DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 14222
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Nov 2019
Leaf Number: 319862
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: Thoughts on ethanol-free gasoline?

Sat May 03, 2014 1:15 pm

RegGuheert wrote: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. I typically find I can purchase the ethanol-free fuel for only 3 to 5% more than "regular" gasoline. I suspected this would result in better fuel economy, thus eliminating any additional cost.

At this point, I have to conclude that the new plan is working out well for us. I recently achieved a record-high highway efficiency with our 2003 HCH of 56.0 MPG. I do not think I have previously ever exceeded 52 MPG in the entire life of the car. While a big part of this achievement was likely due to the hypermiling that I did on the trip, I credit pure gasoline as part of the reason for the result. Note that this was achieved with a 500-foot elevation rise on a highway with a posted speed limit of mostly 70 MPH with rain pouring down for about 1/3 of the drive in an 11.5 YO hybrid with 91,000 miles and a BMS which was reprogrammed in 2011 to reduce the SOC range used by the car.

So I'm interested in hearing others' experiences with ethanol-free gasoline in your ICEs and hybrids. Do you use it? How much extra does it cost? Do you think you get better fuel mileage? If so, how much better?

Also, does anyone have any links to good data on the performance of ethanol-free gasoline versus "regular" gasoline?

Finally, if you are wondering where to purchase ethanol-free gasoline, here is a link to a site which can help you find one: pure-gas.org.
U have more energy with straight gas so you will get better mileage. Other than that, I dont have that option here and havent had.it.for nearly 20 years. E10 was determined to create less air pollution which is why we have it. I do know some people who use it because they claim more horsepower which I dont need and cheaper maintenance (a problem I have luckily avoided for the most part) but considering I would have to drive 100+ (and that is probably a big plus) miles to get it, its not an option that qualifies in my world
2011 SL; 44,598 mi, 87% SOH. 2013 S; 44,840 mi, 91% SOH. 2016 S30; 29,413 mi, 99% SOH. 2018 S; 25,185 mi, SOH 92.23%. 2019 S Plus; 412 mi, 99.72% SOH
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
TomT
Posts: 10642
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:09 pm
Delivery Date: 01 Mar 2011
Leaf Number: 000360
Location: California, now Georgia
Contact: Website

Re: Thoughts on ethanol-free gasoline?

Sat May 03, 2014 4:26 pm

The marina where we keep our boat offers ethanol free gas and that is what we use in it. It does provide better performance with our twin 7.4 MPI engines but that is not the main reason for using it. It simply stores much longer (we use Stabil in it as well) and is much easier on the boat's fuel system components. It also has less affinity for water which is a big plus in the marine environment.
Interestingly, it is not taxed as a highway fuel as is regular gas at the marina - neither is diesel - so the net cost is close to the same...
DaveinOlyWA wrote:U have more energy with straight gas so you will get better mileage.
Leaf SL 2011 to 2016, Volt Premier 2016 to 2019, and now:
2019 Model 3; LR, RWD, FSD, 19" Sport Wheels, silver/black; built 3/17/19, delivered 3/29/19.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Thoughts on ethanol-free gasoline?

Sun May 04, 2014 4:17 am

DaveinOlyWA wrote:E10 was determined to create less air pollution which is why we have it.
That's not a very credible claim. As discussed previously in this thread, ethanol has an energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROEI) just slightly above unity, on average. That means that to produce the ethanol that displaces part of the gasoline, you had to burn nearly as much fossil fuel as you saved. In many locations, EROEI for ethanol is below unity, meaning more fossil fuel energy was used than we get back in the ethanol. On top of that, we are using valuable farmland that could be growing food instead. Finally, as TomT mentions, the ethanol is harder on the fuel systems that use it, meaning more resources have to go to producing, replacing and repairing vehicle engines and parts.

But don't take my word for it. Here is an article about an editorial by Nobel laureate Dr. Hartmut Michel, Director of the Max Planck Institute of Biophysics. (Here is the direct link to the editorial, entitled "The Nonsense of Biofuels", but I think you need to click through to this article to actually read it.) Here is a key quote:
Dr. Hartmut Michel wrote:Because of the low photosynthetic efficiency and the competition of energy plants with food plants for agricultural land, we should not grow plants for biofuel production. The growth of such energy plants will undoubtedly lead to an increase in food prices, which will predominantly hit poorer people. The best use of the biomass lies in its conversion into valuable building blocks for chemical syntheses. Usage of the available biomass for heating purposes or for generating electricity in power stations, thus replacing fossil fuels, is preferable over biofuel production. The saved fuels can be used for transportation purposes. Clearing rainforests in the tropics and converting them into oil palm plantations is highly dangerous because the underlying layers of peat are oxidized and much more CO2 is released by the oxidation of organic soil material than can be fixed by the oil palms.
But I suspect we can all agree on his bottom line conclusion:
Dr. Hartmut Michel wrote:The future of our individual transport has to be electric!
Also, recent research indicates that cellulosic biofuel increases CO2 emissions over simply burning gasoline. Considering that this study comes from the University of Nebraska, I'd have trouble convincing myself that it it is biased against corn.

No, not all renewable solutions are a good idea. Some, like using ethanol widely as a fuel, simply are not.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 14222
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Nov 2019
Leaf Number: 319862
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: Thoughts on ethanol-free gasoline?

Sun May 04, 2014 7:51 am

RegGuheert wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:E10 was determined to create less air pollution which is why we have it.
That's not a very credible claim. As discussed previously in this thread, ethanol has an energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROEI) just slightly above unity, on average. That means that to produce the ethanol that displaces part of the gasoline, you had to burn nearly as much fossil fuel as you saved. In many locations, EROEI for ethanol is below unity, meaning more fossil fuel energy was used than we get back in the ethanol. On top of that, we are using valuable farmland that could be growing food instead. Finally, as TomT mentions, the ethanol is harder on the fuel systems that use it, meaning more resources have to go to producing, replacing and repairing vehicle engines and parts.

But don't take my word for it. Here is an article about an editorial by Nobel laureate Dr. Hartmut Michel, Director of the Max Planck Institute of Biophysics. (Here is the direct link to the editorial, entitled "The Nonsense of Biofuels", but I think you need to click through to this article to actually read it.) Here is a key quote:
Dr. Hartmut Michel wrote:Because of the low photosynthetic efficiency and the competition of energy plants with food plants for agricultural land, we should not grow plants for biofuel production. The growth of such energy plants will undoubtedly lead to an increase in food prices, which will predominantly hit poorer people. The best use of the biomass lies in its conversion into valuable building blocks for chemical syntheses. Usage of the available biomass for heating purposes or for generating electricity in power stations, thus replacing fossil fuels, is preferable over biofuel production. The saved fuels can be used for transportation purposes. Clearing rainforests in the tropics and converting them into oil palm plantations is highly dangerous because the underlying layers of peat are oxidized and much more CO2 is released by the oxidation of organic soil material than can be fixed by the oil palms.
But I suspect we can all agree on his bottom line conclusion:
Dr. Hartmut Michel wrote:The future of our individual transport has to be electric!
Also, recent research indicates that cellulosic biofuel increases CO2 emissions over simply burning gasoline. Considering that this study comes from the University of Nebraska, I'd have trouble convincing myself that it it is biased against corn.

No, not all renewable solutions are a good idea. Some, like using ethanol widely as a fuel, simply are not.
Statement only offered the ideology behind the mandate. I dont know how the ethanol is produced.
Keep in mind, the mandate was created based on the knowledge of the late 80's or so I believe
2011 SL; 44,598 mi, 87% SOH. 2013 S; 44,840 mi, 91% SOH. 2016 S30; 29,413 mi, 99% SOH. 2018 S; 25,185 mi, SOH 92.23%. 2019 S Plus; 412 mi, 99.72% SOH
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Thoughts on ethanol-free gasoline?

Sun May 04, 2014 11:47 am

DaveinOlyWA wrote:Statement only offered the ideology behind the mandate.
Understood. And clearly many of the mandates from the 70s and 80s have resulted in improved air quality for everyone to enjoy. And perhaps this one helps to move pollution from areas with a lot of cars to those with few. In that sense, it might have helped in So. CA where the air quality was very bad back then.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 14222
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Nov 2019
Leaf Number: 319862
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: Thoughts on ethanol-free gasoline?

Sun May 04, 2014 1:33 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:Statement only offered the ideology behind the mandate.
Understood. And clearly many of the mandates from the 70s and 80s have resulted in improved air quality for everyone to enjoy. And perhaps this one helps to move pollution from areas with a lot of cars to those with few. In that sense, it might have helped in So. CA where the air quality was very bad back then.
It has takeen time but the results are undeniable. I lived in Riversida CA in the late 70s where stage 3 smog alerts happened a half dozen times a year. TV News claimed a day outside during a stage 3 was equivalent to smoking a half pack of cigarettes. Pretty as ure that claim was disputed but it really got the.citizenry up in arms and moving in the right direction
2011 SL; 44,598 mi, 87% SOH. 2013 S; 44,840 mi, 91% SOH. 2016 S30; 29,413 mi, 99% SOH. 2018 S; 25,185 mi, SOH 92.23%. 2019 S Plus; 412 mi, 99.72% SOH
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Thoughts on ethanol-free gasoline?

Sun May 04, 2014 2:17 pm

RegGuheert wrote:Also, recent research indicates that [BS URL Deleted]. Considering that this study comes from the University of Nebraska, I'd have trouble convincing myself that it it is biased against corn.

No, not all renewable solutions are a good idea. Some, like using ethanol widely as a fuel, simply are not.
Here's a huge problem - it's HUGE! And frankly, Reg, it's one of the reasons I ignore your posts.

First - nice job hiding the link-spam to the cesspool of the internet.

Secondly - the paper referenced is not about ethanol per se - it's about figuring out what to do with corn stover - make ethanol or return it to the field. Of COURSE it's better to return the organics to the soil!

There are three huge pieces that many here are continually missing when it comes to quoting science to defeat ethanol as fuel. Number 1: the CO2 emitted from ethanol is NOT FOSSIL. It is CO2 that was made from removing carbon from the atmosphere. Therefore, it doesn't matter if ethanol made from plants emits one BILLION times more CO2 than gasoline - it's not a climate change problem!

Number 2: ALL of the fossil fuel EROEI calcs used to show how 'superior' petroleum is for fuel completely ignore the stored solar energy, and the time and pressure it took to turn the biomass into oil. They start with drilling a well. The equivalent 'truth in EROEI' process for fuel ethanol is to start measuring the energy flow from a tank of ethanol. The fossil-worshipers, though, don't do that. They start in a corn field and count every single calorie from dirt to fuel tank. The most dishonest - the scientist funded by the oil industry - even included the energy to mine the iron his his tractor in order to assign a negative EROEI for ethanol. Just TRY to calculate an EROEI for gasoline using that standard! ROFL

And finally - 3: The energy balance studies for ethanol assume developed world petroleum-laced chemical ag - where the ground is tilled with diesel, sprayed natural-gas derived ammonia, laced with other petrochemical-laced fertilizers; 'treated' with petrochemical-derived insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides; then harvested with diesel, dried with natural gas, and transported to an ADM facility to make high-fructose corn syrup with diesel. (Remember - 7 calories of fossil fuel for each 1 calorie of food value.) Yet even when generated in that environment, the energy balance for ethanol is STILL positive! When ethanol fuel is made on an organic farm - where the harvest is 4x the size of chemical monoculture farming - and with no petrochemical fertilizer or pesticides - the energy return is WIDLY positive.

Yes - electrify everything and bring on 100% renewables. But in the meantime, we need - as is MUST - stop burning fossil fuels. Ethanol is a piece of the solution - it's one of the silver BBs. Gasoline, on the other hand, is NOT in any form. Burning ethanol reverses our problem. Adding ethanol to gasoline - like hybrid cars - only slows our race to the cliff.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Thoughts on ethanol-free gasoline?

Sun May 04, 2014 3:00 pm

AndyH wrote:Secondly - the paper referenced is not about ethanol per se - it's about figuring out what to do with corn stover - make ethanol or return it to the field. Of COURSE it's better to return the organics to the soil!
I'm glad to see that you have reversed your position on this topic since earlier in this thread:
AndyH wrote:Guy, I stumbled on this while searching for something completely different - but I'll take it. :)

http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/47764.pdf

The report discusses the use of acid and enzymes to convert cellulose from corn stover into fuel ethanol. The minimum selling price for fuel is $2.15/gallon in 2007$.

Andy
AndyH wrote:Yes - electrify everything and bring on 100% renewables. But in the meantime, we need - as is MUST - stop burning fossil fuels.
This is where you have gone completely off the rails. You cannot STOP burning fossil fuels without having a replacement fuel in place without completely destroying our economy and killing billions of people. There must be an intelligent transition. Any "fuel" with an EROEI of 1.1 is not a real fuel. In order to support society, EROEI needs to be AT LEAST three. Even at EROEI of three, there is MASSIVE damage done by the process of producing the fuel. (BTW, tar sands are some of the worst offenders in this regard!)

The opportunity we face is that the EROEI of fossil fuels is steadily dropping and the EROEI (and reliability) of renewables is steadily rising. But ethanol at 1.1 (or even slightly more) is simply wasting massive resources. We need to focus on the renewables and apply them where they can provide the best return on energy investment and simultaneously eliminate fossil fuels from our supply chain. The challenge, of course, is that humans being humans will likely want to use BOTH the renewables and the fossil fuels.

Ethanol for fuel is a subsidy for corn farmers. It is not a solution to any of society's problems.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Thoughts on ethanol-free gasoline?

Sun May 04, 2014 8:59 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
AndyH wrote:Secondly - the paper referenced is not about ethanol per se - it's about figuring out what to do with corn stover - make ethanol or return it to the field. Of COURSE it's better to return the organics to the soil!
I'm glad to see that you have reversed your position on this topic since earlier in this thread:
I didn't change course or position. We have many options to transition away from gasoline - each, like gasoline, with trade-offs.
RegGuheert wrote:This is where you have gone completely off the rails. You cannot STOP burning fossil fuels without having a replacement fuel in place without completely destroying our economy and killing billions of people. There must be an intelligent transition.
I see. I'm off the rails - yet you suggest we'll kill billions of people? We are ALREADY KILLING PEOPLE with fossil fuels.

As for 'intelligent transition' - if you are a proponent of such a transition, and you suggest doing it by pushing all alternatives aside while continuing to promote fossil fuels, then I agree SOMEONE's gone off the rails...
RegGuheert wrote: Any "fuel" with an EROEI of 1.1 is not a real fuel. In order to support society, EROEI needs to be AT LEAST three. Even at EROEI of three, there is MASSIVE damage done by the process of producing the fuel. (BTW, tar sands are some of the worst offenders in this regard!)
Really? Must be 3, huh? According to what? And why did you fall back to the API propaganda number of 1.1 when the real floor- with petrochemical agriculture - is 1.3? And with better methods more than 3x that?

Fossil fuels are killing us and killing this planet. That means we need to stop burning them YESTERDAY. But since you don't 'believe' in anthropogenic climate change, and your efforts continue to be counter to human survival on this planet, that, sir, knocks you out of any further discussion.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Thoughts on ethanol-free gasoline?

Mon May 05, 2014 2:55 am

AndyH wrote:
RegGuheert wrote: Any "fuel" with an EROEI of 1.1 is not a real fuel. In order to support society, EROEI needs to be AT LEAST three. Even at EROEI of three, there is MASSIVE damage done by the process of producing the fuel. (BTW, tar sands are some of the worst offenders in this regard!)
Really? Must be 3, huh? According to what?
I've provided the information earlier in this thread:
RegGuheert wrote: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.
From part two of that analysis:
Furthermore, Hall et al. (2009) estimated that only fuels with an EROI greater than 3:1 provide the requisite net energy to provide a fuel source and to maintain the infrastructure associated with the current U.S. transportation system. Fuels that have an EROI below 3:1 require subsidies from other energy sources to pay for all of the infrastructure associated with the transportation system of the US. The EROI of corn ethanol that we calculated is lower than the 3:1 threshold, indicating that corn ethanol requires large subsidies from the general fossil fuel economy, and as a result, drains energy from the US transportation system.
AndyH wrote:And why did you fall back to the API propaganda number of 1.1 when the real floor- with petrochemical agriculture - is 1.3? And with better methods more than 3x that?
No, EROEI for corn ethanol is 1.18 OR BELOW at the output of the refinery for all corn grown in the U.S.:
Image
AndyH wrote:Fossil fuels are killing us and killing this planet. That means we need to stop burning them YESTERDAY. But since you don't 'believe' in anthropogenic climate change, and your efforts continue to be counter to human survival on this planet, that, sir, knocks you out of any further discussion.
Face the facts: In spite of all the dire alarmism from you and your ilk to the contrary: THE PLANET IS NOT WARMING:
Image
Since 2002, the planet has been cooling.

Increasing CO2 concentrations is helping us to grow more food. Let's deal with a real problem: pollution.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

Return to “Off-Topic”