Dahon.Steve

I watched the movie “Pump” on Netflix last night and was truly educated on how the oil companies are making it impossible to use alternatives like ethanol or methanol. It showed how our cars today all have the ability to gas or ethanol by just simply changing the instructions in the on board computer! LOL! Billions of dollars are being made keeping the American public on gasoline when the option to use alternatives was there all along.

Why would I bring this subject up on a carfree forum? Watching the movie, one would think we would all be living happily ever after if we switched to alternatives.

What the movie didn’t tell you was the following about alternative fuel.

1. No effect on the price of new vehicles -- If we ever do get the chance to use alternatives, it will have zero effect in lowering the price of new cars. The cost of the engine or batteries is just as much as a combustion motor. Sticker shock is not going away!

2. Costly auto insurance, repairs, tolls and tickets will continue to go up and alternative fuel will not have any effect on lowering these prices.

3. Alternatives are cheaper by the gallon but since they burn faster, you’ll have to buy more gas so the savings are minimal.

4. Some alternatives like natural gas will mean driving with a highly explosive compressed gas tank in your trunk.

I still believe we need to move onto alternative fuels even though this will mean the dream of a carfree society will be just that, a dream. However, for those thinking the days of cheap fuel are just around the corner are only kidding themselves. Watching the movie, it appears we may become energy independent at some point but society will be just as miserable when they discover all they did was switch from one costly fuel to another. Also, all the other associated costs didn’t go away either.

From the New York Times

Methanol produces about half the energy per gallon as gasoline, so you need to burn twice as much to go just as far. But it is still cheaper than gas. It would cost approximately $3 today, including taxes, distribution and retail markup, to travel the same distance on methanol as on a gallon of gasoline, according to calculations by the Methanol Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The long and short term solution is clear. Remain carfree.


https://youtu.be/iTytxMdlazM

Roody

I think that walking is the best alternative to cars, closely followed by bikes and then public transit. Al the other alternatives offer only slight improvements over gasoline, and no major improvements are foreseeable at this time. Millions of people will be happier, safer, and healthier when we finally replace gas engines with bicycling, walking, and public transit.

Dahon.Steve

It's only a matter of time before alternatives start appearing at the pump. The oil companies can't stop progress forever. Most people won't see real savings and I don't think this is going to stop the carfree movement. I hope it creates more jobs because we certainly need that.

Smallwheels

Cars run on alcohol will last three times longer. Alcohol doesn't have the nasty residues or pollution coming out of the tailpipes that gasoline does.

If there is ever an alcohol spill it will just evaporate and not leave behind deadly toxins. I'm for alcohol as the number one alternative fuel. Turning corn into alcohol fuel is inefficient. Using several other sources produces just about triple the fuel. Tumbleweeds are one example of a super plant to create alcohol, and they don't require watering.

Roody

I don't know a lot about it, but isn't there quite a bit of pollution involved with the production of ethanol? Also, it seems like various additives might make an alcohol spill fairly toxic. And of course, alcohol itself is classified as a toxin. (Hence, "intoxicated".)

bragi

I agree with you that it would be way better for society, and the individuals who make up society, if we largely dispensed with privately owned cars. But we all know that this is never, ever going to happen, barring a catastrophic economic collapse. If you're not in a car, you know that cars can turn urban landscapes into hellholes. However, if you're in a car, and you've grown up in them, and you think that it's normal to travel everywhere in an endless stream of high-speed metal boxes that dominate the landscape, then you get annoyed, even alarmed, when people suggest that this isn't desirable or even necessary.

dynodonn 

The problem with a fuel made with a form of alcohol and using it in engines designed to run on gasoline, is that it is very inefficient due to the lower compression of many of today's cars gasoline engine design . There has been some experimentation with turbocharged or supercharged engines to make up the alcohol fuel difference, but those add higher initial and long term maintenance costs. E85 fuel has been a boon to many in the motorsports and hot rodding crowds, due to their already higher compression engines, and producing much lower emissions than on gasoline.

I checked the alternative fuel source locator, and my area is a virtual desert for any alcohol based fuel source, with the closest being 300 plus miles away.

rcslegacy

I don't remember where I heard this but I honestly believe that if it wasn't for the influence of the oil and gas companies on various corrupt government officials, politicians/regulators/etc., who gladly take "gifts" from those oil companies, then solar powered cars would already be commonplace.

I'm a car person and I wouldn't just give up gas powered vehicles without having some other fuel as an alternative, but if I could get a Tesla at a price that competes with an average economy car, I'd be all over that!

Juan Foote

Having recently watched the movie, I was a bit disappointed that there was NO discussion about cycling infrastructure solutions.

Just out of curiosity I checked that alt fuel website and found there are no stations anywhere around offering anything but E85, and much higher than gas prices.

Smallwheels

Alcohol fuel doesn't need additives. It works well in high performance engines because of higher compression ratios.

Farming various plant sources to make alcohol isn't any different than producing food. A heat source is required to distill it. Heat is also used in making gasoline. One big difference is that if corn is used as the fuel source, the remnants of the process can be fed to cattle as a high protein dense food. The cattle don't actually benefit from the starch portion of corn. That is the part that cows turn into methane and expel into the atmosphere. It is better for an alcohol still to use that starch for fuel.

Brazil had a law that required all new cars sold there to have E100 capable engines. That means they can use 100% ethanol or any combination of alcohol and gasoline. We need that regulation here. It would create a market for alcohol. It would open the door for California to adopt it as the only fuel for cars, other than diesel. Alcohol produces only 2% of the air pollution of gasoline.

Making cars that run totally on alcohol is not very difficult. It just requires different programming from the computers in cars and approval from the EPA. Any E85 car today could potentially run 100% alcohol as long as it is ethanol. What is needed is cars that can run any form of alcohol. That would open the door to numerous other possibilities for fuel sources.

Artkansas 

And in 2007, early major use of crops to create ethanol set off food riots.

cooker

Ethanol and methanol are not alternative fuels. You can't grow enough vegetable material to power cars, trucks, planes, ships etc. AND feed the world. It's drive or eat.

cooker

Probably need to add something along the lines of Bitrix to stop people drinking it.

Dahon.Steve

+1

I was wondering when someone else was going to watch the movie. It's interesting how the only solution to our tranport problems is switching to another expensive alternative. It's really sad the carfree alternative was never discussed.

I still liked the movie because it's propaganda at its best or wishful dreaming at worse. Too bad very few people who watched it were able to see this.

Dahon.Steve

According to the movie, you can make ethanol from multiple material including raw sewage! I don't doubt this but then you look at the price it's going for today and realize the cost to make the finish product is no bargain. I'm satisfied it will be available some day in the far far future!

FBinNY 

+1, Ethanol is a great addition to the mix, but it can't become the mix. Nor can fuel cells, or anything that depends on electricity.

Given the energy consumed simply by going back and forth to work daily (by any means other than walking or bicycling), the smartest alternative is to evolve how our cities are laid out to increase the mix of job locations nearer to residential areas and shorten the average commute.

The length of so many people's commutes is the issue. If they lived closer to work, or worked closer to home, then bicycling would be more practical. But however they traveled or what fuel they used, they'd be using less of it. They'd also have more time to spend with their families, but that's just a fringe benefit.

B. Carfree

Yes, if people were driving shorter distances they would burn less fuel. However, since the efficiency of infernal combustion engines are much lower prior to warming up, less fuel is saved than one might think. Fuel use can be as high as double per mile in the first five miles compared to what one gets with a warmed up engine. Add in the fact that oh-so-many people like to start their cars and then go back inside for a cup of coffee while the interior of their cars heats up and you can see why getting people within what is currently considered walkable/bikeable distances doesn't do much without actually getting them to walk/ride. Of course, if we make the cities dense enough, the lack of parking and lane space will spur many to forego the car for short intra-city travel.

I have seen a situation where a city did the whole mixed-use thing and watched in horror as it simply created zones of high car density that crowded out bikes and pedestrians. Done well, it can work. Done poorly, it can easily make things much worse.

cooker

The use of agricultural waste (including human waste, which ultimately comes from agriculture) is simply a way of making a very inefficient energy cycle a bit more efficient - it doesn't actually put "new" energy into the system. Industrial agriculture consumes way more energy than it produces, but at least you get a little bit more "back" if you convert some waste to fuel. You also might get some short-term increased energy supply by manufacturing ethanol or methanol from prolific weeds like tumbleweeds etc. especially since they can grow on otherwise unusable land, but it can't be scaled up much. It's a tiny energy stream compared to current fossil fuel extraction.

delcrossv

Why would you say that? With the conversion of base load generation capacity from coal to FBR's, there'd be plenty of fuel for all electric transportation- either batteries or hydrolyzing water for H2.

Juan Foote

We must NEVER turn towards a system that utilizes water as a fuel source. In order to keep the (current) forms of them running well the water requires the same cleanliness as what we could drink. We NEED water to live, clean drinkable water. Imagine what comes of turning that into "gas".....

FBinNY 

My statement was based on the technologies as adopted today. Aggressive adoption of nuclear would change things, but being realistic, that's currently down the line after many alternatives. There's a political barrier there, and it won't change until there's a perception that the alternatives aren't going to solve the problems.

Also, as long as people think fuel cells are an energy source, we'll never muster the will to address the issue realistically.

cooker

A lot of water is undrinkable because it is polluted by petrochemical waste. If we stop using petrochemicals, and stop using water in the petrochemical industry (for example in fracking) we may acquire (or at least preserve) more drinking water.

Roody

Give an open-eyed assessment of current technology, I think efficiency, conservation,and above all, abstinence are the only foreseeable solutuion.

delcrossv

Umm. it's a closed cycle. H2O -> 2H + O. Burn the H and it turns back into H2O. Mostly the thought is to use seawater anyway.

Does anyone really think fuel cells are a prime mover? Nuts.

In any event GE/Hitachi PRISMS (a smaller FBR) are going up outside the US- The UK is seriously considering them to burn up weapons stockpiles as a starter. There's really not much else to choose from that's really available now if we're serious about cutting CO2 to address climate change. The public at large wants their AC's and toaster ovens. Abstinence won't sell- improved efficiency is good all 'round.

Juan Foote

You can't use polluted or heavily mineral laden water as it leaves deposits in the catalyst and shortens it's life.

Consider.
Corporations have been going around the last several decades buying up what seemed worthless bits of land and water rights here and there where and when they could. Come to find that in most cases that worthless land had huge aquifers and water systems under it which is now owned by that corporation/conglomerate. If it isn't scary enough the precedent that is being set over something that we have to have in order to survive, add greed and fuel supply to the mix. I think you are highly underestimating and understanding the implications here.