Hi MM
>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.
You've talked of over, at, and below 10%. I've given you a lot of
info on it and links to more, yet you've still said your question is
unanswered, and then you posted this comment on the Japanese proposal
of 10% with apparent glee, and got it wrong, since it has nothing to
do with engine damage, and hence my puzzlement. You have been quite
specific that your concerns are about engine damage.
>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.
Why do you think anyone's been talking down? At least among those
promoting ethanol use? You somehow had the impression of an "overly
aggressive or technologically irresponsible" campaign to introduce
ethanol there, but that doesn't seem to have been the case. I gave
you information on that too, it seems to have been sensible and
orderly, until this disinformation campaign by the oil interests and
their friends.
>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%.
The Environment Australia report I referenced talked of that too.
Several reports have stated that this is no longer an issue, neither
for 10% nor for higher blends. It isn't a concern in Japan either.
Why do you say it's been glossed over?
You said earlier:
>While I am not
>likely to become an expert on ethanol by going to some of the pages
>you suggest, I would like to nail down the basic question here of
>whether somewhat higher percentages can bring about somewhat different
>issues for motorists.
You also said you hadn't looked at some reports before responding.
You didn't look at this Japanese one very well before responding. You
don't seem to have checked the archives on the history of the ethanol
initiative in Australia as suggested, and thus still seem to think
it's been over-hasty. Is it perhaps the case that you're not
following up on information provided in answer to your questions and
then saying your questions haven't been answered? If you haven't had
the time, well, nobody has any time to spare, maybe it might be
better to wait until you have had the time?
>-- He also mentions the valuable point that some fuel providers have
>tainted goods no matter what.
That point was also made in the letter I posted from the ABA via Mike
Jureidini. The gas was polluted, but not by ethanol, but ethanol was
blamed anyway. I think it is not uncommon. Now here we have actual
damage caused to engines, not just scaremongering, but somehow
nobody's calling for campaigns to "protect" the motorist from the
dangers of gasoline and for warnings at every pump.
>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.
Aren't you talking of biodiesel? That's a well-known issue with
biodiesel, often discussed here. Petro-diesel lays down a deposit
that biodiesel frees, clogging filters at first. But I don't think
gasoline lays down such a deposit and I've never heard of filter
issues with ethanol.
> >> 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.
It doesn't just imply it, it says it. These have been two separate
issues all along, in most or all the reports I've referred to:
emissions on the one hand, and possible engine damage on the other.
>I didn't miss that the Environment Ministry appears to be a
>government body.
The Environment Ministry is of course a government body, but you
referred to the proposal as a "policy of a major government", whereas
at the moment it's just a proposal by a study group. There's also
talk of moves by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, but it
would probably be a mistake to see this necessarily as an integrated
government response. The ministeries spend a lot of time squabbling
with each other and being anything but coordinated. Finally there
will be an integrated government response. One hopes.
>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.
I don't think it's been an issue since the early 80s, as the various
reports say or imply. Renewed (post-war) interest in fuel ethanol in
the US started with the 1973 oil embargo. People were running cars on
ethanol then, often on much more than 10%, and through to the early
80s when interest faded again. Even with these much older cars it's
difficult to find reports of engine or fuel system damage. Fuel
alcohol from sugar ("Union Spirit") was widely sold at the pump in
South Africa in the 50s and 60s, I quite often used it then, as did
many others, and we never had any problems nor heard of any problems.
The two alcohol fuel manuals in our online library, both dated 1980,
don't mention any such problems. So if it ever has been an issue it's
been a minor one, and not for 20 years or so.
>As to emissions, they are not a completely insignificant matter and
>they can significantly affect ethanol political strategy in some U.S.
>circles.
Emissions are a major concern.
>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.
It's controversial, and I believe ethanol got caught up in politics
in this case. I've seen other studies and reports debunking this
claim, and tended to agree with them, it seemed to have been
exaggerated and possibly wrong in parts. I also saw people
complaining that ethanol would force California to become dependent
on the Mid West, making it sound rather like the Mid West was some
sort of foreign country somewhere near Saudi Arabia. Lots of
politics. Anyway, ethanol is carbon-neutral, or nearly so, RFG isn't,
extra NOx if any is controllable. The reports I've referenced are
quite thorough on these issues, especially the APACE report and the
CSIRO Atmospheric Research Report.
Best
Keith
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/
