So what happend to ethanol???

[Mr. Wyndham]

Brilliant. Thanks for that, Scotsman. Call me naive...but I believe Coskata more than the article in the Magazine.

Based on that, I have to say that was a sneaky twist the magazine put on the study.

[DGthe3]

Results of scientific studies depend on what assumptions you make and what variables you include. The more variables you include, the better. But the choices made for particular assumptions can make a huge impact. Thats where bias comes in. If you want to prove one thing you chose one end of the scale, to prove the oposite you pick the other end. Also, there is data selection methods. Again, you can pick something optimistic or conservative. Anyone trying to sell their technology will make it appear as good as possible. Someone trying to discredit a claim will use worst case senarios.

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Results of scientific studies depend on what assumptions you make and what variables you include. The more variables you include, the better. But the choices made for particular assumptions can make a huge impact. Thats where bias comes in. If you want to prove one thing you chose one end of the scale, to prove the oposite you pick the other end. Also, there is data selection methods. Again, you can pick something optimistic or conservative. Anyone trying to sell their technology will make it appear as good as possible. Someone trying to discredit a claim will use worst case senarios.

So there's no happy medium? I guess we'll just be beta testers then....

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

So there's no happy medium? I guess we'll just be beta testers then....

There is a happy medium, but nobody gains from it. No more research funding, no publicity, no sold products. its sad and unfortunate, but generally true. Best course is to find conflicting reports and split the differance and you'll probably be pretty close.

[jhitson]

There is not enough corn growing capacity to feed our camaros

[jhitson]

Originally Posted by jhitson

There is not enough corn growing capacity to feed our camaros

My post got edited, so I will clarify a bit. I read a story some time back that said Ethanol production in the US was contributing to a rise in the cost of corn. The story seemd to suggest that this would lead to Famine in mexico, and increased illeagal immigration, as Corn is the staple food there. If I can find the story again, I will post a link. On another note, the only ethanol fuel that I can find around here is only 10%. I have a 2001 s-10 that is E-85 certified. If I put 10% ethanol fuel in my truck, it drops my gas mileage by about 2-3 mpg ( around 10% coincidentaly). There is also a noticable drop in power. I have had everything checked by a dealer and they say all is well.
I have read on other forums that the efficiency gains of ethanol are only realized when an engine is boosted( super or turbo charger). This is due to a higher thermal coefficient, if I remember correctly. This is just what I read, and I do not know how much truth there is to it. But I can say that in my experience, ethanol sucks.

[Roflmao]

Originally Posted by jhitson

My post got edited, so I will clarify a bit. I read a story some time back that said Ethanol production in the US was contributing to a rise in the cost of corn. The story seemd to suggest that this would lead to Famine in mexico, and increased illeagal immigration, as Corn is the staple food there. If I can find the story again, I will post a link. On another note, the only ethanol fuel that I can find around here is only 10%. I have a 2001 s-10 that is E-85 certified. If I put 10% ethanol fuel in my truck, it drops my gas mileage by about 2-3 mpg ( around 10% coincidentaly). There is also a noticable drop in power. I have had everything checked by a dealer and they say all is well.
I have read on other forums that the efficiency gains of ethanol are only realized when an engine is boosted( super or turbo charger). This is due to a higher thermal coefficient, if I remember correctly. This is just what I read, and I do not know how much truth there is to it. But I can say that in my experience, ethanol sucks.

We can always plant more corn, it won't hurt corn prices over the long haul if it were used.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by jhitson

On another note, the only ethanol fuel that I can find around here is only 10%. I have a 2001 s-10 that is E-85 certified. If I put 10% ethanol fuel in my truck, it drops my gas mileage by about 2-3 mpg ( around 10% coincidentaly). There is also a noticable drop in power. I have had everything checked by a dealer and they say all is well.

Are you sure it's E-85 capable? I didn't know they made trucks with that feature back then. Or was it an aftermarket mod you did?

'cause Ethanol has a lower energy potential...but not that much...you'd have to be running full-on E85 for that kind of a drop in fuel economy to occur. Wow!

[jhitson]

No doubt that it is E-85. The 4 cyl S-10 was E-85 compatable starting in 2000. I've had to post pics of the sticker inside the fuel door and my vin number to prove that it is E-85 on other forums. I usually get aroung 26 mpg. That drops to 23-24 on 10% ethanol.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

I'm wondering why these ehtanol-banshee's didn't bother to slam Brazil??? The whole country runs on sugarcane based ethanol.

+1,000,000

Brazil can put a plan in place to move to ethanol successfully, and our government shifts responsibility to car manufacturers. Great.

[jhitson]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601896_pf.html
This is not the same article, but its along the same lines. just the first thing that came up on a google search.

[Scotsman]

Well, there's goes my Chipotle diet.

[Scotsman]

TIME article trashing biofuels (including ethanol):

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...725975,00.html

Renewable Fuels Association CEO Bob Dinneen's rebuttal:

http:////www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/.../time_3.31.pdf

[Mr. Wyndham]

Well...seeing as how TIME recently put Putin on its cover, and now reading that article, all the while being astounded by how one-sided it is. What happened to that publication?

Anyways, I agree with this Bob Dinneen guy. I'm not keen to take the word of a writer over the guy in charge of the whole thing. BUT - I read both, and I fully realize that to combat each other, both articles are 100% each other's polar opposite. So neither are 100% true. Dinneen's piece is more true than the TIME article, though.