Posted on 03/17/2008 8:44:13 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Ethanol fires harder to control than gasoline, require special foam Francine Sawyer February 28, 2008 - 8:52PM
The nation’s drive toward alternative fuels carries a danger many communities have been slow to recognize: Ethanol fires are harder to put out than gasoline fires and require a special type of firefighting foam.
Many fire departments don’t have the foam, don’t have enough of it, or are not well-trained in how to apply it. The foam is also more expensive than conventional foam.
Bobby Aster, New Bern Fire and Rescue chief, said fighting ethanol fires is new to the fire service.
“As it stands now, not a great deal of ethanol is coming in our area,” he said.
Aster said the city’s fire department has 700 gallons of the costly foam to fight ethanol fires.
Aster said that if a tanker happened to be hauling ethanol on a rural bypass and caught fire, firefighters would probably let the fire burn. He said allowing the fire to burn also cuts down on environmental pollution.
He said that for every 90 gallons of ethanol burning, it takes six gallons of foam to subdue the fire.
Aster said five gallons of the foam costs $115. It has a shelf life of 10 years, and then it must be disposed of.
“We will call on neighboring departments if the worst-case scenario would occur, including Cherry Point,” he said. Aster said fighting ethanol fires is a hot topic with the Eastern North Carolina fire administrators.
Stanley Kite, Craven County Emergency Services director, said some of the county volunteer firefighting departments have quantities of the foam and are better equipped than others to battle an ethanol fire. He could not supply an amount.
Kite said ethanol has more alcohol than other fuel. He said the foams that have been used since the 1960s form a blanket on top of the burning gasoline and put out the fire. He said ethanol with its alcohol, often distilled from corn, eats through the traditional foam and continues to burn.
“Firefighters make some decisions to allow the fuel to burn. We mostly have spills instead of fuel fires to deal with. I can’t recall where any fuel labeled ethanol is sold in the area. Most of it is a blend and would not be volatile and is not a big problem,” he said.
“If we were in the Midwest it would be a different story with the refinery of ethanol and storage tanks of ethanol in that area,” Kite said.
Wrecks involving ordinary cars and trucks are not the major concern. They carry modest amounts of fuel, and it is typically a low-concentration, a blend of 10 percent ethanol and gasoline. A large amount of conventional foam can usually extinguish those fires.
However, fires requiring a special alcohol-resistant foam that relies on material to smother the flames cost around $90 to $115 for a five-gallon container.
Another problem with ethanol besides driving up the price of food.
You should inform the Indy Racing League. One of the reasons they have adopted ethanol as their fuel is for safety reasons. Sceptics may review the Eddie Sachs crash film.
The seven-car crash on the second lap of the 1964 Indianapolis 500 caused a change from gasoline to methanol.
Speculating is driving up the price of food and
oil. The money being played around with in
the farm commodity markets has went up 20 times in the last few years. There is plenty of food corn,
plenty of grain corn and corn byproducts, but the
speculators are driving up prices, just trying to be
next to the last holder when it might drop.
And middle man expenses driven up by energy costs
and ethanol should helo that a little, if folks don’t
drive it out, by being stampeded by what appears to
be propaganda finaced by oil investors who want to
keep a shortage of oil or percieved oil shortage. Ed
And why do you think that was?
For fire safety. But they adopted methanol, not ethanol, for fire safety.
“that amount added to the
92 million acres of corn could put 10% ethanol in
all gas, which makes it burn cleaner and get an extra
mile per gallon in our older engines”
Really?
The ethanol myth
Consumer Reports’ E85 tests show that you’ll get cleaner emissions but poorer fuel economy ... if you can find it
Ethanol
The Bush administration has been pushing ethanol as a renewable, homegrown alternative to gasoline. Now, the auto industry is abuzz with the promise of its flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs), which are designed to run on either gasoline or the blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline called E85.
CR Quick Take
Despite the avid support of the Bush administration and major American car companies, E85 is unlikely to fill more than a small percentage of U.S. energy needs.
* E85, which is 85 percent ethanol, emits less smog-causing pollutants than gasoline, but provides fewer miles per gallon, costs more, and is hard to find outside the Midwest.
* Government support for flexible-fuel vehicles, which can run on E85, is indirectly causing more gasoline consumption rather than less.
* Most ethanol is being blended in a 10 percent mix to reduce smog-producing emissions and stretch gasoline supplies.
But after putting a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe FFV through an array of fuel economy, acceleration, and emissions tests, and interviewing more than 50 experts on ethanol fuel, CR determined that E85 will cost consumers more money than gasoline and that there are concerns about whether the government’s support of FFVs is really helping the U.S. achieve energy independence. Among our findings:
* The fuel economy of the Tahoe dropped 27 percent when running on E85 compared with gasoline, from an already low 14 mpg overall to 10 mpg (rounded to the nearest mpg). This is the lowest fuel mileage we’ve gotten from any vehicle in recent years.
* With the retail pump price of E85 averaging $2.91 per gallon in August, according to the Oil Price Information Service, which tracks petroleum and other fuel prices, a 27 percent fuel-economy penalty means drivers would have paid an average of $3.99 for the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline.
* When we calculated the Tahoe’s driving range, we found that it decreased to about 300 miles on a full tank of E85 compared with about 440 on gasoline. So you have to fill up more often with E85.
* The majority of FFVs are large vehicles like the Tahoe that get relatively poor fuel economy even on gasoline. So they will cost you a lot at the pump, no matter which fuel you use.
* Because E85 is primarily sold in the upper Midwest, most drivers in the country have no access to the fuel, even if they want it. For our Tahoe test, for example, we had to blend our own (see The great E85 fuel hunt).
* The FFV surge is being motivated by generous fuel-economy credits that auto-makers get for every FFV they build, even if it never runs on E85. This allows them to pump out more gas-guzzling large SUVs and pickups, which is resulting in the consumption of many times more gallons of gasoline than E85 now replaces.
We put the Tahoe through our full series of fuel-economy and acceleration tests while running on each fuel (see our test results). When running on E85 there was no significant change in acceleration. Fuel economy, however, dropped across the board. In highway driving, gas mileage decreased from 21 to 15 mpg; in city driving, it dropped from 9 to 7 mpg.
You could expect a similar decrease in gas mileage in any current FFV. That’s because ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline: 75,670 British thermal units per gallon instead of 115,400, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. So you have to burn more fuel to generate the same amount of energy. In addition, FFV engines are designed to run more efficiently on gasoline. E85 fuel economy could approach that of gasoline if manufacturers optimized engines for that fuel.
When we took our Tahoe to a state-certified emissions-test facility in Connecticut and had a standard emissions test performed, we found a significant decrease in smog-forming oxides of nitrogen when using E85. Ethanol, however, emits acetaldehyde, a probable carcinogen and something that standard emissions-testing equipment is not designed to measure. But that might be a relatively minor evil. “Acetaldehyde is bad,” says James Cannon, president of Energy Futures, an alternative-transportation publication, “but not nearly as bad as some of the emissions from gasoline.”
...and because ethanol has a much lower flash point than gasoline and is markedly less toxic than either gasoline or methanol, it is now the IRL fuel of choice.
Not to mention the marketing aspect from all the local ethanol producers...
cheers
E85 fuel economy could approach that of gasoline if manufacturers optimized engines for that fuel
Consumers Reports was testing an engine for which no effort had been expended to accommodate combustion properties of ethanol. My Silverado, by adjusting the timing and lean/rich mixture only, reduces the mileage difference by about half.
“Cheers” is also my favorite exclamation in the presence of ethanol.
I worked for farmer growing up who claimed his still was permitted for agriculture use but there was nothing in the permit that said he could keep it clean enough to drink out of.
I was a kid at the time, I have no idea if there was actually a permit or one available.
I preferred the wine he made at the time. He made about 8 different flavors including dandelion.
I didn’t mention E85, a curve thrown at the
ethanol producers by a some crooked oil
companies, to screw things up. It isn’t the
right way to to do it- the 10% blend is the way.
The insiders know that results would be like you
have mentioned and help generate more resistance
to ethanol. It is a put up job. I know from driving
V8s that the 10% aids emissions and it has to
burn more efficient to burn cleaner, thus a slight
milage improvement.It is a snooker job.Ed
Thanks for the ping. Maybe they should just use baking soda.
I think the issue is that while it's not too hard to swamp 10 gallons of burning ethanol with 100 gallons of water, it may be harder to swamp 1,000 gallons of burning ethanol quickly enough to ensure that the mixture is too dilute to burn by the time it spreads.
Exactly. It’s just that the guy I was responding to was acting like people were freaking out over gasoline with ethanol in it, and the concern was just what you’ve said: Large amounts can’t be diluted fast enough with water.
Thanks for that link!
A turbo charged engine that senses the presence of ethanol and adjusts boost pressure and fuel mixture accordingly would be the simplest solution. I think Saab is working on something in that area.
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.