The Feasibility of Alternative Fuels and Technologies: An Assessment of Addison County Transit Resources’ Current and Future Options Allison Bard, Spencer Cox, Hannah Panci, Claire Polfus and Kayla Race Middlebury College Environmental Studies Senior Seminar (ES 401) Transportation and Sustainability Molly S. Costanza-Robinson and Diane Munroe Spring 2008 0 Table of Contents List of Figures and Tables 2 Acknowledgements 3 Executive Summary and Recommendations 4 Comparison Table 6 Methodology 7 Terms Used in this Report 9 Fuels / Technologies Hybrid Electric 10 Biodiesel 23 Ethanol 31 Compressed Natural Gas 41 Hydrogen Fuel Cells 48 References 60 Appendices Appendix A: Hybrid Links 66 1 List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: Comparison of batteries for EVs, HEVs and PHEVs 13 Figure 2: The process of making batteries more cost-effective 21 Figure 3: Biodiesel fuel yields 25 Figure 4: Biodiesel combustion emissions 29 Figure 5: Ethanol fuel yields 34 Figure 6: Map of ethanol fueling stations in the United States 37 Figure 7: GHGs emitted by gasoline vs. ethanol production / consumption 39 Figure 8: Natural gas emissions of CNG compared to traditional diesel 45 Table 1: Comparison of all fuels and technologies 6 Table 2: Life cycle GHG emissions for various H production methods 57 2 Table 3: Energy efficiencies of various H production methods 58 2 2 Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the input of our teachers Professor Molly Costanza- Robinson and Diane Munroe while we compiled this report. We would also like to thank Jim Moulton and Nadine Barnicle of Addison County Transit Resources (ACTR) for information on ACTR’s bus fleet and services. 3 Executive Summary and Recommendations Rising oil prices, uncertain future reliability of oil reserves and the negative environmental impact of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have necessitated a transition to alternative fuels and technologies in all segments of the economy. Addison County Transit Resources (ACTR) is a non-profit transportation agency based in Middlebury, Vermont whose mission is to “enhance the economic, social, and environmental health of the region by providing public transportation services that are safe, reliable, accessible, and affordable for everyone” (Addison County Transit Resources 2008). As a rural transportation provider with ridership levels lower than more urban areas, employing the most environmentally sustainable technology is especially important to ACTR in accomplishing its mission. To work toward this goal, ACTR partnered with the Middlebury College Environmental Studies Senior Seminar (ES 401) in the spring of 2008 to evaluate alternative forms of fuels and technologies for its bus fleet. As students in the seminar, we researched five current and potential fuels and technologies and compared their local feasibilities. We compiled this report to serve as a decision-making tool for ACTR to use in choosing alternative fuels and technologies when purchasing new buses. Alternative fuels and technologies considered in this report include hybrid electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, biodiesel, ethanol, compressed natural gas (CNG), and hydrogen fuel cells. In this analysis, we evaluated many factors in the life cycles of the different fuels and technologies. It is difficult to predict exactly how well each will perform in the future, but using the data currently available, we were able to propose the following recommendations for the near term: 4 Executive Summary and Recommendations 1. We recommend the immediate utilization of hybrid electric vehicles because a) the technology is readily available, b) no additional infrastructure is needed, and c) emissions reductions are significant. While vehicle prices are slightly greater than those of conventional diesel buses, the increased efficiency of the vehicle reduces operating costs. 2. Although biofuels were often cited in the past as ideal solutions to end dependence on oil and reduce greenhouse gases, recently published reports demonstrate that substantial social and environmental costs are associated with growing biofuel crops. Therefore, we recommend that ACTR discontinue its use of conventional biodiesel and revert to diesel in its current bus fleet until more socially responsible options are available. 3. We recommend that ACTR pursue biodiesel from locally-grown feedstocks through partnerships with local farmers and community organizations. This is a more sustainable option than conventional biodiesel and also contributes to the local economy. 4. If Vermont develops efficient technology for developing biofuels such as algae- derived biodiesel or cellulosic ethanol, ACTR should re-evaluate their feasibility in the future. 5. If Vermont develops CNG or hydrogen fuel cell transmission and distribution infrastructure, ACTR should re-evaluate the potential for CNG and hydrogen fuel cell use in the future. 5 Table 1. A Comparison of Five Fuels/Technologies for Addison County Transit Resources. Alternative Fuel Vehicles Summary Chart Key: Major Benefits Minor Drawbacks Major Drawbacks Negligible change as compared to diesel Hydrogen Fuel Cell Compressed Natural Gas Hybrid-Electric Biodiesel Ethanol $200,000 price premium Bus Costs Over $2 million price premium $45,000 premium over standard (with incentives and subsidies, only $20,000 No price premium $17,000-$45,000 price premium premium) Maintenance Higher than diesel Higher than diesel Less than diesel Similar to diesel Higher than diesel Costs Fuel prices: $3.21/gallon (gasoline), B5: $2.988 GGE, $3.33 DGE $2.33 GGE $5.69 GGE Fuel Costsa $4.46 GGE $3.60/gallon (diesel), but reduced fuel usage B20: $3.19 GGE, $3.56 DGE $2.60 DGE $6.35 DGE lowers cost B100: $3.99 GGE, $4.45 DGE Emission reductions through greater Moderate emissions reductions, Significant Criteria Pollutants No emissions Significant pollutant reduction Moderate emissions reductions efficiency increases in NOX LCA of GHG Depends on hydrogen production processb Equivalent to diesel Greater efficiency reduces emissions Significant increase over diesel Significant increase over gasoline Noise Most quiet Much quieter Much quieter Same as diesel Same as diesel Significant capital investment necessary to Significant capital investment necessary to Infrastructure Requires no infrastructural additions Requires no infrastructural additions Infrastructure development necessary develop infrastructure develop infrastructure Battery efficiency may decrease in very cold Driving Conditions No limitations based on climate Efficiency decreases in cold weather Efficiency decreases in cold weather Similar to petroleum-based fuels weather Major Costs (higher food prices, displaced ag Major Costs (higher food prices, displaced ag Social Costs No major impacts No major impacts No major impacts land, high subsidies, and negative env. land, high subsidies, negative env. impact) impact) Need infrastructural developments in Requires no additional infrastructure and The environmental and social costs of non- Not sustainable due to high environmental Current Still 10-15 years away from economic and transmission, distribution, and fill stations to provides greater economic efficiency and local biodiesel negate its availability and and social costs and lack of local refueling Recommendations infrastructural feasibility be feasible environmental benefits emission reductions infrastructure Fuel-cell and hydrogen blend fuels have Production from algae or waste grease, and Subsidies encourage switch to more If CNG infrastructure improves, ACTR Plug-in hybrids and more efficient technology Future Potential potential to reduce emissions with continued local sources will aid environmental and environmentally friendly and economically should reconsider CNG buses will develop over time at lower cost government support social sustainability efficient cellulosic fuels a New England average for all fuels (excluding hydrogen) in Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE), January 2008 b If produced from renewable or low pollutant energy sources, total GHG emissions are near zero, however production from coal leads to significant increases in GHG emissions Summary Comparison Chart: This chart provides a comprehensive breakdown of several crucial components for each fuel and technology investigated in this report. All alternative fuel and technology vehicles excluding hybrid electric vehicles have major limitations, indicated in red. 6 Methodology The goal of this report is to provide reference information for ACTR to use while choosing new fuels and technologies for its bus fleet. It is structured so that ACTR can have easy access to both a summary of our overall recommendations and also more comprehensive information on each fuel or technology. An easy-to-read, side-by-side comparison of the fuels and technologies is conveniently located in the beginning of the report. The middle section contains a short summary of each of the fuels and technologies, as well as in-depth research on each. The end of the report contains the references from which we derived the information. The Appendix provides information on specific hybrid electric bus manufacturers to provide ACTR with a starting point if it chooses to pursue this technology. The chosen fuels and technologies represent the most familiar current and future options for transportation in the United States. All of the fuels or technologies are either used as demonstrations or are currently in use by various transportation agencies. We used the most current information we could find to determine the feasibility of each fuel or technology in Vermont. The amount of available research differs for each fuel/technology, making direct comparisons difficult. For example, a significant amount of biodiesel and ethanol research focuses on the source (or feedstocks) of the fuels; most hydrogen fuel cell research focuses on the state of the technology; and the majority of compressed natural gas research focuses on infrastructure. The available data, therefore, differ in terms of the units of measure and even the factors included in feasibility studies. Also, some of the fuels and technologies are more easily compared to gasoline (i.e., 7 Methodology hydrogen fuel cells and ethanol) and others are more easily compared to diesel (i.e., biodiesel), simply because of differences in fuel properties and engine compatibility. One way to overcome the disparity in available information is to compare the fuels and technologies using a life cycle analysis (LCA). A LCA examines the environmental effects of the fuel or technology from its production through its use and disposal. This includes everything from the extraction, processing, and conversion of a fuel to its transportation and combustion. Today, many LCAs are reported in terms of the amount of GHGs emitted into the atmosphere during the lifetime of the fuel. Although LCAs are generally a good tool for comparison, problems are created when different researchers include different components in the LCA. Other difficulties are that technologies are constantly changing, there is uncertainty associated with assumptions made, and many fuels and technologies have multiple production techniques. For example, some biofuel LCAs examine the GHG emissions caused by land use change while others do not, and the LCA of hydrogen fuel cells strongly depends on the source of the power which provides the energy used in making the fuel cells. These potential uncertainties and biases need to be considered when reviewing reports regarding any current or future technology. Throughout our research, we examined many studies and deduced what we perceived to be a fair estimate of the environmental and social impacts—and the economic feasibility—of each of the fuels and technologies, thus forming our recommendations to ACTR. 8 Terms Used in this Report alternative fuel vehicle (AFV): motor vehicle that is run on fuels other than gasoline or diesel carbon dioxide (CO ): greenhouse gas caused by the combustion of carbon 2 carbon dioxide equivalent (CO e): unit for comparison between different greenhouse 2 gases; one unit provides the equivalent global warming potential of one metric ton of carbon emissions carbon monoxide (CO): odorless, poisonous gas that is the product of the incomplete combustion of carbon criteria pollutants: air pollutants for which standards for safe exposure were originally set by the Clean Air Act of 1970 and subsequently by the EPA, which include SO , NO , PM, CO, ozone, and lead x x diesel: petroleum fuel that is heavier, less refined, and generally more polluting than gasoline, but also contains more energy per gallon than gasoline diesel gallon equivalent (DGE): amount of alternative fuel needed to equal the energy in one gallon of petroleum diesel gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE): amount of fuel needed to equal the amount of energy in one gallon of gasoline greenhouse gas (GHG): any gas that absorbs the infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contributes to global warming internal combustion engine (ICE): standard engine in which the combustion of fuel and an oxidizer (typically air) occurs in a combustion chamber life cycle analysis (LCA): comprehensive examination of the environmental and economic effects of a product or fuel from the production to the combustion, often set in terms of CO e emissions 2 lithium-ion battery (Li-ion): a type of rechargeable battery in which a lithium ion moves between the anode and cathode methane (CH ): odorless greenhouse gas created by the decomposition of organic 4 matter; the main component of natural gas nitrous oxides (NO ): greenhouse gases created during combustion and released from x soil containing agricultural fertilizers; contributes to ground level ozone, acid rain, and global warming particulate matter (PM): small liquid or solid particles suspended in air that are created by the combustion of fuels and are linked to heart and respiratory disease sulfur oxides (SO ): gases caused by the combustion of sulfur, which is found in x petroleum products, and which is a main cause of acid rain 9