GloBull Warming Says Dr Christy

Quote:

Originally posted by NightCruiser

You have winter fuel and then the Summer blends of additives to fuel.

the ONLY thing different about winter and summer is that they inject butane into the gas during winter time to make the gas ignite a bit easier when trying to start an engine in cold weather... other then that there is no difference in gas...

there's also very little difference in branded/unbranded gas... and honestly when you go to the pump and although it's supposed to be BP gas , it may not actually be BP branded gasoline , it's branded , but it may aswell be shell , citgo ,exxon , marathon , valero etc.etc...it's all the same stuff...

now why ethanol ?

ethanol has an octane of 113 , gasoline that comes thru the pipeline(colonial or plantation) from the refineries is 85 octane , so in order to get 87 they add 10% ethanol to it... premium 93 is a mix of ethanol/85/93

We're number 1!

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/07/21/science/ap-us-sci-record-hot-world.html?_r=0

Now you know that is not true ! Marketplace my ass.

It is decided ( in the US) by Congress and the lobbyists who have the most influence. Marketplace......you've got to be kidding.

Quote:

Originally posted by Allen_Bradley

...
The market will decide if these alternatives are truly viable and profitable. Like I said, ethanol producer stocks are helping fund my retirement. Next up...Solar
..

FWIW, my generic gas station says on their pumps that it is all 100% petrol. Also, not true about the butane thingy ,at least here in California. We switch from a 'normal' blend in the winter to a special, more costly summer blend whose purpose is to lower the NOX emissions in the summer. It is always in the news that prices will go up a bit because of this situation.

Quote:

Originally posted by wampers74

...

the ONLY thing different about winter and summer is that they inject butane into the gas during winter time to make the gas ignite a bit easier when trying to start an engine in cold weather... other then that there is no difference in gas...

there's also very little difference in branded/unbranded gas... and honestly when you go to the pump and although it's supposed to be BP gas , it may not actually be BP branded gasoline , it's branded , but it may aswell be shell , citgo ,exxon , marathon , valero etc.etc...it's all the same stuff...

now why ethanol ?

ethanol has an octane of 113 , gasoline that comes thru the pipeline(colonial or plantation) from the refineries is 85 octane , so in order to get 87 they add 10% ethanol to it... premium 93 is a mix of ethanol/85/93

it's a little different here in Florida. We don't have any summer/winter blended gas. It does tend to go up in price during the summer months but that's more of a ploy to take advantage of the number of people traveling. Also, our gas is brought in by boat to port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale. The ethanol is also added at the port before its' pumped into trucks and taken to the stations. As mentioned previously, straight ethanol has an octane rating of over 110 so it is just added to subpar regular fuels to raise the octane level. For example: The "regular gas comes off the boat at around 83-84 octane but when mixed with 10% ethanol it becomes 87 octane. There is a growing trend of more stations carrying 90 octane "rec fuel" it's ethanol free and popular with boaters who have seen ethanol fuel destroy their fuel systems. Rec fuel is just the 90 octane gasoline before the 10% ethanol is added to make it 93 "premium" fuel.

AB...you seem to have some knowledge of the oil sands system. What is the breakeven point for economical extraction ?

TIA,

F.

Quote:

Originally posted by Allen_Bradley

...
I live in the Great White North bud. And I work in the Oilsands . I will be retired in 5 years. As far as global emissions are concerned, the Oilsands produces 2% of Canada's emissions. Canada produces. 2% of global emissions. The states, China, India and the rest of the 3rd. world produces the other 98%.America is our back door and the world's 2nd. biggest emitter of carbon into.the atmosphere so clean up.and global warming will become less of.a.concern.for.the world. I believe that the science.behind global warming is flawed. I remember back.in the 70's. The scientific community was convinced.that we were.headed into.a new ice age due.to global cooling. I will believe the science when the scientific community is not funded by the greens of the world and.the.science.becomes non-theoretical and more factual. Until then, I will continue to take profits on the American ethanol industry and God bless the Midwest.

Cheers!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by Althalus

Another troll thread from the king troll. It just amazes me how many people, especially Americans don't believe in Global Warming. Also, scientists believe ice ages happen every 40-50.000 years and that in a few thousand years it's time for yet another one.

Didn't Ethanol cause the price of feed to go up? Takes a lot of fertilizer to grow all that Corn.
Ethanol has a lower boiling point which causes it to burn faster so you get less mpg. Wreaking havoc on 2 cycle engine. Evaporates in carbs. Deteriorates hoses and plastic gas cans

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

FWIW, my generic gas station says on their pumps that it is all 100% petrol. Also, not true about the butane thingy ,at least here in California. We switch from a 'normal' blend in the winter to a special, more costly summer blend whose purpose is to lower the NOX emissions in the summer. It is always in the news that prices will go up a bit because of this situation.

...

California , as with some metropolitan cites (Atlanta,ga is another area ) around the US have their own emission standard which means their gas is ALWAYS different.

the fuel they use is called "reformulated fuel" and can only be used in those area's , also this fuel is more expensive.

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

AB...you seem to have some knowledge of the oil sands system. What is the breakeven point for economical extraction ?

TIA,

F.

...

All in costs about $20.00 per barrel right now.
Western Canada Select ($C/bbl) 84.50
Differential (WTI/WCS) ($C/bbl) 27.70

So income of 64.50 a bbl

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

Now you know that is not true ! Marketplace my ass.

It is decided ( in the US) by Congress and the lobbyists who have the most influence. Marketplace......you've got to be kidding.

...

Really? Lets take a look at solar right now. Panel costs have gone down making solar an economically viable alternative to coal/nat gas produced power. Check the charts for Canadian Solar and First solar and see how much these companies have grown in the last 5 years. Just one example of the markets at work in alternative energy.

Quote:

Originally posted by Allen_Bradley

...

Really? Lets take a look at solar right now. Panel costs have gone down making solar an economically viable alternative to coal/nat gas produced power. Check the charts for Canadian Solar and First solar and see how much these companies have grown in the last 5 years. Just one example of the markets at work in alternative energy.

If you think the energy market is a "free market" you've already lost the argument.

Quote:

Originally posted by wampers74

...

the ONLY thing different about winter and summer is that they inject butane into the gas during winter time to make the gas ignite a bit easier when trying to start an engine in cold weather... other then that there is no difference in gas...

there's also very little difference in branded/unbranded gas... and honestly when you go to the pump and although it's supposed to be BP gas , it may not actually be BP branded gasoline , it's branded , but it may aswell be shell , citgo ,exxon , marathon , valero etc.etc...it's all the same stuff...

now why ethanol ?

ethanol has an octane of 113 , gasoline that comes thru the pipeline(colonial or plantation) from the refineries is 85 octane , so in order to get 87 they add 10% ethanol to it... premium 93 is a mix of ethanol/85/93

Not sure where you get your information but the part about ethanol and octane is slightly wrong. 92 and 93 octane gases did not have ethanol added to them to increase their octane, until ethanol was being mixed with all gasoline. Gas octane is increased by adding Methyl tert-butyl ether, ethyl tert-butyl ether, toluene, or isooctane or combinations of all of them. By adding 10% ethanol they are able to reduce the amount of other additive they put in gas to increase its octane. This is why 10% ethanol gas is the limit for older vehicles that do not have higher compression engines, because the older 7:1-9:1 compression ratios can not compress anything over 10% enough to make it burn correctly. The problem with ethanol, especially when mixed with gas, is that it reduces fuel efficiency by a margin of about 5-8%(at 10% ethanol content in gas) depending on compression ratio of the engine, fuel delivery method, and and computer programming. This occurs because ethanol does not have the same energy content as gasoline. It takes 1.5 times as much ethanol to equal the same power production as gasoline. Gasoline has an energy potential of 116,090 Btu/gal, were as ethanol is only 76,330 Btu/gal. Another problem with using ethanol is that it causes deterioration of rubber components and can corrode aluminum parts if they are not properly coated. Ethanol as a stand alone fuels is great and even in mixed fuel so long as you realize that you will have repairs that are related to the use of ethanol that are not common with straight gasoline. Yes, I know that a good portion of this is not directly related to your post but mere food for thought.

Quote:

Originally posted by nemisis02

Not sure where you get your information but the part about ethanol and octane is slightly wrong. 92 and 93 octane gases did not have ethanol added to them to increase their octane, until ethanol was being mixed with all gasoline. Gas octane is increased by adding Methyl tert-butyl ether, ethyl tert-butyl ether, toluene, or isooctane or combinations of all of them. By adding 10% ethanol they are able to reduce the amount of other additive they put in gas to increase its octane. This is why 10% ethanol gas is the limit for older vehicles that do not have higher compression engines, because the older 7:1-9:1 compression ratios can not compress anything over 10% enough to make it burn correctly. The problem with ethanol, especially when mixed with gas, is that it reduces fuel efficiency by a margin of about 5-8%(at 10% ethanol content in gas) depending on compression ratio of the engine, fuel delivery method, and and computer programming. This occurs because ethanol does not have the same energy content as gasoline. It takes 1.5 times as much ethanol to equal the same power production as gasoline. Gasoline has an energy potential of 116,090 Btu/gal, were as ethanol is only 76,330 Btu/gal. Another problem with using ethanol is that it causes deterioration of rubber components and can corrode aluminum parts if they are not properly coated. Ethanol as a stand alone fuels is great and even in mixed fuel so long as you realize that you will have repairs that are related to the use of ethanol that are not common with straight gasoline. Yes, I know that a good portion of this is not directly related to your post but mere food for thought.

Doesn't this pretty much entirely defeat the purpose of ethanol? I thought the purpose of it was 1) To reduce us dependency on foreign oil and 2) reduce emissions. Seems to me that it does neither as more gasoline/ethanol needs to be burned to achieve the same efficiency as gasoline alone.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

If you think the energy market is a "free market" you've already lost the argument.

I don`t recall mentioning anything about a "free market" Eric so your point is moot........ The market is ultimately where the money flows....... You know, the "build a better mousetrap" theory......

You're right, you said:
[quote]
Just one example of the markets at work in alternative energy.[/url]

Which implies that "the market" has created this outcome (where alternative energies are viable alternatives to hydrocarbon-based energies), leaving out the part where all energy markets are heavily subsidized by various governments, distorting prices, research, and creating all sorts of externalities. Now, that might be okay, depending upon your policy preferences, but it's certainly not what most people refer to when they talk about "market solutions" and such, which are typically references to "invisible hand" type outcomes.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

Doesn't this pretty much entirely defeat the purpose of ethanol? I thought the purpose of it was 1) To reduce us dependency on foreign oil and 2) reduce emissions. Seems to me that it does neither as more gasoline/ethanol needs to be burned to achieve the same efficiency as gasoline alone.

This has been my argument against ethanol blends from the get go. Including ethanol does not reduce US dependency on foreign oil, as we still need the oil to make diesel fuel for farm equipment, power the ethanol refineries and provide fuel for the vehicles hauling whatever is used to produce ethanol and the finished product. Ethanol mixes may reduce emission, but at what extent, by the gallon or per distance? If they are more environmentally friendly by the gallon, then they are not really any more friendly because of the increased fuel consumption from using them. I know ethanol is supposed to be this wonder cure, but it is not. All "green" fuel alternatives have the same problem, none have as high a energy content as petroleum based fuels. Biodiesel has only 93% of the energy content of petroleum based diesel, and ethanol has about 66% the energy content of gasoline Perhaps if you were to run vehicles on nothing but ethanol it would be better, but than again fuel economy would go down not to mention food prices would rise as no one seems overly interested in cellulose based ethanol(aside from research groups that get big checks to do so). Yes cellulose based ethanol is not as cheap to make nor as easy, but it does not require the growth of more nutrient demanding crops. One pass over a field at harvest time would yield not only food but material for cellulose digesters for ethanol production. Also many things can be grown for cellulose ethanol production that are not as nutrient demanding as corn and other grains.

Solar is a joke, as current solar technology is highly inefficient and loses efficiency rather rapidly. Take for instance Arizona's Agua Caliente. This solar array is comprised of 5 million solar panels covering an area of about 1686 acres or 2.63 square miles(682.3 hectares for our friends out side the states), yet produces only 290 MW of power. The Agua Caliente site uses a total of 2,560 acres (1,039.99 hectares). Compare all of those resources, both in building and maintaining the facility and creation and replacement of solar panels, to the resources of a nuclear plant such as Watts Bar in TN. Watts Bar covers 1,770 acres (716.3 hectares) roughly, which is mostly as a safety net to protect the facility and surrounding populace, and produces 1,100 MW of power. Watts Bar also has the advantage of being able to operate at peak capacity almost continuously for 15-20 years at a time, 24 hours a day regardless of cloud cover or weather, where as Agua Caliente can make operate at peak capacity for perhaps 6 hours a day, if the weather is good and there is not a single cloud in the sky and it can not make power at all for roughly 12 hours of the day.

I could be wrong but I believe I saw somewhere that e-10 actually produces more emissions than straight gasoline until the catalytic converter reaches a certain temperature. So you're actually polluting more when you first start your car.

My dad's truck is a flex fuel model so you can run the e-85 fuel in it without risking damage (according to Dodge). The octane boost over e-10 is ridiculous with significant power gains. The fuel mileage is laughable though.

Quote:

Originally posted by Davey45

I could be wrong but I believe I saw somewhere that e-10 actually produces more emissions than straight gasoline until the catalytic converter reaches a certain temperature. So you're actually polluting more when you first start your car.

My dad's truck is a flex fuel model so you can run the e-85 fuel in it without risking damage (according to Dodge). The octane boost over e-10 is ridiculous with significant power gains. The fuel mileage is laughable though.

E85 burns cleaner then gasoline fuels do , if the engine would be build purely for E85 , you will see alot less mpg loss.

this has to do with the fact that E85 will bring more oxygen to the engine then gasoline does , this will increase the volumetric efficiency of the engine , and will make the whole BTU/LB vs gasoline pretty much moot.... because of the added oxygen with E85 in each combustion cycle , the BTU per combustion cycle will be close if not better then gasoline.

if this wouldn't be true , you wouldn't see drag cars running alcohol.

but again , flex fuel vehicles cannot take advantage of the E85 because the compression of the engine doesn't change when you switch fuels , you need a higher compression for the E85 to burn properly.

the only really bad part about ethanol is it's incredibly hygroscopic , so it attract and binds water molecules....

A few thoughts on your comments.

You are correct that normal engines cannot take advantage of alcohol fuel due to the compromised compression ratio. That said, when I went to Brazil where alcohol is near universal, they say that their CRs are normal for gasoline.

Wrong on the drag racing example. There are classes for nitro, alcohol and gas. People run alcohol because they want to run in the alcohol fuel class. No exceptions.

Re: the comparative energy of an optimized alcohol engine vs the same on gasoline...please post a curve. Thanks. I understand that ethanol has about half the BTU's per gallon as gasoline. ( A close relative, methanol, was used by racers at Indy for a long time. Why ? It was considered to be a safer fuel because it was less volatile. Just sayin...)

Lastly, gasoline is pretty benign, whereas al. is very corrosive and plays hell on automotive elastomer seals, aluminum, etc. Personally Iwill never use ethanol in my vehicles) Your other comments are correct though.

Quote:

Originally posted by wampers74

...


E85 burns cleaner then gasoline fuels do , if the engine would be build purely for E85 , you will see alot less mpg loss.

this has to do with the fact that E85 will bring more oxygen to the engine then gasoline does , this will increase the volumetric efficiency of the engine , and will make the whole BTU/LB vs gasoline pretty much moot.... because of the added oxygen with E85 in each combustion cycle , the BTU per combustion cycle will be close if not better then gasoline.

if this wouldn't be true , you wouldn't see drag cars running alcohol.

but again , flex fuel vehicles cannot take advantage of the E85 because the compression of the engine doesn't change when you switch fuels , you need a higher compression for the E85 to burn properly.

the only really bad part about ethanol is it's incredibly hygroscopic , so it attract and binds water molecules....

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

Wrong on the drag racing example. There are classes for nitro, alcohol and gas. People run alcohol because they want to run in the alcohol fuel class. No exceptions.


...

Actually alcohol is used in drag strips because it's more consistent during the season ,

alcohol is less affected by temperature changes then gasoline , but humidity affects an alcohol engine more. most of the times humidity stays at a better constant then temperature does on a race day.

let me be clear to say that alcohol isn't used because it makes more power or less power , it's just more consistent.