10% Ethanol, Heads Up!

[keegs]

The water supply was home owners wells. Nothing managed by a government entity.

The G'ment only slight responsibility was in the failure to properly regulate the underground fuel tanks AND the requirement to use MTBE which is highly water soluble. The station with the leaking fuel tank was the entity that was mostly at fault but the problem with fuel tank leaks like this is that many times the company has long gone out of business and there are no funds available from the company to fix the problem.

In this case the county brought in water lines to the effect houses. I cannot remember if they home owners had to pay.

Later,
Dan

Dan,

The government mandated an oxygenate but never required it to be MTBE. That was the industry's decision. You may want to check me on this but as I recall it, the feedstock for the compound is a by product of the refining process and would otherwise have been handled as hazardous waste.

There was a battle royal during the Bush years over whether and by how much there should be a limit on the industry's liability for MTBE contamination. Again it's been a while but I think the republicans lost that battle which if that's in fact the case, may be of some consolation to those who suffered a loss.

 

[mmurphy]

CBO is the Congressional Budget Office. It usually is above the political fray. Even if the number is wrong it is hard to believe that it would be hugely wrong.

Later,
Dan

Hhhhmmmm! Do you want to beleive that also? I have not even heard die hard conservatives cry about that amount. If it is true some ones fingers are in the cookie jar.(Goldman Sachs??? They seem to play both sides real well!)
Just a couple hours ago, I heard on the radio, it was a push for bio diesel about they made in to the positive numbers of energy produced compared to neg values of petroleum.
Now even though I am a supporter of biofuels, it is that kind of crap that goes on both sides that makes it hard for me to trust studies that some corporation has funded a college professor or who ever is a brain wiz with a degree that thinks they can pull bull crap over the working class people they wipe there feet on. Well, that was good therapy, I feel better already!
Just look at the news. One week we are heading for a double dip recession. The next week, things look a little more optimistic. Two different studies I am sure.

 

[timswi]

The CBO is usually in the ballpark..Not always correct. This is a current useage report not a forcast. So I'm going to say that they are not that far off.

Keep in mind that cash subsidies are used to make a non-profitable product profitable, think of the current so called green energies, even Spain is backing off of them given that they have no way to stand on their own. They drain cash for a desired outcome.

Tax subsidies are used so as not to hammer profits already being made....A VERY big difference.

My mileage drops more that 2-3% probably 8-10%

I just ducked that beer bottle someone threw at me

 

[mmurphy]

No beer bottles thrown here:thumbsup:
The truth is, it is a good thing not every one agrees all the time. It keeps things more open. I would rather people do have a mind of their own.
Some vehicles will lose mileage and others will not.

 

[masscity]

We have both ethanol and non-ethanol here. I drive my Dodge diesel, but

buy non-ethanol for my small gas engines, because of what I've read on

these forums.

My buddy has a Kawasaki enduro 450 that he drives to work a lot.

With ethanol he gets 51 mpg and with non-ethanol he gets 60 mpg.

 

[Skyco]

The truth is, it is a good thing not every one agrees all the time. It keeps things more open. I would rather people do have a mind of their own.
Some vehicles will lose mileage and others will not.

See thats the thing- if people had a CHOICE in what fuel to buy I'd be all in favor of ethanol laced fuel, those that want it can have it, and those that don't want it aren't being forced to buy it.

The industry should look at swapping all the mid grade pumps to deliver ethanol laced regular grade fuel, have regular unleaded 100% petroleum in the regular pumps, and high test 100% petroleum in the premium pumps.
I wouldn't miss the mid-grade, in fact you can make your own if you insist on it, buy 70% regular and 30% premium and voila- mid grade. What you didn't know it didn't take a 50/50 mix to get the mid octane even though they price it like it does?

Price them all according to what it actually costs to make it, let people decide which they'll buy. What a concept

 

[MossRoad]

It takes one bushel of corn to make 2.8 gallons of ethanol.
There are 76,000 BTUs in a gallon of ethanol.
2.8 x 76,000 = 212,800 BTUs in the ethanol we made from one bushel of corn.

There are between 7500 and 8500 BTUs in a pound of corn.
There are 56 pounds of corn in a bushel.
7500BTU x 56lb = 420,000BTU
8500BTU x 56lb = 476,000BTU
Using the lower rate of 420,000BTU lets subtract the BTUs in the ethanol we made above from the BTUs in the raw bushel of corn.

420,000 - 212,000 = 208,000

We LOST 208,000 BTU by converting the corn into ethanol.
We LOST 50% of the available energy in that bushel of corn!

What's so hard to understand about those numbers? Converting corn into liquid automobile fuel loses energy. It does not gain energy.

 

[timswi]

It takes one bushel of corn to make 2.8 gallons of ethanol.
There are 76,000 BTUs in a gallon of ethanol.
2.8 x 76,000 = 212,800 BTUs in the ethanol we made from one bushel of corn.

There are between 7500 and 8500 BTUs in a pound of corn.
There are 56 pounds of corn in a bushel.
7500BTU x 56lb = 420,000BTU
8500BTU x 56lb = 476,000BTU
Using the lower rate of 420,000BTU lets subtract the BTUs in the ethanol we made above from the BTUs in the raw bushel of corn.

420,000 - 212,000 = 208,000

We LOST 208,000 BTU by converting the corn into ethanol.
We LOST 50% of the available energy in that bushel of corn!

What's so hard to understand about those numbers? Converting corn into liquid automobile fuel loses energy. It does not gain energy.

A moderator in the fight...I like it.:thumbsup:

 

[mmurphy]

It takes one bushel of corn to make 2.8 gallons of ethanol.
There are 76,000 BTUs in a gallon of ethanol.
2.8 x 76,000 = 212,800 BTUs in the ethanol we made from one bushel of corn.

There are between 7500 and 8500 BTUs in a pound of corn.
There are 56 pounds of corn in a bushel.
7500BTU x 56lb = 420,000BTU
8500BTU x 56lb = 476,000BTU
Using the lower rate of 420,000BTU lets subtract the BTUs in the ethanol we made above from the BTUs in the raw bushel of corn.

420,000 - 212,000 = 208,000

We LOST 208,000 BTU by converting the corn into ethanol.
We LOST 50% of the available energy in that bushel of corn!

What's so hard to understand about those numbers? Converting corn into liquid automobile fuel loses energy. It does not gain energy.

Good analogy but, remember the best part of the corn is going back to DDG for feed value to cattle. Last I remember on the petroleum side, it takes lots of energy also to make it in the fuel tank.

Skyco, Iowa being one of the big producers of ethanol, does have the choice for ethanol laced or regular gas.:thumbsup:

 

[MossRoad]

Good analogy but, remember the best part of the corn is going back to DDG for feed value to cattle. Last I remember on the petroleum side, it takes lots of energy also to make it in the fuel tank.

Skyco, Iowa being one of the big producers of ethanol, does have the choice for ethanol laced or regular gas.:thumbsup:

If we would burn the corn to heat our homes we could burn the natural gas in our cars. That would maximize the BTUs in the corn and and lessen our use of foreign oil. The U.S. has ample supplies of natural gas and corn. We just need to use them in the most efficient ways.

 

[MossRoad]

A moderator in the fight...I like it.:thumbsup:

Being a moderator has nothing to do with the discussion. As a moderator, my duties are to move misplaced threads, delete spam and spammers and remove unsavory language... non of which has happened in this discussion as of yet.

 

[timswi]

Being a moderator has nothing to do with the discussion. As a moderator, my duties are to move misplaced threads, delete spam and spammers and remove unsavory language... non of which has happened in this discussion as of yet.

I know...I still like it though.

 

[two_bit_score]

I'm not sure how long we've had the ethanol in our gas, and I wouldn't know where to get any as without ethanol, but I, too, have had no problems at all so far (knock on wood).

Just try finding gasoline without ethanol these days, impossible.

 

[two_bit_score]

If we would burn the corn to heat our homes we could burn the natural gas in our cars. That would maximize the BTUs in the corn and and lessen our use of foreign oil. The U.S. has ample supplies of natural gas and corn. We just need to use them in the most efficient ways.

I really favor feeding corn not burning it in any way. But I appreciate you
seeing the sense in using our natural gas resources wisely.

IMHO, that is the greatest tragedy of the current political situation, that we have not seized the opportunities put in front of us with our natural gas resources.

Charlie Munger with Berkshire Hathaway said that if you have the energy you can solve a lot of problems. Well, we have the energy but we've been stuck in mud and haven't solved many problems.

 

[mmurphy]

If we would burn the corn to heat our homes we could burn the natural gas in our cars. That would maximize the BTUs in the corn and and lessen our use of foreign oil. The U.S. has ample supplies of natural gas and corn. We just need to use them in the most efficient ways.

I do agree with that. I was burning corn for about 4 years, then price of corn went up. I burned wood and ran propane for the last couple, but am switching back to corn with propane this winter.
Another thing I would like to see is methane hydrates being researched for collecting. If we were to take as proof of a documentary I seen (think PBS) the methane hydrates at the bottom of the ocean would power the world at current energy demand for 2000 years. If some one else has heard this, I hope they chime in on this too.
The collection process seems to be the problem. As we even seen with the gulf leak disaster, it can be a real problem to get up for plugging.

 

[MikeInMaine]

Yeah,,here you,,I've been buying highest test,,and putting marine stable in weed eaters/chain saws/lawnmowers,,,not having much problems now,,,[yet again],,try that,,,might help....

Same here. I bought a new chainsaw last year and was advised to use highest test available and mix with marine sta-bil. I do this for all the gas that goes in the string trimmer, chainsaw, and lawn tractor. The ethanol is a solvent, and older machines may still have adverse reactions to it. Also, you might need to keep on top of any inline fuel filters, as they can collect the water which bonds with the ethanol and separates from the gas.

 

[MossRoad]

Good analogy but, remember the best part of the corn is going back to DDG for feed value to cattle. Last I remember on the petroleum side, it takes lots of energy also to make it in the fuel tank.

Skyco, Iowa being one of the big producers of ethanol, does have the choice for ethanol laced or regular gas.:thumbsup:

Yes. The feed is produced as a byproduct of the corn to ethanol process. So is carbon dioxide, which they capture and put into soda pop (as well as other uses). There is a U.S. Carbonic (I think that is the name) plant right next door to the ethanol plant here is South Bend, In.

A couple things to think about...
If we are going to grow the corn for feed or fuel we cannot consider the energy needed to grow the corn because that is going to be the same either way.

If we feed the corn directly to the cattle, there is little BTU energy lost.
If we send it to an ethanol plant we lose BTUs while creating the ethanol and the feed and the industrial gases. There would be little energy lost if we just fed the cattle the raw corn. (I ain't a farmer, so can you feed cattle raw corn? I just don't know).

On the petroleum side, if we burned natural gas in our cars, there would be little BTU cost in making it usable in the cars, whereas there are costs and substantial BTU losses making oil into gasoline or diesel fuel.

Every time we convert something into another form we lose a ton of BTU energy in the conversion process.

Every time we eliminate a step of converting something, we save a ton of BTU energy. We should be looking at ways to burn things in their raw state instead of converting them for current technology.

Personally, I think we should be investing in nuclear plants and make all homes heat with electricity. If cars like the Chevy Volt pan out, we can drive around town on an electric charge and drive longer distances on natural gas. We could all eat grain fed beef and sell the U.S. oil to China!

 

[Duffster]

Yes. The feed is produced as a byproduct of the corn to ethanol process. So is carbon dioxide, which they capture and put into soda pop (as well as other uses). There is a U.S. Carbonic (I think that is the name) plant right next door to the ethanol plant here is South Bend, In.

A couple things to think about...
If we are going to grow the corn for feed or fuel we cannot consider the energy needed to grow the corn because that is going to be the same either way.

If we feed the corn directly to the cattle, there is little BTU energy lost.
If we send it to an ethanol plant we lose BTUs while creating the ethanol and the feed and the industrial gases. There would be little energy lost if we just fed the cattle the raw corn. (I ain't a farmer, so can you feed cattle raw corn? I just don't know).

On the petroleum side, if we burned natural gas in our cars, there would be little BTU cost in making it usable in the cars, whereas there are costs and substantial BTU losses making oil into gasoline or diesel fuel.

Every time we convert something into another form we lose a ton of BTU energy in the conversion process.

Every time we eliminate a step of converting something, we save a ton of BTU energy. We should be looking at ways to burn things in their raw state instead of converting them for current technology.

Personally, I think we should be investing in nuclear plants and make all homes heat with electricity. If cars like the Chevy Volt pan out, we can drive around town on an electric charge and drive longer distances on natural gas. We could all eat grain fed beef and sell the U.S. oil to China!

Yes cattle are fed raw corn. Usually milled but raw.

I think you are missing Murphy's point that cattle don't use all of the "BTU" in the corn. So to a certain extent ethanol can be made with no lost BTUs.

You compared the energy lost in ethanol to the use of NG. I am assuming that NG has to be converted or compressed to be used. How much energy is used to do that?

One advantage to ethanol that is seldom mentioned is the fact that you are converting non motor fuels like NG and coal into a motor fuel.

 

[John_Mc]

...What's it worth to have 10% of our motor fuels produced domestically instead of in some unstable part of the world?

It might be worth something, if we actually gained a measure of fuel independence by burning E10. I know that's not the case for me. One of my cars gets 9% worse fuel mileage when burning E10 vs pure gas. The other at best gets 10% worse mileage with E10. I've checked this over multiple tanks of fuel in each car. Yes, the experiments are not 100% controlled, since the driving for each tank of gas may differ, but the results are that the E10 always results in about 9 or 10+% worse mileage in my cars.

A friend has kept very detailed records over an extended period of time for mileage in 3 different cars with E10 vs non-ethanol gas, and gets between 8 to 11% worse mileage with E10.

All of these cars were manufactured between 2002 and 2009, so have been manufactured long after E10 came on the scene nationally.

How is this helping us become more independent from mid-east oil? I might as well be buying 10% air.

 

[keegs]

It might be worth something, if we actually gained a measure of fuel independence by burning E10. I know that's not the case for me. One of my cars gets 9% worse fuel mileage when burning E10 vs pure gas. The other at best gets 10% worse mileage with E10. I've checked this over multiple tanks of fuel in each car. Yes, the experiments are not 100% controlled, since the driving for each tank of gas may differ, but the results are that the E10 always results in about 9 or 10+% worse mileage in my cars.

A friend has kept very detailed records over an extended period of time for mileage in 3 different cars with E10 vs non-ethanol gas, and gets between 8 to 11% worse mileage with E10.

All of these cars were manufactured between 2002 and 2009, so have been manufactured long after E10 came on the scene nationally.

How is this helping us become more independent from mid-east oil? I might as well be buying 10% air.

John,

As in the individual experiences, perceptions, pre-conceived notions... regarding ethanol and small engine failures, it's certainly possible that one could experience such a reduction in fuel mileage with E10 but I'd suggest to you that these are on the margins.

Most reports that I've read on this and my own experience suggests that there's a small reduction in mileage with E10, perhaps in the 1.5% range but no greater than 3%.

Off the top of my head what your numbers suggest to me is that either there's zero energy content in ethanol, that it somehow inhibits the combustion of the gasoline content of the E10 formulate or that it in some other way is causing your engine to perform suboptimally. I know for a fact that the first two are just not the case.

Over the past year or so the Chinese car market has become the largest in the world. I'm sure India at some point in the not so distant future will be competing for that distinction. Such developments will only increase pressure on price and availability of our motor fuel supply here in the US. As I mentioned, Brazil's experience certainly suggests that ethanol is a viable alternative.