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 capacity of the major oil companies to undermine the competitiveness of ethanol in the fuels market by controlling its level of entry into the market, and by influencing its competitiveness through their control and manipulation of petrol prices at which ethanol producers can purchase petrol for blending with petrol. 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. The refusal of Environment Australia (EA) to permit reference or discussion in its Issues Paper of the complex characteristics of petroleum fuels, and their externality impacts results in a falsely benign portrayal of petrol. Further, it denied the public an appreciation of ethanol's capacity to address what in other countries is an open appreciation of the adverse impacts of petroleum fuels. [more] Australian Biofuels Association, Canberra http://www.australianbiofuelsassociation.org.au/index.htm Publications: http://www.australianbiofuelsassociation.org.au/WantToKnow/Pubs+Reports.htm The ABA is not very good at lobbying, it seems. maybe they've done more since this was issued, but they haven't had a whole lot of impact on the press or the politicos. The Environment Australia doc "Setting the Ethanol Limit in Petrol" is here: http://www.ea.gov.au/atmosphere/transport/fuel/ethanol.html >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. 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. >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. The government has been funding studies and feasibility plans for quite a while. It seems to have been a rational progression. Then suddenly comes scaremongering, as Mike says, allegations of shady links between politicians and the ethanol industry to force ethanol on an unsuspecting public and suppress "evidence" of the alleged damage it causes to cars - along with no such evidence, no damaged cars, and, tellingly perhaps, no news on how much Big Oil might stand to lose from a 10% or a 20% cap on ethanol or the difference between them. On the other hand, there is a great deal of evidence, in on-road use and in scientific studies, of ethanol use in other countries, which doesn't get reported, and positive studies (and results) in Australia, which also don't get reported. For instance, there's this: "In Australia, both the use and trial of ethanol as a component of gasoline transport fuel have, until recently, occurred primarily in Queensland. All gasoline sold in Queensland from 1929 to 1957 contained 10 per cent ethanol (BTCE, 1994) Gasoline containing 10 per cent ethanol is distributed through a small number of independent fuel retailers in NSW and Victoria. This ethanol is produced from wheat starch at Nowra on the south coast of NSW. Ethanol will easily blend with gasoline but not with diesel. Alcohols can be used in diesel engines by either modifying the fuel or by extensive engine adaptations. Work in Australia by APACE Research Ltd has produced an ethanol and diesel emulsion called 'diesohol'. APACE claims that a diesohol emulsion containing up to 30 per cent ethanol will run in a diesel engine, with the engine requiring little or no modification. The ACTION bus fleet in Canberra trialed three new buses running on diesohol (Scott et al. 1995; Joseph, 1996). Sydney buses also used such buses from 1993 to 1998 (Figure 7.1)." - Life-cycle Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles - March 2000, CSIRO Atmospheric Research Report C/0411/1.1/F2, to the Australian Greenhouse Office, March 2000 http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/publications/lifecycle.html And this: "14.3 Viability and Functionality "There is considerable international experience on the use of ethanol as a blend in petrol in the United States, where it is needed under the legislation requiring the use of reformulated gasoline, and in Brazil where sugar-derived ethanol is used as an automotive fuel and also as a blend (gasohol). No special engine modification or handling precautions are needed when using a 10% ethanol blend. Such widespread international experience indicates that the viability and functionality of petrohol will be much the same as of the corresponding petrol with which the ethanol is blended. Ethanol can loosen contaminants and residues that have been deposited by previous gasoline fills. These can collect in the fuel filter. This problem has happened occasionally in older cars, and can easily be corrected by changing fuel filters. Symptoms of a plugged fuel filter will be hesitation, missing, and a loss of power." - Comparison of Transport Fuels - Final Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office on the Stage 2 study of Life-cycle Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/comparison/index.html Etc etc. >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. Read: "Spin." > >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. The allegation is that there could be damage, but nobody's apparently been able to produce any. >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), It seems we just have to live with this .pdf junk. If you use a PC you can get shareware tools to make it more possible. With a Mac, no such luck, but at least I can copy and paste the stuff into something that doesn't make me grind my teeth, though it comes out all funny, not "smart" at all, have to crunch it more before it's usable. But a lot quicker than typing. >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 Yes, clear enough, accords with all other findings there and elsewhere. >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). It seems they don't know if they want it or not, they're being told they don't want it, but told via scaremongering rather than information. >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. I've seen no indication of that, rather the opposite. Even short of a web search, if you search the list archives here and check all this current information, there's been nothing overly affressive or technologically irresponsible about it that I can see. The first story in the archives dates from three years ago, and it's older than that. That's a Reuters story, it's been well-reported all along. It's being hurt by a disinformation campaign to block its introduction, by the oil companies, out to protect their market, and the political opposition out to score points. It seems not all of the oil companies though: http://www.bp.com.au/products/fuels/ethanol/default.asp?menuid=ed BP Australia - ULP Ethanol what colour is your petrol? - ours is green BP Unleaded with 10% ethanol After the success of our four month Premium Unleaded with ethanol trial we are now giving more motorists the chance to take advantage of the benefits of this unique, Australian-sourced renewable fuel. If the one hand knows what the other hand's at, that is. >Australian Biofuels Association executive director Bob Gordon said by >next month about seven percent of the petrol sold in New South Wales >would be an E10 blend and there was the potential for one billion >litres of E10 to be produced next year. > >Gordon said currently distribution of E10 was limited to the >independent service station operators. > >"At the moment the major oil companies refuse to take up or market >renewable fuels," he said. > >Australia's major refiner/marketers are units of BP Amoco Plc , Exxon >Mobil Corp and Royal Dutch/Shell , and Caltex Australia Ltd , >half-owned by the Caltex joint-venture of Chevron Corp and Texaco Inc. > >Industry participants [ie Big Oil] said in overseas markets such as >the U.S. and >Brazil government policy and subsidies had encouraged the use of >ethanol blended fuel. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=6808 Australian petrol industry considers ethanol use AUSTRALIA: May 23, 2000 Now they see government policy and subsidies and they're fighting it, in the way they know best. And that's as much as I know, based on what Mike and a few others have said, and indications of spin that I can see for myself. There are plenty of Australians here, maybe they can tell us more. Best Keith >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/
