When Alcohol And Airplanes Make A Good Mix 329
gilgsn writes "Both for the economy and the environment, as suggested in this Iwon Money article. The Brazilians use sugar cane alcohol to fuel their modification of a single engine crop duster called the "Ipanema." The company projects a 25 percent increase in revenue from the new alcohol planes and increased income to convert existing gasoline-fueled Ipanemas to alcohol. With the threat of war for the U.S. and a subsequent raise in oil prices, this might be of some interest for our general aviation."
What a pain in the @ss, (Score:5, Funny)
Cars? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cars? (Score:2, Insightful)
"but we have some concerns of its performance in lower temperatures"
I'm not an expert in the area, but I'm guessing that it has something to do with the alcohol not producing as much heat as gasoline. I'm also guessing that it would be a complete bastard to start your alcohol-fuelled car on a frosty morning.
Starting alcohol-fuelled cars (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cars? (Score:3, Funny)
Driving with an open liquor bottle. That's a paddlin'.
Re:Cars? (Score:2)
i imagine that the major gas companies wouldn't be too happy w/ cars switching over, so they probably have a hand in the delay
Re:Cars? (Score:5, Informative)
Race cars use Methanol, a poisonous alcohol that should not be drunk.
Having said that, when there was an alcohol crisis in Brazil, we imported methanol as a replacement to ethanol and our cars ( and planes ) will run the same.
Of course there were some guys who were puting fuel on beverages illegally ( because it is cheaper ) and had their clients killed
Both methanol and ethanol have higher octane than standard gasoline, so the same engine will have more HP, and that is why it is used in race cars.
Re:Cars? (Score:4, Informative)
In the past, before 90/10 was required, huge and very nasty engine explosions were not uncommon. By adding 10% methanol, the number of catastrophic engine explosions were greatly reduced. Didn't take too long for this to become the standard fuel mix.
Re:Cars? (Score:3, Informative)
This top fuel [howstuffworks.com] link should explain all your questions and more.
Please do note that I am not talking about nitroglycerin. That's an extremly unstable high explosive. That would be a death wish as it's sensitive to shock, vibration and heat which is exactly what you're going to see on race cars. What I'm talking about is nitromethane which is often simply referred to as nitro. Even still, nitromethane is highly volatile which is why they "cut" by 10%. One laste note, this is distinct "stuff" and should not be confused with NO2 either, even though NO2 does have racing applications as well.
Re:Cars? (Score:2)
Indy cars use methanol, so it's perfectly possible to build a high performance car fueled by alcohol. One reason for using alcohol in race cars is that it it is safer in a crash, since it dosn't burn as hot. Even though the flames are less visible.
Re:Cars? (Score:3, Insightful)
The mention that is better for the environment I'm not too sure about either: alcohol is a carbohydrate so is kerosine. Which means that when its burned it will 'leave' carbondioxide and water. The effiency of the engine will determine how much intermediate junk you get.
It is btw quite difficult to use a more volatile fuel in an engine designed for a heavier one.
Re:Cars? (Score:5, Insightful)
True enough, burning alcohol leaves CO2, just as petrol does. However, the big difference is that growing the sugar cane to produce that alcohol absorbed the same quantity of CO2 from the atmosphere. Thus, if you consider the complete cycle (growing sugar cane, distilling, burning), no CO2 will be released in the atmosphere.
Actually, the same is true in a way for petrol, except that the "growing" part took place billions of years ago, at a time when CO2 levels were significantly different. Burning all the petrol will lead us back to the levels we had back then, which might not be so comfortable for today's life forms.
Re:Cars? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, that is, except for all the diesel fuel burned by the farming machinery and the coal fuel burned to produce the electricity for the refinement process. Sure, zero sum it is.
This is good because it's cheap(er) for poor farmers, not because it's good for the environment.
Re:Cars? (Score:2)
Why not run the farming machinery on alcohol or on canola oil as well? Short range of these fuels should be of a lesser issue for farming machinery than for planes or cars, so this looks like a perfect use for these new fuels!
and the coal fuel burned to produce the electricity for the refinement process.
Use wood ;-)
Re:Cars? (Score:2)
Rejecting a partial solution because it is not the definitive universal solution to all of mankinds problems is an old sport among enviromentalists but it just makes them look like fools. As for disel, there have been similar, and relatively sucessful, attempts at producing a "Bio Diesel" to whome the same principle applies as alcohol as a gasolilne substitute, the plants from whom the Bio Diesel fuel is made absorb the CO2 released by burn and processing. That only leaves burining Coal and other fossil fuels to generate Electicity which can be reduced significantly if the worlds governments were not such political cowards and too firmly committed to ensuring the interests of industry to promote energy efficiency. If you take a look at what is happening in Europe to reduce emissions from electic powerplats you will find that magical new technologies like cold fusion play no part in it. The proposed redcutions over the next 20-30 years will be reached by means of a patchwork of measures to increase energy efficiency and by burning a large number of alternative fuels to coal, gas and oil. It wont eliminate Coal, oil and gas!!! But alternative fuels and energy efficiency can still reduce our reliance on fossil fuels very significantly. The more we reduce reliance on fossil fuels the more real the become the prospect of getting rid of the political baggage that comes with constantly poking around in middle eastern politics and propping up tyrannical rulers in that part of the world in the interest of keeping the flow of oil uninterrupted. As far as I am concerned, if this works out and reduces or even eliminates (Utopia) the need for Gasoline that is only a good thing even if it is not a magic bullet.
Re:Cars? (Score:2, Informative)
Lots of land has become all salty here in Queensland Australia because of sugar cane. However if crops are rotated this effect is reduced, although not all farmers do this.
Also they burn down the cane in order to make harvesting it easier. This too is not good.
Then there are the fertalizers which they use. The water run off from the fields goes into rivers then into the sea, stuffing it up.
There is a big push here at the moment to make ethanol from the cane, in order to save the dying sugar cane industry. I just hope the farmers start to use better practices.
I think in general sugar cane/alcahol would be better than petrol as far as environmental impact is concerned, however it is not clean.
HAHHAAHAHAHAHAH OK?!?!?!?!
Re:Cars? (Score:4, Informative)
It has little to do with the sugar cane. In south-east Texas and southern Louisiana, they get 60+ inches of rainfall a year, and thus don't need to irrigate. They've been growing sugarcane there for over 150-200 years.
Re:Cars? (Score:2)
At least thats waht they told me at school.
Re:Cars? (Score:3, Informative)
Ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline or diesel, that's why its flame is almost invisible. The yellow color of a gasoline flame comes from unburned carbon particles (i.e. soot) heated by the flame. Also, the growing of sugar cane removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. If the tractors and trucks used in the farm run on alcohol, and the leftover straw and tusks are burned in the refinery, ethanol can be a 100% renewable fuel.
Pure ethanol was widely used as a car fuel in Brazil in the 1980's, until lower oil prices made it economically unatractive. At one time, over 90% of the cars built and running in Brazil were alcohol powered.
Re:Cars? (Score:5, Informative)
The reason why the use alcohol as a fuel in Brazil is of course the large sugar cane production in the country.
Use Google [google.com].
Re:Cars? (Score:2)
You can add a certain amount of ethanol into the mix without needing to modify the engine at all. More than a certain amount and you need to modify timings and fuel air mixture. (Though you'd think a modern engine, especially one with fuel injection and a fair amount of computer power should be able to adjust itself.) At one time ethanol was added to fuel, prior to TEL becoming popular.
Re:Cars? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cars? (Score:2, Informative)
In the 80's a large percent of the car run with alcohol, but then the oil prices fell and the program became economically less interesting. But there are still cars running with alcohol in Brazil, and the technology of burning alcohol instead of gasoline is perfectly mastered in the country. Alcohol is also mixed in the gasoline (at 30%) used by regular gasoline cars.
Re:Cars? -- Alcohol vs. Gasolene (Score:2, Informative)
Alcohol does burn pretty clean and you can get good power from it, but it's not a totally free ride. It's not pollution free either. I believe formaldahyde is a by-product of methanol combustion. Maybe some of you chemist out there can confirm. However, production of methanol fuel can be more environmentally friendly. For cars, I think I would be more in favor of a methanol fuel cell, but even that is not pollution free.
Re:Cars? (Score:2)
Homer simpson (Score:5, Funny)
more news (Score:4, Funny)
Good first step (Score:5, Funny)
insightful (was Re:Good first step) (Score:3, Interesting)
me
Re:insightful (was Re:Good first step) (Score:3, Informative)
It's perfectly legal to grow hemp engineered without THC. It's just not as fun.
Re:insightful (was Re:Good first step) (Score:3, Informative)
PYROLYSIS is the technique of applying high heat to organic matter (ligno-cellulosic materials) in the absence of air or in reduced air.
The process can produce charcoal, condensable organic liquids (pyrolytic fuel oil), non-condensable gasses, acetic acid, acetone, and methanol. The process can be adjusted to favor charcoal, pyrolytic oil, gas, or methanol production with a 95.5% fuel-to-feed efficiency.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Needless to say, DuPont and ShellOil are quick to point out that a hemp farm turns all widdle children within a 100 mi radius into raging, deliquent, homocidal maniacs.
Fighting the Greenhouse Effect (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm still waiting for somebody to take the opposite approach to managing carbon emissions. Instead of restricting the production of carbon dioxide, I say we just grow more trees and other plants. Looking out my second-storey window over a parking lot, a freeway, and a football stadium, I'd say it would go a long way toward improving our cities, too.
Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect (Score:5, Informative)
It's not quite that simple, buring ethanol does produce carbon dioxide.
But the important point is that the carbon released isn't "fossil carbon" which has been locked up in mineral deposits for a long time. Only a short time ago this carbon was previously in carbon dioxide which a sugar cane plant took in for photosynthesis.
The next result of using biomass fuels is that the crabon dioxide content of the atmosphere stays much the same. On average for every carbon dioxide you put in from burning the fuel one will be taken out bu the next batch of your crop.
Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect (Score:2)
Intensive farming can be done without massive fertilizer runoff (hey, Congress, lets use some of those subsidies to promote no-till more instead of merely fallow fields!) and fossil carbon requires less habitat destruction per BTU. We should be pushing for hybrids to tide us over until fuel-cell vehicles can be rolled out on a massive scale.
However, converting existing fields to growing ethanol is a good idea in the short run. For example, getting rid of organic fields to grow ethanol-producing plants in a responsible intensive manner would be a net plus. I'm just not sure it's a large-scale solution, nor will the market support it given the current first-world mythology surrounding organic foods.
Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect (Score:3, Insightful)
"Fossil Carbon" as its called consists of carbon atoms (bonded who random other stuff) which has been effectively removed from the atomsphere by natural processes. Coal, Oil, Natural Gas: all of these represent large stocks of carbon which no longer form a component of our atmosphere.
Thus, when you burn them, you unlock that carbon from the mineral deposits and release it into the atmosphere. This results in a net gain of carbon in the atmosphere.
Using alcohol based fules the carbon you are releasing is coming from the atmosphere in the first place, not from a mineral source. Assuming a regular harvesting cycle the plants you are growing now are removing CO2 from the atmosphere as you burn off the last crop. Net result is therefore 0 (or close to it).
See, no C02 is removed from the atmosphere by digging a hole in the ground from which to suck oil. That's the key.
Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect (Score:2)
Except that if your idea is to use forests or crops to adsorb fossil carbon you need to constantly plant more and more plants. Whereas for biomass you simply need a crop grown as any other crop is grown.
Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect (Score:2, Insightful)
From The Coming Global Oil Crises [oilcrisis.com]:
"The major energy inputs in U.S. corn production are oil, natural gas, and/or other high grade fuels. Fertilizer production and fuels for mechanization account for about two-thirds of these energy inputs for corn production (Pimentel, 1991)."
Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect (Score:2)
I think people are mistaken that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas: I believe that it is. It's just that the carbon in the CO2 from biomass fuels like this alcohol is not derived from fossil reserves like gasoline is. So it's not contributing directly to increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
(Note that I said directly: I think that this method of generating fuel will still contribute to a net increase in atmospheric carbon if for instance large swaths of forest are destroyed to grow the sugarcane.)
Sugar cane fuel in the US? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sugar cane fuel in the US? (Score:5, Interesting)
Standard Oil saw things differently however.
Henry also posited that cars should be made of plastic rather than metal and produced a plastic Model T in the late 20's. Where did he get his feed stock for making the plastic? Locally grown soybeans.
US Steel and Standard Oil saw things differently.
By the way, you can get sugar, and make alcohol from it, from beets, quite growable anywhere in the US.
One of the hurdles to pass now though is that the radical "enviromentalists" now oppose any such renewable resources for fuel. Go figure. They have the idea that every ear of corn you feed to a car means some human is going hungry.
Simpletons.
KFG
Two for one - slop and alcohol (Score:2)
Other than that, I think you might have mixed up your radicals.
Economics will screw this up (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, gasoline refining takes time. And the oil it is made from took thousands/millions of years to create, and it is limited (we haven't planted future oil fields!). Growing sugar cane and letting it ferment and then distilling the alcohol from it takes time too.
Diesel cars used to be hot in the early 80's because diesel was so much cheaper than unleaded or regular. Economics screwed that up because diesel cars got to be big enough that regular gas stations (not just truck stops) started to carry diesel. That increased the gas stations cost, and thus raised the price of diesel to the same or higher levels compared to unleaded.
I don't see how, in the long run, this will save the world.
Re:Economics will screw this up (Score:5, Informative)
Or in the case of the UK (where we are taxed 80% on our gasoline), our government made a big deal about getting people to switch to diesel as it was taxed considerably less than regular gasoline, and was cleaner for the environment. Then, as soon as a significant quantity of people had realised the money they could save by switching over, the government inflated the tax so that it now costs MORE per gallon than regular.
I love this country!
Re:Economics will screw this up (Score:2)
Then decided to go after people who used recycled vegetable oil, for "tax evasion". Good idea, turn a waste product into something useful and get fined.
Re:Economics will screw this up (Score:2)
At the end of the day, Europe has the sense to see that reliance on oil is a bad thing which is why they're making more than token efforts to change.
Part of the problem with human beings is that they are fundamentally selfish and lazy. If a government sets up a voluntary recycling scheme for paper, cans or bottles I bet nearly everyone would still throw their rubbish in the bin! If supermarkets sell thicker reusable carrier bags for a few pence, most people will still take the 'free' thinner ones. If there are two cars of similar price, most people will buy the one that looks nicer even if it has shittier mileage. People are selfish and lazy.
In such circumstances, a government has a duty to do what is best for everyone, even if in the short term it looks like they're a bunch of swingeing bastards. Pollution, refuse, energy consumption are all serious long term problems and the simple fact is people *won't* change unless you force them to. You can sermonise until you're blue in the face, but it won't work. How many people wore seatbelts (or car companies that even fitted them) until governments mandated car safety? Some issues have to be forced even in a free economy. Taxation can be extremely effective way to institute change.
Here in Ireland we get charged 15 cents for a plastic carrier bag and now everyone uses reusable bags. It stops something like 300 million bags being tossed into landfill every year. Places like Denmark, Germany charge a deposit in the price of glass and plastic bottles with the result that people not return their glass and plastic rather than toss it out.
Where perhaps the UK is going wrong is they're using the stick in the wrong way. Taxing petrol is an excellent way to annoy people, but perhaps taxing engine size, or petrol tank size would be better. Most people don't need a 2.0 liter engine - a 1.4 is more than adequate, so tax the people who choose something which is overly inefficient for their circumstances. The same with petrol tanks - tax the cars with bigger tanks because they will typically consume more fuel. Simultaneously subsidize the more efficient vehicles, especially those such as hybrids which get dramatically better performance than petrol engines.
Multiple fuel sources (Score:3, Informative)
[For those thinking fuel tax ? - the uk puts most of the cost of roads onto the fuel in taxes since not everyone has a car and the people who drive more do more of the wearing out]
and yet... (Score:2)
Re:Economics will screw this up (Score:2)
Re:Economics will screw this up (Score:2)
Probably cheaper than bombing Iraq (and whoever else) in order to get a government the US happens to like. Especially since all those warplanes need oil for fuel and the explosives are probably petrochemical derived too.
Re:Economics will screw this up (Score:4, Informative)
Don't forget sugar beet which can grow in the US and Europe. I know that Poland for example produces too much sugar and world market prices for sugar are lowest ever. There are huge reserves in sugar production. And what is more important: it is not just sugar you can use to produce alcohol. Most of ethanol is produced from grain or potatoes and it is cheap.
The only problem is taxation: consumable ethanol everywhere is subject to huge taxation (that's why vodka is expensive even though its production is cheap) so you need double taxation, one for consumable ethanol, the other for fuel. But this means you need control so people don't produce fuel ethanol and sell it on black market.
Anyway, ethanol prices are not a problem. Taxation and petrol lobbies are a problem.
Raf
Re:Economics will screw this up (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason the Brazilians use sugar cane is that it grows well in Brazil. Another plant used for commercial production of sugar is sugar beet which grows in temperate climates. Anyway plenty of plants can be used for production of alcohol, quite probably where the part being fermented is otherwise waste.
Distilled alcohol prices rise above gasoline quickly and all of a sudden the whole distilled alcohol plane is starting to cost you MORE than the gasoline did.
Typically passenger planess use jet A which is less volatile than the gasoline type fuels used in cars and light aircraft. Anyway if the Rusians can build a jet fighter which will run on just about anything the same technology will work with any other plane. Most likely the issue is with certification.
Diesel cars used to be hot in the early 80's because diesel was so much cheaper than unleaded or regular. Economics screwed that up because diesel cars got to be big enough that regular gas stations (not just truck stops) started to carry diesel. That increased the gas stations cost, and thus raised the price of diesel to the same or higher levels compared to unleaded.
In many parts of the world a major part of the cost of the fuel is taxation. Anyway the oil companies will use any excuse to raise profits.
Re:Economics will screw this up (Score:2)
Therein lies maybe the biggest obstacle. Powerful nations control the means of production and distribution of oil. If a good alternative really comes along we can expect them to resist it politically, which is unfortunate for the consumers who might benefit from the choice.
What's the Fuel Economy? (Score:4, Interesting)
There was quite a bit of comment in the article about "saving reais"... but regardless of the price comparison, notice how no explicit numbers were given for fuel economy...
The average farmer, given the information on the site, uses 70l of gasoline an hour (@ 245Reais / hour).
The alchohol plane uses 83.3- l of fuel / hour.
Meaning that the gas engine is more fuel efficient, and when dealing with jet engines, it isn't even possible to aquire enough fuel to make up for the lack of range without losing so much of the passenger / cargo space that all profit is lost.
So, while General aviation might like it, commercial aviation will not adopt it until you can give sufficient return on range to make the choice palatable.
I don't think that the savings is going to make up for the cost of switching for quite awhile, at least not in US GenAv.
My $0.25.
Well, cool, but how do you make Alcohol? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only problem with running an engine on alcohol is that you need to refine that alcohol first, that is something that takes a huge amount of energy and unless you have a "green" way of doing that you are just as screwed as when you use petrol.
Yes, it's cool that you can keep flying after the oil reserves dry out, but it's not going to do anything for the greenhouse effect, it might even make it worse with all the water you need to evaporate during destilation.
Re:Well, cool, but how do you make Alcohol? (Score:3, Informative)
If you're using energy that would otherwise be wasted then it becomes quite practical (and economic).
For example, I believe that in New Zealand they're producing ethanol from dairy whey (a byproduct of some milk products).
At least some of the energy used in this production is also a byproduct of processes such as the production of milk-powder or something.
One man's waste energy is another's treasure
Even without using wate energy, I don't see why it wouldn't be practical to use a solar still to perform the fractional distilation required to perform the essential separation of ethanol and water needed to get a 100+% proof fluid for fuel use.
Re:Well, cool, but how do you make Alcohol? (Score:3, Informative)
One of the most important products is steam (reactions are both exothermic (giving out heat) and endothermic (requiring heat). One plant may produce sufficient steam to provide heating for a number of other plants. There may be a net energy requirement for the site, but it is minimal compared with that of the endothermic plants taken individually.
As a final point, remember that ethanol has a lower boiling point than water so you are not going to lose a lot of water there. In fact liquid water is one of the waste products.
The FAA will make it very difficult... (Score:5, Interesting)
Usually what happens is a company will spring for the engineering studies, then sell an STC (supplemental type certificate) to aircraft owners wishing to modify their aircraft. (The company still controls the STC, and each aircraft must have its own STC). For instance, owners of certain aircraft wanting to burn auto fuel can buy STCs from two different companies.
At any rate, the bottom line is that the conversion to alternative fuels in production aircraft (at least in the US) is extremely prohibitive, thanks to the FAA. You can read more about the hoops that have to be jumped through here [faa.gov].
Re:The FAA will make it very difficult... (Score:2)
In defense of the FAA. (Score:2, Insightful)
The safety requirements for any aircraft must be high. As a result, modifications to original type design must not be taken lightly. I know it's a pain, but I also know that the first time one of these falls out of the sky the public will be all over the FAA and the engineers that approved the mod.
Nothing new. (Score:4, Informative)
As far as i know methanol is a very popular "gasoline" in Brazil. All those beetles run on it!
Using bio-mass, be it seeds, manure or plant rests, is nothing new.
We even had a robot using bio mass as a source for electricity yesterday !!
So fly a plane with it, wow!! just like those little remote controlled airoplanes.
Post a new story when it runs on water.......
Re:Nothing new. (Score:2)
Boy, if you don't know the difference between ethanol and methanol then you'll never get work as a bartender
But seriously -- ethanol tends to created from biomass reactions, whereas economic methanol production usually relies on the fractional distilation of more complex hydrocarbons such as light crude.
Interesting points... (Score:2)
No Problems! Thanks to us STUPID humans, with global warming we'll be able to use this as a fuel source across the entire planent in just 50 short years!
same old story (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a oily extract from a tree which can be used to make a diesel like fuel with better properties than diesel. But no widespread use coz this will hit the oil lobby. Brazil had no option. they couldnt afford gas.. so they embarked on alco. and this really helped the balance of trade. Unless legistlators insist on regulations that make use of alco. compulsary.. this wont take off.
btw in india the govt has directed that by 2003 all gasoline will have to have a 5% alco mix, then engine modifications will be done and this increased to 25%, this way dependance on OPEC will be lessened. When this happens in US, the exessive middle east meddling will thankfully reduce coz then the govt wont have much interest in that area. Rather that stupid lobbying with OPEC and giving them concessions govt should make all alternate fuels tax free and cars and vehicals using alternate fuels and electricity totally tax free, this will ensure self sufficency in energy
Engines and Efficiency (Score:2, Informative)
Apparently modern internal combustion engines are only about 3-5% efficient. Ie they only extract about 3-5% of the potential power of each unit of fuel consumed.
On the other hand, steam engines were developed so much over the last century that the most modern steam engines could haul 1 ton approximately 3 miles, on a teaspoon of coal. Thats right, 1 teaspoon!
Seems to me the best way forward is to work out more efficient uses of petrol for powering engines, so we use less fuel, rather than investigating different energy sources.
Re:Engines and Efficiency (Score:2, Informative)
My favorite alternative to internal combustion engines is fuel cells. With all the explosions and moving parts jamming up and down ICs get the low 3-5% efficiency rating from stuff like heat and vibration loss. This also causes them to wear out quicky and with the need to keep the moving parts oiled they get pretty filthy too.
(Note: It's been awhile since I've read about these so correct me if I'm wrong about anything) So here's what I know about fuel cells for those who have never heard of them, as I understand it, there are no moving parts, kind of like a battery (this isn't counting stuff likes tires of course). It also makes zero noise like a battery so it would make as much noise in a car as a battery powered car would. So I without the movement I don't think there's a need to lube it with oil and they probably last a long time with very little maintenance since they're not vibrating, grinding, and heating up/cooling down all the time. And I think they're smaller too which means you can design them for easy maintance I.E. you don't have to take the whole engine apart just to get to a fan belt. In fact, I don't think it needs a cooling fan either because there probably wouldn't be much in the way of heat output. For fuel they can take pretty much anything rich in hydrogen which is the most abundant element on the planet. This means there are many types of renewable fuel to choose from. The way the engine gets it's energy is it takes two different molecules, strips their electrons for power, and combines what's left over. What you end up with as output is pretty much pure water (no pollution!). So with the lack of moving parts and excess heat and the superior method for energy transfer I've heard of fuel cells getting up to 60% efficiency.
The only problem with fuel cells right now is they are difficult to mass produce since they haven't been as researched as much as ICs and are therefore pretty expensive. Plus if cars were to use them you'd have the problem of readying every gas station in the country all while maintaining support for gasoline for every person in the country who still owns a normal car. Canada has some buses using them though. I think someone (the mayor of Toronto maybe?) even drank a glass of water out of the tailpipe when they first introduced the buses just to show how clean they are. Instead of just dumping the water out the back maybe cars should have water fountains built into the dashboard
Anyway http://www.fuelcells.org/ has more info. (Sorry it's not linked it seems the html isn't the version I'm used to.)
Sugar cane to make "biodiesel" instead? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Brazilians should make biodiesel fuel from sugar cane instead; that means the entire sugar cane plant can be use to make the fuel. Unlike regular diesel fuel, biodiesel fuel has no particulate emissions, no sulfur-compound problems, and with the right engine design burns very cleanly. Biodiesel fuel mixed with JP4 jet fuel actually burns much cleaner than straight JP4 on jet engines, with almost no soot in the exhaust.
Re:Sugar cane to make "biodiesel" instead? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, that would make no sense at all and would clearly be the wrong thing.
The Brazilians don't cultivate sugar cane to make alcohol from it. They cultivate it to make sugar. It's a very profitable product, so much that Brazil ends up importing other products that could easily be cultivated on its lands, only because everyone plants sugar canes.
Of course, apart from extracting the sugar, they've done their best to make full use of the plant, so there are a few byproducts. The most important of them is alcohol; there results to be so much of it that they ended up finding new uses for it (alcohol-powered cars, now planes). But it's still a byproduct, very unimportant compared to the sugar produced. So destroying the sugar production (and the other byproducts) only to produce biodiesel instead of alcohol would simply be absurd.
Re:Sugar cane to make "biodiesel" instead? (Score:3, Informative)
No, they shouldn't.
Biodiesel is a lipid. A lipid is a glycerol with three fatty acid chains attached. We've all heard of such lipids as Soybean oil, Corn oil, Canola oil, and Peanut oil. But has anyone ever heard of "Sugar Cane oil?" No, because it isn't efficient to turn sugar cane into a lipid.
Sugar cane produces sugar (CnH2nOn). It is efficient to turn this into alcohol, which will power a gasoline based engine.
Just as you don't put diesel in a gas engine, you don't put gas in a diesel engine.
The Brizilians have it right, and should not be making biodiesel from their sugar cane.
Re:Sugar cane to make "biodiesel" instead? (Score:3, Insightful)
of ground ozone. Not good.
I would have understood your concerns in the past but today's emission control systems found on diesel cars sold in Europe have pretty much eliminated the NOx pollution issue. The only reason we don't see it in the USA is the fact Diesel #2 fuel sold in the USA has too high a level of sulfur compounds, which will destroy diesel exhaust emission controls since the compounds act like sulfuric acid (anyone who's taken high school chemistry knows how strong sulfuric acid can be). However, with the EPA mandating soon that sulfur compounds cannot exceed 80 parts per million (this is the current California Air Resources Board standard), we can apply truly modern emission controls on diesel engines and it'll likely meet the tough Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle standard.
Not new (Score:2, Informative)
Ethanol could be a big win. It would stabilize the market for corn, generate lots of cheap protein from the corn byproduct, and is cleaner. Alcohol has much less energy in it than gasoline, so aircraft range would be significantly reduced.
But, it just doesn't seem economically viable to put this into production, especially through the FAA's lengthy (=pricey) certification process.
Aero diesels are starting to hit the market finally. Biodiesel is probably a better idea in the short run.
Earth, not War (Score:3, Insightful)
The war in the gulf will be about PROTECTING the oil, not threatening it. Thats what the last gulf war was all about.
Global warming and a million other 'bad things' are a much weightier and more pressing reason to get excited about this stuff.
The US is seen as the environmental bad guy by most of the world. A couple of timely bits of legislation enforcing the use of these types of technology in certain minority (followed by majority) uses would shift the emphasis enormously.
Ban the sale of new 2-stroke petrol engines, and watch these alcohol babies take off. No duties on 'grown' fuel would push this further.
Re:Earth, not War (Score:2)
The US has a bad reputation for all things environmental for a good reason! The fact that George W. Bush abandoned the Kyoto Protocol [wwf.org.uk] and pushed for oil drilling in Alaska [bbc.co.uk] as two of his first acts in office doesn't inspire confidence.
What makes you think that the US Government will legislate the use of biomass fuels? The influence of the oil companies in US politics [bbc.co.uk] is too great.
After all, why do you think the US is so keen to invade Iraq? I won't deny that Saddam Hussein is unstable, but I reckon the 112 bn [infoplease.com] barrels of oil Iraq is sitting on provides the ultimate motive. IMHO, The US will push for a US-friendly leader to ensure US oil companies receive drilling rights to continue the cycle of money.
Re:Earth, not War (Score:2)
If all we wanted was oil then why not seize the Saudi oil fields? That would be a cake walk since we already have troops right there.
Let's listen to Europe for our foreign policy. What's that Mr. Chamberlin, peace in our time? Hey France, has Hitler reached the Maginot Line yet?
Re:Earth, not War (Score:2)
US oil companies already have excellent access to Saudi oil fields, from which the profits are split with the Saudi Royal Family. This profitable relationship enables the US to ignore the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, which are exactly the same as seen in Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Re:Earth, not War (Score:2)
Re:Earth, not War: Ah the usual suspects BIG OIL ! (Score:2)
Not with Hussein still in charge. There's no way he's going to let the United States drill Iraq for oil.
age problem (Score:2)
[just kidding]
You won't see this for a long time here... (Score:3, Interesting)
As a result, except for jet engines, most engines in use in aircraft today are designs that are decades old. (Lycoming, Continental, etc.)
It's already bad enough that the FAA requires you to get your aircraft recertified on a plane-by-plane basis to use automotive gasoline, which doesn't necessarily require engine modifications.
Using alcohol in an aircraft *will* require engine modifications because alcohol is highly corrosive. (Take a look at automotive FFVs like the Dodge Spirit FFV - Anything that comes in contact with fuel in these vehicles is insanely expensive because it must be unusually corrosion-resistant to survive when alcohol is used as a fuel.)
Ethanol might be less of a problem than methanol, but considering that even simply using *unleaded gasoline* is a major certification hassle, alcohol is a LONG way away from being a fuel source for aviation in the USA.
Ipanema -- "...and when she passes..." (Score:2)
heh. the plane from ipanema.
old vegetable oil (Score:2)
It even possible to run engines on used vegetable oil.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2117616.stm
Energy density - alcohol vs gas (Score:2)
If alcohol is less energy dense than gas, to perform a certain task (carrying 1000 lbs 500 miles @ 140mph), you need more alcohol. In aircraft, there is a hard limit of how much heavier you can make the cargo (people, fuel, cargo). Take off weight and safety reserve is nonchangeable without a large change in aerodynamics and engine technology.
So, to accomodate more fuel, you carry less cargo. Less cargo per trip = more trips to perform the same task. So, you may well end up being less ecofriendly than the gas.
If using alcohol turns your 4 place into a 3 place, you might not want to do it. Or if it means you can only dust 2 fields/day instead of 3.
i may well be talking out my ass, and alcohol as a fuel blows gasoline away. But don't automatically assume that 1 is better than the other simply because "is't not evil gasoline". Figure in ALL the parameters.
Sugar cane harvest (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The threat of war? (Score:2, Insightful)
Could you please explain what these "local oil prices" are? Oil is globally traded, if supply goes down prices go up - even if your particular supplier continues to have steady production.
Re:The threat of war? (Score:2)
Also oil is always priced in US dollers. Which adds currency traders into the mix. Traders can also be influenced simply by possibilities.
Re:The threat of war? (Score:5, Insightful)
For more info: CSIS report on US Use of Energy and Energy Imports [csis.org]
War will raise prices.
Re:The threat of war? (Score:2)
http://www.api.org/webfaq.htm
Re:The threat of war? (Score:4, Insightful)
As for you arguing that since the US is not affected it is OK to attack Iraq is *very* short sighted. I wish that Bush (and his followers) would see that their *allies* (within NATO) do not want this (just ask France), and their friends (through Partnership for Piece) do not want it either (just ask Russia). Never in the history of UN, a war, just to be on the safe side, has been sanctioned, and I hope it never will.
The September 11th attack was a cruel terrorist attack on civians, but the US must see why they are picked as the target. Both the current Bagdad regime and the Talibans are (at least partially) the creations of CIA. The Talibans fought the USSR and were supported by the CIA, as was Saddam was supported in the war agains Iran as Iraq was deemed to be a smaller threat. By these kind of operations the US create instability in other regions of the world, and now some fanatics want to bite back.
An important note: I do *not* support any terrorist activities, I'm just saying that there is a reason to why people become terrorists (desperation, lack of influense, abuse, etc) and maybe one can try to work in that end instead of bombing everyone not liking you (which leads to more people not liking you).
Re:The threat of war? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ever since the oil crisis of the 1970s based on Middle Eastern problems, people believe all our oil supply comes from there. In reality, the US stockpiles barrels of oil that can be released at at any time. We also have deep wells in the US that are not currently in production mode. It's political lobbies from Big Oil that control and/or allow for a lot of the fluctuations in oil prices, not actual supply-and-demand economics.
Supply-and-demand economics really kinda went out the window during the 90s.
Re:The threat of war? (Score:2)
I don't want Saddam Hussein to launch a missile armed with a nuclear warhead and that missile destroys the Dharhan oil terminal--it will cut off a huge portion of the world's oil supply until a replacement oil terminal is built, which could take up to three years to build. Meanwhile, the price of a barrel of oil zooms to US$90/barrel, something nobody wants.
Re:The threat of war? (Score:2)
You can mod me down all you want but given Hussein's history against his neighbors and his own people (even his own family!), this very possibility is no longer a far-fetched fantasy.
Re:The threat of war? (Score:2)
Hmmm.....
This [aceee.org] is from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
Darn treehuggers? Well, this [doe.gov] link is even more interesting they are the EIA (Energy Information Administration), their Website is even labeled "Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government" coool!
Check out figure 51, a little more than 20% imports...
A simple Google search seems to indicate that most people seem to quote between 50 and 60% net oil import for the US and not 20%. Domestic US supply is on the decline and imports are on the rise. I also think that a little more than a quarter of the US imported oil comes from the Gulf Region or other middle eastern sources.
Re:The threat of war? (Score:2)
Let me explain again. He claimed 80% of the USA's oil production is DOMESTIC. 100% total - 80% US domestic=20% imported He then went on to claim that of these 20% that are imported only 1/4 come from the gulf. Which supposedly is the reason why Bush wants to go to war in the Gulf, not for the USA who does not need gulf oil, and supposedly hardly imports any, but for the USA's unfortunate allies.
The reason I cited those figures is to show that domestic production DOES NOT satisfy 80% of the USA's oil consumption like he claimed but rather only c.a. 45% according to those EIA figrues an that another 45% are or rather were covered in 1996 by imports. Today, unless things have changed in the US Domestic Oil industry, imports should outstrip domestic production by a good margin.
I never denied that around half of the USA's oil consumption is covered by imports, I tried to prove it.
Prices have no bearing on supply costs (Score:2)
Textbook makers have done price increases when there are wildfires in various parks and nature reserves, even the ones where no timber/pulp is harvested. The bookstores get in on the action too. When the price goes up, they go and reprice whatever is in their stock room and on the shelf. Why not oil, too?
Re:Yes... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Is it really cheap without gas? (Score:2)
Well duh! You'd run the harvester and other associated equipment on alcohol or other bio-fuels too!
Actually, there are quite a number of bio-sourced fuels that can be used as easily (or more easily) than ethanol.
I believe methanol can be made from celulose (as opposed to cracking it from more more complex hydrocarbons) and fuels such as rape-seed and other oils make a dandy biodiesel when processed properly.
For some light humour, check the articles that result from this search [bbc.co.uk] on the BBC news site where some Brits are dodging massive taxes by running their cars on cooking oil.
Re:Is it really cheap without gas? (Score:2)
Couldn't the farm equipment run on alcohol as well?
Re:I sorry ladies and Gentlemen (Score:2)
** Please consult page 42 of your Vague Joke Reference Manual
Re:That's really stupid (Score:2)
As regards the politics, well yes, the slash and burn land owners are behind this but it is always a good idea to have locally produced alternatives that don't require oodles of foreign exchange.
Re:sugar cane alcohol (Score:2)