EPA approves more ethanol in fuel
 

http://www.manufacturing.net/News/20...nol-In-Fuel%2f

check this out EPA is going to allow MORE ethanol in fuel. :mad: Like our carbs don't get gummed uo enough as it is.



Jim

And ethanol is worse than gasoline for the environment, and it causes worse gas mileage, etc etc.

My question is: who at the EPA just got a big personal check from Monsanto?

If done right, this isn't a big deal, but our govt doesn't have a good track record of doing things right.

It sounds like the intent is to offer E15 as an option, not making it the standard. But that's a slippery slope.

If cars were made to use the extra ethanol correctly, I don't think it HAS to result in lower MPG. I read about a purpose-built E85 vehicle that was getting better MPG than a comparable E10 or gas only. I think it needs higher compression, right? Something like that.

Burning corn just seems like a bad idea to me... it takes a bunch of energy just to get it to a usable state. Bunch of opinions out there, but any moves to become more environmental should be in the direction of electric vehicles I feel. If we focus on ethanol then we'll be tied to it the same way we're tied to petroleum and be stuck growing sugar crops until we run out of water.

Plus, who wants gummy carbs!?

There is no "done right" with ethanol in the North American climate right now. If we could make cellulose ethanol at the production levels it promises in the lab, then perhaps. But that tech has been "5 years away" for decades now. The only crop that can currently sustain ethanol production is sugar cane, and the only places we can grow that is: Florida & Hawaii where land is too expensive to put to that use. It works in Brazil where they can plant sugar cane farms the size of small states, but not here.

As for MPG, yes ethanol HAS to get lower MPG. The energy density of Gasoline is 34.2 while Ethanol is only 24.0, it simply has less energy in each gallon. (liter whatever, choose your measuring device) Yes ethanol has a higher octane so you can run higher compression etc, but if you get all the energy you can out of a gallon of gas vs a gallon of ethanol, the gas will get you quite a bit further.

Deliberate boondoggle. Can anyone say "engineered food shortage?" I knew you could.

Things are getting really interesting, and not in a good way.

I live in Maryland but know of several stations in Pennsylvania that sell "straight" gas. If I'm in the area I always fill up with it and I do get better numbers with that gas.

That's true. What I'd like to know, though, is the power output of a gas-burning engine vs ethanol-burning engine of same displacement. If I understand it correctly, the ethanol-burner could run at much higher compression, thus getting more power. Would that offset the energy density difference? In other words . . . are ethanol engines more efficient (able to extract more usable energy per gallon of fuel)?

UPDATE: Nevermind. I think I just found my answer. It's close, but gas engines generally get better MPG when compared to E100 engines, even though E100 has higher octane. There is technology to make E100 as efficient (variable turbocharging, etc), but it sounds complicated to me, and becomes an unfair comparison.

Anyway, I'd like to see U.S. turn towards diesel more. It's already ready to go.

This summer I burned a piston on my Boat motor. I guess I can't PROVE it was due to ethanol, but the mechanic at the bat dealer told me they are seeing more and more come in.
They are suggesting using super. Ethanol SUCKS

funny, they really only have E10 around here, but I've seen a lot of people switching to E85 fuel systems and they make some really good numbers on the dyno (and a heck of an addition of timing!). I had been thinking about making the switch when it becomes more readily available, but as far as our bikes... I put in super anyways.

Oh you can make more power more easily if tuned for it out of E85 or E100 due to it's high octane. Quite a few people with my car (mazdaspeed3) have made the switch to get more power. (direct injection, high boost turbo, etc, so it's already got the tech to do it, just reprogram the ECU) But gas does have more power potential, it is just harder to get at, and as for MPG.. well when you are boosting power you generally don't care about MPG.

If everyone drove Mazdaspeed3's, Mini CooperS's (gen2+) or Nissan Jukes and reprogrammed their ECU for E85 and efficiency.. Then we probably could get similar MPG numbers out of it, and even then it is a BAD idea without cellulose based ethanol.

It takes almost as many gallons of fossil fuels to grow corn based ethanol as you get out. So rather than burning the fuel directly to move your car, it gets burned to move the tractor and to run the conversion plant and spread on the ground to fertilize the crop (look up what most fertilizers are made of).. So we STILL USE ALMOST THE SAME AMOUNT OF FOSSIL FUEL when we burn corn based ethanol, we just have more problems and more pollution out of our tailpipes. (ethanol causes more smog)

Not to mention the extra pollution from growing/converting the crop into usable ethanol, as well as the precious H2O lost in the process.

C'mon we need some farmers who support corn subsidies to join this thread, everyone's pretty much on the same page right now... ;)

Well, I'm trying to play devil's advocate . . .

There seems to be compelling arguments for and against using EtOH, and I'm ambivalent. I'm generally very conservative, but our dependence on oil is one area that I'd like to see get stirred up. I'm just not sure that EtOH is the answer. I think our government wants it to be the answer, because we are the leaders in production of EtOH, and there is a strong corn lobby. But we're doing it wrong right now, and cellulose might not be the answer either, although it's certainly better.

I'd like to see electric vehicles work, because then we can use whatever (oil, coal, EtOH, sun, wind, nuclear, water, hyperactive children, etc) as the fuel. But we will need a breakthrough in battery technology before I can rely solely on electric vehicles.

Well then corn based ethanol is certainly not the answer then, because all that does is shift the oil use from the car driver to the farmer / ethanol producer without reducing it.

It'd need more than a breakthrough, it'd need a total shift. Electric motors are AMAZING motivators, but to get the energy/lb up high enough and recharge rate fast enough to make electric cars competitive is probably going to require something more along the lines of a light SUPER high speed flywheel based battery (think millions of RPM, that might do it) vs any kind of chemical one. But they have their own problems: bearings, friction from air, explosive failures etc.

Car and Driver magazine did an editorial on ethanol production several years ago. You hit the nail on the head...exactly what was said in the editorial, except then there is the fuel burned to transport the ethanol to the refinery.

Car and Driver figured it comes out a toss up, at best, for fossil fuel use. But then you factor in the higher cost of groceries and meat, and it's ridiculous that the Feds are still pushing ethanol production.