<Problem with theoildrum.com email addresses The Oil Drum DrumBeat: September 2, 2006>
<DrumBeat: August 31, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: September 2, 2006>

457 comments on DrumBeat: September 1, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Robert Rapier on September 1, 2006 - 9:13am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If you take a look at the last ethanol discussion we had here (boy it was an hard discussion) common sense won't restrain people from believing in anything.

I have to admit that I was surprised at how confused people got over this issue. A small percentage didn't seem to get it, no matter how many different ways we tried to explain it. But Michael Wang did ultimately write back to me and agree with my premise. I am trying to decide whether to post one more essay on our last exchange. It is a matter of me explaining why it is important that we get it right - the consequence of failure will be huge in a Peak Oil world. In his response, he agreed that I am correct about the efficiency argument, but says we have to look at other things. I told him that I agree that this is not the full sum of the debate; I was just addressing 1 false claim that is often repeated.

But, my next essay is going to be a guest essay from a very well-connected (politically) person who is supporting California's Prop 87. It is essentially a rebuttal to some Prop 87 essays that I wrote. I think it should generate some interesting discussion, especially from people who are sick of hearing about ethanol. I have the essay, but I will probably wait until early next week to post it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kjmclark on September 1, 2006 - 10:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I suspect Khosla's interest in discussing things with you was mostly over Prop 87.  It's surprisingly easy to derail ballot initiatives sometimes, and some people have some significant interests in seeing that proposal succeed.  Khosla could have been simply attempting to know his enemy and size you up for your ability to sow the seeds of doubt about his chosen "trajectory."  

If organized opponents of Prop 87 could find someone extremely knowledgable about the problems with ethanol and highly credible, it might help them stop  the proposal.  If you do get involved, you may find yourself the subject of a smear campaign.  At least, they will paint you as the stooge of the oil industry.  You no doubt know this.  Good luck, and watch your back.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Syntec on September 1, 2006 - 3:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There was a write up in the Providence Journal by one Maurice Webb (rocket scientist/combustion specialist) who argues that the higher density of gasoline vs. ethanol effects ultimate performance comparisons of the fuels as the fuel-to-air ratio for complete combustion of gasoline is higher than that of ethanol.  

To my understanding, this means that more btus are needed for max. temp and optimum combustion thus efficiency of gasoline as a motor fuel then ethanol.

And if that's the case, could engines not be specifically designed to run on E100 thus overcoming a large portion of the BTU deficiencies you oft mention?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DIYer on September 1, 2006 - 7:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
AFAIK, there are just two design parameters that need to change to go from gasoline to E100:
  1. the fuel-air ratio;
  2. elimination of any plastic/rubber components from the fuel system that may be attacked by E100.

The second issue is obviously the more difficult design change. A modern engine can probably change its fuel/air ratio with a simple parametric tweak to its software.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pedex on September 1, 2006 - 8:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Also have to deal with vaporization or atomization issues of ethanol at cold temps, the fuel must be preheated a bit, just like in an alcohol stove. Im sure fuel injection helps a great deal with this, but for small motors injection isnt always practical. IIRC the change in fuel-air ratio is big enough that your average run of the mill production car fuel system might not quite be able to have enough volume to be ok with just a software change, depends on how much "headroom" the engineers left in the system.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on September 1, 2006 - 9:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
AFAIK, there are just two design parameters that need to change to go from gasoline to E100:

I think the most important is the compression ratio. Increasing the compression ratio has been shown to improve gas mileage of E85 vehicles. Instead of a 25% drop in fuel efficiency, they only have a 15% or so drop.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 2, 2006 - 9:14am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
25% and 15% per gallon though.  What should we look at it we want to judge ethanol vs gasoline as a automotive fuel ... miles per Calorie or BTU?

I'd think we'd want to know the conversion efficiency from chemcial potential energy to practical kinetic energy.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on September 2, 2006 - 1:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Robert,
What's the story with Cilion?  San Jose Merc News (Business section) today says they can be profitable with corn based ethanol production even if oil drops to $40/barrel. Have you covered Cilion before?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

457 comments on DrumBeat: September 1, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.