chambered221 wrote:

The energy level is based upon the refining process and materials used.

The energy levels are based on the carbon chains available some chains just have more potential energy to use then others. Refining bio-diesel to remove the less wanted bio-chains will not on the whole do as much as one might think. Your still looking at a best case of 90% the power of real diesel. So a 100 gallon trip will be a 112 gallon trip on bio-diesel.

The reason pollution levels drop off is the 11% of bio-diesel that is oxygen, and the ease of it wanting to burn. However both are qualities that cause a decrease in fuel economy. Catalytic converters and diesel particulate filters, already decrease the pollution levels of diesels down to very low levels, making bio-diesels advantages become smaller.

The sulfur issue is a mixed one, seeing as the majority of pro-bio-diesel fuel research happened before the introduction of ULSD, which only contains 15ppm instead of 500ppm.

In addition, commercial style production of bio-diesel is actually more expensive then crude based diesel. So with the 90% efficiency rating of bio-diesel, and the increased costs per gallon, except where subsidized. The costs of freight transport (the majority of diesel use in North America) will become higher. Therefor the costs of goods such as foods and other necessities will also become higher.

Quote::

Current worldwide production of vegetable oil and animal fat is not sufficient to replace liquid fossil fuel use. Furthermore, some object to the vast amount of farming and the resulting fertilization, pesticide use, and land use conversion that would be needed to produce the additional vegetable oil. The estimated transportation diesel fuel and home heating oil used in the United States is about 160 million tons (350 billion pounds) according to the Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy -. In the United States, estimated production of vegetable oil for all uses is about 11 million tons (24 billion pounds) and estimated production of animal fat is 5.3 million tonnes (12 billion pounds). If the entire arable land area of the USA (470 million acres, or 1.9 million square kilometers) were devoted to biodiesel production from soy, this would just about provide the 160 million tonnes required (assuming an optimistic 98 US gal/acre of biodiesel).

Dimitri

I drive a gasoline powered gas hog...

No one strike a match near ElyBoy. In his condition we won't have to worry about a terrorist suicide bomber...

Hmmmm.............. flatulence bomber now that is a new one.

All this smart talk around here is giving me a headache I better get a beer or three.

The real disaster is letting BP try and stop the leak compounded by the Govt. saying they are in control of the situation, and have been since the begninng.

The have stonewalled so many good ideas to sop up surface oil and stop the leak sub sea it aint funny.
Not to mention hiring workers from Md. to work the La. marsh's.

They should have had the hole plugged the first week. And there's no way the govt. is brining to bear every conciveable resource to bear on this spill.

Making alcohol requires only sugar - best from plants and fruit with skins that collect natural yeast. Grind them up, squeaz out the juice and let it ferment. Then run it through a reflux still and you have 185 - 190 proof alcohol. Dilute it to 160 proof (80%) and it makes a perfect motor fuel and you don't have to lower the compression - but you can raise it to about 14:1 and retard the spark a little oh and you have to use a bit richer mixture but with the 14:1 compression ratio you get a 50% power increase and the same mileage as before.
It can also be used in diesel engines but you have to use some other alcohols as lubricants. (like glycol or glycerol). Grapes, apples, pears and apricots all make alcohol better than corn and have their own yeast on their skins. I am waiting for gasohol stations so I can build a motor to run it. I like the idea of a 450 hp 302" V8 that gets 21 mpg!

PaulS wrote:

I like the idea of a 450 hp 302" V8 that gets 21 mpg!

Alcohol/Ethanol is not the answer either.

Quote::

Ethanol combustion in an internal combustion engine yields many of the products of incomplete combustion produced by gasoline and significantly larger amounts of formaldehyde and related species such as acetaldehyde. This leads to a significantly larger photochemical reactivity that generates much more ground level ozone. These data have been assembled into The Clean Fuels Report comparison of fuel emissions and show that ethanol exhaust generates 2.14 times as much ozone as does gasoline exhaust. When this is added into the custom "Localised Pollution Index (LPI)" of The Clean Fuels Report the local pollution, i.e. that which contributes to smog, is 1.7 on a scale where gasoline is 1.0 and higher numbers signify greater pollution.

Ethanol has a megajoules per liter of 23.5MJ/l, Gasoline has 34.8MJ/l. Meaning for a engine under ideal situations, to burn Ethanol, to do the same work as gasoline, would require more fuel volume per the same distance to do the job. Specifically 32.5% more Ethanol fuel as compared to gasoline.

Quote::

Based on EPA tests for all 2006 E85 models, the average fuel economy for E85 vehicles resulted 25.56% lower than unleaded gasoline.

Which by strictly the math, we get 27.5% more fuel needed for E85, so we are relatively close.

Dimitri

That fuel consumption and power is with the same 8.5:1 compression. Boosting the compression makes more power and provides better mileage. As far as pollutants all the CO2 and other carbon products they go back into growing the next crop of fruit or vegies to make the next batch of alcohol. The net carbon foot-print is zero. as for the aldehydes, as you say they break down to form ozone which is better put into the upper atmosphere and does cause problems at ground level BUT no imported oil.... so the dollars stay in the USA.

Paul,

Potential energy remains, you can't "sneak" better fuel economy with a fuel that has less energy, UNLESS you do less work, then yes they can be more economical on fuel.

It would be like eating a chocolate bar with 100 carbs, or a stick of sugar the same size with 300 carbs, which one will allow your body to burn more energy?

Dimitri

Sorry I couldn't resist.

Dimitri wrote:

Paul, Potential energy remains, you can't "sneak" better fuel economy with a fuel that has less energy, UNLESS you do less work, then yes they can be more economical on fuel. It would be like eating a chocolate bar with 100 carbs, or a stick of sugar the same size with 300 carbs, which one will allow your body to burn more energy? Dimitri

Dimitri,
When you raise the pressure and temperature of combustion you get more power from it. You don't have to use as much throttle to go the same speed. Our cars run with 8.5 compression if you raise the compression to 14:1 and use alcohol you get more specific heat from the heat generated in combustion because there is more heat generated. If you tried to use that much compression with the gasoline we have you would not get the engine to run at all.

Tell you what Paul, I will design and hopefully build a 1.75L Diesel engine that will slove the worlds problem (commuter polluters).

A 2.75" Bore and a 4.5" stroke, displaces 107 cubic inches or 1.75 liters, using a 4 cylinder set up.

Dimitri

Super chargers and turbo chargers have been "sneaking" better fuel economy in for a long time now.........they even create the potential for "more" work !!!

PaulS you're makin me thirsty. All that alcohol from fruits and vegetables sounds like a good time, and your car can get off too! I bet you have some recipes to share? Didn't someone just declare CO2 as a pollutant?

The US Environmental Protection Agency yesterday issued a formal finding that greenhouse gasses including carbon dioxide emissions "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people," clearing the way for the agency to regulate a wide range of CO2-emitting industries under provisions of the Clean Air Act.

Do we have to wear emission controls on our noses now? don't breath that stuff out into the air or the EPA will tax you for it.

Actually this is very interesting if you look into who is involved in doing it:

The announcement, which came as the UN Climate Change Summit got underway in Copenhagen, dramatically changes the environmental policy debate in the US as it potentially allows for imposition of CO2 emissions regulations even if Congress is unable to pass cap-and-trade climate change legislation. The House of Representatives passed a climate bill in June and the Senate now is considering its version (ATWOnline, Oct. 1). The Air Transport Assn. has warned that both versions could impose billions of dollars in annual costs on the airline industry.

HHhhhmmmm someone musta needed some money....Hhhmmm


Suz

Suz,
I don't know if you remember Mt. Saint Helens going off but the EPA fined the mountain for pollution violations.....

The current administration will tax businesses out of existence so it will have money to provide welfare for all the unemployed... (And yes, I am being VERY sarcastic!)