Comments on: Study: Ethanol can replace gasoline

By: Bradbury

Bradbury — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:02:27 +0000

Saying that we have to work on hydrogen and not ethanol or similar technologies is simply foolish. We can’t stand around and wait for the technology to catch up with the need.

Implement solutions like ethanol and clean-burning diesel (that could theoretically go into place today, with industry and public support), and keep working on better solutions like hydrogen.

We don’t have to stand here and stare at the problem, waiting for the perfect solution to all of our problems to materialize. Keep working on better ideas, and eventually we’ll get there…..

By: Greenspeed

Greenspeed — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:03:57 +0000

Yes, honda FCXs are all over the road, its a revolution! One family in southern California is teathered to an 80 mile radius around their hydrogen refuelling station. To make this nationwide, we only have to figure out an efficient way to prepare, transport and store hydrogen fuel. You are right about nuclear energy – it is very important for our future energy needs.

Ethanol is not corrosive. To be corrosive, a material has to be reactive with the metal surface. Ethanol, hydrogen, gasoline, propane and diesel are not reactive with metals. Acidic impurities found in fuels are what cause corrosion. If the distillation is done correctly, ethanol is 96% ethanol and 4% water. A simple dehydration step and you have 100% ethanol. No acids, no bases, no water – just ethanol. Not corrosive, end of story.

By: Angel Rivera

Angel Rivera — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 04:28:52 +0000

If our corn farmers suddenly became “oil men” and we could stop giving out farm subsidies, this would be wonderful in so many ways.

By: Mookie

Mookie — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 02:44:53 +0000

Greenspeed “The technology to safely prepare and store hydrogen is very far off”

What does this mean? I guess Honda ‘doesn’t’ have a production Hydrogen powered vehicle? I guess they are not leasing it to city municipalities and the first private citizen? Your right about the energy equations. Unless you consider nuclear….which is exactly where hydrogen production will get its energy from in the future. Thanks George

By: madcapp

madcapp — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:04:07 +0000

That’s exactly right Greenspeed. There are engineering hurdles that need to be resolved to produce hydrogen cheaply. And the infrastructure/refueling stations are not around yet. But there are CNG/propane vehicles on the road, and I’ve never heard of them suffering from the Hindenburg syndrome. I did however witness a police chase on CNN today where the driver of a gasoline powered car died after his car exploded violently into flames after hitting a tree…so you see, fires can happen anywhere. The point is, if all the money spent on developing hybrids, common rail diesels, and and garbage like ethanol (which by the way is corrosive to fuel system components) were re-directed to developing hydrogen technology…first regular internal combustion, then fuel cell type, then we would have a truly practical long term energy strategy. And not a legacy of band-aid fixes.

By: Greenspeed

Greenspeed — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:29:37 +0000

Also… ethanol can be made from any plant source, not just corn.

By: Greenspeed

Greenspeed — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:24:12 +0000

There are several problems with hydrogen that must be worked out before it can be used as a fuel. First, Its a gas and therefore has to be stored under pressure (with current technology) to get enough to go anywhere. This creates major safety issues. Who wants to drive around with a Hindeberg under their car? Secondly, hydrogen production (by electrolysis) costs more energy than its use in combustion releases, therefore, using hydrogen to fuel cars would cost more energy than it releases. The technology to safely prepare and store hydrogen is very far off. Ethanol on the other hand can be burned in normal engines with little modification. Ethanol is simply the product of fermentation of sugars (in corn). After distillation, you have a pure and clean liquid fuel. Lastly, the CO2 emissions from burning ethanol is zero sum. The corn grows by absorbing CO2 from the air. The U.S. has plenty of corn and already has the distillation apparatus (oil refineries). Ethanol is a far cheaper and safer alternative to hydrogen.

By: madcapp

madcapp — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:00:17 +0000

Hydrogen can replace gasoline too. Hydrogen has twice the energy density of gasoline, so you can make a smaller lighter hydrogen engine that makes alot of power and saves weight. Ethanol has half [well 51 percent] the energy density of gasoline so you need to burn alot of ethanol and haul alot around to equal the performance and range of a gasoline powered car. Freinds, its this simple…its a misalocation of engineering resources and research dollars to pursue ethanol, diesel, or any other non-hydrogen fuel.