Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Marc J. Rauch

UK's Department for Transport Uses Boogeyman Allusions to Sidetrack E10 Adoption

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Sorry, Marc, that is not accurate.  Flight does require an energy-content level. Plus, you are ignoring the problems of tankerage of low-density fuel. 

I gotta get back to work, you have beaten this one totally to death, I suggest you have a coffee with a professional pilot on the merits of tankering  (they all know the concept, they deal with that every single day) and you will find that energy density is a huge factor in flight operations. Cheers.

The principles for powered flight are lift, drag, and thrust (and weight). No where in these principles is the requirement that the fuel meet a specific energy-content level.

You are still taking the approach that all internal combustion engines regardless of size, and various characteristics, will always hit maximum performance based on energy-content of the fuel. This is completely incorrect.

If I have coffee some day with a pilot who also doesn't understand that engines are designed to optimize the fuel that is available, and that they can be redesigned to optimize other fuels, then I would have to explain the facts to him, as well.

Incidentally, I just finished watching an interesting YouTube video about the British DeHaviland Comet, the first commercial passenger jet plane. While it doesn't specifically deal with energy-content of fuels, it does deal with how modifications in design and flying had to be adopted to make efficient use of the fuels and technology. In general terms, this is what I'm talking about. The video can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0Cg2ZeYa5E.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

Jan - I'll start with the bottom of your most recent reply first because it will help to answer the top of your reply.

A tankful of ethanol in a car will get you as far as a tankful of gasoline if the engine is optimized to run on ethanol. A tankful of certain levels of ethanol-gasoline blends will get you as far as a tankful of ethanol-free gasoline in some engines even if the engine is optimized to run on gasoline.

Using textbook formulations based on the BTU difference between gasoline and ethanol is incorrect. I've posted about this in the past and provided references.

So again I'll say that there are two ways to skin the cat here: One is to build a jet engine so that is maximizes the characteristics of ethanol, and the other is to not use the raw material (corn, sugar, sorghum, etc.) to make E100, but to make it into a liquid fuel that duplicates the characteristics of 'fossil fuel' based jet fuel. This bio-jet fuel has the same energy content.

Unless that ethanol run engine is much more efficient than the petrol engine at converting chemical energy to kenetic energy I can't see how this can be. 

The energy content of Ethanol per litre is about 26MJ as opposed to Gasoline which about 35 MJ

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

I can't tell you "hectares" because I'm an inches/miles/acres guy. But here's a general list of crop-ethanol yields per acre:

Annual Alcohol Yields Per Acre

Corn                                            300
Mesquite                                     340
Fodder Beets                          1,000
Sweet Sorghum                          600 (multiple crops per yr possible)
Jerusalem Artichoke                   600-700
Sugar Cane                              1,200
Agave                                       1,600
Nypa Palm                                2,000
Cat Tails                                    2,000 – in sewerage treatment areas up to 7,500
Buffalo Gourds                         2,000 – good desert plant
Fresh water algae                       500-600
Kelp                                        30,000 – grows 18” day/10’ week

Lawn clippings could supply 11% of U.S. ethanol needs.

Let's say that the land and food issue is of paramount concern, and let's say that it is absolutely imperative to not muck about with any land to grow crops for fuels. Fine, then the answer is to import the ethanol.

As I'm sure you know, the UK gets the overwhelming majority of its oil from the Middle East. The answer is that instead of importing so much oil from the Middle East to import ethanol (from countries that may not sponsor terrorism).

Regarding EROEI, ethanol production in the U.S. is EROEI positive. And contrary to public opinion, Gasoline is EROEI negative. You can read about this in Part 5 of my review and report of Robert Bryce's book "GUSHER OF LIES" at https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2013/06/11/082057-gusher-lies-book-review-and-reply-to-robert-bryce-pt.html.

For more about land use, go to Part 4 of the same report at https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2013/06/11/082056-gusher-lies-book-review-and-reply-to-robert-bryce-pt.html.

By the way, my business partner and I love wind energy, and we've published a lot of positive stories about it. In the right circumstances and locations it's great. But I think that only he most optimum of conditions would produce a wind power EROEI ratio of 20:1. The other thing is that a 20:1 EROEI ratio doesn't necessarily mean that it's economically that positive.

Feel free to pass along any info on wind energy that you might have. If we aren't giving enough credit to wind energy as part of a good mix, we're happy to hype it some more.

 

 

Thanks for the info but this kind of proves my point - 1200 litres of Ethanol per Acre from sugarcane. So basically you need 2-3 acres of farmland to produce enough fuel for one car and cover production costs (energy) which will also include distillation at the production site. 

Taking the UK as an example there is about 1 acre per person in the UK and we can't grow sugar cane. 

Kelp looks interesting if those figures are true and all the nutrient can come from seawater. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, NickW said:

Thanks for the info but this kind of proves my point - 1200 litres of Ethanol per Acre from sugarcane. So basically you need 2-3 acres of farmland to produce enough fuel for one car and cover production costs (energy) which will also include distillation at the production site. 

Taking the UK as an example there is about 1 acre per person in the UK and we can't grow sugar cane. 

Kelp looks interesting if those figures are true and all the nutrient can come from seawater. 

You had already established that there's not enough land in the UK to feed the population, let alone provide all the engine fuel needs. And we know that the UK is incapable of producing their own petroleum oil to meet the fuel needs of the population. So I'm not understanding why importing ethanol is a bad thing, although I agree it would be a great thing if it was possible to produce all the ethanol necessary from "domestic" seaweed.

Edited by Marc J. Rauch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NickW said:

Unless that ethanol run engine is much more efficient than the petrol engine at converting chemical energy to kenetic energy I can't see how this can be. 

The energy content of Ethanol per litre is about 26MJ as opposed to Gasoline which about 35 MJ

 

You can't see how what could be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

10 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

You can't see how what could be?

No - please explain.

If an engine running on gasoline is 35% efficient at converting the energy content of gasoline to kenetic energy (at the Wheel)

Then the same engine would have to be47% efficient running on Ethanol to provide the same kenetic energy

We are into basic physics here (Jan?)

Edited by NickW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

You had already established that there's not enough land in the UK to feed the population, let alone provide all the engine fuel needs. And we know that the UK is incapable of producing their own petroleum oil to meet the fuel needs of the population. So I'm not understanding why importing ethanol is a bad thing, although I agree it would be a great thing if it was possible to produce all the ethanol necessary from "domestic" seaweed.

The point I'm getting at is you might as well go down the EV route as Wind and solar and much less land intensive technologies than biofuels and don't suck all the nutrient resource out of the land.

1 3MW land based turbine takes up a fraction of 1 acre and can fuel 1800 Nissan Leafs for 18000km each per year.

Apply that to an offshore 9 MW turbine operating at 40% of capacity and that one turbine will fuel 8600 Nissan Leafs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, NickW said:

No - please explain.

If an engine running on gasoline is 35% efficient at converting the energy content of gasoline to kenetic energy (at the Wheel)

Then the same engine would have to be47% efficient running on Ethanol to provide the same kenetic energy

We are into basic physics here (Jan?)

Yup, Nick, basic physics. 

I have pretty much given up on this thread, I think Marc is attempting to do the impossible.  Also, the discussion is conflating some auto application with jet aircraft engines, which is where it started.  Alcohol in a piston engine works fine because you get this anti-knock characteristic from the fuel, and you need that in aircraft.  Indeed, most piston engines in airplanes are quite low compression, around 6.0. And the reason is the destruction of the engine on take-off power if it knocks. 

But you still have this problem of using larger volumes to get the same power extraction.  Marc stated the "four factors" in aircraft are lift, thrust, drag, and the downward pull of gravity as a function of weight.  He doesn't feel that the fuel energy content has anything to do with that.  Unfortunately, it does.  The energy content gets you the thrust.  If you get X thrust per pound of fuel, and you change fuel to something that develops less energy when burned per pound, then you get "less than X" thrust out of that fuel.  To get back to X, you have to burn more per hour.  If you burn more per hour, either you tanker more fuel, or you end up with drastically shorter range.  There is no way around it.

Marc has other ideas.  I applaud his efforts to develop alternatives.  Those alternatives will definitely work in autos, farm tractors, marine engines, all sorts of stuff.  Airplanes, not so much.  It is what it is.  Sorry, folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, NickW said:

No - please explain.

If an engine running on gasoline is 35% efficient at converting the energy content of gasoline to kenetic energy (at the Wheel)

Then the same engine would have to be47% efficient running on Ethanol to provide the same kenetic energy

We are into basic physics here (Jan?)

Where did you get the 35% gasoline efficiency figure from? Sources that I've seen talk about 20% to 25%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NickW said:

The point I'm getting at is you might as well go down the EV route as Wind and solar and much less land intensive technologies than biofuels and don't suck all the nutrient resource out of the land.

1 3MW land based turbine takes up a fraction of 1 acre and can fuel 1800 Nissan Leafs for 18000km each per year.

Apply that to an offshore 9 MW turbine operating at 40% of capacity and that one turbine will fuel 8600 Nissan Leafs.

Nick, it sounds as if you have it all sorted. Just use wind turbines to generate very low cost electric and then swap all the passenger cars and light trucks out for electric vehicles. Given the short driving distances in the UK (compared to the U.S.) the low operating ranges of existing electric vehicles are perfect.

Based on this scenario I would by happy to rescind my criticisms to the UK Department for Transport, suggest they discontinue any conversation about moving from E5 to E10, and just advise them to mandate the immediate nationwide switch to EVs. If all the vehicles could be manufactured in the UK, from UK sourced parts, and financed by the government it would be a great boon to the UK. Then, just sell whatever share of North Sea oil to the continental European nations to raise additional cash.

I like it, and hope you do as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

Nick, it sounds as if you have it all sorted. Just use wind turbines to generate very low cost electric and then swap all the passenger cars and light trucks out for electric vehicles. Given the short driving distances in the UK (compared to the U.S.) the low operating ranges of existing electric vehicles are perfect.

Based on this scenario I would by happy to rescind my criticisms to the UK Department for Transport, suggest they discontinue any conversation about moving from E5 to E10, and just advise them to mandate the immediate nationwide switch to EVs. If all the vehicles could be manufactured in the UK, from UK sourced parts, and financed by the government it would be a great boon to the UK. Then, just sell whatever share of North Sea oil to the continental European nations to raise additional cash.

I like it, and hope you do as well.

I don't have a problem with E5 where the feedstock is primarily sugar wastes that are not suitable for human consumption or incorporating into animal feed. I used to do regulatory safety inspections at the biggest sugar beet factory in Europe and this was what the Chief Engineer there told me - that the waste of this nature could generate enough to provide 2-3% equivalent of gasoline hence their reason to build an ethanol plant.

However start scaling this up and you are effectively diverting land and input nutrients from food production into fuel which IMO is just as unsustainable (and potentially unethical) as petroleum production.

The halfway house here are PHEV vehicles which use electricity for 50-70% for travel and make up the remaining mileage with gasoline (E5 if you like)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

Where did you get the 35% gasoline efficiency figure from? Sources that I've seen talk about 20% to 25%.

I plucked 35% out of the air (perhaps confused with efficiency for a diesel engine). Lets rework that on 25% then.

At 25% efficiency for gasoline an engine running on ethanol has to be 34% efficient to get the same motive effort at the wheels.

I know that adding small quantities of ethanol to gasoline can slightly improve fuel economy as it raises the octane rating but as you add more the effect is to lower the overall calorific value of the fuel and this works against the improved octane rating to the point where mpg will be much lower for significantly ethanol 'enriched' fuels.

For example (these figures are purely hypothetical)

'E3' may give you a 5% improvement in fuel economy compared to straight gasoline

'E30' gives you a 20% fall in fuel economy compared to straight gasoline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Yup, Nick, basic physics. 

I have pretty much given up on this thread, I think Marc is attempting to do the impossible.  Also, the discussion is conflating some auto application with jet aircraft engines, which is where it started.  Alcohol in a piston engine works fine because you get this anti-knock characteristic from the fuel, and you need that in aircraft.  Indeed, most piston engines in airplanes are quite low compression, around 6.0. And the reason is the destruction of the engine on take-off power if it knocks. 

But you still have this problem of using larger volumes to get the same power extraction.  Marc stated the "four factors" in aircraft are lift, thrust, drag, and the downward pull of gravity as a function of weight.  He doesn't feel that the fuel energy content has anything to do with that.  Unfortunately, it does.  The energy content gets you the thrust.  If you get X thrust per pound of fuel, and you change fuel to something that develops less energy when burned per pound, then you get "less than X" thrust out of that fuel.  To get back to X, you have to burn more per hour.  If you burn more per hour, either you tanker more fuel, or you end up with drastically shorter range.  There is no way around it.

Marc has other ideas.  I applaud his efforts to develop alternatives.  Those alternatives will definitely work in autos, farm tractors, marine engines, all sorts of stuff.  Airplanes, not so much.  It is what it is.  Sorry, folks.

Huh! I thought from your last comments, Jan, that you have DEFINITELY given up on this thread, not just PRETTY MUCH given up on it. I'm surprised that you've softened your position, but I'm happy that you did so.

Contrary to your comments, this thread didn't start with a discussion of automobile applications of fuel in jet aircraft engines. It started and stayed with automobile use of ethanol blends until you changed the discussion based upon Marvin's question - which didn't concern technical characteristics of ethanol. His question concerned generalized arguments against jet biofuel, made by the oil industry, purely on the basis of trying to defend against an economically competitive fuel.

My references to aviation fuels was clearly set out. I described circumstances in which ethanol is currently used as an economical and effective aviation fuel, and how the oil industry itself had promoted ethanol-gasoline blends as being superior to ethanol-free gasoline. I also mentioned that at a conference I attended in Brisbane, Australia, that there were a couple of presentations made by speakers (other than myself) who made a positive case for the use of bio-jet fuel. One of these speakers was from Virgin Airlines - I presume you recognize them as a real functioning airline. And, indeed, in response to your seeming assertions about how bio-jet fuel can't work, I included links to a study that says it can, and then to a current magazine article that confirms the actual day-to-day use of jet-bio fuel by an actual passenger airline.

So when you say that I'm trying to do the impossible, it's a gross misstatement. These are not my airlines, I'm not the pilot, I'm not the airline engineer that pronounced it safe and efficient to fly these big hulking machines in the air using a biofuel. If you think the report and story is fictitious then attack them.

You disagree with, and ridicule, my assessment that man-made powered flight requires lift, drag, and thrust as if I invented that phraseology. But I didn't, I lifted it from scientific sources. I looked at those sources and I never found any requirement that the thrust be provided by a fuel with a specific energy-content formula...not even once. If you have conflicting statements please provide the sources.

Moreover, any argument that I make about a fuel's energy-content doesn't deny that it has an "energy-content," or that it's energy-content could be different than another fuel's energy-content. I merely say that the energy-content is irrelevant when discussing internal combustion engines. What's interesting is that you have always steered away from this discussion (on this and previous threads), and instead hide behind some arcane argument about the laws of physics. Not all laws apply to all things. And the fact is that very, very simple design changes make the laws of physics that you talk about obsolete and irrelevant. If the laws of physics was the peremptory, capital factor that you make it out to be then all internal combustion engines (regardless of size, number of cylinders, carburetor or fuel injector, spark timing, and piston stroke length) would provide the best performance based upon the number of BTUs that the fuel is said to contain. This is not the case, it's not even close to being the case. In other words, the laws of physics that you make out to be the "laws of the land" don't apply here. Internal combustion engines don't run on steam produced by boiling water.

When you can disprove the results reported by the world's leading scientists, scientific organizations, and automotive engineers over the past 100-plus years (that demonstrate the irrelevance of energy-content) then the finger-wagging isn't directed at me, it's at you. If you need me to once again post some of these reports let me know and I'll be happy to do it.

You also don't need the petulant histrionics about "throwing in the towel," just provide  real proof if you think I'm incorrect. I'm a television producer/director, a marketing guy, and an automotive journalist. I'm not a distiller, a farmer, a fuel delivery man, or a fuel retailer. I have no side to defend, other than the side of facts. If I'm wrong I can easily change my opinion. But you have to provide some real proof to make me wrong, not the defense of what you think is a holy dictum of the "laws of physics."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NickW said:

I don't have a problem with E5 where the feedstock is primarily sugar wastes that are not suitable for human consumption or incorporating into animal feed. I used to do regulatory safety inspections at the biggest sugar beet factory in Europe and this was what the Chief Engineer there told me - that the waste of this nature could generate enough to provide 2-3% equivalent of gasoline hence their reason to build an ethanol plant.

However start scaling this up and you are effectively diverting land and input nutrients from food production into fuel which IMO is just as unsustainable (and potentially unethical) as petroleum production.

The halfway house here are PHEV vehicles which use electricity for 50-70% for travel and make up the remaining mileage with gasoline (E5 if you like)

Nick, that must have been a very interesting job.  And you even got paid to do it!  (Envy here.)   The whole concept of taking waste from one process and using it to make something valuable for another process is great stuff.  Here in the NE USA, there is a big problem with cow manure.  Various uses are suggesting, including composting  (slow, does work, cannot handle the volumes however),  chemical removal of phosphorus  (I don't see how this can be done without substantial govt subsidies), and drying and burning a fuel  (my approach). The fuel part is either for bulk space heating, such as you would have in a hospital or other large building with a dedicated heating plant, or for electricity generating in a biomass plant, thus displacing the green wood chips that are currently used, sourced from whole logs (and thus, in my opinion, wasteful of otherwise useful timber).  There is this abundance of timber due to the collapse of the paper industry, the traditional outlet for wood here.  

Getting past my reminiscing, using such wastes to generate an alcohol product strikes me as fascinating, and there have to be interesting outlets for that fuel. I am wondering if it can be sold for direct dumping into standard oil tanks for space heating purposes.  If so, it becomes a direct competitor for heating oil. If done at scale, that would have an interesting effect on oil prices.  I am curious as to your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NickW said:

I don't have a problem with E5 where the feedstock is primarily sugar wastes that are not suitable for human consumption or incorporating into animal feed. I used to do regulatory safety inspections at the biggest sugar beet factory in Europe and this was what the Chief Engineer there told me - that the waste of this nature could generate enough to provide 2-3% equivalent of gasoline hence their reason to build an ethanol plant.

However start scaling this up and you are effectively diverting land and input nutrients from food production into fuel which IMO is just as unsustainable (and potentially unethical) as petroleum production.

The halfway house here are PHEV vehicles which use electricity for 50-70% for travel and make up the remaining mileage with gasoline (E5 if you like)

But if you know, or are willing to accept that crops or materials other than corn can be the answer, then you should argue on their behalf - not against a particular crop or material that might be the best source of ethanol in that particular geographic region.

And, yes, I would like it if those EV's that use on-board engines to charge or supplement the electric motors to be powered by ethanol or at least E85. This is what the Chevrolet Volt was supposed to do; it's what they originally claimed it would do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

19 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Nick, that must have been a very interesting job.  And you even got paid to do it!  (Envy here.)   The whole concept of taking waste from one process and using it to make something valuable for another process is great stuff.  Here in the NE USA, there is a big problem with cow manure.  Various uses are suggesting, including composting  (slow, does work, cannot handle the volumes however),  chemical removal of phosphorus  (I don't see how this can be done without substantial govt subsidies), and drying and burning a fuel  (my approach). The fuel part is either for bulk space heating, such as you would have in a hospital or other large building with a dedicated heating plant, or for electricity generating in a biomass plant, thus displacing the green wood chips that are currently used, sourced from whole logs (and thus, in my opinion, wasteful of otherwise useful timber).  There is this abundance of timber due to the collapse of the paper industry, the traditional outlet for wood here.  

Getting past my reminiscing, using such wastes to generate an alcohol product strikes me as fascinating, and there have to be interesting outlets for that fuel. I am wondering if it can be sold for direct dumping into standard oil tanks for space heating purposes.  If so, it becomes a direct competitor for heating oil. If done at scale, that would have an interesting effect on oil prices.  I am curious as to your thoughts.

Regulatory Safety Inspector. Subsequently specialised in Occupational Hygiene (you guys call it Industrial Hygiene)

PS: - that's where you should have taken your Physics skills - Physicists in the Nuclear Inspectorate divisions get paid a packet.

Edited by NickW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

But if you know, or are willing to accept that crops or materials other than corn can be the answer, then you should argue on their behalf - not against a particular crop or material that might be the best source of ethanol in that particular geographic region.

And, yes, I would like it if those EV's that use on-board engines to charge or supplement the electric motors to be powered by ethanol or at least E85. This is what the Chevrolet Volt was supposed to do; it's what they originally claimed it would do.

This isn't enough land on this planet to grow enough crops to replace gasoline with ethanol. Higher yield / GM is not the answer either - these just drain the soil more quickly of nutrients. Here is how it goes:

Year 1: Plant Montshyto GM Wheat. Harvest

Year2: Plant Montshyto GM Wheat. Harvest

Year 3; Plant Montshyto GM Wheat. Harvest

Year 4: Plant Montshyto GM Wheat. Harvest

Year 5: Plant Montshyto GM Wheat. Harvest

Year 6:Plant Montshyto GM Wheat. Harvest

Year 7:Plant Montshyto GM Wheat. Harvest

Year 8: F**k - where has my top soil gone.............

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NickW said:

This isn't enough land on this planet to grow enough crops to replace gasoline with ethanol. Higher yield / GM is not the answer either - these just drain the soil more quickly of nutrients. Here is how it goes:

Year 1: Plant Montshyto GM Wheat. Harvest

Year 8: F**k - where has my top soil gone.............

Your topsoil just washed away into the (pick your river) Mississippi, where it is silting up the channel and now needs to be dredged out, then deposited who-knows-where as dredge spoil.  Oh, well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NickW said:

I plucked 35% out of the air (perhaps confused with efficiency for a diesel engine). Lets rework that on 25% then.

At 25% efficiency for gasoline an engine running on ethanol has to be 34% efficient to get the same motive effort at the wheels.

I know that adding small quantities of ethanol to gasoline can slightly improve fuel economy as it raises the octane rating but as you add more the effect is to lower the overall calorific value of the fuel and this works against the improved octane rating to the point where mpg will be much lower for significantly ethanol 'enriched' fuels.

For example (these figures are purely hypothetical)

'E3' may give you a 5% improvement in fuel economy compared to straight gasoline

'E30' gives you a 20% fall in fuel economy compared to straight gasoline

I presented the challenge about 35% vs 25% or 20% more as sarcasm then as a real point of contention...although I did find sources that used the 25% and 20% figures. But I like the fact that you sort of made up your number.

The point I was/am making is that you're using an irrelevant formula to to examine the issue. An internal combustion engine that is optimized to run on gasoline should (and usually does) reach peak efficiency when using gasoline. If the issue was simply predicated on the use of higher energy-content fuels then you would be able to fill your gasoline-powered car with petroleum diesel fuel and get more miles and better horse power. But you can't do this, the gasoline car probably won't start or run.

If energy-content was the reigning factor then if you use bio-diesel in a diesel-optimized engine you would get less MPG. But you don't; lower BTU bio-diesel fuel will deliver the same miles per gallon as petrol-diesel, even though it has less energy-content.

And, in some circumstances, such as with E30, you can get superior miles and performance than with either E0 or E10. If energy-content was king this could never, ever be the case. If you are unaware of tests that prove this let me know and I'll provide links.

In addition, if any ethanol-gasoline blend reduces the mileage of a vehicle as compared to to ethanol-free gasoline, but the lower cost difference is greater than the percentage of lost miles, then the energy-content of the fuels are irrelevant. And this cost to miles-lost factor is almost always the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NickW said:

This isn't enough land on this planet to grow enough crops to replace gasoline with ethanol. Higher yield / GM is not the answer either - these just drain the soil more quickly of nutrients. Here is how it goes:

Year 1: Plant Montshyto GM Wheat. Harvest

Year2: Plant Montshyto GM Wheat. Harvest

Year 3; Plant Montshyto GM Wheat. Harvest

Year 4: Plant Montshyto GM Wheat. Harvest

Year 5: Plant Montshyto GM Wheat. Harvest

Year 6:Plant Montshyto GM Wheat. Harvest

Year 7:Plant Montshyto GM Wheat. Harvest

Year 8: F**k - where has my top soil gone.............

This is simply incorrect. The U.S has far more available land than needed to grow enough crops for ethanol to replace gasoline. This is also true of Canada, Australia, China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, and many other countries. On top of this is the fact that "land" may not be required at all (use of salt water seaweed and algae). In fact, because of the runoff from sheep, New Zealand's costal algae may be enough to provide ethanol for the entire world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Your topsoil just washed away into the (pick your river) Mississippi, where it is silting up the channel and now needs to be dredged out, then deposited who-knows-where as dredge spoil.  Oh, well.  

[edited for violating community guidelines] Many factors can cause a blockage in a river, and in the case of rivers that flow into the Gulf of Mexico, this has been the case. Thank god for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But if you really want to alleviate the potential of this problem then the nearly 10,000 golf courses in the states that feed into the Mississippi River should be shut down. And all food-crop farming should be shut down. And there should be no vineyards or hops farms in these states. And there should be no flower nurseries. Oh well.

Edited by Rodent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

This is simply incorrect. The U.S has far more available land than needed to grow enough crops for ethanol to replace gasoline. This is also true of Canada, Australia, China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, and many other countries. On top of this is the fact that "land" may not be required at all (use of salt water seaweed and algae). In fact, because of the runoff from sheep, New Zealand's costal algae may be enough to provide ethanol for the entire world.

Lets examine the evidence:

This is a bit dated but daily global production of gasoline is about 18 million barrels (2.6bn litres) which annually is 950bn litres. 

On calorific value you would need to produce 1280bn litres of ethanol to give the equivalent value of Gasoline

https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/articles/37/

1280 bn / 1200 (gross production per acre from sugar cane) = 1067m acres. 

Planting, harvesting, processing and distilling all has an energy cost but lets ignore that. 

The USA's entire stock of agricultural land  (much of which will not be suitable for arable crops) is 1016m acres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land

Factoring in input energy you are talking about turning over an area of agricultural land 20-30% larger (taking into account processing energy) than the bank of the USA's ag land to produce ethanol or approx 2x Brazils current agricultural land. 

How many people are going to starve to death or face increased malnutrition to achieve this biofuel revolution? 

 

I'm genuinely interested in the Kelp / seaweed side as the UK has a massive coastline relative to its size. 

This article suggests 50 litres of ethanol of 20 m3 of biomethane per wet tonne of kelp so I'm not certain this is commercially viable. 

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2013/06/from-the-beach-to-the-pump-is-kelp-a-viable-biofuel.html

An added benefit is the waste would be a good supply of nutrient rich fertiliser. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

I presented the challenge about 35% vs 25% or 20% more as sarcasm then as a real point of contention...although I did find sources that used the 25% and 20% figures. But I like the fact that you sort of made up your number.

The point I was/am making is that you're using an irrelevant formula to to examine the issue. An internal combustion engine that is optimized to run on gasoline should (and usually does) reach peak efficiency when using gasoline. If the issue was simply predicated on the use of higher energy-content fuels then you would be able to fill your gasoline-powered car with petroleum diesel fuel and get more miles and better horse power. But you can't do this, the gasoline car probably won't start or run.

If energy-content was the reigning factor then if you use bio-diesel in a diesel-optimized engine you would get less MPG. But you don't; lower BTU bio-diesel fuel will deliver the same miles per gallon as petrol-diesel, even though it has less energy-content.

And, in some circumstances, such as with E30, you can get superior miles and performance than with either E0 or E10. If energy-content was king this could never, ever be the case. If you are unaware of tests that prove this let me know and I'll provide links.

In addition, if any ethanol-gasoline blend reduces the mileage of a vehicle as compared to to ethanol-free gasoline, but the lower cost difference is greater than the percentage of lost miles, then the energy-content of the fuels are irrelevant. And this cost to miles-lost factor is almost always the case.

The only way this can be is if the engine running on ethanol is significantly more efficient at converting chemical energy into kenetic energy than the engine running on gasoline. 

Please show us some bonefide tests (preferably government) that demonstrate that Ethanol per litre will give comparable fuel economy to that of petrol. 

BTW the biodiesel comparison is a poor example because biodiesel has a very similar calorific content as conventional diesel unlike ethanol and gasoline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

I presented the challenge about 35% vs 25% or 20% more as sarcasm then as a real point of contention...although I did find sources that used the 25% and 20% figures. But I like the fact that you sort of made up your number.

The point I was/am making is that you're using an irrelevant formula to to examine the issue. An internal combustion engine that is optimized to run on gasoline should (and usually does) reach peak efficiency when using gasoline. If the issue was simply predicated on the use of higher energy-content fuels then you would be able to fill your gasoline-powered car with petroleum diesel fuel and get more miles and better horse power. But you can't do this, the gasoline car probably won't start or run.

If energy-content was the reigning factor then if you use bio-diesel in a diesel-optimized engine you would get less MPG. But you don't; lower BTU bio-diesel fuel will deliver the same miles per gallon as petrol-diesel, even though it has less energy-content.

And, in some circumstances, such as with E30, you can get superior miles and performance than with either E0 or E10. If energy-content was king this could never, ever be the case. If you are unaware of tests that prove this let me know and I'll provide links.

In addition, if any ethanol-gasoline blend reduces the mileage of a vehicle as compared to to ethanol-free gasoline, but the lower cost difference is greater than the percentage of lost miles, then the energy-content of the fuels are irrelevant. And this cost to miles-lost factor is almost always the case.

Errrr -  because diesel won't ignite in a spark ignition engine thats why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0