AHC: reduce 1930s-1940s German need for petrol

my understanding the producer gas/ wood gas vehicles could run on anything (basically) and switch as needed, and are a retrofit to existing vehicles. the downside is bulky device but a fair trade to keep vehicles running?

of course the most significant way for Germany to save on demand for petrol during 1940's was not to depart from European rail system to wage war in USSR
 
Calorific value: 3700–4700 kcal/kg. Compared with 'Tarong black coal' of 4800 kcal/kg, and 'Morwell Brown Coal (Lignite)' of 2006.

OK, with Kerosene being at 10800, gives an idea of flow needed to produce the same power. Large fuel tanks for mobile applications.

other Q would be on freezing point
 
Manure-based synthetic oil evolved from the Fischer-Tropp process
If you increase use of steam tractors (versus IC), or for rail, you could substitute manure slurry from chicken & pig factory farms directly & avoid the losses & costs in conversion.
 
If you increase use of steam tractors (versus IC), or for rail, you could substitute manure slurry from chicken & pig factory farms directly & avoid the losses & costs in conversion.

Factory Farms in the US 1970s onwards sense, didn't exist anywhere in WWII. Chicks and hogs were still 'Free Range' so to speak

Animal densities like that needed for factory farms required antibiotics, besides cheap feed.

Now with plenty of German Horses, you get plenty of manure to deal with.
But German farms were tiny, so no real concentration of horses to worry about large manure lagoons
 
Factory Farms in the US 1970s onwards sense, didn't exist anywhere in WWII. Chicks and hogs were still 'Free Range' so to speak

Animal densities like that needed for factory farms required antibiotics, besides cheap feed.

Now with plenty of German Horses, you get plenty of manure to deal with.
But German farms were tiny, so no real concentration of horses to worry about large manure lagoons
Figures. Serves me right thinking in modern terms...:rolleyes:

What about garbage? I mean, can waste paper & such be composted into fuel on an industrial scale?
 
*Widespread Karrack process implementation - also creates electricity

1*Convince pre-war German planners that the proposed underground refineries (Der Riese etc) slated for 1941 instead of 1944 as OTL are vital should the war last longer than expected

2*Can the Exxon donor solvent process be blunder upon earlier?

3*Manure-based synthetic oil evolved from the Fischer-Tropp process and the pilot plant was making 500 barrels of oil out of about 300 tons of turkey scat per day though the process to years to perfect (about the same amount of time it took from the discover of the FT process to World War 2...) and cost of OTL $80/barrel was an issue.

4*Belgian biodiesel of late 1930s gets attention from German planners or researchers, especially if combined with algal oil (this exists, the idea was originally published in Germany in 1942)

5*Safe hydrogen technology via crude fuel cells plausible but less likely (first modern such fuel cell was made by F.T. Bacon in the late 30s...if Germany ran with it earlier...?)
1: Limited by German steel access. See my TL Zweites Buch rewrite as to why this would require increases in coal and steel production to be made earlier than OTL. It all starts with more coal (I never said it ended with coal, but there you go)
2: Seems simple, but it was already within a high priority area, so what the driver/POD would be is not easy to anticipate. Could off course be an independent POD.
3: Domestic production is fertilizer and Manpower limited. Hard to imagine when coal can be dug out from the ground.
4: As above
5: Still needs to create hydrogen and when you are there you can made liquid fuels as well.
3-5 seems far-fetched to me. Not as impossible, but there are easier options.
 
Someone thinking to try it. I mean I just checked into coal desnification and it was basically thought up in the early 2000s based on trucks running over brown coal at a mine and how that crushed coal reacted to rain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Densified_coal
Seems I agree.
It was patented in 1891 in the UK, so with an active search for engine Technologies (cannot have been prioritized/coordinated OTL, otherwise at least steam trucks would have been implemented), it could easily have been dug up and Germany in the 30's had a much more advanced chemistry industry than the UK in 1891.
I suggest we read this link for an overview: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...A4E9875?doi=10.1.1.696.2771&rep=rep1&type=pdf
What really fascinates me is that it is possible to make a diesel engine run on it. Need to learn more of the catch. One of course half the volume beeing water (eg. less yield per volume), but if that is it, the potential of such a flexible basic fuel with diesel saved for offensives. The potential is immense as compared to OTL.

PS. Lets add that there is no burn or explosion risk. Tanks could be build into the sides of tanks (sorry) or more likely ships as armor, just like the HSF in WW1 used coal.
 
One wartime publication suggested planting the wonder-crop that does everything: Die Lustige Hanffibel. Loosely translated, that's "The Humorous Hemp Handbook." Apparently, hemp can be used to make biodiesel and ethanol. Here's the cover, complete with contented, smiling anthropomorphic Nazi Cannabis sp. plants:

OTL Nazis on speed, ATL Nazis on weed... How about Nazis pressing on use of cannabis as less resource intensive than alcohol which could be used for vehicle fuel instead? ;)

But to get on track, while all sorts of substitutes from Fischer-Tropsch to alcohol and wood chips existed, they were all mightily resource intensive. Even Finland switched off the wood chip fuel as soon as possible.

In addition on investing rail network instead of autobahn network I wonder if widescale electrification might have also made use of energy more efficient? For road network, how about trolley truck network?
(Picture below is from 1930's Sydney)

On warfare, how about more investment on artillery instead of tactical aviation and more investment on Flak instead of interceptors? On Flak, even most costly guns were dirt cheap, for example 12,8cm Flakzwilling 40 cost some 202000 RM contra one ME-109 about 85000RM. Life expectanct and most possibly kill ratio too was much more favorable for a Flakzwilling...

On cars and trucks in general, how about a program to construct electric cars and trucks in general, as they would reduce dependence on imported oil? These would not be useful in fighting, but would cut fuel consumption in the home front. Additional bonus would be battery industry capable of turning out more capable U-boats than historically.


07bc6fd8ab8f119b1eb2de8fb81c536b23dd5a78.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleytruck
 
Last edited:
my pre-war scenario is U-Bahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_U-Bahn constructed under major German cities, couple that with @wiking thread on expanded/refurbished railways https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/no-autobahn-instead-refurbished-reichsbahn.417678/

always thought this would appeal to dictatorship(s) as they can control movement throughout the country and constructed clandestine factories and arms depots while excavating.

coupled with producer gas vehicles already mentioned there would be major reduction in petrol demand.
 
my pre-war scenario is U-Bahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_U-Bahn constructed under major German cities, couple that with @wiking thread on expanded/refurbished railways https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/no-autobahn-instead-refurbished-reichsbahn.417678/

always thought this would appeal to dictatorship(s) as they can control movement throughout the country and constructed clandestine factories and arms depots while excavating.

coupled with producer gas vehicles already mentioned there would be major reduction in petrol demand.
U-Bahns is not something you create in a rush though. More likely the Electric trolleys, but its a vulnerable system.
 
U-Bahns is not something you create in a rush though. More likely the Electric trolleys, but its a vulnerable system.

Electric trolleys can be also fitted with auxiliary batteries and auxiliary engines. No mass transport can be expected to cope with mass bombing, though. U-Bahn tunnels on the other hand can be used as bombproof factory sites.

Of course we do not take into account the critical factor that if Germany does not win the war before 1942 it has lost the war anyway. Thus, U-bahn -tunnels as factories or vulnerability of trolleybus systems or electrified railroads to bombing is not important at all.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
...or diesel, or whatever type of fuel is gotten from crude.
Mention of the steam-powered trucks gotten me start this thread, so I'd be interesting to hear alternatives. In case diesel offers advantages vs. it's petrol competition, that also qualifies for this thread.

'Orses.


576
 
U-Bahns is not something you create in a rush though. More likely the Electric trolleys, but its a vulnerable system.

Electric trolleys can be also fitted with auxiliary batteries and auxiliary engines. No mass transport can be expected to cope with mass bombing, though. U-Bahn tunnels on the other hand can be used as bombproof factory sites.

my expectation was that most of U-Bahn system would NOT be completed, but the initial tunneling could be and, as pointed out, used as bunkers. a large part of the conventional rail system between cities (IMO) COULD have been refurbished, and with eye towards dual military use for troop movement and rail guns.
 
What really fascinates me is that it is possible to make a diesel engine run on it

There is the old joke among muti-fuel engine operators, that they could use peanut butter for fuel, if they only had a robust enough fuel pump and injector setup
 
Keep something in mind: if you increase use/consumption of coal, you've got to deliver it, & that means more barge traffic, which means you need to build more... So, are they steel (a bottleneck...) or wood? And what powers them? Does that burn more oil?
 
Keep something in mind: if you increase use/consumption of coal, you've got to deliver it, & that means more barge traffic, which means you need to build more... So, are they steel (a bottleneck...) or wood? And what powers them? Does that burn more oil?

historically they moved coal to synthetic plants for conversion, which is what approx. 1 or 2 barrels from ton of coal? while a ton of oil = 7 barrels (again very approx.)
 
Keep something in mind: if you increase use/consumption of coal, you've got to deliver it, & that means more barge traffic, which means you need to build more... So, are they steel (a bottleneck...) or wood? And what powers them? Does that burn more oil?
Barges are extremely fuel efficient and more could be used, but IOTL the longterm bottlenecks were steel(1936) and coal and rail (1939). Rail really got strained when Germany needed to move armies around, it was working just barely before the war.
 

Deleted member 1487

I wonder if the coal-water slurry or 'densified' coal would be good for rail or barges/other naval vessels?
 
Top