|
|
Although recent years have seen substantial reductions in noxious
pollutants from individual motor vehicles, the number of such vehicles has been
steadily increasing. Consequently, more than 100 cities in the United States
still have levels of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and ozone (generated
by photochemical reactions with hydrocarbons from vehicle exhaust) that exceed
legally established limits. There is a growing realization that the only
effective way to achieve further reductions in vehicle emissions — short of a
massive shift away from the private automobile — is to replace conventional
diesel fuel and gasoline with cleaner-burning fuels such as compressed natural
gas, liquefied petroleum gas, ethanol, or methanol.
All of these alternatives are carbon-based fuels whose molecules are
smaller and simpler than those of gasoline. These molecules burn more cleanly
than gasoline, in part because they have fewer, if any, carbon-carbon bonds and
the hydrocarbons they do emit are less likely to generate ozone. The combustion
of larger molecules, which have multiple carbon-carbon bonds involves a more
complex series of reactions. These reactions increase the probability of
incomplete combustion and are more likely to release uncombusted and
photochemically active hydrocarbon compounds into the atmosphere. On the other
hand, alternative fuels do have drawbacks. Compressed natural gas would require
that vehicles have set of heavy fuel tanks — a serious liability in terms of
performance and fuel efficiency — and liquefied petroleum gas faces fundamental
limits on supply.
Ethanol and methanol, on the other hand, have important advantages over
other carbon-based alternative fuels: they have higher energy content per volume
and would require minimal changes in the existing network for distributing motor
fuel. Ethanol is commonly used as a gasoline supplement, but it is currently
about twice as expensive as methanol, the low cost of which is one of its
attractive features. Methanol’s most attractive feature, however, is that it can
reduce by about 90 percent the vehicle emissions that form ozone, the most
serious urban air pollutant.
Like any alternative fuel, methanol has its critics. Yet much of the
criticism is based on the use of “gasoline clone” vehicles that do not
incorporate even the simplest design improvements that are made possible with
the use of methanol. It is true, for example, that a given volume of methanol
provides only about one-half of the energy that gasoline and diesel fuel do;
other things being equal, the fuel tank would have to be somewhat larger and
heavier. However, since methanol-fueled vehicles could be designed to be much
more efficient than “gasoline clone” vehicles fueled with methanol they would
need comparatively less fuel. Vehicles incorporating only the simplest of the
engine improvements that methanol makes feasible would still contribute to
an
|
|