Synthetic Gasoline

[Fubar231]

http://www.gizmag.com/breakthrough-promises-150-per-gallon-synthetic-gasoline-with-no-carbon-emissions/17687/

 

Discuss

[Not Brian]

just another nifty invention that'll never actually hit the pumps.

[iwashmycar]

Yeah maybe when we run out of real stuff, so they can charge 6.99/gal

[Draco-REX]

If they want this to be taken seriously, they need to mix up a few hundred gallons and take it to a race and fuel one of the cars with it.

 

Much as I dislike NASCAR, it has enough of a following in the US for it to be a respectable platform for something like this. Give some of this fuel to a team and have them tune the car for it. Get dispensation from NASCAR to run it in a race. Then, when people see a car being fueled by bright green cans instead of red, and then that car trading paint with the dino-fueled cars, people will want to know more about it.

 

But if this is just some theoretical development and isn't feasible, then they can keep up with their press conferences and papers which no one will take seriously.

 

Personally, I hope this pans out (far fetched as it is); I really want something like this to defy my expectations and surprise the hell out of me. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Fubar231]

I don't think Draco could have said it better.

 

One thing i was curious about, since it is synthetic, they could make some crazy explosive race gas couldnt they?

[iwashmycar]

i would assume they could make just about anything.

 

Any step out of the laboratory and into the tank is a good one

[Mr. Jones]

I don't think Draco could have said it better.

 

One thing i was curious about, since it is synthetic, they could make some crazy explosive race gas couldnt they?

 

Why would anyone want "explosive race gas" ?

[Draco-REX]

Why would anyone want "explosive race gas" ?

 

Isn't that what you get after a chowing down on Taco Bell and then running a Marathon?

 

I think he means a higher energy density.

 

I wonder what the equivalent octane rating is. This is essentially a hydrogen fuel, so from what I've seen, the base octane is around 130 or so. But then it's encapsulated in those 'beads' so it's not in direct contact with oxygen until those capsules are broken. So the octane rating could be much higher.

 

But I keep wondering: If this is just hydrogen in capsules, what makes this better than just using gaseous hydrogen as a fuel? And doesn't the extra step increase the energy cost to manufacture the fuel, over just gaseous hydrogen?

 

I'd like a more detailed article on the manufacturing process. Otherwise, I think we're looking at another idea that looks good on paper but not in reality; like the "water-powered" cars one of the commenters is waiting for.

[T Rex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_CbuQKT8SU

[6 Speed S4]

hmmm would be cool if this were real... but don't see it happening anytime soon.

[Trouble Maker]

Likely the energy cost and emissions from beginning to end is much higher than with other alternatives, i.e. electric vehicles, etc. I would bet that this fuel is worse than regular fuel at this point, and that it would take a lot of work to even get it close. All of that processing cost a lot of energy, water and emissions. If this is all true the only way this makes any sense is if the gas and oil start to run out.

 

We should be spending our resources and knowledge working on long lasting alternatives that have higher efficiencies and less emissions. A fossil fuel replacement that works in combustion engines is just a band aid, they are far too inefficient and emission producing (at this point). That way in xx years when oil does start to run out we aren't using band aids, we are using solutions.

[Draco-REX]

A fossil fuel replacement that works in combustion engines is just a band aid, they are far too inefficient and emission producing (at this point).

Actually, if this fuel is legit, you're only going to see water vapor at the tailpipe. There would be 0 carbon emissions since there would be no carbon in the combustion chamber. This is the same as burning hydrogen in your car, just a different way to deliver it. Again, assuming this stuff actually works as advertised. Carbon cost to make it can be reduced if the local power grid is powered by clean sources.

 

If this fuel is not successful (which seems more likely) the true car of the future will be a plug-in hybrid that uses the algae-based bio-diesel. That's the only solution that's sustainable and can be implemented within the foreseeable future. (This assumes more Nuke plants and less fossil fuel plants)

[Bobby Lee]

Yeah maybe when we run out of real stuff, so they can charge 6.99/gal

 

Reminds me of Daybreakers where they're making synthetic blood for the vampires.

[Trouble Maker]

Actually, if this fuel is legit, you're only going to see water vapor at the tailpipe. There would be 0 carbon emissions since there would be no carbon in the combustion chamber. This is the same as burning hydrogen in your car, just a different way to deliver it. Again, assuming this stuff actually works as advertised. Carbon cost to make it can be reduced if the local power grid is powered by clean sources.

 

If this fuel is not successful (which seems more likely) the true car of the future will be a plug-in hybrid that uses the algae-based bio-diesel. That's the only solution that's sustainable and can be implemented within the foreseeable future. (This assumes more Nuke plants and less fossil fuel plants)

 

Well lets ignore where the energy comes from because if we say 'all other things being equal' we have to say that they come from the same source for either method. So if it comes from solar, it comes from solar to make that synthetic fuel, or make some other fuel or to go straight to the car (elelctric car).

 

So beyond that there are always emissions when processing anything, these may not be carbon emissions, but they are emissions. So negative for the processed fuel. Often these fuels take more energy to make than we could ever get back out of them, so there is a net loss there compared to just using the energy right in the car. They often use many gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of fuel, and we may have all of the water we want, but look at some other states or if you really want to realize water is not that plentiful look at many third world countries. Fuels also have to be shipped, that cost energy and emissions burnt in whatever is shipping it where electricity goes across wires with only some energy loss.

 

Last but not least, with current combustion engines we are getting ~13% of the energy in the fuel going to the wheels. Most of that loss (62%) is in the engine to heat. Electric motors are very efficient, 90%+. In this respect at the very least you have to consider that larger engines like power plants are far more efficient. So if we burned the same exact fuel in a power plant as we do in our cars, then piped it via wires to our cars we would already be much better off from an energy efficiency standpoint. So making this fuel and put it into our current cars is pretty foolish. The only way this fuel makes sense is if we start to run out of oil and if that's the case we better be well on our way to more efficient means of transportation.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech/energy.gif

[Draco-REX]

Well lets ignore where the energy comes from because if we say 'all other things being equal' we have to say that they come from the same source for either method. So if it comes from solar, it comes from solar to make that synthetic fuel, or make some other fuel or to go straight to the car (elelctric car).

 

So beyond that there are always emissions when processing anything, these may not be carbon emissions, but they are emissions. So negative for the processed fuel. Often these fuels take more energy to make than we could ever get back out of them, so there is a net loss there compared to just using the energy right in the car. They often use many gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of fuel, and we may have all of the water we want, but look at some other states or if you really want to realize water is not that plentiful look at many third world countries. Fuels also have to be shipped, that cost energy and emissions burnt in whatever is shipping it where electricity goes across wires with only some energy loss.

 

Last but not least, with current combustion engines we are getting ~13% of the energy in the fuel going to the wheels. Most of that loss (62%) is in the engine to heat. Electric motors are very efficient, 90%+. In this respect at the very least you have to consider that larger engines like power plants are far more efficient. So if we burned the same exact fuel in a power plant as we do in our cars, then piped it via wires to our cars we would already be much better off from an energy efficiency standpoint. So making this fuel and put it into our current cars is pretty foolish. The only way this fuel makes sense is if we start to run out of oil and if that's the case we better be well on our way to more efficient means of transportation.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech/energy.gif

Completely agree.

 

Unfortunately, we don't have the infrastructure to support a lot of Electric vehicles. It goes beyond just putting hot plugs in our homes. In the *foreseeable* future, combustion engines are where we have to be.

 

Now in the 100+ year long view, Electricity is where we will have to head. This will necessitate converting most or all of the interstate system to rail and a complete re-think of how we view owning a car.

 

But short-term, combustion is where it is at. Even if it's like the Volt where it'll only be used to extend range, we'll still be burning something in our cars because liquid fuels are the easiest to package for their energy content.

[Trouble Maker]

Completely agree.

 

Unfortunately, we don't have the infrastructure to support a lot of Electric vehicles. It goes beyond just putting hot plugs in our homes. In the *foreseeable* future, combustion engines are where we have to be.

 

Now in the 100+ year long view, Electricity is where we will have to head. This will necessitate converting most or all of the interstate system to rail and a complete re-think of how we view owning a car.

 

But short-term, combustion is where it is at. Even if it's like the Volt where it'll only be used to extend range, we'll still be burning something in our cars because liquid fuels are the easiest to package for their energy content.

 

I will have to also (almost) completely agree with you at this point. The way we move freight does need to change. I think our long term vision of when electric cars will be viable is just a bit different. I'm thinking 25-50 years, and I'm optimistic that it will be closer to 25 years for mass adoption (90+% of the population driving electric cars or some other alternative). Until we implode technology will always continue to evolve more and more rapidly. It took us 120 years to get from no car to where we are now, I don't think it will take another 100 years to get to something different.

 

Cars will be continually made more efficient through reduced drag and friction losses outside of the engine and this will help combustion cars, but electric cars even more since they use more of the energy that is stored. This will help the issue of needing lots of power from the grid.

 

We will also see battery tech greatly improve, increasing range and leading to other possibilities like battery swapping stations or quick charging stations.

 

Another thing that will help, if the alternative ends up being electric cars or some variant is that everything in our home get more efficient to reduce the amount of energy we use in our homes, freeing up power on the grid for electric cars. Smart grids will come into play to do the higher energy things, like charging up the car at night. I think now if the cars were charged up only while you were sleeping, so you aren't using anything else in the house, there wouldn't be much of an issue.

[Draco-REX]

The reason why I thing a large-scale adoption of pure electric vehicles is a long way off is because of range. Unless battery development suddenly hits an exponential scale on advancement, the range just won't be there. Even if you can make an electric car with a 300mi range, it will still take a long time to charge. This would limit the car to a 150mi round-trip range unless you are planning to stay at your destination for a while. Remember, more juice in the tank means more time at the pump. So a large battery like that would probably require about 8 hours on a 220V hot plug.

 

The thing that will take a long time and make pure electric cars feasible would be the conversion of the interstates to rail. You'll need multiple lanes in each direction for high-speed rail and freight rail. The only reliable place to find land for this is the interstate system. That's the 100+ year gap. We need to rethink what daily transportation means.

[xlr8tn]

The reason why I thing a large-scale adoption of pure electric vehicles is a long way off is because of range. Unless battery development suddenly hits an exponential scale on advancement, the range just won't be there. Even if you can make an electric car with a 300mi range, it will still take a long time to charge. This would limit the car to a 150mi round-trip range unless you are planning to stay at your destination for a while. Remember, more juice in the tank means more time at the pump. So a large battery like that would probably require about 8 hours on a 220V hot plug.

 

The thing that will take a long time and make pure electric cars feasible would be the conversion of the interstates to rail. You'll need multiple lanes in each direction for high-speed rail and freight rail. The only reliable place to find land for this is the interstate system. That's the 100+ year gap. We need to rethink what daily transportation means.

 

funny you should mention this...I was sitting at a light the other day around the 5pm rush hour and was watching traffic. Started watching cars that only had 1 person in them..... I bet it was in the 80%+ range. A huge majority of the cars passing by only had one person in them. I know everyone likes having their car because it represents freedom to move wherever you like but I bet damn near all of those people drove to work, let the car sit all day, and then drove home. We need a better mass transit system.

 

To the subject of the thread.....everytime gas prices go up someone makes a thimble full of some alternative fuel and releases it to the public so they can try to get huge grants to work on it. That's all this is.

[99FLHRCI]

The reason why I thing a large-scale adoption of pure electric vehicles is a long way off is because of range. Unless battery development suddenly hits an exponential scale on advancement, the range just won't be there. Even if you can make an electric car with a 300mi range, it will still take a long time to charge. This would limit the car to a 150mi round-trip range unless you are planning to stay at your destination for a while. Remember, more juice in the tank means more time at the pump. So a large battery like that would probably require about 8 hours on a 220V hot plug.

 

The thing that will take a long time and make pure electric cars feasible would be the conversion of the interstates to rail. You'll need multiple lanes in each direction for high-speed rail and freight rail. The only reliable place to find land for this is the interstate system. That's the 100+ year gap. We need to rethink what daily transportation means.

 

What if I told you that today you could go out and buy a car with 245 mi range took only 3 hrs to charge, did 0-60 in 3.7 seconds and had a top speed of 125 mph?

 

Tesla Roadster

 

They are taking reserves for a sedan that has a 300 mi range 45 min charge time, does 0-60 in 5.9 seconds and has a top speed of 120 mph.

 

Tesla Model S

[Draco-REX]

What if I told you that today you could go out and buy a car with 245 mi range took only 3 hrs to charge, did 0-60 in 3.7 seconds and had a top speed of 125 mph?

 

Tesla Roadster

 

They are taking reserves for a sedan that has a 300 mi range 45 min charge time, does 0-60 in 5.9 seconds and has a top speed of 120 mph.

 

Tesla Model S

 

A 45 minute charge time for a battery pack that can supply a 300mi range to motors that can move a fullsize sedan 0-60 in 5.9? You are NOT doing that with a 110v outlet, and likely not even a 220v hot plug. I think I remember a special EV 440v plug begin developed, and MAYBE that. But you are not going to get a 45 minute charge time with anything normal.

 

As for 3 hours or even 45 minutes, you are not going to wait that long to recharge when you are on a long trip. having to wait 3 hours or 45 minutes every 300 miles when you're driving further than that isn't acceptable. noone would do it. I know I wouldn't buy a pure EV for a daily since I drive from OH to MA and back twice a year. That's 800+ mi one way. I'm not adding another 6 hours to that trip.

 

That's why I say that full EVs will not be feasible for a long time. We need a better infrastructure, and part of that is a rail system that is as extensive as the interstate system.