Ethanol industry demands higher ethanol limits in gasoline.

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't even like that 10% of the gasoline sold is ethanol. But then I only average about 7K miles a year, so it's not a big deal to me.

But is anyone surprised that they run to the government for help? They don't like that the market tells them to get lost, so they run to mommy government for intervention.

Last time I filled up with non-ethanol gas, I got about 10% better gas milage. Typically I can only get about 390 miles per tank on the highway but I got 440 miles when I filled up without ethanol. I was shocked. Ethanol is evil.

I doubt that. If anything, driving a bit faster than usually would have done that. At 10%, ethanol is used to oxyginate the fuel. The impact on fuel economy is almost negligible. It was a replacement for MTBE.

Bingo. The 10% ethanol in gasoline is an octane booster and has a minor impact on fuel economy. It's only when you get up to the higher blends that fuel economy really starts to suffer. Also, my understanding is that 15% blends are safe for older vehicles, although that's probably about the most you'd want to use.

To be honest, I don't really see the problem with what they're proposing. It's not like they're requiring gasoline blends to increase to 15%, they just want regulators to allow blends this high. If it's safe, why not allow it? Then it's up to the states to decide whether they want to require ethanol blends, and if so, what type of blend.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Also, most older cars limit the ethanol content that can be used to 10%.

That was based on a Federal additive limit. Any FI car can run more than 10% with no little issue(if any) at all. Also, as usual - the press doesn't actually report factual information. It creates a premise of change due to.... when that isn't the case at all. The fall in gas consuption didn't CAUSE their push for this change - it actually has nothing to do with it. This change has been pushed for quite some time and is not some sudden effort due to gas consuption.

meh... not that correct and factual information regarding ethanol matters much in this forum... since most opine from a position of ignorance.

Province/State: Iowa
As opposed to you that opine from a position of complete bias.

Ethanol needs to die. It take more energy to produce ethanol then you get from corn.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Also, most older cars limit the ethanol content that can be used to 10%.

That was based on a Federal additive limit. Any FI car can run more than 10% with no little issue(if any) at all. Also, as usual - the press doesn't actually report factual information. It creates a premise of change due to.... when that isn't the case at all. The fall in gas consuption didn't CAUSE their push for this change - it actually has nothing to do with it. This change has been pushed for quite some time and is not some sudden effort due to gas consuption.

meh... not that correct and factual information regarding ethanol matters much in this forum... since most opine from a position of ignorance.

Province/State: Iowa
As opposed to you that opine from a position of complete bias.

Ethanol needs to die. It take more energy to produce ethanol then you get from corn.

Wrong. Just because I live here(the last 8 years) does not mean I'm biased. I just happen to have local information that isn't filtered via media bias. You see, there is tons of information available yet people just go with what they hear on the news or their political herd yaps about.

lol, speaking of ignorance... Ethanol is net energy positive and has been for quite some time. Only Pimental(who has been discredited) continues to claim otherwise.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: dualsmp
15% ethanol? Holy crap I hope not. :frown: I believe many cars can't go beyond 10% so I can't see 15% becoming a reality. Ethanol is a no win situation for tax paying Americans and costs more money all around with the government subsidies (your tax money), reduced mpg (your money), prematurely dead fuel pumps and other related fuel problems (your money). Let ethanol die!

Corn belt Obama doesn't give a damn about tax paying Americans. That's the entire point.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
wouldn't higher amounts of ethanol ruin fuel lines and anything rubber it comes in contact with?

Not until the concentration is much higher do seals and such come into play.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't even like that 10% of the gasoline sold is ethanol. But then I only average about 7K miles a year, so it's not a big deal to me.

But is anyone surprised that they run to the government for help? They don't like that the market tells them to get lost, so they run to mommy government for intervention.

Last time I filled up with non-ethanol gas, I got about 10% better gas milage. Typically I can only get about 390 miles per tank on the highway but I got 440 miles when I filled up without ethanol. I was shocked. Ethanol is evil.

I doubt that. If anything, driving a bit faster than usually would have done that. At 10%, ethanol is used to oxyginate the fuel. The impact on fuel economy is almost negligible. It was a replacement for MTBE.

Good to see someone who actually looks to be informed. :thumbsup:

I was just posting my real world experience. I'm not saying that everyone will get 10% better gas milage, but I certainly did. If you look around on the internet, you'll see a lot of people reporting that their gas milage does go down a measurable about when using ethanol blended gasoline.

Sure, I was not challenging your observation. I've done my own due to having a flex fuel minivan. I get better gas mileage without ethanol for sure but my fuel cost per mile is relatively stable across the 3(91/92 no eth, 89 10%, and 91? e85) It varies depending on price difference since ethanol seems to not have the wild swings in price that "gas" does.

through my own "blending" I've found that my cost per mile is optimized at about a 45-50% blend of e85 which is likely then around 30-35% ethanol.

I was commenting about his statements that it's a replacement oxygenator for MTBE and that driving habits have a much bigger impact than additional E.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its a fact, a gallon of ethanol has less energy than a gallon of gas. Therefore one gets about 10% less milage. This is not a matter of opinion, ask any expert in the field and they all say the same thing.

And if nothing else, overuse of corn to make ethanol has caused the price of corn to rise beyond a an ethanol market sustainability level.

And the other curse of corn based ethanol, after the fertilizer and farm costs of production, both those inputs requiring huge amounts of petrochemicals , one barely get more energy out of the finished ethanol product that one put in, in the production process.

"overuse of corn"? Do you know how many bushels E uses each year? Do you know that we consistently over produce corn thus have surpluses every year?

Also, you have obviously not educated yourself on the energy return. It's not "barely" more. Sheesh.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Also, most older cars limit the ethanol content that can be used to 10%.

That was based on a Federal additive limit. Any FI car can run more than 10% with no little issue(if any) at all. Also, as usual - the press doesn't actually report factual information. It creates a premise of change due to.... when that isn't the case at all. The fall in gas consuption didn't CAUSE their push for this change - it actually has nothing to do with it. This change has been pushed for quite some time and is not some sudden effort due to gas consuption.

meh... not that correct and factual information regarding ethanol matters much in this forum... since most opine from a position of ignorance.

Province/State: Iowa
As opposed to you that opine from a position of complete bias.

Ethanol needs to die. It take more energy to produce ethanol then you get from corn.

Wrong. Just because I live here(the last 8 years) does not mean I'm biased. I just happen to have local information that isn't filtered via media bias. You see, there is tons of information available yet people just go with what they hear on the news or their political herd yaps about.

lol, speaking of ignorance... Ethanol is net energy positive and has been for quite some time. Only Pimental(who has been discredited) continues to claim otherwise.

*barely* energy positive, and doesn't take into account the non priced in features: aquifer depletion, higher food prices, etc. The point is that there are much better crops to make it from.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Also, you have obviously not educated yourself on the energy return. It's not "barely" more. Sheesh.

compared to sugarcane/beets, switchgrass, algae, yes, it is barely a net gainer

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Also, most older cars limit the ethanol content that can be used to 10%.

That was based on a Federal additive limit. Any FI car can run more than 10% with no little issue(if any) at all. Also, as usual - the press doesn't actually report factual information. It creates a premise of change due to.... when that isn't the case at all. The fall in gas consuption didn't CAUSE their push for this change - it actually has nothing to do with it. This change has been pushed for quite some time and is not some sudden effort due to gas consuption.

meh... not that correct and factual information regarding ethanol matters much in this forum... since most opine from a position of ignorance.

Province/State: Iowa
As opposed to you that opine from a position of complete bias.

Ethanol needs to die. It take more energy to produce ethanol then you get from corn.

Wrong. Just because I live here(the last 8 years) does not mean I'm biased. I just happen to have local information that isn't filtered via media bias. You see, there is tons of information available yet people just go with what they hear on the news or their political herd yaps about.

lol, speaking of ignorance... Ethanol is net energy positive and has been for quite some time. Only Pimental(who has been discredited) continues to claim otherwise.

*barely* energy positive, and doesn't take into account the non priced in features: aquifer depletion, higher food prices, etc. The point is that there are much better crops to make it from.

There may be better crops but you are obviously misinformed if you think that ethanol is "barely" energy positive. The corn used in E production accounts for a tiny part of our total corn production so attempts to claim it is ruining water tables or is causing higher food prices are misinformation at best.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Also, you have obviously not educated yourself on the energy return. It's not "barely" more. Sheesh.

compared to sugarcane/beets, switchgrass, algae, yes, it is barely a net gainer

? energy return for a particular source is not based on other sources returns.
Yes, there are some with higher returns(or show potential) for sure but that still doesn't change the FACT that corn E is net positive(and not just "barely")

 

[Corn]

Instead of using me for fuel, my preference is that people either:

A. Eat me
B. Use me as a "marital aid"

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Also, most older cars limit the ethanol content that can be used to 10%.

That was based on a Federal additive limit. Any FI car can run more than 10% with no little issue(if any) at all. Also, as usual - the press doesn't actually report factual information. It creates a premise of change due to.... when that isn't the case at all. The fall in gas consuption didn't CAUSE their push for this change - it actually has nothing to do with it. This change has been pushed for quite some time and is not some sudden effort due to gas consuption.

meh... not that correct and factual information regarding ethanol matters much in this forum... since most opine from a position of ignorance.

No, the car has to be configured to run on more than 10% ethanol or else you will get driveability issues including possible damage to the vehicle's fuel system and engine.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Also, most older cars limit the ethanol content that can be used to 10%.

That was based on a Federal additive limit. Any FI car can run more than 10% with no little issue(if any) at all. Also, as usual - the press doesn't actually report factual information. It creates a premise of change due to.... when that isn't the case at all. The fall in gas consuption didn't CAUSE their push for this change - it actually has nothing to do with it. This change has been pushed for quite some time and is not some sudden effort due to gas consuption.

meh... not that correct and factual information regarding ethanol matters much in this forum... since most opine from a position of ignorance.

Province/State: Iowa
As opposed to you that opine from a position of complete bias.

Ethanol needs to die. It take more energy to produce ethanol then you get from corn.

Wrong. Just because I live here(the last 8 years) does not mean I'm biased. I just happen to have local information that isn't filtered via media bias. You see, there is tons of information available yet people just go with what they hear on the news or their political herd yaps about.

lol, speaking of ignorance... Ethanol is net energy positive and has been for quite some time. Only Pimental(who has been discredited) continues to claim otherwise.

Maybe you should try educating your self. The only way you get a positive energy balance with ethanol is to count the waste by-products as energy.

 

[brandonbull]

Don't forget the damage being done to the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.time.com/time/natio...0,8599,1815305,00.html

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Don't forget the damage being done to the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.time.com/time/natio...0,8599,1815305,00.html

Algae blooms take massive amounts of co2 out of the atmosphere.

 

[BrownTown]

Just FWIW, how does the law work on this, all the gas stations around here have signs saying "NO ETHANOL", or "100% gasoline", so clearly nobody is really enforcing these requirements.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wrong. Just because I live here(the last 8 years) does not mean I'm biased. I just happen to have local information that isn't filtered via media bias. You see, there is tons of information available yet people just go with what they hear on the news or their political herd yaps about.
lol, speaking of ignorance... Ethanol is net energy positive and has been for quite some time. Only Pimental(who has been discredited) continues to claim otherwise.

Since you seem to be the preeminent Iowegian supporter of Corn Derived Ethanol here, I will pose you the question:

If Corn Derived Ethanol is the panacea for all our energy problems, why does it still require Massive Federal Subsidies to remain profitable?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wrong. Just because I live here(the last 8 years) does not mean I'm biased. I just happen to have local information that isn't filtered via media bias. You see, there is tons of information available yet people just go with what they hear on the news or their political herd yaps about.
lol, speaking of ignorance... Ethanol is net energy positive and has been for quite some time. Only Pimental(who has been discredited) continues to claim otherwise.

Since you seem to be the preeminent Iowegian supporter of Corn Derived Ethanol here, I will pose you the question:

If Corn Derived Ethanol is the panacea for all our energy problems, why does it still require Massive Federal Subsidies to remain profitable?

Several bits of news trickled out this week that, when put together, indicate great confusion even among experts about whether or not corn ethanol government subsidies are helping or hurting.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

There may be better crops but you are obviously misinformed if you think that ethanol is "barely" energy positive. The corn used in E production accounts for a tiny part of our total corn production so attempts to claim it is ruining water tables or is causing higher food prices are misinformation at best.

Uh, no. I wrote a regional study on ethanol a couple of years ago. Significant percentages (over 15%) of the corn crop goes to ethanol, but it depends entirely on the area. In parts of the country with a lot of ethanol facilities it is a much greater impact. (sorry, don't remember numbers off the top of my head.) The larger issues it has raised are with how it messes with the crop rotation cycle. The attempt by farmers to cash in on the ethanol boom and predict markets/building of facilities really messed with production of other crops the last ~five years.

It has also caused disturbances in the livestock markets are more corn has been diverted (increasing prices). The counter to this by the ethanol industry is that ethanol production creates DDG, but distiller grains can only be used as small parts of livestock intake (though varies a lot with the particular animal).

Oh, I should also add that ethanol takes massive amounts of natural gas to create (which let me tell ya makes it a REAL PITA to site them). I should also note that I don't have much of a problem with blending ethanol for just the midwest and maybe west (more due to the location of the refineries where blending takes place).

So yes, it IS increasing prices at least in the short term.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its a fact, a gallon of ethanol has less energy than a gallon of gas. Therefore one gets about 10% less milage. This is not a matter of opinion, ask any expert in the field and they all say the same thing.

And if nothing else, overuse of corn to make ethanol has caused the price of corn to rise beyond a an ethanol market sustainability level.

And the other curse of corn based ethanol, after the fertilizer and farm costs of production, both those inputs requiring huge amounts of petrochemicals , one barely get more energy out of the finished ethanol product that one put in, in the production process.

Fact: ethanol contains less energy per gallon than gasoline. Period. Just because ethanol acts as an oxidizer does not mean that there's miraculously more energy now. However, since it acts as an oxidizer for the gasoline, it increases the amount of energy that is used in the gasoline, offsetting the loss of energy that results from its addition. I'm not 100% certain, but it seems to me that the extra energy could have been obtained by technical improvements to the engines.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'll follow the owner's manuals of my vehicles and stick with 10% ethanol or less, thanks.

Keep your 15% for yourself.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its a fact, a gallon of ethanol has less energy than a gallon of gas. Therefore one gets about 10% less milage. This is not a matter of opinion, ask any expert in the field and they all say the same thing.

And if nothing else, overuse of corn to make ethanol has caused the price of corn to rise beyond a an ethanol market sustainability level.

And the other curse of corn based ethanol, after the fertilizer and farm costs of production, both those inputs requiring huge amounts of petrochemicals , one barely get more energy out of the finished ethanol product that one put in, in the production process.

Fact: ethanol contains less energy per gallon than gasoline. Period. Just because ethanol acts as an oxidizer does not mean that there's miraculously more energy now. However, since it acts as an oxidizer for the gasoline, it increases the amount of energy that is used in the gasoline, offsetting the loss of energy that results from its addition. I'm not 100% certain, but it seems to me that the extra energy could have been obtained by technical improvements to the engines.

Something interesting, though, is that ethanol has some properties that allow it to be burned more efficiently than gasoline. For example, because of its higher octane rating you can run pure ethanol at much higher compression ratios. My understanding is that an engine designed to take advantage of the properties of ethanol can achieve fuel economy comparable to that of gasoline engines.

Just throwing that out there. FWIW I'd rather we focus on electric for light transportation and biodiesel for heavy transportation and machinery, but I think ethanol gets a lot more negative press than it deserves. It could be a viable alternative fuel if we wanted to focus development on it. Corn ethanol has many problems, but technology for deriving it from biomass is developing and holds the most promise.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

There may be better crops but you are obviously misinformed if you think that ethanol is "barely" energy positive. The corn used in E production accounts for a tiny part of our total corn production so attempts to claim it is ruining water tables or is causing higher food prices are misinformation at best.

Uh, no. I wrote a regional study on ethanol a couple of years ago. Significant percentages (over 15%) of the corn crop goes to ethanol, but it depends entirely on the area. In parts of the country with a lot of ethanol facilities it is a much greater impact. (sorry, don't remember numbers off the top of my head.) The larger issues it has raised are with how it messes with the crop rotation cycle. The attempt by farmers to cash in on the ethanol boom and predict markets/building of facilities really messed with production of other crops the last ~five years.

It has also caused disturbances in the livestock markets are more corn has been diverted (increasing prices). The counter to this by the ethanol industry is that ethanol production creates DDG, but distiller grains can only be used as small parts of livestock intake (though varies a lot with the particular animal).

Oh, I should also add that ethanol takes massive amounts of natural gas to create (which let me tell ya makes it a REAL PITA to site them). I should also note that I don't have much of a problem with blending ethanol for just the midwest and maybe west (more due to the location of the refineries where blending takes place).

So yes, it IS increasing prices at least in the short term.

What increased prices was the cost of oil.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its a fact, a gallon of ethanol has less energy than a gallon of gas. Therefore one gets about 10% less milage. This is not a matter of opinion, ask any expert in the field and they all say the same thing.

And if nothing else, overuse of corn to make ethanol has caused the price of corn to rise beyond a an ethanol market sustainability level.

And the other curse of corn based ethanol, after the fertilizer and farm costs of production, both those inputs requiring huge amounts of petrochemicals , one barely get more energy out of the finished ethanol product that one put in, in the production process.

Fact: ethanol contains less energy per gallon than gasoline. Period. Just because ethanol acts as an oxidizer does not mean that there's miraculously more energy now. However, since it acts as an oxidizer for the gasoline, it increases the amount of energy that is used in the gasoline, offsetting the loss of energy that results from its addition. I'm not 100% certain, but it seems to me that the extra energy could have been obtained by technical improvements to the engines.

It would appear turbocharged engines love ethanol.