Use of ethanol in Chrysler products

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.

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.

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

environment. Compression was too high.

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

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

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

Gee, I couldn't tell.

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

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 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.

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

Actually, it is you that is incorrect.

Not everything on the net is bullshit. 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.

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.

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?

...and taxation....

:-) DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

That would be part of the political reality. 8^)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')

Dori A Schmetterl> ...and taxation....

Does it address the question that was raised that if the same effort were put into the same vehicle that similar increases in mileage would/could be achieved in gasoline, i.e., for a given effort with E85, if the same effort were put into E0 or E10, would the gasoline always come out ahead (for the same effort/compromises in power and other factors)?

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')

Evidence of the non-existence of these program is what I listed - no word, at least that I've heard, of anywhere in the USA that's had fleets of vehicles converted to alcohol. Not the post office, Fedex, truckers, anything.

University students can do a lot of things - they make electric vehicles and race 'em in the Austrailian outback, too - that doesn't mean they're economically viable. University students don't have to solve drivability problems when the temp dips below freezing, or ensure that the alcohol doesn't absorb so much water from the atmosphere that it affects drivability (methanol is really bad about absorbing water - not sure of ethanol), or long-term corrosion problems of the fuel system, etc. etc.

BTW, the tripod site starts out in the very first paragraph or 2, while talking about an ethaonol still, saying that the Indy 500 cars run on alcohol. Well, that's _methanol_, so this is either an error or an attempt to mislead, neither of which gives a person confidence in the website overall.

Dave Head

I tried searching for some information on NOx emissions and came up with conflicting information. I found this paper written by some visiting graduate students at the University of Michigan Dearborn. They used a

1987 Chrysler 2.5L fuel injected engine. They stated that they modified the ECU to adjust the air-to-fuel ratio for different types of fuel they tested it with. They analyzed the exhaust prior to it reaching the catalytic converter.

They concluded that NOx and CO emissions were lower with E85 based fuel. I can't really comment as to how well their testing model reflects real world conditions because most of the stuff they discuss is "over my head," so to speak :)

The Denver-Metro area was the first major metropolitan area in the US to experiment with oxygenated fuels, starting in the late '80s. I lived there, and was very involved with the public hearings and scientific debate on the matter. There were plenty of differing opinions, but one drawback both sides agreed existed was the increase in NOx -- and resultant photochemical smog -- that was observable and measurable (and demonstrated and measured) with ethanol-blended gasoline compared to straight gasoline. The increase in NOx was larger with ethanol than with MTBE, ETBE or TAME, the non-ethanol (ether) oxygenates. For some years, the ethers were therefore the preferred oxygenates in that market, for Denver-Metro has not only a particulate problem but a photochemical smog problem.

Then they found MTBE in the water, realised they hadn't specced good enough storage tanks and storage protocols, ADM jumped in and gave their customary pu$h for ethanol, which started showing up at the pumps again.

DS

No, it can't.

No, it won't.

No, it isn't.

Proof?

Proof?

I erred here. It does not cost next to nothing, but the cost is far less than what we are currently paying at the pump for gas.

It's easy to type something, how about posting some link or scientific data that prove your point? I'm more than willing to read it, unlike some other members of this group.

If you're really intersested why not read the article Bill?