EPA wants to increase ethanol to 15%

[Windjammer]

I'm cautiously optimistic about ethanol. It's still a fairly new fuel source, so it's likely that developments lie ahead that'll increase it's viability as time passes. Gasoline has been in production for decades, but I doubt its production in the early years was anywhere near as efficient as it is today. Technology development takes time and new ideas.

Remember unleaded gasoline? Everyone hated it but now it's accepted almost universally as a good thing. Same with EFI - it worked poorly in its infancy but was later developed into an industry standard.

My main motivation for offering ethanol some hope is that I HATE the idea of buying oil from countries who consider us the enemy. Handing billions to your enemies just sucks. The less we depend on them the better. Ethanol is different and it will require changes. But if it comes down to paying a farmer vs paying an Arab, I'd prefer to hand my American dollars to the farmer any day.

Farmers in my area (Central WI) have already begun converting some fields to switchgrass. In the past, there have been PLENTY of empty farm fields left to waste due to low demand for crops, so at least for now the concern about interruption of food supplies is unfounded - at least in my opinion.

BTW, I'm not a farmer and my work has no connection to agriculture.

 

[Windjammer]

If paying $50 for a steak gets our kids out of the sand box earlier and sends these ululating folks back to playing hide the pickle with their goats then I am all for it. Do I like it, absolutely not but until this country gets the huevos to turn the middle east into the worlds largest mirror then we have to do what we have to do and do it now before the next rich pissed of spoiled Saudi child picks up the banner of Mujihadin.

Man, that's worth readin' again.

 

[Fred W]

If paying $50 for a steak gets our kids out of the sand box earlier and sends these ululating folks back to playing hide the pickle with their goats then I am all for it. Do I like it, absolutely not but until this country gets the huevos to turn the middle east into the worlds largest mirror then we have to do what we have to do and do it now before the next rich pissed of spoiled Saudi child picks up the banner of Mujihadin.

Man, that's worth readin' again.

Yeah, that slappy is pretty poetic. Helps that I agree with his thoughts.

But clearly corn is not the ultimate crop for ethanol. Too little biomass per acre.

Oh, and steak (and beef in general) is another high cost fuel. Costs way too much to produce when you can eat many other protein sources that cost little or nothing to grow. There are always processing costs, but beef is nutz.

Think I'll head to Outback now and gorge myself!

 

[Zorlac]

"when you can eat many other protein sources that cost little or nothing to grow."

Insects baby, Insects.....they'll be crawling around on that mirror while it's still warm.

 

[Big Sky]

So, mill the head for higher compression, reprogram the ECU to advance spark, and we lose no economy or maybe even gain some with gasahol? Who will be the first? Seems too easy.

 

[RadioHowie]

Hey Howie! Show 'em a picture of your fuel pump I have to believe them corn squeezins had a part in that..
:jester:

If anyone missed my fuel pump thread, THIS is what happens to an FJR fuel tank when it sits too long without use.

Ethanol, as is all forms of alcohol, is very hygroscopic. That's a fancy word that means "attracts water". So ethanol in a gas tank will literally absorb water right out of the air and put it in your gas tank. If there's room in your tank, i.e., not full of fuel, the moisture in the void above the fuel will start eating away at the untreated, mild steel of the inside of your tank in the form of oxidation, aka, rust.

Yep....that's rust packed up in my fuel pump.

The higher the percentage of ethanol, the more moisture can be absorbed by the fuel in your tank.

I wonder if the EPA is gonna buy us all new fuel pumps?

 

[DaveInMn]

Why don't we want ethanol in our gas? What are the ill effects?

Badness #1:

Look at page 3-14 in the FJR Owner's Manual: "Gasohol containing ethanol can be used if the ethanol content does not exceed 10%."

All of the Owner's Manuals on the vehicles I've purchased in the last 20 or so years have this or a similar statement has been in all of them. In other words, if you use gas with more the 10% and have engine problems that are fuel related, the manufacturer can void your warranty.

Badness #2:

Alcohol (ethanol) also attracts and holds in suspension water. Greatly exacerbates rusting in partially filled steel fuel tanks. I would guess ethanol played a prominent role in RadioHowie's recent rusty gas tank problem(s) (clicky).

My brother is a farmer and grows a lot of corn. Used to tell me that ethanol was great......until he started having problems with some of his gas tractors that are only used sporadically. Now he too thinks ethanol is sh!t.

*****Whoops, I see Howie can type (and probably think) a lot faster than me.........

 

[DaveInMn]

So, mill the head for higher compression, reprogram the ECU to advance spark, and we lose no economy or maybe even gain some with gasahol? Who will be the first? Seems too easy.

Pure ethanol only has 70% of the energy (BTU's) that straight petroleum gas does. So if your using 15% ethanol, you'd have to richen up (~12%?) to get the same BTUs (power) as pure petroleum gas....

 

[RadioHowie]

*****Whoops, I see Howie can type (and probably think) a lot faster than me.........

Type faster, maybe.

 

[Bustanut joker]

*****Whoops, I see Howie can type (and probably think) a lot faster than me.........

Possibly type.. But I doubt think

Here's one of my favorite pictures of Howie when we was kids....

:jester:

 

[RadioHowie]

*****Whoops, I see Howie can type (and probably think) a lot faster than me.........

Possibly type.. But I doubt think

Here's one of my favorite pictures of Howie when we was kids....

:jester:

You lyin' sack o' squirrel ****.

That's Zippy in that pic....(aka Zorlac)...and I've got photographic proof!

 

[DaveInMn]

*****Whoops, I see Howie can type (and probably think) a lot faster than me.........

Possibly type.. But I doubt think

Here's one of my favorite pictures of Howie when we was kids....

:jester:

Sittin on that stool for hours on end could give create a good case of Monkey Butt too..... :stunned:

 

[Wicked Webby]

Well....the octane of ethanol is actually much higher than gasoline, so if you set up your FJR engine with more compression and more spark advance and reprogramed fuel curve it will make much more power on ethanol. An engine that has been optimized for ethanol or E85 will still not match the miles per gallon compared to gasoline but will come much closer than simply pouring E85 into an existing engine.
The viewpoint that seems to be missing is that ethanol is infinitely renewable and can be produced in the long run forever without any petroleum whatsoever. If we could reach that point it would make us completely non-dependent on foreign oil sources to keep our FJR's running.

The current production methods of ethanol (corn based) is simply a steping stone to put the infrastructure in place to eventually produce cellulistic ethanol (wood chips, grass, garbage, etc.) The corn used for ethanol production is not food corn, BTW. It is what is fed to livestock but it is not what tacos are made of....... the price of food jumped because of the high cost of petroleum, not ethanol production. If the delivery trucks and shipping ran on ethanol the price of petroleum would have no impact on food at all.

Who cares what the MPG is anyway if the cost per gallon eventually gets very low. Range will be affected but by then I may have my auxiliary fuel cell for my FJr from SKYWAY to offset the added ethanol I will need to carry.

Look forward to the day where FJRs, cars, the tractors in the fields, etc. are all run by ethanol and no petroleum is required for land based transportation. Making ethanol from grass negates the need to till, plow, etc. thus dramatically reducing the energy required to farm it and gets the food discussion out of the picture.

I am all for nuclear power but strapping a nuclear power plant to an FJR or any other transportation source is not the answer and battery technology just does not exist to store electricity for anything more than a politically correct demo vehicle in the foreseeable future. The physics of batteries just does not come close to the energy density storage capacity of gasoline or ethanol.

When gasoline went to $4.00 or more a gallon the production of ethanol soared and the system was well on the way to significantly reducing our dependence on foreign oil requirements. The Saudis realized this and realized they were about to put themselves out of business with the high oil prices.....so.....the price of oil "magically" dropped back as quickly as it had jumped up. no coincidence. Our foreign oil suppliers realized what few Americans recognize: that necessity is the mother of invention and the foreign oil suppliers were providing all the incentive America needed to eliminate our need for them.

Ethanol is not THE single anwer which is the most important thing to realize. It is, however, a very important piece of the future energy puzzle for the US and the sooner the general public realizes this and embraces the technology the quicker we can get on with life.

Even though, I am a very right sided person (conservative)....

+ 1,000,000,000!

Jestal is 100% CORRECT here!

If paying $50 for a steak gets our kids out of the sand box earlier and sends these ululating folks back to playing hide the pickle with their goats then I am all for it. Do I like it, absolutely not but until this country gets the huevos to turn the middle east into the worlds largest mirror then we have to do what we have to do and do it now before the next rich pissed of spoiled Saudi child picks up the banner of Mujihadin.

Man, that's worth readin' again.

AMEN!!

Webby

 

[kolonial72]

The soaring food prices of last year were primarily due to increased cost of production and shipping due to the nearly astronomical rise in fuel prices. You may have noticed that lots of stuff got more expensive.

Nuclear powered Feej - I like the idea! Gotta go talk to some smart guys I know at work....

 

[1911]

Just in case we need one more reason to dread the inevitable-Anybody else heard complaints about gasahol "dissolving" fiberglass gas tanks, such as those used on boats and flattrack bikes?

 

[radman]

Who cares what the MPG is anyway if the cost per gallon eventually gets very low. Range will be affected but by then I may have my auxiliary fuel cell for my FJr from SKYWAY to offset the added ethanol I will need to carry.

Even though, I am a very right sided person (conservative)....

+ 1,000,000,000!

Jestal is 100% CORRECT here!

He's also gained one hell of a sense of humor too.

 

[C&C]

While I'm usually on the same page with jestal I have to take exception to some of his statements this time:

I agree about the octane being higer for ethanol, but the practicality of modifying all those engines to be more tuned to alcohol, is just not feasible.

Again, agree that ethanol can be infinitely renewable, but the catch here is "in the long run". (doesn't address this post and what it trying to be done)

Would love to see the cellulose produced ethanol (but they are still working on that). The feed corn used does increase the price of beef (and other animals that use it); prices did rise due to the increase in fuel prices, but since prices have moderated, food has stayed high, why?

Ethanol was supposed to lower the price of gasoline but hasn't. (even E-85 only just about breaks even when you consider the lower fuel economy it gets as to the higher gasoline price and subsequent higher mpg)

I am also a proponent of nuclear, wind, tides, solar, and even battery (they're getting better all the time) so I'll agree to most of the rest of the post.

So, in conclusion, still a fan of jestal, but wanted to imput some of my thoughts and inject some support to what our original poster was getting at (which basically is: we ethanol producers got stuff to sell and we want the government to provide that means to our end).

 

[oldryder]

To clarify a few facts since some of the posts here are radically incorrect:

1. alcohol; after you allow for the fuel to prep the fields, plant the fields, harvest the corn, and process it into alcohol, yields a "savings" AT BEST of about 10% of the fuel expended.

2. Billions of gallons of fresh water are used in processing.

3. ethanol doctored fuel provides less mpg which further reduces the payback.

4. diiverting corn to fuel production raises food prices

5. and, best of all, if it wasn't for tariffs imposed by congress we could BUY alcohol from brazil for about 50 cents a gallon less than it can be produced for here (they can grow sugar cane which yields 7 times as much alcohol per acre as corn)

So all things considered alcohol is merely another congressionally mandated boondoggle that costs americans money while padding the pockets of big political contributors.

 

[Fred W]

While I'm usually on the same page with jestal I have to take exception to some of his statements this time:
I agree about the octane being higer for ethanol, but the practicality of modifying all those engines to be more tuned to alcohol, is just not feasible.

Oh it's feasible. It's just not palatable. Or likely to happen very fast for that matter. But do engines need to be modified for 15%? Or is it 20%? At what point does this become a requirement? I would draw a parrallel to back when we decided that lead in fuel was bad. There needs to be a weaning period.

Again, agree that ethanol can be infinitely renewable, but the catch here is "in the long run". (doesn't address this post and what it trying to be done)
Would love to see the cellulose produced ethanol (but they are still working on that). The feed corn used does increase the price of beef (and other animals that use it); prices did rise due to the increase in fuel prices, but since prices have moderated, food has stayed high, why?

Because they can. Because everyone wants to make a few extra bucks. Not because of the cost of corn, at least that I can see.

Ethanol was supposed to lower the price of gasoline but hasn't. (even E-85 only just about breaks even when you consider the lower fuel economy it gets as to the higher gasoline price and subsequent higher mpg)

If gasoline was still selling for $5 a gallon, then the alcohol would reduce the price. It's not that it is supposed to reduce the price as much as stabilize the price.

I am also a proponent of nuclear, wind, tides, solar, and even battery (they're getting better all the time) so I'll agree to most of the rest of the post.

Batteries and electricity are not power sources. They are methods of power transportation and storage. They are necessary facilitators of using the other "green" power sources you mention. That's why I get such a kick out of people that claim that electricity is such a clean fuel. It isn't even a fuel!! What kinda **** did they have to burn to make the electricity? That's the dirty end of the stick.

So, in conclusion, still a fan of jestal, but wanted to imput some of my thoughts and inject some support to what our original poster was getting at (which basically is: we ethanol producers got stuff to sell and we want the government to provide that means to our end).

I'm sure that you are partially right. Anyone in any business is always looking for ways to promote their product. Don't you suppose that the gasoline manufacturers would prefer to keep things status quo and retain all of their profits? In this case it seems to be the right direction to go in. The problem is in the details of getting from here to there.

[edit] If people continue to interject their political viewpoints into this discussion, I predict the thread will be closed very soon.

 

[Big Sky]

Let's ramp up the cellulose ethanol. Out here in the northern Rockies, we got cellulose. Pine beetle infestation has killed up to 2/3rds of the trees in some forests (mostly lodge pole but the other species are getting it too) and the "red spread" shows no sign of abatement. All that standing dead timber (cellulose) - millions and millions of trees - will eventually fall and rot on the forest floor or, as is more likely, will be consumed in wildfires of proportions never seen before. Of course, the fires will add millions (billions? trillions?) of tons of particulate carbon and carbon dioxide to the atmosphere which will increase climate change ("global warming", if you prefer) which will increase temperatures and drought, which will accelerate the beetle kill, which will lead to more catastrophic fires... Yet the environmentalists oppose getting the dead trees out of the woods, let alone making use of all that perfect cellulose fiber. Oh, yeah, one more thing: imagine the damage to the watersheds and aquatic species populations when we get the foul runoff from all those denuded mountains.

Craziness indeed.

Flame away.

Edit: I don't see this thread so much as a political discussion as one involving economics.