The NYTimes ran an article on making the U.S. economy independent of Imported Oil by 2030, through use of four different technologies: ethanol from waste product of agriculture, making Oil from shale, converting Coal, and whatever. It's major claim was independence was available because material source product was existent in almost all States. Am I the only one who understnads there must be a fundamental change in engines to produce this magnitude of altered fuel use?
They propose changing Solids into liquid fuel, simply to be utilized in a gaseous reaction based upon the introduction of heat in the form of electrical discharge. They intend a multiple level of chemical steps to produce a Product to be utilizable in a transformance reaction to produce power. Ethanol production is fairly simple, with just a multiple-distillation process to produce a fuel, but one that is extremely reactant to environmental intervention--it burns relatively as rapidly as Gasoline with the advent of a stray spark. Does Engineering insist We invest in a technology producing all the hazards of the product it replaces?
All of these Fuels require a basic grinding or cracking operation to alter these materials into some form of solid dust or uniform liquid, before any other more complex chemical operations can be conducted. Could not technology come up with a method to compact this very reactant dust and cover it with some form of celleose shell--i.e., making a pellet. The power of dust explosions can be catalogued by the history of grain elevator explosions in American history. The interesting fact of any Carbon product from any source, even human and animal sewage, it can be dryed by simple process and then ground to a fine dust of high volitity. Transport of such dust increases Safety factors immensely, if they are encased in small quantities surrounded by a protective coating of less flamible material--the Pellet.
The only need after reaching the stage of the Pellet ramains an Engineering process to transform the dust inside the Pellet into a gaseous form for burning. Engineers need a conceptualism of one pellet for idling an engine, two pellets for maintaining the cyclic speed of an engine, and three pellets emplaced and crushed in a cylinder of an engine to produce acceleration. Coatings of the pellets must be made out of flamible material, themselves consumed in the burning process. The crushing of the pellets can be achieved by a contraction process at piston head at the start of the upstroke. Isn't Everyone glad I am not an engineer? lgl