Tom Konrad CFA
There are two types of solution to the liquid fuels scarcity caused by stagnating (and eventually falling) oil supplies combined with growing demand in emerging economies. The most obvious is to find a substitute to replace oil. These substitute have barriers to their use as a replacment petroleum based fuel. Understanding those barriers also leads us to the investment opportunities that arise from these substitutes.
As I wrote the first five parts of this series, looking into potential substitutes for gasoline and diesel, it was clear that many potential substitutes would need to overcome barriers to its adoption. This article and the next will look at these barriers, and what they say about the potential for investments in substitutes for liquid fuels from petroleum. Part VII will look at factors which constrain the supply of these substitutes. Part VIII will combine the resulting understanding of these barriers and constraints to highlight the investment opportunities arising from them.
One great advantage gasoline and diesel have over most of the proposed alternatives is an extensive infrastructure. In addition to an extensive pipeline network, we also have a large number of competing fueling stations. If a new fuel requires new fueling stations, like natural gas and hydrogen, or charging points and (potentially) battery swapping stations (electricity) it may not be enough to make sure that enough filling stations exist for would-be drivers to make long trips. If there is only one national network of filling stations, drivers will likely become concerned that the lack of competition will mean that they overpay for fuel.
Among the possible substitutes, the synthetic fuels discussed in part IV, as well as biogasoline are the best placed in that they can use existing infrastructure.
In terms of having a nationwide transportation network, the best placed substitutes are natural gas and electricity. In terms of point of sale delivery, electricity has an advantage in that it’s safe and relatively cheap to place charging infrastructure in parking lots, and most homes already have the capability of charging an electric vehicle, although it takes a long time from the 120V outlets in most garages. Most homes do not have natural gas in the garage, and even when they do, a compressor is necessary.
Conventional biodiesel and ethanol can be dispensed from the same pumps used for fossil fuels, but both present some difficulties in transport and storage. Biodiesel cannot be allowed to get too cold, because it begins to congeal, so in colder climates, storage tanks as well as transport tankers must be insulated and even heated. Ethanol cannot be shipped through pipelines that are also used for gasoline, because it absorbs too much water. Hence ethanol and biodiesel are mostly shipped in tanker trucks and rail cars. But both can be blended with conventional fuels, meaning that little new dispensing infrastructure is needed. The importance of a competitive fueling infrastructure can be seen in in this November 2009 statement from the Trucking industry to the US Senate [pdf] about the conversion of trucking from diesel to natural gas. They say,
It is not sufficient to have a single LNG vendor with stations built at strategic locations along key freight corridors. Absent a competitive refueling infrastructure, trucking companies could face unreasonably high prices at individual retail LNG stations that have no competition in a particular geographic area. While competition exists in the natural gas industry, the high barriers to entry for retail LNG refueling stations may slow the development of a competitive refueling infrastructure. A competitive LNG refueling model would require the presence of multiple entities selling LNG in the same geographic area.
This objection applies to any potential alternative vehicle which locks the user into one fuel, and includes Electric Vehicles (EVs) such as the Nissan Leaf and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles, but not to flex fuel vehicles (E85 ethanol) or biodiesel (which can be used in any diesel engine.) It also does not apply to Plug-in Hybrid Electric vehicles, such as the Chevy Volt, because while charging points and battery swapping stations may be limited, the existing fueling infrastructure provides supply competition.
The fuel with the weakest infrastructure is hydrogen. Like natural gas, it needs specialized filling stations, but hydrogen lacks a national pipeline network.
Incomplete infrastructure can be either a barrier or an opportunity. If a potential fuel is compelling for other reasons, firms well placed to provide the necessary infrastructure should be able to profit handsomely. If, on the other hand, a fuel lacks an existing infrastructure and also faces significant other barriers, it will be unlikely to become a significant transportation fuel, and infrastructure investors are likely to lose their shirts along with everyone else interested in the fuel.
Barriers: Energy Density
When talking about energy density, it’s important to consider not only the fuel, but the tank. Both volume and weight are important. Few fuels are as energy-dense as gasoline and diesel, both of which can be stored in simple, unpressurized fuel tanks. In contrast, the fuel tank for electric vehicles is the battery, and batteries are not only large and heavy for the amount of energy they store, they are also extremely expensive and degrade over time. Although the cost of driving an electric vehicle are very low compared to gas or diesel, the large up-front investment in batteries makes the total cost of owning an eelctric vehicle higher except for drivers who use the vehicle for frequent, short trips with time to recharge in between.
The big winners for energy density are synthetic fuels, as well as conventional biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Although ethanol has been criticized because it only contains about 2/3 of the energy of the same volume of gasoline, it’s close enough that people using ethanol don’t have to completely change their behavior in order to use it in a conventional vehicle. In contrast, electric vehicle manufacturers find that the range of their vehicles is constrained not only by
the cost of batteries, but also by their size and weight. Weight is particularly important, because as a vehicle gets heavier, more of the energy is used to move the vehicle rather than the occupants, which in turn requires even more batteries.
In between energy-dense biofuels and bulky batteries lie gaseous fuels: natural gas and hydrogen, which have good energy per gram, but require heavy pressurized tanks to pack them into a space small enough to fit in a vehicle. Hydrogen requires a pressurized tank that takes up a lot of space, even if it is not very heavy. Natural gas can either be used as Compressed natural gas (CNG) or Liquid Natural Gas (LNG.) CNG is similar to hydrogen, although it is a little more energy dense. LNG has the same energy density as diesel, but requires considerable energy to compress into that form, and is not available from a home fueling station. Hence, natural gas vehicles present a tradeoff between energy density and fueling infrastructure.
Considering just the barriers of energy density and infrastructure, it is clear why the conventional biofuels ethanol and biodiesel gained an early lead over alternatives such as electricity and hydrogen. The big questions about biofuels arise from constraints in their total supply, and the harm that many forms of biofuel agriculture do to the environment. Synthetic fuels made from natural gas and coal (GTL and CTL) can also have excellent energy density and can take advantage of existing infrastructure and vehicle fleets, but so far have not been adopted in a large way becasue they have had to compete with cheap oil. As oil prices rise, we will probably also see the rise of synthetic fuels, but, like biofuels, their long term prospects will be limited by total supply and possibly by concern about the environmental harm they do.
Such supply constraints and environmental concerns will be the subject of Part VII. Previous articles have been:
- Hydrogen and Vehicle Eletrification
- Natural Gas Vehicles
- Synthetic fuels: GTL and CTL
DISCLAIMER: The information and trades provided here are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves substantial risk and you should evaluate your own risk levels before you make any investment. Past results are not an indication of future performance. Please take the time to read the full disclaimer here.
You mentioned that “Most homes do not have natural gas in the garage, and even when they do, a compressor is necessary.”
First: Refueling with natural gas in an enclosed space like a garage would be very risky — any leak could cause an explosion. This should be done outside in the open air. A carport covering would probaly be OK.
Second: A compressor may not be necessary if the refueling system were properly hooked up. The gas in the line from the utility company is under very high pressure up to our house. Just outside our house the gas goes through a regulator which reduces the pressure to a very low psi (pounds per square inch) so there is very little danger of gas leakage in the house. The outside gas line, where the pressure is high, is where the refueling line should be attached. Then a compressor would not be need. But this would need the cooperation of the utility company, which would probably require a fee.
The long term prospects regarding natural gas may not be limited by total supply and environmental harm.
Of the two sources of natural gas — fossil and sustainable, the author’s concerns are applicable to fossil fuels, not natural gas from sustainable sources.
Haubenschild Farms, Inc., a family-owned farm near Princeton, Minnesota, produces methane from the manure of a herd of dairy cows for the following reasons: Odour control, Generation of electricity, Thermal energy production, Potential increase in the value of manure as fertilizer, Pathogen reduction, Weed-seed destruction, and Possible sale of digested fibres.
As for global warming, it should be noted that methane is about twenty three times worse as a green house gas than carbon dioxide.
So, capturing and utilizing natural gas (methane) should reduce environmental harm, and lessen global warming.
The long term prospects of natural gas from sustainable sources look very good.
However, currently, of the few farmers who capture natural gas, they get it only from the manure. Note: MOST of the gas is released from the animal’s mouth. So, someday, wise farmers will place the cattle in tents to capture the gas. Natural gas is lighter than air, so it rises. A large plastic pipe could run from inside the top of the tent down and out to where it could be used.
Even the president of the United States, George W. Bush, made a fervent appeal to the developed world to take to methane farming — see Times of India (Dec 08, 2004). He rightly said methane farming would counter the skyrocketing prices of crude oil and emerge as an alternative to fossil fuels.
Interesting thoughts on how NGV filling might work. Do you know how pipeline pressures compare with the tank pressures in CNG vehicles?
Regarding the untapped potential of biomethane, I agree that there is a lot of it, and not only agricultural methane, but also landfill methane and methane from sewage treatment. However, the total potential of such biomethane is small compared to our current natural gas usage, and it competes directly the use of that natural gas in electricity generation (which often requires much less gas cleanup than making biomethane pipeline quality.
A CA study here:http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009_energypolicy/documents/2009-04-14-15_workshop/presentations/Day-2/10_Sokolsky_Biomethane_and_Transportation_Fuel.pdf
estimates the technically feasible biomethane potential in CA at 23 Billion cu ft/year, with 14 Billion of that from dairy waste. In 2008, CA consumed 2450 Billion cubic feet of natural gas, meaning that biomethane potential is less than 1% of demand, meaning that it’s not going to make a significant difference in the overall natural gas market.
Biomethane potential might be higher in intensive dairy states that are less reliant than CA on natural gas for electricity generation, but probably not more than 10% at the most.
Natural gas transmission lines generally operate at around 1500 psi. Usually, the distribution line pressures are much lower, 1000 psi or less. The pressure feeding into a home is dramatically lower, from 60 to less than 1 psi.
Gas pressure in vehicle storage tanks is typically above 3000 psi and, in some cases on the order of 5000+ psi.
You mention ethanol and biodiesel as the two alternative liquid fuels. Certainly these are the two most prominent. However, there are others that reduce or eliminate some of the issues yo discuss. For example, biobutanol has an energy density nearly equivalent to gasoline. And, green diesel, not to be confused with biodiesel, is much less susceptible to congealing due to cold.
While infrastructure is an issue, its import is probably overplayed. For example, the appropriate use of natural gas for vehicular fuel is for local and regional fleets such as “garbage” trucks, buses and regional delivery trucks such as for groceries, Walmart, etc. If conversion to natural gas was focused on these vehicles, infrastructure changes would largely entail adding natural gas fuel capabilities at their central fueling depots.
While such a change would have a more limited effect in reducing oil consumption, it would still have a considerable effect. And it would do so at a much lower cost.
With the support for the “Natural Gas Act” apparently increasing in Congress, perhaps Westport is a good target again, on any pullback.
I don’t think the energy density of ethanol is a significant problem; I think people are making too big a deal about that. The biggest infrastructure barrier for ethanol is the inability to put it in the existing pipeline infrastructure.
I agree that next gen biofuels such as biobutanol, DME, green diesel, biocrude, and other variants have the potential to overcome the infrastructure barriers for biofuels, but I don’t know which will do the trick, and the biggest problems for biofuels are not barriers, but the constraints I discuss in part VII.