Ford Makes a Case for Ethanol and Methanol Blends

[Bill USA]

http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2012/04/09/ford-makes-a-case-for-ethanol-and-methanol-blends/

A team of researchers from Ford Motor Company are asserting in a paper published in the journal Fuel that “substantial societal benefits” would arrive for consumers by using higher volume blends of ethanol to leverage the alcohol’s inherent high octane rating to produce ethanol-gasoline blends with higher octane numbers.

~~
~~

Higher octane ratings in fuel blends would enable greater thermal efficiency in future engines through higher compression ratios and/or more aggressive turbocharging and downsizing of current engines on the road today through more aggressive spark timing under some driving conditions.



Ford is making the case, with a hard scientific, peer reviewed, repeatable study what racing folks, hot rodders, engineers, and smart consumers with high compression engines have known for years.

~~

Ford suggests that the societal benefit comes from automakers having an opportunity to improve their engines to a higher compression ratio. The compression ratio is a comparison of the volume of the open cylinder to the cylinder volume when the piston has squeezed the cylinder to the smallest volume. The same amount of fuel and air squeezed into a smaller space sets up a more energetic fuel burn that equals more mechanical energy out and less heat lost.

<more>

High octane number ethanol–gasoline blends: Quantifying the potential benefits in the United States

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236112002268

J.E. Andersona, D.M. DiCiccob, J.M. Gindera, U. Kramerc, T.G. Leoned, H.E. Raney-Pabloe, T.J. Wallingtona

a Systems Analytics and Environmental Sciences Department, Research and Advanced Engineering, Ford Motor Company, PO Box 2053, Mail Drop RIC-2122, Dearborn, MI 48121, United States

b Sustainability, Environment & Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Company, One American Road, Dearborn, MI 48126, United States

c Powertrain Research & Advanced, Research and Advanced Engineering Europe, Ford Motor Company, Spessart Strasse, D-ME/5-B8, D-50725 Cologne, Germany

d Powertrain Research & Advanced, Research and Advanced Engineering, Ford Motor Company, PO Box 2053, Dearborn, MI 48121, United States
e Powertrain Engineering, Ford Motor Company, 1500 Enterprise Drive, Allen Park, MI 48101, United States

Received 11 October 2011. Revised 7 March 2012. Accepted 11 March 2012. Available online 23 March 2012.


Abstract

Ethanol provides a significant contribution to road transportation fuel in the US, Brazil, and elsewhere. Renewable fuels regulations in the US and EU imply that ethanol use will continue to increase in the near future. The high octane rating of ethanol could be used in a mid-level ethanol blend to increase the minimum octane number (Research Octane Number, RON) of regular-grade gasoline. Higher RON would enable greater thermal efficiency in future engines through higher compression ratio (CR) and/or more aggressive turbocharging and downsizing, and in current engines on the road today through more aggressive spark timing under some driving conditions. Such an approach would differ from the current practice of blending ethanol into a gasoline blendstock formulated with lower octane rating such that the net octane rating of the resulting final blend is unchanged from historical levels.

Developing scenarios of future ethanol availability, we estimate that large increases (4–7 points) in the RON of US gasoline are possible by blending in an additional 10–20%v ethanol above the 10% already present. Keeping the blendstock RON at 88 (which provides E10 with ∼92.5 RON), we estimate RON would be increased to 94.3 for E15 to as much as 98.6 for E30. Even further RON increases may be achievable assuming changes to the blendstock RON and/or hydrocarbon composition. For example, an increase in blendstock RON from 88 to 92 would increase the RON of E10 from 92.5 to 95.6, and would provide higher RON with additional ethanol content (e.g., RON of 97.1 for E15 to 100.6 for E30). Potential CR increases are estimated for the different estimates of future octane number, including the effect of increased evaporative cooling from ethanol in direct injection engines. For the ethanol and blendstock RON scenarios considered, CR increases were estimated to be on the order of 1–3 CR-units for port fuel injection engines as well as for direct injection engines in which the greater evaporative cooling of ethanol can be fully utilized. Impacts to the fuel refining and blending sector and transition considerations are discussed. While additional work is needed to quantify and optimize the costs and benefits for both the automotive and refining sectors and for consumers, it appears that substantial societal benefits may be associated with capitalizing on the inherent high octane rating of ethanol in future higher octane number ethanol–gasoline blends.

....adding methanol to the mix is a real game changer. We currently make a lot of methanol and could readily expand production (no technical hurdles to be cleared here). Methanol can be made from coal, natural gas, lumber waste, agricultural waste.

This is why the oil industry has been so fanatically opposed to ethanol. THey know that using ethanol will lead to the question: "why not just add methanol to the ethanol blended with gasoline, and reduce oil dependency even more..and relatively quickly." We could make enough methanol to take a much bigger bite out of gasoline consumption. This would be quite a short term blow to the petroleum industry. Although, in the long run petroleum is used in so many products their business will do fine. But in the short run if we started adding methanol to the ethanol for blending with gas, and the plans were to keep adding methanol, investors would abandon oil industry till the stock prices readjusted (downwards).

[farmbo]

1. Big Oil's worst nightmare: a homemade,renewable drop-in fuel

They will be flooding this thread with bogus "carbon footprint" arguments in 5 minutes,

[Bill USA]

3. 50 billions gallons of methanol from current forest and agricultural residues

combine that with current 14 billion gallons of ethanol and you've got 64 billion gallons or about 46% of our current fuel consumption - if used in cars with engines that took advantage of the higher octane of ethanol and methanol (e.g. turbocharging).


Methanol as an alternative transportation fuel in the US: Options for sustainable and/or energy-secure transportation


this would keep the price of oil from rising and taking down our economy (slow-to-no growth, very low job creation).


..methanol made from natural gas? who knows how much. Probably could replace gasoline entirely.

using 5% of our domestic naturall gas production could provide 10 Billion gallons of methanol per year. 5% of our domestic coal production would proovide 10 billion gallons of methanol per year.

http://www.dailyenergyreport.com/2011/01/why-methanol-is-a-reliable-transportation-fuel/

add that to our ethanol production and what ag and forestry waste could provide in methanol and you'd be at 84 billion gallons. Roughly 60% of our current gasoline consumption - if used in an engine that took full advantage of ethanol-methanol's high octane property.

[NickB79]

4. It's a good thing that crop and forest "residue" isn't needed

To do important things like resupply soils with vital nutrients, preventing them from becoming nothing but sand and rock over time. So burn away at that "residue"!

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

2. A lot of reading but very interesting.

bookmarking...

[hunter]

5. Not again... we've been there, done that.

Whenever natural gas is much cheaper than oil, then the oil and automobile industry start to talk about methanol.

It's cheap and easy to make methanol from natural gas, and whenever natural gas is much less expensive than gasoline there's a strong incentive to use it as a gasoline additive. Like adding chalk powder and water to milk.

The first time this experiment was carried out, in the late 'seventies and early 'eighties, it was a catastrophe. Methanol is corrosive and it's a polar solvent. It ate away some of the metals and seals commonly used in fuel systems of that era. It ate holes in service station storage tanks.

I had an old Toyota that choked on the stuff. I did the repairs myself, painfully, and was careful to use 100% gasoline after that.

So there were all these plants making cheap methanol out of Canadian natural gas, and the oil companies were adding it to cheap low octane gasoline and making lots of money but damaging their customers' fuel systems.

The oil companies then had a brilliant idea (better living through chemistry) and they started converting the methanol to MTBE. They called it a "clean air" additive and used it much as ethanol is used now.

MTBE was less hazardous to the fuel components of older engines and everything was fine until we started seeing it in groundwater and surface waters like Lake Tahoe. The stuff liked to travel. Spilled gasoline moves slowly. Spilled MTBE diffuses rapidly through aquifers and surface waters. Cleaner air perhaps, but dirtier water...

Next stop, ethanol... Surprisingly ethanol is more toxic to aquatic life than methanol, but by the time of this switch the EPA was paying much more attention to leaky service station tanks and such.

So now we want to go back to methanol?

I despise the car culture and I'd love to see private automobiles limited to 10kw engines, but that's not going to happen. Nevertheless there are better synthetic fuel options than methanol. Dimethyl Ether (DME) is one of these. It's easy to make from coal or natural gas, it's an excellent diesel engine fuel, and it's similar in it's handling characteristics to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG "propane&quot .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_ether

[poopfuel]

6. totally correct until

you got to the part about ethanol being more toxic to aquatic life than ethanol.

Completely wrong and unsubstantiated.

Ethanol spills have never been shown to have anything more than minor impact on aquatic life. Unlike oil. Or any fossil fuel.

Quite right about methanol, however.

[hunter]

7. Microbes, not fish.

It's microbes that degrade spills of ethanol or methanol. Both alcohols are degraded rapidly in comparison to gasoline.

It's also possible I mis-remembered this as "aquatic" environments when marine now seems more likely, since last I studied the issue the subject was ocean transport.

Ethanol:

Rainbow trout: LC50 = 12900-15300 mg/L; 96 Hr
Phytobacterium phosphoreum: EC50 = 34,900 mg/L

Methanol:

Rainbow trout: LC50 = 13-68 mg/L; 96 Hr.;
Phytobacterium phosphoreum: EC50 = 51,000-320,000 mg/L

Gah, don't make me find the original source of this. I tried google and it was a huge echo chamber.

[poopfuel]

8. Sea life is extremely tolerant of pretty much all alcohols

Even methanol causes only localized damage to marine life. Despite being far more toxic.

[hunter]

9. Sourced...

Methanol:

A. Toxicity to Aquatic Organisms

Methanol has low acute toxicity to aquatic organisms; lethal
concentrations are much greater than 100 mg/L. Ninety-six
hour LC50 values for fish are 28,100 mg/L for Pimephales promelas
(fathead minnow), 20,100 mg/L for Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow
trout), and >28,000 mg/L for Alburnus alburnus (bleak) (AQUIRE
1994). Forty-eight hour LC50 values for Cyprinus carpio
(common carp) and Carassius auratus (goldfish) are 28,000 mg/L
and 1,700 mg/L, respectively (AQUIRE 1994). Growth inhibition
occurred for 4 strains of Anabaena (blue-green algae) over a range
of EC50's of 2.57-3.13% for 10-14 days (AQUIRE 1994). The LC50 for
Artemia salina (brine shrimp) is >10,000 mg/L in 24 hours and that
for Culex restuans (mosquito) is 20,000 mg/L in 18 hours
(AQUIRE 1994).

http://www.epa.gov/chemfact/s_methan.txt

It contradicts the number I posted above for Rainbow trout... interesting.

[Bill USA]

10. Beyond Oil and Gas, the Methanol Economy - George Olah (nobel prize, Chemistry 1994)

http://desertec-uk.org.uk/articles/methanol_synthesis.pdf

[NickB79]

11. I read through his proposal. Frankly, it sucks

To break it down:

-Short-term, convert natural gas into methanol.

-Mid-range, mine methane hydrates (which Mr. Olah thinks are relatively stable) for methanol generation.

-Long-term, use renewables to generate electricity to generate hydrogen to then react with atmospheric CO2 to finally produce methanol.

As has been pointed out, alternatives like DME are a far better liquid fuel replacement than methanol in the short term. Further out, it's INSANE to mine methane hydrates for energy, because a) we now know they are not nearly as stable as Mr. Olah believed, and b) this will add GIGATONS of carbon to the atmosphere even if everything goes according to plan. Finally, the long-term idea to generate hydrogen and then convert it to methanol is highly inefficient compared to just using the electricity directly in all-electric vehicles.

[Nihil]

12. Don't worry, it'll surface again ... and again ...

It doesn't matter how many times such things are pointed out to John (oops, "Bill&quot ,
his only purpose is to plug ethanol & methanol.

Anyone suggesting the mining of methane hydrates should be shot as they are obviously
set on suicide but at least this way, they don't take everyone else with them.

[Bill USA]

13. actually, using natural gas, coal and agricultural and forestry wastes could provide enough

Last edited Thu Jul 26, 2012, 07:43 PM - Edit history (1)

methanol which combined with ethanol and used in the MIT designed Ethanol (or alcohol) enabled Direct Injection engine would provide a major reduction to gasoline consumption.

Actually, a study by two researchers at University of California, Berkeley, concludes we could make enough ethanol (this study wasn't looking into methanol) to meet 30% of the surface transportation needs. A study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory a few yrs back concluded much the same thing.

But if your convert the 30%, predicated on a fuel efficiency ratio for ethanol to gasoline of .6575, to a volumetric measure of the ethanol production, that gives you 46% of the surface transportation fuel needs (if used in engines that take advantage of all that OCTANE in ethanol, and methanol).

Used in the MIT designed Ethanol (or methanol) enabled Direct Injection engine you would get a 68% reduction to gasoline consumption if all the cars on the road were powered with the Ethanol enabled Direct Injection engine. I'd be happy with 68% reduction. At an esitmated marginal cost of $1,000 to $1,500, adoption would be much quicker than for hybrids and PHEVs.

but if you added methanol, which can be produced cheaper than ethanol, we could be talking about something like 80% to 95% reduction. With methanol, your talking about much bigger reductions to gasoline consumption.

I realize this causes considerable anxiety to anybody connected with the oil industry. This is the reason the oil industry has been so fanatically opposed to ethanol. They're afraid once we start using ethanol, somebody is going to say: "hell, if we can use ethanol, we can use methanol and REALLY cut into gasoline consumption!" It's doable.

Of course, I'd be interested to hear of your better alternatives - that don't take 20 yrs to realize say 20% reduction of gasoline consumption (i.e. hybrids and PHEVs) .... in case you hadn't noticed ...WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

[NickB79]

14. Coal, natural gas and ag/forest "wastes": All idiotic materials to use

We all know the damage burning fossil fuels like coal and gas have already done to the environment. Even nat. gas, the "green" fossil fuel, is now being found to be far less environmentally friendly than once thought due to the methane release and water contamination associated with fracking.

And as I already told you in post #4, there is no such thing as agricultural and forestry waste. It's valuable organic matter that is vital to maintaining soil fertility. Converting this "waste" into fuel would rapidly deplete soils to the point they would be rendered incapable of supporting significant plant life. It's the biological equivalent of strip-mining the land.

As for alternatives, I don't have any, because there aren't any. We're going to experience a global crisis, mass extinction, and the die-off of most of humanity over the next century no matter what we do. Trying to maintain our current unsustainable system as long as possible by any means necessary, like you're suggesting, will only make the crash all the more destructive to the planet's ecosystems in the end. All we can do now is try to ensure that enough low-impact technology and knowledge survives, and enough resources are left, to allow a much smaller, hopefully wiser human population to survive and prosper past the 21st century.

[Bill USA]

15. let's not be sophistic here, multiple studies have shown you can remove a portion of agricultural

waste and still keep enough on the ground to maintain soil fertility. One can do this in a sustainable way. Your asssertion that you cannot take any of the waste off is not consistent with the research on this.

Also, are you saying forestry waste can't be touched? Really now. There are tons of it generated at mills and paper products plants all over the place.

well, if you say there is not any alternative I'm surprised you're up to 'preaching' doing nothing.. Maybe you have given up, but that doesn't mean others should stop trying.

using methanol would reduce GH emissions vs using gasoline, (even if made from coal and natural gas )- although the reduction would not be as great as using agricultural and foresty waste which would be recycling carbon. the relenllessly rising price of gas could be stopped by using methanol + ethanol and this could save our economy from a petroleum cost induced long term depression of the economy and job growth. If we can save the economy that will put us in a better position to deal with GW and invest furher in the more expensive technologies like hybrids and PHEVS.

given your fatalism & apathy...

"As for alternatives, I don't have any, because there aren't any. We're going to experience a global crisis, mass extinction, and the die-off of most of humanity over the next century no matter what we do."

...... I'm surprised your taking time to post your pessimism on the web. Seems like you'd be jumping off the nearest bridge.... unless, you're a variety of those guys who like to walk around carrying signs: "the world is coming to an end!!". In either case you've made up your mind and anything I would say won't make any difference.

I myself, have grave doubts that we will do what we need to IN TIME TO MAKE ENOUGH difference. Nevertheless, I still feel I need to point out practical ways of fighting Global Warming - even in the face of evidence that shows humans are too stupid to take action soon enough (and there are even [font size="3" color= "red"] those [/font] who arent even willing to try).

Giving up is a way to make sure we burn up the Earth.

[NickB79]

16. Look up how much topsoil we're already losing from standard farming practices

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/The-lowdown-on-topsoil-It-s-disappearing-1262214.php

"Globally, it's clear we are eroding soils at a rate much faster than they can form," said John Reganold, a soils scientist at Washington State University. "It's hard to get people to pay much attention to this because, frankly, most of us take soil for granted."

The National Academy of Sciences has determined that cropland in the U.S. is being eroded at least 10 times faster than the time it takes for lost soil to be replaced.

The United Nations has warned of worldwide soil degradation -- especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where soil loss has contributed to the rapidly increasing number of malnourished people.

We're losing 1% PER YEAR. Not per century or per decade, but per year. That's a massive amount of biomass being washed away every year, while more and more human mouths clamor for food. And you think we can afford to take MORE biomass from the land, when we've already shed thousands of years worth of accumulated soils from key food producting areas of our planet in the past century or two? If it weren't for cheap synthetic fertilizer manufactured from non-renewable natural gas to keep the soils productive, we'd already be living a Malthusian nightmare of mass starvation and global collapse.

When we figure out a way to just maintain topsoils while producing food, then maybe we can talk about also using them for fuels. But as it stands, even if we don't expand biomass consumption from current patterns we're looking at a global catastrophe.

And on top of all that, you never even addressed Dr. Olah's insane idea to mine methane hydrates. Oy vey.

[Bill USA]

18. farmers in U.S. are moving to low-till, no-till practices. Also crop rotation helps with

soil retention/viability.


http://www.mendeley.com/research/life-cycle-assessment-of-corn-grain-and-corn-stover-in-the-united-states/

Life cycle assessment of corn grain and corn stover in the United States

by Seungdo Kim, Bruce E Dale, Robin Jenkins

No-tillage practices offer higher accumulation rates of soil organic carbon, lower fuel consumption, and lower nitrogen emissions from the soil than the current or conventional tillage practices. Planting winter cover crops could be a way to reduce nitrogen losses from soil and to increase soil organic carbon levels.

No-Till: The Quiet Revolution
http://research.wsu.edu/resources/files/no-till.pdf

Of the top five countries with the largest areas under no-till, the U.S. ranks first, followed by Brazil, Argentina, Canada and Australia.
....In the U.S., roughly 41 percent of all planted cropland was farmed using conservation tillage systems in 2004, compared with 26 percent in 1990.

Maize and Soy beans grown in rotation acts as a Carbon sink:

Carbon budget of mature no-till ecosystem in North Central Region of the United States
Steven E. Hollinger a,*, Carl J. Bernacchi a,1, Tilden P. Meyers b,2


http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/papers_PDF/%5B35%5D.pdf

Abstract
"Accounting for 100% grain consumption, maize still acts as a C-sink of 184 g C m2 per year while soybean becomes a C-source of 94 g C m2 per year. As these two crops are grown in rotation, the system when accounting for all emissions to the atmosphere is a net sink of 90 g C m2 per year. Overall, however, the potential exists for long-term carbon sequestration."

Crop Residue Removal For Biomass Energy Production: Effects on Soils and Recommendations
http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/sq_atn_19.pdf

To be sustainable, residue must only be removed when soil quality will not suffer as a result. In some regions the combination of crop, management practice, soil, and climate work together to produce more than is needed to maintain soil health. In this case, excess residues could potentially be used for conversion to biomass energy. However, for many other cropping, soil, and climate combinations (especially in warm regions), residue production is inadequate even for basic soil protection (Parr and Papendick, 1978). It is important to discern in what systems residue harvest is possible, or even beneficial, and at what rates (Table 3).

Again, it is not a simple "yes" or "no" proposition as you like to make it seem. With farmers moving to low-till and no-till cultivation techniques soil quality is being better protected and residue removal is enhanced - but should not be done blindly. It is not advisable in all cases. But if monitoring is done in many areas it is can be done sustainably. Again, it's not an "all or nothing" proposition.


[font size="3"] Of course the above considerations apply to agricultural residue. Timber industry waste is a different matter and is vaste. [/font]

I'm always suspicious of those who speak in absolutes.

[NickB79]

17. I'm not preaching that we "give up." I'm preaching not to burn the furniture to keep the fire going

You are the one who's truly given up on humanity if you think we should throw every last resource we have, every ounce of topsoil, every therm of natural gas, every last fish in the ocean, at a system that's so topheavy and unsustainable that it is bound to collapse no matter what we do. If we followed the path you advocate, we'd delay the collapses a few decades at best. Then, with an extra 2 billion people on this planet from today's numbers, the ensuing battle for resources would be even bloodier and uglier than ever. The world left for the survivors would be so impoverished of resources that even the basics of clean water and fertile soil would be in short supply, much less anything needed to run some form of higher-technology civilization.

What I'm advocating is that we look further than our own noses, to try to ensure there's a future for our grandchildren and beyond. That even after this civilization comes apart at the seams, there will be a world left to rebuild upon and tools left to do the rebuilding.

You can keep trying to turn the Titanic even after it's hit the iceberg, but I'm not naive enough to think we can keep this ship afloat. Instead, I'm thinking of stocking lifeboats and getting as many people onto them as possible for after the ship goes down.

[Bill USA]

19. I can only get interested in practical solutions, not religious discussions.