Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Alcohol from wheat

Alcohol from wheat

chief - 3-2-2009 at 03:00

The legality-issues aside: How is it possible to make C2H5-OH from wheat (raw delivery, not flour) ?
Behind the question: In EU 1000 kg, directly from the producer, coast only 110 EUR (thats right: 11 cent/kg); with a good conversion-mechanism it would be good for car-fuel (most modern car-engines of gasoline-type are 100% capable of running on ehtanol, since it's an maybe-upcoming standard (methanole too)) ...

This is gonna come up anyhow in the future, so why wait for the government to tax it ? Please no ethical counter-argumentation, since the 3rd world hungers despite world-over-production of food , for political reasons ...)

not_important - 3-2-2009 at 04:03

By using an obscure process known as brewing.

1. malt the grain
2. roast the malt
3. crush the malt
4. add to sterile water to make the mash
5. take the mash through a controlled temperature sequence to activate the various enzymes the hydrolyse the carbohydrates and to some extent proteins. you want a β-amylase heavy rest to convert as much of the carbohydrates to simple sugars as possible.
6. boil the mash, omit adding hops
7. separate the grains and precipitate proteins from the liquid
8. cool the wort, aerate with sterile air, add yeast - a high alcohol tolerating strain
9. allow to ferment
10. separate yeast from beer.
11. concentrate alcohol from beer. pervaporation is gaining favour for the first stage, as it reduces energy input. Corn grits can be used to dehydrate the alcohol-water azeotrope in the vapour phase, the grits are reusable by drying and when degraded too far are added to the mash.

The spent grains and yeast are used as animal feed, heating and cooling steps arranged so as to reduce energy use. While at one time efficiency was of lower priority, energy input coming from coal or wood, currently keeping the alcohol from consuming too much energy in its production requires moderate to large scale facilities to maximize energy recovery from what would otherwise be waste heat.

Might want to look at
http://www.aaccnet.org/cerealchemistry/backissues/1995/72_36...

[Edited on 3-2-2009 by not_important]

chief - 3-2-2009 at 05:24

That document gives a experimental yield of 443 l/tonne barley, close to the theoretical yield of 468 l / tonne ...

How would it be with wheat ? Baley is known, I believe, for very easily given the malt, and containing the right enzymes too ...
Also the sorts of barley are extra-selected for the purpose ...

How would I proceed with the variable average grain from a occasional cheap source ?

Sauron - 3-2-2009 at 10:09

Automobile engines before the 1970s were capable of running on ethanol-water mixtures (no petrol) with only very minor adjustments to carburator,

Changes introduced in the 1970s make this now extremely difficult, requiring instead the so called gasahol mixtures of petrol and ethanol, with a great limitation on economy.

In my opinion it is a major blunder to shift food crops to energy use. Better to focus on non-food crops. The subject gets bogged down in politics as the policies are driven by subsidization of argro-industrial giants and have little to do with reality, and thus being political are outside of the scope of this forum.

DerAlte - 3-2-2009 at 22:04

Sauron wrote:

Quote:

In my opinion it is a major blunder to shift food crops to energy use. Better to focus on non-food crops. The subject gets bogged down in politics as the policies are driven by subsidization of argro-industrial giants and have little to do with reality, and thus being political are outside of the scope of this forum.

Right on, Sauron. The link between science and government is vey tenuous. Same goes for economcs, except pork production. I can remember when the world treated reality as real instead of some PC claptrap generated by the special interest groups that have hijacked our democracy. But hush, lest I get pulverized. And I don't want to ruin a perfectly valid thread...

Regards, Der Alte

chemrox - 3-2-2009 at 22:25

@Sauron: Hear, hear! EtOH is lousy fuel. E.g, 10% EtOH added to gasoline reduces the mileage per gallon by ~ 10%. It's political feel good thing to say they're doing something...at least biodiesel users recycle used oils. And its good for diesel engines. One last comment; to make EtOH from grain you basically make beer and distill it to an immature whisky. IMHO you're wasting two worthwhile products by burning it in a vehicle ;^)

[Edited on 3-2-2009 by chemrox]

Sauron - 4-2-2009 at 03:30

The inescapable fact is that we are using too much fossil fuel and so called alternative energy cannot make a dent in that consumption. The top 20 or so altfuel technologies if they all come to druition might add up to 20% total consumption. Therefore, comsumption must come down. A lot of things we took for granted in the 20th century will simply have to go. A great deal of personal transportation will be among the first casualties. Not today not tomorrow and maybe not in our lifetinmes but certainly this century.

not_important - 4-2-2009 at 04:32

Quote:

The inescapable fact is that we are using too much fossil fuel and so called alternative energy cannot make a dent in that consumption. The top 20 or so altfuel technologies if they all come to druition might add up to 20% total consumption.

Perhaps. But the U.K. might be able to avoid too much harm, in opinion of some:

http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html

chief - 4-2-2009 at 11:51

If here in EU , where gasoline costs 2 EUR/ liter, the C2H5OH can be had for 25 cents per liter, guess what will be despite the hungering africans ... (and I could go into _that_ too: They live largely on imported grain, paying with credit money ..., stupid globalization) ...

The water-content of the ethanol could be reduced by distilling over Ca(OH)2, from the hardware store, 25 kg for 3.50 EUR ...
Also maybe it could be dried with Na2SO4 (to be recycled) ??

The car engines these days are made for ethanol-gasoline-mixtures, and also for _clean_ ethanol ... ; maybe one needs 30% more volume of this fuel, but it should work well, once obtained from the grain ...

Now to the wheat: As I understand, the special thing about barley is that it gives a lot of malt-content, so it's the ideal grain for brewing ...
But how would wheat or other grain be proceeded, for efficiency ?

not_important - 4-2-2009 at 20:31

Same way, or with mostly wheat and some barley or rye.

As I already stated, using corn grits or other high complex carbohydrate plant materials to dehydrate the vapour phase azeotrope works well. Ca(OH)2 isn't going to dry it, you need CaO. As neither that nor hydrated salt formation is used to dry ethanol on a commercial scale, this suggests that they are not practical or efficient enough.

Distillation, both the concentration of the beer and the dehydrating step, are the major energy consumption steps of making fuel alcohol. This is why pervaporation is increasingly being used, and why various absorptive processes are being pursued for drying the alcohol.

The paper "Cornmeal Adsorber for Dehydrating Ethanol Vapors" is reprinted here:

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_grits.ht...

Ozone - 4-2-2009 at 21:00

Cellulosic ethanol is doable and does not enter the food chain (and there is a $1.01/gal subsidy). Unfortunately, practice is less efficient than theory, and the technology that works on the bench is not ready for industrial deployment. If you burn crop residues instead of natural gas or fuel oil (e.g. sugarcane mill) cellulosic ethanol is a win.

That leaves us with oil crops which have similar food-related problems.

The big problem with non-food oil crops:

The things we don't eat tend to be poisonous.

From the US point-of-view (be that as it may), planting acres of poisonous material (ricinus or jatropha) is a bad idea (homeland security and all-that). Jatropha is getting a push, but it also contains toxalbumin similar to our pal the castor.

That leaves us with algae (and of course, the best ones, such as Caulerpa taxifolia, are toxic). These are difficult to grow in bulk and dewatering is costly, energy-wise. Still, I'd keep an eye on algae.

For barley and other grains, crush, boil (to swell the starch granules) add a-amylase* (starch is an a-polyglucan, a b-amylase will go for cellulose) and ferment with turbo yeast. You could even perform the fermentation under vacuum and heat with a high temperature enzyme (such as Tergamyl from recombinant lichenformis). This allows for rapid saccharification (Arrhenius kinetics apply), removal of toxic ethanol and opens the possibility of adding more substrate (fed-batch mode). This sort of thing is referred to as simultaneous saccharification and fermentation or SSF. For SSF, your saccharification rate will be limited by the tempearture that the yeast can withstand (which I don't recall, off-hand). A two step (with high temperature saccharification, eg. 90°C) with multiple pots might actually give higher yields per unit-time (stagger the batches).

*note that a pure amylase will only get you to maltose (alpha) or cellobiose (beta). A secondary glucoamylase is required to move all of the way to glucose. This does not really matter because most amylases contain both enzymes (or demonstrate both activities) and the yeast is perfectly happy with maltose.

Corn grits do look surprisingly good!

Cheers,

O3

Panache - 6-2-2009 at 04:54

Quote:

Originally posted by not_important
By using an obscure process known as brewing.

Ha!

To quote myself
'any fermentable sugar can be converted to ethanol using airborn yeasts, correct hydration and temperature conditions and time. Upping the yeast concentration via a technique know as 'going to the local brew shop, buying the yeast and adding it to the fermentable sugar/water mix' will speed things up considerably.'

@sauron. Is it as tedious for yourself as it is to me that no matter how obvious the arguments pertaining to consumption reduction, you still hear all and sundry prattle on about biofuels/renewables blah blah blah as if they were some kind of silver bullet. (apologies for the cliche count in that last sentence, we can't all be former journalists)

chief - 6-2-2009 at 12:04

I wasn't talking about global politics ... ; as long as 1000 kg wheat coast me only 110 EUR, I'm gonna think of how to convert this. Besides the real prices of corn would be even much lower ; but the market is regulated in a manner to counter over-production, because much more can be produced than anyone needs ...
And as long as government & big oil pull the money out of everybodys pocket it's more than all right to think about ethanol from corn ...

Those against it might answer something useful in the fischer-tropsch-synthesis thread I opened maybe 1 year ago: Making fuel out of coal ... (50 Bar @ 200 Celsius needed, + catalyzer ; maybe some old car-catalyzer could be used ?)

Besides here in Germany there are even people who directly burn wheat in the oven, since it's cheaper than coal ... ; that's how it is. My mother too taught me that wasting food would be a sin ; but this comes from times of hunger, which for parts of the world most of the time do not exist any more ... ; the others suffer because of politics, not because of wasting ... ; that politics is partly sponsored by big oil ; so it's even good, to bypass oil-industry and drive the car with corn, indirectly, as long as no direct conversion is invented ...

[Edited on 6-2-2009 by chief]

[Edited on 6-2-2009 by chief]

not_important - 6-2-2009 at 15:36

Quote:

Originally posted by chief

Those against it might answer something useful in the fischer-tropsch-synthesis thread I opened maybe 1 year ago: Making fuel out of coal ... (50 Bar @ 200 Celsius needed, + catalyzer ; maybe some old car-catalyzer could be used ?)

cobalt, iron, or ruthenium; nickel favours methane. Promoters are added, careful control of the crystal structure and size are important. Cobalt is more active than iron.

Sulfur poisons the catalyst, iron is less sensitive and is cheaper so it often is used with frequent replacement, or used as a first stage to capture sulfur, help promote water shift, and do some conversion to hydrocarbons, again with frequent replacement.

The water shift would be important if starting with coal or agricultural wastes as it converts some of the water, formed in the reduction of CO, into CO2 and H2.

As the product is a complex mix of hydrocarbons, considerable post f-t processing must be done starting with fractionating the crude product. The lighter hydrocarbons are feed back to produce more syngas and/or injected into the reaction area. The heavier hydrocarbons are cracked as is done for petroleum, taking additional hydrogen or producing much additional coke; the coke can supplement the coal input. Reforming is needed if Diesel fuel is not the target, as the predominately straight chain alkanes have low octane ratings

The energy input demand is high, 5 to 7 times the mass of coal as mass of hydrocarbon product. The refining process adds to the energy demand.

This energy demand is important, and one reason for the push for electric vehicles. Burning the coal in a modern generation plant allows around half the energy in coal to be converted to electricity; compared to 1/5 to 1/7 for F-T. Transmission losses to the consumer are under 10%. For trains this means that a little under half the energy of the coal ends up as motive power, compared to 5% to 8% (after engine losses) for Fischer-Tropsch produce Diesel fuel. For automobiles the ratio is a bit lower, as the battery charge/discharge process is only 80% (old tech) to 95% (new tech) efficient. However the powertrain losses come into play, and the final result is still better than 5 times the input energy for an ICE vehicle path than the more efficient BEv.

chemrox - 6-2-2009 at 19:36

It would be better to convert cellulose to heptanols or octanols; ethanol isn't good fuel. I hope someone here (in SciMad.Org) figures out the process. Meanwhile, the Fischer-Tropsche process is a model for the kind of process I'm trying to work on. The WWII Germans were desparate for fuel os 5-10% conversion efficiency was OK. Since then a number of workers have made CO into methane and methanol.. even higher alkanes. The continuiung issue is the energy demand in the form of pressure and heat. A catalyst that would facilitate conversion of CO2 to alkanes and light aromatics at modest temperatures and ambient pressure would solve the two biggest problems simultaneously. It is my continuing dream...However, the ultimate issue is overpopulatation. With a sustainable human population the planet could tolerate gasolene engines, coal fired plants and modicum of 'pollution'. I don't have a clue on that one; ask the Ayatollah or the Pope.

[Edited on 6-2-2009 by chemrox]

chief3 - 15-1-2015 at 18:47

Interesting ; how about the drying of Ethanole ... using calcium hydroxide , as was mentioned above ?
==> If this would work well ... the CaOH could be recycled by burning it to some temperatures ...

Also I have read somewhere about drying alcohol with Na2SO4 ... ; the Na2SO4 is cheap ...

Also: What about using plaster (CaSO4) ... ? This is available in any hardware-store ... and reacts with water ... , by taking it into the crystal-structure ; afterwards it can be recycled by moderate heat, the kitchen-stove might do it well ...
==> One 25kg-bag of plaster costs maybe 5$, and can bind maybe 5-8 kg of water ... ; so if it could bind _all_ of the water from a 90% Ethanol-Water mix ... the one bag could be useful to purify 50 to 100 kg of Ethanole ... ... ; anyhow the proper handling would have to be figured out: Constant stirring for maybe 30 minutes might be required, and the plaster might take some amount of Ethanol into its volume ...

==================

I have dug out this thread because of the biofuel-idea ; it seems to me that sugar would be a too expensive source of primary material ... ; various sorts of corn cost only 200 EUR/metric ton ... : If such could be converted to ethanole ... maybe it would be worth trying ... , since one would have to produce it significantly chaeper than commercial biofuel to make it worth going for it ...
==> The E85-Biofuel curently in Germany is slightly above 1 EUR/liter ... , so it would be nice if self-made could be had at around 50 cents ... ... ...

Also in Europe, and specially in Germany, there are historically bans of imported sugar, and price-kartels by law for standard sugar ... just to ensure a high enough price for the local sugar-makers ... ...

What do you tink ?

Hawkguy - 15-1-2015 at 19:13

Slightly off the dry alcohol topic and more onto the Ethanol from grains; If you wanna make Ethyl Alcohol, so it from sugar, its much easier, and less likely to have anything else going on. Ive done Potatoes and Barley before, waaaaay less fun than sugar...

Dr.Bob - 15-1-2015 at 20:11

Calcium salts form a goo with ethanol which is a real mess. That is why it is a bad idea to dry ethanol with Ca salts. Big time ethanol producers now use alumina and/or molecular sieves, which can be dried with steam/heat/vacuum and then reused multiple times. That is the cheapest and simplest way to dry ethanol.

If you want to make money figure out how to distill ethanol cheaply or even better a non-distillation way to separate ethanol from water. If there was a way to even remove ~5% of mostly pure ethanol from a 10% ethanol:water mixture, then you could keep brewing non-stop, and then have to heat only a small volume of ethanol to distill the pure alcohol, which would cut the energy needed drastically. That would compare to the use of reverse osmosis instead of distillation for the purification of water, which saves a tremendous amount of energy. Alternatively, solar energy could be used to distill the ethanol, but even that costs a lot in equipment costs.

Zombie - 15-1-2015 at 20:58

You guys are all WAY over thinking this.
I am a distiller. Have been for 2 generations in my family. I followed Gramps's lead.

You can ferment anything w/ simple bakers yeast. On to wheat. There are malt extracts available at any Home Brew Shop or on line. The malt contains enzymes that convert Starch into complex sugars/ simple sugars, and the yeast ferments these sugars, converting them into Eth.

Expect a 10% return at 100proof or 50%abv. Neither of which will fire an engine. (simple pot still)
If you run your mash thru a fractional/reflux column you will get about 5% return at azeotrope which WILL fire an engine.

Fact of the matter is Eth has more power per volume than Dino fuel, plus it burns cleaner.

Fuel injection needs to be re mapped to run well, and carbs need to be jetted leaner. Mileage therefore is increased.

Brazil is now the world leader in Fuel Eth production. I bring this up to vouch for my point. Any engine can/will run on Eth you can make at home.

Is it viable? Yes... If you have the energy to power a large boiler (55 gallons plus) or if you Vacuum distill (reduced input energy).

I don't know if it appropriate to post links to other forums so I will just state there are a few credible distillation forums, and I belong to one of them under the same user name.

Thru that forum I have designed a concentric column/mixed media/solar powered water fired boiler that runs under a vacuum assist.
Basically it is a column within a column that produces fuel grade ethanol using solar heated water.

I have some CAD drawings I can attach but I don't know how to "attach" yet.

Short answer is YES, you can run any engine you own on wheat!

Found the attach... This is the boiler / inner rectifying column / outer stripping column. The inner workings are quite simple, but the math to design it was not.

[Edited on 16-1-2015 by Zombie]

Mesa - 20-1-2015 at 14:12

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

You guys are all WAY over thinking this.
I am a distiller. Have been for 2 generations in my family. I followed Gramps's lead.

You can ferment anything w/ simple bakers yeast. On to wheat. There are malt extracts available at any Home Brew Shop or on line. The malt contains enzymes that convert Starch into complex sugars/ simple sugars, and the yeast ferments these sugars, converting them into Eth.

Expect a 10% return at 100proof or 50%abv. Neither of which will fire an engine. (simple pot still)
If you run your mash thru a fractional/reflux column you will get about 5% return at azeotrope which WILL fire an engine.

Compared to the specific mutant strains being universally advertised among Biotech shops capable of sustaining production of R-OH at near 20% concentration, it'd be far more worthwhile to spend a half hour researching what you want and ordering it from the labs themselves. I've done it before and had no issues with staff despite having no ABN(Not owning a registered company... For those outside of Australia.)

Quote:

Fact of the matter is Eth has more power per volume than Dino fuel, plus it burns cleaner.

Fuel injection needs to be re mapped to run well, and carbs need to be jetted leaner. Mileage therefore is increased.

Brazil is now the world leader in Fuel Eth production. I bring this up to vouch for my point. Any engine can/will run on Eth you can make at home.

Is it viable? Yes... If you have the energy to power a large boiler (55 gallons plus) or if you Vacuum distill (reduced input energy).

I don't know if it appropriate to post links to other forums so I will just state there are a few credible distillation forums, and I belong to one of them under the same user name.

Thru that forum I have designed a concentric column/mixed media/solar powered water fired boiler that runs under a vacuum assist.
Basically it is a column within a column that produces fuel grade ethanol using solar heated water.

I have some CAD drawings I can attach but I don't know how to "attach" yet.

Short answer is YES, you can run any engine you own on wheat!

Found the attach... This is the boiler / inner rectifying column / outer stripping column. The inner workings are quite simple, but the math to design it was not.

[Edited on 16-1-2015 by Zombie]

[Edited on 20-1-2015 by Mesa]

Luke - 14-2-2015 at 15:36

Making alcohol from wheat is easy enough, you will need enzymes to convert the starch in the wheat and then some way of separating the bits left over from your mash.

You will need a few things to do this on a large scale. A big pot you can heat water in, a plastic 200L drum with a brewing false bottom, a fermenter and some pale ale malt (grain, not the extract) for the enzymes.

Get 35kg of wheat and 7kg pale ale malt (or enzymes if you can get them) and crush it with a mill, dont crush it to a fine flour.

Fit the 200L drum with the false bottom. Add 150L Water @ between 65 and 70 Celcius. Add the grain to the drums and stir it up to make sure theres no lumps. Final temp should be between 62-66C. If its lower than that youll need to add hot water to bring it above 60C.

Let it sit there for 2 hours and then drain the liquid from the 200L drum to the fermenter. rinse the grains with additional hot water to fill your fermenter and extract all the sugars. Add yeast to the fermenter (bakers yeast is fine) and allow to ferment at above 25C. This will make a ferment at about 5% alcohol.

In a week it will be ready for distilling. If you do reading about 'cuts' on homebrew forums youll be able to drink it as well as fuel your car because you've basically just made a wheat whiskey.

I would mention that instead of using raw wheat use raw barley, it is a lot easier to drain from the 200L drum with false bottom. Edited to add ~ Wheat will basically set like glue. Maybe add some rice hulls (available from all brew shops) to assist with some drainage if you decide to go with wheat.

I would look at other sources of sugar available to you. In australia we can get bulk molasses for around $200-400 per 1000L molasses. It is about 50% sugar by weight and 1000L weighs 1500kg. So you get about 750kg of sugar for $200-$400

Using something like molasses means you dont have to expend energy doing the mash to convert sugar. PLus your ferment will be a higher alcohol content meaning less distilling

To ferment molasses just add 40L to 200L water and adjust ph to around 5, add yeast and away you go. This will make a ferment @ around 10%. You could experiment going higher (to a max of 20%) but i've never done this as it will create off flavours if you are going to convert to drinking alcohol. Edited to add ~ If you do cuts on you distillation you will make rum, even if using a reflux still.

[Edited on 15-2-2015 by Luke]

Zombie - 14-2-2015 at 17:20

Cool Hand Luke! My man! :cool:

blogfast25 - 15-2-2015 at 05:54

Is there even a modicum of truth in those "20 %" claims?

Luke - 15-2-2015 at 12:36

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Is there even a modicum of truth in those "20 %" claims?

Are you talking about the ability to ferment to 20% alcohol or that doing so makes off flavours?

Bakers yeast can easily get to 15% and turbo yeasts can get to 20%. The high alcohol in a 20% ferment really messes with the yeast though and they make some terrible flavours that are hard to distill out even when using a reflux still.

If distilling for fuel I'd probably ferment out to 18% or so, just so to not waste any sugars without making the yeast work too hard
There's no way youll get above 12%abv using wheat or barley without wasting lots of grain.

If distilling for drinking i wouldnt go above 14% for rum or 10% for whisky (which would be hard to do achieve using grain alone anyway).

14% for vodka would probably be ok but i usually stick to around 10%

blogfast25 - 15-2-2015 at 13:15

Quote: Originally posted by Luke

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Is there even a modicum of truth in those "20 %" claims?

Are you talking about the ability to ferment to 20% alcohol or that doing so makes off flavours?

The former. I like your answer and to the best of my knowledge (amateur brewer) it is correct. Thank you.

Varmint - 15-2-2015 at 14:52

Zombie, you are woefully incorrect on several points, why mis-state something so easily researched?

You state ethanol has higher energy than gasoline, the fact is, ethanol has 21.2 MJ/l energy, while gasoline checks in at 34.8.

You state ethanol burns "cleaner", but "cleaner" is a subjective (literally, what subject?) term. In order to work around the various subjective (NOX, hydrocarbons, CO2) statements, the Local Pollution Index was created (LPI), which is intended to compare and contrast based on the most meaningful parameter, pollution. Ethanol checks in at 1.7, gasoline at 1.0.

Lastly, even forgetting the CO2 generated in production of ethanol as fuel (yeast "bubbles" are CO2 so you start losing at the very first step!), since ethanol is a less efficient fuel, it takes more ethanol to do the same work, therefore creating more CO2 emissions than it's gasoline counterpart.

Terrible idea to waste food on fuel, inefficient to convert cellulose to fuel, and in the end, both vastly increase the CO2 emissions the lying "global (we want our hands in your pockets) warming" thieves have hitched their wagon to.

Will we eventually need alternative fuel? Almost certainly, but ethanol is not it, at least until people finally realize the global warming liars need to be in jail rather than directing policy.

blogfast25 - 15-2-2015 at 14:59

Varmint, I agree with almost everything you wrote except that bio-ethanol is supposed to be almost 100 % carbon neutral. It is nonetheless generally now regarded as a bad idea, except by a few hangers-on.

OOOOPSIE! Missed this bit.

Quote: Originally posted by Varmint

Will we eventually need alternative fuel? Almost certainly, but ethanol is not it, at least until people finally realize the global warming liars need to be in jail rather than directing policy.

Pure slander, Sir, nothing less. And throwing people in jail you disagree with is FASCISTIC!

[Edited on 15-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Dr.Bob - 15-2-2015 at 16:00

There are already threads on the topic of biofuels under miscellaneous. There are many opinions on the subject, and even the facts are highly dependent on the input as to what the output is. But the debate on global warming, energy "cleaness", and the politics of energy seem better suited to other areas of the forum.

Ethanol has a lower energy content per L than hydrocarbon gasoline, that is measurable. And turbo yeast can go up to 20% ethanol, under the right circumstances, which I have seen personally, I think we got about 18% in our case. And you can distill it to about 95% with the right still, but it takes a large input of energy, which may come from carbon burning sources. Plus the tractors, fertilizer factory, water pumps, and fermenting equipment all use some energy inputs. But fermenting sugars is certainly a viable way of synthesizing ethanol, which is an organic chemical, so that part of the discussion seems relevant to this part of the forum.

Ethanol is a great and very safe solvent, and can be made for about $5 per gallon by fermentation, it is a shame that taxes make it so expensive for most people. Methanol is even cheaper to make from natural gas but has toxicity issues. I would like to see continued work on producing iso-propanol and butyl alcohols from bio-based starting material processes, both of which are better for mixing with gasoline than ethanol, and both of which have many uses in the lab. And fatty acid methyl esters are another great fuel, we might need to use many sources of fuels as the oil deposits are used up. Nature does not seem to be making fuel as fast as we are using it, so it will eventually run out, and I would like to think up some good alternatives for when that happens.

Varmint - 15-2-2015 at 16:27

Blogfast:

My comments regarding jail are predicated on the FACT that these people know ethanol creates more CO2 start to finish, yet force us to subsidize ethanol production. Then they turn right around and discuss "carbon credits", taxes for carbon output, all the while enforcing the production of food to fuel.

So, if you know what you are legislating is a lie, then you absolutely do belong in jail.

You know people were willing to discount the East Anglia data because it was "gotten via illegal means" (idiots)!, but with the latest revelations, any one still clinging to global warming as a man-made disaster in the making are either incredible unobservant or willfully ignorant. Or both.

blogfast25 - 15-2-2015 at 18:21

Varmint:

I'm not willing to discuss anything with someone who advocates politically motivated imprisonments.

Go watch some more Faux Noise.

Varmint - 15-2-2015 at 18:27

You assume way too much bucko. R, D, it does not matter, legislate a lie, loose your job and your freedom.

Regardless, thank you for solidly identifying yourself as a mindless drone of the left. Your thoughts no longer carry any weight whatsoever, you discounted yourself to the point of no return.

Zombie - 15-2-2015 at 19:01

I don't want to distract what the thread was based on but as far as energy contained per sample Yes gasoline is higher BUT Ethanol can produce more power in due to a higher octane rating ie: advanced timing, higher boost pressures.
To be fair I did state in a different thread here (same op) that ethanol is a poor option for running internal combustion engines for most of the reasons stated here. If IC engine must persist however renew-able fuels are a must.
Dino will only last so long, and the energy required to attain it far out weighs that of ethanol if you combine the start to finished product. Combine that with environmental impact in harvesting... Ethanol is a wiser choice than gasoline.

For Carbon impact: The fermentation carbon dioxide can be captured, and used. It need not be allowed to escape into the environment
The E85 Alternative
"E85 is an alternative fuel comprising 85% denatured ethanol and 15% gasoline. Because fuel
ethanol usually comprises about 5% gasoline (added as a denaturant to make ethanol
undrinkable), summer-blend E85 actually contains about 80% ethanol and 20% gasoline (2). As
with gasoline, the volatility of E85 is seasonally adjusted to ensure adequate vapor pressure for
engine starting in winter, and to ensure against the occurrence of engine-stopping vapor lock and
excessive fuel evaporation in summer. To meet winter fuel volatility requirements, winter-blend
E85 will typically contain about 70% ethanol, as per American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Designation D5798-96: Standard Specification for Fuel Ethanol (Ed75-Ed-85) for
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines. Real environmental benefits are realized when using E85 in
place of conventional gasoline. A key benefit derives from the fact that ethanol is made from
renewable biomass, and biomass growth utilizes carbon derived from CO2 pulled out of the
atmosphere, which means that burning ethanol results in a near-neutral impact on atmospheric
CO2 level."

http://www.cleanairchoice.org/fuels/E85C02Report2004.PDF

Carbon Dioxide is only an issue to an environmentally crippled eco system. We have seen to that. De foresting is only one tied in topic. Much of it done to strip resources into money hungry hands. Be it coal / lumber / gold / or more oil.

One more little tid bit. I live on the coast of Florida on the Pan Handle, and the resulting issues from the BP spill here are much greater than anyone in the rest of the world are being told.
Levels of ethylbenzene in everything from plants to humans are at alarming levels. So yes I do have a biased opinion on this.

While I agree an end to IC engines is the real cure to many issues I stand strongly on re-newable fuels such as Ethanol, Methanol, Butanol in lieu of fossil fuels.

If they come to lock me up for that... There will be resistance.

Varmint - 16-2-2015 at 03:00

What is it with you people. Does every word have to be laid out before you understand? Legislator means law maker, as in elected official.

If you are an elected official and are using "global warming" as a means to introduce laws to help your corn as fuel contituents make taxpayer dollars by force of law, you nee to be in jail.

Similarly, if you are a law maker and have ever given the concepts of "carbon credits" or "carbon taxes" serious thought and or instituted laws even loosely based on them, you belong in jail.

Now, either one of you still missing the point?

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 04:37

Quote: Originally posted by Varmint

Regardless, thank you for solidly identifying yourself as a mindless drone of the left.

The moment you brought up 'Left' you lost the argument. This isn't about left or right.

Varmint - 16-2-2015 at 05:29

Listen buttercup, you brought up Faux Noise, so quit trying to deflect your impotence onto me.

Since you are decidedly dense, what I'm saying is I wouldn't have had to mention your bewildering adherence to leftist tenents had you not tried to impune my character by assuming I watch Fox News. Truth is, Fox isn't right enough for me, but they look wildy right to you because you have signed up for a lifetime of uninformed bullshit at the hands of the leftstream media.

"Bush Lied!", but if you research the Iraq liberation act of 1998, you will see Clinton (both actually) Kerry, basically all the big mouth lefties of the day screaming about the slam dunk Saddams WMD programs were. On the news, constantly being recorded trying to up the rhetoric, they finally succeeded in convincing the Us and many other nations that to think Saddam had no weapons was akin to not beliving in global warming. They were so effective at it, the passed, again, The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

Yet you leftist drones let them completely off the hook for making it a LAW, then disparage Bush for having "lied".

As if that wasn't good enough, getting out of Iraq and closing GITMO were the cornerstones of the useless "community organizer's" election, yet he doubled down on Iraq, and when was it that GITMO closed? Oh, that's right, it hasn't changed a bit. But did the community organizer lie about those cornerstones? Of course not, your only objection was a "R" was in charge! LOL.

You tools are worthless, but we righties have to hand it to you, you will die for your party's ideals, defend the indefensible, and generally shun anything that even causes you to begin to reconsider your beliefs as cooked up for your consumption.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 05:41

Quote: Originally posted by Varmint

Truth is, Fox isn't right enough for me, but they look wildy right to you because you have signed up for a lifetime of uninformed bullshit at the hands of the leftstream media.

Fox not right enough for you?

This:

http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/

... more your cup of tea, perhaps?

Varmint - 16-2-2015 at 06:08

Zombie:

You have it wrong again. You say ethanol allows higher compression and higher boost for turbos (blowers too), and while this is correct, what that means is you can burn more fuel to achieve that power. The bottom line is, there is a certain amount of energy available in a given unit of fuel. For ethanol, it is 21.2 MJ/liter. Compression won't change that by itself, what does change is the ability to force more of the appropriate F/A ratio into a given volume to be compressed prior to ignition.

The big problem with ethanol emissions is the high volume of ozone. Unfortunately this is ground level ozone, not the upper atmosphere sort that helps mediate solar UV flux. In any event, the previously mentioned LPI is a graduated scale where the various step are demarkated by level of severity and which groups of people most affected by said level. The primary constituent of the LPI polution, the major concern, happens to be ozone, both of which are produced in copious amounts by burning ethanol, and it is made significantly worse as the static compression (swept volume/compressed volume) of the engine, or dynamic compression (forced induction) increases.

This leads to something of an ozone runaway, you need more fuel and more compression (static, dynamic, or both) to match the power of straight gasoline, but you are pumping out more and more of the primary "offensive" pollutant in doing so. In case it wasn't clear, upping the compression ups the emissions outright, adding more fuel compunds the increase.

Now consider something. The LPI for gasoline is 1.0. With alcohol at 1.7, it's pretty clear that "cleaner" is a misnomer, the correct verbiage is "puts out less hydrocarbons and NOX, but pumps out vast quatities of the most closely monitored pollutant that causes human distress.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 06:14

Ok, I can handle that.

So in real world terms, and taking everything from finding the oil to what comes out the tail pipe, which one is more harmful in the long term to the planet?

Keep in mind I mean it takes machinery, and parts made from oil, and so on. Right down to the plastic pen or credit card that pays to go find more plastic making stuff.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by Zombie]

Varmint - 16-2-2015 at 06:15

Hey bloggo, no justification for the Iraq Liberation Act, staying in Iraq, closing GITMO, or even a word about "Bush Lied" as the left's favorite meme?

LOL. The funny part is the left can see their most deeply held tenents torn assunder in absolutely irrefutable fashion, yet they still cling to them without even a hint of reflection or remorse.

Kill those unborn babies, but save the lives of those murderers and rapists on death row, because all lives are worth saving!!

It would be funny it it weren't so ridiculous.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 06:15

Quote: Originally posted by Varmint

Zombie:

You have it wrong again. You say ethanol allows higher compression and higher boost for turbos (blowers too), and while this is correct, what that means is you can burn more fuel to achieve that power. The bottom line is, there is a certain amount of energy available in a given unit of fuel.

Unfortunately not in Zomb's World. Zomb's World is one where everything is particular and nothing is universal.

That different fuels have different Enthalpies (of combustion), no matter what, doesn't apply in Zomb's World.

In Zomb's World you don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 06:18

Zombies rock!

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 06:20

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

Zombies rock!

Let the Undead Rule! (NOT!)

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 06:32

I'm working on a linoleum based brain reducer.

Keep your feet in the air, and your head on the ground. You'll hear us coming.

Varmint - 16-2-2015 at 06:39

Zombie:

If you believe in global warming, ethanol is a death sentence for the world. It's obvious. It's so bad that the fact that we are using even small amounts of it now (having to subsidize it to boot) flies in the face of any concern for human health or the environment.

If you don't believe in CO2 as being anything other than a way for swindlers to get more money out of people, then there ought to be vast amounts of research in getting alcohols LPI down to, or preferably below gasolines.

Again, obviously we will end up consuming all the petro fuels that are cost effective to collect, so alternative research is required. The odd thing about petro fuels is how it was put into play so early on, almost as if the perfect fuel was found FIRST, only to be followed by poor substitutes. How often is it that the premiere solution is nearly (comparatively) the first?

My core belief is eventually completely synthetic gasoline will be engineered. The premise is just because it took millions of years of biologicals, heat, and pressure to make raw crude, does not mean the millions of years is the key element. Ergo, I suspect we will find a way to engineer the exact long chain molecules we need to exactly replicate the constituent elements of gasoline, and in doing so be able to avoid those that don't "help", and include only those that do.

In other words "gasoline" is not a fixed chemical formula currently, it is a blend of various lenght molecules that together create "gasoline". But using chemistry we can formulate only what is needed, perhaps even reducing "gasoline" into a single stand alone molecule. If not, we should be able to create all of the individual "contributors" and create a truly engineered substitute that is indistinguishabel from the "real thing".

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 06:47

I agree that more is needed. More research, more forethought, more truth as to what, and why.

I personally would rather see magnetic pulsed hydro dynamic engines put on the playing field, and combustion fuels done away with altogether.

I still don't see your point on oil vs ethanol. I would have to believe if it were one or the other ethanol would be the clear choice (sorry for the pun). Like I said... Looking at the big picture.

Granted neither is ideal. I came here to learn, and learn I will!

Varmint - 16-2-2015 at 07:29

Ethanol is poison curretly because of it's ozone emissions alone, not to mention it's other shortcomings.

Gasoline has more individual "bad" emissions, but ethanols score of 1.7 should make it clear that it has a VERY long way to go before being considered as a viable subsitute or even a blend.

You also have to be very careful with combustion alternatives. A friend here at work has a Nissan Leaf. It says Zero Emission right on the side of it. Trouble is, the electricity he uses to charge it comes from where? Coal, natural gas, nuclear?

Nuclear seems to be the answer if you can eliminate containment and shielding as issues. Something runaway-proof like a pebble-bed reactor might be the final answer, but how long until we all have reactors on our blocks or in our back yards? Beyond pebble bed, you are into "traditional" steam turbine reactors, and frankly the design is not foolproof and can never be so.

(Pebble bed, as part of it's fundamental design is thermal cutout. Past a certain high (yet still safe) temperature, the physical core geometry changes such that no higher temperature can be achieved. You could disconnect all cooling, monitoring, and even shielding, and it won't get hotter than it's design limit, and it cannot be forced into a condition to override that physical limitation)

So, "Zero Emission" is the next biggest lie after "global warming". What of carrying around a couple hundred pounds of lithium in each car? What is the environmental impact from havesting the ore, purifying it, forming the cells, and putting them all together? How much energy was used just for those steps? Currently electric and hybrid vehicles are heavily subsidized, what happens when the taxpayers are no longer on the hook for their chest-thumping "I care more about the environment than you do, thanks for the subsidy!" neighbors to drive their "Zero Emission" deathtraps?

Again, just like gasoline being the ideal fuel right out of the gate (relatively speaking) , internal combusion is also quite remarkable in its "fitness for the job". Imagine, 1 gallon of a comparatively light liquid moving as much as 2 tons or more down the highway, at speeds of perhaps 70MPH, and going for 25 miles or more on that gallon. And now consider that without federal, state, and local taxes, that gallon could be as low as 25-50¢ were it not for artificial price gouging. Even at $2 with all those taxes and profits for the supply chain, that is a tremendous amount of work to be done by one gallon.

Imagine any other fuel trying to match that. Imagine any other engine configuration that matches the total net efficiency. Now if we could store the heat exiting the tailpipe and reuse it (even elsewhere), and store the valuable combusion byproducts in an efficient manner, then it would be untouchable in efficiency.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 08:55

What are your thoughts on Hydrogen cells? Running magnetically pulsed pistons. Not in a conventional style engine but more in line with a hydraulic ram.

Hydrogen cells are the main question tho.

Or is this getting too far off the thread to discuss here

Varmint - 16-2-2015 at 09:30

Hydrogen is great.

Getting it is problem #1.

Transporting it is problem #2.

The extreme temperatures of the reaction raise NOX emissions to new levels when reacted with air for the oxgen supply. So, store both H and O onboard?

The unforgiving nature of an odorless leak and colorless flame make plumbing a daunting task, gasses are much more difficult to control and monitor than liquids.

I think the natural feeling is since internal combustion engines use gasoline, that somehow the design itself is flawed. Instead, you might consider how ideal the engine is, and reconsider going back to what amounts to a steam engine expansion cylinder. Because I can pretty much guarantee you the natural progression with go from the linear ram (steam expansion cylinder) to the V design before long anyway. So why not start with what is currently the most optimal configuration and rework it?

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 09:38

This is all about to rupture a vessel in my eye. I need a ham, and cheese sandwich, while I can still find the kitchen.

I'll have to give this a lot of thought, later.