http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/10/10302002/ap_48840.asp

I ought to point out, especially since I know so much about the subject, how exactly we can achieve renewable energy for transportation on a national scale....

Hydrogen is bullshit. In spite of the high efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells, the most compact hydrogen storage method are compressed gas cylinders with 4 - 11 weight-percent storage capacity. In other words compressed gas tanks weigh 10-20 times more than the fuel stored inside them, and this technology is not expected to improve in the next 20 years. As a result a hydrogen-fueled car will have either non-existent passenger/cargo carrying capacity, or very short range. Via the fundamental equation for kinetic energy the increased weight of the car due to the hydrogen fuel tank will mean more fuel is consumed just to get the car up to highway speeds, and the heavy car will experience more rolling friction. A hydrogen fuel cell car will cost as much as a house (can you say "mortgage"?). The reciprocating compressor used to refuel the car with compressed hydrogen will run you an extra $5000 plus tax, and the least expensive source of hydrogen will be natural gas, a non-renewable fossil fuel (OH YEAH! that's the bitch!!!).

In contrast a featherweight container will store gallons of liquid fuel, such as ethanol. Ethanol is the way to go, since the fuel tank does not contribute to increased weight of the car. Ethanol can be made at home by fermenting sugars and starchy plants. It is made on an industrial scale by converting whole plants (composed of cellulose) to fermentable sugars in a process called hydrolysis, where the long fiber chains are broken down into glucose using a weak acid solution.

Most plants consist of up to 98 percent cellulose. In fact cellulose is the most abundant substance made by living things. Originally petroleum came from cellulose, but it has been rotting under the earth for millions of years. Freshly grown biomass can be made into ethanol, which is cleaner burning anyway in internal combustion engines. And as a pure fuel, ethanol can be used in fuel cells as well should they ever become affordable.

But how do we grow enough biomass to fuel the transportation industry with ethanol without competing with food production? See my essay entitled "Benthic Energy", found near the bottom of my starship generations website:

href=http://geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html

We need to execute all minivan and suv drivers.

Not true actually, most flexible fuel equipped vehicles on the road are minivans, SUVs and trucks. They are able to use either gasoline or renewable ethanol fuel interchangeably. However their owners are often unaware of this capability.

Check out this website:
http://www.ccities.doe.gov/vbg/consumers/e85.shtml

And perhaps fuel choice is more important than fuel economy....


Kyoto Commitment Holds Promise for Ethanol

The Prime Minister’s recent declaration at the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainability that he intends to ratify the Kyoto protocol can only be good news for ethanol. "Support for ethanol as been building in Ottawa and around the country for the past two years and ratification will only boost that support further," said CRFA Chair Bob Sicard.

Department officials from Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada have been working throughout the summer on an ethanol mandate and dealing with the many complicated issues that would confront the government should the Minister go forward with his plans to have ethanol in all gasoline. It is still unclear what form a mandate may take, but ethanol is clearly on the minds of Ministers and the Prime Minister’s Office when discussing Kyoto and green house gas reductions. The Ottawa citizen reported this spring that Minister Dhaliwal was "seriously considering a law that would force oil companies to mix the plant-based fuel ethanol into motor vehicle gasoline as a way to cut green house gases under the Kyoto protocol." Under the recently announced Climate Change discussion paper, Ottawa has proposed a 5% and 10% mandate for ethanol in Canada.

With respect to timing, it is expected that the federal government will provide a "plan" to meet its Kyoto target some time in late October prior to the next round of climate change discussions known as CoP8.

While momentum continues to build for ethanol it is very important that people evidence their support to the government. If you wish to express your support for ethanol and Minister Dhaliwal’s proposed mandate please click on the icon below and send a message to the Prime Minister.

CRFA Launches Ad Campaign to Promote Ethanol

The CRFA launched their climate change ad campaign on September 16 with a series of bus shelter ads promoting the benefits of ethanol. The bus shelter ads promote ethanol’s climate change and green house gas benefits and will be initially located along Wellington Street facing Parliament Hill. The campaign will also launch a series of newspaper ads beginning with the Hill Times in Ottawa later this month that will focus on the many benefits of developing an ethanol industry in Canada. The bus shelter ad featured above will almost certainly get the attention of a few MPs when the House resume sitting at the end of September!

Source:
http://www.greenfuels.org/

=====================================
=====================================

Most flexible fuel equipped vehicles on the road are minivans, SUVs, and trucks, NOT cars. These vehicles can burn gasoline or renewable ethanol (E85) fuel interchangeably. However their owners are often unaware of this capability.

Check out this website:
http://www.ccities.doe.gov/vbg/consumers/e85.shtml

But the Canadian government mandate is 5 - 10 percent ethanol mixed with gasoline. Cars can burn E5 or E10 without any modifications at all. At the same time they displace 5 - 10 percent of gasoline consumption and reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by the same amount.

=====================================
=====================================

Refueling Stations in Ontario

There are currently no public access ethanol (E-85) refueling stations in Ontario.

Source:
http://www.ccities.doe.gov/corridor/refueling.shtml

The Canadian government plans to require ethanol to be mixed with the gasoline before it reaches the refueling stations, so we don't have to choose between gasoline or ethanol. At the intended levels of 5-10 percent ethanol in gasoline no modifications are required. However any greater amount of ethanol will require flexible fuel equipped vehicles, such as those already available from automakers.

But how do we grow enough biomass to fuel the transportation industry with ethanol without competing with food production? See my essay entitled "Benthic Energy", found near the bottom of my starship generations website

Nice essay. Didnt you know that corn is bad for you? According to some scientists it grinds away at the teeth and can cause intestinal problems.

I hate people who drive SUVs, they think that they own the road... the only reason I drive slow sometimes is to piss them off.

I'll find out more on that corn stuff...in the meantime Im in class.

Most people would like to see ethanol or gasoline reformers in fuel-cell vehicles first, to capitalize on the existing liquid-fuel infrastructure.

In the future, we may find it feasible to build cryogenic or solid anhydride hydrogen storage systems for mass production.

- Warren

No it won't be possible. The storage capacity of metal hydrides is around 0.5 percent by weight, even worse than liquid sodium borohydride at around 4.5 percent by weight.

Compressed gas is the best at around 7 wt-% storage for 10,000 psi compression, and 11 wt-% hydrogen capacity for 5000 psi compression (that's right, it gets worse the higher the compression). That still means the tanks are 10-20 times as massive as the fuel inside them.

Ethanol is best, it is liquid at room temperature and pressure, and a featherweight plastic container will hold gallons of the stuff.


(hydrogen is my bitch, I like to slap it around, it's so easy to abuse... heh heh)

I don't think the problem is technology. I have an old magazine clipping of how simple it would be for automobiles to be converted over to a methanol burning machine.

It had a lighter engine, lower profile, and a braking flywheel to capture stored energy. the engine would actually cut off until you hit the gas again, and the flywheel would start the car and engine moving.

The problem is both political (oil companies don't want you to stop buying gas) and the catch-22 of which comes first, the massive investment of methanol pumping stations so that people will buy the cars, or the vehicles themselves before there are pumps for methanol readily available.

We're stuck in the oil rut, and it's easier and cheaper to stay there than to battle out. If you ask the simple question, is there a better way than petroleum, it's a no-brainer, of course...but it's getting there that's the struggle.

BTW, which is better anyway, methanol or ethanol?

Success_machine, I'm curious -- what's your background?

- Warren

Considering that Hawaii has to import all of it's fuel oil and
biomass is abundant, doesn't it seem logical that it would
already be the 'fuel of choice' were it feasible?

See: http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/ethanol/ch1.html

Take care :cool:

No, because before 10 years ago ethanol production plants were poorly desgned. I'm not qualified to say specifically in what way they were poorly designed. I'm just saying that all the literature indicates poor thermodynamic efficiency was achieved until the 1990s. Before then it took more energy to produce ethanol than was obtained in the form of fuel. It was an energy sink. But not anymore. These days energy surpluses of 25% are common, some much higher. And most of this is due to the improvements in ethanol facilities which today consume far less energy in operation.

25% efficiency common?

Put up, or can it!

Take care :cool:


"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01) -

Ethanol produced in modern facilities contains roughly 25 percent more energy than was required to produce it. In some cases even more than 25% energy surplus was achieved.

Reference: US Dept. of Agriculture
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html


Another interesting fact is that plants are at least 17.6 percent efficient at converting solar energy into fibrous plant tissue that is high in cellulose, the stuff that ethanol is made from. This easily competes with, and often exceeds, the efficiencies often reported for photovoltaics, wind power and solar thermal powerplants. In the case of biomass, it is able to be used either to produce electricity or to make automotive ethanol, a flexibility not realized with other renewable energy sources.

Reference: Starship Generations, topic #2, charts
http://geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html

Ethanol produces pollution when burned. For that reason alone it can't be considered the ideal fuel.

It produces less pollution than gasoline, due to its higher oxygen fraction and lower combustion temperature. Also, since it comes from biomass, all greenhouse gas emissions are reabsorbed in the next year's agricultural energy crop.

I don't know that "less pollution" than gasoline is a good enough target to shoot for, considering how big an effort will be required.

From what I've read, it is expected that nano-technology will someday make solar power an inexpensive energy source. We then need to use this cheap solar power to produce, from readily available materials, a different energy souce for use in automobiles -- one that produces at least as little pollution as hydrogen (heat and water) and has good storage properties as well.

"Estimating the Net Energy Balance" from a 1995 study?

"Washington, August 7, 2002, Reuters: Measured from cornfield to the fuel tank, ethanol provides more energy than is consumed in producing it, researchers said in a new report that could figure in congressional debate over U.S. energy policy." Report by who?

Come off of it, you're blowing smoke. Lets have some hard data!

Take care :cool:


"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01) -

postoak,

Solar power will never be viable, unless we can design ultra (and I mean ultra) efficient machines.

The earth receives only about 1 kW per m2. There isn't much energy to be captured in the first place. Second, if you were to harvest solar energy on a global scale, you'd kill all the creatures that depend on solar energy (nearly every organism on the planet).

Solar is not a solution, unfortunately.

- Warren

chroot - all I know is what I read. :)

I got this from www.nanozine.com:


Again, RELEASE THE NANITES! These tireless microscopic wonder "Servants of Humanity" will be called upon to resurface existing roads with a coating of high-efficiency solar cells topped by a layer of tough diamond for good measure. With 300 watts of raw solar energy bathing every square meter of the Earth daily, only a small portion of existing road surface would be needed for energy collection. Just repave more as demand for electricity rises. Goodbye Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Nitric Oxide, and Sulfur Dioxide! Stop Acid Rain! Preserve the Ozone! Save the Forests! Protect Marble Antiquities such as the Parthenon!

Somewhere else I read that the amount of solar energy striking the earth's surface is 40,000 times our current energy needs.

Chagur: there is lots of hard data, just read some of the articles on this website...

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

The people supporting ethanol include Argonne National Laboratory, US National Transportation Ministry, Colorado School of Mines, US Dept. of Agriculture, National Corn Growers Association, and the US Dept of Energy. Add to that the Canadian Federal Government, who has declared their mandate to implement ethanol in gasoline nationwide up to 10% concentrations as part of their effort to achieve the Kyoto obligations. Biomass-derived ethanol is a zero net emitter of greenhouse gases, and any amount added to motor vehicle fuel will directly displace the same amount of fossil fuel.

Only the Sierra Club and David Pimentel from Cornell University are against it. For some reason they have gotten more media coverage than the people who are genuinely interested in national unity, and maintaining our way of life.

I recently found a book in Toronto Metro Reference Library, published in 1907, containing detailed technical and economic information on the production of ethanol and its use in motor vehicles as a replacement for gasoline. At the time almost no oil was imported from abroad and oil shortage was a real possibility. Even 100 years ago ethanol was considered the best alternative.

Nothing has changed today, although there are alot of so-called alternatives in the popular media, e.g. nanotechnology or hydrogen fuels cells, none of which have technical merit. They have merely clouded our understanding of the problem.

duh. :p

Success_Machine,

The URL you provided is the same as one of the two you previously posted!

"A US Department of Agriculture study concludes that ethanol contains 34%
more energy than is used to grow and harvest the corn and distill it into ethanol"

What I said before still holds: Where's the hard data? What USDA study?

Take care :rolleyes:

"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01) -

Is this some sort of neo-existentialism: "If I don't click on the link, you can't prove to me the website exists!" :bugeye:

Try again:
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

How many times are you going to post the same URL? This is the third
time you've directed me to the 'journeytoforever.org' web site.

Now how about some meat? You've fed me enough fluff.

Take care :rolleyes:


"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01) -

Chagur -- that url has links to the actual reports, but here they are:

PRO: http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2001/ethanol/08_22_01c.htm
CON: http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/v98n2/mkh-new7.html

A quick look at the "pro" one makes me think the prospects for ethanol are not as rosy as portrayed by the creator of this thread.

A plan to create enormous amounts of power from the sun and wind. (http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf/All/A7BD712D34AE25B3CA256B12001BA833!open)

Smaller scale versions have worked quite well.

BTW, my electronics lecturer, a senior member of the IEEE and an expert in nuclear, electrical, and alternative power sources, believes these towers are a damn great idea.

Originally posted by Adam
[B]A plan to create enormous amounts of power from the sun and wind. (http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf/All/A7BD712D34AE25B3CA256B12001BA833!open)

Smaller scale versions have worked quite well.

I calculate a power-to-land area ratio of 2.5W / m² for this chimney structure (5km radius circle generating 200MW). That's less than one percent efficiency. Also, there exist far too many engineering difficulties in a project of this complexity. I highly doubt these structures will ever be built.

- Warren

There's no doubt that it works – efficiently, reliably, and simply. In 1982, Professor Jörg Schlaich's engineering consultancy, Schlaich Bergermann and Partner (SBP) based in Stuttgart, Germany, built a 200m tall, 50-kilowatt prototype solar thermal tower near Manzanares, south-eastern Spain.

The greenhouse gas emissions gen-erated in the building phase would be recouped within the first two-and-a-half years of operation, says Davey. Thereafter, it's a free lunch: zero emissions, convertible to carbon credits in a global market.

A convective airflow moving at 35km/h to 50km/h will spin the 32 wind turbines mounted about 40m above ground level, generating a peak output of 200MW.

The fact the tower would be only six times higher than its diameter is the key to its strength and stability, says Davey. Tensioned guy wires bolted to its steel frame, like the spokes on a bicycle wheel, would limit flexing and twisting in high winds.

A 1km tower is within easy reach of modern engineering and construction techniques, says Davey. Among the engineers EnviroMission consulted was Professor Bill Melbourne, of Monash University, an expert on the effects of wind on tall structures who confirmed the 1km tower would easily withstand the elements.

I read the article, in its entirety. I responded to a bit right in the middle of your supplied quote. Do you have a point?

- Warren

Just that the experts seem to think it is quite possible, and quite a good idea. Including, as I said, a senior member of the IEEE.

Thanks for the links, but I'd already read them ... and a few others the URL refers to ... and not one of them states the actual efficiency and BTU gain under current production capabilities but rather the supposed, or projected gains under what can only be considered 'ideal' conditions that are usually dependant on fossil fuel supplimentation.

Also, and what I find most interesting, is that none of the 'pro' reports seriously address the 'con' aspects. Sort of a 'preaching to the believers' situation that makes me even more critical of Success_Machine's position.

My initial question:
Considering that Hawaii has to import all of it's fuel oil and biomass is abundant, doesn't it seem logical that it would already be the 'fuel of choice' were it feasible? Is still valid ... And has not been answered.

Take care :cool:

"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01) -

Some groovy links I used for an assignment last semester:

Department of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Solar Energy Applications Research Group (SEARG),
(A member of the World Renewable Energy Network, WREN),
http://www.ecse.monash.edu.au/prof/searg/ESAA-Shortcourse-indexsc.html

Department Of Energy’s Renewable Energy Annual 1996:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/renewable.energy.annual/contents.html

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), Energy Facts: http://www.iclei.org/efacts/petro.htm

Laying The Foundation For Space Solar Power: An Assessment of NASA's Space Solar Power Investment Strategy (2001),
National Academy Press:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309075971/html/index.html

Natural Gas at The Energy Source Network:
http://www.naturalgas.com/

Natural Gas Information & Educational Resources:
http://www.naturalgas.org/

Nuclear Tourist, an introduction to nuclear power technologies:
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/why.htm

Renewable Power Pathways: A Review of The U.S. Department of Energy's Renewable Energy Programs (2000),
National Academy Press:
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309069807/html/

Solarenergy.com
http://www.solarenergy.com

The World Factbook 2001: Energy Consumption:
http://www.bartleby.com/151/a77.html

Uranium Information Centre:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm

USA Department Of Energy, Energy Information Administration: Analyses:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/analysis/index.html

Wavegen:
http://www.wavegen.co.uk

Windpower Organisation:
http://www.windpower.org/core.htm

I don't know why I have to post direct links, but if you insist: Here are several articles in favor of ethanol:

Collection of reports published in 1995:

1. 1995 Full Report by US Dept of Agriculture (http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm)
2. 1995 Full Report by US Institute for Local Self Reliance (http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/ceic/library/admin/uploadedfiles/How_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.htm l)

Collection of reports published in 1998:

1. April 1998 Critical Report by Pimentel at Cornell University c/o Hubbert Center Colorado School of Mines (http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/v98n2/mkh-new7.html)

Collection of reports published in 2000:

1. February 2000 Report by Wang & Santini of Argonne National Laboratory c/o US National Corn Growers Association (http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2001/ethanol/08_22_01c.htm)
2. April 2000 Article from Homestead Technology (http://www.homesteadtechnology.com/newsletters/20000405.txt)

Collection of reports published in 2001:

1. August 2001 Critical Report by Pimentel of Cornell University (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html)
2. August 2001 Full Rebuttal of Pimentel by US Corn Growers Association (http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2001/ethanol/08_22_01a.htm)
3. Sept 2001 Full Rebuttal of Pimentel by Graboski at Colorado School of Mines (http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2001/ethanol/08_22_01b.htm)

Collection of reports published in 2002:

1. August 2002 Abstract by US Renewable Fuels Association (http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pr020801b.html)
2. July 2002 Full Report by US Dept of Agriculture (http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-813.pdf)
3. August 2002 News Item from Planet Ark (http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17186/story.htm)


It is pretty clear why Pimentel got a negative result for ethanol production: he was using low-quality equipment with higher-than-average energy consumption. The only other study that had a small negative energy output for ethanol was due to extremely low crop yields per acre.

Just as a reminder Success_Machine, what I initially posted was:

"Considering that Hawaii has to import all of its fuel oil and
biomass is abundant, doesn't it seem logical that it would
already be the 'fuel of choice' were it feasible?"
*** How many times must I repeat it? ***

You have not addressed this and instead attempted to inundate
me with sites related to corn produced ethanol which vary widely
in their estimates of the true NEV and all of which refer to the
use of fossil fuels of one sort or another to achieve whichever
NEV they end up with.

This is ridiculous. Until you are willing to properly, and factually,
address the question I possed, forget it.

Take care :rolleyes:

"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01) -

I'm personally convinced that ethanol is the way to go. But if you are interested in motor grade ethanol production specifically in Hawaii, here are a list of publications:

1. July 1994 Ethanol Production in Hawaii, Processes, Feedstocks, and Current Economic Feasibility of Fuel Grade Ethanol Production in Hawaii (http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/ethanol/ethanol94.pdf), Prepared for State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism

2. October 1999 Siting Evaluation for Biomass-Ethanol Production in Hawaii (http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/bioethanol/bioethanol.pdf), Report by Charles M. Kinoshita and Jiachun Zhou, Department of Biosystems Engineering, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, October, 1999

3. June 2000 Hawaii Ethanol Production Tax Credit (http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/ethanol-incentive.html)

4. If you live in Hawaii, you can attend the upcoming Fuel Ethanol Workshop and Free Classes for Automotive Service Technicians (http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/ethanol.html) scheduled for November 14, 2002, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM at the Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson Drive, Honolulu, Hawaii.

FYI the use of petroleum is unavoidable. Petroleum is used in ammonia based fertilizers, as lubricants, and most machinery is designed to use diesel as fuel. This equipment must be used through the end of their operational lifespan in order to recoup the cost of purchasing them. This is why flexible fueling will be very important in the future, because people will not be able to afford to replace all their power equipment in the event of a fuel shortage. It is far better to be able to use different fuels in the same machinery, since the machinery is so much more expensive than the fuel it consumes.

5. There is information on ethanol-diesel blends, so-called E-diesel, available at the Alternative Fuels Data Center (http://www.afdc.doe.gov/altfuel/ediesel_general.html). These blends work up to 15% ethanol using additives to stabilize the mixture and maintain lubrication. Specially designed diesel engines can burn 100% ethanol, but these modern engines are rarely incorporated into industrial & farming equipment, especially those already in use, and that are many years old.

1. *** Could not access cited URL ***

2. "If ethanol were cost competitive with petroleum-based transportation
fuels, the State of Hawaii would be an ideal location to produce, distribute,
and use ethanol fuel." Note: Cost of production data not provided.

3. Legislation re. tax credit to encourage ethanol production.
Note: No information re. actual ethanol production.

4. Notice includes the following statement: "Ethanol fuel is not currently
produced in Hawaii. However, it could be."

5. "E-diesel is currently an experimental fuel. There are a number of technical
and regulatory barriers to commercialization."

Again, Success_Machine you have provided a number of URL's (5) that, if anything,
support my contention that ethanol fuel is not feasible at present even under
what might be considered ideal circumstances and conditions.

Take care :rolleyes:


"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01) -

1. You must have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your computer, and you must wait for the 5-Mb document to download.

2. These are feasibility studies for ethanol production in Hawaii. Naturally, since they are rather recent ethanol production has not reached industrial supply levels. In fact there are no industrial production facilities under construction for Hawaii at present.

3. Just an FYI, in case you want to start your own business! Have ye the stones?

4. Yes, ethanol could be produced in Hawaii, and the state government is trying to encourage it. Large-scale things tend to take a couple decades to gain momentum however. Machinery needs to be used & decommissioned, converted or replaced. Things need to be geared towards ethanol compatibility.

5. It would be great if every engine sold in North America was required to be compatible with either ethanol or biodiesel, in addition to the conventional petroleum fuel. This will avert the untold future costs of converting the engines, or replacing whole pieces of machinery, in the event of a fuel shortage.



Ethanol is feasible. Currently in the United States alone, more than 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol are blended with gasoline to produce E10, a ten percent ethanol in gasoline mixture. Nobody notices because no engine modifications are required for this minimal mixture of ethanol in their gasoline.

Right now, using ethanol is a choice, wherever it is available. Alot of people choose to burn ethanol, even more people don't know what ethanol is. Alot of people are driving vehicles that have factory modifications making them Flexible Fuel Vehicles able to burn 100% ethanol if they want. But many people aren't aware of their own vehicle's fueling options.

In the future, Kyoto protocols will incorporate environmental costs into the cost of fuel. It may turn out that after Kyoto, no tax incentives will be necessary for people to start building ethanol production facilities. It may be that gasoline has such a large envirnmental cost that ethanol becomes the consistently less expensive choice.

1. Have AAR ... Waited ...Forget it.

2. Do you understand 'not currently produced'?

4. 'Could be' ... Isn't.

5. NOTE: ULEV's are not ethanol compatible!

"Nobody notices because no engine modifications are required
for this minimal mixture of ethanol in their gasoline."

Until they have to take their car to the garage for repairs.

Take care :rolleyes:

"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01) -

If you don't have the patience to download a 5 Mb document, you are never going to be able to rationalize renewable fuels. It takes quite a bit of thought before you figure out ethanol is the way to go. I didn't just decide that in one day, or even one month. It took more like a year or so to finally realize it, to rule out all the other alternatives.

" ... rationalize renewable fuels."

That's where it's at: 'rationalize' them.

Too bad you couldn't support your position.

Take care :rolleyes:


"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01) -

I'd like to handcuff you and force you to dress like a clown.

I don't mean to be egotistical, but better twirps than you have tried to.

Take care :D

PS What happened to your 'fuck you' comment that I replied to?


"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01) -

It was just too easy to turn it into reality.

the only waste gas produced by a 2003 model bicycle is methane which is a byproduct of digestion to fuel the human that powers the bicycle,and the human benefits from the physical activity.Who cares about cars,they are just a status symbol,I have an old subaru station wagon,and thats only for running to the store cuz I live in the county,if there was a store here I would sell it,I worked across the street until a month ago,when I got layed off,I dread having to drive to work again.

Same situation.

12 miles to the village and the weather can be a bummer in Western N.Y.

Take care :cool:


"We must respect the rights of the dissenters, even though they
.might be idiots or harmful." - Wau Holland - (Died 07/29/01) -

I sold my SUV and purchased a Toyota Prius about 6 months ago. I like to think for myself and decided that taking personal action was more meaningful than discussion.
I'm an engineer, and from an engineer's perspective, the Prius is an excellent bit of work. Although it uses an internal cumbustion engine, it is a significant and realistic technological leap in the direction personal transportation needs to go. What is most interesting about the vehicle is the approach the design takes to reduce emissions. Although the car is a hybrid, it is engineered to operate automatically in whatever fashion is needed to minimize emissions. I've had 10,000 problem free miles so far and commute 42 miles a day on less than a gallon of gas.
What have you chosen to drive?

At one time, mid-'50's, a four passenger Fiat 'Bianchini' (600 cc. 22.8 hp.
rear-engine water cooled in-line four). Best part was that when I got
under 40 mpg I knew it was time for a tune-up. One time got 54 mpg
on a run from Michigan to W.NY via Canada with wife, kid, and German
Shephard aboard ... And a really decent tail-wind.
:cool: