Talk Morgan Forums Community Vehicle Talk (non-Morgan) E10

Agreed , it is just like the BS about the UK starting a coal mine for specific coal to make steel. somehow it is fine if that coal is dug up in Oz & shipped to the UK. Selective analysis is great.

Trouble is with Oz coal, they have to go down under for it.................

Having been following the Malaysian Borneo de-forestation to produce this stuff I cannot but agree.

I have used E10 extensively in my 1980 +8, 3.9L on trips across Europe without problems.

Indeed. The correct answer to the problem of reducing fossil fuel usage is to reduce fossil fuel usage, not to come up with even more environmentally-damaging alternatives that encourage people to carry on as if there's no problem.

Peter

Synthetic ethanol , produced from ethylene, is much more than 95% efficient , more like 99.5%.
Fermentation ethanol is produced from fermentable carbohydrates, this is now generally referred to as Bioethanol.

When I left the chemical industry the split on a global basis was about 50:50, but since then fermentation has increased, thanks to subsidies (esp in USA) and other inducements, and synthetic has fallen as the value added to ethylene is smaller than other options.

The big issue with all fermentation ethanol is that the fermentation process will only produce something like 15 to 20% ethanol in an aqueous process, you now need to get rid of the water which is done by distillation (which uses energy). The highest concentration you can achieve by distillation is 95 to 96% as it forms an azeotrope (constant boiling mixture) This 95:5 product is used in Brazil as a neat fuel (due to their plentiful sugar cane production of ethanol) . Elsewhere the presence of water is gasoline systems causes all sorts of issues so the minimum concentration of ethanol for blending is normally 99+% , the higher the better, therefore the water has to be removed by another distillation process using a co-solvent or entrainer (used to be benzene or mono ethylene glycol)

Ethanol burns without significant difference to hydrocarbon fuels with the possible exception of traces of acetaldehyde or acetic acid, the other combustion products are the same, however there are some real benefits:
Due to the latent heat of vaporisation the incoming charge is cooled so the engine will run cooler
The octane rating is higher so blenders do not have to use so much of the alternative higher value hydrocarbons.
Because there is oxygen in the fuel (compared to hydrocarbons) the Carbon Monoxide produced is much lower.

I have probably bored you all to death by now , so I will happily step down off my soap box

Andy,

that completes the picture, much appreciated.
It seems to me that Bio ethanol only makes sense where there are vast excesses of cellulose that would otherwise go to waste.
I can't see that growing a crop that requires fertilisers and pesticides and Government subsidies makes any kind of sense.

Very interesting Andy, you are welcome to add more knowledge to the pool at any time.

Don't mix it up with the medicinal whisky one...

If I remember correctly US farmers were given subsidies to produce crops for ethanol. This was apparently an eco/subsidy based combination to justify payments to farmers. Ethanol production increased quite a bit and a surplus was created due to limiting the percentage in petrol. This surplus came into the global market and various governments jumped into the eco argument to use it. Some, like Brazil, used their natural resource of sugar cane to produce their own.
ICE vehicles need a combustible fuel. There may well be ways of changing from petroleum to alternatives but each will have production, emissions, chemical reaction issues to deal with. In theory hydrogen looks pretty clean but the production, distribution and safety management can reduce the emissions benefits.
Are we ever going to have a true clean system for powering transport? Is there an energy source that could be used either directly itself or in secondary form as in used to produce fuel ?
The growth of a modern global economy has led to decisions to move production and ship goods further. As local economies expand to produce their energy needs increase. Longer transport distances increase energy usage on top. Should we start producing on a more local level? Will the global conglomerates alter their profits by not going to cheap labour, H&S, grant availability by producing locally for their markets?