straight gas vs. 10% ethanol blend

[litesong]

Originally Posted by trollbait

Not using corn for the feedstock would be a positive step. Growing less corn in general would be a positive. It is a resource intensive crop that is mostly used to fatten up factory farmed livestock that we all should be eating less of anyway.
Ethanol has many flaws as a fuel..... It is a far better choice than MTBE. Going back to 100% gasoline means more money to terrorist supporting nations.

Ethanol isn't my first choice. It has flaws, and was chosen more by politics. lobbyists in general suck.

Your lies are terrorist acts. The "ethanol in gasoline" industry uses more oil & gasoline, than it saves in gasoline displacing ethanol. If the "ethanol in gasoline" industry ceased to exist, less gas & oil would be consumed in America.

MTBE is not needed in modern gasoline engines & modern refinings of gasoline.

As an "ethanol in gasoline" apologist, your diverting arguments & excuses no longer work, as they never did for the "ethanol in gasoline" industry. But they are better than your phrases, "ethanol has flaws" & "it has its flaws". Ethanol has more than flaws. Ethanol, which needs 16:1 compression ratio ethanol engines to efficiently extract its chemical energy, doesn't belong in a low compression ratio(9:1 to 12:1) gasoline engine. There are gasoline engines, ethanol engines & diesel engines, each engine with its own specific fuel. Gasoline engines are the only engine, which the EPA & the "ethanol in gasoline" industry is trying to jam a foreign product into the cylinders.

This idea of jamming the wrong fuel into gasoline engines has always been a strange, inefficient, & unworkable idea. & Americans finally see it is a strange, inefficient & unworkable idea.

Much of the problem of 100% gasoline pricing, is because the EPA & "ethanol in gasoline" industry has driven 100% gasoline availability so low, that just its rarity is causing 100% gasoline to be costly. If the Feinstein/Coburn federal bill to stop ethanol blending passes, once more 100% gasoline will be available in greater quantities, & prices will come down.

[trollbait]

Oookay, where to start.
First, I don't support ethanol. If we are going displace gasoline with an alcohol, I would prefer methanol, than can be cheaply made from natural gas, or bio-butanol, that we can get in the same yields as ethanol while being a better fuel.

Originally Posted by litesong

Your lies are terrorist acts. The "ethanol in gasoline" industry uses more oil & gasoline, than it saves in gasoline displacing ethanol. If the "ethanol in gasoline" industry ceased to exist, less gas & oil would be consumed in America.

A good chunk of energy consumed in making ethanol goes into raising the crop. Stop making ethanol and this energy will still be spent. Ethanol production is getting better on the energy balance. Better yet is if that energy and crops was used to make butanol instead.

Our political process is corrupt though, but insults won't help change things.

MTBE is not needed in modern gasoline engines & modern refinings of gasoline.

That's right they don't, but the average age registered cars is now over 11 years. The majority of personal vehicle pollution(I've heard 40%) is produced by a relatively small number of older cars. Without an oxygenate like MTBE or ethanol, they would be dirtier. E7 is probably the most we need for this purpose. And we should be adjusting that downward as fewer and fewer of the dirtier cars remain on the road.

As an "ethanol in gasoline" apologist, your diverting arguments & excuses no longer work, as they never did for the "ethanol in gasoline" industry. But they are better than your phrases, "ethanol has flaws" & "it has its flaws". Ethanol has more than flaws. Ethanol, which needs 16:1 compression ratio ethanol engines to efficiently extract its chemical energy, doesn't belong in a low compression ratio(9:1 to 12:1) gasoline engine. There are gasoline engines, ethanol engines & diesel engines, each engine with its own specific fuel. Gasoline engines are the only engine, which the EPA & the "ethanol in gasoline" industry is trying to jam a foreign product into the cylinders.

I am all for higher compression engines and higher octane fuel. They are more efficient overall. Unfortunately, consumers in this country are unwilling to think and do some basic math. So while higher octane can get better fuel economy, they just discount it because of the gallon price, without realizing the price per mile will be around what regular gets them.

I had a flex fuel Ranger and always wondered why flex fuel engines weren't high compression ones to begin. But they are meant to run E85. When the fuel blend is mostly gasoline, which itself is a diverse blend of chemicals that varies from crude source and refinery, the gasoline dictates the compression ratio. Pure ethanol might need a 16:1 ratio for efficient use in an ICE. Toluene and xylene, both used to boost octane of unrefined gasoline need even higher compression ratios, but they all burn just fine when mixed with gas. Ethanol has been used at times to boost octane in premium fuel long before this mandate.

In low blends, like E10, the compression ratio of regular fuel cars has very little to do with why we get lower fuel economy with it. It really just comes down to energy density. Ethanol just has a lot less energy per volume than gasoline. Which can be reduced further by the water it picks up along the way. Butanol would be better because it is closer to gasoline in energy in density and doesn't have ethanol's affinity for water.

Much of the problem of 100% gasoline pricing, is because the EPA & "ethanol in gasoline" industry has driven 100% gasoline availability so low, that just its rarity is causing 100% gasoline to be costly. If the Feinstein/Coburn federal bill to stop ethanol blending passes, once more 100% gasoline will be available in greater quantities, & prices will come down.

That bill doesn't do what you think it does.
"Nothing in this section or the
amendments made by this section affects the volumes of
advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel, or biomass-based diesel
that are required under section 211(o) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o))"
- http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...2-21a77055298e

The short of it is that we could still be stuck with E10. The ethanol will just be made from sources other than corn starch.

This bill only eliminates the mandate for ethanol made from corn. Which is a good thing, but it doesn't eliminate the advance biofuel requirements. These are lower amounts than the renewable mandate. It doesn't force a refinery to not use more if they feel the need too.

http://epa.gov/oar/caa/title2.html
The renewable fuels program is the (o) section of this page:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7545

[litesong]

Originally Posted by trollbait

I don't support ethanol. In low blends, like E10, the compression ratio of regular fuel cars has very little to do with why we get lower fuel economy with it. Ethanol just has a lot less energy per volume than gasoline.

Of course, you support ethanol, if you lie about ethanol. The loss of btu's per gallon in ethanol is only ~3%. However, low compression ratio (9:1 to 12:1) gasoline engines using 10% ethanol blends, raise fuel consumption by 8% to 5%, compared to 100% (ethanol-free) gasoline. 10% -----8% to 5%..... the definition of worthlessness. Ethanol needs high compression ratio (16:1) ethanol engines to effectively gain ethanol's energy.

This idea of jamming the wrong fuel into gasoline engines has always been a strange, inefficient, & unworkable idea. & Americans finally see it is a strange, inefficient & unworkable idea.

Your long, diverting post is all to cover up the worthlessness of ethanol as used in low compression ratio gasoline engines.

[trollbait]

Originally Posted by litesong

Of course, you support ethanol, if you lie about ethanol. The loss of btu's per gallon in ethanol is only ~3%. However, low compression ratio (9:1 to 12:1) gasoline engines using 10% ethanol blends, raise fuel consumption by 8% to 5%, compared to 100% (ethanol-free) gasoline. 10% -----8% to 5%..... the definition of worthlessness. Ethanol needs high compression ratio (16:1) ethanol engines to effectively gain ethanol's energy.

This idea of jamming the wrong fuel into gasoline engines has always been a strange, inefficient, & unworkable idea. & Americans finally see it is a strange, inefficient & unworkable idea.

Your long, diverting post is all to cover up the worthlessness of ethanol as used in low compression ratio gasoline engines.

You've called me a terrorist and now you call me a liar. How about provide some sources, preferably peer reviewed, to support your claims.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by trollbait

You've called me a terrorist and now you call me a liar. How about provide some sources, preferably peer reviewed, to support your claims.

I've already said that my compilations have been over many many years for 3 vehicles, & now you stonewall. You should not do that.

You started the terrorist shtick. Terrorists can cause as much damage by their lies, as with their bombs, & you do.

Website after website, grassroots people pour out info that 100% gasoline provides dramatically better results than the 3% ethanol btu loss quoted by many ethanol supporters. The lying "ethanol in gasoline" industry, even has stated 1%(what a joke). Hundreds of drivers post 10% to 5% better fuel consumption from 100% gasoline vs. 10% ethanol blends. Several drivers have posted the very same range of numbers as I have calculated for my 3 cars, 8% to 5%.

You know all this, because you troll sites & see all the confirmations of my years of comparisons between 100% gasoline vs. 10% ethanol blends.

[Jay2TheRescue]

I have said many times that my vehicles yield at least an 8% gain from ethanol free fuel, and I try to purchase ethanol free fuel as much as possible. When the EPA was holding public hearings on the "Renewable Fuels Standard" (of which the ethanol mandate is part of) I drove to DC and spoke against the ethanol mandate. If the American public wants ethanol in their fuel, then let the market decide. Personally I feel that ethanol free fuel should be available in all areas.

[hoopitup]

Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue

Personally I feel that ethanol free fuel should be available in all areas.

I agree, didn't even know any stations had it around here. The closest place I have seen it is Winchester, Va.

[Jay2TheRescue]

Originally Posted by hoopitup

I agree, didn't even know any stations had it around here. The closest place I have seen it is Winchester, Va.

You caught me... That's where I regularly purchase my fuel. I find myself out that way about every 10-14 days, so I try to time it so I get there with an empty tank.

[trollbait]

Originally Posted by litesong

You know all this, because you troll sites & see all the confirmations of my years of comparisons between 100% gasoline vs. 10% ethanol blends.

What are you talking about? What sites have I trolled in your opinion?

This thread is the first one in which I have engaged with you. My first response to one of your posts mostly agreed with you. Where there was disagreement, it wasn't complete, total, 100% disagreement. They were more points I felt needed further clarification.

On the return of energy invested for ethanol. Note, I didn't claim the EROI was positive. It is a process that can benefit from technological and other advances in time. So it may not be as bad as I think, but the numbers can be manipulated by both sides to make a judgement difficult.

Engine compression for ethanol needs to be higher for efficient use of 100% or high ethanol content blends. I did not disagree with that. I merely pointed out that increasing compression for E10 blends isn't going to net much benefit. How much difference is there between an engine designed for 87 octane and one for 89? That is about the difference between regular gas and E10.

Gasoline is not an uniform compound. It is a blend of compounds that vary by crude source and refinery. Straight gas, the gasoline extracted from the crude by simple distillation, has an octane in the 60s. This can be adjusted by cracking and combining the petroleum to get compounds to raise the octane. Toluene is one such compound. Its octane is 121, but the amount burned in a low compression gasoline engine has much bearing on the engine's overall efficiency as the ethanol in E10 does. Yes, the low compression means we aren't extracting as much of their energy as possible, but we aren't getting all we can from the low octane fractions either. Most of fuel's energy is going out the tailpipe or excessively heating the block.

E10 has 3% less energy than gasoline. The greater than 3% fuel efficiency loss is because ethanol is hygroscopic. It absorb humidity out of the air until it is about 4.5% water. It will then pick up any standing water in the pipes and tanks along its way to your fuel tank. You aren't putting E10 into your tank, but E10W0.5. The W part can be even higher. A higher compression ratio to take advantage of the higher octane from ethanol won't help overcome the energy loss from the water in the fuel. This is one of ethanol's flaws that I think shouldn't allowed it to be used as gasoline displacement.

I rambled on there. If TL;DR, I agreed with your message. Just not 100% on some of the points.

In response I got:

Your lies are terrorist acts.

You are a zealous fool, and your stance may heed the change you want more than help it.

[trollbait]

Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue

I have said many times that my vehicles yield at least an 8% gain from ethanol free fuel, and I try to purchase ethanol free fuel as much as possible. When the EPA was holding public hearings on the "Renewable Fuels Standard" (of which the ethanol mandate is part of) I drove to DC and spoke against the ethanol mandate. If the American public wants ethanol in their fuel, then let the market decide. Personally I feel that ethanol free fuel should be available in all areas.

Hopefully, the 'corn ethanol' mandate will be repealed. That won't eliminate all the ethanol in our fuel, but reduce the mandated part by an order or magnitude or two. The ethanol that does make it in will mostly be from sources not as disruptive to the food supply.

Those interested in repealing the "Renewable Fuels Standard" might be interested in the Open Fuel Standard. Supporting E85 may be seen as a downside, but flex fuel vehicles would have to support M85 in addition to the ethanol in order to qualify.
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-...ouse-bill/2493

I do see a potential loophole with it where a company could just sell carts to the Amish to help meet their requirement.