Why not methanol

How to make a photo smaller?

Hello Guest

• Login
• Register…
• Start blog

• Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels

• Polls
• Avatars
• Interests

• Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search

• Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru

• Сообщества
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online

CarGuru > Technology > Why not methanol 28 March 2005 18:29:22

Recent blog posts:

95 mirage
I have a 95 mirage and this is the second time the injector in number 3 cylinder has gone bad. Anything…

1988 Ford F-150 Truck
I would like to remove the pollution control system from my 1988 F-150, 4.9L I6 300 4x4. Can anyone…

my 99 M chrysler has started to…
my 99 M chrysler has started to cool and then starts to give off heat in the ac vents and then cool…

dodge 2000 intrepid
bought this car right off the show room floor in Bartow fl to this date I have not had any work done on…

starting issue, 2002 dodge…
My 2002 Dodge Caravan wouldn't crank. I tested some things, replaced the battery. After installing the…

;-)
;-)

stereo pin
I put a new battery in my girl friends 94 900 and it wants a code for the radio. There is nothing in the…

Coolant temp on Saturn Sky
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. As I was driving yesterday I happen to have the info set on…

Saturn Sky Red Line
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. I noticed will driving yesterday that when I turned on the…

Que pour la place trange
Que pour la place trange

They have birthday today:

Esther

all >>

Forums:

topic feeds

• CarGuru all topics, blogs and comments

• Driving

• Formula-1

• Indycar

• Nascar

• Other sport

• Technology

• 4 x 4

• Volkswagen

• Mercedes

• Acura

• Alfa-romeo

• Audi

• BMW

• Chrysler

• Dodge

• Ford

• General Motors

• Jeep Willys

• Honda

• Hyundai

• Mazda

• Nissan

• Peugeot

• Pontiac

• Porsche

• Saab

• Saturn

• Toyota

• Volvo

• Buy / Sell

• Open discussion

• Anonymous

Discuss:

Ask How To Replace Headlight…
I would like to know the following about changing the headlight bulb(s) on a 1992 Toyota Corolla 4-door…

Re: Transmission shudder when…
"150milesperday" <dionfluttert@gmail.com> wrote in message…

Mitsubishi Diamante ECU faults…
Could someone please direct me to where I can find the meaning of ECU error codes on a 94 Mitsu…

98 Dodge Grand Caravan Problems
I have 2 separate (I think) problems with my 98 Grand Caravan. Problem #1 The first one started 8…

Re: 1997 "mercury sable"…
Ouch is taht easy to get to or do I have to rip the whole colum appart to get at it? any test point's I…

Recent forum topics:

2005 nissan sentra
I removed the radio in my 2005 sentra to replace the tempature control knob and the radio won't turn on…

Brake Lights won't work
brake lights on 1996 Grand Am won't work. Fuse and lights are fine. Suggestions?

honda civic 87 model problem
i would like some information on why my honda civic wont start at times after its hot when running it…

mazda premacy glowplug lights…
i have a mazda premacy 2litre diesel . have a problem at the moment ,glowplug light flashing with loss…

Recent forum comments:

RE: Ask How To Replace Headlight…
how do I release the locking ring on the headlamp bulb in a 99 dodge ram 2500?

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
who are you speaking to

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
I can feel something like a kick when I first hit the gas pedal when I take off.

RE: stuck hatchback
on the rear gate that is

RE: stuck hatchback
just my latch is stuck and the door wont close on my 2000 sub outback limited

RE: 1999 Chrysler T&C - Speed…
I am reading all of this and am amazed at how bad I am getting ripped off by my Chrysler dealership....4…

RE: How to duplicate Navtech CD’s
where can i buy nav cd's for a 2003 s class mercedes also the latest version for a 2005 sl?

RE: Heating problem in 1988 Honda…
well thats no always true!!! my husband replaced the thermostat/thermometer..... and the water…

RE: Mitsubishi Diamante ECU faults…
how did you read the codes

RE: 98 Dodge Grand Caravan Problems
I had the same problem with the instrument panel, after about a months worth of greif, and dollars…

Модератор:

Administrator


Why not methanol
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis 18 March 2005 18:36:02
	Our governor is trying to pass a bill requiring all gas sold in Minnesota in a few years contain 20% ethanol. Now, that is going to require redesign of engines anyway. So why not use methanol instead of ethanol? The big push here is 'cause we grow corn. But methanol can be made from much cheaper feed stock than ethanol. I am aware that the production of both ethanol and methanol currently use natural gas or petroleum. But they do not HAVE to. They require a lot of heat energy. But that heat energy can come from the biofuels themselves, rather than fossil fuels. How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about alternate energy?
		Add comment


Daniel J. Stern 18 March 2005 21:12:15 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote: Our governor is trying to pass a bill requiring all gas sold in> Minnesota in a few years contain 20% ethanol. Now, that is going to> require redesign of engines anyway. So why not use methanol instead of> ethanol? Because methanol is much more corrosive, much more toxic and hazardous, much harder and more expensive to blend successfully with gasoline, and requires much more drastic (and expensive) redesign of ALL vehicle components that come into contact with fuel.
		Add comment


Robert Briggs 18 March 2005 22:01:00 [ permanent link ]
	Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote: How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about> alternate energy? Quit whingeing. IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas" prices of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick end of four pounds sterling per gallon. Allowing for the currency exchange rate and your under-sized gallon, I reckon our fuel costs close to three times as much as yours.
		Add comment


Chas Hurst 18 March 2005 22:21:13 [ permanent link ]
	"Robert Briggs" <Trebor.Briggs@BITphysics.orgBUCKET> wrote in message news:423B175C.87E46D53@BITphysics.orgBUCKET...> Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:> How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about> > alternate energy?> Quit whingeing.> IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas" prices> of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick end of four> pounds sterling per gallon.> Allowing for the currency exchange rate and your under-sized gallon, I> reckon our fuel costs close to three times as much as yours. Actually the fuel costs about the same. It's the tax that makes your fuel so expensive.
		Add comment


Daniel J. Stern 18 March 2005 22:54:23 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Robert Briggs wrote: Quit whingeing.> IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas" prices> of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick end of four> pounds sterling per gallon. That's because you allow your government to steal overmuch from you. Most of that price is tax.
		Add comment


Daniel J. Stern 18 March 2005 22:56:36 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Pete C. wrote: For this country to "get serious" about alternate energy either oil> prices need to get high enough or alternate energy technology needs to> improve enough (or a combination of both) so that you can get an> alternate energy car that is comparable to a conventional car in price,> capability, reliability and service life and the same or better in> operating cost per mile. Go look at Brazil. LOTS of alcohol-fuelled cars on the roads there, and have been for years. Performance, convenience and durability are all reported to be completely ordinary, and alcohol costs less per litre. There's no infrastructure for alternative fuels, so nobody buys them, so nobody builds them, so there's no incentive to build infrastructure, so there's no infrastructure, so nobody buys them, so nobody builds them, so...
		Add comment


Pete C. 19 March 2005 00:52:22 [ permanent link ]
	"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Pete C. wrote:> For this country to "get serious" about alternate energy either oil> > prices need to get high enough or alternate energy technology needs to> > improve enough (or a combination of both) so that you can get an> > alternate energy car that is comparable to a conventional car in price,> > capability, reliability and service life and the same or better in> > operating cost per mile.> Go look at Brazil. LOTS of alcohol-fuelled cars on the roads there, and> have been for years. Performance, convenience and durability are all> reported to be completely ordinary, and alcohol costs less per litre.> There's no infrastructure for alternative fuels, so nobody buys them, so> nobody builds them, so there's no incentive to build infrastructure, so> there's no infrastructure, so nobody buys them, so nobody builds them,> so... Probably true, I was mostly considering this country (US) and not really considering alcohol as a 100% fuel. How is it from a pollution standpoint? The vehicle / infrastructure chicken / egg thing is always an issue. A non pressurized liquid fuel such as alcohol is compatible with existing distribution infrastructure though so the issue is more of production and demand. Loose the mid grade gas at the pump and you have room for alcohol, low and high grade gas on existing pumps. There is also a growing CNG infrastructure which could be adapted for other compressed gaseous fuels such as hydrogen if that ever goes anywhere. So there is not nearly as much of an infrastructure issue as a production / technology / demand issue. Pete C.
		Add comment


Robert Briggs 19 March 2005 02:01:57 [ permanent link ]
	Daniel J. Stern wrote:> Robert Briggs wrote:> Quit whingeing.> > IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas"> > prices of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick> > end of four pounds sterling per gallon.> That's because you allow your government to steal overmuch from> you. Most of that price is tax. You think I don't know that? That said, taxing the fuel seems the logical thing to do if you want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. [] ISTM taxes on owning* the car in the first place can work against reduction of emissions, since I find myself with a single car which is capable of doing pretty much all I want of it, rather than the most fuel-efficient car I find acceptably safe for routine commuting plus a low-mileage gas-guzzler (by UK standards, at least) for comfortable load-hauling on longer trips. [*] Whether reduced emissions will help the planet is quite another debate, of course.
		Add comment


TeGGer® 19 March 2005 07:18:06 [ permanent link ]
	"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in newsine.GSO.4.58.0503181354340.21566@alumni.engin.umich.edu: Go look at Brazil. LOTS of alcohol-fuelled cars on the roads there, and> have been for years. Performance, convenience and durability are all> reported to be completely ordinary, and alcohol costs less per litre. Brazil has mandated ethanol in motor fuels, so motorists have no choice. It is similar to the current popularity of propane in the UK and diesel on the Continent: governmental muscle is the motivating factor. If alcohol "costs less" in Brazil, it is because of the political incentives and considerable indirect subsidies in its favor. In real terms, producing fuels from farmed plants is extremely expensive compared to petroleum fuels. There's no infrastructure for alternative fuels, so nobody buys them, so> nobody builds them, so there's no incentive to build infrastructure, so> there's no infrastructure, so nobody buys them, so nobody builds them,> so...> If we want the governmental fist-in-your-face method of achieving the needed "infrastructure", then maybe we should do what Brazil has done. Petroleum fuels are the cheapest thing around, hands down. That's the main reason "alternative fuels" have not caught on except where the government has kneecapped consumers into choosing an "alternative". A couple of very interesting links for those who are very interested: http://www.aip.com.au/pricing/oecd.htm http://countrystudies.us/brazil/76.htm That second one is a doozy. Ol' Danny is not telling us the whole story here. -- TeGGeR®
		Add comment


Ashton Crusher 19 March 2005 10:22:47 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:01:00 +0000, Robert Briggs <Trebor.Briggs@BITphysics.orgBUCKET> wrote: Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:> How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about>> alternate energy?> Quit whingeing.> IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas" prices>of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick end of four>pounds sterling per gallon.> Allowing for the currency exchange rate and your under-sized gallon, I>reckon our fuel costs close to three times as much as yours. I wish people would stop talking about the high COST of fuel in European countries as if it really cost that much for the actual fuel. The HIGH PRICE is due to the HIGH taxes European gvts have elected to place on the nominal COST of the fuel.
		Add comment


JazzMan 19 March 2005 18:47:32 [ permanent link ]
	Ashton Crusher wrote:> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:01:00 +0000, Robert Briggs> <Trebor.Briggs@BITphysics.orgBUCKET> wrote:> Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:> > How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about> >> alternate energy?> > Quit whingeing.> > IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas" prices> >of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick end of four> >pounds sterling per gallon.> > Allowing for the currency exchange rate and your under-sized gallon, I> >reckon our fuel costs close to three times as much as yours.> I wish people would stop talking about the high COST of fuel in> European countries as if it really cost that much for the actual fuel.> The HIGH PRICE is due to the HIGH taxes European gvts have elected to> place on the nominal COST of the fuel. Not only that, but most of Europe has an excellent and low priced mass transportation system so for most people a car isn't neccesary for many trips and day to day commuting. The best way to look at it is what percentage of disposable income after mandatory expenses such as rent and taxes is needed to buy gas for mandatory driving such as commuting to work. In my case it runs around 40% of my disposable income, double what it was a few short years ago. There is no meaningful mass transit in my area. JazzMan -- ******************************************************** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ****************************************************** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ********************************************************
		Add comment


Don Stauffer in Minneapolis 19 March 2005 19:16:24 [ permanent link ]
	Joe S wrote:> Gasoline is cheaper in the US than pretty much anywhere else other than> countries whose main/sole export is oil. Gasoline costs 2.5-3 times as> much in Europe and Japan that the US. Their response seems to have been> "even tinier cars". I do not believe there are significant crash test> requirements because there are tons of cars that are obviously just not> survivable in even a 30 mph crash...little more than a skin around the> driver/passengers.> Gee, I have a 600 pound race car. While I have never had a bad crash in it yet, I have two friends with same class of cars who really rolled theirs hard. One got a dislocated shoulder, the other a broken wrist. I don't believe the weight alone is as important in a crash as other things.
		Add comment


Don Stauffer in Minneapolis 19 March 2005 19:25:05 [ permanent link ]
	Robert Briggs wrote: Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:> How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about>>alternate energy?> Quit whingeing.> IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas" prices> of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick end of four> pounds sterling per gallon.> Allowing for the currency exchange rate and your under-sized gallon, I> reckon our fuel costs close to three times as much as yours. I am not upset by the current price, really. It is just that no one seems to believe that the supply is finite, and will run out some day. I heard a chilling report on news the other night, that even if Saudi Arabia WANTED to increase production, they are already maxed out. If the demand truly begins to exceed max supply, we are really in trouble. I am afraid some day they will say, "sorry, folks, it is all gone. You have to walk, now" People have known how to make gasoline, Diesel fuel, etc. out of coal for over a century, but the infrastructure not in place to do it. It may be more expensive, but I believe you can probably make it out of any source of cellulose. But we can't do it over night. It seems like society expects that when the last barrel of oil is gone, they can wake up next morning and buy synthetic. I want to see more work on building a synthetic infrastructure.
		Add comment


Stan Weiss 19 March 2005 19:31:00 [ permanent link ]
	For this to work alcohol has to cost about half of gasoline because you need to use almost twice as much. Stan "TeGGerВ®" wrote:> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in> newsine.GSO.4.58.0503181354340.21566@alumni.engin.umich.edu:> Go look at Brazil. LOTS of alcohol-fuelled cars on the roads there, and> > have been for years. Performance, convenience and durability are all> > reported to be completely ordinary, and alcohol costs less per litre.> Brazil has mandated ethanol in motor fuels, so motorists have no choice. It> is similar to the current popularity of propane in the UK and diesel on the> Continent: governmental muscle is the motivating factor.> If alcohol "costs less" in Brazil, it is because of the political> incentives and considerable indirect subsidies in its favor.> In real terms, producing fuels from farmed plants is extremely expensive> compared to petroleum fuels.> There's no infrastructure for alternative fuels, so nobody buys them, so> > nobody builds them, so there's no incentive to build infrastructure, so> > there's no infrastructure, so nobody buys them, so nobody builds them,> > so...> > If we want the governmental fist-in-your-face method of achieving the> needed "infrastructure", then maybe we should do what Brazil has done.> Petroleum fuels are the cheapest thing around, hands down. That's the main> reason "alternative fuels" have not caught on except where the government> has kneecapped consumers into choosing an "alternative".> A couple of very interesting links for those who are very interested:> http://www.aip.com.au/pricing/oecd.htm> http://countrystudies.us/brazil/76.htm> That second one is a doozy. Ol' Danny is not telling us the whole story> here.> --> TeGGeRВ®
		Add comment


JazzMan 20 March 2005 00:40:03 [ permanent link ]
	Pete C. wrote:> JazzMan wrote:> > Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:> > > Joe S wrote:> > > > Gasoline is cheaper in the US than pretty much anywhere else other than> > > > countries whose main/sole export is oil. Gasoline costs 2.5-3 times as> > > > much in Europe and Japan that the US. Their response seems to have been> > > > "even tinier cars". I do not believe there are significant crash test> > > > requirements because there are tons of cars that are obviously just not> > > > survivable in even a 30 mph crash...little more than a skin around the> > > > driver/passengers.> > > > Gee, I have a 600 pound race car. While I have never had a bad crash in> > > it yet, I have two friends with same class of cars who really rolled> > > theirs hard. One got a dislocated shoulder, the other a broken wrist.> > > I don't believe the weight alone is as important in a crash as other things.> > Your friends didn't get run into by a 9,000 lb SUV. They also> > had real racing harnesses as opposed to air bags and generic> > seatbelts.> > JazzMan> > --> > ********************************************************> > Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.> > Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!> > ******************************************************> > "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of> > supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to> > live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry> > ******************************************************> Exactly which US SUV is 9,000#? Curb weight not GVWR. I believe most are> under 7,000#> Ex: Chev / GMC Suburban 3/4T 4x4 curb weight: 6,073#> Pete C. I exaggerated a bit. Curb weight on the Hummer H2 is 6,400 lbs, but that's empty of passengers, driver, and cargo. It has a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating over 8,500 lbs, which is why the window sticker doesn't have to show the fuel economy and why it has to have the additional running and marker lights. And then there's the cxt: http://www.internationaldelivers.com/site_layout/xtfamily/cxt.asp At 14,500 lbs if you're in a car, any kind of car, and get hit by one of these being piloted by a cell-phone junkie you're going to die. The main issue will be if there's enough left of your organs to make donation worthwhile. JazzMan -- ****************************************************** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ****************************************************** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ********************************************************
		Add comment


JazzMan 20 March 2005 03:30:03 [ permanent link ]
	Pete C. wrote:> I've frequently said that the test standards for a "regular" drivers> license should be about the same as for a commercial class B. Not> terribly difficult, but something more than "you drove around the block> from the DMA and back and didn't hit anything".> I'd like to see more European standards applied, with months of training and serious practice, and very difficult tests, before getting a license. And, one small screwup and the license is gone, they're serious about driving over there. Around here, especially in my state, the main requirement to qualify for a driver's license is the presence of DNA and a pulse, and sometimes that there pulse thing is optional. JazzMan -- ******************************************************** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ****************************************************** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ********************************************************
		Add comment


Don Stauffer in Minneapolis 20 March 2005 20:17:51 [ permanent link ]
	They already make E85 cars (they burn 15% gasoline, 85% ethanol. I assume the same pump, injectors, and fuel control could be modified to burn methanol okay. With a carb it is much easier. We drill jets out to 100% increase in area (41% bigger drill diameter). Fortunately, both ethanol and methanol burn well over a much wider range of mixture ratios than does gasoline. Stan Weiss wrote:> Remember the fuel air ratio of alcohol is much different than gasoline.> Even if the computer on an EFI car could make the needed adjustments you> would needed bigger injectors maybe larger fuel pump and lines.> Stan> Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:> Kevin Bottorff wrote:
		Add comment


JP White 21 March 2005 04:55:57 [ permanent link ]
	Pete C. wrote:> As far as your last comment:> For this country to "get serious" about alternate energy either oil> prices need to get high enough or alternate energy technology needs to> improve enough (or a combination of both) so that you can get an> alternate energy car that is comparable to a conventional car in price,> capability, reliability and service life and the same or better in> operating cost per mile.> Aside form the economics of the one fuel over another. I believe the developed countries (especially the US) are missing the boat by not developing alternative fuels like there is no tommorrow (because there may not be a tomorow as we know it). Not because they are cheaper in the short term, but because we need to get away from oil to prevent other countries that have plenty of it from taking our money and driving planes into our buildings. Without the revenue from oil, the middle eastern conflict would be a remote insignificance to us in developed countries. Gas may be cheaper to buy wholesale than develop alternative fuels that can be produced locally, but factor in the economic and human cost of fighting well funded terrorists that spend our money to kill us, I wonder if gas is truly cheaper or not. I look forward to the day when developed countries do not need oil as much as now and the oil producers are sitting on a lake of black stuff that's almost worthless. Maybe it'll never happen, but I can dream can't I? JP -- JP White mailto:jpwhite3@bellsouth.net
		Add comment


Sammmmm 21 March 2005 06:54:12 [ permanent link ]
	trouble is, the taxes are levied by the gallon and the thing will burn about twice as much. sam "Don Stauffer in Minneapolis" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message news:3a5m1iF69bdfmU1@individual.net...> They already make E85 cars (they burn 15% gasoline, 85% ethanol. I> assume the same pump, injectors, and fuel control could be modified to> burn methanol okay. With a carb it is much easier. We drill jets out> to 100% increase in area (41% bigger drill diameter). Fortunately, both> ethanol and methanol burn well over a much wider range of mixture ratios> than does gasoline.> Stan Weiss wrote:> > Remember the fuel air ratio of alcohol is much different than gasoline.> > Even if the computer on an EFI car could make the needed adjustments you> > would needed bigger injectors maybe larger fuel pump and lines.> > Stan> > Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:> > Kevin Bottorff wrote:
		Add comment


Don Stauffer in Minneapolis 21 March 2005 18:23:59 [ permanent link ]
	I couldn't agree more. That is what I have been trying to say. Going from the current situation to a developed alternate fuel infrastructure will NOT happen over night. It takes time to build the plants, even if we knew the best way to do it. With the present state of the art, I would expect it would take from five to ten years to get an alternate fuel source on line. If we wait to start until oil production actually peaks, what would we be paying for oil during the later years of that period? JP White wrote:> Aside form the economics of the one fuel over another. I believe the > developed countries (especially the US) are missing the boat by not > developing alternative fuels like there is no tommorrow (because there > may not be a tomorow as we know it). Not because they are cheaper in the > short term, but because we need to get away from oil to prevent other > countries that have plenty of it from taking our money and driving > planes into our buildings. Without the revenue from oil, the middle > eastern conflict would be a remote insignificance to us in developed > countries. Gas may be cheaper to buy wholesale than develop alternative > fuels that can be produced locally, but factor in the economic and human > cost of fighting well funded terrorists that spend our money to kill us, > I wonder if gas is truly cheaper or not.> I look forward to the day when developed countries do not need oil as > much as now and the oil producers are sitting on a lake of black stuff > that's almost worthless. Maybe it'll never happen, but I can dream can't I?>
		Add comment


Pete C. 21 March 2005 18:38:40 [ permanent link ]
	Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:> I couldn't agree more. That is what I have been trying to say. Going> from the current situation to a developed alternate fuel infrastructure> will NOT happen over night. It takes time to build the plants, even if> we knew the best way to do it. With the present state of the art, I> would expect it would take from five to ten years to get an alternate> fuel source on line. If we wait to start until oil production actually> peaks, what would we be paying for oil during the later years of that> period?> JP White wrote:> > Aside form the economics of the one fuel over another. I believe the> > developed countries (especially the US) are missing the boat by not> > developing alternative fuels like there is no tommorrow (because there> > may not be a tomorow as we know it). Not because they are cheaper in the> > short term, but because we need to get away from oil to prevent other> > countries that have plenty of it from taking our money and driving> > planes into our buildings. Without the revenue from oil, the middle> > eastern conflict would be a remote insignificance to us in developed> > countries. Gas may be cheaper to buy wholesale than develop alternative> > fuels that can be produced locally, but factor in the economic and human> > cost of fighting well funded terrorists that spend our money to kill us,> > I wonder if gas is truly cheaper or not.> > I look forward to the day when developed countries do not need oil as> > much as now and the oil producers are sitting on a lake of black stuff> > that's almost worthless. Maybe it'll never happen, but I can dream can't I?> > I think you are underestimating our (US) ability to react in a crisis situation. If all oil production suddenly stopped tomorrow I'm pretty sure we would have alternate resources up and running in less than 1 year. Full adaptation and deployment would probably take an additional couple years. At a general commercial pace, yes, 5-10 easily, at a national crisis pace, much much less. Pete C.
		Add comment


Don Stauffer in Minneapolis 22 March 2005 18:22:30 [ permanent link ]
	Pete C. wrote:> I think you are underestimating our (US) ability to react in a crisis> situation. If all oil production suddenly stopped tomorrow I'm pretty> sure we would have alternate resources up and running in less than 1> year. Full adaptation and deployment would probably take an additional> couple years.> At a general commercial pace, yes, 5-10 easily, at a national crisis> pace, much much less.> Pete C. I know nine women cannot create a baby in one month. There are some unavoidable lead times in both R&D and in fabrication of facilities. It would require not just a single plant, but many dozens. BTW, in a national crisis, if we did it NOT build at a commercial pace, would the government then build and operate the plants? That might be a way to do it, but I am not sure we'd like to have it done that way.
		Add comment


Pete C. 22 March 2005 19:03:21 [ permanent link ]
	Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:> Pete C. wrote:> > I think you are underestimating our (US) ability to react in a crisis> > situation. If all oil production suddenly stopped tomorrow I'm pretty> > sure we would have alternate resources up and running in less than 1> > year. Full adaptation and deployment would probably take an additional> > couple years.> > At a general commercial pace, yes, 5-10 easily, at a national crisis> > pace, much much less.> > Pete C.> I know nine women cannot create a baby in one month. There are some> unavoidable lead times in both R&D and in fabrication of facilities. It> would require not just a single plant, but many dozens.> BTW, in a national crisis, if we did it NOT build at a commercial pace,> would the government then build and operate the plants? That might be a> way to do it, but I am not sure we'd like to have it done that way. I'm not saying it's necessarily the preferred way to do it, perhaps the gov. gets it going and then the operation is taken over by the private sector. As far as time to ramp up goes, think about production in say W.W.II. Scenario: All oil production from wells stops suddenly. All that is left is existing reserves in storage and in refineries tanks. All fuel is immediately under conservation, only used for trucking of essential supplies and limited home heating. Companies with various machining / fabrication capabilities switch to production of equipment for production of alternate fuel, say alcohol or "biodiesel". This is companies the currently build construction equipment, tanker trucks, etc. These companies may as well focus their resources on this new task since until the crisis is resolved they don't have customers to buy their products of a way to ship their products even if they had customers. Meanwhile, back on the farm, production of corn (or other suitable crops) is rampped up to provide raw material for the new fuel plants. In the time the new plants are being built the first extra crops of corn are coming in. Other companies are busy constructing the retrofit kits to adapt current vehicles to the new fuel, and auto service stations are busy installing these kits since they have no other business. While all this is going on folks who still have jobs to go to, i.e. not transportation dependent, are putting a lot more effort into more efficient commuting, and companies are under gov. mandate allowing work-from-home arrangements for all employees where this is viable. As the alternate fuel production gets up to speed life begins to return to normal, but with the added benefit of more people ride sharing and more people not having to commute. All the normal lead times and what not go out the window in a time of national crisis. Even with the decline in manufacturing in this country there is still a lot of capacity that can be re-focused. Pete C.
		Add comment


Ken Pisichko 23 March 2005 05:44:37 [ permanent link ]
	Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote: People have known how to make gasoline, Diesel fuel, etc. out of coal> for over a century, but the infrastructure not in place to do it. It> may be more expensive, but I believe you can probably make it out of any> source of cellulose. But we can't do it over night. It seems like> society expects that when the last barrel of oil is gone, they can wake> up next morning and buy synthetic.> I want to see more work on building a synthetic infrastructure. The Alberta tar-sands project is a temporary stop-gap measure. The tar-sands are finite too.
		Add comment


Don Stauffer in Minneapolis 23 March 2005 18:38:05 [ permanent link ]
	Pete C. wrote:> Meanwhile, back on the farm, production of corn (or other suitable> crops) is rampped up to provide raw material for the new fuel plants. In> the time the new plants are being built the first extra crops of corn> are coming in.> Other companies are busy constructing the retrofit kits to adapt current> vehicles to the new fuel, and auto service stations are busy installing> these kits since they have no other business.> While all this is going on folks who still have jobs to go to, i.e. not> transportation dependent, are putting a lot more effort into more> efficient commuting, and companies are under gov. mandate allowing> work-from-home arrangements for all employees where this is viable.> As the alternate fuel production gets up to speed life begins to return> to normal, but with the added benefit of more people ride sharing and> more people not having to commute.> All the normal lead times and what not go out the window in a time of> national crisis. Even with the decline in manufacturing in this country> there is still a lot of capacity that can be re-focused.> Pete C. Okay, different alternative fuel. The long lead time stuff I mentioned was synthetic gasoline. Yeah, we could gear up for ethanol or methanol use in our system fairly rapidly, though we'd have to convert all our cars. With synthetic gasoline, we'd need no changes in cars, but the production of synthetic gasoline would have a considerable lead time. One of the big R&D issues I see on synthetic gasoline is CO2 emission problem. From what I understand of some of the processes, we'd have a LOT of carbon to put somewhere, and lots more CO2 to sequester.
		Add comment


Pete C. 23 March 2005 19:37:44 [ permanent link ]
	Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:> Pete C. wrote:> > Meanwhile, back on the farm, production of corn (or other suitable> > crops) is rampped up to provide raw material for the new fuel plants. In> > the time the new plants are being built the first extra crops of corn> > are coming in.> > Other companies are busy constructing the retrofit kits to adapt current> > vehicles to the new fuel, and auto service stations are busy installing> > these kits since they have no other business.> > While all this is going on folks who still have jobs to go to, i.e. not> > transportation dependent, are putting a lot more effort into more> > efficient commuting, and companies are under gov. mandate allowing> > work-from-home arrangements for all employees where this is viable.> > As the alternate fuel production gets up to speed life begins to return> > to normal, but with the added benefit of more people ride sharing and> > more people not having to commute.> > All the normal lead times and what not go out the window in a time of> > national crisis. Even with the decline in manufacturing in this country> > there is still a lot of capacity that can be re-focused.> > Pete C.> Okay, different alternative fuel. The long lead time stuff I mentioned> was synthetic gasoline. Yeah, we could gear up for ethanol or methanol> use in our system fairly rapidly, though we'd have to convert all our cars.> With synthetic gasoline, we'd need no changes in cars, but the> production of synthetic gasoline would have a considerable lead time.> One of the big R&D issues I see on synthetic gasoline is CO2 emission> problem. From what I understand of some of the processes, we'd have a> LOT of carbon to put somewhere, and lots more CO2 to sequester. My thoughts are that putting large efforts into stop-gap measures for a gap that really doesn't exist is counterproductive. We do still have decades worth of fossil fuels available and I think the effort should be expended on both using those stocks more efficiently and developing the best long term solution for when those stocks are finally depleted. I'm not convinced that an alcohol based fuel is a viable solution. The crop area required to produce the volume of alcohol needed to replace even our current oil consumption for automotive use would be enormous and we use fossil fuels for much more than just automotive use. There is a lot of focus on automotive use of fossil fuels, but not a lot of attention is paid to home heating. A substantial percentage of home heating is done with fossil fuels (oil/NG/propane) and with some effort and programs to help people both insulate and upgrade 40 yr old furnaces/heaters/boilers to modern ones there could be a significant reduction in fossil fuel use for heating. The modern burners would also provide some improvement in emissions as well. There has also been a large increase in the use of NG for electricity production in recent years as well. Pete C.
		Add comment


Ted Mittelstaedt 25 March 2005 13:27:48 [ permanent link ]
	"Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@snet.net> wrote in message news:42418D46.64096F9C@snet.net...> Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:> > Pete C. wrote:> > > Meanwhile, back on the farm, production of corn (or other suitable> > > crops) is rampped up to provide raw material for the new fuel plants. the time the new plants are being built the first extra crops of corn> > > are coming in.> > > Other companies are busy constructing the retrofit kits to adapt current> > > vehicles to the new fuel, and auto service stations are busy installing> > > these kits since they have no other business.> > > While all this is going on folks who still have jobs to go to, i.e. transportation dependent, are putting a lot more effort into more> > > efficient commuting, and companies are under gov. mandate allowing> > > work-from-home arrangements for all employees where this is viable.> > > As the alternate fuel production gets up to speed life begins to return> > > to normal, but with the added benefit of more people ride sharing and> > > more people not having to commute.> > > All the normal lead times and what not go out the window in a time of> > > national crisis. Even with the decline in manufacturing in this country> > > there is still a lot of capacity that can be re-focused.> > > Pete C.> > Okay, different alternative fuel. The long lead time stuff I mentioned> > was synthetic gasoline. Yeah, we could gear up for ethanol or methanol> > use in our system fairly rapidly, though we'd have to convert all our cars.> > With synthetic gasoline, we'd need no changes in cars, but the> > production of synthetic gasoline would have a considerable lead time.> > One of the big R&D issues I see on synthetic gasoline is CO2 emission> > problem. From what I understand of some of the processes, we'd have a> > LOT of carbon to put somewhere, and lots more CO2 to sequester.> My thoughts are that putting large efforts into stop-gap measures for a> gap that really doesn't exist is counterproductive. We do still have> decades worth of fossil fuels available centuries if you add in unexplored offshore fields and coal. and I think the effort should be> expended on both using those stocks more efficiently and developing the> best long term solution for when those stocks are finally depleted. The answer is completely obvious but most people don't want to see it I'm afraid. The answer is that once fossil fuels go, your still going to have wind, tidal, ocean temperature differences, and so on as available sources of power. The problem from a mobility standpoint is that all those sources are only good for generating one thing - electricity. This is great to power stationary things, like a home heater, etc. not so great for a vehicle that must be mobile. Granted, you can use electricity to decompose hydrogen and out of it create a mobile, liquid fuel. But, because this is a 3rd generation energy conversion, it is going to make it so that for every unit of work you get out of hydrogen, the cost to obtain that same amount of work out of electricity will be probably half that. And, granted you can use electricity to run hydroponics tanks and force genetically engineered biomass to grow at fanatic rates, then ferment this down to produce alcohol, or rot it down to produce fart-in-a-jar (methane). Forget making alcohol out of corn, corn takes too long to grow and it's going to be more valuable as food. Or to put it another way, assume that your electric bill, adjusted in todays dollars, will probably double, and assume that your bill for mobile fuel, alcohol, hydrogen, or gas, adjusted to todays dollars, will quadruple, and assume your bill for food will also probably quadruple. This is going to greatly increase density in cities, as people switch to electric cars and mass transit. (and before you pooh-pooh electric cars, if your choice is buying a hydro or alcohol powered vehicle that you cannot afford to fuel, vs buying an electric car that you can afford to fuel even though it has limited range, your going to get the electric car) It will raise prices on manufactured goods, as shipping costs go up. It will raise costs of food tremendously as farmers will no longer have access to the cheap fertilizers and yields will drop - this will pretty much guarentee you won't see food crops fermented down to make liquid fuel, what is produced will be more valable sold as food, not fuel. Over the long run, most of this will be a good thing. Increased food prices will push more people into growing their own food in a garden, which is healthier for them. It will reduce meat production as grain will be diverted to feed humans not cows, and what meat is produced will be range-raised, thus decrease fat in our diets. It will probably increase seafood production as fish farms are brought online. It will allow local manufacturers to compete against goods shipped from overseas, since the local manufacturers won't have to pay as much for shipping their products to their customers. It's going to greatly increase rail use as rails can be electrified, and locomotives can carry much larger fuel stores which will be needed for alcohol fueled locomotives. On the flip side, though, while you will still see an appreciable amount of vehicle use in the cities, families won't be thinking nothing of jumping in the minivan and driving 300 miles away to a vacation. People will probably end up renting long haul vehicles that run off liquid fuel, and paying a huge amount to fuel these, or they will be flying to their vacation destinations. In short, life as we know it will take some fundamental changes. But on the bright side, I really don't see anything in the running out of fossil fuels that our technologically advanced society couldn't overcome. Ted
		Add comment


Pete C. 25 March 2005 17:08:36 [ permanent link ]
	Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:> "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@snet.net> wrote in message> news:42418D46.64096F9C@snet.net...> > Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:> > > Pete C. wrote:> > > > Meanwhile, back on the farm, production of corn (or other suitable> > > > crops) is rampped up to provide raw material for the new fuel plants.> In> > > > the time the new plants are being built the first extra crops of corn> > > > are coming in.> > > > Other companies are busy constructing the retrofit kits to adapt> current> > > > vehicles to the new fuel, and auto service stations are busy> installing> > > > these kits since they have no other business.> > > > While all this is going on folks who still have jobs to go to, i.e.> not> > > > transportation dependent, are putting a lot more effort into more> > > > efficient commuting, and companies are under gov. mandate allowing> > > > work-from-home arrangements for all employees where this is viable.> > > > As the alternate fuel production gets up to speed life begins to> return> > > > to normal, but with the added benefit of more people ride sharing and> > > > more people not having to commute.> > > > All the normal lead times and what not go out the window in a time of> > > > national crisis. Even with the decline in manufacturing in this> country> > > > there is still a lot of capacity that can be re-focused.> > > > Pete C.> > > Okay, different alternative fuel. The long lead time stuff I mentioned> > > was synthetic gasoline. Yeah, we could gear up for ethanol or methanol> > > use in our system fairly rapidly, though we'd have to convert all our> cars.> > > With synthetic gasoline, we'd need no changes in cars, but the> > > production of synthetic gasoline would have a considerable lead time.> > > One of the big R&D issues I see on synthetic gasoline is CO2 emission> > > problem. From what I understand of some of the processes, we'd have a> > > LOT of carbon to put somewhere, and lots more CO2 to sequester.> > My thoughts are that putting large efforts into stop-gap measures for a> > gap that really doesn't exist is counterproductive. We do still have> > decades worth of fossil fuels available> centuries if you add in unexplored offshore fields and coal.> and I think the effort should be> > expended on both using those stocks more efficiently and developing the> > best long term solution for when those stocks are finally depleted.> The answer is completely obvious but most people don't want to see it I'm> afraid.> The answer is that once fossil fuels go, your still going to have wind,> tidal,> ocean temperature differences, and so on as available sources of power.> The problem from a mobility standpoint is that all those sources are only> good> for generating one thing - electricity. This is great to power stationary> things, like> a home heater, etc. not so great for a vehicle that must be mobile.> Granted, you can use electricity to decompose hydrogen and out of it create> a mobile, liquid fuel. But, because this is a 3rd generation energy> conversion, it is> going to make it so that for every unit of work you get out of hydrogen, the> cost to obtain that same amount of work out of electricity will be probably> half> that.> And, granted you can use electricity to run hydroponics tanks and force> genetically> engineered biomass to grow at fanatic rates, then ferment this down to> produce alcohol,> or rot it down to produce fart-in-a-jar (methane). Forget making alcohol> out of corn,> corn takes too long to grow and it's going to be more valuable as food.> Or to put it another way, assume that your electric bill, adjusted in todays> dollars,> will probably double, and assume that your bill for mobile fuel, alcohol,> hydrogen,> or gas, adjusted to todays dollars, will quadruple, and assume your bill for> food> will also probably quadruple.> This is going to greatly increase density in cities, as people switch to> electric cars> and mass transit. (and before you pooh-pooh electric cars, if your choice> is> buying a hydro or alcohol powered vehicle that you cannot afford to fuel, vs> buying an electric car that you can afford to fuel even though it has> limited range,> your going to get the electric car)> It will raise prices on manufactured goods, as shipping costs go up. It> will raise> costs of food tremendously as farmers will no longer have access to the> cheap> fertilizers and yields will drop - this will pretty much guarentee you won't> see> food crops fermented down to make liquid fuel, what is produced will be more> valable sold as food, not fuel.> Over the long run, most of this will be a good thing. Increased food prices> will> push more people into growing their own food in a garden, which is healthier> for them. It will reduce meat production as grain will be diverted to feed> humans> not cows, and what meat is produced will be range-raised, thus decrease fat> in our diets. It will probably increase seafood production as fish farms> are> brought online. It will allow local manufacturers to compete against goods> shipped> from overseas, since the local manufacturers won't have to pay as much for> shipping their products to their customers. It's going to greatly increase> rail use> as rails can be electrified, and locomotives can carry much larger fuel> stores> which will be needed for alcohol fueled locomotives.> On the flip side, though, while you will still see an appreciable amount of> vehicle> use in the cities, families won't be thinking nothing of jumping in the> minivan and driving> 300 miles away to a vacation. People will probably end up renting long haul> vehicles that run off liquid fuel, and paying a huge amount to fuel these,> or they> will be flying to their vacation destinations.> In short, life as we know it will take some fundamental changes.> But on the bright side, I really don't see anything in the running out of> fossil fuels that> our technologically advanced society couldn't overcome.> Ted One issue that you missed is the drastic increase in crime and conflicts of all kinds if people are forced closer together in cities. It is in the basic nature of all animals, humans included, to fight when packed in to close together. This is one of the reasons so much crime is in cities, not simply because of the larger population, but because of the higher density. Depending on how severe the issue becomes, the conflict could reach the point of causing the collapse of the society as we have seen in other parts of the world. Pete C.
		Add comment

CarGuru > Technology > Why not methanol 28 March 2005 18:29:22

	see also: NY to NC Return Trip Notes "Big Boy" currently restaurants in New… Accident Damages I-540 Overpass		pass tests:		see also: XYWE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AAAA XYWE!!... XYWE XYWEXYWE XYWE XYWE XYWEXYWE XY... XYWE________________XYWE___________...

Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miсhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:

If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .




Get comments by e-mail Add to favourites

respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

Why not methanol

Add new comment