Ethanol in gas?

wrote:
> In addition, the manufacture of corn-based ethanol takes a tremendous
> amount of water from the environment.


and then it just disappears from the planet?

Kenneth J. Harris wrote:
> Perhaps you would like to give the your source for your statements that
> ethanol causes a 6% mileage decrease(= 1.5 gal ethanol approximates 1
> gal gas).

simple math. ethanol has about half the calorific content of gasoline.
factor that by the content ratio and you have your mileage decrease.

>
> wrote:
>
>> In addition, the manufacture of corn-based ethanol takes a tremendous
>> amount of water from the environment.
>>
>> It is sound, accepted fact that it takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol to move
>> a vehicle as far as 1.0 gallons of gas. The earlier poster arguing
>> against the gas mileage drop is either biased or truly ignorant.
>>

Al wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> In addition, the manufacture of corn-based ethanol takes a tremendous
>> amount of water from the environment.
>
>
>
> and then it just disappears from the planet?

while i agree that it's not relevant, water is "lost" in ethanol
production as it is consumed in production of the ethanol molecule.
it's "released" again on combustion.

TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in
> t:
>
>
>>Dr Nick wrote:
>>
>>>my local stations just started using ethanol in their pumps (happend
>>>about 2 weeks ago or so) they are all 10% ethanol. besides form what
>>>I've been reading about it getting worse gas mileage (which I find
>>>funny, because gas keeps going up steadly, and then one day I notice
>>>a 10% ethanol sticker, and gas was still higher.... seems pretty
>>>fishy to me, but what can you expect from oil companies. ) is ethanol
>>>bad for my engine (I4 2006 accord)
>>
>>not specifically.
>>
>>
>>>what
>>>percentage of ethanol can it safely take?
>>
>>up to 15% iirc.
>
>
>
>
>
> If so, that must be recent change. All the cars I've ever seen will take up
> to only 10% ethanol or 15% MTBE without alteration.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>do any stations still use regular
>>>gas formulations (non ethanol)?
>>
>>my local stations were pumping non-ethanol gas for a couple of weeks
>>[the compulsory ethanol "oxygenate" mandate has been dropped for
>>california], but have recently started with ethanol again. very
>>distinctive change in odor, and in my case, hesitation on
>>acceleration.
>> with ethanol, my car has a very distinct "flat spot" at about 2000
>>rpm. those two weeks without, the car was back to normal operation.
>>all this ethanol b.s. is entirely unnecessary and serves only to
>>"volumize" gas, i.e. you pay more for less.
>
>
>
>
> Not quite. It's being added because the deep-green freaks have managed
> beyond all logic to convince legislators that ethanol is somehow
> "environmentally friendly".
>
> Ethanol is a non-starter without the government shoveling your taxes to the
> refiners to buy the stuff. Oxygenated fuels go stale very quickly and are
> tough on older cars' fuel systems.
>
> Also, the biggest lobbyist for ethanol and ethanol subsisdies is
> ArcherDanielsMidland (ADM). And just guess who America's biggest producer
> (and subsidy recipient) of industrial ethanol is...?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> dig about on api.org if
>>you don't believe it. gasoline should be sold by the therm, not the
>>gallon - that way, all these reduced mpg games would stop.
>
>
>
>
> For Canadian readers wishing to avoid ethanol, the only station that sells
> non-ethanolized gas is Esso (Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil). They still use MTBE,
> which is derived from natural gas, and they have no plans to move to
> ethanol any time soon.
>
>
mtbe still reduces mpg's, so it's just another variant of the same game.
whether it's ethanol, mtbe or some other "essential" ingredient,
selling gasoline by the therm would completely stop this, what would in
any other industry be technically referred to as, "a rip off".

back when i was an undergrad, one of the hot ticket research areas was
high temperature materials for combustion technology. basic
thermodynamics show that the higher the combustion temperature
achieved, the better the efficiency. but then, BOOM, suddenly, we have
NOx emissions to worry about and the dream of high thermodynamic
efficiency and significantly lower fuel consumption is forever dead.
it's strange how things always seem to work out for the oil industry
like this, isn't it?

MTBE is an interesting commodity - most of it is produced by our
friends to the north - Canada. Well when the free trade agreements
were negotiated with our neighbors in the Americas under the ageis of
Carla Hill in the Bush 1 admin, there were clauses that provided for
damages if an exporter was negatively affected by legislation passed by
the country importing the product.

MTBE was found to be a potential cancer causing agent - was removed as
a gasoline additive from US gasoline blends. Now the US taxpayers are
being sued big time by the Canadian producers and they stand to make a
bundle.

Now guess who is on the lead team of attorneys handling the Canadian
suit against our govt - the lady who always wore the red suits - Carla
Hill - ain't it funny how the revolving door works.

Be interesting to see if anyone in our leadership calls bull **** on
the whole ethanol game - won't happen too much money being made here.

butch burton wrote:
> MTBE is an interesting commodity - most of it is produced by our
> friends to the north - Canada. Well when the free trade agreements
> were negotiated with our neighbors in the Americas under the ageis of
> Carla Hill in the Bush 1 admin, there were clauses that provided for
> damages if an exporter was negatively affected by legislation passed by
> the country importing the product.
>
> MTBE was found to be a potential cancer causing agent - was removed as
> a gasoline additive from US gasoline blends. Now the US taxpayers are
> being sued big time by the Canadian producers and they stand to make a
> bundle.
>
> Now guess who is on the lead team of attorneys handling the Canadian
> suit against our govt - the lady who always wore the red suits - Carla
> Hill - ain't it funny how the revolving door works.
>
> Be interesting to see if anyone in our leadership calls bull **** on
> the whole ethanol game - won't happen too much money being made here.
>
all that is true. but the one i like the most is the one about the oil
company that [successfully] lobbied for the introduction of mtbe in
california. it was the same firm who had a certain california
governor's wife on its board and whose refineries used a process that
happened to produce a lot of mtbe as an otherwise unwanted by-product.

jim beam > wrote in
:

> TeGGeR® wrote:

>>
>> For Canadian readers wishing to avoid ethanol, the only station that
>> sells non-ethanolized gas is Esso (Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil). They
>> still use MTBE, which is derived from natural gas, and they have no
>> plans to move to ethanol any time soon.
>>
>>
> mtbe still reduces mpg's, so it's just another variant of the same
> game. whether it's ethanol, mtbe or some other "essential" ingredient,



Maybe so, but MTBE is derived from natural gas, and is a lot more
financially viable than ethanol. Ethanol only works if you rob Peter to pay
Paul.

90% of emissions were removed from auto exhaust by about the late '80s. In
spite of a 153% increase in vehicular traffic since 1970, the federal EPA
says the air is about 53% cleaner than 1970, and that's in absolute terms.

If the environuts would stop their insane fulmination about imaginary
hobgoblins, we'd still have MMT as our octane booster. It's cheaper than
MTBE or ethanol, and allows fuel to keep longer.




> selling gasoline by the therm would completely stop this, what would
> in any other industry be technically referred to as, "a rip off".
>
> back when i was an undergrad, one of the hot ticket research areas was
> high temperature materials for combustion technology. basic
> thermodynamics show that the higher the combustion temperature
> achieved, the better the efficiency.



I remember a brief, faddish infatuation with adiabatic technology in the
'80s. That didn't last long.



> but then, BOOM, suddenly, we
> have NOx emissions to worry about and the dream of high thermodynamic
> efficiency and significantly lower fuel consumption is forever dead.



It was dead in the early '70s, when the EPA suddenly realized that their
focus on reducing HC was resulting in higher NO. This resulted in an about-
face in emissions regulation, and gave us EGR and lower compression ratios,
along with lower mileage and power.

Power and mileage did not begin to recover until computer engine management
came along.



> it's strange how things always seem to work out for the oil industry
> like this, isn't it?
>
>


To a point I suppose. But...

It didn't work out for them when they were told to find an alternative to
TEL.
It didn't work out for them when they were prevented by the greenies and
the NIMBYs from building new refineries.
It didn't work out for them when they were told to produce "boutique" fuels
for tiny markets.
It didn't work out for them when they were told to reduce sulfur content.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>TeGGeR® wrote:
>
>
>>>For Canadian readers wishing to avoid ethanol, the only station that
>>>sells non-ethanolized gas is Esso (Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil). They
>>>still use MTBE, which is derived from natural gas, and they have no
>>>plans to move to ethanol any time soon.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>mtbe still reduces mpg's, so it's just another variant of the same
>>game. whether it's ethanol, mtbe or some other "essential" ingredient,
>
>
>
>
> Maybe so, but MTBE is derived from natural gas, and is a lot more
> financially viable than ethanol. Ethanol only works if you rob Peter to pay
> Paul.
>
> 90% of emissions were removed from auto exhaust by about the late '80s. In
> spite of a 153% increase in vehicular traffic since 1970, the federal EPA
> says the air is about 53% cleaner than 1970, and that's in absolute terms.
>
> If the environuts would stop their insane fulmination about imaginary
> hobgoblins, we'd still have MMT as our octane booster. It's cheaper than
> MTBE or ethanol, and allows fuel to keep longer.

octane is not such an issue these days. better combustion chamber
design has all but eliminated the serious issues that used to be such
problems with low octane gas.

>
>
>
>
>
>>selling gasoline by the therm would completely stop this, what would
>>in any other industry be technically referred to as, "a rip off".
>>
>>back when i was an undergrad, one of the hot ticket research areas was
>>high temperature materials for combustion technology. basic
>>thermodynamics show that the higher the combustion temperature
>>achieved, the better the efficiency.
>
>
>
>
> I remember a brief, faddish infatuation with adiabatic technology in the
> '80s. That didn't last long.
>
>
>
>
>> but then, BOOM, suddenly, we
>>have NOx emissions to worry about and the dream of high thermodynamic
>>efficiency and significantly lower fuel consumption is forever dead.
>
>
>
>
> It was dead in the early '70s, when the EPA suddenly realized that their
> focus on reducing HC was resulting in higher NO.

which was fine if you didn't have a catalyst!

> This resulted in an about-
> face in emissions regulation, and gave us EGR and lower compression ratios,
> along with lower mileage and power.

but now we have catalysts! and they're very effective! so let's get
back to the pursuit of high efficiency!

>
> Power and mileage did not begin to recover until computer engine management
> came along.

it's definitely helped a lot, but it addresses service inefficiency, not
thermodynamic efficiency, the fundamental issue.

>
>
>
>
>>it's strange how things always seem to work out for the oil industry
>>like this, isn't it?
>>
>>
>
>
>
> To a point I suppose. But...
>
> It didn't work out for them when they were told to find an alternative to
> TEL.
> It didn't work out for them when they were prevented by the greenies and
> the NIMBYs from building new refineries.
> It didn't work out for them when they were told to produce "boutique" fuels
> for tiny markets.
> It didn't work out for them when they were told to reduce sulfur content.

yes, but this is a high stakes machiavellian game with a LOT of money at
stake. would you believe that in my town, there's a certain industrial
interest group that pays a large retainer to an enviro-lawyer that
ostensively acts against them? why? because it allows them to bleat
about "unfair" market conditions and get other concessions up the wazoo.
i'd love to be more specific, but it wouldn't be good for my career.

"boutique" fuel is what i'm talking about in my response to butch. and
sulfur is easy enough to do. but bleating about how hard it is allows
tax concessions on infrastructure and price increases.

In article >,
jim beam > wrote:

[snip]
> back when i was an undergrad, one of the hot ticket research areas was
> high temperature materials for combustion technology. basic
> thermodynamics show that the higher the combustion temperature
> achieved, the better the efficiency. but then, BOOM, suddenly, we have
> NOx emissions to worry about and the dream of high thermodynamic
> efficiency and significantly lower fuel consumption is forever dead.
> it's strange how things always seem to work out for the oil industry
> like this, isn't it?

Engines run with some extra air around the edges of the combustion to
take care carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and soot. That extra air is
what produces NOx. The solution to that is to cool the combustion by
diluting the air/fuel mixture with exhaust. There goes the efficiency.

Unfortunately, there's no more efficient solution at this time. The
additional CO2 from reduced efficiency is somewhat less toxic than the
hydrocarbons or NOx from an efficient engine.

We're still lacking two critical technologies - cheap fuel cells and
cheap hydrogen storage. Some scientists claim that near-future
nanotechnologies can make cheap fuel cell catalysts and trap hydrogen in
a safe form. I hope so. My Honda Accord Hybrid sure is a failure.

Regarding the more tangible ideas presented I suggest that we all run an
experiment with our cars comparing Ethanol Gas with Non Ethanol Gas. As I
have indicated in my Apr 24, 2006 at 02:48 PM post under the title “MPG
difference with different gas?“ I, personally, have seen strong
indication of large fluctuations in gas mileage between two different
brands/gas stations that I have been monitoring lately here in Milpitas,
CA. The difference is not small. So far I have filled up a total of 6
tanks of gas (3 from each station) using my 3 different cars and noticed a
15-17%!! difference in the ethanol gas compared to the non-ethanol gas. The
magnitude of the difference surprised me.

I engaged in this experiment because I had been routinely fueling up at my
local 76 gas station for the past year or so, checking gas mileage once in
a while out of curiosity and as an indication of general engine health.
Then, in the last few months, I noticed that gas mileage on my ’98 Nissan
Frontier had dropped significantly and I started wondering if my engine
was getting out of tune. So I tried filling up at another gas station, my
local Shell station and voila! The MPG went back up to the 24.5MPG that I
remember when the truck was new. I repeated the experiment with my other
two cars, an ’88 Nissan 323 and a ’89 Honda CRX and I also noticed similar
MPG differences (15-17%).

I cannot claim to know at this point whether this is due to the ethanol or
other additives. I do know that the caloric content of ethanol is much
lower than gas so some decrease in gas mileage should be expected. Also I
do not know whether the caloric content of ethanol is converted to
mechanical energy with the same efficiency. And sure, other factors could
be at play such as driving conditions, ambient temperature, accuracy of
pump measurement etc. So I would like to encourage you to run similar
experiments as I continue my experiment so that we can collect a large
statistical sample and remove the random errors.

I also suggest that somebody posts some ideas on how to remove other
variables from this experiment so that MPG differences can be attributed
to gasoline only. E.g. Do not compare city driving with Highway driving,
short driving with long driving etc.
In my case, with my truck, I do mostly highway driving and I noticed that
the MPG using gas from any one particular gas station is surprisingly
consistent (no more than 2-3% variation). I cannot explain the 15-17%
difference that I have recently observed between these the two gas
stations I mentioned above.

When it comes to the less tangible ideas presented, I have to confess,
that I live in the US but I am originally from Europe and still spend a
lot of time in Europe. In Europe where there is a lot more regulation by
our “benevolent” governments we pay around $6 per gallon in most European
states. The true cost of gas in Europe is more or less the same as for
every other country, that is, somewhere between $2.00 and $2.50 per gallon
which covers paying for the international price of crude, refinement costs
and various transportation costs. The rest of the price up to the $6 level
is, you guessed it, taxes that our benevolent European governments levy on
us using the power that we relinquished to them a long time ago. My
general advice to you Americans is, whatever you do, do not follow
Europe’s example. If you do, you will also deprive us Europeans of the
still rather individualistic America you have now which is the only
remaining reminder to us and the rest of the world of what our countries
could have been had we not relinquished our power as individuals to the
collectivism of the state. As to how America got to be this fortunate,
it’s another story but, from what I see, America’s individualistic
fortitude will be temporary and short lived if you do not safeguard it.
After all, wouldn’t you agree that it would be difficult for America to
avoid the fate of almost every other country in the world? So be very
weary of relinquishing power to the collective thinking of the state, it
is a one way path, a trap that almost every other country in the world has
fallen into and cannot get out of. It happens gradually as it happened for
us Europeans. For many of us Europeans America is left as the only
reminder of what our countries could have been.