The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area The HiPo Shop alternative fuels or power

hey guys just wondering if anybody has thought about going green as they say. some of the power options are interesting i think. propane, battery, biofuel, or whatever any thoughts or opinions now that spring is in the air and gas prices can be compared to gold. what are your thoughts mine would be to go propane i think. MO

I've actually looked into Propane and Ethanol for the old bolt. One of the biggest drawbacks is that the "alternative fuels" are typically a "dryer" fuel than what gasoline is. What makes them a cleaner burning fuel is that they don't have all the impurity's and additives in them, so there is minimal upper cylinder lubrication. Running stainless valves and hardened seats is almost a must do.

Another drawback is that these engines don't have a high enough compression ratio to efficiently use any of the alternative fuels. The best you could probably hope for is about 8.5:1 compression with an old stovebolt without have custom pistons made. Propane likes things in the 10:1 or better range and Ethanol in the 11:1 or even 12:1 range.

You have to decide what you want and build your engine accordingly. Updating to a newer drivetrain may be something to consider also. I'm actually considering swapping a GM 4.2 in place of the old bolt and running alchohol. It has 10.5:1 compression right out of the gate. The stock Delphi injectors are already ethanol compatible. One of the biggest obsticles is the wiring, but the aftermarket is alredy taking care of that too.

All the parts are available in the aftermarket to do a conversion to whatever you want. From Viton gaskets to complete LP carbs. My opinion is go for it. Why stick with convention? Different is good.

Chris

We run some electric delivery trucks at work that are really cool. The idea is great, but the amount of electronics is overwhelming and the power it takes every night to charge them far out paces fuel prices for a same size diesel truck. If you could figure out how to simplify and make it DIY, that would be a cool option. Load the bed with batteries and replace the 216 with a big DC motor, then pull into a show dead quite!

Joe

Propane is dead simple. Lots of pickups in my area of Texas were running propane back in the late 1950s. It is clean, it is high octane. The biggest pain is refilling the tank. You'll need your own supply tank, or access to an LPG dealer. Have to plan X-C trips carefully.

So far, I have yet to see an alternative fuel that is truly "greener" than gasoline. Just because some politician or "save the earth" radical states it is, does not necessarily make it so!

I have sufficient experience with propane NEVER to use it again (I will get out my Schwinn first!); and would not consider ethanol IF I had a choice (which currently I do not, thanks to our government). The E10/E15 is certainly not greener.

I have no experience with CNG, so no comment on these fuels.

I truly believe electric may be the long term solution; not that it is currently more cost effective, but because electricity may be made by many renewable methods.

My opinion, others will differ.

Jon.

I've always been an advocate for Ethanol and will continue to be. I've delivered the stuff all over the midwest. From the distillery to to fuel terminals and fuel stations. Likewise, I've been to a few refineries also. It's no mystery which one is greener. There's no deep sea drilling or pipeline construction involved in Ethanol production. A John Deere and a Kenworth are probably the most advanced pieces of equipment required.

It's also no mystery that Ethanol is not Carburetor friendly. The automotive world has know that since, well, always. We're living in the 21st century now, 2012 to be exact. It's time we live up to the fact that the carburetor is archaic.

My point is that, if an engine is built to run strictly ethanol or another alternative fuel, the gap between what is efficient or non efficient gets very, very narrow. The modern way of doing things is to modify a gasoline engine to work on the alternative fuels. I don't think that's the way to go. My belief is that they should run on one or the other not, "all of the above."

Chris

What about Diesel's?
They're quite efficient, well proven, and can run on bio-fuels.

Tuchez' Grigg! What other engine out there will run on veggie oil? 100% eco friendly.

Not to mention the HP potential. Look at the gains the late model diesel pickup folks are seeing with a computer tune and exhaust system. Diesel gives you lots of HP for the money and better fuel economy to boot (to a point). Compare to same trucks with gas engines which may see a small HP increase with a computer tune... at the cost of fuel mileage.

Diesel has the advantage due to the fact they wont preignite like gas motors do when running boost. The turbo's are why they make good power.

Lots of highly fuel-efficient diesels in Europe. But our Congress and EPA think they are not clean enough for the U.S. market, so too bad for us.

since N America got on to ultra low sulfur diesel fuel the EPA has no problem with foreign diesels .... the reason diesels in cars aren't common in N America is cuz the fuel savings isn't enough to entice folks to pay the premium that diesel engines cost, Mercedes, VW and Audi all sell diesels here in cars priced above what average folks will pay considering the fact that the fuel is the same price as gasoline

The Ford Powerstroke is a 10K option. Tack that on to a $40,000 truck and, well, it's expensive! I looked at a diesel VW a few years ago, they were 4-5000 more than their gas counterpart. It would take 10-15 years to break even. I guess you would have to look at it like you're being eco friendly.

One problem with what is "greener" is a failure to look at the overall picture.

Different fuels produce different byproducts when burned. As an example, ethanol (or any alcohol) produces aldahydes or acetylaldahydes as the major byproduct (you don't have to believe me, ask any chemist). By contrast, the burning of gasoline does not produce aldahydes; thus they are not being controlled by the EPA. Thus, burning ethanol is "cleaner" if you compare only the pollutants currently being controlled. Kind of like banning guns, but making the carrying of hand grenades mandatory! Which is worse. Remember that frog in 7th grade science that was pickled in formaldahyde?

Diesel is the same way, although again the byproducts are different.

Lots of ink spilled without comprehensive research. Apples compared to oranges compared to lemons!

I still believe the solution is electric (this coming from a carburetor guy!).

Jon.

I'm seriously thinking of switching to bio-diesel.

The cost of the kit isn't out of reach for the average homeowner, and restaurants will pay you to haul their used cooking oil away.

There's a lot of info on the web if you're considering it.

old news, commercial biofuel producers and co-ops are rapidly sucking up used veg oil so major restaurants are getting paid for waste oil now, and to run a modern diesel you need to make very clean fuel, not simple or cheap .... OTOH if you have some mom&pop fried food place handy you might make a deal with them and run the straight stuff in an old Detroit, as environmentally un-friendly as they are

Bill

Those who think bio-diesel is the answer should consult a professional diesel mechanic; NOT the salesman selling the diesel.

Jon.

Not around here - YET. Maybe its time to get into it while the gettins good.

I do know alot guys that have had problems with the biodiesel. The way I understand it is that the stuff "washes" down all your components. When you have something that has burning Low Sulfur and even High sulfur diesel for 30 years, there's alot of residue on everything. That residue translates to glogged fuel filters and clogged injectors. The bio stuff isn't cold friendly either, lots of guys have installed tank heaters and heated fuel filters.

Living here in the Midwest, it's not a problem finding veggie oil. You don't even have to mess with the restaurant stuff. ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) will sell the stuff by the drum. It's already 100% pure.

putting the costs aside and looking at power and torque i think electric is the way to go. instant torque and horspower at the flip of a switch

I couldn't agree more, but what about battery technology? And mileage, and quick recharging stations; and how much coal will have to be burned to recharge? "Nobody" wants nuclear power plants , which is kinda silly.

I like one guy's idea - a little tiny 3 cylinder, 2-stroke diesel running at constant RPM (like a little turbine) and turning a generator, to maintain the charge in a battery bank, with everything built into the vehicle.

IMO, that looks like the most viable for the next few years.

Opinions?

...we'll have BETTER options when the oil companies and the car manufactureres say we can have it...or perhaps I should say when the politicians say we can. They're the ones that get what THEY want.

There is stuff being used now, like electricity, that have been around for years but companies and politicians are not letting alternatives happen till they get ready.

...but I"m all for an individual doing what he has to.

Old 'burb lover, your dead on. Lets add to that a generator that we we can operate economically and then use the power from it to light up our houses....same principal. I like it.

I knew a guy in Sacramento who had developed a very clean back yard bio fuel plant. He had developed it over the course of a year getting it perfected and after all that he didn't have much nice to say about it. Finding a steady supply of fry oil was a pain, and the time he spent collecting and processing his 'free' fuel even after he had his process down was not leaving him in a 'happy place'
I think he kinda felt trapped having made the time and money investment in his set up for his eco ethics. His carbon footprint when gauged against his personal time being spent on a continuing basis seemed to cause more than a little inner conflict.

Our electric trucks are 480 volt, thats 96 fancy deep cycle type batteries ( cost about $80,000 to replace). It takes a bunch of electricity to charge them, 8 hours for a full charge and 75 mile radius or you call the tow truck. On flat ground they won't travel go as far as a hilly area, they regenerate on the down hills. Torque is quite good with them, from a dead stop they will keep up with traffic, on the road, up to about 40 mph, they do alright, but thats about it. The top speed is around 53 mph and maybe 60 mph on a down hill. The cost was in the $180,000 range, we got them about 1/2 price thanks to gov grants for clean energy. But over all, no way are we saving anything. Good thing we got to keep the older diesel for back up!

Our diesel fleet of school buses ranges from 1 year old to 15 years old. The new ones are averaging 9.92 mpg! and thats a full size 65 passenger. Thats almost double what they got 10 years ago, plus the tail pipes still look like new clean metal after 20,000 miles. If diesels keep advancing like they have been, I can see they will be the future. To bad all the big three just see horse power and sales figures. Not everyone needs a 400 hp diesel pickup. I would take a small truck that got 40 to 50 mpg any day.

Joe

Good point Joe. I've never seen the need for any pickup to have a 400hp/600 ft lb diesel. Let alone, tow 20,000 lbs! If you need something that stout, get a Freightliner.

The small diesel technology is already there. John Deere, Cummins, Perkins, and Caterpillar have small diesels that are meeting the new emmisions standards. Dodge had the technology already a few years ago in the Sprinter vans and Jeep Liberty's. GM has 4 cyl. Isuzu's in Box trucks. Why no 1/2 ton diesel? I think it's all about money. The guys that are paying 60k for a loaded Duramax, might be tempted to buy a 40k 1/2 ton that gets 40MPG. They'd be losing $20,000 a truck.

Dodge Sprinters were really Mercedes but I agree with your point.

Trying to quote from a post with a quote really messed up.

Old Burb mentioned nobody wanted nuclear power plants, and how much coal would be necessary to burn to fuel electric cars.

The title of the thread has to do with alternative fuels; thus we should also look at alternative methods of the manufacture of electricity. Electricity can be made by converting other forms of energy commonly found in nature; ie the movement of air and the movement of water. Both are currently being used. And once in place, the electricity is very "renewable".

Battery technology is probably the biggest current issue with electric powered vehicles.

Jon.

On the wind and tide power front, I wonder if anyone (mainly those that believe in man made global warming) has considered the effects on climate and ecology caused by slowing down the wind and the tides? It HAS to have an impact, physics demands it, but how much?

Would slower surface winds cause a warming effect? Would slowing the tidal movement have an adverse impact on the numerous ecosystems in the sea that depend on a certain temperature of water? Any impact on river flows?

Just a thought, . . . . .discuss.

slowing down the wind? not quite what happens, affects local weather a bit, not global climate, unless we cover most of the planet with turbines and don't investigate efficiency enough

slowing the tides? does the mega-tons of shipping on the worlds oceans stop the waves?

does damming innumerable rivers to generate electricity change the global dynamics of the hydrological cycle, causing drought? do all those dams reduce sea level or increase salinity of the oceans?

does "harvesting" sunlight with PV panels make days darker? does generating hot water to run steam turbines with solar concentrators make the planet cooler or hotter?

lots of discussion possible, but likely belongs in the Spoon

Slowing the wind? Yeah, I don't see it. When you consider that here in the plains states that farmers pretty much cut down every tree there was in order to plow the ground under. How much did that affect the wind? I think a few wind turbines have little or no affect on the wind.

While mostly tongue-in-cheek, technicaly those things do happen, the energy you extract has to come from somewhere. Admittedly they extract a tiny,tiny portion of the total energy. A side point I was making was the greenie weenies want to ban internal combustion engines because they (in their opinion) are heating up the earth, yet they give no consideration to any potential adverse impact their favored forms of energy may have.

Ol Burb- you mentioned the on-board generator "like a turbine" pretty sure Jaguar had a concept vehicle with an actual turbine to drive the generator but had to switch to a piston version due to excess heat generation.

The biggest efficiency advantage electrics have is the ability to regenerate during braking. I think Porsche recently campaigned a 911 GT3 hybrid that used some sort of flywheel to store energy captured during braking.

Or you could do what I saw on a tv show about future cars - the guy was seriously suggesting running a car on water, saying he would use electricity generated by the hydrogen powered engine to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, use the hydrogen for fuel and recapture the water vapor in the exhaust to have a never ending supply of water, and fuel, and energy. I haven't seen them in showrooms yet.

Farmer - above you were certain that "physics demands it", yet you now state that heating the planet with the CO2 created by burning our limited supply of fossil fuels is an "opinion" .... me thinks you need to study more physics - start here [the American Institute of Physics]

it's not a matter of any weenies "favored forms of energy", it's about a dis-favored form, fossil carbon, which has way more valuable uses than burning, such as the chemicals and medicines that "power" our modern world

oh - and "mini turbines" are in the works

well electric power is a good option i think is the understanding here with some kind of way to generate its own power, nobody has mentioned solar panels or wind generaters to charge the batterys. also regenerative power during braking and coasting down hill are also good forms of charging so called batteries. you could also run an altenator off the system for more duration but would sacrifice power. well where on the subject of regenative power how come nobody has came out with a turbine system for the exhaust of new vehicles to run their accesories instead od muffling to get the back pressure the engine needs. just food for thought. MO

Red58 (keep in mind I like fun debates, so this all in good spirits),

I can buy into the earth getting warmer, there just appears to be too many conflicting theories as to the actual cause for me to believe it's all man made. Which is my point - I'll grant you we may be contributing - but I'd also argue we're doing so in amounts similarly insignificant as the drop in wind speed or tidal impact from the related sources discussed earlier. Several decades ago the same global warming environmentalists were warning of a coming ice age. (mentioned in the referenced article as well). Add in the now well known fudging of the data and I think it's hard to conclude too much other than it is a highly complex system still not able to be well calculated or predicted.

As for dis-favored forms of energy, it's only the "greenies'" that don't favor petroleum based fuels. There's research afoot that increasingly supports the theory that there isn't a finite amount of them, they may well be regenerating. There's also an abundance of information well proven that even if they are finite we have well over a century's worth of them with today's extraction technology.

Although I am a strong believer in free markets and capitalism, I will fully admit tailpipe emissions would not have been dramatically reduced over the past 30-40 years without government mandates, and the net result of cleaner air is hard to dispute and generally enjoyed by all. I think there is a similar role to be played in encouraging the development of alternate forms of energy, whether or not the current administration's means of this are appropriate or not is likely too political to survive the censors here.

On our chosen topic of vehicles, there are few forms of energy that can match the advantages of petro fuels due to their energy density - with today's technology and infrastructure. An interesting area is how else can we produce a liquid fuel, possibly renewably, that will work with the considerable installed base? Natural gas is currently abundant, burns cleaner than gasoline but storage is the current challenge.

There seems to be a consensus here that electrical power has a lot of plusses, so then the argument is how best to produce and distribute it. Fuel cells have held a lot of promise for 20 years but still haven't gained the ground that hybrids have. The micro-turbines seem to be a good possibility - use clean burning natural gas from your house line to run them, very simple with few moving parts, get all the advantages (linear torque curve, regenerative braking) of an electric powered drivetrain.

Anybody converted a 'bolt to any of the methods discussed here?

this outfit near me has converted a lot of different vehicles, including quite a few S10's

also in good spirits, I'll say that you're getting way too many random bits of misinformation from the wrong places, as indicated by your conflating concern about CO2 induced climate change and environmentalism and your "well known" fudging of data - what data? references please - and what are all these "conflicting theories"? .... there were no "global warming environmentalists" predicting an ice age, although there was a fair amount of media hype over reports that millennial geologic cycles indicated that we should have been on the downslope of the current interglacial period, taken to be indicated by the apparent leveling of global temperatures for a period, which led to a lot of enlightening research on some of the cyclic influences on global climate .... about that same time, 1981, a professional climate scientist was predicting almost exactly what has come to pass ... climate is indeed a very complex system, which is why your TV weatherman isn't the place to find out much about it, or even about next weeks weather, but there are a whole bunch of very knowledgeable scientists who can correct your misconceptions about it if you're willing to look and think

about the carbon cycle in the atmosphere..... about glaciers .... about the atmosphere's layering .... and how greenhouse gases affect it ....or watch some on the tube

I'm not too sure who "greenies" are, but the petro industry might have a different view than your "foot researchers, and if you really understand what fossil petroleum is, you'd understand that it "regenerates" on geologic timescales .... and if you like the current price of gasoline and are willing for your children to pay 3 times as much and for your grandchildren to not obtain it for any price, then yes, we have lots left keep believing in free market capitalism, but prepare for the results, it ain't gonna be pretty

there are a number of good possibilities for future sustainable transportation power, but right now few folks who hold the purse strings seem to think developing and deploying them is important enough to try and avoid a tragedy on the commons, too much profit to be had with existing infrastructure

"tragedy of the commons"?

Bill, you are sounding downright erudite. Just when I thought you were a card-carrying greenie weenie.

sorry to get philosophical in the garage .... but the only cards I carry are a medical insurance card [in case I come down with some green thing] and a library card well, and a drivers license if that counts as a card

Speak for yourself!

I've wondered about converting the truck to propane since I normally don't drive it that far from home. Its interesting to hear about possible fuel options. I've really liked the tone of this string as there hasn't been any bashing of one side or the other.

Ghostrider- I guess I should clarify myself. First off, I like tire belching horsepower and axle twisting torque as well as anyone. Is it really necessary on a new truck? Well, that's debatable.

Case in point. My dad used to have a 76 Chevy C30 with a 454. The only thing it was really used for was to tow a flatbed gooseneck trailer. I don't know how long the trailer exactly was, I'm guessing in the 30+ feet category. Anyhow, we used to haul all kinds of equipment with that truck and trailer. From tractors and combines, to road compactors. The engine may have had 250 hp and 350 ft lbs of torque, but it always got the job done.