Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

The messed up thing about ethanol is that we waste a food crop to make it, in Brazil I think it is, they have rich oil reserves, and they export most of it, the cars run on ethanol fuel, GM Toyota Ford et al sell cars there, granted modern cars, and the systems can handle it and they run fine. They have "real" gas for sale as well, but most are alcohol fueled, does not matter how much you use if it is dirt cheap. The cars are prob like our flex-fuel ones, can run on alcohol or gasoline, they use saw grass and waste plant material, not corn.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

> Rick Bergsma Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Ethanol has a higher octane rating than regular gas . You would think

> 15% ethanol would be good in a two stroke fuel mix .

Higher octane is beneficial for higher compression ratio motors. Alcohol motors can run higher compression ratios because of this. Is that beneficial to an every day street bike? Most of the time not.

At the pump what is does do is bring up the octane rating on an otherwise lower grade of gasoline.(edited)

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

Evil wrote:

> At the pump what is does do is bring up the octane rating on an

> otherwise lower grade of gasoline.

This is absolutely correct. They use it to make up on octane.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

Just to add in here in the old days (not sure about newer technolgy) all gas ran through the refinery and was loaded on the tanker trucks in different compartments but was all the same as far as grade of fuel .an additive was added to bring each compartment to what ever octane was needed ..this was before ethanol...i can't think of the name it was called at this time..i had a friend that drove a tanker and he would bring me 5 gals of the additive to mix gas for my race cars..back then also we could go to the refinery and get what they called (not sure of this spelling) casin head that was kinda like skim off the gas when it was processed ..it would run in a vehicle but you really didn't want to run it full strength...the gas we get today smells a lot like the old casin head did.(edited)

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

When I was researching tank coatings a lot of info I ran across implied that many of the complaints we make about ethanol in gas should actually be directed towards other additives. They add various other solvents and detergents as octane boosters and fuel system cleaners.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

Pushrod Fifty /

Its used to oxygenate gas to make it burn cleaner but when you think about it A-Z, growing and processing the corn, refining it, transporting it, blending with raw gas, seems as though its a wash environmentally as mostly diesel powered tractors and trucks are used, along with tons of water and petrol derived heat to process it.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

> Pushrod Fifty Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Its used to oxygenate gas to make it burn cleaner but when you think

> about it A-Z, growing and processing the corn, refining it, transporting

> it, blending with raw gas, seems as though its a wash environmentally as

> mostly diesel powered tractors and trucks are used, along with tons of

> water and petrol derived heat to process it.

Don't try to use facts on these Greenies, Pushrod! LOL!

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

Oh because it doesn’t take anything at all to produce petrol. It comes right out of the earth ready to use, just the way god intended it to.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

Probably takes less than `eat-it-all'. AND it gives you WAY better gas mileage and doesn't rot your small engines.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

Pushrod Fifty /

Right its not usable as derived like anything else, but its one base material processed in one location.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

Ethanol is just a waste of taxpayer money. Grow the food...feed the world...……..not the cars. Stupid greenie ideas like this are what's ruining San Fran and Los Angeles. LOL!

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

> Rick Bergsma Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> I've delivered corn to ethanol facilities plenty of times and my take

> away from talking to people is that it's heavily subsidized and has a

> large carbon footprint . Is it good or bad for the environment ? I doubt

> it's good .

THI is unfortunately true. ethanol has a significant opportunity to be done sustainably and done well, but unfortunately here it seems to be more a tool of the corn lobby to eke more money outta people, pretty wild. but no corn ethanol is not better for the environment, though not too much worse. In the US, i strongly believe it's driven by 2 things: energy independence - maintaining a scalable domestic fuel source in case our others are cut off, and 2 - the interests of a still very powerful corn lobby.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

> Don Ohio Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Ethanol is just a waste of taxpayer money. Grow the food...feed the

> world...……..not the cars. Stupid greenie ideas like this are what's

> ruining San Fran and Los Angeles. LOL!

There's no shortage of food. that concern hasnt materialized as farmers shift cropland to corn for ethanol. we dont displace food production to make ethanol, rather the problem it "solves" is that food isnt a big enough market for all the corn. So for corn farmers to make more money they need more markets. corn lobbies for subsidy to make corn ethanol.

That said Ethanol totally CAN be beneficial to the environment even when you include all of the details of transportation and growing, land displacement etc etc. It's actually very easy to find that data. like would take you less time than promoting the same tired falsehood that it's all a wash. Interestingly the biggest factor isnt the farming equipment or transportation, it's just the land displacement that could otherwise be unused land. replacing that land with cornfields has a the big impact. along the decomposition impact of the stalks combined with fertilizer and manure use. Still it's only fractionally (like 1/60th) the impact of say - eating beef. but folks like to laugh off the very real impact of "cow farts", and only consider farming impacts when it relates (again only a tiny amount) to something you dislike...

You dont need corn or sugar though. corn's actually pretty inefficient source of ethanol.

one advantage it's nontoxic so spilling it, dumping it out in your backyard whatever is pretty harmless.

mileage is less. emissions are less. overall impact vs gasoline these arent really the driving considerations. it supports domestic fuel supply and it supports corn farmers who maintain powerful lobbying impact in government.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

Joseck, F., and J. Ward. "Cradle to grave lifecycle analysis of vehicle and fuel pathways." US Department of Energy (2014).

look it up, its free to download. goes through the potential details too, inputs and opportuniy for improvement.

C2Gfuels2020.JPG

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

BEV's are battery. it also notes that as renewable energy mix increases, battery had biggest chance for impact. also using better sources of ethanol than corn whichhave lower land use change impact. best right now is plug-in hybrid and best in the near future will be battery if we continue increasing renewable power sources and displacing coal. long term future would be fuels made from pyrolysis of biomass (currently not well developed so $$$)

Argonne ran a COST analysis which shows e85 is the CHEAPEST way to reduce CO2, while battery vehicle, at current prices and energy mix, are the most expensive pathway. in terms of $ spent per ton CO2 avoided.

Really guys this stuff is all out there from relevant, reliable peer reviewed experts and super easy to find, to interpret and to base your opinions on reliable evidence instead of sensationalized media propaganda and knee-jerk responses like "well if you factor in the farming it's a wash anyway"

Is it? is it really though? MAYBE! but you can find out a hard yes or no instead of just resting on incomplete assumptions; really easily!

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

Here's a thought I didn't see covered. They cover CO2 per ml of fuel. BUT it takes at least 10% of your mileage away. SO, you use 10% more fuel to drive the same miles. So you must add the 10% CO2 emissions to the use of ethanol. SEE?

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

it's mi, not ml

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

So it is, but the principle applies that you make MORE fumes by running more fuel.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

Pushrod Fifty /

It's a wash.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

Gasoline is for engines and alcohol is for livers.(edited)

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

Ok put another way, rank the following (in your opinion) what's most important as a government:

1) ensuring domestic fuel production lines, protecting our gasoline supply in case of geopolitical instability in the middle east, venezuela or other oil producing countries. - this supports ethanol (corn or otherwise)

2) ensuring large scale factory corn producers are rich. -this supports corn ethanol and is unfortunately probably the biggest factor affecting govt prioritization of corn ethanol - corn has a powerful lobby, swings big volume of votes, and contributes large sums of money to politicians to favor their personal interests... Also means our taxes subsidize corn interests.

3) progressing toward greener fuel sources to begin to tackle the acute problem of local air pollution and the global problem or climate change. - this would support cellulosic ethanol instead of corn as a short term drop-in technology with lowest cost to bridge existing technology while the energy grid transitions to renewables for a shift to battery and hydrogen vehicles. Corn ethanol could help develop ethanol tech generally but for pure environmental gain, looking just at corn, it's basically a wash.

4) ensuring domestic food production of corn. We already produce more corn than we need and use it inefficiently to fill a bunch of other manufactured "needs" such as corn based sweetners etc; we don't really need to ensure farmland is used for corn food production, however this is an argument against corn ethanol.

5) negligible impact on cost of gasoline per mile, so the balance of cost and mpg and engine design etc, this as we've discussed also comes out a wash.

or 6) ensuring that your old mopeds have pliable rubber fuel lines for a longer period.

If you ranked all those and gave each a priority and value, and then factor in a bunch of guys paid you a lotta money and help ensure your cushy job if you vote in favor of corn ethanol, you can see how corn ethanol gets passed! democratic capitalism at it's finest

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

Capitalism can be bought...……...LOL!

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

> Born to be WillD Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Joseck, F., and J. Ward. "Cradle to grave lifecycle analysis of vehicle

> and fuel pathways." US Department of Energy (2014).

>

> look it up, its free to download. goes through the potential details

> too, inputs and opportuniy for improvement.

yeahhhh

i got interested in this a few years ago and put a lot of time into research, there have been a few credible (and many non credible) independent (not sponsored by the department of the government responsible for executing politicized energy policy) that ripped some big holes in that one.

i don't remember all the specifics but it was enough that i'm not ready to take the DOE at their word. I think based on the wide range of industrialized ag production its really tough to pin down hard numbers for the amount of carbon (or other greenhouse gasses/chemicals/pollutants) used in the production of corn.

the crazy thing about all of this is that its not 'green weenies' that have pushed this agenda. Sonny Perdue who was a democrat then switched to a republican both sued the EPA over ethanol integration and is now pushing (on behalf of trump) the USDA agenda advocating for 15% ethanol... it really depends on who is buying them off what day. some of the swampiest swampers in trumps cabinet will really just do anything for anyone that pays them.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

From where I've found the biggest variation or conflict with the DOE estimates is the land use factor. It also pretty heavily leans away from the battery vehicles based on some outdated battery numbers and cost, and energy balance. Still it se em s like a very well researched piece based on some questionable but I think ultimately valid assumptions.

The tldr for me being ethanol is a reasonable bridge technology for short term impact, but corn ethanol is far from the most efficient ethanol source.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

> Born to be WillD Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> From where I've found the biggest variation or conflict with the DOE

> estimates is the land use factor.

Yeah like i said i'd have to go through it all again to speak intelligently but what i was reading was saying that the amount of carbon byproduct or perhaps it was a more wholistic greenhouse gas emissions thing (methane, etc) due to the production of fertilizer was significantly off.

I really don't care as much about the environmental implication, my conclusion at the time was that it was give-or-take a break even on carbon and essentially shifting the location of the emissions from population dense areas to population less dense areas (which IMO is a legit approach to pollution mitigation when it comes to most air quality emissions)

BUT

It drives me nuckin' futz as a 'conservative' to think that huge sums of tax dollars are being thrown into a fire that essentially just propagates a very unsustainable industrial agriculture model, and ultimately ends up in the hands of big ag business like monsanto, etc.

i'm not a total wingnut libertarian that thinks you shouldn't need a licence to drive a car or that crazy shit, but i do have the controversial opinion that if gov't money is going to be spent, it should go to things that generally benefit the citizenry. Even if they were doing the same program but said you had to use non-fossil fuel synthesized fertilizers or practice sustainable ag, or grow one of the switchgrass/elephant grasses that actually do a much better job of pulling carbon out of the atmosphere, i would be a lot more for it. The way the program works right now its 110% a total boondoggle.

but just like everything else, a lot of entrenched business, jobs (all those people at monsanto, adm, john deere, cargill, etc) is based on the current model so its unlikely to change.

lucky for me out here in the sticks i can still buy E0 and i do, its all that goes in my cans for stuff around the house.

some of the stuff that i've been getting into lately with soil biology has been really blowing my mind in the context of all that.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

> Graham Motzing Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> It drives me nuckin' futz as a 'conservative' to think that huge sums of

> tax dollars are being thrown into a fire that essentially just

> propagates a very unsustainable industrial agriculture model, and

> ultimately ends up in the hands of big ag business like monsanto, etc.

>

> i'm not a total wingnut libertarian that thinks you shouldn't need a

> licence to drive a car or that crazy shit, but i do have the

> controversial opinion that if gov't money is going to be spent, it

> should go to things that generally benefit the citizenry. Even if they

> were doing the same program but said you had to use non-fossil fuel

> synthesized fertilizers or practice sustainable ag, or grow one of the

> switchgrass/elephant grasses that actually do a much better job of

> pulling carbon out of the atmosphere, i would be a lot more for it. The

> way the program works right now its 110% a total boondoggle.

>

> but just like everything else, a lot of entrenched business, jobs (all

> those people at monsanto, adm, john deere, cargill, etc) is based on the

> current model so its unlikely to change.

yeah dude, that's pretty well where I'm at. My feels is that its a useful technology, corn could help some if its helping in developing that technology but there are way better sources of ethanol, and that really why we have it presented at all is because it benefits big ag and corn, and teases the geopolitics of domestic fuel

Still I dont worry about increased ethanol use; Kinda see it as a net neutral with potential for future positive.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

It is a welfare program for corn farmers, disguised as an environmental program. Proof? why are there 36 different blends (boutique fuels) throughout the states? Does each state have different AIR?

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

Just some Califunny cities with LA being #1 offender.

From WebMD:

No. 1: Los Angeles

The City of Angels once again takes the No. 1 spot for unhealthy air. But it’s making strides. 2018 saw the reached lowest number of bad ozone days ever reported. Laws that lower emissions from power plants, cars, and trucks get the credit.

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

> Don Ohio Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Just some Califunny cities with LA being #1 offender.

>

> From WebMD:

>

> No. 1: Los Angeles

>

> The City of Angels once again takes the No. 1 spot for unhealthy air.

> But it’s making strides. 2018 saw the reached lowest number of bad ozone

> days ever reported. Laws that lower emissions from power plants, cars,

> and trucks get the credit.

Interesting, didn't think i'd see don actually supporting "Laws that lower emissions from power plants, cars, and trucks"

Re: Push for 15% Ethanol in Gas approved by Feds

I'm all for lowering emissions when common sense is applied. Unfortunately, in Califunny, that is rarely the case.

« Go to Topics — end of thread

Want to post in this forum? We'd love to have you join the discussion, but first:

Login or Create Account