On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:09:53 +0300 (EEST), Janne Blomqvist
wrote:

In article , Bob Fry wrote:
"The purpose of the project was to develop a fuel based on ethanol..."

I gotta wonder...given that this is being done in the Mid-West...what
was more important: to base the new fuel heavily on ethanol, or to
find a replacement for 100LL? In other words, in a research project
to simply find the best replacement for 100LL, would it necessarily
end up as ethanol? Probably not. Is this a solution looking for a
problem?

I think it depends on how you look at it. It may be a viable
replacement for 100LL. It most likely will cost more as it takes more
energy to produce.

So, yes I think it can probably produce a viable alternative to 100LL.
It will do nothing to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel.
I think the goal is simply to produce a replacement for 100LL. Any
statements about renewable energy sources are simply misleading.
True, but still misleading.


Perhaps a solution to the question about how the farmers can sell more
of their stuff...

Other questions: Doesn't ethanol have less energy / volume than
gasoline?

Yes, it's heating value is about 2/3 that of gasoline.

So what about performance or range?

Compared to autogas, ethanol has higher octane (ron=118, mon=100
IIRC), so compared to an autogas tuned engine you can increase the
compression and thus improve efficiency. That way one can compensate

I lived on a farm about 8 miles from the Gasohol plant at Alma MI.
The word I've seen is the Gas Alcohol mix give maximum octane at 10%
alcohol and 90% gas.

I was under the impression that by itself Alcohol is supposed to have
a very low octane, on the order of 80 to 85 when compared to car gas.
Regular, unmodified cars make a lot of noise when burning straight
alcohol.

In either case the heavily subsidized plant went under as they could
neither produce enough fuel, or do it economically.

somewhat for the lower heating value. OTOH, for an engine tuned for
high octane gas such as, oh, 100LL, you won't get this benefit.

What sort of processing is needed to produce this...can it be done
cheaply on a national scale?

NO!
The over simplified explanation: They grow corn. The corn is allowed
to ferment. The alcohol is distilled off.


If it could be done competetively the agricultural industry wouldn't
need massive government subsidies, would it? OTOH, if you would factor
in the price of a middle east presence to keep the oil flowing,
gasoline would be more expensive as well.

Most of the world pays at least twice what we in the US pay for gas.
Even with all the gas taxes we pay half or less.

From experience, it takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to produce
a gallon of Alcohol, IF you are growing grain for that specific
purpose.


That does of course not mean that biofuels will be forever
uncompetetive. When oil supplies dwindle, the price will increase. At
the same time, more efficient ways of biofuel production are
developed.

The kicker is when you can produce it as a byproduct. Then it will
become a viable, renewable energy source.

There are a number of problems growing biomass specifically to produce
fuel..
It currently takes a lot of energy to produce and it takes a lot of
fertilizer. The ground does not magically produce that biomass from
nothing. Hence you see farmers rotating crops. The idea is to raise
corn which takes the most out of the soil, then beans which help put
nitrogen back into the soil, and finally wheat. So the usual rotation
is Wheat, corn, beans, wheat, corn, beans with a year of alfalfa and
clover thrown in if possible. It's been a longgg time so I may not
have the right chemicals with the right crops, but I do have the
rotation in order.

If you take all the biomass from a field every year, that field will
just barely raise a good crop of weeds after a few years. No, they
wouldn't break down to produce much fuel. :-))

OTOH there are actually some farms using waste to produce methane on a
scale large enough to heat all the buildings. It's relatively simple
and inexpensive process.. I don't know if they've made it much beyond
that point or not.

I do know there is at least one land fill in California that has
tapped the methane and is heating at least several hundred homes. (It
may be several thousand) I've seen pictures of it recently and it's
one of the major cities, but I've forgotten which one.

Hydrogen, like alcohol takes more energy from fossil fuels than it
produces, at least when producing more than small quantities.

I believe it was MIT that produced a fuel cell (this year) that will
use straight kerosene or diesel fuel.

So far, from what I've seen there is no current method of producing
renewable fuels (alternative fuels) that produces as much energy as
can be obtained from those fuels.

The "alternative" fuel touted by the EAA project is not efficient, but
it does produce a fuel that can be used in aircraft.

So as I see it, these programs are producing useable fuels, but doing
nothing to ease the dependence on fossil fuels as of yet.

OTOH if they produce a viable replacement for 100LL we should be
thankful. Who knows what the eventual price will be. Without
subsidies a fuel that takes more energy to produce than it produces is
going to be expensive.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com