Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: FYI: Oxygenates: BTU's over a Barrel (Interesting Read)

Expand Messages
  • n4hhe
    ... An article obviously lifted from somewhere else and posted here. [...] ... Wrong. Octane is octane, a hydrocarbon. Originally octane-rating was the
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 6, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In toyota-prius@yahoogroups.com, mikes.email@... wrote:
      >
      > Oxygenates: Btu over a Barrel

      An article obviously lifted from somewhere else and posted here.

      [...]

      > But oxygenates have some very positive attributes, such as high octane
      > compared to the crude-derived blending components.

      Wrong. Octane is octane, a hydrocarbon. Originally "octane-rating" was the percentage of
      octane content with balance made up of heptane. Octane-rating is an antiknock
      equivalence test compared to pure octane plus heptane mixture.

      Oxygenates do not inherently have a capacity to boost octane-rating as those who
      compose articles such as this may believe based on the observation that ethanol and
      MTBE are octane-rating boosters.

      > They also have
      > environmental benefits. For example, they help dilute other gasoline
      > components that have undesirable air quality properties, such as sulfur.

      The above claim is contrary to the following:

      > However, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 removed
      > the oxygen mandate from reformulated gasoline, after it was determined
      > that the oxygen content did not have the expected emission benefits.

      Either MTBE and/or ethanol reduced automobile emissions below the already very low
      levels, or they did not. Apparently they did not. The original claims were suspect as the
      tests were conducted in the early 1980's, and the results were not just good but
      outrageously suspiciously fantastically impossibly good.

      > Largely in response to these early Federal mandates, the use of MTBE
      > increased considerably until concerns over ground water contamination and
      > the removal of the oxygen-content mandate in reformulated gasoline led to
      > its phase out and complete elimination from the market in 2006.

      MTBE was used as an octane-rating enhancer before it was an oxygenate. Thats why it
      was around and in mass production when the oxygenate mandate hit.

      And in typical lazy government fashion rather than fix leaky underground fuel tanks they
      mandate a change in formulation so that its now safe to drink groundwater laced with
      gasoline? :-(

      > As MTBE
      > was phased out, ethanol use grew, as shown in Figure 1. More recently,
      > crude prices have increased ethanol's economic attractiveness, and
      > increasing biofuels mandates such as those in the Energy Independence and
      > Security Act of 2007 assure it a place in our nation's future. As ethanol
      > blending continues to grow, it will increasingly affect the
      > Btu-per-gallon content of gasoline.

      Will be proven to have been a complete fool's act. Ethanol (as applied here) is nothing but
      a means of inefficiently converting Diesel into a gasoline additive.

      > http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

      Apparently the source of the above article. New article posted July 2, where is the archive
      of the above article?
    • Mike Dimmick
      ... The only, only thing that oxygenates could do (nice bit of double-wording there, the suffix ate means oxygen compound ) is to introduce more oxygen into
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 7, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: toyota-prius@yahoogroups.com [mailto:toyota-prius@yahoogroups.com]
        > On Behalf Of n4hhe
        > Sent: 06 July 2008 23:41
        > To: toyota-prius@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [toyota-prius] Re: FYI: Oxygenates: BTU's over a Barrel
        > (Interesting Read)

        The only, only thing that oxygenates could do (nice bit of double-wording
        there, the suffix 'ate' means 'oxygen compound') is to introduce more oxygen
        into the chamber when the fuel burns. The theory is that a greater
        proportion of oxygen will cause more complete combustion, reducing carbon
        monoxide (at the expense, of course, of more carbon *dioxide*).

        In cars with catalyzers and lambda (oxygen) sensors, however, the computer
        spots the extra oxygen and increases the amount of fuel to compensate (to
        avoid lean burn and production of NOx), so there is no beneficial effect on
        emissions. It's most likely that the early tests *did* help, with
        carburettors that were probably badly adjusted to give too rich a mixture.

        The website www.fuelsaving.info, written by a UK combustion engine engineer,
        reports that combustion is at least 98%. The problem is no longer making
        sure the fuel all burns fully and releases the maximum energy, and only CO2,
        virtually no carbon monoxide, but using the energy released most
        efficiently. See http://www.fuelsaving.info/debunk.htm for more details.

        I think that if we were to truly design our engines to run on ethanol-mix
        petrol - increasing the compression ratio higher than petrol alone could
        handle without exploding - we might see better fuel economy, even though the
        fuel itself would carry a lower energy content. The Prius turns 36.4% of the
        energy in the fuel into useful work at the engine's driveshaft, at peak
        efficiency (around 25kW output, about 2,500rpm). Greater compression should
        allow this efficiency to be increased - although I don't know whether this
        would be enough to compensate for the reduced energy in the fuel.

        However, I agree that ethanol is basically just a very inefficient way to
        burn diesel (and natural gas) in a spark engine, as practiced in the West.
        In Brazil it's a method for turning very poorly paid human labour into
        motion - the sugarcane is still harvested largely by hand.

        --
        Mike Dimmick
      • mikes.email@juno.com
        Thank you D.Kelly & Mike Dimmick. I just copied it and posted it hoping for someone here to debunk what our government is now basically spewing out. I agree
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 9, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you D.Kelly & Mike Dimmick.

          I just copied it and posted it hoping for someone here to debunk what
          "our" government is now basically spewing out.

          I agree with both of you about ethanol being mostly a waste of time in
          order to make it look like we're actually doing something to cut oil
          consumption.

          Thanks for your remarks. Usually I just post the link and the headline,
          but this time I didn't want it to get lost forever as they tend to
          "shred" what they post there as soon as they change it.

          Mike - 05 Prius

          On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:41:03 -0000 "n4hhe" <dkelly@...> writes:
          > --- In toyota-prius@yahoogroups.com, mikes.email@... wrote:
          > >
          > > Oxygenates: Btu over a Barrel
          >
          > An article obviously lifted from somewhere else and posted here.
          >
          > [...]
          >
          > > But oxygenates have some very positive attributes, such as high
          > octane
          > > compared to the crude-derived blending components.
          >
          > Wrong. Octane is octane, a hydrocarbon. Originally "octane-rating"
          > was the percentage of
          > octane content with balance made up of heptane. Octane-rating is an
          > antiknock
          > equivalence test compared to pure octane plus heptane mixture.
          >
          > Oxygenates do not inherently have a capacity to boost octane-rating
          > as those who
          > compose articles such as this may believe based on the observation
          > that ethanol and
          > MTBE are octane-rating boosters.
          >
          > > They also have
          > > environmental benefits. For example, they help dilute other
          > gasoline
          > > components that have undesirable air quality properties, such as
          > sulfur.
          >
          > The above claim is contrary to the following:
          >
          > > However, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 removed
          > > the oxygen mandate from reformulated gasoline, after it was
          > determined
          > > that the oxygen content did not have the expected emission
          > benefits.
          >
          > Either MTBE and/or ethanol reduced automobile emissions below the
          > already very low
          > levels, or they did not. Apparently they did not. The original
          > claims were suspect as the
          > tests were conducted in the early 1980's, and the results were not
          > just good but
          > outrageously suspiciously fantastically impossibly good.
          >
          > > Largely in response to these early Federal mandates, the use of
          > MTBE
          > > increased considerably until concerns over ground water
          > contamination and
          > > the removal of the oxygen-content mandate in reformulated gasoline
          > led to
          > > its phase out and complete elimination from the market in 2006.
          >
          > MTBE was used as an octane-rating enhancer before it was an
          > oxygenate. Thats why it
          > was around and in mass production when the oxygenate mandate hit.
          >
          > And in typical lazy government fashion rather than fix leaky
          > underground fuel tanks they
          > mandate a change in formulation so that its now safe to drink
          > groundwater laced with
          > gasoline? :-(
          >
          > > As MTBE
          > > was phased out, ethanol use grew, as shown in Figure 1. More
          > recently,
          > > crude prices have increased ethanol's economic attractiveness,
          > and
          > > increasing biofuels mandates such as those in the Energy
          > Independence and
          > > Security Act of 2007 assure it a place in our nation's future. As
          > ethanol
          > > blending continues to grow, it will increasingly affect the
          > > Btu-per-gallon content of gasoline.
          >
          > Will be proven to have been a complete fool's act. Ethanol (as
          > applied here) is nothing but
          > a means of inefficiently converting Diesel into a gasoline
          > additive.
          >
          > > http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp
          >
          > Apparently the source of the above article. New article posted July
          > 2, where is the archive
          > of the above article?


          On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:22:40 +0100 "Mike Dimmick"
          <mike@...> writes:
          > > -----Original Message-----
          > > From: toyota-prius@yahoogroups.com
          > [mailto:toyota-prius@yahoogroups.com]
          > > On Behalf Of n4hhe
          > > Sent: 06 July 2008 23:41
          > > To: toyota-prius@yahoogroups.com
          > > Subject: [toyota-prius] Re: FYI: Oxygenates: BTU's over a Barrel
          > > (Interesting Read)
          >
          > The only, only thing that oxygenates could do (nice bit of
          > double-wording
          > there, the suffix 'ate' means 'oxygen compound') is to introduce
          > more oxygen
          > into the chamber when the fuel burns. The theory is that a greater
          > proportion of oxygen will cause more complete combustion, reducing
          > carbon
          > monoxide (at the expense, of course, of more carbon *dioxide*).
          >
          > In cars with catalyzers and lambda (oxygen) sensors, however, the
          > computer
          > spots the extra oxygen and increases the amount of fuel to
          > compensate (to
          > avoid lean burn and production of NOx), so there is no beneficial
          > effect on
          > emissions. It's most likely that the early tests *did* help, with
          > carburettors that were probably badly adjusted to give too rich a
          > mixture.
          >
          > The website www.fuelsaving.info, written by a UK combustion engine
          > engineer,
          > reports that combustion is at least 98%. The problem is no longer
          > making
          > sure the fuel all burns fully and releases the maximum energy, and
          > only CO2,
          > virtually no carbon monoxide, but using the energy released most
          > efficiently. See http://www.fuelsaving.info/debunk.htm for more
          > details.
          >
          > I think that if we were to truly design our engines to run on
          > ethanol-mix
          > petrol - increasing the compression ratio higher than petrol alone
          > could
          > handle without exploding - we might see better fuel economy, even
          > though the
          > fuel itself would carry a lower energy content. The Prius turns
          > 36.4% of the
          > energy in the fuel into useful work at the engine's driveshaft, at
          > peak
          > efficiency (around 25kW output, about 2,500rpm). Greater compression
          > should
          > allow this efficiency to be increased - although I don't know
          > whether this
          > would be enough to compensate for the reduced energy in the fuel.
          >
          > However, I agree that ethanol is basically just a very inefficient
          > way to
          > burn diesel (and natural gas) in a spark engine, as practiced in the
          > West.
          > In Brazil it's a method for turning very poorly paid human labour
          > into
          > motion - the sugarcane is still harvested largely by hand.
          >
          > --
          > Mike Dimmick
          ____________________________________________________________
          Beauty Advice Just Got a Makeover
          Read reviews about the beauty products you have always wanted to try
          http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/JKFkuJi7UzvTJy9gJlPlZ9CYftvpTnTV20wjwyDpe3UB4lP7KdoZsg/
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.