Poll: The True Alternative Fuel

[ragingfish]

There's much speculation still over what will eventually replace gasoline as the primary fuel for engines and industry. Recent articles have lead me to understand that ethanol, if processed and developed in a more efficient way, has more environmental benefits, and more useable energy, then currently known. What do YOU think will eventually be developed into a fuel that can finally replace traditional gasoline?

[NascarXprt]

with me it can go in three ways the big one right now is the ethanol then its might be Hyrdogen/ Fuel Cell technology then plian old electric.

[northvibe]

from what ive seen e85 gives crappy mileage. im going with hydrogen fuel cell.

[joatmon]

I say Hydrogen/fuel cell, only because Honda has announced they will begin production of such a vehicle in 3-4 years link

[ragingfish]

Quote, originally posted by northvibe »from what ive seen e85 gives crappy mileage. im going with hydrogen fuel cell.now it does, but they believe they can do better with it...Quote »Ethanol could reduce fossil fuel need: studyBy Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent Thu Jan 26, 4:13 PM ETWASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ethanol -- alcohol produced from corn or other plants -- is more energy-efficient than some experts had realized and it is time to start developing it as an alternative to fossil fuels, researchers said on Thursday.While some critics have said the push for ethanol is based on faulty science and mostly benefits the farm lobby, several reviews and commentaries published in Friday's issue of the journal Science argue otherwise."We find that ethanol can, if it is made correctly, contribute significantly to both energy and environmental goals. However, the current way of producing ethanol with corn probably only meets energy goals," said Alexander Farrell at the University of California Berkeley.Farrell and colleagues looked at six studies used to argue for and against the development of ethanol as an energy source."One of the main purposes is to explain why the studies found in the literature have such divergent results," Farrell said in a telephone interview."Some of the studies use what appear to be obsolete data or data whose quality cannot be verified," Farrell added.Currently, ethanol is not a significant source of fuel, but is blended into gasoline in some states. Environmentalists hope it could be developed as a cleaner source of fuel than oil or gas."The 3.4 billion gallons (15.5 billion liters) of ethanol blended into gasoline in 2004 amounted to about 2 percent of all gasoline sold by volume and 1.3 percent of its energy content," the researchers wrote.Farrell said it was possible to put ethanol in a car and run it, but making ethanol using current technology is expensive and contributes to pollution and greenhouse gases."(The environmental cost) comes entirely from making fertilizer, running the tractors over the farm and operating the biorefinery," Farrell said.Better methods now being investigated would use the woody parts of plants, using what is known as cellulosic technology to break down the tough fibers."Ethanol can be, if it's made the right way with cellulosic technology, a really good fuel for the United States," said Farrell, an assistant professor of energy and resources."At the moment, cellulosic technology is just too expensive. If that changes -- and the technology is developing rapidly -- then we might see cellulosic technology enter the commercial market within five years."Writing in the same journal, scientists from Imperial College London, Georgia Tech and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee said they had teamed up to find ways to make a facility to do that.Their facility would make a range of fuels, foods, chemicals, animal feeds, materials, heat and power using what is known as biomass -- a collection of renewable plant matter and biological material such as trees, grasses and agricultural crops."We're looking at a future for biomass where we use the entire plant and produce a range of different materials from it," Charlotte Williams of Imperial's Department of Chemistry said in a statement."Before we freeze in the dark, we must prepare to make the transition from nonrenewable carbon resources to renewable bioresources," her team wrote.An oil industry expert said it was possible."Credible studies show that with plausible technology developments, biofuels could supply some 30 percent of global demand in an environmentally responsible manner without affecting food production," Steven Koonin, chief scientist for BP in London, wrote in a commentary."To realize that goal, so-called advanced biofuels must be developed from dedicated energy crops, separately and distinctly from food."

[kostby]

Living here in central Indiana, and surrounded by corn and soybean fields, I'd say bio-diesel and petro/ethanol (E-10) blends are THE short-term and medium-term answers (next 50 years). NO changes are required for vast majority of vehicles on the road today to use the appropriate petro-blends immediately!The only downside is filling up the tank more often because the blended fuels probably contain fewer BTU's per gallon than the straight petroleum concoctions.As I understand it, E-85 requires some changes to make sure the fuel system won't dissolve itself (e.g. plastic parts affected by the high ethanol concentration).Even if Honda produces a practical $25,000 hydrogen fuel-cell car TODAY, it will be 10 years before you can easily drive one across country, unless you want to drag a trailer full of liquid hydrogen behind you!I see it as a problem of inertia: Our current manufacturing, petro-fuel-producing, and petro-fuel-delivery infrastructures aren't going to be replaced overnight.Don't kid yourself: The cost of developing all that new manufacturing/producing/delivery infrastructure will be borne by you and me - the end-users!Yes, hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles hold a lot of promise: NASA calls them 'space ships'!

[PHXLavaVibe]

I vote for the Hampsters....but I don't see it listed.

[engineertwin2]

Ok, so I had to add to add the choice as hybrid, even though it isn't technically an alternative fuel. I used to make my annual trek to Detroit for the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) World Congress each year and have been fortunate enough to sit in on several presentations on the future of automotive fuels.It is for each of us to draw our own conclusion as to whether it will be ethanol or hydrogen, etc. Obviously, the infrastructure exists for ethanol but mileage numbers are nowhere near promising for ethanol, as pointed out previously. Additionally, no infrastructure exists for hydrogen and I believe there is still concern over what can truly be done with the byproduct (gray water) of hydrogen.My interpretation has been that most of the industry is putting eggs into the baskets of hybrids and cautiously pouring some dinero into fuel cell technology (energy density is promising).So long story short, I think that hybrids are the cars of the next 20 years....Sorry to drag on...

[northvibe]

i say we all get diesel engines and run them off of restaruante cooking oil. just imaging eating and filling up your tank in one stop...and it wouldnt be roller dogs it would be good food

[GMJAP]

Ethanol, per gallon, takes more than a gallon of petroleum to produce. Using ethanol actually uses more oil than just gasoline!Really, it's a joke; it's just kept alive for the purpose of getting subsidies.(Even if the entire US corn crop were used for Ethanol, it would produce enough to run maybe 10% of the cars on the road.)Biodiesel has similar problems.As was effectively admitted in the article Raging posted, it's way behind the curve from a development standpoint than even Fuel Cells.

[binary]

A quick fact - some corporation owns the patent for a vehicle that obtains it primary source of energy from a battery. And they're licensing the patent for an insane amount of money.I would guess that you'll never see a primary battery vehicle until the USPO over turns these idiot patents that are holding back technological advances that may actually save our environment.I would also dare to say the corporation is probably related in some long list of sister corporations to an OPEC house.The only two problems with Hydrogen cars is that it takes more energy to produce hyrdogen that it gives back. And the cars generate the more prevelent green house gas - water vapor.

[northvibe]

a cousin of mine works for ford, said there are so many patents on better made engines etc. but the licensing is the issue...sounds lame to me.

[rmarkw]

Biodiesel is already fairly available depending on where you live. I know someone here in town that brews his own. VW diesels get around 50 mpg. Our government needs to invest more into developing alternative energy sources instead of giving record tax breaks to the oil industry.

[GMJAP]

Quote, originally posted by rmarkw »VW diesels get around 50 mpg. Yes, but they pollute like crazy. The VW Golf TDI gets the EPA's worst pullution rating.Diesels offer something of an economical advantage due to the higher mileage (I say something since diesel was carrying a $.70 premium over unleaded here at one point), but from an environmental point of view they're quite irresponsible. There's no diesel on the road today that'll meet new US or European emissions regulations coming down the pipe in the next couple years.Besides, as I've already said Biodiesel takes more oil-industry petroleum to produce than an equivalent amount of regular gasoline!!

[Stang2Vibe]

This is a very interesting topic and one that I've often put a lot of thought into. As far as diesels in general, they are supposed to burn cleaner than gasoline engines, at least chemically. I thought the main pollutant from diesel exhaust was fine particles, mainly soot, etc. from the way diesel burns upon compression as opposed to from a spark.And as for biodiesel taking an extreme amount of petroleum to produce, I'd like to see exactly how that works. I saw something on the Discovery Channel a few weeks ago that highlighted some guy who lived on the west coast (Oregon I think?) who went around to 5 local restaurants and collected used frying oil to convert to biodiesel for his 1985 Nissan pickup and newer VW Jetta. He had a full biodiesel processor in a barn on his property and they showed the whole process. I don't recall anything about having to use petroleum products in the process, but he did have to test each batch and add relatively small amounts of additives to make the fuel properly. He said that it made his vehicle's exhaust smell like tacos, which is far better than what diesel exhaust normally smells like, lol.I think that hydrogen will be the way to go in the future once appropriate fuel cells can be produced. There are so many sources of hydrogen, it's just a matter of time before someone discovers a way to unlock hydrogen from other things it's chemically bonded to in a cheap and practical way. And what's up with this water vapor problem? When the hell did the ecoweenies declare that water vapor is now a greenhouse gas? What's next, water vapor also eats imaginary holes in the ozone layer too? Great. Another scientifically unfounded paranoia that is going to cost me more money. God forbid that we should emit too much of that all-poisonous water vapor. Water vapor is the devil, you know. Seriously, what the hell is up with that? Every living human body constantly emits water vapor as a natural byproduct of respiration. Will I have to go for an annual measurement of the water vapor that I exhale at a state-approved emissions station? Will we have to have emissions stickers stuck to our a$$es to show that we passed the emissions test? Just another thing to suck a few more dollars out of me every year for no damn reason. And Rubbermaid better get on the ball too. We're going to need an airtight seal on every ocean and body of water on earth to prevent all that nasty water vapor from evaporating into the atmosphere. Oh crap! I just realized that my glass of water is downstairs uncovered on the table! It's slowing evaporating and destroying mother earth! Greenpeace activists have chained themselves to my front porch to protest my water vapor pollution! They're threatening me with violence if I don't quit breathing out water vapor that is polluting the earth! Aaaaaaaggghhh! Good heavens, this is even more whacked out than the other bogus crap the ecohippies go around freaking out about. I swear, they must sit around and get real high and think this stuff up. > "I'm telling you maaaan, this water vapor is really bad stuff maaan. The little water vaper molecules go up in the air and make like this greeeeeenhouse thingy and then they, uhhh, they like exploooode maaaan and it makes all this polluuuution up there in the atmosphere maaaan." > Next I'm going to hear that all the marine life on earth is endangered because there's too much water in the world's oceans, right? Oh come ON already! This lunacy has got to end somewhere.

[GMJAP]

Quote, originally posted by Stang2Vibe »This is a very interesting topic and one that I've often put a lot of thought into. As far as diesels in general, they are supposed to burn cleaner than gasoline engines, at least chemically. I thought the main pollutant from diesel exhaust was fine particles, mainly soot, etc. from the way diesel burns upon compression as opposed to from a spark.This is very much not true. As far as greenhouse gasses go, then yes diesels produce somewhat less during combustion. However, diesels produce significant amounts of NOx particulates, which is the chemical precursor to acid rain. It also causes lung damage on exposure.One of the problems with Biodiesel is that it actually produces more NOx than petroleum diesel.Personally, I'll stand up and say here & now problems like lung damage and acid rain are more of a consideration than nebulous long-term issues like the greenhouse effect.(Ethanol & other biofuels are also more volatile than gasoline, so you have many more toxic volatile organic compounds being released during the fueling process.)Quote, originally posted by Stang2Vibe »And as for biodiesel taking an extreme amount of petroleum to produce, I'd like to see exactly how that works. I saw something on the Discovery Channel a few weeks ago that highlighted some guy who lived on the west coast (Oregon I think?) who went around to 5 local restaurants and collected used frying oil to convert to biodiesel for his 1985 Nissan pickup and newer VW Jetta. He had a full biodiesel processor in a barn on his property and they showed the whole process. I don't recall anything about having to use petroleum products in the process, but he did have to test each batch and add relatively small amounts of additives to make the fuel properly. He said that it made his vehicle's exhaust smell like tacos, which is far better than what diesel exhaust normally smells like, lol.There is a brief overview of a Cornell study here:http://scienceagogo.com/news/2...shtmlEDIT Link to full study:http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/...5.pdfEssentially, petroleum is used during crop production (pesticides, fertilizers & farm equipment) and during processing.If you read the entire study, it also notes that the entire US annual corn production, if it was entirely converted to Ethanol, could only provide fuel for 10% of US automotive uses.What this Discovery Channel guy is doing is great & interesting on a local level, but if it takes 5 restaurants' waste oil to run one guy's cars, this is not a viable alternative for the US automotive industry.(Don't forget that this leaves out from the equation all the energy costs to produce that oil too. Which, as waste oil, may be fair, but not for direct-production energy sources.)

[chrisp]

BIODIESEL ! Just go to the UK . There folks go to the ASDA (Walmart) and buy several gallons of cooking oil and put it into their cars. They run great ! The catch ? They get busted for not paying the road TAX. LOL

[Stang2Vibe]

Wow. I'm blown away by such a thorough and concise response. Thank you very much for sharing this info, it really does make a lot of sense. I'm no chemist or specialist on byproducts of combustion, but what you said about the differences in the exhaust gasses seems to make sense. Doesn't diesel fuel also contain a high amount of sulfur? I thought it was the sulfur that was the main contributer to acid rain (sulfuric acid)? And I didn't realize that biodiesel produces more noxious pollutants than petroleum diesel. That sucks. There are several South American contries that are producing a lot of biodiesel to power farm equipment and factory generators because the biodiesel is cheap to produce and the ingredients are plentiful.Quote, originally posted by GMJAP »Personally, I'll stand up and say here & now problems like lung damage and acid rain are more of a consideration than nebulous long-term issues like the greenhouse effect.Now that is an excellent statement! I agree wholeheartedly and I'll drink to that! Here, here!Being in the construction industry myself, I'm constantly exposed to diesel exhaust. I've read in trade publications that the federal government has placed much stricter emissions standards on construction equipment (which largely were exempt previously) and that a catalytic converter for diesel engines has been developed and will probably be required on all new trucks and most equipment. I see these measures as helpful, but not a long-term solution.As for the links to the university studies, I will read them with a careful eye. Universities like Cornell and especially Berkeley have had agenda-driven studies, particularly when it comes to environmental issues. They somehow always seem to make a case for what they set out to prove rather than research and observe given conditions/events in a truly objective manner. But nonetheless, I'll read them, at least out of respect for the effort that you took to post them here.Quote, originally posted by GMJAP »Essentially, petroleum is used during crop production (pesticides, fertilizers & farm equipment) and during processing.Ok, now you've embarrassed me on this one. I usually think of things like this, but I've dropped the ball on this one. I should have thought of the entire process that is required to grow and harvest the crops and the amount of fuel that is required to accomplish those tasks. It's a good thing that I'm not from ancient Japan or I would have to disembowel myself .There's also the issue of soil depletion that we have to consider along with this as well. It is not largely known (for whatever reason) that the soil in the US heartland has been having some troublesome depletion issues over the past few decades and this is going to lead to some real problems. Corn crops are known to depleat large amounts of minerals and nutrients from the soil in which it grows. If all current annual US corn production can only produce 10% of all US automotive fuel, then we've got a very serious problem with using biofuels as energy sources for transportation. We would destroy all the US farming soil long before we could even approach a full conversion to biofuels.Quote, originally posted by GMJAP »What this Discovery Channel guy is doing is great & interesting on a local level, but if it takes 5 restaurants' waste oil to run one guy's cars, this is not a viable alternative for the US automotive industry.I forgot to mention that he only collects the used fryer oil from the restaurants about once every 6-8 weeks. I agree that this is not the solution to the transportation fuel needs for the US, but at least it is a helpful start to making good use of the waste oil as you mentioned.Thank you very much again for the informational and thought-provoking post. If we can take all the pieces of the puzzle (and this is only one piece) and put them together, mankind as a whole can certainly come up with a viable solution to the current energy problems.

[GMJAP]

Quote, originally posted by Stang2Vibe »As for the links to the university studies, I will read them with a careful eye. Universities like Cornell and especially Berkeley have had agenda-driven studies, particularly when it comes to environmental issues. They somehow always seem to make a case for what they set out to prove rather than research and observe given conditions/events in a truly objective manner. But nonetheless, I'll read them, at least out of respect for the effort that you took to post them here.Yes, your point about the U's, particularly Berkely, is well heard. There is quite a bit of debate on this total-energy-cost issue of ethanol and biodiesels. I'm not sure what all the agendas are, though the keep-the-subsidies-coming determination of the corporations making the stuff is pretty clear, as is the power of the "save-the-farmer" message to politicians.I should also mention there are efforts underway to make devices that trap the diesel pollutants (many are urea-based, I think), but have implementation problems - like having car owners have to fuel up with both diesel and the urea-catalyst into separate tanks, or having to replace a urea cartridge every so many miles. Which pose compliance & disposal issues. Google on "urea diesel", "SCR diesel", or "urea injection diesel" for more info.

[Stang2Vibe]

Isn't urea basically concentrated nitrogen? I remember learning a little about it when I had another job that involved managing turfgrasses. But an interesting topic nonetheless.The major universities flat out scare me. In my view, as the large insane asylums began to be phased out in the 1960's, the universities have begun to take on the former patients and give them tenure. Many of those old asylums look like large universities, so the changeover was probably quite natural for them. But anyway, for several of the major universities, Berkeley in particular, to deny promoting primarily a politically liberal agenda would be nothing more than pure jest. I won't go any futher on that since this is outside of the P.A., but it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that universities like this publish studies that lend support to environmental extremism. They also have a vested interest in environmental extremism for monetary reasons. The longer that they can perpetuate environmental myths and cast doubt on conventional wisdom, the longer they receive grants and other funding to support their schools while pretending to do important and groundbreaking research. Any reasonable person could look at a stated test hypothesis of many of the environmental studies done by these alleged institutions of higher learning and reasonably predict the outcome of the study before it even begins. But the universities will still stand there with their open palms toward us saying "gimme money, gimme money, gimme money" and lo and behold, someone always does. To me, this is such a huge scam since the outcomes are all the same and there is no controlling authority to hold these places accountable for what they do with the funds. If they'd have taken half the money they wasted promoting extreme environmental agendas and conducting bogus studies and used the money to actually attempt to find a solution to the energy problems, we would probably already have a viable solution or at least be well on the way to one. But both sides have to waste so much time, energy, effort, money, and resources bickering back and forth over who is right and trying to prove why instead of using those things to work on a real and effective solution. Instead we get band-aid solutions and half-cracked, half-a$$ed attempts at solutions for the most part. I mean, come on, we've been working on this since the 1970's. We recognized many of the real problems back then. Hell, we've had mandatory catalytic converters on gasoline powered cars since 1974, these are not new surprise problems. This is over 30 years we've been going back and forth on this stuff. It didn't take us half as long to develop a usable nuclear bomb and look at the huge advances in technology since that time. There's no excuse for not solving these issues, and the solutions are long overdue. We can no longer afford to accept or to take a complacent attitude toward the "doodling around" with all the funding that has been appropriated for this.We keep funding research and development for ways to get us off of oil, but all we keep getting are different ways to use oil, possibly less of it per given application, but still using it. Then we look back and say "gee, we're still using oil, how'd that happen?" Well, duh!