Use of ethanol as an oxygenate what is the alternative

I have one question about using ethanol in gas.
Years ago lead was used to increase octane. It was found to be neurotoxic in children and some adults. Quietly the use of lead stopped. The miracle chemical MTBE replaced it and after a period of time it was found to be carcinogenic in alarmingly low doses.
I understand ethanol provides the oxygenate to increase octane with little environmental damage.
A lower quality(cheaper gasoline) can be used with ethanol. Refiners should like it, but do not seem to.
As far as thermodynamic aspect(btu in btu out), the last good article I read was in the June or July 1967 issue of the Scientific American. I took advanced inorganic chemistry over 40 years ago. Seriously thinking about auditing the course so I can figure it out for myself. Too much subjective and not enough accurate quantitative information to reach a meaningful conclusion.
Please tell me where I went off the track.

Where you went off track was not figuring the hard core left environmentalists and the hard core right defenders of oil company profits,in to the equation.

Propaganda trumps science every time.

I thought ethanol was ostensibly used to replace some of the fossil fuel with a "renewable" resource.

Refiners hate it because it"s more expensive and doesn"t work very well, but the left loves it because it gives them a way to stick it to the oil industry (which to them is the same as sticking it to their real enemies - Bush and Cheney).

Plus it runs the cost of energy up so their other "renewable" sources of energy are closer to being cost effective. Same as shutting down nuclear power plants like the one in Vermont they just scored on.

If "they" would not kill off those who have created perpetual motion machines, we wouldn't have to worry about this. But "who" would eventually own that technology?? The same ones that own us today!

For your information the largest refiner in North America owns several ethanol plants and plans on building some more. Do you know who they are??

Sound like you have bought in to the oil companies having big profits. Fact is the oil companies profits is only a small percentage of the tec companies make. Boycott Apple if you want to go after big profits. When you add all of the oil companies produce, refine, ship and distribute together you get very big numbers but has nothing to do with each companies percentage of profit. To be fair you would add all of the tec companies together to see the (BIG TEC) totals. Then add all the auto companies together and look at the total dollars from all of them to compare the total dollars of profit form (BIG AUTO). I never understood how the media and government could get away with selling to the public profit figures by adding all the companies together. I bet you wouldn't buy the total profits added together for all farmers to get the public to blame farmers greed for the high prices of food in the stores.
Looky Here

I'm not talking about BIG profits,I'm talking about market share and competition that's all. It's natural. Who wants competition to what they produce? I want people to eat beef,not pork or chicken.

Cas:

You need to do a Qualitative Analysis of your Quantitative information.

You say you have a question. Excuse me, but what's your question?

Ethanol as an oxygenate and ethanol as an octane booster are two different things. Totally unrelated, really.

Lead was used as an octane booster, true. But adding lead is not the only way to boost octane. The fact that premium unleaded gas exists is evidence of that. Lead-free gas was introduced because car manufacturers needed to use catalytic converters to meet emissions requirements. Leaded gas was eliminated when it was recognized that people living close to freeways had much more lead in their bodies than those who didn't.

MTBE was used both as an octane booster and as on oxygenate. The reason for oxygenated fuels is to reduce emissions, not to raise octane. Many states required oxygenated fuels, and the most vialble alternatives were MTBE and ethanol. But MTBE has a nasty habit of contaminating groundwater, so no more MTBE.

Without MTBE, if you have to have oxygenated fuels you're pretty much stuck with ethanol, if for no other reason than it's available. The reason we have ethanol production has less to do with its suitability as a fuel additive and more to do with politics, but years of subsidies have built up a huge ethanol infrastructure that's not going to disappear overnight.

That ethanol boosts octane is a bonus, but secondary to its use as an oxygenate. If the requirement for oxygenated fuels went away, the demand for ethanol would significantly decrease. But right now, petroleum distributors are required to produce oxygenated fuels, and ethanol is the simplest way to do it.

The EPA kinda got rid of the competition. The stock holders wouldn't get much return on their investment if the oil profits would be less. The government gets more money at the gas pump than the oil companies get in profit.

MarkB,
I am sorry I should have said tetraethyl lead.
Assumed most people knew they did not dump lead
sinkers in the gasoline. I think this is a qualitative way of saying lead boosts octane.
Cas

MarkB
I reread your post and see where you did mention the octane boosting effect of lead.
Back to higher octane boosters, I would guess there are many. Toluene is one used. If these where made in large batches, would they add any cost to higher octane gasoline?
Cas

Sorry, but I'm not qualified to say how different octane boosters affect the cost of fuel. But generally speaking, any industry is going to use the cheapest alternative that meets its requirements. Banning the use of any substance generally increases the cost of producing products that use the banned substance. The law of supply and demand says if there is increased demand for a commodity (in this case an alternative to a banned fuel additive), the price of that commodity will increase.

That's my point though. What does it matter to me if investors in oil company stocks and oil futures make money? Seems to me if they do,that just means I pay more. I don't own oil company stock or futures myself. I'll tell you who does. The money behind a few people on the radio who's job is to convince you that whatever brings the most money and power to their owners is what's best for you. Not just on oil either,but every issue that they try to form your opinion about.

On the flip side,just so you don't get me wrong,the hard core left is just as opposed to ethanol because "growing corn is destroying the planet and killing the Gulf of Mexico",in their opinion.

Toluene and xylene are just two different types of high octane gasoline molucules. Approx 114 pump octane.
They occur natural in nature but commercial quanties require good base stocks, a lot of heat and catylist to form high octane unleaded.

If you want cheap clean fuel. Make methanol from natural gas, catylist and steam generated from a nuclear reactor.
Isopropyl alcohol is one of the best liquid fuels for clean burning, modest aggression to components and btu"s per lb.

(quoted from post at 16:41:04 09/08/13) For your information the largest refiner in North America owns several ethanol plants and plans on building some more. Do you know who they are??

Click to expand...

No, I don't know who they are - Tell me, please :?