GOP: the party of stupid

[autigeremt 7,134]

Biogenic methane and nitrous oxide contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States than anything else. Carbon based fossil fuels do emit other things that can be addressed through improved exhaust systems but the big ticket item for greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial farming techniques.

With that in mind, is ethanol a really bad idea?

I think it is in terms of fuel lines and injectors. It leaves a lot of sludge behind in the fuel system....however it does improve the performance of a turbocharged engine.

I'd rather see an engine using a safe method of hydrogen delivery in the combustion chamber.

[autigeremt 7,134]

But to answer your question, the gas that bovines emit are derived from organic carbon sources which are already part of the natural cycle. So they aren't really adding carbon to the cycle in a long term sense.

Auburn researchers would disagree with you. In fact, they see methane as one of the leading indicators for greenhouse gas emissions in North America.

Beat me to it. I was just about to bring this up.

Here's the link I posted in the other thread. The problem isn't the carbon. It's the methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. It's the result of industrial farming techniques like feeding with fast growing low nutrient ryegrass.

Yeah, cows produce methane. And as carbon molecules go, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

But that doesn't let humans off the hook. Yes, bovine-produced gas is recycling atmospheric carbon rather than pumping vast quantities of buried carbon into the atmosphere like fossil fuel consumption. But as you point out, modern agricultural methods contribute to the problem. Mono-culture growing of grass and grains (for cattle feed) does not trap carbon in the soil to be eventually buried, the way natural vegetation and forests do. And modern agricultural methods are heavily petroleum dependent for both fuel and petrochemicals, or as some have described: "just a machine for converting petroleum into food and profits."

Historically, beef only became the dominant animal protein in our diets with the exploitation of the great American grasslands. Prior to that, pigs, sheep, fowl, and seafood were much more common in diets worldwide. Yes, some native groups--the Plains Indians, natives of the African grasslands, etc.--subsided largely on ruminants, but they did not significantly change the ecology of their homelands in the process (at least not since the post-ice age extinctions of mammoths, mastodons, and other mega-fauna, to which overhunting may have contributed). For that matter, meat in general did not make up such a large proportion of human diet before the American beef industry (unless you go back to paleolithic days). The vast empty mid-continental grasslands after the near extinction of the bison, combined with industrial technology (railroads, refrigeration, etc.), produced our American addiction to beef. And we exported that addiction to much of the modern world.

That being said, and even though the direct consumption of vegetable protein might more efficiently feed more people than processing said protein through animals as some vegetarians suggest, I'm not ready to give up my beef. But I don't feel a need to destroy the planet so I can eat it every day or regularly exploit the lazy convenience of a fast food drive-in window. And I don't blame or begrudge the small family farmer/rancher for simply trying to make a living.

As for the original topic of climate change:

For those who see global warming as a liberal hoax unsupported by science, I acknowledge your viewpoint and respect your right to it even if I disagree. I'm not even terribly offended to be called stupid or brainwashed, as that is mere opinion. However, I am for now firmly convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence shows global warming is occurring NOW, threatens our way of life, and humans are a major cause. Also, as a scientist, I am open to the idea that future evidence that could change my opinion, but I have not seen it to date.

( ...just wanted let you to know, so you can decide for yourself if your current arguments are a waste of energy on me. Otherwise, enjoy the debate. :)/> )

Humans contribute, no doubt. I support the belief that we have a smaller effect on global climates than some make the case for. The planet has evolved through many changes over millions of years....well before the first human stepped foot. I think it has more to do with to solar system positioning, polar shift due to electromagnetic changes, and human involvement. How do we tax or give credits for that?

[homersapien 12,172]

LOL. After reading the title of this thread I had to laugh again at the irony. 'GOP: the party of stupid' The GOP doesn't believe in the hoax of Global warming so we're 'stupid'. You can't make this stuff up. Liberalism is no doubt a sign of Mental illness at best and insanity at worst and them falling for the GW scam is just more evidence.

So presumably, the CNA's Military Advisory Board is an active perpetrator of this hoax?

http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/MAB_2014.pdf

[homersapien 12,172]

But to answer your question, the gas that bovines emit are derived from organic carbon sources which are already part of the natural cycle. So they aren't really adding carbon to the cycle in a long term sense.

Auburn researchers would disagree with you. In fact, they see methane as one of the leading indicators for greenhouse gas emissions in North America.

Beat me to it. I was just about to bring this up.

Here's the link I posted in the other thread. The problem isn't the carbon. It's the methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. It's the result of industrial farming techniques like feeding with fast growing low nutrient ryegrass.

Yeah, cows produce methane. And as carbon molecules go, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

But that doesn't let humans off the hook. Yes, bovine-produced gas is recycling atmospheric carbon rather than pumping vast quantities of buried carbon into the atmosphere like fossil fuel consumption. But as you point out, modern agricultural methods contribute to the problem. Mono-culture growing of grass and grains (for cattle feed) does not trap carbon in the soil to be eventually buried, the way natural vegetation and forests do. And modern agricultural methods are heavily petroleum dependent for both fuel and petrochemicals, or as some have described: "just a machine for converting petroleum into food and profits."

Historically, beef only became the dominant animal protein in our diets with the exploitation of the great American grasslands. Prior to that, pigs, sheep, fowl, and seafood were much more common in diets worldwide. Yes, some native groups--the Plains Indians, natives of the African grasslands, etc.--subsided largely on ruminants, but they did not significantly change the ecology of their homelands in the process (at least not since the post-ice age extinctions of mammoths, mastodons, and other mega-fauna, to which overhunting may have contributed). For that matter, meat in general did not make up such a large proportion of human diet before the American beef industry (unless you go back to paleolithic days). The vast empty mid-continental grasslands after the near extinction of the bison, combined with industrial technology (railroads, refrigeration, etc.), produced our American addiction to beef. And we exported that addiction to much of the modern world.

That being said, and even though the direct consumption of vegetable protein might more efficiently feed more people than processing said protein through animals as some vegetarians suggest, I'm not ready to give up my beef. But I don't feel a need to destroy the planet so I can eat it every day or regularly exploit the lazy convenience of a fast food drive-in window. And I don't blame or begrudge the small family farmer/rancher for simply trying to make a living.

As for the original topic of climate change:

For those who see global warming as a liberal hoax unsupported by science, I acknowledge your viewpoint and respect your right to it even if I disagree. I'm not even terribly offended to be called stupid or brainwashed, as that is mere opinion. However, I am for now firmly convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence shows global warming is occurring NOW, threatens our way of life, and humans are a major cause. Also, as a scientist, I am open to the idea that future evidence that could change my opinion, but I have not seen it to date.

( ...just wanted let you to know, so you can decide for yourself if your current arguments are a waste of energy on me. Otherwise, enjoy the debate. )

Thank you for expounding. I didn't mean to imply that it let humans off the hook. Only that CO₂ produced in comparison to the methane produced in cow flatus is negligible.

I hope Barkchevious has enjoyed this little lesson on farting cows.

Sure you said that right?

[homersapien 12,172]

Biogenic methane and nitrous oxide contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States than anything else. Carbon based fossil fuels do emit other things that can be addressed through improved exhaust systems but the big ticket item for greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial farming techniques.

With that in mind, is ethanol a really bad idea?

Especially not if you're an auto enthusiast. Fun things happen when ethanol meets a turbo and direct injection.

I can't find the link, but ethanol is (the or a?) leading contributor in engine fuel leaks.

It will sure as hell f-up a chain saw or any other 2-stroke in a hurry. There are rubbers and sealants it's incompatible with, but I haven't heard of any problems in modern cars.

The only difference I've seen in my 22 year old daily driver is a noticeable decrease in mileage from 10-15%. It might work well in a boosted engine but I avoid it in my (high compression) sports car just on general principles.

[AUDub 11,784]

Thank you for expounding. I didn't mean to imply that it let humans off the hook. Only that CO₂ produced in comparison to the methane produced in cow flatus is negligible.

I hope Barkchevious has enjoyed this little lesson on farting cows.

Sure you said that right?

Exclusively as a result of digestion. Probably could have worded that better.

[homersapien 12,172]

Biogenic methane and nitrous oxide contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States than anything else. Carbon based fossil fuels do emit other things that can be addressed through improved exhaust systems but the big ticket item for greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial farming techniques.

With that in mind, is ethanol a really bad idea?

I think it is in terms of fuel lines and injectors. It leaves a lot of sludge behind in the fuel system....however it does improve the performance of a turbocharged engine.

I'd rather see an engine using a safe method of hydrogen delivery in the combustion chamber.

I thought the only problem with hydrogen is storage and infrastracture isn't it? The engines running it are safe enough aren't they?

I know there are some "demonstration" cars and fueling stations being operated by someone.

[homersapien 12,172]

Interesting references FWIW:

http://www.progressivedairy.com/~prodairy/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6491:how-much-gas-do-cows-produce&catid=77:manure&Itemid=121

http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2

[homersapien 12,172]

But to answer your question, the gas that bovines emit are derived from organic carbon sources which are already part of the natural cycle. So they aren't really adding carbon to the cycle in a long term sense.

Auburn researchers would disagree with you. In fact, they see methane as one of the leading indicators for greenhouse gas emissions in North America.

Beat me to it. I was just about to bring this up.

Here's the link I posted in the other thread. The problem isn't the carbon. It's the methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. It's the result of industrial farming techniques like feeding with fast growing low nutrient ryegrass.

Yeah, cows produce methane. And as carbon molecules go, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

But that doesn't let humans off the hook. Yes, bovine-produced gas is recycling atmospheric carbon rather than pumping vast quantities of buried carbon into the atmosphere like fossil fuel consumption. But as you point out, modern agricultural methods contribute to the problem. Mono-culture growing of grass and grains (for cattle feed) does not trap carbon in the soil to be eventually buried, the way natural vegetation and forests do. And modern agricultural methods are heavily petroleum dependent for both fuel and petrochemicals, or as some have described: "just a machine for converting petroleum into food and profits."

Historically, beef only became the dominant animal protein in our diets with the exploitation of the great American grasslands. Prior to that, pigs, sheep, fowl, and seafood were much more common in diets worldwide. Yes, some native groups--the Plains Indians, natives of the African grasslands, etc.--subsided largely on ruminants, but they did not significantly change the ecology of their homelands in the process (at least not since the post-ice age extinctions of mammoths, mastodons, and other mega-fauna, to which overhunting may have contributed). For that matter, meat in general did not make up such a large proportion of human diet before the American beef industry (unless you go back to paleolithic days). The vast empty mid-continental grasslands after the near extinction of the bison, combined with industrial technology (railroads, refrigeration, etc.), produced our American addiction to beef. And we exported that addiction to much of the modern world.

That being said, and even though the direct consumption of vegetable protein might more efficiently feed more people than processing said protein through animals as some vegetarians suggest, I'm not ready to give up my beef. But I don't feel a need to destroy the planet so I can eat it every day or regularly exploit the lazy convenience of a fast food drive-in window. And I don't blame or begrudge the small family farmer/rancher for simply trying to make a living.

As for the original topic of climate change:

For those who see global warming as a liberal hoax unsupported by science, I acknowledge your viewpoint and respect your right to it even if I disagree. I'm not even terribly offended to be called stupid or brainwashed, as that is mere opinion. However, I am for now firmly convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence shows global warming is occurring NOW, threatens our way of life, and humans are a major cause. Also, as a scientist, I am open to the idea that future evidence that could change my opinion, but I have not seen it to date.

( ...just wanted let you to know, so you can decide for yourself if your current arguments are a waste of energy on me. Otherwise, enjoy the debate. :)/> )

Humans contribute, no doubt. I support the belief that we have a smaller effect on global climates than some make the case for. The planet has evolved through many changes over millions of years....well before the first human stepped foot. I think it has more to do with to solar system positioning, polar shift due to electromagnetic changes, and human involvement. How do we tax or give credits for that?

You do understand that AGW theorists consider all of that natural variation in their work. The fact the climate has changed for natural (non anthropogenic) reasons does not disprove AGW at all. If anything, it makes it a little scarier.

[Strychnine 1,808]

Biogenic methane and nitrous oxide contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States than anything else. Carbon based fossil fuels do emit other things that can be addressed through improved exhaust systems but the big ticket item for greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial farming techniques.

With that in mind, is ethanol a really bad idea?

Especially not if you're an auto enthusiast. Fun things happen when ethanol meets a turbo and direct injection.

I can't find the link, but ethanol is (the or a?) leading contributor in engine fuel leaks.

In older engines, sure. Anything that uses cork gaskets is going to hate it. If it was such an awful thing, Underground Racing wouldn't be using it in twin-turbo Gallardos, and Porsche 911 Turbo's wouldn't have tuners cranking up the boost with it. My own knowledge of it comes from a friend's BMW 135i with upgraded turbos. On pump gas (93 octane), it consistently puts down between 480-500rwhp. When switched over to E85, it starts knocking on the door of 600rwhp. It's basically like having access to cheaper race gas that isn't leaded.

[autigeremt 7,134]

But to answer your question, the gas that bovines emit are derived from organic carbon sources which are already part of the natural cycle. So they aren't really adding carbon to the cycle in a long term sense.

Auburn researchers would disagree with you. In fact, they see methane as one of the leading indicators for greenhouse gas emissions in North America.

Beat me to it. I was just about to bring this up.

Here's the link I posted in the other thread. The problem isn't the carbon. It's the methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. It's the result of industrial farming techniques like feeding with fast growing low nutrient ryegrass.

Yeah, cows produce methane. And as carbon molecules go, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

But that doesn't let humans off the hook. Yes, bovine-produced gas is recycling atmospheric carbon rather than pumping vast quantities of buried carbon into the atmosphere like fossil fuel consumption. But as you point out, modern agricultural methods contribute to the problem. Mono-culture growing of grass and grains (for cattle feed) does not trap carbon in the soil to be eventually buried, the way natural vegetation and forests do. And modern agricultural methods are heavily petroleum dependent for both fuel and petrochemicals, or as some have described: "just a machine for converting petroleum into food and profits."

Historically, beef only became the dominant animal protein in our diets with the exploitation of the great American grasslands. Prior to that, pigs, sheep, fowl, and seafood were much more common in diets worldwide. Yes, some native groups--the Plains Indians, natives of the African grasslands, etc.--subsided largely on ruminants, but they did not significantly change the ecology of their homelands in the process (at least not since the post-ice age extinctions of mammoths, mastodons, and other mega-fauna, to which overhunting may have contributed). For that matter, meat in general did not make up such a large proportion of human diet before the American beef industry (unless you go back to paleolithic days). The vast empty mid-continental grasslands after the near extinction of the bison, combined with industrial technology (railroads, refrigeration, etc.), produced our American addiction to beef. And we exported that addiction to much of the modern world.

That being said, and even though the direct consumption of vegetable protein might more efficiently feed more people than processing said protein through animals as some vegetarians suggest, I'm not ready to give up my beef. But I don't feel a need to destroy the planet so I can eat it every day or regularly exploit the lazy convenience of a fast food drive-in window. And I don't blame or begrudge the small family farmer/rancher for simply trying to make a living.

As for the original topic of climate change:

For those who see global warming as a liberal hoax unsupported by science, I acknowledge your viewpoint and respect your right to it even if I disagree. I'm not even terribly offended to be called stupid or brainwashed, as that is mere opinion. However, I am for now firmly convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence shows global warming is occurring NOW, threatens our way of life, and humans are a major cause. Also, as a scientist, I am open to the idea that future evidence that could change my opinion, but I have not seen it to date.

( ...just wanted let you to know, so you can decide for yourself if your current arguments are a waste of energy on me. Otherwise, enjoy the debate. :)/> )

Humans contribute, no doubt. I support the belief that we have a smaller effect on global climates than some make the case for. The planet has evolved through many changes over millions of years....well before the first human stepped foot. I think it has more to do with to solar system positioning, polar shift due to electromagnetic changes, and human involvement. How do we tax or give credits for that?

You do understand that AGW theorists consider all of that natural variation in their work. The fact the climate has changed for natural (non anthropogenic) reasons does not disprove AGW at all. If anything, it makes it a little scarier.

Tell that to your friends around the world. All they want to do is tax people and regulate us into the dark ages while living a life of kings (insert Al Gore) instead of working to fix the problems we can fix. You DO realize that, don't you? Climate change isn't about man alone. It's about nature and how we evolve because of it.

[homersapien 12,172]

Biogenic methane and nitrous oxide contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States than anything else. Carbon based fossil fuels do emit other things that can be addressed through improved exhaust systems but the big ticket item for greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial farming techniques.

With that in mind, is ethanol a really bad idea?

Especially not if you're an auto enthusiast. Fun things happen when ethanol meets a turbo and direct injection.

I can't find the link, but ethanol is (the or a?) leading contributor in engine fuel leaks.

In older engines, sure. Anything that uses cork gaskets is going to hate it. If it was such an awful thing, Underground Racing wouldn't be using it in twin-turbo Gallardos, and Porsche 911 Turbo's wouldn't have tuners cranking up the boost with it. My own knowledge of it comes from a friend's BMW 135i with upgraded turbos. On pump gas (93 octane), it consistently puts down between 480-500rwhp. When switched over to E85, it starts knocking on the door of 600rwhp. It's basically like having access to cheaper race gas that isn't leaded.

Presumably that hp increase comes from re-tuning the engine for higher boost? The ethanol alone shouldn't increase hp. In other words, the ethanol is raising the octane rating, not adding more energy per se'

[homersapien 12,172]

But to answer your question, the gas that bovines emit are derived from organic carbon sources which are already part of the natural cycle. So they aren't really adding carbon to the cycle in a long term sense.

Auburn researchers would disagree with you. In fact, they see methane as one of the leading indicators for greenhouse gas emissions in North America.

Beat me to it. I was just about to bring this up.

Here's the link I posted in the other thread. The problem isn't the carbon. It's the methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. It's the result of industrial farming techniques like feeding with fast growing low nutrient ryegrass.

Yeah, cows produce methane. And as carbon molecules go, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

But that doesn't let humans off the hook. Yes, bovine-produced gas is recycling atmospheric carbon rather than pumping vast quantities of buried carbon into the atmosphere like fossil fuel consumption. But as you point out, modern agricultural methods contribute to the problem. Mono-culture growing of grass and grains (for cattle feed) does not trap carbon in the soil to be eventually buried, the way natural vegetation and forests do. And modern agricultural methods are heavily petroleum dependent for both fuel and petrochemicals, or as some have described: "just a machine for converting petroleum into food and profits."

Historically, beef only became the dominant animal protein in our diets with the exploitation of the great American grasslands. Prior to that, pigs, sheep, fowl, and seafood were much more common in diets worldwide. Yes, some native groups--the Plains Indians, natives of the African grasslands, etc.--subsided largely on ruminants, but they did not significantly change the ecology of their homelands in the process (at least not since the post-ice age extinctions of mammoths, mastodons, and other mega-fauna, to which overhunting may have contributed). For that matter, meat in general did not make up such a large proportion of human diet before the American beef industry (unless you go back to paleolithic days). The vast empty mid-continental grasslands after the near extinction of the bison, combined with industrial technology (railroads, refrigeration, etc.), produced our American addiction to beef. And we exported that addiction to much of the modern world.

That being said, and even though the direct consumption of vegetable protein might more efficiently feed more people than processing said protein through animals as some vegetarians suggest, I'm not ready to give up my beef. But I don't feel a need to destroy the planet so I can eat it every day or regularly exploit the lazy convenience of a fast food drive-in window. And I don't blame or begrudge the small family farmer/rancher for simply trying to make a living.

As for the original topic of climate change:

For those who see global warming as a liberal hoax unsupported by science, I acknowledge your viewpoint and respect your right to it even if I disagree. I'm not even terribly offended to be called stupid or brainwashed, as that is mere opinion. However, I am for now firmly convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence shows global warming is occurring NOW, threatens our way of life, and humans are a major cause. Also, as a scientist, I am open to the idea that future evidence that could change my opinion, but I have not seen it to date.

( ...just wanted let you to know, so you can decide for yourself if your current arguments are a waste of energy on me. Otherwise, enjoy the debate. :)/> )

Humans contribute, no doubt. I support the belief that we have a smaller effect on global climates than some make the case for. The planet has evolved through many changes over millions of years....well before the first human stepped foot. I think it has more to do with to solar system positioning, polar shift due to electromagnetic changes, and human involvement. How do we tax or give credits for that?

You do understand that AGW theorists consider all of that natural variation in their work. The fact the climate has changed for natural (non anthropogenic) reasons does not disprove AGW at all. If anything, it makes it a little scarier.

Tell that to your friends around the world. All they want to do is tax people and regulate us into the dark ages while living a life of kings (insert Al Gore) instead of working to fix the problems we can fix. You DO realize that, don't you? Climate change isn't about man alone. It's about nature and how we evolve because of it.

No one said that climate change is solely anthropomorphic. It's the increment of change that is anthropomorphic that's at issue. So by continuing to point out that natural change has and does occur implies you don't understand that science already factors that in it's conclusions. It has absolutely no bearing on whether or not AGW is occurring.

And you continue to argue nefarious motivations when scientists are simply stating what their research indicates. In fact, in determining what is actually happening, what we do about it is a red herring. It's not relevant to the question.

Even if one assumes there are people who are trying to take some sort of political or financial advantage from the reality, that doesn't affect the reality. And if there are, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. The profit motivation is a (traditionally) great way to make progress in a free market economy.

Theories about some sort of political collusion emanating from the scientific community are absurd. It's not logical or rational. How long has AGW been "in play" as a theory? Creating a (global) hoax to somehow make money off it is just not a realistic business model. It's comic book logic.

But it is obvious there are plenty of people who see their economic interests in coal and oil at risk. Trying to obfuscate or deny the reality of AGW is most definitely a viable strategy to maintain their profits. Every additional day of delay represents money in their pocket.

So if you insist this is about money instead of science, you are looking in the wrong direction.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

You people! What are you all, a bunch of 17 year old street racers? I don't care about octane or performance boost. What is the total effect of ethanol on the environment? I swear, it's like trying to talk about the environment with my brother's kids. Stop being juvenile delinquents for a moment, go back to being grownup engineers and scientists, and give me the answer I deserve. No, the answer I demand.

All three of you better straighten up, right now! I trust we will not have to have this type of conversation again.

[homersapien 12,172]

You people! What are you all, a bunch of 17 year old street racers? I don't care about octane or performance boost. What is the total effect of ethanol on the environment? I swear, it's like trying to talk about the environment with my brother's kids. Stop being juvenile delinquents for a moment, go back to being grownup engineers and scientists, and give me the answer I deserve. No, the answer I demand.

All three of you better straighten up, right now! I trust we will not have to have this type of conversation again.

You sound like a man who needs more toys.

[Strychnine 1,808]

Biogenic methane and nitrous oxide contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States than anything else. Carbon based fossil fuels do emit other things that can be addressed through improved exhaust systems but the big ticket item for greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial farming techniques.

With that in mind, is ethanol a really bad idea?

Especially not if you're an auto enthusiast. Fun things happen when ethanol meets a turbo and direct injection.

I can't find the link, but ethanol is (the or a?) leading contributor in engine fuel leaks.

In older engines, sure. Anything that uses cork gaskets is going to hate it. If it was such an awful thing, Underground Racing wouldn't be using it in twin-turbo Gallardos, and Porsche 911 Turbo's wouldn't have tuners cranking up the boost with it. My own knowledge of it comes from a friend's BMW 135i with upgraded turbos. On pump gas (93 octane), it consistently puts down between 480-500rwhp. When switched over to E85, it starts knocking on the door of 600rwhp. It's basically like having access to cheaper race gas that isn't leaded.

Presumably that hp increase comes from re-tuning the engine for higher boost? The ethanol alone shouldn't increase hp. In other words, the ethanol is raising the octane rating, not adding more energy per se'

Ethanol has an advantage with any application, as you can increase timing. In forced induction in particular, it brings the advantage of being able to run higher cylinder pressures without knock (more boost). Combine the two, and you see why the turbo crowd is maintaining tuning maps to use it as a cheaper race fuel. The main disadvantage is that you use a lot more of it. In tuning terms, you would say ethanol is tuned richer, often by 30 percent.

[Strychnine 1,808]

You people! What are you all, a bunch of 17 year old street racers? I don't care about octane or performance boost. What is the total effect of ethanol on the environment? I swear, it's like trying to talk about the environment with my brother's kids. Stop being juvenile delinquents for a moment, go back to being grownup engineers and scientists, and give me the answer I deserve. No, the answer I demand.

All three of you better straighten up, right now! I trust we will not have to have this type of conversation again.

I may or may not participate in street racing (in Mexico, of course). As for the environment? Well, I have been known to downshift when I am next to a Prius, so they can hear me hurt the environment.

[homersapien 12,172]

Biogenic methane and nitrous oxide contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States than anything else. Carbon based fossil fuels do emit other things that can be addressed through improved exhaust systems but the big ticket item for greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial farming techniques.

With that in mind, is ethanol a really bad idea?

Especially not if you're an auto enthusiast. Fun things happen when ethanol meets a turbo and direct injection.

I can't find the link, but ethanol is (the or a?) leading contributor in engine fuel leaks.

In older engines, sure. Anything that uses cork gaskets is going to hate it. If it was such an awful thing, Underground Racing wouldn't be using it in twin-turbo Gallardos, and Porsche 911 Turbo's wouldn't have tuners cranking up the boost with it. My own knowledge of it comes from a friend's BMW 135i with upgraded turbos. On pump gas (93 octane), it consistently puts down between 480-500rwhp. When switched over to E85, it starts knocking on the door of 600rwhp. It's basically like having access to cheaper race gas that isn't leaded.

Presumably that hp increase comes from re-tuning the engine for higher boost? The ethanol alone shouldn't increase hp. In other words, the ethanol is raising the octane rating, not adding more energy per se'

Ethanol has an advantage with any application, as you can increase timing. In forced induction in particular, it brings the advantage of being able to run higher cylinder pressures without knock (more boost). Combine the two, and you see why the turbo crowd is maintaining tuning maps to use it as a cheaper race fuel. The main disadvantage is that you use a lot more of it. In tuning terms, you would say ethanol is tuned richer, often by 30 percent.

Exactly. You can derive more power but at the cost of fuel efficiency.

Do you know if (stock) engines with programmed timing (anti-knock sensors, etc.) will actually advance timing if ETOH fuel is used?

Seems like this could be a possibility with the more advanced engine control systems.

[homersapien 12,172]

You people! What are you all, a bunch of 17 year old street racers? I don't care about octane or performance boost. What is the total effect of ethanol on the environment? I swear, it's like trying to talk about the environment with my brother's kids. Stop being juvenile delinquents for a moment, go back to being grownup engineers and scientists, and give me the answer I deserve. No, the answer I demand.

All three of you better straighten up, right now! I trust we will not have to have this type of conversation again.

I may or may not participate in street racing (in Mexico, of course). As for the environment? Well, I have been known to downshift when I am next to a Prius, so they can hear me hurt the environment.

Better stay away from the Teslas. Electric motors can be torque monsters.

[quietfan 233]

Theories about some sort of political collusion emanating from the scientific community are absurd. It's not logical or rational.

Absolutely! The idea that there's some sort of grand conspiracy among scientists to toe the "company line" only shows just how ignorant some people can be of how science works. Every scientist on this planet would love to have the evidence to overturn current theory or "conventional wisdom". That's what science does: discover new things. And such revolutions are what win Nobel Prizes! No hypothesis or theory is sacrosanct in science.

Likewise, every respectable scientist is also wary of making unsubstantiated claims. It's a field where there are myriad others eager to double check your claims. You have to have the evidence, or your reputation and career can be ruined! Only poor scientists or crackpots would go that route.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Oh, okay, you two didn't take my red line seriously. Well fine. As of this moment, you two are on the list.

[Strychnine 1,808]

Biogenic methane and nitrous oxide contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States than anything else. Carbon based fossil fuels do emit other things that can be addressed through improved exhaust systems but the big ticket item for greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial farming techniques.

With that in mind, is ethanol a really bad idea?

Especially not if you're an auto enthusiast. Fun things happen when ethanol meets a turbo and direct injection.

I can't find the link, but ethanol is (the or a?) leading contributor in engine fuel leaks.

In older engines, sure. Anything that uses cork gaskets is going to hate it. If it was such an awful thing, Underground Racing wouldn't be using it in twin-turbo Gallardos, and Porsche 911 Turbo's wouldn't have tuners cranking up the boost with it. My own knowledge of it comes from a friend's BMW 135i with upgraded turbos. On pump gas (93 octane), it consistently puts down between 480-500rwhp. When switched over to E85, it starts knocking on the door of 600rwhp. It's basically like having access to cheaper race gas that isn't leaded.

Presumably that hp increase comes from re-tuning the engine for higher boost? The ethanol alone shouldn't increase hp. In other words, the ethanol is raising the octane rating, not adding more energy per se'

Ethanol has an advantage with any application, as you can increase timing. In forced induction in particular, it brings the advantage of being able to run higher cylinder pressures without knock (more boost). Combine the two, and you see why the turbo crowd is maintaining tuning maps to use it as a cheaper race fuel. The main disadvantage is that you use a lot more of it. In tuning terms, you would say ethanol is tuned richer, often by 30 percent.

Exactly. You can derive more power but at the cost of fuel efficiency.

Do you know if (stock) engines with programmed timing (anti-knock sensors, etc.) will actually advance timing if ETOH fuel is used?

Seems like this could be a possibility with the more advanced engine control systems.

I've been keen to take a look at the timing tables of a flex-fuel ECU, but no one really modifies them, so I haven't had a chance. I would think that it would have to be able to advance or retard timing at a range greater than an ECU designed for straight petrol, simply because of the vast difference in optimal AFR that you see between petrol and E85. As for Tesla's, I've seen a few at Caffeine & Octane get togethers, but never seen one run in person. Another interesting one is the Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Electric Drive.

[Strychnine 1,808]

Oh, okay, you two didn't take my red line seriously. Well fine. As of this moment, you two are on the list.

Red line? We don't take no stinkin' red lines surrusly round deez parts.

[AUisAll 2]

LOL. After reading the title of this thread I had to laugh again at the irony. 'GOP: the party of stupid' The GOP doesn't believe in the hoax of Global warming so we're 'stupid'. You can't make this stuff up. Liberalism is no doubt a sign of Mental illness at best and insanity at worst and them falling for the GW scam is just more evidence.

So presumably, the CNA's Military Advisory Board is an active perpetrator of this hoax?

http://www.cna.org/s...es/MAB_2014.pdf

What I believe is you people have been duped by a hoax. I believe in common sense, I believe the leaked emails from the so called 'climate experts' that showed they had to 'fix' the numbers because their theory wasn't working out (had to keep the money coming) proves it is a scam and I believe in winter and summer and I believe you people would have literally dropped a turd in your pants if you were here when the glaciers melted out of Missouri.

[Weegle777 78]

Biogenic methane and nitrous oxide contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States than anything else. Carbon based fossil fuels do emit other things that can be addressed through improved exhaust systems but the big ticket item for greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial farming techniques.

With that in mind, is ethanol a really bad idea?

Not for car and lawn mower repair shops, they love the stuff.