Why is there ethanol in gasoline?
Today, we take another look at ethanol for our weekly Greenlings post. You've probably noticed that many vehicles are labeled with a Flex Fuel badge from the manufacturer, indicating that the car or truck is capable of running safely on E85 – a blend of 85-percent ethanol and 15-percent gasoline.For this article, we're not talking about E85 or other mixtures with high concentrations of the alcohol fuel. Even regular-grade gas that you get from the fuel pump nearest you is very likely to have at least some amount of ethanol added, and in fact, the single largest single use of ethanol in the world is as fuel. Why? And does your car need any modifications to use this ethanol-infused gasoline? Read on to fine out.
Gallery: AFVI Ride & Drive Ethanol Hummer
Lead Photo by drewzhrodague. Licensed under Creative Commons 2.0
In the early 1990s, the United States government issued a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act that included the requirement to use oxygenated gasoline (minimum oxygen content of 2.0-percent by weight for reformulated gasoline in ozone non-attainment areas, for what it's worth) to help the fuel burn more completely in combustion. One of the favored oxygenates was methyl tert-butyl ether, or MTBE.
This chemical compound was chosen due to its low price and because it helped mixers generate higher octane ratings. All seemed well until California discovered in 1995 that MTBE was showing up in high concentrations in drinking water, which was traced back to spilled gasoline and leaky underground containers. Ethanol was widely seen as a safer replacement for MTBE and its use was pushed by the agricultural industry here in the States.
So, now that we know why regular gasoline probably has at least some ethanol in it, the next logical question is do you need to be worried about it? The answer is a qualified no. Today's cars and trucks are all fully capable of running on E10, a blend of 10-percent ethanol and 90-percent gasoline. Sophisticated computer systems and sensors constantly monitor the engine and the exhaust to be sure that everything (i.e., the air-fuel mixture) is kept at its optimum level.
Even older cars (say, from the mid-1980s or so) are unlikely to be damaged by low concentrations of ethanol in gasoline, though it's possible a carburetor may need to be rejetted to run on highly oxygenated fuels. Classic cars and trucks may need some replacement of older rubber lines and fittings that could potentially be damaged by high concentrations of alcohol in gasoline.
But what about the environment? Is a 10-percent ethanol blend eco-friendly? That's a tougher nut to crack. Obviously, the burning of fossil fuels isn't a great thing in and of itself for the environment, so the question may be whether burning ethanol-infused fuel is better or worse than straight gasoline. Since ethanol is used to oxygenate the gasoline mixture, which in turn allows the fuel to burn more completely and therefore produce cleaner emissions, its use in fuel has obvious benefits for air quality.
Of course, the full issue is a bit more complicated than that. For a more detailed discussion on the merits and drawbacks of ethanol (including cellulosic ethanol), click here.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
why not the LS2LS7? 9:30PM (8/13/2009)
Don't forget that the requirement for oxygenated gas was based upon a flawed study which looked at only a single season in a few cities. For example, in Seattle. The air was remarkably cleaner that season, and so oxygenated gas was mandated. But, the next year, the air was not only not as clean, but dirtier than before, despite the use of oxygenated fuels.
It is unclear oxygenated fuel has any advantageous effect on air quality.
Reply
Snowdog 6:53AM (8/14/2009)
Oxygenators like ethanal are also unnecessary since the advent of more modern pollution controls.
MikeW 9:07AM (8/14/2009)
Since OBDII
Almashy 10:55PM (8/13/2009)
As a pointer:
The debate of the CO2 emissions of ethanol revolve around whether the mass corn industry (mostly in the United States) process consumes less fossil fuels than gas at a pump. It is relatively conclusive that it releases more CO2 per gallon to create ethanol than oil.
Also keep in mind that the corn industry devastates a vast amount of topsoil every year, leading to a situation to further increasing pollutant seeping into the groundwater and the ocean (there are already growing "dead zones" in the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico due to fertilizer runoff).
Reply
Michael Hippenhammer 4:32AM (8/14/2009)
Butanol is much better than ethanol. It has the same energy content as unleaded gasoling and and its just as easy to produce. With the same energy content as unleaded fuel you don't lose power and you get the same fuel mileage making it more efficient than ethanol.
Reply
Carney 2:18PM (8/14/2009)
Butanol is fine but it is NOT easier to produce and is more expensive. Also, it's a lot smarter to make flex fuel a standard feature so that new cars can burn methanol, ethanol, propanol, or butanol.
That way we don't have all our eggs in one basket and the oil cartel can't easily cripple one single industry to hog things for itself again. With fuel choice, their vertical monopoly will be permanently broken, never to be retrieved again.
Michael Hippenhammer 2:55AM (8/17/2009)
Add turbo chargers and you can get the power and efficiency out of ethanol.
galop 11:35PM (8/13/2009)
Well, I see the foreign-oil lobby is out in force, again. Spreading their usual hogwash.
First off, Corn is a $56 Billion/Yr business. Oil is about a $3 Trillion/Yr Business. Exxon, and Chevron, alone are bigger than the entire Corn business.
Every Area (L.A., Milwaukee, NY, Connecticut, etc) that an ethanol blend was mandated saw immediate, and, dramatic improvement in "Clean Air Days."
Oil is pumped up from the ground, and burned, thus pumping subterranean Carbon into the atmosphere in the form of CO2. For every gallon that's burned, 1.2 gallon e of oil, nat gas, and coal is dug up and combusted.
Ethanol from corn, on the other hand, merely recirculates the CO2 that's already in the atmosphere. It IS true that, for the time being, every gallon of ethanol, which in the proper engine can replace 114,000 btus of gasoline DUE to ethanol's much higher Octane Rating, Does represent approx. 33,000 btus of nat gas (which could replace about 20,000 btus of gasoline.)
The only way they can come up with their phony CO2 numbers is to do what Timothy Searchinger, a Lawyer/Advocate - read: Lobbyist, did for Nature Conservancy (which has Two - I think it is BP, and Shell - Major Oil Companies as "Permanent" Directors on the Board,) and that is to assume that for every acre of corn that is planted in the U.S. and Acre of Soybeans Is NOT planted, and as a result, an acre of rainforest will be cut down in Brazil, and an Acre of Soybeans will be planted, there.
Unfortunately for truth, and the Scientific Method, Searchinger's study ended in 2003, and in the years, since, Brazil's Soybean Production has DROPPED from 58 Million Acres of Soybeans to 53 Million Acres of Soybeans.
Besides, Brazil has 150 Million Acres of Prime Soybean Land lying Fallow in the Cerrado. Why in the world would anyone that wanted to plant soybeans not just rent, or buy, cheaply, some of That land?
Just some more manure from the folks that brought you $4.30 Gasoline, and helped Wreck our Economy last year.
Say, thank you, Dearies; but, we're not buying.
Reply
Nateb123 11:54PM (8/13/2009)
It's a good thing you're so free of personal agendas yourself. Just because people cast doubts on presumptuous studies doesn't mean they have vested interests. Anything trying to tie air quality to something as trivial as how much ethanol is in our cars is clearly contrived. The 10 biggest boats in the world produce more emissions than the entirety of cars on Earth. Maybe during the tests when things were "dirty" they had an extra large visitor in the harbour.
The thing is, we can't take into account even a fraction of the variables involved. Air quality is an irreducible global issue due to the vast number and complexity of human inputs (like industry and agriculture) and natural inputs (like disasters, winds, seasons, temperatures and solar behavior) into the system that is our atmosphere. A wild fire in another country could create error significant enough to give false results for god's sake. It's not about oil=good, ethanol=bad. It's about the fact that we understand this whole problem about as well as an ant understands quantum mechanics.
phez 1:01AM (8/14/2009)
Ethanol is the bane of the green energy movement. Its not greener by any measure. Okay, maybe it creates less pollutants than normal gasoline, LOL, I guess we should throw away our catalytic converter systems! Higher fuel effiency? lolwut? I have to burn more ethanol per unit of gasoline for the same power, thus further reducing my mpg and even my car's total power. Why on earth do I want that?
If all this money - and like many have said, what could be billions - was put into something useful like hydrogen or even battery research, we wouldn't have to deal with ANY pollution from the vehicle itself, something ethanol cannot stand its name upto. At worst, we'd have to deal with the chemical side of battery production.
And then all this corn could be used for something truly beneficial, such as helping to feed developing nations.
Reply
Carney 2:14PM (8/14/2009)
"Ethanol is the bane of the green energy movement.'
In fact, actual environmentalists championed alcohol fuel for years especially from the 60s through the 80s. Flex fuel cars were invented to reduce smog and were extensively field tested by the California Energy Commission.
"Its not greener by any measure."
It is, by light-years.
Burned ethanol emits significantly less NOx, and in its vapor form (which as with gasoline vapor is released through imperfect combustion or flawed refueling) reacts to atmospheric NOx at less than a tenth the rate of gasoline. Also unlike gasoline vapor it washes out of the atmosphere when it rains. All leading to drastically less ozone smog.
Burned ethanol emits ZERO sulfur, the cause of acid rain.
Burned ethanol emits ZERO smoke, soot, or particulate matter, the cause of smog and black roadside snow
Ethanol is not a carcinogen - gasoline is riddled with them.
Ethanol is not a mutagen - gasoline is riddled with them.
Ethanol CANNOT cause water pollution - it is water soluble and dissolves away into the vast hydrosphere, rather than remaining floating and concentrated. Furthermore it is readily biodegradable and breaks down into harmless components, unlike petroleum.
"Okay, maybe it creates less pollutants than normal gasoline"
Yeah, and maybe chemistry and physics are true and voodoo isn't.
"Higher fuel effiency? lolwut? I have to burn more ethanol per unit of gasoline for the same power, thus further reducing my mpg and even my car's total power. Why on earth do I want that?"
Because maybe you'd want to look up from your narrow, short-term, what's in it for me, high MPGs and screw everything else perspective and realize the harm sending hundreds of billions a year to Islamist fanatics is doing to the world. Not to mention the economic and environmental damage.
And really, who really cares about MPGs if a) the fuel tank is 50% bigger so you don't have to refuel any more often, b) the fuel is renewable rather than a fossil fuel so you're not going to run out of it, and c) it burns cleaner?
Also the higher octane rating is nice.
"If all this money - and like many have said, what could be billions - was put into something useful like hydrogen or even battery research, we wouldn't have to deal with ANY pollution from the vehicle itself, something ethanol cannot stand its name upto. At worst, we'd have to deal with the chemical side of battery production.
And then all this corn could be used for something truly beneficial, such as helping to feed developing nations."
Here's where you reveal your true ignorance. Hydrogen is a hilariously bad fuel and always will be.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
Ray 1:36AM (8/14/2009)
Seems like corn fields should be replanted with different crop every so often to add different nuitrents to the soil.
Oil is a global business for 3 trillion dollars. Corn is a US business so naturally it is going to be smaller.
I thought the Chesapeake Bay was dying of chicken crap being flushed into it from that huge chicken farm conglomerate. The corporation gives them the chicks, gives specifications down to the letter on how to raise them, then they come and collect them for butchering. They say the chicken shit is suppose to benefit the farm some how but much of it gets flushed into Chesapeake Bay.
I equate the corn ethanol conundrum to global warming, some people like Bob Lutz do not believe in GW. Corn ethanol, many believe it takes more energy to make it than it produces, others believe it to be beneficial. On GW I will go with the 80% of climatologist that believe it is real. Corn ethanol I have not yet figured out what the percentages are.
Ahh yet a nother Internet research project.
Reply
Zeph 3:48AM (8/14/2009)
The real question is why is there any gasoline in the ethanol?
http://www.permaculture.com/ This is a link for anyone who really wants to have a clue and not wade through so many of the corrupt industry lies and disinfo.
The short truth is ethanol is, and always was, a superior fuel. Only through Rockefeller sponsored bs, things like prohibition for example, did gasoline even gain a foothold. The truth is we have (more than) enough land to run every ICE on ethanol. The truth is we have no shortage of arable land for food even if we did use a lot of the land for ethanol. The truth is we would probably have more food, because the subproduct of the ethanol crops would be animal feeds, which would yield meat and organic fertilizers. The truth is the loss of topsoil is because of chemical fertilizers and because we break the natural cycles and don't let the remineralization plants grow between crops (you know, they're called weeds). Guess which industry produces the chemical fertilizers.
The truth is as a species we're dumb and lazy. We already had natures bounty yet we let ourselves be sidetracked by bloodsucking businessmen to the point of wrecking our biosphere. Now, the biosphere could easily recover in a couple of decades, but our stupidity is harder to cure. The clearly paid opinions littering the internet is proof of this.
How about you folks defending big oil honestly study something instead of being intelectual prostitutes? Ethanol works. I'm a fan of the electric car too, but if ethanol were mandated, if the conversion was forced, at the technical level on the corporations, much good would come to the world as more and more people discover and adopt it, as we would again be in symbiosis with plants. Brasil is proof of concept, and they don't waste time on corn ethanol debates and disinfo. They do have amazonian issues, but that has nothing to do with ethanol and is another stupid corporate thing related to agriculture.
Reply
chinb96629 4:39AM (8/14/2009)
The type of corn planted for ethanol production is not your edible kind. Because there is an abundance of farmland, land used for cultivating ethanol corn does not create scarce land that might have been used for food production. Prior to gasoline additive MBTE, oil companies blended tetra-ethyl lead into their gasoline to cheaply raise octane. For over 70 years, the lead from tetra-ethyl spewed from millions of auto tailpipes poisoned America, especially children who are the most susceptible victims. Medical studies have shown conclusively that excessive lead exposure causes neurological problems. Lead in gasoline had to be banned. MBTE, derived from oil refinery and lobbied by the oil companies, was hastily approved and blended with gasoline as an "oxygenator" over the objection of the ethanol lobby. MBTE is a carcinogenic compound and not readily biodegradable whereas ethanol is completely biodegradable. After leaky gas tank and spills poisoned ground water for almost seven years throughout America, every State in the union had to ban MBTE in order to preserve what little clean drinkable ground water they still have. And finally, after almost 80 years of propaganda from Big Oil, America is finally free from a gasoline additive that poisoned them to their graves.
Reply
Snowdog 7:41AM (8/14/2009)
"Greenlings: Why is there ethanol in gasoline?"
Obviously because of the massive corporate welfare system and it's massive lobby power. That is the answer to why it is there. Everything else is an argument about SHOULD it be there?
We can argue about:
The fact that with modern pollution controls we dont' need Oxygenators at all.
The minuscule amount of net energy derived from growing corn for fuel.
The negligible impact on oil imports even if you turned over all available land to ethanol.
How poorly ethanol meshes with our fuel infrastructure (pipelines).
How ethanol destroys marine and classic car engines.
The impact of food price, from turn land over to growing an ethanol crop.
The large amount of water use further depleting dwindling ground waters.
The extra fertilizer run off, creating massive marine dead zone where sea life is killed off.
Land use studies that show a negative C02 impact for the first 100 year.
The obscenity that in a world were people are going hungry, fueling an SUV with ethanol ONCE, displaces enough food crops to feed someone for a YEAR.
But we can't argue with the only factor that really matters. The massive corporate welfare that drives this boondoggle. The profits of this industry come directly from the pockets of the citizen of the land. As long as we pay the massive welfare, they will have the massive lobby and we will have ethanol in gas.
The is no technical reason, there is no economic reason, their is no environmental reason. There is simply the big corporate welfare. That is all you need to know.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/130183.html
Reply
Carney 2:44PM (8/14/2009)
"The minuscule amount of net energy derived from growing corn for fuel."
Actually the return involved is several fold. I've documented this for you already, Snowdog.
"The negligible impact on oil imports even if you turned over all available land to ethanol."
Far from being negligible, the Wall Street Journal in 2006 reported that oil prices were 15% lower than they would otherwise have been just from the relatively minor competitive pressure that biofuel was able to provide then.
"How poorly ethanol meshes with our fuel infrastructure (pipelines)."
Right, so with legacy pipelines we can't use ethanol. Wah. So until they're upgraded we use trains and trucks. Excuse blown up.
Next fake excuse for jihad-helping inaction and/or ineffective distractions, please.
"How ethanol destroys marine and classic car engines."
Future marine engines can be made flex fuel like car engines, which would be great for water quality because you wouldn't have that iridescent scum floating on the water that is so typical now.
As for classic car engines, you seriously propose continuing to fund Saudi madrassas and the Iranian nuclear program by keeping our entire transportation network unnecessarily locked in to petroleum only, all just so a handful of hobbyists can play with their toys?
Ridiculous. If you want to run your Packard or Studebaker or whatever at the car show, you can buy your old-school fuel at a handful of nostalgia sellers. The rest of us will move on to a cleaner world that is not held economically (or literally) hostage by death-cultists.
"The impact of food price, from turn land over to growing an ethanol crop."
Again, I've proven this false for you, with facts. What, were you hoping I wouldn't be here to notice?
You are thus repeating things you now know to be false; ignorance is no longer an excuse.
"The large amount of water use further depleting dwindling ground waters."
Corn ethanol is not irrigated.
"The extra fertilizer run off, creating massive marine dead zone where sea life is killed off."
Standard extremist complaint about modern agriculture. Sorry, I refuse to starve.
Land use studies that show a negative C02 impact for the first 100 year.
"The obscenity that in a world were people are going hungry, fueling an SUV with ethanol ONCE, displaces enough food crops to feed someone for a YEAR."
The real obscenity is repeating lies spread by DC PR firms hired by the UAE to derail ethanol.
There's NO food shortage in the world and tremendous agricultural slack capacity - what there is instead is a WEALTH shortage.
Nothing would benefit the world's poor more than re-directing our fuel dollars to them and away from the sheiks and jihadis and terrorists. Subsistence farmers could grow a cash crop, earn hard currency, and enter modernity.
I know, most green fanatics are anti-human and would really deep down prefer all those people to stay "authentically" primitive or just die and turn their homelands into a nature park for camera toting Western tourists to fly in and out of.
"But we can't argue with the only factor that really matters. The massive corporate welfare that drives this boondoggle. The profits of this industry come directly from the pockets of the citizen of the land. As long as we pay the massive welfare, they will have the massive lobby and we will have ethanol in gas. The is no technical reason, there is no economic reason, their is no environmental reason. There is simply the big corporate welfare. That is all you need to know."
"Big" corporate welfare? A whopping $10 billion? Who cares if it's even $50 billion? Going to farmers and agribusiness? Who cares?
That's chump change compared to the HUNDREDS of billions, trillions, we have dished out to the oil cartel, which is a gang of viciously tyrannical, extremist cut-throats. It's about PERSPECTIVE.
The cranks at Reason need to re-read their Hayek, who said that fanaticism about the free market was the greatest threat to it, and who strongly supported state action against cartels - and he was talking about PRIVATE, DOMESTIC cartels. Being all kid-gloves with FOREIGN, STATE-MONOPOLY SOCIALIST cartel that commits acts of war against us is not libertarian or free market, it's just suicidally stupid, with no basis in principle or logic.
Snowdog 4:30PM (8/14/2009)
Carney, you haven't proven anything. You have offered commentary by an ethanol friendly scientist. That isn't proof.
A survey of studies on energy return from corn ethanol is about 1.3 times input. Quite small.
It is also funny how you switch gears to it being about food when I mention the massive marine dead zone. You are proponent of massively increasing land use for ethanol, and thus increasing the dead zone. Your answer is don't starve me. Like all pollution, there are tipping points. What is sustainable at food production level might not be a fuel production levels.
As far as irrigation, some corn is grown with irrigation. If you want to push higher levels as you would, this would require more irrigation.
As stated increasing ethanol production, will increase marine dead zones from agricultural runoff, increase water usage, increase food prices, and frankly displace little oil.
The only beneficiary agri corporations like ADM, that exist only as massive welfare recipients that have no business model that exists outside of swilling taxpayer funding.
Carney 10:54AM (8/31/2009)
"Carney, you haven't proven anything. You have offered commentary by an ethanol friendly scientist. That isn't proof."
Wrong. As you know, the study I refer to is not a mere commentary, but the most comprehensive survey of the entire existing peer-reviewed published literature on the subject in the world's most prestigious peer reviewed publication, "Science" (Jan. 27, 2006).
"A survey of studies on energy return from corn ethanol is about 1.3 times input. Quite small."
Wrong.
The only major voice claiming this is David Pimentel, an entomologist writing far outside his area of expertise, and who has had his fatally flawed studies (which use outdated statistics and false assumptions such as ethanol corn being irrigated) spammed all over policy debates and media by oil-funded think tanks, long after being thoroughly refuted in the refereed literature.
"The only beneficiary agri corporations like ADM, that exist only as massive welfare recipients that have no business model that exists outside of swilling taxpayer funding. "
Again, who cares if some agribusiness makes ten of billions extra? Compared to the jihad raking in hundreds of billions or trillions? That's the choice in the real world. I choose agribusiness. You have chosen to make yourself useful to the jihad, but they will not be grateful to you, I assure you.
Snowdog 11:06AM (8/31/2009)
The only Jihadist here would be you with the religious fervor you bring to the debate. You are completely and totally mind locked to this one issue.
It isn't even clear what you think this comment supports or what you are arguing against.
Are you saying you don't believe the 1.3 times energy return and only one person did that. Complete BS. That is based on a number of studies. If I were going to pick one study. I could find a few that say the energy return on Ethanol is ZERO or less.
The best way to show that something actually has a usefull return is actually force it to compete in the marketplace. That quickly removes all the BS.
Propping up an unsustainable industry with taxpayer money while contributing to the host of deleterious effects is obscene.
Carney 4:16PM (9/01/2009)
"The only Jihadist here would be you with the religious fervor you bring to the debate. You are completely and totally mind locked to this one issue."
What does that mean? Calling me names somehow erases or negates the physical reality of thousands, if not millions, of oil-funded violent Islamists?
Yes, I'm dedicated to defeating them. We should all be. That's to be celebrated, not sneered at with a "too cool to be enthusiastic or committed to anything" juvenile attitude.
Wake up - this isn't about how cool you are online. The world out there is real, and there are (and have been) devastatingly real consequences for our inaction in the face of our continuing to fund these people.
"It isn't even clear what you think this comment supports or what you are arguing against."
I support a mandate that all new cars sold in America be fully flex-fueled, able to run equally easily on any alcohol fuel as on gasoline. That's a good idea for environmental, economic, and especially geostrategic reasons. Myths that ethanol are harmful for the environment are just that, myths. Clear enough?
By the way after my point-by-point takedown of the myths you posted, I notice you simply dropped the matters in question. Have the honesty to admit you've been refuted and your case is not as airtight as you thought.
"Are you saying you don't believe the 1.3 times energy return and only one person did that. Complete BS. That is based on a number of studies. If I were going to pick one study. I could find a few that say the energy return on Ethanol is ZERO or less."
Then find and post them, especially those that are not paid for by the oil cartel. Since you are so scornfully dismissive, surely there must be overwhelming evidence from DISINTERESTED parties (not the equivalent of the Tobacco Institute). Of course, there isn't.
"The best way to show that something actually has a usefull return is actually force it to compete in the marketplace. That quickly removes all the BS. Propping up an unsustainable industry with taxpayer money while contributing to the host of deleterious effects is obscene."
You're focused on the wrong issue. You are consumed by whether alcohol would beat oil in a fair fight without any government distortion of the marketplace. Thus you are annoyed by government actions in favor of alchohol.
But fulfilling your aesthetic and intellectual desire to gaze with satisfaction upon a segment of the economy that has no state-imposed slant on the outcome is FAR LESS IMPORTANT than the urgency of de-funding the crazy men who are desperately eager to kill as many of us as possible and spread an insane totalitarian death cult until it dominates as much of the world as possible.
Your priorities are wildly out of whack.