Alcohol fuel - The obvious answer, Yes or No?
- Thread starter Billy T
- Start date
kmguru
Staff member
I have to agree. But there is no reason, we scientists should not look at different possibilities and look for breakthroughs in technology.
Next 15 years, most of the world will concentrate on various forms of Bio-fuels. We are talking to several African countries because, they have the land that is idle at the moment.
Then there will be other energy converters similar to Solar cells....Technology such as Graphene might come handy to store energy in desert. If we can create several molecule thick solar cells and unfold in space to collect energy and beam it back to earth....or use the planned space elevator ....to pipe it back....that could be a possibility
I think we could design a Hot fusion system using super conductors that produces massive magnetic fields...right now, 850 Tesla is the strongest destructive field we have produced. Stable field has been achieved at 33T to 40T from 12T several years ago. So, may be we can have a breakthrough....that is the key to creating a little Sun....
I suspect there are several ways to obtain He3, on Earth*, that are at least 10,000 times cheaper than going to the moon for it.MetaKron said:
Perhaps the tritium route you mention is a good one, but I suspect that the tritium is more valuable than the He3. Perhaps some He3 is already being produced in carbon moderated fission reactors. I.e. common carbon12, when its six protons were split unequally by a fast neutron into Helium and Beryllium (A=4) without capture of that fast neutron, could yield He3 + common Be9.
I know little about "nuclear chemistry" but think that in general the nuclei produced as fission products tend to have even A. If this applies in this case, then He + Be products may be more common than two lithium atoms (2xLi6) because then both are odd A = 3 elements; however, He4 + Be9 with the capture of the fast neutron may be common if there is a resonance near the energy of the fast neutron.
Perhaps someone willing to search, or who know about these things, will replace my speculations with facts. I would be curious to know how good or poor my guessing is.
-----------------------------------------
*I think idea I now advance is silly but much less so than going to moon for He3: Why not "farm He3" in low Earth orbit? I.e. place large slowly spinning aluminum foil disks in low Earth orbit to absorb solar wind.
If you are really clever about it, I bet having one part "mirror shinny" and the compliment optically rough (difuse reflector) can produce enough "photon torque" to keep the disk "broad-side" to the sun all year long. (Perhaps one needs to use the Earth shadow also - I do not want to take trouble to think this out in detail.)
Last edited by a moderator:
I seriously doubt that the tritium that is a waste product from nuclear fission is more valuable than a nuclear fuel that is much easier to use for fusion. The tritium comes from the absorption of neutrons in the water from the nuclear reactor.
I love the idea of mining the moon for He-3. It might even be cost-effective for all I know. I can't work with figures that I haven't seen. All things considered I would rather see us mining the moon for a lot of materials. The land under our feet is made of materials. Dig up too much of it and we damage the integrity of the land that we are trying to live on.
The He-3 idea was that some of it was trapped in the lunar soil. If it's a lot higher in concentration than it is here on Earth, you have a good case for extracting it there.
I love the idea of mining the moon for He-3. It might even be cost-effective for all I know. I can't work with figures that I haven't seen. All things considered I would rather see us mining the moon for a lot of materials. The land under our feet is made of materials. Dig up too much of it and we damage the integrity of the land that we are trying to live on.
The He-3 idea was that some of it was trapped in the lunar soil. If it's a lot higher in concentration than it is here on Earth, you have a good case for extracting it there.
He3 is a potential nuclear fuel, but much higher temperatures are required to "burn" it. (Basically because it has twice the electrostatic repelling force of single-proton hydrogen resisting the close approach necessary for fusion {less than 10^15cm before the "short range" nuclear force is larger, I seem to recall.}).MetaKron said:
Even then, the plasma density must higher (harder to contain, even if it were not much hotter) because the interaction cross-section is significantly smaller than for the DT fusion.
All current fusion efforts are planning to burn tritium as the fuel because this is possible at lower densities (cross section effect) and at much lower temperatures. These are two of the main reasons are why Tritium is a better, more valuable, nuclear fuel than He3.
I fear I must again advise you to think or Goolge before you post and expose such ignorance.
Hey BillyT,
I haven't been following this thread closely, but I thought you might be interested in something my Chem. E. friend told me yesterday. As you know, the negative net energy is a popular argument against alcohol-based fuel. He told me that the formula for calculating that is (lower heat of combustion - total fossil fuel heat required to produce)/(lower heat of combustion). Apparently for alcohol that number is something like -25%. What the anti-alcohol crowd often fails to mention is that for gasoline it is -40%, and hydrogen and electricity are much worse than gasoline. In other words, of the kinds of energy that we can use for vehicles today, alcohol is the most effecient in terms of energy investment.
I can't personally vouch for the veracity of the numbers since I didn't run them myself, but I do trust my friend to be both knowledgeable in this field (his principal area of research for the past 30+ years) and careful in his research and conclusions.
-Dale
I haven't been following this thread closely, but I thought you might be interested in something my Chem. E. friend told me yesterday. As you know, the negative net energy is a popular argument against alcohol-based fuel. He told me that the formula for calculating that is (lower heat of combustion - total fossil fuel heat required to produce)/(lower heat of combustion). Apparently for alcohol that number is something like -25%. What the anti-alcohol crowd often fails to mention is that for gasoline it is -40%, and hydrogen and electricity are much worse than gasoline. In other words, of the kinds of energy that we can use for vehicles today, alcohol is the most effecient in terms of energy investment.
I can't personally vouch for the veracity of the numbers since I didn't run them myself, but I do trust my friend to be both knowledgeable in this field (his principal area of research for the past 30+ years) and careful in his research and conclusions.
-Dale
Thanks. Most such studies assume the high input of fossil energy used to produce alcohol from corn. In Iowa the human labor input is nil, but not in Brazil with humans cutting cane. Also in Iowa, considerable fossil fuel fertilizer must be used to accelerate the growth rate and compensated for the shorter growing season. Becasue of these facts, most studies of a few years ago did conclude that alcohol from Iowa corn uses more fossil energy than it produces. Some of the more recent studies still do, but others show a net energy gain. Personally I am generous and will grant a 1.1 positive gain factor for Iowa corn based alcohol.DaleSpam said:
All the old and newer studies of cane based alcohol grown in tropical countries with cheap labor cutting it show much higher energy gain ratios. I think it is some where between 5 and 8 fold GAIN. Thus, your Chem E. friend is not up to day or thinking of growing sugar beets in Alaska or something like that.
I have posted some references that do show an 8 fold energy gain when only the fossil (not human or solar) energy input is considered. If you want to up date your CE friend, I will try to find that reference again. (It is the highest I have seen.)
As I recall, the "lower heat value" assumes the exhaust temperature is slightly greater than 100C so you do not get to count the 540 cal / gram associated with any water produced condensing. - If I am wrong on this, please correct. Perhaps the numbers I have seen are assuming the higher heat value. There is a lot of energy in the condensing steam. If that is the case, and explains why your friend is getting negative energy gain, this is very important. Your friend's lower energy value is obviously the correct one for any internal combustion engine, and US turning to Iowa corn is really just a clever oil company plan to boost oil consumption! if his numbers are correct.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would suspect that he is up to date, his research (on treatments to produce ethanol from cellulose) is consistently well funded, even before the recent political pushes in this direction. But he is definitely talking 100% exclusively about domestic ethanol production, not tropical production.Billy T said:
That is correct. The higher heat value might be appropriate in industrial settings where you could recover the water vapor heat, but not in vehicles.Billy T said:
I have heard your Iowa-corn-lobby-dumb-US-voter rant several times and do not want to get into that. The point is that the negative net energy value needs to be compared relative to the net energy value of other similar forms of energy (similar in the sense that we can use it to run a vehicle). In that comparison, even domestic ethanol is better than gasoline in terms of net energy.
-Dale
You must read most of my posts - I think I have climbed on that "Iowa-corn-lobby-dumb-US-voter" horse only twice, perhaps three times,althought when I do, I may charge into more than one thread.DaleSpam said:
Please ask your friend why he uses the comparison index he does instead of the much more common simple ratio: (alcohol energy out) / (fossil energy in).
His point about the correct "energy" being the lower heating value is 110% correct and I have never noted what energy other studies are using, but will ignore those in the future that are not clear on this important point.
Thanks again.
He doesn't use it, it is just a value that is commonly cited in the literature as an argument against alcohol. The reason that he does not use that value is that he believes that the premise of the calculation is fundamentally wrong. Specifically, he disagrees that the various forms of energy are equivalent. You can calculate the number of Joules of energy in a liter of alcohol, and you can calculate how much energy was in the coal you had to burn to make the alcohol, but since you cannot directly use the coal to move your car the subtraction doesn't make sense on its own. Instead, it only makes sense in comparison to other forms of energy that you can directly use in your car, like gasoline, and that comparison is both favorable to alcohol and absent in the literature.Billy T said:
It is as though they performed some experiment, noticed a negative number in their results, but never compared the experimental result to the control group.
-Dale
Billy-T, I wonder why you are surprised at American ignorance in this matter. I have not ever heard any proposal for importing ethanol, ever. It doesn't seem like something that should have been obvious.
I just did a google search to see if I could see your idea anywhere else and the only didn't find much at all. A couple mentions of Bush actually proposing to remove the imported ethanol tariff, but it not being expected to go anywhere.
I just did a google search to see if I could see your idea anywhere else and the only didn't find much at all. A couple mentions of Bush actually proposing to remove the imported ethanol tariff, but it not being expected to go anywhere.
It was obvious enough to China and Japan. US may have "missed the boat" already. Although Brazil's potential production capacity far exceeds it needs, it is limited. Too bad as alcohol produced in Iowa will be much more expensive.Exhumed said:
Several moths ago, I read Japan and Brazil had formed a joint company to build ships to send alcohol to Japan, but I have not read anything about it recently. US is governed by ex oil industry CEOs and the farm lobby. Their interest is in profits for themselves, their friends, and big campaign contributors, not the general public good. Thus I am not surprised you have been keep ill-informed. You should not be surprised when the Iowa corn subsidy (and your taxes to pay for it) are increased. I forget his name, but one of Iowa's Senators is chairman of the "ways and means" committee. - he has "ways and means" to make this happen, even though you will pay more to drive as well as higher taxes than need be. Ignorance may not be deadly, but it is at least costly.
PS to MetaKron: Glad to see your self-imposed period of "sulking in the corner" is over. Read more carefully and you will see I never called you "ignorant." I only suggested two ways for you to avoid appearing so. The same two ways I have several times suggested to you in the past. I doubt you will believe it, but the quality of your post is much better, if you do Google and or stop to think first. I seldom google and have learned from one or two of your posts in the past when you have reported your finding at Google.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've heard we could produce oil from coal at a lower cost than what we're paying now in the US. The CEO of Jet Blue is in the early stages of plans to build ten such plants in the US and claims we would be energy independent within ten years.
BTW, the US has the largest coal reserves in the world.
BTW, the US has the largest coal reserves in the world.
Can you give some references? I would like to read more about this.madanthonywayne said:
On US coal: Certainly it is large reserve, but may not be “greatest in world“, only better known and much is deep or has environmental cost from open pit type operations.
Today's Folha de Sao Paulo, page B4, tells that world's largest exporter of iron ore, (Brazilian company Vale do Rio Doce) will invest 2 billion dollars in Mozambique to make the largest coal mine in the Southern Hemisphere. (They appear to want to use some of their great cash flux form China to become a "one stop" supplier to China's steel industry. Brazil's trade balance is record setting and headed for about 40 to 45 billion dollar surplus this year.) You may not be impressed by "Southern Hemisphere coal," but I think currently Australia is greater supplier than US is.
One serious problem with oil from coal is that adds more CO2 to air during the conversion so compared to oil energy, cars driving on "converted coal" will accelerate the CO2 in air. This is in contrast to cars driving on "converted sugar" (alcohol) which actually reduces the CO2 as for every ton of CO2 the growing cane removes from the air less than a ton is returned when the car burns the alcohol produced etc.
Here you go:Billy T said:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/jbluctl.pdf
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/Consumers Transportation and Energy Security v 6-20 _2_.pdf
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/2006harrison_barna.pdf
These links are all from the Glenn Beck show. He apparently goes to church with CEO of Jet Blue.
Thanks for the references, but I am not convenced; however, I'm glad someone is putting up money to try.
I dug up this old thread to bring some facts, recently published by Forbes, about alcohol to light:
(1) US Energy Act of 2005 mandated a growing market for the alcohol, by requiring refiners to ramp up ethanol use from 2.5 billion gallons last year to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.
(2) There is the 51-cent tax credit paid to blenders of the fuel and a 54-cent tariff on imported ethanol to keep cheaper foreign producers out of the market. -{Billy T insert: I.e. the playing field is "tilted" to help corn based alcohol by $1.05 / gallon (and this does not count the subsidy given to growers of corn, which is by far the largest of all farm subsidies.) all at cost to the US tax payer and when he fills his car up at the station.}
(3) The ethanol lobby has been emboldened by its victories. Green investors such as Silicon Valley's Vinod Khosla regularly call for a price floor on gas to support the industry.
(4) Senator Richard Luger (R-Ind.) just introduced a bill that would scrap the current ethanol tax credit in favor of one that would zero out at $45 oil but grow as oil prices fall below that level. If passed into law, it would amount to a de facto floor on the price of gas relative to ethanol.
Remainder by Billy T, (not quotes from Forbes):
Article went on to say that GWB had recently "floated" the idea to increase the 54 cents/ per gallon subsidy, but other Republicans feared it would be exploited to hurt them so he should wait until after the elections.
Looks like at least Richard Lugar fears that the voters can not always be kept so ill informed that they support tax dollars going to the wealthy few so they can have the privilege to pay more to drive their car and feed their family as corn become alcohol instead of food. More at thread “How DUMB can US voters be?”
Not only in the US is big oil fighting to keep on polluting:
"Japanese government is locked in a head-on battle with the country's oil industry to take the lead in the green auto fuels market, ...Japan could end up importing thousands of barrels of gasoline to blend with ethanol if the government does not find a distributor in coming months, since domestic oil refiners are promoting a different type of alternative fuel.
The Japanese refiners' reluctance to supply the gasoline needed ... another setback in Japan's struggling efforts to cut emissions using voluntary measures. Japan lacks farm products to produce biofuels but is looking to its unused bio-mass, including forests which cover 70 per cent of the country and that can be harvested in a sustainable way. .... But it faces resistance from the country's powerful oil industry, which is instead promoting gasoline blended with ethyl tertiary butyl ether ... The oil sector is anxious to defend its nationwide network through its own alternative fuel - launching its trial sale at 50 pump stations in Tokyo and surrounding areas last week ...The oil industry does not like the idea of an alternative auto fuel distribution in cities. The fact that anyone can now sell gasoline under the liberalized market irks them...
Japan*, the world's No. 3 gasoline consumer, is the biggest polluter among the countries with Kyoto caps. It aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent from 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Japan's largest business lobby Keidanren, which opposes mandatory emissions caps, told the government … it will have to spend 60-90 per cent more than other nations in achieving Kyoto targets.
From:
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/05/04/10122667.html
---------------------------
*Brazil & Japan have formed a company to build many alcohol tanker ships and Mitishibish has 30 year contract to take 30% of the alcohol produced by new large San Martino (I own 2500 shares of it.) facility, (plus option to buy part of the plant.) When US wakes up to the stupidity of sending money to the oil exporters supporting terrorists and drops the import tariffs against the much cheaper sugar cane alcohol (than corn based alcohol from cold, short-season, Iowa that that takes essentially the same imported oil to produce as it displaces) there may be none left to sell to US.
"Japanese government is locked in a head-on battle with the country's oil industry to take the lead in the green auto fuels market, ...Japan could end up importing thousands of barrels of gasoline to blend with ethanol if the government does not find a distributor in coming months, since domestic oil refiners are promoting a different type of alternative fuel.
The Japanese refiners' reluctance to supply the gasoline needed ... another setback in Japan's struggling efforts to cut emissions using voluntary measures. Japan lacks farm products to produce biofuels but is looking to its unused bio-mass, including forests which cover 70 per cent of the country and that can be harvested in a sustainable way. .... But it faces resistance from the country's powerful oil industry, which is instead promoting gasoline blended with ethyl tertiary butyl ether ... The oil sector is anxious to defend its nationwide network through its own alternative fuel - launching its trial sale at 50 pump stations in Tokyo and surrounding areas last week ...The oil industry does not like the idea of an alternative auto fuel distribution in cities. The fact that anyone can now sell gasoline under the liberalized market irks them...
Japan*, the world's No. 3 gasoline consumer, is the biggest polluter among the countries with Kyoto caps. It aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent from 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Japan's largest business lobby Keidanren, which opposes mandatory emissions caps, told the government … it will have to spend 60-90 per cent more than other nations in achieving Kyoto targets.
From:
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/05/04/10122667.html
---------------------------
*Brazil & Japan have formed a company to build many alcohol tanker ships and Mitishibish has 30 year contract to take 30% of the alcohol produced by new large San Martino (I own 2500 shares of it.) facility, (plus option to buy part of the plant.) When US wakes up to the stupidity of sending money to the oil exporters supporting terrorists and drops the import tariffs against the much cheaper sugar cane alcohol (than corn based alcohol from cold, short-season, Iowa that that takes essentially the same imported oil to produce as it displaces) there may be none left to sell to US.
Last edited by a moderator: