There's a reason that Gas-ethanol blends come in 85% gasoline or 85% ethanol.
Basically, you can disolve about 20% gas in ethanol, or you can dissolve about 20% ethanol in gas.
Once you move much outside those ranges, the gas and ethanol won't form a solution. THe two will separate, and that could cause disasterous consequences for your fuel lines (I'm not sure exactly what happens, but having two fuels in your tank at the same time with very different properties can't be good.
DO NOT just dump a tankful of E85 in your car! See
formatting link
The major issuethey discuss is a potential increase in emissions (which could be afelony). The ethanol content can also dry out any rubber hoses areseals over time, leading to all sorts of issues with leakage. Dan D '99 Impreza 2.5 RS (son's) Central NJ USA
It would be nice to have a "simple" answer, but we all know what they say about simple answers to complex problems...
Anyway, I, too, don't generally look at government as the first line of defense against all the ills that face us in our daily lives, but there will have to be some kind of government intervention to make any of this "change" work.
The first thing to look at is supply and demand. It's estimated approx
84 mil bbls of oil are produced daily, worldwide, and the US uses 21 mil of them, or 25% of the world's total. (If the "peak oil" folks are to be believed, that production figure's not likely to increase, but likely will decrease, in the next couple of decades or so.) That's a lot of oil for 5% of the world's population to use. And I suppose it wasn't so problematic when the other 75% supplied the needs and wants of the rest of the world.
But in the last 25 yrs or so, we've added roughly 25% of the world's total population to the list of those demanding oil. While we were complaining of gutless econobox cars in the '70s due to the oil shortages of the time, the Chinese were riding bicycles. Today, you see pictures from China and you won't see any more bicycles evident in their cities than in pictures from the US. But you WILL see thousands, millions, soon 10s of millions of cars that didn't even exist "back then!" They've all gotta be fed from that one big pot of oil the world shares. And the next few decades will see ANOTHER 25% of the world's population demanding much of that oil as India becomes a prime player. So we've gotta look at ~3 billion potential new consumers in the next few years over what we had just a couple of decades ago. That's 10 people looking at the same bbl of oil for every single person in the US, who used to think he was the only person in the world looking at it, and may well have been, at the time. Prices are NOT going to go down nor are supplies going to increase enough to fill that demand w/o serious change in our usage habits.
So... while we're driving around like there's no tomorrow, let's stop at Wally World and drop $3 on a Chinese calculator (made and shipped w/ some of that oil that used to be "ours" if we think selfishly) and start crunching some numbers. Let's look at the average person's consumption in the US. Or at least California where I live, since I've seen some numbers for here.
The average Californian supposedly drives 15k mi/yr, and uses 1200 US gal of fuel doing it. That's an average of 12.5 mpg. Which means, despite CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy law) and other moves to increase economy, we're virtually EXACTLY where we were roughly 35 yrs ago when CAFE came to be. We have an estimated 30 mil cars registered in this state, approx 3/4 of a car per person! Let's say half of those cars, 15 mil, are actually being driven on a regular basis, as that number roughly reflects the number of licensed drivers. Let's fire up the calculator, then, and see what it tells us (if I slipped a decimal place somewhere, please correct me):
It looks like we drive on average well over 600 mil miles PER DAY just in this one State. At an avg of 12.5 mpg, that's ~49 mil gallons of fuel. PER DAY. Since the best we can get out of a bbl of oil is about
50% gas/diesel, we're talking ~98 mil gals of oil. PER DAY. Divided by
42 gal/bbl, it's about 2.3 mil bbls. That's about 2.75% of the ENTIRE world's production. For 1/4 of a percent of its population!
Now, let's change that average fuel economy just a little bit, to 13.5 mpg. That's less than 10% better. What does our cheap calculator tell us now? Well, it looks like we cut our fuel consumption to about 46 mil gal/day, or 91 mil gals of oil (2.175 mil bbls.) That's a cut of about
5% or so per day.
Doesn't seem like much, but it's easy enough to do, IF someone will stand up and make it happen. The auto makers will try to tell us they can't do it, or the market "demands" the gas hogs, or some other excuse for maintaining the status quo (which not so strangely corresponds w/ their highest profit points.) The "market" generally isn't well enough educated to figure out this "supply-demand" thing and how it applies to THEM. Or they just don't care, thinking their part in the big picture is insignificant. This leaves government intervention.
So we first saw CAFE in the '70s. Good idea. Bad application. Why? Too many loopholes. The mandatory fleet average of ~27 mpg for cars was a good idea. But it let trucks pretty much out of the picture. For working trucks, yes, we need exemption or dispensation of some sort. But when all someone has to do is raise their car an inch or so (recent Outback change comes to mind!) to qualify it as a "truck" to gain an exemption from fuel economy rules, it all becomes a big hoax.
The new "fuel economy standards" law passed by Congress recently made virtually everyone in the auto industry upset. "Oh, we just can't meet those standards!" Bull-oney. The standards are based on sales of vehicles. Sell more hi-mileage vehicles than lo-mileage gas hogs, and it's no problem, but how do we change the sales figures? The auto industry wants us to believe the public wants "bigger" and "more horsepower." Witness ads for the recent Forester: "bigger, bigger, bigger" keeps coming up. And why does the public "want" such vehicles?
Well, advertising plays a huge role, as we're "told" we "need" such things. And then, there's no penalty for waste. This is where, unfortunately, government will have to step in. Let's look at a radical approach to tax laws as one way. Post-war Britain provided an early example, w/ their "taxable horsepower" ratings. Ok, it wasn't a perfect system, but it was a step in the direction of conservation.
So we look at the "average" fuel economy requirement, give it a tolerance range, and let people buy cars within that range w/ no strings attached, other than the market's price of fuel. That will have just a minor impact. We've given tax incentives for purchasing economical vehicles in the past, but that hasn't changed things much, so let's go the OTHER way, and as soon as one drops below a certain point, we start taxing the bejeebers out of the vehicles if they can't be proven to be "work" vehicles. We already have a "gas guzzler" tax on certain cars--but it's essentially a one time tax at purchase. Extend that to be added to the annual registration fees, and I'm certain people are smart enough to adapt their wants to more closely match their needs. How long do you think the kid next door w/ that 6-8 mpg "monster truck" is going to keep that thing if, in addition to costing him $150 to fill it, he ALSO has to pay, let's say for example, $2500/yr additional on his registration? How long do you think Mrs. Soccer Mom's gonna think she just HAS to have that 8 mpg Excursion to haul a couple of brats three blocks to the soccer field?
We're no longer in a "free for all" economy WRT to fuel, nor can we continue to base our entire economy on cheap oil that no longer exists. Some of the ideas I've suggested ARE draconian, as well as being full of potential holes and loopholes. And I HATE to think we'd actually have to have the government institute such things, but until we first CUT our consumption, we're sunk. We can't grow corn or make batteries for hybrids fast enough to offset the increases in demand. Our $3 calculator should give us some ideas of the economies (or costs) of scale involved.
Already started, and it is not going to taqke $15 gasoline. I just picked one, there are plenty more, and the opportunity is vast.
formatting link
Not a relevant statement, even if true, and certainly not documented. Once the cost of that requirement is spent how many miles will it carry the customers in that week.
Free market will get the job done in a reasonable time. "Planned" economies have always failed.
Frank, the article you quote does not deal with E85 but with small gasoline cars. The market is working fine in this area. But with E85 there is a chicken and egg problem: Why buy a flex-fuel car when so little E85 is for sale. And why should a gas station install an E85 pump when there are so few flex-fuel cars around. This is the kind of thing that needs a little "planned economy," much as that kind of thing is not generally the best solution.
I agree than planned economies do not work well as a rule. But there are exceptions. There are "planned economy" moves that have worked well. That is why we all drive on the right. That is why we all have seat belts. and air bags.
If we get no such law (mandating flex-fuel), I hope you are right!
It's a "planned economy" right now as far as ethanol goes. Ethanol should be sidelined, 100%, until a viable cellulose conversion technology is developed. Using food for fuel production is reprehensible and will cause the USA more grief, internationally, than their appetite for oil has in the past. The old story that "brewers mash" has all the nutrients left and can be used as livestock feed doesn't cut it. The poor of the world run on corn, not beef.And EWVERYTHING in North America, and worldwide, will become more expensive as the price of corn and other food-grains go up. North America is as much a "corn economy" right now as it is an "oil economy" - and corn is extremely closely linked to oil - Phosphate fertilizers require petroleum products for production, and corn requires phosphates and nitrogen in huge quantities.
What blend were you using before? I'm pretty sure yours is the FIRST report I've seen of BETTER mileage w/ more ethanol. Can you show us some numbers, please?
I don't know what exactly changed, but I was getting pretty dire mileage, around 20 mpg, and when I started consistently going to the E15 station, it rose up to about what I'd come to expect from a sube wagon, around 24-25.
I don't really know a whole lot about how gasoline works, but ethanol increases octane, doesn't it? I know that doesn't translate into higher mileage, but it could have other beneficial effects on the engine.
Please read your contention again, as stated just above. It has to do with the supply, demand and price of gasoline and what will impact it. Your contention is that:
"Might yield" My contention is that it is already yielding to the pressure, and oil and gasoline will not get anywhere near that price before a major and appropriate philosophical change takes place. With no government interference.
The article's main points against ethanol are (1) it causes smog, (2) it costs more energy to make it than you get back, and (3) E85 is very inefficient. I believe all three are wrong. Ethanol when burned causes no particulates in the air, no sulfur, and little nitrogen oxides; when spilled it is dispersed by water and consumed by bacteria. If the Exxon Valdez had spilled ethanol instead of petroleum, the effect on the environment would have gone to zero in a few months, instead of still being with us after decades.
The Pimental paper (not "numerous studies") that claims that there is an energy loss in the production of ethanol was debunked as soon as it was published. A study by Prof. Bruce Dale (Chem. Engr, Mich. State Univ.) finds that "more than twenty gallons" of ethanol can be produced for every gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel expended in the process. In fact, there is a real energy deficit in the production of, not ethanol, but gasoline!
Efficiency? Today I filled the tank of my 1999 OB, unmodified, with what I calculate as E41, obtained by mixing at the pumps E85 and E10 plus what residual E0 I had in there. I'll report on the mileage in a few days. The prices were E10, $3.87/gal; E85, $2.97/gal. (So far, the car runs fine and no CE light.)
Well, if so, what happens to the poor shmuck with his factory flex- fuel vehicle who does one fillup with 'gas' or 'gasohol (10%eth)' and another with 'E85'?
Is there an owners-manual warning about making sure the tank is fairly empty before filling up with a radically different blend?
Sounds like a flex-fuel vehicle must be made to run equally well on straight gas, or staright eth, or anywhere in between.
Ethanol and gasoline are completely miscible (do not separate into distinct liquid phases) in any proportion. It is water that separates from gasoline to create problems, but the problems are not disatrous and are easily fixed with a can of Drygas, which uses alcohol to combine with the water and make it dissolve into the gasoline.
This is NOT true. The problem of "phase separation" has to do with WATER in the fuel. Ethanol is hygroscopic - it attracts water and absorbs it. The amount of water it can hold varies with temperature, so on a cool day the water and ethanol can suddenly "drop out" of the mix - all at once. THIS is where the danger comes in using ethanol "enhanced" fuel in planes, boats, and snowmobiles. (as well as in cars - to a lesser extent as you are usually not out of reach of help when it happens on the road.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.