Alternative Fuel Developments

[TThurston]

This article seems like a fairly interesting discussion of alternative fuel developments: http://www.economist.com/node/17358802. Not so much regarding a 100LL replacement, but as ethanol-related issues.

Perhaps this is not the right forum for this post. If not, please move or delete it.

[breister]

After many years as a supporter, I am now convinced that while biofuels MIGHT be a niche interim solution, long term they are a dead-end.

Why? It comes down to two things. First, the efficiency of converting sunlight into a Kw hr of energy. Second, the energy-density of the converted fuel.

In order for the concept to work we must first convert sunlight into usable stored energy, then release that energy later on at a time and place of our choosing. In order to do this with biofuel, we must first convert it into something like gasoline (along with whatever inefficiency of sunlight conversion is inherent in that bio-process, including any multi-step human interaction in the process) and then later burn that fuel in an internal combustion engine (very inefficient when compared to the conversion of electricity to power in an electric motor). In that second step, electric motors are already around 95% efficient - so in order to best electricity we must either a) be much more efficient in the initial conversion of sunlight into stored energy or b) be able to store many times more Kw hrs / kilogram of storage medium or c) both a and b. Now today, we face a hurdle with b) because batteries aren't all that good - but they are improving 6-8% a year (depending on who you listen to) and so in a few years will kick butt. Too, solar conversion to electricity today is only about 15% efficient with the best solar cells. I don't know how well photosynthesis compares to this, suspect it is a bit better, but also know that there are technologies proven to be upwards of 85% efficient in the lab for direct conversion.

Net-net is that within a few years direct conversion of solar to electric and storage of same will be far more efficient than any biofuel, and won't require dangerous combustion.

[Ron Lee]

Breister, that analogy is flawed. There is no requirement that a 100LL solution must beat the efficiency of a battery/electrical device.

If people want a battery operated plane...go for it. I doubt that we will see it work to power even an RV in a user friendly mode for a long time....if ever.

Think we will see battery operated jets? Maybe, but not any time soon. I vote closer to never.

At some point people will see the foolishness of a Prius, Volt or ethanol.

Maybe Swift will be a viable solution. I can't comment on the factors involved from going from a test fuel to full scale production. Time will tell.

I just read a USA Today article on electric cars. We can start with several conditions that must be met before they are viable replacements for the internal combustion engine:

1) They must have at least 80% of the range of a normal engine. Facts: With a reported range of 100 miles they are far from meeting that requirement.

2) They must reach their 100% (or greater than 95%) energy state (Full gas tank or full battery charge from any starting condition including 0% in less than 15 minutes. Facts: The charging period for an electric car at 220V is in the neighborhood of eight hours so they fail here.

3) They must not cost more than 20% more than a comparable internal combustion engine. Facts: I don't have the article here but they may be double to triple the cost of a normal vehicle. Again they fail.

So even for cars electric power in the foreseeable future is not viable. Adapting that technology to aircraft is also a flawed approach today.

Biofuels may work for normal engines if they can be mass produced economically. We shall see.

In the meantime, all you electric car folks check into the cost of a battery system replacement.

[Ron Lee]

Hopefully the ethanol scam will be ended

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...vious-support/

[RVbySDI]

Originally Posted by Ron Lee

Breister, that analogy is flawed. There is no requirement that a 100LL solution must beat the efficiency of a battery/electrical device.

If people want a battery operated plane...go for it. I doubt that we will see it work to power even an RV in a user friendly mode for a long time....if ever.

Think we will see battery operated jets? Maybe, but not any time soon. I vote closer to never.

At some point people will see the foolishness of a Prius, Volt or ethanol.

Maybe Swift will be a viable solution. I can't comment on the factors involved from going from a test fuel to full scale production. Time will tell.

I just read a USA Today article on electric cars. We can start with several conditions that must be met before they are viable replacements for the internal combustion engine:

1) They must have at least 80% of the range of a normal engine. Facts: With a reported range of 100 miles they are far from meeting that requirement.

2) They must reach their 100% (or greater than 95%) energy state (Full gas tank or full battery charge from any starting condition including 0% in less than 15 minutes. Facts: The charging period for an electric car at 220V is in the neighborhood of eight hours so they fail here.

3) They must not cost more than 20% more than a comparable internal combustion engine. Facts: I don't have the article here but they may be double to triple the cost of a normal vehicle. Again they fail.

So even for cars electric power in the foreseeable future is not viable. Adapting that technology to aircraft is also a flawed approach today.

Biofuels may work for normal engines if they can be mass produced economically. We shall see.

In the meantime, all you electric car folks check into the cost of a battery system replacement.

Ron,
I understand what you are saying. However, I would point out that these points are not specifically technological limitations as much as they are market limitations. The points you raise are the same issues that face all new changes in ways we do things. Eventually it will take a paradigm shift for any new method of doing something before the masses will accept the new method as a viable alternative to the existing method.

Your points actually sound like similar arguments against most all of the major innovations of man. scientific discoveries such as the discovery that the world is not flat; that the earth revolves around the sun; numerous medical discoveries; the printing press; steam engines that later led to the internal combustion engine which later led to the automobile; radio communications, harnessing of electricity, even flying itself, were all frowned upon by the, then current, established way of doing things as not viable alternatives to the status quo.

They all eventually made their way into our collective consciences and to our established way of life. Now that we have generations upon generations of established use of those means of doing things, we are still constantly trapped again by our unyielding ideas that nothing will work out to be better than what we already have.

Yes, it is true that if we do not change anything about how we currently operate we will be hard pressed to improve upon the existing technology with a totally different technology. So that leaves the notion that in order for the new technology to replace the old, we will have to move away from the current means of operation and embrace something entirely new and different.

This is the true stumbling block of any new way of doing things. It is the stumbling block fo the idea of using electricity to power our mobility. Until individuals, then groups of individuals, then society as a whole, accepts the idea that there could be a different way of doing things the new technology will not replace the old.

[aerhed]

Ron, your "USA TODAY" article treats perceived market assumptions as if they were written in stone. Sorry, but it just sounds like knee jerk denial to me. Couple years ago the old fossil who ramrodded Government Motors stood behind a podium and told us all that GM wouldn't make a hybrid because "we don't believe the american public will buy a hybrid". Look what happened next. My guess is that biofuels will someday power airliners and big rigs. Everything else will be electric. I'll take bets on this unless the "Mr Fusion" reactor from Back To The Future becomes reality.
Really, are we gonna put up 15% efficiency forever?

[MontanaMike]

Give Ron Lee a break, folks. He is simply pointing out that the support for biofuels is losing one of its supporters, Al Gore. Aluminum foil hat and flat earther are just not appropriate.

If you took the time to read the article, it pointed out that 41% of the US corn production is being used for fuel. Did you hear me? And some of you have a paradigm that using food for fuel is ok. Something here for South Park, I think.

I think it would be dandy if my tax dollars were used to develop a replacement fuel for 100ll, and I think it would be nice if your tax dollars bought me the replacement engine for my O-320 that could safely use this new fuel. I haven't had anything free in quite a while, but hey, to each according to their need.

Couple years ago the old fossil who ramrodded Government Motors stood behind a podium and told us all that GM wouldn't make a hybrid because "we don't believe the american public will buy a hybrid". Look what happened next.

What happened next? The government stepped in.

So the point is...don't pick on Ron because he values his and your freedoms, and has a different view of how technological advances occur.

Do your magic, Paul.

Mike Bauer
N918MB RV6
Burning Unleaded Premium Without Ethanol

[aerhed]

Not pickin on Ron, he's okay. I guess I'm just saying that markets often don't grow by themselves, they are created.

[Ron Lee]

Thanks Mike, but I am not being picked on. I have the conviction of being right.

We in the USA spend about $8 billion in taxpayer money yearly to support a fuel additive that does not make sense. Aerhead, please explain to me how that meets your market support viewpoint. If the public wants it and it meets a need, it would not need $8 billion a year in tax subsidies.

Then it has caused how much increase in food costs because of the diversion of a food to fuel? More billions?

How much have we wasted on plants to make ethanol?

Now Al Gore, who supposedly cast the deciding vote to start us on the ethanol folly track, seems to admit that he did it just to get votes.

Swift fuel was touted in recent years as providing more energy than 100LL and costing less. If they accomplish that and it works in the entire GA fleet, I don't care if they make it from fairy dust.

But failures like ethanol need to be stopped and not continued because of some holy allegiance to "saving the Earth."

[frankh]

Of course the whole "going electric to save the environment" argument also has a significant flaw..I.e where does that "earth saving" electricity come from?..Right now 52% of power in the US is from Coal..Read CO2, mercury and other noxins.

So burning fossle fuel vs burning coal..Well it could be that burning fuel is close to being as efficient that making electricity. The powerful coal lobby will never let any real alternatives cut into their market share..Unless it runs out of course.

The boutique wind farms and solar panels are a drop in the ocean, thats why there is very little lobbying to prevent them..Now if we ever got serious about nuclear (nucular) just watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth then!

Frank