Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 06:42 PM Apr 2015

Ultra-High Efficiency Methanol Engines w Advncd Exhaust Energy Recovry: 50% Efficiency gain over ICE

... using gasoline only.

Presentation by Leslie Bromberg, Kevin Cedrone, Daniel R. Cohn, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, at the
20th International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels (ISAF), March 26, 2013

[font size="+1"]
... if reducing our GHG emissions from light transportation was a real priority - and if the the Oil industry would allow it .. this is what we would be investing in to reduce GHG emissions from cars and trucks the quickest cheapest way possible. But, what the hell, we've got all kinds of time to reduce our GHG emissions.[/font]

They reported on an engine design with direct injection and onboard reforming of methanol yielding up 50% efficiency gains over PFI ICE. Marginal cost of $1,500 to $2,500. Annual savings $600 to $1,000 from efficiency gain alone (without considering cost savings on alcohol fuel vs gasoline)

http://academic.sun.ac.za/microbiology/Documents/ISAF%20PDF%20for%20web/Session%2010/Kevin%20Cedrone.pdf
[font size="3"]
Methanol

–Most efficient, economical liquid fuel to produce from coal and natural gas

–Physical and chemical properties enable ultra-high efficiency engines

• Up to 50% higher efficiency than standard gasoline engine in cars

• 20 - 25% higher efficiency than diesel engine in trucks

Ethanol

–Can be made from natural gas and coal
–Provides similar but lower production and efficiency advantages
–Accepted in US, distribution infrastructure already exists

Ethanol, methanol are liquid fuels produced from biomass/waste most efficiently (or could be made from natural gas and still reduce GHG production vs straight gasoline use_Bill_USA)

[hr]

Reformer Enhanced Alcohol Engines


Internal Combustion Engine

Due to high RON and evaporative properties, alcohol fuels facilitate higher engine efficiency

• Higher compression ratio
• Downsize, turbocharge, direct injection
• Heavy EGR/lean + H2-rich reformate gas

Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)

Alcohol fuels as ORC working fluid, 2 options:

• No-condenser option
• Fuel injected after turbine

• No-condenser, no-turbine option
• Fuel reformed to H2-rich gas, injected to engine, no turbine




[/font]
(more)
18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ultra-High Efficiency Methanol Engines w Advncd Exhaust Energy Recovry: 50% Efficiency gain over ICE (Original Post) Bill USA Apr 2015 OP
Aha! shenmue Apr 2015 #1
that is another huge plus to ramping up methanol production. Methanol can be made more cheaply than Bill USA Apr 2015 #3
More fracking Politicalboi Apr 2015 #2
who said methanol would drive fracking? A separate issue which will live or die on its own. You Bill USA Apr 2015 #5
Better than gasoline but still nowhere near as good as Battery Electric Vehicles. NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #4
what's the source of power for the electricity you are charging up with - coal? How long do you Bill USA Apr 2015 #6
It varies with your electric utility provider. Some are mostly hydro, others mostly coal. BUT: NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #7
I would appreciate identification of the vehicle with computations. Also, are all hybrids being Bill USA Apr 2015 #8
I appreciate your attention to details. It can get pretty complicated. I drive an "EREV" NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #11
wish you could have quantified "crazy good" fuel economy as they did in study I mentioned in cmnt 9 Bill USA Apr 2015 #14
Two important points I don't think you addressed in contrasting Methanol with EVs and PHEVs: NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #15
Regenerative braking is a technology not limited to hybrids. Mazda uses RB and a capacitor to power Bill USA Apr 2015 #18
okay, I checked the Prius plug in and it get's great mileage see link - for $30,000.... Bill USA Apr 2015 #9
My work is 100% about energy. I can't say much more than that, but it's my job to know about energy NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #10
Any fuel source derived from biomass on an industrial scale is a non-starter, for one simple fact NickB79 Apr 2015 #12
DoE study, Fuel frm Forestry & Agricultural waste could produce biofuel to meet 1/3rd our fuel needs Bill USA Apr 2015 #16
I used to live within walking distance of an ARCO station that sold methanol. hunter Apr 2015 #13
"The assessment of both state officials and of Ford motor company was that is was successful" Bill USA Apr 2015 #17

shenmue

(38,501 posts)
1. Aha!
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 06:44 PM
Apr 2015

I am so eager to see new fuels come out. We can clean up the air and ruin the Saudi monarchy at one swoop.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
3. that is another huge plus to ramping up methanol production. Methanol can be made more cheaply than
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 06:54 PM
Apr 2015

ethanol and we are pretty close to our limit of ethanol from corn without impacting corn prices (although as farmers get more and more efficient this number goes up accordingly).

We currently make a lot of methanol and it could be ramped up fairly rapidly if we wanted to do so (it would require a real commitment though). It would not take a 100% replacement of gasoline to dramatically impact the mid-East oil suppliers. If we replaced 25% of gasoline with ethanol (currently 10% of fuel supply for cars and light trucks) and methanol this would have a big impact on price of gasoline. This would be a boon to energy security and our security in general with regard to mid-East terrorists. I think if dramatically less money was flowing into the mid-East for their oil the terrorists would be getting less money too. .. A good thing.

.. this would be on top of the increasing decreases in GHG emissions as a result of using the engine described in OP.

 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
2. More fracking
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 06:49 PM
Apr 2015

More fuel, but no clean water to use that fuel. We need to forget about using NG till there's a "safer" way to get it without using tons of good water and then polluting the water underground and rivers and lakes.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
5. who said methanol would drive fracking? A separate issue which will live or die on its own. You
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:02 PM
Apr 2015

Last edited Wed Apr 29, 2015, 06:34 PM - Edit history (1)

can make methanol/ethanol out of any hydrocarbon including Municipal Solid Waste (this is not referring to human waste but trash - paper, food waste etc). Although you can make ethanol or methanol out of animal waste (poop) too, which we have a lot of. The process is called Anaerobic Digestion and it's been around for a long time. It's used much much more in Europe than here in the U.S.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
4. Better than gasoline but still nowhere near as good as Battery Electric Vehicles.
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 06:58 PM
Apr 2015

I'm happy that research is being conducted.

However, liquid fuels will still require that we buy from fuel dealers exclusively.

This is in contrast to being able to charge at home or at work for pennies on the dollar compared to liquid fuels.

Happy to see this research.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
6. what's the source of power for the electricity you are charging up with - coal? How long do you
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:08 PM
Apr 2015

want to wait for the GHG reductions? I am certainly for continued research in Electric cars but if anybody thinks the GHG reductions will come in time to make a difference with GW - forget it. We are almost, or may be already, out of time now. It may be all we can do now is to hope to mitigate the severity of the GW that we are in for. But the sooner we achieve those GHG reductions the better.

Are there any electric vehicles charged by our current energy production facilities that can achieve anything close to a 50% reduction in GHG emissions? I don't think so. And if there were, the cost means it will take 20 to 30 years to make even an appreciable dent in our GHG emissions from light transportation.. Sorry.

The ethanol we now use is producing a GHG reduction equivalent to what you would need about 25 million Priuses to achieve. We currently have about 3.5 million hybrids on the road. Get the picture?

But I am in favor of pursuing this technology and in favor of all who can afford them to buy hybrids and electric cars to further their development.



 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
7. It varies with your electric utility provider. Some are mostly hydro, others mostly coal. BUT:
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:23 PM
Apr 2015

Answers to two of your questions:

What's the source?
It varies with your electric utility provider. Some are mostly hydro, others mostly natural gas, others mostly coal.
But, a battery electric vehicle running on coal generated electricity has a lower GHG footprint than the same class vehicle burning gasoline.
This is because the overall efficiency and ability to clean up at large plants is far greater than what happens at your ICE on wheels.
I understand, however, that methanol is clean and lean and efficient, I'd like to transition toward that from gasoline and diesel but not at the expense of electrics.

Are there any electric vehicles charged by our current energy production facilities that can achieve anything close to a 50% reduction in GHG emissions?
Yes, absolutely.

An all electric vehicle on most utility company mixes emits about half what it's gasoline counterpart emits. And if it happens to be all renewable energy, zero emissions.



And forget hydrogen:





Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
8. I would appreciate identification of the vehicle with computations. Also, are all hybrids being
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:29 PM
Apr 2015

sold plug-ins? Of course, the number of plugins is very small compared to the number of hybrids (non-plugin) being sold.

Looking at the 'big picture', How long till the number of plugins sold will equal, say 3% reduction in total fleet GHG emissions? Or, more to my point, how long till all hybrids sold (including the original hybrids of non-plugin type) will produce, say,a 3% reduction in total fleet GHG emissions?

I found the document from which the graphic you showed ( you forgot a link) comes.

2011 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Program plan, Figure 1.8a on page 21

the text below that graphic reads as follows:

Figure 1.8a. Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are possible through the use of a variety of advanced transportation technologies and fuels, including fuel cell electric vehicles using hydrogen from a variety of sources. Notes: (1) analysis based on a mid-sized car; (2) assumes the state of the technologies expected in 2035–2045; (3) ultra-low-carbon renewable electricity includes wind, solar, etc.; (4) the life-cycle effects of vehicle manufacturing and infrastructure construction/decommissioning are not accounted for.30



NOte the words: "assumes the state of the technologies expected in 2035–2045". NOw, today on average (a good means of making a generalization) coal produces, I believe about 45% of our electric energy. _ correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't take time to see what the dept of Energy was assuming the mix would be in 2035- 2045 time frame but my guess is the coal %age would be somewhat less than what it is now. this makes a difference in the calculations for hybrids sold between now and 2035-2045.

This is why I would like to see realistic calculations for one plugin for today's timeframe.

Also, let's not forget most hybrids sold are not plugins and the significance of cost to adoption time is even more significant in the matter of plugins as they run, I believe for a Volt, about $40,000 ??

so, realistically, i don't think non plugins will approach 50% reductions and i doubt, given current power industry fuel mix that plugins do either. But I am certainly interested in info based on current effficiency of cars and power fuel mix.

The point is, unfortunately, hybrids by themselves will produce an appreciable amount of GHG reductions far too late to make any difference. We have to use whatever techniques and technologies that will do the job as quickly as possible. This does not mean forgoing (sp?) development of hybrid technologies.

I fascinated too by electric cars - basic hybrids and plug-ins. These are very interesting technologies. I am in favor of anybody who can afford them, buying them - to advance the technology. I do however, think there is a lack of realism when people consider the impact of hybrids and plugins and the timeliness of such impact on GW. I don't think it's advantageous to not be realistic about what we can achieve -- and how soon it can be achieved - with regard to counteracting GW.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
11. I appreciate your attention to details. It can get pretty complicated. I drive an "EREV"
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 09:20 PM
Apr 2015

Or, "extended range electric vehicle", a Volt, got it in January.

What is absolutely loveable about it is that it has a 10 gallon tank and onboard gas generator so will get you electricity after you drain the battery pack.

BUT that first 31 or so miles is all-electric! Any speed, 85 mph if you like or just in town, all electrons and no gas!

So, in PG&E service area with a pretty clean mix, I'm getting crazy good fuel economy (that's cheating) but, seriously, the cost per mile and the GHG per mile are very low values.

Therefore, when you or I try to do a comparison it's really dependent upon a lot of factors, including average daily miles driven and the utility company mix.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
14. wish you could have quantified "crazy good" fuel economy as they did in study I mentioned in cmnt 9
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 05:01 PM
Apr 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=84777

Then you can calculate a GHG emissions and reduction vs gasoline only.

Yes, there are a number of factors that need to be considered, that's why I brought up one (power mix). Another factor is temperatures where the hybrid is operated. Extremes in temperature both hot and cold have a significant impact on battery performance and therefor efficiency. This is why when making generalizations it's important to specify relevant conditions/assumptions to arrive at your conclusions.

re 'details': You don't really know what you are doing until you do the calculations (I think I had professor in college who said that). Companies have gone into bankruptcy by not keeping a good (i.e. accurate) handle on what their operations were really costing them.

I can see plug-ins can get great mileage (as long as it's not too too hot or too too cold). Of course, most hybrids being sold are conventional hybrids which, I believe achieve about 25% to 33% reduction in fuel consumption (and with conv hybrids you, of course, don't have the fuel mix for electric power and attendant GHG emissions to be added in). But in terms of dealing with GW the aggregate GHG emissions reductions from all hybrids (conventional and plug-ins), because of the cost of adoption, will come too late to have much impact on slowing GW. That's why we should be doing other things that get much quicker GHG reductions because a given reduction in GHG emissions now (biofuels/alternative fuels), is worth a greater amount of reductions 20 years from now.

THis does NOT mean I am against further development of battery-electric cars (and also fuel cell cars). But we should be realistic and recognize we need to use some other approaches (biofuels, alternative fuels which will work in modified ICEs for less money than hybrids, achieving quicker large scale adoption) to achieve GHG reductions much faster.

NOW, having said that, do I think we will do what needs to be done to stop GW? NO I do not.. But I am hoping that we will realize that more needs to be done (sooner than later) and that we will eventually do those things to try for mitigation of GW. I'm thinking that may be the best we can hope for at this point (nobody knows for sure when we pass the GW 'event horizon' but it isn't looking good considering the lack of people's ability to see the seriousness of out situation). -- of course, If we do start getting serious about dealing with GW I'm hoping our efforts will stimulate China to compete with us and do much more in their country (esp with coal power generation).



 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
15. Two important points I don't think you addressed in contrasting Methanol with EVs and PHEVs:
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 05:25 PM
Apr 2015

One:
Regenerative braking and coasting. The improvement in mileage for a BEV or PHEV or HEV comes partly from this feature that methanol, ethanol, and ICEs don't have.

Two:
Driving conditions, highway versus city and the fact that when at rest no energy is being consumed, the motors are off.
This happens at stop signs and lights and on the highway in traffic, a huge component for some drivers.

Back to work.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
18. Regenerative braking is a technology not limited to hybrids. Mazda uses RB and a capacitor to power
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 07:51 PM
Apr 2015

the vehicles accessories and produces a 10% improvement in fuel economy.
http://www2.mazda.com/en/publicity/release/2011/201111/111125a.html


HIROSHIMA, Japan—Mazda Motor Corporation has developed the world’s first passenger vehicle brake energy regeneration system that uses a capacitor to power the vehicle’s electrical components. The groundbreaking system, which Mazda calls 'i-ELOOP', will begin to appear in Mazda's vehicles in 2012. In real-world driving conditions with frequent acceleration and braking, 'i-ELOOP' improves fuel economy by approximately 10 percent.



Mazda's brake energy regeneration system is unique because it uses a capacitor, which is an electrical component that temporarily stores large volumes of electricity. Compared to batteries, capacitors can be charged and discharged rapidly and are resistant to deterioration through prolonged use. 'i-ELOOP' efficiently converts the vehicle's kinetic energy into electricity as it decelerates, and uses the electricity to power the climate control, audio system and numerous other electrical components.




Stop Start feature is being added to conventional ICE powered cars ..

Engine Stop-Start Systems Save Fuel at Low Cost - Less Idling Also Means Less Pollution


Ford's 2013 Fusion with the 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine and six-speed automatic transmission is the first domestic car to be equipped with a stand-alone engine stop-start system. | October 9, 2012 | Ford Motor Company

The rumble of idling cars and trucks is a familiar noise at America's intersections. But it's a sound that's likely to begin fading away in coming years: More and more automakers are using engine stop-start systems to boost fuel efficiency at relatively low cost.

The system, which shuts down a vehicle's engine at idle and immediately restarts it when the driver presses the accelerator or lifts off the brake or clutch pedals, is a feature of every conventional hybrid vehicle in the market. But now stop-start systems are beginning to appear as stand-alone features on conventionally powered cars. Up to 40 percent of all new cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. in 2015 could be equipped with engine stop-start systems, according to Johnson Controls, a major global manufacturer and supplier of the advanced batteries used in stop-start systems.

Fuel Savers

Stop-start systems can cut combined city-highway fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 3-10 percent, and even more when they're combined with hybrid drive systems. By eliminating engine idling, stop-start systems also reduce toxic and smog-causing tailpipe emissions. The systems deliver their fuel economy improvements in city situations that involve lots of stop-and-go driving. And they can do it at relatively little cost to the consumer.
(more)



Regarding coasting - I drive a stick and I do a lot of coasting to red lights - although I don't turn the engine off - OMG! But the engine does idle at lower rpm than letting the car stay in gear as I slow down.

The coasting and regenerative braking, are of course part of how the hybrids achieve better fuel efficiency and are therefore included in the fuel efficiency figures.

As I said, I think hybrids are cool. My only point is that it will take a considerable period of time for hybrids to be widely owned. Unfortunately, we are about out of time.

But whatever I - or others (yes there are those who have tried to propose use of more biofuels) - say, it really isn't going to make any difference. People are not going to vote for a commitment to adding methanol to the fuel mix. The oil companies have managed to demonize alcohol fuel thoroughly enough that people are certain that ethanol and methanol (if anybody ever mentions methanol) are fuels from Hell and they will never support a commitment to add methanol to the light transportation fuel mix. Maybe, and I do mean Maybe - when things get even worse, people might listen to the argument for more biofuels.. Of course, by the time that happens were going to be even further into the Black Hole of Global Warming... I wish I could laugh ...( only when drunk).



Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
9. okay, I checked the Prius plug in and it get's great mileage see link - for $30,000....
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:56 PM
Apr 2015

Energy Center Averages 83 MPG in Plug-in Prius Two-Month Trial
http://www.plugincars.com/energy-center-averages-83-mpg-plug-prius-two-month-trial-70248.html

they said this corresponds to a GHG reduction of 60% assuming current pwer mix.

and the price for a 2014 $29,990 http://www.toyota.com/prius-plug-in-hybrid/

That's great mileage, for those who can afford it.


The nice thing about biofuels is it doesn't cost as much to build cars that can use them. The car mentioned in OP is estimated to cost about an additional $2,500 to build.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
10. My work is 100% about energy. I can't say much more than that, but it's my job to know about energy
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 09:16 PM
Apr 2015

I work with energy providers, agencies, etc. on a broad range of matters, including tours of powerplants and requests from the Department of Energy to make certain appearances, and on and on.
I work with EIA data a lot. The latest data for coal production is 39.08% 1586 Billion kWh.

In 2011-2012ealers and manufacturers have let me drive several vehicles for one week, including:

A truck from EVI ...not a highway car
A Mitsubishi iMeEv ...highway but low range and tinny
Nissan Leaf ...a very rideable but ugly car
A Ford Focus Electric ...the nicest of the all-electrics, except that on the last day it became a brick, the regular 12V battery had died so the entire thing would not function and it had to be towed.
I drove a Volt at the Maker Faire, didn't like it at the time.

When my 2007 at 180K miles lost it's battery pack I had just written three articles about electric vehicles: history, emerging technologies and the grid, and a buyers guide.
I would post these except that I prefer to remain anonymous on this board.

So I needed a car and went first to look at the Ford Fusion Energi because it's good looking and charges at level 2, but there is no room in the back, seats go down but there's still a metal bulkhead so it sucked.
I went next door to look at a Volt and I put the seats down and WOW, just as much room as the Prius, maybe more, it's actually a hatchback!

Not wanting to pay $41K, I shopped around and found a 2012 model with only 8,200 miles on it priced at $21,500.00 and bought it. Fully loaded except for navigation.




From my EIA spreadsheet.
Electricity Net Generation All Sectors, 2013 BkWh
Coal 1585.998 39.08%
Natural Gas 1113.665 27.44%
Nuclear 789.017 19.44%
Hydroelectric * 264.712 6.52%
Biomass 59.894 1.48%
Wind 167.665 4.13%
Petroleum 26.863 0.66%
Geothermal 16.517 0.41%
Solar 9.252 0.23%
Other (non-biogenic waste) 12.355 0.30%
Other Gases (fossil fuels) 12.271 0.30%
TOTAL 4058.209 99.99%

NickB79

(19,109 posts)
12. Any fuel source derived from biomass on an industrial scale is a non-starter, for one simple fact
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:20 PM
Apr 2015

It would be produced using industrial-scale agriculture, and industrial-scale agriculture is already strip-mining the planet of topsoil: http://world.time.com/2012/12/14/what-if-the-worlds-soil-runs-out/

A rough calculation of current rates of soil degradation suggests we have about 60 years of topsoil left. Some 40% of soil used for agriculture around the world is classed as either degraded or seriously degraded – the latter means that 70% of the topsoil, the layer allowing plants to grow, is gone. Because of various farming methods that strip the soil of carbon and make it less robust as well as weaker in nutrients, soil is being lost at between 10 and 40 times the rate at which it can be naturally replenished. Even the well-maintained farming land in Europe, which may look idyllic, is being lost at unsustainable rates.


Every proposed solution to replacing a substantial fraction of our oil consumption with biomass-derived fuels runs to the idea of using crop residues, ignorantly calling it "waste." Yet the biomass that those leaves, stems and stalks give back to the land are the only thing that's stopped us from completely laying waste to our farmlands thus far. The same goes for animal manures, which used to be considered incredibly valuable to the farmer. Now we dispose of it like toxic waste and turn to unsustainable synthetic fertilizers to replace it, in the process killing the soil's microbial biota.

There is no economical "waste" that we can turn to, no untapped biomass stockpile left, that won't in the process of use accelerate the destruction of our farmlands that is already well underway.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
16. DoE study, Fuel frm Forestry & Agricultural waste could produce biofuel to meet 1/3rd our fuel needs
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 06:00 PM
Apr 2015

Last edited Wed May 6, 2015, 03:38 PM - Edit history (1)

.. for light surface transportation.


BIOMASS AS FEEDSTOCK FOR A BIOENERGY AND BIOPRODUCTS INDUSTRY: THE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF A BILLION-TON ANNUAL SUPPLY



Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to determine whether the land resources of the United States are capable of producing a sustainable supply of biomass sufficient to displace 30 percent or more of the country’s present petroleum consumption – the goal set by the Advisory Committee in their vision for biomass technologies. Accomplishing this goal would require approximately 1 billion dry tons of biomass feedstock per year.

[font size=+1"]The short answer to the question of whether that much biomass feedstock can be produced is yes. Looking at just forestland and agricultural land, the two largest potential biomass sources, this study found over 1.3 billion dry tons per year of biomass potential (Figure 1) — enough to produce biofuels to meet more than one-third of the current demand for transportation fuels.[/font]

NOte that the figure of "one-third" is based upon the erroneous assumption that ethanol can only deliver 65% of the fuel economy of gasoline based on the Heating Value of gasoline vs ethanol. (ethanol has 65% the HV of gasoline). THe only problem with this is that it ignores the importance of octane rating when burning a fuel in an internal combustion engine. Ethanol has a much higher octane rating than gasoline and can be burned under higher combustion chamber pressures (as with turbo-charging).

This assumption is nonsense. It has been demonstrated numerous times (countless times if you considered the experience of automobile racing) that ethanol/methanol have much higher octane ratings than gasoline and when the engine in which the ethanol or methanol are used is optimized for it's octane and higher heat of evaporation you can get better fuel efficiency with ethanol than you can with gasoline.

Just assuming that the engine used achieved comparable miles per gallon on ethanol/methanol as with gasoline that would mean to adjust the percent of the fuel supply met by ethanol based on the .65 relative mpg for ethanol to relative mpg of 1.00, you calculate: (optimize engine rel mpg - Ethanol) = 1/.65 or 1.53. Applying that to the 0.3333 (0.333 x 1.53) yields .51 .

Thus, when the Dept of Energy study said that forestry and agricultural waste could produce enough biofuel to replace 1/3rd our gasoline demand, to convert that percentage of the fuel supply for a realistic miles per gallon (using ethanol optimized engine) you would multiply 1/3 by 1.53 to get 0.51. That means, using ethanol optimized engines the actual percentage of the gasoline demand that could be met by ethanol/methanol from forestry/agricultural waste would be 51%.

... NOTE: the forestry and agricultural waste material could be used to make methanol more easily and more cheaply than making cellulosic ethanol. So, even though cellulosic ethanol is taking much longer to make a commercial reality than it was originally thought it would, since the biomass can be used to make methanol the answer remains the same.... 51% of the light transportation fuel supply could be met with biofuel from biomass feedstocks from forestry and agricultural waste materials.

ON EDit: Actually, if you add the current 10% of the fuel supply met by ethanol from corn that would be more like 61% of the light transportation fuels needs of the country met by biofuels made from biomass.

hunter

(38,264 posts)
13. I used to live within walking distance of an ARCO station that sold methanol.
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:52 PM
Apr 2015

The Los Angeles RTD experiment with methanol was a boondoggle.

Fleet cars that ran on methanol were a boondoggle.

Methanol is corrosive, it sucks up water, and it's not compatible with ordinary motor lubricants.

ARCO, still desiring a way to sell cheap natural gas derived liquids as motor fuel, started making MTBE from methanol and selling it as a "clean air" octane booster gasoline additive.

That was another boondoggle. MTBE somehow always managed to end up in the drinking water. Removing it from water is not a trivial problem.

That was then. Many modern motor fuels are largely synthetic, often with a large "natural" gas component. A barrel of oil can be turned into more than a barrel of gasoline and diesel these days. U.S.A. refineries do some amazing chemistry.

But fracked gas is not good. Liquid fuels synthesized from coal are even worse.

The best possible world is walkable cities with electric public transportation and electric and hybrid-electric cars for those who might require them.

When my wife and I met we were living in Los Angeles commuter hell, frequently stuck on freeways moving at less than twenty miles per hour. I could get to and from work on my bike faster than I could drive some days, whenever the weather was nice I was willing to risk my life.

By some planning and much greater good fortune my wife and I escaped automobile commuter hell in the mid 'eighties.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
17. "The assessment of both state officials and of Ford motor company was that is was successful"
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 06:32 PM
Apr 2015

adapting engines to be methanol compatible is not 'rocket science'. Flex Fuel engines can handle an ethanol/methanol blend of 50% (any more than that would have to be determined).

California's Methanol Fuel Experience


"The program has demonstrated the feasibility of methanol as a transportation fuel in a variety of applications." Ward and Teague 1996


The State of California has had an experimental methanol program that ran for 15 years in the 1980s and 1990s. From all we have learned thus far, it makes you think California is a separate country (map above is from Peter Ward 2012). The assessment of both state officials and of Ford motor company was that is was successful.

~~
~~

There are over 11 million E85 Flex Fueled Vehicles on the road, and many experts, as noted before, like Lotus Vehicle engineering and Saab Motors have stated that these FFV can easily and safely take up to 50% methanol with no changes. How much more can they take -- this needs to be ascertained for the benefit of the country.




Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Ultra-High Efficiency Met...