I’ve read that it takes 4x more alcohol then gasoline, so as they bump up ethanol you are being leaned out effectively?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
is alcohol better than electricity?
- Thread starter boyoboy
- Start date
Not four times but yes. Gasoline stoichiometric ratio is 14.7:1. Ethanol is 9:1. You need about 50% more fuel flow if you switch to straight ethanol.
boyoboy
Well-known member
ok I will check my sources of disinformation (is it russian ? ) but im not sure what disinformation you are accusing me of with an eye roll. lol.boyo - check your sources sometimeTry not to spread nonsense
If you are in Ontario gas fired turbines are rarely every used - only on a very hot day as they are a backup.
So for all intents and purposes, an EV in Ontario is carbon neutral.
Nuclear is carbon neutral and Canadian reactors very safe....there has been one running in Hamilton suburb near McMaster since the 50s ...go see it - walk over the nuclear reaction.
View attachment 57269?
The problem with nukes is cost.
Or you can continue to swallow Russian propaganda
I did ask several questions. Care to clarify what the misinformation or nonsense is that ?Im spreading lol. perhaps with a quote for reference.
Last edited:
boyoboy
Well-known member
I think this guys a russian mole too. listen to this. if he has a printing press - throw away the key. lol. opinions vary, russian or not.
The switch to gas is a move Jack Gibbons, from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, believes will be disastrous for Ontario’s emissions and attempts to reach net-zero.
“That’s absolutely the worst possible strategy, we need to reduce our greenhouse gas pollution, not increase it,” he told Global News. “We should instead be investing in the lower cost options: energy efficiency, renewables, buying low-cost Quebec water power.”
I want to hear discussion. its good.
The switch to gas is a move Jack Gibbons, from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, believes will be disastrous for Ontario’s emissions and attempts to reach net-zero.
“That’s absolutely the worst possible strategy, we need to reduce our greenhouse gas pollution, not increase it,” he told Global News. “We should instead be investing in the lower cost options: energy efficiency, renewables, buying low-cost Quebec water power.”
I want to hear discussion. its good.
KLR Junkie
Well-known member
And the significant environmental cost of extracting and refining the uranium. And of course the ever increasing volumes of incredibly toxic waste that we have no good way of dealing with.
Our current 'stick it in a hole next to the Great Lakes and forget about it' plan is a real genius idea. I'm sure that there won't be any seismic activity or changes to the water level over the next few thousand years....
But of course, if all we're concerned with is CO2 emissions, then have at it.
Methanol is 6.5:1 ratio. Now, that may be the answer to my question. Because you need to dump in a lot more alcohol than gas, the heat required to vaporize it is far higher (more due to flowrate than different heat required to vapourize a unit of fuel). That ups charge density which increases hp.
Biomass isn't efficient enough to fill all our energy needs. It's a great way to utilise stuff that would otherwise go to waste. Growing corn specifically to turn into alcohol fuel isn't great when the energy usage of farming is accounted for.
That aside, alcohol is a good fuel for engines that have been designed for it (high compression)...but then they can't run on petrol any more. Flex fuel engines are compromised to be able to run on both.
We need a mix of different technologies, one solution isn't necessarily going to work for everything.
In discussions of alcohol fuel, beware the US "corn lobby"...
That aside, alcohol is a good fuel for engines that have been designed for it (high compression)...but then they can't run on petrol any more. Flex fuel engines are compromised to be able to run on both.
We need a mix of different technologies, one solution isn't necessarily going to work for everything.
In discussions of alcohol fuel, beware the US "corn lobby"...
Turbos help some with that. Still some compromise but far less than on a NA engine. Lots of people running E85 on the weekends at the track and reflash to happily run hi test during the week. Drop a few hundred hp but range per tank on E85 sucks.
KLR Junkie
Well-known member
Back in 2012 I wrote my undergrad thesis examining the merits of American ethanol production from an environmental policy point of view. In summary, corn-based ethanol only makes sense as an agricultural subsidy policy, not as an environmental policy.
The energy balance was a net negative (this was 12 years ago, things may have changed) and it was an environmental disaster (this has not changed) with no meaningful reduction in GHG emissions over conventional petroleum fuels (life cycle analyses back then varied from about 10% more GHGs to about 10% less GHGs for ethanol, depending on the factors taken into consideration).
And yes, beware the corn lobby. American agri-business would pretty much go bankrupt without ethanol, so they very willing to play dirty to keep the cash flowing.
The energy balance was a net negative (this was 12 years ago, things may have changed) and it was an environmental disaster (this has not changed) with no meaningful reduction in GHG emissions over conventional petroleum fuels (life cycle analyses back then varied from about 10% more GHGs to about 10% less GHGs for ethanol, depending on the factors taken into consideration).
And yes, beware the corn lobby. American agri-business would pretty much go bankrupt without ethanol, so they very willing to play dirty to keep the cash flowing.
I agree with you regarding ethanol production, but there's a really long list of agricultural programs/subsidies in the US aside from ethanol, and to be fair in every country with an ag industry.
There is enough extractable power sitting in cooling ponds to run the planet for 400 years,
There are "volumes" of low level radioactive waste that are easily dealt with
Hospitals, dentists, other industries all use radioactive substances and vitrifying those is a mature industry.
There are NOT volumes of high level as it's not waste.
Fuel rods retain 90% of their available energy of which 95% can be extracted in fast reactors.
The entire "volume" of high level "waste" would occupy a football field 3 meters deep ..and that's from Day one of the nuclear age.
Fast reactors also reduce the volume and the half life dramatically.
The headache is cost of new full sized reactors and the red tape that comes with.
SMRs are a useful tech and one has been approved for Ontario on an existing nuke site.
There are other nuclear power devices as well.
US startup unveils battery made from nuclear waste that could last up to 28,000 years - Energy Live News
The nano-diamond battery's power comes from radioactive isotopes used in nuclear reactors
www.energylivenews.com
and other approaches to isotope power.
Science | AAAS
www.science.org
You worried about radioactive waste.....worry about coal tailings...
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste
By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation
I've been irradiated with rads at levels far beyond those deemed safe for nuke workers.....and I'm alive because of that ( cancer treatment).
Last edited:
Why I changed my mind about nuclear power | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxBerlin
Michael Shellenberger is co-founder and Senior Fellow at the Breakthrough Institute, where he was president from 2003 to 2015, and a co-author of the Ecomodernist Manifesto. Over the last decade, Michael and his colleagues have constructed a new paradigm that views prosperity, cheap energy and...
boyoboy
Well-known member
corn for fuel or food. suits with vested interests. sob.
I took a look at brazil, not any better - has millions of alcohol only vehicles; and lotss of sugarcane. but as someone mentioned earlier- agri is dirty. seven million hectares in sugarcane...
I remember some british visitors who flew over the uranium mines near Elliot Lake commenting to the local newspaper about what they saw from the sky. "this would never happen in the UK" they were commenting on the vast waste tailings spread over 10's of square miles of wilderness. In some places entire lakes are filled with waste tailings. Its all you can see for miles. They still leak.
So I do wonder about gas and fracking.
I took a look at brazil, not any better - has millions of alcohol only vehicles; and lotss of sugarcane. but as someone mentioned earlier- agri is dirty. seven million hectares in sugarcane...
I remember some british visitors who flew over the uranium mines near Elliot Lake commenting to the local newspaper about what they saw from the sky. "this would never happen in the UK" they were commenting on the vast waste tailings spread over 10's of square miles of wilderness. In some places entire lakes are filled with waste tailings. Its all you can see for miles. They still leak.
So I do wonder about gas and fracking.
There is no free lunch.
Wind turbines and photoelectric arrays are as close as you will get to benign sources of energy. (I don't care about the NIMBYs who don't want to look at them.) And those produce...electricity. Not hydrogen, not alcohol.
My new car has a feature called "delayed charging". If it knows that it is plugged in at home (has GPS), you can set a time that you want it to be charged by (I have it set for 7 AM), and it figures out when it should start (generally wee hours of the morning). Once set up, I don't have to think about it, just plug it in. The next step is smart charging and bidirectional charging ... and with that, all those millions of EVs plugged into the grid some time in the future can also serve as buffers between renewable-source generation (irregular) and demand.
Wind turbines and photoelectric arrays are as close as you will get to benign sources of energy. (I don't care about the NIMBYs who don't want to look at them.) And those produce...electricity. Not hydrogen, not alcohol.
My new car has a feature called "delayed charging". If it knows that it is plugged in at home (has GPS), you can set a time that you want it to be charged by (I have it set for 7 AM), and it figures out when it should start (generally wee hours of the morning). Once set up, I don't have to think about it, just plug it in. The next step is smart charging and bidirectional charging ... and with that, all those millions of EVs plugged into the grid some time in the future can also serve as buffers between renewable-source generation (irregular) and demand.
The body of water or cooling towers the generating station is next to removes a significant amount of thermal energy.
Once the superheated steam leaves the High Pressure and then the LP turbines it needs to be moved further along so more steam can enter the turbine
The energy left in steam is now depleted and needs to be reheated.
Since steam cannot be pumped it must be condensed back to water so it can be pumped back to the boilers for reheating and back into superheated steam.
Here, lake water provides the coolant for the condensate and some thermal energy is lost to the lake.
It's all part of thermodynamics, converting steam energy into mechanical energy entails losses.
Nuclear power is insanely complicated method of producing electricity, but well worth it.
Since I can't sleep, my two cents.
McMaster reactor has no turbines nor steam iirc. Just a core used to irradiate things. Tower is there in case cooling water temp climbs.
You're right. I touched a nine volt battery to my tongue and alcohol was better.
Did you let the smoke out?
|
|
|
|
|