Alcohol Mixed Gasolone... WHY?!?!

[JaySee]

I'm guessing it helps prevent pollution somehow, but isn't this effect
negated by the fact it ruins mileage? Less mileage = MORE FUEL. MORE
FUEL = More drilling for oil = More destruction of environment = More
Pollution.

It doesn't make sense to me. Can anyone make sense of it?

 

[Jim Stewart]

I'm guessing it helps prevent pollution somehow, but isn't this effect
negated by the fact it ruins mileage? Less mileage = MORE FUEL. MORE
FUEL = More drilling for oil = More destruction of environment = More
Pollution.

It doesn't make sense to me. Can anyone make sense of it?

ADM

 

[JaySee]

ADM

?

 

[WRXtreme]

I'm guessing it helps prevent pollution somehow, but isn't this effect
negated by the fact it ruins mileage? Less mileage = MORE FUEL. MORE
FUEL = More drilling for oil = More destruction of environment = More
Pollution.

Where's the proof that it lowers gas mileage? I have run ethanol blend
gasoline in my vehicles over the years (13 vehicles in 10 years including
import/domestic/exotic cars) and have noticed no measurable difference in
gas mileage between blend and regular petroleum based gasoline.(just for the
record I track nearly every fill for gas mileage.) The main reason I use
ethanol blend (usually 10% blended with 90% regular gasoline) is that it
offers me increased octane for a lower price, in fact if I want 93 octane or
higher street legal fuel I have to buy ethanol blend where I live.

It doesn't make sense to me. Can anyone make sense of it?

Another potential advantage is that (and this is a guess, not a carved in
stone fact so someone feel free to correct me here) ethanol would be able to
withstand colder temperatures before icing up the gas line than would petro
based gasoline (yes, it gets that cold in ND/MN/MT/Canada, etc...)

 

[Bill Putney]

I'm guessing it helps prevent pollution somehow, but isn't this effect
negated by the fact it ruins mileage? Less mileage = MORE FUEL. MORE
FUEL = More drilling for oil = More destruction of environment = More
Pollution.

It doesn't make sense to me. Can anyone make sense of it?

Liberals don't look at all the effects of what they do. They don't
anticipate things like that as there's no incentive for them to do so.
If it accomplishes their initial goal but creates 10 new worse problems,
they're happy and will pass more legislation to "fix" the 10 new
problems (and create a whole set of new ones beyond those) - job
security for the politicians by keeping problems around so we will
"need" them to save us from "catastrophe".

IMO... 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

[Frank Logullo]

I'm guessing it helps prevent pollution somehow, but isn't this effect
negated by the fact it ruins mileage? Less mileage = MORE FUEL. MORE
FUEL = More drilling for oil = More destruction of environment = More
Pollution.

It doesn't make sense to me. Can anyone make sense of it?

It is the new political science. Alcohol does lower mileage (look at it as
partially burnt hydrocarbon) and does not increase octane at a supposedly
decrease in pollution. US was pressed by alcohol producers and farmers to
legislate an oxygenate requirement for gasoline to decrease pollution. MTBE
actually does a better job and also raises octane but it was discovered that
trace in water causes off taste. Too much alcohol in gasoline will
separate. You need to inventory various grades of gasoline and this means
separate pipelines and tanks. Production of alcohol for fuel is probably
negative energy intensive since you must farm the land, carry grain to
alcohol production, etc. Gasoline would be cheaper without oxygenates.
California, home of many environmentalists, was petitioning EPA to get rid
of oxygenate requirement because refinery's can make gasoline with the
environmental requirements without oxygenates.
Frank

 

[Mark Jones]

The largest agricultural company in the U.S.
They make a lot of money producing alcohol to sell
as a fuel.

 

[Edward Hayes]

The sense is it sells more corn so farmers benefit. I reality alcohol burns
cleaner than straight gasoline so in one can guess the pollutants are
reduced by up-to 10 percent and the mileage loss is ~ 3 percent. eddie

 

[JaySee]

Here's another thing that bugs me. I know alcohol has a higher octane
than gasoline (the reason that some race cars run on it), but I also
know that it wreaks havoc on an engine's internal combustion chamber
and seals.

 

[Frank Logullo]

Here's another thing that bugs me. I know alcohol has a higher octane
than gasoline (the reason that some race cars run on it), but I also
know that it wreaks havoc on an engine's internal combustion chamber
and seals.

I think race cars burn methanol. They also add nitro methane. You have to
engineer around the fuel similar to what happened with Freon replacement in
air conditioners. Methanol may be cheaper than gasoline because of the tax
situation. I believe they have cars in Brazil that run entirely on ethanol.
George Olah, Noble prize winning chemist, has been toting methanol for fuel
cells.
Frank

 

[Dan Duncan]

Liberals don't look at all the effects of what they do. They don't
anticipate things like that as there's no incentive for them to do so.
If it accomplishes their initial goal but creates 10 new worse problems,
they're happy and will pass more legislation to "fix" the 10 new
problems (and create a whole set of new ones beyond those) - job
security for the politicians by keeping problems around so we will
"need" them to save us from "catastrophe".

If the idea SOUNDS good, it must BE good, right?

That's the problem with many (most?) environmentalists. They
have no background in science or engineering so they latch
on to these ideas that actually cause more harm than good.

"Hydrogen is a clean fuel!" Sure, but where do you get it?
It may be plentiful in the universe on average, but here on
earth where we live it's not. "You can get it from water!"
Sure, by splitting water, which requires you put in as much
energy as you get out even if you could do it with 100%
efficiency. "Let's use ethanol!" The money made from ethanol
production comes from tax subsidies and it doesn't save the
planet because the energy you put into making it exceeds
the energy you get out of it, even without counting the sun's
contribution. Once you pump the water, drive the tractor,
and take it to market you've used up more fossil fuel than the
ethanol will replace. It's a net loser on paper, but it LOOKS
like you're saving the planet and that's all that really matters,
right?

-DanD

 

[John Eyles]

Liberals don't look at all the effects of what they do.

Thank God that conservatives DO though. Iraq is proof of that.

"Hydrogen is a clean fuel!" Sure, but where do you get it?
It may be plentiful in the universe on average, but here on
earth where we live it's not. "You can get it from water!"
Sure, by splitting water, which requires you put in as much
energy as you get out even if you could do it with 100%
efficiency.

Yeah, I kinda wonder that about hydrogen too. However, it IS
clean in the sense that it burns very cleanly in the car and
the facility that manufactures hydrogen can also be very clean.
In terms of the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere,
maybe not. Although making hydrogen with solar-generated
electricity is pretty effective use of solar, because it doesn't
matter that the sun doesn't always shine. Not that there's
gonna be enough solar to manufacture that much hydrogen
anytime soon.

Also, burning gasoline is incredibly inefficient. Hydrogen-
generating plants and hydrogen burning fuel cells can be
extremely efficient.

Even if neither ethanol nor hydrogen is that much more efficient
than gasoline, it still may be a good idea, for political reasons,
if it helps to reduce our reliance on mid-east oil.

John

 

[Bill Putney]

Thank God that conservatives DO though. Iraq is proof of that.

Excellent example, John! When you look at *all* of the consequences of
going in vs. not going in (there's no option in between), I'm very glad
we went in.

Funny - you don't hear a peep about human rights violations around the
world from liberals anymore - they apparently have no problems with a
country's leader dipping live people into acid vats or into tree
grinders - sometimes head first, sometimes feet first, as the whim
strikes them. I guess that's what "progressive" means.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

[D.K.]

If the idea SOUNDS good, it must BE good, right?

That's the problem with many (most?) environmentalists. They
have no background in science or engineering so they latch
on to these ideas that actually cause more harm than good.

"Hydrogen is a clean fuel!" Sure, but where do you get it?
It may be plentiful in the universe on average, but here on
earth where we live it's not. "You can get it from water!"
Sure, by splitting water, which requires you put in as much
energy as you get out even if you could do it with 100%
efficiency. "Let's use ethanol!" The money made from ethanol
production comes from tax subsidies and it doesn't save the
planet because the energy you put into making it exceeds
the energy you get out of it, even without counting the sun's
contribution. Once you pump the water, drive the tractor,
and take it to market you've used up more fossil fuel than the
ethanol will replace. It's a net loser on paper, but it LOOKS
like you're saving the planet and that's all that really matters,
right?

That makes me wonder about fuel cells. For a long time I've
seen al those "energy efficent" and "clean burning" slogans
attached to it. I'm no expert. I do know, however, that to build
a fuel cell, you need to get pure 02 and H2 and compress
both. It seems to me that both processes require quite a bit
of energy. So I am trying to understand what kind of net energy
efficiency are fule cells purport to possess?

DK

 

[John Eyles]

Excellent example, John! When you look at *all* of the consequences of

going in vs. not going in (there's no option in between) ...

Well yes, actually there WAS an in-between option, kinda.

That option would have been to build an international
consensus to go in, instead of doing our best to piss off
all the allies we've had for the last 100 years or more
by making stupid and arrogant pronouncements. And then
going in all alone, arguably illegally, and certainly doing
a great job of squandering all the good will this country
has built up over the last century or so and especially
the sympathy after the Sept11 attacks. And if we HAD
done it that way, we'd have a bunch of other countries
helping us to clean up the mess we made, instead of
flailing about at doing it all alone. Even many people
who supported the war (with or without international
consensus) cannot believe the incompetence we've brought
to the reconstruction job.

John

 

[Bill Putney]

Well yes, actually there WAS an in-between option, kinda.

That option would have been to build an international
consensus to go in, instead of doing our best to piss off
all the allies we've had for the last 100 years or more
by making stupid and arrogant pronouncements.

You can only believe that if you believe that the UN resolutions and the
UN itself are irrelevent (and maybe that's the point, eh?). 12 years
and how many (apparently meaningless?) resolutions?

And then

going in all alone, arguably illegally, and certainly doing
a great job of squandering all the good will this country
has built up over the last century or so and especially
the sympathy after the Sept11 attacks. And if we HAD
done it that way, we'd have a bunch of other countries
helping us to clean up the mess we made

No - we'd still be playing meaningless games doing exactly what the
murdering Islamists would have wanted us to do. Feel-good solutions
with no progress whatsoever. If I have a choice between the so-called
good will of the French or the safety of my family, guess which one I
will choose every time. BTW, did you hear about the French town making
an honorary citizen of a cop killer that they refuse to extradict back
to the U.S.? Sorry - I don't need their good will.

, instead of

flailing about at doing it all alone. Even many people
who supported the war (with or without international
consensus) cannot believe the incompetence we've brought
to the reconstruction job.

Only idiots would have expected a cakewalk. Check the history of any
war on the time for re-establishing order after it's over. There are
always chaotic events that are predictable only in the sense that they
will happen and will not be predictable. That's the nature of war.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

[Carl 1 Lucky Texan]

Also, we're growing food for CARS not people, plus it can't compete if
it wasn't SUBSIDIZED AND it produces FORMALDEHYDE when burned.

your tax dollars at work.


Carl
1 Lucky Texan

libertarians: the only group devoted to defending the rights of the
smallest minority on Earth...........the Individual.

 

[Mike Deskevich]

If the idea SOUNDS good, it must BE good, right?

That's the problem with many (most?) environmentalists. They
have no background in science or engineering so they latch
on to these ideas that actually cause more harm than good.

"Hydrogen is a clean fuel!" Sure, but where do you get it?
It may be plentiful in the universe on average, but here on
earth where we live it's not. "You can get it from water!"
Sure, by splitting water, which requires you put in as much
energy as you get out even if you could do it with 100%
efficiency. "Let's use ethanol!" The money made from ethanol
production comes from tax subsidies and it doesn't save the
planet because the energy you put into making it exceeds
the energy you get out of it, even without counting the sun's
contribution. Once you pump the water, drive the tractor,
and take it to market you've used up more fossil fuel than the
ethanol will replace. It's a net loser on paper, but it LOOKS
like you're saving the planet and that's all that really matters,
right?

-DanD

THANK YOU! i'm a pretty avid environmentalist, but i'm also a
scientist, so i'm always fighting with the other environmentlists.
I've always hated the ethanol in gas solution to a non-problem. It
reduces gas milage, ruins fuel filters (collects water), and takes way
more energy to convert corn into ethanol than you get out of it by
burning. (btw - the ideal solution, imho, bio-diesel, but that's a
whole different topic). way off topic - you have the people afraid of
nuclear power, however WAY more radioactive waste is put into the air
by burning coal than ever is release in the lifetime of a nuclear
plant.

mike

 

[Carl 1 Lucky Texan]

Yeah, they cut down the rainforest to grow food for cars.

Carl
1 Lucky Texan

 

[Dan Duncan]

Well yes, actually there WAS an in-between option, kinda.

You mean like in Vietnam?

-DanD