posted
This Newsweek Oped piece claims that we already have the technology to develop hybrid cars that would get 500 miles per gallon.
quote:Here's the math (thanks to Gal Luft, a tireless—and independent—advocate of energy security). The current crop of hybrid cars get around 50 miles per gallon. Make it a plug-in and you can get 75 miles. Replace the conventional fuel tank with a flexible-fuel tank that can run on a combination of 15 percent petroleum and 85 percent ethanol or methanol, and you get between 400 and 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. (You don't get 500 miles per gallon of fuel, but the crucial task is to lessen the use of petroleum. And ethanol and methanol are much cheaper than gasoline, so fuel costs would drop dramatically.) ....
It was military funding and spending that produced much of the technology that makes hybrids possible. (The military is actually leading the hybrid trend. All new naval surface ships are now electric-powered, as are big diesel locomotives and mining trucks.) And the West's reliance on foreign oil is not cost-free. Luft estimates that a government plan that could accelerate the move to a hybrid transport system would cost $12 billion dollars. That is what we spend in Iraq in about three months.
Are Mr. Zakaria's views based on sound scientific findings? If the answer is yes, should our government do more to promote the new hybrid and flexible-fuel technology?
[ March 04, 2005, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't most ethanol and methanol produced from crops that are grown with petroleum-based fertilizer? It's true that methanol is much cheaper than gasoline and ethanol is somewhat cheaper than gasoline (incidentally, some places you can buy gas with a small fraction of methanol (I think) mixed in). But if we switched to this type of system, we'd have to ramp up production and it might not be possible to keep up with the demand.
So, not necessarily a bad idea, but saying you get 500 miles to the gallon doing it this way is a little, shall we say, misleading.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming this really is possible (and I'm not implying that it isn't), Big Oil would never let it happen.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
1) Refuse to sell it at any of their stations. See the issue with building a "hydrogen infrastructure".
2) Threaten to jack up their price for petroleum to plastics/other petroleum-reliant industries, to make up the difference in their losses. That would scare a lot of people, including the automobile industry into dragging their feet on this.
Ultimately, these barricades can only logically delay implementation, or cause any cost savings to the consumer to disappear (in 2)'s case). After all, it only takes one "maverick" company to try and capture it as a market, but it's a big risk, and profits are good currently. An outsider doing this is difficult, because to build the infrastructure laregely relies on, directly or indirectly, the same "Big Oil" companies you are trying to topple.
quote:Refuse to sell it at any of their stations. See the issue with building a "hydrogen infrastructure".
This could be easily required by law. Plus, I think there's big business interest in alcohol fuels (Con Agra, anyone?) to balance out the political clout. Worst case, OK and TX don't have it. There's a lot of ag states that would likely move to prop this up.
There's a lot of money to be made. Someone will make it.
quote:Threaten to jack up their price for petroleum to plastics/other petroleum-reliant industries, to make up the difference in their losses. That would scare a lot of people, including the automobile industry into dragging their feet on this.
Although we usually think of the rest of the economy being dependent on oil (and it is, no question), oil is still subject to the law of supply and demand. If demand for fuel drops, there will be a greater supply available for other uses. Again, simple greed will help keep this from happening.
posted
How can you pass that law when it ends up smacking of "green environmental wackos"? At least it will be construed that way (not even by Big Oil) until quite possibly the hardship is unavoidable... And then the hardship of the changeover will be viewed as a reason to not undergo asoem new change.
posted
I did some alternative fuels research in grad school. It's what I should have written my thesis on, had I not dropped out.
I think they are making extreme technological over simplifications here. Technology isn't just additive. Each technology they describe (Hybrid, electric, methanol, requires different kinds of engines. While not necessarily impossible, I think a "magic bullet" engine like they are describing would be pretty difficult to make. All of the existing technology might be there for each individual part but blending them together can cause unexpected problems. (Not to mention size/to weight ratios become critical, and this would be extremely bulky for a while)
Also, the only way an electric vehicle doesn't pollute is if the electricity comes from hydroelectric, wind or solar energy (nuclear is ok too, in my book, but not everyone's). Otherwise you are just pushing the pollution down the chain out to the powerplants that supply the cities.
And yes, the amount of petroleum products expended in making methanol is pretty high. They are working on more efficient proceses, but a lot of the petroleum consumed is "hidden" in the manufacturing end partially because of farm subsidies.
posted
I think the lower cost of the fuel and the higher mpg would certainly outweight any "green environmentalist wacko" bias that most conservatives might have. In fact, I think the only conservatives that would pull out this card would be those who rely on oil money from companies that refuse to budge.
I understand that much of this technology would simply be pushing petroleum over to power plants, but I also think this would actually make pollution from the use of petroleum easier to reduce and contain. Rather than having to deal with millions of cars, now you only need to deal with hundreds of power plants. And public utilities, as opposed to individuals, can be subject to higher regulations. I also have faith that eventually, we will be switching to non-burning sources of energy.
I've always viewed burning fossil fuels for energy as a necessary step in our technological evolution that we will naturally outgrow, just like we've outgrown the need for fire in every domicile.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the lower cost of the fuel and the higher mpg would certainly outweight any "green environmentalist wacko" bias that most conservatives might have. In fact, I think the only conservatives that would pull out this card would be those who rely on oil money from companies that refuse to budge
It's not clear that the fuel would actually be cheaper, but you're right, that's the way to rally public support behind it.
posted
And it most certainly wouldn't be cheaper for a while. Even if a "silver bullet" engine was designed in a lab, First there would have to be reliability tests, then the huge start up production costs in the automotive industry.
Also the infrastructure that would need to be in place, for the fuel supply end, isn't there. Yes, we have electricity avalable from power plants, but we don't have many all methanol stations, and there are design constraints. Each gas station would have to install dedicated methanol tanks, inorder to provid customers with a steady supply.
However, the auto industry drastically underestimated the demand for affordable hybrids. Now that they have come down to a more reasonable price, (which the State of California is largely responsible for, because they forced it to happen in one of the largest auto markets in the country) all of a sudden there is huge demand. I think this will help propel a hybrid technological boost forward. But I prognisticate it is going to stay along the current gas/electric hybrid lines for probably another 10 years before we really see another technology jump in mass produced hybrid vehicles.
posted
If one state can propel the hybrid industry like that, imagine what the federal government can accomplish.
quote:In many states in the American Middle West you can buy a car that can use any petroleum, or ethanol, or methanol—in any combination. Ford, for example, makes a number of its models with "flexible-fuel tanks." (Forty percent of Brazil's new cars have flexible-fuel tanks.)
Does anyone here own a flexible fuel tank vehicle? It sounds very interesting.
[ March 04, 2005, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would give the Duke boys a whole new defense. "Now Roscoe, that ain't whiskey, that's fuel for the General."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And it most certainly wouldn't be cheaper for a while. Even if a "silver bullet" engine was designed in a lab, First there would have to be reliability tests, then the huge start up production costs in the automotive industry.
As the wife of a technophile, I think they will probably take care of startup costs. Especially if it has some environmental advantage. I've seen this happen with every technology that is, at the outset, prohibitively expensive to the majority of the population. Add some kind of government requirement, as the last couple of posts mentioned and, economically, at least, it is highly feasible.
Now if we can just invent it...
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Currently we pay people not to grow crops because otherwise supply would outstrip demand.
If we could use alcohols as fuels we could eliminate this price-support-turned-social-program and actually make people GROW stuff for their money.
Further, it would lessen dependance on foreign oil, helping to turn the middle east back into an irrelevant desert. Yay.
The only concern is the cost of producing these alcohols. Now back in the day when people first started talking about it, alcohol was significantly more expensive than oil... but these days... well, the cheap place on the corner is $2.11/gallon.
I hate wacko environazis more than anyone. But gasahol makes sense.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Currently, most of the big auto manufacturers are developing cars that use Fuel Cells (For those who don't know, fuel cells use hydrogen and have a by-product of water). While this guy's idea is interesting, if it is indeed new technology, the major auto manufacturers will not develop vehicles that use it until the patent runs out. They actually did the same thing with fuel cells. The first car that ran on them was built in the very early 90's. So it really isn't "big oil" that's going to stop this from being developed, it's the big car companies that don't want to pay liscencing fees to a patent owner that will stop it from happening.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Replace the conventional fuel tank with a flexible-fuel tank that can run on a combination of 15 percent petroleum and 85 percent ethanol or methanol, and you get between 400 and 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. (You don't get 500 miles per gallon of fuel, but the crucial task is to lessen the use of petroleum. And ethanol and methanol are much cheaper than gasoline, so fuel costs would drop dramatically.)
This is extremely misleading since it has been possible to build cars that run on 100% ethanol for decades. In fact, this was done in Brazil. It wouldn't be fair to claim these cars get infinite miles/gallon although this articles reason would lead to that conclusion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the flexible fuel tank isn't the only thing necessary for running on ethanol. Most of the current car engines are robust enough that the ethanol doesn't change things much though you may notice some loss in performance.
But a hybrid's combustion process are often much more delicately balanced for combustion/energy ratios and so it isn't just the "flexible fuel tank" that is needed as this article implies.
posted
They sell quiet a bit of the 85% ethanol fuel blends here my area -- mainly because we have a major Ethanol plant near here. And apparently some of the newer cars are made to be able to burn this blend (they have a pamphlet that shows which one) and those cars get a tax break.
But my question for chemists like AJ -- what would happen if you put the 85% blend in a regular cars gas tank? I mean, I already use the 10% added ethanol blend, and I know the 85% is a higher octane, but would it actually do damage to my vehicle?
I'm thinking - sometimes they even use NITRO in race cars -- what has to change to get them to burn that stuff?
posted
Will we ever be able to rely on ethanol as a susbstitute for oil and for a significant portion of the market? Consider the hidden costs of producing this ethanol.
Farm machines burn oil in their engines when planting, maintaining, and harvesting the crop; their engines tend to be dirtier than the typical automobile. I can recall several recent news stories about the EPA cracking down on dirty agricultural equipment.
Fresh water, particularly from aquifers such as the Ogallala, will be used up to irrigate the corn. It doesn't take a lot of reading to find that we're depleting the aquifer more quickly than it can be replenished. The rate varies, but almost all of them have the same conclusion: it's definitely being depleted, and it's only a matter of time before it's gone.
I would also point out that modern farming relies on pesticies and fertilizers that pollute, but I consider this argument a straw man or slipperly slope. I can't decide which. We've been farming on the high plains for more than a hundred years, and ethanol hasn't been around for that long. Obviously, we're going to farm anyway, so the pollution will occur whether we produce corn or not. It will take a major ideological shift to conduct organic farming on a scale comparable to non-organic farming.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl, I'm going off my memory here, so I could be wrong. But I believe ethanol is actually *more* flammable than gasoline. If I recall correctly gasoline has a higher ignition temperature. Think about the kids experiment where you pour out alchohol light your hand on fire, but it doesn't actually get burned, because ethanol burns at a lower temperature.
This increases explosion risk, which is why you need the re-inforced tanks for safety. They also may be more insulated to prevent excess heat build up, that could cause said explosion.
Ethanol is not as energy rich as gasoline. It has a low vapor pressure and burns more easily but doesn't produce as much energy. You don't have as many hydrogens to tear off in each molecule. As a result, you lose performance in the sparkplugs of your engine. They have to fire more times to get the same amount of energy to the wheels. Newer cars are designed to handle this better than older varieties. The fuel mixtures that are avaliable for cars without the reinforced gas tanks have been blended to the allowable safe limits of volatility, so that the explosion risks are minimal. There's a margin of safety in there I'm sure, but the last thing anyone needs is a lawsuit because of exploding gas tanks.
Because gasoline is more energy dense if gasoline exploded in the same gas tank compared to ethanol, you'd get a bigger BANG with the gasoline. But all you need is a small "Bang" to send shrapnel everywhere, and no one wants to risk that.
(Note, this is off the top of my head from general knowledge, I haven't fact checked, so if any other scientist thinks I've said something egregious, please correct me and I apologize in advance.)
Oh yeah, one other thing, I believe, Nitrous increases the amount of available oxygen for combustion present in the actual sparkplug chambers. There is more oxygen inherent in Ethanol than there is in gasoline, but it isn't as "available" and the overall energy density of the molecule is lower so it doesn't do as much good.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Dag
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
We've been farming on the high plains for more than a hundred years, and ethanol hasn't been around for that long. Obviously, we're going to farm anyway, so the pollution will occur whether we produce corn or not. It will take a major ideological shift to conduct organic farming on a scale comparable to non-organic farming.
