Topic: Ethanol fuel (Read 1163 times)

ethanol fuel is a high-octane fuel, but rarely used for vehicles because the price is also quite high. so rarely used for daily consumption of materials

etanol dengan jenis yang sama dengan yang di temukan pada minuman beralkohol dengan penggunaan sebagai bahan bakar etanol sering kali dijadikan bahan tambahan bensin sehingga menjadi biofuel

If you make your own fuel, it will be much more expensive, than ordinary fuel from gas station. You can check this link, there are a lot of nice information on biofuels - http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/BioFuel/biofuels.htm.

I was referring to LNG/CNG and you were referring to LPG. Both are different. LPG is slightly more efficient than LNG, but even then it is around 20% less efficient when compared to gasoline. 1 liter of gasoline is equivalent to 1.2470 liters of LPG.

I have a car from Holland. It installed equipment for the use of LPG. Gasoline consumption in the city of 8 liters and 8 liters of gas. The dynamics of the car on gas even better.

Traditionally all prices rise, this is nothing LPG specific. Currently in Australia, our LPG prices are roughly half the cost of petrol which makes LPG a cheaper alternative. I've converted my last three cars to run on LPG, the last one being a 1997 Subaru Impreza WRX.

There can be power losses when converted depending on the LPG system used. Typical mixer systems show the greatest power loss, with vapour injection losing less and liquid injection losing the least. Most quality vapour and liquid injections systems shown minimal loss at best over petrol and the vehicle can usually be re-tuned for LPG to run better than petrol.

In Australia the only increased cost of LPG ownership post initial purchase is having your tank checked every ten years to ensure it is in good condition. Other than that it's standard maintenance for the vehicle ie. check filters etc.

Higher risk of explosion is a load of bunk. LPG tanks are designed to withstand higher puncture forces and are less likely to rupture in the event of an accident.

As for running ethanol, I personally think it's a great alternative fuel. I run a dedicated race car on 85% ethanol and it loves it. The obvious draw back, as others have mentioned, is the lower energy density of ethanol. Most modern engines don't have an issue with ethanol and you usually only need to check rubber components in the fuel system to make sure that they are ethanol compatible.

Perhaps you are comparing the prices of 1 liter of CNG with 1 liter of gasoline. The energy efficiency of natural gas is lower than that of gasoline. 1 liter of gasoline is equivalent to 1.5362 liters of LNG. So you should compare the price of 1 liter of gasoline, with that of 1.5 liter of LNG.

Ok I agree with you, but if I were to give some more cons it would be:
-Rising prices of LPG (it used to be much cheaper 10 years ago than it is now)
-Higher risk of explosion after a crash. Gasoline rarely causes the car to explode it usually just burns, unlike in the movies.
-LPG equipment require checkups and maintenance that you will have to pay for
-The loss of power is significant, that's why you rarely see sports cars running on LPG

Ethanol fuel is considered as one of the best alternative fuel other than fossil fuels. Ethanol is also greener than gasoline, because corn and other plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow. The fuel still releases carbon dioxide when you burn it, but the net increase is lower. Potentially, ethanol is also tailor-made for newer, higher-compression engines. Problem is, Ethanol has a lower energy content than energy-rich gasoline and diesel, and as such it delivers less power when burned.

Tell me what is the meaning of the investor to invest in the production of bioethanol? It is not profitable. It seems to me that before investing the money will have to be developed completely new technology.

The reason is not because countries does not want a cheaper fuel but the problem relies on the shortage of fund by the government to make this project be realized. And aside from that there are no companies that invest in all countries providing ethanol to everyone. Possibly later on when ethanol expands its business many countries will shift to ethanol.

Engine modifications for the use of liquefied gas is not required. An extra injection system. It is quite another. The petrol engine remains. And the price of gas is really 2 times cheaper than gasoline. Can check it at the gas station.

Usage of LPG or CNG in cars require engine modifications. And unlike ethanol, LPG/CNG is not considered as 100% pollution-free. And  although CNG is slightly cheaper than gasoline, I don't think that it can be 50% more cheaper than gasoline.

I believe that electric cars are the future. I hope soon to be upgrading batteries and the movement will become cheaper. I think that the ethanol and gas do not solve the problem so in the future people will abandon this type of fuel.

+10% gas easily overlap 50% savings on fuel cost. The loss of power I don't notice. Install the gas valve is not modification of the engine and installation of additional equipment. Cars can drive on both petrol and gas. The gas tank in the trunk is certainly a problem, but when you drive around town you rarely use the trunk so it was no problem.

Do you mean LPG? It's not as great as you're saying.
Firstly it does require engine modifications! You need an electronic valve system that feeds gas to the engine, because unlike gasoline it's pressurized and will look for the smallest opening to escape.
Next there's the cost of the tank that has to be fitted inside of your car's trunk. And lastly your car loses some of it's power. The engine will be a bit weaker on LPG and you will burn about 10% more LPG than gasoline on the same distance.

Aside from providing less energy, these "green" fuels also come with environmental drawbacks. Many of these crops are tropical and we've seen large swathes of forests fell to grow these, like how Indonesia and Malaysia are clearing land for palm oil plantations.

I would rather focus all research on greener electricity sources like geothermal, wind and wave, and on increasing battery capacity to make electric cars cheaper and more reliable.

Trying to make the most of our waste would also be nice. Rather than let all that methane out in the atmosphere, why not use that to power houses.

Already, many farmers prefer the cultivation of rapeseed. Rapeseed oil to sell and easier to store easier. In addition, there is no problem with GMO content. This culture is greatly impoverishes land so the West will now create all the conditions for growing on the territory of the former USSR this culture. Large subsidies to agriculture in the EU are doing is not beneficial to the export of any agricultural products except wheat and canola.

Instead of oil your country will end up importing food as farmers switch from food crops to ethanol producing crops.

In my country, as fuel for the car is very widely used gas. It does not require engine modifications, and gas costs 2 times cheaper than gasoline. Bioethanol will not stand such competition and its production does not make sense.

Ethanol may be cheaper than gasoline, but there are drawbacks. Burning 1 gallon of ethanol fuel gives 34% less energy than burning the same amount of gasoline. Its energy content is about 70% of that of gasoline. Also, current version of the motor engines will need upgrades to make them work with ethanol fuel.

In Brazil, ethanol comes from sugar cane.
That's too bad.

Much easier industrially to produce methanol, or ethanol, from natural gas using a steam reforming process.  The only thing that makes alcohol difficult to use as a fuel is the curious idea that it must or should come from biomass.

i guess that could work depending on how much space and how good the land for farming is.
if its just replacing food for fuel production then it would be bad.

Not really. There's a lot of land that isn't farmed by anyone and is fit for biomass. The land in Eastern Europe and Russia is very cheap, if somebody wanted to produce biomass on a large scale it wouldn't be a problem there. I've even read somewhere that Russia is giving land for free if you're willing to cultivate it.

I think one of the biggest problem is the used biomass which are mainly crops that we humans or farm animals eat.
We would need to cut our food to have fuel - atleast with todays technology.

Even if the price is the same, it is most definitely worth it.

If you're importing all your petrol, you're esentially sending money away.
Once you produce your own fuel, you're creating jobs and payments that stay within your own economy with that same money you would anyways use on petrol.

The simple answer is cost. 

Cost comes out in two ways.  The first is cost of production.  On an energetic basis, ethanol is less energy dense than petroluem products like gasoline, so it has to have a lower volumetric cost of production to maintain parity.  Given the ethanol technology currently available, the cost of producing the ethanol in most places is going to end up very near or at the current price of fuels from petroleum. 

I'v already heard about Brasil going completely green and independent with their fuel
However, recently I'v read some more about it
My country import 82% of its oil, and I'm pretty certain most of our countries are importing
With so many people in a bad situation I can't avoid asking the question how many jobs would transferring to ethanol based fuel instead of the imported petrol create? *metaphorical*
Our own farms with our own workers on our land producing our fuel, completely green and healthy for the planet
How expensive is it to transfer to the ethanol system?

Esentially ethanol fuel is cheaper than petrol
Why are countries that import oil not investing in this system that is cheaper and doesn't send your money outside the economy?