at100plus

It will cost the same and burns faster so it's not doing us (the fuel consumer) any favors. We will get shorter range and have to carry more fuel (weight) to get where we want to go.

at100plus

Alot of what I'm saying are the cons to ethanol are identified as fact by Payton himself in this thread.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...hlight=ethanol

Payton

You edited a little bit to much out of my last quote!
It is a much better choice than the MTBE that Ethanol is replacing. MTBE whne spilled , in water or on land, simply does not go away. It remains a carcinegen (sp) vertually forever.
So what's wrong with a clean fuel system? Change your filters a few time and you are good to go. The main drawback is Ethanol will attract water. So, don't leave it for next season in your fuel tanks. Put it in your car.

Ethanol does NOT burn faster than gas. It burns slower. That is why Ethanol was used at the Indy 500 this past year. That is also why a 10% blend will raise the octane rating 1 point.
Where ever you are getting your info is slanting it toward the oil industry. The facts aren't exactly correct.

I would think Skater should stand behind their tanks and replace them.

at100plus

I only edited the irrelevant parts of the quote to make the relevant part easier to see. That's why I posted the link to the entire thread, citing the entire quotes and where they came from.

My car will smoke alot with 62:1 Amsoil in the tank.

at100plus

Burns slower??? Where are you getting your information from?

"The data collected showed that ethanol-blended fuels do indeed decrease the emission levels for NOX, HC and CO. This was accredited to ethanol's higher heat of vaporization and INCREASED BURN RATE."

"but they emit acetaldehydes when regular gasonline fuels do not"

(INFO ABOUT ACETALDEHYDES IN THE LINK BELOW) It is a carcinogen and poisonous but you don't see any of this on the Federal Department of Energy information site. There is alot to be gained for farmers scientists and politicians if a non fossil fuel is invented and hastily put into production in this day and age.

http://www.reboundhangover.com/acetaldehyde.htm

"Ethanol conducts electricity, unlike gasoline, which is an insulator, so it is vital to remove all aluminum products from contact with ethanol fuel"

E85 has 27% less energy than gasoline because ethanol contains less energy than gasoline. With the lower energy content, it requires more ethanol fuel to provide the same power as gasonline. Consequently, ethanol cars like FFVs need a larger fuel tank so it only as to refuel as often as a regular gasoline powered vehicle.

WORK CITED:
http://www.engin.umd.umich.edu/resea...5-2004.doc.pdf

Maybe you should read the whole thing, there's more bad stuff, but hey, you will get rich right?

at100plus

Ethanol, apparently not the perfect process that farmers and governent would like you to believe:

Work cited below can be found at this link.

http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id35.html





The ability to make ethanol from straw-- rice straw, wheat straw, oat straw, etc is the modern day equivalent of the Holy Grail or the Philosopher's Stone. In a time when barely any new oil fields have been discovered in the past ten year-- and a war in Iraq rages with such anarchistic abandon that it seems unlikely that anyone will be able to pump oil for a the next several year: well, the news that we can run our cars on this "new" fuel seems like a breathe of fresh air. Ethanol burns much cleaner that gasoline, and doesn't add fossilized CO2 to the atmosphere: it is recycling present day CO2.

However, this new development does have Greenpeace and other environmental activists worried: It involves a genetically modified organism: a genetically engineered yeast to convert glucose AND xylose into ethanol.

They added three genes to plain old Saccharomyces yeast so that it can break down both sugars at the same time.

They claim a 30~40% increase in yield. This could be a huge breakthrough--or a huge mistake. Xylose makes up roughly 30~40% of celluloid materials like corn stalks, grass, wood chips, leaves, etc. In short, a yeast that feeds on xylose can feed on almost anything in the plant kingdom.

Intensive research on cellulose conversion to ethanol previously focused on mechanical, heat and acid hydrolysis techniques, all of which are expensive. Propagating a yeast organism, on the other hand, seems as simple as baking bread or brewing beer.
But don't expect that we small scale distillers will be able to buy this anytime soon. It's the property of Purdue University & they have taken a completely novel approach to marketing this patented technology. They are "leasing" (not selling) the yeast to a Canadian company, Iogen. http://www.Iogen.ca

Iogen is already producing ethanol and selling it to Petro-Canada for mixing with gas. They are claiming 75 Gallons per ton of straw, with roughly 2/3 of the straw being converted.

It is interesting that Iogen and Shell chose to announce this product to the world in Europe, which historically has been actively fighting any GMO products. Just a week later in Madison, Wisconsin, the 20th annual Fuel Ethanol Workshop had over 1500 ethanol industry attendees, including Iogen--an exhibiting company-- but no mention of this breakthrough was mentioned. Apparently, Iogen, Shell, and Petro-Canada are playing their cards close to their vests. The market for fuel ethanol is established beyond any doubt: it is presently a 3 billion dollar/year industry. By keeping this technology to themselves, a new bio-technology industry promises to be the new Middle East in terms of fuel supply. The other corporate players in this announcement, DaimlerChrysler and VW, have long produced cars that will run or 85% to 100% alcohol--previously only in Brazil, but now in the US, too.

A report titled, “Genetic Engineering—Too good to go wrong?” can be found at

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms...g/getoogoo.html The above article lists various accidents and very dangerous and toxic side effects of genetic engineering efforts so far. An unrelated but somewhat parallel effort to produce a GMO yeast produced very high toxic levels of a mutagenic product, methyl glyoxal, with the potentially undesirable effect of getting loose into the food chain. --Robert Warren

Payton

Why do you keep talking about E85? You are not using E85, an 85% blend, you are using a 10% blend.

Looks like you are becoming an expert and well read on Ethenol. That's great! I am going by the fact that we have used a 10% blend in all of out gas for the last 8-10 years. That includes 30 year old farm trucks, all of the pickups I've owned, boats, motorcycles and lawnmowers. and anything else that ran on gas. The 30 year old farm truck had aluminum tanks, We changed fuel filters about once a month during heavy use for 3 changes. Then only as needed, maybe every 2-3 years.
My previous boat was a 1979 26', Mirage with a 700hp Twin turbo engine, W/aluminum tanks. I wan this gas in this engine for 3 seasons (90 octane), never any troubles.

Getting rich?? I wish. I invested so that I could be diversified. I know farming and this ethanol plant is 49% farmer owned.

at100plus

Ethanol is no good in a marine environment period. If you're not convinced by now, I'm sure I can find more information for you.

You can preach about your trucks and tractors all you want. But you're not giving us any solid facts.

Don't worry, the Bush Energy Bill will deliver your corn sales. Ethanol is on it's way. I just want the boaters here to know that there is trouble ahead. There are plenty of boaters in Long Island already experiencing it first hand.

Funny how none of the known negatives to ethanol are discussed in the political arena.

Payton

Like you mentioned earlier, this is a boating website, Not a political arena. There is a place here to talk about politcal stuff, it's not the tech section.

No you have not convinced me. Go ahead and look up more and print them. I'll just stop checking this thread.

by the way, quoting Green Peace around here, I don't think will convince to many people to change their minds.

at100plus

You're a farmer therefore you brought politics and economics into this. It is in your best interest politically and economically to see ethanol legislation passed.

If you were buying something would you ask the salesman if it's good or the guys who own one?

I answered the tech question. I am a performance boater who will not gain from this rather it is costing me and causing me problems. I also don't see any hope in fighting it, I have accepted the cost that will come and I'm seeking ways to avoid the problems down the road. I'm also trying to educate others who will have these problems. Changing filters and water separators in 4' chop is not fun. Lean detonating expensive engines is worse.

The question was posed if anyone has run ethanol in a 496. I think it's safe to assume he wanted to know if it was safe to run it in his engine. The following post stating "ethanol will not harm any combustion engine" is dead wrong as I think I have demonstrated with factual researched information. I didn't give opinion, I backed it up with facts. I know technicians in Long Island who are experiencing it firsthand with numerous customers owning high end boats.

I have answered the question far more technically and accurately and done so from a boater's perspective.


If you want to sell your ethanol, maybe go to a farmer's site.