Aurguthor, my point was that the USA is currently importing most of its energy from an ally and friend.

Incidentally, while I'm not a history expert, my understanding is that the United States declared war on the Great Britain in retaliation for British actions following the War of Independence. During the War of 1812, US troops attacked York in Upper Canada (now present-day Toronto) and the British retaliated by burning down the White House. Again, Canadians never declared war on the USA and were defending themselves from Americans.

Also, you are correct. I really should have said that only a much lower relative price can make ethanol economically viable.

 

I would advise people on not buying an E85 flex fuel vehicle. If you think you need an economical vehicle, go with a smaller car that gets over 30mpg. E85 is not a solution. Your going to fill up more and not save a dime. The only way for E85 to be a solution is if you can save at least a doller per gallon (which that will never happen). E85 will never be that cheap compared to gasoline. Politics will never let that happen anyway.

 

Remember, ethanol comes from a renewable source. Crude, however, is a non-renewable resource and in the long run, its price is guaranteed to increase and supply guaranteed to decreses as fields are depleted. That might take 50, 100, 200, or even more years, but the exact number of years is irrelevant, and I don't think anyone really knows that. Whether it will be E85, butanol, biodiesel, H2, LPG, CNG, etc., that will eventually replace gasoline, I also don't know, but at some point, gasoline need to be and will be replaced with a cheaper alternative.

 

Saud Arabia is an ally and friend, too, at least on paper.

It doesn't have to be much lower -- even a comparable price would be more than enough. But when it costs significantly more, that definitely doesn't help the cause much.

 

Energy content:

1 gallon of ethanol = 0.65 gallons of gasoline

OR

1.53 gallons of ethanol = 1 gallon of gasoline.

Ethanol is an inferior energy product. [/DISCUSSION]

http://pangea.stanford.edu/ESYS/Ener...ek_ethanol.pdf

 

In plain terms of energy content, yes it is inferior to gasoline. Does that make it any less viable of an energy source than gasoline? Not at all. If you know anything about efficiencies you would know that the deficiency in energy content can be overcome by things such as increasing the compression ratio or forced induction. The problem is, these flex fuel vehicles have to be able to run on both gasoline and E85, so the efficiency and fuel milage of E85 suffers. E85 may not be the exact solution to the problem of importing foreign oil, but it sure is a step in the right direction.

I'm currently working on a project at NC State University where we are going to fit an SUV with a small four cylinder engine equipped with an experimental "cool charge technology" which will run solely on E85. The goal is to equal the original performance while greatly increasing fuel economy, even while running E85. The other project is going to be a turbo four in a 92 Vette to achieve the same goals.

You can't end the discussion when only one side of the argument has been presented (by none other than your self).

 

Sure I can.


J/K. But you've already presented that argument. However if you wish.... If you take a fuel with higher energy content and optimize the engine for that fuel, you will get more work done. Period. There have been university competitions that have gotten insane milegae on gasoline. No one would want to buy on of those vehicles for daily use. But it can be done.

One of the tricks is to match the max power output to the job. This is because throttled engines are most efficient in power output to fuel consumed at a 70% throttle setting or greater. (one reason why diesels are so efficient, they constantly run at a 100% throttle setting because they DON'T HAVE a throttle). In order to do that, you need the power output to match the demand of the job. For instance, If it requires 20hp to move a car down the road at 50 mph, then you want to use a 20 to 25 hp engine. Any extra power output is wasted engergy that is consumed running the larger engine. But WHO would want to drive a car that can't go faster than 50 mph and be at full power output at that speed? The car would be an incredible slug performance wise.

But this trick is EXACTLY what you are proposing by putting a small engine in a large vehicle. You will be operating closer to the max output of the engine and making more efficient use of the energy output of that engine. Why not do something similar with the same sized gas engine at the same time? Optimize the compression and timing for gasoline in that engine as well and do a side by side comparison. My money is on the gas engine.

Comparing a small, highly tuned ethanol engine to a large stock gas engine is an apples to oranges comparison.

Also, I'd be interested to see the emissions output (specifically NOx) of your highly tuned ethanol engine. I'm betting it will be dirtier than the gas engine.

 

You present many many good points and certainly you have a valid argument. I'm not claiming to know all the magical answers, I just think that we shouldn't dismiss alternatives before they can reach their full potential.

The cars in the supermileage challenge that have gotten insane milage on gasoline were most likely running a 5 hp Briggs & Stratton that was cycled on and off. Sure you can get high numbers doing this, but as you said, it's not a car that any of us would want to drive. I think we are at the point right now where the current production engines have just about optimized and maximized what can be extracted from gasoline. I don't think the whole issue now is what we can get from gasoline, but rather what can we use instead of gasoline.

Diesel engines are more efficient in part because of their higher compression ratios. Raising the compression ratio will increase the efficiency of any piston engine, up to a point.

The project we're working on is aiming to provide similar power figures to the stock engine (I6 in a trailblazer) while having less than 1/2 the displacement. It's not quite going to be a wheezing stock four banger with just enough power to keep the thing at speed at full throttle. That might be what happens, but it's not what we are aiming for. The comparison is apples to oranges, but that's sort of the point. We are aiming to demonstrate a possible (approximately equal) alternative to a large engine in an SUV. We were hoping to do a side by side comparison between gasoline and E85 in this new engine, but the compression ratio is going to be too high to feasibly run it on gasoline, then on top of the already high compression ratio, it will be turbocharged. NOx emissions are a concern, as they would be with anything running a high compression ratio. It is a fine balance between a high compression ratio and acceptable NOx emissions. You make a good point.

I agree with you entirely that ethanol is not practical right now. It is expensive, subsidized, and has a much lower energy content than gasoline. However, if we just sit around saying that gasoline is better, we'll never develop a viable alternative.

 

I agree with most of what you've said.

Yes, higher compression is a factor in a diesel's efficiency. So is the fact that diesel has a higher engergy content per gallon than gasoline (sound familiar?), and most diesels are longer stroke motors that operate with higher torque at lower rpms (read less loss due to friction and inertia).

But, you can't discount the lack of a throttle and no manifold vacuum as also being a factor. I ran some numbers in another thread and came up with the engine consumes around 50 hp internally for every revolution at 20 inHg manifold vac at sea level, just to overcome pumping losses. I used a V-8 with a 4 inch bore and a 3.5 inch stroke. Do the calculations yourself. I figure a 4 inch piston at 20 inHG manifold vac has about 120 pounds of force pushing on the back of the piston during the intake stroke. By operating at a wider open throttle setting, you eliminate the manifold vacuum and that 120 pounds of counter force on the back of the piston. Remember, in a V8 there are 4 cylinders on an intake stroke per revolution.

And now that I think about it, if you go with a smaller engine with fewer cylinders, you are also reducing the pumping loss. The smaller engine will probably have smaller pistons. So less force on the back of the piston during intake. And fewer cylinders means less power consumed internally per revolution.

I don't doubt you will hit your goal. I think I've pointed out how with the physics involved, the chages you outline get you a step ahead in the right direction. A smaller engine operating at closer to peak power will be more efficient.

In the long run though, we as Americans aren't interested in adequately powered, efficient cars. We want monsters with huge reserves of power for quick acceration. When that is factored into the equation, you lose out again. You can build that more efficient car but will have few buyers. We could have done it with gasoline (started to in the late 70s/early 80s) but in the 90's few people wanted econo-boxes. So the automakers stopped building them.

 

That was then when gasoline cost maybe half as much as today. Now, at around $3/gallon the traditional mid-size SUV sales fell very significantly in a short amount of time, while used Priuses could sell for more than the MSRP. That shows that some people are willing to adjust, based on the economic realities. And given a high enough gasoline price -- maybe 'as little as' $5, that could lead to a renaissance of econo-boxes, even in the US. Of course, given the current crash safety standards, making a light and efficient car is not as easy here as in some other countries.

 

In raw $ figures, maybe. In purchasing power, no. We are just now approaching the inflation adjusted cost that gas was in the early 80s. Meaning that we are now spending about the same percentage of our income for gas now that we (or our parents) did back then.


Usually, the ones that 'adjust' first are the ones that have panicked and made a snap decision. For instance, I drive a 76 pickup that get's 12mpg. Should I trade it in for a new car say a prius? Well, I can buy a lot of gas for $21,725 (MSRP). About 7,241 gallons. At 12mpg I can go 86,900 miles. And I haven't accounted for difference in insurance, taxes, and interest, or put any gas in the prius yet . My truck probably does have 87,000 miles left in it, if I continue to maintain it. Soooooooo........ I don't think there's a hybrid in my future.

 

Don't worry, I completely agree with you .

I fall in this category too

I have thought about buying a small car that is good on gas, then I do the same as you when I figure how much gas I can buy for what I would spend buying, registering, titling, and insuring the other car.

We'll see how this project turns out - it should be interesting and a great learning experience no matter what the outcome is.

 

It could be more psychological than real, but sales numbers don't lie.
There are people and entities who want a new car and able to afford it. For them it's not a panic decision, and I think most would be able to pay a little more for gasoline, but they chose to save money there, possibly because of future uncertainties about gasoline prices.

 

Actually, there is a relatively (?!) straightforward way to have only an adequate engine that gets good mpg, yet the car could have enough reserves for peppy acceleration. Basically, have a dual powered car that has both an internal combustion engine and 2 small (i.e. 5 - 10 hp) electric motors that can also be used for regenerative breaking. At slow speed in heavy traffic, it could use exclusively the electric motors, at highway speed it would use the IC engine, and if the accelerator is floored, it would use both for maximum power and acceleration.

This would suit 2WD pickup trucks very nicely since only the front axle would need to be reworked, and as a side effect, this would turn them into 4WD. (well, sort of a 4WD ) Some of the hybrids may already do something similar, though I think they're usually FWD.

 

I think the Lexus RX hybrid is that kind of system, 4WD using two electric motors and a gasoline engine.

Jim