jake98
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,824
- Location
- Dingmans Ferry PA
- Tractor
- 53 Cub, 70's JD 410, Kioti 25hst
Amen brother.
Ethanol on the Ropes?
- Thread starter Gale Hawkins
- Start date
- Views: 19304
Amen brother.
I've been reading and need to make a few points.
1. Ethanol based fuels are bad for the environment for rural America. When you have a 5 gallon can of E10 that goes bad after a humid week, what do you do with it? Dump it behind the tree line? Use it to start a garbage pile fire? Certainly not run it in your car or tractor.
2. Ethanol creates havoc in fuel systems and engines. Check the owner's manual of your gasoline equipment. Most of them state that use of Ethanol based fuels voids the warranty. If you have an occasional use engine (which most of us here have many if not dozens) You have to clean your fuel system out more often which wastes fuel and cleaning agents. Ethanol has been proven to shorten the life of rubber, metal, plastic, and neoprene parts in your fuel system. The moisture it holds (even more for occasional use engines) causes metal to rust faster, rubber and neoprene to to disintegrate faster and plastic to become brittle faster. That in the end costs me much more in maintenance, repair and downtime.
3. Politicians are not scientists. The see the numbers of reducing emissions by x amount and don't see the back-end. Back in the 80's we had 4 cylinder cars that got 30-40 miles per gallon that could still get up to speed on the on-ramp. Then someone said reduce emissions! Now we have 6 cylinder engines getting 20-30 miles per gallon and burn much more fuel than the older "Dirty" engines just to get up to cruising speed. Total emissions output has increased because of this.
4. Politicians are stupid. Diesels are prevalent in other countries and get excessively great mileage. But here, they see the smoke coming out and say that we need to clean it up! So instead of a 70 MPG Escort Diesel, we get the offer of a 35 MPG Escort Diesel which has enough emissions junk on it to increase the cost to absurd levels while still putting out more emissions per mile driven than the international versions.
5. I would go out of my way to buy non-Ethanol fuel for my engines but the most places to get it in WI are located in the state Capitol! Go figure. The usual one rule for them and another for the rest of us!
6. Higher mileage = more efficient fuel usage = more efficient burning = less emission outputs per gallon.
The answer is higher efficiency with less emissions restrictions, not lower mathematical emissions with higher over all pollution and higher costs for us.
1. Ethanol based fuels are bad for the environment for rural America. When you have a 5 gallon can of E10 that goes bad after a humid week, what do you do with it? Dump it behind the tree line? Use it to start a garbage pile fire? Certainly not run it in your car or tractor.
2. Ethanol creates havoc in fuel systems and engines. Check the owner's manual of your gasoline equipment. Most of them state that use of Ethanol based fuels voids the warranty. If you have an occasional use engine (which most of us here have many if not dozens) You have to clean your fuel system out more often which wastes fuel and cleaning agents. Ethanol has been proven to shorten the life of rubber, metal, plastic, and neoprene parts in your fuel system. The moisture it holds (even more for occasional use engines) causes metal to rust faster, rubber and neoprene to to disintegrate faster and plastic to become brittle faster. That in the end costs me much more in maintenance, repair and downtime.
3. Politicians are not scientists. The see the numbers of reducing emissions by x amount and don't see the back-end. Back in the 80's we had 4 cylinder cars that got 30-40 miles per gallon that could still get up to speed on the on-ramp. Then someone said reduce emissions! Now we have 6 cylinder engines getting 20-30 miles per gallon and burn much more fuel than the older "Dirty" engines just to get up to cruising speed. Total emissions output has increased because of this.
4. Politicians are stupid. Diesels are prevalent in other countries and get excessively great mileage. But here, they see the smoke coming out and say that we need to clean it up! So instead of a 70 MPG Escort Diesel, we get the offer of a 35 MPG Escort Diesel which has enough emissions junk on it to increase the cost to absurd levels while still putting out more emissions per mile driven than the international versions.
5. I would go out of my way to buy non-Ethanol fuel for my engines but the most places to get it in WI are located in the state Capitol! Go figure. The usual one rule for them and another for the rest of us!
6. Higher mileage = more efficient fuel usage = more efficient burning = less emission outputs per gallon.
The answer is higher efficiency with less emissions restrictions, not lower mathematical emissions with higher over all pollution and higher costs for us.
foggy1111
Elite Member
Some years back I read where Cargill Corp was NOT investing into the ethanol biz. In short.....they said the science did not add up. Those folks are pretty smart about commodities. Al Gore said otherwise....I chose to believe Cargill.
Now things may have changed allot over time...largely due to tax incentives....but the science of ethanol has not changed. I believe the American public was not only duped....but Gored too.
Now things may have changed allot over time...largely due to tax incentives....but the science of ethanol has not changed. I believe the American public was not only duped....but Gored too.
Some years back I read where Cargill Corp was NOT investing into the ethanol biz. In short.....they said the science did not add up. Those folks are pretty smart about commodities. Al Gore said otherwise....I chose to believe Cargill.
Now things may have changed allot over time...largely due to tax incentives....but the science of ethanol has not changed. I believe the American public was not only duped....but Gored too.
Interesting.... Cargill has at least 1 ethanol plant in Iowa, unless they sold it.
Eddyville, Iowa. Pretty sure 1 in Nebraska. Some were being started to build in Minnesota, but may have been cancelled do to high price of corn.
foggy1111
Elite Member
Yep....I think over time Cargill may have succumbed to the incentives...but in a smaller way than some of the others in the ethanol biz. If the subsidy dries up (as it should IMO)...you gotta wonder what would happen to some of the biggest players. :confused2:
OP
Gale Hawkins
Super Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2009
- Messages
- 8,268
- Location
- Murray, KY
- Tractor
- 1948 Allis Chambers Model B 1976 265 MF / 1983 JD 310B Backhoe / 1966 Ford 3000 Diesel / 1980 3600 Diesel
We will know before Christmas if the tax payer funds are renewed for the ethanol makers or just go away.
If you think about it, maybe nothing because if states have mandates they will raise price.
What will be interesting is, the states who have e-85 vehicles that are mandating to run on e-85 for government vehicles, what will they do if ethanol would go belly up?? It would be illegal for them to run anything else untill they could pass a new bill.
What will be interesting is, the states who have e-85 vehicles that are mandating to run on e-85 for government vehicles, what will they do if ethanol would go belly up?? It would be illegal for them to run anything else untill they could pass a new bill.
Ken45101
Elite Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,669
- Location
- southern Ohio
- Tractor
- Kubota M5040, M9540, B21 TLB, B2710, RTV900, JD 325 Skid steer, KX-121-3 mini excavator
You mean if Washington turns over a new leaf and starts acting responsibly? I wouldn't hold my breath although by Christmas, **** (Michigan) should be frozen over :laughing:
Ken
Sorry to dowse the flames but only on paper and in a test lab, can they produce good numbers.
The MnCAR Lab is inside a climate controlled, sealed laboratory. The fuel for testing arrives in air-tight containers containing prime samples from the refineries. The fuel does not sit in tanker trucks for days while being delivered, pumped into the gas station tanks during all sorts of weather and then sit absorbing the make-up air in the tank until some poor sap fills their car.
If the study used real world samples from local stations, let them sit in non-controlled barns in the same gas containers we use, and tested the vehicles outside randomly over the course of a few days like a real car does and not on a "SuperFlow AC motor-driven chassis dynamometer" inside a sealed, moisture controlled lab, then I would actually believe the results. But then again, they can't do that because then the results wouldn't be "controlled" tests.
Most people forget that when an organization funds a study, they set the parameters for testing and decide what "Simulates" the real world and what should be ignored.
The devil is always in the details. :confused2:
The studies you listed did not test the amount of water and other gum alcohol in the fuel in accordance with the ATSM
Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel; ASTM D4806 ASTM D4806 -10a Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel
"Fuel containing 1.0% by volume or more should not be used for spark-ignition engines."
Test Method for Existent Gum in Fuels by Jet Evaporation; ASTM D381
ASTM D381 -09 Standard Test Method for Gum Content in Fuels by Jet Evaporation
"Gasoline with a "washed gum" greater than 5 mg/ 100 mL not be used for spark-ignition engines."
In contrast, UL does list all of their testing procedures, criteria used, and results.
Compared to the requirements of ASTM D4806, most harvested samples contained gum levels that were double the limit, acidity that was double the limit, pHe that was unreasonably low, sulfate levels that were seven times the limit and moisture content that was 45% over the limit.
While some harvested samples in this limited population performed well, the overall non-compliant results indicate that high percentage ethanol fuel blends can degrade materials and result in degradation to products that may affect their ability to meet the performance requirements of UL standards. This was manifested in the harvested sample population primarily in the form of leakage from sealed joints on the equipment. Visual evidence of degradation was also noted in some cases.
http://www.ul.com/global/documents/...tiblefluids/development/E85ResearchReport.pdf
Again, I am not against the concept of ethanol enhanced fuels, but in order to do so we need to completely change our fuel distribution infrastructure to prevent contamination that occurs in the current distribution system.
Doug