Ethanol fuel

[Valve Bounce]

I note that in some countries, cars actually run on Ethanol and there is no pollution produced. My question here is whether any adjustments need to be made to cars before using 10% Ethanol, as Shell has this, and it is 4 cents per litre cheaper.

[gloomyDAY]

I'm not sure that Ethanol is an answer to environmental progress. Food prices will increase, farmers will slash and burn to produce more fuel crops, and the actual emissions may be the same or higher. Look at the process of how Ethanol is made! Seems just as arduous as taking sludge out of the ground and processing it, but in the case of Ethanol our food supplies gets diminished.

According to GM, there will be a 15% reduction in CO2 emissions with Ethanol (America), but that's quite optimistic. Also, using it as a fuel seems risky especially if there are natural disasters like floods or droughts. If everyone started using Ethanol fuel we'd run the gambit of creating a massive ecological disaster, then running out of fuel altogether.

[Valve Bounce]

OK. The question here is: "If I use 10% Ethanol Shell Unleaded in my Volvo Cross Country, will it affect the engine adversely."

[Rollo]

I note that in some countries, cars actually run on Ethanol and there is no pollution produced. My question here is whether any adjustments need to be made to cars before using 10% Ethanol, as Shell has this, and it is 4 cents per litre cheaper.

As far as your car is concerned, every unleaded car sold in Australia after 1986 is capable of running on E25 without adverse effects.

The downside is unlike the octane rating which is a measure of burn rates, there actually is a chemical difference between C8H18 (octane) and C2O6H (ethyl-alcohol or ethanol). In general pure ethanol contains 34% less energy than pure octane (which isn't sold at the pump anyway).

Therefore an E10 fuel is going to provide 96.6% of the energy of an E0 (0% ethanol fuel) and only going to give you 96.6% of the mileage at best. E10 petrol is only going to work out cheaper in the long run if the petrol is less than 103.51c/L (as that's the breakeven point). At any price more than that, you'll be doing your dosh because by saving 4c/L you'll be undoing it by only having 96.6% of the energy available on tap.

To summarise: No adjustment needs to be made, but it isn't worth the effort because ethanol fuel is crappier and costs you more in the long run.

[Roamy]

well we can use wheat instead of corn - but with either we are so fat in this ing country they should burn all the carbohydrates on the surface of the earth.

[Valve Bounce]

Rollo!! many, many thanks for your reply. That is the explanation I was looking for.

Thanks again!!

[Rollo]

The viability of ethanol as a fuel has a lot to do with the source. Corn, as used in the US, is a terrible choice as the energy input to make the fuel is greater than the energy output.

This is of course true for every single entity in the universe as it's a consquence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, in the long term Ethanol could be a viable solution if crude oil becomes ever more expensive & that's the rub. Ethanol as a fuel has been fine in Brazil for 25+ years.


Sugar cane and saw grass have much higher yields, as do other sources. Not high enough to do the trick though from what I've read.

The problem here is that corn is subsidised to the hilt. Sugar cane produces about 8 times the usable sugar of corn, which is why CSR in Queensland are looking into this.


(Plus the food implications.)

This is not an issue. I've seen "High Fructose Corn Syrup" on American produce everywhere and if there's one thing Americans need it is not more food :D

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote="Rollo"]This is of course true for every single entity in the universe as it's a consquence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.



Its not true for nukes.

[MrJan]

I don't really see how food stocks would be affected that much anyway. People that now drill oil would just change what they do to grow whatever and certainly in places like Oz or the US there is sufficient land available.

[schmenke]

...The problem here is that corn is subsidised to the hilt. ...

Sugar cane imports are levied a duty of 100% by the U.S. government :s
The duty levied on oil imports...? 0% :mark:

[Rollo]

Its not true for nukes.

The Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy:
Mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another or transferred from one body to another, but the total amount of mass/energy remains constant (the same).

There is no new mass/energy being created in any nuclear reaction either contained or uncontained that wasn't already inherent in the initial components. Since entropy very much increases (and in a nuclear reactor that is in fact the point), then it is true for nukes.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I don't really see how food stocks would be affected that much anyway. People that now drill oil would just change what they do to grow whatever and certainly in places like Oz or the US there is sufficient land available.

No, they would probably buy some cheaper land in a LEDC in order to maximise profits.

When we have people starving in the world I don't think we should be trading food growing land for fuel growing land.

There are better alternatives to greener fuel.

[MrJan]

No, they would probably buy some cheaper land in a LEDC in order to maximise profits.

When we have people starving in the world I don't think we should be trading food growing land for fuel growing land.

There are better alternatives to greener fuel.

I don't see important food crops being chopped down for this. Bananas and coffee perhaps, but all you are doing is replacing one crop which is shipped around the world with another.

Distribution is the key problem with food shortages, not the actual amount of food in the world.

[Valve Bounce]

Well, thanks for all that. My Volvo also wishes to voice its appreciation. I will fill the car with the highest Octane petrol in two weeks time to balance the low octane of this muck I put in yesterday.

I also wish to thank Rollo for the refresher course in Thermodynamics, which had been long forgotten. :(

[Valve Bounce]

I don't see important food crops being chopped down for this. Bananas and coffee perhaps, but all you are doing is replacing one crop which is shipped around the world with another.

Distribution is the key problem with food shortages, not the actual amount of food in the world.

This is not as simple as it sounds. There are countries where the land is needed to produce food, and where the authorities can simply hire mercenaries to drive the peasants off the land and underground (literally) so that the can then use the land to grow either sugar cane or corn, or whatever cash crop is needed to provide fuel. Then there is the issue of water, a dwindling resource in some countries. Then there is the problem of countries clearing rain forests by burning so they can swipe the land from the peasants and grow this stuff.

[schmenke]

I don't see important food crops being chopped down for this. ...coffee perhaps, ...

No. Coffee is the second most consumed commodity world-wide.

[MrJan]

No. Coffee is the second most consumed commodity world-wide.

BUt not important :) MOst people can still live without coffee

[Mark]

That's what you think :crazy:

[MrJan]

That's what you think :crazy:

Actually my old man had a bit of a caffeine addiction. He realised that whenever we spent the weekend watching rallying or something he would get headaches and vomit. After a while he realised it was because he drank a lot of coffee at work during the week but barely any over the weekend :)

[airshifter]

Well, thanks for all that. My Volvo also wishes to voice its appreciation. I will fill the car with the highest Octane petrol in two weeks time to balance the low octane of this muck I put in yesterday.

I also wish to thank Rollo for the refresher course in Thermodynamics, which had been long forgotten. :(

Is the ethanol based fuel there lower in octane? Here all our gas (at least as far as I know in this state) is a 10% ethanol blend. Though as stated above it does show it's lower energy content in lower MPG, octane ratings are the same. By nature ethanol carried a high octane rating, but most engines can't take advantage of it due to lower than needed compression ratios.

Also as a general note: If you are looking as fuel as a cost per mile and your Volvo runs fine on normal octanes, track MPG with different fuels to see how far your car can take advantage of higher octanes. Though I can get more MPG out of my truck with higher octane fuels I can also manually adjust the base timing to do so. On our other cars, one shows no difference and the other just slightly higher. None of the three get enough added MPG to justify the cost delta between the fuel grades.

[Rollo]

Is the ethanol based fuel there lower in octane? Here all our gas (at least as far as I know in this state) is a 10% ethanol blend. Though as stated above it does show it's lower energy content in lower MPG, octane ratings are the same. By nature ethanol carried a high octane rating, but most engines can't take advantage of it due to lower than needed compression ratios.

Octane rating is a measure of burn rates, not the energy contained in the fuel. If you're getting higher MPG out of a higher octane rated fuel, then it's not because the fuel contains more energy and in general putting a higher octane rated fuel in a car does diddly squat.
To be honest, because you mention that you're putting a higher RON fuel into a "truck" then the fact that you're getting better mileage is probably due to less actuation on the loud pedal because your petrol is more expensive.*

Standard ULP in Australia is 91RON. Most E10 fuels sold at the pump are 95RON but contain less energy that normal 91RON fuel. BP are even worse by selling E10 91RON fuel but it's is actually E17 by composition (the NRMA tested it in the Open Road magazine.
Pure Ethanol has an Octane rating of 116, but would only provide 66% of the energy of normal fuel despite it being rated 25 RON points higher.

*The best ways to improve fuel economy are
a- not to be so aggressive behind the wheel
b- inflate your tyres a little to decrease rolling resistance
c- remove the useless crap from the boot and in the footwells

[Valve Bounce]

Also as a general note: If you are looking as fuel as a cost per mile and your Volvo runs fine on normal octanes, track MPG with different fuels to see how far your car can take advantage of higher octanes.

Quite pointless in my case. The cars is used by both my wife as well as myself, and her driving style is totally different from mine. I accelerate a lot more gently than she does. The Volvo has an electronic instantaneous fuel usage reading in litres/100 km, and you would be astonished how this figure jumps when you accelerate from rest: like up to 46 instead of a cruising 8. So, Rollo is spot on regarding this point.

Also, the car is used mostly around town these days, so fuel figures are totally dependent on who is driving and time of day of usage, and where the car is going.

I did ring the Volvo dealer who advised strongly against using the Ethanol blend.

[airshifter]

Octane rating is a measure of burn rates, not the energy contained in the fuel. If you're getting higher MPG out of a higher octane rated fuel, then it's not because the fuel contains more energy and in general putting a higher octane rated fuel in a car does diddly squat.
To be honest, because you mention that you're putting a higher RON fuel into a "truck" then the fact that you're getting better mileage is probably due to less actuation on the loud pedal because your petrol is more expensive.*

Standard ULP in Australia is 91RON. Most E10 fuels sold at the pump are 95RON but contain less energy that normal 91RON fuel. BP are even worse by selling E10 91RON fuel but it's is actually E17 by composition (the NRMA tested it in the Open Road magazine.
Pure Ethanol has an Octane rating of 116, but would only provide 66% of the energy of normal fuel despite it being rated 25 RON points higher.

*The best ways to improve fuel economy are
a- not to be so aggressive behind the wheel
b- inflate your tyres a little to decrease rolling resistance
c- remove the useless crap from the boot and in the footwells

The truck can benefit from the higher octane due to the fact that I can crank more base timing into it, usuall 8 or so degrees more advance when running 93 octane vs 87. Pressure on the loud pedal never varies much on the little 302. ;)

I was just curious if the ethanol fuels elsewhere actually had different octane ratings, since by nature ethanol itself has a high octane rating.

Here in the US we use the RON+MON average rating system, and the ratings are lower but from my understanding it's about the equal in terms of burn rates and ability to resist detonation.

I'd agree that in most vehicles higher octane does nothing, but some newer cars will keep advancing timing until detonation is emminent, in which case they might get a small benefit.

[MrJan]

How exactly does the octane system work? It's just that if you boys are using the same idea then you don't half put some crappy fuel in your cars over in the US. Here in the UK I would be shocked to find anything less than 95 octane at the pumps.

[airshifter]

How exactly does the octane system work? It's just that if you boys are using the same idea then you don't half put some crappy fuel in your cars over in the US. Here in the UK I would be shocked to find anything less than 95 octane at the pumps.

Here they use two test standard results and average them. RON is as far as I know the same tests used for other contries ratings. It uses an engine test with variable compression to determine when detonation occurs, and octane rating is calculated from a known true octane mixture.

MON uses more variables to simulate various driving loads, like variable timing, tempurature differences, etc. This simulates loads encountered in actual driving conditions better, by adding more variables.

Then they average the two ratings. The MON test will have a lower number due to the test conditions. R + M / 2 is the output number displayed on most US pumps. The MON test usually outputs a number 8-10 points lower than the RON test, so when averaged this takes 4-5 points out of the rating if you compared it to the RON only rating.

US 87 octane is about equal to Euro 91-92. We also get various grades up from there, and some 85 octane at higher altitudes. The highest I see at the pumps has been 93 and 94 R+M/2, about equal to 98 or 99 by the RON only method.

[Rollo]

To summarise: No adjustment needs to be made, but it isn't worth the effort because ethanol fuel is crappier and costs you more in the long run.

I love it when I'm proven right :D

http://www.smh.com.au/news/motoring/news/false-economy/2008/12/12/1228585078909.html

A fuel derived from plants might appear to be a cheap and green alternative but exclusive Drive research proves this is not the case. A fuel-efficiency showdown between the three most-popular types of petrol on the market concludes the ethanol blend will cost you more in the long run and may not even help the environment.

City driving exposed E10's efficiency shortcomings more than highway cruising. Around town, using E10 was almost as expensive as using premium unleaded, despite the huge gap in pump prices.

In the 700 kilometres of city driving, our E10 Camry used almost 10 litres more fuel than our premium-fuel car.
The comparative fuel bills for the three cars were: E10, $105; premium, $105.91 (15c/L more expensive); and regular unleaded, $100.33.
Had we used thirstier six-cylinder cars or less-efficient used cars, the equation would probably have strengthened further in favour of unleaded and premium fuel.

In general ethanol petrol isn't cheaper in the long run. I'm not even a scientist and I could work that out.

[Valve Bounce]

I love it when I'm proven right :D

.[/i]

In general ethanol petrol isn't cheaper in the long run. I'm not even a scientist and I could work that out.

I was going to contact you via PM after viewing one segment of the TODAY show on Channel 9. Some guy did his sums and found it more expensive to run on E10; and simply because there was less energy in the E10. Glad I see you have also noted a similar comparison.