Peter Dohm wrote:

I was talking ethanol powered - deepo six the gasoline completely.


That's a completely different proposition!

In that case, the issues of materials compatibility and water apsorption are
both dramatically worse; and the 50% number for additional fuel and fuel
system weight may be low. I realize that a demo project operating for some
time, using a small fleet of RVs, and there are some advantages in octane
(or performance number) rating; but, for now, I guess that I am content to
watch from the sidelines.

Actually, at the industrial level and when intended only for use as a fuel,
ethanol is now concentrated by means of zeolites and/or molecular seives--so
it is not nearly as energy intensive as a purely distillation process.
Also, I am unsure of the relationship of temperature to vapor pressure for
ethanol--so it seems possible that no additional pressurization of the tanks
would be needed.

However, fuel injection systems could prove far more difficult to adapt than
carburetors, and both the scientific and political debates regarding CO2 and
petroleum are far from settled. In fact, IMHO, increased CO2 levels in the
atmosphere should have the obvious "green house" effect of promoting plant
growth and ultimately providing an increased food supply--both directly and
through the feeding of domestic animals which are raised, slaughtered, and
eaten by humans. Thus, I am mainly arguing against the need.

Peter




What with the flooding and all, the corn crop seems to be in dire jeopardy.

Maybe that will reduce the amonut of ethenol in the gas supply for a while?

Richard