A greener series

[Champcar4life]

I never was a fan of the IRL, but when they did something right I have to give them credit,the safter wall and switch to E85 fuel was a great move and now there are other series that are looking into running on E85 fuel, but in the past few weeks I have heard that this series is going beyond E85 fuel, and are looking at biogradeable fuel, product by raw waste, so once again I have to give them thumbs up.

[NickFalzone]

It's not E85, it's E100.

[Alexamateo]

Technically, it's E98. E100 is pure grain alcohol and therefore drinkable. To use it 2% gasoline is added to the fuel to make it non-potable and legally dispense it.

[garyshell]

Technically, it's E98. E100 is pure grain alcohol and therefore drinkable. To use it 2% gasoline is added to the fuel to make it non-potable and legally dispense it.


And the whole thing is a giant sham. We will rue the day that the idea of using corn for oil ever occurred. It has already caused many farmers to switch from wheat to corn. Have you taken a look at cereal prices lately? With the huge amounts of corn being siphoned off for fuel what has happened to the price of feed corn? Looked at the price of a gallon of milk lately, or a pound of hamburger? Thank the corn based ethanol crowd for that.

Now don't get me wrong, I thing it is a GREAT idea to move to a green based fuel. And I think Ethanol is the way. I just think its a very STUPID idea to switch to a cellulose source that also happens to be a major component of our food-stocks. Switch grass looks VERY promising as do others. But this short sighted move is going to cost us all DEARLY.

IMNSHO.

Gary

[Champcar4life]

Switch grass has been listed as one of the sources of fuel that looking at. The other fuels are waste base fuels, which could a number of things.

[garyshell]

"looking" is the operative word here. We are already feeling the pinch at the supermarket checkout line. There was a great article in Wired magazine a few months back on this. And some corn based ethanol folks seemed to be dragging their feet because it would me less $$$$ in their pockets. Another wonderful case of lobbyists and special interests controlling things.

I applaud the IRL and ICS for trying to go green, but at the same time we have to be very careful what we wish for. I'll try to dig around a bit for a few links to the mess behind this well intentioned effort.

Gary

[nigelred5]

Until large scale production of cellulosic ethanol is a reality, THE use of ethanol really needs to be re-considered. IMHO, far more effort and funding needs to be directed at available sources like shale, oil sands and fuels that rely on recycled base stocks. I'm happy that some farmers are seeing some reward for their rediculously unrewarding choice of lifestyle, but corn is not the answer for our fuel needs. You simply cannot take the single most important primary grain out of the food chain to produce fuel. It works in Brazil because they use sugar cane, which is not a primary link in the food chain. Rather than mandating ethanol, they should be mandating 40 mpg CAFE figures.

INDY has been an alternative fuel series for a long time. It's not just being about being green, and ethanol isn't nearly as green as some wouild like the public to believe. I'd rather see it touted more as a middle finger aimed squarely at the middle east and OPEC to be honest.

[pitwall3]

And the whole thing is a giant sham. We will rue the day that the idea of using corn for oil ever occurred. It has already caused many farmers to switch from wheat to corn. Have you taken a look at cereal prices lately? With the huge amounts of corn being siphoned off for fuel what has happened to the price of feed corn? Looked at the price of a gallon of milk lately, or a pound of hamburger? Thank the corn based ethanol crowd for that.

Now don't get me wrong, I thing it is a GREAT idea to move to a green based fuel. And I think Ethanol is the way. I just think its a very STUPID idea to switch to a cellulose source that also happens to be a major component of our food-stocks. Switch grass looks VERY promising as do others. But this short sighted move is going to cost us all DEARLY.

IMNSHO.



Gary

Right on the money!

[NickFalzone]

I would hate to lose the Iowa race but I agree corn-based ethanol is not the way to go in the long run. Here's a video that shows other sources like even excess from paper production could be used:

http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/2573584/

[call_me_andrew]

I think corn is a good start, but it's not the final solution to the oil problem.

[garyshell]

I think corn is a good start, but it's not the final solution to the oil problem.

Corn was a convenient start, but I would hardly call it a "good" one.

The economics of it are terrible. If there had been excess capacity in the corn supply it might have made sense. But there wasn't and the outcome is it has displaced wheat production with the resulting increase in flour prices. And it has redirected massive amounts of corn from the food supply chain into the energy supply chain again with resulting spikes in food prices. And the impact is not being felt just here. The ripples are flowing though the food supply chains around the world. The countries that can least afford the hit are taking the biggest brunt of the impact.

Sorry, but I think corn was a HORRIBLE start.

Ethanol is a good start, but not ethanol that compromises our food supply chain.

Gary

[nigelred5]

I read an article about the effect of the increase in corn prices and the diversion of corn to ethanol production is having on the Mexican economy as the corn tortilla is the main staple in the Mexican diet. It's not just in the US. It's having a major effect on the price of high fructose corn syrup. Look at the lable on just about ANYTHING in america. It is by far the most common sweetener in in processed foods the western hemisphere. I've read figures that say corn an its derivatives is in over 85% of all processed food in the US. THat doesnt count all of the plastics that people have virtually no idea that are made from corn. It is a staggeringly horrible replacement for petroleum based fuels for our economy. Parking every SUV in the US would be a better solution.

[BrentJackson]

Corn ethanol I might also point out uses more energy to produce than it gives as a motor fuel.

Better way to go about it - when you use corn for food, toss the husks. And go Cellulosic when producing ethanol.

A rather simple system was in development that I read about with regards to cellulosic ethanol. This system uses the enzymes found in termite guts. When these guts consume cellulose, they produce sugars. Ferment the sugars with yeast and you get ethanol.

[Hoop-98]

I think some people have already figured some of this out.

http://muddywolf.net/vnvmcgaa/hi-octane.jpg

rh

[nanders]

Hydrogen Electric baby!

[garyshell]

Hydrogen Electric baby!

It makes a very clean fuel to be sure. Ah, but how do you produce the Hydrogen? None of the methods I have seen touted thus far are very clean. The idea of a zero emission car on hydrogen, is a myth. It is only a displaced emissions vehicle. It moves the emission source from the tail pipe to a smokestack somewhere. I have seen some reports that doing that does however present some economies of scale on scrubbing those emissions. Basically it's easier to clean the exhaust from one smokestack than it is to clean the exhaust from, what, millions of cars per one smokestack.

Gary

[call_me_andrew]

I think some people have already figured some of this out.

http://muddywolf.net/vnvmcgaa/hi-octane.jpg

rh

God help me, I can't look away.

[nigelred5]

God help me, I can't look away.

You, my friend, have a problem!

[nanders]

It makes a very clean fuel to be sure. Ah, but how do you produce the Hydrogen? None of the methods I have seen touted thus far are very clean. The idea of a zero emission car on hydrogen, is a myth. It is only a displaced emissions vehicle. It moves the emission source from the tail pipe to a smokestack somewhere. I have seen some reports that doing that does however present some economies of scale on scrubbing those emissions. Basically it's easier to clean the exhaust from one smokestack than it is to clean the exhaust from, what, millions of cars per one smokestack.

Gary

More nuclear power plants?

You can see this technology is gaining acceptance. And there are many ways to produce hydrogen. But you are right, it is presently only and energy conduit rather then the source. You know the "old saying" "necessity is the Mothers of Invention." Or something like that.

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/norway-hynor-project.htm

http://hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/

I don't have very many sources inside of the IRL but I have been told by a reliable source, very close to the series, that Hydrogen Electric is being considered. And I don't think it's a big secret.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_of_Invention

[garyshell]

More nuclear power plants?

You can see this technology is gaining acceptance. And there are many ways to produce hydrogen. But you are right, it is presently only and energy conduit rather then the source. You know the "old saying" "necessity is the Mothers of Invention." Or something like that.

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/norway-hynor-project.htm

http://hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/

I don't have very many sources inside of the IRL but I have been told by a reliable source, very close to the series, that Hydrogen Electric is being considered. And I don't think it's a big secret.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_of_Invention


Again I turn to an article I read in Wired re: nuclear planets. It does indeed appear that it is very possible to build some inherently safe to operate nuclear plants. The most intriguing design mentioned was one that if any of the equipment failed in any way, the plant would stop running all by itself. Not because some emergence equipment had to kick in or anything. I wish I could remember the details, but the principle was that for fission to take place the plant had to be functioning. I believe (and my memory is sketchy) the rods themselves were held in fission mode or a quenching medium was held back by the operation of the plant. If the plant failed, gravity released the quenching medium or dropped the rods. It was a VERY interesting approach.

But then there are the two 600-800 lb gorillas in the room. The threat of an attack on the plant and the very real issue of waste disposal.

Gary

[xtlm]

They should just move to hydrogen...

[SIATA208S]

I read an article about the effect of the increase in corn prices and the diversion of corn to ethanol production is having on the Mexican economy as the corn tortilla is the main staple in the Mexican diet. It's not just in the US. It's having a major effect on the price of high fructose corn syrup.

And it gets worse ... It all comes down to the farm lobby here in the US. Mexico used to produce its own corn, but the US gives so much money to US corporations growing corn that US corn and NAFTA have pushed locally-produced Mexican corn off the market. Which is one of the main reasons there's been so much illegal immigration from Mexico in the past few years--we put Mexican farmers out of work!

This is the same farm lobby that is going to get billions more dollars of US aid even though the corporations the lobby represents have been having record profit years.

It's all one system, yet it's wierd. We're a racecar forum but it makes sense for us to discuss corn production, trade policy, and the farm lobby!

[garyshell]

They should just move to hydrogen...


Yes, but the timing of this is the bigger question. Right now hydrogen as a fuel is little more than a curiosity to the American public.

I think a switch to Hydrogen as a race fuel should come when one of two events occurs:

1. When a manufacturer steps up and wants to make a major cash infusion to fund such a switch.
2. When hydrogen vehicles become widely available at your local car dealer. Or even just before that, lets say once we know that the manufacturers have invested in the specific infrastructure to build them. Which would also have a requisite infrastructure for the widespread delivery of hydrogen as a fuel for the daily driver. I.E. Hydrogen pumps at the local BP or the equivalent.

Gary

[Maddog]

Corn was a convenient start, but I would hardly call it a "good" one.

The economics of it are terrible. If there had been excess capacity in the corn supply it might have made sense. But there wasn't and the outcome is it has displaced wheat production with the resulting increase in flour prices. And it has redirected massive amounts of corn from the food supply chain into the energy supply chain again with resulting spikes in food prices. And the impact is not being felt just here. The ripples are flowing though the food supply chains around the world. The countries that can least afford the hit are taking the biggest brunt of the impact.

Sorry, but I think corn was a HORRIBLE start.

Ethanol is a good start, but not ethanol that compromises our food supply chain.

Gary

I hope some of our midwest members will back me up on this post. The thing is there was a large excess production of corn for many years in the U.S. Whether because of subsidies or just ease of production, there was so much corn we didn't know what to do with it. Silos were stuffed full. Food and Beverage industries switched to corn sweetners because it was so cheap. I remember farmers bemoaning not being able to seel their corn for anything. Now they are reaping the ethanol benefits.

[garyshell]

I hope some of our midwest members will back me up on this post. The thing is there was a large excess production of corn for many years in the U.S. Whether because of subsidies or just ease of production, there was so much corn we didn't know what to do with it. Silos were stuffed full. Food and Beverage industries switched to corn sweetners because it was so cheap. I remember farmers bemoaning not being able to seel their corn for anything. Now they are reaping the ethanol benefits.


And we are reaping the consequences at the grocery checkout counter. Not to mention the fact that the net output from a gallon of ethanol vs the oil it takes to produce the corn that makes that gallon is negative.

I am right in the heart of corn country and yep this is a boon for farmers who have had years of bust. But it's a short term boon that can't be sustained.

Gary

[JSH]

Yes, but the timing of this is the bigger question. Right now hydrogen as a fuel is little more than a curiosity to the American public.

I think a switch to Hydrogen as a race fuel should come when one of two events occurs:

1. When a manufacturer steps up and wants to make a major cash infusion to fund such a switch.
2. When hydrogen vehicles become widely available at your local car dealer. Or even just before that, lets say once we know that the manufacturers have invested in the specific infrastructure to build them. Which would also have a requisite infrastructure for the widespread delivery of hydrogen as a fuel for the daily driver. I.E. Hydrogen pumps at the local BP or the equivalent.

Gary

Auto Manufacturers don't drive infrastructure. Government does.

It took years of lobbying by auto manufacturers just to get the sulpher content in fuels down.

It's all chicken-and-egg stuff. Carmakers won't build a hydrogen(or fuel-x) car until there's sufficient hydrogen or fuel-x available. But Energy companies and Government won't invest in new infrastructure until there's commercial demand.

Government and Energy Co.'s also get a free ride because it keeps the Greenies focused on the Automakers as the bad guys while they continue to do nothing.

It'd be awesome if a race series like the IRL started running all the cars on hydrogen. Sure, it'd be expensive to start with but the experience and knowledge gained by the industry as a whole would be huge.

I remember the museum at IMS saying how the track started off as test track for manufacturers. Run the cars on hydrogen or "fuel-x" and you'd really be getting back to the roots of the Indy-500. Ethanol's a great start, but they need a bigger vision.

Anyway, thats my rant and it's all IMO.

Back to work on my stinky gasoline stuff.....

[nanders]

It's all chicken-and-egg stuff. Carmakers won't build a hydrogen(or fuel-x) car until there's sufficient hydrogen or fuel-x available. But Energy companies and Government won't invest in new infrastructure until there's commercial demand. .

HYDROGEN CARS:

Audi A2H2 Car
BMW HR2 Race Car
BMW Hydrogen 7
Chrysler ecoVoyager
Daihatsu Tanto FCHV
Fiat Panda Concept
Ford Airstream Concept
Ford Explorer Fuel Cell
Ford Flexible Series Edge
Ford Focus FCV
Ford Model U
Ford Super Chief Truck
Giugiaro Vadho
GM Cadillac Provoq
GM Chevy Equinox FC
GM Chevy Volt
GM Electrovan
GM H2H Hummer SUT
GM Hy-wire Concept
GM HydroGen Minivan
GM Sequel Concept
Honda FCX
Honda FCX Clarity
Honda Puyo
Hyundai I-Blue
Hyundai Tucson FCEV
Kia Sportage FCEV
Mazda 5 Premacy RE
Mazda RX-8 RE
Mercedes B-Class F-Cell
Mercedes F600 Hygenius
Mitsubishi Nessie SUV
Morgan LifeCar
Nissan X-Trail FCV
Peugeot 207 Epure
Pininfarina Sintesi
Suzuki Ionis Mini
Think FC5 Car
Think Nordic Car
Toyota FCHV SUV
Toyota Fine-T (Fine-X)
Volkswagen HyMotion
VW Space Up Blue

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/hydrogen-on-demand.htm

I'm not sure but it appears the manufactures are willing.

[Hoop-98]

Green topics will dominate our sessions at SAE Congress next week, but the only crossover I see in racing in the forseeable future is largely symbolic, see Ethanol.

The Audis and Peugots are adaptations to a "loophole" or unexplored area in the rules ala the MB Indy 2-Valve motor. They are definitely not in it for green development.

We need a ~700BHP or equivalent power source that can operate for 100 miles on about 350 pounds of fuel. This package has to be under 300 pounds, a structual member of the chassis and fit in roughly the envelope of todays cars. One of the biggest challenges is that the powerplant must have virtually instant throttle response and operate efficiently at 5 - 100 pct power levels.

At the same time this powerplant should be in the same order of magnitude in cost to develop and deploy as existing technology.

To change any of those requirements significantly means starting over with an entirely new formula and series.

I forsee any changes to be evolutionary, not revolutionary in order to be practical from a cost standpoint.

Diesel technology like the extremely expensive Audi's and Peugot's are too big, too heavy, TOO expensive.

imo

rh

[garyshell]

Green topics will dominate our sessions at SAE Congress next week, but the only crossover I see in racing in the forseeable future is largely symbolic, see Ethanol.

The Audis and Peugots are adaptations to a "loophole" or unexplored area in the rules ala the MB Indy 2-Valve motor. They are definitely not in it for green development.

We need a ~700BHP or equivalent power source that can operate for 100 miles on about 350 pounds of fuel. This package has to be under 300 pounds, a structual member of the chassis and fit in roughly the envelope of todays cars. One of the biggest challenges is that the powerplant must have virtually instant throttle response and operate efficiently at 5 - 100 pct power levels.

At the same time this powerplant should be in the same order of magnitude in cost to develop and deploy as existing technology.

To change any of those requirements significantly means starting over with an entirely new formula and series.

I forsee any changes to be evolutionary, not revolutionary in order to be practical from a cost standpoint.

Diesel technology like the extremely expensive Audi's and Peugot's are too big, too heavy, TOO expensive.

imo

rh

Don't forget, safely refueled in a very short period of time.

Gary