"E-15" Warning !!!
- Thread starter Barry Rietz
- Start date
El and Bill
New member
"Ethanol is a renewable fuel made from corn and other plant materials. The use of ethanol is widespread—almost all gasoline in the U.S. contains ethanol in a low-level blend.
Ethanol is also available as E85—a high-level ethanol blend—for use in flexible fuel vehicles." -- http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol.html
Used in the proper vehicles (not necessarily boats, of course), what's wrong with its use? I ask from ignorance, not from political considerations, or other motives.
And, why is it "morally wrong" to use ethanol? What does ethanol in gasoline have to do with morals?
Wow, I must be (politically? morally?) out of it ... Sure didn't hear about this in church or during the primaries. But, I'm not an auto mechanic, so maybe there's some real problem mechanically burning fuel from corn as compared with fuel from ancient rotten bugs, trapped in rocks.
Ethanol is also available as E85—a high-level ethanol blend—for use in flexible fuel vehicles." -- http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol.html
Used in the proper vehicles (not necessarily boats, of course), what's wrong with its use? I ask from ignorance, not from political considerations, or other motives.
And, why is it "morally wrong" to use ethanol? What does ethanol in gasoline have to do with morals?
Wow, I must be (politically? morally?) out of it ... Sure didn't hear about this in church or during the primaries. But, I'm not an auto mechanic, so maybe there's some real problem mechanically burning fuel from corn as compared with fuel from ancient rotten bugs, trapped in rocks.
Bill the moral is a bit tongue in cheek, but when you use those fields which produce corn (in my case it is feed corn) and sell that for ethanol, it makes the cost of feed go up. This increased the cost of both meats and also food grain crops--that is the moral part of it.
As for the pollution or lack of pollution that becomes a bit more of a political question--but adding ethanol decreased the car's mileage.
One answer: "You will get fewer mpg's with ethanol enhanced gasoline
ethanol yields 75-85k BTU'd per gallon
conventional gasoline yields 108-117k BTU's per gallon"
From Consumer Reports--generally an unbiased source--who also calls Ethanol unmoral because it displaces food crops. Granted this is E 85 which is the controversary today---but similar results with E 10.
"We put our 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe FFV through our full series of fuel-economy and acceleration tests while running on each fuel. When running on E85 there was no significant change in acceleration. Fuel economy, however, dropped across the board. In highway driving, gas mileage decreased from 21 to 15 mpg; in city driving, it dropped from 9 to 7 mpg. You could expect a similar decrease in gas mileage in any current FFV.
We also took our Tahoe to a state-certified emissions-test facility near our test track in Connecticut and had a standard emissions test performed. We found a significant decrease in smog-forming oxides of nitrogen when using E85. However, ethanol emits acetaldehyde, which the EPA lists as a probable carcinogen and something that standard emissions-testing equipment is not designed to measure. But that might be a relatively minor evil, however.
There are many studies which show the same thing. It costs more, does not really decrease pollution (until you factor in the "cost" of producing the corn/and refining the ethanol, and gives poorer fuel economy- Then add in the real world problems it has caused in vehicles.
Who wins? The ethanol producers--except there is currently a surplus and that is why the push for e 85...The farmer--maybe--but our costs of farming have gone way up--the land is going up 15% a year, chemicals are up, fuel is up etc...
As for the pollution or lack of pollution that becomes a bit more of a political question--but adding ethanol decreased the car's mileage.
One answer: "You will get fewer mpg's with ethanol enhanced gasoline
ethanol yields 75-85k BTU'd per gallon
conventional gasoline yields 108-117k BTU's per gallon"
From Consumer Reports--generally an unbiased source--who also calls Ethanol unmoral because it displaces food crops. Granted this is E 85 which is the controversary today---but similar results with E 10.
"We put our 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe FFV through our full series of fuel-economy and acceleration tests while running on each fuel. When running on E85 there was no significant change in acceleration. Fuel economy, however, dropped across the board. In highway driving, gas mileage decreased from 21 to 15 mpg; in city driving, it dropped from 9 to 7 mpg. You could expect a similar decrease in gas mileage in any current FFV.
We also took our Tahoe to a state-certified emissions-test facility near our test track in Connecticut and had a standard emissions test performed. We found a significant decrease in smog-forming oxides of nitrogen when using E85. However, ethanol emits acetaldehyde, which the EPA lists as a probable carcinogen and something that standard emissions-testing equipment is not designed to measure. But that might be a relatively minor evil, however.
There are many studies which show the same thing. It costs more, does not really decrease pollution (until you factor in the "cost" of producing the corn/and refining the ethanol, and gives poorer fuel economy- Then add in the real world problems it has caused in vehicles.
Who wins? The ethanol producers--except there is currently a surplus and that is why the push for e 85...The farmer--maybe--but our costs of farming have gone way up--the land is going up 15% a year, chemicals are up, fuel is up etc...
El and Bill
New member
Thanks, Bob - that gives me the factual information I wanted to hear. Now I understand the issue. We appreciate you taking the time to answer my question.
T.R. Bauer
New member
I really don't have a straight answer to ethanol. Nor can I seem to find one. It is really hard to focus on the answer - that is if there even is one.
I have read a number of times in all kinds of sources that when everything is factored in, and I do mean everything, ethanol enhanced gasoline actually creates more carbon in the end than using gasoline created by conventional methods.
Of course, how much crude oil is secured by conventional methods is hard to figure as so much of it comes from tar sands and other methods that are very far removed from being greenhouse friendly. The folks that promote ethanol certainly say that making it lowers greenhouse gasses. Strangely, big oil doesn't even say a word - probably because they are pulling the puppet strings here too.
Then, there is a moral argument that using up our farmland to make gas is something that shouldn't be done. This really sounds like an emotionally charged argument, but I agree that it is hard to defend and justify tying up countless acres of prime farmland to make something that may or may not reduce our carbon footprint as the "pollution" in doing so has driven up the price of farming (and food) a great deal.
Worth it? Beats me. Personally, I am very happy we don't have any in SC Alaska. Your personal experiences with ethanol give me nightmares about the stuff.
I have read a number of times in all kinds of sources that when everything is factored in, and I do mean everything, ethanol enhanced gasoline actually creates more carbon in the end than using gasoline created by conventional methods.
Of course, how much crude oil is secured by conventional methods is hard to figure as so much of it comes from tar sands and other methods that are very far removed from being greenhouse friendly. The folks that promote ethanol certainly say that making it lowers greenhouse gasses. Strangely, big oil doesn't even say a word - probably because they are pulling the puppet strings here too.
Then, there is a moral argument that using up our farmland to make gas is something that shouldn't be done. This really sounds like an emotionally charged argument, but I agree that it is hard to defend and justify tying up countless acres of prime farmland to make something that may or may not reduce our carbon footprint as the "pollution" in doing so has driven up the price of farming (and food) a great deal.
Worth it? Beats me. Personally, I am very happy we don't have any in SC Alaska. Your personal experiences with ethanol give me nightmares about the stuff.
spuncopper
New member
Hey Guys:
The problems with Ethanol and other alternative fuels/energy could have been addressed in the 1970's thru the 1980's, and would have been resolved by now. But a president was elected that all but destroyed the alternative fuel programs. :?
So we can only blame ourselves for letting these programs be dismantled. I find it interesting to read my old Mother Earth News mags (from issue #1 to 100). There were solutions but big oil, utility companies and the American automotive industry didn't want to change. :?
Take care.
The problems with Ethanol and other alternative fuels/energy could have been addressed in the 1970's thru the 1980's, and would have been resolved by now. But a president was elected that all but destroyed the alternative fuel programs. :?
So we can only blame ourselves for letting these programs be dismantled. I find it interesting to read my old Mother Earth News mags (from issue #1 to 100). There were solutions but big oil, utility companies and the American automotive industry didn't want to change. :?
Take care.
An interesting white paper that discusses these issues:
http://www.goldeagle.com/UserFiles/file ... asline.pdf
http://www.goldeagle.com/UserFiles/file ... asline.pdf
cbgale":1x9zgeyi said:
This is the source for your information link. It's not unbiased information & I would not trust it in regarding the use of ethanol in gasoline.
From Wikipedia, "The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) is an American lobbying organization which promotes policies, regulations, and research and development initiatives that will lead to the increased production and use of ethanol fuel. First organized in 1981, RFA serves as a voice of advocacy for the ethanol industry, providing research data and industry analysis to its members, to the public via the media, to the United States Congress, as well as to related federal and state agencies."
Jay
spuncopper":26n5h0xc said:
This link to a chart of the yearly history of oil prices causes me to
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/imag ... _Chart.htm
think the flight from the conversion to alternate sources of energy other than oil had much more to do with the rapid increase in the price of a barrel of oil from a inflation adjusted price in 1973 of $20 a barrel to it's peak in 1979 of $113, followed by dropping back to $20 again by 1986, then the reasons you suggest. During the rise it was not difficult to have government & investors interested in most all the alternatives, but us tax payers & the investors all lost big on these investments when the price dropped back down. Private investment money is now even harder to find for these high risk endeavors requiring huge outlays for R & D with a proven high risk from the past without us taxpayers guaranteeing the results, such as the big losses we picked up recently in the solar business failures & taxpayer subsidizing of wind & ethanol.
With the huge oil & gas finds here in the US recently & the ability to extract with fracking at a comparably low cost recovery it will even further make alternative energy more difficult to compete.
Jay
The typical reason given for ethanol is to reduce dependence on foreign oil. In the Consumer's Reports test they reported more than a 20% decline in fuel economy. I don't think the math supports the use of ethanol to reduce foreign oil imports. I don't think any of the reasons given for using ethanol can withstand the logic test. It's just like our wind farm on Fire Island. Every watt they generate increases my electric bill. That's why I wish for calm weather, the boating is better and my electric bill doesn't go up.
Tom
Tom
spuncopper
New member
Hunkydory":3r2ust6c said:
All very true... and deliberately manupulated by the oil/gas industries to force opening these oil/gas fields, which, as an enviromentalist I oppose. We needed to end our dependence on oil back them and we do now.
kennharriet
Member
Personally, I'll vote for energy independence, then we will have the luxury of exploring more alternative energy options than we can stand. Lets face it, anyone who is fortunate enough to enjoy power boating would be a bit hypocritical to complain about the oil industry.
No disrespect intended.
No disrespect intended.
20dauntless
New member
Ethanols biggest problem in my opinion is that it takes nearly as much energy to produce it as it contains. Some sources say it actually takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than that gallon of ethanol creates. Combined with the fact that ethanol is less energy dense than pure gasoline, and the case for ethanol gets even worse. The use of corn to produce ethanol also drives up food prices, hitting the developing world particularly hard and creating incentives for replacing forests with fields.
The wide scale implementation of fracking has allowed the US to develop vast oil plays that were previously useless. Apparently we will export more oil than we import this year. So, energy independence may have arrived.
But energy independence has little bearing on the price of oil. Oil is a commodity, priced globally. With demand in developing countries increasing more rapidly than demand in the developed world is decreasing, the overall demand for oil continues to increase.
Further increasing prices are the high costs of extracting oil from many domestic oil plays. The cost of producing a barrel of oil in traditional oil fields, like those in Saudi Arabia, ranges from $6 to $28. Producing a barrel of oil from oil shales, by comparison, costs $52-113. Put simply, fracking and developing oil shales with oil at $50 a barrel doesn't make any economic sense, but at $100 a barrel it looks much better. Costs of developing oil shale plays may go down in the future as technology improves. But that's a big unknown at the moment.
The bottom line is that expensive oil is probably here to stay, and ethanol is not a reasonable means of bringing down prices or saving the environment.
The wide scale implementation of fracking has allowed the US to develop vast oil plays that were previously useless. Apparently we will export more oil than we import this year. So, energy independence may have arrived.
But energy independence has little bearing on the price of oil. Oil is a commodity, priced globally. With demand in developing countries increasing more rapidly than demand in the developed world is decreasing, the overall demand for oil continues to increase.
Further increasing prices are the high costs of extracting oil from many domestic oil plays. The cost of producing a barrel of oil in traditional oil fields, like those in Saudi Arabia, ranges from $6 to $28. Producing a barrel of oil from oil shales, by comparison, costs $52-113. Put simply, fracking and developing oil shales with oil at $50 a barrel doesn't make any economic sense, but at $100 a barrel it looks much better. Costs of developing oil shale plays may go down in the future as technology improves. But that's a big unknown at the moment.
The bottom line is that expensive oil is probably here to stay, and ethanol is not a reasonable means of bringing down prices or saving the environment.
spuncopper
New member
I'm not offended,
But the oil industry is corrupt, badly... so I'll say it... they are corrupt and they have corrupted our government.
Yes I use a power boat... four days a month for close to six months. I used 18 gallons of gas.
The big agribus is corrupt... I eat food.
At one time I designed, built and installed my own solar electric system, and lived off the grid for five years. Then we moved back to the corrupt state of SC to be care givers. We're back on the grid... the utility companies are just as corrupt... I buy their electricity...
I didn't invest any money in wall street... we inherited an investment... we can't cash it out without being penalized... No, I'm not offended, just jaded.
But the oil industry is corrupt, badly... so I'll say it... they are corrupt and they have corrupted our government.
Yes I use a power boat... four days a month for close to six months. I used 18 gallons of gas.
The big agribus is corrupt... I eat food.
At one time I designed, built and installed my own solar electric system, and lived off the grid for five years. Then we moved back to the corrupt state of SC to be care givers. We're back on the grid... the utility companies are just as corrupt... I buy their electricity...
I didn't invest any money in wall street... we inherited an investment... we can't cash it out without being penalized... No, I'm not offended, just jaded.
spuncopper
New member
I agree on what everyone is saying... I became interested in alternative energy in the 1970's when a utility company had regulations passed dictating how/what/where/ and when I could do specific things om my property/home...
I watched, during the oil crisis of the 1970's, as small entrepreneurs started small companies to address these issues. Here's is an example: I worked with several mechanical engineers, a chemical engineer and a gentleman who was an automotive genius (my opinion). After a small accident (no damage, just scared the crap out of several people) they got curious. Could they run a gasoline engine on water?
They found out they could... strictly purified water... using basically on overcharged lead acid battery... capturing the hydrogen. They had it so it would start. Keeping it running was a problem.
They applied for a small grant and it was approved. The project progressed. There were number of problems, but they were working in a small home garage... they lost their grant when a specific president was elected and... they were forced to shutdown.
At present hydrogen fuel cells are being touted... this is old technology.
Hybrid cars... they were being built in the 1970's...
Methane digesters... old! I have the reproduction of a 1930's book describing this process...
The list goes on and on, WE HAD the ability to address these issues decades ago... we trusted the government and the large corporations to take care of us... we have been bitten in the rear-end... that is my gripe and... I am extremely jaded now watching history repeat its self...
Hope this wasn't a rant :roll:
I watched, during the oil crisis of the 1970's, as small entrepreneurs started small companies to address these issues. Here's is an example: I worked with several mechanical engineers, a chemical engineer and a gentleman who was an automotive genius (my opinion). After a small accident (no damage, just scared the crap out of several people) they got curious. Could they run a gasoline engine on water?
They found out they could... strictly purified water... using basically on overcharged lead acid battery... capturing the hydrogen. They had it so it would start. Keeping it running was a problem.
They applied for a small grant and it was approved. The project progressed. There were number of problems, but they were working in a small home garage... they lost their grant when a specific president was elected and... they were forced to shutdown.
At present hydrogen fuel cells are being touted... this is old technology.
Hybrid cars... they were being built in the 1970's...
Methane digesters... old! I have the reproduction of a 1930's book describing this process...
The list goes on and on, WE HAD the ability to address these issues decades ago... we trusted the government and the large corporations to take care of us... we have been bitten in the rear-end... that is my gripe and... I am extremely jaded now watching history repeat its self...
Hope this wasn't a rant :roll: