Why we don't use wood anymore to power our cars

Before the concept of low-carbon or carbon-neutral fuels even existed, people tried something completely different: wood. It powered many of the earliest combustion vehicles, including locomotives and steamships.

Bill Hand/The New Bern Sun Journal/AP/File
A 1930 Ford Model A rolls down Middle Street in search of its stall during Saturday, May 10, 2014, antique car show in downtown New Bern, NC.

When it comes to alternative fuels, the discussion usually centers around compressed natural gas, or biofuels like ethanol or biodiesel.

But before the concept of low-carbon or carbon-neutral fuels even existed, a few early makers and desperate drivers tried something completely different.

They powered their vehicles with wood, the same fuel used to power many of the earliest combustion-powered vehicles, including railroad locomotives and steamships.

Wood-powered cars achieved prominence briefly during the early 20th century—but there are good reasons why we don't use wood to power cars today, notes a recent article on the subject in Hemmings Daily.

These cars relied on gasification, a process by which gases produced by burning wood are routed into the engine's cylinders to be compressed and ignited, just as a gasoline-air mixture is in conventional cars.

Wood-gas generators for cars became popular in Europe both immediately after World War I and during World War II, according to Hemmings, primarily due to gasoline shortages.

While wood power received some initial attention from early automakers, they eventually abandoned the idea. Instead, aftermarket companies sold kits to be retrofitted to existing cars.

Immediate issues were the weight of the wood-gas generator systems, the fact that they lowered engine power, and the sheer amount of wood they required.

According to a manual published in the late 1930s, an average truck could be expected to burn 220 pounds of wood every 62 miles.

Refueling was not as simple as chopping down trees, either.

Most systems required wood, in chunks no larger than 3 inches long and 2 inches in diameter, that had been stored for at least six months to dry fully.

Hardwoods like birch and oak worked best, and woods with high resin content had to be avoided. Some systems were configured to burn charcoal, which had its own drawback: high sensitivity to humidity.

Most systems included a stove for burning the fuel, as well as a cooler and filter for the gases produced, all connected by a network of pipes.

Operating a wood-powered vehicle was also quite labor intensive—even by the standards of early cars.

Hemmings looked at a system installed on a Ford Model A with a stove that required stoking with both wood and charcoal, the latter used to filter the gas en route to a filter/radiator mounted up front.

During startup, the driver had to test whether the gas was pure enough to use in the engine, a process that sometimes resulted in a fireball.

Given all that, perhaps it is not surprising that wood-powered cars never really caught on.

Luckily, today's biofuels—most of them starting with plants or agricultural materials—are increasingly designed to "drop in" to existing vehicles and fueling systems with far less modification.

This story originally appeared on GreenCarReports.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why we don't use wood anymore to power our cars
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today