straight gas vs. 10% ethanol blend

[litesong]

Originally Posted by trollbait

E10 has 3% less energy than gasoline. The greater than 3% fuel efficiency loss is because ethanol is hygroscopic. You are a zealous fool, and your stance may heed the change you want more than help it.

More lies & diversions in a long post. The excess loss greater than 3% is not due to water. Its because ethanol belongs in high compression ratio(16:1) ethanol engines. The hundreds of millions of gasoline engines need only 100% gasoline. Ethanol is inefficient in gasoline engines.

Your long posts are only to confuse. Diesel engines need to burn diesel, ethanol engines need to burn ethanol. Gasoline engines need to burn 100% gasoline, & never ethanol blends.

You call me zealous only because I caught you as an "ethanol in gasoline" proponent. Now you come with a swarmy sly approach, but get your "zealous fool" cut in the conversation.

[trollbait]

Originally Posted by litesong

More lies & diversions in a long post. The excess loss greater than 3% is not due to water. Its because ethanol belongs in high compression ratio(16:1) ethanol engines. The hundreds of millions of gasoline engines need only 100% gasoline. Ethanol is inefficient in gasoline engines.

There is no such thing 100% gasoline. It is a brew of compounds that varies. Think ethanol should be stirpped out gas because the compression is too low. How about we strip out the toluene and xylene also. They both require higher compression ratios than ethanol to run efficiently. While we are at it, why don't we return to the gasoline the Model T ran on when first introduced. Engines made for gasoline should be just fine with it.

Your long posts are only to confuse.

I'm sorry you can only digest information in twitter sized chunks.

Diesel engines need to burn diesel, ethanol engines need to burn ethanol. Gasoline engines need to burn 100% gasoline, & never ethanol blends.

E10 first showed up in the US in the '70s, and has been increasing ever since. Gasoline engines are made for E10. Perhaps the higher btus of ethanol free gas is masking an unefficient running engine.

You call me zealous only because I caught you as an "ethanol in gasoline" proponent.

Off the internet I argue against ethanol. If you had any reading comprehension, you'd see I am doing the same here

Now you come with a swarmy sly approach, but get your "zealous fool" cut in the conversation.

You misrepresent my stand, possibly through ignorance, and flat out call be a liar, troll, and terrorist without evidence. Is your approach 'asinine'?

[Funkmasta]

Originally Posted by trollbait

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.

hate to cherry pick, and btw i too abhor ethanol blended fuels ( i go out of my way and spend the premium to get ethanol free gasoline) but i believe the argument from the engineer/ethanol-salesperson standpoint is that by absorbing the water that gets into the tank, the ethanol allows it to be removed from the tank constantly. And in theory that works in a car that gets regular fills. Phase separation throws a wrench in, but there you are.

Also, it seems you are living up to your forum name re: litesong

[trollbait]

Originally Posted by Funkmasta

hate to cherry pick, and btw i too abhor ethanol blended fuels ( i go out of my way and spend the premium to get ethanol free gasoline) but i believe the argument from the engineer/ethanol-salesperson standpoint is that by absorbing the water that gets into the tank, the ethanol allows it to be removed from the tank constantly. And in theory that works in a car that gets regular fills. Phase separation throws a wrench in, but there you are.

It does do that, but I'd rather just use HEET or a bottle of 91% rubbing alcohol. Much of the corrosion blamed on ethanol is probably from the water. Which has picked up salts and acids along the way.

Whether from the water or the ethanol, it can't be shipped by our existing gasoline pipelines. To me, having to truck all this ethanol fuel around is a big strike against it. Butanol can be piped.

Also, it seems you are living up to your forum name re: litesong

Is there history here I am unaware of?

[theholycow]

I don't know technically how the hygroscopic bonding works, but would it bond to dissolved salts and acids, or just water?

Why can butanol be piped, and why cannot ethanol?

[Jay2TheRescue]

I know ethanol eats up and destroys the pipelines. Don't know about butanol.

[trollbait]

Water is a polar solvent. It has a negative and a positive charged area that allows in weakly bind with compounds that have similarly charged ends, like salts. Hydrophilic and hydrophobic are terms the simply describe whether or not a compound can dissolve or mix with water by having these charged areas. Hygroscopic materials are a subset of hydrophilic ones. Their attraction to water is stronger. Enough so that they draw water vapor out of the air too themselves.

Methanol, ethanol, and propanol are hydrophilic, but all alcohols have a polar region and also have a non-polar region that allows them to mix with non-polar solvents, like gasoline. It depends on the specific alcohol and other substance, but in general, alcohols can dissolve salts and acids. They have those polar regions that allow water to do it. Though water is probably the stronger solvent in most cases.

In the case of our fuel, the salts can get washed in when rain water picks them up outside and reaches an opening into a fuel tank. If these contaminates get in from another source, the water could dissolve the solids more readily into the ethanol and gasoline. Being hygroscopic, ethanol will always carry some water with it.

When it comes to pipe lines, concentrations of ethanol over 20% lead to cracking of steel. http://www.nace.org/Newsroom/Press-R...uel-to-market/ I think the presence of water, with salts, is less of a concern because those contaminates get picked up along the way and may only be a problem at a gas station tank. Butanol isn't corrosive to steel.

[block]

Nice thing up north is that cars never have water freeze in the gas lines anymore...a (non-tree hugger) friend said that's due to the ethanol.
I thought ethanol adds oxygen to the fuel - helps lower emissions. The prior stuff they used for adding oxygen is cancerous and was getting into water everywhere. If so, it makes sense to me to use something else (such as ethanol) to add oxygen as an additive, but in terms of providing energy cleanly and economically, corn based ethanol is a disaster. I wonder if 5% ethanol would be enough to make gas burn cleanly.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by block

The prior stuff they used for adding oxygen is cancerous and was getting into water everywhere.

Yup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascoa...Island#History

[litesong]

Originally Posted by litesong

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

Originally Posted by trollbait

That's right they don't, but the average age registered cars is now over 11 years.

The average 10 year old car travels only 58% of new cars' distance. The average 15 year old car only travels 38% of new cars' distance. For miles traveled, the average car is younger than 11 years old. Even older vehicles burning E0 with modern refinings for the EPA tests, score excellent rating.