BETTER fuel efficiency with ethanol (using turbo-charging) mentioned in mainstream car mag!!

[Bill USA]

Ethanol Boosting systems explained - Car & Driver

~~
~~

Today’s racers use all manner of fluids—water, alcohol, nitromethane, lead substitutes, and nitrous oxide—in pursuit of power. There’s also a government-backed experiment at Chrysler aimed at running both gasoline and diesel fuels through the same engine. But the most sensible approach for the public at large is to use technology now in hand to achieve significant mpg gains. The tech? Gasoline, E85, and direct fuel injection.

British-based Ricardo and Ethanol Boosting Systems (EBS) of Cambridge, Massachusetts, both have E85-fueled engines under test that deliver diesel efficiency—at least 30-percent better than a typical gas engine—without the need for cumbersome, ultra-high-pressure fuel-injection and exhaust-treatment equipment.

Both firms propose aggressive turbocharging, a 12.0:1 or higher compression ratio, and about half the normal piston displacement. Ricardo uses an octane sensor, variable valve lift, and variations in valve and ignition timing to take maximum advantage of any ethanol pumped into the fuel tank. EBS adds a second complete fuel system that enables an engine to run on port-injected gas during cruising and direct-injected E85 only during full-load conditions to spare its consumption.

Heavy-duty pickups are the first candidates for this technology. Both EBS and Ricardo pitch their ethanol-based systems as diesel fighters ­capable of delivering 600 or more pound-feet of torque at low rpm from a 3.0-liter engine. Assuming that manufacturers agree with these ethanol boosters, the dual-fuel strategy could be handy for meeting the 35.5-mpg CAFE standard for 2016. By then, four-cylinder performance cars will be commonplace, and they’ll definitely be thirsty for all the Turbo-Rocket Fluid they can get.

...what this article fails to point out is that the Ethanol Boosting Systems engine uses 5% ethanol (or less) with the rest of the fuel being gasoline. Thus the 28% reduction in fuel consumption {(1 - 1/1.3) - .05 = -.28} is achieved with one twentieth of a gallon of ethanol which makes the GHG reduction for ethanol (vs gasoline) used in this manner: -.28/.05 = -562% relative to gasoline. This makes the GHG reduction numbers for ethanol used by the Government, -24% (for E85 - not including the hypothetical ILUC decrement) somewhat nonsensical by comparison.

To be fair (and to my utter surprise) Car and Driver has written about this system before: A Smarter Way to Use Ethanol to Reduce Gasoline Consumption

[Fumesucker]

1. There's lots of different technologies that can lead to increased fuel efficiency..

Such as the Opposed Piston Opposed Cylinder or OPOC engine..

http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2011/02/23/ecomotors-teams-with-navistar-to-produce-turbo-diesel-opoc-engine/



Unlike some innovative engine designs perpetually hyped as the engine of the future, EcoMotors' OPOC engine seems to be making real headway. They have reached an agreement with Navistar to build a 2 module turbo diesel version for Class 8 trucks, designed to produce about 480 hp, it could deliver as much as 45% better fuel efficiency than the standard heavy duty diesel engines currently used.

The two stroke OPOC engine looks like a really versatile package. With 2 cylinders and 4 pistons in each module, there's no cylinder head or valve train. The modules can be joined to increase the number of cylinders, raising power levels to whatever the application requires and a clutch between modules means you can power modules up and down as needed. With the addition of an electrically controlled turbocharger, which can be spun up before engine start, even more power is available. You have to think a small version of this would be a nice fit for a touring or adventure motorcycle.

The OPOC engine is smaller and lighter than a 4 stroke but has low emissions, plus fewer parts mean less friction for greater efficiency. The opposed pistons decrease stroke allowing higher rpm. With the opposed pistons, the pushing and pulling of opposing rods balance forces, making possible a low stress, lightweight crankshaft.

The engine can also be converted to gasoline or alcohol fuel.

[Bill USA]

4. Oh, would you mean this OPOC... see link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x318713

we need to develop any technology which will help us reduce petroleum consumption. OPOC is not mutually exclusive with using ethanol to take advantage of higher compression ratios. OPOC architecture doesn't remove the problem of pre-ignition under high compression combustion.:-)

[Fumesucker]

7. I was running water injection on a small block Chevy to control pre-ignition about forty years ago..

The engine in question had about 12.5:1 compression and was troublesome even on Sunoco 260, the water injection helped quite a bit.

Water/alcohol injection for that purpose goes back to at least WWII fighter aircraft.


Another interesting engine is the Opposed piston Pulling Rod Engine, or OPRE.

http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonOPRE.htm

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. I like the new GDI engines... mid/upper 30's for NA gasoline engines.

Unfortunately, tuning/souping up a GDI engine will be more difficult for the average street racer.

[Bill USA]

5. Ford built a prototype of the Ethanol Direct Injection Engine which confirmed the modelling by the

three MIT scientists who designed the EDIE.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. The problem with ethanol is that it requires updating the fuel infrastruture.

There simply isn't enough places to get ethanol (or another alternative fuel) versus the convenience of diesel or gasoline. It would take federal investment in multiplying ethanol availability before it even has a chance of becoming a popular decision. I think the most realistic solutions that can be implemented immediately are turbocharged or hybrid GDI & diesel. Alot of these kinds of cars are now getting 40mpg or thereabouts.

Sometimes the sellability of a new idea is at least as important as the inginuity of new solution.

[Bill USA]

9. Cost effectiveness is the whole point of Ethanol Direct injection engine. Diesels & hybrids are

more costly to buyers and the infrastructure investment for ethanol will not be that huge (would be more than balanced out by the cheaper cost to build - and price - the engines).

Here's a paper from EBS comparing costs for Ethanol Direct Injection to gasoline/Hybrid and Diesel. The lower cost for the Ethanol Direct Injection would cover the additional costs for retrofitting in groung tanks to handle ethanol (or ethanol-methanol blends). Cost effectiveness is the selling point of the ethanol direct injection over any other alternatives to date.

Direct Injection Ethanol Boosted Gasoline Engines: Biofuel Leveraging For Cost Effective Reduction of Oil Dependence and CO2 Emissions

[JohnWxy]

3. Recommended. Ford Motors gave a presentation to the dept of Energy in 2007 showing they could do

this working with Ethanol Boosting Systems. They recently gave dept of Energy another presentation showing more progress with this approach. I don't know if the people at DoE didn't 'get it' or didn't care. Seems like this should have gotten a reaction since reducing fossil fuel consumption is not only a means of reducing GHGs but also it's going to be essential to save our economy from the rising price of oil!

Good post. suggestion: call Steven Chu and tell him this is an important technology - even if it doesn't involve batteries.(LOL)

[RC]

6. Of course the DoE didn't seem to care.

Look at all the oil company stock they own.

[Bob Wallace]

10. What oil company stock...

does the Department of Energy own?