Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:21:45 -0800 (PST), you wrote: When I lived in Illinois in the late 70's, they had just started selling Gassahol (10%eth, 90%gas), and I started using it. Within 2 months the fuel filter clogged due to the tank clearing. Just replaced the fuel filter and all was well. Didn't seem to be any effect on the rubber parts at all. BTW, I had a 350 Camaro (hopped up of course) and it did way better on the gassahol than standard petrol. I used to street race it sometimes . but that is another story better left unsaid. James Slayden This report of older-cars-fuels running into this temporary filtering issue fits with what was passed on to Keith by another poster. I must have confused it with the other notes I've read here about filter issues in the process of transitioning to biodiesel 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/
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:21:45 -0800 (PST), you wrote: When I lived in Illinois in the late 70's, they had just started selling Gassahol (10%eth, 90%gas), and I started using it. Within 2 months the fuel filter clogged due to the tank clearing. Just replaced the fuel filter and all was well. Didn't seem to be any effect on the rubber parts at all. BTW, I had a 350 Camaro (hopped up of course) and it did way better on the gassahol than standard petrol. I used to street race it sometimes . but that is another story better left unsaid. James Slayden This report of older-cars-fuels running into this temporary filtering issue fits with what was passed on to Keith by another poster. I must have confused it with the other notes I've read here about filter issues in the process of transitioning to biodiesel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
When I lived in Illinois in the late 70's, they had just started selling Gassahol (10%eth, 90%gas), and I started using it. Within 2 months the fuel filter clogged due to the tank clearing. Just replaced the fuel filter and all was well. Didn't seem to be any effect on the rubber parts at all. BTW, I had a 350 Camaro (hopped up of course) and it did way better on the gassahol than standard petrol. I used to street race it sometimes . but that is another story better left unsaid. James Slayden On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, murdoch wrote: Trials conducted in NSW on their own vehicle fleet since 1992 by Park Petroleum, and in the wider NSW fleet since 1994, clearly indicate that the wide range of new and advanced technologies introduced into the global vehicle fleet over the past twenty years provide vehicles with the capacity to operate on higher ethanol blends without experiencing drivability or operability difficulties. This is really what I'm after. The rest, while interesting and relevant, is not at the heart of it. I'm aware, for example, that an attempt to limit things to 10%, if unwarranted, is just a pretext by the petroleum companies to keep most of their monopoly on providing fuel for transportation. One thing on my mind is that if there are any differences or effects, or even just something minor that a new user of a 20% ethanol blend might need to know in order to be better prepared for any effects, then it's arguable that they should have some labeling might help such drivers. But I guess a decent widespread publicity campaign (your fuel filter may temporarily be clogged due to long-term buildup of this or that, here is what to do about that) would also help. Why would there be damage? What damage has there been in Brazil, the US, and elsewhere, where millions or billions of miles have been driven on higher blends than that, without damage or being stopped cold by water? What damage has there been in Autralia? If there was any actual damage it would surely have been trundled out rather than an outboard motor that might stall or something. I have never used an appreciable amount of ethanol in a vehicle. Once or twice over the years I've seen angry or upset letters of drivers who have traveled to an area where ethanol was introduced to their cars and they believed it has caused a problem or two. So, I do not wish to dismiss out-of-hand the idea that there could be an adverse affect upon vehicle performance from introduction of ethanol where it has not been used before, or where its amount had previously been at lower percentages. Adverse performance might be something as simple as temporarily clogged fuel filter, or something worse that I don't appreciate. I figure I'll ask the question, since it's being raised, and since possibly others are reluctant to ask. Obviously, the over-riding issue is that the Petroleum Monopoly is being unethical and spreading disinformation. In order for me to sort the information from the disinformation (the most effective lies having just enough truth to them) I need to look around a bit. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 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/
Fwd: [biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, motie_d [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, motie_d [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can give a personal anecdote. I still drive a 1989 Chevy pickup I bought brand new. It has used almost exclusively 10% Ethanol fuel. I have replaced a Water Pump and a couple of alternators. The valve covers have never been removed. Oil has been changed every 5000 miles since new. It now is nearly a quart low when the Oil Change comes due. The majority of the driving on this vehicle is at 70-80 Mph. It currently has 220,000 miles, and runs very well. Unloaded, with no trailer, I still get 19-21 MPG with 5 speed overdrive transmission and 3.07 rearend gear ratio at 70MPH. Tires are well-balanced and aligned, and I run 45PSI in them. I have a fiberglass cap that fits very closely to the cab, and has a fairly steep forward angle on the rear for aerodynamics. I credit the tire inflation pressure and the cap for fuel economy. I don't normally use this vehicle for local driving. It is used when I need to go a long distance in a short amount of time. Motie I can also add that my Owner's Manual calls for replacing the Fuel filter every 15,000 miles. I changed it for the first time at 50,000, and have never changed it since. The current fuel filter has approximately 170,000 miles on it. The Catalytic converter has never been changed, nor has the muffler. Other than tire work, no one but myself has ever done any work on the vehicle. Maybe I'm too fussy, and should let incompetents 'work' on it a bit to hasten it's replacement? The only time it's ever been at the Dealer, is when I bought it. I Custom-ordered it, to my personal specs. When it finally wears out, I will likely build another one myself, instead of relying on Detroit to do it for me. I prefer specialized vehicles, built for their intended useage. Detroit makes too many compromises to suit me. My 2 cents, Motie --- End forwarded message ---
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
When I lived in Illinois in the late 70's, they had just started selling Gassahol (10%eth, 90%gas), and I started using it. Within 2 months the fuel filter clogged due to the tank clearing. Just replaced the fuel filter and all was well. Didn't seem to be any effect on the rubber parts at all. BTW, I had a 350 Camaro (hopped up of course) and it did way better on the gassahol than standard petrol. I used to street race it sometimes . but that is another story better left unsaid. James Slayden On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, murdoch wrote: Trials conducted in NSW on their own vehicle fleet since 1992 by Park Petroleum, and in the wider NSW fleet since 1994, clearly indicate that the wide range of new and advanced technologies introduced into the global vehicle fleet over the past twenty years provide vehicles with the capacity to operate on higher ethanol blends without experiencing drivability or operability difficulties. This is really what I'm after. The rest, while interesting and relevant, is not at the heart of it. I'm aware, for example, that an attempt to limit things to 10%, if unwarranted, is just a pretext by the petroleum companies to keep most of their monopoly on providing fuel for transportation. One thing on my mind is that if there are any differences or effects, or even just something minor that a new user of a 20% ethanol blend might need to know in order to be better prepared for any effects, then it's arguable that they should have some labeling might help such drivers. But I guess a decent widespread publicity campaign (your fuel filter may temporarily be clogged due to long-term buildup of this or that, here is what to do about that) would also help. Why would there be damage? What damage has there been in Brazil, the US, and elsewhere, where millions or billions of miles have been driven on higher blends than that, without damage or being stopped cold by water? What damage has there been in Autralia? If there was any actual damage it would surely have been trundled out rather than an outboard motor that might stall or something. I have never used an appreciable amount of ethanol in a vehicle. Once or twice over the years I've seen angry or upset letters of drivers who have traveled to an area where ethanol was introduced to their cars and they believed it has caused a problem or two. So, I do not wish to dismiss out-of-hand the idea that there could be an adverse affect upon vehicle performance from introduction of ethanol where it has not been used before, or where its amount had previously been at lower percentages. Adverse performance might be something as simple as temporarily clogged fuel filter, or something worse that I don't appreciate. I figure I'll ask the question, since it's being raised, and since possibly others are reluctant to ask. Obviously, the over-riding issue is that the Petroleum Monopoly is being unethical and spreading disinformation. In order for me to sort the information from the disinformation (the most effective lies having just enough truth to them) I need to look around a bit. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
Trials conducted in NSW on their own vehicle fleet since 1992 by Park Petroleum, and in the wider NSW fleet since 1994, clearly indicate that the wide range of new and advanced technologies introduced into the global vehicle fleet over the past twenty years provide vehicles with the capacity to operate on higher ethanol blends without experiencing drivability or operability difficulties. This is really what I'm after. The rest, while interesting and relevant, is not at the heart of it. I'm aware, for example, that an attempt to limit things to 10%, if unwarranted, is just a pretext by the petroleum companies to keep most of their monopoly on providing fuel for transportation. One thing on my mind is that if there are any differences or effects, or even just something minor that a new user of a 20% ethanol blend might need to know in order to be better prepared for any effects, then it's arguable that they should have some labeling might help such drivers. But I guess a decent widespread publicity campaign (your fuel filter may temporarily be clogged due to long-term buildup of this or that, here is what to do about that) would also help. Why would there be damage? What damage has there been in Brazil, the US, and elsewhere, where millions or billions of miles have been driven on higher blends than that, without damage or being stopped cold by water? What damage has there been in Autralia? If there was any actual damage it would surely have been trundled out rather than an outboard motor that might stall or something. I have never used an appreciable amount of ethanol in a vehicle. Once or twice over the years I've seen angry or upset letters of drivers who have traveled to an area where ethanol was introduced to their cars and they believed it has caused a problem or two. So, I do not wish to dismiss out-of-hand the idea that there could be an adverse affect upon vehicle performance from introduction of ethanol where it has not been used before, or where its amount had previously been at lower percentages. Adverse performance might be something as simple as temporarily clogged fuel filter, or something worse that I don't appreciate. I figure I'll ask the question, since it's being raised, and since possibly others are reluctant to ask. Obviously, the over-riding issue is that the Petroleum Monopoly is being unethical and spreading disinformation. In order for me to sort the information from the disinformation (the most effective lies having just enough truth to them) I need to look around a bit. 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/
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
Trials conducted in NSW on their own vehicle fleet since 1992 by Park Petroleum, and in the wider NSW fleet since 1994, clearly indicate that the wide range of new and advanced technologies introduced into the global vehicle fleet over the past twenty years provide vehicles with the capacity to operate on higher ethanol blends without experiencing drivability or operability difficulties. This is really what I'm after. The rest, while interesting and relevant, is not at the heart of it. I'm aware, for example, that an attempt to limit things to 10%, if unwarranted, is just a pretext by the petroleum companies to keep most of their monopoly on providing fuel for transportation. One thing on my mind is that if there are any differences or effects, or even just something minor that a new user of a 20% ethanol blend might need to know in order to be better prepared for any effects, then it's arguable that they should have some labeling might help such drivers. But I guess a decent widespread publicity campaign (your fuel filter may temporarily be clogged due to long-term buildup of this or that, here is what to do about that) would also help. Why would there be damage? What damage has there been in Brazil, the US, and elsewhere, where millions or billions of miles have been driven on higher blends than that, without damage or being stopped cold by water? What damage has there been in Autralia? If there was any actual damage it would surely have been trundled out rather than an outboard motor that might stall or something. I have never used an appreciable amount of ethanol in a vehicle. Once or twice over the years I've seen angry or upset letters of drivers who have traveled to an area where ethanol was introduced to their cars and they believed it has caused a problem or two. So, I do not wish to dismiss out-of-hand the idea that there could be an adverse affect upon vehicle performance from introduction of ethanol where it has not been used before, or where its amount had previously been at lower percentages. Adverse performance might be something as simple as temporarily clogged fuel filter, or something worse that I don't appreciate. I figure I'll ask the question, since it's being raised, and since possibly others are reluctant to ask. Obviously, the over-riding issue is that the Petroleum Monopoly is being unethical and spreading disinformation. In order for me to sort the information from the disinformation (the most effective lies having just enough truth to them) I need to look around a bit. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
Mark Matthews is trying to set things straight with the film he's making. It's confused, and confused further by allegations of buddy deals at the top level, so the journalists smell a scandal and ethanol's taking collateral damage. The Sydney Morning Herald yarn I posted about a week back put it in the same bracket as contaminated petrol and unscrupulous operators, with scary stuff about suppressed reports of engine damage. This current story's a bit saner: While no one claimed 10 percent ethanol blends have an adverse impact on engines, early testing with one type of marine two-stroke engine found stalling may occur when the throttle is opened from low speed, even with a 10 percent blend, creating a possible safety hazard, Kemp said. I think you tried to answer my question, but I still have it. I need to ask again because there's something very specific I'm after here. In the above paragraph, I think the issue gets confused away from what I and others are thinking or asking. The allegation in the above paragraph is that even below 10% or near it, there is still a danger to engines. But this isn't the brunt of the debate that I recall reading here over the last few months. From what I've seen of my own engine and others' experiences, there really isn't that much question that a modest 10%-ish-or-under blend of ethanol doesn't do any sort of damage (though I suppose I would keep an open mind if someone wanted to tell me otherwise). The brunt of the debate is what for me continues to be an open question: is there anything to the idea that limiting things to something like 10%, in keeping with what some auto manufacturers appear to have claimed, would in fact be the right way to go, especially for what appears to be a nascient effort that could suffer some severe damage if there really does occur any damage to engines from using somewhat higher percentages. If I'm not mistaken there was at least one person in Australia who is involved with the scene there who took roughly this position ..., that the big (ADM-ish) ethanol producer was pressuring politically for an ethanol policy that in the end would not be good for everyone. I had a car (89 Saab Turbo) which I do recall saying something in the manual about 10 or 12 or 13 percent ethanol and-or MTBE mixtures being within warranty. I don't recall the exact numbers. 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. 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/
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
A complete report covering all of the applications of ethanol in gasoline, in new and used engines: ERDC Project No 2511 Intensive Field Trial of Ethanol/Petrol Blend in Vehicles. This trial showed no harm to any engines, and documented the benefits. This is the Executive Summary, compliments of Apace Research Ltd -- 10 pages, 32kb Acrobat file. http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/EthanolApace.PDF Addendum: I went and looked at this after posting, as I felt remiss in not examining it first. It seems to make a good case for the benefits of ethanol at a 10% anhydrous blend and does some to address the allegations of negative effects on machinery. It does little to address what I said in my other post appears to be the brunt of the allegation, which is that since some are mixing in a blend much in excess of the much-researched 10% figure, this is causing a lot of damage to machinery. To go back to what it does address, it mentions that they found, under materials compatability and engine wear that there are no discerniable effects, no increased engine wear, etc., of using such a blend as against a regular petrol blend. As it might be useful (God I hate doing this; I hate the uncopy-pastability of .pdf format), I will quote directly (manually transcribing, sacrificing fingers for the cause): Begin quote: - [...] The results of this project for the 1999 fleet composition show that, when compared to use of neat petrol, use of 10% v/v ethanol/petrol blend has the following effects: [...] [...] -- Materials Compatibility: -- there is no discernible effect on any plastic or elastomer materials; and, -- there is no discernible corrosion in fuel wetted metal parts such as fuel tanks, lines, pressure regulators, etc. -- Engine Wear: -- there is no additional or unusual wear to that normally expected; and, -- there is no additional increase in wear metals or decrease in total base number (TBN) of the lubcricating oil. [...] End quote Now, there are some other passages which do give perhaps some further insight on the issues, and I am just not willing to transcribe more. For example, there is the issue of older vehicles being more prone to phase separation and other water issues, as well as some health concerns for emissions. There is also some mention of other blends, including a hydrous blend, and a Brazil-ish 22% blend (which sounds almost like what some Australians are getting whether they want it or not). But, anyway, the basic issue is left unadressed, and it just sounds like, going back over the last couple of months, this whole thing amounts to a good effort (introducing a goodly amount of ethanol use nationwide for Australia) is being hurt by a campaign to introduce it in an overly aggressive and somewhat technologically irresponsible way which might theoretically result in enough of a black eye to provide a very serious setback. If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry for spreading what you or others might consider to be false information, but I'd like to do a better job of figuring out the issues on this. Australia, as I've said, is not insignificant in its alternative energy efforts. Although I don't have a sense of their overall fuel and energy use, this seems to me to be a very important project for them, to introduce such a high amount of ethanol to such a significant country's fuel mix, (they sure must travel a lot of passenger miles between some of their destinations!), and I think if we take some extra time to hammer out what the issues are for them, then those of us who are interested to do so can decide what we think is the right course of action for them and (just by writing our opinions) perhaps influence their projects and others. MM 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/
[biofuels-biz] Fwd: Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:39:05 +0100 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel Australia is a significant country, but it is smaller than Brazil and if I am not totally wrong a population less than 10% of that of US. I think it is one of the least populated countries in the world. Having this in mind, it is still a very important country and they have very large incentives to reduce their dependence of fossil fuels. They, if anyone, have the capacity to go biofuel all around and fast. To maintain the independence and sovereignty of Australia should be in the best interest of the Australians and solving energy supply problems is an important and urgent matter for the whole world. Few countries, if any, have such good prospects as Australia. It is maybe one of the very few countries that could maintain an isolationistic policy to the rest of the world. US for sure not, they have to continue to pillage the world resources. Many say that they support the terrorist, by paying low price for their pillage, but the truth is that they themselves creates them. The policies and attitudes are controversy but necessary, to maintain the American style of life, carefully guarded by the Americans and called the greatest democracy on earth. Why I mention US, is because it is their oil interests that operate in the Australian environment. It would be utterly irresponsible if Australia do not take the important and necessary steps to be energy independent. Scaremongers tactics who use up to 80 years old American arguments, that was already incorrect then, is an insult to the Australian people. Hearing about this kind of tactics, like advertising ethanol free gasoline etc. makes me mad, this especially when ethanol is needed to replace MTBE and this is in full implementation in US. To make it clear, I like Americans and America very much, but their corporate/government foreign policies smells. Bophal is maybe the worst case, but not uncommon on smaller scale. Hakan At 02:51 AM 12/19/2002 -0800, you wrote: A complete report covering all of the applications of ethanol in gasoline, in new and used engines: ERDC Project No 2511 Intensive Field Trial of Ethanol/Petrol Blend in Vehicles. This trial showed no harm to any engines, and documented the benefits. This is the Executive Summary, compliments of Apace Research Ltd -- 10 pages, 32kb Acrobat file. http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/EthanolApace.PDF Addendum: I went and looked at this after posting, as I felt remiss in not examining it first. It seems to make a good case for the benefits of ethanol at a 10% anhydrous blend and does some to address the allegations of negative effects on machinery. It does little to address what I said in my other post appears to be the brunt of the allegation, which is that since some are mixing in a blend much in excess of the much-researched 10% figure, this is causing a lot of damage to machinery. To go back to what it does address, it mentions that they found, under materials compatability and engine wear that there are no discerniable effects, no increased engine wear, etc., of using such a blend as against a regular petrol blend. As it might be useful (God I hate doing this; I hate the uncopy-pastability of .pdf format), I will quote directly (manually transcribing, sacrificing fingers for the cause): Begin quote: - [...] The results of this project for the 1999 fleet composition show that, when compared to use of neat petrol, use of 10% v/v ethanol/petrol blend has the following effects: [...] [...] -- Materials Compatibility: -- there is no discernible effect on any plastic or elastomer materials; and, -- there is no discernible corrosion in fuel wetted metal parts such as fuel tanks, lines, pressure regulators, etc. -- Engine Wear: -- there is no additional or unusual wear to that normally expected; and, -- there is no additional increase in wear metals or decrease in total base number (TBN) of the lubcricating oil. [...] End quote Now, there are some other passages which do give perhaps some further insight on the issues, and I am just not willing to transcribe more. For example, there is the issue of older vehicles being more prone to phase separation and other water issues, as well as some health concerns for emissions. There is also some mention of other blends, including a hydrous blend, and a Brazil-ish 22% blend (which sounds almost like what some Australians are getting whether they want it or not). But, anyway, the basic issue is left unadressed, and it just sounds like, going back over the last couple of months, this whole thing amounts to a good effort (introducing a goodly amount of ethanol use nationwide
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
MM wrote: Mark Matthews is trying to set things straight with the film he's making. It's confused, and confused further by allegations of buddy deals at the top level, so the journalists smell a scandal and ethanol's taking collateral damage. It's not just the journalists, more important it's also the political opposition: The Howard government has not just failed to act, they've deliberately decided not to act. They've made conscious, continuing decisions, including today, to refuse to act because they're putting vested interests ahead of the national interest. - Labor's treasury spokesman Bob McMullan http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/17/1039656387005.html Ethanol may damage cars It's in the national interest, you see, to continue depending on imported oil and not to use homegrown biofuels - NOT! And mainly the big foreign oil companies, and the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), which is probably in the oil companies' camp, and lesser players. How about this? Another thing here with ethanol which people aren't aware of is that it actually attracts water and motor vehicles and water just do not go together - the cars will just stop cold, he said. (Royal Automobile Club of Victoria) http://www.abc.net.au/news/regionals/vic/regvic-18dec2002-11.htm ABC News - Ethanol, petrol debate flares Stop cold, eh? RACV's gone on a sort of anti-ethanol witchhunt to protect drivers. The Sydney Morning Herald yarn I posted about a week back put it in the same bracket as contaminated petrol and unscrupulous operators, with scary stuff about suppressed reports of engine damage. This current story's a bit saner: While no one claimed 10 percent ethanol blends have an adverse impact on engines, early testing with one type of marine two-stroke engine found stalling may occur when the throttle is opened from low speed, even with a 10 percent blend, creating a possible safety hazard, Kemp said. I think you tried to answer my question, but I still have it. I need to ask again because there's something very specific I'm after here. In the above paragraph, I think the issue gets confused away from what I and others are thinking or asking. The allegation in the above paragraph is that even below 10% or near it, there is still a danger to engines. Obviously that's what they're trying to infer - they'd love to say it wrecks your motor but it seems this is the best they can do, rather lame, an alleged safety hazard for the user, not the engine, in a marine situation, not on the road. What's early testing? Was there any later testing? Is it the case or not? Maybe they think blowing up an alleged political scandal and yelling vested interests is as effective as blown-up engines. And maybe it is. Again, Mike Jureidini said this: Following some pretty serious scaremongering over the past few months, the oil companies have launched an intense campaign at the service station level to denigrate the use of ethanol in the Greater Sydney/Wollongong Basin. The tactics being employed are similar to those used by the oil majors in the U.S.over twenty years ago. Currently BP, Shell, Caltex and Woolworth's are running no ethanol in our petrol type ads at badged service stations. That fits. Mike is the Biofuels Consultant for SAFF and South Australia Coordinator for the Biodiesel Association of Australia. The Australian Biofuels Association in Canberra (more or less Australia's equivalent of the NBB) issued this comment in March this year: http://www.australianbiofuelsassociation.org.au/WantToKnow/PDFs/COMMEN T%20EAISSUESPAPER.pdf Comment - Setting An Ethanol Limit In Petrol Environment Australia released an Issues Paper in January 2001, titled Setting the Ethanol Limit in Petrol. The issues paper is based on a policy recommendation put to the Government by Environment Australia to limit ethanol blends with petrol to 10% under the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000. The Environment Australia position was strongly supported by the major foreign owned oil companies that dominate the Australian transport fuel market. The Association vigorously opposed setting a cap on fuel ethanol in the transport fuel market. ABA opposition to the 10% limit was based on the following grounds: * No other fuels in the Australian transport fuel market have had regulatory limits imposed on their access that market. No limits are imposed on petrol or diesel fuels, or on fossil alternative fuels such as CNG and LPG. * A 10% cap on ethanol, and possibly at a later date on biodiesel, thus represents a preferential and uncompetitive market entry barrier to renewable alternative fuels in the Australian transport fuel market. * A 10% limit on ethanol ignores the demonstrated wide flexibility that ethanol, and advances in automotive technologies, offer for the use of a range of blends of domestically produced biofuels in Australia and internationally. * The limit enhances the
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
While no one claimed 10 percent ethanol blends have an adverse impact on engines, early testing with one type of marine two-stroke engine found stalling may occur when the throttle is opened from low speed, even with a 10 percent blend, creating a possible safety hazard, Kemp said. I think that Kemp have a great sense of humor and I am sure that he is not going let this two-stroke engine have the same consequences as the Ottomans gun ship in WWI and sink the Australian empire as excuse. LOL! Hakan 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/
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
It would be utterly irresponsible if Australia do not take the important and necessary steps to be energy independent. Scaremongers tactics who use up to 80 years old American arguments, that was already incorrect then, is an insult to the Australian people. Hearing about this kind of tactics, like advertising ethanol free gasoline etc. makes me mad, this especially when ethanol is needed to replace MTBE and this is in full implementation in US. Right. Fine. But the problem here is that you and I and Keith are hearing different things coming out of Australia, as to the tactics that are being employed. While I've heard a bit of the scaremongering, as with any good lie, they are mixing enough truth or near-truth to it to make it effective. So, I am trying to get at what is the effective part of this lie in order to better address it. MM 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/
Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
Mark Matthews is trying to set things straight with the film he's making. It's confused, and confused further by allegations of buddy deals at the top level, so the journalists smell a scandal and ethanol's taking collateral damage. The Sydney Morning Herald yarn I posted about a week back put it in the same bracket as contaminated petrol and unscrupulous operators, with scary stuff about suppressed reports of engine damage. This current story's a bit saner: While no one claimed 10 percent ethanol blends have an adverse impact on engines, early testing with one type of marine two-stroke engine found stalling may occur when the throttle is opened from low speed, even with a 10 percent blend, creating a possible safety hazard, Kemp said. I think you tried to answer my question, but I still have it. I need to ask again because there's something very specific I'm after here. In the above paragraph, I think the issue gets confused away from what I and others are thinking or asking. The allegation in the above paragraph is that even below 10% or near it, there is still a danger to engines. But this isn't the brunt of the debate that I recall reading here over the last few months. From what I've seen of my own engine and others' experiences, there really isn't that much question that a modest 10%-ish-or-under blend of ethanol doesn't do any sort of damage (though I suppose I would keep an open mind if someone wanted to tell me otherwise). The brunt of the debate is what for me continues to be an open question: is there anything to the idea that limiting things to something like 10%, in keeping with what some auto manufacturers appear to have claimed, would in fact be the right way to go, especially for what appears to be a nascient effort that could suffer some severe damage if there really does occur any damage to engines from using somewhat higher percentages. If I'm not mistaken there was at least one person in Australia who is involved with the scene there who took roughly this position ..., that the big (ADM-ish) ethanol producer was pressuring politically for an ethanol policy that in the end would not be good for everyone. I had a car (89 Saab Turbo) which I do recall saying something in the manual about 10 or 12 or 13 percent ethanol and-or MTBE mixtures being within warranty. I don't recall the exact numbers. 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. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
A complete report covering all of the applications of ethanol in gasoline, in new and used engines: ERDC Project No 2511 Intensive Field Trial of Ethanol/Petrol Blend in Vehicles. This trial showed no harm to any engines, and documented the benefits. This is the Executive Summary, compliments of Apace Research Ltd -- 10 pages, 32kb Acrobat file. http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/EthanolApace.PDF Addendum: I went and looked at this after posting, as I felt remiss in not examining it first. It seems to make a good case for the benefits of ethanol at a 10% anhydrous blend and does some to address the allegations of negative effects on machinery. It does little to address what I said in my other post appears to be the brunt of the allegation, which is that since some are mixing in a blend much in excess of the much-researched 10% figure, this is causing a lot of damage to machinery. To go back to what it does address, it mentions that they found, under materials compatability and engine wear that there are no discerniable effects, no increased engine wear, etc., of using such a blend as against a regular petrol blend. As it might be useful (God I hate doing this; I hate the uncopy-pastability of .pdf format), I will quote directly (manually transcribing, sacrificing fingers for the cause): Begin quote: - [...] The results of this project for the 1999 fleet composition show that, when compared to use of neat petrol, use of 10% v/v ethanol/petrol blend has the following effects: [...] [...] -- Materials Compatibility: -- there is no discernible effect on any plastic or elastomer materials; and, -- there is no discernible corrosion in fuel wetted metal parts such as fuel tanks, lines, pressure regulators, etc. -- Engine Wear: -- there is no additional or unusual wear to that normally expected; and, -- there is no additional increase in wear metals or decrease in total base number (TBN) of the lubcricating oil. [...] End quote Now, there are some other passages which do give perhaps some further insight on the issues, and I am just not willing to transcribe more. For example, there is the issue of older vehicles being more prone to phase separation and other water issues, as well as some health concerns for emissions. There is also some mention of other blends, including a hydrous blend, and a Brazil-ish 22% blend (which sounds almost like what some Australians are getting whether they want it or not). But, anyway, the basic issue is left unadressed, and it just sounds like, going back over the last couple of months, this whole thing amounts to a good effort (introducing a goodly amount of ethanol use nationwide for Australia) is being hurt by a campaign to introduce it in an overly aggressive and somewhat technologically irresponsible way which might theoretically result in enough of a black eye to provide a very serious setback. If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry for spreading what you or others might consider to be false information, but I'd like to do a better job of figuring out the issues on this. Australia, as I've said, is not insignificant in its alternative energy efforts. Although I don't have a sense of their overall fuel and energy use, this seems to me to be a very important project for them, to introduce such a high amount of ethanol to such a significant country's fuel mix, (they sure must travel a lot of passenger miles between some of their destinations!), and I think if we take some extra time to hammer out what the issues are for them, then those of us who are interested to do so can decide what we think is the right course of action for them and (just by writing our opinions) perhaps influence their projects and others. MM Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
Australia is a significant country, but it is smaller than Brazil and if I am not totally wrong a population less than 10% of that of US. I think it is one of the least populated countries in the world. Having this in mind, it is still a very important country and they have very large incentives to reduce their dependence of fossil fuels. They, if anyone, have the capacity to go biofuel all around and fast. To maintain the independence and sovereignty of Australia should be in the best interest of the Australians and solving energy supply problems is an important and urgent matter for the whole world. Few countries, if any, have such good prospects as Australia. It is maybe one of the very few countries that could maintain an isolationistic policy to the rest of the world. US for sure not, they have to continue to pillage the world resources. Many say that they support the terrorist, by paying low price for their pillage, but the truth is that they themselves creates them. The policies and attitudes are controversy but necessary, to maintain the American style of life, carefully guarded by the Americans and called the greatest democracy on earth. Why I mention US, is because it is their oil interests that operate in the Australian environment. It would be utterly irresponsible if Australia do not take the important and necessary steps to be energy independent. Scaremongers tactics who use up to 80 years old American arguments, that was already incorrect then, is an insult to the Australian people. Hearing about this kind of tactics, like advertising ethanol free gasoline etc. makes me mad, this especially when ethanol is needed to replace MTBE and this is in full implementation in US. To make it clear, I like Americans and America very much, but their corporate/government foreign policies smells. Bophal is maybe the worst case, but not uncommon on smaller scale. Hakan At 02:51 AM 12/19/2002 -0800, you wrote: A complete report covering all of the applications of ethanol in gasoline, in new and used engines: ERDC Project No 2511 Intensive Field Trial of Ethanol/Petrol Blend in Vehicles. This trial showed no harm to any engines, and documented the benefits. This is the Executive Summary, compliments of Apace Research Ltd -- 10 pages, 32kb Acrobat file. http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/EthanolApace.PDF Addendum: I went and looked at this after posting, as I felt remiss in not examining it first. It seems to make a good case for the benefits of ethanol at a 10% anhydrous blend and does some to address the allegations of negative effects on machinery. It does little to address what I said in my other post appears to be the brunt of the allegation, which is that since some are mixing in a blend much in excess of the much-researched 10% figure, this is causing a lot of damage to machinery. To go back to what it does address, it mentions that they found, under materials compatability and engine wear that there are no discerniable effects, no increased engine wear, etc., of using such a blend as against a regular petrol blend. As it might be useful (God I hate doing this; I hate the uncopy-pastability of .pdf format), I will quote directly (manually transcribing, sacrificing fingers for the cause): Begin quote: - [...] The results of this project for the 1999 fleet composition show that, when compared to use of neat petrol, use of 10% v/v ethanol/petrol blend has the following effects: [...] [...] -- Materials Compatibility: -- there is no discernible effect on any plastic or elastomer materials; and, -- there is no discernible corrosion in fuel wetted metal parts such as fuel tanks, lines, pressure regulators, etc. -- Engine Wear: -- there is no additional or unusual wear to that normally expected; and, -- there is no additional increase in wear metals or decrease in total base number (TBN) of the lubcricating oil. [...] End quote Now, there are some other passages which do give perhaps some further insight on the issues, and I am just not willing to transcribe more. For example, there is the issue of older vehicles being more prone to phase separation and other water issues, as well as some health concerns for emissions. There is also some mention of other blends, including a hydrous blend, and a Brazil-ish 22% blend (which sounds almost like what some Australians are getting whether they want it or not). But, anyway, the basic issue is left unadressed, and it just sounds like, going back over the last couple of months, this whole thing amounts to a good effort (introducing a goodly amount of ethanol use nationwide for Australia) is being hurt by a campaign to introduce it in an overly aggressive and somewhat technologically irresponsible way which might theoretically result in enough of a black eye to provide a very serious setback. If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry for
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
MM wrote: Mark Matthews is trying to set things straight with the film he's making. It's confused, and confused further by allegations of buddy deals at the top level, so the journalists smell a scandal and ethanol's taking collateral damage. It's not just the journalists, more important it's also the political opposition: The Howard government has not just failed to act, they've deliberately decided not to act. They've made conscious, continuing decisions, including today, to refuse to act because they're putting vested interests ahead of the national interest. - Labor's treasury spokesman Bob McMullan http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/17/1039656387005.html Ethanol may damage cars It's in the national interest, you see, to continue depending on imported oil and not to use homegrown biofuels - NOT! And mainly the big foreign oil companies, and the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), which is probably in the oil companies' camp, and lesser players. How about this? Another thing here with ethanol which people aren't aware of is that it actually attracts water and motor vehicles and water just do not go together - the cars will just stop cold, he said. (Royal Automobile Club of Victoria) http://www.abc.net.au/news/regionals/vic/regvic-18dec2002-11.htm ABC News - Ethanol, petrol debate flares Stop cold, eh? RACV's gone on a sort of anti-ethanol witchhunt to protect drivers. The Sydney Morning Herald yarn I posted about a week back put it in the same bracket as contaminated petrol and unscrupulous operators, with scary stuff about suppressed reports of engine damage. This current story's a bit saner: While no one claimed 10 percent ethanol blends have an adverse impact on engines, early testing with one type of marine two-stroke engine found stalling may occur when the throttle is opened from low speed, even with a 10 percent blend, creating a possible safety hazard, Kemp said. I think you tried to answer my question, but I still have it. I need to ask again because there's something very specific I'm after here. In the above paragraph, I think the issue gets confused away from what I and others are thinking or asking. The allegation in the above paragraph is that even below 10% or near it, there is still a danger to engines. Obviously that's what they're trying to infer - they'd love to say it wrecks your motor but it seems this is the best they can do, rather lame, an alleged safety hazard for the user, not the engine, in a marine situation, not on the road. What's early testing? Was there any later testing? Is it the case or not? Maybe they think blowing up an alleged political scandal and yelling vested interests is as effective as blown-up engines. And maybe it is. Again, Mike Jureidini said this: Following some pretty serious scaremongering over the past few months, the oil companies have launched an intense campaign at the service station level to denigrate the use of ethanol in the Greater Sydney/Wollongong Basin. The tactics being employed are similar to those used by the oil majors in the U.S.over twenty years ago. Currently BP, Shell, Caltex and Woolworth's are running no ethanol in our petrol type ads at badged service stations. That fits. Mike is the Biofuels Consultant for SAFF and South Australia Coordinator for the Biodiesel Association of Australia. The Australian Biofuels Association in Canberra (more or less Australia's equivalent of the NBB) issued this comment in March this year: http://www.australianbiofuelsassociation.org.au/WantToKnow/PDFs/COMMEN T%20EAISSUESPAPER.pdf Comment - Setting An Ethanol Limit In Petrol Environment Australia released an Issues Paper in January 2001, titled Setting the Ethanol Limit in Petrol. The issues paper is based on a policy recommendation put to the Government by Environment Australia to limit ethanol blends with petrol to 10% under the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000. The Environment Australia position was strongly supported by the major foreign owned oil companies that dominate the Australian transport fuel market. The Association vigorously opposed setting a cap on fuel ethanol in the transport fuel market. ABA opposition to the 10% limit was based on the following grounds: * No other fuels in the Australian transport fuel market have had regulatory limits imposed on their access that market. No limits are imposed on petrol or diesel fuels, or on fossil alternative fuels such as CNG and LPG. * A 10% cap on ethanol, and possibly at a later date on biodiesel, thus represents a preferential and uncompetitive market entry barrier to renewable alternative fuels in the Australian transport fuel market. * A 10% limit on ethanol ignores the demonstrated wide flexibility that ethanol, and advances in automotive technologies, offer for the use of a range of blends of domestically produced biofuels in Australia and internationally. * The limit enhances the
Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
It would be utterly irresponsible if Australia do not take the important and necessary steps to be energy independent. Scaremongers tactics who use up to 80 years old American arguments, that was already incorrect then, is an insult to the Australian people. Hearing about this kind of tactics, like advertising ethanol free gasoline etc. makes me mad, this especially when ethanol is needed to replace MTBE and this is in full implementation in US. Right. Fine. But the problem here is that you and I and Keith are hearing different things coming out of Australia, as to the tactics that are being employed. While I've heard a bit of the scaremongering, as with any good lie, they are mixing enough truth or near-truth to it to make it effective. So, I am trying to get at what is the effective part of this lie in order to better address it. MM Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 03:33:38 +0900, you wrote: http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/19118 Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel AUSTRALIA: December 18, 2002 CANBERRA - The Australian government said on Tuesday that evidence about mixing ethanol in petrol was inconclusive, putting aside any decision on whether to impose a maximum limit on ethanol content in fuel until next year. Keith: What are your thoughts on this? Do you think, as I am inclined to do, that this is doing damage, overall, because if more than a certain amount of ethanol is included in gasoline than the machinery requirements are somewhat different (at least, that is the claim)? Maybe you have put your thoughts out there recently but I have missed them. 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/
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
Hi MM On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 03:33:38 +0900, you wrote: http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/19118 Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel AUSTRALIA: December 18, 2002 CANBERRA - The Australian government said on Tuesday that evidence about mixing ethanol in petrol was inconclusive, putting aside any decision on whether to impose a maximum limit on ethanol content in fuel until next year. Keith: What are your thoughts on this? Do you think, as I am inclined to do, that this is doing damage, overall, because if more than a certain amount of ethanol is included in gasoline than the machinery requirements are somewhat different (at least, that is the claim)? Maybe you have put your thoughts out there recently but I have missed them. Not really. Mike Jureidini said this at Biofuels-biz: Following some pretty serious scaremongering over the past few months, the oil companies have launched an intense campaign at the service station level to denigrate the use of ethanol in the Greater Sydney/Wollongong Basin. The tactics being employed are similar to those used by the oil majors in the U.S.over twenty years ago. Currently BP, Shell, Caltex and Woolworth's are running no ethanol in our petrol type ads at badged service stations. Fred Enga pointed us at this, which is now in our library: A complete report covering all of the applications of ethanol in gasoline, in new and used engines: ERDC Project No 2511 Intensive Field Trial of Ethanol/Petrol Blend in Vehicles. This trial showed no harm to any engines, and documented the benefits. This is the Executive Summary, compliments of Apace Research Ltd -- 10 pages, 32kb Acrobat file. http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/EthanolApace.PDF Mark Matthews is trying to set things straight with the film he's making. It's confused, and confused further by allegations of buddy deals at the top level, so the journalists smell a scandal and ethanol's taking collateral damage. The Sydney Morning Herald yarn I posted about a week back put it in the same bracket as contaminated petrol and unscrupulous operators, with scary stuff about suppressed reports of engine damage. This current story's a bit saner: While no one claimed 10 percent ethanol blends have an adverse impact on engines, early testing with one type of marine two-stroke engine found stalling may occur when the throttle is opened from low speed, even with a 10 percent blend, creating a possible safety hazard, Kemp said. Big deal, eh? So motorists must be protected. Stark contrast with other countries' experiences (Brazil, South Africa, Zimbabwe). I'm sure Mike's right, he's on the spot. 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/
[biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/19118 Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel AUSTRALIA: December 18, 2002 CANBERRA - The Australian government said on Tuesday that evidence about mixing ethanol in petrol was inconclusive, putting aside any decision on whether to impose a maximum limit on ethanol content in fuel until next year. Ethanol has attracted international attention as a clean fuel that can be distilled from crops such as grains and sugar cane, with fuel containing 20 percent ethanol available in the Sydney market since 1994. But the government has come under fire from motoring groups for being slow to apply national fuel standards to ethanol levels, fearing strong blends may damage car engines and calling for a 10 percent limit. Environment Minister David Kemp said cabinet, meeting on Tuesday, reviewed the evidence of the impact of blends of 20 percent ethanol in petrol on the operability, emissions and durability of engines. (Cabinet) reaffirmed its view that the evidence for the impact of blends between 10 and 20 percent is presently inconclusive, Kemp said in a statement. The government is currently conducting vehicle testing to clarify these impacts, prior to the development of a soundly based National Fuel Standard. The government expects to receive this report next year. But, in the meantime, Kemp called on the country's six state governments to ensure levels of ethanol in petrol are labelled at the pump, stressing it was their responsibility. Kemp said a sampling programme by Environment Australia from April 2002 had taken 586 samples from petrol stations around the country and found 55 of these, or 9.4 percent, contained ethanol. While no one claimed 10 percent ethanol blends have an adverse impact on engines, early testing with one type of marine two-stroke engine found stalling may occur when the throttle is opened from low speed, even with a 10 percent blend, creating a possible safety hazard, Kemp said. Existing Australian ethanol production is comparatively small-scale, with total capacity of about 130 million litres, and mainly for export to Asian markets as an alcohol additive. REUTERS NEWS PICTURE SERVICE Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 03:33:38 +0900, you wrote: http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/19118 Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel AUSTRALIA: December 18, 2002 CANBERRA - The Australian government said on Tuesday that evidence about mixing ethanol in petrol was inconclusive, putting aside any decision on whether to impose a maximum limit on ethanol content in fuel until next year. Keith: What are your thoughts on this? Do you think, as I am inclined to do, that this is doing damage, overall, because if more than a certain amount of ethanol is included in gasoline than the machinery requirements are somewhat different (at least, that is the claim)? Maybe you have put your thoughts out there recently but I have missed them. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel
Hi MM On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 03:33:38 +0900, you wrote: http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/19118 Australia puts off imposing cap on ethanol in fuel AUSTRALIA: December 18, 2002 CANBERRA - The Australian government said on Tuesday that evidence about mixing ethanol in petrol was inconclusive, putting aside any decision on whether to impose a maximum limit on ethanol content in fuel until next year. Keith: What are your thoughts on this? Do you think, as I am inclined to do, that this is doing damage, overall, because if more than a certain amount of ethanol is included in gasoline than the machinery requirements are somewhat different (at least, that is the claim)? Maybe you have put your thoughts out there recently but I have missed them. Not really. Mike Jureidini said this at Biofuels-biz: Following some pretty serious scaremongering over the past few months, the oil companies have launched an intense campaign at the service station level to denigrate the use of ethanol in the Greater Sydney/Wollongong Basin. The tactics being employed are similar to those used by the oil majors in the U.S.over twenty years ago. Currently BP, Shell, Caltex and Woolworth's are running no ethanol in our petrol type ads at badged service stations. Fred Enga pointed us at this, which is now in our library: A complete report covering all of the applications of ethanol in gasoline, in new and used engines: ERDC Project No 2511 Intensive Field Trial of Ethanol/Petrol Blend in Vehicles. This trial showed no harm to any engines, and documented the benefits. This is the Executive Summary, compliments of Apace Research Ltd -- 10 pages, 32kb Acrobat file. http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/EthanolApace.PDF Mark Matthews is trying to set things straight with the film he's making. It's confused, and confused further by allegations of buddy deals at the top level, so the journalists smell a scandal and ethanol's taking collateral damage. The Sydney Morning Herald yarn I posted about a week back put it in the same bracket as contaminated petrol and unscrupulous operators, with scary stuff about suppressed reports of engine damage. This current story's a bit saner: While no one claimed 10 percent ethanol blends have an adverse impact on engines, early testing with one type of marine two-stroke engine found stalling may occur when the throttle is opened from low speed, even with a 10 percent blend, creating a possible safety hazard, Kemp said. Big deal, eh? So motorists must be protected. Stark contrast with other countries' experiences (Brazil, South Africa, Zimbabwe). I'm sure Mike's right, he's on the spot. Best Keith Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
