IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i19p7188-d929437.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framework for Energy-Averaged Emission Mitigation Technique Adopting Gasoline-Methanol Blend Replacement and Piston Design Exchange

Author

Listed:
  • Prakash Chandra Mishra

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Veer Surendra Sai University of Technology, Burla 768018, India)

  • Anand Gupta

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology, Sarang 759146, India)

  • Saikat Samanta

    (School of Mechanical Engineering, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar 751024, India)

  • Rihana B. Ishaq

    (School of Built Environment Engineering and Computing, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds LS1 3HE, UK)

  • Fuad Khoshnaw

    (School of Engineering and Sustainable Development, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK)

Abstract

Measurement to mitigate automotive emission varies from energy content modification of fuel to waste energy recovery through energy system upgradation. The proposed energy-averaged emission mitigation technique involves interfacing piston design exchange and gasoline–methanol blend replacement with traditional gasoline for low carbon high energy content creation. Here, we interlinked the CO, CO 2 , NO x , O 2 , and HC to different design exchanges of coated pistons through the available brake power and speed of the engine. We assessed the relative effectiveness of various designs and coating thicknesses for different gasoline–methanol blends (0%,5%,10%, and 15%). The analysis shows the replacement of 5%, 10%, and 15% by volume of gasoline with methanol reduces the fuel carbon by 4.167%, 8.34%, and 12.5%, respectively. The fuel characteristics of blends are comparable to gasoline, hence there is no energy infrastructure modification required to develop the same amount of power. The CO and HC reduced significantly, while CO 2 and NO x emissions are comparable. Increasing the coating thickness enhances the surface temperature retention and reduces heat transfer. The Type_C design of the steel piston and type_A design of the AlSi piston show temperature retention values of 582 °C and 598 °C, respectively. Type_A and type_B pistons are better compared to type_C and the type_D piston design for emission mitigation due to decarbonization of fuel through gasoline-methanol blend replacement. Surface response methodology predicts Delastic, σvon Mises, and Tsurface with percentage errors of 0.0042,0.35, and 0.9, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Prakash Chandra Mishra & Anand Gupta & Saikat Samanta & Rihana B. Ishaq & Fuad Khoshnaw, 2022. "Framework for Energy-Averaged Emission Mitigation Technique Adopting Gasoline-Methanol Blend Replacement and Piston Design Exchange," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-26, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:19:p:7188-:d:929437
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/19/7188/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/19/7188/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shiqi Ou & Xin He & Weiqi Ji & Wei Chen & Lang Sui & Yu Gan & Zifeng Lu & Zhenhong Lin & Sili Deng & Steven Przesmitzki & Jessey Bouchard, 2020. "Machine learning model to project the impact of COVID-19 on US motor gasoline demand," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 5(9), pages 666-673, September.
    2. Paul E. Brockway & Anne Owen & Lina I. Brand-Correa & Lukas Hardt, 2019. "Estimation of global final-stage energy-return-on-investment for fossil fuels with comparison to renewable energy sources," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 4(7), pages 612-621, July.
    3. Sanya Carley & Tom P. Evans & Michelle Graff & David M. Konisky, 2018. "A framework for evaluating geographic disparities in energy transition vulnerability," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(8), pages 621-627, August.
    4. Lebunu Hewage Udara Willhelm Abeydeera & Jayantha Wadu Mesthrige & Tharushi Imalka Samarasinghalage, 2019. "Global Research on Carbon Emissions: A Scientometric Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-25, July.
    5. Nan Zhou & Nina Khanna & Wei Feng & Jing Ke & Mark Levine, 2018. "Scenarios of energy efficiency and CO2 emissions reduction potential in the buildings sector in China to year 2050," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(11), pages 978-984, November.
    6. Shiqi Ou & Xin He & Weiqi Ji & Wei Chen & Lang Sui & Yu Gan & Zifeng Lu & Zhenhong Lin & Sili Deng & Steven Przesmitzki & Jessey Bouchard, 2020. "Author Correction: Machine learning model to project the impact of COVID-19 on US motor gasoline demand," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 5(12), pages 1051-1052, December.
    7. Jochen Markard, 2018. "The next phase of the energy transition and its implications for research and policy," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(8), pages 628-633, August.
    8. Lewis C. King & Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh, 2018. "Implications of net energy-return-on-investment for a low-carbon energy transition," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 334-340, April.
    9. Sgouris Sgouridis & Michael Carbajales-Dale & Denes Csala & Matteo Chiesa & Ugo Bardi, 2019. "Comparative net energy analysis of renewable electricity and carbon capture and storage," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 4(6), pages 456-465, June.
    10. Susan C. Anenberg & Joshua Miller & Ray Minjares & Li Du & Daven K. Henze & Forrest Lacey & Christopher S. Malley & Lisa Emberson & Vicente Franco & Zbigniew Klimont & Chris Heyes, 2017. "Impacts and mitigation of excess diesel-related NOx emissions in 11 major vehicle markets," Nature, Nature, vol. 545(7655), pages 467-471, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Overland, Indra & Juraev, Javlon & Vakulchuk, Roman, 2022. "Are renewable energy sources more evenly distributed than fossil fuels?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 379-386.
    2. Aljoša Slameršak & Giorgos Kallis & Daniel W. O’Neill, 2022. "Energy requirements and carbon emissions for a low-carbon energy transition," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Hasret Sahin & A. A. Solomon & Arman Aghahosseini & Christian Breyer, 2024. "Systemwide energy return on investment in a sustainable transition towards net zero power systems," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Hong, Sanghyun & Kim, Eunsung & Jeong, Saerok, 2023. "Evaluating the sustainability of the hydrogen economy using multi-criteria decision-making analysis in Korea," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 485-492.
    5. Jacques, Pierre & Delannoy, Louis & Andrieu, Baptiste & Yilmaz, Devrim & Jeanmart, Hervé & Godin, Antoine, 2023. "Assessing the economic consequences of an energy transition through a biophysical stock-flow consistent model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    6. David J. Murphy & Marco Raugei & Michael Carbajales-Dale & Brenda Rubio Estrada, 2022. "Energy Return on Investment of Major Energy Carriers: Review and Harmonization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, June.
    7. Hongshuo Yan & Lianyong Feng & Jianliang Wang & Yuanying Chi & Yue Ma, 2021. "A Comprehensive Net Energy Analysis and Outlook of Energy System in China," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Wang, Qiang & Li, Shuyu & Zhang, Min & Li, Rongrong, 2022. "Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on oil consumption in the United States: A new estimation approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    9. Bocklet, Johanna, 2020. "The Reformed EU ETS in Times of Economic Crises: the Case of the COVID-19 Pandemic," EWI Working Papers 2020-10, Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universitaet zu Koeln (EWI).
    10. Ding, H. & Zhou, D.Q. & Liu, G.Q. & Zhou, P., 2020. "Cost reduction or electricity penetration: Government R&D-induced PV development and future policy schemes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    11. Patrick Moriarty & Damon Honnery, 2019. "Energy Accounting for a Renewable Energy Future," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    12. Hanmin Dong & Xiujie Tan & Si Cheng & Yishuang Liu, 2023. "COVID-19, recovery policies and the resilience of EU ETS," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 56(5), pages 2965-2991, October.
    13. Zhang, Xiaokong & Chai, Jian & Tian, Lingyue & Yang, Ying & Zhang, Zhe George & Pan, Yue, 2023. "Forecast and structural characteristics of China's oil product consumption embedded in bottom-line thinking," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(PA).
    14. Mohammad Hossein Ahmadi & Mohammad Dehghani Madvar & Milad Sadeghzadeh & Mohammad Hossein Rezaei & Manuel Herrera & Shahaboddin Shamshirband, 2019. "Current Status Investigation and Predicting Carbon Dioxide Emission in Latin American Countries by Connectionist Models," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, May.
    15. Bartłomiej Bajan & Joanna Łukasiewicz & Agnieszka Poczta-Wajda & Walenty Poczta, 2021. "Edible Energy Production and Energy Return on Investment—Long-Term Analysis of Global Changes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, February.
    16. Victor Court, 2019. "An Estimation of Different Minimum Exergy Return Ratios Required for Society," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 1-13, September.
    17. Gao, Shuaizhi & Zhou, Peng & Zhang, Hongyan, 2023. "Does energy transition help narrow the urban-rural income gap? Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    18. da Silva Neves, Marcus Vinicius & Szklo, Alexandre & Schaeffer, Roberto, 2023. "Fossil fuel facilities exergy return for a frontier of analysis incorporating CO2 capture: The case of a coal power plant," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 284(C).
    19. Kevin Pahud & Greg de Temmerman, 2022. "Overview of the EROI, a tool to measure energy availability through the energy transition," Post-Print hal-03780085, HAL.
    20. Diesendorf, M. & Wiedmann, T., 2020. "Implications of Trends in Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) for Transitioning to Renewable Electricity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:19:p:7188-:d:929437. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.