This is Trees's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Trees's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Trees
Recent Activity
I thought EV would never out preform the ICE. That thought was correct. But, it dawned on me that it doesn't have to. Reading up on Ford predicament and how they are managing finances to survive the future, it reads like car companies will grind down to staple status. Meaning the glory days of gasoline, burning rubber, and understanding the complexity of the combustion process are over. The emotional connection with auto's is over. Were entering an age whereupon just about any company could produce the electric drive from an amazon order. The electrification of the drive train components and battery power is forging component standardization. Meaning the only difference in car models will be the sheet metal and interior layout. Every car will utilize the same drive components. It's like the early days of PC construction. They all use the same hardware. Competition will be on clever software and rider friendliness. It looks like the consuming public won't even concern themselves with purchasing a car. So, this economic sector about to implode with hardly a markup in profit. Very boring vehicles that all look alike. Countries with lowest burden rates will predominate per lowest cost. Think of Walmart auto shopping. Tesla and the rest goodbye. I want to save a hundred bucks on the China version.
Ethanol isn't a good compression ignition fuel, but better than diesel or gasoline for high compression engines. The Mazda approach, lean burn, RCCI and the rest may prove to work well with ethanol or ethanol blend? Blended fuel appears to be the future of fuel. Some still like the dual fuel concept. Electric drive cars will be very attractive in future, but battery power storage for primary energy needs may have a big challenge from hydrogen and fuel. My guess a simple mechanical gas car will be very cost competitive and have low maintenance, high resale, with minimal tail pipe emission if operating on high ethanol blended fuel. We did read on GCC that interests in investing in alternative power is dwindling. We read no breakout technology for battery power. Diesel fueled heavy trucking is the concern presently for pollution and cost of EPA compliance. Ethanol fuel and natural gas appears to me to be the common sense alternative.
They invented the ability to expand ignition of lean fuel with spark ignition. The HCCI operation zone is so limited. If X technology is out of the lean burn zone they have to quickly enrich mix and operate conventional SI, hence the quick reacting air supply. So, diesel like performance within a limited range and the "X" technology can improve efficiency in some operational parameters. I still go back to E85 engine that Cummings engineers developed for the mid level van. They optimized the engine for E85 fuel. The combustion pressure 2x of diesel. They downsized to 1/2 displacement engine to get similar torque. As you know ethanol exhibits fast flame speed and requires spark ignition at almost any compression ratio. Also, the fuel is naturally lower in production of NOX since the fuel chemically contains oxygen. This E85 engine boost had to be limited per engine strength. Nonetheless the engine easily met CA standards with conventional cat technology. A special high PSI spark plug developed. The engine had great torque and great HP. IOWs the best of both diesel and SI engine technology. Field test bested or met gpm of plain gasoline engine comparison in all but the lowest load requirement. Also, diesel beat mpg of E85 engine, but cheaper fuel leveled the fuel cost per mile. This is good since the E85 engine required no high pressure injection equipment, expensive pollution equipment, and weighed half as much. Engineers also noted that their testing indicated a jump in performance with 100% ethanol. IOWS if engine strengthened to maximise benefit of utilizing E100 fuel their analysis indicated improve engine efficiency more than linear. Engineers also noted a turbo air cooler was not utilized that would have improved their test results. So, in general the fuel would fit high torque demands of trucking better than current diesel and solve the dirty tail pipe emissions problem of diesel. My guess this test was very corrosive to business as usual politics and quickly shoved under the mat.
Per my Industrial Engineering past practice, I would think battery power and recharge for metro delivery trucks would be highly attractive. Also, automation of much smaller "vans" carrying cargo drop packages that minimize multiple delivery trucks. This would occur at late night and early AM to minimize traffic congestion and increase speed of delivery. Store personnel would be responsible for stocking once again. This would be akin to garbage dumpster logistics.
The AAA report brings up some interesting questions. First maintenance is not that costly anymore at least the maintenance attributed to ICE only. Fuel is costly, but automotive continues to improves performance of ICE and hybrid technology. Also, plug in electric power is not paying fair share of road tax yet. The largest cost of car ownership is the initial investment. Until batteries become cheaper then engines the battery car suffers a disappropriate cost here. The killer cost of car ownership is depreciation, insurance, cost of interest, taxes, licenses, insurance. So much expense tied up with the initial cost of vehicle. Other costs fixed and not a factor of comparing vehicles. The cost information would suggest to me that those that purchase a vehicle want the best bang for investment buck more so than peak MPG. They will spend big bucks on vehicle and want value on the front end or luxury and appeal if enduring the purchase tag. Fuel costs should level out. Also, pollution concerns should level out given the impact ethanol and technology will have. Grid power efficiency per tail pipe emissions are not as clean as some hybrids running conventional fuel. My guess the grid will take for ever to improve. The grid will improve slower than our car vehicles, so we should not conclude battery car is superior solution. Also, electric cars are a misnomer. It means little as most cars utilize electric power, hybrids use more, and future cars may be powered by electric drive as a replacement for mechanical drive. We should limit comparison of fuel to grid powered batteries, hydrogen fueled battery, or liquid fueled ICE. Electric doesn't mean much. It is a given that transportation will utilize more electric power within the drive components. We need to instead talk of fuel comparisons. Where the car gets its energy to operate. Also, grid power is a misnomer for auto fuel. Electricity like hydrogen is just a carrier of power. The ICE is a generation plant under the hood. The battery car is just a fuel tank under the hood. The battery car is just a reflection of fuel or energy consumed within the grid. The grid has plenty of problems.
Yes, there may be a day of reckoning unless the industry can come up with cheap, lighter, and much more powerful batteries that last for the cars lifespan. True that zealots will and now will afford BEVs and mostly chose per the desire to refuel at home. But for the industry to dislodge the ICE a miracle battery must be invented. Car companies don't know either and continue to invest in all technologies. Most believe the hydrogen fuel cell is the optimum battery that will dislodge the ICE. Indicators are pointing to that end.
—De Kleine et. al and many others debunked the John DeCicco assumptions. His science is bought and paid for. He has made a living with such skewed analysis. This time his assumption is farmers would plant with or without ethanol so plant carbon conversion should be eliminated from the analysis. Funny on the other end EPA calculates that if farmers plant corn for ethanol they will tear down rain forests and arrive at a -22% carbon penalty for the myth. I remember on anti ethanol analysis wherein the scientist assumed farmers would uproot young forests. Then the analysis attributed 100 years of tree growth elimination to the cost of ethanol.
I doubt the last gasp description of oil industry. The industry will get more competitive. Consumers will gain another choice for energy needs. Light vehicle owners may economically chose to go battery car if it suits their needs. Also, families may keep their 4x4 for rough weather or off road adventure. Air pollution will be a draw. Modern ICE vehicles have ultra low pollution not that far from grid pollution. Ethanol is rated -34% carbon with the phony +22% ILUC hit. Ag department analysis says ethanol will be over -70% in 2020. So, modern hybrids vehicles on par with grid power. Read that Mazda had a model that operated on diesel cycle with gasoline. +30% efficiency gain. Expect biofuel to continue nip at the heels of petrol as well as efficiency gains.
Auto companies aren't even sure which technology will win out in the future. To many variables. ICE and emissions technology is improving at a rapid rate. Fuel is improving carbon rating thanks to ethanol and biodiesel. The ICE may be the low cost energy source for the future. Also, the car may pollute no more than EC. I think we may see hybrids that obscure exactly what to call the vehicle. Taking a bit of each technology to lower cost and improve performance. The grid has many problems. Very slow and costly to improve. So, this energy source is not the win win solution as often touted. Hydrogen has more going for it as the long term solution. The gas has low distribution costs. This energy carrier is superior to wires and electric grid. The piping system solves the problem of remote wind remote hydro, and remote geothermal. It solves the energy storage problem of the grid and the complex problem of power to production balance. It's a universal energy carrier much superior to natural gas. All energy systems fit nicely within hydrogen. Hydrogen could be utilized to improve the grid and it will, but in the end the grid could be replaced. Meaning we would not have hydrogen light bulbs or AC but we would have fuel cell electricity. The end user would probably have an assortment of energy sources for the task such as batteries, fuel cell, and solar. CHP systems in the mix for efficient heat and power production. FCEV technology has a wide birth of technology improvement horizon. In past auto companies were frustrated with such rapid improvements as the target moved so fast no reason to invest with production. Only lately has the technology matured to make this production per generation of technology possible. Manufacturers don't see such large improvements as compared with battery car. While batteries will definitely stay the work horse for maximizing efficiency they probably won't take over transportation. It will be interesting how much EV's can improve, but they have critical problems that limit their popularity. But the auto people are not discounting the solution. Most think a percentage of population will always prefer a vehicle they can refuel at home.
Oh, my friend in HS had a magnesium boat. A small row boat type that flew with small outboard. No corrosion, but no steel either. Since aluminum is utilized in boating, magnesium works well and better than stainless steel. I worked for a company that made stainless steel boat brackets for marine industry. They found out their brackets caused galvanic corrosion on outboards and quietly left the business.
Automotive currently utilizes magnesium. They have learned better organic coatings and better assembly practices to prevent corrosion. It's not as simple as preventing steel corrosion even though high quality magnesium in salt spray tests do better than steel by factor of seven and better than aluminum by a factor of three. The problem is galvanic corrosion with steel. The assembly has to have water drainage and air gaps when close to steel. Aluminum is o.k. and a good material to utilize as washers on bolts if connecting steel and magnesium.
Diesel fuel engine may not be the optimum for country side either. Cummins E85 bested diesel fuel engine by 2x torque therefore the engine was downsized. Emissions of E85 optimised engine are drastically lower and fuel cost is low as well. The fuel cost per mile was equal or better than diesel engine. No expensive high pressure fuel system required nor expensive exhaust treatment system. Ethanol is capable of much more torque than diesel and with a lighter less expensive engine. Cummings bult an optimized mid weight van for commercial market, but the deep state politics axed the venture. Time to drain the DC swamp.
Supply chains are developing new electrified products for vehicle markets. The entire industry is in the throes of best value for customer wants. Cheap cars probably will remain plain gasoline technology. More expensive cars will be hybrid that offer better performance, quality, and economy. The mild hybrid approach, wherein the customer gets the biggest bang for the buck will dominate "electrified" car sales. To that end the industry is in a development stage. The Prius style hybrid probably not the ideal as the cost and size limitations. The Nissan Note interesting technology, hybrid turbo, 48v systems, and the lower weight materials. It does look like a transition is occurring to maximise the benefit of heavy weight expensive batteries to maximize ICE efficiency and lower emissions. The majority of customers want fast refueling and minimal driver responsibility. I do believe the most popular vehicle will exploit the strengths of technology to complement vehicle operation and lower purchase cost. Grid power may lose attractiveness. Of course doubling up on venture risk is the hydrogen fuel cell, natural gas, biofuel, and the ever improving autonomous, solar cell, ICE technologies. It may well be were within a transportation revolution. Public transportation will definitely be a loser. Even air transport.
Biofuel is renewable and electric power has a large pollution footprint. Double this for for international community. The internal combustion engine is improving at a faster rate as compared to power production improvements. Hybrid technology is complementary to ICE and both work in tandem to maximize benefits of each other. The sum total of improvements to date by improving the ICE is multitudes above the battery car and the trend will continue for the foreseeable future. Biofuel processing plants can capture low carbon power and produce a conventional renewable fuel with very low carbon footprint and do so with low cost. This may be the best/easiest path forward to tune up the transportation sector to lower emission foot print. There is really no down side. Biofuel feed stock provides a unique opportunity within the natural carbon cycle to turbo charge carbon capture. For example mature forests offer no carbon sinking as the older trees die off. Same for threat of forest fires and insect damage. Biofuel will convert and pay for optimal forest growth per modern forestry practices that turbo charge tree growth, lower fire threat, improve timber quality, and can be managed to maximize wild life habitat. Biofuel provides a unique opportunity for desolate third world countries to convert poor or barren land to production. To improve trade deficits, improve agriculture profession, to improve wildlife and environmental impact. Poor countries need the opportunity.
A very good return on investment. Not that expensive either. So, I read the Chevy Bolt extra cost can't be justified by fuel savings. The light vehicle market will make incremental (5% compound) improvements upon the most cost effective technology. It appears battery car is not that economical, but mild hybrid technology is. Cars will get lighter, more aerodynamic,expensive, more reliable, with less maintenance. The ICE still maintains its dominance and that is a good thing, given the engine is providing a better solution. We would be less off if Environmentalist got their way and utilized government fiat to rule over the economy. That somehow these people have better thinking skills? The same can be said of all simplistic solutions, even the wind, solar, coal, nuclear, hydro and the rest ratings per environment. Given the light trucks will benefit the most as they are consuming more fuel. A Prius MPG improvement will mean little. Cheaper batteries will improve efficiencies, computer technology will improve/power efficiencies, and better fuel will improve carbon efficiency. Reading this post would not instill confidence within investing in oil futures. I've already read the fleet efficiency of vehicles is a factor upon oil supply. We already have known reserves of petrol that will more than supply markets for decades. Yes, more vehicles on the planet, but the fuel consumption of petrol may still slide given the improvements. Light duty battery car will have a place and will gain in popularity for sure. Breathing down the necks of coal and petrol supply market future is the hydrogen fuel cell and the massive capability of solar energy to power it. Japan is harvesting sea bed methane crystals and the potential for that energy supply may be enormous. I think everyone by know must feel confident that the world will not run out of energy. Remember those doomsday authors that claimed society will crash.
Yu Jun, president of GAC Motor captures the state of the future for light duty vehicles. Have you gotten tired of all the buzz on EVs? Read this article to understand the challenges.
The new administration has been supportive of ethanol. It looks like some petrol influence attempted to maximise their influence, but failed. The next best step for ethanol is to allow E15 to be sold year round. This step will allow consumers to experience savings and learn to disregard the petrol shill posters saber rattling. The internet is full of them.
This is an example where EPA regs fail within common sense. If they chart the best bang for the regulation buck, both for consumer, manufacturer, and their cost they would go to low mileage vehicles. Meaning have minimal regs on high Mpg vehicles. They don't pollute much. Savy. Let the regulations be the penalty for suffering low mileage and the bait for high mileage.
If U.S. could change out the labor force when needed the robots could make a big difference within competition. Problem may be Union fist a cuffs to prevent change.
I haven't read any concerns of the supply of hydrogen. The tack of R&D opens the window as well as regenerative power. Yes, currently it is cheaper to obtain hydrogen from natural gas as the gas does contain a good portion. Even coal and wood combustion has considerable hydrogen stream. Catalyst technology is really progressing. Read the CU catalyst post above that grows single crystal CU 600x larger than what was possible. They are headed in a direction to commercialize the CO2 to ethanol process. That would make the ethanol process plant CO2 free and up production of ethanol.
The future is not entirely battery car. Electrifying cars and drives already in the mix for future cars. Supplemental battery power and energy storage is popular. However, powering entirely on battery power will still suffer slow marker penetration. The improved battery will not be a transportation disrupter. It's has high value and an option, but it has serious limitations as well. Some who can adapt to the cars limitations and desire to refuel within garage will be the primary owners. Biofuel can be dialed up with green energy inputs to a negative carbon fuel. So, the battery car could easily lose that advantage. ICEs are becoming more efficient than grid power generation plants at least the steam turbine ones and the gas turbine ones that have to adjust to grid production of power. A steady state ICE utilized as range extender would be extremely efficient and compliment the battery car weakness. The engine may become standardized, low maintenance, cheap, and easy to recycle. This article mentioned the generator option. Hybrid technology will become incredibly cheap and easily to justify per mild hybrid. The exhaust turbo generator will improve efficiency. Not an option with battery car. The current excitement of disruptive energy platform that appears to be very capable. Hydrogen. The technology continues to improve with lower cost and better reliability. The hydrogen economy could solve the weakness of renewable energy problem being non dispatchable. The renewables may just skip the electrical production altogether per the problems of electricity. The hydrogen industry experts/analysis are more bullish than any point within hydrogen history. It looks very good.
The '92 Tech report is out of date. The refueling emissions slide show is ok, but VOC emissions from petrol's entire supply chain is the concern as well. Yes, ethanol at low percentages will increase vapor pressure and lower vapor pressure with higher percentages of ethanol. The ethanol blend stock is cheaper then plain gasoline as ethanol is a cheaper octane boost. Also, plain gasoline has needed an oxygenate per EPA regulations to decrease emissions. Historically, ethanol has been utilized for this. EPA dropped the regulation as the base fuel for the country is now E10. Lower cost of fuel is the direct result of ethanol blended into gasoline. That fact remains constant in favor of ethanol blends. Ethanol has a running tally on the fuel savings. E15 is 3-5 cents per gallon cheaper yet than E10. E30 is the hallmark for a great low ethanol blend fuel. Great price and a great for eliminating the fuel bottleneck upon engine efficiency. The fuel is also that much more renewable and environmentally friendly. Also, that much less expensive. Its' race fuel petrol competitor sells for 2x more and suffers horrible emissions. Since stock car racing has converted to E15 fuel the track has better air quality. This per personal opinions of race fans.
A large portion of VOCs are generated by petrol supply chain. For example, remember the oil tankers that were blowing up? The fracked oil contains a larger than normal percentage of volatile gases that bubble up after experiencing rail transport shock, heat, and low pressure. They have to vent gases before unloading. The gasoline supply chain is extremely long and at every juncture emitting VOCs. Compare this to, quite often a very short supply chain for E85. My processor transports E85 directly from the plant, maybe a 100 mile radius at maximum. The VOCs of E85 are minimal. Also, blender pumps could solve a ton of supply chain VOCs. The petrol industry does produce a large quantity of low vapor pressure gasoline. This subpar grade will eventually need the addition of ethanol to make a quality fuel. So, petrol could lower their RVPs within their fuel supply chain, thus minimizing VOCs. The fueling station has a tank of ethanol or E85 and low vapor gasoline. The customer can select their ethanol content at the pump and their octane boost. This is just common sense and a point you would think the EPA would have jurisdiction. Nope, they are buffeted by politics and money. Indeed a storm of concern to quell, and as a result suffer to much compromise and ineptitude. Better to do nothing as not to PO the powerful (mostly political). The political are greased with money, so petrol gets what they want. They want their "premium" fuels at the pump. Oh, and these have the highest VOCs. So, who is working/representing who?
I read the VOCs are a bigger problem, also. I think it was for health, not GHG? Gasoline vapor rated a potent carcinogen. Again this begs the question, why isn't the EPA pushing high ethanol blends. E85 RVP is but a fraction of gasoline. I guess this still brings us back to the fuel is the problem. When changing a fuel pump, I always run a tank of straight E85 before hand to limit explosive limit of temperature/fumes. It is amazing the clean air smell and minimal fumes as compared to raw gas. The seasonal boutique blending of fuels and refinery changeover would be a thing of the past if utilizing high ethanol blended fuel. Since, electrifying our vehicles will reduce fuel consumption, may it be time to develop the E100 engine and rely on renewable fuel that is a superior grade for power, health and the environment. I would hope so and it makes sense even for high torque truck engines. The tail pipe emissions of higher ethanol blends are indeed less toxic as compared to plain gasoline. Urban Air Initiative has been pushing for higher blends of ethanol for years. They have been hot on the trail of EPA per their test reports with petrol test fuel. I guess they haven't learned to utilize real world testing yet, despite the diesel debacle. Best I could tell, EPA let petrol brewed up a test fuel for their testing use as their is no standard chemical formulation for gasoline, so petrol came up with a their own recipe and supplies that test fuel with rock solid formulation. It looks like the brew is concocted to maximize the emission if ethanol is present. The bad emissions are generated by petrol, but it looks as if ethanol is the bad actor. Urban Air's independent testing with real consumer fuel disproves the EPA test results and provides data on what the tricky is. This is but one such post. Their does seem to much unholy alliance within the EPA and petrol. The agency seems to have factions. http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2017/04/02/urban-air-initiative-to-crc-why-not-use-real-world-fuels-in-your-emission-tests/
Etoh, it is a simple molecule, is it not? What is the chemical molecule for gas or diesel? Ethanol has an inherent advantage with lower NOx as a portion of the fuel is liquid oxygen. This is better than relying on 100% air with 78% nitrogen for NOx. Gasoline and diesel suffer with varying compounds that do vary from well head to well head and upon the technology or operation parameters of the refinery. In early days gasoline was so crude it was dangerous and unpredictable. Standard Oil technology greatly improved the consistency and quality of petrol fuel, but the variances are still huge when attempting to minimize tail pipe emissions per consistent process. Benzene has a big influence upon BC and that portion is totally up to the refinery that attempts to crack and blend to highest profit margins. I just read an article that claimed corn ethanol by its self could double production if allowed to do so and motorist could chose desired ethanol blends. On GCC they published the news on a new consortium established to achieve technology for improve test results within the area of improving fuel. They believe a mix, probably with mid level alcohol blends will greatly improve the emissions and efficiency of ICE. The fuel is the problem.