FuelChoiceNow’s FFV Statement and Focus on Methanol for Cars Needs Correction Says Advanced Biofuels USA

by Joanne Ivancic (Advanced Biofuels USA) Correction posted 9/22/11. The nonprofit educational organization, Advanced Biofuels USA, advocates for the adoption of renewable sustainable advanced biofuels as an energy security, economic development, military flexibility and climate change/pollution control solution.

In addition, activities of the organization are geared to bringing together the automotive engineering sector and the biofuels industry to assure that the next generation of engines and fuels are more efficient, more effective, less polluting, more sustainable and renewable. And to help the general public, as well as the biofuels industry, understand how fuels and engines work together.

We have developed presentations and have written a white paper describing how the characteristics of ethanol molecules can enhance the performance of internal combustion engines.

The new organization, FuelChoiceNow, at first glance, seems to promote the same values. However, on closer inspection, this organization appears to have hijacked a biofuels train for non-renewable fossil fuel cargo and has introduced more confusion to a complex topic.

Repeated references to “alternative fuels” rather than to “renewable” or “non-fossil fuel” fuels that train.

For example, the term “flex fuel vehicle” in common usage today in the United States means a car or truck that can safely use gasoline/ethanol blends of up to 85% ethanol. In the US, a vehicle that has that “flex-fuel” designation in a nameplate, in owners’ manuals or on the driver’s side door information sticker, can fill up at the E85 pump at a fuel station. The owner can also use other blends of gasoline and ethanol without worrying about damaging the engine or violating warranties.

However, FuelChoiceNow, in its FAQs includes this definition: FFV is a term used to describe a car or truck that can run on virtually any blend of gasoline, ethanol and methanol. FCN highlights the FFV option for four reasons: (1) aggressive FFV deployment will have an immediate impact on U.S. fuel markets by introducing two affordable alternatives to gasoline (ethanol and methanol) at a time of very high crude oil prices; (2) aggressive FFV deployment is critical to the ongoing development of advanced ethanol fuels; (3) the additional manufacturing cost of an FFV is very small (less than $100 per vehicle) and relies on existing technology (there are already 10 million FFVs on the road today); and, (4) FFV deployment requires no cost to the U.S. Treasury. Rapid FFV deployment will pay immediate dividends for American consumers, but a portfolio of solutions (e.g. electricity, CNG, etc.) will ultimately be needed to provide broader and more durable consumer choice in the marketplace.

We have been meeting with automotive engineering experts at General Motors, Toyota, Ricardo and others this summer. In lengthy meetings, they have taken great pains to explain how important fuel composition is to performance and operation of engines.

We were trying to get a handle on how existing engines could perform better using higher blends of ethanol; how the engineers and automotive computer programmers could mitigate the “mileage penalty” experienced when using E85; how tomorrow’s highly efficient engines could use 100% renewable advanced sustainable fuels. And for now, could regular people in regular vehicles gain, instead of lose, if automotive engines optimized the beneficial properties of ethanol such as high octane, Reid vapor pressure, and other characteristics that are prized in race cars from NASCAR to IndyCar to the American Le Mans Series.

The answer is yes, to a point. High ethanol blends or high octane fuels probably don’t mix well with regenerative braking hybrids; although other advanced biofuels should work just fine. But the high octane of ethanol and other properties could prove very beneficial to next generation engines.

After those intense conversations, FuelChoiceNow’s statement that “the additional manufacturing cost of an FFV is very small (less than $100 per vehicle) and relies on existing technology (there are already 10 million FFVs on the road today)” astonished me. I went back to Coleman Jones and Candace Wheeler at GM to get some clarification.

Putting it all together, here’s the scoop: the FFVs on the road today cannot use methanol. As Coleman Jones put it, “GM and probably all other US FFVs are designed to use fuels meeting ASTM D5798 (E85), ASTM D4814 (Gasoline including E10) and mixtures of the two. The spec for E85 excludes methanol (my emphasis) as does our owners’ manual. 100% ethanol or the 93% sold in Brazil exceed the 83% maximum ethanol level designated in D5798 and will not meet the vapor pressure minima. Unlike in Brazil, US FFVs do not have auxiliary gasoline tanks to facilitate cold start.” He added, "Owners manuals from Chrysler, Ford, GM and Toyota, all producers of FFVs at some level, all do warn against using methanol in their vehicles."

So, if you have an FFV, don’t expect that you can “run on virtually any blend of gasoline, ethanol and methanol” as the folks at FuelChoiceNow would have you believe.

1) There are additional costs which are not considered by people quoting the $100/vehicle cost numbers. There are significant engineering and certification costs incurred in making these vehicles FFVs.

2) FFVs are designed and certified for varying concentrations of ethanol (E0 - E85) up to 85%. Running neat (100%) ethanol would require additional engineering and part costs to address emission and cold start issues.

3) FFVs are design to operate on ethanol NOT methanol which is more corrosive and has a lower energy density (BTU).
My take?

1) Methanol should be used for power generation and as the hydrogen source for renewable diesel before we tap into it for other transportation purposes. Bio-methanol is preferable to natural gas sources of methanol which, in this country, will require environmentally harmful fracking; and if energy security is a goal and value, then importing natural gas makes as little sense as importing oil.

2) Adding infrastructure for a non-renewable fuel that is more corrosive and has lower energy density makes no sense when there are sustainable, renewable advanced biofuels alternatives.

3) Implying to the general public that for $100 investment they can use any mixture of gasoline, ethanol and methanol in a car or truck –if only the pumps were at their local fuel station—just brings more confusion to an area that is already fraught with misunderstanding, deception and dishonesty.

4) Promoting non-renewable fossil fuels as if they bring the same benefits as sustainable, renewable advanced biofuels is counterproductive if your values are energy security, military flexibility and climate change mitigation or pollution control.

Instead of adding to the confusion, the supporters of this organization should want to help clarify these important technical concepts.

The web site for this organization appears related to those promoting the open fuel standard, which Advanced Biofuels USA has consistently opposed based on its emphasis on natural gas.

I hope that the organizers and members of FuelChoiceNow take another look at their campaign and at the answers to their frequently asked questions. Unload the non-renewable fossil fuels and make appropriate U-turns and corrections. Maybe change the name of the organization to RenewableFuelChoiceNow.

correction on 9/23/11: The ASTM spec for E10 gasoline does not specifically exclude methanol.