Bonneville America Forums Forums Technical Forums General Tech Ethanol?

OK, so as most of you probably know I live in Australia. What most of you probably don't know is the AU government (bless their blackened hearts) are coercing the fuel companies (also bless their equally blackened hearts) into adding ethanol to the fuel here in a (probably vain, since sugar's expensive too) attempt to lower the gas prices. We've had seperate bowsers selling gas with 10% ethanol for a while now which I was happy to ignore but if they start putting it into all the gas I won't have that choice.

I decided to email Triumph to find out what the score was, but there seems to be a significant lack of email addresses for them on their site. Anyway, after studiously examining the Triumph website and doing a search here on "ethanol" I came up empty handed. Anyone got any info on whether using an ethanol/gas blend is a: safe and b: going to invalidate my warranty?

Matt

I believe all gas vendors in Sweden already have 10% ethanol in ALL gas and have been for several years now. If I'm correct it does work well. My 2c

Take a look through your Owner's Manual, I know there's some mention in it about alternate fuels, in the beginning section.

Here in Minnesota we have a state mandate for 10 percent ethanol in all gasoline. The governor is trying to get that raised to 20 percent. With 10 percent ethanol you probably would see a slight decrease in power and fuel efficiency. Ethanol just doesn't have the same energy content as gasoline. For example, I normally get roughly around 40 mpg. But on my trip to Wyoming last summer I was amazed to find I was getting around 50 mpg. I attributed that to burning pure, unadulterated gasoline that is sold in Wyoming, and the fact that I was running mostly 5th gear highway miles. I don't think ethanol has much effect on engine life.

Just my opinion,
Cody

I would hope that the valve seats are pretty hard anyway.
Thats why these bike can run unleaded fuel.
Is ethanol a better cleaner than petrol? if so it may do some good?

Triumph states that 10% Ethanol is OK to use. Methanol is taboo and over 15% MTBE is not good for the engine as well. Ethanol doesn't burn any cleaner than straight gasoline. In fact since it burns cooler it isn't as efficient a fuel. Alcohol also aborbs water readily. I don't like the stuff.

Not a good thing to keep that fuel in an overwintered bike then!

We have state ordered 10% ethanol during the winter months. I've not noticed any difference.

Quote:

---

Alcohol also aborbs water readily.

---

Acually about the only good thing about it, as long as it doesn't sit in you tank too long. It takes any condensation out. Of course with motorcycle size tanks and frequent fillups, that's not an issue.

I see no reason it shouldn't work great. After all, when i'm driving extremely drunk i usually drive one handed and have a bottle of whisky in one hand. When i hit reserve i just pop the cap and dump some whisky in it. If it can run good on that ethenol should be no problem. Don't try beer tho........that just killed my engine.......too much water i guess.

OK, I did some research on this one. Yep, it is an oxygenate. This enhances combustibility which in turn reduces high temperature combustion by products such as NOx and SOx. Ever wonder why high perfomance dragsters and such use alcohol based fuels? By containing more oxygen molecules than pertroleum based fuels you can count on higher burning efficiencies. This helps to increase the octane ratings of alcohol based and alcohol enriched fuels. And yes, at present, ethanol can be produced more inexpensively than fossil fuels. Not sure where all this fuel system corrosion stuff comes from. The alcohol may or may not be compatible with some fuel system components based on material compatibility issues. It certainly will not enhance corrosion. I doubt it will eat your paint either, it's not brake fluid for god's sake. All in all, it is not a bad thing I do believe, though haven't researched it yet, that alcohol either adsorbs water or can break down into water over a long period of time. It is just basically a complex hydrogen and carbon based molecule. I need to check on this water thing as it does sound like old wives tale material to me. And that's all I gots for now.

I seem to remember that back in the fuel shortage crisis of the 70's here in the US, ethanol was added to gas, not to reduce the price of gas, but to reduce consuption of gas by the masses. If I buy a gallon of gas that is 10% ethanol, that means I've reduced my consuption by 10%.

But it still gets me that our governments are not pushing harder for alternative fuels, and instead, just trying to get people to reduce consumption of existing ones. What about methane?!? It's one the worlds most abundant, renewable energy sources available (and is the chief component of natural gas used in homes and electric generating facilities). I've seen various gasoline engines converted to run on methane, so I know it's possible. Pity that it's most likely the big oil companies preventing such alternatives from being a reality any time soon.

I don't understand why folks always assume oil companies are to blame for our energy gluttony. It's akin to blaming Wendy's for your weight problem, or RJR for your cigarette addiction costs.

Umm, that's not what I said. I don't blame the oil industry for our energy gluttony. Read it again.

It's really pretty easy to understand. Oil companies have a huge investment in the infrastructure they have built over the last couple of decades, all geared towards fossil fuels. If there was a shift in energy consumption away from fossil fuels, that investment would become a liability. Not good for their bottom line, not good for their shareholders. So, with the huge amount of money the industry has, much has been thrown towards governments to protect their interests, and reduce incentives towards alternative sources of energy.

Look at what Kenneth T. Derr, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Chevron Corporation said to the Cambridge Energy Research Associates Executive Conference (in 1994!):

Quote:

---

I'm very much alarmed by this emerging consensus, because I believe the effort to achieve that goal . . . the effort to tilt the playing field away from oil and toward alternatives . . . the related effort to regulate away the last and least impact of petroleum . . . these are genuine threats . . . with the potential to do great harm not only to the petroleum industry but to the interdependent global economy as well.

A clear example of this threat showed up in last year's proposed BTU tax. As you'll recall, the essential proposal called for taxing all fuels according to their BTU content. Except for oil. The tax on oil was to be essentially doubled beyond the level set by BTU content.

The extra tax handicap amounted to a "sin-tax," like those placed on tobacco and alcohol.

Outside of our industry, nobody seemed to find that a strange comparison.

Unless some note of reason and proportion can be interjected into the public discourse, I fear the petroleum industry could face a future of continual disruption . . . and relentless attrition.

We have got to respond to the alarmist charges against oil. We're going to have to do a world-class job of bringing the facts before the public.

---

(Source: Chevron Oil

Unfortunately, the major thrust of alternative fuels has been one of environmental impact, not depletion of crude oil and it's aftermath, or that of renewable energy sources. For example, in 1990, the president proposed, in his Clean Air Act, many provisions that would lead to the introduction of alternative fuels. The petroleum industry fought that bill, and won, by instead offering an RFG (reformulated gasoline) plan designed to reduce emissions. Their argument was that it would take years and years to realize emission reductions in the current fleet of vehicles (and the changes required to those vehicles), while RFG could reduce them immediately. Yet another example of how powerful interests can, and do, protect their bottom line. (Source: EPA)

Hey, it's always been the same throughout history. When you have a large, powerful industry with lots of money behind it, they always fight to prevent alternatives from entering the market which will directly impact their pockets. Their investments are huge and they need to protect those investments, even if it's not in the best interest of the rest of the world. Has nothing to do with consumption, has everything to do with money.

Cheers,
Brad

Hey, just wanted to throw some additonal interesting facts regarding methane (actually, natural gas.. same thing essentially)...

According to the EPA, publication EPA420-F-00-033, dated March 2002:

In 1999, the US Department of Energy conducted a study that provided direct, side-by-side cost and emissions comparisons of CNG (Compressed natural gas) and gasoline fueld taxi-cab operations. The report, Alternative Fuels Case Study, Barwood Cab Fleet Study, Summary compared 10 CNG fueled cars from 1996 with 10 gasoline fueled cars of the same make and model to determine operating costs. The study found that the fuel economy of CNG and gasoline cars were identical and that operating costs for CNG cabs were 25 percent lower than gasoline powered. Average fuel costs for the CNG cabs were 32 percent less, and reportedly cost about 15 percent less to maintain than the gasoline vehicles.

A copy of the report can be found at www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/fleettest/pdfs/barwood.pdf

In addition, the EPA has found that, while emissions will vary from engine design, the potential of using CNG over gasoline produces the following:

- Reductions in carbon monoxide emissions by 90 to 97 percent, and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by 25 percent.

- Reductions in nitrogen oxide emissions of 35 to 60 percent

- Potential reductions in nonmethane hydrocarbon emissions of 50 to 75 percent.

- Fewer toxic and carcinogenic polutants, and little to no particulate matter produced.

- No evaporative emissions in dedicated engines (such as those associated with gasoline or diesel)

As to affordability, they state that CNG generally costs 15 to 40 percent less than gasoline or diesel.

As to performance, they state the the octane rating is higher than that for gasoline, and a CNG vehicle's power, acceleration and cruise speed can be greater than that of a gasoline powered vehicle. They also run more efficiently, thereby extending the life of the vehicle.

As to safety, they say that although it's a flamable gas, it has a narrow flammability range, making it an inherently safe fuel. Strict safety standards make CNG vehicles as safe as gasoline powered vehicles. In the event of a spill or accidental release, CNG poses no threat to land or water, it is non-toxic.

As to maintenance, oil in a CNG vehicle needs to be changed less due to the clean burning characteristic of CNG, producing less deposits in the oil.

Now.. given all the benefits of CNG, and the fact that it is a renewable resource that will be always be available regardless of consumption rates, why do you think that the governments of the world aren't supporting it's use as much as they are pushing for reducing gasoline consumption and gasoline fuel efficency?

Cheers,
Brad

Brad, all that's true enough. We have some of the transit buses here running on diesel converted cng engines.
But it's only fair to look at the disadvantages as well.
Fewer places to get fuel: There are only a few places where you can purchase cng in large metro ares, rural ares may not have any.
Tank size and weight: CNG is under high pressure, not unlike the oxygen in oxy-acetylene torches. This requires a heavy, smaller tank than gasoline. In order to get the equivalent amount of cng to 20 gallons of gasoline, the tank would have to weigh a couple hundred pounds. Not really practical for small vehicles.

I believe that all these various conspiracy theories are just red herrings to keep us from thinking about what's really going on.

Well, I think that to write off the influence that major industries and their deep pockets have on, at least here in the US, our political landscape as conspiracy theories would be a bit naive

PS: Have you seen the current energy bill recently submitted to congress? The main thrust involves increased production of fossil fuels and continued (although reduced) reliance on them, with very little (however, I must admit, at least there is _some_) incentives torwards alternatives.

Hmmmm, ok, I'll bite, what do you think is 'really going on'??

Cheers,
Brad

Quote:

---

Don't try beer tho........that just killed my engine.......too much water i guess.

---

Not with my beer.

It can make gas cheaper *IF* it is used for that purpose. It doesn't cost as much to ferment a little corn or grain and distill it as it does to pump oil out of the ground and crack it.
On the other hand, *IF* it is added to gas to reduce polution, it mysteriously costs a lot more.

Used in carburetted engines, there is a very slight decrease in performance because alcohol doesn't burn quite as hot as petrol. But, not enough to really notice unless you are racing.

In fuel injected vehicles designed for real petrol you have a problem. It seems the added oxygen fools the injection system into believing the mixture is too lean. I had a '91 Jeep that dropped some 18% in fuel economy when the idiot politicians mandated oxygenated fuels. This was a greater increase in fuel consumption than the claimed reduction in polution, so this "clean burning" formula was increasing polution.

Quote:

---

Hmmmm, ok, I'll bite, what do you think is 'really going on'??

---

Sigh, oh... data processing. hmmm: Low tolerance for irony

It's a joke; All the conspiracy theories are a conspiracy, Get it?

Sigh, oh... data processing. hmmm: Low tolerance for irony

Naw, I think it was more of a case of too late at night and too little coffee

Cheers,
Brad

Yeah, I guess it was close to time back there to use ethanol for it's intended purpose.

What about a diesel running of french fry grease?

I saw the recipe and the apperatus for making biodiesle is pretty simple.

e.g. 40 US Gal + 5 US Gal of Methonal + Lye (NaOH)
Mix well then drain the glycerin that is produced.

According to the USDA and the farmers around here that are running it, it burns cleaner, cheaper and they get a HP boost.

The salt mines around here have switch all their equipment to biodiesel.

Johnny