Ethanol

"clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada" wrote in message
news:f0qb34h0lpnlftfcei0c9i44qjoa5cp3c9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <ben.TakeThisOut@greenba.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On May 22, 3:56 pm, "Aage M Hollander" <h....TakeThisOut@localnet.com> wrote:
>>> My 1999 Sub legacy St.Wgn(4 cyl,Not an Outback),allows use of 10%
>>> Ethanol by
>>> the book.Allstations here have 15% ethanol,could I use this ??
>>
>>I don't know why the car manuals say that. Brazilian cars all use
>>ethanol up to 24% without a problem.
>>
>>My manual (1999 OBW) says the same thing, but I'm running E60 (60%
>>eth) after an after-market conversion and plan to go to E85. I think
>>the lawyers make them say that.
>>
>>Try it and watch your check-engine light. If it doesn't go on after
>>100 miles, forget about it and enjoy the improved acceleration. You
>>will probably get fewer mpg but more mpd (miles per dollar).
>>
>>Ben
> And without conversion most cars will NOT see any better
> accelleration. ANd with E15 being the only game in town, it will sell
> for the same price as any other gasoline-type fuel, so no improvement
> in miles per dollar.
>
> Here in Ontario E10 or E15 or E0 all sells for the same price, and in
> many cases you have no way (short of the phase separation test) to
> know WHAT you are buying.
>
>
> If burning Ethanol makes you feel good, fine - but in MOST cases in
> Canada and most of the states, expecting any fuel savings or improved
> performance is a pipe dream.
>
> I just wish you didn't expect the rest of the country (and the world)
> to pay for your "elixir" in higher food prices.
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Not totally true. If you have a turbocharged car, some ethanol can improve
performance because it increases the AKI of the fuel.
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol 

On May 22, 11:56 am, "Aage M Hollander" <h....TakeThisOut@localnet.com> wrote:
> My 1999 Sub legacy St.Wgn(4 cyl,Not an Outback),allows use of 10% Ethanol by
> the book.Allstations here have 15% ethanol,could I use this ??

URGENT CAUTION: fuel tank liner failure

My 83 and 87 Subaru wagons have both experienced failure of the fuel
tank liner. Tiny little white particles settle in the tank,
repeatedly clog up the fuel filters, resulting in bucking and kicking
under acceleration, hill climbing and high speeds. Runs fine when
standing still. Before I correctly diagnosed fuel contamination,
replacing the fuel filter solved the problem, but with decreasing
times between changes -- in the end, only a couple of days before the
fuel intake line sucked up more liner particles and clogged the
filter. The solution was a $600 steam cleaning of the fuel tank and
the 87 runs fine (the 83 went to junkyard heaven before I figured it
out).

A friend is experiencing the same symptoms with a 1999 Lexus which
used 10% ethanol for 5 years. He will check it out on return from
travel.

These problems coincided in time with EPA-required oxygenated gasoline
for Anchorage, Alaska from 1992 to 2004. MTBE was added from 1992-3,
and 10% ethanol from 1995-2004. Anchorage attained CO levels below
EPA maximums in 2004 and ethanol went away.

I cannot conclude definitively that fuel oxygenation caused my
gasoline tank liner failures. But manufacturers of 83 and 87 fuel
tanks could not, I think have anticipated mandatory oxy-fuels and test
for delayed chemical reactions in their tanks (and altered their
products if adverse reactions occurred). IF YOU EXPERIENCE THESE FUEL
STARVATION SYMPTOMS WHILE USING OXY-FUEL, HAVE THE FUEL FILTER
INSPECTED CLOSELY IMMEDIATELY, AND SIPHON SAMPLES FROM THE BOTTOM OF
THE TANK IF INDICATED.

Paul Todd, Anchorage AK
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol 

On May 28, 6:37 pm, pau....DeleteThis@acsalaska.net wrote:
.....
> I cannot conclude definitively that fuel oxygenation caused my
> gasoline tank liner failures.  But manufacturers of 83 and 87 fuel
> tanks could not, I think have anticipated mandatory oxy-fuels and test
> for delayed chemical reactions in their tanks (and altered their
> products if adverse reactions occurred).  IF YOU EXPERIENCE THESE FUEL
> STARVATION SYMPTOMS WHILE USING OXY-FUEL, HAVE THE FUEL FILTER
> INSPECTED CLOSELY IMMEDIATELY, AND SIPHON SAMPLES FROM THE BOTTOM OF
> THE TANK IF INDICATED.
>
> Paul Todd, Anchorage AK

Cars made after about 1985 were required to be made ethanol-tolerant
up to 10%. If your car made later that that encountered an ethanol
problem, you may have cause to sue the maker.

Ben
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol 

"Uncle Ben" <ben RemoveThis @greenba.com> wrote in message
news:12f0ac35-c1f7-4b3d-b5a3-f06507d4f053@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 28, 6:37 pm, pau... RemoveThis @acsalaska.net wrote:
> Cars made after about 1985 were required to be made ethanol-tolerant
up to 10%. If your car made later that that encountered an ethanol
problem, you may have cause to sue the maker.


Well, maybe, but if anyone who is still driving a, say, 89 anything, it
would be far cheaper to simply replace the tank, rather than pay a lawyer
and wait for years for a court date.

SD
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol 

On May 22, 4:53 pm, Uncle Ben <b....TakeThisOut@greenba.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 3:56 pm, "Aage M Hollander" <h....TakeThisOut@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> > My 1999 Sub legacy St.Wgn(4 cyl,Not an Outback),allows use of 10% Ethanol by
> > the book.Allstations here have 15% ethanol,could I use this ??
>
> I don't know why the car manuals say that.  Brazilian cars all use
> ethanol up to 24% without a problem.
>
> My manual (1999 OBW) says the same thing, but I'm running E60 (60%
> eth) after an after-market conversion and plan to go to E85. I think
> the lawyers make them say that.
>
> Try it and watch your check-engine light.  If it doesn't go on after
> 100 miles, forget about it and enjoy the improved acceleration.  You
> will probably get fewer mpg but more mpd (miles per dollar).
>
> Ben

How to do ethanol right:

http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk/saabBioPower/

OK, Subaru, give us one like that!

Cen
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol 

On 2008-05-22 15:56:13 -0400, "Aage M Hollander" <homa DeleteThis @localnet.com> said:

> My 1999 Sub legacy St.Wgn(4 cyl,Not an Outback),allows use of 10% Ethanol by
> the book.Allstations here have 15% ethanol,could I use this ??

yes, no, and maybe.

ethanol is a good fuel as far as combustion is concerned, and reduces
engine knock.

but it's also corrosive, so the more ethanol in your fuel, the more it
corrodes some of the engine parts (mostly fuel lines and gaskets?). if
the car was designed to work with 10%, probably allowing for
"acceptable" damage to some parts, then using 15% probably won't make
a huge difference, except for some accelerated maintenance. but i
would bet that 85 or 100% would soften or dissolve some plastic parts
to failure.

the right solution is a "conversion kit" which should address the issue
of parts compatibility.

but ethanol contains less energy per litre than gasoline, and requires
more oil to produce, so running on ethanol may be more political than
economic or environmental.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol 

On Aug 28, 4:40 am, tom klein <nos... RemoveThis @ecologicaltech.com> wrote:
> On 2008-05-22 15:56:13 -0400, "Aage M Hollander" <h... RemoveThis @localnet.com> said:
>
> > My 1999 Sub legacy St.Wgn(4 cyl,Not an Outback),allows use of 10% Ethanol by
> > the book.Allstations here have 15% ethanol,could I use this ??
>
> yes, no, and maybe.
>
> ethanol is a good fuel as far as combustion is concerned, and reduces
> engine knock.
>
> but it's also corrosive, so the more ethanol in your fuel, the more it
> corrodes some of the engine parts (mostly fuel lines and gaskets?). if  
> the car was designed to work with 10%, probably allowing for
> "acceptable" damage to some parts, then  using 15% probably won't make
> a huge difference, except for some accelerated maintenance.  but i
> would bet that 85 or 100% would soften or dissolve some plastic parts
> to failure.
>
> the right solution is a "conversion kit" which should address the issue
> of parts compatibility.
>
> but ethanol contains less energy per litre than gasoline, and requires
> more oil to produce, so running on ethanol may be more political than
> economic or environmental.
>
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

Tom, you are the victim of misinformation from old sources or sources
that would rather you use gasoline than ethanol.

I have used E85 in my 1999 OBW for four months now after a quick
conversion that merely stretches the electrical pulses to the fuel
injectors. My fuel lines are fine. My fuel pump is fine. I am
saving money and am enjoying the higher performance I get from ethanol
vs. gasoline (torque and horsepower).

Ethanol is not corrosive; it is the water that may get into the
ethanol that is corrosive. But cars that are modern enough to
withstand E10 can withstand E30 or so without any conversion
necessary, in my experience. There was a car that ran for 105,000
miles on E85 without any conversion attempt. On examination, the
engine was undamaged and was in fact cleaner than one would expect on
gasoline. A technical school ran the experiment, and a video of the
breakdown is on YouTube. Search for it.

For FAQs on ethanol, see www.change2e85.com.

Uncle Ben


And it is NOT true to ethanol uses more oil to produce. In fact
ethanol can be produced with one-fifth of the oil that gasoline needs
for production. Citation on request.
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol 

Uncle Ben <ben.DeleteThis@greenba.com> writes:

> And it is NOT true to ethanol uses more oil to produce. In fact
> ethanol can be produced with one-fifth of the oil that gasoline needs
> for production. Citation on request.

Requesting.

I'd like to know more about this, and have heard the issues with corn
not being terribly efficient at producing ethanol, and the issues with
what it takes to harvest, and process, etc, so I'd be interested in a
reference that actually takes into account all the costs of production
from the seed sowing to the gas tank to have some apples to apples
comparison.

Switchgrass is apparently going to be a far better non-food source of
ethanol, but I'm also under the impression that we aren't there yet?


--
Todd H.
2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4
Chicago, Illinois USA
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol 

dk RemoveThis @no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) writes:

>>Maybe the eco zealots that kept any new nuke plants from being built
>>in the US for the past howevermany years are concerned enough with co2
>>emissions part of power generation and global warming to reconsider
>>their position on nuclear power?
>
> They don't know that, when all is accounted for, coal burning power
> stations release a lot more radioactivity into environment.

At first I was like "WTF?" on this statement. And then I googled and
if it's news to me who's actually been in a couple coal burning power
plants, it's likely news to others too:

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-...lear-wa

I'll be damned... This unfortunately pisses me off even further
about the continued commitment to coal in the US.

--
Todd H.
2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4
Chicago, Illinois USA
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol 

On Aug 28, 6:20 pm, d....TakeThisOut@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
> In article <50b8a3ce-96d7-46c4-81e2-13a910563....TakeThisOut@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups..com>, Uncle Ben <b....TakeThisOut@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> >And it is NOT true to ethanol uses more oil to produce.  In fact
> >ethanol can be produced with one-fifth of the oil that gasoline needs
> >for production.  Citation on request.
>
> Requesting. Here is a reference that concludes exactly opposite:http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRPaper2.pdf
>
> Plus, in order to cover our energy needs with ethanol from
> corn, every single square inch of the arable land available in the
> USA would have to be used for corn growing.
>
> Ethanol, like vodka, is only good in moderation and is certainly
> not a solution to anything. As of now, nothing beats nukes, plain
> and simple.
>
> DK

DK, the article you cited is by Tad Patak, who is also the co-author
of another anti-ethanol paper with David Pimental, who is notorious
for an early article claiming that ethanol from corn costs more energy
to make than you can get out of it. In fact, the USDA and many others
have found that you get back 67% more than you put into it:

http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/net_energy_balance.pdf.

If you restrict inputs to petroleum and natural gas, you get back five
times as much as you put in:

A. Farrell, R. Plevin, B. Turner, A. Jones, M. O'Hare,and D. Kammen,
Science 311 (January 27, 2006):506-508.

I agree that corn is not the best feedstock, but it's what we've got
right now, and it's getting a bad rap.

Uncle Ben
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol 

On Aug 28, 5:46 pm, sub....RemoveThis@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:
> Uncle Ben <b....RemoveThis@greenba.com> writes:
> > And it is NOT true to ethanol uses more oil to produce.  In fact
> > ethanol can be produced with one-fifth of the oil that gasoline needs
> > for production.  Citation on request.
>
> Requesting.  
>
> I'd like to know more about this, and have heard the issues with corn
> not being terribly efficient at producing ethanol, and the issues with
> what it takes to harvest, and process, etc, so I'd be interested in a
> reference that actually takes into account all the costs of production
> from the seed sowing to the gas tank to have some apples to apples
> comparison.
>
> Switchgrass is apparently going to be a far better non-food source of
> ethanol, but I'm also under the impression that we aren't there yet?
>
> --
> Todd H.
> 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4
> Chicago, Illinois USA

Todd, for references, see my reply to DK's post that appears just
after yours in the thread.

Switchgrass and other cellulosic feedstocks are not yet commercially
viable, but they have promise.

Uncle Ben
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol 

On Aug 28, 6:20 pm, d....DeleteThis@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
> In article <50b8a3ce-96d7-46c4-81e2-13a910563....DeleteThis@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups..com>, Uncle Ben <b....DeleteThis@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> >And it is NOT true to ethanol uses more oil to produce.  In fact
> >ethanol can be produced with one-fifth of the oil that gasoline needs
> >for production.  Citation on request.
>
> Requesting. Here is a reference that concludes exactly opposite:http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRPaper2.pdf
>
> Plus, in order to cover our energy needs with ethanol from
> corn, every single square inch of the arable land available in the
> USA would have to be used for corn growing.
>
> Ethanol, like vodka, is only good in moderation and is certainly
> not a solution to anything. As of now, nothing beats nukes, plain
> and simple.
>
> DK

DK, I agree that nukes are the most promising answer, but they are
going to take years to build, and we have hardly started. We need
something now to bridge the gap.

Uncle Ben
 >> Stay informed about: Ethanol