A few years ago, Brazil had alcohol-fuelled cars that seemed to be running pretty well. It seems to be a pretty good alternative, with a net zero on greenhouse gases, since the growth of the sugar cane required to produce the alcohol would also counteract the CO2 produced by burning it.
Whatever happened to the program? What were the drawbacks? Why is this technology not being mooted as the future for cars?
Second vaguely related question: one of the positive by-products of electric or hydrogen-powered cars will be a lack of engine noise. However, this will also have the effect of reducing the inadvertant audible warning given by the combustion engine. Will cars be required to have a noise-generating machine other than the horn for urban travel (like the new trams in Dublin, which have a synthesised ‘ding ding’ noise as well as a horn)?
About 1/2 the cars in Brazil run on ethanol alcohol. Alcohol is OK, but has a few problems:
-it has only 1/2 the energy content of gasoline, so you have half the range
-it does not vaporize well at temps. below 50 F: makes for cold start problems
-incomplete combution of alcohol results in tailpipe emissions of formaldehyde (i.e. embalming fluid)
It works in Brazil because Brazil has a huge surplus of sugar cane, and the excess sugar is fermented into alcohol. The distillation of the alcohol is done by burning the bagasse (sugar cane residue).
As mentioned, cars that run on alcohol need special modifications:
-no natural rubber in fuel line systems
-retared timing to compensate for slower burning rate than gasoline
Would it work anywhere elso? probably not…unless you have a lot of sugar that you can’t sell!
Between 1980 and 1995, Brazil produced cars that ran on alcohol only. Between 1983 and 1988, they accounted for around 90% of all cars sold. The problem was, was that they ran on alcohol only (the timing of the engine has to changed due to alchools higher octane rating). IIRC, the cars and fuel were both heavily subsidied by the government to lessen reliance on oil imports.
In 1989, the alcohol ran out. The reasons for the shortage are disputed (the government blamed the producers, the producers blamed the government). What ever the reasons, the public confidence in the scheme evaporated and sales of new alco-cars pummeted.
In 2001, production of dual fuel (gasoline/ethanol) cars was restarted, but without big government subsidies, they aren’t too popular. The cost of producing alcohol from sugar cane has dropped a lot and is now cheaper than oil.
There are a number of drawbacks to using sugar cane as a base for ethanol. Fistly, it needs a lot of land. Big fields of moncoluture. Bad for bioversity and bad for small traditional farms. Bad for food prices. It requires a large amount of unskilled manual labour during harvest. This means lots of very poor marginally employed workers. This has led to severe social unrest.
I’m assuming you mean fuel cell hydrogen cars, not IC engine hydrogen cars, which I have heard and they do sound about the same as an IC engined car.
I don’t know that I “hear” engine noise in a well-muffled car in time to avoid it. I think most of what one hears is road noise from the tires, especially on the motorway.
You can scrub almost anything, and I do mean almost anything. It’s all a matter of how much money and effort and efficiency loss you want. Scrubbing sulfur can take from 1-5% of the energy output of a power plant, and scrubbing NOx can take from 0.2-2% of the output. Scrubbing particulates can take another 0.5-3%, and mercury/heavy metals up to another 1%. In terms of capital and O&M cost, however, you can quickly run into some serious expenses (and safety concerns - two weeks ago I had to undergo ammonia “safety training” four freaking times at four different power plants and [rant]it just keeps getting funnier every single time! Yes you buggers I know ammonia is dangerous, I know not to drink/eat/rub ammonia all over myself, I know where the windsock is, I know where the PBEs are located, and I’m tired of watching your inane high-school media department-quality produced videos…argh![/rant]).
Just a WAG, but could the failure have been due to inefficiency? In other words, could it be the case that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than what you get out of it?
I don’t see what one has to do with the other. It takes more energy to produce electricity in a power plant than you get out of it as well. Any conversion of energy is inefficient. The economy, however, is not based around energy but money. If they get money producing ethanol, they’ll do it. If they don’t, they won’t. I don’t quite understand why people talk so much about the inefficiency of ethanol production whenever it’s discussed.
That used to be the case, but I haven’t seen any in years. Could it be because I moved from Illinois (where they may still have them) to SC (which doesn’t have them)?
This is not true. Let’s look at a nice governmet web site. Ethanol is added to cars (in the US) as an anti-knock agent. The alternative to ethanol is MTBE, which has been banned in several states, so they have to use ethanol. The Federal Law requies that
If we move as far west as we can go (sorry Hawaii) we end up in California. Let’s look at what Chevron have to say. They, after all, make gasoline. 2.2% Oxygen Flat limit.
After some problems (as noted by other posters), Brazil’s alcohol-as-fuel program is making a comeback. Auto makers are supporting it by offering “flex-fuel” cars, which can use either gasoline or alcohol.
It is true, of course, that no conversion of energy is 100% efficient. However, this has to be accepted where the energy input is of a lower quality for the intended use of the energy than the output .
Your example of the power plant is a prime example. We do not have coal or water powered computers or refridgerators or air conditoners. Therefore we have to accept the loss in conversion.
The conversion of energy to ethanol or hydrogen mostly involves the conversion of oil or gas to a energy source which is essentially equal in its characteristics., ie, both can be burned in internal combustion engines. Therefore, we cannot accept the high loss of energy which the process entails.
Excalibre: You first have to ask the following question: Why is it desirable to have a car run off alcohol?
If (on a per mile basis) it is cheaper for a car to be powered from alcohol vs. gasoline, then I would be all for it. But keep in mind it must be cheaper on the open market, with any government subsidies taken into account.
So is alcohol cheaper than gasoline on a per mile basis? I don’t know. But I have my doubts.
Let’s assume alcohol is indeed more expensive on a per mile basis when compared to gasoline. Someone could argue that alcohol is still a good thing because it is “clean burning.” But is it really cleaner than gasoline?
Let’s say a farmer puts two gallons of diesel fuel in his tractor. And with his tractor he plants enough sugar cane to make one gallon of alcohol. Can we still claim alcohol is “clean burning”? Of course not.
To summarize, I have a strong suspicion that alcohol is more expensive than gasoline on a per mile basis. I also have a strong suspicion that a lot of fossil fuels are being burned to prepare soil, plant seed, pull cane, and process the “clean burning” alcohol. If my suspicions are correct, why should we have alcohol-powered cars?
