Ethanol Fuels
Thread Starter
Rodney
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,589
From: Houston, TX
Ethanol Fuels
I received the following information via email regarding federal government mandates to increase the amount of ethanol in consumer fuels. If you are concerned about this, you can voice your disapproval via the link below.
https://ssl.capwiz.com/exxonmobil/is...134626&type=CU
Here is the email message:
Have you ever thought about why ethanol is blended into your gas? Right, not something you probably think about very often. Unfortunately, government has thought about it, and through complicated legislation called the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), has mandated that refiners, including ExxonMobil, blend increasing amounts of ethanol, largely based on food crops, into the nation's gasoline supply. Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed again to increase the amount of ethanol that must be blended into gasoline in 2017.
A significant concern with this, however, is that an estimated 85 percent of cars on the road today are not equipped to handle gasoline containing more than 10 percent ethanol. ExxonMobil believes that transportation fuels should be reliable to meet consumer needs consistent with automobile and engine manufacturers' recommendations and be compatible with transportation fuel infrastructure.
A recent poll found a cross section of America is concerned about the effects of too much ethanol in their gas tanks. The survey found a majority of Americans worry that a mandated increase of ethanol in gasoline beyond the current 10 percent will possibly cause:
Damage to engines and fuel systems
Loss of automobile manufacturer warranty coverage
Raised food prices and impact the levels of hunger around the world
ExxonMobil will submit company comments to EPA opposing raising the amount of ethanol that is required in the fuel system. We encourage all ExxonMobil Citizen Action Team members to submit individual comments to EPA as soon as possible.
Your voice can make a difference! EPA is required to take into account the public comments it receives. Please click here NOW (but no later than Friday, July 8) to send a letter to EPA opposing more than 10 percent of ethanol in gasoline. Additional information on the Renewable Fuel Standard can be found at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuels-standards-program.
Sincerely,
ExxonMobil Citizen Action Team
https://ssl.capwiz.com/exxonmobil/is...134626&type=CU
Here is the email message:
Have you ever thought about why ethanol is blended into your gas? Right, not something you probably think about very often. Unfortunately, government has thought about it, and through complicated legislation called the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), has mandated that refiners, including ExxonMobil, blend increasing amounts of ethanol, largely based on food crops, into the nation's gasoline supply. Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed again to increase the amount of ethanol that must be blended into gasoline in 2017.
A significant concern with this, however, is that an estimated 85 percent of cars on the road today are not equipped to handle gasoline containing more than 10 percent ethanol. ExxonMobil believes that transportation fuels should be reliable to meet consumer needs consistent with automobile and engine manufacturers' recommendations and be compatible with transportation fuel infrastructure.
A recent poll found a cross section of America is concerned about the effects of too much ethanol in their gas tanks. The survey found a majority of Americans worry that a mandated increase of ethanol in gasoline beyond the current 10 percent will possibly cause:
Damage to engines and fuel systems
Loss of automobile manufacturer warranty coverage
Raised food prices and impact the levels of hunger around the world
ExxonMobil will submit company comments to EPA opposing raising the amount of ethanol that is required in the fuel system. We encourage all ExxonMobil Citizen Action Team members to submit individual comments to EPA as soon as possible.
Your voice can make a difference! EPA is required to take into account the public comments it receives. Please click here NOW (but no later than Friday, July 8) to send a letter to EPA opposing more than 10 percent of ethanol in gasoline. Additional information on the Renewable Fuel Standard can be found at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuels-standards-program.
Sincerely,
ExxonMobil Citizen Action Team
4 Barrels of Laughs
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 405
From: I moved to pittsburgh so I can be near Primantis
Lets see, I have to crack open the carbs on the tractor, mower, chain saw, weed whacker and tiller every 2 years because of the E10.
The EFI cars adapt to it with a 10% mileage penalty. The VW diesel is well, a diesel.
I fear that the gas as IS will destroy my regency from the inside out.
I should post my ethanol calculations to illustrate just how idiotic this idea is.
The EFI cars adapt to it with a 10% mileage penalty. The VW diesel is well, a diesel.
I fear that the gas as IS will destroy my regency from the inside out.
I should post my ethanol calculations to illustrate just how idiotic this idea is.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,163
From: Sistersville, WV
The general public has no clue about the facts. The government hides the facts. Ethanol production causes harm to the environment. Less MPG, pollution caused by its' production and loss of habitat for many birds and animals by wild prarie turned into farmland, not to mention the fertilizer runoff.
One of the worst ideas ever. They hide the MPG as automakers advertised MPG is based on non-methanol gasoline.
They even hide the bird-kill by wind farms as wind farms no longer have to report migratory bird and eagle kills as required by other businesses and utilities.
Rant over, for now.
One of the worst ideas ever. They hide the MPG as automakers advertised MPG is based on non-methanol gasoline.
They even hide the bird-kill by wind farms as wind farms no longer have to report migratory bird and eagle kills as required by other businesses and utilities.
Rant over, for now.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 348
From: MN
I despise the whole ethanol industry. Living in MN, I watched as this state became the poster child of ethanol production with gov't working hand in hand with the big grain companies like ADM and Cargill to develop a gov't subsidized industry under the guise of less dependence on foreign oil and helping farmers with a ready market for their corn crop. And, now that it's become a huge industry all unto it's own, there will be no stopping it. And, this talk of raising requirements to 15% is a direct result of less revenues due to a continuing drop in gasoline demand. Higher ethanol content...more usage required. Fortunately for us in MN, we at least have the option to purchase non-ethanol for use in classics and small engines...but, it must be 91 octane and, of course, you pay approx. $.50/gal more for it. Next up on gov'ts list of ways to recoup lost revenues is to start charging a mileage tax; supposedly, in lieu of gas taxes (yeah, right!). The idea has been batted around up here...but, so far, it's been met with too much resistance. But, you know they are planning and plotting behind the scenes as to how they can eventually get something like this enacted.
As for the wind turbines, I remember a day when the environmentalists were all up in arms about the eyesores of billboards along the roadways. We now have these large wind farms scattered about in rural MN and I've got to say, they are THE MOST hideous blots on the landscape that I've ever seen. But, it's all good as it's so politically correct to have renewable energy...sheesh!
As for the wind turbines, I remember a day when the environmentalists were all up in arms about the eyesores of billboards along the roadways. We now have these large wind farms scattered about in rural MN and I've got to say, they are THE MOST hideous blots on the landscape that I've ever seen. But, it's all good as it's so politically correct to have renewable energy...sheesh!
4 Barrels of Laughs
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 405
From: I moved to pittsburgh so I can be near Primantis
ok fine, I warned you....(a little research project I had originally did back in the early 2000;s and restated in 2014) I can send the word doc with formatting if you ask
here:
Green Gasoline
Restated 6/3/2014
Every day in the news we hear about alternative fuels and energy and how this politico has the solution that will save us all. Disturbingly, no one ever checks the math on these solutions. So lets do just that now.
“We need to replace automotive fuels with ethanol”.
Ok, sounds good, how much fuel is that exactly? How much gasoline does the US consume in a year?
- In 2013, about 134.51 billion gallons1 (or 3.20 billion barrels) of gasoline were consumed2 in the United States, a daily average of about 368.51 million gallons (or 8.77 million barrels). This was about 6% less than the record high of about 142.35 billion gallons (or 3.39 billion barrels) consumed in 2007. source: eia.gov
Note, this is JUST gasoline. Not truck, bus, train, plane or ship fuel, just gasoline.
So next we must ask, how much ethanol can we derive from farming the plants used for producing ethanol? If we use corn - the traditional favorite – and use current harvesting rate trends we find:
1 million harvested acres translates into an additional 420 million gallons of ethanol. Source: cie.us
Doing math we find that we need 360261905 harvested acres. The number of acres harvested lags the number of acres planted due to many reasons which we don’t care about at this time. We will use the 360 million acres rounded down.
How much land is currently used for farming?
only about one-fifth of our land area (408 million acres (2007))(*2)is used for crop production source: epa.gov
Again doing math, we find that 88% of our current farmed land would be needed to grow corn for ethanol production. This puts our goal of replacing gasoline with ethanol at odds with our unstated continuing goal of producing food for the population. And there are a couple constraints we need to keep in mind:
The next logical step would be to increase the land used for crop production. Does the US have more land available? Yes, we have the bulk of over 2billion acres to select from. Assuming we do not select paved areas, malls, parks etc we can whittle this down to some number. This number may not be as choice as the land currently under cultivation for a variety of reasons. After 300+ years as an inhabited land we discovered by trial and error which land is tillable. But we have machines and technology and smarts, we can make land tillable to some degree. We just need one major item: water.
How much water do we use? According to the USDA:
Agriculture is a major user of ground and surface water in the United States, accounting for approximately 80 percent of the Nation's consumptive water use and over 90 percent in many Western States – source USDA.gov
We do not hear often about there being too much water except in times of flood. And at that time, it is not useful for crops and in fact may be destroying crops. Lakes, rivers, and groundwater tables are at the low end of acceptable levels – or worse. We do not want to increase fossil fuel usage at all so a coal or oil sourced desalination plant is off the table, leaving nuclear. This makes that particular discussion for another day.
In summary we take away a couple of key points from this exercise:
We can also make a few logical assumptions from this exercise:
This does not address a known fact about fuels in an automotive engine: ethanol fuel economy is at least 15% lower than gasoline because there is less energy available per gallon. (BTU's per pound is used to level the playing field and take into account the different densities.)
While this is greater than 15%, consider that a gallon of ethanol is less dense than gasoline. We need to merely increase jet size/injector pulse size to compensate for this as well as carry larger fuel tanks – which in itself is counter productive to mileage desires.
Choose wisely!
here:
Green Gasoline
Restated 6/3/2014
Every day in the news we hear about alternative fuels and energy and how this politico has the solution that will save us all. Disturbingly, no one ever checks the math on these solutions. So lets do just that now.
“We need to replace automotive fuels with ethanol”.
Ok, sounds good, how much fuel is that exactly? How much gasoline does the US consume in a year?
- In 2013, about 134.51 billion gallons1 (or 3.20 billion barrels) of gasoline were consumed2 in the United States, a daily average of about 368.51 million gallons (or 8.77 million barrels). This was about 6% less than the record high of about 142.35 billion gallons (or 3.39 billion barrels) consumed in 2007. source: eia.gov
Note, this is JUST gasoline. Not truck, bus, train, plane or ship fuel, just gasoline.
So next we must ask, how much ethanol can we derive from farming the plants used for producing ethanol? If we use corn - the traditional favorite – and use current harvesting rate trends we find:
1 million harvested acres translates into an additional 420 million gallons of ethanol. Source: cie.us
Doing math we find that we need 360261905 harvested acres. The number of acres harvested lags the number of acres planted due to many reasons which we don’t care about at this time. We will use the 360 million acres rounded down.
How much land is currently used for farming?
only about one-fifth of our land area (408 million acres (2007))(*2)is used for crop production source: epa.gov
Again doing math, we find that 88% of our current farmed land would be needed to grow corn for ethanol production. This puts our goal of replacing gasoline with ethanol at odds with our unstated continuing goal of producing food for the population. And there are a couple constraints we need to keep in mind:
- Gasoline consumption may go down with increased fuel efficiency across the board, but it will go down fractionally, not by halving or halving again
- Unknown advances in planting and harvesting may make the crop yield increase somewhat, but it will not increase by an order of magnitude
- There are no known plans to reduce to population or appetite of the population in order to decrease the amount of crops needed for food.
The next logical step would be to increase the land used for crop production. Does the US have more land available? Yes, we have the bulk of over 2billion acres to select from. Assuming we do not select paved areas, malls, parks etc we can whittle this down to some number. This number may not be as choice as the land currently under cultivation for a variety of reasons. After 300+ years as an inhabited land we discovered by trial and error which land is tillable. But we have machines and technology and smarts, we can make land tillable to some degree. We just need one major item: water.
How much water do we use? According to the USDA:
Agriculture is a major user of ground and surface water in the United States, accounting for approximately 80 percent of the Nation's consumptive water use and over 90 percent in many Western States – source USDA.gov
We do not hear often about there being too much water except in times of flood. And at that time, it is not useful for crops and in fact may be destroying crops. Lakes, rivers, and groundwater tables are at the low end of acceptable levels – or worse. We do not want to increase fossil fuel usage at all so a coal or oil sourced desalination plant is off the table, leaving nuclear. This makes that particular discussion for another day.
In summary we take away a couple of key points from this exercise:
- At known rates of production we require 88% of the currently tillable ground to produce the corn to make ethanol
- We currently use 80% of the water we consume for farming
- This is for the replacement of gasoline only.
We can also make a few logical assumptions from this exercise:
- Current ethanol production has affected food prices. The scenario illustrated here would be catastrophic to food prices.
- A 10, 20, 30% improvement in gasoline fuel economy would not affect these numbers in a meaningful way.
- No one is proposing fuel economy increases of that magnitude
- It is not known if those kind of improvements are even possible
- or affordable
- a doubling of fuel economy which leads to a halving of consumption, for illustrative purposes reduces the tillable land requirement to 44% of known lands. At best this would lead to an insurmountable shortage of food and cost increases.
- To increase the tillable land, and assuming a 1:1 ratio of water needed per acre for the 'new' ground vs. the currently produced ground, would indicate we need to increase our current freshwater consumption by 80%
- Assuming we want to grow 'gas corn' on separate ground as to not affect our food supply
- and we cannot decrease current river, lake or groundwater table levels any further
- dictates we must find this 80% increase from somewhere else.
This does not address a known fact about fuels in an automotive engine: ethanol fuel economy is at least 15% lower than gasoline because there is less energy available per gallon. (BTU's per pound is used to level the playing field and take into account the different densities.)
- BTUs per gallon of gasoline: ~ 114000
- BTUs per gallon of ethanol: ~76000
While this is greater than 15%, consider that a gallon of ethanol is less dense than gasoline. We need to merely increase jet size/injector pulse size to compensate for this as well as carry larger fuel tanks – which in itself is counter productive to mileage desires.
Choose wisely!
Moderator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,227
From: Edmond, OK
In OK you can buy the 100% gasoline. I use it all the time for my mower and power washer and Oldsmobile. I put the cheapest gas I can find in my Ford Flex and my wife's Kia. The added fuel mileage doesn't out weigh the added cost.
Old(s) Fart
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 50,803
From: Northern VA
If (and yes, that's an extremely big IF) a mileage-based fee completely replaced gasoline tax, I'd be for it. Right now we subsidize hybrid and electric cars that don't buy gasoline but use the roads. A mileage fee makes them pay their share. I'm all for making users pay their fair share for any service.
Old(s) Fart
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 50,803
From: Northern VA
CH3NO2 LEARN IT BURN IT
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,636
From: Land of Taxes
As SSgt Crapgame says..... CRAP! For now I run ethanol free...while its still available that is, in all older TBI/FI and NA IC engines...period. Now I see Delta Sonics 100 octane is now 10% corn squeezins....CRAP! CRAP! There you go again Moriarty.... always with the negative waves.....Why cant you say something righteous and hopeful...Like... The current political environment is just a big nightmare and NO shes not actually running for president, who the hell would actually elect her into office....GAH!
4 Barrels of Laughs
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 405
From: I moved to pittsburgh so I can be near Primantis
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,163
From: Sistersville, WV
I like the fairness of the mileage tax as it is actually based on a fair system for wear and tear of the roads. But, if it reduces the amount the government gets, they will still find a way to screw us. Plus they will leave a gas tax in place and call it an environment destruction tax.
Easy to monitor it, Your friendly neighborhood inspection station verifies.
Easy on our cars just to disconnect speedo and only report driving 100 miles a year. Little harder on newer cars.
Easy to monitor it, Your friendly neighborhood inspection station verifies.
Easy on our cars just to disconnect speedo and only report driving 100 miles a year. Little harder on newer cars.
Old(s) Fart
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 50,803
From: Northern VA
344879M363895
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,234
From: Raleigh, NC
We have a Citgo here that has ethanol-free 93, so that's what I use in the old cars and also my tractor and mower. I have no real technical knowledge on the chemistry and the advantages, but I just heard that it is the right thing to do so that's what I've been doing. Figure the extra $ is worth the peace of mind.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 177
From: Scranton, Pa.
IN Pennsylvania we had a governor so pig headed that when we refused to convert to oxygenated gas, he requested that our federal highway subsidies be stopped. My gas mileage fell by half when they started Oxygenating gas and thankfully they found out later that the fumes from it caused Cancer and it was abolished! This ethanol will result in "bootleg gas" just like liquor during prohibition!
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 348
From: MN
That's the first I've heard that inhaling ethanol fumes was any more of a hazard than regular gasoline...to the extent that it would bring cause to discontinue selling it in your state. Interesting...and kudos to the people or powers that be in PA to take a stand.
Around here, I don't think 90% of the drivers care about the issues attached to ethanol. Most barely know enough to check their oil and tire pressures. They can't be bothered. If the liberal-minded gov't says it's good for everybody, that's all they need to know. As I mentioned previously, at least somebody went to bat early on for the rest of us in MN who actually give a damn with the option of 91 octane non-ethanol. It's not an ideal alternative...but, better than most states have from what I've heard.
Around here, I don't think 90% of the drivers care about the issues attached to ethanol. Most barely know enough to check their oil and tire pressures. They can't be bothered. If the liberal-minded gov't says it's good for everybody, that's all they need to know. As I mentioned previously, at least somebody went to bat early on for the rest of us in MN who actually give a damn with the option of 91 octane non-ethanol. It's not an ideal alternative...but, better than most states have from what I've heard.
Last edited by crimsoncolby; Jul 3, 2016 at 09:07 AM.
Old(s) Fart
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 50,803
From: Northern VA
IN Pennsylvania we had a governor so pig headed that when we refused to convert to oxygenated gas, he requested that our federal highway subsidies be stopped. My gas mileage fell by half when they started Oxygenating gas and thankfully they found out later that the fumes from it caused Cancer and it was abolished! This ethanol will result in "bootleg gas" just like liquor during prohibition!
Originally Posted by California Air Resources Board
While there are several oxygenates that can be used to meet oxygen requirements in gasoline, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and ethanol are used most frequently.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,163
From: Sistersville, WV
I think you are confusing MTBE with ethanol additive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE_controversy
Old(s) Fart
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 50,803
From: Northern VA
I think you are confusing MTBE with ethanol additive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE_controversy
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 177
From: Scranton, Pa.
You may be right. The MTBE was the Cancer causer if it leached into the ground water. Pennsylvania was in fact threatened by the Governor because they refused to open tailpipe emission inspection stations. I was on the verge of registering my classic in another state at the time to avoid my differential and transmission being ripped apart by their ridiculous rollers used on the test. Most of the cars on the road in other states at the time failed the test anyway, even after spending thousands on the recommended repairs. Fortunately the next Governor wouldn't approve tailpipe emission testing and the stations already built were torn down. My car is an antique now and is exempt, but the powers that be are still trying to get it and others off the road! Can you imagine a car that has won a Senior Grand National Award being forced into the junk yard? Thank God for Pennsylvania!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 230
From: Berwick, Pa
If (and yes, that's an extremely big IF) a mileage-based fee completely replaced gasoline tax, I'd be for it. Right now we subsidize hybrid and electric cars that don't buy gasoline but use the roads. A mileage fee makes them pay their share. I'm all for making users pay their fair share for any service.
Last edited by Bozang1; Jul 3, 2016 at 05:01 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 15,409
From: Phoenix, AZ
??? My car got tested on the rollers for 15 years before we got classic exemptions and I didn't have any adverse effects of running on the emissions rollers.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
