Ethanol... why!?!

[spike thomas]

Ok, this is the general discussion forum so, here it goes. how many people actually thing using Ethanol is helping? from what I can gather, ethanol reduces mileage, is highly corrosive, and costs more than gasoline. so, why are we being forced to use it? I live in the Huntsville Alabama area and have yet to find a gas station not using Ethanol. I thought that I had found one, and then realized that the A$$ HOLES had covered up the stickers with a piece of cardboard. But back to the subject, why are we putting up with this. I'm guessing that my old z won't run on ethanol gas, but I haven't tried it. I drive a 2001 honda accord and I can tell a difference in mileage. My dad on the other hand drives a 2003 chevy impala, he sees a HUGE difference in a mileage. so, if ethanol costs more, reduces mileage, and wears on cars, what's the deal? how can we get rid of this dumbass idea. If this is a precursor of what could happen if Washington starts controlling gas further, we're screwed.

[DeesZ]

....just one more reason that I favor a smaller governmental role in our daily lives.... I really do not want the government functioning as my mommy and daddy making all decisions for me.... what you left out is the impact that this deal with the devil has on food prices (e.g. corn).... What the do-gooders fail to remember is a law of physics.... simply put, every action has an equal but opposite reaction. So many of these actions (laws) had a good intention, but in practice seem so ill conceived. Anyway.... just a "general discussion" opinion of mine and you need not agree....

[RayG1988]

It ate away at my fuel lines.

[26th-Z]

Please do some research about ethanol before you post a lot of misinformation. Ethanol mixed with petro fuel is not any more coorosive than water. It is a renewable resource and it doesn't emit as much greenhouse gasses. The high food price thing is pure propoganda. 40% of our nation's corn production today goes to cattle feed. The government pays farmers to not grow crops - we all know that. Ethanol farming is a new economic opportunity. World wide. Ethanol / methanol fuels provide 87% of Brazil's energy needs and 95% of new automobiles sold in Brazil run on flex fuel; 85% ethanol. As a result, Brazil fuel prices are far lower than ours. Brazil mandated ethanol / methanol flex fuels ten years ago and they are the world wide model example of energy self suffiency. Currently, ethanol costs around $2.50 a gallon to produce. You may think it is more expensive, but then you say all the gas in Huntsville is ethanol mixed, so more expensive than what? By growing more crops for ethanol, we are planting more green; the primary source of scrubbing CO2 from our atmoshpere - thus reducing global warming. Yes, ethanol blends used in our old cars will result in decreased mileage and there is not much that can be done about it. More and more new vehicles will be equipped for flex fuels and those vehicles won't have the problem.

But let's face it. We are financing the terrorists waging war against us by purchasing their oil. There is no shortage of oil. The OPEC nations just don't want to pump it out of the ground for $25 a barrel when they can get $140. Flex fuel automobiles have demonstrated energy independence in other countrys around the world. We Americans can do it too. Write your congressman and demand farm legislation to promote the growth of ethanol crops and waste production of methanol.

In the mean time, change your fuel lines. They are probably original and need to be replaced from age.

My 3c

[EScanlon]

Aaron, John, and others: This is indeed a General Discussion forum but let's keep it civil and avoid the use of expletives (whether outright or camouflaged) as well as direct insults or inuendos. Items such as the "A $$ Holes" and "do-gooders" are examples of this.

Otherwise the thread will explode and become a vitriolic cesspool which will need to be closed.

So, as far as your proposed theme: have you investigated what forms of renewable products there are?

Unfortunately, IMO just about every foray into renewable and alternative forms of fuel, energy and modes of use have been met with a resounding opposition that does nothing to further the research as much as just shout it out of existence.

While ethanol DOES require more energy to produce than it gives, it is purportedly, at least, derived from products that can be regenerated.... corn crops amongst others.

Before you add "high cost of food prices" to the mix, consider that the Land Bank program is still very much in effect and has more opposition against stopping it than proponents FOR stopping it. The Land Bank program, originally designed to aid the small farmer in getting fair prices for his crops, is now a bigger influence in higher public debt than in helping the "small" farmer. The "small" farmer of the 1930+ era is now the large corporation (Donald Trump, etc.) who owns those grandfathered tracts of land bank land....which haven't been farmed in years.

But, while ethanol may not be the solution, it may at least be an alternative to paying $150 a barrel to countries and corporations who raise prices immediately in response to the slightest whim, yet take years, if at all, to reduce them after the "whim" passes.

Steam, and Electricity are but two of the other sources of energy that have been tried in automobiles, yet they both were set aside. Why? Well, then you'll find the urban legends: the 50 MPG carburator supposedly bought and put out of business by the Big 3 car manufacturers; and you'll find other approaches into the internal combustion engine, the Wankel, the expanded combustion chamber that Honda originally designed .... again all slowly set aside.

So before we deign these attempts as being ill-conceived or foolish, remember that those are some of the same comments made by die hard horse and buggy users and owners when Henry Ford and others FIRST started producing the automobile.

2¢

E

[AZ-240z]

I couldn't agree more with 26th-Z. I read this initial post and was very tempted to make the same reply as Chris, but, unfortunately, in this so highly propogandized society,

populated with media talking heads, all with specific agendas, the task of being as convincing as 26th-Z, suddenly seemed far to daunting a task for me.

I almost feel as if I need a PHD in communications skills to filter through all of the current mis-information we are currently being inundated with, especially in an election year, but I hope we don't go there as that analogy was offered only for emphasis.

I respect everyones opinion, and this is mine.

Dan

[Bread-Man280]

I think the problem with mileage is a mechanical one. If I understand correctly, don't you need higher compression to run ethanol, or any type of alcohol? If that is so, I wonder what the c/r of the average modern engine is? It is likely that ethanol will be the only fuel left to run in our vehicles in the future. But I give it another 25-50 years before we see cars come with engines that run exclusively ethanol. These cars will be adequately equipped.

Not long ago I watched a show about the future of oil. It was a kind of run-on story line where the oil was gone, we went to war, people burned wood in homes, and bikers brewed moonshine on rooftops because the bikes would be easier to modify to run alcohol. Gives me an idea, why can't the same thing be done for my Z:cheeky:

I had to do a research paper for a college class (I'm in high school) about alternative fuels. I was amused by what I found. Alcohols were actually destined to be the standard fuel for most of the 19th century, until the Civil war. The feds put taxes on it to pay for the war and only repealed them in around 1910. Around that time inventors were experimenting with gas vs. alcohol engines. Basically they found that the two were practically the same in potential energy and mileage. Interestingly, alcohol combustion has less harmful byproducts. If my memory serves me correctly, the formation of NO2 gases does not occur at high c/r? Not to mention alcohol burns cooler. (I think I remember this right? I'll have to check) We can blame our dependence on oil in general because of propaganda from oil companies who were in competition with alcohol producers a hundred years ago. Gasoline won out because of the prices for alcohol were higher. Gasoline is here in the way it is now because it WAS cheaper then.

I agree completely with 26th. We are only just starting to use flex fuels, while others have already been using it for years

Well, sorry for the long write-up.

FWIW

Bread

[EScanlon]

Anyone recall what fuel the Indianapolis 500 racers run on?

E

[sblake01]

Are you being facetious?

[EScanlon]

No, just trying to joggle memory banks.

If memory serves it is basically pure alcohol they use for fuel. But someone may have better information.

E

[rdefabri]

You couldn't possibly grow enough corn and distill ethanol fast enough to meet the growing fuel consumption. Nuclear is the only repeatable, replenishable fuel source, no one wants to face that reality...especially fusion (which I posted in a different thread).

Ethanol is a sham - it's conceptually a great idea, but it's not the answer. I do agree that we continue to fund rogue states by purchasing oil, but we also purchase oil from Canada, not exactly a rogue. If you don't like importing foreign oil, then speak to your governmental reps about opening some new refineries in the US and doing some exploration / drilling within our boundaries.

Meanwhile, the media makes you believe that there's a "shortage" of oil - scarcity economics at its best. Clearly, OPEC and others aren't stupid, they'll pump exactly what they need to, but for now there's enough for the near future while we figure out how to shrink fusion reactors small enough to power vehicles.

Everything has a finite lifecycle, but the nearest you'll get to solving this "problem" is nuclear. Everything beyond that (other than oil) is not going to happen.

PS - The Indy 500 runs ethanol as a marketing ploy - since it's topical, it's a way to attract needed sponsors that American open-wheel racing has been missing since the split. Otherwise, methanol (which they've run traditionally) works just as well.

[Walter Moore]

This year, or possibly last year the IRL switched to ethanol. Previously they ran on methanol. BUT the Indy cars have used alcohol based fuels for around 35 years for safety reasons, not anything else really. F1 still runs on gasoline I think.

The safety advantage of alcohol is that it is water soluble and you can easily put out a fire of spilled ethanol with water. Spray water on a gasoline fire and you will just spread it around.

When they switched from methanol to ethanol the IRL also had to reduce the size of the gas tanks to force the teams to make the same number of pit stops. There are more joules of energy per gallon of ethanol than there are in methanol, and thus the cars get better fuel mileage.

That is the reason that adding ethanol to gasoline results in lower fuel mileage. Gasoline has considerably more energy per gallon than ethanol, and by diluting the gasoline with lower energy ethanol the vehicle's mileage inevitability suffers. The E85 fuel will have the worst fuel economy of anything on the market. There is just no way to get around that.

On a side note, that is also the primary reason that Diesel vehicles get better fuel mileage. The optimal thermodynamic efficiency of a Diesel is only 35%, not all that much better than the Otto cycle's 32%. The biggest source of the improved mileage of a Diesel is simply that there is much more energy per gallon in the fuel.

Personally, I will leave the politics of "climate change" to those who believe in such things. I will not willingly pay extra for fuel that will get fewer miles per tank.

I know some farmers here locally however who are THRILLED by the demand for corn. They are making record profits on their harvests for the first time in their lives! I am sure that that increased market value for the principle feed stock of all meat products has to have some impact on the cost of food.

However, I expect that most of the rise in food prices are simply the result of the increased cost of transportation and energy. Back in the late 70's the escalating cost of fuel pushed up the prices of almost everything resulting in sustained double digit inflation for most of the Carter administration. They say that what come around goes around, perhaps history is just repeating itself.