44 replies to this topic

[Pingguest]

I have a couple of questions about gasoline, methanol and ethanol.

1. What's the main difference between methanol and ethanol? I only know that both chemicals are a sort of alcohol.

2. Are there any differences in engine sound if you compare gasoline, methanol and ethanol?

3. What's the loss of power if you use ethanol or methanol compared to gasoline?

Thanks!

[Stian1979]

Etanol and metanol is about the same.
The power loss is hard to tell compard to gasoline.
What are you actualy asking about? If you runn alcohol on a gasoline engine you will have a powerloss, but alcohol has a higher octane number than gasoline so you can have higher compresion and then higher power output.
On a identical engine the diference in power is about 30% if I remember corectly.

[McGuire]

A methanol/ethanol engine will sound distinctively crisper due to the higher compression ratio -- alcohol is very resistant to detonation allowing higher CR. And the methanol exhaust odor is unmistakable too of course.

Methanol and ethanol are rather similar chemically...of course ethanol is ethyl (grain) alcohol, methanol is methyl (wood) alcohol. Methanol is somewhat superior for racing use due to its slightly higher energy content but ethanol has the edge for road cars for several reasons.

Alcohols make more power than gasoline (around 15% or so for methanol) due not only to the higher CR, but because their molecules are much smaller. Gasoline contains twice the BTU's per pound, but alcohol makes more power because you can burn more of it per cycle with the same amount of air. Fuel economy is also poor with alcohols for the same reason. Stoichiometric (fancy word for chemically ideal) air/fuel ratio is 14.7:1 for gasoline; with methanol around 6.5:1.

[CWeil]

For what it's worth, in the gasoline engines I build, a high compression pump gas motor is in the range of 11-12.5:1 static CR, largely dependant on the engine. With ethanol, you might raise that 1, maybe 1.5, points. With methanol, I could run 14.5-16:1 compression. The payoff is in the power (a LOT), but the tradeoff is in fuel consumption volume.

Comparing a gas engine and a methanol engine of the same compression ratio, the methanol engine is always a lot louder. With the extra compression, it's definitely a lot louder, but the more compression you add, the cleaner and clearer is sounds as well.

Backfires with methanol, though, sound like a bomb. I've had engines on the dyno that had trouble starting up and had gotten some unburnt fuel into the exhaust, and when it finally started up, it backfired so hard that it blew the header straight off of the side of the head and shot a flame 12 feet in the air out of like 6 of the throttle bodies. Luckily I wasn't in the chamber, or else I would probably be deaf!!

[GSX-R]

Methanol is very toxic for human beeings

Because higher compression ratio, because you inject more methanol for the same stochio, because different specific and latent heats (this has also an influence on volumetric efficiency and then on power), you can expext more power.

Methanol's best for power, ethanol's best for health and the earth. Last but not least production efficiency is also best for ethanol.

However ethanol effiency production is very poor when compared to oil seeds fuel than can run diesel engines.

[CWeil]

It's interesting- ethanol is good for the environment because of what it is made of and it's greatly reduced emissions, yet bad because of what it does to surrounding componentry. It's a much much stronger solvent than gasoline, and eat through o-ring and oil barriers much more quickly. Requires more expensive, stout parts with shorter service lives. Also requires lubricant disposal more often, which isn't very good for the environment. Forget to change the oil in your ethanol-fueled engine and you're asking for trouble.

[GSX-R]

Ethanol's best for environment than Methanol, i've said.

From a CO² point of view (best candidate to kill life on earth), nothing can be worst than fossil fuels. That's it.

Best is oil seeds for environment.

[J. Edlund]

Gasoline
net energy content: 42-44 MJ/kg
SAFR: 14.6-14.8
density, typical: .72-.78
heat of vaporisation: 380-500 kJ/kg
boiling temperature: 25-215 degC
typical AFR for maximum power: 12.5
typical octane, approx: 93-102/85-95 RON/MON

Ethanol
net energy content: 26.8 MJ/kg
SAFR: 9.1
density: .79
heat of vaporisation: 845 kJ/kg
boiling temperature: 78 degC
typical AFR for maximum power: 7
typical octane, approx: 111/94

Methanol
net energy content: 19.7 MJ/kg
SAFR: 6.45
density: .79
heat of vaporisation: 1109 kJ/kg
boling temperature: 65 degC
typical AFR for maximum power: 4
typical octane, approx: 112/91

As you can notice the density of the alchols are slightly higher than for gasoline, energy content is much lower, especially for methanol. This will indicate a higher fuel consumption with alcohols. Energy content in relation to SAFR is slightly better for the alcohols, this results in some improvement in power output. This is especially the case when one compares with the AFR for maximum power, and especially for methanol. Heat of vaporisation is higher for the alcohols, especially for methanol and when you put this in relation with the much higher fuel flow of the alcohols.

Alcohols have higher octane ratings, especially the RON rating. A number that compares well with practical observations are difficult to come by though. Alcohols have one boiling point, this tends to cause for example cold start problems.
Alcohols attack several metals and polymers. Special care must be taken during the developement/modification of an engine to prevent attack.

Fuel consumption is like I said higher with alcohols, not as much as the energy content indicate though, this is due to a slightly higher density and a higher compression ratio/more ignition advance. It has also been suggested that the invisible flame reduce heat loss to the walls. Road cars using alcohols also tend to run leaner during high load which also saves some fuel.

Gasoline is typically produced from crude oil but it can also be made from other sources; nature gas, coal, wood and so on.

Ethanol is today typically produced from grain, corn and similar. This is very inefficient, well to wheel the net emissions of CO2 is almost at the same level as crude oil based gasoline. Future production methods include production from wood.

Methanol can be manufactured in different ways, today it's common to make it from fossil sources but a future production from wood (waste from paper manufacturing) can be made very efficient.

Otherwise the emissions with alcohols are quite similar to that of a gasoline engine. Alcohols can offer some benefit with for example emissions of smog formning products but there are disadvantages in other areas. Unburned emissions of methanol is toxic, like gasoline, so is partially burned products but that is also the case with ethanol. Emissions of CO2 is slightly lower with methanol than with ethanol.

[GSX-R]

Originally posted by J. Edlund
It has also been suggested that the invisible flame reduce heat loss to the walls.

good post.
More precision about this point ?

Do you have any reports on oil seeds diesel engines exhaust ?

From my point of view this is the best way to go from a production efficiency point of view / conversion efficiency point of view.

But curiously i don't find any serious study about how to improve the exhaust. Majors just tell molecule are too big and exhaust are a problem.

Oilseeds (fuel) production efficiency is near of 100%.

Many drivers use it in europe legally or not and it works very well especially in old indirect injection Ricardo cylinder head engines. But there's no specially interests for majors to investigate in that way.

[dominick]

Do never try to run your car on pure vegetable oil without specialised modifications. Even for a handy harry like me changing a diesel pump is challenging for the wallet or the skills... If you ask or your car is good to run ecological, fans will reply it can be done without worries about advance, wear, starting problems, cold weather. Amongst these are some very serious problems for somone who needs his car daily.

[crono33]

in italy, due to high prices of diesel fuels, some people have started using cheap vegetable oil in their conventional indirect injection diesel engines (no common rail and similar)

i only have second hando info, but i know several folks who claim they have used vegetable oil for years without any apparent side effect, apart a funny smelling exhaust.

apart the fact that using vegetable oil is illegal (is considered tax evasion) i have to say i find extremely hard to believe that using veggie oil has no adverse effects on diesel engines in the long run.


gm

Originally posted by dominick
Do never try to run your car on pure vegetable oil without specialised modifications. Even for a handy harry like me changing a diesel pump is challenging for the wallet or the skills... If you ask or your car is good to run ecological, fans will reply it can be done without worries about advance, wear, starting problems, cold weather. Amongst these are some very serious problems for somone who needs his car daily.

[GSX-R]

We do not count neither in France numbers of tractors that run on pure vegetable oil without any modification.

Fuel reheater in winter usually is sufficient.

[GSX-R]

I know guys who run french fries oil recycled, for free. Engines used are Renaul indirect injection, bosh pumps.

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by GSX-R


good post.
More precision about this point ?

Do you have any reports on oil seeds diesel engines exhaust ?

From my point of view this is the best way to go from a production efficiency point of view / conversion efficiency point of view.

But curiously i don't find any serious study about how to improve the exhaust. Majors just tell molecule are too big and exhaust are a problem.

Oilseeds (fuel) production efficiency is near of 100%.

Many drivers use it in europe legally or not and it works very well especially in old indirect injection Ricardo cylinder head engines. But there's no specially interests for majors to investigate in that way.

The invisible flame has been suggested to decrease the heat loss to the walls, not much more than that have been mentioned from what have seen.

Vegetable oils usually are reformed to esters for diesel use. Anyway, NOx emissions are way over the legal limit with these oils. It can also have negative effects on the fuel system. A limit of about 5% in diesel fuel have been suggested.

The well to wheel efficiency for vegetable oils are not close to 100%, half that figure is probably more realistic. The only well to wheel efficiencies around 100 that I have seen are for future production of for example ethanol, something that still is about 10 years in the future. This type of production can actually exceed 100% since electricity is also produced, at no additional "cost".

[GSX-R]

I've read that to produce A ton of diester, it is required to use 100 Kg of methanol (or ethanol) (energycally expensive) but i don't remember the overhead energy to produce the final product.

Did you talk about the press efficiency to extract oil from seeds ?

The rest after the press is what we call in my langage oil cake that can easily burn into our boiler or even to be served as food for animals.

The only thing i'm sure is that fuel is not the friend of the petroleum industry, for sure.
Automotive industry doesn't have invested neither into the research, at my knowledge, to reduce exausts on that kind of engines. Everody does like it is a dead end. They prefer to keep on working with their petrol company friends and and last but not least the government.

But it works and that's a fact, i know guys that run it for tens of thousands of km with it with just a french fries smell behind their car as secondary effects.

Don't forget one thing. oilseeds fuel can be produced just near your home generally in a farm and than save a lot of fuel in distribution of fuel..

Obviously there're not for every car, but a good part. Here in europe, farmers get money to not sow - fallows.

In Germany, i've heard that fuel is sold as a car fuel on some gas stations. In France this is a taboo for many reasons.

For those who are interested into that vision of ecology : http://www.oliomobil...g/eng/index.htm

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by GSX-R
I've read that to produce A ton of diester, it is required to use 100 Kg of methanol (or ethanol) (energycally expensive) but i don't remember the overhead energy to produce the final product.

Did you talk about the press efficiency to extract oil from seeds ?

The rest after the press is what we call in my langage oil cake that can easily burn into our boiler or even to be served as food for animals.

The only thing i'm sure is that fuel is the devil of petroleum industry. Automotive doesn't have invest neither into the research at my knowledge to reduce exausts of the kind of engines.

But it works and that's a fact, i know guys that run it for tens of thousands of km with it with just a french fries smell behind their car as secondary effects.

Don't forget one thing. oilseeds food can be produced just near your home generally in a farm and than save a lot of fuel in distribution of fuel..

Well to wheel efficiency is the overall efficiency of a fuel/energy source. To for example produce vegetable oil, energy must first be spent in order to produce the oil seeds, then energy must be spend in order to extract the oil from the seeds. To make ethanol from corn the deal is the same, energy is required to produce corn, and energy is required to make ethanol out of the corn. Today most biofuels suffers from low efficiencies, in some cases almost 0%. If you got an efficiency of 0% you must invest 10 MJ of fossil fuels in order to create 10 MJ of biofuel. 50% and you have to invest 5 MJ of fossil fuels to create 10 MJ of biofuel. So even many biofuels seems "green", that is usually not the whole truth.

There have of course been some tests with vegetable oils just like other fuels, but given that well to wheel efficiencies are low, costs are higher than crude oil based fuels, exhaust emissions are higher and that it's not realistic to produce a larger amount of vegetable oil for fossil fuel replacement, larger manufacturers will not be interrested. Large manufacturers are driven by science and economics, as long crude oil based fuels are cheapest they will be of main interrest. When crude oil is getting more expensive and options are becoming cheaper they will be of more interrest. This new source must then be cheap and largely availible; coal is for example cheap and largely availible so one possebility is to produce synthetic fuel from coal. Another possiblity is to produce methanol or ethanol from pulp mill waste. Today that waste is usually burned so it's availible and if this can be turned into fuel with a profit that will eventually will be done. If there will be new fuels availible the car manufacturers will adopt their engines to this fuel like they have done for ethanol, methanol, hydrogen and so on. The piston engine is however likely to be the main engine type in the automotive industry for at least two more decades.

[GSX-R]

You share my opinion about all you said except "diester vs crude seeds oil technology".

I'm not sure automotives make so much studies about crude oil. If so, where are the reports ? Nothing on the web, just : too much particles, too big molecules, too much Nox... abandonned

So much reports on alchohol, gaz, gasoil and other fuels... Let me know where i can find any serious study on colza oil piston engines please except from guys that run them really on the road ?

Would you be a petroleum boss, would you like that cars would run on colza ? Certainly not. Petrol has more power that we can imaginate in this world. It rules it. This is surely not the farmers and brilliant handymen around the world that will change them in a decade. That is a sure thing.

Good ideas/technologies are not necessarely the winner. Look at Microsoft.. or the opposite DEC for example.

I do no pretend to know the full scientific truth about crude vegetable oil but i have serious doubts about the way its case is treated.

Often, things are like they're should be but sometimes not and not necessary for good reasons.

[Wuzak]

Originally posted by J. Edlund


Well to wheel efficiency is the overall efficiency of a fuel/energy source. To for example produce vegetable oil, energy must first be spent in order to produce the oil seeds, then energy must be spend in order to extract the oil from the seeds. To make ethanol from corn the deal is the same, energy is required to produce corn, and energy is required to make ethanol out of the corn. Today most biofuels suffers from low efficiencies, in some cases almost 0%. If you got an efficiency of 0% you must invest 10 MJ of fossil fuels in order to create 10 MJ of biofuel. 50% and you have to invest 5 MJ of fossil fuels to create 10 MJ of biofuel. So even many biofuels seems "green", that is usually not the whole truth.

Just a quick observation....

If it took 10 MJ of energy to produce 10 MJ of biofuelm wouldn't that be 100% efficient?

If it took 5 MJ of energy to produce 10 MJ of biofuel, wouldn't that be 200% efficient?

For 50% efficiency wouldn't the numbers be 10 MJ of energy required to produce 10 MJ of biofuels?


Also, how do fuels like Liquefied Natural Gas and Liquefied Petrolium Gas (Propane/butane) compare with these fuels?

[-RM-]

J. Edlund:
What would the advantage of converting pulp mill waste to alcohol instead of burning it?

[GSX-R]

Originally posted by Wuzak


Just a quick observation....

If it took 10 MJ of energy to produce 10 MJ of biofuelm wouldn't that be 100% efficient?

If it consumes 10 MJ of energy ->50%

If it took 5 MJ of energy to produce 10 MJ of biofuel, wouldn't that be 200% efficient?

If it consumes -> 67%

For 50% efficiency wouldn't the numbers be 10 MJ of energy required to produce 10 MJ of biofuels?

yes

Also, how do fuels like Liquefied Natural Gas and Liquefied Petrolium Gas (Propane/butane) compare with these fuels?

It depends where does come natural gas. For propane and butane, usually the origin is fossil.

For me, the best "sun/ground/natural/well to wheel" is pure oil of seeds or, please, let me know which is best. Natural gas is also an interesting way with biomass.

Distillation for ethanol is quite consumming. I think efficiency should be only 57% (see below).

"A recent study by the Argonne National Laboratory found that for every 100 BTUs of energy used to produce ethanol, 135 BTUs of ethanol are produced. For perspective, it requires 100 BTUs of energy to produce 80 BTUs of petroleum" (source http://www.geaps.com...anol_indust.cfm )

http://www.greasecar.com/

[Stian1979]

Biofuel has a good effect on the mecanical parts of an engine since it lubricate bether.
NOx come from Nitrogen and Oksygen melting together Under high temperature end preshure som bio or traditional should not mather unles you use a higher cylinderpreshure to combust the thicker oil a litle bether.

There are things to do to engine exhaust like injecting water to the cylinder. 5/15% water injected to the combustion chamber during combustion can reduce co2 and NOx + a 5-10% power increase because of steamproduction.

If water and diesel is mixed you can have micro vaporation because waterdrops inside the diesel particles injected to the engine will eksplode and tear the diesel particle apart and improve combustion and decrease particles.

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by -RM-
J. Edlund:
What would the advantage of converting pulp mill waste to alcohol instead of burning it?

Today it's burned with a low efficiency, by using a different technology, fuel such as methanol, DME and hydrogen could be produced together with electricity with a greater efficiency. Still this can only replace a part of the fossil fuels used in transportation today.

Originally posted by Wuzak


Just a quick observation....

If it took 10 MJ of energy to produce 10 MJ of biofuelm wouldn't that be 100% efficient?

If it took 5 MJ of energy to produce 10 MJ of biofuel, wouldn't that be 200% efficient?

For 50% efficiency wouldn't the numbers be 10 MJ of energy required to produce 10 MJ of biofuels?


Also, how do fuels like Liquefied Natural Gas and Liquefied Petrolium Gas (Propane/butane) compare with these fuels?

100% efficient is when no fossil fuels are required to produce the bio fuel, hence 0 MJ fossil fuel to produce 10 MJ of biofuel. If this where to be the case there will be no net emissions of carbondioxide. If it takes 10 MJ of fossil fuel to produce 10 MJ of biofuel the efficiency is 0%, we could just as well run directly on the fossil fuel, net carbondioxide emissions are the same in both cases.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel, if you run directly on it carbondioxide emissions will be similar to that of gasoline (perhaps slightly lower). If natural gas is used to produce diesel, gasoline or methanol the emissions of carbondioxide will be slightly higher. On the good side, other emissions will be lower.

Normally you can use natural gas better with conventional distribution for other applications, but in some places it's difficult to transport the gas as there are no pipelines availible. Converting it to a liquid fuel can therefore be a good solution.

Originally posted by Stian1979
Biofuel has a good effect on the mecanical parts of an engine since it lubricate bether.
NOx come from Nitrogen and Oksygen melting together Under high temperature end preshure som bio or traditional should not mather unles you use a higher cylinderpreshure to combust the thicker oil a litle bether.

There are things to do to engine exhaust like injecting water to the cylinder. 5/15% water injected to the combustion chamber during combustion can reduce co2 and NOx + a 5-10% power increase because of steamproduction.

If water and diesel is mixed you can have micro vaporation because waterdrops inside the diesel particles injected to the engine will eksplode and tear the diesel particle apart and improve combustion and decrease particles.

Fuels such as RME can have a negative impact on the fuel system. At least on passenger car engines. Manufacturers of heavier diesels such as Scania and Volvo says that RME fuel is ok as long as it is clean. RME is however considered by both Scania and Volvo to be a temporary solution, it can not replace diesel. Ethanol in diesel will result in fuel pump failure in a short time accoring to Cummins.

Switching from diesel to RME results in a 30% increase in NOx emissions, this without any modifications to the engine, power output also goes down while the fuel consumption increase.

Injection of water decrease the efficiency of an engine due to reduced combustion temperatures. To generate free power from steam is not possible, even if I often see this claim. While water do decrease NOx emissions, for example HC emissions along with fuel consumption increase.

Originally posted by GSX-R
For me, the best "sun/ground/natural/well to wheel" is pure oil of seeds or, please, let me know which is best. Natural gas is also an interesting way with biomass.

Distillation for ethanol is quite consumming. I think efficiency should be only 57% (see below).

"A recent study by the Argonne National Laboratory found that for every 100 BTUs of energy used to produce ethanol, 135 BTUs of ethanol are produced. For perspective, it requires 100 BTUs of energy to produce 80 BTUs of petroleum" (source http://www.geaps.com...anol_indust.cfm )

"Effects of Fuel Ethanol Use on Fuel-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions" state that:

Current use of corn based ethanol as a E85 mix results in
• 73–75% reduction in petroleum use,
• 14–19% reduction in GHG emissions, and
• 34–35% reduction in fossil energy use.

but future production (celullosic ethanol production) is more efficient with
• 71–73% reduction in petroleum use,
• 68–91% reduction in GHG emissions, and
• 71–75% reduction in fossil energy use.

However, currently I don't think a high ethanol blend is the best way to use the ethanol availible. To blend in 10% ethanol in all gasoline fuel should be a better solution. There is a similar case with RME, diesel containing 5% RME will not suffer from the downsides of a high RME blend, still, if this is added to all diesel fuel we would basicly use all RME that can be produced.

Pure vegetable oil is usually not considered as an fuel option; one reason is its high viscosity.

[GSX-R]

What means RME please ?

Pure vegetable oil has higher viscosity( yes especially at low temp). Injection pumps are more solicited, yes. Cetane indice is lower, yes. But it works very well in (n-1) generation of turbo-d engines and need some adjustment in the (n) generation. And enhancement are surely possible (fuel heater, robust pumps) or even else for direct or indirect injection systems.

Production efficiency is so higher when compared to ethanol's and other renewable liquid energy that it would be a serious mistake not to work/R&D on this combustion and keep on derivated proposed by the pretroleum lobbying.


P.S : By now, at least in europe, vegetable derivated fuels like "diester" in gasoil or ethanol in gasoline are mostly incorporated into fossil fuels to run out agricultural surpluses, not really in an ecological goal.

[Stian1979]

Originally posted by J. Edlund

Fuels such as RME can have a negative impact on the fuel system. At least on passenger car engines. Manufacturers of heavier diesels such as Scania and Volvo says that RME fuel is ok as long as it is clean. RME is however considered by both Scania and Volvo to be a temporary solution, it can not replace diesel. Ethanol in diesel will result in fuel pump failure in a short time accoring to Cummins.

Switching from diesel to RME results in a 30% increase in NOx emissions, this without any modifications to the engine, power output also goes down while the fuel consumption increase.

Injection of water decrease the efficiency of an engine due to reduced combustion temperatures. To generate free power from steam is not possible, even if I often see this claim. While water do decrease NOx emissions, for example HC emissions along with fuel consumption increase.

However, currently I don't think a high ethanol blend is the best way to use the ethanol availible. To blend in 10% ethanol in all gasoline fuel should be a better solution. There is a similar case with RME, diesel containing 5% RME will not suffer from the downsides of a high RME blend, still, if this is added to all diesel fuel we would basicly use all RME that can be produced.

Pure vegetable oil is usually not considered as an fuel option; one reason is its high viscosity.

Good for mecanical parts because it lubricate bether and also bether for the Cylinder liner for the same reason. Some ruber and plastics are not compatible with vegetable oil.

Where did you find the information about the NOx increase? All my bocks about operation of diesel engines has other statements.

Injection of water do increase power. But only below 15% If you inject more the combustion preshure will dropp because of the coling effect water has.

In sweden they sell E85 on gasoline stations. Etanol 85% and the remaining 25% is gasoline.
E85 has octane 110 and you can try to gues what advantage people take of that.
Saab has developed a engine with variable turbopreshure. A sensor in the fuel line tell the engine if it recive normal pump fuel or E85. If E85 it will turn up the bost preshure and you got more HP.

[Bob Riebe]

Emission Characteristics
In October 2002, U.S. EPA released a draft report entitled, “A Comprehensive
Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions.” The draft technical report can be
found on the EPA Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/o...dels/biodsl.htm.
Use of neat biodiesel and biodiesel blends in place of petroleum-based diesel
fuel may reduce visible smoke and particulate emissions, which are of special concern
in older diesel engines in non-attainment areas. In addition, B100 and biodiesel blends
can achieve some reduction in reactive hydrocarbons (“HC”) and carbon monoxide
(“CO”) emissions when used in an unmodified diesel engine. Those reductions are
attributed to the presence of oxygen in the fuel. Oxygen and other biodiesel
characteristics, however, also increase oxides of nitrogen (“NOx”) in an unmodified
engine. As a result, B100 and biodiesel blends produce higher NOx emissions than
petroleum-based diesel fuel. As such, EMA does not recommend the use of either
B100 or biodiesel blends as a means to improve air quality in ozone non-attainment
areas.
Storage and Handling
Biodiesel fuels have shown poor oxidation stability, which can result in long-term
storage problems. When biodiesel fuels are used at low ambient temperatures, filters
may plug, and the fuel in the tank may thicken to the point where it will not flow
sufficiently for proper engine operation. Therefore, it may be prudent to store biodiesel
fuel in a heated building or storage tank, as well as heat the fuel systems’ fuel lines,
filters, and tanks. Additives also may be needed to improve storage conditions and
allow for the use of biodiesel fuel in a wider range of ambient temperatures. To
demonstrate their stability under normal storage and use conditions, biodiesel fuels,
tested using ASTM D 6468, should have a minimum of 80% reflectance after aging for
180 minutes at a temperature of 150°C. The test is intended to predict the resistance of
fuel to degradation at normal engine operating temperatures and provide an indication
of overall fuel stability.
Biodiesel fuel is an excellent medium for microbial growth. Inasmuch as water
accelerates microbial growth and is naturally more prevalent in biodiesel fuels than in
petroleum-based diesel fuels, care must be taken to remove water from fuel tanks. The
effectiveness of using conventional anti-microbial additives in biodiesel is unknown. The
presence of microbes may cause operational problems, fuel system corrosion,
premature filter plugging, and sediment build-up in fuel systems.

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by Stian1979


Good for mecanical parts because it lubricate bether and also bether for the Cylinder liner for the same reason. Some ruber and plastics are not compatible with vegetable oil.

Where did you find the information about the NOx increase? All my bocks about operation of diesel engines has other statements.

Injection of water do increase power. But only below 15% If you inject more the combustion preshure will dropp because of the coling effect water has.

In sweden they sell E85 on gasoline stations. Etanol 85% and the remaining 25% is gasoline.
E85 has octane 110 and you can try to gues what advantage people take of that.
Saab has developed a engine with variable turbopreshure. A sensor in the fuel line tell the engine if it recive normal pump fuel or E85. If E85 it will turn up the bost preshure and you got more HP.

A 30% increase in NOx emissions is according to Scania, there are however a decrease in hydrocarbons, carbonoxide and particulates, but the two first are already very low in diesel exhaust. There have also been some problems since some RME fuel haven't been clean enough, but if the fuel follows the specifications it have been said to be ok. I think Swedish EPA have some similar info about the emissions (I think I read a report about this), they recommend that Rapeseed Methyl Ester is only used as a blend with diesel to overcome the downsides of RME.

Fuel systems like the common rail systems found on new passenger car diesels can't without modification be used with high blend RME. My guess is that there are issues with for example seals.

The current Saab BioPower engine produces 150 hp/240 Nm on gasoline and 180 hp/280 Nm on E85, but more powerful engines are supposed to follow. Unlike Ford this engine uses no additional fuel sensors, the ordinary lambda sensor is used to adapt between the two fuels. The engine is similar to its gasoline counterpart with a few modifications; fuel pressure regulator, inlet valves, valve seats, fuel tank and fill tube, fuel pump, hoses, software and spark plugs. Many of these changes are made since the original parts would not withstand high ethanol blends. The oil change interval is also shorter.
This engine uses the same Trionic 7 management system as Saabs gasoline engines, this system is of torque-demand type. Torque-demand system control throttle and boost in order to produce a certain torque/air mass per combustion. Because of that boost pressure can even change from day to day; driven a day where the air pressure is low boost is increased to compensate so torque output stays the same. Due to the higher octane rating of E85 it allows the engine to be run with leaner mixtures during high loads. Ignition advance is increased at part load but decreased at high loads to prevent too high combustion pressures (E85 burn faster than gasoline).

Water injection can increase power by up to about 40%, it can also decrease fuel consumption but this is only when an engine is operated above a fuels limits (regarding knock). This is possible since water injection allow higher indicated cylinder pressures without suffer from detonation. Water alone will not increase cylinder pressures, usually it does the opposite, but with increased boost/compression ratio/ignition advance cylinder pressures will increase. For example Saab investigated its use to replace the typical enrichment that occur at high loads, but that didn't came longer than to tests. Downsides include oil dillution, corrosion, increased weight and increased HC emissions.

The following takes up water injection:
1. NACA TR-756, "The induction of water to the inlet air as a means of internal cooling in aircraft-engine cylinders"
2. SAE paper no. 820314, "Water addition to gasoline - effect on combustion, emissions, performance and knock"
3. "Modern Petroleum Technology", chapter 19
4. E.M. Goodger, "Alternative Fuels", chapter 7
5. H. Ricardo, "The high speed internal combustion engine"

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by GSX-R
What means RME please ?

Pure vegetable oil has higher viscosity( yes especially at low temp). Injection pumps are more solicited, yes. Cetane indice is lower, yes. But it works very well in (n-1) generation of turbo-d engines and need some adjustment in the (n) generation. And enhancement are surely possible (fuel heater, robust pumps) or even else for direct or indirect injection systems.

Production efficiency is so higher when compared to ethanol's and other renewable liquid energy that it would be a serious mistake not to work/R&D on this combustion and keep on derivated proposed by the pretroleum lobbying.


P.S : By now, at least in europe, vegetable derivated fuels like "diester" in gasoil or ethanol in gasoline are mostly incorporated into fossil fuels to run out agricultural surpluses, not really in an ecological goal.

RME is a type of fuel that is part of the "FAME" family, that is Fatty Acid Methyl Ester. RME is transesterified rapeseed oil. Compared to pure rapeseed oil RME has a lower viscosity and it also prevent nozzle coking which is a large problem with the pure vegetable oil. Because of this FAME oils are used instead of pure vegetable oils.

The efficiency of the production depends of what you compare it with. Compared with the typical ethanol production from grain and similar it's probably a bit higher but lower compared to celullosic ethanol production (which is today limited to tests and small scale production) which can be very efficient.

What really limit FAME oils is the limited sources of vegetable oil. It is not reasonable to replace more than 10% of the diesel fuel with these oils. Something that can be done with a diesel FAME mix. This mix also does't suffer from cold start problems, high NOx emissions and bacterial attack of the fuel. FAME oils are also a suitable lubricating addetive to low sulphur diesel fuel.

[GSX-R]

It's quite difficult to find a good comparative including all dies :

-Algae oil
-sunflower oil
-colza oil.

At my opinion, what you call RME (mainly produced from vegetable oil and alcohol), bioethanol from sugar are not really good ways today, except maybe to run out the surpluses of agricultural productions. But they suffer of bad production efficiency and consume too much manures and weedkillers etc...

Pure vegetable oil is at my opinion today the more ready and ecological process to go for (i keep on investigating on vegetabable exhaust gas combustion )

we still miss accurate reports on pure vegetable oil combustion in C.I engines


Thank to you i've investigated and discovered synthetic diesel fuel from Choren industries from biomass(http://www.choren.co...mass_to_energy/)

or even Iogen Coporation that work this time on production of ethanol from biomass :

http://www.iogen.ca/...ol/process.html

For now i've haven't read all information about production efficiency but it's said it quite better than previous that are RME and bioethanol, and maybe than even vegetable oil that for now have the better production efficiency i've reported for immediate use.

[GSX-R]

After Germany it's now legal to burn pure vegetalble oil (best production efficiency today for green fuels) in Belgium. Free of tax for short distribution circuit.

[Stian1979]

Originally posted by J. Edlund



Water injection can increase power by up to about 40%, it can also decrease fuel consumption but this is only when an engine is operated above a fuels limits (regarding knock). This is possible since water injection allow higher indicated cylinder pressures without suffer from detonation. Water alone will not increase cylinder pressures, usually it does the opposite, but with increased boost/compression ratio/ignition advance cylinder pressures will increase. For example Saab investigated its use to replace the typical enrichment that occur at high loads, but that didn't came longer than to tests. Downsides include oil dillution, corrosion, increased weight and increased HC emissions.

Diesel and gasoline is different storry.
Corrosion is not a huge problem when you have overheated steam. engines produce water allready (HC+O2=CO2 and H2O) Thats why sometimes you can see waterdrops come out the exhaustpipe.
HC emisions will be lower in a diesel engine if mixen into the diesel because of micro eaporation.
When the water molekule inside the injected diesel particles evaporate because of temperature it will cause the diesel particles to explode.

B&W, Sulzer, Wartsila and Wichmann has done exstensive testing on this and there has also ben done laberatory tests on smaler diesels with similar results.

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by Stian1979


Diesel and gasoline is different storry.
Corrosion is not a huge problem when you have overheated steam. engines produce water allready (HC+O2=CO2 and H2O) Thats why sometimes you can see waterdrops come out the exhaustpipe.
HC emisions will be lower in a diesel engine if mixen into the diesel because of micro eaporation.
When the water molekule inside the injected diesel particles evaporate because of temperature it will cause the diesel particles to explode.

B&W, Sulzer, Wartsila and Wichmann has done exstensive testing on this and there has also ben done laberatory tests on smaler diesels with similar results.

You will still have corrosion problems due to the decrease in dew point of the exhaust gases. There is also an issue with water dilluting the oil. Water in the high pressure fuel system is most likely also to be a problem.

But sure, a CI engine will react different on water injection than a SI engine. CI engines don't have much HC emissions to start with, while NOx is the usual problem. Water injection have also been used in gas turbines.

[GSX-R]

Does a S.I engines produces more water smoke at cold starting just because exhaust is at higher temp and lower flow than C.I engines ?

[Stian1979]

Originally posted by GSX-R
Does a S.I engines produces more water smoke at cold starting just because exhaust is at higher temp and lower flow than C.I engines ?

In:Oil (Hydrocarbones) Air (oksygen and nitrogen)
Combustion: High preshure and temperature
Out: Nitrooksyd, water, co2, uncombusted Hydrocarbones and some oksygen.
It's the combustion products from oil and air.

More fuel means more water.
More fuel and there is less Oksygen for the nitrogen to bind with.
Lower preshure and/or temperature means lower chance that the oksygen and nitrogen will bind into NOx.

This part of combustion theory is easy to understand if you remember the chemestry from elementary school.

[jokuvaan]

NExBTL biodiesel:

http://www.engineerl...-problems.thtml

(link works once, then you have to delete cookies)

[GSX-R]

Originally posted by Stian1979
Combustion: High preshure and temperature
Out: Nitrooksyd, water, co2, uncombusted Hydrocarbones and some oksygen.
It's the combustion products from oil and air.

More fuel means more water.
More fuel and there is less Oksygen for the nitrogen to bind with.
Lower preshure and/or temperature means lower chance that the oksygen and nitrogen will bind into NOx.

:

High pressure is for CI.
High temperature for S.I at least at idle.

I suspect diesel to delay the vaporization. I suspect main of the water fog is coming from cendensation into the engine and the manifolds made at stop, and not mainly from the water issued from the combustion. Because exhaust emissions of diesel are very cold when compared to them of S.I, the fog is less, vaporization would spend more time and is less visibile.

I would like J. Edlund to confirm or cancel that assumption.

regards

[dominick]

Originally posted by J. Edlund


There are more options. A variable nozzle turbine can decrease lag and increase the range of the turbocharger. The problem so far have been with the temperatures, a modern gasoline engine can have exhaust temperatures of 1050 degC and VNT turbos typically can handle about 820 degC.

!!!

[BarryD]

The principal reason we run Methanol in the racing Morgans is to use a higher compression and of course it runs a lot cooler.
Here is what methanol looks like and what it does(See velocity stacks over the carbs and a bit of wheelspin as 100+bhp gets the better of a comedy rear tyre)
Barry D

[Stian1979]

Originally posted by GSX-R


:

High pressure is for CI.
High temperature for S.I at least at idle.

I suspect diesel to delay the vaporization. I suspect main of the water fog is coming from cendensation into the engine and the manifolds made at stop, and not mainly from the water issued from the combustion. Because exhaust emissions of diesel are very cold when compared to them of S.I, the fog is less, vaporization would spend more time and is less visibile.

I would like J. Edlund to confirm or cancel that assumption.

regards

I have ben taking apart some engines trough the years and I can not recal finding condense inside anny manifoil. If it was the case condence would also make it's way into open inlet valves and a car not used for some time would nead to be taken apart because the piston is stuck (coka cola into the spark plug holes can do the job to)

When the echaust pipe is cold it's more likely that the water fog is more visible.

[GSX-R]

Possibly the steam should partially recondense into the exhaust pipe (when it's cold) in S.I engines. In C.I engines, too much gas flow especially at idle to recondense as much, when it recondenses. On modern turbo diesels, specific programm to heat the engine at cold produces reduced similar fogs like S.I.

This is my final answer.

[phantom II]

Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as ‘Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning’
David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.

Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning".

Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what Cornell University agricultural scientist, David Pimentel, calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.

At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell’s David Pimentel, one of the world’s leading experts in issues relating to energy and agriculture, takes a longer range view.

"Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning", says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process. His findings are published in the September, 2001 issue of the Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology .

Among his findings are:
An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel’s analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.

The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline.
Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way", Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU".

Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels-not ethanol-are used to produce ethanol", Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can’t afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn’t afford it, either, if it weren’t for government subsidies to artificially lower the price".

Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol".

The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States. Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace".

Nickels and dimes aside, some drivers still would rather see their cars fueled by farms in the Midwest than by oil wells in the Middle East, Pimentel acknowledges, so he calculated the amount of corn needed to power an automobile:

The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix) would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans.

If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States.

[Greg Locock]

I struggle with this argument which I've seen before. The Brazilians make ethanol for vehicles - I can't believe that they end up burning more oil as a result.

[GSX-R]

I imagine in Brazil, most of the work is done by the hand of man and the manures should very low when presents (probably natural manures when used). The sugar cane is not corn. This country is mostly tropical.

For food, almost all the fields in USA and Europe have a negative energetic efficiency because of manures, weedkillers, etc. Remove manures (mainly produced from fossile CH4) and it won't be the surface of USA but most probably the fields surface of the world you'll need to sustain the "worst" consumer of the world.

I think if Brazil was not in a tropical region, they would probably have chosen pure vegetable oil for its much better production efficiency. Distillation process makes loose 47%.

[Pioneer]

The US climate isn't really well suited to large scale growing of sugar cane. Also, Brazil uses like 3% of the gasoline that we do and the vast majority of that is well concentrated along the ocean and doesn't rack up nearly as much in transportation costs.

[phantom II]

Wilkinson's Edge
The Cutting Edge of Financial Analysis (For graphs, go to website at bottom)

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Gas Prices On the Edge?

Dear MoneyNews Reader:

At gas stations around the nation the price of a gallon of gas hit $3.00 this week, setting off mental alarm bells in consumers' minds.

Economists have always cited the changes in the price of oil as having a negative impact on consumer spending. Each time we go to the gas station you can't help but notice how much more it costs to fill the tank.

What you spend to fill the tank by definition comes out of either spending or out of your savings.

According to analysts at investment bank Credit Suisse, oil and gas prices will cost consumers a record $65 billion this quarter, up from $52 billion in the third quarter when oil last exceeded $70, strategists wrote in an April 18 report.

The list of conventional rationale for the rising cost of oil is straightforward.

Strong global demand
Take off in Indian and Chinese growth
Nigerian rebel attacks on local oil facilities
Escalation of tension with Iran
Recent changes to environmental controls have caused a switch from MTBE to ethanol. As a result, a shortage of ethanol occurred, which left us with a ready-made disaster plan for surging nationwide gasoline costs.

[Editor's Note: Wilkinson's Hedge Fund Investing recently recommended two key ingredients in producing ethanol - they're already up 47% and 63%. Get your first trade here.]

MTBE has been proven to leak from underground gas storage facilities and contaminate aquifers. However, making the move has proven a little trickier as gas refiners locate sufficient supplies of ethanol.

According to Department of Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, this change to ethanol may disrupt gas supplies for several months. The department noted that the lack of domestic ethanol means that producers would have to rely on imports to blend with richer grades of fuel.

The outcome is a surge in prices. However, are we confusing either a lack of supply or strengthening demand with other bottlenecks in the system?

While G7 leaders met to discuss global growth, OPEC ministers held an informal meeting in Doha, Qatar to discuss the surging price of crude oil and commented on the supply situation.

Kuwaiti oil minister, Sheikh Ahmad Fahd al-Sabah told reporters, in light of the record high price set at $75.35 the day before, that the Iran conflict has added as much as $15 to the price of crude.

According to another, oil would settle back to the high fifties. Some months ago, OPEC abandoned official price bands for crude oil.

OPEC member Kuwait even offered to pump more oil, yet the cartel has already urged them not to increase production.

OPEC's Nigerian President Edmond Daukoru said, "We are giving them all they ask for and what they can process."

The Algerian minister, Chakib Khelil added that, "There is nothing OPEC can do to alleviate high oil prices."

The fact that Saudi Arabia offered to release its stockpile of spare capacity in the fourth quarter of last year only to find no takers bares testimony to that fact.

So let's take a look at three charts that the Department of Energy releases each week. They show U.S. inventories or crude, motor gas and distillates. In each of the following charts, I have plotted weekly data along with a 90-day average. First up are crude inventories.

Crude Oil Inventories

The level of crude oil inventories has averaged approximately 300 million barrels between 2002-2005. Compare that to the current 345 million barrels to see that currently the U.S. has 16% more crude than usual.

Motor Gas Inventories

Average inventories of unleaded gasoline between 2002-2005 ran at 206 million barrels. Motor gas inventories have slumped recently as refineries just can't refine crude oil quick enough.

But the latest reading of 202 million barrels is within spitting distance of that four-year average.

Distillate Inventories

At 114 million barrels of distillates, the U.S. is right back to the average volume for the period.

This week the Energy Information Agency reported a further decline in both crude and motor gas inventories, but a rise in distillate inventories.

I often hear the comment from oil experts that it's not necessarily the volume of crude oil that counts, rather it's the quality. While Saudi Arabia has the world's largest proven reserves of crude, it's nowhere near the quality of nations such as Venezuela or Nigeria.

You'll hear the terms 'light-sweet' and 'heavy' or 'sour' crude used. The former is the better quality and just what the refiners want.

But apart from whether or not the refiners have the right grade of oil, let's take a look at the level of refinery output.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,several oil rigs went 'missing' in the Gulf of Mexico and even shore-based ones were knocked offline.

U.S. Refinery Capacity Utilization

Gradually, rigs were relocated and switches were flicked as refiners got back to business. But as you can see from the chart, the present 86.5% utilization rate (red line) is low by historic standards. Indeed you can easily count the nine occasions during which capacity utilization dropped below the current value.

Focus on the green line, which shows the three-month average. Since 2001 the average capacity utilization rate has not been below today's level. That should confirm to us that the nature of the problem lies in refiners' ability to perform their role.

Looking forward, the chances are that we'll see capacity output normalize. Of course the caveat here is that the situation could worsen if the pending hurricane season steps up to compete with last year's.

But remember, it would take comparable and above winds to knock capacity offline. I'm not saying that Katrina and her ugly sister Rita were flukes, merely that a rerun would have to occur for the situation to worsen.

Around the World

We've been repeatedly warned that omnipresent population growth is straining fossil fuels, which will create a one-way path for fuel prices.

Recently Houston's billionaire energy trader T. Boone Pickens stated that it's unlikely that we'll see oil prices decline to $50 per barrel during the remainder of his lifetime.

Brazil

President Bush recently stated that the United States aims to replace 75% of its imports from the Middle East by 2025.

But other leaderships have realized the nature of the beast much earlier than this. It was in the 1980s that the Brazilian military-run government determined that the 1970s oil shock shouldn't be repeated, and set about to develop biofuels.

Farmers were given subsidies to grow sugarcane, from which ethanol is produced. Prices at the pump were raised to induce flexi-car purchases. And it worked, too. By 1985 and 1986, 75% of all motor vehicles and 90% of all cars in Brazil were able to run on biofuel.

However, the environment changed when a new civilian government took power with less ambition to pursue interests of national security over social reform. Rising sugar prices sent subsidies sky-high and state-owned oil company Petrobras discovered major offshore oil fields.

By 1997, less than 1% of domestic cars sold were capable of running on both types of fuel. The slide in the price of oil made it hard to argue for biofuel at that time.

In the recent few years, the government has introduced tax incentives to promote sales of cleaner-fuel burning vehicles. Similarly, tax breaks and technological advancements have made it more appealing for ethanol producers to convert sugar to fuel.

Now, more than 80% of all cars on Brazil's roads are capable of using both ethanol and gasoline. The sugar industry claims that this switch to biofuels has reduced imports by a staggering $400 billion.

And on the export side, there remains talk that Japan will buy six billion liters of Brazilian ethanol by 2008. Producers will have opened 70 new mills by 2012.

Last week, President Luiz Inacio da Silva opened a vast new oilrig, which will enable the country to be self-sufficient in oil production.

Brazil spent $600 million on the platform, which will produce 180,000 barrels per day. The additional output means that production of oil exceeds the nations needs.

Back in the 1970s when the nation was fully dependent of importing oil, the twin oil-price shocks caused Brazil to become heavily indebted, leading to a debt and inflationary spiral with disastrous consequences.

In the span of your author's lifetime, the Brazilian nation is set to shift from playing the role of the pauper to that of the prince. Today, Brazil boasts some of the best deep-sea drilling technology that will allow it to become a net exporter of oil.

India

For a nation with almost four times the population of the United States, India doesn't sell many cars.

Cars in India fast becoming status symbol

In August 2005, annualized passenger car sales surpassed one million for the first time and have maintained that pace ever since.

The culprits here are strong economic growth and rising salaries.

South Korea's Hyundai names India as its top growth market since cars are rapidly becoming status symbols in the nation's biggest cities.

The 7-8% economic growth rate coupled with the increased availability of inexpensive auto-loans is driving spending too, shifting India from a nation of savers to a modern-day consumer society.

But add together 10% growth in demand for cars and surging industrial demand, and energy use is through the roof.

Currently 75% of India's energy is imported, and it's estimated that by 2020, it will need to import all of it.

India is in talks with Pakistan and Iran over plans to build a $17 billion natural gas pipeline, which could form the platform of India's next growth phase.

Right now, India's government subsidizes both oil and kerosene used by most individuals. If they didn't, the nation could not manage the growth rate it does.

The country's oil needs form just 3% of global demand. If demand pressures India's needs to 10% of global oil use by 2030, subsidies are going to be an unjustifiable expense on the road to economic strength.

Rather, the way forward for Indian energy needs will come from nuclear sources. Currently, the nation has 14 reactors and a further nine under construction.

Nuclear fuel accounts for just 3% of electric output. That will rise to 25% by 2050 despite the fact that India has little or no uranium required in the nuclear process. India is currently reaching agreements with Russia to secure uranium supplies.

China

Any discussion over high oil prices invariably includes the topic of China, as if the 1.3 billion Chinese were to blame.

The 9% compounded rate of economic growth over the last decade has turned China from oil provider to the world's second largest oil importer. Still it only uses 4% of the world's daily output.

As with Indian middle class, so to is China's population gravitating to a more affluent lifestyle. Each day a thousand new private cars hit the street, adding to the current three million vehicles.

It's estimated that by 2020 China will have 140 million private cars on its roads.

Clearly, the strains on the global oil situation won't rectify themselves, and China will have to rely on other fuel sources. Already, China is the world's largest producer and consumer of coal.

In 2005, its 30,000 mines produced two billion tones of the dirty black rock. One in three lumps of coal were produced in China.

Coal is renowned for the fact it's not clean burning. However, several huge new projects are set to clean up that act and will turn dirty coal into clean gas.

As was the case with Brazil's ethanol industry, when oil prices decline, the appeal of investing in the process diminishes. The process by which coal is cleaned up is called coal gasification and until now has been considered economically unviable. But with $60-$75 per barrel oil, that's rapidly changing.

According to experts, several new Chinese mega-plants will turn sulphur-rich coal into sulphur-free methane ready to be liquefied and put into the tanks of its three million vehicles or burned at its power stations.

The Chinese government has mandated that by 2020 15% of its energy will come from renewable sources from solar, wind-power and biomass. For China, the way forward is hydro-power.

China wants to dam its five arterial rivers. In three years time when the work on the middle reaches of the Yangtze River is done, the world's biggest turbines will pump out 25 gigawatts of electricity equivalent to one third of the U.K.'s total energy output.

Plans are in place for other mega-dam projects further up the river in one of the world's most spectacular gorges. Another series of dams is planned for close to the Burmese border.

If you don't think differently, you won't solve the age-old problems. It took my existing lifespan for Brazil to change into the powerhouse it's become today, throwing off the shackles of reliance in the Middle East and it's oil.

Chinese ambitions to build a sustainable platform for its heady pace of growth has seen its industrial and political leaders strike supply-chain deals in the darkest corners of the earth from the Sudan and Iran to Brazil and Australia.

The Chinese know that there is no simple solution to long-run energy needs, and despite attempting to corner many existing supplies, they are taking steps to address the problem with home-grown solutions.

China's government knows that without aiding its population and its businesses it could scarcely afford the growth it's witnessed. Call it a barrier to entering the modern world. Creative financing in a sense has allowed them to leap the hurdle.

But with such growth comes a different class of citizen and a variety of consumer needs. Having bravely started a 110-meter hurdle race, China needs to find marathon-style solutions instead.

The world's major oil producers are essentially home-grown here in the United States and are increasingly coming under the hammer for causing the sky high prices at the pump.

However, the reality is that these companies have not just a great business model, but essentially monopolistic powers. The higher the price of crude goes, the bigger profits they make.

Whether this week's announcement by President Bush about using strategic reserves to supply the market or talk over windfall taxes on oil producers' profits will be fruitful, remains to be seen.

But one clue about the future price of oil can be seen within the futures market for oil this week. Recently, the large commercial producers took the view that the price of crude wouldn't stray above $70 per barrel.

Data from the CFTC based upon the net positions of commercial traders in the crude oil futures markets revealed pessimism over crude in the coming weeks.

Producers just turned negative on the price of crude

In the chart, the blue line plots the price of a barrel of oil on the right-hand scale, while the green line maps the net commercial position in futures contracts.

The horizontal red line represents a net-zero position. In general, these commercial traders remain net long of crude oil positions, most likely because of the usual reasons. They recognize prices are more likely to rise because of the tensions listed at the top of this article.

The flip-flop to such a convincing short position is unusual. On the other side of the coin, the net speculative position held by professional traders at banks and hedge funds went extremely long.

But looking at the chart, I'm not convinced that the commercials always get it right. Between July and September 2005 they remained net short, while the price of oil rose from $58 to $67 per barrel.

Perhaps they have a better knowledge of the timeline of refineries coming back on line. While hurricane season is only five weeks away, don't forget that last year the first storm wasn't until the end of August. That's four months from now.

Who's your money on??

Have a great week!

Andrew Wilkinson
Senior Newsletter Editor

P.S. Get exclusive access to million-dollar hedge fund strategies for the price of a newsletter subscription with my new service, Wilkinson's Hedge Fund Investing. Join today.


TO SUBSCRIBE


If this MoneyNews Alert has been forwarded to you and you would like a subscription, please visit: http://www.newsmax.c...OMO_CODE=1EF1-1

Sign up for MoneyNews e-mail alerts today!

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

J. Edlund stated
Alcohols have one boiling point, this tends to cause cold start problems.

Now I know just why the squirt cans are/were used to start many engines at race tracks. Which gives one the appearance of just how not to start an engine safely.

Cweil stated:
With methanol, I could run 14.5-16:1 compression. The payoff is in the power (a LOT), but the tradeoff is in fuel consumption volume.

You have just caused me to rewrite my whole redesign of the Old NOVI engine as I was only using 12.131:1 C.R.

Getting a Spherical Segment Combustion Chamber to exactly 16;1 isn’s easy you know. I have drawn about twenty of them, not all 12.131:1, which is a real exercise in how to spend a couple of weeks finding just how wrong you are and a lot of other people also!
Yours, M.L. Anderson