Home Brew for your Car

I don't think it will be the panacea that Mr. Butterfield thinks it will be. Sure Federal regulations are one hurdle, but local and county regulations will be a bigger one.

Then there is the issue with the creation of more pollutants growing/harvesting/transporting/distilling/ of ethanol than the equivalent amount of gas.

Then, what percentage of people that have the ability legally and technically will actualy want to do this?

junk science. The ethanol will be loaded with water an so corrosive, your fuel system in your car won't last a year.

Breweries already recover beer and make ethanol to suppliment their fuel, so this is no big deal.

says whom‰

Even if it works, this sounds like an example of "local optimization." While the article talks about people wanting to "lower their carbon footprint," its not at all clear that this would be the outcome, once you factor in the carbon footprint involved in the sugar harvesting/refining/transportation and the electricity required to run the device.

That being said, it is interesting to see the process of innovation in action. As we struggle to find alternatives to oil, inventors (like these guys) around the world devise solutions at all points along the energy production chain (here "inventors" includes independents, companies, and government sponsored research).

Most of these are not workable or will be discarded for one reason or another, but bits and pieces and key ideas will be cross-fertilized into still newer concepts, until the winners start to emerge. It's kind of like watching evolution in action. We can also see "distortions" put into the system by various artificial means (government incentives for a particular technology, for example).

Of course this type of innovation happens continuously in all branches of technology. It's particularly fascinating in the energy field because the pace of change today is so fast and much of it is "pre-commercial" so it happens out in the open, rather than behind proprietary walls.

I agree, I love to see the innovation happening. Rising energy costs will open up the opportunity for new innovations and for entrepreneurs to create whole new businesses.

Maybe so, but what he says carries a lot of truth and describes the feelings of a LOT of people (not necessarily myself in all respects). What can you expect when for many years and still, we are told by one group of REPUTABLE scientists that the ozone is being destroyed by spray cans and steel plants and another group of REPUTABLE scientists claims it to be cattle/termites and the natural cycle (there are a lot more cattle now than there were 300 years ago although probably close to the same number of termites). And for all of you who call me an uninformed jerk, look around you. How much paper do you see?

there are a lot more cattle now than there were 300 years ago although probably close to the same number of termites

Hey Jaguar, that was my thoughts until the other day when I realized we have how many millions of American Buffalo missing from the equation.

Not that I know how many cows to Buffalo the methane ratio is. Nor do I wish to be the one to measure it. (I hope that covers the nose)

What I see is a bunch of special interest groups funding studies when I have yet to find a study that includes all the dynamics of our system. Reminds me of the blind men describing the elephant!

Brad

"...describing the elephant..."

Don't leave elefinks out of the equation, they have to pass more gas (methane, carbon dioxide, whatever), than cattle OR buffalo. Your point is correct - these are all special interest group fan club meeting minutes, not research studies. We don't even KNOW all the dynamics of our system yet though, so we are not likely to include all of them. However, we should at least try to do better.

Definitely not a practicing christian.

a big fan dance who's real goal is social engineering and redistribution of wealth.

And the current distribution is equitable?

That is why the burdon of cutting emissions falls squarely on the US ??!!
The burden of doing bugger all except shafting the rest of the world you mean...

Travis - I generally agree with you based on the online research I have done on Global Warming and its associated hysteria.

My problem with the device it that it is not economical. Its initial cost, added to operating costs, raw materials and maintenance is greater than the cost of the fuel it replaces. Spending $10,000 + to make ethanol to replace less than $10,000 worth of gasoline is stupid and definitely not cost effective.

Federal rules to stop Moonshiners will have to change and I have a feeling the big oil concerns will lobby quietly to prohibit that.

Rubber, plastic liners and fittings can fix the rest.

But don't expect the status quo to go quietly.

Brad

I wish Floyd every success, but a few things need to be kept in mind.

Ethanol has a lower energy density, so you need more to run your car.

The price of the inedible sugar is low at the moment because it has no sizable market, that'll change if ethanol becomes popular.

The cost of the time spent running/repairing/restocking the equipment isn't included (personally, I'd rather spend Sunday mornings in bed).

The cost of the equipment (written off over (say) 8 years) and maintenance/repairs isn't included in the price/volume.

And finally, I'll bet (expensive) safety rules will be introduced so the average punter doesn't burn his/her house down.

The drawback of ethanol is that most cars are not compatible with it (fuel lines and so on)

Some proven alternatives exist :

Woodgas generators were widely use during WWII on gasoline engines.

Algae oil is the runner up today (http://www.bioking.nl/) and can 'easily' be used on diesel engines.

Frankly, converting ANYTHING that would otherwise be disposed of into synfuel is perhaps not the best, but a better idea. Whether it's conversion of dung and landfill matter to methane, rancid cooking oil to biodiesel, or bagasse to ethanol, so long as the net energy loss is acceptible (hopefully it will be a gain!), it reduces the wasting of petroleum hydrocarbons used as fuel. There are more important chemical syntheses for which this is desirable.

That's the problem with using ethenol in general - there simply isn't as much bang per pound, gallon, mol or any other way you want to measure it compared to gasoline. It does not matter if your feed stock is corn or sugar. Exchanging food for fuel is not a good idea at all.

Now, if you could make the alcohol from waste - something that will be disposed of or thrown away to begin with you may make a bit of head way. Work is being done on being able to make alcohol from the cobs and corn stalks rather than the corn. That might work, but then you will have to replace the cobs and stalks that are chewed up and spit out the back of a combine which are left on the ground and go back into the soil as fertelizer. So in a sense cobs and stalks are not a bi product or a waste item.

You are also correct - if the non eatable sugar is 2 1/2 cents a pound now it's because there is no market for it. Once the market grows and demand increases so will the price.

Now, it is possible to run on E100 - if the whole network is built for it to begin with. Brazil has been running their cars on E80 and E100 for years. The cars have a gas tank that is about a gallon which is used just to start and warm up the engine, then it automatically switches over to alcohol. The difference is their infrestructure is set up and in place from the cane fields to the delivery station. They make enough cane to meet their sugar needs for food and fuel. They are unique in that they decided long ago they did not want to be dependent on importing oil. It is also a small enough country and infrestructure that they could pull it off. No such luck here in the US.

Travis

Travis, your answer is right on. I would also suggest that if the government really wanted to provide ethanol for use in gasoline blending they would not have installed high tariffs on imported ethanol. This is just another means of subsidizing agribusiness while damning the public with high costs for food and fuel. Perhaps we should be running a Brazilian for president.

Travis - You make good points so often that you should actually join up with a better title than "Guest". You don't need to be an engineer, just have a logical mind and it helps if you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

Ethanol and biofuels in general cannot replace oil, they can only reduce the demand by a little bit, which helps. In fact all the alternative energy sources put together probably won't replace more than !0% of all the existing energy sources. They are worth pursuing, but they will not replace oil. It is more likely that we will synthesize coal into oil and fuel.

People will not return to walking or bicycling everywhere while the rich elites drive their limos. Our standard of living and level of civilization should not go in reverse and people won't stand for it.

Aside from the cost being higher than what is saved, the laws against making your own alcohol would have to be changed. And don't forget the cost of the alcohol tax and the fuel taxes. Getting anhydrous alcohol is not an easy process for any amateur either.

Good idea, sugar will be expensive so less diabetics. No cookies and cakes and cokes. Everyone will look trim and fit. Even low fuel consumption for transporting trim people. Haaaaaaaaaaa.

LOL!!!!

If you are doing this on your own, consider this.

As long as the process is in operation, the site will require constant monitoring. No sleeping or leaving the site. If this will be a continuous production, will you ever have a chance to use what you are producing? The cost of hiring people to run it will probably be more than the value of what you are producing unless you can really be efficient, like oil companies.

It's marginally innovative, but (call me a skeptic) I think that this ethanol is denatured...with snake oil.

I think as long as one is making ethanol, who needs an automobile? Just sell the moonshine and buy gasoline. Moonshine is more profitable.

Hi, Interesting idea .... moonshine make more money .... hmmm , Might as well grow weed ( marijuana ) makes millions then buy up a chain of gas stations . Both simple fuel savings idea operates outside the law anyway and land you in jail . Not forgeting free meal and accomodation on the house .

Not to mention sneaking bread and raisins back to the cell and making your own.

Better to re-invent the Car Engine, for all this while our Car Engine has been made for Fossil Oil, and now got trapped in this one way street.

Start trying on Solar Energy, Hyrogen from Water, Electric and Battery energy...with the ultimate Micro-Neuclear Fuel-Cell Powered Car Engine.

The best is still Solar Powered & Battery Powered Car Engine, clean and easily available in abundance globally.

Ahh.. not to forget the much talked about Space Age Magnetic Technology..better to stop..lest the M'sian donkeys will call me a Mr. Mad again.

An engine was developed in the '70s at the US Naval Academy called a Heat-Balanced Engine. It ran fairly well on most any burnable liquid - even peanut oil. Today it's descendant is marketed by Sonex Research of Annapolis, MD. (www.sonexresearch.com) It might still be a useful means for burning alternative fuels. ♣

Then, too, there is always a Stirling engine. Maybe you could power it with cold fusion. http://newenergytimes.com/weblinks/weblinks.htm - sorry, link no longer available

It makes sense that burning ethyl alcohol (ethanol) in an engine is entirely wrong. It provides little power to the engine (in my minivan 10% caused more than 10% drop in gas mileage) and it does have better uses......

And peanut oil is going for $3.59 a quart! Perfume is a lot worse. Now if they could make an engine that runs on urine... Having a Bud for the way home has a new meaning.

Hey, there are always those conversion kits to run an engine on water. Maybe they will work for urine, as well. (Sounds good to me. Good idea.)

Years ago, a buddy of mine would run out of gas with his VW on the way home from a long evening at the gin mill. After relieving himself in the gas tank (just the right height), he was able to make it the rest of the way, sputtering. It raised the fluid level in the tank enough to draw more of the gas. The exhaust smelled horrible for days.

bullshit, not possible

striling engines exist, and run well relying on efficient heating of the engine for them to work, the sonnex engine which is basically a lean burn system works, but all use less fuel. Why is it that we are told that fossil fuels are the way forward? who loses out if we switch to lean burn or stirling engine? The oil companies! Strange that, the only voices telling us that these systems won't work along with the hydroxy powered engines are people who seem to have a vested interest in the status quo remaining.

There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics, Benjamin Disraeli

stirling engines are no more efficient that otto cycle. The sonex is a high compression engine so it can operate at the peak efficency of the otto cycle. Nothing we here. Ford and Mazada make a direct injection engine that allows for high compression ration and better efficency

You comments on oil companies just shows your ignorence of business. If you could build a cheaper, more eficent product, then instead of having one car on the road, their would be two cars. Oil companies do not care about engines in cars. The public is the one that chooses engines, not the oil companies.

wait... Like who?

_____

Um... build a toilet that collects your unsed sugars to fuel you vehicle?

Talk about corn gas

It's an idea.