<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" On the outskirts of Garnett, Kan. (pop. 3362), the horizon is broken by what at first sight seems to be a grain elevator rising above the cornfields. But closer inspection reveals a tall, skinny distillation column among the silos and fermenters, identifying the complex as part of the nation&amp;#039;s energy future: It is East Kansas Agri-Energy&amp;#039;s ethanol facility, one of 100 or so such heartland garrisons in America&amp;#039;s slowly gathering battle to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. The plant processes about 13 million bushels of corn to produce approximately 36 million gal. of ethanol a year. &amp;quot;That&amp;#039;s enough high-quality motor fuel to replace 55,000 barrels of imported petroleum,&amp;quot; the plant&amp;#039;s manager, Derek Peine, says. In the past 18 months, the war in Iraq, a Texas oil refinery fire and drilling rig shutdowns caused by hurricanes\u2014not to mention mounting worries over global warming\u2014have all contributed to a sense of urgency to revamp the way America&amp;#039;s vehicles run. Rising oil prices are leading skeptics to take another look at formerly ignored alternative automotive fuels. Ethanol is getting the most attention\u2014but interest is growing in methanol and even leftover french fry oil for use in diesel engines. In addition to these biofuels, research continues into electricity and natural gas as vehicle power sources. Department of Energy (DOE) policy calls for eventually making a transition to a hydrogen-based economy. And President Bush has recently stated that he wants hydrogen-powered cars on the market by 2020. Ethanol, king of the challengers to petroleum, is already found blended with gasoline at pumps across the country, and production is continuing to ramp up. Ethanol is probably the main fuel President Bush had in mind both in February, when he announced the Advanced Energy Initiative, and last summer, when he signed new energy rules into law. That legislation established a renewable-fuels standard that will require the use of 7.5 billion gal. of ethanol and biodiesel annually by 2012\u2014a nearly 90 percent increase over today&amp;#039;s usage\u2014and extended tax benefits that favor both fuels. In the lab, many gasoline alternatives look good. Out on the road, automotive engineers have a lot of work to do, and energy companies have new infrastructure to build, before very many people can drive off into a petroleum-free future. And, there&amp;#039;s the issue of money. Too often, discussions of alternative energy take place in an alternative universe where prices do not matter. For this special report, PM crunched the numbers on the actual costs and performance of each major alternative fuel. Before we can debate national energy policy\u2014or even decide which petroleum substitutes might make sense for our personal vehicles\u2014we need to know how these things stack up in the real world. The Great Alt-Fuel Debate: It takes five barrels of crude oil to produce enough gasoline (nearly 97 gal.) to power a Honda Civic from New York to California. So how do the alternative fuels that may gradually reduce America&amp;#039;s dependence on foreign oil stack up against the mileage and convenience of the filling-station stalwart? Download our comparison chart and find out.  Ethanol/E85 Ethanol is ethyl alcohol, often referred to as grain alcohol; E85 is a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Most ethanol is made from grain, just as moonshine is, though there is also research into making ethanol in commercial quantities from cellulosic plants\u2014a complex process that uses plant matter such as switch grass as a base feedstock. A gallon of E85 has an energy content of about 80,000 BTU, compared to gasoline&amp;#039;s 124,800 BTU. So about 1.56 gal. of E85 takes you as far as 1 gal. of gas. Case For: Ethanol is an excellent, clean-burning fuel, potentially providing more horsepower than gasoline. In fact, ethanol has a higher octane rating (over 100) and burns cooler than gasoline. However, pure alcohol isn&amp;#039;t volatile enough to get an engine started on cold days, hence E85. Much smaller quantities of ethanol are also added to around 30 percent of the gasoline sold in the States to meet EPA requirements for oxygenated fuels in metropolitan areas with the country&amp;#039;s worst ozone air pollution. According to the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition (NEVC), E85 currently is available in 36 states. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists 34 models of flex-fuel vehicles (FFV)\u2014cars and trucks that can burn pure gasoline, E85 or any ratio of gas/ethanol in between\u2014available in the 2006 model year. The NEVC estimates that 6 million FFVs have been sold in the States to date. The performance of E85 vehicles is potentially higher than that of gasoline vehicles because E85&amp;#039;s high octane rating allows a much higher compression ratio, which translates into higher thermodynamic efficiency. However, FFVs that retain the capacity to run on gasoline alone can&amp;#039;t really take advantage of this octane boost since they also need to be able to run on pump-grade gasoline. Cynics claim that it takes more energy to grow corn and distill it into alcohol than you can get out of the alcohol. However, according to the DOE, the growing, fermenting and distillation chain actually results in a surplus of energy that ranges from 34 to 66 percent. Moreover, the carbon dioxide (CO2) that an engine produces started out as atmospheric CO2 that the cornstalk captured during growth, making ethanol greenhouse gas neutral. Recent DOE studies note that using ethanol in blends lowers carbon monoxide (CO) and CO2 emissions substantially. In 2005, burning such blends had the same effect on greenhouse gas emissions as removing 1 million cars from American roads. Case Against: Alcohol is a corrosive solvent. Anything exposed to ethanol must be made of corrosion-resistant (and expensive) stainless steel or plastic\u2014from fuel-injection components to the tanks, pumps and hoses that dispense E85, as well as the tankers that deliver it. Growing corn is an intensive process that requires pesticides, fertilizer, heavy equipment and transport. When considering the viability of ethanol, the total impact of all that activity needs to be taken into account. Outlook: Hopeful\u2014to a point. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 95 ethanol refineries produced more than 4.3 billion gal. of ethanol in 2005. An additional 40 new or expanded refineries slated to come on line in the next 18 months will increase that to 6.3 billion gal. That sounds like a lot\u2014and it is\u2014but it represents just over 3 percent of our annual consumption of more than 200 billion gal. of gasoline and diesel. One acre of corn can produce 300 gal. of ethanol per growing season. So, in order to replace that 200 billion gal. of petroleum products, American farmers would need to dedicate 675 million acres, or 71 percent of the nation&amp;#039;s 938 million acres of farmland, to growing feedstock. Clearly, ethanol alone won&amp;#039;t kick our fossil fuel dependence\u2014unless we want to replace our oil imports with food imports.  Methanol/M85 Methanol is methyl alcohol, commonly called wood alcohol; M85 is a blend of 85 percent methanol and 15 percent gasoline. Methanol is produced through a steam and catalyst process that reconstitutes methane gas as methanol. Currently, virtually all methanol produced in the States uses methane derived from natural gas. However, methane also can be obtained from coal and from biogas, which is generated by fermenting organic matter\u2014including byproducts of sewage and manure. Case For: Methanol is a potent fuel with an octane rating of 100 that allows for higher compression and greater efficiency than gasoline. Pure methanol isn&amp;#039;t volatile enough to start a cold engine easily and when it does burn, it does so with a dangerously invisible flame. Blending gasoline with methanol to create M85 solves both problems. Case Against: Methanol is extremely corrosive, requiring special materials for delivery and storage. Methanol, in addition, has only 51 percent of the BTU content of gasoline by volume, which means its fuel economy is worse than ethanol&amp;#039;s. As with ethanol, any potential increase in efficiency from methanol&amp;#039;s high octane is negated by the need for FFVs to remain driveable on gasoline only. The lower energy content and the higher cost to build methanol refineries compared with ethanol distilleries have relegated methanol and M85 to the back seat. Moreover, producing methanol from natural gas results in a net increase of CO2, hastening global warming. Unlike ethanol, the process liberates buried carbon that otherwise wouldn&amp;#039;t reach the atmosphere. Outlook: Cloudy. The EPA&amp;#039;s Landfill Methane Outreach Program is tasked with reducing methane emissions from landfills, and much of this methane is used to produce energy. As of December 2004, there were more than 325 operational landfill-gas energy projects in the States and more than 600 landfills deemed to be good candidates for projects. But the quantities involved are small. Methane also can be produced by processing biomass such as grass clippings, sawdust and other cellulosic sources. Based on these important differences between ethanol and methanol\u2014not to mention the power of the farm lobby\u2014methanol has receded into ethanol&amp;#039;s shadow as a gasoline replacement. The last M85 FFV in the States was sold in 1999. However, methanol may still have a future as a fuel. Nearly every major electronics manufacturer plans to release portable electronics powered by methanol fuel cells within the next two years. Compressed Natural Gas Natural gas can be used to fuel internal-combustion engines. The most practical strategy is to handle it as compressed natural gas (CNG). Natural gas is typically found in underground deposits, often with petroleum, and is obtained by drilling. To use natural gas, the methane component\u2014which makes up 50 to 100 percent of natural gas\u2014must be processed to remove contaminants as well as other useful fuels such as butane and propane. Case For: With an octane rating of up to 130, CNG has the potential to optimize an engine&amp;#039;s thermodynamic efficiency through a high compression ratio. However, many CNG vehicles are able to run on either CNG or gasoline, which obviates the octane advantage. According to the DOE, a CNG-fueled Honda Civic GX\u2014the sole widely available CNG-only vehicle in the United States\u2014produces 90 percent less CO and 60 percent less nitrogen oxides (NOx) than its gas-powered counterpart. And, CO2 is reduced by 30 to 40 percent. According to the company, the car&amp;#039;s exhaust is cleaner than the air in some high-pollution areas.  Case Against: For a vehicle to carry enough CNG to travel a reasonable distance, the gas has to be compressed to 3000 to 3600 psi. At 3600 psi, CNG has about one-third as much energy as gasoline\u2014about 44,000 BTU per unit volume\u2014and the tank must be far larger, heavier and more expensive than a conventional one. In addition, energy is consumed during the compression process. Currently available in nine states to Civic GX owners is a compressor/refueler called Phill that uses 2 kilowatt-hours (kwh) of electricity to compress the equivalent of 1 gal. of gasoline. With electricity averaging 10 cents per kwh nationwide, the price of CNG goes up 20 cents per gallon over the cost of the natural gas itself. Still, CNG is a bargain compared to gasoline. A gallon of gas equivalent (GGE) costs about $1.20, including the cost of compression\u2014thanks in part to the lack of taxes added to gasoline. Outlook: Limited. Even though 85 percent of our natural gas is produced domestically, and there&amp;#039;s already a distribution network in place, CNG faces a limited future as a gasoline or diesel replacement. For one thing, like petroleum, it is nonrenewable. More critically, perhaps, there&amp;#039;s already a great demand for natural gas\u2014and CNG requires major retooling of both cars and fuel-station infrastructure. Biodiesel Fuels for diesel engines made from sources other than petroleum are known as biodiesel. Among the common sources are vegetable oils, rendered chicken fat and used fry oil. In fact, Rudolf Diesel&amp;#039;s demonstration engine ran on peanut oil at the 1900 Paris World Exposition. Processing these oils into fuel involves removing glycerin and other contaminants through a process called transesterification. Unlike spark-ignition engines, diesels rely solely on high compression in the cylinder to raise the temperature of the air enough to ignite the fuel. Consequently, diesels are tolerant of varying-quality fuels and the high compression results in high efficiency. Diesels extract more energy from each gallon than gasoline engines, and less energy is lost as heat leaving the exhaust pipe than with a gasoline engine. Case For: Modern diesel engines can run on 100 percent biodiesel with little degradation in performance compared to petrodiesel because the BTU content of both fuels is similar\u2014120,000 to 130,000 BTU per gallon. In addition, biodiesel burns cleaner than petrodiesel, with reduced emissions. Unlike petrodiesel, biodiesel molecules are oxygen-bearing, and partially support their own combustion.   According to the DOE, pure biodiesel reduces CO emissions by more than 75 percent over petroleum diesel. A blend of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent petrodiesel, sold as B20, reduces CO2 emissions by around 15 percent. Case Against: Pure biodiesel, B100, costs about $3.50\u2014roughly a dollar more per gallon than petrodiesel. And, in low temperatures, higher-concentration blends\u2014B30, B100\u2014turn into waxy solids and do not flow. Special additives or fuel warmers are needed to prevent fuel waxing. Outlook: Good. Biodiesel has a viable future as a major fuel for transportation. According to the National Biodiesel Board, production of biodiesel in 2004 was about 25 million gal., tripling to more than 75 million gal. in 2005. The trend is solidly upward, thanks to government incentives, the growing number of new diesel vehicles for sale and a grass-roots groundswell of support. Like E85, biodiesel began with farm co-ops and local entrepreneurs. High fuel prices affect farmers, too, and here was an opportunity to make money from otherwise fallow farmland. Country singer Willie Nelson, in partnership with several Dallas businessmen, has lent his name to Bio-Willie, a brand of B20 marketed mainly to long-haul truck drivers in California, Texas, the South and the Midwest. Drivers praise the fuel for its low emissions, but obstacles to mainstream acceptance include a higher price than petrodiesel (seasonally and regionally, 10 to 25 cents a gallon) and the need to heat storage tanks in colder climates to prevent the fuel from gelling. ElectricityThe same flow of electrons that powers your television and iPod can provide the energy needed to move a vehicle. Electricity from a power source, typically a rechargeable battery pack, energizes a large electric motor that propels the car. When slowing or stopping, the braking energy reverses the power flow, turning the electric motor into a generator to help recharge the battery pack. Under normal circumstances, however, the batteries must be recharged for several hours at a stationary charging station. Case For: Vehicles that operate only on electricity require no warmup, run almost silently and have excellent performance up to the limit of their range. Also, electric cars are cheap to &amp;quot;refuel.&amp;quot; At the average price of 10 cents per kwh, it costs around 2 cents per mile. Electric cars can be recharged at night, when generating plants are under-utilized. Vehicles that run on electricity only part of the time and on internal-combustion power at other times\u2014hybrids\u2014have even greater promise. As hybrids gain in popularity, there is a growing interest in plug-in hybrids that allow owners to fully recharge the vehicle&amp;#039;s batteries overnight. A strong appeal of the electric car\u2014and of a hybrid when it&amp;#039;s running on electricity\u2014is that it produces no tailpipe emissions. Even when emissions created by power plants are factored in, electric vehicles emit less than 10 percent of the pollution of an internal-combustion car. Case Against: Pure electric cars still have limited range, typically no more than 100 to 120 miles. In addition, electrics suffer from slow charging, which, in effect, reduces their usability. When connected to a dedicated, high-capacity recharger, some can be recharged in as little as an hour, but otherwise such cars are essentially not driveable while they sit overnight for charging. Outlook: Mixed. While interest in plug-in hybrids grows, the long-term future of pure electrics depends on breakthroughs in longer-lasting, cheaper batteries and drastically lower production costs for the vehicles themselves. And then there&amp;#039;s the environmental cost. Only 2.3 percent of the nation&amp;#039;s electricity comes from renewable resources; about half is generated in coal-burning plants. Hydrogen Hydrogen is the most abundant element on Earth, forming part of many chemical compounds. Pure hydrogen can be made by electrolysis\u2014passing electricity through water. This liberates the oxygen, which can be used for many industrial purposes. Most hydrogen currently is made from petroleum. Case For: Though hydrogen can fuel a modified internal-combustion engine, most see hydrogen as a way to power fuel cells to move cars electrically. The only byproduct of a hydrogen fuel cell is water. Case Against: Most energy and industry experts agree that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles won&amp;#039;t be widely available until 2020. The industry still needs to develop a manufacturing and distribution system. And, despite the chemical simplicity of electrolysis, producing hydrogen is expensive and energy consuming. It takes about 17 kwh of electricity, which costs about $1.70, to make just 100 cu. ft. of hydrogen. That amount would power a fuel cell vehicle for about 20 miles. Although hydrogen has the highest energy-to-weight ratio of possible energy sources, it&amp;#039;s necessary to expend a tremendous amount of energy to compress sufficient hydrogen into an expensive, 5000-plus-psi storage tank in a vehicle. Another option is freezing: Cryogenic hydrogen boils at minus 423 F. This requires energy to refrigerate and compress the hydrogen to liquefy it, and more energy to maintain that temperature in a superinsulated tank. Outlook: Good\u2014someday. The world&amp;#039;s carmakers are deeply engaged in hydrogen fuel cell research. Some carmakers continue to work on hydrogen-fueled, internal-combustion engines. But, the stumbling block is finding a cost- and energy-effective way to produce hydrogen. Conclusion Today, many families have several cars\u2014often more cars than they have drivers. So before we see our national fleet running on hydrogen, we believe that many households might have an electric or plug-in hybrid for short trips, an E85/electric hybrid sedan, SUV or minivan to squire the whole team, and a diesel pickup fueled by B30 or B50 to haul most anything else. All will reduce greenhouse gases and use renewable resources that come from inside our borders. By pursuing these multiple pathways, we can reduce our dependence on any single energy source\u2014something we haven&amp;#039;t achieved with petroleum. But don&amp;#039;t discount the appeal of gasoline too quickly. David E. Cole, chairman of the Center for Auto Research, says, &amp;quot;If gasoline prices get too high and we look to other fuels\u2014like hydrogen\u2014you can expect that oil-producing nations will reduce our fuel costs. They want to continue to pump oil out, pump dollars in, and they could see the hydrogen economy as a threat.&amp;quot; Clearly, our energy future is anything but simple. But the proliferation of energy options and surge in research hold promise\u2014even if no single alternative fuel can replace imported oil alone. Oil, Hold the Fries Tom McGurr, a New Jersey contractor, has found a new way to beat the high cost of diesel\u2014by scrounging used vegetable oil from fast-food restaurants, which are usually happy to give it away. But McGurr doesn&amp;#039;t just pour fry oil into his tank. Using a kit from Missouri-based Greasel Conversions, McGurr filters the cooking oil into a tank in the truck bed. Water from the engine&amp;#039;s cooling system then heats the viscous oil before it&amp;#039;s pumped into the engine. &amp;quot;I&amp;#039;ve put about 4000 miles on the conversion, and the truck runs great,&amp;quot; McGurr says. &amp;quot;My commute is about 35 miles each way, and after only a few miles I can switch from regular diesel to the heated veggie oil, even on cold days.&amp;quot; A few miles from the end of the day&amp;#039;s driving, McGurr switches back to diesel to flush out the lines so oil doesn&amp;#039;t congeal in the fuel-injection system. Charlie Anderson, owner of Greasel Conversions, has sold over 4500 of the kits to date; they cost $800 and up. greasel.com  "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a638/2690341/?page=1&c=y>