"Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Vendaval -> "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/26/2007 2:36:47 PM)

"Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush"
 
POSTED: 1:44 p.m. EDT, March 26, 2007

"Bush met with General Motors Corp. chairman and chief executive Rick Wagoner, Ford Motor Co. chief executive Alan Mulally and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group chief executive Tom LaSorda. They discussed Bush's support for flex-fuel vehicles and his administration's proposal to reduce gas consumption by 20 percent in 10 years.

The three auto executives reiterated their commitment to double their production of flexible fuel vehicles to about 2 million a year by 2010.

Automakers said they could make half of their cars and trucks capable of running on alternative fuels by 2012 if there is enough availability and distribution of E85, an ethanol blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/26/bush.automakers.ap/index.html




popeye1250 -> RE: "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/26/2007 3:17:26 PM)

Does that E-85 still produce as much horse power as gasoline?




KenDckey -> RE: "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/26/2007 3:56:32 PM)

Why not use fuel cells?   The byproduct is water (a greenhouse gas) but it does help when it falls out of the sky - sometimes.  If you mass produced them at the same rate as vehicles, then I really doubt they cost will remain as high as one is now.




Sanity -> RE: "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/26/2007 4:43:52 PM)

So instead of pumping cheap, plentiful oil from off the coast of California and Florida and from barren Arctic wilderness we simply divert food from the poor.

Brilliant.




ScooterTrash -> RE: "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/26/2007 6:12:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Does that E-85 still produce as much horse power as gasoline?
The blends they are offering I'm not certain of (like e-85), but pure alcohol fuel will in fact produce as much (or more) horsepower, but only with higher consumption. When I was drag racing, I ran Methanol...and granted, it made more horsepower and better elapsed times, but I used twice as much. At the time, Methanol was roughly $1.00 a gallon to around $3.00 for race fuel, so it made sense. I think that will be the key to acceptance by the general public, if you use more to do the same thing, it better be proportionally that much more economical, to get buy in. Another issue I don't see brought up is higher maintenance costs...with much more fuel being put into the combustion chamber, a larger proportion will seep past the piston rings, valve guides, etc. What I noticed with it when racing, was that the oil had to be changed much more often due to the dilution of the oil, by the fuel. Failure to do so, ruins the engine bearings.




TheHeretic -> RE: "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/26/2007 7:13:57 PM)

       Now let's see, ethanol is an alcohol fuel made from things like corn.  Now what might happen to the price of corn if we massively increase the demand for it as something other than food?

   http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/02/02/the-story-you-didnt-read-mexicos-tortilla-riots/


   The law of unintended consequences spoils so many nifty ideas.




UtopianRanger -> RE: "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/26/2007 9:15:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

      Now let's see, ethanol is an alcohol fuel made from things like corn.  Now what might happen to the price of corn if we massively increase the demand for it as something other than food?

  http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/02/02/the-story-you-didnt-read-mexicos-tortilla-riots/


  The law of unintended consequences spoils so many nifty ideas.



Amen. Personally.... I think the ''ethanol is answer'' is a complete scam being perpetrated by corporate farmers such as Arthur Daniels Midland.

Here is a great article that speaks to what's known as '' Bio fools '' lol

http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/youth_movement_files/articles_lym/2007/0302_bio_cons.shtml

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3319ethanol.html



- R




lockedaway -> RE: "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/26/2007 9:22:47 PM)

What fuels the process of deriving ethynol from corn?  Coal?  Oil?  As nice as it sounds to use a non-fossil fuel, you are still using a fossil fuel to create the non-fossil fuel.




Termyn8or -> RE: "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/26/2007 9:39:06 PM)

No, ethanol does not produce as much power.

This part is supposition, but I did my homework.
_______

Ethanol is not only capable of less power, it also has a problem with higher RPMs. Although modern engines being very oversquare, which means big bore short stroke, are designed for higher RPMs. You'd be surprised at how many newer engines have roller lifters these days, in the old days they were an expensive option, usually an addon.

In the early years they did alot of study about the "flamefront" of the burning mixture, and longer stroke engines were abandoned for the newer high revving short strokers. Gasoline was just fine, you get it in there and ignite it, the flamefront was never a problem with the short strokers.

Now ethanol burns a bit differently, when the piston inhibits it's flamefront, it's combustion slows down. This really sucks performance wise, and that is why some real gasoline is needed. Actually there is no reason a car won't run on 100 % ethanol, it just won't have all that good acceleration. It will run clean though.

The American public has a love for passing gear. To get the same results from the same size engine with pure ethanol, it would have to be supercharged and it would have to over-richen the mixture on hard acceleration. This is all fine and good, because the ethanol will burn clean, whether it does it in the cylinder or the catalytic.

Another reason for the mention of 15% real gas in the new fuel is to appease Bush of course. If he ain't an oil man I never did see one. Thing is, the stupid shits fight these alternative energy plans and don't even think about the big picture. But that is typical.

To illustrate I say this, even if gasoline became obsolete, it would only put a minor dent in the oil industry. Almost every piece of plastic in the world is made with petroleum. Gasoline is really only a small part of their revenue. If you are on a normal tile or linoleum floor, you are on a petroleum waste product, tar. Like the roof on your house. It's just that your floor tiles or linoleum are painted and of course, textured differently. Same substance though.

It all comes from petroleum, just like the keys upon which I type right now, and the cabinets for the monitor etc, all not possible without petroleum, or at least really hard to do.

Actually, ethanol could start to be used for home heating, see when they crack petroleum they can get so much of this and so much of that. And a different crude has different yield.

That is why Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Iraq has what is called light sweet crude, while Kuwait's oil was the heavier stuff. When the crude is heavier, you get more solids, more tar, more linoleum, when it is lighter you get more aromatics, low viscosity products like the base for gasoline, or heating oil.

Now they can futz with the gasoline vs heating oil ratio, which is real close. It is real similar to deisel fuel. Then there is naptha, they always need naptha, and I don't mean for our Zippo lighters. Thing is, when you get to the bottom of that barrel, throw the barrel out, but pouring in some light sweet crude will help.

When you crack petroleum you never know exactly what you'll get. Of course you start with the gases, acetelyne, propane etc., then comes the liquids. But you control the process, you heat it and have it under pressure, the right heat and pressure only one thing burns off, or evaporates off, then another, then another. Then you get to the liquids.

The very first liquid to burn off is the benzine base, the gasoline base. At one time they used to expel it, burn it out in the fields, because it had to be burned off before they could get the heating and lighting oil. Yes this was before electricity. People didn't want that stinky, dangerous gasoline in their house, so they paid for the oil to burn in lamps and sometimes stoves of dofferent sorts.The gasoline was free, they burned it off in the fields, or maybe just blew it off during the cracking process.

Gasoline was a waste product until Ransom Eli Olds came along, and found a way to use it in an internal combustion engine. There were plenty of steam driven cars at the time, but for one, they could not use the gasoline to heat the tanks because they couldn't control the burning in free air, and Olds also eliminated the need to get water. A steam engine requires water as well as fuel, but since Olds, the automobile is continent of water, oil, lubricant etc. All you need is gasoline ususally. Yes you must make sure the engine has coolant and oil, and all other fluids are up to level, but in everyday use, all you need is gasoline.

To get a more militaristic history of oil, google for Major General Smedly P. Butler. Before the demand got so great, he outlined how the oil companies have been manipulating this government, decades ago. He is long dead, but his writing lives on. He was a Major General and later in life tells of how he came to realize that he was not fighting for his country, but for Standard Oil. (SOHIO for some, BP now)

Check it out, but for now, I must go. Baath time, not the party, just the other pronounciation.

T




Real0ne -> RE: "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/26/2007 10:12:36 PM)

hydrogen please

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_analysis.html




Termyn8or -> RE: "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/26/2007 10:29:56 PM)

Back from baath, yes RO, hydrogen is great, but it is a bit too expensive to produce right now. It is, however about the cleanest source of energy to be found today, other than solar power.

Let's not even go there, solar pwer is about worth shit when it comes to cars, unless there is really something big going of which I am not aware.

T




PlayfulOne -> RE: "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/27/2007 3:32:52 AM)

Your right about that being supposition and you didn't do your homework well enough.

There have been several extended test done on flex fule vehicles with E85 recently.  One notable one using the New Chevy truck.  The only issue that has been brought up is the fact that the mileage is lower.  It actually cost more to run the flex fuel because of the decrease in mileage.




mnottertail -> RE: "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/27/2007 4:29:52 AM)

The captains of industry in the horseless carraiges, who can't build a car to save their life, and aren't able to find a way to make decent fuel efficiency inroads have hepped the deadhead to their wisdom--------jesus, the ignoble advising the ignorant.

If the entire North American Crop were put into  ethanol,  you would be able to blend about 2% of North Americas fuel needs  for  E85.

Hemp would be a good start, but not near enough either, but may be a very acceptable bridge.

Ron




stef -> RE: "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/27/2007 6:58:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

hydrogen please

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_analysis.html

Unfortunately, hydrogen is still nowhere near ready for prime time.  A viable fuel cell is still years, possibly decades, off.  There is no infrastructure for hydrogen distrobution and dispensation.  And the auto manufacturers are nowhere near ready to produce vehicles that will run on hydrogen that are efficient enough to make them usable.

~stef




Real0ne -> RE: "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/28/2007 3:37:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

hydrogen please

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_analysis.html

Unfortunately, hydrogen is still nowhere near ready for prime time.  A viable fuel cell is still years, possibly decades, off.  There is no infrastructure for hydrogen distrobution and dispensation.  And the auto manufacturers are nowhere near ready to produce vehicles that will run on hydrogen that are efficient enough to make them usable.

~stef


yes unfortunately.

There is little to no talk about conversions.  we can go on utube and see kids running their lawnmowers off of home brew unpressurized electrolysis systems.  Granted they are kids and dont have much of an investment but it looked to me like if the kid had a larger convertor he could have ran that engine indefinitely.   i can understand why they would want to go purely electric, but i am leaning toward the idea that best way to go is with a combustion engine and live uncompressed convertor.   it bothers me that i have been unable to find much data on this process but at the same time it makes sense because it would cut out the middle men or those who would supply compressed hydrogen.  Then again it may not be practical and i have just not stumbled across the right data yet, but until i see something that disproves it i will have my doubts that electric is "the" way to go.




Termyn8or -> RE: "Ethanol 'the answer,' auto execs tell Bush" (3/28/2007 3:47:58 AM)

If you burn more fuel to do the same work, it is because it has less output. The new truck might be able to give you a similar kick when you tromp the accelerator, but the ultimate maximum is less.

That is because instead of changing the carberator, the computer just increases injector duty cycle until the lambda sensor says that enough O2 is being used.

So if you get fuel for $2 a gallon that gets 15MPG vs fuel for $1 a gallon that gets 7.5 MPG what has that gotten you ?

Older cars can run on ethanol too, but performance may suffer because they might not have the fuel delivery capacity. But that is not the main problem. Older cars are made for gasoline, that means the all the seals and everything might eventually develop problems with ethanol use.

Another mentioned also that we are simply not producing enough ethanol to make a real dent in the problem. Wanna laugh and cry ? Can you see it now ? Fighting wars over arable land anstead of oil rich land. Of course the first thing they'll do is import it, Then some uppity other government will offer more money for the ethanol, and we'll be back where we started. That is how it works these days. They are very very careful to do absolutely nothing good for this country. You can't trust them even to give hamburgers to the homeless.

T




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875