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?
I commented on the first post about this. I guess it got lost in the Wikileaks fiasco.
ReplyDeleteI documented a 20% loss in my mileqage with my 1987 Fiero. I came to the same conclusion that the decreased milrage was doing nothing for the amount of pollution in the winter (the jusk gas only was sold from November to February) as you used the same amount of fossil fuel.
Thank-goodness-he-was-never-elected Algore has admitted now that the ethanol experiment was a failure.
Other facts about the ethanol:
It requires more fuel to produce than it provides: 1.4 gallons of fuel for each gallon produced.
Food prices have risen dramatically due to the corn crop going to the gas tank.
Ethanol has less energy, thereby reducing mpg.
Ethanol is a solvent and has been respomsible for the destruction of some boats (that had fiberglass fuel tanks). All 50 dtates mandate that 10% ethanol is in the fuel. The only exceptions are aircraft fuels and some states are now allowing boat fuel to be pure gas.
Older lawn mowers, weed eaters, and other yard equipment no longer operate because their design is incompatible with ethanol additives.
I really get offended with junk science when it is politicised for some unknown agenda.
Where did you see/read that Al Gore admitted that Ethanol is a mistake?
ReplyDeleteI believe you are in error that Ethanol has less energy per pound (or gallon) than gasoline. Do you have a reference for your assertion?