Blue Crude

[Lil4X]

I think the bottom line we all have to recognize is that the laws of physics and chemistry don't allow a lot of leeway in energy production. It takes energy to re-arrange molecular bonds, and it's a question of cost as to whether any fuel is ultimately going to be efficient. It's going to take power, be it wind, solar, or hydro to drive that chemical reaction uphill so we can reap the energy benefits of deconstructing those bonds to drive our automobiles.

We think that using "renewable" resources to do this would be "free", but they are not. Sure, the "fuel" driving the generators might be free (wind, water, sunshine), but we still have the costs of conversion - in this case of CO2 to a barrel of diesel. Those compressors and chemical reactors aren't free and they operate at a significant cost. All of this has to be factored into the market price of the end product. Can it be made competitive with present-day motor gasoline?

Then we have the product itself. For example, ethanol is a low-energy fuel, producing about half of the motive power of motor gasoline. OK, now your 84mpg Elio gets 42mpg - highway. That's not bad for now, but in the Elio world, that's LOUSY. We've discussed several other drawbacks of ethanol elsewhere, but this one sorta defeats the idea of a "high-mileage" vehicle right from the beginning. Of course if "fossil fuels" were legislated out of existence, I suppose that "renewables" would become practical if only because they would be the only game in town; the operational theory here being "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king".

If we can produce a motor fuel that returns a reasonable BTU/$ figure, that'd be terrific - but even the staunchest proponents of alternative fuels won't venture that. It's going to be a long and bumpy road bringing alternative energy to the customers.

 

[karl]

It is easy to carry 5 gallons of diesel fuel a lot tougher to transport hydrogen. Water is the next huge shortage, we want to make fuel out of it? That is dumber than corn. It uses more energy to produce than it provides with electrolysis. Driving an Elio makes much more sense to me than any of this...

 

[NSTG8R]

It is easy to carry 5 gallons of diesel fuel a lot tougher to transport hydrogen. Water is the next huge shortage, we want to make fuel out of it? That is dumber than corn. It uses more energy to produce than it provides with electrolysis. Driving an Elio makes much more sense to me than any of this...

Well, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your take on "the next huge shortage". The Earth has the same amount of water on it that it always has...a bunch. Granted, most of it's saltwater, but desalinazation could take care of that if it was required to use fresh water in their H2O to diesel fuel process. And if they'd stop with hydrogen in the process (for fuel cells), the exhaust is water vapor. I think it's the ultimate in recycling. If they would use wind/solar/hydro green technologies to produce the hydrogen, even better. I'm with you on the corn being stupid though.

 

[Lil4X]

It is easy to carry 5 gallons of diesel fuel a lot tougher to transport hydrogen. Water is the next huge shortage, we want to make fuel out of it? That is dumber than corn. It uses more energy to produce than it provides with electrolysis. Driving an Elio makes much more sense to me than any of this...

That's my feeling too. Rather than try to devise alternative fuel sources that won't be practical for at least twenty years, let's work with the products we have and make them more efficient. We already have motor gasoline that packs more energy per gallon than anything short of nuclear power. Let's design a gasoline fueled car for our actual needs and see what we come up with.

If you look at our congested freeways, it becomes immediately apparent that most of us commute to work - each driving a four to six passenger car . . . with a few 7-seat SUVs thrown in for good measure. We're hauling two or three tons of steel to transport one little pink body 10 or 20 miles to work each day, and then doing it all over to return it home.

We could work from home and telecommute - I've done that for years, and although it requires a different mindset and discipline, it works very well. However, while probably 75% of us work at jobs that could be performed from a home office via the internet - conducting meetings online, distributing drafts and reports via the internet, a few of us will always need that face-to-face experience, and some need to be where the expensive hardware is - like factory floors or process units. The problem is that most business cultures don't realize this and too many mid-managers and executives want to see heads in cubicles as they survey their territory. Nevermind that it's a terrible waste of time and energy to drag everyone to a cubefarm where they can be less efficient - and consume a couple hours every day in traffic just to suit the office model. Telecommuting's going to be slow to develop, given our business culture today.

We could go to "mixed use" structures that are high-rise buildings containing floors of offices, condominiums, and even retail stores in a mall-like structure. Many such structures could be connected by elevators, tunnels, walkways, or light rail to allow workers to walk a few blocks in an enclosed space or take a tram from one building to another. That'll probably happen someday, but not in our lifetimes, at least not on a large scale.

How can we realistically alter the template here to cut our driving costs . . . say, in half? Mohammed is going to the mountain here, rather than vice-versa - we're not making any fundamental changes in society, just in its hardware. First of all, let's stipulate that we need to move ONE person for a considerable number of miles to and from work. With the sprawl of our urban communities, mass transit for most isn't convenient. As we multitask our expeditions from home, dropping off the cleaning on the way to work, or grocery shopping on the way home, we don't necessarily travel from point A to point B anymore. To get the most benefit from our vehicles and fuel, we try to daisy-chain our errands, cutting mileage, thus fuel consumption. Mass transit is fine, but it doesn't easily adapt to this kind of multi-mission commute home. So we're left with the automobile. How can we improve its efficiency while still using the available infrastructure that supports the cars and trucks on the road today?

The Elio, with its tandem seating for one or two, aerodynamic shell and tuned-for-economy conventional gasoline engine seems to be ideal - at least in the short run . . . here meaning the next 15 or 20 years. It's an all-weather transportation device with all of the comfort of a small car, but with twice the economy in the daily slog to work. It will conform to existing safety standards for conventional automobiles by the time it is offered for sale, thus it will be relatively inexpensive to insure, and it will offer a level of simplicity that will allow most hobbyists to perform their own routine maintenance. Because of its low purchase price and safety engineering, it will be cheap to ensure as well, making the Elio a safe, economical vehicle for personal commuting year 'round. Besides, it's going to be fun.

There will be a place for diesels, EV's, hydrogen fuel, maybe even flux capacitors and fusion packs in the future, but the Elio will work right now, driving long distances on existing roads, fueling at existing service stations in a matter of minutes, and priced at a point that will allow many users to purchase one out of their existing fuel and insurance budget. For a practical solution to the REAL needs of America's commuters, there just isn't anything else on the horizon.

 

[Chaz]

It is twice the cost of regular diesel pretax. Until it is just slightly more this is a no go.

 

[RUCRAYZE]

That's my feeling too. Rather than try to devise alternative fuel sources that won't be practical for at least twenty years, let's work with the products we have and make them more efficient. We already have motor gasoline that packs more energy per gallon than anything short of nuclear power. Let's design a gasoline fueled car for our actual needs and see what we come up with.

If you look at our congested freeways, it becomes immediately apparent that most of us commute to work - each driving a four to six passenger car . . . with a few 7-seat SUVs thrown in for good measure. We're hauling two or three tons of steel to transport one little pink body 10 or 20 miles to work each day, and then doing it all over to return it home.

We could work from home and telecommute - I've done that for years, and although it requires a different mindset and discipline, it works very well. However, while probably 75% of us work at jobs that could be performed from a home office via the internet - conducting meetings online, distributing drafts and reports via the internet, a few of us will always need that face-to-face experience, and some need to be where the expensive hardware is - like factory floors or process units. The problem is that most business cultures don't realize this and too many mid-managers and executives want to see heads in cubicles as they survey their territory. Nevermind that it's a terrible waste of time and energy to drag everyone to a cubefarm where they can be less efficient - and consume a couple hours every day in traffic just to suit the office model. Telecommuting's going to be slow to develop, given our business culture today.

We could go to "mixed use" structures that are high-rise buildings containing floors of offices, condominiums, and even retail stores in a mall-like structure. Many such structures could be connected by elevators, tunnels, walkways, or light rail to allow workers to walk a few blocks in an enclosed space or take a tram from one building to another. That'll probably happen someday, but not in our lifetimes, at least not on a large scale.

How can we realistically alter the template here to cut our driving costs . . . say, in half? Mohammed is going to the mountain here, rather than vice-versa - we're not making any fundamental changes in society, just in its hardware. First of all, let's stipulate that we need to move ONE person for a considerable number of miles to and from work. With the sprawl of our urban communities, mass transit for most isn't convenient. As we multitask our expeditions from home, dropping off the cleaning on the way to work, or grocery shopping on the way home, we don't necessarily travel from point A to point B anymore. To get the most benefit from our vehicles and fuel, we try to daisy-chain our errands, cutting mileage, thus fuel consumption. Mass transit is fine, but it doesn't easily adapt to this kind of multi-mission commute home. So we're left with the automobile. How can we improve its efficiency while still using the available infrastructure that supports the cars and trucks on the road today?

The Elio, with its tandem seating for one or two, aerodynamic shell and tuned-for-economy conventional gasoline engine seems to be ideal - at least in the short run . . . here meaning the next 15 or 20 years. It's an all-weather transportation device with all of the comfort of a small car, but with twice the economy in the daily slog to work. It will conform to existing safety standards for conventional automobiles by the time it is offered for sale, thus it will be relatively inexpensive to insure, and it will offer a level of simplicity that will allow most hobbyists to perform their own routine maintenance. Because of its low purchase price and safety engineering, it will be cheap to ensure as well, making the Elio a safe, economical vehicle for personal commuting year 'round. Besides, it's going to be fun.

There will be a place for diesels, EV's, hydrogen fuel, maybe even flux capacitors and fusion packs in the future, but the Elio will work right now, driving long distances on existing roads, fueling at existing service stations in a matter of minutes, and priced at a point that will allow many users to purchase one out of their existing fuel and insurance budget. For a practical solution to the REAL needs of America's commuters, there just isn't anything else on the horizon.

I'd love to know "but the Elio works right now" to be soooo true. It might be in the next few years, if EM doesn't get their s**t together, someone else will

 

[Ty]

I've done some research on that myself. Big in the diesel truck community. The dry cells are fairly simple to make with stuff from the hardware store, and a lot safer to run since it make the HHO on demand (no storage). Here's a pretty good link with tons of info:

http://www.hho4free.com/bob_boyce.htm

The problem with Brown's gas is that it requires more electricity (power) to make than it produces. Of course all fuel does. That is why we dig it up and let nature do most of the work. Brown's gas supporters seem to believe that they can produce the gas from their vehicle's power supply and get more than they put in... if that were the case, I'd pick my truck up and run it for free as a generator forever.

Making the Diesel blue takes more power to produce than it makes (it's almost as if the law of conservation of energy can't be broken) but that is okay because the power to make it is cheap and could be from reusable sources. Using diesel blue as a stop-gap until suitable power storage is developed. Current (an electrical pun?) batteries aren't quite there yet.

 

[Ty]

I think the bottom line we all have to recognize is that the laws of physics and chemistry don't allow a lot of leeway in energy production. It takes energy to re-arrange molecular bonds, and it's a question of cost as to whether any fuel is ultimately going to be efficient. It's going to take power, be it wind, solar, or hydro to drive that chemical reaction uphill so we can reap the energy benefits of deconstructing those bonds to drive our automobiles.

We think that using "renewable" resources to do this would be "free", but they are not. Sure, the "fuel" driving the generators might be free (wind, water, sunshine), but we still have the costs of conversion - in this case of CO2 to a barrel of diesel. Those compressors and chemical reactors aren't free and they operate at a significant cost. All of this has to be factored into the market price of the end product. Can it be made competitive with present-day motor gasoline?

Then we have the product itself. For example, ethanol is a low-energy fuel, producing about half of the motive power of motor gasoline. OK, now your 84mpg Elio gets 42mpg - highway. That's not bad for now, but in the Elio world, that's LOUSY. We've discussed several other drawbacks of ethanol elsewhere, but this one sorta defeats the idea of a "high-mileage" vehicle right from the beginning. Of course if "fossil fuels" were legislated out of existence, I suppose that "renewables" would become practical if only because they would be the only game in town; the operational theory here being "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king".

If we can produce a motor fuel that returns a reasonable BTU/$ figure, that'd be terrific - but even the staunchest proponents of alternative fuels won't venture that. It's going to be a long and bumpy road bringing alternative energy to the customers.

1.5 gallons of Ethanol equals one gallon of gasoline and 2.0 gallons of Methanol equals one gallon of gasoline when it comes to BTUs produced. To clarify a little.

You make a good point about the pointless endeavor of carrying around extra weight. The same can be said for our human bodies, of course.

The good thing about the Diesel Blue is that it allows vehicles which normally just burn fossil fuels to become at least partly environmentally responsible. Even if the perfect vehicle were built tomorrow, it would take years to get the current fleet replaced. If Blue diesel were able to be produced in great quantities tomorrow, it would eliminate a lot of pollution from our streets immediately. And THAT is pretty cool.

 

[WilliamH]

1.5 gallons of Ethanol equals one gallon of gasoline and 2.0 gallons of Methanol equals one gallon of gasoline when it comes to BTUs produced. To clarify a little.

You make a good point about the pointless endeavor of carrying around extra weight. The same can be said for our human bodies, of course.

The good thing about the Diesel Blue is that it allows vehicles which normally just burn fossil fuels to become at least partly environmentally responsible. Even if the perfect vehicle were built tomorrow, it would take years to get the current fleet replaced. If Blue diesel were able to be produced in great quantities tomorrow, it would eliminate a lot of pollution from our streets immediately. And THAT is pretty cool.

........"1.5 gallons of Ethanol equals one gallon of gasoline and 2.0 gallons of Methanol equals one gallon of gasoline when it comes to BTUs produced."........
Yet the EPA rating is based on unadulterated gas. Not the ethanol garbage they force us to burn.

 

[Jeff Porter]

It is easy to carry 5 gallons of diesel fuel a lot tougher to transport hydrogen. Water is the next huge shortage, we want to make fuel out of it? That is dumber than corn. It uses more energy to produce than it provides with electrolysis. Driving an Elio makes much more sense to me than any of this...

My prediction is that, unless some superbug virus wipes out 0.5 to 1 billion (with a 'b') people in the next 30-50 years, drinkable water will absolutely be in short supply and wars will be fought over it.

Agreed with Nstg8r's statements, but we humans number an estimated 7.24 billion on the planet right now. It's projected to be 8 billion by 2025. This year, the estimate for daily world population increase is 210,000+.

Sorry, it's possible this subject could really use its own thread, but an article written in 2012 says that around 1 billion people ate less than the UN-recommended daily caloric intake. Technically, they are starving. It said more than half of babies born in India would be in intensive care if born in California. Article didn't mention how many babies are born in India, but I bet it's a big number. It goes on to say that it's possible in the future, the population will be adjusted with shortages, bullets, and bombs.

Certainly all of this can be explained away by the fact that we humans are incredibly adaptive creatures. Who knows, we may well evolve over the next 100 years to need less water.

Ok, philosophical rant ended.