If something like this means we can keep interesting cars around for longer, I'm all for it. Should be a great thing for stuff like boats where we still haven't reached the point where electric power can effectively replace an ICE.
If something like this means we can keep interesting cars around for longer, I'm all for it. Should be a great thing for stuff like boats where we still haven't reached the point where electric power can effectively replace an ICE.
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:Using alcohol isn't a big deal. Having a fuel that is robust to everyone, from Arizona to Fairbanks, is the important thing, to me. Brazil has E100 for consumption, but the cars also have a small gas tank for cold starts. I would hope that we could have a better fuel to start engines than that.
Back to the old diesels with a spray can of ether under the hood, just automate a squirt at startup? And maybe a hair dryer of sorts to pre-heat the air being fed to the intake for cold starts?
In reply to rslifkin :
For sure, one could. Just adds a complication that not many consumers would like, though. The DEF isn't something that is overly popular....
A fuel that could be put in an existing car that has no flex fuel capabilities, without any sort of emissions recertification, would have a much wider market. I could convert my wife's Accord or my '66 Dart to run on methanol with the right parts - but getting that Accord conversion CARB certified would be another matter.
In reply to MadScientistMatt :
Methanol is CH3OH Stoicheometry is 6.4:1
Ethanol is C2H5OH Stoich is 9.1:1
Butanol is C4H9OH 11.1:1
Gasoline averages C8H18 14.7:1
Of the alcohols, butanol has the closest Carbon to Hydrogen ratio to gas, and stoich is closest, but not close enough. Need some longer chain HC's to make it work right. Some bio oil, possibly.
I'm really not sure where it would end up being, but that's something that has to be kept in mind if we really want a fully bio fuel for the fleet.
Richard, it's not about not having oil, it's about not WANTING to burn it to reduce total CO2 emissions to curb cliimate change. CO2 leads to a tree friendly planet, but may make us go extinct, so depends on your goals 
It would be interesting to see what can scale quicker:
I think the trickiest part of the 3rd is that the cost/tech is futher out than the other two. Likely great to keep some exisiting infrastructure going (people that can't won't convert to different vehicles, or not economically viable).
Agreed with the challenges on methanol other than frenchy can't drink it. It's great in race cars but for retrofit vehicle use, it's not so great. Maybe better solutions but will depend a lot on additional technologies to get there.
Siemens is restructuring heavily to enable this with an entirely new corp to suppor things like this, including electrolyis technologies. Google it, it's a big move.
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:frenchyd said:alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to frenchyd :
Did you read the notes? It's not distilled liquor. It's methanol made from H2 and atmospheric CO2- that's what makes it different.
Haven't you read what I've posted countless times? Methanol is nasty stuff. It's commercially made from coal and produces some nasty by products.
Drink a glass and die.
Ethanol on the other hand, Drink a glass and get happy. It's growth produces oxygen while its growing and bio degrades back into nutrients for the soil. It doesn't have to be corn. Many natural products can produce ethanol.Sorry, but gasoline and diesel are also not on my regular diet, so having methanol not be good for me isn't a big deal.
Also, you still didn't read the news- this is methanol made from H2 (probably from electrolysis) and atmospheric CO2. Not coal, not wood, not any other source to fabricate methanol. H2 and CO2. Pretty interesting. So when you have an area of lots of excess energy, you can make H2 from H2O, harvest CO2 from the air, and then turn that into methanol. Solving multiple things at the same time- energy storage, liquid energy for vehicles, and reduction in atmospheric CO2.
Do you want me to explain all the ways methanol attacks the human body? Look at the equipment drag racers use now days. Because it's a tiny community it doesn't make the news. But read the medical literature.
As far as their process, I've been reading about that same process for decades. Not being a chemical engineer some of it gets lost to me and I just sit back and wait for their predictions to come true.
I'm not going to say they will ultimately fail. Like I said I'm not a chemical engineer. My issue is more, "should we?" Does it have to be methanol? Why not Ethanol?
In reply to frenchyd :
The process is not quite 5 years old. And Methanol because it's the simplest alcohol. Also, there's a tremendous industrial demand for Methanol.
I'm sure there are a lot of people trying to make ethanol from atmospheric CO2 and H2, but the chemistry to make that happens is a lot more difficult.
Making CH3OH just requires a capture of one CO2 molecule to make it
And I am guessing that the chemistry is
3H2 + CO2 ---> CH3OH + H2O
This may not be the most efficient battery storage device, but it is useful.
Ammonia and methanol will come first then the fancy stuff. You will need to treat byproducts (formaldehyde, etc) but not the co2 as it is carbon neutral already.
also anyone that doesn't believe in some sort of human induced climate impact should view this cartoon as you need it spelled out for you a bit https://xkcd.com/1732/
I for one have no personal attachment to fossil fuels one way or the other. They make my car run, so i use them. If something else can make my car run for a similar price with similar performance, economy, and reliability, and its better for the environment, I'm all for that. Whether this project by Porsche is that, I don't have the expertise to know (though I expect engineers working for Porsche do have the expertise).
The whole 'pry my fossil fuels out of my cold dead hands' shtick is just as dumb as people who used to say the same about leaded gasoline and asbestos brake pads. Why anyone would have an attachment to something just because its what they've "always used" is beyond me, especially if the replacement is intrinsically better. If everyone had always felt that way, we'd all still be driving steam-powered cars.
I've been saying for 20+ years we need basically an AWD plug in electric car with a multi fuel ICE generator in the trunk, tiny even to aid solar in charging the batteries where even if the batteries were dead you could run the generator to get you to a charging station in a 30-45 mph limp mode. Propane, fry oil, synthetic fuel, hydrogen, gasoline, e100, Bacardi 151, whatever you can find.
I think more people would be on board if they knew they could throw a couple of camping style canisters in the car for a road trip
Oh, we need paint that looks normal but is transparent to the solar panels layered into the body's composite body panels
In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :
Like I said not being a chemical engineer I may have processes mixed up. Or who's taking the latest flyer at it. But I most recently heard about it on NPR years ago ( National Public Radio ) before that various articles I've read.
I thought it was a promising concept originally ( that was before Cold fusion, Just to place the timing. ) So we are talking decades not just a few years.
In reply to RichardSIA :
RichardSIA said:Unicorn farts and electrified pipe-dreams will not run any car I own nor will ever own. So unless you or others intend to seize my cars by force and take them from me it's ICE for as long as I live.
Anyone happy to endure the next generation of transport is welcome to do so, just as long as they do not attempt to force me into the same predicament. The underlying issues here are far more than just a new Snake Oil, AKA "E-Fuel"*
As the old quote goes, "May your chains rest lightly upon you".
Nobody is trying to take your ICEs.
In reply to RichardSIA :
ICE transportation has been around only 150 years, and on a mass population basis, just about 100.
So the idea that it's permanent solution is kind of nuts. Tech will certainly change that some day. We don't need laws like horse owners put in place that were anti car.
It's also kind of odd to proclaim that ICE's should not be regulated, as they are heavily regulated to mitigate the direct harm to the public and environment right now. Which is also an indicator that human activity can impact the environment in a negative way.
While i have my doubts right now over EV's, I accept that the tech will change.
STM317 said:Nobody is trying to take your ICEs.
Wouldn't it be nice to have Richard participate in abating climate change through synthetic fuel, so even him as a skeptic can be part of the solution?
RichardSIA said:The0retical (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to RichardSIA :
A question mark in a blue square?
Hmm, symbolic of the whole discussion?
Unicorn farts and electrified pipe-dreams will not run any car I own nor will ever own. So unless you or others intend to seize my cars by force and take them from me it's ICE for as long as I live.
Anyone happy to endure the next generation of transport is welcome to do so, just as long as they do not attempt to force me into the same predicament. The underlying issues here are far more than just a new Snake Oil, AKA "E-Fuel"*
As the old quote goes, "May your chains rest lightly upon you".
*BTW, the backers of this may have to find another name for it, seems E-Fuel is already taken by another group. Reference turned up quickly when I researched links I've already posted.
Please stop trying to flounder the thread.
I reay wish it weren't so, but if you can't register or insure a vehicle you can't drive it, so if "they" say no ICE then no ICE it is. Thats why we have to hire the people sensitive to our position and no this "ban cow farts" crowd
In reply to Justjim75 :
Any "bans" that I've seen discussed or legislated have been on new vehicle sales only. I'm not aware of any case where legislators are banning ICEs already on the streets from being registered. And, by being carbon neutral the fuel used as the topic of this discussion is actually likely to extend the viability of ICEs from a regulatory perspective.
You'll need to log in to post.
