The document discusses alternatives to liquid fuels and concludes that alcohol fuels from biomass are currently the most realistic option. It notes that alcohol fuels can be produced from various biological materials, do not require significant changes to fuel infrastructure, and flex-fuel vehicles that can run on alcohol or gasoline are becoming popular. However, large-scale production of alcohol fuels could increase food prices and require deforestation if not implemented sustainably.

1. Realistic Alternatives to L iquid Fuels

4. No easily available unoxidized hydrogen

5. CH4 + 2H2O => CO2 + 4H2 ΔH = +59 kcal/mole Steam reformation of natural gas* CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O ΔH = 205 kcal/mole Methane combustion

7. Mass transit production largely oil dependent

8. Not as flexible on a landmass with scattered urban centers

10. Recent interest by Honda Automotive*

11. Can be coupled with other fuel-intake systems

12. Cons:

13. Very expensive mainframe (for individuals and groups)

14. Range Inefficiency, range anxiety

15. Large production change required, “auto overhaul”

17. Flex-Fueled Vehicles (FFVs) becoming very popular with major automotive producers

18. Derived from assorted biological masses

19. Somewhat self sustaining

20. Almost no fuel infrastructure change required

22. Ethanol/Methanol: Particulate matter (<gasoline), formaldehyde, nitrous oxides, methane, Carbon oxides Efficiency (est. after production cost)

23. Gasoline (Petroleum) 100%

24. Ethanol (Biomass) ~73%

25. Methanol (Biomass) ~51%

26. *Hydrogen (Petroleum) ~33%

28. Engineered by automotive companies

29. Has found wide use in competitive racing

31. Less genetic diversity in plants

32. Food prices increase

33. Little to no extra farming room (deforestation)

34. Potential foreign policy conflict

35. Would require an average of a $400-$800 fuel intake and storage upgrade in cars*