Grain Alcohol as Fuel
jack...@my-deja.com
is minimal at best.
Is it possible to use grain alcohol or some byproduct as an efficient
fuel for automobiles, planes, tec? What is the name of the compound
that would burn to do this? What is the chemical equation describing
the reaction? For those of you knowledgeable of the history of
chemistry--when is the earliest point that an efficient grain-alcohol
fuel could be produced? If we CAN use grain alcohol as an efficient
fuel, why don't we? (Since it's a renewable resource, whereas crude
oil is nonrenewable) Would grain alcohol be more or less pollutative
than crude oil?
Jack Point
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
IIRC, ethanol absorbs water from the air, and harms internal combustion
engine components. Maybe you could use it to fire a steam boiler?
Barry Hunt
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A. <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote in message
news:39FD9D85.3023@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com...
The real reason why grain alcohol is not used as fuel is because its too
bloody expensive! Although alcohol doesn't look too bad compared to petrol
you are comparing the pump price of petrol - with all the taxes - with the
untaxed price of alcohol. If alcohol were used as fuel it would have to be
taxed of course and would then be dramatically more expensive than petrol.
We can "save the environment" by using renewable resources but most people
aren't prepared to pay the price!
regards
Barry Hunt
Konrad Geissler
drill a hole somewhere in the desert and wait for the oil coming out.
Use waste ( if you are intelligent, something you get paid for taking it) and
you might come into a price region where you can compete with the taxed
fossile fuels.
Don't forget to attach the "green energy" sticker to the wrapping material.
K
Barry Hunt schrieb:
Uncle Al
jack...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Apologies in advance for anything dumb I say; my chemistry background
> is minimal at best.
>
> Is it possible to use grain alcohol or some byproduct as an efficient
> fuel for automobiles, planes, tec?
[snip]
No. The energy inputs necessary to grow the grain, transport it,
ferment it, and dispose of the residual crap (ever see what comes out
of a steer's backside or a brewery?) substantially exceed the net
energy content of the alcohol. The energy inputs necessary to render
it anhydrous are damning all by themselves. Combustion of anhydrous
ethanol (95% ethanol is much worse energetically - heat of
vaporization of water) gives you a spectrum of eye-searing aldehyde
and other peroxidizable byproducts (air pollution, oh dear.)
Brazil tried an "ethanol economy" using sugar cane, which was
available essentially free of external inputs (hack some jungle, grow
some cane, move on) from essentially free labor. It bankrupted the
country.
In the US, how will we SAVE OUR CHILDREN! from billions upon billions
of gallons a year of fermentation ethanol? The technical term for
this is "booze."
Environmentalism - expensive, shoddy, deadly. Environmentalism
*invented* the word "shoddy." Shoddy is recycled wool, dating from
the birth of the Industrial Revolution. Remember to recycle to make
the world shoddy.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
jack...@my-deja.com
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Is it possible to use grain alcohol or some byproduct as an efficient
> > fuel for automobiles, planes, tec?
> [snip]
>
> No. The energy inputs necessary to grow the grain, transport it,
> ferment it, and dispose of the residual crap (ever see what comes out
> of a steer's backside or a brewery?) substantially exceed the net
> energy content of the alcohol. The energy inputs necessary to render
> it anhydrous are damning all by themselves. Combustion of anhydrous
> ethanol (95% ethanol is much worse energetically - heat of
> vaporization of water) gives you a spectrum of eye-searing aldehyde
> and other peroxidizable byproducts (air pollution, oh dear.)
>
> Brazil tried an "ethanol economy" using sugar cane, which was
> available essentially free of external inputs (hack some jungle, grow
> some cane, move on) from essentially free labor. It bankrupted the
> country.
So it IS possible, just monstrously inefficient.
>
> In the US, how will we SAVE OUR CHILDREN! from billions upon billions
> of gallons a year of fermentation ethanol? The technical term for
> this is "booze."
>
> Environmentalism - expensive, shoddy, deadly.
No argument there.
Environmentalism
> *invented* the word "shoddy." Shoddy is recycled wool, dating from
> the birth of the Industrial Revolution. Remember to recycle to make
> the world shoddy.
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
> (Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
>
Ed McBride
Uncle Al wrote:
> Environmentalism - expensive, shoddy, deadly. Environmentalism
> *invented* the word "shoddy." Shoddy is recycled wool, dating from
> the birth of the Industrial Revolution.
Yes, and I believe it got its negative connotation during the U.S. Civil
War when The Union Army contracted for lots of uniforms made of this
stuff that turned out to be of very poor quality. Ed
Uncle Al
jack...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <39FD9532...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Is it possible to use grain alcohol or some byproduct as an efficient
> > > fuel for automobiles, planes, tec?
> > [snip]
> >
> > No. The energy inputs necessary to grow the grain, transport it,
> > ferment it, and dispose of the residual crap (ever see what comes out
> > of a steer's backside or a brewery?) substantially exceed the net
> > energy content of the alcohol. The energy inputs necessary to render
> > it anhydrous are damning all by themselves. Combustion of anhydrous
> > ethanol (95% ethanol is much worse energetically - heat of
> > vaporization of water) gives you a spectrum of eye-searing aldehyde
> > and other peroxidizable byproducts (air pollution, oh dear.)
> >
> > Brazil tried an "ethanol economy" using sugar cane, which was
> > available essentially free of external inputs (hack some jungle, grow
> > some cane, move on) from essentially free labor. It bankrupted the
> > country.
>
> So it IS possible, just monstrously inefficient.
"Inefficient" still implies net gain (however small). Fuel ethanol is
the Kilkenny cats: negative bottom line. You would be better off -
have more remaining at the end - for having not done it at all. Fuel
ethanol *subtracts* from your energy account. Compare this with
benchmark Saudi sweet petroleum whose amortized (not merely discrete)
production cost is less than $(US)1/bbl at the wellhead.
http://pps99.cryst.bbk.ac.uk/projects/jnixon/Introduction.html
Photosynthesis, carbon fixation from CO2, is bottlenecked at a single
enzyme called RuBisCO - ribulose-1,5-bisphosphatcarboxylase. RuBisCO
is among the slowest enzymes on the planet, with turnover rates of
3/second. Efficient enzymes are a *billion* times faster. RuBisCO is
a whopping 1% efficient. Its product oxygen poisons its operation.
Some 60% of the soluble protein in a leaf is RubBisCo mostly not doing
much. We thus arrive at three inescapable conclusions:
1) Any primary chemical process based upon photosynthesis is
HORRIBLE, inputs vs output. Growing a few kilos/year of recombinant
DNA human protein retailing at $10,000/gram (e.g., clotting factors,
growth hormone) makes sense. Growing a few megatonnes/year of ethanol
requiring a $0.56/gallon Federal subsidy to break even is stooopid.
It is arithmetically stooopid, no computer models required. (Marginal
production, like electicity from process waste heat cogeneration, can
be rational.)
2) Screw the Green Revolution and its propaganda. Anybody who
raises the efficiency of RuBisCO by a niggardly 1% doubles farm
output. Anybody who increases RubBisCO's rate to a disgusting 6
turnovers/second doubles farm output. You could increase planetary
food supply by a factor of four as an undergrad summer project.
Increasing farm output by a factor of 10 is trivial. Uncle Al
challenges readers to ID any research group worldwide that is funded
to improve RuBisCO. You can count them on the fingers of one hand.
(3) 1970's marijauna was about 0.3 wt-% THC mixed isomers. 1990's
Northern Lights cloned marijuana is 100% female and 30 wt-% single
isomer /_\-9 THC. This utterly remarkable crop improvement was
accomplished in less than 20 years by a few small groups of stoned
hippies. How is it that $billion/year worldwide researches fat with
PhDs and with no concerns about being busted can't make better corn,
wheat, rice, sorgham...? Perhaps the problem is not scientific.
kres...@my-deja.com
[...]
> Environmentalism - expensive, shoddy, deadly. Environmentalism
> *invented* the word "shoddy." Shoddy is recycled wool, dating from
> the birth of the Industrial Revolution. Remember to recycle to make
> the world shoddy.
[...]
A mind like a surgeon's glove. Recycling wool paid enough to make it
doable, even for the socialist Brit Enviro-whiners who started the
industrial revolution to help the poor sponge better and get educated
and lots of things like that.
The recycled wool was cheap. Don't eat it! Shoddy - environmentalist,
cheap, and safe.
;-)
Uncle Al
I'm an American. High quality at low price is my capitalist
birthright. I bought a bicycle yesterday - list $799.99. By the time
I added gloves, sweatbands, and different pedals it came to $653.36
including tax. I'm Jewish and you're not, and they didn't have a
chance. (Sale, coupon, and... "But you said you wanted two!" "The
guy behind me also wants one.")
I've seen African and East Indian bicycles. My new 27-speed is
better. When we put my old ten speed out with the Monday garbage it
was "recycled" within the hour. It had more than 20,000 miles on it
dating from grad student days.
Create, don't recycle.
Martin Brown
Uncle Al wrote:
> jack...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible to use grain alcohol or some byproduct as an efficient
> > fuel for automobiles, planes, tec?
> [snip]
>
> No. The energy inputs necessary to grow the grain, transport it,
> ferment it, and dispose of the residual crap (ever see what comes out
> of a steer's backside or a brewery?) substantially exceed the net
> energy content of the alcohol. The energy inputs necessary to render
> it anhydrous are damning all by themselves.
Largely agree. Only the grain lobby see any future in it. I wonder why?
There is a tiny industry of biodiesel developing to recycle old oils but
the amounts produced will be miniscule. But I guess some folk buy it so why
not recycle instead of dumping ?
> Environmentalism - expensive, shoddy, deadly. Environmentalism
> *invented* the word "shoddy." Shoddy is recycled wool, dating from
> the birth of the Industrial Revolution.
Seems more like it predates it by some way as the raw materials have
*always* been expensive. Wherever there was cloth manufacturing there was
mungo & shoddy. See for example Dewsbury in the UK where the recycling
industry was well established in the 16th century.
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/markt4x4/dewsnet/dewshist.htm
Is a nice amateur history of one such wool town. Recycled wool and cotton
was invented by the mill owners to increase their profits by using less of
the expensive raw materials.
> Remember to recycle to make the world shoddy.
Where things came unstuck was when unscrupulous manufacturers mixed too
much and badly recycled crap into final product to cut costs. Too bad if
troops uniforms and blankets fell apart in service as long as there was
more profit in it for the mill owners. No doubt the buyers were given their
sweeteners to accept substandard "shoddy" goods.
Sound familiar ? The UK is still recovering from the effects of the BSE
scandal in cattle where the government of the day colluded with the animal
feed merchants to put the worst possible junk into junk food to maximise
profits. Public health took distinctly second place.
The final report out last week pulled all its punches.
Regards,
Martin Brown
kres...@my-deja.com
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> I'm an American. High quality at low price is my capitalist
> birthright. I bought a bicycle yesterday - list $799.99. By the time
> I added gloves, sweatbands, and different pedals it came to $653.36
> including tax. I'm Jewish and you're not, and they didn't have a
[...]
>
> I've seen African and East Indian bicycles. My new 27-speed is
> better. When we put my old ten speed out with the Monday garbage it
> was "recycled" within the hour. It had more than 20,000 miles on it
> dating from grad student days.
[...]
I'm not very good at this, but it seems that the other guy got your bike
for nothing. Maybe he wanted a bicycle with a kilometreometer.
Bruce Hamilton
>Is it possible to use grain alcohol or some byproduct as an efficient
>fuel for automobiles, planes, tec?
Yes. It was traditionally called "power alcohol" and it has been
used extensively in the past. However, like most alternative
fuels, it has limitations when compared to the pervasive
hydrocarbon-based fuels, modern terminology includes "fuel
ethanol".
The major problem being economics - fossil HC fuels are still
cheaper than many alternatives, even at US$30+/bbl. The US use
of fuel ethanol as a gasoline additive is achieved courtesy of
a mixture of federal and state subsidies that could total up
to 68c/US Gal.
>What is the name of the compound that would burn to do this?
Ethyl alcohol
>What is the chemical equation describing the reaction?
CH3CH2OH + 3O2 -> 2CO2 + 3H2O
Sadly, it doesn't go to completion in an IC engine, it
forms acetaldehyde and other nasties, necessitating the
use of an exhaust catalyst. Future alternatives could
include being used in fuel cells instead of IC engines.
>For those of you knowledgeable of the history of chemistry
>--when is the earliest point that an efficient grain-alcohol
>fuel could be produced?
Probably about the time man discovered fermentation, oh you
mean for IC engines, then around the turn of the 20th Century.
Then, as now, it was usually uneconomic if cheap HC-based
fuels were locally available. As the global crude-oil
markets developed, regional use of ethanol, either as a pure
fuel, or as an additive to Hc fuels, decreased. In the late
20th Century ethanol was used as one type of oxygenate
additive to gasoline to mitigate air pollution from older cars.
>If we CAN use grain alcohol as an efficient fuel, why don't we?
Economics - Brazil had a huge oil import bill, so decided to
use sugar cane-derived ethanol to reduce the import bill.
Sadly, for Brazil, some big companies made lots of money,
but the relatively-low technology ethanol vehicles created
lots of pollution ( no exhaust catalysts ), then the price
of crude oil collapsed, and the whole scheme made exports
with fuel cost components non-competitive internationally.
At one stage, they were looking at trying to export the
EtOH to the USA, where it would attract premium prices.
Naturally, the heavily-subsidised USA grain alcohol
producers were not amused.
>(Since it's a renewable resource, whereas crude oil is
>nonrenewable)
Of course fossil fuels are renewable, they came from 100
million to 3 billion year old plant material and are part
of the larger, slower carbon cycle. It's just that some
humans are so impatient......
>Would grain alcohol be more or less pollutative than
>crude oil?
Define pollution - certainly the acetaldehyde was a
problem in Brazil, but modern cars with good engine
management systems would be less polluting than
gasoline - if only tailpipe emissions are considered.
However, there are some other issues with alcohol
fuels, including distribution system costs if anhydrous
fuels are used - as anhydrous alcohol will readily mix
and disperse with water, and also absorb water from the air
with more water affecting starting if the engine is not
optimal - many of the technical issues have been overcome
in the Flexible-Fueled Vehicles trialled in the USA..
Global atmospheric carbonyl pollution has also been raised
as an issue in scientific journals if Ethanol was used in
engines at any significant fraction of fossil HC fuels.
In general, even with crude oil at $30+/bbl, ethanol
will not be conpetitive with gasoline without various
subsidies - which can also include punitive carbon taxes
on fossil fuels.
If you consider the various farm inputs, the fact that
ethanol has oxygen that doesn't contribute energy
( meaning that cars carry around more fuel ), and the
economic costs associated with subsidies ( wait for the
whines from ethanol proponents about the "hidden" military
Middle East subsidies - not withstanding any geopolitical
rationale ), and the water-miscible pollution ( MTBE is
less water misible, but isn't commonly naturally-occuring
- so there aren't bugs out there to consume MTBE, or to
blame for producing it - and, being virtually only man-made,
MTBE sticks out in potable water like a sore thumb ), then
ethanol isn't really a drop-in, low cost, replacement for
fossil fuels.
There is heaps of literature available on fuel and power
alcohol, including books devoted to the subject. A WWW
search should highlight sopme of the important aspects,
incuding the later technologies used in FFVs, but remember
that fossil fuels are pervasive because economic imperatives
drive large scale, global, fuel markets.
Bruce Hamilton
SNUMBER6
>Of course fossil fuels are renewable, they came from 100
>million to 3 billion year old plant material and are part
>of the larger, slower carbon cycle. It's just that some
>humans are so impatient......
Usually your posts are worthwhile only for the excellent information they
contain ... This item adds another dimension ... :-)
In the Village ....
I am not a number ... I am a free man !!!!
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
>
> jack...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Apologies in advance for anything dumb I say; my chemistry background
> > is minimal at best.
> >
> > Is it possible to use grain alcohol or some byproduct as an efficient
> > fuel for automobiles, planes, tec?
> [snip]
>
> No. The energy inputs necessary to grow the grain, transport it,
> ferment it, and dispose of the residual crap (ever see what comes out
> of a steer's backside or a brewery?)
Compost?
Rich Grise
eat MTBE. Email me if you want more information.
Cheers!
Rich
>( MTBE is
> less water misible, but isn't commonly naturally-occuring
> - so there aren't bugs out there to consume MTBE, or to
> blame for producing it - and, being virtually only man-made,
> MTBE sticks out in potable water like a sore thumb ), then
> ethanol isn't really a drop-in, low cost, replacement for
> fossil fuels.
>
> Bruce Hamilton
BAJJERFAN
results in more water and soil pollution from the application of farm chemicals
than it is worth. What the hell do you think those humongous overpowered John
Deere behemoths run on? Water? The whole idea of ethanol from grain on a large
scale is assinine if one stops to really analyze the WHOLE process. The same
benefits could be realized simply by curbing some of the frivolous driving most
of us do.
BAJJERFAN
be used as animal feed, but IMO is still not enough to justify fuel from grain.