Ethenol: Is it hamburger helper?

[Rafael]

First off, this is not a thread about the supposed affect of ethanol on fuel system components.

On my ride to the Oregon Humbug Campout I was able to fill up with non-ethanal 92 octane super at the Detroit Lake general store. Didn't think much of it, cost was about 10-20% more than what I have been paying along the way. But when I filled up at the next stop after a lovely ride over FS 11. I got 55 miles to the gallon! I had been getting around 44 mpg. So that's about 25% improvement!. Not sure if the speed I was driving is a factor, It was going was generally slower than on the surrounding highways, but I also did not get it into 6th gear. Even if the mileage improvement is only 20% taking terrain speed and other possible factors into account; it is still a big improvement.

With the improved efficiency and cleanliness of contemporary motor vehicles, what the point of an ethanol additive? It made sense to me back int he 80's when it was, in effect, a retro-fit smog reduction system for all the 60's and 70's cars on the road. On bikes with smaller tanks or poor gas mileage 20% added range would be welcomed. The way I see it, ethanol at best, just shifts emissions for the roads to agricultural areas. And adds cost for little or no real benefit.

Any experts on the matter out there?

 

[john zibell]

Rafael,

Ethanol is used also to replace MTBE whic is an extremely toxic compound and soluble in water. Old storage tanks that leaked gas also allowed MTBE into the water supply. So since MTBE was banned, ethanol stepped in as a replacement. I believe the concentration now used is more politically driven than scientific. Also I don't know what additive the ethanol free fuels are using that replace MTBE. Yes, ethanol has less energy than gasoline, and if you have a higher efficiency engine, then as you say it doesn't make much sense to burn ethanol. Also increased use of ethanol will increase food costs as well as currently mostly food crops are used to produce ethanol. Also I'm not sure if the science is there to have ethanol as a cost effective fuel, that is, is more energy derived from consuming ethanol than it takes to produce ethanol. This is the same logic that I believe will show hydrogen fuel to be impractical.

 

[Mi_ka]

Guys, I just think this ethanol mess is just a trick to prolong dependency on liquid fuels. Nevermind the poor of the world dying of hunger so we can drive.
Maybe in the States or Australia where you have huge miles to cover daily it is still not feasible but here in Europe a great deal of transport could be made on electricity alone.
The oil cartel is just trying to slow down the pace. Too much to loose for them, yet and the automobile industry is not strong enough to evade their will even if it did not belong to pretty much the same Funds IMHO.
Unfortunately for us, bikes are not a good enough platform for long haul electric drive.

 

[youcanrunnaked]

Ethanol contains less energy per volume than gasoline, so gas mileage will be lower with an ethanol blend. Also, the amount of energy used to produce a given volume of ethanol is more than the energy released when that same amount of ethanol is burned in an internal combustion engine.

So, why blend gasoline with ethanol? Politics. It is a scam foisted on the American people by a corrupt government in the pocket of corn farmers, ADM and other big agribusinesses.

 

[Penis Rotor]

Ethanol contains less energy per volume than gasoline, so gas mileage will be lower with an ethanol blend. Also, the amount of energy used to produce a given volume of ethanol is more than the energy released when that same amount of ethanol is burned in an internal combustion engine.

So, why blend gasoline with ethanol? Politics. It is a scam foisted on the American people by a corrupt government in the pocket of corn farmers, ADM and other big agribusinesses.

Well, that is something we can basically agree on, although I don't think that the policy makers are neccessarily corrupt, simply ignorant and ill informed.

pete

 

[john zibell]

Guys, I just think this ethanol mess is just a trick to prolong dependency on liquid fuels. Nevermind the poor of the world dying of hunger so we can drive.
Maybe in the States or Australia where you have huge miles to cover daily it is still not feasible but here in Europe a great deal of transport could be made on electricity alone.
The oil cartel is just trying to slow down the pace. Too much to loose for them, yet and the automobile industry is not strong enough to evade their will even if it did not belong to pretty much the same Funds IMHO.
Unfortunately for us, bikes are not a good enough platform for long haul electric drive.

The question remains, How is the electricity generated? The world still gets most of its electricity from fossil fuels.

 

[Penis Rotor]

Precicely! The fact is that unless you are using renewable energy sources like wind, solar or wave for electricity generation the average 'Electric' vehicle has en environmental footprint the size of Canada! They are all horrible, dirty things!

Pete

 

[Mi_ka]

Being in US and Oz you don't get it:
Electric vehicles recapture energy on deceleration (as you know) and have minimum energy consumption while standing still in congested cities like Athens or Milan or Mumbai or Beijing. Huge fuel and emission savings can be accomplished.
And it won't be a instaneous switch.
But we have to start sometimes.
And the price of corn rising causes starvation to parts of the world and this could be avoided if funds were diverted towards electric vehicles instead.

 

[Penis Rotor]

No, I get it exactly. The materials needed to manufacture these vehicles take enormous amounts of refining and energy to make. Once made their lifespan is comparatively short and recycling the products also requires large amounts of energy if there are not to be problems with environmental contamination.

As I said, unless the vehicles are using fully renewable, non fossil fuel energy sources anything currently available will be considerably more polluting in the grand scheme of things than a 'Directly' fuelled alternative made with cheaper, less energy consumptive technology.

This is NOT an argument about the relative merits of private vs. public transport. It is one about comparative energy consumption and the effect on the environment. On any 'Level Playing Field' current 'Green' options don't stack up.

In case you think I'm some sort of technophobe 'Climate change denier' I'm not, you may notice in my posts that I suggest that a catalytic converter is actually a perfectly fine thing on a vehicle with a high mileage lifespan, motorbikes included, but the sums have got to add up. 'Electric' vehicles are still a long way behind the 8-ball.

Pete

 

[Mi_ka]

No, I get it exactly. The materials needed to manufacture these vehicles take enormous amounts of refining and energy to make. Once made their lifespan is comparatively short and recycling the products also requires large amounts of energy if there are not to be problems with environmental contamination.

As I said, unless the vehicles are using fully renewable, non fossil fuel energy sources anything currently available will be considerably more polluting in the grand scheme of things than a 'Directly' fuelled alternative made with cheaper, less energy consumptive technology.

I honorably disagree (and I am aware of all these facts you state).
I strongly believe it is a problem of mass production and big scale master planned recycling that makes it difficult to employ.
But mass production won't catch up if we never START going this way.
And recycling can be resolved in some "wet lease" scheme for "standard power packs" that will be replaced at each fuel stop in similar way we stop to pour fuel in: Out the exhausted packs (each with its own smart tag that holds usage records) and in the recharged ones. If you just want to pour in just a gallon you can replace just one cell or so.

I suggest that a catalytic converter is actually a perfectly fine thing on a vehicle with a high mileage lifespan

In Europe most companies go the "Start & Stop" way nowadays.
I am afraid that cold catalysts are going to have a huge hit on unburnt benzol.

'Electric' vehicles are still a long way behind the 8-ball.
Pete

Agree but things can be reversed relatively easily if the course is properly set at the Bridge.
Have a look here:
http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/index.php
at the Blue Meanie in particular.

 

[youcanrunnaked]

Well, that is something we can basically agree on, although I don't think that the policy makers are neccessarily corrupt, simply ignorant and ill informed.

pete

The negatives of E-10 fuel are well-documented.

The amount of campaign contributions made by the so-called "corn lobby" to politicians who support the use of ethanol-blended fuels is also well-documented.

The increased food cost to consumers, as a result of crop diversion to fuel production, is a story that is also beginning to hit the mass media.

The latest trend is a push to move from E-10 to E-15, despite the reported negatives of using E-10 fuel.

I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.