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: jim on 21 Jun 2010 11:24 hls wrote: > > "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. It is an unrealistic opinion. > > > > > MTBE was the first replacement for tetra ethyl lead in gasoline starting > > in the 70's. > > We're talking about ethanol, not MTBE. Were talking about the EPA regulation against ethanol. The purpose of those regulations putting limitations on ethanol and requiring labeling for ethanol were intended to favor the usage of MTBE. Meanwhile, 35 years have now passed and the use of MTBE as a gasoline additive is over, but the restrictions on ethanol still remain. Automobile manufacturers have been using elastomers that hold up well with ethanol for 35 years, because MTBE was harder on elastomers than ethanol is. > > > > > 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. Name one. The fact is, there is nothing in the US that is even remotely close to being as economically viable as corn. > > > > > 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. It's all economics. You can make fuel from lots of things. The entire political structure is designed to facilitate making fuel cheaply from petroleum. We spend billions in order to structure things so that we can point to petroleum and say we can't live without oil. Even farming is structured this way. There are massive subsidies for fuel and fertilizer to farmers. You have to be a deluded to expect that farmers are not going to grow crops that don't take advantage of the economic and political realities that exist. > > >> > 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.... If you are against subsidies to farmers for growing corn you should be in favor of allowing ethanol in the fuel supply. It has done more than anything else in the last 80 years to eliminate those subsidies. You probably don't understand what it is being discussed. The EPA back in the 70's placed a limit (no more than 10%) on how much ethanol can be added to conventional gasoline. Ethanol producers 15 months ago have petitioned the EPA to lift this restriction that was placed on ethanol. The EPA doesn't really have any good valid scientific reason to limit the amount of ethanol used in the fuel supply. The EPA's response to the petition to raise the limit to 15% ethanol has been to stall for over a year while they do studies (so they claim) to come up with a viable reason to deny the petition. It looks like the EPA will continue to stall for at least another year but eventually they will have to make a decision. When the EPA finally denies the petition, then the ethanol producers will have an opportunity take the EPA to court and both sides will have to present their evidence to a judge. The EPA is doing it's best to avoid a confrontation in court because that will be based on provable fact. The EPA has yet to come up with a reason not to raise the limit to 15%. They haven't even come up with any reason why the limitation existed in the first place. -jim
From: jim on 21 Jun 2010 11:32 Don Stauffer wrote: > > 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. Oh really? Apparently you never heard of the diesel engine. A diesel is typically 20% more efficient per calorie that a gasoline engine. > 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. No it is not. It is only true when no particular engineering effort is made to take advantage of the nature of the fuel. If you use the same engine design for diesel fuel as gasoline it wouldn't be more efficient, but that would not demonstrate anything useful. > > Now, it IS true that both ethanol and methanol have a higher octane than > most gasolines. Ethanol has higher octane than any commercially available gasoline. > If the CR is increased to take advantage of this higher > octane, then indeed we could have increased efficiency. Yes that is a significant part of the 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. Almost every car in the US now has ethanol in the tank. Engines are being designed around that fact. Go back about 4 years and the majority of spark engine cars didn't have ethanol in the gas tank and back then engines were being designed around that fact. > > But the increase in efficiency in that case would come nowhere near 30%. > What alcohol ratio is the MIT engine using? This particular engine is a high compression (compression is as high as the highest diesel) turbo charged engine. The ethanol and gasoline are kept in separate fuel tanks. The gasoline is fed to the engine under light load conditions from multi-port injection. The ethanol is direct injected into the cylinders under heavy load conditions. The ratio of ethanol to gasoline increases with engine load. The mix of gasoline to ethanol on average is about 30% ethanol and 70% gasoline and yet fuel efficiency is much better than a efficient gasoline engine of the same weight and torque. It isn't just the direct injection that allows for better efficiency due to reduce pumping losses (like a diesel) it is also the much higher latent heat of evaporation of ethanol that produces pumping efficiencies not possible with either gasoline or diesel as the fuel. -jim
From: hls on 21 Jun 2010 11:44 Here is a site for an o-ring selection guide. It can be used to find elastomers compatible with various chemicals. Might be helpful for automotive hobbyists. http://www.efunda.com/designstandards/oring/oring_chemical.cfm?SC=none&SM=Neoprene#chem As far as corn, Jim, I sense you have a vested interested in this.. Do what you have to do.
From: jim beam on 21 Jun 2010 12:55 On 06/21/2010 08:44 AM, hls wrote: > Here is a site for an o-ring selection guide. It can be used to find > elastomers > compatible with various chemicals. Might be helpful for automotive > hobbyists. > > http://www.efunda.com/designstandards/oring/oring_chemical.cfm?SC=none&SM=Neoprene#chem > > > As far as corn, Jim, I sense you have a vested interested in this.. Do what > you have to do. sorry, but not knowing the basics of thermodynamic efficiency or the difference between octane rating and energy yield is not "vested interest", it's retardation. -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim beam on 21 Jun 2010 12:58
On 06/21/2010 08:32 AM, jim wrote: > > > Don Stauffer wrote: >> >> 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. > > Oh really? Apparently you never heard of the diesel engine. A diesel is > typically 20% more efficient per calorie that a gasoline engine. T-H-E-R-M-O-D-Y-N-A-M-I-C-S retard. you've evidently never heard of it. > > >> 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. > > No it is not. yes it is retard. see above. > It is only true when no particular engineering effort is > made to take advantage of the nature of the fuel. If you use the same > engine design for diesel fuel as gasoline it wouldn't be more efficient, > but that would not demonstrate anything useful. what would be useful is you getting another shift to occupy your time between school bus runs rather than wasting electrons here. or cracking open a book that could teach you what you evidently don't know. > > >> >> Now, it IS true that both ethanol and methanol have a higher octane than >> most gasolines. > > Ethanol has higher octane than any commercially available gasoline. so freakin' what? octane rating has nothing to do with energy yield, retard. fact: energy content of ethanol is only 84,600 BTU/gal vs 125,000 BTU/gal for gasoline. > >> If the CR is increased to take advantage of this higher >> octane, then indeed we could have increased efficiency. > > Yes that is a significant part of the increased efficiency. not if the thermodynamics don't support it, retard. > > >> >> 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. > > Almost every car in the US now has ethanol in the tank. Engines are > being designed around that fact. Go back about 4 years and the majority > of spark engine cars didn't have ethanol in the gas tank and back then > engines were being designed around that fact. so what part of an engine needs to be "designed" for ethanol combustion retard? > > >> >> But the increase in efficiency in that case would come nowhere near 30%. >> What alcohol ratio is the MIT engine using? > > This particular engine is a high compression (compression is as high as > the highest diesel) turbo charged engine. er, you know that turbos have lower compression ratios, right retard? > The ethanol and gasoline are > kept in separate fuel tanks. The gasoline is fed to the engine under > light load conditions from multi-port injection. The ethanol is direct > injected into the cylinders under heavy load conditions. The ratio of > ethanol to gasoline increases with engine load. The mix of gasoline to > ethanol on average is about 30% ethanol and 70% gasoline and yet fuel > efficiency is much better than a efficient gasoline engine of the same > weight and torque. > It isn't just the direct injection that allows for better efficiency > due to reduce pumping losses (like a diesel) it is also the much higher > latent heat of evaporation of ethanol that produces pumping efficiencies > not possible with either gasoline or diesel as the fuel. you're full of it. "higher latent heat of evaporation of ethanol that produces pumping efficiencies" - what a freakin' retard! > > -jim -- nomina rutrum rutrum |