|
98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Anyone out there done the fuel system conversion for this or know if its even possible? If so please let me know what elements have to be changed. Thanks. |
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Buy a car that's compatible using twice the fuel for half the energy:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...k-gold-cga.htm The water in and that condense in alcohol will destroy your engine in no time at all. God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ <micmcb@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1178609001.495447.194220@y5g2000hsa.googlegro ups.com... > 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel > > Anyone out there done the fuel system conversion for this or know if > its even possible? If so please let me know what elements have to be > changed. > > Thanks. > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Buy a car that's compatible using twice the fuel for half the energy:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...k-gold-cga.htm The water in and that condense in alcohol will destroy your engine in no time at all. God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ <micmcb@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1178609001.495447.194220@y5g2000hsa.googlegro ups.com... > 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel > > Anyone out there done the fuel system conversion for this or know if > its even possible? If so please let me know what elements have to be > changed. > > Thanks. > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Buy a car that's compatible using twice the fuel for half the energy:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...k-gold-cga.htm The water in and that condense in alcohol will destroy your engine in no time at all. God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ <micmcb@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1178609001.495447.194220@y5g2000hsa.googlegro ups.com... > 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel > > Anyone out there done the fuel system conversion for this or know if > its even possible? If so please let me know what elements have to be > changed. > > Thanks. > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Buy a car that's compatible using twice the fuel for half the energy:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...k-gold-cga.htm The water in and that condense in alcohol will destroy your engine in no time at all. God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ <micmcb@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1178609001.495447.194220@y5g2000hsa.googlegro ups.com... > 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel > > Anyone out there done the fuel system conversion for this or know if > its even possible? If so please let me know what elements have to be > changed. > > Thanks. > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 8 May 2007 00:57:31 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<----------@cox.net> wrote: >The water in and that condense in alcohol will destroy your engine in no >time at all. Alchol is "O H" based for it can be corrosive to your fuel system and also hard on some hoses. Also as stated before it has less energy per gallon (about 40% for E85) si you will just more fuel too. Politicians push E85 as our magic solution to our energy needs when it is not and it actually increase CO2 emissions by about 40 to 50% too. This is because Alchol is considered a preburnt fuel (has a high carbon content) and you have to burn more of it to get same work and net result is more CO2. The public wants to here that this is a solution so it keeps the masses thinking that there is a solution. Also, if you live in a really cold climate, E85 can be harder starting and really get bad MPG during those times too. Bite the bullet and stay with gas and maybe try running 89 for a while as you might find it is actually a bit cheaper in long run if MPG improves. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 8 May 2007 00:57:31 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<----------@cox.net> wrote: >The water in and that condense in alcohol will destroy your engine in no >time at all. Alchol is "O H" based for it can be corrosive to your fuel system and also hard on some hoses. Also as stated before it has less energy per gallon (about 40% for E85) si you will just more fuel too. Politicians push E85 as our magic solution to our energy needs when it is not and it actually increase CO2 emissions by about 40 to 50% too. This is because Alchol is considered a preburnt fuel (has a high carbon content) and you have to burn more of it to get same work and net result is more CO2. The public wants to here that this is a solution so it keeps the masses thinking that there is a solution. Also, if you live in a really cold climate, E85 can be harder starting and really get bad MPG during those times too. Bite the bullet and stay with gas and maybe try running 89 for a while as you might find it is actually a bit cheaper in long run if MPG improves. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 8 May 2007 00:57:31 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<----------@cox.net> wrote: >The water in and that condense in alcohol will destroy your engine in no >time at all. Alchol is "O H" based for it can be corrosive to your fuel system and also hard on some hoses. Also as stated before it has less energy per gallon (about 40% for E85) si you will just more fuel too. Politicians push E85 as our magic solution to our energy needs when it is not and it actually increase CO2 emissions by about 40 to 50% too. This is because Alchol is considered a preburnt fuel (has a high carbon content) and you have to burn more of it to get same work and net result is more CO2. The public wants to here that this is a solution so it keeps the masses thinking that there is a solution. Also, if you live in a really cold climate, E85 can be harder starting and really get bad MPG during those times too. Bite the bullet and stay with gas and maybe try running 89 for a while as you might find it is actually a bit cheaper in long run if MPG improves. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 8 May 2007 00:57:31 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<----------@cox.net> wrote: >The water in and that condense in alcohol will destroy your engine in no >time at all. Alchol is "O H" based for it can be corrosive to your fuel system and also hard on some hoses. Also as stated before it has less energy per gallon (about 40% for E85) si you will just more fuel too. Politicians push E85 as our magic solution to our energy needs when it is not and it actually increase CO2 emissions by about 40 to 50% too. This is because Alchol is considered a preburnt fuel (has a high carbon content) and you have to burn more of it to get same work and net result is more CO2. The public wants to here that this is a solution so it keeps the masses thinking that there is a solution. Also, if you live in a really cold climate, E85 can be harder starting and really get bad MPG during those times too. Bite the bullet and stay with gas and maybe try running 89 for a while as you might find it is actually a bit cheaper in long run if MPG improves. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
micmcb@gmail.com wrote:
> 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel > > Anyone out there done the fuel system conversion for this or know if > its even possible? If so please let me know what elements have to be > changed. > > Thanks. > It is possible. There are companies out there making conversion kits, add-on computers, etc. There are even some on Ebay now. Of course a lot of these companies are claiming improve mileage, reduced emissions, etc. While all of this is possible, just remember, like any other product, there are quality items and junk items. I can believe the emissions claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. There is even a fuel they are calling diesanol now, which is 98% ethanol and 2% diesel. To me this would have more potential to reduce emissions and increase power since ethanol has a high octane rating and could take advantage of the compression ratio of a diesel engine. The drawback to E85 is that it requires more fuel to make the same amount of power if applied to the same engine. If the engine was specifically built for E85, there are a lot of changes that could be made to increase the power of the engine. the main one being the compression ratio. My suggestion is to do some research on the conversions, look for independent studies (such as colleges), an then weigh the cost of the conversion and a roughly 20-25% loss in fuel economy compared to just continuing to use gasoline. Chris |
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
micmcb@gmail.com wrote:
> 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel > > Anyone out there done the fuel system conversion for this or know if > its even possible? If so please let me know what elements have to be > changed. > > Thanks. > It is possible. There are companies out there making conversion kits, add-on computers, etc. There are even some on Ebay now. Of course a lot of these companies are claiming improve mileage, reduced emissions, etc. While all of this is possible, just remember, like any other product, there are quality items and junk items. I can believe the emissions claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. There is even a fuel they are calling diesanol now, which is 98% ethanol and 2% diesel. To me this would have more potential to reduce emissions and increase power since ethanol has a high octane rating and could take advantage of the compression ratio of a diesel engine. The drawback to E85 is that it requires more fuel to make the same amount of power if applied to the same engine. If the engine was specifically built for E85, there are a lot of changes that could be made to increase the power of the engine. the main one being the compression ratio. My suggestion is to do some research on the conversions, look for independent studies (such as colleges), an then weigh the cost of the conversion and a roughly 20-25% loss in fuel economy compared to just continuing to use gasoline. Chris |
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
micmcb@gmail.com wrote:
> 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel > > Anyone out there done the fuel system conversion for this or know if > its even possible? If so please let me know what elements have to be > changed. > > Thanks. > It is possible. There are companies out there making conversion kits, add-on computers, etc. There are even some on Ebay now. Of course a lot of these companies are claiming improve mileage, reduced emissions, etc. While all of this is possible, just remember, like any other product, there are quality items and junk items. I can believe the emissions claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. There is even a fuel they are calling diesanol now, which is 98% ethanol and 2% diesel. To me this would have more potential to reduce emissions and increase power since ethanol has a high octane rating and could take advantage of the compression ratio of a diesel engine. The drawback to E85 is that it requires more fuel to make the same amount of power if applied to the same engine. If the engine was specifically built for E85, there are a lot of changes that could be made to increase the power of the engine. the main one being the compression ratio. My suggestion is to do some research on the conversions, look for independent studies (such as colleges), an then weigh the cost of the conversion and a roughly 20-25% loss in fuel economy compared to just continuing to use gasoline. Chris |
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
micmcb@gmail.com wrote:
> 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel > > Anyone out there done the fuel system conversion for this or know if > its even possible? If so please let me know what elements have to be > changed. > > Thanks. > It is possible. There are companies out there making conversion kits, add-on computers, etc. There are even some on Ebay now. Of course a lot of these companies are claiming improve mileage, reduced emissions, etc. While all of this is possible, just remember, like any other product, there are quality items and junk items. I can believe the emissions claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. There is even a fuel they are calling diesanol now, which is 98% ethanol and 2% diesel. To me this would have more potential to reduce emissions and increase power since ethanol has a high octane rating and could take advantage of the compression ratio of a diesel engine. The drawback to E85 is that it requires more fuel to make the same amount of power if applied to the same engine. If the engine was specifically built for E85, there are a lot of changes that could be made to increase the power of the engine. the main one being the compression ratio. My suggestion is to do some research on the conversions, look for independent studies (such as colleges), an then weigh the cost of the conversion and a roughly 20-25% loss in fuel economy compared to just continuing to use gasoline. Chris |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote:
> I can believe the emissions >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass production. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote:
> I can believe the emissions >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass production. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote:
> I can believe the emissions >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass production. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote:
> I can believe the emissions >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass production. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to mean anything. Earle "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com... > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote: > > > I can believe the emissions > >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure > >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. > > > Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel > has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced > doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because > they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). > Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is > called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl > alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market > and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 > octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with > a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it > at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular > diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer > greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based > fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of > it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold > the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in > its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol > having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out > needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as > they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass > production. > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to mean anything. Earle "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com... > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote: > > > I can believe the emissions > >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure > >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. > > > Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel > has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced > doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because > they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). > Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is > called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl > alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market > and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 > octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with > a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it > at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular > diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer > greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based > fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of > it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold > the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in > its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol > having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out > needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as > they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass > production. > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to mean anything. Earle "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com... > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote: > > > I can believe the emissions > >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure > >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. > > > Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel > has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced > doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because > they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). > Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is > called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl > alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market > and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 > octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with > a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it > at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular > diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer > greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based > fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of > it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold > the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in > its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol > having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out > needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as > they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass > production. > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to mean anything. Earle "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com... > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote: > > > I can believe the emissions > >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure > >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. > > > Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel > has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced > doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because > they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). > Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is > called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl > alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market > and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 > octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with > a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it > at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular > diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer > greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based > fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of > it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold > the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in > its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol > having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out > needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as > they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass > production. > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton"
<earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote: >Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are >counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to >mean anything. Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas "cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long term answer. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton"
<earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote: >Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are >counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to >mean anything. Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas "cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long term answer. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton"
<earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote: >Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are >counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to >mean anything. Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas "cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long term answer. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton"
<earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote: >Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are >counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to >mean anything. Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas "cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long term answer. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:lq4243h8dn80qcfu28670umh146qqhrbdg@4ax.com... > On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton" > <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote: > > >Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are > >counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them > >for it to mean anything. > > > Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas > "cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long > term answer. > ----------------- Heh, I like the open flames one sees over oil wells to burn off "surplus" natural gas. Earle |
Re: Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:lq4243h8dn80qcfu28670umh146qqhrbdg@4ax.com... > On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton" > <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote: > > >Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are > >counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them > >for it to mean anything. > > > Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas > "cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long > term answer. > ----------------- Heh, I like the open flames one sees over oil wells to burn off "surplus" natural gas. Earle |
Re: Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:lq4243h8dn80qcfu28670umh146qqhrbdg@4ax.com... > On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton" > <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote: > > >Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are > >counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them > >for it to mean anything. > > > Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas > "cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long > term answer. > ----------------- Heh, I like the open flames one sees over oil wells to burn off "surplus" natural gas. Earle |
Re: Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:lq4243h8dn80qcfu28670umh146qqhrbdg@4ax.com... > On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton" > <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote: > > >Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are > >counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them > >for it to mean anything. > > > Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas > "cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long > term answer. > ----------------- Heh, I like the open flames one sees over oil wells to burn off "surplus" natural gas. Earle |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
"Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote:
> Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you > are counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of > them for it to mean anything. Gee, another "Inconvenient Truth" that Al forgot to mention. ;-) |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
"Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote:
> Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you > are counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of > them for it to mean anything. Gee, another "Inconvenient Truth" that Al forgot to mention. ;-) |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
"Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote:
> Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you > are counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of > them for it to mean anything. Gee, another "Inconvenient Truth" that Al forgot to mention. ;-) |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
"Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote:
> Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you > are counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of > them for it to mean anything. Gee, another "Inconvenient Truth" that Al forgot to mention. ;-) |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Hi Earle,
Which is six gallons of petroleum to make one gallon of ethanol. The Bore people want to buy windmills and solar diodes to produce electricity, that have used the same amount of petroleum to make and last their life time. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG1VDF6EM1.DTL http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...udy_ethan.html God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message news:4641101a$0$31790$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om... > Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are > counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to > mean anything. > > Earle > > "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message > news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com... > > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote: > > > > > I can believe the emissions > > >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure > > >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. > > > > > > Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel > > has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced > > doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because > > they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). > > Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is > > called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl > > alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market > > and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 > > octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with > > a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it > > at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular > > diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer > > greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based > > fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of > > it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold > > the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in > > its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol > > having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out > > needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as > > they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass > > production. > > ----------------- > > TheSnoMan.com > > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Hi Earle,
Which is six gallons of petroleum to make one gallon of ethanol. The Bore people want to buy windmills and solar diodes to produce electricity, that have used the same amount of petroleum to make and last their life time. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG1VDF6EM1.DTL http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...udy_ethan.html God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message news:4641101a$0$31790$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om... > Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are > counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to > mean anything. > > Earle > > "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message > news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com... > > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote: > > > > > I can believe the emissions > > >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure > > >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. > > > > > > Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel > > has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced > > doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because > > they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). > > Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is > > called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl > > alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market > > and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 > > octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with > > a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it > > at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular > > diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer > > greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based > > fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of > > it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold > > the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in > > its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol > > having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out > > needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as > > they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass > > production. > > ----------------- > > TheSnoMan.com > > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Hi Earle,
Which is six gallons of petroleum to make one gallon of ethanol. The Bore people want to buy windmills and solar diodes to produce electricity, that have used the same amount of petroleum to make and last their life time. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG1VDF6EM1.DTL http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...udy_ethan.html God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message news:4641101a$0$31790$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om... > Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are > counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to > mean anything. > > Earle > > "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message > news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com... > > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote: > > > > > I can believe the emissions > > >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure > > >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. > > > > > > Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel > > has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced > > doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because > > they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). > > Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is > > called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl > > alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market > > and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 > > octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with > > a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it > > at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular > > diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer > > greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based > > fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of > > it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold > > the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in > > its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol > > having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out > > needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as > > they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass > > production. > > ----------------- > > TheSnoMan.com > > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Hi Earle,
Which is six gallons of petroleum to make one gallon of ethanol. The Bore people want to buy windmills and solar diodes to produce electricity, that have used the same amount of petroleum to make and last their life time. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG1VDF6EM1.DTL http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...udy_ethan.html God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message news:4641101a$0$31790$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om... > Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are > counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to > mean anything. > > Earle > > "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message > news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com... > > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote: > > > > > I can believe the emissions > > >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure > > >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. > > > > > > Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel > > has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced > > doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because > > they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). > > Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is > > called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl > > alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market > > and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 > > octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with > > a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it > > at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular > > diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer > > greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based > > fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of > > it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold > > the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in > > its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol > > having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out > > needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as > > they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass > > production. > > ----------------- > > TheSnoMan.com > > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Re: Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
The candles are in all the oil crackers I worked, and they regularly
exploded. When it goes out, run for you life: http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/blur/8...1/b634115m.jpg God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/kenworth.jpg "Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message news:46411705$0$31844$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om > Heh, I like the open flames one sees over oil wells to burn off "surplus" > natural gas. > > Earle > > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Re: Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
The candles are in all the oil crackers I worked, and they regularly
exploded. When it goes out, run for you life: http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/blur/8...1/b634115m.jpg God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/kenworth.jpg "Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message news:46411705$0$31844$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om > Heh, I like the open flames one sees over oil wells to burn off "surplus" > natural gas. > > Earle > > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Re: Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
The candles are in all the oil crackers I worked, and they regularly
exploded. When it goes out, run for you life: http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/blur/8...1/b634115m.jpg God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/kenworth.jpg "Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message news:46411705$0$31844$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om > Heh, I like the open flames one sees over oil wells to burn off "surplus" > natural gas. > > Earle > > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:59 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands