Neither Soy Diesel nor Ethanol are an "Alternative Fuel" Panacea
Whether by choice or mandate, the past fifteen years
have brought changes to the formulas of our two most popular liquid
fuels. In the century-old market for diesel fuel, soy based
alternatives became available. Reasons for offering non-hydrocarbon
diesel alternatives were several. Soy fuels promised equal or better
engine performance, fuel economy, reductions in soot, smell, nitrogen
oxide and carbon dioxide emissions. Since my only diesel engine was in
WindSong, our 1970 Ericson sailboat, I began adding about one-third bio-diesel during each fill up. Later in this article, I will discuss my results.
In
the U.S. gasoline market, ten percent alcohol, derived from corn became
mandatory. Today, the liquid fuel we put in our automotive and small
engine fuel tanks barely resembles the gasoline of the 1960s. Since
then, we have eliminated lead, added and then removed MTBE, added and
retained up to ten percent corn alcohol to the blend. In order to
distance "corn alcohol" from "demon rum",
it was re-positioned as "ethanol". The ostensible reasons for adding
ethanol to our gasoline are similar to the arguments for biodiesel. On
several accounts, that story falls short.
On the engine performance side, alcohol burns more cleanly, but is
highly corrosive, while attracting both dirt and water. It does not
have higher octane, and therefore it does not provide better
performance. Since it carries less energy per gallon, it robs, rather
than improves fuel economy. With two strikes against ethanol, how did
our farm-state legislators pass a mandate to put their produce in our
fuel tanks? Simply put, they played the “foreign oil card”. After all,
we grow the corn here in America, so a ten percent reduction of foreign
oil input to our gasoline could help decrease our dependency on
unreliable or expensive producers, like the Middle East.
The
only problem with using corn to create “homegrown fuel” is that it
takes more energy input to deliver it than we get out of it when we
burn it. When you figure the cost of growing, processing and
transporting corn, and the alcohol thus derived, it becomes clear that
the corn-fueling program is nothing more than a farm subsidy. Even at
$5.00 per gallon, it is still less expensive to import and refine oil
than it is to create corn fuel. Since consumers pay that extra tariff
at the pump, they do not perceive it as a tax. Hello, Tea Party... If
you are looking for a tax to eliminate, how about the Midwest corn fuel
tax?
Of all the plants suited for alcohol production, corn is one of the
lowest on the list. When the G.W. Bush Administration started talking
about “switch grass” as a better alternative to corn, I knew something
is fishy. Of all available plants, the dreaded and ill-fated hemp plant
may have the greatest potential. Since the federal government
classifies the more esoteric forms of that "weed" as a narcotic, it may
be a while before we positive developments there. In the biofuel
market, corn is cute but hemp is just plain ugly. Sometimes ugly can be
more effective than cute.
Speaking
of ugly, what corn fuel can do to a small gasoline engine is definitely
not cute. If you let gasoline sit in the tank of an outboard motor or
lawn mower, it will transform, leaving a varnish that will permanently
plug any fuel system. With the ongoing American love affair with
automobiles, we drive enough for the corn alcohol to cycle through our
engines before it can gum up the works. With a small engine, lack of
use leads to clogged fuel systems.
My 1980's Honda EX1000 generator is a perfect example. Several years
ago, I allowed gasoline to sit in its tank for months. After that, I
could start the engine, but it surged constantly as it ran. After
servicing it, a local mechanic simply told me to start the engine every
couple of months. Later, I again let the generator sit unused for
several months. After that, I could get it to start using ether as a
starting fluid, but only for a few moments.
A visit to Moab Small Engines & Welding yielded the answer to my
question. “It’s the ethanol”, the proprietor told me. After he cleaned
the carburetor and fuel line, I was on my way, but with a better set
of instructions. He told me to keep a minimum of fuel in the Honda
EX1000. After an RV trip, I was to drain the tank and then run the
engine dry. As extra insurance against ethanol residue, I was to loosen
the gas cap. That way, any remaining fuel would evaporate before it
varnished the fuel lines or carburetor.
Regarding the biodiesel on WindSong,
I wish that the solution were as simple. When I last ran the engine, a
molasses-like sludge from the fuel tank pumped all the way through the
system, stopping just short of the delicate fuel injectors. The sludge
was like nothing that my fuel specialist, Mr. Dwyn Hendrickson of Marina del Rey,
California had ever seen. With ten dollars per gallon disposal fee,
that alone cost one hundred dollars. His total bill was $850, but well
worth it. With a broken electric fuel pump, two clogged fuel filters and
sludge in the fuel lines, my spotty engine usage and delayed oil
change turned into a complete cleaning and rebuilding of the fuel
delivery system.
I do not wish to demonize either ethanol or biodiesel. Each has its
place, although I would rather pay Midwest farmers their ransom via my
taxes than in my engine maintenance costs. To this day, no one has the
nerve to suggest that we mix ethanol into our aviation fuel. Airplanes
falling from the sky might make this problem obvious to all. If each of
us burned quickly through our supply of biodiesel, rather than letting
it rot in our tanks, it could be a good fuel. With regular usage, it
is an environmentally friendly alternative to old-fashioned hydrocarbon
diesel. If there were greater transparency about hidden costs,
motorists and casual boaters might demand better alternatives to the
“alternative fuels” now available. I wonder if clean coal or tar sands might hold the answers that we seek.
Email James McGillis By James McGillis at 01:04 AM | Environment | Comments (0) | Link
