PDA

View Full Version : Ugh, Just what we needed...



64V-K7
10-09-2018, 07:01 AM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-moves-to-allow-more-ethanol-in-gasoline-1539045001

tsenecal
10-09-2018, 10:52 AM
I agree, UGH! There needs to be more research done on the cost of production, power produced, emissions, etc. for the different fuels. Modern vehicles can obviously run ethanol, without any issues, but if it produces less power, and worse mileage, what is the point? There are other things to consider as well. Fuel burned to plant, and harvest the corn, cost to create the ethanol, and affects on the food chain. People around the world are starving, and we are turning food, into an inferior fuel. Sorry for the rant, we all have our own opinion on things. I don't do many soap box sermons, but this is one thing that seems to get under my skin.

Commander Eddie
10-09-2018, 03:15 PM
This makes me even more happy about the local Texaco station putting in a new pump for non-ethanol gasoline. My '55 President sure does love running on that stuff.
I fear the new tariffs will drive the ethanol content up further if farmers can't maintain an export market for their corn. The logic is lost on me.

6hk71400
10-09-2018, 05:19 PM
This makes me even more happy about the local Texaco station putting in a new pump for non-ethanol gasoline. My '55 President sure does love running on that stuff.
I fear the new tariffs will drive the ethanol content up further if farmers can't maintain an export market for their corn. The logic is lost on me.

When it comes to politics, regardless which side of the fence you are on, there is no logic. I vote but I do not belong to any political party. I hope this post does not get in to politics; just something we have to live with and find a work around.

Bob Miles

BobWaitz
10-09-2018, 09:01 PM
I'm lucky enough to have an ethanol free pump right around the corner from my house. I don't think upping the ethanol content in gas is a good idea.

Jeff_H
10-09-2018, 09:10 PM
For a modern daily driver, the E10 gas does not cause me any issues. For things like chain saws its a real issue and I am glad I am able to get non-ethanol for those. I live in the Fargo area and can find non-ethanol gas easily. When I go down to the farm in central MN not so much. There is a "red" pump about 25 miles from the farm so I usually bring gas with me if I am going to need some for small engines there that get infrequent use. Had a generator that would not fire a shot until I drained out over 1yr old E10 (with stabl) and put in fresh E0.

JRoberts
10-10-2018, 08:18 AM
There are a few non-ethanol stations around this area. The problem is the cost. As of yesterday it costs forty-six cents more that regular gas and about twenty cents more than high test. I try to fill up with the non-ethenol stuff whenever I can as if you get too far out of town the non-ethanol stuff is not available.

dleroux
10-10-2018, 03:39 PM
Again, as has been discussed numerous times, if it takes MORE than a gallon of fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol it's impossible to be ahead. Less power, worse mileage, more CO2 being emitted, and we're all supposed to accept that ethanol laced fuel is akin to being Green and somehow good for the planet? Good for Archer Daniels Midland's pocketbook, but the rest of us...

Commander Eddie
10-10-2018, 03:41 PM
When it comes to politics, regardless which side of the fence you are on, there is no logic. I vote but I do not belong to any political party. I hope this post does not get in to politics; just something we have to live with and find a work around.

Bob Miles

I could not agree more, Bob. We just need to stay out of the weeds and look for solutions.

jnormanh
10-10-2018, 03:52 PM
For a modern daily driver, the E10 gas does not cause me any issues. For things like chain saws its a real issue and I am glad I am able to get non-ethanol for those. I live in the Fargo area and can find non-ethanol gas easily. When I go down to the farm in central MN not so much. There is a "red" pump about 25 miles from the farm so I usually bring gas with me if I am going to need some for small engines there that get infrequent use. Had a generator that would not fire a shot until I drained out over 1yr old E10 (with stabl) and put in fresh E0.

My experience is different. All my 2-stroke engines run just fine on E10, as do all my cars, ranging in age from 1959 to 2004. My 4-stroke generator runs just fine too, although I always leave it with the tank dry. I put a pint of fuel in it once every two months, fire it up and let it run dry. I wouldn't leave any fuel in anything for a year - that's just asking for condensation and trouble IMO.

jnormanh
10-10-2018, 03:56 PM
Again, as has been discussed numerous times, if it takes MORE than a gallon of fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol it's impossible to be ahead. Less power, worse mileage, more CO2 being emitted, and we're all supposed to accept that ethanol laced fuel is akin to being Green and somehow good for the planet? Good for Archer Daniels Midland's pocketbook, but the rest of us...

It's good for ADM, true, and especially it's good for corn growers. Get rid of E10 and they'll be drowning in corn.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/

64V-K7
10-10-2018, 04:17 PM
E-10 corn gas yields 10-15% less gas mileage ....
Imagine what E-15 gas will do for your 20-60K investment besides 20-25% less mileage...
EPA advisories state that cars from 2001 on can use E-15 / My 2006 Owners manual states nothing above E-10.. Where do they get their mandate? ...
( deleted statement regarding our representatives, since you can't say anything political)

rockne10
10-11-2018, 07:35 PM
Disregarding any argument for or against ethanol, of which there are many; why must we make it out of our food, rather than something like the kudzu that is now smothering more than 8 million acres of the country to no apparent benefit?

jnormanh
10-11-2018, 07:58 PM
Disregarding any argument for or against ethanol, of which there are many; why must we make it out of our food, rather than something like the kudzu that is now smothering more than 8 million acres of the country to no apparent benefit?

The value of corn as a feedstock for ethanol production is due to the large amount of carbohydrates, specifically starch, present in corn. Starch can be rather easily processed to break it down into simple sugars, which can then be fed to yeast to produce ethanol.

There's virtually nothing fermentable in Kudzu. One could use other grains - wheat, rye, barley, soybeans, or sugar cane, etc, but the cost/benefit is best with corn.

You can't fatten cattle or make booze from Kudzu either. Virtually no starch and no sugar.

However you can become world famous and richer than Bill Gates if you can find a way to extract value from Kudzu.

jnormanh
10-12-2018, 12:58 PM
E-10 corn gas yields 10-15% less gas mileage ....
Imagine what E-15 gas will do for your 20-60K investment besides 20-25% less mileage...


I have to ask where you got those numbers 10-15% less mileage on E10, and 20-25% less mileage on E15.

According to this site, the numbers are 3-4% less on E10 and 4-5% less on E15. Those numbers are from here:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml

This site says 3%-4% less on E10

https://www.cars.com/articles/2013/12/another-reason-your-mileage-may-vary-for-the-worse-ethanol/

And those numbers are what stoichiometry calculations predict. Yes, I have a BS in Chemistry and I can do the math.

I can't find any reputable site that says anything close to 20-25% for E15. Are you perhaps thinking about E85? That would be about 25%

I run E10 in my 1996 Cadillac and it does 20-23 Hwy MPG just like it did on 100% gasoline. Is it actually 3% less? Maybe, but a difference of 0.6 mpg is impossible for me to notice.

daytonadave
10-12-2018, 06:37 PM
I drove through Iowa last June and the Gas Stations are already selling E-15 in Regular and Mid-Grade. I was glad that Premium was Ethanol-Free.

jnormanh
10-12-2018, 08:15 PM
I drove through Iowa last June and the Gas Stations are already selling E-15 in Regular and Mid-Grade. I was glad that Premium was Ethanol-Free.

If your concern is fuel mileage, I don't get it.

If your fuel mileage on 100% gasoline is 20 mpg, then you'll burn 5 gallons every 100 miles.

If E-15 reduces your fuel mileage by 5% to 19 mpg, then you'll burn 5.26 gallons every 100 miles.

What's that worth?

Skip Lackie
10-13-2018, 07:59 AM
The issue of reduced gas mileage (though real when multiplied by the number of miles driven nationwide) is only part of the problem. Coupla facts:
1. Oxygenated fuels were first mandated in the early 90s when the oxygenate of choice was MTBE. Ethanol was added as an optional oxygenate as a way to gain the support of grain-belt members of Congress. MTBE was cheap to produce and reduced gas mileage by only a tiny amount (compared to ethanol). Unfortunately, MTBE got into water wells and was a carcinogen, so its use was banned after a few years.
2. The move to use ethanol was then endorsed as a way to reduce the amount of oil imported from sometimes-unfriendly nations and replace it with a renewable product that could be grown in the US.
3. Ethanol-laced fuel does have a deleterious effect on some fuel-system components of older vehicles and other gas-fueled equipment (I have a perfectly good chain saw that I can't use because E10 makes the filler cap swell up to the point that it won't fit). Increasing the amount of ethanol in oxygenated fuels will exacerbate these problems.
4. There has never been a definitive study that showed that the use of E10 actually reduces air pollution. Modern automotive technology has had a much greater impact on both mileage and tailpipe emissions.
5. The US is now a net exporter of petroleum, undermining the argument that the use of ethanol-fuel would reduce our dependence on imported foreign oil.
6. No one had (or has) actually calculated whether it takes more petroleum to grow, ship, distill, and manufacture ethanol-laced fuel than it saves when burned in motor vehicles.
7. The ethanol mandate is a cost that is imposed rather randomly on part of the population for no proven benefit except to enrich some corn farmers and the ethanol-distillers. It is a political decision that is not based on science.

jclary
10-13-2018, 08:32 AM
The issue of reduced gas mileage (though real when multiplied by the number of miles driven nationwide) is only part of the problem. Coupla facts:
1. Oxygenated fuels were first mandated in the early 90s when the oxygenate of choice was MTBE. Ethanol was added as an optional oxygenate as a way to gain the support of grain-belt members of Congress. MTBE was cheap to produce and reduced gas mileage by only a tiny amount (compared to ethanol). Unfortunately, MTBE got into water wells and was a carcinogen, so its use was banned after a few years.
2. The move to use ethanol was then endorsed as a way to reduce the amount of oil imported from sometimes-unfriendly nations and replace it with a renewable product that could be grown in the US.
3. Ethanol-laced fuel does have a deleterious effect on some fuel-system components of older vehicles and other gas-fueled equipment (I have a perfectly good chain saw that I can't use because E10 makes the filler cap swell up to the point that it won't fit). Increasing the amount of ethanol in oxygenated fuels will exacerbate these problems.
4. There has never been a definitive study that showed that the use of E10 actually reduces air pollution. Modern automotive technology has had a much greater impact on both mileage and tailpipe emissions.
5. The US is now a net exporter of petroleum, undermining the argument that the use of ethanol-fuel would reduce our dependence on imported foreign oil.
6. No one had (or has) actually calculated whether it takes more petroleum to grow, ship, distill, and manufacture ethanol-laced fuel than it saves when burned in motor vehicles.
7. The ethanol mandate is a cost that is imposed rather randomly on part of the population for no proven benefit except to enrich some corn farmers and the ethanol-distillers. It is a political decision that is not based on science.

And...try as we might avoid political discourse on this forum...it is difficult when it directly impacts our Studebaker interests. Thanks Skip for laying it out.

For me, at this time, I intend to keep an open mind as long as I have alternatives. For example, I have several locations where I can buy 89 octane ethanol free gas and use it in my vintage vehicles and implement engines. For my BMW motorcycle, I have at least two places (in reasonable distance) that supply ethanol free premium 93 octane gas. The motorcycle manual does not call for ethanol free but does specify premium. I buy the ethanol free because the computer on the BMW reads out better mileage (over 50mpg) when using the ethanol free gas.

For those who might live in areas where alternatives are not available...time to call, write, squeal, and lobby for the ability to choose. In the manner Skip has done, no need to blast away with hysterical behavior, but lay out your case. Failure to reach out to those who can make the policy makes complaining among ourselves futile and useless.

Gunslinger
10-13-2018, 08:46 AM
My understanding...and I'm no expert of any kind on the subject...is that sugar is a more efficient compound for making ethanol or anything like it. But we import sugar and don't import corn, so it was an economic decision as well as political to use home grown corn rather than imported sugar for processing the fuel.

Politics is is involved in all decisions, not simply economic or scientific ones. That can be argued both good and bad depending on one's point of view such as whether you're an American corn grower, a lobbyist for a sugar producing country or someone strictly interested in producing the product in the most efficient manner.

jnormanh
10-13-2018, 08:51 AM
The ethanol mandate is a cost that is imposed rather randomly on part of the population for no proven benefit except to enrich some corn farmers and the ethanol-distillers. It is a political decision that is not based on science.

There's a lot of truth in that, but the corn farmers love it, and the politicians from those states love it.

There are more states where corn production is important than there are oil producing states.

Democracy at work.

Skip Lackie
10-14-2018, 08:01 AM
There's a lot of truth in that, but the corn farmers love it, and the politicians from those states love it.

There are more states where corn production is important than there are oil producing states.

Democracy at work.

I do not doubt that most politicians would agree with your last three words -- and a lot of other Americans would, too. But I am naive enough to believe that those in "public service" should not just represent their own constituents, but should also aspire to serve and defend all citizens for the benefit of all. Yes, corn-state legislators should defend their corn farmers against discriminatory or unfair legislation or regulations. But giving those farmers an undeserved subsidy and passing the costs along to others just to ensure one's own reelection is not democracy.

jnormanh
10-14-2018, 10:03 AM
But I am naive enough to believe that those in "public service" should not just represent their own constituents, but should also aspire to serve and defend all citizens for the benefit of all.

I'd love to see politics work that way, but it does not. The one thing politicians want more than anything else is being reelected, and to do that, they have to appeal to voters in their state, regardless of what is good for the country as a whole. You cannot be opposed to ethanol and get elected in the corn belt.

There's "Democracy" which we all hold dear, or at least give lip service to, and then there's CYA.

Buzzard
10-14-2018, 11:45 AM
We commute twice annually from British Columbia to Arizona and vice versa in a 2005 Yukon XL Denali, 6.0L AWD. We use only back roads so not a constant interstate cruise speed. I keep a log, use premium fuels and when I can procure Non-Ethanol premium, I gain approximately 2 to 2 1/2 MPG. The difference in power is probably more my imagination than reality. Yesterday I solved next springs' fuel dilemma by dragging home my Tidy Tank with 150 US gallons of 91 Octane Non-ethanol fuel before the price rises. I have zero fuel issues in all our small motors as well as Studes. There are more and more stations promoting that they have Non-Ethanol fuel available but is mostly premium, not regular.
Bill

rockne10
10-14-2018, 06:00 PM
The one thing politicians want more than anything else is being reelected, and to do that, they have to appeal to voters in their state, regardless of what is good for the country as a whole. ... There's "Democracy" which we all hold dear, or at least give lip service to, and then there's CYA.I've always thought our founders' intentions were that the "representatives" in the House of Representatives were responsible for representing the wishes of the voters in their districts, without regard for the greater good of the country as a whole; while the "Senators" in the Senate were expected to be the "statesmen", weighing the greater good for the country. Hence the reason representatives are voted every two years and senators every six; in addition extending a check and balance to the legislative branch. A brilliant concept.
Of course the thought that anything would be as intended is pretty naïve, as they all seem to represent only those who can afford them.:o

bumpkinvilledano
10-15-2018, 12:15 PM
I've always thought our founders' intentions were that the "representatives" in the House of Representatives were responsible for representing the wishes of the voters in their districts, without regard for the greater good of the country as a whole; while the "Senators" in the Senate were expected to be the "statesmen", weighing the greater good for the country. Hence the reason representatives are voted every two years and senators every six; in addition extending a check and balance to the legislative branch. A brilliant concept.
Of course the thought that anything would be as intended is pretty naïve, as they all seem to represent only those who can afford them.:o

See attached. Political corruption has been around as long as there have been politicians.

https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/17th-amendment

lugamatic
10-15-2018, 05:07 PM
Boys, you can rant all you want about ethanol , but if you are a corn farmer , thank god and greyhound for it.

Skip Lackie
10-15-2018, 05:48 PM
Corruption has been around for centuries, but elections awash with money are relatively new. And there's a reason our elected representatives work so hard to raise money to stay in office.

1. There's no real work. They do almost nothing -- the Congressional staff of ~20,000 people does all the real crafting of legislation.
2. They only "work" Tuesday noon to Thursday afternoon, and they recess for all known holidays plus the whole month of August through Labor Day. This works out to about 100 days of work a year and 265 days off. Compare that to your work schedule.
3. Most will retire to become lobbyists, where the base salary is about $1M a year and the work is actually less stressful than being in Congress (and nearly every meal and drink is on an expense account).
4. They can't even get the minimum done, even with all those staffers doing the real work. Beginning in the 1960s, TV advertising became the most expensive part of running for office. As a result, Congress spent so much time fund-raising that they found it difficult to pass an annual budget by 30 June, the end of the fiscal year. In 1976, they added three months to that fiscal year by changing the end to 30 September. With the extra three months this provided (this one time), they passed the 77 budget on time. But they only managed to do that three more times over the next 40 years. Passing an annual budget is one of the few things that Constitution requires the Congress to do. Most of the rest are "may".
5. Finally, they live a plush life style. Good salary, nice offices, huge travel budget, reserved parking, subsidized meals, swimming pool, gym etc. And nearly everyone treats them with respect. Big ego boost.

No wonder they like it.

BobPalma
10-15-2018, 05:52 PM
"And nearly everyone treats them with respect."

;) Thankfully, Skip, you included the word nearly. I would opine that the percentage that constitutes "nearly" is shrinking. :mad: :cool: BP