Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hunter

(39,176 posts)
1. This statement about engine size makes no sense:
Sat Oct 5, 2024, 12:29 PM
Oct 2024
DME has a lower energy density than diesel (27.6 MJ/kg compared to 42.6 MJ/kg for diesel), requiring an engine double the size to achieve the same fuel economy as diesel.


All that really means is that for DME you have to inject more fuel by mass into the engine to get the same power as diesel. I don't see how that relates to "engine size."

For the same trip where you might burn 100 kg of diesel fuel you'd burn 154 kilograms of DME.

It's similar to the situation with E-85 flex fuel vehicles. They get much better mileage running on 100% gasoline compared to Ethanol but you are not changing the size of the engine. Increasing the size of the engine wouldn't improve the E85 mileage, it would probably decrease it.

DME is very similar to LPG (mostly propane) in it's handling characteristics. It's a "bottled gas."

By volume LPG and DME have a very similar energy densities. A gallon of DME will go roughly the same distance as a gallon of LPG but a gallon of DME weighs more than a gallon of LPG.

This extra fuel weight wouldn't matter so much for automobiles and trucks as it would for aircraft.

If our modern world civilization survives and we humans actually manage to quit fossil fuels I expect our aircraft will be running on carbon-neutral jet fuel synthesized in nuclear power plant complexes.


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Electrochemical Reduction...»Reply #1