damage from ethanol?

Someone in a country other than the USA has done a study of the
effects of 20% ethanol/80% gasoline on engines by running a weedwacker
and an outboard motor on such a mixture.
He reports:
"The study of ethanol's impact on engines found the 10 per cent blend
caused no substantial changes, except slight swelling and blistering
on the carburettor and an increase in carbon deposits on pistons.
But when the fuel contained 20 per cent ethanol, substantial problems
were encountered. The outboard engine stalled on occasions, exhaust
gas temperature increased by a significant margin and in some cases
there was extensive corrosion of engine parts."
Could someone list all the reasons this is not a good test. (I suspect
you'll all think of some of the same things, so maybe look at previous
answers before answering.)
Any reasons it is a good test are also appreciated.
Reply to
mm
This is nothing new. This was more an issue for older cars when ethanol was first blended in, but that was years ago. In Illinois everything has been an ethanol blend (10% I think) for years. If the engine and parts are built right, you can run 85% ethanol. I think a lot of cars coming off the line today can handle it. But a weedwacker and a boat engine are probably just not designed for that much ethanol in the mix.
S
Reply to
mrsgator88
Why do you ask? Isn't 10% is the mixture used in the U.S. except for vehicles designed to use the 85%?
I would still like to see a valid study showing that ethanol is a valid alternative to gasoline. There are knowledgeable individuals that state that it takes more energy to produce it than we get out. Therefore may be nothing more than a subsidy to the farmers. Mostly I hear "political babble" by people that know nothing of the subject.
Reply to
Rich256
For many weedwackers, the test makes sense. If they run 90% gas and 105 ethanol, they've left out the oil. What's the mix, 1:32? If so, you should have about 3% oil. Shouldn't the mix be 9.7% eth, 3.1% oil and 87.2% gas?
Am I being too literal (and cynical) here?
Never underestimate the ability to make a study say what you want.
Reply to
Pat
Rich256 writes:
Ethanol is physically inferior and more costly than gasoline. The support for it is political, and not just the farmers.
Some believe that we are better off making something ourselves than importing something better and cheaper. This is why you hear all the rhetoric about "dependency of foreign oil". By that logic, we are better off burning domestic candles than importing sunlight:
formatting link
Reply to
Richard J Kinch
It is a valid alternative to gasoline. We can grow it, so it won't ever run out. It can be produced here start to finish, so we don't have to depend on the whims of unstable countries that don't like us. Really, gasoline doesn't come from the ground either. Did you know that Iran actually IMPORTS gasoline? Gasoline also has to be made from raw material (crude oil.)
The politics are really more about what crop gets to be turned into ethanol. Sugar cane is a better source than corn, etc.
S
Reply to
mrsgator88
In the furniture business we hear a lot of that.
Bad comparison, because sunlight is also free of global political complications.
S
Reply to
mrsgator88
It seems to work in Brazil. Isn't that a valid enough study? They sell more ethanol than gasoline, and 70% of the cars sold last year will run on 100^ gasoline or 100% ethanol or anything in between. (Mrsgator probably knows that they they make it from sugar cane. If our cars burned ethanol also, maybe we could import that from Brazil or somewhere else, or we could import the sugar cane, or we could load the ship with mash and let it ferment on the way to the US.)
Prices change. Gas is 3 dollars a gallon now. How much will it be 2 years, 10 years from now, after China and India want to buy even more. And they aren't going to be the last countries that expand their demand. How much will it be after some oil fields dry up?
Prices change.
We're not dependent on it?
How does one import sunlight? Furthermore, unless we want shorter nights, we have enough sunlight already.
I think instead of imagining this is all politics, we should take note of the fact that support our prejudices and the ones that contradict them.
Reply to
mm
On 9 May 2006 20:02:23 -0700, "Pat" wrote:
I figured they still used the oil. I didn't think ethanol would function as a replacemnt for that.
But the article doesn't say, which counts imo as one of the things wrong with the "study".
Reply to
mm
The real question with ethanol is whether it's cost effective. I agree with Rich, all I ever hear on the news is more political rant, rather than true facts. For example, 60 mins did a story about a town in Iowa that built a corn to ethanol plant. They went on about how successful it was, the farmers are getting more money, etc. What I'd like to see is the total economics picture of what it costs, start to finish, including govt subsidies, taxes, etc. Then you could do a reasonable comparison. As I recall, the only study that I saw that appeared to be relatively complete showed that ethanol came in at $3-4 a gallon.
Then, there are other issues. Some of the same people who herald ethanol as a miracle fuel, also run around complaining about environmental issues. Well, growing lots more corn takes lots more land, fertilizer that produces run off, etc. So it;s not free from it's own issues either.
Reply to
trader4
Our OIL driven economy is being held hostage to the middle eastern dictators.
terrorists dont like us because we meddle there
So I say build the plants and convert the cars as fast as possible, and let them drown in their own oil....
growing corn or vegetable waste for conversion into ethanol might help reduce global warming, as the plants clean the air.
Ih yeah make all ethanol TOTALLY TAX FREE FOR 10 YEARS TO ENCOURAGE THE CONVERSION!
just this alone will save about 50 cents a gallon on the pump price
Reply to
hallerb
Its odd that you don't hear anything about research on using water, Which contains the ingrediants for combustion, Hydogen and Oxygen. Is it because its so plentiful that the fat Cats couldn't milk the public? Politics is dirty stinking dirty.
Reply to
tinacci336
No, it's because some of us understand basic chemistry. A water molecule is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. It takes exactly as much energy to seperate the two hydrogen atoms from the oxygen as you get when you put them back together again by combustion. It's like pushing a car up a hill, then letting it roll down the other side. There is no free lunch.
The above is what some of us are referring to when we say a lot of this alternative enegry talk is just political charged rhetoric, rather than fact.
Reply to
trader4
It's a hell of a lot easier to implement a nationwide shift to an alternative fuel when you only have a GDP of of $1.6 trillion compared to $12.41 trillion for the US, and 1.61 million bbl of oil per day consumption vs. 20 million bbl of oil per day.
Their road structure is a joke compare to the US as well Brazil: paved: 94,871 km
US: paved: 4,164,964 km (including 74,950 km of expressways)
So every comparison just isn't valid.
source: World Factbook
formatting link
Reply to
Larry Bud
Uh, I don't think anyone is advocating filling up a volume with 7 million cubic feet of hydrogen.
Reply to
Larry Bud
Some are!!! Liquid Hydrogen filling stations OR High pressure hydrogen gaseous state filling stations.
Prototypes have been, may still be, on the road in a few cities.
Reply to
Robert Gammon
Sure we do. There has been research for 50 years on using it for vehicles. Nuclear plants to make Hydrogen from water. It may well be the fuel of the future.
formatting link
formatting link
Reply to
Rich256
The problem is that most people think you can just get hydrogen from water. You are correct that electrolysis is one of the ways it can be generated. In that case, the hydrogen is best viewed as a transport vehicle for the energy. The nuke is the real source of the energy, not the water. And the problem is most of the people running around saying water is the answer, don't realize this. They think you just get the hydrogen out of the water by some miracle process. And these same people won't let anyone build a nuke in this country anyway. Until that is solved, hydrogen is a myth. In fact, if you just built the nukes, they could go a long way to helping even without getting to the hydrogen for fuel stage.
Reply to
trader4
You don't have to get Hydrogen from water; there's an easier (much easier) and cheaper way to get Hydrogen.
You can get all the Hydrogen you want from oil !
No... wait....
Reply to
HeyBub

Site Timeline Threads

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.