[Bored chemist]

so you tell me why they are not using it

Because  it isn't "green".

During the mid 70s the green people wanted cleaner fuel so to satisfy their needs the industry came up with a solution to make lower grade petrol

Lower grade petrol is not a greener fuel.
So that's clearly tosh.

The oil and fuel industry wouldn't come out and say we are selling E fuel why because it has water in it not a good sales pitch.

They aren't putting water in it.
You are saying that by adding 5% of relatively expensive ethanol, you can get away with adding 0.1% of water.
That's absurd. It would be cheaper to not bother.

See what happens when a process is rushed cheap petrol but a problem water in it.

No, water is removed at the initial distillation step.
You keep ignoring that and it's not making you look clever.
If water gets in after the fuel leaves the refinery, that doesn't help the oil company make a profit.

How convenient add ethanol you get two birds with the one stone higher octane and a way around the problem of water in the fuel.

Ethanol is much more expensive than petrol.
Why would they pay to do the job badly?

Also IPA is a good anti knock agent.

It's Motor Octane Number (99) is higher than that for ethanol (90).
If they wanted an anti knock agent that was also cleaner burning and helped water dissolve in petrol they would use IPA which is cheaper than ethanol.

How do they know which fuel has the water in it well I think the industry will keep pretty good tabs on what is in their tanks.

There's very little water in the tanks- as explained many times.

The lower grade fuel is drained from the bottom of the unfinished higher grade fuel the higher grade fuel

That's not how it works. The chemical makeup of higher octane fuel is a bit different- more toluene and trimethylpentane.

You don't get that by drawing it from a different level in the tank.

that is why the higher grade fuel is more expensive

No
It's because the aromatics and oxygenates etc and the isomerisation process are expensive.
So is alcohol.
You need to realise this; alcohol is more expensive than gasoline.

All I can do now is take your hand and go for a brisk walk around the oil refinery what are you doing tomorrow.

Looking at a risk assessment for a chemical works.

Yes, I remember and the point is that the ethanol main purpose is to raise the octane level

IPA would be cheaper and better.

and move the water

IPA would be cheaper and better

green bit is a bonus sales pitch for the green ones.

Well, we have some sort of progress here, you have accepted that it's more green- you are saying the motivation is advertising- which makes little sense because all the companies are using it.

(Buy our E10 petrol! it's more green than our competitors" is a sales  pitch. "Buy our petrol! it's exactly as green as our competitors E 10 petrol" isn't a sales pitch.)

OK so, give that IPA is better at solubilising water, better as an anti knock, and cheaper,
why don't you think they are using it?

Also, if 5% is enough to act as an anti knock (and it is- or E5 petrol wouldn't work, what's the motivation for E10?

My view is that the government mandated it in order to meet CO2 emissions agreements, and changed duty rates to effectively force people to buy it and car makers to change engine designs.

You think it's because oil companies are too stupid to use IPA.

Ok, you say IPA is cheaper and better so you tell me why they are not using it.

I already told you plenty of times.
It's the thing you got wrong in your opening post.
It's the green thing.
Using ethanol has a lower carbon footprint.
Even if you think the whole green movement is hogwash, the fact  remains that they are doing it to reduce CO2 emissions- the "it's advertising" bit is nonsense, but even if it was true, it would only  be a change in the motivation for reducing the carbon footprint. The point of the alcohol is still to reduce overall CO2 emissions.
 But the choice between IPA and ethanol is still pretty clear.
Unless you are concerned about carbon footprint, you use IPA.

They actually use ethanol.
And that shows that you are (still) wrong.

[Just thinking (OP)]

so you tell me why they are not using it

Because  it isn't "green".

During the mid 70s the green people wanted cleaner fuel so to satisfy their needs the industry came up with a solution to make lower grade petrol

Lower grade petrol is not a greener fuel.
So that's clearly tosh.

The oil and fuel industry wouldn't come out and say we are selling E fuel why because it has water in it not a good sales pitch.

They aren't putting water in it.
You are saying that by adding 5% of relatively expensive ethanol, you can get away with adding 0.1% of water.
That's absurd. It would be cheaper to not bother.

See what happens when a process is rushed cheap petrol but a problem water in it.

No, water is removed at the initial distillation step.
You keep ignoring that and it's not making you look clever.
If water gets in after the fuel leaves the refinery, that doesn't help the oil company make a profit.

How convenient add ethanol you get two birds with the one stone higher octane and a way around the problem of water in the fuel.

Ethanol is much more expensive than petrol.
Why would they pay to do the job badly?

Also IPA is a good anti knock agent.

It's Motor Octane Number (99) is higher than that for ethanol (90).
If they wanted an anti knock agent that was also cleaner burning and helped water dissolve in petrol they would use IPA which is cheaper than ethanol.

How do they know which fuel has the water in it well I think the industry will keep pretty good tabs on what is in their tanks.

There's very little water in the tanks- as explained many times.

The lower grade fuel is drained from the bottom of the unfinished higher grade fuel the higher grade fuel

That's not how it works. The chemical makeup of higher octane fuel is a bit different- more toluene and trimethylpentane.

You don't get that by drawing it from a different level in the tank.

that is why the higher grade fuel is more expensive

No
It's because the aromatics and oxygenates etc and the isomerisation process are expensive.
So is alcohol.
You need to realise this; alcohol is more expensive than gasoline.

All I can do now is take your hand and go for a brisk walk around the oil refinery what are you doing tomorrow.

Looking at a risk assessment for a chemical works.

Yes, I remember and the point is that the ethanol main purpose is to raise the octane level

IPA would be cheaper and better.

and move the water

IPA would be cheaper and better

green bit is a bonus sales pitch for the green ones.

Well, we have some sort of progress here, you have accepted that it's more green- you are saying the motivation is advertising- which makes little sense because all the companies are using it.

(Buy our E10 petrol! it's more green than our competitors" is a sales  pitch. "Buy our petrol! it's exactly as green as our competitors E 10 petrol" isn't a sales pitch.)

OK so, give that IPA is better at solubilising water, better as an anti knock, and cheaper,
why don't you think they are using it?

Also, if 5% is enough to act as an anti knock (and it is- or E5 petrol wouldn't work, what's the motivation for E10?

My view is that the government mandated it in order to meet CO2 emissions agreements, and changed duty rates to effectively force people to buy it and car makers to change engine designs.

You think it's because oil companies are too stupid to use IPA.

Ok, you say IPA is cheaper and better so you tell me why they are not using it.

I already told you plenty of times.
It's the thing you got wrong in your opening post.
It's the green thing.
Using ethanol has a lower carbon footprint.
Even if you think the whole green movement is hogwash, the fact  remains that they are doing it to reduce CO2 emissions- the "it's advertising" bit is nonsense, but even if it was true, it would only  be a change in the motivation for reducing the carbon footprint. The point of the alcohol is still to reduce overall CO2 emissions.
 But the choice between IPA and ethanol is still pretty clear.
Unless you are concerned about carbon footprint, you use IPA.

They actually use ethanol.
And that shows that you are (still) wrong.

The problem just get worse I never said they put water in petrol I have stated that not all the water is removed. And we have already discussed how the government subsidises the cost of E10 to keep the greens happy and win elections. You really must remember what has already been discussed memory is a big part of learning try and stay on the channel if you can. And you have quoted that there is very little water in the tanks so we agree there is water in the tanks. let's try not to go around in circles and stay focused on the big picture.

[evan_au]

This will mean that ethanol is more expensive to run yet it sells at a far cheaper price.

The sale price is what the petrol station advertises (per litre).
The running costs are borne by the car owner (how many litres they need for a given trip).
The two are not contradictory, but they do tend to cancel out for both the car owner and petrol station operator...

[Just thinking (OP)]

The sale price is what the petrol station advertises (per litre).
The running costs are borne by the car owner (how many litres they need for a given trip).
The two are not contradictory, but they do almost cancel out for both the car owner and petrol station operator...

I get about 5% less mileage from E10 but it costs at the moment 15% less so I should be around 10% better off. All my driving is in the country and open roads so that may make a slight difference. LPG is very bad in the city I don't know how taxis get on.

[Bored chemist]

I have stated that not all the water is removed.

Yes, you have.
And that's pretty dim because the pre-treatment and  distillation will remove essentially all the water.

But the other thing you said was

The oil and fuel industry wouldn't come out and say we are selling E fuel why because it has water in it

you would only have to say that if it had water in it.
And if you don't add water, why would it have water in it?

The implication is that you did add water - by accident or design.
If not you, who else?

And we have already discussed how the government subsidises the cost of E10 to keep the greens happy and win elections.

Yes; they do that by using ethanol to reduce the  carbon footprint.
Because that's what people vote for- regardless of whether that's actually a good thing.
So the purpose of the ethanol is to reduce the CO2 emissions (because that wins votes).

Why are you so slow catching on to this?

You really must remember what has already been discussed memory

I had already made those points about the addition of water and the fact that the motivation for reducing the CO2 production isn't important.
The ethanol reduces it.
IPA would achieve the other goals, but not CO2 reduction; so it's clear that the use of ethanol is because they want to reduce CO2 (to win votes)
I pointed all this out before.

It's a pity you didn't stay on channel and remember that.

[Petrochemicals]

No, for the same reason that solar is a non starter, because the land is too valuable to use producing fuel. If we could grow our fuel we could make methanol or wood alcohol, but grain and the straw that comes with it are too valuable. As an example, you can make fuel from animal slurry, but farmers value it too highly to sell for the price people will pay.

[Just thinking (OP)]

I have stated that not all the water is removed.

Yes, you have.
And that's pretty dim because the pre-treatment and  distillation will remove essentially all the water.

But the other thing you said was

The oil and fuel industry wouldn't come out and say we are selling E fuel why because it has water in it

you would only have to say that if it had water in it.
And if you don't add water, why would it have water in it?

The implication is that you did add water - by accident or design.
If not you, who else?

And we have already discussed how the government subsidises the cost of E10 to keep the greens happy and win elections.

Yes; they do that by using ethanol to reduce the  carbon footprint.
Because that's what people vote for- regardless of whether that's actually a good thing.
So the purpose of the ethanol is to reduce the CO2 emissions (because that wins votes).

Why are you so slow catching on to this?

You really must remember what has already been discussed memory

I had already made those points about the addition of water and the fact that the motivation for reducing the CO2 production isn't important.
The ethanol reduces it.
IPA would achieve the other goals, but not CO2 reduction; so it's clear that the use of ethanol is because they want to reduce CO2 (to win votes)
I pointed all this out before.

It's a pity you didn't stay on channel and remember that.

I can't help it if you misinterpret what I have said If the public was to ask the government or the oil industry why are you selling E10 fuel they will reply it is greener and they will not mention the fact about there being water in the fuel that is water that is already in the fuel you make a very week argument by suggesting that I have said they put water in the fuel when I have clearly stated from the start that the water is not fully removed. I can't fall into a trap that I can see from a mile away. I can see that you like to play mind games but you will be better of saving that type of strategy for the children.

[Just thinking (OP)]

No, for the same reason that solar is a non starter, because the land is too valuable to use producing fuel. If we could grow our fuel we could make methanol or wood alcohol, but grain and the straw that comes with it are too valuable. As an example, you can make fuel from animal slurry, but farmers value it too highly to sell for the price people will pay.

You make a good point there is a lot going on to get the energy to the market and it almost all of the time takes up valuable land.

[alancalverd]

Apolgies for introducing a fact, but ethanol is denser than gasoline, and water is much denser. So any ethanol-water mix will settle at the bottom of the tank. The only question is whether ethanol has a greater affinity for gasoline or water, and I suspect the latter.

The affinity between water and gasoline is negligible. We sometimes have to refuel aircraft in the rain and if you get a really heavy cloudburst whilst the fuel cap is open, common sense demands that you wait about 30 minutes for the water to settle then drain off the bottom of the tank.   

[Just thinking (OP)]

Apolgies for introducing a fact, but ethanol is denser than gasoline, and water is much denser. So any ethanol-water mix will settle at the bottom of the tank.

But the ethanol will support the little bit of water and assist in keeping it in the petrol for longer before it settles and with the car in motion, the mix will start again anyway if the ethanol is denser than the fuel then what happens when the car is sitting overnight 10% ethanol will be at the bottom of the tank and the car will have to ingest only ethanol will the car run on straight ethanol?

[alancalverd]

As I said, it's all a question of relative affinities. Whilst you may be able to dissolve ethanol in gasoline, I'd expect that adding water would strip it out. Fortunately virgin gasoline contains no water so it  may be able to dissolve  a fair bit of ethanol.

Face it, sodium chloride is a lot denser than water, but it doesn't all crystallise at the bottom of the ocean. At low concentrations, affinity is more important than density.

[Just thinking (OP)]

As I said, it's all a question of relative affinities. Whilst you may be able to dissolve ethanol in gasoline, I'd expect that adding water would strip it out.

I am pretty sure that ethanol has a saturation capability of 5% so that would be 250ml of water in 5 litres of ethanol. That is at a volume of 50 litres of E10 in total.

[Bored chemist]

No, for the same reason that solar is a non starter, because the land is too valuable to use producing fuel. If we could grow our fuel we could make methanol or wood alcohol, but grain and the straw that comes with it are too valuable. As an example, you can make fuel from animal slurry, but farmers value it too highly to sell for the price people will pay.

That would make the use of (bio) ethanol a bad idea.
But it wouldn't change the fact that they use it to reduce CO2 emissions.

I can't fall into a trap that I can see from a mile away. I can see that you like to play mind games but you will be better of saving that type of strategy for the children.

Nice attempt at distraction buy pretending that what you wrote wasn't what you meant.
But it's not going to work against me, is it?

You forgot to answer the points about IPA being better anti knock  and giving better solubilisation of water.

[Bored chemist]

I am pretty sure...

You are always sure, but often wrong.

ethanol has a saturation capability of 5% so that would be 250ml of water in 5 litres of ethanol.

That is nonsense.
the amount of water that will dissolve doesn't just depend on the amount of alcohol present. It depends on the concentration of alcohol in the petrol. (and on temperature)

You tried to say that I was wrong about this earlier when you made the redundant observation that alcohol and water will mix in all proportions.


In reality, as a I said,  the solubility of water in gasohol can be as little as 0.1%
I think the data is in the wiki page you cited; it's certainly there somewhere.

[Bored chemist]

Face it, sodium chloride is a lot denser than water

I think you may be onto a lost cause there Alan.
He doesn't even face it when I show him a picture of damp  alcohol, settled out of white spirit.
He assumes that magic makes them mix, and stay mixed, even if the tank sits overnight (as they generally do).

He's just not in the mood for reality.

[Bored chemist]

I'd expect that adding water would strip it out.

It does.
And Just Thinking knows it, because I told him earlier.
But he wont listen to mere facts.

Incidentally, if, for some reason, you wish to remove the ethanol from petrol, it's easy.
You just add water.
The alcohol dissolves in it and settles out.

We have another Dave Lev or Jolly here.

[alancalverd]

I am pretty sure that ethanol has a saturation capability of 5% so that would be 250ml of water in 5 litres of ethanol.

Funny, that. I can buy 50% water in ethanol (vodka) and dissolve aromatics in the alcohol (sloe colors and flavors) and carbohydrates (sugar) in the water. Delicious, and it doesn't striate at all.

[Bored chemist]

Have you tried absinthe or pastis?
They do demonstrate that, if you aren't careful, the hydrocarbons etc won't mix with the alcohol if it contains too much water.
The OP seems not to grasp this.

[alancalverd]

Hence

Shaken, not stirred.

Bonehead.....James Bonehead

Is that a Glock 43 with auxiliary laser, or do you need medical attention?

Hey, anyone can write this stuff!

[Bored chemist]

Hey, anyone can write this stuff!

And nobody should.