Pawnees powered by Motor fuel .

Doug Hoffman wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Regrettably the matter is a little more complicated.

South Africa has recently gone through the process of banning TEL and
all of our fuel is effectively somewhere around E85. Sasol produces a
lot of our fuel from coal, and Alcohol is a cheap bye-product.

So - does the addition of alcohol cause older vehicles problems? Our
experience has been: You can count on corrosion to older fuel
injection systems, damage to fuel pumps, rubber seals that don't,
filters that suddenly clog with all the gunge that the ethanol
dissolved off the bottom of your tank - and a host of other problems
mostly related to the water that ethanol invariably introduces.

Yep. The reason is the equipment was designed to run on 100% gasoline.
Start adding alcohol, known to be corrosive to certain metals and to
destroy old make gaskets and seals, and bad things happen. All fuel
system components must be upgraded to survive, at a minimum.


snip

And yes the energy density is lower, so the fuel consumption
deteriorates slightly.

Not slightly. E85 has just 65% of the energy content of gasoline. So
you can only drive 2/3 as far on a gallon.


Most vehicles built in the last ten years to fifteen or so for the
world market are resistant to alcohol and have no problems.

I am highly skeptical that "most vehicles built in the last 10-15 years"
can use E85 without serious side effects(E10, no problem. They were
designed to handle E10. E20? I'll let you experiment with E20 in your
new $40,000 car. Let me know how it goes.). This includes engine
mechanical damage on E85. At least for the vehicles we get in the US.
First, the closed loop fuel delivery system of a non-E85 design will not
have the range of authority to add enough fuel. A lean miss and very
ragged running/loss of power are likely. You could put a hole in the
piston or ruin the catalytic converter. Chances are the check engine
light will come on. Second, the metal corrosive and gasket
incompatibilities are still there, *unless* the vehicle has been
specifically $upgraded$ to tolerate such a high concentration of
ethanol. There is even a special engine oil specified by the auto
manufacturers for use in their E85-compatible vehicles. The fuel and
the engine (and I include the fuel tank, pump, lines and all fuel system
components when I say the engine) are a closely matched pair. Mess with
that and one is inviting trouble.

Read the owner's manual. Call your dealer. Write to your vehicle's
manufacturer. You needn't take my word for it.

Or perhaps you get a very different type of vehicle in South Africa than
we do in the US.

We do - they have been putting alcohol in petrol here since the early 90s so the
local parts manufacturers have modified what they supply. Also the additives are
not simple ethanol, the local refiners have a number of patented products they
can get out of the Fischer-Tropsch process. There are very few USA vehicles on
the roads here - most are european/japanese design with the
koreans/indian/chinese being introduced over the last few years. All of them
work fine on our fuel. 91-97RON unleaded and LRP depending.

Our winch engine is a prehistoric Ford Windsor 302 - it runs happily on LRP
although we did have problems (performance,and lean running) and had to increase
the jet size when the alcohol content increased. We also had to replace all the
fuel lines as they disintegrated reasonably smartly.

My $40K car is a Volvo XC70 - 2.5l petrol turbo - not the "multi fuel" version.
So far so good - 3 years no problems. My previous car was a Renault Scenic -
that went through 4 fuel pumps in short order till they worked out a $1 filter
had corroded in the alcohol...

The comment is made that ethanol is net energy negative. That depends
on how you measure it. If you measure all energy in versus all energy
out, studies show it has about a 30% net energy positive. That
includes the energy value of the dried distillers grains and other
useable byproducts. If one does not like ethanol, then one ignores
that data and shows only the energy to get the corn to the plant
versus the energy of the ethanol out and pretends the DDG livestock
feed doesn't exist.

I've run 10% ethanol no lead gasoline in my equipment, some as old as
from 1962, for over 10 years. Ethanol will indeed "clean out" a fuel
system and changes in filters may be necessary. In addition, ethanol
is corrosive. This means airplane fuel systems (not engines) may need
to be changed. A modification most of us would not choose to do.

I use a lead replacement for the old tractors but don't for the
automobiles which date from as old as 1993. (Car engines since 1986
should have the better valve systems that can handle ethanol.)

Some aircraft run successfully on ethanol, even pure ethanol, as we
all know from the well-publicized demonstrations.

The possible near term elimination of 100LL is causing some
consternation. MOGAS may not be a solution to that loss, whether it
has ethanol in it or not.

I'm a farmer and pilot who would like to see 100LL remain and access
to non-ethanol MOGAS be widely available, but what ever we believe or
desire, it will help us all to push for good scientific research and
wide dissemination of the facts so we can all make or support informed
choices.

Is it just me or has the response from the EAA & AOPA to the proposed
rulemaking eliminating TEL from aviation gasoline been muted?

I've been thinking that one could tell how the leaded AVGAS issue would play
out by watching the intensity of the response from general aviation
lobbyists. A muted response would mean they think the issue is lost. A
spirited response means they think they can win.

Maybe, the aviation lobby knows the Indian source of TEL is going away so
they made a deal with the EPA to let them "get out ahead of the issue" by
issuing a rule eliminating leaded AVGAS before the bad news from India hits.
This sort of deal could get them some future favors.

The EPA is the most political agency in the US government. It wouldn't be
like them to let an opportunity for some headlines get away. They'd want to
claim it was their rule that eliminated lead and not some little company on
the other side of the world going out of business.

Of course, it's yet another Washington conspiracy theory, but that's how
washington works.

Bill Daniels


"Jim Meade" wrote in message
...
The comment is made that ethanol is net energy negative. That depends
on how you measure it. If you measure all energy in versus all energy
out, studies show it has about a 30% net energy positive. That
includes the energy value of the dried distillers grains and other
useable byproducts. If one does not like ethanol, then one ignores
that data and shows only the energy to get the corn to the plant
versus the energy of the ethanol out and pretends the DDG livestock
feed doesn't exist.

I've run 10% ethanol no lead gasoline in my equipment, some as old as
from 1962, for over 10 years. Ethanol will indeed "clean out" a fuel
system and changes in filters may be necessary. In addition, ethanol
is corrosive. This means airplane fuel systems (not engines) may need
to be changed. A modification most of us would not choose to do.

I use a lead replacement for the old tractors but don't for the
automobiles which date from as old as 1993. (Car engines since 1986
should have the better valve systems that can handle ethanol.)

Some aircraft run successfully on ethanol, even pure ethanol, as we
all know from the well-publicized demonstrations.

The possible near term elimination of 100LL is causing some
consternation. MOGAS may not be a solution to that loss, whether it
has ethanol in it or not.

I'm a farmer and pilot who would like to see 100LL remain and access
to non-ethanol MOGAS be widely available, but what ever we believe or
desire, it will help us all to push for good scientific research and
wide dissemination of the facts so we can all make or support informed
choices.

http://www.alacrastore.com/company-s...ec_Inc-1025867
and
http://www.innospecinc.com/

The world's supplier of TEL. Listed on NASDAQ. 23 locations
worldwide.

Locations where leaded fuel may still be in road use.
http://www.lead.org.au/fs/fst27.html Interesting in that I was told
by a Rolls Royce person that India was the largest user. Perhaps
they've switched.

Interesting web site http://www.leadedpetrol.co.uk/

In the US, 100LL is reputedly responsible for 260 tons of lead
introduced into the environment annually at 1.1-2.0 grams/gallon.

Frank Whiteley

On Jan 21, 3:25 pm, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
"Shawn" wrote in message

...



Doug Hoffman wrote:
snip

Certainly the more alcohol we can use instead of imported fossil is a
good thing. But there are some negatives associated with ethanol
production and use as mogas. It likely is not the magic bullet that some
believed. The effect of E20 on clean air is strongly debated. One
*will* get fewer miles per gallon with higher ethanol content. Just ask
someone who is burning E85, if you can find such a person.

Like with diesel, people will learn to calculate what matters to them,
whether that is $/mile CO2/mile, NOx/mile, or value of their ADM
stock/mile ;-)
What I find specious is that corn ethanol has been sold as a "greener"
alternative to gasoline, when the data does not support much if any net
improvement in CO2 emissions relative to gasoline. It can improve US
energy independence, which may be more important in the short/medium term.
The coal mines can not be good for ridge soaring in the South East though.
:-(

Even if ethanol were not net-negative energy, it's still a lousy fuel since
it's already partially oxidized. If you want a fuel produced by microbes
(Bug Juice?) why not teach the little critters to produce something useful
like iso-octane or butanol? Either of those hydrocarbons can be blended up
to ~90% with gasoline without significantly changing the energy content,
octane, reid vapor pressure or required fuel/air mixtures.

Bill Daniels

Actually ethanol is not energy negative, the only reports out of
hundreds that come to that conclusion are by David Pimentel, a
professor of ecology and not trained in the field of biotechnology
engineering, and Tad Patzek at Berkeley who is funded by the oil
industry (Sounds like the same technique used against global warming
for many years. Fund a few dissenters and let the pundits spread the
word that there are negative reports).

As far as producing iso-octane and butanol, they are subjects of much
research. The organisms that can produce those are being actively
studied as well as processes to make it possible. Biodiesel is also
under active research from both agricultural commodities and algae
that use photosynthesis to produce the oil. The nice thing this is
very carbon neutral because we are exchanging C02 for the oil.

The azeotrope (a mixture that can not be spereated by simple
distillation) with water cause problems with ethanol to make it more
expensive to process and leaves it hygroscopic.

A gallon of gas does have more energy than a gallon of ethanol and you
must learn to purchase fuel at a price per energy rather than per
volume. Other than that you can treat them the same in most cases.
Just understand where each is useful and make sure you have the
correct type of plumbing, pumps and seals in your system.

Ok, back to soaring issues...

Tim

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:09:47 -0700, Shawn
wrote:

Doug Hoffman wrote:
snip

... data does not support much if any net
improvement in CO2 emissions relative to gasoline.

a part of the CO2 produced by the engine, proportional to the ethanol
grade in the fuel, comes from the atmosphere, and there it returns. No
net increase in CO2 mass in the air.
Fossil fuels actually release CO2 in the atmosphere instead,
increasing the total mass of CO2 in the air. This is the point.

Then, we might argue against biofuels, that crop prices are
increasing, and that's not good for the consumers, especially for
those who live in poverty.

Aldo Cernezzi

[This posted to the wrong thread for some reason, re-posting...]

Just to throw a little wild hair response in, imagine the convergence
of these technologies:

Sonex e-Flight Initiative: http://aeroconversions.com/e-flight/
(DC Electric Motor for aircraft)
--or, if you prefer AC power--
http://www.teslamotors.com
(AC electric motor, could be adopted for aircraft)


AND


http://news-service.stanford.edu/new...re-010908.html
(New Nano-Wire Battery Technology)


In the near-term, we're probably looking at smaller (80 - 150hp
equivalent) motors running for a few hours at a time. But in 10 - 15
years I think that battery and electric-motor technology will be at a
point where towing would be possible... Here's hoping, at least!


Take care,


--Noel
P.S. My Dad's a Nuclear Engineer at a power-plant (former Navy
Submariner on nuclear-powered subs); but I don't see that process
fitting inside an engine cowling anytime soon! *chuckle* I know I'm
asking for some strange responses by saying this, but I hope folks
will soon realize that the small amount of long-term nuclear waste is
FAR less damaging to the environment than all of the bad side-effects
of fossil/bio-fuels. Europe got it right in switching to more
Nuclear
power (and now with photovoltaics and other good stuff), unlike our
good ol' USA... If we ever want to have Hydrogen Fuel Cells, large-
scale electric power for vehicles, or large-scale electrolysis
(desalination of sea-water to produce clean drinking water), Nuclear
Power is the most efficient system; and the only economically-viable
way to do so with current technology...

a part of the CO2 produced by the engine, proportional to the ethanol
grade in the fuel, comes from the atmosphere, and there it returns. No
net increase in CO2 mass in the air.
Fossil fuels actually release CO2 in the atmosphere instead,
increasing the total mass of CO2 in the air. This is the point.

Strictly speaking, CO2 released by burning fossil fuels comes from the
atmosphere, too. It has just been buried underground for a very long
time ;-)

Bartek

brtlmj wrote:
a part of the CO2 produced by the engine, proportional to the ethanol
grade in the fuel, comes from the atmosphere, and there it returns. No
net increase in CO2 mass in the air.
Fossil fuels actually release CO2 in the atmosphere instead,
increasing the total mass of CO2 in the air. This is the point.

Strictly speaking, CO2 released by burning fossil fuels comes from the
atmosphere, too. It has just been buried underground for a very long
time ;-)

....but it would be nice to keep as much as possible of it down there.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |