No, it's not 3-5%, it's 3%.

Agreed on the taxes and subsidy, that's part of the boondoggle.

 

How so? It contains quite a bit of oxygen per unit volume which is part of the problem when using it in engines not programmed to use it, throws the O2 sensor info off. So, it produces less energy but also less CO2.

 

This is what you think is gospel or whatever holy book you refer to for misguidance.
Ethanol Facts: Environment | RFA: Renewable Fuels Association

What it is, is BS


This is what Treehuggers and Ethanol producers don't want you to know..

More Corn Ethanol in 2013 Means Environment, Consumers Lose Out

"Corn ethanol also increases emissions of other air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, ammonia, nitrogen oxides and ozone. In 2011, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the air quality effects of increased production and use of ethanol were more damaging to human health than those from gasoline use. The Academy study also found that corn ethanol production contributes to poor water quality and is associated with the creation of oxygen-deprived “dead zones” that kill off aquatic life. This year’s dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is estimated to span more than 5,800 square miles – larger than the state of Connecticut.
Despite the compelling evidence from EPA and the National Academy that corn ethanol contributes to climate change and dirties air and water, the industry is allowed to further saturate the market and skirt environmental protections, putting cleaner fuels at a disadvantage."

 

Hi.......I enjoy the opinions and theories and suggestions from all sides of an argument and have always treated most ideas in this fashion especially the political forums, since I am an Independent. BUT AS IN ALL FORUMS, I CAN NOT STAND THE PERSONAL ASSAULTS AND ATTACKS.....I thought this was a "gentleman's" forum.....so grow up you guys !!

 

Weirdly, on this issue we (DPK and I) are agreed but one of us hasn't realized that yet.

 

Not an Obama fan I see. No sentient being could fail to realize he meant to say 47.

 

That's the way I see it too...............

 

I'll quote you; "How so?" ...We are not talking about engines of twenty years ago...Stay focused if you are going to be contrary.

..and frankly Mikey, I DON'T see anything closely resembling agreement from this guy but antagonism and arrogance.

 

I believe there are 57 ISLAMIC states...

 

"And....Ethanol is more harmful to the environment than 100% gasoline emissions"

How about a reference? Or SOME backup? And, me too on not being a big ethanol supporter, but there is just so much BS not based in science about it. And when you can buy non ethanol fuel in some markets, it is more than 3% more costly, so exactly how is e-10 3% more expensive. Argue the facts, not some hysteria promulgated by the conspiracy theorists.

 

He's talking apples and oranges. More accurately corn and sugarcane. Ethanol itself doesn't cause significantly more pollution, depending upon your definition of pollution. If you count CO2 as pollution as Europe does and Brazil and the US do not then using ethanol fuel is loony.

Apart from the CO2 production ethanol made from sugarcane is environmentally sound. Ethanol made from corn is economically irrational and cannot be made economically attractive without subsidy or government regulation.

Producing ethanol from corn is chemically inefficient and consumes an otherwise valuable food source. The fertilizer and fuel required to grow it increases its emissions footprint and cost to the point where it makes no sense whatever to do it. Producing ethanol from sugarcane requires no fertilizer and very little fuel. It produces much more sugar per acre which is what you need to make ethanol (ethanol chemically is sugar digested by yeast).

The cost difference between ethanol spiked fuel and petroleum hydrocarbon fuel derives from the oxygen content of ethanol. There is no oxygen in hydrocarbon fuel. The oxygen in ethanol yields virtually no energy.

However, Brazil has used ethanol as motor fuel economically and efficiently for a long time. For supercharged engines ethanol can be made very cost effective as fuel.

 

Jagular:
Ok, I buy the "total impact" argument against ethanol, and I do believe it is bad policy for the other reasons you state-
My problem is that I think it is like many issues that get confused, in that technical facts get misrepresented in order to attempt to support a tangential political dogma. (Think "global warming"). To read these forums, one would believe that any fuel system problem in a Jaguar is because there is ethanol in the fuel. And that just ain't true!

 

More Corn Ethanol in 2013 Means Environment, Consumers Lose Out | Environmental Working Group

 

Ross-

Your statement is entirely correct and applies to just about any device that consumes gasoline/petrol. I participate/lurk on many forums for my motorized toys, tools and vehicles. Each and every one is awash with over the top sky-is-falling stories about the evils of this 'new' E10 stuff.

As always, there's no shortage of snake oil salesmen who have seized the opportunity to offer us a myriad of products that will save us from a dark and dreary future of expensive repairs.

I enjoy putting a stick in their spokes by pointing out that E10 is NOT new and that the predicted problems would have surfaced decades ago if there was any truth to them.

This is deja vu all over again- when unleaded fuel became mandatory in the '70s a very similar set of myths and misunderstandings emerged that had the shysters marketing all sorts of miracles in a can. Amazingly, there's still people today that raid the additives shelves at the car parts stores buying up cans of goo that will prevent bad things from happening.

Oh well.

 

The voice of reason.

 

I purchase non ethanol gas at Fastrac stations, 91 octane.

 

Right on Bro...that is all you should EVER burn in that beautiful car..

 

In the vast majority of events I agree, however we did loose an evinrude 150 horse ficht engine to ethanol based gas, well, the engine was not programmed to handle it and pushed the connecting rod through the cylinder wall. That being said, I'm not aware of any cutting edge low emissions two stroke technology going into a car so...

 

I have found the car runs better on the non ethanol fuel and appears to get better mpg on highway.

 

It most definitely will get better Mileage on 100% gasoline because Ethanoil's BTU content is less than that of petroleum fuel and you'll probably spend less in the long run for 100% (More bang for the Buck)..But after this wearisome thread, one should conclude that Ethanoil is not the best to use in this car or for the environment....But if you are stuck in a State or country that has succumbed to wills of the Oil companies and ethanol producers, that want this crap for higher subsidized profit margins..then you have to burn what is available unfortunately.