n effect of the increased
of the issues-to consider in.ciuae rne changes in
and pesticide run-off), forests (including rain
JSS. ff iS^e^ c^s°a^=r i^ the Tropics) h,s to be
evaluated.
-57-
-------
-------
4.5 Other Environmental and Health/Safety issues
4.5.1. Spill Issues . , ' '
Use of'ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel would necessarily
involve more transport of neat or near-neat: ethanol, and
consequently more opportunities for accidental spills of a
significant quantity The modes of shipment would certainly
include barged rail tank car, and tank truck. Transport by
multi-product pipeline, dedicated pipeline, and ; ^^-f?^
tanker are 'also possible, depending on the scale and location
of use and the source of supply. As with transport of gasoline
via these modes, accidental releases are inevitable over a long
enough period of use. Barge and tanker shipment pose a risk of
a spill into the open ocean, coastal waters,Drivers, or -the
Great Lakes. The other , modes would more typically result in
spills onto land first, with possible run-off into surface
waters.
If ethanol were involved in a spill into the ocean, into a
lake or river, onto, land, or into drinking water supplies, the
Question arises as to whether a greater environmental and
public health hazard would be posed relative to a petroleum
fuel spill. The risk relative to other clean fuels,
particularly methanol, is also of interest. ^An ethanol fuel
Spill into aquatic systems or on land^ indeed poses
environmental and health concerns because of the . fu«l «,*£*"
effects in high concentrations, and it, could be expected^ that
there would be a slightly larger number of spills (about 20*
"per vehicle") for a given mode of transport, because of the
larger quantities of ethanol fuel that would have to be
transported. The modal pattern of ethanol transport could be
quite different than that of either petroleum or methanol fuel,
with less reliance on ocean shipment.
As a result of ethanol's inherent properties of water
solubility, biodegradability, and relative ease of complete
evaporation, it ' :.could. . quickly dilute .to .non-toxic
^concentrations, disperse Downstream, decqrr^ose if spilled into
-large bodies of; waters and evaporate or decompose if spilled on
land areas.: lhus> in many scenarios;, an ethanol spiii ..should-
Vnot be "as hazardous as: a petroleum spill. :- r ;
Irv comparison to petroleum fuels, ' a tanker spill of
ethanol into the ocean should pose less risk to aquatic life,
Ithanoi's water solubility allows for rapid dispersion _and
dilution and, therefore, short exposure durations. Also,
ethanol's quicker biodegradation than that of crude oil, diesel
fuel, or gasoline results in shorter residence times of the
fuel and faster recolonization of life at spill sites, with
less severe long-term effects of spills on animal life and on
-58-
-------
-------
the environment. in general, cleanup of ethanol spills
requires less extensive efforts and • costs than cleanups
associated with spills of water-insoluble petroleum fuels.
Small ethanol spills usually do not require any cleanup efforts
because of the effectiveness of natural biodegradation, while
large ethanol spill's may require aeration of the water (to
supply depleted oxygen to marine life and speed biodegradation)
and/or use of ethanol-destroying bacteria.
Ethanol spills into rivers and other, moving bodies of
water also benefit from the fuel's water solubility and
biodegradation. Again,, in contrast to petroleum fuels, ethanol
spilled into a river from, for example, a barge, is quickly
diluted and carried downstream. Cleanup of an ethanol fuel
spill into a moving body of water would be handled similarly to
that of a spill into the ocean.
Although, like petroleum fuels, ethanol in high
concentrations is toxic to plant and animal life, its toxic
effects after a spill onto land are of shorter duration and are
less acute than those exhibited by a petroleum fuel spill.
Again, ethanol's inherent properties of relative ease of
complete evaporation and biodegradability play a positive
role. Its more rapid evaporation from the earth allows for
less to be absorbed into the soil and water table. (It is
important to note that while some of the lighter ends of
gasoline evaporate very quickly, its heavy components require
"long periods of time before evaporation occurs.) However, if
absorbed, ethanol's larger degree of biodegradability
facilitates decomposition by micro-organisms present in the
soil. Because of its shorter retention periods near a spill
site, cleanup of an ethanol spill on the earth requires less
effort than that of a petroleum fuel spill. In the event of a
massive spill, however, enhancement of the natural
biodegradation process of ethanol may be beneficial.
Since 'ethanol's solubility in water and, hence, rapid
dilution and dispersion are considered advantages in spills
into large and/or quickly moving water masses, most scenarios
where drinking water is at risk would be less severe with
ethanol than with petroleum. In some situations, however, such
as a river spill located very near a drinking water supply
intake ethanol may indeed contaminate a water supply that would
have escaped contamination by petroleum fuel. However, ethanoi
has a taste and odor that most adults can recognize and avoid.
With the possible exception of fetuses and pregnant women,
consumption of drinking water with low levels of ethanol should
not be acutely toxic.
Fuel ethanol will contain denaturant, and may be shipped
or stored mixed with gasoline. Consideration needs to be giver.
during the choice of a denaturant as to whether it remains
-59-
-------
-------
detectable at any concentration that could be toxic. Gasolir.e
mixed with ethanol will tend to separate out when the mixture
reaches water. It is known that there is some greater tendency
for aromatic hydrocarbons to mix into the water when ^tnanol
is also present. This may also occur but perhaps to .a lesser-
degree with ethanol. Studies on the disposition of etnanol
spills very near drinking water supplies are ™t available, and
further study by EPA and other organizations would be useful.
Most of the above discussion applies equally to ethanol
and methanol. Methanol would evaporate from an on-land spill
faster than ethanol. The relative toxicity
. ..
ethanol to fish and other organisms at a ^iven- dilution is
largely untested. One alcohol may produce, a somewhat larger
'•kill zone" before non-toxic dilution occurs. The most
significant difference between the two alcohols is likely to be
that humans can relatively safely consume ethanol if it finds
its way into a water supply.
4.5.2 Leak Issues
The previous section addressed the potential consequences
of sudden releases of significant quantities of ethanol fuel.
Slowed rlSaks ISd continuous releases of small quantities are
also of interest.
Because of the biodegradability of ethanol, smaller
rout ill releases in circumstances that allow for good dilution
should not tiresent an environmental problem. For example,
transfer losfes between shio and shore or flushing of cargo
tankl woulS at "most encourage a higher local concentration of
ethanol-digesting bacteria.
into underground water are a potentially greater
over a period of time.
The first point to note with regard to leaks from
teg JB? me
These "cliques can be extended by regulation to other fuels
as judged necessary.
-60-
-------
-------
If a leak does occur, there will be several differences
hPtween the consequences with ethanol compared to that with
Petroleum fuels. Ethanol and petroleum fuels have different
KdroloSTcal effects in soils and may migrate downward at
drooca
different rates, providing more or less time for evaporation
instead once in contact with the water table, ethanol will
tend to mix and dilute more quickly than a petroleum fuel and
to biodegrade more quickly. (There may be a zone in which the
Shftin i concentration is too high for biodegradation to
occur* ) If l?hanol reaches a drinking water, well, there is
Uttle health risk. Ethanol is not toxic and is detectable by
both odor and taste.
Methane 1 and ethanol would behave very similarly to each
• other *nw underground spill, particularly in comparison to
ethanol.
4.5.3 Fire Issues .
Ethanol like all combustible fuels such as gasoline,
?S identify those areas where precautions are needed.
With regard to fire safety of ethanol, there are two main
H .SliSSr1^ -5a^£2 ^usS1? !
concentrations as low as 1 . 4 percent
-61-
-------
-------
from forming in storage tanks (e.g., nitrogen blanketing,
b!aSder° ?e?Is, floating roof tanks) or to tf
-------
-------
References Cited in Section 4 I
1. "Definition of a Low-Emission Motor Vehicle in Compliance •
with the Mandates of .Health and Safety Code Section I
39037.05 (Assembly Bill 234, Leonard, 1987)," California
Air Resources Board, May 19, 1989. •
2. "Computer Modeling Study of Incremental Hydrocarbon
Reactivity,". William P.L. Carter and Roger Atkinson, • ••
Environmental Science and Technology, 1989, 23, 864-880. •
3. "Kinetics and Mechanisms of the Gas-Phase Reactions of the
Hydroxyl Radical with Organic Compounds under Atmospheric •
Conditions," Roger Atkinson, Chem. Rev. 1985, 85, 69-201. •
4. "Effects of Emission Standards on Methanol Vehicle-Related .
Ozone, Formaldehyde, and -Methanol Exposure," Michael D. •
Gold and Charles E. Moulis, APCA Paper No. 88-41.4, June "
1988. _
5. "Analysis of the Economic and Environmental Effects of •
Methanol as an Automotive Fuel, Special Report," U.S. EPA, I
Office of Mobile Sources, September 1989. • I
6. "Impact of Methanol Vehicles on Ozone Air Quality," T.Y.
Chang, et al, Atmospheric Environment, 1989, 23, 1629-1644. _
7. "Reactivity/Ozone-Forming Potential of Organic Gases," ™
S.J. Rudy and T.Y. Chang, submitted to Atmospheric
Environment, November 1989. •
8. "Ozone-Forming Potential of Organic Emissions from
Alternative-Fueled Vehicles," T.Y. Chang and S.J. Rudy, •
submitted to Atmospheric Environment, November 1989. |
9. "-Atmospheric Chemistry of Aldehydes: Enhanced
Peroxyacetyl Nitrate Formation from Ethanol-Fueled •
Vehicular Emissions," Roger L. Tanner, et al, •
Environmental Science and Technology, 1988, 22, 1026-1034.
10. "Urban Air Pollution in Brazil: Acetaldehyde and Other | I
Carbonyls," Daniel Grosjean, et al. Atmospheric
Environment, 1990, 24B, 101-106. •
11. "Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from 46 In-Use
Passenger Cars," John Sigsby, et al. Environmental Science
and Technology, Vol. 21, page 466, May 1987. |
12*. "Characterization of Emissions from a Variable
Gasoline/Methanol Fueled Car," Peter Gabele, EPA Office of |
Research and Development, 1989.
-63-
I
1
-------
-------
13.
14.
15.
16.
17;
18.
19.
20.
21.
"Diet Nutrition, and Cancer, V Committee on Diet,
Nutrition, and Cancer, Assembly of Life Sciences, National
Research. Council, National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C.^ 1982. '-.. V ;...."; . - '" • - ' •." *
-Air toxics -Emissions and Health Risks from Mobile
Source^* Jonathan M. . Adler and P«fty M.-. C^
Waste Management Association Paper 89-34A.6, June
"Gasohol TBAr MTBE Effects on Light-Duty Emissions, "
Brucf^ykowski, Southwest Research Institute' final report
of .Task 6, EPA Contract 68-03-2377, October 1979.
"Air Quality Criteria:'' for Ozone, and Other |£otoc£emical
nvirianf«5 Volumes IV and V, EPA Keports
Epi%00/8-84/020dE and EPA/600/8-84/020eF/ August 1986.
: "Gasohol: Technical, Economic, ^or -Political. Panacea?,"
Thomas C, Austin . and Gary Rubenstein, California Air
Resources Board, SAE Paper 800891, August 1980.
-"Global Warming Impact of Etnanol Versus Gasoline," S.P.
HoT paper presented at "National Conference on Motor Fuels
and Air Quality," October 1989.
"Moving Beyond the Myths," Ben Henneke, paper ^presented at
National Conference on Motor Fuels and Air Quality,
October 1989. •..-.',..>
"Effects of Fuel Ethanol Production and Use on C02
Production and Emissions," David Bartus, draft report
EPA-AA^SDSB-89-xx, June 1989.
"Ethanol Fuel and Global- Warming," Migdon Segal,
Congres^ionat-Research Service^ February 13,' 1989.
Motor Fuel, "
Amejican? Institute of
23r.
24.
25.
Production -andt" Combust ion of Fuel
*-* ?'s' Department ;of : Energy, September
"
Alternative Fuels Research Strategy , "
lettec;rfrom ,ee- R, Lynd, Dartmouth College, to Phil
roranf/EPA .Office of Mobile Sources, December 12, 1989.
"1988 Annual iReport of the American Association of Poison
Control Centers National Data Collection, System," Toby L.
Litovitz, et al, American Journal of Emergency Medicine,
volume. 7, number ; 5:, page 495.
-------
-------
i
Other Related References
• '•'Automotive Use of Alcohol in Brazil and Air Pollution ™
Related Aspects," A. Szwarc and 6..M. Branco, CETESB, .SAE' —
'Paper-'" 85.0390-, 1985. ^ * : '-. I
^"Transportation Fuels Policy Issues and Options : The. Case, ,,
of IthSol Fuels in Brazil," Sergio C.Trindade, presented .
at the conference: on "Alternative Transportation^ Fue^ ,in.v ; §
-the 199Q1 s and Beyond, " Asilomar , California. July 1988. ;
"Braziiiah Vehicle Calibration for , EthanoL Fuels, "; G. • E. .•; |
:Chui/ et al, Ford, .Third "International. Symposium on »
Alcohol : Fuels, Asilomar, California, May 1979. ; .
. -' ' . • -'•'' "«•• • '--••- , _ ™ .. " "T" .- ' - B
-EconoItvics^of Ethanol Production in the
States
co
^Agricultural Economic Report Number 607
;y Department- of Agriculture, March 1989 . <. : ; : •
"Alcohol and Ethers: A Technical Assessment- of :^thei,r . .
Application^ as Fuels :; and Fuel Components^ American ..
Petroleum Institute, July 1988. > •
•- v • •""-,. i • . * • - - - . •" - i . . - " .•_-•'•.-.•=-" • Wr -
"The0 Economics of -Gasoline Ethanol Blends,, " Robert C^
Anderson ^alV, American Petroleum Institute, Research .
Study #045, November 1988. . ™
- "The U.S . Biofuels- Industry, " Donald L-Klass,- Institute
•••'of' ^ Gas V Technology, International Renewable .Energy |
Conference, September 18-24, 1988.
/"Herbaceous Energy Crops Program:^ ^^J
for FY ^1987," J.H^ Cushman, A.F. Turhollow, ^
oik:; Ridge National Laboratory,; 7ORNL-6514,
,._ .. .. . •/,- • .-- -•,.- ..• •• - - .
yiiji^^
' '
a^ '^lz :^6® W ^'^ ^.:' • ' m
"l^^ : "'-•-: : :-'- t
- . ... ., . ~ ..•.._ .... . .
.Comparisons . of Energy ^conomies, and J
Alcohol -and Gasoline Fueled Vehicles,
and Barrett Pullman HI .Ihternatxonal
Alcohol Fuels, May 28-31, 1979. v > ; /._ |
;-65-
-------
-------
"Energy Consumption in the Distillation o£ Fuel Alcohol,"
0. Leppanen,. John Penslow, and Pentti Ronkainen, vi
International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels, May 21-25, 1984.
"Emission and Wear Characteristics of an Alcohol Fueled
Fleet Using Feedback Carburetion and Three-Way Catalysts,"
W. H. Baisley, C. F. Edwards, VI,International Symposium
on Alcohol Fuels, May 21-25, 1984.
"The Production of Ethanol by the Fermentation of Grain,"
Wm. A. Scheller, II International Symposium on Alcohol
Fuels, 1977.
"Physical Properties for Gasoline/Alcohol Blends," Frank
W. Cox, U.S. Department of Energy, Report BETC/RI-79/4,
September, 1979.
"Commercial Recovery Processes for Ethyl Alcohol," A.
Dzenis and J. McNab, VI International Symposium en Alcohol
Fuels, May 21-25, 1984.
"Technical and Economic Assessment of Motor Fuel Alcohol
from Grain and Other Biomass," George D. Moon, Jr., John
R. Messick, Charles E. Easley, and Dr. Raphael Katzeri, III
International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels, May 28-31, 1979.
"A Comparative Economic Analysis of Alcohol Fuels
Production Options," J. L. Jones, P. M. Barkhordar, D. C.
Bomberger, C. F. Clark, R. L. Dickenson, W. S. Fong, C. B.
Johnk, S. M. Kohan, R. C. Phillips, K. T, Semrau, and N.
R. Teater, III International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels,
May 28-31, 1979.
"Technical and. Economical Aspects of Ethanol as an
Automotive Fuel in Turkey," Omer L. Gulder, vi
International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels, May 21-25, 1984.
"Corrosion on Fuel Supply Systems of Alcohol Driven Car
Engines," L. Uller and O. F. Ferreira, VI -International
Symposium on Alcohol Fuels, May 21-25, 1984.
"California's Alcohol Fleet Test Program-Final Results,"
F. J. Wiens, M, C. McCormack, R. J. Ernst, R. L. Morris,
and R. J. Nichols, VI International Symposium on -Alcohol
Fuels, May 21-25, 1984.
"A. Motor Vehicle Powerplant for Ethanol and Methane 1
Operation," H. Menrad, III International Symposium en
Alcohol Fuels, May 28-31, 1979.
"Ethanol Fuel —- A Single-Cylinder Engine Study cf
Efficiency and Exhaust Emissions," SAE Paper 810345.
February, 1981. ,
-66-
-------
-------
1
"Perspectives on Potential Agricultural . and Budgetary /
Impacts From an Increased Use of Ethanol Fuels," U, S.
General Accounting Office Testimony for the Record of Judy • -^
England-Joseph, before the Committee on Ways and Means, j
U.S. House of Representatives, February 1, 1990.
"DOE Launches Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Initiatives," U.S. Department of Energy press release,
Contact: Reid Detchon, January 26, 1990.
1
I
-67-
1
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
Summaries of Previous U.S. Government Ethanol Studies
-------
-------
•'j
•Si,s
1st i
siiti
i-!»{»I
lJI5il*il
* i iltiff
1 - lifJiiH
i 1»J|1«I
> Hl'll*
P Ifl^li^
^ 5a'feiM^O^
Si S2.K«*&°9
s stsU'i!
II1.(I *
Hi;|j!
HiS Pi
f:5li!l
is:^«
* ** 4 3
** i S 1
-------
-------
i™,^:,*!
I'*.'.* •
> T. 2«
2 -j «* 3 «i*
i-rilln^.^,.
arS:: 6*1 ^t.^:,-,• C:.' •:„,
J^5Jft4 ?3a>;->£>:^
-*'•» ^ff-S-S^i^-rf^^SK^S^SffarS^ffsw-^sssU
11* "Iff"*" ;I:2S^ .•3S^~si^SS«&^^- •"•;
iillr
sV|l|jl^
||||]}|S
iUHfli
i* S
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
-------
-------
I
u
i
o
fr£ o»
3 O
-------
-------
m
I
5' 8
« ** w
k V *»
jit
Si
•155
s-
**£
.
Mi
^
** ll
li!
15
M
I
-
43
-------
-------
8
ttri
M — _.-.. ««»• —
3 ^ W»» ;;~ ""
! !
it
is
i
mil
ffi
«|i:
»••• JC • •
5
I
1
1*
II
l
•;* 3
I •« ':>- ;i "* ?~* • ': -* ^ i
S"jji3!I i -«Pn fI i i ^ s
i I*-«|i
_^«» -- -««•-.* s i I I 1 j
.
unii
£ I I!
«• ^ • *^ Tf
1
i.iiiiiii
2 • rs** :
1 iHU'l
i 1 —sis I itlll* * I*?"'1!
I « «I-h s \zz-,-- * 1 ilsssJSI
I i i illiil I ilHil 1 s iWM«l
* ^ ** ^ - _ . .^ _B uM k^ «te
?•
1
1
i
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
-------
-------
«
B
r
I
- I
i - I
i'! I
5 I t
i 2 !
i ; ill. - i.-: - i ! ; i i I
liljliiSiSilli \iii
* 2 : I: •*: ?* a-'!*'*?:* ' : I 11
1 ** t ' »i I* * I« i'W'i •":•'* * '*
s -! lj !i « ! is til !•'!' «•«•«
S a I Jf : I : 1« I 3m M 3~ * u 5 ** w
I i- 5i r «I 1 *= i'*Jj'i : : -
s ^11 M-Ir i! \ i: 1 ll 1 I ill
iJiii-;
i 13 5i |: •= 1 •= \\\l
«.SlMl!"i!-i "ill 1
i =. : fi,L 5- 5 5" 5 se -
J || ||.«J ,• «•„* ' »" s
11! Ill ill i! li!1
i. 1 3 2 ^2 «5
4535 1 . I-
. . . II
! I i H 2$
11^5= X2
= a. 2 s a
I
MM
S
-------
-------
8
S
%
I
If
ss
ii jii
• £. s M
2 M - f-
I -1,1 II
'•*»•
**^ * :
l*i.li
a-
ii
*l - ^ ll f U ll ?*i t - •-• I I * I : I j I i
ii !* Is I :'i« * Js?-i l s 4 i i i& [^ •
*=i cl *- s* ll »I Sal * 5s t III* §525
r*5 tj Ii i« in u ill i *-11-S 1 ?! = i i j
Ilillhyllilinv^^^11 !:!•
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
i
1
-------
-------
g-gSS:: = -3.-SSt*13S=S^£*l
552-S- • S'5«.-I. .r-aSSS-SS
issll
<* At
-if!
;iH!
Is*---
»r-:*1
is^feii
*r?||I
•iH?
•8?"as
i"ni
l!!«l
» 5— w 7
RKi •'l-'iTil
-------
-------
-------
-------
aw w1
si*i!.«t tHifini
-------
-------
IPIlMI
l=I±=lrr
Hi!j;]j
yupii
w * <•• ••*
°ieiS
UH*
s.lb
f«?i
il|H!
irltU
IiliM
»r,ii
Kid
I
-------
-------
V
i
ft
ll
13
« Ml
H8 PP 8*88
•l S's'si
5 Isslri]
1 Still!
i
tiHlH
a w* i s
••2|M|l!
h.-!:i
41*555
s• c—— *
!*i*!l*
•Hills
u!i«
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
-------
•o
-
o
c
o
3 CDC (ft
if « <
i]
I
-------
-------
V 9
-C — ^
:!§
2'2 =
U 3' «
C •* <•
i ii
s s :
nl
Js>
•o a *
. s
Hi
i M
"o >«M
i=:
* 9 a
• i.
from additional
beef, pork, and
on, 01 an avereg
8 -= •
Si = ?
-s- S
s!:i
3 aV Wk *
W
.•SJ?-
Illl
I u - •
•»*• • i
• 5 s ~
!• •« •• a «
t ". . r !
* to i. * e
B> . «i e
• baa.
e — >
I> V • •
-•-•; ••»
, e <•» — e —
J---2
e « a - *
kB • qf *aj
|s?sli
3 S S" - S
I « f S 0 0
-.rlls4
I'll8!
^ t^ «« ^ an
a • u — o
M r^ O »»•• M
«•*•>• a —
a i . «. e
-»2?iir
a •»« i - *
aslli!
82 a SI*
*a-*!»?
» 9 M) * — V*
-hip
• »• a M *c *»
l«|!«
j-'i':i
•j ,, O .» ma
•» to £•> an) W *•»
'!-'!-
iUh«
•j
Its
a *•
^ •
V 3
«t am '
'2!
•X
— *
tt *
.= 2
e "*
!i
* •
^ M
» —
=i
.* u
»=
o «*
ii
-a1
»
nl* In lacnnolog
i coat* euougk ta
!!
2 3
11
«b<
*, •
n
'
'
km
"
• •
;•
5
11
!?
t a*
s .
w *»
!|
• •*
m >
if
IE
s — *
•111
! 3 7
2 • 8
sK
2 SI
" i
:li
fflclent M«
rnlgkl gaa«
he amount 1
• 0 •
si:
:•* s
_ » •*
1 production 1* I
Mr* economical 1
direct aukaldy «
production.
Hji
• . is
•m M m
S — *• 1!
£ 2 » *
2 1 1|
i'li
2,2 .21
iiitiffi
*l«'sKss
!il^rr
Agricultural fal
af ckanglng ath
and prlcae. the
» •Ultra gallea
la crap yeer IM
*d I* 1 kllll
preductlon
r* canaldat
'
3 2 21 -1 ' 2 J!
$x 2-:*!.."
9 X * ^ •>•»• •«»
a
r
5
I
. to
?
1
Mil
iiiij
"** 'A ^ ^ *
•e o ••»•*-
llljl
'Iw*!
2 ITS a
~ — 5 • »
12-- I
. S - 2 -
* *S -"•
"- 'a
J* e i S
-•*ej
*1].H
|i|5.
ii:ri
•|i*I!
«;.;•
•.,..•-•8
S2-!»
• "W *• •» •
l.i&s
ulij
o • a +
e • • *
..iljlf
uiii
*
• •
si
to
|«
ll
• —
* 8
S-2
;«
O
1!
:i
eukaldl** uhlch
•tk***l praducti
2.
--S
si:
1 .2
>T-5
37,
•* * *
-••*•*••
• * •
I.I
o
1 ii H
S to • •»
s?-- 11
111! H
Ir.l si
. . 5 " : S 2
iM»I.-sl.-
!!!"••!*•:
]5]^: i!
fi'js -ii
'•*7'5 » IS
V 2 . i S ii
^ jl-: :
7--:: s
pn-
2«i!-
•icti
• •» to
5i,n|
78 . = 1
I" ti a
'e.ts
***»—*
3 ~ '« - "
is-p
...ij
i: .-s
h* • •• atf »
2 2i S e
i
I
**.
«•>
«•
I
(*
* -
to
- *
^ -
U
?*
=1111 18
0 . 0
I1?
W to* *
: s i
•r*
a*
1 a 1
n.
«!
i •» •»
in
'•III
Jill
a • v
"•Si
| * af
!l-^
* s s ~
."12::
Ilia
a '•- - •
-------
-------
-------
-------
Appendix B
Review Article on Ethanol from Non-Food Biomass
-------
-------
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
-------
-------
•a
£
U
«
3
i
U
3
2
. -3
i *
£ i
it
S
"5
I
T5
.
1
1
S -
* I
8 1
i!
.s •- *
1 1 1
-------
-------
i
9
1
i
3
I
•a
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
-------
-------
-------
.**$
3 "3
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
£ "5
i
t
-------
-------
-------
-------
1 * V i-*
I i • - i
ff 1 i i I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
-------
-------
i
* 2
1 * = «
-III
2 9
•o -S
II
3 £.
u '*
* £
2
"a
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
i
I
I
I
I
-------
-------
38-
si
3
•5
*
=
S
NO
!
I" J2 "
II i
c< s
15 !
3! !
i
"i
2 «
S
S
I I
(A
3
•a s
ui 3
"> S
i |!
I 29
15
« s?
1
j
n
i» 1=
1 Is*
s i i g -1 -* I
sif i h-ii'SMi*1'
l^lflP.Ji11
8 >*»*• 82 «« S •* ™ a
« w II li-M I i
I in i] 11 ri s*
i ||i ii ii «• i
I
i!
xa» - .S|5
?-a s &g
r
llil
"i 5 S §
«!-*'a *i
Ii M tf 5 ~
ill
*1 =
a
2 > _
^ «^S
if li
II « z I a -| ^ -.^
*£.**• * 23 -*•--'
P
b
h
S
i
P 1 1 *
11 I | |
1° | I S
s I* I i *
i Is I i «
r as i 8 8
il
I
S- "9
I 5
i I i 5
« ••» •" 3
w s s 7
6 « K 'S
i i 11
< <
« at
^5 -
= ^
H-IU1
111! \\\ *
-------
-------
r
* f ! !!! J
^ ^S Sc <5 R i"
iti! in m Ji
I - • £- - *a
a s s.N 555 =
-------
-------
-------
-------
TABLE 1. END USES FOR ETHANOL
USE
VALUE
REFERENCE
CHEMICAL
FEEDSTOCK
> FUEL VALUE
BLENDING FUEL
. 1. DIRECT
2. INDIRECT
(ETBE)
NEAT FUEL
1.7-2.5 x CRUDE PRICE,
(-1.0-1.5 x GASOLINE)!
0,8 x GASOLINE
10
: 8
11,12
1 With crude oil at 14.71 S/barrel; (1988) the wholesale value of ethanol as an octane
enhancer is 59.5 to 87.5 cents/gal according to the OTA10 formula. This may be compared
to the 1988 average wholesale price of 57.7 cents/gal for gasoline (oil and gas pnces
from1*).
-------
-------
:d
— 5/51 ;s:
sis
2S
^ a
~ <
P«
1!
i^s
u: oi
ai
Z
O
N
r-
D
5/5
5/5 J^
1 '8
"> 5
S^ 7
§
i
8
i
<
hri
u: 3
z o
UJ &0
§
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
-------
-------
»„*
z
tti'
I
I
E
ii.
£r
*
O-!
4^M I
^^ I
p1
52
I
vr>
Q«
il
U
8
1
1
i
z s
Ss
•^ ^
«*>»><
-------
-------
TABLE 4 KEY ISSUES FOR FUEL ETHAXOL PRODUCTION FROM
UGNOCELLULOSE
ENERGETICS OF THE UGNOCELLULOSE/ETHANOL FUEL CYCLE
FUEL CHARACTERISTICS
AJR POLUinON AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
IS THERE ENOUGH RAW MATERIAL TO MAKE A DffFE^NCE?
WHAT WILL IT COST?
-------
-------
u
"E.
•c
iS
31
>^
FLAMABILITY LI
Z
0
3
i
AL PROPERTIES^
A/F RATIOS
COMPRESSION R
lij
£ < o
z
o
Nj
HEAT OF VAPOR
1
3
z
0
rfp
IS
VOLUMETRIC R
HEAT OF VAPOR
£ tt
§2
|
i
<
a:
^
S
G -3
^ -a
U U. Qfil
^ Uffi
•^ —^ ~
u
-------
-------
u
u:
r »
S
a:
ec
JU
I
x
w
,?
2,16
^
i
at
v;
g
a:
I
si
z <
a
,
^j ^»
PROPERTY (
RISETQEH
03
S V5
=> UJ
CD a*
5 D
LOWER GOI
TEMPERAT
i
<
ai
11.
LEANER A/
Z
£
a
u.
EQUAL OR
LOWER
s.
<>
sl
EQ
o
£ ?SSgF
^ is5^<
5 S22ow
2 SS = = -J*
S
S
NC
?*>"*
I
i-
>
"
s
-------
-------
""
VOC
20-50%
85-95% .
CQ
0
30-90%
NOx
0
0
CURRENT (FFV)
ADVANCED*
2 Advancrf whnologyr.fen.. engine, designed for alcohol fuels.
-------
-------
TABLES. ESTIMATED ffTHANOL PRODUCTION POTENTIAL
FROM WASTE MATERIALS!
AGRICULTURAL
FORESTRY
MSW
OTHER
TOTAL
l-6
0.6
« 02
5-u
3U
100
I DATA ESTIMATED FROM SO^^
COMPILED BY LYND 33.
-------
-------
II
*=5
r- 2
w-.
.e
O -r^
II
9>
I
e
si
< m
2
i
-------
-------
^•i f \
** u
** ' ' 0£
C 1
i '- • • P
•"
* . <
£•• • •
^* . •••
g 0
1 <
e_ m
e 5
•* ' \i
2 ,«
J ' •'.
11 —
Scfe
TAIILEIO. ESI1MATEI)
IJCJNOCEIJJUlJOSETO 1
PROCESSSTEP _
•i • =
•X
J
M • -
? * * * *
t
3.
•
J * » *
L. * * * *
In
5
•5 * *-
5 * * * *
c
2 •
^ < • ___
BIOMASS PRODUCTION
PRETREATMENT
t -
ENZYME PRODUCTKW
t
SSF
* * * *
^» " "^
* '. ••*••.
* - .' V . -
: » *
* * '•''-•-.
* * , . .
z •
0
5 HZ
u S S - '
s S S 8
S g a gs
ilia
•§ ^ i 1 p i.
x Q 0 S = «.
' .
1
<
* = SOME ACTIVITY
** = MAJOR FOCUS OF
II
1
1
i
Si
i i
1 |!
1 i
F. i
5 »
- 1
•r •
i
I I
|| 1
5 — • ' - • -
11 1
w z
"* ^ ^
is i
— <
! " '•£-
-------
-------
v: _!
X =;
CO
C/3
I
V51
CO!
O O O —
f •
w
5j
X
13
SO CO
>o •«•.
O O
IOO
r-
00 P»
is
ics
81
I
I
i
O
= fiu H
55?
<^ a
'^-1
811
ds5
aS§
^ *—
1 2
i
U
II
is
t
5
oc
i
a
V)
ea
g
U
z
S
S
c
in
ai
I
Z
c
z
0
a" s i3
2 2 z
* * =
S 5 S
O - O C
e e • g
-------
-------
•J-.
r»*
9 •
X
< J >!
PC
o*
<
C/5
<
^ L; >•
QC
oc •—
=>QH
ZZ-
e*So:5
lg»l
+ - " - S
z^™5ca
Hrr ZF
00
c
vn
(S
p
s
X
eo ^L
o *
il
is
LU
u:
^_
^
K
>•
I
=
2<
IS
H v;
& O
Q ^
S 1
a:
8
i
s
I
— ->-
gf
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
-------
-------
DOE Funding for Biomass-RtlaUd Restarch
1001
79 SO S1 32 S3 8* 8S SI S7 88 33
Figure 1. Data from
-------
-------
I
o
2
o
o
Figure!. Daufrom29'
-------
-------
Material and Energy Flows for
Production and Utilization of
Fuel Alcohol from Biomass
ATMOSPHERIC
C02
SUNLIGHT
(FERTILIZER
CULTIVATTON
HARVESTING I
TRANSPORTATIONS
BURNED
PROCESS
ETHANOL
DISTRIBUTION
BIOMASS
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
COMBUSTION
CONVERSION
Matehai
Energy
Figure 3.
-------
-------
i Annual acreogt reduction and conservation reserve
programs; data from USOA (1988)
Z 1996 yields projected, biomoss productivity from
Ronnty et al. (1987) , conv«r«
A a A v
2 2
« «
9fM
^P
o a
« « •""
> > . ^
i« r—
QQ ^^ 4MB
O en LU
--.--- |-
f fa.
5 i
2
1 I6 °
. H-
' 5 CJ
" ZD
• 4 Q
O
.- 2 • • s
-------
-------
Vff
•c
o
0)
g
,
X
e
.-.
u. J
I
1
V
fie
€g
B
e
C-
0)
*-3
>s
I
K r
II
a a
SI
(Q
II
u
g-
-------
-------
.
•gj
r
1
•— W
£ e
•'is O
o S
W
g-o
i
ii
SI
.
Prctrca
BS •
| I
8:
1
'&
I
•s
1
1
1
is
•• i
-------
-------
C
o
*E
o>
o
U
1
U
U
5
c
XN
=
1
i
vix
'
-------
-------
Appendix C
Memo on Potential Ethanol Engine Efficiency
-------
-------
• • 8 S -
'Ii 5-212.
s.fs'ts*5!
.^5.8^1
SS-c-S'S-o^
fc.e.2. Sel-C
••*2!;*2-5
= *•"* 52§,ee
2S •S?|2«|.S
• > it
f O
1 W 0 h* •
SOB
iv ^* o
s-
lia*
i • M _ ^ *• ^
^ieiS f;*S
— u *> 3— «
A •• *_ I jj — *
I «
* *i'*58S.*5.-
Illlllll!
:"!
? _•
S2
*< •
ii
^ w
f|S
35
W
u
o
u
s
i
<
5
5 i
I I
I/)
UJ
n
3
SI
5
j-
£
r i
r,
uii
r:
§
£
s
V
e
"o
n
5
|
£
«rf
U
to
9
•
•*
If
•
«
u
•1
01
o
O
H b
tl «
• »
e «
"v>u
*i
^S1
"«
n
£ *
U
!i
• o
y *>
£ V
£ >
:s
*-
Loren R.
St*n
5S
o'o
B
. .B
• U
**
i O
• »
51
.' ^
rh*rl«» 1
entsilon
c •
B
M B
U K.
It^
28,
a. a.
ir
5*
M
. e
;s
• o.
s e
o —
j« ti
>• ^
• «
a
« K
Rlch«id
Standaril
9
j
si
^%
^ V3
B
tl «
£ ~
'-, '•»
i!«».«'inHi
•SS«" o'2c'g»e*e
as*si5l:*|i"£l
25s*£-5 ..fto«5*
5! -•
Ii
in i
-------
-------
i e
O'
c.
mi
Si
ei
— c;
e o'
"' ^ „
g
1 2
1 -if
u -"to I*
w > «
s r s
C e
•> • '
'
2 1
s !«
«i — *<
• 00
w •«
n
. ,
si
ss
«M «•
4 O
w •
^5
» yi w O C ^
* C — W
» S -,
§^- fT.— •
« a - ^ g e
-Si . w°2
:2e«».s
"H-^-s •
v * w 3 > «• *
u >.; •« o -
i«;»»i
•.sssn;:
^gns;:
„ . " e • =- • " g ••; ••!
M M-Sv=IHl2S5S.
:=^!!?I|5H ps|H
UnrssitiiS" «2Wi
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
-------
-------
«!!»* ftliiiil'i
ui s - «
- • y» T < -•
: s « *js «
' 3
s--=«U:
i ~ TH
- "S =
. « > B w =" «i •'
^ih|i«|s.:
sH^-dlg:
.Z i
J M
«'!*ii
!fs-||
niji:
• ** ^ ^
w «— M • •*
"'"i-li
?.§ .|L
fi-2*H?
1-^ 321
;s-i-?f
•?e«-f Be
"•"i —«.^5u"ll-=
illsH1!"
SfrW.lM|-
O.sci*:fi*
»«•-«•«• b
KWS3
*'is..is
• -Si^-g
iu.il!
• *• * _ —
-«-2?2i
Ki-i-5
e *• — • ** • V B
!5..58.5.8*
MiP^;:-.
lilllllllS
I!Is-£l|i
_ 3
w.a
MS! _•!.
*;i'8-t1s
s&iiiss
gsi-fsHs
5S •§
!i?H>s
ji!h«j,
li'iti!!}
liSUiUi
lil.Hs"
gli*i§5a«
!*« 2 ==*
;«3*pi:
MlHit
:!-;;ijji
C *» ** 4rf
» * 4J
wjiS— ^c*«>'— » w^. —
i!ill1iiif»U«t
ufl:w=i-
ns«ss,s>
".1:2 -2i
SiJ^Si 5e~ =
iSlslss:
l!5e:552
2 • &>
31
*
!§IH1 M
s:s535*-
-------
-------
— - s.
; i- •.
Ill
5.8 .
i« •*
PI
Sf~twg'C255^5t{
-c-.i^.S"^,,
-a "5-.,.l2-5---
S* •""?« TO** oi-o
T- .. •• C __ ** A A w
o2*
• * > : —
>.— « w
gg-2
5-S.
u "~ S
=i.|
«-•«
•ast
^-55
55. S
--5-
o * e
j2-J
%1
•o S *< *
1|3S
JSal-
~ J 5 a
|*V =
* « 5 s
"^' £^«2iB""*» 'B.-lMPP^ .
V jjZ«^^U«""> O^«^^
w
*#
e
•
•
>
I
8
*o
•
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
-------
2" s s S
— ~ s *.
" a 0 •»
ips-
.51'
»
"•
iln
-. . tt»
-s.=
>-..-•: *-.
--j.
.«.- *
«- -
«j «t «•
1 Ol :"t — •
sr
IT
— •
i?
i!
>*
ii
S8
S8
"o'o
£5 £« 01
-------
-------
i^^^^^s
". - T- .- ' ' ~~ ' ...
-•••--': .. '
' • ~~ ' '" ' ' %
. .." • " ' ._, ;..
' -.-•.-•-.'•••• "'''".
' ' '' .". ' '
- s gs«-^i i
-I,-|i^ f^.
"I? f]tfr*»_-- -
l\ i5"r- !
'••'"'.••. ' ' ''' *'. '-'-*T ' ' '-'.••-'•"••'-. - .'••"• •<•
. - '•.' •'-.. . . • " .-/ .. :.. . • . . • , ..-..'.
"* \ - ' /' „ . • ••'• ' ' • •. . • ; ' "° '=,"'.., • - *
• ••_••.- . ••-••-.• • • .. • •
- - . >..-•••. : ', ••-'-'-...'...
.••-.-' .•••'.". • . • - - -• • . - ' • . •
' - . ".•''•
: '* ' "'"'.' ' '"•_•• . .' • •".
"• ' . ' ' • !,' ••''•,"'',
' - ' • ' - ' t
-. . - - ' , " ^ "... .;.;.-".:' - '.. :
-
1* '- -- -- ^
r-.|i^"-'~ "^ =_.--."_ _i"_"-_\- ~~~~ ~~
\ -lE^L - - — "„""-"""
Kli '^ " " "~ '
'•-fc*S~--«i~S£ „_
£-: ll* it ! «*t
si ;i* H I in
-*S SS-: £S ^ *S*>
s- Is* va ' „»-:
^,9 M •• m **^ — ^ ^
i* * * O * 2
= I H Miii
| || o2l -S
- •''•*,. -J* ,f :•*:"!•
••:':i::ai!l
i5 Hi 1s t
.•----•::'::?*jTvm
-."•-.• •-•!•• I! jt
-| ~a- «I«
..--•- I -i 5S
• Z «< o jj; •
'2 >« w»
I L-s
& • **
-S 2*|
«• 0 «= - , . -•- - . . • - ,.
jS • - • - . „ - •
«S;-f£^: '•••'•'••' ""- ' --""-;--' .;;-•;-,-.
• B 9 A _ -- " - - - '.-—-. - . -
"1 . I-,:' . ," :-.-• :.-'•• •:•• - ••-- .'.. .-'. ," "
ii ji!'-:.- '•••-'.•"•'". : : - ' :' . .
I?2-5 :. :;-: ':,,-• ; ' ••-
« ?H
-• '1 • -2" '••"•'• •. • -" • • :-
*^ «i\ .
- ll . ' '•'•
-- 1 is-:- . .-. '
^B
I-.^^B
•:"^B
* 1
'•
ll
•1
ll
ll
ll
II
ll
ll
• '•:•
II
"I
1
'I
1
1
I
-------
-------
\
-------
-------
Appendix D
Memo Listing Ethanol Vehicle Programs
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
APR 9 1990
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ethanol Fueled Vehicles - Experience to Date
FROM:
Craig A. Harvey, Mechanical Engineer
Technical Support Staff
TO:
THRU:
Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director .
Emission Control Technology Division
Phil Lorang, Chief
Technical support Sta
ixteen neat
sort
and
of
the
Following is a list I recently compiled of
and near neat ethanol vehicle programs that have
or are now being conducted. These programs range
a sinale vehicle up to the large in-use «th;n°l-fu«1*dla;1ion
?hat now makes up most of Brazil's motor vehicle popu ation
Each entry consists of a narrative summary of the vehicle*,)
involved' in the program, the fuel(s) used, what
measurements were done if any, a summary of results,
appropriate reterence(s).
1. Brazil: In-Use Fleet
since 1983' 90-95% of all passenger vehicle sales have been
satSn.-r^^iris1.:-^? I9£n"%si.tf&?»~
nu bh ihv^r*^ ^ri^^n*1^-
iDH;;h& rnv ^sr&gx^ ^«-
if the ambient temperature is below
about 4U F
vehicle)
the 1990's and Beyond," Asilomar, California, Ju.y .95d.
-------
-------
-2-
"Brazilian Vehicle Calibration for Ethanol Fuels, ",G. E.
rS,,t at al Ford, Third International Symposium on
. Scohol Fuels/ Asilomar, California, May 1979. -|
"Phase Separation and Cold Start Devices for Neat Ethanol
vehicles The Brazilian Experience," letter from Plinio
Nlstlri?' E'thanol Trade, S.A./SOP^L to Eric Vaughn, |
Renewable Fuels Association, December 21, 1989.
(Additional Brazil program references are listed below) |
2 Ford Brazil, 4th International Symposium
as - 1
— "
of the Design, Develo^ent, and Wod«±ic» -of |
S^KSST - ssssi- -.1. p«a^ ,«,-. •
1984. I
3. Brazil, SAE 850390, Szwarc/Branco
Eight Brazilian neat ethanol -hicles and s^x gasoline |
.
Sort of catalytic converter
^ssffMs.-
Paper 850390, 1985. •
-------
-------
-3-
4. GM Brazil, Baumgartl, 1984
Seven Brazilian ethanol vehicles were compared to^ their
..
gasoline vehicles. E"1.ss.lon8.Jit»aad a 9 q/mile HC (FID),
vehicles "
gaaoj-iiiB vw*v.*«»-. •""-.--.-- averaoed 3.9 g/miie HC ^siu), «*.•.•«
cycle. The ethanol vehicles »^*ra2l7_.r1<* formaldehyde, and 519
SsWSl^i&Sfe-'11*
Utilization," April 1984.
5 vw Brazil, "A Study of Hydrocarbon Composition...", 8th
International Symposium.
. * « a r lOQ^ XTDJ
f •^nrria Brazilian ethanol 1.8 L iso/ vw
Exhaust from a sl°f*® Jv*tr4th a GC to determine the
Santana Quantum was ^ea!Hfeaeo*"" ts. The vehicle was
fractions of various HC «*5K^5fi2.3si, and was fueled
_ . • »_ _ ji — ««jM«Mjae<& T nn ra.t J.Q UJE* A A «** » * r *»*•*»
November 19S8.
6. vw Brazil, 2nd International Symposium.
''~'~.X I-6I. ^""uretedjasolin. vehicle «3a modified^. «=
steps to run on neat «*«l- "SSidT but no emission
ih?cn 55B 30*over the base
configuration.
;The ?se or .
?"«n«ion.l otivi. on Alcohol Fuels. M77
-------
-------
7. California Energy Commission - Fleet l . ' •
Four 1980 Ford Pintos were retrofitted to operate on neat
«r,hwirou« ethanol denatured with 2-5% unleaded gasoline. For _
jSSJriSSn 555? uSSdifitd gasoline fueled Pintos (and four I
§?ntSs modified fS? methanol use) were operated in the. same •
flee? All these vehicles had carburetors and 3-way catalyst
syltems. Two of the ethanol vehicles had their compression |
ratio increased from 9:1 to 12:1. . •
The only emission results reported for these vehicles were •
total aldehyde emissions (MBTH method) of 10-40 mg/mile, which |
were described as being comparable to the gasoline vehicles.
"California's Alcohol Fleet Program, 1982 Progress Report I
fo? Senate Bill 620, California Energy Commission, •
December 1982. (also see next reference with final
results from fleets 1 and 2) |
8. California Energy Commission - Fleet 2 •
Twenty fuel injected VW Rabbits with 3-way catalyst |
svsteS w/re optimized by a contractor (AES) in coordination
wilh ™ ^foperate on neat ethanol denatured with 2-5% unleaded
aasoline. These compression ratio of these vehicles was |
!n«eas1d to 12.5:1. Only one baseline gasoline vehicle was •
used in this fleet, along with nineteen methanol vehicles.
Eight of the twenty ethanol vehicles were tested for I
emissions Various configurations (e.g., EGR rates) were^tried
in order to minimize NOx emissions. In the best NOX •
ronfiouration, emissions averaged 0.38 g/mile HC (totai. SLID, g
I0?6 ^/mUe CO, and 0.26 g/mile NOx. In other ^figurations
a-vehicle average emissions ranged from 0.27-0.45 9/»ile «c' •
? I?-l a! g/mile CO, and 0.36-0.53 g/mile NOx. Total aldehydes |
ranged from 18-146. mg/mile by the MBTH method. -
"California's Alcohol Fleet Test Program-Final Results/1 |
F. J. Wiens, M. C. McCormack, R. J. Ernst, R. L. Morris, •
and R. J. Nichols, VI International Symposium on Alcohol
Fuels, May 21-25, 1984. I
9, Alcohol Energy Systems — VW Ethanol Concept Vehicles
Two vehicles are mentioned in this study
on the Rabit aiged from 20oAlOO during this program, whUe
the Jetta had about 1500 miles on the odometer. •
-------
-------
I
1
Exhaust emissions from the Rabbit were
from the Rabbit and found to be less than- ^ 2.0 g/test .uriuj.
despite the separate cold-start gasoline system,
"Retjort on the Rabbit Concept Vehicle for Neat Ethanol
option" Submitted to Alcohol Energy Systems
?Ico?|o?a4ed b? ^Volkswagen of America, Inc., pursuant to
•.--; the Contract of April, 1981.
10, Santa Clara, Bais ley/Edwards, 4th International Symposium
Five 1978 Ford Pintos were retrofitted to operate on neat
vehicle was calibrated fairly
rich to help driveability. ;
"Emission- and Wear Characteristics of an JVlcohol Dueled
FlSet Using Feedback Carburet ion and Three-Way Catalysts,
w. H. Bailley, C* F, Edwards, IV international Symposium
^ ^^.••:"\~ -
. 350
miles.O:N tother data was provided.
'
University of Nebraska, 1981.
12. Nebraska -Dedicated E85. vehicle, summer 1989
e= . ea
vehicle! it -was later te-oonf igured to operate on g«ol...
instead of ethanol.
-------
-------
^f^g^—^^Kfii^-^xJiK-jt.ff^^^rf-yi.^i^yf!^:'* ;•;•?£•*••••' ":»
13. Ford Canada • ; ;
r SS« i*87 Ford delivered two Crown Victoria FFV1 s • to -
In June JJJ^/.°;° be used with E85 in a long duration |
St. Lawrence» Stwch ^ °«Q miles. Testing proved cold start *
program of at ie^f^ ^"'i at _20°F in under 5 seconds. These —
vehiSles^aXy^i^l compression ratio for compatibility with J
glsoline fueling if necessary.
0.58-6.72 g/mile CO, and
U_. x /~v . <3u *$/ »»«••"' --—, -. - --. . , _
o.53-0.6ft g/mile N0x« •
'"""•' • Brnoram for Flexible Fuel Vehicle,
•Research/Demonstration- irrogtoro ~jjfc_ ._ .• Pord Research,
- -Fourth- Quarterly Review^ roro o ,.. •
"•:' •""" June 24, 1987- •"..•••.-.-. : •' ••;, -.-- -^ .' "•-. / •. ' • I
14 "The Development of Carburettor Systems..v" Gavin, -Kemp, -
Dryer, 4th International Symposium. |
but it \ was
on ethanol
g??Bn Se'abo^e ^^^edure' ~""~~
^^^pryStyi:^>^^Ia^
'!l5lPSiS®iS3^^p§5^P^f^
i
.ar'«v.s i
•I^StfJs I
attempting optimization for any of the. fuels.
-------
-------
-7- . . . • • ;
Emissions measured' included total/aldehydes (by MBTH?),
unburned .fuel reported as FID measured carbon (adjusted .for
differing'mass per carbon, and FID response for the alcohols),
CO, and NOx. With the catalyst the results were 203 mg/mile
aldehydes, l.l g/mile FID carbon, 9 g/mile CO, and 0.35 g/mile
NOx. Without any catalyst there were 600-1800 mg/mile
aldehydes, 2.0-5.5 g/mile FID carbon, 11-20 g/mile CO, and
0.5-0.8 g/mile NOx.
"Driving Cycle Comparisons .of Energy Economies and
Emissions from Alcohol and Gasoline Fueled Vehicles,"
Richard Bechtold and Barrett Pullman, III International
Symposium on Alcohol Fuels, May 28-31, 1979.
16. South Dakota Corn Growers Association ESS Corsica
A 1988 2.0 liter TBI Chevrolet Corsica was modified to run
on ethanol-gasoline mixtures ranging from straight gasoline to
85% ethanol. Prior to modification the vehicle had 43,000
miles on the odometer, and approximately 3000 miles have been
added since the modification. The modification consisted of
(a) installation of the Webster-Heise valve to improve fuel
vaporization, (b) reprogramming the on-board computer, and (c)
addition of an auxilliary 12 gallon fuel tank solely for
comparison tests. No fuel sensor (as used in current FFV's)
was added. The conversion package cost $2,000, but a
commercially produced package (without need for the auxilliary
tank) was estimated to cost about $300.
FTP and HFET (highway fuel economy test) data were
collected at the Environmental Testing Corporation (ETC) in
Denver, and further data are being collected by the California
RFA at the ACS Laboratories in Ontario, California. The E85
fuel being used consists of 85% pure ethanol and 15% unleaded
gasoline (RVP not reported^. The Denver FTP data show base
gasoline emissions of 0.19 g/mile HC (presumed to be total
FID), 2.40 g/mile CO, and 8.11 g/raile NOx (NOTE: NOx was
measured prior to the catalyst as raw engine-out emissionsT.
The corresponding E85 emissions were 0.142 g/mile HC, 1.83
g/mile CO, and 7.87 g/mile NOx. CO* was also measured and
decreased by about 4.6%. HFET emissions of HC and CO were much
lower than the FTP, and NOx emissions were greater, but all
three pollutants had greater percentage reductions relative to
gasoline than.on the FTP.
Letter and attachments from Dan Iseminger, Administrator,
South Dakota Corn Utilization Council, to William Reilly,
Administrator, EPA, March 23, 1990.
(End of list) , . • •• v
I
-------
-------
I
-------
jWiH
I
I
I
I
I
------- |