On the contrary, most U.S. gasoline contains 10-15 percent ethanol which is produced by factory fermentation of food crops. Synthetically derived methanol is not widely use as a combustion fuel. Ben
I think Arch is right about the situation 40 years ago, but, yes, today the large amounts of ethanol produced in the US are made from corn via fermentation. But methanol is still mostly made from methane gas (and not wood, despite its common name). I would not go so far as to call ethanol a green fuel. For reasons already mentioned it is still takes more energy to make than it yields in gas tanks, and the environmental cost/damage of ethanol production is substantial (biodiesel might be worse). Moreover, so-called cellulosic ethanol is still a pipe dream.
It's good for the corn belt! Doesn't make a net saving of petroleum. We need to all make our own alcohol at home, for whatever use we find. Then you won't have to worry about which sigg bottle is for drink and which is for fuel. Sounds like a win/win. Ivan
NZ has what I believe is the biggest methanol from natural gas plant in the world and methanol is a big export earner. They also have a big gasoline from methanol plant that is mothballed because oil prices are too low to run it profitably but one day that may change. Industrial ethanol though is made here from whey which is a by product of the dairy industry. If it wasnt made into ethanol it would be dumped. Here at least it could be considered a green fuel
First, my apologies for disrupting the initial intent of this thread. I will post a thread later regarding my thoughts on ethanol CSU green. What does really intrigue me is the preference for kerosine in Europe vs gas in the US. Does that (for the US) hearken back to the GI Coleman stoves in WW2? Ernie Pyle considered them along with the hero to be the most liked and useful non-combat items of the GI.
Coleman started making gasoline camp stoves in the 1920's, after they had been making gasoline lanterns for several decades. My educated guess has always been they chose gasoline for their lanterns circa 1900 because at that time, gasoline was mainly a by/waste product of the kerosene (then the major use for petroleum) refining process. So it was a cheap, underutilized fuel. When mass-produced automobiles (and hence car camping) came on the scene, the gasoline they burned initially was the same as white gas (no generator-clogging additives), so it was a win to have a car camping stove that ran on the same stuff your car did. Automotive fuel eventually started getting generator-clogging (and, in the case of tetraethyl lead, dangerously toxic) additives, but at that point Coleman appliances had such a big market share that it was worth distributing additive-free gasoline for fueling them. Kerosene stoves were originally convenient because nearly everyone was using kerosene for lighting. For some reason, the idea of using gasoline in stoves and lanterns simply never caught on in Europe. The economy was far less globalized back then, so Coleman's products simply had very little effect there. When gasoline started getting additives, it became hard to find suitable fuel for such appliances in Europe, further hurting their popularity. At least that's my guess.
I must admit that I almost hate the smell of kero on my hands . It's really disgusting and remains on the skin for quite a long time. Therefore, I rely on white gas (in my 71s and 123 r), canister gas when camping and sometimes alcohol in a self-made redspeedster-like stove. In former times I used to use a Trangai and hence only alcohol.
My view as well - kerosene simply is the safer fuel... Gasoline is way too dangerous when it leaks. [If I could fuel the smaller boilers U235 I'd prefer that... ]
Yes, I do! There is imho no better option available, though political religion is trying to promise us that paradise is found in so-called "e-mobility" .
@Pillepalle3 I agree with you on diesel being the best option for many. My comment was tongue-in-cheek, regarding your dislike of the smell of kerosene. Does diesel smell different than kero there?
With regards to the original question -- I have no strong preference among the liquid fuels and I alternate between them just for fun. I do prefer any of the liquid fuels to gas canisters, but I cannot rationally ague with those who want to use gas.
Diesel is a form of 'dirty' kerosene and a dreadful fuel to use in camping stoves - and it smells vile.
Different markets have different fuels, for sure. Around here diesel and kero smell very similar. The Jet A I get at the airport smells much stronger than diesel. Neither is intrinsically cleaner or dirtier than the other. #2 diesel(what is most commonly referred to as diesel) does contain longer carbon chains, which require more heat to evaporate and have a greater portion of ingredients that simply don't evaporate. This leaves more wick deposits and clogs up a generator on a pressure appliance much more quickly than kero. If you're trying to burn it in a device meant for kero, the air/fuel mixture and generator heating requirements will be off in the same way that burning kero in a device meant for gasoline will be off. I think these are the main reasons diesel has a reputation for being "dirty", even though it doesn't actually contain any more dirt than kero. #1 diesel is essentially kerosene.
