From: rabbits@carson.u.washington.edu (Adolf Maas)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: New Gasoline Ripoff
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:51:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov13.005123.10477
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Nov6.143213.25708@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> sdb@redbeard.physics.fsu.edu (Scott D. Berry) writes:
>In article <Bx9C7B.1As@ssesco.com> nau@ssesco.com (William Nau) writes:
>>>My info is from a report on "All Things Considered" which is 
>>>apparently more detailed than your info.  MPG changes should be
>>>around 3% or so, for newer cars.  For cars older than ~15 years,
>>>MPG should actually increase.  The reduction in emissions is
>>>greater than this, so the effect is a real change for the better,
>>>as far as total emissions.
>>
>>I read somewhere (could be wrong) that there would be a significant
>>reduction in C02 emissions.
>
>Probably CO.

The idea is that the oxygen in the ethanol (or methanol) is more reactive
than the oxy that gets pulled out of the air, lowers the combustion temp
(not so that you'd really notice), and helps the gasoline hydrocarbons to
burn more completely, especially on those short drives that don't allow
your engine to heat up to peak temp (especially this time of year).  If the
gasoline was to burn completely, the only by-products (emissions) would be
CO2 and H2O (in the form of vapor), like alcohol.

>
>>  However, there is a large increase in
>>some sort of organic emissions.  These emissions were to be just
>
>Probably hydrocarbons (HC's).
>
Actually, it will reduce your "organics" (hate to tell you this, but CO2
is considered an inorganic-organic molecule) if your engine is running
right- if your HC's go up, then that means your engine is in need of at
least a tune-up.  The laws of organic chemistry sez that methanol or
ethanol plus gasoline plus air ignition source cannot equal more HC's than
gasoline plus air plus ignition.


>>as harmful as C02, but because they are not classified that way under
>>law, we are not suppoed to believe it.  I understand that some farm
>>lobbiest got the law changed so that they organic emissions wouldn't
>>be counted.

Nope.  The laws, if anything, have required that HC emission levels have
to go down over the next couple of years

 >>
>>>You are wrong -- alcohol is more expensive than the gas.


Yes, ethanol costs more.  Methanol costs about the same. However, liter for
liter, methanol provides a 66% better oxygenation curve than ethanol, so to
achieve the effect of 10% ethanol, you only have to have 3.3% methanol. 
And methanol is far cheaper to manufacture and purify, along with no
federal taxes on it's production (p.s. it can be made from corn stalks,
wood shavings, sawdust, hay...etc- anything that contains cellulose or
vegetable fibers)                                                         
>>>How much more are the costs?  (My impression is that the increase is
>>>~$.05/gal.)  Are you accounting for the benefits such as cleaner air
>>>and its effect on the general public health?
>>
>>Like I said according to my information (how good it is, I don't know)
>>it does not clean up the air.  It just changes what kind of crap we're
>>putting into it.  From what I've seen in the past it should also cost
>>less to purchase.
>>-- 
>>William R. Nau

Sorry, Bill- It may not "clean" up the air- only an ionic exchange unit
can really do that, but it does lower the emissions that spew out of
exhaust pipes.  Especially the toxic ones.  I don't know that your info is
all that good, either.  To give you an idea, a vehicle that runs purely
upon ethanol or methanol would put out NO HC's or CO- only H2O and CO2,
both substances that are naturally occuring in the atmosphere in large
quantities.  At least I'd much rather be inhaling them than CO or HC's.

Adolf Maas
Researcher, Department of Biological Structure
University of Washington, School of Medicine
rabbits@u.washington.edu