Fight etahanol

It burns much cleaner, and has much higher octane. It is an excellent fuel.

ReverendDexter wrote:

MitchellC wrote: No worries, we can just cut down some more old growth forest here in the States

{sarcasm} Yes, because where old-growth is makes for awesome farmland. {/sarcasm} Tangent: I love the ignorance that people have regarding timber. You realize that the alternative to harvesting old growth, at least in the Sierras, is to let it burn, right? Only, because we've had such an obsession with fire-suppression, that the forest can't burn natually, so instead of a relatively low-temperature fire that just clears out the underbrush and allows for regeneration of key species, we get a super-hot fire that burns down to mineral soil and devastates everything. /Tangent.

So are you saying that continually clearcutting the natural areas and converting to farmland is the best option? Perhaps I was unclear, but my point is that already have a given demand for corn products to use for food and feed. When we grow corn for fuel, it competes with corn for food and feed for the finite amount of land, fresh water, and nutrients available. When we remove the natural areas, we weaken the links between the organisms that are directly and indirectly involved in our food supply.

I did not say anything about preserving old trees at all costs; this comment about fire suppression is a bit of a straw man. I understand the concept of controlled burns; undergrowth just adds copious amounts of fuel to the understory that will result in an uncontrollable fire.

Why does it matter how good the farm land is? If there is a limited supply of land, humans make it work. It's easier now than ever with precise nutrient and water management. Tropical rain forests have terrible land for agriculture, but that doesn't stop its conversion to farmland.

Knurled wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: There are reasons that even pro-environment groups including the Sierra Club are opposed to ethanol from corn (which is where 95% of it comes from) as a motor fuel. It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol from corn than it generates.

I do agree that this is stupid. However, the more corn by-products are in fuel, the less are in food, and anything that cuts down on HFCS in foods is a good thing.

No.

DIESEL IS THE FUTURE FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES!

My work here is done...

Zomby woof wrote: It burns much cleaner, and has much higher octane. It is an excellent fuel.

that part is not actually correct.

And, ethanol adds some really interesting "others" to the mix- the worst being aldehide and formaldehide.

It does lower NOx, but outside of that, HC is worse, CO- depends, and you get new things to worry about.

Taiden wrote: DIESEL IS THE FUTURE FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES! My work here is done...

Like it was 100 years ago?

Diesel's solutions are many hundreds of dollars more expensive than gas. But if you are willing to pay an extra $3000-5000 for a $13,000 car, you are welcome to.

One thing I love about it is how clean the engine stays. Pulling apart an E85 engine is a thing of beauty.

alfadriver wrote:

Taiden wrote: DIESEL IS THE FUTURE FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES! My work here is done...

Like it was 100 years ago? Diesel's solutions are many hundreds of dollars more expensive than gas. But if you are willing to pay an extra $3000-5000 for a $13,000 car, you are welcome to.

'MERICAH!

MitchellC wrote: So are you saying that continually clearcutting the natural areas and converting to farmland is the best option?

Nope.

Strizzo wrote: you're forgetting that it likes to eat anything not stainless or nylon in your fuel system, and gets worse mileage. gov't wants to put more and more ethanol in fuel while increasing MPG requirements.

I'm sorry, but these points you gave doesn't invalidate ethanol as a perfectly good fuel to be used. Ethanol is not this ridiculously dangerous corrosive material in the e15 and lesser concentrations.

Its a natural detergent against the regular gasoline buildups in the lines, especially those from stagnant gas.

And yes, it has less specific energy output then gasoline in most cases BY VOLUME, but in a correctly thought out system, you can get a far more efficient delivery of that energy in that volume because of its higher equivalent octane rating. Running high compression, or boost, you can more cleanly burn ethanol than gas.

and by 'clean' meaning more of the total volume of ethanol is ignited and has less byproducts than gasoline does

Taiden wrote: 'MERICAH!

I pray to the sweet, sweet baby Jesus that when you graduate from engineering, you go work at Ford near Mr. Alfa.

My life would be complete at that point I think, simply from knowing what would happen.

madmallard wrote: and by 'clean' meaning more of the total volume of ethanol is ignited and has less byproducts than gasoline does

Why do people seem to think this so much- as I've said before, it's not true. tested E10-E85 many times, and it's always higher HC. CO is pretty neutral.

It may be the difference between 0.0025% up to 0.0035% HC in the exhaust stream, but in my world, that's a ton (2500 to 3500ppm).

The worst part is that during a cold start, when ~90% of the measured emissions come out, Ethanol is at it's worst.

madmallard wrote: I get sick of this knee-jerk response to ethanol...

I agree.

madmallard wrote: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ETHANOL....

I agree.

madmallard wrote: It is a perfectly viable fuel option. The problems people have with ethanol are almost exclusively covered by political entanglements with the US corn industry.

I agree.

madmallard wrote: But corn is not the only source of ethanol on this green earth, for crying out loud....

I agree. I heard a really interesting report on NPR last weekend about using some kind of waste cellulose to make some kind of ethanol that is a direct gas replacement. That's pretty neat if they can actually do it.

But mainly, I just thought it was nice to agree with you 100% for a change.

alfadriver wrote: On a funky side note- you can make Butanol from sugar beets. much better fuel than ethanol, since it CAN be piped in pipe lines.

Butanol! That's what they were making in the NPR story.

I agree that people who want to buy gas without any ethanol in it should be able to, at any gas station.

But i also feel that E85 should be more available to those who want it. E85+boost = BIG FUN!

the only problem i see is the gov messing things up.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: On a funky side note- you can make Butanol from sugar beets. much better fuel than ethanol, since it CAN be piped in pipe lines.

Butanol! That's what they were making in the NPR story.

The only significant downside I've heard about it is that sugar beet molases REALLY stinks when it's fermenting. but that's why they farm in the country and not the city, right?

madmallard wrote: Running high compression, or boost, you can more cleanly burn ethanol than gas.

That sounds like the average commuting car I see on the roads EVERY DAY!!! What a coincidence!

ReverendDexter wrote:

MitchellC wrote: So are you saying that continually clearcutting the natural areas and converting to farmland is the best option?

Nope.

Then I think that we're almost, if not completely, in agreement.

Ethanol is great for cars designed to burn it. It's not so great for cars not designed to burn it.

So how about a choice at the pump to pick whats best for your car instead of government mandating a fuel that isn't good for the vast majority of cars on the road.

10% Ethanol is ruining my car and causing it to break down faster than with out it.

I saw someone make ethanol with kudzu. Now that is a renewable resource.

Kudzu would be gone in weeks.

ProDarwin wrote: You guys arguing about CAFE numbers need to read more.However, the total increase in a manufacturer's average fuel economy rating due to dual-fueled vehicles cannot exceed 1.2mpg.[24]

How much do ya wanna bet that the number of flex-fuel vehicles produced is just enough to be able to increase their CAFE rating by 1.2mpg?

MitchellC wrote: Kudzu would be gone in weeks.

And that's supposed to be a bad thing?

MitchellC wrote: Kudzu would be gone in weeks.

HAHA I doubt that.

The link was from Historical Vehicle Assoc. They are mostly concerned with the effects of the alcohol on the fuel system of older cars. My station has a warning, if you have a car older than 1980 there could be a problem. etc. I pesonally have had no problem with E-10 even in my small engines. My gripe is the gov't subsidies and the rise in food prices due to farmers raising corn for ethanol. I have heard that the subsidies may end. Be interesting how many ethanol producers close shop. I found it interesting that most marinas have E-0 gas.