Posted on 01/29/2008 11:09:15 AM PST by ddtorquee
Much of the money we are spending on oil is being used to fund [jihad]..We are financing a war against ourselves, and the way things are going, we will soon be paying the enemy more than we are paying our own military.
In light of this, a top priority of U.S. national security policy should be to break the oil cartel... What is needed is for the Congress to pass a law requiring that all new cars sold in the United States be flex-fueled - able to run on any combination of alcohol or gasoline fuel. Such cars are existing technology - in fact about 24 different models of flex-fuel cars were produced by the Detroit Big Three in 2007, and they only cost about $100 more than the same car in a gasoline-only version..If we had a flex-fuel requirement, however, then within three years of enactment there would be 50 million cars on the road capable of running on high-alcohol fuels. Under those conditions, E85 and M50 (a 50 percent methanol, 50 percent gasoline fuel mix; flex-fuel cars can use any alcohol, including methanol) pumps would start appearing everywhere.
But most important, this would not just be happening here. By requiring that all new cars sold in the United States be flex-fueled, we would be forcing all the foreign car manufacturers to switch their lines to flex-fuel as well, effectively making flex-fuel the international standard. So there would be hundreds of millions of cars worldwide capable of running on alcohol, forcing gasoline to compete everywhere against alcohol fuels that can be produced from numerous sources. This would effectively break the vertical monopoly that the oil cartel currently holds on the world's fuel supply and keep prices in the $50-a-barrel range, because that is where alcohol fuels become competitive.
(Excerpt) Read more at rockymountainnews.com ...
If a gasoline-ethanol results in LESS power than a pure gasoline mix, why do the pumps say:
ENRICHED with ethanol
Hmmmmmm.
Bob,
OPEC was over in 1983.
-RW
Coal to diesel will be the best way to cut into OPEC>
If you delete the part about passing some law and we might have something .
Another question, why was unleaded gasoline more expensive than leaded? Inquiring minds want to know.
Also, where did the “Pump Bunnies” go?
there was a guest a month or so ago on CtoCam that said we could produce alcohol foras a fuel base NOW for about 30cents a gallon.
He was on maby 2-3 months ago now that i think of it.
The only thing stopping it was the auto/fuel industeries.
Just my thoughts.
Much cheaper and no new technology needed.
So, if alcohol is “competitive” with $50 a barrel oil, why are we still subsidizing it, plus taxing inmported alcohol over $.50 per gallon?
Hmmmm?
The law was passed a month ago but completely ignored Bob’s suggestion. Too bad, it is actually a fine idea but too late now.
Everybody that has read this column is now dumber for having done so.
The problem of corn produced ethanol squeezing out corn produced food and the subsequent rise in tortilla prices might be amended by deriving fuel not from the actual grain itself but from the Soylent Green-like conversion of illegal aliens.
[Note to flame monkeys: this is ‘satire’.]
Just because it is satire does not mean it won’t work .
I still think flex fuel is dumb unless the engine has forced induction and a variable compression ratio that can crank it up for when alcohol is being used. Otherwise you’re just wasting a lot of alcohol because you have the lower energy density but aren’t taking advantage of the 129 octane to produce more power and increase engine efficiency.
all for removing the stupid 54 cent a gallon ethanol tariff which blocks import of cheap sugarcane ethanol. this is a funny vid on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjSlP3S051Y
Ethanol has fewer btu's than an equivalent quantity of gasoline, but it will produce more "power" as a result of its ignition properties. Indy series cars, for example, are powered by pure ethanol, while dragsters have been fueld by a really oxygen rich mixture called nitro methane which give really lousy mileage, but monstrous power.
Proud to say I stopped at the Title. What a joke. Ethanol would NOT exist if not for taxpayer subsidies. We should be drilling where ever there is oil. All these enviro-leftist solutions are an absolute waste of taxpayer dollars. The minuscule amount of energy supplied by ALL alternative green energies probably would only supply a few hours of the yearly needs of the world. I wish our so called leaders would grown up and tell the world oil runs the world. ( I know Fred mentioned this, but he is gone)
In light of this, a top priority of U.S. national security policy should be to break the oil cartel... What is needed is for the Congress to pass a law requiring that all new cars sold in the United States be flex-fueled - able to run on any combination of alcohol or gasoline fuel. Such cars are existing technology - in fact about 24 different models of flex-fuel cars were produced by the Detroit Big Three in 2007, and they only cost about $100 more than the same car in a gasoline-only version..If we had a flex-fuel requirement, however, then within three years of enactment there would be 50 million cars on the road capable of running on high-alcohol fuels. Under those conditions, E85 and M50 (a 50 percent methanol, 50 percent gasoline fuel mix; flex-fuel cars can use any alcohol, including methanol) pumps would start appearing everywhere.The top priority should be to reduce dependence on foreign sources of oil using all available fronts -- increasing exploration and production of domestic sources, identifying alternative energy sources, improving efficiency so we don't need as much oil. The only one of these areas that the government can even remotely improve is the area of domestic production. Restrictions on exploring and drilling in ANWR and in the gulf coasts need to be eliminated.
Congressional laws dictating production choices would be every bit as bad an idea here and now that similar government dictats have been everywhere they have been tried. When the market is ready for more flex fuel vehicles then the productive resources will be used for them. And flex fuels will not reduce our dependence on OPEC by any noticeable amount.
True.
But virtually any car on the road gets fewer MPG when running a gas/ethanol mix than with gasoline alone. That’s hardly “enrich”ing my car or my wallet.
I run nitro methane in my RC monster truck and that stuff really does ROCK !!!
did you miss the coal to methanol part?
OK, but virtually all cars on the road have engines optimized for gasoline. An engine truly optimized for ethanol would run quite efficiently on it, but 87 octane gasoline wouldn’t work in it at all.
Ethanol Fraud Bump
not enough water in many places either.
5 gallons of water needed to produce one gallon of ethanol.
bump
bump
The yield potential of corn, or any other crop, is not fixed. The average yield of corn has increased virtually every year since the beginning of recorded time, while the inputs necessary to gain that yield have decreased...and the trend is accelerating. I’m now dissapointed with a yield of less than 200 bushels per acre on a field that would have produced 20 bushels per acre in 1900.
I just read the article. If methanol from coal is profitable then that would be good. I don't know the cost of production of M50. I would think if there would be substantial savings (i.e. 25% less cost per mile) then the marketplace would naturally arise for such a product. My first instinct is to be against government mandates or intervention in the marketplace. At first glance, it may seems as though the author has a point that having the government mandate a flex fuel requirement would help "speedup" the market for M50 and such. I am not sure.
Right now with ADM and other corn growers getting massive taxpayer subsidies, I don't think the are going let ethanol die. There are now many vested interests in a lot of alternative energies that are doing little to solve the problem. Over time, these subsidies will likely increase costing taxpayers billions for little in return. By not allowing drilling in ANWAR and offshore, the government is exacerbating the problem. The enviro-leftists in and out of government stand in the way of a real solution.
Oh,yeah, right. Like OPEC & Co. are just going to stand there and let something like this kick a hole the size of the Lincoln tunnel in their only exportable commodity.
if the directive must be following under penalty of law , I would say that is a distinction without a difference .
ENRICHED with ethanol
Ethanol changes the burning rate so the gas is “less polluting” as per the EPA. I got 18MPG pollution gas and 26 on good gas.
Break OPEC by more drilling and more refining. More nuke power also.
Yes on NUKES and more drilling/refining.
I simply cannot understand why there aren’t a dozen new U.S. nuclear power plants in construction right now.
Tens if not hundreds of millions of children and elderly would starve to death in the greatest manmade omnicidal holocaust in the history of the world if this was to done in reality.
Every proponent of this idea is worse than the Communist Central Committee who signed of on Mao’s Great Leap Forward.
From smokemup.com:
“In our everquest for more power we need consider what propels our cars, FUEL. Most hot rodders usually only consider running one type of fuel in their engine, gasoline. This article’s intent is to explore some of the other alternative fuels, alcohol, and nitromethane.
Fuel Types:
Gasoline
Alcohol
Nitromethane
Summary
Gasoline - Gasoline is what most of our cars came setup so it’s usually what we stick with. Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons. The petroleum distillate fraction termed “gasoline” contains mostly saturated hydrocarbons usually with a chemical formula of C8H18. The air fuel ratio, A/F Ratio, for complete combustion is 14.7:1, stoichiometric. The A/F ratio for maximum power is approximately 12.5:1 - 12.8:1. This means that our engine at max power, 12.8:1, consumes 12.8 pounds of air for 1 pound of fuel. Gasoline has approximately 18,400 BTU/lb . Using the air flow calculator with the default inputs we get our 355 SBC consumes 567.53 cfm @ 6500rpm which is 42.64 pounds of air and consumes 2.89 pounds of fuel. Therefore if we are using gasoline our engine is producing 53,176 BTU’s of energy at 6500 rpm.
Alcohol (Methanol) - Alcohol is usually used in the form of Methyl alcohol or methanol. CH3OH is the chemical formula. Methanol burns at a much richer mixture than gasoline does, between 5.0:1 - 6.0:1. That’s 5 lbs of air to one pound of fuel. Methanol has approximately 9,500 BTU/lb. Using our 355, example above, SBC consumes 567.53 cfm @ 6500rpm which is 42.64 pounds of air and now at 6.0:1 ratio for Methanol is 7.11 pounds of fuel. Therefore if we are using Methanol fuel our engine is producing 67,545 BTU’s of energy at 6500 rpm.
Nitromethane - is a fuel that is used mostly in specialized drag racing classes, “nitro funny cars” and “top fuel”. Nitromethane’s chemical formula is CH3NO2. The oxygen in nitromethane’s molecular structure means that nitromethane does not need as much atmospheric oxygen to burn, part of the oxygen needed to burn nitromethane is carried in the fuel itself. Typical A/F ratio for nitromethane is 1.7:1 and nitromethane has an energy content of 5,000 BTU/lb. Using our 355, example above, SBC consumes 567.53 cfm @ 6500rpm which is 42.64 pounds of air and now at 1.7:1 ratio for nitromethane is 25.08 pounds of fuel. Therefore if we are using Nitromethane fuel our engine is producing 125,412 BTU’s of energy at 6500 rpm.
TABLE 1 Fuel Engine Air Flow (cfm) lbs of air (lbs) A/F Ratio Pounds of Fuel (lbs) Energy Content of Fuel (BTU/lb) Total Thermal Energy (BTU)
Gasoline 567.53 42.64 12.8:1 2.89 18,500 53,176
Methanol 567.53 42.64 6.0:1 7.11 9,500 67,545
Nitromethane 567.53 42.64 1.7:1 25.08 5,000 125,412
Summary - As you can see from table 1 above the clear winner is nitromethane. But that doesn’t mean to go out and pour nitromethane in your car and see how it runs, if you do your engine will surely blow up. Nitromethane is very expensive and dangerous to handle. The interesting alternative to gasoline is Methanol. Methanol will make more power, typically around 20% more power than a similar engine running gasoline. Some things to consider in running methanol is your fuel system will have to be completely changed / upgraded. Based on the table above the fuel system will have to flow approximately 2.5 times as much as the gasoline engine.
I guess the old saying is true. “Gasoline is for washing parts, alcohol is for drinking and nitro is for racing.”
SMOKE “
You can get 50% more power from alcohol than gasoline but you have to use over 2.5 times as much to do so.
Here’s better idea: equip cars to run on natural gas where it’s available. My brother has a truck and car that both run on natural gas. He gets the equivalent of $0.50 per gallon. The US has large reserves of natural gas and natural gas wells don’t spoil the environment.
There are already 6 million flex fuel vehicles in the United States. The US auto industry has been producing them because after they went to the expense of designing the engines and fuel systems to work with flex fuels, the incremental cost of producing flex fuel vehicles isn't that high.
The auto industry in the US hasn't been standing in the way of flex fuel vehicles, it has produced them despite the lack of demand.
People have been investing vast sums of money in alcohol fuels. There already is a market for alcohol based fuels. Why are there so few stations selling flex fuel and why is the price so high if it can really be produced so cheaply.
If it can be made that cheaply, there is billions of dollars to be made on producing it and selling it. How is it that people think that the auto and fuel industries are keeping people from doing this if it is really possible with existing technology?
Why are people so incredibly gullible as to believe such statements despite the obvious evidence to the contrary and the total lack of any credibility that those industries have the power to prevent such fuel from coming to market.
Well, OK, but if instead of burning off a 1/4 mile, the driver sought economy, an engine optimized for ethanol will give greater economy on ethanol than it would on gasoline (if only because it wouldn’t run very well at all on the gasoline). An ethanol only engine will support a 16:1 compression ratio and requires a much smaller cooling system than a gasoline only engine.
“There is literally not enough arable farm land in North America to grow enough corn to produce enough ethanol to mean anything significant in economic terms. If everyone is fired up about ethanol, they’d better get it from somewhere other than corn.”
A couple of questions, then...
Do you have cite for the claim of insufficient arable farm land?
And, what about other plants that can be used in ethanol production? I believe switchgrass has been shown to have some promising characteristics, and it doesn’t require the degree of care that corn requires.
Well, you also pay 51 cents less federal fuel taxes on a gallon of ethanol than for a gallon of gasoline.
So while cutting the import tariffs would make buying ethanol cheaper, it still doesn't really make ethanol cost effective against gasoline.
You also need to cut the subsidies for ethanol fuel to allow it to really compete on par with gasoline.
That only leaves the small matter of hygroscopics, transport, volume/consumption storage differences and distribution networks.
Really?
A concentrated group of leftists can defeat just about any project.
“The China Syndrome” coming out two weeks before the Three Mile Island incident didn’t help any, either.
I don’t see how ethanol (E85) is more economic for motorists. I see the new flex fuel vehicles at a local Ford dealer and each one has a sticker on its window comparing how far one can travel on a tank of fuel using either E85 on the one hand or conventional fuel (gas or diesel) on the other.
The comparative numbers indicate that one travels fewer miles on a tank of E85 than on a tank of gas or diesel. Thus, as is plain to see, a driver has to refuel more often when using E85 for long-distance driving.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
