Aston University and Drayson Racing are to investigate second-generation biofuels in order to create high-performance cars with reduced CO2 emissions.
According to Aston, next-generation biofuels are seen to provide one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing the CO2 emissions of internal combustion engines over the next two decades. The extreme conditions experienced in motor racing are seen as offering a platform for developing this fuel — made from waste biomass rather than food crops — to a wider audience.
The partnership will focus on the production of second-generation biofuels from sources such as organic waste; improve the stability and reliability of second-generation biofuels; and enhance the ability of high-performance engines to optimise performance.
The partnership will also look at developing materials for use in fuel pumps and other areas that are capable of surviving a highly aggressive biofuel environment.
Lord Drayson, managing partner of Drayson Racing, said: ‘Road transport accounts for 25–35 per cent of CO2 emissions in developed countries and the major source of these emissions is private cars. We are keen to apply what we have learnt on the track to novel products that will improve the performance of future vehicles while reducing their carbon impact.’
Debuting in 2009, Drayson Racing proved the effectiveness of its 200mph (322kph) Flex-Fuel race car by achieving the first-ever international pole and win for a bio-ethanol-fuelled race car in the American Le Mans Series endurance race at Road America in August 2010.
…biofuels from sources such as organic waste… what, a load of rubbish?
But seriously, the combustion of ethanol still results in CO2, a modest reduction compared to petrol, and incomplete combustion leads to many of the same products as incomplete combustion of petrol, by some accounts higher levels… So, for the rest of us who don’t regularly fiddle with our carburetors or fuel injectors, there seems to be a false promise here.
While I applaud carbon reduction initiatives, methanol, though moderately less energy dense, still CO2 producing, and likewise available from lumber industry refuse feedstock, has already a growing user base and less, if any ozone and formaldehyde production compared to ethanol. Like hydrogen, methanol burns invisibly, ostensibly why Indy racecars reverted to ethanol from methanol.
There’s also the mature field of methane digestion from waste biomass and steam reforming to produce hydrogen. If the MSR process includes CCR (carbon capture and sequestration) this is carbon free fuel.
Therefore, pardon me, but I don’t see any substantial news here…
There is nothing good about ethanol however it is made.
Ethanol is hydrophilic. It absorbs a lot of water and causes separation of ethanol from gasoline.
Ethanol is corrosive. It damages or destroys many elastomerics and metals.
Ethanol burns hotter. It causes many catalytic converters to burn out thus dramatically increasing air pollution. It also cause open cycle engines to run poorly or clutches to engage from higher RPMs, which can be deadly for chainsaw use.
Open your eyes and understand that ethanol, regardless of its generational stance, is the wrong fuel.
This is precisely why ethanol should be used only for production of bio-diesel from algal oil, with most or all of the ethanol being derived from the carbohydrates contained within the algae. This would help restore food production to previous levels, and would alleiviate the problems with ethanol. Of couse, Chevron and BP have big plans for algal oils already on the books, I suspect.
Interesting times indeed for shift to sustainable transport!