Comparing Ethanol and Hydrogen as Alternatives to Oil

AI Thread Summary
Ethanol and hydrogen are both considered alternatives to oil for internal combustion engines, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. Ethanol production requires significant farmland, particularly for corn or sugar, raising concerns about sustainability and energy return on investment. In contrast, hydrogen is highly combustible but poses challenges in storage due to its larger tank requirements and safety risks. Brazil's successful use of sugarcane for ethanol highlights a viable production method, while coal remains a non-renewable but abundant option for fuel. Overall, the feasibility of each alternative depends on agricultural capacity, safety considerations, and energy efficiency.
deadhouse
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I was just wondering (with all the oil supposedly running out) how feasible is running our internal combusion engines on ethanol as apposed to say hydrogen? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Seeing as ethanol would require a massive increase in the amount of farmland for suger or corn to produce the fuel. Where as hydrogen is much much more combustible and it requires a much larger tank which takes up space and weighs more.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
there seems to be some debate if its even reasonable to make ethanol out of corn. I remember reading a article stating you use more fuel to produce ethanol from corn than you get back.

Brazil is pretty succsefull though in using sugar canes to produce ethanol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

and this might be worth a short I guess?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

Allthought you didnt ask about it making fuel out of coal is always a (dirty)option considering the wast ammounts of coal in the world.
 
brazil seem to de very well on ethanol seeing as they have no natural oil resources and are not rich enough to import a lot of it.

using coal is fine but it's not renewable like ethanol can be.

hydrogen is fairly difficult to store and accidents would be bad if it got near a naked flame as I'm sure you know what would happen in that case.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Back
Top