I don't care what that idiot has to say about anything. He would say black is white if he thought he could make a buck doing it.
Ethanol on the Ropes?
- Thread starter Gale Hawkins
- Start date
- Views: 19315
I don't care what that idiot has to say about anything. He would say black is white if he thought he could make a buck doing it.
If it's true then I think that your car is the fluke and certainly isn't the norm.
I don't think so when all things are considered like the true cost of imported petro and the value of american jobs.
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
Spoken by a farmer in the farm belt ;-)
IF (repeat IF) that was the real justification, then it should have been so stated, instead of the bogus claims that it would improve the environment and save fuel. When the whole house of cards is based on a lie, why should we believe subsequent excuses?
I agree.
Dargo
Super Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,981
- Location
- S. IN
- Tractor
- Jinma, Foton, TYM, Belarus, Yanmar, Branson, Montana, Mahindra and maybe some green and orange too.
That, I clearly cannot agree nor disagree with. I've not used any of my other cars on exact routes where I could get any true comparison. If I filled my wife's Accord with E10 and got "X" mpg and then filled it with straight gas and got "X" mpg, I cannot make any conclusion from any difference since I wouldn't know how the car was driven; highway vs. city or in traffic vs no traffic etc. I can only report what I observe from my car I use to see the same clients with that is driven the same speeds on the same route over and over again. All I can say for sure is, without any doubt, an '06 Acura TL greatly prefers straight gasoline compared to a gasoline/methanol mix.
for the last 20 years pretty much every recreational hobby of mine has involved a gas engine. nobody likes high fuel prices, but putting all stats and numbers aside, i think most of us can realize that it makes sense to look for more efficient and clean ways to power ourselves into the next generation.
i drive a 3/4 ton 6.0l truck for a good portion of the year. i average about 13.5 mpg. i used to average just over 15 before e10 - about a 10% drop in fuel economy. it doesn't take high level math to see that if i lose 10% economy i am going to have to burn 10% more fuel, and since the ethanol is 10% of the fuel, then there hasn't really been any gain in using it. i also drive a car that went from 28-30 mpg to 25-26 mpg after e10, so it seems pretty consistent for me. i'm sure others will vary, but it does seem that most people i know saw an economy reduction with e10.
does that mean i am currently against it? the answer is both yes and no. i don't see it as a practical fuel alternative now that we have it, but i also think that maybe it's a little too late to say no to it. the time for saying no was a few years ago - before we had invested several years into it. i confess i have not (nor am i likely to) read in on the studies people here are citing about the stabilization of food prices, but i wonder if those studies are telling 100% of the stories, because i'm pretty sure that the studies promoting e10 that got us to this point weren't 100% complete.
i could be wrong, but do the food studies include the fact that if we abandon/drastically reduce e10 that part of the industry will take a hit and it will ripple through the economy. i'm sure the bulk of the ethanol producing plants are new and were probably subsidized by tax dollars, and probably given tax breaks too. if they are closed there is a large loss of revenue for the local and federal governments, not to mention monies already spent to get them started which we will still have to pay. there will also likely be job losses, and additional unemployment costs involved. not to mention more real estate woes in places where jobs have just dried up. add in the loss to surrounding businesses where the jobs were lost. i'm sure there are other costs involved that will ripple through the economy too. this all leads to me wondering whether all the studies against e10 have thought of all of this through and have included it all in their reports. it's been my experience that each side tends to cite facts and numbers that support their claim, but ignore unfavorable data.
i think that as a nation (and global community) we need to always be looking for a newer and better solution, but we need to be given all of the facts and not just what sells the story. i'm all for new and better ideas on the subject, but how about we make sure the solution works before abandoning what we already have. it may just be my opinion, but we seem to make a lot of major knee-jerk reactions now, and sometimes i wonder if sometimes it might be less costly just to stick with the status quo, and when i say costly, i'm not just talking about dollars and cents - more like dollars and sense.
i drive a 3/4 ton 6.0l truck for a good portion of the year. i average about 13.5 mpg. i used to average just over 15 before e10 - about a 10% drop in fuel economy. it doesn't take high level math to see that if i lose 10% economy i am going to have to burn 10% more fuel, and since the ethanol is 10% of the fuel, then there hasn't really been any gain in using it. i also drive a car that went from 28-30 mpg to 25-26 mpg after e10, so it seems pretty consistent for me. i'm sure others will vary, but it does seem that most people i know saw an economy reduction with e10.
does that mean i am currently against it? the answer is both yes and no. i don't see it as a practical fuel alternative now that we have it, but i also think that maybe it's a little too late to say no to it. the time for saying no was a few years ago - before we had invested several years into it. i confess i have not (nor am i likely to) read in on the studies people here are citing about the stabilization of food prices, but i wonder if those studies are telling 100% of the stories, because i'm pretty sure that the studies promoting e10 that got us to this point weren't 100% complete.
i could be wrong, but do the food studies include the fact that if we abandon/drastically reduce e10 that part of the industry will take a hit and it will ripple through the economy. i'm sure the bulk of the ethanol producing plants are new and were probably subsidized by tax dollars, and probably given tax breaks too. if they are closed there is a large loss of revenue for the local and federal governments, not to mention monies already spent to get them started which we will still have to pay. there will also likely be job losses, and additional unemployment costs involved. not to mention more real estate woes in places where jobs have just dried up. add in the loss to surrounding businesses where the jobs were lost. i'm sure there are other costs involved that will ripple through the economy too. this all leads to me wondering whether all the studies against e10 have thought of all of this through and have included it all in their reports. it's been my experience that each side tends to cite facts and numbers that support their claim, but ignore unfavorable data.
i think that as a nation (and global community) we need to always be looking for a newer and better solution, but we need to be given all of the facts and not just what sells the story. i'm all for new and better ideas on the subject, but how about we make sure the solution works before abandoning what we already have. it may just be my opinion, but we seem to make a lot of major knee-jerk reactions now, and sometimes i wonder if sometimes it might be less costly just to stick with the status quo, and when i say costly, i'm not just talking about dollars and cents - more like dollars and sense.
EddieWalker
Epic Contributor
A couple years ago I spent a week in the Black Hills of South Dakota and had the oportuntiy to buy E10 gasoline. We don't have it here in TX, or at least, I've never seen it here. The price per gallon was cheaper then Regular gasoline, so that's what I bought.
My mileage decreased significantly. I didn't save my notes, but have to agree with the others with their assessment of a 10% decreese. That's real close to what I noticed.
Once we realized that it was happening, it became something to talk about to others who were on vacation there too. Universally, everyone we spoke to had the same experience. If you live in an area that does not have E10 and you start using it, you will notice a significant decline in fuel economy.
Eddie
My mileage decreased significantly. I didn't save my notes, but have to agree with the others with their assessment of a 10% decreese. That's real close to what I noticed.
Once we realized that it was happening, it became something to talk about to others who were on vacation there too. Universally, everyone we spoke to had the same experience. If you live in an area that does not have E10 and you start using it, you will notice a significant decline in fuel economy.
Eddie
beppington
Elite Member
Or get elected.
Duffster, some cars will react that way depending on system of car, low compression, etc..
I also know there is the sugar pill effect also. Minnesota mandates ethanol use and far as I know still do not label on the pump. I know a few people up that way few years back came down this way and told me how terrible it was. They claimed a drop of 10 mpg... I had a lot of fun when I proved they were already using e-10 blend.:confused2:
Some figures of waste in gasoline comes out 20 percent efficient to run a engine. I beleive diesel upper 20 percent. Ethanol used in a engine set with high compression was around 40 percent.
The one guy with octane lower with alcohol then gas, I am very suspicious of that. Alcohol straight has a much higher octane then gasoline can ever have. The cars that are set to run e-85 reconize the ethanol rich mixture, but still does not have enough compression to deliver the efficient use of ethanol.
Someday if they make a break in to hydrgen society, ethanol would also be better for a hydrogen carrier then any other fossil fuel that I am aware of.
Another thing to think about, since original thread was about subsidies, if mandates are in place, what would keep ethanol from jacking up the price if subsidies are eliminated????
I also know there is the sugar pill effect also. Minnesota mandates ethanol use and far as I know still do not label on the pump. I know a few people up that way few years back came down this way and told me how terrible it was. They claimed a drop of 10 mpg... I had a lot of fun when I proved they were already using e-10 blend.:confused2:
Some figures of waste in gasoline comes out 20 percent efficient to run a engine. I beleive diesel upper 20 percent. Ethanol used in a engine set with high compression was around 40 percent.
The one guy with octane lower with alcohol then gas, I am very suspicious of that. Alcohol straight has a much higher octane then gasoline can ever have. The cars that are set to run e-85 reconize the ethanol rich mixture, but still does not have enough compression to deliver the efficient use of ethanol.
Someday if they make a break in to hydrgen society, ethanol would also be better for a hydrogen carrier then any other fossil fuel that I am aware of.
Another thing to think about, since original thread was about subsidies, if mandates are in place, what would keep ethanol from jacking up the price if subsidies are eliminated????
Loren49
Platinum Member
Table at this site compares BTU/gallon of many fuels. Gasoline has considerably more energy per gallon than ethanol.
Gasoline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When energy input to produce corn based ethanol is compared to energy output - I think there is a problem. Some pretty otherwise conservative politicians seem to support large sums of money moving to their states.
Loren
Gasoline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When energy input to produce corn based ethanol is compared to energy output - I think there is a problem. Some pretty otherwise conservative politicians seem to support large sums of money moving to their states.
Loren
ModMech
Platinum Member
If ethanol from corn is such a great thing, let the farmers run it in their tractors. If they have to convert, so what, so do we. MOST pre '88 vehicles (and engines) simply CANNOT tolerate blends with more than 10% Ethanol by volume with some, particularly small engines 5%. Who pays for the DAMAGE done? The government, farmers, refiners, producers or the equipment owner? Hmm.
You cannot afford to operate a tractor on ethanol to make corn, to make ethanol. There is not enough energy in it, it is that simple.
You cannot grow corn on marginal land, at least not for very long. Do YOUR homework, even if we used every tilled acre for corn, made ethanol with it we still could not supply 10% of the nations gas.
When ethanol, naturally high in octane, is blended the refiner can use a LOWER QUALITY FUEL and still get the pump octane they need. This, combined with the lower energy content of the ethanol per gallon, is a problem for fuel efficiency.
As ethanol blended fuels absorb moisture and degrade, the motor octane decreases. This can lead to pre-ignition, which will severely reduce fuel economy and can even do engine damage because peak cylinder pressures during pre-ignition can be 2 times higher than design pressures.
Blending gasoline with ethanol REDUCES it's shelf life, in some cases very significantly. We used to be able to store gasoline for a few months and in rare cases with high quality fuels, even a couple years and still ahve enough volitility to operate the engine w/o damage. Currently, with E10 blends, you are damned lucky if your fuel is "good" after 30 days and in some cases 14 days.
Unless an engine is DESIGNED for ethanol blended fuel, you should not be using it. Engines specifically designed to operate on high percentage ethanol blends can actually increase performance and mileage over a similar engine on straight gasoline, but that is the exception and not the rule.
E85 has almost exactly 2/3 (0.667) the energy per gallon as neat gasoline of the same "grade". You WILL use more fuel with E85 than with neat gasoline, your cost per mile will increase AND you are already paying a Federal (and in most cases State) subsidies to the ethanol producers.
For those that blindly support ethanol and refuse to admit it's faults. Please DO NOT come crying to me when you can't afford a good steak or clean water to drink because you chose automotive fuel over food and water.
You cannot afford to operate a tractor on ethanol to make corn, to make ethanol. There is not enough energy in it, it is that simple.
You cannot grow corn on marginal land, at least not for very long. Do YOUR homework, even if we used every tilled acre for corn, made ethanol with it we still could not supply 10% of the nations gas.
When ethanol, naturally high in octane, is blended the refiner can use a LOWER QUALITY FUEL and still get the pump octane they need. This, combined with the lower energy content of the ethanol per gallon, is a problem for fuel efficiency.
As ethanol blended fuels absorb moisture and degrade, the motor octane decreases. This can lead to pre-ignition, which will severely reduce fuel economy and can even do engine damage because peak cylinder pressures during pre-ignition can be 2 times higher than design pressures.
Blending gasoline with ethanol REDUCES it's shelf life, in some cases very significantly. We used to be able to store gasoline for a few months and in rare cases with high quality fuels, even a couple years and still ahve enough volitility to operate the engine w/o damage. Currently, with E10 blends, you are damned lucky if your fuel is "good" after 30 days and in some cases 14 days.
Unless an engine is DESIGNED for ethanol blended fuel, you should not be using it. Engines specifically designed to operate on high percentage ethanol blends can actually increase performance and mileage over a similar engine on straight gasoline, but that is the exception and not the rule.
E85 has almost exactly 2/3 (0.667) the energy per gallon as neat gasoline of the same "grade". You WILL use more fuel with E85 than with neat gasoline, your cost per mile will increase AND you are already paying a Federal (and in most cases State) subsidies to the ethanol producers.
For those that blindly support ethanol and refuse to admit it's faults. Please DO NOT come crying to me when you can't afford a good steak or clean water to drink because you chose automotive fuel over food and water.