Jump to content


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by fleebut

  1. Interesting the small improvements R&D can make to a process that has been in use for many years. Like the internal combustion engine, been around for a long time. Lot of folks think, nothing new to be invented, time to change power plant. Now, when motivated by market demands we learn of technology improvement just about every day.


    Hopefully, we can keep the improvement ball rolling. Really, bad when management of these ethanol plants batten the hatches and try to recoup as much investor money as possible while possible. Hopefully, the restrictions to their success can be mitigated. Better to simplify their challenges and keep the politics of exploiting central control to minimum i.e. permitting process, Sierra Club, ginned up concerns for public fear. Michigan, probably as all states have a permitting process problem as local municipalities have no clue. They look to obstruct process plant process to stay out of political trouble. Feds, could work to standardize and simply the requirements. No need to invent ever more requirements and delays as this process is not new at least to some.

  2. Outlaws post- hydrous ethanol losing some ground to anhydrous per the higher than normal cost of ethanol in Brazil. This is example of cost of gasoline vs ethanol fuel and resulting shrinking or increase of fuel concentration at blender pump selection.


    It would be nice to understand 5% hydrous fuel cost, mpg, corrosion concerns, per the flex fuel vehicle fleet. All that real data setting south of us. We could have one interesting show upon the tube. How about Myth Busters?


    Transportation costs so high doesn't make sense to ship water, but local agriculture, that may be a better use. IOWs non road tax ethanol restricted to hydrous blends. One electric generator for home use in the market burns 50% hydrous ethanol.


    DOE won't have a problem with E15, EPA will scrutinize harsh. They appear to be the more political and need to appease interested groups, but it depends which EPA shows up. The political one or the radical environmental one. 


    How do producers of ethanol benefit from the decision?  Is it because ethanol not selling upon E85 per lack of expensive infrastructure? Cost vs benefit of fuel? Current distribution chain of gasoline supplier just makes it easier to blend all gasoline the same vs the hassle of producing a separate E85 fuel? Perceived popularity of low blend ethanol benefits? Better gaming of subsidies? Petrol company desire? Just an easy path to increase ethanol sales.  Just allows more latitude upon blender upon local markets.  Prevents a temporary danger zone of ethanol industry supply demand curve. Opponents desire to max out outrage upon this mandate and prevent a blossoming of an alternative fuel. Producers desire to increase local consumption by 50% the easiest way possible.


    Now, all the above solved per the blender pump installs, just the cost of accomplishing is steep. So, blender credit probably best utilized at the gas pump sales to facilitate infrastructure. Hopefully, the pumps, tanks, and distribution could be simplified as much as possible. Regulators should rethink denaturing requirement of nonfood grade ethanol.

  3. Louisiana Green Fuels bought the syrup mill from the state back in '06 and has only made 4 payments of $100,000 for a $60 million dollar sale. At that they had to shut down in '09 per no feedstock. Freeze destroyed half the sugar cane. They are now facing a $2 million payment end of '11 for the $60 million sale....ouch balloon payments. Hope they have a good year and can quickly get the ethanol half running ASAP.  Farmers seem reluctant to invest in feedstock, may they think the operation a bit shaky and as we've seen farmers the last to receive legal payoffs and first defendant upon lawsuits of angry investors.

  4. From Ethanol Producer mag-



    Producer supports 2 installations

    By Kris Bevill | December 27, 2010


    Executives at all 27 plants in the Poet LLC family have been challenged to pursue blender pump installations in their respective areas. Poet Biorefining-Caro, a 53 MMgy plant located about two hours north of Detroit, recently contributed $50,000 toward blender pump installations at stations owned by


    Cooperative Elevator Co.

    Ignash Petroleum Inc.


    Very few ethanol plants have been successful in getting blender pumps installed in their areas."


    In exchange for the $25,000 per-pump contribution, Cooperative Elevator and Ignash have agreed to purchase ethanol directly from the Caro plant.


    The cooperative began purchasing E100 from the plant earlier this year and hopes to increase its demand to more than 10,000 gallons per month, says Tim Sielaff, vice president of petroleum for the co-op.


    Ignash will purchase E85 and has a goal of selling more than 800 gallons of E85 per day at its new site.




    This is an attractive distribution model. For producers to first contract with local retail fueling stations utilizing the blender pumps. Sure would propel profitability if transportation cost minimized and supply chain simplified. Note the Cooperative is purchasing E100 directly from producer.

    Both producer and retail tied up with mutual interest of promoting ethanol fuel.


    Market penetration of new product that cannibalizes existing product sales of mostly a satisfactory, respected, commodity a very tough uphill slog. Double so if the product merely a commodity. Meaning most consumers see little difference or reason to change, other than bottom line costs or perceived quality enhancement for their vehicle. Sure, some altruistic motives, but most are shopping the pumps to purchase quality fuel that will maintain their expensive auto investment. Others primarily concerned of cost. Note: competing upon low price is a losing strategy as quality perception will take a hit….remember cheap gasohol. Once establishing quality within minds of consumers, better to offer promotional prices for loyal customers. 


    Marketing ploys to disrupt current king place holders….think how the Japanese auto industry successfully eroded entrenched American Auto industry. One dealership at a time. Establish your product within a local geographical zone with maximum success and best in class quality. Work a new generation with open mindset to adapt a new “not your fathers” vehicle sales. Utilize retail tied to your product and committed to success. How would Honda and Toyota market penetration develop if they adapted the E85 distribution model? Utilize cheap other people’s money at a cost of taxpayer anger. Utilize politics to regulate your product down the throat of consuming public at another cost of consumer anger. Then attempt to put one Toyota in the GM car lot with a subsidized artificial discounted price and wait until the GM salesmen push your product.



  5. That point of Montreal grad student of claiming ethanol has anti-oxidants that prevent gasoline from forming gums. If true, that would mean not only does ethanol dissolve gum and varnish, but it also prevents the formation. What a perfect injector fuel.


    Also, air pollution control equipment has at its biggest threat to faulty operation; that’s right petrol gum, varnish, sulfur, carbon build up, particulate, etc. These are primarily problems of petrol, so ethanol will promote long term operation of air pollution equipment, something the EPA should be all concerned with. We’re spending fortunes to make petrol behave upon ICE, and little to make engines run ethanol more efficiently. The latter being a lower cost solution. What gives? To much political power within the petrol industry to support central control? Better to push larger petrol corps around per central control as this is political expedient and popular. Not so with small business of ethanol. Makes you think.


    Also, haven’t we all read of ethanol promoting short self life of gasoline. Well, if ethanol has antioxidants that statement would be false. The opponents of ethanol blends claim ethanol not only absorbs water from gas tanks, but pulls water magically from air. No way. Air may condense upon inside of metal fuel tanks vented to atmosphere upon weather changes and humidity, but that’s a normal concern and ethanol or not this phenomenon will stall an engine. Quicker if no ethanol around to pull the water into fuel mix for engine combustion. Granted something called phase change of the ethanol gas mix may occur upon lots of water and low concentration of ethanol. This will precipitate some acids and problem fuel based on long storage life, stale gasoline, and lots of water. Gasoline alone will precipitate some nasty chemicals upon long storage and water. The solution to this is not to be PO’d about ethanol, but to put more ethanol in the mix. If you have such problems…..don’t take the ethanol out put more in. 


  6. Did see that Ford had some prototype testing '07/'08 years but not much news since then. Must be the complexity of emissions per the article?


    The quick drop in vapor pressure with more ethanol a good thing. As I understand the petrol base stock RBOB per EPA limit on vapor pressure. The reason conventional/formulated gasoline for oxygenates, reformulated.


    Blending requirement of petrol appears to be half alchemy. Have the myriad boutique blends decrease per the ethanol blend agent? It's amazing how complicated gasoline is, such as all the -tanes in the brew.  Variability and quality control must be challenge.  Ethanol sure should be a cake walk upon purity and quality control for repeatability. Probably no need to be concerned with vapor pressure once hitting that E98 blend. 


    All of this should be a large motivation upon environmental concerns to push ethanol to high blends.  Environmental concerns should propel high ethanol fuel to forefront. Good to move engine technology to ethanol fuel concerns like This Mich Tech prof doing-


    "The researchers are addressing ethanol's benefits and rough spots. "Under most conditions, gasoline and ethanol behave similarly," says Naber. "But there are differences under high load—when you put the pedal to the metal—where the ethanol provides a significant benefit—and during cold start, when emissions go up significantly with ethanol blended fuels."


    With petrol how can we possibly know the entire spectrum of pollutants coming out of tailpipes, especially upon startup with such a varying brew of hydrocarbons in the tank? EPA really only checking a few. How easy for them to focus all danger to CO2. How about cancer pollutants that harm us? Makes me think better to just increase ethanol instead and keep traditional gasoline as it is. Keep gasoline a standard and increase ethanol to solve emissions problems with technology addressing needs of ethanol.  Meaning we have fallen in a rut to adapt pollution technology to petrol and look to see if ethanol will screw it up. Then we go on to condemn ethanol as the problem. This is backward pollution technology development. We should look to the fuel with simpler requirement and push that solution with technology condemning gasoline as the problem.


    Hardening off fuel components per ethanol's higher  permeation emissions good and offers fuel lines with stainless corrosion resistance.


    Was reading a Power Point presentation from Grad student in Quebec.  Some interesting points:


    -Engine technology will adapt to fuel supply with improving popularity of higher ethanol blends. (this isn't happening)


    - Ethanol has an anti-oxidant that reduces gum formation in stored gasoline. Remember all the gum deposit problems of past from overwintering gas? Thank you ethanol.


    - Ethanol is an anti-icer


    - Removes soluble deposit impurities in fuel system and placing them in fuel filter. (this is a good thing often portrayed as bad)


    - Ethanol promotes more complete combustion of gasoline. (ethanol makes gasoline look better)


    - Aldehyde pollution compared to gas


        - Before converter E22  +20%    E100  +350%

        - After converter E22  0%    E100  +120%


    - Air pollution with out cat


        -E6 CO  -27%, and the rest lowered VOC, HC, PM, SOx


    - Air pollution with cat


        E6  No difference as compared to gasoline   






  7. Note:


    I think auto companies get hammered with EPA certification requirements and legal liability of their pollution control equipment and control.


    "There is no ethanol flex-fuel hybrid available because it's a big challenge to meet these emissions standards," he says.


    It must be multiple times more expensive to comply to regs with a flex type engine. Two fuels, at varying ratio's of mix and each fuel has different chemistry alone and react with each other to form new fuels.


    For instance, vapor pressure of pure ethanol or pure gasoline is lower separately, but higher when combined. 



  8. Michigan Tech new Test Lab for basic research of IC engine-


    How many times do we hear from Engineer types that everything is known about the internal combustion engine and very little improvement possible. This Mechanical Engineer professor doesn't agree. The college is setting up a state of art lab for basic research in ICE process.


    -start- some tidbits of article


    "We have been able to harness that process, but we don't fully understand what's happening," says Jeff Naber, an associate professor of mechanical engineering–engineering mechanics.

    “Naber expects to apply that understanding to another project: developing engines that continuously adapt to changing fuels, environmental conditions, and engine variability and wear.


    "It's pretty exciting," he says. "It would transform how engines operate."


    Combustion control systems are now calibrated according to what Naber calls "the worst case scenario," which works OK on nearly all engines, but not perfectly on any. An adaptable engine would sense those difference and respond throughout the life of the engine. "We could continuously monitor and control combustion to maximize efficiency and minimize emissions" he says. "The goal is to sense what an engine is doing and adjust to it continuously, even as it fires fifty times a second in each cylinder."


    Naber leads another project on a different kind of internal combustion engine: a hybrid that runs on flex fuel and meets the world's most stringent emissions standards. "There is no ethanol flex-fuel hybrid available because it's a big challenge to meet these emissions standards," he says.


    That work is being funded by a $1.5 million grant from the Michigan Public Service Commission and over $1 million in support from General Motors, Sensors Inc. of Saline, Argonne National Laboratory's Transportation Technology R&D Center, and Michigan Tech.


    Flex-fuel engines can burn anything from pure gasoline to E85—a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gas. Ethanol contains only 63 percent of the stored energy of gasoline and requires about three times the energy to vaporize. Straight gasoline, however, can cause engine knock in a high-performance engine that would run smoothly on ethanol.


    The researchers are addressing ethanol's benefits and rough spots. "Under most conditions, gasoline and ethanol behave similarly," says Naber. "But there are differences under high load—when you put the pedal to the metal—where the ethanol provides a significant benefit—and during cold start, when emissions go up significantly with ethanol blended fuels.





  9. Soon reality will hit as expensive fuel will not much improve Volt sales. Small efficient autos and ethanol will be on top of consumer wish list. Solutions that have a immediate effect and not break the bank. Small less expensive battery car will maintain popularity upon short distance metro market. Penske will benefit.


    Volt sales anemic and the project deemed a mistake. The $7k gov’t rebate should be pulled….note the nation is broke, without legitimate revenue. Volts low battery mileage capability, the hassle factor, large center line intrusion upon cabin space, cost, and the fact gasoline mpg not good despite EPA labeling, most will shy away from purchase and payments. All, but rich California environmentalist will walk when educating themselves of cost of money vs fuel. When $5/gallon fuel arrives consumers will rush to small Kia imports that are rated good for repairs, mileage, and cost of purchase. If you are lucky enough to have money to burn, well Volt or not; not much concern of fuel costs. Getting attention probably the motivator.


  10. Makes me think Blenders Credit should be awarded at point of retail customer sale. Maybe restricted to to E85 or mid level blends with blender pumps.


    Best to simplify the export market concerns upon purity of product and accounting demands by restricting  exports to nonfood grade ethanol. Meaning no denaturant or other contamination. It looks like this category of export product is rapidly gaining. Better for the processors to handle the export market directly with no petrol demands or distribution handling. Ethanol producers, hopefully, will pull more money for sales this way then simply hand off product to petrol for normal income share.


    Comment on export market success: Cheers! This is a good thing. Good for ethanol that Europe has some crazy tax laws that make import ethanol sales very attractive/profitable. They are paying for our ethanol infrastructure and hiring workforce.  We should maximize this opportunity while it lasts. Better for offshore markets to be dependent on U.S. business than look to develop Brazil to meet their demands.


    If you like ethanol fuel....you need to like high demand and high price of ethanol.  Some actually hate nonflex vehicles burning high blend ethanol as they want the fuel per their flex-fueled vehicle. This thinking a bit backwards upon economics. Higher demand could raise price temporarily, but the overall economic win for ethanol would quickly replenish supply. We as consuming public need to vote with dollars. Let chemist, inventors, business rush in to meet demand. This is counterintuitive to most as we have been trained to think good to boycott expensive product. Well, it will send a message, but they could care less. You see business is looking to make money. As much as possible in shortest amount of time, called ROI. Investors demand this as they are on path to wealth or need money for retirement. CEO's need to bolster their resume and probably paid a handsome stock option if company reports large profits. Companies will always act to profit potential. They will shut the door if the consumers stop buying and paying. They will invest and build more production if the opposite. Profit is not the enemy. Its the juice and attractant to make consuming public happy. Same time investors like their returns. Business will always try to reduce the manufacturing cost to improve profit as compared to competition. Business will always try to run to central control and minimize competition by energizing the mostly corrupt system we call politics. Large corporation rely heavily on this advantage.


    Comment on cold winter ethanol blend sales: Guess we agree that ethanol sales decrease dramatically per the convenience, cost factors, and some engine operation problems. Factors that scream for better ICE technology improvement upon the fuel solutions. Radical improvements would occur quicker if some auto, truck, equipment, engine manufacturers would break from the petrol fuel supply and focus on ethanol high blend fuel. Regulators could greatly improve alternative fuel supply demand if awarding such technology. Maybe to award such technology a release of costly regs such as an experimental classification as compared to awarding other peoples money per the inefficient transfer of tax collection and burden.

  11. National tabulation of E85 fuel use and publication, probably not desired by proponents.


    Note Outlaw's post on drop of sales upon winter months of 1/2. That is proof positive our ICE technology, even upon flex vehicles, not up to the task of burning ethanol efficiently. An engine optimized for ethanol would have no problems upon winter cold weather operation. Engines optimized for high blend ethanol probably couldn't burn straight gasoline at least efficiency. One of the truck, auto, equipment, or engine suppliers need break out of the pack and attempt such a innovative product.  Maybe an engine re-builder operating like the after market manufacturer for convertibles or those luxury van conversions.


    What Husker posts of Kum & Go brand pushing so much attractive ethanol fuel sales. Ask yourself, "should ethanol compete on same supply chain as gasoline?" Meaning, so far, ethanol is a blending agent. As the case, the additive should be sold upon a brand name that will afford advertising promotions to claim market share. Ethanol should team up with retailers to limit supply to their brand. This would pull ethanol sales through independent retail as a positive development instead of the current "me to" fuel look alike. 

  12. We may have discovered why corn futures pushed so high. Basic economics of supply demand still in play with foreign demand playing havoc. Our recession has delayed the inevitable, but nontheless $5 gas easily on horizon. John Hofmeister predictions may be accurate of summer fuel $5/gallon. Animal feed better reset for high price of corn and minimize the use. Agriculture should max corn production for highest roi.


    Pulling the Blender Credit away from the fuel hubs and utilize to stimulate blender pump installs a smart move. No need to utilize the Blenders Credit for lower cost of fuel. Lack of petrol supply will make it attractive on its own. Ethanol should be upon a separate tank....away from oil control.


    Federal Reserve has demonstrated that they tend to be well behind the curve, so I am not holding my breath that they will be proactive in keeping inflation at bay.


    China’s oil imports will triple by 2030.  Between now and then, China’s oil demand is expected to grow by nearly 4% per year.


    $5 gas in the U.S. is because I think we’re about to enter a hyper-inflationary period.


    The average price in the UK is now £5 a gallon – almost exactly $8


    We consume 20, produce 7, and soon to be 6.


    Environmentalist work to hobble petrol to produce higher costs, i.e. Gulf Drilling. 

  13. We can only guess why E85 isn't popular, since so many Flex-Vehicles on the road. Some of it access, some of it supply. It would be nice if our news agencies wouldn't try to take sides and instead be an impartial informer of best available info. Would love to get the dirt on the supply chain decisions. Farmers, producers, blenders, trucking, retail, and consumers. This we know for certain the consumer will win the day if demand is high. No one will get in the way of money exchange. May the market for high level blends just not popular or cost effective? The market may be telling us this.


    It would be smart to mandate flex vehicles technology across the fleet and doing so would have given an advantage to domestic autos with experience in such. 


    Why so much time wasted waiting for blender pumps, when Congress could have facilitated quick market acceptance by regulating midrange and high test fuels to ethanol blends. Regular to be maintained itself ethanol free. Brazil has a long history to learn from. Maybe a few pump part swaps after failure? No need to incur a huge Federal program bureaucracy.


    How about the need for dedicated high ethanol blend engines? A engine on par with the battery car mandate for the environment if the engine vehicle or farm tractor non flex high ethanol blend fueled. Same regs per heavy low mileage trucks, SUVs, vans. If you have the money to purchase low mileage luxury vehicle, well at least your investment would be pulling ethanol infrastructure and engine technology with out inefficient tax gathering and political spending operations.   

  14. Revision-


    The statement "This while the corn ethanol spokesmen claims twenty seven percent the sweet spot. Now, we know the spokesmen was detailing the most cost effective mix,"


    I shouldn't deduce what the spokesmen meant as it went untold in the news piece. Some auto's will improve mileage with extra ethanol up to this concentration. Modern engine technology will exploit mid level blends very efficiently. Also, cost effective blends often run up to straight E85 fuel. So, no generalization to wholesale award or nullify ethanol benefits. It depends on cost and your car.


    Also, the spokesmen claimed going from E10 to E15 wouldn't effect mileage at least to any discernible amount. Most do not understand all the natural variance upon fuel mileage. It will vary easily 10 to 20 percent. So, most consumers would not be able to detect E10 mileage change upon the same base petrol stock, let alone adding 5% more. Inflating tires 5 psi more will probably nullify any possible mileage drop. Changing speed greatly effects mileage as well as acceleration habits.  Wind direction and speed of wind will compound speed mpg calculations. And per my experience elevation of trip. Meaning if your trip is steadily going up in elevation and compare that to downhill return trip. Temperature, humidity, road surface, tires, load weight, traffic, road conditions, etc.



  15. Why is it a good solution to utilize taxpayer money to artificially dampen the market to support low corn price, yet bad to produce, again, more domestic jobs and increase national security with taxpayer money supports of a retail corn product? Maybe central control is not that all knowing? Better for them simply award temporary funding to those who work hard and invested in real solutions and to not try to manage the marketplace per their wisdom.


    3rd Environment Report this morning, more reporting from ethanol industry spokesmen (bias) with much reporting from noninterested parties disparaging industry spokesmen claims.  Seems the EPA E15 ruling is PO every except ethanol and corn people. A story from Edmunds testing their flex fuel vehicle with California round trip. Once on plain gas and return with E85. Thirty seven percent loss in fuel mileage. This while the corn ethanol spokesmen claims twenty seven percent the sweet spot. Now, we know the spokesmen was detailing the most cost effective mix, but the news piece just threw it out like a nutty spokesmen is claiming sweet spot upon mileage. Also, the spokesmen claimed going from E10 to E15 wouldn't effect mileage at least to any discernible amount. We know this is true, but the news piece just laid out that statement, with no supporting discussion, then cut to Edmounds "scientific" test reporting horrible mileage of E85 test. What would the average Joe think of ethanol?


  16. The public radio broadcast aired 2rd segment on ethanol fuel. Starts with background noise of restaurant, we quickly discover a soup kitchen with manager implying his costs went up 12% from last year. But, no direct vetting of costs. One would have to surmise the cost from corn directed upon food. That’s reckless storytelling. Basically, the environment report was a hack job upon ethanol fuel. A few seconds for ethanol to defend itself, but the other 5 minutes to the folksy slow pace “friendly speak” attack. This, the typically ploy to disrobe any defensive posture or girding oneself to discover truth. Like a good neighbor the news piece is your best friend, even though feeding friendly propaganda.


    Basically, taxpayer money awarded to riches of farmers and producers of ethanol. The net effect is to take away cost effective food supplies to homeless and offer no value. Meaning that the hand that government gives to consumers the other open market hand takes away. That suffering is magnified per taxpayer money and solves no fuel problems. They report ethanol (corn) follows the cost of oil and when oil goes up we suffer even more with high price of food.


    So, would we be better off pulling the corn from fields and planting sugar cane? Would this solve the debate? Environmentalists constrict the problem per the bounds of never increasing acreage or production per acre. One then would believe pulling the corn acres and planting to another crop better. That plowing taxpayer funded Land Bank into production bad even if the practice lowers our tax bills and produces domestic jobs and increasing national security.


  17. It may have been a mistake to regulate to death a valuable chemical and wholesale shove to evil pile. May we learn that drinking the chemical for recreation very unhealthy, but utilizing the chemical in other ways healthy? Alcohol is getting popular within cooking more so than usual. A percentage of alcohol will stay with food serving. May food preparation be the best place to serve alcohol in moderation for health benefit? That we need to exploit ethanol to the maximum for food preservation and cooking? Much evidence to the wisdom of this.


    Also, glass is still the healthiest container for food preserving and the better choice when utilizing ethanol as a preservative. It appears that a great deal of ethanol should be utilized in the canning industry. That even a small quantity of ethanol will assist in sterilizing food to prohibit bacterial growth and eliminate the need to nuke the cans in attempt to remove all perishable food nutrition. Better to remove the corn syrup and instead pack with more corn ethanol. This new way, the jar content need not be dumped down the drain to remove sugar syrup, better to utilize the nutritional laden liquid to boost food nutrition in cooking meals instead of plain water.   


  18. Modern nutrition science is quickly discovering how true that Bible verse is to good health. Our modern canning practices sterilize food and destroy some important beneficial nutrition. We run in fear of botchulism and think like water best to sterilize our food supply. I was reading of best practices to preserve expensive fruit and often tinctures (grain alcohol) utilized. Grandma’s utilized soft fruit for cordials as alcohol preserved and sterilized any microbial activity. Not only does alcohol preserve the fragile antioxidants but it kills the bad stuff and alcohol alone has health benefit upon low dosage. Does it get any better than that? It does…..you see fruit will promote antioxidants rapidly upon ripeness of fruit. Even if sitting on your kitchen counter, the fruit will be producing a higher abundance of this valuable nutrition. But, overly ripe fruit dangerous as it contains so many sensitive perishable chemicals in the brew. Chemicals that botchulism also thrive upon. Alcohol solves this paradox. 

  19. Not sure what board to put this into?



    May we be shooting ourselves in foot with concerns of alcohol control? You know the Prohibition era fed regulation control of intoxicants. Regulations that work to prohibit use of a potentially valuable contributor to good nutrition and citizen health. Think of these following points:


    - The French Paradox attributed to wine consumption. Currently, to the alcohol content with added benefit of antioxidants.


    - Know antioxidants very perishable and hard to preserve….alcohol does a fine job. 


    - Alcohol historically utilized to preserve fruit much like sugar, but alcohol alone appears to preserve best the nutrient and antioxidant qualities.


    - New Testament Bible, has a verse paraphrased “be sure to drink a little daily wine keep good health” Note the context was not per moderation as compared to excess, but to consume a small portion. 


    - Alcohol fermented with fruit have a bad habit of producing wood alcohol which is toxic to liver. The pectin converts to wood alcohol and the reason why dark wine is best left to warm and breathe as wood alcohol easily vaporizes.   


    - Grain alcohol has the least content of wood alcohol and least able spirit per oz alcohol to produce a hangover.


  20. How about a customer that refuels a nonflex with E15 at the blender pump? Who's responsible?


    The anti ethanol group has put up so much caution and concern upon public....all of it looks like a potential lawsuit. How many bogus claims per sudden acceleration of the Prius. Last I heard all but two, and the last two unexplainable....so justice awards the Plaintiff handsomely for damages.  Bogus or not these lawsuits can suddenly bankrupt a company. Manufacturers and fuel suppliers do not like to incur potential liability without any reward. They would be taking the E15 fuel and gaining what? Like losing $10k when a customer sues as they had a stalled engine, towing, and garage bill with temporary rental. We know it's bogus, but the Jury and Judge usually will be compassionate with other peoples money.


    Also, business often experience the opportunity abuse of it's customer base. Think of hailstorms, over spray of painting, or auto accidents as victims with lawyer in tow or threat of lawyer will benefit with new paint jobs, home remodeling, new roofs, etc.

    Small engine repair shops probably turning in repair costs for ethanol fuel just to improve their bottom line. It would be a no questions asked repair. "Oh, ya I did hear ethanol damage engines".  "You see those dark lines, your engine needs work."


    This may be why the E85 pump often located in separate fueling island. May be why E85 has separate hose with different color. Will the blender pump be more susceptible to lawsuit? We are degenerating to mambie pampie citizenship whom has no self responsibility. Business has all responsibility and central control held harmless, but makes the decisions.

  21. This locomotive technology of engine powered generator very good. Motor drive is superior than mechanical engine connections. Four wheel drive easy and efficient as well as clever traction control, braking, and steering. It would be a simpler system, should be more reliable.


    ICE efficiency should take a step forward. Ethanol fuel, turbo boost, variable valve timing, utilizing EGR gas, all could be exploited to vary hp requirement of engine.


    The “OPOC” opposing cylinder engine is supposed to hit car market in 2012 within world market. China has a bunch of money into the engine. The OPOC engine very light yet strong enough for diesel high compression engine technology. This engine would be a natural for extra high compression requirement of ethanol fuel. The company also has electronic coupling technology for parallel engines. Since this OPOC engine very adaptive to two cylinders and crank, a good marriage to couple two banks together. Vehicle hp requirements vary greatly. Having a mechanical engine doubling very effective solution. Better than GM’s old cylinder pumping air solution. This engine company also has a turbo that runs in parallel with motor/generator. The motor assists turbo lag during acceleration and will generate electric power during high hp times. This engine alone can push efficiency north 30% and under some conditions conditions 50%. The engine is light, that is put into calculations. 

  22. The Soviet “Yo” is on the right track at least for most of the world less affluent. A lighter car, utilizing bare bones low cost hybrid technology. The lighter the car the naturally better mileage and less material resources required. Batteries are heavy, expensive, and store little energy for the weight penalty.  Batteries are consumables and should be placed within mpg calculations. Battery future supply concerns such as the nations security upon the foreign supply scarcity threat and environmental impact of all the hazardous battery material should be negatives.


    Positives of the Russian hybrid:


    - Operating the ICE under constant rpm for electrical generation a perfect match up for efficiency. 


    - Capacitor side of hybrid technology lighter and long life span as compared


    - Weight, 1,500 lbs

    The capacitor only can power the car for 10 seconds. For city driving most beneficial zone of energy storage for the cost. My guess the capacitor utilized to provide short burst of additional amperage to motors for hill climbing, passing, and start. The power drain from capacitor need not be 10 seconds, such as long hill climb.

  23. And why are safety features mandatory per fed control? The testing, conformance costs, liability, product development, costs are huge no matter what is reported to public. Public hears of the direct costs and never the indirect which is the lions share for safety equipment. While some low cost changes in auto design very effective….others just developed for ultimate safety of luxury and sport car market that desire to spread the development costs to all vehicles. Safety is mainly within the hands of operator. Would the safety tradeoff or equation be better served upon consumers, if all costs of product development upon luxury market? That a low cost vehicle manufacturer to spring forward with no such burdens. A 1,400 pound vehicle with low hp may achieve better safety stats that our current “burn rubber” thrill rides all decked out with quiet cozy safety devices making public secure in reckless driving habits. Think about how dangerous a knife is and how the feds would keep us safe if allowed to do such or if the knife was a new product?     

  • Create New...