Ethanol replacment for gasonline...

[SagaLore]

Reading lots of threads about hydrogen fuel cells and ethanol in gasoline...

and just had an interesting thought.

Today's gasoline engines aren't optomized for ethanol, so whenever they add more ethanal to the gasoline, you end up consuming more fuel. But, what if engine manufacturers actually started producing ethanol-optomized engines, it would just take some minor tweaking of existing parts. Then, almost overnight, every gas station in the U.S. could be serving ethanol. All they would have to do is use one of their pumps for pure ethanol, it would be just like pumping gasoline.

And since ethanol can be made biologically, we could produce our own ethanol within the U.S. and the cost would go down dramatically within the first year of using it...

and it would be cleaner, and should get the support of environmental whackos...

and agriculture would benefit because you could use corn stalks as the base for ethanol production...

and automobile would benefit, since it spurs new auto sales, but maintains all the manufacturing already in place... and mechanics would be able to work on them with little transition...

what do you think? should I put together a proposal and send it over to the white house?

 

[SoylentGreen]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Reading lots of threads about hydrogen fuel cells and ethanol in gasoline...

and just had an interesting thought.

Today's gasoline engines aren't optomized for ethanol, so whenever they add more ethanal to the gasoline, you end up consuming more fuel. But, what if engine manufacturers actually started producing ethanol-optomized engines, it would just take some minor tweaking of existing parts. Then, almost overnight, every gas station in the U.S. could be serving ethanol. All they would have to do is use one of their pumps for pure ethanol, it would be just like pumpking gasoline.

And since ethanol can be made biologically, we could produce our own ethanol within the U.S. and the cost would go down dramatically within the first year of using it...

and it would be cleaner, and should get the support of environmental whackos...

and agriculture would benefit because you could use corn stalks as the base for ethanol production...

and automobile would benefit, since it spurs new auto sales, but maintains all the manufacturing already in place... and mechanics would be able to work on them with little transition...

what do you think? should I put together a proposal and send it over to the white house?

Wait until an oil tycoon isn't seated there.

 

[etech]

Ethanol For Fuel Fundamentally Uneconomic, Study Says

"Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell University agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.
At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell's David Pimentel takes a longer range view.

"Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning," says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
..."

I don't think it is a good idea. The reasons are in the article.

 

[Quixfire]

The big problem with ethanol is it's a sugar based. When burning it for a long period of time it will carbonize your engine. Methanol is a better solution if it wasn't so poisonous.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Quixfire
The big problem with ethanol is it's a sugar based. When burning it for a long period of time it will carbonize your engine. Methanol is a better solution if it wasn't so poisonous.

I have never seen anything suggesting that ethanol will "carbonize" an engine. It is an alcohol and it does not matter what it was made from it is still an alcohol.

The problems with ethanol are more based on how much energy it takes to produce it and what it does to the land then having an engine that can burn it.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: etech
Ethanol For Fuel Fundamentally Uneconomic, Study Says

"Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell University agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.
At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell's David Pimentel takes a longer range view.

"Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning," says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
..."

I don't think it is a good idea. The reasons are in the article.

I just ran across a Canadian alt-fuels site which placed the energy return as 151%. Maybe that one is outdated?

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Reading lots of threads about hydrogen fuel cells and ethanol in gasoline...

and just had an interesting thought.

Today's gasoline engines aren't optomized for ethanol, so whenever they add more ethanal to the gasoline, you end up consuming more fuel. But, what if engine manufacturers actually started producing ethanol-optomized engines, it would just take some minor tweaking of existing parts. Then, almost overnight, every gas station in the U.S. could be serving ethanol. All they would have to do is use one of their pumps for pure ethanol, it would be just like pumpking gasoline.

And since ethanol can be made biologically, we could produce our own ethanol within the U.S. and the cost would go down dramatically within the first year of using it...

and it would be cleaner, and should get the support of environmental whackos...

and agriculture would benefit because you could use corn stalks as the base for ethanol production...

and automobile would benefit, since it spurs new auto sales, but maintains all the manufacturing already in place... and mechanics would be able to work on them with little transition...

what do you think? should I put together a proposal and send it over to the white house?

Corn kernels are currently being tested, actually.

But like I mentioned in the other thread, sugercane has the most potential.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: etech
Ethanol For Fuel Fundamentally Uneconomic, Study Says

"Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell University agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.
At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell's David Pimentel takes a longer range view.

"Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning," says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
..."

I don't think it is a good idea. The reasons are in the article.

That article is flawed, you can use the unused corn stalks for ethanol product. And that article talks about "extracting" ethanol from grain, which is silly. You can produce ethanol using micro-organisms from plant matter that doesn't necessarily contain any ethanol.

 

[Tiger]

The argument that ethanol takes more energy to produce may be true, but I doubt it.
All of the other arguments aside Ethanol has one big thing going for it that trumps all else. It's renewable.
Plain and simple. We aren't ever going to run out of corn. As a matter of fact we run a surplus of production every year.
Ethanol doesn't polute ground water like MTBE.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Reading lots of threads about hydrogen fuel cells and ethanol in gasoline...

and just had an interesting thought.

Today's gasoline engines aren't optomized for ethanol, so whenever they add more ethanal to the gasoline, you end up consuming more fuel. But, what if engine manufacturers actually started producing ethanol-optomized engines, it would just take some minor tweaking of existing parts. Then, almost overnight, every gas station in the U.S. could be serving ethanol. All they would have to do is use one of their pumps for pure ethanol, it would be just like pumpking gasoline.

And since ethanol can be made biologically, we could produce our own ethanol within the U.S. and the cost would go down dramatically within the first year of using it...

and it would be cleaner, and should get the support of environmental whackos...

and agriculture would benefit because you could use corn stalks as the base for ethanol production...

and automobile would benefit, since it spurs new auto sales, but maintains all the manufacturing already in place... and mechanics would be able to work on them with little transition...

what do you think? should I put together a proposal and send it over to the white house?

Corn kernels are currently being tested, actually.

But like I mentioned in the other thread, sugercane has the most potential.

Wood also can make ethanol, broken down by enzymes.

 

[etech]

Ethanol doesn't polute ground water like MTBE.

Environmental impact of ethanol fuels debate
"The benefits are that ethanol does reduce carbon monoxide when used in the winter time, but it increases smog when used in the summer," Becker said.

That's because a key drawback to ethanol is that it evaporates more quickly in certain conditions, which results in higher emissions of smog-forming compounds, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

When compared to conventional gasoline, ethanol yielded lower emissions of carbon monoxide than motor gasoline but higher emissions of nitrogen oxide that causes smog, EIA said.


There are trade offs though, it increases the Reid vapor pressure of the mixture which does cause more pollution in the summer months.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: etech

Ethanol doesn't polute ground water like MTBE.

Environmental impact of ethanol fuels debate
"The benefits are that ethanol does reduce carbon monoxide when used in the winter time, but it increases smog when used in the summer," Becker said.

That's because a key drawback to ethanol is that it evaporates more quickly in certain conditions, which results in higher emissions of smog-forming compounds, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

When compared to conventional gasoline, ethanol yielded lower emissions of carbon monoxide than motor gasoline but higher emissions of nitrogen oxide that causes smog, EIA said.


There are trade offs though, it increases the Reid vapor pressure of the mixture which does cause more pollution in the summer months.

Further down in the article:

In addition, ethanol-blended fuel cuts tailpipe emissions of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, that form ozone in the atmosphere, according to the trade group.

"Thus, the use of ethanol plays an important role in smog reduction," the association said.

Most of the article is referencing ethanol as an additive to gasonline, and not necessarily pure ethanol.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: etech

Ethanol doesn't polute ground water like MTBE.

Environmental impact of ethanol fuels debate
"The benefits are that ethanol does reduce carbon monoxide when used in the winter time, but it increases smog when used in the summer," Becker said.

That's because a key drawback to ethanol is that it evaporates more quickly in certain conditions, which results in higher emissions of smog-forming compounds, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

When compared to conventional gasoline, ethanol yielded lower emissions of carbon monoxide than motor gasoline but higher emissions of nitrogen oxide that causes smog, EIA said.


There are trade offs though, it increases the Reid vapor pressure of the mixture which does cause more pollution in the summer months.

If the fuel is sulphur-free (which ethanol is) we can compensate with better catalytic converters, since we won't have to worry about sulphur poisoning.

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: Quixfire
The big problem with ethanol is it's a sugar based. When burning it for a long period of time it will carbonize your engine. Methanol is a better solution if it wasn't so poisonous.

you can't use methanol. energy is produced by breaking carbon-carbon bonds. methanol contains only one carbon atom (and 4 hydrogens, i.e. CH4) which is unlinked to any other carbons. you can't stick this into anything and expect combustion.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: etech
Ethanol For Fuel Fundamentally Uneconomic, Study Says

"Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell University agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.
At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell's David Pimentel takes a longer range view.

"Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning," says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences...."

I don't think it is a good idea. The reasons are in the article.

Bolded. Bunch of crap. Low-grade? WTF?

 

[PG]

Today's gasoline engines aren't optomized for ethanol, so whenever they add more ethanal to the gasoline, you end up consuming more fuel.

Alcohols only give about 60% of the energy as gasoline so you need to burn almost twice as much to get the same job done as gasoline. It has nothing to do with optimization, you simply just need to burn more.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: Quixfire
The big problem with ethanol is it's a sugar based. When burning it for a long period of time it will carbonize your engine. Methanol is a better solution if it wasn't so poisonous.

you can't use methanol. energy is produced by breaking carbon-carbon bonds. methanol contains only one carbon atom (and 4 hydrogens, i.e. CH4) which is unlinked to any other carbons. you can't stick this into anything and expect combustion.

WTF? Please tell me you are joking.

If not, well.. I have no further comment.

Man, this sure will come as news to all the methanol burning go-karters out there..........

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: Quixfire
The big problem with ethanol is it's a sugar based. When burning it for a long period of time it will carbonize your engine. Methanol is a better solution if it wasn't so poisonous.

you can't use methanol. energy is produced by breaking carbon-carbon bonds. methanol contains only one carbon atom (and 4 hydrogens, i.e. CH4) which is unlinked to any other carbons. you can't stick this into anything and expect combustion.

WTF? Please tell me you are joking.

If not, well.. I have no further comment.

Man, this sure will come as news to all the methanol burning go-karters out there..........

Just ignore him.....he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: PG

Today's gasoline engines aren't optomized for ethanol, so whenever they add more ethanal to the gasoline, you end up consuming more fuel.

Alcohols only give about 60% of the energy as gasoline so you need to burn almost twice as much to get the same job done as gasoline. It has nothing to do with optimization, you simply just need to burn more.

yes, that and the fact that no amount of optimization is going to get even close to 100% efficiency. combustion engines are just pretty sh!tty. as it is, our engines are only 60-70% efficient w/ regular gasoline. most of the lost energy is released as heat.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: PG

Today's gasoline engines aren't optomized for ethanol, so whenever they add more ethanal to the gasoline, you end up consuming more fuel.

Alcohols only give about 60% of the energy as gasoline so you need to burn almost twice as much to get the same job done as gasoline. It has nothing to do with optimization, you simply just need to burn more.

Well, he's partially right.. since ethanol has a much higher octane than gasoline, you can raise the compression ratio significantly, which will increase power delivered and offset the energy difference somewhat..

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: PG

Today's gasoline engines aren't optomized for ethanol, so whenever they add more ethanal to the gasoline, you end up consuming more fuel.

Alcohols only give about 60% of the energy as gasoline so you need to burn almost twice as much to get the same job done as gasoline. It has nothing to do with optimization, you simply just need to burn more.

yes, that and the fact that no amount of optimization is going to get even close to 100% efficiency. combustion engines are just pretty sh!tty. as it is, our engines are only 60-70% efficient w/ regular gasoline. most of the lost energy is released as heat.

60-70%?!?

Man, what planet are you from? First, Methanol doesen't burn.. now our engines are 70% efficent?

Try 25%.. maybe 30% at very best.

The rest is lost as heat and friction. It's not easy keeping an engine at 190C.

 

[PG]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: Quixfire
The big problem with ethanol is it's a sugar based. When burning it for a long period of time it will carbonize your engine. Methanol is a better solution if it wasn't so poisonous.

you can't use methanol. energy is produced by breaking carbon-carbon bonds. methanol contains only one carbon atom (and 4 hydrogens, i.e. CH4) which is unlinked to any other carbons. you can't stick this into anything and expect combustion.

WTF? Please tell me you are joking.

If not, well.. I have no further comment.

Man, this sure will come as news to all the methanol burning go-karters out there..........

And the race car crews that burn methanol, such as all cars at the Indy 500 since 1964.

http://www.innerauto.com/innerauto/text/fact17.html

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: PG

Today's gasoline engines aren't optomized for ethanol, so whenever they add more ethanal to the gasoline, you end up consuming more fuel.

Alcohols only give about 60% of the energy as gasoline so you need to burn almost twice as much to get the same job done as gasoline. It has nothing to do with optimization, you simply just need to burn more.

Yes you have to burn more, but it still needs optomized. That's like saying Diesel has more energy, so we can just stick it in a normal gasoline engine and it will use up less fuel...

The optomizations I'm talking about is the timing, the transmission, the catalytic converter, the radiator, injector fuel/air ratio, chamber length. Just the simple stuff that makes the use of ethanol more efficicient. Ethanol burns different than gasoline, has a slightly different exhaust, needs a different amount of air, products a different amount of heat, etc.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: PG

Today's gasoline engines aren't optomized for ethanol, so whenever they add more ethanal to the gasoline, you end up consuming more fuel.

Alcohols only give about 60% of the energy as gasoline so you need to burn almost twice as much to get the same job done as gasoline. It has nothing to do with optimization, you simply just need to burn more.

Yes you have to burn more, but it still needs optomized. That's like saying Diesel has more energy, so we can just stick it in a normal gasoline engine and it will use up less fuel...

The optomizations I'm talking about is the timing, the transmission, the catalytic converter, the radiator, injector fuel/air ratio, chamber length. Just the simple stuff that makes the use of ethanol more efficicient. Ethanol burns different than gasoline, has a slightly different exhaust, needs a different amount of air, products a different amount of heat, etc.

Yep. We've been desigining gasoline engines for many decades now. We could build some super alcohol-burning engines with the technology we have now.

Gasoline was never meant to be a fuel, anyway. The automotive industry was perhaps days from choosing alcohol as their official fuel before the oil industry improved gasoline's octane rating with tetra ethyl lead.

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: PG

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: Quixfire
The big problem with ethanol is it's a sugar based. When burning it for a long period of time it will carbonize your engine. Methanol is a better solution if it wasn't so poisonous.

you can't use methanol. energy is produced by breaking carbon-carbon bonds. methanol contains only one carbon atom (and 4 hydrogens, i.e. CH4) which is unlinked to any other carbons. you can't stick this into anything and expect combustion.

WTF? Please tell me you are joking.

If not, well.. I have no further comment.

Man, this sure will come as news to all the methanol burning go-karters out there..........

And the race car crews that burn methanol, such as all cars at the Indy 500 since 1964.

http://www.innerauto.com/innerauto/text/fact17.html

hmm, well i stand corrected. i know nothing about cars, but in my metabolics classes my profs would always make connections between metabolism in animals and combustion engines. in biological organisms energy is produced from breaking C-C bonds. i figured the same was true w/ engines.

doh.