The future of fuel will arrive next year

[uvaeeman]

Originally Posted by Masospaghetti

While hybrids hold some future, how many hybrids would there have to be to make a dent in our oil usage? How many extra batteries would that require? How many batteries is that going to produce when they have to be replaced? And, maybe most importantly, how much of a drain is that going to be on the economy?

Even with $4 gas, a Prius won't make back its additional cost in fuel over a Corolla. This tells me that the amount of extra equipment necessary to yield that fuel economy increase is not economically sound.

I'm not saying hybrids will never make sense. But the current generation don't.

Too bad the media likes to compare the Prius to a Camry, instead of the Corolla. I know smart engineers who are brainwashed into thinking the Prius is a "family car".

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by Bigbee60

The military establishment has known that an oil shortage is a defense issue for some time now. Search "coal to jet fuel", "DARPA alternative fuel projects". etc. and you will find that a test plant has been in production to provide jet fuel from coal for quite awhile. It's the scale of the plant that needs to be upgraded to meet all our defense (i.e. protect the home turf) needs. DARPA has lots of black box projects on alternative energy. M1 Abrams tanks have hybrid drive systems in the works - imagine a Volt type powertrain allowing a tank to be in the field for a week without refueling.

Yes, the military has always been worried about it's "tail" - the supply units that keep an army operational in the field. With the massive amounts of fuel it takes to keep a tank moving, you've got a whole lot of very vulnerable tanker trucks following the tanks around in a war zone. Fuel economy is very, VERY important to a field commander. An M1 Abrams tank with no fuel is nothing more than a target.

And "coal to jet fuel" isn't new. Nazi Germany employed just that near the end of WWII. It's very expensive, but when you don't HAVE the oil, and you DO have coal......

[Cortazzo]

Originally Posted by PhishPhood

That was two different answers to two different questions.What is sure is that 6 Million or even 1 Billion gallons saved is a tiny drop in the bucket.* Here is another 'order of magnitude' comparo.We use 195 Billion gallons of gasoline and diesel to fuel our vehicles every year.1 Billion gallons saved is about 0.5% saved... about 1/2 of a 1%.If we say that the auto industry has a current fleet average of 25 mpg and it were to increase that average to to just 26 mpg......that would save 8 BILLION gallons of fuel

No question that we should continue to increase efficiency. But diversifying our energy sources is also important. Every drop of oil that we don't need is one dollar that doesn't prop up some oil dictatorship. We should hope to use less and produce more to double down on domestic supply, stop sending our petro dollars to the middle east instead of US companies like Exxon and Chevron where a lot of that money will go back into our economy.

[hercman]

Every bit of tech advancement helps in one way or another.

The thing I find impressive is the 6,000/acre/yr compared to corn ethanol at 300 something/acre/yr.

It might not be the answer but it will make a dent. Heck with enough plants we could flood Brazils Ethanol and maybe save some enviroment while we're at it.

Bring on the progress across the whole gammutt. What ever is best will rise to the top. Until then it's all specualtion on what's feasable and what's not.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by Knucklehead

What about on the coast of Baja California? Plenty of seawater and sunlight and not very population dense. What is important is the output of fresh water. In conjunction with or as a desalinization plant is a huge item. Previously arid unusable land now has manufacturing and fresh water.....

Well, if the Mexican Goverment wants to use Baja, then they can, but it won't do us any good since it isn't part of the U.S.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by 63GrandSport001

If this made mainsream media then it would likely kill the idea of drill here drill now.

That's why we won't hear of it elsewhere. Eliminating 'DHDN' from the mix would give Republicans one less thing to entice people (incorrectly) with lower gas prices, and it would take something away from the Democrats that makes them, well, not Republican since they use 'DHDN' as a scare tactic.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by logansowner

They are talking about a 1B gallon/yr plant, not their test plant. When I figure American gas usage at 21 million bpd that brings me to a need for 322 of these plants to replace all gasoline usage, which isn't the goal anyway.

But by all means, since this technology wont replace 100% of our fuel usage, we should ignore it.

Exactly. That seems to be the point of some of these narrow-minded mouth breathers; that if it isn't a straight across, 100% replacement fuel that gives the same range, power and efficiency of gasoline, then it isn't worth talking about. Energy independence will come from diversification of our fuels, not from waiting for potential oil from Alaska or some magic bullet like hydrogen. At least some of us understand that.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by PhishPhood

Promising innovation but it's still a tiny drop....

Look at these numbers...
The US uses 20 million barrels per day of oil.... 20 mmbpd Source: EIA
One barrel of oil produces about 20 gal of gasoline and 7 gal of diesel.
Thus we use 400,000,000 gal of gasoline every day plus 140,000,000 gal of diesel every day.
Over the course of 1 year we use 144,000,000,000 gal + 50,500,000,000 = 195 Billion gallons.

If this technology, 6000 gal / acre / yr, were extended to 1000 acres...it would produce 6,000,000 gal of bio ethanol per year.

Thus this plant at 1000 acres would replace ..... ready...... less than ONE minute of our daily usage. 6 Million / 195 Billion.

It is not likely that any one solution will provide all of the transportation energy. However, the article does say that the plant will produce one billion gallons per year by 2012. Combine this with 78% of the Plug-in electric vehicle owners using zero gas (Volt model) and now you are talking about consuming far less oil. The real point is to get off of the oil supplied by the "most objectionable" sources (you know who I am talking about). That is only roughly 22% of the oil we use.

We should concentrate on reducing oil consumption by 22% in the next 5 years and then continue down the path to total energy independence as quickly as possible. Simply converting the fleet to a high percentage of PHEV's could easily cut our consumption by twenty or more percent (remember – 78% of PHEV owners will use virtually zero gas). Add Biofuels to the mix and we reduce our need for oil even further. Quickly we will reach a point where we can supply all of our oil from North American sources. That will give us decades, if not centuries, to continue to reduce our need for fossil fuels. We simply need a reasonable energy policy. The problem is more political than technical.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by uvaeeman

Too bad the media likes to compare the Prius to a Camry, instead of the Corolla. I know smart engineers who are brainwashed into thinking the Prius is a "family car".

Not to defend the Prius, but why isn't it a family car? I use my Ion as our family car. Who says you have to have mid-sized car to have a family car? Any car can be a family car, it just depends on the size of your family. My sister has a Chevy Metro as her family car. It works for her.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by SCCA1995

Just because we slowly stop suckling at the tip of an oil rig, doesn't mean these countries economies will fall in the blink of an eye. Not every driver will be able to afford or get access to a hybrid. Plus, who's going to buy all of the current gasoline/diesel vehicles that stop being driven? They will still be on the street at some point in time. But, being driven less often will save people some money & lessen the impact of their being driven.

Exactly. And the average time to replace the current fleet entirely with E85 capable cars is 16 years. That's a good, long time to trickle down on oil importation.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by uvaeeman

Too bad the media likes to compare the Prius to a Camry, instead of the Corolla. I know smart engineers who are brainwashed into thinking the Prius is a "family car".

Actually the Corolla is the wrong comparo also. It's not a 5 door hatchback. The correct comparo is the Matrix/Vibe. Think about it.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by Cortazzo

No question that we should continue to increase efficiency. But diversifying our energy sources is also important. Every drop of oil that we don't need is one dollar that doesn't prop up some oil dictatorship. We should hope to use less and produce more to double down on domestic supply, stop sending our petro dollars to the middle east instead of US companies like Exxon and Chevron where a lot of that money will go back into our economy.

Agreed. The eventual solution with be a multi-faceted one comprising new sources of fuel, improved economy from 'traditional' power sources, hybrids, diesels and electricity. There is no single silver bullet which will solve everything.

What would be interesting is to list each facet and then to show below each heading a nominal improvement, an expected improvement and an optimistic improvement.

For example:
Fuel savings from improvements in 'traditional' gasser ICEs'
Nominal 5% savings....... a 1 mpg increase in efficiency.... this would save 10 Billion gallons of fuel
Expected 15% savings... a 4 mpg increase in efficiency.... this would save 30 Billion gallons of fuel
Optimistic 25% savings.. a 6 mpg increase in efficiency.... this would save 50 Billion gallons of fuel

New alt-fuel sources
Nominal 5% savings....... would require 10 Billion gal of alt-fuels annually
Expected 15% savings... would require 30 Billion gal of alt-fuels annually
Optimistic 25% savings.. would require 50 Billion gal of alt-fuels annually

New 'combined' power sources ( hybrids, PHEVs, EREVs )
Nominal savings.....
Expected savings...
Optimistic savings..

But then growth has to be factored into the equation ( growth in population and growth in the economy )....
...by 2020, instead of 195 Billion gallons being burned every year in our vehicles we will need about 245 Billion gallons; Oops there goes the 50 Billion gal we saved by implementing the most optimistic alt-fuel savings.
...by 2030, instead of 195 Billion gallons we will need 295 Billion gallons. Yikes! We need to find another 50 Billion gal in increased efficiencies or new sources.

And finally this doesn't take into account the expected shortfalls that the oil producers see in their own fields. With major suppliers like Mexico, the North Sea, Russia and even Saudi beginning to see supplies reaching their peaks there's a significant risk of shortfalls
Nominal 5% shortfall........
Expected 15% shortfall....
Pessimistic 25% shortfall..

[uvaeeman]

Originally Posted by Saturn69

Not to defend the Prius, but why isn't it a family car? I use my Ion as our family car. Who says you have to have mid-sized car to have a family car? Any car can be a family car, it just depends on the size of your family. My sister has a Chevy Metro as her family car. It works for her.

I see your point, who decides what a "family car" means? In the last article I saw using that phrase, they had only two categories of sedans. "Small" and "Family". It's a dumb way of looking at things because the types of sedans and hatches are so much more complicated than that. It irritated me that they put the Corolla/Matrix in "small car" and the Prius & Camry in "Family Car". By having two categories, they were putting midsize-large into the "Family" bucket. But Corolla/Matrix/Prius are very similar in size. Anyway, my use of the phrase was making a little fun of how crappy their categories are.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by Saturn69

Exactly. And the average time to replace the current fleet entirely with E85 capable cars is 16 years. That's a good, long time to trickle down on oil importation.

Plug-in electric vehicles will save people $300 per month (assumes driving 40 miles per day 7 days a week) at current gas prices. I think $300 per month + potential tax incentives + "being green" + driving a new car + being able to refuel at home will be a pretty good incentive to switch over. Compare that to the incentive to convert to E85 and I think it will be obvious that it is likely to happen sooner. Besides - WE DO NOT NEED 100% conversion. It is likely that we will use fossil fuels for many decades. We just need to reduce our consumption by 22% (to avoid the most objectionable sources) ASAP and then steadily continue to decrease our dependency on fossil fuels. Improvements in battery energy density and reductions in charge time will continue to push the number of people who would use “virtually” zero gasoline (78% today) higher and higher until the consumption of oil for automobiles and light trucks will become almost insignificant. Don’t constrain your thinking to 100%.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by edsuski

Don’t constrain your thinking to 100%.

I wasn't, I was referring to the poster I quoted who was referring to economies being shut down due to a switch in fuel sources and that if we did convert to E85, it would take 16 years of fleet life to do so. I wasn't saying we should switch to solely E85.