Comparing alternatives

Feb. 12, 2007
Whether written about in an industry trade publication such as Oil & Gas Journal or a consumer magazine such as Popular Mechanics (PM), the discussion about what fuel will power the world’s increasing transportation needs-and how well it will do it and at what cost-is important.

Whether written about in an industry trade publication such as Oil & Gas Journal or a consumer magazine such as Popular Mechanics (PM), the discussion about what fuel will power the world’s increasing transportation needs-and how well it will do it and at what cost-is important.

Regardless of where the information is presented and to what audience it is presented, what matters most is that the information is being placed before the eyes of those who will use it to make informed decisions about the world’s energy future-and transportation fuel’s role in that future.

Arguments have been presented in OGJ’s pages as recently as last week weighing the pros and cons of alternative fuels (OGJ, Feb. 5, 2007, p. 25). Last week’s comment piece on biofuels as well as this writing on transportation fuels will be far from the last time OGJ readers are informed on such matters. For so long as consumers clamor for cheaper fuel, the market will seek out from further research and development less-expensive ways to get commuters from here to there.

The public was presented information about alternative transportation fuels in the May 2006 issue of PM. An article by Mike Allen entitled “Crunching the Numbers on Alternative Fuels” compared seven vehicles using seven different types of fuel: gasoline, E85 ethanol, M85 methanol, B100 biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electricity, and hydrogen fuel cell. All seven cars were driven on the same trip across the US: from New York to California.

For the cross-country jaunt, PM chose cars as close as possible in size and weight. When comparing alternative fuels to gasoline, PM in some cases measured the fuel’s energy content in gallons of gas equivalent (GGE), or the amount of fuel with the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline.

PM’s findings

PM found:

  • It would take roughly 4.5 bbl of crude to produce enough gasoline-about 97 gal-to power a 2006 Honda Civic from New York to California. At a fuel cost of $2.34/gal and an economy rating of 33 mpg, total fuel cost for the trip would be $212.70.
  • For the 2005 Taurus FFV, a car fueled by E85 ethanol, the same trip would require 53 bushels of corn and 0.5 bbl of crude to produce 176 gal of fuel. At a 17 mpg economy rating, about $225 would be needed to fund the trip, at a cost of $2.41/gal.
  • About 18.19 Mcf of natural gas and 0.5 bbl of oil could be used to make the 214 gal of M85 methanol to transport the 1998 Taurus M85 FFV across the country. The trip would cost $619 at a fuel cost of $2.89/gal, the car getting about 14 mpg.
  • About 16 5-gal containers of vegetable oil could produce the 68.2 gal of B100 biodiesel fuel needed to drive the 2006 Volkswagen Golf TDI across the US. At an impressive 44 mpg economy rating, the $3.40/gal fuel would cost a total of $231.
  • The 2005 Civic GX, running on compressed natural gas, would require 88 GGE of fuel for the trip produced from 10.65 Mcf of gas. At a cost of $1.25/GGE for the fuel and an economy rating of 34 miles/GGE, the CNG vehicle’s total trip cost would be $110.
  • About 1 ton of coal could generate the 16.4 GGE of electricity needed to power the 1997 Honda EV Plus across the country. At a cost of $3.66/GGE and getting an incredible 202 miles/GGE, the driver would spend a mere $60 on the trip.
  • About 16 Mcf of hydrogen could be used to make 73 GGE for the GM Hy-wire vehicle to travel cross-country. At a cost of $11/GGE-the highest fuel cost in the report-the trip would cost $804 despite the 41 miles/GGE economy rating.

What matters most

For purposes of presenting straightforward data, PM based its fuel findings solely on cost. In doing so, it stripped away any environmental or human factors that might have come into play.

For example, the inexpensive drive across the country in the electric-powered car did not take into account how many stops might be needed, and therefore how long the trip might take. Nor did it consider the ton of coal that was burned to do it.

What seems to matter most in this price-based analysis is that cost still carries a majority of the weight in our transportation-oriented world.