Zero Emissions Vehicle (was Electric Veh.)

[Ryan Harrell]

Matthew Lamari wrote:
> 
> At 04:28 PM 8/19/96 MET, you wrote:
> >
> >Hello John,
> ><I am fairly certain that the peak hours for electric generation will
> ><shift, not to mention the rates for electric power- especially after
> ><they get you over a barrell.  So the term "Zero Emissions Vehicle" is
> ><a LIE.  They ought ...
> >You are absolutely right! The efficiency rate from power-producer
> >to end user is not more than 10% (I am not shure, but I can get
> >exact numbers if you want)
> >Also solar power is not the cleanest. Some years ago there was a
> >study about solar-cells. It said, that solar cell production consumes
> >more energy than the cell will bring back in it's lifetime.
> >Maybe things have changed in between, but "zero emmission" is
> >something else.
> >Sorry, I don't have better ideas neither (spelling?), so we have to
> >make the best out of existing energy possibilities.
> >Regards
> >Hans
> >
> >hiha@ brain.nefo.med.uni-muenchen.de
> >Munich / Germany
> >
> >
> 
> How about alcohol in a hybrid?  So it takes twice as much methanol to
> produce the same amount of energy as petrol; but at least you get all the
> convenience of fuels (use it when you want.)  Okay, you'd have to screw with
> compressions and stuff; but it wouldn't mean an engine redesign of any more
> epic proportions than souping up your car for a massive compression ratio
> change.
> 
> I seem to remember back in North Queensland when all the cane farmers and
> processing mills were getting interested in something.  They were going to
> turn the cane into Ethanol and mix it in with Petrol (in parts so
> compression didn't have to be changed on a regular vehicle.)  It had been
> tested and worked well.  Alas, as it opposed the best interests of those in
> the oil industry it went away.
> 
> Sure it seemed expensive; but think of it in volume.  The farmers get $30 a
> tonne for the cane.  Somewhere in between would be a competitive price.  You
> don't get anything particularly nasty when you burn alcohol.  Not like some
> of the stuff that comes out (even with a catalytic converter) when you burn
> petroleum.
> 
> It can be made directly from plants that efficiently use sunlight.  Any
> energy used in the process of making the actual alcohol would be used by
> higher-efficiency (than the cars) dedicated machinery.  Someone with a
> heavily modified engine would merely use more alcohol, not add to any
> pollution problem (except maybe water vapour/humidity? :)  At the end of the
> day you'd have a fuel that didn't really pollute, renewable from solar
> energy, and always ready to produce plenty of power, conveniently located in
> the fuel tank.
> 
> Matthew.

However, alcohol is very corrosive on internal engine components. 
Therefore, it is only suitable (and used) for racing applications.