Ah, heck. I made the mistake of turning on my PC and looking at Russ Steele’s blog this morning. At least I slept in.
Poor Rudolph. Now the other reindeer will really laugh and call him names, especially with that new nose.
Lest you think this spoof is off the mark, let me remind you that CARB wanted to outlaw dark colored cars in California:
Now CARB and other groups are pushing for a 60 mpg efficiency standard, perhaps as early as 2017, which is very close (if not over) the the maximum efficiency limit of gasoline in an internal combustion engine.
The 60 mpg standard by 2025 presumes a 6% annual improvement in fuel economy over the 2016 Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard of 34.1 mpg established in April, Hwang said.
“We were very surprised when environmental groups called for 60 mpg because just last year we worked with the Obama administration and the State of California and environmental groups to agree on a new national standard that would reach over 35 mpg by 2016, and before we’ve even achieved those new heights, in fact, before the program has even taken effect, there are already calls for almost double the mileage,” said Gloria Bergquist, vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and 10 additional auto manufacturers.
Who doesn’t want better fuel efficiency? However, reality can be a real bitch.
From Wikipedia, The MPGe
Description
The miles per gallon gasoline equivalent is based on the energy content of gasoline. The energy obtainable from burning one US gallon is 115,000 BTU. Thus one mile per gallon gasoline equivalent is equal to 115,000 BTU per mile.[1] For alternative fuels, energy required to manufacture the fuel may also be considered. To convert the mile per gallon rating into other units of distance per unit energy used, the mile per gallon value can be multiplied by one of the following factors to obtain other units:
-
1 MPGE = 1/115,000 miles/BTU ≈ 1/33.7032 miles/kW·h ≈ 1/20.9422 km/kW·h ≈ 1/75.3919 km/MJ
Conversion to MPGE
MPGE is determined by converting the vehicle consumption per unit distance, as determined through computer modeling or completion of an actual driving cycle, from its native units into a gasoline energy equivalent. Examples of native units include W·h for electric vehicles, kg-H2 for hydrogen vehicles, gallons for biodiesel vehicles, cubic feet for compressed natural gas, pounds for propane or Liquefied petroleum gas vehicles, and gallons for liquefied natural gas vehicles. Special cases for specific alternative fuels are discussed below, but a general formula for MPGe is:
![MPGe = \frac{total~miles~driven}{\left [ \frac{total~energy~of~all~fuels~consumed}{energy~of~one~gallon~of~gasoline} \right ]}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/2/0/420e0ea2d93a5bf33a1a53f3e8c6aa1b.png)
Depending on the purpose, overall energy consumption for the vehicle may also need to include the energy used in the production of whatever energy carrier is used for the vehicle and the energy used in filling the “tank”. For example, with electrically powered vehicles, a full accounting of all energy consumption would include the efficiency factor for conversion of primary fuels into electricity and the efficiency factor of charging the battery from the electrical plug.
Basic values for the energy content of various fuels are given by the defaults used in the Department of Energy GREET model, as follows:
| Fuel | Unit | Btu/Unit |
|---|---|---|
| gasoline | gallon | 116,090 |
| electricity | kWh | 3,412 |
| diesel | gallon | 129,488 |
| biodiesel | gallon | 119,550 |
| ethanol | gallon | 76,330 |
| E85 | gallon | 82,000 |
| CNG | SCF | 983 |
| H2-Gas | SCF | 289 |
| H2-Liq | gallon | 30,500 |
| LPG | gallon | 84,950 |
| methanol | gallon | 57,250 |
Note, however, that – except for electricity – the energy content of a particular fuel can vary somewhat given its specific chemistry and production method. For example, in the new efficiency ratings that have been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) – see below – the energy content of a gallon of gasoline is assumed to be 114,984 BTUs
The maximum efficiency of an internal combustion engine running on gasoline is said to be about 30%. This is before drivetrain , road friction, and air friction losses. Tank to wheel efficiency of a standard gasoline car is said to be only around 15%. Most of the energy in gasoline is converted to heat by combustion and friction.
From Wikipedia: The largest internal combustion engines in the world are two-stroke diesels, used in some locomotives and large ships. They use forced induction (similar to super-charging, or turbocharging) to scavenge the cylinders; an example of this type of motor is the Wartsila-Sulzer turbocharged two-stroke diesel as used in large container ships. It is the most efficient and powerful internal combustion engine in the world with over 50% thermal efficiency. For comparison, the most efficient small four-stroke motors are around 43% thermal efficiency (SAE 900648); size is an advantage for efficiency due to the increase in the ratio of volume to surface area.
To reach that 50% efficiency standard required to get to 60MPG, maybe CARB is planning to have US automakers outfit the vehicles with advanced technology like this:
CARB might benefit from reading this essay on the folly of magic carburetors to help them design achievable standards.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The goal is not more efficency, that would come with the free market. All things being equal, you would buy a car that gets 40 MPG over one that gets 30 MPG. Power, looks, comfort. That is why environmentalists push this through government. The goal is not a more efficient gasoline engine. It is to put the gasoline engine out of business and eventually, cars in general.
Go back to you holidays and don’t turn on your computer or TV for the rest of the week!
Cheers and happy holidays
CARB is pursuing legislation to repeal the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
I’m sure 60 mph can be achieved, but only in small, light weight vehicles and with speed limits lowered to 35 mph.
Note there’s nothing that includes seating capacity. If you have a family of four, just take two cars on the summer trip.
Also, CARB could get the state to repeal tailgating laws, at least on tailgating tractor-trailer trucks. I tried drafting one during the 1970s oil embargo. I didn’t have instrumentation, but I was able to significantly let up on the gas pedal.
CARB doesn’t seem terribly concerned about safety and common sense, I wonder how they’d respond to the tailgating suggestion.
Anthony: Be gone!
My Diesel powered Skoda Estate was doing 50mpg when I sold it. Pretty good really. Of course the other hidden agenda here is to get everyone to drive slower. 56mph is reckoned to be the efficient speed. Small cars can already do 60mpg at that speed.
As a Canadian remote from the electric car in California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F and its premature death-by-design) it is fascinating to watch the CARB dog and pony show from a safe distance.
It is impressive to see people pushing the envelope on thermal laws. Perhaps the next important envelopes to be pushed will have ballots in them.
You guys really look stupid. CARB dropped this early this year! No cool cars, no bans on black paint.
And who are the alarmists?
[You missed the key word “wanted” in the link. “CARB wanted to outlaw dark colored cars in California:”
Note that the link did not say “did outlaw”, “outlawed” or “implemented”. If it did, you might have a point. As it stands you are the one “looking stupid”- moderator]
Fuel efficiency is a noble goal, however the biggest reason why someone should become fuel efficient is cost saving. However the more efficient things like gas boilers become, the higher prices the energy companies put up. In the end, it’s all about profit, and the less fuel we use the more they lose in revenue. Simple really.
@Anthony: Of course everyone knows you can’t do it with traditional piston engines. They are limited by a small stroke volume. The power recovered from combustion is the Delta-PV work. Higher power cars use higher pressure, short stroke, high RPMs and a hell of a lot of fuel. You get the most work out of the first portion of the expanding gases because pressure drops so rapidly as the power stroke progresses. More efficient cars try to increase the stroke volume. But you can get a larger stroke volume if you drive the pistons with a linear drive. Here are some of the contenders:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Linear_Combustion_Electromagnetic_Engines
Engineers typically try to recover about 1/3 of the total energy produced by any power system because it’s the most cost efficient. The question is whether any of these improvements in engine technology will pay off for recovering that extra power. There is absolutely no guarantee that any of these ideas will pay off.
Another practical note is that reduced weight of vehicles coming from increased use of continuously variable transmissions and carbon fiber will also increase fuel economy to a lesser degree. I’m not an expert on these new engine concepts, but, I wouldn’t go accusing the CARB people of violating the laws of thermodynamics just yet.
I’m sick of these environmental groups having their filthy hands in every decision made these days.
If ever I’m installed as a benevolent dictator………..
Where in history did any irrational advocacy lead to innovation and advancement of science?
Rattus it’s offical, you look stupid.
[ OK, that’s one each. Now drop the name calling. -MODe ]
Ric Werme says:
December 26, 2010 at 10:55 am
Ric I used to drive Adelaide-Melbourne-Adelaide at night about once per week in my trusty old 1984 Holden Kingswood (GM) 6cyl
Most trucks would double team and tailgate each other most of the way, and cross over the median lines at bends to cut distance. I’d join in behind the second whenever I could. (too young, too dumb, so maybe the greens will go for it)
Quite scary and dangerous, I’d rather pay the extra fuel cost. (older and wiser lol)
Do remember that the US gallon is smaller than the imperial gallon, so the US is operating on a different scale other parts of the world, To gain a little more parity, maybe decimalise the foot (10 inches??), for a shorter mile.:-)
regards john r (in a very cold and white Wales)
I used to have a Chevy Sprint. I averaged at least 50 MPG ‘real world’ with just me driving it. Of course at 1,500 lbs it weighed half of what a Toyota Prius weighs.
Apparently, CARB doesn’t see the electricity used for all the hybrid and electric vehicles they are pushing as a fuel. So, the 100% electric plug-ins, I suppose would have an “efficiency rating” of an infinity mpg. Impressive.
It is my understanding that, many years ago, the US Navy set a long distance un-refueled flight record using the P2V Neptune [an anti-sub search plane] by injecting a small amount of water into the cylinders and making use of the expansion caused by the conversion of water to steam to increase (?) fuel efficiency as well as helping to cool the engine.
Questions:
Does anyone know if this is true or not?
If true has any thought been given to using that same process by the auto industry?
F. Ross posted:
December 26, 2010 at 1:33 pm
It is my understanding that, many years ago, the US Navy set a long distance un-refueled flight record using the P2V Neptune [an anti-sub search plane] by injecting a small amount of water into the cylinders and making use of the expansion caused by the conversion of water to steam to increase (?) fuel efficiency as well as helping to cool the engine.
Questions:
Does anyone know if this is true or not?
If true has any thought been given to using that same process by the auto industry?
[Attempted partial answer follows]
Injection of water and water-methanol into cylinders has been used when the engines were subjected to heavy loads to reduce or prevent pre-ignition (knocking), and I recall reading that the Crosley Super Sports (excuse any errors- this is from memory from 50+ years ago) had injection of one of those liquids to enable its then-high 10:1 compression ratio. (Tom McCahill of Mechanix Illustrated wrote that he noticed no difference whether it was used or not.)
I believe that the expansion of water sprayed into a cylinder would come at the expense of the reduced expansion of the air-fuel mixture being burned. I suspect that it would balance out to no gain.
IanM
Anthony,
Thanks for this post exposing the irrational use of science and lack of engineering thermodynamics knowledge displayed by the White House, Congress, and the CARB folks.
BTW it is not normally made clear, but the Federal requirements are that the auto get 39 mpg to allow for the fact that trucks are permitted to get less mpg. Better buy your new car before these mandates kick in especially if you have a large family or have a need for a larger vehicle, or want to drive a safe vehicle.
See Below:
“UPDATE: The NYT story is not entirely accurate, and, separately, sources tell me there appears to be a little confusion as to exactly what mpg standard is set for what class of vehicles (see below). ”
UPDATE2: The numbers appear to be 39 mpg for cars, 30 mpg for light trucks (see here).”
Also one needs to note that the additional issue ignored is that the mandated ethanol content lowers the mpg, because as you noted the ethanol only has about 2/3 the energy content. Does the unrealistic mpg standard apply with the irrational ethanol mandate especially as the EPA shoves more % ethanol upon us?
One of the most irksome aspect is that this comes from an administration that needlessly fires up Air force One for “joy” rides such as those to stop and speak for a brief short period or to sign a bill in friendly territory or use multiple planes to go on vacation or fly to Asia or Europe. I’m waiting for the MSM to report the administrations carbon footprint
The message is that we need to suffer and the “small” people will need to cram their bodies and family in undersize cars and limit their speed to circa 50 mph while the elite ruiling class ride in limos and large SUV’s.
My proposal is that this high mpg requirement be first imposed on the Administration officials and the Congress for a 5 year trial period to see how it practical it is. All government cars will be mini size, No Limo’s, Especially for those Congressmen who allow their family to abuse the use of the Government registered Escalade like the guy from Michigan.
It is a pretty well-known fact that in the ’70s, several 100+ mpg carburetors were developed (even better mileage for smaller cars), but the patents were all bought up by the big oil companies to increase their profits. As many of those patents must have expired by now, I have been thinking about actually producing some of these as retrofits for the inefficient fuel-injection systems found on most of today’s cars. I’ve tried all of the on-line patent search sites to try to find these old patents so I can copy the designs, but have been totally unsuccessful. Could Anthony, or someone else here with ties to Big Oil, tell me where to go?
[ You might not like the answer 😉 No one here has ‘ties to big oil’ AFAIK. Never seen a 100 mpg carb. -MODe ]
F.Ross – Water/methanol injection is used to reduce detonation under high loads; the Wright R-3350 turbo-compound engine in later models produced 3400HP “dry” (ie., no injection) and 3700HP “wet” with injection. This was generally only used for take-off. The P2V you refer to, “Truculent Turtle”, would not have used water-methanol injection for the entire flight since the goal was range, not climb or speed performance. Certainly getting off the ground would have been helped, but the engines would have been leaned out and then run on normal fuel with no additives. That is based on my experience (5000 hours) with big radials. I may be wrong, but I don’t think so!
Californians , allow me to recommend the human hamsterwheel as the solution to your future energy shortages. As community service( sentenced under the return to sanity act) all those, who undermined sensible energy solutions with magic thinking, imposition of insane regulation and using public money to subsidise unworkable alternate energy, will be sentenced to work off their debt to society in kilowatt/hours generated by running them on human hamster wheels connected to the grid and the rate of payback should be set at 1/3 or less of the current price/kWh as this would have been your cost without their wise help. Of course they might be running forever but that would cause me no pain. Hows that for social justice?
You almost connected the dots. The reason why they’re pushing these thermodynamically impossible “equivalent” numbers is so that they can ratchet up the mpg requirements a la CAFE, and pretend that mpge is a real mpg number for legal purposes, and eventually start forcing electrics and hybrids to displace ICE cars in order to continue to meet mpg standards.
The fact that electric mpge is a complete fiction from a physical standpoint won’t matter; the important point is that it’s completely real from a legal standpoint. The real fun starts when people start expecting to charge these things without building any new power plants. Yes, California, I’m talking to you.
[Does anyone know if this is true or not?]
Hot Rodders have been playing with all sorts of high efficient engines such as Bruce Crower’s Six Stroke which was/is a modified Diesel engine
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20060227/free/302270007
The problem with all these imposed standards is they come from people who don’t have backgrounds in automobiles, engines, mechanical or thermal engineering or sometimes reality.
Smokey Yunick developed some (seemingly) astounding in his day but had to admit on his death bed they were more slight of hand and not all that practical to use everyday.
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=78116
F. Ross,
This is well known technology,
When I studied IC Engines over 4 decades ago we injected water during the testing of actual engines under load.
Don’t under estimate the capability of the engine manufacturers who are constantly being bombarded with irrational demands from Washington. Even the oil Companies used to test auto engines to optomize the fuel.
Remember the initial EPA requirements initially killed the performance and mpg of all the engines.