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: Ish who wrote (10281)	3/10/2007 5:47:18 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36918

<Big problem is when it burns there's no visible flames.> Bigger advantage is that it's not so volatile and flammable, so is less likely to catch fire. Also, an ethanol fire can be extinguished by diluting it with water, unlike a gasoline fire. Also, flames are usually associated with contaminants such as dust, other chemicals, and other materials, making the flames visible. It's more of an urban myth that the "invisible flame" is a problem than a real concern. But, there were a couple of incidents where doctors performing operations on two patients in New Zealand swabbed them with ethanol, then used cauterizing equipment and set the patients on fire, causing minor injuries. They couldn't see the flames initially and wondered what was going on. Total vehicle fire deaths would drop a lot if ethanol and methanol were used as vehicle fuels instead of gasoline. Gasoline fuel lines don't freeze. Dirty carburetors is a thing of the past. Ethanol as a vehicle fuel is part of the ideological fervour surrounding the Greenhouse Effect. Mqurice