What's wrong with subsidizing alternative fuels:

* First, my main point is just that ethanol is never as cheap as it seems; most people are looking for alternatives because the price of gas is high. But if an alternative is even higher, what's the point.

* It discourages private research;

* It discourages conservation and rewards people who live further from work;

The oil companies may never push non-fossil fuels, that may very well be true. But if ethanol was an efficient use of resources, other companies would sell it, not to mention all the agribusiness corps. who would love to sell it. But it's not efficient, and thus not profitable compared to oil, so you don't see Archer-Daniels Midland setting up ethanol stations and undercutting Exxon's price per gallon.

I'm not a fan of the Iraq war, but if the gov't sunk $250 billion into research...no, I don't think it would result in any significant breakthroughs that would be applicable on a mass scale. Never underestimate the ability of government agencies to squander money.

A) "Gouging" is a good thing, it prevents shortages. I hate high prices, but I would hate standing in line for hours even more.

B) What would happen if a terrorist got in a little boat and fired a hand held SAM missle, hitting one major hydrogen plant. Or ethanol plant. Or coal power plant. H2/ethanol/coal prices would skyrocket!

C) Exxon would produce less oil only if they wanted to commit economic suicide. Their competitors would be happy to sell it. If you really believe this, can you explain why gas prices have been on a slow steady decline for so many decades? It wasn't that long ago (~10 years maybe) that we had gasoline under $1 a gallon where I live. Were oil companies being generous back then?

 

[QUOTE=BaronVonBigmeat]What's wrong with subsidizing alternative fuels:

* First, my main point is just that ethanol is never as cheap as it seems; most people are looking for alternatives because the price of gas is high. But if an alternative is even higher, what's the point.

* It discourages private research;

* It discourages conservation and rewards people who live further from work;

The oil companies may never push non-fossil fuels, that may very well be true. But if ethanol was an efficient use of resources, other companies would sell it, not to mention all the agribusiness corps. who would love to sell it. But it's not efficient, and thus not profitable compared to oil, so you don't see Archer-Daniels Midland setting up ethanol stations and undercutting Exxon's price per gallon.>>>>>>>>



If the demand were high, South America would increase thier ethanol output and import to the US. Ethanol could be sold as a third fuel for cars that are modified just like desiel. The govern could subsidize price differences for ethanol car owners with tax breaks just like hybrids. It would help offset oil sales. Oil and politics will make sure to slow this kind of fuel reform.


<<<<<<<<I'm not a fan of the Iraq war, but if the gov't sunk $250 billion into research...no, I don't think it would result in any significant breakthroughs>>>>>>>>


The govermentt is already putting that kind of money into research. It's called our space program. Our Government has the solutions. They just won't apply until it's absolutly necessary. It's a big special interest game. Politics have to change before we can.

China is upsetting world demand for oil. We are gonna run out eventually. Supply and demand is causing some increase. Gouging is causing the rest. gouging is nothing but false impression, by oil companies, of supply and demand. Oil companies are screwing us.

 

Imagine all the Rum they can make too.

 

More lucrative exports for Brazil

 

Hybrids will be used in various shapes and sizes just because it makes sense. Everything from electric turbos to electric assist motors will really start to been seen in the mainstream within the next 5-10 years IMO.

To echo what others have said about Ethanol is that it requires huge subsidies. Whatever you think about "big oil" and the government, capitalism in general doesn't flow really well with large-scale, long-term subsidies -- not if money is the most important factor, which sadly it tends to be. Oddly enough, to convert a normal engine to use E85 is a very simple and cost-effective venture. Yet, the infrastructure changes that have to happen for E85 to work are extensive. I don't mean to say that and not back any of it up, but this is almost common knowledge at this point.

Hydrogen can be burned as a fuel (as with the RX-8 hydrogen hybrid), but it is largely considered wasteful because it is so un-dense (is there even a word for that?). The general hope is that it will be used in fuel cells in a liquid form tempered by some metalloid. In this form, hydrogen is incredibly safe. It's basically a big battery.

The reason why this is so important is two-fold. First, it can be easily dropped into an electric assist car with no problem and just more effectively take over the role of the old-school battery it replaces. Second, is that the car industry, oil industry, or government don't have to help subsidize this technology because other companies already are. Lithium batteries, the element with the highest electrical potential there is, is the limit to what conventional batteries can do. There are many companies trying to make hydrogen fuel cells happen so that they can use them as enormously powerful batteries for laptops and other mobile devices. Once all the development costs have been fronted by these companies, it's just a matter of simple economics before they're used for cars, houses, etc.

As for getting hydrogen, the general technique is by electrolysis of water. The standard argument is that it is incredibly wasteful energy-wise to extract hydrogen this way. However, renewable energy like nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, etc can be used to do this. You're wasting energy, but you're never going to run out of wind. And the benefit is that now you have hydrogen which is essentially a mobile power source with excellent scalability potential (e.g. - you can't easily power a laptop on wind power). Moreover, there's a basically inexhaustible supply of hydrogen (I've read that it's the 3rd most abundant element on the Earth's surface).

In short, Ethanol, like any combustible fuel, requires huge infrastructure changes for development, manufacturing, and distribution. Hydrogen has the ability to STORE normal electrical energy that already has a huge infrastructure in place for distributing. Hydrogen will happen because there's absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it. It's just too economically attractive.

 

<<<<<<<<<<In short, Ethanol, like any combustible fuel, requires huge infrastructure changes. Hydrogen has the ability to STORE normal electrical energy that already has a huge infrastructure in place for distributing. Hydrogen will happen because there's absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it.>>>>>>>>>

How so? After importing we should be able to truck it to gas stations and load into pump tanks just like gasoline.

 

As mentioned before electrolysis of water to generate hydrogen does not make sense, because it requires several times more energy than simply charging batteries directly (with a distribution net that is already in place). Hydrogen is currently produced from carbon based fuels for very good reasons.
If for instance hydrogen was produced from sunlight directly then you'd have a nice solution on the table. Unfortunately this technology has not been invented yet.

Actually a gasoline or diesel pumpstation can easily be switched to pump ethanol or biodiesel. Hydrogen on the other hand needs to be highly pressurized, which means absolutely nothing of the current gasoline and diesel distribution net in place can be used.

Here's an interesting comparison between hydrogen and biodiesel.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/arti..._hydrogen.html

I wonder what mileage a biodiesel powered hybrid would get? 75mpg? 100mpg?
If one has a car that gets 100 mpg with essentially no pollution (particle filter and NOx reduction in place) why would hydrogen even be attractive?

 

Well, yeah, if you want to become dependent on a foreign country for fuel -- oh wait. I was more talking about the idea of making it ourselves. Land and the ability to farm it is not an inexhaustible source. You put a strain on the land in doing so. There's more than just the trucking aspect when it comes to making it.

Personally, if E85 became a standard I would be thrilled. If we could just get over the hump of the initial costs (hey, fancy ECON term -- diseconomies of scale) it seems to have a lot of potential. I personally don't see this ever happening because of politics and how the global economic market works. However, I wouldn't even mind importing tons of it from Brazil and then have car companies utilize the Flex technology that is quite simple and cheap to manufacture. It would keep us off our dependency of the oil producing countries temporarily while hydrogen research continued.

Will this happen? I have no idea. But hydrogen most certainly will because it has such a wide variety of uses in that it' can store electrical energy.

 

Nuclear plants could supply endless energy for hydrogen production and eliminate fossil usage all together.

Biodiesel would probably sell for $20/gal if it got 100mpg in a hybrid. And does'nt diesel pollute worse than any other fuel?

 

Again, I assert my point of using renewable energy for this cause. Electrolysis allows you to use water instead of finite fossil fuels which clearly has advantages. As far as charging batteries directly, batteries have memory issues, lose charge over time, and are bulky when considering the electrical potential they yield. Hydrogen can be produced from electrolysis using free materials and powered by renewable, pollutant-free systems -- why does it matter if it's a little (or a lot) wasteful?

In terms of ethanol and biodiesel, they require land. These are not free materials and they're certainly not inexhaustible. Yes, the resultant fuel is much more like gasoline in many ways and fits nicely into that infrastructure. However, hydrogen doesn't have to be pressurized into a liquid form. People are using IF's to encase hydrogen liquid into nice little batteries -- it's already been done.

In the end, hydrogen can and will be used for batteries. Ethanol or biodiesel may well be used in cars and houses in the next 5-10 years. I hope they do. However, hydrogen is coming because they are a quantum leap forward in battery technology. You can't power your laptop on bio-diesel and current batteries just don't cut it. That's why hydrogen is attractive.

 

I think some people here are lost in a ethanol vs hydrogen battle that I think is misplaced. I definitely think both will replace fossil fuel use in the future. I think ethanol is a first step to breaking the dependency on the Middle East....the then the long term fuel of the future needs to be hydrogen. The reason is the ethanol currently requires harvesting large amounts of crops for refining into fuel. As we all know, crops are variable, a bad year for corn would hurt fuel reserves. Only Hydrogen is viable as a fuel source for the ever increasing demand throughout the world. Fuel cells and advanced battery developments are not alternatives to fuel but rather advancements in technology. Whatever the future fuel source is, higher capacity battery systems capable of biologically re-engergizing will be used in conjunction with each other.

I think hydrogen is in it's infancy where ethanol and biodiesel have been around for a few decades. I think as far as infrastructure goes, current fueling stations can pump ethanol and mixtures such as E85 just as easily as gas. The way to get those stations to offer ethanol and E85 is through regulations placed on gas companies. You want to have a gas station in the US, then you need to offer gas, ethanol or E85, diesel and biodiesel. The gas companies are not going to make this change on their own.

There are lots of alternatives for 'free' energy that I hope comes to fruition. I watched a special on discovery about a company that is using fabrics to cover parking lots. Weaved into the fabric is photo voltaic cells which absorb energy from the sun. Then in front of the parking spaces is charge port that users can plug into their vehicle. Having you car parked outside all day at work on a sunny day, getting shade from the fabric roof, getting energy from the sun.....that will be amazing. And this is not just useful to electric cars because no matter what the fuel source is, the future of automobiles is hybrid powertrains. Electric only vehicles will never be viable just as fuel burning only will not be viable.......hybrids are here to stay.

 

I got sick of reading the first page so I didnt bother on reading the last 2, Hybrids are not ment to get better gas mileage superly, yes it does get a better gas mileage but they are designed to pollute less. And Hybrids get better gas mileage for those who are debating still in a city, rather then on the highway where its the opposite.

 

From what I've read we export much more American oil than we keep here in the united states. Why we should be dependant on the middle east is beyond me. Maybe we get a better price for our oil overseas. And can import eastern oil for less.

 

In the medium term the filling stations need 4 underground tanks for
Diesel D100
Bio-diesel B100
Ethanol E100 You will need E50 for -50 F starting ability
Gasoling G100-modern cars do not need that 10% ethanol for low emissions
and smart pumps that allow you to pick what you want.
'Today I feel like so B50' Look at the tools that bartenders have, they can mix water, syrup and other crap right at the spiggot.

So the pumps should be enhanced now. The chicago region has 87,89,93 at most places.
In the short term how about mixing 87&89 for 88, 87&93 for 90 89&93 for 91, so you can have 87,88,89,90,91,93. add a $0.05 for each step up. Not too damn hard is it?

 

Anyway, US oil conservation won't lower gas prices at home because we are now a world importer and exporter of oil. Gas prices will depend on the world oil market price. Hybrid cars won't stop the world thirst for oil. Oil demand is going to keep increasing with the development of countries like China. Hybrids are good for clean air.

 

In order to get hydrogen into liquid form you have to supercool it (= very expensive) and insulate the tank. And even in liquid form hydrogen has 4 times less energy per volume than diesel:
http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2002/eberhardt.pdf (see page 3)

Not with bio-diesel but with Methanol and I rather power my laptop with a methanol fuel cell since it has a higher energy density than a hydrogen fuel cell.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0406/04...oshibafuel.asp


Hybrids get better mileage on highways as well and despite the extra weight of the batteries. Because their engines are designed to be more fuel efficient at partial throttle.

 

I don't see how they could charge $20/gal since customers would then simply switch to Diesel.
Diesels are pretty clean with low sulfur content (Biodiesel doesn't have any sulfur), particulate filters and urea injection to reduce NOx. The technology is available, but the EPA in the US does not enforce it.

A barrel of oil contains 6000 MJ of energy and the US consumes 20 Mio barrels per day. You would need 1500 nuclear plants running 24/7 in order to generate the same amount of energy! (Keep in mind the US only has 100 nuclear plants a this point).
Clearly, it's mainly an efficiency problem and not really a fuel issue.

 

globi, I appreciate your info, but you're not keeping it all in perspective. There are always multiple factors that have to be considered collectively. One energy source might be more abundant, but cost a million times more to get at. Another energy source may be more energy-dense per unit volume, but might be a billion times more rare.

Diesel comes from oil. End of story. It can be used in some capacity for certain applications, but it is by no means the next revolution. Hydrogen, while much less energy dense comes from water. Doesn't get much more free and abundant than that.

Methanol and ethanol come from crops, etc. There are issues with scalability in that you only have so much viable land and other resources. Again, it may be used in some capacity for certain applications. I agree with an earlier post that these two will have applications in the near future while hydrogen will come much later.

In reference to your Methanol fuel cell point, here's a blurb from a study done at Princeton. Now, I'm not one of those people that says, "I have a study I must be right". My goal is just to show you that you have to look at everything in totality. Just stating the most energy-dense material doesn't mean it's the best overall solution. There's a lot of things that still have to be done for any of this to become a reality. In the end, it might not be either solution for entirely political reasons. Who knows.

 

Yes they get good mileage if your not ******* the throttle but still hybrid vehicles get better mileage in the city rather then highway I never said they get poor highway if thats how it came out sounding sorry .

 

Again read this link: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/arti..._hydrogen.html
Diesel can be produced from algae or soy beans much more efficiently than hydrogen can be produced from anything (more efficiently means it uses less space as well). End of story. Again so far no-one has invented a technology to produce hydrogen on a large scale inexpensively and environmentally friendly. That does not mean it's not possible, but it means we are very far away from a viable solution at this point.

Actually I was refering to laptops and not to cars, when I mentioned the methanol fuel cell. The methanol fuel cell has another issue which the princeton study didn't even mention and actually makes this whole study somewhat ridiculous: Although a methanol fuell cell has a higher energy density it doesn't have the power density as of yet to power a car.

Also energy density is a huge issue if you need trucks to move from A to B:
http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2002/eberhardt.pdf

 

Here are some more links about hydrogen:
http://www.dotynmr.com/PDF/Doty_FutureFuels.pdf
http://www.dotynmr.com/PDF/Doty_H2Price.pdf
http://www.dotynmr.com/PDF/Doty_Pra...nergy_Brief.pdf

 

I think the idea here is to get away from fossil based fuels, not totally eliminate them. Fossil fuels will always have thier value in the world.

Although hydrogen energy is less dense in it's natural form(water) there will eventually be technology that can economicaly extract it and compress it into a fuel cell with equal or greater energy than a gallon of gas. Multiply these cells till you get the desired mileage per charge. If this technology comes about Politics and oil companies may surpress it. It may already exist. What can be percieved can be achieved.
It is not beyond our minds and scientific capabilities.

Any boiodeisel fuel that gets 100 miles/ gal would be some very expensive stuff. It would no doubt negate any savings by it's high cost. Only advantage would be cleaner air and alternate fuel. My opinion only

 

Mazda should use the rotary engine as an electricicity generator to power electric motors that powers the car. Have a really small rotary engine that runs on hydrogen to charge the batteries. It could get a really good milage/money, perhaps mileage to total energy used ratio, or i am just dreaming.
________
ECIGS123

 

globi, I didn't realize you were talking about biodisel. When you mentioned the 4x energy density issue, I looked at the PDF and it seems as though you were referring to the diesel and biodiesel numbers. My bad.

I suppose in the end there's still a lot up in the air. I'd be surprised if some sort of bio-fuel wasn't in wide-scale use in the U.S. in the next 7-10 years. I don't think you realize I'm not disputing that. But hydrogen fuel cells will be a major reality if because of nothing more than the political hype that surrounds it. But I think we've beaten this topic to death and I'll leave it at that. I'll check back with you in 20 years and we can see what happens.

 

It's not the fuel that is more expensive. It is the combination of diesel engine with hybrid that would be more expensive. The initial costs of the car would be more expensive.

Let's face it, the reason why we don't see more hybrids is simply because oil is incredibly cheap. At this point there's no economical reason in the US to purchase a Hybrid/Gasoline or a Diesel powered car. (One could even say that Toyota was lucky and found enough people that have money to burn).

The reason why almost 50% of the cars in Europe have diesel engines is because oil is expensive enough to justify the extra costs of a diesel engine for economical reasons.

Of course if the US government would cut income taxes in favor of a gasoline tax it could indirectly support a more efficient economy WITHOUT increasing the total tax burden.
I don't know why people in general consider an extremely high income tax to be more fair than a relatively small gasoline tax.