Jump to content


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from storky in Why is ethanol a better fuel?   
    The headline for the albedo study reads as if scientists have discovered yet anther negative impact of ethanol fuel. You read the article and realize the headline should read something like, " Scientist put ethanol rating under the microscope to find Miscanthus cellulosic a negative carbon fuel." I do believe the carbon rating methodology of ethanol leaves no stone upturned, to arrive at the most accurate rating, whereas the competition is never studied to such length. The assumptions and indirect penalties, mostly go to favor the competition. The CAFE ratings, regulations, and story line only concern themselves with the urgency to improve the grid for transposition needs. It's very popular within our environmental group to skip past the ethanol solution. 
    Not much buzz out there in favor of scientific evaluations, that claim the hybrid vehicle a better choice for environment. Note, in such studies they will never evaluate the most efficient hybrid operating on E85 fuel. They choose to utilize natural gas instead. So, in my book if a natural gas hybrid vehicle is such a intelligent choice wouldn't a high level ethanol vehicle be a home run? If Miscanthus already rated at negative carbon fuel, how could the grid improve upon that? It appears the scientific community is putting ethanol under the microscope to discover some hidden reason not to use the fuel? Meanwhile, proponents of battery car, will quickly dismiss the infrastructure cost of improving the grid as merely as a skip and jump away.  While improving the grid is a worthy venture, they want to utilize the improvement for light duty transportation, wherein in reality the conventional vehicle technology is already rapidly improving. Meaning, the grid has enough challenge to improve itself and the rate of improvement best left to improve traditional grid needs. 
  2. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from storky in Feed   
    I was watching a Netflix series on food and health with commentator Michael Palin. The wheat segment had a comment from a nutritionist that was very interesting. The history of advance of civilization and the important role of food supply with domesticated wheat. But, did you know that if one merely ate wheat they would starve or die of bad nutrition. Only when the wheat is ground up and allowed to ferment with leavening does the wheat magically become life sustaining. The sour dough leavening contains a natural microbe mix that nutritionist think the real improvement. Something we have lost in modern commercial bakeries. Also, the whole grain flour and the low horsepower method of stone grinding play a important role in health. Our modern fast methods of making flour may be destroying micro nutrients that health research have just recently realized a very important food character. Over cooking or harsh cooking will damage the nutritional value of food, as well. We have a better understanding of health benefits of raw or low heat cooking to minimize the damage and loss of micro nutrients, nowadays.
    So, how does this relate to feed? Well, think about how we have also learned that healthy meat comes from healthy animals. That corn has been criticized as a feed especially for fattening up cattle per the bad fat content of the meat. It's a unnatural food for the usual grass eating bovine. That the majority of corn harvest goes to the task of animal feed. What would be the consequences of taking that portion and processing to a much higher nutritional feed stock? I would think a win win and huge improvement in human diet. To maximize the value of corn utilize for animal feed may take a processing plant to bake the stuff into sour dough mix. The "corn bread" crumbles a big improvement to animal health and extents the corn product value. Top it off, my guess the processing may include pulling off the undesirable corn oil component. May an ethanol plant become a corn processing plant? I remember the talk of industry converting to wet mill operations per the value of flexing production to many more co-products. My guess this would be very superior method for nutrition as its a low horsepower impact of corn kernel. So, the processing plant could flex between yet another co-product. Utilize some starch and distillery grains to ferment with wild microbes for extremely healthy feed. It may prove out the entire corn crop can be managed this way and the practice of feeding of raw corn to live stock would pass away. The processing plant could optimize operations per market demands and remove unwanted constituents of corn feed for other co-products. The movie was pretty convincing that modern practices of making bread removes most of the valuable health benefits. Can only think we could learn a lesson here for animal feed as well. 
  3. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from storky in Why is ethanol a better fuel?   
    Supply route safety; advantage ethanol!
    Petrol industry advocates attempted to fear monger ethanol production upon RFS regulation back nearly a decade. Their canards claimed ethanol is transported by dangerous rail instead of safe pipeline. Whoops , they don't bring that point up anymore. Why is that? Also, they claimed ethanol is dangerous because fighting the fires is different than petrol. O.k? Just a stupid argument they present in an attempt to get some traction upon citizen concern.
    Info I've read say, stats that track biofuel accidents and fire not available, not biofuel specific. Chemistry of gasoline vs ethanol claim same spill size of fire more severe for gas per the physical properties, enthalpies of combustion, and emissions of the flame. Flash point of ethanol 55 vs gasoline -45. Autoignition of ethanol 793 vs gasoline 495. So, the chemistry suggest ethanol is more difficult to catch on fire and once on fire less dangerous.
    The logistics favor ethanol and may be the largest factor. Feed stock of gasoline must be transported long distance to refinery and then transport finished product back to consumer. Path of transport bumps up against environmental sensitive areas and populous zones. Super tanker transport has very large potential for disaster as well as off shore drilling. Ethanol feed stock has extremely low risk to health and environment and transported short distances usually upon rural areas. Most of the transport is within 50 mile radius of processing plant. Modern cellulosic ethanol requires short supply route to lower cost. Since ethanol plants are less costly and smaller as compared to petrol refinery, they're numerous and spread diverse upon land mass. They present lower terrorist risk, economic risk per loss of production, and lower finished product supply chain distance and ensuing risk. However, petrol does currently have a very efficient supply chain per the huge investment and long development time span. Ethanol has just started to improve the supply efficiency and have a long catch-up. The natural advantages of ethanol should make the job easier.
  4. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from storky in Why is ethanol a better fuel?   
    Funding terrorist; advantage not to do so, ethanol
    I was listening to Joint Chief of staff claim the ISIS funding primarily funded by oil wealth. They sell black market oil and receive support from others in the trade. Also, he claimed wrecking the infrastructure like the Gulf War is not an option per environmental harm and the lost of valuable infrastructure once Syria is liberated. Juxtaposed this concern to the most potent act to destroy terrorism influence. To remove their sources of revenue. This action more important than bombs and bullets and the point goes mostly unreported. My guess there is just to much State Department objections to utilizing trade of oil as a weapon against terrorism. It appears the world is held hostage by producers of oil energy. That the oil trade makes for odd bedfellows and odd compromises within our international relationships. No country wants to curtail this trade, especially since oil is so important to economics and our economies so fragile. Better to use expensive military hardware.
    This compromise appears to meet qualifications of insanity. Can't we as a civilized society take a step back and do a historical review of a bad path for energy needs? Administrations come and go every 4-8 years and since they have such a short time upon reigns of nations success they need relatively quick options to build upon a future that would be complementary to themselves. This is why they spend treasury money at such a reckless rate as they know they can shove the repayment penalty to other administrations. Same with pushing easy mortgage money, hoping the economics blow up after leaving office. Same with not rocking the oil wealth industry. Administrations have no incentive to set up future CICs to better condition if doing so they would need to suffer repayment or pick up the tab to invest in brighter future. Politicians would need to stand up and lead even if offending their own constituency. 
    To this, one can only conclude it is best to not be blackmailed by oil markets. To have other competing markets that would empower a country to hold the trade of oil to the highest standards. 
  5. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from storky in Why is ethanol a better fuel?   
    Fossil fuels have had a long road of R&D efforts to standardise and provide uniform quality. The product relies on additives to make the fuel capable. Oxygenates, usually ethanol, is required as you know by law to make the fuel preform better. Petrol fuels need stabilizers to improve the fuel storage life, such as antioxidants. Compare this to purity of ethanol that has extreme stability. Basically only one common molecule throughout vs petrols hundreds of varing compositions. Petrol fuels utilize metal deactivators and corrosion inhibitors. So, petrol has a problem with corrosion in natural state? I'm guessing they add these for a reason. Tramp water has always been a problem, at least before the days of E10. Detergents of prime importance of petrol per the natural occuring gums, varnish, and carbon or sulfur deposits. These affect engine performance, especially valves and injectors. Detergents such as the amines group usually added to gasoline within 300 ppm concentration. The additives are regulated by EPA, but scientist post of not having a good handle on health effects, especially per the derivatives, some of which are known harmful. Compare the science and effort put forth over hundreds of years to improve gasoline  and disel fuel and know ethanol out of the box is superior in most all respects. My guess even corrosion and material compatability. Just look at the Parker O ring application guide for service compatability fluids. Alcohol or ethanol doesn't appear as a concern for most O ring materials, unlike gasoline. Also, if water if absorbed within alcohol, it is not considered corrosive. Free water within stand alone gasoline is a problem and will promote corrosion and problem chemical acids. Gasoline can absob water, but a greatly reduced ability. I know of no additives required by ethanol to make it perform better other than gasoline per the fuels ability to ignite at lower temperatures. Engineers will explain the typical ICE is not designed for ethanol and even E85 performs better with the portion of gasoline for cold starts. If the Engineering talent was ever unleashed to maximize the ICE per ethanol only fuel this would not be the case. Also, not much R&D upon ethanol only fuel per emissions, but the potential is enormous given the pollution free chemical combustion upon ideal conditions that compare to hydrogen fuel cell.
  6. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from storky in Why is ethanol a better fuel?   
    UM university, Ford research, and Advanced Engineering Group had interesting test results for DI engine and ethanol ability to reduce PM emissions. It discloses why ethanol is superior fuel. If you get into discussion with the "pure gasoline now " folks explain to them that ethanol is makes their gasoline a better fuel. Also, the discussion on BTU and those that attempt to imply the best fuel has highest BTU rating. High points of study:
    - Ethanol produces a magnitude less PM pollution. This may be the best or most important fuel character fact as health studies are continuing to evolve to fossil fuel health concerns.
    - Ethanol has higher laminar flame speed which presents shorter combustion duration that results in higher thermal efficiency of the engine.
    - Ethanol has simple chemical structure that results in lower exery destruction, meaning the chemical nature of ethanol has more potential available energy to release. IOWS the fuel releases more engery than the BTU rating would suggest as compared to gasoline.
    - Ethanol has lower boiling point and lower combustion temperatures that naturally produce less NOX and less UHC (unburned hydro carbon).
    - Ethanol has strong ability to suppress formation of benzens and sooting both of which are serious health hazards
    One challenge of combustion efficiency for flex engines that attempt to run all blends of ethanol is the direct injection spray pattern. The two fuels have different requirements for optimum spray pattern. Spray breakup, atomization, vapoization, turbulence changes will result in high ethanol blends impinging more fuel on metal surfaces of combustion chamber and charge stratification. So, again we learn the benefits of optimized E85 engine increasing efficiency and lowering emissions as compared to general flex engine.
  7. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from storky in Why is ethanol a better fuel?   
    A couple more:
    -Ethanol fueled engines will push more HP out of turbo per the increased density of exhaust and upon optimized ethanol engines higher exhaust temperatures. The Cummings E85 engine experienced a 20% something boost in turbo power. More so than would was demanded for air pumping, thus offering advantage to the new turbo generator technology still in development. 
    _Ethanol carries liquid oxygen that directly replaces a portion of intake air that contains much nitrogen. This chemical attribute of ethanol will naturally cut down NOX emissions. Compare this to Shell premium grade gasoline tha purposely entrains nitrogen within the fuel for purpose of cleaning the mess left behind by fossil fuels. Something ethanol does upon the low cost fuel of unleaded. 
    - Since Ethanol carries liquid oxygen within the fuel itself and releases the component upon chemical combustion the fuel acts to improve combustion of hydro carbons. It makes plain gasoline burn better and results in less UHC pollution. This point made on first post, but I explained better here.
    _ Since Ethanol carries liquid oxygen within the fuel, the ICE can be managed to farther impact low horspower MPG and high Hp delivery per EGR process. The optimized ethanol engine can produce more power than other fuels when eliminating EGR as the engine CI dispacment for combustion air is aided by the chemical oxygen already in the fuel. A smaller engine fueled on ethanol behaves like a bigger CI engine. Conversely, the ethanol fueled engine if optimised can throttle down oxygen content within the cyclinder per adding oxygen free exhaust. Putting in 27% exhaust would bring the engine to normal gas engine specs. So, if exhaust gas was to be utilized to control horspower there would be no BTU advantage to gasoline. But, the other advantages to ethanol would still apply such as ability to increase engine efficiency and lower pollution.
  8. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from storky in Diesel is expected to grow exponentially... E85 is not far behind it!   
    There is a brewing storm upon diesel engine growth per the PM pollution. EPA has improved diesel fuel to decrease the soot ability of the fuel, but diesel engines PM emissions still extremely high as compared to other fuels and engines. Health studies are just beginning to raise the red flag on PM 10 and specially PM 2.5 ultra small particles. These small particles do not settle out and float about causing health problems. The particles not trapped by normal biological systems in air passages and able to directly enter blood supply even passing the brain barrier that most chemicals can't pass. Health research is focusing on PM pollution and the increase of some diseases such as Alzheimer, inflammatory, and autism. Also, they are finding these diseases including heart disease share inflammation problems and often reside within pollution stream of PMs. Some particles inert but have a habit of latching on to hitchhiker pollutants that could be heavy metals or carcinogens within exhaust. Forest fires the primary source with wood stoves 2rd. But, these may not be the real unhealthy PM pollution as compared to diesel exhaust that appears clean. I did notice the sudden research of gasoline and technology that could be utilized within diesel cycle. They claim gasoline much cleaner fuel. But, ethanol a magnitude cleaner if utilized with diesel engine spark ignition and achieves higher efficiency. Notice how most cities have changed buses to NG, alternative fuel, and hybrid. Metro citizens are concerned of their health. The good news is the vegetable diesel fuels very low in PM, but the used fry oil carcinogenic. Lots to learn still.
  9. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from TD in Under the hood   
    I'm a fan of "Under the Hood Radio Show". Today, the topic drifted to flex vehicles and technology of these new model vehicles. The Nordstrom brothers akin to click and clack, but have better repair advice for vehicles and they appear to top of their game with up to date knowledge. The head advice brother claimed modern FFV much improved from the old days of losing 30% mpg economy. Ford especially. Current model vehicles tuned to exploit ethanol fuel benefits. Present day FFv only lose 10%-15% mileage on E85. He said if ever the engine and transmission were to be optimized for the fuel the mileage would be about equal. This guy would be rated the go to guy for mechanics that have hard to solve problems. The topic started per info that Ford's model T was a flex vehicle per the need of remote farmers lack of gas station. Farmers could brew moonshine to power the car. The car was able to burn a wide variety of fuels. The post was asking if Henry Ford was coerced to gasoline.  
  10. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from James48843 in Image   
    Did you read of Protec fuel running a "Happy Hour" discount for their recent E15 offering...smart image making. 
  11. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from James48843 in Image   
    That would work and bit of humor just the ticket. Successful ads often get a chuckle and attention from viewer. How about "E85 makes your car happy". The clear liquid, clean fuel, and consumer can relate back to a happy experience with food grade product. Nice. Follow up with rusty gunked up gasoline can with health warnings per inhalation and skin contact.   
  12. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from Steve-O in Image   
    That would work and bit of humor just the ticket. Successful ads often get a chuckle and attention from viewer. How about "E85 makes your car happy". The clear liquid, clean fuel, and consumer can relate back to a happy experience with food grade product. Nice. Follow up with rusty gunked up gasoline can with health warnings per inhalation and skin contact.   
  13. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from 1outlaw in CAFE   
    The EPA magical numbers game for mileage rating is just as phony. Most do not know the MPGe rating of EV car is just mere calculation of efficiency of electric motor. Sure it looks grand compared to traditional auto that does the lower efficient work of converting heat to energy. This the same duty of converting heat to generate electricity, but goes undetected per EV rating. What's strange about the EV rating, Energy Department had in place a realistic rating called well to wheel that leveled rating of traditional car with that fueled by the grid. Per political choice to promote EV and to make that choice shine brighter, the current executive pushed another easy calculation. So, a 96 MPGe looks terrific and motivates a buyer with environmental concerns with a wonderful environmental solution. Problem is the 96 MPGe is equivalent to 36 MPG car upon reality. Problem is the tradition fueled vehicle per alternative high blend ethanol fuel would trounce the EV that refuels mostly on older coal fired power plant. The car even trounces the CNG vehicle yet sits at the side with pure environmental and consumer benefit. In addition the fuel would trounce a heavy carbon fuel aka diesel upon a fair comparison. What is going on?
  14. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from storky in New Cummins Medium Duty Truck Engine Tuned for E85   
    BTW, Shell and other gasoline suppliers advertise quality premium fuel that contains nitrogen. They do this per need to clean up fossil fuel soot and gunk deposits problem as their premium product contains no ethanol. But, adding nitrogen will produce more NOx tailpipe emissions. Better to utilize ethanol for the task as it's a cheaper component and offers benefit to lower carbon emission and lessening of the unhealthy petrol components that raise RVP and octane.  
  15. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from storky in New Cummins Medium Duty Truck Engine Tuned for E85   
    The darling of powerful tools to meet Environmental concerns lies directly on the path of optimized E85 engine. Nothing comes close to cellulosic ethanol fueled optimized engine. University of Toronto just published a life cycle analysis of natural gas fuel for automotive. They compared a conventional unleaded vehicle CV to NG. Emissions of the CV vehicle running on natural gas decreased 10-20% as compared to CV running on unleaded. A hybrid CNG CV vehicle decreased emissions 30% and this was comparable to BEV recharged by the grid with the typical natural gas power plant. Problem with the BEV was the vehicle was 30% more expensive to own. So, the Toronto analysis summary was CNG HEV the sweet spot and the only advantage to BEV was to displace pollution away from urban areas. When one throws in the mix the optimized E85 engine rating of decreasing GHG emissions 85% per California standards of the Cummins medium duty van study, game over. Think of the advantage of ethanol engine almost zero particulate rating vs diesel's  unhealthy micro carbon particle tailpipe emission. Diesel's expensive SCR pollution equipment to control NOx, is not needed with ethanol. NOx is a factor of nitrogen within intake air and high combustion temperature. While ethanol does have high combustion temperature the engine doesn't require as much intake air per the fuel oxygen content and hence naturally less nitrogen to create NOx. This particular character of ethanol, also, allows engine to achieve better control of NOX control per recirculate of cooled exhaust gas. Actually, exhaust gas can serve two purposed within the engine. Upon cold engine start up, the valve timing can be adjusted to increase hot exhaust within combustion chamber. This will heat intake air, decrease excessive fuel, and eliminate much of the cold start emission problem. Properly tuned spark plugs and ignition that does not need to be tuned to unleaded fuel also a big help. 
    Secondly, cooled exhaust gas dilution within intake air can mitigate high temperature combustion temps upon high horsepower need. It would act to trim and control excessive power and heat that would produce NOx. Cooling turbo air, also, very productive for both power and control of NOx. Utilizing exhaust gas to trim unneeded fuel is a great mileage trick. Current, FFV technology will squirt ethanol per oxygen sensor demand. This is wasteful, especially with ethanol that carries liquid oxygen on board, but a requirement of low tail pipe emissions. An optimized ethanol engine would recirculate the exhaust to trim oxygen within combustion chamber to exact need of vehicle and driver. The oxygen sensor should always be in balance and not demand over supply of fuel to decrease oxygen level in exhaust. They have similar technology within the natural gas turbine for power plant called DLN. Basically, they utilize a low temperature pre burner to minimize oversupply of oxygen.
  16. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from storky in New Cummins Medium Duty Truck Engine Tuned for E85   
    Diesel efficiency is suffering per technology to control NOx emissions. Automotive diesel has adapted the lower cost approach of utilizing cooled EGR gas to limit NOx. They utilize an oxygen sensor, throttle plate, and electronic control of cooled exhaust gas to dilute and decrease high temps of exhaust. Up till now diesel had an unfair advantage per emissions as they had no requirement for oxygen sensor and stoichiometric balance of fuel. They could squirt diesel per desired Hp need, problem was they generated much NOx, but given a pass up till current day by EPA. Meanwhile ethanol suffered per SI engine requirement of absolute stoichometric balance of fuel via oxygen sensor detection of O2 in exhaust. This requirement was especially damaging to ethanol as the fuel carried liquid oxygen in which naturally decreased nitrogen percentage within combustion, thus lessening the need for strict exhaust O2  compliance. So, diesel either adapts very expensive exhaust treatment or lowers efficiency to meet Nox emission requirement as compared to ethanol increasing efficiency of the SI engine and natural lower exhaust emission cost. Ethanol has no sulfur within it's pure fuel, but does contain nitrogen. How much the nitrogen content offsets the pure oxygen content per NOx production is unknown, but the optimized ethanol engine has much easier and low cost path to emissions control. Also, the ethanol fueled engine has better ability for NOx control per higher EGR dilution and cool lean burn technology. I would guess the nitrogen within ethanol could be processed or controlled like gasoline is now processed if it were to become a conformance problem. The ethanol optimized engine is looking good from all angles. The torque (max BMEP) as reported by the Cummins test comparison was 2.5x greater as compared to gasoline and Hp or power density 2.7x that of diesel. So, that could translate into, lets say a 500 cc Fiesta, 1L Fusion, or 1.5L Mustang and heavy duty pickup.
  17. Like
    fleebut got a reaction from storky in New Cummins Medium Duty Truck Engine Tuned for E85   
    The Cummins E85 has proven the E85 engine can be highly competitive on a total cost of ownership basis and deliver 50% CO2 emission reduction. Their engine beat unleaded fuel mpg upon the medium duty delivery van tests and E85 is almost always cheaper. Seems like a win win for consumer and environment. Why wouldn't EPA attempt to hit this out of ballpark? Currently, we have set up E85 as a substitute fuel for unleaded gasoline, but the unleaded engine and transmission is physically unfit to unleash the efficiency of ethanol based fuels. Ethanol is well suited to diesel engine per findings of the ETHOS Ultra-Low Carbon Powertrain project. The E85 optimized engine was charted out at 42% max efficiency and usually above 40%. The 2.8 L engine designed per VOC or voice of consumer desires for torque, rpm, and Hp for the 24,000 GVW vans. The consumer wanted high torque at low Rpm. The delivery vans currently have two engine choices of heavy expensive 6.7L diesel long life or inexpensive 6 L unleaded short life. The diesel option has much more than needed low end torque and the unleaded choice has more than needed Hp at high rpm. The Optimized E85 engine better suited to delivery van needs than either of these engines with the durability of diesel. The E85 engine as compared to diesel is 700# lighter, cheaper to manufacturer, and easily meets strict California pollution standards with common catalytic technology. Interestingly, the optimum compression ratio for this application for E85 was 10:1 to 14:1 range. Also, unlike the needs of unleaded engine of hot spark plug to burn off soot deposits, E85 engine requires cooler plugs and has no soot fouling problems. E85 ignites at a lower temperature and should be specified with cooler plug range and gaped specifically for E85. The Cummins engine utilized iridium plugs. Because of fuel character of ethanol the engine never needed enrichment of fuel nor less than optimal ignition timing. The engine could have blasted past Hp generation of unleaded 6L engine, but Cummins decided to detune to keep intake temperature lower as the high engine rpm heated intake air to much through turbo. An intercooler could have solved the problem if needed. Also, the current engine does lose efficiency upon low Hp production, but this could be mitigated per the ethanol fuel's superior fuel character of lean burn and increase of EGR technology. Also, one must take note the emissions would decrease and performance increase per elimination of the unleaded fuel portion. Pure ethanol testing will display a substantial gain in Hp, torque, and lower emissions. After reading the success of the Cummins report, it does become apparent that if given half a chance by regulators the diesel engine manufactures would naturally double their engine offerings by the easy to modify task to E85 fuel. It wouldn't take that much. 
  • Create New...