What a gas! The current politically correct promotion of ethanol and hydrogen to power vehicles overlooks the serious drawbacks of those fuels and the huge potential of natural gas.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

After two years of soaring gas prices, and with oil supplies continually threatened by those antagonistic toward America, Americans are searching desperately for alternatives to power our vehicles, our economy, and our future. Congress, influenced by environmentalists, is pushing for ethanol and hydrogen to fuel vehicles. But these fuels have dramatic drawbacks that effectively stop them from ever becoming the necessary answer to our oil shortage, or more accurately oil supply, problems.

Ethanol only seems to be a solution because most Americans aren't aware of its fatal flaws. Without government mandates, little if any ethanol would be produced as a motor fuel. Consumers don't tend to line up to pay more for a fuel that delivers less mileage at a higher cost. But companies such as Archer-Daniels-Midland, which receive a 51-cent subsidy from the taxpayers for each gallon of ethanol blended into gasoline, are eager to financially support politicians who see no harm in laws forcing states to require producers/suppliers to degrade their product by adding ethanol. *

Hydrogen is also flawed, and green dreams of a "hydrogen economy" are scientific nightmares. We are asked to support hydrogen as a substitute for gasoline and diesel when there aren't any natural deposits of hydrogen out there to tap. Hydrogen must be manufactured through the expensive consumption of other energies, only to become a hostile fuel that is difficult to transport and requires cryogenic or high-pressure storage. ([dagger])

Wish List

In looking for an acceptable fuel to replace petroleum, particularly for automobiles, what criteria need to be met? The most important are:

* Extremely large reserves capable of hundreds or thousands of years' supply, accessible at will by U.S. companies;

* Economical (preferably costing less per BTU than petroleum);

* No new technological advances required to implement its use;

* Significant existing distribution infrastructure;

* Billions of passengers-miles of use to demonstrate effectiveness and safety.

Would you believe there is a resource that meets these criteria? It is a naturally occurring product made up of about 85 percent methane, with small amounts of ethane, propane, and butane. We call it natural gas. Could this fuel have the capability of loosing the stranglehold that petroleum has on our transportation industry? Let's take a look.

Natural-gas Resources and Reserves

Arguably the most important question that needs to be answered to determine natural gas's efficacy as a petroleum substitute is whether there is enough of it to last for generations. Currently, U.S. natural-gas usage is about 25 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) per year. The Natural Gas Supply Association (naturalgas.org) estimates that there are approximately 1,200 Tcf in recoverable reserves, enough to provide approximately 48 years of supply--not including using it as a common means to fuel vehicles. But this number is likely vastly underestimated because the stated reserves never really seem to drop, with additional supplies constantly becoming available. Not bad, but consider too that the recent discoveries in "unconventional resources" are becoming practical to tap and could be added to the "reserve" category.

The first of these are "geopressurized zones," gas reservoirs at great depths--on the order of 25,000 feet--where gas would normally not be expected. ** The Gulf Coast of the United States is particularly rich in these zones. Experts in the field estimate these reserves at 5,000 to 49,000 Tcf--200 to 1,960 years at current usage rates.

Even more impressive, and certainly more mysterious, are the deposits of methane hydrates originally discovered in the permafrost regions of the Arctic but later found to be in many ocean-floor formations below about 1,000 feet. Methane hydrates resemble melting ice and contain a crystalline lattice with water encapsulating a methane molecule. Research has indicated an incredible wealth of these unconventional reserves with the U.S. Geological Survey estimating that methane hydrates may contain more organic carbon than the world's coal, oil, and conventional natural gas--combined! Estimates range from 7,000 to 73,000 Tcf or a 280- to 2,920year supply. While these deposits are described by geologists as "unconventional resources," one should be encouraged that the Independence Project is already underway in the Gulf of Mexico tapping "geopressurized domes" and the Japanese reportedly have a methane hydrate extraction project scheduled for 2012.

All indications are that the world is awash with natural gas, enough to supply both natural-gas and many petroleum needs for millennia. A mean value of 67,000 Tcf of unconventional reserves indicates there is enough natural gas to provide all existing natural-gas usage plus one-half the current petroleum production for 1,200 years. Nothing like a competitor to bring down the price of petroleum. And it might be noted that the United States is thought to hold only a tiny fraction of the world's natural-gas resources.

Running the Roads

Fuels are primarily sold by their BTU (British Thermal Unit) content, one BTU being the heat energy needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit. There are many sophisticated economic methods of comparing the cost per BTU of natural gas and gasoline, but for a quick comparison, let's take the present cost of a gallon of gasoline in Arkansas, which is $2.35 when the known taxes are deducted. Since gasoline has 125,000 BTU/gal, it costs $18.80 per million BTUs. Similarly, natural gas has a heat content of approximately 1,030 BTU per cubic foot with 2,000 cubic feet on my home bill costing $28.11, or $13.64 per million BTUs--a savings of 28 percent when compared to gasoline.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

According to the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, there are currently 130,000 natural gas-fueled vehicles in the United States, and over 2.5 million worldwide. Most of these utilize compressed natural gas (CNG) and operate in urban areas on schedules where refueling is part of the operation, such as for buses, trucks, and a few automobiles.

But CNG fuel requires a large storage tank (though CNG fuel tanks are voluminous, they are still less than one-third that required for hydrogen at the same pressure), which limits the range of the vehicle. As a point of comparison in fuel-tank sizes, we'll use a Honda Civic. A Honda Civic on the highway uses about one gallon of gas to travel 40 miles. Since a gallon of gasoline contains 125,000 BTUs, it would take 121 cubic feet of CNG to go the same distance. At 3,000 psi, six cubic feet of tank volume would be required for this 40 miles. As a regular Civic tank is only about one-third that volume, one can see that use of CNG will ever be limited to vehicles large enough to carry voluminous tanks, or small enough--such as motorized rickshaws--where only tiny amounts of fuel need be carried.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

However, when natural gas is cooled to -160[degrees]C (-260[degrees]F), 600 cubic feet of gas is condensed into one cubic foot and becomes liquid natural gas (LNG). LNG takes up only about one-third more tank volume than gasoline, although the tanks must be extremely well-insulated and require occasional venting to prevent pressure build up. Oil remains uncontaminated with unburned carbon, thus extending engine life. And speaking of carbon, environmentalists should be pleased that less than half the carbon dioxide is emitted as compared to petroleum fuels.

With lower cost, better performance, and longer engine life, why don't more vehicles take to LNG? Elementary, dear Watson! They have no place to refuel. For now, natural gas is typically only liquefied to allow the maximum amount of natural gas to be transported on ships from distant ports to facilities where it is unloaded, re-gasified, and put into the pipeline system. That, however, is changing. As the Idaho National Laboratory reports, "Small-scale liquefied natural gas plants, that draw from existing natural gas lines, are becoming increasingly attractive." It seems someone out there is thinking ahead of the ethanol and hydrogen pipe dreams.

Roadblocks?

Are there other technical roadblocks? Would a switch to natural gas as a vehicle fuel require new technologies such as those necessary in the development of batteries for perennially promised electric vehicles? Not at all. Dual gasoline/natural-gas vehicles are already commercially available. Ethanol and hydrogen cannot use existing pipelines for transport, while natural gas, according to the Energy Information Administration, has:

* More than 210 natural-gas pipeline systems;

* 300,000 miles of interstate and intrastate transmission pipelines;

* More than 1,400 compressor stations that maintain pressure on the natural-gas pipeline network and assure continuous forward movement of supplies:

* More than 11,000 delivery points, 5,000 receipt points, and 1,400 interconnection points that provide for the transfer of natural gas throughout the United States;

* 29 hubs or market centers that provide additional interconnections;

* 394 underground natural-gas storage facilities;

* 55 locations where natural gas can be imported/exported via pipelines; and

* 5 LNG (liquefied natural gas) import facilities and 100 LNG peaking facilities.

In a Perfect World ...

If energy decisions were not left to politicians, special interests, a leftist green movement, and the media, but were instead made by scientists and engineers, most electricity would be generated by nuclear power using breeder reactors providing energy for thousands (if not millions) of years. Hydropower would be a part of the mix as it is essentially free at most sites. Natural gas would be used to take up the slack at periods of high demand. Solar cells would be cut up to make patio lights, and wind turbines turned into circus rides; they are not, and never have been intended to be, significant factors in electrical generation. Vehicles would be fueled with natural gas, gasoline, diesel, or leftover grease from McDonald's French fry cookers.

But it would be both unwise and unnecessary to develop a government energy policy mandating or subsidizing any of this. Left to its own devices, the free market will find the best product for the particular use at the best price. Government force always causes misallocations of resources, eventually resulting in economic damage to both consumer and producer--an economic fact that many politicians never seem to understand.

* See "Going Bananas Over Ethanol" in the March 5, 2007 issue.

([dagger]) See "The 'Hydrogen Economy'" in the August 20, 2007 issue.

** See "Is There Oil Beneath Your Feet?" in the July 9, 2007 issue.

Ed Hiserodt is the author of Under-Exposed: What If Radiation Is Really Good for You?