Corn based fuels a really bad idea?

I would assume the other states that are into making cornahol are doing it just we are up here in Minnesota, government run plants fueled on tax dollars. These facilities cost millions to build, millions to run, and the costs are shoved aside to hide the real cost to the taxpayer AND the consumer. Its like turning on the TV and hearing Wilfred Brimley telling us how we can get a free glucometer from Liberty Medical. Free? Free like Medicare is just loaded with extra money they printed off last week? Free how?

Thats blasphemous Pasty machine 308 gave me an idea though. A corn fed steam powered 308. Even Algore would be proud of it. Its would be damn near as space age as the Delorean with the vegi powered fusion reactor. Just drop in a corn cob or two and WHOOOOSHHH!!!

Seriously, I imagine with modern technology a steam powered car could be pretty efficient.

 

Up here in the frozen North some people heat their houses with corn-burning stoves. The first time I saw one for sale I wondered if these people are missing the "Big Picture".

 

Quite so. But fuel cells are heavy, and carrying hydrogen without being a highway bomb is why the DOE is researching palladium hydride as a safe (but also very heavy) way to carry hydrogen. Both the hydrogen transport and the fuel cells require expensive metals. And then you need (also heavy) electric motors to turn the fuel cell outputs into motion.

But most past fuel cell technologies were developed by NASA who (a) didn't worry about fender benders in space (with either gaseous or liquid hydrogen), and (b) didn't much worry about the cost of the materials. Of course, Apollo 13 had a spot of bother from hydrogen tanks in space.

Now if there was a fuel cell that could run on natural gas (already in your home), you might have a good backup for when the power company goes out. (And would local electric production avoid the losses from long power lines?)

For the home, a fuel cell might be an interesting concept -- natural gas goes in, electricity and fresh(?) water come out. It'd also be a potential competitor to two of your home utilities (electric and water) ... which are a source of funding for local governments. Oops. But a natural gas fuel cell would likely generate byproducts other than water and power.

For the car, though, the "heavy metal" solutions are problematic. "Go, stop, and turn" all work better if there's less mass to flang around.

But if you already stuff your hydrogen into palladium to carry it, applying a field to "doped" palladium to produce fusion could give you a hydrogen powered steam car, getting more energy per atom out of the hydrogen fusion than a fuel cell would produce. (Even then, the weight of the palladium would be an issue for mobile applications.)


The bigger issue is that the feds are in the habit of "handling" problems by dictating that somebody else solve it. Meanwhile, the feds have tossed around so much "research" funding that private industry is loathe to spend their own money developing new technologies. Internal combustion is still the "best" (from an engineering sense) technology for the motorcar.

So the government is trying to "mandate" a "better solution" before we actually have one. And, being "micromanager" types, they're mandating technologies which are "different" but not better.

When the "horseless carriage" was developed, there were plenty of alternatives tried -- steam, electric, etc. Internal combustion won in a fair fight. But the important point was that inventors were free to try anything, and weren't sitting around waiting for federal intervention (or funding). (So it really was a "fair fight".)

We need competition in the technology development field, but industry doesn't want to spend their own money when the feds will hand out public money to other companies .... and if you really do find the better mousetrap, there's a considerable chance the politicos will take it away so you won't have a "monopoly" (and they can control how it impacts the markets -- such as their own investments).

The feds hold the reigns of research and mandate "solutions" ---- and they're not qualified to do either.

 

The recent cold spell here has me thinking about the water coming out of the tail pipe on these and other Hydrogen powered cars.

How much water comes out, and is there a chance that the liquid water would freeze on the road surface?

 

Put the electric motors in the wheel hubs and you have AWD anyway. (And humongous unsprung mass, though.)

Road ice is one question, but ask people in FL or AZ what kind of technology throws away fresh water? (That's why fuel cells were such good tech for NASA -- water supply.)

 

It seems that a water recovery tank could easily be included into the system. You could empty the tank at home (distilled water for ironing your shirts) or at the filling station while re-fueling.

 

The water recovery issue highlights another big problem w/corn-based fuel. Even supposing one could recycle water at the ethanol plant or run the farm equipment more efficiently, etc, corn takes a LOT of water to grow. I don't have exact numbers but I can tell you all the corn fields I've ever seen in Kansas and Nebraska are irrigated. I know that while some of the communities in Western Kansas are excited for the potential income/jobs/subsidies from corn-etoH, the state is also dealing w/water rights issues, namely, the apparent depletion of the Ogallala Aquifier. So now we have a fuel impacting not only the food supply (and as we've seen at the store, the price/supply corn impacts far more than the price of tortillas) but the water supply as well.

 

A recent article (R&T?) stated that hydrogen cars don't emit any more wa-
ter vapor than ICs do. Its just more apparent.

 

Well, the math is not so difficult. H2O = 2 * Hydrogen at 1 proton click each, 1 * Oxygen at 8 proton + 8 neutron = 16. So, the ratio would be whatever amount of hydrogen you are carrying around (lets say maybe 4 pounds, that is a reasonable amount considering hydride storage) = 2/16 or 12.5 %.

If you divide the 4 pounds of hydrogen by .125, you would have 32 pounds of water. (note that this assumes that the oxygen comes from the atmosphere, not carried around in a tank like on a spaceship...)

32 pounds of water is about 3 and 3/4 gallons; this would come out in the form of water vapor, and it would be the equivalent of a week or so of urban driving, thus spread all around and not dumped into one spot.

So, not something that would tax the storm sewers, or drown the neighborhood dogs and cats. And, as pointed out correctly, gasoline combustion also forms a good deal of water vapor and we have been tolerating that for quite some time now without any ill effect.

 

Another excellent point - the enthusiasts for corn, sawgrass, sugar beets, etc. neglect to allow for the simple fact that we do not have the agricultural means to produce enough feedstock to come anywhere near our current motor fuel usage; let alone future expansion of usage.

Plus the simple truth that it is not 1 gallon out of the cornfield and straight into the E85 storage tanks - it takes a LOT of energy to run the tractors, pump the water, heat the ethanol plant, deliver the fuel, etc.

Fact of the matter is - the ethanol craze is a thinly disguised effort by major agri-corporations to equalize their crop surplus to the markets at public expense. If we actually used enough of it to satisfy our real needs, there would no longer be a surplus and we would be complaining about Archer-Daniel-Midlands or some such instead of the OPEC.

 

I think corn based fuels re a great idea.....and after oil the oil, natural gas, and coal are gone (200-300 years) we should seriously look into it.

When oil hit the $70/barrel point, it became cheaper to make fuel (gasoling, heating oil, ect) from coal than oil. Oil is now at $100 and shows no sign of coming down.

The US has enough coal to suppy the entire worlds energy needs for the next 200-300 years. And unlike the opec countries we would be exporting it as processed gasoline or whatever with all the profit that bring not just raw coal. The US is in a position to be THE energy exporter in the world if we would just get our heads out of our butts. They are building a coal cracking plant here in PA.....now we just need 100 more and we'll be all set.

 

Lot's of great info here.

I know I've brought this up before, but has anyone else heard of ethanol eating through fiberglass fuel tanks in boats?

They were discussing this topic of renewable energy on some AM talk show one weekend. A guy called in saying ethanol had eaten right through the fiberglass. He gave reasons (sorry it was too long ago for me to remember) why he knew it was the direct cause. The radio host had heard of this and knew ethanol had caused other issues along these lines as well.

This thread also brings to light that these enviro wacko's could in turn wind up being bigger polluters in the end. As well as causing other problems we can't see now. Is this right for me to believe as a possibility or am I just misguided?

 

Fiberglass + Polyester is a thermo set plastic. Ethanol will have no effect on it.


If they added ACETONE to the tank of Ethanol, , to perhaps remove water from the fuel,,,
yes, the ACETONE would eat through the bottom.

 

+1000. That may be the single most intelligent post ever made on fchat.

 

Thanks for your answer.

You know, maybe he questioned whether there was a degree of acetone in the fuel? That makes much more sense.

I'm just going to refrain from trying to recall things I've heard long ago.

 

According to Honda, their 2005 FCX vehicle goes 190 miles on a tank of compressed hydrogen at 5000 psi, holding 171 L. H2 at 5000 psi weighs 23.5 g/L. Therefore, one tank holds 4 kg of H2. This will produce 4 kg * 18 (molecular weight of water) / 2 (molecular weight of H2) = 36 kg of water. You would emit 3600 g / 190 miles = ~20 g of water in one mile. You'd never see this even if it did freeze.

 

He did his math well. And, as the point had been made before, ethanol 85 would put out similar or more water vapor.

OK - NOW for a comment which very well may have the power to P!SSOFFA LOTA PEOPLE -

Maybe we are barking up a wrong tree with all this effort to preserve the use of private cars as daily commuter/shopper/errand devices.

It seems to me that a lot of the problems of energy conservation, ethanol or synthetic fuel scaleability, etc...could be greatly resolved down by less use of the private car in daily life. There ARE alternatives available - but the public and the government alike do not prefer them. I mean rail, mass trans, remote work place (perhaps home office), etc. The idea is to take some of the transportation pressure off of the car/truck/highway system and save it for special uses where it is really appropriate.

I think this might have a lot of appeal to the enthusiast if you think it all through - less congestion (better to drive the Ferrari when so inclined), the pressure would lessen to force CAFE standards, less drunks out on the road (easier to get home from the club without having to drive), infrastructure could be kept in better maintenance, etc.

Maybe enthusiasts could form a sort of "green coalition" with the tree people on such a basis if they would let us have the sports car for use on the weekend and for god's sake quit telling us how many cylinders a Ferrari should have, how much H.P., and how many miles per gallon it has to get.

I would rather drive a Testarossa one day a week and ride the DART than drive a Honda Insight 6 days a week.

 

Here is a simpler explanation.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Thanks for the chemistry, but what happens when thousands for these cars are on the road.
And many of them emitting more H20 than the economical Honda example used here.

I would think that under the right conditions, they would ice up the roads.

 

But global warming should take care of that...

 

Duluth Mn used to ship out more iron than any port in the US. Then it just about stopped. Today, China owns most of the iron range production and have reopened mines, brought in modern processing machinery, and are making the production more efficient and automated. The poor people up there think they will be getting jobs, but, guess again. And what jobs are available will go to people outside the area, if not outside the country.

From Wyoming to Kentucky thay have built gargantuan strip mines to extract coal, in many cases they now cut away whole mountain tops. Coal trains come to the Becker Power Plant up here several times a day. The plant burns on average, three entire 120 car long coal trains per day, or, one railroad car of coal every four minutes.

http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,2914,1-1-1_4795_4797_4014-3642-0_0_0-0,00.html

Coal carries about 6 pounds of radioactive materials per ton. The Becker Plant consumes 30,000 tons of coal per day, producing 2400 MW, and about 180,000 pounds of radioactive materials. Materials that if harvested can be used to produce weapon grade material. While there are nearly 500 of these coal power plants around the US, a large percentage of our coal is heading overseas.

Duluth Mn now ships more tonnage than it ever did in the heydays of iron, and coal leads iron output today.

http://www.duluthport.com/seawaytonnagestats.html

So that hammer we buy at Walmart thats made in China, may very well have been produced from US iron, and possibly by electricty generated by US coal. Its putting a lot more people out of work than just the people at Stanley. But then no one in the US wants to work anymore, they all think theyre worth $50K year to work at Burger King flipping hamburgers.

This is just my stupid little part of the world. When you start looking around at all your local areas and start adding it all together, one would have to wonder what kind of idiots we are electing to high offices, and what kind of idiots are allowed to vote.

 

Problem isn't that no one in America wants to work, its that
everyone is chasing the lowest cost and the quickest profit.

 

Im not a chemist by any means, but I could imagine burning hydrogen in a piston engine could produce less water condensation than a petroleum powered engine. Wouldnt the hydrogen atoms be looking for atoms or molecules to attach themselves to? The air is already loaded with water vapor, and when we burn fuel on a cold day a lot of condensation drips out the pipe and creates black ice. Is it not probable that while a hyrdogen engine would be condensing the same water vapor from the air, that some of that water would be converted into other compounds?

I guess I feel that instead of wasting electric power turning food into low powered fuel, we should just make hydrogen. Nothing we ever do is going to be a really good choice, its all got something nasty attached to it. We just need to find the least nastiest thing to do until we can find something better.

Has anyone thoughtfully considered putting our worlds nuclear waste along the mid ocean ridge and letting the earth consume it? Seeing as getting rid of the waste is our single greatest obstacle to nuke power, that should be our number one priority.

 

You guys are missing the boat. Iowa and Indiana can become the next Saudi Arabia and Venezuela with the worlds fuel sources wrapped up.


I can visualize threads now about SMS's collection of 365 Sports cars. And ya'll will be talking about how you knew me before I became rich. Corn baby!!!

 

A couple of points in reply:

a) - Water being H20, Hydrogen being H2, then ALL the hydrogen burned theoretically gets turned into water. Gasolene being hydrocarbon molecules, then some (but probably not all) of the hydrogen locked into the gasolene molecules gets turned to water, but it is a relatively small amount of the fuel weight. Most of the combustion by weight ends up as carbon dioxide. Other compounds are formed in both processes (if we assume use of air to get the oxygen).

b) - Hydrogen is no pushover to produce (as compared to corn likker) either. It probably would take more energy per pound than the ethanol. The easy ways involve fossil fuels - pure electrolysis from water is expensive.

c) - To me, the nuclear power issue holds great promise if we were able to make the breakthrough to nuclear fusion (rather than uranium fission). Otherwise, the dangerous heavy isotopes will always be a problem. Fusion is not the flavor of choice by the green left, though, and remains indifferently funded.