Someone in a country other than the USA has done a study of the
effects of 20% ethanol/80% gasoline on engines by running a weedwacker
and an outboard motor on such a mixture.

He reports:
"The study of ethanol's impact on engines found the 10 per cent blend
caused no substantial changes, except slight swelling and blistering
on the carburettor and an increase in carbon deposits on pistons.

But when the fuel contained 20 per cent ethanol, substantial problems
were encountered. The outboard engine stalled on occasions, exhaust
gas temperature increased by a significant margin and in some cases
there was extensive corrosion of engine parts."

Could someone list all the reasons this is not a good test. (I suspect
you'll all think of some of the same things, so maybe look at previous
answers before answering.)

Any reasons it is a good test are also appreciated.

This is nothing new. This was more an issue for older cars when ethanol was
first blended in, but that was years ago. In Illinois everything has been
an ethanol blend (10% I think) for years. If the engine and parts are built
right, you can run 85% ethanol. I think a lot of cars coming off the line
today can handle it. But a weedwacker and a boat engine are probably just
not designed for that much ethanol in the mix.

S

mm wrote:
Someone in a country other than the USA has done a study of the
effects of 20% ethanol/80% gasoline on engines by running a weedwacker
and an outboard motor on such a mixture.

He reports:
"The study of ethanol's impact on engines found the 10 per cent blend
caused no substantial changes, except slight swelling and blistering
on the carburettor and an increase in carbon deposits on pistons.

But when the fuel contained 20 per cent ethanol, substantial problems
were encountered. The outboard engine stalled on occasions, exhaust
gas temperature increased by a significant margin and in some cases
there was extensive corrosion of engine parts."

Could someone list all the reasons this is not a good test. (I suspect
you'll all think of some of the same things, so maybe look at previous
answers before answering.)

Any reasons it is a good test are also appreciated.

Why do you ask? Isn't 10% is the mixture used in the U.S. except for
vehicles designed to use the 85%?

I would still like to see a valid study showing that ethanol is a valid
alternative to gasoline. There are knowledgeable individuals that state
that it takes more energy to produce it than we get out. Therefore may
be nothing more than a subsidy to the farmers. Mostly I hear "political
babble" by people that know nothing of the subject.

Rich256 writes:

I would still like to see a valid study showing that ethanol is a valid
alternative to gasoline.

Ethanol is physically inferior and more costly than gasoline. The support
for it is political, and not just the farmers.

Some believe that we are better off making something ourselves than
importing something better and cheaper. This is why you hear all the
rhetoric about "dependency of foreign oil". By that logic, we are better
off burning domestic candles than importing sunlight:

http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
.. .
Ethanol is physically inferior and more costly than gasoline. The support
for it is political, and not just the farmers.

Some believe that we are better off making something ourselves than
importing something better and cheaper.

In the furniture business we hear a lot of that.

This is why you hear all the
rhetoric about "dependency of foreign oil". By that logic, we are better
off burning domestic candles than importing sunlight:

Bad comparison, because sunlight is also free of global political
complications.

S

On Tue, 09 May 2006 23:52:17 -0500, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Rich256 writes:

I would still like to see a valid study showing that ethanol is a valid
alternative to gasoline.

It seems to work in Brazil. Isn't that a valid enough study? They
sell more ethanol than gasoline, and 70% of the cars sold last year
will run on 100^ gasoline or 100% ethanol or anything in between.
(Mrsgator probably knows that they they make it from sugar cane. If
our cars burned ethanol also, maybe we could import that from Brazil
or somewhere else, or we could import the sugar cane, or we could load
the ship with mash and let it ferment on the way to the US.)

Ethanol is physically inferior and more costly than gasoline.

Prices change. Gas is 3 dollars a gallon now. How much will it be 2
years, 10 years from now, after China and India want to buy even more.
And they aren't going to be the last countries that expand their
demand. How much will it be after some oil fields dry up?

The support
for it is political, and not just the farmers.

Some believe that we are better off making something ourselves than
importing something better and cheaper.

Prices change.

This is why you hear all the
rhetoric about "dependency of foreign oil".

We're not dependent on it?

By that logic, we are better
off burning domestic candles than importing sunlight:

How does one import sunlight? Furthermore, unless we want shorter
nights, we have enough sunlight already.

http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

I think instead of imagining this is all politics, we should take note
of the fact that support our prejudices and the ones that contradict
them.

mm wrote:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 23:52:17 -0500, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Rich256 writes:

I would still like to see a valid study showing that ethanol is a valid
alternative to gasoline.

It seems to work in Brazil. Isn't that a valid enough study?

It's a hell of a lot easier to implement a nationwide shift to an
alternative fuel when you only have a GDP of of $1.6 trillion compared
to $12.41 trillion for the US, and 1.61 million bbl of oil per day
consumption vs. 20 million bbl of oil per day.

Their road structure is a joke compare to the US as well
Brazil:
paved: 94,871 km

US:
paved: 4,164,964 km (including 74,950 km of expressways)

So every comparison just isn't valid.

source: World Factbook
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/us.html

On 10 May 2006 06:01:52 -0700, "Larry Bud"
wrote:


mm wrote:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 23:52:17 -0500, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Rich256 writes:

I would still like to see a valid study showing that ethanol is a valid
alternative to gasoline.

It seems to work in Brazil. Isn't that a valid enough study?

It's a hell of a lot easier to implement a nationwide shift to an

Of course there are diffreenceces and I'm not even saying that we
could use the same percentage of ethanol, at least not any time soon,
but I was addressing Richards request for a valid study that ethanol
was a valid alternative. That statement alone, and certainly when
combined with my original post seemed to mean he wasn't sure cars
would run on ethanol, and without doing a lot of damage to engines.

Richard, if you meant something different, please let me know.


alternative fuel when you only have a GDP of of $1.6 trillion compared
to $12.41 trillion for the US, and 1.61 million bbl of oil per day
consumption vs. 20 million bbl of oil per day.

Their road structure is a joke compare to the US as well
Brazil:
paved: 94,871 km

US:
paved: 4,164,964 km (including 74,950 km of expressways)

So every comparison just isn't valid.

I don't see how this means this comparison isn't valid. It just means
it has to be understood, including other factors.

source: World Factbook
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/us.html

Larry Bud wrote:
mm wrote:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 23:52:17 -0500, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Rich256 writes:

I would still like to see a valid study showing that ethanol is a valid
alternative to gasoline.

It seems to work in Brazil. Isn't that a valid enough study?

It's a hell of a lot easier to implement a nationwide shift to an
alternative fuel when you only have a GDP of of $1.6 trillion compared
to $12.41 trillion for the US, and 1.61 million bbl of oil per day
consumption vs. 20 million bbl of oil per day.

Their road structure is a joke compare to the US as well
Brazil:
paved: 94,871 km

US:
paved: 4,164,964 km (including 74,950 km of expressways)

So every comparison just isn't valid.

source: World Factbook
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/us.html

I imagine the sugar cane industry owns Brazil the same way the corn
industry owns the US; but it's probably a lot easier/cheaper/less
energy intensive to grow things where it's hot so much of the year. And
maybe the net energy balance for sugar cane to ethanol is better than
corn to ethanol? More fermentable sugar from x lbs. of sugar cane plant
than from x lbs of corn plant? I know you can just chop off a random
hunk of sugar cane and chew on it to get sugar, and that sure doesn't
work with a corn stalk.

Talk to someone who's invested in a fuel ethanol plant. Ask them what kind
of profits the plant is generating. Even if you tax the fuel ethanol the
same as you tax gasoline, it can be produced at a considerably lower cost
than gasoline can be produced and marketed from $50 crude, let alone $70
crude.

Brazil will have a hard time making inroads into the fuel ethanol markets in
the interior parts of the U.S. because of transportation costs. They can
have an impact near the costal areas. Most of the fuel ethanol in the U.S.
is produced in the Midwest, the corn belt. The further you have to
transport from the Midwest, the less competitive it becomes. California,
for example, imports a lot of fuel ethanol at relatively high cost,
primarily because of the environmental benefits of mixing it with gasoline
and the fact that they don't have the right crops to produce it themselves.

The oil companies do not favor fuel ethanol (or any other bio-fuel, for that
matter). I wonder why, although I suspect I already know the answer. The
oil industry has been consolidating for a number of years. They've managed
to reduce the number of refineries to the point that they just have enough
refinery capacity to meet current demand (note what happened to gasoline
prices when Katrina took refinery capacity off line). Any large scale fuel
ethanol production will upset their delicate balance and bring more
competition to the oil industry. Obviously, not something they want to see,
considering the amounts of profits they are enjoying under the current
conditions.

For now, corn is the most feasible material to use for fuel ethanol
production in this country. And, by the way, the corn is not lost as an
animal feed just because it's been used to produce fuel ethanol. The
primary byproduct of a fuel ethanol plant is a dried distillers grain, which
is a high protein animal feed. A lot of work is being done to develop
processes to economically produce fuel ethanol from biomass/cellulose, i.e.,
sawdust and such. If that happens (and it will eventually), watch what fuel
ethanol does. Coal fired fuel ethanol plants that meet all environmental
requirements are being built today. If crude prices stay above $35 dollars
a barrel, the fuel ethanol plants will do fine. We need to let the
marketplace decide if fuel ethanol is feasible.

Harry


"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
.. .
Rich256 writes:

I would still like to see a valid study showing that ethanol is a valid
alternative to gasoline.

Ethanol is physically inferior and more costly than gasoline. The support
for it is political, and not just the farmers.

Some believe that we are better off making something ourselves than
importing something better and cheaper. This is why you hear all the
rhetoric about "dependency of foreign oil". By that logic, we are better
off burning domestic candles than importing sunlight:

http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

HarryS wrote:
Talk to someone who's invested in a fuel ethanol plant. Ask them what kind
of profits the plant is generating. Even if you tax the fuel ethanol the
same as you tax gasoline, it can be produced at a considerably lower cost
than gasoline can be produced and marketed from $50 crude, let alone $70
crude.

Brazil will have a hard time making inroads into the fuel ethanol markets in
the interior parts of the U.S. because of transportation costs. They can
have an impact near the costal areas. Most of the fuel ethanol in the U.S.
is produced in the Midwest, the corn belt. The further you have to
transport from the Midwest, the less competitive it becomes. California,
for example, imports a lot of fuel ethanol at relatively high cost,
primarily because of the environmental benefits of mixing it with gasoline
and the fact that they don't have the right crops to produce it themselves.

The oil companies do not favor fuel ethanol (or any other bio-fuel, for that
matter). I wonder why, although I suspect I already know the answer. The
oil industry has been consolidating for a number of years. They've managed
to reduce the number of refineries to the point that they just have enough
refinery capacity to meet current demand (note what happened to gasoline
prices when Katrina took refinery capacity off line). Any large scale fuel
ethanol production will upset their delicate balance and bring more
competition to the oil industry. Obviously, not something they want to see,
considering the amounts of profits they are enjoying under the current
conditions.

For now, corn is the most feasible material to use for fuel ethanol
production in this country. And, by the way, the corn is not lost as an
animal feed just because it's been used to produce fuel ethanol. The
primary byproduct of a fuel ethanol plant is a dried distillers grain, which
is a high protein animal feed. A lot of work is being done to develop
processes to economically produce fuel ethanol from biomass/cellulose, i.e.,
sawdust and such. If that happens (and it will eventually), watch what fuel
ethanol does. Coal fired fuel ethanol plants that meet all environmental
requirements are being built today. If crude prices stay above $35 dollars
a barrel, the fuel ethanol plants will do fine. We need to let the
marketplace decide if fuel ethanol is feasible.

Harry


Agree. However, I would like to see a current valid study that shows
that ethanol can be produced for those low prices. So many that I see
are quite old and it seems to me that most are just reporters making
guesses. Since ethanol must be shipped by rail it presently becomes
very expensive in many parts of the country.


http://zfacts.com/p/60.html

HarryS writes:

Even if you tax the fuel ethanol the
same as you tax gasoline, it can be produced at a considerably lower
cost than gasoline can be produced and marketed from $50 crude, let
alone $70 crude.

Bunk.

Photosynthesis is inherently weak and wasteful.

Ethanol is a technically inferior fuel.

The justification is more or less, "we may lose money on every gallon, but
we'll make it up on volume".

On 11-May-2006, Richard J Kinch wrote:

Photosynthesis is inherently weak and wasteful.

And yet it produced a heck of a lot of oil.

Mike

Richard J Kinch wrote in
:

HarryS writes:

Even if you tax the fuel ethanol the
same as you tax gasoline, it can be produced at a considerably lower
cost than gasoline can be produced and marketed from $50 crude, let
alone $70 crude.

Bunk.

Photosynthesis is inherently weak and wasteful.

Ethanol is a technically inferior fuel.

The justification is more or less, "we may lose money on every gallon,
but we'll make it up on volume".


And if we'd drill in ANWR and the Gulf for oil,and process oil-shale,it
would not be $50 a bbl.
OPEC would have to lower their price because of supply and demand
changes,and we would not be paying adversaries(hostiles) large sums of
money.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
.. .
HarryS writes:

Even if you tax the fuel ethanol the
same as you tax gasoline, it can be produced at a considerably lower
cost than gasoline can be produced and marketed from $50 crude, let
alone $70 crude.

Bunk.

Photosynthesis is inherently weak and wasteful.

Ethanol is a technically inferior fuel.

The justification is more or less, "we may lose money on every gallon, but
we'll make it up on volume".

When compared to gasoline, you won't get an argument that ethanol can't give
you the energy output that gasoline can. But, it does have sufficient
energy output to drive a vehicle and, when added in amounts around 10%,
ethanol has beneficial environmental effects and the mix is not as energy
inefficient as pure ethanol because of the improved burning of the gasoline
portion of the mix.

Nature, left to it's own devices, came up with a fantastic process to
capture energy from the sunlight. We've been deriving benefits from that
process for years as we pump crude oil from the ground, crude oil that the
photosynthetic process enabled natural earth processes to store away.
Eventually, that storehouse will be depleted. Can we replace it with some
renewable fuel source? We'd better be able to. Will it be fuel ethanol
derived from grain? Definitely not completely. Could it be fuel ethanol
derived from cellulosic materials? Yes, if that process is sufficiently
perfected. More likely, it will be replaced by a mix of technologies.

There's a lot of concern that the use of corn for manufacturing fuel ethanol
primarily benefits the corn producer. I think that the folks who voice this
concern miss that fact that every form of energy that we use benefits some
more that others, i.e., OPEC, the crude producers, drilling equipment
manufacturers and the people who drill wells, oil companies, coal producers,
natural gas suppliers, electricity producers, and on and on.

You can bet that the fuel ethanol plants currently operating aren't losing
money. Those on the drawing boards, and there are a considerable number
planned, will never be built if it looks like they'll lose money.

Again, let the marketplace decide if it's weak and wasteful. The
marketplace in this country is very efficient at ferreting out inefficient
processes.

Harry

"Rich256" wrote in message
...
I would still like to see a valid study showing that ethanol is a valid
alternative to gasoline. There are knowledgeable individuals that state
that it takes more energy to produce it than we get out. Therefore may be
nothing more than a subsidy to the farmers. Mostly I hear "political
babble" by people that know nothing of the subject.

It is a valid alternative to gasoline. We can grow it, so it won't ever run
out. It can be produced here start to finish, so we don't have to depend on
the whims of unstable countries that don't like us. Really, gasoline
doesn't come from the ground either. Did you know that Iran actually
IMPORTS gasoline? Gasoline also has to be made from raw material (crude
oil.)

The politics are really more about what crop gets to be turned into ethanol.
Sugar cane is a better source than corn, etc.

S

mrsgator88 wrote:
"Rich256" wrote in message
...
I would still like to see a valid study showing that ethanol is a valid
alternative to gasoline. There are knowledgeable individuals that state
that it takes more energy to produce it than we get out. Therefore may be
nothing more than a subsidy to the farmers. Mostly I hear "political
babble" by people that know nothing of the subject.

It is a valid alternative to gasoline. We can grow it, so it won't ever run
out. It can be produced here start to finish, so we don't have to depend on
the whims of unstable countries that don't like us. Really, gasoline
doesn't come from the ground either. Did you know that Iran actually
IMPORTS gasoline? Gasoline also has to be made from raw material (crude
oil.)

The politics are really more about what crop gets to be turned into ethanol.
Sugar cane is a better source than corn, etc.

S



The real question with ethanol is whether it's cost effective. I agree
with Rich, all I ever hear on the news is more political rant, rather
than true facts. For example, 60 mins did a story about a town in Iowa
that built a corn to ethanol plant. They went on about how successful
it was, the farmers are getting more money, etc. What I'd like to see
is the total economics picture of what it costs, start to finish,
including govt subsidies, taxes, etc. Then you could do a reasonable
comparison. As I recall, the only study that I saw that appeared to be
relatively complete showed that ethanol came in at $3-4 a gallon.

Then, there are other issues. Some of the same people who herald
ethanol as a miracle fuel, also run around complaining about
environmental issues. Well, growing lots more corn takes lots more
land, fertilizer that produces run off, etc. So it;s not free from
it's own issues either.

wrote in message
The real question with ethanol is whether it's cost effective. I agree
with Rich, all I ever hear on the news is more political rant, rather
than true facts. For example, 60 mins did a story about a town in Iowa
that built a corn to ethanol plant. They went on about how successful
it was, the farmers are getting more money, etc. What I'd like to see
is the total economics picture of what it costs, start to finish,
including govt subsidies, taxes, etc. Then you could do a reasonable
comparison. As I recall, the only study that I saw that appeared to be
relatively complete showed that ethanol came in at $3-4 a gallon.

Then, there are other issues. Some of the same people who herald
ethanol as a miracle fuel, also run around complaining about
environmental issues. Well, growing lots more corn takes lots more
land, fertilizer that produces run off, etc. So it;s not free from
it's own issues either.


Corn is not the best source of ethanol from what I've read.

Bob

On 10 May 2006 04:15:39 -0700, wrote:




The real question with ethanol is whether it's cost effective. I agree
with Rich, all I ever hear on the news is more political rant, rather
than true facts. For example, 60 mins did a story about a town in Iowa

I wouldn't trust anything 60 Minutes said unless I also heard it from
a reliable source. It's a trash show afaic and it frightens me that
so many people who could make money elsewhere are willing to work for
it. Details omitted unless someone asks.


that built a corn to ethanol plant. They went on about how successful
it was, the farmers are getting more money, etc. What I'd like to see
is the total economics picture of what it costs, start to finish,
including govt subsidies, taxes, etc. Then you could do a reasonable
comparison. As I recall, the only study that I saw that appeared to be
relatively complete showed that ethanol came in at $3-4 a gallon.

Then, there are other issues. Some of the same people who herald
ethanol as a miracle fuel, also run around complaining about
environmental issues. Well, growing lots more corn takes lots more
land, fertilizer that produces run off, etc. So it;s not free from
it's own issues either.

mm wrote:
On 10 May 2006 04:15:39 -0700, wrote:



The real question with ethanol is whether it's cost effective. I agree
with Rich, all I ever hear on the news is more political rant, rather
than true facts. For example, 60 mins did a story about a town in Iowa


I wouldn't trust anything 60 Minutes said unless I also heard it from
a reliable source. It's a trash show afaic and it frightens me that
so many people who could make money elsewhere are willing to work for
it. Details omitted unless someone asks.



Well to each of us, we have varying opinions on 60 Minutes.

Folks over 50 place a GREAT deal of trust in most things that are shown
on 60 Minutes as they have shown themselves to be EXTREMELY reliable in
what they say over the decades that they have been on TV. No, they are
not infallible, and they do have bias that shows from time to time in
their reporting. However, among news folk, they represent very nearly
the BEST available.

That said, Politicians and News People share many common
characteristics. They BOTH love making mountains out of molehills and
they will both do almost anything to gain public attention.

This previous statement is as bad as the Illegal Immigrant discussion,
we paint all illegal immigrants with the same paint brush, we paint all
politicians with the same paint brush and we paint TV news people all
with the same brush.

No not all illegals have done anything wrong OTHER than cross the border
illegally, no not ALL politicians are immoral, corrupt money and
attention grabbing idiots, and not all news people will do ANYTHING
possible to INVENT a news story when there is none.


that built a corn to ethanol plant. They went on about how successful
it was, the farmers are getting more money, etc. What I'd like to see
is the total economics picture of what it costs, start to finish,
including govt subsidies, taxes, etc. Then you could do a reasonable
comparison. As I recall, the only study that I saw that appeared to be
relatively complete showed that ethanol came in at $3-4 a gallon.

Then, there are other issues. Some of the same people who herald
ethanol as a miracle fuel, also run around complaining about
environmental issues. Well, growing lots more corn takes lots more
land, fertilizer that produces run off, etc. So it;s not free from
it's own issues either.

Rich256 wrote:
mm wrote:
Someone in a country other than the USA has done a study of the
effects of 20% ethanol/80% gasoline on engines by running a weedwacker
and an outboard motor on such a mixture.

He reports:
"The study of ethanol's impact on engines found the 10 per cent blend
caused no substantial changes, except slight swelling and blistering
on the carburettor and an increase in carbon deposits on pistons.

But when the fuel contained 20 per cent ethanol, substantial problems
were encountered. The outboard engine stalled on occasions, exhaust
gas temperature increased by a significant margin and in some cases
there was extensive corrosion of engine parts."

Could someone list all the reasons this is not a good test. (I suspect
you'll all think of some of the same things, so maybe look at previous
answers before answering.)

Any reasons it is a good test are also appreciated.

Why do you ask? Isn't 10% is the mixture used in the U.S. except for
vehicles designed to use the 85%?

I would still like to see a valid study showing that ethanol is a valid
alternative to gasoline. There are knowledgeable individuals that state
that it takes more energy to produce it than we get out. Therefore may
be nothing more than a subsidy to the farmers. Mostly I hear "political
babble" by people that know nothing of the subject.

Ethanol production from corn barely breaks even on energy balance,
provided you squeeze every bit of energy out of the entire process.
Burn the waste stalks, roots, etc. and capture that heat; capture the
heat from distillation rather than let it waste; etc. etc. The reason
being that modern agricultural is so hugely dependent on ammonium
nitrate fertilizer, and ammonium nitrate fertilizer is made by
consuming huge amounts of energy. Without that, you couldn't get 10% of
the yield of corn you do now. Sugar to ethanol production seems to be
more efficient, at least in big sugar cane producing countries, I don't
know if it would work in the US; Brazil had been pushing to sell cheap
ethanol fuel to the US for years but was prevented by tariffs, etc.;
but now they have hit a point where they can no longer produce enough
for their own needs.

Ethanol as a fuel works pretty well, with a few problems; as you note,
materials have to be ensured to be ethanol resistant, which is not
always the case with gasoline engines. Also, ethanol can carry a lot of
water along with it, so corrosion can be a problem unless specifically
designed to withstand it. Ethanol has 1/2 the energy content of
gasoline, so you get only 1/2 the mpg, and carburetors, injectors, etc.
have to be designed to flow twice the fuel. Since you can't tailor the
vapor pressure of ethanol the way you can with gasoline, which is a
mixture of various volatilities, starting with ethanol fuel on a cold
day is basically impossible; you need to either heat the engine or use
some start of starting fluid until the engine has heated itself. Also,
if you've stood around ethanol burning race cars, the exhaust is
frigging awful, it makes your eyes water. I think it's formaldehyde in
the exhaust, but I may be wrong. However, I assume catalytic converters
might fix that?

On the up side, ethanol has a high octane rating and will allow high
compression, and also burns very cool so that high performance can be
achieved without risk of destroying the engine. Both reasons why it is
so popular in some race series, even though it only delivers half the
energy.

"z" wrote in message

Ethanol production from corn barely breaks even on energy balance,
provided you squeeze every bit of energy out of the entire process.
Burn the waste stalks, roots, etc. and capture that heat; capture the
heat from distillation rather than let it waste; etc. etc. The reason
being that modern agricultural is so hugely dependent on ammonium
nitrate fertilizer, and ammonium nitrate fertilizer is made by
consuming huge amounts of energy. Without that, you couldn't get 10% of
the yield of corn you do now.

The organic farming enthusiasts might disagree with this statement.

Bob

Rich256 wrote:

mm wrote:

Someone in a country other than the USA has done a study of the
effects of 20% ethanol/80% gasoline on engines by running a weedwacker
and an outboard motor on such a mixture....
Why do you ask? Isn't 10% is the mixture used in the U.S. except for
vehicles designed to use the 85%?

I would still like to see a valid study showing that ethanol is a valid
alternative to gasoline. There are knowledgeable individuals that state
that it takes more energy to produce it than we get out.

It seems most estimates come in the range of it taking 3/4 to 1.25
(sometimes up to 3)gallons of gas or diesel to produce a gallon of
ethanol, & the most favorable studies show it a wash AT BEST.

THEN you have to figure in the lower energy of ethanol on top of that...
a 28 mpg(on gas - highway) Taurus(Taurus FFV - the ones with the little
green leaf front fender badges) becomes something like 20 mpg on E85(15%
gas, 85% ethanol).

It's been a while since I've done it, but you can do a web search for
"E85 Taurus" to get some of the empirical data from these tests.

Rob

For many weedwackers, the test makes sense. If they run 90% gas and
105 ethanol, they've left out the oil. What's the mix, 1:32? If so,
you should have about 3% oil. Shouldn't the mix be 9.7% eth, 3.1% oil
and 87.2% gas?

Am I being too literal (and cynical) here?

Never underestimate the ability to make a study say what you want.

On 9 May 2006 20:02:23 -0700, "Pat"
wrote:

For many weedwackers, the test makes sense. If they run 90% gas and
105 ethanol, they've left out the oil. What's the mix, 1:32? If so,
you should have about 3% oil. Shouldn't the mix be 9.7% eth, 3.1% oil
and 87.2% gas?

Am I being too literal (and cynical) here?

I figured they still used the oil. I didn't think ethanol would
function as a replacemnt for that.

But the article doesn't say, which counts imo as one of the things
wrong with the "study".


Never underestimate the ability to make a study say what you want.

Our OIL driven economy is being held hostage to the middle eastern
dictators.

terrorists dont like us because we meddle there

So I say build the plants and convert the cars as fast as possible, and
let them drown in their own oil....

growing corn or vegetable waste for conversion into ethanol might help
reduce global warming, as the plants clean the air.

Ih yeah make all ethanol TOTALLY TAX FREE FOR 10 YEARS TO ENCOURAGE THE
CONVERSION!

just this alone will save about 50 cents a gallon on the pump price

mm wrote:
Someone in a country other than the USA has done a study of the
effects of 20% ethanol/80% gasoline on engines by running a weedwacker
and an outboard motor on such a mixture.

He reports:
"The study of ethanol's impact on engines found the 10 per cent blend
caused no substantial changes, except slight swelling and blistering
on the carburettor and an increase in carbon deposits on pistons.

But when the fuel contained 20 per cent ethanol, substantial problems
were encountered. The outboard engine stalled on occasions, exhaust
gas temperature increased by a significant margin and in some cases
there was extensive corrosion of engine parts."

Could someone list all the reasons this is not a good test.

But it is a good test. It is a good test of what happens to certain
weedwackers and outboard motors. That is all that it covers. If you want to
know what happens in an automotive engine, you have to test it in that
engine. There are a lot of differences.


(I suspect
you'll all think of some of the same things, so maybe look at previous
answers before answering.)

Any reasons it is a good test are also appreciated.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

i find alot of chainsaws and weedwackers wont restart when hot
because the ethenol/gas boils and wont pump... let em cool and they
start and run fine. lucas

http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm

I wonder if the OP (mm) expected all this when he asked his question :-)

Harry

"mm" wrote in message
...
Someone in a country other than the USA has done a study of the
effects of 20% ethanol/80% gasoline on engines by running a weedwacker
and an outboard motor on such a mixture.

He reports:
"The study of ethanol's impact on engines found the 10 per cent blend
caused no substantial changes, except slight swelling and blistering
on the carburettor and an increase in carbon deposits on pistons.

But when the fuel contained 20 per cent ethanol, substantial problems
were encountered. The outboard engine stalled on occasions, exhaust
gas temperature increased by a significant margin and in some cases
there was extensive corrosion of engine parts."

Could someone list all the reasons this is not a good test. (I suspect
you'll all think of some of the same things, so maybe look at previous
answers before answering.)

Any reasons it is a good test are also appreciated.

On Thu, 11 May 2006 03:41:03 GMT, "HarryS"
wrote:

I wonder if the OP (mm) expected all this when he asked his question :-)

No, not really. In fact I got so far into the environment thing, I
forgot to read the answers to my original question, until now.

Harry

"mm" wrote in message
.. .
Someone in a country other than the USA has done a study of the
effects of 20% ethanol/80% gasoline on engines by running a weedwacker
and an outboard motor on such a mixture.

He reports:
"The study of ethanol's impact on engines found the 10 per cent blend
caused no substantial changes, except slight swelling and blistering
on the carburettor and an increase in carbon deposits on pistons.

But when the fuel contained 20 per cent ethanol, substantial problems
were encountered. The outboard engine stalled on occasions, exhaust
gas temperature increased by a significant margin and in some cases
there was extensive corrosion of engine parts."

Could someone list all the reasons this is not a good test. (I suspect
you'll all think of some of the same things, so maybe look at previous
answers before answering.)

Any reasons it is a good test are also appreciated.

mm wrote:
Someone in a country other than the USA has done a study of the
effects of 20% ethanol/80% gasoline on engines by running a weedwacker
and an outboard motor on such a mixture.

He reports:
"The study of ethanol's impact on engines found the 10 per cent blend
caused no substantial changes, except slight swelling and blistering
on the carburettor and an increase in carbon deposits on pistons.

But when the fuel contained 20 per cent ethanol, substantial problems
were encountered. The outboard engine stalled on occasions, exhaust
gas temperature increased by a significant margin and in some cases
there was extensive corrosion of engine parts."

Could someone list all the reasons this is not a good test. (I suspect
you'll all think of some of the same things, so maybe look at previous
answers before answering.)

Any reasons it is a good test are also appreciated.
Hi,
I don't know about small engines but in Brazil they sell dual fuel
vehicles which can run on either fuel blend. Brazil is self-suffcient
on fuel producing lots of ethanol. U.S. could do it too. and why not?.

On 11-May-2006, Tony Hwang wrote:

Brazil is self-suffcient
on fuel producing lots of ethanol. U.S. could do it too. and why not?.

A lot of people are mentioning Brazil as if it was some kind of ideal example.
That is certainly not the case. They did not convert to ethanol for environmental
reasons - they did it to control their balance of payments and trade deficits. It
wasn't necessarily cheaper and a lot of Brazilian drivers hated the ethanol fueled
cars. It took a while before the were able to get cars that ran well on ethanol.
Now that the technology has settled down, Brazilian drivers still resent the ethanol
fuels (sort of like North American drivers that are still cranky about pollution control
equipment on their cars - there's no problem with it, just a perception based on the
relatively poor performance of the first pollution controlled cars in the '70s.)

Brazil's ethanol industry is based on sugar cane, which is not a good source. It
was relatively plentiful and they couldn't get as much money exporting sugar as
converting it to fuel. The US, for examples, blocked sugar imports with trade
restrictions and a propped-up US price to support US sugar businesses - like
sugar beet.

Ethanol has to be based on a marginal crop that can grow without intense
farming techniques. Otherwise, it will cost more energy to make than to use.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
On 11-May-2006, Tony Hwang wrote:

Brazil is self-suffcient
on fuel producing lots of ethanol. U.S. could do it too. and why not?.

A lot of people are mentioning Brazil as if it was some kind of ideal example.
That is certainly not the case. They did not convert to ethanol for environmental
reasons - they did it to control their balance of payments and trade deficits. It
wasn't necessarily cheaper and a lot of Brazilian drivers hated the ethanol fueled
cars. It took a while before the were able to get cars that ran well on ethanol.
Now that the technology has settled down, Brazilian drivers still resent the ethanol
fuels (sort of like North American drivers that are still cranky about pollution control
equipment on their cars - there's no problem with it, just a perception based on the
relatively poor performance of the first pollution controlled cars in the '70s.)

Brazil's ethanol industry is based on sugar cane, which is not a good source. It
was relatively plentiful and they couldn't get as much money exporting sugar as
converting it to fuel. The US, for examples, blocked sugar imports with trade
restrictions and a propped-up US price to support US sugar businesses - like
sugar beet.

Ethanol has to be based on a marginal crop that can grow without intense
farming techniques. Otherwise, it will cost more energy to make than to use.

Mike


All good points Mike. This is another example of how only a part of
the story gets told and how people go off half cocked. Another key
point to the Brazil story is they didn't just use Ethanol to become
energy independent. Last week there was a picture of the President of
Brazil on an offshore oil well, turning the valve on, bringing it
online.

Yet, if you talk about drilling off shore in most areas of the US, the
environmental extremists all come running around telling you it
shouldn't be done. Then they point to the wonders of Brazil as an
example of how to achieve energy independence, hoping nobody will
notice the truth.

The reality is we should be pursuing multiple solutions. Opening up
more areas to drilling *(ANWAR, offshore, etc), building nukes, ethanol
provided it's cost effective, wind, more research on solar, more
conservation, etc. But anytime you try to do almost any one of these,
some nuts show up to **** and moan and stop it.

On 11-May-2006, wrote:

The reality is we should be pursuing multiple solutions. Opening up
more areas to drilling *(ANWAR, offshore, etc), building nukes, ethanol
provided it's cost effective, wind, more research on solar, more
conservation, etc.

A multiple front attack on the problem is inevitable. There is no silver
bullet, but a lot of smaller changes have some hope of getting us a lot
closer to the solution.

But anytime you try to do almost any one of these,
some nuts show up to **** and moan and stop it.

And unfortunately, most people claim these ****ers and moaners are all
left-wing environmentalists, In fact, right-wing politicians in the back pockets
of special interest groups are just as much of a problem.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
On 11-May-2006, wrote:

The reality is we should be pursuing multiple solutions. Opening up
more areas to drilling *(ANWAR, offshore, etc), building nukes, ethanol
provided it's cost effective, wind, more research on solar, more
conservation, etc.

A multiple front attack on the problem is inevitable. There is no silver
bullet, but a lot of smaller changes have some hope of getting us a lot
closer to the solution.

But anytime you try to do almost any one of these,
some nuts show up to **** and moan and stop it.

And unfortunately, most people claim these ****ers and moaners are all
left-wing environmentalists, In fact, right-wing politicians in the back pockets
of special interest groups are just as much of a problem.

Mike


People claim that the environmental kooks are a problem becauce they
are totally unreasonable and opposed to almost everything. No offshore
drilling, no nukes, no drilling in ANWAR, no storage sites for nuke
waste, no builiding of dams. A classic case of the hypocracy is
Robert Kennedy Jr. Big environmentalist telling us all how we should
be changing our lives to help the environment, conserve resources and
how we should be adopting all these great clean renewable energy
sources.

But, he sees nothing wrong in personally owning several large SUVs,
more than one home and riding in private jets. Currently three is a
proposal to build a wind farm off Cape Cod. Who are two of the chief
opponents? Kennedy and fellow liberal Walter Cronkite. They know
what's good for all of us, they just won't have any part of it for
themselves.

You can say what you want about right wing Republicans being in the
back pockets of special interest groups, but in general, they are not
opposed to everything and do want to move ahead on finding more energy,
which we ultimately need. All the whacko environmentalists want to do
is obstruct everything, including windmills, while many of them like
Kennedy, consume resources with abandon.

wrote:

The reality is we should be pursuing multiple solutions. Opening up
more areas to drilling *(ANWAR, offshore, etc), building nukes, ethanol
provided it's cost effective, wind, more research on solar, more
conservation, etc.

As long as it doesn't involve a smaller car, or a smaller engine.

According to mm :
Someone in a country other than the USA has done a study of the
effects of 20% ethanol/80% gasoline on engines by running a weedwacker
and an outboard motor on such a mixture.

He reports:
"The study of ethanol's impact on engines found the 10 per cent blend
caused no substantial changes, except slight swelling and blistering
on the carburettor and an increase in carbon deposits on pistons.

But when the fuel contained 20 per cent ethanol, substantial problems
were encountered. The outboard engine stalled on occasions, exhaust
gas temperature increased by a significant margin and in some cases
there was extensive corrosion of engine parts."

Could someone list all the reasons this is not a good test. (I suspect
you'll all think of some of the same things, so maybe look at previous
answers before answering.)

Any reasons it is a good test are also appreciated.

Not having seen the report, I'd remark/ask questions on the following:

1) Comparing what are probably two-stroke with oil mixed in is not
a fair comparison with a 4 stroke car engine.

2) Where did he get his ethanol from? How much water did it have? This
is more likely to be the cause of blistering/corrosion than anything else.

3) Did he retune the engines properly for the different mixes? Increased
heating is more suggestive of bad tuning - ethanol should be cooler.

4) Comparing engines that have virtually _no_ consideration of ethanol
fuels in their design to engines that do isn't a reasonable test.

5) "Swelling of the carburettor?" A metal carb swelled? I don't think
so. Suggestive of plastic (especially nylon) carb parts. Nylon swells when
wet with water or alcohol. Engines designed for ethanol should not have
nylon in its fuel system.

Ethanol works just fine in engines provided that the engine designer has
taken a few things into account. For example, one of the things that
used to happen is clogged carbs after a car switched from gas to a
ethanol blend. You see, if there's water present, the ethanol will
pick it up. If the car had a paper fuel filter, the water would cause it
to disintegrate, and the paper sludge could plug things up.

If you had picked up gas from a tank that just switched to an ethanol
blend, there can be an enormous amount of water in it (I'm told that
these tanks can sometimes have several inches or more of water in the
bottom. Which is only a problem with straight-gas if the gas level
is very low and/or recently disturbed. Ethanol will simply suck
it all up.

They don't make fuel filters that way anymore.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

You CANT increase production of oil indefinely, it has a finite amount
in the earth, and will only cost more in the future.

Its best to move top something produced entirely in the US even if its
not a ideal fuel. At least this way we are in charge of our own
destiny.

Make ethanol gasoline tax free for 10 years to encourage conversion,
let the arabs drown in their own oil.