(Opinions posted on allpar.com are not necessarily the opinions of Allpar, LLC.)
Gasohol, Alcohol, and Other Solutions
I've found, in real-life usage, that gasahol (at least, in a 10%-20% alocohol/80-90% gasoline mixture) is not the solution I expected it to be. Most cars I've run gasohol lately used 10% to 20% more fuel, with a 10% solution of alcohol in the gasoline. I've formulated a theory as to why this is:
Alcohol has less energy per gallon than gasoline. A driver will subconsciously push harder on the 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, so it 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 15% gasoline with 85% ethanol or methanol, such as vans or minivans, and make it a legal requirement). Why minivans? Diesel fuel and gasoline fuel are to some degree carcinogenic, whereas ethanol motor fuel is not. Don't we 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" solutions for big cities, replacing MTBE. An 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 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 tractor-trailer truck driver fell asleep, literally squashing 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 choose to mandate compressed natural gas (CNG) fuelled vehicles, perhaps using hybrids (to recuperate kinetic energy), with plug-in capabilities. This would probably add $5,000 to the cost of a vehicle, but automotive air pollution would be a thing of the past within 10 years in cities. Car companies already make vehicles with "California" specifications (actually used by many states now) as well as Federal specifications, and many car companies build diesel cars, CNG cars, propane cars and hybrid cars - none of my ideas would be impossible. CNG fuelled plug-in hybrids would probably cost about 1/10th of what a Prius costs to run (editor’s note: this is for city use where hybrids present unique advantages due to engine shutoff and brake regeneration). A $5,000 investment (perhaps less as mass production cut prices) would be paid back in the life of the car.
CNG fuelled hybrids would have virtually zero pollution, too. A plug-in variety of same would be dirtier overall than a pure CNG hybrid car because coal-fired electricity plants are dirtier than the CNG engine!
Beside which, what price our lives, our country and our independence?
See, ordinary people such as me 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 a Prius to complement my 1967 Chrysler for daily commuting.