MNPGRider, Thanks for the USDA post, and sorry I didn't post a source as lot of my sources are from the managers of various ethanol plants, my personal experience, and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association. I am a son of a farmer, a law student and an accountant. My father is one of the farmers that deals with the ethanol plant in Winnebago, MN and one of the three farmers in the nation that can get the ash byproduct that they produce if you are familiar with it. My father and grandparents, aunts and uncles were all owners of MGP ethanol plant in Lakota, IA before it was bought out to Global ethanol, an Australian oil company's subsidiary. Having the ties to ethanol that I have a constantly am looking into claims and arguments for and against ethanol as it interests me and I have a feeling I will be dealing a lot with in my career as an attorney.

 

bennenrkc, I'm also from "the farm," but am not a farmer-- I'm more a realist.
The ethanol industry is evolving, and ever improving. We haven't hit the peak yet by any means. Our plant in the past couple years installed a digester that captures the methane gas off the waste water (which is recycled numerous times before discharging), to help power the plant. Within just a few miles, there is now a plant using alfalfa, and soon using switch grass, which can be grown on CRP acres without causing erosion.

Much is often said about government subsidies with ethanol, which certainly have been there to get the industry off the ground, but seldom will you hear those nay-sayers acknowlege the cost, not only in dollars, but in human lives, of bringing foreign oil to our country.

A perfect example of "value added" agriculture is the huge sugar beet plant at Renville, Mn, just 40 miles from here. The waste water is warm...too warm to be directly discharged into nature, so it first flows through a talipia fish hatchery. A large chicken co-op uses other waste products for feed, and it's own waste products furnish the food for the talipia.

The problem with all the nay-sayers is that they focus on only one aspect, and don't see the complete picture. Some of our so called scientists and researchers at the University of Mn fall into that category. Their latest study, as an example, completely forgot about the fertilizer value of cattle manure from the cattle that had been fed the animal feed byproduct of ethanol production.

 

I converted my 01 Grand Prix (400+ hp) to run e85 because with 105 octane, it was like running race gas on the cheap daily. It has a faster burn rate and more waste, so you will use more of it (up to 30% depending on tune). But it allows you to throw a lot more timing at it without detonation and more boost if using a power adder. When you take an engine apart, everything is also much cleaner due to the alcohol presence in the ethanol. The 10% you will see in a car/bike with o2 sensors will easily handle it as o2 sensors read from stoich, so it will adjust. I could see it running a bit lean in a carb.........but it is only 10%, so I doubt it would be enough to worry about. Starting problems can occur in cold weather but again, with only 10%, this would be minimal.

And in northern IN, you would be hard pressed to find gas without the ethanol. I think it all has it.

 

Cold weather starting in the cold Minneosota winters have all but been eliminated because of ethanol and synthetic oil.

Why? Because it absorbs water, preventing condensation buildup, causing gas line freeze. We used to have to add a can of HEET to every tank during the winter. Synthetic oil allows the engines to spin at 30 below zero.

That's another one of those myths (already mentioned on this thread). The fact that ethanol absorbs water is a benefit, not a detriment. Condensation in a gas tank is a gradual thing, not something that happens instantly, unless your pour water into your gas ! (as suggested earlier!)

The regular use of ethanol will absorb any gradual condensation and run it safely through your engine, rather than let it build up in your tank and cause gas line freeze or other problems.

 

last yr some members said the the gas with ethanol was cheaper..
we have e85 that is less but the gas with 10% is the same as gas without it.
wondered if other place prices are the same or not?

 

Well this might be about to get heated!
First you say "Ethanol will give you slightly lower gas mileage", and in your defense you mention compression ratios and how our cars are truely "tuned" to use Ethonal. BUT as such using E85 ( and even at the given $2.67 vs $2.20) the consumer will still be losing money using E85 vs GAS!
Your mileage on E85 will be much lower, and even at 10% levels fuel economy is measurably reduced! I calibrated flex fuel vehicles so you can't "snow" me on "slightly lower gas mileage."

Secondly, your assertion that EMISSIONS are better on Ethanol is false!
Engines running Ethanol produce significantly larger amounts of formaldehyde and related species such as acetaldehyde. CARB as determined that for SMOG formation the ratio of gas to Ethanol is 1 to 1.7, where 1.7 is the number of times greater the increase in smog producing emissions!

Also using Ethanol in vehicles NOT designed to withstand those "water" issues, and other degenerating affects of Ethanol, will do more than cause you to "you may have to replace a gas filter on your cars." And waters harmfull affects "CORROSION" is amplified not diminished by using ETHANOL.

The case you make is sorely flawed, and misleading at best!

 

My guess and its an educated guess is; oil companys charge more for high octane fuel because when they started adding tera ethyl lead to fuel it was marketed as a "high performance" fuel, so they charged more for it....... and they STILL do....Simply because of it's "high performance" use.

 

FBRR, not too many of us 49 state people give a rat's *** about what CARB thinks, but we certainly have to respond to what it does. We consider them the problem, not the solution. As you failed to provide a link, here's one for those who wish to read it:

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/...thanol-ruling/

Note at the bottom it mentions the 117 page rebuttal to the CARB findings from the renewable fuels industry. Unfortunately, that link is dead.

The situation today about ethanol reminds me of a similar one in the early 70's when leaded gas was phased out. Unleaded gas cost more, gas mileage was terrible, the muscle car era ended. 35 years later....well, what's the performance and gas mileage of a 2010 Corvette running unleaded compared to a 1971 Corvette running leaded? The technology caught up with the mandates.

As I opinioned earlier, the alternative fuel industy is ever evolving, and technology will continue to improve and work the bugs out. Harley is already making alcohol running bikes...that's what is sold in Brazil.

For the record, I said exactly what you did about E85--mileage is much lower. And yes, i can measure the difference between running non-oxygenated gas and ethanol...about two miles per gallon in our Ultra. To me, that's "slightly less," as I stated, but it is enough that I fill it with non-oxgenated whenever I can find it.

Here's a link that some may find interesting, especially if you read the whole article.

http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/gasva.htm

and the index to his other articles.

http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/aeindex.htm

 

While I am no statistician how you worded the first part of this made me think that it take 1.7 units of Ethanol to create the same amount of smog that 1 unit of gas takes. If you are creating smog and were determining the number of units it takes to make it then the higher unit would be better. And thanks Steeltoe for the clarification, I am a young sucker (only 22 so my memory of history is slightly skewed) MPNGRider while I dont doubt that you are a realist, and I did not intend to come across as one that will defend ethanol to the end, I am not sure it is the right solution, but dont like the wrong reasons to be used to discredit it. Food is not a reason to not like ethanol is a perfect example.

 

Totally agree. If I had my druthers, I'd take leaded gas at 100 octane, and thirty cents a gallon, and 15 mpg max in 300 hp cars. That's what life was like when I first started driving!