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
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.
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
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.
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.
YMMV
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.
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'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.
Gasoline isn't one or two or even three chemicals, it is a blend of chemicals, distilled and reformed from the components found in the feedstock. They're only trying to control the carbon chain length and vapor pressure. You'll get different quality depending on the feedstock source and where the refining was done. Over the years, I've seen gasoline that was dark amber in color and looked like it had heavy oils in it; and, I've seen gasoline so clear that the distinctive odor and slight yellow tinting were the only indication what was in the container. This is a case, literally, of YMMV.
The old seals and hoses weren't designed for ethanol -- wrong rubber compound(s). You're having to tinker with the carb more because the alcohol blend may vary a few percent. This changes the energy content of the fuel and makes it seem rich one time and lean another. It's all handled automatically in a fuel injection system. I'm going down the same road with my 1971 restoration. I'm putting a new carburetor on it and I'm going to add an A/F gauge to keep tabs on the engine. I expect to have to have summer and winter jet configurations. If it gets to be too much trouble, if I find I'm constantly tweaking it to keep it in range, I'll pull it off and put on a fuel injection system.
If there are any marinas around, you will likely find pure gas.
This is because ethanol in most forms bonds with water easily and will even pull water from the humidity in the air. This isn't good around lakes and with vehicles intended to be on bodies of water.
However, it will likely cost a premium to get. Probably because it is a niche market or perhaps the lack of an additive oxygenate in the fuel which ethanol is supposed to be (as a replacement for MTBE)
Organic gas is the planet safe alternative.
Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
Like dissolves like. Polar materials dissolve in polar solvents, such as salt in water, nonpolar materials in nonpolar solvents, such as oil in gasoline. There is this term matched "cohesive energy density," and some materials, like PVC, have very few solvents, with correct parameters, like tetrahydrofuran, that dissolve it extremely well, and almost nothing else works.
Your rubber must be of a more polar nature, that is made to resist nonpolar gasoline, such as nitrile rubber, but that also means it's less resistant to polar solvents, like ethanol. Most rubbers are nonpolar, like the stuff on your tires, (unvulcanized) styrene butadiene, or epdm, or butyl rubber, they completely disintegrate in gasoline, but they would resist ethanol pretty well. There are of course rubbers that resist almost everything, such as teflon-type fluorinated rubbers, but now you're talking something like $15-20/lb of material compared to say $3/lb for nitrile rubber. I don't know what the actual pricing is these days, I used to know a decade and a half ago when gas prices were still near $1/gal, and correspondingly plastic and rubbers were cheaper. For conduits actually polypropylene/polyethylene should be ultra cheap and resist both gasoline and ethanol, as these crystalline plastics have no solvents whatsoever at room temperature, but they are not rubbery, not resilient, so we're really talking the seals and O-rings here, that should be small and possible to make from very high cost materials, like fluorinated rubbers.
Someone please mod this guy up to encourage him to have more sensible non-political posts.
Organic gas? Is that another American-coined term that makes absolutely no sense? What do you mean by 'organic gas'? You do realise that petroleum, as well as all petroleum derived hydrocarbons, like gasoline, is organic?
Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.