Thoughts on ethanol-free gasoline?

[ebill3]

TimLee has got it right.

The mandate for Ethanol in gasoline is primarily a subsidy for corn growers. When it takes 85% of the energy in a gallon of Ethanol to make it from corn, it is a huge inefficient waste. And does very little to reduce oil imports.

But the huge production of Ethanol from corn has been nothing but a huge inefficient waste for the US economy. And efforts to mandate an increase in Ethanol to 15%, mainly because vehicle fuel efficiencies have improved and the corn growers need to maintain the demand for Ethanol from corn, are nothing less than shameful.

 

[dhanson865]

I've heard of this mythical Ethanol-free gas, but around here everything says "up to 10% ethanol" .. unless it's E85 (85% ethanol)

What do they replace the ethanol with? Is it the traditional MTBE gas blend or something different?

http://pure-gas.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; will give you a list of stations and if you find one that isn't listed or has changed you can submit updated information.

Gas additives change from day to day at busy gas stations so you'll find gas different every time you fill up. Yes there is a winter gas vs summer gas but there are also dozens of possible additives and the mix you get one day will be different than what you get the next for the average gas station.

 

[siai]

It's a well known fact that gasoline mixed with ethanol placed in storage goes through something known a "phase seperation". The ethanol settles to the bottom of the storage tank leaving pure gasoline at the top. Ethanol is used as a octane booster in low grade gasoline. This gives you a reasonable octane number with crummy gasoline and 10% ethanol. Other then than corrosion of the fuel system components and the destruction of rubber components the phase seperation creates another problem. As your fuel pickup is in the bottom of the tank, you first get fuel very rich in ethanol which (because it has less heat value) will cause the engine to run lean. Then when you burn off the layer of ethanol you end up with very low octane gasoline that can damage the engine do to detonation. Best plan is to stay away from it like the plague. Other then my LEAF, I have a couple of CNG bi-fuel vehicles that always have ethanol-free fuel in the gasoline tank as they my run for a year or more before the tank is used up. A little Sta-Bil in the tank and you are good to go. Not so with any amount of ethanol.

 

[TomT]

Yep! As I said earlier, Ethanol is ugly on every level! It is a purely political solution to an imagined engineering problem...

It's a well known fact that gasoline mixed with ethanol placed in storage goes through something known a "phase seperation". The ethanol settles to the bottom of the storage tank leaving pure gasoline at the top. Ethanol is used as a octane booster in low grade gasoline. This gives you a reasonable octane number with crummy gasoline and 10% ethanol. Other then than corrosion of the fuel system components and the destruction of rubber components the phase seperation creates another problem. As your fuel pickup is in the bottom of the tank, you first get fuel very rich in ethanol which (because it has less heat value) will cause the engine to run lean. Then when you burn off the layer of ethanol you end up with very low octane gasoline that can damage the engine do to detonation. Best plan is to stay away from it like the plague. Other then my LEAF, I have a couple of CNG bi-fuel vehicles that always have ethanol-free fuel in the gasoline tank as they my run for a year or more before the tank is used up. A little Sta-Bil in the tank and you are good to go. Not so with any amount of ethanol.

 

[RegGuheert]

Horse corn is not any food I would want to eat.... That's what they make ethanol out of. Feed corn no human could even consume...

Like most Americans, you appear to be completely unaware of where our modern food supply comes from. Contrary to your statement that humans could not consume feed corn, it is a major part of the American diet. If you want to learn more about how that works, watch the PBS documentary "King Corn".

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvMxIEgbsIo[/youtube]

That said, I do agree with your first sentence: It is not a food I want to eat, either. But in this country, you have to be quite vigilant to avoid eating "Horse Corn".

 

[AndyH]

A few months after we purchased our LEAF, I realized that our other vehicles typically just sit around, so we started filling two of them with ethanol-free gasoline only. I felt that pure gasoline would be less corrosive to the rubber parts of the engine and it would also likely absorb less water.

Why do you feel that gasoline is less corrosive, or that gasoline with ethanol is more corrosive?

There is nothing pure about gasoline. It's a mix of many fractions with additives and detergents. Ethanol is the chemically 'pure' product in the mix.

You're correct that gasoline would absorb less water - they don't mix. That's why we dump alcohol into the tank to 'dry' fuel systems. Alcohol will chemically bond with the water, allow it to pass through the fuel system without harm - adding alcohol to the fuel system reduces fuel tank and fuel line corrosion and fuel system freezing in cold climates. The corrosion is caused by the water, not the ethanol.

There is a phase separation when blending gasoline, water, and ethanol. There is also a phase separation when attempting to mix gasoline and water. The problem in both cases is the volume of water, not the gasoline or ethanol. Water doesn't belong in any fuel tank.

Yes, burning 100% gasoline can provide a slight boost in fuel economy. It also causes an increase in CO2 and CO emissions.

Every part of modern automotive fuel systems are alcohol safe. That means there will be no difference in corrosion or deterioration when using fuel ranging from E0 thru E85. Not quite true...ethanol is easier on fuel systems than many gasoline additives - like benzene.

Gasoline starts to break down after only a month and will leave gums and varnish in fuel systems. Ethanol is a solvent and will clean these materials. That's why one has to change fuel filters once and possibly twice when transitioning older equipment to alcohol. Those that don't understand how nasty gasoline really is blame alcohol when their engine quits - but the deposits from gasoline slowly rob performance and economy - ethanol gives the fuel system a 'bath' that restores full performance.

Small engines are an entirely different domain - many are not built do be alcohol safe and thus their manufacturers don't recommend using ethanol blends in older equipment. That too is changing.

http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-6015/BAE-1746pod.pdf

Ethanol has hydroscopic qualities in it that attracts and
mixes with water. At lower concentrations of water (up to 0.5
percent volume at 60° F), the alcohol will mix and remove the
water as the fuel is burned and not harm the engine. At higher
concentrations, the water will separate from the fuel and pool
at the bottom of its container. This “phase” separation form of
water in fuel can cause rust and possibly damage the engine.
Fuel that is an E10 blend cannot absorb enough moisture
out of the air to cause this phase separation [6]. However, if
condensation is allowed to occur, or water is directly splashed
in the tank, water phase separation can occur. It should be
pointed out that this water separation is more likely to occur
in straight gasoline than in an ethanol blend.

http://www.mercurymarine.com/servic...-maintenance/faqs/outboards/?category=ethanol
http://www.stihlusa.com/information/articles/gasoline-guidelines-outdoor-power-equipment/

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flexible_fuel_emissions.html
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/ethanol-facts-environment

I've been working on fuel systems since I started rebuilding carburetors as a kid. I've had to replace all four Mikuni carbs on my Suzuki road bike because I was unable to remove the blockages caused by deteriorating gasoline - this was long before ethanol. Today, I run E85 in all my equipment and have clean fuel systems with no deterioration or deposits, and oil analysis shows very clean engine oil as well.

 

[AndyH]

Horse corn is not any food I would want to eat...

The point being that it's using arable land and fresh water, as well as contributing to overuse of fertilizer and pesticides, and not that it's preventing food from reaching hungry mouths.

As a species we are producing more calories per person than at any point ever in human history. It's not about the food per se - we have plenty. It's the idea that we are wasting food growing resources on fuel.

Also, even if they use the mush as feed, the leftovers after fermentation are necessarily less nutritious than the raw stock. The yeast has nutritional needs, too!
=Smidge=

Feedstock: Most US ethanol is made from field corn, but it's also made from sorghum, sugar cane, municipal waste, and cellulose.

Water: More than 80% of corn used is 'dryland' grown and is not irrigated - at all. In addition, the ethanol industry continues to reduced the 'field to tank' water requirements. It takes less water to produce a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gasoline.

Nutrition: Yeast nutrients are added during fermentation. The yeast remains after fermentation and becomes part of the distillers grain used for food. Animals get the protein, vitamins, minerals, fat, and fiber they need from the grain, yeast and added nutrients while ethanol uses the sugar and starch that the animals cannot digest.

http://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/ID-330.pdf
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/ethanol-facts-environment

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Wow, AndyH that is some of the most coherent writing I've seen that ethanol isn't the world's greatest evil. I've noticed a trend, basically anyone who suggests an innovation that involves running a car on something other than gasoline, preferably leaded hi-test, is met with no end of arguments why it won't work or is somehow going to bring an end to life as we know it. Even with 5% ethanol (which I have understood to be more of an additive to replace MTBE than it is for its BTU content) there is no Doritos shortage at my local grocery store.

 

[TomT]

Sorry, but it is also incorrect or misleading on many levels... For just one example, ask the many boaters who have had fuel tanks and fuel systems destroyed by Ethanol based fuel... It destroys fiberglass and plastic tanks... It is also far less stable long-term - even with something like Stabil added - than equally treated ethanol-free gasoline is. And we won't even get in to the reduced fuel mileage caused by the lower energy level of Ethanol... Ethanol exists primarily as a political subsidy to the farm belt. not because it makes good economic or environmental sense...

Wow, AndyH that is some of the most coherent writing I've seen that ethanol isn't the world's greatest evil.

 

[AndyH]

Sorry, but it is also incorrect or misleading on many levels... For just one example, ask the many boaters who have had fuel tanks and fuel systems destroyed by Ethanol based fuel... It destroys fiberglass and plastic tanks... It is also far less stable long-term - even with something like Stabil added - than equally treated ethanol-free gasoline is. Ethanol exists primarily as a political subsidy to the farm belt. not because it makes good economic or environmental sense...

Wow, AndyH that is some of the most coherent writing I've seen that ethanol isn't the world's greatest evil.

You want to counter science with anecdote. That's fine, but don't call what I wrote 'misleading'.

Yes, ethanol dissolves components of old plastic and fiberglass fuel tanks. It happens on homebuilt aircraft as well as old boats (check the blogs for Rutan designs like the Long-EZ). But so does gasoline.

Yes, ethanol attacks natural rubber and some synthetics. That's why none of those are used in cars any longer, and aren't used on most small engines since about the 1990s. But so does gasoline.

An ethanol spill in the water or on land is biodegradable and is not hazardous. That's not the case with gasoline, benzene, or MTBE.

No petroleum based fuel is stable for long term storage. Gasoline shouldn't be stored longer than 1 month - it starts to lose volatile components immediately and starts losing octane immediately. Even with a storage additive. Diesel needs storage additives and fungicides as there are critters that love to eat things at the diesel/water interface.

Ethanol is a pure substance. There are no lighter fractions to evaporate out. Yes, it's hygroscopic and for long-term storage it must be stored in a sealed metal container. If properly sealed, it will not lose it's octane rating or leave sludge/varnish even after years of storage.

I'm not saying that ethanol is a 'perfect' fuel - I don't think one exists. But the majority of reasons given in this thread for not using ethanol are just wrong.

You're clearly not a fan, TomT. That's ok. You do what you want to do. But if you keep spreading anti-science propaganda, you'd better put on a hard hat - 'cause I've got a rolled-up newspaper at the ready. :lol:

 

[TomT]

We'll just agree to disagree since I really have no desire to play battling degrees and science, and I doubt either of us will change the others mind... Oh, and I do have two hard hats at home...

You're clearly not a fan, TomT. That's ok. You do what you want to do. But if you keep spreading anti-science propaganda, you'd better put on a hard hat - 'cause I've got a rolled-up newspaper at the ready. :lol:

 

[TimLee]

Ethanol is a pure substance. There are no lighter fractions to evaporate out. Yes, it's hygroscopic and for long-term storage it must be stored in a sealed metal container. If properly sealed, it will not lose it's octane rating or leave sludge/varnish even after years of storage.

I'm not saying that ethanol is a 'perfect' fuel - I don't think one exists. But the majority of reasons given in this thread for not using ethanol are just wrong.

Clearly AndyH you think the use of ethanol is wonderful.
You made several points that a lot of the anti-ethanol sentiment is overblown and full of hyperbole, and there is some truth in this.
But even you admit the one big drawback of ethanol is that it is hygroscopic and that for long-term storage it must be stored in a sealed metal container.
But most vehicles do not have sealed metal containers.
The only such vehicle I'm aware of that properly stores a gasoline ethanol mixture is the Volt.
But even a Volt that uses minimal non-electric fuel would be better off with pure gasoline in the sealed tank and with addition of a proper fuel stabilizer, than to have ethanol added that will absorb water from the small amount of air used to pressurize the tank.
I do acknowledge that the inclusion of ethanol at 10% in most ICE vehicles that are driving quite a few miles and therefore exchanging the fuel frequently is not much of a problem.
But many people such as myself that have a LEAF, and use the ICE only occasionally when two vehicles are needed or for an occasional long trip, do not exchange the fuel very frequently and adding ethanol in this situation without the fuel being properly stored in a "sealed metal container" is a bad idea.
Also you seem to disregard the gross inefficiency of the production of ethanol from corn, which currently is more than 98% of the ethanol produced and used in the US.
I agree that if ethanol is eventually produced from non-food sources in an economical manner and we design and manufacture the vehicles to store it properly it could be a useful alternative renewable fuel.
But currently it isn't manufactured in an economical and renewable manner, and almost all of the vehicles aren't properly designed and manufactured to store it.

 

[AndyH]

Ethanol is a pure substance. There are no lighter fractions to evaporate out. Yes, it's hygroscopic and for long-term storage it must be stored in a sealed metal container. If properly sealed, it will not lose it's octane rating or leave sludge/varnish even after years of storage.

I'm not saying that ethanol is a 'perfect' fuel - I don't think one exists. But the majority of reasons given in this thread for not using ethanol are just wrong.

Clearly AndyH you think the use of ethanol is wonderful.

In some instances it is. At the very least, it's a significant upgrade to gasoline. I've arrived at that from a number of directions - from the viewpoint of someone that's rebuilt fuel systems, from the viewpoint of someone that's seen fuel certification testing in independent labs, from the viewpoint of someone that's sold fuel additives, from the viewpoint of someone that's made ethanol and biodiesel, and from the viewpoint of someone that's served overseas in part to keep oil flowing into this country. From each of these ethanol is a superior fuel than gasoline.

You made several points that a lot of the anti-ethanol sentiment is overblown and full of hyperbole, and there is some truth in this.
But even you admit the one big drawback of ethanol is that it is hygroscopic and that for long-term storage it must be stored in a sealed metal container.
But most vehicles do not have sealed metal containers.
The only such vehicle I'm aware of that properly stores a gasoline ethanol mixture is the Volt.
But even a Volt that uses minimal non-electric fuel would be better off with pure gasoline in the sealed tank and with addition of a proper fuel stabilizer, than to have ethanol added that will absorb water from the small amount of air used to pressurize the tank.
I do acknowledge that the inclusion of ethanol at 10% in most ICE vehicles that are driving quite a few miles and therefore exchanging the fuel frequently is not much of a problem.

Don't forget the context here - it's kind of important. The sealed metal container is for 'LONG TERM STORAGE' of anhydrous (195-200 proof) ethanol, not E10 - think many months to years here, not a month in a fuel tank. All tanks will pick up water through the day/night temperature changes. Gasoline will not absorb the water - it will float on top. The bottom of metal tanks will rust and metal parts in the fuel system will rust/corrode as well. That's been happening for about 100 years. Don't believe me? Spend some 'quality time' looking inside motorcycle fuel tanks. Gasoline with ethanol will absorb some of that water until the ethanol is saturated. That means that ethanol in the fuel will provide a time buffer before liquid water starts destroying the system. When considering both water and sludge/varnish deposition, when gasoline and ethanol are mixed, the gasoline is the weak link.

I grew up in Michigan and have experienced water in fuel tanks and 'frozen' fuel lines. I've cleaned rust out of fuel tanks and replaced in-tank fuel pumps that failed because they were sucking water instead of gasoline. Next time you're in an auto parts store, look at the list of ingredients on a bottle of 'heet' or other fuel system de-watering additive.

But many people such as myself that have a LEAF, and use the ICE only occasionally when two vehicles are needed or for an occasional long trip, do not exchange the fuel very frequently and adding ethanol in this situation without the fuel being properly stored in a "sealed metal container" is a bad idea.

I'm in a similar position. My daily driver is electric. My Ranger is filled with E85 and was only driven 3000 miles last year. I do not keep the fuel tank full - it often sits 6 weeks before being refilled. There is no liquid water in the fuel tank. The piston tops and spark plugs are clean, and oil analysis shows the oil's in excellent shape in spite of being in the engine for 14 months so far.

You are free to believe that E10 in this service is a 'bad idea' but I've yet to see any facts that support that. Sorry, but there it is. Keep in mind also that materials compatibility and storage are two factors in fuel certification testing.

Also you seem to disregard the gross inefficiency of the production of ethanol from corn, which currently is more than 98% of the ethanol produced and used in the US.

I don't think your 98% number is accurate because US producers also use sweet sorghum and sugar cane, and because we import ethanol from Brazil. We also have cellulosic ethanol in production. I'd like to see a source if you've got one.

I will agree that corn is a less than optimal feedstock for ethanol - it's only used in the US because corn in this country is an industrial feedstock, not a direct human food source. It's used because we grow too much and it's dirt cheap. In spite of this, however, it's still energy positive, it uses less water per gallon than gasoline, it's biodegradable, it's carbon neutral at worst, and it's an oxygenated fuel that significantly reduces emissions.

I agree that if ethanol is eventually produced from non-food sources in an economical manner and we design and manufacture the vehicles to store it properly it could be a useful alternative renewable fuel.
But currently it isn't manufactured in an economical and renewable manner, and almost all of the vehicles aren't properly designed and manufactured to store it.

This is patently false across the board. Ethanol's use as an internal combustion fuel predates gasoline - it's not some newfangled socialist plot. In order to be approved to be in our current fuel system it had to undergo massive amounts of testing. That means it's been shown not to harm any part of our fuel system - from plants to trucks to pipelines to storage tanks to fuel dispensers to vehicle systems to emission control devices.

Again - you're welcome to believe what you wish, and are welcome to put whatever you want into your fuel tank. But when it comes to water, fuel storage, and fuel system cleanliness, gasoline is the problem, not ethanol.

 

[TimLee]

I will agree that corn is a less than optimal feedstock for ethanol - it's only used in the US because corn in this country is an industrial feedstock, not a direct human food source. It's used because we grow too much and it's dirt cheap. In spite of this, however, it's still energy positive, it uses less water per gallon than gasoline, it's biodegradable, it's carbon neutral at worst, and it's an oxygenated fuel that significantly reduces emissions.

As TomT said previously, I think you and I will have to just agree to disagree.
The core of our disagreement is on whether we should consider any alternative fuel that comes along as something wonderful and worthy of our full embrace, so long as it is just barely "energy positive".
Yes, corn based ethanol may be "energy positive".
But just barely.
For each BTU of energy in corn ethanol we've expended at least 0.85 BTU of energy in producing it.
And some analyses that consider all factors are even higher than 0.85 BTU to produce it.
And corn has only become an industrial feed stock because of the mandates to put more and more ethanol into gasoline. Which is driving up the cost of food and driving the poorer countries of the world into more and more starvation.
But as long as it is slightly "energy positive" you find that OK?
I just wish the E85 pumps were labeled properly so ignorant consumers weren't pumping it into vehicles not designed for it.
I pointed that out to a guy that was about to buy it one day.
He was about to buy E85 because it was $3.05 per gallon instead of paying around $3.30 for regular gasoline and putting it into a 15 year old vehicle that was not designed for it.
Getting way less energy per $, and probably way less miles per gallon.
At least label E85 properly.

 

[AndyH]

I will agree that corn is a less than optimal feedstock for ethanol - it's only used in the US because corn in this country is an industrial feedstock, not a direct human food source. It's used because we grow too much and it's dirt cheap. In spite of this, however, it's still energy positive, it uses less water per gallon than gasoline, it's biodegradable, it's carbon neutral at worst, and it's an oxygenated fuel that significantly reduces emissions.

As TomT said previously, I think you and I will have to just agree to disagree. The core of our disagreement is on whether we should consider any alternative fuel that comes along as something wonderful and worthy of our full embrace, so long as it is just barely "energy positive".

That's fine. Please recall that this thread is about the false belief that 'pure' gasoline is better than E10 for vehicles not used as frequently. The reasons people are using to support their decision are not based on chemistry or physical effects of the fuel, but on their belief in the viability of ethanol as a fuel additive. As you'll see, those beliefs are formed primarily by information brought to you and I by the oil industry, not on a big-picture look at ethanol.

Yes, corn based ethanol may be "energy positive".
But just barely.
For each BTU of energy in corn ethanol we've expended at least 0.85 BTU of energy in producing it.
And some analyses that consider all factors are even higher than 0.85 BTU to produce it.

Yes, 'some analyses' do show it to be negative. Let's take a closer look at the most commonly referenced papers.

First, the studies were published between 1995 and 2005 from earlier research. They're seriously out of date. Second, the papers that pulled the old averages down, or that are most commonly referenced to show how 'terrible' the EROEI is for corn-based ethanol, were written by David Pimental.

Dr. David Pimentel is an entomologist at Cornell Univ. and has been the gent most quoted in the press when someone wants to pan ethanol. Although his papers are dismissed by academics in the field, his studies continue to get the press and continue to shape the public's view. Here's an example of his messaging:

Pimentel writes that ethanol:

- Has a negative energy balance
- Is an unethical use of food
- Pollutes the air
- Costs the consumer money via subsidies
- Takes 61% more fuel to go the same number of miles as gasoline
- Produces 13 gallons of sewage for every gallon of alcohol produced

The gent's an entomologist - he studies bugs. He's not a chemist or an ecologist. His papers misstate primary productivity and photosynthetic efficiency of corn by a factor of 10. His papers are published in journals devoted to non-renewable resources like iron and oil and thus are peer-reviewed by other non-chemists and non-ecologists that prefer to work with finite substances. His papers rely on support by an 'independent' DOE study - but the study was one HE performed for the DOE while employed by Mobil Oil and the conflict was not disclosed to the DOE. His studies also fail to include recycled materials in the energy balance - one reason he arrives at the negative balance is because he assumes all the steel in his farm equipment is freshly mined - that's a source for a 47% error in just that portion. Another indicator - he's written hundreds of studies that show improvements in conventional and organic agriculture - including approximately 30% increases in corn efficiency - yet doesn't use his own numbers when dissing ethanol - he still assumes an inefficient farm system.

Even back in the relative stone age of first generation commercial ethanol fuel production covered by the 1995 through 2005 studies, the papers from ALL other authors show an energy balance that ranges between about 1.15 and about 1.45. Numbers have improved across the board since 2005 - we have significantly improved yeast strains, enzymes that didn't exist in commercial quantities in 2005, and other efficiency improvements from the biotech industry. We've also got commercial-scale production from non-corn sources like municipal solid waste, sugar beets, and cellulose.

The EROEI climbs dramatically when organic processes are used. Not only is soil loss reversed, but petroleum-based herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers are eliminated and yields improve. At the very least, the 1.3:1 ratio is the FLOOR of possibility, not an upper limit.

And corn has only become an industrial feed stock because of the mandates to put more and more ethanol into gasoline. Which is driving up the cost of food and driving the poorer countries of the world into more and more starvation.

You might want to examine the West's industrial farming system. Look above at Reg's "King Corn" video for one example. It's simply not true that ethanol mandates are driving the mythical diversion of 'food' to evil industrial processes, because the majority of corn grown in this country is controlled by big agrobusinesses - they design the seeds and the chemical-laced processes specifically to provide themselves an inexpensive feedstock. I don't consider high-fructose corn syrup and Doritos 'food' but you might.

edit2... How much corn is used for industrial purposes - and how much of that is used for ethanol?

[As of 2008:] Corn is the main feedstock for ethanol production in the United States and Canada. More than 95 percent of the ethanol currently produced in the United States comes from corn. In Canada, this figure is about 85 percent.4
The United States is the largest producer of corn in the world. In 2005, 280 million MT of corn was produced in the United States...
One-fifth of this amount was used for industrial applications and ethanol production accounted for 40 percent of total industrial corn use.

http://www.mhprofessional.com/downloads/products/0071487492/DrapchoCh4.pdf

But what about food?!

The Renewable Fuel Standard limits production of ethanol from starch-based feedstocks to 15 billion gallons to ensure there are enough feedstocks to meet demand in livestock feed, human food, and export markets.

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_feedstocks.html

It seems to me that the anti-ethanol propaganda stream might be omitting a few important points...
/edit

On the subject of starvation - look at the west's ag system, our colonialist heritage, and you'll find the actual reason that people in poorer areas of the world are starving. Hint - it's got ZERO to do with biofuels. I recommend you start with Robert Rodale's book "Save Three Lives" and work from there.

From page 46 and 47:

The reason so many books on this vital subject do wind up gathering library dust is that the problem is often more complex than most people realize.

Often there is food available during a famine - or crops are grown that are either destined for export or are inedible, or both.

Here's a brief excerpt from an article that recently appeared in a medical journal that makes some excellent points and ends with the most horrifying examples of poor choices that I have ever encountered:

The genesis of the problem of food production and nutrition of African, Asian and Central and South American countries can be traced back to the beginning of "inter-continental trade" and the emergence of colonialism. Local food patterns and social and economic orders that have evolved to benefit the inhabitants and the environment were destroyed...

At present...famine is always present under the surface...

A large proportion of fertile land in the developing countries is used for the production of cash crops... In Ethiopia, in spite of chronic famine the proportion of land designated for cash-crop production has progressively increased in the last twenty years.
Similarly, in the Sudan, the majority of the inhabitants suffer from eternal undernutrition; yet in the Geizera irrigation project, which is the largest agricultural scheme in Sub-Sahara Africa, cotton and groundnuts are grown for export.

The Sahelian countries which are often associated with starvation and recurrent drought are net exporters of agricultural commodities - mostly cotton and peanuts. Although Kenya has one of the highest rates of malnutrition it exports coffee, tea, cotton and, even more surprisingly, flowers such as carnations that are grown by the side of Lake Naivasha. (K Ghebremeskel, "The State of food Production and Nutrition in the Developing Countries," Nutrition and Health, 6, 1989

Carnations! If the notion weren't so horrifying, so blindingly awful, it could almost be humorous. How can this be? A nation where hunger rules with a hard, heavy hand - growing flowers in stead of food?

The author of the article, a member of the London Zoological Society, provides some answers to that question. Answers that are - unfortunately - already too well known by many of us who have grappled with the hunger issue.

One is foreign debt. Cash crops (meaning food grown exclusively for export) are considered essential by governments who care more about meeting the massive interest payments on their foreign debt than about feeding their people. Often, a nation's best land is used for something as seemingly senseless as flower growing, while peasant farmers try to grow food for their families on sand and rocks.

Another reason is that some fairly idiotic ideas have been hatched, proposed, accepted, and then implemented in the context of foreign aid and development. (By the way, I'm sorry to use such harsh words when discussing something as well meaning as development, but I just can't talk about it any other way. The vast majority of what has occurred under the banner of development has had a strongly negative impact on the people the projects in question were supposed to help. It's unfortunate, but if you live in the Third World and are unlucky enough to be graced with development, it's likely that you will end up much worse off than you were before.)

I just wish the E85 pumps were labeled properly so ignorant consumers weren't pumping it into vehicles not designed for it.
I pointed that out to a guy that was about to buy it one day.
He was about to buy E85 because it was $3.05 per gallon instead of paying around $3.30 for regular gasoline and putting it into a 15 year old vehicle that was not designed for it.
Getting way less energy per $, and probably way less miles per gallon.
At least label E85 properly.

Next time you go to a gas station, look at the E85 pump. Federal law REQUIRES that it be labeled so it clearly states it's NOT gasoline and NOT diesel fuel - and is NOT to be used in non-flex fuel vehicles.

And finally:

But as long as it is slightly "energy positive" you find that OK?

My position has changed over time as facts roll in. Some of the work I did while in uniform was getting disaster and food aid to Africa. Other work was directly targeted at securing the flow of oil to the USA. The more I study and continue to remove as much petroleum from my life as I can, the more determined I am to find alternatives with not only a net-positive energy balance, but that are renewable and sustainable. Solutions must leave the planet and people better than they were, and must must must make significant improvements in our number one problem: Climate change. Every gallon of ethanol used to displace a gallon of gasoline is net positive even if the energy balance is 1:1 if it reduces the rate we dump ancient carbon into the atmosphere.

If we don't do that, there will be people dying in significant larger numbers from disease, relocation attempts, starvation, and extreme weather.

That ethanol can be produced as a lower value by-product of turning corn into distillers grains is a bonus. Distillers grain is a better animal feed than corn, it's higher density means it takes less diesel fuel to transport it from plant to the farm - that's another carbon benefit.

EROEI is only one factor - and not the most important - so my answer is 'Yes' to your accusation. Guilty as charged.

Enjoy your weekend.

Andy

edit..fixing typos

 

[AndyH]

Back on topic with gasoline storage. Here's a look at what gasoline really is, what it does in use and storage, and how most of those weaknesses are moderated.

Source: Significance of tests for Petroleum Products: seventh edition, published by ASTM International in 2003

ASTM D 4814, Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, defines gasoline as a volatile mixture of liquid hydrocarbons, containing small amounts of additives. A gasoline-oxygenate blend is defined as fuel consisting primarily of gasoline, along with a substantial amount of one or more oxygenates. An oxygenate is an oxygen-containing, ashless organic compound, such as an alcohol or ether, which can be used as a fuel or fuel supplement. Spark-ignition engine fuel includes both gasolines and gasoline-oxygenate blends.
...
The hundreds of individual hydrocarbons in gasoline range from C4 (butanes and butenes) to C11 hydrocarbons, such as methylnaphthalene. The types of hydrocarbons in gasoline are are paraffins, isoparaffins, naphthenes, olefins, and aromatics.
...
Finished gasolines have a boiling range from about 30 to 225°C (86-437°F) in a standard distillation test.
...
Spark-ignition engine fuels are blended to satisfy diverse automotive requirements. In addition, the fuels are exposed to a variety of mechanical, physical, and chemical environments. There, the properties of the fuel must be balanced to give satisfactory engine performance over an extremely wide range of operating conditions. The prevailing standards for fuel represent compromises among the numerous quality, environmental, and performance requirements. Antiknock rating, distillation characteristics, vapor pressure, sulfur content, oxidation stability, corrosion protection and other properties are balanced to provide satisfactory vehicle performance.

Gum and Stability
During storage, gasolines can oxidize slowly in the presence of air and form undesirable oxidation products such as peroxided and /or gum. these products are usually soluble in the gasoline, but the gum may appear as a sticky residue on evaporation. These residues can deposit on carburetor surfaces, fuel injectors, intake manifolds, valves, stems, guides, and ports.
...
Automotive fuels usually have a very low gum content with manufactured, but may oxidize to form gum during extended storage...Most automotive gasolines contain special additives (antioxidants) to prevent oxidation and gum formation. Some gasolines also contain metal deactivators for this purpose. Commercial gasolines available in service stations move rather rapidly from refinery production to vehicle usage and are not designed for extended storage. Gasolines purchased for severe bulk storage conditions or for prolonged storage in vehicle fuel systems generally have additional amounts of antioxidant and metal deactivator added.
...
Peroxides are undesirable in gasoline because they can attack fuel system elastomers and copper commutators in fuel pumps. Peroxides can participate in an autocatalytic reaction to form more peroxides, thus accelerating the deterioration of fuel system components. Also, peroxides reduce the octane rating of the gasoline.

Additives

Fuel additives are used to provide or enhance various performance features related to the satisfactory operation of engines, as well as to minimize fuel handling and storage problems. These chemicals complement refinery processing in attaining the desired level of product quality. The most commonly used additives are listed in Table 1.

 (Excerpts from Table 1)
Class                                     Function                                           Additive Type

Oxidation inhibitors        Minimizes oxidation and gum formation               Aromatic amines and hindered phenols
   (Antioxidants)

Corrosion Inhibitors        Inhibit ferrous corrosion in pipelines,                 Carboxylic acids and carboxylates
                                 storage tanks, and vehicle fuel systems

Metal Deactivators        Inhibit oxidation and gum formation catalyzed     Chelating agent
                                 by ions of copper and other metals

Carburetor/Injector       Prevent and remove deposits in carburetors        Amines, amides, and amine carboxylates
    Detergents              and port fuel injectors
 
Deposit Control             Remove and prevent deposits throughout fuel     Polybutene amines and polyether amines
  Additives                   injectors, carburetors, intake ports and valves
                                 and intake manifold

Demulsifiers                  Minimize emulsion formation by improving water    Polyglycol derivatives
                                 separation

Anti-Icing Additives       Minimize engine stalling and starting problems       Surfactants, alcohols, and glycols
                                 by preventing ice formation in the carburetor
                                 and fuel system

Water Tolerance

The term "water tolerance" is used to indicate the ability of a gasoline-alcohol blend to dissolve water without phase separation. Gasoline and water are almost entirely immiscible, and will readily separate into two phases. Gasoline-alcohol blends will dissolve some water, but will also separate into two phases when contacted with more water than they can dissolve. This water can be absorbed from ambient air or can occur as liquid water in the bottom of tanks in the storage, distribution, and vehicle fuel system. When gasoline-alcohol blends are exposed to a greater amount of water than they can dissolve, about 0.1 to 0.7 mass % water, they separate into an alcohol-rich aqueous phase and an alcohol-poor hydrocarbon phase. The aqueous phase can be corrosive to metals, and the engine cannot operate on it. Therefore, this type of phase separation is undesirable.

Phase separation can usually be avoided if the fuels are sufficiently water-free initially and care is taken during distribution to prevent contact with water.

Please note here that unoxygenated gasoline is formulated to ensure that it separates from water - it's designed to create a dramatic phase separation. The bottom water layer in a contaminated fuel system will also be corrosive to metals and the engine cannot operate on it.

Fuels containing 10% ethanol have been used in the US since at least 1978. Performance and properties are well know, and the fuel industry knows how to tailor the fuel's additive package when the fuel contains either ethanol or MTBE.

If my understanding of air quality laws is somewhat accurate, one will likely have to travel outside of ozone, smog, or CO non-attainment areas to find "G100" as those areas require at least 2-2.7% oxygenate added to gasoline.

The important part of all this: Oxygenated fuel must meet the same performance requirements as unoxygenated fuel. Gasoline is a dirty fuel even before it's burned and requires an additive cocktail to clean up after itself and to protect the fuel system. There is no reason to believe that oxygenated fuels are less capable than unoxygenated fuels. The additive types used for extended storage are the same and work the same on G100 and G90/E10.

 

[RegGuheert]

It seems that none of us have touched on the fact that the EROI for corn ethanol is very close to unity, perhaps even below it. The unfortunate bottom line is that corn ethanol as a fuel does not reduce the amount of fossil fuel consumed and therefore simply wastes the corn.

Perhaps corn ethanol has other important uses, but IMO we should avoid using it as a fuel.

 

[nosuchthing]

But the huge production of Ethanol from corn has been nothing but a huge inefficient waste for the US economy. And efforts to mandate an increase in Ethanol to 15%, mainly because vehicle fuel efficiencies have improved and the corn growers need to maintain the demand for Ethanol from corn, are nothing less than shameful.

Finally someone said it the way it is...

Corn ehtanol has wreaked havoc in the U.S. agriculture. Google it!

Personally I use 120ml of Acetone with every other fillup. It keeps my '92 Honda's fuel injectors clean, moisture out, and boost my mpg by 2-3 mpg. I do not recommend it for newer cars. The other day I used a capful of Acetone in my lawn mower when it started coughing, and it helped instantly. That I would recommend anytime.

 

[TomT]

+1

But the huge production of Ethanol from corn has been nothing but a huge inefficient waste for the US economy. And efforts to mandate an increase in Ethanol to 15%, mainly because vehicle fuel efficiencies have improved and the corn growers need to maintain the demand for Ethanol from corn, are nothing less than shameful.

 

[ebill3]

But the huge production of Ethanol from corn has been nothing but a huge inefficient waste for the US economy. And efforts to mandate an increase in Ethanol to 15%, mainly because vehicle fuel efficiencies have improved and the corn growers need to maintain the demand for Ethanol from corn, are nothing less than shameful.

Fortunately, I no longer purchase any gasoline*, but right on, Tim. That huge inefficient waste of resources has irked me from the git-go.

(*Well, if the power goes out, maybe a gallon or two for my little Honda generator, and there is an ethanol free station half a mile from home.)