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."
having to fill up the tank of a 757 using those little tiny bottles.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Why not cars?
Yes, considering the rash of pilots flying drunk nowadays, alcohol and planes are of interest our general aviators.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
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."
and in other news, a man was sucked into the engine of a plane while on a desperate search for a "pint."
My other sig is an import.
Moving from oil to alcohol is great, but I won't be happy until we see a hemp-powered Volkswagen airbus.
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.
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.
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
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.
=)
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
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.
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.
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.
There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.
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 ][
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.
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.......
Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
I'd imagine they'd have beer taps directly feeding from the fuel supply.
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.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
"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!
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."
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
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
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...
I write in my journal
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.
a ^= b; b ^= a; a ^= b;
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.
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.
http://www.api.org/webfaq.htm
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).
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.
Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
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.
"it's the only way to fly"
--
inadvertant bastardized matrix quote brought you by the Coalition for a Drunker America.
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.
bits and peace
Nicholas Daley
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 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.
Wtf is sugar cane alcohol? Is it like Mike's Hard Lemonade?
"But the cars are all flashing me, bright lights are passing me, I feel life passing me by" - Stiff Little Fingers
...when the plane's going down. Who wants to die sober?
"But the cars are all flashing me, bright lights are passing me, I feel life passing me by" - Stiff Little Fingers
Sounds like the guy who keeps spamming me to enter online "competitions"... :)
deus does not exist but if he does
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
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
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.
"It's Dot Com!"
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.
Where would the law stand on alcohol smuggling if this was ever implemented?
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)
"I love the smell of burning Karma in the morning." Codito Ergo Sum.
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.
"It's Dot Com!"
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.
Ecce potestas casei!
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.
. 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.
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.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Thay shood run them on coconut oil insted ( it's 30% more energi eficent then normal gasoline).
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.
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...
Other than that, I think you might have mixed up your radicals.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
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?
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
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]
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
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.
---
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.
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.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
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]
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.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
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.
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.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
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.
"...all the people she passes go 'aahh'."
heh. the plane from ipanema.
La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
It even possible to run engines on used vegetable oil.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2117616.stm
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.
No sig? Sigh...
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.
Not with Hussein still in charge. There's no way he's going to let the United States drill Iraq for oil.
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
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
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.
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.
....fairly close to that 50-60% you don't seem to want to know about.
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.
I never denied that around half of the USA's oil consumption is covered by imports, I tried to prove it.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
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.
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.
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!
--JonnyBlog
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?
Hemp(Mary Jane) would produce even more fuel per acre than sugar cane or corn. It can also be grown on worse land.
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
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.
'Same speed C but faster'
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.
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
-ZiN-
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.
neopets.com
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.
- Sig
Both. I should have been more clear, but I assumed you knew. I quote Khidir Hamza:(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.
I write in my journal
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.
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
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.
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. :)
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.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
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.
Jose T Oliveira Jr.
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.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
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.
Jose T Oliveira Jr.
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?
Jose T Oliveira Jr.
I guess that makes Fly AA mean something completely different...
--"The perfect example of the man of action is the suicide." - William Carlos Williams
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 write in my journal
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...
Shouldn't it be from the better-than-the-airlines -- Rather than "then" ?
*Runs*
Fnord.
I, for one, am profoundly disappointed in the lack of "Girl From Ipanema" jokes in response to this article.
Great! now when you breath the exhaust of these babies you will get drunk!