Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fleebut

The great ethanol debate

Recommended Posts

Well, I do go beyond 1,500 rpm, but I know exactly what you mean. I can see a red light way ahead, can lift my foot of the gas pedal and get there with hardly loosing any speed, maybe 5 mph.

 

Great job on the brake pads, I made it around 35,000 miles, but with a 3/4 ton van, it is rather hard to do. Once it moves, it moves ( yes, from red light to red light as well).

 

Greetings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drop in bio-fuel is attempting production with rosy projections. We will see. Does have an infrastructure advantage at increased cost of production. Scary to think our politics may be temped to chose an easier path (for them). The fuel’s biggest attraction is minimal disruption of status quo relationships. It’s a get along fuel, no change needed. 

 

As posted on E85, most think no one solution. Meaning regions will have unique solutions, business will focus on their expertise, and hopefully the giant corps will be held at bay if lawmakers honest? Maybe give up the golden parachute plans.

 

BTW, just read on food vs fuel- Bob Dinneen, points out that ethanol production uses only 3 percent of the world grain supply on a net basis, and this is feed grains, not food grains, from which ethanol is produced. That's powerful. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would the public say if it can be demonstrated that the lack of EPA attention on RBOB has allowed the oil companies to actually produce a gasoline prone to higher emissions as long as ethanol is added.  One should ask why US gasoline tested rather poorly in a world wide study that tested over 1440 gasoline samples and found the US near the bottom of the barrel.

 

Time to argue ethanol is a fuel and not an additive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would the public say if it can be demonstrated that the lack of EPA attention on RBOB has allowed the oil companies to actually produce a gasoline prone to higher emissions as long as ethanol is added.  One should ask why US gasoline tested rather poorly in a world wide study that tested over 1440 gasoline samples and found the US near the bottom of the barrel.

 

Time to argue ethanol is a fuel and not an additive.

 

 

I have to agree Steve- I did not see any loss in MPG with E10 until they stopped offering conventional and then forced the RBOB and CBOB down our throats- I would like to see their emissions and performance testing for those two. Furthermore- It was a huge secret that oil companies hid in the 80's when they were running very high aromatic levels in gas. Even yet I know of one materials manufacturer who still lists "high aromatic gas" in their charts- select it and look to see how badly hoses and metals were affected. It was as unsatisfactory as methanol in some common fuel system metals- yet the early gasohol took the blame for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, that must have been some compromise arrangement to get along. To many of these decisions made under the blankets or hidden per complexity i.e. global pollution per a few computers running complex software under chosen assumptions. Tell me if these decisions, were concerned of public perception of  honesty, wouldn't they require bright sunshine exposure and simple calculations? They should be based on spread sheet analysis and available for public download. Our common P.C. is more than capable. Complexity just a convenient place to hide.

 

And why should ethanol be placed at the mountain top of environmental evaluation? Something a bit strange there, for the fuel to require most costly studies before approving any minor change. Give them a break, just review and advise to make sure no problems. Good to apply the low cost regs until the fuel matures and achieves much real data. Maybe send someone to Brazil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Outlaw post's, together with most normal trait of greed and knowing big money floating about is dangerous as well as absolute power. We need to keep it simple and understand no evil or purity upon both political systems. We all work to achieve our self interest as no angels walk about us.

 

So, shouldn't this mean...job number one for the country is to place and ensure ethanol to maintain status of competitor. Remove oil control, separate the relationship. Currently a classic conflict of interest. Sure utilizing oil infrastructure is a quick and cost effective way to market. Oil probably o.k. with accepting baby as they start to sharpening the cutlery for future occasion. Regulators appear to be on who's side? Hard to know as the bureaucracy way past NASA current crumbling, ineffectiveness, and bloating.

 

I'm gradually buying Dan's E85 theory. That being the case, blender pump infrastructure and certifying these pumps all the way to E100 a most promising development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we need is a strategy that even the oil companies can't put holes in.  We offer a fuel blend choice that consumer would appreciate, the right information like recommending consistant fueling to offer the best mileage result and information that by dilution, we are displacing the components of gasoline that have a significant health effect issue.

 

The highest blends to offer initially is E60 winter and E70 summer.  The reason is that at some point, API and others will contend we are selling fuel with to low of RVP.  By knowing our limits and offering consumer a fuel with good RVP and performance we can avoid a vehicle that may not have been fully adapted to a new fueling prior to cold start.  We also are giving all the octane the vehicle needs to maintain best spark timing while giving them a little more energy in the tank by blending actual gasoline.  I see that the average FFV vehicle would only see a mileage loss of no more the 10 percent at E60.

 

At 10 percent mileage loss with E60 and at today's prices, ethanol could compete even if we lost most tax credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e60/70 (winter/summer) could possibly be a good idea.  Minimize the mileage drop which is the MAJOR stumbling block for most FFV owners that is keeping them from using e85...

 

Blender pumps are no doubt the way to go.  I personally would be buying e100 at the pump in the summer if it were an option... just to avoid buying ANY gasoline (for obvious political/economic reasons).

 

Sure my mileage would be a bit less... but it would be the right thing to do.

 

Most consumers however will live will not look at the big picture/long term repercussions of their purchase actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several states have held up blender pumps as issues are brought up by state regulators.  There is testing under way that would be helpful for octane labeling.  We could address the concerns and start at a point that offers the best solutions allowable with in today's regulations.

 

The blender pump could still pump E98 as well but may need special device or code to allow.  I think you would be surprise how many hot rodder's and racing teams avoid E85 today because they fear what is in that 15 to 30 percent gasoline mix.  Here we have found winter blends still in the tank in June.  How can these guys appreciate ethanol when they continue to have various results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...