pint sized car engine promises fuel economy comparable to Hybrid @ 1/3rd to 1/4th the cost.

[Bill USA]

Here is an article about a highly turbo-charged direct injection engine using ethanol (5% ethanol, 95% gasoline) that was developed by MIT scientists and which Ford Motor company has invested in. The engine would cost about $1,000 extra to build (compared to typical ICE) and gets ~30% BETTER mpg than an ICE of comparable power.

Seems like if we want to get results QUICKLY re GHG reduction and reduced consumption of imported fossil fuel this engine would be just the ticket (until hybrids and PHEVs are on the road 'in numbers').

http://www.physorg.com/news81007203.html

These small engines could be on the market within five years, and consumers should find them appealing: By spending about an extra $1,000 and adding a couple of gallons of ethanol every few months, they will have an engine that can go as much as 30 percent farther on a gallon of fuel than an ordinary engine. Moreover, the little engine provides high performance without the use of high-octane gasoline.

Given the short fuel-savings payback time--three to four years at present U.S. gasoline prices--the researchers believe that their "ethanol-boosted" turbo engine has real potential for widespread adoption. The impact on U.S. oil consumption could be substantial. For example, if all of today's cars had the new engine, current U.S. gasoline consumption of 140 billion gallons per year would drop by more than 30 billion gallons.

"There's a tremendous need to find low-cost, practical ways to make engines more efficient and clean and to find cost-effective ways to use more biofuels in place of oil," said Daniel R. Cohn, senior research scientist in the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment and the Plasma Science and Fusion Center (PSFC).

~~
~~

The ethanol-boosted engine could provide efficiency gains comparable to those of today's hybrid engine system for less extra investment--about $1,000 as opposed to $3,000 to $5,000. The engine should use less than five gallons of ethanol for every 100 gallons of gasoline, so drivers would need to fill their ethanol tank only every one to three months. And the ethanol could be E85, the ethanol/gasoline mixture now being pushed by federal legislation.(more)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the drawbacks of hybrids and especially PHEVs (of which we now have 1, the Volt) is their cost. This slows the acceptance by the public. The Turbo-charged direct injection engine at about $1,000 extra cost would be a much easier 'reach' for most people so the acceptance would be much faster.

ONe of the drawbacks of ethanol is that we can only make about 43% of our total fuel supply (60 billion gallons according to Oak Ridge National Laboratory) but since this engine only uses 5% ethanol, this would mean if every car on the road was using this engine it would take an ethanol supply of 5% of the total fuel supply to power these engines. That would get you a 23% reduction in total fuel consumption ((1/1.3)= .77 then: .77-1= .23). This would leave 39% of the ethanol supply (43%-4%=39% used for direct injection engine (.04 = .77 x .05 - required by the Direct Injection engine)) which could be used to displace gasoline. So the total reduction in gasoline use would be 23% (reduced fuel consumption) + 39% (displacement of gasoline by ethanol) = 62% reduction of gasoline consumption.

[yurbud]

1. existing cars lines could borrow the ''idle off'' feature of hybrids

with a slightly stronger battery and starter. That's one of the ways hybrids get better mileage in stop and go traffic than traditional engines.

There are a couple of other tech fixes that aren't rocket science like using composites that are lighter and stronger than metal that Detroit refuses to retool to do.

[truedelphi]

2. That sounds about right.

<sigh>

[txlibdem]

7. Idle-off is also called Stop-Start in auto industry parlance

Most "experts" say that it would bring between 5% and 10% fuel economy improvement, perhaps even as high as 20% in heavy city traffic. And let's not even mention the reduced smog and pollution if all vehicles were either electric vehicles or ICE vehicles with stop-start.

Here's a blogger who says it'll give a 17% boost to fuel economy.

Stop-Start Idle Elimination - Slashing Fuel Consumption By Up To 17%

by John Petersen

...

Stop-start is not a complete solution to the fuel efficiency challenge, but it is the lowest and juiciest fruit on the conservation tree. Is it any wonder that industry analysts are predicting that stop-start systems will be built into 20 million cars a year by 2015?

The most common question on articles that discuss stop-start systems is, "if stop-start is so important, where are the automakers' press releases touting the technology?" The answer is simple. Stop-start will not normally be offered as a stand-alone option and will usually be bundled in packages like the EfficientDynamics system from BMW that has begun to attract praise from the mainstream media. More importantly, stop-start may be optional equipment for a couple years, but it is almost certain to become standard equipment because there is no compelling reason to waste fuel while waiting at a stop-light.

http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2010/05/stopstart_idle_elimination_slashing_fuel_consumption_by_up_to_17_1.html
(note: this article ends by hawking stocks and I disagree with his assertion that a NiMH or Lithium Ion battery would be too expensive for start-stop)

The interesting part of the article is a chart that shows the improvement in battery life when using a battery AND an ultra-capacitor in combination! That's one of the things Amory Lovins has touted and upon which I agree with him.


/edited to add: Here's a 2005 report from NREL that compares and contrasts different battery chemistries for stop-start:
http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/energystorage/pdfs/38484.pdf

[yurbud]

9. ultra capacitors get around the charging time problem of batteries. how much do they cost to go the

same range?

[txlibdem]

10. Too much! They will only be used in conjunction with batteries

Ultra-capacitors have a great ability to charge and discharge at high current without suffering long term damage. Batteries do not like this kind of thing at all, high current draining will shorten battery life.

Here's the solution:

+ Ultra-capacitors to be used for stop-start in ICE engines and for regenerative braking in both ICE and electric vehicles.
+ Batteries in an electric vehicle to be used for maintaining speed and some light acceleration.

Doing it this way will increase the battery life of electric cars and allow auto makers to use a slightly smaller battery pack because it does not have to take the brunt of acceleration and deceleration events.

The size of the ultra-capacitor does not have to be huge, less than a kilowatt, versus the battery (in an EV) which should never be less than 20 kilowatts and will eventually reach 50 kilowatts and on up to 75 or even 100 kilowatts for long range driving.

http://www.chargecar.org/
... and ...
http://pdf.directindustry.com/pdf/maxwell-technologies/ultracapacitors-and-the-hybrid-electric-vehicle/16729-48004.html

[yurbud]

12. good info--thanks!

[txlibdem]

14. Sorry, slight correction to my above post

Ultracapacitors, aka Supercapacitors can be used in electric cars both for regenerative braking AND to provide the high current needed for acceleration.

Both regen and acceleration are high current events that batteries just do not like. Ultracapacitors/supercapacitors love that kind of thing.

Batteries love to hold onto energy for a long time and dole it out slowly --ultracapacitors hate THAT kind of thing.

They work in symbiosis, each doing the task that they do best.

The video at the carcharge.org site I linked to above (somewhere between 15 minute mark and 35 or 40 minutes) says (as I recall) that their trials resulted in an optimum size of ultracapacitor: their test vehicle had a 24 kilowatt hour battery pack and 50 watt hour ultracapacitor.

That's right, 50 watt hours only because it's going to give up all its charge during acceleration and receive a full(ish?) charge during regenerative braking. So there is a limit to how big you have to make the ultracapacitor in order to get the best return on your investment and best ease the burden on the battery pack.

[Bill USA]

13. added to this ethanol direct injection engine you'd get a 47% increase in mpg!!

The engine itself would yield a 32% ((1/1.47)-1= -.32) reduction in gasoline consumption, with the additional ethanol used to displace gasoline you would come to a total reduction of gasoline consumption of 70%!!

Adding Stop-Start feature would add some cost, but the impact looks huge on gasoline consumption and still at a price considerably less than hybrids (and especially PHEVs) - which again, means quicker adoption by car buyers. Even with Stop-Start ignition set-up this would still probably come to only about one third the cost of a conventional hybrid.

If we are concerned about energy dependency and Global Warming I would think speed of adoption would be of great importance.

[JohnWxy]

15. THis is even more of a gas consumption savings than I have been estimating! This engine is kindof

amazing. But what's just as amazing is how little attention it has gotten. I mean the engine uses only 5% ethanol with 95% gasoline to get 30% BETTER gas mileage for about one fourth the cost of a standard hybrid!!

We already are making more than enough ethanol to supply all the cars on the road (if they were all equipped with this engine) with enough ethanol to make this engine a practical reality (although, many more ethanol blender pumps would need to be available).

Every approach I have seen to reduce gas consumption and GHG emissions has involved a much higher price tag to get adopted. With the $1,000 to $1,600 marginal cost this engine promises a much more rapid adoption rate than the more expensive options. IF time is of the essence (and it is) you would think this engine would be getting much attention at the DoE.

The MIT professors formed a start up with Ford MOtor Co. in 2006 to make this engine.

Startup Working to Commercialize Direct Injection Ethanol Boosting + Turbocharging

The thing that does not seem to have sunk in with anybody is that because 1/20th of fuel burned in this engine is ethanol that means the 23% reduction in gasoline consumption (and 23% reduction in GHG emissions vs gas in typical ICE) results in 20 times the GHG emissions reduction for the ethanol, or a 460% GHG reduction vs gasoline used in typical ICE. Compare that with the 26% reduction for Ethanol usually quoted by DoE!

This is how to take FULL advantage of the benefits of the fuel ethanol.

[truedelphi]

3. K & R. n/t

[Old Codger]

4. Not sure

About cost but turbines can run on almost any fuel.... Peanut oil, corn oil, alcohol.... also some states use 10% ethanol in their gas now, I know Oregon does...

[Mopar151]

5. Turbines aren't very efficent - especially at light/no load

But they do have their niche - Volvo is working on a city delivery truck that's an electric drive hybrid, while the small turbine spins a generator at a constant speed - allowing the turbine to be optimized for that speed. Ghost quiet, multi-fuel, would be great to power large, truck-mounted equipment.

[Old Codger]

6. Ok

Thank you, I always wondered why they have not been used more....I also heard they were slow response too.

[happyslug]

8. The old Joke about Turbines, they have two speeds, Fast and Off

Thus in hybrid would be the ideal engine, when on, excess power goes to charge the batteries. Thus the turbines disadvantages are minimized.

In jets the engines tend to be used at maximum efficiency, with some power left over for faster speeds. Most additional speeds for Jet engines are obtain through the design of the inlets (Inlet design is critical for jets, jet engined can NOT burn air going faster then the speed of sound, so the inlets MUST slow the air flow down in supersonic jets, after burners are used to go supersonic, i.e. shooting additional fuel into the exhaust to provide more power).

The SR-71, the first three times the speed of sound spy plane, something like 2/3 of its speed was obtain via the inlets, that is why such jets are expensive to make and maintain compared to Commercial Passenger jets, which do not go near the speed of sound (The Concorde was one of the exceptions, but like the Russian SST, never made any money, i.e operated at a loss).

The other big users of Gas Turbines (for that is what a Jet engine is) are helicopters, again expensive to operate and maintain, but liked in Helicopters for the engine are light and fuel efficient if operated at peak levels, which most are, the copter is either up in the air or on the ground NOT running). Hovering is good in a Helicopter, but even that tends to take almost all of the power of the engine (which was why the gyro-copter was so popular before WWII, simpler, more fuel efficient but needed a short runway to take off and land, much slower then a conventional plane but even today has a niche where he Gyro-copter is one of the more popular designs in the ultralights planes).

Just comment on why and how gas turbines are efficient. You just have to operate them at or near maximum speed to get that efficiency. A small gas turbine could provide all the power most people need in a hybrid when we remember the main purpose of an engine in a hybrid is to charge the batteries and for that purpose the gas turbine is ideal.

[Kennah]

11. Look! A rabbit!

[JohnWxy]

16. here's the original paper by MIT's Cohn, Bromberg and Heywood:

http://web.mit.edu/mitei/lfee/programs/archive/publications/2006-01-rp.pdf">CALCULATIONS OF KNOCK SUPPRESSION IN HIGHLY TURBOCHARGED GASOLINE/ETHANOL ENGINES USING DIRECT ETHANOL INJECTION


"The calculations presented here show that direct ethanol injection could greatly alleviate
the knock constraint in boosted spark-ignition gasoline engines. The knock suppression
results from both the higher octane rating of ethanol and the effect of the evaporative
cooling from the direct injection. Evaporative cooling has a much larger effect than the
higher octane rating. The increased knock resistance could be used to allow an increase in
the manifold pressure by more than a factor of two. It could also be used to increase the
compression ratio. The increased knock resistance could allow engine operation at much
higher levels of turbocharging, specific torque and power than would otherwise be
possible. Engines could potentially be downsized by a factor of two and the drive cycle
efficiency could thereby be increased by approximately 30%. The amount of ethanol that
is required could be less than one gallon for every 20 gallons of gasoline."

[JohnWxy]

17. sorry, HERE's the original paper on the Direct Injection Ethanol Boosted Engine

http://web.mit.edu/mitei/lfee/programs/archive/publications/2005-01-rp.pdf">Direct Injection Ethanol Boosted Gasoline Engines: Biofuel Leveraging For Cost Effective Reduction of Oil Dependence and CO2 Emissions

"The DI ethanol boosted gasoline engine concept could provide a cost effective way to
meet near term goals of reducing gasoline consumption and CO2 emissions by 30 percent.
The fuel savings payback time for the increased vehicle cost of approximately $600 could
be about 2 years. The energy output/energy input ratio for ethanol could be effectively
increased from a presently estimated value of 1.67 to a much greater value. The DI
ethanol boost gasoline engine concept could lead to a substantial increase in the use of
ethanol and help to facilitate the market penetration of this renewable biofuel."


"The most recent estimate for the energy output/input ratio for ethanol (energy provided
by the ethanol divided by energy needed to produce the ethanol) is 1.67.3 For the
illustrative case discussed above, the ethanol energy contribution could be effectively
increased by a factor of 4.6 which is the ratio of the leveraged energy output value (3.2
gallons) to the substitution energy output value ( 0.7 gallons). In this case, the energy
output/input ratio would be 7.5. Hence the economic value of ethanol could be greatly
increased. In addition, in contrast to the case where ethanol is blended with gasoline prior
to use in the vehicle (the way ethanol is presently used in the U.S.), in DI ethanol boosted
gasoline operation, it is possible to use ethanol that is not completely dewatered. This can
significantly reduce the cost of ethanol. Moreover, ethanol boosting could allow the use
of lower octane gasoline than would otherwise be the case, thus reducing gasoline costs."