Ethanol

What other choice do you have?

I don't know why the car manuals say that. Brazilian cars all use ethanol up to 24% without a problem.

My manual (1999 OBW) says the same thing, but I'm running E60 (60% eth) after an after-market conversion and plan to go to E85. I think the lawyers make them say that.

Try it and watch your check-engine light. If it doesn't go on after

100 miles, forget about it and enjoy the improved acceleration. You will probably get fewer mpg but more mpd (miles per dollar).

Ben

And without conversion most cars will NOT see any better accelleration. ANd with E15 being the only game in town, it will sell for the same price as any other gasoline-type fuel, so no improvement in miles per dollar.

Here in Ontario E10 or E15 or E0 all sells for the same price, and in many cases you have no way (short of the phase separation test) to know WHAT you are buying.

If burning Ethanol makes you feel good, fine - but in MOST cases in Canada and most of the states, expecting any fuel savings or improved performance is a pipe dream.

I just wish you didn't expect the rest of the country (and the world) to pay for your "elixir" in higher food prices.

** Posted from **

Great point.

"Miles per Dollar" is something that should be promoted more. In my eyes it's _the_ way for the driver to look at fuel economy. It's very common to look at aircraft efficiency via MPD, because pilots can choose between max power, max range, or something in-between throttle settings.

I have a Toyota pickup that gets better "MPD" on 92+ octane premium (based on actual 10 tank tests), and I'm tired of explaining it to people. The year my truck was built, Toyota "recommended" premium fuel, but didn't require it. So I did some 10 consecutive tanks tests and did the math, and by golly, premium is cheaper to run.

Many vehicles get awful mileage on E85. Some hybrids carry a hefty purchase premium. Sometimes the math works, sometimes it doesn't, but many don't bother to do the math.

The important thing is to do the math and skip the style...

The cost of food world-wide has risen mainly because of the cost of energy, mainly gasoline and diesel. These fuels have doubled in price in only a few years.

The US Dept. of Agriculture estimates that diversion of corn to ethanol production is at most responsible for a 5% rise in the cost of food.

Clare, look further ahead! The price of oil is not going to go back to where it was. The world is running out of cheap oil. We need alternative liquid fuels in order to mitigate the disaster that is approaching as production from the world's oil wells slow down. It may already be happening. What will happen to world food prices when gasoline is $15 per gallon?

Ben

Clare, I see by another of your posts that you are not opposed to ethanol as long as it is not derived from food sources.

We can agree on that. Cellulosic ethanol is hard to make cheaply, but maybe that will change. On the other hand, methanol is not hard to make cheaply from sawdust, old newspapers, and the like. I hope FFV's can run on methanol as well.

May it come along soon!

Cheers, Ben

Yes, MANY vehicles will get better fuel economy on premium, and back when the difference was 5 or 10 cents a gallon it was OFTEN cheaper to run these vehicles on premium fuel. With the price difference here in ontario at 5% from 87 to 89, and another 5% more or less from 89 to

91, you need to get at least a 10% improvement in fuel economy for the price to work out to a savings. I've almost never seen a 10% improvement in fuel economy on an unmodified OBD2 equipped vehicle, or even on an ALDL or OBD1 system. If you can buy premium for a 6% price penalty, you win ( or, as in the case with Shell in Ontario, where their Premium (Gold) gas has NO ethanol, and their regular is E10, +/-, the 5% loss in fuel economy from using ethanol 87 R+M/2 means you only need 5% improvement from the 4 points of octane to make it make sense.

On my 3.8 Pontiac (1994, so pre OBD2, but still a rather sophisticated SEFI system) premium reduces my knock count significantly, but since even on 87 I'm not seeing any spark retard from the knock count premium isn't likely to make a noticeable difference. I've got a tank of 91 in right now trying to diagnose a light throttle surge at about

90kph (1600 rpm in 4th gear) and that's how I've gotten the knock count info. Still surging on premium, no anomolies on the scanner (data-streaming)but the surge SEAMS to go away when I disconnect the single pintle electrically controlled EGR valve - so I suspect it's a programming problem where the factory dialed in the EGR too early. (the truck had had the problem as long as I've owned it - which means the brand new engine installed when I got it has ALWAYS had the problem - 100,000 km now on the engine and 368000 on the van). Passes DriveClean with flying colours too. Better now than when the engine was new (all 3 readings down to about half what they were when the engine went in)

If I could get rid of that surge the gas mileage might improve from an average of 13.5 l/100km.

** Posted from **

If the price of Gasoline was $100 a gallon and we were producing ethanol from non-food crops, and particularly from low fertilizer intensive non-food crops(like legume straw) and waste, food prices would not be as high as they are today (assuming the cost of natural gas used to produce fertilizer did not follow the gasoline price)

The USDA estimates re the cost of feedgrains due to ethanol production WILL be found to be grossly understated. I have farmer friends. The fuel price is not NEARLY the whole picture. The fertilizer price definitely comes into it - but vast increases in the production of corn means a LOT more fertilizer is required - which puts the price up even more than it would be just because of the oil price.

Using foodgrains for fuel is criminally irrisponsible in today's world.Particularly as in-efficient a plant as corn.

** Posted from **

Methanol has other SERIOUS problems as a motor fuel. All of which could likely be minimized with proper development. First of all, it is extremely toxic (if swallowed)(but so is gasoline

- which is, however, much less palatable). Second of all it is extremely agressive against most common materials used in automotive applications.(read that as extremely corrosive)(it contributes to oxidation). Also, methanol fire is invisible. EXTRENMEly dangerous.

This is partly counterbalanced by the fact that methanol (the simplest of all alcohols) breaks down very quickly, and other than by ingestion is non-toxic. It is also less LIKELY to burn as it requires a lot more heat to ignite, and has a higher lower flamability limit.

This also means cold staring on neet methanol is extremely dicey. Ether starting is almost the standard for methanol engines (even for a hot restart in many cases)

The beauty of Methanol is it can be produced from CO2 and Hydrogen. Just think - combining hydrogen economy with greenhouse gas reduction (although burning Methanol produces CO2.)

Production of methanol by the now common processes using natural gas would obviously be a non-starter.

It mixes freely with water in any ratio, which can be good or bad.

** Posted from **

=2E..

Can be fixed with an additive.

The first alcohol-based FFVs used methanol. The Indy cars run on methanol. This problem also may be fixable. Maybe by another additive.

At least it recycles the CO2 instead of increasing it in the atmosphere. =2E..

Think of it as Dry Gas. The water goes out the exhaust. Better than gasoline.

Thanks for the helpful post!

Ben

Speculation, too. The real estate money (well, a good bit of it) ran to the commodities market.

Dave

Hi,

Politely, let me call BS on that...

Food prices respond to EXACTLY the same forces oil prices do: SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

The world can only supply so much of either at a given time. Yet we continue, in a manner totally contrary to most of nature, to breed ourselves into an excessive demand situation despite our supply not rising at the same rate. You're a retired physicist/teacher, right? So it should be no surprise to you to find that if "x" units of "supply" divided by "y" number of "demanders" allows "z" units of supply per demander, whenever you reduce "x" or increase "y" then "z" goes down, too. If "z" must remain static for the system to "work," any change in "x" or "y" is problematic, now, isn't it?

I appreciate everyone's tiny little efforts to "clean up this" or "use a little less of that" but I'm afraid I cannot accept ANY solution that doesn't also include a population control element is anything if not partially to totally off base.

Rick

Hi,

Might want to check on that. IIRC, Indy cars completed the switch to ethanol either last year or two years ago.

Lots of reasons were involved, economic, safety and political being among them.

Regardless, what works on a track w/ vehicles that involve the conditions of use and maintenance these cars see doesn't always play well on the street.

Rick

Of course, and I accept that diversion of corn from food to fuel exerts an upward price pressure on food. But we can get quantitative. How much pressure?

The US Dept. of Ag. has done this analysis and concludes that it contributes 5% of the rise in world food prices.

But that is not the only input to the equation. The occurence of drought in the world this year -- Australia is a good example -- also contributes. Lesser supply of corn, again, higher price.

But the main contribution is the dramatic rise in the cost of energy in the form of gasoline for farmers and of natural gas for fertilizer manufacturers. You know about gasoline. Did you know that natural gas -- widely used in fertilizer manufacturing -- has tripled in price in the last year or so? Costs must be passed through.

You cite population pressure. That is quite true in China and India, where not only has the population risen but also the wealth of that population and their ability to command world resources has risen sharply. There are traffic jams in Beijing and Calcutta! Greater demand -- higher price.

So we can do more than just say "supply and demand." We can analyze the problem further and find the coefficients of the input variables.

If we stay on topic and confine ourselves to the price of energy, I would say that the success of capitalism in China and India has led their populations not only to increase in numbers but, more importantly, in wealth. The US demands lots of energy because it is wealthy. China and India are becoming wealthy, and they want lots of energy too.

But then there is the problem of peak oil. Whether it is now or in twenty years, the oil wells of the world will start gradually to peter out. A few large discoveries will postpone the day, but the day will come when oil is just too scarce to burn for transportation. We will use it for pharmaceuticals and other high value products.

So that is why we are starting to prepare for the future by exploring biofuels. Some of us are eager to explore them now; others will be dragged kicking and screaming into the game. When gasoline is $30 per gallon, everybody will come on board.

Ben

You may be right!

Ben

Agree with all you both said. Here in Oz we're moving closer to mandatory E10. Overall fuel prices have risen roughly 30% here YTD, however for diesel and LPG it's more like 40%. Knock on effect for farmers is worse, with urea, ammonium nitrate and other chemicals mostly rising 50-100% over the last 12 months largely due to higher input and transport costs. Some estimate that their total costs per hectare (or acre) have almost

*doubled* over the last two years with only a small increase in returns at the farm gate. That's a real world scenario and food crop space lost to ethanol isn't even a major factor here yet! Cheers

-- Message posted using

information at

Not totally true. If you have a turbocharged car, some ethanol can improve performance because it increases the AKI of the fuel.

URGENT CAUTION: fuel tank liner failure

My 83 and 87 Subaru wagons have both experienced failure of the fuel tank liner. Tiny little white particles settle in the tank, repeatedly clog up the fuel filters, resulting in bucking and kicking under acceleration, hill climbing and high speeds. Runs fine when standing still. Before I correctly diagnosed fuel contamination, replacing the fuel filter solved the problem, but with decreasing times between changes -- in the end, only a couple of days before the fuel intake line sucked up more liner particles and clogged the filter. The solution was a $600 steam cleaning of the fuel tank and the 87 runs fine (the 83 went to junkyard heaven before I figured it out).

A friend is experiencing the same symptoms with a 1999 Lexus which used 10% ethanol for 5 years. He will check it out on return from travel.

These problems coincided in time with EPA-required oxygenated gasoline for Anchorage, Alaska from 1992 to 2004. MTBE was added from 1992-3, and 10% ethanol from 1995-2004. Anchorage attained CO levels below EPA maximums in 2004 and ethanol went away.

I cannot conclude definitively that fuel oxygenation caused my gasoline tank liner failures. But manufacturers of 83 and 87 fuel tanks could not, I think have anticipated mandatory oxy-fuels and test for delayed chemical reactions in their tanks (and altered their products if adverse reactions occurred). IF YOU EXPERIENCE THESE FUEL STARVATION SYMPTOMS WHILE USING OXY-FUEL, HAVE THE FUEL FILTER INSPECTED CLOSELY IMMEDIATELY, AND SIPHON SAMPLES FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE TANK IF INDICATED.

Paul Todd, Anchorage AK

On May 28, 6:37=A0pm, snipped-for-privacy@acsalaska.net wrote: =2E....

Cars made after about 1985 were required to be made ethanol-tolerant up to 10%. If your car made later that that encountered an ethanol problem, you may have cause to sue the maker.

Ben