# Where can I find gas that contains no ethanol.



## iversonm (Nov 15, 2004)

One more blurb. To give validity to the claims of the original poster, here's this:

_"Through the course of a year, gasoline energy content can range from 108,500 British thermal units (btu) per gallon to 117,000 btu/gal. Winter grades are made more volatile (less dense) to aid in cold start and warm up performance and typically contain 108,500 to 114,000 btu/gallon. Summer grades are of much lower volatility to minimize evaporative emissions and hot start/hot driveability problems. Summer grades will typically contain 113,000 to 117,000 btus/gallon. So the energy content, and therefore the fuel economy, can vary 3.4% to 5.0% just based on the energy content of the fuel. Furthermore comparing the highest energy content summer fuels to lowest energy content winter fuels demonstrates that the variation in energy content is up to 7.26%

The lower energy content of winter fuels and the other wintertime influences on fuel economy can easily lead to reductions of 10-20% in miles per gallon during the coldest winter months." 
_​
So there is a difference. However, it has little to do with the inclusion of oxygenates like ethanol. The fuel itself has a lower energy content.


----------



## edgar620 (Aug 26, 2007)

iversonm said:


> Technically, it is good if you want to reduce the amount of carbon added to the air. Ethanol is carbon neutral.


Do you know what is released in the process of making Ethanol? CO2
And when you burn it, you release more CO2. Using Ethanol puts tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

BmW745On19's said:


> Ethanol is snake oil. It is a huge gold mine for corn farmers. It's all about the corn. People are lead into thinking its good because of "global warming". :jack:


+1

Ethanol is politically correct. I hate the stuff.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

Penforhire said:


> You're thinking of my e90, and you're probably correct. But what about my '73 BMW R75/5? Or the '62 XKE I'm restoring now?


Exactly. It is like feeding my '86 930 small amounts of arsenic with every tank.


----------



## iversonm (Nov 15, 2004)

edgar620 said:


> Do you know what is released in the process of making Ethanol? CO2
> And when you burn it, you release more CO2. Using Ethanol puts tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.


Yes, but do you know what happens when you grow corn?

Tons of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere.

Hence, there is no net increase in CO2. This is not true when your fuel comes from underground.


----------



## iversonm (Nov 15, 2004)

Emission said:


> Exactly. It is like feeding my '86 930 small amounts of arsenic with every tank.


I think article above noted that corrosion is not an issue.


----------



## SkyDog (Aug 1, 2007)

iversonm said:


> Yes, but do you know what happens when you grow corn?
> 
> Tons of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere.
> 
> Hence, there is no net increase in CO2. This is not true when your fuel comes from underground.


...but do you know what many farmers use as fertilizer on their corn crops? Ammonium nitrate. And the production of ammonium nitrate requires quite a bit of energy, which is provided by what? The burning of fossil fuels, of course. Growing corn may remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but producing fertilizer to grow corn creates quite a bit of CO2.

So instead of putting fossil fuels in our tanks, we're using it to make fertilizer to grow corn, which we then refine and put into our tanks. It seems like we might just be adding a subsidized intermediary.


----------



## Penforhire (Dec 17, 2005)

Heh, I only have to worry about seals? Geez, one of the biggest problems in vintage vehicles are seals, not always available in a new-fangled version!


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

iversonm said:


> I think article above noted that corrosion is not an issue.


I'm worried about my gaskets, seals, and other lines that were designed for gasoline only...


----------



## iversonm (Nov 15, 2004)

Emission said:


> I'm worried about my gaskets, seals, and other lines that were designed for gasoline only...


First, that wasn't what Penforhire referenced. He was concerned about corrosion. Based on your response to him, you said, in effect, "Me, too!."

Second, ethanol isn't the only thing eating your seals. The octane boosters that replaced lead, in addition to oxygenates (which include ethanol and MBTE) are what is eating your seals and fuel lines.

So, ethanol-free unleaded gasoline will eat your seals just as well.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

iversonm said:


> First, that wasn't what Penforhire referenced. He was concerned about corrosion. Based on your response to him, you said, in effect, "Me, too!."
> 
> Second, ethanol isn't the only thing eating your seals. The octane boosters that replaced lead, in addition to oxygenates (which include ethanol and MBTE) are what is eating your seals and fuel lines.
> 
> So, ethanol-free unleaded gasoline will eat your seals just as well.


Polar bears and killer whales eat most of my seals.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

...and no amount of ethanol in my fuel is going to save a tree. I am running that car very rich and without cats (it's a track car). 

My car kills spotted owls by the dozen (if the noise doesn't crack their eggs before they hatch).


----------



## iversonm (Nov 15, 2004)

SkyDog said:


> ...but do you know what many farmers use as fertilizer on their corn crops? Ammonium nitrate. And the production of ammonium nitrate requires quite a bit of energy, which is provided by what? The burning of fossil fuels, of course. Growing corn may remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but producing fertilizer to grow corn creates quite a bit of CO2.
> 
> So instead of putting fossil fuels in our tanks, we're using it to make fertilizer to grow corn, which we then refine and put into our tanks. It seems like we might just be adding a subsidized intermediary.


Perhaps you can use other forms of renewable energy to make fertilizer.

Seriously, I don't understand the resistance to ethanol. It's certainly not a comprehensive solution to energy problems, but it can help. Our small-minded politicians seem to keep falling into the one-solution-for-all-problems-trap, whether it is nuclear, solar, wind, ethanol, diesel, biodiesel, or conservation and efficiency standards. In reality, we'll need all of these to pull it off.

We import 40% of our oil. replace 20% of our transportation needs with ethanol, and we can probably reduce imports to 30%. (It won't be 20%, since industrial uses of oil are significant.)

As for economics, would you rather make a bunch of American farmers rich making ethanol, or send your money abroad to further enrich a bunch of Arab sheiks hellbent on our destruction?


----------



## iversonm (Nov 15, 2004)

Emission said:


> My car kills spotted owls by the dozen (if the noise doesn't crack their eggs before they hatch).


Hey! That's my job!

After all, Car and Driver already called anyone owning a 550 and ignorant status seeker hellbent on the destruction of mother earth, since the gas milage is about 1mpg worse than the 535.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

iversonm said:


> Hey! That's my job!
> 
> After all, Car and Driver already called anyone owning a 550 and ignorant status seeker hellbent on the destruction of mother earth, since the gas milage is about 1mpg worse than the 535.


Yes, you nature-hater.

My little brother (he's 38, I'm 40) has a 550i. He took it on the track with me last month - what a frickin' beast of a BMW that thing is. :thumbup:


----------



## iversonm (Nov 15, 2004)

Emission said:


> Yes, you nature-hater.
> 
> My little brother (he's 38, I'm 40) has a 550i. He took it on the track with me last month - what a frickin' beast of a BMW that thing is. :thumbup:


Thanks. It gets exciting past 3500 rpm. It must be the owl injection kicking in.


----------



## SkyDog (Aug 1, 2007)

iversonm said:


> As for economics, would you rather make a bunch of American farmers rich making ethanol...?


I'm all for paying American farmers for producing an energy crop if they can do it efficiently. Corn-based ethanol isn't the solution since it takes almost as much energy to make it as the fuel yields. There's a much better energy return on other biofuels. Soybean-based biodiesel, for example, yields almost twice the energy than what it takes to produce it. Grass-based fuels may be even more efficient and have the benefit of growing on marginal land with much lower fertilizer consumption (and its related pollution).


----------



## iversonm (Nov 15, 2004)

SkyDog said:


> I'm all for paying American farmers for producing an energy crop if they can do it efficiently. Corn-based ethanol isn't the solution since it takes almost as much energy to make it as the fuel yields. There's a much better energy return on other biofuels. Soybean-based biodiesel, for example, yields almost twice the energy than what it takes to produce it. Grass-based fuels may be even more efficient and have the benefit of growing on marginal land with much lower fertilizer consumption (and its related pollution).


That's true, but ethanol is available now, economically viable, and usable in most vehicles in some percentage. I'd agree that cellulose based processing is more viable, but that will take more time to develop.

I'd also say that it is a transitional fuel, in that it is compatible with existing fuel pumps. Hydrogen is a far better fuel, especially if techniques like this one developed at Penn State prove viable. However, it's not compatible with cars on the road, and there are certainly infrastructure issues.


----------



## edgar620 (Aug 26, 2007)

In class we do balances on mass and energy for things like ethanol, gasoline, hydrogen, etc. There is a reason that we still use gas over these other things. Ethanol is a **** fuel. The current process used to produce ethanol wastes a lot of material and energy. It is very inefficient and the only reason it is economically viable is because of goverment subsidies. The energy to produce ethanol comes from burning fossil fuels so were still making people in other countries rich. Talk to any chemical engineer who has done the calculations on the engery used and mass of CO2 that is released then come say it is a good fuel. If it was so great as some claim we would have replaced fossil fuels by now. The reason that we haven't replaced fossil fuels is because we rely on fossil fuels to produce ethanol. All we do is waste energy in the process so there is more energy used to produce ethanol than when we use it as a fuel.


----------



## hog.77 (Aug 10, 2007)

lao270 said:


> Cellulosic Ethanol is the solution
> 
> We need to make fuel from waste, not from food


Agreed. Even the current amount of farm producing corn for ethanol (which is not much) has slightly affected the price of food from corn to meat from livestock fed with corn. Producing fuel from the stocks etc that are wasted is the answer but the technology needs to be improved as the process currently takes alot of energy itself.


----------

