Ethanol in gas?

[Dr Nick]

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) what percentage of ethanol can it safely take? do any stations still use regular gas formulations (non ethanol)?

-Nick

 

[jim beam]

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.

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. 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.

 

[Kevin McMurtrie]

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) what percentage of ethanol can it safely take? do any stations still use regular gas formulations (non ethanol)?

-Nick

Ethanol is fine. It can even be good for the car as long as it doesn't absorb enough water to separate because it dissolves some buildups that won't dissolve in oils. It's currently more expensive than gas because the distribution channels aren't set up right, or at least that's the claim. Ethanol blends have been around as long as gasoline so I think it's more of a scam.

It's the heavy alcohols like methanol and brake fluids that are destructive. They absorb into materials with so much force that they swell up and disintegrate.

 

[notbob]

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.....

Ethanol in gas is actually quite good. I prefer it. They've been playing around with it for years out here in CA. I remember back in the early 90s, there was a build up of Beacon stations all over NorCal. They were the first I recall seeing 10% ethenol. When they initially hit the market, their ethenol blend was one point octane higher across the range (reg, med, prem) than any other brand. I ran nothing but for several years.

Finally, for some bizarre reason, Beacon took the alcohol out and went back to stright gas, losing that one point octane advantage. I think it was the oil companies paying off politicos. A couple years later, Arco started putting 10% ethenol in their gas (no octane number increase). That also only lasted a couple years. Finally, the oil companies paid off the pols at the fed level which forced that whole MTBE bullshit on us and alcohol again went away.

MTBE is now gone and 10% alocohol is back. Still works great in my '87 Si with 240K miles on it. It worked great in my big ol' Dodge Van, too. That's where I could really tell what gasolines were worth a damn and which weren't. That big ol' V8 had an RV cam in it and was real sensitive to crummy gas with bogus octane ratings. On really hot days (95-105 F) going up a 3 mile grade on my commute, the low quality gasolines would make that sucker ping like crazy. Gasoline-ethenol blends always pinged less than straight gasolines. Shell and Exxon abosolutely sucked, despite being very high priced gas in NorCal. The best were gas/alky blends, Union76, non-alky Arco, and Chevron, in that order.

nb

 

[TeGGeR®]

not specifically.

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.

 

[Kenneth J. Harris]

Adding up to 10% ethanol to gas is actually good. In areas with cold winters it eliminates the need for using dry gas additives. The ethanol absorbs any water present in gasoline while still staying dissolved in the gasoline so that takes care of frozen fuel line problems. It also helps keep the gas tank clean--it can dissolve substances that gasoline can't. Here in New York we have had only the ethanol blend for several years and neither of my cars has shown any mileage decrease or any other bad effects.

 

[jmattis]

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) what percentage of ethanol can it safely take? do any stations still use regular gas formulations (non ethanol)?

-Nick

May 5, 2006. That's when MTBE must be phased out per federal regulations. If your pump had MTBE before, it will now have up to 10% ethanol. Because MTBE has been detected in water supplies, and is a (suspected?) carcinogen, it is no longer required. So the billions of dollars we consumers paid to build the MTBE production plants is now wasted, and we'll pay additional billions to build ethanol plants. Thirty new plants are under construction now. The cost will be permanently higher than MTBE use, since ethanol must be trucked to the distribution facility and mixed into each tanker before it hits the road. Ethanol in pipelines doesn't work -- it absorbs a huge amount of water in transit. Pipelines are cheap per gallon moved, while tankers are another story.

Most manufacturers already have completed their ethanol deliveries to the pumps by now. If you're not in an area that required MTBE, then the decision to sell an ethanol blend is strictly up to the local merchants. Financially, it is a bad move for the consumer, and i would avoid its use if possible.

Ethanol at 10% results in a 6% loss of mileage compared to straight gas. You'll be back at the pump more often. MTBE at 11% concentration already cost you 3% in mileage, so this is just 3% more lost. Currently, ethanol is actually more expensive than the gas that it displaces in the blend. So you're paying more per gallon, and getting fewer miles. If you have a fairly modern car, ethanol won't really affect it's performance, only your pocketbook.

Meanwhile, Cuba is making plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, but Congress won't let our producers do it, being fearful of the Greenies. So Congress can only blame the Prez, because they've got to transfer the heat that is rightfully on their shoulders.

 

[notbob]

Thirty new plants are under construction now. The cost will be permanently higher than MTBE use

Nonsense. Ethanol in gas has been around CA for over 15 yrs, the MTBE requirements knocking it out of the mix for a short while. Typically, the most popular alky blend brands, Beacon and Arco, were also the least expensive. Arco has gone back to ethanol and is still the least expensive quality gas in CA.

merchants. Financially, it is a bad move for the consumer, and i would avoid its use if possible.

That's your choice. I'll take it over straight gas every time.

Ethanol at 10% results in a 6% loss of mileage compared to straight gas.

I don't believe that. I also don't believe ethanol prices will remain high. Corn grows in the US like a weed. CA, after never having been a major corn producer, is converting whole counties to corn cultivation, along with building related ethanol plants. The "corn belt" is going to lose it's control on ethanol production and distribution.

nb

 

[butch burton]

The Agri Business Lobby is the biggest booster of ethanol. It can harm certain rubber gaskets and o rings in older autos - dissolves them. It delivers less energy than straight gas. Ethanol gets an $18 per gallon subsidy from us taxpayers and still costs $118 per barrel - really $136 with the subsidy included.

Cornell University did a study of the efficiency of producing ethanol - they determined it took 129 BRU's of energy - inputs ranging from diesel fuel to till, harvest, transport and produce the stuff while only delivering 100 BTU's.

Yes the US of A produces a whole lot of corn simply because the stuff is so subsidized - cash price is now around $2.35 per bushel - not much change from 40 years ago. When Mexico opened their borders to US corn, their local corn producers could not compete - nobody in the world can with that price - cotton is even worse. We have a fantastic amount of "carry over" corn from last year still in silos around the country. The Agri Business Lobby got the gasoline clean air bill passed last year that would require all gasoline in the US to be adultrated with ethanol and increase to 20% of the total blend over the next 10 years. I suspect ethanol in gasoline causes a net degredation to our environment after the inefficiency of the stuff along with the run off from the additional acers of corn being planted is taken into account.

So IMHO all the whole ethanol thing boils down to is this - our congress - both houses cow tows to the Agri Business Lobby - pure and simple - like so many other issues - who has the money controls our federal political system. I know our system is "better" than most others - wow what a mess the rest of the world must be in for that to be true.

End of rant.

 

[jmattis]

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.

 

[Kenneth J. Harris]

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).

 

[Al]

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?

 

[jim beam]

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.

 

[jim beam]

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.

 

[jim beam]

not specifically.

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?

 

[butch burton]

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 shit on the whole ethanol game - won't happen too much money being made here.

 

[jim beam]

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 shit 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.

 

[TeGGeR®]

TeGGeR® wrote:
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.

 

[jim beam]

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[cc]

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.

Global waming also causes an increase in the water evaporated out of the ocean....(But we get all that back in rain) Then again, it causes an increase in the melting rate of the ice caps and glaciers, so the sea level keeps rising.

In the ocean it is salty, in the rain it is acidic, for drinking it is treated. So, how much energy are we additionally losing in the cycle to recover the water from burning the ethanol to purify the water to make it?

and the point is --- not one.

Ethanol provides less energy output per gallon. As one post already noted, You pay more and have to buy more at the higher price to go the same distance. And the factory that produces the ethanol gets its power from where? I have lost track of the percentages 70 % hydrocarbon based, 23 % nuclear 11.5% hydro and 0.5% other for Electricity generation????? I am sure those are not even close...

Would they use Ethanol to generate electricity to run the plant? NO. Economics, Sarbanes Oxley, and SEC requirements that publicly traded companies must maximize shareholder value which means minimizing costs.....

So, make us buy it at higher prices to go less distance (for the same volume) so they can sell more product requiring more fossil fuel to make .....and so on...