Jump to content

Thumpin455

Full Member
  • Content Count

    885
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Thumpin455 got a reaction from TD in Isobutanol - the next gen biofuel   
    Looked into this a while back. While it takes 10 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol, using bakers yeast and a few gallons less using a hardier strain of yeast, you can reuse the water as is, or release it back to the environment without issue. Isobutanol uses 100 gallons to produce one gallon of fuel, leaves the water toxic and it must be treated before being used for fuel production or released back to the environment. Its made with bacteria and they are far more sensitive to living in their own waste than yeast. The toxicity of the fuel is also an issue, because spills would be hazardous just like gasoline. Im not sure how easy it is to put out a fire fed by isobutanol, but ethanol takes simple water while gasoline takes foam.
     
    That isobutanol doesnt absorb water means rusted fuel tanks and water in fuel system problems just like gasoline, ethanol absorbs water but allows you to burn it. it mixes readily and causes no harm to anything until you get over 35% water in the fuel, and then it is only untreated/non anodized soft aluminum. Im not sure of its corrosive properties, so that might be a non issue. 
     
    The food vs fuel is useless since most of the feedstocks we can use for ethanol production are not food for humans. Kudzu, cattails, and other weeds grow profusely and yield far more ethanol than corn does. The water issue is of bigger concern with butanol because it requires so much more and requires treatment before reuse or release. Sure we can make it, but at a cost of drinking water and more expense due to treatment after producing butanol.
     
    Having a far lower octane means less power potential, less efficiency, and needing larger engines due to lower compression ratios. I didnt look into its latent heat of vaporization characteristics but I doubt it will be as efficient as ethanol at cooling the intake charge. Sure butanol is higher than gasoline, but that isnt saying much. How does it run under boost and heavy loads? What emissions does it have? Does it leave a carbon deposit in the engine under combustion like gasoline does, or is it clean burning like ethanol producing only CO2 and H2O? 
     
    Lastly the BTU content is a red herring, as BTU is simply heating one pound of water one degree. Engines are not designed to merely heat water, its a byproduct of combustion and gasoline is still below 20% efficient, meaning it wastes 80% of its energy heating the engine, water, and air around it than powering whatever its being burned in. Ethanol is 40% efficient in the real world, 42% in the lab, at least according to the US Navy who tested it back in WWII. That means it only wastes 60% of its energy heating things up, which is part of why ethanol runs cooler. Candle wax and bees wax have high BTU content too, but they arent really good fuels for transportation engines. The comparatively paltry BTU deficiency of ethanol is nothing compared to the wasted energy of gasoline. So freaking what if butanol has almost as much BTU as gasoline, we arent heating water with it.

    My big issue is the water used in production and the lower octane. High compression engines are more efficient, which is why compression ratios have been creeping upwards and why we have direct injection showing up now, because its a bandaid for the crappy octane of gasoline. We are trying to get more from the fuel we burn, and squeezing it harder does that, the problem is gasoline cant stand being squeezed very hard and it explodes too soon, which requires retarded timing, lower compression ratios, and shedding as much heat as possible to prevent detonation. Carbon build up from gasoline negatively impacts the propensity to preignite, as well as wearing out the engine sooner. It remains to be seen how isobutanol fares in comparison. It might be a decent bandaid for gasoline engines, but it cant compete with ethanol in many areas.
     
    I think the biggest reason butanol has backing is that not any old Joe can produce it easily and cheaply in his back yard. They can control the production entirely, because the bacteria that make it will kill you if you try to make it yourself like you can make ethanol. the amount of water required makes it prohibitively expensive for the average Joe to to produce it, and the environmental impact would be massive if they started dumping the left over waste water. Think Canadian Tar Sands ecological nightmare and tailings escaping into rivers. Ethanol spills kill bacteria, but little else, and its biodegradable with sunlight and easily diluted with water.
  2. Like
    Thumpin455 got a reaction from 1outlaw in Isobutanol - the next gen biofuel   
    Looked into this a while back. While it takes 10 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol, using bakers yeast and a few gallons less using a hardier strain of yeast, you can reuse the water as is, or release it back to the environment without issue. Isobutanol uses 100 gallons to produce one gallon of fuel, leaves the water toxic and it must be treated before being used for fuel production or released back to the environment. Its made with bacteria and they are far more sensitive to living in their own waste than yeast. The toxicity of the fuel is also an issue, because spills would be hazardous just like gasoline. Im not sure how easy it is to put out a fire fed by isobutanol, but ethanol takes simple water while gasoline takes foam.
     
    That isobutanol doesnt absorb water means rusted fuel tanks and water in fuel system problems just like gasoline, ethanol absorbs water but allows you to burn it. it mixes readily and causes no harm to anything until you get over 35% water in the fuel, and then it is only untreated/non anodized soft aluminum. Im not sure of its corrosive properties, so that might be a non issue. 
     
    The food vs fuel is useless since most of the feedstocks we can use for ethanol production are not food for humans. Kudzu, cattails, and other weeds grow profusely and yield far more ethanol than corn does. The water issue is of bigger concern with butanol because it requires so much more and requires treatment before reuse or release. Sure we can make it, but at a cost of drinking water and more expense due to treatment after producing butanol.
     
    Having a far lower octane means less power potential, less efficiency, and needing larger engines due to lower compression ratios. I didnt look into its latent heat of vaporization characteristics but I doubt it will be as efficient as ethanol at cooling the intake charge. Sure butanol is higher than gasoline, but that isnt saying much. How does it run under boost and heavy loads? What emissions does it have? Does it leave a carbon deposit in the engine under combustion like gasoline does, or is it clean burning like ethanol producing only CO2 and H2O? 
     
    Lastly the BTU content is a red herring, as BTU is simply heating one pound of water one degree. Engines are not designed to merely heat water, its a byproduct of combustion and gasoline is still below 20% efficient, meaning it wastes 80% of its energy heating the engine, water, and air around it than powering whatever its being burned in. Ethanol is 40% efficient in the real world, 42% in the lab, at least according to the US Navy who tested it back in WWII. That means it only wastes 60% of its energy heating things up, which is part of why ethanol runs cooler. Candle wax and bees wax have high BTU content too, but they arent really good fuels for transportation engines. The comparatively paltry BTU deficiency of ethanol is nothing compared to the wasted energy of gasoline. So freaking what if butanol has almost as much BTU as gasoline, we arent heating water with it.

    My big issue is the water used in production and the lower octane. High compression engines are more efficient, which is why compression ratios have been creeping upwards and why we have direct injection showing up now, because its a bandaid for the crappy octane of gasoline. We are trying to get more from the fuel we burn, and squeezing it harder does that, the problem is gasoline cant stand being squeezed very hard and it explodes too soon, which requires retarded timing, lower compression ratios, and shedding as much heat as possible to prevent detonation. Carbon build up from gasoline negatively impacts the propensity to preignite, as well as wearing out the engine sooner. It remains to be seen how isobutanol fares in comparison. It might be a decent bandaid for gasoline engines, but it cant compete with ethanol in many areas.
     
    I think the biggest reason butanol has backing is that not any old Joe can produce it easily and cheaply in his back yard. They can control the production entirely, because the bacteria that make it will kill you if you try to make it yourself like you can make ethanol. the amount of water required makes it prohibitively expensive for the average Joe to to produce it, and the environmental impact would be massive if they started dumping the left over waste water. Think Canadian Tar Sands ecological nightmare and tailings escaping into rivers. Ethanol spills kill bacteria, but little else, and its biodegradable with sunlight and easily diluted with water.
  3. Like
    Thumpin455 got a reaction from dan45mcc in I have yet to repair a vehicle whose issue was fueling with ethanol,” (Mechanic)   
    More corrosive over time in older vehicles. Yeah, I would have an issue with that statement, and that it damages old cars in any way, unless you somehow managed to keep all the original hoses and carb parts in it for the last 30+ years. Always hearing it, the same false BS about how bad it is for carbs. Methanol is, ethanol doesnt seem to be after running it for many years. E10 from 1994 until 07, then E85/HE100 for the last seven years with the original tank and lines, using modified old carbs from the mid 70s to run E85 and whatever I happened to have laying around for the E10. If there was going to be a problem, it would have surfaced by now, because most people dont drive the same car for 20 years.
     
    Know whats strange? When I have E85 in the car I get some white residue left over in the carb when the fuel evaporates over the winter. When its my homebrew in there, the carb is clean with no residue at all in the spring. Two different Qjets that sat for over a year before I put them back on the car for test and tuning, and the one that had E85 last had white stuff. Must be something they are adding to the fuel that does it, because 185 proof doesnt leave the ring on the float. It doesnt hurt or clog anything, just some white stuff stuck to the float and accel pump.
     
    This carb had HE100 in it. Looks brand new inside it.

×
×
  • Create New...