Jump to content


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by fleebut

  1. We often read of E10 affecting mileage, but not so fast. First ethanol is utilized as an oxygenate that propels gasoline to better burn rate that decreases unburned hydrocarbon pollution. Since E10 is standard fare, EPA did away with the regulation, as the requirement is more that met with E10 blend. This alone eliminates half the difference in BTU loss. So were getting very trivial physical differences for MPG comparison. Also, the exergy gain from ethanol’s consistent molecules belies the BTU rating. Meaning more real energy than what the BTU rating suggest per efficient molecular decomposition. Also, factor in the mix, reformulated gas blend stock “which is cleaner and gets slightly better mileage for your car. Why? Gas is made up of a mix of molecules—all in the same family, but some short and some long. You get energy by breaking the molecules apart. Short ones, like butane, have less energy, and they cost less (so it makes sense that a company would want to add more of them). The part the EPA cares about is that short molecules also evaporate more easily, contributing to pollution. So in summer, the EPA restricts how many short-chain molecules can be in the blend, and your mileage increases because there’s more energy in the gasoline overall. Unfortunately, it also makes the gas slightly more expensive” *.

    So, blend stock such as RBOB, and a whole host of boutique blends change BTU rating of fuel and would make the job of comparing E10 mpg loss just about impossible.  When a poster claim a wonderful MPG jump upon fueling up on ethanol free, it’s just a indication of the particular petrol blend and not much to do with ethanol. It could be impressive or lower depending on butane content. One thing for sure this grade would pollute air more, cost more, and be harder on your engine.



  2. How often we read of ethanol ability to attack metals. Has anybody read of chemical ability of ethanol to do such a thing? I was reading a chemistry bog in which the subject came up.  The less informed or bias of the group just reiterated the typical anti-ethanol propaganda, but the chemist could offer no such chemistry that would empower ethanol to do such a thing other than magnesium and aluminum are protected by oxide film that quickly forms upon atmospheric conditions. Neat ethanol can remove this layer in which would cause the metals to oxidize. But, any trace of water within ethanol solves the problem as film would regenerate from the water portion. Water or moisture can cause typical cathodic (rusting) corrosion upon carbon metals. But, here ethanol the friend as the fuel absorbs moisture and deter the corrosion. Gasoline can absorb moisture also, but a mere fraction as compared. The dreaded phase change of water dropping out of suspension occurs with both gasoline and ethanol, but gasoline complex chemistry will host a wide range of corrosive (acids) as compared to ethanol and lets not forget the moisture itself set free at the bottom of the tank. Before ethanol, I had always seen the portable outboard motor tanks with bubble of water at bottom. These steel tanks always subject to leaking per the crevice corrosion set in place by pure gasoline inability to absorb water. Also, the white cloudy phase change sediment. This doesn't happen current day, with E10. Lawn mower tanks and other seasonal equipment, very common to see a portion of water residing at tank bottom. Cars stalled out with water slug in winter months and boat motors conked out upon lake. This doesn't happen anymore with unleaded. Old motorcycle tanks did rust out and leak, not because of modern day E10, but of the legacy fuel without ethanol. Rust can self sustain once started, creating its' own moisture. Old motor cycle tanks can rust out present day but the damage occurred many years ago. Pipelines prohibit ethanol, but I think most of that is to handicap ethanol sales per power of petrol's influence. They can make a case that pipelines are gummed up with crude oil contaminates that will come free once ethanol introduced. That may cause some excess debris upon startup, but that is typical of petrol pipelines. Tar sands crude contains abrasives (sand) that wreak much wear. Kalamazoo pipeline had a blow out from such. Opponents claimed the same event for those car owners whom wanted to use E10. A large list of dangerous possibilities to plug your fuel system. I never seen it or heard anyone else suffering any of it. My daughters '91 Tempo during her college years made the transition with no maintenance or concern and that car has steel gas line. She put another 100k on a rebuilt motor with E10-E85 blends with no problem, not even a gas line filter change.      

  3. Did you read of E10 and the discovery of oxygenate character of ethanol improves the gasoline burn? That ethanol makes gasoline burn complete and the net energy loss of the lower btu fuel is only half of what simple btu math calculations would indicate?  Also, the point made below in which ethanol's simple chemical structure will result in lower exery destruction. Meaning the fuel offers more energy than btu would indicate as the fuel will oxidize easier. 

  4. Another factor on value of ethanol being a better fuel, the recent testing by ICM and the Urban Air Initiative shows emphatically that ethanol free gas is not good for your engine as compare to typical E10 unleaded. The higher content of aromatics utilized within ethanol free gas will attack polymer seals common in engines. This ethanol free gas is harder on your engine and even promotes more engine metal wear.  So, another misconception bites the dust! Ethanol is better for your engine. 

  5. As I understand gasoline formations vary a lot. It depends on regional crude oil use at refinery. Region variations large and produce a wide range of chemicals. The industry continues to invest within technology to improve the final product, but to date the required certifications, crude. They have a wide range of formulations for gas to enable use of oversupply fraction of distillation. Maybe that's why they hate ethanol, because the fuel replaces their hard to get rid of chemicals. They can crack larger more valuable chemicals to lighter, but not the other way around. They use a lot of lighter chemicals to replace ethanol such as the high aromatics like benzene or toluene. Coincidentally, these chemicals high on list of unhealthy tailpipe emissions, but EPA not so  concerned of human life hazards. The tail pipe emissions control crude also and seem to focus on smog, acid, and particulates. Carcinogens apparently not bad for environment.     

  6. There is a brewing storm upon diesel engine growth per the PM pollution. EPA has improved diesel fuel to decrease the soot ability of the fuel, but diesel engines PM emissions still extremely high as compared to other fuels and engines. Health studies are just beginning to raise the red flag on PM 10 and specially PM 2.5 ultra small particles. These small particles do not settle out and float about causing health problems. The particles not trapped by normal biological systems in air passages and able to directly enter blood supply even passing the brain barrier that most chemicals can't pass. Health research is focusing on PM pollution and the increase of some diseases such as Alzheimer, inflammatory, and autism. Also, they are finding these diseases including heart disease share inflammation problems and often reside within pollution stream of PMs. Some particles inert but have a habit of latching on to hitchhiker pollutants that could be heavy metals or carcinogens within exhaust. Forest fires the primary source with wood stoves 2rd. But, these may not be the real unhealthy PM pollution as compared to diesel exhaust that appears clean. I did notice the sudden research of gasoline and technology that could be utilized within diesel cycle. They claim gasoline much cleaner fuel. But, ethanol a magnitude cleaner if utilized with diesel engine spark ignition and achieves higher efficiency. Notice how most cities have changed buses to NG, alternative fuel, and hybrid. Metro citizens are concerned of their health. The good news is the vegetable diesel fuels very low in PM, but the used fry oil carcinogenic. Lots to learn still.

  7. Fossil fuels have had a long road of R&D efforts to standardise and provide uniform quality. The product relies on additives to make the fuel capable. Oxygenates, usually ethanol, is required as you know by law to make the fuel preform better. Petrol fuels need stabilizers to improve the fuel storage life, such as antioxidants. Compare this to purity of ethanol that has extreme stability. Basically only one common molecule throughout vs petrols hundreds of varing compositions. Petrol fuels utilize metal deactivators and corrosion inhibitors. So, petrol has a problem with corrosion in natural state? I'm guessing they add these for a reason. Tramp water has always been a problem, at least before the days of E10. Detergents of prime importance of petrol per the natural occuring gums, varnish, and carbon or sulfur deposits. These affect engine performance, especially valves and injectors. Detergents such as the amines group usually added to gasoline within 300 ppm concentration. The additives are regulated by EPA, but scientist post of not having a good handle on health effects, especially per the derivatives, some of which are known harmful. Compare the science and effort put forth over hundreds of years to improve gasoline  and disel fuel and know ethanol out of the box is superior in most all respects. My guess even corrosion and material compatability. Just look at the Parker O ring application guide for service compatability fluids. Alcohol or ethanol doesn't appear as a concern for most O ring materials, unlike gasoline. Also, if water if absorbed within alcohol, it is not considered corrosive. Free water within stand alone gasoline is a problem and will promote corrosion and problem chemical acids. Gasoline can absob water, but a greatly reduced ability. I know of no additives required by ethanol to make it perform better other than gasoline per the fuels ability to ignite at lower temperatures. Engineers will explain the typical ICE is not designed for ethanol and even E85 performs better with the portion of gasoline for cold starts. If the Engineering talent was ever unleashed to maximize the ICE per ethanol only fuel this would not be the case. Also, not much R&D upon ethanol only fuel per emissions, but the potential is enormous given the pollution free chemical combustion upon ideal conditions that compare to hydrogen fuel cell.

  8. The Tide washing detergnet news often spun per petrol advocacy groups, "Tides abondons corn ethanol". The stories spun to make the reader think corn ethanol not good and Tide had to switch ingrediants. Latter the story informs of switch to cellulosic ethanol. The question should be asked, "Tide is using ethanol, why not gasoline?" That would make a good ad as both fluids are solvents and Tide is using ethanol as a solvent. Ethanol is the solvent of choice per long list of reasons: environmental, health, smell, purity, cleanliness, no scum, residue, etc. Actually, the Tide logo and image is a natural for fuel sales as consumers have been so indoctrinated of quality fuel needing detergents to keep from gumming up injectors that they think in terms of washing the engine just like they think car washing exterior good for health of car. Tide should utilize their image to sell fuel. The Tide information alerts consumers to think of ethanol as detergent, a good thing. It's clean and pure.

  9. -continuation of below post-  internet messing up


    We receive advice that the detergent ability of ethanol will soon clog fuel system and wipe out injectors, but they don’t use the term “detergent” as that is a catch word to promote higher grades of gasoline. Missing is the info of gasoline need to have detergents to prevent the vary problems they attribute to ethanol. I guess ethanol has too much ability and the petrol detergents just right. They explain normal hazards of fuel injector failure per unclean fuel, clogs, rust in fuel, and corrosion of electric actuator and claim ethanol the prime suspect. Actually, per my reading of the subject the normal culprit of reduced performance and failure are the normal carbon buildup deposits upon the combustion chamber of which only petrol can produce. Here on E85 we have posts of mechanics that have personally attested to running E85 fuel, with pics of combustion chamber cleanliness. Per their experience and photo evidence shockingly clean. I’ve pulled engines apart during H.S. years and can attest to plain gasoline deposits of valves, pistons, and cylinder head. Even spark plugs would take a hit. Now, they have cleaned up gasoline and regulated much sulfur out of the fuel, but gasoline is the problem even modern day, not ethanol. So, the best defense is offense and the competition just took two strong points of ethanol and convinced public that these characteristics are bad. We shouldn’t shy away from ethanol’s ability to clean engine and solve water problems. Take back the strong points.     

  10. Do some surfing on ethanol and engine injectors, if you want to read a boatload of propaganda. Much bad info per promotion of business interest of the competing fuel and scare mongering per benefit of the fuel additive market. Also, blog authors like the subject to attract viewer ship as it’s hard to prove info and can be hyped. Most utilize subjective evidence or taking real fuel characteristics to the wrong conclusion. So, we receive advice that the ability of ethanol to absorb water is horrible. That the weak hydroscopic affinity of ethanol will soon ruin just about every metal part of the fuel system per reporting on general free water effects, but they leave out the fuel character of ethanol absorbing water for maintenance free water concerns. How does one solve water problems in fuel supply? Add more ethanol!  We receive advice that the detergent ability of ethanol will soon c

  11. An article from UK "Fuel for your lovin'? V-Power Nitro+ under the microscope" interesting. It was a puff piece, a hard hitting infomercial and most of the comments were paid for with the obligatory hope that the fuel had less ethanol. Of course another supporter commented on the post saying likewise with experience of wrecking his motorcycle fuel tank and rusted carb. Just pure BS paid for by corp money. This is common nowadays to pay commentators and throw some money at blogs if they trash competition and support the sponsor. Also, very popular starting with the last two Presidential elections. It's deceitful, dishonest and should be banned. However, one post per specific details appears authentic. This guy had a regular commute that would be a perfect test. He ran regular grade gas station Super Unleaded and then the V-Power Nitro+. He ran the test for full year with mpg and comments of power, sound, motor operation, etc. He alternated every two months and filled at the same gas stations. No difference at all! But he will occasional fill up on the stuff to clean his engine, nonetheless. So, marketing is a very powerful force indeed even if you have the evidence to the contrary. You have to clean your engine don't you know. 

  12. Well, it is more descriptive and accurate. E85 is not 85% ethanol exactly as the fuel has a wide bandwidth of ethanol content. The Speedway description hits to core of the fuel use. Flex vehicle and flex fuel. Also, a better description to keep fueling mistakes at a minimum. Someone seeing a practiced and informed ethanol user splash blending at an E85 pump and deciding themselves to give it a try w/o knowing anything. Running to mechanic when the check engine light appears only to receive expensive bill and horror warnings of E85 use. The naive customer can quickly ascertain ethanol flex fuel for flex vehicles. Yes, the warning label on all pumps say the same, just another description to inform public. Wonder if they would get confused with non yellow gas cap indication of no E85 or if they even have a flex vehicle? Guess you can't cure stupid. Once in a while they fill up on diesel. As a child I once filled the tank with water hose. Should be o.k. if parent doesn't know. Oh, just thought, maybe the description allows them an even a bigger range of ethanol content mix? They may not need to be regulated to E85 specs and thus allow Speedway max flexibility per blending mistakes and flexibility per supply and cost considerations?

  13. A couple more:


    -Ethanol fueled engines will push more HP out of turbo per the increased density of exhaust and upon optimized ethanol engines higher exhaust temperatures. The Cummings E85 engine experienced a 20% something boost in turbo power. More so than would was demanded for air pumping, thus offering advantage to the new turbo generator technology still in development. 


    _Ethanol carries liquid oxygen that directly replaces a portion of intake air that contains much nitrogen. This chemical attribute of ethanol will naturally cut down NOX emissions. Compare this to Shell premium grade gasoline tha purposely entrains nitrogen within the fuel for purpose of cleaning the mess left behind by fossil fuels. Something ethanol does upon the low cost fuel of unleaded. 


    - Since Ethanol carries liquid oxygen within the fuel itself and releases the component upon chemical combustion the fuel acts to improve combustion of hydro carbons. It makes plain gasoline burn better and results in less UHC pollution. This point made on first post, but I explained better here.


    _ Since Ethanol carries liquid oxygen within the fuel, the ICE can be managed to farther impact low horspower MPG and high Hp delivery per EGR process. The optimized ethanol engine can produce more power than other fuels when eliminating EGR as the engine CI dispacment for combustion air is aided by the chemical oxygen already in the fuel. A smaller engine fueled on ethanol behaves like a bigger CI engine. Conversely, the ethanol fueled engine if optimised can throttle down oxygen content within the cyclinder per adding oxygen free exhaust. Putting in 27% exhaust would bring the engine to normal gas engine specs. So, if exhaust gas was to be utilized to control horspower there would be no BTU advantage to gasoline. But, the other advantages to ethanol would still apply such as ability to increase engine efficiency and lower pollution.

  14. UM university, Ford research, and Advanced Engineering Group had interesting test results for DI engine and ethanol ability to reduce PM emissions. It discloses why ethanol is superior fuel. If you get into discussion with the "pure gasoline now " folks explain to them that ethanol is makes their gasoline a better fuel. Also, the discussion on BTU and those that attempt to imply the best fuel has highest BTU rating. High points of study:


    - Ethanol produces a magnitude less PM pollution. This may be the best or most important fuel character fact as health studies are continuing to evolve to fossil fuel health concerns.


    - Ethanol has higher laminar flame speed which presents shorter combustion duration that results in higher thermal efficiency of the engine.


    - Ethanol has simple chemical structure that results in lower exery destruction, meaning the chemical nature of ethanol has more potential available energy to release. IOWS the fuel releases more engery than the BTU rating would suggest as compared to gasoline.


    - Ethanol has lower boiling point and lower combustion temperatures that naturally produce less NOX and less UHC (unburned hydro carbon).


    - Ethanol has strong ability to suppress formation of benzens and sooting both of which are serious health hazards


    One challenge of combustion efficiency for flex engines that attempt to run all blends of ethanol is the direct injection spray pattern. The two fuels have different requirements for optimum spray pattern. Spray breakup, atomization, vapoization, turbulence changes will result in high ethanol blends impinging more fuel on metal surfaces of combustion chamber and charge stratification. So, again we learn the benefits of optimized E85 engine increasing efficiency and lowering emissions as compared to general flex engine.



  15. Roosterk had a comment "Did a 200 mile day trip last month on E85, that tank was 26.5, I'd would have had to get 47 mpg with E0 that day to match $/mile" that got me thinking how this may be just the thinking to improve ethanol image. When EPA just throws out the mileage on flex vehicle sticker, it looks bad, especially when one knows the math for mileage just a simple calculation of btu. This info gets translatted accross all information sources and utilzed as comparitive worth of the fuel and flex vehicles themsleves. Not good! Compare that rating system with battery vehicles that get a simple btu equivalent mileage rating of electric motor efficiency. Not fair!

    Compare this to wood stove efficiency rating system. It's similar wherein EPA utilizes a low cost (for them) rating system to wholsale apply sticker efficiency. It's just a symbolic rating upon general stove efficiency. But, EPA does allow this industry to self or manufacturer test stove for efficiency per accepted guidelines. So, most stove manufactuers do test and report on the sticker their findings if much greater than EPA rating. These high efficiency models stand out like a sore thumb and attract sales and praise. EPA should allow RFA or car manufacturers the same. Also, FFV should be rated on E85 equivalent MPG costs and or annual cost like appliances often rated. Example 24 mpg gasolline, 30 mpg ethanol cost equalent. Annual cost $1,656 or $1,325 E85. By using real mpg rating (per EPA guidelines) for comparison shopping of flex fuel vehicles, well, that would light a fire under manufactures to ramp up such ratings. It makes a lot of sense to me.     

  16. That Cummings E85 engine beat mileage of standard gasoline vehicle in all but the low horsepower duty cycle road tests. The engineers thought the ethanol engine needed a cooled EGR system. That would allow the engine to cut horsepower efficiency and achieve good mileage in this part of the test. We know diesel power is the cheapest fuel source for trucks and often cars per the high mileage. Problem with diesel engines the noise, weight, cost, and lower horsepower. The optimized ethanol engine achieves twice the torque density of diesel and surpasses the horsepower of gasoline. So, ethanol fuel has very attractive fuel attributes, especially when considering the reduced air emissions. Particulate matter a big problem with diesel engine. The optimized ethanol engine should be less expensive and lighter because of the small size and the Cummings engine achieved fuel cost equal to diesel with standard or representative pricing of E85.   

  17. The radio show didn't get that specific, but the transmission drive would need different programming to maximize the high torque ability of ethanol engine for MPG. The final drive ratio may be different. The spark advance of engine does change per engine sensor feedback to limit knock. As you know, gas fuel very touchy and can easily suffer preignition, but for efficiency they push ignition advance as far as possible. All the programming and engine strength/design is set to gasoline specifications as opposed to ethanol fuel. For example, I've read engine testing that found the injector duration a variable for engine controller to minimize spark advance. My guess the logic goes the longer injection of fuel for sudden acceleration will promote preignition and the engine controller needs to quickly lighten up on advance. Problem for flex fuel vehicles is the ethanol fuel will always lengthen injector duration. Yes, the test report had the fuel receiving reduction of timing advance as if the engine was burning gasoline. The engine was adjusting itself to run E85 in sub optimum condition. The test was rerun with manually setting ignition advance to E85 optimum advance with much improved MPG. I think auto engineers are handicapped with the traditional gasoline engine when attempting to optimize E85 fuel efficiency for all the things you post. When reading the Cummings  e85 engine report it became apparent the fuel is better suited to diesel engine strength and design. The fuel when optimized pushes combustion chamber pressure above that of diesel. Also, the torque (pressure) is double that of diesel. So, within optimal design the gasoline engine is a poor candidate. Think of a super strength diesel about half the size of normal engine sitting with two stage turbo for extreme boost pressure. This would be a spark ignition engine, might have air heater for cold temp startup and lower cold run emissions. It would run slower with same road speed. Compression ratio for this engine need only be 9:1. 

  18. I'm a fan of "Under the Hood Radio Show". Today, the topic drifted to flex vehicles and technology of these new model vehicles. The Nordstrom brothers akin to click and clack, but have better repair advice for vehicles and they appear to top of their game with up to date knowledge. The head advice brother claimed modern FFV much improved from the old days of losing 30% mpg economy. Ford especially. Current model vehicles tuned to exploit ethanol fuel benefits. Present day FFv only lose 10%-15% mileage on E85. He said if ever the engine and transmission were to be optimized for the fuel the mileage would be about equal. This guy would be rated the go to guy for mechanics that have hard to solve problems. The topic started per info that Ford's model T was a flex vehicle per the need of remote farmers lack of gas station. Farmers could brew moonshine to power the car. The car was able to burn a wide variety of fuels. The post was asking if Henry Ford was coerced to gasoline.  

  19. I've hit on a couple more negative sterotypes for ethanol. The phrase "natural land" is gaining traction. It protrays inerrant nature's beautification process inwhich anything man influenced would be labeled "unnatural", synthetic, ugly, and unstainable. So, the Land Bank which was for purpose of temporary set aside per farm practice overproduction, immediately enters the camp of natural land. If the land is put into production, for example, utilized for bio crops, opponents of biofuel can author reports to unwitting public of farmers tearing up natural land for crops. My personal observations, the land bank property is weed infested and sits without being crop land or planted to forest. Wildlife avoids the desert like condition. Only the heartest invasive specie of weed and brush grow upon poor soil. Also, the arm chair Environmentalist (ignorant) will post soft commonsense points of foolishiness of burning trees for energy or burning food crops for fuel. We have to realize opposing commonsense idioms i.e. "We shouldn't use food for fuel"- Ah, but it's o.k. to use fuel for food? Another, "it's just dumb to use trees for fuel". Reply; "about as dumb as not using using tree waste for fuel". We all know the reality of economics inwhich increase in demand will result in opportunies of wealth generation that are attractive incentives to improve ones talent and capability. This will lead to improvment in land utilization, productivity, sustainability, forest management, and go hand in hand with environmental desires including wildlife and quality of life. We have to be better custodians of the land and private citizens and small busisness of biofuel appears especially up to the task. We are educated or indoctrinated at a young age to view busisnessmen as shady opportunist that cut down virgin timber (steal resources) for profit. That is a horrible over simplification, that within lessons of history should only teach the error of bad foresty managment.

  20. Colorado is doing a good job per air quality monitoring. Checking on acceleration ramp optimum location. The U of Toronto report just for the city and probably indicates Canadians are in the habit of driving older cars? I do notice when states enforce testing of pollution control, basically they export the problem to states that don't. It was disappointing to find DI engines typically increase PM even for ethanol fuel as the spray pattern not optimized for ethanol. Having said that PM of ethanol especially as compared within the high torque ranks of diesel all but eliminated. The recent health concerns of ultra fine particles would suggest best to banish the diesel engine from metro zones. Natural gas a popular conversion for diesel as the fuel inline with power output. One problem of E85 fuel conversion of diesel engine is the fuel double power and is wasteful per the unneeded power. The conversion should be cheaper than natural gas and more convenient to refuel with the added benefit of renewable fossil free energy.  

  21. Another kicker to the use of higher ethanol blends, air pollution. Review the University of Toronto study that alerted public to the health harming air pollution to those close to roadways. The zone of harm is twice that once thought and very unhealthy. Also, they ID the pollution stream mainly from 25% of the car pool. Those cars that haven't been maintained, worn out, and those drivers that like acceleration. Another university study evaluated ethanol upon fuel mix. In general ethanol fuel greatly reduced all components of unhealthy emissions. The more ethanol the lessening of pollution. As you know micro particles are of growing concern and petrol fuel especially diesel have big problems with control. Ethanol just the opposite and only suffers upon use within design of gasoline engines. For example the spray pattern of DI engine is optimized for gas for efficiency and conditions that help the fuel minimize pollution. Ethanol spray pattern via the gas injector will promote the cold start particle emission. If ethanol fuel were to be optimized per ethanol only engine the emissions would be superior to that of natural gas.  

  22. That would work and bit of humor just the ticket. Successful ads often get a chuckle and attention from viewer. How about "E85 makes your car happy". The clear liquid, clean fuel, and consumer can relate back to a happy experience with food grade product. Nice. Follow up with rusty gunked up gasoline can with health warnings per inhalation and skin contact.   

  23. Ethanol image got caught up within the organic food movement to eat local, etc. This was entwined with burgeoning supplement market and health blogs that ravaged farming practices. Nutrition, dieting, weight loss, cancer, wheat belly, pesticides, herbicides all targeted culprits with little science facts, but nonetheless farming suffered wholesale condemnation. Actually, I think the global warming added to the brouhaha as citizens started to believe corp U.S. destroying the country per profits. Ironically, the ethanol industry started per this same group and at first enthusiasm flooded their ranks, but it was a different ethanol. A fuel processed and consumed locally by small business aka organic farmers. They promoted easy low cost fuel that could be produced in garages utilizing low cost scraps, discards, cattail roots, etc. When corn started to show it's competitive teeth, environmentalist and petrol quickly dissed the ethanol solution, saying corn was the dumbest feed stock. Environmentalist looked to BEV solutions and actively dissuaded use of ethanol as a solution. Same with petrol that looked to motivate the growing movement to ideals of cellulosic hoping the challenge would fail or be much delayed competition. Don't underestimate the damage done per this mass bias. Just yesterday was talking to neighbor about sale of adjoining small farm property. We talked of land use and his comment was "anything would be better than corn". Average citizen has been indoctrinated that corn is evil, bad for environment, wrecks land, wrecks health, pollutes rivers, and aquifers. They think corn is a corrupt racket and unneeded. That land should be fallow to allow Mother Earth to do her magic and reclaim what man has destroyed. Also, they believe they are being poisoned by any spray that's emitted behind the tractor even dust is dangerous. GMO hybrids double down the angst. They have formed such a polar extreme position that no one could convince them of their error or that they are misguided. So, we should omit describing ethanol as corn ethanol. Take the corn images out of advertising as well as vast fields adrift in corn plantings. Focus on alternative feed stock success, helping small business, creating local jobs, waste ethanol success, technology and success within cellulosic. I would categorize cellulosic feed stock as waste and avoid claims or plans to utilize tree stock of any kind. Many citizens have a wholly unhealthy fanaticism upon the act of harvesting any growing tree. Even if to make the forest healthy, fire resistant, and increase growth. I believe the ethanol industry if so impugned will be quickly thought as a forest destroyer even though the vacant land was planted for such use. Their is no quick way to change public opinion (bias). We have to work with what we have and chip away at such stereotypes, but never attack them head on. If ever a business model could develop for small quantity generator of ethanol to dovetail with small organic garden model, well, public opinion would pivot to the fuel being awarded most friendly and desirable status. Maybe ethanol should support such undertakings per the generation human interest stories just to polish image. 

  24. Chipping away is a good. Persistent positive comments and probably a mistake to spend much time combating the attack as this works in favor of those whom want the public confused. Maybe just a quick retort on false accusation, then go on to say ethanol makes gasoline better for environment, consumer, and auto. The E15 stock car fuel really a positive image builder as we have learned that new better products come from that testing field. Offer up ethanol blended fuels gives the consumer choice and competition at the pump. Personal testimony of savings, mpg, and long life auto always good. The concern will fade if E15 can make its way per EPA exemption and consumers start choosing the lower cost fuel. They will start to look at ethanol as a good thing. Probably, the E85 was to big a jump for consumers to make. It did lower Mpg and isn't that bad for environment and savings? Besides the pump sits off by its own like kerosene. I don't think your supposed to use that fuel or it takes some sort of special car that can suffer the abuse. I remember the early adoption of self serve check outs and people unwilling to look foolish in front of the scanner. I would guess these same people would fear filling up on E85 as one will stick out doing so and probably be yelled at for using the wrong fuel. Petrol is attempting to convince politicians that switching E10 to E15 is dangerous if using the same dispense hose. You can't be to safe.

  • Create New...