A joint U.S. auto-oil industry research program has found no immediate advantages in using gasoline-methanol motor fuel blends.
Three major auto companies and 14 large oil companies have been investigating new fuels under the Auto-Oil Air Quality improvement Research Pro-ram (OGJ, June 24, 1991, p. 32).
Their research found that M85 (85% gasoline and 15% methanol) would cost substantially more than straight gasoline without providing substantial benefits in vehicle emissions and ozone air quality.
The American Methanol Institute and California officials immediately came to the defense of methanol after the program issued its findings.
The auto-oil program plans to continue evaluating reformulated gasolines in current and advanced prototype low emission gasoline vehicles, as well as alternative fuels.
The oil-auto program has completed the experimental program of its research and will release more studies soon. Phase II testing is under way, with release of initial studies due late this year.
Joseph Colucci of General Motors Research Laboratories said although the reports found no consistent benefit from M85, "school is still out."
He added, "The margin for improvement for methanol vehicles may be greater than the margin for improvement for gasoline vehicles. But regulators and legislators should delay any mandates for methanol until it is proven it has a benefit."
THE FINDINGS
The auto-oil studies evaluated experiments with prototype flexible fueled vehicles-variable fueled vehicles (FFV-VFV) using gasoline and M85.
The program plans to test more prototypes as they are further developed. It pointed out that advancements in vehicle emission controls and fuel composition could change the emission and air quality results of current studies.
The report said, "In reviewing emissions data for the FFV-VFV fleet and those from the current model gasoline fleet previously tested, it is difficult to conclude that either M85 in the FFV-VFV fleet or conventional gasoline in either fleet was better."
M85 used in the FFV-VFV fleet reduced exhaust hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions by more than 30% and nitrogen oxide emissions by 20%. But it produced equivalent toxic emissions, particularly benzene.
The report said M85 use in the FFV-VFV fleet would increase the light duty vehicle contribution to peak ozone 26% in Los Angeles in 2010 and 14% in Dallas-Forth Worth by 2005, or about the same as reformulated gasoline.
Another report found M85 will cost about 54/gal more through 2000 than an equivalent gallon of current gasoline. Also, the additional costs of FFV-VFV vehicles would be about $400 or 16/gal, giving a total increased cost of 700/gal.
It noted, "The cost difference between M85 and conventional gasoline may narrow with time, assuming methanol demand is likely to be large and continue to grow."
The incremental cost could drop to about 16/gal after 2005, which, with 16/gal allotted to the vehicle, would make M85 cost 32/gal more than gasoline.
"Transition costs for methanol or M85 attaining a significant market penetration will be high," the report said. "Transition costs are critical in evaluating the costs and cost-effectiveness of methanol based fuels."
Another economic bulletin estimated the added manufacturing costs for reformulated gasoline will be 212/gal, and the lower energy component of the fuels will cost consumers another 2-5/gal.
OTHER STUDIES
Another technical bulletin found air toxic emissions can be reduced by changing gasoline properties.
The program studied four toxics: benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments target all four for reduction.
Research found benzene is the predominant toxic, accounting for 55-75% of total toxics mass emissions. It found that reducing the gasoline aromatic content to 20% from 45% - it now averages about 32% - reduced benzene emissions by 30-40% and increased the other toxics by zero to 30%.
It said reducing the temperature at which 90% of gasoline components are distilled, or T90, to 280 from 360 F. generally reduced all toxics by zero to 40%. T90 now averages about 330 F.
Adding 15% methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) to the fuel increased formaldehyde emissions by about 25% and generally reduced the other toxics by zero to 10%.
And reducing gasoline olefin content-now averaging about 12%-to 5% from 20% reduced 1,3-butadiene by about 30% and did not affect the other toxics.
Another technical bulletin showed that lowering gasoline volatility as measured by Reid vapor pressure and using an oxygenate in gasoline were effective in reducing emissions.
Lowering RVP reduced vehicle hydrocarbon, exhaust and evaporative, and carbon monoxide emissions and had no effect on exhaust nitrogen oxide and toxics emissions.
MTBE, ethyl tertiary butyl ether, and ethanol additions all had similar impacts on exhaust emissions: Hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide were reduced, nitrogen oxide increased slightly, and toxics were generally unaffected except that aldehyde emissions increased.
METHANOL CRITICIZED
"We now have some very sound data," said James W. Kinnear, Texaco Inc. president and chief executive officer.
"Methanol fuel is going to cost up to 70/gal more than today's gasolines, and it clearly does not contribute to solving our emissions problem. It makes neither technical nor economic sense to mandate its use.
"Given the current economic circumstances in the U.S., it is particularly important that we as a nation derive the maximum benefit from every dollar spent on the cost of major environmental programs.
"Yet it is abundantly clear that the cost-benefit relationship with respect to methanol blended fuel is extremely poor.
Kinnear said the U.S. would have to import nearly all additional methanol it required, making the trade deficit worse and increasing dependence on imported fuels.
He noted the auto-oil studies do not consider the dangerous properties of methanol itself, adding that the fuel is more dangerous and toxic than gasoline and would have a more corrosive effect on engine and auto components.
METHANOL DEFENDED
Ray Lewis, president of the American Methanol Institute, called the auto-oil report "nothing more than a snapshot of yesterday's clean fuel technology."
He noted that the FFV-VFV fleet used was old, but M85 still cut ozone 8-86% compared with industry average gasoline, whereas reformulated gasoline showed reductions of 15-26%.
And he said:
- The study showed that M85 use reduced the ground level pollutant ozone twice as much per mile than the study's best reformulated gasoline.
- The gasoline portion of the M85 used in the study's tests failed to use cleaner reformulated gasoline, which will burn even cleaner when blended with methanol.
- The study used obsolete fuel and vehicle technology, and today's FFV-VFV cars have corrected formaldehyde and nitrogen oxide emissions problems.
Charles Imbrecht, chairman of the California Energy Commission, criticized the industry study on several points.
He said the study assumes a $400 differential in the cost of vehicles, but Chrysler Corp. plans to sell methanol FFVs at no added cost this fall.
He said the economic studies assume a natural gas feedstock price for methanol production of $2.702.80[MMBTU even though gas is selling for $1.20/MMBTU or less.
He said the cost comparison was between M85 and gasoline available today, when it should have been between M85 and reformulated gasoline.
Jananne Sharpless, chairman of the California Air Resources Board, said, "Methanol will cost about the same as everyday cleaner gasoline by the time both are in use."
She said it is not possible that the use of methanol gasoline blends will increase ozone pollution from conventional cars by 26%.
"CARB already has established that emissions from a methanol powered vehicle are 50% less smog forming than the same volume of emissions from a gasoline powered car because of their lower reactivity. In addition, the technology on future cars will be improved over that used in the study.
Copyright 1992 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
