N51

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/BR/
http://thewatt.com/article-1236-nested-1-0.html

"Boom and bust, with many small players washed out..."
Sounds like the early auto industry or the early personal computer industry or or or ...

Quite right.

Please reread my post to which you address. The ratio of energy produced vs. the energy needed to produce that energy, leaves corn(distilled to etoh) as a very inefficient alternative to oil. By the most liberal studies, supported by major farm organizations, ADM, etc., ethanol is only 29% net efficient - and that's if they calculate in the animal feed by-products. Some, as Patzek and Pimental, calculate a net energy loss.

What's it take to grow corn? Fuel: to work the ground, to plant, to harvest.
Pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer - all need fuel to produce and then fuel to apply. Seed: See the afore mentioned. Drying: fuel. Transportation: Virtually everything mentioned above, must be transported to site(farm), and then the corn must be transported to the distiller. From the distiller, it is trucked. I know of no major pipeline(efficient) for transferring ethanol.

Ethanol is the sweetheart of every conservative and liberal midwestern politician. But it's nothing more than an energy shell game, supported by taxpayers blinded by feel-good words - "family farm", "energy independence".

As for the other alternatives sources(grasses, wood, etc) now being considered for ethanol production, they are much less efficient than corn. Soy is the most favorable, but not by much - 27%.

I do not believe any food should be used for fuel - not as long as there is real starvation in this world. When that changes, I'll reconsider.

Now, in respect for John52's rightful request, I'll leave it at that. If you or anyone else wish to continue the discussion off-line, I'd be delighted.


Think SOLAR

Noah

springer3

Solar is a great technology for powering space probes and small loads in remote areas. It takes energy to mine raw materials and manufacture solar panels. Solar panels have a finite life, and are very large relative to the energy they produce. Solar has problems after the sun goes down or clouds form. Consequently, there are no bulk power applications where solar will soon be competitive. Their cost will go up with other energy costs, so there is little hope in solar.

Ethanol? I take mine on the rocks with olives. Nobody can realistically justify the production cost of ethanol car fuel. Subsidies and mandates to blend ethanol with gasoline are finally creating a market, but it is bad technology and bad politics. Subsidies for both ethanol and solar have been around since the Nixon administration. After ~40 years of subsidies, neither solar nor ethanol have much potential to reduce energy imports or off-set fossil fuel consumption.

I am fine with helping the farmers, but let's give them money to get rid of tobacco, conserve the soil, protect the environment, and produce food. Burning diesel to make and transport ethanol makes no logical sense until the farm tractors, trains, and semis run on ethanol. If that happened, there would be very little ethanol left to sell, and the fraud would be exposed. Diesel is still king of the farm, rails, and roads. Why are we forced to burn it in our cars? Who profits?

Considering the operating expenses for a 964, fuel is still the cheapest thing we put in our cars. We will someday drive our electrics or hydrogen cars to work every day, but I expect we will be able to fuel a 964 if we are willing to pay the price.

Indycam

If you think Ethanol has problems , have you checked the problems with hydrogen ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy


http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol.htmlt
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

"there will be moral hand wringing about using agricultural land for fuel production."
" most US corn is used for feeding animals, not hungry people -- 76% of the corn used in the US is used for animal feed. Twenty percent of the total US corn crop is exported; two-thirds of these exports go directly to the wealthy industrial OECD countries, mostly to feed animals.
Less than three-tenths of one percent of total US corn exports went to the 25 poorest countries in 1996. More US corn goes to make alcoholic beverages in the US than is exported to feed the hungry in the world's 25 most undernourished countries combined."

"Nobody can realistically justify the production cost of ethanol car fuel."
"Brazil, the world leader, produces four billion gallons of ethanol a year"

"From the distiller, it is trucked. I know of no major pipeline(efficient) for transferring ethanol. "
When oil started out the lack of pipelines was the same as the lack of Ethanol pipelines now .
The pipelines for hydrogen ?

rennmax

For the original post the answer is "NO" to ethanol at any percentage in a porsche as stated on this web page.
http://www.fcai.com.au/ethanol.php/2.../00000005.html
That's a shame the local servo has it and the 98 octane is only slightly dearer than standard unleaded.

Edit, update on link
http://www.fcai.com.au/ethanol.php/2.../00000005.html
They are now saying 5% is ok on older models.

CraigyB

I've spent quite some time driving in Brasil, and a couple of things are obvious.. Lot's of land, makes the stuff easy to grow, and the hot climate makes it easier to use higher percentages of ethanol. Someone who I know runs 100% ethanol on an old ford, and so far no problems. I certainly didn't notice a huge difference using a 10% mix. Admitted I was driving a fiat doblo, not a 964.

964polar

Ethanol in cars (modern cars) is a step we can take now while waiting for future solutions. Still I would not put ethanol in my MY92 964 (hobby car).

The point that is missing in all threads is that ethanol CO2 is "recycled" CO2 which is not the case with fossil fuels (new CO2 added to our athmosphere).

Production efficiency is improving on ethanol and during that journey of development we have to also consider how fossil fuels are transported to us (gas stations) to keep the debate balanced.

Saab has an interesting offer in Europe. Due to their petrol turbo engines they can deliver 210 hp with E85 out of an engine normally producing 185hp on petrol. Fuel efficiency is not as good but the CO2 is "recycled" at least.

Christer

Someone mentioned biodiesel which has the same problem. They use FAME from Rapeseed and other agri's - and this also means the potential for huge price increases in foodstuffs, as well as the burden of 'raping' (pardon the pun) the land in exchange for somewhat smaller carbon emissions.....I think the technologies here (at least current ones) are fundamentally flawed and will probably fail in the long term - IMHO its just a question of how long governments want to flog the horse...

GothingNC

With the price of corn sky-rocketing Milk will soon be $10 a gallon and gas will only be $?.??

Indycam

Ethanol , whats the deal . Bill McGuire Hot rod magazine Jan 08 pg 105

105 octane racing fuel , cheap .

meek

Has anyone ever gone to the trouble of putting an LPG tank in a 911? Is it viable?

rennmax

I never thought anyone here would ask this question.
I just had a 1989 300TE wagon converted to LPG only. I use it to tow my race car, it dropped the fuel cost to almost one third (petrol $150, LPG $60 to local race track). And there was no performance penalty.
If your 964 was your daily driver I think it would be very viable, but you would lose what little boot space you have.
The conversion on the 300TE will be paid for in 10,000kms.
If done properly LPG if a fantastic fuel, don't believe the myths and rubbish that have been spread.

meek

I had heard that it was good stuff; what myths and rubbish? I would be very interested to know if anyone has done it to a 994/993. Mine is a daily driver, but I work from home, so the mileage is low. However, I would consider it whn one looks as the saving in fuel and the potential tax break I can get for doing it.

springer3

Propane is an excellent fuel in many piston engine applications. Pick-up trucks and wagons have room for the big tank, and I have seen conversions that ran great. Propane is clean burning and does not leave cylinder deposits or contaminate the oil as much as gasoline. Down sides are need for a pressurized tank (heavy), and slightly less power for the same engine size.

I don't think 964s are good candidates for propane. The hardware and DME mapping are not available. Space is limited. Small drop in engine output combined with the added weight make for a pretty hefty performance sacrifice.

When I get serious about saving the planet I will buy an electric or possibly a hybrid. Porsche will probably make one by then.

Ritter v4.0

Regardless of the future preferred fuel alternatives, hopefully they (it) will coexist with good 'ol straight up petroleum for quite some time. Eventually, like race gas, you will have to seek it out, but only the occassional station will sell "boy-racer" (thats us) gas.

As an aside I tell people I drive a green car. Not in terms of direct emissions, but instead of buying a new car (with all the energy that that takes to create) I "recycled" and bot a car with 127k miles that to many should have been placed in a dump or landfill somewhere.

Indycam

"Has anyone ever gone to the trouble of putting an LPG tank in a 911?"
If you put a great big whale tail on your car , you could put a lpg / lng tank in it .

Road tax on lpg / lng = none !

http://www.fuelmaker.com/
http://www.myphill.com/b