Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

GLOOM-AND-DOOM

VIEWS: 43 PAGES: 201

									                   AET 7410
 Alternate Fuels - Choices and
         Opportunities
                   John R. Wilson Ph.D.
                     c/o NextEnergy Center
               461 Burroughs, Detroit, MI 48202
        Phone: (313) 833-0100 X260; Fax: (313) 833-0101
                     519-562-5758 (mobile)
                  Emails: tmg@tmgtech.com


WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI         1
     ALTERNATIVE FUELS
        AET 7410 - #1
   WHAT WILL THE COURSE COVER?
     •   REASONS TO USE ALTERNATE FUELS
     •   SOURCES & SUPPLIES OF CURRENT FUELS
     •   DEFICIENCIES IN CURRENT FUELS
     •   FUELS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
     •   FUELS AND YOUR WALLET…
     •   FUEL BLENDS OF INTEREST
     •   SPECIAL POWERTRAINS, SPECIAL USES
     •   3 OUTLOOKS: ‟08-‟15, ‟15-‟25 AND ‟25-‟50

WSU, 01/08-04/08     TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI        2
                   THE COURSE
                   TEXTBOOK IS:
  “ENERGIZING OUR FUTURE”
          JOHN WILSON & GRIFFIN BURGH
               JOHN WILEY AND SONS,
                  JANUARY 2008
     AVAILABLE FROM THE WSU BOOKSTORE OR FROM
     Amazon.com, Barnes&Noble.com, and the usual suspects
             It will be supplemented by handouts



WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          3
     ALTERNATIVE FUELS
        AET 7410 - #2
   ALTERNATE FUELS COVERED:
     •   NATURAL GAS
     •   HYDROGEN – MOSTLY SYNTHETIC
     •   METHANOL – MOSTLY SYNTHETIC
     •   ETHANOL – MOSTLY “NATURAL”
     •   OTHER FUEL ALCOHOLS (E.G., BUTANOL)
     •   AMMONIA AND OTHER DUBIOUS CHOICES
     •   BIODIESEL FROM NATURAL OILS AND FATS
     •   SYNTHETIC DIESEL AND GASOLINE
     •   DIMETHYL ETHER, DIETHYL ETHER
     •   “GREEN DIESEL” FROM BIOSOURCES

WSU, 01/08-04/08    TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI     4
     ALTERNATIVE FUELS
        AET 7410 - #3
   ALTERNATE ENERGIES COVERED:
     • NUCLEAR POWER
     • SOLAR ENERGY
          • PHOTOVOLTAIC, THERMAL, COMBINED
     • WIND ENERGY
     • HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY
          • INCLUDING RIVER FLOWS
     • TIDAL ENERGY AND SIMILAR ALTERNATIVES
     • STORED ENERGY AND ENERGY STORAGE

WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   5
     ALTERNATIVE FUELS
        AET 7410 - #4
   ALTERNATE FUELS CHALLENGES
     • U.S USES 140 BN GALS GASOLINE/YEAR
          • THAT‟S 425 MILLION METRIC TONS/YEAR
     • AND 63 BN GALLONS OF DIESEL FUEL
          • = ABOUT 220 MILLION METRIC TONS/YEAR
     • AND 27 BN GALLONS OF JET FUEL
          • = ABOUT 90 MILLION METRIC TONS/YEAR
     • DISPLACING EVEN 10% OF QUANTITIES THIS
       LARGE IS A MASSIVE CHALLENGE!
     • DISPLACING THE 25% TARGETED BY THE
       CURRENT ADMINISTRATION FOR ~2020 IS
       PROBABLY IMPOSSIBLE

WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI      6
     ALTERNATIVE FUELS
        AET 7410 - #5
   ALTERNATE FUELS LIMITATIONS
     • THERE WILL HAVE TO BE MULTIPLE
       SUBSTITUTION STRATEGIES
     • NOT JUST FUELS BUT “ALTERNATE
       ENERGIES” IN GENERAL
          • FOR PRODUCING ENERGY
          • FOR USING ENERGY FOR:
               •   TRANSPORTATION
               •   FOR POWER GENERATION & INDUSTRIAL HEATING
               •   FOR MANUFACTURING CHEMICALS & PLASTICS
               •   FOR MINERAL AND METAL PROCESSING
               •   ….AND MANY OTHER USES

WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI             7
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES
        (OVERVIEW)

   WHAT BENEFITS DO WE BELIEVE
    WE CAN ACHIEVE WITH AET?
        SAVE ENERGY…AND ENERGY COSTS?
        FIX CLIMATE CHANGE?
        FIX OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS?
        ACHIEVE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE?
        AVOID RUNNING OUT OF OIL?
        AVOID RUNNING OUT OF NATURAL GAS?
        AND WHAT ABOUT WATER (SEE LATER)?
        RELIEVE POLITICAL PRESSURES?

WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   8
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES
        (OVERVIEW)
   WHAT PROBLEM(S) ARE WE SOLVING?
     • DO WE NEED AFs ( OR AETs)?
          • OR WILL WE JUST CLEAN UP FOSSIL FUELS
            AFTER ALL?
     • IF WE NEED AETs, WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS?
     • CAN WE GET THERE THROUGH BETTER
       CONSERVATION OR EFFICIENCY…?
     • …OR ALTERNATIVE POWERTRAINS (ENGINES)?
     • …OR ALTERNATIVE FUELS
          • E.G., ETHANOL, BIODIESEL PLUS A FEW EXOTICS
     • OR WILL OUR COAL, NATURAL GAS, OIL, BE
        ENOUGH AFTER ALL….WITH CO2 CAPTURE?
• THE ANSWERS ARE FAR FROM SIMPLE!

WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          9
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES
        (OVERVIEW)
   WHY DO WE NEED AETs? - 1
        WE HEAR FREQUENT, OFTEN HYSTERICAL
         CLAIMS THAT WE ARE WE ARE RUNNING OUT
         OF CONVENTIONAL FUELS.
             THE U.S. IS RUNNING OUT – THE REST OF THE
              WORLD (INCLUDING CANADA) IS NOT
             BUT…WHAT REMAINS IS HARD TO ACCESS AND
              PRODUCE
             COSTS WILL CONTINUE TO TREND HIGHER BUT
              “UNDULATE”
        MANY EQUALLY HYSTERICAL CLAIMS ABOUT
         ALTERNATE FUELS
             WE WILL FOCUS ON THE FACTS
             ARRIVAL AT MOST OF THESE FACTS IS AN
              EXERCISE IN THERMODYNAMICS
             WHICH MOST LIKE TO AVOID!


WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          10
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES
        (OVERVIEW)
   WHY DO WE NEED AETs ? - 2
        CONCERN OVER INCREASING FUEL COSTS IS
         WORLD-WIDE
             CAN WE FIND LESS EXPENSIVE
              FUELS?....PROBABLY NOT
        CONCERN OVER FUTURE GLOBAL FUEL
         SUPPLIES
             ISSUES ARE RELATED MORE TO POLITICS THAN
              RESERVES – BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY
        CONCERN OVER U.S. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
             CAN WE MAKE LOW-COST FUELS FROM AN
              ALTERNATIVE RESOURCE THAT IS TRULY
              DOMESTIC, RENEWABLE, CLEAN AND PLENTIFUL?
        WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION BUT WE ARE
         CURRENTLY AT RISK OF MAKING SOME
         VERY BAD CHOICES

WSU, 01/08-04/08        TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          11
         ENERGY RESOURCES NOW
              SUMMARY #1
   WE WILL NOT “RUN OUT OF OIL” ANY TIME SOON
        THE MEDIA HAVE TO SELL ADVERTISING SPACE
        AUTHORS HAVE TO SELL BOOKS
        “GLOOM-AND-DOOM” HYPE HELPS TO ACHIEVE THAT
   WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF CHEAP “CONVENTIONAL” OIL
        THE EASY-TO-PRODUCE DOMESTIC RESERVES ARE LONG GONE,
         ONLY THE DIFFICULT OIL REMAINS
             BUT…THE QUANTITY OF “RECOVERABLE RESERVES” IS DETERMINED
              BY THE COST OF RECOVERY
             THE HIGHER THE PRICE, THE GREATER THE AMOUNT RECOVERABLE
              ECONOMICALLY (=PROFITABLY) – A MOVING TARGET
        FOREIGN “EASY OIL” IS STILL PLENTIFUL
             E.G., IN LIBYA, PRODUCTION COST IS ~$2/BBL
             COMPARE OIL SANDS AT ~$25/BBL
        BUT POLITICAL SENSITIVITIES MAKE ACCESS DIFFICULT
   ENERGY WILL REMAIN EXPENSIVE BUT…
   MORE UNCONVENTIONAL CAPACITY IS COMING ON LINE


WSU, 01/08-04/08               TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                   12
    ENERGY RESOURCES NOW
         SUMMARY #2
   THE REAL PROBLEM: WE USE TOO MUCH ENERGY:
      5% OF THE WORLD‟S POPULATION; 25% OF THE WORLD‟S
       ENERGY CONSUMPTION
      20.7 MILLION BBL OIL/DAY (>60% OF WHICH IS IMPORTED)
          o 1 BBL = 42 US GALLONS
      ~7.5 BILLION BARRELS/YEAR.
          o THE ENTIRE WORLD USES 28 BILLION BBL/YR. AND GROWING
      ~ 380 MILLION GALLONS GASOLINE/DAY
      ~140 BILLION GALLONS GASOLINE ANNUALLY
      ~90 BILLION GALLONS DIESEL FUEL PLUS JET FUEL/YR.
          o OF THAT, ~63 BILLION GALLONS IS DIESEL
      ADD 23+ TRILLION CU. FT. (>650 BILLION CUBIC METERS) OF
       NATURAL GAS ANNUALLY (ALSO ABOUT 25% OF WORLD
       USE)
      AND PRETTY SOON YOU’RE TALKING REAL ENERGY!


WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                  13
    ENERGY RESOURCES NOW
         SUMMARY #3
   THE US HAS A NATURAL GAS PROBLEM
        IT USES 23 TRILLION CU.FT/YEAR, CANADA USES 3.5 TCF
        OFFICIAL U.S. RESERVES ARE CURRENTLY 187 TCF
        THAT IS ABOUT AN 8-YEAR SUPPLY…BUT:
          •   OFFICIAL RESERVES DATA ARE CONSERVATIVE
          •   MUCH MORE GAS MAY BE COMING FROM THE ALASKA NORTH
              SLOPE AND THE MACKENZIE DELTA (UP TO 200 TCF IN TOTAL)
          •   BUT THOSE PIPELINES NEED ~10 YEARS TO APPROVE & BUILD
          •   SO WE ARE ALREADY IMPORTING LNG FROM OVERSEAS
        EXPECT SHORTAGES BY ABOUT 2015
        PRICES, WHICH HAVE GONE FROM $2.50 TO $14.00 AND
         BACK TO $7.50 IN 2-3 YEARS WILL REMAIN HIGH – MIGHT
         REACH $20/MMBTU BY 2012.
        CANADA IS NO BETTER OFF AND MAY HAVE TO RESTRICT
         EXPORTS TO THE US SOMETIME SOON


WSU, 01/08-04/08            TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                14
    ENERGY RESOURCES NOW
         SUMMARY #4
   FORECASTING OIL AND GAS RESERVES:
        M. KING HUBBERT CAME UP WITH THE HUBBERT CURVE
        INITIALLY FOR OIL, BUT GAS CURVE IS SIMILAR
        COAL, TOO…..
        SINCE THEN, MANY ADDITIONAL CURVES
        CORRECT IN THAT ANY FIXED RESOURCE MUST FOLLOW
         SUCH DECAY CURVES, BUT…
        …FOR VARIOUS REASONS, THESE HAVE IGNORED THE
         WORLD‟S RESERVES OF UNCONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS
        THEY HAVE ALSO IGNORED ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY
        THE FORECASTS ARE THUS VERY PESSIMISTIC - SUPER-
         CONSERVATIVE – JUST WHAT USGS AND THE SEC LIKE!


WSU, 01/08-04/08        TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI             15
    ENERGY RESOURCES NOW
         SUMMARY #5

           ◄MMB/D




                    US PEAK,
                    1978



                          HUBBERT CURVES




WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   16
    ENERGY RESOURCES NOW
         SUMMARY #6
Hubbert (per EIA, 2004) – Conventional Oil Only




WSU, 01/08-04/08    TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI       17
    ENERGY RESOURCES NOW
         SUMMARY #7
   Campbell (2004)




WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   18
    ENERGY RESOURCES NOW
         SUMMARY #8
   THE PROPHESIES OF DOOM START WITH M. KING
    HUBBERT (1956 AND LATER)
        RESERVOIRS VARY WIDELY IN CHARACTER
        SOME HAVE DELIVERED ONLY 10% OF THEIR CONTENTS
        OTHERS, MUCH MORE
        ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY TECHNIQUES CAN DELIVER 2-3X
         ORIGINAL RESERVES ESTIMATES….BUT NOT ALWAYS
        ALL HUBBERT-TYPE PROJECTIONS HAVE IGNORED THE
         WORLD‟S RESERVES OF UNCONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS
             E.G., OIL SANDS, SHALE OIL, COAL FUEL LIQUIDS,
        THE FORECASTS ARE THUS VERY PESSIMISTIC - SUPER-
         CONSERVATIVE – JUST WHAT USGS AND THE SEC LIKE!


WSU, 01/08-04/08            TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI             19
         ENERGY RESOURCES NOW
              SUMMARY #9
   COAL: GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS
        THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE HAVE PLENTY OF COAL
             4,000 BILLION (4x1012) SHORT (2000 LB) TONS
             >1,000 YEARS SUPPLY AT PRESENT USE RATES
             >1012 SHORT TONS ARE ECONOMICALLY RECOVERABLE
             CANADA HAS ANOTHER 2,000+ ST, >800 RECOVERABLE
             CURRENT PRICES PER MMBTU: $0.85-$2.50
             COMPARE OIL @ ~$15.00 AND GAS @ ~$8.20 PER MMBTU
        THE BAD NEWS IS THAT COAL PRODUCTION AND USE IS
         COSTLY DUE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS OVER:
             MINE SITE & TRANSPORTATION AIR AND WATER POLLUTION
             NEED FOR CO2 SEQUESTRATION, PARTICULATES CONTROL,
              ASH DISPOSAL, ETC….
             TOO MANY INEFFICIENT “OLD” ENERGY CONVERSION
              TECHNOLOGIES (E.G., STEAM RAISING AT 35%)
             DIRECT CONVERSION  ELEC. POWER WOULD BE A WINNER!
WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                 20
        ENERGY RESOURCES NOW
            SUMMARY #10




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   21
         ENERGY RESOURCES NOW
             SUMMARY #11
   THE US MAKES USE OF OTHER ENERGY
    SOURCES:
        NUCLEAR – ZERO GROWTH FOR THE LAST 20+ YEARS.
         WHY?
        HYDROELECTRIC – NO GROWTH POTENTIAL. WHY?
        GEOTHERMAL – CA ONLY IN US PLUS NZ, ICELAND, OTHERS
          •   ALTHOUGH HEAT PUMPS ARE OK ALMOST ANYWHERE
        WIND, SOLAR:
             VERY SMALL, SLOWLY GROWING (WIND BETTER IN EUROPE)
        REMINDER: ELECTRICITY IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE BUT
         AN ENERGY CARRIER
             SOURCE ENERGY IS NEEDED FOR EFFICIENCY CALCULATION
        THE US NEEDS MORE CAPACITY TO PRODUCE, TRANSMIT
         ELECTRICAL POWER AND MORE LOCAL AND REGIONAL
         GRID & OFF-GRID DISTRIBUTED POWER GENERATION


WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                 22
    ENERGY RESOURCES NOW
        SUMMARY #12
        BIOMASS-BASED SOURCES:
             CORN  ETHANOL
                INDUSTRY CURRENTLY IN TROUBLE (1/2008)
             BIOMASS  BIOETHANOL (NOT YET COMMERCIAL)
             BIODIESEL (FROM SOYBEAN IN US, RAPESEED IN
              EUROPE)
                INDUSTRY CURRENTLY IN TROUBLE (1/2008)
             DIRECT BURNING OR GASIFICATION OF BIOMASS
              (PAPER AND PACKAGING WASTES, WOOD CHIPS,
              CROP RESIDUES)
                OK FOR HEAT, STEAM
             BIOMASS OR WASTE  LIQUID FUELS VIA
              GASIFICATION AND SYNTHOL/FISCHER-TROPSCH

WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          23
         NEW ENERGY RESOURCES
          NEAR TERM PROSPECTS
   THE WORLD HAS VERY LARGE RESERVES OF
    UNCONVENTIONAL OIL
        MUCH OF IT, FORTUNATELY, IN THE AMERICAS
             CANADIAN OIL SANDS (“TAR” SANDS) – IN ALBERTA
                   IN SERIOUS PRODUCTION SINCE ABOUT 1965, NOW  1 BILLION BBL/YR
                   COMPARE US CONSUMPTION OF ~7.5 BILLION BBL/YR
             US SHALE OIL (PRIMARILY IN COLORADO, UTAH)
                   NO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION YET – MAYBE IN 10 YEARS
             VENEZUELA‟S ORINOCO BELT OIL SANDS
                   LIMITED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION – POLITICAL FOOTBALL
   THERE IS ALSO UNCONVENTIONAL GAS:
        COAL BED METHANE: ~25 TCF (US); ~25 TCF (CAN)
        “TIGHT” GAS IN ROCK FORMATIONS: ~118 TCF (US); 100 TCF (CAN)
        METHANE HYDRATES OR “CLATHRATES”
             OFFSHORE OR IN PERMAFROST REGIONS OF US, CANADA, RUSSIA
             ESTIMATED AMOUNTS ARE HUGE – SEE LATER SLIDE
        SYNTHETIC NATURAL GAS FROM COAL, BIOMASS, EVEN OIL



WSU, 01/08-04/08                 TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                             24
         NEW ENERGY RESOURCES
          NEAR TERM PROSPECTS
   METHANE HYDRATES
        “LOOSE” LOW-T OR HIGH-P COMPOUND OF METHANE +
         WATER, WELL KNOWN TO GAS PLANT OPERATORS
             FOUND SUB-PERMAFROST OR SUB-SEA, JUST OFFSHORE
        ESTIMATED METHANE HYDRATES IN PLACE WORLD-WIDE
         ARE ENORMOUS:
             OCEAN FLOOR: 10,000 – 11,000 Gt(C)
             ONSHORE ARCTIC: 400 Gt(C)
             ONSHORE ANTARCTIC: UNKNOWN, NOT EXPLORED
             NOTE: 1 Gt(C) = 1.33 BILLION MT OF METHANE AND 1 MT
              METHANE = 53,361 SCF. THUS JUST 1 Gt(C) REPRESENTS A
              TOTAL OF 71 TCF OF METHANE OR A 3-YEAR SUPPLY FOR THE
              U.S.!
             BUT – EXPLORATION AND RECOVERY ARE VERY CHALLENGING

WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI               25
       NEW ENERGY RESOURCES:
       SYNTHETIC NATURAL GAS
     DEFINED BY DOE AS AN ALTERNATE FUEL (!)
     MANY ALTERNATIVES; ONLY COAL GASIFICATION HAS REAL
      PROMISE (AND IS A FAMILIAR, IF OLDER, TECHNOLOGY)
          REPLACEMENT OF 23 TRILLION FT3/YEAR WILL REQUIRE A
           MASSIVE INVESTMENT IN ONE OR MORE OF:
             METHANE HYDRATES
             COAL GASIFICATION
          THE LATTER IS MORE LIKELY, THE FORMER MORE ATTRACTIVE
          SNG IS MORE LIKELY TO GET INDUSTRY INVESTMENT $$ THAN H 2
          SOME NEW/PROPOSED USES OF NG:
             GASOLINE SUBSTITUTE (AS CNG) – WIDESPREAD USE, ESP. IN
              WESTERN CANADA
             CLEAN DIESEL FUEL – E.G., CUMMINS WESTPORT
             MANUFACTURING HYDROGEN (FOR WHICH NG MAY BE TOO
              VALUABLE AS NG)
             REFORMER FUEL FOR SOFCs (WHICH USE BOTH THE H 2 AND
              THE CO)
             DIRECT FUEL FOR FUEL CELLS? SOFCs OR MOLTEN
              CARBONATE?

    WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                   26
         NEW ENERGY RESOURCES:
          NEAR TERM PROSPECTS
   ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY
        IN ITS SIMPLEST FORM, A WAY TO GET MORE OIL OUT
         OF OLD RESERVOIRS (E.G., CA HEAVY OIL, E. TEXAS)
        A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF THE RELATIONSHIP
         BETWEEN OIL PRICES AND ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF
         OIL RESERVES
             EOR IS EXPENSIVE, JUSTIFIED ONLY IF OIL PRICES ARE
              HIGH TO VERY HIGH – AS THEY ARE NOW
             SURFACTANT INJECTION, STEAM DRIVE, WATER
              FLOODING, CO2 FLOODING, STEAM ASSISTED GRAVITY
              DRAINAGE (SAGD), FORMATION HEATING WITH IN-SITU
              COMBUSTORS, MANY OTHER TECHNIQUES (ALL OF
              THEM COSTLY!)
             MANY OLD FIELDS, ONCE SHUT IN, SOME FOR MANY
              YEARS, ARE BEING RE-OPENED


WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI             27
                   SUPPLY VS. DEMAND:
           THE “OLD” HUBBERT CURVE



                           Short to Mid-Term

                                                          Long-Term
                                                          (The Great
 Motor Vehicle Fuel                                       Unknown)
   (BBL/yr)
 Based on Proven                  THE GAP
    Reserves

                                    “OLD & EASY”
                   Gasoline
                   & Diesel         (=CHEAP) OIL
                   from “old”
                   crude oil

                    2000                     2050                      2100

WSU, 01/08-04/08                TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                       28
                   SUPPLY VS. DEMAND
             MODIFIED HUBBERT CURVE



                          Short to Mid-Term

                                                 COAL??     Long-Term
                                                             (Still The
                                                               Great
 Motor Vehicle Fuel                                          Unknown)
   (BBL/yr)                    Gap filled          “Greeen”
                               with 2ndary
                                                   Technologies
                               and tertiary
                                                   H2?
                               recovery;           Nuclear?
                   Gasoline    shale oil & oil     Renewables
                   & Diesel    sands, all at       Non-HC energy carriers
                   from        higher cost         FC/Electric
                   crude oil                       Hybrid technologies

                   2000                     2050                 2100

WSU, 01/08-04/08               TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                      29
    NEW ENERGY RESOURCES
         MID-TERM PROSPECTS




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   30
              SOME OF OUR FUTURE ENERGY OPTIONS
                                                        CHEMICALS




                               (CNG, LNG, LPG)




                                                                                                                             Hydrogen
                                                                                                            Biodiesel
                                                                      Methanol




                                                                                                                                        Electricity
                                                    Hydrogen




                                                                                       Ethanol
                                 Natural Gas
Gasoline




                                                  Synthetic fuels
             Diesel
             ULSD
  RFG




                      LPG                        (DME, FT Diesel)

                                                              H2+CO




                                                                                       Fermentation
                                                    F-T Synthesis




                                                                                                        esterification
                                                                                                            Trans
  Blending

                                          Reforming    Gasification
           Refining                                                                                                      Electricity


                                                                 Biomass            Starch-           Vegetable
                                                                                                                          Wind
                                                                    Wood           & Sugar-             oils              Solar
           Crude oil        Natural gas               Coal      Black liquor          rich             Animal             Hydro
                             Methane                              Cellulose
           Oil sands                                                                Plants               fat               Geo-
                             Hydrates                         Agriculture waste   corn, manioc
           Shale Oil                                           Forest residue
                                                                                                      Soybean            thermal
                                                                                   sugar cane         Rapeseed
                                                               Switch Grass         beets…




                                                                                                                                         Nuclear
                                                                                                      Jatropha
                                                                                                        Palm
                        FOSSIL                                                                        Sunflower



                WSU, 01/08-04/08                             TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI
                                                                                  NON-FOSSIL                                            31
    NEW ENERGY RESOURCES
         MID-TERM PROSPECTS
   A FEW BIG SOLUTIONS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO SOLVE
    THE ENTIRE NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SUPPLY
    “PROBLEM”. THEY ARE:
        COAL
        OIL SANDS
        SHALE OIL
        METHANE HYDRATES
        SOLAR ENERGY (PV AND THERMAL)
   BUT THEY ALL HAVE SEVERE LIMITATIONS. WHAT ARE
    THEY?
        EMISSIONS, COST….OR BOTH
        ANY OTHERS??

WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI       32
NEW ENERGY RESOURCES
     MID-TERM PROSPECTS
   THE FOLLOWING OFFER ONLY PARTIAL
    SOLUTIONS:
        HYDROGEN:
             NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE, MUST BE MADE FROM ONE IN
              A COMPLEX, ENERGY-CONSUMING PROCESS
             MANUFACTURE, TRANSPORTATION, DELIVERY AND USE
              TOO ENERGY-INTENSIVE IN TOTAL; NO INFRA-
              STRUCTURE
             REALISTICALLY, USE IS LIMITED TO FUEL CELLS
             PROPOSED FUEL FOR IC ENGINES (BMW, FORD) – CAN
              ALSO BE CO-INJECTED FOR EMISSIONS (SMOKE)
              CONTROL IN DIESELS – EFFECTIVE BUT COSTLY
             NO BUSINESS CASE FOR IT NOW - POSSIBLE THERE
              WILL BE AFTER OTHER OPTIONS HAVE BEEN
              EXHAUSTED IN ABOUT 2050-2075


WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          33
         NEW ENERGY RESOURCES:
                        HYDROGEN
   NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE – JUST A CARRIER
        THIS FACT HAS A BIG IMPACT ON OVERALL EFFICIENCY
        EXAMPLE: FOR COAL  ELECTRICAL POWER  HYDROGEN
          FUEL CELL  ELECTRICAL POWER  FCV WHEELS
             GENERATING + TRANSMISSION EFFICIENCY = 30%
             HYDROGEN ELECTROLYZER EFFICIENCY = 65%
             HYDROGEN TRANSPORTATION, DISTRIBUTION, COMPRESSION
              & DELIVERY TO VEHICLE TANK ≤80%
             OVER-THE-ROAD ACTUAL TANK-TO-WHEELS EFFICIENCY OF
              USE: ≤30% (IC) OR ≤45% (FC)
             SOURCE-TO-USE EFFICIENCY: ≤5% (IC) OR ≤7% (FC)
        NOT VERY IMPRESSIVE, ALTHO‟ THIS IS A “WORST CASE”!
                  NOTE: 1 KG H2 ≈ 1 US GAL GASOLINE

WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI             34
   NEW ENERGY RESOURCES:
                   BIO-BASED FUELS
        BIOMASS-BASED FUELS:
             ETHANOL – OK IN A 10% GASOLINE BLEND….BUT
              NOT AS E-85 (LOW MPG, QUALITY…)
             BIODIESEL – OK IN A DIESEL BLEND (≤ 20% BD)
                BUT BLEND QUALITY IS A MAJOR ISSUE
             BIODIESEL BY HYDROGENATION LOOKS V. GOOD
             BIOMASS CONVERSION TO LIQUID FUELS (“BTL”) –
              BY FERMENTATION OR GASIFICATION
             GASIFICATION TO SYNGAS – ECONOMICS
              INDICATE COAL IS A PREFERRED SOURCE
             BUT BIOMASS PRODUCES NO NET CO2, WHILE
              COAL REQUIRES CO2 CAPTURE
             MORE ON THAT LATER….


WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI            35
                   CLIMATE CHANGE




                 CLIMATE CHANGE
               (OR GLOBAL WARMING)




WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   36
                   CLIMATE CHANGE:
                      THE BASICS

   A JUSTIFICATION FOR MUCH AET ACTION
        MOSTLY THAT AIMED AT CO2 REDUCTION AND
         INCREASING OUR “ENERGY INDEPENDENCE”
        THE USUAL QUESTIONS ARE:
             IS IT REAL OR JUST „POLITICS AS USUAL‟?
             WHAT ARE THE REAL CAUSES OF CC?
             IF WE CORRECT FOR THOSE THAT WE CAN CONTROL,
              WILL WE ACHIEVE ANYTHING USEFUL?
             WHAT WILL IT COST TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING USEFUL?
             WHAT ALTERNATIVE (OR ADDITIONAL) STEPS SHOULD
              WE BE TAKING TO DEAL WITH CC?
             SHOULD WE BELIEVE EVERYTHING WE HEAR?

WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          37
               CLIMATE CHANGE:
                  THE BASICS
   CLIMATE CHANGE
        IT IS REAL – AND VERY SERIOUS
        WE KNOW THAT CC IS PARTLY MAN-MADE – MAYBE AS MUCH AS
         50% DUE TO ANTHROPOGENIC CO2, CH4, N2O, FLUOROCARBONS,
         OTHER EMISSIONS
        THE BALANCE IS MOSTLY FROM NATURAL SOURCES –
         VOLCANOES, FOREST FIRES, ROTTING VEGETATION AND WASTE,
         NON-CO2 WATER VAPOR SOURCES.....
        WE SHOULD FIX WHAT WE CAN BY REDUCING FUTURE
         ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS
        BUT THERE MAY BE VERY LITTLE THAT WE CAN DO ABOUT THE
         PAST AND THE NON-ANTHRO PRESENT – WE JUST DON‟T KNOW
         ENOUGH ABOUT REVERSING CC TO WRITE A PRESCRIPTION…
        MANY UNCERTAINTIES – THE OCEANS, SURFACE WATERS, THE
         IMPACT OF INSOLATION, CHEMISTRY!

WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                  38
                   CLIMATE CHANGE:
                      THE BASICS
   CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE
        ALMOST ALL OF OUR KNOWLEDGE IS BASED ON
         COMPUTER MODELS OF THE ATMOSPHERE.
        MOST OF THESE INVOLVE SO MANY ASSUMPTIONS AND SO
         MUCH “NOISE” IN THE MEASURED INPUT DATA THAT THE
         OUTPUTS ARE ONLY QUALITATIVE.
        WE KNOW WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY THAT MAJOR
         CONTRIBUTIONS ARE MADE BY:
             CLIMATE CHANGE AGENTS IN THE ATMOSPHERE
             SOLAR HEATING (INSOLATION)
        SIGNIFICANT PROVEN CC AGENTS ARE CO2, H2O, CH4, N2O
             BUT MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS ARE MADE FROM TIME TO TIME
              BY PARTICULATE MATTER (DUST), SULFATE AEROSOLS, AND A
              FEW CHEMICALS PRESENT AT VERY LOW LEVELS – SF6, FOR
              EXAMPLE – THAT CAN EXERT A DISPROPORTIONATE EFFECT


WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI               39
                   CLIMATE CHANGE:
                      THE BASICS
   CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE
        MORE SOLAR ENERGY REACHING THE EARTH‟S SURFACE –
         IT HAS BEEN INCREASING STEADILY SINCE ABOUT 1850,
         THE END OF THE „LITTLE ICE AGE‟.
             THIS CONTRIBUTES ABOUT 1/3 OF CC, BOTH DIRECTLY AND
              THROUGH INCREASED WATER EVAPORATION
             WATER VAPOR IS A CLIMATE CHANGE AGENT – ABOUT AS
              EFFECTIVE AS CO2
        CO2 AND CH4 (16x AS EFFECTIVE AS CO2) FROM NATURAL
         SOURCES, E.G.
             ROTTING VEGETATION
             FOREST FIRES
             VOLCANIC ACTIVITY
             WARMING OF PERMAFROST (ADDITIONAL DECOMPOSITION
              PLUS RELEASED METHANE HYDRATES)


WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                  40
               CLIMATE CHANGE:
                  THE BASICS
   CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE
        ANTHROPOGENIC (MAN-MADE) CONTRIBUTIONS ARE ALSO
         VERY REAL:
             COMBUSTION CO2 – AUTOS, INDUSTRY, BUILDINGS
             METHANE LEAKS FROM NATURAL GAS HANDLING SYSTEMS
             LEAKS FROM CHEMICAL PROCESSING FACILITIES
             USE OF CERTAIN CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS
             USE OF NO-TILL FARMING GENERATES MORE CO2, USE OF
              NITROGEN FERTILIZER GENERATES N2O
        THESE CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED AT
         BETWEEN 5% AND 50% OF THE TOTAL. 5% IS FAR TOO LOW
         – THE RIGHT NUMBER SEEMS TO BE CLOSER TO 30-40%.
        THUS SOLAR ≈ 33%, MAN-MADE ≈ 35%, NATURAL ≈ 32%
        EVEN IF MAN-MADE = 40%, 60% IS STILL „OUT OF CONTROL‟


WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                41
          CLIMATE CHANGE:
WHAT GOES UP DOES NOT ALWAYS GO DOWN!




  WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   42
          CLIMATE CHANGE
   ACTUAL US CO2 DATA




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   43
          CLIMATE CHANGE

   MORE ACTUAL CO2 DATA




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   44
WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   45
          CLIMATE CHANGE:
WHAT GOES UP DOES NOT ALWAYS GO DOWN!




  WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   46
          CLIMATE CHANGE
   POSSIBLE FUTURE CO2 TRENDSB
                                             A

                               2008
                            ~400 PPM
                                                      C
                                                                     D
                                                    1950s – growth
                                                     of automobile
                                                          fleet




                                1770 - Industrial
                                   Revolution
                                 Begins – ~280
                                      PPM

WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                               47
          CLIMATE CHANGE
   WE DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH TO WRITE BIG
    CHECKS FOR CC CURES YET
        MORE POLITICIANS & PR THAN SOUND SCIENCE!

   WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
        FOCUS ON THE “LOW-HANGING FRUIT” – ENERGY
         EFFICIENCY & CONSERVATION TO LIMIT “NEW” CO2
        [WE ARE 50 YEARS TOO LATE TO FIX THE “OLD” CO2]
        INVEST IN DEVELOPING AN UNDERSTANDING OF CC

        INVEST IN COMPENSATING FOR CC – ADAPT!!
        COMMIT TO EDUCATING THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE
         FACTS OF CC
        AVOID BEING PRESSURED BY CLIMATE CHANGE INTO BAD AET
         CHOICES OR MISGUIDED ACTIONS

WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                 48
        CLIMATE CHANGE

                                    The Economist, June 2-8 2007




                                                                   $




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                             49
               CLIMATE CHANGE:
                  THE BASICS
   CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE
        IF MAN IS ONLY 40% OF THE CC PROBLEM, CAN WE EXPECT TO
         CORRECT THE TOTAL PROBLEM?
        ONLY PARTLY! THE REST WILL HAVE TO WAIT FOR NATURE.
        DOES THIS MEAN THAT WE SHOULD DO NOTHING?
            NO. BUT WE SHOULD NOT EXPECT TOO MUCH SUCCESS TO
             COME FROM OUR EFFORTS
            WE SHOULD INSTEAD TAKE STEPS TO ADAPT TO - AND
             MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF - CLIMATE CHANGE
            SOME STEPS ARE BEING TAKEN NOW
            FOR EXAMPLE, ANYTHING THAT REDUCES THE CONSUMPTION
             OF CARBON (IN FUELS) BOTH SAVES MONEY AND REDUCES
             CO2 EMISSIONS
            BUT IT WILL NOT “SOLVE THE PROBLEM”.


WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI              50
               CLIMATE CHANGE:
                  THE BASICS
   HOW CAN WE HELP?
        INCREASE EFFICIENCY OF ENERGY USE
             PREFERABLY WHILE MAINTAINING PERFORMANCE
        USE MORE CARBON-NEUTRAL FUELS
             E.G., THOSE DRIVED FROM BIOMASS WHICH „RECYCLE‟ THE
              CARBON RELEASED DURING PROCESSING AND COMBUSTION
        USE CARBON SEQUESTRATION TECHNOLOGIES
             E.G., CAPTURE CO2 GAS FOR USE BY INDUSTRY
             CONVERT CO2 INTO INERT MINERALS FOR DISPOSAL
             THE ONLY WAY TO CONTINUE USING ESSENTIAL FOSSIL FUELS
             PROBLEM: THIS COSTS MONEY!!
        THE CHALLENGE: FINDING THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE
         ROUTE TO CARBON EMISSIONS REDUCTION
             BUT DON‟T EXPECT TO SOLVE THE WHOLE PROBLEM!

WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                  51
               CLIMATE CHANGE:
    Prins and Rayner, Nature 449|25 p 973, 2007
    KYOTO 1 IS A FAILURE ! (KYOTO 2 THE SAME!)
        TOP DOWN, NOT MARKET
        150+ PLAYERS WHEN 15 NATIONS REPRESENT 80+%
         OF EMISSIONS.
    CC IS A COMPLEX PROBLEM COMPARED TO
     ACID RAIN, OZONE HOLE, WMDs, NUCLEAR
     WEAPONS
    EXAMPLE OF A PATH-DEPENDENT SYSTEM
        GLOBAL INTERLACED ENERGY SYSTEM
        VARYING NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRAJECTORIES
    INVESTMENT IN MITIGATION FAR EXCEEDS THE
     INVESTMENT IN ADAPTATION
    WE MUST FOCUS ON ADAPTATION!
      WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI       52
    NEW ENERGY RESOURCES:
                   HYDROGEN
   MANUFACTURING HYDROGEN
        NO NATURAL SOURCES OF ELEMENTAL H2 EXIST
        THUS, THERE IS NO NATURAL SOURCE OF
         HYDROGEN ENERGY
        COMPARE CARBON (AS COAL), HYDROCARBONS –
         ALL HAVE DIRECTLY AVAILABLE ENERGY
        WE HAVE TO USE ENERGY TO PRODUCE HYDROGEN
        CAN MAKE HYDROGEN FROM WATER IN SEVERAL
         WAYS. NET RESULT IS ALWAYS:
        2H2O  2H2 + O2…….. ΔH = +62,050 BTU/LB H2
        IF WE GET THE HYDROGEN FROM WATER AND THEN
         JUST BURN IT, AT BEST WE GET OUR ENERGY BACK!


WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI        53
    NEW ENERGY RESOURCES:
                         HYDROGEN
   MANUFACTURING HYDROGEN
        ELECTROLYSIS OF WATER:
             2H2O  2H2 + O2 ΔH = +62,050 BTU/LB
                  1 BTU = 251.6 CALORIES = 1054.2 JOULES
                  1 kW = 1.34 HP = 3,415 BTU/HR = 3.600 x 106 JOULES
        STEAM REFORMING OF NATURAL GAS (METHANE):
             CH4 + 2H2O  CO2 + 4H2 OR:
             CH4 + H2O  CO + 3H2 (HYDROGEN-RICH SYNGAS)
             THERE ARE OTHER VARIATIONS….
             THESE ARE ALL EXAMPLES OF WATER-SPLITTING
              REACTIONS ALTHOUGH, IN THIS CASE THE METHANE
              CONTRIBUTES A LOT OF THE HYDROGEN. THIS
              REDUCES THE ENERGY REQUIRED PER LB OF H2.


WSU, 01/08-04/08              TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                   54
    NEW ENERGY RESOURCES:
                       HYDROGEN
   MANUFACTURING HYDROGEN
        WATER-SPLITTING WITH CARBON:
             C + H2O  CO + H2 (THE WATER-GAS REACTION)
             3C + O2 + H2O  3CO + H2 (CO-RICH SYNGAS REACTION)
             SOME CO2 PRODUCTION IS ALSO LIKELY
             WIDELY USED COMMERCIALLY TO MAKE SYNGAS
        IN PRINCIPAL, OTHER “SPLITTERS” CAN BE USED:
             V2O3 + H2O  V2O4 + H2 (COULD ALSO USE FeO  Fe2O3)
             ALSO METALS LIKE Al OR Mg….
             BUT THE “SPLITTER” HAS TO BE RECYCLED FOR RE-
              USE….AND THAT COSTS MONEY!
             ONLY “SPLITTERS” CONTAINING HYDROGEN (= HYDRO-
              CARBONS) REALLY HELP THE ENERGY BALANCE


WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI              55
    NEW ENERGY RESOURCES:
                        HYDROGEN
   MANUFACTURING HYDROGEN
        HYDROGEN IS A BY-PRODUCT OF SOME PROCESSES
             E.G., CHLOR-ALKALI PROCESS FOR CHLORINE AND NaOH
             GOOD ECONOMICS BUT A SMALL % OF THE TOTAL
        THE LARGEST MANUFACTURER IS…THE OIL INDUSTRY
             NEARLY ALL BY HYDROCARBON REFORMING
             HYDROCARBONS MAY BE CH4, REFINERY GAS (CNH2N+2)
             H2 IS USED MAINLY IN HYDROCRACKING DISTILLATE 
              GASOLINE OR IN “THINNING” HEAVY CRUDES
             ADJUSTING THE DEGREE OF SATURATION OF FOOD OILS
        SOME NUMBERS:
             1 KG H2 ≈ 1.2 US GAL GASOLINE (= 1 UK Gallon) ≈ 136,800 BTU
             1 US GAL GASOLINE = 0.1337 FT3, CONTAINS ~122,000 BTU
             1 KG H2 AS GAS ≈ 427.6 FT3 ≈ VOLUME OF 3,200 GAL GASOLINE!
             FOR STORAGE, HYDROGEN MUST BE COMPRESSED TO 5000-
              10.000 PSI OR LIQUEFIED


WSU, 01/08-04/08             TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                    56
       NEW ENERGY RESOURCES:
                          HYDROGEN
     HYDROGEN EFFICIENCY & COST IN USE
          EFFICIENCY COMPROMISED BY NEED TO MAKE IT!
          MANUFACTURING COST ESTIMATES, $/KG, 8/2005 (COMPARE
           WHOLESALE GASOLINE CURRENTLY AT APPROX $2.50
             1.2MM KG/DAY, COAL GASIFICATION - $2.52 - $5.00
             1.2MM KG/DAY, NATURAL GAS REFORMING - $2.86 - $5.60
             24,000 KG/DAY, NATURAL GAS REFORMING - $6.15 - $12.00
             24,000 KG/DAY, BIOMASS GASIFICATION - $7.80 - $14.00
             480 KG/DAY, NATURAL GAS REFORMING - $6.51- $13.00)
             480 KG/DAY, ELECTROLYSIS (GRID POWER) - $6.98 - $14.00)
             480 KG/DAY, WIND TURBINE + ELECTROLYSIS - $11.25*- $22.00)
             480 KG/DAY, PHOTOVOLTAIC + ELECTROLYSIS - $29.94*- $60.00)
       * - INCLUDE STORAGE COSTS FOR 24 HR OPERATION
          SOURCE: TMG 2005 ANALYSIS FOR NYSERDA BASED ON NRC 2/04 ANALYSIS,
                       UPDATED WITH CURRENT RAW MATERIAL COSTS

     FIRST NUMBER IS “MOST OPTIMISTIC”, THE SECOND IS MORE REALISTIC

    WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                         57
    NEW ENERGY RESOURCES:
                       HYDROGEN
   HYDROGEN EFFICIENCY & COST IN USE
        CONCLUSION: TO MAKE HYDROGEN COST-COMPETITIVE
         WITH GASOLINE, BUILD BIG PLANTS W/TRANSPORTATION
         AND DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE AT AN ESTIMATED
         2005 COST OF >$2 BN PER 1.2MM KG HYDROGEN
             TO REPLACE GASOLINE ALONE, WE NEED MORE THAN 300
              SUCH FACILITIES – MORE TO REPLACE OTHER HYDROCARBON
              FUELS. „NIMBY‟ AND PERMITTING WILL BE A HUGE PROBLEM!
             NO SOUND BUSINESS CASE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED; PRIVATE
              INDUSTRY WILL NOT INVEST MAJOR CAPITAL - YET
             SMALLER FACILITIES PRODUCE HYDROGEN THAT FAR
              EXCEEDS THE CURRENT COST OF GASOLINE
             FCVs ARE MUCH LESS EFFICIENT ON THE ROAD THAN CLAIMED
              – AND HAVE INADEQUATE RANGE*
             CONTINUED USE OF FOSSIL FUELS WITH C CAPTURE IN, E.G.,
              DIESEL OR HYBRID VEHICLES MAY BECOME PREFERABLE
                *See, e.g., Honda FCX test, Car & Driver, July 2005


WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                58
    NEW ENERGY RESOURCES:
                      HYDROGEN
   SOURCE-TO-USE (AKA “WELL-TO-WHEELS”) ANALYSIS
        COAL  STEAM  ELECTRICITY  TRANSMISSION  AC/DC 
         HYDROGEN  PURIFICATION  LIQUID H2  TUBE OR CRYO
         TRUCK  TANK  FUEL CELL  DC/AC?  MOTORS  WHEELS
        COAL  STEAM  ELECTRICITY: 35% EFFICIENCY
        ELECTRICITY  H2 (ELECTROLYSIS): 65% EFFICIENCY
        H2 LIQUEFACTION: 85% EFFICIENCY (NEGATIVE J-T)
        TRANSPORTATION: 90% EFFICIENCY (DETERMINED BY DISTANCE)
        HANDLING: 95% EFFICIENCY
        FUEL CELL TO WHEELS (CURRENT): 40-45% EFFICIENCY (FUEL
         CELL ALONE WITH NO ACCESSORIES IS ABOUT 60-65% EFFICIENT)
        OVERALL EFFICIENCY, SOURCE (COAL) TO FCV WHEELS:
        100 x [.35 x .65 x .85 x .90 x .95 x .40] = 6.6%
        NOT VERY IMPRESSIVE!
        CONCLUSION: HYDROGEN IS AN “ENERGY HOG”.


WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                59
                   SOURCE-TO-USE EFFICIENCIES:
                       CALIBRATION DATA

         FUEL/POWER PLANT/VEHICLE                              FUEL        FUEL USE    OVERALL
                COMBINATION                                 PRODUCTION     (tank-to-   (source-to-
                                                             (source-to-      use)        use)
      NOTE: OLDER DATA FOR COMPARISON
                                                                tank)          %           %
                                                                  %
Diesel/Electric Hybrid                                           81           35           28
Hydrogen fuel cell; on-board gasoline/hydrogen reformer          81           27           22
(no longer considered feasible)
Hi-efficiency (European) turbodiesel w/latest fuel               81           35           22
injection technology
Hydrogen fuel cell; distributed hydrogen from natural gas        60           38           22
at retail ($7.50)
Gasoline/electric hybrid w/latest engine technology              81           26           21
Conventional gasoline engine w/best current engine               81           24           19
technology
Hydrogen fuel cell; liquid hydrogen from natural gas,            41           38           16
central station
Hydrogen fuel cell; hydrogen from electrolysis, power at        <28           38          <11
retail
         WSU, 01/08-04/08                     TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                                60
    ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES
         (GENERAL)
   WHAT ARE THE CHOICES?
        HYDROGEN
             AN “ENERGY HOG” IN MANUFACTURE BECAUSE IT
              MUST BE MADE FROM ANOTHER ENERGY
              RESOURCE! PRODUCT MUST ALSO BE VERY PURE
             VERY HIGH PROJECTED MANUFACTURED COST
             VERY POOR SOURCE-TO-USE EFFICIENCIES
        HUGE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC BARRIERS
         TO ITS USE – FOR EXAMPLE
             HIGH COST OF TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE
             HIGH FUEL CELL COSTS AND LOW “TANK-TO-
              WHEEL” EFFICIENCIES IN REAL WORLD USE
             LOW COMBUSTION ENTHALPY PER UNIT VOLUME
             LOW POWER OUTPUT IN MOST IC ENGINES
             MASSIVE “DISINFORMATION” PR CAMPAIGN

WSU, 01/08-04/08        TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI      61
   ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES
        (GENERAL)
        MOST OTHER ALTERNATE FUELS ARE ALSO
         “THERMOCHEMICALLY CHALLENGED”.
        OUR SCORES (BASED ON ALL FACTORS):
           HYDROGEN (D+)
           CORN ETHANOL (C-)
           CELLULOSIC ETHANOL (B)
           METHANOL (B-)
           BIODIESEL (FROM VEGETABLE OILS OR ANIMAL
            FATS) (B)
           “GREEN DIESEL” (BY HYDROGENATING
            VEGETABLE OILS AND ANIMAL FATS) B+
           BIOMASS-BASED FUELS (INCLUDING “BTL” FUELS)
            (B) –DATA LESS CERTAIN AND COST HIGH
        DETAILS FOLLOW…..

WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI        62
           ENERGY USES
    THAT ALSO SAVE PETROLEUM
   WE ALSO HAVE…..
   “CLEAN” DIESEL ENGINES!
        NEW TURBODIESEL DEVELOPMENTS
   HCCI AND SIMILAR NEW-TECH ENGINES
        DEVELOPMENT PROVING DIFFICULT
   HYBRIDS (HEVs AND PHEVs)
        LOTS OF PROGRESS, STILL HIGH COST, POOR PAYBACK
   EVs (REINCARNATED)
   FUEL CELLS (BUT SHOW ME THE FUEL!)
   STIRLING ENGINES (b. 1816)
   EVEN STEAM….AND OTHER WORKING FLUIDS
   BIG CHANGES LIKELY TO COME FROM EMISSIONS &
    ENERGY LEGISLATION BOTH HERE AND IN EUROPE


WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI             63
                       NEW DIESEL FUEL
                        DEVELOPMENTS

   WHAT ARE THE NEW FUELS? (1)
        ULTRA-LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL (<15 PPMW) –
         MANDATORY (AND NOT NEW ANY MORE)
           OLD STANDARD WAS <500 PPM! ACTUAL S WAS
            USUALLY 150-350 PPM.
           LOW AROMATICS ALSO DESIRABLE FOR SMOKE
            CONTROL
        ULSD IS REFINED FROM ALMOST ANY CRUDE OIL
             HI-S REQUIRES AGGRESSIVE DESULFURIZATION
             WHICH USES EVEN MORE HYDROGEN
             ADDS COST
             RESULTS IN CHAIN FRAGMENTATION
             AND LOWERS THERMODYNAMIC EFFICIENCY OF
              CONVERSION

    WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI       64
                   NEW DIESEL FUEL
                    DEVELOPMENTS
     WHAT ARE THE NEW FUELS? (2)
     ULS DIESEL FUELS CAN ALSO BE MADE FROM:
          •   NATURAL GAS VIA REFORMING OR PARTIAL OXIDATION
              AND FISCHER-TROPSCH CATALYSIS TO DISTILLATE (
              GTL FUELS)
          •   COAL OR BIOMASS VIA GASIFICATION AND FISCHER-
              TROPSCH CATALYSIS ( CTL OR BTL FUELS)
          •   GTL CAN USE STRANDED OR ORPHANED GAS, THUS
              EASING DEMAND ON CONVENTIONAL NATURAL GAS
          •   ONLY BTL USES A RENEWABLE, SUSTAINABLE SOURCE
          •   MANUFACTURE OF ULSD DIESEL - PROBABLY ~80%
              EFFICIENT
          •   MANUFACTURE OF GTL DIESEL ~60-65% EFFICIENT
          •   MANUFACTURE OF CTL DIESEL ~55-65% EFFICIENT
          •   MANUFACTURE OF BTL DIESEL - NOT DOCUMENTED OR
              ESTABLISHED YET


WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI           65
              FUEL DEVELOPMENTS

   WHAT ARE THE NEW FUELS? (3)
        ULSD:
          •   LOW SULFUR  FEWER PARTICULATES, LESS PARTICLE
              AGGLOMERATION, LESS ACID, LESS VISIBLE SMOKE
          •   LOW AROMATICS  FEWER PARTICULATES, LOWER PAHs
          •   CAN REDUCE SULFUR, AROMATICS BY HYDROGENATION
        GTL, CTL AND BTL:
          •   “SUPER-ULTRA” LOW SULFUR – ESSENTIALLY ZERO
          •   SIMILAR TO EUROPEAN ULSD
          •   VERY LOW AROMATICS
          •   OTHERWISE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM REGULAR DIESEL
          •   IF DEMAND HIGH, WILL HAVE TO BE IMPORTED – THE US DOES
              NOT HAVE ENOUGH NATURAL GAS
        IS BIODIESEL ANY BETTER THAN ULSD, GTL, BTL?
          •   VERY SIMILAR RESULTS, SOME ALDEHYDE EMISSIONS


WSU, 01/08-04/08            TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                    66
             FUEL DEVELOPMENTS
                         EMISSIONS RESULTS




    vs. Standard D-2 diesel                               vs. California ULSD

                        RESULTS DEFY SIMPLE EXPLANATION!



WSU, 01/08-04/08                TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                         67
                         BIOFUELS
                        DEFINITIONS
   WHAT ARE BIOFUELS? (1)
       LIQUID FUELS (USUALLY) DERIVED FROM
        BIOLOGICAL SOURCES:
         •   ETHANOL (FROM CORN STARCH BY HYDROLYSIS
             AND FERMENTATION)
         •   ETHANOL (FROM NON-CORN NATURAL STARCH
             SOURCES)
              •   POTATO, RICE, WHEAT, BARLEY, CASSAVA….
         •   ETHANOL (FROM NATURAL SUGARS)
              •   SUGAR CANE, SUGAR BEET….
         •   BIODIESEL (BY METHYLATING NATURAL OILS)
              •   NATURAL OIL SEEDS - CANOLA, PEANUT OR SOYBEAN
              •   MANY OTHERS



    WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI             68
                       DEFINITIONS
   WHAT ARE BIOFUELS? (2)
           BIOMASS  LIQUID FUELS
             •   WOOD WASTE, CROP RESIDUES (E.G. CORN
                 STOVER), PURPOSE-GROWN CROPS
             •   USED FOR MAKING HYDROCARBONS, FUEL
                 ALCOHOLS, ETHERS, OTHER OXY-FUELS
           BIOMASS  FUEL GASES
             •   METHANE (LANDFILLS, DIGESTERS)
             •   SYNTHETIC NATURAL GAS (METHANE
                 PLUS)
             •   SYNGAS (H2+CO)  OTHER PRODUCTS


    WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI       69
          FUEL DEVELOPMENTS

   WHAT ARE BIOFUELS? (3)
        BIODIESEL
        MADE FROM A WIDE VARIETY OF VEGETABLE OILS,
         E.G.:
          • SOYBEAN OIL (IN THE US)
          • RAPESEED (CANOLA) OIL (IN EUROPE, CANADA)
          • SUNFLOWER OIL – LIKE RAPESEED, GOOD
            PRODUCTIVITY/ACRE
          • PEANUT OIL (FIRST USED BY “DR. DIESEL” –
            RUDOLPH DIESEL)
          • CORN OIL
          • ANIMAL FATS (TALLOW)
          • ALSO “YELLOW GREASE” AND “WHITE GREASE”


WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI           70
         FUEL DEVELOPMENTS
   WHAT ARE BIOFUELS? (4)
        BIODIESEL
        ALSO MADE FROM:
          • RECYCLED COOKING OILS (“YELLOW GREASE”) IN US,
            CANADA. ALSO PORK FAT (“WHITE GREASE”)
          • OVERSEAS: JATROPHA, OTHER HIGH OIL CONTENT NUT
            OILS (INDIA) – VERY PRODUCTIVE OIL CROPS FOR POOR
            SOIL CONDITIONS
        ALL ARE MIXTURES OF FATTY ACID TRIGLYCERIDES
        WHILE IT IS POSSIBLE TO USE THESE DIRECTLY AS A FUEL,
         THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR DIESEL ENGINE BEARING WEAR
        THE RAW OR RECYCLED OILS MUST BE REFINED AND
         ALKYLATED
          •   IN PRACTICE, IT IS REACTED WITH METHYL OR ETHYL ALCOHOL
              AND A SIMPLE BASE CATALYST TO FORM THE FATTY ACID
              ALKYL ESTER AND BY-PRODUCT GLYCEROL [WHICH ITSELF HAS
              SOME VALUE AS A FUEL]



WSU, 01/08-04/08            TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                71
            ENERGIZING OUR
               FUTURE
   BIODIESEL
   TRIGLYCERIDE AND FATTY ACID STRUCTURE




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   72
“SYNTHETIC BIODIESEL”
   TRIGLYCERIDE AND FATTY ACID STRUCTURE




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   73
            BIODIESEL:
        PRODUCTION PROCESS




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   74
 BIODIESEL
PRODUCTION
   FROM
RAPESEED OIL




  WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   75
    A Comparison of Biodiesel Base Oils
          by Source and Type

    BIODIESEL FUEL CHARACTERISTICS
        B-100 IS TYPICALLY A MIXTURE OF 5-7 () FATTY ACID ESTERS
        PROPORTIONS VARY WIDELY, EVEN AMONG SOY ESTERS FROM
         DIFFERENT SOURCES, LOCATIONS, CLIMATES
        DIFFERENT VEGETABLE OILS PRODUCE VERY DIFFERENT ESTER
         DISTRIBUTIONS – AND HENCE DIFFERENT FUEL PROPERTIES
             NOT SURPRISING SINCE FA AND FAE PROPERTIES ALSO VARY!
             IN PRACTICE, IMPACT IS MITIGATED BY BLENDING WITH PETRO DIESEL
        VARIABILITY CAN BE REDUCED BY CAREFUL PLANT BREEDING
         AND/OR GE (DUPONT, MONSANTO)
        FUEL PROPERTIES AND PERFORMANCE [ESPECIALLY EXHAUST
         EMISSIONS] WILL BE CONTROLLED ONLY WHEN WE CAN CONTROL
         FUEL COMPOSITION - E.G.:
             BIODIESEL: FAE COMPOSITION, DISTRIBUTION, ARE MOST IMPORTANT
             PETROLEUM DIESEL: SULFUR, AROMATICS CONTENT ARE MOST
              IMPORTANT
             FAE DISTRIBUTION MAY HAVE GREATEST EFFECT ON UNREGULATED
              EMISSIONS




WSU, 01/08-04/08              TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                      76
 A Comparison of Biodiesel Base Oils
       by Source and Type
  Fatty Acid       NE Brazil   US Midwest    Canada #1    Typical Palm     Typical
                   Soybean     Soybean Oil   Canola Oil        Oil       Jatropha Oil
                      Oil
Palmitic C16:0        9.3         10.1          3.9           39.6          14.5
Stearic C18:0         3.1          4.2          2.0           5.4            5.5
Oleic C18:1          33.8         24.3          61.5          41.1          50.0
Linoleic C18:2       48.3         51.5          19.1          12.4          29.5
Linolenic C18:3       5.5          8.3          9.9           n/a            n/a
Margaric C20          n/a          0.1          n/a           n/a            n/a
Arachidic C20         n/a         0.35          0.7           n/a            n/a
Gadoleic C20          n/a          0.2          1.4           n/a            n/a
Behenic C22           n/a          0.4          0.4           n/a            n/a
Lignoceric            n/a          0.1          0.2           n/a            n/a
Other                 n/a          0.2          0.9           1.5            0.5

WSU, 01/08-04/08                TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                            77
  SIMPLIFIED FATTY ACID COMPOSITIONS
        OF KEY VEGETABLE OILS

    OIL        C8   C10   C12      C14       C16    C18   C20   C22

 COCONUT       7     7    49        17        9     11     0     0

 PALM KNL      3     5    49        17        8     18     0     0

   PALM        0     0     0        4        40     58     0     0

  TALLOW       0     0     0        3        29     68     0     0

   CORN        0     0     0        1        10     89     0     0

SUNFLOWER      0     0     0        0         6     94     0     0

 SOYBEAN       0     0     0        0        10     88     0     0

 RAPESEED      0     0     0        0         3     97     0     0

 MUSTARD       0     0     0        0         3     97     0     0

 JATROPHA      0     0     0        0        16     82     2     0

 ALGAL OIL     0     0     0        10       24      2    3.5   60.5

  JOJOBA       0     0     0        0         0     12    17    71



WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                    78
              COMMON NATURAL OIL
            FATTY ACIDS (NOT ESTERS)
   Caprylic (C8) CH3(CH2)6COOH (COCONUT)
   Capric (C10)    CH3(CH2)8COOH (COCONUT)
   Lauric (C12)    CH3(CH2)10COOH (COCONUT, PALM KERNEL)
   Myristic (C14) CH3(CH2)12COOH (BUTTER, PALM KERNEL, COCONUT)
   Palmitic (C16) CH3(CH2)14COOH (TALLOW, LARD, BUTTER, PALM)
   Palmitoleic (C16) CH3(CH2)5CH=CH(CH2)7COOH (COD LIVER OIL)
   Stearic (C18) CH3(CH2)16COOH (TALLOW)
   Oleic (C18)     CH3(CH2)7CH=CH(CH2)7COOH (ALMOST ALL)
   Linoleic (C18) CH3(CH2)4CH=CH(CH2)CH=CH(CH2)7COOH (MOST)
   Linolenic (C18) CH3(CH2)CH=CH(CH2)CH=CH(CH2)CH=CH(CH2)7COOH
                   (LINSEED, TUNG OILS)
   Arachidic (C20) CH2(CH2)18COOH (PEANUT, BUTTER)
   Eicosenoic (C20) CH3(CH2)7CH=CH(CH2)9COOH (RAPE, MUSTARD)
   Erucic (C22)    CH3(CH2)7CH=CH(CH2)11COOH (TOXIC! SOME IN “OLD”
    CANOLA)




    WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                  79
 Properties of Individual Methyl Esters
          Found in Biodiesel

 Fatty Acid    Density, g/cc   Viscosity: Cs   Cetane No.   Heating    Melting Point
Methyl Ester     @15OC            @ 40OC                     Value          OC

                                                             MJ/kg
 Palmitate         0.867           4.37           74          39.4         30.6


  Stearate         0.867           5.79           75          40.1         39.1


   Oleate          0.878           4.47           55          39.9         -19.8


  Linoleate        0.890           3.68           33          39.7         -35.0


 Source of     Janarthanan     Janarthanan      Bagby &      Bagby &      Teoh &
   Data           et al           et al        Freedman     Freedman     Clements



WSU, 01/08-04/08                 TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                           80
            A Comparison of Biodiesel Alkyl
             Esters by Source and Type (1)
 Ester      Cetane     Viscos   Flash Pt.    HHV        LHV       Cloud Pt.   Pour Pt.
  ▼          No.         CS        OC       MJ/Kg      MJ/Kg         OC         OC


Soy ME       50.9      4.08       131        40.4          37.0    -0.5 tp    -1 to -3.8
                                                                     2.0
Can ME       52.9      4.83       170        40.7          37.3     -4.0        -10.8

 Soy EE      48.2      4.41       160        40.0          n/a     -1.0 to      -4.0
                                                                     1.0
 Can EE      64.9      6.17       185        40.5          n/a      -2.0        -15.0

 Soy BE      51.7      5.24       n/a        40.7          n/a      -3.0        -7.0

 Tallow      58.8       4.8       117        40.2          n/a      13.9         9.0
  ME
 Frying      61.0      5.78       124        40.5          37.2     9.0          8.0
 Oil EE
  D-2       40-52       2.6      60-72       44.9          43.4   -25 to -     -25 to
(Typical)                                                           15          +5
    WSU, 01/08-04/08             TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                               81
        A Comparison of Biodiesel Base Oils
             by Source and Type (2)

   Notes for Previous Slide
       ME = methyl ester; EE = ethyl ester; BE = butyl ester; C = canola
       Methylation is by far the most common esterification method
       D-2 = conventional petroleum diesel (varies widely in properties)
       HHV = higher heating value; LHV = lower heating value (excludes
        unrecovered evaporation enthalpy in water vapor);
       1 MJ/Kg = 429.92 BTU/lb.
   Comments on Previous Slide
       HHV values are remarkably consistent– about 10% (HHV) or 15% (LHV)
        below that of typical D-2 (biodiesel produces more combustion water)
       Cold weather performance varies widely; it is unacceptable in some esters
        (e.g., tallow methyl ester, esterified frying oil) compared to D-2. Additives
        are usually required for lower cloud, pour points and CFPP
       Alkyl ester cetane numbers are usually significantly higher than for D-2,
        especially for canola esters.


    WSU, 01/08-04/08              TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                          82
    A Comparison of Biodiesel Base
      Oils by Source and Type (3)
   There are many other important natural oilseed crops
   Oil FA constitution varies very widely
   Some extreme examples not listed in table:
        Castor Oil - 90% ricinoleic acid – used as a engine lubricant
        Tung Oil - 82% eleostearic acid – used in furniture care
         products; also as a diesel fuel in rural China!
        Ucuuba Oil (Brazil) - 73% myristic acid – used to make candles
        Neem Oil – 42% oleic acid, 21% stearic acid, 19% palmitic acid.
         Unusual in that it contains organic sulfur compounds that
         make it effective as an insect repellent
        Tallow (animal fat) - 43% oleic acid, 24% palmitic acid, 19%
         stearic acid – used for candles and for biodiesel manufacture
   All are potential base oils for biodiesel manufacture
        Some (e.g., tallow, peanut, olive, sunflower) have been
         methylated and used with limited success


WSU, 01/08-04/08            TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                   83
  SIMPLIFIED FATTY ACID COMPOSITIONS
   OF KEY VEGETABLE OILS (REPEATED)

    OIL        C8   C10   C12      C14       C16    C18   C20   C22

 COCONUT       7     7    49        17        9     11     0     0

 PALM KNL      3     5    49        17        8     18     0     0

   PALM        0     0     0        4        40     58     0     0

  TALLOW       0     0     0        3        29     68     0     0

   CORN        0     0     0        1        10     89     0     0

SUNFLOWER      0     0     0        0         6     94     0     0

 SOYBEAN       0     0     0        0        10     88     0     0

 RAPESEED      0     0     0        0         3     97     0     0

 MUSTARD       0     0     0        0         3     97     0     0

 JATROPHA      0     0     0        0        16     82     2     0

 ALGAL OIL     0     0     0        10       24      2    3.5   60.5

  JOJOBA       0     0     0        0         0     12    17    71



WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                    84
              COMPOSITION AND
                PROPERTIES

   HOW TO OPTIMIZE COMPOSITION?
        OBTAIN MUCH MORE DATA ON FUNCTIONAL
         PROPERTIES VS. COMPOSITION
        BLEND FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES TO ACHIEVE
         SELECTED COMPOSITION
           E.G., COCONUT OIL + RAPESEED OIL

           TALLOW + ??

        NEED TO BALANCE SATURATES VS UNSATURATES –
         NOT JUST CHAIN LENGTH
        WITH ENOUGH COMPOSITIONAL INFO, NO DIFFERENT
         THAN BLENDING GASOLINE OR LUBRICANTS
        NEED TO TAKE THE “BASE STOCK” (ULSD) INTO
         ACCOUNT IN TARGETING THE FINAL RESULT


WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI      85
                       BIODIESEL
   HOW IS IT MADE?
       BY REACTING VEGETABLE OIL WITH
        ALCOHOLS LIKE ETHANOL, METHANOL.
            VEGETABLE OILS (AND ANIMAL FATS) ARE A
             MIXTURE OF TRIGLYCERIDES OF MOSTLY “C18”
             FATTY ACIDS (OLEIC, LINOLEIC, ETC.)
         •   REACTION WITH ~12 WT% OF AN ALKYL
             ALCOHOL SUCH AS METHANOL, ETHANOL FORMS
             A MIXTURE OF FATTY ACID ALKYL ESTERS PLUS
             CO-PRODUCT GLYCEROL. THE PRODUCTS ARE
             THEN SEPARATED & (IF NECESSARY) REFINED
         •   HIGHER ALKYL ALCOHOLS (PROPYL, BUTYL) CAN
             ALSO BE USED – CHOICE DETERMINED BY FUEL
             PROPERTIES SOUGHT

    WSU, 01/08-04/08     TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   86
                       BIODIESEL:
                 HISTORY OF USE AS A FUEL
   BIODIESEL FIRST USED IN ENGINES IN THE
    1890’s
       BY RUDOLPH DIESEL (UNMODIFIED PEANUT OIL!)
       METHYLATED SOYBEAN OIL IN COMMON USE UNTIL ABOUT 1920
        - REPLACED BY MUCH CHEAPER PETROLEUM DIESEL
       SOME USE BY GERMANY IN WW2 BUT SYNTHETIC DIESEL AND
        SYNTHETIC AVIATION GASOLINE WERE MORE SUCCESSFUL
       NO REAL INTEREST UNTIL THE FOREIGN OIL SUPPLY CRISIS OF
        THE 1970s. THEN BIODIESEL WAS SEEN AS A DIESEL
        “EXTENDER”
       INTEREST IN BIODIESEL AS A “GREEN” FUEL IS MORE RECENT.
       NOW USED FOR HIGH LUBRICITY, CONTRIBUTION TO ENERGY
        INDEPENDENCE, EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS (PM, HC, CO BUT NOT
        NOx), CO2 “RECYCLING”
       HISTORY: POOR QUALITY; IMPROVING, BUT A LONG WAY TO GO.
       STILL NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD COMPARED TO PETROLEUM
        DIESEL



    WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI           87
           DIESEL & BIODIESEL:
          DENSITY AND CETANE NUMBER




            NOT    OK
            OK




WSU, 01/08-04/08        TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   88
                       BIODIESEL:
     IMPACT ON HD VEHICLE EMISSIONS


                                                     “SPREAD”




                   [NOTE UNCERTAINTY OF NOX DATA]


WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI              89
             OTHER DIESEL BIOFUELS
   BIODIESEL HAS STRONG COMPETITION!
       ETHANOL (E-DIESEL - FROM CORN, NOW BIOMASS)
         •   USED AS AN OXYGENATED ADDITIVE (10-15%)
         •   SUPPOSEDLY IMPROVES EMISSIONS, COLD STARTS
         •   NOT APPROVED BY THE ENGINE MANUFACTURERS
       “BTL” FUELS (GTL-D OR FT-D WITH A BIOMASS TWIST)
         •   BIOMASS  SYNGAS  FT SYNTHESIS  REFINED LIQUIDS
         •   PRODUCT: S-FREE, AROMATICS-FREE DIESEL LOOK-ALIKE
         •   COST: DEPENDS ON NG COST
         •   NET ENERGY RECOVERED: STILL UNCERTAIN
       OXYFUELS – E.G., FUEL ALCOHOLS (IF FROM BIOMASS)
         •   SAME BTL PROCESS, BUT DIFFERENT CATALYSTS AND
             CONDITIONS
         •   COST IS LOW
         •   PRODUCTS INCLUDE ALKYL ALCOHOLS, ETHERS, KETONES



    WSU, 01/08-04/08        TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          90
               BIODIESEL NOTES
   BIODIESEL FUEL NOTES
       PRIMARY USE IS AS 5-20% ADDITIVE TO PETROLEUM
        DIESEL AS AN EMISSIONS CONTROL ADDITIVE (VERY
        EFFECTIVE). B5 AND B10 ARE COMMON. B20
        OFFERS LITTLE ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGE PLUS
        SOME FUEL INSTABILITY & MATERIALS
        COMPATIBILITY PROBLEMS. BUT THE BIODIESEL
        INDUSTRY WANTS TO GO THERE.
       BIODIESEL ALSO ADDS LUBRICITY TO LOW-SULFUR
        PETROLEUM DIESELS, A CHARACTERISTIC THAT MAY
        PROVE VALUABLE AS ULSD FUELS ARE INTRODUCED
        (STARTED IN OCTOBER 2006)
       THE LOW NET ENERGY RECOVERY IN BIODIESEL
        MANUFACTURE MEANS THAT USE AS A DIESEL
        SUBSTITUTE OR EXTENDER IS NOT NORMALLY
        VIABLE, EVEN WITH THE NEW SUBSIDIES

        WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   91
     BIODIESEL NOTES (2)
   BIODIESEL FUEL NOTES
        FOR OPTIMUM ENERGY CONSERVATION IT IS
         BETTER TO BURN SOYBEANS AS FURNACE
         FUEL! (SAME PROBLEM AS CORN ETHANOL)
        BIODIESEL WILL EXPERIENCE MAJOR
         COMPETITION FROM SYNTHETIC FUELS THAT
         OFFER MANY OF THE SAME PROPERTIES
        SOME OF THESE SYNTHETICS MAY BE DERIVED
         FROM BIOMASS… BUT THEY ARE NOT HERE
         YET.
        BIODIESEL IS LESS COMPRESSIBLE THAN
         STANDARD DIESEL, SYNTHETIC DIESEL IS
         MORE COMPRESSIBLE – THIS CAN AFFECT
         INJECTOR PERFORMANCE AND TIMING.


WSU, 01/08-04/08    TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI    92
     BIODIESEL NOTES (3)
   ARE THERE BETTER ROUTES TO
    BIODIESEL? THE RIGHT CHOICE WOULD:
        AVOID USE OF FOSSIL-BASED METHANOL
        AVOID GLYCEROL FORMATION
        PRODUCE A PRODUCT OF HIGHER QUALITY AND
         FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE
        PRODUCE MORE OF THE DESIRED END-
         PRODUCT (FATTY ACID ALKYL ESTERS – OR A
         WHOLE NEW TYPE OF BIODIESEL)
        PRODUCE A PRODUCT OF HIGHER ENERGY
         CONTENT (NOT A CRITICAL ISSUE)
        PRODUCE MORE BIODIESEL PER UNIT OF
         NATURAL OIL CONSUMED

WSU, 01/08-04/08    TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   93
                      OIL CROP
                   PRODUCTIVITIES
 DIFFERENT CROPS PRODUCE DIFFERENT
  AMOUNTS ….AND DIFFERENT OILS (NEXT SLIDE).
        CORN                  129 LB/ACRE
        SOYBEAN               335 LB/ACRE
        SUNFLOWER             714 LB/ACRE
        RAPESEED              893 LB/ACRE
        JATROPHA              1420 LB/ACRE
        JOJOBA                1365 LB/ACRE
        AVOCADO               1980 LB/ACRE
        COCONUT               2018 LB/ACRE
        PALM OIL              4465 LB/ACRE

WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   94
     BIODIESEL NOTES (4)
   BETTER ROUTES TO BIODIESEL?
        PROGRESS MADE IN SEVERAL AREAS, EG:
             AVOID HEXANE EXTRACTION OF SOYBEAN OIL BY
              PROCESSING BEAN FLAKE WITH MeOH AND CAT
             CONTINUOUS PROCESSING USING NON-ALKALINE
              HETEROGENEOUS CATALYST
             REPLACEMENT OF METHANOL WITH BIOETHANOL
             NExBTL – FORTUM OIL & GAS (FORMERLY NESTE
              OY) PROCESS PRODUCES HIGH-QUALITY
              HYDROGENATED PRODUCT – OTHERS FOLLOWING
             NUMEROUS OTHER PROJECTS ONGOING
             FOR MORE BACKUP INFO (MUCH DETAIL HERE):
              http://www.castoroil.in/reference/plant_oils/us
              _es/fuel/bio_fuels.html
WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI           95
     BIODIESEL NOTES (5)
   BETTER ALTERNATIVES TO BIODIESEL?
        MULTIPLE CHOICES, EG:
             A VARIETY OF BIOMASS  “BIODIESEL” TECH:
             FERMENTATION OF BIOMASS  MIXED ALCOHOLS
             BIOMASS GASIFICATION  SYNGAS  ALCOHOLS
             BIOMASS GASIFICATION  SYNGAS  SYNTHETIC
              HYDROCARBONS
             CAN ALSO CONVERT DIRECTLY TO A MIXTURE OF
              HYDROCARBON AND ALCOHOL (DIFFICULT!)
             MANY BTL FUELS, WHETHER OXYGENATES OR
              HYDROCARBONS, PERFORM AS WELL AS
              BIODIESEL OR (IN GASOLINE) ETHANOL


WSU, 01/08-04/08        TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI      96
     BIODIESEL NOTES (6)
   CAN WE MODIFY BIODIESEL FOR BETTER
    PERFORMANCE ?
        THE “OLEOCHEMISTS” HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR
         YEARS – FOR FOOD OR INDUSTRIAL USES:
             INTEREST IN SWITCHING AWAY FROM PETROLEUM:
             FISH AND ANIMAL OILS AND FATS OUT OF PUBLIC
              FAVOR, ESPECIALLY IN EUROPE (NOT IN SE ASIA!)
             USE OF PLANT BREEDING TO ADJUST OIL CHEMISTRY
             EG, GM RAPESEED FOR LAURIC ACID PRODUCTION
             BUT…CONCERN OVER USE OF GM, SO MAY BE BETTER
              TO CHEMICALLY MODIFY THE NATURAL OIL
             SURFACTANTS ARE A MAJOR DERIVATIVE OF OILS
             SO ARE A WIDE RANGE OF PAINTS AND COATINGS (ONE
              OF THE OLDEST USES OF NATURAL OILS)
             PLENTY OF UNIQUE CHEMISTRY – CAN WE USE IT FOR
              BIODIESEL IMPROVEMENT?


WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI           97
     BIODIESEL NOTES (7)

   CAN WE MODIFY BIODIESEL FOR BETTER
    CAN WE MODIFY BIODIESEL FOR BETTER
    PERFORMANCE ?
    PERFORMANCE ?
     
        HYDROPROCESSING OR FUNCTIONALIZATION?
         HYDROPROCESSING OR FUNCTIONALIZATION?
         EXAMPLES:
         EXAMPLES:
          
             CONTROLLED UNSATURATION
              CONTROLLED UNSATURATION FOR CURABLE
              APPLICATIONS:
              APPLICATIONS:
          
             WHAT IS GAINED
              WHAT IS GAINED BY INTRODUCING CHAIN-BRANCHING?
          
             USE FOR BIO-BASED AND “BIODEGRADABLE”
              USE FOR BIO-BASED AND “BIODEGRADABLE”
              LUBRICANTS – CONFLICTING OBJECTIVES
              LUBRICANTS – CONFLICTING OBJECTIVES
          
             AMINE AND OTHER FUNCTIONALIZATION
              AMINE AND OTHER FUNCTIONALIZATION METHODS
          
             CAN EPOXIDIZE     MALEINATE
              CAN EPOXIDIZE OR MALEINATE NATURAL OILS TO   TO
              ACHIEVE POLYESTER-LIKE
              ACHIEVE POLYESTER-LIKE POLYMERS
          
             AGAIN, PLENTY OF UNIQUE CHEMISTRY – CAN WE USE
              AGAIN, PLENTY OF UNIQUE CHEMISTRY – CAN WE USE
              IT FOR BIODIESEL IMPROVEMENT?
              IT FOR BIODIESEL IMPROVEMENT?
          
             READ http://www.cyberlipid.org/fa/acid0001.htm
              READ http://www.cyberlipid.org/fa/acid0001.htm
          
             CAN FRACTIONATE,
              CAN FRACTIONATE, HYDROGENATE, INTERESTERIFY…
          
             LITTLE FUELS WORK TO
              LITTLE FUELS WORK TO DATE – THE JURY IS STILL OUT

WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI            98
          ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES
              DIESEL FUELS
   WHY DO WE ALSO NEED
    “CLEAN DIESEL” ENGINES?
        HIGH THERMAL EFFICIENCY  FUEL SAVINGS
        MORE EFFICIENCY GAINS TO COME
        MAJOR CHANGES IN EMISSIONS REGULATIONS
         IN THE U.S., EUROPE AND JAPAN
             EFFECTIVELY REQUIRES FUELS THAT
              CONTRIBUTE TO EMISSIONS CONTROL
             EU NOW PROPOSING EVEN MORE EXTREME
              STANDARDS, ESPECIALLY FOR CO2
             STANDARDS SET (2/7/07) AT FLEET AVERAGE OF
              130 GM/KM (210 GM/MI)
             PRESENT “FLEET” RUNS UP TO 500 GM/KM; EU
              AVERAGE IS NOW ~200 GM/KM AND CLIMBING

WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI           99
      ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES
          DIESEL FUELS
   CLEAN DIESELS….
        MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS IN “CLEAN DIESEL”
         ENGINE TECHNOLOGY HAVE BEEN LED BY
         EUROPEAN ENGINE MANUFACTURERS
           ALL NEED CLEAN FUELS TO BE EFFECTIVE
           PLUS DOWNSTREAM EXHAUST CLEANUP
           EUROPE HAS 1-10 PPM SULFUR DIESEL FUEL
        “THE DIESELS ARE COMING” (TO THE US, THAT IS)
        TECH LEADERS WHO WILL BRING PRODUCTS TO THE
         US ARE VW, MERCEDES (DCX), BMW, AUDI, HONDA
        FOLLOWERS HERE WILL BE DCX (JEEP), GM (V-8 DUE
         IN 2008), FORD (IMPORTED FROM FORD EUROPE)


WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI        100
                   DIESEL ENGINE
                   DEVELOPMENTS
   WHAT ARE THE TECHNOLOGIES?
        HIGH PRESSURE FUEL INJECTION (COMMON RAIL OR UNIT
         INJECTOR) – CAN BE >30,000 PSI
        DIRECT INJECTION
        HIGH % EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION (EGR)
        MULTI-STAGE FUEL INJECTION
        MULTI-ORIFICE FUEL INJECTORS
        MULTIPLE TURBOCHARGERS (VERY FEW
         SUPERCHARGERS). SMALLER = BETTER RESPONSE
        TWO-STAGE TURBOCHARGING FOR DIESELS
        LIGHTER DESIGN, OFTEN ALL-ALUMINUM OR AL+MG
        VARIABLE CAM TIMING & VALVE LIFT, COMING – SLOWLY!
        HYDROGEN INJECTION IN INTAKE AIR (FOR DPs)
        HYDROGEN INJECTION IN EXHAUST (FOR NOX SCRs)


WSU, 01/08-04/08        TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI           101
      ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES
          DIESEL FUELS
   CLEAN DIESELS….
        NEAR FUTURE TECH TRENDS (ALL ENGINES)
             ULTRA-HIGH PRESSURE EFI
             DIRECT INJECTION (CONTINUED AND REFINED)
             HCCI (HOMOGENEOUS-CHARGE COMPRESSION
              IGNITION) - DIESEL
             CAI (COMPRESSION AUTO IGNITION) – GASOLINE
             INCREASINGLY BLURRED LINE BETWEEN GAS &
              DIESEL
             VARIABLE COMPRESSION RATIO (MOSTLY
              GASOLINE) &/OR TURBO PRESSURE
             ENGINE “AUTO-OPTIMIZATION” FOR VARIABLE
              FUELS
        IC ENGINES WILL BE AROUND FOR A WHILE!

WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI       102
      ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES
          DIESEL FUELS
        OTHER DRIVERS
        INCREASING FUEL COSTS WORLD-WIDE
             CAN WE FIND LESS EXPENSIVE “CLEAN DIESEL”
              FUELS?
        CONCERN OVER FUTURE GLOBAL FUEL
         SUPPLIES….JUSTIFIED?
        CONCERN OVER U.S. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
             CAN WE MAKE DIESEL FUEL FROM AN
              ALTERNATIVE RESOURCE THAT IS DOMESTIC,
              RENEWABLE, CLEAN AND PLENTIFUL?
             AND AT WHAT COST?
        CONCERN OVER CURRENT ALTERNATE FUEL
         QUALITY ALSO A FACTOR

WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          103
 ALTERNATIVE DIESEL FUELS
             THE EMISSIONS CHALLENGE




            US 2008


WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   104
 ALTERNATIVE DIESEL FUELS
             THE EMISSIONS CHALLENGE




              US 2008




WSU, 01/08-04/08        TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   105
 ALTERNATIVE DIESEL FUELS
             THE EMISSIONS CHALLENGE

   THE REGULATIONS KEEP TIGHTENING
        ESPECIALLY FOR NOX AND NOW CO2
        EU CO2 GOING TO 130 GM/KM (EU) ≈ 210 GM/MI (US) –
         BUT THESE ARE AVERAGES (FOR NOW!)
        UK CAR TAXES ARE BASED IN PART ON CO 2
         EMISSIONS….WILL WE SEE THAT IN CA, THEN 50-
         STATE?
        CURRENT RANGE IS ABOUT 115 TO 500 GM/KM, SO
         130 WILL BE A MAJOR CHALLENGE
        REGULATORY BODIES SEEM TO BE COMPETING FOR
         “MOST TOUGH” AWARD
        EXPECT CA TO FOLLOW EU LEAD SOON
        ALL TRANSLATES INTO INCREASED DEMAND FOR
         CLEAN DIESEL AND CLEAN FUEL TECHNOLOGY.


WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          106
              DIESEL EXHAUST SYSTEM
                  DEVELOPMENTS

   WHAT ARE THEY?
        MOST ARE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE CONTROL OF
         PARTICULATES AND NOX - AND COMPENSATE FOR
         ENGINE CHANGES.
        SIMPLE OXIDATION CATALYST FOR HC, CO
        DIESEL PARTICULATE FILTERS (DPF)
          •   MONOLITH TYPE (70% OF MARKET) OR FIBER TYPE
              (25%)
          •   A FEW METAL FLEECE, WOOL, SINTERED SHEET (5%)
        SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR) FOR NOX
          •   MOST REQUIRE AMMONIA, H2 (!) OR UREA INJECTION
        CONTROLS FOR DPF REGENERATION – DEPENDS ON
         TYPE:
             CONTINUOUS VS. BATCH REGEN; CATALYTIC….

WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI              107
DIESEL FUEL ADDITIVES
   THE ISSUE:
      WHAT CAN WE LEARN ABOUT IMPROVING
       FUELS FROM THE BEHAVIOR OF ADDITIVES?
•   FOUR MAIN CATEGORIES:
      ENGINE PERFORMANCE – E.G., CETANE #

      FUEL HANDLING

      FUEL STABILITY

      CONTAMINANT CONTROL

•   AND A FEW “SPECIALS” – MOSTLY DUBIOUS
    AFTERMARKET PRODUCTS!

WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   108
DIESEL FUEL ADDITIVES

   THREE ADDITION LOCATIONS:
        REFINERY
        DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (E.G., PIPELINE)
        AFTERMARKET (BUYER BEWARE!!)
•   ENGINE PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES:
        CETANE (IGNITION DELAY) IMPROVERS
        DETERGENTS (INJECTOR CLEANLINESS)
        LUBRICITY IMPROVERS
        SMOKE SUPPRESSANTS
        COMBUSTION CATALYSTS
WSU, 01/08-04/08     TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI    109
DIESEL FUEL ADDITIVES

   CETANE IMPROVERS:
        NITRATES [2-ETHYLHEXYL (OCTYL) NITRATE]
             ALSO OTHER ALKYL NITRATES
        PEROXIDES [DI-TERTIARY BUTYL PEROXIDE]
        PERFORMANCE OF ALL DEPENDS ON:
             BASE FUEL COMPOSITION
             BASE FUEL CETANE NUMBER
        MAY HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON LUBRICITY
             SO MAY ALSO NEED TO USE LUBRICITY ADDITIVE
        TYPICAL DOSAGE RATE: 500-2000 PPM
             RESULTS IN 3-8 CN IMPROVEMENT

WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI       110
        DIESEL FUEL ADDITIVES
   DETERGENT ADDITIVES
       ASHLESS POLYMERIC POLAR/NON-POLAR TYPE
       CLEANS INJECTORS, MINIMIZES DEPOSITS
       DOSAGE 50-300 PPM
•   LUBRICITY ADDITIVES (OFTEN IN A “PACKAGE”)
       POLAR GROUP WITH LONG OLEOPHILIC TAIL
       EFFECTIVE AS BOUNDARY LUBRICANTS
       TYPES:
             MONOCARBOXYLIC FATTY ACIDS (≈ BIODIESEL!)
             AMIDES (FA PLUS AMINE)
             SYNTHETIC ESTERS (ESTER GROUP + POLYOLEFIN)
             “NATURAL” DIMER ACID ESTERS (~C36 DICARBOXYLIC
              ACIDS)
        WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI         111
DIESEL FUEL ADDITIVES
•   LUBRICITY ADDITIVES (OFTEN IN A “PACKAGE”)
      OFTEN SHOW SHARP “THRESHOLD EFFECT”

      LITTLE EFFECT BELOW 100 PPM, LITTLE

       IMPROVEMENT ABOVE 200 PPM
      MECHANISM THOUGHT TO BE FILM FORMATION –

       100% COVERAGE NEEDED, HENCE THE “THRESHOLD”
            SOME PROBLEMS REPORTED WITH LUBRICATING OIL
             INTERACTIONS
            PROBLEMS REPORTED WITH FUEL FILTER PLUGGING
             DUE TO REACTION WITH OTHER ADDITIVES PRESENT
            SOME PROBLEMS WITH PIPELINE CONTAMINATION OF
             JET FUEL – ADDITION AT FUEL TERMINALS NOW
             COMMON
            MIXING BECOMES A PROBLEM
WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI            112
DIESEL FUEL ADDITIVES

   SMOKE SUPPRESSANTS
      CATALYSTS

      ORGANOMETALLIC BARIUM NO LONGER USED!

      OTHERS ORGANOMETALLICS USED WERE:

             CALCIUM
             IRON
             CERIUM
             PLATINUM
        MANY PROPRIETARY FORMULATIONS, FUEL-
         SOLUBLE ORGANOMETALLICS – E.G., FAs, FAEs
        NOW LITTLE USED - FORM ENGINE DEPOSITS,
         PARTICULATES


WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI     113
        DIESEL FUEL ADDITIVES
   IN-CYLINDER COMBUSTION CATALYSTS (USUALLY
    AFTERMARKET PRODUCTS)
       AIM TO REDUCE FUEL CONSUMPTION, IMPROVE ENGINE
        EFFICIENCY
             BUT MODERN ENGINES ARE VERY EFFICIENT ALREADY
       SOMETIMES USEFUL FOR OLDER ENGINES AND LOW-
        QUALITY FUELS. BUT BUYER BEWARE!
       USUALLY ORGANOMETALLICS
       VERY PROPRIETARY BUT OFTEN PT-BASED
       SOME APPEAR TO REQUIRE FORMATION OF DEPOSITS
       A LOT OF OLD HISTORY RE PERFORMANCE AND EFFECTS
       HIT-AND-MISS SUCCESS
       GENERALLY NOT RECOMMENDED AND NOT APPROVED BY
        ENGINE MANUFACTURERS OR THE EPA.


        WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI        114
    DIESEL FUEL ADDITIVES
                                         ADDITIVE        TYPICAL   TYPIC   RESULT
   FUEL HANDLING                          TYPE           TREAT     AL
    ADDITIVES                                              RATE
                                                           PPM      OC       OF
        LOW-TEMPERATURE
         OPERABILITY                      CLOUD           200-      3-4     5-7
                                          POINT           2000
         ADDITIVES
             USUALLY POLYMERS
              THAT SOLUBILIZE                LTFT        50-2000   8-12    15-25
              WAXES                     (filterability
             ADDITIVE                       Test)
              FORMULATION MAY BE           CFPP           100-     15-20   25-35
              FUEL-SPECIFIC                               2000
             RESULTS FOR CLOUD
              POINT, POUR POINT (US)
              AND CFPP (EU) ARE              PP           100-     30-40   50-70
              OFTEN VERY                                  3000
              DIFFERENT.


    WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                            115
DIESEL FUEL ADDITIVES

   TYPES OF FUEL HANDLING ADDITIVES
        FLOW IMPROVERS
             AIM TO KEEP WAX CRYSTALS SMALL
             TYPICALLY ARE POLYMERS SUCH AS POLY(ETHYLENE-
              CO-VINYL) ACETATE (AKA ETHYLENE VINYL ACETATE
              OR EVA)
             ACT AS WAX CRYSTAL NUCLEANTS
             EFFECTIVENESS DEPENDS ON WAX DISTRIBUTION
        WAX ANTI-SETTLING ADDITIVES (WASA)
             REDUCE CRYSTAL SIZE
             KEEP THE SMALL WAX CRYSTALS IN SUSPENSION
             AVOIDS FORMATION OF THICK TANK-BOTTOM LAYER
             MAY BE AMINO-MODIFIED ACID AMIDES AND POLYMERS
              (INCLUDING MODIFIED EVA)

WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          116
DIESEL FUEL ADDITIVES
   TYPES OF FUEL HANDLING ADDITIVES
       CLOUD POINT DEPRESSANTS
            SIMPLEST CHOICE IS KEROSENE (AKA D-1 DIESEL)!
            BUT REFINERS PREFER CPDs TO MEET PIPELINE SPECS
            DESIGNED TO ENCAPSULATE LONG-CHAIN WAXES IN
             POLYMER SHEATH
            NOT VERY EFFECTIVE (SEE TABLE)
            MAY CONFLICT WITH FLOW IMPROVERS
       DE-ICING ADDITIVES
            WATER ALMOST ALWAYS PRESENT, MAY FORM ICE
            SOLUBILITY OF WATER IN DIESEL IS ABOUT 100 PPM
            CAN USE (A) SURFACTANTS OR (B) FP DEPRESSANTS
            (A) 10-50PPM AMINES; (B) 0.02-2.0% ISOPROPANOL
WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI              117
    DIESEL FUEL ADDITIVES

     OTHER FUEL HANDLING ADDITIVES:
          ANTIFOAM AGENTS
          DRAG REDUCING ADDITIVES (IMPROVE PIPELINE FLOW)
          ANTISTATIC ADDITIVES
          ANTIOXIDANTS
          STABILIZERS
          METAL DEACTIVATORS – TYPICALLY Cu AND Fe CHELATORS
          DISPERSANTS
          BIOCIDES (WARNING: MAY BE TOXIC!)
          DEMULSIFIERS
          CORROSION INHIBITORS
          ETC., ETC…..
•     SOME OR ALL MAY BE PRESENT
    WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          118
        DIESEL FUEL ADDITIVES
   WHAT CAN WE LEARN?
       TANK SOLID CORROSION PRODUCTS PROBABLY MOSTLY
        HYDRATED Fe3+ OXIDES OR HYDROXIDES
       POSSIBILITY OF INJECTOR FOULING
       SLIGHT POSSIBILITY OF Fe ORGANOMETALLICS
        INCLUDING Fe FATTY ACID, OTHER COMPOUNDS
       THESE ARE KNOWN TO BE CATALYTICALLY ACTIVE,
        ESPECIALLY RE SMOKE FORMATION
       ADDITIONALLY, EXTRA CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO
        ENSURE THAT ONLY DESIRED ADDITIVES ARE PRESENT IN
        ALL RESEARCH FUELS.
       THEY CAN HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON RESULTS!


        WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI      119
                   ETHANOL



    THE GOOD NEWS….
         ….AND THE BAD….




WSU, 01/08-04/08    TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   120
                       ETHANOL
   HOW IS IT MADE NOW?
       HISTORICALLY MADE FROM CORN AND OTHER
        STARCH SOURCES OR FROM NATURAL SUGARS
        BY FERMENTATION
       COMMON SOURCES INCLUDE RICE, POTATO,
        CASSAVA – PLUS CORN AND OTHER GRAINS
       MANUFACTURING PROCESS WAS VERY ENERGY-
        INTENSIVE, BUT IS NOW LESS SO IN MOST
        MODERN PLANTS, DUE TO ADVANCES IN
        DISTILLATION TECHNOLOGY
       AT CURRENT (2008) ETHANOL PRICES (~$2.25),
        IT IS CRITICAL TO MINIMIZE ALL COSTS!



    WSU, 01/08-04/08     TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI     121
                          ETHANOL
                                                                     co2



                          STARCH                      CORN
CORN          DRY MILL
                                    ENZYMATIC        SYRUP
                                   HYDROLYSER
                                                              FERMENTER



 „DRY‟ FUEL
  ETHANOL
  PRODUCT                      STILL

                 DEHYDRATOR



                                                                    HEAT
       WSU, 01/08-04/08             TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                122
                       ETHANOL
   HOW WILL IT BE MADE BY 2050?
           GRADUAL PHASE-OUT OF STARCH-SOURCED
            ETHANOL (INCLUDING CORN ETHANOL)
                TOO EXPENSIVE EXCEPT FOR ASIA
                TOO ENERGY-INTENSIVE
                GENERATES TOO MUCH CO2
           THERE ARE MANY BETTER USES (IN SOME
            AREAS) FOR THE STARCH IN CORN, EVEN AS A
            DIRECT FUEL (~8,000 BTU/LB Ξ LIGNITE)
           INSTEAD, USE BIOMASS  ETHANOL
                NEW TECHNOLOGY IS HERE (E.G., IOGEN, ADM,
                 CARGILL…..), NEEDS MORE DEVELOPMENT



    WSU, 01/08-04/08        TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          123
                       ETHANOL
   FUEL ETHANOL NOTES
     NOT VIABLE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR GASOLINE – TOO
      COSTLY TODAY‟S FUEL PRICES AND ENGINE
      EFFICIENCIES, HAS A LOW ENERGY CONTENT PER
      GALLON, OFFERS ONLY MODERATE-TO-ZERO
      IMPROVEMENT IN OVERALL EMISSIONS (INCLUDING
      MANUFACTURING EMISSIONS)
     PROVING TO BE A USEFUL AT LEVELS UP TO ~15 VOL%
      AS A REPLACEMENT FOR MTBE, AS AN ADDITIVE TO
      GASOLINE FOR EMISSIONS CONTROL AND AS AN
      OCTANE IMPROVER
     SOME OF THESE CONCLUSIONS MAY CHANGE WHEN
      CELLULOSE-BASED ETHANOL BECOMES AVAILABLE
      COMMERCIALLY AT A REALISTIC PRICE


    WSU, 01/08-04/08    TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI         124
                   ETHANOL

   FUEL ETHANOL NOTES
   CORN ETHANOL IS TOO COSTLY AND LOW IN
    ENERGY FOR USE AS AN INDUSTRIAL FUEL OR
    AS A HEAVY-DUTY TRANSPORTATION FUEL
    (TRUCK, RAILROAD)
      WATER SENSITIVITY OF GASOLINE BLENDS
       W/ETHANOL CONTINUES TO BE A PROBLEM
      PREVENTS TRANSPORTATION BY PIPELINE
      MAY FIND SOME USE IN E-DIESEL (10-15%
       ETHANOL IN PETROLEUM DIESEL
          • SOME OF THE SAME PROBLEMS AS E85 GASOLINE


WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI      125
                    ETHANOL
     • FUEL ETHANOL NOTES
          E85 (15% GASOLINE IN ETHANOL) OFFERS NO
           REAL ADVANTAGES AND SEVERAL
           DISADVANTAGES
                MAY REQUIRE A STABILIZER
                ~30+% HIGHER FUEL CONSUMPTION (FEWER MPG)
                EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS TOO HIGH  VOCs
                BTEX* TRANSFER TO WATER ACCENTUATED
                 RELATIVE TO GASOLINE
                HIGH ALDEHYDE LEVELS IN COMBUSTION
                 EMISSIONS (CARCINOGENS?)
                SOME MATERIALS COMPATIBILITY PROBLEMS
*BTEX = BENZENE, TOLUENE, ETHYLBENZENE AND XYLENE COMPONENTS
    OF GASOLINE. ALL ARE CARCINOGENIC.


WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          126
                   ETHANOL
   ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS –
    ETHANOL
     CONVENTIONAL CORN  ETHANOL ANALYSIS
      IGNORES THE INTRINSIC ENERGY OF THE CORN AND
      COUNTS ONLY USE OF FUEL AND FERTILIZER
     FOR A COMPARISON WITH FOSSIL FUELS ON A “LEVEL
      PLAYING FIELD” TREAT THE CORN AS ANY OTHER
      ENERGY FEEDSTOCK
     1 BUSHEL (56 LB) OF CORN MAKES ~2.8 GALLONS (~18
      LB) OF ETHANOL
     ENERGY DEBITS ARE CORN (8,000 BTU/LB DRY),
      PROCESS ENERGY FOR CORN MILLING,
      SACCHARIFICATION, FERMENTATION (≥ 31,000
      BTU/GAL ETHANOL TOTAL), EtOH TRANSPORTATION,
      ETC., TOTAL…..213,000 BTU/GAL

WSU, 01/08-04/08     TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI        127
                   ETHANOL

 ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS –
    ETHANOL
      ENERGY CREDITS ARE ETHANOL (84,000 BTU/GAL),
       AND, IF APPROPRIATE, CO-PRODUCTS (TOTAL 36,000
       BTU/GAL ETHANOL PRODUCED), TOTAL 120,000
       BTU/GAL
      ENERGY BALANCE SHOWS A NET RETURN OF ONLY
       ~15-30% OF THE TOTAL ENERGY INVESTED WITHOUT
       COPRODUCT ENERGY CREDITS
      COMPARE THIS WITH NET RETURNS FOR GASOLINE
       (81%), DIESEL (84%), HYDROGEN FROM NATURAL GAS
       OR COAL (~50% FOR CH2,41% FOR LH2)
      MORE ENERGY IS LOST WHEN THE FUEL IS USED AT
       <100% EFFICIENCY

WSU, 01/08-04/08    TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI        128
        Lincoln, NE, 1933
   Nothing new Under the Sun!!




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   129
         NEITHER POLITICIANS NOR THE
         PUBLIC KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT
            ENERGY TECHNOLOGY…
   ….DESPITE ITS IMPORTANCE TO THEM!
   THIS WOULD BE OK IF THEY UNDERSTOOD THEIR
    LIMITATIONS
   THEY DO NOT, SO THEY HAVE DEVELOPED A BUNCH OF
    “FAITH-BASED” ENERGY PLANS BASED ON:
        A LONG-STANDING DISLIKE OF THE BIG ENERGY
         COMPANIES.
        FAITH THAT HYDROGEN WILL SAVE US BOTH FROM
         OURSELVES AND CLIMATE CHANGE (IT WILL NOT)
        FAITH THAT BIOFUELS ARE A TOTAL ANSWER TO ENERGY
         INDEPENDENCE (THEY ARE NOT)
        A WILLINGNESS TO IGNORE OR DISTORT THE RULES OF
         THERMODYNAMICS (ENERGY CONSERVATION AND USE) IN
         FAVOR OF THE “ENERGY FLAVOR OF THE MONTH”.

WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          130
         NET ENERGY BALANCE
          ISSUES – SEE CHART
   MORE ENERGY IS EXPENDED ON THIS THAN IS
    PRODUCED AS ETHANOL! THIS IS A “RED HERRING”!
   FORGET THE FARM, DIESEL FUEL, FERTILIZER, SOLAR ENERGY
    AND ALL THE ENERGY THAT GOES INTO THE CORN. IT IS
    IRRELEVANT TO ANYONE BUT THE FARMER.
   FOCUS ON THE ENERGY IN THE CORN DELIVERED TO THE
    ETHANOL PLANT GATE – ABOUT 7,500 BTU/LB LHV, 8,000 HHV
   ENERGY IN IS THIS PLUS FUEL USED. ENERGY OUT IS
    ETHANOL. CATTLE FOOD DOESN‟T COUNT UNLESS YOU
    GENERATE HEAT BY BURNING IT (OR THE COWS!)
   ETHANOL PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY FROM CORN IS 35-39%
   HIGHER FROM BIOMASS (~55%)
   COMPARE GASOLINE AND ULSD DIESEL AT ~81%



WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI           131
            FUEL FOR FARM
            OPERATIONS      THE FARMING OPERATION TAKES
            (VERY SMALL)    ALL ANTHROPOMORPHIC AND
                            NATURAL ENERGY INPUTS AND      FARM PRODUCT(S)
                            CONVERTS THEM INTO ENERGY      (ADD: TRANSPORTATION
                            CONTAINED IN A CROP. THIS      AND HANDLING ENERGY)
             FERTILIZER
             (VERY SMALL)   CROP MAY BE BIOMASS OF
                            ALMOST ANY KIND OR, MORE
                            NARROWLY, MAY BE CORN, AN
           NATURAL          OILSEED CROP SUCH AS SOYBEAN
           ENERGY INPUTS    OR RAPESEED OR A FOOD CROP
           (VERY LARGE)     PLUS A CROP RESIDUE USED FOR
                            CONVERSION INTO ENERGY
                                                                    FARM
           FARM ▲                                                   PRODUCT(S) :
                                                                    TREAT AS
                                                                    FEEDSTOCK
           REFINERY                                                 FOR
                                                                    CONVERSION
                            THE ENERGY CONVERSION                   PROCESS
                            OPERATION EXTRACTS
            PROCESS HEAT    COMPONENTS HAVING AN
            (TYPICALLY      ENERGY VALUE FROM THE CROP
            FOSSIL FUEL)    BY PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND/OR
                            BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSING. THE
                            REQUIRED PROCESS ENERGY
             ELECTRICAL     INPUTS MAY BE DERIVED
             POWER FOR      DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM
             PUMPS, ETC.                                     NON-ENERGY
                            THE FARM PRODUCTS OR BY          BYPRODUCTS
                            BURNING FOSSIL FUELS. BY-        (QUANTIFY
                            PRODUCTS MAY OR MAY NOT BE       BUT
                            INCLUDED IN THE ENERGY           EXCLUDE):
             OTHER INPUTS   BALANCE DEPENDING ON THEIR       E.G., UNUSED
             AS RELEVANT:   USE.                             WASTE,
             CHEMICALS                                       ANIMAL FOOD
             WATER
             STEAM


                             NET ENERGY PRODUCT

                               ADD: TRANSPORTATION,
                               BLENDING AND
                               DISTRIBUTION, ENERGY
                               USE
WSU, 01/08-04/08                TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                            132
          COMPARATIVE FUEL
         MARKETS & ECONOMICS
   FOSSIL FUELS HAVE ALL THE ADVANTAGES!
                   FOR NOW!
   DIESEL, GASOLINE HAVE RELATIVE PRICE STABILITY
   VAST AVAILABILITY FOR 25+ YEARS (DESPITE ALL YOU
    HEAR) AND LONG-ESTABLISHED INFRASTRUCTURE
   50-YEAR SUPPLY (BUT WITH INCREASING PRICES)
   BUT….AFTER 2030-2050 OR SO, ALL BETS ARE OFF
        THERE WILL BE A GROWING SUPPLY-DEMAND GAP
        WE HAVE TO START FILLING THAT NOW!
        BUT…..WITH WHAT?
        ETHANOL & BIODIESEL WILL HAVE A FIGHT ON THEIR
         HANDS!


WSU, 01/08-04/08        TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI           133
WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   134
           IMPACT ON CORN
               PRICES




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   135
        OTHER DIESEL BIOFUELS
   BIODIESEL ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS
       AS FOR ETHANOL, THE CONVENTIONAL ANALYSIS IGNORES THE
        INTRINSIC ENERGY IN THE SOYBEAN OR OTHER OIL SEED.
       AGAIN, WE NEED A “LEVEL PLAYING FIELD” COMPARISON WITH FOSSIL
        FUELS
       SOYBEANS CONTAIN 20-21 WT% OIL – SO ~39 LB SOYBEANS  ~ 1
        GALLON OF OIL (WEIGHT 7.7 LB).
       IN PRACTICE, THE OIL IS REACTED WITH EXCESS METHANOL (ABOUT 20
        VOL%) TO MAKE BIODIESEL AND CO-PRODUCT GLYCEROL (GLYCERINE)
       OVERALL, ONLY ~35% OF THE ENERGY IN THE SOYBEANS (~8,700 BTU/LB)
        AND METHANOL (9,600 BTU/LB) SHOWS UP IN THE BIODIESEL, 3.5% IN THE
        CO-PRODUCT GLYCEROL AND THE REST IS EFFECTIVELY LOST IN ANIMAL
        FEED AND DISCHARGED OR EVAPORATED METHANOL
       AS FOR ETHANOL, A POOR RESULT COMPARED WITH CRUDE OIL 
        GASOLINE (81%), CRUDE OIL  DIESEL (84%), BUT COMPARABLE TO
        HYDROGEN (~50%, 41%)




        WSU, 01/08-04/08        TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                 136
                      OIL CROP
                   PRODUCTIVITIES
 DIFFERENT CROPS PRODUCE DIFFERENT
  AMOUNTS ….AND DIFFERENT OILS (NEXT SLIDE).
        CORN                  129 LB/ACRE
        SOYBEAN               335 LB/ACRE
        SUNFLOWER             714 LB/ACRE
        RAPESEED              893 LB/ACRE
        JATROPHA              1420 LB/ACRE
        JOJOBA                1365 LB/ACRE
        AVOCADO               1980 LB/ACRE
        COCONUT               2018 LB/ACRE
        PALM OIL              4465 LB/ACRE

WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   137
    NEW ENERGY RESOURCES:
         BIOMASS CONVERSION
   BIOMASS IS A GOOD ENERGY SOURCE
        IT CAN BE BURNED, CO-FIRED WITH COAL OR GASIFIED
        IF BURNED, MUST BE FIELD-DRIED
        TYPICAL COMBUSTION ENERGY (DRY) ABOUT 8,000 BTU/LB HHV
        IF GASIFIED, WATER CONTENT MAY BE AN ADVANTAGE
        BEST GASIFIED IN (OXYGEN + STEAM)  SYNGAS
        SYNGAS CAN THEN BE CONVERTED TO LIQUID FUELS VIA FISHER-
         TROPSCH OR SYNTHOL PROCESSING
        ASH (TYPICALLY 3-5 WT%) CAN BE A PROBLEM: OFTEN CONTAINS
         LOW-MELTING ALKALI METAL OXIDES  SLAG FORMATION
        BIG ISSUE IS AVAILABLE ACREAGE – WE CANNOT PRODUCE
         ENOUGH BIOMASS IN ADDITION TO FOOD, FEED CROPS
        THEREFORE BIOMASS IS NO MORE THAN A “20% SOLUTION” TO
         OUR NEEDS, WHETHER DIRECT OR THROUGH ETHANOL, BIODIESEL


WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI              138
                 BIOMASS TO ETHANOL

   AN INTEGRATED, FULL-SCALE COMMERCIAL
    BIOPROCESS PLANT CONSISTS OF FIVE BASIC
    UNIT OPERATIONS
         1. FEEDSTOCK PREPARATION;

         2. DECRYSTALLIZATION/HYDROLYSIS
          REACTION VESSEL;
         3. SOLIDS/LIQUID FILTRATION;

         4. SEPARATION OF THE ACID AND
          SUGARS;
         5. FERMENTATION OF THE SUGARS; AND,

         6. PRODUCT PURIFICATION.




    WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   139
                   BIOMASS TO ETHANOL (1)
                   ABENGOA (AND OTHERS)




WSU, 01/08-04/08        TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   140
            BIOMASS TO ETHANOL (1)
            ABENGOA (AND OTHERS)




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   141
           BIOMASS TO ETHANOL (1)
                 ABENGOA

   PROPOSED PLANT IN KANSAS

   www.abengoabioenergy.com/research/index.cfm?page=7

   RAW MATERIAL INPUT:
        700 TONS/DAY (210,000 TONS/YR*) CORN STOVER, WHEAT
         STRAW, MILO STUBBLE, SWITCHGRASS, ETC.

   PLANT WILL PRODUCE:
        11.4 MILLION GALLONS OF ETOH/YR
        ENOUGH ENERGY TO POWER THE FACILITY
        EXCESS ENERGY WILL BE USED TO POWER ADJACENT
         CORN DRY GRIND MILL



WSU, 01/08-04/08        TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI               142
       BIOMASS TO ETHANOL (2)
    ALICO/BRI (COSKATA IS SIMILAR)




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   143
       BIOMASS TO ETHANOL (2)
    ALICO/BRI (COSKATA IS SIMILAR)

   PROPOSED PLANT IN LABELLE, FLORIDA
   www.brienergy.com/pages/process01.html
   RAW MATERIAL INPUT:
        770 TONS/DAY (231,000 TONS/YR*) YARD, WOOD, &
         VEGETATIVE WASTES

   PLANT WILL PRODUCE (ASSUMING 24 HR/DAY,
    300 DAY/YR):
        13.9 MILLION GALLONS OF ETOH/YR
        6,255 KW OF ELECTRIC POWER (~45 GWH/YR*)
        8.8 TONS H2/DAY (2,640 TONS H2 /YR*)
        50 TONS AMMONIA/DAY (15,000 TONS AMMONIA/YR* )


WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI           144
A 10-Step                        Conversion of Cellulose/Hemicellulose to Mixed Sugars
                                 Using Patented Arkenol Process Technology of
Overview                         Concentrated Acid Hydrolysis
                                 Simplified Flow Diagram
                                                                                                  Acid

                                2                                       Concentrated
                                                                                             Reconcentration
                                                                                                                        7
                                                                        Sulfuric Acid                                              Strong
                                                                                                                                Sulfuric Acid
                                                                                                                     Steam
                                              1st stage
                                              Hydrolysis
                                                                                    4
1                                                                                                                  Condensate
                                                                                                                   Return
                                                                           Solids            2nd stage
                                                           Filter
    Biomass                                                                                  Hydrolysis
                         Steam
                                                                                                      Filter
                                                                                                               5    Solids

                                            Pump

                                                     3                                                                              Lignin


                               Acid/Sugar
                                                                         Steam

                                                                                                                                to silica
                                                                                                                                                  9
                                Solution                                                                                        processing
                                                                             Acid Recovery                                      (as required)


          Water
                                                                Lime
                                                                                                                                  Mixed Sugars to

                                 Purified
                                                                                             Liquor                               Fermentation or
                                                                                                                                  Direct conversion
                                                                                                                                                         10
      6                    Sugar Solution
                                                                          Centrifuge                                              - Hydrogenation
                                                                                                                                  - Thermal conversion
              Chromatographic
                  Separation
                                               Mixing                                                                        Gypsum
                                                                                        Solids
                                                   Tank
                                                                    8
    WSU, 01/08-04/08                                       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                                                      145
                                                                                                               http://www.bluefireethanol.com/
                        Means of Producing Ethanol from
                        Biomass & Other Wastes
                            Thermochemical                                                                            Hydrolysis

   Technology                         Pros                         Cons                  Technology                        Pros                           Cons

Gasification – Catalytic        Lower capital cost,        Tar production, requires     Dilute Acid Hydrolysis    Low capital cost, low acid         Lower conversion
                             feedstock flexibility, high     gas cleanup, catalyst                                  consumption, public          efficiency, co-factor/toxin
                               yield per ton of feed           poisoning, catalyst                                  domain technology                    production
                                                            disposal, production of
                                                           mixture of low alcohols
                                                             (I.e., impure product)
Gasification – Bioreactor       Lower capital cost,        Tar production, requires    Strong Acid Hydrolysis     Medium-high capital cost, Low conversion efficiency,
                             feedstock flexibility, high   gas cleanup - bioreactor                                low acid consumption       co-factor production
                               yield per ton of feed         poisoning with real
                                                                 feedstocks.
    Fractionization -           Recovery of pure           Moderate capital cost,        Concentrated Acid        98% recycling of acid, high    Moderately-high capital
      Mechanical                  components                 high energy cost               Hydrolysis            conversion efficiency, near            cost
                                                                                                                    zero liquid discharge
    Fractionization –           Recovery of pure           Moderate capital cost,       Enzymatic Hydrolysis        Enzyme cost reduced         NOT Suitable for MSW and
       Solvents                   components                 high energy cost                                            recently                    Green wastes

                                                                                            Hybrid – Dilute         Enzyme cost reduced            Co-factor production
                                                                                      Acid/Enzymatic Hydrolysis          recently

                        WSU, 01/08-04/08                                    TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                                               146
                                                                                                                       http://www.bluefireethanol.com/
            BlueFire Ethanol, Inc.

   PROPOSED PLANT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
   RAW MATERIAL INPUT:
      700 TONS/DAY (210,000 TONS/YR*) OF SORTED GREEN

       WASTE AND WOOD WASTE FROM LANDFILLS
   PLANT WILL PRODUCE:
      19 MILLION GALLONS OF ETOH/YR

   TECHNOLOGY:
      ARKENOL CONCLUDED THAT CONCENTRATED ACID

       HYDROLYSIS WAS THE ONLY PROCESS
       ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AND CAPABLE OF
       PROCESSING ANY CELLULOSE WASTES
      ARKENOL AND AFFILIATES HAVE MUCH EXPERIENCE


WSU, *based on a 300 day year
     01/08-04/08                TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   147
       Technology Feasibility Checklist


                              Ideal                                                 Concentrated
                            Hydrolysis    Enzymatic    Weak Acid      Strong Acid      Acid
Issues                     Technology     Hydrolysis   Hydrolysis     Hydrolysis     Hydrolysis

Capital Cost                  low        moderate moderate moderate moderate
Energy Usage                  low          high     high   moderate moderate
Feedstock Flexibility        high          low    moderate moderate   high
Sugar Selectivity            high          low      low      low      high
Sugar Yield                  high          low      low    moderate   high
Production of Inhibitors      low          high     high   moderate   low
Potential Health Hazard      low           high     low      low      low




       WSU, 01/08-04/08                  TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                               148
                                                                    http://www.bluefireethanol.com/
                                             •Cellulosic




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI            149
                BROIN COMPANIES
   PROPOSED PLANT IN EMMETSBURG (PALO
    ALTO COUNTY), IOWA
   RAW MATERIAL INPUT:
      842 TONS/DAY (252,600 TONS/YR*) OF CORN
       FIBER, COBS AND STALKS
   PLANT WILL PRODUCE:
      125 MILLION GALLONS OF ETOH/YR (25% OF
       THEM ARE CELLULOSIC ETHANOL)
   TECHNOLOGY:
      BROIN FRACTIONATION, ALSO
       TRADEMARKED BFRAC™.

    WSU, *based on a 300 day year
         01/08-04/08                TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   150
                       BFRAC™

   THIS NEW BIO-REFINING TECHNOLOGY
    SEPARATES THE CORN INTO THREE FRACTIONS
    INCLUDING FIBER, GERM AND ENDOSPERM.
   THE ENDOSPERM IS THEN FERMENTED TO
    CREATE ETHANOL, WHILE THE REMAINING
    FRACTIONS ARE CONVERTED INTO NEW VALUE-
    ADDED CO-PRODUCTS, INCLUDING DAKOTA
    GOLD HP™, DAKOTA BRAN™ CAKE, CORN GERM
    MEAL, AND CORN OIL.
   IN ADDITION TO THESE HIGH VALUE CO-
    PRODUCTS, THE PROCESS ALSO RESULTS IN
    INCREASED ETHANOL YIELDS AND DECREASED
    ENERGY CONSUMPTION.

    WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   151
WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   152
WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   153
    IOGEN BIOREFINERY PARTNERS,
                LLC
    PROPOSED PLANT IN SHELLEY, IDAHO
    RAW MATERIAL INPUT:
       700 TONS/DAY (210,000 TONS/YR) AGRICULTURAL RESIDUES
        INCLUDING WHEAT STRAW, BARLEY STRAW, CORN STOVER,
        SWITCHGRASS, AND RICE STRAW AS FEEDSTOCKS
    PLANT WILL PRODUCE:
       18 MILLION GALLONS OF ETOH/YR
    TECHNOLOGY - TRADITIONAL ENZYME FERMENTATION
     PRODUCTION
    [1]Iogen Corp, “CELLULOSE ETHANOL: Clean Fuel for Today and
     Tomorrow”
    [2]http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/Environment/climatechange/docs/biomass
     /Image4.gif
    [3] Iogen Ethanol process:
     http://www.gmcanada.com/inm/gmcanada/english/about/MissionGreen/Dail
     y/Sep20.html



    WSU, *based on a 300 day year
         01/08-04/08                TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI              154
              IOGEN’S PATENTED ETHANOL
                       PROCESS
                            [1]
                                                        [2]                 #1
                                                                            #2

                                                                            #3
                                       #5
                                                                            #4
                                                                                      #1     #2      #3     #4
                                                                            #6

                                                                            #7
                                                                            #8

                                            Block Diagram of 8 stage Process [2]
                                                                                      #5     #6      #7     #8

                                                                                   Products of 8 stage Process [2]

                                             Assuming 320 of EtOH L/dry ton
                                             Yields approximately 17.75 Mgal EtOH

              WSU, 01/08-04/08                        TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                                 155
Block Diagram of 8 stage Process [1]
          SMALL SCALE FERMENTERS AND
                STORAGE TANKS

                                       Left: Fermenters are 1/10,000 the
                                       size of the full scale 5-story high,
                                       200,000 liter tanks used in the final
                                       stages of fermentation




Right: The complex operation of
producing cellulose ethanol involves
many storage units


      WSU, 01/08-04/08            TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                      156
   RANGE FUEL‟S PATENTED
     ETHANOL PROCESS




• PROXIMITY TO BIOMASS FEEDSTOCK AND ETHANOL
   MARKETS
• RAIL AND ROAD ACCESS
• WATER, POWER, GAS, AND SEWER AVAILABILITY.
• OPTIMAL FEEDSTOCK DRAW ( 45MI AND 75 MI RADII)
  [1] “Vinod Khosla,”Mostly convenient truths”Energy, DETROIT, MI
  WSU, 01/08-04/08                      TMG                         157
                       RANGE FUELS
   PROPOSED PLANT IN SOPERTON, GEORGIA
   RAW MATERIAL INPUT:
       1200 TONS/DAY (360,000 TONS/YR*) WOOD RESIDUES
        AND WOOD BASED ENERGY CROPS.
   PLANT WILL PRODUCE:
       40 MILLION GALLONS OF ETHANOL/YEAR
       9 MILLION GALLONS OF METHANOL/YEAR
   TECHNOLOGY
      THERMO-CHEMICAL CONVERSION PROCESS
       (THE “K2 SYSTEM”)
            CONVERT BIOMASS TO A SYNTHETIC GAS
            CONVERT THE GAS TO ETHANOL.
         *based on a 300 day year
    WSU, 01/08-04/08                TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   158
            RANGE FUEL‟S PATENTED
         ETHANOL PROCESS - RATIONALE

   FERMENTATION AND ACID HYDROLYSIS CAN TAKE DAYS TO OCCUR,
    BUT THERMAL CONVERSION BREAKS DOWN ORGANIC MATTER AND
    CONVERTS IT TO ETHANOL IN MINUTES.
   THE PROCESS USES LITTLE ENERGY TO START; IT FUELS ITSELF IN A
    SELF-SUSTAINING FASHION; IT PRODUCES VIRTUALLY NO WASTE
    PRODUCTS; IT EMITS VERY LOW LEVELS OF GREENHOUSE GAS.
   RANGE FUELS CLAIMS IT CAN PRODUCE MORE ETHANOL FOR A GIVEN
    AMOUNT OF ENERGY EXPENDED THAN IS POSSIBLE WITH ANY OTHER
    COMPETING PROCESS.
   DEPENDING UPON THE QUANTITY AND AVAILABILITY OF FEEDSTOCK,
    THE K2 SYSTEM CAN SCALE FROM ENTRY-LEVEL SYSTEMS TO LARGE
    CONFIGURATIONS.
   THIS RANGE OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE WILL ALLOW THE K2 TO BE
    PLACED NEAR THE BIOMASS LOCATION REDUCING TRANSPORTATION
    COSTS, AND WILL ALLOW THE MOST ECONOMICAL SIZE SYSTEM TO BE
    DEPLOYED.
   SINCE THE SYSTEM IS MODULAR, ADDING ANOTHER MODULE – WHICH
    IS EASY TO SHIP AND INSTALL, INCREASES THE OUTPUT.

     [1] “Another Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Announced “, http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/02/another_cellulo.html

     WSU, 01/08-04/08                             TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                                                  159
                       COAL

                    CLEAN COAL
                   TECHNOLOGIES



WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   160
      NEW ENERGY RESOURCES:
    “CLEAN COAL” TECHNOLOGIES
   “CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES CAN INCLUDE:
        CONVENTIONAL COMBUSTION FOR STEAM
         GENERATION BUT WITH CO2 SEQUESTRATION (E.G.,
         IN DOLOMITE)
        GASIFICATION TO SYNGAS (CO + H2)
        GASIFICATION TO SYNTHETIC NATURAL GAS (SNG)
        PARTIAL OXIDATION PROCESSING WITH STEAM + O2
         TO GENERATE LOW-N2 SYNGAS, HYDROGEN
             MAY BE FOLLOWED BY FISCHER-TROPSCH
              CONVERSION TO SYNTHETIC DIESEL, GASOLINE, OTHER
              LIQUIDS)
        “COAL LIQUEFACTION” (AS IN CHINA)

WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          161
      NEW ENERGY RESOURCES:
    “CLEAN COAL” TECHNOLOGIES
   CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES COMING:
        MANY OTHER PROCESS CHOICES HERE OR
         DEVELOPING
        MOST INVOLVE CO2 CAPTURE
        SOME ATTEMPTS NOW TO USE THE CO2
         COMMERCIALLY
           OBVIOUSLY A LIKELY WINNER ECONOMICALLY
           ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY – LOCATION-SPECIFIC
           CHEMICAL CONVERSION INTO POLYMERS, EG PLA
           NUMEROUS SMALLER-VOLUME USES
           CONVERSION INTO FUELS?!!


WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI      162
SHELL SCGP GASIFIER




                              Note: The Texaco Process is
                              very similar and sometimes less
                              costly – 60 installed as of 2001
WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                   163
              SCGP Process Flows




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   164
                    BUGGENUM,
                   NETHERLANDS
   Biomass Co-gasification plant
   CO2 emissions reduction WAC:
   0.2 Mton Coal feed: 392 kton/y
   To make the business case economically
    attractive, low cost secondary fuels are
    used to replace coal feed.
   Biomass feed: 185 kton/y (ca. 35 MWe)



WSU, 01/08-04/08     TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   165
                           FEEDSTOCKS
   Secondary fuel types planned:
        (Coal feed: 400 kton/y)
        Biomass:
       *Demolition Wood: 130 kton/y
           

      Sewage Sludge: 50 kton/y

      Coffee/rice/milkpowder: 10 kton/y

      Paper pulp: 10 kton/y

      Chickenlitter: only as back up

*NOT IMPREGNATED W/PRESERVATIVE

        WSU, 01/08-04/08     TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   166
                   FEEDSTOCKS

   Other Secondary fuels:

        Carbon Black
        Petroleum Cokes
        Automotive Shredder residue (VW)
        Orimulsion synthetic crude
        Residual and/or bio-oil

WSU, 01/08-04/08     TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   167
  BIOMASS IMPACT ON CO2
       GENERATION




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   168
   TOTAL IGCC FACILITY




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   169
       Shell Coal Gasification Projects in China
  Owner             Place    Feed, t/d      Syngas,      Products   Start
                                            nm3/hr                  Date
ShellSinopec     Yueyang      2000         142,000       Ammonia    2005
Shuanghuan      Yingcheng      900          55,000       Ammonia    2006
  Liuhua          Liuzhou     1300          71,500       Ammonia    2006
  Sinopec         Wuhan       2000         142,000       Ammonia    2006
  Sinopec         Anqing      2000         142,000       Ammonia    2006
Yuntianhua       Kunming      2800         150,000       Ammonia    2006
Yunzanhua         Zhanyi      2900         150,000       Ammonia    2007
  Dahua            Dalian     1100          71,500       Methanol   2007
 Shenhua         Mongolia    2 X 2000     2X150,00          H2      2008
                                             0
Yongcheng       Yongcheng     2000         130,000       Methanol   2008
Zhongyuan         Puyang      2000         142,000       Methanol   2008
      WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                  170
 Kaixiang      Yima, Henan    1000          71,500       Methanol   2008
     AMMONIA TO UREA SCGP




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   171
SCGP – Recent Developments
   Increase in gasification operation pressure of 25 to
    40 bar
   Simplification Feed hopper system
   Slag system design for high ash contents
   Application of Slag crusher
   No cyclone now (most times)
   Increase of outlet temperature SGC to 340 C
   Resulting increase temperature wet scrubber 160-
    170 C
   For chemical plants: coal feed with CO2 not N2


WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI              172
     SCGP w/CO2 sequestration for
               IGCCs

   SCGP IGCC Study – „Givens‟ &
    Assumptions
        Project location (ISO conditions), 2005 costs
        Project life 25 years
        No Owners’ Costs
        Westinghouse 501 G Single string 400 MW_e IGCC
        Low S Coal
        CO2 capture cost included up to IGCC B.L. 80 bar
         @ 85% capture

WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI        173
  SCGP IGCC WITH CO2 CAPTURE




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   174
SCGP IGCC WITH CO2 CAPTURE

   Conclusions
   Non-Captured IGCC400 Base Case (HP steam
    system SCGP)
        LHV efficiency 45-46 % including steam drying
        IGCC costs can be as low 1350 $/kWE
   Captured IGCC400 Plants Options (HP and/or
    MP steam system)
        LHV efficiency 37-39%
        IGCC costs can be as low as 1700-1750 $/kW_e
        Relative investment increase 24-31 %
        Relative Cost Of Electricity increase approx. 20%
        And more improvements / synergy options in the pipeline…
        Note: Owners Costs excluded

WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI               175
SCGP IGCC WITH CO2 CAPTURE
   Future opportunities
      IGCC technology is ready for “near zero
       emission” concept:
      By products - Fly ash, Slag, Sulfur and Salt are
       reused
      Concept is ready for CO2 sequestration (CO-
       shift)
      CO2 storage is already done in EOR applications
       and other solutions are being investigated
      -Hydrogen can be supplied to NG grid, or to
       (petro-) chemical industry or for Gas Turbine
       use

WSU, 01/08-04/08     TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI         176
          COMPARATIVE FUEL
         MARKETS & ECONOMICS
   WHAT WILL FILL THE GAP? NO NEW IDEAS HERE, BUT…..
        COAL – ≥ 400 YEAR SUPPLY; CAN CONVERT COAL INTO ANYTHING
         – INCLUDING ETHANOL - AND IT‟S CHEAP!
        NEW CONVENTIONAL O & G DISCOVERIES (NOT VERY LIKELY)
        BIOFUELS – ONLY A PARTIAL SOLUTION
        WASTE CONVERSIONS – ANOTHER PARTIAL SOLUTION
        SOLAR (IF WE CAN GET THE COST OUT)
        WIND TURBINES (IF WE CAN SOLVE THE „NIMBY‟ PROBLEM)
         ADDITIONAL “UNCONVENTIONAL” HYDROCARBON SOURCES –
         LIKE SHALE OIL AND MORE OIL SANDS DEVELOPMENT
        IMPORTED OR DOMESTIC SYNTHETICS - LIKE SYNDIESEL
        METHANE HYDRATES – ARCTIC AND SUBSEA
        LOW-HEAD HYDRO TURBINES
        …..AND MORE!


WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI              177
        FOSSIL FUELS ARE
     „FUNGIBLE‟ (VIA SYNGAS)

           Coal                       Carbon
                   Refining                 Diesel          Heat
     Shale
                                                 Jet Fuel   Electricity
                   Synthesis
     Tar
                     Gas
                                                 Ethanol
      Oil
                                            Methanol
       Natural
        Gas                           DME
                               Hydrogen

WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                            178
WHAT SHOULD BIOFUELS DO TO
WIN A PLACE IN THE FUELS HALL
          OF FAME?
   DELIVER CONSISTENT, TOP-QUALITY PRODUCT
    – NO EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED
   UNDERSTAND YOUR PRODUCT SCIENCE &
    TECHNOLOGY
        E.G., BIODIESEL VARIES WIDELY. IMPACT?
   ANTICIPATE FUTURE ISSUES BEFORE THEY
    “BITE” YOU. EXAMPLES:
        IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY (BIODIESEL) – E.G.,
         RAPESEED.
        IMPROVE COLD-WEATHER PERFORMANCE
         (BIODIESEL)
         COMBUSTION EMISSIONS – ALDEHYDES AND
         KETONES (ALL OXYGENATES)

WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI      179
WHAT SHOULD BIOFUELS DO TO
WIN A PLACE IN THE FUELS HALL
        OF FAME? (#2)
   FOCUS ON FIXING FUTURE PROBLEMS!
        LEARN TO CONTROL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
         (ETHANOL AND BTEX COMPONENTS)
        ADDRESS INCREASED GROUNDWATER
         CONTAMINATION (ETHANOL  INCREASED BTEX)
        MANUFACTURING PLANT EMISSIONS (ALL)
        USE OF CHEAP COAL AS A FUEL FOR PROCESS HEAT
             OPENS THE DOOR TO MAJOR “ENVIRO-CRITICISM”
        WATCH OUT FOR UP AND COMING NEWCOMERS –
         BUTANOL, MIXED ALCOHOLS, NON-ALCOHOL
         OXYGENATES (ETHERS, ESTERS, MANY OTHERS)
        AND MANY OTHER FACTORS THAT NEED ATTENTION
        IMPORTANT: FOLLOW WORK ONGOING IN THE EU ON
         ETHANOL AND BIODIESEL

WSU, 01/08-04/08          TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          180
       ALTERNATE FUELS:
          THE FUTURE
   THE OUTLOOK (1)
      “It‟s tough to make predictions, especially about the future”
                                                            Yogi Berra
      2007-2015
           Business as usual. Greater use of diesel in U.S.
           More use of biofuels: shift from ethanol to butanol;
            increasing use of biobased diesel and maybe gasoline.
           Wider use of hybrids, especially PHEVs. Also premium EVs
           Hydraulic Hybrids for trucks, delivery vehicles to save fuel
           Beginning of major shift to smaller, lighter vehicles, more
            efficient engines, to meet CAFÉ standards
           A period of trial-and-error
           Extreme shortage of domestic natural gas by 2012-2015
           Gradually increasing fuel costs

WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                   181
       ALTERNATE FUELS:
          THE FUTURE
   THE OUTLOOK (2)
     2015-2025
           Much greater emphasis on smaller, lighter, high-
            efficiency vehicles;
           Widespread use of bio-based synthetic (look-alike)
            transportation fuels;
           Widespread use of diesel engines in all vehicle types
           Extensive use of vehicles capable of long range EV
            use (e.g., in big cities);
           Natural and synthetic gasoline prices reach $5-
            6/gallon, maybe higher, in 2007 dollars
           Serious use of CO2 sequestration in power gen.
           Limited re-acceptance of nuclear power by 2025
WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI              182
       ALTERNATE FUELS:
          THE FUTURE
   THE OUTLOOK (3)
     2025-2050
           Period of major energy price escalation
           Rapid growth in wind, solar energy, nuclear
           Corresponding growth in EV,PHEV use
           Multiple attempts to introduce hydrogen - with
            limited success
           Continued growth in biofuels use, especially
            “synthetics” that are 100% bio-based
           Finally, an increased emphasis on public
            transportation
     BEYOND 2050 – THE GREAT UNKNOWN!!

WSU, 01/08-04/08         TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI             183
        ALTERNATE FUELS:
           THE FUTURE

             CONCLUSION
     There are no simple choices in
        our energy future. Only
         multiple, very complex
       decisions with far-reaching
              implications.

WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   184
            THANK YOU FOR
              LISTENING!

                            Dr. John R. Wilson
                                TMG/Energy
                        Energy Technology Consultant
                          c/o NextEnergy Center
                     461 Burroughs St., Detroit, MI 48202
                            Tel: 313-833-0100 X260
                             Fax: 313-833-0101
                           Mobile: 519-562-5758
                   Tel: 519-966-0545; Fax: 519-966-7246
                       email: tmg@tmgtech.com




WSU, 01/08-04/08           TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          185
       SUPPLEMENTARY SLIDES



     THE FOLLOWING SLIDES WERE NOT
        DISCUSSED IN CLASS IN 2008




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   186
                  SOURCE-TO-USE EFFICIENCIES:
                  OLDER DATA FOR CALIBRATION

         FUEL/POWER PLANT/VEHICLE                              FUEL        FUEL USE    OVERALL
                COMBINATION                                 PRODUCTION     (tank-to-   (source-to-
                                                             (source-to-      use)        use)
      NOTE: OLDER DATA FOR COMPARISON
                                                                tank)          %           %
                                                                  %
Diesel/Electric Hybrid                                           84           29           24
Hydrogen fuel cell; on-board gasoline/hydrogen reformer          81           27           22
Hi-efficiency (European) turbodiesel w/latest fuel               84           26           22
injection technology
Hydrogen fuel cell; distributed hydrogen from natural gas        60           38           22
at retail ($7.50)
Gasoline/electric hybrid w/latest engine technology              81           23           19
Conventional gasoline engine w/latest engine technology          81           19           15
Hydrogen fuel cell; liquid hydrogen from natural gas,            41           38           16
central station
Hydrogen fuel cell; hydrogen from electrolysis, power at        <28           38          <11
retail

         WSU, 01/08-04/08                     TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                            187
                SOURCE-TO-USE EFFICIENCIES:
                 BIODIESEL & COMPETITION
                    (NOTE: THESE ARE PRELIMINARY DATA)

            FUEL/POWER PLANT/VEHICLE                        FUEL           FUEL USE    OVERALL
                  COMBINATION                           PRODUCTION
                    BIOFUELS                             (source-to-       (tank-to-    (source-
                                                           tank, %)         use, %)    to-use, %)
Conventional Petroleum-based D-2 in turbo CI engine           84              26         22.0
GTL synthetic diesel in turbo CI engine                       72              26         18.7
15% Corn Ethanol E-Diesel in turbo CI Engine                  77              24         18.5
BTL (Biomass) synthetic diesel in turbo CI engine             70              26         18.2
B-20 Biodiesel (80% petroleum D-2) in turbo CI engine          74            23.4         17.3
(biodiesel from soybeans)                               (82.9 if from                    (19.4)
                                                        oil feedstock)
Conventional gasoline in SI engine                            81              19         15.0
B-100 Biodiesel in turbo CI engine (biodiesel from              34            24           8.2
soybeans)                                               (cf 78.5 if from                 (18.8)
                                                         oil feedstock)
100% Corn Ethanol in SI Engine (no co-product credit)         30              17          5.1
B-20 Biodiesel (80% petroleum D-2) in turbo CI engine         74             23.4        17.3


       WSU, 01/08-04/08                     TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                                 188
                     BioFuel Value Chain
H2O                 Grow                                     Store            Transport
                                      Harvest
                  Feedstock                                Feedstock          Feedstock
                                   Coal
Fertilizer
                                Natural Gas              Energy

                                Renewable

       Fuel                                             PreProcess            Storage at
    Separation,                Fuel
                                                        Feedstock            Central Plant
    cleansing,              Processing
                                                      (Grind, Crush)
     blending
                                                                  Landfill
                                          Other By-
                                          Products
                                                                   Reuse

      Fuel                     Fuel
                                                          Fuel Use
     Storage                  Delivery
         WSU, 01/08-04/08                TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI                       189
       SOURCE-TO-USE ENERGY
      EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS

   OBJECTIVE:
        ENERGY DELIVERED VS ENERGY USED
   EXAMPLE:
        HYDROGEN
   FIRST:
        SELECT PRODUCTION PATHWAY
   SECOND:
        DETERMINE ENERGY USE/GAIN PER STEP
        CALCULATE STEP EFFICIENCY

WSU, 01/08-04/08    TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   190
     SOURCE-TO-USE ENERGY
    EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS
   ELECTROLYSIS HYDROGEN – TYPICAL STEPS
        1 PRODUCING THE SOURCE FUEL/WATER
        2 GENERATING THE ELECTRICAL POWER
        3 TRANSFORMING/TRANSMITTING THE POWER
        4 TRANSFORMING/CONVERTING POWER AT POU
        5 HANDLING AND CONDITIONING WATER FEED
        6 ELECTROLYSING WATER TO H2 AND O2
        7 HANDLING (UNWANTED?) O2
        8 COMPRESSING H2 TO 5,000-10,000 PSI (MIN!) OR
        9 LIQUEFYING H2
        10 TRANSPORTING H2 TO POINT OF USE/HANDLING
        11 USING H2 IN FUEL CELL OR H2-ICE OR SIMILAR

WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI            191
     SOURCE-TO-USE ENERGY
    EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS
   ELECTROLYSIS HYDROGEN – TYPICAL STEPS
        EACH LISTED STEP MAY HAVE SUB-STEPS
        ALL SHOULD BE ANALYZED
        FOR EXAMPLE FUEL “HANDLING” MAY MEAN HYDROGEN
         COMPRESSION OR PRESSURE LETDOWN W/ENERGY
         RECOVERY….
        SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIQUID HYDROGEN – E.G.,
         MAY NEED TO COMPRESS IF NOT USED „AS IS‟
        FOR EXAMPLE, THE FUEL CELL PROVIDES POWER TO
         COMPRESS AIR, DECOMPRESS FUEL (ENERGY
         RECOVERY?), POWER AUXILIARIES (A/C, STEERING,
         LIGHTS, ETC.)
        SIMILAR STEPS REQUIRED FOR IC ENGINE USE.
        DON’T FORGET TO ALLOW FOR LOSSES!


WSU, 01/08-04/08        TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI           192
               HYBRID VEHICLES:
                  OVERVIEW
   HYBRID VEHICLES HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR
    MANY YEARS – BUT GENERALLY NOT ON THE
    ROADS – EXCEPT FOR BUSES
        DIESEL-ELECTRIC HYBRIDS ON THE RAILROADS
        DIESEL-ELECTRIC MILITARY VEHICLES FOR EXTREME
         TERRAIN – MOTORS AT ALL WHEELS
        DIESEL-ELECTRIC MACHINERY IN MINING, FARMING,
         SHIPPING, MANY OTHER APPLICATIONS
        DIESEL-HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS ALSO COMMON
        SI-HYDRAULIC USED DOWN TO QUITE SMALL SCALE –
         E.G., UPPER-END LAWNMOWERS (JOHN DEERE)


WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI       193
                   HYBRID VEHICLES:
                      OVERVIEW

   IN A PARALLEL DESIGN, THE ENERGY CONVERSION UNIT AND
    ELECTRIC PROPULSION SYSTEM ARE CONNECTED DIRECTLY
    TO THE VEHICLE'S WHEELS. THE PRIMARY ENGINE IS USED
    FOR HIGHWAY DRIVING; THE ELECTRIC MOTOR PROVIDES
    ADDED POWER DURING HILL CLIMBS, ACCELERATION, AND
    OTHER PERIODS OF HIGH DEMAND.

   IN A SERIES DESIGN, THE PRIMARY ENGINE IS CONNECTED TO
    A GENERATOR THAT PRODUCES ELECTRICITY. THE
    ELECTRICITY CHARGES THE BATTERIES, WHICH DRIVE AN
    ELECTRIC MOTOR THAT POWERS THE WHEELS.

   HEVS CAN ALSO BE BUILT TO USE THE SERIES
    CONFIGURATION AT LOW SPEEDS AND THE PARALLEL
    CONFIGURATION FOR HIGHWAY DRIVING AND ACCELERATION.


WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI          194
                   HYBRID VEHICLES:
                   PARALLEL HYBRIDS

   PARALLEL HYBRIDS
      A SMALLER ENGINE PROVIDES MORE EFFICIENT
       OPERATION AND THEREFORE BETTER FUEL
       ECONOMY WITHOUT SACRIFICING ACCELERATION.
       THE VEHICLE HAS MORE POWER BECAUSE BOTH THE
       ENGINE AND THE MOTOR SUPPLY POWER
       SIMULTANEOUSLY.
      MOST PARALLEL VEHICLES DO NOT NEED A
       SEPARATE GENERATOR BECAUSE THE MOTOR
       REGENERATES THE BATTERIES.
      POWER DOES NOT NEED TO BE REDIRECTED
       THROUGH THE BATTERIES AND CAN THEREFORE BE
       MORE EFFICIENT
      EXAMPLE: TOYOTA PRIUS, FORD ESCAPE




WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   195
                    HYBRID VEHICLES
                   PARALLEL HYBRIDS




WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   196
               HYBRID VEHICLES:
                SERIES HYBRIDS
   THE ENGINE NEVER IDLES, WHICH REDUCES
    VEHICLE EMISSIONS.
   THE ENGINE CAN CONTINUOUSLY OPERATE IN
    ITS MOST EFFICIENT REGION.
   THE ENGINE DRIVES A GENERATOR TO RUN AT
    OPTIMUM PERFORMANCE.
   THE DESIGN ALLOWS FOR A VARIETY OF
    OPTIONS WHEN MOUNTING THE ENGINE AND
    VEHICLE COMPONENTS.
   SOME SERIES HYBRIDS DO NOT NEED A
    TRANSMISSION.
   EXAMPLE: HONDA CIVIC HYBRID

WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   197
               HYBRID VEHICLES
                SERIES HYBRIDS




WSU, 01/08-04/08   TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI   198
               HYBRID VEHICLES
               PLUG-IN HYBRIDS
   EVs HAVE BEEN IN USE FOR AT LEAST 100 YEARS, AND
    HYBRID VEHICLES FOR ABOUT 80 YEARS
   CHEAP FUEL MADE THE EARLY HYBRIDS SEEM
    POINTLESS – BUT TIMES HAVE CHANGED!
   HISTORICALLY, EVs HAVE HAD LIMITED RANGE AND
    THUS LIMITED APPEAL
   SO WHY NOT EXTEND THE RANGE BY (1) ENLARGING
    THE BATTERY CAPACITY AND (2) PLUGGING IT IN?
   THE GM “VOLT” IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION –
    REALLY A PLUG-IN EV WITH AN AUXILIARY ENGINE TO
    TOP UP THE BATTERY ON THE ROAD.
   A GOOD APPLICATION FOR A 3-CYLINDER DIESEL

WSU, 01/08-04/08    TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI        199
               HYBRID VEHICLES:
                   ISSUES
   CONFLICTING OBJECTIVES: ECONOMY OR
    PERFORMANCE?
        HIGH TORQUE OF THE ELECTRIC MOTOR AT ZERO AND
         LOW RPM IS GREAT FOR ACCELERATION
        SMALL POWER UNIT (IF USED) IS GREAT FOR FUEL
         ECONOMY
        WHICH DOES THE CUSTOMER WANT? CAN HE/SHE HAVE
         BOTH?
   VERY HIGH ENERGY REQUIREMENTS TO MANUFACTURE
    THE VEHICLE
        ANY REAL PAYBACK IN EMISSIONS, ENERGY SECURITY?
   REDUCED EMISSIONS AT VEHICLE OFFSET BY
    INCREASED EMISSIONS AT POWER PLANT (PHEVs)?
   BREADTH OF APPEAL – LUNATIC FRINGE ONLY?
        PROBABLY BROADER, BUT NOT AS MUCH AS ADVOCATES
         HOPE….
WSU, 01/08-04/08       TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI             200
               HYBRID VEHICLES:
               THE BOTTOM LINE
   CANNOT JUSTIFY ON COST SAVINGS ALONE
        PAYBACK IS FAR TOO LONG….6+YEARS
        REAL-WORLD FUEL ECONOMY IS ONLY FAIR
        BATTERY PACKS ARE FAR TOO HEAVY
        BUT NO SAFE, NEW TECHNOLOGY IS AVAILABLE
   NET CONTRIBUTION TO ENERGY SECURITY IS
    QUESTIONABLE – SMALL BUT REAL
   DIESELS ARE BETTER AND LESS COMPLEX
   HEV TECHNOLOGY A STEP ON THE ROAD TO
    FUEL CELL VEHICLES
   BUT FCVs FAR IN THE FUTURE AND UNCERTAIN

WSU, 01/08-04/08      TMG Energy, DETROIT, MI       201

								
To top