SEMA Legislative ALERT - Fuel

[Matt Cramer]

ZWOLF,

 

How does one go about buying pure gasoline?

 

This guy keeps a database of stations that sell it:

 

http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp

[kamikaZeS30]

One thing I don't think has been touched on exactly in the discussion that has taken place so far is the stoichiometry of ethanol is different than petroleum spirits (gasoline). That can contribute considerably to inefficiency and creating lean conditions in the case of blended fuels.

 

E85 is in the neighborhood of 9.75:1 AFR. Which means you would need a roughly 35% increase in fuel volume per cycle vs. gasoline.

 

I know a few guys that run "DSMs" (Earlier model Eclipses/Starions, etc. using the 4G63 motor) on E85 with "good" results (Low emissions, ridiculous horsepower, but extremely laughable fuel economy), but for those of us not looking to run 20PSI turbo set-ups on our street cars, I'd say keep your corn out of my fossilized animal carcasses. I know that they actually had to change a lot of the seals and the pumps they were using, as well as step-up injector volume in order to properly complete the switch over. I know someone mentioned Ethanol's corrosive properties when in contact with certain materials, but most cars, even carbureted, can be converted to use ethanol safely, but it does require replacement of seals (to a different material), typically you will need a higher volume pump and injectors (or bigger jets in the case of a carb), also composite material fuel-tanks are not recommended (I don't think I'd want a plastic tank in something I drove on the street anyway, but to each his own!).

 

Another thing that bothers me about using Ethanol as a replacement for a certain volume of gasoline is that while yes it might burn cleaner than gasoline does which might help keep populated coastal cities (like NY, LA, SD, SF, etc.) from choking on our own lifestyles, it comes at a greater cost than people realize. They can only make 330 Gallons of E85 (probably more like 1000~1100 gallons of E10 or E15) per acre of purpose-grown corn. You know how much energy and resources it costs to grow an acre of corn? More than one yields from burning the ethanol it produces, that's for sure. So, really, we're just swapping one environmental concern for another, smog for burnt soil, but we're losing efficiency in the system while we're at it. I'd rather have arable land, with enough fallowing time/nutrients in it to grow food that isn't just dietary filler.

 

I am having trouble finding the source, but it's probably in the legislation itself, that the government is currently subsidizing the production of ethanol fuels, due to the fact that it's mandated something that domestic processors and distributors of petroleum weren't entirely geared up for. So, what did they do? Whine, moan and pay off a few senators to get the rest of us to make up the difference. So, the "low price" of ethanol is not only just hiding the cost, but it's probably going to change and then the cost of all these no-longer-subsidized-ethanol blends will skyrocket.

 

High ethanol content blends are great for anyone wanting to run a 600HP+ turbo daily driver and get it to pass CA emissions, though. I just don't think we should have it pushed on us, because not all of us drive newer fuel-injected vehicles with the proper supporting equipment to run ethanol blended fuels. Not that carb'd vehicles can't, it's just that in most cases, when efficiency and cost vs. benefit is considered, carbureted engines will run far more efficiently on petroleum spirits. I don't think 15% ethanol content is enough to worry about corrosion or fuel-system compromise, but it definitely starts to lower the efficiency curve at that point, it would force us carb'd guys to have to run richer.

 

I tried to keep my "argument" technical in nature and only injected opinion which I felt was based on established fact.

 

Edit: I was able to find some links to the corn subsidies information. This kind of goes hand-in-hand with what TimZ was saying, "Why make a big deal about energy content per volume?" Because privately owned automobiles are only a small percentage of the actual consumers of ethanol blended fuels, and in cases where energy yield by volume is critical (such as in the case of power production) it makes a huge difference in resource and monetary investment vs. net yield. Not that your car's power-plant doesn't suffer efficiency losses because there's less energy by volume in ethanol, but it might be less overtly noticeable.

 

Source: http://zfacts.com/p/63.html

 

Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. That's $1.45 per gallon of ethanol (and $2.21 per gal of gas replaced).

Even with high gas prices in 2006, producing a gallon of ethanol cost 38¢ more than making gasoline with the same energy, so ethanol did need part of that subsidy. But what about the other $1.12. Not needed! So all of that became, $5.4 billion windfall of profits paid to real farmers, corporate farmers, and ethanol makers like multinational ADM. Why is it the farm states put up with this?!

 

Where did those subsidies come from:

1. 51¢ per gallon federal blenders credit for $2.5 billion = your tax dollars.

2. $0.9 billion in corn subsidies for ethanol corn = your tax dollars.

3. $3.6 billion extra paid at the pump.

 

That's quite a bit when you figure it only made us 1.1% more energy independent and only reduced US greenhouse gases by 1/19 of 1%.

Edited January 19, 2011 by kamikaZeS30