EPA/AA/CTAB/PA/81-16
                                         REV.  //1/Oct 81
                     Technical  Report
      Gasoline Equivalent Fuel Economy Determination
              for Alternate Automotive Fuels
                            by
                     Craig A. Harvey

                       August,  1981

                   revised October, 1981


                          NOTICE
Technical Reports do not  necessarily  represent final EPA  decisions
or positions.   They  are intended to  present  technical analysis  or
summaries  of   programs  from   work   which   is   currently   being
conducted.   The  purpose  in  the  release  of  such  reports  is  to
facilitate the  exchange of  technical  information  and to inform  the
public of  programs  and technical  developments which  may  form  the
basis for a final EPA decision,  position or regulatory  action.
 Control Technology Assessment and Characterization Branch
           Emission Control Technology Division
       Office  of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
            Office of Air,  Noise and Radiation
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    2565  Plymouth Road
                Ann Arbor,  Michigan   48105

-------
                                    -2-
GASOLINE - EQUIVALENT FUEL ECONOMY DETERMINATION

Abstract

Due to the growing interest in and use of alternate automotive fuels,  it  is
necessary that EPA provide a  method of  calculating fuel economy values  for
these  vehicles   than   using   fuels  so  that  average  fuel   economies   of
manufacturers can be determined.   The  relevant legislation is  reviewed,  and
various methodologies are discussed.

Possible  fuel  equivalency factors  are presented for  Diesel fuel,  ethanol,
methanol, gasohol, and natural gas.  A methodology  is  recommended  that takes
into  account  the energy  content of  the  fuel,  the  energy  required   to
manufacture  the  fuel,  and  the  value   of  the  raw material  used to make  the
fuel.

I.     Introduction

A.     Recommendation

In order  to  comply with  the provisions of  the  Energy Policy and Conservation
Act  (EPCA, PL  94-163)  (1)* and  the Chrysler  Corporation Loan  Guarantee  Act
(PL 96-185)  (2), which call for a  determination of  "...  that  quantity  of  any
other  fuel  which is  the  equivalent  of  one  gallon  of  gasoline,"  it   is
recommended  that  for the purpose of calculating the ?uel Econonry  Values  for
vehicles  fueled  wich  fuels  which differ substantially  from  gasoline,  a
methodology  similar to  that used by Department of Energy (DOE) for  electric
vehicles  (3) be  applied.   This  methodology  would account  for fuel  energy
content  and  final processing  energy requirement,  and  indirectly for  energy
input in  the earlier processing steps.

In  essence,  this methodology  would consist  of  taking  the  mile-per-gallon
result from  a  vehicle test on  an  alternate  (non-gasoline)  liquid fuel  and
adjusting  it by (1)  the  energy  content  ratio of  gasoline  to  the alternate
fuel  (LIIV,  BTU/gal),  (2)  the ratio of  processing  energy  efficiency  of  the
alternate fuel to the efficiency  of a  petroleum refinery,  and  (3) the ratio
of raw material costs of gasoline to those of  the alternate  fuel.
* Numbers in parentheses indicate references at the end of the report

-------
                                     -3-
The equation is:

    FE   =  MPGalt. x    LHVgas.   x  Salt,   x  Vgas.
                         LHValt.      Egas.      Valt.

    where:

    FE      =     gasoline equivalent Fuel  Economy
    MPGalt. =     Mile per gallon test result for Alternate Fuel
    LHVgas.        =  Lower heating value,  standard test gasoline (BTU/gal)
    LHValt.        =  Lower heating value,  alternate fuel (BTU/gal)
    Ealt.          =  Energy efficiency of  processing plant, alternate fuel
    Egas.          =  Energy efficiency of  petroleum refinery (%)
    Vgas.          =  Raw material value, gasoline (^/million BTU)
    Valt.          =  Raw material value, alternate fuel (^/million  BTU)

-------
                                      -4-

B.      Purpose of Report

With  the  increasing  national   emphasis  on  energy  conservation  and  energy
independence,  in   conjunction   with  rapidly   rising  gasoline;   costs,   the
transportation industry,  the  energy industry,  the  U.S. Government,  and other
interested   parties   are   putting   more   attention   on   development   of
vehicles/engines that  either  utilize petroleum fuels more efficiently  or  make
more use  of  fuels  derived from  domestic  energy resources.   Some  examples of
this  are  the increased  production  of  Diesel  vehicles,   the  marketing  of
Gasohol,  the development of  alcohol-fueled vehicles,  and  the  development  of
electric  vehicles.

This report  is  intended to provide  some  of the  basis  for a decision  on  the
most  appropriate  methodology  for  calculating  the  gasoline "equivalent  fuel
economy  of  a  vehicle   that  uses   fuel   other  than  gasoline.    Once  this
methodology  has been   determined, it  will  provide vehicle  manufacturers with a
way  to  gauge the  effects of alternative  marketing  options on their  average
fuel economy.

C.     Background

C.I.   Legislation

a)     The Energy Policy and Conservation Act

The  Energy Policy  and  Conservation Act  (EPCA)  mandates that the  Secretary  of
Transportation establish  average fuel economy  standards for major automobile
manufacturers and  importers (production above   10,000 cars per  year)  beginning
with the  197.8  model year, as shown  in  Table  1.   The 1980  standard was  20.0
mpg.  The standard will  increase progressively until the  average  fuel  economy
is  27.5  mpg,  as  required in   1985.   The  standard  is  to be met  by  each
manufacturer  and  by each  importer   and applies  to  the total  number of  cars
produced or  imported.

Civil penalties are  prescribed  for  a violator  of  the law:   $5   for each tenth
of a mile-per-gallon that their  corporate average falls below the

-------
                                      -5-

                                   Table 1.
                              Automotive Average
                         Fuel Economy Standards Under
                             the  Energy  Policy  and
                               Conservation Act
              Model Year                    Standard (mpg)
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985 and
thereafter
18.0
19.0
20.0
22.0
24.0
26.0
27.0
27.5*

*The Secretary of Transportation may alter this to the
"maximum feasible average fuel economy", but such action
may be disapproved by Congress for levels below 26.0 mpg
or above 27.5 mpg.

-------
                                     -6-
year's standard, multiplied  by  the number of  cars produced orr imported   that
year.  The  National  Energy Conservation Policy  Act,  P.L. 95-619,   grants  the
Secretary of Transportation the authority to raise this   penalty up  to $10  for
each tenth of a mile-per-gallon beginning in the   1981 model  year.  Credits  for
exceeding the standard are calculated in a similar manner.

For  purposes  of EPCA,  "The  term  'fuel  economy'  means  the  average number  of
miles traveled  by  an automobile per gallon  of gasoline  (or  equivalent  amount
of other fuel) consumed, as  determined by the  EPA Administrator  in accordance
with procedures established under section 503 (d)."

Section 503 (d) contains the EPA mandate for activity on  the  fuel  equivalency
issue:  " (1) Fuel economy for  any model type shall be  measured, and   average
fuel  economy  of   a  manufacturer  shall  be  calculated,   in  accordance  with
testing and calculation procedures established by  the  EPA Administrator,   by
rule..."  and  "  (2)  The  EPA Administrator  shall,  by   rule,  determine   that
quantity of any other fuel which is the equivalent of one gallon of   gasoline."

Therefore,  it  is necessary  to  know what  is meant  by  "equivalent" and  what
factors are included in it.  Other  references  to equivalency  in EPCA  are  as
follows:

    Section 105  (b)(l)    "... an average daily volume of 1,600,000
    barrels  of crude  oil,  natural gas liquids  equivalents,  and
    natural  gas  equivalents.    (2)  one  barrel  of  natural  gas
    equivalent  equals  5,626  cubic feet  of natural gas  measured at
    14.73 pounds  per square  inch  (MSL)  and  60 degrees  Fahrenheit.
    (3)  one barrel  of natural gas liquids equivalent equals  1.454
    barrels of natural gas liquids at 60 degrees Fahrenheit."

These values for  quantities  of natural gas and  natural  gas liquids that   are
equivalent  to  1 barrel of crude  oil are determined simply  from the  ratio  of
average energy  content  (heating value)  of the fuels.  There  is no  attempt  to
include  any  additional  factors  such  as  processing   or   transport  energy
requirements.

-------
                                      -7-
In Title III, Part B of  EPCA,  which deals with consumer  products  in  general,
these definitions are given:

    Section  321(a)(4)  "The  term   'energy use'  means  the  quantity
    of  energy  directly  consumed by a consumer product at  point of
    use,  determined  in  accordance  with   test   procedures  under
    section  323.  (5)  The term  'energy  efficiency' means the  ratio
    of the useful output of  services  from a  consumer  product to the
    energy use  of  such  product, determined in accordance with test
    procedures under section 323."

    Section   322(6)(2)(B)       "The    Btu   equivalent    of    one
    kilowatt-hour is  3,412 British thermal units."

From  this  it is apparent  that  the scope  of  consideration  for  these products
includes only the energy consumed  at  the final point of  use,  and equivalency
is  determined   by   the   direct  conversion  factor   without   including  any
additional energy input factors.

The objective of EPCA is to accomplish the purposes listed below:

    "SEC.2. The purposes of this act are-

    (1)   To grant  specific standby  authority  to the  President,
    subject  to  Congressional  review,  to  impose  rationing,  to
    reduce demand for  energy  through  the implementation  of energy
    conservation plans,  and  to fulfill obligations of  the United
    States under the international energy program;

    (2)   to provide  for  the   creation  of  a Strategic  Petroleum
    Reserve  capable of reducing the impact of severe  energy supply
    interruptions;

    (3)   to increase  the  supply  of  fossil  fuels  in  the  United
    States,  through price incentives and production requirements;

-------
                                     -8-
    (4)  to  conserve  energy supplies  through energy  conservation
    programs,  and,   where  necessary,   the  regulation  of  certain
    energy uses;

    (5)   to  provide   for  improved  energy  efficiency  of  motor
    vehicles,  major   appliances,   and   certain  other   consumer
    products;

    (6)  to  reduce  the demand for  petroleum  products  and  natural
    gas  through programs designed to  provide  greater  availability
    and use  of this Nation's abundant coal resources;  and

    (7)  to  provide a  means for  verification of  energy  data  to
    assure the reliability of energy data."

Examining EPCA,  it  is  apparent  that each of  these  points has been  dealt  with
by specific  sections of  EPCA.   For instance,   points  three  and six, above  are
dealt with in Title I, "Matters Related  to  Domestic  Supply  Availability",  Part
A,  "Domestic Supply"  and in Title  IV,  "Petroleum  Pricing  Policy  and  Other
Amendments  to the  Allocation Act";  point one  is  dealt  with  in  Title  II,
"Standby Energy  Authorities", and  in Title V, part C,  "Congressional  Review".
Point  seven  is dealt  with  in  Title V,  Part  A,  "Energy  Data Base  and  Energy
Information".

The above mentioned points do not deal with automotive  fuel use' at all,  except
in  a  very indirect way,  which leaves points four  and  five.   Point  four  is
covered by Title III,  Parts A - E  of  EPCA,  which provide  energy conservation
programs for  the automotive  sector,  other  consumer  products,  state energy  use,
industrial  energy  use,  and federal  energy  use.   Point  five  is a  narrower
application  of point  four and is  dealt  with  in the  first  two parts  of  Title
III,  which  are  (A) "Automotive  Fuel  Economy"  and  (B)  "Energy  Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles".

The average  fuel economy program  is  one of  the programs called  for  in  point
four,  and  it  is the  only  program from  EPCA that  addresses energy use  by
currently  available  automobiles.   Average  fuel  economy  as  put forth in  EPCA
for gasoline-fueled vehicles, addresses only the  energy efficiency of the

-------
                                      -9-

vehicle  itself  in  terms  of  miles  per   gallon.   It  does  not  include  any
provision for  considering  the  energy efficiency of drilling,  refining or fuel
transport operations.

Therefore, there is nothing in EPCA  itself which  provides  for the inclusion of
factors  other  than vehicle  energy  efficiency  in  the   calculation  of  fuel
economy.

However,  there is  a House-Senate  conference  report (4) which  accompanied the
bill  to  make  EPCA law.   That  report  explained  the  differences between the
House  and  Senate  versions  of  the   bill  and  explained   what  the  compromise
version   ("conference   substititue")  was.    Regarding  fuel   equivalency  the
conference  report  states,  "It  is  anticipated  that  the EPA  Administrator,  in
determining  'equivalent amount  of  other fuel1 will make such determination on
the  basis  of  BTU  equivalency  of different  quantitities of  various  fuels,
taking into account energy required to process such fuels".

Since EPCA itself  does  not explicitly specify the inclusion of fuel processing
energy   in  fuel   equivalency  calculations,   but   the   conference   report
"anticipates"  such inclusion,  methods  will  be presented  in Part  II  of  this
report to cover each of these possible approaches.

b.)    The Energy Tax Act of 1978

The  Energy  Tax Act of  1978, P.L.  95-618  (5),  imposes  an  excise tax  on fuel-
inefficient  vehicles  ("gas guzzlers")  which  may have  an  even more   profound
impact  on the  strategy employed  by the  automobile  manufacturers   to  comply
with  the  fuel  economy  standards   than  the  $5  to  $10  per  tenth  of  a
mile-per-gallon penalty contained  in  EPCA.  Table 2 shows  the severity of this
tax.   Imposition  of  the  tax  begins with  vehicles  whose   fuel  economy  is
approximately  5  mpg   less  than  the  current  year's  average  fuel  economy
standard.   The  tax is  steeply  graduated,  ranging in 1986, from  $500  for each
vehicle   whose fuel economy is  5  to 6 mpg below the 1986 standard  to $3850
for  each  vehicle whose  fuel economy is over 15 mpg below the standard.

-------
            -10-
            Table 2
The Gas Guzzler Tax (in dollars)
Year (Fuel Economy Standard)
Vehicle Fuel Economy 1980
EPA Composite MPG (20.0)
—
Greater than 22.5
21.5-22.5
Greater than 21.0 0
20.5-21.5
20.0-21.0 0
19.5-20.5
19.0-20.0 0
18.5-19.5
18.0-19.0 0
17.5-18.5
17.0-18.0 0
16.5-17.5
16.0-17.0 0
15.5-16.5
15.0-16.0 Q/
14.5-15.5 /
14.0-15.0 200
13.5-14.5
13.0-14.0 300
12.5-13.5
Less than 13.0 550
Less than 12.5
1981 1982
(22.0) (24.0)

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 /
/ 200
o/
/ 350
'200
450
(
350
600
450 /
750
550 '
1 950
650 /
/ 1200
1983 1984
(26.0) (27.0)

0
xO~
o x x
o
/ 0
/ o
0
450
350
600
500
750"
650 x
/ 950
/800
/ 1150
1000
1450
1250
1750
1550
2150
1985 1986
(27.5) (27.5)

_____ fl
500
0
650
500
850
600
1050
800
1300
_ 1000 *" ~"
1500
1200
1850
1500
2250
1800
2700
2200
3200
2650 ^ - "
' ' 3850
Standard
minus
5 mpg





Standard
minus
10 mpg







Standard
minus
15 mpg



-------
                                     -11-
More interesting  is  the  effect on a given  model which is  retained  unchanged
in a manufacturer's  line.   For example, if a  vehicle's  fuel economy  is  15.1
mpg  in  1980, it  would not be  subject to  a  gas guzzler  tax.   Beginning  in
1981, it  would  have an ever-increasing  tax  levied—$350  in  1981,  $600  in
1982, £800  in  1983,  $1150  in 1984, $1500  in  1985,  and $2250 in 1986.   It  is
assumed  that the  effect of  this  tax will  be  to  reduce  the sale  of  gas
guzzlers.

This  progressive  increase  in   penalty  will  probably   result   in  earlier
discontinuance  of  production  of  the  less  fuel-efficient  vehicles  in  a
manufacturer's line.  Fewer  very  fuel-efficient  vehicles will then  be  needed
to achieve  the average fuel economy standard.   The  result will be  a  tighter
clustering of vehicles around the standard.

c)     The Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979

The Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979 (P.L.  96-185)
established:

         "a  seven-year  evaluation program of   the  inclusion  of
         electric  vehicles ... in  the calculation  of  average fuel
         economy  ...  to   determine the value and  implications of
         such inclusion  as  an   incentive for  the early initiation
         of   industrial   engineering    development  and   initial
         commercialization  of   electric vehicles  in  the  United
         States."

    The  Administrator of  EPA  was,  in  consultation  with  the  Secretaries  of
Energy  and  Transportation,  to  promulgate  "regulations   to  include  electric
vehicles  in average  fuel  economy  calculations   ..."  by  March 7,  1980.   The
Secretary  of Energy  has proposed  "equivalent  petroleum   based  fuel  economy
values" for  various  classes of electric vehicles,  and  final values have  been
promulgated  (10  CFR Part 474).   These  equivalent  values   are  to  be  reviewed
annually and revised as necessary.

-------
                                     -12-
    These  "equivalent  petroleum  based  fuel  economy  values"  for  electric
vehicles were to be determined taking into account the following parameters :

         "(i) The  approximate  electrical  energy  efficiency  of the   vehicles
              considering the vehicle type, mission,  and  weight;

          (ii) The national average electricity generation and
               transmission efficiencies;

          (iii) The need of the Nation to conserve all forms of
                energy, and the relative scarcity and value to
                the Nation of all fuel used to generate electricity;

         (iv) The  specific driving  patterns  of electric vehicles  as   compared
              with those of petroleum fueled vehicles."

According to  the  final  rule  issued  by  DOE,  equivalent  petroleum based  fuel
economy  values  for   electric vehicles  will  be  calculated  in the  following
manner:
FE = FEee x DPF x et  x AF x Etotal
where :

FE  = the equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy

FEee = the energy-equivalent fuel economy value (miles per gallon)   (ref.  5)
                    conversion factor: 1 13, 300 BTU x   1  KWH
                                            gal        3412 BTU

DPF   = driving pattern factor (1.00)

-------
                                     -13-
e   =  average national electricity transmission  efficiency ( = 0.91)
AF  =  Accessory Factor (= 1.00, no accessories; 0.90, heater; 0.81, heater
       plus air conditioning)

E    ^ =  total amount of electricity generated from all fuel sources for
          the model year (quadrillion BTU, or quads)
I.   =  input energy of fuel used to generate electricity from fuel
        source- i (quads)

V.   =  relative value factor of fuel source i

In  section  II.  D  of  this  paper the  adaptation  of  the  above  procedure  to
alternative automotive fuels is discussed.

C. 2.  Current Equivalency Methodologies

Up  to now,  tentative  solutions  to  the  equivalency  issue have only  been
provided  for  two  specific  areas  -  Diesel   fueled  vehicles  and  electric
vehicles.  The documents that cover these provisions are:

    1)  Methodology for Calculation of Diesel Fuel to Gasoline Fuel
Economy  Equivalence  Factors,  Technical  Support Report  for  Regulatory  Action,
January 1976 (Revised May 1976), EPA-ECTD report. (7)

    2)   Federal  Register,  Sept.  10,  1976,  "Fuel Economy  Testing; Calculation
and Exhaust Emissions Test Procedures for 1977-1979 Model Year Automobiles."

    3)   Final  Rule,  10 CFR  Part 474,  "Electric  and Hybrid  Vehicle  Research,
Development,  and   Demonstration  Program;  Equivalent   Petroleum-Based   Fuel
Economy Calculation"; 1981. (3)

-------
                                     -14-
There  has  been  much   written  on  the  subject  of   Diesel/gasoline   fuel
equivalency but,  so  far, the solution  has  been to weight  them equally.    In
other  words,   the correction  factor  applied  to  Diesel  fuel  economy   test
results  is  effectively  1.0.   This is  because  the  higher  energy  content  of
Diesel  fuel  tends  to  be  balanced   by  the   decrease  in  refinery  energy
consumption with increasing Diesel fuel production.

In attempting  to  characterize the  increase  in energy  availability  (decrease
in  refinery  energy  consumption)  with  increasing  Diesel   fuel   production
percentage, many  variables enter  into  the  calculation.   For instance,  there
are refinery-to-refinery differences, variations in refinery  product mix with
time, and variations in  raw material  (such as the  sulfur content of  the crude
oil) with time and between refineries,  all  of which affect  the  process  energy
requirements at  any given Diesel/gasoline  production  ratio.   There  are  some
specific   problems   with  using   the   current  Diesel/gasoline   equivalency
methodology as a  basis for future  equivalency determinations,  arid  these  issues
are discussed in part II. B.  of this report.

Regarding  equivalent  petroleum-based  fuel  economy calculations  for  electric
vehicles, the methodology in use was discussed  previously  in Section C.l.c)  of
this report.

-------
                                     -15-
II.    Possible Methodologies for Determining Equivalent Fuel Economies for
       all Fuels

Following are  three methodologies  for  calculating equivalent  petroleum-based
fuel  economies  for  a  wide  variety  of  potential   automotive  fuels.    One
objective  of  this  investigation  is  to  determine   a  methodology  that  is
consistent  for all  automotive fuels,  so  a  range of  possible  solutions  is
presented  including  one   solution  (C)   that  is  recommended  due   to   its
consistency with the various legislative provisions outlined above.

Method A.  Fuel Energy Content Considered

The  simplest  solution that  would be in  line with EFCA,  but not  necessarily
with the  conference  report  as discussed in Part  I, would be to use  the  ratio
of  the  heat  content of a fuel  to that  of  gasoline as a correction  factor to
the actual mile per  gallon  test result.  This would effectively  rank vehicles
on  the basis of miles per BTU of fuel used by the vehicle itself.

Here  is  an example  of  this  methodology as  applied  to  a  methanol-fueled
vehicle:  In the  fuel economy test assume  a  vehicle gets 20 miles  per gallon
of  methanol, as compared to  a similar, but  gasoline-fueled,  car getting  30
miles per gallon.   Since the heat content  of methanol is  56,123 BTU/gal, the
methanol-fueled  vehicle  is  getting  35.6  miles  per  100,000  BTU.  Typical
gasoline  has a heat content of  113,300  BTU/gal,  so  30  mpg gasoline  equals  26.5
miles per 100,000 BTU.

In  order  to  adjust  the mile per gallon  value  for methanol  (20 mpg)  to correct
for  the difference  in heat  content  between methanol and gasoline, it  would be
multiplied by  the ratio of the heat content of gasoline to that of methanol.

FE  =     MPGalt. x  LHVgas.
                    LHValt.

-------
                                       -16-
    FE   =   20 mpg x   113,300   BTU/gal    gasoline*
                         56,123BTU/galmethanol(S)

    FE   =    20 mpg x 2.02

    FE   =    40.4 mpg

In this case,  for purposes of fuel  economy  calculations,  the 20  mpg methanol

car could be rated at 40.4 mpg when converted to a gasoline-equivalent basis.


Another fuel  that  should be  mentioned with  respect  to  Method  A  is  Diesel

fuel.   Since  Diesel  fuel #2  has  a  15%  higher  heat  content  than gasoline

(130,650  (7) vs.  113,300  BTU/gal),  the equivalent gasoline-based  fuel economy

of a 35 mpg Diesel vehicle, for instance, would be;


    FE  - 35 mpg x     113,300   BTU/gal   gasoline
                       130,650 BTU/gal     Diesel
    FE   =    30.4 mpg


Table 3 lists  the fuel equivalency  factors  for various fuels  calculated with

this  methodology.   FEF is  the resultant adjustment  factor,  for  methanol for

example, the value for FEF is 2.02.
* Today's motor gasolines range  in  BTU/gallon  from about  112,000 BTU/gallon to
115,000 BTU/gallon.

-------
                                     -17-

                                    Table  3

                           Fuel Equivalency Factors
                         Based  on  Energy  Content  alone

                                                       *
                                         Energy Content
Fuel                                     (BTU/gal)	          FEF
Gasoline      leaded regular                113,300               1.0
            unleaded regular                113,300               1.0
            unleaded premium                113,300               1.0

Diesel Fuel     #2                          130,650               0.87
                #1                          126,100               0.9

Methanol                                     56,123               2.02

Ethanol                                      78,987               1.43

Gasohol                                     109,869               1.03

Natural Gas                                 (1080 BTU/ft3)        **
*Lower Heating Value
** FE = Miles/BTU nat. gas x 113,300 BTU/gal. gasoline
The use  of this  methodology  for  Diesels  could be  taken to  represent a  13%
penalty  that   could  discourage  use of  Diesel  vehicles  (9).   However,  when
combined with the 30% average fuel  economy  benefit  for  Diesels  over comparable
gasoline vehicles (10),  there is still a 17% benefit for Diesels.

The only  possible liability of  this methodology is that, by  itself,  it  does
not address  the  issue  of  energy  used in processing  fuels.   This  area  of
concern is addressed in the next two methodologies.

-------
                                     -18-
Method B.  Energy Content Plus Refining Energy Considered

A second  possible  approach to determining  gasoline equivalent  fuel  economies
would be  one  that  includes  the  efficiency of the  final  fuel processing steps,
(eg. refinery efficiency for petroleum fuels).

In  this methodology  an additional factor is  included in  the  fuel equivalency
calculation.  In the case of Diesel vehicles  this  additional factor adjusts the
fuel economy  value to  reflect  the refinery  energy  savings  that  occur when the
Diesel  fuel  output  of  a  refinery  is  increased  relative to  the  gasoline
output.   The most  recent  investigation  of  this  phenomenon  is  described  by
Amoco in  reference (11).

In  the  Amoco  study  it  is  concluded  that  decreasing  the  Gasoline/Distillate
(G/D)* production ratio  from  1.6  to  0.7 would decrease the energy consumption
of  the  refinery by  13.7%  - 16.8%,  depending on  the  octane of  the  gasoline
produced.

The  equation which characterizes  this methodology  for  finding  the  gasoline-
equivalent fuel economy of a Diesel vehicle is:

              FE        = MPGD x LHVgas    x     DEO
                                  LHVD           DEO - RES

    where:    The subscript D indicates Diesel fuel
              DEO is the Diesel fuel energy output
              RES is the Refinery Energy Savings when
                  producing additional Diesel fuel
*  G/D ratio is  the  volume of motor  gasoline divided by  the volume'  of  total
distillates -  Diesel  fuel,  fuel  oils,  kerosene and jet  fuels.   It  is  commonly
used  to  describe  refining  operations.   U.S.  refineries  currently average  about
1.6  G/D  ratio, but the  ratio may vary among refineries and with  season from
about 1.0 to 2.0

-------
                                     -19-
The  combination  of LHV  gas x  Diesel Energy  Output adjusts  the Diesel  fuel
energy output at any G/D  ratio  to the equivalent gasoline energy output.   The
term in  the  denominator  reflects the refinery  energy savings that  occur  when
producing  additional   Diesel  fuel.   This  increases  the  Diesel  equivalency
factor because it gives the Diesel  fuel energy output credit  for the refinery

energy saved.


Using  this methodology  Amoco   then  developed  the  following  table   of  Diesel

Equivalency Factors (DEF), which would be used in this formula:
        FE        =  MPGD x DEF


                          DIESEL EQUIVALENCY FACTORS
                         BASED ON ALL DIESEL Fuel PRODUCED

  Pool                              Gasoline/Distillate Ratio
RM/2 Octane*                   .     1.6    1.3    1.0    0.7

   80                               0.88   0.91   0.92   0.92

   82                               0.88   0.91   0.92   0.92

   84                               0.88   0.91   0.92   0.93

   86 (Base)                        0.88   0.92   0.93   0.92

   88                               0.89   0.94   0.94   0.94

   90                               0.89   0.96   0.97   0.96

   92                               0.90   0.98   0.97   0.98
*   RM/2  = Anti-knock Index (AKI) = Research Octane + Motor Octane
                                                     2           ~~
From  the MVMA national  gasoline survey, the  difference between  Research  and
Motor  octane  (sensitivity)  of  unleaded gasoline typically ranges  from 9.0  for
regular  to 9.6 for  premium.  So  91 Research Octane unleaded would have an  AKI
of about 86.5.

For any  fuel equivalency methodology, a  specific base  fuel needs  to  be used as
a reference point.   Unleaded 91  Research Octane gasoline is the  most suitable
choice for such a reference fuel.

-------
                                     -20-

                         DIESEL  EQUIVALENCY  FACTORS
                     BASED ON ADDITIONAL DIESEL FUEL ONLY
  Pool                              Gasoline/Distillate Ratio
RM/2 Octane                         1.6    1.3    1.0    0.7
   80                               0.88   0.93   0.93   0.93
   82                               0.88   0.94   0.93   0.93
   84                               0.88   0.94   0.94   0.93
   86 (Base)                        0.88   0.95   0.94   0.93
   88                               0.89   0.99   0.96   0.95
   90                               0.89   1.02   0.99   0.98
   92                               0.90   1.04   1.00   1.00

It should be mentioned that Amoco also  calculated  a  set  of DEF's that included
the expected  fuel  economy  advantage for gasoline-fueled  vehicles attributable
to increasing gasoline octane number  (1.5 mpg per  RM/2).   However,  it would be
incorrect to  include  this  effect in the Diesel  Equivalency   Factor,  since any
expected  fuel  economy change,  if valid, would  show  up in the  actual  mpg test
results.

The  above  factors  are  based  on  the  change  that  would  occur  from what  is
considered  the base case (86 RM/2;  1.6 G/D).  Therefore,  the  DEF for the base
case  consists only of the  energy  content  (lower heating value)  of gasoline
divided by  the energy content  of Diesel fuel.   In theory  it  would  be possible
to  avoid  this  somewhat  arbitrary  base  case,  but  it  would  require  many
assumptions on allocation  of  the energy used  in each processing unit  to each
product.   This  is due  to the many interdependences of  gasoline  and  Diesel
fuel  production  which make it  impossible  to  simply separate  and  measure the
energy consumption attributable  to each of the two fuels.

-------
                                     -20-

                          DIESEL EQUIVALENCY  FACTORS
                     BASED ON ADDITIONAL DIESEL FUEL ONLY
  Pool                              Gasoline/Distillate Ratio
RM/2 Octane                         1.6    1.3    1.0    0.7
   80                               0.88   0.93   0.93   0.93
   82                               0.88   0.94   0.93   0.93
   84                               0.88   0.94   0.94   0.93
   86 (Base)                        0.88   0.95   0.94   0.93
   88                               0.89   0.99   0.96   0.95
   90                               0.89   1.02   0.99   0.98
   92                               0.90   1.04   1.00   1.00

It should be mentioned that Amoco also  calculated  a  set of DEF's that included
the expected  fuel  economy advantage for gasoline-fueled  vehicles attributable
to increasing gasoline octane number  (1.5 mpg per  RM/2).   However,  it would be
incorrect to  include  this effect in the Diesel  Equivalency   Factor,  since any
expected  fuel economy change,  if valid, would  show  up in the  actual  mpg test
results.

The  above  factors  are  based  on  the  change  that  would  occur  from what  is
considered  the base case (86 RM/2;  1.6 G/D).  Therefore,  the  DEF for the base
case  consists only of the  energy  content  (lower  heating value)  of gasoline
divided by  the energy content  of Diesel fuel.  In theory  it  would  be possible
to  avoid   this  somewhat  arbitrary  base  case,   but   it  would  require  many
assumptions on allocation of  the energy used  in each  processing unit  to each
product.   This  is due  to the  many interdependencies  of  gasoline and  Diesel
fuel  production  which make it  impossible  to  simply separate  and  measure the
energy consumption attributable  to each of the two fuels.

-------
                                     -21-
In order  to choose  the  most appropriate  factor(s)  from  these  tables,  it  is
necessary  to  look   a   little   more  closely   at  things  that   affect  the
gasoline/distillate ratio.  Distillate fuels include automotive  (passenger car
and truck) Diesel fuels, jet aircraft  fuel,  residential  and commercial heating
oil,  and industrial Diesel fuels.

According to the DOE  predictions in reference (12), increases that will occur
in the use  of  distillate fuels   for transportation in  the next decade  will  be
offset somewhat by decreases in  the other distillate fuel  uses.   Due  to these
decreases   in   non-transportation  distillate   fuels,   the   net   change   in
gasoline/distillate ratio is not as great as might be expected.

Even if we assume all jet  fuel  is distillate,  the GDR in  1985 only comes down
to about  1.45, and in 1990 it would range from 1.28 - 1.34 depending  on crude
oil prices.  Therefore,  the 1.3 G1)R column  would  be the  most appropriate one
to consider  through  at   least 1990,  assuming the  changes  that actually occur
fall within the range of the DOE predictions.

The question of whether to base   the DEF on all Diesel  fuel produced or just  on
the additional Diesel fuel produced is handled  in the Sobotka report  (13)  by
simply neglecting  the existence  of the  all-Diesel-fuel  factors.   However,  a
valid  rationale  does exist  for  using the  additional-Diesel-fuel  factors,  as
Sobotka did.

The refinery efficiency  credit  from decreasing  GDR should  be  credited  to that
portion  of  the   distillate production   which   is  most  responsible  for  the
change.  According the DOE  projections, most of  the  distillate increase can  be
attributed  to  the  automotive sector  (80% vs.  20%  jet fuel)  and  furthermore,
all of that  increase can be attributed  to  Diesel passenger cars,  since truck
vehicle-miles are expected to be less in 1990 than in 1978 (12).

Therefore,  the Sobotka  analysis was  correct  in  using the  equivalency  factors
based  on  additional  Diesel fuel  production  only.  Also,  as described  in  the
Sobotka analysis, the unleaded  gasoline  pool AKI  is expected  to  increase from
the base case of 86 to 88 in the  1980's and  possibly 90  in the 1990's.   So the
range of DEF's would be 0.95 - 1.02.

-------
                                     -22-
For this methodology it is recommended that, due  to  the  uncertainties  in these
calculations, the fuel equivalency  factor  for  Diesels be rounded  to  1.0,  thus
in effect, keeping it as it has been up to this point.

Another question  with  this type  of methodology  is  how to  apply  it  to  other
fuels,  such  as  alcohols.    It   is  possible  to  define  reasonably  accurate
production  efficiencies,  and  therefore  energy  consumptions,  for the  common
ethanol  and methanol  production  processes within  this methodology.   But  it
would  not  be  possible to  define  a  valid  fuel equivalency  factor  directly
relating  alcohol  to gasoline,  since  there is  no direct relationship between
alcohol  and gasoline  production  like there  is  between Diesel and  gasoline.
Futhermore,  a  corresponding  efficiency  for gasoline by itself  would not  be
calculable due to the refinery interdependencies mentioned  above.

Despite these  considerations,  a  possible approximation  of  an alcohol/gasoline
equivalency  factor  within  this   basic  methodology  could   be  calculated  as
follows:  1)  let the gasoline  production efficiency  be  approximated  as  simply
the overall refinery efficiency.

c             •   -     REO             REI  -  REG
Egas"            *     REI     *       	REI	
where:

Egas.            =   Energy efficiency of petroleum refinery

REO              =   Total refinery energy output

REI              =   Total refinery energy input

REC              =   Refinery energy consumption

-------
                                     -23-
2) then let  the  alcohol production efficiency  be  calculated with  this  same
equation as applied to alcohol fuel plants.  The following  is  how  this would
look for ethanol.
  _  ,           PEI  -  PEC
  Eeth.  =
                    PEI
where :
  Eeth.  =    Energy efficiency of alternate fuel plant (ethanol)
  PEI    =    Total plant energy input
  PEC    =    Plant energy consumption
and 3)  The  equivalency  factor would then  be  the fuel energy  content  ratio
multiplied by the ratio of the two fuel processing efficiencies,.

               m~  ,       LHVgas.     Eeth.
  FE     =    MPGeth.  x           x
Due to the  likelihood  of  change in average production  efficiency  with tech-
nological  improvements and  new plant  construction,  it  probably would  be
necessary to review and update these factors periodically.

Example (methanol) //I
  Egas.  =       -  =  0.92   (ref. 11)
              PEO
  Emeth. =    — — -  =  0.56   (ref. 14, methanol from natural gas)
              PEI
                    ,       113,300 BTU/gal     0.56
  FE     =    MPGmeth.  x   56>123 BTU/*al  *  ^
              MPGmeth.  x  1.23
Example (methanol) //2
Emeth.  = 0.60 (ref. 15, methanol and synthetic natural gas from coal)
                           113,300     0.60
  FE     =    MPGmeth.  x   56>123  x  ^gj
           =  MPGmeth.  x  1.32

-------
                                     -24-

Table 4 lists fuel equivalency factors determined with Method B.

                                   Table  4

                          Fuel Equivalency Factors
             Based on Fuel  Energy  Content & Plant  Process Energy

                                        Plant
Fuel                                 Efficiency            FEF*

Gasoline                                 92%                1.00

Diesel Fuel                              92%            .95  -  1.02

Methanol      from natural gas      56%  -  70%        1.23  -  1.54
              from coal             50%  -  60%        1.10  -  1.32

Ethanol       from corn             45%  -  60%        0.70  -  0.93


Gasohol       (10% of Ethanol effect)                   .97 -    .98

Compressed Natural Gas                   96%                  **

Liquified Natural Gas                    86%                  **
* FEF = FEF from Table 3  x  E alt.
                             Egas.
**  FE = (Miles/BTU nat. gas) x 113,300 x Plant Efficiency/92%

-------
                                     -25-
Method C.   Energy Content,  Process Efficiency Plus Fuel Value Considered

This fuel equivalency alternative is based on  the  Department  of  Energy (DOE)
proposed  methodology  for  calculation  of  equivalent  petroleum-based  fuel
economies for  electric vehicles which was described   earlier in Section  I.
This methodology accounts not only  for  the different energy  contents  of  the
fuels themselves  and  the  different energy efficiencies of the  various  fuel
processing routes, but  also  includes a raw material  cost factor to  account
for the energy needed to get a fuel as- far as  the processing step.

The raw material  assumed  for gasoline production  is  crude oil, so  gasoline
produced by any other  means  than  refining  of  crude oil would need to  have a
fuel   equivalency  factor   calculated   to  account   for  any   significant
differences in processing efficiencies and raw materials.

The raw material  cost  factor would  be  simply a ratio  of  the cost of  crude
oil to the cost of any alternate raw material, on a dollar per BTU  basis.

When  this  factor  is  included  in  the  formula  for  calculating  FEF's,  the
equation looks like this:
           =  LHVgas.  x  Ealt.  x  Vgas.
              LHValt.     Egas.     Valt.
where :
     Vgas. =  Raw Material Value for gasoline
                (^/million BTU of crude oil)
     Valt. =  Raw Material Value for alternate fuel
                (^/million BTU)
Using  some  projected figures for 1982  (12),  Table 5  indicates  the effect  of
including  this  additional  factor.   For methanol,  the inclusion  of  this  raw
material cost factor more  than  compensates for  the  lower  processing efficiency
of  methanol  compared to  petroleum  products.   The  resulting fuel  equivalency
factor,  3.76 -  5.42  depending on  raw  material,  would seem  to  provide  a
significant  impetus  toward development and use  of  methanol fueled vehicles.

-------
                                     -26-
Even  if  a  methanol  fueled  vehicle   only   achieved  half  the  mpg   of   a
corresponding gasoline vehicle,  the  FEF  would result in a  gasoline-equivalent
fuel economy 1.88 - 2.71 times as much as the  gasoline fueled vehicle.

The figures for ethanol are a  little surprising  due  to the effect of  the corn
cost on the FEF.  The cost of the corn needed  to  produce one million BTU  of
ethanol is  about  5 1/2 times  the cost  of  the heat  source,  assuming coal  is
used.  Even when  credit  is given  for  the plant output  of Distillers  Dried
Grain (DDG)  the  raw material cost per million BTU output  of an ethanol  plant
is 1.9 times as high as a petroleum refinery  operating with  a current product
mix.

So even if  a pure  ethanol-fueled vehicle achieved the same mpg test  result  as
a gasoline-fueled vehicle  (e.g.  25 mpg)  the resulting gasoline-equivalent fuel
economy would only be 1/1.9 (=0.53)  times the ethanol test  result (0.53 x 25 =
13.3 mpg).

-------
                                     -27-
                                   Table 5
                           Fuel Equivalency Factors
        Based  on Energy Content, Plant Efficiency and Raw Material Cost
Fuel



Gasoline (from petroleum)**

Diesel Fuel (from petroleum)**
Methanol
(from natural gas)
(from coal)
                      Raw Material

                         Cost
Ethanol***  (from corn) and
     all process energy from coal
     @$1.45/MMBTU for the coal

Gasohol

Natural Gas
                             bu
                           $2.25
                           MMBTU
FEF*
$6.89
MMBTU
$6.89
MMBTU
$2.25
MMBTU
$1.45
MMBTU
$3.. 50
1.0
0.95 - 1.02
3.76 - 4.71
5.23 - 6.27
0.60 - 0.73
                                           0.96 - 0.97
                                                             ****
    FEF  = FEF from Table 4 x
                                  Petroleum Cost
                                  Raw Material Cost
**   from petroleum at $37,88/barrel.
***  The  higher FEF  assumes all  process energy  comes  from the  input  corn
     without any additional process energy source.
**** Gasoline - Equivalent  = Miles
     Fuel Economy
                  	 x  113,300 BTU x  plant eff. x $6.89
                  Btunat.  gas.    gal.  gasoline     92%       $2.25

-------
                                      -28-

Gaseous and Other Fuels

The methodology discussed here could  also  be applied to other  fuels  besides
those  listed  in the  tables.   For  instance,  it  is  possible  to  produce
gasoline  from  coal  rather  than  from  crude  oil.   This  would  result  in
different  raw  material costs as  well as  different processing  efficiencies
for the synthetic gasoline in comparison to usual  oil-derived gasoline.

To get  a  rough idea of how a synthetic  gasoline  such as this  would  compare
to  the  fuels  considered  in  the  tables,  it  could be  directly compared  to
methanol from  coal.  For  the  purpose  of  this comparison, we  can assume that
the raw material  (coal)  is  the same  in  both  cases,  and that the  processing
efficiencies  are  approximately   the  same for  converting  coal  to  either
gasoline  or  methanol.   Then  the  only part  of the  Fuel Equivalency  Factor
that would be  different for  the two fuels  would be the  energy  content (LHV)
which,  for the  gasoline,  would  be double that  of the  methanol.  The  FEF
computation would look like this:

         Ealt.  = 0.60 (using example #2, page 23)

         Valt.  = $1.45/MMBTU (from table 5)

         FEF (methanol from coal)  =6.27 (table 5)

         FEF (gasoline from coal)  = 3.14
Since  synthetic  gasoline could- be  expected  to yield approximately  the  same
measured    fuel    economy   as    conventional    gasoline,    the    final
gasoline-equivalent  fuel economy  of   the  synthetic  gasoline,  according  to
these  calculations,  would  be  approximately  triple  that  of  conventional
gasoline.

For  liquid alternate fuels,  as  discussed above,  the basic approach  starts
with measuring the  fuel  consumption (mile/gallon)  and then  multiplying it by
the  energy  content  ratio  of  gasoline  to  alternate  fuel   to  obtain  a

-------
                                       -29-

gasoline-equivalent  fuel  economy.   For  gaseous  fuels,   the  more  likely
starting point would be a  mile  per BTU measurement.  This would  then simply
be multiplied by  the  energy content of  gasoline  (BTU/gal)  to get  the basic
gasoline-equivalent  fuel  economy   corresponding  to  Method  A.   The  other
adjustment factors  for  Methods  B  and  C  could then  be  applied as  described
above.

-------
                                      -30-
III.               DISCUSSION

Three different  methodologies  have been presented  here which cover  a  range
of  approaches   for   dealing  with   the   fuel  equivalency   issue.    Other
methodologies were considered,  such as basing  equivalency solely  on retail
price  per  BTU,   but  it   is  felt  that  the  methodologies  presented  here
sufficiently  encompass all the possibilities.

Looking first at Method A  presented above  (fuel energy content  only),  it is
apparent that the factors  not accounted for  would  include (a) plant/refinery
energy  consumption,   (b)   fuel   transport   energy  consumption,  and  (c)
differences  in  origin of  fuel  (imported crude, domestic  coal,  corn,  etc.).
It should be kept in mind  that  the  Energy  Policy and  Conservation Act (EPCA)
itself does  not  specifically call  for any  of these factors to be taken into
account for  non-electric vehicles.

In Method B  (fuel energy content/process efficiency)  the  differences  in fuel
origin and energy consumption prior to reaching the plant/refinery are still
not  taken into  account.   (Again,  these  are  not  specifically   required  by
EPCA.)

The  major inconsistency introduced by this methodology  is  the way Diesel
fuel  equivalency would be handled  compared  with  other fuels.   For  the
process energy of Diesel fuel  relative to  that of  gasoline it was necessary
to   consider   the   change   in   overall   plant   efficiency   when   the
gasoline/distillate  ratio   was  changed  from  an  arbitrary  baseline.   This
approach was due  to  the virtual impossibility of  separating the  efficiencies
for Diesel and gasoline production  since they are  produced in the same plant
from the same raw material and  have many interdependencies in the production
process.

This  is  in  contrast  to   the  handling of  non-petroleum  fuels  within  this
methodology.  For  these   other  fuels,  such  as  methanol,  the  production
efficiency would  be  an  actual,  current efficiency to be  compared directly

-------
                                     -31-
with  the  current gasoline  production efficiency.   Not only  would this  be
inconsistent with the handling of Diesel  fuel  equivalency,  but it  is  also a
very  imprecise  comparison due to  the inability  to  determine an  efficiency
for  gasoline  by  itself.    (The  overall  refinery  efficiency  would  be  a
composite of all the refinery products).

In Method C  (energy  content/efficiency/raw material  value),  the  plant  energy
consumption  is   accounted  for  directly,  while  the fuel  transport  energy
consumption,  and the  differences  in origin  of  fuel  are  all  taken  into
account indirectly  via  the raw material  cost factor  (price per BTU).   The
more  energy  that is consumed  in  getting  raw material  to  the plant  whether
crude oil, coal, or  corn,  the  higher  the  cost  will  be.   Some  of  the factors
that  could  influence the cost of  the raw material  to  the  plant are  a)  the
cost  of drilling, mining or growing  it  in the first place:  b)  the cost of
transporting it  to  the plant,  whether by  pipeline,  ship, rail or  truck;  and
c)  any  taxes such  as  import  duties;  d)  any  subsidies granted  to domestic
drilling, mining or  farming  activities,  or direct government  price controls
on raw materials such as oil, coal, and corn.

Since  these cost  factors include  more  than  just  direct  energy  dependent
costs, the  use  of  this factor actually goes  a little  beyond  the  legislated
requirement  for liquid fuels  equivalency factors.  Using  a factor such as
this would, however, be consistent with one of  the parameters  given for fuel
equivalency  calculation  of  electric   vehicles  in the  Chrysler  Corporation
Loan  Guarantee  Act  (PL  96-185),  which takes  into  account  the  need  of  the
nation to conserve  all forms  of  energy,  and the  relative scarcity  and value
to the nation of various fuels.

Therefore,  taking  into  account  the .various  fuel equivalency methodologies
and the legislative  requirements,  Method  C  seems  to best serve  the purposes
set up for  fuel equivalency  determination provided all  the  needed  input data
can be accurately determined and updated when and if  necessary.

-------
    -32-
APPENDIX

-------
                                     -33
This  Appendix gives  some  more  calculations  of  Fuel  Equivalency  Factors
(FEFs) for  various  parameters such as  the efficiency of  various  production
processes and costs of various raw materials.

-------
                                    -34-

                                 Table A-l


                          Fuel Equivalency Factors

             Considering fuel energy content and process  energy


                  Methanol Plant                   Petroleum Refinery
Efficiency
50%
60%
70%
Ethanol Plant
Efficiency
30%
45%
60%
Natural Gas*
Efficiency
96% (compressed)
86% (liquified)

88%
1.14
1.36
1.59

0.49
0.73
0.98

1.09
0.98
Efficiency
90%
1.11
1.33
1.56

0.48
0.72
0.95

1.07
0.95

92%
1.09
1.30
1.52

0.47
0.70
0.93

1.05
0.94
not expected that mile/gallon figures will be found f<
fueled vehicles, the gasoline-equivalent fuel econoi
.culated as follows:
it miles
V
113,300 BTU
T717T7
Gasoline-Equivalent
Fuel Economy        ~  ~BTU natural gas       "   gal.  gasoline

-------
        -35-
        Table A-2

Fuel Equivalency Factors
        Methanol

     Petroleum Refinery Efficiency and Cost

Raw Plant


L*
88%
M*

H*

L
9i
0%
M

H

L
92%
M

H
Material/Efficiency/Cost
coal/50%/L**
coal/50%/M**
coal/50%/H**
coal/60%/L
coal/60%/M
coal/60%/H
coal/70%/L
coal/70%/M
coal/70%/H
4
3
2
5
4
3
6
5
4
.77
.65
.95
.73
.38
.55
.68
.11
.14
6.36
4.87
3.94
7.64
5.84
4.73
8.91
6.81
5.52
7.95
6.08
4.92
9.55
7.30
5.91
11.14
8.52
6.89
4.66
3.57
2.88
5.60
4.28
3.47
6.53
5.00
4.04
6
4
3
7
5
4
6
5
.22
.76
.85
.47
.71
.62
.71
.66
.39
7.77
5.94
4.81
9.33
7.14
5.78
10.89
8.33
6.74
4.56
3.49
2.82
5.48
4.19
3.39
6.39
4.89
3.96
6.08
4.66
3.77
7.30
5.59
4.52
8.52
6.52
5.28
7.60
5.82
4.71
9.13
6.98
5.65
10.65
8.15
6.59

nat.gas/50%/L***
nat.gas/50%/M***
nat.gas/50%/H***
nat .gas/60%/L
nat.gas/60%/M
nat.gas/60%/H
nat.gas/70%/L
nat.gas/70%/M
nat.gas/70%/H



* crude oil,
** coal, $/ton
*** natural gas
3
2
1
3
2
1
4
2
2



$/bbl

.10
.07
.55
.72
.48
.86
.34
.89
.17





, ^/million
4.14
2.78
2.07
4.96
3.31
2.48
5.79
3.86
2.90




BTU
5.17
3.45
2.59
6.20
4.14
3.10
7.24
4.83
3.62

L
30.00
31.20
2.00
3.03
2.02
1.52
3.64
2.43
1.82
4.25
2.83
2.12
Raw




4
2
2
4
3
2
5
3
2
.04
.70
.02
.85
.24
.43
.66
.77
.83
Material




M
40.00
40.80
3.00
5.06
3.37
2.53
6.07
4.04
3.03
7.08
4.72
3.54
Costs




2.97
1.98
1.48
3.56
2.37
1.78
4.15
2.77
2. 08

H
50.00
50.40
4.00
3.96
2.64
1.98
4.75
3.17
2.37
5.54
3.69
2.77





4.95
3.30
2.47
5.93
3.96
2.97
6.92
4.62
3.46






-------
                                    Table  A-3


                            Fuel Equivalency Factors
Method C for Ethanol
Petroleum Refinery Efficiency

Raw Plant
Material/Efficiency/Cost
corn/30%/L
corn/30%/M
corn/30%/H
corn/45%/L
corn/45%/M
corn/45%/H
corn/60%/L
corn/60%/M
corn/60%/H
*


* crude oil, $/bbl
** coal, $/ton
*** corn, ^/bushel

L*

.44
.40
.37
.71
.65
.60
.76
.70
.66






88%
M*

.58
.53
.49
.95
.87
.81
1.01
.94
.88
Raw





H*

.73
.67
.62
1.19
1.09
1.01
1.26
1.17
1.09
Material
L
30.00
31.20
3.30

L

.43
.39
.36
.70
.64
.59
.74
.69
.64
Costs




90%
M H

.57 .71
.52 .65
.48 .60
.93 1.16
.85 1.07
.79 .99
.99 1.23
.92 1.15
.86 1.07

M
40.00
40.80
3.50
and Cost
92%
L M

.42 .56
.38 .51
.35 .47
.68 .91
.63 .83
.58 .77
.72 .96
.67 .90
.63 .84

H
50.00
50.40
3.70


H

.70
.64
.59
1.14
1.04
.96
1.21
1.12
1.05





                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                          CO
assuming coal is used for all the process energy

-------
          Table A-4

   FUEL EQUIVALENCY  FACTORS
       FOR NATURAL GAS
(A) Compressed,   (B) Liquified
       Petroleum Refinery Efficiency and Cost


Raw Plant L
Material/Efficiency/Cost*
(A)
Natural gas/96%/L
Natural gas/96%/M
Natural gas/96%/H
(B)
Natural gas/86%/L
Natural gas/86%/M
Natural gas/86%/H
2.
1.
1.

2.
1.
1.
Gasoline - Equivalent
Fuel Economy


natural gas
crude oil,



, $/MMBTU
fc/bbl
88%
M
98 3.97
99 2.65
49 1.99

67 3.56
78 2.37
33 1.78
miles
BTUng
*Raw
L
2.00
30.00

H L
4.96 2
3.31 1
2.49 1

4.45 2
2.97 1
2.23 1
113
gal
Material
M
3.00
40.00


.91
.94
.46

.61
.74
.31
,300
90%
M H L
3.88 4.86 2.85
2.59 3.24 1.90
1.94 2.43 1.42

3.47 4.35 2.55
2.32 2.90 1.70
1.74 2.18 1.27
BTU
UAU „ TjtjEi
92%
M H
3.80 4.75
2.53 3.17
1.90 2.37
•
3.41 4.26
2.27 2.84
1.70 2.12

gasoline
Costs



H
4.00
50.00




-------
                                     -38-
                                 References

1.       Energy Policy and Conservation Act,  Public Law 94-163,  1975.

2.       Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979, Public Law  96-185,
         Jan. 7, 1980.

3.       "Electric   and   Hybrid    Vehicle    Research,   Development    and
         Demonstration  Program;  Equivalent  Petroleum-Based   Fuel   Economy
         Calculation," Final  Rule,  U.S. Department  of Energy,  10  CFR  Part
         474, (Docket No. CAS-RM-80-202).

4.       Energy Policy and Conservation Act,  Conference Report, U.S.  Senate
         Report No. 94-516, December 8, 1975, page 154.

5.       "Electric  Vehicles  and  the  Corporate  Average Fuel  Economy,"  The
         Aerospace Corporation, Report ATR-80(7766)-1,  May 1980.

6.       Motor  Vehicle  Manufacturers  Association  National Gasoline  Survey,
         Summer Season - October 15, 1980,  sampling date - July 15,  1980.

7.       "Methodology  for  Calculation  of  Diesel  Fuel  to  Gasoline  Fuel
         Economy   Equivalence  Factors,"   Technical   support   report   for
         regulatory  action,  Emission  Control Technology  Division,  OMSAPC,
         U.S. EPA, January 1976 (Revised May 1976).

8.       Energy  From  Biological   Processes,  U.   S.   Congress  Office  of
         Technology Assessment, OTA-E-124,  July 1980.

9.       Letter, D. K. Lawrence, Amoco, to W. A. Johnson,  Sobotka &  Company,
         Inc., October 31, 1980.

10.      "Comparison of  Gasoline  and Diesel  Automobile Fuel Economy  as  Seen
         by  the  Consumer," B. McNutt,  U.S.  DOE,  SAE Paper  810387,  February
         1981.

-------
                                     -39-
11.   "Automotive Fuels  - Refinery Energy  and Economics,"  D.  Lawrence,  D.
      Plautz, B.  Keller,  T. Wagner,  R & D  Dept.  Amoco  Oil Co., SAE  Paper
      800225, February 1980.

12.   Energy  Information Administration Annual  Report  to Congress,  Volume
      II, III, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EPA-0173(79)/2,3,  1979.

13.   "Review  of Diesel Equivalency  Factors,"    Sobotka &  Company,  Inc.,
      December 5, 1980.

14.   "Methanol  From Coal:  Prospects and Performance  as a Fuel and as  a
      Feedstock," IGF Inc., December, 1980.

15.   "Methanol as a Major Fuel," Paul W. Spaite Co., December 8,  1980.

16.   "Gasohol:  Does It  or Doesn't  It Produce Positive Net Energy?,"   R.
      Chambers,  R.  Herendeen,  J.   Joyce,   P.  Penner,   Science,   Vol.  206,
      November 16, 1979.

17.   "Commercial Production of  Ethanol for Fuel  Applications"   Energy from
      Biomass and Wastes IV, Symposium Papers,  January 21-25, 1980,  Sponsor:
      Institute of Gas Technology, May 1980.

18.   "Preliminary  Perspective  on  Methanol,"  Draft  ECTD  Report,  February
      1981.

19.   "Net  Energy Analysis  of Alcohol Fuels," American  Petroleum Institute
      Publication No. 4312,  November, 1979.

20.   Marks'  Standard   Handbook  for  Mechanical  Engineers,  "Compressors,"
      McGraw-Hill Book Co.,  New York, 1951,   1978.

21.   "Liquified   Natural   Gas,"   SRI   International,    Energy   Technology
      Economics Program  Report No. 18, February 1981.

-------