Shell's 100-RON fuel - what actually is it?

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> > Alcohol does *not* require more energy to 'manufacture' compared to
> > gasoline. It's an 'old wives tale' that one.
>
> You're just as wrong. Whether it does or doesn't depends on the processes
> used, the feedstock, the grade and type of alcohol produced, and other
> factors.

The latest high efficiency plants can produce ethanol for less than the cost
of extracting oil and refining it to gasoline.

In any event the fuel's going to be available on account of 'green' pressures.
Might as wel use it ! It's also 'carbon neutral'.


> > Check out the FFV Saab 9-5 Biopower. Its power is significantly greater
> > on E85 compared to gasoline and provides similar mpg.
>
> Fine and well, but a disappearingly small percentage of cars on the road
> are Saab 9-5 Biopower FFVs. Cars not specifically engineered for E85 (or
> any other alcohol blend, for that matter) produce less power and get lower
> fuel mileage on such fuels than on gasoline.

That's because it's just been released.

Therefore the percentage is going to be continually increasing for some time.

The point is *exactly* that a car engineered to use E85 will outperform the
same vehicle on gasoline at a similar mpg ( may even be a better mpg under
some driving conditions ). In short, engineering innovation has provided a
superior product.

The FFV can also run on ordinary gasoline or any mix of gasoline and E85 so it
truly is flexible.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>
>
>>Bret Ludwig wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Alcohols are superior motor fuels in many respects to gasoline,
>>
>>Name ONE way they're superior. I'll name a bunch in which alcohols are
>>inferior:
>>
>>-Lower energy content per gallon means you have to carry more.
>>-Incompatible with a wider range of fuel system materials.
>>-Completely different emissions spectrum (meaning you now have to worry
>>about cleaning up aldehyde emissions instead of HC emissions, so
>>different technology is required).
>>-Almost invisible flame means you can have a raging fuel fire that can't
>>be seen
>>-Stupid from an energy-balance perspective. It takes more energy to
>>prepare as a fuel than it releases when you burn it. When it comes to
>>plant-derived fuels, at least go with a direct product such as plant
>>oils- you get a better energy balance.
>
>
> Alcohol does *not* require more energy to 'manufacture' compared to
> gasoline. It's an 'old wives tale' that one.

I never said that. I said that more energy goes IN to making alcohol
than you get BACK when you use it. The thing about gasoline is that its
tapping a HUGE reserve of energy captured over millions of years.
Growing crops and converting them to alcohol can't possibly match that,
at least not without devoting all the arable cropland we have to growing
fuel crops (and that's assuming the "organic" foods nuts don't have us
go back to stone-age farming practices that would leave 2 billion people
starving even if we used all arable cropland for food). Going straight
to vegetable OILS might come closer to being practical.

Pooh Bear wrote:

>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>
>>Pooh Bear wrote:
>><<snip>>
>>
>>>I thought trying to extinguish a gasoline fire with water wasn't too clever in the
>>>first place !
>>>
>>>Doesn't methanol also burn 'invisibly' too ?
>>
>> Gasoline, bad idea. Alcohols, water works great because they are
>>aggressively hygroscopic.
>
>
> Indeed. I thought as much. Don't understand where the previous poster got their ideas.
>
> Just the usual Usenet random noise I guess ?
>
> Graham

No, you just misread. Bret was also the "previous" poster, and what he
said was consistent both times. What he was saying was that since E85
still has SOME gasoline in it, using water to extinguish it doesn't work
much better than trying to put out gasoline with water. If it were PURE
ethanol (or methanol) then water would put it out.

Personally, I'd rather be able to SEE the fire and aim my dry-chem at it
instead of having to spray water at something I can't see, and can't
tell if it is or isn't fully extinguished.

Steve wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> >
> > Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Pooh Bear wrote:
> >><<snip>>
> >>
> >>>I thought trying to extinguish a gasoline fire with water wasn't too clever in the
> >>>first place !
> >>>
> >>>Doesn't methanol also burn 'invisibly' too ?
> >>
> >> Gasoline, bad idea. Alcohols, water works great because they are
> >>aggressively hygroscopic.
> >
> >
> > Indeed. I thought as much. Don't understand where the previous poster got their ideas.
> >
> > Just the usual Usenet random noise I guess ?
> >
> > Graham
>
> No, you just misread. Bret was also the "previous" poster, and what he
> said was consistent both times. What he was saying was that since E85
> still has SOME gasoline in it, using water to extinguish it doesn't work
> much better than trying to put out gasoline with water. If it were PURE
> ethanol (or methanol) then water would put it out.
>
> Personally, I'd rather be able to SEE the fire and aim my dry-chem at it
> instead of having to spray water at something I can't see, and can't
> tell if it is or isn't fully extinguished.

Check out hydrogen flames. Yet another nail in the coffin of the 'hydrogen economy'.

Graham

Pooh Bear > wrote:
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>> > Alcohol does *not* require more energy to 'manufacture' compared to
>> > gasoline. It's an 'old wives tale' that one.
>>
>> You're just as wrong. Whether it does or doesn't depends on the processes
>> used, the feedstock, the grade and type of alcohol produced, and other
>> factors.
>
>The latest high efficiency plants can produce ethanol for less than the cost
>of extracting oil and refining it to gasoline.

MARTINIS FOR EVERYONE! You're buying!
--scott

A few years ago, a lot of ethanol out there was produced from natural gas.
I don't know if this is still true, but it was illegal to sell the stuff
for drinking purposes in the US although it was legal in Mexico.
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

>
> A few years ago, a lot of ethanol out there was produced from natural gas.
> I don't know if this is still true, but it was illegal to sell the stuff
> for drinking purposes in the US although it was legal in Mexico.

Since methane is converted to methanol, this would require the
methanol then to be converted to ethanol. That might be possible, but
since methanol is a deadly poison and blinding agent you can see why
they would ban such a thing from consumption.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

<<snip>>

>
> Fine and well, but a disappearingly small percentage of cars on the road
> are Saab 9-5 Biopower FFVs. Cars not specifically engineered for E85 (or
> any other alcohol blend, for that matter) produce less power and get lower
> fuel mileage on such fuels than on gasoline.

Cars not designed or modified for E85 or flex fuel use cannot be
operated on more than about 10% ethanol or methanol in gasoline.

Since gasoline has a higher heat value per gallon and per pound than
ethanol or methanol mileage will be better on gasoline than on
alcohols.

However, alcohols can increase engine power and act as a powerful
cleaning agent in engines set up for it. It also burns cooler.

Pooh Bear > writes:

>> > What is E85? Is that fuel with 15 percent ethanol?
>>
>> E85 is 85% ethanol with 15% gasoline added, for cold weather starting
>> and so you can see any flames if it catches on fire. Unfortunately, it
>> also means fighting an E85 fire with water is less successful. Water
>> fire extinguishment is the reason Indy racing went from using a
>> cornucopia of fuels to mandating straight methanol only.

>I thought trying to extinguish a gasoline fire with water wasn't too clever in the
>first place !

No it's not - flammable liquid fires generally require foam which smothers
the fire and cools the liquid at the same time, but you can you fine water
spray if the conditions are right since the spray will have the same effects
as foam.

I wouldn't think having fuel with a small ethanol content is going to make
fire extinguishment much different than with current fuel mixtures, though a
fuel which is primarily ethanol and/or methanol is certainly going to
require a different technique.

The biggest problem could come from the combination of the alcohol in the
fuel with the combustible materials that make up the car itself - all sort
of plastics, etc. which give off toxic smoke and fumes when heated and
oxidised.

It's a constant battle no doubt for car designers (even for Saab's tech
people) to come up with ways to implement features using materials that
effectively balance all the regular requirements of the automotive
environment with the risks and hazards that come about during acidents
and/or fires.

As an aside. We (local volunteer fire brigade) had a callout to a car fire
last night - a guys work ute loaded with tools and materials (he's a
self-employed carpet layer apparently) was stolen from where he lives about
10 km north and torched just down the road from the fire station at the
start of the national park. Called out just before midnight - totally
engulfed when we arrived 7 minutes later. Lots of bush in the immediate area
was also burning but the main concern now is that the car was torched over a
mulch pile which is still smouldering almost 20 hours later since last night
we couldn't get any water into that area as the base of the cabin and the
chassis were on the ground after the expensive alloy wheels melted onto the
ground. 8-)

Might put the pics I took today when the salvage truck came to remove what
was left of the vehicle online somewhere for everyone to look at...

Craig.
--
Craig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au
http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's
Email: | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide!
Alternate: | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc.

"Daniel J. Stern" > writes:

>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Pooh Bear wrote:

>> Alcohol does *not* require more energy to 'manufacture' compared to
>> gasoline. It's an 'old wives tale' that one.

>You're just as wrong. Whether it does or doesn't depends on the processes
>used, the feedstock, the grade and type of alcohol produced, and other
>factors.

>> Check out the FFV Saab 9-5 Biopower. Its power is significantly greater
>> on E85 compared to gasoline and provides similar mpg.

>Fine and well, but a disappearingly small percentage of cars on the road
>are Saab 9-5 Biopower FFVs. Cars not specifically engineered for E85 (or
>any other alcohol blend, for that matter) produce less power and get lower
>fuel mileage on such fuels than on gasoline.

Does anyone know if any of the Bio-power 9-5's have been imported into
Australia? It would be interesting to have a look at one.

Craig.
--
Craig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au
http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's
Email: | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide!
Alternate: | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc.

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> However, alcohols can increase engine power and act as a powerful
> cleaning agent in engines set up for it. It also burns cooler.

So less heat in winter, and only 10 to 20 cents difference from gasoline
(around here, anyway). And less mileage per gallon. Wow, what a huge
incentive to use this stuff!

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.