"Thom Stewart" wrote
Vito,

I didn't know you had an Eye Problem.
It should clear up with Ethanol. 85% less emissions (G)

I simply don't believe that, although I trust you do. What emissions does it
have 85% less of?

Again, before 1970, US and other cars made good use of high octane gas in high
compression engines. But these high compression engines made NOx, not from
gasoline but from compressing and heating air. So EPA dictated that all US
engines had to run on lower octane unleaded gasoline, which required lowering
compression ratios significantly. The new cars typically got 40% poorer gas
mileage and thus produced more COx *per mile* even with expensive catalytic
converters - but they did make less NOx. OK?

In fact, we could reduce gas consumption by that same 40%+ over the next 5 years
by simply requiring that all new cars have high (12:1+) compression engines and
that refineries provide the high octane gasoline they'd need. The "Ethel" Corp.
would be back in business!

Moreover, if you used high octane gas in a low compression engine, designed for
unleaded regular, you will get less power and poored mileage than from running
regular - and make more carboniferous smog. This is because the high octane gas
will not be fully burned in the lower compression motor.

Ethanol has an even higher equivalent octane rating than leaded gas. That's
what made it an attractive racing fuel. It permitted 14:1 and higher compression
ratios that made more power (especially with a tad of nitro). But, for that
reason, it cannot burn efficiently in a low compression motor any more than
super-high octane race gas will. It follows that, if you build motors to use
ethanol efficiently, then they will perforce make more NOx. Alternately, if you
retain low compression, you cannot burn the Ethanol properly and will get both
poor milage and thus make more COx per mile. It is inescapable.

Magic bullet proponants try to cover up these facts with half-truths by pointing
to mileage achieved by tiny light cars running E85, but never mentioning that
these cars cannot pass DOT safety spec's and would do just as well on gasoline -
just as they hide the unfavorable balance of energy in/out by ignoring the
energy cost of growing corn. You are prone to the same when you cite the cost of
oil. The dollar cost of crude oil is meaningless to the energy in/out equation.
Question is "How much *energy* does it take to get that crude and make enough
gasoline to propel a typical US car say 100 miles?" versus "How much energy does
it take to grow the corn and make enough Ethanol to push the same car the same
distance with the same level of performance?".