Les Jones: An Alcohol Energy Economy?

February 10, 2006

Environment > An Alcohol Energy Economy?

AEI is touting the potential of alcohol as an automotive fuel to supplement oil.

The largest producers of both ethanol and methanol are all in the western hemisphere, with the United States having by far the greatest production potential for both. Ethanol is made from agricultural products. Methanol can also be made from biomass, as well as from natural gas or coal. American coal reserves alone are sufficient to power every car in the country on methanol for more than 500 years.
Ethanol can currently be produced for about $1.50 per gallon, and methanol is selling for $0.90 per gallon. With gasoline having roughly doubled in price recently, and with little likelihood of a substantial price retreat in the future, high alcohol-to-gasoline fuel mixtures are suddenly practical. Cars capable of burning such fuel are no futuristic dream. This year, Detroit will offer some two dozen models of standard cars with a flex-fuel option available for purchase. The engineering difference is in one sensor and a computer chip that controls the fuel-air mixture, and the employment of a corrosion-resistant fuel system. The difference in price from standard units ranges from $100 to $800.

(To clarify those numbers a bit: later in the article the author notes that "Ethanol contains about 75 percent of the energy of gasoline per gallon, compared to 67 percent for methanol. Both thus achieve fewer miles per gallon than gasoline, but about as many miles per dollar at current prices, and probably many more miles per dollar at future prices.")

There's some question as to whether producing ethanol from biological materials is energy-efficient, but producing methanol from coal could work, and the U.S. has plenty of coal. The path to an alcohol economy is a lot easier than the path to a hydrogen economy. Is there some downside or barrier not mentioned in the AEI article?

Posted by lesjones | TrackBack

Comments

Many years ago I was involved in a certain racing enterprise in which methanol was the base fuel (many users used 100% methanol, while some also added nitromethane, benzol, etc. plus some acetone as a blender to prevent separation). At the end of each weekend the fuel system, including the carbs, had to be flushed of methanol by running the engines on gasoline. Otherwise, the methanol would leave deposits in the carbs neceessitating complete disassembly and cleaning. Methanol would also attack the aluminum in the engine (manifolds, carb bodies, etc.) and corrode them. Let it sit for a few days without flushing and it's time for a complete carb rebuild.

There's another issue regarding methanol; because methanol is a highly oxygenated fuel, proper combustion requires a substantially higher volume of methanol than gasoline per unit of air. It's been too long to remember the exact volume ratios, but the difference in consumption we experienced was about 2X per hour, methanol vs gasoline. An engine that performed perfectly on methanol could barely be kept running on gasoline for the 2-3 minutes required to flush the fuel system because the jetting sized for methanol dumped so much gasoline into the engine.

Methanol is a "cold" fuel producing fewer BTU/gallon than gasoline. We had some difficulty getting good fuel atomization in cold weather (20-35 degrees F) and it showed in the way the engines ran in winter races. That's when most users reached for the additives, trying to improve atomization and raise combustion temperatures.

As an FYI, a couple of Google searches turned up figures of 76,330 BTU/gallon for corn ethanol, 116,090 BTU/gallon for gasoline, 128,450 BTU/gallon for diesel and 64,500 BTU/gallon for methanol.

Alcohol fires - either ethanol or methanol - are invisible. They both burn clean, with a flame that's not visible in daylight. The first indication of a problem is feeling the heat, not seeing smoke or flame.

I'm sure metallurgy has progressed well beyond what I experienced in the 1970s, and that there may now be some fuel additives which might prevent aluminum corrosion. Daily use may get around the carb deposit issue we encountered, but I don't know what users would encounter if their vehicles sat for a reasonable period. I think some farm equipment users in the midwest have utilized ethanol as a fuel, and they could probably shed some light on this.

I suspect, however, that costs associated with the increased fuel volume required may make alcohol rather less desirable than gasoline. Not only do users require more fuel to propel their vehicles which will affect vehicle range, those larger quantities have to be hauled to the dispensing points, stored and pumped into the vehicles. Even if net cost to users is the same as gasoline, having to fill up twice as often has an economic impact, not to mention the burden placed on the distribution networks by it having to support 2X volumes.

Posted by: Homer at February 10, 2006

Is there some downside or barrier not mentioned in the AEI article?

You'll need to show proof of legal age before buying even an ounce of the ethanol.

I'm not trying to be facetious. I'm guessing this seriously has been a social and political stumbling block on it's way to being considered as a viable alternative. A stumbling block, which I personally believe is ridiculous.

Posted by: Huck at February 10, 2006

Oooops! I'm an idiot! I just read about E85.

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/109194/article.html

Posted by: Huck at February 10, 2006