Jump to content

fleebut

Full Member
  • Content count

    1,080
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

fleebut last won the day on March 16 2016

fleebut had the most liked content!

About fleebut

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. fleebut

    Unleaded 88 coming your way?

    I like under E50 for vehicles. E30 would quickly become my favorite. All vehicles that I've experience do well under E50. My wife's Focus will drop 2 mpg on E30 E40 fuel. Given that the E85 fuel is -60 cent continuous spread I'm making out good. Funny, that the Costco pumps may be as much as -10 cents per gallon and you have to get in line with six deep to fuel up. If ever the public would realize the true benefit of ethanol, you know given that the fuel really is a superior fuel, what would be the results? And yes the regulations to improve production and use of ethanol should have merely allowed ethanol to mix straight up with gasoline and advertise as mid and high octane fuel.
  2. fleebut

    Tesla Model 3

    AAA '17 report on cost of vehicles per class. Electric was the highest cost per mile due to high purchase cost and high depreciation. Fuel costs made up for some of it. Maintenance for vehicles is not that big a deal anymore. They make vehicles better and with low maintenance. Another thing hurting the battery car is the low cost of fuel and the every higher mpg ratings. Emissions are steadily decreasing for this technology as well. Ethanol to the rescue to lower fuel carbon rating. Carbon rating of ethanol -34% currently over plain gasoline and expected to go aver -70% in 2020. And by the way the rating does include the bogus ILUC penalty, so in reality add -22% or so. So, the plain low cost ICE vehicle may do just as well in the future for environment concerns. The battery car needs cheap, lighter, and more powerful batteries. They need a breakthrough battery technology. It may happen and car manufacturers are betting that that vehicles will nonetheless utilize more battery power and will go more to electric drive. I do think most are thinking hydrogen will be the ultimate battery.
  3. Carbon Green Bioenergy has a permanent -$.60 price as compared to unleaded. It's an agreement with station owner. I've enjoyed 60 cent spread and at one time 100 cent spread for years. Funny, the Shell station can't advertise the price of competing product. Only the locals know of the E85 pump and price spread.
  4. fleebut

    E85 pumps being replaced with E15 ?!

    One must understand that to maximise E85 fuel benifit, a totally new engine is required. Read the California E85 Cummins engine design to understand, were talking of a engine that is half the displacement of diesel and yet requires more strength. An engine that could blow the doors off of a plain gasoline engine in both mileage and horsepower yet blow the doors off of diesel as compared to torque. The fuel has incredible power. The limitation or challenge is to engineer the engine to maximise ethanol power and not to just marginally provide the ability to flex to the fuel with whippy gasoline. If ever that happen, it would be game over to gasoline or diesel fuel. That is why a puny 15 billion gallon per year additive is such a concer of petrol. Other than a totally new engineered vehicle to exploit the value of ethanol, were stuck with a marginal improvement of E15 as a stepping stone to convince consumers of ethanol value or if automotive gets it's way a more efficient engine powered upon super premium E30.
  5. fleebut

    E85 pumps being replaced with E15 ?!

    This has been argued or discussed at length even with E10. One side wants an alternative fuel and not merely a additive. The other side wants volume sales and the easiest way to get this is by low percentage ethanol that is acceptable for all model cars and consumers. I like the additive choice as our current fleet of gas engines just can not exploit E85 fuel for maximum value of high octane fuel. The consumer doesn't see much savings as a result nor boost in power. E85 actually within the current car fleets looks inferior to plain gasoline, mainly per the MPG measure. By laws and vehicle design only a low percentage of vehicles can fuel up on E85, so the ethanol experience goes underutilized by majority of public other than E10. Retailers are thinking that E15 will eventually becomes widely accepted per the attractive lower cost. This fuel appears to be a more acceptable stepping stone for majority of public. The fuel will have higher octane as compared to E10 and the engine should operated more robust. Modern cars have ability to exploit E15 higher octane for efficiency improvement. Other than two cycle engines, every gasoline engine out there can run better with E15. E15 will provide an positive experience for consumer especially since the race cars run on the stuff.
  6. fleebut

    Tesla Model 3

    I think Tesla made a big mistake with Solar City purchase. Also, the giga factory is troubling. I was in the field to make manufacturing cost estimates. Also, had much success within efficiency and cost reduction for process. Same with quality improvements, but within medium to small manufacturing. Some welding robots and a lot of computer controlled equipment. Anyways, I find it hard to understand what the Giga factory would accomplish. Automation is best achieved by large automotive whom have decades of experience with integrating and even developing equipment. Tesla would not have an advantage with scale here. So, why didn't large automotive go into the battery business? Because they are an auto supply company and soon to be a transportation company. More so in current times, the components of the car are quickly becoming off the shelf supplier route. Current auto companies purchase most of the hardware as that is the cheapest, highest quality path to building a car. Sure, they continue to manufacture their own sheet metal, engines, and transmissions as that continues to be the hallmark of brand loyalty. Consider, over the road trucks once manufactured all their components. Now, they all purchase Dana, Cummings, Eaton, etc components and assemble within their fiberglass body. These truck manufacturers had to do this to keep in business as to maximize value and quality. Automotive is following the same path. It looks to me that Tesla is hedging. They appear not to be fully invested within automotive production. If that should falter, they will have the giga factor or plain (solar panel) real estate. The BEV will probably follow the heavy truck supply route. The motor, battery, transmission, etc. probably not brand identified. The competition will be who has the most appealing aesthetic vehicle, best balance of cost and function. Prices and quality may not be that competitive as they all look and operate alike.
  7. fleebut

    Retrospect Carbon Studies

    Also, given the broad indirect penalties of hypothetical international ramifications of ethanol production, shouldn't ethanol get a huge positive factor for wind power production? Yesterday, drove back from Springfield, IL at night and witnessed a sea of red lights flashing in unison. It was eerie sight for a sleepy driver to come upon. Seemed to be a sea of wind turbines as far as the eye could see. All of them were on farm fields. We know farmer's fields produced most of the wind turbine power and all the corn. Isn't this an indirect benefit of corn ethanol? Wind energy is touted with extremely high ranking of low carbon energy. Most of it sits on farmers fields. some farmers own the equipment, other just rent, or gain dividends for the field use. So, I don't see the accounting within the eleven measures of carbon rating of corn ethanol for this extremely environmental energy gain. Farm fields are a tremendously valuable resource for wind energy. Can you image how far the value of farm fields would be pushed with wind power energy. Should wind power just be another co-product of ethanol? The methodology utilized to rate ethanol demerits with such indirect hypothetical criteria (destroying rain forests) they indeed to place much of the wind energy to the actual gain of farm production of ethanol. That accounting makes the most sense within reality.
  8. fleebut

    Retrospect Carbon Studies

    In reference to the USDA report on Life Cycle Analysis of corn ethanol carbon emission as required by the RFS II legislation. By the law they must use 11 emission categories. This is the laughable part as it looks like they threw everything in the rating except the kitchen sink. I see of no other energy sources under the microscope in attempt to attach every indirect aspect of their energy production. So, many of these categories are highly subjective or basically wild ass guesses. I can only find four that should be included within a good and accurate measure. Fuel production, transport, tailpipe, and domestic farm inputs. Petrol only suffers two such measures of production and tailpipe. I will congratulate the USDA study as they have improved some of this rating stuff to a portion of reality, but come on. My guess the RFS II law was only allowed to pass if petrol supporters got to throw in all this junk upon the carbon rating. I supposed they thought they could beat up alternative fuel badly with this rating system and they we highly successful. Funny part is even so, ethanol has made incredible strides to go from something like a mere -22% to currently -43% carbon reduction on an energy basis. The energy basis rating is another false premise. The quality of fuel is highly important to ICE work performance. It is a proven fact that an optimized ethanol engine will match gasoline engine in a mpg rating. Thank you Cummings E85 engine real life test results and analysis. That in itself would boost the carbon rating of ethanol fuel 30%. If you do a quick scale of the USDA report chart on comparing the 11 emissions categories, you will have a better handle on real life emissions of corn ethanol. Sure, it could be 10% off, but my micrometer and past experiences have rated this method better than 10% accuracy. Know the largest section of carbon emissions is the processing. This is the category easiest to improve. All indicators this will greatly improve. Much cheaper investment as compared to other investments of low carbon energy. Think of the challenge of engineering to utilize waste heat of other processing plants such as power production. Utilizing CHP equipment, biodigestor gas, wind energy, solar energy, biomass, and all the other biological components and processing changes that result in decreasing processing energy of ethanol. This category should go to zero effective emissions and probably dip to negative. Same for the production of fertilizer and farm energy needs radically decreasing with the use of wind, solar, digester gas, and biomass. If you scale the important and four important categories and rate the eventual improvements of processing ethanol were sitting at -86% carbon rating. The USDA summary claimed a -76% rating was possible even with the current 11 emission categories and using a Btu measure. If we utilize ethanol properly as in optimized ethanol engines and rated the fuel per actual mileage measure it would easily go to carbon neutral fuel. Putting all the tricks to make it more so, would position the fuel deep into negative carbon rating. These tricks to make the fuel processing and farming less carbon intensive are commonly known and need only be refined by finding the best combination and implementation. Much of it already developed and need only be implemented across the spectrum. You throw into the mix expected cellulosic production, biological improvements, and know this fuel is definitely the way to go for transportation as far as GW concerns. No competition to biofuel to lower GW emissisons.
  9. Auto technology is quickly adapting hybrid technology. It makes a lot of sense to do so, given the advantages. Companies like GKN have electric axles that offer a compact solution. Their axle can provide the vehicle rear wheel electric drive and a battery mount. It's a low cost adaptation to hybrid technology available to all car manufacturers. Know that the auto industry is busy standardizing components and technology to share cost and offer better implementation of higher quality products. So, think of the limitations and strengths of motor/battery power and do the same for ICE/fuel power. They offer a very efficient system combined. This combined system maximizes the value of expensive battery. It keeps the battery weight to a minimum. The gas engines provides unlimited range and ease of self battery charging. The battery supplies power for short duration acceleration and recoups deceleration energy. The engine provides a much needed heat source. The engine and motor can both be downsized since they are used in parallel during high torque needs. Basically, the engine sized for cruising horsepower needs, the zone that the battery is miserable to accommodate. The combined system is more efficient than either alone. Technology is making this car cheaper to produce as compared to early models. They will be easy to justify and may become the standard vehicle design. Sure, much room to tweak the design to buyers preference whether it be high acceleration or plug in frugality, but the basic design is standardized. This hybrid would be the lightest variant and know that weight is of primary importance to manufactures per cost and efficiency. The engine will steady increase in efficiency and narrow the gap as compared to efficiency of electric motor powered by battery refueled by grid power. Engines are already achieving 40 percent thermal efficiency. A figure that comparable to grid power efficiency. Over time the grid will surely improve to a higher percentage of renewable power, but so will fuel. The hybrid will continue to evolve to afford the customer more value. The drive may become all electric, but the engine will continue to provide the critical power need probably until and if the fuel cell can step in as a cost effective replacement.
  10. fleebut

    Why is ethanol a better fuel?

    Consider the debut of FreeValve technology which improves the ICE torque by 40%, mileage by 15%, and doing so with better throttle response with lower PMs emissions especially in startup (the largest pollution period). This technology actually simplifies the engine components since expensive DI system and pre-catalytic converter is not needed. The head is simplified, lighter, smaller, and no timing chain or cam required. Look over the engine control capability and realize the engine would be excellent flex fuel technology engine. Cold startup pollution could vastly be improved. This is about the only zone that E85 fuel suffers higher emissions as compared to plain unleaded fueled engine. First the exhaust piping is designed to enable bypassing the turbo. This will allow the long hot flames of combustion to light up the converter quicker. Also, the engine is surely capable of pumping air for heating combustion chamber. Think of how hot a compressor gets when pumping high pressure air. If the vehicle came equipped with an air tank, the engine could spin a few seconds pumping 150 psi air into the tank. This high pressure air could then be utilized latter to top off intake air for extreme high compression rate, at least for a quick surge of power. Nice to start with an combustion chamber sitting at a few hundred degree temperature. The pressure tank could sit on the intake side for good heat and fuel evaporation as well. The engine can apparently run variable compression to minimize knock. This will prove valuable for maximizing E85 fuel efficiency, as well. The engine does make unleaded fuel more capable, but look into the design and realize the added potential if running E85. The technology benefit is nice for unleaded, but the engine could make tremendous torque and hp with higher percentages of ethanol, This is the first technology that appears to me to actually be efficient flex fuel engine. It would cost zero to make it so. The operation parameters automatically adjust per loss of knock. Meaning the engine will just improve it power and efficiency with increasing blend of ethanol within the tank. My guess this technology will be quickly adapted and they should demand the engines be set up or certified as flex engines from the get go.
  11. fleebut

    Why is ethanol a better fuel?

    Th ILUC penalty indiscriminately applied only to ethanol fuel, continues to be based on fraudulent science. Everything I read upon what reality and economics that is a factor upon ethanol production direct my thinking that the change factor of biofuel is positive not negative. I read ship transport is a huge polluting affair. Fred Pearch of Daily Mail '09 whereupon he wrote of the 16 dirtiest transport ships pollute as much sulfur as the earths entire car fleet. These ships use the dirtiest fuel leftovers from refineries that is illegal upon land mass zones. So, we know petrol has a huge shipping and transport footprint. Naturally, given that ethanol is gaining market penetration and lower cost by serving local markets that should be a huge factor of environmental improvement.per reduce transportation pollution. Also, not that much of an engineering change to convert these ships to ethanol fuel. Given that much of the transportation fleet within the developing economic nations have raw emissions, this should be of primary concern to environmentalist. These nations usually lack oil wealth and populate a large portion of the land mass near to equator that we have learned, the most sensitive area for pollution. Wouldn't that be a huge factor in favor of ethanol? Given this fuel can be combusted in such a manner with very low harmful emissions. I would think given the fuel would produce more domestic jobs for these countries and that the science of agriculture and forestry would improve. This again is a net gain for the environment and food nonetheless least decrease in human suffering and warfare. Consider the large world population that strips forestland for very poor return on energy need for cooking meals and heat. The poor health of the countries citizens that attempt this feat. Wouldn't this be a huge positive factor for ethanol fuel. The fuel is excellent and less polluting even as compared to natural gas. Given that we now know the diesel fuel is very harmful to environment and human health and the popularity of this engine within world community, wouldn't the recent invention to molecularity mix ethanol with diesel fuel be a huge positive factor for ethanol? Given that the harmful emissions drop significantly as compared to other mixtures. That mileage doesn't appear to drop and that the fuel is less expensive and no doubt will become popular in developing nations. Since the octane boost from ethanol will greatly improve ICE efficiency, wouldn't this be a huge factor given a small quantity of ethanol can make a large quantity of gasoline and probably diesel fuel burn more efficiency and do so without health harming lead or benzene. I'm quite sure the older low lead fuel could be transitioned to lead free within ethanol aviation fuel, if the FAA had any concern of human health emissions, as well.
  12. fleebut

    Alternative Energy

    I crunched the solar cost justification numbers, again. I do dream of having a solar system, but will not act foolishly with money. Per my conventional (maybe higher than normal) ROI requirements, solar needs to improve a bit. Not just a bit but a whale of a bit. I took the most cost effective system I could come up with, other than home built. A portable 120w system with charge controller for $700. This is a good unit since it packs up very efficient for transport and can be pulled or directed to where the sun shines for higher utilization. I was more than generous with the cost savings dollars, but could only justify 1/10th the cost. You have to realize the solar system can't displace any power generation as solar is not reliable. It's just supplemental or auxiliary system. It requires a lot of work to setup and manage. One can easily overspend on equipment to automate solar or make it more effective. Solar is not worth considering or bothering with. It's a toy and only to be used for entertainment such as experimental and human interest storytelling. I have a Yamaha 1 kWh generator that provides the boondocking power. It is very quiet, about like the Honda's, but some say quieter. I bought this generator as the fuel consumption rating was the best. I don't have a kW meter to fully evaluate the cost of electricity, but it doesn't matter much given the generator needs to be on to produce AC power. Meaning the battery bank can be greatly downsized if one plans on utilizing a higher percentage of power during generation times. Also, the bulk charge for battery is easy accomplished with smaller batteries. Again, best to run generator until this battery charge point is met and until AC power demand is gone. Incredibly the generator for my hours of production, mostly on low engine RPM is an incredible .7 cups of gasoline per hour. That is less than one cup per hour. I'm guessing all in all my AC power cost approximately $.25/kWh. If you like extreme quiet, utilize a inverter for AC needs in early morning and late evening. Beyond that a sound box is easily constructed. One which the muffler has a longer path and ported out of the box. The box would need stiff hard material such as 1/2" cement board. Cement is the absolute best material to stop noise. The classic design has a box in a box with air gap inbetween. Every crack sealed with butyl rubber caulk. The bottom rests on open ground. Intake air fan may be needed as well. Results to be expected- all but silent operation. The generator is light and will prove to be very useful for many activities all year long. So, my contention for domestic power production that is both cost effective and good for the environment still is get rid of as much A.C. load as you can and convert to D.C. equipment. To utilize no more than 1 kWh golf cart battery pair to power the home when off generator times. That the most efficient and environmental home would operate on DC and utilize a very small CHP power generator to produce both power and heat. This is basic technology stuff, already available, just that corporate America or government hasn't figured out a way to control the market for gain. Natural gas or propane would be the energy source. No expensive and unreliable grid required. I wouldn't bother with solar either. Even lithium batteries, not a cost effective solution.
  13. fleebut

    Why is ethanol a better fuel?

    I was reading a report on RCCI diesel engine technology. This is a variant of the HCCI technology, but with the additional flexibility to blend two fuels to improve operation parameters. The E85 diesel fuel blend achieved more power and least emissions as compared to gasoline blends. It was a large improvement. Also, I will add that having a rock solid fuel chemistry has got to improve the operating control as well. Also, the experiment illustrates a very good ethanol engine technology, that was mentioned on this posting, to operate the diesel engine primarily on ethanol and the diesel merely as ignition fuel. Ethanol combustion within the high compression diesel engine has been tested by Cummings E85 engine. Acceptable tail pipe emissions was achieved with the plain low cost catalytic converter system. So, given how expensive plain diesel emission equipment is, this engine should be less expensive. Also, given the Cummings experience, the engine needn't be nearly as big for the same power, another cost savings. The direct injection engine does suffer with high PM emissions. Diesel fuel especially. With the RCCI approach the ethanol is port injected and allowed more time to evaporate and mix with air before combustion. This is good practice to minimize PMs. The diesel cycle does offer a bump up in efficiency gain as compared to spark ignition. Also, the RCCI combustion another bump up. This technology and engine would offer motoring public a path forward to use low cost E100 fuel and surpass the mileage of the gasoline vehicle and do so while greatly decreasing tailpipe emissions. With the addition of hybrid technology, this class of vehicle could surpass the benefits of grid powered vehicles.
  14. fleebut

    Alternative Energy

    D.C. power is the best choice for micro grid. Most of our electronics and appliances run more efficiently with direct power. Motors, TV, lights, computers, and even refrigerators. Twelve volts power is fine for low wattage devices, such as lighting, but most appliances need a multiple of this. Within the RV, power demands of a battery bank drops drastically when omitting the A.C. devices. They have good and growing market for DC devices. TVs drop wattage down by 50% when powered directly by DC and avoiding the transformer or converter loss. LEDs drop to a fraction of AC variant. You can find low wattage hair dryer, small AC units, fans, and of course computers. I read some companies think homes and commercial buildings will go DC with micro grid control because of the low power and efficiency gain. These companies are investing in products for the up coming change. Rooftop solar does dovetail nicely with this technology. I think way to many technical people are attempting to operate their household with DC power within the conventional method operating AC equipment. These people are really undermining the value of DC power with inverter and/or converter equipment and the subsequent low efficiency. My evaluations point to the increase use of natural gas or propane for high BTU loads and a complete DC system for the rest. In other words utilize electrical power whereupon it is most valuable and natural gas where it is most valuable. Natural gas is 3x more efficient if utilized at home instead of producing far off electric power. Why do Environmentalist attempt to utilize the grid power for everything? If Environmentalist are attempting to maximize the benefit of green power portion of the grid, the highest priority would be to minimize the use of grid power and allow the green portion to grow. If attempting to maximize grid power efficiency one has to consider the high cost of appliances and not to forget the high repair cost or shorter lifespan equipment such as heat pumps. Utilizing NG for cooking, hot water, and space heating seems to be a no brainer for the environment and consumer cost savings.
  15. fleebut

    Alternative Energy

    The telecommunications industry has a long history of operating equipment from batteries and utilizing generator recharge. They use lead acid batteries. They are utilizing generators instead of alternators, too. Caterpillar study had most efficient setup when generator matched with recharge requirements. This improved the efficiency of their diesel engine. Efficiency of most engines at max torque. Again, with ethanol propensity to maximize torque, even above diesel, should be wake up call of efficiency potential of an ethanol engine. So, oversize generator is a loser. Match the generator to battery bank recharge requirement. Flipping back and forth from AC to DC is also a losing proposition. Inverters and converters just extra baggage drag on power. For example an AC portable fan will require 2x or more wattage when running on the RV battery bank as compare to equivalent DC fan. It seems that if and in fact when one is attempting to be off AC grid, everything should be DC. The over the road trucking industry has developed DC products for this reason. Refrigerators, A.C., microwaves, etc. I read even the Tesla car is rethinking the AC and DC complexity and cost. The DC brush less motor is quickly becoming superior solution. More torque and speed with less weight and complexity. Battery charger become less complicated as well. When one factors in the apparent move of automotive to 48v power, this will greatly accelerate the off grid DC solution. Not bad for large households to jump to a 96v or 144v DC standard. What is changing? Power production is available at the point of use. This takes away the primary advantage of AC power. Also, electronics can control voltage, nowadays. Also, you can see how a mobile battery bank and generator aka your car can integrate and provide value.
×