Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ethanol is required as an anti-knock additive. The past alternative was tetraethyllead, which had catastrophic environmental impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Antiknock_agent
It is used, but not required, as an anti-knock additive. Unleaded E0 is still available in some places in the US with octane numbers on par with E10 and E15 blends https://stillwaterassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/... https://www.pure-gas.org/
U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
81–90 of 264 posts
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was not a quote. No citation is possible. Is there a reason for this bad faith participation?
Saying "the corn will be grown anyway" is not done in good faith. The corn is grown because it is profitable to do so. Remove subsidies and the corn will not be grown - something else that is profitable will be grown.
The trouble is that it's unpredictable how big the crop will be before planting. As mentioned before, yields can vary quite significantly from year to year. As such, you will have periods of excess where we don't have enough storage for it all. Ethanol was promoted as a way to clean up those excesses before they turn to waste, recapturing some of fuel that was put into its growth initially.
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
which is why the Democratic Party changed it under cover of starting with "a more diverse state" Iowa no longer first; Democrats reorder the presidential primary calendar for 2024 https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2022/1...
> which is why the Democratic Party changed it under cover of starting with "a more diverse state" It wasn’t because they care about offending farmers or removing ethanol subsidies, it was so that Biden can lock down some early primary wins in 2024 with States with a higher percentage of black voters.
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#84Doesn’t it also wear down engines more quickly?
It's not a total myth per se, because it once was and sometimes still can be true for engine components that are simply not designed to handle ethanol.
Such is not the case for pretty much every car built after the year 2000, roughly speaking. Every soft component in modern cars is designed to handle at least 10% ethanol, and effectively handle 100% ethanol.
Corrosion is not really an issue either. The E85 you get from a pump is anhydrous, and the only way you'll get things like phase separation is if water is added deliberately. Ethanol doesn't pull water into gasoline. That's a myth. It's not a dessicant. This topic has been studied and it's simply not worth worrying about.
Most cars on the road today, including those that aren't Flex Fuel, can run somewhere between E30 and E50 with no problems whatsoever. They can even run on E85 or E100 with either a software update or a piggyback device between the ECU and the fuel injectors, everything else remaining OEM.
A car running on ethanol won't rust, fall apart, or blow up. If anything, ethanol can be better for engines given that it burns cooler and leaves way less carbon deposits.
If a small engine today has seal failures or other issues, it's more likely to be the BTX (benzene, toluene, xylene) in gasoline and not the ethanol component.
By the way, I'm speaking from direct experience. Not only have I converted small engines to run on ethanol, but I converted my 2013 Hyundai to be a flex fuel vehicle.
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was not a quote. No citation is possible. Is there a reason for this bad faith participation?
It doesn't seem to be bad faith. They are asking for your evidence for the claim that corn will be grown anyway. I agree that corn will continue to be grown anyway, but at this point it's nothing but our opinions without supporting evidence.
Furthermore, good faith participation seeks to provide equal value to the participants. "Citation needed" offers nothing to other parties.
Apparently, according to another comment, "Citation needed" is some kind of Wikipedia slang, but a website that attempts to document knowledge is very different to a casual conversation and to try and conflate them, again, can only be done so in bad faith.
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
which is why the Democratic Party changed it under cover of starting with "a more diverse state" Iowa no longer first; Democrats reorder the presidential primary calendar for 2024 https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2022/1...
> which is why the Democratic Party changed it under cover of starting with "a more diverse state" It wasn’t because they care about offending farmers or removing ethanol subsidies, it was so that Biden can lock down some early primary wins in 2024 with States with a higher percentage of black voters.
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#87As others mentioned, this is not a new finding. There is a lot of academic and industrial/economic analysis on this subject. Ethanol from corn was never a good idea economically for anyone other than corn farmers. It is also bad environmentally and places additional competitive demand on our food supply (choice and competition between corn going into food or fuel supply). Similar analysis has been done on other crop…
Corn farmers from Iowa. Where they hold the first caucus of the interminable election season. No American politician or political party can afford to offend corn farmers. We should count ourselves lucky that our gasoline is only 10% corn.
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#88I think this has been well established for years. I remember seeing some studies circa 2008 showing that more energy in the form of diesel and fossil fuel derived fertilizer went into corn ethanol than you get out in usable fuel. It has always been an agricultural subsidy.
The ethanol is required as an anti-knock additive. The past alternative was tetraethyllead, which had catastrophic environmental impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Antiknock_agent
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ethanol is required as an anti-knock additive. The past alternative was tetraethyllead, which had catastrophic environmental impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Antiknock_agent
I find ethanol actually increases knocking in all of my engines. Switched to ethanol free years ago and I recall it made a difference in performance and mileage.
But they're still higher octane fuels. E85 is specifically sought out for this purpose in the gearhead scene, so they can run high boost getting something alcohol-like at the pump.
Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
#90As others mentioned, this is not a new finding. There is a lot of academic and industrial/economic analysis on this subject. Ethanol from corn was never a good idea economically for anyone other than corn farmers. It is also bad environmentally and places additional competitive demand on our food supply (choice and competition between corn going into food or fuel supply). Similar analysis has been done on other crop…