MIT gasoline / ethanol engine to up gas mileage by "30 percent"

Anyone with enough coin to not concern themselves with fuel prices anyway can throw down $100,000 (or more) for an uber-green Tesla Roadster, or you can tack a few extra grand onto the price of your next vehicle to ensure it has some sort of hybrid engine underneath the hood, but MIT researchers are developing yet another alternative to our oh-so-troublesome fuel dilemma without looking to fuel cells. The gasoline / ethanol prototype is about "half the size" of a conventional gas engine, and would only add "about $1,000" to the price of a vehicle -- much less than current battery / gasoline options. The gasoline and ethanol are housed in separate tanks, with the ethanol "suppressing the spontaneous combustion inside the cylinder," allowing for a "higher compression ratio" and a "30 percent increase" in overall gas mileage. Ford is currently testing the system with Ethanol Boosting Systems, and while we're unsure how these engineering minds will solve the problem of double-pumping each time you need a fill up, they're reportedly working hard to "minimize any inconvenience to the driver."

[theCardinal @ Oct 26th 2006 2:38PM]

Unfortunately, ethanol is a net energy loser. That is, it takes more energy to produce, than you get from burning it. (Yes, that includes bio-ethanol.) So instead of burning precious oil in your car, you can have someone else burn even more of somewhere else. GREAT!

[Aureon @ Mar 2nd 2007 9:55AM]

Ethanol is NOT a net loser. Be specific. Corn ethanol used to be a net loser up until about 10 years ago. Corn yields have improved. When the negative corn ethanol studies were done, the Cornell professor low balled the yield. He said 2.5 gallons per bushel, when corn is 2.8 to 3 gallons per bushel...He also low balled the bushels of corn per acre. He said you only get 120 bushels per acre, when in the real world, you get 200 or more bushels per acre...He said that what throws corn ethanol off is the cost of irrigation and the fossil fuels to grow the corn and process it into fuel. That is misleading. Most corn for ethanol is not irrigated. Not all corn is grown the same. Some corn is grown specifically for food, some for feed, and some for ethanol production. Not all farms are the same. Some farmers use biodiesel and ethanol to power their equipment and/or to genearate their own ellectricity. All ethanol plants are not the same. Some plants have windmills and solar panels. Others use a portion of the fuel for power or co-generate energy from biomass. Some plants are now converting the corn stover into ethanol as well. Now you have about ten new cellulose ethanol plants coming on line which use waste wood, agricultural bi-products, and other forms of organic waste, and they all co-generate their own energy to run the conversion process. The negative ethanol studies did not evaluate converting waste, and they did not account for ethanol plants that co-generate their own production power or farmers that use bio-fuels. They also did not evaluate miscanthus grass, municipal waste, or algae - which can generate over 10,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year. Also, Dupont said that it will double corn ethanol efficiency in the next few years. Ethanol is used to replace toxic MTBE and enhances gasoline as an oxygenator. Also we don't go to war over ethanol. Did you add $500 Billion dollars to the cost of your gasoline? Did you add the cost of multi-billion dollar oil spills and the thousands of toxic gasoline tanks that are leaking across the country? Did you account for foreign oil causing our astronomical trade deficit and driving your National Debt sky high, and did you realize that you're paying interest on that National Debt every time you pay your taxes? The real net loser is Gasoline not Ethanol. Ethanol is creating jobs and stimulating the economy right here at home. When you buy ethanol, you are paying American Farmers and American Companies, and you're putting money in your pocket. E-85, Bio-diesel, and Pure Ethanol will be our transition fuels. Watch Honda's pure ethanol indy cars. Technology will solve the mileage deficit. If you still think that ethanol is a net loser - sorry - that is based on out of date and misleading information.

[charlie @ Oct 26th 2006 2:47PM]

"Unfortunately, ethanol is a net energy loser. That is, it takes more energy to produce, than you get from burning it. (Yes, that includes bio-ethanol.) So instead of burning precious oil in your car, you can have someone else burn even more of somewhere else. GREAT!"

Thats highly disputed.

About having to fill up twice every time, I read that with this system they figure that users would have to fill the ethanol tank only every 2 to 3 months.

[theCardinal @ Oct 26th 2006 4:13PM]

Disputed by the people who make such engines, or want to convince people that we don't actually need to change out lifestyles to survive. However, all research shows that ethanol production loses more energy than it releases. It doesn't even require research though. As previously mentioned, it's practically impossible to convert energy/matter from one form to another without some kind of loss.

[SL @ Oct 26th 2006 2:52PM]

Actually, ethanol, hydrogen, etc. They are technically all net energy losers, it will always take more energy to move something from lower energy to higher energy as anyone whose taken chem 101 knows or else the perpetual motion machine would be in existence.

It just depends on how we make this energy source, hopefully by more environmentally friendly methods (solar, wind, etc).

[Jonathan Sundy @ Oct 26th 2006 3:27PM]

There was a consumer reports piece about "The Ethanol Myth" within the last couple months. I just skimmed it but it effectively said that currently Ethanol/Gas engines are just a gimmick by motor companies that allow them to release less fuel efficient SUV's (the US requires a motor company to meet a minimum mpg across it's fleet and ethanol doesn't count on a 1:1 basis against it).

The amount of energy used to produce Ethanol is something that will of course be improved over time as it's used more and more. That's not really a concern though because the methods for powering the tranformation of corn or sugar into ethanol don't have to be as pollutant producing as using gasoline in a car. Remember the options for powering a large production plant is very different from the options for powering an automobile.

Ethanol is a renewable resource since it is based on a crop, so it's a good thing.

What needs to be addressed, and will probably be a big problem, is that the BTU content is significantly lower than gasoline. This means your mpg on ethanol is much lower.

All this may change over time, but just like everyone thought hydrogen was going to be the end all future fuel (lolfail) who knows where things will end up as these things are investigated more. Of course nothing is really going to happen while an oil farmer is president.

On a side note I hear Brazil has rather successfully had ethanol as a major fuel source for many years now. So it can be done.

[steve @ Oct 26th 2006 3:39PM]

As someone who has a chemistry degree and happens to manage an ethanol plant, I am sorry to inform you that you have in fact been had. Not only do you obtain more energy from ethanol than it take s to produce, you may want to check the energy balance for gasoline.

[ngv @ Oct 27th 2006 11:25AM]

Isn't this already the case? After all, it takes energy to ship fuel to the US from overseas, and still more energy to truck the fuel to localities within the US. Ethanol and biodiesel are necesssary to hedge against the day when the Iranians decide rocket the Saudi oil storage facilities and distribution networks to punish the US. While today biofuels cannot completely displace oil, it's time to start developing an energy infrastructure that is readily available in case worse comes to worse.....

[boost @ Jun 21st 2007 6:48PM]

Pshhh....You mean Physics 101 my man.

[Paul @ Oct 26th 2006 3:03PM]

As for solving the problem, could you just have a hose with two pipes in it and two nozzels on the end?

[jason @ Oct 26th 2006 8:19PM]

exactly what I was going to post, it's not rocket science

[Justin @ Oct 26th 2006 3:16PM]

This is great and everything but I wish they were working on a process that doesnt involve gasoline.

[Rat Bastard @ Oct 26th 2006 3:21PM]

A friend of mine once remarked that with all the technology we have, still using internal-combustion engines with fossil fuels is akin to fighting WWII with bows and arrows.

Why don't the oil companies actually FUND all the alternative energy research and they might not be so reticent to abandon oil...?

[Justin @ Oct 26th 2006 3:30PM]

http://blog.miragestudio7.com/2006/02/ski-dubai-indoor-ski-resort/

The oil companies are busy spending their money on more important things...

[Rick Lyon @ Oct 26th 2006 3:25PM]

Ethanol is a waste of time. We can not produce enough ethanol to run every car in the US, so why even look at it as a viable long term replacement to gasoline? I know ethanol cars are but a very small minority, I'm simply saying it's a waste of R&D and time when that focus could be better spent finding a real solution. We need something that is easily produced and in unlimited supplies that is produced in the US.

[funvin @ Oct 27th 2006 2:02AM]

Ethanol and biodiesel are just interim solutions till better options get worked out. Ethanol production in US is net -ve (though contentious) energy wise, and has considerably less BTU then gasoline. However biodiesel production is net +ve, and also has BTU quite close to diesel. But on the down side, it gels below 40F.
There is research going on for using algae to produce biodiesel, and making ethanol from cellulose. These methods would be less resource intensive and more scalable generating much better yields.

[boost @ Jun 21st 2007 6:56PM]

Someone at Purdue found a way to alloy aluminum to allow it to react with water to produce hydrogen gas, heat, and no known dangerous chemicals. I believe it was a galium/aluminum alloy. Pretty neat really. Imagine filling your car up with water and aluminum pelets.

[Eric Parker @ Oct 26th 2006 4:13PM]

Sorry, Justin, Dubai isn't an "oil company". I know it's more fun to blame big bad oil, but I think this is a stretch.

[Rob @ Oct 26th 2006 3:33PM]

Even if Ethanol is a net loser, the way it is sparingly used in this engine seems like it still is a NET GAIN IN EFFICIENCY when compared to a regular gas engine. Someone school me if I'm wrong (as I'm sure you will)... And if I'm right, why are you "ethanol is net loser" people so focused on that issue and not looking at the bigger picture???

[John Stracke @ Oct 26th 2006 4:05PM]

So ethanol violates the conservation of energy?

[Evan @ Oct 26th 2006 4:03PM]

so it takes a bunch of MIT "scientists" to figure out that ethanol has a very high octane rating (although technically not octane, but equivalent resistence to detonation) thus allowing for higher engine compression and higher output per unit of fuel burned.

Funny....backyard hicks souping up their musclecars have been doing this for decades. I guess those MIT guys have to justify their grants between bong hits somehow.

[bsy @ Oct 26th 2006 4:04PM]

you might be interested in what khosla has to say:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-570288889128950913&q=ethanol&hl=en

[tekdroid @ Oct 27th 2006 12:04AM]

interesting vid, thanks for the link

[charlie @ Oct 26th 2006 4:05PM]

"Actually, ethanol, hydrogen, etc. They are technically all net energy losers, it will always take more energy to move something from lower energy to higher energy as anyone whose taken chem 101 knows or else the perpetual motion machine would be in existence."

Not true at all. You forgot to consider that its the sun that provides the energy for the corn to grow.

[John Stracke @ Oct 26th 2006 4:23PM]

It's regularly claimed that ethanol takes more oil to produce than it replaced, because growing corn involves synthetic fertilizers (made from oil) and lots of machinery (powered by gas). Some studies agree, some don't; it's complicated. The Wikipedia article:

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

Irrelevant here, though, since the ethanol is being used more like a catalyst than a fuel; it helps the engine burn gasoline more efficiently.

[Baumann @ Oct 26th 2006 4:09PM]

When people talk about ethanol being a net loser, it works like this... (given, I don't know the exact numbers)

Assume it costs 1000 gallons of gasoline to produce 1500 gallons of ethanol fuel. That 1000 gallons of gasoline could power your average car for 25,000 miles. Taking the 1500 gallons of ethanol, you could only power the average car for say 20,000 miles.

I've heard similar arguments by vegetarians about beef. It takes 16 lbs of grain to make 1 lb of beef. That 16 lbs of grain could feed far more people then 1 lb of beef.

...but what do I care? I'm a meat eating SUV driver.

[Jay @ Oct 26th 2006 4:27PM]

You guys have it all wrong.

What we need is small nuclear power plants all over the place...then simply make our cars electric.

Nuclear power is fantastic (it's actually STEAM-powered turbines) -- just because there were a few accidents in the past the whole thing is ruined for the rest of us. Nuclear energy is actually really safe.

[FFFred @ Oct 26th 2006 4:56PM]

Jay, I had a friend who was a safety inspector at the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant, and he told me there were tons of near-catastrophic accidents that people never heard about. It's in the interest of the owners of these plants to hide any accidents or near accidents, so none of us outsiders really know how dangerous these plants really are. Not to mention, plants that were originally safe are not being maintained to the original standards, because the owners are always trying to maximize profit and use the cheapest replacement parts, often at specs way below those intended in the original design. Talk to one unbiased nuke worker and see what they tell you about safety!

Sorry this is off topic, but I'm freaked out about how safe EVERYONE seems to think nuclear power is.

[Edward K. @ Oct 26th 2006 5:48PM]

sarcasm?

[Baumann @ Oct 26th 2006 4:27PM]

Here's a pretty good anti-ethanol article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stm

[Josh @ Oct 26th 2006 4:31PM]

Why is everyone so focused on ethanol's efficiency rather than the efficiency of this engine? This is not an ethanol car, it's a gasoline car that uses a small amount of ethanol to increase overall efficiency. As long as the overall efficiency is increased, why does it matter if a small component of the consumable fuels is not efficient by itself?

[Matt B @ Oct 26th 2006 4:31PM]

Wondering why oil companies don't heavily invest in alternative fuels is like asking why Microsoft doesn't put out an alternative operating system. It's not in there best interest to do so, yet.

[mmora @ Oct 26th 2006 4:33PM]

You need to read the Omnivore's Dilemma and see how corn is made in the US. Basically they are pumping fossil fuels in the ground (chemical fertilizer) to grow corn that would not be able to grow without it. It seems to be a net loss they way things are today. But you could make Ethanol from other sources other than corn. I'm not sure if you would ever get the energy density needed from sustainable agriculture to supply enough biomass to keep all the cars running without dumping large amount of fertilizer on the crops. It seems to me it would be a lot more efficient to convert the fossil fuels straight into gasoline instead of the round trip of making ammonium nitrate, grow a crop, put diesel into a tractor to cut down the crop, put diesel into the truck to haul the crop to a processing plant, burn natural gas to power the generator that runs the processing plant to process crop into Ethanol.

[Gustavo @ Oct 26th 2006 4:42PM]

I couldn�t understand the great deal of this new motor. Here in Brazil we have the multi-gas engine technologie already working and the gas (ethanol of gasoline) can be mixed in the same tank. I have 2 flex-power (that�s the name of that technologie) cars, actually, for about 3 years.

About the ethanol be an energy loser, well that�s not true. The numbers on a ethanol engine is that a ethanol engine have 7% more power than a gasoline one, but it consumes about 20% or 30% more(depending on the engine type).

For some reason (don�t ask me, I saw the explanation once but I didn�t understand) we have a magic number, 11%, that is the price diference that the ethanol must have comparing to the gasoline. Best saying, if the ethanol is about 11% cheaper than the gasoline, than it�s better to buy ethanol because the price diference will compensate the the consuming.

Ethanol/gasoline engine it�s a great idea, the technologie already exists and we already heave a contry in this planet using it with great sucess. Brazil.

[Gustavo @ Oct 26th 2006 4:50PM]

Ah, I finally understod the great deal of this engine. It�s a optimun gasoline/ethanol usage engine. Now, that�s way cool!

[john @ Oct 26th 2006 5:19PM]

There seems to be a big misconception here. What is being proposed by the ethanol group in not a ethanol engine. But an engine that burns regular gas with ethanol booster. The tank for the ethanol wouldn't be much bigger than your windshield washer fluid resevoir. This is a great technology development that we can utilize sooner than later.

If I can dream just a little, one day someone is going to invent wireless power distribution that doesn't involve microwaves. When that happens, all of this will become irrelevant.

[swaxtastic @ Oct 26th 2006 5:39PM]

Nothing is 100% safe, but I'd rather conain waste, than pump it all in to the atmosphere.
nuclear -> powerlines -> cars, too easy. every year hybrids have more and more battery power and batteries are getting cheaper to manufacture. soon we'll be able to plug in hybrids, and from there out dependence on oil will signifigantly be reduced. time to stop panicing.

[FFFred @ Oct 26th 2006 7:42PM]

When an actual nuclear power plant safety inspector explains to me in detail my how unsafe his plant is, I get the feeling it is MUCH less than 100% safe. We haven't even figured out a permanent way to store spent fuel rods, which will remain radioactive for thousands of years, and are filling up cooling pools in power plants across the country. I don't know what the answer to our energy problems are, but all I ask is, when people consider the various options, they don't treat nuclear power as if it is anywhere close to 100% safe. But feel free to move next door to one if you're not at all concerned.

[John Stracke @ Oct 27th 2006 8:50AM]

OK, so nuclear power isn't perfectly safe. Is it more dangerous than global warming, which kills 150,000 per year (according to WHO), and is only getting worse?

[engadget @ Oct 26th 2006 9:35PM]

would this reduce our dependancy on foriegn oil?

[endless @ Oct 27th 2006 2:03AM]

This sounds like what my uncle has been doing on his monsterous Dodge Stealth.

Of course, he was doing it so he could run more boost leading to faster track times...

Can someone explain to me what is ground breaking about this?

[boost @ Jun 21st 2007 6:56PM]

Actually, It's not ground breaking. This has been done before, just not alot. Most people that want to run monstrous compression ratios just run racing fuel or methenol because they are racing. There have been a few people running turbocharged engines that will do things like inject water or alcohol to cool the intake charge in order to increase it's density and decrease the possiblity of pre-detonation.

[kena @ Oct 27th 2006 10:12AM]

What�s consistently left out of almost every discussion on transportation efficiency is the fact that much, much, much higher energy savings and pollution reductions can be achieved by getting people out of their personal vehicles (SUVs, hybrids, etc.) and into alternative forms of transportation (bicycles, buses, trains). If you can eliminate the total number of vehicle miles driven alone on a trip (by converting them to miles on a bike for example), you�ll save a lot more energy than simply adjusting the fuel type.

Not very many people in the U.S. want to have this discussion because it would require them to take a hard look at their lifestyle. Nobody wants have serious discussions (especially here in Michigan) about land use and transportation planning. Maybe the best use of our resources isn�t to encourage people to live 40 miles away from their workplace while connecting those two locations with massively inefficient freeways? Maybe new developments shouldn�t be constructed as house farms where you have to drive 5 miles just to find a grocery store?

You can grow all the corn you want to try and solve this problem (which will continue to increase the size of the dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico), but it ain�t goin� away until we get people to admit that non-transit oriented suburbs and exurbs aren�t necessarily the most energy efficient ways to construct urbanized areas.

[ksmith @ Oct 27th 2006 10:38AM]

Damn it people! Ethanol is not a bad fuel. And if you design the engine right, then you don't see any reduction in fuel economy. Here's a post I made on your sister site, AutoblogGreen. This whole 'less BTUs equal less mileage' is B.S.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/18/friedman-naively-fired-up-about-ethanol/

Quoted:
Talk about a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Derrick needs to get all of the facts before dissing on Friedman for being na�ve. Yes, it�s a well known fact that ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, but remember that ethanol also has a higher octane than gasoline (104 vs. 93 for premium). If you can take advantage of the higher octane, you can create a more efficient combustion process. So even if you�re filling up with a fuel that�s not as energy-dense, you can regain some of the lost power/efficiency by having a more efficient combustion process. Fuel energy density is only one piece of the pie.

Take a look at the Saab Biopower 9-5 they�re selling in Sweden. It can run on either gasoline or E85. When you feed it E85, it�s gets a nice bump in both power and torque (+36 hp, +30 ft-lbs). And get this, the fuel consumption stays the same! The beauty of this engine is that it�s turbocharged. When the engine detects ethanol, it turns up the boost pressure from 5.8 psi to 13.8 psi. This makes for a more efficient combustion process, and hence more power and torque with no loss in fuel economy.

Part of the reason E85 is getting a bad rap is b/c most of the flex fuel vehicles in the US are naturally aspirated. Since gasoline is still more prevalent in the US than ethanol, these engines were designed with gasoline efficiency in mind. They use lower compression ratios b/c of gasoline�s lower octane. So when you fill up your tank with E85, the engine can�t take advantage of the higher octane b/c it can�t change its compression ratio. That�s when ethanol�s energy density problem rears its head. If you were to turn the tables and design an engine around ethanol, you could use a higher compression ratio. This would lead to an engine that would burn E85 as efficiently as today�s engine burn gas. If you were to put gasoline in this ethanol-optimized engine, you�d see a similar reduction in performance and fuel economy b/c the engine would have to retard its ignition timing to prevent engine knock.

Saab�s turbocharged engine gives you the best of both words. You can�t change an engines compression ratio on the fly, but you can change the amount of boost it receives, which leads to the same result.

[Michael Snow @ Oct 27th 2006 10:49PM]

What about water being co-injected? I remember in the 60's there were prototype gasoline engines that had small amounts of water co-injected. The water had two functions, it lowered the combustion temperature (which helped control the combustion and lower temperatures lessen NOx pollution) and its expansion as vapor changed the compression/stroke. I don't know if it was not implemented for technical reasons, but I suspect that the auto companies did not trust that the water tank would be kept full, and without onboard computers the engine might have been ruined by running dry. Anyone remember this?

[Warren Allen @ Oct 29th 2006 2:10PM]

It's 'Tesla', not Telsa...you idiot geeks.

Lurn to spel.

The Dude Abides

[Jose A @ May 29th 2007 9:31PM]

Interesting. So the efficiency gained by combining these two fuels through direct injection (and turbocharging I believe) is 30%. Anything that improves gas efficiency is very much needed. I just hope the gasoline companies won't charge 30% more to fill up a car with this fuel. From what I understand the motor works through a cooling property that ethanol has to prevent premature combustion during compression. The air is turbocharged and direct injection is used to maximize energy output during combustion. There must be something else that is so obvious, simple, and stupid and we don't have the answer yet. Perhaps changing the gigawatts on the flux capicitor is the answer! Perhaps it's all a conspiracy and the automobile industry has the answer, but to maximize profits, the goal of the gasoline and automobile industries, they will provide a false scarcity of the resource thus raising prices through the roof. There should be a blood petroleum movie with a lot of killing. It's true. Like the tobacco of old.

[njasonjohnson @ Jan 24th 2009 11:50PM]

Corn is not or only source of starch, CATTAILS have a very high starch concentration and can be grown very effectivley in waste water treatment facilities also helping to clean the environment at the same time. Cattails could also be grown very effetivily along our road medians and ditchs. The book Alcohol Can be Gas by David Blume estimated that all the US vehical fuel requirements could be met using our own human waste and road medians to grow our alcohol feed stock. There are also many other feedstocks such as grass clippings that could contribute greatly to the mix. JUST LOOK at Brazil if you need a glaring example how to effectively use alcohol to escape foriegn oil!