Pros/cons of ethanol in gas
#11
09-04-2008, 09:25 PM
Well, If you won't fill up with gas containing ethanol then you better not plan a trip out of your local area. You're gonna get it in some states whether you want it or not. While traveling this summer, I saw my mileage vary as much as 10 mpg per tankful, depending on the fuel blend available in that geographic area.
#12
09-04-2008, 09:38 PM
Outstanding HDF Member
Well, If you won't fill up with gas containing ethanol then you better not plan a trip out of your local area. You're gonna get it in some states whether you want it or not. While traveling this summer, I saw my mileage vary as much as 10 mpg per tankful, depending on the fuel blend available in that geographic area.
#13
09-04-2008, 09:54 PM
I stopped to get some gas the other day and the pump jockey and I were talking about the ethanol that they had in their gas. I asked him how he liked it and he said that he had lost a little mileage and performance with it. I also heard that it was supposed to burn cleaner but it didn't have the performance of gas. Because it didn't have the performance qualities of gas, a person might have to make more stops at the pumps. I was wondering what others thought of it, thanks.
#15
09-04-2008, 10:22 PM
Seasoned HDF Member
Ethanol is a scam, just like all the other man-made global warming related BS. It screws your fuel economy, so you just burn more fuel, which costs you more money. It takes more energy to refine it than it delivers when burned. It's plain stupid.
Cheers!
Cheers!
#16
09-04-2008, 10:30 PM
Outstanding HDF Member
Ethanol is very hygroscopic. It will suck the water right out of the air and into your tank. Especially bad for boats along with the seal and gasket damage.
#17
09-04-2008, 10:31 PM
Outstanding HDF Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Glendale, AZ.
Posts: 3,116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no "pros" to ethanol in our fuel. Ethanol has a negative energy balance. Ethanol from corn, switchgrass, and wood biomass requires 29%, 50%, and 57% more energy, respectively, to create the ethanol than the energy contained within the fuel. Because ethanol production requires a significant amount of energy, and most energy in the US is produced from coal, the small reduction in CO2 and other polluting emissions from burning ethanol versus gasoline will be more than offset by the power needed to produce the ethanol. Ethanol crops have a notoriously low energy yield per hectare. Thus, it requires a large amount of land to produce a meaningful amount of ethanol. Last year, 20% of the total corn crop was used to produce ethanol, and it offset only 1% of US oil use.
#18
09-04-2008, 10:41 PM
Extreme HDF Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 10,853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It"s all I can get where I am! and I loose alot of mileage in the car AND on the bike! cost more and loose mileage! it suck"s!
Last edited by wildman67; 09-04-2008 at 10:43 PM.
#19
09-04-2008, 10:48 PM
A friend of mine told me he had to have both his 2 year old lawnmower and 2 year old weedeater motors rebuilt. The shop guy told him it was because the flimsy material they use in those motors to make the pistons and such, the ethanol ate them up.
So I'm thinking, if it can do that in only 2 years to those motors, it may only take 10-15 years to affect car/bike motors. Can't be good.
So I'm thinking, if it can do that in only 2 years to those motors, it may only take 10-15 years to affect car/bike motors. Can't be good.
#20
09-04-2008, 11:01 PM
Seasoned HDF Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas! Ya mean there's someplace else?
Posts: 11,065
Received 1,296 Likes
on
483 Posts
Just to throw "gas" on the fire - In June 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture updated its 2002 analysis of the issue and determined that the net energy balance of ethanol production is 1.67 to 1. (For every 100 BTUs of energy used to make ethanol, 167 BTUs of ethanol is produced.) In 2002, USDA had concluded that the ratio was 1.35 to 1.
The USDA findings have been confirmed by additional studies conducted by the University of Nebraska and Argonne National Laboratory. In fact, since 1995, nine independent studies found ethanol has a positive net energy balance, while only one study – which used outdated data – found the energy balance to be negative.
A Michigan State University study (2002) found that ethanol produced from corn provided 56 percent more energy than is consumed during production (1.56 to 1). This study looked at producing ethanol from both dry and wet milling of corn—and included corn grain production, soybean products from soybean milling and urea production.
These studies take into account the entire life cycle of ethanol production—from the energy used to produce and transport corn to the energy used to produce ethanol to the energy used in the distribution of ethanol in gasoline.
**http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm
A "con" study: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0329132436.htm
Another: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...ostly.ssl.html
Needs to be noted that the data used in the 2 con studies was 22 years old when the studies were run up. The later studies, using current data, seem to show a net gain in energy. So, take yer pick, but I'm betting that ethanol is here to stay. And anyone who isn't going to use it is probably going to be walking.
A link with further links to info from both sides: http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html
Last edited by pococj; 09-04-2008 at 11:03 PM. Reason: To add the last link