It's Time for a Alternative Energy Source

[Charles Owlen Picket]

I dearly love my country. I have sacrificed and worked for her. I love & respect the Constitution & the Bill of Rights. However I am afraid that we may be faced with a serious Depression if alternative Energy sources are not achieved very soon!

I don't know how much gas is where you are....down here it's $3.80. We are reaching the end of the era of the gasoline/diesel engine. My belief is that the oil companies are aware that we will start in earnest on alternative fuel and they are making the most $ they can toward the end of their energy "reign".
IF we go to hydrogen; they will no longer be in business to any great extent.....Ethanol can be made from thousand of tons of garbage - it DOES NOT DEPEND ON CORN! They have committed they own demise by sneering at electricity. We have HAD electric cars since the 1980's that were just fine for highway use (That's how I made some of my money for my home, by the way - Those stocks in those companies were bought up by GM!).

But if we don't alter our engine fuel mechanisms I am VERY concerned that we will be looking at the greatest Depression since the crash of 1929! All perishable goods / foods move by truck; so many things including UPS / FedEx, large trucking lines, etc will raise their prices - that the trickle-down impact may bring about a serious Depression in the economy....not a recession- but a Depression. I have grave concerns for the next few years unless we really begin some radical changes in fuel & energy.

I implore you all to become scientifically & politically active to the extent of your abilities & to work within the system to get us OUT of the SAME OLD methods of behaviour, both Nationally & Internationally. If we don't become VERY active domestically & instead continue to be the "World's Policeman" we will ultimately suffer here at home. If that means "Isolationism", so be it. We MUST start taking care of America first. Another "Great Depression" is just around the corner; which in my opinion will have a greater overall effect than we could ever dream of.

Jobs will dwindle & the Dollar will become worthless. We will be ripe for dictatorship & destructive radicalism or the Right or Left. We must work for alternatives to our energy needs before most anything else. Medical care means little if you can't get to a doctor. Retail sales will be of a subsistence nature, & what transpired in Germany in the 1920's may become a reality.

So much Depends on an expansive view-point at this time politically......we must get our heads out of the sand! The very 1st step is to continue to talk about this subject and not let it get relegated to a by-line in the news while some low-functional starlets goes to rehab! We MUST keep this issue of alternative energy alive.
... it's now really time to broaden our horizons!

I would love to start a discussion on alternatives to existing energy sources. Many of us have a hobby of studying energetic materials and high energy employment. What a think-tank we have if that hobby were channeled toward the end of alternatives to the present wastage or get-rich-quick schemes! Most all of Western civilization (& Asia as well) will be affected if alternatives are not developed & implemented!.
Is hydrogen the next appropriate move in internal combustion engines? Is electricity? I personally have seen ethanol made from common garbage (& it's quite cheap). I am hoping a discussion on this subject would blossom because it's high time we did something to curb this problem BEFORE we find ourselves "out of gas" & in desperation. Logical thinking in times of desperation is very difficult, indeed....

[file]

We have approx. 200 years worth of oil, oil sands, shale oil and coal(which can be made into oil) in America or off our coasts. However we need to find a practical, cost effective alternate fuel.

Ethanol made from waste products, switch grass, etc. is probably one of the better things out there, because we have plenty of space for those plants. Just not corn, because that would use up too much of our food supply. I'd avoid hydrogen though, because it will leak through anything and burns very easily. Just seems like an accident waiting to happen.

As far as power generation for the power grid, nuclear is a very cost effective option compared to other means and puts out a lot of power per plant.


I agree that the US needs to start working on our own problems for a change. Cleaning up our government, fixing the energy problem, etc.

[Microtek]

I don't know how much gas is where you are....down here it's $3.80.

Is that per gallon or what? If so, that translates to about one dollar per liter correct? Where I am (northern Europe) gasoline is $2.4 per liter or $9.3 per gallon. It has been at that level for years.

Incidentally, I completely agree that a good alternative method of storing energy is required. The thing is that while fossil and nuclear fuels are already there ready to burn, any fuel that you synthesize needs an energy input which is greater than what you can pull out of it (obviously).
So, whether you choose to biosynthesize plants and convert them to alcohol, electrolyse water to get hydrogen or charge a battery you are essentially doing the same thing: Storing energy that you have to produce in some other manner.

Personally I rather like one storage method that was developed recently: Hydrogen from whatever source is converted to ammonia and then bound in a metal complex (eg. MgCl2*6NH3 IIRC). The ammonia can be liberated by moderate heating and is directly useable in fuel cells, producing nitrogen and water. The energy density is reasonably high (quite close to that of gasoline) and there are no leakage or flammability problems.

As for an energy source... Most energy sources on earth (apart from nuclear types) are solar power in disguise: Plants are maybe the most direct examples, but both wind and water power are ultimately just converted solar power. At present, solar cells are quite efficient (but expensive); if you covered an area one tenth the size of Australia, they would generate enough power to cover all the power requirements of the world at the present level of consumption.

[JohnG]

Gas here ranges from $3.86 to $3.99 per gallon. Not too bad considering I was in Connecticut last week, and the cheapest gas I saw was $4.19.

I have to say that while I do think that hydrogen is the best choice (for autos), I just don't think that the US is ready to pump the billions of dollars into the infrastructure that will be needed. Although I would like to see hydrogen powered vehicles, I think that realistically it is a technology that is still a couple decades away. Electricity is available now, everywhere, so that is probably where we are headed for the near future.

As for alternative energy for my house, for the past few months I have been considering a geothermal heating/cooling system. They are a bit expensive (I am figuring about $15 -18k for my needs) but considering I spent almost $4500 on oil last year it will be worth in in the long run.

I am happy to see the US is finally looking into building new nuclear power plants. However actually building them and opening them will not necessarily go smoothly. I grew up near the last plant opened in the US, and it was quite a struggle to get built, then open about 15 years after construction began. I was in school at the time, but I remember the propaganda that was being put out by the anti-nuclear people. (The ocean temp will rise 1.5 degrees a mile from land! Oh no, think of the poor fish!)

Massachusetts finally (tentatively) approved a wind farm off the southern coast of Cape Cod. They are planning to build 125+ turbines, capable of generating over 450 megawatts of power. You would not believe the outcry of people against this. 10's of thousands have written in protest. (Although maybe now with the skyrocketing cost of oil and gas some may be backing down). It will basically be out of sight of land (10 miles to the cape, 14 miles to Nantucket), so what is the problem? (Hint: think of the poor birds!) :rolleyes:

Other countries have embraced alternative energy sources, it is high time we did too.

[Lewis]

Indeed I used to be pro-nuclear. Now I am not so sure.

The cost effectiveness of the nuclear industry has always been somewhat suspect, nevermind the moral issues with nuclear waste being turned into weapons around the world.

Plants are built, and are great in the beginning. Powerful, cost effective, the works. But issues always arise, and before long they need constant repairs. Even in plants being built in Canada, which are much more advanced than the current American ones, have been fraught with troubles from day one.

There are probably better options than nuclear in the long run.

[Alexires]

Personally, I think that nuclear isn't a bad way to go.

In terms of portable energy, we have talked about hydrogen, and it dangers of storage. While this is true, perhaps it would be possible to store hydrogen in the form of Lithium Hydride?

A tank is filled with a Lithium foam/matrix, and hydrogen is pumped in. Le Chat's principle states that the hydrogen will react with the Li to form LiH, trying to reduce the concentration of Hydrogen in the system. When the tank is "full", most of the Lithium will have been converted to LiH, and when Hydrogen starts to be taken from the tank, the reaction goes in reverse and puts more Hydrogen gas into the tank, thus drastically reducing the amount of Hydrogen that may escape to the atmosphere, and in the event of a tank rupture, the Hydrogen will not all rush out at once.

Normal electricity can be used to crack water at home to form Hydrogen which can then be pumped into the tank, or solar power could be used.

Something to think about anyway.

[iHME]

I personally think that the most useful alternative energy sources will use transportation grids that are already there: BioDiesel, ethanol and electricity.
Tough natural&bio gas could work also. The idea is to use existing grids instead of completely new ones. Use of biodisel and ethanol would also allow the use of existing vehicle population.

Here In Europe usage of natural gas and bio gas to power vehicles is not uncommon tough it is not widespread either. Mostly public transportation use 'em.
The only way for me to determine if the bus I'm in does run on petrol or gas is that the gas tanks are on the roof of the bus covered by a hood.
As opposed to normal petrol tanks. The natural gas buses also tend to be in better shape than their petrol counterparts.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

So (rhetorically) where ARE the challenges? Why the fuck are we in this mess and others even deeper! Think of what it would mean paying over 9 dollars for a gallon of gas and living far from town!!!! My point here is that the gentleman who described the high price in N. Europe per liter would tell you that it didn't happen overnight....slowly they raised prices and the population was accepting of it. But that situation may be very different than the US & Canada's....we have to move our good great distances and have large agrarian "farm belts" that must get perishable goods to market on time.

Thinking along the lines of using existing grids; we have to come to grips with the internal combustion engine. It isn't going away. Would it be even feasible to convert that to hydrogen? If not what would the alternatives be? The population at large isn't going to be thrilled at their F250 rolling along the highway at 25mph......and there is a "debit" in performance with ethanol.

We have some very good ideas here - and while I think it's most logical to use existing grids and the platforms that we have been working with (internal combustion engines, etc) we do seem to be on the same page in regards to overall perspectives. Gentlemen, this may just be the subject of this age. In the USA it appears that Barak Obama may actually BE the Democrat candidate to be elected President. This in itself has powerful implication. Not only as the first black man elected as President but he is actually an outsider (one reason I actually lost a bet that he would NEVER get the nomination). I actually lost money due to my strong belief that the system was so corrupt that if you weren't in with big money, big oil, whatever, you would NEVER get a nomination. - Politics aside (I'm conservative anyway), this may be a healthy sign; that the real insider (Hillery) lost. We may take this country back to popularism and the Constitutional perspective of the People yielding power. (Too bad there isn't a chance in Hell of a Conservative winning.....) But that off topic.

I have also heard that Solar may be in it's true infancy and that something new is about to make itself known.... Solar makes so much sense but seems so clumsy. There must be a better way to devise a cell.

[tmp]

I've always been pro-nuclear. When was the last time the NRC actually
issued a license to build a nuclear power plant ? More than 30 years ?
Refinery space is also an issue. When was the last time the EPA issued a
license for one of those ? I understand the hassle for a refinery license is
almost as bad as a nuclear power plant. Putting aside the obvious greed by
big oil, the so-called government "regulators" are a pain in the ass !

I read an article, maybe Time(?) or one of those other magazines, where some
of the environmentalists may warm up to nuclear energy. It's not because
they have any love for nukes - they don't ! Their interest is in being able to
tell the oil-exporting nations to go fuck themselves ! I heartily agree with
that and would love to do so.

The biggest problem with solar is cost-per-kilowatt and efficiency. The last
time I priced one of the state-of-the-art solar panels I almost had a heart
attack. The absolute biggest problem with any of these non-fuel technologies
lies in the costs. I'm not saying they shouldn't be explored but the costs
have to come down in order to compete. If the price of oil keeps rising, that
will become a reality.

[megalomania]

There is a stumbling block in place that saps our efforts to develop alternative energies, some of it is the science, and some of it is politics. We fail as a society to realize our dreams for new energy sources because we cannot see the forest for the trees. We are too busy looking for the ONE source that best fits our needs, to hell with the rest, that we end up searching in vain. We fail as a nation because politics and greed are firmly entrenched in any great human endeavor. Wealth, power, and energy are synonymous with each other.

What energy source do we need to embrace: Solar? Nuclear? Clean coal? Ethanol? Biodiesel? Algaeoil? Hydrogen? Wind? The answer to all those questions is an emphatic YES. All of them, we need to embrace the multitude of alternative energy sources right now instead of waiting for one or another to pan out. We are faced with a forest of choices, but there need not be only one.

To solve our energy problems we need to embrace many different sources of energy because there is no panacea that fits every situation and requirement. If we wait until an ideal source of energy comes along, we may be in far worse shape than if we had adopted some interim technology. The "wait and see" approach is natural for a consumer inundated with conflicting choices who wants to save money. We don't want to be early adopters of something that may not pan out. We fail to see the problem in the correct way; we want to choose the energy option that saves us the most money, but in hesitating we pay far more now using traditional sources of energy.

By not trying new technologies, by not exploring or utilizing different methods of energy production, we are not allowing the science to mature. If we all hesitate, wait and see, keep looking for something better, nothing new will develop because no one will have experience using the new technology. The market experts will say these technologies are worthless because no one is buying them, and that will push many people away because they think the technology is a dead end.

Greed plays another very important factor in the energy game. The energy companies are firmly entrenched fixtures in the business world and they are not likely to sacrifice their profits anytime soon. They will push oil, coal, and gas until the very last drop has been wrested from the ground. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to make money, not to society to make life better. If flogging the petroleum horse long after it is dead means advances into alternative energy are stymied, so be it.

It is not just the big oil companies that get in the way, small business and entrepreneurs are far worse. Because big oil has made such an obscene amount of money over the generations, turning common men into millionaires, entrepreneurs are holding their cards very closely to their chests concerning new technologies. They think there is money to be made, big big money, and they will not sacrifice profits by disclosing any scientific research that a competitor could use. This harms us as a civilization because it compartmentalizes all energy science into isolated secret societies where only a select few are admitted, if you invest in the company. These entrepreneurs constantly reinvent the wheel in their quest for results, wasting money and resources on the same research being done by dozens of other companies, conducting and failing the same experiments, each oblivious to the successes or setbacks of the others.

Caught in the middle of the energy fracas is the consumer. We are the ones making other men rich while we watch a greater slice of our incomes evaporate just to heat our homes and drive to work. We hope someone will fix the problem before it is too late. We think there must be something coming along that will make everything better. What we don't do is think for ourselves. We would rather waste all of our hard earned money clinging to old sources of expensive energy than spend a little effort using new sources of energy which can save what money we do have.

We as consumers are faced with an unprecedented opportunity when it comes to energy. For the very first time in history we have the means to provide for our own energy needs. We don't need to wait for some big company to tell us what to buy from them, we can start down the path of energy independence ourselves. We can cut the big companies out of the loop entirely.

You may wonder how that is possible. Traditional energy depends on coal, oil, and gas dug up from the ground and delivered to us through pipes and power lines. He who controls the land controls the wealth underneath, and even then only those with the capital to exploit these resources can benefit. Alternative energy is decentralized and unregulated. No man can stop you from putting a solar panel on your roof or a windmill in your backyard. No government can legislate you fermenting your lawn clippings or household waste to make ethanol. We have an unprecedented opportunity to supply our own energy, at least in part, instead of being dependant on some far off factory or foreign policy.

Energy independence is not just a patriotic slogan, it can mean our individual independence from all utilities. This is perhaps what the big companies fear most, even our own government fears this. How can companies make a profit off of something you make yourself? How can the government tax something not piped into your home? The market will survive, and human civilization will continue on without these companies, but the transition will be painful as an entire industry is uprooted and discarded. All oil must eventually cease to flow because it is a finite resource, no law passed by any government can change this, and no amount of money in the world can stop it, but that does not mean this industry will go quickly or quietly.

When I talk about alternative energy my senses crackle with the excitement 19th century scientists must have felt at the dawn of modern science. I don't mean the professional scientists like we have today, but the budding experimentalists and amateur researchers who discovered so much of the founding canon of science. We as individuals working out of our garages and basement labs have the first real chance of making a difference in science in nearly 50 years. Perhaps society will no longer consider having a lab to be a disparaging insult, seething with connotations of terrorism or drugs. Even if we accomplish little more than satisfying our own energy needs, isn't it worth it to take the chance and embrace the new future of energy science head on?

[tmp]

Mega, you really got me thinking about the alternatives here and the costs.
When I look back on my own history with technologies, sad to say, I'm being
a hypocrite at the least and an idiot at the worst.

My history includes paying high dollar for evolving technologies - to wit, VHS,
VHS 4-head, VHS Hi-Hi, S-VHS, LaserDisc(which I still love), and of course
DVD although I'm not quite ready to make the leap into Blue Ray just yet. I
can't say that I have any regrets despite the ultra-cheap prices I see now.
The fact is that I've enjoyed the fruits of technology ! Hell, I want to buy
that quad-core 3.2 GHz machine I've been dreaming about and it'll cost less
then the platform I'm currently operating on !

One of the beautiful things I've seen with technology is that it's ultimately
counter-inflationary. I just saw a solar panel online, that costs $920
to produce 205 watts. There are others out there. But you spoke of getting
independent of the utilities - that's the really important issue. Like the
environmentalists who nervously embrace nuclear power, I want to be able to
tell Baltimore Gas & Electric to shove it up their ass ! :D:D:D

[AcMav]

Two years ago I found myself writing a thesis about the Outcome of Nuclear Power. Little known is the fact our government has been working against its progression for many years.

In the 1990's the United States had a project working on an Integral Fast Reactor, which is a type of reactor that eats its own waste, producing more energy in the process. Compared to current reactors which were able to extract 1% of the energy in the Uranium, the IFR could extract 99.5% in early trials. The waste was put back into the reactor to be further burned, removing the vast majority of the waste and was left had approximately the radioactivity of natural uranium.

However in 1994 our Government decided the research was unnecessary and to dismantle the facilities and stop research? Who would ever think to stop research on a technology that increases productivity from 1% to 99.5%. This seemingly happens way too often where the Government becomes swayed by outside forces and things get axed.

I do not feel it is possible for us to work on an Alternate form of energy successfully until our country bucks the hold of the Oil Tycoons. This probably wont happen until we reach this point of depression, as the Tycoons hold more power than the majority of the sheeple. Be wise and do your research elsewhere, as the US is not ready for wide scale Alternative Energy.

If you'd like to read about the IFR (Article Written Before the Cancellation) - http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html
Frontline Interview about the IFR (Written Two Years after the Cancellation) - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

[monkeyboy]

Mega, if you ever decide to run for office, you've got my vote. I truly wish any of the current crop of candidates understood/agreed with half of what you just said.

AcMav, I am definitely not a nuclear scientist, so this has always struck me as weird: OK, the radiation gets hot enough to make steam, which makes heat. Then we use a percent or two of the heat, we get rid of that fuel & call it waste. But we have a real problem disposing of it, because it'll still be really hot for a couple thousand years.

Seems like even without coming up with a new kind of reactor, you could get a lot more energy out. Or just have a series of less & less hot ones.

Oh well, probably makes too much sense to ever happen...

Oh yeah, the original topic:
Solar powered alcohol still:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/1979-07-01/An-Offbeat-Approach-To-Alcohol-Production.aspx

Converting your car to run on alcohol:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_drane.html
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/me2.html

Mother's alcohol fuel cookbook:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/meToC.html

Methane digesters for fuel gas & fertilizer:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/MethaneDigesters/MDToC.html

[Telkor]

Indeed I used to be pro-nuclear. Now I am not so sure.


Nuclear power would be quite good, but it's simply not enough. (approx. 7% of our energy are produced by nuclear power, and the Uranium stock of our planet is very limited).

So, we have three choices:

- better solar power (improved nano-photovoltaik e.g.)
- fusion technology (hardly realized)
- consume less energy

[AcMav]

As I am a student currently working towards a Nuclear Engineering degree, I may be very biased in my views. However at a time our country was powered 20% by Nuclear Power. The amount of Uranium found on earth far exceeds the amount of Fossil Fuels when you look at how long they could provide us with power, especially if we embraced new technologies (Or Older more expensive technologies)

Surprisingly with our few number of Nuclear Plants the US actually has 19% of its electricity supplied by nuclear power. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html). France has almost 78% of its power supplied by nuclear (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5369610). This shift occurred after France ran out of Fossil Fuels. Both Germany and France have been working on Nuclear Power for many years now. For once in our lives I think we'll be seeing the US rely on Foreign companies for our technology. Currently all "Nuclear" related facilities are being created by Areva, a French company.

However I'd like to attempt to address some of the questions raised. The reason current reactors cannot use all of the waste is because once they have decayed they form Elements that cannot produce as much energy as the original fuel. In the IFR, Efficiency is increased because the waste is reprocessed into reusable fuel. This could be done with our current waste but it is extremely costly to do so and creates "weapons grade" uranium and plutonium. In the IFR's case all equipment to reprocess these waste compounds are located inside the reactor casing. Allowing for Electrolysis to occur on the radioactive compounds creating more fissile materials. Now I've never read the findings of the IFR project to understand the exact processes that the wastes undergo to be reformed into fuel, but I'd guess these processes are complex and intricate, causing for the vast cost of an IFR facility.

Also currently the marketplace doesn't support this, the cost of disposing Uranium and the amount of Uranium available allows us to use extremely wasteful cheap reactors without concern. This is just like cars, If Gas were still cheap and plentiful, we'd have V12+ cars roaming the streets wasting gas everywhere. Nuclear Power plants pay for waste removal based on the power they produce, not the time it takes the waste to decay to safe levels.

One issue with the effectiveness of current reactors is the use of water as an intermediate between the reactor and the steam loop. This causes thermal inefficiencies because the water is kept in a liquid state (Highly pressurized) to prevent it from escaping in a gaseous form. Many of the new reactor designs utilize Sodium instead of water, removing the pressurization and allowing for much higher thermal efficiencies. Other reactors are designed to be able to run hotter, allowing for the fissile material to be used with less moderation (Prevention from completing fission). Sadly due to the "cheap" price of enriched uranium provided by our government, these efficiencies have never been an issue.

[megalomania]

It is not technology that is stopping nuclear energy, it is politics. Reusing that nuclear waste invariably leads to plutonium, and that causes other nations to get nervous. Then there is the security issue of protecting a facility with enough weapons grade material onsite to destroy several major cities. The environmentalists must be appeased, but they foam at the mouth at the very mention of nuclear while pointing out disasters from decades ago. To top it off, every nuclear reactor in the US is considered a prototype, all of them are different, so different in fact that operators can’t just go from plant to plant and know what to do.

I am a proponent of nuclear energy, but not as strong as I used to be. It is too politically charged of an issue, and there are too many sides wanting opposite goals that it will never be a feasible form of energy.

To do it right we first need a National Nuclear Reactor program to design a standardized facility. Nuclear engineers and NRC officials could go from plant to plant seamlessly and know exactly how to run the facility. Highly specialized experts could emerge that are intimately familiar with a particular function, and would be able to improve safety and efficiency. The NNR program would have to be run by scientists alone, without interference by politicians, environmentalists, pork belly contractors, and miles of red tape. A nuclear engineer knows more about nuclear reactors than Senator so-and-so, so the officials need to keep their mouths shut and stick to writing the checks. The NNR program will have to get over the fear of breeder reactors and use that waste to its maximum effect. Scientific estimates indicate if all electrical energy produced on earth was from a nuclear reactor, all of the worlds uranium would be consumed in 30 years. Breeder reactors would extend the nuclear fuel supply to thousands of years.

This will never happen because it would require an unprecedented level of cooperation within our government that has not happened since December 8, 1941, the last time the politicians all voted on the same thing.

To be even more cynical, we might end up with corporate fat cats building nuclear reactors in Mexico and exporting all of the electricity to the US. The Mexican fedgov will just rubber stamp whatever the suits hand them, and the Mexican people won’t be able to do anything to stop it. The mantra of many US citizens is nuclear now, just not in my backyard. With the plants tucked away just across the border we can feel at ease that the unregulated facilities in a country with no liability are giving us energy at $0.50 a KWh. Prevailing winds are from north to south, how can this possibly go wrong for us?

Does anyone notice a theme of the links posted by monkeyboy? All of that information is decades old, in fact almost all of the practical information we have on making fuel alcohol stems from the energy crisis of the 70s. Once the crisis was over all that innovation just stopped. It stopped cold. Digest that for a moment.

In 30 years there has been almost nothing new concerning making alcohol for fuel use. All the books and websites we have today are just rehashes of earlier decades old material. If you look at Mother Earth News from decades ago the articles read like solving the energy problem was just around the corner. They were SO CLOSE to making a huge impact, but it all just fizzed away somehow. The recent issues are still talking about the same problems from 30 years ago, but it is the 21st century now, you would think there would be some innovations!

Dr Nancy Ho at Purdue University developed a form of yeast that can digest cellulose, potentially quadrupling current ethanol yields with corn alone, and opening up vast sources of cellulosic waste as fuel sources. This was announced 4 years ago now, not a peep since. The technology has been “licensed” to Iogen, good luck getting so much as a single microbe of that yeast.

There are other researchers and companies whose names I have forgotten. There is the research to increase ethanol yields using E. Coli, licensed away to some company. There is the microbiologist who found a natural strain of algae that has the potential to produce significant amounts of biodiesel, licensed away under trade secret. There are the companies producing inexpensive enzymes from fungi to depolymerize cellulose into sugar so it can be fermented, all science kept a secret.

Patents, licenses, trade secrets. This is what I was referring to in my last post about greedy entrepreneurs reinventing the wheel and holding their technology close to their chests. These technologies could ignite a firestorm of innovation into ethanol production, but the science is a closely guarded secret. Years go by while one lone company idly experiments with the science, all the while keeping mum on any progress.

Search the Internet for alternative energy companies and you will find well designed web pages filled with flash animations of flowers and sunbeams, brief descriptions of the science behind the company no more sophisticated than a grade school book report, and a blatant sales pitch to invest, invest now. It is disgusting, disturbing, disheartening, disquieting, distressing, and disconcerting!

Go to an algae centric biodiesel bulletin board and ask “what is the best strain of algae for making biodiesel.” This is the newbie equivalent of “how can I make a bomb with stuff under my kitchen sink” on The Forum. The difference there is the question has not been answered. Most do not know the answer to that question, and the few that do are only willing to SELL you the information. These boards are teeming with people that just want a simple strain of algae. How hard can it be to say, “buy a vial of this algae for $10?”

Apparently it is some massive secret because nobody is talking. Algaeculture should be as easy as brewing beer, and there are plenty of home kits for that, but no such luck. People culture algae all the time, unintentionally, in fish tanks and swimming pools, but very few of the strains produce algaeoil that can be turned into biodiesel. There is the rub.

Then we have solar concentrators. A brilliant invention, or so I thought at first. The concept is simple: a parabolic mirror concentrates sunlight on a steel pipe, which produces steam, which is used to drive a turbine, producing electricity. It’s like a much cheaper version of a solar panel, except they don’t seem to be much cheaper at all. There are a handful of pilot electricity plants, and even one notable DIY project, but when they start adding up all the material costs it falls in the same range of photovoltaic cells.
I would like to know how some mirrors and pipe end up costing that much. Indeed when you factor in the heliostats, steam control pipe fittings, electrical generators, and scaffolding for the mirrors, it all adds up quick. Still, with a few improvements in technology (cheap heliostats) and some recycled building materials, the costs should drop very low. With enough people building their own systems we could start seeing some very beneficial innovation in the DIY segment.

Ethanol, algaeculture, and solar concentrators all sound like the answers to all of society’s problems if you read the glowing sales prospectus pitches propagandized by the PR pimps. When real people try this stuff it all falls apart in spectacular failure and disappointing disillusionment.

This does not mean the science is a dead end, it just means there is not enough knowledge available for the common man to get started on his own experiments. Knowing where to get plastic bags at $0.04 a foot instead of transparent pipe at $4.00 a foot for algaeculture could help. Knowing how to cultivate your own fungi and how to extract the cellulosic depolymerizing enzymes could help. Knowing how to turn an old car alternator into a steam powered electric turbine could help.

The secret to all of these technologies, in my opinion, is they can be accomplished much cheaper on the small scale by a DIY builder. A few recycled parts, some roadside castoffs, maybe the odd garage sale find thrown into the mix, and you have the makings of a fermentor/cultivator/reflector. Big companies can’t pull this off, they have to buy brand new equipment, hire special engineers, incorporate safety systems, and all before they produce so much as one Joule of energy.

I know I could do better.

[Jetex Kid]

Supplying more energy for an ever-expanding population is a very difficult, so let’s keep in mind that the problem can also be solved by reducing the population.

Not that long ago, communities were largely self-sufficient, but now are collectively vulnerable because they depend on a delicately-balanced national or global infrastructure to supply vital communications, fuel, transportation, food and medical care.

Relief from the energy shortage could be provided by gigadeaths arising from any of numerous means: a good traditional war or a nuclear war, naturally infectious disease like bird flu, bioterrorism in any of many forms , nanoterrorism or just a prolonged shutdown of the infrastructure. And population reduction is a renewable resource that can be used again and again!

We would do it voluntarily, but – nahhhhh.

[megalomania]

Read the "Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin for a very insightful philosophical argument of what Jetex is referring to.

[megalomania]

Yesterday I criticized energy companies that use algae in some form to produce biodiesel. Today I will examine an actual case study, a real algae company website that fits the stereotypical mold like all the rest.

Today, June 10, 2008, New Scientist has an article about a company using algae to produce "green crude." The article is short, and I will reproduce it here to pick it apart:


Algae oil promises truly green fuel
10 June 2008
From New Scientist Print Edition

THIS is one biofuel that lives up to its green billing in more ways than one. It's an emerald-green crude oil, produced by photosynthesis in algae, which could fuel cars, trucks and aircraft - without consuming crops that can be used as food.

"This product can go right into today's oil pipeline," claims Jason Pyle of Sapphire Energy in San Diego, California, which developed the fuel. He says the "green crude" is similar in quality to naturally occurring crude oil. It is produced as a by-product of photosynthesis by a genetically engineered strain of algae, housed in tanks of treated waste-water and exposed to sunlight. The tanks can be placed on non-arable land.

Gasoline, diesel and jet fuel have already been refined from the green crude, and the company aims to produce 10,000 barrels per day within five years.

<http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19826595.900-algae-oil-promises-truly-green-fuel.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news8_head_mg19826595.900>


A quick search reveals the Sapphire Energy can be found at http://www.sapphireenergy.com/. Browsing there the viewer is presented with a well designed website, but very little content. This is prototypical of these sites, they are more akin to brochures, or like sales pitches as I mentioned yesterday. Notice the POWERWORDS to sell you: "revolutionary platform..." "world's first renewable gasoline..." "potential to radically change America's energy…"

Their logo graphic is a perfect example of how they dumb down the science until it is only suitable for children. "Sunlight + CO2 + sapphire = renewable gasoline." Anyone looking for insights into the science of how the algae is used, or who may actually want to know if the company they are investing in even has a valid technology, had better look elsewhere. Many of these companies are actually scams, especially if based in South Africa. The "technology" they are talking about could actually be just a goal or broad outline of their business, not existing technology, but they make it seem like they are some established energy company to lure investors. They may actually be working on this technology, but the key here is the company's science exists only in the pages of press reports and news stories NOT peer reviewed scientific journals. This makes these companies highly suspect.

The New Scientist article mentions Sapphire Energy is using a genetically engineered algae. If this is true, although I didn't see any direct mention of this on their website, only allusions to it, this means they can patent the algae and hoard the technology for the next 27 years. The statement "genetically modified" may also be misleading. One would assume they designed the ideal form of algae: a species that maximizes algaeoil output, multiplies rapidly, consumes significant quantities of CO2 while at the same time consuming little nutrients, can effectively utilize wastewater as its nutrient source, can tolerate temperature extremes and still sustain reproduction, resists contamination by competing algae strains, and is efficient at using solar energy. That is what you would tend to assume, even one of those factors would be valuable, but a GM algae could mean anything, such as it has a slightly different shade of green than the rest. A superfluous change indeed, but still "genetically modified."

It is also possible the GM algae was developed by some university researcher years ago and it has come off patent, or they license it from a university. To a potential investor, saying you have a genetically modified anything implies you have a staff of skilled geneticists working in a modern laboratory and a budget that gets results. This implication would be intentional on the part of the PR and marketing people. In fact the "management team" and "scientific advisory board" reads like a who's who of geneticists and microbiologists if you believe the hype. If I had my own company, I could refer to myself as "one of the most sought after scientists of the age, a legend in the field, one of the world's greatest scientific geniuses." Who could vouch for the veracity of such speculative statements? Unless they "show me the science" everyone should assume this company does not have any of its own technology to offer.

There is one strain of algae I know of that produces algaeoil best suited for making gasoline rather than diesel. This is not new or unique, but Sapphire Energy would be the first company to my knowledge to exploit this strain. This type of algae is generally considered problematic because it is far easier to produce biodiesel directly from algaeoil, but the algaecrude of this strain requires traditional energy intensive petroleum refining. This is bad from an energy perspective because it means you have to have the entire petroleum industry and its hideously expensive refineries in place, but it can be good in that very few automobiles actually burn diesel. There is a lot more to this argument that I will not go into now…

One glaring omission from the Sapphire Energy website is the appeal for investors. They do talk a great deal about the investors they already have, so someone bit this hook. Perhaps they do have a valid technology, and I would certainly like to think some day one of these companies will, but until they give a little more detail than just "sunlight + CO2 + sapphire = renewable gasoline" I will remain skeptical.

I can infer from the Sapphire Energy website that they will be culturing algae in outdoor ponds in the desert. This activity is humorously called "slime ranching" in algaeculture circles, referring to algae being slimy, and ranching being the original livelihood of the deserts of the American southwest. This is the cheapest way to culture algae, and the technology is already well established by companies that culture algae for vitamin supplements. However, open air reactors are subject to expensive losses of water (shallow ponds + desert sun = evaporation big time), and to cross contamination of foreign algae species. Algae is everywhere, it grows even when you do not want it, and when you have an environment idealized for algae growth, you can't help but grow foreign strains. If your strain of algae is not robust enough to compete with the indigenous algae of the area, you will contaminate your ponds and have to reseed it. This wastes time, costs money, and reduces product yield.

Photobioreactors guarantee no foreign algae invasion, and the water can be recycled, but a large scale system requires a massive investment in transparent tubes/hose/pipes to culture the algae. These transparent pipes eventually get slimed on the inside, which reduces the amount of available sunlight reaching the algae, so they have to be cleaned, or replaced completely. These tubes are invariably made of plastic, and since they are exposed to a considerable amount of sunlight, they degrade and discolor, leading to solar intensity loss, or breakage.


The verdict is still out on which way is best. Either method would require a massive amount of money, a huge chunk of land, and a significant percentage of fresh water to satisfy all of the USA's fuel needs. At least in theory because no one has made algaeoil work on a big scale yet.

[megalomania]

I found this article on New Scientist as well yesterday, but I didn't read it until this morning. It seems there is a new movement to recycle nuclear waste after all, despite the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation.

US nuclear recycling plans raise proliferation risks
07 June 2008

IF YOU can't innovate, then reinvent the wheel. That seems to be the thinking behind the US Department of Energy's (DoE) plans for a nuclear fuel reprocessing programme - but this tactic may play into the hands of weapons-makers.

The idea of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel had been anathema to US policy-makers for decades because of the fear that plutonium could end up in weapons.

Then in 2006, the DoE announced plans to build a plant to test reprocessing technology that would both significantly reduce the amount of nuclear waste and keep the plutonium mixed in with other radioactive materials. Critics, however, argued that technology to do this didn't exist.

Now it seems the DoE has backtracked on its original plans and is using a separated plutonium technology similar to that used by Japan, France and Russia, according to an independent report by the US Government Accountability Office. "If mitigating proliferation risks and waste reduction are their goals, we think they should reassess their approach, says GAO researcher Daniel Feehan.

[FragmentedSanity]

Mega, you have let a few tantalizing bits slip over the years in regards to ethanol/methanol production from things like lawn clippings or household waste. I seem to remember you saying that you planned on conducting some experiments base on converting lawn clippings to methanol. Did that ever eventuate - or am I dreaming?
Is this an option in the range of an average DIYer or is it still more of a commercial venture?

[totenkov]

Corn is hardly an effective alternate fuel. Canada's oil sands were considered to be too expensive to exploit. that was a few years ago; now it is a raging industry. What happens when corn starts getting utilized for a fuel? Corn crop prices go through the roof. Food is more important that fuel. Asian countries and are experiencing severe food shortages, so far North America has remaining the last best West, but wait till it comes here.

As stated we are at the end of the petroleum age. It always gets darkest just before it goes pitch fucking black. Don’t hold me to the statement, but I am pretty sure Canada holds 25% of the world’s water supply. The US is primarily and import nation with little natural resources compared to the country to the north. We were asked to divert the Fraser River into the United States, with major cities relying off of rivers that run through multiple States, when those rivers dry up, you can bet the US won't be asking nicely for water.

No doubt, the next 100 years will be an interesting time.

[tmp]

Plutonium being produced ? Doesn't that burn in reactors ? I say, SO FUCKING
WHAT ! I say the concerns about plutonium are an acceptable risk in most
countries. It's the price we pay for technology. I'll concentrate on "other"
sources of electrivity for my home but I'm still pro-nuclear !

[megalomania]

Mega, you have let a few tantalizing bits slip over the years in regards to ethanol/methanol production from things like lawn clippings or household waste. Did that ever eventuate... ?

As a matter of fact I did run multiple fermentation batches of lawn clippings, obtaining a most foul smelling concoction that nevertheless had a small percentage of alcohols.

There exists only a small percentage of fermentable sugars in grasses, and this varies by species, time of year, and growing conditions. These experiments led me to look into cellulosic depolymerization as a means of increasing sugar percentages.

I only tried the historic acid hydrolysis, as seen on journeytoforever, but I was quite disappointed with the economics of this process. You waste acid, you waste lime neutralizing the acid, and if you don't do it right your yeast don't thrive.

I have been looking for an economic means of depolymerizing cellulose ideally suited for a DIYer. Unfortunately this problem is something the ethanol industry is struggling with, and have yet to solve. It is only a matter of time though...

It is looking for such science that I found about the cellulosic yeast, the yeast convert the cellulose into sugar themselves. Fungi enzymes are another potentially useful route, but the enzymes are still too expensive. Companies like Novazyme are working to drop the costs of the enzymes, and even if you had to buy from them (a not altogether unappealing prospect considering how tedious it must be to farm fungi yourself) it could work. That is IF they meet their cost goal of enzymes resulting in production costs of $0.10 per gallon of ethanol.

I would like to try some microwave methods. The reference for microwave depolymerization of cellulose is suspiciously absent in the second edition of "Microwaves in Organic Synthesis." This reaction would need to be scaled up, even for a DIY user, and microwave reactions are difficult to scale up in general.

What would be nice is a reusable acid catalyst to hydrolyze the cellulose, but that can be removed from the sugar solution as not to affect the fermentation. I forget if there are such technologies yet or not, it has been awhile since I last looked into this area of research.

There is also biobutanol which seems promising (they always say these technologies are promising), but I know very little about it. As I recall the same basic problems of getting fermentable sugars for ethanol apply, so I have not bothered to search for any references.

Algae seems to be where the greatest potential lies. At least in terms of overall fuel output with minimum cost and resources. Biodiesel does not help me at all because I don't have a diesel engine in any way shape or form, nor do I know anyone who has one. I can't dump the stuff in my gas tank, and that is really the goal here right? Sure, you can ferment the pressed algal cakes, but they still have to be depolymerized.

I figure the most economical system for DIY production of fuel is a duel algae culture and fermentation operation. The CO2 produced from the fermentation is channeled back into the algae cultures. A small diesel generator could be purchased to produce electricity with the biodiesel, the exhaust also being captured for use in algae culture. Yard waste and recycled paper could supplement the fermenter. With extensive modifications of the chemistry used to process the algaeoil, it should possible to produce a type of gasoline that can be mixed with ethanol and used in a gasoline engine.

"They" say running more than 30% ethanol in a gasoline engine not specifically made for flex fuel will dissolve the gaskets. "They" also say it is expensive and difficult to change the gaskets of a car to use gasahol (up to 90% ethanol). What I have never seen, and I looked, is how long it takes the ethanol to eat through your gaskets. Will it be a few days, months, or years? My car is over 10 years old now, if it takes 10 years to wear down the gaskets, I hope I will have a newer car long before then. I have heard third hand reports of people saying you can use up to 70% ethanol without harming the gaskets. Someone will figure it out eventually. If I ever do start cranking out enough ethanol I will buy a cheap beater car to use as the experimental test bed.

A DIYer can accomplish all these technologies, but the big problem is can you make enough fuel for yourself? It takes a lot of land and raw materials to make the minimum 600 gallons* per year of fuel. The analogy of the home brewer fits this perfectly because the tools, techniques, and materials are very similar. Plenty of people make beer or wine at home, sometimes in rather large quantities. There exist a number of suppliers and resources for the DIY brewer. We need the same thing for algae and fuel alcohol if it is to be successful. It will most likely happen, it will just take some time.

*Assuming you drove the national average of 15,000 miles per year per person, and your vehicle got 25 mpg, you would need about 600 gallons of GASOLINE. Ethanol only supplies 1/3 the mpg of gasoline, and I have no idea what the mpg of biodiesel is.

[Hirudinea]

Here's an interesting link on making ethonol from sawdust and other celulose products, mabye we could finally have use for all that damn paper we recycle.

http://www.green-trust.org/sawdust_ethanol.htm

[monkeyboy]

"They" say running more than 30% ethanol in a gasoline engine not specifically made for flex fuel will dissolve the gaskets. "They" also say it is expensive and difficult to change the gaskets of a car to use gasahol (up to 90% ethanol). What I have never seen, and I looked, is how long it takes the ethanol to eat through your gaskets. Will it be a few days, months, or years?

I don't have a real strong chem background, just mechanical. I believe that it's the MEK or Acetone that the Alcohol is denatured with that creates problems? The gov now allows denaturing with gasoline, should be fine?

I found a chart, lets see if I can paste it in here without mangling it too bad:

DURABILITY OF VARIOUS PLASTICS: ALCOHOLS VS. GASOLINE
Ethanol Methanol Gasoline
Conventional Polyethylene good excellent poor
High-density Polyethylene excellent excellent good
Teflon excellent excellent excellent
Tefzel excellent excellent excellent
Polypropylene good excellent fair
Polymethylpentene good excellent fair
Polycarbonate good fair fair
Polyvinyl Chloride good fair poor

Excellent: Will tolerate years of exposure.
Fair: Some signs of deterioration after one week of exposure.
Good: No damage after 30 days of exposure, should tolerate several years of exposure.
Poor: Deteriorates readily.
NOTE: All tests were made with liquids at 122 deg F.
Courtesy of Journey to forever's "how to adopt your automobile engine" pdf


*Assuming you drove the national average of 15,000 miles per year per person, and your vehicle got 25 mpg, you would need about 600 gallons of GASOLINE.

That's only 1.66 gallons per day from your handy dandy solar still:D



Ethanol only supplies 1/3 the mpg of gasoline

I think you meant 1/3 less, not 1/3 of...

My understanding is the higher the compression, the closer to the gas mpg you get, with about 14.5:1 achieving almost parity(alcohol isn't as prone to ping/knock, so you can get away with it).

and I have no idea what the mpg of biodiesel is.

Should be identical, I think.

I've got an old book around here
This one:The Mother Earth News Handbook of Homemade Power
http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Earth-Handbook-Homemade-Power/dp/B000HUROMA/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213328527&sr=8-2

If I recall correctly it makes the claim that the less gasoline you put into the alcohol, the lower you can go on the proof & still have the engine run. I'm digging it out to verify that. *edit* That book doesn't have anything on alcohol in it. I coulda sworn it did. I'll look around & see if I can find that info.
*edit2* Found it!
PLOWBOY: I've seen your furnace operate on alcohol-very effectively, it seems-but how efficient is the corn product as compared to fuel oil?

CROMBIE: Let me explain that in terms of the 70% (140-proof) alcohol that I burn ... since even the simplest still can produce a fuel of that quality. Now, fuel oil contains a substantially greater number of Btu's, per given amount, than alcohol. This means-in theory-that you'd have to burn a whole lot more alcohol to produce the same heat that a smaller amount of oil would provide. And that's exactly what would happen, too, if you burned pure (200-proof) alcohol. But as I said, the 70% alky solution contains 30% water. So you can "bum" that water along with the alcohol and still have a very hot flame. The water doesn't actually burn, of course, but you do end up consuming less pure alcohol than fuel oil to get the same amount of heat. And, as you saw in my furnace, the "corn likker" burns cleaner, too. It's a more "housebroken" fuel than oil is.

Incidentally, that water content comes into play when you compute the miles per gallon of alcohol used in autos, also. You might need more alcohol than gasoline to drive a certain distance, but you can run an automobile engine on a 60%-alcohol/ 40%-water solution ... whichbecause the water extends the alcohol-can actually give pure alcohol an mpg advantage over certain types of gasoline.

PLOWBOY: The oil establishment has tried to discount the value of alcohol fuels by stating that more energy is used in the distillation process than is contained in the finished alcohol. It would seem that your solar still takes the wind out of that particular argument.

CROMBIE: I've seen figures which show that the energy expended in the production of 190-proof alcohol fuel makes up about 40% of the cost of the entire distillation process. But solar energy is virtually free. And that means, if you can wait for the sun to shine-which isn't much of an inconvenience to a home alcohol producer-you can use a solar still and save 40% on the cost of your fuel right there. That's a big plus in my book.

That was from:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/print-article.aspx?id=66478

It also talks about running an old pickup & a tractor on methane generated from manure. I think one was gas & the other was diesel? *edit* Yep, it will run either a gas or diesel engine.

I'll look that up, too.

[megalomania]

Hirudinea, that link you provided is one of the most worthless ways of making ethanol from cellulose I have ever seen. Almost every step is wrong.

First, using strong sulfuric acid will destroy almost all of the sugars obtained from the cellulose. The black crud the article talked about filtering is the destroyed useless carbon that used to be sugar. The dilute acid process maximizes sugar yield, not that it does not have its own problems.

Second, the volume of water you would have to add to dilute that much acid will also dilute your sugar solution, and that will mean a slow fermentation. Neutralizing the acid with anything other than lime will form soluble sulfate sults that the yeast will not like. Calcium lime compounds at least form insoluble calcium sulfate that can be filtered out, but it is so energy intensive to recycle that back into sulfuric acid that it gets thrown away.

Third, whoever wrote that obviously has no concept of the chemistry involved with the leftover sulfate compounds, or the economics of what to do with them. If you dilute the acid with enough water to allow the yeast to ferment, you could recover the acid by boiling off the water, but the amount of energy required to remove that much water is far greater than you would get from the ethanol. If you have a sulfate salt, you can't just get sulfuric acid back by applying heat, and since the salts are bad for the yeast, you should not have any at all anyway.

Calcium sulfate is among the most inert substance known. There are massive mountains of calcium sulfate waste because nobody knows what to do with it. Sulfuric acid is not cheap, and to destroy it by almost permanently locking it in the form of calcium sulfate can get very expensive.

The effective depolymerization of cellulose requires something that is cheap and sustainable. An acid catalyst that is preferably recoverable, or at least easily recycled would be ideal. Using an efficient form of heating like a microwave can decrease the energy costs of depolymerizing cellulose. The point is it should cost you less in materials and energy to make ethanol than you get from the ethanol. This is the problem the ethanol industry industry is currently facing, the manufacture of ethanol from food crops is almost a zero sum game.

Even if you have free farm waste or paper waste, where do you get the acid, and the lime, and the water, and the yeast cultures, and the energy for heating? The acid is the biggest expense, and by that the most costly step is the cellulosic depolymerization.

monkeyboy, what I was trying to say is there is not a 1:1 relationship between 1 GALLON of gasoline, ethanol, and the oil that is used to make biodiesel. Many people are apt to confuse the misleading use of volumes if they are not aware of the differeng energy content. I looked it up, and it takes 1.53 gallons of ethanol to equal the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline, or 1.53:1. (this is about 2/3, not 1/3 as I stated prior). You would need to produce about 918 gallons of ethanol to get the same mileage, all other factors remaining equal. You would have to produce an average of 2.5 gallons of ethanol a day at a cost of about $2.61/gal to match gasoline at $4/gal.

Biodiesel itself may produce the same amount of energy as regular diesel, but I actually meant the disparity in volume between the oil obtained from algae, and the volume of diesel you actually get. People have demonstrated an actual yield of 1850 gallons/acre of algaeoil, but the process of making biodiesel from that algaeoil produces glycerine and other waste product. How much I do not know, but you have to take into account that 1 gallon of algaeoil, or any vegetable oil, will give less than 1 gallon of biodiesel.

The sly marketing people at disreputable companies will try to pass off these mathematical discrepancies in press releases and sales pitches. It can make their profit potential seem far greater if people assume there is a 1:1:1 energy ratio between gasoline:ethanol:biooil. On the DIY scale where pennies matter, neglecting such calculations can make you think a process is far cheaper than it actually is. If you thought making 600 gallons of ethanol would get you through an entire year, you would be scratching your head in puzzlement around August wondering why your tanks are dry :)

Also, I was under the impression that the ethanol in your gas tank had to be >99.9% dry, with 100% being best. I had no idea you could run wet alcohol, but that can't be good for the engine can it? Taking into consideration only the volume of ethanol consumed, wouldn't the presence of water cause the efficiency of the car to decrease leading to a net decrease in mileage for the wet fuel? If this happens, and depending on the degree of inefficiency, it may be the most energy efficient to shoot for 100% alcohol during distillation. As I said, I never knew you could run wet alcohol at all. There must be a reason they don't do this in industry right?

[Kaydon]

Wouldn't it be easier to buy a gasket kit for your vehicle, and soak it in a gasoline/ethanol mixture to see how long it takes to deteriorate? While an engine produces a lot of heat and pressures in the cylinder that would also factor into the time frame of destruction for the gaskets, it would give you an idea. I suppose.

Also I believe ethanol will degrade your hoses overtime, too. It's "harsher" than gasoline on rubbers and such.

Headgaskets are a mixture of rubber and steel, cork and copper.. Iron even. It depends on the manufacturer. Water pump gaskets are typically a paper like gasket, a thin cork material basically. Same with most timing covers.

Also, water in your engine is a bad thing. Water makes the lubricating capabilities of your oil downgrade, and that will cause excessive cylinder wear, ring wear, valve wear, bearing wear, etc. It's all a chain reaction. If you get too much water in your engine (I'm not sure of any specific amount that will cause this, but it's not much) you'll have what is known as Hydrolock occur, and your engine is now useless.

The Headgasket in my Toyota failed, and caused water and anti-freeze to leak into the cylinders, and the engine ran hot.. Luckily I cut it off in time and was able to have it towed back to my house for me to tear down.. A lot of bad things can come from water in your engine.

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/3447/yota016op3.jpg if you're interested as what it looks like if you don't know.. there's a pic.

Mega, what kind of car do you drive?

[monkeyboy]

Just (like 20 minutes ago) picked up a copy of "Alcohol can be a Gas" by David Blume

WOW! It's quite the encyclopedic tome.

So I'll get some parts of it scanned as I think it to be fitting, no time to scan the whole thing. (Damnit! I got to get me a MegaBookScanner put together...)

Mega:
Biodiesel itself may produce the same amount of energy as regular diesel, but I actually meant the disparity in volume between the oil obtained from algae, and the volume of diesel you actually get. People have demonstrated an actual yield of 1850 gallons/acre of algaeoil, but the process of making biodiesel from that algaeoil produces glycerine and other waste product. How much I do not know, but you have to take into account that 1 gallon of algaeoil, or any vegetable oil, will give less than 1 gallon of biodiesel.

Good point.

Also, I was under the impression that the ethanol in your gas tank had to be >99.9% dry, with 100% being best. I had no idea you could run wet alcohol, but that can't be good for the engine can it? Taking into consideration only the volume of ethanol consumed, wouldn't the presence of water cause the efficiency of the car to decrease leading to a net decrease in mileage for the wet fuel? If this happens, and depending on the degree of inefficiency, it may be the most energy efficient to shoot for 100% alcohol during distillation. As I said, I never knew you could run wet alcohol at all. There must be a reason they don't do this in industry right?

Well, I'm certainly no expert on it, but here's another quote(or 3):

Now, you don't need anhydrous alcohol unless you intend to mix it with gasoline (petrol). You may want to do this for the simple reason that you wouldn't have to do very much in the way of converting your engine, as you can make your own E-85.

E-85 is, as you might guess, 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline (plus some anti-corrosion additive). This is quite differnt than a product sold in the 1980s, called Gasohol, which was gasoline with 10% ethanol. This name confused people, and they didn't know if they could use it or not, even though it would work in any engine. So they went over to calling it "Unleaded Premium". This is a pretty good way to extend your gas mileage and also is a pretty safe way to use alcohol as a fuel, for the simple reason that if you ever run out of your home-made gasohol, you can mix it with unleaded gasoline. Then you are back on the road again. But the only kind of alcohol which will mix with gasoline (petrol) is 100% (200 proof) ethanol. If you have any water content in your home-made ethanol, it will separate out once you mix it with petrol. Water is heavier than gasoline, so it forms a thin layer at the bottom of the fuel tank of you car, and then gets sucked up by your fuel pump and your engine will cough and die. This isn't the end of the world, as you can get it removed by adding a bit of methanol to your tank (it is sold as "Gas Dryer" or various other winterizing products at automotive parts stores).

Now for those of us who like to run on pure alcohol which has no nasty petrol mixed in with it, then 160 to 170 proof is plenty high enough. You can get great mileage on this if you do a full conversion to alcohol, but you will be out of luck if you run out of fuel, unless you make your car a duel-fuel vehicle (which many people did back in the early 1980s, by installing a duel carburetor setup.) See my Web pages, Going Down the Road.
From http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id28.html which sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Water and gas don't mix.
This means you have to decide whether to convert your car to run on homemade high proof (then you are truely independant from relying on nasty and greedy oil companies like Esso/Exxon. ) For the best performance, you will need to change the size of your jets in yor carbuerator (if you have one) or the fuel/air mix of the elctronic fuel injectors. You would also want to up the compression ratio to 12 to 1 by installing racing pistons. Finally, you may need to actually install a separate fuel tank so that if you want to switch between petrol and alcohol fuel, you can do this with a bypass valve/switch, without having to drain the tank. If you have a little bit of 180 proof in the bottom of your tank and add petrol, the water in the alcohol will separate out and sink to the bottom. To get it out without draining the tank, you have to add either some 100% alcohol or better, some methanol (which is sold as a de-icer in automotive parts stores).

You do have to denature it, to the tune of 2%, using that small of an amount doesn't seem to have to adverse of an effect. Although I do seem to remember that the fedgov only allows the usage of 2% gasoline if you're above a certain proof, 160 I think.

1. Ethanol doesn't have as much energy as gasoline. 86,000 BTU's vs. 126,000 BTU's.
Answer: Burning it in an open flame to boil water is not the same as burning it in an internal combustion engine. Ethanol burns slower which is better for transfering power to the piston. It is a well know fact that only 14 to 18% of the energy in gasoline is used effectively, as most of it is lost in heat, as well as some unburned emisions. I have been able to get the same mileage out of 180 proof as I did with unleaded. If you start using E-85, you will get about 10 to 15 % less mileage, but pay about 20% less per gallon of fuel. If you modify your engine to optimize it for this high octane 106-fuel, your mileage will be the same as on gasoline.
...
3. Ethanol is highly corrosive.
This is nothing that can't be solved with a modern understanding of coatings, gasket materials, adhesives, and fuel additives In fact, VW, GM, Ford and many other companies have made ethanol fuel cars designed to run on alcohol. The other issue is that E85, which is 85% anhydrous alcohol and 15% gasoline has corrosion inhibitors to enable this fuel to be sold on the open market (about 15 states in the midwest sell this fuel).

Now in perusing the book I just picked up, he talks about that btu calcs are just made with a burner, whereas using them in an internal combustion engine is a whole different ball of wax. He says because of differences in speed of combustion, temp of combustion & other variables, an alcohol engine can be (and has been) built that is MORE efficient than a gasoline engine. About 40%, vs 20-25%.

[Alexires]

Also, I was under the impression that the ethanol in your gas tank had to be >99.9% dry, with 100% being best. I had no idea you could run wet alcohol, but that can't be good for the engine can it?

Actually, from what I have heard Mega, if you run pure Ethanol in your engine, you will burn the pistons out because it runs too hot. Water "soaks" up some of that heat, allowing it to burn cooler so it doesn't fry your pistons.

So, to clarify, pure ethanol must be added to petrol because the water will fall out of solution and screw your engine. If you are running pure ethanol water helps to reduce how hot the engine gets.

Remember also that the temperature in the pistons are well in excess of 100 degrees C, so the water isn't going to condense out into your engine and it should be passed out into the exhaust (hopefully).

[tranquillity]

A pyrolysis process has been developed that turns cellulose directly into hydrocarbons.
I originally found the article in my chemical engineering magazine "tce, issue 804, june 2008, pg 17" and a simmilar report can be seen here:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i16/8616notw4.html

There is a reference number to the research that may be useful (ChemSusChem, DOI: 10.1002/cssc.200800018)

[Alexires]

Nice post, tranquillity.

Interesting that they need to run it in a "special" reactor at 600C (I wonder what "special" is). Now enter Microwave technology. I wonder when someone will think of trying that.

For those interested, the catalyst that is being used (ZSM-5 Zeolite) has a patent for preparation that can be found in the patent section of The Forum.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

-=IF=- you know how to protect yourself: the exploration of the Magnetron from a microwave oven is a fantastic thing. ABSOLUTELY one of the most unique still legal high-tech power sources. I had briefly discussed this via PM with another individual. I have collected now well over two dozen various Magnetrons (& the MOT's and the associated caps/diodes to shake them all awake). I am collecting the really nice ones (Toshibas, Sonys, Fairchild, etc) as I have a funny feeling that it's not going to be so unbelievably easy to pull them off a microwave oven in the near future.

There is a classic microwave project (always featured in the Amazing1.com catalog, Information Unlimited) of making a collection horn and producing a tabletop MW gun (more of a cannon) to fry vegetables at 25 yrds, shut down electronics, or eliminate a beehive (if you have Africanized bees, that can be a really quality toy!!!!!). You can push 25 yrds (it's all in the collection device design & the size/power of the magnetron)but the device becomes bigger than a shoe box. However that is one piece of electronics that has the SAME level of safety requirements as energetic chemistry. You better DAMN well know what keeps you safe and stick to it. Once you study and have more than a dozen functioning brain cells; it's not too scary, but the power of a beam device is certainly on par with a big bang.

The wonderful thing is that with the level of quality inverters available today, running your electronic artillery from a truck or car is simple & cheap. That set-up could be a real "technical". -{Pun intended}-

I do think we are going to see a lot more peaceful uses for microwave materials in the future! But if you're thinking about inventing....get the guns while you still can as (I've been told) the newer Panasonic & Sony MW ovens are made almost impossible to pull out. Sony and Toshiba have some of the best MW guns for experimental use BTW. The strongest one I've personally seen was a 10yr old Sony that I HAD to have.

[Hirudinea]

Hirudinea, that link you provided is one of the most worthless ways of making ethanol from cellulose I have ever seen. Almost every step is wrong.

(Details deleted for brevity)

Well as I've said before I have zero knowledge of chemistry but at least now we know that using sulphuric acid and sawdust is NOT the way to be energy self-sufficent.

[Kaydon]

Actually, from what I have heard Mega, if you run pure Ethanol in your engine, you will burn the pistons out because it runs too hot. Water "soaks" up some of that heat, allowing it to burn cooler so it doesn't fry your pistons.

So, to clarify, pure ethanol must be added to petrol because the water will fall out of solution and screw your engine. If you are running pure ethanol water helps to reduce how hot the engine gets.

Remember also that the temperature in the pistons are well in excess of 100 degrees C, so the water isn't going to condense out into your engine and it should be passed out into the exhaust (hopefully).

Diesel engines sometimes use a meth/water injection system to reduce exhaust gas temperatures.

[JouMasep]

This is a subject that has recently become close to my heart as well. Glad you took it up C.O.P; I am not one of those “Green’ types, but we must accept that they can teach us a lot and they were thinking when nobody else was doing so.

I spent quite some time considering the oil / energy woes that are creeping into all aspects of our daily lives. And it will get increasingly worse –that is inescapable

First of all: we should all, individually and collectively use less energy, use it more efficiently and most of all, only use oil [derived products] where we cannot find well an alternative and we really have to! That means that anybody who burns oil for heat should stop doing so NOW. Go for natural gas, wood, electricity –put on double winter woolies.
Mr. File says: We have approx. 200 years worth of oil, oil sands, shale oil and coal(which can be made into oil) in America or off our coasts. However we need to find a practical, cost effective alternate fuel. but this does not really explain what very dire shit we are in –two words: Peak Oil.

Q: Why should we be more than worried about this “Peak Oil”, when will it happen?
A: Simple economics; if you think things are bad now, wait until demand for oil exceeds supply……….
Explanation: supply is still adequate; the present price of around $135/barrel is not a result of a true supply and demand balance, but rather driven by the speculators market. (And yes, the oil companies have a hand in this too, that would be a fair guess!)
The simple fact is that despite the odd glitch in global supply here and there, and the exponential growth in demand from China and India, the consumption by the US (largest consumer by far) is stable (seasonally adjusted) –all in all global supply meets global demand.

But we are running out, and the speculators are feeding on this Damocles’ sword, so we can expect a gradually increasing price. (Note: there is NO reason why it cannot temporally dip to $80/ barrel again, especially when the demand will be squeezed by a global recession)
But it will go up, and up. 50, 200, 250, -until, after all possible sources have been drilled, at ever increasing costs and then, suddenly (within days or weeks at most) demand will exceed supply.
After that anybody who has oil can name his price.
Reason: by the time there will be no substitute in any supply whatsoever and we cannot run an economy without oil.

When will this happen? I don’t know, I don’t know if I want to know –but it will be a hell of a lot sooner than “200 years”, or 100 years or 50!
There are currently too many parameters that will vary in the future for us to narrowly predict the time frame.
If I’d have to make a long term-bet, I’d say: “24 years from now.” That is very much on the optimistic side, but I have this (perhaps misplaced) trust in “human inventiveness in times of great need”. Another reason as to why I take this longer term, is that after all Peak-Oil is a prediction based on theory, said theory is not without detractors –even if the general principles have been proven correct with respect to certain other commodities.

So what can we do practically? (Top of me head here –there is always more you can think of; it’s a mind-set…)

As individuals:
-Drive more fuel efficient cars, drive less by planning trips, get a motorbike, use less plastic [food packaging], and also reduce pressure on other energy resources by using electricity and natural gas more wisely. (On the grid, there are still plenty of small power “backup” power plants running on oil!)
-If you can, get a reversible air-conditioning system. I have one and it heats my place with roughly 2,5 to 3 times the amount of equivalent kW.hr electricity consumed. (Non resistive heating, it’s a heat-pump). It will pay for itself over time.
-Get yourself the most efficient solar water heating system possible. (Evacuated tube type) This alone will take as much as 40% off your electricity consumption.
-Move to running your car on ethanol a.s.p. Lobby for more funds for R&D on ethanol production.
-If you have the space / time / dough: get your self a 1kW (at least) wind-generator system.
-Stimulate discussion around alternative fuel production. (As is being done here)

As a society / country:
-Get the blazes onto as much nuclear power as soon you can -the technology is there and to hell with the detractors. Then, also put up large wind generator plants.
-Implement incentives / legislation to use electricity for anything that does not absolutely need oil (gas, diesel, LPG). Also, if you have electrical energy that is not dependant on fossil fuel, you can use this in conversion processes for alternative fuel with reduced fossil energy input. You will save on CO2 as well.
-Get into coal-into-oil conversion. There is much, much more coal than there is oil. This technology was pioneered by the Germans in WWII, implemented by the previous South African regime with great success (also for the current shareholders!) and now the Chinese (in cooperation with said SA) are going for it big-time as well. Remember: it may not be possible to replace all natural oil this way, but it will surely keep your war apparatus going!. (And that is why, at the time, the ingenious white South Africans build their SASOL in the first place) Currently SASOL produces gas from coal at a cost that is way below the price of oil-derived gas –even if coal prices have risen substantially as well!
-Put massive resources into alternative fuel research. My bias would be towards ethanol production, with cane sugar as point of departure, but development in high yield cellulose crops as destination. The scope for cellulose splitting should become enormous, an industry in its own right. Also put all unreasonable, ignorant objections to genetically modified crops aside and put an emphasis on coming up with crops that will yield as much ethanol, as cheap as possible. And with the lowest input of energy of course.

That’s my personal point of view. Biodiesel is all but discredited I.M.O and regarding hydrogen: well it seems nice, but the enormous problems with safe and economical storage have not even been closely met. So until this has been fixed, I’d focus on ethanol for running vehicles. (Not dissuading all development on H2 of course.)

If we can get away from oil by running our road transport on methanol, using fully synthetic oil-from-coal for lubrication, we’ll have all but conquered our potential slide into depression, global war, and a fall in lifestyle quality that has been never seen in history before. It will be costly, it will be hard, but the alternative is unthinkable.

Lastly, referring to the objection to heating input costs for distilling ethanol: apart from using solar heat, would one –in industry at least- not make use of heat exchange methods? And why not reduce the required distillation temperature by doing it under a partial vacuum. Throw in a [semi] continuous flow system –as opposed to batch- and I see a scope for reducing energy cost by more than half. It would be many times more costly to build than a simple still, but the oil companies could never use that as an argument against ethanol as fuel. Their own plants are not too cheap either!

[Alexires]

While I accede to Charles point that sudden ethanol production does not need to result in sudden food crises, but perhaps we can look at it another way.

Instead of using what we have plenty of (cellulose) at the moment, exactly how much would it cost to plant, maintain and harvest a crop of sugar cane, for instance? It might be possible that planting and maintaining a crop for a year to produce your ethanol would cost less than it costs to pay for petrol.

What plant produces the greatest quantity of simple saccharides? What is the most preferable in fermentation?

I personally have found that it is about a 1:1 ratio of sugar to alcohol when producing. Forgive my very simple ratio, but it gives an idea. 1kg of sugar will produce (roughly) 1L of 80% ethanol. The question we should be asking is how much does sugar cost to buy in bulk? How much would we need to run a car for a year? Perhaps a continuous ethanol still where sugar and water is added and ethanol is produced, without having to reseed the yeast, and without any expensive acid being wasted?

We need to embark upon a journey. It is all well and good to discuss the merits of every system and try and work out what will be the most cost effective, but in the end, something does need to be done.

Let's start with some figures.

Average petrol/gasoline produces 34.8MJ/L where as ethanol produces 23.5MJ/L. Hence, you would need about 1.48L of ethanol to be the equivalent of 1L of petrol.

Hence, assuming that it is easy to convert an engine to run on ethanol, the only cost associated is that of making the fuel. I know this is a GROSS generalisation, but for simplicities sake....

1.48L of ethanol at 100% or 1.85L at 80% (assuming 20% water). Let us assume that 80% is enough to run an engine on (so we don't need to factor in the cost of acids/dehydrating agents/vacuum distillation for get 100% ethanol)

Since we know that roughly 1.85kg will produce 1.85L of 80% ethanol, we will assume that 2kg produces this (accounting for loss of product, flexible figures, etc). Sugar costs (roughly) $300 AUD per tonne (1000kg).

My. That is an interesting number. Assuming that the only cost is related to the ethanol, and normal sugar is used, then it comes out at about 60c per 1.85L of EtOH (or 1L of petrol).

I'll just list my calculations so that people can tell me if I have screwed up.

1000kg will produce (1000/2)*1.85=925L of Ethanol for $300AUD. As 1.85L of EtOH=1L of petrol, then our figures mean more in unit money/1.85L. Hence, that is $300AUD for the equivalent of 500L of petrol (925/1.85) which comes to $300/500L= $0.6/L of petrol, or $0.6/1.85L of ethanol.

Assuming that an average person can get 100km from 12L of petrol, that roughly translates to 22.2L of EtOH per 100km of travel. I would travel (on average) 23000km per year which equates to 5102L of EtOH used per year. That is about $1655AUD per year, compared to the $4692AUD it costs me currently. Which means that if I spend $3000 converting my engine to EtOH and assuming everything we have about, I can pay that off in 1 year.

While I have made no assertions that the facts above are absolutely correct (we have made some serious assumptions) that gives you all a ball park figure of what EtOH use looks like. All of my data is from Wikipedia, which may not be all knowing, I trust enough for things like this.

So, in conclusion, a very rough ball park figure (for myself) is that it would cost me $1700 to ride around for the year, 5.5tonnes of sugar to be fermented, 23000L of water to be used and a shit load of yeast. It would be interesting to see if you could just buy a sachet of yeast and have it multiply and multiply until it was done...

A shed for storing the sugar, a rain water tank dedicated for the water (about $4000 for the tank) and a MASSIVE air lock *dies laughing*.

Something to think about, anyway.

[Jacks Complete]

Ah, a fun topic. When doing comparisons of the ability of various fuels for heating, mileage, etc. could I suggest we use litres, by the way? Not only is the litre easier for conversions and the standard scientific measure worldwide, but also there is not the Gotcha of the US gallon being rather smaller than the UK/rest of world gallon. (The US gallon is ~3.7 litres, vs. ~4.5 litres for everyone else. Kind of throws the mileage calculations out!)

First, forget growing plants to reduce the world's oil pressures. It takes a high yield from the crops to compete in a market flooded with high yield crops, and to do that takes more energy than you get back from the crops. Corn is the most effective way of turning sunlight into food calories, and up until the Haber synthesis came along, it was a net energy sink while growing. Alas, afterwards, we started the "green revolution" and started adding fertilisers and pesticides and more to the crops to get better yields. Of course, this uses more energy than you get back from the crop as a food! And, more importantly, it uses more oil!!

So, biodiesel is actually worse for the environment when that is all it is created for. Recycled chip fat is one thing, but growing olives or corn or whatever to reduce the total oil used is ass-backwards.

Ok, hydrogen. Here's a great zero-sum game for you. Take water (or an chemists can call it, "hydrogen ash") and use lots of power to split it back into hydrogen and oxygen. Pump it into an engine and burn it back into water/ash. Of course, the second law of thermodynamics kicks your ass at this point.

So, what is the way forward? Well, solar panels will soon break even. Currently they still use a bit more power to make than they collect over their lifetimes, or else they simply cost too much to be worthwhile. So they will be worth it soon, even if only because fuel prices have gone up yet further.

Basically, we need systems that are effective at storing solar power for later re-use. If we have those solar stills, that is great, and if we can use waste food, shit, husks off corn, etc. then we are well ahead. (But the minute you start actually growing the food crops to turn into fuel, you are loosing again, remember that)

Personally, I think that methane gas from human and animal waste is the way forward for at-home scale power generation. Given a little investment, anyone with a septic tank or a shed of cows should soon be able to buy a methane capture device that will effectively bottle that free methane from the bio-reactors that are already in use for destruction of slurry. This would let you run your home heating via the usual systems of a hot water on-demand system from natural gas. And petrol engines can also be fairly easily converted to run gas rather than, uh, gas. (why does the USA call petrol gas, when it is liquid?)

The other option is something that is pretty hands-off, like these algae breeder tanks. It would be fairly easy to make a system that used a clever flow system and solar powered robotic lamprey to keep the walls clean and keep things stirred up nicely. Another option would be to build something akin to the synthetic (cow) stomach, which could be fed grass or whatever is left over from the food processing, and generate electricity directly, or via the methane gas halfway point.

As for what you want to do at the moment? Buy a solid wood or other multi-fuel stove and boiler combination. Then locate a free source of wood, and stock up. Perhaps run it in parallel with your electric or gas fired system (it depends what your circumstances are). This will insulate you from the ups and downs of oil prices, at least at home. And the biggest bonus? Sign up to junk mailer scams, Reader's Digest, marketing houses, and more. That way, you will *every morning* have the day's fuel delivered to your door, for free! ;-)

[monkeyboy]

Jacks Complete, I respect your breadth of knowledge when I come across your posts. However, I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you. Several of your points are from oft quoted propaganda against reasonable alternatives. There really is a lot of bad/misleading/confusing information out there.

Plants are an incredibly efficient method for converting solar energy into usable form. Mankind wishes they could invent something as good, but they're not even close. I agree that using food-grade corn to produce food grade alcohol or oil is extremely foolish. But using scrub crops grown on marginal land with non-fossil fuel derived methods can work. Even the information about fossil derived food grade corn taking more energy to produce is totally 100% wrong.
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id18.html
Not the only place I've seen it, just handy at the moment. Google for more info...

Try this for bio-diesel:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html


I agree on hydrogen, it's pretty much a retarded shell game to divert attention & money from things that work. However, if a person had a solar/wind/methane electrical generation system that occasionally generated more electricity than you could use, it might not be too unreasonable to make some hydrogen gas for cooking with.

Solar panel life time energy return:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#Energy_Payback_Time_and_Energy_Retur ned_on_Energy_Invested
Been true for a while.

Methane produced from the average household's waste wouldn't even come close to providing enough to cook with. Adding a some farm animals, definitely doable.

As for me, I've been studying it for far too long. Soon, I hope to make some of this happen.

A extremely energy efficient house.
Looking at solar cooling, (small version of the solar chimney)
Solar water heat, for both domestic use & the hot tub.
Gray water re-use, black water to methane generator.
A small (400-600W) wind mill.
A small (400-600W) solar array.
A small alcohol still. Fed from a combination of purchased "feed stock" & a high yield crop grown with "square foot garden" techniques.
A "square foot garden" to supply my food needs.
Several small fish ponds, fed the waste from the alcohol production process to supply food & hopefully a little extra income.
A few chickens & pigs.
A Hugh-Ass shop.

Currently, I'm living someplace dreary & cold. However, with any luck, I'm moving to the South West in December or January. I've been planning the move for a couple of years, so I've kinda put implementing any of this stuff on hold till after the move. All I have at the moment are a few solar panels powering the lights in the shop.

[tmp]

I read this article in a Motor Trend magazine in my doctor's waiting room
yesterday. It was written by Frank Markus. All comments welcome:

"Think Green, Drive Yellow!" the ethanol ads cajole, but as we
illustrated in last May's Alternative-Fuels treatise
("2020 Foresight"), its lower-energy content means that,
unless E85's pump price is 25-30 percent less than gasoline's,
you're spending more to get where you're going. To date,
neither modern farming techniques nor congressional pork has
succeeded in delivering corn-likker at that magic price point.
But modern biochemistry appears to have noodled a way to make
pure ethanol from cornstalks, wood chips, water bottles, old
tires, switchgrass --- any carbon-rich detritus.

At January's North American International Auto Show, GM
announced a partnership with biology-based renewable energy
firm Coskata Inc., which in turn unveiled plans to open a
demonstration facility later this year that will produce
40,000 gallons of pure ethanol at an estimated cost of
$1/gallon, using less than a gallon of water per gallon of
ethanol --- big breakthroughs both. A 100-million-gallon/year
facility is scheduled to be up and running by 2011.

How does Coskata brew its cheap hooch? Like other
stalks-'n'-stems-to-alcohol schemes you may have heard of,
it enlists specialist microorganisms to do the heavy lifting,
but instead of assigning them the task of breaking down
starches and complex carbohydrates into a sugary mash for
the still, these specialist bugs breathe in carbon-monoxide
and hydrogen and sweat out ethanol. The stalks or tires are
first heated to 1800-plus degrees F, but not burned. This
breaks the compounds down into CO, H2 and other junk removed
by a scrubber. This pure syngas (the CO/H2 blend that many
towns once used to illuminate their gas streetlamps) then
gets pumped into the bioreactor --- a plastic tube full of
water and thin tubes made of a Gore-Tex-like material
through which the syngas diffuses, feeding the bacteria
lining the tubes.

Coskata hasn't tinkered with the bacteria's genetics, rather
it's bred these microorganisms like race horses, selecting
a master race that produces only ethanol (actually, in
nature they produce ethnoic acid, but part of Coskata's
patented bioreactor process stops their digestion at
ethanol). Other bacterial strains Coskata is breeding
produce butanol and propanol. In nature, these elite
microbes might have colonized underwater thermal vents or
swine-farm lagoons. They're completely safe (anaerobes die
in the presence of oxygen), they don't need light, and they
reproduce naturally so the bioreactor can run for months
without a "clean-out."

A key bioreformer advantage over some catalytic
syngas-to-ethanol systems is that the latter produces
multiple products from which ethanol must be separated,
adding cost. The vaporized low-proof ethanol/water gas then
passes through thin tubes made of a special hydrophilic
(loves water) coating that grabs the steam, condenses and
recycles it, leaving a 99.7-percent-pure stream of ethanol
coming out the other end.

A secret to this system's low cost is energy management.
Once the super-heating process gets up to temperature, it
sustains itself on the energy released breaking all those
chemical bonds. That heat must be extracted before the
syngas hits the microbes, and it can power electric turbines
or serve some other purpose like drying pulp in a paper mill
where waste wood materials feed the reactor. Even the
ethanol separation tubes require half the energy a typical
distillation stack would consume. Per Argonne National Lab's
well-to-pump studies, the resulting ethanol contains 7.7
times the energy consumed in its production.

Because practically any carbon-rich feedstock can be used,
ethanol plants can be built almost anywhere, creating jobs,
reducing the energy wasted in transporting feedstocks and
hedging our energy supply against localized natural
disasters. It promises 84-percent-lower greenhouse gas
emissions than gasoline. And it'll make driving cheaper.
I'll drink to that.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/112_0804_technologue/index.html

[Hirudinea]

To make up for my last lousy post here are two links for books on Alternative Fuels and Alcohol Fuel.

http://dl1.s22.mihd.net/f318t59n/alcoholic_fuels.rar

http://dl2.s9.mihd.net/wlva9bdp/haftcrc.rar

[monkeyboy]

Thanks Hirudinea, I'll peruse those.

Found a video on youtube about corrosion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuOs1yap8mU


Was just a discussion about alcohol over on fark.com, high stupidity count, one good quote, though:
E85 Ethanol Does not harm Non-FlexFueled Engines


Ok, now let me explain to the both of you a couple of fallacies in your arguments. Yes, gasoline does contain more energy "density" than say E85. However, unless an engine is taking that potential energy and using it to 100% efficiency, then the difference between the two as a fuel is not a linear equation. The fact is that an awful lot of the "energy" contained in either gasoline or E85 is turned into excess heat, not useful in actually transferring power to the drivetrain. You can't just say that E85 has X% less energy than gasoline and then extrapolate that the mpg would equal that same percentage. In fact, many vehicles only show a very minor drop-off in mpg between the two fuels in real world conditions.

As to the "energy" used in the production of ethanol fuel, for every 1 unit of energy consumed in the entire process of making ethanol (even from a "poor" feedstock like corn) you get 1.3 units of energy out. (Because the majority of the "energy" is provided free from the sun during the growing process of the corn.) Its just the opposite for gasoline. When you factor in the energy consumed in exploration, drilling, pumping, refining, transporting, etc. the average gallon of gasoline represents .7-.8 unit of energy in return for every 1 unit of energy consumed.

Lastly, the problems created by running E85 seem to be greatly exagerated in the article. Every car sold in the US has to have components, seals, rubber lines, etc. engineered and certified to accept at least a 10% blend of ethanol. In fact, most companies use the same components across their manufacturing lines whether the car is certified as "Flex-Fuel" or not. (Simply because its cheaper to procure a single part built to a certain specification, than to have numerous parts for different vehicles and the associated headaches that creates.)

The vehicles that aren't flex fuel often can be retrofitted by making the most minor adjustments you can imagine. For instance, the reason the Hummer isn't designated a flex-fuel vehicle is because the filler line (from gas cap to gas tank) is made from aluminum. Aluminum can conduct electricity and ethanol presents a problem with potential conductivity and setting the fuel on fire if the aluminum were to come into contact with any source of electricity, including static electricity. To make a Hummer flex-fuel ready, you can simply replace the filler line with a non-conductive metal or ethanol approved plastic.

There seems to be far more nuggets of "urban legend" surrounding ethanol than actual knowledge. I'm not a fan of corn to ethanol, but a lot of this BS everyone keeps spreading is part of the reason why we are still so firmly attached to the Middle East's hind teet instead of developing any alternatives or substitutes.

[Microtek]

I think many of you miss the point of hydrogen technology. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, hydrogen should not be thought of as an energy source, but rather as storage technology. If you want to move away from gasoline powered cars then you have to power them with something else, and if you want cars to be flexible transportation systems then they have to bring stored energy along with them.
Hydrogen is one option, a battery is another, ethanol is a third.
Charging a battery is conceptually the same kind of operation as electrolysing water or synthesizing ethanol; you are simply converting energy (solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, whatever) into a storable form.

It is true that hydrogen technology is not a perfect storage solution at this point, but neither are the others. If you convert the hydrogen into ammonia and bind it in complex form as I mentioned earlier, you get around the leaking and fire hazard problems.

Of course, with a little innovative genemodding it might be possible to make an organism that could fixate nitrogen from the atmosphere as readily available ammonia compounds....

[Alexires]

I'd like to direct attention back to tmp's submission. It seems like an idea that has merit.....a lot of merit for the home chemist. It lacks the need for a lot of specialised equipment, appears to be self sustaining once it gets going and over all seems easy enough. The bacteria seems quite easy to get a hold of, and for the intelligent chemist/biologist, not too difficult to work with.

The main difficulty seems to be the scrubber for removing gunk created during the incineration process and also the moisture removal at the end.

Any ideas? Mega, I remember you talking about some kind of tubing that is similar to dialysis tubing, but acid/temperature/base resistant. I can't for the life of me remember what it was called, and I can't find it in google (can't remember the name well enough). Nifon or Niflo or something like that..... I think....

[Hirudinea]

MotorTrend Article

"Think Green, Drive Yellow!"

I looked up Coskata Inc., the idea sounds amazing, their website dosn't have much specific information but according to the animation 1 ton of feed stock will yeald 900 +- galons of Ethonol (if I remember correctly), you can check it out for yourself below. Oh and they say their process is for agro waste but can be adapted to old tires and such.

http://www.coskata.com/

[JouMasep]

‘Am a bit nonplussed by some of the statements made here and there; lots of good comments as well!

I agree with monkeyboy’s verdict viz. Jack Complete’s opinion: First, forget growing plants to reduce the world's oil pressures. It takes a high yield from the crops to compete in a market flooded with high yield crops, and to do that takes more energy than you get back from the crops. Corn is the most effective way of turning sunlight into food calories, and up until the Haber synthesis came along, it was a net energy sink while growing. Alas, afterwards, we started the "green revolution" and started adding fertilisers and pesticides and more to the crops to get better yields. Of course, this uses more energy than you get back from the crop as a food! And, more importantly, it uses more oil!! This stands not up to scrutiny.

First of all to say that Corn is most efficient is simply not true; -sugar cane is. One of the most efficient crop plants is sugar cane, which has been shown to store up to 1% of the incident visible radiation over a period of one year. However, most crops are less productive. The annual conversion efficiency of corn, wheat, rice, potatoes, and soybeans typically ranges from 0.1% to 0.4%. source: “http://dematerialism.net/solarenergy.htm"

To state that the cultivation of higher yield crops somehow led to a diminishing of energy efficiency must be incorrect.. Simple laws of economics would never allow this to happen. It may be so that horse-drawn ploughs and dung use no oil –as compared to diesel tractors and fertilizers, but the former method required far more labour and arable surface area. One tractor replaces dozens of horses. These require even more labour to manage. Labour needs to be seen very much as an “energy input” for our purpose. Farmhands require resources (like the rest of us). With all those horses and men {sounds like a pun- yugh, sorry!) the argument cannot be mended.

To blame the introduction of industrial agriculture for a lessening of energy efficiency would be like clamoring for reverting to having one eighth of the population working on farms again..

That would be for our food then, another quarter or so of mankind can till the earth so we can drive our cars.

But I agree, our current system uses more oil –the old one may only use petroleum derived grease for the wagon axles –no more. However, in no way does this mean that modern agriculture needs to be written off as a fuel source.
Basically, we need systems that are effective at storing solar power for later re-use. We do have that right now. It’s called sugar cane. It requires no enzymatic splitting of complex starches, it is modest in its fertilizer needs, it absorbs as much a 1% of the annual incident solar energy –which does not compare badly to photovoltaic solar cells -feeding a hydrogen generator and the ensuing storage problems –see further below.

Sugar to alcohol is also enormously much cheaper than the latter technology –in fact on base of economics alone, one would not even touch it. At the present state of the art of course –but who foresees a number of breakthroughs that will reduce the present costs of photovoltaic/hydrogen to a fraction thereof –only that will make it viable.

Microtek wrote: I think many of you miss the point of hydrogen technology. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, hydrogen should not be thought of as an energy source, but rather as storage technology. That is meaningless play with semantics.

Energy source, storage medium –it all comes down to the same. The only energy not coming from the sun is nuclear- and geothermal. The rest is all “stored solar energy”; the whichever form of this solar energy is used as an "energy source".

Also: it is true that hydrogen technology is not a perfect storage solution at this point, but neither are the others. Well in terms of storage a liquid fuel like methanol seems hard to beat.

For hydrogen: bulky, extremely expensive, at present non-proven technology, hazardous, very costly in infrastructure, expensive to compress in energy terms. (Delete what not truly applicable for any of the particular technology attempting to make it workable)

For ethanol: any old steel or polyolefin container will do nicely. (And it won’t resemble a small hydrogen bomb / chemical plant disaster in a collision either)

Again, I certainly do not discourage research into hydrogen storage, but it seems a good idea to focus on what has been proven to work, what we can afford in terms of available resources.

Lastly, as a bit of an afterthought: now that we know that fossil fuels are passé, and (barring nuclear) solar energy will be our only alternative, it would be useful to have a look at he world map in terms of incidence of solar radiation and arable land. Our medium / long term geopolitical policies may need drastic shifting as many of the most developed nations have scarce arable (watered) land, at premium prices, and generally less sunshine thereon.

[megalomania]

monkeyboy, the post you quoted from fark is not entirely accurate itself. While it is generally true that new cars can safely run E85, most people do not have brand new cars, so this does not help people with older vehicles. However, I have heard reports that even older cars can run at least E70 safely.

There is a difference in the energy content of ethanol vs. gasoline, whether or not ethanol runs a little more efficiently is not a significant factor. This is purely a moles and density problem, ethanol occupies more volume for the energy it gives. This is not a deficiency or crisis with ethanol, we just have to develop a new frame of reference for how many miles we get from a gallon.

I think the numbers on how much energy you get from gasoline and ethanol vs. how much is put in to make them are reversed. Right now there is quite a bit of debate in the scientific community to figure out exactly how much energy it takes to make ethanol. Because the numbers are so close, manufacturing ethanol is essentially a zero sum game, which is not good. At worse, which may be the case, it takes more energy to make ethanol than you get from it. This is the case today, but this will certainly change in the future. Any new technology that makes ethanol production even a little cheaper will push the economics into the black. Oil prospecting on the other hand costs more and more money because the only viable sources of oil now are oil sands, offshore rigs, and whatever it is they do the squeeze more spice from “exhausted” wells.

Indeed there is more disinformation that practical knowledge because few people have experience using high percentage ethanol and are willing to talk about it. I don’t know why the US has this fixation on corn. Well, I do, it’s political, but there is no practical reason to focus on one lame crop to prop up a few farmers. We would be better served by growing another crop to produce ethanol, although that would mean a different set of farmers would benefit. I gather the corn lobby is rather powerful.

Microtek, there is a species of bacteria that can convert nitrogen to ammonia. It works very much like fermentation. I first read about this several years ago. Scientists found a strain of bacteria living in the rather harsh conditions of geysers. I didn’t save the original article it seems… The technology certainly is not mature yet, but there is the possibility of biochemical ammonia manufacture. There is also a strain of bacteria that eat calcium sulfate and produce hydrogen sulfide. There is the possibility of recycling sulfuric acid used in cellulose hydrolysis with these bacteria.

Alexires, the material you are thinking of is Nafion, a hydrophobic material that allows only water to pass through it. There is a special chemical engineering term for the process of distilling vapors through a film, but I forget what it is.

[-=HeX=-]

I was at the young scientist this year (Goin back next year I hope) and I saw an interesting device. It was a 5 foot long pipe with wires coming out. It was 6 foot diameter. It had end caps on each end, welded on and a hatch at the bottom. It had a tap at the top. It had been made by a group of 16 year old girls. They had actually tested it and found that if you put a kilo of trash in the bottom you get so much pure ethanol in half an hour. Unfortunately seeing as I was a opposing contestant they would not give details of its mechanism. I reckon that you could put this in the boot of the car, have a hopper of trash, and refill at every bin for free. Any ideas how it worked? Were they bluffing?

[tmp]

It sounds bogus to me. A kilo of trash producing pure ethanol ? The article
from Motor Trend sounds promising but I'd need more information about those
girls' project. Namely the conversion process. 5 foot by 6 foot ? Was that
a typo ? Sounds too large to be practicle to fit in the boot of a car. This
one is not passing the smell test so far. I suspect fraud.

Mega, I was wondering if Nafion would work with a conventional still as
refluxing is a pain in the ass.

[Nitric-producer]

Everytime I mow my lawn (which is rather large), I think of how much wasted energy I pour into the compost heap. Apparently this kind of material can be made into Bio-oil by Pyrolysis in a specialised reactor.

However I believe it is mainly made of Phenols/organic acids which are not very good fuels. It does burn though.

Again though the cost's of turning these chemicals into useful materials are the prohibiting factor.

I firmly believe that Hydrogen will be the answer for portable vehicles. I recently looked at getting my car converted to LPG, and cannot see why the same technology couldn't be used to convert cars to Hydrogen. Your own personal small scale windmill makes the electricity to produce the hydrogen. I know that you use more energy producing it than you get from burning it. But the cost of fuel cells is far to high to make it a viable option.

At the moment I run my van on Bio-Diesel, and it does feel good knowing your getting one over on the oil companys. :p

[Alexires]

tmp - Nafion started ringing bells for me as well, tmp. There must be a way to use something that awesome and versatile to our energy guzzling needs.

[Nitric-producer]

Had another thought, as a consumer I think we have a responsibility to promote the fuels which can be produced by ourselves.
By this I mean having an independence from government's, and oil company's, who set the prices which affect ours life's.

It would be nice to enter an era where we power our own lifes instead of being at the mercy of other's.

Thought of this as I can see oil companys trying to be the people who supply these new fuels, just to make another buck.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

I don't know if you fellows ever play the Market of have investments or follow it or whatever. But now is the time to think about it. We either will have a whopper or a deep Recession (or Depression). And the next president will be a domestic focused President if they want a 2nd term!

I was taking with a fellow at work and it seems there are 3 major issues. Ethanol/mixes, electric, & hydrogen that seem like probables for the BIG SWITCH.

To start a Switch, the fastest and least expensive to alter gasoline motors would be ethanol and it's mixes & alternatives. Using waste matter from foods and agricultural producers as a base. {Everyone knows now we don't need corn; we can use anything that ferments.}

The cheapest to use but more costly to alter a gasoline motor would be hydrogen. You'd need a high pressure / safe-as-shit fuel tank, high pressure hoses and some minor-league shit with combustion. You'd also need some lubricant but we could say with oil for lubrication. Cost would be so low as to be obscene. The money would really BE in the SWITCH.

Electric would be the most costly to switch over (almost totally new motor) to but perhaps the most friendly. A new motor would take time but the battery is in place and fundamentally workable (as of 2006). Environmentally it would be the cleanest but we would really have to debate the nuclear power industry for the amount of electric energy rise for "filling up". That debate may kill it.

The penny stock I would start to look for would be a start-up company that does the "alteration" to the "new energy" on existing gasoline motors. No so much WHAT they choose to swap or alter but that they can "MAKE YOUR EXISTING CAR AN ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE" in "SO-MUCH-TIME" or "SO-MUCH MONEY". Backed by BIG money, like Microsoft, or a diversified food/clothing giant. That company would be worth looking at for a penny stock @ 15cents a share or so. My top end on that sort of gambling is about $2500-$5000.

Do any of you guys ever play around with that stuff?

[JouMasep]

Erratum given: 4th last paragraph of my previous post should read “ethanol” not methanol.

Also, no longer can I maintain that the blame of the ever rising oil price can be laid at the feet of the speculators, as I said earlier on. It becomes increasingly evident that the rise is purely a result of fundamentals. (Econospeak for “basic market related forces.”) ‘Can throw my wishful thinking of the price dropping to $80 per barrel again out of the window…

I also feel that the time we have before oil / gas becomes prohibitively expensive and unobtainable is much nearer than my previous “24 years” guess.

So, unless we don’t want some variation on Charles O.P. scary depressing scenario –which is very real, we better come up with something good. Meanwhile for my own purposes; I don’t mind downgrading from a German straight-six to a four– or even a three cylinder with less than half the capacity. But drive I will.

I have done a lot of looking into matters, but will leave the large-scale, world oil alternatives aside for now and concentrate on what an individual (small group) can do so as to keep his car on the road.

Whilst I have grave doubts about cellulosic methanol (non-pyrolitic process) production on a scale that would have to replace most of all petrochemical fuels, I am quite certain that for private purposes there is no chance that it will be workable. If you fool around long enough, you’ll get some alcohol, but never in such a way that it will compete with anything else you can do.

-At present the enzymes required to split cellulose are very expensive.
-A large portion of the product is non-glucose. Yeast cannot ferment pentoses into alcohol. Obviously a lot of researchers are trying to come up with something that will do this, but if and when they do –it will add substantially to the costs. If one does leave the pentose unfermented, the overall efficiency suffers considerably.
-Lignin which is another fraction of the useless material that also results from splitting up plant material- needs to be removed from the “mash” prior to fermentation. This needs equipment and yields a lot of sloppy stuff. This may be used to fuel the distillation, but a lot of water will have to be removed- which requires even more time, equipment and energy.

Whilst all of this can be done –actually is being done, and at investment costs of many millions of dollars, today no cars drive on cellulosic alcohol as yet.

The idea to put up one’s own wind generators in order to produce electricity, to produce hydrogen, seems attractive. Let’s examine the idea at the hand of some estimates and a simple calculation.
Even if you have good winds, and even if you don’t plan to loose more than 35% in the entire conversion process (generation, rectification of electricity. Subsequent production and compression / chemical storage of hydrogen) , consider the following:

For a 2 kW generator, which is very large, expensive for private use, you will not get more than say, 1Kw on average.
I assume that the thermal efficiency for a hydrogen powered engine is similar to that of a gas engine. (Say 26%; I have no clue as to the allowable compression ratio for hydrogen combustion). So how long will we drive each day with a car producing / using 15 kW on average? (Correct me if this is an incorrect estimate)
Answer 24 x 1 x 0.65 x 0.26 / 15 = 0.27 Hr.
So you’ll be driving for 16 minutes per day

But that would at least limit the hydrogen storage problem.

Still, leaving my earlier sarcasm aside, if I would live in a rural area, I would likely consider putting up some larger wind generator capacity. It would be very costly, but also very nice. To spend something like the price of a good middle class new car on wind generators and rectifiers alone seems steep –until gas will cost more than whisky that is.

Remains the problem that not a lot of regions have decent and constant winds. Wind of 16 Km/hr is nice. Wind of 4 km/hr is not very useful. I believe that the energy diminishes with the cube root. If production of plenty of wind generator electricity would seem viable, it would seem well worth it to study hydrogen storage in detail.

For now, in my present, suburban location, I will see how much I’ll pay for bulk sugar or maize / corn and build a solar still. Not one of those plastic sheeting contraptions but one with a solar collector. ‘Seen some patents involving reflectors and curved mirrors, but I reckoned there must be something with evacuated glass tube containing heat tubes.

And I found this. http://www.energy-based.nrct.go.th/Article/Ts-3%20performance%20analysis%20of%20solar%20ethanol% 20distillation.pdf ; it is very close to what I had in mind myself. (Was about to make a similar drawing, but their design is better thought out.)

Very nice setup, but I am puzzled as to the low rate of daily output. Barely 4 litres for an evacuated tube collector area of 4 square metres –even if they use part of the condenser heat to pre-heat the mash-feed. I wonder if a partial vacuum may be not of help here. The greatest efficiency is attained when the difference between the heat-pipe medium and the boiling point is maximal. And the heat pipe of a solar collector is not quite an electric heating element or a flame…. These evacuated tubes were designed for domestic water heating purposes, which they do very well. Distilling water with a bit of alcohol in it is far greater in heat requirements.

Problem with my vacuum idea is that the cooling water will have to be really cold in order for the alcohol to condense. ‘Still have the idea that it will help.

Meanwhile, regarding the alternatives to mass energy production and storage, after considering all that goes on in the field today, I have about completed my looking into what I believe the single most promising alternative to petrochemical derivatives that we are likely to get. ‘Need to look at it more in quantitative terms and ‘will post it.

C.O.P.
Penny stocks are usually not the way to go in a recessionary climate, they crash when the rest drops.
Detailed knowledge of a certain sector and also a specific company may help, but it always remains risky to put a lot of eggs into that kind of basket.
Having said that, it is good to put a modest part of one’s portfolio into an enterprise that clearly is out to make waves and DO something.
But as Mega pointed out, there are plenty of dreamers and scamsters around as well- watch out for those.

[Nitric-producer]

As for the ethanol still idea, I did a few calculations, and to buy enough Starchy raw material to make 1L of ethanol costs more than gas costs here. And gas costs $2.60 per liter! :eek:

However maybe im looking in the wrong places for my raw material, apart from growing my own, im stuck.

[Jome skanish]

Well, the problem has two stages, one, the "general energy crisis" where energy as a commodity (in industry, in the households) become more expensive due to the rising oil prices which could potentially seriously hamper the economy.

The second stage/phase, the "liquid fuel crisis", would be even more severe as all industry today requires transport. However, this is unlikely to continue for very long as alternatives DO exist, though today they are more expensive. A crisis would lead to great efforts in replacing the gasoline with BTL-hydrocarbons, ethanol, DMF, bio-butanol or whatnot.

A general energy crisis due to peak oil would affect the world unevenly. Compared to most west-European nations, the United States derive an abnormal ammount of their energy from coal, oil and gas. Of these, two are not likely to run out that soon. Of course, if the crisis hits tomorrow it will cause economic recession, but I doubt there will be no mad-max scenario even in the USA.

Two things haunt the poor 'Merikans:
1. Unwillingness among the top actors in the energy market along with the government to open their eyes to the harsh reality and re-build the industry to utilize other energy sources before the oil runs out.

2. Gas in the US is extraordinarily cheap in comparison to most comparable countries. If it is more subsidized or simply less taxed I dont know, but here in Sweden gasoline goes for 13.8Sek/L (8.7 usd/gallon). In short, you will survive far higher gas prices.

And as said before, if it even comes close to cheap whiskey bio-butanol, biodiesel, synthetics or ethanol will be there to save us. Worry about the economy instead.


Furthermore, I see no problem in utilizing fission power on a grand scale. Uranium and Thorium exist in comparative abundance.

Modern powerplants turn roughly 25-40% of thermal energy into electricity. The main flaw with todays system is that we're using U-235, which consitutes
0.7% of natural uranium. Most of the rest is U-238 which could be bred to fissile Pu-239 in breeder reactors, increasing the available fuel 142 times. If that is not enough, element 90 (Thorium) could also be used, turning it into fissile U-233. Thorium is estimated to be roughly three times more abundant than uranium.

When it comes to nuclear weapons, one needs to keep the accumulated Pu-239 or U-233 and thus the neutron flux quite low in order to avoid poisoning of the bomb-metal with isotopes like Pu-240 and U-232. These have a high spontaneous fission rate which generates gamma rays and neutrons and would be present to a very high percent in "civilian" high-neutron flux breeder reactors.

This penetrating radioactivity would make it necessary to use remote handling both when extracting the fissiles and assembling the weapon, and even then it would be much harder to get the detonation sequence even enough.

Spontaneous fission is why you cannot (or well, its ridiculously hard) build a gun-type plutonium weapon.

Is the problem solved then, should the world go over to a plutonium/u-233 economy with breeders and burners for electricity, while BTL or somesuch stands for the fuel? Yes. The whole "turn the lights off..." debate is moot, and so the world will see!

When it comes to apocalypse, mad max and cottage technology, I'd go for ethanol from potatoes. It is a rugged crop, which means the enemy cannot simply plow the field down in a few hours which is why (along with great yields and easy harvest) it was adopted in Europe so very quickly. Keep diffent breeds along each other though, or you'll have an ol'irish famine.

Here in Sweden potatoes goes for like eq. 1 usd / kg, or for you who has yet to realise the superiority of the metric system, 40-ish cent / pound.

100kg would give 15kg of carbohydrates which could yield 9.6L of EtOH, at a price of...... Or wait, are we still using money?

[JouMasep]

As for the ethanol still idea, I did a few calculations, and to buy enough Starchy raw material to make 1L of ethanol costs more than gas costs here. And gas costs $2.60 per liter! :eek:
You do not give enough information to enable anyone to assist you.
1) No calculation given.
2) Nature of “starchy material” not specified, nor the price paid given.

For US purposes: current price for corn on commodity markets is at record high (Iowa floods): $US 286.60 per metric ton.
Expect to pay a bit more for the odd smaller quantity; expect to pay up to 40% more in a country with less efficient farming methods and higher input costs.

Corn yields typically 400 litre c.a. 90% strength methanol per ton.

Please give a more detailed idea of your own situation and figures.

Jome skanish: And as said before, if it even comes close to cheap whiskey bio-butanol, biodiesel, synthetics or ethanol will be there to save us. Worry about the economy instead. Aah, but is there such a thing as “cheap whiskey” over there in Sweden? You chaps are taxed through the nose on your dram! I presume that you are so sanguine about making your own ethanol as this is a time honoured pastime in your country –albeit due to aforesaid taxation, and traditionally the product has not as destination one’s fuel tank!

‘More serious note: one cannot divorce “fuel for transport, mining and agriculture” from “the economy”, they are closely interlinked.
Moreover, coal and nuclear power, in conjunction with –say- ethanol based fuels alone will not supplant the petrochemical industry.
Still no paints, plastics, lubricants, pesticides and what else.
“Oil” is everywhere in our lives and we tend to forget it was formed from enormous masses of biological material, over millions of years.
But, if we manage to run through it in a century and a bit, do not think that once it is gone, it will result in a mere “recession”.
It will start with a recession, but it will not your typical cyclical downturn. After all, the principal causative element, “depletion of oil” will only worsen over time.

This in turn has the compounding effect that capital will become ever more scarce.
According to my own envisaged solution, we’ll require massive investments in the most costly type of plant equipment known. (Costs of equipment / per litre of oil-equivalent. Good news is that it should still more than break even at curent oil prices). But even we opt to go a cheaper route, if we don’t have the capital, we cannot do what it takes to get ourselves out of a vicious circle that will pretty much entail Mad Max. Global food shortages, eventually serious hunger will soon remove that thin layer of veneer we call “civilised conduct”

Also, it may seem a good idea to fill the world with nuclear power plants. But those are very expensive as well -way more so than coal power. Investment into nuclear plants will compete with capital for alternative fuel technologies.

So take heed, if we don’t find and implement real solutions now –while we still have a bit of slack, if we don’t make financial sacrifices and invest heavily in the most promising technologies, time will come when it will be simply too late. There will be no reverting to the system as we have become accustomed to.

An individual or an enterprise can go bankrupt by overspending, or overpaying of dividends, failing to re-invest and saving for the future –but so can mankind and a global economic system.

Oil was our working capital, our savings account, we have squandered most of it.

The last important oilfields were discovered nearly 40 years ago, since then ever smaller, lesser grade and less accessible. Production was at a peak in 2005 already. Now we cannot match that level of production even at triple the prices then. The recent talk-shop of the OPEC countries, blahing about efforts to stabilize matters, promises to increase production did sweet nothing to bring prices down. In fact a good week later we see new records.

Yeah, you saw Mad Max I, II and III, now live the last sequel.

(OK, fair enough: over the top, but I could not resist trying to suppress the optimists here.)

[Alexires]

Tired of playing those Post Apocalyptic RPGs? Now you don't need to move to Russia to make your game more realistic. With the coming of the fuel crisis, YOU TOO can dress up like this as the JBTs gas the rioters who haven't eaten in a week.

Coming to a corner near you!

[Charles Owlen Picket]

‘More serious note: one cannot divorce “fuel for transport, mining and agriculture” from “the economy”, they are closely interlinked.

Well said, intelligent, and true. When it was said (Eisenstein?) that World War IV would be fought with rocks and sticks it may be equally on target to predict the alternative fuel being a good pair of shoes or bicycle if something meaningful and perhaps revolutionary is not put into place before the acceptance of $5+ (a gallon of fuel) for an economy that runs on transportation of material, goods [and has almost overnight] become a "service oriented society" instead of a manufacturing-based one.

[Kaydon]

I think it was Einstein that said "I know not what weapons World War III will be fought with, but I know that World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

[Charles Owlen Picket]

That's right, it was Einstein (sp?) who said that. Predictions are that motorcycle sales will go through the roof this Summer!
The fuel prices will be passed down to the consumer on ALL levels. Everything travels by gas of diesel at SOME level. When that price salvaging begins, we have past the point of dollar devaluation and into energy-mania. What will happen to all those who bought Ford F150's - 350's, Chevy 1500's and larger?

The repercussions are staggering. Larger vehicles will become like homes built on a flood plain; people will never be able to recoup their investment in low mileage or high performance vehicles....UNLESS someone finds a way to ALTER the present gas/diesel motors to an alternative. The money won't be in the fuel....it will be in the alteration methodology!!!!

[FUTI]

Hm, one alternative I like is biogas (actually methane rich fermentation product of cattle and agricultural waste). It occur spontaneously anyway so why shouldn't we try to collect it and harness the energy from it. I looked upon that issue 20 years ago when Sweden was Eiropean leader in the field. Last time I read about it on net UK was looking to convert some landfields to biogas plants. World top exploiters of that technology are China and India IIRC. You can run your car on LPG or propan-butan gas...I think you can also run it on biogas but modifications might be slightly different.

[rangegal]

You guys might have already seen this, and I know a lot of you don't like United Nuclear for giving into CPSC's bullying, but I thought I'd post it anyway. They say they are going to start commercial manufacturing soon. Easy filling, good mileage, water vapor exhaust, and a safe hydride fuel tank. Better buy a solar panel for charging though, or your electric bills are probably going to make up for your money saved on gas. Something to keep an eye one.

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/

[Herro]

The term "alternative energy" is one of my most ubiquitous pet peeves...The thread title saves itself because "source" is there. Energy is energy.

Biogas is a sweet idea and up in the north country, it's easy to get free poo power. Journey to Forever is a good source of easy to make and maintain energy projects. Mostly anecdotal, they provide rough schematics (http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/methane_pain.html). Mr. Pain took advantage of two products of saprophytic metabolism: heat and methane production. The decaying matter in the steel tank produces gas that is stored in inner tubes and used as needed or compressed into holding tanks. The tank also acts as a heat-exchanger for the well water to domestic hot water (DHW). Pain then insulated the tank with more brush, mulch and decaying matter. A more advanced system would purify the methane further, removing CO2, H2O and other gaseous contaminants.

While cellulosic ethanol is in the near future (provided I do some of my work :rolleyes:), this is an easy backyard project that has potential proportional to labor and monetary investment. The major decision is in what type of bioreactor you want to create: batch or continuous. A basic tank could be a 200L + barrel or old heating oil tank with some check valves and regulators.

Also, check out the Volta experiment, pertaining to methane.

[tmp]

Another alternative as mentioned already is human energy. On nice, by that
I mean cool to warm spring and autumn days, I ride my bicycle to work. It's
also good exercise. Granted, I live less than 3 miles from work but it saves
some gasoline in the long run. I'll be glad when summer's over !

[akinrog]

Since we are now tree hugging peace and love hippies (suits me, as I was back then), recently I made some researches into the issue of renewable / alternate energy.

AFAI see, the biggest obstacle before alternative and renewable energy movement is the economics and inability to store the energy because the energy produced in this fashion is generally fluctuating greatly thus unfit for direct feeding to the power grid. :(

So while decreasing cost for solar power, wind power, etc. is a target, (which I shall elaborate a little bit) storing the energy created by the elements which fluctuates greatly within a day, is a much more bigger target.

It seems some Aussies (I hope this is not a contemptous term) seem to find a solution to power storage problem.

The solution is Vanadium Redox Battery, which works like a lead acid battery with the exception that you store the charged electrolyte and discharged electrolyte in separate containers thereby increasing / upscaling storage capacity of the battery as much as you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery
http://www.vrb.unsw.edu.au/

Storage capacity is limited to the size of your electrolyte tanks. Since you fix the power chemically and store the electrolyte which by no means self discharge unlike the case of many batteries, you may store the extra power you derive from wind / solar power facilities while not using the power and use it when you need them.

And in my researches I have come across a few solar and wind technologies that can be undertaken by even an amateur like me.

Amongst the technologies I came across, the most exciting ones were vertical wind turbines. I believe one can be made with rudimentary materials.

Amongst the solar technologies, the most exciting ones in terms of DIY were dye sensitized solar cells (DSCs or DCScs).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye-sensitized_solar_cells
http://www.solideas.com/solrcell/howworks.html

This technology was invented by some Swiss guy called Graetzel.

However the most promising ones in terms of commercialization were CIGS(S) technology. While CIGS (Cu (In Ga) di Selenid) was present for a long time as an alternative to silicone based systems, CIGSS (last S stands for sulfur) was the most efficient of them all, invented by South Africans.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=CIGS+CIGSS&btnG=Search

However the best and most important development was the invention of CIGS ink, (by Nanosolar) which is used for printing precursors of the above semiconductors (namely Cu, In, Ga) on a metal foil and cooking it to reduce them to create metal alloy and treating them with H2Se to make proper semiconductors.

Actually, if I do anything I would use (some) DIY vertical wind turbine and some DIY DCSs, I would store the excess power via a vanadium battery. Regards.

[Tom Sawyer]

I was just reading about the Vertical Wind Turbine Technology... It sounds like a plan.

My immediate research has however been into alternate vehicle fuels which may allow some of us to retain a small piece of our mobility and perhaps quality of life in the coming Depression.

I have been reading up on flex fuel vehicles and E85 (85% ethanol) gasoline.

So far, it appears that some non-flex vehicles can safely run on E85, while relatively inexpensive conversion kits are available which allow gasoline engined vehicles to run on e85 or E98 fuels. One such reference is here: http://www.colorado4x4.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=119593

In this 8 page thread, the participants are not only road testing E85 conversion kits, but also experimenting with running E85 in non-modified vehicles. The preliminary results are surprising.

With E85 becoming available throughout the western world (UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, South Africa, Europe) in the next couple of years, knowledge is power and it might just help save you from the dole queue or even starvation.

Also, log onto scribd and run a search for "Distillation". To the non-chemists out there, there are several excellent downloadable resources to assist with setting up a fuel moonshine still. With the easy availability of E85, you can produce your own ethanol fuel, add a little gas to denature it and when the revenue man comes around asking you questions about your illicit supply of alcohol fuel for which you do not have a permit and have not paid duties on, you can tell him you bought it at the Texaco gas station down the road.

Of course, none of this will save us from TEOTWAWKI, but it might help to keep some food on the table for a while.

[akinrog]

I have been reading up on flex fuel vehicles and E85 (85% ethanol) gasoline.
In my humble opinion, the organic material (i.e. grains used for producing biofuels) must be used ONLY for nutritional purposes, as the recent soaring of food prices indicated.

However, although I did not put serious research into feasibility of doing the following, I always dream of building a fuel-cell-produced-electric-gasoline / diesel hybrid engine.

The gadgets sold on the market as hybrid cars are IMHO joke. Although re-using kinetic energy of the car is a good idea, I don't believe they are very efficient. And recently a documentary called fifth speed indicated that hybrid cars actually does not provide any improvement (in terms of mileage and emissions) if you keep your speed at the highway speeds.

Here is my wild plan: While fuel cells are scientifically simple equipment, their design (i.e. engineering) is quite sophisticated.

If I ever choose a fuel cell system for a hybrid engine, I would choose molten carbonate fuel cells, since they are the most resistant to the poisoning and can reform the hydrocarbon fuel inside the cell, thus able to use any type of fuel which contains carbon.

However, their disadvantages include high operating temperature (around 450 Celsius), long initial start up time (the cell must reach to operating temperature to operate) and most importantly corrosion.

My plan involves using a regular gasoline/diesel engine to ensure initial take off the vehicle and using excess heat radiated by the exhaust pipes to bring the molten carbonate fuel cell to operating temperature and when right temperature is attained, fuel cell kicks in and the engine becomes an electric motor.

I know it's easier to say than doing it (that's the spirit of engineering right). But if this system can be done, I think it may increase engine efficiencies by a few ten percents.

Since there is no combustion, the emission of the molten carbonate fuel cell shall be extremely clean, carbondioxide and water.

However, the corrosiveness of the carbonate contained in the cell is a serious problem. The alkaline carbonates attack almost everything at elevated temperatures, so the main difficulty of designing a cell is choosing and incorporating the right materials, which resist molten alkali carbonates.
Regards.

[Bugger]

In my humble opinion, the organic material (i.e. grains used for producing biofuels) must be used ONLY for nutritional purposes, as the recent soaring of food prices indicated.(cut)
An exception would be in the case of food grains which have become unfit for human consumption, or for consumption by livestock producing food for human consumption, and would otherwise have to be dumped. Also, the straw or cornstalks left over from grain harvesting could be used, along with the bagasse left over from expressing the juice from sugar cane, and waste wood, being cellulosic material, could be utilized to produce either methanol by anaerobic destructive distillation, or ethanol using bacteria that have recently been developed with enzymes capable of hydrolysing the stuff.

[megalomania]

Necessity is the mother of all invention, as as energy prices soar, so too should we see brilliant new innovations. A new technology could transform the energy marketplace overnight, a situation investors must both fear and embrace. If tomorrow some company patented enzymes cheaper than sawdust that could depolymerize cellulose, we could have gas back to $1 a gallon and 2 Hummers in every garage. If someone figures out how to make solar panels for $0.10 per watt, we will become an all electric society with no off switch. If the boffins figure out how to sustain a vigorous fusion reaction in a cheap reactor, we can all light up our homes like Vegas.

Of course, you should never depend on future discoveries and breakthroughs as an investment strategy, or any kind of strategy. Just because there is a breakthrough does not mean we will benefit either. The man with dirt cheap enzymes might just end up as the worlds first trillionaire by turning free bio waste into gas priced only slightly cheaper than all other alternatives...

One technology we only touched on is coal. I have heard it quoted that "the US has a 400 year supply of coal" or some extremely long period like that. The only modern advances into efficient coal use were by the Nazis, out of necessity due to strangled oil supplies.

Clean coal technology is a political term that sounds nice in soundbytes, but is actually a number of different technologies that are not necessarily "clean," just better than shoveling coal into a firepit.

Coal liquefaction and coal gasification are two interesting areas deserving of scientific advances. Imagine if you will a technology that can easily, cheaply, and efficiently convert liquid coal into a liquid hydrocarbon. Coal into oil at the flip of a switch, and West Virginia would become a very wealthy state.

That is the goal anyway, but we are not there yet. What many of the technologies boil down to, scientifically speaking, is the need for new catalysts. Catalysts! It is here investors should be looking to risk their dollars, because this is the science that has the greatest potential.

A fuel cell catalyst that replaces precious metals will cut the cost of such systems to a fraction of what they are now. A catalyst that can break down cellulose into useful sugars will increase ethanol yields by an order of magnitude for the same cost. A catalyst that can efficiently reform natural gas and coal into petroleum feedstocks will stabilize fuel prices for generations to come. A catalyst that breaks down plastics into raw materials will cause a recycling boom, and likely eliminate the need for new virgin plastic for decades. A catalyst that enables a very energy efficient decomposition of water, or other material, into hydrogen will jumpstart the hydrogen economy.

Maybe physical chemists do have a use after all... A century ago the world was on the brink of global starvation, until Fritz Haber developed the catalyst that is still used today in the Haber process to make ammonia fertilizers.

Catalysts today? (I think there is a journal with that title) The 2005 Nobel Prize in chemistry was for research into catalysts for metathesis reactions, which paved the way for the intriguing advances into Fischer-Tropsch chemistry by professor Alan Goldman at Rutgers. The tandem catalytic reaction converts coal into usable diesel fuel by reforming the less useful long and short chain hydrocarbons produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process into very useful medium chain molecules.

Check it out in Science:
“Catalytic Alkane Metathesis by Tandem Alkane Dehydrogenation-Olefin Metathesis (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/312/5771/257)”; Alan S. Goldman, Amy H. Roy, Zheng Huang, Ritu Ahuja, William Schinski, Maurice Brookhart; Science 14 April 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5771, pp. 257 - 261; DOI: 10.1126/science.1123787

[akinrog]

Clean coal technology is a political term that sounds nice in soundbytes, but is actually a number of different technologies that are not necessarily "clean," just better than shoveling coal into a firepit.


Sir, I don't want to sound like a quack who suggest a snake oil for every ailment, but actually there are researches using molten carbonate fuel cells digesting solid coal in reactors and converting the chemically bound energy of coal directly into electric energy.

The technology uses nickel catalyst, which is inexpensive in comparison with platinum used in other fuel cells. However its high temperature and extreme corrosiveness is prohibitive for home use. Regards.

[tmp]

A poster rightfully claimed that hybrids show no mileage increase during
highway travel because the process uses the energy of deceleration to
charge up the batteries. The improvement is for stop-and-go driving.
If anything the mileage may actually decrease during highway travel because
of the additional weight for the batteries, etc..

But I've always wondered about something. Exhaust gasses are used by
turbochargers to compress more fuel/air mixture into the cylinders. That's
some if not alot of power. Couldn't that energy be used instead to
produce electricity ? Just thought I'd throw it out there for consideration.
Any thoughts ?

[JouMasep]

First of all, what a beautiful quotation from Johann Joachim Becher!
The only modern advances into efficient coal use were by the Nazis, out of necessity due to strangled oil supplies.

Clean coal technology is a political term that sounds nice in soundbytes, but is actually a number of different technologies that are not necessarily "clean," just better than shoveling coal into a firepit.

Coal liquefaction and coal gasification are two interesting areas deserving of scientific advances. Imagine if you will a technology that can easily, cheaply, and efficiently convert liquid coal into a liquid hydrocarbon. Coal into oil at the flip of a switch, and West Virginia would become a very wealthy state.

That is the goal anyway, but we are not there yet. What many of the technologies boil down to, scientifically speaking, is the need for new catalysts. Catalysts! It is here investors should be looking to risk their dollars, because this is the science that has the greatest potential.
Hmm, I do not want to say that improvements cannot be made, but on the other hand I doubt if it is realized how advanced the present-day state of coal-liquefaction truly is. It may be that that the ratio of diesel / gasoline could be optimised due to the increase in diesel vehicles, but this alone will not radically change a fundamental problem with the process that cannot be remedied through science, as long as we work from coal –or whatever fossil fuel.

If we want to see cutting edge coal-to-oil technology we only have to look at SASOL. And I presume they have snapped up a licence for prof. Alan Goldman’s (patented?) work already.
One third of the entire amount of gasoline consumed in South Africa comes from coal.

Seeing that they can produce gasoline at a break-even-figure of around 35 dollar per barrel (one hundred bucks less than current!), they seem to be doing fine in the efficiency department. (If I remember correctly they use ferrous catalysts)

Unfortunately “coal to oil” will never be “clean” by any stretch. Basic entropy and chemistry dictate that once your gas/diesel has been produced from coal and burned in your car, you have left a significantly larger carbon-footprint than even if you burn straight from oil.

And that is where simply lies the trouble with any notions of turning West Virginians into the New Beverly Hillbillies. A developing nation like South Africa gets away with it –Western nations won’t. (Kyoto Protocol norms and others’ are shaped that way)

‘Just finished reading SASOL’s prospectus the other day with the view of buying shares in the company. Ending this Wednesday they had a scheme going here in South Africa where all non-whites could buy at a discount of c.a. 21% –with stringent restrictions. Me, being of the Master-Race, was excluded; but I had “a cunning plan” via proxies etc. But timing of the offer was such that the (healthy) dividends were paid out already, ‘Discount may turn into premium, I thought and ‘better see where oil and the local currency go now and bide my time a little; perhaps I will time the market right one day. ‘Too much talk about recession anyway, oil dropped also quite a bit –for now……

SASOL are even much bigger than I thought (capital into the hundreds of billions); also making a whole gamut of polymers solvents, fertilisers, lubricants –the list goes on and on. –all sans a drop of crude…

My eye also caught a single paragraph in the prospectus, cannot quite literally quote it here, but it stated that SASOL does research into “alternative fuels”.

This I found most interesting as it may confirm what I already believed to be the case –or what should be the case anyway. Whilst I have no direct lead that SASOL is de facto involved in it, I understand that the Fischer-Tropsch process is eminently usable for “the“ other Cellulosic” process.

The “usual” Cellulosic method has been mentioned and is taken as familiar, however another, entirely different technology that can convert cellulosic biomass into alcohol, also exists.

This method consists of turning the biomass into CO and hydrogen. And from this, using either special catalysts or certain bacteria, ethanol is formed. The disadvantage of the catalysts is the stricter purity demands on the feed-gas, to avoid poisoning.
The bacteria are of course proprietary and as per usual expensive –but have a great tolerance for impurities.

Both these processes are in the developmental stage and larger plants are being planned, built –or are in the beginning phases of production.

A mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide –as used in the Cellulosic plan “B”- is also called “Syngas”.

But Syngas is also what SASOL makes from coal and/or natural gas in order to produce ALL the aforementioned petrochemical products. Why make alcohol if you can make gasoline!

The so called C4 grasses such as Miscanthus giganteus and switchgrass are the natural world’s most efficient engines of photosynthesis. They have also modest requirements regarding soil quality, fertilisation and irrigation/precipitation. The way we use them is up to economics; i.e. what will turn out to be the optimal method to employ this promising resource, will be dictated by terms of return on capital, supply and costs of raw material, and overall need for the end product..

I may have missed something, but I reckon that a conversion from C4 grasses into petrochemicals could be the single most important technology to make a serious dent into the impending oil-crisis/catastrophe.

‘Should perhaps go a bit more into the quantitative details in a later posting.

Regarding investment in the entire alternative fuel industry, and thus also in catalysts-development, I see the principle as both contributing to our future wellbeing as well as potentially extremely lucrative. The problem is that only rarely do investors see their money (back), and even more rarely does humankind actually see any benefits in a hurry.

A case in point:
The huge cost per kJ of photovoltaic cells has had whole armies of researchers looking for the holy grail of cheap photo-cells. Big news: a year ago or so, a South African invention in the field was about to revolutionize matters! The invention was bought up by some Germans. A lot of promising talk this and that way –but the upshot is that we are all still waiting, with nothing concrete in the offing.

By the way, when do things start to look bad for investors and for the car industry in particular? Merrill Lynch stated that General Motors may face bankruptcy!

Their car sales do not cover interest payments –let alone debts. The government perhaps may bail GM out, but not before the shareholders are wiped out.

I wonder how much GM has done about innovative technology such as Toyota’s quite economical and low-emission hybrid cars, and Honda’s hydrogen vehicles. The former is most practical but not cheap, the latter as yet a mere Hollywood status symbol –but still, it is this type of big-corporate forward thinking that must give impetus and financial muscle for the TRUE breakthroughs that will take us off the hook.

The innovation may well come from a small group but the full development and realization will almost certainly come from a large corporation.

TMP, RE: But I've always wondered about something. Exhaust gasses are used by
turbochargers to compress more fuel/air mixture into the cylinders. That's
some if not alot of power. Couldn't that energy be used instead to
produce electricity? The net-savings would be extremely marginal, if any. The driving of the turbo by exhaust gasses is perhaps more efficient than –say- belt driving a compressor, but nevertheless it does come at some expense of the engine’s optimal breathing. (Increased exhaust manifold back-pressure / dampening of manifold pulse).

[Herro]

While it is nice to wean ourselves--individually and nationally--from limited hydrocarbon sources, there's another added benefit from these technologies. The provisions of being able to sustain oneself without power or petrol companies are substantial. There are a few downsides obviously, such as reliability of the system, limited supply (based on storage capacity) and investment expenses.

Surviving on natural, renewable resources from your property allows a significantly higher degree of freedom. No nosy power company reps wondering about spikes in energy usage; no neighbors gawking at random equipment making loud noises ("It's OK; he's off the grid...").

[tranquillity]

Even without modifying an engine it would be fairly easy to triple or better the fuel efficiency of a new car. The answer lies in the construction of the body of the car. If car companies would use lightweight materials such as carbon fibre instead of steel you would have a substantially lighter car thus allowing a greater % of the energy in whatever fuel you choose to be used in actually moving the passengers.

[megalomania]

A lightweight car might be beneficial in theory, but not in practice. It is bad enough that most cars have cheap plastic bumpers and body panels that are easily destroyed at speeds in excess of 1 mile per hour, but it can cost $$$THOUSANDS$$$ of dollars to replace these components. Now you want the entire car built out of the same material?

I bet car manufacturers would love this as a single fender bender would completely total the car. The only problem with this strategy is such cars would be a DEATHTRAP for anyone involved in an accident at speeds greater than 20MPH.

Maybe this is a European sentiment where you can drive through a dozen countries in a 100 mile stretch, but in America we drive 20-50 miles one way just to get to work, and we drive 70-80 MPH on the highway, and as slow as 30 MPH in residential neighborhoods. Ever had a semi blow past you on the road doing 70 when you are driving a small car? If you are unlucky it can blast you off the road and send you fishtailing to your doom. And that is in a car made of steel.

Carbon fiber is also far more complicated to manufacture than steel, hence it is more expensive. Sure, if enough industries used carbon fiber the manufacturing costs would plummet, but the steel industry still has a 150 year head start.

Alas this thread is not about SAVING energy, but about USING energy, so I will stop there.

I have heard there are proposals to use heat exchange technologies on hot auto exhaust to generate electricity. I have no idea how they plan to miniaturize the equipment to make it useful. The only heat exchange technology I have seen is industrial equipment for factories. About 70% of the energy of gasoline is wasted as heat, so there is a lot of room to improve the efficiency of cars if this works.

[grayssk]

Carbon fiber is also far more complicated to manufacture than steel, hence it is more expensive. Sure, if enough industries used carbon fiber the manufacturing costs would plummet, but the steel industry still has a 150 year head start.

Bonus fact: Many applications of Carbon Fiber end up being heavier than their steel counterparts, as most people who have replaced their car hood with carbon fiber can attest. It's a very hard material to work with (although it's a very beneficial skill, because Kevlar and other aramids are worked the same way. (See Make #9 for more details http://www.make-digital.com/make/vol09/?pg=166&u1=texterity&cookies=1))).

On the topic of fuel for cars, there's really only two options in my mind. Biodeseil using Hemp/Switchgrass/etc., preferably hybrids, and all electric. It's getting easier and easier to convert your car/truck/bike to electricity, and cheaper and cheaper to generate said electricity at home using wind turbines, solar panels, etc.

Some sample links:
http://www.marquecornblatt.com/art/cycle.html
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_conversion

[fluoroantimonic]

Heres an idea I've never come across in my readings on this subject. Boron as an energy carrier. It is an interesting idea if nothing else. I'd like to see what you guys think.

http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

It is a strange page but it seems to be accurate as far as I can tell. Boron really looks superior in energy density, safety, and many other aspects. The biggest flaw in the whole system I noticed was the need for continuous high flow pure oxygen that must be separated from the air. Maybe it is doable. Also they mention the B2O3 particles might screw with the turbines. The remedy for that is the Tesla Turbine. Look it up.

Still, the source of the energy is a different issue. The pebble bed nuclear reactor looks very interesting. Ocean wave power and high altitude wind look promising too. I find it strange how little you hear about high altitude wind in the mainstream alternative energy babble.

Its actually been a while since I've researched this subject, lately I've been to distracted with energetics.

[grayssk]

Heres an idea I've never come across in my readings on this subject. Boron as an energy carrier. It is an interesting idea if nothing else. I'd like to see what you guys think.

http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

It is a strange page but it seems to be accurate as far as I can tell. Boron really looks superior in energy density, safety, and many other aspects. The biggest flaw in the whole system I noticed was the need for continuous high flow pure oxygen that must be separated from the air. Maybe it is doable. Also they mention the B2O3 particles might screw with the turbines. The remedy for that is the Tesla Turbine. Look it up.

Still, the source of the energy is a different issue. The pebble bed nuclear reactor looks very interesting. Ocean wave power and high altitude wind look promising too. I find it strange how little you hear about high altitude wind in the mainstream alternative energy babble.

Its actually been a while since I've researched this subject, lately I've been to distracted with energetics.

Interesting idea, but some searching shows that this has already been tried in aircraft afterburners with some success, but suffered from several flaws, chiefly the incredibly toxic fumes it produces. Probably not a good choice for automotive power.

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/notes_fuel.php

[Alexires]

Well. This is simply amazing. Just watch and you will see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqqtJpfZElQ.

Any doubt about the merits of electric vehicles have just been laid to rest.

Also look at this, for the motorbike enthusiasts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRpMV-Gf0hA

[akinrog]

Carbon fiber is also far more complicated to manufacture than steel, hence it is more expensive. Sure, if enough industries used carbon fiber the manufacturing costs would plummet, but the steel industry still has a 150 year head start.

Sir,
Apart from the difficulties involved in the manufacturing of carbon fiber, it's also more labor intensive to produce body parts out of carbon fiber, while it takes a few seconds to press a steel sheet into a body part in a die-press. Regards.

[fluoroantimonic]

Any doubt about the merits of electric vehicles have just been laid to rest.

Couldn't agree with you more. Batteries are getting better all the time, it won't be long before they are affordable. Then the problem becomes getting the electricity to power them cheaply (and hopefully cleanly..)

[FUTI]

I still think that for cars some hybrid system is the best solution. Like LPG driven internal combustion engine + fuel cell (again LPG fuel) powered DC electric motor. Something of that kind works on a little bit larger scale. Look for those modern German submarines that use similar system.

Friend also told me a crazy story about some guys that made car that use external combustion to produce water steam and convert that steam to work (usable power) through some turbine. That suppose to be a new research. They didn't put condenser (or at least not a very good one) to their prototype to condense (and recycle) the water so it emits a clouds of water - which in my opinion makes whole story absurd that is a so big energy sink that it doesn't make sense they could prove that steam system is more economic than internal combustion engines. Nevertheless if I had a cart frame and a little boiler to spare I would try to replicate that just for a fun and a kick I would get to see it go. :-D

For us poor guys here that is beyond our funds, but we can experiment with some other ways to tweak the power on the engines we got our hands on. Does anyone know is it possible to run internal combustion engine with methane using conversion kit identical/similar to one used for propane/butane gas? And does anyone have some good links/books related to car compressors injection systems etc.?

As for electrical plants...I'm amazed they didn't convert to fuel cells so far. How dumb man must be not to understand that up to 85% (now that number is hard to achieve and they usually count there also a heat generated that can be used/stored/distributed somewhere somehow) of power per kg of fuel is much higher then up to 40% of power per kg of fuel?

[Cobalt.45]

From experience in another life w/high compression alcohol-burning competition engines, I will say that alcohol will not in and of itself burn pistons, as was eluded to earlier. One problem supercharged fuel-injected alky racers face is building enough heat into the engine so as to make the most power and many use no cooling system or an abbreviated one because of this. The blowers will ice-up the injector blades (butterflies, as they're known) when using alky- that's why you see the crew guy spraying the blades prior to launching (drag racing)- he's de-icing them so they won't stick open at the end of the run.

An overly-lean fuel/air mixture, will burn pistons and valves/valve seats (especially exhaust), be it gasoline, alcohol, nitromethane, et al. This lean condition will cause detonation as well and this will lead to pinched rings/collapsed ring lands- i.e. burned pistons.

What is more likely to occur is damage to the rings/cylinders when the upper cylinder's lubrication is compromised by alcohol's ability to "wash" the cylinders of lubrication. This same phenomena can also dilute the crankcase oil with alcohol- this is why alky burning race cars get an oil change after every event. They also will shut off the alcohol and then run the engine on gasoline to "flush" the fuel system of the water-absorbing alky. I would also add that these problems occur on race cars due to their nature- overly-long valve timing being the biggest culprit- and wouldn't be shared by a street-tuned vehicle, for the most part.

The rub w/using alky as fuel in a street-driven vehicle (besides supply and cost, of course) used to be corrosion related to the hygroscopic nature of alky and deterioration of the rubber components in the fuel system, most notably the rubber-like tip of the "needle valve" of the needle and seat that controls fuel flow into the float bowl- of carburetors. But carbs haven't been used for years and modern FI systems currently in use are far more forgiving to alcohol, although there may still be components that would be susceptible to damage from E85 and up alcohol content fuels. But fuel system components are accessible and could be modified if there were compatibility issues.

Gasket problems in general and head gasket-related problems in particular should be nil. Other than the fuel system, alcohol wouldn't be in contact w/gaskets in such a way as to soak into the gaskets. Vapor contact would occur, though, like in the intake tract.

Almost all production head gaskets used to be "steel shim-type" gasket, and even the newer composite-type head gaskets have no issue w/alky. If alcohol is soaking into your head gasket(s):eek:, you have more than corrosion/deterioration to worry about!

Bottom line as I see it is that there are FAR more problems associated w/supplying enough alcohol than there will ever be in making or converting automobiles to be compatible with using it as fuel.

As an aside, years ago Smoky Yunick came up w/an engine he called a "hot vapor" engine, IIRC. Some research into whatever became of it might be interesting, the man was a self-taught genius. I had heard that the rights were bought by Detroit, but who knows.

[fluoroantimonic]

Friend also told me a crazy story about some guys that made car that use external combustion to produce water steam and convert that steam to work (usable power) through some turbine.

External combustion has many benefits. It is inherently more efficient, cleaner, and quieter than reciprocating combustion. The problem is converting that heat to usable mechanical energy. Steam turbines are relatively efficient when run at constant speed, but as soon as you try to throttle them quickly, they become pretty useless. They also tend to be fairly heavy for the power you get out. Stirling engines, the other common type of external combustion engine, are also much more efficient that ICEs but as with turbines, they cannot quickly increase or decrease power, and so have never been able to be used effectively in cars.

I'm amazed they didn't convert to fuel cells so far.

Straight efficiency isn't everything. It is my understanding that fuel cells of that efficiency are *extremely* expensive compared to well developed turbine technology. And I don't know if the quoted efficiencies are entirely correct because those type fuel cells run on H2 and O2 which both require substantial energy to produce and even more additional capital. I think if fuel cells were really that much better, they would be seeing more use. Also they are quite new and the industry takes time to change.

[FUTI]

It is true that alcohols are detrimental to rubber and plastic components, look upon any data provided by manufacturers of plastic labware that supposed to be resistant to most chemicals and you will see that most of plastic labware has excellent chem resistance to most organic solvents but polar ones like aldehydes, ketones and alcohols are different story. At best plastic show good resistance toward these solvents. Also biodiesel is a bitch. At best your ordinary fuel line will stand 10% of biodiesel mixed with regular diesel. After that rubber will be eaten in front of your eyes...who would said that porky fat has teeth long after the porky has died ;-). Also don't plan a trip to Alaska with biodiesel it has a tendency to solidify in the tank much higher then regular diesel - that problem can be solved but for a price. Germany didn't jump to biodiesel/ethanol train only because they calculated that conversion of old cars to new fuel would cost to much.

As for turbines said here... you guys are correct. It is hard to throttle the power from it. That isn't an issue in Abrams M1A1 when you let the turbine run constantly at the same rpm as fuel consumption in tanks is calculated per hour of work not mileage covered in that time, and you use complex gearing system to use that power as needed. I think that Japan's car manufacturers offered turbine powered car years ago, it had a creepy sound by my standards but that is subjective opinion, but you don't see much of those Jap's cars running around do you? Someone also tried to make turbine driven motorcycle but exhaust from that one is deadly weapon it melts the road and burn the legs of bystanders or at least that is what is what I hear.

Fuel cells are old invention. The complexity of making an electrodes to make reasonable power/current has prohibited it's use and also a price of rare and precious metals that are basic catalyst in it. But I think that we can predict the path here. Let's see during WWII Germany used Fischer-Tropsch process to make gasoline and used cobalt catalyst (heavy price), then during first oil crisis USA funded experiments in SA made that process use iron based catalyst (now that is much cheaper). Point is if there is no flow of cache in the research there is no results. Now we have another oil crisis...will see. Dear Lord let that flush of cash goes here :-). Anyway use of oil for generation of electricity and ICE in cars is stupid IMHO. Oil should be used to the best effect in chemical industry for many other much valuable things. People are to spoiled and should use public transportation most of which use electric driven motors like subways and like.

And you are right best direct conversion to electrical energy by hydrogen fuel cells is around 70%. But my last remark was for electric power plants. You can run fuel cells on coal as regular power plants. There are problems with development of those systems. Nevertheless can you imagine how the world would look if the inventor of ICE give up after its first prototype engine fueled with carbon dust blow up to pieces. There is a range of high temperature fuel cell systems that has good efficiency but they calculate both thermal and electrical power produced in all data I look upon (and I didn't look for a long time). Hell I think... I remember that I read about one of those systems that has above 100% efficiency :-P. Catch is that system steal thermal energy from surrounding environment to maintain work but at its operating temperatures Venus or Mercury would be suitable environment to run those fuel cells. So far neglected and unfocused research on fuel cells look toward exotic stuffs which are more publishable and less practical. Anyway if you look the adds on net you can buy an 100kW fuel cell as emergency generator for large institutions like hospitals that can use propane/butane gas - they use phosphoric acid as electrolyte which is good as CO2 won't stick around spoiling your electrolyte (most H2 fuel cells use KOH or LiOH which would reacted with CO2 in hydrocarbon systems and precipitated carbonates could make big mess there). Efficiency is around 40% for direct conversion to electrical energy + 45% converted to heat you can use to warm a water for bath, heating and cleaning systems. I remember reading about experiments in Santa Clara with molten metal oxide system size of a tennis field (footprint I can't recollect how high was that facility) that supposedly had MW output.

OT but as for tweaking side of the story...did anyone tried to use fluorinated organic compounds as lubricants in ICE. Those won't mix with water or organic solvents which would reduce all problems like corrosion and I think that their friction is negligible so thin film of that could be good lubricant for piston type engines.

Some things you guys mentioned earlier are very similar to mine opinion (or hopes :-)) related to solar power. But scientist in me tells me that Al Gore call to USA industry is pure utopia. Nevertheless we can all reduce power consumption if we invest in solar energy. Who cares if it take 10 years to pay off if that system can run 100 years without repair?

As for wind power...ask Dutch guys IMHO...they are playing with it from 14th century and they had steal much of their land from sea with wind powered pumps so persistence is everything I guess. Heavy to develop, hard to maintain, but if you don't expect a miraculous cash flowing machine and set your objective wisely it will pay off. Boy I get a scribomania attack...I will rest now in hope not to kill you guys with to long posts.

[Alexires]

Perhaps combine the idea of a turbine driven off excess engine heat to charge a battery/run an electric engine that assists the vehicle.

Problem here is that we are reinventing the wheel, over and over. Yes, it would improve the amount of energy that we get from the engine, but we are still burning petrol, and we want to get away from that.

I have an old 1979 GSX 250 engine sitting in the shed that might have to be put on a go-cart and converted to run on ethanol.

Perhaps we can have a bit of collaboration here from the general Forum?

I have the work shop manual, and skills at my finger tips to make fairly significant alterations to the engine itself, but I would like your assistance for firstly ideas about the alterations that may assist (regeneration of energy using steam turbine to charge a battery that runs an electric engine, or cracks water to be input with the ethanol, etc) and in the future, actual help with designing, building and testing the engine.

What say you all?

[fluoroantimonic]

did anyone tried to use fluorinated organic compounds as lubricants in ICE.

That's not a bad idea except an ICE runs at a temperature where they would eventually (maybe quickly) decompose leading to all kinds of nasty fumes. Fluorophosgene any one?

And I'm not sure why all the fuss over ethanol, it seems to be pretty impractical, the land clearing that results from the higher demand for food caused my wasting food crops for fermentation far offsets any CO2 benefits, and drive the prices of food way up, which screws over everyone but the farmers. In my opinion algae diesel is the only halfway viable biofuel so far.

Problem here is that we are reinventing the wheel, over and over.

That's for sure. Better than nothing though. Maybe..

[megalomania]

Ethanol is not a bad fuel source because its combustion characteristics, biosynthesis, industrial manufacture, and transportation are well known. The problem lies in the choice of raw material used to make ethanol. This ridiculous insistence on using food crops when there are many different suitable alternatives, such as switchgrass, is preposterous. This is politics at its worst, an attempt by Midwestern senators to bolster their states economies by subsidizing farmers in some pathetic bid to become the next Rockefeller of the ethanol age.

Electric cars and fuel cell cars may be efficient, but they still fall behind in practical applications. To be appealing to a consumer, electric cars need to perform very much like internal combustion cars. This means electric cars need to hold a charge over a distance close to a tank of gas, they need to charge as quick as filling a tank of gas, they need to have the same horsepower and speed of combustion engines, and the cars need to cost the same. It would take a fundamental shift of the consumer mindset to accept an electric car with substantial deficiencies over a combustion engine.

I may not travel much, but I like the idea of being able to get in my car and drive to the other end of the state, or across the country, and I suspect many people do. An electric car with limited range constrains me from being able to travel if the batteries are not able to hold enough charge.

On such long trips the time to recharge the batteries should also be comparable to filling up a gas tank. I rather doubt businesses, stores, apartment complexes, etc. will allow just anyone to plug in their car and juice it up for quite a number of years after electric cars are available, except if you pay an outrageous fee. This means the only place you can be assured of recharging your car is in your own garage. Believe me, there will be outrageous fees to plug in your car if it comes to this. Without the convenience of a quick charge at a designated recharging station, this will further limit the distance we can travel in an electric car.

This rather limits a person's electric car driving to going to work and back, going to the store and back, going to school and back, and that is pretty much it. Granted that is probably a majority of the driving most people do, however, and this is a big however, consider that for over 75 years the culture, success, and sense of freedom that has defined the spirit of the United States has been the automobile. The ability to pile the family in the car and drive off to some exotic locale, even if it is Lake Erie, is liberating.

If the electric car is limited to day to day driving this is fine, many people have second, or even third, cars to use for just work, just long distance travel, and moving cargo. Traditionally the work car is a cheap beater, so I think most people would not be able to justify paying a premium price for a car that never goes farther than 20 miles from home. It would be hard to put enough millage on such a vehicle to get a good value out of it.

If you do use your electric car to go to work and back, or just to the store, then I am sure you will feel the need to participate in the rat of of the crazy ass drivers during rush hour traffic. Morons are among us, from the idiot doing 15 mph under the speed limit when you can't pass, to the idiot who thinks doing 15 mph over the speed limit is still too slow and passes you on a double yellow. Sometimes, many times, you need raw power to get your car past, around, through, or away from something on the road quick, and it is nice to know you have that power when needed. Our society is too hurried and rushed to settle for golf cart speeds.

Depending on who you are, how you drive, and how much money you have these issues may not be a factor in a decision to purchase an electric car. Unfortunately, these factors will be a factor for many purchasers, and this will limit the market penetration of electric cars. If the general consensus is people are not buying them, then other people will refuse to buy them because they see other people not buying (many purchases are based on seeing someone else have something, and wanting it for yourself). The limited sales will hinder development of electric cars, and we end up... right where we are now.

Another side to this argument is the transportation sector. Our economy relies on long haul trucking and the domestic shipping industry for virtually everything we need to survive. From the milk in the fridge at the grocery store from the local dairy, to the oranges from Florida, to the plastic crap from China. The shipping industry consumes a significant percentage of petroleum, virtually all of the diesel. These trucks need power, range, and durability, which are characteristics electric engines may not be able to provide for some time.

In conclusion, there is more to an electric car than energy efficiency alone. Unless you can fundamentally change the mindset of Americans, the only way to market an electric car is to build one indistinguishable from existing gasoline cars.

[Alexires]

But that is really what it comes down to, isn't it Mega?

A change of mindset is needed. That is what we have been saying for years, that is what this site is about. I am glad that this fuel crisis is happening. I am glad that something has happened that may jolt the sheeple from their mindset of a child and into something that resembles that of a contributing human being.

I think a problem here (this thread) is that we are trying to come up with something that will solve all the problems right now, and solve them for everyone. Here, I am selfish. While it would be nice to solve all these problems for everyone, if I can solve the problem for myself and even this Forum, I will be happy. If everyone here ran their vehicles for 50c a litre equivalent, I would be happy with that and the rest of the world can burn.

This is because we will have benefited from the work that we ourselves have done. Others will see our example and it will change their minds. Who knows, perhaps we might just find that answer for everyone, but we won't do it through talking, this much I know. To sit here, and talk is all well and good, but we must be careful it doesn't become procrastination, for that is what the sheeple do, and we are not the sheeple.

[Cobalt.45]

OK, for your alky-powered go-kart deal, start out by removing the carbs and setting them up to run on alcohol.

Requires steel-tipped needles and enlarging the fuel metering jets by 40% to start with (will prob. end up closer to 35%, but you don't want to damage it to begin with). Will also require mods to the idle, accelerator pump and mid-range circuits, but this will get you in the ballpark for now. If you can get a set of GSX 400 carbs, you might find the parts (metering jets, air bleeds, etc.) from them will suffice.

Get a heat-range colder set of plugs.

Replace rubber gas lines w/Teflon-lined steel-braided lines, sold at Summit, et al.

The carbs are aluminum, you will need to purge the fuel system after use, or come up w/a process (hard anodizing?) that will protect them. The fuel will need to be sealed from atmosphere when not in use for more than 5-7 days. The more water is absorbed by the fuel, the hotter the engine will run. Not a good thing w/air-cooled engines.

You will need to set up a test-stand that the engine can be run on for testing/tuning before you mount it onto anything. Hope you are good w/tools, fabrication, welding and etc. but this CAN be done.

This is obviously abbreviated. To relay to you everything that will be required would take too much space here.

Good luck.

[Alexires]

Thanks for that Cobalt. I was wondering what I was going to do about the possibility of it running too rich (not enough air as it would be optimised for petrol) and that is a fantastic solution.

Tomorrow the carbs get removed and the preliminary assessment begins (current size of the jets, ringing around to see if I can get GSX400 carbs and multiple sets of the jets, etc.)

Excellent website here (http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id32.html) that seems to have it all sussed. I might work off that for the moment unless someone thinks the info is crap.

Could you just explain your reasoning that an increased water content will increase mean engine temperature? See, I would figure that the energy content of the EtOH is constant, thus by having excess water, less EtOH gets to the cylinder, hence a lower cylinder temp, thus a lower engine temp.

Even if it is running hot (it is air cooled) that isn't such a bad thing, because the second step in my devious plan is to make use of that excess heat. But for the moment, let us concentrate on just getting the bastard of a machine to run on EtOH.

[Cobalt.45]

If you were to run alky in a gas carb, the problem would be terminal leanness i.e. too much air to fuel. Remember w/alky, MORE fuel and in your case, same amount of airflow.

Your carbs are equipped w/needles that extend into the bores of the main jets. Take a look at your carbs in your manual. To optimize the idle and mid-range these will need to be made smaller (thus enlarging the area of the jet), probably. But this scheme is easier than modifying internal passages and orifices like if it were a Holley.

But all in all, doing what was previously discussed will get it to run. Modifying the needles will come later.

Reading spark plugs will be a task that is hard to learn and harder yet to explain, especially w/alcohol fuel. There are a few good articles on it, I will look for them when you get to that stage- and might be a section in your manual, depending on which one you have. It will be necessary to learn, unless you can also invest in a wide-band O2 sensor and supporting soft/hardware.

Might want to look into a top-end lubricant, also. It's used much like 2-stroke oil- that is, added to the fuel. It will help to protect from mis-tuning until you get it dialed in, then you can stop using it.

This is getting OT, but I'll leave it to the mods as to whether it needs to be moved or taken PM.

[Alexires]

Cobalt - You are probably right, and hopefully this will turn into a project of itself. So, as not to hijack Charles' thread further talk of an alky vehicle should be placed here (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?t=6265).

[JouMasep]

Despite my miserable projections, I reckoned that oil would come down –temporarily, just as I figured that oil-from-coal Sasol’s share value would drop. And we can be happy that a lot of greedy speculators in oil futures lost their shirts in the process. They may not be the cause of our problems, but they bleedin’ well contributed.

But make no mistake! This is just a temporary respite -driven by an absence in real global production glitches, summer in the Northern hemisphere (US uses far less for heating), the onset of a global economic downturn, and also -most recently- a rise in the value of the US dollar. Even China’s economy is slowing down now.

My analysis is as follows: whilst it may be encouraging that the current instability in Eastern Europe itself did not lead to a rise of perhaps more than a few dollars per barrel –not effectively reversing the trend, the sad thing is that despite all the other positive factors, the price refused to come down to really below $110 per barrel. Said factors all being cyclical, we can bet our last drop that we will be hit again when the trends reverse. After all, the fact that the dollar has risen is for no other reason than expectations that the slump in the US will be relatively less bad than earlier thought, stimulating future demand. And so it goes on…..

So interest in the topic here may wane somewhat in the mean time, as we’re given a break in fuel price escalations. But a maturing of the various ideas here will continue, new ideas will also come when we feel the pinch again. ‘Have not even properly looked myself into some very interesting suggestions already posted, ‘caught up in bread-and-butter stuff for now.

‘Heard of what I thought a charming story:
I earlier dismissed biodiesel as discredited; but this was of course w.r.t. using food-oil, or vegetable oil obtained at the cost of land use that should be otherwise reserved for food production, whilst also using a great input of fossil fuel for cultivation and production. The other, remaining option of using waste fatty acids seemed too limited to make much of a dent.

But an astute small chemical entrepreneur from Grahams Town, South Africa sought to overcome such objections by sourcing oils and fats from ANY other possible source that can be found. The list of sources is about inexhaustible; but if fast-food outlets are commonplace, and ostrich fat a nice innovation, then how about crocodile fat!

He imports large amounts of crocodile fat from Mozambique. The offal from the crocodile farms yields about 50kg per croc of -otherwise valueless- fat. (Latest trend in fashion conscious eco-friendly transport: driving a Volvo diesel on crocodile fat, wearing Gucci crocodile boots.)

He sells biodiesel at less than 75% of the petrochemical product’s retail price.

Another interesting aspect to his enterprise is that the guy only sells his discounted fuel to citizens of his town that “contribute meaningfully” to the local society.
This type of thinking can create incentives that further induce adopting of alternative energy sources –thus lowering the overall demand –and prices, lowering greenhouse gas emissions and preserving valuable petroleum.

Catching on to the idea of using “ANY” fat, after first importing and breeding countless ostriches from Africa, the Australians are now “importing” the idea of using ostrich fat for biodiesel as well.
(Not enough fat on kangaroos perhaps?)

[Alexires]

Take it one step further and go Fight Club style. With Australia and America being the fattest countries in the world, let's use human fat to power our cars. Rather vicious cycle that: The drive, get fat, get lypo, drive, get fat, get lypo, etc. That makes me laugh that does, farming the sheeple for their fat so they can drive around.

Gives a whole new meaning to "having your ass handed to you on a platter"

[James]

I think it'd be nice to reduce our home, motoring etc. energy needs. A company named ceravision and others are apparently working on a better lighting. There are the evacuated solar tubes mentioned back on page 1 or 2. Superinsulating structures would reduce heating/cooling costs. Replace any excessive/inefficient apliences (I've read energy star is not that great) etc.
I remember seeing a page for an electric VW mod that tows a gas engine to push it on long trips. I think Sraight Veggie Oil and turbine power plants are neat. Chill out and drive a little slower. Check your tire pressure.
Buy local produce and eat less meat&dairy. reuse shopping bags. Sacrifice tree fuckers to the techno demons (j/k). Use a composting toilet and a fog shower. submit ways to save power.

[Jacks Complete]

Before this turns into a re-make of "Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge" or "Soylent Green", I'll remind you that this thread is about finding different sources for energy, not about energy efficiency.

To whoever corrected me about the info I put further up the thread, thank you. However, while the total energy into the production of a solar cell compared to the energy back out is now favourable, I believe that when you factor in the entire life - construction, siteing, cleaning, steering and disposal - the figures still don't add up. As ever, I may be wrong.

I'm thinking of having a wind generation and solar system, as they are by far the best combination of technologies. Simply storing the energy in cheap surplus SLA batteries and running an invertor will have a great effect, especially when I use so much mains power to simply recharge the batteries that I use when working. And much of that recharging comes from the alternator, which makes it even worse!

[Alexires]

One of the universities in Australia is working on attaching porphyrin to the outside of Carbon Nanotubes, which are excellent conductors of electrons (better than Copper). This will drastically decrease the cost of solar cells if it works out. So we may find in the next 10 years that solar technology will come a LONG way.

It will allow not only cheaper cells, but allow them the be sprayed onto the surface of windows, roofs, etc.

[waveguider]

That's pretty interesting Alexires but aren't carbon nanotubes linked with cancer?
source: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/05/22/carbon-nanotubes-cause-cancer

I don't think there has been any discussion of plasma converters for dealing with rubbish here, basically they take rubbish and spew out not only a slag which is of use in construction but also electricity from the burning of syngas, which is produced from the pyrolysis of the waste. I think that instead of using the syngas for electricity production you could use it to fuel cars and trucks.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/plasma-converter4.htm

[Alexires]

Good thing the Carbon Nanotubes are attached to a silicone substrate isn't it?

I said they were researching it, not hosing it into the air for people to breath.

Tungsten probably causes cancer, but that is in some drill bits. I'm sure they will think about that problem if/when it happens.

[megalomania]

I would like to know why everyone who comes up with some energy saving device tries to cash in on it...

In that spirit, there is a nifty device invented, or rather built, by MIT students using the patented invented of some other guy... It is a solar steam device, or rather a solar concentrator.

The MIT news coverage is here: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/solar-dish-0618.html
They have a few videos showing the device in operation. Apparently it is inexpensive to build, uses readily available hardware store parts, and quite efficient with their improved parabola shape. From the videos alone I could probably figure out how to build one.

The problem is they started up a company to sell the things called Raw Solar, http://raw-solar.com/index.html. The company website has an image gallery with more close up pictures of the structure.

I have already saved all the videos, pictures, and web pages because I know something like this won't stick around for long (for free).

Although they didn't specify the patents the design is based on, I tracked them down anyway and saved all the pdf copies of the inventors, and all related patents. Search for Inventor: "Douglas E. Wood"

As an example, I found US patents 4,171,876 and 4,295,709. There are several others, but I saved dozens and dozens of related patents in the same folder and I am not digging through them all now... Just search by inventor name if you are that interested.

While the MIT solar concentrator is certainly nothing new, the low cost of its construction, and the boosted efficiency of the curved mirror shape is an advance over anything else yet made. Hopefully the products sold by RawSolar will be kits better priced with what the DIY builder, possibly even detailed plans and part sources. I'm not holding my breath though. They might jump on the greedy energy bandwagon with all the other scammer companies and mark up the stuff 5-10 times what you could obtain on your own.

In conjunction with this solar concentrator is another very good DIY project website that shows you how to build a steam turbine electrical power generator in conjunction with a solar concentrator: http://xenotechresearch.com/solturb1.htm. The "turbine" is made from an old automobile alternator. Xenotech also has some other interesting solar furnaces, and they show how the stuff is built. There is no stupid theory on this site, they actually built the stuff, and show all in pictures. And all this by a girl to boot :)

She has some solar concentrators of her own, like a very cheap to build system that uses a reflective mylar blanket sealed over an inner tube. By applying a slight vacuum using an aquarium pump to the rear of the sealed inner tube, the mylar assumes a perfect curved surface to focus sunlight.

Her Pièce de résistance is the massive solar furnace capable of boiling steel in seconds... This is what I was searching for when I found the site. The whole thing is a DIY build from cast off parts, more or less. I see they have a much improved version with a solar tracker, a little less DIY friendly, at http://xenotechresearch.com/solfurr2.htm

[waveguider]

I thought you guys might find an article I read about a Temple University physics professor interesting. He has apparently succeeded in creating a working device that increases mileage. It works on that well known pseudoscience ''magnetic viscosity reducer effect'', which helps in the atomizing action of the carburetor. I don't know if this is more fringe science, as I have heard about other magnetic devices on the market which are marketed as working on similar principles however what is interesting about this particular device is that it gets mention on a reasonable well respected science site.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925111836.htm

[iHME]

Now this is right on topic.

A special fungi has been found in the Patagonian rain forest, it's metabolites resemble diesel. And it can "eat" cellulose.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96574076

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/rainforest-fung.html

The fun thing is that Mega talked about something like this some pages back.
Now let's see who tries to patent this fungi first :p

[megalomania]

I mentioned that enzymes in fungi have a great potential to depolymerize cellulose to its sugar building blocks, said sugars being fermentable. If a way can be found to produce large quantities of the enzyme, that is.

Enzymes suffer from a number of difficulties impeading them from industrial production. They are often obtained from natural sources only in very minute quantities, they tend to be unstable over long periods of time, and they can be very expensive to produce.

I gather the holy grail of the enzyme industry is to find a way to recycle the enzyme, which is to say reactivate it like a coenzyme so it can be reused over and over again. Especially after binding the enzyme to a substrate.

By the way, you can't patent a natural compound, but you can patent the method of its extraction, isolation, purification, artificial synthesis, etc. Of course with a rare fungi, the researchers can simply not reveal what the species is while they cultivate the only known supply. A researcher recently did this with a rare strain of algae that shows high biodiesel potential.

The company Novozyme is, I believe, one of the leading researchers of advanced enzymes for cellulosic depolymerization. They also manufacture a wide array of enzymes.

[waveguider]

Fish Technology
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081121125604.htm

''VIVACE/Vortex Induced Vibrations for Aquatic Clean Energy doesn't depend on waves, tides, turbines or dams. It's a unique hydrokinetic energy system that relies on vortex induced vibrations.

''VIVACE copies aspects of fish technology," Bernitsas said. "Fish curve their bodies to glide between the vortices shed by the bodies of the fish in front of them. Their muscle power alone could not propel them through the water at the speed they go, so they ride in each other's wake.

VIVACE energy would cost about 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour. Wind energy costs 6.9 cents a kilowatt hour. Nuclear costs 4.6, and solar power costs between 16 and 48 cents per kilowatt hour depending on the location.

if we could harness 0.1 percent of the energy in the ocean, we could support the energy needs of 15 billion people.
The professor also estimates that an array of VIVACE converters the size of a running track and about two stories high could power about 100,000 houses. Such an array could rest on a river bed or it could dangle, suspended in the water. But it would all be under the surface

The Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering has recently completed a feasibility study that found a VIVACE device could draw power from the Detroit River. They are working to deploy one for a pilot project there within 18 months.''

Personally Their claims sound a bit Fishy to me :D



Oh and I hope this thread hasn't been deemed dead.

[megalomania]

I believe the New York Times interviewed a couple dozen scientists for their predictions on what technology would be available in the next century. This was for the 1908 edition of the paper, and one of the technologies was electricity generation using generators powered by ocean waves.

This is certainly not the first such claim, but at this point I think we should wait until the thing actually gets built. Oh, the new "IT" is coming, we will build cities around it... We got the Segway, big deal.

Personally I want my atomic powered house generator as promised in the 1950's Popular Science mags.

[fluoroantimonic]

Personally I want my atomic powered house generator as promised in the 1950's Popular Science mags.

I always liked that idea too. A single "pebble" built similarly to the ones used in pebble bed helium cooled reactors could probably heat and power a house for years.. and AFAIK they're basically incapable of melting down, even under very bad conditions. Also extracting the radioactive fuels from them is said to be quite hard to do. You could use something like thermoelectric or Stirling generators to make all the power you need (maybe sell extra power to grid, or use if for something power intensive on site). It sounds like a pretty ideal scenario as long as the fuel doesn't become too expensive.

Too bad it'll never happen, there's no way the gov't would ever let that pass. They'd probably be too afraid some dumbass would blow them up with some AN and scatter radioactive dust everwhere... Plus having people become more independent is the last thing they want...

[iHME]

Toshiba is said have developed a "micro" nuclear power plant that would have around 200kW power.
They said to be deploying to America and Europe in 2009, but thats rather optimistic especially with the economic crisis at hand.

Heres some links on the subject

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/personal-nukes/toshiba-builds-personal+sized-micro-nuclear-reactor-huh-335312.php

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/19/toshibas-building-a-micro-nuclear-reactor-for-your-garage/

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/12/toshibas-home-n.html

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html

Oh, by the way, Tosihba owns the corporation building the next two nuclear reactors to the US.

[megalomania]

There is an atomic powered aircraft in the works for the military for very long term unmanned flights. Apparently the military wastes a lot of time and resources when it lands its overwatch craft, so it wants something that can stay in the sky for weeks, or months at a time.

These aircraft will use a type of reactor that is more radioactive when exposed to certain amounts of energy. I forget the particulars, but thsis is a very interesting concept. The bit about the Popular Science reactors reminded me of this because this was from an article in Popular Science that brought up its own 1950s predictions about atomic powered aircraft.

The atomic aircraft of the last century never got off the ground because the shielding made them far too heavy. Now that we have unmanned aircraft the idea is back on the drawing board. When the aircraft lands, the reactor is less radioactive, thus it is safer for the ground crew to be around. When it is in the air the reactor becomes dangerously radioactive, but there is no one around to be harmed by it.

These are not aircraft that would be flown above the US, or any major country. These are cheap Jhonny-on-the-spot surveilance planes for craphole countries like Iraq and the stan countries. (Cheap compared to satellites). If it crashed and spewed radioactivity all over the countryside it would not kill anyone we didn't want dead anyway.

I'll be damned if I can find the article. I think it was from Pop Sci within the last 3-5 years, but I am not sure.

[FUTI]

Both USA and exUSSR had those planes in the last century Mega ... although they had crew to fly it. They used "partial shielding" :-(. USA also had atomic powered cruise missile equipped with conventional warhead ;-) - whom did they tried to trick with that one I wonder? So cruise missile or unmanned plane big deal already seen though I find it creepy to wonder will it crush somewhere near me spewing radioactive materials in the air that I must breath. USSR made more such planes and run trials longer. Technicians life on those USSR planes were severely reduced in some times only three years as they used lighter shield up to non of such thing installed :-(. Ballistic missiles made those planes obsolete for the role both countries planed them. Those mini nuke plants will be sell to many countries as they will buy it as emergency system for bunkers for government officials, army installations, big cities emergency powers systems etc. It will never be sold to an individual just to someone who can organize security of such system - ergo the state. Liquid lithium? Hmm and I thought that French are nuts with those breeder reactors that are sodium cooled, but then again ex-USSR put similar cooling system into one class of SUBMARINES so lets hope they know how to made water tight system.

[Alexires]

waveguider - Here is a link (http://www.vortexhydroenergy.com/library/papers/OMAE06.92645Concept.pdf) to the concept paper (including specs) for that VIVACE technology.