Use of ethanol in Chrysler products

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Sun, 8 May 2005, Rick Blaine wrote:
>
> > > > ethanol is superior to gasoline in almost every way
> > >
> > > Except, y'know, for minor things like energy content per volume unit.
> >
> > True, but with an engine properly set up (i.e. high compression) the
> > same fuel mileage as gasoline can be obtained.
>
> ...and an engine thus optimized could give even better performance and
> economy on gasoline. That's a vicious cycle.
>
> > And the higher compression will produce more power and emit only carbon
> > dioxide and water.
>
> Er...no. High compression + alcohol = Oxides of Nitrogen go through the
> roof. Aldehyde emissions soar.

Only true if very high compression is used. If the kept to 11:1 this is not
true and is much less than if gasoline is used.



> > Also, many new cars are equipped to run on e85 which is 85% ethanol, all
> > other can be converted by the simple installation of a computer chip.
> > The electronic fuel injection does the rest.
>
> ...with greatly reduced fuel economy and performance, yes.


> No matter how much handwaving you do, you cannot gloze over the fact that
> ethanol contains substantially less energy than gasoline.

I am no means an expert on this, but I have provided a link to a site that
will explain all of this if you are interested in learning from one who is.
My guess is you have all your preconceived notions already planted in your
little mind and you think you know everything there is to know on the
subject. You don't.

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 04:09:21 GMT, "Rick Blaine"
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> in.umich.edu...
> >> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Rick Blaine wrote:
> >>
> >> > ethanol is superior to gasoline in almost every way
> >>
> >> Except, y'know, for minor things like energy content per volume unit.
> >
> >True, but with an engine properly set up (i.e. high compression) the same
> >fuel mileage as gasoline can be obtained.
>
> Nope. Our racing kart engines had their compression ratios upped to an
extreme
> when they were converted to alcohol, and they ran the tanks dry _waaaay_
> earlier than the they did before the conversion. Fuel/air ratio is about
3X
> for alcohol compared to gasolin- you're average car that gets 300 - 500
miles
> per tank of gas would be running out at 100 - 160 miles. And... people
> wouldn't buy it.

Actually, the conversion factor for carburetor jet size when running 200
proof ethanol is 1.27. You were running way too rich.


> >And the higher compression will
> >produce more power and emit only carbon dioxide and water.
>
> The higher heat (we used to melt the aluminum heads quite regularly on our
alky
> burning racing kart engines) are going to spew NOx all over the
environment.
Compression was too high.

> >Even if the
> >economy was worse (which it isn't), it is possible to construct a still
and
> >produce ethanol for next to nothing.
>
> Yeah, right - that's why everybody did it in the 70's when the oil embargo
> caused near-$4.00/gallon equivalent prices. Not. Millions of people
looked
> into it, and nobody did it. It wasn't feasible for an individual to do,
that's
> all.

Nobody? Robert Warren did. Think he was the only one?

> >Also, many new cars are equipped to
> >run on e85 which is 85% ethanol, all other can be converted by the simple
> >installation of a computer chip. The electronic fuel injection does the
> >rest. Here is a good link if you are interested.
> >
> >http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/index.html
>
> New technology might get alcohol into cars in America OK, but people won't
like
> it when they have to buy 50 gallons at a time in order to run a car for
the
> former range of 300 miles, and with racing alcohol (methanol) going for
around
> $9 a gallon, this could be cause for a revolution. Ethanol might be
cheaper
> than methanol, but it'd have to be about a third the price of gasoline in
order
> to start getting economically competitive.

Right now it is only viable if you distill it yourself. Which is perfectly
legal in the U.S. Not sure about Canada.

> We have to build a transportation system based on nuclear power or we're
going
> to be in an oil-deprived, stone-age economy again eventually. And
somebody
> better get nuclear fusion to happen, too, 'cuz we'll run out of Uranium
someday
> too.
>
> Dave Head

On Sun, 8 May 2005, Rick Blaine wrote:

> > > And the higher compression will produce more power and emit only
> > > carbon dioxide and water.
> >
> > Er...no. High compression + alcohol = Oxides of Nitrogen go through
> > the roof. Aldehyde emissions soar.

> Only true if very high compression is used. If the kept to 11:1 this is
> not true and is much less than if gasoline is used.

Incorrect. NOx emissions increase with ethanol vs. gasoline at any
compression level.

> > No matter how much handwaving you do, you cannot gloze over the fact that
> > ethanol contains substantially less energy than gasoline.
>
> I am no means an expert on this

Gee, I couldn't tell.

> but I have provided a link to a site

Welp, guess that settles it. You read it on the interweb; it must be true.

In response to Dave Head's comment, I believe he is mistaken when he
thinks that ethanol will only give a third of the range that gasoline
will give. He may be confusing ethanol with methanol when he quotes his
racing kart experience, but these are two completly different alcohols
with completely different BTU contents.
gasoline=111,500 btu/gallon
ethanol=84,400 btu/gallon
methanol=62,800 btu/gallon

I can believe a 50% reduction in range of an unoptimized engine when
using methanol, but definately not 60% when using ethanol. Chemical
analysis is the proof. The oil company born stigma that ethanol is junk
fuel seems to run even more rampant these days as the price of gas goes
up, which tells me that the oil companies truely fear the bio-fuel
alternative as a viable competitors to their monopoly.

What really makes a person think about all this is when I hear all
these economic analyists project that crude oil prices will spike to
$100 a barrel within the next two years. Using a little math, a
$100/barrel of crude equates to $5 a gallon gas at my local pump. When
E85 ethanol is selling at a nearby pump for $1.65 a gallon, taking a
30% reduction in range on my fuel tank is very feasable in my book.
With crude oil as a finite resource, it will only get worse. Ethanol is
an infinite source of energy and will never cease as long as there are
themonuclear reactions taking place in the sun.

Mgrant

On 8 May 2005 14:33:37 -0700, "Mgrant" > wrote:

>In response to Dave Head's comment, I believe he is mistaken when he
>thinks that ethanol will only give a third of the range that gasoline
>will give. He may be confusing ethanol with methanol when he quotes his
>racing kart experience, but these are two completly different alcohols
>with completely different BTU contents.
>gasoline=111,500 btu/gallon
>ethanol=84,400 btu/gallon
>methanol=62,800 btu/gallon

Well, yeah, we were using methanol, but a lot of the characteristics remain.
Ethanol does have higher energy, so maybe the 3 to 1 consumption rate is an
exaggeration. But its still going to take more than gas, and not all that
likely to be correspondingly cheaper if demand for it is increased to reduce
gasoline consumption.

>I can believe a 50% reduction in range of an unoptimized engine when
>using methanol, but definately not 60% when using ethanol. Chemical
>analysis is the proof. The oil company born stigma that ethanol is junk
>fuel seems to run even more rampant these days as the price of gas goes
>up, which tells me that the oil companies truely fear the bio-fuel
>alternative as a viable competitors to their monopoly.

I won't buy the idea that 'cuz the oil companies fear the competition, they've
successfully suppressed alcohol. I think if it were truely viable, they'd
simply be producing it hand over fist. I think they'd _love_ to get the hell
out of the middle east, so growing our fuel should be heaven to them. I
believe it is just because there's big problems with running straight alcohol
fuel. Its corrosive. It _doesn't_ hold as much energy as gasoline, and would
be more expensive on a $ / mile measurment.

>What really makes a person think about all this is when I hear all
>these economic analyists project that crude oil prices will spike to
>$100 a barrel within the next two years. Using a little math, a
>$100/barrel of crude equates to $5 a gallon gas at my local pump. When
>E85 ethanol is selling at a nearby pump for $1.65 a gallon, taking a
>30% reduction in range on my fuel tank is very feasable in my book.
>With crude oil as a finite resource, it will only get worse. Ethanol is
>an infinite source of energy and will never cease as long as there are
>themonuclear reactions taking place in the sun.

Assuming that we can grow all we need, and make alcohol as economical as
gasoline, then yeah, that'd be great. I've heard others say we can produce no
more than 15% of our needs by growing it.

I think the answer is none of the above. I think we have to electrify surface
transportation for the most part, and we have to make that electricity with
nuclear power, for as long as that lasts. Then we need someone to figure out
fusion - cold fusion, tokamac, whatever - to permanently solve the problem.

Dave Head

>
>Mgrant

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Sun, 8 May 2005, Rick Blaine wrote:
>
> > > > And the higher compression will produce more power and emit only
> > > > carbon dioxide and water.
> > >
> > > Er...no. High compression + alcohol = Oxides of Nitrogen go through
> > > the roof. Aldehyde emissions soar.
>
> > Only true if very high compression is used. If the kept to 11:1 this is
> > not true and is much less than if gasoline is used.
>
> Incorrect. NOx emissions increase with ethanol vs. gasoline at any
> compression level.

Actually, it is you that is incorrect.

> > > No matter how much handwaving you do, you cannot gloze over the fact
that
> > > ethanol contains substantially less energy than gasoline.
> >
> > I am no means an expert on this
>
> Gee, I couldn't tell.

> > but I have provided a link to a site
>
> Welp, guess that settles it. You read it on the interweb; it must be true.

Not everything on the net is bull****. Did you read any of it? I know the
answer to this question. Continue to keep your head in the sand and talk
out of your hat, you're definitely an expert at that.

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On 8 May 2005 14:33:37 -0700, "Mgrant" > wrote:

>> I won't buy the idea that 'cuz the oil companies fear the competition,
they've
> successfully suppressed alcohol. I think if it were truely viable, they'd
> simply be producing it hand over fist. I think they'd _love_ to get the
hell
> out of the middle east, so growing our fuel should be heaven to them. I
> believe it is just because there's big problems with running straight
alcohol
> fuel. Its corrosive. It _doesn't_ hold as much energy as gasoline, and
would
> be more expensive on a $ / mile measurment.
>
Believe what you will, but wouldn't it be better to educate yourself? I
don't mean to be insulting but your arguments do not hold water. Ethanol
can exceed the economy of gasoline and make more power as well. This is not
an opinion. It is fact.

>
>
> I think the answer is none of the above. I think we have to electrify
surface
> transportation for the most part, and we have to make that electricity
with
> nuclear power, for as long as that lasts. Then we need someone to figure
out
> fusion - cold fusion, tokamac, whatever - to permanently solve the
problem.
>
> Dave Head
>
> >
> >Mgrant
>

On Mon, 09 May 2005 02:18:57 GMT, "Rick Blaine" >
wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On 8 May 2005 14:33:37 -0700, "Mgrant" > wrote:
>
>>> I won't buy the idea that 'cuz the oil companies fear the competition,
>they've
>> successfully suppressed alcohol. I think if it were truely viable, they'd
>> simply be producing it hand over fist. I think they'd _love_ to get the
>hell
>> out of the middle east, so growing our fuel should be heaven to them. I
>> believe it is just because there's big problems with running straight
>alcohol
>> fuel. Its corrosive. It _doesn't_ hold as much energy as gasoline, and
>would
>> be more expensive on a $ / mile measurment.
>>
>Believe what you will, but wouldn't it be better to educate yourself? I
>don't mean to be insulting but your arguments do not hold water. Ethanol
>can exceed the economy of gasoline and make more power as well. This is not
>an opinion. It is fact.

Well, if there's such a good deception going on, wherever would I get the
truth?

The thing is, the economic imperative is hard to argue with. If something is
profitable, _somebody's_ gonna do it. That alcohol is viable but unused
smacks of the same sort of conspiracy as the 85 mpg carburetor that was bought
up and suppressed. No such animal - never was, never will be. Alcohol...
maybe someday, when the gas price gets higher. If alcohol was viable, you'd be
seeing fleets of vehicles such as the post office, fedex, city buses, etc.
being run with it. I'll trust the evidence of the non-existence of these
programs more than any web-page I might run onto that postulates that it is
possible for alcohol to equal or beat gasoline economically today. Maybe
someday, but not today.

Dave Head

Ethyl alcohol is economic motor fuel when you can buy it at 55% of the
price of gasoline. Methyl alcohol is economic at 45%. Propane is
economic at 82%. Prices aren't there yet. However it's not outside the
laws of physics-just common sense and political reality.

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 02:18:57 GMT, "Rick Blaine"
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Head" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On 8 May 2005 14:33:37 -0700, "Mgrant" > wrote:
> >
> >>> I won't buy the idea that 'cuz the oil companies fear the competition,
> >they've
> >> successfully suppressed alcohol. I think if it were truely viable,
they'd
> >> simply be producing it hand over fist. I think they'd _love_ to get
the
> >hell
> >> out of the middle east, so growing our fuel should be heaven to them.
I
> >> believe it is just because there's big problems with running straight
> >alcohol
> >> fuel. Its corrosive. It _doesn't_ hold as much energy as gasoline,
and
> >would
> >> be more expensive on a $ / mile measurment.
> >>
> >Believe what you will, but wouldn't it be better to educate yourself? I
> >don't mean to be insulting but your arguments do not hold water. Ethanol
> >can exceed the economy of gasoline and make more power as well. This is
not
> >an opinion. It is fact.
>
> Well, if there's such a good deception going on, wherever would I get the
> truth?
>
> The thing is, the economic imperative is hard to argue with. If something
is
> profitable, _somebody's_ gonna do it. That alcohol is viable but unused
> smacks of the same sort of conspiracy as the 85 mpg carburetor that was
bought
> up and suppressed. No such animal - never was, never will be. Alcohol...
> maybe someday, when the gas price gets higher. If alcohol was viable,
you'd be
> seeing fleets of vehicles such as the post office, fedex, city buses, etc.
> being run with it. I'll trust the evidence of the non-existence of these
> programs more than any web-page I might run onto that postulates that it
is
> possible for alcohol to equal or beat gasoline economically today. Maybe
> someday, but not today.
>
> Dave Head

For what it's worth the web site that I posted a link to had an article
about the Ethanol Challenge. It was a competition for university
engineering students to achieve equal or better fuel economy with E85 than
gasoline power vehicles. And to equal or better the performance of said
vehicles. They were able to achieve both goals as well as coming very close
to meeting CA ultra low vehicle emissions. It was not postulating anything,
just reporting a real program that succeeded in affirming ethanol as a
practical replacement for gasoline. I'm curious as to the "evidence of the
non-existance of these programs", would you care to enlighten me?