Talk:Oxygenate

How does an oxygenate work chemically?
If the oxygen is already in chemical combination, how can it aid further combustion? If it does aid combustion, why will it not burn by itself in the absence of additional air/oxygen? It seems more like a partially burned compound like CO vs. CO2. --Tobyw 12:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What percentages of oxygenates are used in fuels?
--Tobyw 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Specifically, with ordinary internal combustion engines, what is the maximum proportion of ethanol that can be added to gasoline? Gas stations currently use a 10% ethanol:90% gasoline mixture.  Is a higher proportion of ethanol possible?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.176.218 (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends greatly on the oxygenate. Ethanol is commonly used as 85% ethanol, 15% regular gasoline, so called E85. --Vuo (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
I think that the article needs to be rewritten, because the current version advocates some kind of conspiracy theory about political corruption in America involving the oil companies. Why are oxygenates then used widely also elsewhere if it's just an American conspiracy? The same applies to a lot of American conspiracies, such as water fluoridation conspiracies. --Vuo (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is biased in many ways. An additional primary reason to encourage ethanol blends is to reduce dependence on foreign oil and keep transportation fuel dollars in a country taht can produce ethanol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.159.18 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not editing this article, but the entire exposition is politically tinged conspiracy theory and/or outdated mindsets. Ethanol use has increase 4x since 2005 and biofuel use is just going to skyrocket. This reads like petrol industry (ethanol cuts into their margins) scare garbage mixed in with environmental conspiracy theories. I'd say the entire ending exposition beyond explaining the chemical properties should be deleted as they're disinformation and not encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.254.147.8 (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing offending parts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrobutane (talk • contribs) 23:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Side effects of alcohols
The paragraph about alcohols describes that cars build in the 1960s or 1970s, not designed to run on fuel containing alcohol, showed severe problems when adding methanol to the fuel. It adds that less severe problems occur when using ethanol. In the context of the previous paragraph, I first assumed the statement on ethanol refers to current use in modern cars. But it appears to be about tests in the 1970s, using ethanol, after tests with methanol failed miserably. Together with the impression that the claimed problems seem partly dubious and are unsourced, I see no value of this section for the topic.

All it says is: "Long ago, when we tried it the first time, it failed." - which is expected and normal.

The remainder of the paragraph states that a participant of a race was penalized for cheating using an oxygenate compound. This part seems just unrelated and out of place.

Based on the above, I'll remove the paragraph. Volker Siegel (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Bio 401 Cell Biology with lab F2022
— Assignment last updated by The Gentle Hamster (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)