Ethanol can ruin a bike

[adidasguy]

We know that. The water separates from the alcohol. Plus it is just political as it takes more gas to make ethanol - you use more than a gallon of gas to make a gallon of ethanol. Gas goes bad faster. We've seen photos of ruined carbs due to the water in ethanol.

I found this site that lists places that sell ethanol-free gas.

http://pure-gas.org/

Hope you find it useful. Lets keep our bikes running longer!

[mass-hole]

Of course theres none in MA, lol

[steezin_and_wheezin]

preciate it! there's a few right around most the spots i ride

[GAS]

It's strange how you guys (not only here on GStwin, but all over North America) hate ethanol.

I trully agree with you guys that it is NOT any more sustainable than gas in the US. Here in Brazil there is another picture, it's easier and cheaper to get ethanol from sugar cane and we have lots of sugar cane farms. The government does not subside the producers and the ethanol is 40% cheaper than gas (alright, we have one of the most expensive gas in the world, what makes easy to ethanol being cheaper)

But the point I want to make is another:
We don't see besides the poor mileage any other problem in running ethanol or gas/ethanol mix in our cars. There is no problem with clogged or ruined carbs or EFI's, there's no separation alcohol/water since the alcohol is "anidrico" (with no contained water) when mixed with gas. Even when you use pure ethanol (and this comes with water) we don't see any problems of this kind.

I believe there is some other problem in the alcohol fab process in the US, or most likely, the ethanol should have been introduced to cars that were previously made to run on pure gas, as this problems used to happen here also, when 30 years ago ethanol was introduced.

I don't want to create a fight over it here, just posting to have something to discuss on!!!!

[adidasguy]

There are a couple differences up here, especially the farther north you go.

First, we are not a rain forest area so we really have to go to a lot of expense to grow a crop. And we can't grow sugar because of our climate. If we could, then costs would go down. You don't get a lot of sugar for ethanol from corn.

Second, we let our bikes sit for months at a time. Sometimes even just a few weeks due to weather. In that time, the water starts to separate. If we were in a warmer climate where we could ride and refill our tank before the ethanol goes bad, it would be different. Florida and California people no doubt see fewer problems than those in the northern areas where we can't ride every day.

So basically, while I can agree with you the situation is not the same as you go north where the climate is different.

[cbrfxr67]

interesting stuff: to hear from someone in Brazil with the pov on Ethanol.  I hope this thread continues with more information/experiences,...

[mister]

Regardless of any negative effects on the car/bike fuels system, it Always takes more energy to make the ethanol than the energy obtained from the ethanol. It might burn cleaner itself - as in less visible exhaust - but this is negated by the pollutants created in its manufacture, from BioMass trucks, to Biomass Conversion factory construction and power operation, harvesting exhausts, etc.

Michael

[tb0lt]

Regardless of any negative effects on the car/bike fuels system, it Always takes more energy to make the ethanol than the energy obtained from the ethanol. It might burn cleaner itself - as in less visible exhaust - but this is negated by the pollutants created in its manufacture, from BioMass trucks, to Biomass Conversion factory construction and power operation, harvesting exhausts, etc.

Michael

True for us in most parts of the US.... but not so in countries that have the right growing climate and rich soil that requires very little human input to get results from agriculture. Also, our transportation costs don't directly translate to other countries. My point is... it is a stupid and wasteful idea for the US consumer while it is a life saver for more agriculture based nations.

[GAS]

There are a couple differences up here, especially the farther north you go.

First, we are not a rain forest area so we really have to go to a lot of expense to grow a crop. And we can't grow sugar because of our climate. If we could, then costs would go down. You don't get a lot of sugar for ethanol from corn.

Second, we let our bikes sit for months at a time. Sometimes even just a few weeks due to weather. In that time, the water starts to separate. If we were in a warmer climate where we could ride and refill our tank before the ethanol goes bad, it would be different. Florida and California people no doubt see fewer problems than those in the northern areas where we can't ride every day.

So basically, while I can agree with you the situation is not the same as you go north where the climate is different.

Makes sense.
Here we just don't ever sit our bikes for more than a few days, and usually if we do, it's not weather related. You won't ever find a fuel stabilizer to buy here for the same causes.

And the cost of the fuel.... As you said it's expensive to make Ethanol from corn, and cheap to make it from sugar cane. But this is a problem in Brazil because it is more profitable to grow sugar cane than grow vegetables for food use in many areas. Some fear that in a few decades or less, most producers will switch to Ethanol instead of growing corn, rice, oranges, cofee, etc... Altough this is expectated to happen since long ago, something like 20 years, and so far so good.

interesting stuff: to hear from someone in Brazil with the pov on Ethanol.  I hope this thread continues with more information/experiences,...

Regardless of any negative effects on the car/bike fuels system, it Always takes more energy to make the ethanol than the energy obtained from the ethanol. It might burn cleaner itself - as in less visible exhaust - but this is negated by the pollutants created in its manufacture, from BioMass trucks, to Biomass Conversion factory construction and power operation, harvesting exhausts, etc.

Michael

I believe it is always good to exchange experiences. You can wide the way you see the world and the problems around you.

And that what Michael said is something we just don't discuss about here, I don't know exactly why (freaking ambientalists, maybe). I've never seen any article on the brazilian ethanol's carbon footprint. Altough I tend to agree that probably it is not a sustainable proceeding, I can't be positive on this affirmative.

What Tbolt just said makes sense too, but the problem is the way the sugar cane is grown here, on the harvest everything is burnt down so the machines or poor underpaid people can start to cut the little trees out. It's possible that it is too much carbon on fires, making the balance of energy not that good. But again, without sound studies made on the subject, it's hard to defend one side or another...

[nikfleisch]

IMHO, the government should have no hand in what i run my damn car on, ethanol is actually worst for the enviorment lol, sorry treehuggers. 

The government shouldn't be giving big oil companies tax breaks, but they also shouldnt be spending money on "green" research

[ben2go]

That site is absolutely wrong,at least for my area.There are NO straight fuel retailers in my area.Everything around here has ethanol.I have updated my carbs some what,to deal with the ethanol.I use neoprene O rings and ethanol safe fuel lines.I will be installing a CFR250X petcock.I'll keep a check on the O ring in it and change it as need to a neoprene one.Carbs do need to be rejetted from stock for the ethanol,and E85 requires a lot of rejetting.It takes more ethanol to run an engine than fuel.

[mister]

Regardless of any negative effects on the car/bike fuels system, it Always takes more energy to make the ethanol than the energy obtained from the ethanol. It might burn cleaner itself - as in less visible exhaust - but this is negated by the pollutants created in its manufacture, from BioMass trucks, to Biomass Conversion factory construction and power operation, harvesting exhausts, etc.

Michael

True for us in most parts of the US.... but not so in countries that have the right growing climate and rich soil that requires very little human input to get results from agriculture. Also, our transportation costs don't directly translate to other countries. My point is... it is a stupid and wasteful idea for the US consumer while it is a life saver for more agriculture based nations.

Um, true for ALL parts of the world. I am talking Energy not Cost of Energy. If it takes Less Energy to make ethanol than is obtained from Ethanol, you have created a Perpetual Motion System. And that is Not the case. If it was the power companies would be closing down their coal powered power stations and creating ethanol powered power stations - and they aren't doing that.

Besides, large areas of Farmable, Food Growing Land are diverted Away from feeding Humans to growing Biomass for the ethanol plant. All brought to you by businesses that get govt kickbacks, politicians who have stakes in said businesses and the entire corrupt system. Meanwhile, no-one (in govt) seems to give a rats about hydrogen spliting from sea water - a true pollutant free fuel. Not until some pollie has a large enough stake in it to have funds diverted into the technology to Make It Viable.

The Green/Ethanol/CarbonTax System makes too much money for the politicians who have stakes in it for it to be discarded.

Michael

[GAS]

Um, true for ALL parts of the world. I am talking Energy not Cost of Energy. If it takes Less Energy to make ethanol than is obtained from Ethanol, you have created a Perpetual Motion System. And that is Not the case. If it was the power companies would be closing down their coal powered power stations and creating ethanol powered power stations - and they aren't doing that.

Michael

You're not taking into account that plants grow using solar power, so it is not a PMS if you use 1kwh of energy to fabricate 2kwh equivalent of fuel, as the other 1kwh can well be coming from the Sun.

I agree with all the rest, damned politicians 

[mister]

Um, true for ALL parts of the world. I am talking Energy not Cost of Energy. If it takes Less Energy to make ethanol than is obtained from Ethanol, you have created a Perpetual Motion System. And that is Not the case. If it was the power companies would be closing down their coal powered power stations and creating ethanol powered power stations - and they aren't doing that.

Michael

You're not taking into account that plants grow using solar power, so it is not a PMS if you use 1kwh of energy to fabricate 2kwh equivalent of fuel, as the other 1kwh can well be coming from the Sun.

I agree with all the rest, damned politicians 

I am ignoring the plant. I am taking into account everything that goes into getting the plant into the ground and out of the ground and everything devoted to turning the biomass into ethanol and getting it to market. I am not talking $ Cost but Energy Expenditure.

There is energy spent planting, fertilising, soil turning, harvesting and transporting the biomass. There is energy spent running the plant, energy spent building the plant and manufacturing the materials that go into making the plant, energy spent maintaining the plant, energy spent disposing of the used biomass, energy spent for employees to get to the plant to work, energy spent running the offices of the plant and maintaining the grounds of the plant, energy spent transporting the ethanol to the fuel refinery for adding to the petroleum, energy spent blending it into the petroleum. There is tremendous energy used in the production of Ethanol fuels for the consumer. All of it Pollutes. It just that all That energy consumption and pollution is Not Seen by the public and Ignored by the Media and Politicians trying to Sell it and Mandate it so they and their cronies with stakes in the Ethanol System can make money on the side.

Ethanol is NOT the sustainable/renewable fuel it is touted to be. As the world's population grows, at some point feeding people is sacrificed in favor of ethanol growing. Need more ethanol growing land? Chop down more trees. And the cycle doesn't end.

Michael

[Yuri.]

It's strange how you guys (not only here on GStwin, but all over North America) hate ethanol.

I trully agree with you guys that it is NOT any more sustainable than gas in the US. Here in Brazil there is another picture, it's easier and cheaper to get ethanol from sugar cane and we have lots of sugar cane farms. The government does not subside the producers and the ethanol is 40% cheaper than gas (alright, we have one of the most expensive gas in the world, what makes easy to ethanol being cheaper)

But the point I want to make is another:
We don't see besides the poor mileage any other problem in running ethanol or gas/ethanol mix in our cars. There is no problem with clogged or ruined carbs or EFI's, there's no separation alcohol/water since the alcohol is "anidrico" (with no contained water) when mixed with gas. Even when you use pure ethanol (and this comes with water) we don't see any problems of this kind.

I believe there is some other problem in the alcohol fab process in the US, or most likely, the ethanol should have been introduced to cars that were previously made to run on pure gas, as this problems used to happen here also, when 30 years ago ethanol was introduced.

I don't want to create a fight over it here, just posting to have something to discuss on!!!!

Fellow brazilian here.
Ethanol is subsized, not directly, but it pay lower taxes. It's pretty significant when a really big percentage of the gas price is taxes.
Also in the last few months the price went high enough to make it stupid to fill the tank with pure ethanol(in the cars that can be filled with both pure ethanol or the gas/ethanol blend).
About the water in the ethanol, it doesn't matter if from "factory" it's water free, it will absorve moisture from the air, the pure ethanol will absorve more, but pure ethanol will easily mix with water in significant percentages, not the same will happen with the gas/ethanol blend. Maybe that is not that relevant when most people here will not let the bike sit through the whole winter ever, but this is pretty much the rule in the US.