Fuel, politics, and your car

By: Paul Coninx

Date: Friday, 07. December 2007

Paul Coninx has written on consumer, safety, and technical issues for over 15 years and his works in these areas have been cited in peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals. He has taken part in I/M stakeholder meetings and has written three comprehensive reports, financed by grants from Industry Canada, on vehicle emission inspection and maintenance programs for the Automobile Protection Association (APA). For many years, Mr. Coninx designed and implemented covert garage investigations revealing fraud and incompetence for the APA. Mr. Coninx holds a degree from McGill University and has held technical positions at IBM (New York) and with television stations in the United States.

Cleaner vehicle fuel is key to reaching the goal of cleaner air. Producing fuel that meets strict government regulations and is compatible with the ever-more sophisticated emissions control systems found in modern vehicles requires an extensive and expensive search for new fuel blends. But there are rewards. North Americans consume so much fuel that fortunes can be made on practically anything having to do with it. Various industries, corporations, politicians, bureaucrats and activists--the stakeholders, each with their own agenda--ultimately decide what goes into your tank. Individual consumers, who buy the fuel and breathe the fumes, have virtually no say in the matter. Here is a thumbnail sketch of the complex blend of a little chemistry and a lot of money and politics that make up the fuel we put in our tanks.

Gasoline

It's by far the most popular fuel for the cars, vans, and SUVs in North America. It is made up of hundreds of different hydrocarbons, along with traces of detergents and other chemicals, blended together for specific characteristics. Gasoline contains a huge amount of energy per litre, is easy to transport and store, and is inexpensive.

Evaporating gasoline and the unburned hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the exhaust of gasoline engines have traditionally concerned authorities, primarily because they can create ground-level ozone when exposed to sunlight.

One of the most important characteristics of gasoline is how it burns in an engine's combustion chamber, which is measured by its octane number. Low-octane gasoline can burn too rapidly, causing "knocking" in the engine, poor performance and eventual engine damage.

Small amounts of highly toxic tetraethyl lead were once added to Canadian and American gasoline (it is still used in many other countries) as a cheap and easy way to increase the octane number. Contrary to popular belief, lead was not originally phased out because of its adverse health effects, especially on children, but rather because lead destroyed the catalytic converters that began appearing on cars in the 1970s to meet newly created U.S. emission certification standards.

By the time leaded gasoline was officially banned in Canada, in 1990, it was already almost obsolete. Reducing human exposure to environmental lead was a highly beneficial but unintended consequence of protecting catalytic converters. Eliminating lead in gasoline has contributed to a 98 per cent drop in Toronto's ambient lead levels.

In 1976, a substance containing manganese called methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) was introduced as a lead replacement. Manganese exposure occurs naturally in the environment and, unlike lead, small amounts manganese are essential for good health, although toxic in high concentrations.

A 1994 Health Canada study concluded that "the combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an added health risk to the Canadian population," but the government remained unconvinced. Instead of trying to prove that MMT was a health hazard, in 1997 Environment Canada moved to ban the interprovincial trade and import of the product, virtually all of which comes from the U.S.

This end-run may have bought the federal government a few temporary "greenie" points, but was doomed from the beginning. A year later, the government folded and paid Ethyl Corp. (U.S.) $13 million in damages after it and four provinces challenged the legislation. The additive remains controversial and the failed MMT ban has become a rallying point for opponents of free trade.

South of the border, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated that gasoline sold in regions with high levels of air pollution must contain a certain amount of oxygen, a decision that left many scientists and engineers scratching their heads. While increasing the oxygen in the fuel-air mixture might reduce one type of pollution (CO), it also tends to increase the more serious NOx emissions, at least in pre-1982 vehicles.

In modern cars, an onboard computer automatically adjusts the fuel-air mixture, which would neutralize the effects of additional oxygen. Two U.S. National Research Council reports have since concurred with the doubting scientists, even though many government officials still claim that the "oxygenated" fuel program is a success.

A substance called MTBE demonstrates how adverse unintended consequences can arise from a simple-minded environmental fix, especially where stakeholders are involved. MTBE was originally added to gasoline in small amounts as an octane enhancer. Its use in much greater quantities as an "oxygenate" was pushed by the petroleum industry, as well as some environmental groups. However, MTBE is highly soluble, it can migrate rapidly underground and it tastes awful, even in tiny amounts.

The EPA was well aware that storage tanks sometimes leaked and gasoline was often spilled, but MTBE was approved anyway, much to the delight of its producers and their government and activist allies. Of course, MTBE eventually got in local water supplies. D'oh! MTBE is now being blamed for ruining underground waterways and drinking water across the U.S.

Ethanol is also used as both an octane enhancer and an oxygenate. Ethanol, otherwise known as grain alcohol, is found in beer, wine and liquor. Promoters include farmers and agribusiness, both with massive political clout.

While ethanol has some storage and delivery disadvantages compared to MTBE, it does not contaminate water tables, at least not in such an unpleasant way. The main problem is that, according to the National Research Council, the evaporative emissions of ethanol as an oxygenate "far outweighed the small decrease in the reactivity of the exhaust emissions" and would tend to increase, not decrease, emissions causing ozone. A skeptical scientist once quipped that it was more beneficial mixing ethanol with ice and soda water than with gasoline.

Unlike the additives mentioned above, sulphur occurs naturally in crude oil. When burned in an engine, sulphur oxides (SOx) are created which pollute the air and cause acid rain. Vehicle manufacturers have long claimed that sulphur interferes with the proper functioning of the increasingly sophisticated emission control equipment found in modern cars and trucks. Gasoline producers claimed that reducing sulphur levels would be too expensive and that automakers should just make better cars. (This battle of the titans made for some interesting stakeholder meetings.)

Ontario gasoline has traditionally had some of the highest levels of sulphur in North America, sometimes exceeding 500 parts per million. Regulations now require gasoline sulphur levels to be reduced by 90 per cent by the year 2005, to accommodate even more sophisticated future emission control technology. The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute announced that complying will cost an estimated $1.8 billion.

Diesel fuel

Diesel fuel comes from the same crude oil as gasoline. It contains larger molecules than gasoline and has even more energy per litre. It is also burned in more fuel-efficient, higher-compression engines, making it the fuel of choice for heavy freight, locomotive and marine applications.

Diesel engines tend to be more expensive and less responsive than gasoline engines, making them less popular for private vehicles in North American than in Europe, where fuel taxes are high and gasoline is expensive.

Emissions from diesel engines raise more health and environmental concerns than those from modern gasoline engines. Many researchers are working hard to improve diesel engine performance and clean up diesel exhaust. They believe diesel technology provides the most promising means to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the near term.

As with gasoline, sulphur in diesel fuel has also been a major issue. Last July, the Canadian government issued a regulation to bring the sulphur content of on-road diesel fuel down to 15 parts per million, half that of gasoline by the year 2006. The CPPI estimates the cost of meeting that requirement to be between $1.5 billion and $2 billion.

Alternatives

There is a widespread belief that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, such as gasoline and diesel, is responsible for increasing Earth's average temperature. Billions of dollars are being made available to various industries in an effort to reduce or eliminate CO2 from vehicle exhaust emissions. However, even with the best of intentions, the lure of government money, the vested interests of the different industries and the necessity to appear to be doing something can distort the picture and push developments in ways that may not be the most beneficial for our environment.
Below are some details about a few alternatives to gasoline and diesel fuel that are seldom mentioned in advertisements and press releases.

Ethanol

Ethanol comes mainly from grain, especially corn. Its promoters claim that using ethanol helps reduce both global warming and dependence on imported oil--in the words of one commercial, "if we need more, we grow more." There is heavy lobbying to establish E85 (85 per cent ethanol, 15 per cent gasoline) as a major fuel.

The additional cost of producing ethanol is offset by huge government incentives, in the form of a tax exemption of 10 cents per litre which, amounts to a $24 million annual subsidy by the federal government alone.

In Ontario, ethanol gets another 14-cent-a-litre tax break, and tax exemptions exist in some other provinces as well. All this is in addition to other tax breaks or subsidies that apply to agricultural production. But is ethanol really the "green" fuel the industry and government officials claim? Critics say no, calling it a shameless boondoggle and point to studies that show that it takes more fossil fuel energy to grow and process ethanol than the fuel contains. Ethanol supporters have their own studies showing a net increase of energy of 25 per cent to more than 50 per cent. Many neutral observers in the scientific community believe that it's probably about even.

If ethanol ever takes off as an alternative fuel, hundreds of thousands of hectares of additional land would be needed to grow the grain to produce it. Ironically, many people who might support ethanol as a "green" fuel are unaware of the inevitable diversion of water, soil erosion, application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and local pollution caused by growing grain and turning wilderness into corn fields.

Without generous government support, ethanol would be a dead issue. Ethanol's political advantage is that it creates a market for grain farmers and ethanol producers. It is ultimately up to voters to decide whether transferring money out of their own pockets and into those of farmers and agribusiness is good policy.

Propane/Natural Gas

Propane (liquefied petroleum gas, or LPG) releases about 11 per cent and natural gas about 25 per cent less CO2 than gasoline for the same amount of energy. Once promoted in British Columbia as "clean-air" alternatives to gasoline, propane and natural gas vehicles were two to three times more likely to fail B.C.'s annual emissions tests, yet there appears to be no reason why modern engines specifically manufactured to use propane or natural gas would not be as clean or cleaner than their gasoline counterparts.

Propane and natural gas never really caught on in Canada. Between 1990 and 2000, the proportion of propane use in private and freight vehicles dropped to less than 1 per cent. The amount of natural gas use remained steady, but at a very low level, about 0.1 per cent.

One major limitation is the lack of refueling infrastructure, i.e., not enough filling stations. Propane and natural gas vehicles also have a more limited range than gasoline vehicles and are often equipped to burn gasoline as well, creating the technological challenge of optimizing the same engine for two different fuels. Also, a lot of cargo space can be lost to additional fuel tanks in dual-fuel vehicles.

Electricity

Using electricity to power automobiles had once been a recurring dream of engineers, politicians and environmental activists for years. Unfortunately, it was a bad dream.

Problems with electric cars include excessive weight, long recharge times and limited range. General Motors abandoned its high-profile electric car, the EV1, for lack of public interest. Besides, generating electricity for electric cars usually transfers pollution somewhere else and, unless it's from renewable or nuclear sources, will produce emissions and global warming.

There are other problems as well. Carnegie Mellon University professor Lester Lave published a lifecycle analysis of electric vehicle batteries. It found that lead in the environment would drastically increase as a result of using and recycling the massive lead batteries used in electric cars. This raised the ire of some officials and many within the environmentalist community, who disparaged his analysis and accused him of being in league with oil companies.

Hydrogen

Proponents of hydrogen fuel claim it to be the solution to global warming, air pollution and dependence on foreign oil. It's like a religion. The media have taken the bait and uncritical articles and TV reports abound, referring to hydrogen as the "fuel of the future."

Governments bit, too. U.S. President George Bush recently announced a $1.7 billion (U.S.) program to develop hydrogen cars — a program criticized by free-market advocates and even some environmentalists as being little more than corporate welfare.

The huge shortcoming is that hydrogen is not really a source of energy at all, but merely a "carrier" of chemical energy, very much like a copper wire is a carrier of electrical energy. Energy from another source, such as methane, coal, or oil must be consumed to make hydrogen.

Like electricity, hydrogen can only be considered "pollution free" or "renewable" if it is made from pollution-free or renewable energy sources. Despite the public and private money spent looking for alternatives to fossil fuels, there is no free ride or magic bullet. The only sure way to reduce vehicle CO2 emissions, at least in the short term, is to make vehicles more fuel efficient.

Related Links:

Further comments to this article have been disabled.

All Comments (1)

Showing 1 - 1 comments

Janet,

Good article. I see recently that some scientists have created hydrogen using bacteria that eat waste products, and churn out cheap, environmentally friendlier hydrogen. Hopefully this will launch a new future.