|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 04/08/2008 : 15:17:25 [Permalink]
|
BPS said:
| Ethanol is a stupid idea and we dove in head first. |
Revise that to "corn" (or sugar, or sugar beet, etc) ethanol and I'll agree.
Enzymatic cellulosic ethanol will be better than carbon neutral, eventually, and will produce a net reduction in greenhouse effect.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2008 : 16:52:13 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| Enzymatic cellulosic ethanol will be better than carbon neutral, eventually, and will produce a net reduction in greenhouse effect. |
Dude, what's your guess as to a time frame for the US to get into mass production of cellulosic ethanol? I wonder if electric propulsion may not pass this technology as the prime mover of vehicles to the point where the ICE becomes moot for vehicular use!
I understand the basic process for processing biomass into ethanol entails:
A "pretreatment" phase, to make the lignocellulosic material such as wood or straw amenable to hydrolysis, Cellulose hydrolysis (cellulolysis), to break down the molecules into sugars; Separation of the sugar solution from the residual materials, notably lignin; Microbial fermentation of the sugar solution; Distillation to produce 99.5% pure alcohol.
What is your understanding of the energy requirements to achieve these five stages of production? Or, better yet, is there a place I can find that information?
Also, what will be the primary financial or commercial incentive for a major push to the production of ethanol from cellulosic biomass? The use of corn is an obvious bow to giant corporate farms, but who benefits big enough financially from cellulosic ethanol to challenge the financial might of the oil cartels?
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2008 : 06:00:52 [Permalink]
|
Ethanol from corn is a stupid idea, if you buy what David Pimental is quoted to say in the link above.
The numbers of 131'000 BTUs required to produce 54'000 BTUs worth of ethanol.
Is this report of his peer-reviewed?
| An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol. |
Emphasis mine.
The calculations states that fossil fuel is used in the farming of corn. That is stupid from a carbon footprint point of view. We have diesel-ethanol engines for heavy machinery that is more efficient than gasoline. Scania has been manufacturing these for 20 years.
But the way, if you absolutely have to use American soil to grow corn for ethanol, I couldn't care less. I'm not depended on American agricultural output.
Sweden has large forest resources to produce paper, and rest products from that industry could provide Sweden with more than 25% of it's future ethanol need alone. We buy ethanol from Brasil, and Swedish companies are starting up farms in Africa. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2008 : 07:26:37 [Permalink]
|
bng asked:
Dude, what's your guess as to a time frame for the US to get into mass production of cellulosic ethanol? I wonder if electric propulsion may not pass this technology as the prime mover of vehicles to the point where the ICE becomes moot for vehicular use!
|
The problem, at the moment, is the cost of manufacturing the cellulase. There have been some recent developments for the better, and the US DoE was supposed to have a small production facility (proof of concept) going this year. Can't find any updated info on that, with the current admin favoring the corn/switchgrass farmers its hard to say where cellulosic ethanol stands.
A "pretreatment" phase, to make the lignocellulosic material such as wood or straw amenable to hydrolysis, Cellulose hydrolysis (cellulolysis), to break down the molecules into sugars; Separation of the sugar solution from the residual materials, notably lignin; Microbial fermentation of the sugar solution; Distillation to produce 99.5% pure alcohol.
What is your understanding of the energy requirements to achieve these five stages of production? Or, better yet, is there a place I can find that information?
|
The way it works (could be wrong, going on just memory here) is not as involved as the old methods. The biomass is turned into a slurry via a mechanical process (think blender), cellulase is added (this takes care of the cellulolysis), the simple sugars are seperated and fermented. Cellulose is the primary component of all plant cell walls, so the process can use any fresh plant mass.
There are enzymes that can initiate cellulolysis in the hemicellulose compenents (lignin, xyloglucan, pectin, etc) as well, which could allow this processs to utilize somewhere between 50-75% of the plant mass. As opposed to less than 5% of the plant mass where corn is concerned currently.
Cellulosic processes could take the entire corn plant (ears to roots) and use it to make ethanol. Also, the corn wouldn't need to be planted in neat little rows to assist all the usual farm implements, it could be more densely packed and then just mowed down and raked up when ready. So even corn could be a legit contender as biomass in a cellulosic world.
As for the total energy input vs output... I don't know. It seems obvious that the energy output would be higher though. If <5% of the corn mass can produce the ~1:2 energy ratio indicated (54K from 131K BTUs), if you can use 50-75% of the mass... it seems like a no brainer. I don't know what the energy input is for making the cellulase and other enzymes though. I'd guess not high enough to make it a net energy loser, if I had to guess.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
roxannedetierro
New Member
USA
1 Post |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 04:13:23 [Permalink]
|
| E15 ethanol fuel has gotten greater support in America's Corn Belt - unsurprisingly - but AAA is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to stop sales of the option fuel until it can be determined that it is entirely secure for pre-2012 automobiles. Many studies still suggest it is not. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 11:09:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by roxannedetierro
Many studies still suggest it is not.
|
...while others suggest it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuOs1yap8mU
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2012 : 07:40:08 [Permalink]
|
It really depends on the kind of automobile and the age.
There are a few vehicles that need to add lead to the fuel to run properly. These are commonly referred to as "antiques" (The fact that I am older than some of these cars is disturbing engough without you guys pointing that fact out, thankyouverymuch.).
Some older engines cannot efficiently burn the fuel and have issues with the heat cracking older parts/seals.
Right now, E15 is at the very edge of what older cars can handle. The oil/car companies are concerned with a buffer for unknowns and wish to back it down to E10 - E12. There may be a secondary issue (as with biodiesel) with fuel filters having to be replaced more often.
What I have noticed is that my mileage takes a hit with the Summer blends. This is above and beyond air-conditioning.
Corn was a natural starting point since Grandpa's corn squeezins has been the fuel for Funny Car for quite a while. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2012 : 11:26:35 [Permalink]
|
There is legitimate concerns with gaskets made from cork, and older rubber fuel lines. Practically all modern gaskets and rubber hoses should handle E85 just fine though.
Cars without adaptive fuel injection, like carburettors would need adjustment in order to deliver the extra fuel needed in order to not run too lean. But practically all fuel-injected systems can adjust for blends up to at least 35% ethanol in ordinary petrol. My own Volvo can run up to E60 before the ECU lights up the engine control warning lights and start reporting "fuel mixture too lean". |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2012 : 11:37:59 [Permalink]
|
I wonder if this will ever see the light of day, after 4 yrs, +8 months. The passage of that much time suggests this was nothing but another energy saving idea that is anything but.
The fact that this thread was started on April Fool's day was not lost on me. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2012 : 12:02:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
The fact that this thread was started on April Fool's day was not lost on me.
|
Yet, it wasn't meant as an April Fool's joke.
The auto industry and oil companies work too closely together, they are co-dependednt on each other and status quo petroleum usage. Too many politicians are in the pockets of big oil for alternatives to have a decent chance.
Consumers are listening to motor journalists who are paid to complain about cars having poor milage running on ethanol (and keep silent about otto-engines actually running with higher efficiency while on ethanol, even though they are optimised for gasoline). A SAAB engineer said they could easily reprogram the engine to increase the milage on E85 about 10-15% if they only were allowed to certify the engine running on E85 and not gasoline. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2012 : 19:48:01 [Permalink]
|
I'm very concerned that land available for food production is being used instead for fuel.
We have a food shortage in the world, partially caused by global warming. I have no problem with ethanol or methanol or biodiesel fuels made from biological matter such as agricultural waste or algae. But feeding people must come before filling up our tanks. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2012 : 20:59:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The auto industry and oil companies work too closely together, they are co-dependednt on each other and status quo petroleum usage. |
Maybe I'm the only person who doesn't believe that, based on I don't see why "they" (automakers) would be in a conspiracy with big oil where they are keeping mileage below what they could be just so big oil can sell more gasoline. Are the automakers getting a kickback on every gallon their cars use? Which Oil company would be paying them, all of them? If that were the case than that thinking would make sense but where is the evidence for that? What other motivation could there be for automakers to be in cahoots with oil where they would intentionally keep their mileage lower, just because they can? Give me some logical reason to think that's true.A SAAB engineer said they could easily reprogram the engine to increase the milage on E85 about 10-15% if they only were allowed to certify the engine running on E85 and not gasoline.
|
Look, from what I understand there are after market memory chip that are sold, in "Hot Rod" mag's, for high performance cars like Corvettes that are swapped out with the factory ones where the car will give higher performance than factory settings, at the expense of higher gas mileage. Owners who want that extra hp and are willing to 'dump' more gas so they can leave longer skid marks or beat their friends off the green lights can buy them. They exist, which I have seen advertised as after market chips, what's preventing that "SAAB engineer" from putting out reprogrammed chips that will do what he claims can be done??? What am I missing? I don't get it.
Until I'm given a reason to believe differently this kind of talk is like believing a medium who claims to really talk to the dead while not collecting "Randi's" $1.1 million dollar challenge. I'm skeptical that engineers can get better gas mileage just by reprogramming the firmware code from what the factory ships out while no one is willing to offer that ability through aftermarket sales. What am I missing?
On another angle. Why would manufactures whom "could easily reprogram the engine" not do so but lie instead about their cars getting better mileage for the expressed benefit of selling more new cars. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2012 : 21:50:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Look, from what I understand there are after market memory chip that are sold, in "Hot Rod" mag's, for high performance cars like Corvettes that are swapped out with the factory ones where the car will give higher performance than factory settings, at the expense of higher gas mileage. Owners who want that extra hp and are willing to 'dump' more gas so they can leave longer skid marks or beat their friends off the green lights can buy them. They exist, which I have seen advertised as after market chips... |
There are "tuning companies" in Sweden that sell chip to many cars. Most of them are performance boosts. Some companies sell optimization chips, which are tuned for higher octane ratings than the factory car. Lowest fuel-quality in Sweden is 95octane. There are chips available which are tuned specifically for extended milage.
| what's preventing that "SAAB engineer" from putting out reprogrammed chips that will do what he claims can be done??? What am I missing? I don't get it. |
In Europe and Sweden, regulations stipulate that cars are tuned for optimum pollution performance on gasoline. Such settings are sub-optimal for E85. You could tune the car to run optimally for E85 but that could mean higher pollutions in gasoline mode. Higher compression in the engine would require richer fuel mix to avoid knocking problems.
Installing an E85-optimised chip would be illegal, and the driver could potentially get caught in the annual car inspection due to pollution exceeding regulations.
It's burocracy, and the politicians are at the center of that.
Until I'm given a reason to believe differently this kind of talk is like believing a medium who claims to really talk to the dead while not collecting "Randi's" $1.1 million dollar challenge. I'm skeptical that engineers can get better gas mileage just by reprogramming the firmware code from what the factory ships out while no one is willing to offer that ability through aftermarket sales. What am I missing? |
Factory cars doesn't have their programs optimised for different markets depending on what octane ratings are offered. In Sweden, as I said 95octane is the lowest you can find. Down in south east Europe, and in Africa, you can get 92octane and even lower. 30 years ago in Sweden, we had 89. With higher octane ratings, you can get higher efficiency from a more aggressive ignition timing. E85 has an octane rating above 106, and you can also run ethanol slightly lean throughout the performance chart. You don't have to run on rich mixture at peak power in order to cool the valves, but at stochiometric blend. This means optimum combustion in all performance cases.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2012 : 23:13:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
On another angle. Why would manufactures whom "could easily reprogram the engine" not do so but lie instead about their cars getting better mileage for the expressed benefit of selling more new cars. |
As an owner of a Hyundai, I have to ask if there's a good reason to ascribe this event to malice instead of incompetence. After all, I already have a $209 debit card in my wallet to compensate me for the first 16 months of the "extra" gasoline consumption that I didn't even know about, despite my trying to hypermile, and keeping detailed mileage records every fill-up. The fact that Hyundai was so quick to offer compensation (yes, in the face of a pile of lawsuits) suggests that it was, indeed, just a screw-up and not a "lie."
Meanwhile, Ford appears to be in denial mode.
As to your other questions: as Mab said, manufacturers could easily tune the engines for optimal efficiency on E85 fuels, but the owners of the cars would constantly complain about failing emissions inspections here in the States when filling up on E10 or pure gasoline. Car makers could probably even cheaply install an "I just filled up on _____ fuel" button on the dashboard, but they'd still take a ton of flack (lawsuits) from people who punched in the wrong fuel type or who buy $5 of random fuel every time they get near a filling station (resulting in an unpredictable mess in the gas tank).
Until owners are trained to do the best possible job at fueling their vehicles and not going litigious when they screw up, manufacturers are going to have to play it safe with regard to Federal and state laws regarding fuel efficiency and emissions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2012 : 07:20:15 [Permalink]
|
| Thank you for your replies Dr. Mabuse and Dave. You both made interesting points. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Diesel engine converted to Ethanol
