Author Topic: The problem with alcohol as a fuel (Read 3542 times)

DanG · « **on:** June 22, 2007, 01:33:33 pm »

I've been doing a little reading and a lot of thinking about alternative fuels lately. It seems that the major objection to alcohol is the notion that it takes more energy to produce it than you get from it. Now, I don't buy into that idea at all, but you can't escape the fact that it does take energy to make alcohol, so any way we can mitigate that energy consumption would be a plus. I've come up with a couple of ideas that seem viable, but I don't know if they've been tried, or may be already in use.

The first idea is to use solar energy to generate part of the heat for the distillation process. The major part of a still's energy requirement is to heat liquids, and outside of drying clothes, heating liquids is the simplest and cheapest use for solar energy. It takes very little outside fuel to heat 160 degree water to the boiling point, at least a whole lot less than to heat 54 degree water.

The second idea is one I mentioned on another thread, and involves capturing excess heat from other operations. Power plants are the most obvious source of waste heat that I can think of, but many other industries are spending big bucks to get rid of excess heat. Why not co-locate an ethanol plant with a power plant and take advantage of the excess heat?

At the other end of the alcohol contraversy is the fuel it takes to produce the materials needed. The naysayers skew the statistics way out of proportion, but again, you can't escape the fact that it requires some. Methane would be a good choice here. The problem with methane is the lack of portability. It takes a lot of it, about twice as much as Natural Gas, and it is less stable, so it is better used in a localized application. The farm is the ideal environment for it. The material is laying about all over the ground, and disposing of it is usually a problem. Leaving it lay causes pollution of streams and releases massive "greenhouse gasses" into the air. Digesting it and capturing the methane is simple and cheap and will provide fuel for farm vehicles, including the tractors that are used to grow the materials for alcohol. Where is the downside here?

Y'all are more than welcome to shoot me down on any of these ideas. If there is some reason they won't work, I'm all ears. If they are already being used in any significant scale, I'll be tickled to death. All I ask is that we try to keep politics out of the discussion.

Fla._Deadheader · « **Reply #1 on:** June 22, 2007, 02:31:59 pm »

I can't comment, because, mostly I'd hafta agree with you, but, you never agree with me, so, THERE.

Cheese whey is a terrific product for making alcohol. There is heat used in cheese making, right

Guess where most cheese comes from??? Dairy farming areas. Same as the Cow fuel.

johnjbc · « **Reply #2 on:** June 22, 2007, 02:34:28 pm »

This makes it even better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#Physical_properties
You don't need to heat it to the boiling point of water. Just till the alcohol boils 78.4 °C

BigTrev · « **Reply #3 on:** June 22, 2007, 02:48:25 pm »

DanG DanG, that actually makes a lot of sense.

I like the idea of using byproducts as the energy sources, no extra resources used means no greeny intervention.

The only problems I could see would be intergration of the new idea with existing power plants etc and the potential hazard of thousands of gallons of alchoholic water zooming along above a steam turbine. But I suppose that is no more hazardous than the stuff they are allready working with.

Heh at least if there was an accident at a power plant the workers wouldn't all glow afterwards, they'd just get a hangover

But seriously, its a really good plan. All you need now is a couple of billion bucks and a deck of cards

stonebroke · « **Reply #4 on:** June 22, 2007, 02:51:38 pm »

deadheader

you have a grat idea. In Fact inNY rhe cheese plants are all switching over as fast as they can. The problem is that whey used to be a energy source for the cattle feeders up here and now you can,t get it. I guess that just proves energy is energy ,You just have different forms.

Stonbroke

DanG · « **Reply #5 on:** June 22, 2007, 03:14:57 pm »

Trev, I don't see integration into the power plant as an insurmountable problem. I was thinking more of piping the excess hot water out of the plant, rather than the alcohol into it.

There is a golden opportunity just south of here to incorporate the whole shebang in to one operation. They're planning to build a new coal-fired power plant next door to a paper mill, and using the dirty water from the paper mill to generate the steam for the power plant. While they're at it, they could build a cellulosic methynol plant on the same site and recycle the excess heat from the power plant. This whole thing is located in the middle of several million acres of pine trees.

BTW, on a related note: My neighbor, who is an Agri-scientist at the Ag Experiment Station here, told me they have planted a stand of Cottonwood trees for the purpose of fuel alcohol production. The trees are 3 years old and over 20' tall. These trees are way outside of their natural range, but appear to be thriving. Interesting experiment, I'd say. The major goal is to find the most cellulose per acre/per year. They'll have to do some major growing to beat Loblolly pine.

submarinesailor · « **Reply #6 on:** June 22, 2007, 05:45:49 pm »

DanG,

One thing that makes it a little hard to integrate an alcohol plant with a power plant is the condensation point of liquids in the waste steam. If I remember correctly, when you drop the waste heat below 328 degrees the sulfur starts to condensate out as an acid. Eating up the exhaust system big time!!!!!!!!!!

Also, most power plants have heat recovery systems built into them. Example: If you use an economizer to transfer the waste heat from the exhaust output to the boiler feed water, you can increase the boiler’s efficiency by 1% for every 100 degrees you reduce the waste heat. Remember, the more efficient power plant owners can operate their plants, the lower there energy cost are.

If all that said, I totally agree with you about co-locating them - if you can do it without robbing Pete to pay Paul.

Bruce

Texas Ranger · « **Reply #7 on:** June 22, 2007, 06:09:40 pm »

All I know is that the Scotch folks, the Irish, and Jack Danial's have produced alcohol for years, and I really think they have it down, for me, anyway.

Ron Wenrich · « **Reply #8 on:** June 22, 2007, 07:50:22 pm »

I'll throw a few more things for you to congitate.

What kind of proof are you trying to get down to? You don't need 190 proof alcohol to use as a fuel. 80 proof will do fine. You have to have larger jets, but it makes a good heating fuel.

Who says you need corn to make alcohol? I have yet to hear anyone talk about sugar beets. And there are tons of food that goes to waste each day that can be made into fuel. Bakeries and candy plants throw away bunches of stuff with starches and sugars. It would be good to recycle it into fuel. You probably could do it with regular old garbage.

I'm thinking the boiling point is 168° for alcohol. A solar still is not out of the question. As pointed out, trash steam is usually too hot for distillation.

Since alcohol vaporizes at such a low temperature, and a car engine runs at a higher temperature, would it be to any advantage to vaporize it before injecting it into the engine? Would that increase efficiency? It seems like it should be fairly easy to do, except in the really cold places.

Fla._Deadheader · « **Reply #9 on:** June 22, 2007, 08:01:15 pm »

Sugar Beets and Sugar Cane are the two highest producing crops per acre for Ethanol.

pineywoods · « **Reply #10 on:** June 22, 2007, 08:31:06 pm »

Like so many other things, the devil is in the details. At first glance alcohol looks like a viable fuel, but there's a whole bunch of little gottcha's. alcohol has a natural affinity for water, will even absorb water from the atmosphere under some conditions. Alky plus water plus aluminum or many types of plastic equals bunches of corrosion. It boils at about 165 degrees or so. Ever wonderhow hot it gets under the hood?? vapor lock city. Cold temps are also a problem. Below about 35 F it won't vaporize, ie cold weather starting is a booger. Had a friend who converted an old VW beetle to run on alky. He had to put a small electric heater in the carb to get it started on cool mornings, and thats in the sunny south. Don't work worth a darn in a fuel injected system either. As for heating above 170 f and running the engine on the vapor, got a good story about that too, but it can wait for another post...

Fla._Deadheader · « **Reply #11 on:** June 22, 2007, 09:16:42 pm »

What about all the race cars that use Ethanol

DanG · « **Reply #12 on:** June 22, 2007, 10:57:53 pm »

Great input, folks! The systems I proposed are full of pitfalls, and I know that. But, were there no pitfalls in the development of petroleum fuels? Some of the best minds in the world have been working on them for over a century. The biggest stumbling block they have run across is the fact that the supply is finite. It has been proven that "gasoline" engines will run on alcohol or methane. It is also proven that deisel engines will run on vegetable oil. Contemporary wisdom tells us that we cannot totally replace petroleum, and I accept that...for now. We have only just begun to try, yet we have production cars that will run on 85% ethanol and 15% petroleum with no problems. That sounds pretty spiffy to me, since we can only grow about 25% of our energy "needs" with the current technology. I can only imagine what the figures could look like if we concentrate on efficiency and conservation. I firmly believe that if we give it a good try, we can be at least independent of foriegn oil, if not fossil fuels altogether, within my expected lifetime. All it takes is a little bit of common sense.

Submarinesailor, yours was exactly the type of input I was hoping for. To be sure, my offerings were pretty simplistic, and there are bound to be many hurdles to leap. One thing is for sure, though...if there is an extra BTU to be eeked out for an extra nickel's profit, those power plant executives will be glad to learn of it.

Don_Papenburg · « **Reply #13 on:** June 22, 2007, 11:41:56 pm »

Some of the biggest stumbling blocks we face with renuables are voted into office by us and then the bueracrats that they hire to run the regulatory agencys (Read money generators)
For a small farm to install a methane digester one would have to get permits and pay fees to the EPA and local fee generating regulators building permits health department,etc . If we could get rid of some of those problems the others would meld right in.

DanG · « **Reply #14 on:** June 23, 2007, 12:14:56 am »

There are political implications to be sure, Don. We just have to realize that the politicos and their bureaucrats serve at our pleasure, and make that stick at the polls. As far as regulation is concerned, we need a certain amount of it. One guy, 25 years ago, polluted an entire river system down here by illegally recycling old car batteries and dumping the waste in the creek.

The river is still polluted from that, today. Such as that is why the EPA exists.

There are Government incentive programs to help people develop alternative energy solutions, including methane digesters. A couple of years ago, our county agent recieved and distributed 5 methane digesters to farmers, courtesy of the US Government. I'll check next week and see how the program is coming.

WDH · « **Reply #15 on:** June 23, 2007, 12:42:16 am »

I like the idea of using trash to generate alcohol for fuel. The problem is location. Most folks object to siting these type of operations in their backyard.

We do need creative thinking. Good going, Dang

.

Ron Wenrich · « **Reply #16 on:** June 23, 2007, 06:29:31 am »

NIMBY will always be a problem. We had several ethanol plants shot down because of it. You would think people would welcome something like that. They're also shooting down wind generators. Seemingly, status quo is the way to go.

We've had several companies interested in putting in stills. But, a lot of the economics didn't work out. It seems like they stretched things a tad to make it work.

Farmers should be able to capture methane fairly easily. Especially those using the lagoon system. I have seen where they were using the captured methane to run generators and sell back to the grid. We're also pulling methane out of the local dump and generating electricity.

DanG · « **Reply #17 on:** June 23, 2007, 07:05:01 am »

I've never been around an ethanol plant. Is there a serious odor problem with them? My thought is that if it stinks, then something they could be using is getting away from them. I can't imagine it smelling any worse than an oil field, anyway.

Ianab · « **Reply #18 on:** June 23, 2007, 07:17:24 am »

Guess it depends what you are fermenting?
The dairy factories here push most of their whey into methanol production, but what they end up with is food grade... worth much more than fuel prices. Mmm... Vodka

DanG · « **Reply #19 on:** June 23, 2007, 07:40:23 am »

Folks don't seem to mind having a brewery in their backyard, either.

One thing we have to keep in mind is that we are mostly limited to surplus, wasted, or previously untapped resources. We can't distill all of the corn, or burn all of the veggie oil in the trucks, and we'll still need a little bit of wood to play with. Also, we have to realize that most industries already have a use for much of what we think would be waste. There are a lot of important by-products that most folks don't even know exist.

As we move into the age of renewable energy, we open the door to a whole new set of the same old problems, too. I can just see the headlines in 2027: "Drought in Southeast to Drive Fuel Prices Over $10 by Labor Day."

Ianab · « **Reply #20 on:** June 23, 2007, 08:27:34 am »

Quote

Also, we have to realize that most industries already have a use for much of what we think would be waste.

Yup.. the only thing that gets wasted from a cow around here is the Moo

Dave Shepard · « **Reply #21 on:** June 24, 2007, 01:38:11 pm »

I have a couple of questions. I am very interested in alt energy, but more in the lines of hydro, wind, and solar. Nothing is perfect, and experimenting is what leads to an idea being improved, or abandonded. If no one ever said hey, maybe this would work, we would still be chasing woolly mammoths around with big rocks.

I hope this doesn't derail this thread, but how does ethanol and biodiesel compare? As I said I don't know a lot about bio fuels, but it seems that BD (bio diesel) uses less energy, and has more usable by products than ethanol.

Is there really enough land and or other sources of the needed sugars to make enough ehtanol to replace our petroleum needs? I have been told that to replace 10% percent of current petroleum usage, we would have to plant ALL of our arable land to corn. This includes your lawn, the median strips in the highway, everywhere. Granted, this is for corn, at our current level of efficiency. But even if we grow beets or cottonwood trees, is it really concievable that we could produce enough of this plant matter to have enough left over food the food and fiber needs as well?

The current trend of ethanol production is already having a harmful effect on the economy. Sure it is a good thing if you are selling corn, and I don't begrudge anyone that. But what if you are buying corn for cattle feed, or to make cereal out of it? Our monthly grain bill is going through the roof, and that only makes milk production a tighter margin. We are getting some relief, but it doesn't really take up the slack for increased fuel and grain costs.

I may be wrong, but it seems that the popular opinion is that we will be able to find a way to continue our energy hungry lifestyle. I know that not everyone thinks this way, but it seems that this is the belief of the average person on the street. And yes, I do feel like a hypocrit as I sit here logged on to the power hungry internet.

Maybe when I have my hydro plant installed I will feel better.

DanG I hope I haven't gone too far off topic, I tend to do that when I get riled up, sorry if I have. While I don't think that bio fuels are going to be an end all and be all solution, I think your ideas do have merit, and are certainly more than I have contributed to a solution.

Dave

Ron Wenrich · « **Reply #22 on:** June 24, 2007, 02:00:39 pm »

I think you're right that we can't grow or drill our way out of our energy needs. Conservation and increased efficiencies can go a long way.

I heard on the radio that the railway can take 1 ton of goods 400 miles on 1 gallon of fuel. I figure the overland trucks are about 120 miles/ton/gallon. At those rates, you would think there would be more trains than trucks.

You haven't hijacked a thread until you turn to food.

PineNut · « **Reply #23 on:** June 24, 2007, 04:54:56 pm »

Ron, people pay (dearly) for convenience. Don’t forget that the railroads are maintaining their own roadbeds. Also if there was sufficient use of the railroads, they could afford to electrify their equipment and cut their dependence on imported energy (assuming electricity was generated by nuclear or other environmentally friendly source.)

DanG · « **Reply #24 on:** June 24, 2007, 11:14:55 pm »

I've been a proponent of bringing the railroads back for a long time, and no, Dave, you haven't derailed

this thread. I've heard numerous guesses as to how much of our fuel we can grow...anywhere from 10% to 25% or more. Personally, I think that any amount is a plus. Every kw of energy we get from alternatives is a kw we don't need to get from fossil fuels. I'm not just talking about motor fuels. ANY energy we use has to come from somewhere. Vast amounts of fossil fuels...petroleum, natural gas, coal... are being used to generate electricity for the "grid." Most of this is being used to heat water to make steam. It makes sense to me that we should be pre-heating the water with solar energy, so it takes less outside energy to make it boil. That doesn't take any fancy photo-voltaic cells. You just leave it laying out in the sun, for crying out loud!

There are other sources, too. Within 10 miles of my house there must be at least a dozen farm ponds, mostly old millponds, with spillways wasting bunches of energy. Why is there not a turbine and generator on each one of them, feeding the grid? The only reason I can think of is that fossil fuels are too cheap to make it worth the effort, financially.

Dave, to clear up your question, bio-diesel is made from vegetable oils and is used by diesel engines. Alcohol(ethanol and methynol) can be used in gasoline type engines.

IMHO, methane is the most under-utilized of all the currently known alternative fuels. It occurs naturally, is easy to capture, and reduces the pollution caused by the materials that make it. I don't know why we aren't using it more, except for the reason noted above.

Dave Shepard · « **Reply #25 on:** June 24, 2007, 11:28:05 pm »

DanG I was actually wondering what the differences in processing ethanol versus biodiesel. It seems that bio takes less energy and has more usable byproducts, but I could be wrong, as I am still learning about how each of these is made. Is ethanol favoured becuase there are more gasoline vehicles on the road?

I agree that we should get the KWs wherever we can. I think many households could generate some or all of their electricity with a fairly small investment. Perhaps it could be part of the original home design and be a complete turnkey package. A small investment up front that will make a huge difference over the long term. The flip side of investing in small scale electrical production, whether hydro, solar, or wind, is building homes that are more energy efficient. So many of the new homes I have worked at in the last 12 years have not taken this into consideration. The priority seems to be to be as wasteful as possible, and try to show up the neighbors. These homes are truly disgusting, IMO. I know of one that takes $170k per year to maintain, and the owners haven't visited in three years.

A good architect will build a house to suit the lay of the land, taking seasonal sun angles into consideration to take advantage of solar gain. Well, I have the feeling that the train is going round a sharp curve and is teetering on the brink of derailment, so I'll

now.

In my area there are dozens of old mill sites that could be generating some juice, but you could never get the permission of the environmental people to develop it. The last I heard we are losing 300 dams per year in the US. A friend of mine has done a lot of work with hydro, having installed several multi-megawatt hydro sites. The water is going downstream, whether we harness it or not.

Dave

DanG · « **Reply #26 on:** June 25, 2007, 12:19:42 am »

Dave, I don't know that alcohol or bio-diesel are favored over one another, except by the people who can utilize them. Diesel folks don't give a rip about alcohol, and vice-versa.

You are right on about conserving and being more efficient. I think we will eventually see a scaling back of our excessive lifestyle, but energy hasn't become expensive enough yet. Apparently, people have too much money to care about it. I happen to think that will come to a screeching halt in the near future.

Ron Wenrich · « **Reply #27 on:** June 25, 2007, 06:01:13 am »

Let's not lay all the blame on environmentalists too hastily. Back during the '30s and '40s, a lot of towns had their own utility company. They produced their electricity on low head dams, some no higher than 10-12'. Along comes the major utility and bought all those places out and put the provision in that electricity could never be produced from those dams again.

Over the years, those dams have become worn out, so the best thing to do is to tear them down.

I have yet to see much scaling back. As long as people can or will borrow money, they will leverage it into a lifestyle that can't afford to maintain. The whole economy is devoted to consumption, not conservation or saving. We just keep on passing the expenses forward until someone borrows enough to maintain the consumption level. Eventually, everything goes -pop-.

Dave Shepard · « **Reply #28 on:** June 25, 2007, 10:02:52 am »

Ron, I wasn't blaming the environmentalists for the old dams not being in use, but rather the inability to put in your own hydro sites. In my area you can't do anything anywhere near a puddle without a long term study. Also we have a conservation comission in each town, with members that often have no clue what they are talking about, and flat out refuse to let anyone put even a culvert over a ditch. Unless it is their ditch, then that's OK.

I am not against the EPA, we don't need any more Brownfields sites around.

I have a small hydro site on my farm I'd like to develop, but I don't think you could even think about talking to the CC about it.

Dave

DanG · « **Reply #29 on:** June 25, 2007, 10:35:29 am »

Fortunately, Dave, things are not like that everywhere. I know a number of people from your State, and they all seem to be reasonable people, but you guys seem to be badly outnumbered. $:-\$ Around here, you can still do some creative things without being bothered too much. When I first started thinking about putting in a little pond, I made some calls to make sure I wasn't causing trouble for myself. I called EPA, and they referred me to the State. So I called the Fla. Dept. of Environmental Protection(DEP) and their guy said they didn't worry about small farm ponds, but reccomended that I check with the Water Management District office. I called them and got the same response.

I think a lot of the problems in dealing with Govt agencies are more localized around the big population centers. Tom is only 200 miles from me, and in the same State, but he has a lot more trouble with them than I do. It must be that all the local officials are elected by "Townies" that have no clue what is going on outside the city.

Fla._Deadheader · « **Reply #30 on:** June 25, 2007, 09:16:15 pm »

News:

Author Topic: The problem with alcohol as a fuel (Read 3542 times)