PDA

View Full Version : Are Backyard Ethanol Brewers an Answer to High-Priced Gas?




yongrel
05-10-2008, 12:15 PM
Are Backyard Ethanol Brewers an Answer to High-Priced Gas?
Company debuts ethanol home refinery system to offer consumers an alternative to gasoline
By Larry Greenemeier for Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=backyard-ethanol-brewers

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/CEF8EE51-E5D1-4FEE-86C410E511358F1A_1.jpg

A company banking on drivers' weariness of skyrocketing gasoline prices unveiled a home refinery device on Thursday offering another option: ethanol. E-Fuel Corporation says its EFuel100 MicroFueler can produce up to 35 gallons (132 liters) of ethanol a week that consumers can pump directly into their cars and trucks. There is no combustion inside the device, which runs on a standard household 110- to 220-volt AC power supply (consuming about 150 watts per day) and uses a membrane system to distill the sugar, yeast and water solution required to make ethanol rather than combustion heating elements, as commercial ethanol producers do.

Interested drivers in the U.S. can put in their orders now for their own EFuel100 MicroFueler at the company's Web site with a $3,000 down payment toward the total $10,000 tab; the first units are expected to ship some time this fall. The company, which has plants in Los Gatos and Paso Robles, Calif., as well as Hong Kong, also plans to sell MicroFuelers in Brazil, China and the U.K.

The prototype rolled out at a press conference in New York City yesterday is 72 inches (1.8 meters) high, 42 inches (1.1 meters) wide and 72 inches long, but the company says the consumer units are likely to be a bit smaller.

Ethanol fuel is made from a combination of water, yeast and sugar, Tom Quinn, E-Fuel founder and CEO, said at the press conference, adding that the process was no more complicated than what is taught in "third-grade science." The adoption of ethanol has been held back because drivers do not have access to the fuel, he said, pointing out that there are only 1,200 ethanol stations in the U.S., compared with about 176,000 gas stations.

To make ethanol in the EFuel100, feedstock (consisting of sugar and yeast) or discarded liquor is loaded into the device's 200-gallon (757-liter) tank. Using the LCD screen located on the front of the device (next to the pump), the operator places the EFuel100 either in ferment (for feedstock) or distillation (for liquor) mode to begin the process. The EFuel100 is hooked up to a water source—much like one's washing machine or dishwasher is—and regulates the amount of water flowing into its tank to begin the ethanol-conversion process.

Once the feedstock is fermented, the device transfers the solution to its distillation system, where it is vaporized in a vertical column tube and sent through a membrane that separates the alcohol from the water. The distilled vapor is then cooled back into liquid form and sent to the 35-gallon storage tank, from which it can be pumped into an automobile using a 50-foot (15-meter) retractable hose. The process of turning sugar into ethanol fuel takes nearly a week (although alcohol distillation can be done in a matter of hours).

The cost of operating and maintaining the EFuel100 vary, depending on rebates (a $1,000 federal tax credit is available) and the cost of the sugar feedstock—it takes 14 pounds (6.4 kilograms) of feedstock to produce a gallon of ethanol. E-Fuel also offers its Carbon Credit Coupon Program, which will allow its customers to buy discounted E-Fuel–certified sugar feedstock for an estimated 15 to 30 cents per pound, the company said Thursday. One of the company's main objectives with the program is to keep the cost of ethanol less than $1 per gallon.

The company says that families would save a barrel of cash in the long run. It estimates, for instance, that a family will save about $4,200 per year on fuel (assuming gas costs $3.60 per gallon and ethanol costs $1 per gallon) if it has two cars that get 22 miles per gallon (9.3 kilometers per liter) and are driven a total of 34,500 miles (55,500 kilometers) annually. Automobiles do not require their fuel to be 100 percent ethanol, so greater savings are possible if drivers dilute the finished product with water (as long at that mixture contains at least 65 percent ethanol).

E-Fuel chose sugar as its raw material (instead of corn feedstock or cellulose) because of its ease and abundance: corn feedstock or cellulose have to be broken down into sugar before they can be turned into ethanol. But E-Fuel said it plans to eventually build corn and cellulose versions of its microfuelers, although no time frame has been set. A version that uses corn is lower priority, Quinn said, because corn, unlike sugar, is an essential part of the world's food supply. As Bruce Padula, the company's vice president of sales and marketing puts it, "Doctors aren't telling you to eat more sugar." Still, much of the ethanol-producing infrastructure in place is designed to use corn feedstock—corn-based ethanol accounts for most of the total ethanol produced in the U.S. at this time, according to Louisiana State University's Agriculture Center.

However, the company's claims about the environmental friendliness of ethanol are in dispute. E-Fuel touts ethanol as cheaper and more environmentally sound than gasoline, claiming that it produces 85 percent fewer climate change–causing carbon emissions than gasoline. But Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University professor of civil and environmental engineering, says ethanol is no better for air quality. Jacobson last year published a report in Environmental Science & Technology noting that ethanol produces less benzene and butadiene than gasoline, but it releases more formaldehyde and acetaldehyde into the atmosphere.

Although ethanol is made from seemingly innocuous materials (like sugar or corn), it becomes dangerous when broken down in the atmosphere into acetaldehyde and acetic acid (the latter of which is corrosive and irritates the eyes), Jacobson says. "[Ethanol] kills people," he says. "Just like cigarette smoke, you're breathing in particles that are harmful."

Criticism by Jacobson and others against this fuel that many hope will become an alternative to high-priced, foreign-sourced petroleum is an issue E-Fuel and other ethanol backers will have to address, no matter how much cheaper their product is.

danberkeley
05-10-2008, 12:57 PM
ethanol is totally inefficient even with government subsidies... so no.

Zippyjuan
05-10-2008, 01:03 PM
Using their figures, it does not cost one dollar to produce a gallon but $4.60 a gallon (14 pounds of inputs to yield a gallon and the higher figure of .30 a pound for inputs). It is an interesting idea though. From a global impact point, it is surely using more energy to produce that gallon of fuel than the yield you get to use from it.

pcosmar
05-10-2008, 02:24 PM
What's wrong with these ones. They have worked well for years.
http://www.coppermoonshinestills.com/
http://www.coppermoonshinestills.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/DSCF1052.JPG

Edit: just saw the price tag.
That makes these even better.
10 GALLON GEORGIA RIDGE COPPER STILL = $895--pictured above
110 GALLON CONTINUAL FEED STILL = $7800

amy31416
05-10-2008, 02:32 PM
Screw $10k, just build a distillation and fermentation unit out of some old barrels and jugs like granpappy did.

danberkeley
05-10-2008, 02:43 PM
What's wrong with these ones. They have worked well for years.


I doubt they are approved by the energy department... plus, you local would probably require you to get a permit and so on...

Zippyjuan
05-10-2008, 03:14 PM
You would probably need a permit to have flamable and hazardous materials on your property.

pcosmar
05-10-2008, 03:21 PM
You would probably need a permit to have flamable and hazardous materials on your property.
I am zoned agricultural. I can do just about anything. I burn my trash, and have torches and a welder in my barn.
I paint cars here.
http://pcosmar.blogspot.com/2007/10/back-to-grind.html
Aside from that, you can run still (for personal use) just about anywhere.
You just can't sell the product without paying the taxes.

Allen72289
05-10-2008, 03:41 PM
That's a scam.


Ethanol is the most practical fuel.

Corn ethanol isn't.

Switchgrass or hemp require no fertilizer, only for the first two years. This fertilizer can be human manure aka cheap.

No pesticides.

Barely any water.

Just harvest it as if it were hay.

Ethanol evaporates at 172 degrees, a black car's temp is 140, 32 degrees could be done easily.

Ethanol as we know it isn't practical because the stills are not thermal efficient by any means.

That's what you get with government intervention, the farmer doesn't care, he gets his socialized commie money anyway.

Anyhow, with some insulation and a solar heat collector you'll be distilling ethanol with little or no fuel. Just heat from the sun

On top of this the switchgrass can be used as a feedstock for cattle and the manure can be processed into methane and fertilizer.

It bugs me when I see a farmer using obsolete methods of farming.


Electric cars aren't practical because you lose 20-60% of your energy just transferring it from the grid-battery pack-motor.

Neither is nuclear.

If you sold the cattle, milk, manure or methane you could easily offset labor cost.

The only cost would be the labor.

Common law of physics is you lose energy anytime you transfer it.

Oh btw, switchgrass and hemp produce twice the ethanol than corn.

bg1654
05-12-2008, 12:21 PM
"Common law of physics is you lose energy anytime you transfer it."

You mean like when you use electricity to (help) generate ethanol, instead of using it in an electric engine?

"Electric cars aren't practical because you lose 20-60% of your energy just transferring it from the grid-battery pack-motor."

20-60% cradle to grave isnt bad when you consider that ICE engines average about 20% efficiency with the upper limits in the high 30s maybe 40%. These efficiency numbers only take into account fuel tank->motor which would be equivalent to batterypack->motor. What is the efficiency of transporting/generating the fuels? Using electricity to generate ethanol would drop that even more. The difference becomes even greater if you use renewable energy sources at the charging point to (help) charge the batteries since you cut out the grid (partially). Consider that ICE engines have been around and heavily researched for over a century, while battery technology is relatively in its infancy. Add to the fact that battery technology is transferable; an improvement in laptop batteries is usable in electric cars.

"Ethanol evaporates at 172 degrees, a black car's temp is 140, 32 degrees could be done easily."
One for your side: As everyone knows, ethanol evaporates at room temp as well. Look up vapor pressure. The liquid doesnt have to boil for distillation. Look up solar stills. Ethanol would distill even more readily than water. Depending on desired throughput you might not have to provide additional heat.

raystone
05-12-2008, 12:38 PM
the Grease Car should be gaining more ground soon...

(run your car on FREE used restaurant veggie oil...I hear Chinese is the best!)

http://www.greasecar.com/kit_detail.cfm?prodID=23

angelatc
05-12-2008, 12:50 PM
the Grease Car should be gaining more ground soon...

(run your car on FREE used restaurant veggie oil...I hear Chinese is the best!)

http://www.greasecar.com/kit_detail.cfm?prodID=23

There's not enough grease to fuel all the cars.

This is exactly why the government should not get involved. There's no good reason that we should all be using the exact same fuel. If manure works for the farmers, and electric works for the condo dwellers, and grease works for the restaurant delivery trucks, then all those people should use what works best for them.

Banana
05-12-2008, 01:19 PM
Within the frame of ICE, I'm inclined to say that we should all use diesel engines, only because it's much more versatile on what fuel you can feed it. Gasoline engine are more fussy, and will always require too much money and effort to come up with a good source of fuel for the gasoline engine.

Not that I'm advocating for government decree that we use diesel engines- angelatc has it spot on. It just baffles me why diesels isn't quite as popular in US compared to Europe.