Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>
>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>>
>>Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed
>>a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>>technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it.
>>OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes.
>>
>>For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>>to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>>gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>>folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>>would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.
>
>
> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
> the amount of BTU you can get out of it)

Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?

If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact
that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me
that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is 1.)
an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions.

Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to
flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply,
we are looking at some serious issues here.

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>
>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>>
>>Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed
>>a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>>technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it.
>>OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes.
>>
>>For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>>to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>>gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>>folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>>would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.
>
>
> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
> the amount of BTU you can get out of it)

Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?

If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact
that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me
that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is 1.)
an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions.

Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to
flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply,
we are looking at some serious issues here.

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>
>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>>
>>Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed
>>a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>>technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it.
>>OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes.
>>
>>For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>>to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>>gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>>folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>>would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.
>
>
> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
> the amount of BTU you can get out of it)

Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?

If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact
that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me
that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is 1.)
an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions.

Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to
flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply,
we are looking at some serious issues here.

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
> thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>
> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
> amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact
> that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me
> that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is
> 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions.
>
> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to
> flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply,
> we are looking at some serious issues here.
>
>

Jeff,
Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one
gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol.
This stuff is supposed to make sense?
Pete

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
> thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>
> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
> amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact
> that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me
> that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is
> 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions.
>
> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to
> flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply,
> we are looking at some serious issues here.
>
>

Jeff,
Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one
gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol.
This stuff is supposed to make sense?
Pete

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
> thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>
> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
> amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact
> that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me
> that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is
> 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions.
>
> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to
> flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply,
> we are looking at some serious issues here.
>
>

Jeff,
Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one
gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol.
This stuff is supposed to make sense?
Pete

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
> thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>
> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
> amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact
> that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me
> that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is
> 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions.
>
> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to
> flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply,
> we are looking at some serious issues here.
>
>

Jeff,
Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one
gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol.
This stuff is supposed to make sense?
Pete

Re: Related Question, but different
 

You are unlikely to see mandated E-85, it would take about a 10x
increase in alcohol production, we are already running into supply
shortages of the corn currently used for alcohol production.

What you will see is a mandated 10% (up to perhaps 20%) alcohol mix.
Some of the farm states have had that mandate for years. California
banned MTBE (?) due to ground water contamination, you will be getting
the 10% alky shortly. Most states with the 10% mandate make it real
tough to get the straight gas you old vehicle likes.



Jeff Strickland wrote:
> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>
> I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to
> meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but
> eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the
> legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers
> have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would
> defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place.
>
> So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of
> vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only
> fuel available?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
>
>> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: Related Question, but different
 

You are unlikely to see mandated E-85, it would take about a 10x
increase in alcohol production, we are already running into supply
shortages of the corn currently used for alcohol production.

What you will see is a mandated 10% (up to perhaps 20%) alcohol mix.
Some of the farm states have had that mandate for years. California
banned MTBE (?) due to ground water contamination, you will be getting
the 10% alky shortly. Most states with the 10% mandate make it real
tough to get the straight gas you old vehicle likes.



Jeff Strickland wrote:
> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>
> I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to
> meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but
> eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the
> legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers
> have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would
> defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place.
>
> So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of
> vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only
> fuel available?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
>
>> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: Related Question, but different
 

You are unlikely to see mandated E-85, it would take about a 10x
increase in alcohol production, we are already running into supply
shortages of the corn currently used for alcohol production.

What you will see is a mandated 10% (up to perhaps 20%) alcohol mix.
Some of the farm states have had that mandate for years. California
banned MTBE (?) due to ground water contamination, you will be getting
the 10% alky shortly. Most states with the 10% mandate make it real
tough to get the straight gas you old vehicle likes.



Jeff Strickland wrote:
> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>
> I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to
> meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but
> eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the
> legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers
> have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would
> defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place.
>
> So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of
> vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only
> fuel available?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
>
>> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>