Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research

Yol. 62, Janu ary-Febmary 2003 , pp 97-105

The Methanol Story: A Sustainable Fuel for the Future

Roberta J Nichols

Ford Motor Company, 8645 N Territorial Road , Plymouth, Michigan MI 48170-5043

Development of vehicles that could operate on allernative fuels began in carncst as a response to the o il shocks of the 1970s. Of the various choices, methanol appeared to be the best candidate for long-term, widespread rep laccment of

petroleum-based fu els. Initi al support by the government was based on the desire for energy securit y, but the potenti al for improve ment in air quality became an important driver as well. Experimental flee ts of dedicated meth anol vehicl es did well

in the field , but the lack of refueling infrastructure led to the development of the flexible fuel vehicle (FFY) , a vehi cle that could operate on either gasoline or methanol with only one fuel sys tem on board. Legisl ation was put in pl ace to encourage

the auto industry to begi n production, which started in 1993 for the M85 FFY at Ford . By the end o f the decade, however, full production volumes had been transferred to the E85 FFY (gasoline or ethanol). The technica l, economic and politi cal

reasons for thi s shift are emphasised and arc di scussed below, including visio ns for the future, and the di rect

methanol fuel cel l.

Introduction On a g lobal basis, petroleum fu e ls are the

predominant source of energy for transportation vehicles and they will remain like this for a long time. But petroleum supplies are finite and pressure on that supply will increase as transportation growth accelerates in the developing countries, particularly in Asia. In recognition of this eventual need for change, Ford Motor Company decided in 1980 that it was not too soon to begin the difficult transition to new sources of energy.

Many factors need to be considered when making this kind of major change, such as the potential size of the energy resource base, the effect on the environment, the impact of the economy, and acceptance by the consumer. Life-cycle ana lysi s of the system, i.e ., the resource and its use, has come to be recognized as essential for making intelligent decisiolls about a sustainable energy future. Also, when des igning engines and fuel systems, there are many fuel properties and combustion characteristics affecting e fficiency and performance, as we ll as emissions, which must be considered' . Many of the inherent properties of the alternative fuel s choices are quite diffe rent from gasoline and diese l fuel.

The volumetric energy density of the fue l is an important parameter since it directly affects the size of the fuel storage system of the vehicle.

Unfortunately, al l of the a lternative fuels are less energy dense per volume compared to gaso line (Table I). It is noticed that diesel fue l is the onl y fue l better than gasoline, which accounts for 12 per cent of the higher fue l economy (mpg) associated with the diesel-powered vehicle. (The compress ion-igniti on (CI) engine is still more energy effi c ient than the spark-ignition (SI) engine, however). Since the public has been trained to think in te rms of miles per ga ll on (mpg), it is hard for them to understand that most of the alternative fue ls are more energy efficient than gasoline; i.e., the vehicle goes more miles per energy unit. In some cases, it just consumes more ga ll ons to

Table 1- Energy den~iti es compared to gaso li ne

Natural gas Yo lume ratio

eNG 4.l:l-5.9

LNG 1.57

Propane (LPG) 1.29

Hydrogen (LH 2) 3. 93

Reformulated gasoline 1 0 1

No.2 diesel OR8

Methanol

MIOO 2.03

M85 1.76

Ethanol 1.53

98 J SCI IND RES VOL 62 JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2003

get the same amount o f ene rgy. Fue ls a lso should be taxed on an energy basis as not e very gallon contains the same amount of energy.

L iq uid fue ls have' be tte r vo lumetric energy dens ity than gaseous fue ls. They a lso are the most compati ble fue ls w ith ex is ting di stributi on systems and eng ines, i.e., they require the least departure from the techno logies in place today fo r both the vehicle and the refue ling infrastructure . The racing community has known for years that the a lcohol fue ls ha ve performance and safe ty advantages compared to gaso line, w ith methano l havi ng a s li ght edge in power compared to e thano l becau se o f the hi gher octane­va lue.

Methanol vs Ethanol

T hese two a lcoho ls actually complement each othe r. T he performance and emissions o f the two in an ICE a re quite simil ar. Ethano l does not have a fla me vis ibility issue like methano l (and methane and natural gas), because ethano l has two carbon molecu les to form soot. T hi s c reates the ye llow co lou r in a burn. But ethanol a lso has a more diffi cult col d start because of the much lower vapor pressure (2.3 ps i compared to 4 .6 ps i fo r methano l). Both a lcohols have a si ng le boil ing point and a high latent heat o f vaporization, wh ic h adds to the co ld start problem, part icularly at temperatures muc h be low 8 DC (45 OF) . If the econom ics of the two a lcoho ls were equiva lent, ethanol would be the alcoho l of choice for transportation use because the volumetric energy dens.ity is better, mak ing on-board sto rage of the fuel, less of an issue fo r the packaging engineer. But the economics of methanol are more fa vorable , making it the better choice fo r repl acement o f petroleum-based fuels in the transportation secto r where the consumer is ve ry much ,-w/are of the cost o f fuel at the pump. The good news is , the FFY can use ei ther methanol or ethanol and, in fact, some of the early experimental cars ran well on a comb ination of all three fuels (methanol, ethanol, and/or gaso line), which made them really flexible!

Methanol Economics And Potential Resource Base

T he major sources of energy today are oil, nat ural gas and coal. Natural gas, seems to be more uniformly .. pread throughout the world, compared to oil, 1ll,1"inS: it less prone to supply disruptions. In fact , Illany 01" today's oil exploration projects result in the

finding o f ne w gas fi e lds rathe r than oi l. And the re is an abundance of coa l in the world ; thi s supply could support our energy needs for severa l hundreds of years . However, the mining, process ing, and burning of coal has undesirable environmenta l impacts , including the re lease of large amou nts o f carbon dioxide (C02), and it is difficult to use directl y as a transportati on fue l. The DOE clean coa l program is conducting researc h to reso lve some of these issues in order that this abundant resource can be part o f a strategy for sati s faction o f future energy needs. Coa l could become a c lean transpo rtati on fue l, with no sulphur content, by turning it into methano l th ro ugh indirect lique faction.

Overall , the potential resource base for methano l is huge, because it can be made from any organi c mate rial , including bio mass . This is an important way to mitigate c limate change issues because of the uptake of ~he carbon di oxide by pl ants, making the net CO2 emi ss ion ze ro . It can a lso be made fro m was te, which becomes more important w ith every new landfill required . Because of the favo rable economics, at present a lmos t a ll me thano l is produced fro m natura l gas, a lthough the re is a coa l-to-methano l plant in Tennessee. It is a lso a way o f utili z ing the gas in remote f ie lds because tankers can sh ip the li q uid methano l product a lot easi e r and with less cost th an building a pipe line to transport the gas.

T he natura l gas-to-methano l process is abollt 70 per cent effi c ient in te rms of ene rgy. T his is not as good as the oi l-to-gaso line produc tion efficiency, but good enough that in 1980 most ana lysts agreed that the economics of methano l could be competiti ve with gaso line in vol ume. T he state o f Californ ia , being the third la rgest energy lI ser in the world , led the way w ith the ir inte rest in methano l as the best candidate fo r repl acement of pet ro leum-based fuel s. Ford Moto r Company, as wel l as othe rs in the au to industry, responded to this request for vehicles that operated on methano l.

Ford Methanol Research Programs

In 1981, Ford delivered 40 dedicated methanol­fue led Escorts to Los Angeles (LA) County . Four refue ling stations were installed throughout the county, including two in underground garages . The experience gained with these initial refueling stations added considerably to the knowledge base required for methanol-compatible infrastructure. as well as identifying the ven tilation requirements for

NICHOLS: METHANOL STORY 99

underground installations. The 200-mile driving range of the vehicle also made it clear that four stations were inadequate to cover the territorial dri ving requirements of LA County . But the drivers of the vehicl es loved the performance, offering 20 per cent more power than the ir gaso line-powered cousins and a 15 per cent improvement in fue l e ffi c ienc/ .

These vehicles were calibrated to meet an advanced emi ss ion standard, including 0.4 NOx. This NOx requirement had been an emission standard since 1975, but gasoline vehicles had not been able to achieve it . Based on the periodic, high mileage emission data acquired on three of these vehic les operating in the field, the first glimpse was had of the air quality improvement that could be obtained with methanol combustion . And the deterioration factor (DF) for the 0.4 NOx at 50,000 miles was 1.00.

The LA County fl eet accumulated more than three million miles, with many of the vehicles going of the road after running for more than 100,000 miles . The success of this early fl eet led California to ask for more of these vehicles . In 1983, 582 vehicles were built on the production line at the Escort assembly plant , in Wayne, Michigan . Most of these vehicles (50 I) went to California, with the remainder sent to small fleets in New Zealand, Sweden , Norway, United Kingdom, and Canada. Two were even purchased by Toyota in Japan . The price premium for this methanol Escort was $2,200.00 compared to the gasoline version, and most of that was in the engine ($ 1,900.00). The compression ratio was 11 .8: 1, which accounted for most of the increase in power and efficiency. The fuel tank was increased in size so that the vehicle had a nominal driving range of 230 miles . Thi s fleet accumulated more than 35 million miles and a few of them are sti II on the road .

With the additional vehicles going to local, county , and state government fleets, California installed another eighteen stations in strategic locations throughout the state. But it was clear that this number of stations was totally inadequate for the drivers of these vehicles to feel comfortable. They had to constantly monitor the fuel gauge and carefully plan their routes. In 1982, Ford began development of the flexible fuel vehicle since it appeared to be a reasonable solution to the lack of refueling infrastructure. These vehicles have higher performance when operating on methanol, but transparent operation on gasoline. T hus the technology was viewed as a way to introduce large

volumes of methanol-capable vehic les into the market whi Ie the methano l-re fu e l ing infrastructure coul d grow to meet loca l demand.

Between 1985 and 1992, 705 ex perimental FFVs were built and delivered to the fi e ld, primaril y to demonstration fl eets in Ca lifornia and Canada. The vehicle mode ls included the 1.6L Escort , the 3.0L Taurus, and the 5.OL Crown Victoria LTD. There we re even a few 5.OL Econoline va ns . This broad spectrum of vehicles showed that the tec hno logy was applicable to any si ze engine/vehicle . As the size of the vehicle fl eet grew in California the number of stations increased, so that by 1990 there were about SO. This was still far from adequate fo r compl etely normal operation on methanol , but nonethe less encouraging. In September of 1989 the price at the pump for methanol, on a gasoline energy equi valent basis, was between that of unleaded regular and premium gasoline. The customer seemed willin g to pay this for the added performance and the knowledge that there was an air quality benefit , wh ich had become the near-term dri ver for introducti on of methanol rather than the initial , longer-term energy Issues.

Air Quality Impact Of Methanol

Ozone, or photochemical smog, is formed in the lower atmosphe re when sunli ght reacts with hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxide. It is generall y regarded as the most serious non-attainment problem. The vehicle contribution to hydrocarbons comes from two sources: the tailpipe and evaporative emi ss ions. One of the approaches to lowering the motor vehic le contribution to ozone formation is to change the character of the tailpipe emissions. This is one of the ways in which methanol vehicles make a contributi on to improvement in air quality . It is not the level of the HC tailpipe emission per se that is lower; it is the composition of the emission that is diffe rent. Hydrocarbon compounds have varying levels of reactivity in the atmosphere, as shown in Table 2. Fuels that produce less reactive exhaust emi ssions when burned, wi II generate less ozone. As can be seen, methanol is quite low on the react ivity scale compared to some of the more compl ex hydrocarbons associated with gasoline. The ozone reduct ion associated with the use of methanol is also dependent on proper control of the formaldehyde emi ssion. Fortunately the technologies that control HC emissions, in general , are the same kind of controls

100 J SCIIND RES VOL 62 JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2003

Tahle 2- Photochemical reactivity of organic compounds: Rate constants for reaction with hydroxyl (OH) radical

Compound K·4 x 10.1

(ppm/min)

Trans-2-butene 10.5

1.2,4 Tri methyl henzene 4.9

M-Xylene 3.4

Propionaldehyde 2.2

Acetaldehyde 2.2

Propene 2.1

Formaldehyde 2. 1

Ethylene 0.45

N-butane 0.35

Propane 0.25

Met hanol 0. 148

Ethane 0.045

Acetylene 0.022

Carbon monoxide 0.021

Met hane 0.00 12

that control formaldehyde ; in both cases, a lmost all of the emission is produced in the first two minutes of operat ion after a cold start J . Beginning in May 1993, the California A ir Resources Board (CARB) included an emiss io n standard for formaldehyde o f 0 . 15 mgimi n, whic h was approxi mately the forma ldehyde e mission level of the typ ical gasoli ne veh icle. T he em i ~sion standard a lso included a reactiv ity factor for the va! ious alternative fue ls. For methanol , it was about ha l f tha t of gasol ine .

The methanol vehic le evaporat ive emiss ion benefit is difficult to define. If the vehicle is dedicated to operation on methanol, the evaporative He emission is definitely lower (and less reacti ve) bccau~e of the low vapor pressure of methano l. But, fo r thl: FFV , the vapor pressure can vary greatly since the mixture III the tank can vary from all gasoli ne to all methanOl, and anythi ng in between. When the 3.0L FFV Taurus went to production in 1993, fo ur caniste rs were required to certify them for evaporati ve emission contro l across the full spectrum of fu e l combinations.

Fuel Specification The methanol fuel specification evo lved fron'

M 100 ( I OC per cent) to M85 (85 per cent methano l ancl 15 pel cent. gasoline) fOl several reasons. As stated earl ier, the Reid vapor pressure of M 100 is

only 4 .6 psi, which made cold starts quite difficult. The addition of 15 per cent gasoline brought the vapor pressure up to about 7 psi , thus making cold starts poss ible in most climates4

. In fact, in cold weather regions, the user generally relies on a block heater even with gasoline.

The addition of 15 pe r cent gaso l ine to the methanol also addressed two other concerns associated with M 100 combustionS Without the complex hydrocarbons of the gaso line, the fl ame of methanol combustion is invisible in day light , which was a concern in the case of a vehicle fi re. With M85 and providing of the gasoline had at leas t 20 per cent aromatic content, there wa :.; suffic ient ye llow color, even in brigh t sunlight, so that one cou ld say the fu e l was burning.

The other issue was the flammability limits o f M 100. At normal ambient te mpe ratures, the air-fue l mixture ratio of the gasoline vapor above the liquid in the tank is too rich to ignite. This is not true for the a lcohols because of the ir low vapor pressures . The add ition o f 15 pe r cent gaso line moves the fla mmability limit te mperatures to a more acceptable range of risk, c lose to that of the gaso line vehicle. This became an even more important considerati on wi th the introduction of fuel injection , with e lectric fue l pumps located in the fuel tank.

The biggest challenge in the developme nt of ::i lcohol vehicle technology was getting all of the fue l syste m materials compatible with the hi gher chemical reac tiv ity o f the fueL Methanol was e ve n more of a challenge than e thano l but , fo rtunate ly, much of the early experience ga ined with ethano l vehic le production in Brazil was trans ferable to methanoL In particular, interact ion with certain e lastomers coul d cause unacceptable swell ing, shrink ing, disi nte­grating, e tc. The alcohol s were corros ive for certain metals , as welL The oil additive package had to be reformulated to account for the more acidic nature of the fuel in order to achieve acceptable engll1c durability .

The M85 fue l specification reCf~ived extensive work through the professional societies and experience in the field. In house, before evc. maki ng the dec ision to move to production, the potential health effects of exposure to methanol had been thoronghly studied and no unacceptab le risks were fo und . The studies of the U S Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA) fou nd th is to be the case as well. Allli -s irholiing devices were included in the

NICHOLS: METHANOL STORY 101

vehicle fuel tank to prevent inadvertent intake of the methanol , which is toxi c, but, then, so is gasoline. The risk with gasoline is mitigated by the fact that it usually causes vomiting if ingested, which is not the case with methanol. Interestingly enough, the antidote for methanol poisoning is ethanol , since the human metabolism preferentially processes the ethanol.

Technology Status

The knowledge gained with the in-house research and the demonstration fleets in the field has brought the technology for methanol-fueled vehicles to a high leve l of reliabilitl 7 Otherwise, Ford could not have made the decision to take thi s technology to production. But there are also some areas where further work will be beneficial. For example, continuous eva luation and evo lut ion of the fuel spec ification will be needed, just as it has occu rred for gaso l ine over man y years. The same is true for the oil spec ification. There is a need for better control of fuel contamination in the field . As the infrastructure ex pands , the di stributi on system needs to accommodat e methanol transport via pipe line in order to reduce costs. Since the air quality and energy effic iency benefits of the dedicated meth anol vehi cle are even better than those of the FFY , research on the ded icated methanol vehic le should continue, in anticipati on of the day when there is su ffi cient infrast ructure in place for the average reta il customer to feel comfortable wi th a dedicated vehi cle.

Market Development

The most diffi cult aspect of any new tech nology is int roduction into the market. Th is is especially true when try ing to lIltroduce a new vehic le fuel. Because there is an extensi ve infrastructure in place fo r petroleum-based fueb , it is hiud to compete wi th their economics and the user is quite satisfied v/ith their performance. The supply disruptions of the 1970s, however, prompted in-depth analyses of the long­te rm outlook for energy suppl ies fo r the future, and the conclusion at Ford was that if one wanted to remain in the personal mob il ity business , one needed to look at al te rnati ves. For the reasons stated earl ier, methanol appeared to be one of the best alternatives. Thus, in 1980- 1981 , the corporat ion actively sought a partnership wi th most of the maj or oil companies to develop mrthanol. There definitel y was in terest , especial ly ir ih~ oil company owned la rge coal reserves, bu t the country was goiltg througll a difficult

recess ion at the time and cost was a huge issue. A large capital investment would be required to put the necessary refueling infrastructure in place .

At the time, about five per cent of the refue ling stations had diesel fue l, primarily because of the truck stops . This appeared to be suffic ient for di esel passenger cars to be bought by the retail consu mer. Since a methanol -fueled vehicle would require more frequent refueling because of its lower energy dens ity per ga ll on, it was es timated by one major oi l company that 10 per cent of the refuel i ng stati ons wou ld need a methanol pump for introduction of the dedicated methanol vehicle. In 1980 the cost of thi s was es timated to be about $600 million . .nd when these facilities were first in place, there was lot of "rea l estate" devoted to methanol pumps and storage tanks with very little activity since it wou ld take some time for methan ol vehic le populations to grow.

The fl ex ible fue l vehicle appeared to so lve thi s "chicken and egg" problem. It could bridge the gap between refueling stations during the transiti on period by operating on gaso line in those areas where no methanol stati ons ex isted. The rationale was that the methanol stat ions would graduall y appear when there were suffi cient vehic les in the fi eld to warran t the capital in ves tment required and the activity at the pump justified its ex istence. If the cost of operation on methanol was co mpet iti ve with gasoline, it was fe lt the custO l.ler would learn to choose that fuel based on the measurable, higher performance it prov ided , as well as the environmental benefits.

In January of 1985 at a Nat iona l Science Foundation (NSF) wo rkshop on methanoL the concept of giving a methanol-capable ehicle a Co rporate Average Fuel Economy (CA PE) benefit was introduced and the subsequen t enthusiasm for this idea by ,111 concerned led to the illl roduction ot the Danforth Bill. This legislation did not make ir all the way through the legisla tive process before that sess ion of Congress adj ourned, but it had received lot of attenti on and refinement. In recogn iti on of the fact that CAFE was legislated to reduce our use of petroleum, the Danforth Bill was expanded to give a CAFE benefit for the product ion of other non· petroleum vehicles. inc luding ethanol, which ended the opposition by the ethanol commun ity to the legis lation . In fact , the bill was rei ntroduced in the next session of Congress by Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia (whert me th <' llol from coal could

102 J SCIIND RES VOL 62 JAN UARY-FEBRUARY 2003

revive a depressed indu stry) and Senator Daschl e of South Dakota (which is one of the farm states supporting eth ano l production). Now known as the Alte rnative Motor Fue l Act (AMFA), it was s igned into law by Pres ident Reagan in October of 1988. This became an incent ive fo r the auto industry to invest the cap ital and eng ineering effort required to move to production of methano l-capab le vehi c les. In 1989 , Ford began the transfer o f the FFY techno logy from research to prod ucti on eng ineering, with a ta rget of 1993 for first product ion. The 3 .0L Taurus was se lected as a suitable vehicle, with a pilot production program (small quantity) slated for 1991 in o rde r to add to the knowledge base acquired from the demonstration programs already in place. In keeping wit h th is cautious approach, the 1993 production vo lume was limited to 2800 veh icles , with Job #1 on Novembe r 2, 1992, and gradua ll y increas ing volumes in 1994 and 1995 .

Some of the other car companies were responding to this new market as we ll . Chrysler set the stage for everyone by offering the ir flexible fu e l vehic le for sale without a price premium compared to the gasoline vers ion, even though the production costs were somewhat hi gher. Based on the e thano l vehi c le production experience in Brazil , however, thi s additi onal cost would tend to disappear as production vo lumes became la rger.

The May 1996, Taurus was a new model and FFY production went to hi gh vo lumes. Thi s Taurus FFY was fully developed fo r e thanol (E85) as wel l. Plans were in pl ace to move to other vehic le lines, such as the Ranger pick-up truck with both M 85 and E85 vers ion s. (The producti on eng ineers did not deve lop the same vehic le for both fuels because the certificat ion and va lidation process would have been a nightmare in terms of poss ible combinations of fue l). From a technical point of view, the flexible fuel vehicles were a huge success.

On June 12, 1989, President Bush announced a maj or a lte rnative fuel vehicle program by Executive Order, which included 500,000 methano l vehicles for 1996, 750,000 for 1997, and one million per year after that. There was a government commitment to place them in the federal fleets to make thi s a reality .

On Ju ne 18, 1989, reformulated gasoline was announced by one of the maj or oi I companies. The composition of the gasoline was changed so that the photochemi cal reacti vity of the HC emission from the vehic le would be lower. As discussed earlier, this

lower reacti vi ty results in less ozone formation in the lower atmm:phere. This was a major step forward fo r gaso line ; it a lso meant the a ir qua lity benefit of methano l compared to gaso l ine became sma ller.

Market Collapse

The a ir quality benefits of methano l had become the near-te rm and primary driver for the programs des igned to encourage its use in the transportation sec tor. There was a brief re newa l of inte rest in the long-te rm energy issues because of Dese rt Storm in 199 1, but mostly people had returned to a state of complacency about future o il supplies. By the middle of the decade, energy security was no lo nger on the "radar sc reen" of the California Energy Commi ssi o n (CEC). Gasoline was cheap, ple ntiful , and reformu lated.

Access to the methano l refueling stations in California was through the use of a fueli ng card key . This enabl ed the CEC to keep track o f the usage of methano l in the FFY compared to operation on gaso line . For several years, the leve l of usage was pretty high. Over 80 per cent of operation was on M85, but it gradua ll y began to drop. Then, when one of the methanol marketeers took ad vantage of a temporary shortage in supply, there was a sharp increase in the price of the methano l and the amount of methanol being used really fe ll. The env ironme nta l groups were critical of the FFY vehicles because they ran on gasoline most of the time, but the ir production was providing a CAFE benefit for the car compani es (the CAFE benefit was calculated , assumIng methanol usage 50 per cent of the time).

Meanwhile, interest in the a ir quality benefit s of natural gas had grown. The photoc he mic a l reactivity of methane is reall y low (Table 2) and. therefore, the largest reduction in the formation of ozone could be realized by its use in the transportati on sector. There are several reasons, however, why natura l gas usage in vehicies probably will be limited to fl eet usage , and not the re tail market, not the least of which is the cost of the refue ling stati on. Neverthe less , the methanol program began to suffer from the "Fuel of the Year" syndrome. The state of Cal iforni a was de manding zero emi ss ion e lectri c vehic les because they would provide the most improvement in ai r qua lity benefit. No one was stay ing focused on the long-te rm vis ion and analysi s, which sa id methanol was the best cand idate for replacement of petroleum­based fue ls in the future.

NICHOLS: METHANOL STORY 103

As reformulated gasoline usage grew and spread throughout the country, the use of MTBE (methyl te rti a ry butyl ether) to mee t the oxygenate and octane-require ments o f gaso line grew. Eventually , the presence of MTBE in water supplies was di scovered . The underground fu e l storage tanks had been leaking for years but , in the case of gaso line, it was usuall y sitting on top of a bottom layer of wate r, since gasoline and water are not rea ll y mi sc ibl e. MTBE is produced by combining methanol and isobutylene and is mi sc ible with water, all of a sudden, these leaking tanks became a menace. In spite o f the fact that none of the studi es conducted showed that the MTBE was a hea lth hazard per se, it was malodorous, in the wate r, and legis lation to ban its use began to appear. Because methano l is used in the MTB E producti on process , methano l unfortunate ly became assoc iated with and tainted by thi s nega ti ve view of MTBE.

The momentum of the FFY produc tion programs at the car compani es has continued , a lthough present emphas is is on the E8S version. Ethanol has a large base of support in the farmin g communit y and , with its government subs idy o f the cost, continues to s low ly grow in use. In fact, General Motors recently ann ounced it would begin produc ti on of the i r fu II -s ize pickup truc ks , the S i I verado and S ierra , to operate on e ithe r gaso line or E8S . Ford has prod uced hi gh vo lumes of E85 FFY Ranger truc ks, in add ition to the Taurus. The Ex pl ore r Sport co mes in an E8S FFY version, the Escape program has plans to do so, and 4000 E8S FFY Focus vehi c les were recen tly shipped to Sweden.

A great deal of suppo rt for ethano l is derived from the fact tha t it is a biomass fue l, w hi ch addresses the cl imate change/greenhouse gas issue. W hether the re is a pos iti ve net energy fo r producti on of ethanol from corn is , however, still being debated6

. If biomass-de ri ved ethanol is go in g to make a maj or contri buti on to our future energy nceds , the feedstock will most likely be a non-food, ded icated crop, such as switchgrass or poplars, and crop and forest residues, as well as other waste mate rial s7

. Many people do not reali ze that methanol can be a biomass fuel also, probably without the need for a subsidy. Methanol is more easily produced from cellulosic or woody material than ethanol. In 1927, methanol was known as "wood a lcohol " because it was produced via the destructive di st illati on of wood residues in the fore~ t" . It was cheaper to tran sport the methanol than it was to transport the wood.

Fuel Cell Vehicles Fuel cells are be ing developed as a potential

alternative to the inte rnal combustion engine (lCE) in vehicles. The hydrogen fue l ce ll produces e lec trochemica l ene rgy by combining hyd rogen and oxygen, thus formin g wate r in the process. Hence the hydrogen fuel cell has zero e mi ss ions. This is the primary drive r for the development of the FCY , not an improvement in effic iency compared to the ICE, although that poss ibility ex ists . While overall costs and performance are sti II issues for the FCY, substantial progress has been made with the potenti a l for first production by the end of the decade . A limited number of demonstrati on vehicle:' ;Jrobab ly will appear in the field by the middle of the decade.

The c ritical issue, other than cos t, is how to provide the fuel ce ll with hydrogen. Two bas ic methods are under considerati on : ( i) the direct storage of hydrogen on board the vehicl e, e ithe r as a compressed gas at hi gh pressure (5,000 psi) or as a liquid in a c ryogenic tank at very low te mpe ratures; and ( ii ) the indirect storage of hydrogen by usin g an onboard fue l reformer th at ex trac ts the hydrogen from another fu e l. For the latte r method the two pr imary candidates are methano l and gasoline, both hav ing the advantage of be ing liquids . The methanol reformer techno logy is the mos t advanced and has the advantage of working at a much lower temperature (260 QC) compared to any of the o ther hyd rocarbon (gasoline, e th ano l, methane, etc.) re formers (600-900 QC). T he gasoline refo rmer has the advantage of not requi.-ing a new infrastruc ture.

As discussed above, experi ence with the other a lte rnati ve fue l vehi c les has demonstrated that it is very diffi cult to bring new infrastructure and vehicles to the marketpl ace at the same ti me. T herefore the most pragmat ic so luti on fo r the FCY would be the gasoline reformer, e ven though it is less e ffi c ient and more po lluting than the methanol refo rmer. (T he fuel ce ll onl y uses the hydrogen ex tracted from the gaso line, or methanol , so the remainder of the fuel has to be "recycled" in the most useful and environmenta lly-friendly way). As research on the gaso line reformer techno logy has progressed , it appears that a "special" gasoline, such as naphtha, might be requ ired in order to achieve acceptable results. If this is the case, then one is faced with a special refueling pump after a ll , but the changes would not be as ex tensive as in the other two ca~es (methano l reformer or direct hydrogen storage). it

104 J SCII ND RES VOL 62 JANUARY-FEB RUA RY 2003

does not appear, however, th at the gaso line reformer tec hnology will be sufficientl y developed in time for the int roducti on of the FCY. In fact, as the research goes on, enthusiasm for the gasoline reformer is begi nning to di sappear.

Introducti on of the FCY in the nea r term favours use of the methanol reformer. Like the dedicated methanol ICE vehicle, it is es timated that 10 per cent of the refueling stations should have methanol refue ling pumps in order for the customer to fee l comfo rtable with owning an FCY that uses meth anol to store the hyd rogen. This would require a major in vestment by the oil industry. Extensive materia l changes would be required in the ex isting gaso line distribu ti on system, in order to acco mmodate the methanol. But the gaso line technology/system, inc!uding the pi peli ne, cou ld be used, since methanol is a li quid . Also, a des irable synergy would ex ist, because or the hundreds of thousands of methanol­capab le vehi cles already in the field, with more in line. Eventuall y, thi s scenario would get us back to the hi gh-perfo rmance, hi gh-efficiency, dedi cated methanol vehi cle.

The most des irab le so lution fo r the FCY in terms of the most efficiency and least pollution is direct hyd rogen storage. Unfortunately, thi s opti on would al so require the most in fras tructure changes with substantial associated costs. In order to avo id install ati on of a hydrogen pipeline system throughout the country, one scenari o proposed is to li se steam methane reformers in the refueling stati on to produce the hyd rogen on-site. The methane woul d get there via the ex isting natural gas pipelines. Whil e less cos tl y than a whole new system, eac h si te would cost about ten times more th an ins tall at ion of a methanol pump.

In the Ion" ru n the direct methanol fue l ce ll b

(DMFC) shows a lot of promi se. In thi s case, no reformer is needed. The meth anol is injected directl y into the ce ll , where the methanol reacts to fo rm electrochemical energy and carbon diox ide. Thi s techn ology is under development at many research laboratori es'), bu t it lags several year" behind the methanol steam reformer FCY. Daimler-Benz, however, recentl y announced that they have a DMFC in a vehi cle that can actua ll y dri ve down the road. Thi s is a major breakthrough for thi s technology, and great ly enhances the synergies of methanol as a transportati on fu el.

Requirements for Success Obviously, there are no easy or st rai ghtforward

solutions. All of the opti ons have advantages and di sadvantages. All of the reasons that made methanol the best candidate fo r the long-term, widespread replacement of petroleum-based fue ls back in 1980, still ex ist. There is a large resource base; because it is a liquid , it is the least departure from the technology in place, making it the most orderl y, leas t ex pensive transiti on; it is environmentall y fri endl y, since it has air quality benefits and can be made from biomass; it is a high perfo rmance, high efficiency fuel, and transparent to the customer in the ICE; it is an exce llent hydrogen carrier ror the fuel ce ll ; and the economi cs can be competit ive with gasoli ne in vo lume. Based on pas t experi ence, however, successful int rod ucti on of methanol has so me fundamental requirements. There must be an adequate number of refueling stat ions, the price of the fuel must be stab le, and the fue l qual ity must be contro ll ed . Most important of all , it is not li ke ly that anything will happen unl ess the oil ind ustry IS a partner in the overall objecti ves and acti on plan.

References Nichols R J. Applications or alternativc ruels. SAE Paper No. 821573 ( 19!Q).

2 Nichols R J et aI. , Ford 's devclopment or a methano l rucl ed escort. Proc Firt h In t Alco hol Fue l Tech Symp. Auckland. NZ, 2 ( 1982) 109- 1 16.

3 Nichols R J et aI. , A view o r Il ex ible ruci vehi cle aldeh yde emissions, SAE Paper No. 881 200 ( 19I\g) .

4 Nichols R J et al. . Co ld start stud ies. Canadian Flex ible Fuel Vehi cle Program, Final Report. Ontario Ministry or Energy (March 3 1. 191\7) .

5 Anderso n J E & Nichols R J. Fuel methanol add it ives : Issues and concerns. Proc Tenth Energy Tech ConI'. Wash. D C (Fehruary 28-Mareh 2. 19!)3) .

6 Roberta Nicho ls, Utili zation or ruel meth ano l in transpo rt at ion vehicles: Implicat ions 1'0 1' air qua lity, Proc Eleventh No Am Motor Veh Emissions Control ConI'. Baltimore, M D (April 20-23 . 1986).

7 Cali rornia methano l program. evaluati on report , Vol. I : Light -dut y vehicle programs, Calirornia Energy Commission (CEC). Trans Technol Fuels Ofll ce ( 1991) ).

8 Energy Independent (October 200 I). 9 Review or thc rescarch stratcgy ror hiomass-derl ved

transportation ruels, Nationa l Research Counci l Report, (National Academy Press) (September 1999 ).

10 Energy technology handbook (McGraw- Hili Book Co. , New York) 1977. P2- 120.

I I The promi se or meth ano l ruel cell veh icles American Methanol Insti tute Report , Wash DC, 1991\ .

NICHOLS: METHANOL STORY l OS

Dr Roberta J Nichols retired from the Ford Motor CompallY ill 1995. Frolll 1979 to 199 1 sfIe headed the

research and developmellt effo rt f or Ford 's alternative fuels vehicles, resultillg ill prodllctioll vehicles IfIat operal£' all

methanol, ethanol, propane, alld natural gas. She has three patenls on Ih e Flexible Fllel Vehicle (FFV) 10 her erNlil .

From 1991 to her retirement, she was parI of the management team f or the Elec/ric Vehicle PrograllI . Prior /0 j oillillg

Ford, she was a Member of the Technical Staff at The Aerospace CO/17Omtion in m Segundo, Cali/(} m ia f or 19 .,w lrs.

She is a Fellow of the Society ofAu/omotive Engineers and the Society of WOlllen Engineers, a nlenlher oj' lhe National

Academy of El1gineerillg, a recipient of the Cleall Air Award f or Advancing Air Pollulion Technology ./im ll Ihe S(JllliI

Coast Air Qualily Managemellt District. Dr Nichols has served on variolls Icchnical advisOl ), conllnillces and pen

review panels, includillg study commillees of Ihe National Research COllncil. She is currently a member of HTAP (Hydrogen Technical

Advisory Panel). She is the author or co-allthor of more thall 60 technical articles Oil alternative ./il els, IC engines, and lI ew sources of

energy. Dr Nichols received a BS ill Physics from UCLA , alld an MS ill En vironmelllal Ellgineering and a PhD in Engineering frolll USc.