Ethanol

[Embar Angylwrath]

Narith...

Oh hell, nevermind.. you'd never understand anyway.

[vaulos]

I would simply wonder as to whether or not the US could ever produce enough ethonal to make that kind of a switch. But if we could...imagine how happy farmers would be. (At least, until we started importing it from third world Africa.)

[jookkor]

helium3 ftw baby

[Partha]

Short answer, vaulos, is yes.

http://eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass.html

Agricultural residues, in particular corn stover, represent a tremendous resource base for biomass ethanol production. Agricultural residues, in the long term, would be the sources of biomass that could support substantial growth of the ethanol industry. At conversion yields of around 60 to 100 gallons per dry ton, the available corn stover inventory would be sufficient to support 7 to 12 billion gallons of ethanol production per year, as compared with approximately 1.4 billion gallons of ethanol production from corn in 1998. However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other appropriate entities must undertake rigorous research on the environmental effects of large-scale removal of crop residues.

This is the next generation of ethanol production he's talking about, btw.

[vaulos]

So, we have enough corn to produce up to 12 billion gallons of ethanol?

Two problems arise: ethanol and gas aren't equal so far as mpg is concerned and we consume 136 billion gallons of gas a year (according to Keebler's figures).

Which means the answer to my question was what again?

[Partha]

You're not looking at the whole of the picture. We're not going to be 100% free of oil. However, if you can increase ethanol use from 4-5% of use currently to, say, 20%, the pressure on us is greatly reduced.

And we're not talking corn. Corn's ok, but better methods are right around the corner, as detailed in that report.

[vaulos]

That's fine, and I have no problem with it (actually, it would be more like an increase from 1% to 7-10% based on those numbers). But, the more the better. However, the answer to MY question is still no, we wouldn't be able to make a switch to pure ethanol.

[Eidolon Faer]

Partha,

Your own report indicates that cars are designed to run on either a 10% Ethanol-90% gasoline blend or an 85% ethanol-15% gasoline blend and nowhere in-between. There are reasons for this.

I had written a long post explaining about the fuel chemically attacking the rubber gaskets and seals in the engine, phase separation issues with the fuel blend, formaldehyde as a pollutant from ethanol combustion, and several other issues on the topic and unfortunately the Brellrants server was misbehaving and ate it.

IMO, biodiesel from soybeans is a more-promising technology in the long run.

[Partha]

Wasn't talking about the specific formulation, was talking about the amount of the total fuel consumption that would end up as ethanol instead of gasoline.

[Narith]

I always wondered what about hydrogen vehicles? You could create a filter for it to run off regular sea water by creating a mini desalinitation plant in the car for a feul filter then simply seperate the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in the water. The oxygen would be a waste product which is basicly harmless (granted if it builds up to too much of a percentage in the atmosphere it makes for much more flamable atmosphere). The mini desalinitation plant I am not sure if would be possible, but it would make water a viable fuel as long as it did not need fresh water.

[Ddrak]

Narith,

You do realize the energy required to decompose water into hydrogen and oxygen is precisely the energy released when you burn hydrogen with oxygen to make water? Add in thermal inefficiencies and you've invented a guaranteed way for an engine not to work.

The only way hydrogen from water is a viable power source is through nuclear fusion and we don't yet have the technology to put that into a car. More than likely what will happen is you'll get some base energy source (say fusion) which will crack water into hydrogen and oxygen in some large plant somewhere, then you fill up your car with that hydrogen and burn it back into water.

Dd

[Burz]

Jetsons never had this problem.

[jookkor]

george's car ran on distilled gheyness

[Eidolon Faer]

Conventional nuclear power being used to create Hydrogen fuel is another good option for powering automobiles. All you need to do is find a place to build the plants.

[Eidolon Faer]

Oh, and Narith...

People like you are the reason High School Science Teachers contemplate suicide. Just FYI. You managed to make about six idiotic misconceptions in one short post.

More flammable atmosphere, indeed.

Using a fuel filter to separate Oxygen atoms from Hydrogen atoms.

Said "filter" only being able to deal with seawater and not fresh water.

Desalination plants use Reverse Osmosis, not "filters". And it requires energy input to purify seawater for drinking, just less energy than distillation.

Fresh water being noticably more-expensive than seawater in areas like central Montana.

You DO consume the "waste" oxygen when you burn the Hydrogen for fuel, so it's really NOT going to "build up".

[Arathena]

It's not even finding places to build the plants -- technology has advanced by leaps and bounds since the meltdowns at TMI, Waltz Mill, and Chernobyl. The major issues with any given reactor are waste disposal and the average not in my back yard idiot, who doesn't know anything except that the Russians blew one up bad fifty years ago.

However, hydrogen isn't really a very good medium for transporting energy in. It's energy density is comparatively low, with liquid hydrogen requiring four times the volume of material as gasoline for the same energy output. Worse, for efficent delivery, you have to do one of two things with hydrogen. You have to pressurize the hell out of it, or you have to liquify it. Each has its own problems - Pressurized systems require a level of engineering above and beyond the pipelines in your house. A single leak in the wrong place turns your leaky pipe into a torch, and believe me, hydrogen leak flames are impressive. Liquid hydrogen boils at ... something close to -250C (-480F). An uninsulated LH2 line will actually drip a condensate mixture that includes roughly 50% LOX. It induces massive brittleness. It pressurizes vessels readily. It's over-all bad news to an engineer. Some good info on H2 as a fuel.

We'd be a lot better off burning ethanol, I think. Even better would be an organic way of creating heavier alcohols, as n-heptanol and above would likely burn in a very similar fashion to current gasolines.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Damn Narith.. that was just... embarrassing. Seriously dude, before the board regulars rip you up and leave you for roadkill, have you taken any high school science? If you have, and you passed, you should sue whatever school system taught you that crap. If you haven't , fess up and you won't be a target for abuse (well, not as much anyway)

[Riggen]

The major issues with any given reactor are waste disposal and the average not in my back yard idiot, who doesn't know anything except that the Russians blew one up bad fifty years ago.

Ever been to any of the neighborhoods around nuclear power plants? They all have strategically placed sirens for the purpose of warning of a radiological release. That alone is pretty damning in most people's eyes. The effect on property values can't be all that good, either. Pie in the sky promises of how "we've got it fixed this time--no REALLY" don't really do much to allay fears in the face of that and the disasters of the past. Chernobyl hasn't even been truly permanently contained yet, for pity's sake.

[Relbeek Einre]

Apparently Narith believes in perpetual motion machines.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, dude. Keep up with basic science.

BTW, apparently my home state is a real model to others for ethanol in fuel regulations. the "Minnesota Model" is frequently invoked in these sorts of discussions. Who knew.

[Arathena]

Ever been to any of the neighborhoods around nuclear power plants? They all have strategically placed sirens for the purpose of warning of a radiological release. That alone is pretty damning in most people's eyes. The effect on property values can't be all that good, either. Pie in the sky promises of how "we've got it fixed this time--no REALLY" don't really do much to allay fears in the face of that and the disasters of the past. Chernobyl hasn't even been truly permanently contained yet, for pity's sake.

I've lived within 500 feet of a university scale nuclear reactor, that, back when the government was allowed to sell us power-generation grade fuel, was capable of powering some hundred thousand homes. It was safe enough that during a class, I was able to walk right up and stick my hand in the cooling tank, to no ill effect. The klaxons were all over the place, but, no one really cared.

Nuclear reactors deserve respect. However, to cut off an entire line of technology out of unreasonable fear is the same as cutting off your nose to spite your face.