CingularDuality

Have you guys heard of "flex fuel" vehicles? Evidently, there are already over 20 models on the road that are available with this option. This option costs about a hundred bucks and lets your vehicle run like a normal gasoline vehicle, or as a methanol-fueled vehicle. Methanol is less efficient, but it's under a dollar a gallon. It takes about 1.5 gallons of methanol to get the same mileage as a gallon of gasoline, so that comes out to under $1.50 for the equivalent of a gallon of gas. Less than half the cost of gasoline!

The problem is that less than 2 percent of the cars on the road have this option. With no market, why would a gas station put in a methanol pump? With no fuel available, why would anyone pay a hundred bucks for an option that they can't use? It would be very easy for our government to simply mandate that this flex fuel option be included in all vehicles made or imported into the USA (with exceptions for people willing to pay the $5,000 "fuel" tax?). I think an exception should be made for someone building a car in his garage, as well as highly taxed exceptions for someone that wants a Ford GT40, Dodge Viper or an Aston Martin Vanquish S.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

xTYBALTx

Once more people run flex-fuel vehicles, the cost of methanol should rise radically.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

IceCold

Probably, but it'll provide competition in the vehicle fuel market, and competition is always a good thing for the consumer.

__________________

ScratchMonkey

What about the engines that can run on any hydrocarbon? I saw an item in Wired about a guy who powers his boat with his butt. (Among other things. Liposuction contributed a small amount of fuel for his touring.)

__________________

.143 Beth©

Although the advantages of flex-fuel vehicles are evident, the disadvantages are very well hidden from the public. For instance, the corn oil (biodiesel) fuels are cheap, renewable, easy to retrofit, and supposedly "cleaner", but what the officials promoting the corn fuel doesn't elaborate on is the concept of "clean." What they mean by clean is that the corn oil produces less CO (Carbon Monoxide) emissions, but what they fail to clearly point out is the amount of NOx emissions. Corn oil produces about 3.5 times the amount of NOx as regular diesel. Another unclear disadvantage can be sought out in this phrase, "It can be used in any diesel engine with no need for modifications -- in fact diesel engines run better and last longer with biodiesel." It is true that the diesel ENGINE needs no modifications, but it will require a teardown if the engine is expected to run smoothly after one has made the switch from conventional diesel to biodiesel. The reason for this is because of the disadvantages of regular diesel. Regular diesel leaves deposits in fuel lines, injectors, engine parts, and turbochargers, but biodiesel acts as a detergent and cleans out the parts which will quickly build up in the engine, turbocharger, injectors, and fuel lines; thus, overworking the engine and greatly decreasing its service life. In addition to the clogging of engine parts, the term "ENGINE" as used in the quote does not include the auxiliary support for the engine. I am talking about the rubber fuel lines. Biodiesel will eat right through the rubber lines if the lines aren't replaced with some other type of fuel lines. This can cost an estimated $4000 for a Ford F-350. On the topic of Ford F-350s and other high-end diesel vehicles built after 2000, the biodiesel's ability to release deposits would destroy the delicate 26,000 psi injectors on these newer vehicles. Each injector costs $1500 to rebuild or replace, and each engine has 8 of them. Hmmm... Costly you might ask? Well, yes, but as of now biodiesel is out of the question for "run-of-the-mill" diesel owners. Until the industry improves the retrofitting procedures, formulates new properties for such fuels, or devises another viable plan for the distribution of biodiesel, I think that the life of biodiesel will be short-lived.

By: Tyrus Smith (me)

Journey to Forever
How Stuff Works(HSW) Biodiesel
HSW Alternative Fuel<----MUST READ!!!
HSW Diesel Engine

__________________

CingularDuality

Umm, flex-fuel vehicles are completely different from diesel engines and bio diesel fuels. If you have a "flex fuel" vehicle, it's already got all the parts necessary to use ethanol fuel.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/flextech.shtml

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Apophis

Do you remember the exact source for the above quote? I would love to see them justify the $4,000 for this. I've replaced fuel lines on vehicles and I can't see how it could possibly cost anywhere even close to $4,000. Even $1,000 would be a rather extreme rip-off.

In fact, it makes me question any other data that came from that same source.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

Apophis

During my additional fact checking, I'm also finding information stating that "corn oil" produces 350% more NOx emissions than traditional diesel.

I would assume this to mean "biodiesel made from corn oil", but in any case the HSW reference claims that there is only a 10% increase in NOx emissions from B100 compared to traditional diesel and not 350% as Beth stated.

Average Biodiesel Emissions Compared to Conventional Diesel

Emission Component / B100 / B20
Total Unburned Hydrocarbons / -67% / -20%
Carbon Monoxide / -48% / -12%
Particulate Matter / -47% / -12%
NOx / +10% / +2%
Sulfates / -100% / -20%
PAH / -80% / -13%

I find Beth's statement terribly misleading as it leads a reader to believe there is some great untold conspiracy behind biodiesel and that it could be as bad for the environment as traditional diesel when that clearly doesn't seem to be the case.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

.143 Beth©

Well, I said fuel lines, but I used the wrong word choice. I meant to say fuel system. Including the lines, the sensors inside the tank (fuel level, water and fuel mix alarm), diesel pump's rubber components, and the injectors' rubber components. All the rubber components will eventually deteriorate. In addition to the replacement cost of the lines, the engineering behind the lines would also have to change. To create a viable option to replace the lines the designers would have to figure out how to use lines with the advantages of both rubber lines and hard lines.

Although the direct part replacement cost would be near $2000 including labor, the parts have to be changed to commercial grade quality parts with very few rubber components.

BTW, it is easy to change fuel lines and other components on regular cars, but with the new 6.0L Power-Stroke engines the task of repair becomes quite a bit harder. Labor costs increase, and specialized tools are required as was the case when we had to replace my injectors on the F-350.

So I agree that the cost is outrageous, but I am simply pointing out the facts regarding the infancy of biodiesel, and its hype is not what it is all cracked up to be.



P.S. I should have checked the relaibility of my sources in this case.


Once again, I was under the wrong impression due to unreliable sources.

__________________