Alcohol Fuels & Greenhouse Gasses

Well the champ car guys can't all be wrong, can they? The calorific content of methanol is greater than ethanol so it would make sense to me. But then there is the politics of all this, it seems where ever the evil of money and personal gain come to play then all sense id ditched in a bid to collar the market. The whole fuel crops idea is so much nonsense because the energy required to produce the alcohol is greater than the net return in energy. An interesting article in Scientific American showed the energy paths involved and that the process had a net loss over all. The only possible reason to go down this crazy route is to ensure some sort of supply safety. Less imported fuel, your can have enough (only just) for the most essential of users. It is all an attempt to bolster farmers incomes when world demand was in decline. Ask what the Mexicans think of corn prices since bio diesel took off. Even if all the worlds food crops were turned into fuel there would still be a 70% energy gap between demand and supply. There is no answer but to cut our over all usage of all fuels. Yes methanol is very much more toxic the ethanol the bi-products are virtually the same.

As a former researcher and fuel technologist for the steel industry I couldnt agree more. While there are issues with toxicity for methanol, we arent talking about drinking the stuff we are talking about combusting it. The politics (as always) and the money trail (as usual) will always divert true science for the sake of private gain.

One problem with that, they dont Burn at the same air mixtures. Here is a comparason of UEL and LEL

gasoline , Metannol, Ethanol

7.6 --------36-------- 19

1.4 ---------6-------- 3.3

As you can see ethanol gasoline mixture has a larger common air mixture requirement as gasoline. So an ethanol gasoline mixture between 3.3 % and 7.6 % would burn,

While A Methanol Mixture would only burn between 6 and 7.6 % mixture

Can you give a citation for the article? Sounds like an interesting read.

Methanol is more toxic than ethanol, for the simple reason that human body chemistry is based upon C₂H₅- chemistry, and not CH₃-. Methanol causes serious and irreparable damage to humans' eyesight.

As methylated spirits, a useful liquid to have in the home maintenance materials stores, contains methanol (surprise, surprise?), usually a purple dye is added to identify it, and also traces of the material pyridine, which makes the individual that consumed it vomit so as to get the toxin out of the body.

When Methanol burns, 2.5 moles of reactants produce 3 moles of products; for ethanol, 4 moles of reactants produces 5 moles of products. For methanol, the product ratio is 2 of H₂O to 1 of CO₂; for ethanol the ratio is 3 of H₂O to 2 of CO₂. The toxicity of each of the combustion products is the same for each alcohol. http://www.pcl.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/CA/carbon_dioxide.html gives the safety data; 2000ppm in air is the lowest published lethal limit.

The LD50 for water in humans is about 18 imperial gallons, though one could drown in less than 5 and get scalded to death with much less than this figure. For comparison, the LD50 for Pu₂₃₈ in humans is about 7 x 10^-12gm.

Well put you know your stuff.

Any thoughts on relative toxicity compared to petrol?

Both as spillage on ground; and vapour dispersed in air, keeping in mind the higher vapour pressure resulting in lower concentrations.

Here is all the data, You will need form NIOSH

Gasoline

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/rtecs/lx325aa0.html

I Looked up Methanol and it has so many Mutative effects I could not list it all here. Here is the site http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/rtecs/pc155cc0.html

I do know that all petrols are Carciogenic

But it looks like gasoline in much lower quantities through inhalation will cause more immediate health effects. It looks like breathing in vapors from spilled methanol once wouldn't be too bad for you, it's just in high quantities over and over.

To be picky, I get more like 7E-8gm for Pu238 LD50. Where is your value from?

Hi PWSlack. You are right! When I lived in Norway the locals brewed and distilled there own spirits. The big problem was that they could not control which type of spirit they were producing, of course the main part was ethanol, but there was always a small amount of methanol mixed in with it. Also many did not filter out the fusel oil, big mistake! Because I have witnessed what methanol did to some of these unfortunate people, I would not recomend using methanol as a fuel. Also it makes me very angry that the green lobby tells us to start using bio-fuels, these fuels by their nature also produce both CO2 and CO. This tells me that these green idiots do not know what they are talking about! Spencer.

Several other factors to consider:

1. All fuel synthesis is a net negative energy activity - This process, like any other does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

2. Most methanol produced on large scale is generated using natural gas as a feedstock. Dependance on methanol as a fuel using current best available technology would by definition simply move our country from a dependance on oil to a dependance on natural gas.

3. Previous responders are correct - byproducts of combustion are CO2 and H20. And yes, ethanol does create 2 moles of CO2 per input mole of ethanol vs. one CO2 per mole of methanol. However, you also need to consider that the heat of combustion of ethanol is nearly twice that of methanol on a molar basis - 1301 kJ/mole ethanol vs 681 kJ/mole for methanol. You can't compare apples and oranges here.

4. The political reality is key here. Ethanol can be derived from sources "readily available" in the U.S. Methanol comes from stocks less available. Political sway (each of those corn producing states has the same number of senators as California does) is a reality. In addition, the facts appear compelling. One of the few times science and politics seem to agree...

Why do the racing boys use methanol in preference to ethanol? Is it to stop the driver being drunk before the big race. Ethanol production is a non starter because you will all die of starvation when agriculture decides it can only make money from fuel crops, ask the Mexicans about the price of corn.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think the racing boys use methanol because it has a higher octane number than ethanol. If the octane number is higher, that allows the engines to use a higher compression ratio which results in more power outout. Right??? Some one know the octane values of methanol and ethanol?

A quick check (not sure of the accuracy of these values) tells me that ethanol has an octane rating of about 113 while methanol has an octane rating of about 126.

In addition to the resistance to pre-ignition/detonation that methanol affords, it has the highest latent heat of any common fuel. I've seen ice on an intake during a 95degF. day. This cooling effect does wonders w/ apparent volumetric efficency.

That's incredible, I had no idea it would get cold like that.

But with this resistance to pre-ignition, do you think it will work better with a turbo than high octane gasoline would?

Absolutely!

Plus, the evaporative cooling could let you think about eliminating mechanical aftercooling.

Now do you know if alcohol fuels could be used in modified diesel engines, and would the higher pre-ignition properties be high enough for a diesel engine? My diesel Jetta is direct injected (at 16,000 psi supposedly), so pre-ignition isn't an issue on engines like that.

How could the evaporative cooling eliminate aftercooling? The engine would still be making considerable heat.

Most R/C gas models use a kind of alcohol fuel (methanol is supposed to work best, because it burns cleaner, and burns cooler) that is blended typically with 17% castor and synthetic oils. For their size, they can generate a tremendous amount of heat. On a cold winter day quite a while ago, I flipped my R/C car in the snow, and it kept running, with a big cloud of steam coming from the car! It was running way too lean though, so that's why it was so hot. But still though, half the engines physical size, is a heatsink!

-Nick

Methanol & Diesel is out of my realm; that said, the cooling effects could, possibly help reduce NOX emissions, a big concern @ high outputs.

Also possible, the high cooling, combined with the high octane equivalent, could effect the combustion initiation to a point unworkable.

Diesel fuels are rated on their "cetane #" most easily pictured as an inverse to octane (octane being a resistance to pre ignition; cetane a propensity to self ignition.

Elimination of aftercooling (often mis-described as 'intercooling') would be by injecting a portion of the fuel early in the tract, to allow it time to evaporate before reaching the engine. Combustion heat to be disposed of in the normal manner.

Can anyone comment on the effect of biodiesel infused w/methanol on NOX emmissions?

In other words Biodiesel that hasn't been water washed or air dryed.

or a comment on the actual process or chemistry in volved in turning methane to methanol, would also be great!

Ford are supposed to be working on a turbocharged petrol engine for release soon which uses knock sensors and injects a small qualtity of ethanol to stop the detonation. There was also an article where one of the local UNIs (UQ or CQU) was working on 15% ethanol blend in diesel to reduce NOX and particulates and apparently improve efficiency numbers, but I haven't heard any more.

You state: "4. The political reality is key here. Ethanol can be derived from sources "readily available" in the U.S. Methanol comes from stocks less available."

It's my understanding that methanol is synthsised from CO & H2O vapor, using a catalyst.

Carbon Mono-Oxide could be generated by the partial combustion of almost any carbon based material (read a portion of municipal waste) Pretty available, in my book.

The partial combustion could produce a useable heat source. Building heating, power generation, &c.

Is is "greenhouse" gas or toxic combustion emission we're talking about? I know (in addition to my being off the path being beaten) that CO₂ is being called "poisonous" and "toxic" these days by those--the self-described activists--with a cause-no-matter-what-or-why (especially here in the smazy ol' land of mangled metaphors--read: California), but I could never imagine the likelihood of a wood alchohol fuel lobby.... To fell (and just burn up) ever more trees, while it's ever more more unfelled trees that are needed?

Anyway...anyone else remember back to the days of muni-waste (read: paper waste) incineration? How much colder it was back then!

When is someone in charge (whatever that means) going to have nerve enough to say (or even whisper) that big cultural changes (not just technology gimmicks)--even if it means regress instead of progress--will have to happen before there's any real hope of reversing this atmospheric warming thing?

you ask: "Is is "greenhouse" gas or toxic combustion emission we're talking about?"

I'm thinking that they MUST be linked.

A fuel that produced no greenhouse gas, but produced clouds of toxics would be a non-starter.

A few things:

Scapolie, you are right that burning any fuel, including biofuels, releases CO2. The reason it results in a lower net release of CO2 is the source of the CO2 to begin with. Fossil fuel use releases CO2 that has been sequestered from the atmosphere for millions of years. The CO2 in biofuels comes from the atmosphere, so you are just cycling through the same stuff, not releasing 'new' CO2.

As far as ethanol production reducing availability of food corn, it is not having the impact people say it is. http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April06/Features/Ethanol.htm gives a good overview of the corn industry and the impact of ethanol production. Basically, production is rising considerably faster than demand due to the ethanol craze - this may result in lower corn prices and higher availability, not the other way around.

Many people think that use of cellulose as a feedstock for various algae is the 'real' future for biofuel production. Pretty much every major fuel company and bio research company is working on engineering a biological process for refining waste cellulose (corn stalks, etc.) into ethanol or other alcohol fuels. There are several forms of algae that are extremely promising, and working in the lab.

Should that pan out, the process would take pressure off of consumable products and turn the waste into fuel (for all farmed plants, not just corn; also paper and other plant-based waste). In addition, the methane produced in the normal decomposition of this waste would be avoided, instead fuels would be made, burned, and CO2 released. Pound for pound, methane is many times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Already, many covered landfills are refining and burning methane to produce 'green' electricity, rather than just flare it off.

There are many cool ideas out there - it will be interesting to see what combinations make it to large scale use. Polymer-based (rather than silicon-based) solar cells are looking very cool too.

It will be selfish reasons that bring alternative fuels to the forefront, not global warming. National security and $$$$$$$$$$$$$ are much greater incentives for most people than reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Those concerns are just starting to line up. And saying 'We're saving the world' is a nice way for politicians to back funneling money into alternative energy research.

How can so many smart people get ahold of the wrong end of the stick? (I refer to that latest study that ethanol creates just as much greenhouse gas as fossil fuel, not to the overworked and unappreciated readers of this forum of course.)

Greenhouse gasses are being produced by the burning of fossil fuel. Plants are reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere as fast as they can, but they can't keep up with the new carbon being dumped into the air every day.

More carbon dioxide is being produced than is being taken out of the atmosphere by plants. If you burn plants instead of burning fossil fuel (read that again...INSTEAD of BURNING FOSSIL FUEL) you don't get new CO2 in the air, and the world's plants can get on with their job of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

This is oversimplifying of course, since CO2 is only a part of what makes up greenhouse gasses. The rest is made up of byproducts of high pressure combustion, like diesel engines like nitrous dioxide, farts from cattle (methane), and of course florocarbons.

But saying that a tonne of biodiesel (or ethanol) creates the same greenhouse gasses as a tonne of fossil oil is bogus thinking...it took a tonne of greenhouse gas to create that bio-diesel so the net result is that burning biodiesel (or ethanol) does NOT contribute to EXTRA greenhouse gas.

If we all burned wood, the problem of greenhouse gasses would go away, but then we would have new problems. One problem at a time okay?

This is correct. You release the same amount of CO2 if you burn bio material, or simply let it lay on the ground and rot

I am not sure the push for ethanol in the US at the moment is driven as a replacement fuel for gasoline. The primary push is for a replacement fuel oxygenate additive at the moment. In that scenario MTBE, which can be fairly toxic and quite soluble was appearing in surface and groundwaters all over within a couple year of its application. So, we know methanol and ethanol are both more soluble and will migrate into even more water reserves. Methanol is very toxic, ethanol on the other hand is not (it takes a lot of ethanol to poison any organism). No matter what we do our fuels (and fuel additives) will eventually leak into the environment in small amounts under the best situations, some will be insoluble and not migrate easily, others that do migrate need to be relatively nontoxic.

There is always a energy deficit in the production of plant based fuels, however, since this production is conducted on a massive scale, the energy influx to the process can occur (typical as a heat source) during a point of processing to obtain a large amount of stored energy in the form of a fuel. In this case sources of energy such as wind and solar could be utilized effectively to make up the deficit in the process. It is possible to heat vegetable oils hot enough to cook potato chips on production lines at typical rates using solar energy alone. What we are talking about in the fuel production process is a net loss of energy to obtain a mobile source of energy, the deficit can be relatively free. There is a net loss of energy from the system in the growing process also, but with better efficiencies and use of modern management practices agronomic production can be more efficent with less input of energy (just need to bring farmers into at least the last half of the 20 th century). At this point corporations take over farming of the mass produced lower value crops, since they can farm large sectors and manage it more efficiently (this is an unfriendly position in Iowa). The growth of grain crops is of low value and requires huge amounts of land, this is not an industry meant for small poor farmers. Agronomically, we need to consolidate some processes also to utilize waste energy for other processes. California is the largest Dairy producer in the US. These Dairies waste energy in huge amounts from the waste streams. Additionally, the environmental requirements of the State are such that the larger ones (over about 500 head) are regulated to dispose of wastewater at agronomic rates to crop production (typically, corn, wheat and alfalfa), they normally must produce more crops to absorb the nutrients in the wastewater than they can utilize. The Dairies have no real market for these crops, and usually do not invest any effort in seeking other markets, much is wasted or given/sold to smaller unregulated dairies. This represents a huge source of energy we can use.

In my opinion, western culture is too materialistic. So the ultimate answer is not alternative fuels but education. Educating the young to grow up having simplier lifestyles. Alternatives are merely band-aid, short-term solutions, at best. If fuels become cheaper and more available, there will be more cars, more roads and etc--thus creating other problems. What's wrong with bicycles, trains and other forms of public transportation, for example? We need to give up our independence if we value survival.

I say again that alternatives do not solve the problem of greed, which ultimately will be the end of civilization.

I look forward to your comments on this.

donkarp@hotmail.com

The real problem is not greed, but envy. That is why envy (coveting thy neighbors whatever) made it to the top ten list of "thou shalt not..."

The second problem is that very few people are capitalists. Go ask your accountant about doing "research and development" on bio-whatever as a small independent guy and you will find out that you have to earn over $2 to spend $1, unless you have a already running relaed business that can "hide" the costs in existing cash flows.

What we need are MORE "greedy" capitalists who are willing to take risks. Large corporation are invested in yesterday's cash cow and change is not in their best interest. They do not want to take risks and the nature of the corpoaration does not give the manager a personal stake in the reality of the risk. We have the wrong types running these companies...those who lie and cheat to the top and who are not innovative, but maniplative.

All tax should be on corporations over a certain size (say $100 million). When you buy a car from a GM or Toyota you should pay a tax (20-50%), but if you buy it from a small start up you should pay NO tax. If you buy from Wal-mart you should pay a tax, but if you buy it from a new want-to-be wal-mart start up, you should pay NO tax. An import from China that uses slave labor or is government run should have the highest tax (50%), but if a small entreprenear who happens to live in China and makes a product for import, that product pays NO tax.

Balance of power is required for all life, liberty, and the pursuit of property or happiness. Any publicly traded company should be taxed on all products at the highest rate.

Um, GM, Toyota, and Walmart, did not start off as dominant. They started as "small start ups." Balance of power is not capitalism. There will always be someone who is best and someone who is worst. What incentive is there to improve your product if the prize for being tops is that your product will be heavily taxed?

Well, what do you mean by greed? Is it greedy to want a family of four or five kids to take care of you in your old age, even though overpopulation is clearly a problem? Is it greedy to want a house to raise a family, a job, and a maybe a modest car? Or is this just a simple reason for going on living?

The first part of your post, that simpler lifestyles are important, is wonderful. I look forward to all those cars being replaced with horses. The piles of horseshit that my kids would have to walk through to get to school is a small price to pay for getting "off the grid". And it is good for the rhubarb. But I wonder, have you ever seen the damage a smelter causes when it refines the titanium to make your supposedly eco-friendly bicycle frame?

The idea that western culture is too materialistic and greedy is just indefensible, because we will never agree on what is greedy and what is not! Empty rhetoric, devoid of anything but emotional content.

This whole global warming debate is one long orgasmic emotional cluster f----, loaded with plenty of junk science and gurus chasing the enviro-buck. It could be fixed tomorrow with approriate technology, lifestyle changes, thoughtful legislation and economic incentive.

Me...I think the longest journey is done with little steps. Lets get those diesel hybrids really popular first, then worry about the next step of making even the diesel green. (Though I suspect that subsidised widespread insulation of all homes and businesses would have a more immediate impact and would be much better use of enviro funding.)

Your greedy, I'm just trying to realize my legitimate social aspirations!

--go, lemmings, go!

Are yes aspirations, all those things you want but know you can't have. Why are so few happy "Advertising" The ability to make a person or group of people feel hard done by.