Gasohol

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:29:52 -0700, Stella Starr
wrote:

Looks like they thought they were aligning with national standards. From
a timeline report by that state's Renewable Fuels Commission:

"2003—Michigan State Legislature adopts and Governor Jennifer Granholm
approves property tax incentives for the manufacturing and blending of
biodiesel fuel. State legislation for mandatory labeling of 10% ethanol
blends at Michigan service station gasoline pumps is changed to be
consistent with national voluntary label standards..."

It is interesting, as I'd thought the first gasahol was 15% ethanol, but
there's no way to know whether local blends are ten, fifteen or some
random percent. Makes it hard to test performance, doesn't it?


In Michigan I think it's 10% and has been. Alcohol costs more than
gas now days. The only reason it's priced so low is due to subsidies.

Our early Gasohol was 10% here although back then I don't think there
was a standard. OTOH back then it took nearly 1 1/2 to two gallons of
fuel to make one gallon of ethanol.


Roger (K8RI) wrote:

In Michigan the pumps are required to have a lable. That lable states
this fuel meets Michigan quality standard something or other. Nothing
is said about Alcohol. Back in the 70s the labels stated This gas
contains 10% Ethenol or something to that effect. Maybe Denny know why
it was changed.

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:29:52 -0700, Stella Starr
wrote:

Looks like they thought they were aligning with national standards. From
a timeline report by that state's Renewable Fuels Commission:

"2003-Michigan State Legislature adopts and Governor Jennifer Granholm
approves property tax incentives for the manufacturing and blending of
biodiesel fuel. State legislation for mandatory labeling of 10% ethanol
blends at Michigan service station gasoline pumps is changed to be
consistent with national voluntary label standards..."

It is interesting, as I'd thought the first gasahol was 15% ethanol, but
there's no way to know whether local blends are ten, fifteen or some
random percent. Makes it hard to test performance, doesn't it?


In Michigan I think it's 10% and has been. Alcohol costs more than
gas now days. The only reason it's priced so low is due to subsidies.

Our early Gasohol was 10% here although back then I don't think there
was a standard. OTOH back then it took nearly 1 1/2 to two gallons of
fuel to make one gallon of ethanol.




Which then gets you 75% of the mileage of 'pure gasoline'.

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:04:03 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:29:52 -0700, Stella Starr
wrote:

Looks like they thought they were aligning with national standards. From
a timeline report by that state's Renewable Fuels Commission:

"2003-Michigan State Legislature adopts and Governor Jennifer Granholm
approves property tax incentives for the manufacturing and blending of
biodiesel fuel. State legislation for mandatory labeling of 10% ethanol
blends at Michigan service station gasoline pumps is changed to be
consistent with national voluntary label standards..."

It is interesting, as I'd thought the first gasahol was 15% ethanol, but
there's no way to know whether local blends are ten, fifteen or some
random percent. Makes it hard to test performance, doesn't it?


In Michigan I think it's 10% and has been. Alcohol costs more than
gas now days. The only reason it's priced so low is due to subsidies.

Our early Gasohol was 10% here although back then I don't think there
was a standard. OTOH back then it took nearly 1 1/2 to two gallons of
fuel to make one gallon of ethanol.




Which then gets you 75% of the mileage of 'pure gasoline'.

Alcohol has 60% of the energy in gas. If 10% of the gas is Alcohol
then you have only lost 6% (0.1 X 0.6 = 0.06), but as the Alcohol acts
as an octane booster , *theoretically* they should be able to save a
bit in the refining process to produce the lower octane gas that they
boost back up with the alcohol. In the end though it's probably close
to a wash as far as cost. Corn futures are already going up and look
at the price of beef which is corn fed. Anything that uses corn is
already on the way up which means it will be more (maybe much more)
expensive to produce Ethanol using corn as will be any thing else that
contains, or eats corn. Having been a farmer in a previous life and
still owning the old family farm, as an educated guess I'd say the
price of cord will easily double within the next couple of years,
subsidies or no subsidies. It has the bonus of the *possibility* of
eliminating some farm subsidies, but even without the subsidies the
higher prices will still cost the tax payer more.

In the long run we need to become independent from foreign oil as well
as reducing emissions. Currently all ways of doing this cost more than
that expensive foreign oil.

I think I mentioned it before, but now they want to build a coal
fired, 750 megawatt power station on the SE corner of Midland. (MI).
http://www.ourmidland.com/site/index... =578054&rfi=8
(watch out for line wrap in some readers) Caution, lots of spin in
article. :-)) This figures out to be about a mile long train of coal
every other day. Even if they run 80% of the sulphur and 90% of the
mercury recovered from the stack gas it still leaves a staggering
amount of pollution.

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...

In the long run we need to become independent from foreign oil as well
as reducing emissions. Currently all ways of doing this cost more than
that expensive foreign oil.

Quite true.

The "foreign oil" dilemma is much more easily solved, but both issues are
political.

As to emissions, contrast engines from the 1960's with those of today. For
example, a 1969 Mustang with a 351ci V-8 for about 12 MPG and delivered 325
HP - today, a Nissan 3.5L for the 350-Z delivers 325HP, from 216ci engine,
gets 24 MPG, and does it with a twentieth the emissions, mostly CO2.
Contrast that with the 351ci that spewed all sorts of noxious stuff out the
tail pipe.

So do we spend $$trillions reducing emissions, while the rest of the world
continues on its merry way? You probably all heard that China now exceeds
the US as the biggest polluter, in terms of CO2 but all the other far more
noxious gases as well. You've all probably seen the charts that US fuel use
per $ of GNP is about a fourth of what it was in the 1980's.

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.
It's their karma.

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.

Then why were the CO2 emissions cured? It certainly costs money, and
companies don't spend money for nothing.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jose wrote:

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel
cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back
on.

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.

Is it even something that NEEDS TO BE CURED?

In article ,
Jose wrote:

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

Jose

The case against CO2 has not been proven -- nor has the case for manmade
global warming. The hystericals have latched onto it to further their
own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles.

Jose wrote:

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?


What has panic and mindless blather ever solved?

Tell me one thing that hysterics have ever cured?