[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.

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

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.

"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.

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"

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 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"

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?

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

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