ALCOHOL AS AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE FUEL

A few years back, I got interested in bio-fuels for IC engines. When I say interested, I mean that I raised a company, Biofuel Engine Technology Ltd. (UK) in which several people, as well as myself, invested money. It was a complete waste of both time and money, not through any failing of the technology, but as a result of enormous resistance from every sector of the oil and vehicle industries. Our initial research (aimed at Third World needs) centred around coconut and other vegetable oils, and oil / alcohol mixtures, as a result of which, we had plenty of alcohol samples to experiment with.

Alcohol (C2H5OH) as an IC engine fuel, is so well established as technologically viable, that we initially accepted that it was not an economically viable option. However, the more I researched, the more suspicious I became of the "not economically viable" claims. So I carried out an extensive analysis of the economics and practical application of alcohol as a fuel, and discovered that even in the US, the very last place one would have expected, it is viable. In fact, it is economically attractive.

Clearly I had missed something! The whole engine world seems to believe that alcohol is not viable. But, with oil-stocks dwindling, farmers rapidly sliding down the economic scale, pollution (at long last) making itself known to us all, and hundreds of millions of acres of tenable land available on the planet, I though I might take a closer look.

The trouble with "not economically viable" is that economic studies (like statistics) are malleable. They exist, but can be represented in any way, shape or form. There is a major difference between my version of the economics of alcohol and that of the version presented to the US farmers - which I find has de facto! become pretty well established world-wide.

You see, the farming bit works fine in both studies: "Cost and effort in – viable and valuable product out". Only in my study, I presumed that the alcohol would be produced on the farm, and sent in liquid form to the distributors. I did not imagine that the biomass would have to be transported huge distances to an oil company's refineries, turned into liquid at extortionate cost, then mixed with their oil products, and then, effectively, sent back. Why would anyone imagine such a ridiculous thing? Some of the report's figures look a bit odd as well, the cost estimates for fermentation, for example. My guess is that they were based upon the established costs of producing drinking and medical grade alcohol. The farmers could build suitable vats for less than ten percent of the quoted prices! As to the distillation plants, that's not quite so easy to argue with, but they are clearly over-estimated. A single-stage fractioning unit is about the simplest 'industrial plant' anyone could imagine. As to the processing (fuel) costs, they are minimal because the farmers could simply use their own product, or even install a windmill.

There is another aspect of alcohol production which is completely misrepresented by the studies that I have examined - "process efficiency". Our cereal crops were once turned into flour by windmills. These days hugely expensive and energy wasting flour mills take up space in expensive industrial areas. We know and accept the need for this, but we also know that in real-world terms, our flour is more costly because of it. On the other hand, alcohol production is quite a different matter. The smallest practical alcohol plant only needs to be able to fill up the biggest road tanker. Sure, that is an oversimplification, but it is logistically true. What I am getting at is, that we do not need huge alcohol plants. What we should do, is to strike a balance between efficiency and costs. When one looks at it this way, some surprising results emerge. We do not need constant production from our alcohol plants anymore than we need fields which give us a constant 'flow' of grain or potatoes. Two or three crops per year, from enough land to keep a fermentation / distillation plant running at 25% efficiency, would be economically sound. At that efficiency, the stills could even be powered by the wind! That may sound 'quaint' but it is an unarguable fact. Furthermore, a wind mill would be a far more efficient energy investment than anything that currently pumps electrical power into the national grid. In fact, it would be better than 200% more efficient. And I will take bets on that.

Perhaps the US government feels it wouldn't be proper to build medium-scale distillation plants within the farming communities. Perhaps they think the farmers don't have the expertise to produce alcohol. (Ha Ha!) Perhaps they feel that a failing farming community is a reasonable price to pay so long as the oil industry continues to expand. There has got to some good reason, but it certainly isn't rooted in any sound economic policy, nor does it take account of the sociological benefits of both growing alcohol crops and using the products in our vehicles.

Talking of economic policy, there was once a thriving alcohol industry in the US, which might well have expanded to provide fuel for vehicles, had the government not levied a massive tax on it. Until then, alcohol was widely used for lighting and was a favourite with carburation type lamps.

OK. Let's put it in simple terms, so that even the politicians can understand. There aren't enough readily available farms to even put a serious dent in the oil industry. So even if people did show a preference for less polluting fuel, they wouldn't be able to buy very much of it. Farms can be licensed – so the government can still be "in control". As oil stocks dwindle, the farms can be allowed to expand. And everyone can rest assured that the roads will be filled with traffic forever. The US is already importing half its crude oil from beyond its economic boundaries. That means sending money OUT of the country. Does that make the US more wealthy? Have the economists had their calculators checked out lately?

As to countries like Africa, the economics for alcohol are not just sound, they are staggeringly good. Africa could quickly become the new Persian Gulf of the fuel world. Surely there is no good reason not to import alcohol from Africa, rather than crude oil from the Gulf? Into Europe, at least? Alcohol is almost completely harmless! To put that another way, how much better would it have been if the "Exxon Valdez" had dumped 10.8 million gallons of alcohol into the Prince William Sound?

We could start off by blending it with the oil products, raising the proportions as the oil stocks diminish. Why not? That way we will hardly even notice what's going on. (Well at least that's in keeping with tradition). It wouldn't rock the economic boat, and the immediate payback is a very real reduction in pollution. - NOTE The US has, at last, started putting 20% alcohol into their vehicle fuel - is anyone seriously complaining? Here in the UK, of course, we shall probably wait a few years, just to see if it works OK in the US, then we will set up a comittee, then another, then another..........

Even in the UK, where the population / arable land ratio is poor, there is still an economic advantage to be found. Alcohol production needs to be looked at by serious proponents, not selected and clearly biased antagonists. Think of the social benefits of getting our farmers back to work. Just think how environmentally friendly a fermentation and distillation plant would be, especially compared to an oil refinery. With the wind, or even alcohol as the fuel (as well as the product) the self sufficiency angle is highly beneficial, and the whole process is bio-friendly. The residue of the process yields a highly effective and 100% bio-friendly fertiliser, which can be used on other crops, ultimately becoming able to satisfy 100% of all our arable farming needs. (Another economic and sociological benefit of alcohol production which is counted as an overhead in the studies!) Are 100% bio-crops not what most of us want? As to the problem of having to build blending plants, even that's not the big deal that technical studies would have us believe. There is no practical reason why the oil products and the alcohol should not be individually delivered to the filling stations, which already exist, and which could be equipped with their own simple and very inexpensive blending facilities. So we can take more than 95% of the blending costs out of the equation as well.

In ecological terms, the farming of land is one of the most profitable ventures open to mankind. Tilling and sowing require very small inputs. Cropping can vary but obviously, an alcohol crop would be chosen to minimise input. The fermentation process requires little or no energy input. Provided that the system is not overburdened with massive transport, retail profit, packaging and further processing costs (as many farm products are) it is hard to find its economic equal.

In preparation for the arguments which will inevitably arise, let me state that the only really significant alcohol fuel project ever undertaken, is that still in effect in Brazil. The oil companies and the Brazilian government will claim that this project proves that the idea is not economically viable. But they are wrong – the system in Brazil is controlled by the oil companies – need I say more?

There is only one snag with all this. It's all much too simple. There must be thousands of people who have an even better knowledge of the true situation than I. But we see no sign of any serious proposals even, let alone action. Greenpeace must know what the truth is. Surely this sort of thing is central to what they are supposed to be fighting for? Furthermore, I know that they have some pretty sharp fuel chemists, economists and statisticians on hand. Or are they all 'moles' planted by the oil companies?

We might have to give the fuel a different name, and adulterate it with an emetic - hardly rocket science or costly. We would need slightly bigger fuel tanks in our vehicles, but so what? Who can afford to fill up the ones we have now? Of course, we would have to pay more taxes on other commodities to make up the various government revenue losses, but that doesn't seem like a very good reason not to stop poisoning the planet - does it?

Having said all that about alcohol, if anyone is interested, we also did a similar study based upon the use of the distillation products of coal as a vehicle fuel. That too, is economically sound. At least, it is when it's subjected to a full and pro-active study.

Are we really going to continue to put up with this nonsense just to protect the oil industry's investments and government revenues? Because that's clearly where the real bugbears lie.

John Allen