A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[OT - US/Canada] E-85



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12  
Old May 7th 06, 11:36 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [OT - US/Canada] E-85

Alan Browne wrote in
:

For the North American audience
60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels,

Sunday May 7 (19:00 EDT, CBS).


We have a company doing a fesability study on a location here in
my town to manufature ethenol. I hope they do it, but sadly it is
on one of the last large tracts of undeveloped (natural) land in
the area.

Seems like there is always some type of give and take.
  #13  
Old May 7th 06, 11:45 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #15  
Old May 7th 06, 03:07 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [OT - US/Canada] E-85

Frank ess wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:


Is there any truth to the rumor that the pollution created and energy
used in the manufacture of E85 offsets the savings?



Nope.
http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/85__Et...__ethanol.html

Suggests a net 33% gain (and improving).



Way I heard it, there isn't sufficient production and infrastructure to
supply sufficient material to make a significant difference. The
liquid's nature is such that it isn't an appropriate subject for current
mass distribution methods: it must be _trucked_ to its destination.


Just like gasoline?

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


See Illinois, Minnesota, Brazil, etc.

Illinois alone has 106 stations that sell about 685,000,000 gallons
annually. That's one hell of a good start ... and that't that many
gallons of gasoline that weren't needed.

(A 42 Gal barrel of oil yields about 19.5 gallons of gasoline [depending
on many factors], so Illinois alone saves enough gasoline in one year to
equal 1.17 days of oil imports for the whole country (accounting for
ethanol being 2/3 as energy yielding per volume)).

Too bad. I really like the idea of fuel from renewable biomass. We've
just made the wrong investments for too long. Sad.


We'll be forced to make new ones. But your point does reflect a further
inefficiency: over nearly a century all of the gasoline infrastructure
has evolved, and we're going to waste all that by wasting its product
too fast. (Of course from the typical "5 year plan" perspective of oil
companies, the ROI is long recovered and they continue to depreciate
their major cap investments over 20 - 40 years, tax gravy).

A rough calculation of proven world reserves puts it at 40 years at
_todays_ rate of consumption. Of course consumption is increasing, so
that 40 years is wildly optimistic.

(World proven reserves= 1181 billion barrels; world rate of consumtion =
81 M bbl / day). But that rate is growing... and proven reserves
include undrilled reserves such as the ANWR.

40 years is an eyeblink. But it's not even that with consumption
increasing in the US (though not needed to), India and China. And India
and China have a _lot_ more people than the US.

If the rate of consumption increases by a mere 5% every year, then that
40 year reserve becomes a 15 year reserve... at best.

On the other hand, reducing consumption overall by a mere 2% could
extend the current supply to 50 years...

The "proven reserves" increase by a pittance every year, but even if it
could magically go up 10 fold, it would only improve the outlook by a
few decades due to increasing demand.

People want a magic wand to find oil. Won't happen. OTOH, oil you
don't use is oil that's available for another day.

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.
  #17  
Old May 7th 06, 03:10 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [OT - US/Canada] E-85

Rusty Shakleford wrote:

We have a company doing a fesability study on a location here in
my town to manufature ethenol. I hope they do it, but sadly it is
on one of the last large tracts of undeveloped (natural) land in
the area.

Seems like there is always some type of give and take.


I would bet there is another ideal location that hasn't been proposed.
How many acres are they talking about?

--
-- 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.
  #18  
Old May 7th 06, 03:28 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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"
  #19  
Old May 7th 06, 03:33 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [OT - US/Canada] E-85

On Sat, 06 May 2006 19:57:22 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Is there any truth to the rumor that the pollution created and energy
used in the manufacture of E85 offsets the savings?


Nope.
http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/85__Et...__ethanol.html

Suggests a net 33% gain (and improving).


But the "savings" aren't there, either.
Ethanol as a motor fuel costs more than gasoline. While this might not
be reflected at the pump in the case of E-85, that would only be true
because of (IIRC) over 50¢ direct tax credit per gallon produced
(which means the pump price reflects over 50¢ less than the actual
cost).
Since ethanol contains less energy per unit, mileage goes down, too.
So, it costs more per gallon, and returns lower MPG. No savings there.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
  #20  
Old May 7th 06, 03:35 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [OT - US/Canada] E-85

On Sat, 06 May 2006 20:41:25 -0400, Bill wrote:

I too like the idea of using ethanol, but the government will have to
step in or the oil companies with their massive resources will continue
to derail the use of ethanol.


Why can't the oil companies get into the ethanol business?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.