Ethanol vs. Your Engine

[kennyw]

OK, time to start a new ethanol thread in the classifieds... not sure how to do that and meet the rules but it should work with some creativity.

[Southwend]

I live in a very rural area and have access to non-ethanol fuel as it is preferred for the many small engine applications on farm equipment. Question, I know the manual says 86 octane but I have been running the 93 high test anyway, non ethanol at 87 octane should not be a problem, right?

All things equal should have about the same energy as the 93?

[ChipBeck_imp]

Gentlemen,

One other item to consider. When developing energy resources to power the nation one of the most important factors is "energy yield". This is the net addition in energy after all energy expenditures required to produce the fuel or electricity for end users. When oil is refined into gasoline the net energy yield is about 84%. In other words, for every 100 BTUs produced by refined gasoline, 16 BTUs are of energy are consumed in the production of that gasoline. You can think of your personal employment the same way. You might have a job that requires an expenditure for dry-cleaning your business suits, cell phone bills, commuting, etc. If you spent $16 on such expenditures for every $100 that the job paid you, your job (leaving taxes out to keep this simple) would yield 84% of your take-home pay that you could actually spend on non-work related items.

Ethanol has a net energy yield of less than 20%. For every 100 BTUs produced by refined ethanol, approximately 82 BTUs are consumed in it's production, most of that energy being used in farming and the transportation prior to refining. In many cases the net energy yield producing ethanol is actually negative.

The cleanest fuel currently available to power automobiles is hydrogen. When hydrogen is burned in an internal combustion engine the only byproduct is water. How cool is that? So why aren't we powering all of our automobiles and trucks with hydrogen? The answer is negative energy yield. It requires nearly 5 times as much energy to produce hydrogen as that hydrogen will yield while powering a vehicle. 100 BTUs of hydrogen requires approximately 500 BTUs to produce it. This would be like spending $500 a day on expenses to perform a job that paid you $100 a day.

Oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium are efficient, pre-existing fuel sources that require a minimal expenditure of energy to extract and refine them. If vast piles of corn existed somewhere and did not need to be farmed, planted, fertilized, watered, harvested, and transported then ethanol might have a net energy yield similar to that of oil. But the tremendous amount of energy required to perform all of the steps prior to the refining process makes ethanol marginal at best and a net loser at worst when it comes to lessening this nation's dependence upon fossil fuels. Hydrogen would be a dream fuel if there was a way to produce it cheaply.

Currently, the only efficient energy sources are those that do not need to be produced. Oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium don't need to be produced, they are pre-existing and can be found and extracted with minimal energy expenditure. Producing an energy source on the other hand, whether it's ethanol, hydrogen, or Duracell batteries, uses a ton of energy in the production process resulting in slim or negative net energy yields. All the best.

Chip

[redbirds_imp]

Thanks for the info Chip.

[the Ferret]

I live in a very rural area and have access to non-ethanol fuel as it is preferred for the many small engine applications on farm equipment. Question, I know the manual says 86 octane but I have been running the 93 high test anyway, non ethanol at 87 octane should not be a problem, right?

All things equal should have about the same energy as the 93?

Southwend, the CB has low compression, and is low revving. Honda specifies 87 octane, and approved for up to 10% ethanol. You don't need 93 octane and as much as people want to believe and even though wives tales to the contrary abound, your bike will not run any better on 93 octane than 87 octane. You can certainly run 93 if you wish, but you are just wasting money. It will probably run a little better and get better mileage on non ethanol gas from research I have done, but I can't verify that personally. I probably get some of the best mileage on the forum and all I run is 87 octane gas with 10% ethanol. Honda says that is ok for my bike, they are the designers and engineers who built the bike. I take them at their word, I am not an engineer.

some easy and interesting reading if you are so inclined

http://www.cartalk.com/content/premium-vs-regular-1

[kennyw]

Chip,

Great info but you left out hydroelectric, solar, and other renewables. I'd be curious how they compare in overall energy yield. My favorite is still nuclear power when handled properly.

[Lord Popgun]

Why can't we use nuclear batteries in electric cars? Cost? Fear?

[the Ferret]

Although fascinating, hydro electric, solar, uranium, nuclear, wind have nothing to do with our CB's, or as far as I know, motorcycles in general. Lets stay on topic.

[emptysea]

Gonna chime in here (although I may have already done so 3 pages or 3 ethanol threads ago)...

I use 89 octane in my bike, if it's available and only because I THINK it performs better with my aftermarket exhaust. I don't care if it has 10% ethanol in it, but I opt for the non-ethanol if there is a choice at the pump, even if that's a lower or higher octane. I do not care what brand of gasoline I use, although I prefer to use my local Shell station when I'm home because he's local, a nice guy, and doesn't charge for air. I probably run just about as much 87 octane e-10 as I do 89 octane "pure". I have 17,000 miles on my bike and it runs like a champ.

I have heard that there's a problem with storing your bike with ethanol in it, but I add stabil and besides, the bike doesn't usually sit for more than a couple of weeks in the winter.

So, here's my point....if you can get nearly 20,000 miles on your bike without really paying attention to the octane or mixture, I'm pretty sure you can get 20,000 miles more on it without changing your buying habits. My guess is that well over 50% of the folks here will have a different bike before this one gets to 40,000 miles so, in the end, it should make almost no difference to the typical rider if they use e-10 or not. Just ride, fuel, repeat.

[kennyw]

Although fascinating, hydro electric, solar, uranium, nuclear, wind have nothing to do with our CB's, or as far as I know, motorcycles in general. Lets stay on topic.

For the general case, there are electric powered motorcycles. But it is straying off topic.