Tailpipe Emissions and Beyond

...that's like saying the reason for ethanol was not to create jobs; the orginal Congress rationale was that it was cleaner burning (which it isn't).

You are probably correct that methanol will be mentioned much more often in the future as a liquid fuel. It is easily made from natural gas, can be converted to gaso or DME (DME dimethyl ether is methanol variant also talked about as a fuel). Methanol is also used to make biodiesel. So methanol fell off the radar screen but with the new nat gas boom it becomes quite relevant. So here's the thing, right now Congress is saying we encourage only ethanol, biomass, and EV as gaso substitutes. Those are the current selected winners in USA energy policy.

I liked the article, as I have also visited a firm (similar to Solarzyme) that was working on biomass conversion.

 

The gasohol talk, when you look at it from the 70s, was also to reduce oil use. Then people realized it would not, and they switched to environment. By the late 90s we knew corn ethanol was not helping the environment, they switched to jobs. 2006 was the first time plug-ins got heavily sponsored to get off oil. Just 6 years later they are showing that they can if mass adopted actually cut down oil use. Let's not give plug-ins all the baggage of corn ethanol. It may turn out to be wrong, but at least note the progress.

Methanol had quite a successful trial in California in the '80s and '90s. Car manufacturers overcame some problems by making flex-fuel M85 vehicles. It was killed off partially by low gas prices, but mainly by the ethanol lobby and carb switching to ZEV and cng vehicles. There is a synth fuel bill always to convert coal to gasoline, this could be killed by simply embracing the open fuel standard and building cars that can run M85. Methanol can be made in a renewable fashion, which means if natural gas prices spike, methanol prices don't need to follow. Other biofuels also have potential.

 

A bit dated, but for oil shale EROI:

The Oil Drum: Net Energy | Unconventional Oil: Tar Sands and Shale Oil - EROI on the Web, Part 3 of 6

The link also has calculated EROI for tar sands of 5.6 to 5.2. Conventional oil in the US is 14. Tar sands taken over twice as much energy to produce than oil.

Bio- based fuels have shown a potential for being produced from waste products. Methanol and butanol can be fermented directly from cellulose. Ethanol lobby has the money though, so we waste effort of converting the cellulose into sugars. There's a plant making syncrude from turkey guts and feathers.Invested interests have just kept us focused on the more resource heavy corn ethanol.

I dont' seen us getting away from petro fuels completely. Plug ins appear to be a great way to stretch out the supply. The batteries are already improving. The 2013 Volt received a bump in its AER and MPGe do to a change in chemistry without a cost increase. Being recyclable gives batteries an edge over petroleum.

Going back to the OP, going with the least carbon intensive vehicle that works for the individual should be their goal. The higher fuel economy standards are making that happen even for those that can't choose a hybrid. Locomotives and semis are moving that way to reduce costs. Electric generation is still larger carbon emitter and needs addressing. The EPA calculator shows that in the regions that have done this, a PHV or BEV will have lower carbon emissions than any comparable vehicle without a plug. So plugs on cars reduce petroleum consumption, and reduce carbon emissions when the grid is also reaching for that goal.

 

^^yes recently Prox posted USA per capita total energy consumption in oil equivalents as 6 gal oil/per person per day. Only 2.5 gal/person/day is actually oil so that leaves 3.5 gal/person equivalents which is elec + gas etc.

 

Don't know the source of your data, but the energy consumed is more than 6 per day, and gas is closer to 3 than 2.5
Here is data from EIA - State Energy Data System

Shows the following breakdown
Coal 19,693.2TBTU
Natural gas 23,414.4TBTU
Petroleum 36,321.0TBTU
Retail Electricity Sales 12,272.5TBTU
Total Consumption per Capita 308.0 MBTU

So with 114,000 BTU per gallon, the per capita is about 7.4 gallons (not 6) and so the per capita/day break down is

Coal NG Petro Electricity
21% 26% 40% 13%
1.59 1.89 2.93 0.99

The second line shows the gallon of gas equivalent per day.


The collowing chart shows the inflows and outflows. Much of the energy is used in industry, with transportation being second major use.

 

Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy
Moldy facts but in 2001 42% of ghg of US energy came from petroleum.

One of the interesting things from that chart is the top 5 states use 37% of petroleum. Texas, California, Florida, NY, Louisiana. These states are the ones that are getting the majority of plug in cars. They also have a less carbon intense grid than the country as a whole. They also give many of their citizens choice to buy renewables.

The other thing is your carbon footprint is not just the energy you consume directly. Go out for a fast food hamburger and their is diesel, coal, and natural gas used to get you that burger. Buy a tv or a car and the numbers jump up.

 

Good data...my data was from Proximalsuns but I forget the exact citation.

PS- We are not saying power generation is only 13%, are we?
I assume that the coal + nat gas to elec is shown under coal + gas.
So the elec 13% represents nuke+green??

 

Note the green chart is 2010 data.. but the percents were 2009.
Yes the 13% in 2009 was nuke + renewable in 2009

Coal is mostly used for electricity, though some is used in industry.
NG is mixed, with much used for industry and a lot used for direct heating as well.

While coal had less energy input, 19,693.2TBTU in 2009, it produced 42% of eletricity while NG, with more overall energy 23,414.4TBTU, only generated ~25% of electricity.