"The Research Behind the Regulations"
presented at the Alcohol Week Conference on
         New Fuels for Cleaner Air
               July 16, 1987
      Charles  L. Gray, Jr., Director
   Emission  Control  Technology Division
         Office of Mobile  Sources
        Office of Air and Radiation
      Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                            Outline


              The Research Behind the Regulations

I.    The Potential of Methanol as a Passenger Car Fuel

     A.    Methanol"s Advantages Compared to Gasoline
     B.    Current Technology vs. Advanced Technology Vehicles
     C.    Potential Efficiency Improvements
     D.    EPA/Industry Cooperative Programs
           1.    Toyota
           2.    Nissan

     E.    EPA In-House Programs
           1.    Ricardo HRCC Engine
           2.    Cold Start
           3.    Catalyst Optimization
           4.    Dissociation

II.   Methanol as a Clean Bus Fuel

     A.    EPA Reassessment of Diesel Bus Emissions
     B.    Environmental Impacts of Diesel Particulate
     C.    EPA Emission Standards
     D.    Recent EPA Methanol Bus Chassis Data
           1.    Particulate
           2.    Nitrogen Oxides
           3.    Formaldehyde

     E.    New York City Methanol Bus Program

III. The Effects of Oxygenated Blends on Motor Vehicle Emissions

     A.    EPA Approved Blends
           1.    Gasohol
           2.    Oxinol
           3.    DuPont
           4.    MTBE

     B.    CO Emission Reductions
     C.    HC Emissions
           1.    Many factors must be considered
           2.    No change at equal RVP
           3.    Increase at higher RVP

     D.    Projected Fleetwide Impacts
     E.    Volatility Rulemaking

-------
METHANOL'S ADVANTAGES OVER GASOLINE
 LOW EMISSION POTENTIAL
 HIGH EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL
 LEAN BUEN CAPACITY
 DISSOCIATION POTENTIAL

-------
            Methanol Vehicle Technologies
Parameter
Current
Compression Ratio   Low (FFV) to High
Air-Fuel Ratio



Fuel  Injection



Aspiration



Fuel
                    Stoichiometric
                                          Advanced
                      High
                      Lean
                    Port or Throttle Body   Sequential
                    Natural
                    M85
                      Turbocharger



                      M100 /Dissociation
Catalyst
Stock
                                          Optimized

-------
     Methanol Vehicle Emissions  and  Efficiency
Parameter                Current             Advanced
HC Reactivity        20 to 50 % lower     85 to 95%  lower
Formaldehyde        4 to 8 times higher    gasoline level
Carbon Monoxide     gasoline level          much lower
Nitrogen Oxides      gasoline level          gasoline level
Energy Efficiency     gasoline level          20 to 40%  higher

-------
        Methanol Engine Efficiency
60
          Increase
         Compression
           Ratio
               Design Strategy

-------
                  Break Even Oil  Price
0)
o
    $35
0)
t  $30
(0
CD



-------
               Ricardo HRCC  Engine

Ricardo modified a VW engine with
Ugh Compression Ratio, Compact Combustion Chamber design

Lean combustion, sequential fuel injection, M100, EGR

Engine installed in an Audi 5000 Diesel provided
5 percent higher fuel economy and
20  percent  better performance

Work now underway to optimize for emissions,
especially to meet 1.0 gpm NOx

Direct injection work planned

-------
        Toyota Lean Combustion System
          dlrea Hฎฎ4 to <&Mffi    wOUti JteiiuDd^ฎ 9S/&K stand* ffd
 D Swrbl ฉsuratr^O
 CI S^ix
At ER&*@ o

-------
 Toyota  Lean  Burn  Methanol Results

 Vehicle performed well  on both M85 and M100

 Meets current HC and CO standards, and
 less than 1.0 gram/mile NOx

 Very low  aldehyde emissions : less than 10 mg/mile

 Evap emissions less than 1 gram/test,
 M100 lower than M85

Fuel economy as good  or better than
 comparable gasoline vehicles

-------
Future Plans for Toyota  Lean Burn System

• New leaner M100 calibrations to be evaluated
   on current vehicle

• Engine out emissions and  air/fuel ratio mapping
   over FTP  on current vehicle

• EGR evaluation on current vehicle

• Development of new methanol lean burn engine
   optimized  for emissions and fuel economy

• Delivery of vehicle with new engine in mid-1988

-------
              Joint Nissan /EPA Program

Baseline Sentra delivered in July 1987
•  Part-throttle lean combustion,
    sequential fuel injection, turbocharger
•  Meets current emission standards
•  106 hp  vs 70 hp for gas Sentra
•  42 mpg vs 36 to 41 mpg for gas Sentra
Three engines will be delivered in fall  1987
Upgraded Sentra scheduled for delivery in summer 1988
•  Maintain high performance of baseline vehicle
•  Low ozone potential - 5  mgpm formaldehyde emissions
•  Gasoline equivalent fuel economy of 45  to 50 mpg

-------
           In-House Concepts

Cold Start
   Atomizer  Nozzle
   Ignition System Design
   Resistance Heating/ Partial Oxidation

Dissociation
   Southwest Research Institute Contract
   Industry Interaction

Catalyst
   Washcoat Formulations
   Preheater

-------
           EPA  Reassessment  of  Transit  Bus  Emissions
More Sophisticated Analysis
    *  Larger and more accurate emission data base
    *  Very high public exposure


Greater Concern About Diesel Particulate and NOx pollution
Equity
    *  Relative to treatment of other vehicle classes
    *  Credibility for future air quality strategies

-------
Ratio of Transit  Bus to Gasoline Car Emissions
               (1980 vehicles in use)
   500

-------
             Environmental  Impacts  of Diesel Participate
Total Suspended Particulate is an EPA Criteria Pollutant
    *  Very high levels correlated with mortality rates
    *  Lower levels aggravate respiratory diseases
Diesel Particulate is a Special Health Concern
    *  Very small size
    *  Known to contain mutagenic and carcinogenic compounds
Diesel Particulate is Also a Welfare Concern
    *  Very detrimental to visibility
    *  Soiling and/or corrosion
    *  Odor

-------
            Bus and Truck Emission Standards
               ( g/ hp-hr over EPA test procedure )
                     NOx          PM
Current Engines    5 to 9      0.4  to  0.8
1988  - 1989      10.7         0.60
1990                6.0         0.60
1991  - 1993       5.0       0.25 /  0.10
1994 and later       5.0         0.10

-------
Diesel vs Methanol Bus Emissions (GPM)
 & Diesel   • GM Methanol • MAN Methanol
                     o J

-------
      Diesel vs Methanol Bus HCHO
         Diesel
GM Methanol • MAN Methanol
3.0
      Bus Cycles (g/mile)
2.5
2.0 -
1.5 -
1.0 •
0.5 •
0.0
          0.6
                 Idle (g/minute)
          0.5 •
          0.4
          0.3
          0.2
          0.1
         0.0

-------
            New York City  Demonstration

Settlement of EPA enforcement action
EPA, GM, NRDC, CAS, Celanese, New York City and UMTA
Total GM commitment of $6.7 million
Goal to show commercial viability by 1991
      Phase 1  -- engine R and D
      Phase 2 -- 6 buses in December  1987 at no cost
      Phase 3 -- sale of 26 buses in 1989-90 at diesel price

-------
Oxygenated Blends Approved by EPA
Name
Gasohol
 Additive
10% Ethanol
Oxygen Content
    3.7%
Oxinol
4.75% Methanol
4.75% TBA
    3.5%
DuPont
5% Methanol
2.5% Ethanol
    3.7%
MTBE
11% MTBE
    2.0%

-------
     Effect of Blends on CO
Technology    3.7% Oxygen   2.0% Oxygen
Non-Catalyst     -18%        -10%
Open Loop      -30%        -17%
Closed Loop     -10%         -5%

-------
Factors Affecting HC Emissions Analysis

    Evaporative and Exhaust
        Vehicle Technology
        Low Reactivity of Methanol
        Change in Fuel Volatility

    Evaporative Only
        Change in Distillation Curve
        Change in Molecular Weight
        Commingling

-------
      Effect of Blends on Exhaust HC
Technology    3.7% Oxygen   2.0% Oxygen
            = RVP  +1 RVP
Non-Catalyst   -9%   -5%      -5%
Open Loop    -9%   -5%      -5%
Closed Loop   -4%   -1%      -2%

-------
      Effect of Blends on Evap HC
(percent, range from no commingling to maximum commingling)

                    Carbureted    Fuel Injected
        Ethanol
         = RVP      + 7 to + 12      -6 to  + 2
        +1 RVP     +61 to +69    +71 to + 84
        Methanol
         = RVP      -7 to  +5    -17 to  +5
        +1 RVP     +35 to +66    +50 to +77
        MTBE          +15           +1

-------
Projected Fleetwide Impacts of Blends in 1990
                    (percent)

 Blend                Hydrocarbons           CO

                  = RVP      +1 RVP

 Gasohol          -2 to +5   +15 to +35    -22

 Oxinol/DuPont     -5 to +5    +9 to +30    -22

 MTBE              -1           NA         -12

-------
Options for Blends  in Volatility Rulemaking
    Control to same RVP as gasoline
    Temporary 1 PSI RVP allowance
    (tax exemption)
    Permanent 1 PSI RVP allowance

-------