Internal combustion engines need liquid fuel.
Such engines can be engineering to run any blend of gasoline (derived from petroleum) with ethanol and other liquid fuels (methanol, ...).
Petroleum industry has a decades long practice of ensuring that market alternatives are suppressed.
To wit the triumph of tetra ethyl lead instead of ethanol.
Tetra ethly is a nasty synthetic, extremely toxic, and potent. Horrific toxin. Used in gasoline to boost octane, with perhaps 4 grams per gallon, way under 1% the fuel volume. Patented by General Motors.
Ethanol is a naturally occurring substance, infinitely less toxic, perhaps the most environmentally benign source of rising fuel octane. Requires perhaps 10-15% or more of the fuel volume, thereby displacing a portion of market share. Not patent protected.
1970 U.S. Clean Air Automobile Competition, included a 4 door hardtop Chevrolet Chevelle with a super-bird type nosecone, from Tufts University. But it does NOT include the use of ethanol motor vehicle fuel.
The U.S. E.P.A. bans the retail marketing of mid range (E-20 through E-70), bans the retail posting of such fuels octane.
The authorities allow fuel marketed as "E-85" - a name clearly designating 85% ethanol fuel. Yet in the U.S. retail fuel sold as "E-85" are allowed to vary all the way as low as a mere 51% ethanol, and a maximum of 83%. This is by no accident, as it is designed to thwart people from adjusting their carbonated automobiles , by failing to devise fuel standards that set fixed standards, as the octane of the gasoline component.
"E-85" is not only simply mislabeled E-51-83, it has no fixed standard for the gasoline components octane. As we found out when motor vehicle fuel went from 0% to "up to" 10% ethanol, the posted octane remained the same. As adding ethanol would increase the fuel octane, the commodities merchants decreed to "value capture" that potential octane boost, by substituting a lower base grade of gasoline. Otherwise, 87, 89, and 93 would have become say 90, 92, 95.
To improve the octane of gasoline, without using either lead or ethanol, the petroleum refining must use higher amounts of petroleum component "aromatics" as toluene, (paint remover), which are all alas highly toxic, and have well known public health issues.
Ethanol is perhaps the safest cleanest source of fuel octane, superior to petroleum aromatics, nor lead.
For decades, farmers in the U.S. were paid to not grow, as a price support by discouraging excessive food crop production.
Agriculture for producing ethanol could fill that gap, providing an additional market beyond food.
Brazil by about 1975 adopts an ethanol fuel standard, with new automobiles designed for higher ethanol content fuel, but later squandered with requiring such to be able to run on low and no ethanol content fuels (which are lower in compression ratio hence surrendering efficiency).
U.S. drags its heels. Fails requiring ethanol friendly parts in automotive fuel systems. U.S. President Jimmy Carter publicizes the idea of using "gasohol".
With U.S. agricultural ethanol production capacity growing, the U.S. political system worked for the greed of the commodities brokerages, with sanctioning ethanol only together with reducing gasoline base grades. We should have seen some regulatory proposals, e.g. E-40 with 98 aki octane, and 104 aki octane E-60. Instead we got "up to 10%" ethanol near universally, and nothing else except "E-85" - The name clearly designates 85% ethanol, as it does around the world. But not in the U.S. There, fuel labeled as "E-85" are allowed to actually vary in ethanol content to as little as only 51% ethanol (messing up fuel-air inlets designed for fixed grade fuels), discouraging retrofitting. And there is no fixed standard for the fuel's gasoline component. And without fixed standards on the ethanol content nor gasoline grade, U.S. "E-85" or more accurately called "flex fuel" meaning flexible recipe fuel, is a charade to look good while blocking progress.
Instead of E-51/83 flexible recipe crap-shoot, lets have several mid range higher ethanol content motor vehicles fuels
Since we would want to reduce the use of petroleum "aromatics" - as benzene, toluene and xylene - owing to their toxicities, we would see the emergence of a new range of higher ethanol content fuels. The implied 85% of E-85 is too ambitious from supply issues/diminishing return, and should be at least dropped to E-70 (the "E-85" winter season grade). So instead of 10 or 15% ethanol, up to 30% ethanol, with a fixed standard for the gasoline formulation, with considerably higher octane than today's max of 93 aki.
Maybe E-30 posted 97aki, and E-45 104 aki. These motor vehicle fuels would be priced as premium, $2.80 @ gallon, a fraction of the pricing for "race" fuels at $10-$15 @ gallon, with lead and or higher amounts of benzene/toluene/xylene "aromatics".
One would suppose there would have been considerably greater interest in higher ethanol content/higher posted fixed guaranteed octane for recent as well as older automobiles.
Producing anything as complex as automobiles requires considerable energy as well as carbon expenditure. So note the lack of any interest in the idea of retrofits, especially as combined with the concurrent incentivizing automobile scrap page as with the horribly misguided Cash for [supposed] Clunkers. And who devised such evil regulations mandating that such cars MUST be destroyed, including the engine parts, rather than any artful adaptive re-use.
With all the energy and carbon produced with the production of things, then how about retrofit versus wasteful scrap-page, amplified for all new things with considerably higher production costs- namely with *pure* EVs with 200+ mile massive battery packs (and lacking an on board gasoline-ethanol internal combustion engine for generating electricity).
The 2011 U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard under the administration of Barack Obama and his Vice President Joseph Biden, was devised to restrict markets, with the situation we have now to restrict ethanol's market share at 10% or 15%, while covering for regulatory schemes devised to block the relatively lower cost E-30/E-50 etc 97+ aki fuels, with E-51/83 "flex[ible recipes] fuels,along with proposals for E-30 fuels with the same 93 aki octane of today's E-10 fuels- so they are clearly looking to lower the standards for the base gasoline used.
So where is any coalition of automobile enthusiasts and environments, public health related organizations, regarding motor vehicle fuel standards?
Instead we got these orchestrated charades for status quo protection and deflection: opposed to constructing any sort of modern underground West Side Highway, petro-deflection (exhaust concentrations at the portals would cry out for substituting cleaner burning renewable fuels), as well as for the planned greasing of the New York Stock Exchange, by effectively rescinding its 0.1% transaction (sales) tax by phasing in a full refund of the tax revenues by December 1981, just in time for the impending computerization of NYSE trading about 1983. The $2.3 billion Westway construction funds would be a small fraction of the funds refunded to trading firms of the minuscule 0.1% rate NYSE transactions sales tax, phased in 1978-81, with the computerization of NYSE trading by about 1983.
The automobile hobbyists are directed to complain about ethanol without daring to challenge the mis-regulations thwarting its greater market share.
People in general are directed to chant slogans, like "Just Stop Oil" while offering zero constructive input. With NO oil (meaning petroleum) we would loose a way too invaluable source of energy. Petroleum is an inexpensive and widely available resource. And its required for automobiles to operate in colder climates, as E-85 becomes E-70 seasonally. So with the cost effectiveness of all these substances making E-30/E-40 considerably more economically feasible than E-60, E-70 with the availability of petroleum, where are the activist/advocate organizations in promoting a realistic proposed scheduling of such fuels, as higher volume E30/97aki, and a lower volume E40 and/or E50 with even higher octane.
People in general are directed to remain focused upon posturing/sloganeering, as the jesuitical theatrics to propagandize and deflect for the establishment elities.
As can be expected with sloganeering masking status quo preservation, a political agenda that goes under the name "Green New Deal" yet does NOTHING about the market suppression of ethanol fuel masquarading more more of the same
