WI/AHC - Viable alternatives to petrol / diesel appeared much earlier

What if more viable alternatives to petrol / diesel in internal combustion engines appeared much earlier, especially if there is scope for such fuels to be later converted into biofuels with minimal to no modification of engines and thus potentially either delaying or butterflying away the current OTL trend towards electrification (along with butterflying away the notion of biofuel crops)?

The examples that come to mind, albeit with varying degrees of modification needed for current internal combustion engines are:

Butanol Fuel - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel : Perhaps ATL Chaim Weizmann makes a miracle discovery of a Butanol-tolerant bacteria that can also survive long enough to reach an 11% or higher ABV, though also open to more realistic PODs.

Dimethyl Ether aka DME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_ether#Fuel

Oxymethylene Ether aka OME1 - https://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/02/20160215-ome.html

Vegetable Oil Refining aka Green Diesel - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable_oil_refining
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Depending on when such fuels became available and how widespread they become, these could compete with gasoline/diesel in countries without local sources of petroleum. Thus, Scandinavia, Italy and the Balkans, Iberia, South America and Japan could develop internal combustion engines utilizing such fuels. These fuels are not a total replacement for petroleum fuels due to lower energy density, but are miles ahead of alcohol based fuels.

Electrification is due to the concern over air pollution and global warming as much, if not more, than any lack of petroleum based fuels. Some of these fuels appear to allay some of the issues with CO2 and other pollutants. But without trials, their long term impact cannot be determined.

Engines designed for such fuels will operate better than those designed for petroleum fuels. The major issue may be when a manufacturer sells vehicles/engines in multiple countries with differing fuels. Thus, I would expect these newer fuels may augment, but not replace, petroleum. Look at Brazil to see how one nation has modified its industry to operate with an alternate industry. US drivers would revolt.
 
One of the challenges that countries without significant oil reserves have is paying for imported fuel. In my opinion, if these processes were viable, then these countries would not have to use foreign currency to pay for fuel or as much fuel. Instead the value added from fuel production would be captured by their farm sector which would help address rural poverty. Assuming that the plants are scattered through the farm belt, you would see more technical jobs created to run the plants once they are built. While there may not be a lot of jobs, any good paying jobs are welcomed in rural areas.

The foreign currency reserves could be used to pay for other needed imports and help grow the national economy. Potentially the energy cost to the national economy would be lower since it would be locally produced energy. The periodic impact of a rising US dollar driving up the cost of the same amount of imported energy would be reduced.
 
Last edited:
Ammonia and methanol can both replace oil in internal combustion engines, minimum modifications although less energy cutting into the range, perhaps 30 - 40 % left. Of the two, ammonia has zero carbon emissions and you could hijack the fertilizer network into gasoline stations. But methanol is equally good.

Well, hydrazine (the rocket fuel) could, to, replace gasoline but it is an extremely toxic and dangerous bastard of substance.
 
Look at the time lines for petroleum fuels versus oil seeds and bio fuels. Gasoline was thriving before vegetable oils became popular, even for foods, circa World War 2. As for ammonia, its production is very energy intense. It is better as a feedstock for fertilizers and explosives.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
From Wili on butanol fuels:

Properties of common fuels[edit]
[citation needed]

Fuel Energy
density
Air-fuel
ratio
Specific
energy
Heat of
vaporization
RON MON AKI
Gasoline and biogasoline 32 MJ/L 14.7 2.9 MJ/kg air 0.36 MJ/kg 91–99 81–89 87-95
Butanol fuel 29.2 MJ/L 11.1 36.6 MJ/kg air 0.43 MJ/kg 96 78 87
Anhydrous Ethanol fuel 19.6 MJ/L 9.0 3.0 MJ/kg air 0.92 MJ/kg 107 89
Methanol fuel 16 MJ/L 6.4 3.1 MJ/kg air 1.2 MJ/kg 106 92

Sorry for the format. The energy of Butanol over Methanol is almost double, over Ethanol is 50%.

Until someone converts vehicles to butanol, we wont know the fuel economy cost. However, it should be less than ethanol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone–butanol–ethanol_fermentation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-generation_biofuels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

Okay, enough of the Wiki Foo.

In essence, should a nation, say Australia, start the biochemical and agricultural development of these petroleum alternatives prior to the Great Depression, you could see a major agricultural and economic impact by the 1950's. India would be able to boot strap the Australian development to free themselves from petroleum dependency. Smaller nations would be able to draw off the technology. The OPEC sponsored emergencies would not happen or be dramatically less in this timeline. Europe would be less dependent on the Middle East and Russia for fuels.
 
Was a fan of Methanol fuel, due to the notion of a suggest future Methanol economy until realizing it cannot compare to other prospective alternatives (including the Vegetable Oil economy) though like the idea of earlier (say a post-war POD with the groundwork being laid prior to WW2) drop-in petroleum alternatives that are functionally equivalent to petroleum fuels and are fully compatible with existing petroleum infrastructure. Especially if those drop-in petroleum alternatives are capable of later being converted into drop-in biofuels.

Isobutanol also seems like an interesting alternative though not quite sure how it is different from biomass-based Bio-Butanol. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isobutanol#Second-generation_biofuel
 

trurle

Banned
The examples that come to mind, albeit with varying degrees of modification needed for current internal combustion engines are:
Butanol Fuel
Dimethyl Ether aka DME
Oxymethylene Ether aka OME1
Vegetable Oil Refining aka Green Diesel
The main problem is simply economics - IOTL gasoline was selected as automobile fuel because it was dirt cheap (gasoline was initially considered an unwanted byproduct of kerosene refining). Therefore, forget about fuels needing dedicated production facilities - you need to have a fuel stock for the cost of delivery to customer, as happened with gasoline.

Therefore, i predict what if automobiles will burn alternative fuel, gasoline would still be burned in one application or another. For example, will be still kerosene/diesel burning naval vessels, agricultural tractors and military vehicles, heavy oil-consuming asphalt industry etc. producing an excess of gasoline.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
The main problem is simply economics - IOTL gasoline was selected as automobile fuel because it was dirt cheap (gasoline was initially considered an unwanted byproduct of kerosene refining). Therefore, forget about fuels needing dedicated production facilities - you need to have a fuel stock for the cost of delivery to customer, as happened with gasoline.

Therefore, i predict what if automobiles will burn alternative fuel, gasoline would still be burned in one application or another. For example, will be still kerosene/diesel burning naval vessels, agricultural tractors and military vehicles, heavy oil-consuming asphalt industry etc. producing an excess of gasoline.

Which is why you need to start this project in an area without easy/cheap access to petroleum. If possible, the POD should be by the 1860's or 1870's. Bio-chemistry was not developed sufficiently to discover these products at that time. Thus, the found energy source, petroleum, became the norm.
 
Am not looking to completely butterfly away petroleum, just interested in having viable alternatives appear much earlier compared to OTL so they can at least play a role in reducing (if not almost negate) the impact of the OPEC sponsored emergencies.
 
Which is why you need to start this project in an area without easy/cheap access to petroleum. If possible, the POD should be by the 1860's or 1870's. Bio-chemistry was not developed sufficiently to discover these products at that time. Thus, the found energy source, petroleum, became the norm.
But at this time, crop yields are so low that it's still cheaper to ship crude oil in wooden barrels

Soybeans were under 10 bushels an acre, peanuts 17 when you had the wide rows for horse pulled ag equipment, and just natural fertilizer and no pesticides and herbicides. These are the easiest crop to convert to biodiesel.

The biggest problem with these biofuels, is that under 32 degrees, they cloud and start to gel, and require heating to flow reliably. Alcohol also has the problem of its vaporization temp, in cold weather it doesn't work well in carburetors
 

SwampTiger

Banned
The wide choice of feed stock for some of these alternatives allows fallow field usage as well as leftover stalks from food crops. In addition, the algal fuel production methods and sewage water stocks are a great match. Vaporization of butanol is close to that of gasoline. In addition, all variants can be mixed with gasoline or diesel to improve cold starting issues.
 
Could use engines with injectors, like for diesel engines.
Pretty advanced for a first engine

The Wright Brothers first 'carburetor' just dripped fuel into the intake from a petcock

This was the improved postwar Model T setup
1280px-Ford_model_t_1919_d019_carburation.png

It's gravity flow, non pressurized, no pump.
The 'Intake Gate' was the choke. Basic float system to shut off fuel to reduce flooding. No accelerator pump, venturi or boost or idle circuits

There was enough adjustment in the fuel system and ignition to allow running on kerosene, though very difficult to start an engine not at operating temperature with that fuel
 
How did Rudolf Diesel make his engine work in 1894 ?
Instead of using a externally heated hot bulb to aid in compression ignition, used a powerful standalone aircompressor to blow in an atomized fuel/air mixture into a existing aircharge that was being compressed earlier in the stroke.

Not very fast, around 170 rpm for its 25HP. Had a lot of torque, but was several thousand pounds.

So not ideal for a Model T powerplant
 
Top