Pure Gas vs. 10% E

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker


The biggest "farce" is the idea that the food supply is diminished due to biofuel production.

Sad I have to repeat this again.... and you can check all this out for yourself.

80% of the total US corn production is used for livestock feed. Also, of the total US corn production, 40% is used for ethanol production. The human consumption portion of the total corn production is NOT AFFECTED!

Of the corn that is fed to livestock, most of the starches in the corn just pass thru. Cattle use the lysine from the corn and do not digest the starches. The starches, are what is used for ethanol production. So..... why not use some of the corn production for ethanol and use the resulting Dried Distillers Grain, which is primarily lysine based protein that livestock can actually use, in livestock production. This reduces feedlot runoff wastes and provides a fuel for automotive use. There is no "waste", but in fact, there is greater utilization of the nation's corn production.

It does not "waste" billions of gallons of water. True, it uses a large amount of water, but most of it is recycled, and what does get evaporated into the atmosphere just returns to the normal water cycle that has gone on since the world began. Seems some think that the water used in biofuel production is forever lost. Sad the public school system did such a lousy job.

More false information. Cows can and do digest starch from corn.

Link
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: dparm
Modern cars are tuned to run on gas containing up to 10% ethanol, FYI.
What's a "modern" car?


would like too know this too,not meaning too have a heated debate, just curious what the experts consider a modern vehicle.

i do know our two beaters, a 94 and 98 get slightly better mileage with the non ethanol gas and sound quieter too. 100% gas is same price as premium where i live.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker


The biggest "farce" is the idea that the food supply is diminished due to biofuel production.

Sad I have to repeat this again.... and you can check all this out for yourself.

80% of the total US corn production is used for livestock feed. Also, of the total US corn production, 40% is used for ethanol production. The human consumption portion of the total corn production is NOT AFFECTED!

Of the corn that is fed to livestock, most of the starches in the corn just pass thru. Cattle use the lysine from the corn and do not digest the starches. The starches, are what is used for ethanol production. So..... why not use some of the corn production for ethanol and use the resulting Dried Distillers Grain, which is primarily lysine based protein that livestock can actually use, in livestock production. This reduces feedlot runoff wastes and provides a fuel for automotive use. There is no "waste", but in fact, there is greater utilization of the nation's corn production.

It does not "waste" billions of gallons of water. True, it uses a large amount of water, but most of it is recycled, and what does get evaporated into the atmosphere just returns to the normal water cycle that has gone on since the world began. Seems some think that the water used in biofuel production is forever lost. Sad the public school system did such a lousy job.

More false information. Cows can and do digest starch from corn.

Link


I take it you ACTUALLY read the abstract portion of the article? Seems from that alone that starch absorbtion is a problem. The Abstract promote the idea the corn must be processed in one of many ways, including fermentation, to increase digestion. The abstract also mentions how starches are not absorbed in the small intestine tract. Unprocessed corn can cause digestional distress, like the abstract stated. That is why DDG is in such demand. It is a high lysine product that REDUCES the problems of digestion in livestock. Seems like the article did not support much of your contention. Here is an excerpt from page 118 of the article you reference that support my contention....

Grinding grain to a very fine particle size will increase starch digestibility. However, benefits in starch digestion from fine grinding are CONSIDERABLY LESS than those obtained from FERMENTATION or heat processing. (emphasis mine)

As for what starches are used by livestock, are better supplied and digested thru roughage such as silage and legume crops such as alfalfa and clover. The NATURAL sources of starches for ruminants. It is because of this fact, that feeds for livestock are a mixture of silage, legumes, and grain products.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
It is because of this fact, that feeds for livestock are a mixture of silage, legumes, and grain products.

Yep. As I've mentioned before, up here, our ethanol production is based upon feed grade grain (non-food wheat) that's used for fermentation and then diverted to silage for cattle.

I prefer and tend to use pure gas, but, as I've also mentioned before, ethanol blended fuels can and have stood on their own legs before. Regulations made things worse, not better.

A company called Husky/Mohawk up here has sold E-10 for at least twenty years, long before any regulations came about. Regular 87 was pure gas. Midgrade 89 was ethanol blended (E-10 or less) and at the same price as regular. I assure you that their model worked very well for them. When the government mandated ethanol minimums, the midgrade got its own higher price tier.
 
The Grange in Issaquah has 100% gas. I like to support them, and I get my dog food there--so I always fill up when I'm there. I've tried like crazy to discern a difference in fuel economy. While I know it *should* be better, the difference must be so small that I can't tell. Maybe it's different with older cars.

I still fill up there when I get dog food, but I wouldn't go out of my way unless you like supporting your local Cenex guy for some particular reason.
 
I had the opportunity to test Ethanol vs no-Ethanol recently. I live in California (Victorville/Los Angeles) and all our gas is E-10 if I'm not mistaken. I drove to Iowa a few weeks ago and they have 87 normal gas and 89 Ethanol (E10) gas which is usually 20 cents cheaper than 87 normal gas.

My 2013 Honda Civic got noticeably less mpg on the 89 E10 gas than the 87 gas - almost 5mpg worse. And I drove the same route every day (2 hours/day) so it was a pretty good comparison.

So $2/tank ($.20/gal cheaper) for 50 miles less? The difference wasn't enough to make me stop using 89 E10. So I spent my time trying to feel (butt dyno) if 89 E10 felt better than 87 but... I could not tell the difference in my engine. So I just ran 89 E10 most of my 1.5 weeks in Iowa.

Saw a lot more stations selling 85 Octane than I remembered (Utah, Colorado, Nebraska) last time I drove to Iowa (9 years ago).

Edit: I'll readily admit that the mpg difference could have been caused by other factors (wind, deer jumping in front of me, etc...).
 
Last edited:
5mpg is a pretty massive difference. I have to wonder if the "E10" you got didn't have a significantly higher ethanol content than advertised.
 
First of all, I would never believe anyone from Iowa about Ethanol. I bought the E85 in Gainesville for my company truck which is approved. Has the little Green leaf, doo hickey on the tailgate. A 2011 Ford f-150. I lost 3 mpg and it never came back, I was getting 17 to 18, before the E85. I am getting 15.3 mile to the gallon with just regular gas. Not to mention, the truck ran awful. But hey, if I didn't do it, I couldn't complain. Our fine Governor just repealed the E10 in our state and its no longer required at the pumps in Florida. I am hoping to see regular gas return.
 
Originally Posted By: JOD
5mpg is a pretty massive difference. I have to wonder if the "E10" you got didn't have a significantly higher ethanol content than advertised.


Was thinking the same thing.

Originally Posted By: Panzerman
First of all, I would never believe anyone from Iowa about Ethanol.


Agreed 100% especially if they are a corn farmer - which most of them are.
 
If ethanol is so good, why is it "still" government subsidized???
At the tune of about 43 cents per gallon of ethanol. That's yours and my tax dollars going to ethanol plants. I wonder who owns the most stock???
 
I've been using E10 for at least 18 years here in Illinois. All of my engines have run fine,(including OPE) no iceing problems in winter, and no fuel system problems.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker


The biggest "farce" is the idea that the food supply is diminished due to biofuel production.

Sad I have to repeat this again.... and you can check all this out for yourself.

80% of the total US corn production is used for livestock feed. Also, of the total US corn production, 40% is used for ethanol production. The human consumption portion of the total corn production is NOT AFFECTED!

Of the corn that is fed to livestock, most of the starches in the corn just pass thru. Cattle use the lysine from the corn and do not digest the starches. The starches, are what is used for ethanol production. So..... why not use some of the corn production for ethanol and use the resulting Dried Distillers Grain, which is primarily lysine based protein that livestock can actually use, in livestock production. This reduces feedlot runoff wastes and provides a fuel for automotive use. There is no "waste", but in fact, there is greater utilization of the nation's corn production.

It does not "waste" billions of gallons of water. True, it uses a large amount of water, but most of it is recycled, and what does get evaporated into the atmosphere just returns to the normal water cycle that has gone on since the world began. Seems some think that the water used in biofuel production is forever lost. Sad the public school system did such a lousy job.

More false information. Cows can and do digest starch from corn.

Link


I take it you ACTUALLY read the abstract portion of the article? Seems from that alone that starch absorbtion is a problem. The Abstract promote the idea the corn must be processed in one of many ways, including fermentation, to increase digestion. The abstract also mentions how starches are not absorbed in the small intestine tract. Unprocessed corn can cause digestional distress, like the abstract stated. That is why DDG is in such demand. It is a high lysine product that REDUCES the problems of digestion in livestock. Seems like the article did not support much of your contention. Here is an excerpt from page 118 of the article you reference that support my contention....

Grinding grain to a very fine particle size will increase starch digestibility. However, benefits in starch digestion from fine grinding are CONSIDERABLY LESS than those obtained from FERMENTATION or heat processing. (emphasis mine)

As for what starches are used by livestock, are better supplied and digested thru roughage such as silage and legume crops such as alfalfa and clover. The NATURAL sources of starches for ruminants. It is because of this fact, that feeds for livestock are a mixture of silage, legumes, and grain products.


Cattle should eat grass, not grains...not fermented grains, not returned bread loaves.

This rubbish about non human food grains not affecting the food supply is exactly rubbish, because either requires space. Space diverted to growing non-food is space that used to be used to grow food is a reduction in human food supplies.

Grain feeding cattle is what gives the vegetarian extremists the ammunition on how inefficient the process is.
 
But you seem to think that the amount of grain produced remains static. You can only have a loss to any group, if there is not enough being produced to support that group along with another. Grain production has eclipsed all time records. There is more than enough grain for all concerns. And also, it pretends that there is no other use to the same kernel of corn once it has been directed to ethanol production. The plants that make ethanol from that corn also produce corn oil, DDG, and a laundry list of byproducts from that same kernel of corn. Nothing is wasted.

And I would check with the ag extension service of your state university. These are the folks who's task is to study all the livestock issues. Dried Distillers Grain (DDG) is a very beneficial product for livestock. It reduces the risks of intestinal colitis substantially, it provides a high level of protein and nutrients that is very digestible compared to other methods. You really have very little familiarity with what livestock actually eat, and what is beneficial to them. Me thinks ye have an agenda.

I am reminded of a thing John Wayne said in the movie "Mclintock". Pertaining to policiticans, he said, "They think that cows are something you milk, and Indians are something in front of a cigar store". If you actually grew up and lived around these ruminants, you might have a different outlook on what they should or should not eat.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Why hasn't the corrosion issue came up yet? Pure gas is better for your whole fuel system.


Probably the reason that it hasn't come up, is that there is a standing reward out for documented evidence of ethanol causing harm to fuel systems and engines, and no one has been able to produce the evidence and collect the reward. Oh sure, you hear anecdotal stories of this, but when the details have come to light, it was usually the fault of the owner not properly filling the tanks, storing fuel improperly, leaving fuel sit in a tank or carburetor for a couple of years, the ethanol cleaning out the crud in a fuel tank on an older vehicle that never got a dose of ethanol with a subsequent filter clogging issue, etc.

The only time ethanol is corrosive, is when mixed with water. If you have high volumes of water in your fuel tank, you have other issues than the ethanol. I have seen several engine and fuel system tear downs on vehicles that got a study diet of E85. Anywhere from 2 years to over 100,000 miles. And I have yet to see any negative effects, but have seen some very positive ones.

But feel free to think that the corrosion issue is as bad as you think. If you can document a case where ethanol was the culprit, then by all means, call you state ethanol producers and see if you can get that reward that is out there. I want someone to win it, if nothing else, so that we can find out once and for all if this is all true.
 
There are a few places like Florida where I guess E10 is a new thing. Living in more progressive places like Louisiana, Colorado and Massachusetts, I've been putting it in my vette for 30 years and am still waiting for the corrosion to begin and fuel lines to disintegrate. This latest round of chicken little's crying and throwing fits is getting tiresome.

Ethanol is sold in many gas additives such as gas drier. It's an octane booster, gas dryer, and fuel system cleaner for free.

What's to complain about?
 
I think that most people who have such a disdain for ethanol actually developed that because of government shoving it at them. If it had been purely market driven, then the hue and cry might not have been so loud.

Many of us have used various ethanol blends for several decades with no problems. Sure, there are occasional problems, primarily because of someone's goof in how they stored it or something. And when you combine the forcing thing by the government and the few instances of screwups that caused problems, you have fertile ground for the conspiracy folks to plant seeds of discontent about ethanol.

Don't expect these ideas to die off anytime soon. And have no problem with folks hating ethanol. I use E85 and that leaves a better market price for me.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
I think that most people who have such a disdain for ethanol actually developed that because of government shoving it at them. If it had been purely market driven, then the hue and cry might not have been so loud.

Many of us have used various ethanol blends for several decades with no problems. Sure, there are occasional problems, primarily because of someone's goof in how they stored it or something. And when you combine the forcing thing by the government and the few instances of screwups that caused problems, you have fertile ground for the conspiracy folks to plant seeds of discontent about ethanol.

Don't expect these ideas to die off anytime soon. And have no problem with folks hating ethanol. I use E85 and that leaves a better market price for me.


It would not be market driven because while most people getting gas do not know about the effects of ethanol in fuel, americans like to keep old ways and not change.

Ethanol has pros and cons like anything else. I will start with positive aspects.
ethanol can, and will decrease tailpipe emissions on engines tuned properly for it. This is because it has oxygen in it and allows more complete combustion of fuel. Ethanol can also decrease combustion chamber temps because alcohol can burn much richer air/fuel mixtures than gas. If this does not make sense, think of spraying water, oil, gas whatever onto a hot piece of metal. while it may combust, the cold liquid will cool the piece of metal. The ability to burn more fuel more completely allows more power to be made. At a ratio of about 10% ethanol to 90%gasoline, the ethanol increases the octane rating, allowing refiners to use ethanol instead of more harmful chemicals like benzene from fuel, allows more complete combustion, allows more power to be made, can mix with a small amount of water from the fuel system, and makes people supplying crops and ethanol producers happy.

Here are some disadvantageous aspects of ethanol in fuel. Ethanol can absorb moisture from the air beyond the capacity of keeping the water in suspension. This can cause water droplets at the bottom of the fuel tank, lines, and carburetor bowl. Since ethanol oxygenates the fuel, the water can and will eat away at metal in the fuel systems. this causes problems from a hole in the tank, to a corroded and useless carburetor or fuel pump. gasohol has a shorter shelf life than straight gasoline. this can cause fuel system problems in seldom used vehicles and equipment. Ethanol is a very poor lubricant, even diluting lubricants in a 2 stroke crankcase and impeding the lubricating ability of gasoline to a point. Now when you have a vehicle or piece of equipment that is not designed or tuned for gasohol, you can have fuel system problems including certain rubbers or polymers degrade, leaking fuel and causing improper operation, unsafe situations, and spilled fuel that evaporates and is a harsh pollutant. Gasohol needs to be run at a richer fuel/air ratio than straight gas.this results in increased fuel consumption, and can cause higher combustion temperatures that can increase emissions. most people don't tune carbureted things for gasohol so they may run poorly, getting poor fuel economy and poor emissions.
people that grow corn and other crops for ethanol production may decide to just grow corn and not rotate other crops. This leads to soil deprivation and an increased use of fertilizers. when the fertilizer gets washed away from many farms, it enters waterways and can encourage huge growths of algae that blocks light from organisms below. they can die and create co2. The algae will die and create huge amounts of co2 killing fish and damaging ecosystems. crops must be transported to ethanol fermenting facilities. this causes pollution. the facility uses a large amount of power creating more pollution, the fermentation produces waste, and the ethanol must be transported to be mixed with gas.
people will get decreased mileage with gasohol than with gasoline. resulting in increased use of fuel.

I believe that gasohol can be helpful to air quality in select areas of california where exhaust gases are trapped over cities. The vehicles would need to be tuned properly for gasohol. This could increase the air quality of certain areas. However over an entire country, the negative environmental and engine problems caused by gasohol outweigh the positive aspects of gasohol. I believe that automakers should work with oil companies to create more efficient, and durable engines that do not use ethanol.
Eric
 
Originally Posted By: outdoorsman310

Here are some disadvantageous aspects of ethanol in fuel. Ethanol can absorb moisture from the air beyond the capacity of keeping the water in suspension. This can cause water droplets at the bottom of the fuel tank, lines, and carburetor bowl. Since ethanol oxygenates the fuel, the water can and will eat away at metal in the fuel systems. this causes problems from a hole in the tank, to a corroded and useless carburetor or fuel pump. gasohol has a shorter shelf life than straight gasoline. this can cause fuel system problems in seldom used vehicles and equipment. Ethanol is a very poor lubricant, even diluting lubricants in a 2 stroke crankcase and impeding the lubricating ability of gasoline to a point. Now when you have a vehicle or piece of equipment that is not designed or tuned for gasohol, you can have fuel system problems including certain rubbers or polymers degrade, leaking fuel and causing improper operation, unsafe situations, and spilled fuel that evaporates and is a harsh pollutant. Gasohol needs to be run at a richer fuel/air ratio than straight gas.this results in increased fuel consumption, and can cause higher combustion temperatures that can increase emissions. most people don't tune carbureted things for gasohol so they may run poorly, getting poor fuel economy and poor emissions.
people that grow corn and other crops for ethanol production may decide to just grow corn and not rotate other crops. This leads to soil deprivation and an increased use of fertilizers. when the fertilizer gets washed away from many farms, it enters waterways and can encourage huge growths of algae that blocks light from organisms below. they can die and create co2. The algae will die and create huge amounts of co2 killing fish and damaging ecosystems. crops must be transported to ethanol fermenting facilities. this causes pollution. the facility uses a large amount of power creating more pollution, the fermentation produces waste, and the ethanol must be transported to be mixed with gas.
people will get decreased mileage with gasohol than with gasoline. resulting in increased use of fuel.

I believe that gasohol can be helpful to air quality in select areas of california where exhaust gases are trapped over cities. The vehicles would need to be tuned properly for gasohol. This could increase the air quality of certain areas. However over an entire country, the negative environmental and engine problems caused by gasohol outweigh the positive aspects of gasohol. I believe that automakers should work with oil companies to create more efficient, and durable engines that do not use ethanol.
Eric


All of the above is fear mongering old wives tales.

Do you understand that most of the country has been using 10% ethanol in gas for a very long time? If the problems were as bad as that something would have changed long ago.

Who is buying this stuff?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top