Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ethanol blends were never about MPG or value, it is for cleaner air. Better mileage often creates more smog. It is all about tailpipe emissions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Although it is proven that ethanol reduces tail pipe emissions
the use of alcohol does NOT reduce tailpipe emissions, that is bull crap. the reason it seems to reduce tailpipe emissions is because the sensors that were designed to read emissions, were designed to read gasoline emissions, and alcohol burns to cold for the sensors to read the alcohol emissions, and thus shows a reduction in tailpipe emissions that really isnt there.
in fact i have told people that if they have a car they cannot get past emissions, to dump about 5 gallons of alcohol into their tank and then run the car through emissions, and it should pass. they all did pass.
“A: Ethanol has approximately 2/3 the energy content of gasoline. Vehicles running on E85, a mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, routinely see a 20-30% decrease in fuel economy/gallon.
“The 10% ethanol blended gasolines across the country should have about 96-97% of the energy in straight pump gas. In theory, there should be little enough to change in economy to notice. On the other hand, a lot of PM readers mirror what you say: i.e., a 10% (or more) decrease in fuel economy.
“Frankly, I have to be suspicious of any real-world anecdotal testing. It’s way too easy to inadvertently influence fuel economy with subtle changes in driving style. Add in the fact that it’s impossible for most people to tell what the actual ethanol content of gasoline is—the pump says it may be as much as 10%, but who knows? 10% Ethanol is added to gasoline for emissions reasons, to reduce CO output during the summer. It’s not a conspiracy between the petroleum companies and the Corn Belt Mafia to reduce your fuel economy.”
the use of alcohol does NOT reduce tailpipe emissions, that is bull crap. the reason it seems to reduce tailpipe emissions is because the sensors that were designed to read emissions, were designed to read gasoline emissions, and alcohol burns to cold for the sensors to read the alcohol emissions, and thus shows a reduction in tailpipe emissions that really isnt there.
in fact i have told people that if they have a car they cannot get past emissions, to dump about 5 gallons of alcohol into their tank and then run the car through emissions, and it should pass. they all did pass.
Wrong...alcohol and alcohol based fuels like ethanol contain a much higher oxygen content than gasoline which allows them to burn cleaner, hence reducing emissions. It's not that the sensors can't read them, it's that the combustion is more complete. Of course, you can say I'm wrong, but then Argonne National Laboratory is wrong as well.
When it comes to ethanol there is no debate that it does reduce tail pipe emissions. What is up for debate is if the net impact of growing the feed source and refining it actually creates less emissions than simply refining gasoline. There are reports that go both ways, but the general consensus seems to be that they are roughly equal, with ethanol perhpas being slightly worse overall.
Also, when it comes to MPG, it is worse because engines cannot be optimized to use ethanol based fuels do to limited availability. Even flex fuel vehicles are run at compromised settings. Basically a car tuned for E85 would suffer from detonation and grenade itself if run on straight gasoline, so manufacturers bias the tunes to gasoline, which makes the E85 fuels less efficient at a given power rating.
Wrong...alcohol and alcohol based fuels like ethanol contain a much higher oxygen content than gasoline which allows them to burn cleaner, hence reducing emissions. It's not that the sensors can't read them, it's that the combustion is more complete. Of course, you can say I'm wrong, but then Argonne National Laboratory is wrong as well.
When it comes to ethanol there is no debate that it does reduce tail pipe emissions. What is up for debate is if the net impact of growing the feed source and refining it actually creates less emissions than simply refining gasoline. There are reports that go both ways, but the general consensus seems to be that they are roughly equal, with ethanol perhpas being slightly worse overall.
Also, when it comes to MPG, it is worse because engines cannot be optimized to use ethanol based fuels do to limited availability. Even flex fuel vehicles are run at compromised settings. Basically a car tuned for E85 would suffer from detonation and grenade itself if run on straight gasoline, so manufacturers bias the tunes to gasoline, which makes the E85 fuels less efficient at a given power rating.
Isn't it also true, Goat, that any EFI car with an intact catalyst and in good enough tune to not have a CEL illuminated for all practical purposes has such low emissions that further efforts are running into diminishing returns?
I mean when someone talks about how many tons of HC cars put into the air every year it sounds large, but compared to 1963 MY cars, by the mid-80s emissions were about 1% of what they were, right?
From an economics standpoint, IIRC the way corn is actually grown (Diesel burning tractors and harvesters) and transported (18-wheeler) one burns about a gallon of Diesel for every gallon of Ethanol produced. May not be exactly 1 for 1 but I read something to the effect that it's close.
Isn't it also true, Goat, that any EFI car with an intact catalyst and in good enough tune to not have a CEL illuminated for all practical purposes has such low emissions that further efforts are running into diminishing returns?
I mean when someone talks about how many tons of HC cars put into the air every year it sounds large, but compared to 1963 MY cars, by the mid-80s emissions were about 1% of what they were, right?
From an economics standpoint, IIRC the way corn is actually grown (Diesel burning tractors and harvesters) and transported (18-wheeler) one burns about a gallon of Diesel for every gallon of Ethanol produced. May not be exactly 1 for 1 but I read something to the effect that it's close.
You are most certainly correct. I was simply trying to refute the statement made earlier that the reduction was some "trick" of sensors, it most certainly isn't. However, you are correct with the diminishing returns statement that it really doesn't have a major impact on top of what is already achievable with standard catalyst technology.
You are also correct and I believe that I stated the same that in net terms ethanol is no better than gasoline overall given the vast amount of resources that has to go into growing and harvesting corn and then refining it into fuel. Most studies I have seen peg the net environmental impact of a gallon of ethanol to be equal to or worse than a gallon of gas.
FWIW, I am not an ethanol proponent. I think it is one of the bigger political buzzword programs that really amounts to nothing more than increased farm subsidies and now Gore who was a major ethanol supporter even admitted as much.
However, that doesn't mean that ethanol as a fuel is bad, it's just not a viable fuel to replace gas with current sources. A car properly tuned to run E85 achieves the same power output and MPG of a car that is tuned to run on straight gas. The problem is that no cars exist as they all need to be tuned to bias towards gas as E85 is not readily available everywhere, which makes them less efficient when running E85. Couple that with the fact that we could never feasibly produce enough ethanol with current methods to wholesale move to E85 and it's a bit of a dead end street.
E85 has a very high octane equivalent, a few people who have it available and want to tinker have built engines with 12.5:1 or even higher compression to use with E85.
I am no fan of "universal" E10 - if people want it and the market wants to provide it, OK then, but don't push it on me. Fortunatly around here some Conoco stations still sell normal gasoline, which I use exclusively in my older fleet of cars. I don't see any point in subsidizing it either.
But E85 is interesting. Oddly enough one poster here claimed to have run it in a stock 1990's VW Golf, and while his MPG was down some the lower price per gallon actually gave him a cost reduction - well that's what he posted anyway. I wasn't there.
Wrong...alcohol and alcohol based fuels like ethanol contain a much higher oxygen content than gasoline.
Gasoline contains no oxygen. It is composed of straight-chain alkanes of the form Cn H2n+2. C₈H₁₈ is a good average.
Quote:
Of course, you can say I'm wrong, but then Argonne National Laboratory is wrong as well.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory has also done a lot of work along these lines.
Quote:
When it comes to ethanol there is no debate that it does reduce tail pipe emissions.
Not CO₂, but it does reduce CO, NOx, HCs, and particulate matter.
Quote:
What is up for debate is if the net impact of growing the feed source and refining it actually creates less emissions than simply refining gasoline. There are reports that go both ways, but the general consensus seems to be that they are roughly equal, with ethanol perhpas being slightly worse overall.
I agree. But with Congress being the way it is, ethanol will be hard to kill. I expect E-15 to make its appearance soon.
Quote:
Also, when it comes to MPG, it is worse because engines cannot be optimized to use ethanol based fuels do to limited availability.
Engines need compression ratios of 13:1 - 15:1 to recover mpg losses due to the low energy content of ethanol.
What Gore, Harkin, Grassley & the rest of their 'green agenda' ethanol honks failed to realize was another episode of 'the law of unintended consequences; in this case, not only are we 'burning our food' (great call), but the fact that this fanatacism also has a huge effect on our water supply.
If you lived in Illinois, you'd know there is no shortage of water here. If you want a lake on your acreage, have someone excavate 15-20 feet below surface and you'll have a permanent lake. All the farms here are tiled and have been for the last 100 years. Water is something we have a lot of.
Water is so abundant here it literally falls from the sky.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
