Ethanol

[Subtle]

Artiicle
www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=071206e

[Legacy777]

Ethanol is f'n retarded. Houston now has 10% ethanol in its gas. Higher cost, less mileage, less hp.....and according the article...more pollution.....yeah...that sounds like a winner.

The whole clean air act and use electricity, and other fuels which may be cleaner is a bunch of crud. All you do is move around the pollution, and where it's dispersed into the atmosphere.

I work in the natural gas pipeline industry. We run LARGE 2500 - 5000 hp recip engines. they burn natural gas. Certain areas, in the city are more difficult to get air permits....so we put in electric motors.

The power plant still has to make power....most power plants around the pipeline use natural gas fired turbines to produce electricity, so all we're doing is moving the pollution source to the power plant.

It all boils down the 1st law of thermodynamics....you can't get something for nothing.

[Matt Monson]

It is all a bunch of BS as Josh mentions. I used to work for a company that sold wind power. Something I learned while there is that the vast majority of air pollution is from the coal used to create electricity. And commercial airliners produce far far more pollution than cars, even though the number of "user days" for airplanes is a teeny little percentage compared to cars. In short, the car is not to be blamed for our air pollution woes.

The only reasonable arguement for ethanol is that it's renewable and can reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources. Beyond that, it's not much of a step forward...

[evolutionmovement]

Ethanol is better than lead, but we don't need a lead substitute. Cars are a small percentage of total pollution considering the number in service. There are instances where the exhaust coming out of a car is cleaner than the general air around it. I remember an old article about a Saab that talked about it.

Here we have lots of coal plants, yet f'n Kennedy the Drunken is fighting a windfarm near his uppity prick island since he thinks they'll be an eyesore. I personally think they look cool, but supplying the electricity for all of Cape Cod on wind is what really matters. I hate politicians.

[entirelyturbo]

I've never been concerned with pollution, I've been concerned with the dwindling supply of petroleum.

Steve is right, Honda had the same statement in one of their articles promoting some of their EZEV (Equivalent Zero Emissions Vehicles). If you put a Civic EZEV in L.A., it would actually be healthier for you to suck the tailpipe of that car than to breathe the air around you.

I agree with airlines causing massive amounts of pollution, as well as big trucks. But let's not forget lawnmowers and weedeaters. Yes, they matter. Seeing as how they have no emissions devices, they can actually pollute the atmosphere more than most new cars.

*sits back and waits for someone to come up with a cheap hydrogen car*

[206er]

from what Ive read biodiesel is our best bet for a renewable resource. its got a lot more energy density than ethanol, and requires about 1/3 the energy to produce that it puts out.
of course its still a stopgap until something like efficient hydrogen production is developed.
as far as pollution not being a problem, I'm not sure if that is totally true. fresh water is soon to become a commodity for a variety of reasons.
hopefully we will see stuff like harnessing the tides for their immense kinetic energy and more solar and wind power.

[evolutionmovement]

Water will be the next oil. IIRC lawn equipment is about 1/3 o r 1/2 the total pollution of cars, either percentage of which I find disgusting considering how little lawn crap is used and how small their motors are compared to automobiles. Cars are just the easy scapegoat.

Dammit, I'll say it again, I'd like to see steam cars come back. I'll just have to build my own. Hopefully before society collapses so that I'll be one of the few with transport that won't have to be out in the desert wearing fetish bondage gear and fighting it out with other bands of survivors for gasoline to fuel it. I could use it to hunt people for food or slaves from with a compound bow. Like a near silent, retro-modern Mongol warrior. It will be awesome and I will have my slaves build a pyramid monument to me out of old McDonalds styrofoam containers (so it will last forever).

[gt2.5turbo]

there is a shell here that sells ethanol free gas.... granted its like 5-10 cents more a gallon.... but its a good time

[206er]

how's that? can you notice the power?
and where is it?

[sammydafish]

Don't hate on ethanol. It's actually a pretty decent fuel. It kinda sucks in regular cars designed for gasoline, but in an engine designed for ethanol it actually can burn more efficiently and can produce the same power and economy with less emissions than gasoline. Ethanol does contain less energy by weight than gasoline though, this is why engine must be designed to take advantage of ethanol’s high octane level before it can be used efficiently. In a car designed for gasoline, it will burn less efficiently than gasoline itself.


Like I said, don't hate ethanol, but do hate the process. Industrial ethanol distilleries were not built with maximum efficiency and pollution controls in mind. Fields are not meant to grow corn indefinitely. So the process of ethanol creation in the US makes it an overall burden the environment and the economy (due to the massive subsidies needed to keep the industry afloat). There is a better way though. Ethanol can be produced from anything with cellulose, starch or sugar. This means basically any food or vegetable can create ethanol. Corn works out well because it's plentiful, easy and cheap to grow. We could though make ethanol from waste food stocks. All the bagels and cakes that the bakery throws out when stale. All the uneaten mashed potatoes and vegetables from dinner time. All the wasted trimmed vegetable parts from preparing food. All of that and even more can become ethanol. Basically anything that's food from a plant can become ethanol. So why not use it? People have gotten into the habit of recycling. What about separating food wastes from other garbage and using it to make fuel. Even better, the drums that boil the waste food stock and yeast into beer alcohol can be fired with biodiesel from waste vegetable oils. Making even the refinery process renewable and clean. Even the machinery at the processing facilities could be run on natural gas from the methane created by the wate animal foods. Imagine, turning the massive amounts of food that Americans waste each day into the very source of energy we depend upon. The very fact that we are a nation of fat asses could become an advantage. Granted, there would still need to be purpose grown crops for ethanol production, but we'd have to grow FAR less.

It's possible I think. I'd actually love to get a grant in order to test the theory using local wastes produced in a regular suburban town. Really be able to get a feel for how much recyclable biowaste there is in a town vs the amount of energy/fuel required. Anyone good at writing grant proposals?

[All_talk]

The problem with Ethanol, Bio Diesel or any other crop based energy source is that the yield per acre is to low, there just isn’t enough land, you could plant the whole country and not keep up with our energy needs. And Hydrogen, either fuel cell or internal combustion, is not an answer. Sure you can get hydrogen and oxygen from water through electrolysis but the energy required to split it out is more than you get when you recombine it… net energy loss. And the most efficient source of hydrogen, yep you guessed it… oil.

The future is electric. It’s all a mater of how we produce and store that electricity, and no one source is going to cover the total need. That’s one problem with current thinking, we are looking for something (one thing) to replace oil, were gonna have to get outside the box on this one. The other side of the “future energy” equation is efficiency, we are going to have to do more with less. The best internal combustion engines can only convert about 35% of the energy contained in gasoline to useable power, the whole technology is based on having a glut of high energy density fuel… its days are numbered. In the end all the earths’ energy comes from one source… the sun, the more directly and effectively we tap that source the better. I’m not just talking solar cells here, wind, waves and many other sources are natural conversions of the suns energy.

Technology is the answer and the solutions will require research. [Up on soap box] And those with the resources to conduct this research are the first world nation governments. Some will say that this research should be preformed in the private sector and be motivated by market and profit, the problem is that practical application can lag research by decades and the severity of the transition will be exponential. The burden of these exorbitant (and likely avoidable) energy cost may be crippling to the poorer nations as well as the poor within the first world nations (but will provide great profits for the energy corporations). I believe we are already behind in the pursuit of these technologies and that a political commitment (read that money) is essential if we are going to transition from oil without economic hardship. I will also add that while national investment may seem a bit out of sink with the current political climate, history shows it to be of great value. I’d site the public works projects of the ‘30s and the “space race” of the ‘50s & ‘60s, these national investments provided infrastructure and technology that have created billions in economic prosperity for our country and the world. The current roadblock is that this kind of vision requires a concern for the long term, in building a political legacy as opposed to short term political gain and power. [Down from soap box]

Just my thoughts for that today on the subject.
Gary

[evolutionmovement]

There are ways of getting hydrogen for fuel cells that doesn't rely on pollution. You can't refine oil with wind, solar, tidal, or geothermal.

Of course a STEAM CAR would require little fuel and could burn nearly anything. Excess steam pressure prior to returning through the system via condenser could run an extra large generator to power electric heaters to maintain temperature once on the move.

I completely agree with neediing a government project to push for this. What we've accomplished when we had to (or at least felt we had to) has been amazing. That's the thing about human beings that I like. If only we did more of it. Unfortunately, to counter our current complacency (life is too easy) and to find the best path (not the best political one) we need strong leadership which we don't have and don't look to be getting any time soon.

[free5ty1e]

I'm with Steve on this one... I've been dying to get my place built so I can get some steam turbines going. Sure they take a bit longer to get going but that was the only reason that gasoline engines won the initial battle. The advantages are ridiculously numerous. You can use just about anything burnable as fuel to boil the water, and steam pressure can turn some freaking huge turbine blades. I want to generate my house electricity with a steam turbine, and a smaller unit powering a Subaru would be nice considering gasoline's about to jump up to at least $4/gallon...

A nice alternative to the Mad Max scenario, to say the least. Just walk away, and we will spare your lives. Just walk away.

[evolutionmovement]

The Doble steam car in the '20's got to full steam in less than a minute with a flash boiler and forced hot air. How does over 1000 lbs./ft. @ 0 rpm sound? The car had a 100000 mile warranty back then and would do over 100 all in near silence. This was a big luxury car weighing over 5000 lbs. depending on coachwork.

[gt2.5turbo]

how's that? can you notice the power?
and where is it?

Its the shell on Drake and college. Right next to the jiffy lube. I dont really notice power but def gas milage goes up.

[93forestpearl]

I agree with airlines causing massive amounts of pollution, as well as big trucks. But let's not forget lawnmowers and weedeaters. Yes, they matter. Seeing as how they have no emissions devices, they can actually pollute the atmosphere more than most new cars.

I think its funny how Briggs & Stratton is fighting tooth and nail against legislation to make catalytic converters mandatory on small gas engines. They say it will add to the cost too much. I call BS. If it adds $25 to the cost, so be it.

Maybe if they would have tried to stay competetive with Honda in that market, they wouldn't be hurting so bad.

[206er]

subaru needs to come out with a 2500lb, awd, turbodiesel/electric hybrid.

[DLC]

...it'll show up in Japan, and we'll get it here in 20 years...

[0perose]

ya'll should look into "wood gassification"

[sammydafish]

I totaly agree with Gary's post. The way we will be forced to live in the future is off of renewable natural energy (solar, wind ext) and we should make a constant and countious effort to reach that goal. Unfortunatly that would require a rip and replace of most of the assets of the entire industrialized world. And although it would probably be best for the planet, it's bad economicaly and simply could never work. There needs to be another alternative to get us from oil/gasoline to a renewable electric world and I belive recycalable bio technology is the bridge that joins them. It leverages current technology, infrustracture and assests while producing a cleaner more enviornmentaly and economicly friendly fuel source. There are still downsides, but far less than and oil using world. It's not the end, but simply another path of the evolution of technology.

subaru needs to come out with a 2500lb, awd, turbodiesel/electric hybrid.

they're working on it, search for posts about it

[Richard]

93forestpearl wrote:

I think its funny how Briggs & Stratton is fighting tooth and nail against legislation to make catalytic converters mandatory on small gas engines. They say it will add to the cost too much. I call BS. If it adds $25 to the cost, so be it.

I remember this a couple years ago. I happen to live in a city where a lot of Briggs motors are made. Anyways, the rucus was about California tightening its laws on small engines and their emissions. Briggs was worried because they, as a manufacturer, can't produce California-only machines. What happens in California effectively sets the standard for the rest of the 50 states. The cost would be tremendous. It's not like they can just add a catalytic converter to their mowers, shift the cost to consumers, and call it a day. They would have to redesign every engine to take in the effect of the high amount of heat produced by the converter so it wouldn't melt the engine down. Subsequently, they'd have to retool every plant. We're talking multi-million dollar expense here. And for a company that doesn't have any large command of the total sales here in the US, it would be detremental. The company said that if the laws went through, they'd have no choice but to move the whole company to Mexico. We're looking at thousands of good manufacturing jobs moving out of the country. Many of their parts manufacturers would be lost due to the cost of shipping to Mexico. More jobs lost. And hasn't that been one of the biggest concerns about our economy? All the hootin and hollering about jobs going to other countries got quite loud for a while there. Still is in some parts today.

So, in essence, we can say a problem has an easy fix. Getting rid of the damaging foam on the space shuttle sounds like an easy fix if you don't understand much about it. But in real world reality, a simple fix really may not be so simple after all. Someone always gets the shaft. Collateral damage happens. Costs rise. Jobs are lost. Industries are hurt. All these things have to be considered when making a decision about laws and regulations. It's not just about adding a 25 dollar part.

[sammydafish]

93forestpearl wrote:

I think its funny how Briggs & Stratton is fighting tooth and nail against legislation to make catalytic converters mandatory on small gas engines. They say it will add to the cost too much. I call BS. If it adds $25 to the cost, so be it.

I remember this a couple years ago. I happen to live in a city where a lot of Briggs motors are made. Anyways, the rucus was about California tightening its laws on small engines and their emissions. Briggs was worried because they, as a manufacturer, can't produce California-only machines. What happens in California effectively sets the standard for the rest of the 50 states. The cost would be tremendous. It's not like they can just add a catalytic converter to their mowers, shift the cost to consumers, and call it a day. They would have to redesign every engine to take in the effect of the high amount of heat produced by the converter so it wouldn't melt the engine down. Subsequently, they'd have to retool every plant. We're talking multi-million dollar expense here. And for a company that doesn't have any large command of the total sales here in the US, it would be detremental. The company said that if the laws went through, they'd have no choice but to move the whole company to Mexico. We're looking at thousands of good manufacturing jobs moving out of the country. Many of their parts manufacturers would be lost due to the cost of shipping to Mexico. More jobs lost. And hasn't that been one of the biggest concerns about our economy? All the hootin and hollering about jobs going to other countries got quite loud for a while there. Still is in some parts today.

So, in essence, we can say a problem has an easy fix. Getting rid of the damaging foam on the space shuttle sounds like an easy fix if you don't understand much about it. But in real world reality, a simple fix really may not be so simple after all. Someone always gets the shaft. Collateral damage happens. Costs rise. Jobs are lost. Industries are hurt. All these things have to be considered when making a decision about laws and regulations. It's not just about adding a 25 dollar part.

that's simply because they manufacture an inferior product. The same has happened with GM and the rest of the big three throughout the 90's. The fact that their engines/cars were significantly inferior to begin with made it very difficult for them to meet emissions laws (and remember, we’re talking about the three companies with the strongest lobbying power in the US). Domestics of that time period by far have the greatest failure rate of emissions equipment too. The cost cuts they had to make in order to keep the big wigs happy cost thousands of jobs and saw multiple production location moves. Briggs is in the same boat. If they manufactured a product nearly as good as the likes of John Deere or Honda, who both already make quieter more efficient small engines (some of which already have emissions equipment).

When the health of the planet is at stake, mediocre engineering for the sake of profits simply won't cut it. If Briggs go south because of CARB regulations it's not California's fault, its the fault of Briggs management and engineers for not seeing it coming and dealing with it years ago. They made a bad business choice and now they shot themselves in the foot.

[evolutionmovement]

The car industry has had emissions requirements since 1968 (converters since 1975). I have no sympathy for the aircraft, boat, truck, or small engine manufacturers that have had far longer to prepare and can even benefit off decades of automotive R&D. The big 3 cried that the sky was falling every time a new safety or emissions standard was/is announced, yet cars are faster, safer, better, with better mileage/hp/weight than ever. Those who don't evolve die. Sounds like nature, sounds like capitalism (even if the outside call for change in this case isn't). Some cry and bitch while others get it done. The loss of B&S marketshare will go to the others and they'll have to increase capacity in turn. If that mfg doesn't stay here, oh well, I was in mfg and had to adapt when my job went to Malaysia. Evolution should only be feared by those who can't adapt. Can't adapt, oh well, there's lots of people (more and more every day, in fact), but only one planet.

[93forestpearl]

Please explain how a catalytic converter adds so much heat to an engine that it will melt down, therefore needing a redesign to utilize it. A cat is an external device, and on a small gas engine, would be about the size of a golf ball. Granted, sheilding would be needed because the cat would get very hot, but the cheesedick little mufflers that they come with already get glowing red hot.



I'll have to agree with sammydafish that briggs shot themselves in the foot a long time ago when they decided not to do the R&D to advance their product. Look at OMC. Yamaha comes along and produces outboard motors than run alot better and offer much much higher reliability. Johnson/Evinrude and Mercury/Mariner are like, oh snap, what do we do. For instance, my dad's '93 25hp Evinrude has the same exact engine block found on a 12hp unit of 20 years it's vintage. WTF????? The people running the show are too greedy to put money back into the company so they milk their current designs for what they are worth, and eventually someone else comes along and steals their thunder. Then they are left scrambling and crying. Briggs is just another example of this phenominon in our country.


For along time I hated on GM cars. Then they finally pull their heads out of their collective asses and come out with the ECOTEC, which us sport compact guys can get excited about. I'll take a Saturn Sky over an S2000 now, as the ECOTEC takes to boost so much better than a K series (aside from the new factory turbo K23, but we'll see how that turns out).

[Carbix]

Many people dont really see this as an option but in the end its really our only option. Wind, water and solar power would be nice but the problem is it would just take too much of them to produce enough energy and on that soon enough. Our only option is not ez to get too and will be vary costly, Geothermal power. Did you know that magma that we see can be at times hotter then the core of a nuclear reactor, think how hot it is when u get deeper... And the great thing about Geothermal power is your dont have to guess where it is. it where ever u need to drill... just how deep. Being that u need water for Geothermal power and Hydrogen is our next major power sorce... looks like things are just going hand in hand. The funnything is the 2 down sides to Geothermal power is A. cost and B. they say that "the geothermal energy in the area can move or change" but this kind of change only comes ever what 300-2000k years... and in area like the Canadian shield the energy potention never changes, at least not for the last million years... One major planet in the middle of Canada could produce enough hydro to power all of North America... Why middle of Canada because if anything went wrong you would have a new valcano in about a week lol. but yeah LOTS OF POWER... 0% polution

My dream is to see Geothermal power plants much like oil drilling platforms. Being that the ocean is hella deep and a lot less to drill... that or cap a geothermal vent.