42% Efficiency in Internal Combustion Engines using neat alcohol - EPA (2003)

[JohnWxy]

http://www.epa.gov/oms/presentations/gni-mjb-051303.pdf#page=5">Ethanol-Gasoline Blends: Fuel Economy and Emissions Benefits, Matthew Brusstar, U. S. EPA, Presented at the SAE Government and Industry Meeting in Washington, D.C. May 13, 2003

Results of Neat Alcohol Fuel Testing

● Fuels Tested: Ethanol (E100), Methanol (M100)
● High Efficiency
● 42% peak efficiency
● >40% efficiency down to 6-8 bar BMEP
● High Specific Power
● >20 bar peak BMEP (turbocharged)


This research was done with 100% ethanol (and methanol). As you reduce the percentage of ethanol (or methanol) the efficiency falls but still exceeds that which can be achieved with gasoline only.

The point is, it is widely known (EVEN WITHIN THE EPA) you can get better perfomance out of a high octane fuel (versus gasoline) using a higher compression (which can be achieved with turbo-charging or super-charging) engine. This would translate into comparable or better mpg, with downsizing of the engine.

The MIT ethanol enabled direct injection engine achieves 30% better mpg, but uses only 5% ethanol and 95% gasoline. The ethanol is injected directly into the combustion chamber. Thus with a supply of ethanol equal to 5% of the total fuel supply you could supply the ethanol needed to fuel all the cars on the road using this MIT DI engine. In 2009 the ethanol produced was approx 7.3% of the total fuel supply.

This has already been demonstrated. The reduction in gasoline consumption (and GHG emissions reductions) could begin immediately. But the Government has to more aggressively support - with either direct Government loans or Government secured loans and tax incentives - and facilitate gas stations installing more tanks for holding E85 fuel. (of course gas stations owned by the big oil companies aren't too motivated to facilitate the advancement of ethanol even if it meant GHG reductions in the near term - rather than waiting 15 years to get appreciable reductions from hybrids, and 20 years from PHEVs & electric cars).


The MIT engine costs about $1,000 to $1,500, additional, to produce. This translates into a payback period of 3 to 4.4 years @ $2.70/gal gas; 2.3 to 3.4 years @ $3.50 gasoline. When Global Warming is accelerating, GHG reductions NOW are worht more than GHG reductions achieved (hopefully) in 20 years.

If we are serious about reining in global warming, we should be doing EVERYTHING that is feasible to reduce GHG emissions. Especially those things that produce results sooner than later (as well as cheaper).