Say Anything Blog

It’s still not a good motor fuel without extensive(and expensive) engine modifications.  That cost has to be calculated, or the much lower gas mileage taken into acount, sans modifications.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

R108,
Obviously introducing ethanol as a primary fuel would not be an overnight event, but a gradual process over many years starting with new vehicles. It would be impossible to get everyone to convert their vehicles at the drop of a hat.

In Sweden, 5 % ethanol is presently mixed into practically all 95 octane petrol. This low blend of ethanol does not require any modifications to engines and the performance and running costs of the cars remain unchanged.

MIT have invented a viable alternative to gasoline powered engines.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

R108,
Obviously introducing ethanol as a primary fuel would not be an overnight event…

Absolutely, and so it isn’t any sort of solution to the problem of imported oil.  In much less time, we could ramp up our domestic oil production, thus boosting our economy and cutting off funds to terrorist oil-producing countries at the same time.  At the very least, increasing domestic production would give us more time to work on any alternative fuels that might actually be practical.
At a 5% dilution, ethanol won’t be any sort of major contribution, and I disagree that there is absolutely no difference.  No one is talking about the cost of capitalizing the ethanol industry, especially since it is being done on the backs of the taxpayers.
I just consider ethanol as being a waste of resources.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

The switchover to ethanol would be a tough process, it can be a decent fuel but it requires high compression. A 5% mix is a reasonable alternative especially since it would just replace an oxygenator.  (Still requires engine rework.)

The Chinese have been working on using a grass for paper fiber.  Cutting down trees to make NYT seems like a sin.  As our chemical/biology/energy technology picks up, interesting solutions are popping up.  (I wish I worked in something ineresting.)

108, I think 5% is workable.  If 50% of our oil is foreign then 5% dilution (assuming no other shifts) means a 10% cut in imports.  Just a step, granted.  But add ANWR which may cut another 10%, etc and we may hit some sane level of oil import. 

Nothing will be overnight, however, we need to be looking now.  (IMHO we can stick a fork in corn ethanol.  Soil depletion is one of my major worries for it.)

108, I think 5% is workable.

If the market calls for it(if people actually choose it), I’m all for it, but that’s not the situation; it’s being mandated on the backs of the taxpayers.  Let ethanol compete on an equal playing field: it’s the American way.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Currently I burn a 10% ethanol mix with no problems.  I’ve always bought the blended stuff as I’m from a farm state.

If this turns out to work as well as the article suggests we won’t need any mandates to force people to be green.  Simply buying the best cheapest product will be all that’s needed.

And if the new switchgrass is actually cheaper then engine manufacturers will produce engines that optimize that form of fuel.

Of course we should also develop ANWR and off shore resources.  We can do so without harming the environment significantly.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

We can do so without harming the environment significantly.

I think terrorism is a much worse threat to the environment than developing our resources ever could be.  Just a thought.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Cool, it looks like some of the research in switchgrass is happening in the state.  I’m glad to hear that North Dakota has the potential to grow it.

Of course that’s not as important as it sounds.  North Dakota isn’t well suited for corn (although a lot is planted here).  With so many people switching to corn the price of wheat skyrocketed which is something we’re very good at growing.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I think terrorism is a much worse threat to the environment than developing our resources ever could be.  Just a thought.

Well I agree with you as far as that goes.  However if we don’t buy the oil someone else will (at probably a slightly cheaper price).

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

For reference, an alumni newsletter I got from MSU (one of the “cellulosistic ethanol” research colleges) reveals that one big obstacle to cellulosistic ethanol is that all of the cellulose must be “unlinked” from the lignin chains in order to be fermented.  This requires acids, ammonia, and so on.

While it is possible that we might find a better “unlinking” solution might be possible, possibly an enzyme or catalyst solution--one maker claims this.  However, until such a solution is shown to be practical, the fact that the “unlinking” requires a certain supply of acid or other solution indicates that there is a certain “floor” in the cost of ethanol derived from this process.

Wiki:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol#Pretreatment

That said, I’d sure like to see farmers moving away from maize, and a resurgence in the Gulf of Mexico fisheries (and those in the Mississippi basin) currently hurting due to too much fertilizer in the water.  We’ll see.

Ultimately, it would be great to refine the Internal Combustion Engine so that it has better than 20% efficiency.

I heard an interview with a former F1 engine designer recently, who is currently developing a new engine which he hopes will resolve the energy crisis. Can’t find the story online though.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

This is something that (unlike politics) I am an expert on.  With a fine set of degrees in Botany and Horticulture from the real university in North Dakota, NDSU (said for Whistlers benefit with a smile) the challenge in the grass or paper conversion is the decomposition.  It’s not rocket science.  Cows do it all the time.  So do termites.  It’s e-coli bacteria that facilitates it. 

The good research being done on this right no is in California and Saskatchewan.  I’m watching both.  Bio engineering e-coli and replicating the action of the Termite gut to deconstruct the ligneous cellulosic materials into the O H that is needed is well underway.

The real alcohol is not Ethanol, but a sythesis of methanol and Butanol that comes from the same decompositions. 

Then, the capacity of CRP land to be harvested for cellulosic materials, corn stover, wheat straw, newspapers and as was once envisioned by an NDSU scientist growing aspen or boxelder for wood chips to be decomposed.

And, to the Global Warming Religion, it’s acceptable.  No new carbon is generated by this process and what is even better is as it is used for energy it is taken OUT of the atmosphere and used in kinetics.

So, I am optimistic, North Dakota is just a bit late to the party.

[b]Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this could be their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce. 
And they go down fighting.

the real university in North Dakota, NDSU

Explains why it takes you so long to catch on. 

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

it would be great to refine the Internal Combustion Engine so that it has better than 20% efficiency.

That’s true, but we’ve got a hundred of years of refinement and havne’t done that much.  It seems they used to talk about ceramic engines (so they wouldn’t need a cooling system) but I haven’t heard much lately.

Maybe something else like fuel cells will be more efficient.

Something will do better. The first to arrive will reap a lot of rewards.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

The first to arrive will reap a lot of rewards.

Only if it doesn’t require taxpayer subsidies and govt mandates.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Well even so the guy that develops it would make a killing, at our expense and loss of course.

Having the government enforce your business plan is pretty nifty if Unamerican.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

We should keep in mind that all of the improvements in engine technology--ranging from the steam engine/turbine to gas turbines to gasoline/ethanol/diesel internal combustion engines--really only get the Carnot efficiency of such a machine up to about 35% at best.

Carnot efficiency of such a machine up to about 35% at best.

I’m from Hickville so I pronounce it ‘Kar Nott.’ I like seeing French people wince. 

given that cars have doubled in weight WHILE improving acceleration performance over the past 20 years it is absolutely shocking that fuel efficiency has stayed the same.  Every time efficiency has improved we’ve found a way to eat it up with gadgets and stuff.

That’s not all bad, in many ways the cars are a lot better now.  Certainly better than the post oil embargo late 70’s.

In a way that’s human nature.  You buy a compact fluorescent light bulb and leave it on all day because it’s so cheap to run.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Actually, cars haven’t doubled in weight; the Civic, for example, has gone from about 1800 to 2600 lbs in 20 years. 

What’s up with the mileage?  Well, you have a certain vehicle profile (dictated by the usual size of the “people” in the vehicle), and a maximum length, which dictate the wind resistance, which dictates how much air the engine must pump, and thus how much gasoline it must use.

So the same mileage as 20 years ago?  Yup, same laws of physics.  Sure wish Congress would stop pretending they’ve changed.

You either have to make the engine more efficient, decrease how much energy is lost via braking (or better recoup this kinetic energy for later reuse), or you have to reduce the drag of the vehicle.  This does all three:

Top speed 95 mph, great acceleration, and has 230 mpg at a cruising speed of 55 mph.  Does it by dramatically reducing the drag of the vehicle.

Think about it, for a vehicle moving at constant speed, in a frictionless environment, it would roll forever, basically infinite mpg once you got it started.  Fred Flinstone propulsion would even work.  So while Bubba makes some good points about the gas consumption at a given power level, you can reduce the amount of power needed dramatically by dropping the aerodynamic drag, and thereby correspondingly increase mpg.

This means that switchgrass ethanol delivers 540 percent of the energy used to produce it

I’ve read that a couple of times to see if I’m missing something, I can’t put my finger on it. Isn’t it a law of physics that you cannot ever get more energy than what is put in? What am I misunderstanding?

I’m also not sure alcohol is that eco-friendly as a fuel. I’m basing that on having hung around the pits at a few circle tracks where alcohol cars were racing, it doesn’t take long for the eyes to start burning. I guess that could be due to incomplete combustion at lower engine speeds, though I’ve always assumed that the exhaust was somewhat caustic.

"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

Spartacus, that “540%” figure ignores the energy the “sun” puts into the equation--and since the sunlight falls for free, that’s probably fair.  This is just efficiency as far as human factors are considered.

Carrick, interesting; I wish them well, but take a close look.  Do you see any hard numbers in their website for acceleration, horsepower, headroom, legroom, shoulder room, trunk space, and such? 

Why not?  I’m guessing that these factors were, um, “degraded” in their optimization of mileage.  Time will tell, but this engineer has a hunch.

Thanks Bubba, that helps clarify it.

"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

The heat we get from the sun is a result of its “inefficient” conversion of hydrogen to helium as a way to generate light, just like the heat from an incandescent light is a result of its inefficiency in converting electrical resistance to light.
I’m wondering if any of the scientists here can give an example of an energy conversion that is anywhere near 100% in the real world.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Didn’t mean to be obtuse, people, but here’s how I see it: Govt “fuel efficiency” standards are really mandates on energy use.  We aren’t actually increasing the efficiency of using the fuel, we are mandating less fuel be used, through smaller vehicle size, lower carrying capacity, possibly lower speeds and through human-hostile design(in favor of streamlining).
Instead of developing the energy we demand, the govt is trying to force us to use less.  In other words, they simply want to collect their taxpayer-paid salaries, and not do what we pay them to do.  It’s the same in the electricity business; as long as it’s a govt monopoly, we will have chronic energy shortages.  This way, govt can continue to promise that we’ll have energy, but won’t actually deliver it.  The way of socialization of the energy market is higher prices combined with shortages of supply.  Socialism doesn’t exist to give the individual citizen what he or she wants; it exists to empower govt to control our lives “for the common good”.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Bubba:

Carrick, interesting; I wish them well, but take a close look.  Do you see any hard numbers in their website for acceleration, horsepower, headroom, legroom, shoulder room, trunk space, and such?

Take a look at the video review from Popular Mechanics. There’s no reason an electrically powered car should do worse than a gas engine.  Plus the transmission can be made much simpler (electric engines are capable of very high start-up torques.)

There’s no reason an electrically powered car should do worse than a gas engine.

I would take what I read in PM with a grain or two of salt. I’m a member of the SAE and receive monthly updates that include such information. PM takes advantage of editorial glamorization when they publish articles. The SAE publishes their own mag which covers many of the same issues and addresses them from the automotive engineers point of view, although the future looks promising, it’s not as bright and shiny as PM makes it appear. For a closer look check out via google “Automotive Engineering International” subscription may be required, my apologies, I can’t help that.

"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

it’s not as bright and shiny as PM makes it appear.

I sounded rather bleak stating that, allow me to clarify by saying much more development is required and it IS being addressed.

"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

Carrick, you’ve just done a bait & switch; from the alleged 230mpg diesel to the plug in car.  Which is it?

Plus, I’m watching the video right now, and ahem, I’m not seeing any answers to my questions.  “you’ll be surprised how quick it is” does not answer real acceleration questions.  There are also no specs on headroom, shoulder room, leg room, and trunk room.

The engineer in me gets real suspicious when people praise things without getting hard numbers or a reasonable context, to put it mildly.

108 asks a great question about what processes are 100% energy efficient.  More or less, it depends on how you define “efficient"--not trying to pull a Clinton on you, but reality is that your efficiency depends on what you want out of a tool.  Do you want heat out of that lightbulb, or do you want light?  If it’s heat, you’ve got 90% or so efficiency.  On the other hand, if it’s light you want, you’re not doing so hot.  It all comes down to the 2nd law of thermodynamics & how much entropy you’re willing to accept.

If you want heat, you can get real close to 100%.  If you want motion, light, or other things, you’re generally doing pretty well at 30%.  Either way, man’s law does not override physical law--entropy always increases, so there are upper bounds to the efficiency of any transducer.

Do you want heat out of that lightbulb, or do you want light?  If it’s heat, you’ve got 90% or so efficiency.

Pretty much both in North Dakota.  In the summer you don’t use the lights all that much.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.