Gas mileage of ethanol-added gasoline?

[WN9HJW]

Post Deleted

[N8YX]

I have noticed this as well.

Follow the money.

[KG4CGC]

This is true. Simply put, alcohol contains less energy than dinofuel.

[W1GUH]

Yep, I always see an MPG drop with ethanol and also that gas they use in the wintertime. It's about 3-4 MPG here. Fact of life. Good to know about tho' so you don't think there's something wrong with your vehicle.

[KG4CGC]

Buy expensive additives!

[N2RJ]

Now you know why (in part) food AND gas prices are on the rise.

It's also not good for any engine but small engines tend to suffer the most.

Look on YouTube for phase separation experiment and you will see why.

[KG4CGC]

Not to mention that alcohol is water based. Mixing it with gasoline is like oil and vinegar dressing. You have to keep shaking it. A gross analogy but the point is clear.

[ad4mg]

I have noticed this as well.

Follow the money.

It lands in the fly-over states, all of which are red. Amazing conundrum for the independent "get the gubmint outta my life" conservative.

Where's the outrage? (asked with mulligan issued to our NJ friend who dared speak out about this)

[WØTKX]

Ask Michelle B. about farm subsidies in her family...

[KB3LAZ]

Speaking of gas, the gas here in Spain smells different. Almost like acetone. No clue why. Im not a chemist. I assume that smell is alcohol.

[KG4CGC]

Speaking of gas, the gas here in Spain smells different. Almost like acetone. No clue why. Im not a chemist. I assume that smell is alcohol.

Follow your nose. It is more likely a distillate of petroleum than it is alcohol. Then again, I don't know what they do over there. They could be adding a contaminant to the alcohol before it is mixed so people don't try to drink it.
??????????????????????

[KB3LAZ]

Follow your nose. It is more likely a distillate of petroleum than it is alcohol. Then again, I don't know what they do over there. They could be adding a contaminant to the alcohol before it is mixed so people don't try to drink it.
??????????????????????

No idea but the shit is rather powerful. It burns the hell out of my nose just to go the gas station. There are more than a few biodiesel stations here locally too. Its a shit ton cheaper too. 80 cents give or take per liter where as gas is 1.40€ per liter. Diesel is even more.

[PA5COR]

My van runs on Diesel, but also on sunflower oil, Older design 2.5 Turbo diesel with prechamber and plunger fuel pump LOL.
Always funny in France to "tank" 5 or 6 5 liter bottles of sunflower oil, and top up with a gallon diesel...;) the looks on the faces of the french peeps are hilarious...

[KG4CGC]

Did Kawasaki ever put that diesel bike into full production?

[KB3LAZ]

Did Kawasaki ever put that diesel bike into full production?

Im not sure.

[N1LAF]

Gas mileage does increase with non-ethanol gasoline.

Here is the crazy part, You have to consume more ethanol based gasoline than non-gasoline to go the same distance. Ethanol based gasoline produces more CO2 for the same distance as non-ethanol based gasoline. Ethanol based gasoline releases more CO2 to the environment than non-ethanol gasoline? Where are the AGW alarmists?

----
burning ethanol actually produces 54% more CO2 as global warming pollutant than gasoline due to the fact that ethanol has lower fuel efficiency.
http://www.intota.com/docs/ethanol-pollution.asp

[KG4CGC]

Gas mileage does increase with non-ethanol gasoline.

Here is the crazy part, You have to consume more ethanol based gasoline than non-gasoline to go the same distance. Ethanol based gasoline produces more CO2 for the same distance as non-ethanol based gasoline. Ethanol based gasoline releases more CO2 to the environment than non-ethanol gasoline? Where are the AGW alarmists?

----
burning ethanol actually produces 54% more CO2 as global warming pollutant than gasoline due to the fact that ethanol has lower fuel efficiency.
http://www.intota.com/docs/ethanol-pollution.asp

BUT, and this is a big but, the CO2 from the ethanol part is carbon neutral.

[N1LAF]

BUT, and this is a big but, the CO2 from the ethanol part is carbon neutral.

Octane (n-dodecane): C12H26 + 18.5 O2 → 12 CO2 + 13 H2O 18.5 x energy units

Ethanol: 2 C6H12O6 + 12 O2 → 12 CO2 + 12 H2O 12.0 x energy units

Because of the reduced mileage, you have to consume more fuel to go the same distance, which results in more CO2 release.

[KG4CGC]

Octane (n-dodecane): C12H26 + 18.5 O2 → 12 CO2 + 13 H2O 18.5 x energy units

Ethanol: 2 C6H12O6 + 12 O2 → 12 CO2 + 12 H2O 12.0 x energy units

Because of the reduced mileage, you have to consume more fuel to go the same distance, which results in more CO2 release.

BUT the ethanol part is STILL carbon neutral.

[N1LAF]

BUT the ethanol part is STILL carbon neutral.

For example, to drive from point A to point B takes 18.5 energy units, creating 12 CO2 units, for non-ethanol gasoline

For ethanol fuel, you need 18.5 energy units, so 18.5/12.5 = 1.48 * 12CO2 = 17.8 CO2 units released to go from point A to point B

Ethanol fuel releases more CO2 than straight gasoline

[KG4CGC]

THE ETHANOL PART IS STILL CARBON NEUTRAL!

[N1LAF]

BUT the ethanol part is STILL carbon neutral.

But the net result is that more CO2 is released from burning fuel with ethanol.

The secondary effects most people miss....

In other words, ethanol based fuels release more CO2 into the atmosphere than straight gasoline.

[KC2UGV]

But the net result is that more CO2 is released from burning fuel with ethanol.

The secondary effects most people miss....

In other words, ethanol based fuels release more CO2 into the atmosphere than straight gasoline.

The net result is a small percentage of carbon is released into the atmo from the ethanol, since 6 weeks prior, it was inside of a plant, and within 6 weeks, most of it will be back inside of a plant.

[KB3LAZ]

The net result is a small percentage of carbon is released into the atmo from the ethanol, since 6 weeks prior, it was inside of a plant, and within 6 weeks, most of it will be back inside of a plant.

And then someone will smoke said plant.

[KC2UGV]

And then someone will smoke said plant.

Hopefully :)

[N1LAF]

The net result is a small percentage of carbon is released into the atmo from the ethanol, since 6 weeks prior, it was inside of a plant, and within 6 weeks, most of it will be back inside of a plant.

I don't even know WTF you are talking about.

The effect is releasing 46% more CO2 into the atmosphere in ethanol added gasoline.

[KC2UGV]

I don't even know WTF you are talking about.

The effect is releasing 46% more CO2 into the atmosphere in ethanol added gasoline.

I'm sure you don't know WTF I'm talking about, which is why you should read more about climatology, ecology, and biology; before engaging in discussions related to carbon emissions; which is based wholly on sequestration and release rates.

http://www.shadygamer.com/attachments/not-sure-if-troll-or-just-very-stupid-28n1299498207760-29-jpg.430/

[N1LAF]

I'm sure you don't know WTF I'm talking about, which is why you should read more about climatology, ecology, and biology; before engaging in discussions related to carbon emissions; which is based wholly on sequestration and release rates.

http://www.shadygamer.com/attachments/not-sure-if-troll-or-just-very-stupid-28n1299498207760-29-jpg.430/

I provided the numbers, did the equations that a 6th grader can understand, and YOU are the stupid-looking one.

Get educated!

[WØTKX]

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs13/f/2007/044/6/2/Allegory_of_the_Cave_pg1_by_AdmYrrek.jpg

[N1LAF]

BUT the ethanol part is STILL carbon neutral.

I am not arguing with you on that one lone point. The overall effect is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere for the same driving distance with ethanol based fuel.

[KB3LAZ]

Hopefully :)

lol

[KC2UGV]

I provided the numbers, did the equations that a 6th grader can understand, and YOU are the stupid-looking one.

Get educated!

The crux of the matter isn't how much carbon we are adding to the atmo in an individual transaction, it's how much we are un-sequestering.

Ethanol, un-sequesters carbon that was just sequestered a few months ago, and will be quickly re-sequestered.

Petrol, un-sequesters carbon that was previously not available to the system, and adds to the total carbon in the system.

[N2CHX]

Try running ethanol in a sport bike. I average 67 mpg with ethanol, closer to 80 without it.

[KG4CGC]

I am not arguing with you on that one lone point. .

So you finally get it and you say to yourself, "Oh shit! He was right!" But now if I wait, you put up some graphs from 2002.

[N2RJ]

Speaking of gas, the gas here in Spain smells different. Almost like acetone. No clue why. Im not a chemist. I assume that smell is alcohol.

I think the additives are different. They may add an additive to add odor for safety purposes.

In the EU they have less alcohol (5%) than we do (10%).

[N2RJ]

Not to mention that alcohol is water based. Mixing it with gasoline is like oil and vinegar dressing. You have to keep shaking it. A gross analogy but the point is clear.

They have to use blending agents and the blending agents are corrosive. This adds to the problems with alcohol... which is hygroscopic, so left to sit in your gas tank it will draw water from the air.

[ki4itv]

I provided the numbers, did the equations that a 6th grader can understand, and YOU are the stupid-looking one.

Get educated!

Paul, he's saying that burning dino-fuel is releasing carbon that was sequestered long ago and would not be released today unless we burn it today. The CO2 from plant life is currently in a short cycle and would be released into the atmosphere the same whether we burn it now or not.
Therefore, it is carbon cycle neutral.

[N2RJ]

As for the carbon neutrality of corn ethanol, strictly speaking, yes it is.

However, this doesn't take into account diesel fuel used for mechanized agriculture or CO2 released to make nitrogen fertilizer.

Food crop corn likely needs less CO2 because it's planted in crop rotation, versus fuel corn which is grown year after year on the same land.

Also, ethanol needs to be produced at an ethanol plant which also requires energy to run. Some of them run on coal.

It still however results in a net greenhouse gas reduction, but I hate the idea of burning coal to produce ethanol and it is still a pretty shitty fuel for most gasoline engines.

Food for thought and fuel for the discussion. :)

[KG4CGC]

They have to use blending agents and the blending agents are corrosive. This adds to the problems with alcohol... which is hygroscopic, so left to sit in your gas tank it will draw water from the air.

You are correct and I have dealt with this as it is the major reason carburetors foul up over the off season months unless the fuel is stabilized before being put away. Usually, Sta-Bil works pretty good but Sea Foam will also work OK. I didn't store the scooter this past year but I did the mower and I can say that the Sea Foam product worked in this capacity.

Late last Winter I was riding and stopped a gas station that was selling really good gas for a while. The scooter ran great on it. But this time, I got gas there and the scooter immediately started running poorly. What changed? The gas! I knew it was supposed to be up to E10 but this time it had to be more alcohol percentage wise. I found a seller that had 100% gas and the problem slowly cleared up. I broke down the carb and it looked like it hadn't been cleaned in a while even though it had less than 300 miles on it since the last cleaning. I clean it out and started reading about gas, ethanol and the problems associated with it. I read about a product called Star Tron and bought an 8oz bottle. That little bottle will treat 128 gallons of gas. Been running it ever since. I'm not sure what it does, exactly, but the problems I've had in the past are non existent now. After about 500 miles I broke the carb down again and it was as clean as ''clean room'' specs.

Even though I bought that ''bad'' gas at a name brand station, it is privately own so I suspect they got whatever commodity fuel was the cheapest. These days I only get name brands at dealers that are known for their reputation to carry the specific brand of gas their logo states they are. Of note, about 4 years ago, Citgo gas was pretty damn good. These days, they carry commodity crap. You might not notice in cars with larger fuel injected motors but the smaller the motor and especially if it is running a carb, you may start to notice a drop off in performance and acceleration. EFI can compensate for things thus this is why you may not notice much until it's time to go back to the gas pump.

[N2RJ]

There's no avoiding E10 here unless you buy Avgas which has lead in it. It's also $6.50 a gallon. Yikes.

I'll continue to use marine formula sta-bil which is excellent for keeping out moisture. Sea-foam as a gas stabilizer? Had no idea. I have used it to clean out engines but never as a fuel stabilizer. Interesting.

Haven't tried star tron but I heard it's an enzyme based product.

[rot]

Gas mileage does increase with non-ethanol gasoline.

Here is the crazy part, You have to consume more ethanol based gasoline than non-gasoline to go the same distance. Ethanol based gasoline produces more CO2 for the same distanc

e as non-ethanol based gasoline. Ethanol based gasoline releases more CO2 to the environment than non-ethanol gasoline? Where are the AGW alarmists?

----
burning ethanol actually produces 54% more CO2 as global warming pollutant than gasoline due to the fact that ethanol has lower fuel efficiency.
http://www.intota.com/docs/ethanol-pollution.asp


This "Expert" uses calcs based on dodecane...Try using octane..54% goes to like 0%.
Thanks for the info though.
My personal favorite was " Octane (n-dodecane):" like WTF man???
rot

[W4GPL]

Throwing out all the facts and figures and pontificating... I don't put that shit in my car's gas tank unless I'm stuck. Personal experience tells me that 100% sure gasoline is better performing and is less taxing on the car itself. [/eof]

[KC2UGV]

Throwing out all the facts and figures and pontificating... I don't put that shit in my car's gas tank unless I'm stuck. Personal experience tells me that 100% sure gasoline is better performing and is less taxing on the car itself. [/eof]

It might get you less gas mileage, but in today's cars (Which are designed to burn it), it's just as good as gasoline. Computer control monitors burn, and controls air/fuel mixture into optimal settings.

[W4GPL]

As a matter of fact, my owners manual says to specifically avoid ethanol based gasoline if possible. But everyone else is an expert...

[N2RJ]

It might get you less gas mileage, but in today's cars (Which are designed to burn it), it's just as good as gasoline. Computer control monitors burn, and controls air/fuel mixture into optimal settings.

It's not "just as good as gasoline." It is marginally worse.

Flex fuel vehicles designed to run E85 have to have stainless steel hoses and gas tanks because that alcohol shit is so corrosive. You don't find that in most regular cars.

And that's just for cars - small engines in lawn mowers, generators, go-karts etc are being ruined by the thousands because of ethanol which picks up water like a sponge.

In fact it can't even be piped for very long distances because it is so hygroscopic. This is why you won't find many flex fuel gas stations outside of the corn belt. It has to be trucked, which means more diesel fuel being burned (and more CO2 in the air) by tankers driving from the corn belt to out of state refineries.

It's another stupid Government mandate that the auto manufacturers have to work around. GM, Chrysler and Ford are the only ones really putting out flex fuel vehicles anyway.

[N2RJ]

As a matter of fact, my owners manual says to specifically avoid ethanol based gasoline if possible. But everyone else is an expert...

And you have a Ford... who makes E85 flex fuel vehicles too.

[KC2UGV]

As a matter of fact, my owners manual says to specifically avoid ethanol based gasoline if possible. But everyone else is an expert...

Of course it does. You don't have a duel-fuel vehicle :) However, it runs just fine with the 10% ethanol. And, I'm not an expert: I asked my mechanic, and two friends who are mechanics.

[W4GPL]

And you have a Ford... who makes E85 flex fuel vehicles too.Which mine is not. When I got the car, they gave me a very bright red addendum to the owners manual that specifically covered ethanol fuels and and octane. Our regular grade gas in Colorado is 85 octane, where as in the most parts of the country it's 87 -- this is due to the elevation. They stressed that you should only use 87 octane or greater and avoid ethanol blends.

And what you said about lawn mowers and other small engines is true. Ethanol clearly degrades parts faster, people like Corey can argue with me until they're blue in the face with facts and Wikipedia snippets, but I've seen if with my own two eyes. I don't need to read through dozens of forums posts and bullshit politically based data to know the truth.

[W4GPL]

Of course it does. You don't have a duel-fuel vehicle :) However, it runs just fine with the 10% ethanol. And, I'm not an expert: I asked my mechanic, and two friends who are mechanics.No, it specifically said to even avoid 10% blends. See above.

[NQ6U]

Ethanol as a gasoline additive is a scam perpetuated on us by politicians on both sides of the aisle who are pandering to farm interests in the Midwest, simple as that. It started out as a well-intentioned attempt at reducing the country's dependence on imported oil but it turned into yet another pork barrel project that neither Republican or Democrat has the will to label as the environmentally unsound boondoggle it actually is.

Money talks, boys...

[KC2UGV]

No, it specifically said to even avoid 10% blends. See above.

Odd, here's what the owner's manual states from Ford:

If your vehicle is not a flexible fuel vehicle (FFV), then only useUNLEADED fuel or UNLEADED fuel blended with a maximum of 10%
ethanol. Do not use fuel ethanol (E85), diesel, methanol, leaded fuel or
any other fuel.


http://owner.ford.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Owner/Page/OwnerGuidePage&year=2012&make=Ford&model=Focus

Fifth Printing.

Of course, that's for a 2012 Ford Focus. What year is yours?

[N2RJ]

No, it specifically said to even avoid 10% blends. See above.

But.. but... Corey and his mechanics know better the vehicle manufacturers.

[W4GPL]

When I got the car, they gave me a very bright red addendum to the owners manual that specifically covered ethanol fuels and and octane.And it was from Ford, not the dealership. On the Focus forums I read, other people have spoken to this as well.

[W4GPL]

If you're not going to read..

[KC2UGV]

And it was from Ford, not the dealership. On the Focus forums I read, other people have spoken to this as well. [/COLOR]


If you're not going to read..

Interesting... I would have figured a supplement to the owner's manual (Which comes from Ford) would be on the Ford website.

Does it degrade parts faster? I would have figured if Ford gives the ok on a fuel blend, that car was engineered for it. But, what do I know? 3 mechanics have told me the 10% blend is fine for modern cars.

[KG4CGC]

Interesting... I would have figured a supplement to the owner's manual (Which comes from Ford) would be on the Ford website.

Does it degrade parts faster? I would have figured if Ford gives the ok on a fuel blend, that car was engineered for it. But, what do I know? 3 mechanics have told me the 10% blend is fine for modern cars.

Even a small amount of alcohol degrades metal and rubber parts. With rubber, the side exposed to alcohol will swell up and dissolve.

[W4GPL]

It could be related to the elevation, as it addresses the octane levels as well. It may not apply to all locations. I admit it doesn't say it anything about degrading parts.

With that said, I still stand by the fact I've seen these marginal ethanol blends degrade small engines -- Ryan is correct. The fact is, I pay $3.60 at the 7-11 with 10% ethanol and $3.65 at the Shell station for pure 100% gasoline. I'll pay the nickel for the piece of mind. And dozens upon dozens of Focus owners on another forum have reported increased performance and gas mileage avoiding 10% blends.

I have no doubt my car will run just fine on 10% ethanol, but I also would like to see the 5 year statistics on the degradation of the fuel injection system for people who stick to 100% gasoline vs those who don't. Just a hunch, my car will be better off.

[KC2UGV]

Even a small amount of alcohol degrades metal and rubber parts. With rubber, the side exposed to alcohol will swell up and dissolve.

Unless the rubber has been treated to tolerate that. Aircraft rubber parts are treated to resist the MEK we need to use to clean parts; and resist the acidity of Triple Nickel oils.

[KG4CGC]

Unless the rubber has been treated to tolerate that. Aircraft rubber parts are treated to resist the MEK we need to use to clean parts; and resist the acidity of Triple Nickel oils.

I'm not talking about an E85 car or one made after 2010 or aircraft or whatever. I'm only speaking to alcohol and the general deterioration experienced in most regular vehicles, bikes, small engines, etc etc yada caa caa.

[KC2UGV]

I'm not talking about an E85 car or one made after 2010 or aircraft or whatever. I'm only speaking to alcohol and the general deterioration experienced in most regular vehicles, bikes, small engines, etc etc yada caa caa.

After 2004 or so. When MBTE was banned in CA and NYS (And, then in 25 states later). Yes, in vehicles not designed to tolerate it, it will have issues.

[ab1ga]

I trust the numbers in Paul's original post, and I agree with the immediate results of his calculations, but I disagree with some of his interpretive statements.

Based on his numbers, to travel 300 miles not only requires more hydrocarbon/ethanol fuel blend, but actually more of the hydrocarbon component as well.

The first part is not surprising: since the energy density per liter of ethanol burning to CO2 and water is lower than the volumetric energy density of hydrocarbon fuels, any blend must have less bang per volume of fuel.

The second part is more interesting, since not only is the ethanol a less efficient fuel, but it makes the hydrocarbon it's mixed with less fuel efficient, "wasting" fuel and contributing to global warming, because the excess hydrocarbon fuel used is NOT carbon neutral. Why would anybody cheese off both the left and the right wing by mandating ethanol use? Corruption? Bureaucratic stupidity?

Try science and environmental policy from before the climate change and energy supply issues took center stage.

The requirement to add ethanol to automotive fuel was instituted to change the chemistry in the combustion chamber, predominantly by introducing additional oxygen, in order to minimize the generation of precursors of photochemical smog.

The addition of ethanol was driven by clean air concerns, not fuel efficiency or climate change arguments, and based on personal experience it has in fact worked. One can reduce dependency on foreign oil and CO2 emitted by automobiles, but are we willing to go back to the days of the brown clouds? It's an unpleasant trade-off to consider, but it isn't going away without major changes in transportation technology and practices.

[N2RJ]

Unless the rubber has been treated to tolerate that. Aircraft rubber parts are treated to resist the MEK we need to use to clean parts; and resist the acidity of Triple Nickel oils.

They do to a point but using alcohol free gasoline will still make them last longer.

Cars designed to withstand ethanol usually don't have much rubber parts that touch the fuel and have stainless steel plastic lined hoses.

[rot]

I trust the numbers in Paul's original post, and I agree with the immediate results of his calculations, but I disagree with some of his interpretive statements.

Based on his numbers, to travel 300 miles not only requires more hydrocarbon/ethanol fuel blend, but actually more of the hydrocarbon component as well.

The first part is not surprising: since the energy density per liter of ethanol burning to CO2 and water is lower than the volumetric energy density of hydrocarbon fuels, any blend must have less bang per volume of fuel.

The second part is more interesting, since not only is the ethanol a less efficient fuel, but it makes the hydrocarbon it's mixed with less fuel efficient, "wasting" fuel and contributing to global warming, because the excess hydrocarbon fuel used is NOT carbon neutral. Why would anybody cheese off both the left and the right wing by mandating ethanol use? Corruption? Bureaucratic stupidity?

Try science and environmental policy from before the climate change and energy supply issues took center stage.

The requirement to add ethanol to automotive fuel was instituted to change the chemistry in the combustion chamber, predominantly by introducing additional oxygen, in order to minimize the generation of precursors of photochemical smog.

The addition of ethanol was driven by clean air concerns, not fuel efficiency or climate change arguments, and based on personal experience it has in fact worked. One can reduce dependency on foreign oil and CO2 emitted by automobiles, but are we willing to go back to the days of the brown clouds? It's an unpleasant trade-off to consider, but it isn't going away without major changes in transportation technology and practices.


You agree that the enthalpy and stoichiometry of burn is the same for dodecane as is for octane?
rot

[ab1ga]

You agree that the enthalpy and stoichiometry of burn is the same for dodecane as is for octane?
rot

Goodness no, I didn't use those numbers because I didn't need them, and at the very least they contain a hell of a typo or transcription error. Paul's original post with the mileage for both blended HC-only fuels was all I used, and other posts in the thread seemed to verify the phenomenon, if only qualitatively.

Since petroleum based fuels are quite variable in composition by source and seasonal changes in blending, I feel using tabular thermodynamic data of pure compounds can lead to errors in interpretation similar to those resulting from belief in false precision. I am not even sure of the range of compounds and their molecular weights for automotive fuels. Dodecane sounds more like a component of diesel fuel than gasoline, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were a minor component of automotive fuel.

One place where I did take liberties was the use of volumetric calculations rather than gravimetric ones when assessing the proportion of the blend which was ethanol and which was HC. Volume is not conserved upon mixing, but I wouldn't expect a large error and it would have been in a direction which wouldn't have changed the nature of the result.

Again, that the blend is less fuel efficient is not surprising, but the 15% increase in the consumption of HC fuel in addition to the ethanol had me scratching my head. My first guess is that the pollution mitigation comes from reductions in combustion chamber temperature. Carnot engine efficiency goes as (Tchamber - Texhaust)/Tchamber, if I remember correctly, and is the theoretical maximum heat engine efficiency. In a real car engine, the lower Tchamber would cause less torque, requiring more rotational speed to maintain output power. I ain't no automotive engineer, so your mileage may NOT vary.

But the point of my post was really that ethanol was never intended to make fuel go further, but to reduce pollution. The ethanol provides oxygen in addition to the mixed atmospheric air, which in turn reduces unburned hydrocarbons. The lower combustion temperature lowers NOx production, which if I remember my chemistry correctly react to form smog when photochemically triggered. Sadly, policy makers have forgotten the reason for adding ethanol in the first place, and falsely assumed it was used purely as a substitute for hydrocarbon fuels. The backlash of fuzzy ethanol policies now threatens to reverse decades of gains in air quality, which I feel would be a terrible shame.

73,

[ka4dpo]

I just bought a new truck last week and it has a Flex Fuel engine, that means it can use E85 or any Ethanol blend. It says right in the owners manual that power and mileage will be less with Ethanol blended fuels. That's no secret, not for a long time. AB1GA is right, the purpose is to reduce pollution but the truly amazing thing is that modern engine control systems are adaptive enough to even allow a car to run on such a diverse mix of fuel.

[N2RJ]

but the truly amazing thing is that modern engine control systems are adaptive enough to even allow a car to run on such a diverse mix of fuel.

Nah, not really amazing. They just use more expensive materials like stainless steel to prevent gas tanks from being corroded and lower our expectations about how long the car will last and run properly.

[N1LAF]

Dale is right when it comes to the reasoning of ethanol, but like many good intentions, there are secondary effects that not seemed to be considered. I was reading one of those secondary effects, where the production of soybean decreased to make more room to grow corn (for ethanol), Brazil, increased soybean production, and was clearing the forest to do so. It is interesting with the trade-off issue, one is to use food products for fuel, and we no longer hear those commercials dealing with world hunger as we did in the past.

This is the kind of discussions I miss, being in the forum world of cut & burn. We should have more discussions like this (big thanks to Dale and Rot...)

[rot]

Well maybe I is a doofus here, but I only see references sited from 2 places...the Energy in America article and the Intota whatever... I am not sure what Paul's original post points to (thought that was the dodecane one) but so be it.
and I just lost my rant in the fine boardbuffering so you got spared on that one..
Anyhoo maybe some other time gents..have a fine day!
Early morning rot to ya!
(p.s. "rot to ya" is not meant to be interpreted as an "up yours" or anything like that for the record)
Noflame,NC
rot

[N1LAF]

Rot, your informative and insightful posts are most welcome. If you see an error, by all means jump right in. My point is that if the same volume of fuel for each type releases the same amount of CO2, the non-ethanol brand, having more energy capacity, will release less CO2 than the ethanol blend.

[ka4dpo]

Nah, not really amazing. They just use more expensive materials like stainless steel to prevent gas tanks from being corroded and lower our expectations about how long the car will last and run properly.

I suppose it depends on how old you are. I raced motorcycles as a yong man and it took a lot of carburation and ignition timing changes to get a gasoline engine to run on alchohol. Of course mine were tuned in a way that produced significantly more horsepower than with gasoline but I also ran a 15:1 compression ratio. Having been modified to run on alky however, they would not run on gasoline at all.

In the 1980's automobiles were dismal creatures barely able to run on the new unleadded gasoline. Even with a compression ratio of 9:1 they had a tendency to knock when hot and horsepower was pathetic. At some point in the early 90's the Japanese, Honda primarily, invented a working knock sensor and a computer system that could retard and advance the timing in milliseconds. Compression ratios began to climb and so did power. Now most high output cars run 11 to 11.5:1 and can produce well over 300 horsepower with a small six cylider engine. Turbo charged and super charged small blocks are in 600 HP territory, and on unleaded gas. It wasn't that long ago that was beyond imagination.

It takes a lot of sophisticated technology to produce engines that can run on a wide range of fuels. Stainless tanks and fuel resistant rubber are the easy parts. Getting an engine to run reliably on gasoline, alchohol, or a mixture of both is a modern miracle if you are old enough to remember when to do so was impossible.

[rot]

Well i do not know a lot regarding how the range of fuels burn in say average Joe's car, but I look at solely on the fuel examples which are used to justify the claims. Granted we eventually will reach a place where it all makes sense and I do think Dale knows his stuff.No doubt.
When the "Expert" says Joe goes from A to B using a jet fuel surrogate(huge combustion enthalpy) and draws base therms/C02 out from that as example..I'm like no way dude. There is no fractional distallation refining stream from any oil company gonna blend back in a component that cost them buttloads in therms to seperate. (n-dodecane BoilPoint at 210C vs octane BoilPoint at 125C). They are gonna isolate this fraction and sell it to reap back their cost. In other words it aint in Joe's gas tank...
Now with that said, this "expert" hammers the ethanol blend with a Glucose to EToH CO2 charge..like Joe is pumping syrup and yeast in the tank..waiting a month for the CO2 to blowoff convert to ethanol then top off with some jet fuel..to takes the same trip from A to B.
This "expert" did not charge the nonblend jackshidt for the thermal ramp to get the freakin jet fuel which aint there anyway...but he sure does jam on its enegy output assuming Joe's car could eve burn the stuff.
All that aside..of course you are gonna lose mpg..but i do not see believe the CO2 cost are that different for an nonethanol vs E10ethanol blend..I see it as at least break even or I'll give a little to the premise. 54% is off the hook, IMHO.
Now the efficiency may add in significantly all the considered...I'll give ya that... but its like the nonethanol stuff gets to hit from the ladies tee and the ethanol blend is teeing up the pro spot. I cry foul to the stealth expert!
Anyhoo...I do not advocate ethanol as the cure all...could be functional and productive at some level i do believe...
Lord I sure have personally processed enough of it over the years...but that is indeed Chapter 2.
rot

[WØTKX]

Special delivery, for Paul:Ryan. You're Welcome. :mrgreen:

http://american.com/archive/2008/april-04-08/the-case-for-ending-ethanol-subsidies/FeaturedImage

[ab1ga]

Well maybe I is a doofus here, but I only see references sited from 2 places...the Energy in America article and the Intota whatever... I am not sure what Paul's original post points to (thought that was the dodecane one) but so be it.
...


rot,

I'm the doofus here, I'm afraid. I looked at the thread again and realized that the starting post was not made by Paul at all! It was the actual mileage data listed in the first post by WN9xxx (can't scroll back while editing, sorry, OM) which I was using.

That got me to searching the web again, and I found this blurb on a site called www.turborick.com. I'm not gonna vouch for accuracy, but here's what I found:



Gasoline contains over 500 hydrocarbons that may have between 3 to 12 carbons, and gasoline used to have a boiling range from 30C to 220C at atmospheric pressure. The boiling range is narrowing as the initial boiling point is increasing, and the final boiling point is decreasing, both changes are for environmental reasons. Detailed descriptions of structures can be found in any chemical or petroleum text discussing gasolines.


What I found surprising was the spread of carbon count (I can buy a heavily branched C12, but I would have guessed any C3 would evaporate out, unless it's part of a high-boiling azeotrope). It also supports your statement that any dodecane is probably being sold as a separate diesel fraction.

I agree that Paul has found less than a true expert, and should probably delete the item from his Favorites list. But the mileage data from the first post in the thread is still interesting.

73,

.dale.

[ka4dpo]

I saw this story a couple weeks ago:

Energy in America: Ethanol concerns bring customers to more costly 'pure' gas stations
(http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/16/ethanol-concerns-bring-customers-to-more-costly-pure-gas-stations/)

My usual highway gas mileage in my 2008 Hyundai Sante Fe is about 24 mpg. That's with the 10% ethanol fuel.

Last week I had an opportunity to fill up with NON-ethanol gas while on a trip in Pennsylvania. I was shocked that I got 31 mpg for that tank of gas, an improvement of 30%!

So let's do the arithmetic. For a 300 mile trip, using the 10% ethanol+gas blend, I need 12.5 gallons. 90% of that is real gasoline, or 11.25 gallons of real gasoline.

Same 300 miles with non-ethanol fuel only needs 9.7 gallons of real gasoline.

So by using 10% "ethanol enhanced" gasoline, I'm burning 15% MORE actual fossil-fuel gasoline. PLUS burning the ethanol.

Almost forgot, while 93 octane gasoline will not produce more power in engines designed to operate on 87 octane it will increase gas mileage by about five to ten percent depending on the compression ratio of the engine and the fuel oxygen control system.

[W7XF]

Try running ethanol in a sport bike. I average 67 mpg with ethanol, closer to 80 without it.

I try not to, Kelli. My sportbike runs like shit on moonshine gas. Go out of Pima or Maricopa counties where I can get neat gasoline and she purrs.

ETA: My mom's flex fuel Chrysler minivan sucks down E85 like fish drink water. It gets 20 MPG with gas tho.

[KB3LAZ]

I try not to, Kelli. My sportbike runs like shit on moonshine gas. Go out of Pima or Maricopa counties where I can get neat gasoline and she purrs.

ETA: My mom's flex fuel Chrysler minivan sucks down E85 like fish drink water. It gets 20 MPG with gas tho.

Osmosis. Hypertonic, Isotonic, Hypotonic.

Not all fish drink water. =)

[rot]

rot,

I'm the doofus here, I'm afraid. I looked at the thread again and realized that the starting post was not made by Paul at all! It was the actual mileage data listed in the first post by WN9xxx (can't scroll back while editing, sorry, OM) which I was using.

That got me to searching the web again, and I found this blurb on a site called www.turborick.com. I'm not gonna vouch for accuracy, but here's what I found:



What I found surprising was the spread of carbon count (I can buy a heavily branched C12, but I would have guessed any C3 would evaporate out, unless it's part of a high-boiling azeotrope). It also supports your statement that any dodecane is probably being sold as a separate diesel fraction.

I agree that Paul has found less than a true expert, and should probably delete the item from his Favorites list. But the mileage data from the first post in the thread is still interesting.

73,

.dale.

No prob man..I think your road rocket site is on top of it..
the fuel trend that is..
and hopefully on top of it at 200 mph as well...
the bike that is.:-D

Later,
rot

[N2CHX]

Well, ethanol finally took out my bike this morning. It's been extremely hot and humid the last couple of days and it rained all night along with the humidity. The bike is always garaged, but apparently that doesn't matter. You can actually SEE the freakin water in the bottom of the tank. I went to leave for a monthly meeting this morning and it wouldn't start. Finally got it started and it just ran horribly, spitting and sputtering and stalling.

So now what? I have to drank the gas tank somehow. And from now on we're buying ethanol free gas. We can get it at the indian reservation about 15 miles away. Going to get a couple of 10 gallon cans and fuel up every couple of weeks. Why the heck are we being forced to deal with this crap? I read somewhere this morning that part of the problem is that some fuel manufacturers are sneaking in way more than 10% ethanol because it's cheaper. WTF!!!!

[KG4CGC]

There's a good chance a lot of that water came from the gas station too. I've mentioned Star Tron before and while we do have a couple of E free gas stations, the gas smelled really oily. Like diesel with motor oil in it.
Don't know if you're running a carb or EFI but a carb is naturally more sensitive to these changes. Some guys run a carb with a device called Dial a Jet. It bypasses the carb jets, float and all that, sprays fuel directly into the mouth of the carb and has a twist valve to regulate fuel flow into the carb opening. If you can reach it while you're riding, you can adjust it on the fly. Never used one but some guys say tune for ethanol. I say screw all that. You can not possibly tune for all the varying levels of E from one gas station to the next and even if you go to the same station every time, there is no guarantees that the level of E is consistent.
One station that I liked in January started carrying what HAD to be E20 in February. They are a name brand station but I doubt they carry the premium brand in their tanks anymore. I use Star Tron but I have to clean the carb more often due to the E (I suspect) and run detergent fuels more often. I should do a tear down today just to see if it makes a major difference like I think it will.

I am no expert. Just a guy who runs a small motor that is telling of every little difference ... in everything.

[W3WN]

THE ETHANOL PART IS STILL CARBON NEUTRAL!
Screw Carbon Neutral.

[KG4CGC]

Screw Carbon Neutral.

You saw that and jumped on it?

For anyone who thinks it is not, go back a read all 4 pages. Then look up where ethanol comes from. The plant matter it came from recycles carbon already present in the air. It doesn't take billions years old carbon out of the ground and add it to already present carbon.

[N2CHX]

You saw that and jumped on it?

For anyone who thinks it is not, go back a read all 4 pages. Then look up where ethanol comes from. The plant matter it came from recycles carbon already present in the air. It doesn't take billions years old carbon out of the ground and add it to already present carbon.

Yeah but... Corn needs massive amounts of fertilizer. And fertilizer uses natural gas to manufacture it, among other things. After reading the process in which corn is grown to make ethanol, and the process in which fertilizer is made to grow the corn, I'd say using plain old fossil fuel is actually better for the environment.

Corn-based ethanol for fuel is retarded.

[KG4CGC]

Yeah but... Corn needs massive amounts of fertilizer. And fertilizer uses natural gas to manufacture it, among other things. After reading the process in which corn is grown to make ethanol, and the process in which fertilizer is made to grow the corn, I'd say using plain old fossil fuel is actually better for the environment.

Corn-based ethanol for fuel is retarded.

As stated earlier, the corn squeezins' help reduce photochemical pollution. We could as easily use sugar beets or whatever. Want to really use something versatile? Hemp is the most Earth friendly and produces a pharmacopeia of other medicines.
I completely disagree with your statement except for the part about factory agriculture.
ETA: Monsanto is the reason we have factory agriculture and seed patents, which is absolute horseshit right there. They've developed the strains that require the type and amount of fertilizer required. This is the damage and we used to grow corn without all that bullshit.

[N2CHX]

As stated earlier, the corn squeezins' help reduce photochemical pollution. We could as easily use sugar beets or whatever. Want to really use something versatile? Hemp is the most Earth friendly and produces a pharmacopeia of other medicines.
I completely disagree with your statement except for the part about factory agriculture.
ETA: Monsanto is the reason we have factory agriculture and seed patents, which is absolute horseshit right there. They've developed the strains that require the type and amount of fertilizer required. This is the damage and we used to grow corn without all that bullshit.

Well, until the methods used to grow such massive amounts of corn are changed, I still think burning fossil fuel is more environmentally friendly.

[n2ize]

Silly government. Everyone with common sense knows ethanol is for drinking. Not for burning in cars.

[KG4CGC]

Well, until the methods used to grow such massive amounts of corn are changed, I still think burning fossil fuel is more environmentally friendly.

Well, you're a big doodie head. :-D

[N2CHX]

Well, you're a big doodie head. :-D

Yeah, well... You are a loincloth chomping abysmal bucket of sludge who likes to fry up the teletubbie rubbing zombie and the flatulating ass muncher. :mrgreen:

[KG4CGC]

Yeah, well... You are a loincloth chomping abysmal bucket of sludge who likes to fry up the teletubbie rubbing zombie and the flatulating ass muncher. :mrgreen:

I am not Jerry Falwell!

[N2CHX]

I am not Jerry Falwell!

Quit being so stupid, you capitalist skanky fanatic who is jealous of the smelly bitch and the skanky bird brain. :lol:

[KG4CGC]

"You vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!"

[N2CHX]

Bang your head against the wall, you imperialist bungling vat of vomit who seduces the nipply traitor and the inbred brat.

[KG4CGC]

"You're a triple-decker sauerkraut and toadstool sandwich, with arsenic sauce!"

[ka4dpo]

"You vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!"

Yeah....