Thoughts on ethanol-free gasoline?

[AndyH]

Yup - good thing y'all are loving your 'pure' gasoline. After all, it's been 25 years since the Exxon oil spill in Alaska and the fishing industry still hasn't recovered. That little blow-out in the Gulf of Mexico has killed the entire ecosystem and shrimp/fishing industry and destroyed families and businesses. I'm sure the many other spills and pipeline ruptures since are all worth it. After all, what's the cost of grandma's lungs when one has a chainsaw to maintain?




PS - the price of food is tied to the price of oil (fertilizer, insecticide, herbacide, fuel, refrigeration, processing, and those little Styrofoam trays), not the price of ethanol. The problem with European biofuels is oil for diesel - and that's a corporate abuse problem that's very real.

http://blogs.worldbank.org/trade/cost-e ... ces-follow

Indeed, as we found in a recent World Bank study, oil prices were more important to food prices than several other long-term price drivers, including exchange rates, interest rates and income.

[LTLFTcomposite]

I don't get the grandma's lungs/chainsaw reference.

[AndyH]

60 Minutes Australia investigation




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 110518.htm

[TomT]

"Scientists have made a surprising discovery about ethanol: The more it was used by drivers in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the more ozone they measured in the local environment.
The finding, reported this week in Nature Geoscience, is contrary to other studies predicting that increased use of ethanol would cut levels of ground-level ozone, or smog."

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... 7616.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndyH]

"Scientists have made a surprising discovery about ethanol: The more it was used by drivers in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the more ozone they measured in the local environment.
The finding, reported this week in Nature Geoscience, is contrary to other studies predicting that increased use of ethanol would cut levels of ground-level ozone, or smog."

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... 7616.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I expect what they'll find is that the predictions of lower amounts of certain pollutants were based on burning ethanol in engines more tuned to that fuel, rather than burning it in a gasoline engine. Ethanol is superior fuel and is very clean in a proper engine - but being stuck with gasoline as the least common denominator is the worst of both worlds.

The good news is that since Brazil is driving the auto industry, I expect they can mandate better emission controls now that the problem has been identified.

Going back to gasoline would be orders of magnitude worse for air quality and the environment, even if dumping fossil carbon wasn't a problem for everyone on the planet, not just for folks in Brazilian cities... Maybe Californians - especially Californians! - have forgotten how 'nice' it was in LA in the 1970s?

[TomT]

I lived here in the 70s so I remember it well. It would be completely disadvantageous however, to attribute it to simply "burning gasoline..." There were almost no pollution controls on cars and trucks (both gasoline and diesel), stationary engines, evaporative emissions sources, and a litany of other pollution sources. It was improvements in these areas, infinitely more then less gasoline burning, that contributed to the cleanup of the area... On modern FI and computer controlled engines, Ethanol contributes very little, if any, to the improvement. (Back in the carburetor and pre-closed loop days, it did have SOME beneficial results...) Meanwhile, it costs more and increases fuel consumption. (And we won't even go in to the food and other negative contributions that Ethanol makes...)

No point in debating this because neither of us is going to change the other's mind...

Going back to gasoline would be orders of magnitude worse for air quality and the environment, even if dumping fossil carbon wasn't a problem for everyone on the planet, not just for folks in Brazilian cities... Maybe Californians - especially Californians! - have forgotten how 'nice' it was in LA in the 1970s?

[AndyH]

I lived here in the 70s so I remember it well. It would be completely disadvantageous however, to attribute it to simply "burning gasoline..." There were almost no pollution controls on cars and trucks (both gasoline and diesel), stationary engines, evaporative emissions sources, and a litany of other pollution sources. It was improvements in these areas, infinitely more then less gasoline burning, that contributed to the cleanup of the area... On modern FI and computer controlled engines, Ethanol contributes very little, if any, to the improvement. (Back in the carburetor and pre-closed loop days, it did have SOME beneficial results...) Meanwhile, it costs more and increases fuel consumption. (And we won't even go in to the food and other negative contributions that Ethanol makes...)

No point in debating this because neither of us is going to change the other's mind...

Going back to gasoline would be orders of magnitude worse for air quality and the environment, even if dumping fossil carbon wasn't a problem for everyone on the planet, not just for folks in Brazilian cities... Maybe Californians - especially Californians! - have forgotten how 'nice' it was in LA in the 1970s?

I agree with most of what you've posted with regards to pollution control devices. One of the very significant parts you're missing is that gasoline changed multiple times as well. One example is the addition of oxygenates to allow a cleaner burn. The best choice at the time was ethanol, but the oil and chemical industry had this relative waste product called MTBE that they lobbied for. Seriously - who in their right mind selects a carcinogen over a biodegradable substance when they know it will leak into ground water?

When you say that ethanol provides very little to the improvement, this is incorrect as it does two very significant things. First, it's an oxygenate - it allows a leaner and cleaner burn, both reduce emissions, reduce gasoline use, and improve performance and cost of emissions control devices. Second, it is a high octane fuel (about 105) and allows proper performance with lower-quality gasoline blend stocks. In plain English, it reduces the cost of fuel.

Your belief that ethanol fuel equals an increase in food prices has been debunked over and over, but this bit of oil industry propaganda persists. Increases in the cost of food are a result of fossil-fueled chemical agriculture and the increasing price of oil now that we're over the peak. That's root cause, Tom.

What you're really saying when you say that neither of us will change the other's mind is that your mind's made up - facts are no longer acceptable.

That's beyond unfortunate.

[AndyH]

This, folks, is an example of why I've asked some of you 'why' you believe as you do, and why I've said that the things most of you point to as 'problems with ethanol' are propaganda messages, not facts. Why can the Renewable Fuels Association document their claims while the API cannot?

The facts are killing us and the fiction is keeping us from acting. Is that really wise?

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/news/entry/oi ... ter-takes/
http://ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/f700b35b48b2 ... 6blzjw.png

Mr. Jack Gerard
President and CEO
American Petroleum Institute

Dear Jack:

Isn’t life ironic?

Despite the millions of dollars your industry has spent on bogus TV ads, there hasn’t been a single reported case of engine damage from ethanol blended fuels like E15. But last week, Exxon admitted [1] selling customers in Louisiana more than 5 million gallons of oil-based gasoline that was so bad that it’s been stopping cars dead in their tracks. In fact, one auto shop reported 40 or 50 customers who had trouble starting their engines as a result of Exxon’s contaminated gas. That’s 40 or 50 more cases of engine problems [2] than have been reported in the entire country from E15, and that’s just one shop in Baton Rouge!

Maybe the oil industry should quickly rig another study – like the study the oil companies cooked up to show engine valve damage from E15 by pre-selecting engine types [3] already known to have engine valve problems. That was a good one, Jack. Too bad scientists from America's national laboratories, the U.S. Department of Energy and the EPA did a real study and found no evidence of engine damage from E15 whatsoever [4].

As if selling tainted gas to thousands of unsuspecting drivers wasn’t bad enough, then you had another embarrassing oil spill by one of your member companies in the Houston shipping channel. Isn’t that funny? While your ads are misleading people about the impact of ethanol on marine engines, boats in Houston [5] are in dry dock because of your oil spill! In fact, that one company has been fined for 77 different oil spills since 2008 [6], which means they have averaged more than one oil spill per month for the last six years. That’s a lot of boaters impacted by oil spills, Jack.

And poor Exxon! They had to cut production [7] at their largest refinery because the oil spill blocked their access to more foreign oil. We’re so sad to hear that Exxon was inconvenienced by the actions of a sea captain [8] who spilled his oil, creating a huge environmental disaster…

Then there was BP’s oil spill in Lake Michigan last week, which turned out to be much larger 9] than BP executives first admitted. BP lowballing the size of an oil spill? Knock us over with a feather [10]!

You know what else is ironic, Jack?

How about running ads claiming ethanol is bad for the environment in the same week when you just spilled 20,000 gallons of crude oil into an Ohio nature preserve [11]? Or claiming that ethanol – a clean, renewable fuel – consumes too much land, when current and future tar sands operations will destroy an area the size of Florida? [12] Were you aware, Jack, that the Deepwater Horizon spill polluted an area of the Gulf the size of Oklahoma [13]?

We can go on ... how about the fact that current U.S. crude oil pipelines threaten an area the size of Rhode Island [14] with spills just like the one last week in Ohio. The Exxon Valdez spill impacted an area the size of Massachusetts [15]. The Persian Gulf spill in 1991 affected an area the size of Maryland [16]. Do you get the point?

You see, Jack, the real environmental peril is oil, not renewable fuels like ethanol.

All the best,


Bob Dinneen Tom Buis
President and CEO CEO
Renewable Fuels Association Growth Energy


PS - We heard that your friend Rex Tillerson from Exxon has joined a lawsuit [17] to block the construction of a water tower “monstrosity” near his house that could be used to support fracking operations. We don’t have a dog in the fracking fight, but wouldn’t it be great if there was a clean, renewable fuel that was better for our cars, cheaper, and didn't need to be fracked? Hmmmm....

1 http://www.wafb.com/story/25104289/exxo ... s-to-blame
2 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... m-gallons/
3 http://energy.gov/articles/getting-it-r ... ation-auto
4 http://energy.gov/articles/getting-it-r ... ation-auto
5 http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 342986.php
6 http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/ ... ens_a.html
7 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... 1H20140324
8 http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-31/ ... xon-valdez
9 http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/ ... n_oil.html
10 http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/video/oils ... s-oil.html
11 https://insideclimatenews.org/content/k ... spill-case
12 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-oil-sands-of-alberta/
13 http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/07/bp-gul ... es-of.html
14 http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita. ... 01_10.html
15 http://www.wired.com/2009/03/valdezlegacy/
16 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=8 ... 775,525404
17 http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... g/5726603/

[TomT]

I do love how you put words in people mouths, Andy...

1) Nowhere did I even allude to food prices...
2) Oxygenates have been shown to have negligible advantages on modern close-loop emission systems. I did say that on older open-loop and carbureted systems they did help but funny how that was ignored.
3) Studies have shown that Ethanol actually increases the cost of fuel, particularly when you factor in the decreased fuel mileage and other tangible and intangible costs...
4) Your concept of "facts" and many others concept of facts are widely disparent...

Have a nice day. Now I'm going to go flying in an ethanol free 100LL avgas world...

[AndyH]

I do love how you put words in people mouths, Andy...

1) Nowhere did I even allude to food prices...

I'll look at my response again - I had no intention if putting words into your mouth, but rather to respond to the thread as a whole. As I keep saying - I'm trying to highlight the sources of misinformation people treat as fact.

Looks like I mis-read your suggestion that ethanol increases 'fuel' price as 'food' price. Sorry. Yet, you have agreed with others in this thread about food prices, so you're not 100% off the hook here...
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... ow#p327937
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... ow#p318012

2) Oxygenates have been shown to have negligible advantages on modern close-loop emission systems. I did say that on older open-loop and carbureted systems they did help but funny how that was ignored.

Care to cite a source for your position? I know your comment about the effects of oxygenated fuel on closed-loop systems is incorrect and that's the vast majority of vehicle hours. Oxygenated fuels (starting with those that included a percentage of MTBE) reduce production of CO. [1] [2] [3]

3) Studies have shown that Ethanol actually increases the cost of fuel, particularly when you factor in the decreased fuel mileage and other tangible and intangible costs...

Your turn again - a source please? Here's one of many that says you might be under the influence of the API: http://theenergycollective.com/gcooperr ... gas-prices

On its face, the myth that adding ethanol to gasoline does not reduce gas prices defies economic logic and suspends market realities. By focusing attention on ethanol’s lower energy density and using trumped up calculations, Big Oil is ignoring the larger economic effects at play. Without ethanol, gasoline supplies would be considerably smaller, and significantly more expensive octane sources would be needed. As a result, gas prices for American drivers would be far higher. Let’s hope the American public and Congress continue to see through Big Oil’s big myths regarding the impact of ethanol and the RFS on pump prices.

4) Your concept of "facts" and many others concept of facts are widely disparent...

You're welcome to your opinion. It's a lot easier to throw a rock than cite a source, though, isn't it?

Have a nice day. Now I'm going to go flying in an ethanol free 100LL avgas world...

Enjoy your flight. I hope, at the very least, you don't dump fuel samples on the ramp when you pre-flight? At least use a GATS jar or a collection can? GENAV has been in my family since the 1920s. As much as I love it, I quit exercising the privileges of my PPL because I can no longer justify spreading one of humanity's most potent neurotoxins [4][5][6] over people so I can reach out my hand and touch the face of God. Talk about 'oxymoron'... Bring on AGE85.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10785999
[2]http://superfund.berkeley.edu/pdf/293.pdf
[3] http://epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels ... /index.htm
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20306169
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead
[6] http://www.hulu.com/watch/624243#i0,p3,d0 (COSMOS, 'Clean Room')