Jump to content


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by fleebut

  1. We need to emphasize the non-fuel advantage of ethanol as compared to gasoline. The fuel has wide diversity of feed stocks and production paths that make for hardy resilience when economics or war make for difficult times in citizens lives. The simplicity of elementary or basic ethanol production process enables common man to brew and distill his own fuel much like plain spirit production. The gasoline pathway is highly dependent on technology and hyper expensive equipment and infrastructure. When this fails upon tumultuous human events, were out of luck and stranded at home. As a result the economy will quickly implode. Think of the U.S. SPR that attempts to offset some of the risk, but given the huge supply needs of country just ineffective as the supporting failure of weak infrastructure will probably fail as well. Petrol is a good product for International corps that want to eliminate small business competition and provide products without fear of substitution, but shouldn't good governance do everything in their power to eliminate this risk to citizens? The easy to store corn kernel may be more important asset than the SPR to safeguard country and costs nothing to taxpayers. How about the fact that ethanol can be utilized within home for cooking and heating needs with minimal safeguards. In emergency this may prove to be extremely valuable. Haiti is experiencing this first hand. Citizens scrounging for cooking firewood has devastated their island forestland and polluted indoor air quality. They have discovered producing ethanol feed stock upon farmland many times more productive and creates domestic jobs let alone eliminating indoor air quality health problems. Costly imports reduced as well. It would be easy for terrorist to strategically knock out a section of pipeline of any fuel source supply or knock out a refinery. The results would be economically expensive, especially if the practice continued. Conversely, we have a magnitude more ethanol process plants that can deliver product by truck or per local refueling. Very tough for terrorist to knock out this production with large impact. How much is energy security worth to nation? We spend a fortune to fortify such as national defense strategy. Wouldn't this factor alone demand more flex fuel vehicles and small power generators with ability to flex to ethanol? This should be a requirement for every state to produce ethanol for citizen's safeguard. To have feed stock reserves upon national emergency. To have 100% ethanol in the supply chain for emergency heating and cooking needs. Ethanol camp stoves upon store shelves. Ethanol is extremely flexible both in production and use. The nation needs to exploit this fuel to the max for national security benefits, alone. Even common diesel engines should have back up hardware upon emergency needs of low diesel fuel reserves. Simple port or throttle body injection of ethanol to greatly reduce use of diesel fuel. The military one would think would already have an emergency adaptations supply for such events.
  2. Was reading an engineering board with comments on the VW diesel EPA violations. The diesel cost for proper control of emissions in the $6,000 range. Larger trucks can support the heavy cost burden, but the competitive light vehicle light vehicle fleet can not. Auto companies claim they need the diesel to meet EPA CO2 standards for fleet average. Enter advantage ethanol, that can be utilized to propel corporate fleet averages for CO2 if given half a chance by EPA rating system that has been proven inaccurate by all independent agencies. Either convert the diesel engine to spark ignition optimized E85 fuel or utilize E85 fuel to minimize pollution of diesel in bi-fuel motor. Isn't this just the ticket to improve biofuel sales, distribution, and solve the ethanol blend wall? They can achieve a double win if acting. Wouldn't this be a natural solution to EPA and vehicle emission problems? The optimized E85 is the best low cost alternative as the engine can be downsized to half the typical diesel and needs only the typical lower cost pollution control of gasoline engine, but offers the auto company dramatic decreases in emission rating. The engine has yet to be engineered to minimal emission and allows wide path to do such.
  3. Read a Green Car Congress post of research results from Oak Ridge National Lab. They have achieved a new metal mix for lowering cost of automotive catalytic converters and the new alloy had the much sought after ability to preform at lower temperatures. Oxidation of emissions occur under simple conditions and lower temps. Chemist had commented "The hundreds of species of hydrocarbons pose perhaps the biggest challenge." Enter advantage ethanol as the fuel has only one simple carbon molecule. Doesn't that drastically reduce the complexity of the emission side? What if chemist worked to control emissions of an E100 ICE. Can you image the progress, control, and ability of such an engine designed for the fuel and the pollution control designed for such an engine. This engine should easily achieve magnitudes less harmful emissions. Their are some particular fuel characteristics of ethanol that would only activate upon an engine specifically designed to exploit the fuel character. This is common knowledge upon combustion engineers that already know how to produce such an engine. So, what's the holdup? Have politics of international corporations and politics of choosing BEV solution joined hands. Bedfellows to dis a low cost, easily adaptable, and low tax payer subsidy solution. Have they invented theoretical hurdles to prevent the ethanol solution. Are government agencies tilting at windmills per political compromise, thus avoiding conflict.
  4. I read Bosch will produce a efficient heat pump for electric cars, since utilizing more efficient heating may increase range by 25%. The mechanics and apparatus appear to be complex and expensive with ensuing decrease in auto reliability. This inherent problem of battery car usually goes unmeasured when proponents of the vehicle exclaim benefits. Thermal management of the car is a BIG negative for efficiency. Cabin comfort in colder seasons a big energy drain for the car as well as managing the battery temperature. Even car storage must be managed to ensure maximum battery life and quick operation of the vehicle. If the car is plugged in not a big concern, but if not? Startup from battery power and the power drain inflicted to bring battery and cabin to proper operating temperatures will be a significant drag on range. Enter advantage ethanol and the free heat produced per typical ICE operation that can be utilized to provide maximum heating conditions within cabin and battery. The engine works well to offset limitations of battery. The battery can be exploited to maximum cost benefit to amp up efficiency of typical ICE vehicle and do so without the bother to plug in or inflict range anxiety. If such a vehicle maximized the fuel character of ethanol and ran high blends of the fuel, the environmental rating of the vehicle would surpass that of BEV. At least for most of the grid powered per present day power generation and per extended future expectation of change.
  5. This weekend read some of Henry Ford's II take on battery car future. He suggested, unless a technological breakthrough the battery car and hybrid will have low sales volumes. That the cost efficient mild hybrid with traditional engine the most desirable vehicle for public within the foreseeable future. So, again this is advantage ethanol territory as traditional fuel and infrastructure most likely will be maintained. Ethanol the only game in town to make a huge difference to environment and do so upon a cost savings. What's not to like? Just that the dream or desires of hypothetical solutions may lose out to that of a real world competitor? Ethanol most recent rating, including the hit per indirect land use, is now -40% that of gasoline. The grid is still mostly powered by coal. Trend line of lower cost ethanol and environmental improvement increasingly positive. The additive removes the most harmful elements of gasoline and in doing so will improve the rating of gasoline to allow higher engine efficiency. Those whom truly interested in quick environmental results should be pushing higher ethanol blends. That would be job number one.
  6. We all have read that Henry Ford was a proponent of ethanol and ethanol blended gasoline per the octane boost, but GM's brilliant inventor Thomas Midgley was as well. He was the inventor of fuel grade lead that eventually accomplished the octane improvement for gasoline, but at first he was testing ethanol. This is seldom reported upon history of Midgley and his quest to improve engine fuel. GM had a huge problem when attempting to improve their engines for more power and torque. Engine destroying knock occurred. They didn't know what caused the condition, just that the condition had greatly limited the internal combustion engine's power. Midgley was dragged from the ethanol solution as the titian's of business world all fell in line with petro wealth creation and the ability of corporate America to control. Ethanol was seen as the enemy per the loss of control and opening wealth faucet to farm community and small business ability to process ethanol. "No way would a bunch of farmers be let into this business". So here again, the benefit of government for the people lays subservient to the powerful. This is always the way of political leadership that enjoy privilege as well as any human.
  7. Some interesting stats on small engines. Citizens operate an auto 100-1,000% longer than their small engines, but the modern auto pollution rate is 100-1,000% lower. A 2 Hp Lawnboy will produce 1,500 COg/kWh compare this with most modern vehicle cruising 60 mp at 20g CO/hr. Since 2 hp is 1,500 watts the Lawnboy per hour is generating 2,250 vs 20 for auto? Lawnboy is a 2 cycle engine. Consider VOC emission comparison of operating a chainsaw for one hour is equivalent to 660 miles of auto travel. Emission of CO of snowblower equivalent to 305 miles of auto travel. The country has many times more small engines devices as compared to vehicles. So, where is the low hanging fruit to improve air quality at low cost, low regulation cost, least cost of infrastructure, and highest benefit of public? What should be the first priority of battery power for nations benefit?
  8. Oh, for the equipment with just to high of horsepower needs, that can't be converted to cost effective battery power, the same government agency catalyst could pull E85 fuel development. This would be a win win of alternative fuels. Proving first the performance and then engine reliability to public. The fuel would dramatically lower emissions to both air and water contamination. It would increase reliability of engine operation especially with two cycle engines. These E85 engines would produce more horsepower and run cooler. Two cycle engines would be less stinky and more reliable per cooler combustion temperatures.
  9. Think in terms of small investment requirements, such as from gov't. The value they could contribute and power they have to form cooperation agency within the industry such as standards committee or steer R&D investments. Wouldn't it be an easier home run improvement and one wholly accepted by society per real benefits to pull small equipment manufactures to battery power? You know the devices that probably could be easily charged during low demand grid energy. What would be the benefit, such as within a standards committee to coordinate a removable battery design utilized to power the entire fleet of small engine devices? Consumer's could justify for example $1,000 back pack battery if so. A single battery utilized to power either chain saws, mowers, blowers, weed whackers, drills, outboards, snowblowers, saws, etc. Wouldn't gov't look better within a project of optimal payback and low taxpayer cost? Instead they head directly to the most expansive, expensive, and societal changing projects such as regulating power plants to obsolescence and attempts of mass historical investments not fully understood or guaranteed to work. The gov't crystal ball has a bad record of being inaccurate. Many opposing viewpoints of such grand actions and always such actions carry a high load of politics, probably the primary reason politicians chose the route.
  10. After one realizes air emissions from small engines exceed that of automobiles, we must conclude EPA is not attempting to pick the low hanging fruit benefit of cleaning up air quality, especially in metro areas. Consider the operating environment for lawn mowers is particularly adapted to battery power. A delay in mowing won't strand one on the roadside or make you late for appointment. The duty cycle of lawn care is consistent and easily calculated. The battery industry should focus on this energy sector whereupon they can do the most good for average citizen for the least cost of capital and regulation. It's a huge problem with a big upside benefit. Probably, fairly easy to tackle at least as compared to changing the highway infrastructure. Consumers hate starting their mower and winterizing the beast. They don't like storing gasoline in the garage and neither does the insurance company. Most consumers would happily turn the mower in for easy to operate battery mower if...the technology evolved or invented to maximize convenience, promoted, and energized the product line for multiple choices. Rebates make more sense here as compared to wasting money on elite class of California millionaires purchasing a few Tesla novelty cars. This is a good path for battery industry to introduce themselves and provide them an opportunity for home run. My guess on why this just isn't happening? EPA doesn't like to mess with citizens, but love to push around manufactures, commercial businesses, utility, etc as this group doesn't vote and the public is ill informed on their operation. Besides the media will hammer them if acting up. You notice the media will take on deeds of Landlord, but rarely consult a business on problem tenants or customers. They want the emotional quotient for ratings and the investigative reporter gets rated upon bashing evil business. Just saying, a fact of entertainment news.
  11. As you know drilling the orifice for 20-30% larger hole is not difficult. There is a well documented homeowner experiment on converting 4 cycle lawn mower on the net. This guy increased orifice in small increments to compare power and smooth running. He attached a temperature probe and oxygen sensor to exhaust for fuel air lean rich readings. He did have a compromise orifice bore in which both E10 and E85 worked. The lawn mower ran excellent at optimum fuel air balance of E85 with better torque, less noise, and less smelly exhaust. If you wanted to just avoid E10 this would work, but he did summarize that the advantage of E85 was foregone without the engine set up specifically for the fuel. This would be the higher compression, proper carb orifice, and advanced timing. I've read the commercial metro lawn maintenance crews have expressed interest in E85. Some have converted and some manufactures offer them an option. Kohler was one of the first.
  12. Per post below, it can be argued ethanol is getting a bad rap for ILUC penalty and no credit for what I call Indirect fuel change as the ethanol additive will improve engine efficiency of common gasoline. Interestingly, another development upon R&D is ethanol improving diesel engines. As you know the diesel cycle is more efficient as compared to spark ignition, but it does come with a penalty of high pollution emissions, some of which very unhealthy. Lot's of engineers working on improving after treatment, fuel modification, and engine tuning to minimize the problem. They have to lower compression and cool combustion temps, but these changes effect engine efficiency. Enter ethanol fuel advantage. They are experimenting with port injected ethanol. Ethanol is not a good fuel for compression ignition, but in this engine the DI diesel will ignite per typical operation and in turn ignite ethanol. If your remember, the Cummins E85 engine SI suffered lower mileage under low load. This is the zone, diesel, is especially efficient. The hybrid diesel will operate with diesel only for low load. Upon high load, port injection of ethanol required to increase torque and horsepower. This combination should advance ethanol efficiency and cleanup diesel engine emissions. Torque should increase as high load engine efficiency. It's a win win for diesel engines and should be an easy adaptation, even to the point of converting old diesel engines. It all stacks up for a most promising engine. It would be a two fuel system, that most consumers claim unworkable, but for large commercial trucks this may not be a problem. Metro areas may adapt regs requiring this technology on all inner city delivery or bus diesel trucks?
  13. Since unproven LUC penalty is the major factor utilized to decrease ethanol carbon rating, where is the offset per ethanol additive to increase carbon efficiency of gasoline cars? If theoretic land use change upon the future can be factored into harming ethanol rating the benefit of ethanol to increase octane rating of gasoline and usher in more efficiency within the regular fleet and modern vehicles with adaptive timing advance should be a huge plus. Since E15 is an approved fuel that most vehicles can use, the fuel use change factor to award ethanol lower carbon rating should be large. Currently, the auto industry claim they need high octane fuel to improve engine efficiency. Since ethanol can come to the rescue wouldn't the "fuel use change factor" that is currently ignored for fuel carbon rating of ethanol be large as the fuel can claim credit for improving the gasoline side and ensuing increase in efficiency. Nothing is cheaper or more environmentally friendly than ethanol for the job. Consider auto manufactures have stated if a higher octane fuel like E15 were widely available, they could easily re-flash engine control of older cars modules to maximize the fuel ability for increased efficiency. What would be the indirect fuel change value of this upon the mass sum of ICEs running on the planet?
  14. The GREET model from CARB inflicts 23% more emissions penalty as compared to the EPA model FASOM. The GREET model allows no corn oil offset per ethanol process and assumes 100% of the distillery grains have to be dried. This seems to be a falsehood assumption. Also, the model is not forward leaning in that it picks historic data. The LUC penalty is a wild guess with little scientific study. Most of it apportioned to Brazil antics of which U.S. corn growers have no say. The values are in constant state of flux. Historical satellite images disprove the theory. There is a benefit to improving the wealth of farmers in that they can afford efficient machines and motivated to improve practices. If ethanol is penalized with LUC where is petrol’s LUC considering the constant need to harvest oil and develop land, example Canadian Boreal forest or Gulf of Mexico sea life? Where is the emission penalty per military enforcement of free trade of oil? All are huge indirect pollutants of environment. Searchinger once had published a 103g/MJ carbon rating for ethanol per cutting down entire forests. What a nutty evaluation considering normal forestry practices actually improve tree growth and old growth forest become carbon neutral. Ethanol is actually a factor of waste wood. EPA’s model sits at 63g/MJ, LCFS CA = 30 g/MJ and the most recent and accurate analysis by Purdue utilizing the T-TAP improved model updated with most recent research 14 g/MJ. This model includes a 1% crop growth harvest typical per modern farming practices and seed selection. Soil science studies all indicate the biofuels will get a bump up in carbon rating as well as the improved ethanol process plants that utilize anaerobic digesters for energy inputs and cogen with power production. Additionally, the co-product developments of corn oil and algal oil, and cellulosic ethanol. Also, a big factor to reduce emissions is the ability of ethanol to spike plain gasoline to allow more efficiency of ICE engine design and operation. Modern engine advance timing to maximum efficiency in which ethanol has suburb ability and at a improved environmental rating. It’s not so much MPG that is important as MPC (miles per carbon). Also, consider ethanol optimized engines match common gasoline engine per MPG. These two environmental benefits must be huge across the entire international gasoline fleet and yet go un-awarded. It is perplexing given the mandate of EPA to minimize emissions and harm to environment and HHS to improve human health why the need to minimize ethanol’s rating and box in the production? Some crazy crony capitalism going on.
  15. The auto industry has a big and growing problem. Their darling technology of powerful efficient ICEs is direct injection. Problem with the technology, particle emissions PM are about 6x that of port injection. Higher ethanol blends come to the rescue with both increasing fuel octane and drastically reducing PMs. Come to find out, the ability of ethanol to dilute with water an advantage at the tail pipe. As we know the combustion process produces moisture of which gasoline particles can't absorb. Health concerns of this particle within lungs a bad thing. Particles adjacent or combined with ethanol PMs do absorb moisture and these particles offer low health concerns. Non the less, ethanol has the ability to allow engine advanced of ignition and high engine compression, both of which work to naturally lower PM count. Seems, the aromatic content of gasoline the main culprit. The aromatics needed to raise octane. Again, ethanol comes to rescue and can do the job at lower cost and less health harming PM pollution. Residents living close to high speed freeway should be doubly concerned as plain gasoline fueled vehicle emits 6x more of the unhealthy emissions if they are operating at higher rpm. Again, this factor of physics would point to lower RPM, low polluting engine, operating on ethanol with high boost pressure and advanced timing. The enormous torque and efficiency would make the engine diesel comparative, but at one half the size. This would eliminate the weight and cost problems of diesel and yet be on par with cost of operation with the bonus of greatly reducing carbon and unhealthy emissions. Since an ethanol engine can deliver high torque at lower RPMs as compared to gasoline engine, the PMs would be naturally reduced. Huge advantage over diesel engine as well, since the diesel is the major contributor to nasty health harming PM emission. The diesel cycle will always need DI at combustion timing. This is a physical problem as the fuel has zero time to mix with combustion air and results in high PM and black carbon BC. Ethanol requires low pressure DI as the fuel introduced early with intake air and receives maximum time to warm up and mix with combustion air. Spark ignition controls the precise timing of combustion. This is most desirable to minimize particle pollution.
  16. I'll better explain my attempt for medical analogy. Pharmaceuticals pay a fortune per FDA testing and certification requirements and tout this per advertising of safe and effective medicine. But, we learn these companies search out natural chemicals and remedies not to discern their ability, but in effort to distill or copy such chemicals per patent protection and squash low cost supplements per the hyper expensive prescription route. Sure, they may compound the active ingredient with supporting chemicals or concentrate the active ingredient, but they will never inform the public of natural low cost meds or changes to life style to accomplish same. They in fact claim their meds the only responsible route to treat ailments. The advertising of expensive meds currently similar to Joe Camel with a cartoon images of happiness and wonderful results of talking to doctor. We find out U.S. citizens pay 2x more upon household budget as compared to other modern countries and forbid to shop for cheaper meds per interstate or international competition. So, the analogy is how well controlled the citizenry per wealthy corporations that do not have are best interest at heart. Pharmaceutical companies are in the business of making money as the rest of us. No difference even when compared to petrol. The difference being the corporations have extensive influence per wealth and employment. They will consolidate to maximize company resources when attacked by regulators and economic unhealthy environment as this will allow them maximum ability to influence, especially politicians. They can easily threaten to go offshore, lay off, close plants, and promote values per advertising. They can afford even more expensive lobbyist and pay more for each. They can maximize cronyism with D.C. politics and subvert the natural order of public representation. Both parties have been well trained to play into this for wealth and political contributions. I read of one energy analysis person employed within the industry, that offered their personal attraction to ethanol per the fuel ability to be easily produced. This guy offered up this cautionary note of not selling oneself out to only have an International fuel supplier. This guy appeared to say, he wouldn't trust such an industry per his experience, especially since fuel is a much needed commodity to sustain oneself. The same cautionary analogy per pharmaceutical industry getting into bed with government health care. It's will become a horrible relationship. The same is brewing per water control. Deep pockets will win, despite voting feverishly for your political party.
  17. Michigan grows sugar beets in the thumb region. Not much interest in ethanol as corn process is more than sufficient to meet consumer demand and as you know other than California no premium to be paid for lower GHG fuel. This is gradually changing as consumers gain experience upon ethanol mid blends, have more availability at the pump, and as ethanol production increases. Also, automotive will continue to exploit the fuel natural ability for increase efficiency. Markets outside California will develop slowly with the current low cost of gasoline. All these factors improving together will make it happen. Meanwhile technology is advancing in California, Brazil, and Iowa as well as R&D. It really is impressive how much headroom ethanol has to improve. The large International Corps that worked for decades to position themselves internationally at the zone to maximize wealth and have fought hard, bare knuckle, to achieve top control. They are confident as all to familiar on how to sabotage competitors progress. Lots of miss information floating about as well as the energizing of partisan value ideals. They have a firm grip on affording much influence upon both political parties. They will fight the progress, until optimum timing and again attempt to monopolize the fuel production and control. They need a cost competitive patented process and subsidize the production to remove small business competition to allow such shenanigans. An apt analogy would be the money spent on improving human health per research on healthy lifestyle. Money spent on improving quality of food supply. Dirt cheap supplements and availability and use of super foods to promote heath vs the political power gained by selling public expensive gov't solutions of insurance once sick. Which one has the better return on public enjoyment of life? Lower cost? Superior return on investment? Better for future? Which one empowers wealthy international corps that will patent any chemical to hold up health needs of citizens and pay off our expensive political machinery to accomplish?
  18. Ethanol has a big advantage per green energy as the refueling takes traditional gas station infrastructure and the process is per common everyday practices. Same for the rest of liquid biofuels. This is a huge advantage to bring cost effective and practical solutions quickly to market. How incredibly difficult and expensive to change infrastructure! Calculate the astronomic cost of adapting ubiquitous charging stations to the entire country with trailing cost of completely changing grid. The debt load to do such a thing vs the benefit? The hyper cost of power transmission? The fragile grid, the balancing act to move great quantities of energy per either demand or generation variances? The efficiency of grid really not that impressive. Only when one can dream of Utopian schemes can the value be truly appreciated. Those ultimate solutions never do materialize do they. Meanwhile high blend ethanol can be squirted into a fuel tank like always and upon hybrid technology ICE can beat the emissions of grid transportation solutions probably for generations. The battery is just a chemical fuel tank. The corn plant is just another form of solar power. I just read of a new North Dakota 65m gallon corn ethanol plant located within an energy park. The plant utilizes power generation waste heat. Wow, that would boost green rating. How, about an E100 optimized engine emissions (just a common tech engine development) of which the test results of Cummings E85 development program proved 50% drop per California rating system (includes Indirect Land Use penalty). Cellulosic fuel would bring the figure to 80% reduction in GHS emission.
  19. What Greengenes posted on auto pollution concerns and personally keeping up on the technology, I find a sweet heart zone upon E100 fuel and optimized engine. Consider the studies that rate hybrid natural gas vehicle above that of battery car and know they did not study the E85 hybrid vehicle as a variable since non produced as far as known. But consider the carbon rating of ethanol is on a downward spiral and fossil fuels upward path and that cost of vehicle ownership and convenience will play into most vehicle decision making for mass sales. Ethanol has the solution for near term for both heavy duty torque needs and light vehicle propulsion. The ethanol engine would be an ultra heavy duty spark ignition compound turbo engine that should be less costly than typical diesel per half the displacement and slightly above gasoline engines that are receiving similar hardware nowadays. Also, note the experts claim mild hybrid technology is becoming very cost competitive and will become just another easy to justify option as opposed to hybrid low sales and ultra low sales of battery car. This the future twenty years out. The emissions of E100 superior to low efficiency of grid distribution and power production per almost all of country. Expensive fuel cell technology probably the same. The kicker is convenience and low cost infrastructure already appearing. The ethanol engine can deliver incredible torque when needed, probably with higher pollution emissions, but this state of operation is just a fraction of typical. During the more common low horsepower operation, the engine almost pollution free. Cold weather starts and ensuing high generation of acetaldehydes can be minimized with heated intake air. Consider the waste ethanol, cellulosic, starch, sugar, processes and fuel stocks will put ethanol upon higher production trend since most countries just starting upon these paths.
  20. How often were informed that antique engines hurt by ethanol? They bring up natural rubber seals that disolve with the chemical. Well, remember Henry Ford actually purchased foreign acerage to produce his own automotive rubber. That this polymer the first good seal material. Also, Henry Ford was a proponent of ethanol fuel per realization of the superior fuel quality as compared to petrol. So, how are both of these possible? Ethanol eats antique rubber seals and Henry Ford utilized ethanol fuel? They're not both possible as ethanol is rated very compatible with natural rubber seals as opposed to natural rubber weakness upon petrol fuel. Look up the o-ring material chemical, application guides and find ethanol rated compatible with most seal material and more so than petrol. Also, ethanol is utilized upon a diluted fuel state and should not be a concern if not ethanol tolerant. The biggest harm to seals is heat, ozone cracking if exposed to sunlight and air, chemical attack per petrol fuel acid formation upon stale gas and water. So, ethanol ability to hold water and prevent phase change gasoline would protect antique engines from harming seals. The facts just the opposite of the propaganda.
  21. Actually, what you post of desire to have ultra low tail pipe emission is possible. Upon those engine conditions that require low horsepower, but operation of engine. The theoritical combustion upon perfect conditions, put pure ethanol aside hydrogen fuel cell emissions. The fuel needs to be pure. This condition is met with E100. The fuel needs to only meet horsepower needs and no more. This condition is met with optimized ethanol engine utilizing EGR to limit oxygen. The fuel must be 100% vaporized. This condition is met with fuel boiler heated by exhaust gas. This would be a low horsepower setup inwhich ethanol vapor injected into combustion chamber during such periods. Complete combustion accomplished with high compression temperatures and high energy (hot) ethanol vapor.
  22. I fear your right Wintermute. The Saudi pumping has more to do with potential regional conflict that U.S. shale. They are buying nukes per Pakistan. They are forming a war footing. The experts like R. Rapier have totally missed this and instead blowing sunshine days ahead for U.S. oil. Saudi vs Iran peace was a balance act that is now out of whack. They have centuries of conflict per history and religious differences. They are more concerned of control and influence of the region, then the hatred of Jews. I believe nuclear weapons should be stomped on hard per every means possible, included those nuclear bunker busters. It should be upon any wisp of intel. North Korea and Pakistan should be trained that nuclear weapons a bad decision. The effort to produce should not gain one respect, authority, influence, and power but a crippling air strike and wasted expense. Only large countries with much to lose. I don't like China, India, and Russia nukes but they have much at stake and should act more responsible.
  23. Also, the Basswood does well in Southern California and that tree is remarkable per ability to clean air. To me the tree growth and planting would rise to top of concern, even before breaking the bank upon BEV sales promotion as these cars purchased by affluent. Hybrid is rated, currently, as high per environment. The benefit of high growth vegetation would be worth building desalination plants. Utilize nutrient rich grey water for high vegetation growth. Trees will grow multiple factors faster and be disease resistant. Lawn turf can double the environmental benefit if allowed to grow twice as high. Grass plants are extremely efficient per photosynthesis of which corn plant is one. For traffic jams and occupied vehicle parking, battery operated A.C. is a must. An auto supplier had such a conversion package for vehicles. Ford, I think, quickly bought the rights t quell the advance of old cars. It was a alternator/motor that could power belt driven auxiliary devices of engine. It boosted Mpg and allowed A.C. with engine off. I do think these metro zones could improve air quality cost efficiently by higher ethanol blends and use. EPA cost of compliance a big stumbling block. A few days ago a Judge ruled on EPA right to ignore certification of E30. Ethanol producers claimed EPA regs put the fuel in a box wherein only fuel of common use will be certified and E30 can't be used because it is not certified. I don't understand why high cost of compliance is necessary when science claims the use and development is positive. Why the strict control of a better paths? Especially, upon startup and low use! My guess the whole shebang is empowered by crony capitalism wherein politics can benefit by holding up such events.Always being at the economic cross roads of decision making for improvement so as to claim credit. Sad.
  24. The first couple sentence from NRDC article. "Southern California has the worst air quality in the country. The Los Angeles region is home to the largest port complex in the nation, which relies on diesel-powered ships, trains, and trucks to sustain its operations". Growth to +70% by 2020. This region unlike the rest of the country with unique geography that trap pollutants from traffic jams, high density auto traffic, industry, and the rest. Cancer rate is 70% higher for those living close to port. Wow, an ugly problem. I hope they don't produce power in the valley. That would be an ideal zone to ban gasoline upon yard equipment and require E85 conversion of high polluting engines or better yet battery power. Diesel engine of light vehicle motor vehicles should be banned. Higher blends of ethanol fuel a must. They should regulate grass maintenance to extra high height per a whole host of environmental benefits. The county and city should develop a forestry plan to maximize density and tree growth. Trees are a natural air purifier and some species are exceptional. Hopefully, native high value trees can be planted upon every square foot of land and managed for max growth. I would think the giant Douglas fir and Redwood that need only a density of one per acre would do nicely with grey water supply. My guess these trees could impact the negative climate trend. It's a long term commitment to waste water use, but may produce big results to quality of life. 10,000 acres of trees remove as much pollution as those power plant air scrubbers.
  25. We know the environmental benefits of ethanol blended fuel, but the growing concern of petrol fuel health concerns may be a larger factor. Consider the recent London health studies that estimate deaths per ICE powered cars to be 3,000 / year. The latest health studies of diesel emissions are increasing the anger upon environmental choices which lack concerns of human health. All of Europe has embraced diesel engine power per preceived benefit to CO2 emissions. Problem is surfacing as health concerns of air quality in metro areas that rate diesel exhaust 10x more harmful to human health and on par with second hand tobacco smoke. This even with the stricter Euro 5 standards for tail pipe emissions. London has or in process of banning dieel powered vehicles. A reading the benefits of ethanol, one can only conclude all concerns lead to increase use of the fuel. That more technology should be directed to exploit the fuel's superior environmental and health benefits. For example particulate emissions are surfacing as primary problem for both rainfall and health. The miro particles empower cloud water droplet water ability with resulting down pour and loss of more frequent rainfall. This phenomina is rizing to top of list to explain the intense flooding and drought conditions. Ethanol has exponetially higher ability to limit this emission as compared to fossil fuel. NOX emissions continue to maintain same levels of air pollution. Ethanol has high ability per onboard oxygen content and higher cooling effect to minimize the production of NOX. Diesel is moving to popularity per auto companies per jumping through Mpg hoop of EPA, but it's a faux benefit. Gasoline will generate 19.64# Co2/gal vs diesel fuel 22.38#, but diesel gets better Mpg and will result in less CO2 emission. I would estimate 17% less? Well big whoop as ethanol sits at 12.73 # CO2 per gallon. Consider a optimized engine like the Cummins E85 2.8 L engine can match gasoline mileage, that would enter into the realm of 35% reduction and at a cost savings of fuel and less expensive engine. Consider the above health concerns of diesel engines and the need to have a high torque alternaive fueled engine and one sure could conclude ethanol fuel should rize to top of list to exploit. Battery technology can't power heavy duty trucks. Natural gas is a fossil fuel with high costs of refueling.
  • Create New...