Use of ethanol in Chrysler products

Nope. Our racing kart engines had their compression ratios upped to an extreme
when they were converted to alcohol, and they ran the tanks dry _waaaay_
earlier than the they did before the conversion. Fuel/air ratio is about 3X
for alcohol compared to gasolin- you're average car that gets 300 - 500 miles
per tank of gas would be running out at 100 - 160 miles. And... people
wouldn't buy it.

The higher heat (we used to melt the aluminum heads quite regularly on our alky
burning racing kart engines) are going to spew NOx all over the environment.

Yeah, right - that's why everybody did it in the 70's when the oil embargo
caused near-$4.00/gallon equivalent prices. Not. Millions of people looked
into it, and nobody did it. It wasn't feasible for an individual to do, that's
all.

New technology might get alcohol into cars in America OK, but people won't like
it when they have to buy 50 gallons at a time in order to run a car for the
former range of 300 miles, and with racing alcohol (methanol) going for around
$9 a gallon, this could be cause for a revolution. Ethanol might be cheaper
than methanol, but it'd have to be about a third the price of gasoline in order
to start getting economically competitive.

We have to build a transportation system based on nuclear power or we're going
to be in an oil-deprived, stone-age economy again eventually. And somebody
better get nuclear fusion to happen, too, 'cuz we'll run out of Uranium someday
too.

Dave Head

 

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')

 

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

 

http://www.engin.umd.umich.edu/rese...ports/REUReport5-EmissionsE0-E85-2004.doc.pdf

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.

 

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?