More on biofuels
Posted by Heading Out on May 26, 2006 - 12:06pm
The point is that as my recent post noted there is an ongoing rapid increase in the number of farmers that are getting on the ethanol bandwagon. Because the scale of each individual ethanol refinery is not that large, it can be funded locally, permitted apparently relatively quickly, and in production with a fairly high (from what I hear from sources) rate of return that is even greater than that in the conventional oil business. Thus there is a little evidence that, with the right alternatives, and provided they can operate at these scales, that the response time to a solution may not be as long as some folks fear. Particularly where the underlying technology has been around for a while.
So why am I grumpy? Well it is because I think that the emphasis is being given to the wrong biofuel. In energy content biodiesel contains some 138,000 Btu/gal, while ethanol only contains 76,000 Btu/gal. (Gasoline is 114,000 Btu/gal). Within the US production has risen from 500,000 gallons in 1999 to 75 million gallons of biodiesel last year. There are a number of different sources for the fuel. Though the currently popular source from the cooking vats of fast food restaurants is not going to be a huge supplier it points, again, to the fact that this fuel can be generated on a small scale, through multiple sources at lower levels of investment that are more readily available. Thus the possibility of an answer where we use, not one big refinery that could take 10 years to get permitted, if ever, but instead a myriad of little refineries over the country that can be installed in less than a couple of years. The Europeans seem to have caught on, and so is the rest of the world. So maybe I should drink my cup of tea, and grin, just a little, before I lift the black object by the stair and Head Out again.
*
Emerging from the meeting of House Republicans, GOP spokesman Sean Spicer said members were willing to come out and talk about oil drilling; not a single journalist accepted the offer.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Another point based on this phrase:
The transient nature of public attention being what it is, we seem already to have reached a stage of acquiescence* to the idea of $70 oil. Though we don't have quite as many pundits this year appearing to reassure us that we will be back to $30 oil as there were last year
I remember Michael Lynch's prediction in 2004 that oil prices will average $25 or $30 in 2005, and they were of course about twice that much. couldn't find a prediction from him for 2006 myself. Has he made such a prediction?
Energy Resources link
http://www.webcasting.com/houston/
Diesels have been held back in North America by the high concentrations of sulfur in fuel. Sulfur poisons catalytic converters. Its oxides are corrosive and increase the concentrations of particulates (sooty smoke) in the exhaust. Diesel cars have been unable to meet the emissions standards in five states, including CA and NY.
The
advent of low sulfur diesel this fall would have changed this situation, except that EPA continues to stack the deck against diesels in passenger cars. The upper limit of sulfur in diesel will be going from 500 ppm to 15 ppm, which would have opened the door to European engines and emissions control technology for the 2007 model year. However, EPA has mandated that diesel cars must meet the same emissions standards as passenger cars, beginning with the 2007 model year. Sounds fair, but it's a big technological problem.Diesel
engines typically return 25-40% better fuel economy than gasoline engines. One of the main reasons is the higher energy content of the fuel, mentioned by HO. The combustion process can normally be optimised to minimise NOx (oxides of nitrogen) or minimise unburned hydrocarbons, but it's inherently difficult to minimise them bothTo be fair, his predictions have still been slightly better than Simmons. I don't worry too much about predictions though, I pay more attention to the underlying model, and for prices, I don't think anyone even has a model.
Having said that, if rock oil follows whale oil prices, there is a price hike before the peak (like what we have seen?), and then prices stay around the same high level through the peak and after. I guess that when price reaches a certain threshold demand drops off a cliff.
The key word in that scenario was "if" ;-)
We make so much because we subsidize it heavily. Back in 2002, I remember hearing on NPR that you could buy a boxcar full of corn for less than the cost of transporting that boxcar full of corn (this is why our beef is almost completely "grain-fed" -- read "corn-fed").
If we did away with the subsidies, corn would suddenly become substantially more expensive -- and supplies would, accordingly, drop.
Thus, corn's not the most efficient source; it's just the most heavily subsidized. I'd personally rather go for efficiency, but that requires changing some very fundamental politics (and, at the end of the day, the politics do matter).
Yours,
Thomas Wicker
Have you thought about changing from command to market economy in the USA? (Only half joking...)
Seriously, it makes stupid inefficiencies obvious.
I have an understandig for short term subsidies to develop a technology or industrial base that can be expected to be needed in a few years but running a market manipulation for years on end probably creates enourmous inefficiencies.
http://www.ageratec.se/biodiesel_index.asp?lang=EN
I still have concerns for global EROEI, since most studies don't include all energy requirements like construction and maintenance of all the engines (ever seen how a wheel on a tractor is changed ?), irrigation (in our countryside water has to be pumped for irrigation. Water volume required has been increasing in the past years). Volumes of fertilizer and pesticides vary enormously from one published study to the other as do the estimated BTU's for the manufacturing of these products (see links provided by robert rapier for an estimation of these spreads).
And for the long term I keep asking my brother in law to please consider soil depletion (a very real issue, since plants do need other elements than N,P,K and CO2 to grow), surface of arable land (in slight excess in France but already competing with agriculture for food). Also don't forget that EROEI of our whole transportation system is <<1. This means that energy taken from biomass is taken out and isn't put back into the system except for CO2. For now there is an excess biomass with regard to the whole ecosystem, otherwise oil wouldn't have formed. So we can sacrifice some of this ... but at what ecological cost and in what places ? Moreover, if we increase the area of arable land, will we really increase the total biomass (i.e. the carbon sink) ? I stay with stuart staniford on this point, increasing our total C02 emission is probably very deleterious.
I must say that these arguments don't hold for someone involved in agriculture. In Europe biodiesel will increase, regardless of what we say or may think, unless the consequences become disastrous or the economy breaks down.
This points toward using zero-till, leaving an optimum amount of organic matter on the surface and returning all nutrients either as liquid effluent or ash. If some of the carbon can be returned as charcoal (inorganic) and tilled in every ten years or so, the nutrient-holding capacity of the soil could be substantially increased at the same time as carbon is sequestered for millennia.
You are absolutely right!
(I don't often find myself agrreeing with you so wholeheartedly ;-)
No-till, leave as much as possible in place or return everything you don't use.
These principles are the essence of the Masanobu Fukuoka philosophy of natural farming. I believe such principles can be applied in varying situations with positive long-term results.
i.e. lower external inputs (energy, materials) and healthy soil.
Mr. Fukuoka has been analysing energy inputs versus energy outputs of farming since the 1930s.
Blinded by the "Green Revolution", most people dismissed his valid concerns about the disaster being created by "modern" farming methods.
http://www.ufop.de/downloads/RZ_Biodieselbericht_230605.pdf (german version)
Interesting brochure about the production of biodiesel in Germany and Europe. The rise in production during the last years is rather impressive (last year production was 1 mt, this it's expected to be 1.5 mt, out of 30 mt total yearly diesel consumption).
Diesels have been held back in North America by the high concentrations of sulfur in fuel. Sulfur poisons catalytic converters. Its oxides are corrosive and increase the concentrations of particulates (sooty smoke) in the exhaust. Diesel cars have been unable to meet the emissions standards in five states, including CA and NY.
The advent of low sulfur diesel this fall would have changed this situation, except that EPA continues to stack the deck against diesels in passenger cars. The upper limit of sulfur in diesel will be going from 500 ppm to 15 ppm, which would have opened the door to European engines and emissions control technology for the 2007 model year. However, EPA has mandated that diesel cars must meet the same emissions standards as passenger cars, beginning with the 2007 model year. Sounds fair, but it's a big technological problem.
Diesel engines typically return 25-40% better fuel economy than gasoline engines. One of the main reasons is the higher energy content of the fuel, mentioned by HO. The combustion process can normally be optimised to minimise NOx (oxides of nitrogen) or minimise unburned hydrocarbons, but it's inherently difficult to minimise them both at the same time. So diesel engines have evolved with particulate traps and catalytic converters to convert CO and partially burned hydrocarbons to CO2 and water. To meet EPA's 2007 standards, some system for reducing NOx to nitrogen needs to be added to the exhaust train, and that's a problem.
One approach is to add a sequential catalytic converter. However, such a system requires ammonia (urea) to be injected to reduce the NOx. A supply of ammonia must be carried on-board the car and EPA is, of course, concerned that owners will neglect to fill it. AFAIK, EPA has not signed off these systems, which raises a worry for me as to the availability of new diesel-powered light passenger vehicles next year. It will be interesting to see which manufacturers can produce an emissions-compliant system.
Sorry, that should have been "the same emissions as gasoline-powered passenger cars. I didn't mention light trucks, but the same standards apply.
I will say this much though. From here:
ttp://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_distillate.html
You can see ULSD production sharply increasing. It is still only 10% of the LSD production however, but I would imagine that most refineries aren't going to switch to 100% until close to the deadline.
There are some complicated rules about who is supposed to have the ULSD when, and California is supposed to switch over at an accelerated pace:
http://www.clean-diesel.org/highway.html
and
http://www.clean-diesel.org/nonroad.html
The problems with emissions may be real, but are probably going to be solved without a prohibitive cost in terms of either efficiency, up front vehicle cost or refining costs.
In my estimation, the issue with bio diesels will be whether the fuels can be produced at a reasonable cost without compromising the food supply.
I think pissing on emissions equipment would appeal to a lot of people...
The only way you make any progress on CO2 reduction is reduction of the use of oil and/or other fossil fuels. People will respond to price signals which will be driven by total supply of all fuels, including biofuels.
As long as we don't set a mandatory and enforceable limit on CO2 emissions, all this talk and investment in alternatives gets us nowhere. My fear is that much of the praise of biofuels is driven by refusal of politicians to deliver to people what they perceive as bad news; we have to consume less, radically, at least 60% less. So we offer the free lunch. And, besides, before people figure out the scam, the politicians will be long gone.
If we had a mandatory cap on CO2 emissions with an enforced cap and trade system, we could let the market for CO2 sort all this out. Producers of ethanol would be subject to the same rules as everyone else with respect to their fossil fuel inputs. The system would sort how these inputs should be utilized. If the energy return from biofuels was large enough, it would be worth paying for the necessary credits. If the industry wasn't efficient enough in its use of energy, the cost of those inputs would reflect the cost of credits engendered by the cap and trade system.
My guess is that the ethanol industry would fold up in a heart beat if it were forced to account for its co2 contribution. However, if the cap and trade system were implemented, we could quit arguing about the wisdom of ethanol and let the CO2 market and the economic market decide.
And btw, under a rigorous cap and trade system with very high co2 reduction goals, it might make sense to eliminate all subsidies and credits to all forms of energy -- oil, coal, solar, nuclear, biofuels, etc. As it is, because we don't tax externalities, we have this increasingly complex mix of subsidies.
Currently, we heavily subsidize biofuels, especially ethanol because of its corn content, which prevents the market from doing its job and engenders increasingly complex and ultimately fruitless debate.
In short, the great promise of ethanol is that it makes gas cheaper, by reducing demand for it!
Remember that the Iowa caucuses are among the 1st in the nation. Anyone that wants to be president is going to be tempted to pander to the Iowa farmers, and ethanol is a good way to do it.
With respect to hurricane damage, Democrats probably won't be looking to pick up votes, etc., in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia or South Carolina. Democrats will look to pick up in Florida and maintain their position in Louisiana. The Republicans will be looking to pick up in Louisiana and maintain in Florida. Of course, sugar cane grows in both Florida and Louisiana, although cane fields have been paved over and contaminated by salt in those states, respectively.
The picture is more complicated than just Iowa.
When we are looking at Biofuels for transport in as much depth as we are here should we not be calibrating the analysis against the historical reference points of proved biofuel powered transport?
These are walking / bicycling and the horse, with the addition of wagons and buggies of various sorts.
Seems to me like the "engine" best suited to converting plant material to transportation of people and cargo over distance is the gut and muscles of an animal, not the internal (infernal) combustion process via a still or biodiesel production facility.
As some have said here an EROEI of < 1on the biofuel cycle might make sense if we had another source of power (nukes, wind, PV etc) to add to the system as "top up" given that we do need to move things around and if a mechanical engine was the only option to produce motion. But we know that's not the case and so it seems to me we should start from the muscle powered transport model as the base case against which to measure other biofuel uses...
Hope this is not too "neo-Amish" to be meaningful
Dont think so, animals use quite a lot of power when idling and are not good at providing electricity or hydraulics. It is also hard to use them in parallell to get adequate power for running combines etc.
Believe me, I agree 100%. I made the same case for biodiesel over ethanol here:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/biodiesel-king-of-alternative-fuels.html
RR
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/27/45110/7810#88
When it can be grown w/o having to have a high CO2 concentration, and be able to withstand 'contamination' from outside algae sure. Then it becomes a widly useable solution.
Otherwise its just re-arranging the deck chairs on the hinderburg.
My only objection is that, like Leanan, I can foresee a feudal society in which the serfs' job is to cultivate oilseed so the bigshot can drive around in his biodiesel Hummer H29. I'm an old fart, and I think I'd rather just be part of the dieoff, thanks.
And yeah, GliderGuider, growing algae may be a good way to obtain the biodiesel (or butanol or whatever). But the scope of such a program, as we discussed before, is amazing. To sequester all the carbon from one modern coal plant, you need an algae farm the size of New Jersey. Not that we shouldn't be attempting something like that...
Unfortunately that's not that outrageous of a possibility. I saw a documentary on PBS a while back about the Irish potato famine. I seems a little strange that a single crop failure could cause a famine. You would think that people would grow multiple crops. Well they did, but the landlords kept everything but the potatoes, while the non-land owning peasants starved. Allowing people to starve was justified under both capitalism (they were just excess labor), and believe it or not, religion (it was happening so it must be God's will). Given our current leadership, the possibility of a similar outcome should be taken seriously.
Since I'm not very old, I may have to deal with such a future. I think I need to hurry up with my plan to buy a chunk of arable land, get a group of friends together and learn permaculture, build a trebuchet or two to defend it(idea from a different PBS documentary) and some windmills to power them. Anybody want in? ;)
(My apologies to any real historians for my instant-expert-analysis hack job.)
did you mean a balistia?
you know what they say "don't bring a balista to a gunfight!"
Good thing I haven't ordered my trebuchet kit from the ACME catalog yet.
How can using CO2 from chimneys (or anywhere else for that matter) to grow algae for biodiesel be considered to be sequestration ? As soon as you start your biodiesel car up, the C will be turned back into CO2 and go out the tailpipe into the atmosphere.
This could be called CO2 neutral, but it isn't sequestration.
Yeah, I have long since realized that, but I haven't corrected it yet. I need to do so.
RR
Just make sure you get some no-nonsense person to head the EPA.
There is equal emphasis on biodiesel in the midwest. There are a number of biodiesel plants being built or already operating, and many more on the books. This is not getting to the press for two reasons.
- As stated by others this is not a fuel that most people can use. It is more of an industrial fuel, trucks, farmers and heavy equipment.
- As everyone has stated the EROEI is better for biodiesel than ethanol at pretty much every point in the process. So there is less bickering about its validity to take on petroleum based diesel as a source of fuel, compared to ethanol and gas.
What people forget, but that I tried to point out here and here is that while the EROEI is good for biodiesel people working in this area already know it can't replace petroleum diesel anymore than ethanol can replace gasoline. It can only contribute to an overall pool of transportation liquids.This point is critical. We must start having something other than fossil fuel contributing to our energy balance. Clearly no known source can replace all or even a large fraction of current consumption. This is not a valid reason to cancel all alternative fuels endeavors. I would prefer a concerted strategy to maximize our resources in getting off oil. But in the abscence of that lets pursue everything that is doable now. Lets hit a lot of singles to advance us on the energy front rather than trying for a home run with some new untested technology, that probably won't work.
To circle around to your main point maybe it is better to let biodiesel fly under the radar of public debate so that it can optimize efficiencies without distractions of specious arguments about making people in Africa starve so that we get to drive our trucks.
My point is that there is no alternative to conservation. We can do it voluntarily (and soon!) and possibly save our society, or else we'll be forced to do it a little later while everything else is coming apart at the same time.
Yikes, did I just write that??
I got this from...
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3321three_ceos_hill.html
Does anyone know about this? I've been googling it and looking around but find no backup for this. I know some people have issues with LaRouche, but I want to be able to refute inconsistencies.
Presently the use of ethanol as fuel by Brazilian cars - as pure ethanol and in gasohol - replaces gasoline at the rate of about 27,000 cubic metres per day, or about 40% of the fuel that would be needed to run the fleet on gasoline alone. However, the effect on the country's oil consumption was much smaller than that. Although Brazil is a major oil producer and now exports gasoline (19,000 m³/day), it still must import oil because of internal demand for other oil byproducts, chiefly diesel fuel (which cannot be easily replaced by ethanol).
The article doesn't state that Brazil is "backing away from" ethanol as fuel, but does mention some of the problems with it. There are also some links at the end; more info is available if you can read Portugese.
To paraphrase Oprah, "$70 is the new $30!"
What is the estimate for the year when the decline is set to begin?
And there's always some warfare in the mix, but that's business as usual.
I am interested to tsee the source. I work in an ER and am amazed everyday at 13 year olds who look 22. I get the impression kids are taller than they ever have been. What standard of living other than nutrition affects height? Obviously healthcare but all children recieve vaccines etc free from gov.
As far as life expectancy dropping could our standard of living be to high? Sedentary jobs and availability of excess foods cause degenerative disease.
matt
Yes there are some big tall kids around as there have always been ,but avg. heights have been going down.
There are a lot of chemicals in the food we eat, especially and perhaps specifically meat. They can cause puberty to happen earlier.
Average height in the US has indeed been constant for three decades or more, while it has continued to grow strongly in much of Europe (including countries like the Netherlands which were already very well-off then).
"More and more ethanol manufacturers are looking to power their plants with cheap coal instead of its cleaner and increasingly expensive competitor, natural gas, thereby potentially limiting ethanol's environmental benefits. And the Bush administration is doing its part to accelerate this trend. Under pressure from a group of senators and representatives from corn- and coal-producing states, the U.S. EPA is considering a rule change under the Clean Air Act that would relax pollution regulations on ethanol plants, clearing the way for them to burn coal with fewer restraints."
Put some coal in your tank. Now, there's a green fuel.
http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/0525/p03s03-usgn.html
On another note related to the coal problem has any one looked at the impact of plug hybrids on the electric grid and whether it could even sustain the use of plug hybrids?
The fuel value of the ethanol is about 78,000 BTU, so the process is energy-positive even if the electricity is disregarded. If we only count the additional 690 BTU/kWh which is required over a straight IGCC plant, that's only 4800 BTU of extra fuel required to make 78,000 BTU of ethanol. And the IGCC plant's syngas can be cleaned up, shift-converted to hydrogen and used to make the ammonia required by the corn.
The problem with coal-fired ethanol distilleries isn't the energy balance (it works), it's greenhouse emissions.
Agree with you on using spent steam, however -- we are living so wastefully now that we can get a lot of mileage out of conservation of all kinds for the next decade or so. (Looked up IGCC btw. Good idea, that should be the standard for any combustion plants from now on.)
As for greenhouse emissions, I'm pretty pessimistic about that too. The best solution is to get away from combustion of all kinds, and move to conservation, wind, / solar PV, and electrolytic hydrogen, perhaps, as a storage and transport medium.
Iowa produced 2.2 billion bushels of corn last year, if all that was used to produce ethanol at 2.6 gallon per bushel it would yield 5.7 billion gallons of ethanol or the equivalent of 3.8 billion gallons of gasoline.
Usining a 1.34 EROEI that is a net of 0.97 billion gallons of gasoline. In 2004 550 gallons of gasoline per capita were sold in Iowa or roughly 1.6 billion gallons.
Well, that didn't work how I expected. Looks like we will need to buy some of those plug-in hybrids and put up some more windmills.
500 million bushels produced in 2004. 1.5 gallons per bushel yields 750 million gallons. EROEI of 3:1 gives a net of 500 million gallons. 600 million gallons of diesel were sold in Iowa in 2004, closer in this cas but still short. This still leaves electricity and home heating unaccounted for.
Preview is my friend.
Also, remember that a big portion of that ".34" is byproducts. On just a fuels basis, the excess energy was less than 9%. If the byproducts can be burned as fuel, or displace products that consume an equivalent amount of fuel, then a person could claim 1.34. Otherwise, it's going to be less. Having said that, if any state has the potential to make ethanol work in the long run, it's Iowa.
Oh, one other thing I should mention. If you calculate the numbers for yourself from the USDA report, it's 1.27, not 1.34 EROI. They got 1.34 by using the byproducts to reduce their inputs. That inflated the EROI. But that doesn't mean they got 1.34 BTUs out for 1 BTU in. With the coproducts, it was 1.27.
RR
Thanks to the Iowa farmer poster who brought up this point yesterday or the day before.
For Iowa and other choice locations in the corn belt, ethanol may make more sense, particularly if various co-generation and other energy-saving set-ups were used.
It may turn out that biomass may be a silver bb in certain parts of the country only.
I think we have five technologies or approaches that might help in the short run. CTL, nuclear, raw biomass, rail electrification and conservation. Algal biodiesel is worth thinking about if we still have fifteen years before things contract too much to implement it. I have my doubts about that timeline, but others don't.
Of those, CTL still poses a problem from the GHG perspective, nuclear is horrifically capital-intensive and has a few NIMBY problems, and raw biomass may not scale very well. That leaves rail electrification and conservation as the easy winners.
What this all means is that there is still no obvious replacement for transportation fuel to be used in existing internal combustion engines. And that is a major problem.
Too limited in application or not the same as oil-based versions?
If you look for 'flick a switch, get lights' and 'I just exchange a small amout of inome for fuel and now I can go fast' solution for renewable power, you will find problems. If the expectation levels are changed from the "I want it now all the time" to "how do I still not have to break my back in labor and let motors do the work...even if I have to wait a bit" its all good.
This applies in spades to microwave Solar Power Satellites and space lasers.
Ask the supporters of such a plan if they have included the heat load they are proposing to inject inside the atsomphere?
nuclear is horrifically capital-intensive
And even nuclear supporters admit that without the govermnet limiting the industry liability, there is no civilian Nuclear power,
The batteries and other technologies we need are either being produced today (A123 Systems) or in the offing (Firefly Energy). This is doable.
Save yourself the potential for grief: if anyone mentions "hydrinos", hold onto your wallet.
(There is, but it requires an atom of oxygen to complete it)why hasn't all hydrogen found it already?(It has)D'OH!
On the tech front, the thing that would be nice would be really cheap and effective solar power ... but I'm afraid I give it long odds. We've tried too many approaches already to think the answer is right around the corner.
Attempting to maintain "business as usual" means:
- Trying to manufacture staggering amounts of fuel, with dwindling feedstocks;
- Continuing to feed, shelter, clothe, and amuse six billion souls;
- Dealing with environmental change, which is now more obviously a 'hockey stick' than a linear incremental sort of thing;
- Chasing after an exponentially rising expectation of endless growth in all the above variables.
From my point of view, we'll be conserving whether doing so is fashionable or not. The way things are going, it looks like we'll be doing without.If we go full speed ahead on solar, wind, nuclear, wave power, etc., we may end up making some economically imprudent mistakes. But I'd rather take my chances with those technologies than coal. It is guaranteed that coal will kill us unless it is effectively sequestered.
Ideally we cut way back on driving. In the mean time, however, we need to radically incentivize people to get into cars getting at least 50mpg. The penalty for driving gas guzzlers need to be severe. Ultimately, we need to average 60 mpg.
I think we are in the long emergency, not the oil emergency, but the GHG emergency.
A tough nut to crack will be housing. HOw do we retrofit existing housing to get a 70% reduction in that sector?
- You can't get something for nothing. The basteria will use some of your 'target fuel' to work whatever conversion. You'd end up with less fuel.
- Most of what we want for 'fuel' is a toxic byproduct. So mst biological systems end up 'choking' on the waste. The alcohol systems use energy to seperate out the alcohol via vaporization.
- To make biodiesel you use a base and an acid. I don't think you can bio-engineer soemthing to accomplish the end goal.
Lets not forget past bio-engineered solutions:http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/01-02-05-study.htm
Look at what tehy are pimping at http://www.butanol.com This system uses the idea that the target fuel just needs settling for seperation.
As long as the butanol concentration is high enough. But butanol is about 8% soluble in water. Regardless, butanol would appear to be a much better option than ethanol. I wrote about it here:
Bio-Butanol
RR
I can see that bio-butanol would have a number of theoretical advantages over ethanol in terms of energy content and better production EROEI.
However, what is not clear to me is how well butanol performs in a modern internal combustion engine. Even though it has a higher energy content per unit weight, it is also several times less volatile than ethanol. I wonder if this would pose any cold weather starting problems or high emissions during the cold-start period.
I'd be curious to know how much work has been done studying the combustion characterisitcs and emissions profile of butanol vs ethanol/gasoline when used in a modern internal combustion engine under real-world conditions. As you know, the performance of an internal combustion engine is highly sensitive to many different variables, and the prediction of such is hardly straigthforward.
Of course I have a soft spot for butanol. I worked as a chemical engineer supporting butanol manufacture for 6 of my 7 years working for a chemical company.
RR
RR
RR