write your congress-critter - increased ethanol in gasoline
in [Technical]
|
Prev: 1992 Dodge Grand Caravan Alternator removal
Next: Toyota drags down new-vehicle quality average; Ford leads Detroit3 gains, J.D. Power says
From: hls on 21 Jun 2010 09:22 "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message >> I have never been positive on fuel alcohol from corn. Corn requires too >> much ammonia, which comes from petroleum. Other crops should be a >> better choice than corn. > > Better choice in your opinion, but what crops farmers grow isn't based > on your opinion. Farmers planted 40% more acres to corn in 1940 than > they do today. Farmers have been planting large amounts of corn long > before ethanol became popular as a gasoline additive. Yes, a better choice, in my opinion. > > MTBE was the first replacement for tetra ethyl lead in gasoline starting > in the 70's. We're talking about ethanol, not MTBE. > > What you are ignoring is that after the corn has been used for producing > ethanol, it still has 80% of the value as a high protein livestock feed. > What is left after making alcohol isn't just thrown away - it is a > valuable product in its own right. That is true. It is also true of some other crops used to produce ethanol. > > And if you want to make ethanol from cellulose the amount of cellulose > in the US corn crop is huge. But ethanol from cellulose just isn't very > economical using current technology. If it were economical they would be > using corn stalks to make alcohol. Right, it takes some chemical reactions to break cellulose down into its component sugars. Starches and sugars are the better starting materials from which to make ethanol. >> > 5. tax payers are already being rooted for all the tax benefits the oil >> > companies enjoy - this just makes it even worse. with ethanol, >> > taxpayers >> > subsidize farmers, give tax breaks to oil companies to use it, and just >> > to >> > add insult to the injury of getting lower mpg's, so not only Explain why we should be paying corn subsidies in the first place....
From: Don Stauffer on 21 Jun 2010 09:47 jim wrote: > No it is not true. E10 has 3% less energy than E0. But with 75% of the > energy content of E0 gasoline being wasted and good reason to believe > that ethanol blended gasoline can be burned more efficiently than > gasoline alone it is not a given that ethanol blends will reduce gas > mileage. In fact several studies have shown some engines get better > mileage with ethanol blends. For instance, MIT has a prototype > ethanol+gasoline engine that is 30% more efficient than a equivalent > gasoline engine alone. That is special engine deigned to take > advantage of certain properties that ethanol has that gasoline doesn't. > Now that the vast majority of spark engines are being fueled with > ethanol blended gasoline in the continental US you can expect to see > engines designed for the US market to be more efficient on ethanol blend > than straight gasoline. > > -jim Losses in a heat engine have little to do with the fuel. These losses are do to inefficiencies in using the heat produced. About a third of the thermal energy released in the fuel goes into useful work at reasonable throttle openings, a third goes into exhaust entropy and a third into the cooling system. That is true reguardless of the fuel. Now, it IS true that both ethanol and methanol have a higher octane than most gasolines. If the CR is increased to take advantage of this higher octane, then indeed we could have increased efficiency. To a limited degree, if a certain gasoline is too low in octane so that a knock sensor equipped ignition is retarding the spark, then an alcohol mix could allow the engine to regain proper spark timing. But the increase in efficiency in that case would come nowhere near 30%. What alcohol ratio is the MIT engine using?
From: jim beam on 21 Jun 2010 10:11 On 06/20/2010 05:50 PM, jim wrote: > > > jim beam wrote: > >> >> efficiency and calorie content are two completely different things. > > yes I knew that. And that was the point -> The efficiency gain can > outweigh the reduction in calorie content. not thermodynamically it can't. by definition. [you've heard of "thermodynamics" haven't you?] so if it's just combustion efficiency, comparing a properly tuned engine with one that's not is a bullshit false premise. but again, you already knew that. > And as engine designs change > we can expect that will be the norm for ethanol blended fuel. > Besides the efficiency of the fuel burned in the engine, your analysis > ignores the refinery's cost and energy usage. It takes energy to produce > higher octane fuel. As it happens the amount of energy that the > refineries save by producing a low octane base fuel to be blended with > ethanol is pretty much equal to the difference in energy content of E10 > compared to E0. octane rating has nothing to do with calorie content, retard. > >> but you knew that and were trying to muddy the water because you just >> wanted a fight. idiot. > > HA HA HA. Yes an idiot like you would consider looking at the whole > truth to be muddying the waters. if your idea of "the whole truth" allows for being fundamentally ignorant of thermodynamics and energy yields, you have some serious issues. but we already knew that too, retard. -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim beam on 21 Jun 2010 10:13 On 06/21/2010 06:03 AM, hls wrote: > > "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:qb6dnbvjf8DpKIPRnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... > > >> >> 1. viton is roughly 10x more expensive than buna-n. and kalrez roughly >> 10x more than viton. doesn't matter what the "bulk" is - the ratios >> remain regardless. > > Ratios remain, but are not always a significant part of the retail cost > of an item. > Like my $4.00 steel screws. imagine you're running a business. are you going to pay 10x or 100x for an item whose spec vastly exceeds your current requirements? i think not. > > >> >>> Not an intrinsic problem. Shux, when I had to buy some >>> screws for the door latch on my old van, they were $4.00 each. Does that >>> mean that steel is expensive??? >> >> different issue. > > No, actually it is part of the same issue. A small O-ring might weigh a > couple > of grams, a tenth of an ounce... You buy elastomers by weight. If the > elastomer > cost $45 dollars per pound, such an O-ring would have a raw material > value of > about $0.10-0.15. Maybe that is ten times higher than Viton, but it is > insignificant no, you buy the feedstock by weight. but then you have to process it in the mold. it's not a true elastomer until it's vulcanized, or whatever you'd call the cross-linking process in that kind of material. you don't buy a sack of flour and expect to open it and find cake in there do you? > until the manufacturer marks it up a thousand times. Is is NOT a > different issue. i think we're talking at crossed purposes. /my/ point is that the original material spec was adequate for the gasoline formulations available at the time of manufacture. retrofitting to accommodate formulation changes is as ridiculous a concept as manufacturing with something way over necessary spec. in the first place. especially as you don't /know/ what any future spec is! > > > >> so you're saying acetaldehyde and formaldehyde are not ethanol >> combustion emissions? have you a cite? >> > No cite...observation. When I was there a couple of years ago, the air > seemed > better than when they were largely diesel fueled for heavy trucks and > buses. > If you have figures, pop them out. Acetaldehyde is certainly possible from > ethanol combustion. I would think that catalytic convertors would remove > these partial combustion products i already gave you a couple of cite but you've snipped them. the health effects are all spelled out. -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: hls on 21 Jun 2010 10:17
"jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > >> until the manufacturer marks it up a thousand times. Is is NOT a >> different issue. > > i think we're talking at crossed purposes. /my/ point is that the > original material spec was adequate for the gasoline formulations > available at the time of manufacture. retrofitting to accommodate > formulation changes is as ridiculous a concept as manufacturing with > something way over necessary spec. in the first place. especially as > you don't /know/ what any future spec is! > Finally, we agree. |