Will Turnip permit 15% ethanol year-round?
 

https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBO84IT?m=en-u...rID=InAppShare

Personally I’d like to just see more proliferation of ethanol blends in general... I don’t wanna be forced into buying E15 if I don’t want to, but would love to have easy access to ethanol rich blends, maybe E30 and E47 in addition to E85...

I think that if one advanced timing and leaned mixture to take advantage of the higher octane of E30 and the cooling effect that alcohol has on combustion, you could about break even in mileage versus E10/87octane, with significantly greater power output

I had to do a little research on this because it's been at the pump all summer here. The three months it has to be labeled for FFV only just like E85, never stopped me from putting either in any of my cars.

Petroleum rep on local radio yesterday said it doesn't really matter only 15% of Iowa's pumps are compatible and the state has a fund (tax payers) for pumps to be upgraded. If tax payers are going to pay(shouldn't) for an upgrade it should only be for Blender pumps.

I also think all new cars should be FFV. It's just 1 sensor that $50 now if they choose to use it and software. If Brazil can do it the US should to.

We should also drop the requirement to get all the water out of the ethanol to reduce the cost of producing it.

Sorry, but I sure as heck don't want to pay $3.54 a gallon for water which pisses off the controls in the ECU.

Ethanol is garbage. The net benefit doesn't outweigh the net cost. People are throwing their lawnmowers away every year because the gas can't sit over winter without collecting water. The hoses dry and crack because they weren't made for alcohol. Car fuel economy plummets. It has 1/3 less energy as gasoline. It displaces food crops.

Sure, if this were Brazil I'd be all about ethanol, but this isn't Brazil, and we don't grow cane sugar.

If burning ethanol were better, then law wouldn't have to mandate it. Instead we'd all just be burning it because it's better. Whenever a law compels an otherwise free market, you have to be very skeptical about what the real reason for the law was, because it sure doesn't have consumers best interest in mind.

Study on Ethanol energy balance.

https://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/ene...ornEthanol.pdf

"There is a low-input-energy segment of the industry that does better than the industry average. The energy balance ratio is 4.0 for areas like Iowa and Minnesota that use the lowest corn"

That article doesn't address gasoline, but another one I found earlier said it took 1.23 btu of fossil fuels to get 1 btu of gasoline in the pump (0.81). I think the overall average for corn ethanol was 2.3 field to pump.

https://www.extension.iastate.edu/ag...HofJuly07.html

There's where the 1.23 number comes from. That article list corn ethanol at 1.36 but was done in 2007. Improvements have been made in the ethanol industry the top listed study is more recent.


"Conclusion

All the talk about ethanol being an inefficient energy converter is wrong. Moreover, the energy balance question is largely bogus. Whether you are concerned about weaning the U.S. from foreign oil, stopping global warming, or both, ethanol is better than gasoline and getting better every day."

I didn't say that you can't get a decent energy conversion out of corn ethanol, I implied that the opportunity cost of going to ethanol is so great that it hasn't happened in the free market.

You've yet to address why the free market hasn't adopted ethanol for fueling our vehicles. Nothing is preventing auto manufacturers from producing vehicles that run on 100% ethanol, or gas stations from supplying it. In fact, even with ethanol subsidies, we don't have auto manufacturers building cars that run on high levels of ethanol.

The government shouldn't be the first "solution" to a problem; it should be the very last. First, answer what problem a 15% ethanol mandate fixes. Next answer why the problem it fixes has to be addressed by the worst problem solver (government).

I, for one, think you should either:

Change the title to something less politically brain-dead.
Have the mods move the thread to The Lounge.

Brain-dead. Clever.

How do you feel about year-round 15% ethanol?

A 15% mandate fixes nothing. I’d say that if all gasoline were 15% ethanol there would be a lot of older vehicles damaged or taken off the road due to incompatibility... a lot of modern cars would be okay with only a slight loss in mileage, but I’d rather see more blend pumps than a mandate of 15% minimum

You bring up a good point about older vehicles. Obviously, poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so they would be impacted the greatest, not only in terms of having car issues, but also in terms of paying more money for less energy in their fuel. It's a regressive (hurts the poor more than the wealthy) mandate.

I'm with you on choice, and I'd like to see more options too. The thing is, the market is free to offer any percentage of ethanol (as long as it has at least 10% ethanol now). A mandate takes away the choice of the market, it doesn't broaden it. By the way, people can make whatever blend they want by mixing some ratio of E85 to E10, and some people do experiment with the ratios.

E10 caused a lot of engine problems and brought down fuel economy everywhere, and for what benefit? Show me that E10 had a net benefit, and maybe the argument for E15 would make sense. My next question would be why is E15 the ideal ratio rather than something else, like E85, or E100?

E0 sounds like a nice and round number.

Does anyone know why this change has come up?

I was biting my tongue. That's what came out.

I have no use for ethanol. I have burned clear premium since I got the Superbeetle and it would kill the Dasher diesel.

Oh, 'feelings'. Ethanol or gasoline are fine on their own, but each has it's own combustion requirements. Compression and timing.

Why? International politics, just like fracking.

Can't they drain the tanks and store the fuel on plastic jugs without breather vents for the moisture to get in?


Not so far. Many residues from food processing could be turned into ethanol, and when it comes to corn-based ethanol the distillation-grain has its advantages when used to feed beef cattle and other livestock. Eventually, since most people nowadays eat more processed food instead of home-cooked meals, distillation-grain could also be used as a protein source for some food items that now resort to soybean-based protein which is more expensive and IIRC has a higher incidence of allergy.


Corn-based ethanol alone may not "save the world", but it would be pointless to single it out. Trust me, I'm Brazilian and used to ethanol-powered cars since I was a child.

There is no E15 mandate. In Iowa E0 is at almost every station, +20% more expensive than E10. If you don't have E0 available it's due to a local/state issue.

I think Minnesota put 10% in everything except off road use only fuel and doesn't even label it.

Car's have been E10 compatible for a long time, anything with FI and a O2 sensor has LTFT to compensate for different fuel energy content, I've got many a CEL light for too much E85 back to a 1998 Stratus to my Cobalt CEL is on today, when the LTFT (long term fuel trim get over 25 or so), takes greater than 50% ethanol to get it for all the car's I've owned. Never once has one of them run bad.

One of Brazils sugarcane advantage is after they crush it to get the juice out, they burn the left overs to power the facility and sell excess electricity. Corn ethanol plants could do that with the corn stover, but don't at this point. Natural gas/coal is easier.

And they only have to plant it once every 5 years.

Nowadays the standard in Brazil is E27, and only one premium gasoline is E25. Since we also have E100 (actually E96h), there is no E85 here. But anyway, not even some grey-imports have had so many problems with the amount of ethanol.


That's a good point. But anyway, I must confess I'm quite surprised by your knowledge about the ethanol brewing here in Brazil.

Found a couple papers by a professor at Iowa State yesterday, I have 2 kids there.

https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewc...4&context=agdm

https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewc...6&context=agdm

I'm just interested in the stuff. I work for a structural engineering firm, we used to do some work for a local plant that started making ethanol. And I do some drafting (editing P&ID, kind of like flow diagrams) for mechanical engineer that is consulting for a different much larger ethanol company.

Doing a little research on sorghum now, didn't know they made ethanol from that till yesterday and use the left overs just like corn to make Dry or Wet distiller grains for animal feed.

Rack average price in Iowa for E10 is $2.16 + 0.307 in taxes = $2.47 per gallon, at the pump running about $2.70-85. $.23-.38 profit.

Rack price for E70 is $1.50 + 0.29 taxes = $1.79, at the pump it's $2.20-50, $.41-.71 profit.

E83 can be purchased from one manufacture for $1.10, local station to that plant for $1.89(July price best I could find) $0.50 profit.

If E85 was priced with the same margin as E10 it would kick butt in $/mile. 20% spread is what my FFV cars needed to break even and that's where they price it for the most part.

Edit: Future contract price is $1.29 so add another $.20 to the E85 margin. State wide average was $1.27 was last month. $1.13 low to $1.41 high.

I should have more precisely said that ethanol mandates are stupid, not ethanol itself. There’s a market for ethanol in fuels, it’s just less than a 15% mandate which only serves to distort the market and benefit special interests. Take the corruption out of the equation and I have no problem with it

It's all about the RVP, reid vapor pressure. In 1992 the EPA set the max allowable RVP of 9 psi to reduce evaporative emissions, but gave E9-10 1 extra psi. E15 didn't exist so it was not included.

E15 RVP is barely higher than E10. EPA is just going to give it the same 1 psi allowance as E10 to E15 so it can be sold to all cars year round.

Some state don't allow the 1 psi waiver and the refiners have to remove more higher volatile products in the gasoline to say under the 9 psi.

E15 has the highest RVP of any blend, it drops after that matching gasoline at E50. E85 RVP is 5 which cause the cold start issues. E70 is 7.


https://ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/up...6_12_Final.pdf

Ethanol Subsidy - aka Blenders Tax Credit. Just trying to figure out how this thing works. For every gallon of fuel a blender mixes they pay $0.184. For every gallon of ethanol they use the get $0.45 tax credit. So a gallon of E10 blend, net tax is 18.4 - 4.5. 13.9. E30 net tax would be 4.9, E50 tax credit of 4.1. E85 tax credit of 20 cents.

I didn't know there was an extra 18.4 cents per gallon of tax before the 29 or 31 I pay at the pump.

What I don't understand is why some ethanol plant in Iowa sell E70 during the summer. Unless the natural gasoline (70 octane) they are buying to mix it with is cheaper than their own ethanol.

You don't need to replace foodstock to produce ethanol
It can be done from the part of the crop the we don't use to eat

Fermenting the lot to make natural gas would work too

That sounds like a good use of leftovers.

While I have only seen vegetable-based ethanol, biomethane has the advantage of being able to resort to the leftovers of slaughterhouses and meat proccessing plants too.

87 octane 100% gasoline component (E0) is 87 octane. duh!
Reported in many websites, inaccurate but "designated" 87 octane 10% ethanol blend (E10) has a gasoline component that is 84 octane. Because of great quantities of "ethanol in gasoline industry" propaganda & lobbying to artificially lower E10 prices, American drivers have accepted 84 octane component gasoline to be used (not efficiently burned) in their 87 octane gasoline engines. But, 87 octane E0, as burned properly in an 87 octane designed gasoline engine, has 8% to 5% better MPG than inaccurate, but "designated" 87 octane 10% ethanol blend, which has neither ethanol component or gasoline component that is 87 octane.
Now the "ethanol in gasoline industry" is pushing inaccurate, but "designated" 88 octane, 15% ethanol-blend (E15). Inaccurate, but "designated" 88 octane ethanol-blend E15 has a gasoline component with an octane of 83.5.
If the "ethanol in gasoline industry" can successfully market inaccurate, but "designated" 88 octane ethanol-blend E15, they will then push inaccurate, but "designated" 87 octane ethanol-blend E15, which has its gasoline component as 82.4 octane. In all cases, the ethanol blends have no fuel components that are 87 octane & all ethanol blends are inefficiently burned.
The magic & power of propaganda to get people to accept products in their lives which are not "efficient" is remarkable.

Octane doesn't work like that.

Which octane are checking measured or research? They are way different.

Couldn't remember when it happened, but in Fall 2013

"Iowa's largest pipeline operator, Magellan Midstream Partners, will no longer ship 87 octane regular gasoline to its Iowa terminals. Instead, the pipeline operator will start shipping 84 octane fuel, which can be blended with more expensive 91 octane fuel to produce the regular 87 octane product. Iowa requires a minimum 87 octane fuel at gas pumps.

The bad news for consumers is that the 87 regular octane fuel without ethanol will probably cost more — possibly a lot more — at the pump. The price for 91 octane premium gas without ethanol also could spike."

"Iowa and Nebraska are among the last states in the country to require a minimum octane of 87, he said, but shipping the 84 octane still allows for the product to be mixed with a higher octane product to reach the required 87".

https://qctimes.com/non-ethanol-gas-...ac35e8b14.html

I don't know if the same thing happened in most places, but the refiners made the choice I'm sure to maximize profits that 84 octane gas with 10% ethanol gets to the 87 minimum that the majority of cars require. 15% brings the octane up to 88/89.

We still have E0 87 available but it's about $0.40 a gallon more.

Locally the clear premium is 92 octane. At one point, it was approaching $5/gallon but I don't know currently (buying diesel instead).

The only pure petrol I have ever found is local, and is priced $1.40 above regular.

If you go out to the coast, I hear they make you walk to the end of a pier with a gas can to buy it. I don't know for sure.

litesong wrote: not efficiently burned.......
///////
////////
litesong wrote: So...... gasoline engineers, who design 87 octane gasoline engines & specify 87 octane 100% gasoline(E0) for their engines, do NOT do so, for efficient operations?
So, that explains why the "ethanol in gasoline industry" is happy to pump accurate
82.3 octane gasoline & 114 octane ethanol (E15) into 87 octane designed gasoline engines.

I would consider methyl-ethyl blends as well if there is sufficient methanol from wood and paper waste. The issue for older engines is the valve seats made when lead was in the fuel. These can be replaced when the valve job is done. The other issue is the fuel system materials. Xylene is the common ingredient in fuel stabilizer; just don't get it on your skin. Marine, motorcycle, and aviation engines have their own requirements. Too often laws are passed without enough care given to testing technical issues. This country is too vast to rely on a one size fits all mentality. The Quality Revolution is making authoritarian governance by decree obsolete.

If I believed that were true, I'd be more hopeful. :)

What I learn at the McMinnville airport drag strip in 1959 was that if you want to burn [114 octane] ethanol you bore out the carburetor jets and shave the heads.

I guess computer controlled fuel system are more tolerant of oddball mixtures. Nitromethane, anyone?

The alcohol attacks anything in the fuel system sensitive to either alcohol or water.

Older cars leak before the valve seats die.

You bored the jets becuse it ran lean and jets didn't go to 90, you shaved the heads because it promoted higher compression and the 114 wouldn't ping.