Ethanol replacment for gasonline...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: 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.

You release energy any time you break any kind of molecular bond. The high-E bond in methanol is the double bond between the Carbon and the Oxygen. Any time you move, you're utilizing energy from the phosphate bonds in ATP.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Originally posted by: 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.

No biggie. :) Isn't chemistry awesome? Did you know that Diesel contains hundreds of varying carbon-chain molecules, the longer chains have more energy potential but burn slow, and the smaller chains burn faster but with much less heat/force output. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines only because the extremely high 22:1 compression ratio (or higher) creates a heat capable of combusting the higher chain molecules - but even then there is a lot of potential energy lost, otherwise there would be so much black exhaust. The gasoline is much more refined, but still contains varying degrees of carbon chain molecules. However, since combustion takes place within a colder chamber and must be spark ignited, many of the heavy compounds don't ignite, and by the time much of the fuel has been turned into heat and exhaust, the chamber has expanded and the mixture is cooled.

I think a disel design applied to an ethanol engine would be awesome. Plus, ethanol being nearly a single compound, would ensure to burn more completely. The trick now to increase efficiency of the engine is to reduce the need of radiating excess heat.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: 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.

No biggie. :) Isn't chemistry awesome? Did you know that Diesel contains hundreds of varying carbon-chain molecules, the longer chains have more energy potential but burn slow, and the smaller chains burn faster but with much less heat/force output. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines only because the extremely high 22:1 compression ratio (or higher) creates a heat capable of combusting the higher chain molecules - but even then there is a lot of potential energy lost, otherwise there would be so much black exhaust. The gasoline is much more refined, but still contains varying degrees of carbon chain molecules. However, since combustion takes place within a colder chamber and must be spark ignited, many of the heavy compounds don't ignite, and by the time much of the fuel has been turned into heat and exhaust, the chamber has expanded and the mixture is cooled.

I think a disel design applied to an ethanol engine would be awesome. Plus, ethanol being nearly a single compound, would ensure to burn more completely. The trick now to increase efficiency of the engine is to reduce the need of radiating excess heat.

It is certainly possible, and there should be little doubt that alcohol is a superiod fuel to gasoline. It needs to be funded. I am sure we could find more energy efficent ways of producing ethanol if we tried.
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: 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.

Just one comment about using the stalks. If you use the stalks, you're not letting them return to the soil, which means you need a lot more fertilizers to offset the loss.
 

It is certainly possible, and there should be little doubt that alcohol is a superiod fuel to gasoline.

No it is not, alcohol as a fuel has a much lower BTU rating, therefor you must burn more fuel per mile than gasoline.


The facts
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: 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.

Just one comment about using the stalks. If you use the stalks, you're not letting them return to the soil, which means you need a lot more fertilizers to offset the loss.

But where do you get the fertilizers?... It's all one big cycle. Once you're done using the stalks, maybe they can be composted as a fertilizer. The cool part about ethanol is that it's exhaust is basically carbon dioxide and water vapor, which is taken back by plantlife anyway. The energy of ethanol came from the Sun, everything else is just a carrier. So is the case for gasoline/oil, however, it took hundreds of years of vegetation and thousands of years of compression - plus all those nutrients used in the process are useless now - I would have to say ethanol production is by far more efficient. ;)
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: 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.

Just one comment about using the stalks. If you use the stalks, you're not letting them return to the soil, which means you need a lot more fertilizers to offset the loss.

First, the bolded.. You really should know something about what you're talking about before you speak. No plant that I know of actually contains alcohol, lol..

Yeast convert simple sugars into alcohol. That's the traditional way of making it.

Now, as for the fertilizer comment.. that's probably true, but there are certainly other ways of enriching the soil without using chemical fertilizers.
 

theNEOone

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2001
5,745
4
81
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Originally posted by: 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.

You release energy any time you break any kind of molecular bond. The high-E bond in methanol is the double bond between the Carbon and the Oxygen. Any time you move, you're utilizing energy from the phosphate bonds in ATP.


that is true, but the mechanism in our bodies uses the energy from breaking C-C bonds specifically, not C-O. because my prof always made parallels between the 2 systems it seemed natural to think that the same was true of engines.

i know nothing about cars, but i'd really like to learn. i hate being ignorant, especially with something as common as engine mechanics. not to say that learning about engines is easy, but we do interact w/ cars and such on a daily basis.

grrrrrrrrr. :|
 

But where do you get the fertilizers?... It's all one big cycle. Once you're done using the stalks, maybe they can be composted as a fertilizer. The cool part about ethanol is that it's exhaust is basically carbon dioxide and water vapor, which is taken back by plantlife anyway. The energy of ethanol came from the Sun, everything else is just a carrier. So is the case for gasoline/oil, however, it took hundreds of years of vegetation and thousands of years of compression - plus all those nutrients used in the process are useless now - I would have to say ethanol production is by far more efficient

You are forgetting Oxides of Notrogen, this pollutant occurs when the nitrogen in the atmosphere is broken down under the tremendous heat and pressure inside the combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine.
 

PG

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,426
44
91
The cool part about ethanol is that it's exhaust is basically carbon dioxide and water vapor, which is taken back by plantlife anyway.
That's too general of a statement and it isn't really true. Air is run through the engine so you end up with oxides of Nitrogen, etc. which are pollutants and there's always some Carbon that will not combust fully so there's some CO instead of CO2.

 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: theNEOone
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Originally posted by: 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.

You release energy any time you break any kind of molecular bond. The high-E bond in methanol is the double bond between the Carbon and the Oxygen. Any time you move, you're utilizing energy from the phosphate bonds in ATP.


that is true, but the mechanism in our bodies uses the energy from breaking C-C bonds specifically, not C-O. because my prof always made parallels between the 2 systems it seemed natural to think that the same was true of engines.

i know nothing about cars, but i'd really like to learn. i hate being ignorant, especially with something as common as engine mechanics. not to say that learning about engines is easy, but we do interact w/ cars and such on a daily basis.

grrrrrrrrr. :|
Get an old, simple motorcycle and learn to work on it. Elbow-deep is a good way to learn a lot quickly about engines.

 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Originally posted by: Roger
It is certainly possible, and there should be little doubt that alcohol is a superiod fuel to gasoline.

No it is not, alcohol as a fuel has a much lower BTU rating, therefor you must burn more fuel per mile than gasoline.


The facts

Just because it has a lower BTU rating doesen't mean that it is a poor fuel... :(

As was said, much of the lower energy content can be offset by the higher compression ratio and other optimizations available.. But it is true, you're going to get less MPG than with gasoline. It wouldn't matter if alcohol were half the price of gasoline.

Alcohol burns cleaner, though.. yes, of course it still produces CO2. That's not the point. The engine will burn cleaner, and last longer. The engine oil will also remain cleaner for longer periods of time. The engine will also develop more power, even though alcohol contains less energy.

Remember, this is all assuming that the engine was designed specifically for use on ethanol.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Originally posted by: Roger
It is certainly possible, and there should be little doubt that alcohol is a superiod fuel to gasoline.

No it is not, alcohol as a fuel has a much lower BTU rating, therefor you must burn more fuel per mile than gasoline.


The facts

Bigger doesn't always mean better, it's how you use it that counts. ;)

This way of thinking would conclude that hydrogen is by far the most inferior of all fuels.
 

Just because it has a lower BTU rating doesen't mean that it is a poor fuel

I did not say it was a poor fuel, I was only pointing out that it was not a Superior fuel to gasoline. ;)


Eli;

Yes you can make a engine make alot of power with Ethanol, but you must understand that the more power you produce, the less fuel mileage, you are basing your position on racing engines which typically get 2 to 3 miles per gallon.
If you built a 14 to 1 C.R. engine to burn Ethanol, you will still travel less miles per gallon of fuel than gasoline.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Originally posted by: Roger
Just because it has a lower BTU rating doesen't mean that it is a poor fuel

I did not say it was a poor fuel, I was only pointing out that it was not a Superior fuel gasoline. ;)

I guess it depends on your fuel criteria... lol.

I consider ethanol to be superior to gasoline because it's pure, non-carcinogenic, has a high octane rating, and can be made from renewable resources...
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: Fausto1
You release energy any time you break any kind of molecular bond. The high-E bond in methanol is the double bond between the Carbon and the Oxygen. Any time you move, you're utilizing energy from the phosphate bonds in ATP.

No you don't. Generally, energy is released when FORMING molecular bonds. It usually takes energy to break them. This is especially true in combustion. It's not the breaking of the octane and heptane that releases energy, it's the combination of the carbon and hydrogen with oxygen that releases energy. That's why you need a spark plug; to provide that little kick to break a few of the bonds and begin the combustion.
 

Eli;

Reread my reedited statemnt above ;)


Everyone look at it this way, the more the BTU rating of a fuel, the more miles traveled per gallon of fuel, it's really simple to understand if you view it this way :)

There is no way that Ethanol will ever be as fuel efficiant as gasoline because there is less BTU per gallon as compared to gasoline.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: 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.

Just one comment about using the stalks. If you use the stalks, you're not letting them return to the soil, which means you need a lot more fertilizers to offset the loss.

First, the bolded.. You really should know something about what you're talking about before you speak. No plant that I know of actually contains alcohol, lol..

Yeast convert simple sugars into alcohol. That's the traditional way of making it.

Now, as for the fertilizer comment.. that's probably true, but there are certainly other ways of enriching the soil without using chemical fertilizers.

Sorry, I mispoke. :( I had read this paragraph:

"The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline."

I was refering to the fermentation process, but in my head I was still thinking about "seperate 8 percent ethanol from 92 percent water" and my brain told me to type "extract". :p I guess fermentation requires micro-organisms too. :confused:
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: Roger
Just because it has a lower BTU rating doesen't mean that it is a poor fuel

I did not say it was a poor fuel, I was only pointing out that it was not a Superior fuel gasoline. ;)

I guess it depends on your fuel criteria... lol.

I consider ethanol to be superior to gasoline because it's pure, non-carcinogenic, has a high octane rating, and can be made from renewable resources...

And you can drink it. :D