Ethanol - A new battle brewing?

[Gator6x4]

91 octane Non ethanol gasoline is very difficult to come by up here and from what I understand it comes out of Canada the places that carry this fuel in my area run out of it very quickly and now they say they can't get more until spring people stock up when they can get it and it's almost 5.00 a gallon.
If we had the option to get non ethanol at the pump right next to the 10% it would sell like crazy people hate ethanol gas up here it causes us lots of unnecessary grief with all our non automotive engines and the storage supplements these ethanol blends requires are not cheap. Wish all the politics didn't drive these foolish things all we want is good gas that doesn't go bad in two months. Now the are trying to ruin the good old reliable diesel engine next.
We have a bunch of new plow trucks here and in the middle of a blizzard we are trying to fight we have to pull over and regen for 15 to 30 minutes and sit there at high idle not accomplishing anything.I here it all the time on the radio I have to stop and regen this is the dumbest thing i've ever seen. I don't understand why every state has different ethanol rules very confusing. I'm all for supporting the farmer if we all stopped using ethanol tomorrow would it really even hurt any of them???

Don't think they put ethanol in Diesel fuel.

Here is what a fleet maintenance facility has to say about regeneration.

"The regeneration process occurs at road speeds higher than can generally be attained on city streets; vehicles driven exclusively at low speeds in urban traffic can require periodic trips at higher speeds to clean out the DPF.[5] If the driver ignores the warning light and waits too long to operate the vehicle above 40 miles per hour (64 km/h), the DPF may not regenerate properly, and continued operation past that point may spoil the DPF completely so it must be replaced.[6] Some newer diesel engines, namely those installed in combination vehicles, can also perform what is called a Parked Regeneration, where the engine increases RPM to around 1400 while parked, to increase the temperature of the exhaust."

 

[Copperhead]

That would be pretty much correct.

 

[muddstopper]

I tend to not discuss topics where the major contributors have a bias to one side or the other of the discussion. With this topic, it is very easy to see how a framer that is growing a crop that is being used to produce a mandated product would want to see the current mandates kept in place. As a competitive consumer of probably most of the other products that could also be produced from that same crop. I could very easily be biased to wanting to see the current mandates eliminated simply because it should result in a reduced price for the products I do use. Let no one make the mistake that I am taking either side in this discussion as there have been valid points made for either viewpoint.

With that said, there is also another viewpoint that up to now has not been discussed and that is alternatives materials for ethanol production. Where and when I first read about this, I dont remember because its been a long time ago. Several years ago, a US company developed a method of producing ethanol from Algae. I believe the company was actually based in either Maine or Mary;land. they where able to produce Algae Ethanol using the waste water from raw sewage and garbage. Production levels on a per acre basis was something like 10 time more produced than a single acre of corn. The only byproduct of this procedure was clean water and high protein soild waste that could be used as animal feed. I remember at the time they where trying to get permission from the Government to start building facilities to start production of this ethanol product. The Goverment thru all there red tape made it impossible to build the facility they needed so they moved their entire operation to Mexico, along with their technology. They are several benefits fo making ethanol from algae. First and foremost, it freed up thousands of farmable land that was currently being used to grow corn for ethanol production. Second, the algae ethanol facilities could be built in areas that where otherwise unsuited for crop production. Third, the actual production of Algae ethanol actually cleaned up the enviroment instead of causing pollution. It seems all that was needed to product the algae Ethanol was raw sewage and garbage and plenty of sunlite.

I could do a little googleing and supply all kinds of links on this subject, but I'll just let the readers do their own research and draw their own conclussions. Will this convince the farmer that grow corn that Algae ethanol is better and cheaper, probably not. Is this going to convince consumers that ethanol gas is better for their engines, probably not. Is this going to make the conspiracy folks believe that the government isnt necessary looking out for their best interest, well that is a distinct possibility, but they think that already. Anyways, carry own with your discussion.

Alright, one google and one link, Better Than Corn? Algae Set to Beat Out Other Biofuel Feedstocks | Worldwatch Institute

 

[houstonscott]

I tend to not discuss topics where the major contributors have a bias to one side or the other of the discussion. With this topic, it is very easy to see how a framer that is growing a crop that is being used to produce a mandated product would want to see the current mandates kept in place. As a competitive consumer of probably most of the other products that could also be produced from that same crop. I could very easily be biased to wanting to see the current mandates eliminated simply because it should result in a reduced price for the products I do use. Let no one make the mistake that I am taking either side in this discussion as there have been valid points made for either viewpoint. With that said, there is also another viewpoint that up to now has not been discussed and that is alternatives materials for ethanol production. Where and when I first read about this, I dont remember because its been a long time ago. Several years ago, a US company developed a method of producing ethanol from Algae. I believe the company was actually based in either Maine or Mary;land. they where able to produce Algae Ethanol using the waste water from raw sewage and garbage. Production levels on a per acre basis was something like 10 time more produced than a single acre of corn. The only byproduct of this procedure was clean water and high protein soild waste that could be used as animal feed. I remember at the time they where trying to get permission from the Government to start building facilities to start production of this ethanol product. The Goverment thru all there red tape made it impossible to build the facility they needed so they moved their entire operation to Mexico, along with their technology. They are several benefits fo making ethanol from algae. First and foremost, it freed up thousands of farmable land that was currently being used to grow corn for ethanol production. Second, the algae ethanol facilities could be built in areas that where otherwise unsuited for crop production. Third, the actual production of Algae ethanol actually cleaned up the enviroment instead of causing pollution. It seems all that was needed to product the algae Ethanol was raw sewage and garbage and plenty of sunlite. I could do a little googleing and supply all kinds of links on this subject, but I'll just let the readers do their own research and draw their own conclussions. Will this convince the farmer that grow corn that Algae ethanol is better and cheaper, probably not. Is this going to convince consumers that ethanol gas is better for their engines, probably not. Is this going to make the conspiracy folks believe that the government isnt necessary looking out for their best interest, well that is a distinct possibility, but they think that already. Anyways, carry own with your discussion. Alright, one google and one link, Better Than Corn? Algae Set to Beat Out Other Biofuel Feedstocks | Worldwatch Institute

The only conclusion is government should stay out of our lives, they only mess up things trying to control people's lives, from what's in fuel, to who can grow what, to the amount of water in my toilet. I'm sick of it... HS

 

[prs]

The "science" underlying our "need" for alcohol in our fuel is purely "political science". Economics refutes the policy. The state of petroleum supplies refutes the policy. Real science, what little we hear of it, also dismisses the policy. Boondoggle comes to mind.

prs

 

[DarkBlack]

Only ethanol profiteers are still trying to prop up this dead elephant.

 

[oldpilgrim]

For everybody claiming they can't get ethanol-free gas, you might wanna check this out

Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada

Just click on your state in the list -
... Steve

In MA, there are only about a dozen 'places' where we can get non alky gas. Here's what one typical place is advertising:

"NO NON-ETH IN MASS FROM A PUMP, CANS ONLY AS "RACE" FUEL. 98 oct, 5 gal can, $80"

So I guess I can buy it......................................:thumbdown:

 

[Terry1040]

I loose about 5% mialage with ethanol diluting my gasoline.

So what is wrong with that ? E0 is priced here at $ 1.95 & E85 is normally about 40 cents a gallon lower. 5% of $ 1.95 is 10 cents, you are saving about 30 cents per gallon !! Some retailers do not price E85 correctly.

 

[Copperhead]

I think he was saying he lost about 5% mpg with E10, not E85. And that might be about right for an mpg loss on average with E10, but based on the BTU content which some are stuck on here, that 5% is a bit excessive. But whether it is actually a bad thing depends on pricing and subsequent cost per mile. At 20 mpg, a 5% loss is only 1 mpg. Hard to really quantify that one, because folks are not always 100% consistent in how they drive, where they drive, the exact same traffic, weather, etc they have each tankful. But in my area with E0 being $2.36, at 20 mpg that is 11.8 cents a mile fuel cost. With E10 at $1.93, and getting a 5% mpg loss which results in 19 mpg, my fuel cost per mile would be about 10 cents a mile. So almost a 2 cent per mile savings using E10. But if one likes to throw money away by using only E0, by all means, have at it. Heck of a price to pay over the year just because of some irrational bias against a fuel.

So if I am saving money using E10 and E15, like I am right now, compared to using E0, will someone please explain how this is a bad thing and that it is greedy of the ethanol producers. If it saves me money, then by all means, let the ethanol producers be as greedy as they want. It will save me even more.

 

[Patches]

This thread is headed toward epic; the only thing I can contribute is that I've lost way more than 5% in my fuel mileage in my 5.7 Toyota pick-up, every one of my owners manuals for small engines (snowmobiles, lawn mowers, chippers, lawn/leaf vacuums, chain saws, back pack blowers, side x side UTV, field and brush mowers and the list goes on, ad infinitum, DO NOT USE FUELS CONTAINING MORE THAN A 10% BLEND OF ETHANOL, and the federal EPA will not allow the sale of Uncontaminated fuel (except for aircraft/marine use) in my state. If that is not a federally imposed subsidy, I don't know what is. As a matter of fact, I'm sure my truck owners manual states the same; non flex-fuel '07 Tundra 5.7