Sorry to say but ethanol is 100% until they have to "de-nature" it by adding 15% gas. Reason for this is the gov says we have a giant "still" and is drinkable. So to get around the alcohol taxes the feds say that 15% gas has to be added to make it not drinkable.

 

You really think they aren't? Then why are they putting pressure on congress about the energy bill they just passed, and refusing to invest in new refineries to retaliate, as well as "not be able to get a return from the refineries" with the alternative fuels being put to use? Just because you don't hear it in the news does not mean it isn't happening, besides, how often do you really hear about who is lobbying for what? Only ifit comes public, and most of the public gets bored with hearing it. They are making huge profits now, and they are claiming they wouldn't make enough returns if they invest in a new refinery for the first time in about 30 years. They fought the MTBE ban as well, which was shown to be bad news, but they wanted to keep it. I know you think any of us from the midwest are in the ethanol camp because we are aligned with the profit side, but many of your statements and comments lead me to believe you may be involved with the oil side, being there are refineries and oil fields in your area. That puts a different slant in too, and I have been accused of being for ethanol only because I have farm history, but I also have done some testing and research of my own, but I get tires of these debates because they never seem to acheive anything, despite what I have learned. Get a few certain members that are quick to spout their same things, and will not budge, take many things that are stated or whatever, without fully investigating or listening. I have changed my position somewhat, with the advancement of technlogy. OIl companies have had over 100 years to get to the level of efficiency and pollution control and such they are at now, dragged to it kicking and screaming by the government to clean up. Ethanol has been only going since the late 70's, really going in the last 10-15 years, so of course the technology has to improve, the efficiency wasn't there to start, but is coming, and the statements of how it takes more to make than is returned is no longer true, unless you listen to one individual that seems to be pro-oil, rather than subjective to his research. Studies today are tough to believe at face value, since the companies funding expect a favorable outcome, rather than a truthful outcome. I would love to see a side by side study of the ethanol process vs the oil process, including exploration costs, worker's wages, transportation, including the pipeline infrastructure, all of the costs incurred over the development process for the last century, compared to all of similar in ethanol. Noone has done such, and probably won't. Ethanol production itself is not an overly complicated process, how about the refinement process?
The one thing that really tires me is the all or nothing attitudes that get thrown out, that we ethanol supporters want to totallyt replace gasoline with corn ethanol, which is not true, but to allow it to grow and develop into a viable choice. Sure, they get tax breaks right now, but after they get going like the oil companies are, it wouldn't be an issue, but they aren't. They are blocked by misinformation, the oil companies not allowing retailers to sell the E85 or face breach of contract, lobbying against it in congress ( you would think they would join in and get the profits, since the lesser efficiency claims would mean higher sales). They are whining it cuts into their profits, so rather than fight it, why not invest in it?They have made some other poor choicess before, why hold out against this one? Government mandated them to use it, whether federal or state, so they aren't doing it to help out and do their part, they do it because they have to by government mandate. Profit is rofit, and all of the refinement processes take away from that, and they don't willingly improve, and that really isn't directed only at oil companies, but most corpate companies. If it weren't for government mandates, wages would be as low as they can get, safety would be minimal, and pollution would be rampant because it costs profit to do all of that. THAT is how corporate Amreica swings, just look at how they flock overseas and do all of that there. So to say they are "doing their part" is way wrong, they do it because they are required to.

 

Car makers could care less -- they get the credit for flex fuel vehicles, which are basically the same as non-flex fuel vehicles nowadayas, except the comnputer is programmed to work with flex fuel.

I do not know for sure what alcohol they use for E85, but ethanol can only go to about 96% with distillation. To get that remaining 4% water out, some desiccant chemicals need to be used, so the resulting 100% ethanol is not going to be particularly suitable for human consumption, unless the remnants of the desiccant are removed somehow. Alchohol could be de-natured in many ways, methanol is a common one in the US, but I believe the main reason they use gasoline to make it E85 is because gasoline gives better cold starting properties.

No one would be stopping anyone if they were to do it by themselves, but this is about milking federal funds in the name of environmental cleanliness, lessened reliance on foreign oil, etc. It should be clear that in some cases it's a complete pipe dream, in other cases it's debatable.

Yes, they get tax breaks, and then the product is subsidized. A win and win situation (for a very few) I guess.
<!-- controls --><!-- / controls --><!-- message, attachments, sig --><!-- post 5013577 popup menu --><!-- / post 5013577 popup menu -->

 

First, before I respond, please learn how to form a paragraph. It is very difficult to understand your posts.

Let me clarify a couple of things. Even though my state does have oil and refineries, I am not slanted. I've even said a number of times, that I'd like to see the use of fossile fuels totally eliminated. I wouldn't say that if I was supporting big oil.

Next, one of the biggest reasons for not making more refineries isn't the oil companies not wanting to. It's government agencies like the EPA who has made it almost impossible, or cost prohibitive, to install new refineries.

Next; I'm not sure about the alcohol tax, but I do know that in cold weather, pure ethanol without gasoline added almost won't even start.

Finally; in the beginning of Henry Ford and the car, they ran it on moonshine. They didn't have gas stations at the corner. It wasn't until they realized that petroleum products could be refined into a much more efficient fuel system. Yes, the ethanol we have today may not have been around very long for technology, but 30 years is more than enough time. It's come in and out of vogue a number of times. Mainly because the price to efficiency level wasn't there. It's not like we're talking about VOIP which has only been around for 5 or 6 years compared to the Ma'Bell telephone company. 30 years is plenty of time to make ethanol viable if indeed it was.

I'd like to see gasoline in automobiles totally gone. But if it's a choice between traditional gasoline and ethanol, then I choose gasoline. It's more efficient in producing energy, more cost efficient, not that much more harmful to the environment, and doesn't directly affect the rest of the economy. Ethanol is where it's at strictly for political reasons. Later... Mike....

 

You're on the right track, but higher octane fuels actually have a higher flame speed than lower octane fuels, so higher octane fuels burn faster. The octane rating is the measure of how well the fuel resists auto-ignition, so higher octane fuels have higher auto-ignition temperatures.

Someone touched on this earlier I believe -- auto manufacturers get tax breaks, or emissions breaks or some other perk for producing flex-fuel vehicles. It makes them money, which is why they don't lobby against ethanol legislation.

It doesn't take that much gasoline to denature the alcohol. The Indy Car series is running "pure" ethanol, which works out to be around 98 or 99% ethanol after it is denatured.

I don't dispute this, but without incentives (in general, not just for ethanol production), what would be the impetus to stray from the status quo? Someone said it earlier: in business, everyone asks "what's in it for me?" The incentives are hopefully to give some reason for people to look for alternatives to fossil fuels, wherever the alternatives come from, ethanol or otherwise.

Cold weather starting suffers with ethanol because ethanol has a higher heat of vaporization than gasoline. This also makes ethanol highly attractive in forced induction engines because it can be used to produce a denser, colder intake charge. I'm not saying that ethanol is perfect, nor is it the answer to fossil fuel use by any means, but there are some attractive attributes from a performance standpoint.

Perhaps with the development time that gasoline has had, the disadvantages of ethanol now will not be problems 100 years from now. Until the price of gasoline gets high enough to make people want something different, the status quo will prevail.

 

The reason there are not more E85 stations out there is because of a clause when someone signs a contract with an oil company. It's called the anti-e85 clause and House Resolution 2505 was just passed to combat this. I didn't know this existed and I asked a friend who runs a "mom and pop" independant station who sells e85- This is one reason why he didn't sign with a major oil company brand. So there doesn't have to be a major lobby or campaign against e85-it's all built in. The only major brand station I found was a Conoco/Phillips in Missouri. The rest are independant or chain store owned like Wal Mart, Kroger and Martins Supermarkets, Family Express, Meijer ect... They search for the cheapest fuel out there, but most still comes from the major terminals around here just like the "big" brands. Christcorp said he would like to see fossil fuels eliminated too, this is one point we agree on. Unfortunately there are very few alternitives out there, and right now ethanol is the only "additive" out there for stretching out gas supplys. It was also stated by him that you can't change your timing to take full use of e85. The Diablo chip not only remaps my fuel curve, but adjusts the timing for an extra 10 degrees advance average!!! We who have went the chip way tested our engines with our analyzers-I personally own an OTC analyzer (we mechanics have all the cool toys) which I hook up periodically to check if everything is OK-and it's still doing it's job as programmed. I will be doing the gas vs. E85 test I mentioned in an earlier thread after October when camping season is done and will post the results-we should have about 30 pages of debate here by then and my results still won't matter, but I'll do it anyway. If you want to read about the "E85 PUMP ACT" go on the South Bend Tribune website for Thursday Aug. 9th article named "Donnely pumped about PUMP". Have a good Weekend!!!!

 

Why do so many people keep making statements such as "Stretching" our gasoline fuel supply. People keep saying that as though we are running out of oil and fossile fuels. We have more than enough fossile fuels to last this planet more than 100 years. We don't need ethanol to stretch our gasoline supply.

We need to use gasoline and diesel for high torque vehicles such as
tractor trailers, construction equipment, large ocean ships, trains, etc... All passenger vehicles can be made electric. All residential and non-factory type businesses can also be made all electric. Only factories and such need to be heated with oil or other fossile fuels. All our electricity needs to be green. We need to add more electric power stations to the grid. Electric needs to be made from Wind, Hydro, and Nuclear. Homes need to add solar to the system.

My point is; if it's a choice between gasoline as we know it until we progress to clean electricity, or using ethanol until we go green on electricity, then I choose gasoline without ethanol. I don't want to see us kill off 70% of our nation's land for some greedy farmers and corporations to make corn and other products for ethanol. Our land will totally be trashed in less than 100 years. No thank you. We don't have the land and especially the WATER to waste it on a fuel source that isn't as efficient and has no practical gains for the environment over what is currently in use. Money isn't anything if it's going to cause more problem. Please, let's not get into the "Ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline" debate. That one is still out to the jurors. Plus, there are way too many other evironmental side effects of ethanol production.

Anyway, that's my position. If I have to choose the better of two evils, I choose gasoline. Later... Mike....

 

While I personally won't disagree with you, because I believe that is true, there are planty who believe that we ARE running out of oil. That also is part of what drives the current market as well. They point to the oil wells in Texas and the like as their proof, since many of them are no longer producing. Many state that we will run out in the next 20 years. It is much like the glo-bull warming scam going on now in that fear is being used to make a profit.

 

The reason many of the oil wells in texas, oklahoma, wyoming, etc... are not producing is simple economics and refineries. Economics: It is cheaper to inport oil than to pay workers $50 a hour to do it here in the USA. Tack onto that the cost of refining it and that we don't have enough refineries to spit out what we do have both domestic and foreign, and that is what is affecting the price. Hell, the majority of oil in Alaska doesn't even come to the lower 48 states. It goes off to Japan and other parts of Asia.

Unfortunately, the world has become a global economy. In order to maintain peace and good will among the many countries of the world, deals have to be made. I.e. We can have certain relations with certain countries if we agree to import "X" amount of a certain product that they produce. In return, they agree to inport a certain amount of things we produce. It's a large trade arrangement that goes on. It helps the economies of certain countries while helping our economy. We can't be self sufficient. We are a very large consumer of so many things. While we could be self sufficient, it would cost us so much more for our goods. It would hurt our economy.

Now, take this furth to the extremes. Most countries economies are measured by what is called a Gross Domestic Product (GDP). GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports). The problem with this is that some countries like the USA have so many products and services that we can produce and make money from. Other countries however have very little. An example would be Saudi Arabia. They pretty much only have 1 thing of value that they can sell, make money on, invest, use to purchase everything else they need, etc.... That is oil. The oil they have is used to buy food, national defense, wages, electricity, their entire economy.

Now, you take away a countries only source of income, and they will not only become resentful, but will resort to crime. This is a psychological truth known to anyone that studied even basic psychology and sociology. Most crimes that happen in our country normally happen by poor people in poor neighborhoods, who feel they have little or no other choices.

Sorry to continue to debate this, but people have to realize that we are in a global economy. As such, we can not look just at our own needs. It is in the best interest of our national security and safety of the citizens, if we try and maintain a balance of peace with as many nations as possible. Most people don't understand politics. They don't understand world economics. If it wasn't for these relations among these many countries; and yes we have become pretty much the world leader; then there would be so much more turmoil than there is now. Do you think Israel sits back and doesn't go to an all out war in the middle east because they are afraid or something? Do you think Saudi Arabia lets us maintain military troops in the region because they are being nice? Do you think Venezuela and Mexico do what they do for any type of moral reasons? Yes, it would be really nice to just lock down the border of the USA and stop all illegal immigrants from entering the USA. Would you then be willing to pay $3 per ear of corn instead of 3 for $1. Or $3 a head of lettuce instead of $1.25. $1 per tomato? Etc...

I really suggest that people learn more about global economics and politics. We have plenty of oil on the planet to last at least the next 100 years. My concerns are that I am not sure how much our planet can handle it. I don't believe that mankind is the sole reason for environment issues throughout the world, but I know we don't help the matter much. Oil supply is not the problem. The problem is cost. Our standard of living is so much higher than the rest of the world, with a much lower tax structure than most of the world. I've lived and/or worked in 14 countries. Currently, the price of gasoline in Europe is between $5-$6 a gallon. Plus, they have a 30-50% tax system. Yet, oil can't be sold to us at a different price than the rest of the world. Just like OPEC was created so one country wouldn't undermine another country by slashing prices, the USA can't do it either. If we produced our own oil and sold it at $30 a barrel, the world economy would go super nova.

Anyway, that is why I suggest some things like tractor trailers, trains, ocean ships, aircraft, etc... be left to fossile fuels. This way those who can only produce fossile fuels will have a customer to sell it to. Our domestic use for our homes, businesses, automobiles, etc.... can all be converted to electricity. Our electric power plants can be all done with Hydro, Wind, Nuclear, and other clean forms of energy. We will maintain our economy. We con't screw up the global economy. We will reduce a lot of environmental issues (Or at least stop adding to it). And we won't have an employment issue. Unfortunately, the greatest source of power we have, many people are afraid of because of more than 20 year old circumstances. That's nuclear. Yet, our Navy runs nuclear ships and subs that can go 20+ years without a recharge and the leftover when it's used up can be safely disposed of. This is what we should be using until technology advances to something else. Any type of combustion type engine needs to be forgotten when designing the future. Later... Mike....

 

How about simply not having enough E85?!? The supply of ethanol is much more limited than the supply of gasoline. And BTW, not all oil companies seem to do it:

 

For that matter, if the name Sunoco is on the store, why would they agree to allow any other brand or make of fuel to be sold there? If the other fuel is crap (e85 or otherwise) Sunoco would get the bad rap, not the actual supplier of the bad fuel.

Ok, read the article. Two thoughts.

1. " "Every gallon of ethanol that we produce is one less gallon of gasoline we have to get from the Middle East," Donnelly said."

Wrong-O mr donnelly. At best, every gallon of gasoline is 0.9 gallons less gasoline used. And as stated here, we don't get much of our gasoline from the mid east anyway. Nice grandstanding there dond-ster.

2. The way the article is written, it's not clear if the 'clause' is specific to E-85 only or if it is simply a "No Compete" clause where the station agrees to use only fuel supplied by the oil company they are contracting with. If I was running an oil company, I'd want to ensure that if my company's name was on the pump at an independant station, that it wasn't Mexican cat-pee coming out of that pump.

 

Definitely not in the foreseeable future. IC engines are in use for like 100+ years, and there are some good reasons for that; most importantly, the high energy content of usual (diesel, gasoline) fuels -- not much extra volume or weight to carry around.

Electric cars would be good for short term commute, but try doing a cross country trip in one....

 

I agree that the "Current" all electric model of automobile isn't very practical on long distances. BUT, if they took the money back that they were wasting in subsidizing ethanol, and gave it to Universities and other think tanks, then I promise you that they could develop an electric car that could get 500 miles on one charge. And they could probably develop this within just a couple of years. Unfortunately, the money for research is limited and universities and similar places will research whatever the people donating the money want them to research or whatever their own agenda is if they are paying it themselves.

But, our biggest concern still isn't the electric car. That, IMO, is the easy part. The hard part is convincing the ignorant public to allow more production of power plants. Wind, Hydro, and especially Nuclear. If they could build more power plants out of these natural and long lasting forms of energy, energy prices would eventually fall because they would become self sustaining and not need to buy coal and other products just to make the electricity. Later... Mike...

 

That's where figuring out a way to feed electricity directly to cars and trucks on the interstates would make a heck of a lot of sense.

Or for passenger cars, you could have quick-change battery packs.

 

While I agree that some of the money may have been better spent elsewhere, other things, just throwing more money on it isn't necessarily make the development process much faster because there are some "enabling technologies" and supporting infrastructure that also need to be developed, and without them you can't do much.

In any case battery technology has seen quite a bit of advance lately (i.e. NiMH, Li-ion, etc.). And it's not just be able to travel 500 miles, but also do that at a reasonable cost. Usually, batteries with the highest density are the ones that wear out fastest, and some of the more advanced battery packs can cost quite a bit of money, even if that can be spread over, say, 50k miles.