I sometimes have to pause and remind people that I am not anti-ethanol. As I have said numerous times, I am opposed to recycling fossil fuel into ethanol, and paying massive subsidies to do it. This is what we do with corn ethanol. That is a false solution to our fossil fuel dependence. If we could produce corn ethanol as we can sugarcane ethanol – with minimal fossil fuel inputs – that would address the vast majority of my ethanol objections. I think I made that clear over two years ago with my support for E3 Biofuels attempt to produce corn ethanol in a more sustainable fashion.
But ethanol has one particularly compelling argument: Ethanol has a high octane rating (103), which means it does not easily pre-ignite. This means higher engine efficiencies could be obtained than can be achieved with gasoline.
It is known that ethanol added to gasoline normally causes the fuel efficiency to drop. Ethanol contains about 2/3rds of the BTUs (heating value) as the same volume of gasoline, and gasoline/ethanol blends normally shows the drop in fuel efficiency one would expect. However, because of ethanol’s resistance to preignition, it should be theoretically possible to design an engine with a much higher compression ratio, which could then extract more useful work from the ethanol. Diesel engines are designed with high compression ratios, which is the key to their engine efficiencies of around 45%, versus 25-30% for a gasoline engine.
Let’s take a simple example, to show how ethanol’s BTU deficit could be made up with an increase in engine efficiency. Gasoline contains about 115,000 BTUs/gallon. If the engine efficiency is 25%, then 28,750 BTUs/gallon ultimately power the vehicle. The rest are expelled as heat. Ethanol contains about 75,000 BTUs/gallon. One could in theory achieve the same fuel efficiency with ethanol as with gasoline if an engine was designed with an efficiency that resulted in the same 28,750 BTUs/gallon powering the vehicle (assuming same weight, frictional losses, etc.) That means that if the efficiency of the ethanol-powered car was 28,750/75,000 – or 38.33%, then 1 gallon of ethanol could provide the same power to the vehicle as 1 gallon of gasoline. And of course if the efficiency of the ethanol vehicle could be increased further, it is possible to use 1 gallon of ethanol to travel farther than one could travel on 1 gallon of gasoline – despite the BTU deficit.
This has been true in theory, and some small scale engines have been created. The Saab Biopower, which debuted a couple of years ago, showed that the BTU-deficit could be partially compensated for. The Saab engine was designed with a higher compression ratio, so that on E-85 it showed a 12.5% drop in fuel efficiency instead of the typical 20-30% drop that one typically sees on E-85. The Saab also achieved a reported 20% extra power and 15% extra torque from this engine.
But I was recently made aware that Swedish automaker Scania has been producing ultra-high compression ratio engines designed for ethanol usage, and they reach engine efficiencies as high as 43%:
Scania’s Ethanol Diesel-Engine, Runs On Biodiesel Too
That means that if all else was equal (no significant weight penalty from the high-compression engine), a gallon of ethanol could enable a vehicle to travel farther than it could on a gallon of gasoline.
In reality, the comparison is not quite apples and oranges, as these Scania engines are used in heavy, commercial applications. I wrote to the company a couple of months ago and asked them some questions about any possible plans to produce a smaller engine for passenger vehicles, but they never responded.
But the point of the essay was to show that all BTUs aren’t the same for liquid fuels, and that a modified compression ratio has the potential to give the counter-intuitive result that a fuel with few BTUs per gallon can actually provide better fuel efficiency in some cases.
I think this analysis brings up a lot of important points but the efficiencies listed for diesel engines seem very high. One problem I have run into in comparing the efficiency of different end uses is the disparity in approaches on either side of the ocean. Many times the Europeans use the lower heating value (LHV) for fuels (the energy released from the temperature of combustion but not the additional energy available when condensing the exhaust) for calculating net thermodynamic efficiency but the Americans use the higher heating value (HHV). The efficiencies using the LHV will always be higher than the HHV, so when comparing different power plants across the ocean it always appears that the European plants are more efficient. Since some of the alternative technologies for fossil fuels (e.g., natural gas) include condensing boilers and cogeneration the HHV is a more relevant figure for efficiency discussions around energy policy.
Nevertheless, the higher efficiency of combustion ignition engines (and hybrid electric drives with regenerative breaking) should always be included in any analysis of alternative energy sources and potentials.
You can do much better than using ethanol as a high-octane fuel; you can use it as a co-fuel to boost octane in a much smaller, heavily-turbocharged engine, reducing weight as well as friction and pumping losses.
Ford and MIT found that 5% ethanol could achieve a 30% reduction in total fuel consumption. That's up to a 6:1 ratio! Hydrous ethanol would achieve the same octane boost with even less energy input.
If we are going to use ethanol as fuel, we should use it to best effect. Dumping it into the gasoline supply is clearly not it.
thanks. very interesting/educational regards some of my weaknesses in thinking[thermodynamics].
fran
I wish Obama would make RR the Energy Secretary. We seem to be shooting ourselves in the the foot, while stuck in the mud. May the new team figure it out.
BTW, cargo containers through Port of Long Beach down 25 percent y-o-y in December. By 2010, you might not be able to give away oil, let alone sell it.
Thanks Robert.
So essentially we are back to re-engineering of the fleet.
RBM
The ethanol engine was developed on demand from Swedish municipalities that wanted “green” public transport. A lot of buses in the Stockholm public transport system are Scania buses with this engine. As far as I’ve understood it it’s basically their regular diesel engine with modifications to run on ethanol instead. Since Scania is only producing big trucks I find it very unlikely that they would develop a smaller engine. Regarding the Biopower Engine from SAAB it’s known to consume a lot of fuel if you’re not easy on the accelerator.
There are a lot of crazy ethanol policies in place in Sweden at the moment. For instance there is legislation forcing all gas stations that sell more than 3000 m3 of gasoline/diesel per year to have at least one pump with some renewable fuel. Almost exclusively that means E85. Next year almost all gas stations will have this mandate. The main effect so far has been that a lot of rural gas stations have shut down since it’s not profitable to invest in a new pump for renewable fuel. Suffice to say the people affected are not happy that they need to travel tens of kilometers just to refuel…
Did I mention that global auto sales are down 40 percent? Global demand for oil will surely nosedive in the months ahead.
I think energy will take the back seat on the Obama bus, as a result. You will have to pay people to take oil by 2010.
I noticed palm oil sales by volume are still rising Benny. Prices are down quite a bit,but it still seems a profitable business. Malaysia and Indonesia are dead serious about switching to palm oil.
While you infer the Saab Biopower has less of an ethanol ‘mileage penaly’ than other FFVs, I’m not convinced that is the case. If you peruse this 2007 GM excerpt from
http://www.gm.com/experience/fuel_economy/news/2007/adv_engines/saab-biopower-100-030707.jsp?exist=false
you’ll see: “The overall fuel consumption of the current Saab 9-5 BioPower engine using E85 is about 30% higher than on gasoline and the optimized BioPower 100 engine is expected to yield a near 10% gain against this.” So it seems like if you can run it on E100, you might not see the full penalty (I assume their ‘10% gain’ is probably 10% of the 30% penalty, or ~3%?), but on E85 you still see the full thermodynamic energy density penalty.
Anybody interested in putting theory to practice can convert a late model Saab to the Biopower version with ECU upgrade. All it does is change the spark advance, boost pressure and fuel/air mixture to account for the 100+ octane fuel. Even if you suffer the full thermodynamic penalty, you can run nearly 300HP from a 2.3 liter engine! If I lived in the Midwest, I’d be all over that.
Maury: Thailand too, and I predict Brazil in years ahead, if oil ever goes up again. This could be a long, long wait.
I just read a report on the computer chip industry. “Sales dropped of a cliff in the fourth quarter.” “Uncharted waters.” “Never seen before” etc etc.
In industry after industry, we are seeing reductions in the 20-40 percent range. Not 5 percent. Not 10 percent. Again and again, in deep double digits. I don’t like the looks of this.
I am not sure what that means for oil demand, but it has to be negative. I just don’t know if that means demand for oil will fall similarly.
My best guess is demand for oil will drop 10-15 percent in 2009 1q vs 2008 1q.
And probably slog along at a lower pace all through 2009-10. At some point, there just won’t be any place to story the oil anymore. Then we see the “get rid of it” prices.
Sheesh, storefronts left and right in my work neighborhood are closing.
Meanwhile, Indonesia is also teaming up with Sasol to build a 1mbd CTL plant complex. If they can do it, then we can do it.
I am having long second thoughts about the whole Peak Oil idea. I think Mr. Price Mechanism kicks Mr Peak Oil’s butt. And hard.
Yes,the world is dealing with peak oil the only way it can at the moment Benny,by lowering economic output to a level oil production can support. Next time,we may not have the credit to borrow the trillions needed to get things going again. High oil prices have always led to recessions. $147 was bound to give us a whopper.
The elephant in the room is still U.S. tariffs against importing ethanol produced by sugarcane.
The projected low consumption of oil, both in China, India, and the West, which I understand to be the cause of the current low prices, do seem to make developing alternate sources more difficult. On the other hand, it should slow oil sands development.
One thing it certainly shows is that making decisions on the margin (i.e. should I pay one dollar more for an oil future) can certainly prevent making decisions about the aggregate (i.e. should the state pay twenty dollars more for an eco-oil future). Or something like that.
RR, could you clarify what you mean by efficiency? Are you talking about the thermal efficiency of the ICE or volumetric such as mpg?
Second you may want to review your criteria and numbers for judging biofuels and PHEV. As an engineer I have some too. I spend more time trying to make what works, work better. Comparing the hypothetical and impractical to the proven is a case of comparing apples.
Biofuels are proven technology. The data is rolling in that it is both useful at reducing the imports of fossil fuel and mitigating AGW. Now we are on path of making it better and determining how large the source is.
RR, could you clarify what you mean by efficiency? Are you talking about the thermal efficiency of the ICE or volumetric such as mpg?
Technically, we are comparing thermal efficiencies. MPG may be a better comparison (and is of course a function on the thermal efficiency, with some other factors thrown in) but it is hard to get an apples to apples comparison. Diesel engines are generally heavy and used in heavy commercial applications. In the case of Scania, you couldn’t make a direct mpg comparison, so you can get a good picture by looking at the thermal efficiency.
Second you may want to review your criteria and numbers for judging biofuels and PHEV. As an engineer I have some too. I spend more time trying to make what works, work better.
I do both. Believe it or not, I have spent plenty of time and energy working on making (even) corn ethanol better. I spent time on that today; real work that I get paid for. Corn ethanol is reality, and I would hope that we could make it as good as possible. Doesn’t mean, though, that this is the path I favor.
My preference for electric transport hinges on a couple of key points, one of which is efficiency of direct solar capture versus photosynthesis, and one is on the basis of the greater efficiency of the electric motor. But I am not dogmatic; I respond to data.
Having said that, it’s 7 P.M. in the Netherlands, I am still at work, and I have to get up at 5 to fly back home. I think I will sign off now, and will be offline for a day or so.
RR
Have you seen this RR?
Top 100 Stories of 2008 #1: The Post-Oil Era Begins
It was posted to today’s Drumbeat at the Oil Drum. Believe me, you will want to read it if you haven’t. You might find a little surprise buried in the story. It’s a good story as well. Kit may see that plugins work, too, they just don’t have the benefit of the big subsidies of the ethanol industry. That’s the ticket to why ethanol works.
Robert,
Thank you for being more accurate in reporting gasoline’s BTU’s as 115,000 per gallon and C2 ethanol’s BTU’s as 75,000 per gallon. I constantly read remarks online stating that gasoline is approximately 125,000 BTU’s and many have viewed ethanol promoters describing C2 as delivering nearly 83k or 85k BTU’s per gallon. Not true…
This is something which I’ve investigated rather thoroughly and I’ve found that in most real-world gasoline tests you’ll find that American gasoline is typically a bit lower – closer to 112,000 BTU’s and that the actual value of C2 ethanol is closer to 75,500 BTU’s per gallon.
Your statement that ethanol contains approximately 2/3’s of the BTU content of gasoline is correct – C2 actually being 67% of the energy density of most gasolines.
All alcohols feature higher octane values than does first-run or blended gasoline. Think for a minute that Oxygen = Octane. All alcohols contain an OH element which polarizes the molecule making it both water soluble and oil soluble. Then, unlike float-on-water oils, the alcohols also become biodegradable. This is the little realized secret of the true environmental benefits of alcohols vs: hydrocarbon petroleum oils.
However this single Oxygen atom per molecule of alcohol does not combust and it does not attribute to overall BTU value in any way. What Oxygen does in the combustion event is to fan the flames of the hydrocarbon petroleum oils it has been blended into – and thus causes all or nearly all of these much more complex oil molecules fully combust. This is what leads to more torque power, sometimes much better fuel economies and typically a significantly reduced emissions profile as a net result…
The Oxygen atom contained in ethanol or other alcohols is what contributes to the higher octane values and again, these increased octane values allow for the C2 fuel to be combusted at far higher compression rates which in-turn provide more engine torque values. Simply look no further than Indy 500 racing cars combusting neat C1 methanol as a substitute fuel for 30+ years until switching over to C2 ethanol as a neat fuel two years ago for political reasons.
The best engine to combust neat methanol or ethanol already exists. It is the typical 16 to 1 compression diesel engine. If this engine were retrofitted to spark ignition, then this diesel engine could easily be fine-tuned to provide the most engine torque regardless of what oxygenated fuel is combusted. Right now, existing diesel engines would have to have a serious advance to their mechanically induced fuel injector’s timing squirt as the ethanol would need to be injected much earlier in the compression stroke.
Anon-
Great post. I was about to mention the Indy 500. High-compression ratios. What kind of mpgs could we get from a sparked, dieselengine running on neat ethanol?
Benny,
The EPA has invested lots of dollars in the 80s and 90s demonstrating various diesel-like methanol engines, typically of the 2L class. They demonstrate very good thermal efficiency, comparable to their diesel parent (but not superior).
The literature should be quite clear that the trick for methanol (or ethanol) fueled direct injection engines is lubricity in the high pressue fuel system. Scania must be running some type of additive to simulate diesel like fuel quality to keep injectors and pumps from wearing out.
If anyone can point to a link describing the fuel, I would like to read it.
I’ll leave it here so Benny can see it:
Forget “peak oil”, West’s demand growth peaking
“Now a deepening recession and oil price collapse have raised the issue of whether demand, not supply, is nearing its peak.”
– odograph
Odo-
The link doesn’t work, but I believe it.
Japan’s oil consumption must be down to late 1960s levels; most of Europe peaked decades back, and still is going down.
And those oil demand declines happened, largely, during the era of cheap oil (1982-2004).
If oil stays expensive, imagine what will happen.
The problem is, oil doesn’t seem to stay expensive. Even medium-term spikes seem to create reactions that result in gluts.
And after each spike, new tachnology is left in place that permanently cuts demand. The PHEV is the monster future example of that, the OPEC-killer.
Jeez, I just saw a special on TV last night, and even the Zamboni company (they make the famous ice rink machines) is producing a battery model now.
I see a couple scenarios out there, both good. In the first, it is decades or more until we see another price spike, and we go through this again, with the same prophets of doom clinging to their pulpits of fear.
(Idiot Kunstler, btw, predicted global meltdown in 2000, due to global computer malfunctions).
Another scenario is we get a price spike sooner, let’s say in five years. But that will be the last one. Burn me once, twice, three times…sooner or later I begin to edge away from the flame.
Consumers and businesses assume more price spikes are coming, and adjust. Very few consumers buy a car that get less than 30 mpg, even if gasoline is cheap, as they fear a run-up.
Right now, OPEC has to ponder long and hard its options. One more price spike, and they may find that global demand retreats…permanently.
Thank you for writing this, as I have been trying to “undo” the strict BTU theory for a while now. Just having a WRX that I would autocross, I had significant performance and high-speed cruising gains from using an ethanol (about 1/3) mix. I ran a map with more boost and ignition timing, and it kept it along with a maxed ignition multiplier; the car just ran great with ethanol. However, if just cruising around town I got more fuel efficiency at my altitude (4500ft) using Shell 91@20mpg, while a 1/3 E85 mix was about 18mpg. Still, E85 is $0.50/gal cheaper so it wasn’t that big a deal.
“My preference for electric transport hinges on a couple of key points, one of which is efficiency of direct solar capture versus photosynthesis, and one is on the basis of the greater efficiency of the electric motor.”
RR assumption is:
Efficiency = good
My gut tells me that covering productive Indiana farm land with solar panels is not good. Plants play an important roll in the environment. Most importantly they produce protein. Animals (including city folk) need protein to live. Plants also produce fiber and lastly they store energy from the sun until we need it. There is a reason squirrels bury nuts.
There is land that is not productive. Let me check. No plants are growing in the parking lot at work. Except for those who not bring their lunch or eat in the cafeteria, all the cars of commuters are in the parking lot in the city.
Parking lot!!! The cars are in the parking lot at lunch when the sun is shinning.
There would appear to be a large amount of unproductive land relative to the availability of PV cells. It would also appear the energy stored by plants can be extracted leaving the protein. It would further there is plenty of room to do both.
I can see not reason to compare the efficiency of PV solar conversion to biofuels. I have compared the heat rate of old rebuilt ICE running on biogas to a modern high engine designed for biogas. The later increases by a half a million to the project cost but improves ROI.
Let me make this generalization about motors. Motors that run 24/7 are more likely to pay back the premium for efficiency than those that only are in use for a couple hours in a day. PHEV is still in the concept phase. I would be delight to be wrong but PHEV are DOA.
Lunch is over got to go.
“One more price spike, and they may find that global demand retreats…permanently.”
Global demand has to retreat 4% annually anyway Benny,because production will have those decline rates. Either alternatives take up the slack,or we keep bumping up against capacity,with price spikes sending us back to square one.
Maury-
Well, maybe we will see production decline, or maybe not. Remember, we went through a 20-year period in which real oil prices generally got cheaper (1980-1998, thus discouraging production. Then, a bried periof of higher prices (2004-2008, and really only 2007-8).
In that brief period, production began to rise again, and demand started to wither. PHEVs began to nose into the picture.
I look at total liquid production, including biofuels, GTLs, and CTLs.
Mr Price Mechanism can punch harder than Mr. Peak Oil.
Look for $10 oil soon. There is no place toput the oil anymore.
Interestingly, there were similar concerns about natural gas a few years back. Now, they are sayng natural gas may go to $1 mcf from current $5 mcf, as there is no place to put it anymore. North American production is surging.
Yes,the world is dealing with peak oil the only way it can at the moment Benny,by lowering economic output to a level oil production can support. Next time,we may not have the credit to borrow the trillions needed to get things going again. High oil prices have always led to recessions. $147 was bound to give us a whopper.
Nope. You are confusing cause and effect, Maury.
You need a pretty healthy global economy to support $147/bbl. Unlike what we have now. Don’t worry, we’ll get back there soon.
$147/bbl had pretty much nothing to do with the current recession (I know that’s a hard one for PeakOilers to accept). Look at the financial system, and weep.
Inspite of all the wailing about dumping wallets at the gas pumps, the average American was still spending a pretty small fraction of their income on transportation, even at $147/bbl. Not enough to cause a recession.
BTW, oil production at times in 2008 was at record levels, so by your logic 2008 must have been a boom year…
Global demand has to retreat 4% annually anyway Benny,because production will have those decline rates.
We’ll see. $147/bbl tends to do wonders for demand, even in SUV-loving America.
RR assumption is:
Efficiency = good
Are you going to argue the opposite, Kit? Or what was the point of this statement?
And don’t be a dimwit: Every roof on the planet can be covered with solar panels without taking any area (to speak of) from photosynthesis.
Ditto for the parking lot. I’m sure you’d prefer to park in the shade.
BTW, I agree, EVs are overrated (“It weighs what?”). PHEV? Well, put them out there, let’s see. I’m not holding my breath. The hybrid is a bridge to nothing: it combines two propulsion technologies in a way that allows the owner to enjoy the benefits of both.
Optimist-
I would like to clear up a common misconception: That higher energy prices, per se, cause a recession.
Wrong. It causes a reallocation of resources, which can result in lower living standards (ceteris paribus).
Imagine rising oil prices. So, we pay more gasoline, and cut back on rstaurant meals. Guys get laid off at McDonalds, and hired at Chevron. We eat out less often, meaning more home-cooked meals, washing dishes etc, a some decrease in living standards.
Now, there is a caveat for the U.S.: We import a lot of our oil. So higher prices can contribute to a recession here. The economic model is GDP=C+I+G-(I-E))
That is one reason why I so fervently believe in energy independence.
We have the chance to recycle hundreds of billion of dollars every year back into our economy.
benny "MOAG" cole said…
Anon-
Great post. I was about to mention the Indy 500. High-compression ratios. What kind of mpgs could we get from a sparked, dieselengine running on neat ethanol?
Dear Benny,
You ask a good question and I can only speculate regarding an appropriate, yet complex answer. Actually, I don't know how many more mpg one might truly gain from combusting C2 ethanol in a spark ignition modified-diesel engine. I can only speculate as I've not radically advanced fuel injector timing for a diesel engine and substituted a neat alcohol as the fuel. What I have accomplished is to formulate a variety of alcohol/diesel blends and combust these mixtures in un-adjusted diesel engines and have recorded from 22% to 24% to 28% increases in mileage economy while reducing visible black sooty diesel smoke to zero.
What I do realize is this… C2 ethanol contains approximately 67% of the available energy density of most gasolines. The ethanol molecule has that very large Oxygen atom attached to it's molecule as an OH group which isn't contributing to it's intrinsic BTU value.
• C2H5OH two carbon Ethanol is approximately 34% oxygen content.
• CH3OH single carbon Methanol bound to one oxygen atom comes in at about 50% oxygen content.
• This is why methanol rings in at 49.9k (let's call it 50,000 BTU's) and two-carbon ethanol with one Oxygen atom rises to approximately 75,500 BTU's per gallon.
• Gasoline, kerosene jet fuel & longer chained diesel fuel contain no Oxygen and are therefore classified as hydrocarbon fuels where the oxygenated alcohols are technically referred to as oxycarbon fuels.
• Thus no alcohol molecule, even C4 butanol or even higher alcohols – will exhibit the energy density per gallon as hydrocarbon gasoline or diesel fuel provides. This is because of that magic Oxygen atom which converts hydrocarbon oils into oxycarbon alcohols does not count in any way relative to the BTU energy density of alcohol fuel. Yet the Oxygen atom integral to alcohols DOES increase the spacial characteristics of the alcohol as well as it's intrinsic combustion features. Following me so far?
The very best energy/compression ratio's thus providing the very best overall combustion efficiencies and torque output would be for C1 methanol with it's one carbon atom faced-off against the one, large Oxygen atom. The four other hydrogen ions contained within the CH3OH methanol molecule are really along for the ride, balancing the magnetic valence of the molecule itself. Even though these hydrogen ions contained in all hydrocarbon fuels (both petroluem-derived and coal) will combust – consider that it takes 17-18 hydrogen ions to combust in order to provide the same BTU's as just one carbon atom combusting.
So even though the hydrogen in hydrocarbon (oily, float-on-water) fuels will combust, these hydrogen ions really are not affecting the total BTU value of the fuel molecules they are attached to in a very significant way. Think instead that these hydrogen ions, (like the attached Oxygen and hydrogen ions in the alcohol molecules) – actually work as a trigger effect getting the far more complex carbon complexes like benzene, tolulene and xylene in the aromatics portion of gasoline to then ignite.
It is these more complex carbon-based molecules in gasoline, kerosene jet fuel or longer-chained oily paraffinic diesel which don't fully combust when the piston cyclinder fires. And these uncombusted oils are purged out the tailpipes as an oil spill in the sky – which we see and breathe as brown urban smog. This is the real precursor to climate change phenomena – but this is another issue.
Please realize herein that a brand new 2009 fuel-injected gasoline engine is only combusting about 89% to 90% of that hydrocarbon gasoline. 10% or 11% of the gasoline volume is being vented out the tailpipe as oily brown smog and is NOT contributing to further torque power from a modern engine. OK?
So back to the details within of your question. When C2 ethanol is substituted for gasoline, it is only providing 67% of the energy density of 112,000 BTU gasoline. When C1 methanol is substituted, it is only providing 45% of the equivalent energy density of gasoline. When E-85 is combusted (80,975 BTU's) it is only providing 72% of the total energy contained in 112,000 BTU average gasoline. Still with me?
Thus when comparing only BTU's per gallon converted into miles per gallon exchange, it would make sense to divide 112,000 BTU's in gasoline by 50,000 BTU's contained in C1 methanol = 2.24 times the volume of methanol is needed to provide the same BTU values. Or 112,000 BTU's divided by 75,500 BTU's in C2 ethanol = 1.48 volume of ethanol is needed to replace gasoline. Or finally, 112,000 BTU's divided by 80,975 BTU's in E85 = 1.38 volume of E85 is needed to replace gasoline.
These numbers reflect the straight math on BTU's to BTU's relative to volumemetrics. Still with me here?
Now comes the conversion efficiency factors wherein BTU's become less direct when achieving maximum torque output…
Gasoline and diesel engines are factory adjusted for the best combustion burn event possible, providing maximum torque output and the least amount of residual, uncombusted oils being vented out the tailpipe. And there are three main factors affecting this combustion event.
• The first is the compression ratio in the piston cylinder.
• The second is the air/fuel ratio factored against a given compression ratio.
• And thirdly is the timing of the ignition event itself.
In gasoline engines, this ignition timing is controlled by adjustable spark ignition which typically occurs long before the piston reaches top dead center. In diesel engines, this ignition point is chosen simply by spraying the diesel fuel through the injectors into the piston cylinder where it immediately begins combustion as the 16-1 extra high compression ratios in a diesel engine provide the necessary heat to induce fuel burn. The lower compression 8 to 1 or 9 to 1 street gasoline engines need a spark to be introduced, typically earlier in the compression stroke than when compared with diesel.
I think that you and other people may be very familiar with these three items being compression, air/fuel ratio and ignition timing.
Nearly 40 years ago when the Indy Race Car association chose to utilize pure C1 methanol as a substitute fuel for gasoline, – it was because an engine properly adjusted relative to compression, air/fuel ratio and ignition timing – would provide MORE horsepower from 50% oxygen content in oxycarbon methanol than from hydrocarbon gasoline. And this more complete combustion event was principally because of that large Oxygen atom which didn't burn yet still provided far greater Octane than was available from hydrocarbon gasoline. The increased Octane content of the alcohols allowed the race engines to drastically increase compression ratios in the piston cylinder (the methanol was nearly impossible to ping or pre-detonate) and then the air/fuel ratio needed to be adjusted, providing about 2.24x the volume of methanol when compared to gasoline as taken from the straight math above.
The methanol was less than one-half the price of gasoline, so using 2x the volumes of alcohol didn't matter much relative to overall fuel cost. What the race car mechanics were concerned with is coaxing the maximum horsepower via oxidation combustion out of an engine. And C1 methanol provided approximately 30% more horsepower for quicker acceleration, etc. And since everyone in the race all used the same fuel and carried about the same quantities of fuel onboard, then everything remained equal except more torque was gained. It was horsepower which was being sought after, not better fuel economy. Yet if a race engine when properly adjusted for increased compression, air/fuel ratio and spark ignition could produce 30% more horsepower using simple alcohol when compared to hydrocarbon gasoline, this added horsepower was gained because ALL or NEARLY ALL of the methanol in the property tuned engine combusted with each piston compression stroke, unlike with gasoline or oily diesel providing incomplete combustion.
Benny,
You tell me IF a street motorist might also obtain better mileage from an engine highly tuned for a specific fuel and causing 99% to 100% of this fuel to fully ignite with each compression cycle of the piston cyclinder… I'll bet that better mpg is a definite result here, – but just how many more mpg's?
The consumer today is concerned about a new automobile's mileage. The CAFE standards are still being debated and how much can the EPA push the big three automakers in Detroit to produce more efficient gasoline and diesel engines?
The Indy Race Car mechanics were excited because they could coax more horsepower from an alcohol powered engine. What they didn't seem to realize were two other exciting factors therein.
A) Any crash and subsequent fire to cars/drivers combusting pure alcohol was very easily extinguished. A slight mist of water vapor was all it took to dilute the burning alcohol past it's flame point. We all realize that spraying water on a petroleum-based fire will simply spread it's flames, not extinguish the flames. This dilution event of water and alcohol is because alcohols are water soluble as well as being oil soluble as I previously mentioned in my first post.
The problem often talked about at Indy Races was that these burning alcohol flames were so clean that they were nearly invisible to see. Yet a slight mist of water vapor immediately quenched these flames. More water would dilute this spilled methanol and it could be simply washed into the barrow ditch or lawn and feed mother nature's microbes and all green living plants/trees with a free lunch.
The Indy 500 folks didn't seem to realize this or:
B) That the exhaust emission from combusting neat methanol was biodegradable. It did contain some aldehydes and ketones which are also water soluble and naturally oxidize and break down in the earth's atmosphere of water vapor. People working in the pits and spectators in the stands did realize that the exhaust emissions from the neat alcohol being combusted was far easier to breathe and work around then if the same race cars were combusting gasoline or oily diesel.
The net result is that when properly tuned, a higher compression engine combusting neat alcohol WILL COMBUST all or nearly all of the fuel in each cycle of the piston cylinder. Combusting 10% or greater fuel volumes with each cycle of the piston begins to quickly make-up for the fact that the oxygenated alcohols do not contain as many BTU's per gallon when compared to oily hydrocarbon petroleum-based fuels.
Excuse me, but I've written a college thesis to answer your question.
"Properly tuned high compression engines combusting pure methanol or ethanol will provide significantly measurable increases in horsepower, measurable performance characteristics defined as better mpg while emitting far fewer hazardous and carcinogenic emissions in their exhaust profile."
This could continue into another arena but I'll stop here – by and bye.
Mark
Mark-
A heroic effort on your part. I am not an engineer (I have wished ever since leaving school that I was. My dad was an engineer, so I rebelled. Been on the outside looking in ever since.)
I think I followed your post and agree with it. It seems we could (I am not saying it ia advisable) have a parallel system in the USA, of cars that run on pure ethanol, using higher compression engines.
If we were Brazil, I would say so. If cellulosics works, then maybe so.
I enjoyed your post very much, and admire the work you are doing, mixing fuels. Guys like you make things tick.
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 4 (Reuters) – The housing market slowed the U.S. economy but an oil price shock last summer was the straw that broke its back, two top economists said on Sunday.
A year-long U.S. recession has been blamed squarely on the collapse of the country’s housing market, but IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard said that the surge in oil prices had the same harmful impact seen in the past.
http://tinyurl.com/a9smtm
Some of you guys must not of been around for the 70’s.
“Imagine rising oil prices. So, we pay more gasoline, and cut back on rstaurant meals. Guys get laid off at McDonalds, and hired at Chevron.”
And homeowners on the margin(like those with subprime loans) who suddenly pay 3X as much to get to work might not be able to afford those mortgage payments anymore. One thing leads to another,and before you know it…
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 4 (Reuters) – The housing market slowed the U.S. economy but an oil price shock last summer was the straw that broke its back, two top economists said on Sunday.
They are entitled to their theory. Until they offer some proof, it remains just their theory…
A year-long U.S. recession has been blamed squarely on the collapse of the country’s housing market, but IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard said that the surge in oil prices had the same harmful impact seen in the past.
Same as the past? Same as what past? BS, Olivier!
Some of you guys must not of been around for the 70’s.
OK Whitebeard,
What did you learn from the 70s?
Because the 70s recession had nothing to do with oil prices either.
Here’s an article from 2005: The Oil Shock With No Pain: Economists long believed a good rule for the global economy was that every time the price of oil doubled or exceeded $35 a barrel, the world would enter a recessionary phase. Even today, news coverage continues to project the image of a world besieged by higher oil prices, and economists think a major global economic slowdown is inevitable. Instead, one of the biggest surprises of this decade is that a 200 percent surge in crude prices hasn’t hurt the global economy.
I guess some economists are just stuck in their thinking…
I’m not half as smart as those economists Optimist….so I won’t argue the point any further.
No, I am saying that in this particular case comparing efficiencies of solar PV is not appropriate. Turning a source of protein into a parking lot to make a small amount of electricity would be a negative environmental impact.
Now Optimist a harder example. The coal plant making my electricity is becoming less efficient resulting in a higher rate of ghg emissions. The reason is pollution controls to reduce other emissions.
Good or bad?
I can see not reason to compare the efficiency of PV solar conversion to biofuels.
Kit, you are missing the huge point here. Biofuels that aren’t efficient – and I put the current status corn ethanol into that category – aren’t really ‘biofuels.’ They are only enabled by having 90% of their BTUs originate as fossil fuel. So you really can’t say “I like this because it works.” It doesn’t work, long-term.
The energy returns from renewable electricity are generally much higher than from biofuels. Therefore, in the long run the direct conversion of sunlight into electricity at maybe 15-20% efficiency is going to beat the 0.1% capture by photosynthesis of plants in how much is enabled by fossil fuel inputs.
What plants do have going for them is they have a built in storage mechanism, which will continue to be one of the key matters to be addressed with renewable electricity systems.
What I would prefer to see is that we try to minimize fossil fuel inputs into agriculture to the extent we can – makes us much more sustainable in the long run – and don’t encourage a vast expansion of fossil-fuel enabled agriculture in the name of ‘biofuels.’ Use Indiana farm land for feeding people. Use rooftops, desert land, etc. for producing electricity. Continue to develop electric transport, which has lacked the financial support that has poured into ethanol (via some powerful lobbies).
RR
I constantly read remarks online stating that gasoline is approximately 125,000 BTU’s and many have viewed ethanol promoters describing C2 as delivering nearly 83k or 85k BTU’s per gallon. Not true…
I think the confusion arises for a couple of reasons. First is the high heating value (HHV) versus low heating value (LHV) issue. As you probably know, the HHV presumes that the heat released when water condenses is captured and added to the heat of combustion. Or another way to think of it is that the combustion isn’t penalized because some of the energy was used to produce water in the gas phase which then exits the system. In reality, this is what occurs, so LHV is a more accurate representative of what is going on. But you see different numbers because some are reporting LHV and some are reporting HHV.
For ethanol, there is one LHV and one HHV. For gasoline, not so. Gasoline is a mixture of many different components, and as such the heating values aren’t fixed. Further, summer blends and winter blends will differ. During my time as a gasoline blender, I never saw any sort of spec for heating value. We had specs on vapor pressure and sulfur content, but the heating value from one blend to another can vary.
How much? I don’t really know the answer to that. It may be that the heating value can range from 112,000 for a winter blend to 125,000 if one is using the HHV and talking about a summer blend.
RR
“Kit may see that plugins work, too,”
I did see another cut and paste job by journalists. A young engineer was surprised that I was not anti-coal. A few minutes later dozens of links to news stories all saying the same thing. The number of press releases and news stories does not making something true.
I drove my 89' ford Ranger to work. It works. If it stopped running, I would have to make economic choice. If I wanted a Ford Ranger that was still shinny, I would go down to library and read Consumer's Reports to get reliability data.
So Ben, tell me where I can go buy a PHEV? Where can I look up reliability data? PHEV is a concept and as a concept it is getting tons of subsidized R&D money. Maybe they will work and maybe people will buy them. And maybe pigs will fly. Clearly the most efficient and proven way to get to work is riding a cow. I will not provide any data because it is absurd.
Biofuels are not a concept and predate petroleum. Mandates and incentives
“Are you going to argue the opposite, Kit? Or what was the point of this statement?”
No, I am saying that in this particular case comparing efficiencies of solar PV is not appropriate. Turning a source of protein into a parking lot to make a small amount of electricity would be a negative environmental impact.
Now Optimist a harder example. The coal plant making my electricity is becoming less efficient resulting in a higher rate of ghg emissions. The reason is pollution controls to reduce other emissions.
Good or bad?
Turning a source of protein into a parking lot to make a small amount of electricity would be a negative environmental impact.
And who said anything about converting productive farmland into PV collector area?
I’m not half as smart as those economists Optimist….so I won’t argue the point any further.
The point, Maury, is that economics is not an exact science. To some, notably some engineers, that means economics is useless. That’s not true either. But saying that event A caused event B is not something you are going to prove using economics…
The coal plant making my electricity is becoming less efficient resulting in a higher rate of ghg emissions. The reason is pollution controls to reduce other emissions.
Good or bad?
You actually raise an important isue, Kit, and one that simple-minded environmentalists have danced around for too long (“Lower the arsenic in our drinking water!” “Sure. How much GHG and toxic sludge is that last few ppb of arsenic worth?”).
I find it toubling that environmentalists do not seem terrible keen on having a serious debate about this…
anonymous Mark, you are very, very wrong about many things. Starting with chemistry:
"consider that it takes 17-18 hydrogen ions to combust in order to provide the same BTU’s as just one carbon atom combusting."
Flat false. Heat of combustion of carbon is 93,960 cal/mol. Higher heating value of hydrogen is ~70,000 cal/mol.
"Please realize herein that a brand new 2009 fuel-injected gasoline engine is only combusting about 89% to 90% of that hydrocarbon gasoline. 10% or 11% of the gasoline volume is being vented out the tailpipe as oily brown smog"
Flat false. The emissions limits of modern ULEV engines (CO, NMOG) are far too low for even 1% of fuel to be escaping unburned. Smog isn't a direct product either; it's created by photochemical reactions between nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons.
"In diesel engines, this ignition point is chosen simply by spraying the diesel fuel through the injectors into the piston cylinder where it immediately begins combustion"
Combustion in a diesel is far from immediate. The fuel must evaporate and mix with air before it can burn, which causes ignition delay. The pressure spike as the premixed air/fuel ignites all at once causes the classic "diesel knock".
Methanol can produce more power in a spark-ignition engine than gasoline for three reasons:
1. It is a more stable molecule, less prone to pre-ignition. This allows higher compression ratios.
2. It has a much higher heat of evaporation, cooling and densifying the intake air charge.
3. Being oxygenated, it needs less oxygen to burn and allows more fuel per unit of air.
This last is easly proven. The heat of combustion of octane is 11.5 kcal/g. Methanol yields just 5.4 kcal/g, but 1 gram of octane requires 3.5 grams of oxygen to burn (C8H18 + 12.5 O2 -> 8 CO2 + 9 H2O, 3.5 grams O2 per gram octane) while a gram of methanol requires just 1.5 grams oxygen to burn (CH4O + 3/2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O). Octane yields 3.3 kcal per gram of oxygen, while methanol yields 3.6 kcal per gram oxygen.
Since I have probably just saved you from getting a failing grade on your paper, you can thank me now.
“I find it toubling that environmentalists do not seem terrible keen on having a serious debate about this…”
I have found that most environmentalists are open to a scientific approach. The problem is the intervenor industry. I can explain why arsenic or mercury levels are below a level where an adverse affect has been observed and that regulatory limits are conservative. If levels are above limits, I can explain how to clean it up.
Solving environmental problems is not good for fund raising. Fear mongering is good for fund raising.
I too found myself scratching my head at anonymous Mark’s chemistry explination. The energy contained in an organic molecule is found in the chemical bonds that hold the molecule together.
When you burn a molecule of fuel, you are breaking the bonds of the fuel and of oxygen molecules and rearanging the atoms to form molecules of CO2 and H2O. You can write a balanced chemical equation, add up the bond energy on each side of the equation, and find out how much energy is released by your reaction.
In either hydrocarbons or alcohols, most of the energy is contained in C-H bonds. So methanol has 3 C-H bonds and ethanol has 5. But gas and diesel have many more, dozens. So how is it that the alcohol fuels are even close to the hydrocarbons in BTUs per gallon when the Hydrocarbons have so many more C-H bonds?
It is becasuse methanol molecules are smaller and there are more molecules in a gallon of methanol than in a gallon of gas or diesel.
Alcohols make very nice fuels, but it is difficult to fit them into the current liquid fuel infrastructure. The other nice thing about methanol is that it can be used a raw material for making many other organics.
George Olah (1994 Nobel Prize in Chemistry) has proposed a Methanol Economy. It is an interesting concept and a good book for any one interested in energy. See here for example.
Benny,
You mentioned battery powered Zamboni machines. I am familiar, as I live in the State of Hockey (MN) and because I was a big fan the band The Geardaddies who wrote the infamous song “I Wanna Drive the Zamboni”
The big push for this comes from indoor air quality standards in the ice arena. They have been trying to make fuel cells and batteries economical for a while.
zamboni here
I can recall the ice ring becoming a makeshift morgue in Indianapolis when a propane tank blew up. BEV Zamboni sounds good to me.
All well-informed advocates of fuel ethanol promote the use of ethanol engines. This has been known ever since ethanol has been used as fuel (100-plus years).
Zing.
Ricardo Introducing Ethanol Boost Direct Injection Engine Technology
Ricardo’s EBDI is not utilizing a secondary ethanol injection from a secondary tank as envisioned by Ethanol Boosting Systems and MIT. (Earlier post.)
EBDI combines advanced boosting to achieve the high cylinder pressure that ethanol enables, a variable valvetrain, and cooled high load EGR with advanced controls and calibration techniques to optimize performance of the engine regardless of the percentage of ethanol in the fuel in the tank—i.e., from E0 to E85 and all intermediate blends created by vehicle fueling.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/ricardo-introdu.html
David Blume also referenced this issue in his book as well as in this open letter.
http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/files/CEO-Obama-r.pdf