Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: miraje who wrote (10280)	3/9/2007 6:35:43 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

<<I have two problems with ethanol. First, the mandates and subsidies.>> My area switched to the E 10 back in 19 and 74 for cleaner air. Everybody bitched but a year later cars weren't having gas line freeze and clogged carbs. <<A high compression engine (12 or 13 to 1 or higher) designed to run exclusively on E85 would be very efficient, but would be unable to run on regular gasoline without detonating to pieces. >> You have that right, like gasoline and diesel, ethanol will require a different engine. The Indy 500 will be run this year on ethanol. Big problem is when it burns there's no visible flames.

To: miraje who wrote (10280)	3/10/2007 5:28:46 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

James, ethanol is okay as a vehicle fuel [in Otto cycles]. It's just a dollars and sense business. But as you point out, governments will mess it up for ideological reasons. In my BP Oil days in the 1980s, we ran fleets of vehicles on various ethanol and methanol blends. To get the best out of any fuel, the engine needs to be designed for it. "Flexifuel" sounds good, but it's a compromise involving reduced efficiency. As you point out, mileage depends on calorific value as well as octane quality. Ethanol and methanol have fewer calories per litre so less bang for buck at the same price per litre. If governments really think carbon dioxide is a problem, they should just put a carbon tax on fuels and leave people to use what they like, preferably cutting taxes on other things such as cyberspace technology [since it doesn't produce CO2 = not in any significant way]. Ethanol and methanol might also be hot stuff as fuel cell fuels. But that process is too expensive so far. But there really isn't a problem with using hydrocarbon fossil fuels - "climate change" aka global warming aka greenhouse effect might well be a good thing, not a bad thing. Not that it has been shown to be happening so far, despite a reasonable CO2 level increase over a century of serious effort. It seems silly to use ethanol, which is expensive, when vast reservoirs of cheap crude oil are available. Mqurice