-
The Golden Years
March 21, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Diesel Dilemmas
March 8, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Electric Lemon Aid
February 19, 2013 | 113 comments
-
The New Dart, in Light of the Old
January 11, 2013 | 48 comments
-
Speed Limiters, Too?
December 28, 2012 | 70 comments
Car Guy
Alcohol and Classic Cars Don’t Mix
More on the engine killing capacities of EPA-approved ethanol.
If it was built before the 1980s, your vehicle was designed to burn gasoline — and nothing else.
That’s what was sold back then, so it’s what the engineers assumed when they designed the engines. Gaskets and seals were made to handle gas, not alcohol. Air-fuel ratios, ignition timing and so on were set assuming the fuel that would be burned would be … gasoline.
But then the government — after being strong-armed by the politically powerful corn lobby — began mandating that gasoline be “oxygenated” (that is, adulterated) with up to 10 percent ethanol, which is alcohol made from corn.
The theory put forward was that this would cut down vehicle exhaust emissions by “leaning out” the fuel mixture fed the engine. The actual result was it did no such thing. Chiefly, because most of the cars in service by the time the mandates began to go into effect in the 1980s were modern cars.
And modern cars are built with computers and fuel injection. They have the capability to self-adjust their air-fuel mixture and so automatically compensated for the leaner (less gas, more alcohol) fuel. Their emissions didn’t go down — but their mileage did. Alcohol, as a fuel, contains much less energy per unit of volume than gas, so the more of it there is in your tank, the shorter will be the distance you can go before it’s time to fill up again. Drivers typically experienced a noticeable drop in fuel economy of about 5 percent when using “oxygenated,” alcohol-laced fuels.
Older cars on the other hand (mostly models built before the early 1980s) had mostly been retired from service as daily drivers by the time the ethanol mandates began to go into effect. Fewer than 5 percent of the cars in regular use by 1990 were older than model year 1975. As of today, it’s unusual to see a car built before 1981 (the first year GM cars came equipped with an early engine computer) outside of a museum or a cruise night at the local drive-in. They are a non-factor as far as emissions/pollution issues are concerned — which means, there’s no longer any legitimate to reason to introduce ethanol into the fuel supply (especially in large concentrations). The “renewable fuels” prop is just that — a prop. Yes, you can grow corn year after year, so in that sense corn-based alcohol fuel is “renewable.” But it requires more energy input — including petroleum-based fertilizer to maximize crop yields — than you end up getting out of the stuff. Plus, we’d have to turn most of the country’s agriculture production over to corn production — not for food, mind you. But for fuel.
So we’d starve, too.
Meanwhile, old cars.
Because they don’t have computers, they can’t self-adjust for ethanol-laced fuels. So they run terribly on alcohol-laced fuels.
They also develop potentially dangerous problems such as fuel leaks, because the rubber fuel lines and gaskets used in their systems were not made to handle alcohol, which is reactive and corrosive. Serious problems have been reported with older cars’ carburetors when high-alcohol-content fuel is used in them.
That was with 10 percent ethanol fuel.
What will happen when the Feds mandate 15 percent ethanol fuel?
Apparently, that’s just what’s about to happen. The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to issue a regulatory decision this fall that will require a 15 percent ethanol concentration in all “gasoline” sold in the United States.
Up to now, concentrations higher than 10 percent have actually been illegal — precisely because of the many known problems that high-alcohol-content fuels cause — including high exhaust temperatures, which in a late-model car can toast the catalytic converter. (Many new car warranties contain language that specifically states that coverage will be forfeit if the vehicle is fed “gas” with more than 10 percent ethanol content for precisely this reason.)
What will happen to an older car fed this 15 percent alcohol concoction? If it’s still got its original fuel lines/internals, major refitting will probably be necessary not just to keep it running properly but to avoid potentially catastrophic problems such as engine fires resulting from highly combustible alcohol fuels leaching through hoses and seals not designed to tolerate it.
About the Author
Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (55) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Eric Peters
More Articles From Car Guy
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/09/alcohol-and-classic-cars-dont
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Alphred| 9.9.10 @ 6:43AM
Eric,
Thanks for the memory of the day I replaced the float in my '76 Pinto's carburetor! (It 'sank' as a result of gasohol).
David Williams| 9.9.10 @ 8:08AM
Wouldn't a '76 Pinto succumbing to alcohol poisoning be a mery killing?
TR| 9.9.10 @ 6:45PM
If it was equpped with Firestone 500 tires (remember that story circa 1977?) The story was that if a pinto was rear ended, it would explode. And Firestone 500s blew out without warning. So, I gave my first wife a Pinto w/500s, but the woman took the bus. Damn.
Filofox| 9.9.10 @ 6:52AM
The impending 15% alcohol content mandate is typical, however, of the federal government's cavalier attitude towards problems it's mandates cause. "E Pluribus Unum" could be replaced with "Not My Problem."
Walking Horse| 9.9.10 @ 8:12AM
When marketplace dynamics render some products obsolete, difficult to maintain, that is one thing. But calculated vandalism mandated by government is a very different act, a triumph of the politics of pull.
Sam Vaughn| 9.9.10 @ 8:17AM
Nice one walking horse, note to file: "federal vandalism"
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.9.10 @ 8:21AM
While the corn farmers get rich, the public gets poorer.
This is a perfect example of the government deciding who the winners and losers are, and the public never has a chance at being a winner.
South Dakota Teacher| 9.9.10 @ 1:25PM
I have never heard anyone accuse the corn farmers of getting rich. Perhaps one of the large agro-businesses but not the farmers. I live in these areas and both farmers and ranchers struggle every day to survive. Just substitute Agro-business for farmer in you comment and I think you have it just about right.
JP| 9.9.10 @ 4:29PM
Where I live, outside of a few small Amish farms, it is all Agro-business. The average farm size is over 10,000 acres. The fields are tilled by half million dollar tractors; firms such as Decatur, and Pike provide GM corn and beans. These firms use satellite pics and high end computers to predict yields down to a half a percent. They have giant silos that can hold 250,000 bushels of corn, where large freight cars pick up the product and take it to the ethanol plants. Its all very big business.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.11.10 @ 7:03AM
Here's an article from 2008 which indicates farmers are making more then ever. So are the combines but they are companies, not farms per se:
The steepest run-ups in food prices since 1990 are hurting grocery shoppers, restaurants and school cafeterias, but they're making others rich.
The winners in the new food economy include crop farmers selling corn and wheat for near-record highs after years of crushingly low prices. Ingredient makers such as Cargill and ADM are rife with profit. Fertilizer and tractor companies are cashing in. Hedge funds that made big bets on rising wheat, soy and corn were spectacularly correct. Oil and gas companies, too - it takes natural gas to cook those Wheaties and diesel to haul them across the country.
Travel along the nation's food chain and you'll find some of the biggest profits closest to the land. The nation's farmers, who raise everything from cows to cucumbers, saw their average household income climb about 7 percent last year to more than $83,000. But in grain-rich states, the results were dramatically higher. In Minnesota alone, the median income for crop farmers soared 80 percent, to $95,000.
Farmers Know Best
That brings us to Chad Willis.
Willis raises corn and soybeans on 550 acres near Willmar, some of the nation's best corn-growing country.
He sells his grain nine miles up the road from an ethanol plant he invested in. His family cars are powered by an 85 percent blend of the corn-based fuel. His black and gold-trimmed cap reads "E85 Everywhere." And he knows that grocery shoppers jolted by higher prices for cereal or eggs or chicken think it's because of ethanol, which consumed 20 percent of last year's corn crop.
Willis isn't saying how much he made last year. Although he acknowledges these are good times to be a farmer, he says he's not pulling in as much as the median income for crop farmers.
"Most people are excited, yes, but cautious about when things are going to turn around, and how hard it's going to turn around," he said.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/20.....od-prices/
Petronius| 9.9.10 @ 8:28AM
The real goal behind the C.A.F.E. law is the prohibition of pleasure driving. Get the F***ing EPA out from under the hoods of our vehicles, HVAC systems, appliances, and our wallets. Our smokestack industries have already been eliminated along with the jobs they provided. The local economy of this city is dead because of it.
If cap & Trade becomes law we will soon have no disposable income at all. Off the prigs
Redstateboy| 9.9.10 @ 8:41AM
"disposable income" ? what's that?
John - TMF| 9.9.10 @ 2:20PM
The money that you work hard to earn, that the Feds take from you and throw down the sewy hole... >:
TMF
TR| 9.9.10 @ 6:47PM
That's money that needs to be "redistributed" to the leeches of society.
Anthony Antetomaso| 9.21.10 @ 12:31AM
I almost wouldn't mind if it was being redistributed to OUR leeches - they'd at least spend it here and recycle it through our economy.
But these A-HOLES in 'DC are redistributing it to
FOREIGN leeches, where it will never do us any good.
M**herf**kers!
Redstateboy| 9.9.10 @ 8:37AM
I didn't need to read more than the first few paragraphs.. TAS had an excellent article a week back.. and... I didn't have to read that one either. I already Knew Ethenol is a classic example of Government F'n things up. I fill up only - when I can - at an All Gasoline Station. You think 55 Million dollar Net Worth Nazi Pelosi gives a rip about what Ethenol does to our engines? and if the Republicans don't do Something to cut the subsidies for this garbarge.. I'll be writing my Congressmen and Senators foul tempered letters.
Joe Oliva| 9.9.10 @ 1:08PM
OK, everyone who thinks that the Republicans will give one crap about our old vehicles,(1972 HD Superglide in my case) raise your hands. When you go into the voting booth in November, remind yourself that this is going to be more of the same.
Gentlemen's bet on getting rid of ethanol: $50 to my favorite charity if it happens in two years. Otherwise, you send $50 to your favorite charity. This is on the honor system, so what do you really believe will happen?
Maybe healthcare gets redone, and then what? Entitlements are out of control and if you want the truth, we will have to pay more taxes OR, we shove the debt load off onto our kids and grandkids. Will the GOP really reduce the size of government, or are we just dumping the current Internationalist/Socialist crew for another one?
J Rich | 9.9.10 @ 9:02PM
All of a sudden it is the Repubs fault that we have ethonal. The last time I checked the Dumbocrats were in charge of all three branches.
I sure hope that they go to 15% so the farmers can make more money though. I doubt there is another segment of our economy that provides as much boost to the economy than agriculture.
Why don't you grumblers take a look around the next time you go shopping at your favorite supermarket and feast your eyes on all the deliscious food that is available. There are no long lines for people waiting to buy the last loaf of bread or quart of milk. The only lines are at the check-out because everyone has so much in their shopping carts.
I can't afford a classic car to drive around and show off.
Blau993| 9.9.10 @ 8:48AM
Classic car owners need to stop by their local general aviation facility to fuel up. That's where I buy ethanol-free gas for my outboard motor. Aviation gas is (at present) ethanol-free.
Cerephim| 9.9.10 @ 9:51AM
Av-Gas is full of lead. It will poison the catalytic converter of those cars '75 and newer. Before '75, they're good to go.
Of course Av-Gas is scheduled to go lead-free in the not too distant future.
Dustoff| 9.9.10 @ 10:14AM
WRONG... they were forced years ago to go low lead.
Pilot since 1970
BLF| 9.9.10 @ 2:02PM
100 LL ("low lead") is chock full of lead in comparison to car gasoline.
Pilot since before 1970
JP| 9.9.10 @ 4:31PM
Starting in the early 1970s LF gas was offered at the pumps. By 1982, all gas was LF
LiveAboard| 9.9.10 @ 6:08PM
y'all are all -ahem- uninformed...The EPA has mandated that AvGas be doped up with ethanol, also...go check it out...syonara piston engines...you better get a turboprop or jet...
John Navratil| 9.9.10 @ 6:09PM
There is no schedule for AvGas to go lead-free. No suitable fuel has been found as a replacement. It is inevitable, however.
Good look finding pure gasoline. Even in states which haven't mandated E10, it is hard to find.
Look at pure-gas.org for help. I know there isn't any anywhere near Houston.
Pilot since 1978 (the whippersnapper, here)
Frank Drackman | 9.9.10 @ 8:54AM
David Williams: Go ahead and crap all over the defenseless Pinto, for all its incendiary faults, it was Rear Wheel Drive and Made in America.
Had a 78' in Highschool, strapped a huge Sun Super Tach II on the steering Column, Hurst shifter ball on the 4 speed stick, White Letter Tires, and a good day the 2.3 liter 4 banger might have put out 70 Horses...
That bein said, it got me through college and 2 years of med school before a drunk driver totalled my baby.
Replaced her with a 78' LTD ex Georgia State Patrol Cruiser, the last yr of the big un's 460 Big Block, Cop Tires, Cop Shocks, Cop Motor.
Got about 9mpg on the highway, little less in town.
Frank
David Williams| 9.9.10 @ 1:59PM
How can a guy in med school afford to waste money on silly go fast fantasies for a '78 Pinto? Or was med school also a fantasy. It is too bad you lost a cherished car but, in my view, that drunk driver performed another mercy (this time with a "c") killing.
TR| 9.9.10 @ 6:51PM
I had a '72 Lincoln Town car, with a 460 or 440(?) if I remember right. It could light up the tires on that 4 ton car. Passed everything on the road but a gas station. It had its own zip code. And if you wanted to unlock the passenger door, you had to crawl 10 feet across the front seat.
Melvin| 9.9.10 @ 8:55AM
Someone please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this. If ones personal vehicle isn't rated with the flex-fuel rating, and the corn farmers excuse me government mandates that 15% of fuel needs to be ethanol will literally will eat the hell out of an engines seals, that will cause massive repair bills for the vehicles owner or maybe this is the gist of it all to force us all to by Obama motor vehicles.
Troy| 9.9.10 @ 10:22AM
Now this is a law that is designed to create jobs. Think about what will happen to all the engine shops as their business blooms P0 from all the people who "didn't hear" about what the change would do to their engines. Think about all the truckers and dock workers unloading millions more Japanese cars to meet the demand of those who did hear. Think of all the Chinese workers creating a new model of car that they just "happened" to have on the drawing board. Think of all the auto union lawyers suing for job retraining so that their "clients" can assemble the new cars in Detroit. This will definitely create jobs.
JDK| 9.9.10 @ 1:01PM
No that is categorically incorrect. The seals used now are chemically compatible with ethanol. Additionally fertilizers are not made from oil but natural gas. Furthermore only 12% of corn grown ends up being used for food. Not to mention other resources, sugar & switchgrass, that can be used to make ethanol. Somebody should have done a little more actual research.
South Texan| 9.9.10 @ 5:04PM
"only 12% of corn grown ends up being used for food." Then what is it used for? Are you counting corn syrup, corn starch, corn oil as non-food? And animal feed? doesn't it get used to feed animals so that we can have meat, eggs, milk etc.? And we can use sugar to make acohol but isn't sugar used as food? Somebody should have done a little more thinking before commenting.
J Rich | 9.9.10 @ 9:12PM
The percent of corn that goes to human consumption is not very high. Most of the corn raised in this country goes for feed. A good Texzn should know that. There are , after all some very large feedlots in Tx. In case many of you don't know it, the DDG's that stands for dried distillers grain is used for feed and is as good or better for cattke than pure corn.
I think there are a lot of mis-conceptions going around about ethonal. A lot of you are going by what "somebody' told you.
FakeEagle| 9.9.10 @ 9:14AM
Ditto classic motorcycles....
Ronald| 9.9.10 @ 9:20AM
I love alchohol...in my beer, not my tank.
I just spent a month rebuilding the fuel systems in my '41, '63 and '64 Chevys. This was not a simple task since the crap destroyed nearly everything in the fuel systems including tank sending units, steel fuel lines and fuel caps. The '41 is a bone stock pickup and the butterfly stuck wide open 0ne day. It was so bad I had to ream the bearing areas just so the butterfly shaft would rotate. At the same time, I had to repair 15 other small engine units (lawnmowers, generators, weedeaters etc.). Keep in mind the cars were all frame-off restos within the last 6 yrs.
Frank Drackman | 9.9.10 @ 10:49AM
Fuel Injections nice and all, but nuthin beats the sound of a big Motorcraft 4350 suckin down 650 cfm, feedin a 460 Police Interceptor puttin out 400 ft-lbs of stump-pullin Torque...smells like
VICTORY.
Miguel Saavadera| 9.9.10 @ 1:16PM
Oh, really!
First of all classic cars were not designed to run on Alcohol [that is a given], BUT with very few changes they can be either run entirely on alcohol, or be dual usable. Gaskets, pumps, sending units and carberation need to be re jetted, and replaced to do so but is both doable and a benefit. (cost and pollution long term).
Also you can make alcohol, you can not make gasoline and are dependent upon the government and all its taxes & prices. A trick is to use the car regularly, put in a good fuel filter, and put in a dehydrator to keep water out should you not use it at least every two weeks.
Alcohol is a higher octane [101] and cleaner than Gasoline ... it however is lower in explosive proprieties and therefore requires more of it to burn with the same power as gas ... I had a 1970, 402/375Hp Nova that ran well on, what would be considered today as E90, in the years 1970 through 1985 [and I had absolutely no problem with it], and currently have a 1979 Honda Accord that is switchable between Alcohol and or gas ... it also gets 36-38 mpg with Webber carburation (Kehin was too tricky to convert) . If you are running a Holley [as was the Nova] it takes skill in jet & plug reading to get it tuned in ... should run like always coca brown ... smells nice out the tail pipe also.
JP| 9.9.10 @ 4:36PM
Bio fuels are heavily subsidized by governments all over the world. Without these subsidies, the biofuels industry would go bankrupt. Biofuels (esp corn) take more energy per capita than fossil fuels; they are limited by simple biology (there isn't enough biomass in the world to run US automobiles for more than a week); and they harm the enviorment (High Yield GM corn and beans leach most of the nutrients out of the top soil- that is why this industry relies so heavily on fertilizers). The amount of water required to distill corn is so great that many communities refuse to issue permits.
Ethanol has been around for 35 years now; it is a heavily subsidized industry. It has become the Amtrack for the Cornbelt.
Cheryl| 9.9.10 @ 1:19PM
This is very interesting. I will keep an eye out as to exactly what I put in my '68 Dodge Dart. When the gov't requires something that is going to cost me repairs, I think the gov't should have to pay for it. The best thing gov't can do is get the hell of my life!!
H Doughty| 9.9.10 @ 1:22PM
I live in Iowa and so far I burn only unadulterated Premium in my modern cars. So far I have been able to avoid the ethanol dreck. Chuck Grassley is a good Senator but he is dead wrong on ethanol.
scotchieguy| 9.9.10 @ 7:39PM
As always, follow the money. That explains Grassley.
researchermo| 9.9.10 @ 1:26PM
I am one of the lucky ones! I live on a lake, and since boats specifically are not made to handle ethanol infused fuel (even the newest boats don't use ethanol fuels), one can purchase ethanol-free fuel here year round, on land and on water! YAY boats!! (My classic Corvette rather enjoys it too).
jaydee| 9.9.10 @ 1:30PM
Your federal tax dollar at work.
Tex Expatriate| 9.9.10 @ 3:16PM
All the older model cars and trucks can run on pure alcohol. All you have to do is enlarge the carburetor jets. It is, by the way, legal to produce alcohol for fuel. You used to need a federal permit, and that's likely still true.
I know of no instances in which engines of pure alcohol fueled cars were ruined by pure alcohol.
Incidentally, for those who are interested, if you are making shine the first alcohol produced is methanol, which distills out at a lower temperature than ethanol, the second alcohol that is produced for drinking. Methanol will kill you, or destroy your nerves. Ethanol is shine.
william Hickey| 9.9.10 @ 3:25PM
ethanol sucks it puts out more pollution then gas
frank | 9.9.10 @ 4:51PM
What about the theory that Ethanol costs as much to produce as gasoline and that it pollutes as much too?
James Stewart| 9.9.10 @ 8:18PM
THE SKY IS FALLING
THE SKY IS FALLING !!
As a matter of fact, I filled up my 09 Sierra up with 85% Corn likker yesterday at HEB for the first time - just to see how it runs...
10% Alky doesn't scare me - I've already replaced most of my 67 Camaro fuel line that isn't already stainless steel - and the previous owner put on a 2009 model year Holley double pumper carb - so I should be good. I have mixture screw and jets - and am old enough to know how to actual tune a carb.
Wake me up when they get to 20%. This writer is a Moron - if he really wanted to tee off on the Feds - he would have worked the MTBE angle - Ethanol replaced MTBE (made mostly from Natural Gas) because some wackos in Cali found it in the ground water - next to the Exxon station with the 50 yr old steel tanks and no containment vault... MTBE causes cancer in lab rats if they swim in it for 100 yrs.
I say more Corn likker! E85 to the Motor and E100 to the cup holder !!!
Phil Hoey| 9.9.10 @ 8:34PM
Go diesel - screw gas
E Herring| 9.9.10 @ 11:48PM
I burned a lot of ethanol today driving to the store to buy up 60 watt incandescent bulbs before they disappear. GE is closing their plant in the US this week because it intends to only sell pigtail bulbs made in China thanks to Congress. Green jobs my .....
Capt G| 9.10.10 @ 1:13AM
Marine fuel is now 10% ethanol. It's of concern particularly in boats with fiberglas fuel tanks. It's also of concern during storage.
Classic cars, such as the author refers to, may be effected even after retrofitting for ethanol use due to their seasonal use.
Ethanol absorbs water (moisture/condensation) which gasoline does not. Under normal operating conditions that is not a problem as it burns just fine, though one could envision perhaps difficulties with it in aircraft at higher altitudes.
When water saturated ethanol is left in the fuel tank, such as when a car is stored, the fuel in the tank undergoes a process called phase separation. At the bottom of the tank is an ethanol/water mix that is highly corrosive to the tank, and one that will not burn well at all, with great potential to damage the engine. Atop that is reduced octane gasoline which is also, but less so, a potential source of damage to the engine. The two components will not recombine under any in-tank conditions. Best storage procedures are to top the tank off to in excess of 95%, thereby limiting the amount of moisture laden air in contact with the ethanol. The only solution for phase separation is to drain the system entirely. Fuel stabilizer mixtures, such as the popular Sta-bill, do nothing to prevent phase separation.
Ethanol gasoline mixtures are used not only in cars but all the other gasoline engined equipment that you use and there it may have more serious effects. Ethanol leans out the mixture these engines run on and commonly raises exhaust gas temperatures by 20-30 per cent, both of which can be very harmful to those engines. It's of particular concern in two cycle engines.
The whole policy of using ethanol is stuck on dumb, and can't get off. First off, the stuff costs more to make than gasoline. Secondly, it takes two gallons of water to manufacture each gallon of ethanol. We make ethanol primarily from corn and we harvest that corn primarily on the Great Plains. It is economically advantageous to convert that corn to ethanol near the area of corn production. That area draws its water from the Ogallala Aquifer which stretches from South Dakota to northern Texas. Under current usage the aquifer annual recharge (replenishment) is not keeping up with annual usage. The Ogallala, the High Plains Aquifer, is the largest and most-used aquifer for agricultural irrigation in the US. Drawing upon its reserves is the reason that we've not had a Midwestern dust bowl since the 1930's. Given that water wells are already being re-drilled deeper to tap its reserves and the agriculture industry is facing a serious consideration of reduced water capacities, it makes very little sense to further deplete water resources in the production of an energy source 10% less efficient than gasoline alone. Of course, shipping corn to more water-rich areas for refining to ethanol is possible but further skews its economic uncompetitiveness.
The irony in the un-ending debate over "renewables" is that the world intentionally moved away from renewable energy sources, including the then-popular whale oil, specifically because of the high efficiency and low cost of petroleum. Petroleum is a high energy content resource that is relatively easy to produce and even easier to transport. And its production is relatively free of ecological consequences. On the other hand, renewables often, if not always, consume more energy than they provide just in the process of production and transportation while providing less energy content. Ethanol is just the latest. It wouldn't be amiss to recall that the deforestation of America ceased with the advent of the use of hydrocarbons for energy. Since then we've built an agricultural industry that feeds the world. It boggles the mind that we would use that industry to power internal combustion engines when we could be feeding people the world over.
The misguided CAFE standards will raise the combined fuel economy standards to 35.5 mpg in 2016. Mandating ethanol use in automobiles lops 10% of possible mpg achievable right off the top of any vehicles produced using internal combustion engines, for nothing but negative consequences.
Ronald| 9.10.10 @ 10:30AM
What most people are concentrating on is the ability to "tune" an engine to run on ethanol...that's not the problem. As you state it's the storage problems whether in bulk tanks or in your car's tank.
In my post above I didn't go into detail about the problems I encountered with the fuel but it definately took more than re-jetting a carb. The tanks were all steel..they rusted and had to be sealed. All tank seals gone..fuel leaking on floor. Tank floats were rusted and would not work. Fuel lines totally clogged and would not flow. Fuel pumps would not work (Holley vane high-flow would not even turn). Carbs all trashed.
Don't talk to me about "re-jetting and tuning". When internal parts are corroded to the point of failure, adjustments are not enough!
By the way these cars were stored in climate controlled buildings, driven on a regular basis, and infused with the "proper" fuel stabilizers.
If anybody thinks they can "tune" away the problem, they are facing an expensive lesson eventually.
Blackrifle| 9.10.10 @ 2:49AM
Capt G, you nailed it! Thanks for cutting through the BS. No conjecture, no hearsay, and no off-topic nostalgia trips. Just the facts.
Seldon B. Graham, Jr.| 4.5.11 @ 5:49PM
Ethanol production last year was only 9% of the amount of foreign oil. Ethanol production last year was only 309,524 thousand barrels compared to 3,344,485 barrels of foreign oil imports. Biofuel can never replace imported oil—not enough US crop land. Using ethanol in a vehicle emits MORE carbon dioxide into the air than using gasoline.