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.
As a note here the question was NOT about injecting water to manage ignition (or pre ignition). The question was would using water (or some water) that would expand more then air yield any benefits? I mean we did have steam engines at one time, so expanding water in place of air is not a new concept to drive a piston.
With direct injection systems, then keeping the air + some water could be reasonable kept separate from the gas mixture that burns. So the question remains would introducing water into the air mixture (not the gas mixture) to utilize a material that expands MORE then air give any benefits? An interesting concept and I suspect there not much benefits.
However, the water could perhaps absorb more of the heat energy and thus you get more work done since less heat energy would be going out the tailpipe and more heat would get converted into expanding. That water mix would expand more then just air and thus absorb more heat and thus result in more motion.
“JDN says: December 26, 2010 at 11:29 am
@Anthony: Of course everyone knows you can’t do it with traditional piston engines. They are limited by a small stroke volume.
Here are some of the contenders:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Linear_Combustion_Electromagnetic_Engines
There is absolutely no guarantee that any of these ideas will pay off. ”
Cool stuff. Reminds me of the “Gun Engine” a chap up in BC, Canada was working on. I’ve always wondered why people limit themselves to ICE designs? The alternate one I like the most is the toroidal design. At 20 to 1 better weight to displacement than an ICE engine it is amazing stuff ( http://www.angellabsllc.com/ ).
I love your last line. The rude rocks of reality will be the downfall of many a good ship but those that can make it by will be truly amazing.
Of all the choices, diesel is the only practical alternative that could possible meet this goal, but a number of market barriers exist and continue to be added that make converting a large amount of the US transportation system now fueled by gasoline unnecessarily difficult. Regulatory barriers include emissions regulations that are unduly restrictive and high certification costs. Fuel taxes also favor gasoline. The result is low supply and high cost of diesel passenger vehicles, which naturally dampens demand. What is oxymoronic is that a proven technology exists that can significantly improve fuel mileage, but this technology is discouraged instead of being encouraged.
Porsche plans to build a plug-in hybrid. The e-engine has enough power to run the EU standard test for hybrid vehicles with a 3l per 100km (78 MPG) equivalent. If the battery is empty or the e-engine is to slow you still have the normal 700 HP engine. But the car is labeled with a consumtion of 3l 😉
Coming soon
Car of the future (deluxe model) if the Greenie Weenies get their way.
The key here is that if CARB pushes through a 60mpg standard, the true beneficiaries will be those out-of-state dealers selling to California buyers on eBay and Autotrader.
Dan in Nevada says:
December 26, 2010 at 2:28 pm
“It is a pretty well-known fact that in the ’70s, several 100+ mpg carburetors were developed”.
It’s not at all difficult to get extra MPG of an engine. Honda has managed to get engines to run with an A/F ratio of 60-1 compared to the standard 14-1.
What gets hard is to manage the heat dissipation with the materials we have to work with or manage the NOx emissions.
Various manufacturers have played around with ceramic engines for decades. The result tends to be the same, a small crack in the ceramics develops and the engine self destructs.
There isn’t lot of point from a manufacturers standpoint in rushing an engine made of ‘new materials’ to market. The Chevy Vega was one of the first aluminum block engines and enjoys infamy as one of the all time POS cars to have ever been built.
Hence,’miracle ideas’ tend to get shelved as soon as ‘reliability’ concerns come up.
Various ‘backyard inventions’ tend not to be so miraculous when the engine is disassembled after a few thousand miles.
It is going to get worse in California before it gets better. If you have ever entertained thoughts of moving here, you are too late, you missed it.
Moonbeam is going to utterly destroy this state but I believe that is the goal of the “progressive” movement. The idea is that you create such a complete and utter disaster that the people have no choice but to turn everything over to Govt. to sort out.
[… Never seen a 100 mpg carb. -MODe ] That’s because of the patents – duh! OK, for the record, my last post was sarcastic/ironic. More seriously, I’m pretty convinced that regulatory mandates (e.g. CAFE) are uniformly destructive and divert wealth away from activities that would actually benefit humankind. Free markets have been unfailing in producing technologies and bringing them to market at precisely the time they are needed and with very little disruption (to the masses, anyway). “Planned” technologies, such as ethanol, rarely pan out. It’s likely that the technology that displaces fossil-fuel fired internal combustion engines will slide in smoothly with very little fanfare and , in retrospect, will be seen as obvious and inevitable.
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.
————-
I don’t believe that there is a tight relationship between engine thermodynamic efficiency and distance travelled. Higher MPG figures have been demonstrated.
However i agree that 60MPG is a really big ask for consumer transport.
PNL in Richland WA did a scoping study of electric and gas electric hybrids a few years back (~2005 I think). They found that the threshold for gas hybrids using the existing grid was around 5% of the market.
Remember too that this was before significant wind power was deployed here in WA and the resultant drain to the power grid.
PNL’s study (paid for with DOE tax dollars) was not well received – and was quickly forgotten.
Dan in Nevada says: “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.”
It isn’t a fact. It’s thermodynamically impossible for a normal weight passenger vehicle to approach 100 mpg with a gasoline engine, unless you drive it over a cliff.
“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?”
Don’t waste your time, Dan. There’s a reason you haven’t found the patents: They don’t exist.
Injecting water for anything other than anti-knock is not productive. The heat of vaporization that is absorbed from the combustion goes out the exhaust and is wasted.
Dan in Nevada says:
December 26, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Well, I don’t have ties to big oil, and I think it a little odd that you only want answers from those who do.
Then again, you probably don’t want my answer….
Intellectual property is protected in two different ways.
The patent system is part of the US Constitution. Someone with a non-obvious idea can get protection to use his invention, but has to make the details public. Conversely, he can keep the invention as a trade secret and unpatented. He does have legal recourse to people who steal it and harm the owner’s value from the trade secret (the formula for Coca-Cola and KFC’s spices are oft-mentioned trade secrets.
If the patents exist, then they’ve been public all these years, and very likely made into some collection on the web. If you can’t find it, then you may want to consider the stories are urban legends and look into taking a few thermodynamics courses.
Don’t forget that one reason for changing to fuel injected engines was to better control fuel mix and combustion. So you might also broaden your search and look for those 100 mpg fuel injectors that must be out there.
I refurbed a snow blower carburetor once and was left with the distinct impression that there is magic in carburetor design. I don’t know how many people understand it, but I suspect most of them are retired now. The last car I had with a carburetor was a 1976 VW Rabbit. The next year a service bulletin was released that described changes that allowed the car to run clean enough without a catalytic converter to meet the EPA rules of the day.
Ian L. McQueen
Aviator
Don Shaw
Albert Kallal
Thanks to all for your interesting responses. I guess the “final” answer may be that the process was, overall, not much benefit.
harrywr2 says:
“The Chevy Vega was one of the first aluminum block engines and enjoys infamy as one of the all time POS cars to have ever been built.”
The Vega failed because of bad management. When aluminum blocks overheat, they do bad things. Like warp, and leak oil all over. The Vega came with a postage stamp radiator (cheaper) and suffered the consequences. It worked for a year (amazing that the warranty ran out just then) I replaced the dinky cooler with a great big one early on and had no problems. The space in front of the radiator even had prestamped cutouts. So someone thought about this at one point. If other people hadn’t run into me (4 times) the car would have lasted longer.
Do not mistake corporate stupidity and greed for bad technology. Bean counters can destroy anything. Government do-gooders will destroy anything left behind.
Wucash says: December 26, 2010 at 11:13 am
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.
The problem there is the fact that the utilities are forced by the regulators to use natural gas instead of coal for new capacity, We are now in competition with the power company for our gas, which raises prices. Think of it as your contribution to a cleaner environment. Feel better?
Yeah, me too.
F. Ross says: December 26, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Ian L. McQueen
Aviator
Don Shaw
Albert Kallal
Thanks to all for your interesting responses. I guess the “final” answer may be that the process was, overall, not much benefit.
We used water injection in the C-123K for takeoff, P&W R-2800 engines, 60 inch manifold pressure as I recall. The useful product in combustion there is the pressure rise, not the temperature, so turning some of that heat into steam gave more power and lower cylinder head temperatures.
The early B-52 models and all the KC-135 tankers used water injection for takeoff. In addition to the pressure rise, the idea with jet engines is also exhaust mass. Water injection both cooled the exhaust and added mass. It was a maintenance nightmare, though, especially in northern bases where you had to download the water when there was a chance of freezing. In cold temperatures, the jets produced enough thrust you didn’t need the extra boost.
Yes, I always proofread for missing </i>’s after pressing the “Post Comment” button.
I think its time all the car companies refuse to sell in California.
Call their bluff.
“Cars” in mileage competitions routinely achieve 1000 miles per gallon equivalent, or more. Shell Oil Company sponsors an annual competition for this. (see link).
It appears that CARB, or their favored consultants, honestly believe that cars not only can, but should achieve such mileage.
A few facts. The ultra-high mileages typically are achieved by a combination of things. Such things as very low weight; low wind resistance (low drag); low speed; lots of coasting with the engine off; direct drive without transmission; oil-lubricated bearings; reclining driver position to promote low wind resistance, and others.
Such vehicles are not suitable, nor legal, on the highways because they do not meet minimum safety standards. Shell addressed this issue some time back and created a category for “urban concept.” These cars achieved 433 mpg with a “street buggy” in the 2009 competition. Even so, 433 is a big improvement over 25 mpg of today’s average cars.
There is also a competition known as the X-prize for cars that achieve 100 mpg or better. see this link: http://www.xprize.org/news/automotive-x-prize-seeks-100-mpg-car
I think the real goal of the green movement is to promote laws that require manufacturing only cars that people will not drive a lot. I’ve been known to hop on my Harley and ride to the other side of the US just to have some beers with friends. Imagine how many people drive cars all over the place for less trivial purposes. The most efficient cars will be useless for more than a few hundred miles per trip. People who wish their kids to see the US by car will be disappointed like those kids in the UK that will never know snow. We saw a hint of this in the cash for clunkers program what was such a great success for off-shore auto manufacturers.
Perfectly good cars were destroyed along with the value they had in the economy. Guess, anyone, how much pollution was created in the making of their replacements.
When one political party has a monopoly you get a crazy world.
Water/methanol injection is used in aircraft IC engines to cool the induction air to provide a denser (more oxygen) charge similar to intercoolers used now. It’s a simpler fix than intercoolers. Engines can run a higher boost pressure before preignition or destructive detonation and produce more power.
Race engines (unsupercharged) produce 10 to 15 more horsepower than gasoline because of the cooling power of methanol. But methanol has significantly less energy density than gasoline and gives horrible mileage.
Those still knocking “Dan in Nevada” might want to read his 4:31 PM comment (or re-read his original comment, which is quite clearly humorous).
From the x prize:
“That much is certain, if the X Prize group’s own survey is accurate. The contest organizers conducted a poll and found that 52 percent of Americans believe there is a conspiracy between car manufacturers and oil companies to deprive consumers of technologies that produce high fuel economy.”
This speaks to a serious mis information problem created mostly by the MSM and a few crazy Senators and Congress persons with media support.
If they were honest they would point out that only a small portion of oil production is controlled by the US Companies and most is controlled by Government owned companies.
Also does any intelligent person seriously believe that all the energy starved countries in the world would allow the USA auto/oil companies to withhold technology from their economy that would provide greater efficiency transportation vehicles. Doesn’t Japan design most of the US vehicles? How much longer can they lie about the laws of Thermodynamics?
It’s the same progressive anti capitalist mantra that convinces the public that it is the US oil giants that can control the prices that China, India, etc pay for crude every time the price goes up.
How many times have we heard this lie from Senators from the left without the MSM even questioning the power of US oil companies over China etc .
Keep in mind that they have more engineeers than we do!!
Finally have you noticed that the price of gasoline has gone up over a dollar/gal. under Obama, which is about 50%. Does anyone believe that the policy of choking off US oil exploration/production is a factor in oil prices?