On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:10:36 +0900, you wrote: >MM wrote: > >> > In addition, it will urge the auto industry to produce 2003 >>models capable of using gas >> > containing 10 percent ethanol. >> >>Ah, but I thought no modifications were needed, according to what >>Keith and others have been saying. Whence this policy of a major >>government of the country that produces arguably the world's best auto >>technology? > >It's not a policy of a major government, it's part of a proposal by a >study group. That's not quite what I've been saying. In fact I >haven't said much about it, other than to quote what other people >have said, and to ask, Where's the damage? - apart from an outboard >motor that allegedly splutters.
Yes, I mis-stated things and knew it as soon as I'd posted it, but figured it would come up further in whatever reply you made. >What this story from Japan says is rather different to what you seem >to think - didn't you read the next paragraph? It's an emissions >concern, that's all. It says "safety tests", that means environmental >safety, not engine-damage safety. >You seem very keen to reach the >conclusion that 10% ethanol damages motors, I don't understand why. Actually, this nearly as much a mis-statement of my position as mine was of yours. My primary focus has been to nail down what are the effects (good or bad or indifferent) of *over* 10% mixtures. I've made that clear several times, and so have some of the interested parties in Australia, and so have some of the car manufacturers. That number (or 12 or 13%) was put on one of my own owner's manuals, a point which you just sort of dismissed out of hand as "spin", (which meant I-have-no-idea-what). Furthermore, I've used 10% mixtures, once in a great while (on long trips) as have many other Americans, and so we can tell Australians truthfully, well, it's been in use for years now in parts of the U.S. and we seem to be doing fine with it, to my knowledge. I do think that some of the over-10% concerns have been answered, and I think that putting a 20% mixture, say, into my own vehicle is something I'd be *delighted* to do. But, I am putting myself in the position of motorists in Australia, Japan and elsewhere who know little or nothing of these debates and honestly want to know everything possible about what goes into their cars. The net result of anything like talking down to honest questioners from those countries will be a victory for the opposition. As to 10%, I'm sure that there are no untoward effects of introducing a 10% ethanol mixture where it hasn't been before, and this wasn't my main concern, although it does not hurt to go over a couple of points which I think have been glossed-over. -- Hoagy mentions some older parts had needed replacement, way back when he had his first foray into use of 10%. -- He also mentions the valuable point that some fuel providers have tainted goods no matter what. I'd add that if they can screw up gas, they're just as likely, if not more, to screw up a new more-complex mixture that their providers sort of want screwed up anyway. -- I have heard once or twice before something about fuel filters, so I have asked the questions honestly, because I had heard them. Specifically, I think I have read sometimes that since ethanol sometimes has a cleaning effect where it might loosen up deposits which might then clog the fuel filter, then this might be a one-time easily fixed effect, after which the car would theoretically run better, but during which things would be worse, and appear much worse to a driver unaware of all this. That, anyway, is my recollection of the scenario. >> The Environment Ministry in fiscal 2003 will conduct safety tests >>to establish whether >> the low-concentration blended gasoline can be used in existing >>vehicles. The ministry >> also plans to set up and subsidize low-concentration blended fuel >>pumps at gasoline >> stands in some regions. >> >> In addition, it will urge the auto industry to produce 2003 models >>capable of using gas >> containing 10 percent ethanol. >> >> Enabling vehicles to handle the blended fuel would require >>automakers to change the >> catalytic control device, which removes nitrogen dioxides. The >>Environment Ministry >> plans to subsidize the cost of changing this device. I guess you're saying this implies their concern is not with changing parts affecting core mechanical operation so much as emissions, because they're talking about the catalytic converter. I did miss that. I didn't miss that the Environment Ministry appears to be a government body. Somewhat "off" emissions are not as great a concern to me as core vehicle function, because they're not going to be the first concern to "Joe average driver" when he asks himself if he's concerned about changes to fuel for sale down the block. Number one concern, for my money: long-term vehicle reliability. From what Hoagy says, that's extremely good in his experience of trying 10%, although when one digs deep there are some "you may encounter this minor easily fixed matter, depending on the age of the vehicle" matters that come up. If there are such matters, then it's best that new users of 10% be made aware of them, although it sounds like such matters are extremely rare. As to emissions, they are not a completely insignificant matter and they can significantly affect ethanol political strategy in some U.S. circles. A part of the reason that 10% or so ethanol ran into some doubts from Cal EPA was that they judged that overall, non-Oxygenated modern RFG had some arguable advantages over the ethanol mixture, over all seasons. The RFG was judged to be a more "modern" solution, and in some ways superior. I take this directly from a lengthy conversation with one of them, so I don't think that can be reported as official Cal EPA stance, though as far as I know that has sort of been their policy since that conversation a year or two ago. They might be right, or wrong, but they advise the Governor and help shape policy, and have a pretty big effect on the extent to which California will need to be set up to import or manufacture Ethanol. Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
