OT - Ethanol, a scam?

[Duckmang]

So if it does 30 percent less ..means you must have your foot further down on the throttle

Not quite.... Gasoline is burned at an approximate ratio of 14.7 parts air to 1 part fuel. Ethanol is burned closer to 9 parts air to 1 part fuel. Throttle position stays the same, just more fuel for the same amount of air.

[Mike Folks]

Ethanol In Gasoline Problems (E-10,E-15,E-20, & E-85)

Certain materials commonly used with gasoline may be incompatible with high-level ethanol blends, causing them to degrade and contaminate the fuel. Metals that have been shown to degrade over time in the presence of high-level alcohol blends include brass,(floats & jets) lead, zinc(carb bodies) and lead-based solder.

Nonmetallic materials that degrade when in contact with ethanol include natural rubber, polyurethane, cork gasket material, leather, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) polyamides, and certain thermoplastic or thermoset polymers.

On the other hand, unplated steel, nickel-plated steel, stainless steel, black iron and bronze have shown resistance to ethanol corrosion, with nonmetallic materials like reinforced fiberglass, Buna-N, Neoprene rubber, polypropylene, nitrile rubber, Viton and Teflon meeting acceptable usage standards with E85.

1. Ethanol can break down resins and fillers in fiberglass gas tanks, causing them to leak.The small boat community has gotten exemptions from the EPA permitting no Ethanol in their gas pumps due to this.

2. Resins leached from fiberglass tanks can go through the fuel system, sticking to valves and other internal engine parts.

3.These deposits have caused bent pushrods and have clogged intake valves.

4.The alcohol attracts water, leading to increased corrosion in metal gas tanks.

5.Water in the fuel affects the octane and leads to knocking and decreased performance.

6.Ethanol acts as an efficient solvent, gradually cleaning out the accumulated gunk in fuel tanks and lines, and clogging carburetors.

7. Certain rubber gaskets and fuel lines are weakened by ethanol. Some rubber fuel lines may develop internal swelling, restricting the flow of gasoline. My understanding is the Silicone fuel lines resist the effects of Ethanol in gas.

8. The Ethanol in the gas has been reported to attack the glue used in gas filters, rendering them useless, as the paper filter medium is now coated with glue. It also softened the filter hose connection ends, causing possible failure.

[A.K. Boomer]

KidZima, you answered your own question -- except its not just a scam - its the mutha of all scams

The only thing I can't figure out is Santitas are only $1.77 cents a bag right now, that's dirt cheep so corn is still dirt cheep unless frito-lay is immune somehow

I mean - they still got to make the chips - bag them - market them - transport them and on and on ---- and then still turn a profit? so it means the base product is still virtually free...

[vpt]

Yup. ..

[michigan doug]

The metric you're really after is EROEI. That's

Energy
Returned
On
Energy
Invested

It's the ratio of the energy you get out (measured in BTU's, or GGE's Gallon Gas Equivalent) divided by the energy you put in.

Petroleum is around 10:1 You get about ten barrels of oil out for every barrel of oil you burn in the exploration, drilling, pumping, transporting, refining, etc. But that number is dropping somewhat quickly

Biodiesel from waste oil runs somewhere between 5:1 and 7:1

Biodiesel from virgin veggie oil runs around 3:1

Corn based ethanol is, under what I consider pretty generous math, to be 1.3:1

Some critics of corn based ethanol make convincing arguments that the real number is 1:1 i.e. you have to put one unit of petroleum energy in to get one unit of ethanol energy out.

Now, ethanol from sugar cane in brazil is reported to be as high as 8:1, though some say they don't account for the biomass energy that is burned to produce it. But clearly it is a different animal than corn based ethanol.

Hydrogen is a joke. The hydrogen economy is a joke. The EROEI of hydrogen is always less than unity. How much less is rarely discussed. I doubt very much if it is better than

1:2

i.e. you get one unit of energy out for every two units of energy in.




HTH

doug

[aboard_epsilon]

The ecu will still be at setting of 14.7 would it not .

only you have to put your foot down more to do the same....speed and acceleration

so over a given set distance you use 30 percent more fuel and the consume more air.

unless like my lpg system you have to retune to the requirements of the new fuel with fuel injection ..i have it so its performing the same as petrol ..and my foot is in the same place..but uses more lpg ..up to 25 percent more

my old lpg system was a mixer system ..and your foot did travel a little further...the car generally accelerated slower because it wasnt being pumped in and enriched by an lpg piggy back ecu and i got the same mpg as petrol .

maybe carburrated cars on ethanol you will gain as in my old lpg system...by the car being slower

all the best.markj

[Mcgyver]

So if it does 30 percent less ..means you must have your foot further down on the throttle

that means you are producing more co2..

so what's Green about it

add in the amount of oil burned to plant & harvest the corn, to manufacture the tractor/combine etc. that and the mad rush to use up all of our finite quantity of potash....lets quadruple the application to get another 5% crop yield....to heck with feeding people when it runs out.

being better stewards of the planet is something we really need as a species, but initiatives are more focused on sound bites and making people feel good than and real positive impact.

What all the greenies should be protesting and picketing are things that would make a positive difference, say manufacturers (appliances for example) that shrink product life spans rather than extend them.

[radkins]

but wonder how much resources it takes to refine it .

bet there isn't any gain at all.

This is one I have wondered about, I once read that after all the resources expended to produce Ethanol are considered the best that could be expected is about a break-even situation. While I think it's probably not quite that bad I would not be at all surprised to find that very little is gained if ALL the resources consumed are honestly considered. Possibly even a net loss?


:EDIT
Never mind, I let this sit a while before posting and I did not see Michigan Doug's post which pretty much covers it.

[Tommo]

From a farmer's point of view, corn basically strips the soil of nutrients at a much higher rate than other crops. Planting corn year after year after year renders otherwise fertile soil useless unless you continue to use GMO corn, which in turn requires insane amounts of fertilizer and Round Up, a large quantity of which ends up in the rivers and groundwater.
Monoculture is bad.

[Forrest Addy]

Another side of the ethanol coin is that if all the arable land in the US was given over to corn for ethanol to meet 100% of US liquid fuel demand there would be little left for food production. We'd have to live on the millions of tons of distiller's residue.

Ethanol seems great in theory but it plan doesn't pencil in. One more example of why a citizen should carefully study speeches of politicians and fads promoted by enthusiasts.

We need more adults running the country..