Slashdot Mirror
Has the Ethanol Threat Manifested In the US?
Five years ago today, we mentioned here what was characterized as "The Great Ethanol Scam." According to the central story in that post, the ethanol in gasoline was (or would be) "destroying engines in large numbers," and the only real winners with a rise in the use of ethanol as a gasoline supplement would be auto mechanics. An increasing number of cars are officially cleared for use with E15 (15 percent ethanol), and a growing number of E85 vehicles are in the wild now, too, though apparently many of their owners don't realize that their cars can burn a mixture that's mostly ethanol. When I can, I fill my car with no-ethanol gas, but that's not very easy to find (farmer's co-ops are one handy source), so most of my driving over the past decade has been with E10 fuel. I seem to get better mileage with all-gas, but the circumstances haven't been controlled enough to make a good comparison. What has your experience been? Have you experienced ethanol-related car problems, or were the predictions overblown?
My God, someone's after the BOOZE?!
Well, scam or not, we can't have that sort of behaviour. It was bad enough when we ran out of vermouth, without this sort of nonsense....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
2012 honda insight runs the e10 fine but gets better mileage using 0% ethanol gas from the local marina, ive had to rebuild the fuel system on my 65 datsun van because of the ethanol eating the hoses.
For example: the dual fuel engines that can burn gasoline or methane, where because of the design compromises for the two fuel convenience, neither fuel operates at optimal function.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I can see a difference in mileage between different gas stations, but they all claim to be E10.
I'm still getting 200,000+ miles on my cars(and motorcycle).
but with motorcycles, ethanol has continually given Carbs troubles by promoting gas that gets all sorts of bacteria growing in it within a week due to the ethanol being a great thriving place for it.
I hate ethanol and it ruins motorcycles really quickly :(
It reduces mileage by more than it reduces emissions per gallon. But if it were really destroying modern engines left and right, we'd have heard about it, the same way we heard about ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel destroying truck engines.
I firmly believe that E10 is a total scam. Anecdotally, doing pure highway driving, I get 8-10% less fuel economy with E10 than E0 (pure gasoline), so what's the point? This has been consistently the case with the last 3 cars I've owned (V8 RWD, turbo I4 AWD, regular I4 FWD). Losing 10% fuel economy for the privilege (more accurately, the forced subsidy of corn growers in many states) of driving E10 makes no sense to me. Just water down my gasoline by 10%--same effect but water is cheaper than ethanol...
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Ethanol is a lose/lose/lose situation all the way around here in the US:
1: The corn used to make ethanol causes higher fuel prices, either directly or indirectly because feed for livestock is up in price, so ethanol takes food out of people's mouths.
2: E-15 voids car warranties, and ECMs can tell if E-15 is put in and throw a code that can't be cleared by a ScanGauge, but only by a dealer.
3: Gasoline has a very shitty shelf life. I used to be able to store gasoline for a lawn mower for 1-2 years. Now, even with fuel preservative, even six months may be pushing it, and can clog up the carb or cause a bad reaction.
4: As an RV-er, the #1 cause of generator malfunctions is bad gas. This was not an issue 1-2 decades ago, but when looking at a used motorhome, the first thing you have to do is rebuild/replace the carb unless the previous owner either ran the generator every so often, or fogged it, with OnaGard fogging spray.
Then there is the E85 scam. It has significantly less MPG than regular gas... but the cost difference makes it not worth getting. The only advantage it gives is that with a Flex-Fuel engine that can adjust fuel/air ratios, it burns hotter so you get 5-10 more horsepower.
If the US had plants like Brazil did that were by products of growing, I'd champion ethanol, but as it stands right now, people are starving due to E-10, so anyone who has a shred of ethics can't champion this.
Corn ethanol is an EROI disaster. This is big-agra, some of the same people that ram HFCS into everything and spam tons of research trying to exonerate added sugar as the culprit in the obesity epidemic. Subsidize corn. We love it.
"I seem to get better mileage with all-gas." You seem to have forgotten that the energy density of ethanol is lower to the point that aircraft will never under any circumstances use it. 42MJ/kg vs 30MJ/kg. Per liter it's even worse. You're not getting better gas mileage.
The thing is, ethanol has a lower energy density per litre (or gallon, if you are metrically challanged) than does gasoline, just as gasoline has a lower energy density than diesel fuel.
You get better mileage out of diesel than gasoline, and better mileage out of gasoline than ethanol, all things being equal. Laws of thermodynamics aren't to be bypassed. No amount of "clever" can change the basic fact that gasoline holds more energy than ethanol.
However, and this may count for something for you, as it does for me, ethanol releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that was taken out of the atmosphere to grow the crop that led to the ethanol. There is no net increase of CO2, as there is with fossil fuels. Of course, a cynic might point out (and I might be one) that the carbon in the fossil fuel was also in the atmosphere at one time, to the tune of no less than 1500 ppm in the Carboniferous period.
Using ethanol isn't for getting better mileage, it's for reducing carbon footprint, the amount of carbon added to the atmosphere when you go down to the corner store to buy a six-pack of beer. The beer, btw, doesn't add carbon to the atmosphere, because like the ethanol that's in it, that carbon came -out- of the atmosphere when the crops to make it were grown.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
I seem to get better mileage with all-gas
Not surprising -- gasoline has a higher energy content than ethanol -- 34 vs 24 MJ/L.
So you really are getting less energy when you buy a gallon of E10 or E15 vs. a gallon of pure gasoline.
ethanol contains fewer BTU per gallon (Joules per liter) than the mix of chemicals known as gasoline. (114k BTU/gal vs 76 kBTU/gal) You will end up with lower MPG using ethanol through pure physics. An engine can be designed to run specifically on ethanol with higher compression and different timing curves, which will result in increased efficiency and will partially offset the energy loss.
The poor plants, having to fight continuously for every ounce (or milliliter, if you are Imperally challenged) of carbon dioxide that they need in order to sustain their very existence. And you begrudge them the potential bountiful feast of our releasing the pent-up food supply that lies underground, cruelly kept from the innocent plant life for thousands, perhaps millions of years.
You plant-haters are all alike, every one of you.
because my pickup has fuel injection and the fuel lines and filter is capable of using ethanol dehanced gas, but my motorcycle which has a carburetor and my chainsaw, lawnmower and weedeater all get pure gas without ethanol, there have been too many people that had ethanol mix gum up carburetors and motorcycle enthusiasts are the most vocal about it, just google it
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
It does nothing for the environment and costs the consumer extra money for no gains at all. Auto mechanics may or may not be winners, but the corn lobby sure is.
I used to have an 87 Toyota truck which ran flawlessly until the E10 mandate in KS. Soon after I had to replace two diaphrgams in the carburator due to pinhole leaks.
Brazil is considered one of the world leader in ethanol, the country with the most successful alternative fuel program, one of the cheaper (if not cheapest) ethanol technologies and, by using sugar cane, one of the most energy efficient. All cars here can easily handle up to E40, and most cars can handle any mix of gas and ethanol. Oh, and the flex fuel technology for any kind of mix? Mostly developed here also.
That all being said, I don't use pure ethanol. We are not able to find pure gas here, because of local laws (the government mandates the ethanol level), but I avoid it as much as I can. Even with everything we have in our favor here, it is still most expensive, and the overall car performance is not as good as with gas. For ethanol to be a cheaper option for the consumer, its price on the pump has to be no higher than 75% of gas.
There is, however, another side of the coin. Gas is a limited resource. We need to develop alternative fuel technologies, and right now ethanol is the best, if not only, viable option. The technology is getting cheaper everyday, and improving a lot. As someone who saw the so called birth of the car ethanol, in the 1980's, I can see how much that changed.
Last, but not least, gas with some ethanol in it does pollute less. I remember seeing some time ago some studies regarding E20(ish), and the number was impressive.
All told, it is an important technology, it is not a scam or a threat, but it is still improving. Luckly, we still have the luxury to choose, so we can say no. That won't last, tho.
morcego
Once again you have posted an "Ask Slashdot" article in a different section than where it belongs. Some of us regulate what articles we see by section and would appreciate it if you would at least try to get it right.
Thanks.
Fnord666
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
I fill my car with no-ethanol gas, but that's not very easy to find (farmer's co-ops are one handy source) </quote>
Priceless.
One of the bigger problems with ethanol is with smaller engines, basically any engine that is not moving people. Use ethanol free premium with a stabilizer in any engine you fill up out of a can. Most motorcycles too. My motorcycle is supposed to be able to take 10% ethanol, but I will only put that in if I cannot make it to a gas station that sells ethanol free premium.
Passionately Indifferent
Methanol has a much higher anti-knock rating right? Could you crank timing way up and achieve better city efficiency or is it not that significant?
I know the drag racers love the stuff. They have to install massive injectors, bigger lines, and multiple fuel pumps but they can make some massive horsepower with forced induction and E85.
It makes your seals ware out faster, but that's about it. Most people drive around with half their seals and gaskets shot, leaking oil and getting crap millage anyway. So it's not like they'd notice. People that have no clue how their car works have a bigger detrimental impact on the environment than any fault in the design of cars. I see Chevy volts all around me now, yet when I pull up to them at a red light I can hear the engine running. Meaning they've bought an electric car, aren't charging it and driving around on the generator probably burning more fuel than if they had just bought a gas car. You can't engineer the stupid out of people.
My parents took our Canadian car to Florida, which generally is not designed for E85. The mechanic showed me that it basically turned nearly every rubber bit into mush. There were many hoses where you could push your finger through the hose with not much effort. Luckily most of those hoses were available off a wrecker so for very little they just replaced every single hose. Where the mechanic was worried was what things like the fuel pumps or whatnot might look like.
I have a distinct feeling that my parents car would not be the only Canadian car to spend time in the US.
Ethanol has a lower energy density then conventional gasoline. That's a scientific fact.
Thus direct miles per gallon calculations with entirely different fuels are not reasonable. You first must adjust for the energy density of each fuel and then do a comparison on that basis.
In my own calculations, I've found ethanol to be more expensive then regular gasoline AFTER accounting for the lower energy density. For this reason, I try to avoid it since it is not economical.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
YMMV
The guy who I take my lawn mower to tells me the Ethanol gas is damaging lawn mower engines. Not sure if the newer ones are engineered to burn E-gas, but the older ones certainly aren't. So you go out of your way to a marina to get unadulterated gas for your mowers.
The pickup feet in both tanks of my my 1992 F250 7.3 turned gummy and fell apart about the same time, I blame that on wacky fuel additives. Happened all across the country one year at about the same time. (The new blends don't reach the whole nation at once...) And the return lines on my 300SD started leaking at about the same time.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
My parents' new car can take E85. It can be filled up a lot cheaper on that fuel but it gets exactly that reduction in gas mileage making it break even. So it's a wash except the lower chemical energy lowers the horsepower. So they don't fill it up with E85. It's a stupid idea and it's wasting corn and upping food prices. We need electric cars that are sourced by fusion power plants.
I've got a flex fuel suv, that I do run E85 in from time to time, when I can find it. Even then, I will only typically fill up on E85 when its at least 20% cheaper per gallon that gasoline. Otherwise, you are paying more for less energy. I usually see a reduction in MPG running on E85, if its a full tank, usually close to 20%. With that said, if you are planning longer trips, through the midwest, E85 can possibly save you a little bit of cash in some places. I took the trip out to the Dayton Hamvention this year, running mostly on E85.
Like they say, YMMV.
The problem I find is it goes bad after 6 months to a year or so. Leaving a varnish like gunk residue behind. If I don't completely drain it from my snow blower in spring, and lawnmower and weed wacker in fall, the carburetors need complete overhaul and cleaning by the time I need them - the jets get clogged. You can see the crap in the carb bowl and tanks. Never used to be like this before ethanol.
One of the benefits of being in Kansas (even in town) is that I can readily get "real" gas (both 87 and 91 octane) at my local Cenex station (it's about 30 cents a gallon more for the 87, about an 8% premium, than the E10 they sell). With the ethanol-free fuel I typically get about 20% better tank range on the highway in my 1997 Toyota Avalon (about 70-80 miles). Cost-wise, it's pretty much a wash, but I like not having to fill up as often. I don't have any qualms using E10 in the car if real gasoline isn't available, since it has a modern engine. For gasoline-powered generators and equipment, though, I won't put ethanol in those if I can at all avoid it, as they do not have computer-controlled injection and ignition systems.
However, your miles per dollar on ethanol are being artificially increased due to blending subsidies.
The energy density of gasoline is higher than with ethanol, so the more ethanol you add the more you "dilute" the energy contained in a particular volume.
Yes; logically they should sell fuel at a dollars per kilojoule price, not a dollars per gallon (or Euros per liter). But of course they don't.
At the moment E85 is cheaper than pure gasoline (avarage price May 2014 $3.05 for E85; $3.71 for gasoline), but since both oil prices and ethanol prices fluctuate separately, this can change.
http://www.e85prices.com/
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Ethanol's got a lower energy density (less energy per gallon) than gasoline. That's chemistry and there's no known way around it, to deliver a given amount of power you have to burn more fuel and the more ethanol in the mix the greater the difference. I do see a hit to gas mileage, it's not significant for highway driving (steady high speed) but it really starts to show up in city driving (lots of stop-and-start, lots of time in low gears for power getting the car moving). Ethanol's also got an oxygen atom in it's structure, which the components of gasoline mostly lack. That results in the same problem as with oxygenated gas: it looks like a leaner mix (more air per unit fuel) to the sensors in the engine, which results in the ECU setting the injectors to run richer (inject more fuel per cycle) to get the programmed ideal air/fuel mixture resulting in higher fuel consumption. Oxygenated gas was a great idea for carbureted engines, but it doesn't play well with modern EFI engines and I don't think there's been a model sold in the US since 2000 that isn't EFI.
Any IC engine, when running part ethanol fuel, no matter how well optimized for it, will have higher output with pure gasoline. Gasoline simply has so much more energy potential that the math is a no brainer. In order to make an engine run better with ethanol, you make it slightly less efficient with pure gas. However, the engine will STILL be more efficient with pure gas than any gas/ethanol mix.
Honestly, how come no body wants to go to all electric vehicles, and switch all of our power plants to thorium nuclear??? Super efficient, low waste, and CHEAP! We even have private enterprises willing to help PAY for the infrastructure change!... WAIT, I know why, because A) we can't weaponize the thorium nuclear reaction, B) we don't want to stop subsidizing the corn/ethanol industry, and C) nobody in the US like anything with the word "Nucular" in it...
Before I say much else, my 'tuning' experience is limited to three cars, all fords, one supercharged 5.4 v8, one 4.6 v8, and one turbo 4.6. I'll use the lightning as my case. Its is a supercharged and heavily modified 5.4 v8. Specifically regarding fuel delivery: even after upgrading to two 255#/hr pumps, adding a resistor to correct a hi/lo relay trip issue, upgrading to 60#/hr injectors, and higher capacity fuel rails I'm still using a high percentage of the overall fuel delivery capability at wide open throttle. This is using CA 91 octane which as I understand has a minimal but present ethanol blend. Because this is a hobby and coming out of my own pocket, I never run systems to 100% of capacity if I can avoid it. Now from talking to other L owners and exploring an e85 conversion much over the last 10 years, here are some relevant points that stand out when talking of efficiency: Switching to e85 for my application would at minimum require a retune and more upgrades. I would need bigger fuel pumps, stainless fuel lines, maybe bigger rails, and definitely 80#/hr injectors for this same power level. Switching to e85 will net me worse gas mileage. If I'm lucky I can get 13-15mpg mixed city/hwy on CA 91. Similarly modified L's on e85 regularly report 15-25% worse fuel economy (or 7-10mpg to be specific from conversations and forum threads). Switching to e85 also has a tuning/performance perk of having characteristics of a higher octane rating (to the note of 104 octane). On e85 I can potentially make more power, but I'd also have to dump substantially more fuel in each cylinder than I would have to put non ethanol gasoline to achieve the same power levels. At some point e85 beats CA91 for potential resistance to detonation. Now real food for thought: I just moved this truck out of CA where I can put non ethanol 93 and 98 octane gasoline in the tank. The truck feels to have noticeably more torque across the entire rpm range (at a higher elevation to boot) and so far I've documented an average 17 mpg on the last tank mixed country road and small town driving. The best MPG I've ever seen in this vehicle was in 2006 driving through northern Texas, all freeway a freakish 20mpg that never happened again (and I do not know if this was plain gasoline or e blend, it has been awhile). And finally one common overlooked part that all L e85 conversions must do: in the fuel tank the Y that connects the two fuel pumps to the fuel line is factory plastic. If you do not replace plastic fuel delivery components with stainless steel replacements, on e85 they will dry, crack, and fail. In my case this could mean a blown motor. Hence the need for stainless fuel lines, too. I can only imagine an otherwise stock car on a stock tune not meant to run or not specifically tuned to handle ethanol or ethanol blends would feel to run more rich and get guaranteed worse fuel economy. My own research seems to indicate so.
But I tossed some of that fuel system cleaner in my car, which is mostly ethanol, and it took out a pressure sensor to some part of the emissions system. It throws a code and when its actually acting up the car runs a little lean, and I have to reset the computer and do a drive cycle before going into emissions testing.
Id fix it, but you have to drop like half the ass of the car out, its expensive and the damn dealer wants like 800 bucks to do it, meh
I asked Otis, the corner gas station mechanic this same question and, since he works on engines all the time, I wanted to share his thoughts. That combined freshman chemistry.
Ethanol attracts and absorbs water. Ethanol fuel blends will also absorb water. If you put ethanol blend in your engine and it sits for any length of time, it is likely to absorb more water. This ethanol-water mix is can corrode your engine, carbs, fuel injectors, etc. It's especially bad for aluminum parts and rubber parts: gaskets, O-rings, etc.
If you constantly keep it agitated -- operate it at least once a week - you're probably OK. However, engines that are only used seasonally (boats, snow mobiles, motorcycles, lawn mowers) will be damaged by ethanol in the way I have just described. It's best to avoid ethanol. Fuel stabilizers might help, but I haven't researched that alternative...
Ethanol has a higher octane rating: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page... To put e85 in a car that is configured compression and timing wise for say 91 octane would be like putting 113 octane race fuel in that same car. Basically the car would run like it was rich, real rich. Now without changing the compression, you could wheel this car into a dyno-tuning shop and have them reflash the ECU with an optimized air/fuel mixture using the e85, and it would run OK again. You would burn more fuel with this car even after the retune, and if there are any fuel system parts made of plastic or rubber they would need to be upgraded (or eventually it would fail). Now if you took this car after the retune and put 87 octane gasoline in it again (say, on accident), you would probably do some serious damage (chuck a rod) if ever the engine were put under heavy load (like stomp the go pedal). Automobiles configured to run both e87 and e85 are most definitely not optimized for power or economy.
It's my belief that bio-fuel research has been set back 50 to 100 years because of the prohibition on alcohol. I remember reading that the Ford Model T was designed to run on alcohol. It had too because getting gasoline was hard to do in many places.
Back when the Model T came out the roads were poor. There was no interstate highway system to move large quantities of gasoline. Even if you could it's not like filling stations were everywhere, people were buying gasoline in tin cans at the dry goods store.
What people could do is make alcohol. Corn was cheap and someone skilled to distill some moonshine was easy enough to find. People were burning alcohol.
Then came Prohibition. These backyard stills were largely destroyed. Those that remained were hidden away and the alcohol was too valuable to burn in a car.
I'm working with someone that wants to develop some technology to create some good whiskey. He called me asking some questions on how to make sure the equipment he was using was logging every drop of alcohol. Even though Prohibition was lifted we still have piles of laws on how we can make, transport, and consume alcohol. If this machine he is building can be operated in a manner that the products aren't logged properly then the ATF can come down on him hard.
I'd like to see bio-fuel research just go bonkers. Let them try all kinds of crazy things. But they can't, the laws make it very expensive to start the research since pure alcohol is just as much a controlled substance as opiates.
Personally I believe that bio-fuels is a bunch of good intentions that will pave the way to economic ruin. I will accept the possibility that I am wrong though. I am confident enough in my position that I proposed lifting any and all restrictions into it's research so that this question can be answered. Once we get passed the nonsense that is bio-fuel then we can move on to something that can actually work.
Civilizations have ended because they were burning their food. We need to learn our lessons so we aren't doomed to repeat history.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I have a "new" 2013 Mazda 3. Ethanol is said to have 3% less energy than gas, but I've observed that when I use "may contain up to 10% ethanol" gas that I get a 10% or more drop in mileage($) contrasted to when I drive the extra mileage and pay more for "pure gas". So what that tells me is that I (and the planet) would be better off if the alcohol wasn't in the gas at all and they just sold me 9/10 of a gallon of gas for what they are charging me for gas adulterated with ethanol. I wouldn't have to haul the extra useless alcohol around, I would have more space in my tank for gas, and if we didn't waste food and energy to make and transport ethanol, the world would have more food and just maybe corn prices wouldn't be so high.
In theory 9/10 of a gallon of gas without alcohol added should cost even less than a gallon of the mixed crap, since you would save all the costs of the alcohol. But in reality pure gas is hard to find and end up commanding a premium price.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I have a number of small engines ( 2 and 4 cycle). The local small-engine shop will cancel the warranty if you use anything but 100% gas. My Husqvarna chainsaw states, in the manual and in bold letters, to ONLY use 100% gas in the 2-cycle mix. It's out of warranty and for a while I tried e10. Ended up replacing all the lines and rebuilding the carburetor last summer.
Luckily, there a several stations here that still still it.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
Colorado is growing it this year...
It grows nearly anywhere and produces both bio-diesel in the form of hemp seed oil (No expensive processing needed, just squeeze and filter from the seeds) and alcohol from fermenting plant biomass.
It's retarded how much the world is crippled because the lies about cannabis are still everywhere.
Wake up and smell reality people... you've been lied to about hemp/cannabis for decades now.
I'm from a corn state and have posted on this topic before (see link).
It's amazing driving through the country side and view the castles that have erupted on the plains. These palatial residences funded by federal corn / ethanol subsidies - aka - our tax dollars. Often paired with massive motorhomes providing winter escape in a level of opulence previously unknown to agrarian workers.
From a pure energy perspective, ethanol has only 2/3 the BTU of gasoline.
76,000 = BTU of energy in a gallon of ethanol
116,090 = BTU of energy in a gallon of gasoline
Even vehicles rated to run ethanol should expect a 20%-30% decrease in fuel economy. I personally have experienced this. I drove with a coworker in a 2012 chevy truck rated for e85. We drove a 200 mile road trip (1 way) on trip there we used ethanol, on the trip back we used gasoline. True to form the return trip experienced more that 1/3 increase in fuel economy.
throw in the fact that ethanol must be distributed via semi-trucks and can't be piped (its too corrosive), it is usually distilled with propane, (an inefficient fuel in itself) and the reality is ethanol consumes more energy than it contains. Ethanol is a negative energy source. A Purdue university study came to that conclusion. Of course multitudes of ethanol funded studies have attempted to debunk that fact...
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
to answer your question, yes, ethanol is a boondoggle. unfortunately lobbyists have taken away our choice and in many states we no longer can choose pure gasoline.
Is there a difference beyond buying high test? I understood that most gas goes through the same trucks the same pipes anyway.
The E-10 has been murder on my late 70's vehicle -- I've had to replace all rubber gas lines and have to tinker with the carb much more often. I highly prefer 100% petrol. Stabil seems to help when I have to use E-10. I haven't noticed any issues (even change in mileage) in my 2005 car however.
Watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...! with Matt Dillon. My Dad was a prosecutor and always said you just wish you could get someone to admit to fraud ADM did. Fucking super market to lobbyists more like it. Rent seeking behavior is a problem.
Can any chemists out there explain how ethanol is eating away these rubber parts while gasoline doesn't?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
It's not too strange to get worse mileage with ethanol, considering the energy content is less than gasoline.
Diesel has the highest energy content of the three.
Pure diesel or pure ethanol is easiest to optimize the engines for, since the fuel itself is rather pure, so theoretically you could get better mileage that way. Gasoline can vary a lot and is more of a mix of things.
You do. Gasoline yields more energy than ethanol. The idea is we use less gasoline and hopefully drive the price down by decreasing our demand.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Ethanol burns, if your bike was functioning properly. If you had hanging floats in your carburetors or a bad mixture set up, you may have had fuel getting into the oil system of your engine. Once that happens, it doesn't really matter what fuel you're leaking in the oil, gasoline or ethanol. It will dilute the oil, make the engine wear like crazy and it will probably break down in an expensive way. Gasoline will do that just as bad as ethanol. Don't blame your lack of maintenance and the ensuing damage on ethanol, it would have happened with gasoline as well.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
The site http://pure-gas.org/ has a pretty comprehensive list of gas stations and suppliers of Ethanol-free gas. In my experience, the Ethanol causes the most problems with small, 2-stoke engines like chainsaws and string trimmers. 2-stroke is very sensitive to air/fuel ratio, and the Ethanol makes them run leaner, which causes over-revving if not compensated for. Problem is that a lot of machines have limited adjustments, due to air quality laws. It is such an issue that companies like Stihl that make small engines are selling premixed 2-stroke fuel in cans for ridiculous prices. Also, you don't always know what the exact percentage of Ethanol is, so you can potentially have to adjust the carburetor for every batch of fuel.
True - From a purely anecdotal perspective; I had a Pontiac Bonneville with a 3.8 V6. These are typically 300K + motors. I purchased one that came off lease. At 120K it developed a motor knock from low oil pressure. This mean worn main bearings and the only fix is a major rebuilt or motor transplant. I did a title trace on the car an it turns out it was leased to an ethanol company. they must have run high percentage ethanol through the motor. The result was a 2/3 reduction in motor life. Of course this is not scientific, but I've run many 3.8's with 200K+ miles on them (in the early 90's I was in a partnership with a used car lot).
Since ethanol can't be piped due to it's corrosiveness, just think what that does to the inside of an aluminum block.
Not to mention rubber hoses, and plastic fuel pump parts.
The 10% Ethanol fuels destroy the gaskets in the fuel pumps.
I have been going through gaskets every other year since I bought my house.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
When they first started running oxygenated fuels in cars, ethanol & MTBE, it was damaging engines. Mostly eating the seals out of the fuel system. The automotive industry changed the problem materials and have mostly countered this, at our expense. Similarly, changes had to made to engines to cope with the removal of lead.
Now, we're running up food costs because we're driving on what we were eating. I also question how much good it's doing. Alcohol only contains about 85% (check out BTU/gal) the energy per gallon as gasoline, so we are paying more for a lower value fuel. On top of this, cars that have their engines controlled by computer (almost anything since 1985) see that oxygen rich exhaust and respond by making the air/fuel ratio as rich as possible. This is why your milage goes down about 10% when running on oxygenated gasoline. If you are driving something that is bordering on underpowered to begin with, you can also feel a "seat of the pants" difference in the engine power.
Two Jetski carbs...fill with brown gunk...also hoses dry out and get hard. Lower energy value. I got real gas on a road trip recently and could feel the difference. If it wasn't a boondoggle for connected Agribusiness, I couldn't see any reason for it-not that that is a "reason", but here in the US of A, it is often why (see, Corn syrup and why it is not illegal for food use). Here in the NYC area, there are NO options for real gas.....
Works much better when you take advantage of its octane rating. High compression or turbo, but then you are stuck using ethanol or race gas.
The purpose of ethanol is to enhance the supply of oxygen in gasoline,
Perhaps with older carbureted engines. But today's emission controlled systems with O2 sensors and closed loop fuel control just change the fuel mixture to make the combustion stoichiometric. Provide some of the needed oxygen in the liquid fuel and the engine controller will sense that and increase the fuel to air ratio to make it balance. The result: Lower mileage. Plus now the oil companies can effectively charge us for some of the oxygen we we used to get for free through the air filter.
Have gnu, will travel.
Ban it. It raises beef costs and hurts the economy let alone the engines.
I've lost 2.5 small engines to ethanol. It's made growing food & mowing grass a pain in the butt.
Modern cars can cope with ethanol just fine, even in excess of the stated amount.
The far bigger problem is bad gas from stations with leaking tanks or contaminated sources. These are the stations that get a tanker of fuel once a month or once every couple weeks.
Much better to get gas from a station that sells so much fuel, that have to be restocked every day, or more than once a day. So, warehouse clubs, chains like QuikTrip, Racetrac, Pilot truck stops, TA, etc.
Sig for hire.
What 'threat' ? This guy stoned or what?
He is also stupid, if he doesn't understand the basic difference in stored energy in 'petrol' and 'ethanol' and cant figure out what a mix of x% will do to mileage ( or doesn't know of this thing called 'Google' that will do it for him )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Ethanol, as currently used to water down gasoline in the USA with corn is a scam. It is a huge gift for the corn growers, for ADM, for the ethanol lobbyists. Everyone else looses. It takes enormous energy to cultivate, grow the corn and then process and generate the ethanol. When all of that is done, you have a product that contains less energy in the gasoline it displaces. You've already created tons of greenhouse gas emissions BEFORE the ethanol enters a car's gas (ethanol) tank. Ethanol is charged highway fuels taxes to consumers just as the gasoline component is, but the ethanol companies get to KEEP their share. It is a double subsidy. No wonder big ethanol is fighting so hard to keep corn ethanol in our gas tanks and even increase its use! Sure, you can design new equipment to handle high ethanol concentrations, but a lot of stuff already out there isn't compatible. And the consumer still loses while the lobbyists/special interests collect our money. In Brazil, ethanol is widely available for cars, almost pure ethanol. But drivers have a choice--gasoline and ethanol. (ethanol is a lot cheaper, but it contains less energy too. But the biggest difference is that their ethanol is produced with Sugar Cane---a much more efficient and less expensive process than the corn ethanol nonsense we are being subjected to in USA. If we must have ethanol, then give consumers a choice. Put the ethanol pump in a separate place, and allow consumers to buy what they want. Gasoline OR ethanol, not watered down junk.
"Hey guys, ethanol sucks as fuel, amirite?"
Does that pass for and ask Slashdot? Putting a question mark after an anecdotally supported charged opinion doesn't make it a question.
I bought my first car shortly before Finland switched to fuel with ethanol in it and during summers I drove several times a trip that was around 200km in length (from the city where I studied to the city where my family lives). During the first summer (without ethanol based fuel) and trying to drive as fuel efficiently as I know how I got fuel consumption of 5.5l/100km, which was fairly nice for the car I owned. Then before the next summer we switched to the ethanol mix. I swear you could hear the fuel type change just from the motor sound. Next summer I continued to make that same trip using the same driving style but never got under 6l/100km with ethanol mix fuel.
It seems you and I are in complete agreement. They claim good intentions but the way they go about it does not help anyone. It's all based on lies.
It seems a bit odd that every solution that these "greens" come up with involves more government. I think that many of them are "watermelons", green environmentalists on the outside but red communists on the inside. The rest are just useful idiots.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If the fuel is producing more energy, then I should be using less of it for a given amount of work. Provided that I am burning it completely. I should get higher mileage with high octane though probably not enough to justify the extra expense.
Because your car can only hold so many gallons. If a fuel only cost $0.001 per gallon so filling up a truck would cost only $0.02 to fill, but the imaginary fuel only got 2 MPG, no one would buy it. Having a range of (less than) 40 miles is too limiting.
How many fascias does your Stihl have?
I used to work for several auto dealerships in the past. As a general rule E85 certified vehicles were always rated to get better mileage on gas than on ethanol. As for vehicles being damaged by ethanol I remember in particular that fuel pumps were one of the biggest problems we faced with vehicles that were not E85 rated but were running on what the gas stations were selling at the time(a blend of ethanol and gas...not sure of the % though.)
Always the carburetor.
I've seen the gas I get turn from an Amber color to almost clear. The gas stations in this area have used a razor to remove the "up to", from the pump stickers that now say, this gas contains 15% Ethanol.
.
My Nissan suggest running non-ethanol gasolines for best milage. For short distances, I do find a difference, but the difference isn't overwhelming due to the inefficiencies needed to get the engine up to operating temperature. Short distances I get 17 to 23 MPG (lots of hills in my area, most driving is 7 miles per trip or less, so engine never really warms up fully, also lots of hills locally, and I live in a valley so it is uphill going anywhere from here), and going long distances I can get up to 27 MPG with non-ethanol, and about 24 MPG with ethanol gas. It is some miles to get to non-ethanol gas, so I do mainly drive locally with ethanol, unless I happen to get to where it is available.
... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
Believe it or not, pure ethanol "can" run great in most engines. Its octane rating is probably somewhere around 100...I say probably because Octane is specifically calculated and observed with petroleum based fuels. The Model T and pretty much all the predecessors ran on alcohol. It wasn't until the late 20's that the OIL LOBBY convinced Ford and others to convert to Gasoline. Ethanol was first produced as a substitute for whale oil in lamps in the early 1830's BIG OIL finally shut that down through ushering in a sugar tax during the civil war that made it nearly impossible to produce alcohol in quantity commercially, this ushered in (coal oil) or Kerosene for use in homes and businesses. Alcohol burns more slowly than gasoline, and at a lower temperature, so it tends to help the engine run cooler. Also does not have any of the additive crap that is in gasoline. The fact that Ethanol acts as a solvent for the shellac and deposits from gasoline fueled one of it's first smear campaigns. In the 1970's after years of use of gasoline with additives, this caused fuel filters to become clogged and people to blame the Ethanol. Trouble with that logic is that once you change the filter a few times, your system is clean and water free. In that Ethanol has no additives, I should say the non denatured Ethanol (i.e. Ethanol with Gasoline added to keep people from drinking it that we are sold) which contains benzene and is responsible for the "fish kills" when ethanol is accidentally spilled The fuel system has to be designed for Ethanol that is for sure. Thats a big reason why fuel injected engines run better than carburetors. There used to be carbs specific for Ethanol (likely methanol too, but Methanol is a whole other topic) We are at an impasse with using alternative fuels. The car companies have produced low compression engines to accommodate the low energy density fuels like 85 octane and lower gasoline. This makes the use of any fuel other than gasoline impractical for example propane works in much a similar fashion to alcohol in engines, clean burning, anti-knock, etc. Trouble is the engine needs to be either 13:1-15:1 compression ratio or turbo charged to provide the right air fuel ratio for efficiency. this is ALL a scam, the cars today are very inefficient for several reasons, primarily so they burn MORe fuel and keep the tax base up, second, they use crapoline (distillate) that is cheaper to produce and less efficient than gasoline "used to be". These are the facts that the media doesn't tell you. not secrets but conveniently omitted truth. PS - before you think that this is speculation, I grew up with racing engines, and all different klinds of exotic fuel around as my dad was big in motor sports and tractor pulling. As boys often do, we experimented with the fuels ourselves in LOTs of different applications from mowers to minibikes to motorcycles to Cars and trucks.this included gasoline (between 95 and 140 octane...yes that is possible) ethanol, Methanol, propane, and lots of other stuff...even messed with hydrogen at one point. bottom line, the "standard talking points " are is not necessarily true. I also worked for Automotive engineering for many years, so this is really (mostly anyway) based on experience and facts, not just spouting off Hope this opens the debate a bit.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke