I was reading in machine design magazine, an interesting editorial on why
detroit is so interested in flex fuels. Seems the MPG standards are (for
purposes of CAPE) based solely on the gasoline component of the fuel. This
is of course, an artificial number just to get past regulatory restrictions.

full article:
http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/72894/LelandTecshlersEditorialWhatshotNotethanol.aspx

Leland Tecshler's Editorial: What's hot? Not ethanol
This special issue looks at some of the technologies and industrial themes
that are eliciting a lot of interest in the technical community. But perhaps
more interesting than some of the "hot" technologies we review is what you
won't find here: any discussion of ethanol.

January's North American International Auto Show could well have conveyed
the idea that ethanol-based fuel would have been a hot topic this year.
Amongst much hoopla, carmakers introduced vehicle after vehicle that could
run on E85. Even Ferrari showed off an E85-mobile.

Veteran automotive analysts were unimpressed by this onslaught of E85
exuberance. They knew the real reason Detroit was so keen on ethanol: By
producing flex-fuel vehicles, automakers can artificially boost the
fuelefficiency numbers they must meet under Corporate Average Fuel Economy
standards. That's because for CAFE, the federal government counts only the
amount of gasoline a vehicle consumes getting from point A to B and ignores
any ethanol it burns on the trip. A flex-fuel SUV, for example, might get
city mileage of about 14 mpg on pure gasoline. But for purposes of CAFE, it
is assumed to be running on E85. So on paper the SUV gets about 29 mpg of
gasoline in the city.

Of course, most such behemoths will rarely pull up to an E85 pump. So the
29-mpg rating is more myth than reality.

And odds are Las Vegas will become a city of teetotalers before today's
ethanol processes will replace a significant amount of petroleum-based
fuels. The basic problem is a lack of heat energy in the feedstock. Crude
oil contains about 18,400 Btu/lb; coal, 10,400 Btu/lb. But corn comes in at
7,000 Btu/lb. Switchgrass, billed as the next great hope for ethanol
feedstock, has only 6,400 Btu/lb.

The low heat energy of switchgrass means no matter how efficient the
refining process, mind-boggling amounts of the stuff are necessary to
produce meaningful quantities of ethanol. To see this in real terms,
consider an informal exercise cited by energy journalist Robert Bryce. Based
on U.S. DOE estimates, a plant able to produce 80 million gallons of ethanol
annually would need to take in 1 million tons of corn stubble. That much
stubble would take up 67,000 semitrailers. Put another way, that is 187
semitruckloads a day. The plant's annual output of ethanol would be the
equivalent of 53 million gallons of gasoline, or just 0.04% of the U.S.
annual gasoline consumption.

But what about biodiesel refined from algae? It's not clear algae-based
biofuel is economically practical. As with switchgrass, you need a lot of
pond scum to get much fuel. Researchers at the University of New Hampshire
estimate it would take between 9.5 and 28.5 million acres of land, depending
on your assumptions, to produce enough algae for U.S. transportation fuel
needs. Raising algae in bioreactors is another option, but the cost for
meaningful outputs quickly gets into the eyes-glaze-over range.

The best that can be said is that the jury is still out on whether you'll
see algae biofuels in a future "hot" issue.

But enough about that. Readers of our print and digital editions will
probably notice Machine Design has a new look. We've updated our graphics
and introduced a few new features aimed at forging a closer link between the
print magazine and machinedesign.com. It's all in the interest of better
serving our readers.

- Leland Teschler, Editor

On Aug 15, 11:39*am, "Oppie" <op... (AT) saynotospam (DOT) com> wrote:
it's bullshit lip flapping; hydrogen fuel makes the most sense,
universally available, easy to produce and a significant source of
energy; this flex fuels nonsense is just more footdragging by the
small minded herd mentallity pandemic in detroit. gm is in a fight to
survive and these imbecile execs waffel over flex fuels- it will be
justice when they are begging for change on the street corner in a few
years. morons !

Thanks for the info Oppie, a very good read. While working a brief stint for
Chevy last year, I had the opportunity to speak with a GM corporate trainer
about E85, known to us old-timers as ethanol. What he said shocked me and
mirrors exactly what your post says. He said that it takes an excessive
amount of corn to produce enough E85 to fill the tank of a Avalanche, in
other words, it takes enough corn that would feed a family of four for a
year to produce a single tank full of E85 to fill a large SUV.

Furthermore, common sense says that it would take farmers more money to
produce corn, just doesn't grow overnight, get plucked and regrow again
overnight, it takes alot of money, time and resources to maintain a field of
corn. BTW, I ought to know , I live in farm country in SC, which just
happens to be one of the few pilot areas for E85 and talk to farmers alot.

S. America produces their E85 from sugar cane, which again, requires lots of
land to cycle crop growth and again, money and time. For whatever reasons,
the US is stuck on corn based E85.

Then there's the trickle-down effect. If it costs farmers more to produce
corn, the price of corn-based foods goes up, including animal feed, so guess
what? Now you are paying more for food. Also, E85 burns at almost twice the
rate as gas, so you do the math. The bigger the vehicle, the more E85 it
consumes. Is this really a viable alternative? Hopefully consumers will wake
up and realize how they are being hoaxed by the big companies and how the
CAFE laws are being skirted right beneath their noses.

The new Algae-based fuel merit much more research than what the US is
currently doing. Likewise, Solar power is another (abandoned) alternative
that absolutely works and can be manufactured today at a lower cost than it
was available 30 years ago when the US abandoned the technology as a viable
primary fuel alternative, but that's another story.

Hydrogen cars. As far as the Honda Clarity, refer to the Saturn EV1, mark my
words, history will repeat itself once the leases are up. (ref: Who killed
the electric car?)

How about Mr. Garrison's "IT" vehicle in the South Park episode? Personally
I think it makes more sense than E85.

--
marx404

The whole business of alternate fuels is a lot of smoke and mirrors between
big businesses, government and physical science. E85 is 15% 'gasoline' and
85% ethanol. Ethanol has only about 67% the energy per gallon that gasoline
has
http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/bse/442-884/442-884.html
where energy is proportional to MPG. Renewable is good but know what the
real costs are.

I've heard that Ethanol from sugar cane is more viable than from corn. We
don't grow cane here in any large quantities so I can assume that it is a
good opportunity for the commodities traders to make a profit on a resource
and shaft the rest of us.

I have not read much about Hydrogen production. Whether it is separated from
the air by a liquefaction process or separated from water (by electrolysis
or heat) will require lots of energy.

Solar power - at this point, photovoltaic panels still have low efficiency
and are expensive for large scale use. Efficiencies are getting better but
it will be a while before new developments make it to mainstream. There are
some solar farms that concentrate the sun's heat on pipes that make steam to
turn conventional power generation turbines. I haven't seen efficiency
figures on it though.

Wind power - There were several proposals made for wind power farms offshore
in the Atlantic. Jersey had a bill signed to put a wind farm 12 miles off
the coast. From what I've read, all the proposals have been shot down by
shore property owners that argued that their peace and quiet would be
disturbed by the woosh woosh of the mills, not to mention their view of the
sea would be marred... Personally, I would find the noise less disturbing
than that of a jet ski zipping about.

Nuclear? In spite of my name being Robert Oppenheimer (no relation to the
scientist), not going there. It looks to be the only viable long term power
source but I still question what is the total cost in terms of making the
fuel rods, operating and safety costs and then finally spent fuel costs.

Oppie


"marx404" <404 (AT) 404 (DOT) com> wrote

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

I forgot about catalysts that reduce the energy needed to break molecular
bonds of water and separate it into H2 and O2. energy still needed but less
than straight electrolysis. I found one recent breakthrough that looks
exciting.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/hydrogen-production-breakthrough-from-mit-a-giant-leap.php

other programs
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/production.html


"Oppie" <boppie (AT) noapam-ludl (DOT) com> wrote

<snip>

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

We were talking up this on the Ford trucks board, and as I stated there,
separating the hydrogen out of water will not realistically work. Water is
the "ash", (if you will) of burning hydrogen in the first place and can not
be separated from water to produce any negligible energy...It'd be like
trying to start a fire from campfire ashes with the mentality that "well
this stuff was once a tree, it should burn".... Yes, the ash is still the
wood from the tree, but it's energy has been used & depleted.....Same with
water. Besides, thank God it can't be done. Can you imagine the
consequences?? How long before we inhabit a dustbowl due to destruction of
our water? Heh - you want to talk about some real global warming and
climate changes!!

I still say the answer is when Black & Decker finally comes out with the
"Mr. Fusion" as seen in "Back to the Future". Throw in a banana peel and
beer can, and your off to work!

IYM

"Oppie" <boppie (AT) noapam-ludl (DOT) com> wrote

Most chemical processes are reversible given the correct amount of energy.
The lead-acid battery in the car is one example. It has a sulfuric acid
electrolyte and lead/ lead sulphate plates. As it charges, the sulphate goes
into the acid, when it discharges, the acid goes into the plates (off the
top of my head, I can't remember the exact electrochemistry).
In water, the combination of a molecule of hydrogen (H2) and a molecule of
Oxygen (O2) makes H2O + H and gives off energy. To reverse the process, you
supply enough energy to break the molecular bond and separate out the
component gasses.
As far back as the 1700s, hydrogen was made by passing steam over red hot
heated iron filings. This was enough energy to break the molecule and the
resulting O2 was absorbed by the iron to become iron oxide. Very inefficient
process but made enough hydrogen for observation balloons.
Electrochemical electrolysis came next where an electrical field was able to
separate the molecules. The Hydrogen was formed at the negative electrode
and Oxygen at the positive electrode. The process works well on a small
scale. Too much electrical current though and the water simply boils and
hydrogen/oxygen separation is a moot point.

The case I cited was using a catalyst to aid in the separation of the
molecules. By definition, a catalyst moderates a chemical reaction though
does not enter directly into the chemical equation. Most catalysts of this
type have a high surface energy that boosts the effect of an otherwise weak
external force. This would be electricity produced by some other process.
The idea of any viable alternate fuel is first to be renewable but made with
an economic process. I hear that corn to ethanol actually uses more energy
to produce than it delivers. Ethanol by sugar cane is closer to breaking
even. Hydrogen production by a catalytic assisted electrochemical process is
a promising technology still to be proven. Biological converters such as
Algae that use sunlight and some food source to make methane is also a
promising technology.

Bob 'Oppie' Oppenheimer
Electrical Engineer
<IYM> wrote

On Aug 17, 11:51*am, "marx404" <4... (AT) 404 (DOT) com> wrote:

I looked up the story of the ev1 you refered to, very interesting.
I've got who killed the electric car ? on order, looking forward to
seeing it. I think some important lessons may be learned from that

thank you

In article
<ba101047-d2c1-4720-a495-936b89d66170 (AT) i76g2000hsf (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
raamman (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

The answer to "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is "Physics and Chemistry."

No battery ever built can store enough energy (at a reasonable weight)
to compete with hydrocarbon-fueled engines.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

On Aug 23, 1:53*pm, Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn (AT) earth_link (DOT) net>
wrote:
how about in terms of emissions ?