If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting take on Ethanol and flex fuels
I was reading in machine design magazine, an interesting editorial on why
detroit is so interested in flex fuels. Seems the MPG standards are (for purposes of CAPE) based solely on the gasoline component of the fuel. This is of course, an artificial number just to get past regulatory restrictions. full article: http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem...otethanol.aspx Leland Tecshler's Editorial: What's hot? Not ethanol This special issue looks at some of the technologies and industrial themes that are eliciting a lot of interest in the technical community. But perhaps more interesting than some of the "hot" technologies we review is what you won't find he any discussion of ethanol. January's North American International Auto Show could well have conveyed the idea that ethanol-based fuel would have been a hot topic this year. Amongst much hoopla, carmakers introduced vehicle after vehicle that could run on E85. Even Ferrari showed off an E85-mobile. Veteran automotive analysts were unimpressed by this onslaught of E85 exuberance. They knew the real reason Detroit was so keen on ethanol: By producing flex-fuel vehicles, automakers can artificially boost the fuelefficiency numbers they must meet under Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. That's because for CAFE, the federal government counts only the amount of gasoline a vehicle consumes getting from point A to B and ignores any ethanol it burns on the trip. A flex-fuel SUV, for example, might get city mileage of about 14 mpg on pure gasoline. But for purposes of CAFE, it is assumed to be running on E85. So on paper the SUV gets about 29 mpg of gasoline in the city. Of course, most such behemoths will rarely pull up to an E85 pump. So the 29-mpg rating is more myth than reality. And odds are Las Vegas will become a city of teetotalers before today's ethanol processes will replace a significant amount of petroleum-based fuels. The basic problem is a lack of heat energy in the feedstock. Crude oil contains about 18,400 Btu/lb; coal, 10,400 Btu/lb. But corn comes in at 7,000 Btu/lb. Switchgrass, billed as the next great hope for ethanol feedstock, has only 6,400 Btu/lb. The low heat energy of switchgrass means no matter how efficient the refining process, mind-boggling amounts of the stuff are necessary to produce meaningful quantities of ethanol. To see this in real terms, consider an informal exercise cited by energy journalist Robert Bryce. Based on U.S. DOE estimates, a plant able to produce 80 million gallons of ethanol annually would need to take in 1 million tons of corn stubble. That much stubble would take up 67,000 semitrailers. Put another way, that is 187 semitruckloads a day. The plant's annual output of ethanol would be the equivalent of 53 million gallons of gasoline, or just 0.04% of the U.S. annual gasoline consumption. But what about biodiesel refined from algae? It's not clear algae-based biofuel is economically practical. As with switchgrass, you need a lot of pond scum to get much fuel. Researchers at the University of New Hampshire estimate it would take between 9.5 and 28.5 million acres of land, depending on your assumptions, to produce enough algae for U.S. transportation fuel needs. Raising algae in bioreactors is another option, but the cost for meaningful outputs quickly gets into the eyes-glaze-over range. The best that can be said is that the jury is still out on whether you'll see algae biofuels in a future "hot" issue. But enough about that. Readers of our print and digital editions will probably notice Machine Design has a new look. We've updated our graphics and introduced a few new features aimed at forging a closer link between the print magazine and machinedesign.com. It's all in the interest of better serving our readers. - Leland Teschler, Editor |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting take on Ethanol and flex fuels
On Aug 15, 11:39*am, "Oppie" > wrote:
> I was reading in machine design magazine, an interesting editorial on why > detroit is so interested in flex fuels. Seems the MPG standards are (for > purposes of CAPE) based solely on the gasoline component of the fuel. This > is of course, an artificial number just to get past regulatory restrictions. > > full article:http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem...ersEditorialWh... > > Leland Tecshler's Editorial: What's hot? Not ethanol > This special issue looks at some of the technologies and industrial themes > that are eliciting a lot of interest in the technical community. But perhaps > more interesting than some of the "hot" technologies we review is what you > won't find he any discussion of ethanol. > > January's North American International Auto Show could well have conveyed > the idea that ethanol-based fuel would have been a hot topic this year. > Amongst much hoopla, carmakers introduced vehicle after vehicle that could > run on E85. Even Ferrari showed off an E85-mobile. > > Veteran automotive analysts were unimpressed by this onslaught of E85 > exuberance. They knew the real reason Detroit was so keen on ethanol: By > producing flex-fuel vehicles, automakers can artificially boost the > fuelefficiency numbers they must meet under Corporate Average Fuel Economy > standards. That's because for CAFE, the federal government counts only the > amount of gasoline a vehicle consumes getting from point A to B and ignores > any ethanol it burns on the trip. A flex-fuel SUV, for example, might get > city mileage of about 14 mpg on pure gasoline. But for purposes of CAFE, it > is assumed to be running on E85. So on paper the SUV gets about 29 mpg of > gasoline in the city. > > Of course, most such behemoths will rarely pull up to an E85 pump. So the > 29-mpg rating is more myth than reality. > > And odds are Las Vegas will become a city of teetotalers before today's > ethanol processes will replace a significant amount of petroleum-based > fuels. The basic problem is a lack of heat energy in the feedstock. Crude > oil contains about 18,400 Btu/lb; coal, 10,400 Btu/lb. But corn comes in at > 7,000 Btu/lb. Switchgrass, billed as the next great hope for ethanol > feedstock, has only 6,400 Btu/lb. > > The low heat energy of switchgrass means no matter how efficient the > refining process, mind-boggling amounts of the stuff are necessary to > produce meaningful quantities of ethanol. To see this in real terms, > consider an informal exercise cited by energy journalist Robert Bryce. Based > on U.S. DOE estimates, a plant able to produce 80 million gallons of ethanol > annually would need to take in 1 million tons of corn stubble. That much > stubble would take up 67,000 semitrailers. Put another way, that is 187 > semitruckloads a day. The plant's annual output of ethanol would be the > equivalent of 53 million gallons of gasoline, or just 0.04% of the U.S. > annual gasoline consumption. > > But what about biodiesel refined from algae? It's not clear algae-based > biofuel is economically practical. As with switchgrass, you need a lot of > pond scum to get much fuel. Researchers at the University of New Hampshire > estimate it would take between 9.5 and 28.5 million acres of land, depending > on your assumptions, to produce enough algae for U.S. transportation fuel > needs. Raising algae in bioreactors is another option, but the cost for > meaningful outputs quickly gets into the eyes-glaze-over range. > > The best that can be said is that the jury is still out on whether you'll > see algae biofuels in a future "hot" issue. > > But enough about that. Readers of our print and digital editions will > probably notice Machine Design has a new look. We've updated our graphics > and introduced a few new features aimed at forging a closer link between the > print magazine and machinedesign.com. It's all in the interest of better > serving our readers. > > - Leland Teschler, Editor it's bull**** lip flapping; hydrogen fuel makes the most sense, universally available, easy to produce and a significant source of energy; this flex fuels nonsense is just more footdragging by the small minded herd mentallity pandemic in detroit. gm is in a fight to survive and these imbecile execs waffel over flex fuels- it will be justice when they are begging for change on the street corner in a few years. morons ! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting take on Ethanol and flex fuels
Thanks for the info Oppie, a very good read. While working a brief stint for
Chevy last year, I had the opportunity to speak with a GM corporate trainer about E85, known to us old-timers as ethanol. What he said shocked me and mirrors exactly what your post says. He said that it takes an excessive amount of corn to produce enough E85 to fill the tank of a Avalanche, in other words, it takes enough corn that would feed a family of four for a year to produce a single tank full of E85 to fill a large SUV. Furthermore, common sense says that it would take farmers more money to produce corn, just doesn't grow overnight, get plucked and regrow again overnight, it takes alot of money, time and resources to maintain a field of corn. BTW, I ought to know , I live in farm country in SC, which just happens to be one of the few pilot areas for E85 and talk to farmers alot. S. America produces their E85 from sugar cane, which again, requires lots of land to cycle crop growth and again, money and time. For whatever reasons, the US is stuck on corn based E85. Then there's the trickle-down effect. If it costs farmers more to produce corn, the price of corn-based foods goes up, including animal feed, so guess what? Now you are paying more for food. Also, E85 burns at almost twice the rate as gas, so you do the math. The bigger the vehicle, the more E85 it consumes. Is this really a viable alternative? Hopefully consumers will wake up and realize how they are being hoaxed by the big companies and how the CAFE laws are being skirted right beneath their noses. The new Algae-based fuel merit much more research than what the US is currently doing. Likewise, Solar power is another (abandoned) alternative that absolutely works and can be manufactured today at a lower cost than it was available 30 years ago when the US abandoned the technology as a viable primary fuel alternative, but that's another story. Hydrogen cars. As far as the Honda Clarity, refer to the Saturn EV1, mark my words, history will repeat itself once the leases are up. (ref: Who killed the electric car?) How about Mr. Garrison's "IT" vehicle in the South Park episode? Personally I think it makes more sense than E85. -- marx404 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting take on Ethanol and flex fuels
The whole business of alternate fuels is a lot of smoke and mirrors between
big businesses, government and physical science. E85 is 15% 'gasoline' and 85% ethanol. Ethanol has only about 67% the energy per gallon that gasoline has http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/bse/442-884/442-884.html where energy is proportional to MPG. Renewable is good but know what the real costs are. I've heard that Ethanol from sugar cane is more viable than from corn. We don't grow cane here in any large quantities so I can assume that it is a good opportunity for the commodities traders to make a profit on a resource and shaft the rest of us. I have not read much about Hydrogen production. Whether it is separated from the air by a liquefaction process or separated from water (by electrolysis or heat) will require lots of energy. Solar power - at this point, photovoltaic panels still have low efficiency and are expensive for large scale use. Efficiencies are getting better but it will be a while before new developments make it to mainstream. There are some solar farms that concentrate the sun's heat on pipes that make steam to turn conventional power generation turbines. I haven't seen efficiency figures on it though. Wind power - There were several proposals made for wind power farms offshore in the Atlantic. Jersey had a bill signed to put a wind farm 12 miles off the coast. From what I've read, all the proposals have been shot down by shore property owners that argued that their peace and quiet would be disturbed by the woosh woosh of the mills, not to mention their view of the sea would be marred... Personally, I would find the noise less disturbing than that of a jet ski zipping about. Nuclear? In spite of my name being Robert Oppenheimer (no relation to the scientist), not going there. It looks to be the only viable long term power source but I still question what is the total cost in terms of making the fuel rods, operating and safety costs and then finally spent fuel costs. Oppie "marx404" > wrote in message ... > Thanks for the info Oppie, a very good read. <snip> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting take on Ethanol and flex fuels
I forgot about catalysts that reduce the energy needed to break molecular
bonds of water and separate it into H2 and O2. energy still needed but less than straight electrolysis. I found one recent breakthrough that looks exciting. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...giant-leap.php other programs http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/production.html "Oppie" > wrote in message ... <snip> > I have not read much about Hydrogen production. Whether it is separated > from the air by a liquefaction process or separated from water (by > electrolysis or heat) will require lots of energy. > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting take on Ethanol and flex fuels
We were talking up this on the Ford trucks board, and as I stated there,
separating the hydrogen out of water will not realistically work. Water is the "ash", (if you will) of burning hydrogen in the first place and can not be separated from water to produce any negligible energy...It'd be like trying to start a fire from campfire ashes with the mentality that "well this stuff was once a tree, it should burn".... Yes, the ash is still the wood from the tree, but it's energy has been used & depleted.....Same with water. Besides, thank God it can't be done. Can you imagine the consequences?? How long before we inhabit a dustbowl due to destruction of our water? Heh - you want to talk about some real global warming and climate changes!! I still say the answer is when Black & Decker finally comes out with the "Mr. Fusion" as seen in "Back to the Future". Throw in a banana peel and beer can, and your off to work! IYM "Oppie" > wrote in message ... >I forgot about catalysts that reduce the energy needed to break molecular >bonds of water and separate it into H2 and O2. energy still needed but less >than straight electrolysis. I found one recent breakthrough that looks >exciting. > http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...giant-leap.php > > other programs > http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/production.html > > > "Oppie" > wrote in message > ... > <snip> >> I have not read much about Hydrogen production. Whether it is separated >> from the air by a liquefaction process or separated from water (by >> electrolysis or heat) will require lots of energy. >> > > > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting take on Ethanol and flex fuels
Most chemical processes are reversible given the correct amount of energy.
The lead-acid battery in the car is one example. It has a sulfuric acid electrolyte and lead/ lead sulphate plates. As it charges, the sulphate goes into the acid, when it discharges, the acid goes into the plates (off the top of my head, I can't remember the exact electrochemistry). In water, the combination of a molecule of hydrogen (H2) and a molecule of Oxygen (O2) makes H2O + H and gives off energy. To reverse the process, you supply enough energy to break the molecular bond and separate out the component gasses. As far back as the 1700s, hydrogen was made by passing steam over red hot heated iron filings. This was enough energy to break the molecule and the resulting O2 was absorbed by the iron to become iron oxide. Very inefficient process but made enough hydrogen for observation balloons. Electrochemical electrolysis came next where an electrical field was able to separate the molecules. The Hydrogen was formed at the negative electrode and Oxygen at the positive electrode. The process works well on a small scale. Too much electrical current though and the water simply boils and hydrogen/oxygen separation is a moot point. The case I cited was using a catalyst to aid in the separation of the molecules. By definition, a catalyst moderates a chemical reaction though does not enter directly into the chemical equation. Most catalysts of this type have a high surface energy that boosts the effect of an otherwise weak external force. This would be electricity produced by some other process. The idea of any viable alternate fuel is first to be renewable but made with an economic process. I hear that corn to ethanol actually uses more energy to produce than it delivers. Ethanol by sugar cane is closer to breaking even. Hydrogen production by a catalytic assisted electrochemical process is a promising technology still to be proven. Biological converters such as Algae that use sunlight and some food source to make methane is also a promising technology. Bob 'Oppie' Oppenheimer Electrical Engineer <IYM> wrote in message .com... > We were talking up this on the Ford trucks board, and as I stated there, > separating the hydrogen out of water will not realistically work. Water > is > the "ash", (if you will) of burning hydrogen in the first place and can > not > be separated from water to produce any negligible energy...It'd be like > trying to start a fire from campfire ashes with the mentality that "well > this stuff was once a tree, it should burn".... Yes, the ash is still the > wood from the tree, but it's energy has been used & depleted.....Same with > water. Besides, thank God it can't be done. Can you imagine the > consequences?? How long before we inhabit a dustbowl due to destruction > of > our water? Heh - you want to talk about some real global warming and > climate changes!! > > I still say the answer is when Black & Decker finally comes out with the > "Mr. Fusion" as seen in "Back to the Future". Throw in a banana peel and > beer can, and your off to work! > > IYM > > "Oppie" > wrote in message > ... >>I forgot about catalysts that reduce the energy needed to break molecular >>bonds of water and separate it into H2 and O2. energy still needed but >>less than straight electrolysis. I found one recent breakthrough that >>looks exciting. >> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...giant-leap.php >> >> other programs >> http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/production.html >> >> >> "Oppie" > wrote in message >> ... >> <snip> >>> I have not read much about Hydrogen production. Whether it is separated >>> from the air by a liquefaction process or separated from water (by >>> electrolysis or heat) will require lots of energy. >>> >> >> >> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > > |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting take on Ethanol and flex fuels
On Aug 17, 11:51*am, "marx404" > wrote:
> > Hydrogen cars. As far as the Honda Clarity, refer to the Saturn EV1, mark my > words, history will repeat itself once the leases are up. (ref: Who killed > the electric car?) > > How about Mr. Garrison's "IT" vehicle in the South Park episode? Personally > I think it makes more sense than E85. > > -- > marx404 I looked up the story of the ev1 you refered to, very interesting. I've got who killed the electric car ? on order, looking forward to seeing it. I think some important lessons may be learned from that thank you |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting take on Ethanol and flex fuels
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting take on Ethanol and flex fuels
On Aug 23, 1:53*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote: > In article > >, > > > > > > wrote: > > On Aug 17, 11:51*am, "marx404" > wrote: > > > > Hydrogen cars. As far as the Honda Clarity, refer to the Saturn EV1, mark my > > > words, history will repeat itself once the leases are up. (ref: Who killed > > > the electric car?) > > > > How about Mr. Garrison's "IT" vehicle in the South Park episode? Personally > > > I think it makes more sense than E85. > > > > -- > > > marx404 > > > I looked up the story of the ev1 you refered to, very interesting. > > I've got who killed the electric car ? on order, looking forward to > > seeing it. I think some important lessons may be learned from that > > > thank you > > The answer to "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is "Physics and Chemistry." > > No battery ever built can store enough energy (at a reasonable weight) > to compete with hydrocarbon-fueled engines. > > -- > Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - how about in terms of emissions ? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Green Fuels? | Spike | Ford Mustang | 5 | March 7th 08 01:28 PM |
ethanol producers who use ethanol? | Mad Scientist Jr | Technology | 27 | September 13th 06 04:09 AM |
Alternate fuels in the UK | Bret Ludwig | Technology | 21 | November 11th 05 08:35 PM |
shortage of hydrogen fuels...? | Ravi | Technology | 4 | October 22nd 05 03:11 PM |
rich the truth about fuels | [email protected] | Ford Mustang | 1 | June 25th 05 05:56 PM |