Pure Gas vs. 10% E

Status
Not open for further replies.
these are all possible but with regular use and maintenance, you shouldn't experience many problems with ethanol fuel besides reduced mileage.
 
Can you explain why we need to use it though? Are we short on oil?

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
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?
 
it is to displace other octane increasers, and an attempt to decrease certain tailpipe emissions. it kinda works in practice on some vehicles but imo, it does more harm than good if you look at the big picture.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
All of his points are valid, just outdated.

No one mentioned aldehydes.


Aldehydes are in just about every fruit and vegetable you eat also. Aldehydes occur throughout nature, though I will concede, that they are also a byproduct of ethanol combustion process. But they do break down. They are only a "possible" carcinogen. There is no definitive proof that in the atmospheric concentrations that would be typical of auto emissions, that there is a detrimental effect on people. And one has to balance what is perceived to be a problem from their formation, in relation to the increased other problems from burning petrol based fuels only.

In short, tit for tat.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Can you explain why we need to use it though? Are we short on oil?



I can, at least for my situation. It is cheaper, on a per mile use basis, to use E85 in my vehicle. It leaves less residues and buildups in the fuel system and engine. E85 burns cooler, and produces more hp and torque in the 5.3L engine in my Silverado, according to the official GM power curve charts, substantiated in independent dyno testing. Approximately 12 hp increase and 10 lb torque increase with stock tuning. And for those that like to custom tune their ECM's, you can really pull out some performance and substantial fuel economy over stock tunes using E85. Just a quick look at the the more performance oriented forums for Camaro's, Corvette's, etc substantiate that.

I concede that no one "needs" to use it. But some of us actually prefer to use it. I am not for any government imposed mandates and such, but I definitely prefer using the stuff. It has nothing to do with oil shortage. I am not convinced that any major push has been in that regard. It has been common knowledge that the only reason for an oil import situation is that we are not allowed to retrieve the oil we already have here. And that ethanol production would never displace all the gasoline needed by this country. But there is a strong case that as an oxygenate, cleaning agent, and emissions reduction, it does have a place. How much each of those things is important is relative, but they are proven. And it is biodegradable as opposed to petrol based fuels.

I actually take a somewhat opposite position on all of this. Why would I want to use substandard gasoline only products only, that require regular detergents and other additives to prevent gumming, residues, carbon buildup, etc when I have a better fuel available? Todays engines and fuel systems are not the ones I had available in the 60's and 70's. Technology has changed and I like using a fuel that is readily available in my area at lower cost and has benefits over gasoline only.

Those that have other views... cool. At least we still have some choices.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Can you explain why we need to use it though? Are we short on oil?



Do you want to wait until we are? Do you want to repeat the oil crisis we had in the 70's.

Having another choice is our ace in the hole and part of the free enterprise system.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Can you explain why we need to use it though? Are we short on oil?



Do you want to wait until we are? Do you want to repeat the oil crisis we had in the 70's.

Having another choice is our ace in the hole and part of the free enterprise system.




Of course you're aware we use much diesel to produce that ethanol? We aren't saving much, if any, oil.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Of course you're aware we use much diesel to produce that ethanol? We aren't saving much, if any, oil.


From the study the oil companies paid to that college professor. You still want to hang your hat on that one?

If it were true it would be uneconomical to produce.

The government is evil for mandating ethanol in gasoline? Like they were when mandating the end of lead in gas? Whatever. I trust the government more than I trust oil companies. But I guess that sentiment is not prevalent south of the mason Dixon line with a black president at the helm.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt

Of course you're aware we use much diesel to produce that ethanol? We aren't saving much, if any, oil.


Ok, I'll bite. How are we using as much diesel to produce ethanol? I am surrounded by over 40+ ethanol plants and I could be missing something, but I see some fairly large ethanol storage tanks, and I have yet to see one diesel storage tank at those plants that even compares.

Maybe you are inferring about the farming operations. Well that would be a stretch. Many are using low till or no till farming methods and have been for sometime. We us no till methods on the farms around me, and ours. Now, lets take the number of 420 gallons of ethanol per acre of ethanol production per the 2014 Biofuels guide. We make 2 passes over a corn field in one year, once to plant and once to harvest. Again, we use no till, so there is no trips over the field to turn over the soil and such. I can attest quite confidently, that if we used even 20 gallons per acre, per year, of diesel, we had better look into new equipment. Even a low till operation, that would include another pass over the field isn't going to use 20 gallons per acre either.

So, where is the other 400+ gallons of diesel being used? Can't be with the trucks. A typical grain truck carries the equivalent of 4 acres or more (depending on the per acre yield) of corn in one trip, usually no more than 25 miles, on average. At 6 mpg, that uses shy of 5 gallons, or a little over a gallon per acre. Ok, now we are up to 21-22 gallons total, and I am being very liberal with the number or gallons used. They are usually less.

Maybe the plant itself is using diesel to do the ethanol processing. Not likely. That would be pretty inefficient as best. Gotta go with NG on that one. At least the plants in my area are not so inefficient to use diesel for processing.

I must be missing something. Would you care to enlighten us on how it takes as much diesel to make the same volume of ethanol?
 
TT, how do the plants get their heat? That's not geothermal, eh? Doesn't NG have a cost?

The fact is it does require other fuels to produce the ethanol.

What about pumping? Maybe electrical?
 
Last edited:
A whole lot of stuff being left out. How'd the tractors get to the farm? How'd the guy get to the farm to work on the tractor? How'd the parts get there? Building the tractor? How'd the fertilizer get to the farm? How was it made? Herbicide? Goes on and on and on and on.

And it's convenient to leave out the NG and coal used in the ethanol production. You know we can burn the NG in vehicles too? It's not some waste product, it has to be accounted for.
 
Meh, when we get low on oil I will listen. At least you're not trying to argue that we are now.

The '70s "crisis" was not due to a crude shortage. Our "ace in the hole" is all the oil we do have in this country.

I guess I'm just not a true believer in the Religion of Ethanol, sorry.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Can you explain why we need to use it though? Are we short on oil?

Do you want to wait until we are? Do you want to repeat the oil crisis we had in the 70's.

Having another choice is our ace in the hole and part of the free enterprise system.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
A whole lot of stuff being left out. How'd the tractors get to the farm? How'd the guy get to the farm to work on the tractor? How'd the parts get there? Building the tractor? How'd the fertilizer get to the farm? How was it made? Herbicide? Goes on and on and on and on.

And it's convenient to leave out the NG and coal used in the ethanol production. You know we can burn the NG in vehicles too? It's not some waste product, it has to be accounted for.


Yea but to compare apples to apples....I mean do you think nasty black crude oil jumps out of the ground and purifies itself?

You have the energy to pump it out of the ground. Many times water or steam has to be pumped into the ground to force it out. That ain't cheap anymore. Then you have the whole fracking thing. None of this stuff is environmental. Every day it gets harder and harder to get the oil/gas out of the ground. They're talking about the tar sands trash oil they want to send us from CA.

Pipelines need to be built for the crude. It has to be refined by heating it up to high temps to separate out the good stuff. That takes a lot of energy, yes NG. I could argue more than the energy needed to distil ethanol.

The final product still needs to be transported.

So you have energy required for all 3 phases of gasoline/ethanol production.
1. transporting raw product
2. refining/distilling product
3. transporting product to final distribution

It could be argued its all a wash. And as oil and gas gets harder to get to, the ethanol model will be less energy intensive than the gasoline.
 
^^^Typical evasion. No answer on the real question, just a comparison.

It certainly could be a wash. Especially if we just regurgitate the standard talking points from the corn lobby.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^Typical evasion. No answer on the real question, just a comparison.

It certainly could be a wash. Especially if we just regurgitate the standard talking points from the corn lobby.


It certainly could be a wash. Especially if we just regurgitate the standard talking points from the oil lobby.

I wonder which has more money and power?
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^Typical evasion. No answer on the real question, just a comparison.

It certainly could be a wash. Especially if we just regurgitate the standard talking points from the corn lobby.


It certainly could be a wash. Especially if we just regurgitate the standard talking points from the oil lobby.

I wonder which has more money and power?


Raising the oil lobby is only a legitimate response once the ORIGINAL questions are answered. Otherwise it's just more evasion.

Congrats. You are now ready to excel in politics!
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

Raising the oil lobby is only a legitimate response once the ORIGINAL questions are answered. Otherwise it's just more evasion.

Congrats. You are now ready to excel in politics!




I make logical arguments and try and help people understand. Am I out of order?

This is not a high school debate club.

Bottom line, there is a competitive product the old school hard liners reject. The arguments are getting more desperate and ridiculous.

We're all going to give up clean air and energy security because it might mess up your string trimmer?
 
LMAO! So the opposition is because the old school, hard-liners just won't see the light like you have, and come up to speed? It has nothing to do with economics, or science? Some people are just sticks in the mud, eh? And not only that, by our oppostion we are promoting energy insecurity and dirty air? Classic.

Hmm, reminds me of another topic that we can't discuss.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette

Bottom line, there is a competitive product the old school hard liners reject. The arguments are getting more desperate and ridiculous.

We're all going to give up clean air and energy security because it might mess up your string trimmer?
 
That line smacks of elitism at its finest.

"We know what's best for you."

So just shut up and sit down, eh? Fine with me, I had no axe to grind, but my original questions have NEVER been answered, just deflected, ridiculed, etc. Standard procedure for the self declared protectors of the environment.

Where are you Tired Trucker? At least you've got some spine, and stand up to a question or two from us "Old School Hard Liners". That actually made me laugh!

The only reason ethanol was ever added to our fuel was special interests (corn lobby) pushed it in our legislative branch. They spent a paltry 30 million or so and made hundreds of millions the first year! Following the money is a great way to see the real reasons things get done. Now that there is some momentum we are supposed to imagine our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner, everything is just BETTER with ethanol.

Obviously not everyone agrees. I say it should have been implemented in response to the demands of motorists, not corn farmers...
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
That line smacks of elitism at its finest.

"We know what's best for you."


Regulation is elitism? Most of you OSHLs don't think the EPA should exist.

If wanting to breath clean air and drink clean water is elitism, sign me up.

I'm not exactly a Prius driving ultra leftist. I'm not even a greenie weenie. As a gearhead who tinkers with cars, I'd just like to be able to get my hands on some local E85 fuel. It's frustrating you OSHL's are trying to kill the whole thing.

In the end, I predict the hot rodding industry will promote alternative fuels once they realize it's cheap racing gas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top