If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
For the North American audience 60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels, Sunday May 7 (19:00 EDT, CBS). I halfheartedly apologize for the OT posting, but you know how sensitive I am on this topic. E-85 is 85% ethanol. The vehicle must have a fuel mix sensor and controls. This is a growth trend area in North America which, while it doesn't reduce consumption, it at least displaces it with a renewable fuel that burns cleaner than gasoline. 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
It's so clean it scours the inside of the engine, causing drastically
increased part's wear. Of for the days of tetraethyl lead. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
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. "Repairs and reliability of the E-85 Luminas have been slightly better than their gasoline counterparts." http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/85__Et...__ethanol.html "Because E-85 ethanol fuel is a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline, it is expected that the life of an E-85 vehicle will be somewhat longer than a comparable gasoline vehicle." http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/85__Et...__ethanol.html I recognize that the site above may be biased. If you have a factual site regarding reliability or engine wear regarding E85, I'm very interested. 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
"Rich" wrote in
oups.com: Of for the days of tetraethyl lead. Actually lead was an octane booster that helped cool the valves and guides, and engines that were not built properly for low octane fuel had iron valve guides which burned out when gasahol and unleaded fuels were used (mostly chevrolets). After replaceing the guides (heads) and adjusting the timing properly, they were fine. At any rate, lead was an octane (polution) issue, not an alcohol (gas crunch)issue. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
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. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
On Sun, 07 May 2006 16:45:22 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: 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? Several... Higher cost; where E-85 is on the market, it costs more than gas. Higher cost; it's costlier than gas *WITH* more than 50¢ per gallon direct tax credit (meaning the makers of E-85 get more than 50¢ off their federal taxes for each gallon of ethanol they make, which is directly paid by taxpayers). Lower energy than gas (meaning: it costs more at the pump, and users get fewer MPG, for a cost double whammy). E-85 releases more fumes than gas, making for more pollution. The continental US can't raise sugar cane (which Brasil, often cited as an example the US should follow, uses), which is far more efficient than corn as a source for ethanol. The ratio of energy in/out for ethanol, under current technology, is about 1:1.25 *at best*; this means we gain little in actual energy efficiency. The current move to get away from oil for motor fuel is mostly fueled (pardon the pun) by a desire to cut energuy costs; E-85 does the opposite, something that is definitely not being told to the public. As well, it's seldom mentioned that E-85 requires an expensive vehicle conversion (or purchase of a new vehicle), further raising costs. While it's possible to push E-85 as a way to cut oil imports, it's *cost* that will hit the average buyer, and E-85 fails in the cost department. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
Bill Funk wrote:
The current move to get away from oil for motor fuel is mostly fueled (pardon the pun) by a desire to cut energuy costs; E-85 does the opposite, something that is definitely not being told to the public. As well, it's seldom mentioned that E-85 requires an expensive vehicle conversion (or purchase of a new vehicle), further raising costs. While it's possible to push E-85 as a way to cut oil imports, it's *cost* that will hit the average buyer, and E-85 fails in the cost department. Ah but are you calculating the costs of war? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
Bill Funk wrote:
On Sun, 07 May 2006 16:45:22 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: 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? Several... Higher cost; where E-85 is on the market, it costs more than gas. Higher cost; it's costlier than gas *WITH* more than 50¢ per gallon direct tax credit (meaning the makers of E-85 get more than 50¢ off their federal taxes for each gallon of ethanol they make, which is directly paid by taxpayers). Er, various sources show it as cheaper than gas. See my other post showing that gasoline gets at least 12 cents subsidy, but more like 96 (yes 96) cents subsidy if cost of defending the oil is accounted for. Lower energy than gas (meaning: it costs more at the pump, and users get fewer MPG, for a cost double whammy). Despite the lower efficiency, the net (with the lower price) is cheaper than gas. In Brazil this is clear (at the pump). Not sure what their subsidy is (if any). They have their own oil supplies offshore as well. E-85 releases more fumes than gas, making for more pollution. Which fumes? The corn grown absorbs more CO2 than ethanol generates. The continental US can't raise sugar cane (which Brasil, often cited as an example the US should follow, uses), which is far more efficient than corn as a source for ethanol. The ratio of energy in/out for ethanol, under current technology, is about 1:1.25 *at best*; this means we gain little in actual energy efficiency. Unlike gasoline ethanol is renewable. After three cycles you're at par, on the 4th cycle you're ahead of whatever oil can ever deliver. The ratio is 1:1.38 (BTW). The current move to get away from oil for motor fuel is mostly fueled (pardon the pun) by a desire to cut energuy costs; E-85 does the opposite, something that is definitely not being told to the public. As well, it's seldom mentioned that E-85 requires an expensive vehicle conversion (or purchase of a new vehicle), further raising costs. Nope: Ford, GM and Chrysler sell these at the same price as the non FFV vehicles. (In the beginning there was as much as $2000 difference; now most of the them are the same price at buy time). This was also mentioned on 60 minutes last night and on the doe site you can find which vehicles carry a premium and which do not. Most do not. Over 6 M vehicles delivered in the US so far from Ford, GM and Chrysler. While it's possible to push E-85 as a way to cut oil imports, it's *cost* that will hit the average buyer, and E-85 fails in the cost department. Wrong. At worst is close to par. And as production increased, economies of scale will continue to reduce the cost. Cheers, Alan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
The continental US can't raise sugar cane (which Brasil, often cited as an example the US should follow, uses), which is far more efficient than corn as a source for ethanol. Oh, so you have never been to Louisiana. Sugar Cane grows well here and in Mississippi and in Texas. That's only where I have seen it grown. Eric Miller |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|