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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
William Graham wrote:
Also, while pumping pure ethanol through a pipeline may be difficult, there is no reason why pumping the sour mash before final distilling can't be done via pipeline, and then do the final distilling locally...... The mash is pretty "pulpy" so I don't think that would work well. This all ignores that pipes do not have to made of steel, plastic piping of the right type will carry ethanol handilly. 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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... William Graham wrote: Also, while pumping pure ethanol through a pipeline may be difficult, there is no reason why pumping the sour mash before final distilling can't be done via pipeline, and then do the final distilling locally...... The mash is pretty "pulpy" so I don't think that would work well. This all ignores that pipes do not have to made of steel, plastic piping of the right type will carry ethanol handilly. Cheers, Alan Yes. But they can pump some pretty lumpy crap through pipelines.....My father told me that they can even change substances....Like pump crude oil for a while, and then switch to water....The water pushes the oil along, and there is not much mix where the two meet....they use centrifugal pumps that aren't damaged by sand and other crap in the liquid, too. It is by far and away the cheapest method of transporting liquids over land. I used to have a sump pump that could handle rocks the size of golf balls.....:^) |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
Brazil uses sugar cane, a crop that can't be grown in quantity in the US.
Rubbish, you have a corporation called Monsanto, they can engineer you a version of sugar cane or corn or anything that can be grown plentifully,cheaply, quickly and be resistant to hostile weather and insect blight doesn't even need to be fit for human consumption if crops are dedicated for Ethanol fuel output only, the technology already exists, it's vested interests that prevent the realisation of ground breaking advancements, if the money and political interest is there literally anything can be accomplished. "Bill Funk" wrote in message ... On Sun, 07 May 2006 10:07:02 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: Again, insufficient capacity likely to be available in the forseeable future. See Illinois, Minnesota, Brazil, etc. Brazil uses sugar cane, a crop that can't be grown in quantity in the US. They tried corn, but it doesn't work nearly as well as sugar cane. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
"Joseph Kewfi" wrote in message ... Brazil uses sugar cane, a crop that can't be grown in quantity in the US. Rubbish, you have a corporation called Monsanto, they can engineer you a version of sugar cane or corn or anything that can be grown plentifully,cheaply, quickly and be resistant to hostile weather and insect blight doesn't even need to be fit for human consumption if crops are dedicated for Ethanol fuel output only, the technology already exists, it's vested interests that prevent the realisation of ground breaking advancements, if the money and political interest is there literally anything can be accomplished. You can make ethanol out of almost anything....Probably even the insects....:^) Also, pure, drinkable ethanol has to be made rather carefully, so it doesn't contain any methanol, which is poisonous, but ethanol for fuel doesn't have that problem.....Cars will eat methanol just as well as the good stuff.... |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
Alan Browne wrote in news:L8q7g.3714
: Rusty Shakleford wrote: "William Graham" wrote in news:sf-dne0Lgt- : Yes. Thousands of people do, especially in the Ozarks, and Great Smoky mountains.....:^) It is medicinal That's only 80 - 120 proof. Fuel ethanol is 160 - 180 proof. Deadly. Hmm, I don't know, I've seen some that eats right through a tin cup, makes pretty good paint stripper in a pinch. Great for removing tree stumps. We used to tell new guys to wait a bit afore they light that cigarette... purely medicinal To quote Jack Nicholson in Easy Rider, "Nic nic nic...INDIANS!" |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
William Graham wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... William Graham wrote: Also, while pumping pure ethanol through a pipeline may be difficult, there is no reason why pumping the sour mash before final distilling can't be done via pipeline, and then do the final distilling locally...... The mash is pretty "pulpy" so I don't think that would work well. This all ignores that pipes do not have to made of steel, plastic piping of the right type will carry ethanol handilly. Cheers, Alan Yes. But they can pump some pretty lumpy crap through pipelines.....My father told me that they can even change substances....Like pump crude oil for a while, and then switch to water....The water pushes the oil along, and there is not much mix where the two meet....they use centrifugal pumps that aren't damaged by sand and other crap in the liquid, too. It is by far and away the cheapest method of transporting liquids over land. I used to have a sump pump that could handle rocks the size of golf balls.....:^) In an oil pipeline there are often several products in the "train" separated by "waste" oil. Water is not used because it would tend to settle under the oil. Oil and fractions are in a narrower band of density so are less prone to it. While mash might go through, in the "farmland" paradigm it's not the best way to go. -- -- 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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
William Graham wrote:
You can make ethanol out of almost anything....Probably even the insects....:^) Also, pure, drinkable ethanol has to be made rather carefully, so it doesn't contain any methanol, which is poisonous, but ethanol for fuel doesn't have that problem.....Cars will eat methanol just as well as the good stuff.... When you fraction steam, ethanol and the rest, the "rest" ends up in the runoff water at the bottom of the still. So the methanol can be separated from the water and burnt in the mash heater. -- -- 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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... William Graham wrote: You can make ethanol out of almost anything....Probably even the insects....:^) Also, pure, drinkable ethanol has to be made rather carefully, so it doesn't contain any methanol, which is poisonous, but ethanol for fuel doesn't have that problem.....Cars will eat methanol just as well as the good stuff.... When you fraction steam, ethanol and the rest, the "rest" ends up in the runoff water at the bottom of the still. So the methanol can be separated from the water and burnt in the mash heater. You know an awful lot about this Alan.....Are you sure you're not from Tennessee? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[OT - US/Canada] E-85 - Strategic conservation | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 232 | June 25th 06 05:56 AM |
[OT - US/Canada] E-85 | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 648 | June 13th 06 02:31 AM |