[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.

"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.....:^)

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"

"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....

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!"

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.

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.

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?

"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?

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"