Posted on 12/01/2011 10:55:05 PM PST by neverdem
Informative post, as are a few others by others prior covering similar points. Thanks!
He is discussing Methanol, not Ethanol.
Try this, methanol evaporates more easily, and is poisonous when inhaled. 1 oz could be a lethal dose. Since it is lighter than gasoline, the vapors also float a bit higher.
Methane burns invisibly.
Methane is more corrosive to rubber and many plastics than ethanol, and ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline.
Methanol is a weak acid and is corrosive to aluminum.
Methanol can make starting in cold weather harder.
Methanol is highly hydroscopic, and will suck water out of the air and so must be kept in tightly sealed containers to keep it from getting watered down.
Methanol burns cooler and can be put out with water, so there are some safety advantages. The lack of visible fire makes it less scary to the fans at a race track, but more dangerous to the drivers without nomex suits.
This isn't going to be a drop-in replacement for gasoline, but then again, ethanol required some re-engineering too. I think the poison problem will be hard to work around.
I sincerely doubt that I am wrong.
I’ve seen too many other Fed. “Choices” become Fed. MANDATES!
My cars cannot tolerate even E-15, which is already in the works to become the unavoidable norm.
Then it will be E-20, 30-40 etc., until NO pre-computer cars can be driven unless the owner is VERY wealthy and buys custom fuel at some insane price, or has his engine rebuilt specifically to run Alky.
I remember the result when they took the Lead out of our gas, lots of cars destroyed due to valve recession (premature wear).
Lots of cars being ruined currently due to the removal of Zinc from the oil, to protect catalytic converters.
Without the Zinc engines without a roller valve train get flat cams, I know this to be true, it’s happened to THREE of my engines in the last five years.
I am a trained mechanic, and an enthusiast, I know very well where this bill is heading us.
From what I can find, it depends on where it is made and the intended use.
Once it becomes a way for the greenies to destroy older “Gas Guzzler” cars it WILL be subsidized in the U.S.
There are several flaws in this article.
First is air/fuel ratio. Gasoline is normally used at approximately 14:1 air to fuel, by weight. Methanol is normally used at approximately 6:1 air to fuel by weight.
This means either your carburetor jets or your fuel injectors need to be MUCH larger to allow proper flow.
The author mentions methanol’s effects on Viton, but neglects its effects on other components in cars. Also, methanol is hygroscopic, meaning it sucks up water, causing corrosion.
Methanol is a great fuel in a properly engineered system. But change one seal and go is a recipe for disaster.
Ethanol ‘draws water’ while it is standing in your tank. Condensation will kill your efficiency in short order.
Such ‘water in the fuel’ is a source of rust for metal parts, along with the aforementioned problems with gaskets, etc.
The fuel lines in cars- both current & older are not compatible with Ethanol, either. Replacing them with STAINLESS STEEL lines is the only thing that works.
Ask the manufacturers of fuel pumps for racing. They are facing this problem daily.
Not only are the taxs and subsidies not mentioned, neither are the inefficiencies of alcohol production.
You are right to challenge any suggestion that alcohol made from corn is contributes to energy independence or in any other way is of any particular benefit to the public. Corn alcohol, however, is ethanol, and the article discusses and advocates for a different chemical, methanol, which although it is an alcohol isEthanol, which is being crammed down out throats and is therefore about 10% of the "gasoline" we find at the gas station, is subsidized.
- poisonous and non-potable, and
- manufactured from natural gas (a.k.a. methane).
OTOH Methanol is not subsidized because there is no political gain to promoting its use when you are stumping for electoral votes in the Iowa Caucus. It is only half the price of gasoline, but it also is only half the fuel value. Its advantage over gasoline lies in its octane rating which the article says is 109. He boasts that he didn't have to increase the compression ration to get good (on a miles per dollar, not miles per gallon) fuel economy. But speaking as one with a degree in mechanical engineering, I assure you that he would have gotten even better results if he had increased the compression ratio. The advantage of simply advancing the spark instead is that he had no mechanical change to make in order to switch between methanol and gasoline.
The other advantage is of course that the natural gas to convert to methane is under our dirt rather than coming from the Middle East. Which means American business opportunities and American jobs - not to mention, American tax revenues - rather than exporting hundreds of billions of dollars to people who don't have our best interests at heart.
There is no free lunch, if Methanol became popular prices would rise very quickly, probably taking the source material up with it.
Used as fuel, all fuel taxes would be applied.
Anyone who wants to run is free to do so, I just do not want to lose the legal/practical ability to use MY cars due to an incompatible fuel being shoved down my throat.
I can assure you Methanol is VERY incompatible with every car I currently own, or ever intend to own.
Anyone who wants to run IT is free to do so.....
The assumption is that the availability of the feedstock - natural gas - is rapidly increasing. Methanol is simply a mode for the storage of natural gas in a liquid form.Used as fuel, all fuel taxes would be applied.
One way to put a finger on the scale would be to tax methanol at the same rate per gallon as gasoline. That would be unfair to methanol because you only get about half the heat energy from a gallon of methanol, and about 2/3 as much mileage. The road tax is supposed to fund the maintenance of roads, which maps to mileage rather than either volume of fuel or heat value.
NIMBY’s and Eco-Nuts are doing their best to prevent further shale gas production.
If they were true to their “Green” rhetoric they would support it, but their true agenda is to shake down anyone they can for a profit.
I wish I could find the link to the recent article detailing how the ‘nuts here in Nevada formed a “Green” corporation for the SOLE PURPOSE of shaking down the natural gas pipeline company building in our northern region.
The agreed to NOT sue and hold up the project, provided the pipe company gave them a suitable “Donation”, which I recognize as extortion.
IF Methanol becomes a significant source of energy, particularly mobile energy, the ‘nuts will invent all sorts of “Studies” to sound the alarm and drive up prices.
My main point is that if PRIVATE enterprise wants to gamble on Methanol, with PRIVATE funding, fine.
But use real world numbers for any comparison, not a single “Test” which left out important criteria, endurance testing, effect on older vehicles, etc.
You can count on all levels of Gov. Org. to put their finger on the scale, they are desperate for additional revenue and “Fair” is not a concern to them.
You have probably seen their efforts to change the tax law, desiring to put transponders in our cars to track our mileage?
This is one of the unintended(?) consequences of mandating mileage, and pushing electric/hybrid, less gas sold = “Need” to raise taxes.
I see this legislation setting the stage for the eventual outlawing of traditional Gasoline, which I depend on for all of my vehicles.
Thanks for the ping!
LOL! That should be obvious. Everything this administration and the watermellon gang have proposed has a snowball's chance in Hell of working.
Which is perfect for them. They pump billions of our dollars into shell corporations which fail when the gimmie is gone, and the money ends up lining the pockets of the people who are in on the scam.
If I want 'green', I'll blow my nose. Otherwise, I want something effective, and as motor fuels go, I have used gasoline, propane, and diesel to good effect.
We have resources, if the Government would back off and let us develop them.
I like the bill because it moves us closer to more fuel choices and free market determination of outcomes. Big government will always try to abuse it's power, but this bill is a step away from mandates. Stopping government mandates, subsidies, and other mischief is another problem.
I do wonder about the feasibility of making flex-fuel engines such that one could simply use any fuel (gasoline, methanol, ethanol) that is readily available. As a trained mechanic with much more expertise that I, what can you tell us about the feasibility of such a flex-fuel engine?
Neither are the numbers the author uses in his study.
Here in the People's Socialist RepubliK of Illannoyed, Ethanol or E85 gasoline is only 20-30 cents per gallon less than regular gasoline, so the economics don't work out the way the chart above shows. The price of Ethanol has to be minimally HALF the cost of a gallon of regular gasoline for the economics to work out, primarily due to the dramatic loss of mpg efficiency of ethanol vs. regular gasoline (as the chart above shows.)
By way of economic comparison:
Gasoline here: $3.49/gallon
Ethanol here : $3.19/gallon
With a 50 cent per gallon state subsidized rebate, it's then $2.69 which still doesn't deliver the mpg per dollar that regular gasoline does.
So unless the cost of methanol is minimally half the cost of a regular gallon of gasoline, the economics don't work out. (And if you believe Ethanol will ever sell for half the price of regular gasoline, I have some swampland in Las Vegas to sell you.)
Oh this is just great. I recently bought a classic Corvette (C3) with the original V-8. How do I protect the engine and ensure I have oil wit Zinc in it? Is there a specific brand I can/should buy and/or stock up on?
Methanol is much more hazardous to humans than even gasoline. And it is not cheaper.
Zinc additive is available.
Of course it’s another expense and something to remember at every oil change.
I lost several cams before I became aware of the zinc being removed from oil.
The good news is that if the engine has been “Broken in” and the cam is OK you have less to worry about so long as you begin using zinc reinforced oil now.
Even the Ppfessional engine builders are ruining cams in new engines, despite exotic break-in lubricants, if the oil has no zinc.
If you just bought the car, give it an oil change, and add the zinc.
You should be able to find it at any good speed shop, such as Summit Racing.
Until recently you could buy premium oils with sufficient zinc in them, but the Fed, are forcing the zinc levels lower constantly.
With a new year just around the corner I expect the zinc levels have dropped again.
“I do wonder about the feasibility of making flex-fuel engines such that one could simply use any fuel (gasoline, methanol, ethanol) that is readily available. As a trained mechanic with much more expertise that I, what can you tell us about the feasibility of such a flex-fuel engine?”
Sure you can, we already have variable valve timing and fuel injection technology, thanks to Racing Car developed technology passing into the mainstream.
Variable valve timing can be used to alter effective compression (within limits), fuel injection and computers can compensate for fuel energy density (within limits).
I actually have a “Flex Fuel” vehicle.
A 1984 Chevy truck, it can run on Propane or Gasoline.
Of course the power and mileage are very poor on propane as it has less latent energy and the engine was not built specifically for propane.
The propane tank also uses up half the cargo area.
We have the ABILITY to do almost anything, Fed. willing, but the price and complexity would be ridiculous.
The resulting car would require either massive subsidies (Hello Volt!) or forced purchase via legislation (Hello air-bags, catalytic converters, 5 MPH bumpers, side impact Beams, third tail light, etc!).
The difference in required fuel flow rate would probably require additional fuel injectors for the less dense fuels.
The added complexity will accelerate the rate at which cars become disposable, the cost of labor for repair can exceed the value of the car, even relatively new cars.
This trend is already apparent, particularly for major items such as transmission or engine failures.
Once out of (extended?) warranty modern cars have little remaining value.
It is less energy consuming to repair a car than to make one, but few people ever think of that.
Like so many other Gov. Org. programs to save us from ourselves, it’s all just a matter of forcing us to bear the cost.
I suppose that if the Gov. Org. can mandate the purchase of medical insurance, I guess they can also mandate we buy a new car with the latest gee-wiz technology every three years too?
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.