 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / June 2006More Ethanol is Coming - And It's Cheaper to Ship It By Rail
Sorry, Truckers! :) http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060531/BUSINESS04/ 605310352/1029/archive Demand for ethanol puts business back on tracks Nation's thirst for the fuel spurs railroad use By WILLIAM PETROSKI REGISTER STAFF WRITER May 31, 2006 Iowa's booming ethanol industry will make a record 1.3 billion gallons of fuel this year, creating a surging demand for railroad service to haul the product to gasoline markets across the country. Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe have seen shipments soar, and they and other rail companies are scrambling to keep up with the demand. At the Corn LP ethanol plant in Goldfield in north-central Iowa, ethanol is being made for motorists in Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland and Missouri. Some is headed to Texas and a bit to Virginia, said Jim Glawe, the company's controller. "You can ship some by truck, but the freight economics of it mean that St. Louis is about as far as you want to go," Glawe said. It's simply less expensive to transport ethanol over longer distances by railroad, he said. Ethanol is a solvent that cleans out impurities in a pipeline, meaning ethanol transported by pipeline won't remain a gasoline-quality product, said Norm Olson, manager of Iowa State University's biomass energy conversion facility in Nevada. "Rail is a very integral part of the delivery of ethanol currently to the East and West coasts, and potentially down to Texas" and other states, said Larry Mesenbrink, Iowa Department of Transportation rail development manager. The situation is complicated, though, because the big increase in ethanol railroad shipments is occurring at the same time manufacturers in other industries are expanding their use of rail freight service, he said. "It's really accelerated within the last eight to 10 months with fuel prices going up," Mesenbrink said. He noted that Iowa grain elevators have had shortages of railroad hopper cars to haul grain, raising issues of whether similar problems could happen with railroad tank cars that transport ethanol. Demand for ethanol puts business back on tracks Nation's thirst for the fuel spurs railroad use By WILLIAM PETROSKI REGISTER STAFF WRITER May 31, 2006 Iowa's booming ethanol industry will make a record 1.3 billion gallons of fuel this year, creating a surging demand for railroad service to haul the product to gasoline markets across the country. Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe have seen shipments soar, and they and other rail companies are scrambling to keep up with the demand. Meanwhile, ethanol plants have received $1.14 million in state aid to connect with railroads and get their product to a nation thirsty for the alternative fuel. At the Corn LP ethanol plant in Goldfield in north-central Iowa, ethanol is being made for motorists in Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland and Missouri. Some is headed to Texas and a bit to Virginia, said Jim Glawe, the company's controller. "You can ship some by truck, but the freight economics of it mean that St. Louis is about as far as you want to go," Glawe said. It's simply less expensive to transport ethanol over longer distances by railroad, he said. At Pine Lake Corn Processors in Steamboat Rock, the lower cost of shipping ethanol by rail has allowed the business to move ahead with plans to establish its own short-line railroad. The tracks will provide the plant with its choice of two railroads the Canadian National Railway in Ackley and the Union Pacific Railroad in Marshalltown. "The more competition, the better" for railroad freight rates, said Scott Zabler, general manager of Pine Lake Corn Processors. The plant's ethanol is now transported by truck to Ackley, where it's transferred to 29,400-gallon railroad tank cars. A majority of it will be shipped to Chicago, New York and Canada, where most of it will be blended with gasoline. Iowa is the nation's largest argest ethanol-producing state with 25 ethanol plants. "We are a net exporter of product,'' said Lucy Norton, managing director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association. "A majority of the product leaves here" via railroad. By year's end, Iowa will also have six biodiesel plants operating that will produce 120 million gallons annually. While gasoline can be efficiently transported to Iowa via underground pipelines, ethanol is different, industry officials said. Ethanol is a solvent that cleans out impurities in a pipeline, meaning ethanol transported by pipeline won't remain a gasoline-quality product, said Norm Olson, manager of Iowa State University's biomass energy conversion facility in Nevada. In addition, most Iowa ethanol plants aren't along pipelines, and ethanol is being shipped to many states that don't have direct pipeline connections to Iowa, industry officials said. The Iowa Department of Transportation has been providing financial assistance to help new ethanol plants construct rail spurs that will provide connections to railroad lines. Five Iowa ethanol plants have received a total of $485,000 in state grants, while two other ethanol plants have been provided state loans totaling $650,000. "Rail is a very integral part of the delivery of ethanol currently to the East and West coasts, and potentially down to Texas" and other states, said Larry Mesenbrink, Iowa Department of Transportation rail development manager. The situation is complicated, though, because the big increase in ethanol railroad shipments is occurring at the same time manufacturers in other industries are expanding their use of rail freight service, he said. "It's really accelerated within the last eight to 10 months with fuel prices going up," Mesenbrink said. He noted that Iowa grain elevators have had shortages of railroad hopper cars to haul grain, raising issues of whether similar problems could happen with railroad tank cars that transport ethanol. Officials with the Union Pacific, the nation's largest railroad, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe said they are working to accommodate the ethanol industry. "I can tell you that ethanol is an ever-increasing commodity group for us," said Mark Davis, a Union Pacific spokesman in Omaha. A Union Pacific official was quoted by a trade journal last year as saying the railroad expects to transport 2.8 billion gallons of ethanol annually by 2008, nearly doubling its ethanol shipments. The company is helping to speed the flow of ethanol by investing in track projects near several Midwest ethanol plants, Davis said. Burlington Northern Santa Fe transported 37,100 tank cars of ethanol systemwide in 2005, about four times as much as in 2000, said spokeswoman Suann Lundsberg in Fort Worth, Texas. The company's "Ethanol Express" program was developed in response to California's switch from the gasoline additive MTBE to ethanol. The idea is to have 95-car unit trains hauling the product to Southern California with a rapid return of empty tank cars to Midwest ethanol producers. "We will guarantee transit times, and it is a way to effectively manage inventory levels," Lundsberg said. > Ethanol is a solvent that cleans out impurities in a pipeline, meaning > ethanol transported by pipeline won't remain a gasoline-quality > product, said Norm Olson, manager of Iowa State University's biomass > energy conversion facility in Nevada. After a few batches the pipe should be nice and clean and quite usuable for ethanol fuel from there on out ;) >> Ethanol is a solvent that cleans out impurities in a pipeline, meaning >> ethanol transported by pipeline won't remain a gasoline-quality [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >After a few batches the pipe should be nice and clean and quite usuable >for ethanol fuel from there on out ;) They use the same pipeline for multiple different fuels. My guess is as soon as they stopped pumping the ethanol through it would become impure again and screw up the next load of ethanol.  SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > > Ethanol is a solvent that cleans out impurities in a pipeline, meaning > > ethanol transported by pipeline won't remain a gasoline-quality [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > After a few batches the pipe should be nice and clean and quite usuable > for ethanol fuel from there on out ;) Even if true (I don't really know), that would mean dedicating that pipeline to ethanol transport. I don't think that is economically feasible at this time. I agree that should quantities support the economics, a dedicated ethanol pipeline should be technically feasible. Merritt >> After a few batches the pipe should be nice and clean and quite usuable >> for ethanol fuel from there on out ;) > Even if true (I don't really know), that would mean dedicating that > pipeline to ethanol transport. I don't think that is economically > feasible at this time. I see people aren't noting the ;) >>> After a few batches the pipe should be nice and clean and quite usuable >>> for ethanol fuel from there on out ;) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I see people aren't noting the ;) What does that mean? ;) SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > >>> After a few batches the pipe should be nice and clean and quite usuable > >>> for ethanol fuel from there on out ;) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What does that mean? ;) As I understand it, ethanol is quite good at picking up impurities in the pipelines, so if you sent it through a pipeline over long distances what you'd get at the other end wouldn't be fuel-quality. See below. Another article I found mentioned that the oil pipelines aren't watertight, which is fine for oil but not for ethanol. See <http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060531/BUSIN ESS04/605310352/1029/business> Demand for ethanol puts business back on tracks Nation's thirst for the fuel spurs railroad use By WILLIAM PETROSKI REGISTER STAFF WRITER May 31, 2006 [snip] "While gasoline can be efficiently transported to Iowa via underground pipelines, ethanol is different, industry officials said. "Ethanol is a solvent that cleans out impurities in a pipeline, meaning ethanol transported by pipeline won't remain a gasoline-quality product, said Norm Olson, manager of Iowa State University's biomass energy conversion facility in Nevada." : As I understand it, ethanol is quite good at picking up impurities in : the pipelines, so if you sent it through a pipeline over long : distances what you'd get at the other end wouldn't be fuel-quality. : See below. Another article I found mentioned that the oil pipelines : aren't watertight, which is fine for oil but not for ethanol. Yeah, after the product passed by a few water leaks, you might have vodka, not ethanol. It's even possible that given enough time and distance, ethanol might be corrosive to a metal pipe. It does have that OH radical hanging out there. It may be significant that alcoholic beverages stronger than beer are seldom sold in metal containers. The metal vats used in winemaking are usually stainless steel, I believe. > : As I understand it, ethanol is quite good at picking up impurities in > : the pipelines, so if you sent it through a pipeline over long [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > in metal containers. The metal vats used in winemaking are usually stainless > steel, I believe. I would not be surprized to someday see plastic pipe pipelines being used for ethyl alcohol transportation, too, especially if the railroads become overwhelmed by the traffic. Speaking of rail transport of ethyl alcohol, seeing as it is or will likely be considered a placarded 'haz-mat', will unit trains of the stuff need several 'idler' cars between the occupied locomotives and the loads? (I am not as up on this stuff as I should be.) In the same vein, does UP place a few idlers between the locomotives and the loads in their ex SP west coast 'oil can' trains? (I have never been farther west than Colorado.) Signature___________________________________________ ____ _______________ Regards, | |\ ____ | | | | |\ Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again! Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | | ___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________ > : As I understand it, ethanol is quite good at picking up impurities in > : the pipelines, so if you sent it through a pipeline over long [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yeah, after the product passed by a few water leaks, you might have > vodka, not ethanol. That could be solved by doing final distillation at the destination instead of at the origin, if needed. The last 10% or so of water is a pain to get out, so it's only done if you want to mix ethanol with gasoline. A pure ethanol car can run on 180pf just fine; it's when you mix it (e.g. E85) that the water separates out and messes things up. > It's even possible that given enough time and distance, ethanol might > be corrosive to a metal pipe. It does have that OH radical hanging out > there. Even fuel tanks, fuel lines, and engine parts have to be made with different materials with >15% ethanol fuel. Standard steel gets chewed up over time when running E85 (or E100), though you won't notice it for several years of normal use. A pipeline that runs 24x7 for hundreds of miles, however... > It may be significant that alcoholic beverages stronger than beer are > seldom sold in metal containers. The metal vats used in winemaking > are usually stainless steel, I believe. Wood was the mainstay for a long time, and is probably still used in many smaller operations. Stainless is pretty much the only option for modern high-volume producers, though glass or plastic is sometimes used for intermediate tanks that have moderate temperatures. S SignatureStephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >As I understand it, ethanol is quite good at picking up impurities in >the pipelines, so if you sent it through a pipeline over long >distances what you'd get at the other end wouldn't be fuel-quality. >See below. Another article I found mentioned that the oil pipelines >aren't watertight, which is fine for oil but not for ethanol. A) You can be SURE the lines are tight; they run at pressures of 2000 PSI or so. B) The bigger issue is ethanol is hell on many kinds of lines & seals. Only recent 'Neopreme' and other brands stand up to it well; older gasoline-proof materials just succumb. That's why it's death on older cars & also airplanes. C) Yes, on a {refined} products pipeline {vs crude or natural gas...} they ship one 'tender' after another, i.e. a load of regular, a load of high-test, a load of kerosene, etc.... There is suprisingly little mixing that goes on... SignatureA host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 > A) You can be SURE the lines are tight; they run at pressures > of 2000 PSI or so. Not that tight, one blew outside El Paso a few years ago near a recreation area and killed a family. Last I saw in the paper that one was still under litigation. > B) The bigger issue is ethanol is hell on many kinds of lines & > seals. Only recent 'Neopreme' and other brands stand up to it well; > older gasoline-proof materials just succumb. > > That's why it's death on older cars & also airplanes. Yes it attacks fuel pump diaphragms and carburetor seals, although some brands have less of a problem. For example, Holley carbs have seals and diaphragms that can be affected, but Carter's have only paper gaskets with minimal exposure to the fuel. -- wf. >> A) You can be SURE the lines are tight; they run at pressures >> of 2000 PSI or so. >Not that tight, one blew outside El Paso a few years ago near a >recreation area and killed a family. Last I saw in the paper that one >was still under litigation. Two different things. Yes, there can be leaks. But such are NOT SOP, and get fixed. Ethanol may well leak at pump seals and valve packing, but the idea the lines themselves are too porous to carry it is hogwash. SignatureA host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 >>> A) You can be SURE the lines are tight; they run at pressures >>> of 2000 PSI or so. > >>Not that tight, one blew outside El Paso a few years ago near a >>recreation area and killed a family. Last I saw in the paper that one >>was still under litigation. That would be a compponent failure,not an accepted leak. > Two different things. Yes, there can be leaks. But such are NOT > SOP, and get fixed. > > Ethanol may well leak at pump seals and valve packing, but the > idea the lines themselves are too porous to carry it is hogwash. Aren't many of those lines used to carry refined gasoline products and diesel? (not raw crude) Since the alcohol is destined to be mixed with gas,it would not matter if it picked up some petrol "residue". SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > >> A) You can be SURE the lines are tight; they run at pressures > >> of 2000 PSI or so. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Two different things. Yes, there can be leaks. But such are NOT > SOP, and get fixed. I think that may be the topic of the litigation........ -- wf. > Yes it attacks fuel pump diaphragms and carburetor seals, although some > brands have less of a problem. For example, Holley carbs have seals and > diaphragms that can be affected, but Carter's have only paper gaskets > with minimal exposure to the fuel. Carburetors? What are those? <grin> Merritt > > Yes it attacks fuel pump diaphragms and carburetor seals, although some > > brands have less of a problem. For example, Holley carbs have seals and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Merritt Actually, four of my five cars have carburetors - the PAckard uses a Stromberg, and the Stude's all have Carter AFB's, only the Taurus has fuel injection. Then again, you haven't driven until you've driven a car with chain drive..... Signaturewf. >> > Yes it attacks fuel pump diaphragms and carburetor seals, although >> > some brands have less of a problem. For example, Holley carbs have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fuel injection. Then again, you haven't driven until you've driven a > car with chain drive..... What's so great about chain drive? For Gatling guns,it's the bomb,but for autos.... uh-uh. I note there are modern motorcycles now with belt drive. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net : > > Yes it attacks fuel pump diaphragms and carburetor seals, although some : > > brands have less of a problem. For example, Holley carbs have seals and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : fuel injection. Then again, you haven't driven until you've driven a : car with chain drive..... You might think there's no one else in this newsgroup who's ever driven a Studebaker. But you'd be wrong. ;^) >> A) You can be SURE the lines are tight; they run at pressures >> of 2000 PSI or so. > > Not that tight, one blew outside El Paso a few years ago near a > recreation area and killed a family. Last I saw in the paper that one > was still under litigation. There was a pipeline explosion in Brenham, Texas, in the early 90s that rattled windows in Houston over 100mi away and left massive crater. Accidents do happen, and my guess is neither had anything to do with whether the pipes were watertight. When you're already working at that kind of pressure, a relatively small screwup can blow a well-sealed pipe sky-high (literally). S SignatureStephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >> A) You can be SURE the lines are tight; they run at pressures > >> of 2000 PSI or so. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > pressure, a relatively small screwup can blow a well-sealed pipe sky-high > (literally). In the El Paso case severe internal corrosion was found including some clear to the outside, so well sealed, nor inspected, it was not. Perhaps the details are still on the corrosion doctors site. Seems to me it was actually about a dozen people from one family killed. AFAIK lawsuits may still be pending on this one. Signaturewf. > >> After a few batches the pipe should be nice and clean and quite usuable > >> for ethanol fuel from there on out ;) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No, I saw your winky. I was just making a comment. Merritt >No, I saw your winky. Hey! Take that dirty talk to email! There are women and children reading this group!! :) :) :) SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > > > Ethanol is a solvent that cleans out impurities in a pipeline, meaning > > > ethanol transported by pipeline won't remain a gasoline-quality [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Merritt Last Sunday's New York Times had a very good article on Ethanol, which went into how much less mileage ethanol provides per gallon when compared with pure petrol or diesel. Apparently people filling up their cars with E85 (the ethanol/petrol mix), noticed they were getting fewer miles out of those fill ups when compared to using straight petrol. Cannot recall the article now, and have long since dashed the paper into the rubbish bin, but IIRC it has something to do with the amount of energy ethanol is able to produce. Within the hierarchy of fuels, according to the article, diesel is first, with gasoline second then ethanol. When one factors in the costs of producing and transporting ethanol in the United States, it actually costs more than the petrol it is meant to replace. All this furore over ethanol is making the corn states and their representatives in government VERY happy though, subsidies and tax breaks cannot be granted fast enough. Also do not look to the government to allow more ethanol to be imported into the United States, as the chair of the Senate committee that controls such legislation has publicly stated he would never allow such a bill to come out of committee. Candide > Last Sunday's New York Times had a very good article on Ethanol, which > went into how much less mileage ethanol provides per gallon when > compared with pure petrol or diesel. It's lower energy per unit volume. Big deal. Still better than batteries, hydrogen, and a great deal of others. It's also a liquid fuel which means the least change to our infastructure. > Within the hierarchy of fuels, according to the article, diesel is > first, with gasoline second then ethanol. When one factors in the costs > of producing and transporting ethanol in the United States, it actually > costs more than the petrol it is meant to replace. 1) Transportation and infastructure can be built. 2) Cost comes down with volume. 3) only the energy balance and where the process energy comes from matters. Gasoline is a well established mature product with an incredible distribution system. Anything, including an anti-matter drive is going to look crappy compared to gasoline _at first_. This sort of reasoning by comparing everything new with the mature gasoline will make sure we are still driving gasoline cars five centuries from now. (No, the oil isn't running out, and probably will never run out now since we are all used to oil being over US$40 a barrel where so much oil is profitable we are unlikely to burn it all) > > Last Sunday's New York Times had a very good article on Ethanol, which > > went into how much less mileage ethanol provides per gallon when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hydrogen, and a great deal of others. It's also a liquid fuel which means > the least change to our infastructure. It will provide fewer MPG than gasoline. However, an additional problem may be that the engines in the USA are not properly tuned to burning that particular fuel. Alcohol fuel is sold at separate pumps in Brazil, and despite the popularity of "flex fuel engines" the vast majority of the market consists of the large number of VW and GM vehicles that are set up for alcohol fuel. Compression ratios are particularly important, if I remember right, because the combustion temperature of the alcohol fuel is quite low. An engine tuned for best performance with gasoline will, with alcohol fuel, have a horrid pre-combustion problem because the fuel will start to combust before the spark plug goes off. This means the engine is fighting its own combustion, and naturally will result in terrible MPG. Signature-Glennl The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too! e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317. >> > Last Sunday's New York Times had a very good article on Ethanol, which >> > went into how much less mileage ethanol provides per gallon when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> hydrogen, and a great deal of others. It's also a liquid fuel which means >> the least change to our infastructure. > It will provide fewer MPG than gasoline. You're grasping lower energy per unit volume.... > However, an additional problem > may be that the engines in the USA are not properly tuned to burning that > particular fuel. Alcohol fuel is sold at separate pumps in Brazil, and > despite the popularity of "flex fuel engines" the vast majority of the > market consists of the large number of VW and GM vehicles that are set up > for alcohol fuel. Fuel lines, O2 sensor, and computer map to run ethanol at over 10%. > Compression ratios are particularly important, if I > remember right, because the combustion temperature of the alcohol fuel is > quite low. An engine tuned for best performance with gasoline will, with > alcohol fuel, have a horrid pre-combustion problem because the fuel will > start to combust before the spark plug goes off. This means the engine is > fighting its own combustion, and naturally will result in terrible MPG. No. The E85 project I worked on we just had a gasoline engine from the junkyard. Thing actually ran _better_ on E85 than gasoline. Compression ratio only needs to be changed if you want to take advantage of ethanol's anti-knock properties to produce greater horsepower than what could be produced in gasoline form. It's the opposite of what you describe, it is less likely to cause knock. > Compression > ratio only needs to be changed if you want to take advantage of ethanol's > anti-knock properties to produce greater horsepower than what could be > produced in gasoline form. I kinda wish E85 was widely available here - the idea of antiknock equiv to real gas (not the 92 octane pisswater sold widely around) appeals to me. not to mention the cool factor in having an 'alcohol burning' bike on the street ;) IIRC, next year's Indy 500 will be all ethanol. It'll be interesting to see how it fares vs the last few years. well, only if Danica Patrick qualifies ;) (Is it me, or was this year's Indy by far the most boring 'race' in years....) > IIRC, next year's Indy 500 will be all ethanol. It'll be interesting to > see how it fares vs the last few years. well, only if Danica Patrick > qualifies ;) Since Indy cars currently run on METHANOL, there should be little difference. Actually, ethanol has a higher energy content, so the cars will get more miles per tank (unless they reduce the tank size.) FloydR >>Compression >>ratio only needs to be changed if you want to take advantage of ethanol's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > see how it fares vs the last few years. well, only if Danica Patrick > qualifies ;) Correct, next year the IRL (Indy Racing League) will be using E-100. Also, this year the IRL is using a 90% methyl alcohol/10% ethyl alcohol blend. From the late 1960s(?) until last year, Indy cars DID burn 100% methyl alcohol, with the reason given being a safety measure in that since alcohol is water-soluable, water will put out any fuel fires. If you are observant, you will notice that the last thing done to an Indy race car as it is pulling away at the end of a pit stop is that a pit crew member rinses off the car's fuel filler port area with a spray of water. According to the TV commentators (during this year's '500'), the drivers, pit crews and fans will likely notice little, if any, difference in the cars' performance with E-100. > (Is it me, or was this year's Indy by far the most boring 'race' in > years....) WOW, you must not have seen the final five laps then! ;-) Signature___________________________________________ ____ _______________ Regards, | |\ ____ | | | | |\ Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again! Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | | ___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________ > WOW, you must not have seen the final five laps then! Honestly? I should have just watched the last 20 laps. This year's Indy was interesting all around, though. The token flyover planes weren't even ID'd (I think F-16s *yawn*), the guy playing Taps blew it on national TV (he knew it too - you could see the look on his face afterwards). Could we have at least had the B-2 do it's standard mission profile, i.e. a stadium flyover? Granted, that's about all it's used for... A V-22 attempting to hover and crashing infield would have been cool too. The musical act was Staind. This made no sense. Look, I like Staind as much as the next guy (well, maybe NOT that much), but I don't associate Mr Tribal Tattoos playing one his softer songs, with the IRL. Maybe that was the point? They'd be good for a Nascar event. Maybe IRL has Nascar envy? Jim Neighbors. Well, he's cool and that's that. The old lady (I forget her name) do the start your engines was cool too. Lance driving the pace car. I heard him before the race. Dude, it's a *Corvette*. It's Indy. Really, if you're scared driving a world class (Pushrod and leaf spring, no less!) sports car (o.b. rail content - it gets like 26 - 28 highway) on a darn near perfect track... Some guy eats in in the first few laps. Hey, I think I saw this footage the last few years... Then... *ZZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzzZZZZZzzzzZZZZZz* And occasionally a guy eating it in a turn. Seriously, the telemetry was showing them driving foot to the floor all the time (almost). There was barely any real action, save for a few blunders in the pits, and the world's fastest chick (heh :) trying to make the car work (she certainly works, her team got a few bad breaks, the car wasn't up to it.). Other than that? Not much to watch - few physical failures, nobody blew an engine. Only way you tell it was Indy? Andretti lost again. Poor guy... I hear the Nielsens (Outside North America: They're a well known TV rating service) came in pretty limp this year too. I'm guessing without Danica, they'd be even worse, though the surprise ending might get some hype going into next year. Maybe Indy needs a Granetelli with a turbine car again to shake up the troops. For want of a bearing...... -- wf. <snip a bunch> > Other than that? Not much to watch - few physical failures, nobody blew > an engine. Only way you tell it was Indy? Andretti lost again. Poor [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm guessing without Danica, they'd be even worse, though the surprise > ending might get some hype going into next year. Signaturewf. >Maybe Indy needs a Granetelli with a turbine car again to shake up the >troops. For want of a bearing...... >-- >wf. Indy needs to reinstate the tradition of innovation. The IRL has killed the quest for doing better via engineering. Now, its trying to be a "show" like NASCAR, and to hell with experimentation within a formula. Sucks, I say. Dave Head : >Maybe Indy needs a Granetelli with a turbine car again to shake up the : >troops. For want of a bearing...... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : : Dave Head That "tradition of innovation" had its ups and downs, to say the least. When I was growing up in the 1950s, Indy was, quite simply, the least innovative automotive enterprise in the world. And you know what happened to Granatelli: when his turbine car almost won, they changed the rules to ban it in a New York - er, Indianapolis - minute. The IRL wasn't even invented until many years later. > : >Maybe Indy needs a Granetelli with a turbine car again to shake up the > : >troops. For want of a bearing...... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > York - er, Indianapolis - minute. The IRL wasn't even invented until many > years later. So you think turbine cars _weren't_ innovative? That's what I'm talking about - trying to make Indy the place to prove your idea, like turbines, diesels, exotic fuels, turbochargers, etc., etc. The different technologies were always one of the best reasons for me to watch the race. The idea of, maybe, the venerable Offy engine making 1 more year, vs. the 4 OHC Ford V8's, and then there was the question of front engine vs. rear engine. Hey, lets don't forget about all wheel drive, and 4 wheel steering. Finding out what really works by racing it is one of the most interesting aspects for any race, at least to me. Dave Head : > : >Maybe Indy needs a Granetelli with a turbine car again to shake up the : > : >troops. For want of a bearing...... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] : : Dave Head On the contrary, I'm saying that the turbine car *was* innovative, and they immediately banned it. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. >: > : >Maybe Indy needs a Granetelli with a turbine car again to shake >: > : >up the troops. For want of a bearing...... [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > On the contrary, I'm saying that the turbine car *was* innovative, and > they immediately banned it. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I believe they did NOT "ban" turbines at Indy,they installed specs for them that made them non-competitive.(intentionally) How does one calculate displacement for a turbine?? (compared to an ICE) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >: >Maybe Indy needs a Granetelli with a turbine car again to shake up >: >the troops. For want of a bearing...... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the rules to ban it in a New York - er, Indianapolis - minute. The IRL > wasn't even invented until many years later. F1 was innovative,I don't know about now,though. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Fuel lines, O2 sensor, and computer map to run ethanol at over 10%. That technology wasn't around during the first several decades of sugar cane alcohol fuel in Brazil. Seals and fuel lines and so on were not much of a problem, but I think they may have been using natural rubber. > > Compression ratios are particularly important, if I > > remember right, because the combustion temperature of the alcohol fuel is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > produced in gasoline form. It's the opposite of what you describe, it is > less likely to cause knock. Ah, OK. How about cold starting? In Brazil, during the first 25-30 years or so of alcohol fuel, alcohol cars would also have a small gas tank (maybe a pint?). For starting a cold engine, the first few seconds would be powered from the gasoline tank. The car would switch to the alcohol fuel after that. Do you have any idea what ethanol % is being sold in Brazilian gas stations? Myimpression is that it is at least E85, and the distillary I visited claimed that their stuff could be sold directly to the gas station for immediate sale, which to me sounds as if it is 100%. ("Could be" because in reality that particular "engenio" decided there was more money in mixing in a bit of water and passion fruit juice and selling it to the local drinking establishment rather than the local gas station.) Signature-Glennl The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too! e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317. >> Fuel lines, O2 sensor, and computer map to run ethanol at over 10%. > > That technology wasn't around during the first several decades of sugar > cane alcohol fuel in Brazil. Seals and fuel lines and so on were not much > of a problem, but I think they may have been using natural rubber. I am refering to what it takes to covert a modern car. If you want to talk mechanical carbs swap O2 sensor and fuel map with larger carb jets. Mods to achieve the same end, to change the amount and timing of fuel addition are needed (for optimal results) regardless of the management system. > How about cold starting? In Brazil, during the first 25-30 years or so of > alcohol fuel, alcohol cars would also have a small gas tank (maybe a > pint?). For starting a cold engine, the first few seconds would be > powered from the gasoline tank. The car would switch to the alcohol fuel > after that. It may be a problem in some climates, I am not sure. > Do you have any idea what ethanol % is being sold in Brazilian gas > stations? No. > Myimpression is that it is at least E85, and the distillary I > visited claimed that their stuff could be sold directly to the gas station > for immediate sale, which to me sounds as if it is 100%. ("Could be" > because in reality that particular "engenio" decided there was more money > in mixing in a bit of water and passion fruit juice and selling it to the > local drinking establishment rather than the local gas station.) Fuel grade ethanol is drinkable, although drinkable grade probably could be fuel without any flavoring etc.... Interestingly, the current Car & Driver that I got in today's mail has a fairly comprehensive (and mostly negative) article on Ethanol. > gl4316@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It may be a problem in some climates, I am not sure. The C&D article mentioned that E85 cars failed to start at -15F & -22F. >> Do you have any idea what ethanol % is being sold in Brazilian gas >> stations? I believe it ranges from E10 to E85. >> Myimpression is that it is at least E85, and the distillary I >> visited claimed that their stuff could be sold directly to the gas [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > be > fuel without any flavoring etc.... Except that I have noticed that one of the last steps taken in ethanol production is de-naturing it (to make it un-drinkable.) One *FABULOUS* thing mentioned in the C&D article is why companies (especially GM) want to produce FFVs. It turns out that the vehicles - mostly big SUV's like Tahoes - get to figure their fuel economy as an average of the mileage they get on gasoline and E85. The kicker is that *ONLY THE GASOLINE IS MEASURED*. Which means that mileage on E85 (even though the mileage is 28% less per gallon,) it's essentially: (.72 * gasolinemileage)/0.15, which is a really good "mileage", and lets them easily pass CAFE. FloydR > Interestingly, the current Car & Driver that I got in today's mail has > a fairly comprehensive (and mostly negative) article on Ethanol. It's also promoting the myth that ethanol has to be made with fossil fuel. That's where I stopped reading the article, because at that point it was obvious the author had not thought things through. > > Interestingly, the current Car & Driver that I got in today's mail has > > a fairly comprehensive (and mostly negative) article on Ethanol. > > It's also promoting the myth that ethanol has to be made with fossil fuel. > That's where I stopped reading the article, because at that point it was > obvious the author had not thought things through. FWIU ethanol was started in the United States to replace MTB (or whatever the stuff was that was polluting ground water), and never as a "bio-fuel" to totally replace petrol. Indeed it would never be possible for corn, or sugar cane based ethanol to totally or even partially replace petrol nationwide in the United States as there is simply not possible to grow enough corn or sugar cane domestically. Added to this mix is that corn ethanol costs more to produce than oil, including the fact petrol is needed for production (fertiliser, to run the tractors and other farm equipment), many see ethanol in the United States as yet another pork barrel funding for big agri-business. Candide > mix is that corn ethanol costs more to produce than oil, including the > fact petrol is needed for production (fertiliser, to run the tractors > and other farm equipment), many see ethanol in the United States as > yet another pork barrel funding for big agri-business. 1) Oil's use for things non-fuel doesn't matter to my point as my point was regarding fossil fuels. Tractors and such don't need to run on fossil fuel either. > 1) Oil's use for things non-fuel doesn't matter to my point as my point > was regarding fossil fuels. Tractors and such don't need to run on fossil > fuel either. Who is going to pay to replace all the tractors that use oil now with oil free tractors? >> 1) Oil's use for things non-fuel doesn't matter to my point as my point >> was regarding fossil fuels. Tractors and such don't need to run on fossil >> fuel either. > > Who is going to pay to replace all the tractors that use oil now with oil > free tractors? The existing tractors don't care if the diesel fuel comes from oil or biomass >> 1) Oil's use for things non-fuel doesn't matter to my point as my point >> was regarding fossil fuels. Tractors and such don't need to run on fossil >> fuel either. > >Who is going to pay to replace all the tractors that use oil now with oil >free tractors? The same people who pay farmers to grow a particular type of crop, or not to grow any crops at all. The same people who pay billions to import water from hundreds of miles away and then practically give that water away for free to farmers. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > FWIU ethanol was started in the United States to replace MTB (or > whatever the stuff was that was polluting ground water), and never as a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and other farm equipment), many see ethanol in the United States as > yet another pork barrel funding for big agri-business. There is also the political implication that foreign countries could produce ethanol much cheaper than the US. For example, because of political reasons, the American consumer pays about twice the global market price for sugar, but American agricultural interests would not allow sugar imports from places like Cuba (that could be why a relatively harmless country like Cuba is embargoed, while we happily do business with countries like China and Vietnam). If ethanol is really the fuel of the future, a sugar cane producing country like Cuba could be the future Saudi Arabia. Merritt >If ethanol is really the fuel of the future, a sugar cane producing >country like Cuba could be the future Saudi Arabia. Or we could simply restructure farm subsidies so as to encourage the growth of more corn here at home. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >>If ethanol is really the fuel of the future, a sugar cane producing >>country like Cuba could be the future Saudi Arabia. > > Or we could simply restructure farm subsidies so as to encourage the > growth of more corn here at home. The problem with sugar cane production in Cuba right now is that Castro has essentially destroyed it. It will be interesting to see how fast the industry can be rebuilt (IF it can be rebuilt) once Fidel passes on to that great workers' paradise in the sky. Signature___________________________________________ ____ _______________ Regards, | |\ ____ | | | | |\ Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again! Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | | ___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________ > The problem with sugar cane production in Cuba right now is that Castro has > essentially destroyed it. It will be interesting to see how fast the > industry > can be rebuilt (IF it can be rebuilt) once Fidel passes on to that great > workers' paradise in the sky. I don't know what it was before Castro, but right now it is only slightly less than Mexico, and Mexico is a much larger country. In South America, only Brazil produces more than Cuba. See http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/sugar/2002/November/complete%20circular.pdf Merritt > FWIU ethanol was started in the United States to replace MTB (or > whatever the stuff was that was polluting ground water), and never as a > "bio-fuel" to totally replace petrol. You understand wrong. Ethanol was the original motor fuel, but Standard Oil convinced Detroit to switch their engines to gasoline/diesel because they didn't like all the folks growing their own fuel at home and depriving them of profits. Prohibition was the nail in ethanol's coffin. > Indeed it would never be possible for corn, or sugar cane based > ethanol to totally or even partially replace petrol nationwide in the > United States as there is simply not possible to grow enough corn > or sugar cane domestically. Of course it can partially replace petrol; you're free to debate what percentage is achievable, but nontrivial conversion is already occurring. One fallacy that the anti-ethanol crowd repeats like a mantra is that we need that land for food crops; the reality is that the vast majority of corn is grown for feed, and it's just as valuable after the starch is removed (and turned into ethanol) because it's the _protein_ that is important, and that's left intact. Corn is also not the only crop that can be used for making ethanol; nearly every type of plant can be used, though some make more economic sense than others. Things like switchgrass are very exciting because they can be grown on non-agricultural land. Hemp is also promising, and the stuff grows like a weed (that's why marijuana gets that nickname -- it's technically a weed, not a vegetable). > Added to this mix is that corn ethanol costs more to produce than > oil, They're getting close, and ethanol production costs fall every year. Bioengineered yeast in particular will dramatically improve output, but simple economy of scale is turning the tide already. > including the fact petrol is needed for production (fertiliser, to run > the tractors and other farm equipment), many see ethanol in the > United States as yet another pork barrel funding for big agri-business. Fertilizer is a big problem, but I'm sure some enterprising folks will find a solution to that if needed. It's not that big a demand on oil imports. Farm equipment was actually the first vehicle fleet to be converted to ethanol; nearly all ethanol sales are in the midwest because farmers wanted to run their farms on their own crops instead of expensive imported oil. That problem is already solved. If anything, ethanol will boost demand for crops and allow us to end agricultural subsidies. It's the opposite of pork, at least as far as farmers are concerned. I'm sure lobbyists will push for that money to be dumped into getting plants up and running, distribution networks in place, cars and filling stations converted, etc. but that's a slightly different matter. S SignatureStephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In article <128a7u159kt6674@corp.supernews.com>, Floyd Rogers wrote: >> Interestingly, the current Car & Driver that I got in today's mail has [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's where I stopped reading the article, because at that point it was > obvious the author had not thought things through. If you had finished the article, you would have seen that they note the ideal would be cellulosic ethanol that uses the lignin for the heat input needed. FloydR >> In article <128a7u159kt6674@corp.supernews.com>, Floyd Rogers wrote: >>> Interestingly, the current Car & Driver that I got in today's mail [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > FloydR Does any alcohol manufacturer -in the US- use fermentation waste to provide process energy? Part of it or total? Or is this just a "Brazil does that" thing? SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > "Floyd Rogers" <fbloogyuds@hotmail.com> wrote >> If you had finished the article, you would have seen that they note [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Or is this just a "Brazil does that" thing? I saw a recent article (in Science News IIRC) that Trinidad (?) was going to try to build some power plants to burn the cane waste to provide electricity. In the US, it's expensive to build a power plant that burns cornstalks or other woody waste that would meet emissions standards. They don't have to worry about that in the third world. Notice that plants that burn garbage don't exist in the US - they burn the methane extracted from the landfill instead. FloydR > > Interestingly, the current Car & Driver that I got in today's mail has > > a fairly comprehensive (and mostly negative) article on Ethanol. > > It's also promoting the myth that ethanol has to be made with fossil fuel. > That's where I stopped reading the article, because at that point it was > obvious the author had not thought things through. I think the point is that if we are going to use corn (maize) to create ethanol (as the agricultural interests in the US want), it takes a lot of fossil fuel to fertilize, cultivate, and transport the corn. That is not necessary, of course, but that is the way it currently is in the US. Merritt >> > Interestingly, the current Car & Driver that I got in today's mail >> > has a fairly comprehensive (and mostly negative) article on [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Merritt And chances are,the farm machinery and trucks currently in use cannot use alcohol.Especially the diesel ones.Then there are the diesel-electric train engines which also cannot use alk. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > And chances are,the farm machinery and trucks currently in use cannot use > alcohol.Especially the diesel ones.Then there are the diesel-electric train > engines which also cannot use alk. If they use gasoline they could be modified. If they use diesel they could use bio-diesel. However the fuel used by farm equipment is tiny, the big contributor is the energy used in processing which could also come from wind, solar, geothermal, nuke, coal (fossil fuel, but not oil), and any other source that can't be used to fuel a motor vehicle. > In article <Xns97DA9F74FE0EBjyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83>, Jim Yanik > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > If they use gasoline they could be modified. Yes,they -could-,but most likely would not be modified. > If they use diesel they > could use bio-diesel. Bio-diesel is not alcohol,doesn't use any in it,AFAIK. Bio-diesel would have to come from -somewhere-,thus need to be transported and be regularly availble in sufficient quantity for farming operations. It's not that available.Another "could use"(wishful thinking). > However the fuel used by farm equipment is tiny, the big contributor > is the energy used in processing which could also come from wind, > solar, geothermal, nuke, coal (fossil fuel, but not oil), and any > other source that can't be used to fuel a motor vehicle. S.Africa used to have a coal-to-oil process. Solar,geothermal,wind,nuclear;all those are -could come from-,but highly unlikely that it would. Coal is a environmentally bad and humanly bad energy source.(kills and injures a lot of people) Only nuclear power is of any commercially available,useful and practical quantity.And new nuke plants are not being built,although I wish they were.Instead,nuke plants are being closed down. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> In article <Xns97DA9F74FE0EBjyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83>, Jim Yanik >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bio-diesel is not alcohol,doesn't use any in it,AFAIK. It's not soylent green either. Got any more replies to claims I didn't make? > Bio-diesel would have to come from -somewhere-,thus need to be transported > and be regularly availble in sufficient quantity for farming operations. > It's not that available.Another "could use"(wishful thinking). Ahh f.ck it, lets burn cheap to extract middle east oil forever and be involved in constant wars and have our liberty erroded endlessly as we pay ever higher prices for fuel. Oh my god, there's these little problems, best to quit now. >> However the fuel used by farm equipment is tiny, the big contributor >> is the energy used in processing which could also come from wind, >> solar, geothermal, nuke, coal (fossil fuel, but not oil), and any >> other source that can't be used to fuel a motor vehicle. > S.Africa used to have a coal-to-oil process. Who da f.ck cares? We make electrical power from coal every friggin day here in the USA. > Solar,geothermal,wind,nuclear;all those are -could come from-,but highly > unlikely that it would. Here we go again... any little problem and we might not as well try. > Coal is a environmentally bad and humanly bad > energy source.(kills and injures a lot of people) Coal is an _accepted_ energy source and there is a lot of it in the USA. See, environmentalists aren't logical. Hell, most of them are political creatures, and in the political environment status-quo coal is marginally ok. However, I haven't seen any coal powered cars on the market recently, have you? > Only nuclear power is of any commercially available,useful and practical > quantity.And new nuke plants are not being built,although I wish they > were.Instead,nuke plants are being closed down. See the status-quo coal political thing. Nukes are bad politically. >Ahh f.ck it, lets burn cheap to extract middle east oil forever and be >involved in constant wars and have our liberty erroded endlessly as we pay >ever higher prices for fuel. Oh my god, there's these little problems, best >to quit now. All the bad things you mention are going to happen anyway; why make it worse by subsidizing ADM more? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>Ahh f.ck it, lets burn cheap to extract middle east oil forever and be >>involved in constant wars and have our liberty erroded endlessly as we pay [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > All the bad things you mention are going to happen anyway; why make it > worse by subsidizing ADM more? I've long been against subsidizing ADM. Seeing the benefits of ethanol and subsidizing ADM are exclusive to one another. And even if we were to continue entirely with gasoline, there is more than enough oil in the americas at US $40 a barrel. But again, all the people who moan about any little technical obstruction will do the same with that. > In article <Xns97DAC4C4A996Ejyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84>, Jim Yanik > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > It's not soylent green either. Got any more replies to claims I didn't > make? Well,DIESEL is not the TOPIC. Alcohol is the topic.Read the SUBJECT LINE. >> Bio-diesel would have to come from -somewhere-,thus need to be >> transported and be regularly availble in sufficient quantity for [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Who da f.ck cares? We make electrical power from coal every friggin > day here in the USA. And no practical way to get that electic power into an automobile. >> Solar,geothermal,wind,nuclear;all those are -could come from-,but >> highly unlikely that it would. > > Here we go again... any little problem and we might not as well try. It's that the price/performance is not practical. People ARE in business to make money. >> Coal is a environmentally bad and humanly bad >> energy source.(kills and injures a lot of people) > > Coal is an _accepted_ energy source and there is a lot of it in the > USA. But it's not any good powering autos. > See, environmentalists aren't logical. Hell, most of them are > political creatures, and in the political environment status-quo coal [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > See the status-quo coal political thing. Nukes are bad politically. Ah,so we should just not try,huh??? (your words from above;"Here we go again... any little problem and we might not as well try. ") SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>> If they use diesel they >>>> could use bio-diesel. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well,DIESEL is not the TOPIC. Alcohol is the topic.Read the SUBJECT LINE. It is when you moan about the fuel used for the equipment to grow the crops that are used to make the ethanol. >>> S.Africa used to have a coal-to-oil process. >> >> Who da f.ck cares? We make electrical power from coal every friggin >> day here in the USA. > And no practical way to get that electic power into an automobile. Coal->electricity->heat->ethanol->car. Or even Coal->heat->ethanol->car >>> Solar,geothermal,wind,nuclear;all those are -could come from-,but >>> highly unlikely that it would. >> >> Here we go again... any little problem and we might not as well try. > It's that the price/performance is not practical. > People ARE in business to make money. Nothing is practical if you never try. At one time AC current wasn't considered 'practical' either. When Telsa changed that, people like you attacked it. >> See the status-quo coal political thing. Nukes are bad politically. > Ah,so we should just not try,huh??? Obviously you have an intentional comprension problem. > In article <Xns97DB807C3BE43jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84>, Jim Yanik > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It is when you moan about the fuel used for the equipment to grow the > crops that are used to make the ethanol. No,other people claimed that the alcohol process can be made using alk to grow the crops,heat the mash and evaporators.I showed that it can't always be used to grow the crops. > >>>> S.Africa used to have a coal-to-oil process. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Coal->electricity->heat->ethanol->car. Causes pollution that the use of bio-fuels is promised to reduce or eliminate. > Or even > > Coal->heat->ethanol->car Causes pollution that the use of bio-fuels is promised to reduce or eliminate. Mining coal isn't very nice to people either. >>>> Solar,geothermal,wind,nuclear;all those are -could come from-,but >>>> highly unlikely that it would. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Nothing is practical if you never try. Anyone is welcome to try,on their own nickel. When it needs subsidies,then practicality becomes an issue. > At one time AC current wasn't > considered 'practical' either. When Telsa changed that, people like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Obviously you have an intentional comprension problem. Obviously,you can't handle your own words used against you. (I note you edited the repost of them out of your reply.It must have really bothered you.) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> In article <Xns97DB807C3BE43jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84>, Jim Yanik >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > grow the crops,heat the mash and evaporators.I showed that it can't always > be used to grow the crops. Fact remains, one doesn't have to use fossil fuels to grow the crops. >>>>> S.Africa used to have a coal-to-oil process. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Coal->electricity->heat->ethanol->car. > Causes pollution that the use of bio-fuels is promised to reduce or > eliminate. So what? I have not made any pollution argument for ethanol. >> Or even >> Coal->heat->ethanol->car > Causes pollution that the use of bio-fuels is promised to reduce or > eliminate. I have made no pollution arguement for ethanol. Care to knock down arguments about space aliens I haven't made ? > Mining coal isn't very nice to people either. Wooptie do. >>>>> Solar,geothermal,wind,nuclear;all those are -could come from-,but >>>>> highly unlikely that it would. >>>> >>>> Here we go again... any little problem and we might not as well try. >>> It's that the price/performance is not practical. >>> People ARE in business to make money. >> Nothing is practical if you never try. > Anyone is welcome to try,on their own nickel. > When it needs subsidies,then practicality becomes an issue. I haven't argued for subsidies. However, gasoline gets some pretty big subsidies. How many billons a day is Iraq up to now? And the fact is nobody would give a rats a.s about desert nation if there wasn't oil there. >> At one time AC current wasn't >> considered 'practical' either. When Telsa changed that, people like >> you attacked it. >>>> See the status-quo coal political thing. Nukes are bad politically. >>> Ah,so we should just not try,huh??? >> Obviously you have an intentional comprension problem. > Obviously,you can't handle your own words used against you. > (I note you edited the repost of them out of your reply.It must have really > bothered you.) I handle it just fine. That comment had nothing to do about not trying, but a comparision with coal power. It's a fact, coal is status-quo politically acceptable, nukes are not. That's just a fact. Since I had previously posted saying nukes could be used that would indicate I was for trying nukes. Thusly, your intentional comprehension problem. As to editing, I edited out what was not replied to. If you notice, I tend to cut down old quoted material. Or should I start posting like jaybird for you? > > Myimpression is that it is at least E85, and the distillary I > > visited claimed that their stuff could be sold directly to the gas station [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Fuel grade ethanol is drinkable, although drinkable grade probably could be > fuel without any flavoring etc.... I suspect if we got to the point of using pure ethanol for automotive fuel, it would be "denatured", and rendered undrinkable. It might depend on whether the taxes were higher as a fuel or as a beverage <grin>. "Drink up, boys, the highways need fixing." Merritt >> Fuel grade ethanol is drinkable, although drinkable grade probably could be >> fuel without any flavoring etc.... > > I suspect if we got to the point of using pure ethanol for automotive > fuel, it would be "denatured", and rendered undrinkable. That's what intended to write, not drinkable. arg! my typo. >> Fuel grade ethanol is drinkable, although drinkable grade probably >> could be fuel without any flavoring etc.... > > I suspect if we got to the point of using pure ethanol for automotive > fuel, it would be "denatured", and rendered undrinkable. Fuel ethanol is denatured right after distillation both for tax reasons (see below) and to provide color to the flame in the event of a spill. It's poisonous (it'll make you puke, but shouldn't kill you) and very undrinkable. Straight vodka can be used as a fuel in a pinch, but it can't be mixed with gasoline due to the water content. Most other alcoholic beverages would need to be distilled into vodka due to all the impurities and flavoring. > It might depend on whether the taxes were higher as a fuel or as a > beverage <grin>. "Drink up, boys, the highways need fixing." The taxes on fuel ethanol were pretty nutty until a few years ago, but that's changed. Now the way it works is that a producer gets a permit from the ATF (nearly free for quantities under a few million gallons per year) and submits to random spot checks to make sure the alcohol is denatured; denatured alcohol is a "fuel" under federal tax laws, thus it is subject to fuel excise taxes and _not_ alcohol excise taxes. However, if the ATF finds you're not denaturing it immediately after distillation, you get hit with _both_ taxes. S SignatureStephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com : Fuel grade ethanol is drinkable, although drinkable grade probably could be : fuel without any flavoring etc.... IIRC, in the U.S. they're required to render it poisonous. Otherwise it's subject to federal liquor taxes. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message