Energy Economics

Ethanol requires higher compression

Alcohol Ethanol (distilled from fermented sugar or starch plants) or methanol (from non-sugar organic matter, e.g. wood) can produce the same MPG performance as petrol (gas), but the engine has to have a much higher compression than can be used with petrol.

This is because although alcohol has a 30% lower energy (mass & volume) density than petrol (meaning that for same weight or volume, alcohol will have 30% less energy content), alcohol has a much high octane rating (116). (which thus makes ethanol (methanol is toxic) a much less flammable fuel than petrol) Contrary to popular delusion, higher octane fuel does not improve fuel economy & power, unless the compression ratio of the engine is increased. Lower octane fuels can not be used in higher compression engines, because pre-detonation (knocking) occurs, which causes the engine to fight itself and lose power & efficiency. Higher compression engines produce more power for the same size (displacement, e.g. 350 cu.in or 5 liter) engine, and also have a higher thermal (Carnot Cycle absolute limit) efficiency. Thus the 30% lower energy of the alcohol fuel is recovered in increased efficiency in the higher compression engine.

Also a higher compression engine will be smaller and lighter for the same power, thus in theory alcohol engines would be more efficient (than petrol) for small propeller airplanes (not jets), when the engine weight is more significant than the fuel weight, i.e. short distances and where short takeoff/landing distances are preferred over long distance ability. An ethanol motorcycle would be much lighter for short distances (which is what motorcycles are usually used for), especially a racing/high powered bike where the engine is the majority of the weight.

So the whole E10 (10% ethanol mixed with 90% gas), burned in a lower compression engine that can run on 100% petrol, means that effectively E10 was just a way to make transportation in the country 3% less fuel efficient (10% ethanol * 30% lower energy density run on a non-optimal compression ratio engine).

For varying the compression ratio of an engine, the main benefit of a turbo or supercharger over a crankshaft change, is the compression ratio can be varied dynamically at run time, without needing to mechanically re-manufacture the engine.

Btw, Top Fuel (methanol + nitrous oxide, or nitrous oxide injection into petrol engines) is a way to get more power from smaller, higher compression engines than could be obtained without the "oxide", meaning the fuel is carrying the majority of the oxygen that would normally come from the carburator and larger engine size (displacement). This only makes sense when the engine is the larger weight factor than the fuel, i.e. (analogous to using ethanol for airplanes mentioned above) in short distance applications (dragsters, hobby RC model airplanes, and go cart racing).

I am not making any comment about the low EROEI of most ethanol, as methanol can be produced from natural gas also. Ethanol could be produced by a farmer for his own self-sufficiency. Moonshine is a hedge against the banker/oil cabal/cartel.


http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2005-11/saab-biopower-engine

...Saab BioPower engine is the first to use the corn-based gas to actually enhance performance...it generates 148 horsepower on pure gasoline, but when it sniffs ethanol, it cranks up the turbocharger's boost pressure (ethanol can handle higher pressure better than gas) to lift output to 184 horsepower...

Use Zeolite to get the water out of homemade ethanol:

http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id26.html

Brazil is way ahead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible-fuel_vehicle#Brazil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Comparison_with_the_United_States

Just to give you an idea why silver & gold are necessary.

I looked into storing petrol, since it is 50% of the price it peaked at earlier in 2008, but the container (even huge tank) costs more per liter than the price drop!

Also the govt now often dictates additives in fuels to so they won't store more than a month or so.

ADD:

I am now making sure I buy my vegetable oil in HDPE (#2 not #1 recycling symbol on bottom) plastic containers and re-use these to store fuel. There are some tin containers here, but I don't like the cap and spout design, will try the HPDE first. So I am getting the containers for free, but this is very small scale (slow).

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3926806/10681102

My logic has always been that we are seeing Peak CHEAP Oil, not peak energy. A gallon of gas is worth like 500 man-hours in energy content. Energy is just way too cheap, which is why the world wastes it. There are so many things we do with energy inefficiently. Bottom line is that most "useless eaters" (to quote the alleged "cabal") will need to live like rats in a city and use dense mass transportation and energy efficiency paradigms.

And once you get people crammed into dense cities, then you build 1000 breeder reactor nuclear plants (breeder means you never run out of fuel), then no peak energy at all.

The current lifestyle and energy paradigm is peaking. The only possible way to continue current lifestyle/energy paradigm of mobility and daily transportation load, would be some new technology, such as aluminum smelting powered by breeder nuclear power plants, as I have written about previously in this thread. The nuclear energy can be stored in the aluminum and alumnum could be a mobile transportation fuel. We need carbon to produce aluminum, and there may plenty of coal in the world for that, especially if we capture and reuse the CO2 (carbon dioxide) byproduct of aluminum smelting.

EROEI of breeder nuclear reactors can be made quite reasonable with enough economy-of-scale investment, improving the designs, making them last longer with lower maintenance, and get burearacy out of the way.

EROEI of wind and solar is excellent, the problem is one of scale and distance to consumption centers.

For more info:

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse


If the plan is to kill of billions in next several years with starvation, then the peak oil issue could be muted for a while.

Shelby wrote:See 30 - 35 min:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5182282754145092406

Hope you don't mind, I will post this to my forum anonymously.

>
> Thanks, Shelby, I haven't had a chance to watch the video yet. I
> generally understand that with ethanol production from sugarcane there is
> a very labor intensive component (basically, manual slave labor), some
> issues about ecosystem damage (deforestation?), and whether a world on the
> brink of famine will more likely use the sugarcane for food production.
> Still, so far, it seems to work well on a small scale and in the
> appropriate climate/topography conditions.


You are repeating the Rockefeller propoganda. All false. Watch video.

Deforestation is an oxymoron for those who live in tropics. I can't cut the trees fast enough to keep them from growing back to fall on my house again in 6 months.

Rockfeller paid the woman's political groups to create prohibition because he couldn't compete with economics of ethanol, back when the EROEI for oil was 50+.

And think about why the world has been put on a sugar diet of mega corporations such as Coke? And why is Coke recipe secret (because it contains chemicals to make us addicted for life). I no longer consume anything with sugar (only fruit and nature sugars), because sugarcane was not made to be processed by the human body.

>
> It's been a least a couple of years since I've read articles on ethanol
> from sugarcane. I wonder if you could start a plantation somewhere in the
> Phillipines? I bet you would look good in a straw hat and stylish
> sunglasses!


Why do you think Rockefeller impoverished (colonized) the tropics so that there would be a tight political control over all economic activity in tropical countries? No one can create a large scale business here without the blessing of the "cabal" controllers.

>
> BTW, why do you think gold shot up on Friday?

See stockcharts.com free chart for dollar index. Had a candlestick top to 87. This is likely the turning point.


> The UK banking system
> troubles, the CIBC report predicting inflation in the U.S., the move by
> large investment groups to buy gold (esp. ETFs, I understand) as a safe
> haven, the knowledge that the price of oil may soar since OPEC intends to
> cut production by 4 million barrels a day or more even though global
> demand has only dropped by a half-million barrels per day, or some
> combination??? I was actually thinking of purchasing some gold eagles on
> Friday, if nothing else just on principle, then the price shot up and I
> was left wondering what dynamics were in play.


You must read this about bullion (join the forum anonymously with a free email address):

Privately owned bullion will become unbuyable by dealers due to money laundering!!??

https://goldwetrust.forumotion.com/precious-metals-f6/how-will-we-physically-trade-gold-silver-at-5000-500-t61-90.htm#831

>
> From an article I skimmed today, apparently, the feds are briefing bank
> executives on how to handle bank holidays and also there are concrete
> moves being taken to start the process of capital controls to include
> limiting how much cash you can remove from your bank accounts and what you
> will be allowed to do with those funds.