From: Don Stauffer in Minnesota on
On Dec 19, 7:59 pm, phaeton <blahbleh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I hear a lot of people up in arms about the addition of Ethanol to
> gasoline. Many places do it just in the wintertime, others do it year
> round. One of the gas stations in my little town even has a bunch of
> "100% REAL GAS - NO ETHANOL" signs up all over the place. With all
> the whining and crying about "people putting water in the gas[sic]",
> I've honestly never noticed a difference in operation or efficiency.
>
> My guess is that Ethanol earned a bad reputation (1970s, maybe?) when
> cars used to be carbureted and timing advanced with mechanical weights
> and such. However, modern cars with EFI and its associated arsenal of
> sensors simply adapt to whatever difference it makes, but many people
> are still stuck with the 'ethanol sucks' mentality. True?

Ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline, and can dissolve some
plastics used in gaskets and O-rings. Really old cars with copper
seals and cork gaskets were okay, as well as newer cars that have
ethanol-safe components in fuel system. I think the problem was in
sixties and seventies vintage cars.

To me the big thing about ethanol is that it takes a lot of energy to
make it, and some mfgs use petroleum to make it, in which case it
doesn't save petroleum imports by that much. It has only a negligible
improvement in greenhouse emissions.

There ARE process fuels other than petroleum that CAN be used to make
ethanol. To me those tax breaks should be predicated on using non-
petroleum process fuel.
From: Scott Dorsey on
Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauffer(a)usfamily.net> wrote:
>To me the big thing about ethanol is that it takes a lot of energy to
>make it, and some mfgs use petroleum to make it, in which case it
>doesn't save petroleum imports by that much. It has only a negligible
>improvement in greenhouse emissions.

Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly. It just
doesn't work out, costing more to make than you get out of it.

But ethanol is a hell of a good petroleum _additive_ and a big improvement
over other octane improvers.

>there are process fuels other than petroleum that CAN be used to make
>ethanol. To me those tax breaks should be predicated on using non-
>petroleum process fuel.

Folks are working on that, but there's no commercial production. But I
would agree with you.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: C. E. White on

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge(a)panix.com> wrote in message
news:fke0ap$d3m$1(a)panix2.panix.com...

> Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly. It
> just
> doesn't work out, costing more to make than you get out of it.

Not true. See Brazil. And even if you use corn (not as cost effective
as sugar cane), most people who say it doesn't provide a net energy
benefit ignore the fact that the residue left over after you make
ethanol is a high quality animal feed, in some way superior to the
original corn. And if/when a process for making ethanol from grass /
wood chips / whatever is commercialized, ethanol will be relatively
inexpensive.

Ed White


From: Mitch on
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauffer(a)usfamily.net> wrote:
>> To me the big thing about ethanol is that it takes a lot of energy to
>> make it, and some mfgs use petroleum to make it, in which case it
>> doesn't save petroleum imports by that much. It has only a negligible
>> improvement in greenhouse emissions.
>
> Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly. It just
> doesn't work out, costing more to make than you get out of it.
>
> But ethanol is a hell of a good petroleum _additive_ and a big improvement
> over other octane improvers.
>
>> there are process fuels other than petroleum that CAN be used to make
>> ethanol. To me those tax breaks should be predicated on using non-
>> petroleum process fuel.
>
> Folks are working on that, but there's no commercial production. But I
> would agree with you.
> --scott

Heard an interview with a farmer who also is a partner in an ethanol
plant. He said it took 1 gal of fuel to produce 1.3 gal. Now keep in
mind that gasoline also has related refining costs. He also said he was
looking into switching to switch grass. The bio-fuels industry is in its
infancy and its bound to get more efficient as time goes by.

Mitch
From: C. E. White on

"Mitch" <wolberg5.nnnooo(a)msn.com> wrote in message
news:fke20m$re8$1(a)aioe.org...

> Heard an interview with a farmer who also is a partner in an ethanol
> plant. He said it took 1 gal of fuel to produce 1.3 gal. Now keep in
> mind that gasoline also has related refining costs. He also said he
> was looking into switching to switch grass. The bio-fuels industry
> is in its infancy and its bound to get more efficient as time goes
> by.

You get 1.3 gal of ethanol AND you have almost as much animal feed as
if you fed the corn directly.

Ed