Market Analysis for Future Transportation Fuels

Richard H. Caro

Certified Automation Professional, International Society of Automation

Copyright 2022

Richard@Caro.us, Arlington, MA

Abstract

Public and private transportation vehicles mostly burn fossil fuels. Even
today’s electric vehicles are powered by electricity originating largely from electric
power plants that burn fossil fuels. Only a small percentage of electricity is
generated by solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, or nuclear sources, all of
which do not depend upon combustion of fossil fuels. While battery-based
electrical vehicles are likely to expand rapidly, battery storage of electrical energy
may not be an optimal solution for the future of automotive power, and is certainly
not a solution for passenger and cargo aircraft. The evolution of fuels for powering
land and air transport vehicles is the purpose of this market analysis. The
conclusion of this study is that anhydrous ammonia manufactured with the use of
green hydrogen and green electricity will emerge to be the common fuel of the
future for all forms of transportation: land, sea, rail, and air.
Keywords: Automotive, aircraft, fuels, fossil, ammonia
 

Market Analysis for Future Transportation Fuels

Fuels Currently Used in Transportation Vehicles

The Oil and Gas industry dominate the production of the fuels used to power
automobiles, trucks, ships, and aircraft for transport of people, goods, and
commodities. While compressed natural gas and propane are used to power some
municipal buses, three forms of hydrocarbon fuels all distilled from crude oil
dominate: gasoline, kerosene/jet fuel, and diesel oil dominate ground and air
transportation. All such fossil-based fuels are burned in the vehicle to produce
power at varying degrees of efficiency, and all produce carbon dioxide (CO2) as a
byproduct of combustion and it is considered by most experts to be the greenhouse
gas most responsible for global warming.

It seems obvious that electric-powered vehicles (EV) are likely to replace
fossil-fueled vehicles, as recently required by the state of California by 2034. Even
so the power for battery-powered EVs generally comes from electric utilities that
still use combustion of fossil-based hydrocarbon fuels. Solar, wind, nuclear, hydro,
and geothermal sources (green electricity) still make up only a small, but modestly
increasing fraction of the electrical generation energy sources. Only the passenger
rail service, and to a lesser degree freight rail service, have developed a way to
directly power trains with electricity, but only over a small segment of the total US
rail service. Electrification of rail service is almost universal in Europe and Japan,
but not in the US due to the size of the US and the large capital investment
required to install electrical third-rails or catenary wiring. Even with electrified
trains, the source of electricity for rail use mostly comes from electric utilities that
burn fossil fuels. Interesting is that the common diesel-fueled locomotive for rail
transport actually has a number of electric motor traction engines with an on-board
diesel-fueled generator.

For most of the transportation sector, a way to store or create electrical
power in the moving vehicle itself must be found to allow random mobility of
vehicles. The most common electrical storage method has been use of rechargeable
batteries. The most common battery technology uses lithium/ion chemistry that is
known for its limited capacity, long re-charge times, and potential fire hazard due
to its flammable electrolyte. For automotive use, lithium/ion batteries are very
large, heavy, expensive, and flammable in some instances. Research continues to
develop solid-state batteries that promise higher capacity for the same weight,
faster re-charge cycle, more compact dimensions, and safer due to use of a nonflammable electrolyte. However, we are not there yet (2022).

Some use of fuel cells in which hydrogen is used to generate electricity and
power the vehicle is being used in some long-distance cargo vehicles, and in some
AGVs (Automated Guided Vehicles) used in warehouses and factories. There are a
few hydrogen/fuel cell powered automobiles being sold to test the market for such
architectures. Broad use of hydrogen fueled vehicles will depend upon the creation
of an all-new of a hydrogen distribution and dispensing network that currently does
not yet exist.

For passenger and freight aircraft electric power can only be used to rotate a
propeller, that is currently used in light aircraft, and was common prior to the jetage. It is unlikely to resume except for light aircraft and a few short-hop passenger
services. Longer distance aircraft will still require jet engines that burn nonhydrocarbon fuels such as hydrogen to avoid generation of greenhouse gasses.

More about Hydrogen

The fuel most publicized to replace hydrocarbons for both automotive and
aeronautic use is hydrogen. When hydrogen is burned with atmospheric oxygen,
only water vapor, some Nitrogen Oxide (NO), and heated nitrogen from the
atmosphere are produced in the exhaust. The environmental problem remains
however: where does all this hydrogen come from?

• Green Hydrogen – produced by the electrolysis of fresh (non-salt) water
using electricity produced by methods that do not release carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, or nuclear.)

• Grey Hydrogen – the most common method (95%) for production of
hydrogen using a steam reforming of natural gas (methane) that produces
greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) as a byproduct that is currently vented
to the atmosphere.

• Blue Hydrogen – produced from hydrocarbon sources like Grey Hydrogen,
but adding carbon capture to the process so that carbon dioxide is not
released to the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide may be injected into old oil
wells to recover oil that no longer flows freely, or to just store the carbon
dioxide in underground voids. There are some other carbon-capture
processes that are being developed that are intended to avoid atmospheric
venting of carbon dioxide.

Economics of Grey or Blue hydrogen production strongly depends upon the price
of natural gas, the availability and price of green electricity, and the cost of
disposal of carbon dioxide. In mid-2022, where green electricity and fresh water is
available, green hydrogen can be produced for less than the cost of grey hydrogen.
However green electricity (solar) is often available with significant investment in
dessert areas where fresh water is not generally available, or in coastal areas (wind)
where the water has high salt content. Fortunately, green electricity from hydro
water power provides plenty of fresh water for electrolysis to produce green
hydrogen. Many nuclear generation sites also have access to fresh water for reactor
cooling as well, but nuclear power has fallen on disfavor, and for this study is
being deprecated. Perhaps electrolysis of salt water will prove to be economically
feasible as well using desalinization methods, but it is not yet developed. Perhaps
new geothermal processes will produce green electricity in locations where fresh
water is plentiful and where wind and solar are less feasible, but this too is
speculative.

Problems with distributing hydrogen.

Hydrogen gas cannot be transported in mild steel piping like natural gas. The
hydrogen molecule can permeate steel piping causing embrittlement and
potentially failure and leakage of the hydrogen. This means that hydrogen is NOT
a safe substitute for natural gas since specialized materials are required for its safe
pipeline distribution. Pressurized hydrogen gas can safely be stored or transported
in tanks or pipelines made of carbon fiber, 316 or 304 stainless steel.
Storage of hydrogen as a liquid appears infeasible since it would require
intense refrigeration to the liquid hydrogen boiling point -273oF. However,
advances in materials for hydrogen absorption and adsorption are being developed
that may enable such methods to safely transport hydrogen as an adsorbed gas in a
solid storage medium. The vehicle would then be required to carry the solid filled
adsorbent, the hydrogen, and the container plus any heating mechanism required to
de-adsorb the hydrogen. This too is speculative.

Finally, another approach to transport hydrogen is to change the chemical
composition from hydrogen to another non-carbon containing chemical that is
easily reacted to release hydrogen. There are two such chemicals: anhydrous
ammonia (NH3), and hydrazine (N2H4). Each of these molecules, hydrogen,
anhydrous ammonia, and hydrazine can be directly used in fuel cells to generate
electricity with only water and nitrogen as byproducts. Which one to be used in the
future requires an economic and logistical appraisal as follows:

• Hydrogen – under pressure, hydrogen may be stored in non-metallic tanks or
may be stored as a hydrate of a solid. Storage as a hydrate is a process called
adsorption and is under development. So far there are no conclusive results.
This also assumes that the adsorbed hydrogen will not become a hazard
worse than today’s gasoline tanks in case of an automobile collision. If the
hydrogen is stored as a compressed gas, the fuel tanks must be strong
enough to protect it in case of an accident because any released hydrogen
would be highly flammable.
• Anhydrous Ammonia – can be contained under moderate pressure in
lightweight steel tanks. In case of fuel tank rupture in an accident, the
released ammonia gas, being lighter than air, would rapidly dissipate and is
generally not flammable although it is highly toxic and an extreme irritant.
• Hydrazine – is only liquid above 28 degrees F (-2 deg. C), therefore must be
contained in steel tanks that can be heated. In case of fuel tank rupture in an
accident, hydrazine is highly flammable and would present a serious
explosive hazard.

Conclusion: Hydrazine is too hazardous for automotive use. Compressed hydrogen
presents several unanswered questions for fuel tank materials and weight and
presents a hazardous condition in case of accident. Anhydrous Ammonia seems to
be a less hazardous and more economic fuel of the future for automotive use.

More about Anhydrous Ammonia

Anhydrous ammonia can be considered as a safe way to transport and store
hydrogen. Anhydrous ammonia is easily converted to release hydrogen in the
presence of a Nickle catalyst such as in a solid oxide fuel cell. For jet aircraft use,
anhydrous ammonia can be heated with recirculated exhaust gases and passed
through a catalyst converting it to hydrogen for combustion in the jet engine with
heated nitrogen and water vapor as exhaust gases.
Anhydrous ammonia has been in mass production for many years as
fertilizer for many crops. The anhydrous ammonia is typically applied to the soil
before planting a crop in order to replenish the nitrogen that was used to grow the
previous harvest. This application has created a very large market for anhydrous
ammonia that is safely transported by truck or rail in lightly pressurized steel tanks.
However, most of today’s anhydrous ammonia is produced by a process that uses
hydrogen and steam to reform natural gas, but carbon dioxide is a byproduct. It
will take new plants to produce green anhydrous ammonia starting with green
hydrogen and nitrogen from the atmosphere (3 H2 + N2 –> 2 NH3) that uses ferric
oxide as a catalyst.

Conclusion

Now we have identified the fuel of the future: anhydrous ammonia for solid
oxide fuel cells in electric automobiles, buses, trucks, trains, and ships; it will also
power jet aircraft by decomposition with heat and catalyst to generate hydrogen
which is the combustion fuel.

 

Development of Process Control Systems

By Dick Caro

July 13, 2022

Reading the content of the article by Sandy Vasser, retired IC&E Manager at ExxonMobil in the April 2022 edition of InTech, has stirred me to reflect on how our industry has approached the development of process control systems. I have been involved in all of the approaches in the past half century of my working career. While I am now retired and unfunded to continue involvement and am sitting on the sidelines, it may be useful for me to reflect upon some of the history of how we got to where we are. I was there and either was a participant or a leader in many of those movements.

 

Sandy is correct in his description of the three paths that a well-funded manufacturing company can use to develop process control systems, except that there is a fourth path: Internal Development; and a fifth path: International Open Standards. The three paths mentioned by Sandy I would describe as three business paths to “Digitalization” of conventional and pre-existing analog process control. To the degree possible with each generation of microprocessor the early versions of the DCS (Distributed Control Systems) were digital versions of the old analog control systems with shared digital controller (at first 8 loops sharing one controller, now thousands), digital serial communications replacing hard wired signals, and shared video displays as previously implemented on Foxboro’s SPEC-200. The Fourth path, internal development was successfully carried out by Dow Chemical Company in their development of their own MOD5 control system. Dow’s internal development team assembled available hardware and put together the software to automate the startup, regulatory control, emergency shutdown, and all operator-oriented visual displays. In my own humble opinion, Dow actually achieved more than any of the commercial DCS suppliers in automation of their processes, although at great cost.

 

In early 2000, I was contracted by Invensys/Foxboro to evaluate the Dow MOD5 system for potential merger with the Foxboro I/A DCS. Dow had decided that Internal Development was too expensive to continue to make the necessary revisions they had planned, and it was time for at least one of the DCS vendors to bear those costs and to be the source of future updates, particularly to the hardware. Dow had decided to switch to Sandy Vasser’s Approach 2 – but with a burden of porting the Dow MOD5 software to a new system base. Foxboro had hired me to interview Dow control system development engineers to explain to Foxboro’s development programmers what exactly they had to support in order for Dow to begin using Foxboro’s I/A system with the Dow implementation methods.

 

The Dow process control software implementation method was based on a system of FORTRAN programs developed for each individual unit operations such as a distillation column, heat exchanger, surge tank, etc. Each program had been previously developed for Dow’s most complex unit. To implement the control for a new unit, the control engineer would download the FORTRAN source code and modify it to remove the comment markers at the beginning of the line of code that would need to become active for the new unit. Process control loops were implemented simply as Called subroutines. This was very unlike the function-block-oriented control diagrams of Foxboro’s I/A. However, I/A had been implemented using the UNIX operating system for which excellent FORTRAN compilers were widely available. I described all of this to the Foxboro software developers and they formed a team to estimate costs and scheduling to develop a proof of concept to present to Dow. My assignment was complete. By early 2001, Foxboro had failed to demonstrate a proof of concept prototype and Dow cancelled the contract and awarded it to ABB to be based on their 800xA DCS. Within a year, ABB had successfully demonstrated a proof of concept and became the sole process control system supplier to Dow Chemical worldwide.

 

Exxon Research and Engineering (ER&E), before the merger of Exxon with Mobile Oil (and years before Sandy Vasser’s time), started an Approach 2 development for its digital process control system, before there was a DCS. In 1973, while I was employed as a Software Development Manager at Foxboro, we received an inquiry from ER&E to determine if we (Foxboro) were interested in a joint venture with ER&E to develop a digital process control system. Paul Griem, another Foxboro software development manager and I traveled to ER&E in Florham Park, New Jersey. We met with Roy Zumwalt and his staff who walked us through a giant functional specification document describing the digital control system they were planning. In the 700+ pages they described a computer-based control system consisting of a central primary computer connected by communications lines to satellite computers each performing the feedback regulatory control for a specific plant area. The specification explicitly spelled out the control algorithms they required and the use of the RTL/2 programming language to be embedded into each control function block to modify the “standard” algorithms as necessary for an application. This specification linked the function blocks similar to the way that Foxboro’s George Woodley had created for Foxboro’s own PCP 88 control systems, and had also been implemented in Foxboro’s Fox/1 computer-based controller. Ultimately, Foxboro’s management decided that we did not have sufficient development staff for this project and declined the opportunity. Honeywell, on the other hand, was at the right place and time and undertook the joint development with ER&E, developing the TDC-2000 under the leadership of Renzo Dallimonti. By the time Honeywell developed TDC-2000, microprocessors became available to implement the controllers. Honeywell implemented the RTL/2 programming calling it their CL (Control Language.) Honeywell marketed TDC-2000 as the first DCS (Distributed Control System.) IBM also developed a mainframe version conforming to this same specification, installed it at one Exxon refinery, but did not attempt to further commercialize it.

 

Through the years, Honeywell’s TDC-2000 and 3000 became the leading DCS in the process industries to the point at Exxon, Mobile, Union Carbide, and many others, it was their only choice for new control systems. As a result, some of the users at these companies began looking at the competition in order to reestablish competitive bidding, but found that they were captive to Honeywell.

 

In 1985, ISA founded the SP50 Fieldbus standards committee. The original stated purpose was to develop a digital communications technology standard to replace the 4-20mA analog data transmission standard. While the committee had volunteer members from most of the DCS vendors to work on network items and protocol, a core group of users were included under the chairmanship of Dick Lasher, PhD who worked for Exxon Chemical. I was the editor for this “User Layer” group. Under Dr. Lasher’s leadership, the User Layer formed a whole new process control architecture that was explicitly designed to allow the process control vendors to compete for new systems by the movement (in today’s language) of the simple single and two-element cascade controls to the edge, all sensor linearization, filtering, and control would be done in smart microprocessor-based field instruments. This user-led architecture development points to an Approach 5 to add to Sandy’s list: an industry standards-based control system architecture.

 

The Fieldbus story is not a good one. Eventually, I was assigned to be the Chairperson of the ISA 50 committee and the newly formed IEC SC65C/WG6 to bring the Fieldbus standard to completion in the face of major objections from international competitors, and short-cummings of the technology of the day. One of the primary problems was the lack of a high speed local communications technology restricting the 4-20mA replacement (H1) to a speed of only 31.25 kbps in order to meet power requirements for intrinsic safety. The other problem was the lack of high speed communications technology for the upper level H2 communications network. In 1999 an H2 version based on high speed Ethernet (FOUNDATION Fieldbus HSE) became available and was eventually included into the IEC standard. The third problem was an international political problem; while the SP 50 Fieldbus protocol was based on a French (FIP) arbitration solution developed in full by the late Thom Phinney that satisfied both link arbitration requirements, it was not exactly PROFIBUS that was a German requirement.

 

Eventually, the IEC Fieldbus problem was resolved by the adoption of a new form of “standard” that was designed to resolve a problem of the European Union – countries within the EU were using local/country standards to restrain trade from other EU countries and even foreign nations. By including the entirety of each local/country standard into an IEC world standard, restraint of trade could be avoided. This new form of standard made no attempt at commonality and was known as a “café standard.” With this change, there was no longer the need to adopt a single protocol for the process control Fieldbus, and it did not happen.

 

The other part of the Fieldbus story is commercial. While the entire Fieldbus, both H1 and HSE were defined in detail, internationally standardized, and supported by the Fieldbus FOUNDATION, the major vendors of process control DCSs uniformly refused to accept system responsibility for systems that contained conforming elements not of their own design, except for FOUNDATION Fieldbus H1 field instruments. While most DCS suppliers used the FOUNDATION Fieldbus HSE design specification to build their own networks, they still recommended that users installing H1 field instruments terminate them in I/O cards specifically designed for H1 termination, rather than terminate H1 wiring segments in HSE Linking Devices, the element of HSE that was designed to aggregate H1 field signals onto an Ethernet-based common network. Without HSE support, the installation cost savings promised by FOUNDATION Fieldbus was lost and the competitive advantage of FOUNDATION Fieldbus vanished.

 

In 2014 ExxonMobil realized that they had a serious problem – there were hundreds of TDC-2000/3000 DCSs that were at their end of life. They initiated a project within their corporate Research, Development, and Engineering division to develop a path to replace these DCSs with more modern equipment in such a way that they would no longer be restricted to the supply/support by a single vendor. At the time, there were no FOUNDATION Fieldbus H1 instruments connected to the TDC DCSs at any ExxonMobil upstream or downstream plants, although the ExxonMobil Chemical Division had some FOUNDATION Fieldbus H1 instruments connected to DCSs supplied by vendors other than Honeywell. A study team was formed and I was one of two outside consultants participating. We developed the ExxonMobil Reference Architecture (EMRA) that was similar to the FOUNDATION Fieldbus HSE architecture except that it recognized that the majority of field instruments were HART-compatible (without function block capability.) Instead of Linking Devices, this architecture included a DCN (Digital Control Node) to move the majority of feedback, feedforward, and cascade control loops to the field. ExxonMobil patented the DCN concept to keep it from being claimed by a vendor; I am one of the patent holders.

 

ExxonMobil attempted to influence the DCS suppliers to support EMRA, but none were willing to risk this conversion. Meanwhile, Honeywell proposed their proprietary solution to the TDC obsolescence problem by offering a gateway between the TDC Data Hiway and their own Experion network, enabling the currently installed instrumentation to communicate with the Experion controllers. Honeywell also enabled users to port the TDC controller software to execute in a virtual machine environment in the Experion system. While the Honeywell proposal solved their immediate problem, along with buying spare TDC parts from Azbil (formerly Yamatake), it did not solve the future problem of dependence upon a single vendor for their process control systems.

 

ExxonMobil’s next step was to submit the EMRA as a starting point to a new Open Process Automation Forum (O-PAS) within the Open Group, an industry-independent standards body. Beginning at the formation meeting in late 2018, I participated in the first year of development by creating a set of process control requirements that the final O-PAS was to meet. The eventual O-PAS was to be a standard-of-standards. As of early 2022, the second of three phases of the O-PAS standard has been released and demonstrations have been built to prove the concept using equipment supplied by member companies. Function blocks were built using the IEC 61499 standard, and systems software conforms to OPC UA.  While most of the traditional process control suppliers have participated in the O-PAS effort, notably Honeywell and Emerson have not.

 

One company, CSI-Automation has been formed to act as a system integrator for O-PAS. The CEO is Don Bartusiak, PhD formerly the Chief Process Control Engineer at ExxonMobil and Co-Chair of the Open Process Automation Forum. Their mission is to install working process automation systems using qualified hardware and software components that meet the O-PAS requirements/specifications. CSI has demonstrated several proofs of concept. Two questions remain: will end user organizations installing new process control systems risk using O-PAS conforming systems; and second, will these system integrators full systems responsibility for their standards-based products.  It is also very clear that there are many other companies ready willing and able to act as system integrators for process control systems. I believe that eventually, the “traditional” process control vendors will be driven to offer O-PAS systems which they integrate and offer full systems responsibility.

 

The big difference between FOUNDATION Fieldbus and O-PAS is that the former was designed only for new or Greenfield installations since it depended upon new Fieldbus H1 instruments. O-PAS does not! The DCN built into O-PAS allows Fieldbus H1, HART, WirelessHART, and ISA100 Wireless instruments to be integrated into a digital control system. Of course, I expect to see lots more evolution in field instrumentation as Ethernet APL and even 5G wireless are integrated. There will always be challenges to process control systems, but the days of the user being captive to a single supplier are probably over.

 Gun Control 2022

I don't usually comment on political matters, but this year (2022) in the first 5 months there have been 27 mass shootings, and the year is not yet half over. Anyone with a working brain must be troubled by this, so I just wanted to open up my thoughts.

Near as I can tell by the newspaper and TV accounts, all of these mass shootings have been by immature or unbalanced men. No women. All have used one of the several brands of the AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle. While this gun is available around the world, outside of a war, it has been used to kill innocent people only in the United States of America, and once in Australia. As a result of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, Australia has banned all assault rifle from citizen use.

I am not an expert on guns, and know very little technically about the AR-15, but it appears to me that this is a weapon designed for war to kill people. It physically looks like the AK-47, a Russian designed weapon, also known as a Kalashnikov named after its designer. The AK-47 was designed as a weapon of war explicitly to kill people. The US military purchases the AR-15 in combat form and calls it the M16. The only difference between the M16 and the AR-15 is that the M16 can be used in fully automatic and burst mode, while the AR-15 in its delivered form, cannot. The most important aspects of these assault rifles is the use of high velocity ammunition and a quick-change magazine to allow rapid reloading. The long barrel and higher velocity ammunition available for the M16 makes it more accurate at distances up to 600 yards. The AR-15 typically uses a slightly lower velocity bullet and shorter barrel making it less accurate, but still deadly. In fact, the people-killing capability that makes the M16 so effective as a weapon of war, makes the AR-15 less desirable as a hunting rifle - it tends to destroy the target animal.

Some people claim that they need a weapon for self-defence at home. The AR-15 might chase a home invader away just because of its looks, but would do damage to the home if it were actually used. Pulling the trigger of an AR-15 means you intend to KILL the invader, not just chase them away. A hand gun is a much better weapon for self-defence.

Conclusion: The only reason to own an AR-15 rifle is the desire to kill many people. It's not good for hunting, target shooting, or self-defence.

But wait... how about the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution? Doesn't it give all of us the right to bear arms?

...well yes, but read what the 2nd Amendment really says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This was written in 1781 and finally approved in 1791. At the time, the "arms" referred to in the constitution were a rifle that was a musket and a pistol that was a flintlock. Both were capable of firing a lead ball once every minute, if the shooter was really skilled at reloading. During the American revolution, the "militia" was voluntary and included men drawn from the citizenry. In 2008, the US Supreme Court determined that the 2nd Amendment permitted individuals to own firearms, not just police and military, but allowed states to regulate sales. This allowed the banning of assault weapons in succeeding years, but has since been repealed. Currently, no other country in the world allows ordinary citizens to own firearms without strict control by their government.

There are a number of laws that place constraints about dangerous devices. The automobile for example: there are age limits that vary by state that limit citizens from driving; states require licenses and passing both a written and driving exam before allowing citizens to drive; automobiles must pass safety inspections before being allowed on the road carrying passengers. Why are there no such laws relating to firearms such as the AR-15 assault rifle or even a semiautomatic pistol.

I do own an automobile and am licensed to drive it. Every year I must have my car inspected for safety. Once every 5 years I am required to renew my driver's license, and often to take a vision test. Why are there no such laws required for gun ownership and use? Why do our laws allow ownership of weapons of war to go unchecked?