Ethanol

[Aage M Hollander]

My 1999 Sub legacy St.Wgn(4 cyl,Not an Outback),allows use of 10% Ethanol by
the book.Allstations here have 15% ethanol,could I use this ??

 

[Valued Corporate #120,345 Employee (B A R R Y)]

My 1999 Sub legacy St.Wgn(4 cyl,Not an Outback),allows use of 10% Ethanol by
the book.Allstations here have 15% ethanol,could I use this ??

What other choice do you have?

 

[Uncle Ben]

My 1999 Sub legacy St.Wgn(4 cyl,Not an Outback),allows use of 10% Ethanol by
the book.Allstations here have 15% ethanol,could I use this ??

I don't know why the car manuals say that. Brazilian cars all use
ethanol up to 24% without a problem.

My manual (1999 OBW) says the same thing, but I'm running E60 (60%
eth) after an after-market conversion and plan to go to E85. I think
the lawyers make them say that.

Try it and watch your check-engine light. If it doesn't go on after
100 miles, forget about it and enjoy the improved acceleration. You
will probably get fewer mpg but more mpd (miles per dollar).

Ben

 

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

I don't know why the car manuals say that. Brazilian cars all use
ethanol up to 24% without a problem.

My manual (1999 OBW) says the same thing, but I'm running E60 (60%
eth) after an after-market conversion and plan to go to E85. I think
the lawyers make them say that.

Try it and watch your check-engine light. If it doesn't go on after
100 miles, forget about it and enjoy the improved acceleration. You
will probably get fewer mpg but more mpd (miles per dollar).

Ben

And without conversion most cars will NOT see any better
accelleration. ANd with E15 being the only game in town, it will sell
for the same price as any other gasoline-type fuel, so no improvement
in miles per dollar.

Here in Ontario E10 or E15 or E0 all sells for the same price, and in
many cases you have no way (short of the phase separation test) to
know WHAT you are buying.


If burning Ethanol makes you feel good, fine - but in MOST cases in
Canada and most of the states, expecting any fuel savings or improved
performance is a pipe dream.

I just wish you didn't expect the rest of the country (and the world)
to pay for your "elixir" in higher food prices.

 

[Valued Corporate #120,345 Employee (B A R R Y)]

And without conversion most cars will NOT see any better
accelleration. ANd with E15 being the only game in town, it will sell
for the same price as any other gasoline-type fuel, so no improvement
in miles per dollar.

Great point.

"Miles per Dollar" is something that should be promoted more. In my
eyes it's _the_ way for the driver to look at fuel economy. It's very
common to look at aircraft efficiency via MPD, because pilots can
choose between max power, max range, or something in-between throttle
settings.

I have a Toyota pickup that gets better "MPD" on 92+ octane premium
(based on actual 10 tank tests), and I'm tired of explaining it to
people. The year my truck was built, Toyota "recommended" premium
fuel, but didn't require it. So I did some 10 consecutive tanks
tests and did the math, and by golly, premium is cheaper to run.

Many vehicles get awful mileage on E85. Some hybrids carry a hefty
purchase premium. Sometimes the math works, sometimes it doesn't, but
many don't bother to do the math.

The important thing is to do the math and skip the style... <G>

 

[Uncle Ben]

I just wish you didn't expect the rest of the country (and the world)
to pay for your "elixir" in higher food prices.

The cost of food world-wide has risen mainly because of the cost of
energy, mainly gasoline and diesel. These fuels have doubled in price
in only a few years.

The US Dept. of Agriculture estimates that diversion of corn to
ethanol production is at most responsible for a 5% rise in the cost of
food.

Clare, look further ahead! The price of oil is not going to go back
to where it was. The world is running out of cheap oil. We need
alternative liquid fuels in order to mitigate the disaster that is
approaching as production from the world's oil wells slow down. It
may already be happening. What will happen to world food prices when
gasoline is $15 per gallon?

Ben

 

[Uncle Ben]

Clare, I see by another of your posts that you are not opposed to
ethanol as long as it is not derived from food sources.

We can agree on that. Cellulosic ethanol is hard to make cheaply, but
maybe that will change. On the other hand, methanol is not hard to
make cheaply from sawdust, old newspapers, and the like. I hope FFV's
can run on methanol as well.

May it come along soon!

Cheers,
Ben

 

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

Great point.

"Miles per Dollar" is something that should be promoted more. In my
eyes it's _the_ way for the driver to look at fuel economy. It's very
common to look at aircraft efficiency via MPD, because pilots can
choose between max power, max range, or something in-between throttle
settings.

I have a Toyota pickup that gets better "MPD" on 92+ octane premium
(based on actual 10 tank tests), and I'm tired of explaining it to
people. The year my truck was built, Toyota "recommended" premium
fuel, but didn't require it. So I did some 10 consecutive tanks
tests and did the math, and by golly, premium is cheaper to run.

Many vehicles get awful mileage on E85. Some hybrids carry a hefty
purchase premium. Sometimes the math works, sometimes it doesn't, but
many don't bother to do the math.

The important thing is to do the math and skip the style... <G>

Yes, MANY vehicles will get better fuel economy on premium, and back
when the difference was 5 or 10 cents a gallon it was OFTEN cheaper to
run these vehicles on premium fuel. With the price difference here in
ontario at 5% from 87 to 89, and another 5% more or less from 89 to
91, you need to get at least a 10% improvement in fuel economy for the
price to work out to a savings. I've almost never seen a 10%
improvement in fuel economy on an unmodified OBD2 equipped vehicle, or
even on an ALDL or OBD1 system. If you can buy premium for a 6% price
penalty, you win ( or, as in the case with Shell in Ontario, where
their Premium (Gold) gas has NO ethanol, and their regular is E10,
+/-, the 5% loss in fuel economy from using ethanol 87 R+M/2 means you
only need 5% improvement from the 4 points of octane to make it make
sense.

On my 3.8 Pontiac (1994, so pre OBD2, but still a rather sophisticated
SEFI system) premium reduces my knock count significantly, but since
even on 87 I'm not seeing any spark retard from the knock count
premium isn't likely to make a noticeable difference. I've got a tank
of 91 in right now trying to diagnose a light throttle surge at about
90kph (1600 rpm in 4th gear) and that's how I've gotten the knock
count info. Still surging on premium, no anomolies on the scanner
(data-streaming)but the surge SEAMS to go away when I disconnect the
single pintle electrically controlled EGR valve - so I suspect it's a
programming problem where the factory dialed in the EGR too early.
(the truck had had the problem as long as I've owned it - which means
the brand new engine installed when I got it has ALWAYS had the
problem - 100,000 km now on the engine and 368000 on the van). Passes
DriveClean with flying colours too. Better now than when the engine
was new (all 3 readings down to about half what they were when the
engine went in)

If I could get rid of that surge the gas mileage might improve from an
average of 13.5 l/100km.

 

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

The cost of food world-wide has risen mainly because of the cost of
energy, mainly gasoline and diesel. These fuels have doubled in price
in only a few years.

The US Dept. of Agriculture estimates that diversion of corn to
ethanol production is at most responsible for a 5% rise in the cost of
food.

Clare, look further ahead! The price of oil is not going to go back
to where it was. The world is running out of cheap oil. We need
alternative liquid fuels in order to mitigate the disaster that is
approaching as production from the world's oil wells slow down. It
may already be happening. What will happen to world food prices when
gasoline is $15 per gallon?

Ben

If the price of Gasoline was $100 a gallon and we were producing
ethanol from non-food crops, and particularly from low fertilizer
intensive non-food crops(like legume straw) and waste, food prices
would not be as high as they are today (assuming the cost of natural
gas used to produce fertilizer did not follow the gasoline price)

The USDA estimates re the cost of feedgrains due to ethanol production
WILL be found to be grossly understated. I have farmer friends. The
fuel price is not NEARLY the whole picture. The fertilizer price
definitely comes into it - but vast increases in the production of
corn means a LOT more fertilizer is required - which puts the price up
even more than it would be just because of the oil price.

Using foodgrains for fuel is criminally irrisponsible in today's
world.Particularly as in-efficient a plant as corn.

 

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

Clare, I see by another of your posts that you are not opposed to
ethanol as long as it is not derived from food sources.

We can agree on that. Cellulosic ethanol is hard to make cheaply, but
maybe that will change. On the other hand, methanol is not hard to
make cheaply from sawdust, old newspapers, and the like. I hope FFV's
can run on methanol as well.

May it come along soon!

Cheers,
Ben

Methanol has other SERIOUS problems as a motor fuel. All of which
could likely be minimized with proper development.
First of all, it is extremely toxic (if swallowed)(but so is gasoline
- which is, however, much less palatable). Second of all it is
extremely agressive against most common materials used in automotive
applications.(read that as extremely corrosive)(it contributes to
oxidation).
Also, methanol fire is invisible. EXTRENMEly dangerous.

This is partly counterbalanced by the fact that methanol (the simplest
of all alcohols) breaks down very quickly, and other than by ingestion
is non-toxic. It is also less LIKELY to burn as it requires a lot more
heat to ignite, and has a higher lower flamability limit.

This also means cold staring on neet methanol is extremely dicey.
Ether starting is almost the standard for methanol engines (even for a
hot restart in many cases)

The beauty of Methanol is it can be produced from CO2 and Hydrogen.
Just think - combining hydrogen economy with greenhouse gas reduction
(although burning Methanol produces CO2.)

Production of methanol by the now common processes using natural gas
would obviously be a non-starter.

It mixes freely with water in any ratio, which can be good or bad.

 

[Uncle Ben]

On May 22, 10:35 pm, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:

...

Also, methanol fire is invisible. EXTREMEly dangerous.

Can be fixed with an additive.

This also means cold staring on neet methanol is extremely dicey.
Ether starting is almost the standard for methanol engines (even for a
hot restart in many cases)

The first alcohol-based FFVs used methanol.
The Indy cars run on methanol.
This problem also may be fixable. Maybe by another additive.

The beauty of Methanol is it can be produced from CO2 and Hydrogen.
Just think - combining hydrogen economy with greenhouse gas reduction
(although burning Methanol produces CO2.)

At least it recycles the CO2 instead of increasing it in the
atmosphere.
...

It mixes freely with water in any ratio, which can be good or bad.

Think of it as Dry Gas. The water goes out the exhaust. Better than
gasoline.

Thanks for the helpful post!

Ben

 

[Guest]

The cost of food world-wide has risen mainly because of the cost of
energy, mainly gasoline and diesel. These fuels have doubled in price
in only a few years.

The US Dept. of Agriculture estimates that diversion of corn to
ethanol production is at most responsible for a 5% rise in the cost of
food.

Clare, look further ahead! The price of oil is not going to go back
to where it was. The world is running out of cheap oil. We need
alternative liquid fuels in order to mitigate the disaster that is
approaching as production from the world's oil wells slow down. It
may already be happening. What will happen to world food prices when
gasoline is $15 per gallon?

Ben

Speculation, too. The real estate money (well, a good bit of it) ran
to the commodities market.


Dave

 

[Rick Courtright]

The cost of food world-wide has risen mainly because of the cost of
energy, mainly gasoline and diesel. These fuels have doubled in price
in only a few years.

Hi,

Politely, let me call BS on that...

Food prices respond to EXACTLY the same forces oil prices do: SUPPLY AND
DEMAND.

The world can only supply so much of either at a given time. Yet we
continue, in a manner totally contrary to most of nature, to breed
ourselves into an excessive demand situation despite our supply not
rising at the same rate. You're a retired physicist/teacher, right? So
it should be no surprise to you to find that if "x" units of "supply"
divided by "y" number of "demanders" allows "z" units of supply per
demander, whenever you reduce "x" or increase "y" then "z" goes down,
too. If "z" must remain static for the system to "work," any change in
"x" or "y" is problematic, now, isn't it?

I appreciate everyone's tiny little efforts to "clean up this" or "use a
little less of that" but I'm afraid I cannot accept ANY solution that
doesn't also include a population control element is anything if not
partially to totally off base.

Rick

 

[Rick Courtright]

The Indy cars run on methanol.

Hi,

Might want to check on that. IIRC, Indy cars completed the switch to
ethanol either last year or two years ago.

Lots of reasons were involved, economic, safety and political being
among them.

Regardless, what works on a track w/ vehicles that involve the
conditions of use and maintenance these cars see doesn't always play
well on the street.

Rick

 

[Uncle Ben]

Hi,

Politely, let me call BS on that...

Food prices respond to EXACTLY the same forces oil prices do: SUPPLY AND
DEMAND.

Of course, and I accept that diversion of corn from food to fuel
exerts an upward price pressure on food. But we can get
quantitative. How much pressure?

The US Dept. of Ag. has done this analysis and concludes that it
contributes 5% of the rise in world food prices.

But that is not the only input to the equation. The occurence of
drought in the world this year -- Australia is a good example -- also
contributes. Lesser supply of corn, again, higher price.

But the main contribution is the dramatic rise in the cost of energy
in the form of gasoline for farmers and of natural gas for fertilizer
manufacturers. You know about gasoline. Did you know that natural
gas -- widely used in fertilizer manufacturing -- has tripled in price
in the last year or so? Costs must be passed through.

You cite population pressure. That is quite true in China and India,
where not only has the population risen but also the wealth of that
population and their ability to command world resources has risen
sharply. There are traffic jams in Beijing and Calcutta! Greater
demand -- higher price.

So we can do more than just say "supply and demand." We can analyze
the problem further and find the coefficients of the input variables.

I appreciate everyone's tiny little efforts to "clean up this" or "use a
little less of that" but I'm afraid I cannot accept ANY solution that
doesn't also include a population control element is anything if not
partially to totally off base.

If we stay on topic and confine ourselves to the price of energy, I
would say that the success of capitalism in China and India has led
their populations not only to increase in numbers but, more
importantly, in wealth. The US demands lots of energy because it is
wealthy. China and India are becoming wealthy, and they want lots of
energy too.

But then there is the problem of peak oil. Whether it is now or in
twenty years, the oil wells of the world will start gradually to peter
out. A few large discoveries will postpone the day, but the day will
come when oil is just too scarce to burn for transportation. We will
use it for pharmaceuticals and other high value products.

So that is why we are starting to prepare for the future by exploring
biofuels. Some of us are eager to explore them now; others will be
dragged kicking and screaming into the game. When gasoline is $30 per
gallon, everybody will come on board.

Ben

 

[Uncle Ben]

Hi,

Might want to check on that. IIRC, Indy cars completed the switch to
ethanol either last year or two years ago.

You may be right!

Ben

 

[hippo]

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada May 22, 2008 at 10:13 PM wrote:

If the price of Gasoline was $100 a gallon and we were producing
ethanol from non-food crops, and particularly from low fertilizer
intensive non-food crops(like legume straw) and waste, food prices
would not be as high as they are today (assuming the cost of natural
gas used to produce fertilizer did not follow the gasoline price)

The USDA estimates re the cost of feedgrains due to ethanol production
WILL be found to be grossly understated. I have farmer friends. The
fuel price is not NEARLY the whole picture. The fertilizer price
definitely comes into it - but vast increases in the production of
corn means a LOT more fertilizer is required - which puts the price up
even more than it would be just because of the oil price.

Using foodgrains for fuel is criminally irrisponsible in today's
world.Particularly as in-efficient a plant as corn.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com

Agree with all you both said. Here in Oz we're moving closer to mandator
E10. Overall fuel prices have risen roughly 30% here YTD, however fo
diesel and LPG it's more like 40%. Knock on effect for farmers is worse
with urea, ammonium nitrate and other chemicals mostly rising 50-100% ove
the last 12 months largely due to higher input and transport costs. Som
estimate that their total costs per hectare (or acre) have almos
*doubled* over the last two years with only a small increase in returns a
the farm gate. That's a real world scenario and food crop space lost t
ethanol isn't even a major factor here yet! Cheers

 

[JD]

in message

And without conversion most cars will NOT see any better
accelleration. ANd with E15 being the only game in town, it will sell
for the same price as any other gasoline-type fuel, so no improvement
in miles per dollar.

Here in Ontario E10 or E15 or E0 all sells for the same price, and in
many cases you have no way (short of the phase separation test) to
know WHAT you are buying.


If burning Ethanol makes you feel good, fine - but in MOST cases in
Canada and most of the states, expecting any fuel savings or improved
performance is a pipe dream.

I just wish you didn't expect the rest of the country (and the world)
to pay for your "elixir" in higher food prices.

Not totally true. If you have a turbocharged car, some ethanol can improve
performance because it increases the AKI of the fuel.

 

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

in message


Not totally true. If you have a turbocharged car, some ethanol can improve
performance because it increases the AKI of the fuel.

The ethanol is used to bring the fuel TO the minimum octane rating. If
you buy 87 octane E0 or 87 Octane E15, your AKI is virtually the same.
If you are running a Turbo engine you will be running premium gas for
maximum performance and fuel economy - and again, 93 octane Eo, E10,
and E15 have the same AKI value.

I stand by my previous statement.

 

[paulto]

My 1999 Sub legacy St.Wgn(4 cyl,Not an Outback),allows use of 10% Ethanol by
the book.Allstations here have 15% ethanol,could I use this ??

URGENT CAUTION: fuel tank liner failure

My 83 and 87 Subaru wagons have both experienced failure of the fuel
tank liner. Tiny little white particles settle in the tank,
repeatedly clog up the fuel filters, resulting in bucking and kicking
under acceleration, hill climbing and high speeds. Runs fine when
standing still. Before I correctly diagnosed fuel contamination,
replacing the fuel filter solved the problem, but with decreasing
times between changes -- in the end, only a couple of days before the
fuel intake line sucked up more liner particles and clogged the
filter. The solution was a $600 steam cleaning of the fuel tank and
the 87 runs fine (the 83 went to junkyard heaven before I figured it
out).

A friend is experiencing the same symptoms with a 1999 Lexus which
used 10% ethanol for 5 years. He will check it out on return from
travel.

These problems coincided in time with EPA-required oxygenated gasoline
for Anchorage, Alaska from 1992 to 2004. MTBE was added from 1992-3,
and 10% ethanol from 1995-2004. Anchorage attained CO levels below
EPA maximums in 2004 and ethanol went away.

I cannot conclude definitively that fuel oxygenation caused my
gasoline tank liner failures. But manufacturers of 83 and 87 fuel
tanks could not, I think have anticipated mandatory oxy-fuels and test
for delayed chemical reactions in their tanks (and altered their
products if adverse reactions occurred). IF YOU EXPERIENCE THESE FUEL
STARVATION SYMPTOMS WHILE USING OXY-FUEL, HAVE THE FUEL FILTER
INSPECTED CLOSELY IMMEDIATELY, AND SIPHON SAMPLES FROM THE BOTTOM OF
THE TANK IF INDICATED.

Paul Todd, Anchorage AK