An Opportunity for Maximizing Transportation Energy Conservation
The best measure of energy conservation occurs when the vehicle, the fuel, and the refinery are considered as a system, and the impact of various combinations of these is evaluated in terms of miles of transportation attainable per barrel of crude. When this is done, potential savings in fuel consumption are greater than by any other approach, and warrant very serious consideration. In contrast, choice of the wrong option could seriously restrict the number of vehicles that could be produced and operated if crude oil availability should become limited.
Texaco Inc. has completed an evaluation of the optimization of vehicles, fuels and refinery processing, and its impact on energy conservation. In it, a number of engine-fuel combinations were considered. Among these were gasoline engines using leaded and unleaded fuels, diesel engines and future gas turbines. Additionally, an engine providing the fuel economy of the diesel, having no octane or cetane requirement, and operating on a 100–650°F broad boiling range fuel was included. Such an engine was represented by the direct injection stratified charge (DISC) engine.
The results clearly showed that the greatest energy penalty would occur if the manufacture of cars requiring unleaded gasoline is continued, while the DISC engine and its fuel offered the largest potential saving.
KeywordsDiesel Engine Fuel Economy Gasoline Engine Catalytic Converter Transportation Fuel
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.“A National Plan for Energy Research, Development and Demonstration: Creating Energy-Choices for the Future,” United States Energy Research and Development Administration, Volume 1, ERDA-48, June 28, 1975.Google Scholar
- 3.P. E. Oberdorfer, “Compression Ratio, Emissions, Octanes and Fuel Economy — Experimental Study,” Paper No. 60–72, API Division of Refining, 37 th Midyear Meeting, May 11, 1972.Google Scholar
- 4.Clayton LaPointe, Ford Motor Company, “Factors Affecting Vehicle Fuel Economy,” Paper No. 730791-, SAE Combined National Farm, Construction, Industrial Machinery and Fuels and Lubricants Meeting and Manufacturing Forum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, September 11, 1973.Google Scholar
- 5.L. E. Furlong, E. L. Holt and L. S. Bernstein, Esso Research and Engineering, “Emission Control and Fuel Economy,” American Chemical Society, Los Angeles, California, April 1, 1974.Google Scholar
- 6.“Gasoline Saved Equals Crude Conserved,” Air Conservation Notes Number 75–1, Ethyl Corporation, January 1975.Google Scholar
- 7.“Statement of Rudolf Uhlenhaut, Director, Passenger Car Development-Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft,” Before the Panel on Environmental Science and Technology Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution — U. S. Senate Committee on Public Works, March 14, 1972.Google Scholar
- 8.H. W. Barnes-Moss and W. M. Scott, Ricardo & Co., Engineers, Inc., “The High Speed Diesel Engine for Passenger Cars,” The Institution of Mechanical Engineers Conference on Power Plants and Future Fuels, London, England, January 21–22, 1975.Google Scholar
- 9.“Emissions from Diesel and Stratified Charge Power Cars,” EPA-460/3–75–001-a, United States Environmental Protection Agency, December 1974.Google Scholar
- 11.H. Hagan, P. Kuhlmann and A. Urlaub, “M.A.N. Activities in Power Plants for the Future,” Paper No. c36/75, Conference on Power Plants and Future Fuels, The Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London, England, January 21–22, 1975.Google Scholar
- 12.W. T. Tierney, E. Mitchell and M. Alperstein, Texaco, Inc., “The Texaco Controlled-Combustion System — A Stratified Charge Engine Concept — Review and Current Status,” Paper No. C1–75, The Institution of Mechanical Engineers Power Plants and Future Fuels Conference, London, England, January 21–22, 1975.Google Scholar
- 14.Karl J. Springer, Southwest Research Institute, and Ralph C. Stahman, Environmental Protection Agency, “Emissions and Economy of Four Diesel Cars,” SAE Paper No. 750332, 1975 Automotive Engineering Congress & Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, February 24–28, 1975.Google Scholar
- 15.Mineral Industry Surveys, United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Petroleum Product Surveys, No. 75, No. 76, No. 78 and No. 79.Google Scholar
- 16.Mineral Industry Surveys, United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Petroleum Statement, Annual Crude Petroleum, Petroleum Products and Natural Gas Liquids: 1972.Google Scholar
- 17.OH and Gas Journal, Annual Refining Issue, April 2, 1973.Google Scholar
- 18.Oil and Gas Journal, December 25, 1972.Google Scholar
- 19.National Petroleum News Factbook Issue, Mid-May, 1973.Google Scholar
- 20.Minerals Yearbook, Vol 1, United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1972.Google Scholar
- 21.“Refinery and Petrochemical Modeling System,” Software Systems, Bonner and Moore, Houston, Texas.Google Scholar
- 22.1973–74 Automobile Facts and Figures — Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc., Detroit, Michigan.Google Scholar