Ethanol

[Uncle Ben]

On May 28, 6:37 pm, (e-mail address removed) wrote:
.....

I cannot conclude definitively that fuel oxygenation caused my
gasoline tank liner failures.  But manufacturers of 83 and 87 fuel
tanks could not, I think have anticipated mandatory oxy-fuels and test
for delayed chemical reactions in their tanks (and altered their
products if adverse reactions occurred).  IF YOU EXPERIENCE THESE FUEL
STARVATION SYMPTOMS WHILE USING OXY-FUEL, HAVE THE FUEL FILTER
INSPECTED CLOSELY IMMEDIATELY, AND SIPHON SAMPLES FROM THE BOTTOM OF
THE TANK IF INDICATED.

Paul Todd, Anchorage AK

Cars made after about 1985 were required to be made ethanol-tolerant
up to 10%. If your car made later that that encountered an ethanol
problem, you may have cause to sue the maker.

Ben

 

[Stewart DIBBS]

Cars made after about 1985 were required to be made ethanol-tolerant

up to 10%. If your car made later that that encountered an ethanol
problem, you may have cause to sue the maker.


Well, maybe, but if anyone who is still driving a, say, 89 anything, it
would be far cheaper to simply replace the tank, rather than pay a lawyer
and wait for years for a court date.

SD

 

[Uncle Ben]

I don't know why the car manuals say that.  Brazilian cars all use
ethanol up to 24% without a problem.

My manual (1999 OBW) says the same thing, but I'm running E60 (60%
eth) after an after-market conversion and plan to go to E85. I think
the lawyers make them say that.

Try it and watch your check-engine light.  If it doesn't go on after
100 miles, forget about it and enjoy the improved acceleration.  You
will probably get fewer mpg but more mpd (miles per dollar).

Ben

How to do ethanol right:

http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk/saabBioPower/

OK, Subaru, give us one like that!

Cen

 

[tom klein]

My 1999 Sub legacy St.Wgn(4 cyl,Not an Outback),allows use of 10% Ethanol by
the book.Allstations here have 15% ethanol,could I use this ??

yes, no, and maybe.

ethanol is a good fuel as far as combustion is concerned, and reduces
engine knock.

but it's also corrosive, so the more ethanol in your fuel, the more it
corrodes some of the engine parts (mostly fuel lines and gaskets?). if
the car was designed to work with 10%, probably allowing for
"acceptable" damage to some parts, then using 15% probably won't make
a huge difference, except for some accelerated maintenance. but i
would bet that 85 or 100% would soften or dissolve some plastic parts
to failure.

the right solution is a "conversion kit" which should address the issue
of parts compatibility.

but ethanol contains less energy per litre than gasoline, and requires
more oil to produce, so running on ethanol may be more political than
economic or environmental.

 

[Uncle Ben]

yes, no, and maybe.

ethanol is a good fuel as far as combustion is concerned, and reduces
engine knock.

but it's also corrosive, so the more ethanol in your fuel, the more it
corrodes some of the engine parts (mostly fuel lines and gaskets?). if  
the car was designed to work with 10%, probably allowing for
"acceptable" damage to some parts, then  using 15% probably won't make
a huge difference, except for some accelerated maintenance.  but i
would bet that 85 or 100% would soften or dissolve some plastic parts
to failure.

the right solution is a "conversion kit" which should address the issue
of parts compatibility.

but ethanol contains less energy per litre than gasoline, and requires
more oil to produce, so running on ethanol may be more political than
economic or environmental.

Tom, you are the victim of misinformation from old sources or sources
that would rather you use gasoline than ethanol.

I have used E85 in my 1999 OBW for four months now after a quick
conversion that merely stretches the electrical pulses to the fuel
injectors. My fuel lines are fine. My fuel pump is fine. I am
saving money and am enjoying the higher performance I get from ethanol
vs. gasoline (torque and horsepower).

Ethanol is not corrosive; it is the water that may get into the
ethanol that is corrosive. But cars that are modern enough to
withstand E10 can withstand E30 or so without any conversion
necessary, in my experience. There was a car that ran for 105,000
miles on E85 without any conversion attempt. On examination, the
engine was undamaged and was in fact cleaner than one would expect on
gasoline. A technical school ran the experiment, and a video of the
breakdown is on YouTube. Search for it.

For FAQs on ethanol, see www.change2e85.com.

Uncle Ben


And it is NOT true to ethanol uses more oil to produce. In fact
ethanol can be produced with one-fifth of the oil that gasoline needs
for production. Citation on request.

 

[Todd H.]

And it is NOT true to ethanol uses more oil to produce. In fact
ethanol can be produced with one-fifth of the oil that gasoline needs
for production. Citation on request.

Requesting.

I'd like to know more about this, and have heard the issues with corn
not being terribly efficient at producing ethanol, and the issues with
what it takes to harvest, and process, etc, so I'd be interested in a
reference that actually takes into account all the costs of production
from the seed sowing to the gas tank to have some apples to apples
comparison.

Switchgrass is apparently going to be a far better non-food source of
ethanol, but I'm also under the impression that we aren't there yet?

 

[DK]

And it is NOT true to ethanol uses more oil to produce. In fact
ethanol can be produced with one-fifth of the oil that gasoline needs
for production. Citation on request.

Requesting. Here is a reference that concludes exactly opposite:
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRPaper2.pdf

Plus, in order to cover our energy needs with ethanol from
corn, every single square inch of the arable land available in the
USA would have to be used for corn growing.

Ethanol, like vodka, is only good in moderation and is certainly
not a solution to anything. As of now, nothing beats nukes, plain
and simple.

DK

 

[Todd H.]

As of now, nothing beats nukes, plain and simple.

Yup. Lotsa energy density, fuel is relatively cheap, no emissions
unless someone majorly fucks up. Doing it all safely is the expensive
part, and the "destroys parts of the environment" part of the waste is
the other sticky wicket that requires care, thought, planning and
resourcs.

One disappointment I have with Obama at present is that he hasn't
taken as enlightened approach to nuclear power as Mccain apparently
has.

Maybe the eco zealots that kept any new nuke plants from being built
in the US for the past howevermany years are concerned enough with co2
emissions part of power generation and global warming to reconsider
their position on nuclear power?

 

[DK]

Yup. Lotsa energy density, fuel is relatively cheap, no emissions
unless someone majorly fucks up. Doing it all safely is the expensive
part, and the "destroys parts of the environment" part of the waste is
the other sticky wicket that requires care, thought, planning and
resourcs.

One disappointment I have with Obama at present is that he hasn't
taken as enlightened approach to nuclear power as Mccain apparently
has.

Obama is a politician... It's an art of possible. I have no doubts that if
he gets elected (which I doubt), he will be smart enough to get smart
enough administration that will make nuclear energy a priority.

Maybe the eco zealots that kept any new nuke plants from being built
in the US for the past howevermany years are concerned enough with co2
emissions part of power generation and global warming to reconsider
their position on nuclear power?

They don't know that, when all is accounted for, coal burning power
stations release a lot more radioactivity into environment. They also
prefer not to think of the fact that almost 100 times fewer people died
in nuclear power accidents worldwide for the past 50 years than
number of people dead in auto accidents in the USA monthly. (And
lets not talk about smoking-related deaths!)

DK

 

[Todd H.]

They don't know that, when all is accounted for, coal burning power
stations release a lot more radioactivity into environment.

At first I was like "WTF?" on this statement. And then I googled and
if it's news to me who's actually been in a couple coal burning power
plants, it's likely news to others too:

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

I'll be damned... This unfortunately pisses me off even further
about the continued commitment to coal in the US.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Requesting. Here is a reference that concludes exactly opposite:http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRPaper2.pdf

Plus, in order to cover our energy needs with ethanol from
corn, every single square inch of the arable land available in the
USA would have to be used for corn growing.

Ethanol, like vodka, is only good in moderation and is certainly
not a solution to anything. As of now, nothing beats nukes, plain
and simple.

DK

DK, the article you cited is by Tad Patak, who is also the co-author
of another anti-ethanol paper with David Pimental, who is notorious
for an early article claiming that ethanol from corn costs more energy
to make than you can get out of it. In fact, the USDA and many others
have found that you get back 67% more than you put into it:

http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/net_energy_balance.pdf.

If you restrict inputs to petroleum and natural gas, you get back five
times as much as you put in:

A. Farrell, R. Plevin, B. Turner, A. Jones, M. O'Hare,and D. Kammen,
Science 311 (January 27, 2006):506-508.

I agree that corn is not the best feedstock, but it's what we've got
right now, and it's getting a bad rap.

Uncle Ben

 

[Uncle Ben]

Requesting.  

I'd like to know more about this, and have heard the issues with corn
not being terribly efficient at producing ethanol, and the issues with
what it takes to harvest, and process, etc, so I'd be interested in a
reference that actually takes into account all the costs of production
from the seed sowing to the gas tank to have some apples to apples
comparison.

Switchgrass is apparently going to be a far better non-food source of
ethanol, but I'm also under the impression that we aren't there yet?

Todd, for references, see my reply to DK's post that appears just
after yours in the thread.

Switchgrass and other cellulosic feedstocks are not yet commercially
viable, but they have promise.

Uncle Ben

 

[Uncle Ben]

Requesting. Here is a reference that concludes exactly opposite:http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRPaper2.pdf

Plus, in order to cover our energy needs with ethanol from
corn, every single square inch of the arable land available in the
USA would have to be used for corn growing.

Ethanol, like vodka, is only good in moderation and is certainly
not a solution to anything. As of now, nothing beats nukes, plain
and simple.

DK

DK, I agree that nukes are the most promising answer, but they are
going to take years to build, and we have hardly started. We need
something now to bridge the gap.

Uncle Ben