Flexible Fuel Vehicles: The Engine

In the recent post of October 3^rd, we discussed the types of fuel that could be used in multiple-fuel engines. The Open Fuel Standard Act of 2009 (House Bill H.R. 1476) would require 80% of the cars manufactured or sold in the U.S. to be able to burn M85, E85 or Gasoline. The "85" refers to the percent of methanol or ethanol combined with 15% gasoline.

Today’s gasoline engines are made to run on gasoline with octane that ranges from 87 to 93 (87, 89, 91 & 93) on gas pumps in New England, where I live. Methanol has octane that ranges from 105 to 109 (Source: EPA, 2002 Clean Automotive Technology Program) and ethanol has octane ratings that range from 94 to 96 (Source: Renewable Fuels Association). This is much closer to gasoline’s octane ratings.

What does all of this mean? That a flex fuel engine is a compromise in efficiency.  Gasoline engines are built to have compression ratios of somewhere between 9 and 10 to 1 (9:1 to 10:1). Compression ratio means that the piston squeezes the air fuel mixture by a factor of 10, for example, between the intake of fuel and air and compressing it just before the spark plug ignites the fuel to provide power.

 Source: AutoZone Ref. Library

If you use a low octane fuel with a high compression engine, the fuel may combust before the spark plug ignites it. Mechanics call it “knock” and you can hear it when the engine is running because it sounds like popcorn in a microwave oven. Higher compression ratios mean higher pressures and temperatures and temperature drives efficiency in a heat engine, like a car engine.

If you have higher octane fuels like methanol (especially), the engine can operate at a higher compression ratio. A methanol engine can operate at an optimal compression ratio of 19.5:1 (ranging from 17:1 to 22:1 in EPA tests). This yields higher efficiencies than a gasoline engine.

A confession: In my upcoming book (Energy: The Primer, How to Distinguish a BTU from a BLT and Other Stuff You Should Know About Energy), I have a chapter entitled, "Methanol - The Other Motor Fuel." I like methanol better than ethanol as a gasoline substitute for a number of reasons: (1) Methanol can be made from plentiful coal, natural gas and ultimately carbon dioxide combined with hydrogen (when we run out of fossil fuels), (2) It could eliminate our reliance on imported crude oil,  (3) The higher octane rating will allow internal combustion engines to run more efficiently, (4) Methanol can run directly in fuel cells, ultimately displacing the less efficient internal combustion engine and (5) The world eats corn and it's the feedstock for ethanol. I would rather not have a motor fuel compete for use of a foodstuff as a feedstock.

Plug In Cars: How Many "Miles Per Gallon" Do They Achieve?

My literary agent directed me to an article in the New York Times this past week, Plug-In Cars Pose Riddle for E.P.A., which discussed how to measure the mileage of these cars. First, there are no gallons becase there is no gasoline to burn in a plug in electric car. So let's try to sort this out. We can make them equivalent to compare them.

The plug-in Nissan Leaf was described in the NYT article, so I'd like to use this vehicle as an example. Let's assume it takes 50 kilowatt-hours to charge this car during an 8 hour overnight charge. The car is designed to go an average of 100 miles on that charge, but speed, acceleration, weather, using the heater or the air conditioner, as well as the other options, will affect the range.

So how much energy is this and how does it equate to miles per gallon? 50 kilowatt-hours will require about 510,000 Btus (10,200 Btus/KwH)  to be burned at a far-off power plant to deliver that electricity to the Leaf's charger though an electrical outlet. That's the amount of energy in about 4.4 gallons of gasoline. If you travel 100 miles, you've received 22.7 miles per gallon. Not much different than a gasoline powered vehicle, with one exception: The gasoline powered vehicle will take you 400 miles on a tank of gas, rather than 100 miles on a charge.

What about cost? Residential electricity prices can range from around 6 cents per kilowatt-hour in Idaho to 30 cents in Hawaii. The current average price of gasoline in the U.S. is about $2.82 per gallon. This is a little difficult because the price of gasoline across the U.S. is in a tighter range than electricity. Let's assume the average price of electricity in the U.S. is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour. 4.4 gallons of gasoline will cost you about $12.41. And 50 kilowatt-hours of electricity will cost you only about $6.00, on average, or $3.00 in Idaho and $15.00 in Hawaii.

Why? Why is an electric car, of similar energy efficiency to a gasoline driven internal combustion engine, less costly to run? It's because power plant fuel, coal, natural gas and uranium, are much less expensive on the basis of cost per million Btus than the gasoline you and I purchase at the pump. In a recent post, I reported that at $3.00 per gallon, gasoline cost $26.00 per million Btus. Currently natural gas is $3.42 per MMBtu at the well head and coal will cost an average of $2.26 per MMBtu in 2010 at the mine mouth. One has to add the cost of transport to make the comparison, however, it will not increase the cost by an order of magnitude.

Cloud (Celestial?) vs. Terrestrial Computing: The Energy Use

Amanda Mecke, my literary agent, pointed me in the direction of a very interesting article, How Energy Efficient is Cloud Computing? by Lisa Zyga (Oct. 8, 2010), about the energy used in cloud vs. desktop computing. The article cites an IEEE (The Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers) study that reverses the original thought that cloud computing is more energy efficient than desktop computing.

Not originally considered was the energy used in transporting the data from home or office computers, which is higher yet than what the servers consume in the data center. “While previous studies of energy consumption in cloud computing have focused only on the energy consumed in the data center, the researchers found that transporting data between data centers and home computers can consume even larger amounts of energy than storing it.”

And the data center can be in a different city, state or country, increasing the energy consumption for greater distances. Power consumption in the data centers alone is predicted to double from 2007 to 2020. “Specifically, power for transport can be as low as 10% and 25% at low usage levels for private and public storage services, respectively, and nearly 60% and 90%, respectively, at high usage levels.”

Does anyone find themselves sending fewer signals into the cloud from desktop computers, cell phones, blackberries, laptops, netbooks, iPads, etc. any less as life goes on? I don’t. I just ordered a Kindle with the nearly 10 inch screen and constant, global 3G connectedness. Did I give a first thought to the power it will consume for the years I will own it? Alas, nay. I wanted it. I bought it. I’ll use it. I need it. At some point, I’ll wonder how I ever led my Neanderthal-like existence without it. Like all of you, I’m more than willing to use the additional energy.

A note about personal experience: Since the first laptop was put on my desk (more decades ago than I care to divulge), I’ve always powered down before I left the office each night. Recently, my IT department (you know, the guys who think they’re protecting the system from me and you; and who I think should run the system to serve me and you!) directed us to never shut down our computers again.  Seems they want to be able to load software and do diagnostics from their “cloud” while we’re all sleeping on ours. More energy use without a first thought. Take a look at the article.

Flexible Fuel Vehicles – The Fuel

In an earlier post, The Path from Coal to Hydrogen, I discussed a House bill requiring auto engines to run on multiple fuels: ethanol and methanol blended with gasoline, gasoline only and biodiesel.

Since methanol and ethanol do not contain as much energy per unit volume, for example, a gallon, as gasoline, we have to look at it a little differently. Take a look at this simple table:

Heating Value	Gasoline	Diesel Fuel	Methanol	Ethanol
BTUs per gallon	116,090	128,450	57,250	76,330
BTUs per pound	18,676	18,394	8,637	11,585

The figures are from the American Petroleum Institute. When we think about gasoline, the standard we use is miles per gallon because we all buy a gallon of gasoline that contains a similar amount of energy. However, when we begin to use other fuels, a gallon is no longer a standard measure of energy content. We have to go back to the basic energy measure, the British Thermal Unit or BTU. As a refresher, a BTU is the amount of energy required to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit.

A gallon of gasoline costing $3.00 would require about two gallons of Methanol (theoretically costing about $1.50 per gallon) and about 1-½ gallons of Ethanol (costing about $2.00 per gallon). These would be the equivalent costs for the same amount of energy—BTUs—to fuel an engine.

Cost per BTU, just for purposes of illustration, would be $3.00 or 300¢ (cents) divided by 116,090 BTUs per gallon of gasoline or 0.0026¢ per BTU. A better way to look at it is in terms of cost per million BTUs, since a full twenty gallon gasoline tank contains over 2 million BTUs.

In that case, one million BTUs costs about $26.00, whether you are purchasing gasoline, diesel, methanol or ethanol. At 20 miles per gallon of gasoline, you’ll burn about 5,800 BTUs per mile. In a future post: Flexible Fuel Vehicles – The Engine.

Book Review: Quantum by Manjit Kumar

The word “Quantum” refers to Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Physics. A quantum is a little packet of energy—what the sun delivers to us incessantly. Quantum Mechanics is the theory of the infinitesimal atomic world—-the theory of what makes up all matter everywhere. The theory of the nature of the universe.

Quantum (published by W.W. Norton) is a novel-like account of a battle between two titans of physics: Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein. When I finished this book, I had a better understanding of a subject I briefly studied as an engineering student forty years ago. I liked this book so much, I wrote the author a snail mail letter congratulating him for his work and thanking him for his effort. There is much to this book and I enjoyed it immensely. However, what fascinated and captivated me most was the nature of the disagreement between them.

The debate between Bohr and Einstein was so profound, so polar opposite, it is difficult to understand how these two remained so far apart on the matter. Bohr believed that there was no reality of an atomic or subatomic world. Quantum quotes him as follows: “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum mechanical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.” Kumar goes on to say, “For Bohr there was no underlying physical reality that exists independently of the measuring equipment . . . .” What Bohr was saying is that observing an electron makes it real but if you are not observing it, it does not exist.

Einstein, of course, had the 180 degree view: “He based his assessment of quantum mechanics on his unshakable belief in the existence of a causal, observer-independent reality.” “‘What we call science,’ Einstein argued, ‘has the sole purpose of determining what is.’”

There is much heft in this book. Kumar’s detailed bibliography betrays a scholarly approach but a resultant work that is an easy, enjoyable read—a story. There are many other “characters” in this work: Max Planck, Ernest Rutherford, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, among others. I recommend it highly.

I am not a physicist, and I have no high intellect, but I feel strongly that I should side with one or the other of the combatants. It is difficult for me to acknowledge Bohr’s abstraction of the atom. I cannot believe that an object, infinitesimally small though it may be, only comes into existence by virtue of my observance of it. I cannot fathom that deep an abstraction.

I take Einstein’s side. If I am sitting at a table, I can grab it, lean on it, pound it. It is a physical reality. It has weight, dimensions, volume and it is visually observable. I know it is made up of atoms. And I know those atoms are made up of subatomic particles. Therefore, the table is observable because it exists independently of me. And, ergo, it follows that all of its component parts—-molecules, atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons—-also exist, whether or not I observe them. If I never look at the table, it still exists. And looking at it, does not cause it to exist.

The Path from Coal to Hydrogen

We hear about the Hydrogen Economy from time to time but we do not hear anyone articulate the elements of a plan to get from here to there. The first thing we must accept is that the path from coal to hydrogen is fraught with fossil fuels. There is no other alternative and it will take much time and resolve.

The first two things we must do is change the internal combustion engine and wean ourselves off of gasoline as a primary motor fuel. There is a bill in committee, HR 1476, introduced in March 2009 and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce where it currently awaits action. The bill requires (in all of only a refreshing 9 pages) that by 2015 80% of the vehicles manufactured or sold in the U.S. be capable of burning fuel that is 85% Ethanol, 85% Methanol or Biodiesel, in addition to 100% gasoline. This bill should be enacted as a first very good step toward the hydrogen economy.

The federal government can require auto manufacturers the world over to comply with this law, if they want to remain in the U.S. market. However, it is quite another matter to bring about the manufacture and use of other fuels that substitute for ubiquitous gasoline. The focus should be on methanol because in the first instance it can be made from coal and natural gas, which are abundant, and unlike ethanol, they do not compete for a foodstuff (corn) as a feedstock. Moreover, once established, the driving public will now have two liquid, competing motor fuels to choose from when they pull up to the pump. And those two motor fuels will be made from three feed stocks: Crude oil, coal and natural gas. The federal government, in order to induce a continuous manufacture of methanol, should provide considerable tax breaks to jump start this industry. I will go out on a limb and propose a ten year federal corporate tax moratorium, accelerated depreciation and investment tax credit for any commercial scale U.S. methanol plant that achieves a commercial operation date within a set period of time. This will attract needed capital, create many jobs to build the infrastructure and generate additional tax revenues from the equipment manufacturers and workers.

Let us prognosticate what things look like ten years down the road, after HR 1476 goals are realized. It is 2025, every car in the U.S. can and does burn gasoline and/or a methanol blend and the competition has kept fuel prices in check. Our coal industry is focused on competing with natural gas to offer methanol and the natural gas industry is no longer a seasonal player during the heating season, but a year round business providing fuels for heating, cooking and motoring. Furthermore, we have weaned ourselves from foreign crude oil and all of our gasoline needs are met with crude from U.S. wells. What should the federal government do next in order to help us transition to the hydrogen economy.

In 2025, a law should be enacted requiring that no automobile in the U.S. may be sold that contains an internal combustion engine by 2032. Furthermore, in 2040 no automobile in the U.S. may be operated with an internal combustion engine. The law should be crafted in such a way that the hydrocarbon based fuel cell will substitute for the internal combustion engine in all motor vehicles. Why is this possible and why should we do it.

Currently, there is research being done (significant amounts by the DOE) to make the fuel cell a reality and, more importantly, fuel cells that operate on methanol. The added benefit of fuel cell propulsion is that it is about twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine and less polluting. Very importantly, all of this can be achieved without changing the liquids based delivery system for motor fuels. We all still pull up to the pump and insert the same nozzle into the “gas tank.”

There is a parallel path that must be taken as well. We must reduce and ultimately eliminate coal as a power plant fuel. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission must facilitate a huge push back into nuclear power. More boldly, it must rekindle the breeder reactor program we abandoned in the 1980s in order to ensure we have enough power plant fuel to last into the future as far as we can see it.

Let’s look further down the road. It’s 2110 and we can see the end to the life of our fossil fuels. We have used them all and the date by which they will be gone can be estimated with a reasonable certainty. But we are prepared. We have the fuel cell. Not only is it propelling our motor vehicles efficiently but it had become a staple and a bulwark of the power plant industry, achieving twice the efficiencies of the power plants of a century earlier. And we have our nuclear infrastructure, both traditional light water and breeder reactors.

When the last drop of fossil fuel is gone, we will satisfy our need for electricity completely with nuclear power. And we will satisfy our needs for motor fuel with nuclear power as well. Every gasoline/methanol filling station of the 21st century will become a hydrogen generating station of the 22nd century. Electrolyzers will crack the hydrogen from water and compress it up for use in our hydrogen fuel cell based vehicles. And the only byproduct of hydrogen in a fuel cell is the production of water. Then we will have an endless, pollution free cycle to power us all. That is one alternative. The other potential is to use the abundant hydrogen we can make to chemically react with atmospheric carbon dioxide to make yet more methanol, but not from fossil fuels.

No matter what the future holds, we need an adaptable plan that ultimately puts our country on an energy cycle that is sustainable without fossil fuels. That, however, can only be achieved if our government institutes planning horizons that befit a country and not the time between its election cycles.