Ethanol: No Panacea After All?

Perhaps but and estimated 7 - 39 Parts Per BILLION seasonal variation over the present level of ozone produced by burning gasoline that is apparently low enough to not make the charts on most engine exhaust and emissions study doesn't seem like anything I am going to worry about. The net gain in improvements elsewhere in the combustion cycle far offsets the sub fractional level of ozone increase.

From what I could find on a quick search is that ambient natural ozone levels listed as being around 70 -180 PPB depending on location and seasonal conditions anyway.

If anyone has a honest breakdown of all of the emissions compounds of a normal gasoline powered vehicle I would like to see it!

It seems those sort of numbers and information are oddly very hard to come by arrantly.

Complete Combustion:

"When combustion of pure fuel is complete and ideal, ie. complete combustion of fuel with oxygen, and without any unwanted secondary reactions, only water(H2O) and carbon dioxide(CO2) would be produced".

Incomplete Combustion: In addition to the main combustion products of water and carbon dioxide, some unwanted minor components are produced because the combustion conditions are not ideal, (eg. non-vapourised fuel droplets or a liquid fuel film on the combustion chamber wall). This is also caused by the fuel composition.

-Unburned hydrocarbons:CnHm( parafins, olefins,aromatic hydrocarbons)

-Partially burned hydrocarbons: e.g. CnHm.CHO(aldehydse)

CnHm.CO (keytones)

CnHm.COOH(carboxylic acids)

CO(carbon monxide)

Thermal Crack products and Derivatives:

e.g. C2H2 (aceteylene)

C2H4(ethylene)

H2( hydrogen)

C(soot) and polycyclic hydrocarbons

Byproducts:

NO(nitrogen monoxide)

NO2(nitrogen dioxide)

And Oxygen.

Fun ain't it? Cheers, Stu.

what are you calling pure fuel? The "clean diesel" fuels of the german makers utilizing the "blue tec" (haber bosch) method of diesel exhaust recovery and urea are said to produce the results you are discussing. Is that the fuel you mean?

No. This is the crap that comes out of the tailpipe of your car. Pure fuel in just that. As supplied by a refiner. Unadulterated, messed around with, tricked up. Note that the combustion process in an external combustion device, such as a gas (LPG) fired room heater IS perfect. Carbon dioxide and watervapour. That's what the IC engine makers would like to eventuate in their process. But it doesn't.

This subject is far too long and involved to be covered to complete understanding in this thread. It's the subject of hundreds of books. And even then, no-one knows all of it.

I'm not going there anymore. Technical reference libraries are the next step.

Cheers, Stu.

And how does it compare to MTBE?? The US should never have banned MTBE.

sorry, just a quick note regarding MTBE.

Here is one of many reports on contamination and hazards of MTBE and what it has done to watersheds and health.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02753t.pdf

Now a government study on ethanol costs and impacts and one on the newer forms of ethanols

http://www.lbl.gov/solar/ipfiles/session1/Patzek_SolarEnergyWorkshop.pdf

http://jbei.lbl.gov/assets/docs/Fortman%20et%20al%20TIBTECH2008.pdf

these are direct links and powerpoints from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. So you should not have to worry about viruses, but it your judgement.

Hope this helps.

As I wrote below the solution was always to fix the tanks not ban MTBE. MTBE is used all over the world to this day. Just not in the US because farm interests and Midwest congressmen pushed through the ban so they could sell more corn.

Hi EV1guy2004,

Thanks for the excellent reading but I don't consult the 89 references from the third web-site.

So, why we talk about corn, ethanol, and other fuel we can produce? Like I said, we have to use our Sun as energy supplier because it will be here for more time than we can use it to our purposes.

Imagine, if we accept to use the Sun as energy supplier, within 10 years our Planet will be clean, neat, tide, and smelling again the pure nature.

What's the reason to talk about replacing gasoline with another pollutants? Why very few people talk and act on the cleanest energy we can get? Wait for your suggestion, and let me know if I am wrong or right, Gil.

Steve S. I suspect that the people of California would not share your enthusiasm for MTBE. Ethanol may be little better for different reasons. What is the solution ?

Hi Steve,

MTBE is an evaporating, smelling, and flammable liquid contains only 68.2% of "Carbon". All solids, liquids or gases, I prefer Methane with 80.0% of "Carbon". However, like I already said, I would like to see something creating energy that don't use anything from Earth as fuel. The best solution is "photovoltaic batteries". Our Sun is here to stay for another billion years supplying what we need.

This is my unique solution to help us to travel from A to B, and without any dammages to our lands, air, and water. Also, it can be the only energy for our industries, and every other energy-users, point! Have you any other and better solution? Let me know, when it comes out from somewhere, Gil.

I'd prefer my gasoline to be adulterated by neither. (Ethanol or MBTE) Reduces gas mileage, increases costs and given modern emissions systems I doubt it does much to improve the tailpipe either.

Hi Robin,

I think the old system must stay with us. No one wants to make drastical changes as usual. We use gasoline, add some ethanol, more ethanol and we don't have any corn to eat or do something else important, and we will try hardly to find another addition to the old outdated gasoline. Why we don't switch to another system like electric engine or something we never talked about, something new and accepted to not pollute the air and us, and don't deplete the ozone layer too?

The big companies don't want to loose their part of the pie? It's fine! Why they don't innovate and create the new system, which will eliminate air pollution, creating health problems to millions, and at the same time eliminate the depletion of the ozone layer? They have money, they have people with brain. So, they have to do or get out of the way and let others to do.

The governments, all of them and this is hard, need to create the condition or force people to do the right thing, and not play around to get a very little improvement compared to the previous obligations. Finish the game and act as should be done, Gil.

So you would like to see government tax to the point where only a few could afford fuel.

But then the oil companies would go up on price because fewer people are buying fuel to offset there losses.

I believe this model is in place now. It's even working as more fuel efficient vehicles replace the old.

Oil companies and government at all levels that tap the total cost on fuel purchase is seeing cut in consumption so price and tax rise slowly so more people try to cut back.

Hi metalSmiths,

Taxes are good. Imagine if the government do not collect taxes: There is no army to protect us. There is no police to maintain order around us. There is no jail to put away certain people. No roads to travel, you imagine that? Chaos will be the life. So, we have to pay!

Forget oil companies. They have oil and they can supply all organic chemistry production for medicine drugs to plastics and in between. Nothing for gasoline and move cars, trucks, airplanes, and other mobile things.

Other companies have to create the new market. First, niche markets for specific cars, and finally many niche markets will include "all vehicles on whels" for transportation. The today's unemployed can start tomorrow morning to work on the future solution as a new and revolutionary project. I will patent it Monday morning!

Again, we have to pay taxes to lunch the project and pay the past unemployed at least we have to not pay the CEOs like their contracts indicated. Ouchhh!

This is enlightening subject and wish that most of us will act responsibly and work on the future. Courage people, the solution is among us, Gil.

That was the nice thing about MTBE, it increased mileage, reduced cost, and given modern emissions systems radically reduced tailpipe emissions and smog.

The drawback was that it was soluable in water, so if a storage tank leaked it resulted in ground water contamination.

The solution was to fix the storage tanks, not ban MTBE, but the farm state politicians and lobbiests used it as a opportunity to push corn ethanol, and so it was banned.

Stupid politics. Much of the rest of the world still uses MTBE (including here in Malaysia) with no problem.

Hi Robin,

I am not picking on you, just want to tell that gasoline emission is polluting the atmosphere. I was in China and I know what is air pollution and smog. In Maryland you have never get what at least a "Billion" Chinese get every day every year during the last two or more decades. I lived in Baltimore, and can tell you, pollution doesn't exist there! Visit Xi-An in North of China the old capital, and you want to go elsewhere within three days like I did because I cried all days with irritation by yellowish and hazy smog and cannot see further than 25 to 35 metres. This is true practically every day, all year around. How many towns in the world are the same? Poor people have live in that conditions!? It's crazy!

What I want to tell here, I would like to eliminate all kinds of emission. No "tail-pipe", no liquid or gas to burn or decompose. I understand that it will cost more but we cannot destroy ourselves, and if we do the way we operate and let the way is, we cannot see the next generation healthy or will disappear completely.

Just watch the poles, yes both poles to diminish soo much that New York and other towns will be flooded with few metres of water. I gamble with anyone that Holland will be covered with metres of water within 25 years, before I pass away.

I would like to see car companies to work together, to create non-polluting cars, let say: "electric cars". What's wrong with them. We will go from A to B like we do today, isn't it? Slower or higher speed? Who cares? Our actual life is enough speedy, so, it will be more enjoyable! it's a little change. The change and the challenge is: no emission of any solid, liquid or gas, so there si no pollution! Now, if someone else has a better idea, let us know, Gil.

Hi Robin,

You are right! why we take care about replacing part of our famous gasoline with some other pollutants, more dammageable and edible products. Certain parts of human population is already starving, and we want to buy from them and again at the lowest price to travel from point A to B. Don't forget, sometimes, this is the lonely food they have. It's ludicrous and an absolute absurdity!

How come, up to now, no one comments help to promote something, which does not create another problems, pollution to air, water, and soil? The change will be too wide or extreme with "photovoltaic batteries"? Ohh! The word is to complicated?! So, we can reduce to "pb". So, it's done and now I wait for some cause defending or attacking comments, Gil.

OK.

All fine ideals. We'll get there eventually. It will never be fast enough for some people. There is a certain amount of inertia involved and any solution has to be economically feasible or it's a non-starter.

That's life.

Hello Robin,

I now realize that is an ideal and not an idea. You are right about inertia and other I don't want to hear about it.

I was in countries with pollution I was not able to imagine before I was there. Water is turbid, whitish hazy, and smells oily and gasoline if not something more dangerous. When you cannot see what's at 100 feet from you, in horizontal. In vertical, it's probably half. An over 4 million people living town is covered daily by multicolour smog. People are crying because the pollution irritate eyes but I saw many smokers. At that time I want immediate change gasoline engine to electric cars and batteries are filld with solar receptors. It's true it's being ideal but still good idea.

Anyway, I will never see this world. Thanks for the correction, Gil.

Now that we're back onto a terrestrial model of energy production by plant cycling, we might want to take a second look at the feasibility of "Clean Diesel". While switch-grass and cellulosic ethanol have had small contributions beyond the Corn ethanol equation. Ultimately it does look like diesel has the upper hand in the energy recovery profile that reflects input values.. While the food for fuel question persists, alternate sources are currently in use for alternate "so called Diesel" fuels around the world. The physic not of India related to our own Castor Riccinnis (Castor Oil) neither of which are edible, and then there is the algae in Iceland,and Palmin the tropics and the meat renderer's of the world (see Render Magazine). Then again there is the adherence to burning liquid fuels, when with the help of the Gibbs reaction yields magnitudes higher efficiency. However perhaps the average gas user isn't prepared to have a Gibbs-bio-diesel reactor in their home,but if you'vr ever run out of heating oil in your furnace you know you're not the only one trying to figure out a better way. I'd post a couple of links,if I knew how.

Hello One4gaia,

No to "Clean Diesel"!!! There is no "clean" concerning any diesel, any gasoline or any other liquid. All oils to produce what will nourish the cars are take away food from our table. And when someone starts to make money about beans or grains to make "Clean Diesel", the production switches to make only that and not for food or human consoumption. See the corn story. "Third word countries" are suffering already of it! So now I understand! It's more important to feed our cars that feed people?! Oh, during the suffering is "someone else", is fine for me?! Let say it already started and created wars between people, and this will accentuate multi-fold. At the moment, the "electric car" is the best and more logical solution, without any pollution. I know, to produce electricity to recharge the batteries we pollute. Work on that too! Eliminate the pollution everywhere. It's possible! Scientific told us that everything is possible, just we.... So, put the .... and make it reality, Gil.

Gil Becker, There are alternative stocks that bio-diesel can be made from that limit impact on food crops. As one4gala suggested Castor oil seeds, there also a non-eatable Jatropha that it's seeds are more oil rich than similar to the food stock soy beans. Some of what I have read on Jatropha its hardy, can grow in different soils and environment. Also it can be planted intermixed with other crops. Also the by-product from Jatropha oil production can be used for fuel, fertilizer and other things.

Biodiesel B100 is cleaner than petroleum diesel; Benefits of Biodiesel "Biodiesel contains virtually no sulfur or aromatics, and use of biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine results in substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and particulate matter. A U.S. Department of Energy study showed that the production and use of biodiesel, compared to petroleum diesel, resulted in a 78.5% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Moreover, biodiesel has a positive energy balance. For every unit of energy needed to produce a gallon of biodiesel, at least 4.5 units of energy are gained."

Oh biodiesel is environmentally friendly and for most part nontoxic.

All in all as a replacement fuel, biodiesel and the modern pollution equipment coming out on the newer diesel vehicles makes is a good choice. It works in the distribution channels in-place now. Modern diesels are quite, more powerful than in the past and better performance than most equivalent gas engines , fuel economy on par or better than most hybrid autos.

Now the problems is getting the seed crops going this would put people back into farming and may even save some areas where industry has moved out. The processing plants can be regional close to crops and usage saving on transport costs on both sides from grow to go.

So until the no pollution energy source are developed and better electric cars that work better "not saying they not better now". The electrical distribution system needs to be upgraded to handle the load of charging vehicles would/could cause havoc in some parts of the USA. And you would need to have charging stations like work shopping centers and other places people would spend time. Systems installation would take time plus infrastructure to support it. Plus as pollution goes you only moved it to a different location and change it's composition depending on its source be it coal, nuclear, natural gas.

Solar and wind power just not there yet but working on it.

Nuclear should be used more than it is. Though with Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, people have a fear of nuclear, considering other countries are using it safely though there should be some way to reuse the spent fuel to make more fuel. Maybe have several different reactors that could use spent fuel from one system to the next. "I don't even know if it would be practical or not."

Charles

Considering how reactive ozone is, I find it hard to believe it can pass through a catalyst equipped exhaust system.