exexexex

I did a search for ethanol and seems that few threads are talking about this.I know,premium is needed,which is the bottom line.Mohawak and Husky here in Vancouver are the only two gas stations that offer 94 Octane gas at a very good price,I think it's about the same as Esso and Shell's 91. However,their gas contains 10% ethanol with deposits control additives.
Heard that some say ethanol no good,gonna cause trouble in a long run.Some swear by it,saying ethanol is the way to go.I read that in Ontario area TSX owners using 94 from Sunoco,does their gas contain ethanol or not?
After all,just started paying attention to the gas due to the weird engine performance after the first Chevron 92 fill up last night.

jpt

The primary "benefit" of ethanol in gasoline is giving your tax dollars to farmers. It shouldn't make a difference to your engine particularly in low concentrations (E10 or less). In high concentrations (some Midwestern states in the US have E85) it will hurt your mileage since ethanol's energy density is significantly lower than gasoline's.

exexexex

Humm,seems that it won't harm at all then?

STL

Then manual says it's fine. I don't think Honda would say that if it weren't true.

LuvMyTSX

Yes, gas mileage is reduced and it's also corrosive. I wouldn't use it unless your vehicle was specially made for it.

narci

I believe sometimes this year or next the gov will be forcing gas companies to have a high % of ethenol in the gas.

jihan3

I would say that the primary benefit of ethanol in gasoline is for reducing our nation's dependence on foreign energy. Dependence on foreign energy comes at high cost, economic and otherwise. Every drop counts.

All cars manufactured for sale in the US are designed to handle E10 (10% ethanol, 90% gasoline). Any ethanol present in your fuel will hurt your gas mileage. Now, whether it hurts your gas economy (miles per dollar spent) depends on the price difference between pure gas and the ethanol blend.

loulinjai

it has a 94 octane rating because ethanol delays ignition timing, acting as a octane booster. In some gases, its really just 91 octane + ethanol

exexexex

really? any ethanol will hurt gas milage?

LuvMyTSX

http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

jihan3

Yes.

Quote from this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

"Although Ethanol does have 66% of the energy as a gallon of gasoline, its higher octane rating enables higher compression and therefore higher efficiency engines."



Any amount of ethanol in your gas tank will displace the same amount of gasoline. Since pure gasoline is more energy dense than ethanol, your gas mileage will drop (miles per gallon). As I mentioned before, your fuel economy (miles per dollar spent) may or may not suffer, depending on the discount that you pay for the ethanol blend.

jihan3

The results reported in your link have apparently been discredited by subsequent researchers. See the same wikipedia article that I linked above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel, in the "Energy Balance in the United States" section.

jihan3

Another benefit of Ethanol is that it is more carbon neutral than gasoline refined from crude oil.

Crude oil consists of hydrocarbons that have been sequestered in the Earth for a long time. By burning this fuel, we release the long sequestered carbon atoms into our earth's atmosphere, predominately in the form of carbon dioxide.

Ethanol, on the other hand, is typically obtained from agricultural products. The hydrocarbons in ethanol come from carbon from the carbon dioxide in the air and hydrogen from water molecules. When ethanol is burned, you're simply returning carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that plants had recently sequestered.

The punchline is that releasing an excess of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has bad environmental effects (global warming). By burning ethanol instead of gasoline, you're being kinder to the environment. And that helps (some) people sleep at night.

LuvMyTSX

Well, I don't think anyone really knows the answer, and I don't think ethanol is the correct one.

Conservation, conservation, conservation....

jihan3

exexexex

yeah,seems like there's no final answer to it....... But,my concern would mainly be whether ethanol will cause problems in a long run in our engines or not......

STL

Ethanol gas has been around for quite some time now. I think the promotion of these E85 vehicles is making people think even E10 is something relatively new.

excited

I use Mohawk/Husky ethanol gas and I have had no problems. I chose it because it produces lower levels of carbon monoxide emissions and is better for the environment.

Here is one link praising both it's economic and environmental benefits from the Govenrment of Canada.

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportatio...its.cfm?attr=8

Here is another link that states that engine performance and fuel efficiency are indistinguishable from just regular gas fuels:

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/...2_257_2003.cfm

Here is a US source that dismisses many myths, although they benefit from increased ethanol sales.

http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/your_car.htm

The bottom line is that drivers in the US have driven over three trillion trouble free miles using ethanol fuels and the use of ethanol-blended fuel (E-10 Unleaded) is approved under warranty by every major automaker in the world including:

General Motors (Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chevy pickups, GMC pickups, Geo, Oldsmobile and Pontiac)
Ford Motor Company (Ford, Lincoln, Mercury and Ford pickups)
DaimlerChrysler (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Plymouth and Dodge pickups)
Acura
Audi
BMW
Honda
Hyundai
Infiniti
Isuzu
Jaguar
Kia
Land Rover
Lexus
Mercedes-Benz
Mazda
Mitsubishi
Nissan
Porsche
Rolls Royce/Bentley
Saab
Saturn
Subaru
Suzuki
Toyota
Volkswagen
Volvo


I think that it is safe to use, helps the environment and reduces the dependance of fossil fuels.



Excited

hawaiiantsx

heard somewhere on the news i think that the refineries here in hawaii will have to have a certain percantage of ethanol in their gasolines here..i think its sometime in april that it will take place.....i really hope it doesnt hurt our engines

Zoopa

If you can, run your car with as little ethanol in the formula. Cars that can run E85 (85% ethanol blend) will get 20%-to-30% worse fuel economy, and will probably pay 5% more at the pump. So you pay more, get worse economy, and have to refill the tank more often! See where this goes...you consume more fuel! The majority of cars on the road today, TSX included, are designed to run E15 (15% ethanol blend).

Ethanol is probably one of the biggest scams today. In the States, Ethanol is grown by farmers, but the government gives the subsidy to ADM to produce it. The farmers are left out of the benefits and the profits go to an S&P 500 company. Ethanol does nothing to conserve fuel. Yes we may possibly use less mineral fuel, but it does nothing slow down the overall consumption.

jihan3

Ethanol blends (E10/E85) are typically cheaper than pure gasoline. I live in the midwest, and I've observed this empirically as well as from research. Anyone who has any doubts on this should search for answers from an unbiased source. Typically, the cost difference offsets the worser mileage.

All fuel injected cars sold in the US since 1988 are designed to run E10 (10% ethanol blend). I've never seen or heard of E15. The TSX is designed to run E10.

Gasoline is one of the biggest scams today. In the States, more than half of our gasoline consumption is imported. Much of the world's oil is sourced from unstable regions of the world. This is a Bad Thing (tm). It's such a big problem that even our president, Mr. Oil Man, has underlined the issue in his latest State of the Union address. Anything to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil is good. Corn farmers benefit from ethanol by having an additional customer. Ethanol blends are not the perfect answer, but I believe it's a net positive, and every little bit helps.

Zoopa

Farmers sell their product on the market. The purchaser receives a subsidy to buy corn product, then distills it to ethanol and sells it as fuel. So the distiller gets it for free essentially, then can sell it for profit. How does the farmer benefit? He is simply selling product to the market.

Then you and I buy fuel that can cost more, or as you state less than gasoline (I've seen and read that the price for E85 is 5% higher), and we get worse fuel economy. So consumption increases, you use more fuel to travel the same distance if you only use gasoline.

In the Sates, Amoco used to claim that their premium didn't use any ethanol. Is this still the case with BP owning them?

Zoopa

-

jihan3

There isn't a direct benefit to farmers. However, it's good for the corn industry because excess food products are being put to good use. This is good for farmers in the long term.

Here's a Wikipedia article on E85: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

In the "Cost" section: "As of 2005, E85 is frequently sold for up to 35% lower cost per quantity than gasoline." Much of the discount is due to subsidies and tax exemptions.

In the same section, the article states that pre-2002 E85 cars see reduced fuel economy by about 30%. However, newer cars only see a reduction of less than 15%. This makes E85 a win.

Curiously, some cars see better fuel economy AND power with E85. Why is this? It's because ethanol is of much higher octane than gasoline. Gasoline engines are optimized to burn gasoline with compression ratios of approximately 10:1. Studies have shown that engines with compression ratios of around 19:1 are far more efficient for burning ethanol. Cars with forced induction effectively increase the compression ratio of the engine, making them ideal candidates for burning ethanol. The example cited in the article is a turbocharged Saab.

Now, what I just talked about was for E85, which is NOT what's used in many states across the US. However, the same story holds for E10 - but the numbers have to be scaled back. In other words, the discount of E10 over E85 won't be as great, and the mileage loss observed in normal gasoline engines won't be as severe.

I don't know about ethanol in Amoco/BP premium fuels. However, I do know that most if not all of the gas that I've put in my TSX is E10 (I live in Illinois).

Zoopa

Man..you know your sh...I mean corn! Are you from the corn lobby? Will they make cars that run strictly E85 to take advantage of the benefits?

jihan3

Nah... I just a nerd who likes to read Wikipedia articles! I'm not affiliated with anyone in the energy industry. After reading about Bush's State of the Union address, I was curious why our government seems all of a sudden so pro-ethanol - so I read up on it.

I don't know about making cars that strictly run E85 or even pure ethanol. I was curious to see if it was possible to run the TSX on E85 The E85 Wikipedia article has some information on aftermarket conversion kits. That would give a nice excuse for me to lay out the 4K for the Comptech supercharger.

gavinn58

Will this affect hondata reflash users?

jpt

Sorry bub, it requires more foreign oil to produce a gallon of ethanol than you can replace by burning it. This kills your "clean-burning" arguments as well.

And yes, an artificial boost to ethanol demand in the form of a buyer's subsidy IS economically identical to taking money out of my pocket and putting it in a corn farmer's.

CarbonGray Earl

Please explain this. Im on neither side of this issue, but I find this difficult to believe at first glance.

jpt

Ethanol (in america) comes from corn. Corn has to be grown, which requires farmers to drive big diesel tractors around all season. Then it has to be picked, which requires farmers to drive big diesel tractors around some more. Then the ethanol has to be extracted, which requires burning lots of fossil fuel under stills or something. What you get out of that is ethanol, which has a fairly low energy density.

The net result is that the fossil fuel->ethanol cycle is a net energy loser. For every mile you drive on ethanol fuel, you could have taken the diesel or crude oil that went into fueling tractors and stills and electric plants, and driven your car MORE than a mile. If it weren't for heavy subsidies and legal ethanol-burning mandates in some states, nobody in the US would produce ethanol for burning.

The moral of the story is that if the free market doesn't support a solution, it's probably the wrong one!

jpt

I should add that since the negative net energy balance of corn-based ethanol has been publicized, there have been some arguments that it can be made just barely energy-positive. However, even the corn lobbyists arguing that admit that the processes needed to do so are not economical -- which is another way of saying that in order to use less gas to produce the corn ethanol, we have to use enough of something else (labor and/or capital) that it is not worth doing at current oil prices. If crude oil shot to $500 a barrel, it might be worth a second look, but not now.

By the way, another factor influencing the practicality of ethanol as fuel is arable land. Even if we could grow corn and refine ethanol without a drop of oil as input, we'd need more corn than can be grown in the entirety of the US to replace just the gas that goes into our cars.

jihan3

About energy-negative ethanol:

The net energy output of ethanol has already been discussed in this very thread. A source (Pimental) was previously cited that made your claim (that ethanol is energy-negative, requiring more fossil fuel energy to produce than it provides), but the source's results have been picked apart, criticized, and discredited in subsequent studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel). Dubious accounting was to blame - for example, attributing the annual gasoline consumption of ethanol plant workers and corn farmers towards the production of ethanol, whereas the employees would likely still expend approximately the same amount of fossil fuels if employed elsewhere.

I've supplied a (presumably unbiased) source to defend my statements. Please do the same for yours so we can do our best to seperate fact from opinion.

About ethanol replacing gasoline:

You are correct in that corn sourced ethanol will not replace all gasoline. However, that's not the point. The point is that ethanol sourced from excess corn can replace SOME gasoline. Replacing SOME fossil fuels is better than not replacing any. Ethanol can be produced from other sources also, including promising technology that can produce it from biowaste. Attacking ethanol by saying that it cannot entirely replace gasoline is akin to stating that hydroelectric power plants are a bad idea because they can't produce enough electricity to replace all coal power plants.


Ethanol may or may not be a net positive win today (for whatever reason), but technology is always changing. To inhibit the growth and development of new technologies simply because they don't work RIGHT NOW is short sighted. That said, the general concensus in the scientific community is that ethanol is a net positive. It reduces our dependence on foreign energy, which is one of the biggest issues in our nation today and in the near term future.

Trophyhead

My understanding is that a car has to be specially modified or manufactured to use E85. Different fuel lines, tanks, etc, due to the corrosiveness of the ethanol. More information is available at this link: http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/afv/eth_vehicles.html

LuvMyTSX

Another thing I don't think anyone has mentioned is the amount of pesticides that would be needed to grow the corn. I think just about everyone agrees that pesticides are horrible for the environment.

Also, what would happen with crop rotation? Would we just keep growing corn on the same fields, which is also not a good idea?

What would happen if the corn crops got infested with a bug and killed all or a large portion of the corn, therefore reducing the amount we have to make our fuel?

sauceman

Good point. That is what is happennig in my neck of the woods.

jihan3

Today, in the US, ethanol is mainly produced from excess corn production. This excess corn production would otherwise be burned off. Instead, we're converting it to useable fuel (assuming that the conversion process is energy positive).

That's the story today, in the US. Looking towards the future, corn is not the only source for ethanol (for example, sugar cane is widely used in Brazil where some 40% of vehicular fuel is ethanol) - it's simply the most abundant resource in the US. In particular, technologies to produce ethanol from waste biomass (e.g. waste animal products that would otherwise be burned off or corn stalks that would otherwise be left to rot after corn is harvested) are emerging and promising. A nice summary of this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol

As long as waste products are being converted to useable fuel, this seems to be a moot point to me. You could make the argument that greater demand for ethanol would spur greater corn production beyond that today, while maintaining our status of producing more corn than we consume and export. Then, yes, you have to weigh the negatives of using X amount of pesticides versus spewing Y amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Good point - this would cause an ethanol shortage. There are likely many reasons that can result in a shortage (drought, diseases, problems associated with production or distribution). However, I'd like to point out that there are also many reasons that can result in a gasoline shortage (hurricanes or terrorists disrupting oil extraction, production, or distribution, or simply the lack of sufficient "easy to extract" fossil fuels on our planet), and these gasoline shortages would have the same net effect as an ethanol shortage.

jpt

Wikipedia is never what I'd call an unbiased source, and the specific article you mention even has a warning on it that its neutrality has been challenged. Pimentel's study is the one I've been referring to for the negative energy balance figures; here is a competing study that claims a positive net energy balance. However, to acheive it, they have to cheat by applying energy credits to coproducts. That means if producing a gallon of ethanol also produces a pound of corn starch they deduct the energy cost that the corn starch would normally have, since now you don't have to make it specially. This involves the flawed assumption that all the coproducts will be usable; in fact, if we step up ethanol production most of these coproducts will simply be destroyed. Moreover, even if ethanol really does have a positive energy balance, there is a very real acreage limitation on how much we can produce.

Now for your other claims. Even if ethanol gives a net positive energy balance it is not necessarily cleaner overall, because lots of coal and gas still have to be burned to create it -- just not in your car. This may have some benefit in smog-choked cities but it is not nearly as rosy an overall picture as you make it sound.

Giving my tax money to corn farmers and ethanol plants will not reduce dependence on foreign energy, because, believe it or not, we aren't dependent on foreign energy at all. It's just cheaper than domestic energy, so we buy it. This is not a bad thing, and if and when foreign oil becomes too expensive, the free market will quickly and naturally provide a substitute. If that happens, I'm all for it, whether that substitute is E85, biodiesel, super batteries for electric cars, metal fuel, or just smaller, more efficient engines. However, I think the current level of privately-funded research is about the right amount, and spending government money to force it to come about ahead of time is inefficient.

Your arguments about "stifling a developing technology" are disingenuous for the same reason. If ethanol technology is worth developing, someone will develop it whether or not I am forced to pay for it (by buying higher concentrations of ethanol in my gasoline, and by spending tax money directly on other incentive programs).

jihan3

I'm no ECU hacker, but here's my best guess.

Two of the primary functions of the ECU are to time the spark plug and to adjust the air fuel mixture.

I don't know what effect introducing some percentage of ethanol into the fuel supply has on spark plug timing.

However, the presence of ethanol will affect the ideal air fuel mixture. This is because ethanol itself contains oxygen (like NOS!), meaning that with ethanol present, you need less air for the same quantity of fuel to achieve an equivalent burn. The stock ECU's fuel/air mapping table is wide enough (i.e. there are enough entries in the table) to account for the difference caused by at least a 10% ethanol blend. I would assume that Hondata didn't change the size or range of the mapping table, and only fiddled with the numbers in the table instead. If the table were messed with enough that it couldn't handle the "difference" in readings from the oxygen sensor and MAF, you would know immediately by the check engine light (I suppose Hondata could have disabled the CEL, but they appear to be a standup company so they probably didn't).

Also, since E10 is burned across the majority of the US, and compatibility is mandated for US market cars, I can't imagine that Hondata would release a product incompatible with E10. Now, regardless of if your TSX is Hondata-fied or not, I wouldn't burn E85

jihan3

The main arguments against Piementel's study are saying that he cheated his figures by unfairly applying gasoline consumption sources. For example, he applied the annual gasoline consumption of workers in ethanol production facilities towards the balance. However, if the ethanol production facility did not exist, would those workers cease to live and consume gasoline? Of course not.

There are so many variables and gray areas that the energy balance number is near impossible to calculate. No one knows, but for what it's worth, the general scientific community appears to disagree with Piementel.

By definition, if ethanol gives a net positive energy balance, fewer fossil fuels are burned in the big picture (assuming that fossil fuels are the primary energy source in the equation). Thus, carbon dioxide emissions are lowered. Is this what you meant by "cleaner"? If so, I don't understand your reasoning.

The fact that foreign energy is cheaper means that we're dependent on it. The American way of life is subsidized by the availability of cheap energy. If we had to pay more for our energy than our competitors (all other nations in the world), we would endure a slow tax, acting like a friction on our economy. The availability of cheap energy is EXTREMELY important to our economy.

I don't believe that free market forces will always provide a solution whenever things turn sour. Free market forces work well when changes are GRADUAL. When changes occur too quickly, elements in the free market are too slow to adapt. This occurs because elements in the free market are biased towards making money in the near term. If there's easy money to be made in the near term, why spend precious resources to work on a hard upcoming problem when they could be put to better use making money NOW? Hard problems require time to find good workable solutions, but in a competitive market, there's too much pressure to spend precious resources towards near term problems and competition. This is one of the big reasons why a completely free market doesn't work. You need SOME regulation to help move market forces to ease the pain of sharp transitions.

Now, all this is predicated on whether or not the energy market will see a sharp transition in the near future. Even if it turns out that the free market would have found a workable solution, can we really risk it?

Here's my opinion: With our inquenchable thirst for low cost imported goods and energy, we're making the rest of the world richer and in turn, thirstier for energy. They're competing in the world market for energy and world supplies have not been increasing as fast as in the past (either because free market forces did not anticipate or because they are simply too slow to adapt or a combination of both). Today, the energy production and supply chain is fragile with not much headroom left. I think there's a sharp transition waiting for us. Our government seems to think so (either that, or corn lobbyists have a lot of pull!). Time will tell.

Zoopa

This has turned into a really interesting, and passionate discussion. Dependance on energy arguments and what not.

Recently there was an energy analyst on NPR discussing hybrid cars. He said that Hybrids don't really solve the problem, meaning that if people could get better gas mileage, they would simply drive more. So the conservation benefit of a hybrid is lost, people would consume they same amount of energy because now they can drive without penalty.

Honda's CEO comments recently stating that they will be rethinking hybrids confirms this. After all, they have been selling them for 10 years (if you include the Japan market).

Is that the same with ethanol? Since we produce the energy here, we wont dont cut back on the usage. The consumption rate doesn't go down.