Stealing a chapter from Krewat's book I figured I started a thread about ethanol since the 10% mix seems to be ubiquitous now and it's been a topic of conversation lately. I can't say I know much about ethanol other than the basics of how it's made (glucose/cellulose fermentation) and that it has less BTU. So what's the good, the bad and the ugly of ethanol? What possible problems might there be and what can we do to prevent them? Please try to keep the conversation non-political and produce technical/factual/informative information.

 

Well there are four main issues that I for one would like to see addressed:


1) Supposedly ethanol requires more energy in the production process than can be
extracted from the final product;


2) The reduced BTU content means we can't drive as far before we have to buy more of it, which just seems to be an increase in gas tax by another name;


3) The supposed deterioration of seals, etc., in vehicles made before 2007?


4) The effects of the pending percentage increase from ten to fifteen; and


5) The loose regulation seemingly resulting in no control over the actual ethanol content when the "gas" is dispensed to the user.

 

I see your point#2. It's like watered down whiskey. You'll need to drink more to get drunk.

With less BTU, our engines then has lower HP and torque, I would assume.

I've read in another thread that it's bad on seals and hoses. Would we start to see an increase in car fires from ruptured fuel lines...like what happened when there were detergents added to gasoline that were bad on old fuel lines?

What we're buying now is not really gasoline, it's gasohol. With that said, would the gas stations be liable for mislabeling their product?

 

Actually you don't. You just burn more fuel.

 

Keep in mind, 10% ethanol has been around for 20+ years, it's nothing new.

 

I started running 10% in the mid 80s in carb and EFI trucks with no problems at all. The older trucks did seem to use more fuel and they didn't run very well until the ethanol cleaned the system out but the newer ones do a lot better. The biggest problem I have found is how they blend it, out west and where are now in Florida the fuel is not all it could be but it wasn't all that great before ethanol. The newer and more efficient plants that are being built and used today with all the byproducts from the ethanol production the using more energy than it produces is gone.

Denny

 

1) Supposedly ethanol requires more energy in the production process than can be
extracted from the final product;

2) The reduced BTU content means we can't drive as far before we have to buy more of it, which just seems to be an increase in gas tax by another name;

3) The supposed deterioration of seals, etc., in vehicles made before 2007?

4) The effects of the pending percentage increase from ten to fifteen; and

5) The loose regulation seemingly resulting in no control over the actual ethanol content when the "gas" is dispensed to the user.

6) Increased cases of detonation

7) Ethanol is Hygroscopic (attracts and retains moisture) The combustion and corrosion issues with water in the fuel are obvious.

8) Uses an essential food source to produce. With a growing world population not a good idea. (About 20% of the nations corn supply is used to produce ethanol)

9) Noticed reduced shelf life before "going bad"

 

Yeah, amen to #8. Mandating an alternate use for food is just about the dumbest thing we've ever done.....

 

That is one of the things that really bugs me. It would be nice if the US had an abundant waste product to produce ethanol from like Brazil, but that is just not the case. Last time I heard my state has 3 ethanol plants, the corn output in my state could not supply half the corn needed for just one plant. So that means trucking in corn from other states. There is also the issue of water.....

 

The corn that is used for ethanol is called dent corn and it's main use is animal feed not human feed that's a whole different corn all together. After the ethanol is removed from the corn the byproduct is feed to the cows as high protein liquid or powder or used in plastics, Styrofoam (biodegradable), sweeteners and the list goes on. So our farmers and ethanol plants are producing billions of gallons of fuel creating local well paying jobs that are right here in the US plus the farmers don't have to rely on government payments to survive because the price of their crops have increased so they can make a profit and buy more equipment creating even more jobs.

Denny

 

Let's not let this get too far into the politics of Ethanol, but try to keep it more as a technical discussion of the aspects of Ethanol.

My experience has been this.

Quite a few years back, we here on Long Island were required to run gas with an oxygenate. 10% (I think) MTBE - Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether. It raises the octane number of any gas it's added to. It was used to replace tetra-ethyl lead in the late 70's, which also raises the octane. So, conveniently, MTBE was used. It contaminates groundwater from leaky gas tanks, and causes cancer, and it did contaminate a large number public water wells here on LI. So, we banned it. In comes Ethanol.

As it turns out, Ethanol was a better alternative anyway, the only reason MTBE was used is because it was cheaper. And it raised the octane. So it could be mixed with, say, 85 octane gas (just throwing a number out there), and become 87 "Regular". (Regular is 87 here, then there's 89, and Premium is 93).

Octane describes two things. The energy locked up in the fuel, AND the reluctance of the fuel to "ping". You CAN raise the octane without raising the energy in the gas, or at least the "octane number" on the pump. So, MTBE or Ethanol added to the gas raises the octane number, without really doing anything to the energy in it, or possibly reducing the actual energy, gram for gram.

With the proper timing/tuning, Ethanol can produce MORE power than gasoline. It just takes more of it to do it, so MPGs suffer. Look at the Ford 6.2 engine in the F150. It gets more HP and torque running on E85 than regular gas. The PCM has a sensor to tell it how much Ethanol is being used, and tunes accordingly. I don't know if that's because emissions-wise, it run richer and more advanced timing without hitting the limits, or that the Ethanol really produces more power. I think it's both.

In my experience, having run both MTBE and Ethanol-infused gasoline, I can't say anything really changed.

I get 17mpgs on the highway with my V10 with the original stock calibration. We had a discussion way back when about the PCM calibrations, I suspect that my truck came with a calibration that was MEANT for this area, running 10% ethanol.

Mike at 5-star has said recently that his tunes are MEANT to be run with 10% ethanol. Which is probably why he gets such good increases in power. The stock calibrations on most vehicles are meant for 100% gas, while now most of us are running 10% ethanol and the difference is dramatic.

In my case, with my truck, nor either of my MN12 4.6's (cougar and t-bird), I can't tell the difference between 10% ethanol and 100% gas, having run both at various times on long-distance trips through various states that do not display 10% ethanol on the pumps, nor require it. That may be because in the case of my t-bird and cougar, they had the "California emissions package" as mandated by New York being a "green state". The truck, on the other hand, doesn't have that package (not required), but does display "meets ULEV Federal standards" (paraphrased) on the emissions sticker under the hood.

Again, I don't want to get into all the other political or economic aspects of Ethanol, but in my case, in my local area, it was a GOOD THING to get away from MTBE. AND, it's a good thing for the gas suppliers, because they can use a lower-octane base stock and still get the required 87 octane number at the pump.

 

Okay, to keep this broad issue from creating a knitting circle, the real question is whether anyone has any specific experiences or studies demonstrating the negative impact of ethanol blend on our engines.

For instance, wasn't the crux of the argument so many objecting engine manufactureres used that there would be increased gasket degradation and metallic corrosion? Was that just fear of the unknown, or wasn't there a basis for it?

 

At 10% ethanol, it's no big deal. Higher amounts, well, who knows.

I used to work for my brother-in-law who has a marine wholesale distributor warehouse, back in the mid 80's. He was already carrying A1 fuel hose for quite a while that was spec'd for gas with alcohol in it. That's 25 years ago. Just before that they were toying with "Gasahol" which is E10 (10% ethanol).

 

The "dent" corn used to produce ethanol is used to also make tons of products in food. No #1 sugar and sweetners of the synthetic kind(i.e. equal, aspartane etc). The blending is done at the Fuel terminal injected into the transport trucks during loading of the gas. Gas also contains other "inhancers" such as butane, natural gas, propane. In all truthfullness the "ethanol" is the same as sourmash corn whiskey. You can actually produce your own ethanol in Kentucky for your vehicle. As for the profitablility of the production of ethanol, it still won't stand on it's own. Producer will admit without the subsidies it isn't profitable. As for the food for fuel, still not buying we can't produce enough corn. We ship more corn overseas that spoils in ships than several plants could use. In central IL. near me there are 5 ethanol plants within 35 miles. Add to that another ADM plant that makes corn sweetners and Vodka as well as other liqiuors which takes 250 trucks of corn everyday. And yes it is regular field "dent" corn. Corn production which averages 160 bushels to the acre is accpected to raise to 300+ in the next 10 yrs. I'm not a supporter of ethanol unless it can be produced solely on its own, no subsidies. That is getting closer to being accomplished with the by-products(DDGS) being used and sold for cattle feed here and overseas.

 

What's funny is the recent backlash against high fructose corn syrup. There are various "retro" or "throwback" sodas out now, that actually TASTE BETTER using real sugar not derived from corn. Can the sugar industry keep up if we don't care about corn syrup anymore? Crap, just broke my own rule.