Gasohol, Alcohol, and Other Solutions

by Glen Arlt

Gasohol is generally worse than wasteful (I've found in "real life use") - depending upon the car. I've found that most cars I've run lately on gasohol used 10% to 20% more fuel (with a 10% solution of alcohol in the gasoline) which is "negative efficiency" (waste). I've formulated a theory as to why this is:

Alcohol has less energy per gallon than gasoline, thus less "power". A driver will subconsciously push harder on the loud pedal to go "their usual pace" and waste fuel. (This relates to gasohol used in ANY
vehicle). I found this when using "leaded gasohol" in my 1967 Chrysler.

Alcohol is an "oxygenate" which on modern cars (with closed oxygen sensor fuel injection control) means that the computer is "fooled" into thinking that the mixture is too lean with 10% alcohol, therefore the computer enriches the system to "compensate" (using more fuel). More alcohol is also therefore ingested into the engine and it becomes a spiraling effect of enriching the mixture to some extent (in theory). Therefore, a measured 10% to 20% reduction in MPG with gasohol and a
total waste of the ethanol.

Solution: use alcohol as a motor fuel (Brazil does, in 100% solution) to replace some gasoline (i.e. for example, "choose" a "category" of vehicle which "must" be sold and fuelled by 85% ethanol or methanol/15% gasoline - such as minivans, and make it a legal requirement). Why minivans? My thinking is this: diesel fuel and gasoline fuel are to some degree carcinogenic, whereas ethanol motor fuel is not. Don't we as a society want to have fewer carcinogens near our children? Surely 85% alcohol would be better used as a motor fuel rather than being utterly wasted in "gasohol" 10% alcohol solutions for big cities, replacing MTBE (which leaches into ground water). Also, 85% solution and "E85/M85 ONLY" cars means more efficient use of alcohol which has a very high octane level. 12 to 1 compression ratios could be used in alcohol-only fuelled vehicles, gaining 10% efficiency over so-called
"Flex-fuel" cars which must run on E85/M85 or gasoline.

The reason for not using 100% ethanol or methanol is because if there is a car fire, alcohol burns "invisibly" whereas 85% solutions have a visible flame (to avoid as you depart the burning vehicle). Ever seen a race car driver on fire on TV from pure-alcohol fires? I have. No visible flame.

My son's ex-girlfriend from college was traveling from Ann Arbor to Ohio on the main highway on a family vacation some 3 years ago, stopped in a traffic jam. They were in a minivan. A semi-truck driver fell asleep, literally squashed the Saturn behind this family and rammed into the back of the minivan, which ping-ponged between the (remains of the Saturn) and the SUV in front of them. Their minivan burst into flames. Only the driver's door could be opened, but they all escaped and managed to avoid the (visible) gasoline flames.

Maybe if we really wanted to avoid big city pollution, we could (as a society) choose to mandate CNG (compressed natural gas) fuelled hybrids (thus obtaining the benefits of recuperating kinetic energy, like my Prius), with plug-in capabilities (meaning that they would provide 100 mpg gasoline equivalence). Yes, this would probably add $5000 to the cost of a vehicle, but automotive air pollution would be a thing of the past within 10 years in cities. Then hopefully we could start converting to hydrogen (which could also be used as a gaseous motor fuel in current hybrids or non-hybrid cars - BMW have done it). Car companies already make vehicles with "California" specifications and "Federal" specifications, and many car companies build diesel cars, CNG cars, propane cars and hybrid cars - none of my ideas would be impossible, just would cost a bit more. CNG fuelled plug-in hybrids
would probably cost about 1/10th of what my Prius costs to run. So a $5000 investment would be paid back in the life of the car, plus mass production reduces prices.

CNG fuelled hybrids would be virtually zero pollution, too. Actually, a plug-in variety of same would be "dirtier" overall than a pure CNG hybrid car because the electricity plants are so much dirtier than the CNG engine! (The fact that the gasoline Prius is so much cleaner than power stations is another reason why Toyota chose not to do the plug-in, besides I'm certain, the added cost of more batteries).

Beside which, what price our lives, our country and our independence?

See, "ordinary" people such as myself have smarter ideas of where our country could consider going than do the highly (over) paid people in charge of industry and government - or am I wrong? Surely "doing something" is better than "doing nothing" or "making the problem worse". Hence, I bought my Prius.