Should we be scandalized about ETHANOL in our tank
- Thread starter mareakin
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: eljefino
IIRC your 89 is/was right about the price as pure gas 87. Do you still have pure 87? That would be interesting!
For stations that carry three different octane grades, 87 octane and premium (91-93octane)are straight gas, and the 89 octane mid-grade is the E10 blend. Since the mid-grade is the E10 blend, it's always the cheapest (by a few pennies).
IIRC your 89 is/was right about the price as pure gas 87. Do you still have pure 87? That would be interesting!
For stations that carry three different octane grades, 87 octane and premium (91-93octane)are straight gas, and the 89 octane mid-grade is the E10 blend. Since the mid-grade is the E10 blend, it's always the cheapest (by a few pennies).
Ethanol is a water magnet and it will bond any water moisture it comes in contact with. Be it in the tanker delivering raw Ethanol to the refinery, the tanker truck that delivers the E10 to the gas station. Any water moisture in the stations underground tanks is also absorbed by the Ethanol. Even the condensation occurring in your gas tank can get absorbed into the fuel. Straight gas does not absorb water like E10 does. Remember water doesn't burn very well.
You want the real reason for the ethanol that hasn't been brought up is tax revenue. In a lab sure it would only effect fuel mileage 3% but we don't drive our cars in laboratory conditions. This is the real world and every board I have ever been on where people have tested real world gas mileage, E10 shows between 8-15 percent lose in MPG's. The average is around 10% in fuel mileage loss.
My Volvo 960 on the highway gets 29.0-29.5 mph on straight gas. 26.5 to 27 mph on E10
My 2010 Prius gets 51-53 mpg on straight gas and 46 mpg on E10
So every one filling their tanks with E10 is getting on average 10% less gas mileage over straight gas.
If your using 480 gallons filling with straight gas, then
your forced to fill with E10, you are now burning 533 gallons of fuel.
That is an additional 53 gallons of fuel each year.
Here in Pa. total fuel taxes are 50.5 cents per gallon.
The government gets an additional $26.75 per year or 5 cents per gallon in fuel taxes without raising gas taxes one cent.
It may have started out to cut our dependence on foreign oil but when the results came in in real world mileage recorded it was a cash cow. E15? What will that cut fuel mileage by, 12-15% on average?
You want the real reason for the ethanol that hasn't been brought up is tax revenue. In a lab sure it would only effect fuel mileage 3% but we don't drive our cars in laboratory conditions. This is the real world and every board I have ever been on where people have tested real world gas mileage, E10 shows between 8-15 percent lose in MPG's. The average is around 10% in fuel mileage loss.
My Volvo 960 on the highway gets 29.0-29.5 mph on straight gas. 26.5 to 27 mph on E10
My 2010 Prius gets 51-53 mpg on straight gas and 46 mpg on E10
So every one filling their tanks with E10 is getting on average 10% less gas mileage over straight gas.
If your using 480 gallons filling with straight gas, then
your forced to fill with E10, you are now burning 533 gallons of fuel.
That is an additional 53 gallons of fuel each year.
Here in Pa. total fuel taxes are 50.5 cents per gallon.
The government gets an additional $26.75 per year or 5 cents per gallon in fuel taxes without raising gas taxes one cent.
It may have started out to cut our dependence on foreign oil but when the results came in in real world mileage recorded it was a cash cow. E15? What will that cut fuel mileage by, 12-15% on average?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
Originally Posted By: prax
Plants are not good enough at converting sunlight to usable fuel.
Coal, oil and natural gas are all the end result of plants converting sunlight into very usable fuel.
That is debatable (for another day & probably forum).
Originally Posted By: prax
Plants are not good enough at converting sunlight to usable fuel.
Coal, oil and natural gas are all the end result of plants converting sunlight into very usable fuel.
That is debatable (for another day & probably forum).
Originally Posted By: mareakin
Based on what I can gather, there doesn't appear to be any technical benefits to using Ethanol, yet there is a federal mandate of 10% in our gasoline--possibly 15% in the future.
The arguments in favor of Ethanol (environmental benefits) have all been debunked.
This only leaves the Ethanol industry and jobs argument.
Should the gov'ment force insert an inferior product just to appease the Ethanol special interest?
I'm really just asking what you think. Are there benefits to Ethanol that I am not seeing?
What do you think?
These are all excellent points to answer.
While ethanol added to gas sounded like good ideas at first, reducing our foreign dependence on oil and making for cleaner air near urban areas, the unintended consequences have far outweighed it's benefit.
Groundwater levels near ethanol plants have plummeted. This is bad because a) water is a limited resource and b) nearby farms have had to drill their wells deaper.
When the engines that run the blended fuel become less efficient, they burn more fuel. The actual benefit of running the blend is lessened by this.
Air quality within the EPA mandated areas has not improved because of the burning of the blended fuels.
You add in other things like transportation limitations, raising the prices on other goods, and it's effects on small engines, and you're not looking at an overall positive outcome of a mandate.
If federal subsidies are needed to push a mandated product down our throats, it's probably not a good thing. If ethanol is so great, let it stand on it's own in the marketplace. If people want to burn a less efficient fuel that's going to cost more without the subsidies, then let them. At least give them and us a choice.
Based on what I can gather, there doesn't appear to be any technical benefits to using Ethanol, yet there is a federal mandate of 10% in our gasoline--possibly 15% in the future.
The arguments in favor of Ethanol (environmental benefits) have all been debunked.
This only leaves the Ethanol industry and jobs argument.
Should the gov'ment force insert an inferior product just to appease the Ethanol special interest?
I'm really just asking what you think. Are there benefits to Ethanol that I am not seeing?
What do you think?
These are all excellent points to answer.
While ethanol added to gas sounded like good ideas at first, reducing our foreign dependence on oil and making for cleaner air near urban areas, the unintended consequences have far outweighed it's benefit.
Groundwater levels near ethanol plants have plummeted. This is bad because a) water is a limited resource and b) nearby farms have had to drill their wells deaper.
When the engines that run the blended fuel become less efficient, they burn more fuel. The actual benefit of running the blend is lessened by this.
Air quality within the EPA mandated areas has not improved because of the burning of the blended fuels.
You add in other things like transportation limitations, raising the prices on other goods, and it's effects on small engines, and you're not looking at an overall positive outcome of a mandate.
If federal subsidies are needed to push a mandated product down our throats, it's probably not a good thing. If ethanol is so great, let it stand on it's own in the marketplace. If people want to burn a less efficient fuel that's going to cost more without the subsidies, then let them. At least give them and us a choice.
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
Originally Posted By: prax
Plants are not good enough at converting sunlight to usable fuel.
Coal, oil and natural gas are all the end result of plants converting sunlight into very usable fuel.
All fossil fuels we have today are made up of several tens and even hundreds of millions of years worth of dead living matter. We've used up most of the cheap, easy-to-get sources in less than 2 centuries.
Originally Posted By: prax
Plants are not good enough at converting sunlight to usable fuel.
Coal, oil and natural gas are all the end result of plants converting sunlight into very usable fuel.
All fossil fuels we have today are made up of several tens and even hundreds of millions of years worth of dead living matter. We've used up most of the cheap, easy-to-get sources in less than 2 centuries.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf...ed!OpenDocument
December 1, 2009
Quote:
In a letter sent today to Growth Energy – a bio fuels industry association that had asked EPA to grant a waiver that would allow for the use of up to 15 percent of ethanol in gasoline – the agency said that while not all tests have been completed, the results of two tests indicate that engines in newer cars likely can handle an ethanol blend higher than the current 10-percent limit.
I guess the engineers who designed our cars were pretty stupid. Once EPA grants the waiver, I think some states are going to pass laws against selling E15. I would hate to live in a state that allowed it.
December 1, 2009
Quote:
In a letter sent today to Growth Energy – a bio fuels industry association that had asked EPA to grant a waiver that would allow for the use of up to 15 percent of ethanol in gasoline – the agency said that while not all tests have been completed, the results of two tests indicate that engines in newer cars likely can handle an ethanol blend higher than the current 10-percent limit.
I guess the engineers who designed our cars were pretty stupid. Once EPA grants the waiver, I think some states are going to pass laws against selling E15. I would hate to live in a state that allowed it.
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
It was originally used in CT as an oxygenate to reduce emissions, replacing MTBE which was poisoning groundwater; this was in place probably 15 years ago. I have not seen this debunked yet.
MTBE does not poison groundwater. It is perfectly safe to drink. It is just that any water you drink which has it tastes bad.
It was originally used in CT as an oxygenate to reduce emissions, replacing MTBE which was poisoning groundwater; this was in place probably 15 years ago. I have not seen this debunked yet.
MTBE does not poison groundwater. It is perfectly safe to drink. It is just that any water you drink which has it tastes bad.
I dunno gents. I've been fooling around with ethanol in both stock and high performance engines for 16 years now and it's pretty cool stuff.
In my experience, ethanol causes a decrease in mileage because you're taking an engine optimized for gasoline and running it on ethanol. If one were to optimize the engine for ethanol (higher compression, more agressive spark timing, more agressive camshaft) an ethanol engine could easily provide similar economy with greater horsepower. I had heard GM was going to offer a Dale Jr Camaro with a E85/gasoline switch, but got axed with all of their issues.
I've used over 750 gallons of E-85 in my flex Suburban and I have never experienced any of the water, corrosion, stumble or
any other issues people claim. Even starts at -15 last winter in North Dakota. Transparent, can't tell it's there except for a 2 MPG loss. At around $ 2.10/gallon think miles per dollar, not miles per gallon. It definitely does not "ruin" your engine.
I have a hot rod big block Chevelle (w/ aftermarket EFI) that is regularly street driven and runs 13.0:1 compression and I use $2.00/gal. E-85. Remember it is 105 octane. No $10.00/gallon race fuel for me.
Ethanol also loves to be supercharged /turbocharged at levels that cannot be tolerated by gasoline. See Jay Lenos interview w/ turbo guru Gale Banks (on you tube). I guess it's the political mandate issue that we don't have time for here, but my experience is that it's a great, inexpensive fuel. I'd rather my petro dollars go to farmers than the Middle East.
Well, it works for me.
In my experience, ethanol causes a decrease in mileage because you're taking an engine optimized for gasoline and running it on ethanol. If one were to optimize the engine for ethanol (higher compression, more agressive spark timing, more agressive camshaft) an ethanol engine could easily provide similar economy with greater horsepower. I had heard GM was going to offer a Dale Jr Camaro with a E85/gasoline switch, but got axed with all of their issues.
I've used over 750 gallons of E-85 in my flex Suburban and I have never experienced any of the water, corrosion, stumble or
any other issues people claim. Even starts at -15 last winter in North Dakota. Transparent, can't tell it's there except for a 2 MPG loss. At around $ 2.10/gallon think miles per dollar, not miles per gallon. It definitely does not "ruin" your engine.
I have a hot rod big block Chevelle (w/ aftermarket EFI) that is regularly street driven and runs 13.0:1 compression and I use $2.00/gal. E-85. Remember it is 105 octane. No $10.00/gallon race fuel for me.
Ethanol also loves to be supercharged /turbocharged at levels that cannot be tolerated by gasoline. See Jay Lenos interview w/ turbo guru Gale Banks (on you tube). I guess it's the political mandate issue that we don't have time for here, but my experience is that it's a great, inexpensive fuel. I'd rather my petro dollars go to farmers than the Middle East.
Well, it works for me.
Just one note: while ethanol needs special tuning it simply does not have as much energy as gasoline. Period.
So you will always need tons of it to make similar power.
Ever see the fuel pump setup on a blown alcohol drag car?
Some cars require bigger injectors to run it, and the jets in any carbureted setup have to be HUGE.
It is actually a political football that uses more energy to produce than it gives up. Kinda goofy.
And once and for all, it is NOT cleaner than gas, it produces some scary by products in cars and our emission control devices do not catch them. Benzene anyone?
So you will always need tons of it to make similar power.
Ever see the fuel pump setup on a blown alcohol drag car?
Some cars require bigger injectors to run it, and the jets in any carbureted setup have to be HUGE.
It is actually a political football that uses more energy to produce than it gives up. Kinda goofy.
And once and for all, it is NOT cleaner than gas, it produces some scary by products in cars and our emission control devices do not catch them. Benzene anyone?
Originally Posted By: rshunter
If energy independence had anything to do with the use of ethanol, we'd be using sugar cane for its production. The production of ethanol via sugar cane is approximately 2.5 times more efficient. Using corn, as we do in the US, generates roughly 321 gallons of ethanol per acre, versus sugar cane's output of about 802 gallons.
Since sugar cane grows best in tropical and sub-tropical regions most of the US won't be able to grow sugar cane for fuel. A far better solution is ethanol from corn cobs and corn waste. POET Energy is already producing cellulosic ethanol from corn cobs-the same corn cobs that are currently nothing more than waste material.
If energy independence had anything to do with the use of ethanol, we'd be using sugar cane for its production. The production of ethanol via sugar cane is approximately 2.5 times more efficient. Using corn, as we do in the US, generates roughly 321 gallons of ethanol per acre, versus sugar cane's output of about 802 gallons.
Since sugar cane grows best in tropical and sub-tropical regions most of the US won't be able to grow sugar cane for fuel. A far better solution is ethanol from corn cobs and corn waste. POET Energy is already producing cellulosic ethanol from corn cobs-the same corn cobs that are currently nothing more than waste material.
Originally Posted By: prax
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf...ed!OpenDocument
December 1, 2009
Quote:
In a letter sent today to Growth Energy – a bio fuels industry association that had asked EPA to grant a waiver that would allow for the use of up to 15 percent of ethanol in gasoline – the agency said that while not all tests have been completed, the results of two tests indicate that engines in newer cars likely can handle an ethanol blend higher than the current 10-percent limit.
What encompasses two tests?
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf...ed!OpenDocument
December 1, 2009
Quote:
In a letter sent today to Growth Energy – a bio fuels industry association that had asked EPA to grant a waiver that would allow for the use of up to 15 percent of ethanol in gasoline – the agency said that while not all tests have been completed, the results of two tests indicate that engines in newer cars likely can handle an ethanol blend higher than the current 10-percent limit.
What encompasses two tests?
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: rshunter
If energy independence had anything to do with the use of ethanol, we'd be using sugar cane for its production. The production of ethanol via sugar cane is approximately 2.5 times more efficient. Using corn, as we do in the US, generates roughly 321 gallons of ethanol per acre, versus sugar cane's output of about 802 gallons.
Since sugar cane grows best in tropical and sub-tropical regions most of the US won't be able to grow sugar cane for fuel. A far better solution is ethanol from corn cobs and corn waste. POET Energy is already producing cellulosic ethanol from corn cobs-the same corn cobs that are currently nothing more than waste material.
Considering that they grow sugar cane in the state of Kentucky, I'd say that makes a sizable chunk of the United States south of those latitudes potential crop area.
Originally Posted By: rshunter
If energy independence had anything to do with the use of ethanol, we'd be using sugar cane for its production. The production of ethanol via sugar cane is approximately 2.5 times more efficient. Using corn, as we do in the US, generates roughly 321 gallons of ethanol per acre, versus sugar cane's output of about 802 gallons.
Since sugar cane grows best in tropical and sub-tropical regions most of the US won't be able to grow sugar cane for fuel. A far better solution is ethanol from corn cobs and corn waste. POET Energy is already producing cellulosic ethanol from corn cobs-the same corn cobs that are currently nothing more than waste material.
Considering that they grow sugar cane in the state of Kentucky, I'd say that makes a sizable chunk of the United States south of those latitudes potential crop area.
Originally Posted By: benjamming
What encompasses two tests?
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/lettertogrowthenergy11-30-09.pdf
EPA is saying 2001 and newer vehicles will probably be ok with E15.
What encompasses two tests?
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/lettertogrowthenergy11-30-09.pdf
EPA is saying 2001 and newer vehicles will probably be ok with E15.
I'm supposed to believe ANYTHING the EPA tells me?
You gotta be kidding me!
You gotta be kidding me!
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: rshunter
If energy independence had anything to do with the use of ethanol, we'd be using sugar cane for its production. The production of ethanol via sugar cane is approximately 2.5 times more efficient. Using corn, as we do in the US, generates roughly 321 gallons of ethanol per acre, versus sugar cane's output of about 802 gallons.
Since sugar cane grows best in tropical and sub-tropical regions most of the US won't be able to grow sugar cane for fuel. A far better solution is ethanol from corn cobs and corn waste. POET Energy is already producing cellulosic ethanol from corn cobs-the same corn cobs that are currently nothing more than waste material.
Corn cobs are not wasted. They get converted into certain kinds of animal feed.
That is one reason why ethanol drives up the price of food
Originally Posted By: rshunter
If energy independence had anything to do with the use of ethanol, we'd be using sugar cane for its production. The production of ethanol via sugar cane is approximately 2.5 times more efficient. Using corn, as we do in the US, generates roughly 321 gallons of ethanol per acre, versus sugar cane's output of about 802 gallons.
Since sugar cane grows best in tropical and sub-tropical regions most of the US won't be able to grow sugar cane for fuel. A far better solution is ethanol from corn cobs and corn waste. POET Energy is already producing cellulosic ethanol from corn cobs-the same corn cobs that are currently nothing more than waste material.
Corn cobs are not wasted. They get converted into certain kinds of animal feed.
That is one reason why ethanol drives up the price of food
Kestas
Staff member
Originally Posted By: prax
EPA is saying 2001 and newer vehicles will probably be ok with E15.
That leaves me out in the cold. All three of my cars, plus a few from friends and family, are older.
EPA is saying 2001 and newer vehicles will probably be ok with E15.
That leaves me out in the cold. All three of my cars, plus a few from friends and family, are older.
Originally Posted By: artificialist
Corn cobs are not wasted. They get converted into certain kinds of animal feed.
That is one reason why ethanol drives up the price of food
The by product of the corn/ethanol process is also used as a feed stock iirc. The price increase in foods is more of a ploy to put money in Monsantos pocket than it is a result of ethanol production.
I do agree ethanol from corn is silly. But ethanol from algae or other plant source is not silly at all.
Corn cobs are not wasted. They get converted into certain kinds of animal feed.
That is one reason why ethanol drives up the price of food
The by product of the corn/ethanol process is also used as a feed stock iirc. The price increase in foods is more of a ploy to put money in Monsantos pocket than it is a result of ethanol production.
I do agree ethanol from corn is silly. But ethanol from algae or other plant source is not silly at all.
Originally Posted By: artificialist
Corn cobs are not wasted. They get converted into certain kinds of animal feed.
Around here they are either plowed under, or left on top of the soil with other crop residue. However, distillers grains left over from ethanol production are converted into animal feed.
Corn cobs are not wasted. They get converted into certain kinds of animal feed.
Around here they are either plowed under, or left on top of the soil with other crop residue. However, distillers grains left over from ethanol production are converted into animal feed.
Here in No. Indiana corn stalks and cobs are ground up and put back on the field. The only product put into the wagons is the corn kernels.
Its called a combine with a corn picker head attached.
Its called a combine with a corn picker head attached.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
