Slashdot Mirror
The New Ethanol Blend May Damage Your Vehicle
Hugh Pickens writes writes "About 80 percent of the gasoline consumed in the U.S. is blended with ethanol, primarily with a 10 percent mix of ethanol, generally derived from corn. Now Kate Sheppard writes that the Environmental Protection Agency has approved a new policy that will allow states to raise the blend to up to 15 percent ethanol (also known as E15), approved for use for cars and light trucks from the model year 2001 and later. A few weeks ago, AAA issued a statement saying that the EPA's new policy creates the 'strong likelihood of consumer confusion and the potential for voided warranties and vehicle damage.' AAA surveyed vehicle manufacturers, and found that only about 12 million of the 240 million vehicles on the roads today are built to use E15 gasoline. The EPA will require that gas pumps with E15 bear a warning sign noting the blend and that it is not recommended for cars older than the 2001 model year. But what happens if you accidentally use it? 'Nobody really knows what negative effects [E15 is] going to have on the vehicle,' says Brian Lyons, Toyota's safety and quality communications manager. 'We think that there needs to be a lot more study conducted to make sure there are no longer term effects on the vehicle. So far everything we've seen says there will be.' The concern is that repeated, long-term exposure could cause the higher-alcohol-content fuel to degrade engine parts like valves and cylinder heads — which could potentially cost thousands of dollars to replace. Gas station owners don't like it very much either, because they'd likely have to upgrade their equipment to use it. Nor are environmental groups big fans of the EPA's decision, arguing that increasing the use of ethanol can drive up food prices, and isn't the best means of reducing our reliance on foreign fuels. The ethanol lobby is the only group that really seems to like the new rule. 'We've force fed a fuel into every American's car that benefits a few thousand corn farmers and ethanol refiners at the expense of virtually every other American,' says Scott Faber."
Politicians who make decisions based on the bribes they are going to receive, rather than what serves best the public interest causes people to suffer like this. This is why ignorance is one of the strongest poisons in a democracy.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
E50, never mind your car, it helps corn growers and car manufacturers, its the new stimulus
Here in NJ we are not allowed to pump our own gas. That's right, we get Full Service whether we like it or not (it is very convenient on cold or bad weather days).
Who is going to be responsible if they start putting this E15 into cars older than 2001? The attendant? The gas station owner?? The distribution company??? If we get E15 it is going to happen, the only question is how frequently and will our astronomical insurance rates cover it?
is that we've lost the expectation that people need to think. There's no reason why denoting the blend on each pump and expecting drivers to understand what blend their vehicle requires isn't sufficient. Many of us have vehicles or boats that already experience damage if any ethanol blend is used. Simple solution - we know that and don't use it.
Duh.
Yes, some cars 'may' be damaged. But if they withstand E10, E15 is really a non issue
Not to mention ethanol is better for the engine in some ways (less carbon deposits)
how long until
The real issue here is that food is being used to make fuel.
Did yah ever think farmers were going to stop producing corn for food and instead make themselves rich selling thier food to make fuel?
Food prices would of course go up since so much of our food contains corn.
The shortage of corn for food would make the farmers rich on both ends.
What is the cost to make 1 gallon of Ethanol? Time+materials+ labor = 2 gallons of Diesel to make 1 gallon of Ethanol?
If Ehtanol is so great how come it's not used in the Aviation industry?
Hooray!
Home of the brave land of the free! w00t!
Could the additional internal cash flow improve the country's general economy?
There's a lot of irony to this. For starters, the actual change in regulation by the EPA won't require E15 gas. It simply allows individual states to require it if they want. So in other words this is the federal government giving the states more control, which normally is a good thing. However there are states that are so influenced by corn production that they will certainly make E15 the standard in their state, but for all the wrong reasons. So it might be a bad thing for the Feds to give up some control here, which I hate to have to say.
The second irony is this is the EPA making this decision, and this decision will harm the environment. If the valves and rings in older cars wear out faster from using higher ethanol fuel than they were designed for, then they will begin burning oil, vastly increasing harmful emissions. I thought the EPA was supposed to protect the environment?
Better known as 318230.
i have found that it generaly fouls sparkplugs, especially in stationary motors (generators -fixed speed)
around 1/4 plug life.
Corn Ethanol is the ultimate in greenwashing. It's not green at all. It's not even energy positive. We're not gaining energy here. We're just using fossil fuel based products to grow corn and turning the corn into an inferior fuel without any gain whatsoever.
Shows the power of the corn lobby, but it's a disaster for the overwhelming majority of the population. If they want an easy thing to cut as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, all ethanol industry subsidies are a great place to start. They're a total waste of money.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
The percentage of ethanol is not just an issue for cars... boat owners have reported extreme issues with molded-in-place gas tanks where the fiberglass resin mix wasn't just right, which then led to the resins softening and dissolving into the gas. The resin juices then proceeded to destroy the engines in the boats by coating / clogging the fuel system and the chambers with this juice. Folks were allegedly going up and down the coast looking for gas stations that could guarantee 0% ethanol gas or forced to undertake a $$$ diesel repower of their power boats.
It's not as if refineries are going to ship a different blend of gas to most ship docks, doesn't make sense, is a distribution nightmare. They're going to ship whatever they have.
And here's the rub: The ethanol will also result in worse gas mileage because the stuff does not have the same bang per cubic volume as gasoline (i.e. 66%). Thus, the higher the ethanol volume fraction, the lower your vehicle's range is going to be. It's why cars designed to run on E100 in Brazil and elsewhere feature bigger gas tanks than cars designed for use with gasoline, for example.
At the end of the day, the ethanol debate is one of the best examples of how lobbying results in extreme market distortions, i.e. the adoption of a fuel substitute at the behest of the corn farmers in the midwest and the large corporate interests (ADM, etc.) which profit from the processing and marketing of the stuff. Now that natural gas is too practically too cheap to meter, expect even more fuel conversion efforts of this sort.
Homeland security?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Many people confuse methanol (very corrosive) with ethanol (mildly corrosive), since both are used as fuels. You have to burn more alcohol than gas to have a proper air/fuel mixture for combustion. For this reason if the fuel system for the car was only marginally adequate with gas, it will be inadequate as the use of alcohol increases -- the cylinder temperatures will rise and could damage internal components. I'm not sure if 15% alcohol would be enough to do this in a car, but 85% (E-85) could, but only if you were pushing the car hard. Even so, I would suspect that the nominal decrease in fuel mileage would appease those selling the product.
Also, older rubber components seem to deteriorate more quickly with ethanol. Additionally, the alcohol will clean (dislodge) things like those inside of the gas tank. If the particles clog the fuel filter, this could also cause problems as well.
There are many things that produce more ethanol than corn. Most notably switchgrass. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn
The government should mandate that ONLY pure ethanol be allowed to be used in farm machinery used to harvest corn. No tractors running on diesel. If that experiment works out, then we can consider it in our cars.
Ive been watching the pumps around my area, the E-10 regularly is cheaper than the E-85.
I dont understand the big push to ethanol anyway (well yeah I do, the big grain growing states get a kickback) it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than 100% gasoline.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
ACs?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Ethanol in gasoline fuel breaks specific parts in your car.
Fuel lines and parts of the fuel circuit that contain rubber. Unless special formulated rubber is used that is ethanol proof, the rubber will deteriorate.
Fuel pumps and injectors. Some of these are still manufactured from materials that are not adapted to ethanol.
Carburetors. Older cars that are not using injection systems, may have parts inside the carburetors that dissolve in the ethanol. Most common carburetors will have replacement parts available that are resistant to ethanol, so retrofits can often be done.
This is mostly a cost issue and for only $100 more or so a new vehicles components can be resistant to ethanol in such a way that you could easily run E85 without problems for the life of the vehicle. Any modern car that is not capable of doing so, is made so on purpose. Even your 69 mustang can be made to run just fine on ethanol, providing you retrofit the carbs with some new floats and seals and replace the fuel pump and fuel lines with something modern too. Corn Ethanol may not be cost effective or "green" in the USA, but in large parts of the world, ethanol is the cheapest and most environment friendly fuel option. Don't hate on Ethanol just because the way it's being done in the USA isn't right. It has it's place and merits, if you do it right.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Second, no manufacturer is going to extend a warranty beyond minimum requirements. Can you imagine going to a dealer, after not changing the oil for a year, saying they would fix an unrelated warranty issue? Of course not. The purpose of a dealer is deny as many warranty repars as possible. So why would they say they would warranty a uncovered fuel that might mean even an additional warranty repair. Much better to blame the fuel even if the repair is unrelated. Of course flex fuel cars are warrentied to run on flexible fuels.
Third, the issue with ethanol is really an issue with corn production in the US as our only crop for such purposes. Corn is about the worst thing one can use for ethanol, but the US has a corn economy. There are many weeds that can be made into ethanol, but little money has been put into developing that technology. Sugarcane can also be used, but the sugarcane economy in the US has been systematically decimated in the US by northern interests who value politics over national security.
So it is clear that this is just another FUD article to promote the fossil fuel economy. Things are going to change, interests that have become fat and lazy on the backs of americans workers are going to become less fat and lazy, and this simply scares them, so they have to scare us.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
1. Cars work perfectly well with ethanol, provided you use parts protected from corrosion. We get lower taxes in Brazil for using ethanol powered cars; "flex" cars which can use any proportion of gas+ethanol get no incentive -- because everyone and his dog purchases flex cars, so you get to use the best fuel at any place or anytime. The only people which get gas-only cars are those who buy imported cars -- and even those are starting to offer flex cars. I guess I haven't had a gas-only car since maybe 1980.
2. Gasoline is very corrosive (and used for cleaning grease, for instance). Most cars can deal with it and for ethanol it's just a matter of replacing a few parts and pipes. No big deal and _all_ (I mean all as in every single one) Brasil-based US makers know how to do it. I had Ford and GM cars in the past which worked perfectly well. Ethanol leads to a lower mileage, but not only is better for nature (no additional CO2 to atmosphere), engines work somewhat better and smoother with it than with gas -- I only use gas on that long trip thru roads without many fuel stations, just to avoid stresses about running out of ethanol. On cities, gas simply is not worth the trouble (though prices can vary from place to place due to fuel transportaion freights).
3. Ethanol is cheap in Brazil (we make it from sugar cane), but not in the US (it seems corn is not as good as cane), so either you develop a cold-resistant sugarcane variety or maybe drop the ethanol idea and try solar panels... whatever. And if you cannot do R&D properly, maybe it's time to quit the car business, eh?
Politicians desperately need money to campaign. They spend a huge amount of time fundraising. They are then beholden to their donors. This is how the system has been corrupted and is why our elected officials work for the benefit of people other than those who elected them.
Lawrence Lessig has proposed a solution. People should listen and act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig
is already a problem for classic cars (ie those older than the mid-60s).
Even low percentages of alcohol can degrade fuel hoses, carburettor parts, cylinder heads, valves and, through diluting the lubrication oil, engine bearings in older cars. Destruction of the fuel system is a considerable worry, as it can lead to vehicle fires due to un-noticed leaks.
Classic car enthusiasts WELCOME users of modern cars to their world of hurts.
Safeguards can obviously be taken if needed. For instance, surprisingly it's also bad for the car to put diesel in your gas engine. Yet just about every station sell both types of fuel. Personally, I'm looking forward to E25, which has been used in Brazil since the late seventies and they seem to be doing ok with that decision.
...it's the fuel storage and delivery systems in the vehicle that are suffering the damage... all the rubber, plastic, and aluminum components that are getting dissolved or corroded by the ethanol.
A piston engine can run just fine on ethanol, but everything from the tank, the pump(s), hoses, seals, fuel injectors, etc, all must be made from materials that specifically can withstand constant contact with ethanol, and ethanol with water dissolved in it, without deteriorating. Most automotive fuel system component materials really cannot withstand this (even E10 is harmful over time), and materials that can withstand the ethanol are expensive and have shorter limited service lifespan too.
Also keeping all the water out of the fuel is problematic too. The entire fuel system must be sealed from the atmosphere since ethanol will absorb water vapor from the air anytime there is exposure to the atmosphere.... even for a few seconds.
Article is pretty bad, of course people know, it's just that no one can say it without boring non-technical people to death. Sounds like this article was written by those pommie top gear clowns, as soon as anything technical related is mentioned, they cut it out and proclaim it dark mysterious magic!
I think the problem will probably be that the fuel map won't be made to cater for a 15% blend, issue with ethanol is that the stoichiometric mixture requires more fuel relative to mass than hydrocarbon gasoline, since the car can't identify the fuel, and it either sticks to a predetermined fuel map, or uses O2 sensors to adjust, i'm not sure what they'd have selected to do, and i'm not sure what by product gasses you get when you have lean alcohols (being oxygen, hydrogen and carbon). With that said, if the mixture isn't made stoichiometric, then you will be down on power and NOx emissions will go up, which the latter is probably why manufacturers state not to use higher mixtures of ethanol.
I doubt the engine or other parts would suffer any damage, aluminium doesn't like alcohols, corrodes with them, but i don't think 15% is high enough to cause problems, still, and rubber parts might not last as long if in contact with ethanol, but again, just as before, upping the concentration to 15% won't has serious and immediate effects. Valve and cylinder head issues is completely wrong, all cars made to run unleaded have hardened valve seats and valves as it was the tetraethyl lead that reduced wear in those parts, with that being long gone, manufacturers have been making the engines withstand unleaded, this remain unchanged with ethanol mixes.
The real drawback with ethanol is that the energy density is about two thirds of ordinary hydrocarbon gasoline, which means operating with stoichiometric mixtures, ethanol engines won't be significantly changed with power, but to do the same amount of work, will consume a higher volume of fuel as opposed to gasoline engines. So from a simple cost benefit point of view, 1 unit of ethanol is worth two thirds of straight, unadulterated gasoline, therefore to get your money's worth, 15% ethanol should be approximately 1.7% cheaper than 10% ethanol, and 5% cheaper against straight gasoline.
First, we are only currently using fossil fuel based products to grow corn. That can easily change, especially with the advances we're seeing with green energy.
Secondly what research indicates that growing corn for energy on a wide scale would use more energy than it produces? There are many studies that conclude ethanol from corn is Energy Positive.
when they put diesel in their gas engines.
Not every change deserves a corporate conspiracy theory. The fuel you use has never been just gas. There's always been many various additives, octane, levels, season mixes, etc.
High ethanol mixes have been available in many countries without a major collapse in infrastructure. I'm pretty sure we'll do alright as well.
just what we need.. HIGHER corn prices.... and not just the feed, grain or oil either.... but EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT that uses them (and their non-corn-based competitors... as they will no doubt raise prices to match -- simply because they can).
Even so-called ethanol-proof rubber parts are only just ethanol resistant. Ethanol will still dissolve even fluorosilicone and Viton rubber seals given enough time and exposure. Ethanol is a really persistent solvent.
But that's not the only problem. Ethanol also attacks and corrodes metal parts too... aluminum and alloy parts, and galvanized steel too. All metal parts need to be made from stainless steel to resist ethanol, and that gets really expensive.
...to see the normally objective / generally scientific /. response go out the window when ethanol is mentioned.
TFA quotes, "Nobody really knows what negative effects [E15 is] going to have on the vehicle," - which means the whole damn article is merely speculation.
From a design standpoint, engines have had hardened stainless steel valves and valve seats since the late 70's to deal with unleaded fuel. I hardly think adding a few percent ethanol is going to make any difference. A designer would be very hard pressed if you challenged him to build something to withstand a substance at 10% concentration, but be utterly destroyed at 15%.
From a cost standpoint, corn simply is not a major cost of food. Right now, with drought, and billions of gallons of ethanol in production, corn is running about $7.00/bushel. A bushel is 56 pounds, so $7/56 = 12.5 cents per pound. In browsing the pantry, I see a 16 ounce bag of corn nacho chips at $3.98 and a 10 ounce bag of potato chips at $4.29. Even if the corn part were FREE, I'd still expect the nachos to cost $3.86 and the potato chips would stay the same at a comparable $6.86 per pound.
From the 'food' standpoint, It's not like the corn is destroyed in the ethanol process. You still get corn oil out which can be made into biodiesel or used for other consumption. Dried Distillers Grain - the corn 'mash' left over after distillation is an excellent high-protein animal feed, so it continues in the food cycle.
From the anecdotal standpoint, I've been running E85 (85% ethanol / 15% gas) in my NON flex fuel vehicle for over 6 years now. Initially with everything completely stock - just to see if all these fears were warranted or if the automakers were just afraid of something new and feeding the public a big smokescreen to cover their own ass. Car ran fine and actually seemed to enjoy the clean burning / 105 octane juice vs the sooty/87 octane crap gas it had been burning. So it definitely seems to be the automakers BS. The second part of the test involved building an engine specifically for E85...small displacement, 12.5:1 compression ratio, turbocharger, etc. Turns out, you can get diesel-like fuel efficiency (or better), equal(or better) horsepower/torque, and with a fuel which costs much less than diesel and generally less than gas, too.
I understand some of the animosity toward ethanol...it is something new, it's easy to bash, easy to repeat the same tired old rhetoric, easy for mechanics to blame as a scapegoat for all sorts of mechanical issues - either real or imagined - then charge a hefty fee for 'repair'. But if you actually compare it to gasoline it's a pretty dang good fuel.
With all that said, I don't really support E15 either. To really make ethanol shine, you need an engine built for it...just the way a diesel engine is different than a gasoline engine, an ethanol engine needs to be different to take advantage of the high octane and burn properties of ethanol. Once you do that, fuel efficiency and power density for ethanol both skyrocket. Burning ethanol in engines meant for crappy 87 octane fuel is a waste - just as much as burning premium race fuel would be.
The environmentalists are actually against it
It's been a while since I've used a full-service pump but they ALWAYS ask you what kind of gas you want in your vehicle..
What, do you think that people who drive diesels are constantly getting regular gasoline in their tanks because the pump boy doesn't know how to ask you what fuel you want?
I didn't really care about the difference between 100% gas and E10. I thought it was a bunch of hoopla from competing political interests. Then I lost a trimmer and a tiller to ethanol's corrosive powers. Within a couple of weeks of being fueled with E10, both had developed holes in the gas tanks and were dead. Happily my mower didn't suffer the same fate.
The moral? Don't let E10 sit in your trimmer or other yard equipment. In fact, use 100% gas in them when possible.
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
Sure burn up our food and use it for cars in a starving World.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I can only laugh as I and the rest of Brazil have been driving hybrids - which can take any proportion of ethanol and gas - for some decades now.
I own a 68 Chevelle, and I already have to deal with stalling from the E10 blends sold today. It will only get worse with E15, and I shudder to think of what it's doing to the engine.
ethanol is a horrible fuel, less energy dense than gasoline, corrodes and dissolves parts, and is net energy loss. We need to stop this nonsense, our lawmakers are out of control and in the pockets of the wealthy.
Ethanol has produced taxpayer financed windfall profits from subsidies. The fact that farmers now have two hands in Uncle Sam's pocket is more than irritating.
Regarding vehicle fuel requirements...Have an informational advertising campaign. Post it on the pumps. Didn't we run into this same problem with flex fuel vehicles and E85 several years prior? Let people regain some personal responsibility. Mommy won't always be there to pump your gas for you (unless you live in New Jersey). Beyond that let Darwinism prevail.
What they should really be focusing on is biodiesel. Better economy and better torque. A bit noisier, yes, but modern TDIs have come a very long way. While 1.5 gallons of E100 ~= 1.0 gallons of gasoline, 1.09 gallons of B100 ~= 1.00 gallons of Number 2 diesel (the higher grade of diesel), making comparisons in BTUs. I recommend www.biodiesel.org/. Also, www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/biodiesel.shtml.
I'm not an ethanol, hybrid or EV fan. Once the opportunity arrises, I'm investing in a early 80's Mercedes 300D. A time when Mercedes built truly overengineered vehicles and produced an absolutely bulletproof engine. All mechancial fuel pump, injection and ignition. Runs on WVO, WMO, and B100 with no modifications. With a little over $1000 to 'do it right', it can run on all the aforementioned fuels better than it would on conventional diesel. And when the real apocolypse hits, I'll be cruising around getting 35-41+ mpg. Eat it Prius.
....Mostly due to potential engine damage and the fact you have to redesign the fuel-delivery system to take full advantage of E15 fuel--not a cheap option!
Ethanol produces 26% more energy than what goes into the production of it.
Biodiesel produces 80% more energy than what goes into the production of it.
Motorheads the world over've known that it can damage gaskets, seals, & the plastic parts of fuel injectors for ages.
* I remember 'hearing tell' of it, decades back in fact (albeit only hearsay amongst mechanics I knew @ least).
APK
P.S.=> Can it be prevented? Sure, for newer models IF you can get the assembly & part making plants to retool for it - a BIG stickler's that, what-with stockholders screaming "make me more money" (rightfully so, it's their monies invested after all). However, legacy vehicles are the issue mostly on that account...
... apk
Lobby money. They literally sent their kids grand-kids and mothers and fathers to prison for money.
Your car not even a decision. Were a money grubbing country dont ever forget nothing else matters.
Or you will be hit by a train.
That is not true. Corn Ethanol is not the best source of Ethanol but it's still Energy Positive.
Those corn farmers refuse to use the stuff in their tractors. Every gas station in farming areas sells 0% ethanol gasoline. Because farmers refuse to use any blends in their equipment due to the damage even 10% causes.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Correlation is not causation. Explain how ethanol is responsible. "a couple of weeks" to make a hole in a gas tank with E10 doesn't make sense.
Why are we still using inefficient hydrocarbon burning internal combustion engines to power automobiles anyway?
E10 was a total failure and gas stations are slowly dropping it again because nobody uses it despite it being a bit cheaper than E5
Minnesota did extensive E-15 and E-20 studies that completed back in 2008. They didn't find a many problems, which is why the EPA passed the waivers without much fanfare. It's been lawful to sell E15-E20 in MN for some time. Here's the thing though, there's no reason to make a big deal out of the blends. Ethanol can be blended at the pump. Give consumers the choice on how much they want and how much they want to pay.
Straight from a G37 2012 manual:
"Do not use E-15 or E-85 fuel in your vehicle. Your vehicle is not designed to run on E-15 or E-85 fuel. Using E-15 or E- 85 fuel in a vehicle not specifically designed for E-15 or E-85 fuel can adversely affect the emission control devices and systems of the vehicle. Damage caused by such fuel is not covered by the INFINITI new vehicle limited warranty."
Enough said.
But how easy is it to store the energy produced by a PV array for a long road trip? Chemical fuels still have a higher energy density, as I understand it.
Although it's not in vogue here on Slashdot, many vehicle owners do actually RTM and it generally states quite clearly in the fuel requirements section that use of fuels other than specified, generally 87-95 octane unleaded gasoline with not more than 10% ethanol, voids the warranty . Now I ask you, when faced with a warning sticker on the E15 gas pump about engine damage, what would the average consumer do? This will become like the E85 pumps. Most stations won't even offer it, because almost nobody wants it, and those that do will see very little use. If a product is so great that the government has to make use of alternatives illegal, it's time to throw the bums out. To all you politicians out there, you want to make people really hopping MAD? Damage the engines on their 10 year old cars during the slowest economic recovery from the deepest recession since WWII and see what happens. Go ahead, we dare you.
to a socialist country then? There're not many socialist countries left last time I checked, Cuba is probably the only one that is even close to socialism ideology. The problem with socialist countries are they tend to be dictatorships where laws do not matter, sure the dictator can pass legislation that favor individuals, but there's no check and balance to make sure the legislation is actually implemented, it's just a piece of paper to serve propaganda purposes.
I dont understand the big push to ethanol anyway (well yeah I do, the big grain growing states get a kickback) it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than 100% gasoline.
That is not true. Corn Ethanol is not the best source of Ethanol but it's still Energy Positive [wikipedia.org].
I would file both of your answers under the category of neither right nor wrong, but rather not even wrong. The minimum EROI required to sustain a modern civilization has been estimated to be anywhere from 3:1 to 15:1 (with broad variations depending on assumptions of things like what "minimums" might still constitute a modern civilization). If we have to argue the fine details of Ethanol's energy balance to determine if it is energy positive or not, we are already answering the wrong question.
For small-scale, local purposes, a low EROI may be acceptable for its non-energy benefits -- but a large-scale reliance on such a power source would be disastrous.
It is really pretty simple-
ethanol is not a positive change for the automotive industry or consumers as long as oil is plentiful and cheap.
Ethanol can be used, but it is simply not as effective- hence fuel mileage drops.
This is not to say that it is not viable as an alternative or additive, but it is both more expensive and less efficient.
Ethanol in our gas is a bad thing.
Brazil has been using E20 and E25 for decades. All it requires is some small tweaks.
If by "small tweaks" you mean replacing every single component in the entire fuel system that has rubber (which means all the seals, any lines that aren't completely metal, all the fuel injectors, the fuel pump, which is often inside the fuel tank and very difficult to reach, and the fuel pressure regulator), adjusting the engine computer's timing maps (not really possible except in vehicles made after 2000 or so, which tend to have electronically-reflashable computers) *and* better-sealing the fuel system (ethanol is very hygroscopic.) ...then yes, "small tweaks." You're probably looking at upwards of $1,000 in labor alone, and at least half that again in parts (fuel pump, injectors, fuel pressure regulator, and replacement lines, mostly. Seals are comparatively cheap.)
Please help metamoderate.
"We think that there needs to be a lot more study conducted to make sure there are no longer term effects on the vehicle." Parse that sentences carefully.
Nobody is starving because we make corn into fuel.
Pretty much anyone who doesn't live in the US and uses corn for a large part of their diet, saw their food costs skyrocket.
It became more profitable in the US to sell corn for ethanol, but there was still demand for corn for food, so import demand for corn rose, and world corn prices skyrocketed such that even people in Mexico who grow corn can't afford to eat what they're making (opportunity cost.) Same problem with south american countries since quinoa became popular in the US/Europe; people's diets changed to less-nutritious foods.
Certainly not everyone in Mexico is starving - but cost of living increases always affect the poorest people the most, because "cost of living" is a much larger portion of their budget, and is not elastic.
Yes, it destroys topsoil. But it's also food being used as fuel, and it's a net-negative-energy fuel that takes more energy to create than it yields. That is simply idiotic.
People are not starving because nobody cares. People are starving because politicians are protecting local producers and making it impossible for developing countries to sell cash crops.
Please help metamoderate.
While they are claiming 10% it's often more than that. It's enough to ruin many fuel systems. The customer gets their tanks filled with crap that doesn't burn well, resulting in poor mileage and big repair bills. We need independent testing and reporting of what comes out of the pumps. These bogus distributors are increasing their obscene profits by poisoning our engines. I know of fleet managers who have learned this the hard way.
The fact of the matter is that most of the cars on the road should not burn any ethanol. They managed to get 10% allowed as an acceptable amount of contamination. They are already sabotaging our cars. We'd be better off it they kept their damned ethanol and replaced it with air.
in Brazil.
Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, VW and all the big ones are there, where the gasoline is worse, still uses lead, and has around 27% of ethanol on it, since 1980.
All cars with electronic fuel injection adapt to it, except very cheap american cars, made to break anyway. Toyotas can take pretty much anything and still last forever.
The figures don't make sense. All cars and light trucks since 2001 only results in 5% of population. This is 2012, soon to be 2013. I know cars are much better built but this is ridiculous. Does anyone know the real figures.
And I can state with certainty that ethanol is a harmful additive as far as fuel systems are concerned. The primary culprit is water absorption into the fuel mixture. Until I started compensating for the ethanol by adding other enzyme based additives, we were replacing carburetors on a daily basis due to corrosion and gumming. It's still problematic, but with the use of fuel additives it can be moderated. Ethanol sucks.
Sorry guys, this "we don't know what will happen" is utter bullshit driven by people with investments in refineries. I have a 2001 toyota prius, with 220,000 miles on it. The first thing I did when it hit 100,000 miles and the warrantee expired is I filled a NON flex fuel vehicle up with E-85. It ran fine, but the check engine light came on. If I back off to about 40-50% ethanol, the light doesn't even come on.
I'd attribute the longevity of my vehicle to the fact it ethanol is a single compound and has no long-chain aromatic hydrocarbons that turn into gunk and deposits on the valves and the engine, so the fuel mix I run leaves the engine cleaner.
If you don't want ethanol, the buy racing gas. If you think there's a food vs fuel problem, then ride your bike and pick your food up from a pick-your-won CSA farm. There's at least $0.50 of fuel in that $4 box of corn flakes, and about $0.05 worth of actual corn.
Why corn in the first place? A simple lesson on economics says that increased domestic content in oil will increase the GDP. Now multiply that times the shipping company, wholesale, retail and consumer levels. A .05% to 1% increase in ethanol is all that is needed this year. But it is UP TOO 15% to allow for future increases.
One fine day I filled up my restored 1967 Jaguar XKE at a gas pump and thought nothing of it. The next morning, half of the rubber hoses in the fuel system had melted and the garage floor was covered in gasoline. The carburetor was destroyed; I rebuilt it twice but it never worked right after that. Thanks, fucking corn lobbyist ethanol bullshit goddamned motherfuck.
Woohoo! Even less miles/gallon. Of course that means you have to fill up more often. It's funny how the state and federal taxes/gallon remain the same though. Yet another secret tax scam for no effect other than destroying cropland by growing corn every year(not rotating crops). Destroying aquifers by the use of irrigation pumps to grow corn in areas that don't get enough rainfall to properly grow corn and by the ethanol plants who use billions of gallons of fresh water every day.
If you are wondering what it will do to vehicles older than 2001 and some that are newer, well, it melts the plastic lines and/or cracks the rubber fuel lines running from your gas tank. It melts the plastic components of your fuel pump. It pits your cylinder walls destroying your compression which causes you to use more gas. It means you will basically destroy your vehicle in effect forcing people to buy new vehicles which are again taxed.
Of course don't forget that the farmers and ethanol plants get subsidized through your taxes to grow this shit because it's not profitable.
Stand up and say no more!
Don't even get me started on amount of corn and corn by-products used to make "food".
Thank you for mentioning the details of what the damage means and for mentioning energy density. That's a real-world drawback we experience immediately. Ethanol does create domestic supply chains for oil for many nations though, and it's always beneficial to have a variety of effective methods to meet major demands of our societies. While the octane rating is higher for ethanol than gas, since we still buy the same ratings I can only assume oil companies are reducing the refining costs of the gasoline to minimize the net cost of the fuel.
For a data point on the car's behavior and how well optimized it would be to use a blend, I retuned the ECU on my 2006 Honda S2000 with a product by Hondata. The fuel injectors used a preset fuel-air ratio settings map for wide open throttle across the RPM range, and it used an oxygen sensor to approach ~14.7:1 air:fuel for part or light throttle. It was an open loop system with a long and short term fuel trim adjustment to keep it close to that target. The wide open throttle settings map was a little more rich than stoichiometric to keep the motor safe since running lean produces detonation--it targeted around 13:1, but the precise number seemed to vary by car model and even by individual years of the same make and model; a major trend was turbocharged cars typically were more rich than naturally aspirated vehicles. I understand my 370Z and others work generally the same way.
Most issues below have been raised above. Many inaccurately, or incomplete.
Soil v dirt. It is my understanding that to grow anything, all that is needed is something for the roots to grab, and the appropriate chemicals, water and sunlight supplied. True, crop rotation can reduce the chemicals required (Nitrogen a good example, use sub-clover.)
Grain costs. Ethanol can be made from most organic matter. Grains of any type are good producers of ethanol. The production of ethanol for use as a fuel additive certainly appears to have driven up the cost of grains. For instance, look at a graph of "world grain prices" v time. ( http://www.ifpri.org/node/8436 ).
It does seem logical that higher grain costs would correlate very well with the increased starvation of people (especially children, about 6 million per annum) in the poorer parts of the world. (e.g. http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats) There are reports that agricultural areas in third world countries are being bought up and utilized for ethanol production.
Just incidentally, Ethanol has a lower HCV (Higher Calorific Value) than petrol. (approx 30,000 MJ/Kg -v- 45,000 MJ/Kg.) This means that ethanol is only worth ~2/3 as much as petrol as a fuel, because it only does 2/3 the work. So for a (say) 10% mix (E10) the value per gallon or liter should be (0.9 + 2/3*.1)/1 ~ 0.967% of the straight (ULP) price. Or for each $1.00 paid for regular ULP, the price for E10 should be 3.3c less. For a 20% mix, (E20) the cost should be 6.7c per $1.00 less.
So there we have it. If you want to (1) help the farmers, (2) damage your car's engine, and (3) help the environment by (4) killing off millions of children in third world countries, then just vote to increase the mandated amount of ethanol in petrol.
after a lifetime of getting my ass kicked here I don't have enough to offer true socialist country (they do still have immigration standards). My education was pretty low quality (meant to keep me off the streets while I was young and potentially violent), my falling wages have left me in debt up to my ears with virtually no assets. The one asset I had (a house) is now worthless since I'm stuck moving every few years to go where the work is.
If you look at where creativity and innovation is coming from it's almost exclusively socialist countries. In reality You need a strong safe net to take those risks. The Mitt Romney's of the world never take risks. They're fathers and mothers and buddies shield them from all that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
the USSR was not, was never, and probably never will be a socialist country. It was and is a dictatorship that happens to use socialist rhetoric. China also falls into this. I think the best description for both is 'Kleptocracy', government run by thieves stealing for themselves. For a real socialist country see Canada and Germany.
While I'm on the subject, if socialism means nobody will work if they don't have to how come Mitt Romney still has a job?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I guess I'm going to be asked to fix a lot more lawn equipment soon.
How are we saving the environment when we're destroying so much equipment in the process?
Just another case of the Obama EPA running amok. Nothing new here, run along..
Organization? You must be joking..
Make more ethanol, and the world will continue to starve.
I didn't get a choice to go to the Ethanol blend in the first place. Despite what people say, I have steadily gotten 3MPG less with the new ethanol blend, and would go back to no-ethanol added gasoline in a heart beat if they gave me the option. My lawn mower still doesn't run right with the new stuff.
15% ha? Let me tell you the history of my people. Here in Brazil, we have 20% of ethanol on our gas, we pay $1.39 per litre. We pay more than other people Brazil sells gas to in pure form (no ethanol mixture).
"The amount of fuel and oil needed to produce ethanol is greater than the amount produced".
If this is true it makes neither environmental nor economic sense. So why we are doing this?
Mysteries like this can only be solved by following the money.
Where does it lead? Monsanto?
E15? Good luck with that... my new(ish) car is designed to take E10 but after running E10 for about 6months there were some very noticable negative changes...idle is rougher, engine developed a knock and fuel economy went down the gurgler. My previous car had the exact same issues when I switched to E10. Changing spark plugs/ignition coils/filters/fluids made no difference and there was nothing mechanically wrong with the engine. As soon as I switched back to E98 all the problems went away and I started getting an extra 50-100km out of a tank of fuel plus a few extra ponies. E85 on the other hand I would love to see more of, the fuel economy isn't particularly wonderful but the impressive power gains more than make up for it (if you're into that sort of thing).
The stuff fresh out of the pump is perfectly fine (for a while), but in humid environments the ethanol sucks in water which can cause corrosion problems in those motorcycles, lawnmowers, chain saws etc especially if the level of the fuel is constant for days or weeks at a time. The corrosion happens in the metal adjacent to the surface of the fuel, and it's not just in the tank since there will be some fuel sitting for extended times in a lot of portions of the engine. That's why it's a bigger deal in engines that are not run a lot - it's apparently a huge deal in outboard motors for boats that are only run on weekends.
I use ethanol fuel (E10) in my car at times but only if I know I'm going to be driving a lot and get the stuff out of the system in under a week if the weather is humid. I don't use it in my lawn mower. If I didn't live in the humid subtropics I probably wouldn't care about it. If there isn't much water in the air a few percent of ethanol alone isn't very corrosive so the time you can leave it in the tank is a lot longer.
It's a big deal if the stuff sits for weeks in the same spot of an engine that isn't moving and the stuff corrodes right next to the fuel/air line. It's not about it burning, since it burns well enough.
Some people alternate between a tank of E10 and zero ethanol, but in something that gets a lot of use it's not likely to matter much. In a boat outboard motor that only runs every now and again it's a huge deal - the ethanol soaks up water and the fuel/air line doesn't move much so you get corrosion cells going for a long time in the same spots, so in extreme cases the top half of the fuel tank may break off at the level where the top of the fuel was, and meanwhile similar stuff is happening inside the engine.
Then there's what it does to neoprene rubber after the fuel has soaked up a bit of water. You end up with ruined seals.
All this depends on the fuel having enough time to absorb a lot of water from the air and there being a lot of water there in the first place. I use E10 in a car in a very humid subtropical area because I drive enough that it takes a depressingly short time to go through an entire tank. I'm not using it in a lawn mower though.
like since you have never been to one. In your imagination, socialist countries are equivalent to paradise, this is understandable given the problems you're facing, but I'm sorry to say your belief is incorrect. I don't know much about Cuba, but in the other so-called socialist countries, there're tons of people like you, and a lot of them don't even have roof over their head. On top of this, they're oppressed by the dictator and his cronies.
As for creativity and innovation coming from socialist countries, seriously? The one thing socialist fails miserably is innovation, since it requires freedom of thinking, freedom of communication, which is lacking in these authoritarian countries. Give me one thing a socialist country has innovated in the recent news, can you think of even one thing?
BTW, socialist countries are big on inheritance of power, Romney is nothing comparing to how Kim gives the country to his son or how Castro gives the country to his brother.
PS: All the word "socialist" in my posting should be quoted, these so-called socialist countries are far from the ideal of socialism and communism. I'm not a believer of capitalism, I believe in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", but authoritarian dictatorship is not the way to achieve this.
It's not the energy from fossil fuels that is consumed, it's the actual chemicals in the fossil fuels that is the thing that is required to make the fertilizer. For instance turning butane/propane/etc into hydrogen and then ultimately ammonia based fertilizers.
Reality gets firmly in the way of "easily".
And don't go pretending that using hydrogen from nuclear reactors is going to do it "easily", it's a decade or two before we'll really know if we can do that "easily".
I've had three jetski carbs destroyed by this stuff, one snowblower, and various friends have had issues with motorcycle and boat motors. Please get this crap out of my gas tank. Please.
'Nobody really knows what negative effects [E15 is] going to have on the vehicle,'
On your vehicle? None.
On your engine? None.
On your pipes transmitting gasoline to the engine, perhaps some. Depends on the material.
No one knows? What a nonsense! It is pretty well known what effects it has: basically none. The EU has E15 and other gasolines since ... 10 or 20 years!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
that $10 carb rebuild kit and 20 minutes of my time is gonna ruin me! oh noes!
is abundant. Yet, we appear to be doing nothing to convert methane to the superb fuel octane. WTF?
Nobody really knows what negative effects [E15 is] going to have on the vehicle,
Bullshit, the use of ethanol fuels in engines not specifically manufactured or modified for ethanol fuels is very well known. The marine industry has been suffering this problem for years. Basically, ethanol "eats" the rubber and plastic components in the fuel systems. That means screens, floats, hoses, seals, tubes, etc. The decomposed plastics and rubber cause further problems by plugging up the fuel system and even gumming up internal mechanical components, including bearings and piston rings. This kills the engine! And, I haven't yet mentioned that the ethanol also absorbs water even out of the air, which then rusts steel fuel components and internal engine parts. That's bad too, if you weren't sure.
The cost of retrofitting all of the necessary components in an engine, so that it can run ethanol fuels can run in the tens of thousands. Basically, the entire engine needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Ethanol has been destroying boat engines for years! Reputable marinas post signs proudly proclaiming that their fuel is ethanol free. Ethanol does the same to car engines, but due to the different usage patterns of boats and cars, it takes a little longer in a regularly driven vehicle.
E10 has significant detrimental effects on small 2-cyle engines already. So right now, it is already a pain in the ass to maintain chain saws, blowers, trimmers, etc because most gas you can find will corrode engine parts if you're not very very careful about handling and storage. So now it just gets worse.
Government has become the tool of lobbying and corporations, and we sit idly by while the system continues to allow these powerful entities to write regulations that suppress competition. "Political corruption always exists. The extent to which it effects (sic) the people is the same as the extent to which government is allowed to interfere in the markets and in people's private lives." -TMosley, /., 03/04/12
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
OH used to require marking pumps with ethanol, but around 2003 dropped the requirement. I would like to find a brand selling 100% gas but no luck so far. Coincidently, about the same time, my mpg dropped by about 10%.
WE all know... especially the car companies what ethanol in your fuel system will do. You don't need more studies.
We should go ahead and go 30/70 ethanol to gas.
Every (few exceptions) car can run on it as is. Most cars would run better with better fuel economy. It's not until you get to the 40/60 blends that you see a drop in performance and fuel economy. Soooooooo much bad info out there.
What's the greatest benefit to the 30/70 blend. Other than fuel effecientcy... it's the reasonable level that American ag can produce and industry distill. But mostly it makes the US about 90% energy independent. Which is virtually independent. No need to use energy dependence as an official position for diplomacy anymore.
The US imports corn? The rest of your post makes less sense.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
What about my 1997 Honda Civic? The very reason I still own that is because I cannot afford to buy a new one! It is very reliable with 209K miles in its odometer. I take care of it know it will just be ruined by E15?
cellulosic ethanol is obtained from cellulose...since cellulose is the main component of plants, the whole plant can be harvested. This results in much better yields—up to 10 short tons per acre (22 t/ha), instead of 4-5 short tons/acre (9–11 t/ha) for the best crops of grain. production of cellulose does not compete with the production of food
"The production of cellulosic ethanol represents not only a step toward true energy diversity for the country, but a very cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels. It is advanced weaponry in the war on oil," said Vinod Khosla, managing partner of Khosla Ventures, who recently told a Reuters Global Biofuels Summit that he could see cellulosic fuel prices sinking to $1 per gallon within ten years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol#Economics
Carbureted Harleys from the 90s have been running for years on E20.
A carburetor motorcycle is not a valid comparison to a fuel injected car. The Harley does not have a fuel pump.
Doesn't have pressurized fuel lines.
Doesn't have banjo fittings that each contain 2 o-rings
Doesn't have numerous seals inside the injectors.
Doesn't have fuel injectors with o-ring seals on the fuel rail.
Doesn't have a fuel pressure regulator.
Doesn't have closed-loop emissions - in fact, it doesn't have any sort of emissions control.
Please help metamoderate.