Bell Performance Ethanol Defense

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: Joenpb
To be honest who runs their tank dry? When I fill up I usually have 3-4 gallons left in the tank. Over a period of years I could see water building up, but I guess if the fuel pick up is in the bottom of the tank the water would get sucked into the combustion chamber.

I guess our Gumout rep only responses when Gumout is in the title....


I find it odd that you don't drive your vehicles.

 

[BHopkins]

Originally Posted By: Joenpb
To be honest who runs their tank dry? When I fill up I usually have 3-4 gallons left in the tank. Over a period of years I could see water building up, but I guess if the fuel pick up is in the bottom of the tank the water would get sucked into the combustion chamber.

I guess our Gumout rep only responses when Gumout is in the title....


Agreed. Most everyone I know fills up with 1/4 - 1/2 tank left.

But with modern fuel injection systems, where the fuel is kept at a constant pressure in the fuel rail, isn't there fuel being pumped back into the fuel tank almost constantly? Let's suppose that there is moisture absorbed by the alcohol, and that it does separate from the gas, and of course it settles to the bottom of the tank. With the pickup in the bottom of the tank, any alcohol/water that does separate is going to be the first fuel to be pumped to the engine. When would the any separated ethanol/water ever have the chance to accumulate into enough to matter?

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: earlyre
Originally Posted By: bvance554

Farmers and subsidies aren't the reason for ethanol. Environmental regulations are. Fuel must contain an oxygenate in order to reduce air pollution. This used to be accomplished with the use of MTBE, but there were problems with it contaminating water supplies, so ethanol was considered a more environmentally friendly option. Loosen the tin foil hat a little. If it weren't for clean air we wouldn't need ethanol, it has nothing to do with farmers.


that maybe, but corn is one of i not the least efficient things to make ethanol from. one of the reasons so much of our ethanol comes from corn is that with the subsides and tax breaks, we have created/funded a rather powerful corn ethanol Lobby group, that will fight to keep US production into corn, and funding away from developing other sources.


That's nonsense. At the time MTBE was banned, corn was the only crop that had enough production and excess capacity to be used. The infrastructure has been built around it, and the changeover to other options (which are only now being used) is hideously expensive. I'm assuming you've heard about the emerging cellulosic ethanol production and the plants that are being built/redesigned to use it? It not only requires production changes but also commitment and investment from farmers to harvest the trash that is normally left on the field. The plant can't be built without the product to process and the product won't be planted/harvested until there is a market available.

And before you start the additional "fuel for food" nonsense, you should know that the majority of corn goes to cattle feed, and one of the by-products of ethanol production is dried distillers grain, which contains about 95% of the energy of corn grain (University of Minnesota, "Feeding Distiller's Grain to Beef Cattle").

 

[John_Conrad]

A different point of view or other aspect if you like:

http://extension.missouri.edu/news/DisplayStory.aspx?N=1350

 

[hatt]

Quote:
And before you start the additional "fuel for food" nonsense, you should know that the majority of corn goes to cattle feed, and one of the by-products of ethanol production is dried distillers grain, which contains about 95% of the energy of corn grain (University of Minnesota, "Feeding Distiller's Grain to Beef Cattle").


Talk about nonsense. A corn kernel is something like 80% starch. All of which is used in the production of ethanol. So what if distillers grain contains 95% of the energy of corn. 95% of 20% < 100% of 100%.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: earlyre
Originally Posted By: bvance554

Farmers and subsidies aren't the reason for ethanol. Environmental regulations are. Fuel must contain an oxygenate in order to reduce air pollution. This used to be accomplished with the use of MTBE, but there were problems with it contaminating water supplies, so ethanol was considered a more environmentally friendly option. Loosen the tin foil hat a little. If it weren't for clean air we wouldn't need ethanol, it has nothing to do with farmers.


that maybe, but corn is one of i not the least efficient things to make ethanol from. one of the reasons so much of our ethanol comes from corn is that with the subsides and tax breaks, we have created/funded a rather powerful corn ethanol Lobby group, that will fight to keep US production into corn, and funding away from developing other sources.


Do you still actually believe this stuff highlighted? You are way behind the curve. Subsidies for ethanol were dropped in 2011. Sure there are tax breaks, but any of those are just reduction in taxes owed. Most folks get all kinds of tax breaks. Like mortgage interest deduction, child care deduction, health savings account deduction, and on and on and on. If we are truly going to be fair here, then eliminate all tax breaks, on everyone! Then no one can complain.

And this lobby group stuff. Every interest has a lobby group. AARP for seniors. NRA for gun owners, ATA for truckers, and the list goes on and on. There is a lobby group of some sort for everyone in the country. Again, let's be fair. Ban all lobby groups and so-called special interests.

And loss of funding for developing other sources. Have you been locked in in jail for the last 10 years? Travel around the country and see all the wind generators that have been put up. Rows and rows, mile after mile, especially in the midwest and great plains states. Oh... those are the largest corn producing states. I thought that the corn lobby was sucking up all the money to develop other sources? And it sure doesn't appear that the corn lobby has had any dent in the natural gas and oil drilling sector. Ask the folks in N. Dakota if the corn lobby is preventing them from drilling. Uh oh.... another corn producing state.

And people like this vote.

 

[linksep]

Originally Posted By: bvance554
Farmers and subsidies aren't the reason for ethanol. Environmental regulations are. Fuel must contain an oxygenate in order to reduce air pollution. This used to be accomplished with the use of MTBE, but there were problems with it contaminating water supplies, so ethanol was considered a more environmentally friendly option. Loosen the tin foil hat a little. If it weren't for clean air we wouldn't need ethanol, it has nothing to do with farmers.


Your premise is no longer valid. Back in the days before computer controlled engines with feedback oxygen sensors something was needed to dilute the fuel to make carbureted engines run less rich when the seasons changed, that something was "Oxygenate" because the public never would have accepted it if it was called "dilutant" or "filler" or "thinner". Ethanol really came on strong in the late 80's and 90's... After the last carbureted new car was sold in the United States and there was no longer a strong case to be made about environmental benefits. Too little, too late. Corn ethanol in the US has been a boondoggle since Colorado first mandated all gasoline be diluted, I mean thinned, I mean Oxygenated in 1988 (then the Feds got involved through the 90's).

To the OP and others, water/alcohol will not "build up" in your tank until one day there is a catastrophic amount of water in the tank. You add "dry" gas/ethanol when you fill your tank, that "dry" gas/ethanol will absorb any water in the tank (and yes some water from the air) and it will get pumped into your engine and burned. Gas and water don't mix, but weak (water containing) alcohol will mix with gas and get burned off under anything resembling "normal" conditions (burning through a tank worth of gas at least every few months and refilling).

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Oldmoparguy1
Um guys??? There is no water problem with todays gas. All vehicle fuel systems are sealed. When you fuel your car, the fuel going in pushes air out. No water vapor enters the tank.

Think about it........


You might want to think what happens when the fuel pump pumps the fuel out of the tank...the tank doesn't suck in like a deflated balloon, something replaces the fuel that was once there.

Think about it...what replaces the fuel, and what does it contain ?

Then as the tank heats up and cools, rather than puffing and shrinking, as the fuel and air expand/contract, the tank breathes...

Think about it...

There was the 2nd generation Toyota Prius with a bladder inside a rigid tank. I believe it would actively purge any air from the tank. Apparently one problem was when it got cold the bladder wasn't flexible enough, and the capacity would go down.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit


That's nonsense. At the time MTBE was banned, corn was the only crop that had enough production and excess capacity to be used.

MTBE was never banned per se nationwide, although most states have banned its use as a fuel additive. However, most refiners won't use it for various liability reasons. My understanding is that MTBE makers wanted a blanket protection against water contamination lawsuits related to MTBE, and when Congress wouldn't give them that, most of them (primarily oil refiners) stopped making it and gas marketers completely switched over to ethanol when an oxygenate was needed. California had already banned MTBE as a fuel additive in 2002.

 

[HangFire]

Originally Posted By: Oldmoparguy1
Um guys??? There is no water problem with todays gas. All vehicle fuel systems are sealed. When you fuel your car, the fuel going in pushes air out. No water vapor enters the tank.

Think about it........


And when you burn that gas, it leaves behind a vacuum? Or does something come into the tank to fill up the space?

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: Oldmoparguy1
Um guys??? There is no water problem with todays gas. All vehicle fuel systems are sealed. When you fuel your car, the fuel going in pushes air out. No water vapor enters the tank.

Think about it........


And when you burn that gas, it leaves behind a vacuum? Or does something come into the tank to fill up the space?

Yes there is. It's called fuel vapor. Modern gas tanks aren't really exposed to outside air. It's pressurized with fuel vapor. It's not going to take in air from outside unless the gas cap is off.

Water vapor really isn't an issue with modern cars. I suppose contamination at the gas station or maybe filling during heavy rain could introduce water into the tank.

 

[TiredTrucker]

^^^^ +1