The American system of mandating and measuring the fuel efficiency in automobiles is called the CAFE Standard, Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency. The United States Department of Transportation defines it as, “the sales weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (MPG), of a manufacturer’s fleet of passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lbs. or less, manufactured for sale in the United States, for any given model year.”

The program has existed since 1975, when it was instituted in response to the first gasoline crisis in the United States and has been tweaked very seldom since then. In fact, average fuel efficiency ratings of automobiles on American roads are lower now than when the mass-production automobile was invented a century ago!

How can this be?

Bicycle Sharing Beauty

Vélib’, short for vélo libre, free bike, is an unparalleled success in the industrialized world. According to the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, more than 1,000,000 people joined the Parisian bicycle sharing program in its first three weeks of existence.

What does this tell us? Three key points emerge:

The nose-bleed prices which motorists around the world saw during the first half of 2008 owe their heights to causes geological, psychological and political. However, no matter where we place the blame, the simple fact is this: with Iraq still producing a mere trickle of oil and the Saudi royal family struggling to perpetuate the myth that it can remain one of the largest oil producers in the world, demand will continue to outstrip supply for many years.

As you well know, dear reader, high fuel prices have broad impacts on the modern world and can drive us, pardon the pun, to desperate acts. One of them is a modern form of alchemy, the migration to water injection for gas engines.

In the United States, Mischief Night comes every October 30, a night when otherwise upstanding citizens do foolish things in the name of foolishness, such as adding sand, sugar or water to the fuel tank of a neighbor’s automobile. Such naughtiness generally causes more inconvenience than damage but the parallels to water injection for gas engines are most apt.

After all, if adding water to a fuel tank can lead to engine failure, water injection can’t be much better, can it? Could the solution to record fuel prices be that simple? If we approach the problem backwards, we may find the answer. After all, automobile tailpipes often drip water. So, there must be water in gasoline, right?

In order to help you understand all of the ramifications of water injection for gas engines, I will engage in a full explanation of the role of gasoline in the modern internal combustion engine in my next post.

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

Disastrous Versus Merely Inefficient

Henry Ford’s Model T went 25 miles for every gallon of gasoline in its tank. Today, a full century later, the average mass-production automobile performs worse than Mr. Ford’s early benchmark. There are many reasons for this, of course, including such necessities as power steering but the ultimate truth is this: little has changed in the fundamental design of the internal combustion gasoline engine.

Given this neglect of a vital economic and environmental aspect of personal transportation, it is tempting to assume that great gains in fuel efficiency are ripe for the taking. Purchase of a kit for running a car on water is a small mental leap from there. So, what’s the truth? Well, I have a rare treat in store for you, an interview with Adam Nehr of the Kennedy Space Center who knows a great deal about mechanical engineering. Adam will elucidate the inescapable facts about bringing a kit for running a car on water into your garage including the law of physics known as entropy.

Before sharing Adam’s recorded thoughts with you, though, I need to explain the role of water in conventional gasoline engines. After all, as I mentioned last time, automotive tailpipes often drip water.

So, what is gasoline? Also known as benzene and petrol, gasoline is a noxious mixture of 200+ volatile hydrocarbons. In laymen’s terms, it is a string of carbon atoms connected with hydrogen atoms floating in a viscous mixture of other poisons. We use it in our engines because it is relatively resistant to catching fire but also is highly explosive under the right conditions.

When vaporized and then exposed to pressure and a spark inside an engine, the gasoline molecule explodes, resulting in thrust and expelling the constituent elements through the tailpipe. The constituent elements freed by the combustion process include hydrogen. At or near sea level, hydrogen cannot exist by itself. It naturally seeks to join with other elements, including oxygen. Free oxygen molecules, in turn, are only too happy to join with hydrogen to form water.

Boring On Their Own, Intriguing When Taken Together

The water which we see dripping from automobile tailpipes might lead us to believe that gasoline contains water. It’s a liquid, after all. However, the reality is that only the hydrogen is in the fuel and when we burn it, we free some of the hydrogen, which bonds with ambient oxygen to form water. Put another way, water expelled from our cars is much like a serving of rice and beans – very nutritious but if we ate the rice for one meal and the beans later, we wouldn’t derive nearly the benefit of consuming them together.

All kidding aside, we are left with a question, aren’t we? If automobile engines always have run on hydrocarbons such as gasoline and we know that billions of dollars are being spent experimenting with hydrogen in engines, won’t the purchase of a kit for running a car on water be a good idea? In the third and final part of this series, my friend Adam Nehr will explain the ins and outs to you.

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

NOTE: audio and presentation file for this post are linked at the end

Life is dangerous. Driving an automobile is dangerous. Burning any type of fuel is dangerous. However, millions of people drive gasoline-powered automobiles every day because the risks are known and manageable.

Depending on the application, hydrogen is less dangerous than gasoline. That is a known, demonstrable fact. Converting a car to burn water and gas involves blending hydrogen with gasoline, adding one explosive compound to another. However, as my friend Adam Nehr of the Kennedy Space Center explains below, converting a car to burn water and gas involves the addition of hydrogen from water which has been reformulated from H2O into HHO, or oxyhydrogen, a useful but highly volatile substance.

Please read on for all the details or, better yet, scroll all the way to the bottom of this post to listen to my in-depth telephone conversation with Adam. It contains all of the information which appears below in a greatly expanded version along with a PowerPoint presentation (in Adobe format). As you will come to see, the idea of converting a car to burn water and gas is appealing but ultimately can’t work without violating entropy, not a good idea no matter how high fuel prices go.

Enough Danger To Make Even Will Robinson Tremble

CORBETT: Many of our readers have heard that conventional internal combustion gasoline engines convert to thrust only 40% of the kinetic potential of the fuel – and on a good day. Why is this?

ADAM: The mechanical conversion of combustion to linear and then rotary motion is inefficient. It’s really a mechanical problem due to the fact that as gases expand they become less dense relative to the square of expansion. As combustion happens the pressure builds and pushes the piston down but as the piston moves, the gas has a greater space to fill and soon it reaches the point where it is too weak to push further. It is still very hot, however, and that heat now has to go somewhere. That’s where the cooling system takes over but just like the alternator, it costs some horsepower to do its job. When you add it all up, the average engine only returns 30 – 40% of the energy potential of the gasoline in the form of power to move the car and the rest goes to heat dissipation and electrical generation.

CORBETT: Here on Keyboard Culture Global Warming, I have featured the fact that Ford currently makes a diesel version of the Fiesta and some owners report fuel economy of 60 miles per gallon. Back in the 1990’s, I knew a gentleman from Scotland who drove the diesel version of the Ford Escort and obtained upwards of 80 miles per gallon.

If it is possible for diesel automobiles to have such high efficiencies without exotic technologies such as regenerative braking, why don’t we have high-efficiency gasoline engines?

ADAM: Well first, the core problem is that we like BIG cars and, with big cars, come big energy needs. The more wind drag a car has, the more horsepower is required to push it against the invisible sea of air all around us. If you think about the root of my first answer, the engineering of today’s gasoline engine is pretty wasteful fuel -wise but it is about as good as a gasoline-burning mechanical engine can be made in a practical sense. We either have to drive smaller or think bigger when it comes to energy conversion for the size of cars we drive.

If we could find a low entropy means of using all of that heat the engine wastes to provide propulsion, it would be a start, but a better solution would be to get away from gasoline altogether. The diesel is more efficient than a gasoline engine because it compresses the air first – and because the fuel has a higher energy specific or energy content per liquid volume. The difference is around 15% more energy per gallon of diesel compared to regular gasoline. The hypermiling figures you stated are the result of many factors, all being optimized....including tire inflation. Good mileage has to be approached from a holistic system point of view.

CORBETT: We have heard prominent people, including George W. Bush, express enthusiasm about hydrogen in automobiles. If hydrogen is part of water, why won’t technologies which claim to allow us to run our car on water function?

ADAM: Well it’s a problem of entropy. If you made the hydrogen from solar energy at a station designed for high volume production and stored it in a high-pressure or nickel-metal-hydride tank onboard the car, like some of the H2 cars currently on the road, hydrogen is a good fuel but not a great one. The problem here is that the tanks are heavy plus the fuel cell is stuffed in and inaccessible to easy maintenance. Electric cars are ideal but that does not stop the use of hydrogen for energy storage – in fact, it encourages it! If you use hydrogen to store energy from solar production and then use the stored gas to create electricity when the sun is not shining, you are getting much closer to a viable and sustainable use of hydrogen for personal transportation, like the way the Interstate Traveler is designed. Batteries and super capacitors are making chemical propulsion look like it is in its last few decades and if we really put a push on the development of the new technologies, we can realize this dream quickly. Note that I talk only about hydrogen and not oxyhydrogen (or HHO) gas. That’s for safety reasons.

If you split water into its component parts, you get hydrogen AND oxygen at a ratio of 2:1. If you keep the gases together, you have oxyhydrogen (or HHO), which is very explosive. In fact, welders use this gas when they need to melt metals with melting points as high as 2700°F. In a car, this gas can be lethal in moderate quantities because it is so explosive. It is like running your car on acetylene and oxygen mixed together....not a good idea. Even more importantly, the systems for converting a car to burn water and gas take energy from the gasoline engine to make the HHO gas right in the engine compartment. That is not only dangerous but completely inefficient. In fact, it costs you a small amount of mileage which some of the systems for converting a car to burn water and gas cover up by convincing you to lean out the fuel mixture by reprogramming your engine computer. This decreases engine life but it does increase mileage right up to the point where the engine fails. The attached presentation tells the story...

CORBETT: If HHO technologies don’t function, what alternatives do automobile drivers have to improve fuel economy?

ADAM: Well, smaller cars for one – perhaps owning two cars, one for commuting and another for general hauling and errands. That’s what I am doing – I ordered a Smart for Two and will use it on my daily 45-minute commute instead of my mini pickup truck. There’s also tire inflation, good maintenance and using public transport when possible. As far as a miracle fix for fuel consumption, there isn’t one out there yet, but the electric car and the hydrogen storage of solar and wind energy is coming up fast! Right now, conserve, be smart and be patient.

Click here for written presentation (PDF)

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

The depth of the world’s air pollution and transportation problems is such that we need to embrace reasonable solutions wherever we find them, even if they are short-term remedies. It’s just that simple. The auto rickshaw, long a staple of urban transportation in many of our largest cities, has the potential to contribute greatly to our quest for permanent solutions.

Consider, it already is a popular means of metropolitan transport. Because its construction can be a combination of components both new and used from a variety of sources, there are fewer entrenched manufacturers to convince to build the machinery. Arguably best of all, since most of the vehicles have owner-operators who are interested in steady profits and cleaner air, engaging them to become part of the solution is relatively easy.

That’s why Tata Motors, one of the largest auto manufacturers in the world, is engaging the auto rickshaw marketplace with full force. Now with a voice just as loud as that of Ford and Chrysler, Tata Motors has realized that the future of its profit margins comes in affordable transportation. This also is the reason that local governments in India and elsewhere are awakening to the need to formalize an auto rickshaw-based transportation system, especially in those places where there is little or no funding for large infrastructure improvements such as bus rapid transit and light rail.

Where the auto rickshaw becomes really interesting is in the move away from fossil fuels. The first and arguably easiest step is toward clean-burning natural gas. Still a fossil fuel and thus a contributor to global warming, natural gas makes sense as a very short-term modification because it tends to be more plentiful than petroleum fuels and the engine modifications needed to use it in an auto rickshaw are relatively minor. Ethanol, hydrogen and/or ultra capacitors for running on electricity would be far better choices but also much more complex and expensive.

Naturally, this global warming expert knows that fossil fuels must become a thing of the past if we are to save the planet from ourselves but victory will not occur in one giant leap. It will be gradual. Our daily goal must be to accelerate the changes but perfect cannot be the enemy of good. The auto rickshaw is good because it is better than many alternatives but not perfect. For now, that suits me just fine.

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

Despite important gains in energy efficiency through the Energy Star program, Americans cause more air pollution per capita than their counterparts in most every other nation. As consumption patterns shift, the lead position in this ignominious category may change but what is unlikely to alter anytime soon is the love of the personal automobile on the highways and byways of the United States.

Even after suffering through more than a year of record petroleum prices, much of American popular culture is steeped in the driving experience since Yankees invented the mass production automobile and because of our pioneering spirit. However, since Americans produce 25% of the world’s pollution and 40% of that comes from transportation, we will not tackle global warming in a meaningful way until we learn to harness sustainable locomotion.

Fortunately, government bodies, business groups and blocks of citizens are taking steps to help everyone drive in a manner which is economically and environmentally sound – or at least better than the old ways. A leader in the campaign to help Americans be more green is the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers with its EcoDriving USA campaign.

Comprised of 9 of the world’s largest automakers, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has gained significant traction, pun intended, in helping drivers understand that embracing sensible driving and maintenance practices is easier than they may think.

The EcoDriving USA website has several handy features which make it easy for drivers to go green, or at least clean up their act, including a flyer with more than a dozen tips in the categories of driving practices and maintenance practices.

My favorite part, though, is the endorsement of the campaign by high-profile individuals, including several governors. Greening the American roadway will be no easy task but the EcoDriving USA campaign from The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers represents a commendable first step which I am happy to recommend to you. Even if you do not live in the United States, you can benefit from much of the information contained at

EcoDrivingUSA.com

Point your web browser there today!

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

This time last year, I told you about the ridiculously inadequate requirements for automotive fuel efficiency imposed by the government of the United States, known as CAFE Standards. They were supposed to assure that the American automobile fleet was as fuel efficient as possible on average. However, since the early years of the program, the requirements themselves have been a political hot potato. The refusal of the political party in power to institute progressive stringency has allowed for automakers to feign an inability to produce modern vehicles capable of more than 30 miles per gallon of fuel.

In parallel, however, was the trend in Europe, where Ford and General Motors have lively sales forces. In Europe, automakers had no choice but to produce efficient vehicles because if they failed to do so, their prospective customers would patronize a competitor. In the end, a glaring contradiction took hold. We had auto executives in the United States telling the federal government and the people that efficient vehicles were impossible while selling impressively efficient models in Europe.

Luckily for them, their virtual market monopoly and the cultural isolation which Americans enjoy allowed for a diesel version of the Ford Fiesta widely available and advertised in Europe but denied to American consumers.

That situation is about to change. The bankruptcy of Chrysler and General Motors (and the many revenue woes of Ford Motor Company) have led to a sea chance during calendar year 2009. I, for one, believe that this change can’t come fast enough. So, if you read my blog post last year and were uncertain whether I exaggerated a bit, now you know how right I was. The efficient models existed all along but were denied from the American market and no bureaucrat or politician with enough power to change the situation did a thing about it. Only when the marketplace amplified the managerial dereliction of all 3 large American automakers which brought these once giants of industry to their knees was the truth revealed.

It is a desperately sad commentary on the power of energy companies to occlude the truth from millions of people for decades but at least now the truth rests comfortably in the sun! Specifically, look for new, high-efficiency models on Chrysler, Ford and General Motors lots next year.

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

With the summer travel season in full effect in the northern hemisphere and gasoline prices on the rise again, the debate between traveling by air and traveling by car is timely.

Which pollutes more, driving or flying?

Generally, if a modern automobile is utilized, driving pollutes less. Of course, when car pooling is involved, the car always is the cleaner choice. However, for summer vacation, two key commodities may be limited, time and money. Depending upon your preferred destination, driving may not be an option. What’s more, because of the struggling global economy, many airlines are offering compelling promotional fares. In some cases, flying could cost LESS than driving.

Hence, if you find that you will travel by air this summer, how can you reduce your carbon footprint? Well, I have posted several threads here on the importance of carbon offsets. My post regarding the inclusion of radiative forcing remains my favorite. However, since it is the airlines who choose the aircraft, is it possible for passengers to impact the fuel efficiency of the flight they choose?

The impressive airline carbon emissions calculator from travel infrastructure provider TRX, Inc. shows us that the answer is yes.

By determining the age and class of aircraft flown on popular routes between competing airlines, this wonderful tool from TRX allows for a convenient assessment in advance of purchasing a ticket. Passengers generally cannot choose their aircraft but most of the time they can choose their airline.

So, if your summer travel plans include air travel, consider determining the cleanest airline and route for your trip. The airline carbon emissions calculator from TRX makes it easy.

You will find the tool online at

carbon.trx.com

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler

In my last thread, when I heralded the arrival of the film FUEL, I mentioned the important role of biofuels as a key interim technology. Automobiles must be consumers of biofuels in order to fight global warming on our path to the eventual adoption of hydrogen as the only automotive fuel. BioDiesel is a vital type of biofuel.

When people contemplate burning BioDiesel in their car rather than gasoline, a common question is whether special engine modifications are necessary. In modern cars, the answer is no. In fact, BioDiesel has been such a success, as exemplified by the 2009 Green Car of the Year, the Volkwagen Jetta, that some racing teams use it.

As author of this blog, I have told you about high fuel efficiency available in European models of cars sold in North America today. I also told you about the VW Forest in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. I mention both not as an endorsement of a particular company or product but of good corporate stewardship.

With its 2009 Jetta TDI, Volkswagen has done it again, receiving the 2009 Green Car of the Year Award from Green Car Journal and Drivers’ Choice Best of the Year from MotorWeek. Those plaudits have as much to do with the high fuel efficiency and low emissions of the model as they do with how well the car drives.

That is my point here. One day, all of us will use hydrogen for our exclusive automotive fuel. Until then, though, models such as the 2009 Jetta TDI can help us embrace BioDiesel and fuel efficiency happily. If you are in the market for a new car, I recommend that you consider this course. Thousands of magazine readers in North America have heard a similar endorsement from publications they trust.

Fomenting the Triple Bottom Line

Corbett Kroehler