Avoiding ethanol

I've had it with the overpriced corn shit that is slipped into the gasoline in order to give agribusiness (esp. Monsanto and AMD) and some multimillionaire olig...er...senators more money for bribery. From what I have read, it damages the engine over time because it releases water and causes corrosion in the engine, so I see this as something that could cost me money down the road.

• Can anyone vouch for the 'Brigs and Stratton gasohol test kit'? Are there any other, possibly more precise testing kits available?
• Are there any preventative measures that can be taken to mitigate the effect of the corn shit on the engine?
• Finally, I know from pure-gas.com, a number of stations sell cornshit-free petrol. Was it filtered out, or did the refiner never add it to begin with?

 

I don know about the others, but if a station sells ethanol free gasoline inwould imagine it was refined that way and never mixed into an ethanol blend

 

Thank you for the correction. I am concerned about verifying whether the gasoline is indeed cornshit-free. Can you vouch for a brand of test kit?

 

Corse NJ isn't on there.

 

One of the many reasons I consider NJ terra pericolosa...I do not have business there, and I intend to keep it that way.

 

Preface: I don't know how much you know about ethanol so please don't be offended if this seems basic to you, as that is not my intention.

The test kit that you referenced is very simple. Ethanol mixes with water and gasoline does not. When you take your pump sample and mix it with a known amount of water the water and ethanol combine. You then take a reading of the new water/ethanol mix. The "additional water" is the amount of ethanol that was in the gas. You would then divide the ethanol amount by the original pump sample size to give you the percentage of ethanol that was in the pump mixture.

So that being said, the test is only as accurate as the measuring device. Personally, for accuracy, I would recommend scientific test tubes but admittedly they aren't as convenient as the Briggs and Stratton kit. If it were me I would probably test the accuracy of the Briggs and Stratton against the scientific instruments and then you would know whether or not it was accurate.

That being said ethanol is not as big a concern in new cars/trucks as it is in small motors, because cars have been designed to run on ethanol mix. I have dealt with my fair share of ethanol related issues with my outboard, and I can understand your skepticism of advertised ethanol content or lack thereof. I get my ethanol free from the local oil distributer at the NC State Ports so I am pretty sure that it is ethanol free.

 

Thanks for the reply; from what I understand, the container is labelled so that a given level of water corresponds to a given percentage of ethanol.

As for the instrumentation, I may have to consult my chemistry professor.

I have $24K tied up in this truck, and I would prefer not to have to rebuild the engine because of this country's corruption.

 

By law in every state, the dispenser must be marked with ethanol content. I believe the high end allowance for any state is 1%. Corruption. You mean you love lung cancer and smog right? Everywhere I've been that its adopted its been due to pollution, not the "big nebraska corn lobby". The ethanol is safe anyway. I've had a couple very small carburetors get fouled, but saying it was because of ethanol would be anecdotal conspiracy theory at best.

 

Yes, this is a very corrupt place. Even Iran is less corrupt net-net. Sure, the little guy's palms get a toman here or there, and blind eyes have their price, but here, it all goes to the oligarchs and is much more expensive too.

That is incorrect. Portland was the first city to require cornshit in the petrol:
http://postcarboncities.net/node/192
The article quotes someone from the Dept. of Environmental Quality that says that for late-model vehicles, it will worsen pollution, greenwashing mumbo-jumbo aside.

Furthermore, the reason it is being adopted where it is not mandated is because it is being subsidised. According to the Heritage foundation, cornshit receives a net $1/gal subsidy. That is $1/gal expense for the taxpayer, not counting the deadweight loss, opportunity costs, etc. that arises as a result of subsidising anything. This has led to a spontaneous order (Hayek) whereby to lower prices, it is added to the petrol as much as possible as E-10 and E-0 are substitutions. Because the ill effects are distal if not completely unseen, this does not arise as an issue. I do not think this cornshit is safe on account of issues surrounding the damage of engine components despite your assertion* to the contrary.

http://www.truth-out.org/article/david-pimentel-corn-cant-save-us

If you are concerned about pollution, why not consider what goes into making the corn to be sacrificed? Agricutlure is a very fuel and petrochemical-intensive process, which is often not considered when deciding whether cornshit will be efficient, or even reduce the dependence upon the evil brown people with their oil. Think of it like bartering: you may offer a banana for an apple, if there is a shortage, you may throw in a dollar. It is always unwise, however, to offer 1,5 apples in exchange for an apple of the same size. OPEC, if they dealt in apples, would make that trade all day every day.

*all you said is that it was safe, not why it was safe, thus I could not say it was an argument

 

Ok.. you quoted the heritage foundation.. Unsubbed.

 

Haha, good idea!

 

I was mistaken in saying that the Heritage Foundation was the source of the data, I should have specified that it was the article. Mea culpa.

If you would like to debunk the study in question, though I doubt it given your conduct herein and elsewhere, here is the citation given by the article. The document, by the way, was prepared for an organisation you will also likely object to, namely, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in Geneva, Switzerland.

Doug Koplow, "Biofuels-At What Cost?" International Institute for Sustainable Development, October 2006, pp. 56-61, at www.globalsubsidies.org/IMG/pdf/biofuels_subsidies_us.pdf (March 26, 2007).

The link was dead, but I found it elsewhere:
http://www.globalsubsidies.org/files/assets/pdf/Brochure_-_US_Report.pdf
(via http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/research/biofuel-subsidies-united-states/)

 

I didn't really mean to offend. It was an unthoughtful response.

Source of data or not, the foundation has a for lack of better word, partisan goal. I've found it's not worth continuing in conversations that find basis in collections such as those, as anyone can find something to support their argument if they look hard enough, and that is what their foundation does. Similar to any other unscientific approach to information gathering be it sourcing or collecting. I have worked for years in information gathering and am very skeptical of sources with motives.

 

Use the list at your own risk. The one and only station listed near me has the Ethanol stickers on their pumps. So, I don't know if the list is wrong, or if the pump stickers are wrong. I guess a test kit would be useful, but the fact remains, Ethanol is practically unavoidable here in SE PA.

I've been using Startron for my lawn equip, a fuel stabilizer like Stabil, but specifically formulated to address problems when Ethanol fuel ages in underutilized engines like marine, RV, chainsaws, weed eaters, lawn mowers. ...

 

I can't get pure gas around me. But we've been having problems on my Fire Department with our small engines running like shit, my chief had similar issues with his chain saws. He takes all the equipment in and the very reputable dealer (we use for everything, very trusted) explained that premium has less ethanol than reg gas and to use that in at least all small engines, and to also use the ethanol formulated Stabil with it.

 

Way to overreact batman.

The long term effects of Ethanol on your engine are negligible. The engine will surely run smoother and feel more peppy on pure gas, but ethanol blend isn't going to necessitate an engine rebuild in 6 months.

Relax.

 

I mostly like the idea that every gallon of ethanol is one less gallon of middle east gasoline I pay for, and that much less out of my pocket going to subsidize the planting of IED's killing US soldiers.

The economics of ethanol as a substitute good also means it helps stabilize the cost of gas. I'm all for requiring vehicles be flex-fuel capable and steadily increasing the ratio of ethanol.

 

unfortunately there is not a supplier in our area who sell non-e gas now.
If I want to drive really have no other choice.
In all our small carb'd 2 strokes we treat w/ star tron.

 

Same here. Doesn't seem to affect the truck but smaller engines I've resorted to an additive. K100 works well for the motorcycle, I don't have any 2 strokes... The motorcycle would pop and idle like crap before I started using k100, it seems to have cleared it up nicely.

 

If ethanol was made from that grass that is supposed to yield much more than corn does I would agree here. Having food and oil industry compete for corn supplies just throws another variable in the supply chain to make gas fluctuate in price for a different reason and it also gives food prices another reason to rise. If corn rises because of supply issues then everything that is fed corn is going to go up in price and the transportation of it will also go up due to gas being higher due to ethanol supply being affected by same shortage. Now floods and droughts will be the new reason gas goes up even if OPEC not in the picture at all. Either way, the motoring public is where the screwing will end up. The oil and agriculture industries can keep raising prices to keep their profit margins afloat but we can't do that with cost of living increases at our workplaces so we end up losing yet again either way you look at it. At least making ethanol from that grass would be less suseptible to weather and not affect food prices.