Not Evil Just Wrong

[Wobble]

According to those who have been paid off. It is not smart to use something which takes more fossil fuel to grow and process than just usinf the fossil fuel. Take a look at the fuel efficient turbo diesels used in Europe for years. How much octane booster do they use?????

Anyway, here are the most common octane boosters currently used in fuel.

MMT, Ferosene, Alcohol, and Toluene

Methyl cyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) and ferosene are used in limited amounts in off-the-shelf boosters. The majority of commercial boosters use MMT. Another type of booster uses alcohols or aromatics as the active ingredient. Many tuners use toluene as a home-style octane booster. Toluene, an aromatic circular hydrocarbon chain, is a regular component of pump gas and is available in various grades at chemical supply stores. Premium street gasoline carries roughly 3- to 5% toluene, which partially helps octane characteristics. Unocal's 100-octane race gas has almost 25% toluene.

I'm well aware of the octane boosters from my racing days:sifone:. Toluene is another nasty chemical that likely will get banned, it has been connected to birth defects and nerve damage.

I'm just saying that when you look at the alternative Alcohol looks good in comparison to just about any octane booster, definitely "greener"

 

[mosi]

Do we really want to believe the British????

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=10912



.

 

[Ratickle]

I'm well aware of the octane boosters from my racing days:sifone:. Toluene is another nasty chemical that likely will get banned, it has been connected to birth defects and nerve damage.

I'm just saying that when you look at the alternative Alcohol looks good in comparison to just about any octane booster, definitely "greener"

Sorry, I disagree. There may be something out there better, but the harmful elements put into the air and water by processing coal and oil to make the energy to make alcohol is much worse than any study to date for MMT. And there have been major studies done with no finds of harm to humans at the levels used. Some have even hinted a health improvement based on the element required in the human diet.

California residents use close to a billion gallons of the alcohol-based fuel per year.

But in a recent issue of the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad Patzek argued that up to six times more energy is used to make ethanol than the finished fuel actually contains.

The fossil energy expended during production alone, he concluded, easily outweighs the consumable energy in the end product. As a result, Patzek believes that those who think using the "green" fuel will reduce fossil fuel consumption are deluding themselves -- and the federal government's practice of subsidizing ethanol by offering tax exemptions to oil refiners who buy it is a waste of money.

"People tend to think of ethanol and see an endless cycle: corn is used to produce ethanol, ethanol is burned and gives off carbon dioxide, and corn uses the carbon dioxide as it grows," he said. "But that isn't the case. Fossil fuel actually drives the whole cycle."

Patzek's investigation into the energy dynamics of ethanol production began two years ago, when he had the students in his Berkeley freshman seminar calculate the fuel's energy balance as a class exercise.

Once the class took into account little-considered inputs like fossil fuels and other energy sources used to extrude alcohol from corn, produce fertilizers and insecticides, transport crops and dispose of wastewater, they determined that ethanol contains 65 percent less usable energy than is consumed in the process of making it.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/27/MNG1VDF6EM1.DTL#ixzz0U174qQRZ

 

[Wobble]

Do we really want to believe the British????

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=10912



.

Since they are predicting the North Pole to be ice free within ten years I am trying to persuade Bobthebuilder to add that to his list of destinations on Team Predator. :sifone:

 

[Wobble]

I guess they are going to have to find a much longer pole now:sifone::sifone:

 

[Ratickle]

Do we really want to believe the British????

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=10912



.

Nope. Ice in the Artic is on a rebound the last three years, making up most of the difference between the low in 2007 and the historical average.. Other scientists are predicting a new ice age. Here's a graph....

 

[Wobble]

Sorry, I disagree. There may be something out there better, but the harmful elements put into the air and water by processing coal and oil to make the energy to make alcohol is much worse than any study to date for MMT. And there have been major studies done with no finds of harm to humans at the levels used. Some have even hinted a health improvement based on the element required in the human diet.

California residents use close to a billion gallons of the alcohol-based fuel per year.

But in a recent issue of the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad Patzek argued that up to six times more energy is used to make ethanol than the finished fuel actually contains.

The fossil energy expended during production alone, he concluded, easily outweighs the consumable energy in the end product. As a result, Patzek believes that those who think using the "green" fuel will reduce fossil fuel consumption are deluding themselves -- and the federal government's practice of subsidizing ethanol by offering tax exemptions to oil refiners who buy it is a waste of money.

"People tend to think of ethanol and see an endless cycle: corn is used to produce ethanol, ethanol is burned and gives off carbon dioxide, and corn uses the carbon dioxide as it grows," he said. "But that isn't the case. Fossil fuel actually drives the whole cycle."

Patzek's investigation into the energy dynamics of ethanol production began two years ago, when he had the students in his Berkeley freshman seminar calculate the fuel's energy balance as a class exercise.

Once the class took into account little-considered inputs like fossil fuels and other energy sources used to extrude alcohol from corn, produce fertilizers and insecticides, transport crops and dispose of wastewater, they determined that ethanol contains 65 percent less usable energy than is consumed in the process of making it.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/27/MNG1VDF6EM1.DTL#ixzz0U174qQRZ

MMT has plenty of health risks associated:

Health Effects of Manganese

Manganese has long been known to be a health hazard to workers at high doses. Its effects at low doses are poorly understood. There appear to be three major targets for toxicity: the brain, the lungs, and the testes. At high doses, such as those found in some workplaces, manganese causes a severe, degenerative neurologic condition almost indistinguishable from Parkinson's disease. This disease, known as manganism, begins as a loss of appetite, apathy, fatigue, psychotic behavior, and clumsiness. The final stages include an expressionless, mask-like face, difficulty initiating movements, a shuffling gait, and tremors. At lower levels of exposure, delayed reaction time, poor hand-eye coordination, memory loss and tremors have been reported.

Several studies suggest a subtle effect of manganese on behavioral characteristics and learning ability in children. Infants fed formula enriched with manganese have significantly higher hair manganese levels and more trouble with hyperactivity and learning disabilities.


from this site http://www.psr.org/chapters/boston/health-and-environment/mmt-manganese-in-gasoline.html

there are plenty of others.

I am a big fan of Diesel especially when it is turbo or supercharged:USA:

 

[Ratickle]

This is from the EPA itself.....


Comments on the Gasoline Additive MMT (methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl)

*MMT is a gasoline octane enhancer produced by the Afton Chemical Corporation (Afton), formerly known as the Ethyl Corporation. MMT is allowed in U.S. gasoline at a level equivalent to 1/32 grams per gallon manganese (gpg Mn).

*Manganese is a neurotoxin and can cause irreversible neurological disease at high levels of inhalation. However, ingested manganese is a required element of the diet at very low levels. There is a concern that the use of manganese additives in gasoline could increase inhalation manganese exposures.

*After completing a 1994 risk evaluation on the use of MMT in gasoline, EPA was unable, based on the available data, to determine if there is a risk to the public health from exposure to emissions of MMT gasoline. The Agency stated "Although it is not possible based on the present information to conclude whether specific adverse health effects will be associated with manganese exposures in the vicinity of or exceeding the [estimated safe level over a lifetime of exposure], neither is it possible to conclude that adverse health effects will not be associated with such exposures." This assessment was based upon the level of MMT allowed in U.S. gasoline.

And the studies conducted, and ongoing, under the EPA's control have still been inconclusive.

 

[Wobble]

This is from the EPA itself.....


Comments on the Gasoline Additive MMT (methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl)

*MMT is a gasoline octane enhancer produced by the Afton Chemical Corporation (Afton), formerly known as the Ethyl Corporation. MMT is allowed in U.S. gasoline at a level equivalent to 1/32 grams per gallon manganese (gpg Mn).

*Manganese is a neurotoxin and can cause irreversible neurological disease at high levels of inhalation. However, ingested manganese is a required element of the diet at very low levels. There is a concern that the use of manganese additives in gasoline could increase inhalation manganese exposures.

*After completing a 1994 risk evaluation on the use of MMT in gasoline, EPA was unable, based on the available data, to determine if there is a risk to the public health from exposure to emissions of MMT gasoline. The Agency stated "Although it is not possible based on the present information to conclude whether specific adverse health effects will be associated with manganese exposures in the vicinity of or exceeding the [estimated safe level over a lifetime of exposure], neither is it possible to conclude that adverse health effects will not be associated with such exposures." This assessment was based upon the level of MMT allowed in U.S. gasoline.

And the studies conducted, and ongoing, under the EPA's control have still been inconclusive.

I'm clear on one thing, MMT, MTBE, LEAD all were in their day the cheapest way.

BTW I have over thirty years in the Petrochemical Industry so I am not out to knock the business. Consumer demand drives the pricing of fuels, the cheapest production method (approved by the EPA)on any given day is going to be the winner.

All of the now banned additives were once legal.

 

[Ratickle]

I'm clear on one thing, MMT, MTBE, LEAD all were in their day the cheapest way.

BTW I have over thirty years in the Petrochemical Industry so I am not out to knock the business. Consumer demand drives the pricing of fuels, the cheapest production method (approved by the EPA)on any given day is going to be the winner.

All of the now banned additives were once legal.

At least no days the tests are conducted and results usually open to the public.