10% Ethanol in Gas
in [Technical]
|
From: HLS on 21 Dec 2007 08:40 "Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message news:UsidnaX9V8H5evfanZ2dnUVZ_sKqnZ2d(a)texas.net... > HLS wrote: > >> >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote in message >> >>> I am not sure that ethanol is the answer, but I also think that the >>> anti-ethanol lobby is lying through their collective teeth. I know who >>> is funding the pro-ethanol lobby. Who is funding the anti-ethanol lobby? >>> I'd say follow the money......Who stands to loose the most if ethanol >>> displaces a significant amount of foreign oil? >>> >>> Ed >> >> >> Fully agree with this, Ed. Everybody has a different axe to grind in >> this >> situation. > > > No, a lot of us just think that ethanol as a widely-used replacement for > gasoline is not viable for North America when you balance the energy > budget. I personally, however, think bioDIESEL has an enormous potential. > The difference is that far less energy is required to extract corn oil > from corn (or other plant oils from their parent plants) than to distill > ethanol from fermented corn. > > It still doesn't alleviate the problem with food crop being displaced for > fuel crop while much of the world starves, and it doesn't make a big > enough dent in oil demand because not enough of the automobile fleet is > diesel powered... but I just want to point out that in my case its not a > matter of "follow the money" at all. I also think biodiesel holds a lot of promise. Corn may not be the best source for the fatty acids to make biodiesel either.
From: HLS on 21 Dec 2007 09:42 "Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message news:UsidnaX9V8H5evfanZ2dnUVZ_sKqnZ2d(a)texas.net... > HLS wrote: > >> >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote in message >> >>> I am not sure that ethanol is the answer, but I also think that the >>> anti-ethanol lobby is lying through their collective teeth. I know who >>> is funding the pro-ethanol lobby. Who is funding the anti-ethanol lobby? >>> I'd say follow the money......Who stands to loose the most if ethanol >>> displaces a significant amount of foreign oil? >>> >>> Ed >> >> >> Fully agree with this, Ed. Everybody has a different axe to grind in >> this >> situation. > > > No, a lot of us just think that ethanol as a widely-used replacement for > gasoline is not viable for North America when you balance the energy > budget. I personally, however, think bioDIESEL has an enormous potential. > The difference is that far less energy is required to extract corn oil > from corn (or other plant oils from their parent plants) than to distill > ethanol from fermented corn. > > It still doesn't alleviate the problem with food crop being displaced for > fuel crop while much of the world starves, and it doesn't make a big > enough dent in oil demand because not enough of the automobile fleet is > diesel powered... but I just want to point out that in my case its not a > matter of "follow the money" at all. Although I said I agree with your biodiesel statement, I dont totally agree with your energy balance assessment. We dont have to replace gasoline with ethanol to make a substantial dent in oil imports. Every little bit helps. At some point we may see that liquid fuel is needed even though it costs as much as petroleum to produce. If you dont have enough petroleum, you CAN burn ethanol. Maybe we could invent a car that would burn the corn directly, but corn would still be a poor choice of fuel sources. While corn is not an ideal material to product fuel ethanol, it could be used where sugar cane, potatoes, etc cannot be raised. Corn stalks, cobs, and husks can be burned to help regain some of the energy in the equation. But, again, corn demands a lot of petroleum based fertilizer, produces relatively little grain, and therefore relatively little ethanol. In a similar sense, corn may not be the best crop for biodiesel either. Planting pine forests can guarantee a future of wood, and also tall oil, which could be converted to biodiesel..And, the trees help the environment. (I am a tree farmer too, among other things) We have to think in worst case scenarios. Lastly, small diesel engines in light weight passenger cars make sense.. Perhaps not for the freight hauler or industrial user but for most of us. We might have to go back to trains for transport instead of 18 wheelers. For the long term benefit of the nation, we, as a people, need to do better.
From: C. E. White on 21 Dec 2007 09:49 "clifto" <clifto(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:mioq35-0oi.ln1(a)remote.clifto.com... > C. E. White wrote: >> "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. > > And you've taken food out of the mouths of humans. > > Funny how the beef industry cites the rising cost of animal feed, caused > by ethanol production, as a reason for the rising cost of beef. Adjusted for inflation food prices are low. And although the cost of corn has risen in recent years, even this year, unadjusted for inflation, corn prices were no higher than the mid-70's. If you adjust the prices for inflation, they are less than half of the mid-70's prices. If you adjust them for inflation corn prices are still at historically low levels. Ed
From: N8N on 21 Dec 2007 10:13 On Dec 20, 9:17 am, klu...(a)panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: > 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. > > 10% ethanol is good. Yes, it slightly reduces the total energy of > combustion a little, but it prevents knocking and it's much less > hazardous than the other popular anti-knock additives like MTBE and lead. > > >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? > > Also, realize that ethanol dissolves a lot of rubber formulations. Run > pure ethanol in your car and you'll find hoses and seals going bad right > and left. A lot of people had that experience trying pure ethanol back > in the seventies, too. Of course, back then it wasn't quite so bad since > there weren't anywhere near as many hoses and seals to replace.... > --scott > -- > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Not to mention the fuel pump diaphragm, if you still have a mechanical fuel pump. Other comments about having to rejet the carb are correct, and even so there will still be a slight drop in MPG. I also am not sold on ethanol, at least corn-based ethanol, being an eventual renewable replacement for gasoline. nate (however, when served over ice, certain forms of corn-based ethanol can be downright tasty.)
From: Steve on 21 Dec 2007 10:45
HLS wrote: > > I also think biodiesel holds a lot of promise. Corn may not be the best > source for > the fatty acids to make biodiesel either. True, there are many many sources. Another advantage.... |