What is ethanol going to do?

I stopped last night to full up my truck & the pump had a sign "May contain 10% ethanol".

Ok petroleum or chemical engineers, what is the ethanol going to do to our motorcycles? Will they run leaner or will it damage the valves? I know the oil companies & government say it will be ok. But if that is true why do they warn us with a sign?

Ethanol only has about 62% of the energy of regular gasoline. At a 10% mix, you probably won't notice the loss in power and it should have no negative affect on your engine. Also, most of the existing AND future plants are setup to burn COAL to make it. It is a very energy intensive fuel to make. So I am quite skeptical of the envirnonmental benefits when looking at the big picture. Some plants are setup to use Natural Gas, so guess what happens to the price of Natural Gas when the demand spikes... You might suddenly make everyone in the family take five minute hot showers instead of fifteen or more!

The kicker is that it drives up the cost of gas because there is not enough production capacity to meet even current low demands. So for all those people that love to blame the evil oil company CEO's for high prices at the pump, forget it. Blame the politicians and Archer Daniels Midland, the massive farm corporation that receives huge subsidies from our government. They are the driving push behind the drive to adopt ethanol.

So there are tons of sites that show you how to home brew your own ethanol. Seems great right! Make your own fuel and forget about pump prices! I'd be willing to bet everything I have that this would not be allowed for long. In the name of public safety stills would be outlawed and you'd be forced to pay at the pump

If Ethanol is so wonderful, then there should be no need for the government to subsidize it so heavily. The market will adopt it when CONSUMERS want it. It should not be forced on us for our own good, even if it truly were for our own good! If it were so great and beneficial, don't you think the evil greedy oil guys would already be blending it in voluntarily to crank up their profits?

Do a little Googling and you will quickly see that things are not so cut and dried as the media likes make it seem. There is a whole heap of biomass involved in this issue

mcrider said:

I stopped last night to full up my truck & the pump had a sign "May contain 10% ethanol".

Ok petroleum or chemical engineers, what is the ethanol going to do to our motorcycles? Will they run leaner or will it damage the valves?

Click to expand...

While not a petroleum engineer, the answer to your question, "What is the ethanol going to do to our motorcycles"? is nothing.

It may keep your fuel a bit drier but other than that, you will notice no affects.

In fact, it is likely that you have been running 10% ethanol for months or years without knowing it.

The ethanol is there as an oxygenate, to carry oxygen into the combustion chambers and promote cleaner burning. Previously, MTBE assumed this role in motor fuel but, MTBE (toxic stuff) has been found in the groundwater and so, rather than demanding that the leaks in fuel tanks be fixed, the government just changed from MTBE to ethanol....a band-aid but, a good one (local farmers love the decision).

Now, be prepared for 85% ethanol (E85 motor fuel). It is coming to your local Kroger soon. As I understand it, E85 cannot be run in your motorcycle without modifications to the fuel map, Lambda sensor and possibly other components.

It will cost less at the pump (it is only 15% gasoline from crude oil) and will burn cleaner. You will give up some power inasmuch as ethanol contains less energy than gasoline. You will also have to think about taking in a poor Saudi who now exports less crude to the USA…..don’t you just hate to see that…poor Saudis.

Some studies show that the energy and resources required to simply grow, harvest and transport the corn that would be distilled into ethanol adds considerably to the deficit against it, and those factors are rarely considered in the economics of the undertaking. As with electric cars, ethanol power is far more energy intensive than it's promoters would have you believe.

Gasoline and diesel powered vehicles are way ahead in terms of total system energy efficiency than any other type of small vehicle power source, and are likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Trying to switch to anything else will cost us dearly.

Someone can correct me if I am mistaken on this, but if I remember my combustion analysis class, Ethanol combustion products included very elevated levels of formaldehyde, which was previously difficult to detect.

Of course, while searching I have found claims that it reduces it, and claims it increases it.

A few links for your enjoyment:

The Straight Dope: What's the True Story on Ethanol?
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html

ADM's Ethanol Gets By with Help from Its Friends
http://www.fumento.com/ethanol.html

Ethanol Keeps ADM Drunk On Tax Dollars
http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-02-97.html

That should get you started. Remember, the EPA was behind the push to get MBTE in gas because of all the wonderful benefits. Now they can't get it out of the gas fast enough because of the horrible polluting effects it has in ground water!!

It will cost less at the pump (it is only 15% gasoline from crude oil) and will burn cleaner.

Click to expand...

You cannot base future pump prices on current ethanol prices. If ALL gas goes to 10% ethanol, the demand will skyrocket and you can bet the ethanol prices will as well. Take away all the subsidies and let ethanol compete in a free market and no doubt the prices would be even higher!! Even ADM admits that they will not be able to keep pace with demand. Right now it is about 5-7million gallons per year just in Califiornia and they expect it to hit 580 million gallons per year!! That is an increase of 100 times!! Even if other companies get in on the game, it takes time to build new plants. Then the cost of coal and natural gas goes up as the demand increases to power the plants. All other products based on corn will see an increase in price as well. Remember, Corn Syrup is the largest substitute for real sugar and is used on TONS of food products. So you can expect an increase in the costs of these foods as well.

The thing to remember here is that we cannot just look at the pump price. We have to consider the associated nonobvious costs as well. A good example is the cost of changing over current hardware like you mentioned if they start trying to push 15% or more ethanol. New sensors, seals, etc,... all that costs money. Like I said earlier, if ethanol is so wonderful, let it compete in a FREE market unsubsidized and may the best fuel win!

Brazil gets 80% of its fuel needs from ethanol refined from sugar cane. Prior to moving to ethanol, they only produced 20% of their fuel domestically. Most cars in the Brazil market are dual fuel that will burn either gas of ethanol. The 'ethanol isn't economically viable BS' is oil industry propaganda. Given the way the WTO is going, we are going to need another use for our agriculture when we can no longer export it. Another oil industry myth is that nuclear power will make us all turn green and the plants are hydrogen bombs waiting to go off. France is able to produce 80% of its electricity from nuclear power with an excellent safety record.

scratch said:

Some studies show that the energy and resources required to simply grow, harvest and transport the corn that would be distilled into ethanol adds considerably to the deficit against it, and those factors are rarely considered in the economics of the undertaking. As with electric cars, ethanol power is far more energy intensive than it's promoters would have you believe.

Gasoline and diesel powered vehicles are way ahead in terms of total system energy efficiency than any other type of small vehicle power source, and are likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Trying to switch to anything else will cost us dearly.

Click to expand...

Hey Rob, care to back up your assertions with some documention? Tourmeister has already provided some for the position he and I share. Brazil has a much more statist economy than even the United States, so it would be interesting to see what it really costs them to depend so heavily on ethanol.

BTW, I'm not anti-nuclear, but it's expensive (in part because of over-kill regulation and activist opposition) and there's also the problem of nuclear waste disposal that hasn't been resolved.

Welcome to TWT. What do you ride?

I also saw some of the stats on Brazil, but cleared my browser history. I'll see if I can find it again.

I would think with the same energy applied to producing ethanol as we have given to petroleum it would get cheaper.

At any rate at some point it'll become more economical than petroleum simply because the price of petroleum will rise as we start running out of it until it surpasses the cost of ethanol.

ADM of would surely like this to take a while until they can buy up the remaining farms of america and establish a complete monopoly.

How's that for tin foil hat thinking.

Yeah, choose your bogeyman - big Oil or big Ag.

Tourmeister said:

Like I said earlier, if ethanol is so wonderful, let it compete in a FREE market unsubsidized and may the best fuel win!

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I don't think it's as simple as that (which I think you understand too)

I forgot the exact economic terms, but it relates to the cost of change and the lack of availability of alternatives.

For most of us, we have to use some sort of motor vehicle to live our lives. When the oil company wants to make more money, they charge more, and screw the little people...then we hear "well change your mode of transportation"... This isn't necessarily feasible due to the cost of changing to a new vehicle. Also, retro-fitting for E85 is also not feasible due to the cost. So people may want to change to a new fuel, but may not be able to afford the cost of everything. So, regardless of which fuel is "better" the winner will probably be what we have existing equipment for.

RobH said:

Brazil gets 80% of its fuel needs from ethanol refined from sugar cane.

Click to expand...

When we were in Brazil at the ISDE the promoter told us not to use the local gas in the bikes. We were on the northern shore & he trucked better fuel across the country from Rio for everyone to use. The bikes still ran lean. The GNCC riders had spec Klotz race gas shipped from the US.

We are going to have problems in the future finding good fuel for our bikes.

RobH said:

Another oil industry myth is that nuclear power will make us all turn green and the plants are hydrogen bombs waiting to go off. France is able to produce 80% of its electricity from nuclear power with an excellent safety record.

Click to expand...

Just a minute there...France is likely the largest net producer of nuclear electricity per capita but, they do NOT have an excellent safety record.

France had a melt some years ago and has had many nuclear incidents over the years. Russia likely leads the list with the most accidents while their nuclear infrastructure is rusting away even after Chernobyl (the worst nuclear accident at a generating station to date).

Of course, we aren't off the list either with MetEd's Three Mile Island disaster, Hanford, Brown’s Ferry and many more......I am a fan of nuclear power and correct, it takes at least a decade to turn turbines after they decide where they want to build the next nuclear generating station...meanwhile, the Saudis are getting rich on our oil dollars.........

Ethanol requires fatter jetting to burn proper. It will run very lean if just dumped into your tank. It won't get the mileage you will get with gasoline, either. That's 85% ethanol like they're running in Brasil, not 10 percent. Don't worry about 10 percent, you won't notice the difference.

However, I fail to see how prices for ethanol will remain elevated if we switch. Sure, at first, high demand will run the price up which will make producers gear up for more production. As production catches demand, will not the price come down? Supply and demand, ya know? Plus, ethanol fermented from biomass, doesn't necessarily have to be corn, but high sugar/starch grains give better yield. I refuse to believe it could possibly be any more energy intensive than buying crude from Saudis, shipping it half way around the world, refining it. All you have to do with ethanol is ferment, then distill it/dry it. You don't have to crack it and distill the products from the cracker through two dozen distillation columns, you don't have to ship it in huge tankers, you don't have to worry about oil spills and clean up and the environmental damage from such. You're growing the corn and exporting half of it anyway, why not put some of that export to use at home instead of sending it to Saudi Arabia and other OPEC states to make corn fritters or feed their camels or whatever they do with it. SCREW 'EM!

I agree with Rob (BTW, you ride a EX250? If so, HI ROB!) in that I'm skeptical of ethanol critics. I really don't give a flip about environmental worries, if there are any, anyhow. I'm more worried about national security and gettin' us off OPEC's teets is a good thing.

One side benefit if it matters is that burning ethanol doesn't CO2 to the environment. You're cycling CO2, not diggin' it out of the ground where it's been buried for since the Permian and putting it back in the atmosphere.

Also, retro-fitting for E85 is also not feasible due to the cost.

Click to expand...

What could new injectors and a computer cost???? Probably need the density sensor in the gas tank if you want an automatic system that changes its programming when you change fuels, but hey, what could THAT cost??? The aftermarket will be all over this like stink on, well, they will, trust me. It'd be worth it to me for a buck less a gallon to get it done. On the bikes, just rejet if you have carbs. No big deal way I see it. You could install a "dial-a-jet", too, which is probably what I'd do to the DP bike.

If it works like Brazil, you'll have your choice of ethanol and gasoline. If you don't wanna retrofit, run ethanol, you don't have to. The reduced demand of gasoline will bring the price of it down even if you're not using E85, so you benefit either way! Me? I'll be converting bike at a time.

My issue with retrofitting the bikes/cars for ethanol is the reduced fuel mileage and performance. Petty issues, yes, but I PAID for the HP of my current vehicles. I don't want to see them neutered. Now, will the auto/bike manufacturers make bikes to adjust for this fuel, sure (if it is widely adopted) and if they are competitively priced, I'd look at them. But I don't want to see a reduction in the performance of my existing vehicles.

Does the ethanol have to be from corn? When Mr. Bush talked about switch grass in his SofU address, I thought, "Hunh?" But then NPR interviewed a researcher, who said that switch grass has a very high yield per acre, and the entire plant can be used to make the fuel, as opposed to just the corn kernels.

Also, regarding corn syrup, the less there is of that evil stuff in this world, the better. Use the corn to fuel our cars, not our diabetes medication industry.

mcrider said:

I stopped last night to full up my truck & the pump had a sign "May contain 10% ethanol".

Ok petroleum or chemical engineers, what is the ethanol going to do to our motorcycles? Will they run leaner or will it damage the valves? I know the oil companies & government say it will be ok. But if that is true why do they warn us with a sign?

Click to expand...

I haven't heard of any problems with ethanol-mix gas in Arizona and it has been mandated there (for 6 months of the year) for years. It is not a fuel economy thing, but an anti-smog thing.

Regarding use of ethanol as a crude oil substitute (as in Brazil), I don't think it makes sense here because of the fuel costs. Okay, maybe in Louisiana where they still grow sugar cane, but not in general.

"There is no such thing as a free lunch."


Lee

buck000 said:

Does the ethanol have to be from corn? When Mr. Bush talked about switch grass in his SofU address, I thought, "Hunh?" But then NPR interviewed a researcher, who said that switch grass has a very high yield per acre, and the entire plant can be used to make the fuel, as opposed to just the corn kernels.

Also, regarding corn syrup, the less there is of that evil stuff in this world, the better. Use the corn to fuel our cars, not our diabetes medication industry.

Click to expand...

There are many sources for the biomass used to make ethanol....grass clippings, corn, soybeans, etc. But, I want the 85% stuff and I want to run it in my BMW GS.....I don’t worry about the power reduction or reduced mileage....the economy will be there...less fuel cost per mile and reduced emissions......that's what it is about for me.....and, putting those poor Saudis into the soup lines.............that would be just peachy with me.........then we could export the ethanol to them (at some inflated price) and trade it on the Chicago BOT or the New York Commodities Exchange..........take that OPEC......stick it to ‘em!!!

Jack Giesecke said:

What could new injectors and a computer cost???? Probably need the density sensor in the gas tank if you want an automatic system that changes its programming when you change fuels, but hey, what could THAT cost??? The aftermarket will be all over this like stink on, well, they will, trust me. It'd be worth it to me for a buck less a gallon to get it done. On the bikes, just rejet if you have carbs. No big deal way I see it. You could install a "dial-a-jet", too, which is probably what I'd do to the DP bike.

If it works like Brazil, you'll have your choice of ethanol and gasoline. If you don't wanna retrofit, run ethanol, you don't have to. The reduced demand of gasoline will bring the price of it down even if you're not using E85, so you benefit either way! Me? I'll be converting bike at a time.

Click to expand...

Computer? easily $500+
New Injectors? $100-$200+ each (times however many cylinders)

There's also a disconnect here, that some may not be noticing. We are motorcyclist and we tend to do our own maintenance and "mods"
We are the minority. The majority of people are cagers and take their car to the shop to be repaired. So I'm not even counting how much Labor will cost, but it is likely double or triple what the parts cost. My quick estimates show at a minimum $1000 (in parts alone) to upgrade an avverage I4 car, just to run on a special fuel. And by your statement, we will still have the option to run gas. So why spend $1000-$2000 at one time, when it's not costing that much more to keep running the same fuel.

Also, consider the time to recoup the cost of the upgrade:
Car = 25mpg's (guessing but seems reasonable)
E85 saves $1/gallon (by your estimates)
$1000 to change to E85
you would need to run 1000 gallons just to recoup the cost of the upgrade
1000gallons * 25mpg's = 25,000 miles
@ 15,000miles/yr that's atleast a year and a half before you recoup the cost of the Parts (again, I haven't even considered the cost of Labor to install the parts)

It's just not feasible for some people to make the change. Thus, the whole E85 system will likely not grow as planned and it may not have enough staying power to last long enough in the market for it to become a viable option for most people.

Now, don't get me wrong, I like to tinker, and I would probably convert a commuter bike to E85. But, we are in the minority.

living up in Iowa in the late 70's and early 80's and we were using the ethanol blend way back then. No problems with vehicles even then and now they are made better and can tolerate ethanol blend better.

Most of the upper midwest has been using ethanol blend since the 80's with no problems.

The current production is not up to demand when they phase out MTBE and phase in ethanol to replace it.

I say grow hemp and make ethanol out of that It grows super fast. It is very rugged and does not require lots of TLC to grow. Won't have any shortage of people wanting to grow it either

Regarding propoganda, who can you believe? Pro ethanol propoganda issues forth from people like ADM and the EPA, and anti ethanol propoganda is fueled by big oil... Uninterested people are not going to spend the money to really research it. I guess it is impossible to get an impartial opinion then This is EXACTLY why the government should not be involved AT ALL and using FORCE to impose one position or the other! In the free market, both sides can present their goods and the consumers will choose, just like they do with all the other products we buy everyday.

Dyna Sport is right. Right now, oil is still cheap. As it runs out, or people think it is running out, the price will rise. At that time, we WILL find alternatives whether it be ethanol or anything else. However, until the higher price of oil justifies investors spending the time to invest in those alternatives, there is no reason for the government to subsidize any "favorite" one and FORCE us to pay for it!! It does not matter to me one whit if some Suadi prince is getting the money or the shareholders of ADM. Either way I am having to pay

It IS as simple as a free market. Oil successfully displaced horses and buggies without having to piggyback on that infrastructure. It was the market outsider. Sellers had to find ways to make it more desireable for customers to use their product over that of the horse/buggy system. People had to go through the expense of getting rid of the entire infrastructure associated with that system. LOTS of business went under and LOTS of people lost jobs. The structure of our society radically changed. The same thing happened again when electricity displaced gas for lighting homes. It happens when factory automation reduces the need for manual labor. That is just a reality. Government regulations and subsidizations won't change that. Oil won out because it was more desireable to the consumer, the massive infrastructure came AFTER not before. The same will be true for whatever we use to replace oil. Yes, it would be fantastic if much of the existing infrastructure could carryover.

When the oil company wants to make more money, they charge more, and screw the little people...

Click to expand...

Given that the purpose of the company is to maximize shareholder returns, doesn't it stand to reason that they would ALWAYS want to make more money and that they would ALWAYS charge the most the market will bear? Unless of course Congress threatens them with hearings, fines and windfall taxes. If they are not charging what the market will bear, then their shareholders should have them fired and replaced! The point of ALL companies is to charge the most they can to maximize profits. YES we can do without the cars. YES it would be incredibly inconvenient and require drastic changes. The fact that we don't want to be inconvenienced has NOTHING to do with A company's right to charge what people are willing to pay! If the customers were really that flipped out about prices, they would cut back on their consumption and the oil companies would either lower their prices if they can or lose customers. The oil companies cannot just crank up prices willy nilly. Unlike the government, they cannot force you to buy their gas. Regardless of what some people may think, there is fierce competition in the oil business. I deal with it everyday.

My mistake was saying "may the best fuel win" without qualification. "Best" does not necessarily mean in technical terms. Everyone knows that BETA was superior to VHS in technical performance. However, the consumers decided that the convenience and lower cost of VHS outweighed the performance advantanges of BETA, and so BETA has all but vanished. What matters is what the CUSTOMERS want. They express their desires with their buying habits.

If gas gets up to $10/gal and people are still buying it, then they are saying that to them, it is worth it. The people that stop buying it don't think it is worth it. If they cannot afford it at all at $10/gal, this does not magically confer up on them a RIGHT to have gas cheaper!! I'd love to have several really nice bikes that are way out of my price range, but I have no right to own them at the manufacturer's expense! I need a new car because mine is getting old and wearing out. I can't really afford to replace it and life will be darn inconvenient without it, but this does not mean a dealer should be forced to sell me one at a price I can afford. Nor does it mean the government should subsidize the dealer so he can afford to sell it to me for less.

Entitlement thinking is dangerous. It has no limits to its' application...

I completely agree with you, but I think there is a difference with Gas. and that would be a lack of alternatives. If you can't afford a new expensive car you have the option of buying a cheaper new car or an even cheaper used car. Plenty of options. We do not really have any options on gas. We have to go to work and we have to live our lives. There is not enough time in the day for me to walk to an from work. That leaves me with motorized transportation and I'm essentially forced to buy gas at whatever price the oil company wants. Now I chose to live where I do, but that was also due to a lack of options. I work in Downtown Dallas, where housing is ridiculous. So I had to move farther away to find something affordable. I understand that I don't have to work where I currently do, but if that line of thought continues, I will end up living in the woods so that I don't have any bills and no need for a car.