Pros and Cons of Alternative Fuels

5
2160
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

At the dawn of the automobile age, gasoline was the up and coming “alternative fuel” – vying with electric batteries and steam power. Gas ultimately won out, of course. But now that we’re running low on unleaded – or at the very least, getting sick of paying $3 per gallon for it – a variety of 21st century alternatives to gasoline are entering the pipeline.

These include:

* E85/ethanol –

Essentially, alcohol created from vegetable matter and mixed with gasoline or used undiluted and “straight up.”

Most of the “gas” sold in America today is actually only 90 percent gasoline; the remaining 10 percent is ethanol. No special modifications to the vehicle are needed (although older cars with carburetors instead of fuel injection – mostly, models built before the mid-1980s – may need to be adjusted slightly to compensate for the high alcohol content of modern “gas”).

E85 is 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline. GM and Ford both offer E85 compatible new cars and trucks designed to safely use this fuel (they can also run on regular gas when E85 is not available; however, you should never use E85 fuel in a standard vehicle not made to operate on E85).

The advantages of ethanol-laced gas and E85 include lower emissions of unburned hydrocarbons (which form the precursors of smog) as well as the potential for a significant reduction in U.S. dependence on non-renewable, petroleum-based fuels such as gasoline. Most vehicles can be set up to operate on E85 at relatively low cost and there is no loss of performance or power. Another nice thing about E85 fuel is that it degrades quickly in water and therefore presents a much lower risk to the environment than an oil or gasoline spill. (See http://www.e85fuel.com/index.php to learn more about E85 and ethanol fuels.)

* Biodiesel –

Vegetable oil can cook your fries as well as power the vehicle that gets you to the drive-thru. An interesting fact of history is that diesel engines were originally designed to run on vegetable oil – peanut and linseed oil – not petroleum-based diesel fuel. And they can run on vegetable oil just as well today, too.

Biodiesel is not the same as raw (unprocessed) or waste vegetable oil, the stuff fast food joints use to cook with (though that can be run in diesel engines, too). It is, however, made from vegetable oil – with its chief advantage being that it can be used in any compression-ignition (diesel) engine with little or no modification necessary (the use of unprocessed raw vegetable oil in diesels requires pre-heaters and other fuel system upgrades).

Biodiesel is also less toxic than table salt — and biodegrades as fast as sugar. ( See www.biodiesel.org for more information about biodiesel fuels.)

* Electricity –

Electric cars were first sold almost 100 years ago and are making a comeback today with models like the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf, among others.

The idea of eliminating combustion engines entirely has always had tremendous appeal. However, engineers have not yet overcome the problems of high up-front costs (the 2011 Chevy Volt has a sticker price of $41,000), limited range (the 2011 Nissan Leaf can go about 100 miles before its batteries need to recharged), extended recharge times (several hours/overnight) and relatively poor performance compared with gas-powered (or diesel) vehicles.

There are also environmental issues remaining to be dealt with – including the storage/recycling of hundreds of pounds of toxic/caustic materials in the battery packs and the emissions produced by the coal and oil-fired powerplants that produce the electricity used to charge those battery packs.

Still, the latest crop of electric cars are light-years improved over earlier efforts. The Volt, for example, is capable of carrying a family of four (instead of just two people, like the 1990s-era GM EV-1) and because it carries its own on-board generator (a small gas engine that isn’t connected to the drive wheels) the Volt has an operating range more than three times as long as the old EV-1’s.

* Hydrogen/fuel cells –

This technology uses a fuel cell to generate electricity, with liquid hydrogen as the fuel. The electricity produced by the catalytic reaction in the fuel cell powers electric motors, which propel the car. Unlike traditional electric cars, which have to be plugged in to recharge their batteries, a fuel cell vehicle creates its own electricity and so is independent of charging stations.

Hydrogen is an abundant element and the energy produced by a fuel cell is 100 percent free of harmful byproducts (water is the primary “emission”). However, practical problems remain to be overcome – the biggest obstacles being the economical mass production of pure hydrogen and the second being the infrastructure (pipelines, refueling facilities, etc.) necessary to get the hydrogen to end users safely and efficiently. But several automakers – including General Motors and Honda – have prototype fuel cell vehicles under development and we may see a breakthrough sometime during the next 5-10 years or so. (see http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogena…ls/basics.html for more information about fuel cells.)

* Compressed Natural Gas –

Like hybrid gas-electric vehicles, the use of compressed natural gas (CNG) is seen as a workable intermediate step between conventional gas-burning cars and a future form of propulsion which doesn’t use gasoline at all (such as a fuel cell or electric car). The U.S. has vast reserves of clean-burning Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and it is relatively easy to modify a conventional car engine to operate on this fuel. In addition, some of the necessary infrastructure (pipelines, etc.) to get CNG to end users is already in place – because CNG has long been in use for home heating purposes and so on.

GM, Ford and Chrysler have been building CNG-capable cars and trucks for several years – and offering them for sale to both private individuals and municipal fleets. The cost per car is roughly $1,500-$4,000 more than an equivalent , gas-only version of the same vehicle. (See http://www.cngnow.com/EN-US/Pages/default.aspx).

Throw it in the Woods?

Share Button

5 COMMENTS

  1. Man, you completely ignored HHO. Search YouTube and build one yourself. It doesn’t require a multi-billion $ government grant nor a degree in rocket science. Simple HHO generators will increase gas mileage and sophisticated ones can replace gasoline entirely. It really does work! I will let you figure out why we have been lied to about HHO.

    • Hi Dennis,

      The article was focused on what’s available and (so far) fuel cells haven’t progressed to production car availability. I understand that’s not the same as saying fuel cells aren’t viable. Just that you can’t really go out and buy one yet.

      • HHO did exist as a light source I just read. It was called limelight. I’m not refuting anyone or anything, just throwing a wildcat into the discussion as per Rothbardian Helot,,,

        It can also be used to process metals like platinum. If you want to do something with it, make yourself a blow-pipe. You’re welcome.

        But you’re a journalist in an established field. Well whats remains of the field anyway. HHO is a fringe discussion, no one’s making a living off writing about the way people are in the automotive industry.

        Whenever you see this

        We’ve been lied to about X… X is usually a fringe product somebody is trying to make a buck selling as an internet shill.

        You have to dig deep to find the truth. HHO was a viable thing that got memory holed. A lot like how Germany’s Zeppelins got discredited and grounded, with the whole Hindenburg psy-op, crisis of convenience.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen

        Fringe science and fraud
        “Brown’s Gas” is oxyhydrogen with a 2:1 molar ratio of H2 and O2 gases, the same proportion as in water. It is named after Yull Brown, who claimed that it could be used as a fuel for the internal combustion engine. It’s also called “HHO gas” after the claims of fringe physicist Ruggero Santilli, who claims that his HHO gas, produced by a special apparatus, is “a new form of water”, with new properties, based on his fringe theory of “magnecules”.

        Applications

        Limelights used an oxyhydrogen flame as a high-temperature heat source

        Lighting
        Many forms of oxyhydrogen lamps have been described, such as the limelight, which used an oxyhydrogen flame to heat a piece of lime to white hot incandescence. Because of the explosiveness of the oxyhydrogen, limelights have been replaced by electric lighting.

        Oxyhydrogen blowpipe

        Nineteenth century bellows-operated oxy-hydrogen blowpipe, including two different types of flashback arrestor
        The oxy-hydrogen blowpipe was developed by English mineralogist Edward Daniel Clarke and American chemist Robert Hare in the early nineteenth century. It produced a flame hot enough to melt such refractory materials as platinum, porcelain, fire brick, and corundum, and was a valuable tool in several fields of science.

        Oxyhydrogen torch
        An oxyhydrogen torch is an oxy-gas torch, which burns hydrogen (the fuel) with oxygen (the oxidizer). It is used for cutting and welding, metals, glass, and thermoplastics.

        Due to competition from the acetylene-fueled cutting torch and from arc welding, the oxyhydrogen torch is seldom used today, but it remains the preferred cutting tool in some niche applications—see oxy-fuel welding and cutting.

        Oxyhydrogen was once used in working platinum because at the time such a torch was the only device that could attain the temperature required to melt the metal 1,768.3 °C (3,214.9 °F). These techniques have been superseded by the electric arc furnace.

LEAVE A REPLY