Jump to content


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by fleebut

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
  16. How many articles have you read on the value of lithium? The superiority of choosing this battery technology. Same for AGM battery that actually is getting more popular. So, much info, but if one drains the swamp and accumulates a list of general benefits, the plain old wet cell acid battery is the cost effective champion. The battery is very forgiving, well understood, easy to evaluate, low cost, and a whole host of benefits. Sure, upon a test bed with accurate control they are inferior in every way. In real life economics and life span they win. This is why the auto is still utilizing the battery. Even the cost efficient hybrids of the future. Read the solar blogs recommendations for max cost effectiveness and durability. They all are buying 6v golf cart batteries. They claim the lithium has incredible lifespan, well, maybe in ideal environment. Factor in the cost of money and the battery fails to compete. It may in the future be a super battery, but this technology and science stuff takes a long time to prove itself beyond the hype to convince those of us that want to read real life results. The AGM may have 2x the battery life of a golf cart battery. True. But that would be the most ideal abuse environment to make the comparison. Under normal deep cycle battery operating conditions and maintenance they are equal. Oh, the golf cart battery costs 1/2 as much. Same for solar. Under ideal conditions the device preforms well. Problem is, you can't depend on them and as a result you still need to maintain your original generator specs. Some solar enthusiasts will max out battery power storage to span several days without sunshine. Even three days when subjugating all to advantage solar. Consider the cost and inconvenience of proving to the world you can go without a generator. No thanks. I'm more practical and less bull headed than that. Besides solar is way to expensive and inconvenient. You have to continually monitor the system and make adjustments. It requires very expensive control equipment, expensive batter bank, and very expensive installation. Non the least it is inflexible. You can't decide to park in a shady spot to keep cool. You can't decide to top your battery bank off at 6:00 am or 8:00 pm. Some claim solar is best utilized as a battery maintainer. That running a generator for long time periods is impracticable for a complete charge as compared to solar quiet operation. You read that you must completely charge an acid carbon battery or suffer a shorter lifespan. Well, true enough, but conversely the lithium has problems if stored at maximum charge. All batteries suffer if stored with minimal charge. The truth is a working battery never achieves full charge status at least for any length of time. So, a working wet cell need not be fully charged for days. However, it should be fully charge upon storage or non use. Storing a partially charged carbon acid battery is a bad maintenance practice. Given a working battery may never achieve full charge status for any length of time, one would think the lithium would be the best. Again, when considering the real world economics one can suffer a lead acid battery with less than maximum life span. I see Sam's club sells an excellent 6v golf cart battery for $89. You will need two and enjoy 220 amp hours of power storage, but alas best to only use 50% of that for good battery practice. Sure you could go 80% with lithium maybe or 60% maybe with AGM, but again the cost efficient economical choice by far is the plain golf cart battery. If you screw something up and completely ruin the batteries, which one would you prefer.
  17. The RV energy consumption, while boon-docking, is a study within the efficient use and production of off grid power. Actually, the entire industry has maximum concerns of efficient use of energy from vehicle to living needs. This zone of study is excellent for alternative energy solutions. First, they have a large population of consumers with money in hand that desire to decrease cost and improve traveling life. They are not afraid to invest in good solutions and willing post the results. Their are many experiments on practical solar power, generation of power, battery calculations, propane comparisons, engine selection, tow vehicle performance, air drag, etc.. The savings for this group, from ability to go off grid are more pronounced as compared to home use. So, I've run many a calculation and read a ton. It is frustratingly complex with many a trade off and the solution must be compromised by your needs. First, I will say, much hyperbola out there for solar. This solution is touted by the professional bloggers that attempt to maximize readership. You have to dig into their costs, benefits, and hopefully follow up articles to dig out the truthful evaluation. Per my cost accounting training, most of solar is not a worthy way to generate all you power needs. However, just like were discovering in grid applications, solar power is best utilized as auxiliary supplemental. Withing the RV use it is best to avoid all but the simplest setups with low cost. Second, high wattage generators, sized to power every possible device at the same time. No, just to heavy, expensive, an loud. The smallest Honda or Yamaha more than enough that can be moved to location to minimize noise or transported for additional needs, that will double the device usefulness. It's not max power the real concern, but minimal fuel consumption for long periods. For example, battery charging is all about low wattage and long cycles. Propane should be the energy of choice for all high btu heat needs. Electric devices should be selected for minimal power draw and high efficiency. A couple exceptions would be AC, that is currently just has minimal alternatives other than grid connections. Sure, you can spend thousands to make it happen without grid power, but not a good use of your hard earned money. Buy a DC fan instead or use the smallest window shaker with the small generator power. Better yet, relocate to cooler region of country. Efficient minisplit AC technology is zeroing in on solving this problem. Lights, TV, and even DC powered refrigerators are all very useful. Propane/grid power refrigerator is the common accepted provided refrigerator, currently, within the RV industry, but high efficient DC refrigerators is the best option when that fridge dies. About 25 watts/hr for 10 cu/ft. The device will pay for itself as the traditional RV ridge will consume a $20 propane tank/month. Electric power is 10x a normal fridge and most hookups charge a premium for power. It appears to me that every efficient device that must use electric power, is basically DC. We are wasting energy within the home with AC power. Were wasting energy by using electric for cooking and heating. Propane or natural gas is way cheaper and better for the environment. Refrigerators and AC appear to be equally efficient operating on DC. I can see no reason that households will eventually become powered by DC current. I think the battery car technology and adaptation will play into this as well as solar, and CHP power generators. The future household requirements will not depend on grid power, but only natural gas or propane. However, one can see a very formidable solution of ethanol fuel. Consider, the ease of use of ethanol and the very potent environmental benefit as well as low cost and simple infrastructure required. The solution works well with transportation and I do think there will be a crossover of auto and home energy solutions. I can think of no better solution to both household energy needs and transportation then the following: - Small auxiliary IC power plant to greatly augment battery storage needs and bring the car home upon low of power within limp mode. The power plant to be utilized for home power needs as well. The ICE utilizes ethanol fuel and high boost provided by hybrid charger/turbo or just electric. Variable boost pressure would make the engine efficient at low power needs or high power. Waste heat captured per the developing technology of vacuum bottle system. Heat to be dumped to household and the vehicle becomes an efficient CHP device for homes hot water and power needs. Efficiency of this setup above all possible power plant production systems. Factor in the costly and inefficient grid as a comparison, well, this system would just be a real winner. One must realize the power needs of an efficient home should evolve to a mere fraction of current practices. Natural gas can supplement the more efficient heat production of the automotive CHP system when needed. Remote housing may just standardize all energy needs on ethanol. Third world economies should do very well with this solution. Political and Corporate interests would fight such an inexpensive and independent of government solution. That would be the biggest hurtle.
  18. Consider the logistics required for battery car operation and trip planning. Life span of expensive batteries are proportional to many environmental factors. Owners need to go to school and be disciplined. Your careless drivers could really damage the vehicles battery lifespan. I read lifespan experience of Tesla drivers could be as short as 50,000 miles or calculated at maximum of 300,000 miles. When one factors in loss of capacity of battery and the desire to maximize battery lifespan, the vehicle sweet spot of consumer value is 2rd car status, short trip metro. Round trips no more than 50-70 miles one way. Daily drives limited to 150 miles. Max battery lifespan limited to 80% charge, safety factor, limit DOD, and avoid reliance of remote charge stations. Fast charging is not a smart way to maintain your battery long lifespan. Charging stations are few and need many hours of hookup to make any difference. Most probably already dedicated to a few daily commuters. The car does well in short trip metro, with operators having exact knowledge of travel requirement and weather conditions that will have major impact of length of trip plans. Could one use the battery car for 80% of travel needs. Probably. Could they then rent a ICE car for the other 20%? Most would say no to that. First the hassle such as, terminal transportation, shopping and evaluating offers, risk of typical gottcha contracts, and the overhead of required strict adherence to short travel plans. Most of us do not want such restrictions and hassles. How about the autonomous vehicle or Uber? This technology will impact the battery car more than traditional vehicle. Public transportation? No one likes that option and it will slowly dissolve per lack of interest or need. Think of the heavy duty truck energy requirements, towing vehicles, hauling trucks, and long distance travel vehicles. Hybrid technology will improve their efficiency, but batteries could off little substantive operating energy. Hydrogen battery could, but the economics of ICE powered by liquid fuel are hard to compete with. Convenience, another big plus for conventional vehicle owners. Maintenance, may be a plus for vehicles operating with reliable technology, simple to service, and repair. Fuel costs that already have the burden of full tax load may offer little cost penalty. Consider, electrical energy will steadily increase in cost given the costly alternatives to generate green power, expensive and costly to maintain grid that desperately needs updating and efficiency improvements. This all points to the need of improving the production of biofuels. To improve the efficiency and green quotient of the fuel. If one wants to improve environmental factors of transportation, these fuels are just as important as the battery car trajectory. We need to quit fantasizing of battery solutions doing it all and cheap power. Those outcomes will never happen. We need to convince more government employees, for example, that sabotaging the ethanol solution will not improve your beloved battery car future.
  19. The Tesla 3 may be a good battery car, but the Chevy bolt is already a better value car and available. Is 39$ k or $30k after tax payer support unreasonable? Maybe not, with today's incredibly cheap money and the if one believes the battery car will drastically lower maintenance cost and improve longevity. Is the very very inconvenient short range vehicle with minimal recharge stations and long recharge time a deal breaker for most? Yes, for most. If you love new technology and excited to accommodate such a vehicle. Well, go for it. Write it off as entertainment. More practical people will purchase a less expensive and proven car. If your attempting to save the planet, you could do more and quicker, meaning now, by fueling up with ethanol. If you are looking to the environment future, well, again ethanol will be ahead of the grid for a long time. Meaning the grid will never catch up. It's a choice, and I do like the battery car, just I can't justify such a car with my particular transportation needs. I need to downsize to one vehicle, that would probably be a Ford Eccoboost for good mileage and excellent towing abillity.
  20. The history of Ford's Escape is interesting. They were the first with a hybrid SUV. Ford licensed the Toyota Prius technology. Best sales year for the hybrid was '07 at 21,386. Worst was '12 at 1,441. Their currently transitioned from hybrid to EccoBoost technology. The boost technology with start stop 23/30 mpg at $1,300 option cost. Highest tow rating with this engine. When one reviews a vehicle fuel savings, achieving over 20 saves a lot of money and going to 30 is attractive. After 30 mpg, not much savings to justify expensive technology or cost. Consumers more interested in power, quiet, quality, appearance, convenience, etc. This is why even full hybrid is not attractive to majority of car owners. Analysis expect mild hybrid and below technology will reign popular with motorist per value for the foreseeable future. This is why ethanol value to decrease emissions to the environment is wholly underrated. The here, now, available, and ease of use.
  21. I need to explain some comments on my prior post. RVP measure and concerns are due to harmful vapor emissions, within the portion of car emissions. Not a comparison to all emissions in general. Also, the work to improve diesel pollution continues at a rapid pace. Much more so that gasoline. The modern day engine has 1/10 the emissions, but at best barely equivalent to gasoline. Problem is the growing health concern of PM 2.5 emission that the cleaner diesel are more productive within. The U.S. has gone through an expensive diesel fuel cleanup that removes a large portion of the harmful sulfur. The modern diesel will achieve higher engine efficiency as compared to gasoline and as a result less CO2 per mile traveled. But, the Cummings E85 engine experienced proved ethanol can match and surpass the best of diesel and do so with much less harmful pollution. Ethanol has exact chemistry and eliminates the nasty tailings of fossil fuel emissions. The Cummings report described a tested jump in combustion efficiency per E100 fuel. Also, the summarized opinion of test Engineers concluded, that more efficiency could be produced if the engine had a turbo after cooler for intake air. Also, the test engine lacked sufficient strength to maximize the E85 fuel horsepower production. Since their engine already surpassed diesel efficiency, this would be an additional factor for the ethanol solution to high torque needs at low cost and less harmful emission. What most analysts like to forget when comparing carbon efficiency, is that although ethanol fuel has carbon, the carbon rating or actual carbon emission is but a fraction. This fraction is upon a decreasing slope as opposed to diesel increasing slope. Also, I just read an analysis of foreign state of pollution within gasoline and diesel engines. The majority of our earth's ICE operators have no exemplary control of their emissions as compared to U.S. The have high sulfur diesel fuel and very little emission control of their engines. They often burn leaded gasoline. So, when EPA phonies up a ILU penalty for ethanol per some imagined factor are they then forgetting the huge potential to moderate the fossil fuel harm of developing countries? That, if ethanol can be produced within these countries the steep decrease in emissions that will naturally be produced. This appears to be a very large factor of environmental health and economic health of poor nations. It may just be the impact of ethanol upon international markets may be a very large win for the environment.
  22. Congratulation. I'm sure it will be a fun experience. My sister just bought a new Escape, but forgo the hybrid option as not worthy. Her daughter is big on alternative energy and has a position in university to teach such stuff. Her daughter really hyped the hybrid option for the earlier car purchases. My sister was excited with the new technology and talked of the advantages. She must have changed her mind with the latest purchase. Per my experience Elon Musk battery factory was a mistake. Consider the division of his much needed resources, talent, concentration, etc. He still has a startup company and needs to focus on auto car technology, quality, and cost. He needs to chose. Same for the Solar City purchase. This tells me, he is in love with the technology. Very bad to be loaded with such bias. Meaning the market demands and will support those companies that solve their problems or meet their needs. His market niche seems to be (like yourself) those people in love with the technology. This is a powerful marketing position to be in for sure, but not one he owns. Meaning traditional car companies with top tier talent and a proven record of making quality products can take that away. So, it appears to me, he is fully aware of the situation. That he is on a slippery slope of competition and his actions are continually looking for a another advantage or a quiet port to sail into to avoid the storm of open market competition. When he first started the business, he was able to do so, by tapping into the ultra low cost Chinese manufacturing sector. It was a good example of what is possible with modern day low cost CAD/CAM and engineering software. China offers extremely low startup costs for parts. Musk pulled off a successful battery car market intro per his ability to attract publicity and enthusiasm. He sold the cars to elite California market and earned much needed stock market purchases. His technology team was equally enthused and talented. This is his forte, to motivate and focus the team to produce a better and original product. It appears to me his stardom may be his Achilles Heel as he appears to desire to much attention and bored with the details. I haven't seen new technology, just clever use of existing. This is alright and will keep costs down and may be the only way a startup can compete, just the company will always need to be first upon maximizing the utilization of existing technology. Dangerous per quality control. One big screw up will destroy the companies reputation. Also, it may be that Musk read the tea leaves and thinks the lithium battery will be the control supply to destroy competition. This is how petrol worked to destroy competition and achieve wealth. The reason ethanol is such a threat. Lithium and battery technology appear to have much larger potential to throttle competition to the few. Can you imagine if a few International Corporations colluding to screw the market? My guess, the door is wide open.
  23. Speaking of the ethanol blends. Given the EPA won't budge on the 1 psi waiver for E15. You notice that E30 RVP comes in at the 7 PSI limit? So, what is this gamesmanship the regulators are playing? If in fact, given the EPA is required by law to lower pollution including GW emissions, what's the holdup? The agency has good data on the Brazilian ethanol fuel blends. They know this country has not experienced any damage of converter or pollution control equipment? Even to E100 blend and hydrous blends. The data shows all of Brazil's emissions drop with ethanol blends, except for aldehyde. But, that emission is just a factor of short warm up and proper tuning. This emission appears not to be a priority and can be tuned or engineered to minimize. Meaning automotive hasn't worked or addressed the problem yet. Look at current status of minimizing GW emissions. All analysis projects the U.S. will miss agreed upon international targets in the future as the battery car sales and power grid improvements will be slow coming. Our transportation sector has steadily increased to number one emission. Most argue that biofuel will be needed. Currently, our regulator actions result in throttling the biofuel capacity to just maintain as compared to the historical fast pace of increased production. This slow growth phase is an regulated phenomena and not based upon actual or real constrictions. It appears the intended result is to halt ethanol growth per compromise with petrol. What would an independent EPA shoot for? First, given that our entire transportation fleet utilizes fossil fuel, anything that improves this fleet would indeed be a powerful solution. They know this and work to improve CAFE numbers upon new vehicle production. Interestingly, ethanol has even a more powerful solution that is not properly given credit for. Add it up: 1. The entire fleet of spark ignition engines can benefit per lower emissions upon higher additions of ethanol fuel, including four cycle small engines. Wow, that is a huge base to work upon. Just improving 1% would make an incredible difference. Do you really think holding this improvement hostage to a possible miss fuel for the small two cycle engine family is a worthy holdup? Making a big issue of this is just dishonest. 2. Consider vapor emissions are huge and what I read the current number one emission when tabulated up from all the sources. Given this and the huge present mass of use of fossil fuel, you would expect the regulators would do everything they could to decrease vapor pressure of fuel. You would expect them to start with E30 blends and place maximum incentives to automotive market to develop E100 vehicles. E100 fuel would be a tremendous reduction in vapor emissions starting with E30 blends. It appears all of our four cycle engine fleet has absolutely no issue with E30 fuel. 3. Diesel fuel has very unhealthy emissions and require expensive pollution control equipment, so why does the EPA have a CAFE system to maximize MPG? MPG is not a factor of emissions, maybe indirectly, but not a good scale. The scale should be carbon emission including other emissions per mile. Isn't this what they desire? CAFE regs work to advantage heavy carbon fuels. That is unless you phony up some battery car regs per artificial calculations based on efficiency of an electric motor. One can easily see the bias at work here. 4. Ethanol fuel has been utilized, proven, and field tested per the E85 Cummings engine to be a potent heavy truck fuel. The engine actually proved E85 power, cost, and emissions to be a much superior choice. It beat gasoline for MPG and matched diesel for cost per mile with a smaller engine that required typical automotive catalytic pollution control equipment. The E85 engine was a much less costly engine as compared to diesel. Emissions were much less. So, folks we have a solution here and a path forward to drastically lower cost and decrease emissions. Ethanol, nowadays, is cheaper fuel than gasoline, especially when it is delivered directly to gas stations by ethanol processors. So, the Cummings analysis of achieving lower costs is more valid today. The lower emissions are more valid today given the steep reduction of carbon emissions per improved technology of ethanol processors. We can fully expect cellulosic ethanol to drop to negative carbon in the future. 5. Small four cycles engines are a big polluter of air emissions. They can run E30 fuel per reading of private citizens experience. Their reports claim no change required and longevity of engine isn't harmed. Since they are low compression engines, running lean will produce minimal NOx. So, all in all when one evaluates the small engine concerns, it is a concern of fuel variability. It's not ethanol, it's a new fuel what ever that fuel is and the variability therein. So, one would think a decision of high blend ethanol given the emission improvement would be the standard fuel for small engines. A rock solid formulation for small engine manufactures to adjust to and re-calibrate to. The fuel would improve their engine performance and will emit less pollution. Two cycle engines would have a better lifespan, more power, and much less air pollution as compared to present day.
  24. You would be getting a 30% spreads with E85 if the ethanol processor delivered directly to retail. Typical distribution of ethanol, through fuel blenders do nothing to lower the E85 price as they pocket the RIN for the petrol side. Petrol, then complains of the cost. It's like writing a check to your utility for wind power, then receiving a rebate back for the difference back. If you only inform the public of the RIN cost, it is dishonest. The RIN is suppose to cost the petrol side. It's an incentive to get more ethanol into the fuel distribution channels. Petrol have found a loophole and like to pretend they are a victim to public. This gets short circuited if the ethanol plant distribut a complete E85 fuel. When the ethanol plant delivers directly to retail the distribution system is more efficient and the consumer gets the RIN value. Ethanol becomes a bargain. Ethanol processors are waking up to this. Since they get the same spread, some processors don't care as they can sell all of their ethanol to petrol. You see the problem. With the traditional distribution, ethanol is totally reliant on the good faith of petrol. If the RFS law changed they would be out of business tomorrow as petrol wouldn't buy anything over what they would be need for E10. Petrol probably would threaten the ethanol industry (produced it themselves) if ethanol industry acted up. They have the industry under control if they control the distribution. When the ethanol industry controls the distribution both the industry and the consumer wins. E85 through the petrol industry is a joke. E85 through the ethanol industry is a incredible value. The petrol industry is very susceptible to consumers learning the true value of ethanol. As long as they control the distribution that true value is hidden. Also, as they control the blend stock, they can play games with taking the ethanol advantage away and make it a petrol advantage. If they are forced to sell E15 they will have a blend stock that will eliminate the true value of the additional ethanol component. They will sell inferior fuel as a base stock that could only become fuel with the addition of ethanol to improve. They will complain, this cheap base stock is expensive and sell it at a higher premium to rob ethanol, as well, of any advantage per customer perception. EPA is playing along with this game as they will not remove the vapor pressure requirement. Keeping E15 to this benchmark does little for the environment, but will guarantee that petrol will "develop" a blend stock to sabotage the fuel. If ethanol delivered their fuel directly to the fuel station, it would be much more difficult for petrol to play these games. The only way to beat the EPA and Petrol collusion is to motivate legislatures to pass laws. I think this could be accomplished on state or federal level. Other than that, best to work the direct distribution channel.
  25. This is a good thing and minimizes the chicanery of oil industry per their attempts to sabotage ethanol use. Meaning if they could phony up a miss fuel case and make national news to intimidate the independent gas station owners, that would be devastating to ethanol sales growth. Earlier in ethanol's history, opponents tried just this with a national sad story of some soccer Mom who miss fueled and suffered a check engine light. The story of tow truck and mechanics that had to drain her tank change the fuel lines, filter, and fuel pump as one can't be to safe. The repair bill breached $1,000. So, in total, the miss leading information together with the hack job of reporting were solely for the purpose of hurting ethanol image. Much of the antics of this particular person probably motivated for the purpose of financial gain or repay. Take that motivation away and the consumer not so enraged and the matter becomes s just a minor problem that one can easily navigate or avoided in the first place. Just drive your car and quite using such a large percentage of E85 fuel in a non-flex vehicle. By the way I just finished a trip and was able to compare non flex Ford focus MPG with high level ethanol blend. Every thing was as equal as best could be determined. E10 tankful averaved 37.4 Mpg as compared to 50:50 blend of E10 and E85 achieving 36.2 Mpg. Same cruise control setting and full tank refills. Tank fulls of E10 in between to moderate the blend. Fill up was from very low level tanks.
  • Create New...