Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol

a reply to: Bedlam

Ooohhh! That would be something! All the other reactors are all targeting 2020 for results so that would Yuge indeed!

As always, thanks for the crumb!

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Bedlam

Ooohhh! That would be something! All the other reactors are all targeting 2020 for results so that would Yuge indeed!

As always, thanks for the crumb!

We always thought one of two Navy research groups were onto it. They had all the guys, some civilian researchers, it went s, then ts, then black, popped up at another Naval research facility, vanished again.

It was obvious why they were interested, what's not obvious is if they got it or not. But they sure ACTED like something had panned out with all the shuffling.

a reply to: Bedlam

Oh King Donald, please!

Three card monty to totally black... sounds like a topic for ATS! Maybe that is why the molten salt reactors (? or fast breeder) where quietly dropped? Somebody has picked up the research torch from the NRL and I forget which one but they are carrying it on. I read it on their homepage. My mind is elsewhere today (werk).

Funny how something unrelated can get hooked back in. Like I believe Lockheed figured it out which is why the government wanted to drop the helium reserve--because helium is "waste" product from fusion! But as you seen, I tend to jump the gun at times...

So as not to derail the thread... besides the global warming boogeyman, CO2 is being lauded as the next future fuel to keep us at least carbon neutral. At least it seems to be popping up a lot. Ethanol, biodiesel, jet fuel, that superheated generator, being turned to stone or concrete, carbon nanotubes, and those are from my distracted mind!

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I don't think they can run engines on pure ethanol. I don't think the process is cheap or on any but a nano scale as yet. If it did work, the oil companies would buy the rights and bury it.

Its another feel good hope for the betterment of our future.

Don't worry about pollution and the environment , whispers: (they're working on it).

Incorrect. A 'flex fuel' vehicle is one designed to run on E-89 without any issues.

It is said that most newer vehicles can tolerate a mix of about 50/50 ethanol/gasoline mixture without any issues. I think some vehicles that aren't flex fuel vehicles will still run on E-89 just because the computer will adapt to the different fuel, but I could be wrong about that. Either way, performance would suffer unless the vehicle has been adapted to ethanol. Most newer vehicles can be converted to flex fuel vehicles for about $300.

Ninety percent is about as pure as you can get ethanol, by the way, without taking steps in its preparation that would likely be cost prohibitive. Other issues with ethanol are poorer cold weather performance, and the fact that it is more difficult to transport than gasoline.

David Blume? I believe is the guy that wrote the book 'Alcohol Can Be A Gas'. I've heard him on Coast several times. I think ethanol is great. I'd like to start making my own one of these days.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Incorrect. A 'flex fuel' vehicle is one designed to run on E-89 without any issues.

It is said that most newer vehicles can tolerate a mix of about 50/50 ethanol/gasoline mixture without any issues.

Like I said, can't run on "pure" ethanol, (but they're working on it). Burning any (petroleum) carbon based fuel pumps carbon into the atmosphere.

a reply to: intrptr

E-89 is pure ethanol. The other 10% isn't gasoline, or doesn't need to be. Gasoline is sometimes added to ethanol to make it poisonous so that people don't drink it, but cars can run on pure ethanol. Ethanol with no gasoline or other petroleum derivative added.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: intrptr

E-89 is pure ethanol. The other 10% isn't gasoline, or doesn't need to be. Gasoline is sometimes added to ethanol to make it poisonous so that people don't drink it, but cars can run on pure ethanol. Ethanol with no gasoline or other petroleum derivative added.

Not according to this.

howstuffworks

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: intrptr

E-89 is pure ethanol. The other 10% isn't gasoline, or doesn't need to be. Gasoline is sometimes added to ethanol to make it poisonous so that people don't drink it, but cars can run on pure ethanol. Ethanol with no gasoline or other petroleum derivative added.

Not according to this.

howstuffworks

Fair enough. Automobiles can run on 90% ethanol though, which is as pure as you can get it without distilling it more than once. It is true that ethanol can absorb water more easily than gasoline as the article says. It doesn't store or transport as well or for as long as gasoline. As a fuel though, it's cleaner. Less btu's per gallon, but cleaner. Most cars will get a boost in performance despite ethanol having less of a btu per gallon rating because of the way ethanol combusts. I think it's because it's a slower, more even combustion, but I can't remember exactly. A carburetor engine would need to have the carburetor rebuilt, but most fuel injected engines can be adapted without much trouble.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Fair enough. Let me know when they come out wth the Heavy Metal booster for cabbies, too.