Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “ethanol fuel”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Q1 2020)

The US. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2020 (Q1). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the amount projected to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Second Quarter 2020

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2020. Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the amount projected to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the second report in a new series. The first report for the first calendar quarter of 2020 can be found in the publication databases of the Alternative Fuels Data Center and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Third Quarter 2020

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the third calendar quarter of 2020. Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the amount projected to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the third report in a new series. Reports for the first two calendar quarters of 2020 can be found in the publication databases of the Alternative Fuels Data Center and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Q4 2020)

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the fourth calendar quarter of 2020 (Q4). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the projected amount needed to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the fourth report in a series. Previous reports for the first (Q1), second (Q2), and third (Q3) calendar quarters of 2020 can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: First Quarter 2021

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2021 (Q1). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the target infrastructure volume for 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the fifth report in a series. Previous reports from 2020 can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Second Quarter 2021

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2021 (Q2). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the target infrastructure volume for 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the sixth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Third Quarter 2021)

The U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private nonresidential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the third calendar quarter of 2021 (Q3). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the seventh report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Fourth Quarter 2021

The U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private nonresidential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the fourth calendar quarter of 2021 (Q4). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the eighth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: First Q2022

The U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private nonresidential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2022 (Q1). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the ninth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Second Quarter 2022)

The U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private nonresidential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2022 (Q2). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the tenth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Energy utilization strategies in lignocellulosic biorefineries

Lignocellulosic biorefineries can generate various energy-rich side streams, including biogas from anaerobic digestion, a lignin stream from biomass pretreatment, and conversion residues. This study evaluates different chemical energy utilization strategies in lignocellulosic biorefineries based on energy and carbon efficiencies, cost, and greenhouse gas mitigation potential. Specifically, using modeling and optimization, we examine strategies that include electricity generation, biogas upgrade to biomethane, lignin valorization, and carbon capture and storage. We find that upgrading biogas to biomethane demonstrates the highest energy efficiency and leads to the lowest minimum fuel selling price for the main product, ethanol. The biorefinery with carbon capture and storage achieves the lowest net carbon footprint. Lignin valorization has the highest carbon footprint due to the additional materials required for lignin depolymerization, despite its potential to produce high value bioproducts.

Aboagye, Emmanuel A. [Princeton Univ., NJ (United ↗
DOE OSTI2021

Development of an Efficient Conjugate Heat Transfer Modeling Framework to Optimize Mixing-Limited Combustion of Ethanol in a Diesel Engine

Mixing controlled combustion of alcohol fuels has been identified as a promising technology based on their low propensity for particulate and NOx production, but the higher heats of vaporization and auto-ignition temperatures of these fuels make their direct use in diesel engine architectures a challenge. To realize the potential of alcohol-fueled combustion, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling framework is developed, validated, and exercised to identify designs that maximize engine thermal efficiency. To evaluate the use of thermal barrier coatings (TBCs), a simplified one-dimensional (1D) conjugate heat transfer (CHT) modeling framework is employed. The addition of the 1D CHT model only increases the computational expense by 15% relative to traditional approaches, yet offers more accurate heat transfer predictions over constant temperature boundary conditions. The validated model is then used to explore a range of injector orientations and piston bowl geometries. Using a design of experiments (DoE) approach, several designs were identified that improved fuel-air mixing, shortened the combustion duration, and increased thermal efficiency. The most promising design was fabricated and tested in a Caterpillar 1Y3700 single-cylinder oil test engine (SCOTE). Engine testing confirmed the findings from the CFD simulations and found that the co-optimized injector and piston bowl design yielded over 2-percentage point increase in thermal efficiency at the same equivalence ratio (0.96) and over 6-percentage point increase at the same engine load (10.1 bar indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP)), while satisfying design constraints for peak pressure and maximum pressure rise rate.

Magnotti, Gina M.↗
NASA NTRS1973

Fuel droplet burning rates at high pressures.

Combustion of methanol, ethanol, propanol-1, n-pentane, n-heptane, and n-decane was observed in air under natural convection conditions, at pressures up to 100 atm. The droplets were simulated by porous spheres, with diameters in the range from 0.63 to 1.90 cm. The pressure levels of the tests were high enough so that near-critical combustion was observed for methanol and ethanol. Due to the high pressures, the phase-equilibrium models of the analysis included both the conventional low-pressure approach as well as high-pressure versions, allowing for real gas effects and the solubility of combustion-product gases in the liquid phase. The burning-rate predictions of the various theories were similar, and in fair agreement with the data. The high-pressure theory gave the best prediction for the liquid-surface temperatures of ethanol and propanol-1 at high pressure. The experiments indicated the approach of critical burning conditions for methanol and ethanol at pressures on the order of 80 to 100 atm, which was in good agreement with the predictions of both the low- and high-pressure analysis.

Canada, G. S.↗
NASA NTRS1975

Combustion of liquid fuels in a flowing combustion gas environment at high pressures

The combustion of fuel droplets in gases which simulate combustion chamber conditions was considered both experimentally and theoretically. The fuel droplets were simulated by porous spheres and allowed to gasify in combustion gases produced by a burner. Tests were conducted for pressures of 1-40 atm, temperatures of 600-1500 K, oxygen concentrations of 0-13% (molar) and approach Reynolds numbers of 40-680. The fuels considered in the tests included methanol, ethanol, propanol-1, n-pentane, n-heptane and n-decane. Measurements were made of both the rate of gasification of the droplet and the liquid surface temperature. Measurements were compared with theory, involving various models of gas phase transport properties with a multiplicative correction for the effect of forced convection.

Canada, G. S.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Empirical Evidence for the Potential Climate Benefits of Decarbonizing Light Vehicle Transport in the U.S. with Bioenergy from Purpose-Grown Biomass with and without BECCS

Climate mitigation scenarios limiting global temperature increases to 1.5 °C rely on decarbonizing vehicle transport with bioenergy production plus carbon capture and storage (BECCS), but climate impacts for producing different bioenergy feedstocks have not been directly compared experimentally or for ethanol vs electric light-duty vehicles. A field experiment at two Midwest U.S. sites on contrasting soils revealed that feedstock yields of seven potential bioenergy cropping systems varied substantially within sites but little between. Bioenergy produced per hectare reflected yields: miscanthus > poplar > switchgrass > native grasses ≈ maize stover (residue) > restored prairie ≈ early successional. Greenhouse gas emission intensities for ethanol vehicles ranged from 20 to -179 g CO 2 e MJ –1 : maize stover $\gg$ miscanthus ≈ switchgrass ≈ native grasses ≈ poplar > early successional ≥ restored prairie; direct climate benefits ranged from ~80% (stover) to 290% (restored prairie) reductions in CO 2 e compared to petroleum and were similar for electric vehicles. With carbon capture and storage (CCS), reductions in emission intensities ranged from 204% (stover) to 416% (restored prairie) for ethanol vehicles and from 329 to 558% for electric vehicles, declining 27 and 15%, respectively, once soil carbon equilibrates within several decades of establishment. Extrapolation based on expected U.S. transportation energy use suggests that, once CCS potential is maximized with CO 2 pipeline infrastructure, negative emissions from bioenergy with CCS for light-duty electric vehicles could capture >900 Tg CO 2 e year –1 in the U.S. In the future, as other renewable electricity sources become more important, electricity production from biomass would offset less fossil fuel electricity, and the advantage of electric over ethanol vehicles would decrease proportionately.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Knock-limited combustion of ethanol-, isobutanol-, and 2-methyl-3-buten-2-ol-gasoline blends in a direct-injected spark-ignition engine

Knock-limited combustion of alcohol-gasoline fuel blends was studied in a direct-injection spark-ignition engine. Ethanol, isobutanol (2-methyl-1-propanol), and methylbutenol (2-methyl-3-buten-2-ol) were splash-blended with a blendstock for oxygenate blending (BOB) gasoline. Ethanol was blended in fractions of 10%, 20%, and 30% by volume (E10, E20, and E30). Isobutanol and methylbutenol were blended to match the oxygen weight percentage of the ethanol blends, resulting in blends of 16%, 32%, and 49% (I16, I32, and I49) isobutanol by volume and 18%, 37%, and 56% (M18, M37, and M56) methylbutenol by volume. Neat BOB and gasoline primary reference fuels (PRF) with octane numbers (ON) of 87 (PRF87) and 100 (PRF100) were included for reference. The engine was operated at fixed speed, equivalence ratio, and injection timing while knock-limited spark advance was located across a range of intake pressures. Low-level alcohol blends E10 and M18 had similar knocking behavior and appeared to be slightly more knock-resistant than I16. For mid-level blends, E20 showed further improvement over I32 while M37 showed noticeably better knock resistance, able to match the knock-resistance of PRF100 for loads above 1000 kPa gross indicated mean effective pressure (GIMEP). For high-level blends, the difference between E30 and I49 was similar to their mid-level counterparts. However, M56 showed significant improvement over E30 and I49 throughout the entire range of loads tested. M56 exceeded the knock-resistance of PRF100 for loads above 700 kPa GIMEP. The improved knock-resistance combined with the increased volumetric energy density of methylbutenol resulted in improved fuel consumption and indicated efficiency. The overall results of this study indicate that the order of knock-resistance of these three alcohols, for direct-injection operation with injection during the intake stroke, is isobutanol < ethanol < methylbutenol when compared on an equal oxygen weight basis.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Dicarboxylic acid emissions from a GDI engine equipped with a catalytic gasoline particulate filter

Dicarboxylic acids play an important role in atmospheric chemistry, yet their emissions from primary sources, such as internal combustion engines, has not been extensively studied. In this paper, KOH impregnated quartz filters were loaded with exhaust gases from a gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine equipped with a catalytic gasoline particulate filter (GPF). All filters were analyzed for carboxylic and dicarboxylic acids using a derivatized gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy method. Exhaust gas was sampled from pre-GPF and post-GPF locations to determine the performance of the GPF regarding acid conversion. Lean and stoichiometric engine modes were considered with non-oxygenated gasoline and 10% splash blended ethanol in gasoline (E10) to examine the impact of stoichiometry and fuel type. Acid emissions represented as much as 0.51% of total unburned hydrocarbon emissions for total monocarboxylic acids and as much as 0.40% for total dicarboxylic acids. Individual acid concentrations were as high as 38 mg/kg-fuel for monocarboxylic acids and as high as 29 mg/kg-fuel for dicarboxylic acids. Overall, the study found that fuel oxygenates had mixed impact on the acid emissions. Engine-out monocarboxylic acids were reduced when using the E10 fuel by approximately 30–45% for the stoichiometric condition and increased marginally for the lean condition. Dicarboxylic acid emissions were generally insensitive to ethanol content. However, the engine condition significantly affected the acid emissions. Lean operation produced a factor of two to an order of magnitude higher emissions rates of both monocarboxylic and dicarboxylic acids than the stoichiometric condition. The catalytic GPF eliminated between 80 and 92% of the acids emitted from the engine, allowing some acids to be emitted into the environment.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Fuel Property-Informed Process Design for the Direct Catalytic Conversion of Cellulosics

The direct catalytic conversion of cellulosics (DC3) with supercritical methanol presents a promising pathway to completely solubilize woody biomass and produce >60% mass yield of C2-C6 oxygenates for light duty vehicle applications. Although the oxygenate composition can be tuned by modifying catalyst and process conditions, limited efforts to date have examined DC3 fuel properties for light duty fuel applications to iteratively inform conversion process design. In this work, we designed and evaluated multi-component surrogate bioblendstocks that represent major DC3 light oxygenates and refined catalyst formulations and distillation parameters to improve the resulting light duty fuel quality. Surrogate design for this novel fuel production pathway was based on a preliminary product slate that was systematically adjusted to determine impacts on fuel properties of interest including heating value, oxidative stability, and heat of vaporization, among others. The resulting predictions and measurements of these surrogates were then used to inform improvement of conversion process, and specifically, reformulation of the catalyst which resulted in production of a higher energy density fuel product primarily comprised of saturated alcohols. Fuel testing outcomes also informed downstream oxygenate separations requirements. This resulted in the production of a promising DC3 light-duty fuel blendstock with >15% greater energy density relative to ethanol, while maintaining high octane number and octane sensitivity.

BIOMASS FUELS↗