When Alcohol And Airplanes Make A Good Mix

gilgsn writes "Both for the economy and the environment, as suggested in this Iwon Money article. The Brazilians use sugar cane alcohol to fuel their modification of a single engine crop duster called the "Ipanema." The company projects a 25 percent increase in revenue from the new alcohol planes and increased income to convert existing gasoline-fueled Ipanemas to alcohol. With the threat of war for the U.S. and a subsequent raise in oil prices, this might be of some interest for our general aviation."

Comments

But...

[tedDancin]

..what are the passengers going to drink??

I've seen more alcohol on a cross-Pacific flight than those planes will ever see!

What a pain in the @ss,

[Hawthorne01]

having to fill up the tank of a 757 using those little tiny bottles.

Re:What a pain in the @ss,

[MaxVlast]

Do dee do dee do de doo doo...tall and tan and young and lovely...

There's plenty to watch in Ipanema while you're pouring booze into the airplane.

Cars?

[Mark4ST]

Why not cars?

Re:Cars?

[tedDancin]

Quote from article, comparing alcohol to gasoline:

"but we have some concerns of its performance in lower temperatures"

I'm not an expert in the area, but I'm guessing that it has something to do with the alcohol not producing as much heat as gasoline. I'm also guessing that it would be a complete bastard to start your alcohol-fuelled car on a frosty morning.

Re:Cars?

[shepd]

Certainly would be interesting to see what the officer writes on the ticket if you leave your gas tank open by accident...

Driving with an open liquor bottle. That's a paddlin'.

Re:Cars?

[prof187]

i'm not positive if it's the same alcohol as this, but a lot of race cars are using alcohol engines. my cousin was driving a stock car and his used it.

i imagine that the major gas companies wouldn't be too happy w/ cars switching over, so they probably have a hand in the delay

Re:Cars?

[dragonfly28]

Because although the idea is nice, the energy content of 1 liter alcohol are far less than that of a liter kerosine ie. you would need probably a 50 or more liters of alcohol to get the same energy release.

The mention that is better for the environment I'm not too sure about either: alcohol is a carbohydrate so is kerosine. Which means that when its burned it will 'leave' carbondioxide and water. The effiency of the engine will determine how much intermediate junk you get.

It is btw quite difficult to use a more volatile fuel in an engine designed for a heavier one.

Re:Cars?

[zerblat]

Actually, they already use alcohol to fuel cars in Brazil, they have been since the oil crisis in the 70's. However, then there was an alcohol crisis in 1989, so gasoline has been taking over again.

The reason why the use alcohol as a fuel in Brazil is of course the large sugar cane production in the country.

Use Google.

Re:Cars?

[bernardos70]

Yes, I am from Brazil and we do have cars that use alcohol as fuel. We had them for a long time now. These cars, while much cleaner, do waste a lot of fuel quick. However, alcohol (sold on gas stations) is cheaper than gasoline, but gasoline is still a better value. Ipanema is also the name of a car in Brazil, and it's named after Ipanema, which is an area in Rio De Janeiro. I don't, however, recall if it is a model that uses alcohol as fuel.

Re:Cars?

[apol]

Brazil uses alcohol as alternative to gasoline for vehicles since the 70's. The alcohol program (called PROALCOOL).

In the 80's a large percent of the car run with alcohol, but then the oil prices fell and the program became economically less interesting. But there are still cars running with alcohol in Brazil, and the technology of burning alcohol instead of gasoline is perfectly mastered in the country. Alcohol is also mixed in the gasoline (at 30%) used by regular gasoline cars.

Re:Cars?

[BlueUnderwear]

Which means that when its burned it will 'leave' carbondioxide and water.

True enough, burning alcohol leaves CO2, just as petrol does. However, the big difference is that growing the sugar cane to produce that alcohol absorbed the same quantity of CO2 from the atmosphere. Thus, if you consider the complete cycle (growing sugar cane, distilling, burning), no CO2 will be released in the atmosphere.

Actually, the same is true in a way for petrol, except that the "growing" part took place billions of years ago, at a time when CO2 levels were significantly different. Burning all the petrol will lead us back to the levels we had back then, which might not be so comfortable for today's life forms.

Re:Cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Brazil uses Ethanol as fuel ( the same alcohol used at homes, and found in drinks ).

Race cars use Methanol, a poisonous alcohol that should not be drunk.

Having said that, when there was an alcohol crisis in Brazil, we imported methanol as a replacement to ethanol and our cars ( and planes ) will run the same.

Of course there were some guys who were puting fuel on beverages illegally ( because it is cheaper ) and had their clients killed ;-)

Both methanol and ethanol have higher octane than standard gasoline, so the same engine will have more HP, and that is why it is used in race cars.

Re:Cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with kerosene ( and other fossil fuels ) is not as much the CO2, but the CO ( carbon monoxide ).

The amounts of CO produced by alcohol engines are much smaller, almost negligible.

Re:Cars?

[crapulent]

Thus, if you consider the complete cycle (growing sugar cane, distilling, burning), no CO2 will be released in the atmosphere.

Yeah, that is, except for all the diesel fuel burned by the farming machinery and the coal fuel burned to produce the electricity for the refinement process. Sure, zero sum it is.

This is good because it's cheap(er) for poor farmers, not because it's good for the environment.

Re:Cars?

[BlueUnderwear]

Yeah, that is, except for all the diesel fuel burned by the farming machinery

Why not run the farming machinery on alcohol or on canola oil as well? Short range of these fuels should be of a lesser issue for farming machinery than for planes or cars, so this looks like a perfect use for these new fuels!

and the coal fuel burned to produce the electricity for the refinement process.

Use wood ;-)

Re:Cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Elite" (via their oil cartel) won't stand for this. This is an old theme. They won't allow alternatives to their obsolete fossil fuel based system, even though free energy and other alternatives have existed for decades. (And please don't start with the naive "if that were true, we would have heard about it" response.)
Do you really think the "Big Boys" would allow some upstart inventor to upset their apple cart? This is done due to plain old greed as well as deeper reasons. I think we'll have to wait for the present system to collapse before the alternatives will be made available.

Re:Cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Growing sugar cane is not so good for the environment.

Lots of land has become all salty here in Queensland Australia because of sugar cane. However if crops are rotated this effect is reduced, although not all farmers do this.

Also they burn down the cane in order to make harvesting it easier. This too is not good.

Then there are the fertalizers which they use. The water run off from the fields goes into rivers then into the sea, stuffing it up.

There is a big push here at the moment to make ethanol from the cane, in order to save the dying sugar cane industry. I just hope the farmers start to use better practices.

I think in general sugar cane/alcahol would be better than petrol as far as environmental impact is concerned, however it is not clean.

HAHHAAHAHAHAHAH OK?!?!?!?!

Re:Cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Octane ratings refer to how long a fuel burns, not its explosive capability, which is why tnt or nitroglycerin (watch the bumps) aren't used as fuel, the longer burn rate makes for a smoother transition to the combustion of the next cylinder, which in turn makes use of the fuel more efficient, compared to a *BANG* that "throws" the piston to the next cylinder position. Obviously there has to be some explosive capacity, but it's not the whole story.

Re:Cars?

[Savage-Rabbit]

Stop being a git, all he was saying is that if it were possible to replace gasoline with alcohol (and perhaps hydrogen as well) there would still be a VERY significant reduction in emissions. That is assuming that the distilling and burining of a standard unit amount of sugarcane does not generate more CO2 than the same unit amount of live sugarcane plants can absorb during their life cycle. And even they can't Alcohol will still beat Gasoline in terms of emissions.
Rejecting a partial solution because it is not the definitive universal solution to all of mankinds problems is an old sport among enviromentalists but it just makes them look like fools. As for disel, there have been similar, and relatively sucessful, attempts at producing a "Bio Diesel" to whome the same principle applies as alcohol as a gasolilne substitute, the plants from whom the Bio Diesel fuel is made absorb the CO2 released by burn and processing. That only leaves burining Coal and other fossil fuels to generate Electicity which can be reduced significantly if the worlds governments were not such political cowards and too firmly committed to ensuring the interests of industry to promote energy efficiency. If you take a look at what is happening in Europe to reduce emissions from electic powerplats you will find that magical new technologies like cold fusion play no part in it. The proposed redcutions over the next 20-30 years will be reached by means of a patchwork of measures to increase energy efficiency and by burning a large number of alternative fuels to coal, gas and oil. It wont eliminate Coal, oil and gas!!! But alternative fuels and energy efficiency can still reduce our reliance on fossil fuels very significantly. The more we reduce reliance on fossil fuels the more real the become the prospect of getting rid of the political baggage that comes with constantly poking around in middle eastern politics and propping up tyrannical rulers in that part of the world in the interest of keeping the flow of oil uninterrupted. As far as I am concerned, if this works out and reduces or even eliminates (Utopia) the need for Gasoline that is only a good thing even if it is not a magic bullet.

Re:Cars?

[mpe]

Actually, they already use alcohol to fuel cars in Brazil, they have been since the oil crisis in the 70's. However, then there was an alcohol crisis in 1989, so gasoline has been taking over again.

You can add a certain amount of ethanol into the mix without needing to modify the engine at all. More than a certain amount and you need to modify timings and fuel air mixture. (Though you'd think a modern engine, especially one with fuel injection and a fair amount of computer power should be able to adjust itself.) At one time ethanol was added to fuel, prior to TEL becoming popular.

Re:Cars?

[mpe]

i'm not positive if it's the same alcohol as this, but a lot of race cars are using alcohol engines. my cousin was driving a stock car and his used it.

Indy cars use methanol, so it's perfectly possible to build a high performance car fueled by alcohol. One reason for using alcohol in race cars is that it it is safer in a crash, since it dosn't burn as hot. Even though the flames are less visible.

Re:Cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing people are overlooking here is that the freezing point of alcohol is way lower than that of gasoline. This causes a lot of problem in Brazil's very mild winter, so imagine what would happen in the US or Canada.

I seem to remember having to jump-start the car with a little gasoline on cold mornings because the alcohol engine won't start. We were always told that this was the reason alcohol fueled cars never caught on outside Brazil. Wouldn't you have this problem with airplanes too??

Re:Cars?

[mangu]

The energy content of ethanol is about 90% of that of gasoline.

Ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline or diesel, that's why its flame is almost invisible. The yellow color of a gasoline flame comes from unburned carbon particles (i.e. soot) heated by the flame. Also, the growing of sugar cane removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. If the tractors and trucks used in the farm run on alcohol, and the leftover straw and tusks are burned in the refinery, ethanol can be a 100% renewable fuel.

Pure ethanol was widely used as a car fuel in Brazil in the 1980's, until lower oil prices made it economically unatractive. At one time, over 90% of the cars built and running in Brazil were alcohol powered.

Re:Cars?

[HBPiper]

Yes but the plants that decomposed and created the petroleum absorbed CO2 a million years ago. So what our cars are doing is releasing pre-historic CO2. Maybe that's it. It's the pre-historic CO2 that's the problem.

Re:Cars?

[marcellos]

My car runs with alcohol there and the tank is the same (only a bit less autonomy...about 15%)
And Brazil has cars running on alcohol for about 20 years or more...

Re:Cars?

[GooberToo]

Actually methanol is used as a stabilizing agent because nitro is so explosive. Currently, they use 90% nitro and 10% something else. Just so happens that methanol is still a fairly good fuel yet much more stable than nitro. It helps reprevent catastrophic predetonation.

In the past, before 90/10 was required, huge and very nasty engine explosions were not uncommon. By adding 10% methanol, the number of catastrophic engine explosions were greatly reduced. Didn't take too long for this to become the standard fuel mix.

Re:Cars?

[gorilla]

Brazil tried to convert to 100% ethanol fueled cars. It nearly bankrupted them, because there simply isn't a large enough supply at reasonable cost, so they had to import from the US.

Re:Cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll skip the technical limitations of alcohol as fuel for autos as that area has been well-covered by now. Instead, I'll give a little history:

Ford's Model T was a two-fuel car. It had spark and mixture controls on the steering BECAUSE alcohol was the most common fuel in rural USA (framers made it in stills from silage -- free!) and gasoline was for sale in cities, and this allowed the driver to set the car to run on either.

Cut to JDRockefeller's home, where he was hosting a delegation from the Women's Christian Temperance Union, which wanted to ban the availability of alcohol for drinking. He told them he would fund their (then new) movement IF they would include in their ban ALL alcohol (especially that used for fuel for Henry's Tin Lizzie.)

We know the WCTU won, then lost. But by the time Prohibition was repealed, Rockefeller's Standard Oil had taken over the rural gasoline market, building pipelines, refineries, and stations all over the country.

The political thinking of the time was that monopolies were good for nascent industries like autos and trucks and the government should allow and even help new potential monopolists create new markets/industries.

Then SO was busted up, once their monopolies were no longer beneficial. But the result is/was that gasoline is the predominant fuel.

Re:Cars?

[Karpe]

Actually, plants release as much CO2 as result of cellular respiration as they consume (plants do not produce O2 at night, but they keep producing CO2 at night). Where all that O2 comes from then? Phytoplancton. The planet lung is not the tropical forrests, but the oceans.

At least thats waht they told me at school.

Re:Cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of a friend of mine who used to mimic Jackie Stewart:

"These Indycars use methanol, instead of petrol, and when it burns you can't see it. So that guy jumping up and down on your screen is DYING! Right in front of your very eyes!"

Re:Cars?

[mikeee]

Well, then, clearly, the answer to global warming is to grow huge amounts of sugarcane, harvest it, and bury it in a giant pit while continuing to burn all the oil we want.

Um...

Re:Cars?

[Jim Norton]

I'm not into cars and car mechanics, but a friend (who apparently is into this kind of thing) that converting a car with a fuel-injection system to use alcohol is impossible (it was, however, possible with carbourators(sp?))

Any truth to this?

Re:Cars?

[monkeydo]

If the tractors and trucks used in the farm run on alcohol, and the leftover straw and tusks are burned in the refinery, ethanol can be a 100% renewable fuel.

Anything can be a "100% renewable fuel" if you are willing to ignore the laws of thermodynamics to the contrary. In the real world if you attempt to run all of the ethanol producing machinery on ethanol, you will need ever greater amounts of land on which to grow the sugar cane (or corn) to turn into ethanol.

Even if all of the farmland in the US was dedicated to growing corn for ethanol production there still wouldn't be enough ethanol for all of our cars. I guess that's a small price to pay for a solution that doesn't really solve anything. At least the small farmers will be safe.

The best answer is of course nuclear power and electric cars, but heaven forbid the "environmentalists" support that.

Re:Cars?

[ShooterNeo]

Quote "That is assuming that the distilling and burining of a standard unit amount of sugarcane does not generate more CO2 than the same unit amount of live sugarcane plants can absorb during their life cycle"

Check your high school chemistry, guy. If burning sugar cane released more CO2 than the plant absorbed in its life cycle, where did the extra carbon come from (hint : it didn't, and burning sugar cane releases EXACTLY the same amount of carbon as the plant originally absorbed)

Re:Cars?

[Don Negro]

The saltiness comes from years of irrigation. River water has a few mineral salts in it, picked up from the land it ran across before it got to the river. You put that water on your fields, it evaporates and leaves behind the minerals. Repeat for 50-100 years and you get heavy mineral salt buildups in your soil. Now you can't grow anything there.

It has little to do with the sugar cane. In south-east Texas and southern Louisiana, they get 60+ inches of rainfall a year, and thus don't need to irrigate. They've been growing sugarcane there for over 150-200 years.

Re:Cars?

[aprentic]

I think he's suggesting that there might be some carbon introduced during the refineing process.
For instance, in order to distill something you need to heat it up. Carbon oxidation reactions are typically used to generate this heat.

Re:Cars?

[blitziod]

burning plants will release slightly less than CO2 than they remove from the air. This is do to CO2 trapped in the soil from the plants roots.

Re:Cars?

[drwho]

The saltiness comes from years of irrigation.

Actually, I have heard differently. What has happened is that the aquafer has been overtapped, bringing up brine from deeper in the earth. This is a huge problem. It's quite difficult to fix land that's been broken in such a way, though there are a class of plants called halophytes that may be able to be grown. Australia has some rather strange geology, much of it due the its absence of vulcanism (volcanos, you who would make trekkie jokes). The Australian government needs to better understand its continent or risk ruining it a lot faster than the rest of the world wrecks their homelands.

Re:Cars?

[ShooterNeo]

But heating it up just changes its form...no more carbon was added.

Re:Cars?

[Cybrr]

Until there's a way to safely dispose of nuclear waste and keep it out of the hands of terrorists, I'd opt for more efficient (incl. sustainable) power usage. Hybrids and flywheels are a nice start.

Re:Cars?

[Gamasta]

Actually, the reason for the huge sugar cane production is that you make good destilled drink out of it. Very good, cheap... people call it 'cachaça' - 40%GL.

Now there is also a point on slavery in this production: people work under a very hard sun and if they get caught eating sugar cane (which is delicious, a lot of sugar, much water) they immeaditely lose their job. They're hired and work on daily basis and have no sindicate. It is slavery indeed.

Re:Cars?

[dunedan]

perhaps I show my ignorance but I was under the(probably misinformed) impression that gasoline octane ratings were based on the percentage of octane(C8H18) molecules found.

I thought that the car engineer folk would optomize the engine for that fuel thus higher octane fuel would burn better

Obvioussly since you can measure the octane of alchohol this must be wrong.

Anybody know whats going on?

Re:Cars?

[FredMcGriff]

In Brazil, most alcohol burnining cars have a small resevoir for gasoline. If the car is cold, pressing a button on the dashboard will inject a small amount of gasoline into the engine to help get it started.

Re:Cars?

[monkeydo]

But hybrids still need electricity, and of all the current methods we use for generating electricity nuclear is the most efficient. Combined with the efficiency of modern gasoline engines and the dirty electricity it is quite likely that current electric cars produce more total polutants than gasoline powered. The disposal problem is not as dire as the liberals in DC would have you believe, and AFAIK nuclear power byproducts are not very useful for weapon making.

Re:Cars?

[shatteredpottery]

Octane is used as the standard by which the relative tendency of a fuel to explode (i.e. burn in an uncontrolled fashion) is measured.

There are several different ways to calculate it -- the U.S. used to use one, while Europe used a different one. I may be wrong, but I believe they use the same standard now. But, some people may remember back in the 70's and 80's when fuel (in the U.S.) had octane ratings of 102, 104 and so forth, whereas now, it's more like 87,89,92. Well, the fuel didn't change much, just the measuring technique.

Anyway, back to the question: alcohol burns cooler and slower than octane (or gasoline in general), and it is harder to make it explode, so it is given a higher relative octane number.

When fuel explodes in the engine, as opposed to burning, the energy is expended in too short of an interval for power to be extracted efficiently. We call that "knocking", observed when an engine is run on a low-octane fuel.

Knocking robs power, as there is essentially little pressure on the piston downstroke; it was all expended when the piston was at the top of its travel.

However, it is a common misconception that higher octane increases engine power. It does not. The most efficient fuel for a given engine is one that is just barely not causing knocking. After that point, the fuel burns more and more slowly, and not all of the expanding, burning gases are applied during the optimum part of the piston downstroke.

The reason more powerful engines require higher octane fuel (giving people the idea that high octane fuel is more powerful) is that things such as compression and burn temperature can be increased, turbo/supercharging can be added, etc. increasing overall efficiency. Note that the high octane fuel simply allows for a more efficient engine design, in itself it does NOT increase power!

Re:Cars?

[Kazymyr]

You can have the farming's equipment Diesels burn BioDiesel. Or try this link. Or this one. There are choices.

Re:Cars?

[doc_side]

just curious, the post above yours refers to nitroglycerin... and you say just just nitro in your post.. are you saying that they use nitroglycerin in cars to use as a fuel for engines, or do you mean nitrous as in nitrous oxide?

... are they adding methanol to nitrous oxide (like fast and the furious)? Or, do some people use nitroglycerin to power engines? Ive never thought the last option possible...not trying to flame or anything though, just genuinely curious.

Re:Cars?

[GooberToo]

This top fuel link should explain all your questions and more.

Please do note that I am not talking about nitroglycerin. That's an extremly unstable high explosive. That would be a death wish as it's sensitive to shock, vibration and heat which is exactly what you're going to see on race cars. What I'm talking about is nitromethane which is often simply referred to as nitro. Even still, nitromethane is highly volatile which is why they "cut" by 10%. One laste note, this is distinct "stuff" and should not be confused with NO2 either, even though NO2 does have racing applications as well.

Re:Cars?

[GooberToo]

Oh ya, nitro is also a commonly added to fuel used by internal combustion remote control cars and planes. I currently have a gallon of fuel which is 15% nitro. Higher nitro contents can be obtained. Some people even mix their own fuel for their R/C hobby.

Re:Cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

no, its possible to convert any gasoline car to use alcohol. Here in Brazil many people do this. Old car, need to change carburator and in EFI, need only to reprograming the chip. Oh! Yes, theres already a guy selling cracked chips. Because the corrosion some parts in alcohol-motor need special treatment, but its only this and this does not affect the cost of motor.
About the start in frozen situation, theres already technology to solve this.

Alcohol use in car down in the last 10 years here, because .GOV and oil.com Interests, but now are returning

Re:Cars?

[Cybrr]

AFAIK nuclear power byproducts are not very useful for weapon making.

Depleted uranium bullets are excellent armour piercers, but may cause suspicious deaths and illnesses on either side.

Re:Cars?

[getfor.com]

Alcohol for cars, how about AIR?.... check out this French invention. http://www.theaircar.com/ I haven't been able to verify the authenticity of the data of the air motor/ air car. Is there anyone here that has seen or heard about this air motor?

Re:Cars?

[Neodyme]

This is true. CO2 cycles through the biosphere. The CO2 from petroleum products are just supposed to be in the ground, not in the atmosphere.

Yes...

[DarkHelmet]

this might be of some interest for our general aviation.

Yes, considering the rash of pilots flying drunk nowadays, alcohol and planes are of interest our general aviators.

Re:Yes...

[Tracy Reed]

Unfortunately, it is illegal for me to run anything other than 100LL fuel in my certified airplane without doing a bunch of paperwork, testing, and obtaining a STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) or paying someone else who has done all of that work. If I owned an experimental/homebuilt aircraft, that would be different. But those are not allowed to be used for any sort of commercial operation.

Re:Yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, and general aviation refers to non-commercial planes. To the best of my knowledge, the publicized drunk-pilot episodes have all occured on commercial flights.

Homer simpson

[Ledora]

Reminds me of the scene when homer hears about cars that run on the same stuff: While he is at the pump filling up his car Homer: "one for me *gulp gulp* one for you."

more news

[prof187]

and in other news, a man was sucked into the engine of a plane while on a desperate search for a "pint."

Re:more news

[_Spirit]

Did some work on an airforce base a while back and along the runways there were signs saying: Do not leave *** (forgot the acronym). I asked one of the officers to explain what *** was. He told me it defined anything that might be sucked into a jet engine, like cans, nuts, bolts, mechanics :-)

Re:more news

[Anonymous Coward]

FOD, maybe? Foreign Object Damage

Re:more news

[_Spirit]

Yep that was it, I was thinking FUD but knew it was wrong :-) Now I finally know what the acronym means, because the officer didn't know the words to the acronym, just what was meant.

Good first step

[Anonymous Coward]

Moving from oil to alcohol is great, but I won't be happy until we see a hemp-powered Volkswagen airbus.

Re:Good first step

[cajunfj40]

Technically feasible. Hemp, per its "nickname" Weed, grows like one, and produces huge amounts of growth per acre. Take all that, compost it and get the natural gas from it, use that to fuel your VW airbus. Alternative is to convert the bus to use a diesel engine, then press the hemp seeds for their oil, turn it into a methyl or ethyl ester (see http://www.veggievan.org) and run it that way.

Re:Good first step

[Anonymous Coward]

>Weed, grows like one, and produces huge amounts of growth per acre.

Does hemp still grow along the interstates in Montana, North Dakota and other states, like Kudzu does in Georgia and Florida?

>Take all that, compost it and get the natural gas from it, use that to fuel your VW airbus.

VW runs on hemp. The engine uses hemp. The boot and bonnet were replaced with hemp ones, when the original one's rusted away. Driver munching hemp brownies looking at a map printed on hemp paper [ with soy ink ]. Clothes made of hemp. Is there anything that hemp can not replace?

Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[Professor_Quail]

This article is from Rio de Janeiro, it says that using sugar cane alcohol as a source of fuel also fights the greenhouse effect, because it doesn't produce C02 like regular fuel.

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[Twirlip of the Mists]

it says that using sugar cane alcohol as a source of fuel also fights the greenhouse effect, because it doesn't produce C02 like regular fuel.

I'm still waiting for somebody to take the opposite approach to managing carbon emissions. Instead of restricting the production of carbon dioxide, I say we just grow more trees and other plants. Looking out my second-storey window over a parking lot, a freeway, and a football stadium, I'd say it would go a long way toward improving our cities, too.

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[mpe]

it says that using sugar cane alcohol as a source of fuel also fights the greenhouse effect, because it doesn't produce C02 like regular fuel.

It's not quite that simple, buring ethanol does produce carbon dioxide.
But the important point is that the carbon released isn't "fossil carbon" which has been locked up in mineral deposits for a long time. Only a short time ago this carbon was previously in carbon dioxide which a sugar cane plant took in for photosynthesis.
The next result of using biomass fuels is that the crabon dioxide content of the atmosphere stays much the same. On average for every carbon dioxide you put in from burning the fuel one will be taken out bu the next batch of your crop.

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this article is wrong. From your standard organic chemistry class:

CH4 + O2 = CO2 + 2 H2 + Energy

What this article meant to say is that using alcohol reduces the amount of CO ( carbon moxide ) to almost 0.

It is ( mainly ) carbon monoxide that is very dangerous and causes the greenhouse effect.

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[media.darling]

> doesn't produce C02 like regular fuel.

CH3CH2OH + 3(O2) = 2(CO2) + 3(H2O) + heat

2(C8H18) + 25(O2) = 16(CO2) + 18(H2O) + heat

by burning? and volumetrically Ethanol is about 1/2 as efficient as octane . . . err, and since when is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Might as well put N2 and O2 on that list while you're at it.

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong formula but the conclusion is correct. Alcohol does not generate CO as fossil fuel does. The correct formula is:

C2H5OH ( ethilic alcohol ) + 2 O2 = 2CO2 + 3H20

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Is is Carbon Monoxide ( CO ) that is not produced by alcohol, and it is CO that creates the greenhouse effect.

However, from you formula, neither does regular fuel. Whats wrong?

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[today]

I was about to call "bullshit" on this article, because alcohol combustion does indeed produce CO2, but a web search showed me this USENET post, which explains that this is not a problem because the CO2 came from the atmosphere in the first place (used by the plant that ended up as alcohol). Read it in context with followups for an interesting comparison to fossil fuels. One poster remarked that the main difference between CO2 released by fossil fuels and that of alcohol is that the alcohol carbon was very recently in the atmosphere, but the fossil fuel carbon has been dead and buried for some time.

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[fluffy666]

No, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas. IIRC, so is CO, but it's contribution is very minor because it has a very short residence time in the atmosphere.

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[Mnemia]

For one thing, gasoline is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons, not just octane. Many of those other constituents produce CO when burned. For another, gasoline doesn't burn with 100% efficiency, so a number of side reactions will occur; some will produce CO as a product.

I think people are mistaken that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas: I believe that it is. It's just that the carbon in the CO2 from biomass fuels like this alcohol is not derived from fossil reserves like gasoline is. So it's not contributing directly to increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

(Note that I said directly: I think that this method of generating fuel will still contribute to a net increase in atmospheric carbon if for instance large swaths of forest are destroyed to grow the sugarcane.)

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

But the important point is that the carbon released isn't "fossil carbon" which has been locked up in mineral deposits for a long time. Only a short time ago this carbon was previously in carbon dioxide which a sugar cane plant took in for photosynthesis.

Of course, carbon is carbon. Carbon-12 has the same properties no matter where it came from.

When it comes to the greenhouse effect, biomass has no advantage over coal or oil. See, you might as well tend forests or crops in order to sequester deliberately the same amount of carbon that you release with fossil fuels. That will work just as well as switching to biomass fuels, and will cost less.

That said, biomass does have the principle advantage that its supply is not as limited as fossil fuels. A secondary advantage is that it may release less SO2 overall.

I personally feel that the government should not encourage ethanol production because it is basically an enormous crop subsidy. If we run low on oil, then ethanol will automatically become cost-competitive.

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

I think people here in Brazil mix 2 diferent things.

For one, the CO emission of alcohol engines is lower. Since CO is considered a poluent, it means that alcohol engines are cleaner.

The greenhouse effect is another thing. Even though alcohol engines do generate CO2, one can claim that this CO2 was originally obtained from the air anyway.

I understand now. Thanks.

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[jeff_bond]

Is is Carbon Monoxide ( CO ) that is not produced by alcohol, and it is CO that creates the greenhouse effect.

However, from you formula, neither does regular fuel. Whats wrong?

CO (and NOx) are produced because of the high temperatures and pressures inside an internal combustion engine. I'm pretty sure you'd get both of these with when running on alcohol or gasoline. CO is produced when there is insufficient oxygen, and NOx come from oxidation of the nitrogen in the incoming air.

If you burnt some gasoline in a dish, you'd get very little CO and NOx, just CO2 and water. Same goes for alcohol.

Jeff

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[TGK]

I think you rather missed the point.

"Fossil Carbon" as its called consists of carbon atoms (bonded who random other stuff) which has been effectively removed from the atomsphere by natural processes. Coal, Oil, Natural Gas: all of these represent large stocks of carbon which no longer form a component of our atmosphere.

Thus, when you burn them, you unlock that carbon from the mineral deposits and release it into the atmosphere. This results in a net gain of carbon in the atmosphere.

Using alcohol based fules the carbon you are releasing is coming from the atmosphere in the first place, not from a mineral source. Assuming a regular harvesting cycle the plants you are growing now are removing CO2 from the atmosphere as you burn off the last crop. Net result is therefore 0 (or close to it).

See, no C02 is removed from the atmosphere by digging a hole in the ground from which to suck oil. That's the key.

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[mpe]

When it comes to the greenhouse effect, biomass has no advantage over coal or oil. See, you might as well tend forests or crops in order to sequester deliberately the same amount of carbon that you release with fossil fuels. That will work just as well as switching to biomass fuels, and will cost less.

Except that if your idea is to use forests or crops to adsorb fossil carbon you need to constantly plant more and more plants. Whereas for biomass you simply need a crop grown as any other crop is grown.

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[saberwolf]

Surely planting trees isn't enough, you just end up with a planet that catches fire really easily. What we need to be doing is planting trees, cutting them down (to make way for more trees) and storing them away somewhere to keep the carbon they contain from going back into the atmosphere.

I would think that rather than saving the rainforests, the best thing would be to cut them down, keep the wood (possibly by making it into something useful and long lasting), re-planting more trees and repeating every couple of decades.

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[Zoop]

However, you have to look at other factors to determine the total carbon implications of a fuel. The reason I oppose ethanol-based fuels and organic farming is that they require far greater destruction of carbon-sinks to supply them--i.e., they cut down lots and lots of rain forest and burn it.

Intensive farming can be done without massive fertilizer runoff (hey, Congress, lets use some of those subsidies to promote no-till more instead of merely fallow fields!) and fossil carbon requires less habitat destruction per BTU. We should be pushing for hybrids to tide us over until fuel-cell vehicles can be rolled out on a massive scale.

However, converting existing fields to growing ethanol is a good idea in the short run. For example, getting rid of organic fields to grow ethanol-producing plants in a responsible intensive manner would be a net plus. I'm just not sure it's a large-scale solution, nor will the market support it given the current first-world mythology surrounding organic foods.

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[obiwan2u]

If this solution were to scale up, then people would be growing huge amounts of sugar cane. As with US large scale agriculture, that will require fertilizer, and that will require fossil fuel as an input (for large scale production)

From The Coming Global Oil Crises:
"The major energy inputs in U.S. corn production are oil, natural gas, and/or other high grade fuels. Fertilizer production and fuels for mechanization account for about two-thirds of these energy inputs for corn production (Pimentel, 1991)."

Re:Fighting the Greenhouse Effect

[smithmc]

Besides which, in addition to CO2, burning alcohol produces a lot of water vapor - and water vapor is the most significant of all greenhouse gases.

Sugar cane fuel in the US?

[spackled42]

Isn't sugar cane somewhat less-than-plentiful in the US? I'd imagine that that would make it a poor option for fuel up here. On the other hand, corn or other grain alcohol might be the ticket.

Re:Sugar cane fuel in the US?

[kfg]

This is precisely what Henry Ford had in mind. Alcohol produced locally from locally grown corn.

Standard Oil saw things differently however.

Henry also posited that cars should be made of plastic rather than metal and produced a plastic Model T in the late 20's. Where did he get his feed stock for making the plastic? Locally grown soybeans.

US Steel and Standard Oil saw things differently.

By the way, you can get sugar, and make alcohol from it, from beets, quite growable anywhere in the US.

One of the hurdles to pass now though is that the radical "enviromentalists" now oppose any such renewable resources for fuel. Go figure. They have the idea that every ear of corn you feed to a car means some human is going hungry.

Simpletons.

KFG

Re:Sugar cane fuel in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simpletons.

Yeah, where's their Super-Smart cape?

They get the not-Oscar for that one.

Re:Sugar cane fuel in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are stupid. Scientific American magazine PROVED that there is almost a net loss of energy dollars compared to oil trying to create alcohol from USA crops.

read a book sometimes.

also, until the price of oil QUADRUPLES, powerplants will continue to burn fossile fuels and not communist idiotic alcohol grown at a net loss.

HURRAY FOR CAPITALISM!!

Re:Sugar cane fuel in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientific American magazine PROVED that there is almost a net loss of energy dollars compared to oil trying to create alcohol from USA crops.

That's too bad. Calorie for calorie, corn fructose is cheaper to produce than cane sugar or beet sugar.

This article claims that airplane fuel costs 3.50 real/L while ethanol costs 0.90 real/L in Brazil. Airplane fuel is more expensive than gasoline, but not by that much.

My guess is that there is a petroleum tax in Brazil that pushes up the cost of the standard fuel.

Re:Sugar cane fuel in the US?

[Jim Norton]

Good for Scientific American magazine... however just because they say it doesn't make it true.

Economics are just like politics and science ... spin it just the right way and you can put forth a convincing argument which could prove ANYTHING.

Re:Sugar cane fuel in the US?

[Gamasta]

US will soon be atacking Iraq once again for cheap petroleum. Why do you think your country has any interest on local grown sugar cane if they want world control of petroleum?

--
I sign this because I believe it is true.

Re:Sugar cane fuel in the US?

[petitclv]

One of the hurdles to pass now though is that the radical "enviromentalists" now oppose any such renewable resources for fuel. Go figure. They have the idea that every ear of corn you feed to a car means some human is going hungry.

Actually, there is another problem with that kind of fuel: the production of sugar cane, or corn, or whatever, generally uses a lot of chemicals (fertilizers, etc.) that are by no means environment-friendly, so in fact there is pollution anyway, even if the alcohol fuel is less polluting.

Re:Sugar cane fuel in the US?

[DriceX]

The reason sugar cane is "less-than-plentiful in the US" is the US government. I know, a lot of you are sitting there shocked.

The United States government to protect sugar cane growers in the US have a both a tariff and quota emplaced on the importation of sugar. This makes sugar cost about two to three times more in the United States than any other country.

Needless to say the sugar quota and tariff do is screw the consumer over with higher prices, and displace jobs. Recently, several large candy manufactures left the United States for Canada taking about 250,000 jobs with them. As if that isn't enough this is why your soda taste like crummy using corn syrup instead of sugar.

--David

Sugar Alcohol

[everett]

IIRC Alcohol is a by product of some form of metabolic process where simple sugars are turned into alcohol (glycol?) how is this achieved, with the alcohol being pure enough to power a plane, I imagine distillation would be required. Anyways it's time for bed or else class will suck...

Re:Sugar Alcohol

[doc_side]

iirc, i thought it was a by product of anarobic respiration of yeast, using the contained sugar. this happens within the sugar solution up to about 15% by volume, where then the yeast die..

• you filter out the solid particles.
  
  
• then you perform distilation on that
  
  
• be careful not to drink the stuff that dribbles out first
  
  
• the stuff comming out in a steady stream is your alchohol
  
  
• and the stuff that dribbles out last, dont use that either
  
  
• re-distill the alchohol about 2 times.
  
  
• serve in a flask with an olive or lemon twist.
  

Re:Sugar Alcohol

[everett]

Wheeee, this is great information for a college kid, thanks :D (will be used responsibly for killing braincells, no other uses endorsed except maybe as fuel in airplanes.)

Economics will screw this up

[ooglek]

Sugar cane processing produces this distilled alcohol. That's great that is is cheaper than gasoline NOW, but what happens when the demand increases? Let's say someone builds a distilled alcohol passenger plane. Demand increases for distilled alcohol. All of a sudden, demand for distilled alcohol creates a demand for more sugar and thus more sugar cane. Sugar cane growth is limited by the land and regions it can be grown. And growing it takes some time, so there is an increase in demand and supply stays the same. Distilled alcohol prices rise above gasoline quickly and all of a sudden the whole distilled alcohol plane is starting to cost you MORE than the gasoline did.

Sure, gasoline refining takes time. And the oil it is made from took thousands/millions of years to create, and it is limited (we haven't planted future oil fields!). Growing sugar cane and letting it ferment and then distilling the alcohol from it takes time too.

Diesel cars used to be hot in the early 80's because diesel was so much cheaper than unleaded or regular. Economics screwed that up because diesel cars got to be big enough that regular gas stations (not just truck stops) started to carry diesel. That increased the gas stations cost, and thus raised the price of diesel to the same or higher levels compared to unleaded.

I don't see how, in the long run, this will save the world.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[Chicane-UK]

Diesel cars used to be hot in the early 80's because diesel was so much cheaper than unleaded or regular. Economics screwed that up because diesel cars got to be big enough that regular gas stations (not just truck stops) started to carry diesel. That increased the gas stations cost, and thus raised the price of diesel to the same or higher levels compared to unleaded.

Or in the case of the UK (where we are taxed 80% on our gasoline), our government made a big deal about getting people to switch to diesel as it was taxed considerably less than regular gasoline, and was cleaner for the environment. Then, as soon as a significant quantity of people had realised the money they could save by switching over, the government inflated the tax so that it now costs MORE per gallon than regular.

I love this country!

Re:Economics will screw this up

[dirvish]

If it burns cleaner it might be worth it. Also, it is much easier to grow sugar cane in the US than to talk Iraq into selling us oil when we run out.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[Professor_Quail]

How pure is the alcohol that they're using for these planes?

From what I know about alcohol distillation, no matter what method they use (reflux still, fractionating column, etc.), you can theoretically only get alcohol that's 96.48% pure (by volume) without distilling in a vacuum.

Obviously, if the planes needed to be run on pure alcohol, the cost of distilling enough alcohol in a vacuum would probably be equivalent to the cost of regular fuel.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[Skinny Rav]

Sugar cane processing produces this distilled alcohol. That's great that is is cheaper than gasoline NOW, but what happens when the demand increases? Sugar cane growth is limited by the land and regions it can be grown. And growing it takes some time, so there is an increase in demand and supply stays the same. Distilled alcohol prices rise above gasoline quickly and all of a sudden the whole distilled alcohol plane is starting to cost you MORE than the gasoline did.

Don't forget sugar beet which can grow in the US and Europe. I know that Poland for example produces too much sugar and world market prices for sugar are lowest ever. There are huge reserves in sugar production. And what is more important: it is not just sugar you can use to produce alcohol. Most of ethanol is produced from grain or potatoes and it is cheap.

The only problem is taxation: consumable ethanol everywhere is subject to huge taxation (that's why vodka is expensive even though its production is cheap) so you need double taxation, one for consumable ethanol, the other for fuel. But this means you need control so people don't produce fuel ethanol and sell it on black market.

Anyway, ethanol prices are not a problem. Taxation and petrol lobbies are a problem.

Raf

Re:Economics will screw this up

[mpe]

Sugar cane processing produces this distilled alcohol. That's great that is is cheaper than gasoline NOW, but what happens when the demand increases? Let's say someone builds a distilled alcohol passenger plane. Demand increases for distilled alcohol. All of a sudden, demand for distilled alcohol creates a demand for more sugar and thus more sugar cane. Sugar cane growth is limited by the land and regions it can be grown. And growing it takes some time, so there is an increase in demand and supply stays the same.

The reason the Brazilians use sugar cane is that it grows well in Brazil. Another plant used for commercial production of sugar is sugar beet which grows in temperate climates. Anyway plenty of plants can be used for production of alcohol, quite probably where the part being fermented is otherwise waste.

Distilled alcohol prices rise above gasoline quickly and all of a sudden the whole distilled alcohol plane is starting to cost you MORE than the gasoline did.

Typically passenger planess use jet A which is less volatile than the gasoline type fuels used in cars and light aircraft. Anyway if the Rusians can build a jet fighter which will run on just about anything the same technology will work with any other plane. Most likely the issue is with certification.

Diesel cars used to be hot in the early 80's because diesel was so much cheaper than unleaded or regular. Economics screwed that up because diesel cars got to be big enough that regular gas stations (not just truck stops) started to carry diesel. That increased the gas stations cost, and thus raised the price of diesel to the same or higher levels compared to unleaded.

In many parts of the world a major part of the cost of the fuel is taxation. Anyway the oil companies will use any excuse to raise profits.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, if the planes needed to be run on pure alcohol, the cost of distilling enough alcohol in a vacuum would probably be equivalent to the cost of regular fuel.

You make two assumptions (pure alcohol requirement, and immaculate alcohol costs more then oil) to draw an obvious theory, but your argument would be frivolous if it indeed turns out that your assumptions are incorrect. A Google search quickly shows that your assumptions are wrong, since alcohol fuel is indeed cheaper than fossil fuel.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[mpe]

Or in the case of the UK (where we are taxed 80% on our gasoline), our government made a big deal about getting people to switch to diesel as it was taxed considerably less than regular gasoline, and was cleaner for the environment. Then, as soon as a significant quantity of people had realised the money they could save by switching over, the government inflated the tax so that it now costs MORE per gallon than regular.

Then decided to go after people who used recycled vegetable oil, for "tax evasion". Good idea, turn a waste product into something useful and get fined.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[Anonymous Coward]

the government inflated the tax so that it now costs MORE per gallon than regular.

However, I may add, the distance you get per liter makes up for the cost difference, so that it is still more economical to run diesel.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[Anonymous Coward]

I see what you mean. In fact, what you say has already been said by Malthus regarding food ( humans grow geometrically and food arithmetically ). He was wrong ( for the time being, anyway ).

You see, in the future, when we have NO fossil fuel to burn, we will need to replace it with a mix of other things.

Hydro power ( also limited ), vegetable fuels, nuclear power, and so much more that we will still find ( solar, wind, fusion, etc ).

However, Brazil's choice for alcohol was quite simple. Oil was expensive ( in the 70s ) and not available in Brazil ( 50% imported ). Alcohol was available, and even if it became more expensive, it did not cost dearly missing US dollars ( because you can plant sugar cane and produce alcohol without need of importing anything ).

That was the reason for the Brazilian pro-alcohol program...

Re:Economics will screw this up

[AussieGeek]

You dont see how in the long run this will save the world... ???

Here's a hint... renewable fuel vs non renewable fuel. And need I mention that CO2 is the least toxic of all the gasses released from burning fossil fuels. Combustion of Alcohol to produce CO2, water, and heat is far better than the concuction of poisionous gasses produced from burning oil based fuels.

But if the world was seriously concerned about generating a renewable source of energy, we might want to consider putting a little more time into research of other technologies such as Zero Point Energy.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[mpe]

If it burns cleaner it might be worth it. Also, it is much easier to grow sugar cane in the US than to talk Iraq into selling us oil when we run out.

Probably cheaper than bombing Iraq (and whoever else) in order to get a government the US happens to like. Especially since all those warplanes need oil for fuel and the explosives are probably petrochemical derived too.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[Tim12s]

There are many different economically reasonable technologies out there that could ALL be used given the right coordination. We cant all use solar power (hills, bad weather), we cant all use biodiesel/alcohol based engines (limited land), we cant all use compressed air engines (not good for trucks, only good for cities/small distances), etc.

The key, in a few years, will be a mixed specialization of many different technologies. The major benifit with oil/petrol based engines today is the economies of scale and the sheer size of the oil industry.

Well, we need to consider that we may not be able to achieve economies of scale, but the energy efficencies and/or long term economics/oil deficiencies/pollution inefficiencies force us towards many routes.

The more people actively develop and deploy new technologies, the more readily we'll be able to switch when we need to. There is no reason why we need millions of alcohol engines driving around.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, the solution is to "denature" the ethyl alcohol that is meant for fuel by adding some methyl alcohol. This way (most) people will not drink it, so it is not subject to most taxes on alcoholic beverages.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[fruey]

Diesel is a dirty fuel. In France they keep the price down artificially and have too high a percentage of diesel cars. And the soot it produces makes Parisian walls black. Sickening.

Morocco is worse. Diesel is subsidised by the government and costs half what regular gasoline costs. Everyone buys diesel cars, same story. Casablancan walls are black.

A lot of people would run cleaner fuels, but it's not in oil company interests to let us. Pure and simple. And let us not forget that George Bush has oil interests. Do not think that the coming war in Iraq has everything to do with this. Because Americans need cheap gas because the government has kept prices down for them, not given them alternatives, and therefore let them all buy huge engines over 3 litres just to run around town. At least in Europe we realise that for a second car you only need between 1.3 and 1.6 litre engines. With efficient injectors and good chassis they are even OK to do long haul drives.

Oil and energy issues ... the scourge of 21st century America

Re:Economics will screw this up

[Anonymous Coward]

Diesel is a dirty fuel. In France they keep the price down artificially and have too high a percentage of diesel cars. And the soot it produces makes Parisian walls black. Sickening.

Morocco is worse. Diesel is subsidised by the government and costs half what regular gasoline costs. Everyone buys diesel cars, same story. Casablancan walls are black.

Things change, dude. Diesel engines are now much cleaner, newer ones even have particle filters that make them the cleanest combustion engines around.

Soot is one visible pollution, but regular engines produce much more dangerous and invisible poisons such as NO2.

Thing is diesel engines are much more reliable in the long haul (lower rpm, better lubrication) and tend to stick around for a long time, especially in Morocco to follow your exemple (they can't afford to change cars every 4 years). Once we've gotten rid of older vehicles (cars & trucks), the pollution levels will go down.

The other thing in favor of diesel is you can make diesel fuel from a variety of natural sources (colza oil and other vegetable oils), which dramatically reduce the dependency on fossil sources and favors the growth of more CO2 absorbing plants.

Cheers,
max

Re:Economics will screw this up

[markz]

Diesel cars used to be hot in the early 80's because diesel was so much cheaper than unleaded or regular. Economics screwed that up because diesel cars got to be big enough that regular gas stations (not just truck stops) started to carry diesel. That increased the gas stations cost, and thus raised the price of diesel to the same or higher levels compared to unleaded.

I don't buy this for a second. Do you really believe that consumer diesel could put a dent in the trucking/train/farming diesel market? Big truck stops get refueled with diesel 7-8 times each day. Active gas stations don't even push that much unleaded gas, let alone diesel.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[fruey]

In the countries where Diesel is prevalent as mentioned, no sufficient laws exist to reduce emissions. Diesel sold at pumps is low grade, low quality government subsidised shit. And as for particle filters, I've never heard of one on any car here in Morocco and rarely over in France.

The question is therefore how long it will take. I do agree that organic diesels from crop leftovers is a great idea but it doesn't scale.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[ragnar]

I wouldn't be too alarmed. Consider the incredible costs associated with drilling for oil and I'll take my chances with the economic side effects of distilling alcohol from plants any day. Only a select amount of regions and nations can produce oil, but it is within the means of most nations to produce to alcohol and to distill it.

Therein lies maybe the biggest obstacle. Powerful nations control the means of production and distribution of oil. If a good alternative really comes along we can expect them to resist it politically, which is unfortunate for the consumers who might benefit from the choice.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[DrXym]

The answer is to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle. Alternatively, switch to DERV or a hybrid. The government offers subsidies for both.

At the end of the day, Europe has the sense to see that reliance on oil is a bad thing which is why they're making more than token efforts to change.

Part of the problem with human beings is that they are fundamentally selfish and lazy. If a government sets up a voluntary recycling scheme for paper, cans or bottles I bet nearly everyone would still throw their rubbish in the bin! If supermarkets sell thicker reusable carrier bags for a few pence, most people will still take the 'free' thinner ones. If there are two cars of similar price, most people will buy the one that looks nicer even if it has shittier mileage. People are selfish and lazy.

In such circumstances, a government has a duty to do what is best for everyone, even if in the short term it looks like they're a bunch of swingeing bastards. Pollution, refuse, energy consumption are all serious long term problems and the simple fact is people *won't* change unless you force them to. You can sermonise until you're blue in the face, but it won't work. How many people wore seatbelts (or car companies that even fitted them) until governments mandated car safety? Some issues have to be forced even in a free economy. Taxation can be extremely effective way to institute change.

Here in Ireland we get charged 15 cents for a plastic carrier bag and now everyone uses reusable bags. It stops something like 300 million bags being tossed into landfill every year. Places like Denmark, Germany charge a deposit in the price of glass and plastic bottles with the result that people not return their glass and plastic rather than toss it out.

Where perhaps the UK is going wrong is they're using the stick in the wrong way. Taxing petrol is an excellent way to annoy people, but perhaps taxing engine size, or petrol tank size would be better. Most people don't need a 2.0 liter engine - a 1.4 is more than adequate, so tax the people who choose something which is overly inefficient for their circumstances. The same with petrol tanks - tax the cars with bigger tanks because they will typically consume more fuel. Simultaneously subsidize the more efficient vehicles, especially those such as hybrids which get dramatically better performance than petrol engines.

Re: Economics will screw this up

[kapital]

... so there is an increase in demand and supply stays the same. Distilled alcohol prices rise above gasoline quickly and all of a sudden...

the boeing 777 project was commissioned in 1990 and took 5 years before they had one plane in "revenue service". they were taking orders from 1990 on. i'd think that would give you enough harvest/planting cycles to adapt.

do you really think that your assumptions are valid stating that demand will increase while supply will stay constant? c'mon - if there were profits to be made, they'd set up greenhouses in oregon and grow the stuff if others wouldn't. and trust me, you'd have a lot of farmland in mexico and all over the world turning to cane before it would get to that point.

... diesel cars got to be big enough that regular gas stations (not just truck stops) started to carry diesel. That increased the gas stations cost, and thus raised the price...

although i respect your industry perspective, i think you may have spent too much time exposed to the fumes while researching. please explain how carrying diesel raises gas station costs which leads to higher priced diesel?

even if you take the first part of that sentence, "diesel cars got to be big.." and you try to talk about it in your world (of dynamic demand/static supply), then why, now that the number of retail diesel consumers is a fraction of that in the early '80's, have we not seen the price relative to gas returning to previous levels?

*disclaimer: i don't know the diesel market so i am assuming that ooglek's post reflect the true price history of diesel rel to gas.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[LWATCDR]

So does physics. Alcohol has less energy than jet fuel or gas. You can make that up buy running higher compression in an piston engine. Now BioDiesel has real potental. The one thing I do not know is how well it works at cold temps.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[mikeee]

Heh. Very clever. But there really isn't enough recyclable oil for this solution to work on a massive scale, is there?

Re:Economics will screw this up

[jonbrewer]

Diesel is a dirty fuel.

This depends upon how it is refined. If governments would disallow sulfur and other impurities, the effects on the environment would not be as great. With it's lower emissions per amount of work produced, it really is a better alternative than gasoline.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting Tidbit: When I lived in Brazil about 10 years ago, roughly 40% of the cars ran on the same fuel (in Sao Paulo, anyway). Now it's close to none. Friends still down there tell me the government inched up the taxes the alcohol-based fuel until there was no financial advantage to using it.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[Anonymous Coward]

640K ought to be enough for anybody

Re:Economics will screw this up

[Conare]

If the alcohol is purer it becomes "undenatured" meaning that you can drink it and you have to tax it. Ethanol used in fuels and solvents is generally "denatured" meaning there is some poison crap in there and therefore it is not subject to liquor taxes, making it economically attractive.

Re:Economics will screw this up

[Alphtoo]

"...so you need double taxation, one for consumable ethanol, the other for fuel." Your post sort of danced around my greatest concern: that the increase in demand for ethanol as fuel will diminish available supplies for humans, causing the price of good booze to go through the roof. If this happens, a lot of people will "fill up" at their local service stations... hell, I'll be the only way they can afford a drink!

Re:Economics will screw this up

[Dave2 Wickham]

If a government sets up a voluntary recycling scheme for paper, cans or bottles I bet nearly everyone would still throw their rubbish in the bin!

Actually, in Bath (where I live) there is such a scheme - they give out green boxes for recycling stuff, and it does get used... Of course, this is the UK, if it was the US it would probably be different (not trying to troll or anything - just the way I see it is that the US tends to be more wasteful. If such a scheme gets set up in somewhere in america and it's a success, I stand corrected).

The threat of war?

[coupland]

It may interest you to know that only about 4% of American oil comes from the Gulf, let alone Iraq. 80% is produced domestically and most of the remaining comes from South America and Africa. Hence it's ludicrous to suggest that an American attack on Iraq will raise local oil prices.

This begs the question, if American dependence on Gulf oil is a myth, why are the Americans ready to wage war? Well, most of America's allies rely on Gulf oil so control of Iraq means control of Europe and Asia. Does it all make sense now???

Re:The threat of war?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence it's ludicrous to suggest that an American attack on Iraq will raise local oil prices.

Could you please explain what these "local oil prices" are? Oil is globally traded, if supply goes down prices go up - even if your particular supplier continues to have steady production.

Re:The threat of war?

[kamapuaa]

This begs the question, if American dependence on Gulf oil is a myth, why are the Americans ready to wage war? Well, most of America's allies rely on Gulf oil so control of Iraq means control of Europe and Asia. Does it all make sense now???

America doesn't buy oil from the Gulf, purely for show. It's a world-wide market - if suddenly all the oil in the Gulf ran dry, Europeans and Asians would be buying from South America, the same as us, and prices would go up.

Re:The threat of war?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Hence it's ludicrous to suggest that an American attack on Iraq will raise local oil prices.

While I think your numbers were right, your conclusion is a bit off. Remember 1990-1991? The unpleasantness in Iraq was followed by retail gasoline price increases of around 200%. War in that area might not actually affect our domestic supplies of crude oil, but there could very well be an impact at the gas station anyway.

This begs the question, if American dependence on Gulf oil is a myth, why are the Americans ready to wage war?

I have no intention of getting into a political conversation here, but few can argue that the Hussein government is actively seeking weapons of mass destruction and that they've historically shown a willingness-- hell, an eagerness-- to use them against their enemies. Taken in context of the events of last September, it becomes clear that a nation that has WMDs and that has clearly communicated a desire to use them against the US is a threat that we'd be foolish to ignore.

Going to war may or may not be wise for a number of reasons. But there's a pretty significant body of evidence out there that leads to the conclusion that war between the US and Iraq is inevitable. If the choice is between going to war now and waiting for some kind of horrible surprise attack by our enemy... well, I know which one I'd choose.

Okay, that was me not going off on a political tangent. So much for that...

Re:The threat of war?

[Dusabre]

The US is in a global economy. Tiny turbulations around the world can change domestic prices. For two very simple reasons: 1) Oil moves around the world. If Europe is paying $50 a barrel, then Texas is going to export oil to Europe, not sell it domestically for $25; 2) A tiny change in supply can cause a huge change in prices. Industries and economies are locked into rates of consumption that cannot be changed easily. They simply have to have the oil and will therefore start bidding wars for it. Knocking out 5% of US imports would screw the economy.

For more info: CSIS report on US Use of Energy and Energy Imports

War will raise prices.

Re:The threat of war?

[zeno_2]

Actually it looks to be about 21% of our oil comes from the Gulf, and about 50% is produced in the U.S.

http://www.api.org/webfaq.htm

Re:The threat of war?

[e8johan]

Ok, there is no 'local oil price', since if the oil from the Gulf would be stopped by a war the non-US world would need oil from somewhere else (pehaps even the US) and prices would go up (since the non-US world would be prepared to pay a higher price).
As for you arguing that since the US is not affected it is OK to attack Iraq is *very* short sighted. I wish that Bush (and his followers) would see that their *allies* (within NATO) do not want this (just ask France), and their friends (through Partnership for Piece) do not want it either (just ask Russia). Never in the history of UN, a war, just to be on the safe side, has been sanctioned, and I hope it never will.
The September 11th attack was a cruel terrorist attack on civians, but the US must see why they are picked as the target. Both the current Bagdad regime and the Talibans are (at least partially) the creations of CIA. The Talibans fought the USSR and were supported by the CIA, as was Saddam was supported in the war agains Iran as Iraq was deemed to be a smaller threat. By these kind of operations the US create instability in other regions of the world, and now some fanatics want to bite back.
An important note: I do *not* support any terrorist activities, I'm just saying that there is a reason to why people become terrorists (desperation, lack of influense, abuse, etc) and maybe one can try to work in that end instead of bombing everyone not liking you (which leads to more people not liking you).

Re:The threat of war?

[Shalome]

It's not the actual decrease in oil production or shipping from Iraq... it's the perception of supply and demand that allows Big Oil to raise oil prices whenever there's a disturbance in any Middle Eastern country. Few consumers question this, since the perception of a disrupted supply makes Joe Sixpack believe the inflated price is understandable and even reasonable.

Ever since the oil crisis of the 1970s based on Middle Eastern problems, people believe all our oil supply comes from there. In reality, the US stockpiles barrels of oil that can be released at at any time. We also have deep wells in the US that are not currently in production mode. It's political lobbies from Big Oil that control and/or allow for a lot of the fluctuations in oil prices, not actual supply-and-demand economics.

Supply-and-demand economics really kinda went out the window during the 90s.

Re:The threat of war?

[MtViewGuy]

I'll give you the main reason: Iraq has missiles that can reach Dharhan, Saudi Arabia's main oil terminal on the Persian Gulf coast.

I don't want Saddam Hussein to launch a missile armed with a nuclear warhead and that missile destroys the Dharhan oil terminal--it will cut off a huge portion of the world's oil supply until a replacement oil terminal is built, which could take up to three years to build. Meanwhile, the price of a barrel of oil zooms to US$90/barrel, something nobody wants.

Re:The threat of war?

[NTDaley]

I wouldn't say it is ludicrous.

You just have to look at the dot com boom (when it was happening) to see that, where people put their money can very often be dependent on perceptions rather than realities.

Regardless of whether the oil supply actually is under threat, people may be willing to pay more if they believe that it is.

Re:The threat of war?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry any idiot can throw numbers around. Yours however have no basis in fact.

Re:The threat of war?

[version5]

You win valuable prizes for the least insightful comment thus far. If Saddam did decide to do that, he would be dead in very short order. Most of the surrounding nations, Europe and the US would annihilate the country side. Saddam may be a jerk, but I don't think he's ready to throw his life away.

Re:The threat of war?

[version5]

That's quite an argument you've got going there. Let's summarize:

the Hussein government is actively seeking weapons of mass destruction

Maybe... I'll give you this one for free, OK?

it becomes clear that a nation that has WMDs

Wait... you just went from actively seeking to actually owning weapons of mass destruction. Which is it? It would be a very bad thing to go to war on the basis of mere suspicion. I would support a war if I thought there was enough evidence, but I feel that Bush is treating us like children. "Saddam is a bad, bad man! He's a naughty, murderous tyrant and we have to get him, because he's bad, see?" Seriously, this is the best the White House can do, and its not convincing at all.

Re:The threat of war?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that perception is the important thing. But I personally feel that much of the economic-based criticism of the Gulf War (1991) was completely unfair.

When oil prices went up, the critics said 'Oh, Bush is doing this to raise prices and help out his oil-producing Texas friends.'

After the war, when oil prices went down, they said 'See, we went to war just to get cheap oil!'

So according to these people, it really didn't matter what happened to the price of oil. They were certain that Bush was scheming to affect the oil market, but I guess they couldn't decide which way he wanted to affect it.

Re:The threat of war?

[Savage-Rabbit]

It may interest you to know that only about 4% of American oil comes from the Gulf, let alone Iraq. 80% is produced domestically and most of the remaining comes from South America and Africa. Hence it's ludicrous to suggest that an American attack on Iraq will raise local oil prices.

Hmmm.....

This is from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy

Darn treehuggers? Well, this link is even more interesting they are the EIA (Energy Information Administration), their Website is even labeled "Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government" coool!

Check out figure 51, a little more than 20% imports...

A simple Google search seems to indicate that most people seem to quote between 50 and 60% net oil import for the US and not 20%. Domestic US supply is on the decline and imports are on the rise. I also think that a little more than a quarter of the US imported oil comes from the Gulf Region or other middle eastern sources.

Re:The threat of war?

[mpe]

Could you please explain what these "local oil prices" are? Oil is globally traded, if supply goes down prices go up - even if your particular supplier continues to have steady production.

Also oil is always priced in US dollers. Which adds currency traders into the mix. Traders can also be influenced simply by possibilities.

Re:The threat of war?

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out figure 51, a little more than 20% imports...

That 20 figure is not a percentage, it is 'millions of barrels of oil per day'. Reading the chart, we get a net import of ~7 million barrels per day, local production of ~8 million barrels, and ~2 million barrels of 'other' production. I don't know if other is local or non-local, but in either case the percentage is fairly close to that 50-60% you don't seem to want to know about.

Sorry pal. You get to feel just as unsafe as everybody else in the world...

Re:The threat of war?

[MtViewGuy]

Unfortunately, given the way Saddam Hussein operates (he's a Stalinist paranoid, more or less), now that the US Congress has approved the resolution Bush wanted, Hussein is not above bringing the world down with him if Bush does decide to attack Iraq. What better way to do a Goetterdaemmerung-style finish than to destroy access to the largest oil supply on this planet for a few years and cause untold economic chaos.

You can mod me down all you want but given Hussein's history against his neighbors and his own people (even his own family!), this very possibility is no longer a far-fetched fantasy.

Re:The threat of war?

[Savage-Rabbit]

It may interest you to know that only about 4% of American oil comes from the Gulf, let alone Iraq. 80% is produced domestically and most of the remaining comes from South America and Africa. Hence it's ludicrous to suggest that an American attack on Iraq will raise local oil prices.

Let me explain again. He claimed 80% of the USA's oil production is DOMESTIC. 100% total - 80% US domestic=20% imported He then went on to claim that of these 20% that are imported only 1/4 come from the gulf. Which supposedly is the reason why Bush wants to go to war in the Gulf, not for the USA who does not need gulf oil, and supposedly hardly imports any, but for the USA's unfortunate allies.

The reason I cited those figures is to show that domestic production DOES NOT satisfy 80% of the USA's oil consumption like he claimed but rather only c.a. 45% according to those EIA figrues an that another 45% are or rather were covered in 1996 by imports. Today, unless things have changed in the US Domestic Oil industry, imports should outstrip domestic production by a good margin.

....fairly close to that 50-60% you don't seem to want to know about.


I never denied that around half of the USA's oil consumption is covered by imports, I tried to prove it.

Re:The threat of war?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Wait... you just went from actively seeking to actually owning weapons of mass destruction. Which is it?

Both. I should have been more clear, but I assumed you knew. I quote Khidir Hamza:

I know full well what he [Hussein] was up to because I spent two decades as a senior official in Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission. Between 1987 and the beginning of Desert Storm in 1991, I wore two ominous hats: I was head of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and I was a director general in its Military Industry department, which oversaw much of the work on biological and chemical weapons. [...] When the Persian Gulf War broke out with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, we had a vast biowar arsenal and were only a few months away from having a working nuclear device. I was finally able to escape Baghdad in 1994 and defect to the United States.

(The rest is available here, and lots of other documentation about and by Mr. Hamza is available via Google.)

See, we know several things here. We know that the Hussein regime has a nuclear weapons program: they're working very hard to acquire nuclear material and build a device. We also know that Iraq has a stockpile of chemical weapons: they have N liters of mustard gas (I say "N" because I don't recall the precise number; 30,000 rings a bell), N liters of sarin nerve gas, N liters of CS nerve gas, N liters of VX nerve gas, and so on. We also know, through Mr. Hamza, that Iraq has produced at least 8,500 liters of concentrated anthrax, and we have reason to think they have considerably more than that. They've also developed varying amounts of numerous other biological agents, including botulinum toxin and aflatoxin. In 1990, Iraq actually had two hundred 85-liter bombs filled with botulinum toxin, anthrax, and aflatoxin, armed and ready for military use.

So Iraq has both built and stockpiled WMDs (chemical and biological) and is actively seeking WMDs (nuclear). Iraq has never used nuclear weapons because they've never had them, but they have used chemical weapons on numerous occasions, most notably during the Iran-Iraq war, and in 1988 in the Iraqi city of Halabja. Several types of chemical weapons were used at Halabja, essentially everything in Iraq's arsenal except VX. Five thousand people were killed in the attack. Hussein's willingness to use WMDs in war is not in question.

I agree with you that the United States hasn't done as good a job as they could of presenting this evidence to the people and to the world. But just because the facts haven't been delivered to your door on a silver platter, don't just assume that they're not there. Dig a little, and you'll be surprised.

Re:The threat of war?

[jtoj]

I think USA is going for the oil. Saddam does not have the capacity to cause any big damage to USA, but the other way around.
If USA had an alternative (alcohol), maybe there would be no war.
USA has weapons of mass destruction, and chemical and biological weapons as well.
USA did not sign the Kyoto agreement or any other UN resolutions towards banning such weapons. Should the world enforce USA compliance?

USA IS willing (EAGER!!!) to use WMD's against Iraq.
Does Iraq have the right to preemptively attack you first? (Suicidal of course)
Do both have the same reasons to attack?
Can oil reserves control be a good reason to attack?
Nobody depends/relys more on oil then USA, while nobody has more oil than Iraq.
Does it make you think?

Re:The threat of war?

[Anonymous Coward]

And now we're trying to clean up our mess by taking Saddam out. What's your problem with this?

Some "terrorists" are chauvanists. They will only stop when they've won a Taliban-like theocracy.

Re:The threat of war?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Saddam does not have the capacity to cause any big damage to USA, but the other way around.

That's not true. Iraq is known to have the capability to deliver chemical and biological weapons to our allies in that region, and also to our troops in Saudi and elsewhere. Iraq certainly has the capability to deliver said weapons directly to the US itself, albeit through what we would normally consider to be terrorist channels. And Iraq is working very hard to develop the capability to deliver nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons directly to the US mainland via its ballistic missile program.

Iraq's stockpile of weapons, plus the clandestine network of partisans and agents that wounded us so severely last September, adds up to a credible threat.

USA has weapons of mass destruction, and chemical and biological weapons as well.

As do many other countries. Simply having the weapons doesn't constitute a threat. Having the weapons, being willing to use them against one's enemies, and making it clear that one considers the US to be one's enemy: these three things together constitute a threat to the US. Iraq fits all three of these criteria.

USA did not sign the Kyoto agreement or any other UN resolutions towards banning such weapons. Should the world enforce USA compliance?

No. The UN charter recognizes the right of sovereign nations to arm themselves. Having weapons-- even weapons of mass destruction-- is not in violation of any UN agreement or resolution.

USA IS willing (EAGER!!!) to use WMD's against Iraq.

No, we're not. The United States has a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons, and a no-use policy on chemical and biological weapons. However, that policy also says that we as a nation consider all weapons of mass destruction to be equivalent, and that we are willing, if necessary, to respond to attacks in kind. If the US is ever attacked with chemical, biological, or radiological weapons, we will consider-- not necessarily act, but consider-- responding with the only weapons of mass destruction in our arsenal: nuclear weapons.

In other words, US military doctrine is that we will never use chemical, biological, or radiological weapons, and that we will only consider the use of nuclear weapons if we are directly attacked with chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons.

That's a long way from "willing and eager to use WMDs against Iraq."

Now, in the interest of complete honesty, I will admit to something. If you took WMDs out of the question and asked me, "Do you think the US is eager to go to war with Iraq," I wouldn't be able to give you an unqualified "no" answer. I think there are some people in the US that hate and fear Saddam Hussein and Iraq under his rule. I think there are some people in the US who think that Hussein is a madman who could hurt us far worse than Osama bin Laden has, if we gave him half a chance. I think there are some people in the US who wouldn't be upset if some noble soul snuck into Hussein's bedroom and put a bullet through his head.

But I don't think that necessarily means we're eager for war. War is a scary thing, no matter which side you're on. There are certainly a huge number of people in the US that oppose the idea of war based on sheer principle, and there's another big group of people that doesn't agree that war with Iraq is the right thing at this time.

But I don't think, as a nation, that we're completely opposed to it, either. I think there are probably some people who think the way I do: that a quick and contained invasion of Iraq, followed immediately by the destruction of the Hussein regime and the longer-term formation of a new democratic government, would be the pretty good way to put and end to this situation.

Eager for war? No. Willing to do what we think is best? Yes, definitely.

Nobody depends/relys more on oil then USA, while nobody has more oil than Iraq.

Let's get specific here. According to "Monthly Energy Review," published by the US DOE in October, 2001, the US imports 619,000 barrels of oil per day from Iraq. That sounds like a lot. However, that's only about 6.5% of our total daily oil imports; our biggest oil import partner is Canada, with 1,784,000 barrels per day, followed by Saudi with 1,858,000. So Iraq's contribution to US oil supplies is negligible.

Incidentally, about 40% of all the oil we consume in the US is produced domestically. Canada, Saudi, and Venezuela comprise about another 25%. Oil imports from Iraq, contrary to some opinions, just aren't that important to the US.

Does it make you think?

Absolutely this situation makes me think. Two weeks ago, I was strongly opposed to any war between the US and Iraq at this time. Then I listened to the President's speech on Monday night, and it piqued my interest. I did some research, and learned what appear to be some pretty well documented facts about Iraq's military capabilities, their track record, and their stated policies. Now I think an invasion of Iraq to facilitate regime change is an entirely justified and appropriate action.

I sorry ladies and Gentlemen

[euxneks]

Our flight has been delayed, due to a bunch of bums from downtown sucking out the engine fuel. Relax, and our flight attendants will give you some pretzels.

=)

Re:I sorry ladies and Gentlemen

[Flounder]

They're still waiting for that shipment of lemon scented napkins**.

** Please consult page 42 of your Vague Joke Reference Manual

Is it really cheap without gas?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much gas is required to grow and harvest sugar cane --- if gas prices shoot up, wouldn't cane prices (and virtually everything else) as well? I thought that the reason alcohol is not viable as a power source is that it takes more gas to farm to crops than you save by not putting it in the car. (The only reason alcohol would be cheap in the US is that it is government-subsidized). If that's the case, then sugar cane doesn't solve to no-oil problem.

Re:Is it really cheap without gas?

[NewtonsLaw]

How much gas is required to grow and harvest sugar cane --- if gas prices shoot up, wouldn't cane prices (and virtually everything else) as well?

Well duh! You'd run the harvester and other associated equipment on alcohol or other bio-fuels too!

Actually, there are quite a number of bio-sourced fuels that can be used as easily (or more easily) than ethanol.

I believe methanol can be made from celulose (as opposed to cracking it from more more complex hydrocarbons) and fuels such as rape-seed and other oils make a dandy biodiesel when processed properly.

For some light humour, check the articles that result from this search on the BBC news site where some Brits are dodging massive taxes by running their cars on cooking oil.

Re:Is it really cheap without gas?

[BlueUnderwear]

How much gas is required to grow and harvest sugar cane

Couldn't the farm equipment run on alcohol as well?

Re:Is it really cheap without gas?

[fluffy666]

Be careful - you end up consuming most of your fuels simply to make the fuel. Net yields come in at around 1000 liters per hectare, which would imply converting around half the agricultural land on the planet in order to replace oil.

Re:Is it really cheap without gas?

[LoztInSpace]

Oil also has some sort of litres/hectare ratio, but because it happend a long time ago it apparently doesn't matter. The fact is we're still digging it out faster than it can be produced which is worse than making it now from sustainable crops.

Re:Is it really cheap without gas?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I am a chemist.

There's been a lot of misinformation on this subject. Burning ethanol does produce carbon dioxide (CO2). As was correctly noted elsewhere, this produces no net increase in atmospheric levels of CO2, ~if~ the ethanol was produced from biomass. One of the major sources of ethanol in the US is hydration of ethene which is a component of natural gas, i.e. a petrochemical.

Methanol (aka methyl or wood alcohol) is almost entirely made from natural gas (methane).

There is a major problem with biomass derived ethanol, the amount of energy needed to prepare the fields, plant the crop, tend the crop, harvest the crop, transport the biomass to the factory, process the crop (i.e. grind and convert corn) ferment the mash and distill the stuff is about 1.5 times greater than the energy of the produced ethanol. This is always the case, it is an unfavorable process.

In short, converting to biomass derived alcohol in order to save gas is like poking holes in the bottom of a boat to let the water out. Running the machinery on ethanol in order to avoid using petrol based fuels is just poking ~bigger~ holes in the bottom of the boat.

IIRC, Brasil had to import several tankers of petrolium derived ethanol from the US when their local supply was insufficient.

Ok, you ask why do we use the stuff as a fuel suppliment? It has oxygen in the molecule which helps gasoline burn cleaner. It also helps raise the octane rating of the fuel mix.

A bigger reason is tax subsidies. Remember that the Iowa caucuses exert an enormous influence on US presidential politics. And what do they grow in iowa? Corn! BTW, much of those subsidies go to a small outfit called ADM.

In short biomass derived ethanol is a ~stupid~ idea. Sorry but this one just doesn't work.

who are they quoting??

[edrugtrader]

not too be overly OT, but are they seriously running articles from iwon.com now?!!?

Re:who are they quoting??

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the same thing. IWON?!? The people sending all the spam? Then I realized it was a Reuters news article that they just postd.

What's the Fuel Economy?

[The Red Rooster]

Interesting to note what was NOT said:

There was quite a bit of comment in the article about "saving reais"... but regardless of the price comparison, notice how no explicit numbers were given for fuel economy...

The average farmer, given the information on the site, uses 70l of gasoline an hour (@ 245Reais / hour).

The alchohol plane uses 83.3- l of fuel / hour.

Meaning that the gas engine is more fuel efficient, and when dealing with jet engines, it isn't even possible to aquire enough fuel to make up for the lack of range without losing so much of the passenger / cargo space that all profit is lost.

So, while General aviation might like it, commercial aviation will not adopt it until you can give sufficient return on range to make the choice palatable.

I don't think that the savings is going to make up for the cost of switching for quite awhile, at least not in US GenAv.

My $0.25.

Well, cool, but how do you make Alcohol?

[Dion]

The only problem with running an engine on alcohol is that you need to refine that alcohol first, that is something that takes a huge amount of energy and unless you have a "green" way of doing that you are just as screwed as when you use petrol.

Yes, it's cool that you can keep flying after the oil reserves dry out, but it's not going to do anything for the greenhouse effect, it might even make it worse with all the water you need to evaporate during destilation.

Re:Well, cool, but how do you make Alcohol?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem with running an engine on alcohol is that you need to refine that alcohol first, that is something that takes a huge amount of energy and unless you have a "green" way of doing that you are just as screwed as when you use petrol.

Interesting. Have a link to, say, comparative numbers for E85 and gasoline?

Re:Well, cool, but how do you make Alcohol?

[NewtonsLaw]

The only problem with running an engine on alcohol is that you need to refine that alcohol first, that is something that takes a huge amount of energy and unless you have a "green" way of doing that you are just as screwed as when you use petrol

If you're using energy that would otherwise be wasted then it becomes quite practical (and economic).

For example, I believe that in New Zealand they're producing ethanol from dairy whey (a byproduct of some milk products).

At least some of the energy used in this production is also a byproduct of processes such as the production of milk-powder or something.

One man's waste energy is another's treasure :-)

Even without using wate energy, I don't see why it wouldn't be practical to use a solar still to perform the fractional distilation required to perform the essential separation of ethanol and water needed to get a 100+% proof fluid for fuel use.

Re:Well, cool, but how do you make Alcohol?

[anonymous cupboard]

I used to work at a chemicals site. Any site is composed of a number of individual plants, usually treated as quasi-independent financial entities and they buy and sell each-other's products.

One of the most important products is steam (reactions are both exothermic (giving out heat) and endothermic (requiring heat). One plant may produce sufficient steam to provide heating for a number of other plants. There may be a net energy requirement for the site, but it is minimal compared with that of the endothermic plants taken individually.

As a final point, remember that ethanol has a lower boiling point than water so you are not going to lose a lot of water there. In fact liquid water is one of the waste products.

Re:Well, cool, but how do you make Alcohol?

[inerte]

http://www.agriculture.state.ia.us/e85q&a.html

Tidbits:

Why should we use ethanol?
Besides its superior performance characteristics, ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline; it is a completely renewable, domestic, environment friendly fuel that enhances the nation's economy and energy security. Today the U. S. imports more than half of its oil, and overall consumption continues to increase. By supporting ethanol production and use, U.S. drivers can help reverse that trend.

85% ethanol can reduce pollution. Government tests have shown that E85 vehicles reduce harmful hydrocarbon and benzene emissions when compared to vehicles running on gasoline.

E85 can also reduce carbon dioxide (CO2), a harmful greenhouse gas and a major contributor to global warming. Although CO2 is released during ethanol production and combustion, it is recaptured as a nutrient to the crops that are used in its production. Unlike fossil fuel combustion, which unlocks carbon that has been stored for millions of years, use of ethanol results in low increases to the carbon cycle.

Ethanol also degrades quickly in water and, therefore, poses much less risk to the environment than an oil or gasoline spill.

Btw...

http://www.google.com/search?q=E85+and+gasoline& so urceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Re:Well, cool, but how do you make Alcohol?

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators, mod this down please!!!

(just read the other comments, I don't have to repeat what was already said).

It's a complete bs.

Re:Well, cool, but how do you make Alcohol?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop talking about what you don't know!

BTW, I'm brazilian, I have a car fueled by Alcohol, and I can tell you're wrong (as most of the comments here).

What I can't understand is why such a bullshit is moderated as "5".

Re:Well, cool, but how do you make Alcohol?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the alcohol refinary sells energy. The sugar cane's bagasse, resulted from alcohol "refine" process, is burned, like a thermo plant, making the refinary self powered and, better yet, make it possible to sell the excedent eletrical power produced.

And about water evaporating during "destilation", well, that's much better than burning oxygen, like these nasty petrol refinary does.

The FAA will make it very difficult...

[pongo000]

As a pilot and former aircraft owner, I can assure you the FAA will create an insurmountable obstacle for aircraft owners wishing to convert. All aircraft in the US are certified to run on certain fuel. Deviation from this certification must be made on a case-by-case basis, backed up by engineering data for each aircraft to be modified. Obviously, this can be cost-prohibitive for individual aircraft owners.

Usually what happens is a company will spring for the engineering studies, then sell an STC (supplemental type certificate) to aircraft owners wishing to modify their aircraft. (The company still controls the STC, and each aircraft must have its own STC). For instance, owners of certain aircraft wanting to burn auto fuel can buy STCs from two different companies.

At any rate, the bottom line is that the conversion to alternative fuels in production aircraft (at least in the US) is extremely prohibitive, thanks to the FAA. You can read more about the hoops that have to be jumped through here.

Re:The FAA will make it very difficult...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Who died and made ICANN boss?

Jon Postel, I think.

Re:The FAA will make it very difficult...

[gotih]

what about "experimental" aircraft. a friend of mine is working on his pilots license so he can build his own plane from a kit (which is then considered experimental). my understanding was that since this plane is experimental it is exempt from certain regulations including the one about fuels -- he can use a car engine and use gasoline.

...or does he have to buy this STC?

Re:The FAA will make it very difficult...

[w42w42]

In the FAAs defense, their decisions are based as much on liability concerns, as actual technical merit. Court case after court case in the eighties essentially put the small aircraft industry out of business. If an airplane type had even a rumour of a problem, crashes of that type would often result in the family suing the pants off of the manufacturer. This sometimes despite evidence of negligence on the pilots part.

Re:The FAA will make it very difficult...

[Chagrin]

Exactly. The Experimental classification is designed for new ideas (like these engines) in order to ensure that innovation continues in the aircraft industry. As the alcohol engines prove themselves the FAA will assuredly approve them for other uses.

Nothing new.

[dr.Flake]

is this news ???

As far as i know methanol is a very popular "gasoline" in Brazil. All those beetles run on it!

Using bio-mass, be it seeds, manure or plant rests, is nothing new.

We even had a robot using bio mass as a source for electricity yesterday !!

So fly a plane with it, wow!! just like those little remote controlled airoplanes.

Post a new story when it runs on water.......

Re:Nothing new.

[NewtonsLaw]

As far as i know methanol is a very popular "gasoline" in Brazil. All those beetles run on it!

Boy, if you don't know the difference between ethanol and methanol then you'll never get work as a bartender ;-)

But seriously -- ethanol tends to created from biomass reactions, whereas economic methanol production usually relies on the fractional distilation of more complex hydrocarbons such as light crude.

Re:Nothing new.

[dr.Flake]

Actually it is a natural mix of the two. prevents the "gasoline-man" to also act as a bartender.

Or there would be a lot of blind automobile drivers in Brazil !

Good Idea.

[SniffleBear]

I'd imagine they'd have beer taps directly feeding from the fuel supply.

New Meaning

[Anonymous Coward]

Gives new meaning to the drink "Rum Runner"

Not an iWonMoney article, but a Reuters article.

[Anonymous Coward]

The exact same article at .

Brings back the memories...

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when Northwest Airlines used to power its pilots using alcohol!

You are my hero

[Anonymous Coward]

The "sex with a mare" question is now the basis of all my non-slashdot and real life trolling. You sir are truly magnificent.

Thank you

Interesting points...

[phunhippy]

"It even has a bit more power than the gasoline engine, but we have some concerns of its performance in lower temperatures."

No Problems! Thanks to us STUPID humans, with global warming we'll be able to use this as a fuel source across the entire planent in just 50 short years!

Re:Interesting points...

[Nick Harkin]

Although the temperatures could actually fall due to global warming, as the ice-caps melt, making the oceans colder, which is then lead into the cycle.....

Of course airplanes are very high up, that is what causes the low temperatures, which will most likely not be affected by global warming....

Re:Um, it's rewneable energy.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if anything, it will screw economics up.

Gratuitous Simpsons quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Homer Simpson's fantasy about fuelling his car with ethanol instead of gas: "One for me, one for you. One for me, one for you. One for me, one for you."

Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

B.

You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account. Posts without proper registration are posted as Anonymous Coward

same old story

[tanveer1979]

oil lobby .. as long as it is stront it will oppose alcohol, fuel cell etc.,
There is a oily extract from a tree which can be used to make a diesel like fuel with better properties than diesel. But no widespread use coz this will hit the oil lobby. Brazil had no option. they couldnt afford gas.. so they embarked on alco. and this really helped the balance of trade. Unless legistlators insist on regulations that make use of alco. compulsary.. this wont take off.
btw in india the govt has directed that by 2003 all gasoline will have to have a 5% alco mix, then engine modifications will be done and this increased to 25%, this way dependance on OPEC will be lessened. When this happens in US, the exessive middle east meddling will thankfully reduce coz then the govt wont have much interest in that area. Rather that stupid lobbying with OPEC and giving them concessions govt should make all alternate fuels tax free and cars and vehicals using alternate fuels and electricity totally tax free, this will ensure self sufficency in energy

Re:same old story

[mikeee]

Or maybe there's no wisespread use 'cause there aren't that many trees?

Remember, folks, we use a lot of oil. Alcohol and tree sap and cooking oil are all well and good, but trimming oil usage by 3% may not be worth the trouble.

Engines and Efficiency

[pyman]

I remember chatting to an engineer friend of mine about engines and efficiency of fuel use.

Apparently modern internal combustion engines are only about 3-5% efficient. Ie they only extract about 3-5% of the potential power of each unit of fuel consumed.

On the other hand, steam engines were developed so much over the last century that the most modern steam engines could haul 1 ton approximately 3 miles, on a teaspoon of coal. Thats right, 1 teaspoon!

Seems to me the best way forward is to work out more efficient uses of petrol for powering engines, so we use less fuel, rather than investigating different energy sources.

Re:Engines and Efficiency

[DGolem]

(My first Slashdot post)

My favorite alternative to internal combustion engines is fuel cells. With all the explosions and moving parts jamming up and down ICs get the low 3-5% efficiency rating from stuff like heat and vibration loss. This also causes them to wear out quicky and with the need to keep the moving parts oiled they get pretty filthy too.

(Note: It's been awhile since I've read about these so correct me if I'm wrong about anything) So here's what I know about fuel cells for those who have never heard of them, as I understand it, there are no moving parts, kind of like a battery (this isn't counting stuff likes tires of course). It also makes zero noise like a battery so it would make as much noise in a car as a battery powered car would. So I without the movement I don't think there's a need to lube it with oil and they probably last a long time with very little maintenance since they're not vibrating, grinding, and heating up/cooling down all the time. And I think they're smaller too which means you can design them for easy maintance I.E. you don't have to take the whole engine apart just to get to a fan belt. In fact, I don't think it needs a cooling fan either because there probably wouldn't be much in the way of heat output. For fuel they can take pretty much anything rich in hydrogen which is the most abundant element on the planet. This means there are many types of renewable fuel to choose from. The way the engine gets it's energy is it takes two different molecules, strips their electrons for power, and combines what's left over. What you end up with as output is pretty much pure water (no pollution!). So with the lack of moving parts and excess heat and the superior method for energy transfer I've heard of fuel cells getting up to 60% efficiency.

The only problem with fuel cells right now is they are difficult to mass produce since they haven't been as researched as much as ICs and are therefore pretty expensive. Plus if cars were to use them you'd have the problem of readying every gas station in the country all while maintaining support for gasoline for every person in the country who still owns a normal car. Canada has some buses using them though. I think someone (the mayor of Toronto maybe?) even drank a glass of water out of the tailpipe when they first introduced the buses just to show how clean they are. Instead of just dumping the water out the back maybe cars should have water fountains built into the dashboard :).

Anyway http://www.fuelcells.org/ has more info. (Sorry it's not linked it seems the html isn't the version I'm used to.)

Re:Engines and Efficiency

[MtViewGuy]

There's only one problem: steam requires water out of the wazoo to work.

Why do you think the railroads in the western USA--where finding water for steam engines proved to be a major challenge--bought diesel-electric locomotives en masse from 1940 on? After World War II, the railroads switched to diesel-electric locomotives because it allowed the railroads to eliminate costly watering and oiling/coaling stations along mainlines.

Re:Engines and Efficiency

[pyman]

I was not suggesting going back to using steam powered engine. My point was we should put the same amount of research into creating fuel efficient petroleum engines that went into steam engines...

Sugar cane to make "biodiesel" instead?

[MtViewGuy]

I think using sugar cane to make alcohol fuel is the wrong fuel to make.

The Brazilians should make biodiesel fuel from sugar cane instead; that means the entire sugar cane plant can be use to make the fuel. Unlike regular diesel fuel, biodiesel fuel has no particulate emissions, no sulfur-compound problems, and with the right engine design burns very cleanly. Biodiesel fuel mixed with JP4 jet fuel actually burns much cleaner than straight JP4 on jet engines, with almost no soot in the exhaust.

Re:Sugar cane to make "biodiesel" instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

True, less particles, less sulphur.
But more NOx. That bad.

NOx contributes to acid rain and the formation
of ground ozone. Not good.

Re:Sugar cane to make "biodiesel" instead?

[Vasilis Vasaitis]

I think using sugar cane to make alcohol fuel is the wrong fuel to make.

The Brazilians should make biodiesel fuel from sugar cane instead; that means the entire sugar cane plant can be use to make the fuel.

Actually, that would make no sense at all and would clearly be the wrong thing.

The Brazilians don't cultivate sugar cane to make alcohol from it. They cultivate it to make sugar. It's a very profitable product, so much that Brazil ends up importing other products that could easily be cultivated on its lands, only because everyone plants sugar canes.

Of course, apart from extracting the sugar, they've done their best to make full use of the plant, so there are a few byproducts. The most important of them is alcohol; there results to be so much of it that they ended up finding new uses for it (alcohol-powered cars, now planes). But it's still a byproduct, very unimportant compared to the sugar produced. So destroying the sugar production (and the other byproducts) only to produce biodiesel instead of alcohol would simply be absurd.

Re:Sugar cane to make "biodiesel" instead?

[MtViewGuy]

NOx contributes to acid rain and the formation
of ground ozone. Not good.

I would have understood your concerns in the past but today's emission control systems found on diesel cars sold in Europe have pretty much eliminated the NOx pollution issue. The only reason we don't see it in the USA is the fact Diesel #2 fuel sold in the USA has too high a level of sulfur compounds, which will destroy diesel exhaust emission controls since the compounds act like sulfuric acid (anyone who's taken high school chemistry knows how strong sulfuric acid can be). However, with the EPA mandating soon that sulfur compounds cannot exceed 80 parts per million (this is the current California Air Resources Board standard), we can apply truly modern emission controls on diesel engines and it'll likely meet the tough Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle standard.

Re:Sugar cane to make "biodiesel" instead?

[Karpe]

Ahem, not only that, but the "smoke" resulting from such engines would smell like french fries! Hmm.

Re:Sugar cane to make "biodiesel" instead?

[jonbrewer]

The Brazilians should make biodiesel fuel from sugar cane instead

No, they shouldn't.

Biodiesel is a lipid. A lipid is a glycerol with three fatty acid chains attached. We've all heard of such lipids as Soybean oil, Corn oil, Canola oil, and Peanut oil. But has anyone ever heard of "Sugar Cane oil?" No, because it isn't efficient to turn sugar cane into a lipid.

Sugar cane produces sugar (CnH2nOn). It is efficient to turn this into alcohol, which will power a gasoline based engine.

Just as you don't put diesel in a gas engine, you don't put gas in a diesel engine.

The Brizilians have it right, and should not be making biodiesel from their sugar cane.

Alcohol.....

[kyletinsley]

"it's the only way to fly"

--
inadvertant bastardized matrix quote brought you by the Coalition for a Drunker America.

Fuel prices in Brazil

[Anonymous Coward]

1 litre of alcohol costs about R$1,00 , while 1 litre of kerosene can go up to R$5,00 (saw that last one on TV)...

wrong, wrong, wrong

[sssmashy]

Actually, the largest foreign supplier of oil to the US is Canada. Venezuela is in second place.

it's ludicrous to suggest that an American attack on Iraq will raise local oil prices.

Anyone who knows anything about global economics, oil prices, or world events would laugh at this statement. Heck, the exact opposite is true; local oil prices (i.e. NYMEX) have been fluctuating considerably because of the mere possibility of invasion. Why? Oil is a globally traded commodity. The price of crude oil in any country would be the same everywhere were it not for variations in local demand/supply and the costs of transporting oil to market.

Because Europe and Asia get most of their oil from the Middle East, instability in the region sends oil prices everywhere skyrocketing. Just look at the last Gulf War for proof. Prices can't shoot up in Europe and Asia without rising in the US as well.

The cause/effect relationship between an Iraq war and oil prices is so obvious I have never heard anyone dispute it, whether expert or layperson, left-wing or right-wing. Until now, that is.

That's really stupid

[TheOldFart]

That's so stupid I can't even believe it. I guess if you have to fly and there is no other fuel... The reason alcohol is so popular in Brazil is because the big producers of sugar cane "own" the freaking government and came up with this idea to power the national fleet with alcohol.

The energy you get from alcohol is a lot less than that you get from gasoline. You need a greater volume of alcohol to produce the same energy output. That is, alcohol engines consume a greater volume of alcohol than gasoline in order to generate the same power.

It takes more energy to produce alcohol then the energy obtained by it. They manage it in that third world shit hole because they run the mills on cane waste. That is, they burn the cane waste in order to fuel the mill. That creates a really bad pollution. The process is really messy and the byproducts are very toxic, which is promptly dumped on nearby rivers and streams. Compared to that an oil refinery looks like the green party general quarters.

Alcohol is not the answer. It's simple physics. The energy input is greater than the energy output. Stop wasting time and come up with a decent, non polluting alternative to fossil fuels, not something that only exists to make those corrupt politicos even richer while the other 99% of the population eat shit.

Re:That's really stupid

[anonymous cupboard]

You have come up with the biggest real reason: the lower calorific value of ethanol/methanol against JP-1 (the normal Jet fuel) and certainly against the high-octane stuff loved by piston engined aircraft.

As regards the politics, well yes, the slash and burn land owners are behind this but it is always a good idea to have locally produced alternatives that don't require oodles of foreign exchange.

Re:That's really stupid

[xyote]

Usually when they propose these ideas in the US, there is some huge hidden subsidy which makes the alternative source of energy appear economical. If they're going to keep pushing schemes like this, they should give the Nobel prize in economics to Milo Minderbinder.

Re:That's really stupid

[mikeee]

And, in fact, the use of methanol in the US has been supported heavily by ADM, the agricultural/distribution sorta-near-monopoly.

Re:That's really stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

>They manage it in that third world shit hole because they run the mills on cane waste.

Come on, I'm Brasilian (with "s" because that's right, not with "z" as americans think) and I can't afford to read someone calling my country "third world shit". It's the 4th world's democracy, we have no hurrycanes, thunderstorms, volcanos, etc; and we had developed a well-proven technology that is running on our cars since the 70's. Except for the lack of money, my country is much better for living than any "North America Land of Freedom"...

Re:That's really stupid

[TheOldFart]

So proud to be a "Brasilian" but posts as an AC...

sugar cane alcohol

[eatenn]

The Brazilians use sugar cane alcohol to fuel their modification of a single engine crop duster called the "Ipanema."

Wtf is sugar cane alcohol? Is it like Mike's Hard Lemonade?

Re:sugar cane alcohol

[3waygeek]

Actually, it's probably closer to Bacardi 151...

Re:sugar cane alcohol

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be close to (or the same as some types of) rum.

Brasil produces Sugar Canes, and Italy...

[C0deJunkie]

..SO we should power our cars with....wine?

Re:Brasil produces Sugar Canes, and Italy...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say grapa makes a better fuel :-)

ESR is a racist genocidal maniac

[turm5ric]

I think he is right to see Afghanistan, Iraq, and the suppression of Al-Qaeda as phases of longer, wider war ? a clash of civilizations driven by the failure of Islamic/Arab culture (though I would stress the problem of the Islamic commandment to jihad more than he does). I think he is also right to say that our long-term objective must be to break, crush and eventually destroy this culture, because we can't live on the same planet with people who both carry those memes and have access to weapons of mass destruction. They will hate us and seek to destroy us not for what we've done but for what we are.

gasahol ruins engines and ruins economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

gasahol ruins engines and ruins economy!

Scientific American showed years ago how there is almost a NET LOSS of fuel energygrowing crops in the US to convert into alcahol for energy. (transportation, processing, etc).

Additionally, until the cost of oil quadruples, its idiotic to try and save money that way.

Worse, most card comapnies have shown that brazil cars are destroyed by their gasahol and so our our own engines but the congressmen and senators for the CORN BELT get their way under the idiotic banner of "winter pollution safeguards". Its pork barrel stupidity.

Wake up.... If methanol and ethanol were efficient to produce in the USA for fuel.... we would be burning it instead of oil, coal, and natural gas to produce energy in our non-nuke powerplants.

I can't believe how backwards the 3rd world is.

Alcohol And Airplanes Make A Good Mix...

[eatenn]

...when the plane's going down. Who wants to die sober?

oops that was a quote

[turm5ric]

http://armedndangerous.blogspot.com/2002_09_15_arm edndangerous_archive.html#81815163 from this url. it is a strange and sad quote. im filling up space so the lamer bot wont kill my post. see? esr is a strange fellow to think like that

Iwon Money?

[kubrick]

Sounds like the guy who keeps spamming me to enter online "competitions"... :)

did a double-take...

[crapulent]

I can't be the only one who read the headline for this story and was like, "<shrug> If it's a long flight and I have an aisle seat ... sure, why not."

what a a pity ...

[simong_oz]

And there I was thinking this was going to be an article that vindicated consumption of copious quanitities of alcoholic beverages when flying.

Oh well, I shall have to continue my "research" :)

Obligatory Pun

[Nick Harkin]

Had to be said......... Don't Drink and Fly

insightful (was Re:Good first step)

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of those comments that counts as "funny" until you think about it harder, and then it moves towards "insightful." God, why don't I EVER have mod-points when I really want 'em?? Anyway, hemp-derived methanol not only gets rid of CO2, it provides a way of processing human sewage profitably and cleanly AND it could compete in a truly-free market with either petrochemicals or ethanol, were it not for the tax-and-spend war on (some) drugs.
me

Re:insightful (was Re:Good first step)

[ctar]

hemp-derived methanol

Can someone explain how hemp derived methanol is made? I've heard the same claims, but where does it actually come from? I don't think its fermented...Not that much sugar in Hemp.

Re:insightful (was Re:Good first step)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hemp for Fuel

Google

Re:insightful (was Re:Good first step)

[ch-chuck]

googled this:

PYROLYSIS is the technique of applying high heat to organic matter (ligno-cellulosic materials) in the absence of air or in reduced air.

The process can produce charcoal, condensable organic liquids (pyrolytic fuel oil), non-condensable gasses, acetic acid, acetone, and methanol. The process can be adjusted to favor charcoal, pyrolytic oil, gas, or methanol production with a 95.5% fuel-to-feed efficiency.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Needless to say, DuPont and ShellOil are quick to point out that a hemp farm turns all widdle children within a 100 mi radius into raging, deliquent, homocidal maniacs.

Re:insightful (was Re:Good first step)

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he meant Hemp derived Bio-Diesel. Diesel fuel can be produced from any oil ( ie. the french fry powered car you've probably seen on television ) Fat or Oil is rendered by combining it with alcohol ( methanol ) in the presence of a catalyst to produce glycerine, and bio-diesel. Unfortunatly Biodiesel can't compete at all in price when compared to petrolium derived diesel.

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/Production.PDF

Re:insightful (was Re:Good first step)

[pjt48108]

"hemp-derived methanol

Can someone explain how hemp derived methanol is made? I've heard the same claims, but where does it actually come from? I don't think its fermented...Not that much sugar in Hemp."

Well, of course, this method has important limitations.

The sugar will come from the Snickers bar your plane wolfs down once the munchies kick in.

Then, the plane will fly really slowly and deliberately along it's flight path.

Meanwhile, the autopilot will fly 1,000 nautical miles out of it's way to get to your destination.

Finally, once you get there, the plane will have forgotten the purpose for the trip, and go blow your last 20 bucks on junk food.

Re:insightful (was Re:Good first step)

[jonbrewer]

AND it could compete in a truly-free market with either petrochemicals or ethanol, were it not for the tax-and-spend war on (some) drugs.

It's perfectly legal to grow hemp engineered without THC. It's just not as fun. :-)

Re:insightful (was Re:Good first step)

[Mauler]

I don't know where you live, but in the U.S., that's simply not true. It is illegal to grow any variety of hemp.

And the Bush Jr. administration is attempting to make the import of ANY hemp product (cloth, clothing, foods, soaps, balms, etc.) illegal.

Re:insightful (was Re:Good first step)

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, this is so far off-topic I think its off the map, so apologies for the AC posting.

And the Bush Jr. administration is attempting to make the import of ANY hemp product (cloth, clothing, foods, soaps, balms, etc.) illegal.

Actualy they tried and succeeded in getting any hemp based food products made illegal. Clothing, birdseed, rope, etc are still perfectly legal. And when you consider that US Navy still uses hemp rope for certain applications, you can understand that it will likely be a long time before they try to make the fibre illegal.

The fuzzy line is health and beauty aids. You can't market hemp oil as a nutritional supplement anymore, but I think you can still market it as a skin product. So how many people that beleive in the healthful effects of hemp oil supplements (its very high in Omega 3 fatty acids that help reduce cholesterol) will just go out and buy the hand lotion for personal consumption.

The whole thing is pretty bizarre since you have to drink something like your entire body weight in hemp seed oil to get high off it, and you'd be dead by then. Making it less intoxicating than even dihydrogen monoxide.

BTW, Anybody else read Drug Czar Asa Hutchinson's screed against pot legalization in the Washington Post editorial section Wednesday? He argued that making pot legal in Lambeth was clearly a failure since he saw people shooting heroin when he was touring there after the experiment ended. He also said that decriminalization of adult use in Alaska in the 80's was a failure, because teens made pot smoking a regular habit. In both of these cases he uses the example of the police failing to enforce the laws that remained on the books as reasoning to show that failing to enforce laws that weren't on the books was a failure. Hopefully Canada and/or Nevada will soon be providing a large scale example that all forms of hemp were put on this planet by the creator for consumption by His/Her childeren. You would think a good Christian like Asa would have to agree with that reasoning.

Henry Ford

[Anonymous Coward]

actually advocated (and grew, on Iron Mountain) hemp, like it or not (and public-school history books are clearly in the "or not" category...). The Demopublican party, year-after-year, subsidizes the beJezus out of sugarcane in Florida (to the detriment of the Everglades, but who gives a shit when there's all that nice Fanjul money to be gotten?) while outlawing ANY use of hemp (because otherwise hippies might smoke some of it and have fun or something, and that can't be permitted).

Check your facts

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick Google returns this page containing: "...The ACEEE study notes that U.S. oil imports more than doubled during the past 15 years and oil imports now exceed domestic oil production. The U.S. possesses just two percent of world oil reserves, and this percentage is dropping. " So where does your 80% domestic figure comes from? I agree with you about the new imperialist drive, though.

How is this better for the environment?

[nickalopogus]

There are obviously enormous economic benefits to the farmers, government and people of Brazil by powering engines with booze made from local sugar cane. Where are the environmental benefits that were mentioned in the original slashdot post? The original article doesn't refer to the environment even once. In fact this would surely be worse for the environment. The increase in demand for sugar cane will be met by more land clearance for agriculture (slashing and burning). Hence what was native vegetation playing its part by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere is burned(releasing alot of CO2) and then replaced by a crop that is grown, fermented then burned as plane/car fuel in an annual cyle.

Law?

[Nick Harkin]

Where would the law stand on alcohol smuggling if this was ever implemented?

Good idea but...

[Uzull]

Good idea : It would recycle the CO2 out of the atmosphere. But... General Aviation jet engines relies on kerosene. Those cannot use alcohol - except from some very though russian jet engines. Another point is : refueling in an aircraft is quite dangerous - strict procedures, etc. Alcohol is much more volatile and explosive. Would the passengers have to go aboard with fire resisting clothes ? Think of the fueling point at racings (formula one or indy)

How much do you want to bet...

[coditoergosum]

... That lots of pilots will be tinkering with their planes to get a tube from the gas tank into the cabin?

Background

[Anonymous Coward]

Can find a bit of historical background to this story in a recent article at the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriend ly.cfm?Story _ID=1313810

Re:Cars? No problemo.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, I'm Brazilian. My car uses alcohol. We have had such cars for many, many years (since the 70's or 80's).

Not new

[GarrettZilla]

There have been airplanes in the U.S. running on corn ethanol since at least the 70s. Max Shauck, a math professor at Baylor, was flying airshows in an ethanol-powered Pitts in the 80s and flew across the Atlantic in a Velocity powered by 100% ethanol.

Ethanol could be a big win. It would stabilize the market for corn, generate lots of cheap protein from the corn byproduct, and is cleaner. Alcohol has much less energy in it than gasoline, so aircraft range would be significantly reduced.

But, it just doesn't seem economically viable to put this into production, especially through the FAA's lengthy (=pricey) certification process.

Aero diesels are starting to hit the market finally. Biodiesel is probably a better idea in the short run.

Already used for different purpose

[Merlin2600]

This is not especially new.
In 70's my father, a Belgian engineer, went to Brazil to adapt a plane engine to use suger cane alcohol and generate electricity for hospitals.

The main goal, at that time, was not so much the pollution but the fact that sugar cane alcohol was a lot cheaper and a local product.

Earth, not War

[squaretorus]

. With the threat of war for the U.S. and a subsequent raise in oil prices, this might be of some interest for our general aviation /. wavers in its eco stance. However, it pisses me off to read statements like the one above making out that the main reason to consider alternatives is the threat of war in the gulf.

The war in the gulf will be about PROTECTING the oil, not threatening it. Thats what the last gulf war was all about.

Global warming and a million other 'bad things' are a much weightier and more pressing reason to get excited about this stuff.

The US is seen as the environmental bad guy by most of the world. A couple of timely bits of legislation enforcing the use of these types of technology in certain minority (followed by majority) uses would shift the emphasis enormously.

Ban the sale of new 2-stroke petrol engines, and watch these alcohol babies take off. No duties on 'grown' fuel would push this further.

Re:Earth, not War

[Captain Large Face]

The US has a bad reputation for all things environmental for a good reason! The fact that George W. Bush abandoned the Kyoto Protocol and pushed for oil drilling in Alaska as two of his first acts in office doesn't inspire confidence.

What makes you think that the US Government will legislate the use of biomass fuels? The influence of the oil companies in US politics is too great.

After all, why do you think the US is so keen to invade Iraq? I won't deny that Saddam Hussein is unstable, but I reckon the 112 bn barrels of oil Iraq is sitting on provides the ultimate motive. IMHO, The US will push for a US-friendly leader to ensure US oil companies receive drilling rights to continue the cycle of money.

Re:Earth, not War

[taxman_10m]

The US has never been behind Kyoto. It was a loser in the Congress way before Bush got into office.

If all we wanted was oil then why not seize the Saudi oil fields? That would be a cake walk since we already have troops right there.

Let's listen to Europe for our foreign policy. What's that Mr. Chamberlin, peace in our time? Hey France, has Hitler reached the Maginot Line yet?

Re:Earth, not War

[Captain Large Face]

If all we wanted was oil then why not seize the Saudi oil fields?

US oil companies already have excellent access to Saudi oil fields, from which the profits are split with the Saudi Royal Family. This profitable relationship enables the US to ignore the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, which are exactly the same as seen in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Re:Earth, not War

[Peyna]

Besides, the Iraqis will probably just set fire to the oil fields again, thus creating even a greater environmental disaster, and destroying the oil anyway.

Re:Earth, not War

[theophilosophilus]

The trouble with your statement is that many environmentalists don't advocate bio-fuels because the thermodynamics don't work out. Ethonol production and use exhibits an energy deficit. However, the manufacturing process is being improved to a point that some claim that deficit is being elliminated. I don't think the energy issue is a reason to abandon ethonol though. I think the environmental advantage of clean air outwieghs the disadvantage of energy loss. In addition, energy is inevitably lost when it is converted to another USEABLE form (yes energy is conserved but it isn't transfered to the useable form in this case ethonol). The calculation of ethonol's energy output factors in energy expended at the farm level as well which I think is a bit unfair. If you compared the energy expenditure on the alternative, oil, using this standard you would need to factor in shipping from the mideast, troop movements for defense of oil fields, etc. The alternative to bio fuels at present are electric cars. However, I'm geussing electric car usage increases coal burning or radioactive waste. All in all I think the the best solution is using fuel cells. However, since that is not economically feasible at the moment I think bio fuels provide a good bridge solution.

Hm

[ConsoleDeamon]

Thay shood run them on coconut oil insted ( it's 30% more energi eficent then normal gasoline).

US-centric, was Re:Economics will screw this up

[seschmi]

This seems to be a US-centric view... Diesel cars are quite popular in Europe, where every gas station carries diesel. Due to taxation, diesel fuel is much cheaper in most european countries. Furthermore - if you ever test a modern diesel engine (e.g. BMWs 740d with 600 Nm torque at 1900/min) you will probably feel a sort of addiction and reconsider the number of truck stops in your area...

Two for one - slop and alcohol

[SgtChaireBourne]

Supposedly the slop left over from the fermentation process is more nutritious for pigs than the unfermented corn. Plus pigs like it better. But this is just rumor, I haven't personally checked for nutritional value or flavor.

Other than that, I think you might have mixed up your radicals.

Prices have no bearing on supply costs

[SgtChaireBourne]

Venezuela, Russia, Norway produce a lot of oil. But a Gulf war could raise the prices of oil, even if a negligable percent comes to our country from there. It would be the "because-we-can" increase that you see right before weekends and holidays.

Textbook makers have done price increases when there are wildfires in various parks and nature reserves, even the ones where no timber/pulp is harvested. The bookstores get in on the action too. When the price goes up, they go and reprice whatever is in their stock room and on the shelf. Why not oil, too?

age problem

[kipple]

surely you'll have to be 21 to drive an alcohol-propelled engine. or maybe will they lower the drinking age at 16..?

[just kidding]

Cars hydrogen are cleaner

[DeBaas]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/10/09/fuelcell/ index.html

They just produce water. Hydrogen can be created just using electricity which in turn CAN be created clean.

Re:Cars hydrogen are cleaner

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, making water via electrolysis is expensive. The cheapest way is to combine natural gas with steam at 1000C.

Threat of War for the U.S. ??

[Anonymous Coward]

The Threat of War for the U.S. ?

Don't you mean, ...with the U.S. threatening War?

Engine size

[Anonymous Coward]

"At least in Europe we realise that for a second car you only need between 1.3 and 1.6 litre engines."

*Second car*?

For 18 months my *first* and only car was 1100cc little red monster. About 95mph flat out. 0-60 in 14 seconds. 60mpg. Ran on fumes.

And I used to run it up and down the motorway quite happily.

Airplane fuel that mixes well with Coke!

[AWhistler]

Exactly! "sugar cane distilled alcohol" is called RUM! So sometime in the future, you'll be pulling up to a Bacardi fuel station to gas up your car. A whole new definition to drinking and driving!

And there *IS* a "natural" way to turn sugar cane into alcohol. It's called fermentation...using yeast. The same way that beer and wine are made. The next step after that is the distillation that turns a 5% - 15% alcohol mash into 150 proof alcohol. The yeast creates a LOT of CO2 itself as a byproduct of the fermentation process as well, so there is another source of greenhouse gasses...freeing up much of the the CO2 that the sugar cane absorbed.

[OT] Re:Two for one - slop and alcohol

[GlassUser]

They do like it better. My step father used to raise pigs. To make slop, he'd put in a few kg of random grains and stuff(tm) (usually corn and beans), fill the bucket to the top with water, and let it sit for a week. It also started to grow maggots by then, which was good, because it gave the porkers more protein. I am not kidding.

Re:[OT] Re:Two for one - slop and alcohol

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, there was a reason "[OT]" was included in the subject line. Learn how to moderate.

Alcohol fueled motorcycle

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in '72 I had a Triumph Trophy 650. The workshop manual had instructions for tweaking the carb for running on alcohol. All in veddy British English.

You won't see this for a long time here...

[Andy Dodd]

In the US, it takes a LONG time for an engine to be type-certified.

As a result, except for jet engines, most engines in use in aircraft today are designs that are decades old. (Lycoming, Continental, etc.)

It's already bad enough that the FAA requires you to get your aircraft recertified on a plane-by-plane basis to use automotive gasoline, which doesn't necessarily require engine modifications.

Using alcohol in an aircraft *will* require engine modifications because alcohol is highly corrosive. (Take a look at automotive FFVs like the Dodge Spirit FFV - Anything that comes in contact with fuel in these vehicles is insanely expensive because it must be unusually corrosion-resistant to survive when alcohol is used as a fuel.)

Ethanol might be less of a problem than methanol, but considering that even simply using *unleaded gasoline* is a major certification hassle, alcohol is a LONG way away from being a fuel source for aviation in the USA.

Multiple fuel sources

[Alan Cox]

There are lots of other possible fuels. There was a bit of a stink recently (in both senses) about people who were running diesel vehicles on a mixture of cooking oil and methanol. Apparently it works very well, far too well for the fuel tax people to be happy about 8)

[For those thinking fuel tax ? - the uk puts most of the cost of roads onto the fuel in taxes since not everyone has a car and the people who drive more do more of the wearing out]

Re:Multiple fuel sources

[Kazymyr]

That would be biodiesel, or "soy Diesel".

Re:Cars? -- Alcohol vs. Gasolene

[StressGuy]

There are a couple of issues. For example, alcohol is more dense than gasolene and has less thermal energy per unit volume. Simply put, cars and especially aircraft won't be able to go as far or carry as much fuel. On the other hand, the "octane" rating for alcohol is pretty good as compared to gasolene (which is particularly good for aircraft). A few years back, during the gas crisis, some of us were tinkering with this. Now, this was before the days of computer controlled damn-near-everything in cars so it's probably a little dated. Basically, the mod was relatively simple. Adjust the timing, re-jet and shorten the float arm on the carb to adjust for the density of the alcohol, and plan on at least replacing the piston rings when the alcohol cleaned all the built up carbon off the engine cylinders.

Alcohol does burn pretty clean and you can get good power from it, but it's not a totally free ride. It's not pollution free either. I believe formaldahyde is a by-product of methanol combustion. Maybe some of you chemist out there can confirm. However, production of methanol fuel can be more environmentally friendly. For cars, I think I would be more in favor of a methanol fuel cell, but even that is not pollution free.

Re:Earth, not War: Ah the usual suspects BIG OIL !

[let_freedom_ring]

If Iraq was only about getting OIL for the sake of BIG OIL then couldn't we simply lift sanctions instead of going to war? Sadly Europeans have a simplistic way of looking at things

"What makes you think that the US Government will legislate the use of biomass fuels?"

NOTHING, and it shouldn't. Once someone can produce biomass fuel more cheaply than oil it will be used. Big Oil will either switch to producing it or be driven out of business like countless other businesses have over the years.

automotive engines in aircraft.

[StressGuy]

Such an STC would not be required for an experimental aircraft. However, there are a lot of issues associated with making that switch so make sure that your friend has researched this thoroughly.

Regarding automotive engine conversions, generally speaking. An automotive engine makes power at a higher RPM than an equivalent aircraft engine. This requires a reduction drive on the automotive engine. Generally speaking, auto engines make better power per displacement and aircraft engines make better power per weight. Also, the vapor pressure of automotive gasolene tends to be more than 100LL, which could require more robust fuel pumps and extra care in routing the fuel lines (at least). Remember, auto-gas is designed for use at more-or-less sea level.

That all being said, auto-gas and automotive engine conversions have been successfully done.

Re:automotive engines in aircraft.

[Darmox]

Another thing I've heard (from a pilot friend) is that automotive engines are designed to change RPM's quite effectively(accelerate well, etc.) where as plane engines are more about getting at a speed(RPM), and being able to stay there all day.

Ipanema -- "...and when she passes..."

[websensei]

"...all the people she passes go 'aahh'."
heh. the plane from ipanema.

old vegetable oil

[Martin Spamer]

It even possible to run engines on used vegetable oil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2117616.stm

Alcohol burning illegal in US aircraft

[Anonymous Codger]

As some other posters have noted, you can obtain a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) to burn auto fuel in some GA aircraft. This is no big deal, you send a check to the Experimental Aircraft Association and they send you the paperwork and some stickers. My old Cessna had this STC and it saved me a lot of bucks. However, the STC specifies that you cannot burn auto gas with alcohol in it, and describes a simple test you can use to determine if your gas supply has no more than the allowable (almost trace) amounts of alcohol.

The reason I have heard for this is that the alcohol can damage certain parts of the fuel system, probably various bits of rubber and plastic.

Thus, for GA to switch to alcohol, substantial portions of the engine and fuel storage and delivery systems would have to be replaced on thousands of aircraft, with all the testing and recertification that would be involved.

It would cost billions and it won't happen in my lifetime.

Re:Alcohol burning illegal in US aircraft

[dartboard]

Don't worry, it will be illegal for a private (probably terrorist -- why else would they want to fly a small plane?) citizen to fly an aircraft within the next decade, so the whole point is moot.

Re:Alcohol burning illegal in US aircraft

[Anonymous Coward]

you fucker! sarcasm won't save you from those in the right.

Re:Alcohol burning illegal in US aircraft

[Anonymous Codger]

> Don't worry, it will be illegal for a private
> (probably terrorist -- why else would they want
> to fly a small plane?) citizen to fly an aircraft
> within the next decade, so the whole point is
> moot.

That's one reason I sold my Cessna three months after 9/11. Besides, with all the restrictions it just isn't much fun any more. As if GA had anything to do with 9/11...

and yet...

[avdp]

And yet somehow Europe is MORE dependant on middle-east oil than the US is! Don't worry, I am not claiming that Bush and Iraq is un-selfish, or not oil related. If European lacks the oil they need their economy will be affected. And THAT will screw with US' economy as well.

Alcohol is a reality, NOW.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi all,

Interesting to read that alcohol as fuel got /.. To tell you the truth, alcohol is being used in Brazil (I am Brazilian) as fuel for decades now. It's really efficient as fuel. I have a car that uses alcohol as fuel, and it is faster, the engine does not get "carbonized" as it gets older, and I can use a higher turbo pressure without pre-ignition (I used to race in the past, but not anymore; now my car is tunned down for street use).

http://www.rmc.eti.br/hobbies/automobilismo/rmc_ ka dett-dc.htm

Don't think you guys will understand a word since it is all in portuguese, but there are some nice pictures of it :D

I will tell you a small tale about our history with alcohol.

In the 70's, some scientists developed a technology to mass-produce alcohol tunned for engine use. It's called "Alcool Hidratado". It had a big government boost. They created an institute called "Pro-Alcool", that had the work of promoting the use of alcohol as a car fuel, along with some other government subsidies, like buying x% of all production within our country.

I don't need to tell you that commercialy some had huge profits.

But the oil companies started a really powerful "campaign" agaist alcohol, and in the end of the 80's, the government shutdown "Pro-Alcool". It quickly became more expensive, but even now, we pay around US$ 0,40 for each liter of gas, and US$ 0,20 for each liter of alcohol.

I simply do not understand why our car manufacturers do not sell more alcohol fueled cars. Technically speaking, there are no expensive tweaking for that, just changing the pistons and some injection programming they all have available.

I saw on the local TV news yesterday, that the search for alcohol fueled cars are growing enormously, along whith people getting their cars converted to alcohol. I would like to see what our government will do about that.

[sorry about my english :D]

Re:Alcohol is a reality, NOW.

[Monkey]

The Kadett looks like it's made by Chev. Do you know if there is an American equivalent of this car? It's rather cool looking.

Re:Alcohol is a reality, NOW.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's a chevrolet in Brazil. It did made to the US, but I also know that it has been introduced in Europe first, as the Opel / Kadett, I think back in the 30's (yes, the first Kadett is that old :D).

I did some searching, and found that the Kadett arived to the US market as Nexia, with a diferent style

here is a picture:

http://www.uol.com.br/bestcars/carros/gm/antigos /k adett-nexia-96-5p-m.jpg

StealthNet.

Re:Earth, not War: Ah the usual suspects BIG OIL !

[Captain Large Face]

If Iraq was only about getting OIL for the sake of BIG OIL then couldn't we simply lift sanctions instead of going to war?

Not with Hussein still in charge. There's no way he's going to let the United States drill Iraq for oil.

In defense of the FAA.

[StressGuy]

Speaking as one of those people you would have to approach to get that STC, I would have to agree. It will be a difficult process. However, this is only because I can think of several issues that would have to be addressed just off the top of my head. For example, fuel sensing systems, fuel delivery systems, engine modifications, weight and balance, flammability, static strength, dynamic structural stability (especially if we are talking wing tanks), sutablilty of the seals, bladders, etc. I could go on.

The safety requirements for any aircraft must be high. As a result, modifications to original type design must not be taken lightly. I know it's a pain, but I also know that the first time one of these falls out of the sky the public will be all over the FAA and the engineers that approved the mod.

Plus, there's a big sugar cane provider

[orasio]

right in front of Florida!!

If you find a substitute for oil, you can leave the mideast alone, and use another fuel that you can buy from your neighbours... hm... nevermind

Energy density - alcohol vs gas

[YrWrstNtmr]

While research into an alternative to gasoline is a good thing, let's not lose sight of why gas seems to be so prevalent in power plants.

If alcohol is less energy dense than gas, to perform a certain task (carrying 1000 lbs 500 miles @ 140mph), you need more alcohol. In aircraft, there is a hard limit of how much heavier you can make the cargo (people, fuel, cargo). Take off weight and safety reserve is nonchangeable without a large change in aerodynamics and engine technology.
So, to accomodate more fuel, you carry less cargo. Less cargo per trip = more trips to perform the same task. So, you may well end up being less ecofriendly than the gas.

If using alcohol turns your 4 place into a 3 place, you might not want to do it. Or if it means you can only dust 2 fields/day instead of 3.

i may well be talking out my ass, and alcohol as a fuel blows gasoline away. But don't automatically assume that 1 is better than the other simply because "is't not evil gasoline". Figure in ALL the parameters.

Re:Energy density - alcohol vs gas

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we have alcohol running on cars around here for about almost 30 years, we have some interesting numbers.

Let's compare the same production car tunned for gas, and another one tunned for alcohol:

Kadett SL 1993 EFI GAS
Max speed: 175 Km/h
horsepower: 98 cv
in the city, it makes 10 Km/l

Alcohol
Max speed: 181 Km/h
horsepower: 105 cv
in the city, it makes 9 Km/l

Tipically, alcohol fueled cars do have more horsepower, but a 5% to 10% increase in liter per kilometer. These are numbers taken from one of the most respected car magazines we have around here, and seem to be a trend among all cars that have 2 models (gas and alcohol fueled versions). Remember that an engine tunned for alcohol use does have more compression.

Today, since the cost of alcohol per liter is around half the cost of gas, it does mean that the difference in autonomy is worth the change.

Re:Energy density - alcohol vs gas

[YrWrstNtmr]

So, using your figures, we have 10% less range with an alcohol engine. This is VERY significant in aircraft.
OR, we bump up the gas tank size by 10% to achieve the same range. Ergo, we have x% less cargo capacity. Lift capacity (max TOW) for a given airframe is pretty much a hard limit. Again, very significant.

I'm not saying it is necessarily bad. But all factors do have to be accounted for.

Should the U.S. be owned by Archer Daniels Midland

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it doesn't matter, Microsoft, Archer Daniels Midland, or Con-Agra all have about the same level of concern for their customers.

They have the technology

[ssajous]

I have a BS in environmental science and I wrote a paper on Brazil's use of alternative energy. They really got slammed by the the oil embargos of the 70s so they turned to Ethanol to fuel a lot of their cars, since they are by far the largest producers of sugar cane which is used to produce ethanol.

"According to the Renewable Fuels Association, about 40% of the cars in Brazil operate on 100% ethanol. The remaining cars run on a blend of 22% ethanol (78% gasoline). Brazil consumes nearly 4 billion gallons of fuel ethanol per year."

Which is pretty significant because Brazil is the 3rd of 4th largest economy of this side of the planet.

General aviation aircraft and alcohol

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of you are getting close to the reason this idea won't "fly" in the US of A (or most anyplace else).

Alcohol and water mix very well. Just check your bottle of rubbing alcohol sometime and note that it is mostly water. Once mixed, it is very hard to separate water and alcohol. On the other hand, gasoline and water don't mix at all. They separate almost instantly because they have such different densities. Same for kerosene.

Water is not compatible with small aircraft engines because of a phenomenon referred to as carburetor icing. Basically, as altitude increases, temperature decreases. Combined with the drop in pressure associated with the venturi effect (and that's what a carburetor is - a venturi) any water in aircraft fuel will freeze out of the mixture and cause the carburetor to become choked with ice. As the carburetor becomes choked with ice, it can no longer supply the engine with sufficient fuel-air mixture and the engine loses power causing the plane to ultimately crash.

Brazil is very warm and crop-duster aircraft fly very, very low. Therefore, it isn't a problem for Brazilian crop-duster aircraft to have water in their fuel because they will never experience carb icing.

And where does all this water in the fuel come from? The air - you can't escape it. Alcohol will just absorb water right out of the air.

Re:General aviation aircraft and alcohol

[DuBois]

Water is not compatible with small aircraft engines because of a phenomenon referred to as carburetor icing.

Interestingly, the carburetor is becoming a thing of the past in small airplane engines. Most newer airplanes are fuel-injected, just like most automobiles. So the "problem" of carburetor icing doesn't really exist for most new piston airplanes. Of course it never existed for turbine engines. And won't exist for the new diesel aircraft engines that run on kerosene/diesel fuel.

Alcohol is not energy cost-effective as a fuel. It costs more energy to cultivate and process crops into alcohol than the alcohol returns in transportation energy. It just doesn't make sense economically without a whopping government subsidy to Dole-promoted companies like Archer-Daniels Midlands, etc. That's why we have alcohol blended into gasoline these days: there's still a whopping large taxpayer subsidy for alcohol producers. Without that subsidy, and the foolish requirement that "oxygen" be added to gasoline during the winter months for "pollution reduction", the whole idea of alcohol as fuel would still be laughable. It is laughable, but government subsidies make it appear sensible.

Re:General aviation aircraft and alcohol

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your point regarding government subsidies but must correct your understanding of carburator icing.

It's called carb icing for historic reasons, not because it only occurs in carburetors. Fuel injected engines also have a point where the fuel is injected into the engine mainfold prior to being inducted into the aircraft engine. It is this point in the mainfold that becomes choked with ice. Since the effect is the same in both fuel injected engines and carbureted engines, they call the phenomenon carb icing in both.

It rarely occurs in cars because the fuel system is on top of the engine and kept warm by engine heat which then prevents ice from forming. But in aircraft the equivalent air-fuel mixing device is found under the engine. That way, if it should leak, it won't spill gas onto a hot engine. If this happens under the hood of your car then you just pull over to the side of the road but if your aircraft engine catches on fire, you are a dead duck.

Most introductory texts on learning to fly will cover carb icing. Run an inquiry on any flying site regarding alcohol and aircraft fuel and you will get something similar to my response.

Re:Earth, not War: Ah the usual suspects BIG OIL !

[let_freedom_ring]

Really? But I keep hearing how the evil Dick Cheney as CEO of Halliburton was able to sell Iraq $M's of oil drilling equipment. And that was with sanctions imagine the business without sanctions!

If BIG OIL is stirring up the war then they are stupid. Below is a list of possible motives and a rational strategy to obtain it.
1. Keep iraq oil off market to drive prices up.
Rational solution: keep sanctions in place, a war will free up the oil in 6 mo's.

2. Develop Iraqi oil fields by selling them drilling and processing equipment.
Rational solution: Lift sanctions, Saddam will roll out the red carpet like he's done in the past.

It seems odd to me that BIG OIL would want more oil on the market. That would make them the only business in the world that likes competition.

Autofuel STC - Alcohol fuel in aircraft.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, it is illegal for me to run anything other than 100LL fuel in my certified airplane without doing a bunch of paperwork, testing, and obtaining a STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) or paying someone else who has done all of that work. If I owned an experimental/homebuilt aircraft, that would be different. But those are not allowed to be used for any sort of commercial operation.

An auto fuel STC from Petersen or EAA usually only costs $1 per horspower. The auto fuel STC for my plane only cost $150 since it has a Lyc O-320 engine with 150 hp. Depending on your aircraft, there may be additional expense and modifications (i.e. Piper Cherokee 180 requires replacing the single electric boost pump with a pair of different boost pumps and re-routing some fuel line plumbing to help alleviate tendancy to vapour-lock). Some aircraft are simply not allowed to have auto fuel STCs due to high compression engines, turbo/super charging, unsolveable vaporlock problems, etc.

Also, any gasoline containing ethyl or methyl alcohol is still prohibited in such piston-engine airplanes since it creates a marked tendancy for induction icing to happen or for fuel to freeze in the lines.

At the low altitudes a crop duster typically operates, fuel system or induction icing wouldn't be such a big worry if the OAT is warm enough, but I'd bet still that an alcohol-fueled piston-engine aircraft will never pass muster with the FAA in the US, anyway, anyhow. I'd be afraid to fly such a plane unless OAT is at least 80 degrees farenheit or higher.

Alcohol information

[Anonymous Coward]

Some information about Alcohol x Gasoline here in Brazil:

- Cost:

1 Liter of Gasoline: ~R$ 1.79
1 Liter of Alcohol: ~R$ 0.69

- Alcohol has a little bit more than half of the burning power than gasoline (so 1 liter of gas means about 1.6-1.8 liters of alcohol).

- Today, 3% of cars in Brazil are alcohol powered. During the 80's it was about 65%.

- The crisis happened because of political problems (people envolved with the production had enormous profits, and the government didn't want to subisidy them anymore, so when they cutoff the help, the prices got high as no one wanted to lose profit), not because of insuficient production. Also, big named like Shell and Texaco didn't want alcohol anymore. Anyone knows why?

- The alcohol technology was developed here

- During the crisis in 89-90, Methanol was also used to supply the demand of alcohol.

Aircraft engine == tractor engine!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Another thing I've heard (from a pilot friend) is that automotive engines are designed to change RPM's quite effectively(accelerate well, etc.) where as plane engines are more about getting at a speed(RPM), and being able to stay there all day.

That is quite correct. An aircraft (piston) engine is much more like a tractor engine... needs to put out high power at near 100% throttle opening position at low continuous RPMS for extended periods of time. Doing such with a car engine is like lugging it in high gear, slowly, up a hill, with your foot to the floor, and expecting that engine not to self-destruct.

CARS NEED ALCOHOL!

[Jonny Balls]

Cars get a big performance increase per gallon, and its completely CLEAN!!! there is no downside for running your car on alcohol. I need this for my 76' trans am, being that i probably pollute more than all of the cars i can see on the road despite my catalytic converters, doh!

Re:CARS NEED ALCOHOL!

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong, add alcohol and you lose power per gallon, I think you might be confused with something called alcohol injection.....

shadow

Flammability?

[poot_rootbeer]

This is not September 11-related flamebait. It is a serious question.

What would happen when a jet with full tanks of alcohol fuel crashes into a skyscraper? How would it compare to the same plane with a similar amount of jet fuel? Would the fire burn longer? Hotter?

Re:Cars? rol it smoke it

[blitziod]

Hemp(Mary Jane) would produce even more fuel per acre than sugar cane or corn. It can also be grown on worse land.

Fire?

[Anonymous Coward]

And in the event of a fire? Anyone know which is better to have burning next to you at a couple thousand feet?

Sugar cane harvest

[Fizzlewhiff]

Harvesting a field of sugar cane is quite messy. I'm not sure of all the steps required but one thing they do is torch the fields to burn off the leaves leaving just the cane. This produces a hell of a lot of ash and smoke. Living in South Florida where some sugar cane is grown I've experienced the effects. The upside is the smell of caramel as the crops burn (which always made me crave apple pie). The downside is having to wash your car more often and the sneezing if smoke irritates you. For me the aroma offset everything else but the ash residue sucked if you had a dark colored car.

Re:Sugar cane harvest

[Anonymous Coward]

I just thought that I would mention that in Australia, we harvest cane without burning off the trash first. The harvesters are converted to seperate the trash from the cane, and it is used for mulch for the next crop. Cane is only burnt on years where the CCS content is low, because burning concerntrates the sugar in the cane.

energy budgets of alcohol and biodiesel

[drwho]

The problem with alcohol and biodiesel is that they require an energy-intensive chemical process to convert from their ground (naturally found) form (sugars/starches/oils) to their consumable (alcohol biodiesel) state. This causes expense in the $$ and energy budgets which render them less practical when petroleum products have a low price.

An alternative is to use the oils from certain plants (rapeseed, soy, etc) directly. The reason why this isn't more popular is that the diesel engine needs to be modified. This is about $500 from http://www.greasecar.com. You get dual fuel tanks so you can still burn diesel, so supply isn't as difficult of a problem. Personally, I think it's worth it and when I can get a decent diesel (VW Turbo Diesel Wagon) I'll have it done.

They use alcohol to power everything.

[zin]

The Brazilians user sugar cane to fullfil I think almost all of their energy needs. Discovery channel had a special about it a couple years ago. They grow the cane, use the sugar for alcohol production and then use the left overs to burn for heat and electricity production. They best thing about it is the fact that the polution caused by the burning the alcohol and plant waste is gobbled up by the new sugar cane growning. It's not a 100% efficient by any means but it's a hell of a lot better than anything the rest of the world does. Now if we all had the weather to grow sugar cane. :)

ZiN

Re:Engines and Efficiency and Logistics

[scrawny]

while your statement may be correct, it is incomplete.

...most modern steam engines could haul 1 ton approximately 3 miles, on a teaspoon of coal. Thats right, 1 teaspoon!

...most modern bombs could destroy 1 city of approximately 5 square km using a single atom...

we may have room in our pockets for large amounts of fuel, i don't want to carry around the amounts water necessary for propulsion. there will never be a coal-powered plane for the sake of this weight and coal-powered cars won't happen for the simple sake of visibility to the guy behind you. ____ from the strip-mines-are-pretty dept.

maybe i'm wrong but...

[chainsaw1]

I figured that the brazillian cropduster was a piston-powered plane (prop). Most airplanes in use in the US are turbine/jet. I think a jet/turbine would be more sensitive to using alcohol because it's thrust would be affected by less gases being produced at ignition.

C2H5OH + 3 O2 -> 2 CO2 + 3 H2O (5 produced + heat)

C15H32 + 23 O2->15 CO2 + 16 H2O (31 prod + heat)

Even if we take the net molar difference between reactants and products (assuming fuel is not gaseous), alcohol's 2 moles of gas produced is still outweighed by kerosene's 8. The heat produced by the alcohol reaction would have to be much hotter (I don't think this is true) or we'd have to pump in much more fuel/second to achieve the same results. This correlates to 4x fuel consumption for alcohol engines. This may not matter as much to a local flight (cropdusting, joyriding, etc.), but many long trip commuter planes may find fuel load a hinderance (and thus you'd have more layovers, etc.)

Feel free to shoot holes in this arguement if you see them...this is off the top of my head...

--i use EtOH because it's the largest biologically produced alcohol I could think of

--I figured on complete combustion in a jet because of the much more massive amounts of air flowing through than in a typical piston engine

--I know kerosene isn't exactly a 15 carbon hydrocarbon, it was a guesstimate.

Alcohol is extremely harsh on fuel system parts

[Anonymous Coward]

Alcohol and blends of it are very hard on fuel system components - rubber, plastic, and metal. Sure you can run it, but the durability of whatever you run it in will be significantly reduced.

Consider also, that planes have used capacitive fuel level sensors for years...these work because the fuel is so consistent. Start adding blends of fuels into the tank, and you'll be needing a ride home!

Re:Alcohol is extremely harsh on fuel system parts

[jtoj]

In Brazil there are millions of cars running on Alcoohol (ethilic, yes). Don't drink and drive! Tell that to my engine!!! The early alcoohol models had serious corrosion problems, but manufacturers learned how to overcome it. They polute a lot less, you get a better power/engine volume ratio. Usually around 10% if compared with the same engine running on regular gas, but must be worse than the over 100 octane airplane gasoline.

sugars prices will rise

[dbay]

If there suddenly became an increase in demand for sugar then the price of sugar would rise. Trying to fuel 100 million vehicles in the US with sugar would be impossible. Then of course Mcdonalds would no longer make $1.20 profit on their $1.29 priced soda, instead they would make only $.80 cents. :)

Starting alcohol-fuelled cars

[zanderredux]

I used to own an alcohol-fuelled car myself, here in Brazil. In fact, any attempt to start such car on cold mornings (consider 15 Celsius as cold for Brazilian standards) was enough to make you feel frustrated. Therefore, Brazilian cars used to have this small gasoline tank which stored about 1 1/2 litres of gas which was used during engine startup. Every time you start up your alcohol car, the ignition pumps a small amount of gas, enough to make it run and no more gas is pushed into the engine until you have to go into the ignition cycle again.

Electric cars are more efficient than gas

[Spamalamadingdong]

Combined with the efficiency of modern gasoline engines and the dirty electricity it is quite likely that current electric cars produce more total polutants than gasoline powered.

I doubt that. Electricity increasingly comes from natural-gas fired gas turbines, which are both very efficient (upwards of 50% for combined-cycle plants) and very clean. Then there is the fact that electric cars have neither throttling losses nor idling losses.

The disposal problem is not as dire as the liberals in DC would have you believe, and AFAIK nuclear power byproducts are not very useful for weapon making.

s/not very useful/almost totally useless/ and I think you have it right. The paranoia promoted by anti-nukes that every power reactor is a bomb or can be used to make bombs is pure propaganda. Still, the American (hell, European too) public is so ignorant that they can't understand that significant quantities of Pu-240 and Pu-241 effectively prevent plutonium from being used to make bombs, and modern reactor fuel cycles yield spent fuel that's just loaded with them; bomb-grade material is made on very short cycles for the express purpose of reducing the load of those isotopes, and some Russian Pu has even been isotope-refined to reduce the concentration still further. This is not something that even Saddam Hussein could do; he has his hands full just trying to concentrate U-235. Your random terrorist group couldn't avoid getting killed by the residual radiation, let alone set up an isotope purification operation to make bomb-grade plutonium. Last, if the idea is to make a dirty bomb, there are a lot of poisions which are just as toxic and a lot easier to steal and transport. This whole issue is largely a distraction.

90%? Try 73%.

[Spamalamadingdong]

Askjeeves says 115,000 BTU/gallon for gasoline, 84,000 BTU/gallon for ethanol.

An engine running on ethanol can have higher compression than a gasoline engine and can thus have somewhat higher thermal efficiency, but this is not possible for dual-fuel engines.

All of this becomes moot if you employ alcohol (either methanol or ethanol) in a fuel cell. When you consider that a huge fraction of all domestic trash is paper and paper is just polymerized sugar, the amount of fuel we are just throwing away becomes apparent. Someday you might ferment yesterday's newspaper and your junk mail to run your mini-commuter car.

Where oil comes from...

[jtoj]

If USA used alcohol to power everything, they would not need to go after oil in the mid-east.
You could buy sugar/alcohol from your neighbors... But then your neighbor could decide not to sell to USA. Just reciprocity.

Re:Where oil comes from...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet we could always design grain/corn based alcohols and such, and we can certainly grow our own grain/corn.

I'd love to see this happen - we'd be out of the Middle East before you can say, "Dubya's droppin bombs again!"

It won't, though. Why? Exxon, Shell, etc..

AA

[Bob Vila's Hammer]

I guess that makes Fly AA mean something completely different...

Methanol on beverages

[jagripino]

"Of course there were some guys who were puting fuel on beverages illegally ( because it is cheaper ) and had their clients killed ;-)"

Er, wrong. In those cases it was found out that he methanol was accidentaly mixed due to the type of containers they were using to store the beverages.

One interesting note is that the treatment for methanol poisoning is ethanol, the chemists among us can quickly infer that this meant that the pacients were treated with fine spirits... :-)

Off subject, flamebait for sure, but....

[TrumpCard]

Shouldn't it be from the better-than-the-airlines -- Rather than "then" ?

*Runs*

Slashdot crowd found lacking

[chip_s_ahoy]

I, for one, am profoundly disappointed in the lack of "Girl From Ipanema" jokes in response to this article.

CAUTION!

[DeZtRuCtO]

Great! now when you breath the exhaust of these babies you will get drunk!

Use gasoline while its available...

[Anonymous Coward]

Producing ethanol from sugar is terribly inefficient. It is basically fermentation, so it is a batch process (must keep filling and emptying huge vats rather than piping the reactants in and piping the products out). Then you have to purify the ethanol produced (the sugar for the process is going to come from potatoes or whatever, which are obviously not pure sugar, they're not exactly going to buy bags of purified sugar for this), not to mention that fermentation will only produce maximum 15% ethanol concentration, so you have to distil it as well. Any industrial chemist knows of the sheer amount of energy required to distil anything, and it is something that is generally avoided.

Ethanol is also far more corrosive than conventional gasoline - even a mixture of gasoline and ethanol means a considerably shorter lifespan for the engines that run on this fuel.

Economics

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point is cost: the amount of energy that you can obtain from a $25 barrel of oil needs a $40 barrel of ethanol. Today the Brazilian gov is subsidizing the ethanol in name of national security. Brazil used to import 99% of it's oil until 1973, when a vigorous program to explore oil started, mostly in sea, up to 6000 feet deep. In 2002 Brazil produce over 95% of it's oil. The ethanol program continue as an alternative to oil, mainly to reduce polution in big cities.

Summary: until oil reachs $40 a barrel, ethanol is not a commercially viable option.