E100 ethanol mid-engine rear drive car
 

http://www.obvio.ind.br/obviona/cars.htm


I've shown you the base model before, now for something different - 012.

http://www.obvio.ind.br/obviona/012.htm


http://www.obvio.ind.br/Novo_Site/pr...2_lateral2.jpg

http://www.obvio.ind.br/Novo_Site/pr...2_traseira.jpg

Sounds kinda like a Smart ripoff.

The problem with ethanol is that it costs more to make than it can be sold for; and that's not expected to ever change. Ethanol has huge, in the billions of dollars, of tax subsidies now.

That should be stopped immediately.

Yeah, but it also doesn't introduce additional CO into atmosphere. Why should subsidies be stopped? To save Shell, Exxon etc?

If the subsidies and tariffs are stopped, we can get ethanol from Brazil at lower cost. The corn lobby is mighty powerful in Washington DC.

Because they're income redistribution via coercion, most of which goes to the government created Archer-Daniels-Midland.

CO and CO2 as a result of human activity are of no consequence.

Gas is good for you?

Do you know what's in it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE
http://www.obvio.ind.br/obviona/cars.htm
MTBE is now banned in 19 of the 50 United States, and several more states have pending legislation to ban it.

What's in your gas tank?

+1 for Ethanol, a renewable fuel.;)

MTBE is there as a result of the activities of envirowack jobs, I kinda' figured that after a few years someone would then complain about the poisonous effects of it. All that needs doing to stop its' use is to stop using it. It's completely unnecessary and doesn't even do what it's supposed to do.

Gasoline is good for me when it's used as a fuel, but it's not for any other use, except as a dangerous solvent.

Ethanol is a solution to a non-problem, and it still costs more, and in fact pollutes more, to make it. Some folks don't count the fuel burned by the farm tractors and combines.

I agree with that sentiment in the US, but ethanol made from sugar cane or sugar beets is much more energetic than the impotent corn-based ethanol that we have to put up with. Since sugar is more energy dense it makes far more energy than it does to create. Without actually looking it up, it's something like 3.5:1 rather than the 0.8:1 to 1.1:1 of corn ethanol.

That is mainly because we don't factor in the true cost of a barrel of oil. If we could trade the defense budget required to keep oil flowing from the Middle East for the subsidies required to keep ethanol flowing out of the Middle West, then we may experience net savings.

Unfortunately, that's myth. There is no need for military operations to keep mid-east oil flowing. In fact, although it's true that once oil is in transport it's more or less fungible, American really doesn't need any mid-east oil at all.

One of the uses for mid-eastern oil is to passify environuts here in America; it replaces oil that could be pumped here. Drilling should be done every place where oil can economically extracted, but huge areas are currently off limits. That should end as well.

I don't like subsidies but they are as likely to go away as taxes. Having said that I would rather subsidize American farmers the Arab sheiks.

In that case we shift the "cost" from overseas military operations to destruction of our domestic environment. I'd still rather subsidize corn.

We're not subsidizing any mideastern country to any remarkable degree by buying oil. What we are doing is direct subsidies for corporate welfare queens such as Haliburton, Bectel, and others. None of which is necessary since we don't really care if the oil flows from the region or not. The countries that do care are Britain, France, Germany, the rest of europe, China, and India. Let them worry about the oil and pay to keep it flowing. The 7-8 percent of our oil supply that comes from the region would easily be made up from other sources, including sources from within American borders.

Someone mentioned Brazilian ethanol as a viable supply if it weren't for it being blocked by tariffs or worse. That may be true, but you still don't have a solution for the reduced BTU's provided by ethanol, in plain talk ethanol is significantly less fuel efficient than gasoline even if the cost to purchase were the same. IIRC, about 40% less efficient.

The costs of ethanol are extensively noted below.
Ethanol discussion:
http://nature.gardenweb.com/forums/load/sustain/msg0113331712037.html

You're not getting it yet. It costs 97,000btu's of fossil fuel to produce 77,000btu's of ethanol. When you produce ethanol you're polluting more than if you don't.

996 trubo..................
http://www.exoticcarrentals.com/imag...911-B-Rear.jpg

Cayman S.......................
http://www.autowonder.com/new-aw/wp-...ayman-back.jpg[img][/img]

http://www.obvio.ind.br/Novo_Site/pr...2_traseira.jpg