Ethanol Update
 

With the recent thread activity about Ethanol I decided to talk to Cobalt, because I have a 1988 23footer. I wanted to make sure that it did not have a firbeglass tank I was told:
"Cobalt's are manufacutured with an aluminium or cross-linked polyethylene tank. We do not install fuel tanks that are made of fiberglass." And that ethanol will not harm the polyethylene or aluminum gas tanks."

The rep at Cobalt also sent me an article from Mercury Marine in regards to Ethanol. See attached it is Mercury Marine's view of Ethanol.

Just figured those that have Mercs or even not this would be an interesting post

Some new reports are showing that Ethenol may in fact eat through alluminum tanks. There are a few insurance companies that just stopped insuring boats with fiberglass tanks due to the issues of the Ethenol eating through them.

Thanks for posting this AC2717. I also have a 1998 Cobalt (232) and have been wondering about this.

Is it just me?
 

First, thanks for the post AC. Excellent info.

Second, is it just me, or do others get agitated when reading the info on ethanol. "phase separation.....3% mileage degrease......can cause significant engine problems.....fuel system failures...etc. etc. etc."

......and all for what?....so the politicians can say they're doing something about energy? Let's get real about all this. The benefits are far outweighed by the disadvantages of ethanol. Not even discussed here is the impact on our food supply, food costs, and the fact that it takes more energy to make ethanol than we get out of it.

How can we stop this madness?

Throw the bums out!

This is the Al Gore and his followers mentality of environmental awareness.Vote appropriatety.

Remember mtbe, same enviroweenies thought that was a good idea. What we need now is more domestic drilling in anwr and the gulf and waivers from the regulations to get some more refineries built.

Ethanol In Gas??
 

Out of curiosity, does the gas at the stations on and around the lake even have ethanol in it?? The reason I ask, is I recently met someone who owns many of the "Mobil On The Run" stations around the Manchester area. He informed me in January of this year that no stations North of Concord are being supplied with Ethanol in the gas. He was quite certain this was the case.

At the risk of turning this into a political debate, need I remind you and SIKSUKR that it is the current Bush administration that is pushing hard for ethanol, not so much the environmentalists.

http://www.energybulletin.net/25558.html

"Corn-based ethanol has been at the center of a well-funded misinformation campaign launched and perpetuated by the Bush Administration. In fact Nicholas Hollis, President of the Agribusiness Council, believes that "ethanol is the largest scam in our nation's history""

Yeah, some of things Bush has done are a disappointment. The crux of the problem right now though is the failure of this country to increase the domestic supply. This can be laid squarely on the shoulders of environmentalists. For years we've been hearing that high fuel prices will solve all the problems we face, unfortunately just the opposite is true, more problems are being created. Alternative fuels could be a long term solution, we need relief now. Ethanol, besides the boat issues, seems to be more of a problem than a solution.

Guess President Bush elected all these politicians to office... :D :laugh:

The scam is obvious; but thank the Renewable Fuels Association, for their continued part.

There is a Problem with Ethanol but......
 

Putting politics aside and the money hungry companies/speculators and environmentalists as well. I do not believe ethanol is the right or best answer to the air polution problem but what is?????

Corn grown for ethanol and not for human food or animal feed use is increasing and that will drive the price of non-etanaol corn related products up substantially even without oil and gas prices increasing. There are may problems fighting a fire with ethanol in the fuel as the foams used for years ..do not work now.

Oil supplies of crude oil from Saudi Arabia which is the main source "Sweet Lite Crude" and is the easiest and cheapest to refine into gasoline are dwindling. Not so much as you can see it now but the supplies are not finite as many may believe. Now China, India and other developing countries are vieing for more oil to fuel their new industries and the cars the populations are buying instead of using public, bike and motorbike/cycle transportation. the world is using more oil and we hear at the lake and elsewhere are seeing the result of that.

The US is not the biggest player or producer in the oil market today so we do pay for that at the pumps and elsewhere. We are no longer in control as we were in the 40's, 50's and 60's. Remember the 74 oil crisis ???? I do as I worked in a gas station then. Our biggest source of oil is now from Canada and I believe Venezuala for heating oil (at least for the eastern half of the US) and not the Middle East as it once was.

There are many alternative sources for getting oil but it is very expensive to do. So if you think gas prices are high now it could be worse sooner than later unless we do something sooner rather than later.

The History Channel has had 2 shows recently that address the problem with oil and give a good look at the history of oil and what is coming in our not to distant future if we do not do something to conserve and find alternative sources of energy soon.

They will be repeated in this month and are worth viewing.
Episode: Oil Apocalypse

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=273137

Episode: Oil.

http://www.history.com/shows.do?acti...isodeId=276885

Here's a neat little website, shows the US as number 3 behind Saudi Arabia and Russia in oil production.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/cou...ta.cfm?fips=US

This page shows a steady decline in domestic production since the 70's and 80's right about the time the environmental movement gained traction.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus1a.htm

I am by no means anti environment, but we seem to have a tendency to go from total disregard to stifling regulation pretty quickly without regard to consequences. Drilling in other areas should not be so difficult in this country. Oil drives our GDP, GDP allows us to eat, shut off oil now and a lot of people will suffer.
Solutions for our current problems will not come from government officials, in fact if they don't get out of the way they make it worse. When they try to solve this type of problem it ends up being a disaster, read mtbe. I'm a free market guy, I was suspicious of ethanol when it came out, now I'm sure it's the wrong choice, politicians should let the market decide what's right.

????????????????????
 

So why is it you never hear about stories such as this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuoBuhg4PL0

If this is legit it could change the world. Why wouldn't this be heralded as one of the greatest inventions of our time. Why doesn't this get the same press as a cure for "X" disease would. I mean curing our dependency on foreign oil would be just about the single greatest feat in our time on earth wouldn't it? I just happened to stumble on that video about a year ago and I have not seen or heard anything since then regarding the subject?

WOW!! Wonder if it takes more energy to separate the hydrogen from the water than it gives in power?

This brings up a story when I was a kid (sorry, I just had to do this). A much older teen age neighbor of mine wanted to prove to me he invented a process for his lawn mower to run on water. He took out a bottle, gave me a sip of the water and poured it into his lawnmower... it worked!!! I snuck back later on that night and discovered a bag he had hanging down in the neck, capturing the water.......

HHO scam
 

You've not heard more because it's not "legit". Mr Klein has re-invented "Brown's Gas", aka hydrogen. BMW has cars running internal combustion engines on pure H2 (as have other's before them) and you can increase your car's efficiency a bit by adding a little H2 to the gas/air mixture (supposedly the higher combustion temps that result increase the efficiency of the gas burning). This isn't new science in any respect. What you can't do is get energy from water to use as a fuel/energy source.

You can electrolyze water, turning it into hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). No matter what claims are made for catylists and new methods of electrolyzing (I saw one using microwaves to "zap" the water), you won't get the same energy back re-combining H2 and O2 that was needed to separate them. It's a net energy loser. Hydrogen may have a place in the scheme of things since it's relatively quick when refueling (unlike a battery) but it's a method of carrying energy (like a rechargable battery) rather than a source of energy (like oil).

I think all the hype about hydrogen as a fuel expects that electricity from coal or atomic power plants will create hydrogen. That hydrogen will be used to run cars.

We have enough coal to run the US for 300 years, by then we should have figured out something else.

Ethanol
 

Ethanol from corn might just yeild more energy than it takes to grow and produce it but it'll never replace oil as an energy source for the US. There just isn't enough land area to make it feasible. The real potential is in bacteria and/or phytoplankton than might be able to be genetically engineered to produce high grades of alcohol (or biodiesel) w/o poisoning themselves.

The problem is that while any such crop is carbon neutral and helpful on the energy independance front, you have to remember that you can't get more energy out than you put in. Plants or animals have to follow this same rule. The best you can hope for is 1000 watts per square meter in strong sunlight at high noon on the equator. Put another way that's about 1.12 HP/sq yd. You want to use 100 HP for 10 seconds, then you need at least 88 sq yards collecting sunlight for 10 seconds IF whatever process you used was 100% efficient in converting that sunlight to "fuel". More likely it'll be 1% efficient (my guess when all is said and done, see below) and now you need 100X the amount of land or 100X the time. How often do you have strong sunlight in your backyard ?

Photosynthesis in plants is maybe 1-2 % efficient in converting sunlight into chemical energy. The sugar cane Brazil grows for ethanol is the Olympic athelete of the plant world, perhaps 8% efficient. Then you have to convert that chemical energy into the chemical form you want. This all means you need a lot of area to use any plant or animal to convert light into some form of fuel. Still plants for fuel may be part of an answer (especially if you can get them to convert sludge to oil). Biofuel from algae is supposedly much more efficient but hard data is ... well ... hard to come by. Nobody has gotten the "stuff" to grow in large quantities for long enough periods of time to have a good idea. You can find studies that scale up the results from lab experiments but I don't trust them. I'll guess for the time being that such biofuels might be 10X better than our usual plant sources. Still a lot of land area but now potentially do-able, especially when you consider that the land area hypothesized for growing the algae is the hot, sunny desert regions presently not used for food production.

The Holy Grail (IMHO) is an efficient way to store electricity in a form that rivals gas in it's energy content per lb and per cubic foot. I think we can find energy sources but collecting that energy as it "dribbles" in so it can be used in "a rush" when and where we want it, is the bigger challenge, at least for mobile transportation like cars, planes, boats, etc.

Nuke plants
 

Alas the various anti-nuke groups have so scared the public that getting a nuke plant built now is too long, too expensive to do. I find it amazing that France can get >75% of it's electricity from nuke plants for the last 3 decades but we won't here due to fear.

Had to suspect it was too good to be true. How does this guy get away with this claim?
Here is his site: http://www.hytechapps.com/

Slippery
 

I note he doesn't ever make the claim that you can run your car on water alone* but instead claims his invention helps when used as a fuel additive. This can be true and is well documented with large diesel engines. With gas engines I'm a bit more skeptical though he does cite his test results.

http://www.hytechapps.com/aquygen/hh...t_20031021.pdf

*He comes mighty close, perhaps even over the line, with this part though ....

"With it, Aquygen™ Gas can be used as a primary fuel source or a fuel additive for gasoline and diesel engines. We have applied this breakthrough method in two prototype vehicles—a 1994 Ford Escort Wagon and a 1998 Ford Ranger pickup. Our current prototype generates Aquygen™ as it runs. Minimal engine modifications allow the car to combine gasoline and Aquygen™ for a typical net increase in fuel efficiency of 20-30%."

Hydrogen can be used as a primary fuel source though not generated the way he does when used as an additive (in car, as it runs). He kind of skirts this exact claim. I bet if you asked about running the car on the system alone, without any gasoline, he'd come back with "It's under investigation".

Regarding his test results ... I suspect he got exactly what he measured, no lying. The question is whether he pussyfooted it when running w/Aquygen™ Gas as an additive and/or was a little more heavy-footed when running w/o.

It would be interesting to know if GM or Ford or Toyota have looked into his technology as a general purpose, MPG enhancing system. If it worked as well as he claims on any car (or even 25% as good) the big auto companies would have snapped it up. I'm aware of a Canadian and a NZ company making similar claims for their H2 producing systems though their results were with large diesel engined tractor/trailer type rigs.

I'm no fan of George Bush.He's more Dem than Republican.It's pretty much comman knowledge which party supports more drilling of our own reserves and building more refineries and which one stifles it.Which party do all the environmentalists belong to?Having said that I do believe we have to keep developing alternative fuels.It would seem that as the efficiency of photocells continues to grow that this is one area that has promise.Hydrogen sounds great until you look at the amount of energy that is needed to produce it.Countries like Iceland that have large geothermal reserves can use that energy to make hydrogen at a reasonable cost and have started to make the switch.The good thing about high oil costs is how it evens the playing field with other energies.As much as I don't like it,in the long term scheme of things it's probably not a bad thing because it spurns other development.

Photocells
 

What I don't understand is why aren't all schools and government buildings(with flat roofs) required to install photocells on their roofs to help defray their drain on energy and, for schools closed during the summer, pump some electricity back into the grid. If the politicians want to do something, start at home.

coal kills
 

Far far more people have been killed or injured by coal mining than nuclear energy. Ingorance creates fear. Safe nukes could have been made and are being made in France. The key to French success is standardization on a design and refining that design. Our nuke history has been new designs for each plant, and alas, far too few built (none in 3 decades!). Too bad.:(

Well, looks like Mr. Klein applied for and got a patent # 6866756 on his invention.

Here is a link to the summary of the invention:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2 FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=klein.INN M.&s2=dennis.INNM.&OS=IN/klein+AND+IN/dennis&RS=IN/klein+AND+IN/dennis

This is claim 1 from the patent:

. A method for increasing the fuel efficiency of an internal combustion engine, the method comprising: a) providing an electrolyzer for electrolyzing water into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas for use as an additive to the fossil fuels on which an internal combustion engine operates such as engines in motor vehicles, the electrolyzer comprising: an electrolysis chamber, the electrolysis chamber having a removable cover serving as access means for performing routine maintenance to components in its interior space; an aqueous electrolyte solution comprising water and an electrolyte, the aqueous electrolyte solution partially filling the electrolysis chamber such that a gas reservoir region is formed above the aqueous electrolyte solution; two principal electrodes comprising an anode electrode and a cathode electrode, the two principal electrodes at least partially immersed in the aqueous electrolyte solution; and one or more supplemental electrodes at least partially immersed in the aqueous electrolyte solution and interposed between two principal electrodes that are not connected to the anode or cathode with a metallic conductor wherein the two principal electrodes and the one or more supplemental electrodes are held in a fixed spatial relationship; means for individually removing and replacing said principal electrodes and supplemental electrodes wherein the principal and supplemental electrodes are removably insertable and attached in a rack holding said electrodes in a fixed spatial relationship, said rack further comprising a retainer for securing the electrodes to the rack and said retainer further being removably attached to the electrolysis chamber; and heat sink means for removing an excess heat generated by the electrolyzer, said means including a plurality of spaced-apart fins around at least a portion of the outside surface of the electrolysis chamber; b) applying an electrical potential between the two principal electrodes wherein a gas mixture comprising hydrogen gas and oxygen gas is generated and collected in the gas reservoir region and wherein the electrolyzer is adapted to deliver the gas mixture to the fuel system of the internal combustion engine; and c) combining the gas mixture with fuel in the fuel system of the internal combustion engine.


Quite a few words and a detailed description of the device. In my experience with patents, the simpler the claims, the stronger the patent. For example, had Mr. Klein been able to patent "a device consisting of an anode and cathode with some current applied immersed in a solution to generate hydrogen and oxygen for use energizing a motor" he would have the field locked up.

I'm with Mac here, the amount of energy it takes to electrolyze water far exceeds the amount of energy it produces when you consider the efficiencies involved. Furthermore, this guy sights the use of electrolytes, which become expensive and problematic maintaining proper concentrations. There is a reason most "inventions" like this never make it to widespread use and oil company conspiracy is not it.

Irwin in Wolfeboro
 

Buy your gas at Wolfeboro Corinthian Y. C. (Irwin runs the service) they only use non-ethanol gas. Solves all problems.

Ethanol Next Week
 

I was told that Pier 19 will be receiving their first delivery of gas/ethanol next week. If they're getting it, I suspect it will soon be everywhere.

ValveTek
 

I have also heard that all future gas flowing into the Lakes Region will slowly be converted to 10% Ethenol.

I know it's a hike/ long boat ride from the Pier 19 area but for those who want to continue to shun Ethenol (as I do) keep in mind that Channel Marine has swithed to a new fuel this season called ValveTek (ethanol free). I've also found it to be the $cheapest$ on the lake this season too -- even beating Lakeport!!


Just an FYI for all.......

congress
 

Congress is to blame for ethanol not Bush.

on shore gas
 

Does anyone know if the gas station in Ctr Harbor (Irving) near the town docks is Ethanol free? I am pulling the boat out next weekend and would fill there if it was ethanol free.

If Bush shares no blame, he'd have to give up on all of his requested mandates to use Ethanol. While environmentalists have generally cooled on it's usage due to common sense, Bush has increased dramatically his mandated usage.

He shares much of the blame now.

Just filled up there on Tuesday, looked specifically for an ethanol sticker and there was none so I believe it is ethanol free, although they do advertise the gas is green low sulfur.

thanks
 

Thanks ITD. I know they were last year on my last fill up, just wanted to check to see if they changed over

Just to confirm. Irvings in Center Harbor is non-ethanol. I get gas for my boat there. Sticker would have to be on the pumps if had ethanol. One of the cheapest prices around as well. Hope it stays that way.

Dave M

I heard something scary
 

I was in a Marina on Saturday and was chatting about this, as they said by May of next year all Marina pumps and street gas stations on the lakes region will be using ethanol. Then I also heard, that I think it was the Irving in Center Harbor, I could be wrong, were receiving too many complaints about the ethanol so they changed back to ethanol free, but when someone brought some of the gas in a jar to the Marina and have it tested to see if there was ethanol in it, there was. So this gas station, not saying it was this Irving, but it was mentioned, just do not remember if it was the one that was caught, but this gas station does not have the ethanol sticker on the pump but is indeed selling ethanol gasoline.

Remeber I am not sure if it was the Irving in center Harbor or another company and place altogether, I did not do the research myself to back it up, but I wonder if someone goes to a station and there is no sticker they should take a little and bring it to be tested at a marina, they would probably do it for free?

Center Harbor followup
 

I was in last weekend and asked about the ethanol. They get their gas from Portland which supplies the non-ethanol gas. I found this out last year.
They also mentioned about having the label if it was ethanol. I mentioned about some testing that supposedly was done on their gas. Their comment was the only way they would get it is if Irving added ethanol to the tank from Portland dropped a load at Irving in Meredith, for eample and dropped of the rest at Center Harbor. To them they are still buying non-ethanol gas. I say this because on Oct 22nd they are switching over to ethanol. Don't think they would pull any fast ones if they have specfic date to switch. I have been buying gas from them for years and they know I use it for my boat.
They also mentioned that a lot of marinas have already switched over.

The big question now is how do you handle winter storage of boats now when everything gets changed over. I can't see pumping out the tank. Where would you put it and I have a small tank(40gal).

Dave M

P.S. I don't know any of the persons at Irving personally, just a customer.

The OTHER Side of Ethanol...
 

That is changing: Wood chips, algae and yeast are being examined for a domestic supply of ethanol. Is milfoil next? :)

My thoughts follow these two Wall Street Journal posts:

1) Ethanol use isn't aimed at air pollution so much as an energy-substitute for petroleum.

2) Sweden seems to be doing just fine with ethanol, and ships most of it all the way from our friends in Brazil. OTOH, the US taxes ethanol from Brazil at 54¢ per gallon! :eek:

3) My neighbors were surprised when I approved of Bill Clinton's immediate increasing of the Federal gasoline taxes in 1993. Two years ago, Alan Greenspan agreed with me. :cool:

4) Looking at US roadway infrastructure today (e.g., the collapsed bridge in Minnesota), serial Federal gas taxation increases should have been part of the energy plan to reduce foreign oil dependence.

5) Ethanol use on Winnipesaukee is no answer to pollution, as it apparently produces a hydrocarbon-rich fog which increases the amount of ozone hanging above the lake. :(

Venezuela has only the US as a customer for its oil. (It's high-sulfur oil, and only the US will refine it).

However, a present-day tyrant is now a good reason to stop buying the least expensive brands of gasoline (e.g., Citgo, Petro)—and I don't stop at those vendors: worse, he is positioning himself for a "favorable" US election outcome next month.

I read somewhere & I believe that it was a notification from my marina -- but I'll be damned If I can find it now

That :

All gas in New Hamphire will be 10% Ethenol per a State mandate!

Too much 'State' control these days... wait the Dems are in :D

Both my car and truck run like crap on ethanol, now I have no choice :(

Interesting
 

Presently there's one on-the-road gas station in Alton that advertises "no ethanol". So they won't be able to advertise that next year ....

Channel Marine
 

The ValveTech brand of gasoline they sell claims No Ethanol.

A friend of mine in Virginia has a 20 year old boat. He had to replace the gas tank, the gas lines and had the gaskets replaced in his carbureator. Because of the Ethanol formula. He said the repairs cost about $4000.
My boat is more than 20 years old. I hate the thought of paying that just because the politicians wants to subsidize the farmers. :eek:

y-landing marina
 

I filled up there last Saturday. There was a sign stating "No Ethanol". I asked the attendant what the plan was for next year and he said they had a supplier of ethanol-free fuel lined up....