Advertisement

Matching Future Automotive Fuels and Engines for Optimum Energy Efficiency

  • R. F. Stebar
  • W. A. Daniel
  • A. R. Sapre
  • B. D. Peters

Abstract

In the future, if fuels from different sources (oil shale, coal, nuclear, biomass) are to be used in automobiles powered by current and alternative engines, we must be concerned with minimizing the overall energy expenditure for converting primary energy sources to power at the wheels. It is recognized, however, that many other factors, including environmental concerns, economics, and politics will have strong, and perhaps overriding influences on the final decision about which fuel-engine combinations should be and will be utilized.

This paper is concerned with only those issues which are involved in optimizing the overall energy utilization efficiency of automobiles. In turn, this efficiency depends on four intermediate efficiencies:
  1. 1.

    Resource acquisition efficiency,

     
  2. 2.

    Resource conversion efficiency (into various fuels),

     
  3. 3.

    Fuel distribution efficiency (from producer to consumer), and

     
  4. 4.

    Fuel-utilization efficiency (by the automobile).

     

Only the second and fourth factors were investigated because they play the major roles in determining the overall energy utilization efficiency. The efficiencies associated with resource acquisition and fuel distribution are generally high compared with the other efficiencies.

The conversion efficiencies for obtaining potential automotive fuels (mainly various liquid hydrocarbons and alcohols) from the primary energy sources were estimated from a critical review of the literature. The compatibility of each of these fuels with current and alternative automotive powerplants was examined with emphasis on fuel combustion quality (octane or cetane number), volatility, and impurities (sulfur, nitrogen, and ash). Powerplants considered include: conventional spark-ignition and diesel engines; stratified-charge engines; and steam, gas turbine, and Stirling engines.

Estimates of the fuel-utilization efficiency of these engines should be based on vehicle data for comparably sized vehicles having the same exhaust emission levels and having similar performance. These data are not available for most of the alternative automotive powerplants. Therefore the concept of optimum energy utilization is illustrated with an example using data from conventional spark-ignition and diesel engines. Based on this comparison, the overall energy utilization efficiency appears highest with fuels from petroleum, followed by fuels from oil shale, coal, biomass, and nuclear.

To apply this approach to all alternative fuels and engines in order to firmly conclude which combinations are the most energy efficient, improvements in the data bases are required. The efficiencies of converting energy resources to fuels must be established with greater certainty than heretofore possible, the properties of the fuels obtained must be determined, and the fuel-utilization efficiency of automobiles powered with various fuel-engine combinations must be measured. These last measurements must be made with the fuels and engines in automobiles of comparable size, performance, and exhaust emissions.

In addition, future studies are justified for those fuel-engine combinations currently deemed incompatible, but with potential for greater energy utilization efficiency than compatible combinations.

Keywords

Diesel Engine Alternative Fuel Fuel Property Spark Ignition Engine Automotive Fuel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. F. Chapman, “Energy Costs: A Review of Methods,” Energy Policy, June 1974.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. H. Williams, Editor, “The Energy Conservation Papers,” Bollinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1975.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. H. Kant, et al., “Feasibility Study of Alternative Fuels for Automotive Transportation,” Vol. I, II and II, EPA-460/3–74–009-a, b, c, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Michigan, June 1974.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Pangborn and J. Gillis, “Alternative Fuels for Automotive Transportation — A Feasibility Study,” Vol. I, II and III, EPA-460/3–74–012-a, b, c, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Michigan, July 1974.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. L. Nelson, “Guide to Refinery Operating Costs,” The Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1970.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. T. Tierney, E. M. Johnson and N. R. Crawford, “Energy Conservation Optimization of the Vehicle-Fuel Refinery System,” SAE Paper No. 750673, Fuels and Lubricants Meeting, Houston, Texas, June 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. H. Kant, A. R. Cunningham and M. H. Farmer, “Effects of Changing the Proportions of Automotive Distillate and Gasoline Produced by Petroleum Refining,” EPA-460/3–74–018, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., July 1974.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    “The Potential for Energy Conservation in Nine Selected Industries — Petroleum Refining,” Conservation Paper No. 10, Federal Energy Administration, Washington, D. C., 1975.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. C. Vyas, “Coal and Oil-Shale Conversion Looks Better,” Oil and Gas Journal, August 26, 1974.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. L. Hartley, “Oil Shale: Another Source of Oil for the United States,” Oil Daily’s Third Annual Synthetic Energy Forum, New York, New York, June 10, 1974.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. E. Harak, L. Dockter, A. Long and H. W. Sohn, “Oil Shale Retorting in a 150-Ton Batch-Type Pilot Plant,” Report of Investigations 7995, U. S. Bureau of Mines, 1974.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. P. Montgomery, “Refining of Pyrolytic Shale Oil,” 155th National Meeting, American Chemical Society, San Francisco, California, April 2–5, 1968.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. L. Wise, R. C. Müler and H. W. Sohns, “Heat Contents of Some Green River Oil Shales,” Report of Investigations 7482, U. S. Bureau of Mines, 1971.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. E. Kunchal, “Energy and Dollar Requirements in an Oil Shale Industry,” 170th National Meeting, American Chemical Society, Chicago, Illinois, August 1975.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. A. Hendrickson, “Oil Shale Processing Methods,” Quarterly of the Colorado School of Mines, Vol. 69, No. 2, April 1974.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. G. Austin, “Note on Rittinger’s Law of Grinding,” Transactions of Society of Mining Engineers, Vol 254, December 1973.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. R. S. Sastri and K. S. Narasimhan, “Predicting Grindingmül Energy Use,” Chemical Engineering, September 1, 1975.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    “U. S. Energy Outlook — Coal Availability,” National Petroleum Council, U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D. C., 1973.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    “Liquefaction and Chemical Refining of Coal,” A Battelle Energy Program Report, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, July 1974.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W. W. Bodle and K. C. Vyas, “Clean Fuels from Coal,” Oil and Gas Journal, August 1974.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Akhtar, et al., “Synthoil Process for Converting Coal to Non-Polluting Fuel Oil,” 4th Synthetic Fuels from Coal Conference, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, May 6–7, 1974.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    L. Grainger, “Energy Conversion Technology in Western Europe,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., A. 276, 1974, pp. 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. H. Gary, “Liquid Fuels and Chemicals from Coal,” Mineral Industries Bulletin No. 5, Colorado School of Mines Research Institute, September 1969.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. E. Jacobs, J. F. Jones and R. T. Eddinger, “Hydrogenation of COED Process Coal-Derived Oüs,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1971.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. H Lowry, “Chemistry of Cod Utilization,” John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    “Engineering Evaluation of Project Gasoline-CONSOL Synthetic Fuel Process,” R and D Report No. 59, Office of Coal Research, U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D. C., July 1970.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    “Engineering Evaluation and Review of CONSOL Synthetic Fuel Process,” R and D Report No. 70, Office of Coal Research, U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D. C., February 1972.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. L. Coun and J. B. Corns, “Evaluation of Project H-Coal,” Contract 14–01–0001–1188, Office of Coal Research, U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D. C., 1967.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Akhtar, J. J. Lacey and M. Weintraub., “The SYNTHOIL Process — Material Balance and Thermal Efficiency,” 67th Annual AIChE Meeting, Washington, D. C., December 1974.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    E. K Storch, N Columbic and R.B Anderson, “The Fischer-Tropsch and Related Syntheses,” John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1951.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. Katell, “10,000 BPD Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis Plant,” Report No. 58–7, U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C., August 1958.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    J. C. Hoogendoorn, “Fischer-Tropsch Process,” Clean Fuel from Coal Symposium, Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, Illinois, September 10–14, 1973.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J. S. S. Brame and J. G. King, “FUEL Solid, Liquid and Gaseous,” St. Martin’s Press, New York, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    G. K. Goldman, “Liquid Fuels from Coal,” Noyes Data Corp., 1972.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    W. A. Scheller and B. J. Mohr, “Production of Ethanol and Vegetable Protein by Grain Fermentation,” 169th National Meeting, American Chemical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 1975.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    R. G. Sheehan and R. F. Corlett, “Methanol or Ammonia Production from Solid Wastes by the City of Seattle,” 196th National Meeting, American Chemical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 1975.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    D. L. Klass and S. Ghosh, “Fuel Gas from Organic Wastes,” Chemtech, November 1973.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    A. H. Brown, “Bioconversion of Solar Energy,” Chemtech, July 1975.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    C. Marchetti, “Hydrogen and Energy,” Chemical Economy and Engineering Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 1973.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    R. L. Savage, et al., “A Hydrogen Energy Carrier,” Vol I, N74–11727, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, 1973.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    M. Steinberg, “A Review of Nuclear Sources of Non-Fossil Chemical Fuels,” Energy Sources, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1973.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    J. R. Garvey, “Future Development in Coal-Fired Powerplants,” Proceedings of American Power Conference, Vol XXIX, 1967.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    “Fuels for the Electric Utility Industry 1971–1985,”Edison Electric Institute, New York, New York, 1972.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    D. A. Tillman, “Fuels from Recycling Systems,” Environmental Science and Technolgoy, Vol. 9, No. 5, May 1975.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    H. W. Schulz, “Cost/Benefits of Solid Waste Reuse,” Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 9, No. 5, May 1975.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    W. Tipler, “Energy Economics of Automotive Power Generation,” SAE Paper No. 750761, 1975 SAE Off-Highway Vehicle Meeting, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, September 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    H. B. Jenson, J. R. Morandi and G. L. Cook, “Characterization of the Saturates and Olefins in Shale-Oil Gas Oil,” 155th National Meeting, American Chemical Society, San Francisco, California, April 1968.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    H. E. Carver, “Conversion of Oil Shale to Refined Products,” Quarterly of the Colorado School of Mines, Vol 59, No. 3, July 1964, pp. 19–38.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    J. R. Morandi and R. E. Poulson, “Nitrogen Types in Light Distillates from Aboveground and In Situ Combustion Produced Shale Oils,” 169th National Meeting, American Chemical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 1975.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    R. E. Poulson, “Nitrogen and Sulfur in Raw and Refined Shale Oils,” 169th National Meeting, American Chemical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 1975.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    F. S. Eisen, “Preparation of Gas Turbine Engine Fuel from Synthetic Crude Oil derived from Coal, Phase II, Final Report,” AD/A-007 923, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, February 1975.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    G. R. Hill and L. B. Lyon, “A New Chemical Structure for Coal, “Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol 54, No. 6, June 1962.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    H. W. Sternberg, R. Raymond and S. Akhtar, “SYNTHOIL Process and Product Analysis,” 169th National Meeting, American Chemical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 1975.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    R. H. Wolk, N. C. Stewart and H. F. Silver, “Review of Desulfurization and Denitrogenation in Coal Liquefaction,” 169th National Meeting, American Chemical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 1975.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    “1974 General Motors Report on Programs of Public Interest,” General Motors Coropration, Detroit, Michigan, April 15, 1975.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    W. J. Schultz, C. E. Miesiak, A. L. Hamilton and D. E. Larkinson, “Credibility of Diesel Over Gasoline Fuel Economy Claims by Association,” SAE Paper No. 760047, Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, Michigan, February 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    “Motor Trend,” January 1976, p. 30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. F. Stebar
    • 1
  • W. A. Daniel
    • 1
  • A. R. Sapre
    • 1
  • B. D. Peters
    • 1
  1. 1.General Motors Research LaboratoriesWarrenUSA

Personalised recommendations