ethanol in hess gas

I don't know much about ethanol...but the thought of ethanol from corn causes more green house gases than gasoline scares me. But I also have to wonder if that was "research" paid for by the Oil Companies to scare us.

 

I see those signs all the time. It might be a mandated notification.

 

Ethanol is an oxygenate that is frequently added to gasoline, particularly in the winter. It helps gasoline burn cleaner, causing less pollution, which is good, but it doesn't have as much energy, so you use more E10. Another benefit, particularly in the winter, is that ethanol blends easily with water, so any water that condenses in the gas station storage tank, or in the car's tank, gets absorbed and "burned" along with the gas, minimizing corrosion.

In Oregon we used to only get E10 in the winter, but they've changed the law to require it year round. You get poorer MPG with E10 than with pure gasoline since it has less energy.

 

Adding ethanol results in less pollution coming out of the tailpipe, esp in winter. Also a little money from the corn lobby in the pockets of a few key legislators in each state helps too.

Each state sets its own rules about required additives, and what time of the year they are required, requiring the poor old oil companies to make a different formula for each state. The hassle of resetting the refineries to make these different mixtures sometimes leads to regional shortages and price spikes during the changeover, esp. the beginning of summer.

 

Most of the mid-western states add ethanol all the time. I won't repeat what the other posters have said, but it is correct.

Tom

 

So the consensus on E10 is: less pollution but also less energy. Is that less pollution per gallon or less pollution per mile? I'm trying to understand whether the loss in fuel economy is compensated for by the lower pollution. Seems like a subtle distinction that could be taken advantage of by someone with an agenda (ie corn lobby).

 

For "E10" ("up to 10% ethyl alcohol") you get about 97% the mileage of "pure" gasoline (non-ethanol) worst case (10% ethyl alcohol). So you loose up to 3% mileage, or perhaps 1-2 MPG. It burns much cleaner. I doubt you could measure any difference in the tailpipe emissions because the emission system would compensate. You could, over time, measure a difference in the longevity of the emissions equipment (because it wouldn't be working as hard), as well as the engine performance (works better when kept clean). Again, this would take some time to show up, as the grunge deposits of "ordinary gas" would have to build up before performance deteriorates. Performance would be fuel economy, power, smoothness of operation, and longevity of the engine and exhaust components.

As stated above, the alcohol in the fuel will dissolve any water that gets in (and it does). In Florida, water in the gas will show up as "jerking" on the highway (as the water drops are injected) or hard to start conditions. The water can also lead to premature corrosion in the fuel system. E10 will pretty much eliminate this. It will also eliminate the need for "gasline antifreeze" in colder climates.

There is one downside to this. The ability to absorb water can also cause rapid corrosion of the underground tanks if they are failing. This has mostly been fixed already by use of better designed and better quality tanks (legislated about 10 years ago).

 

All of you conspiracy minded folks should note that the 10% ethanol replaces the MTBE that was previously used but was banned by just about every state a couple of years ago. It turns out that MTBE was pretty toxic and was leaking into water systems all over the country.

And before you start cursing the oil industry for putting such toxic chemicals, such as MTBE, into their gasoline, you should also note that they were required by law to add MTBE in order to reduce emissions. Likewise, they are now required to add ethanol. The oil industry would be happy to add neither, since it costs extra to do so.

 

Another advantage to the use of ethenol is that it may not save any money to the user, and it may not be as green as advertised, but at least it redirects our cash away from the middle east and toward the farmers of our middle west. Every buck to Iowa is one less buck to the terrorists.

 

Here's another question about E-10 gasoline/ethanol mix. (Moderators, if you think this should be a new thread, feel free to move it.)

We're discovering in the marine industry that E-10 causes plastic fuel tanks to dissolve. Does anybody know if the presence of ethanol will affect the bladders in our Prius fuel tanks?

Just a (disturbing) thought.

--Joe

 

I suppose it's possible -some- plastics can be affected by ethyl alcohol. I've stored E10 for 6 month periods in plastic fuel containers (the red ones) with no problems. Perhaps it's time the boat industry got away from the cheapest possible fuel tanks to ones that are safe and reliable!

The Prius bladder was tested by Toyota with E10 and higher. It passed the tests. I haven't read the owners manual recently, but I think it states E15 max., and for sure it states E10 is ok.

 

93,000 miles of using E10 so far with my 2004 Prius.

No concern whatsoever.
.

 

The Prius fuel system is specifically designed for use with 10% ethanol.

Tom

 

Tom, John and David,

Thanks for the reassurance. I should have known that Toyota would be on top of something like E-10. (Too bad they didn't give us better tires.)

--Joe

 

I was on the plane the other day and met a guy who's a farm machine company rep. He was saying that ethanol will have some far reaching impacts on our foodstuffs in the future as corn farmers can now grow and sell an inferior grade corn than before. Can sell the poor corn for ethanol instead of having to grow high grade tasty corn to General Mills. Oh oh..there goes my cornflakes....

 

It's already happening. Corn is also used as feed for farm animals, so the price of meat goes up too. We use alcohol for our boat stove; last year the price of fuel doubled.

Another bad thing is that it takes a lot of petroleum to grow corn. It's not like you save a gallon of gas by burning a gallon of corn based ethanol. You barely break even in the conversion.

Tom

 

Soybean farmers are planning to take their ball and go home because the U here just released a study saying that ethanol production could increase CO2 emissions. The big changes come from increasing farmland and releasing vast amounts that is stored in current grasslands and forests around the world.

U biofuels study has farmers upset

 

I guess a lot of people still don't get it.

Ethanol was originally used to avoid patents and legislation re use of MTBE, Techron, and one other toxic additive that auto fuel needed to meet the requirements of modern engines.
The fact it did the following got your govt reps interested:

1. Reduces gasoline fuel use by 10% (the extra fuel that -may- be used during making ethyl alcohol and moving it to where it is needed is usually diesel). This reduces the total -crude oil- that is imported, in spite of the extra fuel needed, as gasoline production is the factor that is limited in crude currently. If you factor in the lower energy content, you reduce the fuel use per distance traveled by about 7%.

2. The other additives were found to be very toxic and long lasting. This was noticed when gas station storage tanks leaked into the ground water! Ethyl alcohol is not toxic unless it is a high concentration. It's also a naturally occurring chemical.

3. Manufacture of ethyl alcohol gave farmers a lucrative market, something they needed badly. The fact that is now reflecting into food prices and availability will correct itself over time. But until then the nay-sayers will be having a field day!

There will be a period of "adjustment" while all the systems involved adjust to this change. We're almost through that by now. The next step coming is production of ethyl alcohol by using "waste" feed stocks. High cellulose stuff instead of food grade grains. Currently most ethyl alcohol is made from grains that are sub-food quality (because that is the most cost-effective feed stock).

 

Production of ethanol from waste products is a great idea. Making it from food (such as corn) is a loosing battle, other than being a subsidy for farmers. The nay-sayers have this one right.

Tom