Ethanol & Diesel (story in this month's Offshore)

dougl33 · Post by **dougl33** » Jul 17th, '06, 09:03

Offshore has an article about ethanol and diesel fuel. In a nutshell they claim that with the new low sulfur diesel fuel that the ethanol content could be increased from 10% to 20%. The way the article is written leads you to believe that there already is ethanol in diesel fuel. They didn't mention where. Overall, the story was pretty vague.

Anyone know if there's any truth to this?

dougl33 · Post by **dougl33** » Jul 17th, '06, 14:01

I found this link as well:

http://www.bbibiofuels.com/news/view.cgi?article=405

So while it seems ethanol blended diesel does it exist I can't find any info on where and when it would be sold.

Matt K · Post by **Matt K** » Jul 17th, '06, 14:14

From the article, it costs more and you get less mileage, its a win-win for the fuel companies. Bend over America.

Quote
"For mileage comparison, 10 percent and seven percent reductions in fuel economy corresponded with 15 percent and 10 percent blends of ethanol and No. 2 diesel fuel respectively. E-Diesel also was found to be slightly more expensive than No. 2 diesel fuel, due to the limited production of the special blending additive. E-Diesel, when commercially available, is expected to cost a few cents more per gallon than conventional diesel fuel."

Harv · Post by **Harv** » Sep 20th, '06, 20:22

From the article, it costs more and you get less mileage, its a win-win for the fuel companies. Bend over America.

Now tell me you are not surprised.

In Memory Walter K · Post by **In Memory Walter K** » Sep 20th, '06, 22:53

I'm trying to remember where I read a series of tests made on the new GM test E-fuel cars made for using the 15%Ethanol mix. The cars they used were GM Tahoe SUVs. The tests showed that the performance made them a consumer financial bad deal. The premium price of the car combined with the higer price for E-15 fuel could never be in any way made up by the radically lowered performance/mileage of the "special" E-15 cars. You'd use more fuel and spend more money to go the same distance as a even an E-10 car. I drive a Tahoe and don't get great mileage, but the numbers matched the tests for a non-E-15 car. The E-15 Tahoe got 10 mpg vs my 14-15. The report considered the E-15 cars economically unfeasable BUT they're still going to make and sell them. Their rationnale in doing that is based on Government subsidies to E-15 car manufacturers. The public be damned. Walter

Rawleigh · Post by **Rawleigh** » Sep 20th, '06, 23:50

Biodiesel is so much better. You would think that hey would be pushing that for the farmers!!

dougl33 · Post by **dougl33** » Sep 21st, '06, 08:24

Walter,

I know Car & Driver did a story a couple of months ago using a Tahoe, but they were testing E85. Not suprisingly, the results were awful. The Tahoe went from bad to abysmal. On regular gas the Tahoe got arund 13-14 mpg and on E85 it dropped to 9-10 mpg. Given that the price per gallon was nearly identical you tell me how that's going to reduce our dependency on foreign oil?

Complete and total bull shit.

In Memory Walter K · Post by **In Memory Walter K** » Sep 21st, '06, 09:34

Doug- That must have been the article I read. As a Tahoe owner I can varify the numbers with what mine does. Going down to 9-10 mpg with E-15 is beyond stupidity. No wonder our American car companies are going broke. My theory that the gene pool is going down the sewer in corporate America is getting validated. Walter

In Memory Walter K · Post by **In Memory Walter K** » Sep 26th, '06, 20:39

The latest issue of Power and Motoryacht has a story/test on Diesel Vs Diesel with 10% Biodiesel. In the article there was a concern expressed over the biodiesel's propensity to compromise seals, gaskets and hoses of older engines. Shades of Ethanol? No comments on fiberglass fuel tanks but sure as hell scares me. Walter

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Sep 27th, '06, 08:15

While the fuel companies may be benefitting from this mess, remember its been the EPA that has required reduced emmissions and reducing ground water contamination that lead to unleaded fuel going away, MTBE additives and the such.

If left to the oil companies, I think we would still be burning leaded fuel.

I think the administrations horn blowing on reducing dependency on camel country oil has nothing to do with anything at all.

I believe there are alternatives out there or ones that could be developed for MTBE.

What the administration has done is bowed to farm lobbyists and issued tax credits and returned to the days of farm welfare programs and turned a blind eye to anything that could be an alternative to ethanol.

Remember, mid term and then again in 08 elections are comming up. Remind those in your districts up for re-election or running for the first time that they will be held accountable at the polls for going along with this stupid, moronic plan of using ethanol blends.

dougl33 · Post by **dougl33** » Sep 28th, '06, 13:32

FYI:

Offshore recanted their ethanol in diesel story in this month's issue.

Rawleigh · Post by **Rawleigh** » Sep 29th, '06, 08:27

Biodiesel at 10% is not that bad. When you get above 50% you might have trouble in older engines. For more info read: http://www.biodiesel.org/#

In Memory Walter K · Post by **In Memory Walter K** » Sep 29th, '06, 09:33

Rawleigh- If it does anything to gaskets and hoses, what about fiberglass fuel tanks? Walter

bertram31.com

Ethanol & Diesel (story in this month's Offshore)

Ethanol & Diesel (story in this month's Offshore)

These Fuel companies must love ethanol!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who is online