it's not the hydrocarbons or the fact that ethanol provides higher octane that I'm disagreeing with, it's this:
> and so less efficient engines, and fewer mpg
ethanol, while providing a higher octane rating (which if you drive a car that requires a higher octane rating for its immediate power might matter), actually lowers the mean mpg quite a bit, since it has much lower energy density.
that, and the fact that we're literally burning food, are some of my issues with ethanol.
I drive a car that knocks if I put less than 91 octane in, but if that octane is obtained from ethanol, it reduces the mpg by 25% (for 10% ethanol, higher if the ethanol percentage is raised). that's a problem. sure, I too want to get off of hydrocarbons that produce co2 for energy, but making that energy less efficient is not the way to do it, especially when we're burning our food and destroying the soil to achieve that.
> and so less efficient engines, and fewer mpg
ethanol, while providing a higher octane rating (which if you drive a car that requires a higher octane rating for its immediate power might matter), actually lowers the mean mpg quite a bit, since it has much lower energy density.
that, and the fact that we're literally burning food, are some of my issues with ethanol.
I drive a car that knocks if I put less than 91 octane in, but if that octane is obtained from ethanol, it reduces the mpg by 25% (for 10% ethanol, higher if the ethanol percentage is raised). that's a problem. sure, I too want to get off of hydrocarbons that produce co2 for energy, but making that energy less efficient is not the way to do it, especially when we're burning our food and destroying the soil to achieve that.