98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
