E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?

How many hours in a year?

LOL
"Joe Fischer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 02:22:19 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>"Sponsored by OILY INC.
>>>[snip
>>
>>You don't even have a clue what he's talking about, do you?
>>Megawatts per
>>year is a meaningless unit. Moron troll.
>>Eric Lucas
>
> He finally did add "hours" but that might have been
> wrong, it might have been better to drop the "day" or "year"
> and not add the "hour'.
>
> Joe Fischer
>

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:50:26 -0400, "Solar Flare"
> wrote:

>Why would we subtract Hours from the megawatts?

>>>>>>.........
>>> Raw solar power MEGAWATT-hours per acre per day.
>>> 8,863 MEGAWATT-Hours per year per acre.

Because megawatt hours per acre per year is a gross
estimate, and varies from place to place and from year to year.

Megawatts per acre is a much more definitive statement,
while the sun shines.

But it isn't all that many megawatts, is it?

43,000 times about 100 = 4.3 megawatts thermal?

At 10 percent efficiency, 430 KW electric?

Joe Fischer

How many hours did you subtract from the Megawatts and what quantity
did it yield?

"Joe Fischer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:50:26 -0400, "Solar Flare"
> > wrote:
>
>>Why would we subtract Hours from the megawatts?
>
>>>>>>>.........
>>>> Raw solar power MEGAWATT-hours per acre per day.
>>>> 8,863 MEGAWATT-Hours per year per acre.
>
> Because megawatt hours per acre per year is a gross
> estimate, and varies from place to place and from year to year.
>
> Megawatts per acre is a much more definitive statement,
> while the sun shines.
>
> But it isn't all that many megawatts, is it?
>
> 43,000 times about 100 = 4.3 megawatts thermal?
>
> At 10 percent efficiency, 430 KW electric?
>
> Joe Fischer
>

In article >,
Steve > wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>Just the heat
>>>generated by turning the knob can set it off and cause a fire/explosion.
>>>
>>
>>
>> But not O2 at 1 atm. Otherwise nobody could breathe it without combustion.
>>
>
>Nobody DOES breathe PURE 02 at 1 atmosphere. Even wearing an O2 mask,
>there is dilution with nitrogen (primarily) and all the other gasses
>that make up the soup we call "air."
>
>I agree that technically you are correct- there is an activation energy
>required to start combustion when pure o2 and a fuel are mixed, but the
>PRACTICAL result is that its much easier to light a mixture of 02 and
>fuel than air and fuel. Whoever said that you don't need ANY activator
>was certainly wrong, but the activator can be much more trivial.

Ever use an oxy-acetylene torch? Or an atomic esmission spectrometer? Oxygen
and acetylene. Do they ignite spontaneously at the tip of the burner? No.
Requires a spark or a flame.

In article >,
Joe Fischer > wrote:
>On Mon, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>>...........
>>Ever use an oxy-acetylene torch?
>
> Yes, 65 years ago, and the gauges say definitely to
>use NO oil, even at the 10 or 20 PSI at the gauge, a fire
>could start spontaneously.

Yes, because with the O2 at high pressure, it is much more reactive. When it
comes out of the burner, it is at atmospheric pressure.

>
>> Or an atomic esmission spectrometer? Oxygen
>>and acetylene. Do they ignite spontaneously at the tip of the burner? No.
>>Requires a spark or a flame.
>
> For your information, oily rags can start burning
>without a spark, and coal piled only 10 feet high can
>start burning spontaneously.
>

From the DOE:

The coal's temperature begins to climb above ambient. At about 150-300
degrees F, it begins to give off minute, but measurable, quantities of
gas--aerosols, hydrogen, and CO(2)--precursors of combustion. As the
temperature increases further--at about 600-700 degrees F--relatively,
large, visible particulates are emitted. Soon, as the heating rate
increases in intensity to about 750-800 degrees F, incipient combustion,
and ultimately self-ignition and flame, will occur.

So gotta get to pretty high temp.


> Combustion is a normal process in decay

What does this mean?

>and in
>the presence of any organic material, and regardless if
>it takes at least a static spark, hydrocarbons are less
>safe if exposed to pure oxygen, and not even safe
>in air under certain conditions.

So cut down all the trees?

>
> Better safe than sorry.
>
>Joe Fischer
>

In article >,
jim > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Ever use an oxy-acetylene torch? Or an atomic esmission spectrometer?
>> > Oxygen
>> > and acetylene. Do they ignite spontaneously at the tip of the burner?
>> > No.
>> > Requires a spark or a flame.
>>
>> Actually, since you insist on saying irrelevant pedantic things, I thought
>> I'd chime in one of my own.... Oxygen and acetylene _will_ spontaneously
>> ignite without an ignition source, under the right conditions.
>
>So will diesel fuel. Happens all the time
>
>-jim
>

At 1 atm?

>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
...

> Ever use an oxy-acetylene torch? Or an atomic esmission spectrometer?
> Oxygen
> and acetylene. Do they ignite spontaneously at the tip of the burner?
> No.
> Requires a spark or a flame.

Actually, since you insist on saying irrelevant pedantic things, I thought
I'd chime in one of my own.... Oxygen and acetylene _will_ spontaneously
ignite without an ignition source, under the right conditions. Do you know
what that condition is and why? It's another p-chem concept that you might
have forgotten. Hydrogen will do it too.

Eric Lucas

On Mon, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>>...........
>Ever use an oxy-acetylene torch?

Yes, 65 years ago, and the gauges say definitely to
use NO oil, even at the 10 or 20 PSI at the gauge, a fire
could start spontaneously.

> Or an atomic esmission spectrometer? Oxygen
>and acetylene. Do they ignite spontaneously at the tip of the burner? No.
>Requires a spark or a flame.

For your information, oily rags can start burning
without a spark, and coal piled only 10 feet high can
start burning spontaneously.

Combustion is a normal process in decay and in
the presence of any organic material, and regardless if
it takes at least a static spark, hydrocarbons are less
safe if exposed to pure oxygen, and not even safe
in air under certain conditions.

Better safe than sorry.

Joe Fischer

wrote:
>
> "Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Ever use an oxy-acetylene torch? Or an atomic esmission spectrometer?
> > Oxygen
> > and acetylene. Do they ignite spontaneously at the tip of the burner?
> > No.
> > Requires a spark or a flame.
>
> Actually, since you insist on saying irrelevant pedantic things, I thought
> I'd chime in one of my own.... Oxygen and acetylene _will_ spontaneously
> ignite without an ignition source, under the right conditions.

So will diesel fuel. Happens all the time

-jim

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

wrote:
> "ghostwriter" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >> Can ethanol be polymerized up to something approximately like
> >> octane?
> >
> > Yes, but increasing the energy density means a loss in absolute energy
> > output. Thats a waste in the case of ethanol
>
> Yes, as an example, ethanol can be dehydrated to ethylene, which can be
> oligomerized to octene (which can be further hydrogenated to octane if
> necessary).
>
> This increases energy density modestly (about 30 % by the deltaH(combustion)
> numbers). I'm not sure what you mean "a loss in absolute energy output",
> but the process I just described does consume considerable energy. Perhaps
> you meant "a loss in total energy when summed across the cycle." However,
> that is trivially true for any processing step, even for your F-T example,
> since the syngas must have come from something lower in energy like
> methanol. In fact, any conversion step involves a loss in total energy,
> unless there is some mechanism to introduce energy into the system (for
> example, plant photosynthesis).

1kg of ethanol burns for 409cals, it can be converted to 0.6kg of
ethylene and 0.4kg of water. Ethylene burns at 370cals/kg so that gives
off 225cals. A little more than 50% eifficient assuming you achieve
100% yeild (which you cant) and dont have to input heat to drive the
reacion (which you must). Thats before you add any other steps, I am
using the 1982 edition of the CRC handbook, but I doubt much has
changed.

F-T-diesel is actually worse from a total energy efficiency standpoint,
but works out better since it isnt necessary to ferment and distill
anything to produce syngas. A syngas generator doesnt care what the
feedstock is, whereas a dehydration system would only run on straight
ethanol. Diesel also has much higher energy density than ethanol.

Ethanol is useful because it is well understood and easy to produce on
a relativly low capital budget. F-T is only efficient as a large scale
process currently, since cleaning the syngas so that it doesnt poision
the catayst is a difficult and intensive process.

In the end it comes down to priorities and available resourses not to
any paticular advantage to either system.