Ethanol-free gas availability

[John Mc]

Heard a couple of items which don't bode well for availability of good fuel for chainsaws:

Rumor here in Vermont: We're still able to find ethanol-free gas at some gas stations and marinas here in Vermont. This gas all seems to be coming out of Canada. The gas-station gossip is that the ethanol-free gas will no longer be available sometime in the future, as Canada goes to ethanol gas.

Article I read recently about ethanol gas nation-wide in the US: The federal government mandated that the fuel companies make and use a specific amount of ethanol as fuel. The amount was specified in gallons, not as a percent of fuel sold. The industry responded by building (over-building, actually) capacity to produce ethanol. With higher gas prices, and the economic melt-down, gasoline usage is down substantially. The USA is close to the limits of ethanol consumption as long as the concentration of ethanol in gas is limited to 10%. Unfortunately, that level of consumption is significantly short of what has been mandated. Therefore, the push is on (strongly supported by the ethanol industry) to raise the ethanol concentration in gasoline to 15% or more.

I don't know how far along either of these pushes are, or even if they are more than just rumors at this point. If true, it's going to be a real pain in the neck.

[Gary_C]

Article I read recently about ethanol gas nation-wide in the US: The federal government mandated that the fuel companies make and use a specific amount of ethanol as fuel. The amount was specified in gallons, not as a percent of fuel sold. The industry responded by building (over-building, actually) capacity to produce ethanol. With higher gas prices, and the economic melt-down, gasoline usage is down substantially. The USA is close to the limits of ethanol consumption as long as the concentration of ethanol in gas is limited to 10%. Unfortunately, that level of consumption is significantly short of what has been mandated. Therefore, the push is on (strongly supported by the ethanol industry) to raise the ethanol concentration in gasoline to 15% or more.

Your article needs some fact checking. The federal government did not mandate that the fuel companies make ethanol and they don't. The feds did mandate the use of an "oxygenate" in the gasoline and the fuel companies responded with "MTBE" which showed up in drinking water and has since been abandoned. Ethanol is now the only oxygenate used.

The ethanol industry was built by farmers that were frustrated because the very high quality corn they were producing was worth more for fuel than for feed for animals. The government then did enact legislation adding a subsidity for ethanol because it was home grown and was a renewable energy source. It was then that the large corporations jumped on the ethanol bandwagon and flooded the market with excess capacity.

But that is a simplified version of history as it is far more complicated than that. There are inbalances in the market place because most of the ethanol plants are in the upper midwest and the largest gasoline consumption is on both coasts. And ethanol cannot be transported in the existing pipelines. So transportation is an issue today as much as excess capacity. And yes there is a push to allow up to 15 per cent ethanol in gasoline.

And despite the bad publicity, ethanol is the one bright spot in the push for more homegrown and green renewable energy. But even with higher levels of ethanol blended in the gas, we are still a very long way from energy independence and freeing us from fossil fuels.

[Rocky_J]

And despite the bad publicity, ethanol is the one bright spot in the push for more homegrown and green renewable energy. But even with higher levels of ethanol blended in the gas, we are still a very long way from energy independence and freeing us from fossil fuels.

Ethanol is an energy negative. Without huge government subsidies it would not be viable as a fuel additive. Anybody touting ethanol as any sort of 'energy independence' answer is uninformed and/or biased. Ethanol takes more energy to make than it produces, it doesn't produce anywhere near the energy of the gasoline it is diluting and it plays havoc on rubber fuel lines, carburetor diaphragms and other fuel system parts. It is highly corrosive, it is not stable and it attracts moisture. It is a very expensive boondoggle perpetuated by people who figured out how to scam the system and make billions of dollars off the government.

[Ga. bow-man]

Thanks rocky_j

 Tell it like it is.

[Gary_C]

Ethanol is an energy negative. Without huge government subsidies it would not be viable as a fuel additive. Anybody touting ethanol as any sort of 'energy independence' answer is uninformed and/or biased. Ethanol takes more energy to make than it produces, it doesn't produce anywhere near the energy of the gasoline it is diluting and it plays havoc on rubber fuel lines, carburetor diaphragms and other fuel system parts. It is highly corrosive, it is not stable and it attracts moisture. It is a very expensive boondoggle perpetuated by people who figured out how to scam the system and make billions of dollars off the government.

That sounds like something straight from one of Exxon's press releases. Do you have any facts to back up your claims or is it just wild opinion and personal bias that you have heard somewhere?

[Rocky_J]

I don't remember where I've read all my info. It's not like I have a filing cabinet full of documentation next to my desk. But I have about 30 years of experience running small gasoline powered engines for a living as well as for recreation. I also am asked by friends and neighbors to fix their stuff for them. I have seen hundreds of machines destroyed by ethanol, and I have experienced as well as seen much documentation on the reduced fuel efficiency of ethanol mixed gas. This is common knowledge. The attraction to water makes it unstable as a fuel for marine use and my friend who owns a marina has seen a drastic increase in seized motors due to ethanol/water ingestion.

Perhaps it is you who needs to document your assertions, because your statements sound like a publicity release for the ethanol industry. I see you're in Corn Country. Do you grow corn for a living?

[Brian_Rhoad]

I have worked with alcohol as a fuel for over 30 years. It is one of the worst fuels for every day use as a replacement for gasoline. It absorbs moisture, causing severe corrosion. It has half the btu's as gas. It burns with a clear flame. I have seen several people get seriously burned because they had no idea there was a fire. Storage and transport is a major problem because of the moisture absorbsion.

[Gary_C]

I don't believe I made any claims for or against ethanol that need backing. All of what I posted was just history and I have lived that in the middle of any number of ethanol plants. Even though I am not an investor, a local banker that I know was instrumental in setting up financing for one of the first farmer owned ethanol cooperatives and it is still running today and doing well. And that plant was built before all these government handouts that encouraged the large players like ADM and others to flood the market.

One of the last ones built near me is in Janesville, MN and it cost somewhere around $160 million and was never started up. The lender got it back and is trying to sell it now. The company that built it got caught up in the euphoria of government money and is now bankrupt.

If I was to defend ethanol, there are two things I would say. One, all the studies that have shown ethanol to have negative energy are just biased and wrong. I think they counted as energy used to produce ethanol all the way back to the gas the farmer used to go to town to buy the seed to plant to grow the corn. That may be an exaggeration on my part, but you get the message. And they do not count all the energy it takes to extract the crude from the ground and get it to your gas station. Just an unfair comparison all the way around.

Second, they never take into account the real feed value in the corn is preserved and then sold as animal feed in the form of DDG's or dried distillers grains. So the ethanol plants are taking an animal feed and extracting what they want from it and then selling it back as an much better animal feed that the original corn. And it can be a very profitable business, at least untill the government throws money into the game and causes over capitalization.

And yes, I am a corn farmer though on a small scale. But that doesn't mean that I am biased. It does mean that I know a lot about the ethanol industry. And since I also run chainsaws and older tractors, I also know of the problems you can have using both ethanol blends and biodiesel blends in my equipment. But I also do not believe all of the claims of engine destruction solely because of ethanol in the gas. But then knowing the problems are there, I do take some precautions to prevent problems and I do regularly pay service people to replace the fuel lines in my chainsaws.

Edit: One thing I forgot to include. Since I do sell much of my corn to ethanol plants, I am proud to say that I am part of an industry that has done something to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I would much rather spend my fuel money on a product that was made right here in the USA and not send it to some Arab Ruler. Even if it does create some maintenance problems. 

[PlicketyCat]

Neither defending nor reviling ethanol as fuel....  (I don't grow corn, I don't work for Exxon, I'm not affiliated with any militant Green group, and I'm not invested in any bio-fuel manufacturing or sales operation)

If ethanol is so destructive to *rubber* fuel lines and diaphragms, etc is there not some equally inexpensive but alcohol resistant material to produce such parts for small engines?  I'm fairly certain there are for large engines, or that older vehicles used difference materials, as my great-grandfather ran most of his gas-powered farm equipment on home-brew (albeit back in the 60's and 70's).

I know from experience that pure ethanol has better performance than ethanol that must be diluted (by law) with gasoline for resale. I know from experience that pure gasoline has better performance than gasoline that must be diluted (by law) with the (oxygenate) ethanol. Perhaps the problem isn't intrinsically ethanol, but the blend of ethanol and gasoline? It may a situation where one or the other in pure form has less detrimental qualities than when combined... kind of like nitric acid and glycerin.

If fossil-fuels are at risk of depletion, forcing us to invest in bio-fuels, perhaps the ineffiencies of petro-engines using bio-fuels needs to be addressed by the engine manufacturers and designers... to include inexpensive retro-fits for current users. I am certain that someone out there is bright enough to achieve nearly identical performance results with a bit of modification.

The hygroscopic properties of ethanol do not automatically mean reduced engine performance and increased maintenance due to increased water content. That is a bit of a red herring... the fuel itself absorbs and incorporates the water, it's not like you have free water in your fuel lines. This increased water content in the fuel does not interfere with the expansion rate of the gases created when the fuel is burned inside your cylinder... which is really all you're interested in with regards to driving the pistons.

[PlicketyCat]

Ethanol ... is highly corrosive, it is not stable and it attracts moisture.

Highly corrosive - false. If it were, it wouldn't be freely available for human consumption in every supermarket and liquor store, much less stored in convenient 12 oz aluminum cans.  It is, however, an organic solvent and can deteriorate certain other organic materials... like rubber.

Not stable - huh??.  What do you mean by not stable? Do you mean highly explosive? Do you mean chemically unstable, as in molecular decomposition?

Attracts moisture - true.  See previous post about why being hygroscopic doesn't matter in this context.

[Rocky_J]

Unstable as in the fuel goes bad very quickly. For 20 years I've been able to let equipment sit up all winter with fuel in it and it would still start up and run well 3-4 months later. These days the fuel is only good for a couple weeks. I can tell when my 2.5 gallon can of mix is going bad because my 200T will start running lean. It has been a nightmare for marine use and it won't even work for aviation, the changes in elevation cause it to suck up too much moisture too fast.

I'm no fuel expert, why am I arguing this? If you think ethanol is all fine and dandy, then stay in your little dream world. I can't stand the stuff. You act like you've never heard of any problems with ethanol before and all this is news to you? Yeah, right.

[bandmiller2]

The problem is newer fuel in older equipment,the problem will go away as soon as newer engines are designed for this mandated fuel ,same as with unleaded fuel a few years back.Frank C.

[Gary_C]

I'm no fuel expert, why am I arguing this?

That's a good question.

Leaving any gasoline or a blend with ethanol in your equipment and expecting it to run four months later may not be a good idea and most people that do that use a stabilizer to prevent problems. And that problem may well be due to the reformulation of gasoline blends four times of the year for air quality issues and not caused by ethanol. It's a well documented problem especially in the fall when some engines will not run right on the fall or winter blend.

So you keep on blaming ethanol for your problems till the Arabs or Hugo Chavez own this country. Hope you will be happy with your anger and ignorance then.

[ed in idaho]

plus one on everything rocky said. ethanol legislature is purely politacal to buy the cornbelt votes. besides the trouble it has caused as a fuel it has increased food prices, typical of what politians do . take a problem and make it much worse

                              Ed

[Gary_C]

There is another vote for ignorance. I know it's difficult for some to comprehend and ya, it might cost waaaaaay to much to change and it's just toooo hard. But I sure hope you can comprehend Chinese and Arabic cause you are going to need those two languages.

[PlicketyCat]

I haven't experienced the same fuel degradation as you have; but I don't tend to store my equipment fueled and I add stabilizers to my fuel (of any flavor) if it's going to sit for awhile.

The fiasco that the politicians have wrought surrounding ethanol should not be confused with the fuel itself. Politicians, as usual, have their own agenda and often put the cart before the horse. Washington is well-known for ignoring a problem too long and then messing things up worse with a knee-jerk mad dash in the eleventh hour. We've known that reliance on fossil fuels is a problem since the 70's, why is this suddenly being haphazardly addressed *30* years later?

We grow so much corn in this country that ethanol and food should not impact each other. The corn used for ethanol was not destined for the dinner table... either as "human grade" corn or by proxy through livestock feed (as mentioned before the corn mash left over from the process can and is still fed to livestock just fine). The increase in food prices is a combination of factors the most prominent being increased costs of petro fuel for transportation of goods. There may be a secondary factor in that farmers choose to plant more corn for the ethanol "boom" in hopes of making some more money and getting any government subsidies, and therefore did not plant as many food crops. This isn't an inherent problem with ethanol (or any other bio-fuel) or it's production; but a problem with the way our food system is currently operated and the (unintentional?) consequence of government's inappropriate and inadequate involvement.

[Norm]

So Gary I wondered where you've been hiding! 

Ethanol has been the favorite whipping boy for big oils crappy gas for years now. We've had it in our gas for 30 years now and have no more or less problems with our small engines that use it. Somehow folks decide that must be the problem for the same issues we've been dealing with for years. The engines of today have far fewer fuel problems than before due to better small engine design and engineering.

I know I won't change any closed minds to evil ethanol but at least think for yourself instead of following big oils scare stories to keep their lock on fuels. For me I'd rather support farmers in our country than the countries where we are whoring ourselves to for their oil.

Yes I do farm part time and grow corn and other food for your table....darn proud of it.

[chevytaHOE5674]

Cellulosic ethanol fuel made from switchgrass will be much better alternative than corn. Switchgrass produces something like 500% of the energy used to produce it, where as corn is estimated to be between 75-125% of the energy used to produce it.

And I try to run ethanol free gas whenever it is available. Get more power and better mileage out of straight gas.

[Al_Smith]

It's spotty on this state weather you have blended gasoline or not .Not so much here in the middle of a big cornfield but more so around large metro areas such as Cleveland and Columbus .

Now the ethanol thing .Did you know that a majority of ethanol plants are somewhat backed by the gov but the initial money comes from investers looking for that pie in the sky .Well most of them declare backruptcy within about a year of being in operation .Two or three large conglomerants buy them up for about 20 cents on the dollar,check it out .

Literally billions of dollars of investers money has been flushed down the toilet. The price of corn drove the price of everything up up from Wesson oil to whisky .The seed companies got rich,the farmers for a short while ,we got hosed .

Undoubtedly the biggest scam ever pulled on the American public since the Hunt brothers and Billy Solestes .--not to mention Kenneth Lay .

Put gasoline in the tank and save the corn for good beef and bonded whisky .That's my story and I'm sticken to it .

[Norm]

Ok one last try and then I'll leave the chainsaws to the experts. 

The 75 -125% is an old line that has been thoroughly proven wrong. It is actually more like you get 150-175% yield with the leftover waste called dry distillers grain. The cattle folks love it as it's just as good if not better for weight gain. So first you get the ethanol and next you feed the beefers DDG's and get Micky D's burgers out of it. Of course that is never figured in to the propaganda about the yield for corn to ethanol. If switch grass was that good believe me I'd quit the corn and grow it but it is another one of those urban legends that doesn't hold up. There is no technology to do that.

Most of the ethanol plants here are owned by individuals at first with no gov money to seed them. They are then sold to larger investors and so on and so on. Some have gone under but that is more due to poor hedging than anything else.

Look I don't come on this board and profess to tell folks how and what about chainsaws even though I do some logging and sawmilling myself. I come here to read and learn from the ones more knowledgeable than me as most here have more experience than I do. How about giving the same respect for what me and Gary say because this is what we do for a living.  I'm not telling you this stuff just to sell corn or ethanol but to try and tell you what the facts about it are.