Etanol fuel

[cutchorama]

I just feels it takes the pollution less on the responsibility of the end consumer and more on the oil companies producing it. It is still not clearly defined if producing ethanol uses more fossil fuels or not though BUT it is evident the more ethanol produced gains scales of production. That is why brasil is able to produce so much ethanol and not incur this supposed negative energy. Even if the energy balance were negative, the production involves mostly domestic fuels such as natural gas and coal so the need for non-Australian petroleum would be reduced. This means alot of the fuels from middle-east price fixing oil companies would be less valuable because we are using Queensland coal.

I just read this from RAA too:

"Until recently, ethanol was an attractive fuel-extender because it was exempt from fuel excise, giving ethanol a 38cpl tax advantage over petrol. The government now applies a 38cpl tax on to ethanol." Ethanol is not a tax incentive, it is now taxed the same in Australia as petrol.

[aaronng]

Ahh, I see, so there is no more tax exemption on ethanol.

Natural gas and coal are still non-renewable resources. Coal produces more carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide when combusted to produce electricity. From an environmental standpoint, the benefits of 10% of ethanol is negated by the burning of coal.

Of course, if they used natural gas in the production of ethanol, then that would be better.

[Mike Star]

Guys,
I wasn't advocating that I would use Ethanol loaded fuel I was just asking if you guys knew what the official Honda viewpoint was?
I have used both 95 and 98 Octane fuels from both Shell and Caltex and like Tony I'm not sure there was a noticeable difference. I certainly don't want to use anything less than 95 Octane and I'm not scrimping for the savings of a few cents. It was more the fact that I certainly would not consider using Ethanol loaded fuel even if only 10% if Honda had a recommendation against it due to potential longer term engine issues. I will simply stick to Caltex and use 95 most of the time with an occasional 98 tankfull.
Cheers

[aaronng]

Guys,
I wasn't advocating that I would use Ethanol loaded fuel I was just asking if you guys knew what the official Honda viewpoint was?
I have used both 95 and 98 Octane fuels from both Shell and Caltex and like Tony I'm not sure there was a noticeable difference. I certainly don't want to use anything less than 95 Octane and I'm not scrimping for the savings of a few cents. It was more the fact that I certainly would not consider using Ethanol loaded fuel even if only 10% if Honda had a recommendation against it due to potential longer term engine issues. I will simply stick to Caltex and use 95 most of the time with an occasional 98 tankfull.
Cheers

It's actually stated on Honda Australia's website under "Owners" and then clicking on "Fuel". http://www.honda.com.au/wps/wcm/conn...e/Owners/Fuel/

If I were you, if you can't tell a difference, just use 95 octane. Using the occasional tankful of 98 is not enough to clean out your engine.

[tony1234]

It also says on the fuel flap on the inside you can use up to
E10 fuel.

[SPQR]

I used to mix Toluene (methylbenzene) at 25% by volume with ULP in the days when PULP wasn't available in Darwin. It would boost the octane rating to about 98 RON. I'd use it in my Mazda GT-X for track days. The stuff is highly toxic though. It is known in the State of California to cause cancer so I don't recommend it. It probably is no longer available to the public because it's an ingredient of TNT.

[aaronng]

Toluene is used as an anti-knock/octane booster in petrol. Of course it'll work in your car.

[tron07]

This is from yesterday's papers.. not that its related, but interesting reading. Chinese call it "tai lik yuen" aka power or strong pill.


Mothball additive in tanks gives fuel for thought
Email Print Normal font Large font Gerard Ryle
August 8, 2007

Page 1 of 2 | Single page
Advertisement
AdvertisementTo contact the reporter: gryle@smh.com.au

ONE of the secret ingredients in a fuel pill that has helped underpin multimillion-dollar sponsorships in three sporting codes can be revealed - and it's the same compound used in mothballs.

The pills, which promise to improve fuel consumption and reduce harmful emissions when added to a tank of fuel, are marketed by Firepower, sponsor of the Sydney Kings basketball team, the South Sydney Rabbitohs rugby league team and the Western Force rugby union team in Perth.

Investigations by the Herald have led to three inquiries into Firepower, which is estimated to have raised between $10 million and $100 million from about 1200 investors, including many sports stars.

Now independent university tests carried out for the Herald reveal what goes into the company's most high-profile product, the Firepower Pill.

One of the main ingredients in the Western Force-branded pill is a naphthalene compound, a toxin with the familiar smell once found in sock drawers.

Naphthalene mothballs have been used by car enthusiasts as a homemade octane booster for decades. The practice was common enough that the television program Mythbusters gave it a try in 2004. But scientists warn that too many mothballs will load up an engine with carbon deposits and lead to poor performance.

The Texas attorney-general last year shut down a company called BioPerformance that was selling naphthalene-based fuel pills to US consumers. It had promised the pills would cut fuel consumption and emissions. Tests by the Texas regulator found this was untrue and BioPerformance eventually agreed to repay consumers $US7 million ($8.1 million).

A spokesman for Firepower would not comment yesterday other than to say it no longer used the naphthalene compound.

The pills tested were obtained in February. But the tests revealed another controversial ingredient - a metallic compound called ferrocene. It is also well known to the fuel industry and has been used, mainly in Russia and China, as an octane booster to replace lead.

The International Organisation for Standardisation, which sets the global standards for fuel, recommends ferrocene not be used in fuel as it causes iron deposits to build up on spark plugs over distances as little as 5000 kilometres, causing misfiring engines and bad acceleration.

[r-r-redEuro]

im still confused so does that mean i can like go buy mothballs and dump some balls down my petrol tank ?

[aaronng]

The mothball trick was an old trick. Might have worked with older lead petrol, but probably not with today's unleaded.

[mercury]

With a bit of research, Ethanol is actually not bad at all.

Ethanol is manufactured meaning oil companies would not make money from it. Not only does it produce more power (100 RON), is better for our environtment but it is alot cheaper too.

As a matter of fact, cars in brazil run on 100% ethanol. Some cars around the wold including this ford taurus in NEW YORK run on 100% ethanol. Countries that cannot afford oil rely on these manufactured type oils or electric cars. This also means oil companies would not be getting the profit.

Oil cartels do not have control over these manufactured oils. This is a threat to their business. And like every other product that has threatened their business, they spend alot of money to discredit it.

[dc2dc2dc2]

myth busted.
mothball theory was on myth busters for those who seen it.

I agree. Yet to see anyones car stuff up due to use of ethanol. All E-Mechanics on here think they know everything.