Car Guys: Why are we still messing with Ethanol?

180HP, 290lb/ft and 110MPG ...

Admittedly, the host vehicle weighing only 1800 lbs certainly helps with that mileage figure, but, come on ...

YodaMcFly said:

180HP, 290lb/ft and 110MPG ...

Admittedly, the host vehicle weighing only 1800 lbs certainly helps with that mileage figure, but, come on ...

Click to expand...

I'm not really a car guy, but it will be great when this becomes economically viable to produce:

Cellulosic ethanol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

I hate Ethanol. Luckily there is a station nearby that sells "Non-Ethanol".

Two words: Corn Lobby

Winston: If they ever make it viable, yeah, it would be cool.

Top: I agree. What I find sadly hilarious are the number of "Flex Fuel" vehicles sold in my area ... Now, all gas in CA is at least 10% ethanol by state law, but the closest E85 pump of which I'm aware is 90+ miles away.

Rob: Exactly.

But here in the US, we have basically ignored diesel for years, despite its superiority. Ethanol production essentially burns as many calories per gallon to produce as we gain by burning it. In short, at best, it's a net-zero proposition.

Diesel, and bio-diesel, on the other hand, while still far from perfect are a much better proposition than alcohol. Hell, the USAF is flying jets on a blend of bio-oil and regular JP ...

We actually have a lot of stations around here that advertise the "Non-Ethanol" stuff.
Ethanol ruins small engines like lawn mowers, chainsaws and dirtbikes.
If I owned a local gas station, I too would be buying and selling the non-E stuff.
$%^& Ethanol.

This can quickly go political - watch it guys.

cwbullet said:

This can quickly go political - watch it guys.

Click to expand...

Good point. I always forget that Ethanol is added to Gas for stupid, A.K.A. "Political", rather than practical reasons.
Around here Folks don't really ever even mention that. All we know is that it is bad for Motors/Engines, and it makes us mad.
When someone tells me their Lawnmower or Weedwhacker stopped working, the first thing I ask is what they've been running in it for Fuel, and if it has sat for any period of time, especially if it has sat with fuel in it over the winter.

Just kinda' seems a good place to put a pic' of my Truck. It's a 2004 GMC Sierra Extended Cab with the 5.3L, but the regular Gas version.
I just made the mistake last month of adding a thing of HEET to a tank of Gas. It said that's what it was for, and I had run the Truck a few times during the winter on much less than a 1/2 tank of Gas, so I figured that using it would be a preventative measure to combat condesation of water and clean my injectors.
Well, it did just that, and blew all that gunk right into my pistons where it quickly gathered on the electrodes of my AC Delco spark plugs.
Bottle of HEET, $1.99
Tank of Gas, $50.00
New Spark Plugs,+$42.00 for Bosch Platinum, even though the AC Delco is OEM recommended. Those would have been $75.00

I Love my Truck.

Sorry for adding to it, I didn't want to go political. My point was more, "hey, look what these kids did with a diesel engine".

Get me twice the horse power and twice the torque at a 90 mph average and 55 miles per gallon , then I'll be impressed !!

Plain and simple, the answer to your question is because of a "fundamental transformation" of the United States.

hornet driver said:

Get me twice the horse power and twice the torque at a 90 mph average and 55 miles per gallon , then I'll be impressed !!

Click to expand...

Easy; it's already turbocharged. Just crank up the boost.

YodaMcFly said:

Easy; it's already turbocharged. Just crank up the boost.

Click to expand...

Yep, 380 hp--580 ft/lb torque--1800 lb. car---that could be fun !! Of course the body will twist up like a pretzel, the drive train will go south and the pistons will play musical chairs with the added boost---but still---cool ride--I'll take two. Need one for parts !!

cwbullet said:

This can quickly go political - watch it guys.

Click to expand...

There certainly is no practical reason. Big bucks for all except the users.

Let me start by telling you a bit about my background , I began my mechanic career in 1987 . I worked at the dealership level until 1993 when I switched to working on heavy trucks and am still doing that today . I think saying ethanol is bad for your motor is completely false if you run blended fuel on a regular basis that carbon that fouled your plugs would have NEVER been there . Also what is coming out of your tailpipe is cleaner than straight gas . In all my time driving I have always used blended fuel and I drive a lot (30k a year) and never had a fuel issue . The biggest downfall I see with ethanol blends is it wont get the mileage , there just simply isn't the btu per gallon that there is in gas. With that being said I would much rather put money in a farmers pocket than send it to the middle east or Russia .

Why? The simple answer is (sorry, CWB) politics.

From Wikipedia:

The steep growth in twenty-first century ethanol consumption was driven by federal legislation aimed to reduce oil consumption and enhance energy security. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required use of 7.5×109 US gal (28×106 m3) of renewable fuel by 2012, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 raised the standard, to 36×109 US gal (140×106 m3) of annual renewable fuel use by 2022. Of this requirement, 16×109 US gal (61×106 m3) had to be advanced biofuels, defined as renewable fuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50%.

It should be noted that we've never made the mandated consumption levels, mainly because (1) there was not enough ethanol available, and (2) gasoline consumption rates flattened.

I agree. The corn lobby is a powerful one. I do think we will eventually use ethanol or another "green" product for fuel in it pure of modified form, but we are not there yet.

The same it true for wind and solar. It helps but it is not the answer by itself.

cwbullet said:

This can quickly go political - watch it guys.

Click to expand...

Chuck, this is not a technical discussion. The reality of using corn for fuel, it's effects on engines, and its effects on food prices are well documented fact. So, it is really a purely political discussion from the word go.

The only reasons we are using corn for fuel boil down to two basic things. The corn lobby wants the price of corn as high as possible- follow the money. The second is the anti-fossil fuels environmentalist position that all oil is bad.

Simple.

cwbullet said:

This can quickly go political - watch it guys.

Click to expand...

That's corny...

markkoelsch said:

Chuck, this is not a technical discussion. The reality of using corn for fuel, it's effects on engines, and its effects on food prices are well documented fact. So, it is really a purely political discussion from the word go.

The only reasons we are using corn for fuel boil down to two basic things. The corn lobby wants the price of corn as high as possible- follow the money. The second is the anti-fossil fuels environmentalist position that all oil is bad.

Simple.

Click to expand...

And every presidential race starts in Iowa. You are at a serious disadvantage as a candidate for president if you are anti-ethanol.

Do I make fuel corny? Do I?

Ethanol is sometimes touted as an oxygenate, too. Note the 'cleaner emissions' comment above. And it's certainly less harmful when leaked than its predecessor - MTBE.

But from an emissions standard, diesel can still win. One of my profs was an 'environmental microbiologist'. She worked with an engineering group that developed test engines. Partially burnt ethanol is unpleasant stuff. (And it turns out to be a lousy oxygenate in gas.) The cleanest engine they came up with was a modified diesel. Different piston size/pressure, IIRC. Americans seem associate diesel with dirty - but soot (while not good) can be minimized in modern engines and the rest of the emissions are 'cleaner' than gas.

I actually have time logged on the green jet fuel JP-8 project. It is derived from inedible plant oils - but isn't made the way 'bio-diesel' is.

Any discussion in this field is going to touch politics to some degree. Lots of choices are set by policy. Policy derived from politics. Politics with lots of interests at play - the science (even when known) being only one.

markkoelsch said:

Chuck, this is not a technical discussion. The reality of using corn for fuel, it's effects on engines, and its effects on food prices are well documented fact. So, it is really a purely political discussion from the word go.

The only reasons we are using corn for fuel boil down to two basic things. The corn lobby wants the price of corn as high as possible- follow the money. The second is the anti-fossil fuels environmentalist position that all oil is bad.

Simple.

Click to expand...

Mark,

I do agree with you. The group often needs constant reminders not to drift to an offensive political slant to a topic.

I like this topic and would like to avoid locking it.

hornet driver said:

Yep, 380 hp--580 ft/lb torque--1800 lb. car---that could be fun !! Of course the body will twist up like a pretzel, the drive train will go south and the pistons will play musical chairs with the added boost---but still---cool ride--I'll take two. Need one for parts !!

Click to expand...

It's a kit car; they'll make more parts.

cwbullet said:

Mark,

I do agree with you. The group often needs constant reminders not to drift to an offensive political slant to a topic.

I like this topic and would like to avoid locking it.

Click to expand...

Chuck, again, I apologize for starting something with so much potential for politics ... Obviously, from the way I headlined it, I have an opinion on the matter; I definitely could've should have chosen a less-inflammatory headline, like, "Hey look what these kids did!".

Charles, thanks for your insight. I've been a fan of the JP-8 project since I heard about it (I alluded to it above). As for MTBE, again, I agree, the E10 that we deal with here in California is, for all of its faults, better than that crap was.

Ultimately, I'm personally excited about the possibilities of all forms of "green" diesel; I know of at least two (club-level) race cars that are running on reclaimed fast-food fryer oil, and just look at what Audi and Peugeot are doing with LMP.

So here's my perspective as a tree-hugging engineer.

Oxygenating the gasoline is fairly important for emissions control. MBTE is nasty stuff, but I'm not convinced ethanol is better. If nothing else, growing corn on an industrial scale isn't exactly environmentally clean either. I read a while back that every gallon of corn ethanol takes 0.8+ gallons* of petroleum to make it, between farm machinery, fertilizer, etc. The side effects of growing that much corn are also kinda terrible, from the dead spot in the Gulf of Mexico to collapsing corn markets in Mexico driving illegal immigration.

I've never had trouble with ethanol in my gas, but I also don't have a lawn mower. My brother in law who has a small engine shop has a big sign pointing to where to buy ethanol-free gas. On the other hand, he's an Idaho libertarian, so I don't trust his views on government regulation 100%.

My daily commuter is a VW diesel. It gets about 35 MPG in commuting traffic, and about 45 MPG on the open highway. I wish I could replace the minivan's gas with a diesel engine. You can in Europe, so why not here? I do run the VW on biodiesel, but that's not a 100% solution either. I joke (sorta) that I take food out of the mouths of babies since the local distributor uses soybean and canola oil as a feedstock. My dad says that not using food for fuel is one of the few places he agrees with Fidel Castro. If you're not using potential food crops, you're probably using palm oil. Growing palm oil is destroying the rain forest of Southeast Asia, so it's probably worse for the planet than running on a 30% efficient coal boiler.

The latest round of diesels with the blue urea additive are just as clean as gasoline cars, both in particulates (think lung diseases) and NOx (think smog). The story I've heard is that you can suck the tailpipe all day long and not be hurt. My car isn't that new, an dI don't think I'll try it anyway.

Bottom line, nothing is really clean. Even electric here in the Pacific NorthWet isn't totally without guilt. My plug power is 90%+ wind, hydro, and nuclear. Wind kills some birds (although not as bad as the press unless the turbines are really in the wrong place), hydro blocks rivers for salmon, and nukes have no real solution for waste. We all do the best we can.

Rob Campbell said:

Two words: Corn Lobby

Click to expand...

I can say it in three letters; ADM.

For those truly interested in alternative fuels, this one is making big head way:

Can be made from many other plants besides corn, with a high yield.

Isobutanol .....it can be made side by side in an Ethanol refinery, with small changes in process. Can be used up to 40% instead of 10% [ethanol]. Has been tested last 4 years for ill effects [deterioration]of long term storage in tanks[none], by the Military [ which by presidential decree ordered to go 20% green]. Adds to, rather than detracts from octane rating, 90% of refining by products, can be used for animal feedstock, and just passed use by Navy, Airforce for use in jets, helicopters, naval vessels.

Also can be used to make bio-degradable plastic bottles, [specifically water and soda] among other plastic items [bio-degradable] just passed tests for off road vehicles, quads, motorcycles etc. which have also been mandated to go green by the gov.

It's really shining in Formula-1 racing, where it has become the preferred fuel for several teams.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gevo-sells-renewable-jet-fuel-130000491.html

I was convinced enough last year to buy stock in Gevo ,who plans to license the process worldwide to existing refineries.
This can be a major game changer. Isobutanol is not new, came to being during WW2 as synthetic alternative to rubber, for tires, but recently a new process for making it much cheaper came to be.

Following what TopRamen said about the use of E10, I have had many costly bad experiences.
Water, moisture is a bad mix w/ E10. It doesnt separate like regular fuel.
The old way of using "dry gas" added to your tank w/ a water prob doesnt work.
Vehicles w/ E10 and water will /can stop running. Had a '95 S10 towed 3x due to this.

It will disintegrate the rubber tip on the needle in small engines. Resulting in flooding the engine crankcase and spilling out.
Lawnmower repair places love the stuff.
Briggs and Stratton have a disclaimer on their needle tips stating they are only good up to E10.
I had a generator running during Sandy. When I went to check on it, it was surrounded by a 5ft puddle of gas spilling out the carb, while running.
Later that day a house caught on fire w/ a generator running in the garage. I suspect the same prob happened to them.

Now Ive heard stories of E10 use in marinas. Theyre phasing out reg gas there too. That wasnt suppose to happen, like aircraft.
A "corn" senator had legislation passed so that you cant sue due to property damage(bodily injury?) from use of E10. They know its a big prob. CYA.

Its not a problem until it happens to you.

YodaMcFly said:

Chuck, again, I apologize for starting something with so much potential for politics ... Obviously, from the way I headlined it, I have an opinion on the matter; I definitely could've should have chosen a less-inflammatory headline, like, "Hey look what these kids did!".

Charles, thanks for your insight. I've been a fan of the JP-8 project since I heard about it (I alluded to it above). As for MTBE, again, I agree, the E10 that we deal with here in California is, for all of its faults, better than that crap was.

Ultimately, I'm personally excited about the possibilities of all forms of "green" diesel; I know of at least two (club-level) race cars that are running on reclaimed fast-food fryer oil, and just look at what Audi and Peugeot are doing with LMP.

Click to expand...

cwbullet said:

Mark,

I do agree with you. The group often needs constant reminders not to drift to an offensive political slant to a topic.

I like this topic and would like to avoid locking it.

Click to expand...

I object to all of this hand-wringing that this topic could get "political". It smacks of prior restraint. Is it really offensive to note that pressure from interest groups drives public policy?

We need a much better / clearer rule. How about this: You cannot specifically name a politician by office, name, obvious nickname or slur, or party. That means you CAN talk about governments in general, lobbyists / political advocacy groups in general, administrators/ regulators in general, laws, policies, agencies, etc.

There. Now we can have a legitimate discussion about policy without slinging around ad hominem remarks And it should be much easier to explain and enforce.