REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Anybody have better fuel mileage with Ethanol?

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Sunday, July 3, 2022 18:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2437
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, March 23, 2015 8:55 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Saw some ad from wicorn.org (Wisconsin Corn Growers) claiming that it was a "big oil" lie that real gas got better miles per gallon than fuel contaminated with Ethanol.

I had once heard another car person claim that they had a Honda engine which got the same mpg with either real gas or gasahol, but he could never back it up or provide data, and seemed to have no idea what he was talking about.

Is this merely the way Big Ethanol is combating the obvious facts that anybody already knows if they pay attention, or is there any real-world evidence that some engines exist that actually get better mileage from fuel with less energy?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 24, 2015 1:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


All other things being equal, you should get WORSE mileage from ethanol/gas than straight gasoline. The reason is that ethanol has about 35% less energy content per gallon that gasoline. Maybe if your vehicle is exceptionally badly-tuned ethanol will retard ignition long enough to prevent "pinging" but ... this hasn't been a problem since most vehicles went to fuel injection and electronic monitoring. So I really have no idea what they're talking about

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 24, 2015 7:13 AM

REAVERFAN


It's a giant scam. Big ag lobbies and investors. It does diddly for people or the environment.

Just another example of big money having their way over the rest of us. The EPA is as much a victim of regulatory capture as the USDA and FDA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/business/wall-st-exploits-ethanol-cr
edits-and-prices-spike.html?_r=0


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-ethanol-scam-20110323

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 25, 2015 7:31 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
All other things being equal, you should get WORSE mileage from ethanol/gas than straight gasoline. The reason is that ethanol has about 35% less energy content per gallon that gasoline. Maybe if your vehicle is exceptionally badly-tuned ethanol will retard ignition long enough to prevent "pinging" but ... this hasn't been a problem since most vehicles went to fuel injection and electronic monitoring. So I really have no idea what they're talking about


Absolutely correct. Their claim made no sense to me.
Will you campaign to have ethanol laws repealed?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 25, 2015 7:43 PM

WHOZIT


I'm not putting corn in my car.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 25, 2015 7:48 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
I'm not putting corn in my car.


Many places, that is difficult to avoid. Really gunks up the engine block. You are not in a big city?

Ethanol is a great way to create more global warming, less fuel efficiency, more pollutants, less clean air - nice of the Democrats and other libtards to force all that upon us.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 5:25 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I keep seeing this ad run during NASCAR races. You would think that NASCAR fans would know better than anybody how stupid these claims are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 6:21 PM

WHOZIT


I'll never put that shit in my cars tank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 6:29 PM

DEVERSE

Hey, Ive been in a firefight before! Well, I was in a fire. Actually, I was fired from a fry-cook opportunity.


Testing by Natural Resources Canada found that drivers can expect 3 or 4% fewer miles per gallon on E10, 4 to 5% fewer on E15 and 15 to 30% fewer miles on E85 compared to 100% gasoline.

Not sure about everywhere, but E10 and E15 here is only a penny or two less per liter than gasoline - so its not all that popular. No E85 fuel anywhere near I live so I have no idea of cost.
The only people that seem to be using "gasohol" here are a few fleet vehicles (government and certain private companies) as they get some type of rebate for using it.


Oh let the sun beat down upon my face;
With stars to fill my dream;
I am a traveler of both time and space;
To be where I have been

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 7:48 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by DEVERSE:
Testing by Natural Resources Canada found that drivers can expect 3 or 4% fewer miles per gallon on E10, 4 to 5% fewer on E15 and 15 to 30% fewer miles on E85 compared to 100% gasoline.

Not sure about everywhere, but E10 and E15 here is only a penny or two less per liter than gasoline - so its not all that popular. No E85 fuel anywhere near I live so I have no idea of cost.
The only people that seem to be using "gasohol" here are a few fleet vehicles (government and certain private companies) as they get some type of rebate for using it.


Oh let the sun beat down upon my face;
With stars to fill my dream;
I am a traveler of both time and space;
To be where I have been


My car gets about 25% better with real gas. Here in America, the government confiscates taxes and subsidizes gasohol 20 cents per gallon, so the pumps really push that, even though it costs more per mile and creates more pollution.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 8:52 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I had once heard another car person claim that they had a Honda engine which got the same mpg with either real gas or gasahol, but he could never back it up or provide data, and seemed to have no idea what he was talking about.

Here in So Cal we use ethanol/ gasoline mix in winter to prevent high ambient CO (carbon monoxide. If you put more oxygen in the fuel there'll be more oxygen in the combustion, and less CO produced as a result. Also, because it burns a little cooler, less NOx. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19595441). Personally my mileage is about the same in winter and summer. I attribute it to running AC in the summer, which takes some mpg off a car.

But yes, the energy content of ethanol is lower, and people should get less mpg with it, all things being equal.

I do now take issue with ethanol use as currently practiced (except for those areas like So Cal, Denver, southern Michigan and other places that use ethanol to reduce carbon monoxide, fine particulates or ozone). Roughly 40% of corn is used to produce ethanol. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/corn-for-food-not-fuel.html?
_r=0
If we had cellulosic ethanol from paper, lumber, or agricultural waste the overall cost v benefit of using ethanol would be a different story. If we had ethanol/ fuel cell vehicles it would be a different story. But using ethanol for 'energy independence' is a policy that needs to be changed.






SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:39 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
If we had cellulosic ethanol from paper, lumber, or agricultural waste the overall cost v benefit of using ethanol would be a different story. If we had ethanol/ fuel cell vehicles it would be a different story. But using ethanol for 'energy independence' is a policy that needs to be changed.


Did you need to hand in your libtard card before typing that?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:57 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Trying a search online, the ethanol believers have done a great job of hiding the facts, or obfuscating them.

Looks like 1.5 gallons of ethanol are needed to meet the same energy value of one gallon of gasoline.
How many want to close their eyes, ears, and minds and believe that 1.5 gallons of ethanol produces less pollutants than 1 gallon of gasoline? It is also known that ethanol blends evaporate more, and with worse fuel mileage, even more time is spent refueling which produces the majority of evaporative emissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 22, 2015 10:30 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


not a lib

you failed sun tzu's lesson #1: know your enemy




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:31 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


How many want to close their eyes, ears, and minds and believe that 1.5 gallons of ethanol produces less pollutants than 1 gallon of gasoline?

It results in less carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides - both pollutants.




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:49 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
How many want to close their eyes, ears, and minds and believe that 1.5 gallons of ethanol produces less pollutants than 1 gallon of gasoline?

It results in less carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides - both pollutants.


Good for you. Are you proud of ignoring all the other greenhouse gasses produced in far greater quantities from ethanol, just so you can regurgitate the Talking Points of your Savior Obama, or algore?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 23, 2015 10:47 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


produces less pollutants

Oh, you didn't mean POLLUTANTS! You were just thinking of ONE pollutant! Silly me to respond to ignorance with real information.




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2015 5:48 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
produces less pollutants

Oh, you didn't mean POLLUTANTS! You were just thinking of ONE pollutant! Silly me to respond to ignorance with real information.


Ethanol combustion produces more ground-level Ozone, and adds formeldehyde and acetaldehyde, compared to gasoline combustion. Proper catalysts neutralize CO from gasoline combustion. Both produce CO and CO2.
Ethanol produces 2.14 times as much pollution as gasoline combustion. Multiply that by the 1.5 quantity that ethanol needs to match the energy value of gasoline.

Ethanol: 5 pollutants listed above.
Gasoline: 3 pollutants listed above.
Yes, of course you are correct to say that 5 pollutants is equal to one.

All of the points you are claiming to make are unfounded, and have failed.
delusional much?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#Fuel

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 25, 2015 7:27 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Your reference:



Ethanol combustion in an internal combustion engine yields many of the products of incomplete combustion produced by gasoline and significantly larger amounts of formaldehyde and related species such as acetaldehyde.(30) This leads to a significantly larger photochemical reactivity that generates much more ground level ozone.(31) These data have been assembled into The Clean Fuels Report comparison of fuel emissions(32) and show that ethanol exhaust generates 2.14 times as much ozone as does gasoline exhaust.(citation needed)

30 California Air Resources Board, Definition of a Low Emission Motor Vehicle in Compliance with the Mandates of Health and Safety Code Section 39037.05, second release, October 1989
31 Lowi, A. and Carter, W.P.L. (March 1990) "A Method for Evaluating the Atmospheric Ozone Impact of Actual Vehicle emissions", S.A.E. - Society of Automotive Engineers - Technical Paper, Warrendale, PA.



One credible reference - the CARB - indicates more formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. A NOT credible reference - the SAE - claims that that leads to more ozone. And the figure - that ethanol by itself as the only fuel leads to 2.14x more ozone - is unreferenced. Not a very solid foundation for your argument...

Meanwhile

Proper catalysts neutralize CO from gasoline combustion.

Not entirely, which is why the South Coast Air Quality Management District was able to bring the region into compliance with USEPA ambient CO (carbon monoxide) * level standards, WITHOUT INCREASING OZONE, by switching to an alcohol/ gasoline blend in winter.

* Carbon monoxide is designated a priority pollutant by the USEPA, along with ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and lead. http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/urbanair/

Ethanol, when used properly, reduces 4 priority pollutants: carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides (reference in previous post).

Particulate matter - especially fine particulate matter, is associated with decreased lung and brain volume in infants and children, asthma, stroke, heart attack, and overall adult mortality. (FAR too many references to list! If you have an interest - and I guarantee you don't - simply google "fine particulate matter" and those health effects.)


Ethanol blended with gasoline as a fuel is a vital tool to reduce 4 (out of 6) USEPA priority air pollutants that have permanent and devastating health effects on people.





SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 26, 2015 11:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Ethanol and methanol are OK fuels. They actually burn cleaner than gasoline and leave fewer carbon deposits when burned as a single fuel. Having done a quick search, I can't find any evidence that ethanol blended with gasoline leaves more carbon deposits in the engine (although alcohols can promote and loosen rust from the fuel tank, which can clog the fuel filter and injectors). And both alcohols are produced from plant matter, which means that they can be carbon-neutral, sustainable sources of liquid energy.

MY problem with ethanol specifically that it's produced from corn, which requires a lot of water and fertilizer. The subsidy for ethanol is leading a lot of farmers to expand their corn planting, and all of this aggressive corn-planting is leaching fertilizers into creeks, rivers, lakes and oceans, causing never-before-seen algae blooms and dead zones and fish kills everywhere.

Using ethanol as fuel was a good idea, but implemented in very much the wrong way. It went from being environmentally-friendly to being a blight. When a program goes so far astray from its goal (in fact, produces opposite results) it's time to stop the train and get on another track going someplace else.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 26, 2015 4:13 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Your reference:

Quote:


Ethanol combustion in an internal combustion engine yields many of the products of incomplete combustion produced by gasoline and significantly larger amounts of formaldehyde and related species such as acetaldehyde.(30) This leads to a significantly larger photochemical reactivity that generates much more ground level ozone.(31) These data have been assembled into The Clean Fuels Report comparison of fuel emissions(32) and show that ethanol exhaust generates 2.14 times as much ozone as does gasoline exhaust.(citation needed)


30 California Air Resources Board, Definition of a Low Emission Motor Vehicle in Compliance with the Mandates of Health and Safety Code Section 39037.05, second release, October 1989
31 Lowi, A. and Carter, W.P.L. (March 1990) "A Method for Evaluating the Atmospheric Ozone Impact of Actual Vehicle emissions", S.A.E. - Society of Automotive Engineers - Technical Paper, Warrendale, PA.



One credible reference - the CARB - indicates more formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. A NOT credible reference - the SAE - claims that that leads to more ozone. And the figure - that ethanol by itself as the only fuel leads to 2.14x more ozone - is unreferenced. Not a very solid foundation for your argument...

Meanwhile

Proper catalysts neutralize CO from gasoline combustion.

Not entirely, which is why the South Coast Air Quality Management District was able to bring the region into compliance with USEPA ambient CO (carbon monoxide) * level standards, WITHOUT INCREASING OZONE, by switching to an alcohol/ gasoline blend in winter.

* Carbon monoxide is designated a priority pollutant by the USEPA, along with ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and lead. http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/urbanair/

Ethanol, when used properly, reduces 4 priority pollutants: carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides (reference in previous post).

Particulate matter - especially fine particulate matter, is associated with decreased lung and brain volume in infants and children, asthma, stroke, heart attack, and overall adult mortality. (FAR too many references to list! If you have an interest - and I guarantee you don't - simply google "fine particulate matter" and those health effects.)


Ethanol blended with gasoline as a fuel is a vital tool to reduce 4 (out of 6) USEPA priority air pollutants that have permanent and devastating health effects on people.



How did the likes of you manage to stumble into the truth? You have finally pointed out the problem - the government-mandate-designated "priority pollutant" needed to support hideous pork barrel ethanol requirements.
Everybody must remember to first succumb to the fallacy that "priority pollutants" will save man from Global Warming before they can try to make sense of any ethanol legislation.
And ignore all of the far worse pollutants, in far greater quantities.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 13, 2021 4:19 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


American drivers are saving the corn ethanol industry–for now
https://qz.com/2005420/what-do-sky-high-corn-prices-mean-for-ethanol-p
roducers
/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 14, 2021 5:00 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reduce-air-pollution-do-not
-rely-on-ethanol
/

Quote:

According to Jacobson, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than does burning gasoline and this would lead to a nearly two parts per billion increase in tropospheric ozone. This surface ozone, which has been linked to inflamed lungs, impaired immune systems and heart disease by prior research, would in turn lead to a 4 percent increase in the number of ground level ozone-related deaths, or roughly 200 extra deaths a year. "Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline," Jacobson writes in the study published in Environmental Science & Technology. "It can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles."



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 3, 2022 3:18 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Somewhere in this thread I must have mentioned pollution.


Does anybody believe that ethanol or gasahol produces LESS air pollution, specifically greenhouse gas emissions, than real gasoline?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 3, 2022 6:55 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Somewhere in this thread I must have mentioned pollution.


Does anybody believe that ethanol or gasahol produces LESS air pollution, specifically greenhouse gas emissions, than real gasoline?



How much pollution is created by making ethanol? How much waste product? How many people in the world are starving and we turn food into fuel for our cars, because Democrats.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL