Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 264 posts

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#181

Post by m-ee »

Scoundreller wrote: post #177
m-ee wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethanol absorbs water which doesn’t always play nicely with seals and fuel lines, or at least that’s the commonly held belief.

That’s an issue if you’re running E100. Gas+ethanol blends will dramatically reduce ethanol’s hygroscopicity. But if water is getting into your fuel (focus on fixing that, not your fuel choice), isn’t it better if the ethanol can carry it through the engine instead of just accumulating as a separate layer?

Nothing scientific but on motorcycle forums I used to frequent people often blamed E15 for seals swelling up and no longer working. I can’t say if that’s the cause but I did have a face gasket between the fill neck and tank expand. After sitting out for a few days it shrunk back to its original shape.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#182

Post by DennisP »

cashsterling wrote: post #37

As 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…

Wasn't ethanol added to replace MTBE, due to pollution concerns after MTBE replaced lead? What should we use in place of ethanol?

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#183

Post by Name_Chawps »

dragonwriter wrote: post #132
koolba wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The 2024 changes, inasmuch as they are about specific elections and not the general long-term arc of the party, are about 2028 more than 2024. No one is expecting a significantly contested nominating contest when the party has an incumbent President seeking reelection.

The prediction markets on PredictIt have the Democrats winning at 52 cents, and the Republicans at 50 cents. You should expect the election to be quite close.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#184

Post by BoorishBears »

ravenstine wrote: post #84
programmarchy wrote: post #8

Doesn’t it also wear down engines more quickly?

No, it does not. This myth will not die hard. 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…

The truth is it's complicated, because modern ICEs are complicated.

> Most cars on the road today, including those that aren't Flex Fuel, can run somewhere between E30 and E50 with no problems whatsoever.

That's straight up not true if we define "run" as "run as well as on E10" (granted I wish it was so I could save money on having to upgrade fueling for my cars).

With the huge focus on MPG manufacturers generally aren't overbuilding their fueling systems: My 4 series will "run" on E30 with a stock tune, but logging AFRs and fuel rail pressure will show it's a dangerous game where the ECU is pulling a ton of timing as the fuel system struggles to keep up.

Even with a tune, E20 is the maximum the fueling system can maintain without straight up running out of fueling and going into limp mode under heavy load

-

The more balanced truth is: ethanol for vehicles is a complicated topic, because modern ICEs are complicated beasts.

Cars are designed to not break down on E10, but you will find some people argue (imo validly) that part of why car reliability dipped around the turn of the century was all the changes needed to support that kind of flexibility. Materials changed, engine management got more complicated (the fact that a car will run at all on E30 while clearly exceeding its fueling limits is a testament to that), etc.

Ethanol can be better for sure, my car is a million times more enjoyable on a simple E20 blend than California's awful 91 blend, but at the end of the day, ethanol fuel is a bit of a farce (and again, I'm someone who'd have a terrible day if we actually stopped producing it).

We're having the public pay to prop up our energy independence, and producing more emissions along the way. E85 prices don't reflect the difference in energy content, and the cost at the production side to make E10 blends. Gas would be cheaper for most people if we didn't have that requirement, hence why in times of economic need we've suspended the requirement.

Ironically the people who I personally see benefit most from E85 are people who are well off enough to use it for a performance boost, or businesses taking advantage of how much artificially cheaper E85 is. Average people get the short end of the stick and few to none of the benefits.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#185

Post by gruez »

hatsunearu wrote: post #90
cashsterling wrote: post #37

As 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…

Ethanol also is used as an octane booster. I'd rather take Ethanol than MTBE or TEL.

That's a poor justification for the current regulatory regime in which ethanol in gas is mandated. If MTBE or TEL then they should be banned. If regular gasoline doesn't have enough octane, it should be up to the market to figure out which octane booster should be used, rather than the government enforcing use of ethanol by decree.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#187

Post by bluedino »

bluGill wrote: post #109
mywittyname wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will take time for the computer in the car to detect the ethanol and switch to a high ethanol fuel map. In the mean time, the engine is going to run pretty lean, since more ethanol is required than gasoline for the same volume of air. Running too lean usually causes the engine to buck and shake pretty badly. This, of course, assumes that the car is even capable of running higher ethanol blends. The performance ben…

Unless your car has a turbocharger or other means to run a higher compression ratio and thus take advantage of the higher octane of ethanol fuel. I've seen this done in lab and garage settings (they typically don't retain the ability to run regular gasoline), but I'm not aware of any commercially available engine that does. Race settings similar things as well, but they are trying to get power not fuel efficiency and…

You'll get a solid 20-30lb/ft gain on a GM or Ford V8 with E85.

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#188

Post by bluedino »

mywittyname wrote: post #96
glitchc wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It will take time for the computer in the car to detect the ethanol and switch to a high ethanol fuel map. In the mean time, the engine is going to run pretty lean, since more ethanol is required than gasoline for the same volume of air. Running too lean usually causes the engine to buck and shake pretty badly. This, of course, assumes that the car is even capable of running higher ethanol blends. The performance ben…

> Though, Chevy V8s can see solid torque gains over 4000 RPMs.

The gains will come in well before that

Re: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

#189

Post by Scoundreller »

m-ee wrote: post #181
Scoundreller wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an issue if you’re running E100. Gas+ethanol blends will dramatically reduce ethanol’s hygroscopicity. But if water is getting into your fuel (focus on fixing that, not your fuel choice), isn’t it better if the ethanol can carry it through the engine instead of just accumulating as a separate layer?

Nothing scientific but on motorcycle forums I used to frequent people often blamed E15 for seals swelling up and no longer working. I can’t say if that’s the cause but I did have a face gasket between the fill neck and tank expand. After sitting out for a few days it shrunk back to its original shape.

How old are the motorbikes though? I could see it being an issue on bikes built before >=e10 became nearly unavoidable.

I wish my gaskets would swell a bit. All of my auto seal/gasket problems were on the intake manifold or oil system interfaces.

Post reply on HN