E15

[prowlersfish]

http://www.boatingindustry.com/news/201 ... committee/

DOE study

http://www.boatingindustry.com/news/201 ... e-engines/

[Commissionpoint]

Oh its coming Paul, you can bet on that. I think I mentioned it in one of the E-10 threads awhile back. Its not going to be pretty either.

I predict its proven to be harmful to equipment by the studies, but we go ahead with it anyways because 'its the lesser of evils'. Just a prediction, we'll have to see.

[k9th]

I'm chief engineer at a company that has manufactured fuel transfer systems for 50 years, and we make our pumps and meters to handle up to E15 right now. Our marketing department alerted us that we need to be ready for up to E30 in just a few years so we are already exploring the changes required by the way of retrofit kits to make our current pumps and meters compatible with E30.

It's coming for sure.

[foofer b]

ALL THANKS TO OUR IMPERIAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

[Commissionpoint]

Our marketing department alerted us that we need to be ready for up to E30 in just a few years so we are already exploring the changes required by the way of retrofit kits to make our current pumps and meters compatible with E30.

So in retrofitting you are talking about internals which won't degrade from exposure to E30 I am assuming. What materials are you exploring as possibilities for these retrofit kits? Are there polymers which are suited to the task that give similar life expectancy as compared to those in use now, or is it going to require more frequent overhaul thus driving up overall operating costs? Any other roadblocks?

I see major problems with the Bosch fuel distributors on my Alusil V-8's in my cars with E30. Not to mention the 500 will probably start getting single digit mileage. I'm not going to even think about what implications something like E30 will have on the water.

[k9th]

With our fuel pumps and meters it is predominantly sealing materials that are affected - same as biodiesel. All o-rings, lip seals, and gaskets have to be changed. The housing and other wetted materials will be evaluated but may not be affected.

All of our units are UL listed and UL only has certain materials approved for use with E15 and I'm not sure they have even officially addressed E30 yet. We have a compliance engineer that handles that part of it. UL is just one compliance body, we also have to deal with all of the foreign regulating bodies around the world since we market our products globally.

[larryeddington]

I heard, don't know if true or not, that the feds have quite subsidizint the alcolhol production, if so we may see a different direction as corn fuel will then cost more than other additives. Just a thought and I hope it is correct.

[alexander38]

I heard, don't know if true or not, that the feds have quite subsidizint the alcolhol production, if so we may see a different direction as corn fuel will then cost more than other additives. Just a thought and I hope it is correct.

not yet but it's time is coming, A.D.M. isn't as powerful as it use to be they've
lost some pull . And even the greenies are findin' out the s__t don't make since

[Commissionpoint]

Archer Daniels Midland made thier money on corn fuel already. Now its not working out so well and they are on to other things.

If ethanol was the answer we would have been doing it 100 years ago. Clearly its not the solution. Time to move on to better technology and other ideas.

[alexander38]

A-MEN...

[gettaway]

Intereseting facts regarding our rush to bio fuels


Bio Diesel increases the NOx in Diesel emissions, In addition to contributing to the formation of ground-level ozone, and fine particle pollution, NOx is linked with a number of adverse effects on the respiratory system.
The 2010 on road engine Diesel standard, which is the addition of a DEF, liquid urea, or some other aftertreatment, is designed (and regulated) to control the NOx. Bio Diesel is counter productive to Diesel exhaust regualtions at the EPA and CARB level

E-85 and health risks, (Ok, I think most of these modeling studies create an opinion that the grantor wishes to support their view, however, this supports our view)

Fleet-wide use of E85 in the United States could increase the number of respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations, according to a new study by Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson. His findings are published online in the journal Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T).

Jacobson combined an air pollution/weather forecast model with future emission inventories, population data, and health effects data to examine the effect of converting from gasoline to E85 on cancer, mortality, and hospitalization in the US as a whole and Los Angeles in particular.

After accounting for projected improvements in gasoline and E85 vehicle emission controls, the study found that E85 may increase ozone-related mortality, hospitalization, and asthma by about 9% in Los Angeles (120 deaths/year with a range of 47-140/yr) and 4% in the US as a whole (185 deaths/yr with a range of 72-216/yr) relative to 100% gasoline.

E85 also increased hospitalization by about 650 and 990 in Los Angeles and the US, respectively, and asthma-related emergency-room visits by about 770 and 1,200 in Los Angeles and the US, respectively.

While the simulations found that E85 vehicles reduced atmospheric levels of benzene and butadiene—two carcinogens—compared to gasoline vehicles, the E85 vehicles increased levels of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde—two other carcinogens. As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline.

Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline. However, because of the uncertainty in future emission regulations, it can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles. Unburned ethanol emissions from E85 may result in a global-scale source of acetaldehyde larger than that of direct emissions.

The projected health effects of E85 would be the same regardless of feedstock or process.

Resources:

“Effects of Ethanol (E85) Versus Gasoline Vehicles on Cancer and Mortality in the United States”; Mark Z. Jacobson, Environ. Sci. Technol., ASAP Article 10.1021/es062085v S0013-936X(06)02085-2

MTBE

remember this pollution saving formula from our trusted acedemia government buracrats
in late 1990's and early 2000, fuel refiners were required to oxigenate gasline in heavy pollution areas CARB required the use of MTBE and even asked for a waiver from the EPA phase out, now, years later have found that MTBE had polluted ground water all over the country and cost millions/billion in clean up costs, much of which was required by station owners

[prowlersfish]

Interesting

[k9th]

EPA has new NOx emissions regulations in-place for all manufacturers of diesel engines. January 2010 started for all over-the-road commercial vehicle engine manufacturers. They had to meet very strict NOx emissions or engines would not run. They have on-board diagnostics to monitor emissions.

Most use injection of DEF (diesel exhaust fluid) downstream of catalytic converter in a process called SCR -selective catalytic reduction. By end of 2013 all farm implements and marine applications will be included -new diesel engines only - nothing retro-active.

Mercedes diesel vehicles including passenger cars already are equipped with DEF as of 2009. VW uses different process and does not use DEF.