Reply With QuoteMaybe if we strapped the Greenies to a turbine and made them turn it? Would generate heaps, but wait... that would mean they'd have to work.
They are idiots, plain and simple. Shoot them. They'll be happier that way.
Cheers,
Tim
Originally Posted by BrewGuru
Very good point !!! Not to mention how much does a solar panel cost?
Maybe if we strapped the Greenies to a turbine and made them turn it? Would generate heaps, but wait... that would mean they'd have to work.
They are idiots, plain and simple. Shoot them. They'll be happier that way.
Cheers,
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
Spot on tim.cheers
My 2007 Honda manual specifically states that the warranty is void if Ethanol fuel is used, never mind the tank.
Replenishable fuel bring it on but lets have fuel that doesn't damage motors, or inexpensive motors?
What the Outboard Manufacturers say ( 2008 models)
Overall modern outboards are fine with fresh ethanol up to E10, but they warn about fuel system risks.
Evinrude: Evinrude motors can tolerate up to 10% alcohol in fuels, (which is the maximum currently sold in Australia)
Honda: Honda engines are designed for good performance and efficient operation using gasoline containing from 0 to 10% ethanol.
Mercury: Mercury engines will withstand up to 10 percent ethanol in gasoline
Suzuki: Recommends the use of pure gasoline without alcohol, but can use up to 10% alcohol if necessary.
Tohatsu: Recommends use of fuel up to only 10% ethanol. Voids the warranty for all alcohol-fuel related malfunctions.
Yamaha: All 2008 and later models are suitable for use with Ethanol E10 blended fuel. Models prior to 2008 are not suitable for Ethanol blended fuels.
The cautious wording says it all from the manufacturers. They of course forget to comment that you won't get full power, won't get ecconomy and use causes increased internal corrosion on fuel components. There is possibly issues with newer synthetic oils as well. The only reason the manufacturers comment that it is possible is politics and regulations. If you like your mtor don't use it - can't say it simpler than that.
Even if motors were OK with it it assumes a pure fuel used fresh. We all know that in the real world this doesn't happen. No manufacturer of fuel in Australia recomends a ethanol fuel for a marine activity and most specifically say don't.
We all have to realise that there is things that work in a lab and things that work in the real word.
hey Birko - you say food production isn't affected - well thats not correct.
what everyone here hasn't said is that in Mexico, there is a dire shortage of corn (staple for Mexicans) because farmers get more money where it is heavily subsidised by the US for ethanol.
its going to spread to other third world countries also, where it will only add to food shortages and the only people who will suffer is the poor.
also its known that production of ethanol makes as much carbon emissions and uses as much oil as regular fuel takes to produce.
yes we need to seek alternatives to oil, however ethanol is a flawed solution with ramifications far too serious for the world to ignore. Sure in Aus we are first world - we have food etc and can afford it.
What happens when it becomes mandatory and increases in ratio and our 3rd world neighbours realise they can get a truckload of money by importing cane here? I'll tell you - their people will starve and you will see more riots and civil unrest such that we saw recently in Phillipines.
The only people who benefit from ethanol is you, the cane farmer. sorry but look at the facts - its a terrible social policy with no tangible economic or environmental benefits.
Last edited by mik01; 22-07-2008 at 05:21 PM. Reason: getting facts right
As a slight offside to this thread - I took my Son's Toyota Yaris (horrible, gutless thing it is!) in for a service at a Large dealership today. He has been complaining that some tanks of fuel are giving him up to 10% less range than usual.
And I drove a turbo diesel 200 series Cruiser for the first time, can't wait for mine to arrive. WOW!!! BUT NOVEMBER????
The Service Manager's comment was that regardless of Ethanol use, there is a certain large Grocery Chain selling fuel that tends to sell very poor quality unleaded fuel. He suggested avoiding it like the plague. Do not buy it. Don't let the shopper dockets pull the Wool over your eyes... Up to 10% less performance, which matches the lack the Boy's been experiencing, and guess where he buys his fuel?
Cheers,
Tim
Last edited by TimiBoy; 23-07-2008 at 05:47 AM. Reason: missed something...
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
please read this parliamentary report that Bligh is ignoring - the crux of this is that there is no real benefit to ethanol use in petroleum. As I said above, the only winner is the sugar cane growers - hence why Birko is all for it.
he would have a guaranteed buyer of huge volumes of cane, an artificially inflated cane price, and the taxpayer would pay for it all through huge subsidies that keep the ethanol blend at comparative pump prices with regular.
do your own research people - ethanol is not the answer - it is already a dead duck... and the Australian Govt knows it
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/c...03/03Cib12.htm
We'd better act quick and get this info out all those other countries before it's too late. opps!
Miko1
Thanks for your input mate. Im just having abit of trouble getting my head around a few of your comments.
Mexico and corn??. I dont understand. Sugar production world wide is in surplus. What does that have to do with corn in mexico. Not a food surplus issue with sugar.
Not sure how you would be under the perceptiopn that the tax payer would pay for it through subsidies. What subsidies mate, please let me know so I can let the accountant know.
Mate if you have a beef with ethanol just dont use it, Im not asking you to shove it in your motor that is not designed for it. But oil is running out. If there is no alternative what is going to happen? For gods sake they are thinking about mining shale oil just south of Proserpine which is one of the the main feeder systems to the GBR.
Coming down to the profit thing, if you would rather see petrol profits go to companies such as BP, Shell etc than see it go to a australia based industry that employes about 50,000 people than thats ok.
But can I ask you, have you ever seen a Shell or BP director at your local impoundment stocking accociation meeting. Like barra fishing by chance, do a bit of research and find out who funded a fair percentage of teemburra dam. No it wasnt BP or shell, or the AFC fishing championships for that matter (which is a bloody good series by the way). Cane farmers make a profit cant have that. What the hell do they contribute any way???
Last one, please give me your best alternative besides ethanol. Imagine you are in world control and give us your solution. Remember it has to cost less, not stave the mexicans, run in every engine that can still start and not kill of the enviroment. Pretty simple hey.
Hope the weather is a bit better where you are as opposed to here, which is cold windy and a bit wet.
Cheers
Birko
I didn't expect you to like my comments Birko, but I stand 100% behind the facts.
Look past sugar cane, as its not the only source used to create ethanol - wheat also.
did you read the parlimentary report contained in the link? it answers all your questions.
there is evidence of component degradation in engines.
there is evidence that food prices are going up due to shortages - mexico was simply an example of how one crop used for ethanol can affect the whole population.
there is evidence that it costs twice as much to produce than oil
sugar cane, corn who cares - betcha every food stuff that uses sugar will rise in price when ethanol starts drawing all the resources.
quote from the govt report -
"A major disadvantage of fuel ethanol is its production cost, which is around 70 cents a litre compared with around 35 cents per litreat current world crude oil pricesfor unleaded petrol. Consequently, the production of ethanol requires government assistance to be competitive even in the larger producers such as Brazil and the United States. A study by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics found that the production of ethanol is not commercially viable in Australia without assistance."
and another -
"
There have been suggestions that the ailing sugar industry could be a direct beneficiary of an expansion of the ethanol industry via the mandatory use of ethanol blended petrol, in much the same way as corn producers have benefited from such programs in the mid-western United States. Whilst intuitively this suggestion would appear fundamentally sound, there are other important production and financial considerations. This would include whether sugar production would need to be directed primarily towards the ethanol market, which effectively would substantially increase the cost of ethanol feedstock. "
which means everything that derives its core ingredients from sugar and wheat will go up considerably - hence high food costs across the board.
its just bad social, economic and environmental policy with minimal benefits (if any).
also - better tell your accountant about these cherries from the Govt -
"
Bounty
In the 199394 Budget, the Keating Government announced that it would provide a bounty for domestic production of fuel ethanol. The bounty came into effect on 23 June 1994 under the Bounty (Fuel Ethanol) Act 1994. The bounty was additional to the zero-rating of excise.
The Howard Government announced the abolition of the bounty in the 199697 Budget. The Minister for Resources and Energy stated that the Government decided to end the scheme because it did not achieve its objective.(21) The Minister's decision was based on a reportby the Bureau of Resource Sciences, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and a steering committee representing five departmentsthat recommended the bounty cease.(22) The Report concluded among other things that:
While the Scheme has initiated new production, distribution and use of fuel ethanol, an economically viable industry has not been developed.(23)Production Subsidy
When the Government imposed excise on fuel ethanol, it also announced a subsidy to domestic production of the same amount. The subsidy is to be provided over 12 months while the Government considers long-term arrangements for the renewable energy industry. The budgetary subsidy will make the cost of assistance transparent, which was not the case when excise was zero-rated. The subsidy is projected to cost $26 million in 200203 and $7.2 million in 200304.(24)
On an energy content basis, the value of the subsidy exceeds the rate of excise. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics estimated that if the zero-rating of excise were replaced by a subsidy of 38 cents per litre, the subsidy would be 50 per cent greater than the excise on petrol.(25)"
sorry mate - I don't have anything against you, or sugar cane farmers or any farmers. I agree 100% that we need alternatives to oil. and I don't have any answers.
but if you think that corn and sugar in mexico, brazil wherever, doesn't have an effect on us think again. like oil and gas, wheat and cane would be sold on a global price and the richer countries will buy up all the ethanol derivatives (assuming ethanol is the holy grail).
my last point from this report -
"
The positive benefits relating to greenhouse gas emissions primarily reduced carbon dioxide emissions depends upon how the ethanol is produced. Whilst ethanol produced from cellulosic (woody) feedstock results in substantially reduced full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions, ethanol produced from starchy crops as in Australia (wheat waste and sugar cane) does not produce significant full fuel cycle greenhouse gas savings over conventionally produced gasoline.(34) Differences in the full fuel cycle analyses arise because of differences in the production processes. Agriculture production of wheat and sugar involve high use of machinery and fertiliser, which in themselves are net emitters of greenhouse gases."
cheers mate - we agree to disagree and no sense in getting up in arms about things. this is a great debate and I hope for your sake that you can benefit from ethanol - it just scares the hell out of me when the evidence points to serious economic and environmental flaws in the ethanol 'holy grail' logic.
Recent research suggests that cellulosic crops such as Switchgrass provide a much better net energy production than corn, producing over five times as much energy as the total used to produce the crop and convert it to fuel. If this research is confirmed, cellulosic crops will most likely displace corn as the main fuel crop for producing bioethanol in th US.
Another benefit some claim-
When added to gasoline, ethanol can replace MTBE as an anti-knock agent without poisoning drinking water as MTBE does. In the US, incidents of methyl tert(iary)-butyl ether MTBE groundwater contamination have been recorded in the majority of the 50 states, and the State of California's ban on the use of MTBE as a gasoline additive has further driven the more widespread use of ethanol as the most common fuel oxygenate.
Miko please tell how much money do you think has been spent around the world by Yamaha, Merc, Honda, Toyota, Ford, Mazda ect ect on preparing for 10% ethonal? And if it's it's a dead duck as you say why would they do that?
Cheers
Mike
Gary maybe you could suggest a workable sollution to the fuel problem in relation to boats?
It sounds like you have a fair knowledge on the topic. Should we all buy Kayak's?
Posting Permissions