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: Don Stauffer on 20 Jun 2010 11:52 jim wrote: > >> 2. ethanol reduces mpg's. it has a lower calorie content, thus you need >> more volume for a given distance driven. since we buy gasoline by >> volume, not energy content like natural gas, this is a rip-off. > > > Not true. > > I believe this IS true. Ethanol, according to the handbooks I used, has about 60% of the energy content by weight compared to gasoline. The densities are quite similar, so energy content by volume (harder to find) would be less. I object to much of the original post, but I believe this is true.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 20 Jun 2010 12:09 On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:55:35 -0500, jim wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100618/ap_on_bi_ge/us_epa_ethanol >> >> increasing ethanol content in gasoline is bullshit. >> >> 1. ethanol is made from corn. burning food for fuel is wrong. period. > > No that is just foolish ignorance. In the last 50 years surplus corn has > been used to make animal fat, soda pop sugar and putting 3rd world farmers > out of business. Using surplus corn for Ethanol is a lot better than > anything else that has ever been done with US farmers excess corn. I say we use it for this: http://myothershirtisapolo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/everclear1.jpg
From: hls on 20 Jun 2010 15:12 "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:UuGdnU-VYbfwgIDRnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100618/ap_on_bi_ge/us_epa_ethanol > > increasing ethanol content in gasoline is bullshit. > > 1. ethanol is made from corn. burning food for fuel is wrong. period. 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. > 2. ethanol reduces mpg's. it has a lower calorie content, thus you need > more volume for a given distance driven. since we buy gasoline by volume, > not energy content like natural gas, this is a rip-off. Ethanol has less energy content than gasoline. If it is economical to make and avoids foreign oil, it is still a possible future fuel. > 3. ethanol rots the rubbers in your car's fuel system. i recently had to > replace the injector o-ring seals on my honda. rotted o-rings means > SIGNIFICANTLY increased gas consumption as the fuel was no longer sealed > and dumping down the throttle body. Not true, IMO. Properly chosen elastomers stand up to ethanol well. > 4. ethanol production consumes more agricultural energy to produce than it > is supposed to save - so it actually /increases/ oil imports. Ethanol from corn...see (1) . > > 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 Yes, there are subsidies for growing corn. There are two sides to this coin, maybe. > 6. the "environmental" argument for ethanol in gasoline is bullshit. Nope, not quite BS. Ethanol burns a bit cleaner than many components of gasoline. And, it is not adding to the carbon loading of the atmosphere, as gasoline does. So there are some ecological arguments for ethanol. > all round, this is a "Bad Deal". write your congress-critter about this > today and tell them this is a disgrace. I have a better idea...Let's vote them ALL out and send the grafters home. Replace them with some new blood, and put term limits on every one of them. I will contribute to any campaign to unseat Rep. Joe Barton of Texas. Surely the oil companies will hire this undercover agent for them as soon as he is out of office. They owe him.
From: jim beam on 20 Jun 2010 16:51 On 06/20/2010 12:12 PM, hls wrote: > > "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:UuGdnU-VYbfwgIDRnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100618/ap_on_bi_ge/us_epa_ethanol >> >> increasing ethanol content in gasoline is bullshit. >> >> 1. ethanol is made from corn. burning food for fuel is wrong. period. > > I have never been positive on fuel alcohol from corn. Corn requires too > much ammonia, not ammonia dude, ammonium. ammonium salts. > which comes from petroleum. Other crops should be a > better choice than corn. what about the millions of tons of bio-waste we discard as trash? > >> 2. ethanol reduces mpg's. it has a lower calorie content, thus you >> need more volume for a given distance driven. since we buy gasoline by >> volume, not energy content like natural gas, this is a rip-off. > > Ethanol has less energy content than gasoline. If it is economical to make > and avoids foreign oil, it is still a possible future fuel. brazil has a huge environmental problem cause by ethanol combustion products. http://www.highlighthealth.com/eco-friendly/alternative-ethanol-fuel-wont-improve-future-air-quality/ > > >> 3. ethanol rots the rubbers in your car's fuel system. i recently had >> to replace the injector o-ring seals on my honda. rotted o-rings means >> SIGNIFICANTLY increased gas consumption as the fuel was no longer >> sealed and dumping down the throttle body. > > Not true, IMO. Properly chosen elastomers stand up to ethanol well. modern ones, yes. but the ones in a couple of my cars are [were] 20 years old. this is what they looked like after mtbe and ethanol dissolution: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024(a)N00/4717901845/ these pics are after a couple of weeks of drying out. at the time or removal, they were literally just black oozing pieces of goo - like gummy bears after your kid just sucked them and spat them out. the ridiculous irony is, because this is a throttle body injection car, the fuel is delivered between two o-rings before being squirted out of the end of the injector. when those o-rings leak, the fuel just dumps down the throttle body, and there is no external evidence other than poor gas consumption and a sooty tail pipe. and of course, just the kind of gross emissions we're trying to avoid in the first place!!! i have since replaced the above with dupont's viton e.t.p. which is rated for 15% ethanol. that stuff is expensive. to go to something like kalrez, we're talking price jumps of an order of magnitude again. 88-91 civic, 0-ring #'s #012 - 1x - * #017 - 2x #117 - 2x if you're interested. * - not a perfect fit [a little fat], but it's close enough. the fractionally better fitting metric o-ring near that size is not as readily available off the shelf in viton e.t.p. > >> 4. ethanol production consumes more agricultural energy to produce >> than it is supposed to save - so it actually /increases/ oil imports. > > Ethanol from corn...see (1) . unless it's from some kind of biomass that doesn't need pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers, or extensive transportation and processing, it's all just back door agribusiness and oil company subsidies. we should just go to direct farmer subsidies and cut out the agribusiness middle men. a.d.m. and cargill don't need any more of my money - they have quite enough already > >> >> 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 > > Yes, there are subsidies for growing corn. There are two sides to this > coin, > maybe. > > >> 6. the "environmental" argument for ethanol in gasoline is bullshit. > > Nope, not quite BS. Ethanol burns a bit cleaner than many components > of gasoline. marginally, depending on how you define "cleaner". but, as any brazilian can tell you, burning ethanol produces all kinds of atmospheric problems. oh, and let's not forget the catalytic converters we all have on our cars that take care of the major issues with traditional fuels. and let's disregard improving fuel economy as a better way to address emissions!!!! > And, it is not adding to the carbon loading of the atmosphere, > as gasoline does. the "carbon loading" argument is a very artfully crafted f[r]iction. per gallon of fuel, it is indeed correct that ethanol has a lower carbon output. however, because of its lower calorie content, we need to burn the same proportion more of it to do the same job! again, to talk lower carbon loading without this essential context is a very artfully crafted f[r]iction. > So there are some ecological arguments for ethanol. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18784732 all the "arguments" for ethanol are simply back door subsidy to the agribusiness and oil companies. scientifically, environmentally and morally, it's a classic case of the loudest bullshitter wins. . > > >> all round, this is a "Bad Deal". write your congress-critter about >> this today and tell them this is a disgrace. > > I have a better idea...Let's vote them ALL out and send the grafters home. > Replace them with some new blood, and put term limits on every one of them. term limits indeed. power corrupts. even those who may have started out as idealists [and there's precious few of those] end up being corrupted. limits are the only way to minimize the damage. > > I will contribute to any campaign to unseat Rep. Joe Barton of Texas. > Surely > the oil companies will hire this undercover agent for them as soon as he is > out of office. They owe him. -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim on 20 Jun 2010 19:30
Don Stauffer wrote: > > jim wrote: > > > > >> 2. ethanol reduces mpg's. it has a lower calorie content, thus you need > >> more volume for a given distance driven. since we buy gasoline by > >> volume, not energy content like natural gas, this is a rip-off. > > > > > > Not true. > > > > > I believe this IS true. Ethanol, according to the handbooks I used, has > about 60% of the energy content by weight compared to gasoline. The > densities are quite similar, so energy content by volume (harder to > find) would be less. > > I object to much of the original post, but I believe this is true. 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 |