They are talking about their ability to run on biofuel (e85). They achieve the greatest performance on e85. The most recent research I’ve seen is that production of fuel ethanol is now carbon 0 or slightly carbon negative, for the whole chain (including production of raw materials, transportation etc). This won’t be the case for all plants, and it’s not clear to what extent production has reached this level, but it shows what is possible.
So yeah, burning things may not be necessarily bad. Unfortunately no one seems to be investing in similar technologies to apply to other sectors of transportation such as aviation and shipping. It would seem to me to be much more realistic to design an engine for a airliner that burns a biofuel than to design a battery electric version.
The people who have embraced biofuel (e85) the most are car guys looking for more power. E85 has good knock resistance (high octane rating) like race fuel, but is far cheaper. It also has a greater cooling effect upon injection (because you need to inject more, as it is lower energy density).
To counter, while ethanol production might be a net loss in atmospheric CO2, it competes with food production, resulting in deforestation from increased land use for crops. As far as I'm aware, in terms of land use, biofuel still doesn't compare to solar/wind.
We can't let perfect be the enemy of good, though.
If moving from gasoline to ethanol ultimately reduces pollution, it's going to be faster to achieve. We don't have to swap out everything at the consumer level, especially since many cars can run on E85 already.
Continuing to push electric cars is great, but it'll take a lot longer and require a high infrastructure investment to make it truly practical.
As I've stated elsewhere, the main problem is the supply constraint, and it's always a trade-off with food production. It means E85 is still expensive, and hasn't shown promise to scale to become cheaper. And the only way it can scale is to use more land, which must come from somewhere. Even if you don't care for the loss of biodiversity, the destruction of carbon sinks may nullify the purported carbon reduction of switching fuels.
Hybrid vehicles with regenerative braking don't require infrastructure changes and reduce carbon output, all while the consumer spends less on fuel.
I'm not against a reduction in livestock. It solves a bunch of ethical problems. I think if fast food restaurants alone slowly transition to higher percentage of plant based proteins in patties, it would have a outsize impact compared to grass-roots abstinence. But why not both, I suppose?
I'm a huge fan of forests, wetlands, bushlands, heathlands, prairies, and other wild landscapes. If land use in agriculture dropped, my preference would be to see that land go back to the trees, wild-flowers, and the many creatures that live with them.
We've not forgotten that the impetus for this thread is a 600-hp engine designed for the next Koenigsegg supercar, right?
The Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model 3 are here today and are already practical cars, and are down-right affordable compared to a Koenigsegg. If you take purchase price out of the equation, the other Tesla cars are also practical in terms of range and electricity costs.
I hope those buying a new ICE car in 2020 who could afford otherwise have taken a credible look at buying an electric car instead.
To counter the counter: solar/wind as an energy source for non-tethered transport (ie cars that require batteries) needs raw materials for the batteries. This will require mining of lithium and other minerals. This also has land use impacts.
There are serious challenges to recycling or repurposing lithium batteries:
The main issue with ethanol production is the supply constraint, and for that reason it remains a niche product as it's far cheaper to extract oil from the ground. There are perhaps other promising bio-fuel production methods with higher yields, with respect to land use.
Hybrid vehicles are still an economical option, preferably paired with high-efficiency ICEs, and could tide us over until better energy storage options become available.
A vast majority of deforestation for crop land occurs to feed the meat that we eat. How about this sweet car is only available to level 2 vegetarians and above?
> I wonder if hydrocarbons could be synthesized with a reasonable efficiency by using electricity and (solar) heat. Making oil a non-fossil fuel could be the best of both worlds.
> Biogasoline/Biopetrol is gasoline produced from biomass such as algae
>> Companies such as Diversified Energy Corporation are developing approaches to take triglyceride inputs and through a process of deoxygenation and reforming (cracking, isomerizing, aromatizing, and producing cyclic molecules) producing biogasoline. This biogasoline is intended to match the chemical, kinetic, and combustion characteristics of its petroleum counterpart, but with much higher octane levels. Others are pursuing similar approaches based on hydrotreating
> To counter, while ethanol production might be a net loss in atmospheric CO2, it competes with food production, resulting in deforestation from increased land use for crops
It doesn't have to, biogas/syngas and by extension ethanol can be synthesized from just about anything (with various levels of input energy depending on cellulose levels), all you need is basic bioreactors/fermentation from organic material to yield CH3CH2OH (Ethanol) [1}. I met a guy with a syngas company from Germany that was doing that and he told me things like switch-grass in Brazil were a boon for them.
I could easily see this being a viable use of compost material, I'm thinking of low hanging fruit like grass trimmings, and food waste found in local communities that's created and requires additional energy to transport afterward, and yield ethanol from when energy usage is low from local power stations/renewable energy sources. Also, eco-centric places like Boulder County compost bins are readily accessible and are separated (and fined if not) this includes the restaurant Industry, which have to use biodegradable bags, making separation relatively easy to other counties in the US.
In CO there is a startup/company that takes composted material, and creates rich potting soil to gardeners and the MJ industry:
When I was doing my farming apprenticeship in Switzerland, it was common for every Dorf/Community to have a distiller in some capacity; in my case it was the apple and pear orchid owner who would create schnapps for anyone who brought sufficient material for a fee.
I got to know him, and he brought me on his farm/orchid for a few jobs when he found out I had spent some time on a Vineyard in Croatia and had a background in Biology--I helped make wine and Rakija in Croatia, as it was a simple reaction, at scale to sell to support the farm as horticulture was only 15% of profit that season and a 'better use of my time.'
The language barrier with the Swiss farmer was intense at times, (Mundarts are hard) but I realized that this was all sanctioned with the local canton: such that if he collected a tax on their behalf on the yielded amount of alcohol everything/anything he charged per hour of labour was his to keep. He would then report that to the canton come tax time.
It's really a viable method to reduce (perceived) waste and turn into a Value Added Product--local farmers/residents brought batches of fermented cherries/apricots/apples/pears to this distiller that were unfit for Market or just local waste in their yard to make family schnapps. Rather than like the US where, as I found out during my undergrad, the State requires you taint the Ethanol synthesized in a lab to ensure its not consumable and deter 'bootleggers.'
Personally, at the time I thought it would be a viable alternative to using dirty diesel on the various amounts of farm equipment: tractors, combines, haulers etc... as MPG is not really a big concern as much as cost of operation/job is. But if E85 could be produced locally to run cars then all the better. I do love the sound E85 inline 6 engines make (JZ and RB series) at the track.
So yeah, burning things may not be necessarily bad. Unfortunately no one seems to be investing in similar technologies to apply to other sectors of transportation such as aviation and shipping. It would seem to me to be much more realistic to design an engine for a airliner that burns a biofuel than to design a battery electric version.
The people who have embraced biofuel (e85) the most are car guys looking for more power. E85 has good knock resistance (high octane rating) like race fuel, but is far cheaper. It also has a greater cooling effect upon injection (because you need to inject more, as it is lower energy density).