Ethanol - The Fuel of the Future?

[PhantomWolf]

A lot of people talk about hydrogen as being the fuel of the future, but I wonder. I think that in the coming years we're going to see a new contender for the successor to Oil, Ethanol. Think about it. Ethanol is a totally renewable resource because we can grow the crops for it every year. Any Nation can provide Ethanol to the world as there is no need to have an oil field or a nuclear power plant to power hydrogen plants, you just need farmland and a distillery. Ethanol is already a high octane fuel and so very little changes would be required to today's petrol driven engines in cars, lawn mowers, motor bikes, vans, boats, planes, and jet engines. (Desiel engines could be run on vegetable oils.) Ethanol can easily be transported in the same way as petrol is now, and it would be non hazadus to the enviroment if there was an accident, and petrol stations would need little in the way of change to despense it as well. It is not over explosive, either and doesn't need compressing or adding to a fuel cell, unlike Hydrogen. It is also non-polluting as it is a bio-fuel, soluble in water and not overly toxic to wildlife if spilled.

It also seems I'm not the only one thinking towards this fuel.

So what do people think. Will Ethanol be the most logical choice for running the engines of tomorrow's world?

[Al Johnston]

The Brazilians have been using ethanol as a partial petrol substitute for some time (since the 80's at least).

I agree that ethanol makes more sense as a fuel than hydrogen: H₂ will always require more energy to manufacture than it can deliver as fuel, and the various transportation and storage issues have yet to be resolved.

[lonewulf]

The Brazilians have been using ethanol as a partial petrol substitute for some time (since the 80's at least).

How much is a brazilian again? Above a billion, right?

[scooter]

My schoolbus runs on a bio-diesel fuel, 20% refined veggie oil...there are some diesels that run much higher blends. Other than going thru a couple of fuel filters a year, it seems to run fine.

Dave

[echnaton]

I am not well studied on the topic beyond casual reading, but you did ask for our thoughts. I see several problems with ethanol as a fuel.

My understanding is that it currently takes substantially more energy to produce ethanol than you get from it. Input factors include fossil fuel base products such as tractor and irrigation pump fuels, fertilizer, and electricity. One also needs to consider indirect energy inputs such as those used by the people that work in the industry. While biofuel use may have fewer externalities, that benefit will be partly negated from the externalities of the fossil fuel used is used in the production. If the manufacturing of biofuels does not produce more energy than are consumed in the inputs, then we are throwing wealth away.

It requires a real estate to produce biofuels from crops and the amount of biofuels produced per acre is limited. There is a question about how much fuel can be produced and is there sufficient land to provide for a meaningful amount of biofuels production, relative to total energy consumption. The production of biofuels removes crops from the food chain, driving up prices for food and farm land. While this is not in itself a problem if biofuel production is market driven, it becomes one if the production of biofuels is subsidized or its use is mandated.

In this light, the main reason to the government requires the use of ethanol as a fuel additive today is as a replacement for farm subsidies, which are coming under more pressure for reductions. It is no wonder that Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa is a prime supporter of biofuels as is the agricultural products company Archer Daniels Midland.

[snakeriverrufus]

I would also add that we are losing farm ground to development at a growing rate, and it appears as if the seed companies are reaching a limit on increasing farm output. For example the best seed is still only giving us 40 bushels an acre (wheat). That hasn't changed for years. Still all in all, I think that ethanol is the way to go.. I've been giving some thought to investing in a ethanol company or two, but I won't be selling any petroleum stock.
edited for clarity/ssr

[lenbrazil]

alasdhair said:

The Brazilians have been using ethanol as a partial petrol substitute for some time (since the 80's at least).

I agree that ethanol makes more sense as a fuel than hydrogen: H₂ will always require more energy to manufacture than it can deliver as fuel, and the various transportation and storage issues have yet to be resolved.

That's true ethanol use is common here. One problem is that it costs more than gasoline and you need more of it to go the same distance. Unless it's taxed at a lower rate and/or subsidized [like it is here] it won't be an attractive option for consumers.

This year Fiat, GM and VW released cars that can use any combination of ethanol and gasoline.

Natural gas is another alternative fuel whose use is becoming increasingly common in Brazil. The downside is that costs over a $ 1000 to convert a car to use it and the tank takes up a good part of the trunk. this of course could be solved by manufacturing natural gas powered cars.

Another problem with natural gas is logistics. I think the only practical way of transporting it is by pipeline. This might be prohibitively expensive in first world countries.

[echnaton]

As you indicated, a major problem with natural gas is storage. Because it is a gas, it must be liquefied to be truly compact. This works for trans oceanic shipping, but is not practical for cars. To be practical for vehicles, gas it must be store under very high pressure creating a dangerous situation if the tank ruptures in a collision. Houston has had some busses that use natural gas, but they are large enough that the tank can be adequately protected. Fuel delivery is less of a problem in many urban areas in the US where we already have natural gas pipes that deliver gas to buildings for heating. These might well be able to deliver the volumes needed for auto use, although the gas would have to be compressed on site for injection into the car. However to be a practical fuel would require nearly universal availability. Rural delivery requiring pipes to be laid to small towns or isolated stretches of highway would be very expensive.

Liquefied oceanic shipment is still difficult and expensive so surpluses in less developed areas, for example Egypt, take significant amounts of time and multi billion dollar investments to bring gas to market where demand is high, like in the US. Here we have increased the use of natural gas as a fuel in generating electricity at the same time as the growth in supplies is slowing. Adding demand from vehicles would greatly increase the price. Although there are many areas of the world where natural gas is a stranded and often wasted asset, these areas typically do not represent the centers with major demands for new vehicles. In recent years, business have tended to build plants where gas is in surplus to convert it into safer higher value products such as ethylene that can be more easily exported.

It will take a some time for an equilibrium to occur, but natural gas is unlikely to ever be as universal a commodity as petroleum.

[PhantomWolf]

I'd note that Branson is looking at using the waste material from our food crops, the stubble, husks and chaff that would usually be thrown away and burned, so I doubt that it would have an effect on the food markets other than giving farmers a new source of income from what currently is a waste product.

[snakeriverrufus]

phantomwolf said:

I'd note that Branson is looking at using the waste material from our food crops, the stubble, husks and chaff that would usually be thrown away and burned, so I doubt that it would have an effect on the food markets other than giving farmers a new source of income from what currently is a waste product.

But the amount of ethanol 'gleaned' from the waste products is even lower that produced from whole grain .

[echnaton]

The projects that I have read about that use waste plant material propose to burn them to produce steam that will drive turbines and produce electricity. The problem with this is that the material is only seasonally available and burns at relatively low temperatures, making is a poor choice for fueling power plants. There may well be other methods that are more efficient.

[bughead]

I did some research a few years back, and using standard bootlegger distilling costs 10000BTU to refine 12000BTU of automotive-fuel grade alcohol (10% water left, and all the "tailings" are kept) according to the sources I found. Pulling a vacuum lowers the heat-input requirement, but then you have to feed a vacuum pump.

Alcohol will be a viable fuel when the other options are even more expensive. I think hybrid technology is the research direction we need to concentrate on now, rearranging existing technologies in novel patterns for better efficiency.

Personally, I'd love to have a Stanley Steamer, all updated and designed with modern equipment.