A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Technology
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why you should convert your vehicle to flex fuel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 17th 10, 03:59 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default Why you should convert your vehicle to flex fuel

On 11/16/2010 08:09 AM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
> jim > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 11/15/2010 08:29 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>>> jim > wrote in
>>> t:
>>>
>>>> On 11/15/2010 07:13 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> something that somehow removes a hard thermodynamic barrier?
>>>>>
>>>>> Your Brain-dead belief in thermodynamics and Wikipedia is amusing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The typical SI engine in passenger vehicles only uses around 25%
>>>>> of
>>> the
>>>>> energy in gasoline.
>>>>
>>>> that's it buddy - start with a false premise...
>>>
>>> in fact it proves that there are no 100% efficiency eng. So it is
>>> entirely possible to improve upon the **** poor efficiencys of the
>>> modern gas eng. so to say that ethanol can not help increase the
>>> efficiency just because it has a bit less heat energy is just
>>> ignorant and stupid of different chemical reactions. If you can get
>>> closer to using over, say 75% efficiency

>>
>> oh, for f***'s sake - if y'all so damned interested in this stuff, why
>> don't y'all ever bother to read the damned science???
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%...rmodynamics%29
>>
>> thermodynamic efficiency is a function of two variables:
>>
>> 1. temperature of combustion
>>
>> 2. temperature after work has been done.
>>
>> you cannot even begin to approach an "after work done" temperature of
>> anything near ambient, so all this drivel about "75%" is just the
>> bleating of the painfully underinformed.
>>
>>
>>> then you can worry about absoult heat units. KB

>>
>> /failure/ to use absolute units, or even any understanding of what
>> "absolute units" are, is what i'm worried about.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If that were to change so that 35% of the energy was
>>>>> used to propel the car down the road that would result in more than
>>> 30%
>>>>> increase in fuel efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> and hey presto - you can delude yourself about anything the ethanol
>>>> lobby wants to sell you.
>>>
>>>
>>> apparently you are the deluded one that won`t consider the other
>>> poss.
>>> because your heat unit brain is just a one thought track
>>> pony!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>
>> yeah, my one track is hard science. shock and horror that anyone
>> should /dare/ to talk thusly on a "tech" newsgroup.
>>

>
> The problem with your strickly


s-t-r-i-c-t-l-y


> hard science as YOU call it is there are
> a huge number of variables that are at play here and no one (heat units)
> trait can explain the total of what goes on, to try to do so in such a
> simple manor is just pompus


p-o-m-p-o-u-s


> selfrichusness


s-e-l-f---r-i-g-h-t-e-o-u-s


> on your part. Sure a eng is
> just a heat pump, but so many variables affect it your just fooling
> yourself if you think heat calories is the only explaniation.


e-x-p-l-a-n-a-t-i-o-n


> If that
> were true, then explain why in controled


c-o-n-t-r-o-l-l-e-d


> tests, why have some vehicles
> got BETTER milage


m-i-l-e-a-g-e


> at a 30% ethanol blend then?????? explanin


e-x-p-l-a-i-n


> that with
> heat units eh? KB


is this a stupidity contest? who's winning?


>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> alternatively you could read some worthless propaganda from the
>>>> diesel lobby...
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption
>>>>
>>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>



--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Ads
  #22  
Old November 17th 10, 06:35 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 546
Default Why you should convert your vehicle to flex fuel



jim beam wrote:

> translating to an efficiency of 25%. "
>
> but that doesn't change a single damned thing i said - all it does is
> say why lower numbers can be observed at partial throttle, and it's
> precisely what you would expect!!!


It doesn't change what you said, but it does mean what you said was wrong. The
average car driving down the road is utilizing only 25% of the energy in gasoline.
If you can make a fuel that has 10% less energy but utilizes 40% of the energy
content to propel the car, even an idiot should be able to see that will be an
improvement.

If the EPA started using ethanol blends for their fuel economy test every engine
made for the US market would be getting better mileage with ethanol blends than they
do with straight gasoline. That doesn't defy the laws of nature it is just simple
economics. The engine manufacturers have an economic incentive to design around
whatever fuel is specified for the fuel economy tests. When the EPA starts using the
ethanol blended fuel for mileage tests it won't be just a few engines that get
better mileage with ethanol blends - they all will.


>
>
> ? That claim is nothing more
> ? than a brain-dead belief in thermodynamics.
>
> what about a brain-dead belief in ohm's law? newton's laws?


Yes, I expect you do mis-apply those also.


>
> For 60 years the oil companies managed to delude the average Joe into
> believing that lead added to gasoline was good for his engine.
>
> tetra-ethyl lead had a higher energy yield than ethanol, so back in the
> day of engines with low specific outputs, and what was otherwise poor
> quality gasoline, it was the additive of choice for performance. oh,
> and it allowed for cheaper [lower quality] materials to be used for
> engine components like exhaust valved and valve seats. of course, you
> already knew that but were just bull****ting for entertainment.


Lead didn't add any energy to gasoline. The only real benefit from lead was to
petroleum refiners. It allowed them to produce high grade gasoline much cheaper.
That is pretty much the same thing ethanol does - it allows oil refiners to save
money producing gasoline while meeting the minimum grade requirements..



>
>
> It is a proven
> fact is that lead in gasoline shortened the life of engines considerably (that
> ? was something the auto makers also loved).
>
> where do you get this stuff dude?????? and why don't you cite? [rhetorical]


There is plenty of research. Where is your evidence that lead did anything good for
engines?


>
> ?
> ? So for 60 years the oil co's and auto co's robbed and poisoned the public. And
> ? then when that scam was exposed, for 30 years after that they robbed and
> ? poisoned the public with MTBE added to gasoline.
>
> no, mtbe was added because it's a cheap by-product that would otherwise
> be discarded from the refining process.


Not really. MTBE is an octane booster that refiners were able to produce cheaply.
If a refinery doesn't need MTBE it doesn't make it. For many refiners MTBE was an
ideal replacement for lead since it was made from the lightest petroleum fractions
that would otherwise be more expensive to process. The problem with MTBE is it was
very toxic to ground water.


>
> ? So now after the public no longer is being poisoned and robbed by the octane
> ? booster the oil co's and auto makers would prefer they use, you want the
> ? public to now wake up and start being alarmed? I don't think so.
>
> there is no need for ethanol in modern engines or gasolines - modern
> [catalyzed] refining and electronic engine management make it completely
> irrelevant.


That is baloney. It still today costs money (and energy) to process crude oil into
higher octane components. If all the ethanol were suddenly removed from the US
market the cost to refiners would be staggering to meet the grade requirements for
octane. That doesn't mean it couldn't be done, but the higher refining costs would
show up at the pump.

Did you know the US (and Brazil) are now exporting ethanol to the Mideast. There is
no mandate for ethanol in that part of the world. There is no subsidy. It is just
cheaper to ship in a boatload of ethanol than for them to do the extra processing to
meet octane requirements.

The technology of oil refining may have improved but the nature of the petroleum
feedstock going into refineries is going the other way. The cost of meeting octane
requirements is much higher if you start with heavy sour crude than if your starting
with a conventional light sweet crude oil. And the world is running out of light
sweet crude and thus the refineries need an octane booster today as much as they
ever did.



  #23  
Old November 17th 10, 07:35 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
Bret[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default Why you should convert your vehicle to flex fuel

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 06:59:09 -0800, jim beam wrote:

> is this a stupidity contest? who's winning?


I think you won this round.
  #24  
Old November 18th 10, 12:15 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
Kevin Bottorff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Why you should convert your vehicle to flex fuel

jim beam > wrote in
:

> On 11/16/2010 05:46 AM, jim wrote:
>>
>>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/15/2010 07:13 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> something that somehow removes a hard thermodynamic barrier?
>>>>
>>>> Your Brain-dead belief in thermodynamics and Wikipedia is amusing.
>>>>
>>>> The typical SI engine in passenger vehicles only uses around 25%
>>>> of the energy in gasoline.
>>>
>>> that's it buddy - start with a false premise...

>>
>> According to the wikipedia page
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption
>> that you cited it says :
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> "Any engine will have different BSFC values at different speeds and
>> loads. For example, a reciprocating engine achieves maximum
>> efficiency when the intake air is unthrottled and the engine is
>> running near its torque peak. However, the numbers often reported for
>> a particular engine are a fuel economy cycle average statistic. For
>> example, the cycle average value of BSFC for a gasoline engine is 322
>> g/(kW·h), translating to an efficiency of 25%. "

>
> but that doesn't change a single damned thing i said - all it does is
> say why lower numbers can be observed at partial throttle, and it's
> precisely what you would expect!!!
>
>
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Nevertheless, whether you look at the maximum possible efficiency
>> when operating an ideal engine at the ideal load and RPM under
>> laboratory conditions, or look at the average efficiency of the
>> family jalopy that is running down the road, the efficiency of a
>> gasoline engine compared to a diesel is somewhere in the neighborhood
>> of 30%-40% less efficient. That directly contradicts your claim that
>> energy content of the fuel is the sole predictor of how much work an
>> engine performs.

>
> er,
> 1. don't put false words in my mouth, and
> 2. if you understood what you were talking about, you'd understand why
> it doesn't.
>
>
>> That claim is nothing more
>> than a brain-dead belief in thermodynamics.

>
> what about a brain-dead belief in ohm's law? newton's laws? it's not
> like you're an einstein proposing a paradigm-shifting thermodynamic
> theory of relativity.
>
>
>>
>> OTOH, the MIT researchers claim that with ethanol direct injection as
>> a booster they can make the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption of
>> gasoline engine just as energy efficient as a diesel. And as far as I
>> know MIT doesn't grow corn or make ethanol.

>
> but they /do/ constantly solicit research money. one way to do it is
> to dangle carrots in front of dumb money, like taxpayer-funded
> dumb-government sponsored ethanol boondoggles. "nanotech" is another
> thing money-hunting m.i.t. [and others] is all over. back in my day,
> "self-assembling nanoparticles" were simply called "chemistry", but
> chemistry doesn't attract research grants.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If that were to change so that 35% of the energy was
>>>> used to propel the car down the road that would result in more than
>>>> 30% increase in fuel efficiency.
>>>
>>> and hey presto - you can delude yourself about anything the ethanol
>>> lobby wants to sell you.

>>
>> Yeah, like nobody has ever been deluded by the propaganda from oil
>> companies. For 60 years the oil companies managed to delude the
>> average Joe into believing that lead added to gasoline was good for
>> his engine.

>
> tetra-ethyl lead had a higher energy yield than ethanol,



why would you say something so stupid????? lead had 0 energy content,
when you say something so stupid how are we supposted to put any faith in
you other assertments??????? KB


so back in
> the day of engines with low specific outputs, and what was otherwise
> poor quality gasoline, it was the additive of choice for performance.
> oh, and it allowed for cheaper [lower quality] materials to be used
> for engine components like exhaust valved and valve seats. of course,
> you already knew that but were just bull****ting for entertainment.
>
>
>> It is a proven
>> fact is that lead in gasoline shortened the life of engines
>> considerably (that was something the auto makers also loved).

>
> where do you get this stuff dude?????? and why don't you cite?
> [rhetorical]
>
>
>>
>> So for 60 years the oil co's and auto co's robbed and poisoned the
>> public. And then when that scam was exposed, for 30 years after that
>> they robbed and poisoned the public with MTBE added to gasoline.

>
> no, mtbe was added because it's a cheap by-product that would
> otherwise be discarded from the refining process. and because it
> reduced energy content - something recently figured out by the oilcos
> as being one way to keep sales up in these days of efficient high
> specific output engines that were threatening to reduce overall
> consumption.
>
>
>>
>> So now after the public no longer is being poisoned and robbed by the
>> octane booster the oil co's and auto makers would prefer they use,
>> you want the public to now wake up and start being alarmed? I don't
>> think so.

>
> there is no need for ethanol in modern engines or gasolines - modern
> [catalyzed] refining and electronic engine management make it
> completely irrelevant. but forcing people to burn ethanol serves two
> key political objectives:
>
> 1. it keeps the massively powerful political lobby of the oilcos happy
> because its lower energy content reduces mpg's and thus ensures more
> sales.


more crap, unless the oil Co`s own the ethanol plants it is a direct
replacement for most of that 10% replacement. NO help at all for the oil
co`s. Why do you think the oil Co`s are now buying up the ethanol plants
as fast as they can, they want to keep it all in house. KB

>
> 2. it keeps the other massively powerful political lobby of the
> agricultural commodity business happy for exactly the same reason.
>
> hence we'll continue to get rorted until either lobbying money is
> curtailed, or the public wakes up and figures out that they're being
> ripped off.
>
>


  #25  
Old November 18th 10, 02:16 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default Why you should convert your vehicle to flex fuel

On 11/17/2010 03:15 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
> jim > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 11/16/2010 05:46 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/15/2010 07:13 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> something that somehow removes a hard thermodynamic barrier?
>>>>>
>>>>> Your Brain-dead belief in thermodynamics and Wikipedia is amusing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The typical SI engine in passenger vehicles only uses around 25%
>>>>> of the energy in gasoline.
>>>>
>>>> that's it buddy - start with a false premise...
>>>
>>> According to the wikipedia page
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption
>>> that you cited it says :
>>>
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> "Any engine will have different BSFC values at different speeds and
>>> loads. For example, a reciprocating engine achieves maximum
>>> efficiency when the intake air is unthrottled and the engine is
>>> running near its torque peak. However, the numbers often reported for
>>> a particular engine are a fuel economy cycle average statistic. For
>>> example, the cycle average value of BSFC for a gasoline engine is 322
>>> g/(kW·h), translating to an efficiency of 25%. "

>>
>> but that doesn't change a single damned thing i said - all it does is
>> say why lower numbers can be observed at partial throttle, and it's
>> precisely what you would expect!!!
>>
>>
>>>
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, whether you look at the maximum possible efficiency
>>> when operating an ideal engine at the ideal load and RPM under
>>> laboratory conditions, or look at the average efficiency of the
>>> family jalopy that is running down the road, the efficiency of a
>>> gasoline engine compared to a diesel is somewhere in the neighborhood
>>> of 30%-40% less efficient. That directly contradicts your claim that
>>> energy content of the fuel is the sole predictor of how much work an
>>> engine performs.

>>
>> er,
>> 1. don't put false words in my mouth, and
>> 2. if you understood what you were talking about, you'd understand why
>> it doesn't.
>>
>>
>>> That claim is nothing more
>>> than a brain-dead belief in thermodynamics.

>>
>> what about a brain-dead belief in ohm's law? newton's laws? it's not
>> like you're an einstein proposing a paradigm-shifting thermodynamic
>> theory of relativity.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> OTOH, the MIT researchers claim that with ethanol direct injection as
>>> a booster they can make the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption of
>>> gasoline engine just as energy efficient as a diesel. And as far as I
>>> know MIT doesn't grow corn or make ethanol.

>>
>> but they /do/ constantly solicit research money. one way to do it is
>> to dangle carrots in front of dumb money, like taxpayer-funded
>> dumb-government sponsored ethanol boondoggles. "nanotech" is another
>> thing money-hunting m.i.t. [and others] is all over. back in my day,
>> "self-assembling nanoparticles" were simply called "chemistry", but
>> chemistry doesn't attract research grants.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If that were to change so that 35% of the energy was
>>>>> used to propel the car down the road that would result in more than
>>>>> 30% increase in fuel efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> and hey presto - you can delude yourself about anything the ethanol
>>>> lobby wants to sell you.
>>>
>>> Yeah, like nobody has ever been deluded by the propaganda from oil
>>> companies. For 60 years the oil companies managed to delude the
>>> average Joe into believing that lead added to gasoline was good for
>>> his engine.

>>
>> tetra-ethyl lead had a higher energy yield than ethanol,

>
>
> why would you say something so stupid?????


if someone says something that appears to be stupid, there are only
three possible explanations:

1. they have incorrect information or are mistaken

2. they're bull****ting for some other purpose.

3. it's something /you/ didn't know you didn't know.

you need to consider these before jumping to conclusions.


> lead had 0 energy content,


"lead" is not the metallic element, but tetra-ethyl lead, the organic
compound. it not only burns, but yields considerable energy when doing so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra-ethyl_lead#Reactions

that's aside from the positive effect it has on the combustion of the
other components of gasoline.


> when you say something so stupid how are we supposted to put any faith in
> you other assertments??????? KB


since what i'm saying is consistent with any number of citable sources,
and nothing you've said is, i suggest you refer to #3 above.


>
>
> so back in
>> the day of engines with low specific outputs, and what was otherwise
>> poor quality gasoline, it was the additive of choice for performance.
>> oh, and it allowed for cheaper [lower quality] materials to be used
>> for engine components like exhaust valved and valve seats. of course,
>> you already knew that but were just bull****ting for entertainment.
>>
>>
>>> It is a proven
>>> fact is that lead in gasoline shortened the life of engines
>>> considerably (that was something the auto makers also loved).

>>
>> where do you get this stuff dude?????? and why don't you cite?
>> [rhetorical]
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So for 60 years the oil co's and auto co's robbed and poisoned the
>>> public. And then when that scam was exposed, for 30 years after that
>>> they robbed and poisoned the public with MTBE added to gasoline.

>>
>> no, mtbe was added because it's a cheap by-product that would
>> otherwise be discarded from the refining process. and because it
>> reduced energy content - something recently figured out by the oilcos
>> as being one way to keep sales up in these days of efficient high
>> specific output engines that were threatening to reduce overall
>> consumption.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So now after the public no longer is being poisoned and robbed by the
>>> octane booster the oil co's and auto makers would prefer they use,
>>> you want the public to now wake up and start being alarmed? I don't
>>> think so.

>>
>> there is no need for ethanol in modern engines or gasolines - modern
>> [catalyzed] refining and electronic engine management make it
>> completely irrelevant. but forcing people to burn ethanol serves two
>> key political objectives:
>>
>> 1. it keeps the massively powerful political lobby of the oilcos happy
>> because its lower energy content reduces mpg's and thus ensures more
>> sales.

>
> more crap, unless the oil Co`s own the ethanol plants it is a direct
> replacement for most of that 10% replacement. NO help at all for the oil
> co`s. Why do you think the oil Co`s are now buying up the ethanol plants
> as fast as they can, they want to keep it all in house. KB


er, no, apart for the "volumizer" effect, it's because of the cap ex tax
incentives. do your homework and read the financial press.


>
>>
>> 2. it keeps the other massively powerful political lobby of the
>> agricultural commodity business happy for exactly the same reason.
>>
>> hence we'll continue to get rorted until either lobbying money is
>> curtailed, or the public wakes up and figures out that they're being
>> ripped off.
>>
>>

>



--
nomina rutrum rutrum
  #26  
Old November 18th 10, 02:20 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default Why you should convert your vehicle to flex fuel

On 11/17/2010 09:35 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> translating to an efficiency of 25%. "
>>
>> but that doesn't change a single damned thing i said - all it does is
>> say why lower numbers can be observed at partial throttle, and it's
>> precisely what you would expect!!!

>
> It doesn't change what you said, but it does mean what you said was wrong.


well, what it apparently /does/ mean is that you don't understand what
you're talking about!


> The
> average car driving down the road is utilizing only 25% of the energy in gasoline.
> If you can make a fuel that has 10% less energy but utilizes 40% of the energy
> content to propel the car, even an idiot should be able to see that will be an
> improvement.


but, apparently some idiots can't see that some "new" engine performing
at 40% efficiency under ideal lab conditions isn't going to be in that
state "driving down the road" and is going to experience exactly the
same kinds of losses.


>
> If the EPA started using ethanol blends for their fuel economy test every engine
> made for the US market would be getting better mileage with ethanol blends than they
> do with straight gasoline.


????????????? explain how lower energy content gives higher energy
yield please. if you have time to stop from racing on down to the
patent office and making billions of dollars that is...


> That doesn't defy the laws of nature it is just simple
> economics.


???


> The engine manufacturers have an economic incentive to design around
> whatever fuel is specified for the fuel economy tests. When the EPA starts using the
> ethanol blended fuel for mileage tests it won't be just a few engines that get
> better mileage with ethanol blends - they all will.


you're confused.


>
>
>>
>>
>> ? That claim is nothing more
>> ? than a brain-dead belief in thermodynamics.
>>
>> what about a brain-dead belief in ohm's law? newton's laws?

>
> Yes, I expect you do mis-apply those also.


yeah. i can get people to /pay/ me for their misapplication too.


>
>
>>
>> For 60 years the oil companies managed to delude the average Joe into
>> believing that lead added to gasoline was good for his engine.
>>
>> tetra-ethyl lead had a higher energy yield than ethanol, so back in the
>> day of engines with low specific outputs, and what was otherwise poor
>> quality gasoline, it was the additive of choice for performance. oh,
>> and it allowed for cheaper [lower quality] materials to be used for
>> engine components like exhaust valved and valve seats. of course, you
>> already knew that but were just bull****ting for entertainment.

>
> Lead didn't add any energy to gasoline.


incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra-ethyl_lead#Reactions


> The only real benefit from lead was to
> petroleum refiners. It allowed them to produce high grade gasoline much cheaper.


high octane, [low knock] you mean. not the same as "high grade". but
that does indeed have a lot of truth to it.


> That is pretty much the same thing ethanol does - it allows oil refiners to save
> money producing gasoline while meeting the minimum grade requirements..


but at the taxpayer's expense. taxpayers subsidize the corn production,
subsidize the conversion, and subsidize the oilcos for its addition.
and the result is lower mpg's, so you're paying more yet again and
getting less.


>
>
>
>>
>>
>> It is a proven
>> fact is that lead in gasoline shortened the life of engines considerably (that
>> ? was something the auto makers also loved).
>>
>> where do you get this stuff dude?????? and why don't you cite? [rhetorical]

>
> There is plenty of research.


so cite it!


> Where is your evidence that lead did anything good for
> engines?


why don't you read the cites i give you?


>
>
>>
>> ?
>> ? So for 60 years the oil co's and auto co's robbed and poisoned the public. And
>> ? then when that scam was exposed, for 30 years after that they robbed and
>> ? poisoned the public with MTBE added to gasoline.
>>
>> no, mtbe was added because it's a cheap by-product that would otherwise
>> be discarded from the refining process.

>
> Not really. MTBE is an octane booster that refiners were able to produce cheaply.


true. but it had the advantage of reducing calorie content. the
politicals were sold on this hocus-pocus concept of "oxygenation", and
thus opened the door to lower energy yield, lower mpg's and thus higher
sales for no extra work.


> If a refinery doesn't need MTBE it doesn't make it. For many refiners MTBE was an
> ideal replacement for lead since it was made from the lightest petroleum fractions
> that would otherwise be more expensive to process. The problem with MTBE is it was
> very toxic to ground water.


it's not particularly toxic,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE
but it has a very strong taste, thus minuscule leakage caused widespread
detectable contamination that other pollutants do not. [getting away
with pollution that has no taste vs. one that has a strong taste is a
whole different matter.]


>
>
>>
>> ? So now after the public no longer is being poisoned and robbed by the octane
>> ? booster the oil co's and auto makers would prefer they use, you want the
>> ? public to now wake up and start being alarmed? I don't think so.
>>
>> there is no need for ethanol in modern engines or gasolines - modern
>> [catalyzed] refining and electronic engine management make it completely
>> irrelevant.

>
> That is baloney.


it's not, but continue...


> It still today costs money (and energy) to process crude oil into
> higher octane components.


which contradicts what you just said, but continue...


> If all the ethanol were suddenly removed from the US
> market the cost to refiners would be staggering to meet the grade requirements for
> octane. That doesn't mean it couldn't be done, but the higher refining costs would
> show up at the pump.


the only people that might be impacted are those running straight
distillation plants, and i doubt any of those still exist. anyone
running modern catalysis, has substantial flexibility, and can adjust
production easily.

>
> Did you know the US (and Brazil) are now exporting ethanol to the Mideast. There is
> no mandate for ethanol in that part of the world. There is no subsidy. It is just
> cheaper to ship in a boatload of ethanol than for them to do the extra processing to
> meet octane requirements.


you know that we export our political/military clout don't you? since
we saved the kuwaities [and thus the saudis] in the first gulf war, how
much persuasion do you think it takes to tell those guys to re-invest a
weeny fraction of what we pay them back into supporting our agrilobby?


>
> The technology of oil refining may have improved but the nature of the petroleum
> feedstock going into refineries is going the other way. The cost of meeting octane
> requirements is much higher if you start with heavy sour crude than if your starting
> with a conventional light sweet crude oil.


if you're running distillation only, but not with catalysis.


> And the world is running out of light
> sweet crude and thus the refineries need an octane booster today as much as they
> ever did.


we don't need it. not only do we routinely catalyze heavy to light, we
can catalyze light to heavy. the base stocks for "synthetic" motor oil
are typically made from a "g.t.l." process, that's gas to liquid. it's
made to sound like it's expensive and commanding of a higher price, but
reality is, that stuff is so cheap, it's sold as diesel fuel.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum
  #27  
Old November 18th 10, 02:20 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default Why you should convert your vehicle to flex fuel

On 11/17/2010 10:35 AM, Bret wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 06:59:09 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>
>> is this a stupidity contest? who's winning?

>
> I think you won this round.


you may be right!


--
nomina rutrum rutrum
  #28  
Old November 18th 10, 03:28 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
Bret[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default Why you should convert your vehicle to flex fuel

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:20:35 -0800, jim beam wrote:

> On 11/17/2010 10:35 AM, Bret wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 06:59:09 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> is this a stupidity contest? who's winning?

>>
>> I think you won this round.

>
> you may be right!


And the prize is a shiny badge from the spelling police
  #29  
Old November 18th 10, 03:55 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 597
Default Why you should convert your vehicle to flex fuel



jim beam wrote:

> >
> > If the EPA started using ethanol blends for their fuel economy test every engine
> > made for the US market would be getting better mileage with ethanol blends than they
> > do with straight gasoline.

>
> ????????????? explain how lower energy content gives higher energy
> yield please.



That would be an example of your brain-dead thermodynamics. I didn't say
it gives higher energy yields. I said "better mileage". Apparently you
can't comprehend the difference.
  #30  
Old November 18th 10, 05:20 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default Why you should convert your vehicle to flex fuel

On 11/17/2010 06:55 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>>
>>> If the EPA started using ethanol blends for their fuel economy test every engine
>>> made for the US market would be getting better mileage with ethanol blends than they
>>> do with straight gasoline.

>>
>> ????????????? explain how lower energy content gives higher energy
>> yield please.

>
>
> That would be an example of your brain-dead thermodynamics. I didn't say
> it gives higher energy yields. I said "better mileage". Apparently you
> can't comprehend the difference.


where does "mileage" come from if not energy
yield????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????



--
nomina rutrum rutrum
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why you should convert your vehicle to flex fuel ........ Driving 7 November 18th 10 05:19 AM
Downside to Flex Fuel vehicle KirkM Chrysler 2 April 24th 09 07:46 AM
Needed: Owner of a Flex Fuel Vehicle for interview helenam Ford Explorer 0 November 13th 06 10:31 PM
Needed: Owner of a Flex Fuel Vehicle for interview helenam Chrysler 0 November 13th 06 10:29 PM
Flex-Fuel Egnines Big Shoe Ford Explorer 1 January 30th 06 08:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.