Jump to content


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by fleebut

  1. R-factor = advantage ethanol


    How many aware of this EPA factor to award CAFE credits to automotive? This formulation a inheritance of the 80's. It's a complicated formula, but as I understand it's a volume metric benchmark per fuel Btu content and offset of petrol aromatics within the fuel. It's hasn't been updated per the ethanol's ability to increase engine efficiency. Most within automotive industry claim the accurate factor should be close to one and if updated this would provide a big incentive for manufacturers to build mild level ethanol optimized vehicles.  


    It's hard to get good inside info from this industry. Keep in mind the risks and rewards are great and they participants don't like change. They like a subtle collusion to stick up for each other's wealth and control ability for it. Government agency in the mix, as well. They have experts on each side that could embarrass each other or earn a lawsuit. So, this stuff is closed door, stiff lip service to keep average consumer scratching heads as why so much nonsense within the big players. They don't appreciate competition, especially if it makes them look less capable, less efficient, or they lose income stream. You notice the convenient fog of complexity works best for the big players. This just the juice to keep competition away. If ever the voting public wanted to understand the truth and invigorate the best of our economy, we would demand that regulations be simplified and understandable per 8th grade skill set. Just the exercise in doing so will foment better understanding of the law's intent and keep the public informed of the big picture and most important elements. Were spending way to much of our time and GNP on regulation compliance. Complicated does not equate to better or more accurate. Pareto analysis. If all this complication is deemed required per our litigious modern society. Start their to end the nonsense.    

  2. I use gas buddy and find the app amazingly useful. I would think since E85 has wide bandwidth of price and that the gas stations that carry the fuel are often harder to find this will be be a very positive development. Sure, some trouble makers will input phony prices, but that often times can be detected. They won't be able to wreak much havoc and probably will not have the ambition to continue to do so. Ethanol price is often times more stable, so the info will on average be more accurate? Maybe so as the consumers of this fuel are also more active. I doubt if the business would engage in POing potential customers. Maybe their website got more hits with the E85 banter and their thinking is to expand business. Ha, maybe they think the banter will increase as well? Authors often engage comment sections to increase posts and web hits.   

  3. Wow. DI is not all what it's cracked up to be. I just read that car companies are trying to keep this quiet, but offer a TSB to garages to watch out for the stumbling and loss of power. Also, read of DI creating more unhealthy PM emissions.  One company modified injection spray to squirt some on intake valve. 


    They still are playing around with DI and port injection. Usually with ethanol and/or water mix to maximize octane and decrease heat when needed for high torque. Lower horsepower output utilizes plain unleaded port injection. As you know the ethanol component capable of doubling engines torque. This would be a good setup for lean burn technology, running pure ethanol. This fuel has more exacting and predictable ignition profile so important with the technology. A micro squirt of ethanol at spark plug to initiate combustion. Large squirt when max torque needed. The same setup could be used within diesel engine running ethanol, but diesel fuel utilized to initiate combustion instead.       

  4. Ya, the high altitude benefits of fueling up on oxygenate fuel a smart move. This goes unreported as to the benefits of ethanol fuel acting like a chemical turbo. My old truck runs well on E85 in summer, but I run E50 in winter for better startups and warm ups. Sure would love a blender pump. The E50 appears to the magic number not to bypass. This blend runs well in summer or winter and does not affect Mpg that much. This must be the high limit? The focus doesn't lose much mileage on high ethanol blends. Hardly noticeable. My guess E30 or E40 would go non detected.  

  5. Has anyone experience the loss of overdrive, check engine light, and high rpm cruising after fueling up on E85? Maybe this is common known info, but not to me.


    I was refueling in Grand Rapids, MI at a big E85 station late one night. I usually blend 4 gallons within a 9 gallon typical refuel, but it was cold and windy. Just went ahead and ran a full 9 gallons of E85 into a non flex Ford focus. After 20 miles or so of freeway driving the tranny, sifted out of overdrive. I checked all the usual, but no indication of the contributing problem. The check engine light lit up soon afterward. I surmised the event related to high ethanol fuel? Knowing how logic controllers for equipment can be programmed and enough mechanical knowledge to understand no damage would ensue with continue operation of the vehicle in this state I opted to run the E85 out and refuel with unleaded. After a refuel of 2 and 3 gallon the overdrive came back and after 1/2 tank the check engine light went out, as well. My guess (not much on internet) is the logic of engine controller once calculating the fuel exceeded fuel spec, put the vehicle into limp mode. This mode is a guarantee to auto manufacturer that the owner will visit a auto shop to be scolded and suffer stiff financial penalty for using fuel not approved. Funny the car ran well on this high level blend, even in the super cold weather. Gas mileage was not up to par since losing overdrive, though. 


    I told the story to garage and sales lot owner, whom just attributed the event to ethanol hurting the car. He also said his Cadillac couldn't use ethanol because the car needed premium fuel. The cost of miss fueling once going to garage is stiff. He had experience with such as in gasoline in diesel tank. A big mess to drop the tank and drain all fuel components. I mentioned some garages change out hardware as well since contaminated with ethanol and are unreliable in future.


    Isn't this all a bunch of bunk. To manipulate or fool a car owner per programming trickery. There is something very un-american going on here. When citizens whom pay the bills can be held hostage to desires of regulators or needs of car manufacturers to throw business to car dealerships. It's like a game of gottcha, you didn't follow directions so suffer sucker. Note, that I've experienced the days of Jimmy Carter ethanol when cars got horrible MPG per emissions control equipment. Regulators and car manufactures did their best back then, as well, to punish car owners whom attempted to modify the OEM equipment for better mileage. Just like all safety or pollution control equipment a big engineering cost to reverse engineer the equipment to fail if owners tinker. Funny, though those car owners that removed pollution control equipment passed the tail pipe emissions test. How? They had a supply source of high ethanol fuel.

  6. CO2 sequestration and mitigation = advantage ethanol


    I was listening to a round table discussion of GW solutions from leading science participants. Very interesting, that there is no one solution. Not even solar or wind energy. The solutions will come from wide array of improvements all across the technological map.  While some claim carbon tax or some other expensive incentive a must to afford change, others not so sure than "change" will require huge investments from economy. 


    From the ethanol solution standpoint, it's interesting that a small minority of scientists are quick to depict ethanol as just another carbon fuel. While the fuel mitigates carbon emission not a good solution. They represent the old propaganda of powering everything off of solar or wind and that corn is horrible feed stock per farming practices. But, the most recent info, from the participants that appeared nonjudgmental and more knowledgeable, did not go there. In fact a majority of the opinions stated that all of the above improvements were needed and not to fixate on solar or wind alone. One interesting example, planting trees and reforesting benefit is challenged per studies that claim after 40 years the forest does little for CO2 sequestration. Also, that transportation sector contributes only 20% of GW emissions, so all in all not as important. That while wind and solar very low CO2 emitters, they are rated to only mitigate damage. Meaning they do nothing to reduce current CO2 within atmosphere. 


    Enter into the discussion the huge potential of agriculture. One must know that ag has a deserved bad reputation for GW emissions. This is quickly picked up on opponents of ethanol solution and they successfully formulated a large land use penalty upon such history.  But, science is just know upon a steep learning curve of Ag power to sequester carbon and mitigate emissions. This is indeed fertile (pun intended) ground. The biological solution to GW needs is very powerful, much more so than man made emissions tooting about the tailpipe. Scientist are just now awaking to the mass of GW improvement possible per global scale of each small improvements in agriculture.  The bonus is this change not only costs little, but makes money, and feeds the populace. In fact the land use penalty is actually 180 degrees out of kilter. The magnitude of scale is potent and the by product of feed stock for ethanol fuel magnifies Ags ability within the GW solution's spectrum. Understand Ag is climbing out from a deep emission hole and climbing up a large mountain of solution. The net value to environment is staggering as compared to other solutions. But, it appears these other solutions will be utilized as well within the Ag. The Ag solution is just a subset of the biological. For example solar or wind producing fertilizer, biomass gasification producing power, hydrogen, and soil amendments that sequester carbon for centuries i.e. charcoal. The GMO engineering of plants that actively sequester carbon in soil for farm and forest plantings. The active management of forest aka farming and better forestry, to maximize environmental benefit.     


    I read a petrol article report of Saudis evaluation of future market. Their was a vague statement that once competitive and better energy technology becomes reality, history indicates a rapid changeover. There was no explanation of this statement. BEV proponents will probably claim the lithium battery with wind power the biggest threat. I haven't read any credible info to make that judgement call, but ethanol et all alternative fuel surely appears ready to make inroads. Did you read that micro hybrids hybrids powered by E20 fuel will propel CAFE standards to 54.5 mpg by 2025? Yes, the class of vehicle does utilize a small 48v lithium battery, but does so upon maximum cost vs benefit. This class of vehicle is expected to be widely accepted per superior value and convenience and thus make the biggest improvement to environment. Also, we need to take note that if this does progress, it will be the first class of vehicle optimized for mid level ethanol blends. The public will get a true evaluation of benefit of such fuel. Expect the petrol industry to declare war. 

  7. Nice video. I did think they were over critical of ethanol per the need to appear fair or unbiased to viewers. For example the question "can ethanol meet the world's fuel needs?" and the quick answer is always no! That answer is not well thought out. There are many pathways were ethanol can easily accomplish this. The biological solution is just developing and appears to be indeed powerful. Same with solutions of chemical, catalysts, processing, distribution, GMO, argonomics, and the avalanche of technology that appears to indeed empower non fossil fuel production. The worlds supply of ineffective or poor land acres is indeed massive and can apparently be enlisted in the GW endeavor for fuel production. This is good for environment and commerce. Same with all the waste wood within forests that need to be managed to minimize fire risk, increase growth rates, and maximize forestry worth and expansion. Think of the huge benefit of waste ethanol and the combining of processes such as CHP, algae, anaerobic digester, biomass fuel, feed, food, soil amendments, and fertilizer. The logistics of powering these processes and providing fertilizer needs may be suitable for on site wind or solar power, that again, decrease cost and improve carbon rating. Our farming practices are just starting to adapt and invest in ultra low irrigation practices. We have been spoiled per abundant resources. You can do the math and conclude that the international farm community alone could meet the needs of transportation fuel. The improvement of efficiency and inroads of BEV for light transportation for example make the task easier. Same for hydrogen and natural gas fuel.  

  8. Clean diesel = advantage ethanol


    Have you noticed a flurry of diesel R&D to clean up PM emissions? The pollution control equipment and fuel mix. Transportation manufacturers fear Europe may turn their shoulder from diesel as well as metro areas. The most problematic of emissions being  direct injection of diesel. Following that DI of gasoline. The problem being, turbo charged gasoline DI and diesel engines have been placed as the solution to meet CAFE standards of mileage. The recent health finding of horrible PM emissions from DI engines running fossil fuel very concerning. They are bi mixing gasoline with diesel to reduce PMs within the diesel engine. They accomplish that with port injection of gas or use of the bifuel injector invented for E85 and gasoline.


    The problem is the fuel. Enter the ethanol solution as ethanol has very low PMs and very pure chemical composition to control combustion process. The fuel produces max torque, much needed within heavy truck industry. The fuel naturally produces the least NOx of which appears to be the primary concern after PMs. As we know ethanol is a lousy diesel fuel and within the bifuel engine this is a good trait. It is relatively easy to adapt a diesel to ethanol. There was a kit manufacturer that had such a product and may still have? However, the optimized bifuel diesel should be several notches above this. Such as spray pattern and engine control to maximize advantage and minimize diesel fuel use. Think of the diesel as ignition fluid and stored within 5 gallon tank. Ethanol port injected or within the bifuel injector for DI advantage.


    Now, the problem, EPA still utilizes CAFE standards of bygone era. It makes no sense per environmental needs. Carbon efficiency measure is preferable as well as other health harming emissions per mile. My growing understanding of EPA biases leads me to believe they left the outdated measure in place to undermine ethanol solutions. First they have quite an inbreeding of fossil fuel advocates and secondly the same with wind solar via BEV advocates. In other words the agency is directing economy to their solutions. The unelected agency has power of law, not good.

  9. Laser ignition + sensor technology = better ethanol engines


    Did you read the Archates Argone National Lab funding. Argone is experimenting with improvements in fuel injection to progress the opposed piston engine for gasoline compression ignition. They expect a 50% improvement in fuel consumption measure. The big selling point is efficiency gain upon compression ignition. The spark plug is really a pathetic single point ignition technology. Also, the two cycle opposed piston has natural efficiency gain yet to be readily exploited by the transportation sector. The key technology, apparently, to make it work is stratified fuel layers within combustion chamber. Like the old Honda engines of past they utilize a lean fuel mix, below a top rich fuel mix layer that will ignite the rest. The technology utilizes precise timing of multiple fuel squirts. This allows the engine to operate with much reduced BMEP pressure. Diesel operate typically in the 14-18 bar pressure range. A gasoline compression ignition engine would normally operate 20-25 bar. That would require a expensive heavy engine. The lean burn technology clips the combustion chamber pressure to 14-15 bar. This will keep the low cost, light weight engine, typical of light duty vehicles. 


    As we know ethanol is a poor choice fuel for compression ignition. But, the laser ignition is getting much attention per the invention of low cost solid state device. This technology very promising. It looks to level the efficiency gain of compression ignition, but has much more accurate control. This may be the technology to empower lean burn. Know that we're just entering into the 4th industrial revolution of utilizing low cost sensors. With the incredible computer control and sensor technology, the ethanol engine need not be a heavy, stout, engine to gain efficiency. Up to present the danger of ethanol per increasing efficiency was the extreme BMEP pressure and incredible crank breaking torque. This is great stuff, but comes with penalty of more expensive engine albeit at half the size. The future technology is capable of governing the physics per lean burn. So, a light duty four cylinder gas engine may be converted to high efficient ethanol. Also, the laser ignition most powerful for cold starts and decreasing cold start emissions. Both sorely needed within ethanol engine. E100 engine may develop with minimal need of expensive emission hardware?



  10. BJoe- That's a funny story and the teacher proactive to make sure no problems with students.


    Robert- Great news of the possibility of new fuel classification of mid level ethanol blends. It makes common sense since these fuels not that popular yet. In other words lift the burden off of promising environmental solutions as they are yet to establish benefits or problems. Good to inspect real world emissions and report back to media on both benefits and things to watch or improve. If this is the case, why bother with RBOB II formulation? It would be silly for parties to get in a huff and puff of E15 to E16 change? Could regulators and the rest be this nonsensical?   

  11. By the way, most I would think, now, agree to the following. That the regulations of ethanol consumption a bad idea. The RFS, blender credit, production credit, tax credit all of it, mostly worked to impugn ethanol industry and empower petrol to sabotage the benefits and image of ethanol. It is a good environment for petrol to do its' dirty deeds and put the fuel within control of petrol. Never a good place for competitor to be in. Now, we know the political system is a sausage machine that works to accomplish things in most inefficient and compromise condition. That Petrol is a powerful force in either political aisle and carry max influence upon candidates that want wealth, success, or re-election. This is the real world that has been created not by citizens, but by the needs of the political class.  So, I congratulate the effort and success of this change of fuel supply as it did result in a whirlwind production of ethanol to the E10 threshold. I believe ethanol does petrol a favor up to E10. But, they will fight ferociously the mid grade market as that will doom their propaganda efforts and ability to formulate blend stocks to minimize ethanol advantage. E85 is handicapped per the auto industry inability to maximize the benefits.


    A better path of ethanol would have been to eliminate as many roadblocks to the production and distribution of the fuel as possible. To pull off regulation shackles off and learn per the Brazilian experience. Put in place blend pumps without delay, keep octane rating even with ethanol blends and labeling of mid and high grade fuel. Require a strict gasoline formulation standard that works well with ethanol and eliminate boutique seasonal blends per RVP. One must understand the benefit of low vapor pressure lies with infrastructure. Meaning keeping ethanol separate is half the battle as the infrastructure does have the vapor emissions. As you know ethanol has extremely low vapor emissions. Nothing to worry about. Keep the fuel separate as long as possible a good idea and mix at the refueling pump. Even petrol emissions would vanish if they were regulated to RBOB fuel only. This is good fuel if ethanol is added. RBOB is cheaper too and easier for refiners to produce. If the regulators absolutely need RVP control they could easily require higher blends of ethanol during summer heat season and eliminate the costly changeover of refinery equipment. This is a piece of cake for blender pumps. But, I do believe the auto industry could come up with zero emissions of vapor including the refueling process as well.


    Also, per Brazil, the ethanol pipeline construction should have been promoted. Maybe per tax incentive? Same with incentives per transportation industry to produce efficient high octane vehicles. Better to ease up on strict controls and inspect real world improvements to air quality. Engineering is more capable of efficient trade offs to accomplish goals as compared to legacy evolution of obsolete government control. I think the prohibition leftovers of denatured ethanol fuel is past due to be updated. Maybe a extremely low alcohol denaturant such as 01% designed not to kill those that attempt to digest the liquid, but to give them an bad experience of the effort. I supposed this would be required per law that could be strengthened to prosecute the sale and use? I'm not so sure this is even a consideration currently or much of a problem since a 40oz Mickey or Malt beer cost maybe 1 dollar a good for a drunk at no health or legal risk. If we enter again into a Great Depression, well, maybe that would be a advantage ethanol? I think the regulation just creates gov't work and employees of little value. It costs the ethanol industry and not required for public good. Besides, upon a time of natural disaster I do think the fuel could come to the rescue for cooking, heating, and lighting needs of the public. You don't want gasoline content upon this use.

  12. That is so true, but the RVP EPA regulation is a conundrum. With each increase in standard fuel ethanol mix, the EPA sets in motion to certify the fuel and then EPA requires the new mix to adhere to old gasoline vapor pressure standards. Then the "new" ethanol mix is held hostage per petrol industry unwilling to create a new blend stock that will conform to vapor pressure standards.  The desired result appears to place ethanol industry between a rock and a hard spot such as to offer E15 for full year in metro zones.


    The 87 octane at the pump is internationally known as 92 Ron rating (+5 points). Europe gasoline 98 a common fuel and Japan offers 100 readily. Our Western states offer 91 for regular.  


    The problem of EPA regs and Petrol blend stocks for oxygenate, they work to eliminate ethanol advantage to improve fuel quality.




    Ethanol additive has a remarkable ability to improve combustion efficiency, even within current fleet of auto technology. Most cars have knock sensors and adaptive control that will automatically advance timing of higher octane fuel. The spark advance decreases exhaust temps, and decreases enrichment. Also, exhaust temp sensor input per algorithms computing minimize fuel waste per enrichment. DI achieves the most respect per cooling effect that ethanol has suburb rating for. E50 decreases intake temps by 30 deg C. Ethanol will naturally decrease NOx emissions.


    The U.S. EPA is conflating vapor pressure per ethanol additive with more emissions. I think this is a misjudgement as the additive empowers more engine efficiency. Ethanol decrease carcinogens within fuel supply, improve carbon efficiency, and decrease particulates, and non the least smog. So, the federal agency should regulate to maximize the usefulness of this additive per its legal mandate. Sure VP is important and rated one of the emissions to be concerned with, but the solution is not to regulate inferior fuel, but to require inventive infrastructure to control the emission. The natural gas industry appears to be on top of the air emission technology. Don't let the petrol industry claim it can't be done.

  13. However, hybrid technology makes the design of flex vehicles difficult. You can see by your mpg that the Prius makes no attempt to improve efficiency of higher blend ethanol. Since, the hybrid technology must match so carefully to specifics of engine, very difficult to flex. . 


    Much can be done within tradition gasoline built engine to improve efficiency of ethanol blended fuels and much can be done with hybrid technology. Currently, not much incentive for automotive manufactures to spend the resources for the effort. I think U.S. companies have an open door to displace the competition as this country produces such a large supply of the ethanol fuel. However, the EPA won't change the rating of real world ethanol mileage. Every car rated the same. If ever a manufacturer decided to take one engine, such as a current diesel engine block, and built a Prius type technology around E85 fuel. An dedicated engine with hybrid technology commissioned to maximize the fuels advantage, it would be a game changer to the image of ethanol and propel the fuel to top respect of superior choice for both the pocket book and environment. It looks that the hybrid technology would be even more powerful within such an engine as compared to gasoline.


    This would be the optimal solution, but, the E30 super premium fuel has a larger potential. The testing and analysis of this fuel with maximized traditional automotive technology, as posted below, improves auto mileage as compared to plain gasoline. The ethanol portion is empowered to 2x the environmental benefit. Since, we have a limited production of ethanol it would best be place the fuel use upon the sweet spot of advantage. Improving gasoline.


    The benefits of the E30 class of vehicle is indeed large. Cheaper fuel with better mileage. Since, ethanol carbon rating present day should be twice the 28% reduction even if unfairly applying the ILUC penalty, the E30 class of vehicle with hybrid or mild hybrid technology should be the car of choice for consumers. The car would not suffer increase in production cost. No cost penalty to receive top tier environmental and lower cost benefits. The environmental rating of such a vehicle would currently surpass even the present day situation with costly and limited range BEV. Also, the E30 solution would not be limited to extremely light duty passenger transport. E30 fuel could be utilized across the entire transportation fleet. So, what is going on within our market place to choose the best solution? Who is controlling the open market of ideas and solutions?  

  14. Well, I don't know about, nonsense, but I'm a proponent of hybrid technology as most. It is a trade off of extra cost vs value. You have rationalized the purchase, probably of Prius? A lot of soft and hard information goes to such decisions. Auto analysis claim the hybrid vehicle will gain popularity, but marginally. They claim the most cost effective 48v mild hybrid will be popular in near future. Even that technology is a sliding scale of technology adaptation. Meaning minimal to maximum. The maximum would utilize the hybrid turbo and achieve better mileage than current hybrids.


    The hybrid = ethanol advantage heading was directed to the engine torque. Hybrid technology improved engine torque per additional power. This facilitates a smaller engine that will operate within a more efficient manner. Ethanol optimized engine does the same. As you know an engine better suited to the fuel quality of ethanol will greatly improve torque, especially valuable low RPM torque. The present day auto utilize an over sized engine per the need for acceleration. Hybrid will allow similar acceleration with a smaller gas engine. E85 does the same.


    It would be interesting to compare E85 non hybrid with hybrid per carbon efficiency.


    A gasoline '16 Ford Focus 2L rated at 40 mpg vs 29 mpg for E85. Now we know the EPA merely knocks down E85 mileage per the -28% less BTU content of E85. We also know that car engine technology have various capabilities to exploit E85 high octane and minimize the mileage loss i.e. spark advance.  Most claim -17% on average mileage loss. That would be a realistic E85 rating of 33 mpg. EPA also rates ethanol as 28% less carbon per gallon as compared to gasoline. Gasoline sits at 95 Co2/mega Joule and ethanol 28% less or 68 Co2/MJ. Note that ethanol receives a ILUC penalty of 19.8 Co2/MJ penalty. Other fuels go unpenalized for indirect environmental costs and besides the penalty is unproven, theoretical, and the real accounting of such a variable is impossible. Also, consider the vetting of EPA carbon rating of ethanol has been made per up to date information such as allocating corn oil co product. The rating for dry grind corn with natural gas dried distillery grains should be 50% of current value. This is an industry average with up to date ILUC penalty applied. Wow, the hybrid would need to (roughly) double the fuel mileage of gasoline car to compare with plain E85 car. I think E85 wins. Imagine the contest if the E85 fueled car was actually optimized for the fuel.  


    But, that is besides the point because hybrid technology can be and should be utilized with E85 fuel. Consider the recent GW analysis of automotive technology that recently rated hybrid more powerful for most of the country as compared to BEV per grid power. BEV proponents will quickly claim the grid power will improve the carbon rating, but the same can be said of plain ICE, hybrid technology, and ethanol fuel. The California grid even with green energy is rated at 124 CO2/MJ. It is nice the battery car can convert the electric power 2x more efficient, but the optimized ethanol engine with hybrid technology appears to be a more capable GW choice. A choice that doesn't require near the taxpayer or rate payer investment. Consider cellulosic fuel is just starting to impact carbon rating of ethanol. Same with technologies of improved plant growth for root sequestration of carbon and more feed stock per acre. Cellulosic ethanol will probably dip to negative carbon rating. Powerful technologies headed down the pike to improve growing feed stock and processing feed stock.  These practices magnify the biological capability to sequester carbon. Something a solar panel can't do. 

  15. Hybrid technology = advantage ethanol fuel


    Hybrid efficiency is accomplished by improving the engine torque curve and thus allowing a smaller engine. The smaller engine will operate more efficiently per utilizing more of the engines rated hp upon the more fuel efficient low RPM range. Throttle plate will be open a larger percentage of time improving pumping efficiency. Also, increases upon heat and chamber pressure a larger percentage of time improving thermal efficiency at the slower RPMs. The hybrid technology improves the most desirable low speed torque range. We all know ethanol fuel is the champion for low speed torque. Utilizing a higher blend of this fuel will allow the engine, if engineered properly, to operate in similar fashion. Ethanol fuel is as valuable as hybrid technology per carbon engine efficiency. 


    Update this efficient hybrid technology to modern development within auto industry. Realize that the current hybrid carries a extra weight burden that lowers efficiency. That the cost of hybrid option is steep and may not be worthwhile per economics. The regenerative braking efficiency gain wasted per extra weight burden. The mild hybrid will minimize these burdens and achieve similar or improved mileage. This cost effective technology will be quickly adapted within very near future. This is the 48v system you've read about. The car achieves fuel off coasting, stop/start, higher torque at lower RPMs, low speed battery power maneuverability, and most importantly hybrid turbo. The use of the hybrid turbo will eliminate need of extra batteries and again improve low speed toque of engine. Realize that improved ICE achievements, put the efficiency of fuel combustion above that of steam power grid. Notice that again the higher blend ethanol fuel could be easily utilized to compound the benefit and do so with a fuel that is upon a steep curve to decrease carbon emissions. Per the current ratings of GW emissions of hybrid efficiency vs grid power BEV, one can establish the superior alternative of the E85 mild hybrid auto transport. This solution is readily available as compared to the grid improvement. Shouldn't this be job number one for investment dollars. 

  16. Read up on the efficiency of the C4 plant kingdom and realize the feed source = advantage ethanol.


    These are grass plants such corn, sugar cane, sorghum, and the cellulosic grass feed stocks. From what I read they appear to be top tier for conversion of sunlight and CO2 to seed, sugar, or biomass. They out perform woodland per pound of cellulose per acre/yr upon similar siting. Remember the satellite or space station data that had corn field growth top photosynthesis activity upon the planet. Even above tropic jungle growth. Well, did you read of DOE funding continued research at U of Illinois with cooperation from neighboring Universities that are engineering Sorghum to achieve improved water utilization. That's nice, but what are the probable results? Unlock nine million western acres to biofuel plant feed stock growth. That would be to take relatively semi arid low growth land mass to maximum plant growth and ensuing benefit to environment and wildlife. Non the least of benefits would to increase yearly average harvest 30% for farmland with such crops. The genetics could be transferred across the C4 line of plants. So, again we realize the increasing magnitude of the biological solution to global warming and energy needs. Do you think most of the country is unaware of this growing cost efficient potential?             

  17. Gasoline additive that improves carbon rating-   Advantage ethanol


    Ethanol is wholly under rated per value of lowering carbon within fuel supply. For the moment let us forget the ILUC penalty unfairly attached to ethanol and evaluate ethanol per additive status. The best example to date, the E30 fuel evaluation per Oak Ridge Labs. Their testing points to value of E30 fuel and the benefits to optimize the fuel character for efficiency. In general the E30 optimized engine would be 40% downsized and operate more efficiency with low RPMs. A 1.2 L engine for midsize sedan. The engine would develop 2x the torque compared to 87 AKI gas. Because of ethanol's high octane boost to the fuel and lower carbon intensity, E30 provides a 2x reduction in carbon potential. Some of ethanol's fuel character advantages include molecular, high compression operation, high heat of vaporization, work that can be extracted per higher yield i.e. expansion psi, and the higher rate of egr blending within intake air.


    So, the comparison would be a gasoline car operating at 65 mph, medium four door sedan, achieving 39 mpg, 135g/km vs E30, 44 mpg, at 102 g/km. I played around with the numbers. Attributing the 30% ethanol side with the increased efficiency of carbon. It roughly doubled the improvement for carbon rating of ethanol. Ethanol ratings should receive a huge bump up per the fuels ability to make gasoline run more efficient. For example the RBOB blend stock isn't even up to fuel standards and would make a horrible fuel if not for ethanol blend stock. Shouldn't ethanol receive a better rating to make this possible? You see how ethanol gets thrown to the back of the bus. Compare the rating to ethanol with that of EV, that merely rates the electric motor efficiency for mpg. It's just not proper evaluations, nor science. Ethanol should be valued per it's ability to improve mpg, not per the loss.

  18. Trend line- advantage ethanol


    As we know, petrol's cost of production is increasing over time. Biofuel is experiencing the reciprocal cost of production as compared to petrol. New and powerful technology improves the plight of both. As one example I will present a possible future for corn ethanol.


    The most recent invention of gardening is the Genesis practice. There is to much to cover here, but will say you could have a wonderful garden on gravel road with this system. All of the biological empowerment appears to be maximized. Watering and weeding not a concern. To my amazement the system maximizes carbon sequestration within soil. Think of the rapidly implementing technology of robots and drones. It is unquestionable that this technology will be wholly exploited upon agriculture. Dovetail this with accurate positioning systems and the magnitude of computing power. It doesn't take a genius to understand the pinpoint accuracy of farming will develop. That the giant heavy equipment will be a thing of the past since they work so hard to trample the earth. Soil compaction is poison to plant life. I would guess the technology would progress to the point where a purchase at Amazon would enable a small parcel land owner to obtain a farm in a box solution.

    Do the math. Most capable farmers compete in corn yields presently and the winner usually north of 600 bushel per acre. Consider GMO will have a major impact and know the future could look mighty productive. Know that current farming harvest sits at 160 bushel/acre and at max they take 20-25% of stover. So, given the Genesis method requires no stover and the extra corn to be utilized for fuel production. That the processing technology yield will steady improve and that it will be a given that the transport sector will drastically improve mpg. It would be an easy task to fuel the entire transportation sector with no increase in farmland and do so with corn plant feed stock. But adding to the math the steady deployment of battery car that may take over metro personal transportation per the need to minimize emissions. Factor in the hydrogen solution. Jeff Broin did suggest the potential of corn ethanol being this capable back a few years.  I just wonder if the oil Sultans consultants had informed them of this future? If so, it would make sense to pump, pump, pump to delay such progress and realize income while the getting is good. Exxon stock may be overpriced. Talk of disruptive technology. The future can be so cruel to the losers. Let's not attempt to make the U.S. a loser.   

  19. That's an interesting article. I did read some of the high mpg engine invented by mechanics stuff, but put in the class of hype and "run your engine on water" category. Smokey's technology appears to me to be correct. Automotive and EPA decided to utilize catalytic converter technology. Cat's have to operate on strict air to fuel balanced ratio's. The problem per the linked article clams the variety of chemical makeup of gasoline could not guarantee complete vaporization or combustion, hence the need for catalytic combustion. Also, the gasoline was reformulated that hurt the lean burn technology. Thermodynamics computations of ICE have compression ratio as basic indicator of engine efficiency. That is because of increase heat. So, smokey maxed out intake air heat to accomplish the same. More heat as compared to ambient heat. That's why I thought a exhaust heat exchanged heating intake air may replace a turbo? Turbo's do heat the air, however. Also, heating or vaporizing the fuel within an exhaust fuel boiler a big improvement for engine efficiency per the high energy gas stream that would quickly fill engine chamber and offer suburb mix of fuel air. This is the holy grail of fuel conditions that can burn at fast rate. Actually, better than a diesel as the diesel has multiple ignition paths superior to spark plug ignition, but has an inferior path to max out air to fuel mix. The engine runs rich. The lean burn hot vapor fuel like the GM HCCI appear to ignite in one big mass. Smokey's biggest problem was the fuel he used. Same for the HCCI engine. E100 has specific chemical burn control and consistency, much easier to engineer to. The technology combined with EGR dilution has tremendous ability to tune engine to power need. Low hp needs would be much more efficient. I think Smokey used the technology to develop high power as well, but that would produce NOX. Combustion temps must be kept down to prevent this. Under high HP the engine would have to switch to fresh air and DI of liquid fuel. This condition less efficient and more polluting, but usually temporary.

  20. Lean burn = Advantage Ethanol


    I was reading Argonne National Laboratory computer simulation of fuel spray. The basic idea is to produce fine spray pattern that penetrates deep into combustion chamber, mixes well with intake air, and vaporizes. This will improve efficiency of engine, decrease emissions, and improve flame speed. Maximizing flame speed is good as it will always generate higher pressure or torque. Ethanol has very fast flame speed under such conditions. So, the question becomes, "why not vaporize fuel beforehand?". Read this link for an easy to read short explanation. http://www.mpgresearch.com/groups/induction-and-exhaust/fuel-vapor


    Interesting the failure of such a system was the complexity of hydrocarbon fuel and the need for catalytic converter. That NOx decrease upon lean burn conditions. Know that lean burn conditions produce a very fast flame speed and double that effect with ethanol. Remember the HCCI GM engine and improved mileage. Well this all points to the benefit of ethanol fuel. The chemical exact nature of the fuel is perfect for a vapor fuel engine. Probably with no need of catalytic converter.  However, due to the desire to have maximum power during acceleration and trailer towing the engine probably would need conventional DI operation as well and cat converter. Engines typically operate within just a fraction of this max horsepower and ideal for optimum lean burn technology. Know that this technology alone has been rated to improve Mpg 30%. So, a light duty gasoline engine may operate well on E100 fuel with mileage above gasoline with vapor fuel system and heated intake air and may not need a turbo. 


    Ultra high torque engines such as the Cummins E85 engine still require maximum stiffness and strength above diesel engine, but need only half the size and can eliminate most of the expensive air pollution equipment. 

  21. Funding terrorist; advantage not to do so, ethanol


    I was listening to Joint Chief of staff claim the ISIS funding primarily funded by oil wealth. They sell black market oil and receive support from others in the trade. Also, he claimed wrecking the infrastructure like the Gulf War is not an option per environmental harm and the lost of valuable infrastructure once Syria is liberated. Juxtaposed this concern to the most potent act to destroy terrorism influence. To remove their sources of revenue. This action more important than bombs and bullets and the point goes mostly unreported. My guess there is just to much State Department objections to utilizing trade of oil as a weapon against terrorism. It appears the world is held hostage by producers of oil energy. That the oil trade makes for odd bedfellows and odd compromises within our international relationships. No country wants to curtail this trade, especially since oil is so important to economics and our economies so fragile. Better to use expensive military hardware.


    This compromise appears to meet qualifications of insanity. Can't we as a civilized society take a step back and do a historical review of a bad path for energy needs? Administrations come and go every 4-8 years and since they have such a short time upon reigns of nations success they need relatively quick options to build upon a future that would be complementary to themselves. This is why they spend treasury money at such a reckless rate as they know they can shove the repayment penalty to other administrations. Same with pushing easy mortgage money, hoping the economics blow up after leaving office. Same with not rocking the oil wealth industry. Administrations have no incentive to set up future CICs to better condition if doing so they would need to suffer repayment or pick up the tab to invest in brighter future. Politicians would need to stand up and lead even if offending their own constituency. 


    To this, one can only conclude it is best to not be blackmailed by oil markets. To have other competing markets that would empower a country to hold the trade of oil to the highest standards. 

  22. Supply route safety; advantage ethanol!


    Petrol industry advocates attempted to fear monger ethanol production upon RFS regulation back nearly a decade. Their canards claimed ethanol is transported by dangerous rail instead of safe pipeline. Whoops , they don't bring that point up anymore. Why is that? Also, they claimed ethanol is dangerous because fighting the fires is different than petrol. O.k? Just a stupid argument they present in an attempt to get some traction upon citizen concern.

    Info I've read say, stats that track biofuel accidents and fire not available, not biofuel specific. Chemistry of gasoline vs ethanol claim same spill size of fire more severe for gas per the physical properties, enthalpies of combustion, and emissions of the flame. Flash point of ethanol 55 vs gasoline -45. Autoignition of ethanol 793 vs gasoline 495. So, the chemistry suggest ethanol is more difficult to catch on fire and once on fire less dangerous.

    The logistics favor ethanol and may be the largest factor. Feed stock of gasoline must be transported long distance to refinery and then transport finished product back to consumer. Path of transport bumps up against environmental sensitive areas and populous zones. Super tanker transport has very large potential for disaster as well as off shore drilling. Ethanol feed stock has extremely low risk to health and environment and transported short distances usually upon rural areas. Most of the transport is within 50 mile radius of processing plant. Modern cellulosic ethanol requires short supply route to lower cost. Since ethanol plants are less costly and smaller as compared to petrol refinery, they're numerous and spread diverse upon land mass. They present lower terrorist risk, economic risk per loss of production, and lower finished product supply chain distance and ensuing risk. However, petrol does currently have a very efficient supply chain per the huge investment and long development time span. Ethanol has just started to improve the supply efficiency and have a long catch-up. The natural advantages of ethanol should make the job easier.

  23. Have the transportation manufactures allowed themselves to be pushed to corner? Consider Volt's attempt to solve the BV shortcomings. I would say an unattractive solution given the price and complexity. Fiat recently described the market for alternative vehicles as totally regulation driven. So, consumers are happy with their ICE. They like these lower cost vehicles. Manufactures and suppliers of auto markets know this and attempt to minimize the environmental harm of this low cost automobile.


    An exception may be mild hybrids. These vehicles take the sweet spot parts of BV operation and leave the bad parts behind. Auto market analyses predict the market will shoot up after 2023. For example, the Bosh 2rd generation 48v mild hybrid will power A.C. with engine off, offer low speed electric power for maneuverability upon traffic jams, parking, etc. Improved start stop technology, regenitive braking, coasting with engine off, and power electric turbo. Another promising technology for ICE is the hybrid electric turbo that will generate power.


    Probably the most significant auto for GW concerns, not powered by the grid, but by ethanol fuel. Engine manufactures already know how to maximize the fuel potential efficiency and can do so with current technology. This class of auto would continue to offer low cost attractive solutions to the consumer and at a convenience. This may become doubly important given the news of damming diesel emissions and cheating. No taxpayer incentives required for ethanol powered vehicle as the vehicle will be less expensive than current gasoline alternative. Field testing of these E85 optimized engines prove to have better mileage than current gasoline models and do so with cheaper fuel. These engines have reduced emissions as compared to both gasoline and especially diesel. The ethanol optimized engine does need to be beefy, even more so than diesel. Longevity should improve per better engine design. Overall, the engine should weigh less and be less costly per half the size and half of the displacement. Heavy duty truck engines would benefit per the low cost fuel, high torque and elimination of expensive high pressure injection equipment as well as loosing the very expensive exhaust treatment. The fuel appears to be able to do it all. Did transportation manufactures put themselves in a corner by over reliance of diesel technology, battery power, and fuel cell? They best wake up and empower e85 optimized engine to magnify cost effective solutions, if they want to keep sales growth. I don't think the consuming public will put up with inferior costly solutions and ride the bus. Neither would the rest of the international customers.

  24. Evaluate ethanol advantage per meeting more of the military needs compared to diesel fuel. This is an extension of the below post. I've heard the most dangerous occupation of soldiers within military is fuel transport. This fuel is critical to military needs and has always been the focus of maximum concern from WWII to present day. It is a point of maximum susceptibility as the tanker truck are easy to blow up and identify. They can't travel at high speed per the road hazard risk and can easily tip over. The military force is powered by this fuel and the supply distributions are complex and over great distance with poor or slow equipment and often transported within risk of the conflict. Why is ethanol a superior alternative? First military is receiving much condemnation from environmentalist that hate their huge carbon footprint. So, to improve their image and meet concerns they are currently spending a fortune to stimulate production of green diesel fuel. Ethanol is cheap and produced upon easy well defined processes. Ethanol can be produced from wide array of feed stocks and requires low cost infrastructure, well understood by mechanics and repairmen. Production equipment for ethanol can be streamlined per military need to be forward strategically positioned. Feed stocks are not explosive and can be transported by wide variety of vehicles. If captured the feed stock not valuable to enemy. Sugar probably the most useful. All diesel engines can be easily modified to the fuel and receive a boost in horsepower and cooler operation temperatures. Turbines, run well on the fuel and best guess aircraft, too. Once engines and turbines optimized for the fuel, a big improvement in weight saving, increased power,  lower emissions, and quiet operation.

  • Create New...