Information about Fuel Efficiency

Fuel efficiency, in its basic sense, is the same as thermal efficiency, meaning the efficiency of a process that converts energy contained in a carrier fuel into energy or work. Overall fuel efficiency may vary per device, which in turn may vary per application, and this spectrum of variance is often illustrated as a continuous energy profile. Non-transportation applications, such as industry, benefit from increased fuel efficiency, especially fossil fuel power plants or industries dealing with combustion, such as ammonia production during the Haber process.

In the context of transportation, "fuel efficiency" more commonly refers to the energy efficiency of a particular vehicle model, where its total output (range, or "mileage" [U.S.]) is given as a ratio of range units per a unit amount of input fuel (gasoline, diesel, etc.). This ratio is given in common measures such as "litres per 100 kilometre" (L/100 km) or "miles per gallon" (mpg). Though the typical output measure is vehicle range, for certain applications output can also be measured in terms of weight per range units (freight) or individual passenger-range (vehicle range / passenger capacity)

This ratio is based on a car's total properties, including its engine properties, its body drag, weight, and rolling resistance (friction), and as such may vary substantially from the profile of the engine alone. While the thermal efficiency of petroleum engines has improved in recent decades, this does not necessarily translate into fuel economy of cars, as people in developed countries tend to buy bigger and heavier cars (i.e. SUVs will get less range per unit fuel than an economy car).

Hybrid vehicle designs use smaller combustion engines as electric generators to produce greater range per unit fuel than directly powering the wheels with an engine would, and (proportionally) less fuel emissions (CO₂ grams) than a conventional (combustion engine) vehicle of similar size and capacity.

Energy-efficiency terminology

"Energy efficiency" is similar to fuel efficiency but the input is usually in units of energy such as British thermal units (BTU), megajoules (MJ), gigajoules (GJ), kilocalories (kcal), or kilowatt-hours (kW·h). The inverse of "energy efficiency" is "energy intensity", or the amount of input energy required for a unit of output such as MJ/passenger-km (of passenger transport), BTU/ton-mile (of freight transport, for long/short/metric tons), GJ/t (for steel production), BTU/(kW·h) (for electricity generation), or litres/100 km (of vehicle travel). This last term "litres per 100 km" is also a measure of "fuel economy" where the input is measured by the amount of fuel and the output is measured by the distance travelled. For example: Fuel economy in automobiles.

Given a heat value of a fuel, it would be trivial to convert from fuel units (such as litres of gasoline) to energy units (such as MJ) and conversely. But there are two problems with comparisons made using energy units:

• There are two different heat values for any hydrogen-containing fuel which can differ by several percent (see below). Which one do we use for converting fuel to energy?
• When comparing transportation energy costs, it must be remembered that a kilowatt hour of electric energy may require an amount of fuel with heating value of 2 or 3 kilowatt hours to produce it.

Energy content of fuel

The specific energy content of a fuel is the heat energy obtained when a certain quantity is burned (such as a gallon, litre, kilogram, etc.). It is sometimes called the "heat of combustion". There exists two different values of specific heat energy for the same batch of fuel. One is the high (or gross) heat of combustion and the other is the low (or net) heat of combustion. The high value is obtained when, after the combustion, the water in the "exhaust" is in liquid form. For the low value, the "exhaust" has all the water in vapor form (steam). Since water vapor gives up heat energy when it changes from vapor to liquid, the high value is larger since it includes the latent heat of vaporization of water. The difference between the high and low values is significant, about 8 or 9%. This accounts for most of the apparent discrepancy in the heat value of gasoline. In the U.S. (and the table below) the high heat values have traditionally been used, but in many other countries, the low heat values are commonly used.

Fuel type	MJ/L	MJ/kg	BTU/Imp gal	BTU/US gal	Research octane number (RON)
Regular Gasoline / Petrol	34.82683	~47	150,100	125,000	Min 91
Premium Gasoline / Petrol					Min 95
Autogas (LPG) (60% Propane + 40% Butane)
Ethanol	23.5	31.1[1]	101,600	84,600	129
Methanol	17.9	19.9	77,600	64,600	123
Gasohol (10% ethanol + 90% gasoline)	33.7		145,200	120,900	93/94
Diesel	38.60		166,600	138,700	N/A (see cetane)
Biodiesel	35.10	39.89	151,600	126,200
Vegetable oil (using 9.00 kcal/g)	34.32	37.66	147,894	123,143
Aviation gasoline	33.5	46.8	144,400	120,200
Jet fuel, naphtha	35.5	46.6	153,100	127,500
Jet fuel, kerosene	37.60		162,100	135,000
Liquefied natural gas	25.3	~55	109,000	90,800
Liquid hydrogen	9.36	140.4	40467	33696

Neither the gross heat of combustion nor the net heat of combustion gives the theoretical amount of mechanical energy (work) that can be obtained from the reaction. (This is given by the change in Gibbs free energy, and is around 45.7 MJ/kg for gasoline.) The actual amount of mechanical work obtained from fuel (the inverse of the specific fuel consumption) depends on the engine. A figure of 17.6 MJ/kg is possible with a gasoline engine, and 19.1 MJ/kg for a diesel engine. See specific fuel consumption for more information.

Fuel economy

Main article: Fuel economy in automobiles

Fuel economy is usually expressed in one of two ways:

• The amount of fuel used per unit distance; for example, litres per 100 kilometres (L/100 km). In this case, the lower the value, the more economic a vehicle is (the less fuel it needs to travel a certain distance);
• The distance travelled per unit volume of fuel used; for example, kilometres per litre (km/L) or miles per gallon (mpg). In this case, the higher the value, the more economic a vehicle is (the more distance it can travel with a certain volume of fuel).

Converting from mpg or to L/100 km (or vice versa) involves the use of the reciprocal function, which is not distributive. Therefore, the average of two fuel economy numbers gives different values if those units are used. If two people calculate the fuel economy average of two groups of cars with different units, the group with better fuel economy may be one or the other.

The formula for converting to miles per US gallon (3.785 L) from L/100 km is , where is value of L/100km. For miles per Imperial gallon (4.546 L) the formula is .

In Europe, the two standard measuring cycles for "L/100 km" value are motorway travel at 90 km/h and rush hour city traffic. A reasonably modern European supermini may manage motorway travel at 5 L/100 km (47 mpg US) or 6.5 L/100 km in city traffic (36 mpg US), with carbon dioxide emissions of around 140 g/km.

An average North American mid-size car travels 27 mpg (US) (9 L/100 km) highway, 21 mpg (US) (11 L/100 km) city; a full-size SUV usually travels 13 mpg (US) (18 L/100 km) city and 16 mpg (US) (15 L/100 km) highway. Pickup trucks vary considerably; whereas a 4 cylinder-engined light pickup can achieve 28 mpg (8 L/100 km), a V8 full-size pickup with extended cabin only travels 13 mpg (US) (18 L/100 km) city and 15 mpg (US) (15 L/100 km) highway.

An interesting example of fuel economy is the microcar Smart Fortwo cdi, which can achieve up to 3.4 L/100 km (69.2 mpg US) using a turbocharged three-cylinder 41 hp (30 kW) Diesel engine. The Fortwo is produced by DaimlerChrysler and is currently only sold by one company in the United States (see external link ZAP). The current record in fuel economy of production cars is held by Volkswagen, with a special production model of the Volkswagen Lupo (the Lupo 3L) that can consume as little as 3 litres per 100 kilometres (78 miles per US gallon or 94 miles per Imperial gallon). The last Lupo was built in July 2005.

Diesel engines often achieve greater fuel efficiency than petrol (gasoline) engines. Diesel engines have energy efficiency of 45% and petrol engines of 30%.^[2] That is one of the reasons why diesels have better fuel efficiency that equivalent petrol cars. A common margin is 40% more miles per gallon for an efficient turbodiesel. For example, the current model Skoda Octavia, using Volkswagen engines, has a combined European fuel efficiency of 38.2 mpg for the 102 bhp petrol engine and 53.3 mpg for the 105 bhp — and heavier — diesel engine. The higher compression ratio is helpful in raising efficiency, but diesel fuel also contains approximately 10-20% more energy per unit volume than gasoline.^[3]

Fuel efficiency in microgravity

The energy produced from fuels occurs during combustion. However, how well the fuel burns will affect how much energy is produced. Recent research by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has gained possible insights to increasing fuel efficiency if fuel consumption takes place in microgravity.

The common distribution of a flame under normal gravity conditions depends on convection, because soot tends to rise to the top of a flame, such as in a candle, making the flame yellow. In microgravity or zero gravity, such as an environment in outer space, convection no longer occurs, and the flame becomes spherical, with a tendency to become more blue and more efficient. There are several possible explanations for this difference, of which the most likely one given is that the cause is the hypothesis that the temperature is evenly distributed enough that soot is not formed and complete combustion occurs.^[4] Experiments by NASA in microgravity reveal that diffusion flames in microgravity allow more soot to be completely oxidised after they are produced than diffusion flames on Earth, because of a series of mechanisms that behaved differently in microgravity when compared to normal gravity conditions.^[5] Premixed flames in microgravity burn at a much slower rate and more efficiently than even a candle on Earth, and last much longer.^[6]

Transportation

Fuel efficiency in transportation

Main article: Fuel efficiency in transportation

Vehicle efficiency and transportation pollution

Main article: Gas-guzzler

Fuel efficiency directly affects emissions causing pollution and potentially leading to climate change by affecting the amount of fuel used. However, it also depends on the fuel source used to drive the vehicle concerned. Cars can, for example, run on a number of fuel types other than gasoline, such as natural gas, LPG or biofuel or electricity which creates various quantities of atmospheric pollution.

A kilogram of petrol, diesel, kerosene and the like in a vehicle leads to approximately 3.15 kg of CO₂ emissions, or 2.3 kg/L (19 lb/gal). Additional measures to reduce overall emission includes improvements to the efficiency of air conditioners, lights and tires.

There is also a growing movement of drivers who practice ways to increase their MPG and save fuel through driving techniques. They are often referred to as hypermilers. Hypermilers have broken records of fuel efficiency, averaging 109 miles per gallon driving a Prius. In non-hybrid vehicles these techniques are also beneficial. Hypermiler Wayne Gerdes can get 59 MPG in a Honda Accord and 30 MPG in an Acura MDX.^[7]

Hybrid vehicles can conserve petroleum fuel and therefore be more efficient than conventional vehicles.

The most efficient propulsion system is electricity, as used in electric vehicles. Currently railways can be powered using electricity, delivered to trains through an additional running rail or overhead catenary system. Any pollution produced from the generation of the electricity is emitted at a distant power station, rather than "at site". Some railways, such as SNCF and Swiss federal railways, derive most, if not 100% of their current from hydroelectric or nuclear power stations, therefore atmospheric pollution from their rail networks is very low. This was reflected in a study by AEA Technology between a Eurostar train and airline journeys between London and Paris, which showed the trains on average emitting 10 times less CO₂, per passenger, than planes, helped in part by French Nuclear generation, which however creates its own waste.^[8] (see Petroleum dependence). This can be changed using more renewable sources for electric generation.

In the future hydrogen cars may be commercially available. Powered either through chemical reactions in a fuel cell that create electricity to drive very efficient electrical motors or by directly burning hydrogen in a combustion engine (near identically to a natural gas vehicle, and similarly compatible with both natural gas and gasoline); these vehicles promise to have zero pollution from the tailpipe (exhaust pipe). Potentially the atmospheric pollution could be zero, provided the hydrogen is made by electrolysis using electricity from nonpolluting sources such as solar, wind, or hydroelectricity, or from nuclear power. One advantage of fuel cell vehicles is that they can electrolyze water using their own fuel cells, operating in exactly the same closed-loop fashion as any other rechargeable electric battery.

One important factor to keep in mind with electrically fueled vehicles is that even an electric vehicle powered by a coal-burning power plant actually produces far less emissions, consumes less energy, and is cheaper to drive than a vehicle which burns any of a number of many supposed energy sources such as gasoline, diesel, and biofuels. The reason for this is that not only do these fuels burn very inefficiently in the vehicle as compared with the operation of an electric drivetrain, but they all require more energy to produce than they contain, energy that usually comes from a true energy source such as coal or natural gas.

Controversially, it is thought by scientists that where emissions take place in the Earth's atmosphere has an overall effect on climate change. Atmospheric changes from aircraft result from three types of processes: direct emission of radiatively active substances (e.g., CO₂ or water vapor); emission of chemical species that produce or destroy radiatively active substances (e.g., NO_x, which modifies O₃ concentration); and emission of substances that trigger the generation of aerosol particles or lead to changes in natural clouds (e.g., contrails). What this means is that the total warming effect of aircraft emissions is 2.7 times as great as the effect of that carbon dioxide released by an automobile:^[9]

See also

• Annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE)
• ACEA agreement
• Alternative propulsion
• Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
• Carbon dioxide equivalent
• Emission standard
• Energy conservation
• Energy efficiency
• Fuel economy in automobiles
• Gas-guzzler
• Heating value
• Energy density
• Energy content of Biofuel
• Life cycle assessment
• Low-energy vehicle
• Post carbon
• Road transport

References

External links

• Techniques for improving fuel economy
• How to buy a fuel efficient car
• Tips on improving fuel efficiency
• How to increase auto fuel efficiency
• In-depth advice to help increase fuel efficiency
• US Government website on fuel economy
• UK DfT comparisons on road and rail
• An independent compilation of real-world efficiency statistics, with references
• Online fuel economy database search
• Gas Saving Tips & Fuel Efficiency Guide
• Automobile Pollution Facts and Polls
• Directive 93/116/EC.
• ECCM study for Virgin trains.
• Keep a track of your vehicle's gas mileage.
• Car Fuel Efficiency Converter.
• Optimal Commuting Speed Calculator