Fuel Economy: Enhancing It, Investing in It

Arthur H. Purcell, PhD

Sustainable Resource Management (SRM), Los Angeles

August 2, 2010

The major global lesson of the BP/Gulf Oil Spill is clear: If society is truly
committed to minimizing the potential of energy-related ecological and
socioeconomic crises, we must reduce our need to develop energy resources
that are found in highly ecologically sensitive areas. The BP/Gulf Spill would not
have occurred if that infamous well had not been drilled. And the well was drilled
as part of an oil exploration process to meet future oil demands. No well, no
disaster. It’s that simple.

And what is the easiest and most cost-effective way to reduce the demand for
oil? Utilize it more efficiently. Less demand, less need for supply. Ergo less
need to drill in technologically and ecologically challenging locales.

Increasing fuel efficiency, though, is not always so simple - and we have gotten a
relatively late start in this area. It really was not until the last quarter of the recent
century, after the massive "energy crisis" of 1973-74, that private and public
sector decision makers began to understand that energy conservation did not run
counter to bottom-line economic objectives, and that conservation was good not
only for the environment but for the economy and for overall societal wellbeing.

Until that time, there had been a strong prevailing belief that profit motive -- the
prevailing impetus for business activities in our society -- leads directly to
maximizing energy efficiency, and that further opportunities for increasing energy
efficiency were therefore minimal. An analysis by a Federal Power Commission
(now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) engineer named Charles Berg
published by the influential journal SCIENCE began, however, to change that
thinking. Berg's paper pointed out a number of examples in which efficiency
could be increased -- and thus fuel use decreased -- without interfering with
bottom line considerations.

One of the major conservation targets, then and now, was the automotive
sector. By the late 1970s we began to see some promising efforts in energy
conservation in this and other areas. But efforts to expand conservation stalled
for years as oil supplies outstripped demand and oil prices dipped to levels as
low as one tenth of today's prices.

The oil price shocks of the 21st century's first decade, however, triggered by
dramatic growth in non-Western economies, have provided considerable
motivation for money-saving conservation systems and technologies. The
calamitous BP Gulf spill has simply added an exclamation point to the
pronouncement that increased petroleum-based fuel use efficiency is in
everyone's best interest.

There are three basic approaches to minimizing fuel use, which can be termed
the Three R's of Fuel Conservation: Reduce, Replace, and Reconfigure.

"Reduce” is the low-tech option; it includes voluntary and involuntary measures

leading to reduced fuel consumption that entail virtually no changes in fuel and
mechanical systems. In the automotive area, this ranges simply from less use of
a vehicle (e.g. carpooling instead of single person driving or increasing freight
loads) to better vehicle maintenance and more conservation-conscious vehicle
operation. The involuntary dimension of Reduce involves rationing or some other
form of legal mandate to cut back fuel use. The automotive fuel rationing option
used in World War II, as well as (briefly) in the '73-'74 energy crisis. The recently
announced program by the government of China to close over 2,000 industrial
applications because of their low energy efficiencies is another important
example of involuntary reduction.

"Replace" options range from offering increased public transportation alternatives

to automobile users to switching modes of transport (e.g. truck to train or vehicle
driver to bus) to developing non-petroleum alternative fuels and non-petroleum
power systems for trucks and automobiles.

A wide variety of "Reconfigure" options have been pursued in automotive energy

conservation design. They range from vehicle downsizing and hybrid engine
deployment to lightweight materials substitutions and aerodynamic redesign, to
adding technologies such as GPS.

In combination, the three options have led to significant vehicle fuel conservation,
and have pointed to future paths for much more conservation. The “Reconfigure”
option has generally been the most effective of the three, because it has involved
the least need for vehicle operators to change habits. No one likes rationing, and
getting vehicle users to carpool and change over to alternative fuels and/or
alternative transportation is a slow process. .

There is also a fourth conservation “R,” that could be termed "Revisit," and which
has received less attention. The Revisit approach involves taking a more
comprehensive look at standard automotive system operations to determine if,
through relatively unsophisticated technology, these can be manipulated any
more than they already have been to enhance conservation. It also includes –
very importantly -- revisiting conservation measurement protocols to ensure that
conservation achievements can accurately documented.

One important Revisit example lies in upgrading the in-line fuel itself, an
approach that attracted my attention to Lakes Technologies, LLC and its
predecessor Etorus, Inc. Conventional wisdom holds that relatively little can be
done chemically to fuel, once it is in place, to influence fuel burn efficiency. Many
types of fuels and additives have been developed to put in the tank, but
comparatively few efforts have looked at whether and how fuel could be
“enhanced” between the tank and the engine. The concept, e.g., of in-line
catalysis to increase the fuel's potential for burn efficiency before entering the
combustion chamber, was generally considered an invalid one.

The Lakes FE (formerly Etorus FE) in-line catalytic system, though, has brought
about reported substantive diesel fuel savings in fleets where it has operated.
Fuel consumption reductions between 7 - 15% have been possible, along with
parallel reductions in CO2, over 25% particulate reduction, 20% NOx reduction
and up to 40% THC reductions (with up to 90% reduction of the more noxious
hydrocarbon compounds such as Benzene).

Awhile ago I had the opportunity to meet Jeff Irvin, a longtime FE customer. Irvin
and his father ran a fleet of petroleum transports. As a trained engineer, Irvin was
looking for a fail-safe fuel conservation approach that could lead to direct cost
savings for fleet operations. He became a real champion of the FE system,
reporting consistent fuel (and therefore dollar) savings through its use over the
past several years and saw improvements regularly up to 7% and even 12% on
occasion (and as noted above some users have reported up to 15%).

One of the reasons for this kind of client satisfaction lies in the Fuel Management
System (FMS), a product developed by Lakes, which gives users of its
technology substantive comfort zones as they work toward economically
attractive fleet conservation goals. Measuring energy conservation is not
straightforward. Major variables including load, acceleration, temperature,
weather and road conditions come into play and it can be a costly process. The
FMS system scientifically integrates these variables to develop precise real-time
measurements of fuel savings, as well as help identify focused tools for special
tune up, custom driver training and other straightforward options to enhance
conservation practices. Through use of the FMS each fleet vehicle can view
online and on demand, fuel use patterns. In this way, individual operators, as well
as fleet managers are provided with real-time conservation management insight.

The potential for the kind of conservation technology and information systems
offered by Lakes to effect significant worldwide fuel savings on existing
equipment is large, and has motivated me to make a personal investment in
Lakes. The simplicity and preciseness of the Lakes systems for achieving and
measuring fuel conservation makes the setup particularly attractive. Lakes
represents, I believe, the promising next generation approach to energy
conservation, in which straightforward approaches to conservation are developed
that can lead to quickly achievable conservation benefits through user friendly,
minimally complex technology.
Arthur H. Purcell is the principal of Sustainable Resource Management, technical
and policy advisory practice dedicated to identifying more sustainable solutions
to energy and environmental issues. Purcell holds PhD and MS degrees in
materials science from the McCormick School, Northwestern University, and a
BS from Cornell University. He has served with the President’s Science Policy
Task Force and the Senior Staff of the President’s Commission on the Accident
at Three Mile Island. He has served as a senior adviser to the UN Economic
Commission for Europe Environment and Human Settlements Division and a
professorial lecturer and seminar leader at George Washington University,
University of Southern California, University of Tokyo and other colleges and
universities. Purcell developed and taught the first national professional course
on pollution prevention, and has served as an energy and environmental
commentator on public radio’s “Marketplace.”