Bio Ethanol engines
Discussion
Currently Ford and Volco seem to be leading the drive in Europe. UK Government hasn't (as far as I'm aware) made any decision re the tax rebates on Bio ethanol powered vehicles. I do know Ford has been trying to open the debate on congestion charging etc in order to drive demand.
Number of pumps still limited although IIRC Morrisons have started supplying E85?
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/09/13/frankfurt-...
Seems like a good resource site but I haven't spent any time looking through it.
I do believe there are concerns over Biofuels as the growing space required to provide supply is enormous and potentially impossible so Biofuels would have to be part of a solution to lack of Oil and not the only one.
Number of pumps still limited although IIRC Morrisons have started supplying E85?
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/09/13/frankfurt-...
Seems like a good resource site but I haven't spent any time looking through it.
I do believe there are concerns over Biofuels as the growing space required to provide supply is enormous and potentially impossible so Biofuels would have to be part of a solution to lack of Oil and not the only one.
Steviebee knows a bit about this.
The issue of farmable space is significant. Even if we stopped all food farming (something the Labour government has been working on), we would not be able to supply our own needs for bio fuel. However, that does not mean that we could not have bio-ethanol as a third option beside petrol and diesel.
Another important point is that bio-ethanol contains significantly less chemical energy per litre. This means that on otherwise identical cars you would lose range, or require a significantly larger fuel tank. The mpg figures of course will look lousy.
This, however opens another significant issue. With less chemical energy, you need to pump a larger quantity of fuel into the cylinders. Aerosolling more fuel cools the charge more. Therefore you can run a much higher compression ratio. Without going into the science, a higher compression ratio allows you to extract more of the combustion energy as work - ie more bhp, less heat. This can be translated into more power per litre of engine size, or better economy (if measured against chemical energy available rather than litre of fuel used). In this sense, it is interesting.
To make the most of this, however, you need to revise the mechanical parts of the engine - different crank, stronger conrods, new pistons, etc.
Dual-fuel cars (adjusting fuelling and ignition on the fly), whilst possible, is a non-starter, as you would have to compromise efficiency heavily in one or other mode.
The other option is mixed fuel - part petrol, part bio-ethanol. Use as much ethanol as existing engines can stand (5-15% IIRC) to mimic petrol. Not directly useful for the driver, but politically and economically, cutting petrol imports by 5% is not a bad move.
The issue of farmable space is significant. Even if we stopped all food farming (something the Labour government has been working on), we would not be able to supply our own needs for bio fuel. However, that does not mean that we could not have bio-ethanol as a third option beside petrol and diesel.
Another important point is that bio-ethanol contains significantly less chemical energy per litre. This means that on otherwise identical cars you would lose range, or require a significantly larger fuel tank. The mpg figures of course will look lousy.
This, however opens another significant issue. With less chemical energy, you need to pump a larger quantity of fuel into the cylinders. Aerosolling more fuel cools the charge more. Therefore you can run a much higher compression ratio. Without going into the science, a higher compression ratio allows you to extract more of the combustion energy as work - ie more bhp, less heat. This can be translated into more power per litre of engine size, or better economy (if measured against chemical energy available rather than litre of fuel used). In this sense, it is interesting.
To make the most of this, however, you need to revise the mechanical parts of the engine - different crank, stronger conrods, new pistons, etc.
Dual-fuel cars (adjusting fuelling and ignition on the fly), whilst possible, is a non-starter, as you would have to compromise efficiency heavily in one or other mode.
The other option is mixed fuel - part petrol, part bio-ethanol. Use as much ethanol as existing engines can stand (5-15% IIRC) to mimic petrol. Not directly useful for the driver, but politically and economically, cutting petrol imports by 5% is not a bad move.
There is an Ethanol plant being built in Syracuse as we speak, and it is supposed to get shedloads of corn grown, to be used in it. However, will the price of corn fluctuate as a fuel commodity? Wil other corn goods, (Dorito's, corn bread, and Corn flakes), also rise, and fall inprice due to the fuel increase?? 
Blue Meanie said:
There is an Ethanol plant being built in Syracuse as we speak, and it is supposed to get shedloads of corn grown, to be used in it. However, will the price of corn fluctuate as a fuel commodity? Wil other corn goods, (Dorito's, corn bread, and Corn flakes), also rise, and fall inprice due to the fuel increase??
Why not, pork bellies do.what ever the heck a pork belly is.
With regards to the fuel:
What I'm surprised about with this is that the government could literally 1. Make a lot of money and 2. Cut waste costs, by recycling Bio-waste into alchohol, methane and compost.
They already collect our rubbish, instead of burying it or burning it, why don't they recycle it into fuel. As has been said we have insufficient space or cost effective work force to justify growing it, so why waste what we already have. All it would require is an extra bin.
With regards to engines:
This is where the new Merc engine would come into its own, its a variable compression engine, therefore with an appropriate sensor determining the content of the fuel (ratio of ethanol and petrol) the mixture, timing and compression could be altered to suit the fuel.
Also being compression ignition at low rpm also increases the fuel efficiency.
What I'm surprised about with this is that the government could literally 1. Make a lot of money and 2. Cut waste costs, by recycling Bio-waste into alchohol, methane and compost.
They already collect our rubbish, instead of burying it or burning it, why don't they recycle it into fuel. As has been said we have insufficient space or cost effective work force to justify growing it, so why waste what we already have. All it would require is an extra bin.
With regards to engines:
This is where the new Merc engine would come into its own, its a variable compression engine, therefore with an appropriate sensor determining the content of the fuel (ratio of ethanol and petrol) the mixture, timing and compression could be altered to suit the fuel.
Also being compression ignition at low rpm also increases the fuel efficiency.
Blue Meanie said:
There is an Ethanol plant being built in Syracuse as we speak, and it is supposed to get shedloads of corn grown, to be used in it. However, will the price of corn fluctuate as a fuel commodity? Wil other corn goods, (Dorito's, corn bread, and Corn flakes), also rise, and fall inprice due to the fuel increase??
The problem of food vs fuel has been solved with whats called 'second generation' biofuels using biomass to liquid (BTL) technnology. With BTL you can use any biological matter to make fuel eg. corn is grown, the food part is used to make food while the stalk and the other bits make fuel. In spain they are usuing the waste parts of oranges from orange juice producion, somewhere in america they are using wood chippings from making furniture. Waste food (such as the shedloads i chuck away in my line of work) can also be used.
Thinking about it you could even use corpses.... [Insert Soylent Green joke here]
Sure you can get big power out of an ethanol-fuelled engine, for reasons which have been touched on above - greatly increased charge cooling due to the higher latent heat of vaporisation of ethanol compared to petrol and the greater proportion of fuel to be vaporised in each charge, and the considerably higher octane rating of ethanol compared to petrol, allow you to run higher compression ratios and more spark advance, which enables you to build a more efficient engine. But the actual energy content of the fuel per unit mass is significantly lower than a hydrocarbon fuel. Easiest way to dig this is to consider ethanol as ethane which has already been partially oxidised... so you've "already lost" some energy content compared to ethane with the partial oxidisation, and you've upped the mass by leaving some "ash" in there.
Nickthebassist said:
Blue Meanie said:
Nickthebassist said:
Ok, I think I just about understand that. So, are pistonheaders up for a bit of bio ethanol or not?
Hell no... I work in the oil industry!Blue Meanie said:
Nickthebassist said:
Blue Meanie said:
Nickthebassist said:
Ok, I think I just about understand that. So, are pistonheaders up for a bit of bio ethanol or not?
Hell no... I work in the oil industry!Nickthebassist said:
Blue Meanie said:
Nickthebassist said:
Blue Meanie said:
Nickthebassist said:
Ok, I think I just about understand that. So, are pistonheaders up for a bit of bio ethanol or not?
Hell no... I work in the oil industry!Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff