New fuel

"BllFs6" wrote in message
news:20040818094952.12124.00003620@mb- If you dont do THAT, then your at
best making a little more ethanol than the
gas you started with (and wasted alot of valuable food and land in the
process)
and at worst you've actually ended up with LESS fuel than you started with
(and
have totally wasted a non-renewable fuel source)....

This reminds me of something I saw on Scientific American Frontiers last
night. It was a show on new car technology and was touting the glorious
revolution that will be Fuel Cells run on hydrogen.

While it was very interesting, there was this theme that the American market
was slowing the development of fuel efficient cars because we (Egads!!) keep
demanding more power and utility from our vehicles. Kind of irritating
actually. The American market, in a big way, helps fund their development
programs through car sales.

Anyway, the one thing that they glossed right over was that it takes more
energy to extract hydrogen from water than you get from the extracted
hygogen. They said that to solve this catch-22, we can extract hydrogen from
hyrdrocarbons (ie coal, oil, natural gas, etc.) or use nuclear to extract
hydrogen from water. Doesn't seem to be all that glorious of a solution now,
does it?

As I see it, what's slowing down the development of hydrogen fuel cells is
the fact that getting hydrogen isn't easy or cheap (cost or energy-wise).
It's great technology, but it still has a long way to go before it will be
accepted by the buying public.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

BllFs6 wrote:

Or in otherwords it takes something like 2/3 a gallon of gasoline/diesel to
perhaps as high as 1.5 gallons to make just one gallon of ethanol....I am going
on memory here.....

So, making ethanol only really makes sense if you use something like wind,
solar, or nuclear power to provide the vast majority of power and energy used
in the whole production cycle of ethanol....

If you dont do THAT, then your at best making a little more ethanol than the
gas you started with (and wasted alot of valuable food and land in the process)
and at worst you've actually ended up with LESS fuel than you started with (and
have totally wasted a non-renewable fuel source)....

But if they're actually making this ethanol for fuel, then it would make sense to run
the agricultural equipment on it. Then *if your memory is correct*, at best they use
2/3 of their product just growing it.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

In article , Paul Sengupta wrote:
* September 2004, acquire Diamond DA40 tdi

Hmm, the Thielert looks nice, doesn't it. Perhaps I'll be able to
afford one in, uh, about 300 years.

I can't see why ethanol would be a particularly good fuel for planes;
it's hydrophilic (as opposed to gasoline or most petroleum products
which are hydrophobic),

Does it matter if it has some water in it? It might reduce the power/
efficiency, but it's not going to come in bubbles/streams to cut the
engine completely as it does now with avgas?

I read somewhere that current fuel systems and distribution
infrastructure is geared for hydrophobic fuels, so that might require
some change. Another thing might be that if you get too much water in
a gasoline-ethanol mix, the ethanol-water will separate from the rest?

it eats rubber and has a low energy
content. Certainly not a straight replacement for avgas.

How do cars in Brazil do on the stuff?

Fine I understand. The lower heating value doesn't matter that as much
for cars as for planes, I'd say. Also, cars typically have shorter
lives than planes and I think all newer cars have such rubber that
isn't eaten by ethanol. And for older cars, it's a simple matter of
replacing some hoses, as opposed to aircraft where you might need some
recertification etc.


--
Janne Blomqvist

Trent Moorehead wrote:

Anyway, the one thing that they glossed right over was that it takes more
energy to extract hydrogen from water than you get from the extracted
hygogen. They said that to solve this catch-22, we can extract hydrogen from
hyrdrocarbons (ie coal, oil, natural gas, etc.) or use nuclear to extract
hydrogen from water. Doesn't seem to be all that glorious of a solution now,
does it?

It certainly doesn't seem that way to me, but I live downwind of most of the plants
that would be producing the power for those hydrogen generators. It probably looks
just great to most of the residents of Los Angeles, since most of their polution
comes from cars. I expect this would be reflected in the politics behind the
development.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

In article , Paul Sengupta wrote:
"Janne Blomqvist" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Fry wrote:
Other questions: Doesn't ethanol have less energy / volume than
gasoline?

Yes, it's heating value is about 2/3 that of gasoline.
:
When oil supplies dwindle, the price will increase. At
the same time, more efficient ways of biofuel production are
developed.

Question...how does the specific energy of corn oil compare with
Jet-A1 run in a diesel engine?

I guess you mean biodiesel, which is produced from vegetable oils such
as soy, rapeseed or from animal fats. Ethanol is produced from corn,
but I've never heard about "corn oil".

The (higher) heating value of fuels is approximately (quick googling,
correct if I'm wrong)

kerosene (Jet A-1) 46 MJ/kg
diesel 46.1 MJ/kg
gasoline 48 MJ/kg
ethanol 29.7 MJ/kg
biodiesel 40 MJ/kg


Tesco Supermarkets here in the UK now sell an "Ecodiesel"...it
has all of 5% biodiesel and costs 1p a litre more than their city
(reduced sulphur) diesel.

The reason jets use kerosene instead of diesel is that diesel freezes
at higher temperatures than kerosene. Biodiesel is even worse in this
regard. Not nice if your tanks freeze solid on a high altitude
flight..

See

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/Cold%20Flow.PDF

and

http://www.biodiesel.org/markets/pre...tingReport.pdf


--
Janne Blomqvist

Janne Blomqvist wrote:

I guess you mean biodiesel, which is produced from vegetable oils such
as soy, rapeseed or from animal fats. Ethanol is produced from corn,
but I've never heard about "corn oil".

Corn oil falls into the vegetable oils category and could be used in biodiesel
production. It's common in American supermarkets and apparently can also be found in
Britain (since Paul is there).

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

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

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:54:01 +0300 (EEST), Janne Blomqvist
wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:
http://www.age85.org/ProjectDescription.htm
They're testing it on a 201 right now.

Looking at the "project milestones" part of that webpage:

Project Milestones

* July, 1996 - Project Begins
* August, 1996 - Acquire Cessna 180
* January, 1997 - Team w/ TX Skyways
* June, 1997 - Install Ethanol Engine

"I believe" this not only has o-rings and seals replaced to tolerate
the alcohol (probably viton), but *probably* has lower compression.


* December, 1997 - Begin 500 Hour Fight Test
* November, 1998 - Finish 500 Hour Flight Test
* December, 1998 - Engine Teardown
* April, 1999 - FAA STC's Obtained
* July, 1999 - Project Expansion
* September, 1999 - Mooney 201 Acquired
* December, 1999 - Grumman Ag Cat Acquired


...it seems like they dropped off the face of the earth about 4 years
ago. The website itself has a 2003 copyright, but that of course
doesn't take much effort to update once in a while.

Well I'm not from the US, but it seems to me that you have quite the
farm lobby over there. I wouldn't be surprised if this is (or was,
depending on if the project actually is still alive) yet another
attempt by the farmers to peddle their wares with the help of
government subsidies.

Having been on both sides of the fence, farm subsidies are one of
those "damned if you do and dammed if you don't" sort of things.

Unlike many industries where if the individual can't make a positive
return they go out of business, in farming it affects everyone long
term. Crop prices have not changed a great deal, with some
exceptions, over many years while the end products have.

More and more farming is moving from the small (relatively speaking)
family farms to the large corporate farms.

Long term the subsidies help to reduce the end product price to the
consumer. OTOH had we never had any to begin with, we *might* be
better off and then again we might not.

I can't see why ethanol would be a particularly good fuel for planes;
it's hydrophilic (as opposed to gasoline or most petroleum products

Which to me is a good thing up to a point. IE, if you get a bit of
rain in the mix it might reduce the power slightly, but at least it
wouldn't cause a failure. OTOH you could get a lot in and never know
it, which would not be considered a good thing.

which are hydrophobic), it eats rubber and has a low energy
content. Certainly not a straight replacement for avgas.

I don't think it'd have the octane to directly replace 100 LL either
and it'd have a great time with the bladder tanks in the Deb.

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

Without
subsidies a fuel that takes more energy to produce than it produces is
going to be expensive.

True, but the data's old, 20 years or so on the cost of production. A study
from this year says you're about 30% ahead producing ethanol. And it's on
dryland (non-irrigated) corn so that leaves out at least one rather costly
input.

http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0403220.shtml

I'm no fan of miracle energy schemes but it seems sensible to cheer on folks
hoping to make energy out of renewable sources and eliminate total dependence
on petroleum, especially when so many dicey third-world governments control its
production...

Roger Halstead wrote:

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

The University of Alabama.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.