All Around Town -- And Country, Too!; December 2010 --
As noted in my first posting on this BLOG, Grumpy has strong documentation, showing that the miles-per-gallon deterioration on the Red Rocket is due to the 10% Ethanol that has been introduced into the gasoline sold in Washington State (as well as many other States, as well). So this got the Old Grump to thinking about what problem this addition to our gasoline was supposed to solve.
Global warming is a "hot" topic [pardon the pun, but Grumpy couldn't resist! Ha! ha!] and a reduction in the unburned hydrocarbons is supposed to help in this regard. The addition of Ethanol, with its high Oxygen content [don't ask Grumpy to cite the chemical compound represented by Ethanol; Grumpy passed college Chemistry, but he didn't set any records!], will definitely reduce the amount of hydrocarbons in the exhaust of the automobile engine. But Carbon Dioxide is also a component of automobile exhaust and apparently a more serious contributor to global warming than is unburned hydrocarbons.
If the addition of 10% Ethanol reduces the miles per gallon by 10%, then isn't it obvious that the same amount of gasoline is going to be used to travel the same distance? And isn't it also obvious that the Carbon content in that gasoline is going to wind up producing the same amount of Carbon Dioxide as before? Another argument for using 10% Ethanol is that it reduces our need for imported petroleum. But if the introduction of 10% Ethanol results in a 10% reduction in miles per gallon, then isn't it also obvious that the same amount of petroleum is still required to drive the same number of miles as before?
So, in reality, the introduction of 10% Ethanol does nothing to reduce our dependence on imported oil, does nothing to reduce the amount of Carbon Dioxide entering our atmosphere and does nothing to keep prices from rising for food for human and animal consumption because of the increased demand for corn to produce Ethanol. The only minor benefit Grumpy sees for keeping Ethanol as the additive of choice in our gasoline is that it reduces the amounts of unburned hydrocarbons; but isn't that what that expensive catalytic chamber, now mandatory in all automobiles, is for?
Global warming is a "hot" topic [pardon the pun, but Grumpy couldn't resist! Ha! ha!] and a reduction in the unburned hydrocarbons is supposed to help in this regard. The addition of Ethanol, with its high Oxygen content [don't ask Grumpy to cite the chemical compound represented by Ethanol; Grumpy passed college Chemistry, but he didn't set any records!], will definitely reduce the amount of hydrocarbons in the exhaust of the automobile engine. But Carbon Dioxide is also a component of automobile exhaust and apparently a more serious contributor to global warming than is unburned hydrocarbons.
If the addition of 10% Ethanol reduces the miles per gallon by 10%, then isn't it obvious that the same amount of gasoline is going to be used to travel the same distance? And isn't it also obvious that the Carbon content in that gasoline is going to wind up producing the same amount of Carbon Dioxide as before? Another argument for using 10% Ethanol is that it reduces our need for imported petroleum. But if the introduction of 10% Ethanol results in a 10% reduction in miles per gallon, then isn't it also obvious that the same amount of petroleum is still required to drive the same number of miles as before?
So, in reality, the introduction of 10% Ethanol does nothing to reduce our dependence on imported oil, does nothing to reduce the amount of Carbon Dioxide entering our atmosphere and does nothing to keep prices from rising for food for human and animal consumption because of the increased demand for corn to produce Ethanol. The only minor benefit Grumpy sees for keeping Ethanol as the additive of choice in our gasoline is that it reduces the amounts of unburned hydrocarbons; but isn't that what that expensive catalytic chamber, now mandatory in all automobiles, is for?
Grumpy's opinion is that a better solution is to quit making "corn likker" to add to gasoline and, instead, improve the efficiency of the engines (hybrid- and all-electric automobiles; Diesel is a "shovel ready" technology!), and motivate people to use alternative means for commuting (bicycling, another "shovel ready" technology) and by allowing free-market access to the mass transit business (government efforts in this regard are mostly demonstrable failures).
What does the reader think about this?
