Hi guys,
Just dropped in to see what the discussions have come to on ethanol. Here in South Dakota we have developed an ethanol aircraft fuel and it has been stc'd for several planes. You are correct that energy comparisons show ethanol at a disadvantage to gasoline in energy contained but when it is tested as a fuel it out performs its comparative energy level to gasoline. The result is only about a 15% drop in fuel usage while hp goes up. That is because the ethanol burns at a much higher efficiency in the same engine. The low efficiency of our engines on gasoline fail to convert as large a % of its btu's to energy because it burns so fast and therefore causes the knocking because the piston can't get out of the way fast enough. Ethanol burning slower does not have this problem and since the piston/crank is over top center farther when the last of the ethanol combusts, it is expanding and moving the piston down when the crank is at an extended leverage position, compared to gas. The crank has just become a longer lever with ethanol because of its position during the extended combustion. Grade school science demonstrates more power from the same energy applied to a longer lever. That is the reason ethanol increases hp. The increase in delivered energy is greater than one expects (less btu's) because of increased thermal efficiency.
I actually have more hope for the Swift fuel which is a second generation ethanol derivative but I thought that this was a good place to add this info. Here is the basis for which I have made my comments.
http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Archive/Fue ... age85.html
dirtstrip

I must post a correction to my post above. It should read that there is only about "12-15% increase in fuel flow with Aviation Grade Ethanol, not decrease. The STC has been done on the Cessna 180 and 182 for use of this ethanol aviation fuel and the STC is available thru Texas Skyways. Corrosion to engine components was addressed by including the 1% bio diesel in the mix.
dirtstrip

Wouldn't that make your fuel even more of a boutique fuel than the current 100LL? Ethanol, regular gas(?), and bio-d?? Someday only people with chemistry degrees will get to be pilots....

Not trying to beat on you, but IMHO STCing something that is going to cater to a subset of a subset of a subset is going the wrong direction....

AGE 85 may be the "not yet ready for primetime player" in the avgas market. I restate that I hold more hope for Swift fuel but that said, the purpose of my post is to point out to the previous posters that there actually are STC's out there for ethanol aviation fuels and that the BTU disadvantage of ethanol shrinks by half when the fuel is actually tested in these aircraft. This is because of its higher efficiency of burn. So the old BTU arguments with comparisons of each fuel do not hold up.
One reason that it is not a boutique fuel is something that I find most interesting. In the STC for Aviation Grade Ethanol, once the STC is done, the 180 and 182 are not restricted to using only the AGE85, which would make it a boutique situation if I understand the reference correctly. The STC allows use of any combination of 100LL+AGE85. In other words any intermediate blends are included in the STC. Burn it if available or switch at any point mid tank if it is not. No EPA approvals needed or FAA problems here.
Also what does this say about all the handwringing by the car companies going on over the intermediate blends with potential increase from 10 to 15% ethanol. Someone point out the Apple to Orange comparison I have missed.

dirtstrip wrote:> ...
One reason that it is not a boutique fuel is something that I find most interesting. In the STC for Aviation Grade Ethanol, once the STC is done, the 180 and 182 are not restricted to using only the AGE85, which would make it a boutique situation if I understand the reference correctly.

"Boutique fuel" is a reference to a type of fuel that would be, or is being, made in very small quantities. The gasoline industry produces 136 billion gallons of unleaded gasoline, but less than 300 million gallons of 100 LL, making 100 LL a very "boutique" fuel, especially considering it can't be distributed through a pipeline, which is the cheapest means of moving fuel around the country. Out of the hundreds of refineries in the US, only 10 make 100 LL at all. AGE-85 would be no different. Since the only airplanes that can use the fuel need the AGE-85 STC, who is going to make AGE-85 for this small group of airplanes and what FBO is going to have a tank and pump for it? AGE-85 is not the same as E85 and we can't induce gasoline distributors and service stations to distribute very much of that. Unleaded auto gas would work in more than 70% of the TC'd aircraft today and all of the LSA's but we can't get the FBO's to put the tank and pump in for it.

> ...
Also what does this say about all the handwringing by the car companies going on over the intermediate blends with potential increase from 10 to 15% ethanol. Someone point out the Apple to Orange comparison I have missed.

Airplanes don't have pollution control systems and catalytic converters. The reason the EPA has not yet granted the E15 waiver is because they must do some long term testing of the effect of higher level blends on the longevity of the pollution control systems, and especially the catalytic converter, before the car manufacturers will warrant their products for blends above E10. Many negative comments on the E15 waiver were from the very companies that make the pollution control systems for the auto manufacturers.

who is going to make AGE-85 for this small group of airplanes and what FBO is going to have a tank and pump for it?

I was in South Dakota where they did the testing. They got the ethanol and biodiesel locally and the pentane came in 55 gallon drums. This was splash blended in the big storage tank outside the hangar--very simple. The petroleum product, pentane, probably was the biggest hassle.

You stated that " Many negative comments on the E15 waiver were from the very companies that make the pollution control systems for the auto manufacturers."

Actually most of the negative comments from those manufacturers are unfounded concerning pollution control systems. Manufactures and car compånies are looking for long term studies to delay implementation and to get releases from warranties from the gov't. Long term testing has already been done and they already know they will result in the same outcomes as the ones here at Lake Area Tech in Watertown, SD. Here is the tear down of a non flex Tahoe run on E85 for nearly its whole life. Check out this video of that engine and converter tear down. Both are in better condition than the one on straight gasoline, so is the fuel pump and plastic fuel lines connecting the pump inside the tank to the fuel line system. The converter itself is comparable condition to a new one.
These are reputable instructors at Lake Area. I know Al Casperson personally and can vouch for his professionalism.
In addition, he had the class research both parts manuals for a flex and non flex GM Tahoe and all but three part numbers on the two vehicles were identical. (1)The computer chip for mapping fuel flow, (2)the size of the injectors and (3)a different oxygen sensor to keep the check engine light from coming on when oxygen was sensed coming through the exhaust on the Flex Fuel model. Thats why its so cheap to make the vehicle flex fuel. But the companies want gov't incentives.
Here is the engine/converter tear down on the non Flex Tahoe run on E85

http://www.ethanol.org/video/

You are right dirtstrip. The car companies already know that higher blends work. Here is a PDF from 2002 with findings from testing 17 to 25% like Brazil---interesting reading.
http://www.nmma.org/lib/docs/nmma/gr/en ... /32206.pdf

dirtstrip wrote:> ...
Actually most of the negative comments from those manufacturers are unfounded concerning pollution control systems. Manufactures and car compånies are looking for long term studies to delay implementation and to get releases from warranties from the gov't. Long term testing has already been done and they already know they will result in the same outcomes as the ones here at Lake Area Tech in Watertown, SD.

It never ceases to amaze me that people on this forum know way more than the engineers at the companies that make complex devices like pollution control systems that have to work in millions of cars, which those companies then have to warrant for extended terms. And of course it would be bad for those companies to get releases from the government, i.e. the taxpayers, but we should never question why the ethanol industry needs massive government subsidies for decades and mandates at the taxpayer expense.

Please provide documentation of the long term testing that has already been done by these companies that they know will result in the same outcome as the "ones" at Lake Area Tech in Watertown, SD. I'll bet the EPA would be interested to see the evidence that most of the manufacturers of pollution control systems for our cars lied to them in their comments for the E15 waiver. I know I would.

180Marty wrote:You are right dirtstrip. The car companies already know that higher blends work. Here is a PDF from 2002 with findings from testing 17 to 25% like Brazil---interesting reading.
http://www.nmma.org/lib/docs/nmma/gr/en ... /32206.pdf

Your conclusion is a bit strange considering that just about every section of the Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations has a Key Open Issues, and Recommendations that suggest more testing is needed, like "Recommend testing on the range of vehicle technology classes to confirm higher ethanol blend effect." and "Vehicle warranty concerns among vehicle manufacturers are an open issue.", etc. Doesn't sound to me like the car companies were as convinced as you are that higher blends are a slam-dunk.

1593Y, If you look under the key conclusions column it says "Higher ethanol blends will operate effectively on conventional vehicle catalysts" What more do you need? In the other column Key open issues, they're just covering themselves in my opinion, just like the drug companies do in their ad's. Also, I don't particularly trust Underwriters Lab and EPA as there are a lot politics in their decisions. You did see the testimony of The Director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality saying it takes 64 acres of corn to make a gallon of ethanol---it's on youtube. Pretty knowledgeable leader we have there.
I like trying new things and finding what works without all the politics.

180Marty wrote:1593Y, If you look under the key conclusions column it says "Higher ethanol blends will operate effectively on conventional vehicle catalysts" What more do you need? In the other column Key open issues, they're just covering themselves in my opinion, just like the drug companies do in their ad's.

Perhaps they were covering themselves because of the previous key conclusion: "Higher ethanol blend impact on conventional fuel systems could vary according to control system technology and vehicle age."

It is interesting to note that mileage decreases are never discussed in the report and even though I have asked you repeatedly for a reference to a statistically significant, large scale, independent mileage study for before and after E10 programs are mandated, you nor anybody else has ever reported one. Perhaps there is a clue in this report why mileage varies so much from what one would expect:

"Higher ethanol blend impact on conventional fuel systems could vary according to control system technology and vehicle age." It does not appear that just increasing ethanol blending levels is going to result in reduced oil dependency. It looks like it will only result in an increased government mandated and subsidized market for ethanol.

Also, I don't particularly trust Underwriters Lab and EPA as there are a lot politics in their decisions. ...

So a government agency, NREL which is a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory Operated by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle • Bechtel, isn't political but a private company, Underwriters Lab, is political? Interesting logic.

N1593Y wrote: " It never ceases to amaze me that people on this forum know way more than the engineers at the companies that make complex devices like pollution control systems that have to work in millions of cars, which those companies then have to warrant for extended terms. And of course it would be bad for those companies to get releases from the government, i.e. the taxpayers, but we should never question why the ethanol industry needs massive government subsidies for decades and mandates at the taxpayer expense."

The manufacturers of emission components exist to day because of government mandates for clean air. Without government mandates, clean air and water in this country would be left for the free market to provide and price rationing of those commodities by free markets would be unthinkable.
Catalytic converters have been around since EPA began enforcing the clean air act in the mid 70’s. when lead went out the door, MTBE came in, was found to be a major water pollutant and caused the big move to ethanol in about ‘95. All of this is directly caused by government mandate for clean air and water. Ethanol, converters and emissions systems are no strangers to each other. They are tied together from birth under the EPA’s same clean air mandate. To attack the ethanol side of the mandate by itself is short sighted without offering some kind of alternative.
GM has built flex fuel vehicles since 2000. Flex fuel vehicles can use any combination of ethanol and gasoline. The long term testing has been done. This is by design from the companies themselves knowing the direction that ethanol has gone in our fuels. No new converters were developed for the Flex Fuel vehicle. It is largely the same one that is used in non flex vehicles. Which parts specifically do you believe cannot operate effectively with the proposed 15% ethanol?
dirtstrip

dirtstrip wrote: > ...
The manufacturers of emission components exist to day because of government mandates for clean air. Without government mandates, clean air and water in this country would be left for the free market to provide and price rationing of those commodities by free markets would be unthinkable.

Pretty ironic then, isn't it? Without government mandates and subsidies and tax breaks, ethanol "... would be left for the free market to provide ...". At least the catalytic converter manufacturers don't get government subsidies and tax breaks to make their devices.

Catalytic converters have been around since EPA began enforcing the clean air act in the mid 70’s. when lead went out the door, MTBE came in, was found to be a major water pollutant and caused the big move to ethanol in about ‘95. All of this is directly caused by government mandate for clean air and water. Ethanol, converters and emissions systems are no strangers to each other. They are tied together from birth under the EPA’s same clean air mandate.

Yes, for ethanol at the 1 - 3% level as an oxygenate in a few areas of the country.

To attack the ethanol side of the mandate by itself is short sighted without offering some kind of alternative.

Ethanol was never mandated at 10% anywhere for clean air. It was only mandated in certain places in an amount necessary to meet a certain level of CO, mostly in the winter. Ethanol is still not mandated anywhere at the 10% level in the federal RFS mandate, EISA 2007.

GM has built flex fuel vehicles since 2000. Flex fuel vehicles can use any combination of ethanol and gasoline. The long term testing has been done. This is by design from the companies themselves knowing the direction that ethanol has gone in our fuels. No new converters were developed for the Flex Fuel vehicle. It is largely the same one that is used in non flex vehicles. Which parts specifically do you believe cannot operate effectively with the proposed 15% ethanol?

I have no idea "... which parts". I have only read that the catalytic converter on the flex-fuel vehicles are the same as the non flex-fuel vehicles from you and 180-Marty. I have no idea if it is or it isn't and can't verify it. However you may be right but not for the reason that you think. The flex fuel vehicle has a fuel sensor that can tell the computer the ethanol blending ratio of the gas coming from the tank, and the vehicle has a fuel map for E0 - E85, so I would assume that as ethanol blending ratios change and are introduced to the car that the ECU compensates the fuel mixture so that if there is any excess oxygen in the exhaust it isn't any different than the range of a non flex-fuel vehicle using E0-E10, that might not even have a fuel map for E10. My guess is that what worries the pollution device manufacturers is that E15 in a car without a fuel map for it is going to have a lot more excess oxygen getting to the catalytic converter. Otherwise, why would they care? But they did care and their comments reflected it, and the paper that 180-Marty provided in his last post also alludes to this problem, especially with older cars. It seems we are on the fourth or fifth iteration of pollution control systems, each one more complicated than the last, but apparently providing less pollution. The question though is, do the ECU's in the cars have the fuel maps for E10 or E15 or E20 or whatever the government mandates for us?

I am aware that 10% ethanol is not mandated, if it was there would be no regular unleaded or premium. Thank you for stating that you do not know which emission parts would not perform at midlevel blends. No one else does either. I credit you with being at least as honest as you are misinformed. Here are the results from different agencies arriving at the same conclusion which answers your question about whether limits of the non flex emission systems are exceeded.

Research for the Department of Energy concluded that when E15 was compared to
traditional gasoline, there were no significant changes in vehicle tailpipe emissions or
vehicle drivability as ethanol content increased (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S.
Department of Energy).

A report prepared by the Energy & Environmental Research Center and Minnesota
Center for Automotive Research studied the effects of E10 to E85 on vehicles and found
that exhaust emissions levels for all vehicles at all levels of ethanol blend were within
Clean Air Act standards (Minnesota Center for Automotive Research).

The Rochester Institute of Technology evaluated effects of E20 on 10 legacy vehicles and
results after 75,000 collective miles driven found no fuel‐related failures or significant
vehicle problems and documented reductions in regulated tailpipe emissions when
using E20 (Rochester Institute of Technology).

• Recent studies also support that E15 results in no difference in drivability compared to gasoline.
A recent Minnesota Drivability Study presents data to support that E15 will cause no drivability
issues and will not lead to “removal or rendering inoperative of [emissions] devices or systems”
based on negative impacts on performance (State of Minnesota).

• E15 won’t harm your engine, and, in fact, it may even be beneficial to your vehicle. A recent
study by the University of North Dakota found that the three non‐flex fuel vehicles tested
obtained greater fuel economy at higher blends of ethanol than unleaded gasoline (University of
North Dakota).

• E15 can be used in existing fuel infrastructure without risk of damage or safety concerns.
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) recently announced that its research supports the use of fuel
blends containing 15 percent ethanol at America's gas station pumps.

So where are the auto companies test results to back up their claims? Nobody tests a product before or after release as hard as the company that produced it. They know the limits of their designs and the preengineered failure rates they built into it. This lack of providing test results harkens back to the days of RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris not having results to show the connection between cancer and smoking and then demanding others do long term tests to prove it.
As for personal or individual bias against ethanol or mandates in general, you are entitled.

dirtstrip wrote:I am aware that 10% ethanol is not mandated, if it was there would be no regular unleaded or premium.

This is going to happen anyway due to the unintended consequences of EISA 2007.

Thank you for stating that you do not know which emission parts would not perform at midlevel blends. No one else does either.

Except you, obviously.

I credit you with being at least as honest as you are misinformed.

Being honest and being misinformed have nothing in common. You assume I am misinformed as a personal attack. You have know way of knowing whether I am misinformed or not.

Here are the results from different agencies arriving at the same conclusion which answers your question about whether limits of the non flex emission systems are exceeded.

Research for the Department of Energy concluded that when E15 was compared to
traditional gasoline, there were no significant changes in vehicle tailpipe emissions or
vehicle drivability as ethanol content increased (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S.
Department of Energy).

I can't tell which DOE report you are referring to, you give no link, but if it is the October 2008 "Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy Vehicles and Small Non Road Engines, Report 1, Updated February 2009", there is some dispute about that report. See Engine Manufacturers Association comments: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/C ... ntType=pdf page 6.

A report prepared by the Energy & Environmental Research Center and Minnesota
Center for Automotive Research studied the effects of E10 to E85 on vehicles and found
that exhaust emissions levels for all vehicles at all levels of ethanol blend were within
Clean Air Act standards (Minnesota Center for Automotive Research).

The Rochester Institute of Technology evaluated effects of E20 on 10 legacy vehicles and
results after 75,000 collective miles driven found no fuel‐related failures or significant
vehicle problems and documented reductions in regulated tailpipe emissions when
using E20 (Rochester Institute of Technology).

• Recent studies also support that E15 results in no difference in drivability compared to gasoline.
A recent Minnesota Drivability Study presents data to support that E15 will cause no drivability
issues and will not lead to “removal or rendering inoperative of [emissions] devices or systems”
based on negative impacts on performance (State of Minnesota).

It is interesting that you quote two Minnesota studies but even Minnesota, in its rush to implement a mandatory E20 law must defer to EPA and the auto manufacturers to implement their law. Since Minnesota has a vested interest in implementing its mandatory E20 law I find the studies suspect, they have a vested interest in the outcome. The Minnesota Center for Automotive Research study has not been peer-reviewed and no actual emissions data are publicly available. But the authors noted that some emissions were higher when running on E30 and that some vehicles on the road cannot adjust to intermediate ethanol blend fuels. The Rochester Institute of Technology study is ongoing and and the emissions data are not publicly available, however the report indicates that half of the tested vehicles experienced increased NOx emissions.

• E15 won’t harm your engine, and, in fact, it may even be beneficial to your vehicle. A recent
study by the University of North Dakota found that the three non‐flex fuel vehicles tested
obtained greater fuel economy at higher blends of ethanol than unleaded gasoline (University of
North Dakota).

Wow! A statistically insignificant three car test. I am sure that the ethanol lobby used this as its primary argument for the E15 waiver and surely the EPA will now grant them the waiver, in fact I am sure that they should just abolish all ethanol blending restrictions.

• E15 can be used in existing fuel infrastructure without risk of damage or safety concerns.
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) recently announced that its research supports the use of fuel
blends containing 15 percent ethanol at America's gas station pumps.

Sort of, with a huge proviso: (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/autom ... 0PUMP.html)

"John Drengenberg, U.L.’s consumer safety director, said previous testing showed that the existing pumps were safe for up to 15 percent ethanol. But U.L. will not guarantee them for 1 percent more, he said.

That means E15 certification cannot be given because there can be slight variations in the mixture of gas and ethanol, Mr. Drengenberg said — E15 might actually include 16 percent ethanol. “It cannot ever be said that this is exactly 15 percent.”

Furthermore, while U.L. says 15 percent ethanol would be acceptable, it cannot retroactively and officially certify the existing pumps for dispensing E15, a spokesman, Joseph Hirschmugl, said."

It is a great time to be a lawyer.

So where are the auto companies test results to back up their claims? ...

As I understand it the EPA and the auto companies were in the midst of the testing for higher ethanol blends when the ethanol industry asked for the E15 waiver because of the blending wall.

According to one waiver comment: (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/C ... ntType=pdf page 4.)

"A comparison of the Petitioners' support materials with the guidance previously provided by EPA staff of expected data requirements under a waiver request6 ("Chicago Presentation") illustrates the insufficiency of the Petition. The Chicago Presentation was made less than one year ago and provides a literal checklist of required components and is included as an endnote.

Specific shortcomings in Petitioner's Waiver Request include the following :

i . Base engine durability testing has not been completed. The CRC (CM-i36-o9) projects the cost at up to $6 million and at present does not expect the work to be completed until approximately 2011.

2. Evaporative emissions testing are incomplete; however it is underway by CRC with expected time frame between this year and 2011. This is an involved process comprised of many components and simply has not been completed to our knowledge by any entity to date.

3 . Catalyst durability testing remains incomplete and Petitioner's have failed to provide sufficient data.

4. On-board diagnostics testing is incomplete and CRC is projecting to address in their 201o budget.

5. Emissions inventory and air modeling work is incomplete with substantial work pending.

6. Automotive fuel storage and cold handling studies are pending.

7. Cold ambient operations studies have not been addressed. CRC projects funding
these studies in the 2010 to 2011 budgets."

As for personal or individual bias against ethanol or mandates in general, you are entitled.

I have no personal bias against ethanol, those who want it in their fuel can use it, I would choose not to for any number of reasons, less energy, water absorption, corrosiveness to start with. As for the ethanol mandates, both state and federal, I have a strong personal distaste of using my tax money to mandate an additive in my gasoline that damages property and is a hazard to public safety and, in the case of Oregon, gives me no choice and on the national level will soon give no one a choice.

Wow

Was I married to you once?

I have enjoyed this exchange for the most part. 1500 viewers got the chance to see both sides of the 15% question. For that I thank you.

At this point I will let you have the last word in this exchange. But before I do I must say that when corn ethanol is produced, only the starches are converted to sugars and then to ethanol. There is a distillers grain by product made from the rest that is very high in protein and a quality cattle feed. Most of what is produced in this state is shipped in rail cars to the west coast for milk cows and beef cattle. So, every time you drink milk, every time you eat beef, we are "letting you eat ethanol".

I'd like to add a little more to dirtstrip's "let them eat ethanol" thoughts. I plunked the price of a pretty good airplane into a small hexane oil extraction plant not too far away from me. It is set up to process corn germ to get food grade corn oil, bran meal, and germ meal. The corn germ, which is about 1/3rd of the corn kernel will be removed before the ethanol process. This makes the ethanol plant way more efficient, even better animal feed ingredients that pork and poultry can also utilize, and more,maybe cheaper, healthy corn oil to make french fries with. More ethanol plants will have to do this to stay in business.

dirtstrip wrote:> ...
At this point I will let you have the last word in this exchange. But before I do I must say that when corn ethanol is produced, only the starches are converted to sugars and then to ethanol. There is a distillers grain by product made from the rest that is very high in protein and a quality cattle feed. Most of what is produced in this state is shipped in rail cars to the west coast for milk cows and beef cattle. So, every time you drink milk, every time you eat beef, we are "letting you eat ethanol".

So what you are saying is that in order to get all of the other products so I can drink milk and eat beef, I must pay to have ethanol in my gasoline through taxpayer subsidies and government mandates with no choice no matter the property damage that ensues nor the danger to public safety, a problem that you and Marty never address.

Funny, I thought farmers just raised feed corn to do all that. It has never occurred to me that I must have ethanol in my gasoline for that to happen.