true facts about ethanol?

naturally i've heard that it's got higher octane, is cleaner to burn, and good for the ecomonmy (especially being in iowa...), but today i spoke with someone who said it was worse for the gas milage, caused problems, and is crap in general.

i know very little about anything, but i'd be interested in hearing the plusses and minuses.

i'm guessing alot of enviromentalists will pipe up in here saying that it's better for the enviroment, and that should be reason enough to use it, but i'm interested in hearing some info about the actual benifits/drawbacks to my car when using it as opposed to the regular stuff, or even the premium stuff.

I'm not an expert on fuel ethanol, but I do know that it can't be run in all cars. Most manufactures make one or two models designed to burn ethanol, but most carbureted cars can use it after minor carburetor adjustments. Here's a (pro-ethanol) website with a good amount of useful information: http://www.e85fuel.com/

Maybe your friend tried running ethanol in a car that wasn't designed for it?

If I remember right it eats anything rubber, so that was an issue for retrofits.. plus it has a very low flash point, not a good thing...

I have often wondered if it makes good ecological/non-renewable resource conservation sense. I would like to see a good objective analysis of the consumption of fossil fuel to produce ethanol relative to the amount of fossil fuel displaced by the ethanol produced. Farming is a fairly fossil fuel intensive activity.

I did some research on alternate fuel vehicles a while back so I can tell you this:

Ethanol DOES burn cleaner and it DOES benefit gas mileage. Also, from what I've read, virtually any car today can run off of a 90% gas/10% ethanol mixture.

One very big problem with ethanol is that is has half the energy content of gasoline and costs twice as much. You do the math...

Twice as much at current prices? Or twice as much at $1.00 gallon prices?

It is cleaner, I run the 90/10 mix when I can get it. It is harder on some types of rubber seals.

The mix is a nobrainer as far as I'm concerned, 100% ethanol requires some adjustments. In some cars they are major, in others minor.

Bill

Lots of extra corn around most years to make ethanol from. Its already been grown, just needs to ferment.

It degrades certain types of rubber and will also corrode certain metals (AL I think).

It absorbes and attractes water (hydroscopic), so that bring on corrosion/etc problems from water accumulation in tanks/jugs/etc.

thanks for the help guys /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

when i say ethanol, i'm speaking of gasahol, the 90/10 mixture.

i guess i'll keep using the gasahol, as noone has really said anything negative about it (other than the oring thing) /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

of course, it's only temporary until i can get a jetfuel powered car anyway /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Hemp seeds will produce high quality oil suitable for biodiesel, at higher energy densities. Wisconsin grows lots of corn (for ethanol) but is restricted from growing its largest WWII cash crop - hemp. Frickin' stinkin' stupid, oil sustaining, politics.

Ca has had 6% ethanol since Jan 1 2004; replaced 11% MTBE.

I recently read a research article on ethanol, that I can't find now, of course; but the thrust was that if you take the total costs of ethanol (fossil fuels needed to run the tractors and fertilize the fields and the pesticides dumped on the crops, etc.) it does nothing to help our environment or our dependence on foreign oil. In fact, it's a net loss and makes our economy less efficient. The reason ethanol enjoys such support is because it benefits some farm states and their big-ag corporations.

The selling points (better for the environment, displaces foreign oil) are just PR talking points necessary to keep the program popular with the public.

[ QUOTE ]
Josey said:
I recently read a research article on ethanol, that I can't find now, of course; but the thrust was that if you take the total costs of ethanol (fossil fuels needed to run the tractors and fertilize the fields and the pesticides dumped on the crops, etc.) it does nothing to help our environment or our dependence on foreign oil. In fact, it's a net loss and makes our economy less efficient. The reason ethanol enjoys such support is because it benefits some farm states and their big-ag corporations.

The selling points (better for the environment, displaces foreign oil) are just PR talking points necessary to keep the program popular with the public.

[/ QUOTE ]

ADM is the largest US producer of ethanol. ADM lobbied Congress, to pass a law requiring it's use. ADM is the biggest winner, when it comes to the use of ethanol in gas.

oldgrandpajack

isn't ADM also big in something else in most food products? is it corn syrup? some grain based item i think.

[ QUOTE ]
oldgrandpajack said:
[ QUOTE ]
Josey said:
I recently read a research article on ethanol, that I can't find now, of course; but the thrust was that if you take the total costs of ethanol (fossil fuels needed to run the tractors and fertilize the fields and the pesticides dumped on the crops, etc.) it does nothing to help our environment or our dependence on foreign oil. In fact, it's a net loss and makes our economy less efficient. The reason ethanol enjoys such support is because it benefits some farm states and their big-ag corporations.

The selling points (better for the environment, displaces foreign oil) are just PR talking points necessary to keep the program popular with the public.

[/ QUOTE ]

ADM is the largest US producer of ethanol. ADM lobbied Congress, to pass a law requiring it's use. ADM is the biggest winner, when it comes to the use of ethanol in gas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I've read a University of Iowa (or was it Illinois?) study that pretty much stated the same thing - relating to ethanol produced from CORN. Study concluded it takes (best case scenario) at least 2 energy units of fossil fuel to produce 3 energy units of ethanol from corn (pretty pathetic, IMO).

But ethanol is produceable from plant materials (celluose, starches) that are abundant in certain quick-growing, no-maintenance poplar-type trees - with no net loss of energy (actually a small gain) in the production process, alone. Far better source than corn.

A big portion of the energy lost in ethanol's production is the lengthy heating needed for fermentation - typically supplied by burning natural gas. The study proposed burning the poplar tree remains instead (once the celluose/starches are extracted) to do the heating, with energy left over to generate electricity - piped to the grid.

ADM indeed appears to have their hand in the cookie jar /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif regarding the poor choice of corn as an ethanol source.

Roth - 10% ethanol gasoline blend will give slightly less power and fuel mileage (a few percent), as ethanol has considerably less energy, per gallon, than gasoline. Otherwise, it is considered safe in about any later model auto (within 10-15 years old, maybe? Somebody know?).

Now, methanol is the nasty one - very corrosive and reactive with rubbers/polymers/living tissue. Poisonous! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/faint.gif I think I recall some oil companies supplying a limited amount of methanol blends at the pump (?) years ago - until a wave of fuel system problems cropped up.

The issue with corn as the chosen source is this, years ago we had huge stores of excess corn sitting in grain stocklpiles and elevators, with new stocks being added every year.

It was cheap, already available, and the energy had already been spent to produce it. It had essentially no value, so the idea to convert it to ethanol seemed like a good idea.

One of the by unfortunate byproducts of an initially cheap resource is the fact that the research then flops to take advantage of it, and parallel research into other sources slows, (sound familiar to any fossil fuel guys?).

Corn is NOT the most efficient resource, but it was, at least intially, cheap and available. The research into the other possibilities now needs to be exploited.

If it takes 2 energy units to produce 3 energy units, thats a 50% upside, I'm not sure thats all that bad a ratio for a renewable resource. Others may be more efficient, and they should be explored, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to learn from the corn proponents what to do right and, perhaps more importantly, what NOT to do wrong!

Bill

so on the performance aspect, would using the premium fuel (about 12cents more a gallon /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif) be benificial in enough to warrant the extra price?

my car is a 95 dodge stealth, and while it's no supercar, it's not really a family car either /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Premium gas only is worth the price if the engine does not function well without the extra octane.

Extra octane does NOT increase gas mileage unless it is required to keep the engine from knocking, (also called dieseling). Knock occurs when the compression ratio and heat of the cylinder combine to create spontaneous combustion of the gas/air mixture without a spark. Since it occurs on a compression, (but not the ignition) stroke, the engine is tecnically firing on every compression stroke, like a diesel (thus the misnomer).

Knock is eliminated by higher octane fuels, as the higher octane resists spontaneous ignition.

If your Stealth requires the higher octane fuel, it should be noted in the owners manual, otherwise you're just adding to the profit margin of the oil companies.

Bill

Cecil Adams has a pretty good write up on this subject at his Straight Dope site.

This is taken out of context, so please read the whole story if you are interested: "making a gallon of ethanol takes 70 percent more energy than the finished product contains."

engine knock is not dieseling
it is the air/fuel charge ignited by the spark plug but exploding instead of burning in a controlled uniform manor



most modern engines have at least 1 knock sensor
and most modern engines continuously try to advance their timing so that they are at the edge of engine knock.
some engines can control this seperatly for each cylinder.
with higher octane fuel your engine can run with a little more timing advance-a little more power and economy.

also higher octane fuel has a more controlled burn rate.

my old 76 nova had more power with high octane fuel
but it ran fine on the low grade stuff

my computer controlled car gets better gas mileage
and has more power with the good stuff.