Ethanol Fuel. How Safe ???

[CruizinEB]

just herd on the news that it mite be cheaper at the pump but you use more,so really whats the point in converting,the price of petrol will go down wen we get a government who is looking out for Australia's and not one that wonts us to participate in this falling globalisation test witch is giving us high insurance premiums ect....,I think i will stop here

[2IC]

from my limited experience with e-10 I don't like it. my fuel tank, lines and injectors are already good from a thorough professional tank/injector clean and flush. usually i use BP or Shell premium and when i tried the "ethenol 95" (shell i think) towards the bottom of the tank the car was knocking like crazy... once i put premium back in the tank it was fine. i know it might take a few tanks to 'run in' but i'll be damned if i'm driving around with a car that sounds like a game of ping-pong. I also don't trust ANYTHING the government tries to tell us, full stop.

[johnydep]

: I just heard that Oxygen is corrosive to all materials, I have thus decided to stop using it. :nutsycuck
http://www.cleaninglink.com/Safety_Library/Bleach.htm

Oxygen free radicals are believed to be responsible for the bleaching and disinfecting activity as well as the toxic effects associated with these compounds

.

Come on guys; yes Ethanol is corosive, but when used at a rate of 10% in modern vehicles it has been found to cause no problems.
In Brazil they use 85% Ethanol, so a lot of changes have to be made to the vehicles; fuel metering is increased, fuel delivery lines may be different.

Consumptiom may go up by about 3 - 4%, but this may be off set by the increased Octane rating.
Emissions are reduced.

It would be really handy if some of the comments were research before they are released. Read the links from here; http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...3&page=2&pp=25

http://www.leeric.lsu.edu/bgbb/7/ecep/auto/k/k.htm

False. Ethanol has a low Btu/lb. yield. Decreased fuel economy is one of the greatest impediments to pure ethanol use. When used as an antiknock compound, in 10% or less concentration, the decreased mpg is almost immeasurable.

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/EthanolEd...um20041027.pdf

Most of the ethonal fuel used today is E10. The letter E stands for ethonal and the number stands for the percentage of ethonal that is mixed with gasoline. E10 is 10 percent ethonal 90 percent gasoline. There are fueling stations all over the country that offer E10 in their pumps. All vehicles that run on gasoline can use E10 without making any changes to their engines.

When we add small amounts of ethonal to gasoline (up to 10 percent) there are many advantages. It reduces the pollution from the tailpipes of vehicles, making the air cleaner. It keeps engines running smoothly without the need for lead or other dangerous chemicals. Ethonal is produces from crops..........

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/farmmgt/05010.html

Alcohols may be corrosive to certain materials used in engines. Generally, methyl alcohol is the most corrosive and butyl alcohol is least corrosive. Alcohols also can cause injury or physical harm if not used properly. People who use alcohol in motor fuels should observe warning labels and follow precautions to avoid problems.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by CRUIZIN EB

just herd on the news that it mite be cheaper at the pump but you use more,so really whats the point in converting,the price of petrol will go down wen we get a government who is looking out for Australia's and not one that wonts us to participate in this falling globalisation test witch is giving us high insurance premiums ect....,I think i will stop here

Is English your second language? I have seen some shocking spelling and grammar in my time but this is right up there. Just for the other readers sakes, can you please use a spell and grammar check on you posts? It would help immensely.

Now, as for Ethanol, I personally think the whole “issue” is a scare campaign. I would have no problems putting a 10% blend into my car. Hate to say it but ethanol (or similar) is one of the primary substances used in the cleaning agents of petrol these days anyhow.

[LTDHO]

I have never tried it until testerday when I filled up the Suzuki. As I was filling it, I read the brochure, interesting read. I'm hoping it does the cleaning that it claims it will, the Suzuki is coming up to 200k and needs a cleanout.

However the 'cleans your engine, improves performance and ecconomy' is a ploy to convince the motorist to buy a worst fuel at a cheaper price.

[OzJavelin]

Come on guys; yes Ethanol is corosive, but when used at a rate of 10% in modern vehicles it has been found to cause no problems.
In Brazil they use 85% Ethanol, so a lot of changes have to be made to the vehicles; fuel metering is increased, fuel delivery lines may be different.
Consumptiom may go up by about 3 - 4%, but this may be off set by the increased Octane rating.
Emissions are reduced.

I too was originally sucked-in to the anti-ethanol scare campaign, but as petrol goes thru the roof, I'm researching it more and finding it more appealing. Here's a link from AMC Forum regarding E85 I posted earlier..

http://www.amcforums.com/cgi-bin/yab...5886345;start=

Yep, some cars will require mods, but most cars will RUN on it fine. They just need changes to fuel systems for increased flow and resistance to corrosion. No biggie. As others have mentioned, need to be careful with cars already running on fuel when they "clean out" ...

I'd be happy to see the Oz Govt paying Oz farmers to produce sugarcane for Ethanol .. at least it would remove our dependancy upon foreign govts/oil-companies. We have a "small" population and large agricultural landmass .. ideal for Ethanol/bio-diesel production I'd think?

BTW: Regarding fossil-fuel energy usage to create Ethanol .. thats not oil is it? If it's electricity, that can be generated via other means (nuclear?)

[Des]

Lets face it, until a totally independant body does a complete and concise test across all of the (most) popular makes/ models and publishes the findings (widely across the entire general public), this arguement will continue and won't be resolved until either:
A) Someone who uses it has their engine/ car experience major malfunctions
B) The above doesn't happen after prolonged and sustained use of the blended fuels.

P.S You'd need to ensure that the fuels met "x" standard otherwise you'd need to test all available "blends". You'd also need to ensure that all available fuels currently on the market were compatible with "blending" and then list the "blendable" products or you'd be wasting time and money.

[4.9 EF Futura]

CSV8's second post which appears to have not been noticed raises a very important point. That being, that the production of ethanol is a net energy loss. And, unfortunately the energy inputs are primarily petrochemicals derived from fossil fuels i.e. fertilizer and diesel.

Now, this is not a huge problem, if - as mentioned, the government is doing the sugar cane farmers a favour (and doing themselves a favour at the same time) as chances are, if not being fed into ethanol production, the produce would simply go to waste .

More information on the ethanol process here:

http://www.energybulletin.net/5062.html

With some estimates of 6 "units" of energy input into every 1 "unit" of energy derived from ethanol. This not only increases the rate at which we are using precious oil - but to all of the government-haters out there - this means that 1 litre of ethanol generates up to 600% more revenue for the government than putting 1 litre of dinosaur juice into the tank.

The environmental consequences are scary as well. The article posted above notes that Brazil (who are obviously keen on ethanol fuels) annually damages an area of land (being in brazil, this just happens to be precious forest land) the size of greece for its ethanol consumption.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by csv8

Mon Jul 18, 8:53 AM ET

ALBANY, N.Y. - Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.

ADVERTISEMENT

Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.

But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.

What a crock. First of all, Ethanol can be produced from any vegetable matter that contains starch, not just grass and wood. In australia, we dump fruit to keep the price up, we have a dying sugar cane industry (And frankly I dont give a crap if I pay more to support an AUSTRALIAN industry rather then OPEC countries.) If we became one of the worlds largest producers of Ethanol, Opec could go to hell. The fuel industry is serious money and serious power in the world market.

You can make ethanol out of straw even(Gee australia has a fair bit of wheat too doesnt it?), I know of farmers that give it away or just burn it. To create the alcohol component, you need yeast and water mixed with your starch load, then you need to boil the ethanol off and condense it. Ethanol boils at 78C and leaves the water behind. I get temperatures higher then that from my Solar Hot Water service! Where is this massive energy defecit??? Where is this Cost Defecit???

Theres no reason cars cant be built from the Factory E85 compatible, other then an Oil Industry that prefers you running straight Petrol.

Just as when ULP was phased in to replace Leaded Fuel. Those who want to update their cars to new cars get the option for E85, those who want to keep their old car and update any non ethanol friendly parts can. Those who wish to do neither car Walk. Eventually normal ULP and PULP is phased out just as Leaded Fuel was. Life goes on.

If you dont want to run Ethanol, fine, please enjoy your Hybrid car running on a 50 50 mix of lavender oil and Canola Oil, that cant accelerate if a stiff breeze picks up. If you have a large family, dont worry, just buy two hybrids so you can actually fit everyone in for a run down to the shops.

FFS people, try looking past next week.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

CSV8's second post which appears to have not been noticed raises a very important point. That being, that the production of ethanol is a net energy loss. And, unfortunately the energy inputs are primarily petrochemicals derived from fossil fuels i.e. fertilizer and diesel.

There is no Energy defecit.
Cost of fuel from harvesting? Well you can make Ethanol from most of the parts of agriculture we already throw away. Harvest the wheat, bail the straw, has to be done anyway, the straw goes to an Ethanol plant instead of being burnt or simply left to rot. The crops need to be fertilized anyway. The costs are easily defrayed from the costs of selling the crop to markets, and the waste go to Ethanol production.

Cost of transport of the straw? On a truck running on BioDiesel? Or make the Ethanol onsite. Its easily done.

Boiling the "beer" to distill the Ethanol out? 78C is not a massive energy undertaking. Sit an ethanol plant next to wind generators. Victoria has a nice big one down at Coddrington. Per liter of "beer" its not even the same amount of energy required to boil a kettle to 100C!

The only Energy defecit is seen when you assume the following things.
Farmers are stupid enough to produce ONLY for Ethanol.
We ship everything on a nice fat normal Diesel truck to a single place to produce fuel.
We use fossil fuel to heat the beer to distill the alcohol.

Change the rules to work smarter, and all of a sudden there is no defecit.

[Hardtopxb]

Sour, ....Sin,ic,cal

[OzJavelin]

In australia, we dump fruit to keep the price up, we have a dying sugar cane industry (And frankly I dont give a crap if I pay more to support an AUSTRALIAN industry rather then OPEC countries.) If we became one of the worlds largest producers of Ethanol, Opec could go to hell.

I agreed 100%. Pay Australians and let OPEC rot ...

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

What a crock. First of all, Ethanol can be produced from any vegetable matter that contains starch, not just grass and wood. In australia, we dump fruit to keep the price up, we have a dying sugar cane industry (And frankly I dont give a crap if I pay more to support an AUSTRALIAN industry rather then OPEC countries.) If we became one of the worlds largest producers of Ethanol, Opec could go to hell. The fuel industry is serious money and serious power in the world market.

You can make ethanol out of straw even(Gee australia has a fair bit of wheat too doesnt it?), I know of farmers that give it away or just burn it. To create the alcohol component, you need yeast and water mixed with your starch load, then you need to boil the ethanol off and condense it. Ethanol boils at 78C and leaves the water behind. I get temperatures higher then that from my Solar Hot Water service! Where is this massive energy defecit??? Where is this Cost Defecit???

Well i must have rocks in my head for speaking against the sour one, but here goes.

Your points make absolute sense and suggest that ethanol production is completely viable at the 'cottage industry' level. The fruit that gets dumped, the straw which is burnt off, the queenslanders who need a leg up - that's all fine for producing small amounts of ethanol. Perfect for cutting 5 - 10% into a ULP/PULP blend and can be boiled off using solar power as you note.

But to suggest it as a viable option for replacing our beloved fuels is inappropriate. To suggest that Australia could produce enough to begin exporting it to the point of hurting OPEC even more so. I'm sorry - but I dont subscribe to the "give it a few years, some egghead will figure out a way to make it better/faster/cheaper" philosophy. You just to consider the scale at which you are speaking of. You're certainly going to need more than the offcuts of unuccesful agricultural ventures... to really put biofuels into production you're talking fertilizers, fossil fuel powered machinery and lots n lots n lots n lots of water... something Australia doesnt really have a shyteload of these days.

Then consider the inputs you need to take the biomass and get fuel out of it. Yet more water.. and heat. You note the use of solar power and this is fine for a hot water service - pays itself off rather quickly. But you're talking a lot of solar cells here - gets expensive.... and also need to consider the inputs into solar panels, they're not made in backyard sheds - they're assembled by complex machines and systems, themselves consuming a lot of fossil fuel in their production and operation.

We are certainly not the first to consider the viability of biofuels in the australian context - see UNSW's work on the topic (by god it's a boring read): http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/t...5.Liquids.html

We are putting a lot of faith in the eggheads to save our bacon arent we?

[6T]

Originally Posted by Des

Lets face it, until a totally independant body does a complete and concise test across all of the (most) popular makes/ models and publishes the findings (widely across the entire general public), this arguement will continue and won't be resolved until either:
A) Someone who uses it has their engine/ car experience major malfunctions
B) The above doesn't happen after prolonged and sustained use of the blended fuels.

P.S You'd need to ensure that the fuels met "x" standard otherwise you'd need to test all available "blends". You'd also need to ensure that all available fuels currently on the market were compatible with "blending" and then list the "blendable" products or you'd be wasting time and money.

Des makes the most valid statement so far imho. Without independent info there is no basis other than opinion on the long-term suitability (or otherwise) of ethanol/unleaded blends.
One thing I find worrying is the rumoured removal of the legal requirement that servos display clear labelling on those pumps flogging blended fuel.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Well i must have rocks in my head for speaking against the sour one, but here goes.

LOL I get that alot :P

The point about the energy required to boil in regards to a solar hot water service is just an example, obviously the same technique would not be effective in day to day displacement of enegy. Another variant would be required for power generation, possibly Methane Gas Fired Turbines. And of course these arent made from nothing either, but keep in mind noone is arguing over the cost of a power station in regards to it supplying power to a petrol refinery.

The Biomass you speak of is an issue(One of the real main issues), in regards to the amount, but there has been some development in this area in Canada, specifically in yeast strains. There is one currently under development which is far exceeding any other in regards to fuel load and is close being put into production at the moment. Its genetically engineered and has thus had some issues in being accepted in the US, but its my understanding that it can fermented up to 25% more then other strains of similar type. In essence its better science yielding a better result. Its a start. As ive said previously if the same amount of money was dedicated to Alcohol research that is dedicated to Petrol Research, you would certainly see better results, and quickly. Thats not blind faith, thats a certainty that anything can be improved upon if significant funding is applied. With improving technology, the fuel becomes more viable, especially in dual use crops(Fuel/Food)

Remember water in a fermenting system is almost static in usage. Once the alcohol is boiled off, you can reuse the water again as its full of dead yeast, which the new yeast will eat and thrive upon. Also remember you arent boiling the water, infact you dont want it to even get close to boiling off, as it contaminates your ethanol load.

We are putting a lot of faith in the eggheads to save our bacon arent we?

Im not sure we have a choice anymore.
Its either walk, or hope science yields an alternative before Petrol becomes unaffordable. I sure as hell dont want a Hybrid Car.

Edit: Sorry that yeast wasnt 25% more fuel load, was 40% more. http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4...o.ethanol.html

In Iogen's process, about two-thirds of the straw is converted to ethanol, with a yield of about 75 gallons of ethanol per ton of straw. Most of the remaining one-third of the agricultural residue, which cannot be fermented, is burned to generate power to run the plant, and there is little waste or use of fossil fuels, he said.

[jabba]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

CSV8's second post which appears to have not been noticed raises a very important point. That being, that the production of ethanol is a net energy loss. And, unfortunately the energy inputs are primarily petrochemicals derived from fossil fuels i.e. fertilizer and diesel.

Now, this is not a huge problem, if - as mentioned, the government is doing the sugar cane farmers a favour (and doing themselves a favour at the same time) as chances are, if not being fed into ethanol production, the produce would simply go to waste .

More information on the ethanol process here:

http://www.energybulletin.net/5062.html

With some estimates of 6 "units" of energy input into every 1 "unit" of energy derived from ethanol. This not only increases the rate at which we are using precious oil - but to all of the government-haters out there - this means that 1 litre of ethanol generates up to 600% more revenue for the government than putting 1 litre of dinosaur juice into the tank.

The environmental consequences are scary as well. The article posted above notes that Brazil (who are obviously keen on ethanol fuels) annually damages an area of land (being in brazil, this just happens to be precious forest land) the size of greece for its ethanol consumption.

What a load of bull-sh1t. You and every other tosser who are knocking E10 need's to step back and think about for a while. Who are going to be looser here. ERR DER the oil companies. Now when did you last hear about oil companies diversifying into sugar Cain or similar. There are always d!ckheads trying to knock something that is creditable, but I would never of thought that there would be so many naive d!ck's on this site.

I have been running it in my car on it for 8 weeks now, and it is running a heck of alot better now then it was before. Also Chris will be fine tuning my edit when he up next and he is keen to what sort of gain he can get out of my car using E10 98. So I will keep you all posted on the results.

P.S. If I get a poor result form the tune due to using E10 I will personally print out this post of mine and eat it,,, BUT if the result's are better the standard 98, then I challenge the knockers of E10 to print out there post and eat it.

and for those of you who think that using E10 will reduce there fuel economy, then give this some thought. My BA XR8 5 speed gets 9.5L/100km on the highway sitting on 110-120.

[geckoGT]

Got to see this from a farmer perspective. My family owns a 20,000(ish) acre wheat farm. That is a lot of dry wheat stalks each year that we have to burn off before planting the next crop. That is a lot of time and effort, not to mention smoke into the atmosphere.
I would be very happy to see that waste make us some more money instead of going to the thieving oil companies. That way the money stays in OZ, we get more (and no longer struggle with years of no income), we spend more and eventually you all earn more. As for water, desalination plants, sea water is everywhere (we are surrounded by it on the worlds largest island).

[geckoGT]

Another thought. Just ask the scientist where the sponsorship dollars for his research came from, did they come from an oil company? A lot of research is tainted due to the fact that sposorship for it comes from a body or corporation that has something to gain from it. I know the government (our government) has something to gain from ethanol but the oil companies (some other country) have something to gain from stopping it.
I also find it interesting that research was referenced in the article, but in broad brush terms and apparent figures that were not actually quoted.

Sounds like I might have to put my money where my mouth is and use this as my next experiment at the end of my present vaporate effort. Bring on the ethanol powered BOSS!

[The Taipan]

What seems to be missing is a middle line here (not a fence).

I have taken a side (for what its worth I am against E10), but I cannot trust gummints or oil companies (or gummint who get paid by oil companies for that matter).

But perhaps this argument will get a little more useful if we dish the insults and get back to what we KNOW...

Ethanol - is used in motorsport, once upon a time (so my mechanic father tells me) you would use ethanol in a tank of fuel if water accidentally got into the tank. It binds with water. We know that ethanol will dry rubber - so seals and other rubber or plastic parts are at risk. So given that water binds to it, while it may help to get rid of water, can it also draw water in? Are there rubber and plastic bits which are also at risk? If it requires more fossil fuel energy to make than it actually creates, is it an environmentally friendly alternative? Are we just doing this to support farmers who no longer have a market so they are trying to create one where there isn't? ALTERNITIVELY... With fossil fuels increasing in price, emissions clogging up our atmosphere, should we be grabbing anything that doesn't encourage the oil companies to mine these toxins? I personally don't think the fuel price is bad yet, it costs me more for a litre of water from Evian... As for greenhouse emissions, the creation of ethanol fuels has already been addressed, but throw in just one decent bushfire has more CO emissions than the annual production of the national fleet. I hear you say that bushfires are not man made, but the truth is most of them are... even household chimney stacks release enormous amounts of carbon monoxide... so why should we be made to feel guilty because we drive performance (or in my case a large) vehicles???

I don't think that at just 10% there is a major risk to my car, but annecdotal evidence is there, threats of voiding warranties by car manufacters is there, and my reliance on my vehicle for my children and lack of a second option is there to give me enough doubt to not even consider E10. I can wait and see how everyone else survives. I'd prefer to pay 5c/litre more than $10K for a new engine because Henry wouldn't give me a new one...

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by The Taipan

With fossil fuels increasing in price, emissions clogging up our atmosphere, should we be grabbing anything that doesn't encourage the oil companies to mine these toxins? I personally don't think the fuel price is bad yet, it costs me more for a litre of water from Evian... As for greenhouse emissions, the creation of ethanol fuels has already been addressed, but throw in just one decent bushfire has more CO emissions than the annual production of the national fleet. I hear you say that bushfires are not man made, but the truth is most of them are... even household chimney stacks release enormous amounts of carbon monoxide... so why should we be made to feel guilty because we drive performance (or in my case a large) vehicles???

Think of this, an indicator of emissions from cars in comparison to bush fires is the LA skyline. They do not have a lot of bush fires every year but they do have a brown sky. Also Perth has not had a decent bush fire in years (think Sydney or Canberra scale) but you can see the pollution. Cars definately produce more emissions than bush fires ever will.

[johnydep]

Ethanol-blended fuels are approved under the warranties of all major vehicle manufacturers.

Ethanol does affect rubber, but fuel injected vehicles have moved away from rubber components over the years, and taken up silicon rubbers; which are more chemical resistant and last longer.
Go to the local parts shop & ask for a piece each of fuel injected hose & carby fuel hose.

About 15 years ago I would go to the BP and buy 20L of Ethanol, go to the street drags, pour it in, advance the timing, and have some fun.
I did that four times in a holden 308 and never had a problem.

Some reading guys;
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/factfic_enperf.html
http://www.canren.gc.ca/app/filerepo...20GASOLINE.pdf

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by jabba

What a load of bull-sh1t. You and every other tosser who are knocking E10 need's to step back and think about for a while. Who are going to be looser here. ERR DER the oil companies. Now when did you last hear about oil companies diversifying into sugar Cain or similar. There are always d!ckheads trying to knock something that is creditable, but I would never of thought that there would be so many naive d!ck's on this site.

I have been running it in my car on it for 8 weeks now, and it is running a heck of alot better now then it was before. Also Chris will be fine tuning my edit when he up next and he is keen to what sort of gain he can get out of my car using E10 98. So I will keep you all posted on the results.

P.S. If I get a poor result form the tune due to using E10 I will personally print out this post of mine and eat it,,, BUT if the result's are better the standard 98, then I challenge the knockers of E10 to print out there post and eat it.

and for those of you who think that using E10 will reduce there fuel economy, then give this some thought. My BA XR8 5 speed gets 9.5L/100km on the highway sitting on 110-120.

Hi Jabba.

Well, firstly i'd like to say thanks for the abusive comments. It's always nice to pop into a thread which (until your post) was an interesting read and find someone calling you a tosser/d!ckhead/d!ick.

I am wondering if you even read my post? Based on your comments - I fear not. At no point did I say ethanol was not a suitable fuel for running an internal combustion engine. Did i question the fuel economy of an E10 blend? No I did not.

No, my post related to the viability of replacing our entire fossil fuel supply with biofuel products. Brazil is currently using E85 but it is having some disasterous effects on their environemnt because of the sheer biomass inputs required. The link posted was based on research conducted by the University of California. The other was research conducted by the University of NSW. I fail to see how you came to the conclusion it was an oil-company's publication attempting to hold back biofuel technology. You are welcome to question the funding source but I remind you that such comments will be purely speculative.

So please highlight the part of my post where I said ethanol was bad for engines. I you fail to find such a reference please feel free to print out and eat at your own leisure.

Forgive me for trying to highlight some of the issues we need to consider going forward. And yet i am the naiive one? For what it's worth I think E10 is a perfectly suitable fuel.

So why dont you and your abusive attitude jump in your BA, fill up with E10, have chris retune your edit and bugger off until you can drop the attitude.

[geckoGT]

Now children, play nice! Yes Jabba's post was a bit harsh but retaliation gets nowhere (except a good thread closed by the ever vigilant mod's).

I think the element of biofuel production that has to be considered is brazil is a nation that does not have the agriculture infrastructure that australia does. We have a large agriculture industry that could use byproducts more efficiently. I do not see how we would have to boost our agriculture, just use what we are destroying in the process of our existing industry more effeciently. This would turn processes that are financial loss to our agriculture into financial gain and keep that money in australia, win/win situation.

Is biofuel the answer to the shortage of fossil fuel problem? I don't think so. I believe that BMW are onto something when they say hydrogen is, production is quite environmentaly freindly and burning hydrogen and oxygen has one byproduct, water!
To make more hydrogen you pass a current through water (the by product of combustion) so it is renewable, the hydrogen never disappears. Food for thought though.

In the short term I think biofuel may be a good short term solution to a large problem and may in fact take some of the power away from the oil companies, always a good thing. As I have already shown I am willing to try something (vaporate) instead of just speculate so I will give it a try, just as Jabba is doing (and reporting good results). Who knows, it may just work?

In terms of research and the opinions of universities, take their information with a grain of salt. Remember that a couple of hundred years ago the educated people of the world said that the world was flat!

[6T]

Originally Posted by johnydep

Ethanol-blended fuels are approved under the warranties of all major vehicle manufacturers.

Ethanol does affect rubber, but fuel injected vehicles have moved away from rubber components over the years, and taken up silicon rubbers; which are more chemical resistant and last longer.
Go to the local parts shop & ask for a piece each of fuel injected hose & carby fuel hose.

About 15 years ago I would go to the BP and buy 20L of Ethanol, go to the street drags, pour it in, advance the timing, and have some fun.
I did that four times in a holden 308 and never had a problem.

Some reading guys;
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/factfic_enperf.html
http://www.canren.gc.ca/app/filerepo...20GASOLINE.pdf

The links are interesting reading so thanks for them JD.
The first one states (I put it simplistically here) that in USA just about all major manufacturers of internal combustion engines allow their customers to use E10 without jeopardizing warranty.
However, according to www.autoindustries.com.au/ethanol, Honda motorbikes are OK to use E10 but it is not recommended because of "driveability issues." Both Yamaha and Suzuki categorically state their engines are not suitable for ethanol blends. Wish I knew why - there must be some basis for this you'd think.

[xraydelta1]

Has anyone had any trouble running ethanol blended fuel in the Falcons?
I'm running my ED on United petrol plus with 10% ethanol and it's working fine.
Wheter I should or not depends on who you ask: Freeway Ford in Cranbourne say no, Nutter Ford in Pakenham say yes, Automotive Camber of Commerce website says yes... but you guys would be the ones to really know.

[EDXR8]

There is a lot of mis-information out there about ethanol in fuel, mainly thanks to current afairs type programs. In most modern cars, ethanol will not cause any problems, in fact it burns cleaner and leaves less deposits in your engine.

[SpoolMan]

we have many ethanol threads going at the moment, some will be merged.
so if you see some new questions that have already been answered, please be patient and help out new site users.
thx.

[pepsimax]

in all honesty a 10% blend is fine,,i've used it in my ea a few times and never had a problem,,as stateted the first tank is an event in it self but other than that no problems.
most negative comments about it come from those that benifit from the increasing price of petrol.
governments one of the worst of a bad bunch..
but at least howard is trying to look forward and past the oil companies and try something that in the long run would hopefully benifit all of us.

farmers will have a market for excess crops,workers will be needed to produce the ethanol and then hopefully the pump prive will be cheaper than current fuel.

it's going to happen eventually weather we agree or not as it's the government that has the final say.

[johnydep]

This is old now, but some of you hae been using ethanol for years with out realising it;
http://www.choice.com.au/viewarticle...tid=100008&p=1

Since July 1, 2003, the government has put a 10% cap on the amount of ethanol that can be blended into regular unleaded petrol. We did a spot check in August 2003 to see whether petrol stations are complying.

We picked 20 independent service stations in southern Sydney, the western Sydney area of Lakemba/Punchbowl, and Wollongong, because:

In the past, high ethanol concentrations have been found at independent stations in these areas.
BP, Mobil, Shell and Woolworths have made public statements that they don’t blend ethanol in petrol sold at any of their sites.
Caltex is conducting a trial with a 10% ethanol blend at five service stations in Cairns, and sells a 10% blend in about 40 Bogas-branded stations in NSW. It doesn’t use ethanol at any other Caltex or Ampol site in Australia.

Is ther an Australian Standard for fuel?

BP Ultima has always advertised cleaner burning, less pollution, highly oxygenated fuel, could this have Ethanol in the mix?

[jabba]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Hi Jabba.

Well, firstly i'd like to say thanks for the abusive comments. It's always nice to pop into a thread which (until your post) was an interesting read and find someone calling you a tosser/d!ckhead/d!ick.

I am wondering if you even read my post? Based on your comments - I fear not. At no point did I say ethanol was not a suitable fuel for running an internal combustion engine. Did i question the fuel economy of an E10 blend? No I did not.

No, my post related to the viability of replacing our entire fossil fuel supply with biofuel products. Brazil is currently using E85 but it is having some disasterous effects on their environemnt because of the sheer biomass inputs required. The link posted was based on research conducted by the University of California. The other was research conducted by the University of NSW. I fail to see how you came to the conclusion it was an oil-company's publication attempting to hold back biofuel technology. You are welcome to question the funding source but I remind you that such comments will be purely speculative.

So please highlight the part of my post where I said ethanol was bad for engines. I you fail to find such a reference please feel free to print out and eat at your own leisure.

Forgive me for trying to highlight some of the issues we need to consider going forward. And yet i am the naiive one? For what it's worth I think E10 is a perfectly suitable fuel.

So why dont you and your abusive attitude jump in your BA, fill up with E10, have chris retune your edit and bugger off until you can drop the attitude.

No problems, and my previous post was not just directed at you. Obvious some people can not see beyond there nose(not just you, again) and are not willing to give it ago. As far as the research that was conducted from California and NSW, How can you be so sure that the oil companies had no influence over there research(and as the uni's would tell you anyway). Don't believe every word they say, read it and take it with a grain of salt. Result's can be manipulated quite easy in the favour of one or the other. Sour B-stard and Gecko have covered it all and there is nothing more to say on the matter. It's just whether you ALL are going to try it or not, and I don't think anyone is saying that Ethanol will fully replace oil. Also if you could not figure out I was refereeing to all the knockers off E10 and not just yourself, then sorry for not making it more understandable so that a preschooler understand it. Secondly if don't like my attitude,sorry again, I will send you 30c so that you can call life-line, Because they care..