Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (69440)	5/23/2008 4:44:31 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Respond to of 74559

The answer to your new question has nothing to do with refineries. Diesel engines are 45% efficient while gasoline engines are 30% efficient. You get 50% more work out of the same number of BTUs. .

To: Snowshoe who wrote (69440)	5/23/2008 4:50:12 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Respond to of 74559

In the refinery I'm sure Hydrocracking and Hydrotreating to make diesel use about the same energy as Catalytic cracking and ultra low-temperature Reforming to make gasoline. If there's a difference it has to be very small. Of course you're using feed-stocks of both natural gas and crude oil in the process to add hydrogen to diesel, but Chevron uses natural gas as a feedstock to make gasoline in the Isomax catalytic cracker as well. I just don't think there's a difference apart from the capital cost of the refitting. .

To: Snowshoe who wrote (69440)	5/23/2008 7:05:50 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Snow, I'm amazed at how the steam engine technology of the industrial revolution has evolved over a century to the Gordian Knot of the supremely complex system now humming away in the drive train. Just the automatic gearbox is a wonder to behold. The lubricant technologies are works of art. The metallurgy hugely complex. But the basic idea is the same: suck, squeeze, burn, blow out, using distilled liquids found in the ground. It's a bit early to think the demise of the descendants of the steam engine will come any time soon. Technology still in the blue skies labs is still to make it to the engineering departments. Suppose somebody comes up with a zeolite catalyst which turns methane into gasoline in a single process without the wasteful methanol step. Manufacturing processes can continue to improve. Economies of scale get bigger. Rationalisation of the industry into fewer models will drive efficiency. Metallurgists and other materials scientists are gainfully employed. Compression ratios can increase - ditch the gasoline and go entirely to long chain fuels with much greater thermodynamic efficiency. Maybe even start using liquid oxygen instead of air, which is mostly nitrogen. It'll be a long time before the internal combustion engine is finished. Mqurice's fancy electric vehicle isn't any good for big trips fast with large loads. During my BP Oil International time, when my job was diesel fuel for the commercial division, I came up with a fuel for heavy vehicles in warm climates which would use nasty heavy ends, mixed with water, methanol, a surfactant, and maybe some ignition improver. It would be good for heavy trucks and other long haul vehicles. The nice components of diesel fuel would be saved for light vehicles in city use, where it's start stop driving, pollution is an issue, engines are cold for a lot of the time [start cold and before warmed up, the journey is over]. We didn't do it, [I left to come back to NZ] but it's a good way of getting more diesel fuel made from cheap stuff. Once an engine is hot, a lot of problems go away. When engines cool and reach the dew point, condensation of acids causes havoc in the lubricant. Pure sulphur is fine as a fuel if the dew point isn't reached. Pure sulphur is used in sulphuric acid production and as the fuel in turbines generating electricity before the sulphuric acid step. The exhaust from a high sulphur vehicle is evil so it's no use in such vehicle engines. So get nasty sour crude oil, put it through desulphurisation process, get the heavy stuff and crack it up to diesel type fuels, perhaps put some hydrogen on it so it's more stable, mix it with Mqurice's unpatented brew of water, methanol/ethanol, surfactant etc and drive trucks back and forth across continents. I thought that a good brew would be oil + water + ethanol + lecithin [surfactant] vitamins, amphetamines, and flavourings so it could serve as fuel for the driver as well, with a little tube going to the driver's seat. I doubt that ethanol would be economic but if good cellulose conversion processes could be developed, maybe so. Mqurice