Alcohol fuel - The obvious answer, Yes or No?

Carcano said:
...The most advanced now available makes for a vehicle that has a range of 130 miles, recharges in ten minutes with a high voltage system, thousands of charge cycles, and costs about 40 grand, which is damn good for a such a small volume of production.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxjagsod4UY
Click to expand...
Link is mainly a sales pitch for the car, but did claim battery design which reduces the heat production associated with rapid charge so if true (and seems to be) that is big advance, (but not a significant one for the typical car owner as remainder of this post will show). Because of this "10 minute recharge" claim, I strongly doubt their claim of 20,000 deep discharge cycles. Other facts mentioned were it cost $3 to recharge and is done in 10 minutes.

If, in round numbers, (long time since I paid electric bill in USA, so I assume 10cents/ KWH is still in the ball park for cost of electrical energy and will use that value).

Thus, they claim recharge is 30KWH delivered in 10 minutes or 3000 WH delivered every minute for 10 minutes or 3600x3000 WattSeconds (also called Joules) delivered every minute (for 10 minutes) or 180,000 Joules delivered every second (for 10 minutes), but a Joule delivered in a second is a one watt power level. Thus, the house power system must be capable of handling 180,000 watts

Now a watt is a volts ampere and I will assume that the house's voltage is 110V so this means for 10 minutes your house must be drawing 1636 Amperes. Typically the house is fused for about 40 Ampere on each circuit, so your house with heavy duty extension cords from 43 other houses is what is required for their claim to be true.

Perhaps I have some error here, but I think not. If not, then their claim is at best, a great missrepresentation. More like an outright lie, IMHO.

SUMMARY - Their claim on this is at best "not realistic." - Why should I believe their claim of 20,000 deep discharge cycles? Or 12 year battery life?

PS, If you really want to recharge in 10 minutes, you will need to contact the power company and pay for the installation of an industral circuit, including very heavy cables and the transformer which can service about 50 normal houses. That will boost the price of the $40,000 car quite a lot and that part of the cost will not decrease with production volume. As you will not be using much energy, by industral standards, the "fixed charges" (a couple of hundred dollars each month) will dominate your electric bill.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some independant views of Brazil and its alcohol potential:

The Netherlands recently released a study looking at the sustainability of Brazilian ethanol as a prelude to importing ethanol in order to meet future energy demands. The study found that there were no issues which would preclude San Paulo ethanol from not being able to meet Dutch sustainability standards for 2007.

National Food Supply Company president, Wagner Rossi announced that the March 2008 sugar cane harvest is expected to yield 547 million tons, a 15.2% increase over the previous crop. 473 million tons, or 86.47%, is expected to be used for sugar and alcohol production. Plant technicians aim to maintain similar sugar levels as last year due to the low market price while alcohol production is expected to increase by 21.9% from last year. We can expect the amount of available ethanol to remain flat in the coming year as well.

Farmland used for the growing of sugar cane grew by 12.3% to 6.9 million hectares, up from 6.2 million a year ago.

Environmentalists are concerned over the damage to the rainforest in Brazil as it helps maintain the world's ecosystem. In a landmark decision, Brazilian Indians are celebrating a court decision declaring that 18,070 hectares of land in Espirito Santo belong to the Tupinikim and Guarani people rather than multinational Aracruz Celulose. This decision may pave the way for a slowdown in the destruction of the rainforest and capping the amount of available farmland, a bullish sign for sugar and agricultural prices. {SEE Footnote for some facts. Typical environmentalist often can not see very well because the head is inserted in a body cavity. :D There are exceptions, like Amory Lovins -you can trust him- but if also part of GreenPeace, that is almost 100% proof of their ignorance.}

Last week, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development disclosed that Brazil is the fifth most attractive country to invest. Already, FDI through August of 2007 has surpassed the total FDI for all of 2006. {But because the Brazilian Real is so strong and the dollar so weak, US gets first place in FDI and Brazil is in position 19 of the FDI list.}

Brazil and Saudi Arabia have been working towards a trade agreement with Mercosur and the GCC which would promote investment between the two countries. Last year, Saudi Arabia opened itself up to Brazilian mining companies. Saudi Arabia is promoting Brazil as a place to invest and Arab banks have been listing on the Brazilian exchanges.

FROM:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article2455.html
----------------
Aracruz grows trees for paper production, not sugar cane. It is illegal to grow sugar cane in the Amazon, but most is also off limits to the loggers who still go in, extract individual tree (often worth more than $500 each) and then set the forest on fire to hid their crime. Thus, it is the fact that the market for alcohol is about 1000 miles from the Amazon, not the illegality, that keeps sugar cane fields far from the Amazon. (Alcohol moves by tanker truck to the "gas" stations. It can not travel in conventional pipelines or ocean tankers -Alcohol has at least 4% water in it, or slightly more usually, and is too corrosive for that.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
Perhaps I have some error here,
Click to expand...
Indeed, if you research more carefully youll see that the 10 min. recharge time is only possible with a special high voltage system they are selling to fleet companies.

The home version recharges in a few hours with the usual 110-240 volt outlet.

As far as their claims of several thousand life cycles, you could google the battery manufacturer altairnano.com or 'nanosafe' for more info.

Heres a video made by PopularMechanics magazine talking to Roy Graham from Altairnano on the technical aspects of their battery design.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkXwwEC2p8

And a short video of the special high voltage system for fleets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcbx57Azisw
 
Last edited:
It's simply not going to happen. Someone will grab it up and prevent any significant number of large capacity Nanosafe batteries from being sold to consumers. They did it with nickel-metal hydride batteries.
 
Carcano said:
Indeed, if you research more carefully youll see that the 10 min. recharge time is only possible with a special high voltage system they are selling to fleet companies....
Click to expand...
I never said that a 10minute recharge was impossible.
I only said that their public claim of 10 minute recharge, WITHOUT ANY INDICATION that NO HOME OWNER COULD ACHIEVE THAT was:
" at best, a great missrepresentation. More like an outright lie, IMHO."

BTW, they are wise to target the fleet market. Few ordinary people will buy a 40 thousand dollar car that can only go 130 miles and then must wait about 6 hours to go another 130miles, if where it stops for recharge only 110V is available. Even if continuously traveling at it top speed of 90mph the travel time for each segment of a trip is approximately 6+1.5 hours. 130/(7.5) = 17mph average speed. - a horse can do that, and it runs on grass.

This is NOT the solution for the public's transportation needs. Do not present it as such - that is mis-representation, at best.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The biggest problem with plug-in vehicles is initial costs. They might work fine for someone buying it as a commute to work and back vehicle, but they are not practicle for vacations, visiting out of town relatives, etc. The one I saw tested required three recharges to travel 180 miles. That's only about 60 miles of stop-and-go driving per charge. Don't forget, the power of the electric motor reduces as the battery is being depleted.

The problem with costs is that $40,000 price tag. One can buy an economy car that does not have distance restrictions for $15,000. That $25,000 difference in purchase price will buy close to 10,000 gallons of gas. Assuming the car only gets 30 miles per gallon, that is still enough gas to drive 300,000 miles. Even if the electricity were free, they cannot compete with a regular car until the purchase price of both are more comparable.
 
2inquisitive said:
...One can buy an economy car that does not have distance restrictions for $15,000. ...
Click to expand...
Perhaps for $3000 if Tata motors new plastic body car can pass US saftey / crash test.* It is scheduled to be shown to public in India in Jan 2008. Rumor has it that it gets more than 70 mpg, has top speed of >60mph, and color is in the plastic Never repaint, never rusts and assembeled with glue, as some air planes are now. (Modern glue is stronger than rivets and does not produce their stress concentration points.) It seats 6, Indians at least, has automatic continuous shifting ratio "gears" (good selling point for people who never drove a car.)

I.e. a nice urban car, at least, for 1/5 of the cost of the batteries!
---------------------
*may be able too as deforming non-shattering plastic can absorb a lot of energy, but may not, in the Indian model, have "5 mph bumpers" etc. Low top speed willhelp also as energy goes as square of the speed. e.g. at 60mph less than half as much energy to disipate as at 85mph.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
This is NOT the solution for the public's transportation needs. Do not present it as such - that is mis-representation, at best.
Click to expand...

Billy, I personally need around 50 miles on a charge to go back and forth to work with some reserve left over. I could live with half the battery, which would save a lot of money, and still do my commute. If I could recharge at work, which would cost my employer a noticeable amount of money, I could do a really long commute on half the battery capacity of this car. It has done shot past the basic requirements for a huge number of commuters.

There are a lot of used cars out there of all sizes and shapes that can be had cheap, with bad engines. There are already retrofit kits and unfortunately the huge expense will be the DC motor. So what about cheaper motors, perhaps three phase motors plus a solid state inverter? You really want a brushless motor anyway. A 6 volt 6 hp DC motor costs about $6,000 and a 10 HP three phase motor for 230/460 volts costs about 550. Search me about whether they are comparable, but a typical conversion kit using a 6 volt DC motor uses a 6 horsepower motor. Why this works something like a 60 HP internal combustion engine is complicated and I would have to find out why before I could explain it fully. A lot of the extra horsepower is simply so the IC engine can develop enough torque to move, when the electric motor's torque is highest when starting out.

An electrical motor can be electronically reversed, also, so I wonder if it wouldn't be feasible to change out the transmission of a used car for a transmission that simply passes straight through with no gearing.

You can't get something for nothing though, but I think that $6,000 is ridiculous for an electric motor when IC engines are more complex and cost a fourth as much.

http://www.phaseconverter.com/ElectricMotor.html
 
Last edited:
MetaKron said:
Billy, I personally need around 50 miles on a charge to go back and forth to work with some reserve left over. I could live with half the battery, which would save a lot of money, and still do my commute. .... There are already retrofit kits and unfortunately the huge expense will be the DC motor. So what about cheaper motors, perhaps three phase motors plus a solid state inverter? You really want a brushless motor anyway. A 6 volt 6 hp DC motor costs about $6,000 and a 10 HP three phase motor for 230/460 volts costs about 550. ...An electrical motor can be electronically reversed, also, so I wonder if it wouldn't be feasible to change out the transmission of a used car for a transmission that simply passes straight through with no gearing. ...
Click to expand...
Thanks, for thought provoking post. You seem to have one error, however, only the DC motor has high torque at turn on (low speed).

Just after WWII ended there was a lot of good surplus stuff. I bought a PE-103 motor generator. It had both on the same shaft. The motor took 6V DC and the generator made 500V DC for my car's amature radio station. - I nearly ran off the road when a guy from Cuba responded to my "CQ."

Why not have a dual-unit common-shaft three-phase (or more phases) AC & DC motor unit. The DC motor is active only as you pull away from the light. - You over load the hell out of it for about a second and then switch to the AC (even retract the brushes with simple centrifical forces against the spring so the last the life of the car.) Need a thermal lock out to prevent destruction by many repeated over loads in creaping traffic etc. (or the computer could keep track instead)

For the same reasons that Alternators have replaced the old generators (work at low RPM) the AC section is used for the regenrative breaking. You can get a lot more power per pound of motor with 3 phases than with only one phase. Also one should note that since you will be generating the multi-phase AC from DC batery (OR FUEL CELL) with relative short wire run lengths, five phase (or what ever is optimium is ok. - Five short wires not much cost.) And certainly higher than 60 cycles and 110V is desirable. Many air planes use 440VAC power, I think. I do not know enough about motor design to guess the best operating frequence, but probably a continuously varialbe one (no gears) is required anyway to be economical.

Modern solid state devices, including computers, opens up a lot of possibilities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MetaKron, did you notice the RPM's the electric motors operated at? That is one of their greatest deficiencies, their low operating RPM range. If the vehicle is geared to have sufficient power off the line, it will have the speed potential of a tow lift. The motor must have enough power to operate the vehicle at highway speeds, and that will mean the vehicle must have an overdrive type transmission for highway speeds and geared down for power off the line. The limited operating RPMs of the electric motor means the transmission needs a wider gearing range than conventional gasoline engines, which have a much greater RPM range.

I was thinking of buying a hybrid vehicle until I researched them further. The hybrid with the most powerful electric motor is the Toyota Prius, which has something like a 76 hp equivalent motor. Its maximum speed on electric only operation is around 30 MPH. One must drive like they had an eggshell on the accelerator to keep it on electric power. It uses an expensive continuously variable transmission to make the most of the electric motor. That 30mph speed is with a fully charged batterypack. As the voltage in the batterypack drops due to usage, the electric motor produces less power.

I am not trying to put down electric vehicles because I love IC engines, it is just that until some method of producing a powerful, steady electric current to the motor is discovered, they are just not practical for most people. I would love to have an electric vehicle with an on-board nuclear powerplant supplying the juice! :D
 
Billy T said:
This is NOT the solution for the public's transportation needs.
Click to expand...
Not at the moment...but then neither is alcohol the solution for replacing oil in 2008.

An electric solution requires some infrastructure for highway travel, and that isnt in place yet. And also requires higher volume production to reduce costs.

This is why I predict we'll have biofuel blends and hybrids for the next 10-15 years, after which we'll be solidly into pure electrics.
 
Last edited:
Carcano said:
...but then neither is alcohol the solution for replacing oil in 2008. ...
Click to expand...
True that there is not enough supply of alcohol and will not be for many years for America's needs; But there is only need to replicate existing cane fields and refineries etc.

No need to solve (possibly insolveable) technical problems as is the case for general purpose electric car.* - That is a huge difference. As far as Brazil is concerned, it would now be possible to get rid of gasoline cars in a few years. Something like 90% of all cars sold last year are running on pure alcohol, (much cheaper) but it will take time to use up (Junk) the old gas only cars. (Owners will not just throw them away.) Will need to expand cane production and the alcohol production facilities eventually also. (As all see this is the future - there is a temporary glut of alcohol now - refineries being built in excess of domestic demand, in part to be ready to export more.
----------------------------
*You do admit the possibility that it is tecnically impossible to make an electric car for the average American driver, do you not?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy, that's true, as I remember three phase motors have low starting torque. I'll bet that it's still comparable to an IC engine's torque. Conversions traditionally use the vehicle's original transmission too.

2inquisitive, it sounds like the electric motor of the Prius is underpowered. Electric vehicles capable of 65 mph and greater are established engineering and it doesn't take the annual budget of the United Arab Emirates to do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_electric_vehicle
Just prior to 1900, before the pre-eminence of powerful but polluting internal combustion engines, electric automobiles held many speed and distance records. Among the most notable of these records was the breaking of the 100 km/h (60 mph) speed barrier, by Camille Jenatzy on April 29, 1899 in his 'rocket-shaped' vehicle Jamais Contente, which reached a top speed of 105.88 km/h (65.79 mph).
Click to expand...

Here's one example of a kit that has a top speed of 75 mph:
http://www.canev.com/KitsComp/GeoKit/Geo-Kit.html

Anyway, there are a lot of possibilities for building electric cars that will get you to work on time and safely. Lightweight batteries are the holy grail of the homebuilt electric car industry, but I don't expect them to be easily available in my lifetime.
 
Billy T said:
You do admit the possibility that it is tecnically impossible to make an electric car for the average American driver, do you not?
Click to expand...
Not in 2008, and not for several years in fact.
As I said, the two key developments are high volume production, and a high voltage recharging infrastructure.

Switching to some form of lighter carbon fiber body material would also help, but most of the worlds supply at the moment has been bought up by Boeing for their new Dreamliner aircraft.

This will take several years. By that time the price of oil will be in geosynchronous orbit, and folks will be lining up to buy alternatives.

The UK is already moving on getting a recharging structure in place.

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/10/uk-to-get-250-e.html
 
Billy T,
As far as Brazil is concerned, it would now be possible to get rid of gasoline cars in a few years. Something like 90% of all cars sold last year are running on pure alcohol, (much cheaper) but it will take time to use up (Junk) the old gas only cars. (Owners will not just throw them away.)
Click to expand...
I sometimes wonder where you get your statistics, Billy T. In the mid 80s, alcohol only car sales were near 90% of the market, but their sales fell to only a few percent of the market after the 1990 alcohol shortages. Flex-fuel vehicles introduced around 2004 started the acceptance of partially alcohol fueled vekicles again, with about 87-88% of car sales in 2006. The increase in the strength of the Real has caused imported vehicles to be more competative in the Brazilian market. Many of those imports are not flex-fuel capable, resulting in a decline in the percentage of flex-fuel cars for 2007. From what I have read, no alcohol-only vehicles are currently sold in Brazil, and haven't been in over 15 years.

I have often seen you ridicule the US for not buying Brazilian alcohol. The fact is that the US is the number 1 buyer of Brazilian alcohol exports. The US has a duty on the imported alcohol to protect the emerging American alcohol producers. The major German and Spanish alcohol producers have gone bankrupt trying to compete with imported Bazilian alcohol. As the Real increases in value, the cost of Brazilian alcohol will increase for importing countries, making it less attractive. That is why the US is trying to protect its fledgling alcohol industry while research is conducted to determine the best method for future production.

I am not so sure that alcohol will ever be a major player in the American market. For instance, here is a project that is being implimented in my state for future fuel:
SILVERADO has been working six years with the head of its Green Fuel Division, Dr. Warrack Willson, who is an industry leader in the development of low-rank coal-water fuels (LRCWF). This fuel is made from hydrothermally treated low-rank coals (LRCs), sub-bituminous, lignitic, and brown coals. It is a low cost, non-toxic, non-hazardous and environmentally friendly substitute for petroleum derived fuels mainly in industrial and utility boilers, gasifiers, and other advanced combustors. Initial process economics indicate that LRCWF can be produced from any American LRC for under $15 per barrel, on an oil equivalent energy basis.

Silverado’s LRCWF (Green Fuel), so named due to its environmental friendliness, is an ideal candidate for use in high pressure liquid fed gasifiers, like the one developed by Texaco now being marketed by G.E. The product, synthesis gas, can then be converted by any one of a number of commercial Fischer Tropsch proc esses to yield a myriad of clean fuels and petrochemicals. The products are free of nitrogen, sulfur, particulate matter, and heavy metals and will find many applications, including aviation and auto gasoline, diesel, synthetic natural gas, naphtha, fertilizers, ammonia, urea, plastics and many others.

On April 9, 2007, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Congressman Roger Wicker joined other state officials to kick off the Silverado Green Fuel Demonstration Project with a ground-breaking ceremony at the Red Hills EcoPlex site.
Click to expand...
http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com/
The United States is literally loaded with this low-rank coal, enough to supply our energy needs for hundreds of years.
Here is another link to many other projects currently being studied in Mississippi, including alcohol from bio-mass production. Petroleum will eventually be replaced, but studies are needed to determine the best methods.
http://www.technologyalliance.ms/pointe-innovation/latest-issue.php
 
2inqusitive

Interesting post. Your basically correct about the history of alcohol powered cars in Brazil. They were originally only able to use alcohol and did get to be about 90% of sales, but then then in the 1990s the world price of sugar surged up and the supply of alcohol dried up as the processors of sugar cane made mainly sugar, - No need to waste time fermenting it and there are other steps and additional costs with converting sugar juice into alcohol.

For example, must add anti-biotics to control bacterial with cost of nearly 3 cents per liter of alcohol produced. Yeast used must be centrfuged out. etc. People waited in lines for hours to get a little alcohol so they could drive a little their alcohol only car. (Often muttering "Never again" while waiting.) Sales of them fell to zero of course and industry began to work on the current "flex fuel" verions (any mix of alcohol and gas is OK.) which do have nearly 90% of the sales again. It is true that rich people do import gasoline cars - big luxury models, but the price, even with the strong Real is much higher. Those BMWs, Mercedies, Toyota lexus, etc are much too expensive for the typical Brazilian.

I have not "ridiculed USA for not buying Brazilian alcohol" - I know USA does. What I have been saying is that it is stupid to make Joe American needless pay more for his fuel, pay higher taxes (for the subsidies to both corn and 50 cents/ gallon "bonus" to the alcohol producer) and pay more for his food. What the US needs to encourage, is the instalation of alcohol pumps and storage tanks at "gas stations" - I believe there are less than 300 in the entire US! IMHO, the current corn to alcohol program is a clever way to avoid decreasing oil imports, keep the flow of funds to the terrorists etc. while making Joe American believe the government is doing the opposite. GWB is careful to state the goal as to replace 20% of the gasoline with alcohol and Joe thinks incorrectly that will reduce oil imports (at best it is neutral, but probably slightly will increase them, according to university instead of oil/corn industry funded studies.)

Because of the news about (and direct experience in the grocery store) the increase in the cost of food this program is causing, the govenment has been increasingly describing it a getting ready for cellulosic alcohol. That is highly unlikely to be competitive with even $100/barrel oil. There are many complex steps to just get to the staring point of sugar cane, which gives a simple sugar (sacrine linked to glucose requiring only one cleavage, I think, if memory serves me correctly) solution by simple crushing of the cane.

For example, with cellulose as starting point, you must first get the ligium,* which binds the celulose fibers together, off. - It is basically a glue as wood etc. is nature's strong tough composite material, like fiber glass. Once you have that off, you must have enzimes to cut up the long complex celulose (very complex sugars) molecules. When that is done, you have mix of still complex sugar molecules, but smaller ones. Now you almost as well off as starting with potatoes** to make vodica, but not quite as there are yeasts developed by nature long ago to break down the complex sugars that are the "carbohydrates" of potatoes. The artificially produced "carbohydrates" from cellulose need different and yet to be developed, yeast. (I bought stock in Dervsa, now merged with Celunol to become Verenium, because they were carefully disecting the guts of termites to get some yeast produced by nature that can process celulose all the way to energy for the termite. - I believe nature usually is much more clever than man.)
----------------------
*Ligium is very versatile substance. Joke of the industry working on / with it is: "You can make anything from ligium, except money.") Often it is removed by boiling in acid solution, I think. If true, and US were to run on celulosic alcohol be preparted for some horendous water polition problems, worse than paper production by far I think. BTW, if you can buy natural color toilet paper, and are concerned about the enviroment do so - no need to promote the use of weak acid solution to bleach it white (It will be brown again anyway soon. :eek: :eek: )

**I dare you: Put a potatoe in a closed plastic bag, at room temperature, and then open it a week later. - A terrible sweet roughten stink will greet you.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------

Now about Silverado's "Green Fuel" - "a low cost, non-toxic, non-hazardous and environmentally friendly substitute for petroleum derived fuels mainly in industrial and utility boilers, gasifiers, and other advanced combustors. Initial process economics indicate that LRCWF can be produced from any American LRC for under $15 per barrel, on an oil equivalent energy basis. ..." ACCORDING TO THEIR CLAIMS. Fact they are a gold mining company's latest adventure, makes me very cautious in taking their word for this; but trying to keep an open mind, I did spend some time at their web site.

Not one chemical equation - just a lot of claims and vague words about their process. Very hard to believe that they can take cheap low quality coal and turn it into liquid fuel with zero release of CO2 etc. I do not think I will be investing in them. They exhibit all the chartacteristic I associate with a fraudlent scam, but I may be wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Excerpts from one patent on the process:

The basic coal water mixture fuel technology has emerged as one potential answer to uncertain fuel oil supply to the electricity generating industry during the past two decades. As is evident from numerous patents in the field, coal water mixture technology provides methods to manufacture fuels based on finely pulverized coal and water and wherein different chemicals are used to enhance both the solids concentration of the fuels and the pumpability and combustibility of such slurry fuels.

Although it may well be said that coal water mixture fuels have proven technically and economically useful alternatives to fuel oil, it is equally true that considerable improvement over the present state of the art is required to fully utilize the potential benefits of the coal water fuel concept.

For example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,282,006 discloses a combination of particles of a claimed unique particle size distribution with dispersing chemicals and water to form particularly advantageous slurry fuels, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,358,293, discloses the use of nonionic surface active materials incorporating a hydrophobic portion and a hydrophilic portion comprising at least 100 repeating ethylene oxide units to form slurries of coal in water. In particular, the patent discloses a method of cleaning the finely divided coal which includes a pretreatment of the coal particles with various chemicals and oils to render their surfaces oleophilic and hydrophobic. Thus, cleaned coal is slurried with water and nonionic surfactants to yield directly burnable fuels. The fuels may also contain various salts and polymeric stabilizers which serve to keep the particles of pretreated coal in suspension.

U.S. Pat. No. 4,470,828 discloses compositions of coal water slurry fuels which have enhanced stability and pumpability. Combinations of certain chemicals are responsible for producing these advantageous effects. Thus, the patent teaches the use of particular anionic surface active agents in combination with either polyether polyols or esterified such compounds, or phosphated, sulphated or carboxylated such compounds.

Such teachings show that functioning slurries of fine coal in water can be made by paying attention to particle size distribution, coal surface conditioning and selection of dispersing chemicals. One patent, U.S. Pat. No. 4,501,205, even teaches the blending of different coals into the slurry. The patent teaches (col. 7, lines 17-25) the use of at least one coarse carbonaceous fraction, such as anthracite or low volatile bituminous coal and at least one fine carbonaceous fraction such as lignite, to make up the slurry solids. In other words, the patent teaches the use of at least two types of coal to make up the solids of the slurry whereby the fine fraction is a lower rank coal and the coarser fraction is a higher rank coal.

A particular weakness of present day coal-water mixture fuel technology appears to be a greatly increased need and decreasing efficiency of dispersing chemicals with decreasing rank of the coal involved. This predicament is doubly unfortunate because the mining cost of lower rank coals, i.e., coals with relatively high oxygen content, is normally significantly lower than that of high rank coals, i.e., coals with relatively low oxygen content. Slurry fuels based on lower rank coals could potentially offer very significant economic benefits as replacement fuels for increasingly scarce fuel oil produced from finite supplies. Lower rank coals as slurry fuel feedstock further offer the distinct environmental advantage of containing very low sulfur concentrations; in fact, lower than the high rank coals which are presently used as suitable coal-water mixture fuel feedstock.

Recent publications, such as "Effects of coal type, surfactant, and coal cleaning on the rheological properties of coal water mixtures" (Kaji et al., 5th International Symposium on Coal Slurry Combustion and Technology, U.S. DOE, Tampa, Fla., Apr. 25-27, 1983) clearly show that coals with higher oxygen contents, commonly exceeding some 6 to 8 weight precent in the ultimate analysis (ASTM procedure D3176-74 (1979), dry and mineral matter free basis) require high levels of addition of surface active dispersing agents before they flow, even at very low solids concentrations. In fact, using nonionic surface active dispersing agents in accordance with U.S. Pat. No. 4,358,293, or anionic dispersing agents as taught in e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 4,504,277, it has been found that lower rank coals, i.e., coals with more than 6-8% oxygen (ASTM D3176-74, dmmf) frequently require high amounts of dispersing agent. Such high addition levels bring the cost of manufacturing the slurry fuels to a level where the commercial feasibility suffers.
 
TO KMGURU:

Thanks for the post. I now understand that the low grade coal slurry is for fixed site power plant and industrial applications, not a liquid fuel for cars etc.
Thus I take back my suggestion that it may all be a fradulent scam. I have known that coal was sometimes pumped thru piplines for many years, The extra cost of crushing it fine more than compensated by the lower cost of pipeline than the rubber conveyer belt alternative when considerable distant of transport is required. I suspect that in some cases the coal water mix can make steam without the expense of the boiler both for power and chemical processing.

My intention when creating this thread, was focused on the need for MOBILE liquid fuel use, mainly this thread is about replacing gasoline use as a car fuel.
 
Billy T,
Not one chemical equation - just a lot of claims and vague words about their process. Very hard to believe that they can take cheap low quality coal and turn it into liquid fuel with zero release of CO2 etc. I do not think I will be investing in them. They exhibit all the chartacteristic I associate with a fraudlent scam, but I may be wrong.
Click to expand...
You must not have read very much, Billy T. The hydrothermal treatment process is described in pretty fair detail at their site. After all, Silverado Green Fuel is a business interest that is not tempted to diverge their exact methods of production to possible competitors. In case you missed it, here is a cut & paste plus link to the process:
Right Side -- Microscopic View of Hydrothermally Treated LRC Particle: Hydrothermal treatment involves heating LRC to coal specific temperatures in an aqueous phase maintained by pressures above the saturated steam pressure somewhat analogous to pressure cooking. Water expands and is expelled from most of the pores when much of the oxygen in LRC is released as CO2 during heating. This eliminates most of the pore bound moisture and that held by the LRC's oxygen functionalities. When CO2 is lost, cations are also released into the water phase eliminating the inherent water associated with LRC cations. However, a key to permanent moisture removal is the evolution of some of the LRC volatile matter as waxy substances upon heating. Waxy material, being hydrophobic is retained on the LRC in the pressurized aqueous environment. Upon cooling it seals most of the micro-pores and limits moisture reabsorption. Following hydrothermal treatment there is a net increase in the energy content of the dry LRC since most of the volatile matter is retained and LRC carbon lost as CO2 has already been oxidized.


Even after HT, LRCs retain some of their oxygen functionality and are still somewhat hydrophilic, or water loving. Therefore, they have a much lower tendency than their bituminous coal-water fuel counterparts to settle rapidly. Some LRC produced fuels have shown almost no settling tendencies even when stored for months. For LRC produced fuels that do settle over time, the tendency is to produce a soft pack suspension that can be re-suspended by stirring. As opposed to some of their bituminous counterparts, no LRC produced fuels created to date, regardless of particle size distribution, have shown any tendency towards dilatent (tending to solidify), shear thickening, behavior. Consequently, the higher the shearing force applied, the lower the viscosity, which accounts for their ease of atomization. Therefore, generally no costly stability enhancing or viscosity reducing additives are used with LRC produced fuel. Instead, stirring and/or agitation are used to maintain a constant feed in storage and feed tanks. Typically the only additive recommended for Silverado’s Green Fuel is a biocide to prevent biological growth in fuel that is to be stored for some period of time before use.
Click to expand...
http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com/ourfuel/process/
Also, Billy T, their claim was that no greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere during the manufacturing process. The released CO2 is collected.
 
kmguru, you seem to have a mixture of patents involving two different processes. In the older patents, coal water slurry fuels are derived from simply grinding up high-rank coals and mixing the particles with water and additional chemicals to stabalize the mixture. In the new LRCWF fuels such as from Silvarado, no chemicals are needed for stabalization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top