Mandatory Ethanol: good for someone?
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (27)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
From: Anheuser Busch, Houston Texas
Mandatory Ethanol: good for someone? As you all may or may not have known, we have just begun mandatory ethanol mixing nationwide. The mandatory mix is (according to the CEO of Alon in Dallas) 2.7% minimum.
I rolled up to the Exxon at Gessner and Westheimer yesterday and see "Contains 10% Ethanol" affixed to the pump, yet not revealed. I go in and ask the attendants, and they do not know if they have started that or not, but they know they will.
Well great.
So here is the deal: is this good for anyone?
Besides the "cleaner/lower emissions" and the fact that what it replaces (MTBE) is some sort of nasty carcinogen that works its way into the water table, can this be good for anyone?
My hypothesis is this: ethanol adds oxygen, so that is good (octane up) but it is alcohol, which FI people spray to retard burning, keep intake charge down and overall counters burning in the chamber to avoid detonation. Presuambly this is because it contains around 25% less energy than gas. Well great, but that means less milage (not that anyone is counting here.)
So if they put more ethanol into pump gas (it's going to happen) how does that effect:
stock/mild mod cars
aggressive NA cars
FI cars?
Does anyone win, or is this no fun for anyone?
I rolled up to the Exxon at Gessner and Westheimer yesterday and see "Contains 10% Ethanol" affixed to the pump, yet not revealed. I go in and ask the attendants, and they do not know if they have started that or not, but they know they will.
Well great.
So here is the deal: is this good for anyone?
Besides the "cleaner/lower emissions" and the fact that what it replaces (MTBE) is some sort of nasty carcinogen that works its way into the water table, can this be good for anyone?
My hypothesis is this: ethanol adds oxygen, so that is good (octane up) but it is alcohol, which FI people spray to retard burning, keep intake charge down and overall counters burning in the chamber to avoid detonation. Presuambly this is because it contains around 25% less energy than gas. Well great, but that means less milage (not that anyone is counting here.)
So if they put more ethanol into pump gas (it's going to happen) how does that effect:
stock/mild mod cars
aggressive NA cars
FI cars?
Does anyone win, or is this no fun for anyone?
Ginger Hater
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,464
Likes: 0
From: College Station, Tx
Originally Posted by BP
Figure an instant 5% drop in fuel economy. It only helps the midwestern farm states.
well it also reduces oil import consumption, which cant be a bad thing.
id rather give my money to midwestern farmers than saudi oil barons who give their money to fringe islamist groups.
id rather give my money to midwestern farmers than saudi oil barons who give their money to fringe islamist groups.
Originally Posted by Steel Chicken
well it also reduces oil import consumption, which cant be a bad thing.
id rather give my money to midwestern farmers than saudi oil barons who give their money to fringe islamist groups.
id rather give my money to midwestern farmers than saudi oil barons who give their money to fringe islamist groups.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (27)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
From: Anheuser Busch, Houston Texas
yeah ok see I know about all of that...thats geopolitical. I have to study that constantly. And besides the milage drop, which I also knew about, what are the combustion properties, temp wise and chemestry wise?
Couldn't you run the same PSI on a boosted engine without getting detonation, or a bit more if you weren't having trouble with that to begin with? It increases octane but is not as combustible as gas, so isn't that just sort of like alky injection on a bigger scale?
Couldn't you run the same PSI on a boosted engine without getting detonation, or a bit more if you weren't having trouble with that to begin with? It increases octane but is not as combustible as gas, so isn't that just sort of like alky injection on a bigger scale?
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (27)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
From: Anheuser Busch, Houston Texas
BTW if we stick with this corn we are going to be importing so much ethanol it won't be funny.
Numbers I found on production of ethanol per acre:
Corn 330 gal (high average)
Sugar 630 (Brazil only uses sugar, and is the #2 producer in the world)
Switchgrass 1150 (experimental study by oak ridge national labs)
So as you can see, corn makes it even more expensive to do.
BP: that is only for blends of 10% or les, ya? E85 is about 25% less, and you have to use 125% more to go the same distance. Not that it matters, since it is mandatory to use now, and refiners must mix at least 2.7%, at least in Texas.
Numbers I found on production of ethanol per acre:
Corn 330 gal (high average)
Sugar 630 (Brazil only uses sugar, and is the #2 producer in the world)
Switchgrass 1150 (experimental study by oak ridge national labs)
So as you can see, corn makes it even more expensive to do.
BP: that is only for blends of 10% or les, ya? E85 is about 25% less, and you have to use 125% more to go the same distance. Not that it matters, since it is mandatory to use now, and refiners must mix at least 2.7%, at least in Texas.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
From: Benbrook, Texas/ Las Vegas, NV
Originally Posted by lo_jack
BP: that is only for blends of 10% or les, ya? E85 is about 25% less, and you have to use 125% more to go the same distance. Not that it matters, since it is mandatory to use now, and refiners must mix at least 2.7%, at least in Texas.
Like it or not Hydrogen is the fuel of the future but it'll be 30-40 years before you can drive up to Exxon and fill up with it. Then when you do expect it to cost atleast 5x what a gasoline fill up would run.
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (27)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
From: Anheuser Busch, Houston Texas
Ok thats what I was wondering about.
Hydrogen is a nice idea, but until we can get good cheap electricity (soon, we will not) hydrogen is nothing more than displacing the energy need from gasoline to the power grid, which runs mostly on coal, and natural gas. That is not very clean, but at least we have a lot of it. Nat gas is descently cheap now, but it will not be much longer, its a fungible world commodity now and whoever wants to pay the most for shipments will get it. So we will still be importing our transport energy, but perhaps from different countries.
We aren't even prepared to receive much (exhibit: California says no to LNG). Australia has a ton of natural gas they turn into LNG and ship to Asia, and they would like to send it to us. But we won't build terminals.
Ideally if we could do some nice hydro/wind/solar and make electricity to process hydrogen - that would be sweet. Then we could pretty much make our own fuel, for next to nothing, aside from the generation infrastructure and the downstream to get hydrogen to the end user. Could be via electricty at a home refueling station, but our power transfer needs to be better.
But running transportation on the grid is going to be a stretch, at this rate even in 30 years, it seems to me. Lack of investment and so forth.
Hydrogen is a nice idea, but until we can get good cheap electricity (soon, we will not) hydrogen is nothing more than displacing the energy need from gasoline to the power grid, which runs mostly on coal, and natural gas. That is not very clean, but at least we have a lot of it. Nat gas is descently cheap now, but it will not be much longer, its a fungible world commodity now and whoever wants to pay the most for shipments will get it. So we will still be importing our transport energy, but perhaps from different countries.
We aren't even prepared to receive much (exhibit: California says no to LNG). Australia has a ton of natural gas they turn into LNG and ship to Asia, and they would like to send it to us. But we won't build terminals.
Ideally if we could do some nice hydro/wind/solar and make electricity to process hydrogen - that would be sweet. Then we could pretty much make our own fuel, for next to nothing, aside from the generation infrastructure and the downstream to get hydrogen to the end user. Could be via electricty at a home refueling station, but our power transfer needs to be better.
But running transportation on the grid is going to be a stretch, at this rate even in 30 years, it seems to me. Lack of investment and so forth.
Originally Posted by Spazdout
yea, Iowa had ethanol way before any state did. The most premium gas was cheaper than the regular unleaded when i was up there. but the farm states will make good money off this one.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
From: Benbrook, Texas/ Las Vegas, NV
There are a few other promising technologies on the horizon that will help out with electricity production. We'll always have nuclear power, eventually we'll find somewhere to dump our waste.
The newest thing I've seen is basically a long tube, say for example 100 miles long. In the center is an air turbine that spins a generator. It's fueled by the pressure differential in the atmosphere between the ends of the tube. Depending on where they are placed you might be able to generate enough power to completely offset coal burning. Of course it's still in its infancy but it's just an example of possible solutions. We are also making strides using the ocean waves for power, using the water pressure to turn turbines. Then you've got hydrogen power on the horizon as well as advances in solar energy.
Believe the hype and you'll think the world is going to end. Personally I've got faith in technology. Science will always keep up with our needs.
The newest thing I've seen is basically a long tube, say for example 100 miles long. In the center is an air turbine that spins a generator. It's fueled by the pressure differential in the atmosphere between the ends of the tube. Depending on where they are placed you might be able to generate enough power to completely offset coal burning. Of course it's still in its infancy but it's just an example of possible solutions. We are also making strides using the ocean waves for power, using the water pressure to turn turbines. Then you've got hydrogen power on the horizon as well as advances in solar energy.
Believe the hype and you'll think the world is going to end. Personally I've got faith in technology. Science will always keep up with our needs.