10% Ethanol Fuel ?

[orangeonwhite]

Originally Posted by Diabel1969

I'm actually one of the lucky one's, I have a station just down from my house which sells the non eth fuel. BUT, when i'm riding my bike, or driving one of my older cars (carburated) out of town, it poses an interesting problem. The cars will survive on a tank of it here or there, but the bike is my main concern..

You probably shouldn't drink it when you ride your bike...oil executive

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Those studies are only valid with corn-based Ethanol. Every energy/yield survey I've seen from things like sugarcane, switchgrass, organic waste, or even algae show a much higher yield than even gasoline.

The thing to keep in mind with ethanol is that it's still very young in development compared to gasoline. There's more work to be done by companies like Coskata and Sapphire in order to bring a viable, inexpensive fuel to our fuel stations.

I recognize and basically agree with what you said here. Problem is, that assumes the will to develop sugarcase and switchgrass ethanol exists. In the U.S. right now, corn based ethanol is what is being used, and unfortunately, there are actually political headwinds against the more efficient means of producing ethanol. I have a brother who is on the staff of a state assemblymen here in Wisconsin, and I can tell you that the push for ethanol here (where all the subsidized ethanol plants use corn) is based much more on farmer/corngrower's lobbies and other special interests than environmental concern or the desire to be energy independent. And with Iowa being an early (and therefore a very important) state during primary season, those political headwinds exist on the national level too, which explains the large tariff on Brazilian sugarcane ethanol.

I think we are kinda on the same track here, just maybe on a different rail. My thinking is that converting to a new fuel is a decades long committment that will require building new, or at least changing our energy infrastructure. With that in mind, I think we would see more advantages and fewer disadvantages, and have a smoother transition converting to biodiesel instead of ethanol. Biodiesel seems to run better in engines (fewer adverse effects, some beneficial effects) and will require less change in the infrastructure (existing pipelines, underground tanks, etc...can be used as is). The efficiency advantage of diesel engines will reduce the total amount of energy we need. I also believe diesel engines will become much more common (as they are in Europe) in the coming years for their own reasons, and it makes sense that the fuel of the future should be developed for the engines of the future.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Diabel1969

Actually, it wasn't that easy.. The carb was full of strings/strands, and pieces of the fuel hose, etc and it was everywhere. Required a complete rebuild...

My mind was in a preventative mode. Sorry to hear that...yuck.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

I recognize and basically agree with what you said here. Problem is, that assumes the will to develop sugarcase and switchgrass ethanol exists. In the U.S. right now, corn based ethanol is what is being used, and unfortunately, there are actually political headwinds against the more efficient means of producing ethanol. I have a brother who is on the staff of a state assemblymen here in Wisconsin, and I can tell you that the push for ethanol here (where all the subsidized ethanol plants use corn) is based much more on farmer/corngrower's lobbies and other special interests than environmental concern or the desire to be energy independent. And with Iowa being an early (and therefore a very important) state during primary season, those political headwinds exist on the national level too, which explains the large tariff on Brazilian sugarcane ethanol.

True. Farmers with lots of corn will lobby to make ethanol from corn. We can't though. It just won't work...there's not enough of it, and this was acknowledged a couple years ago when a federal alternative fuels mandate/goal was set to have so much percent (I forget the correct number, but it was sizeable) of ethanol be sourced from things OTHER than corn.

The will is there. There are multiple start-ups with the ability and expertise to do it. They aren't getting the investment they need to really make a dent, though -- so I guess there, I agree. It will take $4.00/gal gas again to accelerate those programs....

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

I think we are kinda on the same track here, just maybe on a different rail. My thinking is that converting to a new fuel is a decades long committment that will require building new, or at least changing our energy infrastructure. With that in mind, I think we would see more advantages and fewer disadvantages, and have a smoother transition converting to biodiesel instead of ethanol. Biodiesel seems to run better in engines (fewer adverse effects, some beneficial effects) and will require less change in the infrastructure (existing pipelines, underground tanks, etc...can be used as is). The efficiency advantage of diesel engines will reduce the total amount of energy we need. I also believe diesel engines will become much more common (as they are in Europe) in the coming years for their own reasons, and it makes sense that the fuel of the future should be developed for the engines of the future.

I would agree and disagree. First -- yes, converting to an entirely new fuel is a decades-long commitment. No doubt. However, I don't think a total conversion is necessary...not in the short-term anyways. We can have an array of choices and fuel sources and not really have to change much. Ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas, etc, etc, these can all be implimented pretty easily, they just....need to be implimented. And that won't happen until the public is squeezed by rising fuel prices, unfortunately.

I would diagree with putting all your chips on diesel. To you and me, it makes sense...but recent emissions requirements has pretty solidly put the kibosh on diesel engines here in the US. The urea and other after-treatment systems required to meet these standards have risen the cost of diesel engines to almost $4000 more than an equally-powered gasoline engine. So...if gas gets so expensive that it becomes $4000 more expensive over 3-4 years to fuel it? Maybe then diesel will take off...but not right now. Not even with biodiesel.

It's upsetting how backa$$wards things seem...

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I would diagree with putting all your chips on diesel. To you and me, it makes sense...but recent emissions requirements has pretty solidly put the kibosh on diesel engines here in the US. The urea and other after-treatment systems required to meet these standards have risen the cost of diesel engines to almost $4000 more than an equally-powered gasoline engine. So...if gas gets so expensive that it becomes $4000 more expensive over 3-4 years to fuel it? Maybe then diesel will take off...but not right now. Not even with biodiesel.

Does biodiesel need the same kind of after-treatment to meet emission standards as petroleum diesel? I've always assumed it was naturally cleaner, though I admin it's a subject I don't know much about.

[nards444]

not to dog anybody but this is getting old. Whether its bad for the engine or not its everywhere and you cant get away from it. I lived in NY and MI and cant get away from it.