Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Ladies, form queue here -->
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.
TossableDigits.com: Temporary Phone Numb
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.
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.
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.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
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.
Say no to software patents.
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.
I write in my journal
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.
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).
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.
. 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.
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.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
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)."
Ben in DC
"It's the mark of an educated mind to be moved by statistics" Oscar Wilde
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.
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.
A goal is a dream with a deadline