Are we abusing alcohol?
 

I was thinking of an alternate method of using ethanol in vehicles. Instead of just mixing it with the gasoline, one would have separate tanks, one for straight ethanol and one for straight gas. The fuel system would be separate up to and including the injectors. At a certain load (or signal from a knock sensor) the engine would swich fuels.

The higher octane rating of pure alcohol would enable us to do such things as increase compression ratio and boost, and possibly downsize the engine. As a result not only would we have better efficiency while burning ethanol, we'd have better efficiency while burning gasoline aswell.



Thoughts?

I can imagine the (legal) problems of having alcohol separate from the fuel. When it is mixed with petrol there is no fear that it will be used (or abused) "in other ways". When mixed with fuel alcohol isn't taxed as heavily: While a liter of petrol with 5% ethanol costs just under $2 here, pure alcohol at the liquor store goes for 7-9 times more.
Also, the law here states that "It is illegal to have an open container with alcohol inside the vehicle". Imagine if the alcohol tube sprung a leak and the driver would be breathing the vapors for hours at a time. LOLhttp://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2.../wine-icon.gif

Now, legal nuances aside, having a second system paralleling the fuel supply would add complexity and weight (not to mention cost), but may be worth a shot (pun intended).

an engine that is designed for burning alcohol does not work well for burning gasoline and it's the same the other way around, just like you can burn small amounts of diesel in your gasoline engine, it works best to design the compression ratio and timing map to the fuel.
Also at least in the USA alcohol fuels are subsidized by tax dollars because they take so much energy and fuel to produce that it is a net loss.

E85 can get better mileage & HP than regular gas. Saab has done it, takes a turbo to change the boost depending on fuel. I hope the Cruze will evolve to become flex fuel and smart enough to use it efficiently.

Spending extra on it is better than sending $$ overseas.

Not true, overall (although it can when using the most inefficient farming & production practices) and the people making that claim usually are pretty obvious axe-grinders.

It's also ignoring the fact that a major reason for ethanol in gas is as a pollution-control additive. Remember all the problems with the old MTBE additive?

I'd rather ethanol be based on cellulose rather than feeding Monstrantos GMO patents. For that reason alone I do not support the current ethanol industry, especially with the current process energy balance barely better than petroleum.

What's the difference between giving our energy $$ to big oil or big agribusiness?

I have a ADM ethanol plant a few miles south, a much smaller Penford ethanol plant a few miles north, when I go to work there I see lines for farmers semi's hauling corn in. And another set hauling out cattle feed out. The ethanol $$ are staying local, employing tax paying, home owning American's.

(and destroying the food supply)

To answer your question, perhaps none, they both seem hell-bent on eliminating the human infestation on earth, along with most other currently established species. That's why we need to fuel with efficient renewables and not grant patents on genes. We are in far too deep to get out without a great deal of pain.

Waaaah, the food supply!

Seen any empty store shelves lately? :confused:

hic.