Outlook for Alternative Fuels

[Schister66]

I have written a couple of papers for an English Composition class that i'm in, and in these papers, i addressed the idea of alternative fuels. I first wrote a paper on hydrogen fuel and why it is better than gasoline. I later disputed the practicality of hydrogen fuel when i wrote a paper supporting E85, E95, and Ethanol fuels.

I am wondering what people think the pros and cons of each fuel system would be, and what fuel will take the role of gasoline as the fuel of the future. I am by no means limiting this debate to strictly hydrogen and ethanol however.

The only guidelines i would like to impose are:
1. No ignorant comments (blatant)
2. No ridicule of other posts without opposing information (no opinion posts)

I would like to start by saying that after all of the research i have done, i would rather look towards ethanol as the fuel of the future for a few reasons.
1. Rudimentary piston engines can work on ethanol with only minor changes in fuel tanks and gasket materials.
2. Fueling stations will operate the same as they do now, since ethanol is basically the same type of fuel as gasoline. Hydrogen fueling requires high pressure couplers and superinsulated fuel tanks that can hold 10000-20000psi at -413 F.
3. Ethanol will eliminate dependency on foreign sources of fuel. The United States would actually control most of the corn supply (main component for making ethanol) and would therefor boost the economy and make farming more profitable.

That should be a good start for everyone.

[Evil Result]

well the problem with ethanol fuel is its BTU factor which as about half that of gasoline which means your going to consume twice the ammonut of fuel you did befor if you want the same power. ethanol will eat though rubber seals commonly used in current engines.

id see propane as a good alternative fuel which has a compairable BTU factor its non toxic and evaporate if spilled burns clean enough to be used in doors(not that it matters). it has some Octane rating around 120 so you can run some good boost

although using ethanol would help our over grow food market and help the farmers.

but i suppose though cracking you could break down pretty much any fuel down to a propane...iso-butane..what have you.

[Schister66]

I don't know what the pressure butane has to be kept at to stay liquid, but that may come into account as well. Butane may also freeze at a certain temp, which is one thing that ethanol doesn't have to worry about.

[Evil Result]

LPG can be stored in a liquid state as low as 90 psi or so and freezes at a point below where a person could survive.

hum with 120 octane you could bring up CR to about 14:1 and probley increase thermal efficiency to match the power from gasoline you could buy at the pump.

the cost of Propane is about half that of gasoline...you might also (depending on whcih state) get a tex rebate.

I wonder what comes out the end of the exhaust Co2 H2O..not shure what else and particulate matter output is lower than gasoline or ethanol.

[curtis73]

Well, I agree with you that Ethanol does pose a very attractive future alternative. The problem at this point is making enough to support the demand. Right now, all the corn in the world couldn't support enough alcohol production to power the cars we have, let alone the number of cars we may have 10 years from now. It also still puts out some not so happy emissions. I would say that if we switched to Ethanol it would be evolutionary as opposed to Revolutionary. It is also incredibly caustic to lubrication systems. In a typical synthetic oil engine, often times the service interval goes from 7500 miles to 50 or 100... literally. The stuff that Ethanol (and even moreso with Methanol) gives to the oil are something that would have to be re-engineered completely.

Methane is a pretty clean burning fuel, but again there is no real way to produce enough.

In the meantime, I think the real answer is diesel. It still requires foreign oil, but if we all switched to diesel engines right now, the oil market would crash. Overnight, fuel consumption would drop by about 34% (those are 2003 numbers). That is a huge impact. Diesel is cheaper to produce, transport, holds more BTUs than gasoline, cheaper to store, creates fewer emissions during refinement, and the new diesels are creating fewer automotive emissions than even CNG.

Combine that with the fact that Biodiesel is closer to reality than widespread ethanol, and I think diesel is a huge step in the right direction. Unfortunately public opinion has been swayed by rampant misinformation and gross mistruth from the EPA and CARB. It bothers me so much that I won't even get into it lest I jump up on the soap box.

Biodiesel has its problems, but they're being solved rapidly. The nice thing is that diesel engines run on several fuels. Gasoline is a kind of fuel. It is regulated by law and gasoline describes a certain solution of chemicals. Diesel is a class of fuels and can be anything that burns with the same characteristics. It gets its name from the engine. Diesel fuel is therefore anything that burns with the same qualities in a diesel engine. In the case of gasoline engines, the fuel determines the engine design. In the case of a diesel engine, the opposite can be true. You can design a diesel fuel for a diesel engine. The possibilities are endless, and fueling a vehicle can literally be as easy as using recycled motor oil, cooking oil, and fuel oil. Run low on fuel? Stop in at the local airport and get some Jet A or Jet B. The technology is there with minor variations in injector timing and variable valve timing. The government won't allow it. Again, I refuse to post the facts I've learned because no one chooses to accept it, even though its written law available at your library or on the internet. Staying off the soapbox.

I just never understood why people wouldn't want to triple their torque, double their fuel mileage, possibly triple their engine's life, increase reliability, all but eliminate the risk of explosions and fires from accidental spills, help the environment, reduce foreign oil consumption as well as consumption in general by driving a diesel vehicle. If nothing else, diesel can extend the time we have to design something that will work on a long-term basis. Maybe Ethanol.

[Sluttypatton]

Corn isn't the sole source of Ethanol, for example, a significant quantity of Ethanol could be manufactured from forest biomass through hyrolysis of the carbohydrates in the biomass into sugars, and then fermentation. I am just pointing out that though corn alone may not be able to supply the Ethanol demand, there are many abundant sources of fermentable sugars.

[curtis73]

Good point, Sluttypatton. Are those resources combined renewable on a fast enough scale to keep up with demand? There are environmental downsides to agriculture, too. Not nearly as great as fossil fuel combustion, but land management can be very stressful to the atmosphere as well.

[benchtest]

Curtis, Diesels are not readily accepted in the U.S. due to past experience: smoke and smell. It's changing, but people are slow to accept change. Wait for it...it'll come. BTW: I love my diesel.

[Sluttypatton]

Unfortunately the figures I have on hand are quite dated, so they are of little use, however from the paper I have that was prepared for Environment Canada in the mid 80's, it is clear that even today fuel derived from forest biomass could account for a significant portion of the energy demand in Canada. I say Canada because this paper was produced pertaining to Canada, however I am sure that in many aspects it is true as well for all of North America. While the figures in this paper may not be accurate today, the breifing on environmental impact and sustainability very likely is. The impact on soil, water, macro-climate, micro-climate, vegetation and fauna, were analyzed and the basic conclusion was that the impact was highly based upon forestry practices. Impact could be large or small, depending on whether the technique was clear cutting or selective logging for example. In short, the paper concluded that through certain logging practices, a significant portion of Canada's energy supply could be met environmentally and sustainably.

So, while forest biomass certainly cannot be the sole supply of Ethanol, in conjuction with other sources it could supply a great deal of it. I will try to dig up some more current figures.

Other promising sources of fermentable sugar would be potatoes, sugar beets, sugar cane (not really applicable here but in Brazil it is tremendously important), etc. The list goes on and on, and together I am sure they could make a significant contribution to supply North America's energy requirements.

[2strokebloke]

Ethyl alcohol is a reasonable fuel. It works well in most engines with only minor modification - it is easy to make, and can be made from almost anything (even weeds! in the seventies a specific weed was bred just for the sake of alcohol production, it had high sugar content, and a field could be grown in just a couple of weeks - much faster and cheaper than corn) for a fraction of the cost of what it takes to produce gasoline. It burns cleaner than gas, and can afford more power than gas in exchange for lower fuel efficiency.
The only REAL drawback to alcohol is that it doesn't work well in cold climates, and that oil companies WILL crush any attempts to start an alcohol fuel industry (as they have done repeatedly, in the U.S. and elsewhere).
You can make your own still (it's really very easy) and produce your own fuel grade alcohol, for surprisingly little.
It's tried and true - it works - there's no experimenting or taking risks with it. It's cheap, simple, reproducable, and relatively clean compared to gas.

[Evil Result]

The particulate matter emitted from a diesel is safer than that emitted from a gasoline engine because of the size of the particals which stop it from being absorbed by the lungs but trapped by the mucus unlike a gasoline we're the particulates are small enough to reach the alveoli and cause more damage.

But LPG fuel is as i see it cleaner and easier to implement than a diesel engine that needs to run under much stricter conditions to achieve the same results. Seeing as its a gas in its natural state you can expect a more homogenious mixture in the combustion chamber. also the smaller chemical chains also means a lower likely hood of environmentally damaging emissions.

although i wonder.. with the higher octane rating of LPG could you make up the BTU difference of power between gasoline or even diesel? and how high can a engine running on LPG rev? because diesels are just too slow for me :P

[Sluttypatton]

Fractional distillation is a remarkably simple process and with the right knowledge, just as simple to carry out. It is quite simple to produce drinking quality ethanol, up to around 95% pure, with the remaining 5% being water which forms an azeotrope with the Ethanol, requiring addition of Benzene and redistillation for removal. For fuel purposes it would make sense to remove the 5% water, however for consumption it is fine to leave the 5% water and dilute it to 40%, resulting in Vodka (or drink it undiluted if your brave enough). It would also be unwise to break the azeotrope in Ethanol destined for consumption since Benzene would remain in the ppm, posing an extreme health hazard. Anyways I have gotten a little off topic here, but basically what I'm saying is that it would be simple for someone to produce Ethanol for fuel and consumption in their own home, where the law allows one to do so, of course.

[Evil Result]

prolly wouldn't be good with taking 4 gallons for them selves and their friends :P

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by Evil Result

The particulate matter emitted from a diesel is safer than that emitted from a gasoline engine because of the size of the particals which stop it from being absorbed by the lungs but trapped by the mucus unlike a gasoline we're the particulates are small enough to reach the alveoli and cause more damage.

Originally Posted by benchtest

Curtis, Diesels are not readily accepted in the U.S. due to past experience: smoke and smell. It's changing, but people are slow to accept change. Wait for it...it'll come. BTW: I love my diesel

Thank you!! Other people who understand!!! Evil Result... I bet you wouldn't say diesels are slow if you drove my friend's powerstroke; 600 RWHP and 1000 ft-lbs of torque on stock injectors. Twin turbo, 40 psi, LPG injection. Its a crew cab dually that did a best of 12.13 in the quarter. He takes the duals off and puts custom made 16x17" wheels on with huge slicks that fill the wheel wells.

He literally flips a switch, switches back to the dual wheels, and drives home getting 24 mpgs. Of course, once he flips that switch he's down to a measly 475 hp and 800 ft-lbs

[SnoopisTDI]

Just wanted to "bump" for biodiesel, and diesel too.

I've read if we had as many diesels here as they do in Germany- about 50% -that would be enough fuel saved that we could (theoretically) stop importing oil from Saudi Arabia over night. Then change all that to B20 and you have about 20% reduction again.

I've used biodiesel in the past, but I was buying it from a guy 25 miles away. I would go up there, put in about 5 gallons(the rest normal diesel), then fill two 5gal cans for the next couple times I needed to fill up. It worked out pretty good, but then I left town for 4 months, and never got back into contact with him when I returned because I didn't think I would be back for long- well I've been back for over 7 months and I wish I had been burnin' the bean the whole time. When I used it before, the exhaust smelled better, was cleaner, the car ran more quietly, no smoke(although I rarely see smoke anyway). I don't think it affected my mileage at all.

Biodiesel is just so easy to make, can be made from so many sources- waste vegetable oil or animal fats, soy bean oil, jojoba oil, rapeseed, algae... the list goes on. It doesn't really require any new infrastructure at all, it's basically just diesel fuel. And no changes at all to the engine itself.

As for diesels being slow, check out the BMW 535d- 272hp and 400lb-ft from a 3L straight six. I've heard that Ford also has a diesel engine now (maybe for Jag in europe?) that makes 280hp and well over 400lb-ft from a 3.6L V8.

Take the average person off the street and put them in a modern diesel and they wouldn't even know it- until they notice the trip is showing 350mi and they still have 1/2 tank left.

I hate that everyone does nothing while we're waiting for some pie in the sky dream like Hyrdogen. It will be decades before hydrogen is anywhere near diesel or even gasoline in terms of efficiency, and we can't afford to just sit and do nothing in the mean time.

Ok, I'll leave it at that. Time to see if I can find some biodiesel in Yuma(fat chance).