Cars, it's electric! Do Do Do

Looks like coal is the real answer......we'd need to stop and fill with water too, cause steam engine.

Or storing hydrogen at 5,000psi might weigh a bit for the fuel cell crowd.

to interpret this, energy mass vs volume (density)
the scale isn't the same on both axes? (yes, the plural of ax and axis is a homonym, i may start using axiis)

looks like ethanol has 70% the energy density of gasoline.
it needs to be distilled - which is easy enough - just capture methane from a garbage dump.
and if you are wondering, no - there is no E100, except in missouri, and they don't burn it.

Can cars run on alcohol?

We look at the science behind powering a car on alcohol alone
www.arnoldclark.com


1920px-Energy_density.svg.png
 
Patrick said:
Looks like coal is the real answer......we'd need to stop and fill with water too, cause steam engine.

Or storing hydrogen at 5,000psi might weigh a bit for the fuel cell crowd.

to interpret this, energy mass vs volume (density)
the scale isn't the same on both axes? (yes, the plural of ax and axis is a homonym, i may start using axiis)

looks like ethanol has 70% the energy density of gasoline.
it needs to be distilled - which is easy enough - just capture methane from a garbage dump.
and if you are wondering, no - there is no E100, except in missouri, and they don't burn it.

Can cars run on alcohol?

We look at the science behind powering a car on alcohol alone
www.arnoldclark.com


1920px-Energy_density.svg.png
Click to expand...

The answer to what question? This is a thread about EVs. That is the answer to reducing our use of fossil fuels. The most recent discussion is on Porsche's silly efuels. Their cars will only run on gasoline or some mixture of gasoline and ethanol.
 
rick81721 said:
The answer to what question? This is a thread about EVs. That is the answer to reducing our use of fossil fuels. The most recent discussion is on Porsche's silly efuels. Their cars will only run on gasoline or some mixture of gasoline and ethanol.
Click to expand...

why is pioneering a new fuel that you can use in your ICE a bad thing?
it is just another type of refining process.
the stuff we pull out of the ground doesn't magically turn into the stuff necessary to run a car, truck, or turbine.

aviation is currently dealing with 100UL and 100R as options to 100LL.
They know there will be transition costs - and they are going to phase out UL94
It is expensive, esp in transition. Then it won't be - economies of scale et al.

if this eliminates the whole "mining" process - that would be a good thing -
if it can make fuel anywhere, vs putting in a container, transporting it to be refined....
 
Patrick said:
why is pioneering a new fuel that you can use in your ICE a bad thing?
it is just another type of refining process.
the stuff we pull out of the ground doesn't magically turn into the stuff necessary to run a car, truck, or turbine.

aviation is currently dealing with 100UL and 100R as options to 100LL.
They know there will be transition costs - and they are going to phase out UL94
It is expensive, esp in transition. Then it won't be - economies of scale et al.

if this eliminates the whole "mining" process - that would be a good thing -
if it can make fuel anywhere, vs putting in a container, transporting it to be refined....
Click to expand...

There already is a "new fuel" that eliminates "mining" - ethanol. No reason to overly complicate something.
 
rick81721 said:
There already is a "new fuel" that eliminates "mining" - ethanol. No reason to overly complicate something.
Click to expand...
can't use it in current engine -

burns too slow, worthless in cold temps, illegal as E100.
probably use it to produce electricity to charge the batteries tho.

compressed air should work?
start car at top of hill, full by the bottom and good for another couple hundred feet.
 
i know @rick81721 is closed minded to new sources here, but the carbon capture to liquid fuel (ethanol/gasoline replacement) is likely a good long term solution, it is carbon nuetral (to appease the ecowarriors), maintains the option to drive combustion engines (to keep the traditionalists/gear heads happy), works with current distribution infrastructures (no additional distribution costs over gasoline). It is certainly an immature process which makes it expensive FOR NOW. As @Patrick pointed out, economies of scale will bring the cost down, as will technological advances which make the process more efficient. No need to cut down more forests for farmland, no need to compete with food supply (sure the corn cob idea works to some extent, but its still going to end up taking away farmland from food to keep up with this worlds insatiable appetite for fuel).

none of the carbon neutral energy sources are mature enough at this point in time to call one or the other as a long term solution, so why shouldnt they all be pursued, more options increase the chance of something succeeding doesnt it?

hell if you buy evs and replace them in <90k (more like 120k if you live in the US) you are actually contributing MORE carbon emissions than someone who drives a vehicle with a traditional ICE. (see volvo paper that keeps bouncing around, and remember that us generates rough 30% more carbon/kw hour than the EU avg used in that publication) So if you are truely concerned about carbon footprint you better be keeping your cars for a long time (how long does it take the average person to drive 100k miles? 12-15k/year would be 7-8 years
 
Patrick said:
compressed air should work?
Click to expand...
That was back in 2004:
newatlas.com

French auto runs on compressed air technology

December 2, 2004 French engineers have designed a low consumption and low pollution engine for urban motoring that runs on compressed air technology. The CATS (Compressed Air Technology System) "air car" from Motor Development International is a significant step for zero-emission transport,…
newatlas.com newatlas.com
 
Mahnken said:
There would be far less deforestation if people went vegan.
Click to expand...
But enough people won't go vegan so its a moot point, so they'll continue to cut down the rain forest in Brazil for grazing land. And its not like they're going to plant trees on cattle ranches in the US that go under because of cheaper beef from Brazil. The root cause of all of this is there are 8 billion people on the planet that need to be clothed, fed, housed, heated/cooled, and transported from A to B, and all of this requires energy to come from somewhere. And it also requires the waste to go somewhere.
 
Captain Brainstorm said:
But enough people won't go vegan so its a moot point, so they'll continue to cut down the rain forest in Brazil for grazing land. And its not like they're going to plant trees on cattle ranches in the US that go under because of cheaper beef from Brazil. The root cause of all of this is there are 8 billion people on the planet that need to be clothed, fed, housed, heated/cooled, and transported from A to B, and all of this requires energy to come from somewhere. And it also requires the waste to go somewhere.
Click to expand...
Lab grown meat is the future for the folks that don't like to eat plants.
 
Captain Brainstorm said:
It complicates the farming process though. Now we'll likely be clearing more land for more farming. Deforestation is a bad thing, something that's been lost in all climate change propaganda.
Click to expand...

Nope the cellulosic byproducts of current farming can be used - i.e. cornstalks and corncobs. Mucho captured carbon.
 
Patrick said:
can't use it in current engine -

burns too slow, worthless in cold temps, illegal as E100.
probably use it to produce electricity to charge the batteries tho.

compressed air should work?
start car at top of hill, full by the bottom and good for another couple hundred feet.
Click to expand...

D'oh - E85
 
shrpshtr325 said:
i know @rick81721 is closed minded to new sources here, but the carbon capture to liquid fuel (ethanol/gasoline replacement) is likely a good long term solution, it is carbon nuetral (to appease the ecowarriors), maintains the option to drive combustion engines (to keep the traditionalists/gear heads happy), works with current distribution infrastructures (no additional distribution costs over gasoline). It is certainly an immature process which makes it expensive FOR NOW. As @Patrick pointed out, economies of scale will bring the cost down, as will technological advances which make the process more efficient. No need to cut down more forests for farmland, no need to compete with food supply (sure the corn cob idea works to some extent, but its still going to end up taking away farmland from food to keep up with this worlds insatiable appetite for fuel).

none of the carbon neutral energy sources are mature enough at this point in time to call one or the other as a long term solution, so why shouldnt they all be pursued, more options increase the chance of something succeeding doesnt it?

hell if you buy evs and replace them in <90k (more like 120k if you live in the US) you are actually contributing MORE carbon emissions than someone who drives a vehicle with a traditional ICE. (see volvo paper that keeps bouncing around, and remember that us generates rough 30% more carbon/kw hour than the EU avg used in that publication) So if you are truely concerned about carbon footprint you better be keeping your cars for a long time (how long does it take the average person to drive 100k miles? 12-15k/year would be 7-8 years
Click to expand...

Hey I used to be a chemist - and my brother was a ChemE. He spent decades working on coal gasification and other synthetic fuel technologies. KISS tends to be the ultimate winner.
 
Mahnken said:
Lab grown meat is the future for the folks that don't like to eat plants.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a great plan…what could possibly go wrong with that other than…everything? I think most meat is bad enough with all the crap that livestock is fed with or pumped with, let’s take it up a notch making meat out of grandpa recycled old armchair!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom