Pure Gas ( No Ethanol ) experiment

You bet.
There are enough things in this world that ARE bad and NEED to get us riled up.......that mostly go un-noticed.
I absolutely HATE when we have to artificially create things to hate that really don't deserve it.
Ethanol doesn't deserve all the hate that is directed at it.

 

+1

Somebody is messing with math here.....
If E10 fluctuates from 0.9960 to 1.0200 GCE with all of the local formulations, E85 is 1.3900 GCE and E100 is 1.5 GCE (as published by the NIST) then how can you come up with those figures?

I've said many times that the closest gas station to my office has "real gas" they they sell for about 15-20-percent more $....so EVEN IF your math is right (it doesn't appear to be) or there were some environmental advantage to using oil instead of bio (there doesn't appear to be) it just does not make walking around sense to use E0 in a product unless you have to.

Priuses?
Don't 'have to'.

It seems to me that people who hover over Ethanol threads try to use the heckler's veto to attenuate the light that needs to be shone on this topic.

If there's a heartfelt, cogent argument against E10 I'll listen, but in a world where it can be argued (IMHO) that HFCS is costing our society more grief than substituting ethanol for gasoline, I think that we can discuss the matter without bending numbers so far out of alignment or repeating the same old FUD.
Using the NIST values as I understand them there seems to be less than a 2% energy delta between E0 and E10......MTBE and summer/winter formulation variations notwithstanding - or did I do the math wrong?

The 15-20 percent price delta in my area is a hard figure....

 

The only thing that absolutely needs to avoid ethanol is boats with fiberglass fuel tanks. The ethanol dissolves the resin, and it ends up in the engine.
Other boats should avoid because it's a humid environment, and the tanks aren't as sealed as cars, so water build up in the fuel can happen. Same for small engines in humid climes.

 

... and then you go top him, frequently throwing in a bunch of ad hominem insults too. And for pointing this out, are you going to again accuse me of being an oil industry mouthpiece?

So-called 'pure gas' of 87 octane is also made of many components, few or none of them right at 87 octane. Rather, it is blended from a variety of components with a wide variety of octanes. In fact, all the gasolines of all octane ratings (84, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93, and whatever else) are made of the same components, blended in different ratios.

 

I'll say it again, there is no such thing as pure gas. There is no single compound that is identified as gasoline. The term is merely one for a fraction of petroleum distillate. What compounds it actually is made up of changes with petroleum source, refinery, time, and regulations.

 

Yes, & its those different ratios that designate a gasoline as being 84, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93 & whatever else. So the "ethanol in gasoline advocates" will be sated, 87 octane E0 is the various octanes ratio-ed around 87 octane. 87 octane E10 is not such. 87 octane E10 is the various octanes centered around 114 octane ethanol AND another centering of various octanes ratio-ed around 84 octane. The much better "centering" of accurately designated 87 octane E0 around what gasoline engine engineers recommend as 87 octane, cause my last five 87 octane, low compression ratio gasoline engines to give 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7%, & 5% better MPG over inacccurate, but designated 87 octane E10.

 

What is all this new song and dance about 'centering' ? The octanes of the many individual common ingredients don't change.

And are you managing to get your E0 for less than 7% higher price than E10? (My price threshold is much lower, I need it for less than 3.5% over E10 price. And that counts any extra driving distance to get it.)

 

"ethanol in gasoline advocates" just have to keep talking". There is no doubt that 114 octane ethanol dilutes 87 octane gasoline to the extent that accurate 87 octane E0 gasoline gives 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7% & 5% less MPG than inaccurate, but designated 87 octane E10 fuel blend(comprised of 84 octane gasoline). However, "ethanol in gasoline advocates" fall back on the price difference. Both the "ethanol in gasoline industry" AND the oil industry depend that America doesn't mind that gasoline fuel stocks are being diluted. Now the "ethanol in gasoline industry" AND the oil industry will foist off on America, 88 octane E15 fuel blend, comprised of 15% ethanol & 83.4 octane gasoline component. Already, "ethanol in gasoline advocates" are leaping for 88 octane E15 & trying to convince the rest of America to use it. After 88octane E15, "ethanol in gasoline industry" AND the oil industry will try to get people to use 87 octane E15 (15% ethanol & 82.3 octane gasoline). We'll see if Americans will be fooled by our ever diluting gasoline fuel stocks.

 

I work in Aerospace and this particular point is VERY relevant. In the aviation world there are various types of aviation fuel available for private aircraft but what you won't find at an airport or in an airplane is gasoline. That is a substance that isn't defined. Fuel bought as "gasoline" in California could have a completely different chemical makeup than the "gasoline" in Florida.

 

... as labeled by you. Putting out your errors does not make me an advocate of ethanol blends.

You have no doubts, but I most certainly do. Do you have a link to dyno-controlled tests supporting your claimed figures?

I'm not finding past dynamometer tests that have been posted here on Priuschat, but did find another set, which more closely matches the claims that others have posted here:



This is from this NREL paper:


They used 16 aged test vehicles, see the link, Table 2.4, for the complete list.


I've shown mine, now please show yours.

 

Yeah, I agree with you. There are 873 stations selling ethanol-free(E0) gasoline in Florida. Only 22 stations sell E0 in California (most are high octane racing fuels).

 

Ah, you show test results favorable to ethanol......... tested by a renewable energy outfit. Just what "ethanol in gasoline advocates" have done in the past...... & you do presently.
There ain't no bias there, for sure! The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, pumped by George H.W. Bush, run by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Again, absolutely no conflict in the......... name-ology
/////////
According to Reference.com, sustainable energy stretches to include fossil fuels as a transitional source as long as energy providers develop new ways to meet future needs before such sources are no longer available. However, fossil fuels are not renewable due to their limited availability and their environmental impact.

 

What is the difference between gasoline and avgas? Well, besides the lead.

I have seen results that show when the ethanol content is around 30%, the energy efficiency per btu of the blend is higher than straight gasoline. Wanted to experiment with the Ranger, but stations selling E85 are about as common as ones selling 'pure' gas around here, less so if you count places selling racing fuel buy the jug. 30% is also the point where phase separation is no longer a concern.

So your sources haven't done any testing disproving these results? If they were so biased as to be brushed off as you are doing, then disproving them would be easy.

And we can make the fossil fuels we use renewably. Audi is already doing it for natural gas and diesel, and theirs isn't the only path. The issue is that fossil sources are just cheaper.

 

So I take it that you are not going so show me an equivalent report supporting your results and showing methodology?

 

Showing info about renewable fuels by renewable fuels company ain't no data at all. Meanwhile, my last five 87 octane low compression ratio gasoline engines over a decade plus, showed that accurately designated 87 octane E0 gave 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7%, & 5% better MPG than inaccurate, but designated 87 octane E10 fuel blend concoctions, as driven by a feather footer with little or no WOT actions.

 

Got it. You are NOT going so show me an equivalent report supporting your results and showing methodology, because you haven't similarly documented it.

I.e. we simply have to take your word for it, because there is nothing else to show. We can't review your methods for bias and errors.

Never mind that we can create larger MPG differences than that, out of thin air at the touch of the right foot, to justify any desired viewpoint. That is why mechanized, computerized testing on a dyno is preferred over humanized activist testing.

 

Avgas is 100 octane (low lead) for prop planes. JP-x for turbines which is very similar to kerosene since their compression ratios are MUCH higher.

Ethanol absorbs water (hygroscopic)... bottom line. Diluting it in gas will slow it down, but it won't prevent it from happening. If you're burning the gas within a few months, no problem. But if it sits around for an extended period of time, water will be absorbed.

Source: I used 100% ethanol to run jets in a laboratory... after a few weeks of being exposed to air, it would go bad and the jets wouldn't start. I'm sure 10% has a much longer shelf life, but it's not eternity.

 

Um, really?
Let's try *not* having a government mandate forcing ethanol to be blent, and *not* forcing a gaso recipe that must have ethanol.
Of course going on many decades now of ethanol ( and MTBE) mandates, refinery operations have been designed and built around mandated ethanol requirements, including making less gaso and making more diesel for the farms. So there is a certain dependence that would take a while to unwind to a non-mandated situation.

 

Dear God, any initial results from the OP? I can't wade through all the opinions anymore

 

Absolute ethanol will settle to about 94% to 95% once the bottle has been opened. Assuming the environment isn't extreme and proper storage.

Gasoline will also good bad when not properly stored.