The Future of Cars

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

Ethanol is an inefficient fuel. As numerous studies have found that ethanol creates less energy than is required to make it. Other studies have found that ethanol creates "slightly" more energy than is used in its production. Yet not one of these studies takes into account that when E85 is used, the vehicle's fuel efficiency drops by at least 25% -- and possibly by as much as 40%. Using any of the accredited studies as a baseline in an energy-efficiency equation, ethanol when used as a fuel is a net energy waste.

Getting our fuel from corn is rather silly to me. We're going to raise plants using petroleum-based fertilizers, displace food crops, use terribly energy inefficient processes to convert it into a usable fuel (at a net loss) and the result is still putting poison into the air.

On the other hand, ethanol from sugar cane delivered 1:8 energy conversion, which met the national mandate. Unfortunately for us, sugar cane isn't a viable crop in the climate of our nation's heartland.

Cellulosic Ethanol is a great contender, much, much better than any fossil fuel and it does have many benefits, but hydrogen fuel is the future fuel I want to see.

The major road blocks for hydrogen fuel are finding a cost effective way to produce, transport, and store it in a car as well as building a hydrogen infrastructure comparable to a gas station on every corner, which would cost billions and require the unprecedented cooperation of automakers, energy companies, and the government.

Your post is full of logical errors there bud. First of all the average amount of return for Corn Ethanol is 1.78:1 (est return:input) and that is the BTUs. They do not use volume(gallons/liters) for energy efficiency, that is energy density. So infact the MPG on the road doesn't mean it is less efficient. It gets fewer miles per gallon because there is fewer BTUs per gallon therefore it is similar in efficiency to Gasoline.

10 years ago there was plenty of controversy because Dr. Pimental redid his energy efficiency of Corn Ethanol study but it was debunked by similar studies by Dr. Wang of Argon lab and some others that used more modern data and sources. The important thing to keep in mind is that we use fuels, mostly natural gas/Methane, to distill the Ethanol. Sugarcane produces large amounts of leftover plant stock to distill the Ethanol hence the greatly higher return. What is far more important in my opinion is the fact that in the market Corn Ethanol is pretty comparable to Sugarcane Ethanol as far as delivery price.

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Uhhh fuel economy measured in miles per gallon drops because ethanol has lower specific energy, but as you said, some studies show it yields small positive net energy in production, some say slightly less. That means the actual fuel economy measured in amount of energy put into making ethanol is about the same. Ethanol has a few other benefits, such as allowing high compression ratios and cleaner emissions. But yes the net benefit, if any, is very small. The main point is that it ends up using less total petroleum, and for whatever reason reducing petroleum usage is more important than reducing usage of other resources.

The state of the art Ethanol plants allow for 2.5:1 return. I'd like to see our source of Ethanol come from something that gets closer to that 8:1 mark like Oil returns. I think Sugar cane is closer to 5:1, I'll have to pull out my sources for that one.

Originally Posted by Dimman

I think cellulostic ethanol is a win, for biofuel. It'll be close to carbon neutral, since any emissions of CO2 get used by the plants that we get it from. Plus is can integrate more easily with the existing infrastructure. Same goes with biodiesel. Plus no need for complex high pressure, cryo-type fuel storage.

But... I'm biased, since ethanol will allow for some kick-ass performance cars using conventional tech.

POET has had some good results with their Cellulosic Ethanol Plant. There was an article several months ago that they reduced the cost per gallon from $3-4 down to $2 something.

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Ethanol is the cheapest alternative since it can be stored the same way, pretty close energy density, high performance, clean burning. you still have some hydrocarbons from lubrication and incomplete combustion produces some aldehydes and stuff, but it's not nearly as bad as gasoline. Easy way to think about it: gasoline burnt in air, without premixing, creates tons of soot, while ethanol burns very well and only produces water and CO2.

Personally, I think CO2 emissions is overemphasized. The main threat is the imminent scarcity of oil, which is incredibly useful and important for non-transportation uses. Renewable energy is good in that it saves the scarce resources for applications where they are more difficult to replace.

@Exage I believe Nickel is getting depleted, or maybe that was tin. At any rate nickel is super expensive, so...

1/3 less energy density doesn't seem *close* enough for many people. I've seen plenty of people claiming that they lose 10% MPG or more from 10% Ethanol. I've also seen the opposite though, YMMV.

I agree about CO2 emissions being overemphasized. Ethanol does reduce CO2, contrary to what some people believe, but the biggest benefit is the reduction in Oil Imports and production. Something like for every gallon of E85 burnt reduces our Oil consumption by 2/3

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

Exactly the same for me, I WANT cellulosic ethanol to be our next step from a purely performance stand point. However, I just think if we're going to invest 20 years and hundreds of billions of dollars into an emissions solution why not go right to our best solution?

I won't shead any tears of sadness if we end up with cell. ethanol, tears of joy maybe.

Going in the right direction is a big point of contention, as to which direction that is. I don't believe we should chase sunsets forever. There is plenty of data on available options to make decision. The most obvious solution is to focus on everything that has merit, including Corn Ethanol, Cellulose based Ethanol, Hybrid Electric cars, Battery Electric Cars, etc. Especially since quite a few options have been eliminated. For eg. Hydrogen has far more issues than Ethanol or BEVs as far as production/storage/delivery. Biodiesel has the same problems as Ethanol but multiplied as the best sources are mostly tropical based feedstocks.

[serialk11r]

Seeing how we've hammered alternative energies to death already, maybe we should make a shift lol...

I like the idea of electric turbocharging. It has a ton of potential, especially when combined with variable geometry on both the intake and exhaust side. With a variable geometry intake, certain types of compressors could be effectively used as a low loss throttle. The exhaust turbine properties could be modified to some degree with the voltage converter attached to the generator.

On a Wankel engine this would be very useful, because they are inherently low compression, and have no valves, and thus blow a lot of unused pressure out the exhaust.

[82mm 4g63]

I guess I could've been clearer.

When I said ethanol is an inefficient fuel I should've said E85 in tandem with FlexFuel dual purpose engines are an ineffcient way of utilizing ethanol. Having to stop to fill up my tank more often, even though I'm saving money each fill up, is not worth it to me.

If car manufacturers would release cars with engines designed solely with utilizing E100 in mind, the efficiency of ethanol powered cars would lunge forward.

If ethanol is our future fuel, we need to look somewhere besides corn for a supply. To achieve the president's goal of producing 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels a year by 2017, corn is definitely not the answer... cellulosic ethanol is.

I've been looking forward to the 35-40m gal/year Celunol/Verenium/BP cellulosic ethanol plant they're supposed to build in Highlands County, 50 miles east of me in Florida.

In short, ethanol needs to be more than an additive to gasoline, and produced from something more abundant than corn.

[serialk11r]

Besides increased compression ratio and perhaps simpler emissions equipment what else is there to do? The only difference between flexfuel and not is the fuel system withstands degradation from ethanol better and the ECU has programming to give more fuel. Everything works the same way, except ethanol burns a little differently and has more charge cooling effect. Raised compression and direct injection together would see some sort of improvement to fuel efficiency, but it'll still be small. You will still have to fill up more often if they don't make the tank bigger :P

[82mm 4g63]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Besides increased compression ratio and perhaps simpler emissions equipment what else is there to do? The only difference between flexfuel and not is the fuel system withstands degradation from ethanol better and the ECU has programming to give more fuel. Everything works the same way, except ethanol burns a little differently and has more charge cooling effect. Raised compression and direct injection together would see some sort of improvement to fuel efficiency, but it'll still be small. You will still have to fill up more often if they don't make the tank bigger :P

I think you're discounting the gains of higher compression ratios, direct injection, turbocharging, and technologies like Saab's LeanBurn. Current flexfuel engines pay approximately 30% efficiency penalty because they are optimized to use gasoline.

A higher octane rating means that a fuel is less prone to unwanted detonation. A higher latent heat of vaporization means that ethanol can help control gas conditions in the combustion chamber by lowering temperatures. By modifying the pressure and temperature, fuel injected into the engine will burn more efficiently and reduce the formation of N2O gases.

Regular flexfuel engines are unable to exploit these properties because theyre optimized for gasoline and run at lower cylinder pressure.

There's a company called Ricardo in Detroit that built a 3.2l twin turbo V-6 that runs on E100. They're claiming fuel economy comparable to diesel engines.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

I guess I could've been clearer.

When I said ethanol is an inefficient fuel I should've said E85 in tandem with FlexFuel dual purpose engines are an ineffcient way of utilizing ethanol. Having to stop to fill up my tank more often, even though I'm saving money each fill up, is not worth it to me.

If car manufacturers would release cars with engines designed solely with utilizing E100 in mind, the efficiency of ethanol powered cars would lunge forward.

If ethanol is our future fuel, we need to look somewhere besides corn for a supply. To achieve the president's goal of producing 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels a year by 2017, corn is definitely not the answer... cellulosic ethanol is.

I've been looking forward to the 35-40m gal/year Celunol/Verenium/BP cellulosic ethanol plant they're supposed to build in Highlands County, 50 miles east of me in Florida.

In short, ethanol needs to be more than an additive to gasoline, and produced from something more abundant than corn.

Only as inefficient as Gasoline. Seriously, filling up more is not a measure of efficiency, just range.

I really though you were discussing the farming and distilling process .

Also most FFV engines are in SUVs, Trucks, or v6 engines in squishy sedans. Something about converting an inefficient car or SUV to E85 reduces petroleum consumption more than buying an economy car .

Corn Ethanol already glutted the Ethanol market so it's going to be hard to justify alternative sources of Ethanol with demand so low. Did you guys here that Ethanol is now 10% of "Gasoline" by volume? I'm not talking about the oxygenate mandate, Ethanol is now providing 10% of the "Gasoline."

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Besides increased compression ratio and perhaps simpler emissions equipment what else is there to do? The only difference between flexfuel and not is the fuel system withstands degradation from ethanol better and the ECU has programming to give more fuel. Everything works the same way, except ethanol burns a little differently and has more charge cooling effect. Raised compression and direct injection together would see some sort of improvement to fuel efficiency, but it'll still be small. You will still have to fill up more often if they don't make the tank bigger :P

There is an ocean of a difference in how the ECU handles it. It's like running a super premium grade of Gasoline with 1/3 less density. If the ECU doesn't take advantage of it nor advance the spark timing then there isn't going to be much difference between fuels except for fuel consumption. The difference can be 5% more power/Fuel Economy, a huge difference for not doing any modifications.

Fuel systems are supposed to handle Ethanol already, mixing with Gasoline does lubricate the parts but Ethanol will dry stuff out pretty quick if it has any moisture. I know that the Big 3 already converted the fuel systems a decade ago. Ford started in '94 when FFVs were re-introduced with the EFI FFV.

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

I think you're discounting the gains of higher compression ratios, direct injection, turbocharging, and technologies like Saab's LeanBurn. Current flexfuel engines pay approximately 30% efficiency penalty because they are optimized to use gasoline.

A higher octane rating means that a fuel is less prone to unwanted detonation. A higher latent heat of vaporization means that ethanol can help control gas conditions in the combustion chamber by lowering temperatures. By modifying the pressure and temperature, fuel injected into the engine will burn more efficiently and reduce the formation of N2O gases.

Regular flexfuel engines are unable to exploit these properties because theyre optimized for gasoline and run at lower cylinder pressure.

There's a company called Ricardo in Detroit that built a 3.2l twin turbo V-6 that runs on E100. They're claiming fuel economy comparable to diesel engines.

Forget leanburn, EPA emissions have basically made lean burn engines unfeasible :/. Honda engines that had lean burn scored horribly compared to ones that ran stoich. Eg, compare the Insight 5spd with the CVT, the 5spd was capable of fantastic MPG but it scored worse emissions than the CVT version.

FFVs don't get a 30% efficiency penalty, again, that is range lost from a lower energy density not efficiency. They get about the same BTUs per mile as they did on gasoline, give or take a few percentage points.

Any engine can take advantage of higher Ethanol blends by adjusting spark timing. The Ricardo v6 actually had a better balance between MPG and power with E30/E40 than Gasoline(which it had the least power and most MPG) or E85(which made the most power but the least MPG). So while it was a good example, it shows some of the limitations of Ethanol with Gasoline. I am also interested in what an engine designed and tuned for 95% Ethanol would do. Although I'm sure the Ricardo FFV aka "torque monster" is hecka lot more practical :P.

BTW, I keep forgetting that I haven't actually tuned an engine for Ethanol . I need a project car.

[Dimman]

Another side effect of more ethanol, is that it can be used for bio-diesel. Currently cheaper methanol (from natural gas usually) is used for converting the oils to bio-diesel, so the 'green' diesel substitute isn't as green as the hippies may like.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

I think you're discounting the gains of higher compression ratios, direct injection, turbocharging, and technologies like Saab's LeanBurn. Current flexfuel engines pay approximately 30% efficiency penalty because they are optimized to use gasoline.

Dude maybe you should actually read, I said higher compression. Direct injection, turbo, leanburn are not ethanol specific. They also don't pay an efficiency penalty compared to gasoline, if you try burning it just like gasoline the efficiency comes out about the same (maybe a little better due to charge cooling, although that depends on the fuel delivery).

@Allch Chcar sorry I know I was oversimplifying a bit but yea spark advance would be something else. The idea though is it's not a huge modification, it's a software change.

@Dimman lol hippies, natural gas is freakin awesome pshhh

Gah my efforts to derail ethanol discussion failed. Let's try again. ELECTRIC TURBOCHARGERS GUYS. Variable intake geometry for regenerative throttling? Low load efficiency could be fantastic with that, especially on something like a Wankel.

[1660]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Gah my efforts to derail ethanol discussion failed. Let's try again. ELECTRIC TURBOCHARGERS GUYS. Variable intake geometry for regenerative throttling? Low load efficiency could be fantastic with that, especially on something like a Wankel.

Shouldn't you start a new thread?

Anyway, electric turbos are a stretch. I think the idea is good, but more for stationary engines.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Dude maybe you should actually read, I said higher compression. Direct injection, turbo, leanburn are not ethanol specific. They also don't pay an efficiency penalty compared to gasoline, if you try burning it just like gasoline the efficiency comes out about the same (maybe a little better due to charge cooling, although that depends on the fuel delivery).

@Allch Chcar sorry I know I was oversimplifying a bit but yea spark advance would be something else. The idea though is it's not a huge modification, it's a software change.

@Dimman lol hippies, natural gas is freakin awesome pshhh

Gah my efforts to derail ethanol discussion failed. Let's try again. ELECTRIC TURBOCHARGERS GUYS. Variable intake geometry for regenerative throttling? Low load efficiency could be fantastic with that, especially on something like a Wankel.

Lol, sorry cerealkilla, but it's a pretty popular subject to argue, very controversial. And Electric turbos are fail in my book. You need higher discharge batteries to support the extra power needed for the turbocharging and they need to be larger capacity than the standard auto batteries to support any extended amount of use. I vote either stick with standard turbocharging or go with a performance hybrid setup .

[serialk11r]

@1660 why? Does this thread's title read "Alternative Energy"?

I don't think you need MORE capacity in the battery per se, and I don't think you even need to increase the amount of power they can discharge. At low speed the power requirement isn't as high since there's not much air to be pushing, and then as it speeds up the exhaust turbine kicks in and provides more power. This could be used in conjunction with a hybrid setup by using the regenerated energy to run the electric motor. Obviously it's much more complicated to get this to work, and programming the ECU to provide good response would be a challenge, but it could remove some of the drawbacks of regular turbos.

[82mm 4g63]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

I think you're discounting the gains of higher compression ratios, direct injection, turbocharging, and technologies like Saab's LeanBurn. Current flexfuel engines pay approximately 30% efficiency penalty because they are optimized to use gasoline.

A higher octane rating means that a fuel is less prone to unwanted detonation. A higher latent heat of vaporization means that ethanol can help control gas conditions in the combustion chamber by lowering temperatures. By modifying the pressure and temperature, fuel injected into the engine will burn more efficiently and reduce the formation of N2O gases.

Regular flexfuel engines are unable to exploit these properties because theyre optimized for gasoline and run at lower cylinder pressure.

There's a company called Ricardo in Detroit that built a 3.2l twin turbo V-6 that runs on E100. They're claiming fuel economy comparable to diesel engines.

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Dude maybe you should actually read, I said higher compression. Direct injection, turbo, leanburn are not ethanol specific. They also don't pay an efficiency penalty compared to gasoline, if you try burning it just like gasoline the efficiency comes out about the same (maybe a little better due to charge cooling, although that depends on the fuel delivery).

Yeah, I guess I missed the part where you said they weren't ethanol specific I also missed the part where I said they were ethanol specific. I'm sorry.

Current flexfuel engines absolutely pay an efficiency penalty because they are optimized to use gasoline.

An important step toward increasing alcohol fuel demand, then, may lie in providing economical engine technology options that utilize such fuels more efficiently, to compensate for the lower fuel energy density. The FFVs produced today, however, use fairly typical gasoline engines, which, because they must retain dual-fuel capability, are not able to take full advantage of the favorable combustion characteristics of alcohols. Engines optimized for alcohol fuel use, on the other hand, may yield efficiencies that exceed that of state-of-the-art diesel engines—or, about one third higher than that of FFV engines. In earlier engine research at EPA with neat methanol and ethanol, for example, over 40% brake thermal efficiency was achieved over a relatively broad range of loads and speeds, with peak levels reaching over 42%. Similar work has also been performed with E85, yielding up to 20% fuel economy improvement over baseline gasoline engines.
-http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentations/epa-fev-isaf-no55.pdf


--------

[u2b]eBRbJkt2G3I[/u2b]

--------

The [EBDI] engine runs best on a blend with gasoline that is 30% to 50% ethanol, but, Ricardo says, can run on anything from all gas to all ethanol. Ricardo is bringing a GMC Sierra 3500HD pickup to the Washington, D.C., auto show this week that will be outfitted with its V-6 ethanol engine. On gas, it says, the GMC truck gets about 12.7 miles per gallon. On all ethanol, it would get about 12.1 mpg, the company says. But with an optimum blend, it says the engine could get 15 mpg.

Until now, automakers haven't made engines designed especially to run primarily on ethanol. The engines in so-called flex-fuel cars and trucks — able to run on a blend with gas that is 85% ethanol — are actually standard gasoline engines with some fuel system components altered to deal with ethanol's higher corrosiveness.

"We think this could replace conventional engines, and could even replace diesels," says Kent Niederhofer, president of Ricardo.

The key problem with ethanol fuel efficiency is that it contains less energy per gallon than diesel or gasoline — meaning vehicles consume it faster than other fuels. Drivers get fewer miles per gallon using ethanol blends.

But Ricardo says this engine, which it dubbed the Ethanol Boost Direct Injection engine, or EBDI, is tuned to make the most out of ethanol's properties where it has an edge on other fuels. Ethanol has a higher octane rating than diesel or gas, so it's more likely to ignite at just the right point in the engine's combustion cycle. Diesel and gasoline can sometimes ignite earlier or later than intended, causing knocking noises in the engine. Automakers compensate with knock detection systems, but those can cut an engine's efficiency.

-http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2010-01-26-ethanol26_ST_N.htm

[serialk11r]

Yea that's right, Flex fuel engines would ideally have variable compression (which is somewhat difficult to implement), different spark timing for different fuel, and direct injection which makes a bigger difference on ethanol since its latent heat of vaporization is very high.

The Lotus omnivore concept engine basically has this, although that's not anything close to a production engine.

[Allch Chcar]

That engine wasn't Ethanol only but it did run better on a Ethanol Blends.

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Yea that's right, Flex fuel engines would ideally have variable compression (which is somewhat difficult to implement), different spark timing for different fuel, and direct injection which makes a bigger difference on ethanol since its latent heat of vaporization is very high.

The Lotus omnivore concept engine basically has this, although that's not anything close to a production engine.

The omnivore was a good concept but I see more merit for turbocharged engines with high Static compression. They would run efficient on Gasoline during partial loads but they trade some power and efficiency at moderate to heavy loads. And then run at full power and efficiency with E85 or even a midgrade like the Ricardo engine.

I still see Ethanol as the power with efficiency option unless they start making Ethanol fueled Diesel engines in the US.

And 82mm 4g63, please stop calling the MPG loss efficiency loss. That word you keep using, it doesn't mean what you think it means.