Oil Alternatives

Oil Alternatives was first published in American Survival Guide magazine September 2000. Not much has changed even though people are becoming aware of the fact that oil depletion is on our horizon. We are still struggling in our efforts to find alternatives to oil.

OIL ALTERNATIVES

In my previous article, "The Big Crunch: End of the Oil Age" I wrote that the world's oil reserves were declining, far outstripping discoveries, at a rate of one barrel being discovered for ever four being consumed, (in reality it is one for every nine, but I was being conservative) and that world oil production is estimated to peak within the present decade (2008). The result of this peaking of production would result in a continuing decline in available oil, which would soon cripple our ability to maintain our world technological cultures and result in an increasingly devastating great depression from which there would be no relief or rescue. I suggested that our only means to prevent this would be to develop alternative energies. This article explores what the most likely alternative candidates will be and their merits, both pro and con; based on their maturity as fuels, accessibility, affordability, renewability, and environmental friendliness.

There are many obstacles to overcome in replacing oil. The problem to moving to alternatives is complex; we cannot just make a choice and magically move from oil to our choice of alternative energy. There are many obstacles, such as politics, capital, labor, an existing powerful oil industry, and inevitably higher prices at the pump.

When the automobile replaced the horse oil fought it out with alcohol as a fuel and oil won; the reason being that farmers held out for higher prices for their corn and other grains. The battle will heat up again once the oil shortages and market manipulations again try people's patience as people attempt to replace oil.

The United States has very complex international affiliations based on oil policy which will be difficult to withdraw from. Any national policy to change from oil to alternatives will be highly public and political.

The new policy would also place the United States at a disadvantage; for other competing countries, in the short term, would derive economic advantage by having access to a cheaper and a more plentiful supply of oil because of the U.S.'s change to alternatives. The United States uses up over a quarter of the worlds oil production each year (7 of 24 billion barrels).

The long-term advantage for the U.S. would be the ultimate gain in energy, economic, and political independence. There would be economic advantages because the U.S. spends a reported 55 to 96 billion dollars each year protecting our oil interests in the world. (Now it is in the trillions due to Iraq)

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve costs an additional 5.7 billion dollars a year to maintain. (Talk about the high cost of oil!) Add in all the other billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives to aid our own flagging oil industry and you can see we are paying much more for gasoline than what you see at the pump.

Much mention of late has been made about the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve in Alaska having lots of oil in it and that it should be opened up for oil exploration. Recent oil drilling at the edge of the reserve has been however disappointing. It had been hoped by the oil industry that oil discoveries outside the reserve would lead to exploration in the reserve itself: a hope which hasn't been dashed. The reader should be remindded that just because rock formations are favorable for oil it doesn't mean that oil exists in the rock or that there is sufficient oil in place to make it commercially worthwhile to produce. The only way to be sure that oil exists is to drill exploratory wells. However, at this time, it makes more sense to go to alternatives than it does to produce expensive oil in a ecologically fragile environment; at least for the energy consumer.

The advantage economically of such oil is to the oil producers, not the consumers. (The profits realized by the oil industry today in 2008is obscene, and we are just reaching peak production of oil)

A misinformed and ambivalent public will probably in time give in to the idea of exploiting the reserve due to the stress of higher prices for oil and lobbyists for the oil companies hammering on our Congressmen.

The Oil Alternatives:

In my previous article I mentioned coal as a likely prospect as an alternative to oil. Coal is found in beds that can range from barely one foot in thickness to as much as eight hundred feet; such as found in Victoria, Australia. These thick beds are usually small in extent. More common are beds from three to eight feet in thickness and which may have a few layers superimposed over one another, or which may have as many as a hundred layers, such as are found in West Virginia.

Coal is ranked according to the amount of alteration (from plant material) and compaction the coal has undergone in its formation. It is ranked as lignite, sub-bituminous, bituminous, and anthracite. The difference between them is the progressive increase of carbon and heat content. The heat content is expressed as British Thermal Units (BTU), which is the amount of heat that is required to raise one-pound of water one degree Fahrenheit. One BTU is the equivalent f 778.6 foot-pounds, or 3214 BTUs are the equivalent of one kilowatt hour of energy. A BTU can be visualized as being one wooden kitchen match fully burned.

Bituminous coal has a heat capacity of 10,860 to 14,620 BTUs per pound and contains from 60 to 80 percent carbon, 4.7 to 5.6 percent hydrogen, 1.1 to 1.5 percent oxygen, and .7 to 3.9 percent sulfur. Coal contains some metallic and non-metallic elements introduced at the time the peat, the original state of the coal, was forming. During the burning of the coal these elements become concentrated in the ash, but the sulfur and some other elements are emitted into the atmosphere. Sulfur is emitted as sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide. These elements then combine with oxygen and water to form sulfuric acid and falls as rain.

Runoff from old coal mining operations also contribute sulfuric acid to ground water. One interesting fact, though nothing to worry about, is that coal electric generating plants emit twice as much radiation as do nuclear plants.

After mining the coal is sorted, cleaned, separated, and stored for shipment. Washing out the impurities is not a simple process. Impurities, such as pyrite, rock, and clay having found their way into the coal after formation are easily removed by washing, since coal, being lighter, floats away and the dirty coal, being heavier sinks and is discarded. Lots of water is needed in processing coal and that presents a problem for many areas, such as in the West, little water can be found. This makes it necessary either to ship the coal to the water, or water brought to the coal.

After the coal is washed it must be dried; usually by vibration and hot-air blowers.

The Department of Energy and the industry estimates that 4.5 to 5 barrels of oil can be made from a ton of coal and at a price of from $35 to $40 a barrel. (At $60-plus a barrel for oil now why aren't we using coal to make oil?) A joint effort with energy companies, such as EXXON, is in progress to research the possibilities of making an oil product for $25 a barrel. (It has been seven years since I wrote this--where is the process to make oil from coal?) A company in South Africa, Sasol, has been making syngasoline; but has been criticized for possible contamination of ground water from its processing wastes.

There are at this time two processes for converting coal to synthetic oil; direct and indirect processes. The direct process converts coal directly into a liquid fuel by heating the coal under pressure and adding hydrogen. Coal is hydrogen poor compared to oil. Carbon-rich anthracite coal, for instance, has only 2.6 percent hydrogen compared to bituminous coal having 5.6 percent. Petroleum has from 11.7 to 14.7 percent hydrogen.

Part of the processing of coal consists of removing oxygen and trace minerals that would create undesirable chemical reactions. Catalysts are being considered to help the process in converting coal to a liquid fuel.

The indirect process converts coal into liquid products such as gasoline, diesel, and methanol.

Coal makes up 70 percent of the world's energy reserve (renewables aside). If we could convert all of the reported reserves of coal to liquid fuel the world would have an eighty-year supply--at present consumption rates. That equates to seventy years since world consumption grows at 2.5% a year. We would also have to subtract out any unsuitable coal--coal that has a high sulfur content or coal in layers too thin to produce economically.

Some coal will be needed for electrical generation. The DOE states that in the next 20 years the demand for capital will be in the $27 billion range and 70% of it will be for coal fueled electricity plants.

Because coal is not renewable, requires large amounts of water for processing, contains contaminants, labor intensive, bulky, expensive, and in direct competition with other energy industries, it should not be considered a long-term replacement for oil.

Alcohol

Alcohol, also known as ethyl alcohol and ethanol, is a prime candidate to replace gasoline in most applications involving light vehicles, comprising 60% of U.S. transportation.

Alcohol can be made from any biomass that contains starch and sugars. The more starch or sugar a feedstock contains the cheaper and higher the yield of alcohol.

The most common sources are grains, fruits, vegetables, and wood products. Methanol, another source for alcohol, comes from coal and petroleum. It is highly poisonous.

Man has been fermenting alcohol from 4000 to 6000 years in the Middle East and around 800 BC it was being being distilled from rice liquor by the Chinese.

Ethanol is an excellent source of energy and can be used for heating, cooking, and light as well as powering internal combustion engines. It has the advantage of being a mature technology, is clean burning, and a renewable resource.

A point overlooked in considering any commercially grown feedstock is that large amounts of fertilizers are needed to replenish nutrients in the soil. Much of the fertilizers today, such as ammonium nitrate, are derived from non-renewable resources such as petroleum. Other fertilizers are more or less non-renewable as well.

Some crops yield more alcohol per ton than others.

FEEDSTOCKS --GALS/TON

Whey, dry 85
Wheat 85
Corn 84
Barley 79
Molasses 70
Cane Sorghum 70
Oats 64
Wood and paste 47
Potatoes 23
Carrots 10

The fundamental steps in making alcohol are:

1) Mash preparation (grinding, mashing, cooking, etc.)
2) Fermentation.
3) Distillation.

The mash is prepared by grinding up the feedstock, cooking, adding acids or enzymes. The mash or slurry is placed into a vat and yeast is added to it and then the vat is sealed to exclude harmful outside organisms. It is then allowed to ferment for a number of days at moderate temperatures. The resulting product of fermentation should contain 10 to 14 percent alcohol.

Since alcohol boils and turns to vapor at 172 degrees Fahrenheit and water boils and turns to steam at 212 degrees (sea level) this 40 degree difference makes it possible to separate out the alcohol from the water relatively easy. The process has to be repeated, the first run yielding a 90 to 95% product, or 180 to 190 proof. The maximum amount of alcohol that can be produced by distillation is about 195 proof. To extract the rest from the water benzene or calcium oxide is used to produce a 200 proof alcohol.

Alcohol as a fuel, for gasoline type engines, can hold up to 30% water without loss of power. The best running water/alcohol mixture is 180 proof.

Distillation is achieved by allowing the vapors to pass through a distillation column, which is essentially a long vertical tube containing internal baffles. The water vapors cool and condense on the baffles and returns back to the bottom. The hotter alcohol vapors continue to rise and pass through the column and into a condensing coil, which is cooled by water. The alcohol vapor cools and condenses in the coil and runs out the end where it is collected as a liquid.

When comparing alcohol to gasoline we see that gasoline comes out ahead in BTUs--gasoline has 124,000 BTUs per gallon compared to 87,000 BTUs (when they are combusted) for alcohol. This means that fuel tanks must be larger to get the same mileage as gasoline.

Alcohol can run very well in gasoline engines modified for its use. It has an octane rating of 92. An engine requires more fuel through the carburetor and the fuel metering jets must be enlarged 30 to 35 percent to compensate for the lower heat content of the alcohol. it takes two times the heat to vaporize alcohol than it does gasoline. This makes it harder to start on a cold morning requiring a fuel or carburetor heater or dual tanks--one for gasoline to start the engine, and one for alcohol to run on.

Alcohol production is labor and energy--intensive; besides being a lower energy fuel than gasoline. When you compare all the hidden costs that gasoline costs us, and the lives that have been lost to guarantee its supply, it may be a good choice despite its limitations.

Biodiesel.

Biodiesel is another likely fuel. It is a diesel oil made from vegetable oil. Biodiesel, unlike diesel oil made from petroleum, gives off low undesirable emissions: the exhaust fumes smell like French Fries. Another favorable attribute of biodiesel is that the CO2 emitted is removed later from the air by plants and this equates to zero emissions.

Biodiesel is manufactured relatively quickly and easily from any good grade vegetable oil, such as soybean, peanut, or corn oils.

The process basically consists of warming the oil to about 95 to 175 degrees and a small amount of a methanol/lye mixture added and mixed thoroughly, then allowed to stand for eight hours.

Glycerin and soap settles to the bottom of the container and the result is a near pure diesel oil ready to be used in a vehicle. The process is clled transeerization. The process is so simple anyone can make it at home.

Proponents of the process claim that over a 3 to 1 energy gain is achieved; deriving one megajoul for every .31 megajoule expended in the process.

A disadvantage of biodiesel is that it has a flash point of 300 degrees compared to a 125 degree flashpoint for a petroleum based diesel oil. It is harder to start and use in colder climates.

Biodiesel is being used today as an additive in petroleum based diesel in order to lower noxious emissions.

Hydrogen.

I include hydrogen as an energy possibility only because so many people I have talked to have shrugged away the oil depletion problem by pointing to hydrogen as being a solution.

Hydrogen is an energy carrier rather than an energy source because it takes so much energy to break its bond with oxygen in their coexistence as a water molecule.

The processes of releasing hydrogen from oxygen in water are electrochemical, biological, and photoconversion.

The electrochemical process consists of passing electricity through water with enough energy to separate the two elements. The common energy efficiency is 65%, though 80 to 85% is being reached. This means that it takes more energy expended than what can be produced.

Hydrogen can be used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine. The changeover mostly consists of replacing a gas tank with a larger heavier pressurized tank similar to a propane tank.

The disadvantage in using hydrogen as a fuel is its shorter range, taking up of load space, weight, special handling when transferring fuel, and storage.

When hydrogen is liquefied it becomes 845 times denser than its vapor gas state and requires a -213 centigrade temperature to become a liquid.

The ratio in energy, by volume, compared to gasoline is 1:3.8; or simply put, hydrogen has one-quarter approximately the energy that gasoline has. To get the same energy from a twenty-gallon tank of gasoline one would need a 72-gallon pressurized tank of hydrogen.'

The tank itself must be insulated and 2% of the hydrogen must be evaporated off to keep the liquid hydrogen cold enough for it to remain liquefied.

It is for these reasons, despite is abundance in the universe, that limits its use as a fuel.

The requirements for a good fuel are that it must be cheap, abundant, small in bulk, must burn rapidly, and require less energy to produce than it gives as a fuel. To give the reader some perspective on energy requirements I will quote some numbers from a report: "U.S. Transportation Statistics of 1998".

Sixty percent of U.S. transportation is composed of light duty trucks and automobiles, 18 percent heavy trucks and buses, and 8 percent for air.

Trucks move 72 percent of value of all freight and 53 percent of the tonnage. Rail, in contrast, moves only 4 percent of value and 13 percent by tonnage.

Transportation costs make up a large share of total costs for commodities and often influence the prices of commodities.

By now the reader is probably realizing that the subject of energy is not quite the easy subject many tend to think it is. Solutions are not easy to come by and anyone who thinks they can solve it in a sentence or two is greatly oversimplifying. Any solutions to the U.S. and world's energy problem will take lots of money, research, discipline, and time, and more.

Author's Note:

When I wrote the two articles, the last part of 1999 and the first part of 2000, oil was down to 10 to 12 dollars per barrel and everyone was claiming there was no end of oil in sight. What I left out of the articles was that China was making moves to grab all the oil resources it could, particularly in Venezuela and the Caspian Sea region. I also left out the fact that hybrids, fuel cells, etc. would do little to replace oil. I also left out the fact that wind and solar would do little to replace oil. Fusion power is a dead-end requiring an expertise that would be realized long after oil was depleted and therefore also not an answer.

It will take trillions of dollars to switch over to alternatives, and time. We are taking tentative steps now but far too little and perhaps also too late. The more ideal time to have begun was when the articles were published in 2000.

We are concentrating too much on ecological concerns, apparently unaware of the consequences of oil depletion. Oil is a perfect energy source and it will take not just one alternative to replace it but the whole gamut of alternatives at our disposal. The consequences become greater as time goes on. The larger the number of those effected the more chaos that will result.

Without oil our technological society ceases to exist. People can't get to work, food can't be grown, water can't be pumped to cities, government services no longer operate, fuel for coal electrical plants can't be delivered, anarchy reigns, and much much more. Civilization will not be able to bounce back--at least as we know it. A big die-off will occur. Anarchy, starvation, disease, all will take a huge toll. Our civilization requires commercial agriculture operations to exist. All that will be left, if any, will be small scale subsistence farming; and that will take time to root.