| In March of this year, the EPA took a few more steps in converting its long-gestating Tier 3 fuel-standards proposal to reality. According to a report in the Washington Post, the rules (which include plans to cut sulfur content by two-thirds and impose fleet-wide pollution limits on new vehicles by 2017) have been in regulatory limbo since 2011, in part by the current administration's attempt to keep contentious and potentially gas-price-raising issues out of the headlines during a campaign season. Now, the EPA's plan has resurfaced in Washington, and as the details filter out, the oil industry is finding itself increasingly at odds with the automakers, state legislators, and environmentalists. The low-sulfur-content fuel in question already is in use in California (where sulfur content is capped at 20 parts per million, but recent testing has revealed that it may be as low as 10 ppm), as well as Europe and Japan, where 10 ppm is the limit. One of the primary benefits of low-sulfur fuel is that it permits the use of more-advanced catalytic convertors, which are capable of reducing the emission of nitrogen oxides and other particulate matter by up to 80 percent, in turn leading to less soot and smog. Industry sources and the EPA estimate that this new generation of catalytic convertors as well as the minor tweaks needed to take full advantage of the low-sulfur fuel would add about $130 to the price of a new car. What's more, low-sulfur fuels will help to clean up the emissions of the nation's estimated 250 million cars already on the road, yielding a net effect, pollution-wise, of removing 33 million cars from American roads, according to the EPA. In a refreshing show of automaker/EPA solidarity, Julie Becker, VP of Environment of the Alliance of Automobile Makers (whose ranks include BMW, Chrysler, Ford, GM, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo) recently told the EPA that a single low-sulfur-fuel initiative would allow manufacturers to "design, develop, build, and distribute" a one fuel-delivery system rather than doing the legwork for two systems—one for California and one for the rest of the country. Many automakers also see the nationwide standardization as an opportunity to optimize powertrain and fuel-delivery technology across their product lineups as a key strategy for reducing emissions while complying with ever-tightening CAFE requirements, currently set to increase to 54.5 mpg by 2025. The plan—which still must go through public comment process before becoming final—would be on the fast track to approval, and is widely regarded as one of the most significant steps since lead was removed from gasoline in the 1970s. The problem is that the 800-pound gorilla—the oil industry—has largely been left out of the plans. While the other involved parties were planning self-congratulatory photo ops, the oil industry began forecasting price increases at the pump of up to $0.09 a gallon, due in part to the estimated $10 billion that would need to be invested in upgrading refineries for production of the new standardized fuel. The EPA, however, estimates the price increase would land somewhere between $0.01 and $0.04 a gallon. This estimate is based on a survey it conducted of 111 U.S. refineries, revealing that 29 already can meet the low-sulfur standard or come close to it, 66 can reach it with modest modifications, and only 16 would require a major overhaul. Corn Pops But here's where it gets really interesting: Buried in the 938-page document among the low-sulfur mandate, The New York Times recently found a directive aimed at revitalizing the production and sale of ethanol-blended fuels with a 30/70 ethanol/gasoline blend known as E30. In contrast to the currently available E10, E15, and E85 blends that essentially were legislated into existence, the E30 proposal specifically asks automakers for their input on the fuel's viability. Unlike E15, which was largely an answer to a question no one asked, the idea here is to give automakers the lead in designing and tuning engines specifically for E30, freeing them from the "one fuel fits all" design constraints of current vehicles, and, in theory, realizing yet-unattainable performance and efficiency. In an interview with Car and Driver, William H. Woebkenberg, senior engineer for fuels policy in the United States at Mercedes-Benz, shed some light on how Mercedes plans to achieve these results:
"Due to the higher octane easily obtainable with E30, an engine's design and operating parameters are not knock-limited," Woebkenberg said, "you can crank up the compression and alter the spark timing to take advantage of the fuel's properties." Although it has less volumetric energy—i.e., you go fewer miles on a gallon of ethanol blend compared to a gallon of straight gasoline—Woebkenberg says Benz's research indicates that effect can be partially counteracted in blends with a maximum of 30 percent ethanol.
Chrysler, the only other manufacturer who would comment, simply said, "on Tier 3 we defer to the Alliance of Automobile Makers," and declined to elaborate or answer follow-up questions. Fuel retailers and distributors also are not likely to be anxious to make accommodations for yet another fuel, particularly one with a new and unproven customer base; for instance, E85, now several years old, still is not universally available. Although most insiders agree that the oil companies will begrudgingly get on board with the low-sulfur-fuel directive, the road to E30 compatibility may not be as smooth. When E10 and E15 arrived, the oil industry never really took advantage of the opportunity for dramatically boosted octane levels. Instead of creating a new strain of high-octane ethanol-blend fuels, refineries were accused of dialing down the distilling process to save money, and then spiking the mix with ethanol to maintain acceptable octane ratings. Automakers will have little incentive to spend additional time and money on E30 research if they don't have an ironclad guarantee from oil producers that the fuel will be widely available. Many on the periphery of the issue have opined that although the government has never regulated octane, such measures may ultimately be necessary to ensure E30's availability and to maintain the quality needed to support the optimized powertrains and fuel systems.  from Car and Driver Blog http://blog.caranddriver.com | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|
No comments:
Post a Comment