Ethanol and Internal Combustion Engines

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
While I think it is stupid to burn foodstuff in a car, I doubt that running alcohol in an engine will reduce its longevity.


Thought only winos and alcoholics considered ethanol a food source.

There has been E15 available in my area since last winter. The pumps are clearly marked, as well as a label on the nozzle handle that states the it is intended only for flex fuel vehicles to regular vehicles made after 2001. They are really trying to market it in this area and the price is darn good. Used it in my 2015 Chevy 2500 for a few months to try it out. Couldn't tell the difference between regular, E10, or even the E15 on performance and fuel economy. Now using E85 for a while, and definite 2 mpg hit, but the price is good enough that it is still cheaper to use than the others on a cost per mile basis. I have run UOA's on running E85 in my previous vehicle and there was no changes from running regular fuel UOA's. Lost any concerns I had with ethanol years ago.
THe food source is what ethanol is made from. It's why good hamburger is 5 bucks a pound now. The manuals in several of my vehicles say very clearly..."no more than 10% ethanol may be used". I've contacted the maker, they haven't changed that number.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
]THe food source is what ethanol is made from. It's why good hamburger is 5 bucks a pound now. The manuals in several of my vehicles say very clearly..."no more than 10% ethanol may be used". I've contacted the maker, they haven't changed that number.


When you contacted them did you ask for a technical explanation. Or do you not dig much when something fits your view?
 
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
Originally Posted By: djb
This is hugely bogus.

The projected environmental benefit is a fraud. The model they use for pollution was developed and set in stone in the 1970s. It can't (won't) be updated, because comparisons with historical values couldn't be easily made.

The problem is that in 1970s, most vehicles used carburetors. If you take a carburetor engine tuned for maximum performance at sea level then dilute the fuel with 10% alcohol, you'll see far lower emissions. If you dilute the fuel with 15% alcohol you'll see even lower emissions, especially with a full-choke cold start.

The flaw is that in the real world essentially all vehicles (excepting motorcycles) are fuel injected. When they are closed-loop, they don't run rich. They produce pretty much the same pollution, regardless of running E0, E10 or E15.



That would not be true. Ethanol is a hydrocarbon at C2H6O molecular composition. So it will produce water and carbon dioxide in a proper combustion. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant but won't cause acid rain or smog.

The main criticism of ethanol should be about using food as fuel, and lower energy density than gasoline (21 megajoules per liter versus 35 megajoules per liter of gasoline).


Why do people have such a hard time understanding that the corn used ISNT FIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Now there can be an argument made that the land used to grow the corn could be better served for growing human food but the corn used for ethanol isn't edible for people
Trucker hauls the stuff and lives in the grain belt.apparently after the ethanol plant gets what it needs from the corn the leftovers is a high nutrient food for cattle and is sold off to cattle and livestock operations,so none of it is wasted and if you want to get technical the corn is used to feed the cows and we eat the cows,so in the big wheel of life we do eat the corn.just in a different form.
As beef.

Personally I don't care whether ethanol or gasoline is used for fuel. What I care about is the free market. If corn can be made into fuel for less total cost than it takes to refine oil into gasoline then I say rock on,however if it's only cheap at the pumps because the government subsidizes it then I feel it's nonsense.
It's gotta stand on its own. Sink or swim.
E-85 is great fuel. More power. More potential with tuning. It's great for boost however it does have less btu so in a gasoline engine it takes more fuel to go the same distance.
Now if we built engines optimized for e-85 I'm sure the btu hit could be compensated for somewhere along the line.
Compressed natural gas in my opinion is a better alternative and gasoline engines can run it.
Hydrogen is also an idea however all these options will never be anything more than a novelty until there is a better infrastructure for alternative fuels,and engines optimized for their use.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
]THe food source is what ethanol is made from. It's why good hamburger is 5 bucks a pound now. The manuals in several of my vehicles say very clearly..."no more than 10% ethanol may be used". I've contacted the maker, they haven't changed that number.


When you contacted them did you ask for a technical explanation. Or do you not dig much when something fits your view?



Well it's not often I agree with you but I think you've got a point here m

And why do people have such a hard time understanding the corn used for ethanol isn't fit for human consumption. It's not grown for people.
And when it's done at the ethanol plant it gets fed to livestock.
So it's not like it's wasted.
We have an ethanol producer here. I know farmers who grow corn for it.
My problem isn't with ethanol as fuel. It's the cost.
The real cost. Not the after subsidizing cost.
A fuel has to reflect cost of production. If it costs more to produce than gasoline then it makes no sense whatsoever to produce.
I like ethanol. I like gasoline.
How much do each truly cost.
That's my point
 
Quote:
Why do people have such a hard time understanding that the corn used ISNT FIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Probably because it's used to make food for human consumption every day all day. Where do you think your Doritos came from?
 
I don't know about American grain grading, but I would suspect there are non-food grade samples of corn in the States. When wheat is harvested up here, it is graded when taken in, and can be of a couple food grades (people food) or it is rated as feed grade (animal food). It's still from the same plant; it's the growing conditions it's faced. Feed grade is used for ethanol production. Food grade is not.
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
THe food source is what ethanol is made from. It's why good hamburger is 5 bucks a pound now. The manuals in several of my vehicles say very clearly..."no more than 10% ethanol may be used". I've contacted the maker, they haven't changed that number.


That is clearly one of the most uneducated and misinformed comments I have read in a while. Corn prices are actually less, on a inflation adjusted basis, than they were during the Clinton administration in the 90's. Price of beef is based on supply and demand market trading, regulatory and processing costs, transportation costs, etc to get that burger to you. And most cattle are primarily on pasture until the final feedlot operation prior to moving to processing plants. The corn price has little effect on the price of beef at McDonald's or your grocery store. And since beef is traded, as a commodity, on the hoof, what they are fed has nothing to do with anything. A beef buyer market does not give a rip if the cattle are fed grass, silage, corn, or beer. They are just buying beef on the hoof at the market price. So many people try to argue about how this all works and haven't even been near a feedlot or on a farm. Cattle producers have no say in what they get for their product. They cannot set market prices. It is purely market driven, with feedlot cattle primarily contract bought. And those contracts are market driven.

And the OEM says that no more than 10% ethanol may be used, then don't use more than 10%! Why would you use more? There is no mandate that fuel contain 15, 20, 30, or more percent of ethanol. Kind of being a little melodramatic aren't you? The debate is on in congress about having E15 offered at the pump, but it will be right next to E10, which will still have to be offered for older vehicles. Even now, E15 pumps that are already out here clearly state that it should not be dispensed into vehicles older than 2001.

Please, please. Try to use a little bit of logic in your comments and at least sound like you know what you are talking about.

Garak is pretty close to right. Corn used for ethanol production is #2 yellow field corn. That is not the primary corn used for human consumption. Even then, only 20% of total corn production is targeted toward human use. Of the 80% left, roughly 40% is targeted to ethanol production, which also kicks out the other end corn oil and feed supplements from the DDG to the tune of 17 lb per bushel of corn used for ethanol production. Hardly a waste.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Garak is pretty close to right. Corn used for ethanol production is #2 yellow field corn. That is not the primary corn used for human consumption. Even then, only 20% of total corn production is targeted toward human use. Of the 80% left, roughly 40% is targeted to ethanol production, which also kicks out the other end corn oil and feed supplements from the DDG to the tune of 17 lb per bushel of corn used for ethanol production. Hardly a waste.


And the ground could be used for absolutely nothing other than the yellow corn ?

Wow, learn something new about agriculture every day !!!
 
The ground that is used for corn production is used for other crop production as well. Crop rotation on an annualized basis on the same ground is a standard farming practice. Corn, soybeans, alfalfa, oats, being the primary rotated crops in the midwest. Sorghum, milo, and wheat also fall into that spectrum in some areas. So many with no direct exposure to modern farming have little clue how this all works. They rely on an article or two out of a magazine from a major metro area from folks who don't know how to plant a garden, let alone operate a commercial farm. Those writers may know how to manage a hedge fund investment, but they are out of their league when it comes to agriculture practices. Hence we get comments like the reason for $5 hamburgers is due to ethanol production which exposes their obvious bias and myopic view of things.

White corn, pop corn, sweet corn are a substantial portion of the human consumption of corn also. There are a lot of varieties of corn. And these mentioned here have nothing to do with, and are not used for ethanol production.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Here's the grading system. #2 looks like high quality corn. It make me doubt the whole "ethanol only uses #2 corn" stuff I've always heard. There's no reason not to use lower grades.

https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ay/ay-225.pdf

+1 Those with an open mind might observe that if "ethanol corn" isn't being grown on a particular plot, animal feed CAN BE. Maybe that requires a little too much critical thinking.
 
Up here, that won't work, at least if looking at wheat or barley. Wheat and barley are simply wheat and barley. Food grade wheat and barley aren't used for ethanol. Feed grade wheat and barley aren't fed to people (even when making beer). Farmers don't choose. They grow wheat or barley, and it's graded at delivery.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Up here, that won't work, at least if looking at wheat or barley. Wheat and barley are simply wheat and barley. Food grade wheat and barley aren't used for ethanol. Feed grade wheat and barley aren't fed to people (even when making beer). Farmers don't choose. They grow wheat or barley, and it's graded at delivery.
Down here we're told the corn used for ethanol is a type NOT used for human or livestock consumption. Is that just a misrepresentation? Seems to me it's the walnut shells and the pea game. There are tax benefits for growing corn used for ethanol production. Since the ruling elite doesn't like us eating meat any more there are no similar benefits for raising corn for food production. Social engineering.
 
Last edited:
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know a lot about corn agriculture. We don't grow a lot of corn up here, aside from gardens. Corn may be completely different from wheat and barley.

Up here, no farmer in his right mind would ask an elevator agent to grade his wheat or barley as feed grade, since the price is significantly lower. Everyone wants to grow #1 wheat and malt grade barley. So, barley can make ethanol for beer if it's good enough, or ethanol for cars if it's not.
wink.gif


Of course, farmers in both nations have many crop choices available to them, and tend to choose what will give them a good return, with the weather being totally out of their control.
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: hatt
Here's the grading system. #2 looks like high quality corn. It make me doubt the whole "ethanol only uses #2 corn" stuff I've always heard. There's no reason not to use lower grades.

https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ay/ay-225.pdf

+1 Those with an open mind might observe that if "ethanol corn" isn't being grown on a particular plot, animal feed CAN BE. Maybe that requires a little too much critical thinking.


Since there was never any thought put into it at the legislative level why change now? This was a nod to a HUGE effort from the corn lobbyists, who successfully pushed it through a willing Congress...
 
But animal feed and corn used for ethanol are the same corn. #2 yellow dent field corn, the primary corn grown throughout the U.S. But one thing that gets missed by many folks, is that the corn that is used for ethanol production is also use for animal feed and other products. I haul lots of high protein feed supplements from ethanol plants to commercial feed operations, primarily poultry operations, both meat and egg poultry producers. Pork growers love this stuff also. The feed made from Dried Distillers Grain, the stuff that is left after ethanol production, is highly sought after as a high quality feed supplement. over 17 lb of feed products comes out of each bushel of corn used to make ethanol. It is highly digestible, approximately 60% protein, and helps prevent intestinal colitis in livestock when combined with their other feed mixtures. Just on the desire for these high quality feed supplements alone, ethanol production will continue. If it isn't used here, it will be exported.

So many seem to have the perception that once a bushel of corn goes into an ethanol plant, it is forever lost to anything else and eternally removed from the country's food supply. They forget about the corn oil that is removed, the high protein feed supplements that come out the other end, etc. Ethanol production is very efficient. Nothing out of a bushel of corn that goes in is wasted.

I guess those with an "open mind" would have already known this. It is common knowledge.
 
At this point, I usually point out that the fatty acid profile of the grain and brewer's leftovers fed animal are clearly inferior for human food consumption, versus grass fed, which has higher omega 3s than tuna.

It's very "common knowledge" for those without an agenda, or hand in pocket with the grain industry.

but an "open minded" trucker usually responds that "corn is grass"...
 
Grain is certainly not ideal for cows. It makes no practical sense to plow up the ground to grow corn to ship to feedlots to feed the cows you took off a pasture and shipped to a feedlot and pumped full of antibiotics to keep healthy. It makes financial sense for big business however. Pastured raised cows don't make big ag, big pharma, big oil, big seed, big chem, big tractor, etc very much money.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
At this point, I usually point out that the fatty acid profile of the grain and brewer's leftovers fed animal are clearly inferior for human food consumption, versus grass fed, which has higher omega 3s than tuna.

That's certainly true, and realistically, you won't find a lot of cattle farmers intentionally feeding their cattle a lot of grain. That either happens at finishing lots or not at all, at least around here. Grass is "free." Grain usually is not.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
At this point, I usually point out that the fatty acid profile of the grain and brewer's leftovers fed animal are clearly inferior for human food consumption, versus grass fed, which has higher omega 3s than tuna.

It's very "common knowledge" for those without an agenda, or hand in pocket with the grain industry.

but an "open minded" trucker usually responds that "corn is grass"...


Do you grass feed swine? Do you grass feed chickens and turkeys? Did you know that most of the feed supplements derived from DDG out of the ethanol plants go to these livestock producers? Did you even read that I haul this stuff to poultry producers? Corn is indeed a grass. Look it up. But some seem to think that beef are feedlot raised from birth to packing plant. The majority of their life is not in a feedlot. And even when they are in a feed lot later in life in preparation for the packing plant, the feed they get is a combination. They are not strictly fed corn or feed supplements derived from ethanol production.

Why do some think that the only livestock raised in the country is beef? 17.234 million head of swine were slaughtered during just the first quarter of this year. Cattle slaughter for the same period was roughly 6 million head. Poultry numbers in both meat and egg productions dwarfs any of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top