"Great ethanol scam" can easily cost you $1,000, says BW
The undeniable shift towards E15 continues, but not everyone is liking it. Business Week's Ed Wallace has collected a series of anecdotes that shows what he calls the "unpublicized trend" of ethanol destroying fuel systems in America's cars even without the increase to E15. A lot of mechanics are repairing a lot of fuel systems at around $1,000 a pop, and Wallace writes:
Not one mechanic I've spoken with said they would be comfortable with a 15% blend of ethanol in their personal car. However, most suggest that if the government moves the ethanol mandate to 15%, it will be the dawn of a new golden age for auto mechanics' income.For Wallace, the problems with corn ethanol (the net energy loss, the increased smog, the reduced mileage) are notable but not as important as the trouble that ethanol gives today's non-flex-fuel engines. And potential engine trouble will be here no matter if the biofuel is made from corn or another process. The Minnesota Ag Department and Underwriters Laboratories both says the higher blend is OK for gas station pumps, but it's looking like we're going to need another round of debate on the value of putting E15 in vehicles not designed for it.
[Source: Business Week]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Yikes 9:50AM (5/15/2009)
It's really ashame the corn lobbiest and congress are forcing this down our throats.
Reply
required 11:56AM (5/15/2009)
It's also a shame that this site is continually misrepresenting what is being said by using misleading headlines. Should be revised as "Great corn ehtanol scam"
Ron Wagner 11:34AM (5/15/2009)
What is the supposed damage to the engines? This is the first I have ever heard of it. I have been using 10% for years without a problem. Ethanol burns very cleanly. It gets a little less mileage, but raises the octane substantially. It is also superior in the wintertime. We need all the alternative fuels we can get, to avoid being dependent on Middle East oil. It also helps our farmers to make a little profit.
Reply
DasBoese 2:32PM (5/15/2009)
The problem is that Ethanol can dissolve certain plastics that are commonly used in fuel systems, i.e. rubber hoses, plastic seals etc.
It can lower performance and mileage in an engine that was designed to run on gasoline alone, though it not necessarily does so. Often minor ECU tweaks will remedy that issue, and of course flex-fuel engines, having been designed with ethanol in mind, will actually perform better on it.
mr.ed 8:39AM (5/18/2009)
Alcohol eats various components of the fuel delivery system, the older the vehicle the most as engineers design alternative materials into vehicles. Examples: Solder in fuel tank guage and carburetor floats and many plastics. All combustive products produce CO2, a problem with the basic process. This also means that burning coal, oil or natural gases to produce electricity to charge battery powered cars contribute to the excess CO2 that our planet can't absorb. Because ethanol can't be piped like gasoline because it's hygroscopic and absorbs moisture in the pipes, it must be trucked. The fuel needed to do this is not figured in the energy equation in this article, nor is the fuel to produce and transport fertilizer to produce the corn. Also, because the corn crop is subsidized by government price supports, and the raised price costs consumers in increased farm prices, and because the ethanol is not taxed because it's protected, the whole enterprise is no more than a wash in the end.
Tim 10:40AM (5/15/2009)
If our corrupt politicians and Jurists TRAITORS (both the Democratic-Socialists and NeoCon-Fascists) had the integrity to honor their Oath of Office and actually READ and OBEY the Constitution and Bill of Rights they SWORE to defend, we wouldn't have this problem.
The Constitution LIMITS (not bestows) Federal power over our daily lives,
Thanks to gov’t “public” school PROGRAMMING, Treason and Socialism as espoused by so many comrades on this blog has become more popular than the Reason and Freedom of our forefathers that made us a once great nation.
Thanks to "liberalism", too many now believe that they are “entitled” to a share of their neighbor’s life, liberty and property so they welcome Marxist style "collectivism" and Nazi style "corporatist" redistribution. This is what’s causing our problems!
Thankfully, we have the 1st and 2nd Amendments to defend our rights, our property and ourselves. When Congress comes for these… it’s game on!
Sic semper tyrannis – Virginia State Motto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_semper_tyrannis
Reply
Carney 11:19AM (5/15/2009)
Tim, your rant, as usual, is not only far over-heated, but has noting to do with the article's topic.
Can anyone disagree with you on important public policy issues without being a monstrous evil enemy of freedom, Mom, the flag, and apple pie? I can just see you being dragged away from some town council meeting debating sewer drain and manhole placement, screaming about fascist traitors, blood in the streets, etc.
By the way, the EPA is considering allowing E15 to be sold, not mandating it. So what are you so upset about. You want E15 to be banned by the federal government?
John 10:44AM (5/15/2009)
The article appears to once again perpetuate the myth that there's a net energy loss in making ethanol...That myth has long been debunked. See for yourself at ILSR Energetics of Ethanol: An Introduction and Links to Studies page: http://www.newrules.org/agriculture/energetics-ethanol-introduction-and-link-studies
On the rest of the article's premise... seems kind of weak to stand an argument on top of a collection of anecdotes without any scientific basis to support the claims.
Reply
GoodCheer 2:53PM (5/15/2009)
You did read that article right? It states that the industry average energy gain is 38%. That is to say, for every 100 kWh of fossil fuels used 138 kWh of ethanol are produced. I also note that this study does not include land use change in its calculations.
I'm just saying... this is the study YOU cited.
Matt 5:38PM (5/15/2009)
Yeah, I've met and known a lot of mechanics, and they all have openions. My guess is, though, that none of them are chemists or mechanical engineers. If they were, they may have something I'd take to heart about the effects of ethanol on engine parts. My gut feeling is that 99.9% of mechanics know more about fixing cars, and less about root cause analysis and organic chemistry. Let's make some alge or cellulosic fuel, change some fuel lines, and keep our energy funds as local as possibe until somebody mass produces electric cars.
Rich 9:49AM (5/18/2009)
Absolutely right, Matt. When my TDI's fuel pump was leaking, they wanted to send it away for refurbishment ($1300) or replace it ($1800). A few minutes Googling showed that using biodiesel had swelled the seals, and then going back to dinodiesel for a while had shrunk those seals. The fix was to go back to using biodiesel again, and stay on it. No more leak.
Shock Me 11:51AM (5/15/2009)
I've driven on 15% ethanol for a dozen years or more with no ill-effects and better performance. What's the big deal here?
Reply
DasBoese 2:33PM (5/15/2009)
Your car is not every car.
jharlan 11:03AM (5/15/2009)
Although I agree in principle with the contributions of Yikes, Tim and John, we disparately need to move towards the end of oil importation for the sake of our economy and our country. As an interim choice, I personally think the best choice is C4, since we have huge reserves, retrofitting existing engines will become relatively inexpensive as volume increases, it is quite a bit cleaner than gasoline and the required infrastructure is largely already in place. It is also the less polluting than other carbon based fuels. As we move toward nuclear and renewable sources of electricity, we can continue to embrace the EV, using non polluting sources of electricity.
I would have to state, however that ethanol is better than sending our grandchildrens inheritance to Saudi Arabia and Iran.
As for hydrogen, it's too costly in every way.
Reply
Carney 12:11PM (5/15/2009)
By "C4" I presume you meant "CH4" or methane, that is natural gas, rather than the plastic explosive.
But methane is a gas, and must be compressed into heavy high pressure round or domed-cylinder canisters, or cryogenically liquified with constant insulation and boil-off problems. That's expensive and inconvenient.
There's a better way to use our methane as a vehicle fuel - it can easily and cheaply be made into methanol, which is a liquid at normal temperature and pressure, and can be used in flex fuel cars that can also use gasoline. The methanol and gasoline can be in any mix in the same convenient, out-of-the-way, irregularly shaped fuel tank that follows the contours of the car and fills the gap between its outer and inner skins. No switch to throw, just one fuel gauge, much more transparent and easy for users.
harlanx6 6:34PM (5/15/2009)
You are right Carney, I meant CH4. Your methanol idea sounds good. As far as pressurization, the tanks we have been using since the 30s for C3H8 (propane) are heavy, but it hasn't been a problem. It would be far better if we didn't need heavy pressurized tanks. Either way, lets get moving on this and start producing our own fuel.
Bill B 7:28PM (5/16/2009)
I presume you mean CH4 (methane). You many be well intended, but you are grossly uninformed. Methane is 'clean' from a smog perspective but is terrible from a GHG perspective. see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYH/is_5_7/ai_99232202 This CARB study found CNG busses were 10 times worse than diesel busses. Like many posting on the subject of ethanol, you don't understand the combustion characteristics of IC engines. No fuel burns completely, creating thermal inefficiencies. CNG has very bad thermal efficencies (gasoline is next), diesels have very good thermal efficencies. The little secret that is kept from you is than ethanol can be just as thermally efficient as diesel, maybe even a bit better. This is never accounted when calculating 'field to wheels' LCFS (low carbon fuel standards), it stops with a BTU comparison to gasoline.
Carney 11:13AM (5/15/2009)
I've said it before, I'll say it again, this strategy risks disaster for ethanol.
It's true that on paper and if rationality and facts were all that mattered, this policy would probably be harmless at worst and a no-brainer at best.
After all EPA is not proposing mandating an increase to E15, just permitting it to be sold to non FFVs. And most modern/recent non FFVs can handle not only E15 but probably also E20 or even E24. And if you have an older vehicle with inferior old components that can't tolerate ethanol well, you can always just buy E10 or pure gasoline.
Mechanics have either been trained either in an older era when non FFVs could truly be harmed by slightly higher proportions of ethanol, or training has just mindlessly carried that meme forward regardless of the changed circumstances (probably because of our litigious culture and change-averse butt-covering by automakers and trainers).
But what matters far more than reality and reason is perception and emotion.
And people think they're being force-fed something unfamiliar, rather than simply being given the option to buy more ethanol-rich blends. That raises hackles and makes people prey to cranks and demagogues, as with fluoridated water and mandatory vaccination/immunization. That in turn gives ethanol a bad name among many who would not have cared one way or the other about it.
Far wiser would be for farm-state lobbyists and ethanol advocates to simply mandate that all new cars sold in America be fully flex-fueled, able to run equally easily on gasoline or any alcohol. Each year the proportion of cars on the road able to use E85 or even E100 (in warm weather) would jump dramatically, never to decline. In just three years or so there would be a critical mass of alcohol compatible cars on the road, making even a 4 pump station willing to convert one to alcohol, especially with the right tax incentives. And the ethanol (and methanol) industry would have all the business it could handle and more.
Nobody would get mad because the FFVs can by definition handle pure alcohol without problems. And drivers could just ignore this capability and buy gasoline if they wanted. Automakers are politically weak right now but even they would not object greatly since it only costs them about $130 per car and it might persuade prospective buyers that they will be safe if gas prices shoot up again (since they can just fill up on alcohol instead).
By the way, reduced mileage is a legitimate gripe (easily compensated for with bigger fuel tanks), but increased smog is ridiculous.
Ethanol produces NO smoke, soot, or particulate matter (the source of smog) when burned. The more we use it instead of gasoline, the less smog we'll have.
Reply
Carney 11:25AM (5/15/2009)
"Far wiser would be for farm-state lobbyists and ethanol advocates to simply mandate [...]"
I meant to ADVOCATE a mandate.
Howieb38 2:07PM (5/15/2009)
I'm a pilot and the aviation community is consistently warned of the dangers of using auto fuel with ethanol. I've personally done tests and it destroys gaskets and rubber O rings in the plane. I'm sure it does some damage in cars also.
Reply