Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Please explain why there is ethanol in our gasoline
Topic Started: Jul 25 2009, 07:18 AM (281 Views)
plays88keys
Pisa-Carp
Ethanol added to gasoline makes no sense to me at all.

The claim is it reduces gasoline usage. The sign on the pumps says 10% of the gallon of fuel is ethanol. OK. got that - it's a "filler."

BUT...

The mileage I get is reduced by 10%. So where's the benefit? And how good is it for a car's engine?

IMO, it appears that the people at Archer Daniels Midland are the only ones really getting any benefit from this. And these are the lovely people that are responsible for high fructose corn syrup.

Politics are probably involved.

If anyone has a better explanation, I'd love to hear it.
You can never get enough of what you don't need to make you happy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2009/bw20090514_058678.htm
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
It depends on which blend you're talking about.

E10 gasoline (gas with 10% ethanol added) uses the ethanol as an oxygenate. It reduces the carbon monoxide byproducts produced during combustion to make the reaction more complete and efficient. It's a good pick as additives go because it's cheap to produce, and it's something we can make in-house, rather than import it from politically questionable nations.

If your car is burning through more gas with E10, I have no explanation for that because typically, E10 blends are 1-2 octane higher than their nonblended equivalents.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Aqua: I'd be interested on your take on the article Jolly posted just before you.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Farmers want more money and have a powerful lobby.

I think corn ethanol uses more energy to produce than it contains.

But hey, money is money, and ya gotta stay elected. :shrug:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
from wiki
Quote:
 
Ethanol combustion in an internal combustion engine yields many of the products of incomplete combustion produced by gasoline and significantly larger amounts of formaldehyde and related species such as acetaldehyde.[27] This leads to a significantly larger photochemical reactivity that generates much more ground level ozone.[28] This data has been assembled into The Clean Fuels Report comparison of fuel emissions[29] and shows that ethanol exhaust generates 2.14 times as much ozone as does gasoline exhaust. When this is added into the custom "Localised Pollution Index (LPI)" of The Clean Fuels Report the local pollution, i.e. that which contributes to smog, is 1.7 on a scale where gasoline is 1.0 and higher numbers signify greater pollution. This issue has been formalized by the California Air Resources Board in 2008[citation needed] by recognizing control standards for formaldehydes et al. as an emissions control group much like the conventional NOx and Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs).

So this "renewable" energy is more polluting than straight gasoline?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
ivorythumper
Jul 25 2009, 12:21 PM
Aqua: I'd be interested on your take on the article Jolly posted just before you.
Alrighty.

There have been several studies conducted to determine the highest ethanol blend that most engines could take, and E10 is what they came up with. I wouldn't trust E15 if that's what the norm became.

And about this case...
Quote:
 
Yet using ethanol actually creates more smog than using regular gas, and the EPA's own attorneys had to admit that fact in front of the justices presiding over the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995 (API v. EPA).


What horrible misinformation. Here's what the case is all about. This right here is exactly why you can't rely on an article to do your research for you. You can't just read "API v. EPA 1995" and think "hmm, that proves ethanol creates more smog than regular gas." In fact, smog is never mentioned in ANY of the court literature.
- In August 1994, EPA issued a final renewable oxygenate rule (“ROR”) for its renewable fuel program.
- The ROR adopted the proposed requirement that thirty percent of the oxygen in RFG be derived from renewable sources. Not ethanol specifically. However, EPA noted that at the time the ROR was promulgated, the two most common oxygenates were ethanol and MTBE.
- Ethanol, straight ethanol, does increase volatility in a gasoline blend and thus contributes to more VOC emissions. MTBE does not. Nor does EBTE, which is derived from ethanol.
- In justification of the rule, EPA stated that the ROR 1) will help conserve fossil energy resources and minimize any detrimental effects the RFG program may have on energy consumption; 2) has the potential to provide global warming benefits by stimulating the market for renewable oxygenates; and 3) will maintain the benefits of the RFG program and increase those benefits through incentives for increased ETBE use in the summer, displacing ethanol use during those months. That would cut down on the VOC issue.

Here's what the article was quoting. This comes straight from the court paper:
Quote:
 
EPA admits that the ROR will not give additional emission reductions for VOCs or toxics, and has even conceded that use of ethanol might possibly make air quality worse.


Yes, that's true, but that's why they were going to try to phase in ETBE. At the time of the trial, EPA said that the production of ETBE, which can be used year round without volatility problems, was "expected to be virtually non-existent", but was expected to increase by 1996 through the conversion of MTBE facilities. That's where they got into trouble. They jumped the gun on regulation, phasing in technology the industry wasn't ready for yet (but was getting there). That's all this was. It was about using ethanol before MBTE facilities could convert to ETBE.

Quote:
 
Second, truly independent studies on ethanol, such as those written by Tad Patzek of Berkeley and David Pimentel of Cornell, show that ethanol is a net energy loser. Other studies suggest there is a small net energy gain from it.


Yeah, well, seeing as how the article botched up its interpretation of that court case, I don't see any reason to listen to this, especially since they say at the end "yeah well, some people disagree." If other studies suggest there is a small net energy gain from it, I think we can safely assume that that's just as possibly valid as ethanol being a net energy loser.

Quote:
 
Third, all fuels laced with ethanol reduce the vehicle's fuel efficiency, and the E85 blend drops gas mileage between 30% and 40%, depending on whether you use the EPA's fuel mileage standards (fueleconomy.gov) or those of the Dept. of Energy.


E85? You're talking about 85% ethanol here. That's laughable since that's totally not what's used at the vast majority of gas stations. You need a modified engine to run E85, and since not everybody's driving around with one of those, we use E10 in this country. As for ethanol reducing fuel efficiency, entirely depends on the engine. I know that E10 is about as ethanol-friendly you can get before you can no longer guarantee wear and tear on an engine, and that's part of the reason why we use it, and not the higher stuff.

Quote:
 
Fourth, forget what biofuels have done to the price of foodstuffs worldwide over the past three years; the science seems to suggest that using ethanol increases global warming emissions over the use of straight gasoline. Just these issues should have kept ethanol from being brought back for its fourth run in American history.


I'm not even going to touch this one since it could have its own thread.

Quote:
 
Time and time again we have heard from these groups, who now claim that there is zero scientific evidence that a 15% blend of ethanol would do any damage whatsoever if the mandate for ethanol were raised. As with all statements made by vested interests, few outsiders have actually taken the time to look and find out whether this statement was true.

In fact, it's false.


Indeed. EPA's own studies in the 90s said that 10% is about as much as you could put into an engine without the worry of wear and tear. Count me in as one who wouldn't be putting that stuff into my own car if I could help it.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Ethanol *does* lower your gas mileage. But I have 250 acres of corn that will be harvested in another few weeks, so I'm happy....... :D
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
plays88keys
Pisa-Carp
Until recently, non-ethanol blended gas was readily available in the area we call home at the Bay. Since the switch the mileage in my cars has dropped noticeably. I saw a sign at a marina that said "marine grade nonethanol fuel available here" and I might just start paying their price to put that gas in the Jag. It would be cheaper than engine repairs, that's for sure.

I don't understand why this is being crammed down our throats.
You can never get enough of what you don't need to make you happy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
plays88keys
Jul 25 2009, 02:29 PM
Until recently, non-ethanol blended gas was readily available in the area we call home at the Bay. Since the switch the mileage in my cars has dropped noticeably. I saw a sign at a marina that said "marine grade nonethanol fuel available here" and I might just start paying their price to put that gas in the Jag. It would be cheaper than engine repairs, that's for sure.

It's very possible that you are losing gas mileage but I wouldn't assume your engine is being hurt by the fuel blend. I'd call up a Jag dealer and try to know for sure.

Quote:
 
I don't understand why this is being crammed down our throats.


I posted the reason EPA is giving in my post above. It's supposed to cut down on emissions and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply