write your congress-critter - increased ethanol in gasoline

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100618/ap_on_bi_ge/us_epa_ethanol
increasing ethanol content in gasoline is bullshit.
1. ethanol is made from corn. burning food for fuel is wrong. period.
2. ethanol reduces mpg's. it has a lower calorie content, thus you need more volume for a given distance driven. since we buy gasoline by volume, not energy content like natural gas, this is a rip-off.
3. ethanol rots the rubbers in your car's fuel system. i recently had to replace the injector o-ring seals on my honda. rotted o-rings means SIGNIFICANTLY increased gas consumption as the fuel was no longer sealed and dumping down the throttle body.
4. ethanol production consumes more agricultural energy to produce than it is supposed to save - so it actually /increases/ oil imports. do the math on the energy required for herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers. then add the energy for processing and transportation. it's a net loss. that is retarded.
5. tax payers are already being rooted for all the tax benefits the oil companies enjoy - this just makes it even worse. with ethanol, taxpayers subsidize farmers, give tax breaks to oil companies to use it, and just to add insult to the injury of getting lower mpg's, so not only do we end up putting more cash into the pockets of the oilcos because of increased sales volumes, we end up paying more pump-tax on those increased volumes too!
6. the "environmental" argument for ethanol in gasoline is bullshit. increasing "oxygen" content is code for "reducing the energy content". it doesn't make it burn more cleanly, it's simply replacing consumable content with non-consumable content and getting the consumer to pay even more for doing so.
don't get me wrong - i'm all for farmers. if we want to pay farmers to grow more corn and use any surplus to feed the poor, i see a good deal more good in the world than jamming the american tax payer up the ass just so the oil companies can increase their margins.
and on the subject of oil companies, i don't have a particular problem with them either, but here's reality. the economy is in the toilet. the consumer therefore has significantly less money. of the money they do have, the proportion spent on gasoline has /increased/ as the economy has gotten worse, not smaller like other commodities. to be increasing your share of the pie when the pie is getting smaller is retarded because long term, you're ensuring the pie stays small. they should learn to shear their sheep, not skin them.
all round, this is a "Bad Deal". write your congress-critter about this today and tell them this is a disgrace. and tell them that if they think that increasing ethanol in gasoline in "helping the environment" or "helping farmers", tell them they're either naive, or worse, that they shouldn't think that you are. neither are acceptable and should be part of your voting considerations for the mid-terms.
oh, here's the math question:
if 5% increase in ethanol reduces energy content, and thus reduces mpg's by about 1%, by how much does our annual ~~140 billion gallons of gasoline consumption increase? [ignore increased energy consumption from ethanol production]
for a bonus point, if gasoline is $2.50 per gallon [here in kalifornistan, that would be most welcome!], by how much would annual federal tax revenues increase from this extra consumption if each gallon is taxed at already taxed at 18.4%?
ps. ed, you should be all over this next time you're "in town".
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim beam wrote:

No that is just foolish ignorance. In the last 50 years surplus corn has been used to make animal fat, soda pop sugar and putting 3rd world farmers out of business. Using surplus corn for Ethanol is a lot better than anything else that has ever been done with US farmers excess corn.

Not true.

Not true.

It is retarded to believe that. There has been no increased petroleum imports or increase in agriculture fuel usage due to ethanol. Farmers are using less fuel today than they were 20 years ago. Where is the evidence for these increased imports?

Taxpayers have been subsidizing corn for 80 years. And that subsidy has been decreasing lately due to higher corn prices. That is saving taxpayers billions.

Supposedly there are good scientific studies that say oxygentes do reduce smog in areas prone to smog. The realty is the government has been trying to put the brakes on ethanol production for several years now and hasn't had much success. it is private investment not government that is driving the ethanol boom.

The poor around the world are mostly 3rd world farmers. They have been made poor by having their markets flooded with cheap US and European farm commodities. US Ethanol production is the best thing that has happened to the 3rd world poor since W.W.II.

Sure the government should stop subsidizing oil companies and start taxing oil companies. If that doesn't happen we are in for repeated cycles of recessions interspersed with feeble recoveries.

Your congressman doesn't have much say in how much ethanol is available at the pump. In most places you can get ethanol free gasoline if you want it. Go ahead and purchase ethanol free gas if you want to vote with your pocketbook.

Stupid math question. It takes 3% more base petroleum energy to produce the gallon of gasoline at the required octane without ethanol (this is the real reason for ethanol in the gasoline). It takes energy to raise octane and that will only get worse as the world's lighter petroleum fractions become more scarce.
     75% or more of the energy burned in a gasoline car is wasted. The key to saving fuel is decreasing that wasted energy. Ethanol is likely to be apart of that more efficient use of energy. For instance with gasoline it is difficult to achieve direct cylinder injection, but with ethanol it's easy.

I don't know what you think you are saying, but look at what it costs at the pumps that sell ethanol free gasoline if you want some idea of what it will cost to not put ethanol in the gasoline.
-jim

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim wrote:

I believe this IS true. Ethanol, according to the handbooks I used, has about 60% of the energy content by weight compared to gasoline. The densities are quite similar, so energy content by volume (harder to find) would be less.
I object to much of the original post, but I believe this is true.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Stauffer wrote:

No it is not true. E10 has 3% less energy than E0. But with 75% of the energy content of E0 gasoline being wasted and good reason to believe that ethanol blended gasoline can be burned more efficiently than gasoline alone it is not a given that ethanol blends will reduce gas mileage. In fact several studies have shown some engines get better mileage with ethanol blends. For instance, MIT has a prototype ethanol+gasoline engine that is 30% more efficient than a equivalent gasoline engine alone. That is special engine deigned to take advantage of certain properties that ethanol has that gasoline doesn't. Now that the vast majority of spark engines are being fueled with ethanol blended gasoline in the continental US you can expect to see engines designed for the US market to be more efficient on ethanol blend than straight gasoline.
-jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/20/2010 04:30 PM, jim wrote:

efficiency and calorie content are two completely different things.
but you knew that and were trying to muddy the water because you just wanted a fight. idiot.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim beam wrote:

yes I knew that. And that was the point -> The efficiency gain can outweigh the reduction in calorie content. And as engine designs change we can expect that will be the norm for ethanol blended fuel.     Besides the efficiency of the fuel burned in the engine, your analysis ignores the refinery's cost and energy usage. It takes energy to produce higher octane fuel. As it happens the amount of energy that the refineries save by producing a low octane base fuel to be blended with ethanol is pretty much equal to the difference in energy content of E10 compared to E0.

HA HA HA. Yes an idiot like you would consider looking at the whole truth to be muddying the waters.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/20/2010 05:50 PM, jim wrote:

not thermodynamically it can't. by definition. [you've heard of "thermodynamics" haven't you?] so if it's just combustion efficiency, comparing a properly tuned engine with one that's not is a bullshit false premise. but again, you already knew that.

octane rating has nothing to do with calorie content, retard.

if your idea of "the whole truth" allows for being fundamentally ignorant of thermodynamics and energy yields, you have some serious issues. but we already knew that too, retard.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim beam wrote:

Yes I already knew you were an idiot. No need for your constant reminders.

    Energy yields mean nothing if that energy is left as a trail of hot air wafting out your ass end. You and E) gasoline have that in common. Both produce lots of excess wasted hot air.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/21/2010 08:13 AM, jim wrote:

W-H-O-O-S-H

right, because octane = energy yield, right? freakin' retard.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim beam wrote:

No, nobody but the retarded Mr. Bean says " octane = energy yield". You have lots of weird and incoherent ideas.
    Octane is a property of a fuel. Energy yield does not predict how far down the road a vehicle travels on a gallon of fuel. The typical gasoline engine is wasting around 75% of the energy yield. 75% of the calories in the fuel produce nothing but wasted heat. Only 25% of the energy content of the fuel contributes to moving the car down the road. If you can improve the efficiency so that the engine is wasting only 74% instead of 75% of the calorie content of the fuel, then you will have increased the miles it travels on a gallon by 4%. That means even if the fuel used contains 3% less energy per gallon you still travel a little farther farther down the highway on a gallon of fuel.          This explanation of course is way more complicated than anything you read in your owners manual so there is little hope that your pea brain will understand any of it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/21/2010 11:05 AM, jim wrote:

oh dear, trying to deceive by quoting me out of context again retard? sorry, doesn't work - YOU are saying octane = energy content, not i.

having trouble with thermodynamic principles again? [rhetorical]

er, that's not a problem with the energy content retard. see above...

and that /still/ doesn't mean that ethanol is more efficient! thermodynamics rules the universe. learn about it.

don't put false words in my mouth retard. you are the one that doesn't understand basic science. lower energy content means more fuel needs to be consumed. end of story.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim beam wrote:

No you are the only person in this discussion who has said that. It looks like You are too dumb to know what anybody has said.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/21/2010 03:56 PM, jim wrote:

wow, asshole, not only are you retarded enough to make that mistake in the first place, you're also either too retarded to too dishonest to admit it when confronted with your own written ignorance!!! frankly, i'm surprised you're even allowed drive a school bus.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim wrote:

Losses in a heat engine have little to do with the fuel. These losses are do to inefficiencies in using the heat produced. About a third of the thermal energy released in the fuel goes into useful work at reasonable throttle openings, a third goes into exhaust entropy and a third into the cooling system. That is true reguardless of the fuel.
Now, it IS true that both ethanol and methanol have a higher octane than most gasolines. If the CR is increased to take advantage of this higher octane, then indeed we could have increased efficiency.
To a limited degree, if a certain gasoline is too low in octane so that a knock sensor equipped ignition is retarding the spark, then an alcohol mix could allow the engine to regain proper spark timing.
But the increase in efficiency in that case would come nowhere near 30%. What alcohol ratio is the MIT engine using?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Stauffer wrote:

Oh really? Apparently you never heard of the diesel engine. A diesel is typically 20% more efficient per calorie that a gasoline engine.

No it is not. It is only true when no particular engineering effort is made to take advantage of the nature of the fuel. If you use the same engine design for diesel fuel as gasoline it wouldn't be more efficient, but that would not demonstrate anything useful.

Ethanol has higher octane than any commercially available gasoline.

Yes that is a significant part of the increased efficiency.

     Almost every car in the US now has ethanol in the tank. Engines are being designed around that fact. Go back about 4 years and the majority of spark engine cars didn't have ethanol in the gas tank and back then engines were being designed around that fact.

This particular engine is a high compression (compression is as high as the highest diesel) turbo charged engine. The ethanol and gasoline are kept in separate fuel tanks. The gasoline is fed to the engine under light load conditions from multi-port injection. The ethanol is direct injected into the cylinders under heavy load conditions. The ratio of ethanol to gasoline increases with engine load. The mix of gasoline to ethanol on average is about 30% ethanol and 70% gasoline and yet fuel efficiency is much better than a efficient gasoline engine of the same weight and torque.     It isn't just the direct injection that allows for better efficiency due to reduce pumping losses (like a diesel) it is also the much higher latent heat of evaporation of ethanol that produces pumping efficiencies not possible with either gasoline or diesel as the fuel.
-jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/21/2010 08:32 AM, jim wrote:

T-H-E-R-M-O-D-Y-N-A-M-I-C-S retard. you've evidently never heard of it.

yes it is retard. see above.

what would be useful is you getting another shift to occupy your time between school bus runs rather than wasting electrons here. or cracking open a book that could teach you what you evidently don't know.

so freakin' what? octane rating has nothing to do with energy yield, retard. fact: energy content of ethanol is only 84,600 BTU/gal vs 125,000 BTU/gal for gasoline.

not if the thermodynamics don't support it, retard.

so what part of an engine needs to be "designed" for ethanol combustion retard?

er, you know that turbos have lower compression ratios, right retard?

you're full of it. "higher latent heat of evaporation of ethanol that produces pumping efficiencies" - what a freakin' retard!

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim beam wrote:

    Do you think that putting capital letters interspersed with dashes in your reply explains why a diesel produces more mechanical power per calorie of fuel than a gasoline engine does?
    Is this something your owner's manual didn't explain - so now you are completely lost?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/21/2010 11:13 AM, jim wrote:

"lost"? as in getting confused between octane rating and caloie content like you hopelessly are? or "lost" like trying to put false words in someone's mouth in the hope that it doesn't show you to be a retarded asshole?
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim beam wrote:

I have no idea how you got lost.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/21/2010 03:57 PM, jim wrote:

where /you/ got lost, asshole, is when you said that ethanol reducing calorie content was "not true". from that point on, all you've done is bullshit and bluster with a bunch of crap about "octane" that simply further proves you're utterly clueless. but you don't know /how/ clueless because this is so far off your tiny little school bus knowledge chart, you don't know what you don't know.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.