Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
> - possibly you are not aware of all the resulting problems:
I am _more_ than aware enough. I work in the research/tech
support center of a major oil company.
> the mix can not go in a pipeline;
Doh! Why would you want to, since many locations don't need it.
Especially into the big pipelines (Colonial & Plantation), the
rule is fungible only, unadditized.
> it can't be stored for any length of time,
Doh! You can't store regular gasoline all that long either.
It _does_ contain up to ~10% olefins.
> mixing generally being done into the final delivery vehicle
As are many additives. Perfectly good so long as it's done
ratably, inline. No bucket dosing, please!
> and the broken engines *are* real - even small amounts of
Engines break every day. Why not blame the fuel?
> water and you lose octane *big* time.
IIRC the BRON of ethanol is ~130. At 2% that's 0.8 number on
91 fuel. Frankly, there are bigger problems. It's very easy
to plug FI filters. Many people in the ethanol-mandate areas
add various gasoline antifreezes, often containing methanol.
> As already mentioned the mid-west FFT boondoggle is just
> Daschle's pork barrel.
Fully agreed.
> I've already mentioned scale and I hardly think the auto
> business in Brazil can be compared with that of the U.S.
Of course it can be compared. It's about 1/4 the size,
but has been running 10% ethanol for 30+ years.
> in Brazil which have the temperature extremes we have in
No, it's hot & humid all the time.
> the northern states, which contributes significantly to
> the storage problems.
Underground is remarkably constant temperature. And anyone
seriously storing fuels ought to have a drier on the vent,
if not full gas blanketting. Tank breathing is the big
problem with temperature changes.
> Of course they exist; the fact is that they are
> not economically viable and unless we get the major
> breakthroughs already mentioned they never will be
Economic viability can be reached different ways. Reduced cost
would be nice, but increased alternative cost is far more likely.
What happens when crude oil creeps to $100/bbl or higher?
> cryogenic storage in a vehicle (-240'C) is absurd.
Hardly. Dewars and send the boil-off through fuel-cells for
keep-warm, battery charging or back-into-grid. Probably best
suited for large, high-duty-cycle vehicles like busses (of
which there will be many more).
> [magnesium hydride is one] but again not very practical... the
> disposal problem as just one example.
I _love_ to dispose of magnesium!
> While the fundamental research could be valuable, producing
> vehicles at this stage is just a waste of the energy which
> is supposedly so precious - the pollution balance is even
> less convincing.
There are lots of practical problems that can only be discovered
with fleet testing. This _is_ fundamental (engineering) research.
-- Robert
George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
> - possibly you are not aware of all the resulting problems:
I am _more_ than aware enough. I work in the research/tech
support center of a major oil company.
> the mix can not go in a pipeline;
Doh! Why would you want to, since many locations don't need it.
Especially into the big pipelines (Colonial & Plantation), the
rule is fungible only, unadditized.
> it can't be stored for any length of time,
Doh! You can't store regular gasoline all that long either.
It _does_ contain up to ~10% olefins.
> mixing generally being done into the final delivery vehicle
As are many additives. Perfectly good so long as it's done
ratably, inline. No bucket dosing, please!
> and the broken engines *are* real - even small amounts of
Engines break every day. Why not blame the fuel?
> water and you lose octane *big* time.
IIRC the BRON of ethanol is ~130. At 2% that's 0.8 number on
91 fuel. Frankly, there are bigger problems. It's very easy
to plug FI filters. Many people in the ethanol-mandate areas
add various gasoline antifreezes, often containing methanol.
> As already mentioned the mid-west FFT boondoggle is just
> Daschle's pork barrel.
Fully agreed.
> I've already mentioned scale and I hardly think the auto
> business in Brazil can be compared with that of the U.S.
Of course it can be compared. It's about 1/4 the size,
but has been running 10% ethanol for 30+ years.
> in Brazil which have the temperature extremes we have in
No, it's hot & humid all the time.
> the northern states, which contributes significantly to
> the storage problems.
Underground is remarkably constant temperature. And anyone
seriously storing fuels ought to have a drier on the vent,
if not full gas blanketting. Tank breathing is the big
problem with temperature changes.
> Of course they exist; the fact is that they are
> not economically viable and unless we get the major
> breakthroughs already mentioned they never will be
Economic viability can be reached different ways. Reduced cost
would be nice, but increased alternative cost is far more likely.
What happens when crude oil creeps to $100/bbl or higher?
> cryogenic storage in a vehicle (-240'C) is absurd.
Hardly. Dewars and send the boil-off through fuel-cells for
keep-warm, battery charging or back-into-grid. Probably best
suited for large, high-duty-cycle vehicles like busses (of
which there will be many more).
> [magnesium hydride is one] but again not very practical... the
> disposal problem as just one example.
I _love_ to dispose of magnesium!
> While the fundamental research could be valuable, producing
> vehicles at this stage is just a waste of the energy which
> is supposedly so precious - the pollution balance is even
> less convincing.
There are lots of practical problems that can only be discovered
with fleet testing. This _is_ fundamental (engineering) research.
-- Robert
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram