Ethanol in fuel

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

...If you believe what is said on YouTube, in theory you can add about a quart of water to a gallon of gasahol and it will actually pull ALL the alcohol out of solution, allowing you to decant the pure gasoline.

You will read some dangerous and dumb things on the internet. Many require a little more research, and I hope no one tries this:


1. The wastewater will be hazardous waste (benzene and flammability).
2. The gasoline will be water-saturated and unstable. It will drop water.
3. The octane will be lowered. While ethanol does many annoying things, it also boosts octane, and the blenders take full advantage of this.


Politics aside (I have strong feelings but do not feel like sharing them here), e-10 is pretty easy to live with if you just keep it dry. That is more difficult than with cars, because we use boats less and because the fuel system is not sealed (cars breath through a carbon canister, which removes water). For most of us, that just means closing vents any time the motor is not running. Beyond that, a little Biobor EB does the trick.

[sailorboy1]

I just wish the stuff would stop separating faster than I can use in my dinghy outboard.

[a64pilot]

Unfortunately a cars fuel tank exhales through a carbon canister, and it doesn’t remove water, that would be desiccant, which carbon isn’t.
What it does do is store the fumes so the car will burn them as opposed to releasing them into the atmosphere.

However your right about trying to remove ETH from gas with water, your foolish to try this what is left is water saturated fuel.

However it is the way to test for ETH, a graduated cylinder with some water in it, add gas, shake, let sit, shake, let sit, if the water level increases there is ETH, if you bought ETH free fuel, you were lied to, which often happens as ETH fuel can be sold for a higher price, so it has a higher profit margin.

However ETH cost way more per gallon than gasoline, and if your in a State that doesn’t mandate it, it’s often not blended in, cause it drives the price of gas up for the supplier.
ETH cannot be sent in the pipeline with the gas, it has to be trucked and blended after it comes out of the pipeline by the Jobber.
I was told a few years ago by the Chevron Jobber in Albany Ga. that the break even point was $4 a gallon for gas, if gas was any cheaper, he lost money blending it in, so he didn’t, above $4 a gl, he made money, so he did.

I think the proposed bill allows, but does not require E20, I think that is up to your State, not the federal government.
ETH mandates are by State Government. So if you want ETH free fuel, that is up to your State, and not the Feds.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news...uire-e10-blend

ETH doesn’t seem to bother my fuel injected Suzuki at all.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Not sure where in the big city. All my chain saw, weed wacker, generator, mower issues disappeared when I started buying alcohol free gas. It's terrible for things that aren't run regularly. In your car that doesn't matter much. farm supply places and Union 76 stations have it around here. Premium gas is not alcohol free. The ONLY good thing alcohol added gas does is allow senators and reps to be paid $ by the corn lobby.

Yep, it's a farm subsidy.

[Iaangus]

[QUOTE=CarlF;2738934]Huh? Do you think a winery buys corn based ethanol alcohol to put in their wine


Have you heard of fortified wine? yes, they actually add alcohol to wine and beer to increase alcohol content. I would like to think the whisky I have paid 40 bucks for 750 ml for was distilled from grains but the 15 dollar stuff I’m not so sure about. I suppose most of the flavored and pre mixed alcohol drinks are made from wholesale purchased alcohol made distilled by companies like ADM.

The supposed reason for a law mandating ethanol was to help the environment not to create job or to make a few rich farmers richer. It turns the law we got hurts the environment.

Maybe so but it just make good sense to use in place of petroleum I never said it should be used in place of wind or solar, I am a supporter of those alternatives also, again it just make sense. Do you prefer solar panels made by foreign companies that do not operate to the same environmental standards as Western Europe or North America or would you prefer local made solar panels of high quality from a company that employs thousands of people that in turn pay local taxes and support your community? If you don’t care it’s ok, lots of people don’t care.


But the solar industry produces many more jobs than the ethanol industry. Maybe the farmers should install solar panels over their fields and create jobs while also helping the environment.

Farmers are installing them in their fields, small scale and for own use but also can sell any extra back to electric company at wholesale cost. I see them all over and will continue to see more as long as the subsidies hold out, same for wind generators. I’m surprised you did not know this, you should read up on it.

[kmacdonald]

[QUOTE=Iaangus;2739099]

Originally Posted by CarlF

Huh? Do you think a winery buys corn based ethanol alcohol to put in their wine


Have you heard of fortified wine? yes, they actually add alcohol to wine and beer to increase alcohol content. I would like to think the whisky I have paid 40 bucks for 750 ml for was distilled from grains but the 15 dollar stuff I’m not so sure about. I suppose most of the flavored and pre mixed alcohol drinks are made from wholesale purchased alcohol made distilled by companies like ADM.

The supposed reason for a law mandating ethanol was to help the environment not to create job or to make a few rich farmers richer. It turns the law we got hurts the environment.

Maybe so but it just make good sense to use in place of petroleum I never said it should be used in place of wind or solar, I am a supporter of those alternatives also, again it just make sense. Do you prefer solar panels made by foreign companies that do not operate to the same environmental standards as Western Europe or North America or would you prefer local made solar panels of high quality from a company that employs thousands of people that in turn pay local taxes and support your community? If you don’t care it’s ok, lots of people don’t care.


But the solar industry produces many more jobs than the ethanol industry. Maybe the farmers should install solar panels over their fields and create jobs while also helping the environment.

Farmers are installing them in their fields, small scale and for own use but also can sell any extra back to electric company at wholesale cost. I see them all over and will continue to see more as long as the subsidies hold out, same for wind generators. I’m surprised you did not know this, you should read up on it.

If the subsidy for solar is greater than ethanol farm subsidy they will.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

... through a carbon canister, and it doesn’t remove water, that would be desiccant, which carbon isn’t....

Not entirely true. It certainly is not the best choice--silica gel is.

In fact, the carbon catches quite a bit of water. In some of my early product testing, which included carbon, it was common for the carbon to be wet after a few weeks, which has the unfortunate side effect of ruining it for gasoline vapor adsorption, which was the purpose of some of the products I was testing. Yes, silica gel would have absorbed more water, but the carbon caught 2-4 ounces, enough to make a difference.

As you may or may not know, many small power boats are now required (EPA) to use carbon evaporative emissions canisters. They are not pressurized systems, like cars, because the USCG will not allow pressurized tanks. They also do not vent back through the engines, so there is no regeneration cycle, reducing efficiency.


Silica gel will adsorb gasoline vapors. Not as well as carbon in dry conditions, but better in wet conditions, which is what the EPA should have tested. Unfortunately, they let the carbon canister folks coach them on test conditions, choosing highway rather than dock conditions. I guess that makes sense, since most powerboats sit on trailers.

Another interesting curiosity is that ethanol actually improves the durability of silica gel filters by pushing some of the water off with each out-breathing cycle. The silica gel thus lasts 3-5 longer than theory suggests, and volatile gasoline losses are greatly reduced, enough to pay for the unit over 5-10 years. Finally, it eliminates the need to keep your tank topped off, reducing boat weight and hassle. A good deal.

[Iaangus]

Originally Posted by captainwoody

OK. Corn ethanol in the US is dirtier than gas alone. Every modern study confirms this. Having tax payers subsidize corn ethanol is not ok if there is no health benefit.
MTBE was banned in CA 15 years ago. It had nothing to do with ethanol.
Our farmers (bigag) profiting from making people sick is hard to watch.

What was MTBE replaced with? Maybe this will help you.

By OGJ editors
HOUSTON, May 14 -- BP PLC has signed contracts with several ethanol suppliers in order to phase out the use of fuel oxygenate methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in the gasoline BP sells in California by the end of this year.
"We considered all of the factors within our control and determined that we could transition from MTBE to ethanol early," said Bob Malone, BP's regional president.
California Gov. Gray Davis (D) has delayed the state's MTBE ban until Jan. 1, 2004. A 1999 executive order had direct refiners to stop selling gasoline that contains MTBE by Dec. 31, 2002, because of concerns that the additive contaminates groundwater.
Praise
Renewable Fuels Association Pres. Bob Dinneen commended BP. "I believe California consumers will reward oil companies like BP that make an early switch away from MTBE. And I hope other companies marketing gasoline in California will follow BP's lead," he said.
"BP's decision makes a strong statement about the ability of the US ethanol industry to replace MTBE," said Dinneen. "Since Gov. Davis signed his original MTBE ban 3 years ago, the ethanol industry has added 1 billion gal of production capacity."
Criticism
Meanwhile, MTBE producers and some oil companies say a ban on MTBE will mean higher prices and a possible fuel shortage.
A study commissioned by the California Energy Commission, conducted by Stillwater Associates, said that, assuming federal clean fuel rules still require an oxygenate mandate of 2 wt %, there could be a gasoline supply shortfall of 5-10% in the state (OGJ, Mar. 4, 2002, p. 25).
The Oxygenated Fuels Association issued a statement critical of BP's switch to ethanol. "It is no surprise that oil companies like BP are once again putting profits ahead of people...They just don't care about consumers paying up to double today's prices for gasoline because it means higher profits in their pockets."

[Iaangus]

[QUOTE=captainwoody;2738938]OK. Corn ethanol in the US is dirtier than gas alone. Every modern study confirms this.

Im sorry, i’m not trying to be offensive but you don’t know what you are talking about.

[Iaangus]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

There's no more "gasoline" sold in NYC, it is all "gasahol". (Except perhaps aviation fuel, and I don't think LFK or LGA is going to let you bring jerry cans.)

https://www.pure-gas.org

Will show you maps and list stations that do sell it. In some states it is totally banned and you are SOL.

If you believe what is said on YouTube, in theory you can add about a quart of water to a gallon of gasahol and it will actually pull ALL the alcohol out of solution, allowing you to decant the pure gasoline.

The reason most all gas has alcohol added is to meet clean air standards, Alcohol is an oxygenate as is MTBE which was used in the past but was found to contaminate ground water and cause cancer. Alcohol was found to be a safe alternative.

[Iaangus]

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

The total life cycle of a wind generator consumes more energy than is harvested. You must include mining, smelting etc and re-manufacture, maintenance. They are a net carbon emitter increaser. The mean time to failure is 6-18 months, usually the speed increaser gearbox. Without subsidies and mandates they would not exist. The usually advertised life span of 30 years ignores the probable failures, down time and rebuilds. The cost of a rebuild exceedes the value of power harvested between failures.

I know this because I and my previous employer built the rebuild facilities for the gearboxes all around the world. We have not built a facility since world governments stopped funding them. The US is one of the last to pull the plug although there is still the mandate issue. Corn lobby is very powerful.

On the mandates, California plans to become zero carbon by buying power from over state lines. This means more conventional generation in Nevada. This is disegenuously stupid.

Ethanol production likewise is a net carbon increaser. Start with the fertilizer-origin is petroleum. Transport fertilizer from S America on oil burner ships, distribute all over the US. Grow, harvest, transport. Process at the still, more energy in to run the still, etc. It would be more efficient to burn the corn in a coal plant and skip the ethanol step. Your car gets better mileage on straight fuel. Now add in the cost to corn dependent people around the world for increased cost of food. It’s stupid to burn your food in a car.

Sorry for the bubble-bursting. The truth, it burns.

Some truths there and some omissions also. What has been and what continues to be the true cost of oil? Invasions, wars, killing, military, lets count it all up. What has been the cost of the spills on land and in the oceans? what are the future costs of fracking and injecting salt water deep into the earth to force the oil out? So many more costs but you get the point.
Whose responsibility is it to provide cheap corn for “dependent people around the world”? The fact is most food supply problems are due to corrupt governments and availability is not the issue. Corn is already cheap, a tortilla contains just a few pennies worth of corn. A pound of corn meal cost about a dollar. In addition the whole corn kernel is not used to make alcohol, only the starch from the kernel is used to make ethanol, see, this is how much you don’t know OR aren’t telling us. The food angle is crap lets just drop that.

[Iaangus]

Originally Posted by Paul L

You missed the primary benefit it is to buy votes in Iowa and deflect voters from looking at the effects of tariffs.

Balanced trade would be nice.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Iaangus

Some truths there and some omissions also. What has been and what continues to be the true cost of oil? Invasions, wars, killing, military, lets count it all up. What has been the cost of the spills on land and in the oceans? what are the future costs of fracking and injecting salt water deep into the earth to force the oil out? So many more costs but you get the point.
Whose responsibility is it to provide cheap corn for “dependent people around the world”? The fact is most food supply problems are due to corrupt governments and availability is not the issue. Corn is already cheap, a tortilla contains just a few pennies worth of corn. A pound of corn meal cost about a dollar. In addition the whole corn kernel is not used to make alcohol, only the starch from the kernel is used to make ethanol, see, this is how much you don’t know OR aren’t telling us. The food angle is crap lets just drop that.

The 'true costs of oil' included hundreds of thousand lives. Glad you pointed it out.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Iaangus

The reason most all gas has alcohol added is to meet clean air standards, Alcohol is an oxygenate as is MTBE which was used in the past but was found to contaminate ground water and cause cancer. Alcohol was found to be a safe alternative.

7.4% ethanol is required to meet the oxygenate standard. E10 and E15 are separate from that discussion and that requirement.

Additionally, the oxygenate requirement is winter-only in areas where it is required, and not required at all in many areas.


There is open debate, including EPA and California, as to whether ethanol is better for ground water. While ethanol is less toxic, it dissolves MORE benzene and other aromatics in the water, and the water plume is harder to clean (the MTBE mostly floated with the gas). In other words, ethanol creates a much large plume that is slightly less toxic. Probably net zero. However, the debate died off because new underground tank regulations have made new leaks rare.


[Not interested in joining the political debate, just fact checking.]

[Iaangus]

Originally Posted by thinwater

7.4% ethanol is required to meet the oxygenate standard. E10 and E15 are separate from that discussion and that requirement.

Additionally, the oxygenate requirement is winter-only in areas where it is required, and not required at all in many areas.


There is open debate, including EPA and California, as to whether ethanol is better for ground water. While ethanol is less toxic, it dissolves MORE benzene and other aromatics in the water, and the water plume is harder to clean (the MTBE mostly floated with the gas). In other words, ethanol creates a much large plume that is slightly less toxic. Probably net zero. However, the debate died off because new underground tank regulations have made new leaks rare.


[Not interested in joining the political debate, just fact checking.]

Yea, pretty much correct except MTBE does not stay with the gasoline, Gasoline and ethanol both cling to soil particles, the MTBE sunk to the water table.