[OT - US/Canada] E-85

William Graham wrote:


Also, while pumping pure ethanol through a pipeline may be difficult, there
is no reason why pumping the sour mash before final distilling can't be done
via pipeline, and then do the final distilling locally......

The mash is pretty "pulpy" so I don't think that would work well.

This all ignores that pipes do not have to made of steel, plastic piping
of the right type will carry ethanol handilly.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:


Also, while pumping pure ethanol through a pipeline may be difficult,
there is no reason why pumping the sour mash before final distilling
can't be done via pipeline, and then do the final distilling
locally......

The mash is pretty "pulpy" so I don't think that would work well.

This all ignores that pipes do not have to made of steel, plastic piping
of the right type will carry ethanol handilly.

Cheers,
Alan

Yes. But they can pump some pretty lumpy crap through pipelines.....My
father told me that they can even change substances....Like pump crude oil
for a while, and then switch to water....The water pushes the oil along, and
there is not much mix where the two meet....they use centrifugal pumps that
aren't damaged by sand and other crap in the liquid, too. It is by far and
away the cheapest method of transporting liquids over land. I used to have a
sump pump that could handle rocks the size of golf balls.....:^)

Brazil uses sugar cane, a crop that can't be grown in quantity in the US.

Rubbish, you have a corporation called Monsanto, they can engineer you a
version of sugar cane or corn or anything that can be grown
plentifully,cheaply, quickly and be resistant to hostile weather and insect
blight doesn't even need to be fit for human consumption if crops are
dedicated for Ethanol fuel output only, the technology already exists, it's
vested interests that prevent the realisation of ground breaking
advancements, if the money and political interest is there literally
anything can be accomplished.

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 May 2006 10:07:02 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Again, insufficient capacity likely to be available in the forseeable
future.

See Illinois, Minnesota, Brazil, etc.

Brazil uses sugar cane, a crop that can't be grown in quantity in the
US.
They tried corn, but it doesn't work nearly as well as sugar cane.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Joseph Kewfi" wrote in message
...
Brazil uses sugar cane, a crop that can't be grown in quantity in the US.

Rubbish, you have a corporation called Monsanto, they can engineer you a
version of sugar cane or corn or anything that can be grown
plentifully,cheaply, quickly and be resistant to hostile weather and
insect
blight doesn't even need to be fit for human consumption if crops are
dedicated for Ethanol fuel output only, the technology already exists,
it's
vested interests that prevent the realisation of ground breaking
advancements, if the money and political interest is there literally
anything can be accomplished.


You can make ethanol out of almost anything....Probably even the
insects....:^)
Also, pure, drinkable ethanol has to be made rather carefully, so it doesn't
contain any methanol, which is poisonous, but ethanol for fuel doesn't have
that problem.....Cars will eat methanol just as well as the good stuff....

Alan Browne wrote in news:L8q7g.3714
:

Rusty Shakleford wrote:

"William Graham" wrote in news:sf-dne0Lgt-
:


Yes. Thousands of people do, especially in the Ozarks, and Great Smoky
mountains.....:^)



It is medicinal

That's only 80 - 120 proof. Fuel ethanol is 160 - 180 proof. Deadly.


Hmm, I don't know, I've seen some that eats right through a tin cup, makes
pretty good paint stripper in a pinch. Great for removing tree stumps. We
used to tell new guys to wait a bit afore they light that cigarette...
purely medicinal

To quote Jack Nicholson in Easy Rider,

"Nic nic nic...INDIANS!"

William Graham wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

William Graham wrote:



Also, while pumping pure ethanol through a pipeline may be
difficult, there is no reason why pumping the sour mash before
final distilling can't be done via pipeline, and then do the
final distilling locally......

The mash is pretty "pulpy" so I don't think that would work well.

This all ignores that pipes do not have to made of steel, plastic
piping of the right type will carry ethanol handilly.

Cheers, Alan


Yes. But they can pump some pretty lumpy crap through
pipelines.....My father told me that they can even change
substances....Like pump crude oil for a while, and then switch to
water....The water pushes the oil along, and there is not much mix
where the two meet....they use centrifugal pumps that aren't damaged
by sand and other crap in the liquid, too. It is by far and away the
cheapest method of transporting liquids over land. I used to have a
sump pump that could handle rocks the size of golf balls.....:^)

In an oil pipeline there are often several products in the "train"
separated by "waste" oil. Water is not used because it would tend to
settle under the oil. Oil and fractions are in a narrower band of
density so are less prone to it.

While mash might go through, in the "farmland" paradigm it's not the
best way to go.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

William Graham wrote:


You can make ethanol out of almost anything....Probably even the
insects....:^)
Also, pure, drinkable ethanol has to be made rather carefully, so it doesn't
contain any methanol, which is poisonous, but ethanol for fuel doesn't have
that problem.....Cars will eat methanol just as well as the good stuff....

When you fraction steam, ethanol and the rest, the "rest" ends up in the
runoff water at the bottom of the still. So the methanol can be
separated from the water and burnt in the mash heater.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Bill Funk wrote:

On 6 May 2006 11:46:42 -0700, "Rich" wrote:


It's so clean it scours the inside of the engine, causing drastically
increased part's wear.
Of for the days of tetraethyl lead.


Vehicles designed for E-85 use don't have this problem.
Why? Because they are designed for E-85.

You'd be much better off complaining about E-85's real problems.

Which are what?

On Sun, 07 May 2006 08:42:04 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

Why can't the oil companies get into the ethanol business?

Most of the oil company clout exists in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Unfortunately, those countries don't have massive corn, sugar cane,
or even potato acreage, and what little they have has a low yield.
But never fear. Middle Eastern alchemists are toiling mightily, and
may someday be able to get ethanol from silica and blood from a
stone.

But why can't they go into ethanol production in the US?
If, as I'm constantly told, Big Oil has Bush in their pocket, they
must have a lot of clout here, so why not do ethanol here?

My comment was mostly said tongue-in-cheek, but oil companies may
have problems if they try to go into ethanol production in a big
way. They'd first need the production of corn/cane sugar/etc. to
increase substantially or the increased demand would cause prices of
those foodstuffs to skyrocket. Do they wait for agribusiness to do
it slowly, possibly taking decades to be able to supply what the oil
companies would need, or do the oil companies speed the process by
buying lots of land and becoming farmers? They may also not want
to risk making the necessary capital commitments until a few years
have passed, because won't be able to oil the palms of many of their
traditional political allies if they are either out of office, or
worse, behind bars. They wouldn't be averse to brib..., uh,
contributing to Democratic campaigns, but probably wouldn't get as
much bang for the buck. Thus, it's unlikely we'll see major
movement towards ethanol production until a couple of years have
passed and the oil companies can better assess the new situation.

ASAAR wrote:
On Sun, 07 May 2006 08:42:04 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

Why can't the oil companies get into the ethanol business?
Most of the oil company clout exists in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Unfortunately, those countries don't have massive corn, sugar cane,
or even potato acreage, and what little they have has a low yield.
But never fear. Middle Eastern alchemists are toiling mightily, and
may someday be able to get ethanol from silica and blood from a
stone.
But why can't they go into ethanol production in the US?
If, as I'm constantly told, Big Oil has Bush in their pocket, they
must have a lot of clout here, so why not do ethanol here?

My comment was mostly said tongue-in-cheek, but oil companies may
have problems if they try to go into ethanol production in a big
way. They'd first need the production of corn/cane sugar/etc. to
increase substantially or the increased demand would cause prices of
those foodstuffs to skyrocket.

That's not the way large commodities markets work. First, oil companies
getting into ethanol production wouldn't want to own much farmland.
Second, the markets are so big that prices aren't going to jump just
because a few biggies say they are building plants.

US corn prices have been depressed for decades, as an aside.

Do they wait for agribusiness to do
it slowly, possibly taking decades to be able to supply what the oil
companies would need, or do the oil companies speed the process by
buying lots of land and becoming farmers? They may also not want
to risk making the necessary capital commitments until a few years
have passed, because won't be able to oil the palms of many of their
traditional political allies if they are either out of office, or
worse, behind bars. They wouldn't be averse to brib..., uh,
contributing to Democratic campaigns, but probably wouldn't get as
much bang for the buck. Thus, it's unlikely we'll see major
movement towards ethanol production until a couple of years have
passed and the oil companies can better assess the new situation.


I don't think so. Ethanol production is going to increase whether or not
big oil participates in the growing/production end. And I will be they
won't be interested in real estate in Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, etc.

--
John McWilliams