Significant fuel savings possible for cars, SUVs with presently available technologies _ NRC

[JohnWxy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060302487.html

WASHINGTON -- A prestigious research panel (National Research Council__JW) has concluded that technology already widely available could significantly cut fuel consumption by cars and light trucks without sacrificing safety or performance.

With some technologies, the fuel consumption by passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, minivans and light trucks can be reduced by nearly half, but at a price - anywhere from a few hundred dollars to several thousand dollars per vehicle, the National Research Council said in a report released Thursday.

~~
~~

The report, which looked at three-types of automotive engines, found:

- The full combination of improved technologies could reduce fuel consumption by 29 percent in medium and large cars and pickup trucks with conventional engines at an added cost to consumers of about $2,200.

- Switching to diesel engines and components could yield fuel savings of about 37 percent at an added cost of $5,900 per vehicle.

- Gas-electric hybrid engines and components could reduce fuel as much as 43 percent at an increase of $6,000 per vehicle. (this of course will require greater time for wide adoption as to the higher cost, almost three times the first option. _JW)
(more)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the National Research Council report:

From Chapter 4, Powertrain Technologies for Reducing
Load-Specific Fuel Consumption, of the report (4-18):

"Once such technologies as turbocharging, direct injection, and variable valve actuation,
and so forth, have been incorporated into the powertrain, the engine becomes quite flexible. For
example, with such flexibility it is possible to use multiple fuels which that are carried separately
onboard the vehicle. Approaches such as using gasoline and E85 (Stein et al., 2009) or varying
mixtures of gasoline and diesel (Hanson et al., 2010) have been demonstrated. In these
demonstrations, fuel consumption levels comparable, or superior to, that of conventional diesel
engines have been achieved."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I wonder if the fellows at NRC have heard of Ford Motors, Massachesetts Insititute of Technology (three scientist form MIT designed the Ethanol enabled Direct Injection Engine), the Society of Automotive Engineers or the US Dept. of Energy?

The NRC should have checked with DOE or SAE to see Ford's presentations on their Ethanol Enabled Direct Injection engine which will get 25% to 30% better fuel economy than today's PFI engines.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/06/sneak-peek-ford-bobcat-dual-fuel-engine.html">Sneak Peek at Ford's 'Bobcat' Ethanol enabled Direct Injection engine - June 2009

"A radical twin-fuel engine from Ford, code-named “Bobcat,” that variably blends gasoline and ethanol on demand to realize diesel-like performance continues to make steady progress in its development, according to presentations made by the automaker to the Department of Energy and Society of Automotive Engineers in April. The presentations also provide a first look at the engine’s architecture and make some remarkable claims about “E85-optimized” engine efficiency versus size."

~~
~~

"EBS (Ethanol Boosting Systems) claims that relative to today’s common port fuel injected gasoline engines in cars and light-duty trucks, direct-injection ethanol boosting would provide a fuel efficiency gain for typical combined city/highway driving of 25 to 30 percent, at an incremental cost of $1,100 to $1,500, depending on the size of the vehicle."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ONe thing not mentioned in the article above, is that the Ethanol Direct Injection Engine uses 5% ethanol and 95% gasoline. THus, any reduction in fuel consumption (and GHG emissions) by use of the ethanol in effect multiplies the effectiveness of the ethanol 20 times (1/.05). THat is, one gallon of ethanol used in the Direct Injection engine gets 20 times as much GHG emissions reduction as one gallon of ethanol achieves as it is currently used in the conventional (low compression) ICE.

[dipsydoodle]

1. That's why we've got

the diesel versions in Europe. I've got a Jeep Unlimited 5 door with a 2.8 CRD engine . Does about 33 / imperial gallon just running around,

[JohnWxy]

4. Ethanol efficiency debated in U.S, while Scania's ethanol powered engine cuts CO2 90% vs gasoline.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x529628

[NoNothing]

2. How about converting existing gas engines to CNG?

Less carbon per mile, lower cost, more domestic supply.

WHY WHY WHY is the EPA so slow at certifying conversion kits??

[JohnWxy]

6. Do that too. It would be an improvement. Bob Rauch, Exec V.P. of the Autochannel likes ethanol...

beat of all:

Marc J. Rauch
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
THE AUTO CHANNEL


http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010/05/25/479977.html


Bob and I have studied the issue of alternative fuels and energy and we've become very enthusiastic supporters of all the technologies. We like CNG, we like propane, we like algae biofuels, we like electric, we like wind energy and solar energy, and we even like the concept of powering vehicles with compressed air. But most of all, we like ethanol. Why? Because ethanol can be used right now, anywhere in the U.S., and by most vehicles without any engine conversions. Virtually every fuel-injected automobile can use e10, e15, e20, e30, and e50 without conversions and without being official flex-fuel vehicles. Some can even use e85. And with an inexpensive, easy-to-install device every fuel-injected vehicle could use up to 99.9% alcohol (e100). Best of all, you can make alcohol fuel right in your own kitchen, garage, basement or backyard. You can’t do that with any other alt-fuel.

(more)

[dhpgetsit]

3. Save 10% easily.

When I slowed my minivan from 70 to 65 on my commute a few years ago my gas savings was almost 10%.
If everybody would slow down just a little on the freeway we would save a significant amount of gas.

[LisaM]

5. Isn't that the truth?

I've also read that if you slowed speeds to 45 mph in cities, not only would the fuel savings would be significant, you'd have fewer traffic jams so overall, you'd get places faster. I doubt if anyone has the guts to enact such a law.

[dipsydoodle]

7. Don't laugh but

all the nutters driving around in the UK at present flying England flags on their cars for the World Cup are apparently losing up to 5mpg by doing so.

[PJPhreak]

8. Just as an Extreme Example....

This 1970 Chevy Chevelle makes 1000 Hp using a Propane "Direct Injection" Fuel System,of course it uses a Very Large Engine (Big Block Chevy of some sort)

Now think of how this could be used in todays "Stock" Automobiles...Lotsa Power from a Small Displacement High Performance Engine,MUCH Lower Emissions than Gasoline AND a bit of Zip to its Step!

This was built back in '07.

Too many folk bash "Hot-Rodders"...Well It wasn't Detroit who built this,now was it?

No it was the "Aftermarket" AKA Hot Rodders!

Edit to add: It is my understanding this also gets 20+ MPG at freeway Speeds.

Not Bad for a "Heavy Chevy"

[kristopher]

9. Ethanol is a poor solution for personal transportation

It has other applications but it is the worst choice for carbon reductions in the personal transportation sector:

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[poopfuel]

10. Mark Jacobson: no genius, not worth discussion

A salient critique from a friend of mine who knows fuel, engines and knows bs when he sees it

Given Stanford University's well-deserved reputation as one of the most elite
sources of study in the country, it pains me to see a Stanford publication produce
any article which is as dumbed-down as " Stanford researchers: Ethanol results in
higher ozone concentrations than gasoline".
That article presented as gospel a bit of research which was done by two civil
engineering students, not two qualified automotive engineers. Even a casual
conversation with the Automotive Technology Department of a local community
college would have prevented the resulting embarrassment.
This response will flesh out that article to the level of the Stanford reader. I
will explain why people do not need to worry about the article's fear-mongering ,
but I will first point out this fact: The Deepwater Horizon eruption in The Gulf
of Mexico has just reminded us that the article is largely irrelevant.

ERRONEOUS RESEARCH
Acetaldehydes mentioned in the study, along with horrific levels of more important
gasoline pollutants like NOx and hydrocarbons, are cleaned up by catalytic
converters.
The study did not point out, possibly because its young authors did not know this,
that catalytic converter performance and technology have already fixed that
problem.
Catalytic converters have changed greatly on engines of recent years. Many new
vehicles have relocated the catalytic converters to be integral in the exhaust
manifold, very close to the exhaust valves, so they get very hot very quickly,
thus making the study's key point into yesterday's point.
In addition, many new catalytic converters feature heat-retention engineering,
allowing for quick light-off even when the engine has not run for a number of
hours.
The article does not state the year, make, and model of the tested vehicles; a
fatal flaw. The inconsequential acetaldehyde emissions cited in the study came
from a vehicle the researchers failed to identify. That vehicle may have the old
and disappearing technology, but I guess we'll never know, because the authors
decided to withhold the information.
Studies of this nature are outside the purview of Stanford University. They are
more appropriately done at an institution like Wayne State University in Detroit,
which does have the necessary certified automotive engineers, facilities, and
culture to produce results which are genuinely illuminating.

IRRELEVANCY
Questions about slight increases in any minor air pollutant are of no meaningful
consequence. We must replace oil fuels with alcohol fuels.
Still unchecked, this month's mammoth Gulf of Mexico oil has already entered the
food chain. It will first kill plankton, then prevent them from growing, which
will result in death zones and low fishery catches in The Gulf. The toxic oil
chemicals from that eruption will then be concentrated in the tissues of the
plants, wildlife and sea creatures of the region. Once that has happened, the
seafood we consume will contaminate the tissues of generations of American and
Caribbean citizens.
In addition, BP's oil eruption is releasing enormous amounts of natural gas into
the Gulf waters and the atmosphere. Up to half of the poison stream gushing out
of that hole in the ocean floor is petro-gas, not oil. That "natural" gas will
cause unnatural death and destruction, and lots of it.
Countless Gulf creatures are going to be killed by this river of death. After
they die, in widespread areas, they will not be replaced. For an unknown, but very
long, time, those areas will no longer sustain life.
Dramatic and terrible though this particular destruction in The Gulf of Mexico may
be , it pales in comparison to the damage which is done all over the world, every
day of the year, from smaller releases of oil and smaller oil contamination
events. They add up. When added up, they are worse than this particular BP
poisoning. Every year. All over the world.
If this study's conclusions were true...and they are not...they would still be no
more significant than a blade of straw in a tornado.


THIS STUDY PREVENTS US FROM SAVING OURSELVES
We must also replace oil fuels with alcohol fuels to eliminate their pollution
into the atmosphere. The use of oil-based fuels creates CO2 and adds it to the
air. In contrast, ethanol is made from plants, which first take CO2 from the air,
before we make into ethanol fuel. There is no net addition of CO2 into the air
from the use of ethanol fuel.
Perhaps the study should have instead focused on ethanol fuel's amazing potential
to reduce NOX emissions, since NOX kills so many athsmatics, causes so much
photochemical smog, and is a gas family which is two dozen times worse than CO2 in
turning the earth into an oven.
In closing, there is this: we are running out of oil, but as long as the sun
shines and plants grow, we can turn them into alcohol fuels.

[kristopher]

11. Anti-intellectual blogger bullshit.

Your offering is no different than the product of any teabagger that rejects science that contradicts their cherished beliefs.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[JohnWxy]

12. Jacobson has been kicked around like a soccer ball by real researchers in this field incl NRDC

Edited on Fri Jun-11-10 05:57 PM by JohnWxy
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/4219512


FOR THE READER: the article referred to, by Mark Jacobson, is a survey article which makes assertions about ethanol based on Indirect Land Use Changes emissions conjured up by Tim Searchinger. He's a lawyer, without formal training in research (I don't think it would matter if he had the training anyway).

In the article referred to at http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/PDF%20files/ReviewSolGW09.pdf#page=11">link

.... you'll see figure 2 which perports to compare BEV (Battery Electric Vehicles) to FFVs if either was to represent 100% of the surface vehicle fleet. But the chart shows the GHG emissions reduction to "Total Emissions" (all sectors) for the U.S.

ITs a bar graph which for the Electric cars includes reductions to the Power Generation sector along with any reductions for efficiency gains for the electric cars. But for the FFVs the only reductions shown are for the emissions reductions of the vehicles alone. He is comparing reductions to total U.S. emissions so he includes Electric Power generation reductions for various power sources (wind, wave, nuclear, CCS)-- when showing savings for Electric cars. But the bars showing reductions for FFVs (starch and cellulosic sources for ethanol) assumes no reductions to the Electric Power sector.

Apparently, Mr. Jacobson thinks this makes for a logical comparison. As if the savings in emissions in the Electric Power Generation sector won't occur if FFVs are adopted.

This is why Jacobson is not taken seriously by the scientific community.



......Now the OP refers to a report from what is properly referred to as "A prestigious research panel" the National Research Council, which concluded "that technology already widely available could significantly cut fuel consumption by cars and light trucks without sacrificing safety or performance."

"The report, which looked at three-types of automotive engines, found:

- The full combination of improved technologies could reduce fuel consumption by 29 percent in medium and large cars and pickup trucks with conventional engines at an added cost to consumers of about $2,200.

- Switching to diesel engines and components could yield fuel savings of about 37 percent at an added cost of $5,900 per vehicle.

- Gas-electric hybrid engines and components could reduce fuel as much as 43 percent at an increase of $6,000 per vehicle."

AND, quoting form chapt 4 of their report:

From Chapter 4, Powertrain Technologies for Reducing
Load-Specific Fuel Consumption, of the report (4-18):

"Once such technologies as turbocharging, direct injection, and variable valve actuation,
and so forth, have been incorporated into the powertrain, the engine becomes quite flexible. For
example, with such flexibility it is possible to use multiple fuels which that are carried separately
onboard the vehicle. Approaches such as using gasoline and E85 (Stein et al., 2009) or varying
mixtures of gasoline and diesel (Hanson et al., 2010) have been demonstrated. In these
demonstrations, fuel consumption levels comparable, or superior to, that of conventional diesel
engines have been achieved."

I wonder if the fellas at NRC have checked out the MIT designed, Ford owned, ethanol direct injection engine which gets 30% better fuel economy using only 5% ethanol. YOu get 23% reduced fuel consumption (and GHG emissions reduction) with only 1/20th of your fuel being ethanol. And the cost? ... about $1,000 to $1,600. Ethanol enables strong turbo-charging and downsizing is possible with greater power output. In effect you are getting about 20 times as much GHG emissions reduction from the ethaNol. Thus you get about 460% GHG emissions reduction vs gasoline per mile driven (rAther than per BTU) with ethanol used in the Ethanol Direct Injection Engine. With this much reduction EVEN IF THE ILUC HYPOTHESIS WAS VALID IT WOULDN'T MATTER. EVEN WITH THE HYPOTHETICAL ILUC GHG EMISSIONS WITH 4665 REDUCTION PER MILE DRIVEN, ETHANOL'S GAINS WILL SWAMP ANY HYPOTHETICAL ILUC GHG EMISSIONS (SHOULD THEY EXIST AT ALL).






Also, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

did their own study of the potential of Electric cars (which they ARE interested in)


Now they projected a possible future with electrics making up 42% of the fleet by 2030:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/4219512

"Of course, the NRDC-EPRI report assumes a drastic increase in plug-in sales in the next two decades (42 percent is admittedly high, EPRI’s Mark Duvall says) and, therefore, a heavier burden on the electrical grid".
(note: Dr. Mark Duvall is the Program Manager, Electric Transportation, EPRI)

The EPRI report predicts for (2050) that PHEVs will yield "40% to 65% improvement over the conventional vehicle" in GHG emissions.

NOw if we apply that rate of emissions reduction to a fleet proportion of 42% (for 2030). You get a range of 16.8% to 27.3% reduction of GHG emissions for the entire car and truck fleet - from electric cars.


Obviously, Electrics aren't going to solve the problem alone. Also, as stated before, we need to get GHG emissions reductions sooner than in 20 years. This is where ethanol would be important. Cheaper approaches will be adopted more quickly, getting results sooner. Later, electricss will add to these gains.



And here is NRDC's (National Resources Defense Council criticism of Jacobson for his use of very questionable methodology in another "study" purporting to show how evil ethanol is:

http://docs.nrdc.org/air/files/air_07042601A.pdf


"Study finding conflicts with findings by US EPA, US DOE and NREL that found that
E85 can reduce emissions of smog-forming chemicals. Dr. Jacobson fails to explain why his results differ from the published conclusions by scientists at US EPA, US DOE, and NREL.

"the study greatly exaggerates emission impacts by assuming that 100%
use of E85 is possible by 2020, a virtual impossibility. It is physically
impossible for that much ethanol to be available or for all of the vehicles to
transform into FFVs by 2020."

"the study further magnifies small differences by ignoring the fact that
most emission from cars is due to older vehicles that would be incapable of
running on E85. By 2020, CARB estimates that less than 25% of the on-road
passenger vehicle NOx and hydrocarbons emissions are from cars 16 years and
newer (see Figure 1).5 This mistake alone exaggerates the emission impacts by a
factor of about four."