Ethanol Question

JohnV8r · Post by **JohnV8r** » Jul 7th, '06, 13:49

Hey everybody,

I'm trying to get up to speed on the ethanol problem and have a couple of questions based on some of the threads I've read:

1. Is there a way to determine whether ethanol blends are being used in my area (Northern CA)? I have not heard that ethanol is being used here in CA like it typically is in the Midwest. In fact, I vaguely remember reading some years ago that CA's more strict pollution control requirements precluded the use of ethanol in CA.

Post Script: I've now found out that CA switched from MTBE to Ethanol in 04. Here is the body of the information I found:

"As of January 1, 2004, California completed a transition from methyl tertiary butyl-ether (MTBE) to ethanol as a gasoline oxygenate additive. With most gasoline sold in the state presently containing 5.7 percent ethanol, California is now the largest ethanol fuel market in the United States. About one billion gallons of ethanol are expected to be used in the state's gasoline supply in 2004. "

2. Am I correctly reading the previous posts that the problem is in the way the ethanol is interacting with the fiberglass gas tank? Is it somehow leaching fiberglass resin out of the tank? Or is this problem related to something else with the ethanol itself?

Capt Patrick, is there any way we could pin information on the ethanol problem to the top of the board?

As always, thanks in advance.

JohnV8r

Rawleigh · Post by **Rawleigh** » Jul 7th, '06, 15:32

John: There are actually two problems apparently: the first is the leachant from the fiberglass in the tank and the second is the interaction between the ethanol and the MBTE additives which can cause a sludge. At least that is how I understand it. Rawleigh

JohnV8r · Post by **JohnV8r** » Jul 7th, '06, 15:46

California eliminated the use of MTBE in January 2004. In place of the outlawed MTBE, California elected to begin using a 5.7% blend of oxygenated ethanol.

So my question then becomes is the problem based on the ethanol alone or the combination of ethanol AND MTBE when they are combined?

I don't know whether to run Shambala or sit her until I can get the tank replaced. I haven't really noticed any big performance issues, but I don't want to begin to have them 70 miles from shore while I'm fishing for albacore.

Does the ethanol issue also impact diesel? Is this the kind of problem where I'm going to have to replace the tank either way?

In Memory Walter K · Post by **In Memory Walter K** » Jul 7th, '06, 16:15

John-Most suffering from this problem have been dealing with 10% Ethanol. Although the combination with mbte is not recommended, it's the Ethanol/fiberglass tank relationship that is the bad boy. As of this moment, it has not found it's way to diesel. Walter

JohnV8r · Post by **JohnV8r** » Jul 7th, '06, 16:33

Thanks

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Jul 7th, '06, 16:42

CA was one of the first states to outlaw MBTE and the refiners added ethanol to the fuel to replace it. What is ironic is that at their own request, CA is no longer required to use ethanol in their fuel by the Feds (EPA) in order to meet performance and emmissions standards. The studies in CA showed that the pollutants caused by the ethanol fuels were no better than,and possibly wore than the MBTE. This is a pretty recent development, (Early spring '06). The same situation will apply to the rest of the country as of this fall. That doesn't mean the the oil companies can't use ethanol in CA, just that they are now allowed to use other things to meet emmissions and performance specs if they choose.
Bottom line...the fuel you get in CA may or may not have ethanol in it. If it does, it should be posted at the pump.
The fuel you have been getting over the past several years (since around 1991 in fact) in CA definately did have ethanol in it.

It is just my guess, but I think If you have been running trouble free with your boat in CA for the last couple of years, you probably do not have a thing to worry about. If you were going to have ethanol-related troubles they would have already begun.

Mixing the ethanol fuel with other blends is not recommended. There are ancedotal stories out there of the ethanol and the other additives acting badly in the presence of one another and causing problems. If you have to switch back and forth, run the tank nearly empty before topping with the other blend.

In another post on this board I put in a couple of links to some informative articles regarding the formation of intake deposits and valve deposits and ethanol fuel. Look for them in a thread titled "Useful information of Black Goo."
Many owners have reported serious problems with the formation of a black deposit on their intake parts, including valves. This stuff is nasty and can cause serious damage. Until I recently found those articles it was generally attributed to the fiberglass tank breaking down in the presence of ethanol, but no one seemed to really be able to pin it down to the tanks for certain. After finding and reading these articles I personally have my doubts that it is all due to the fiberglass resins, and in some cases might be due to ethanol blended gas that has improper amounts of detergent in the gas. That is just my opinion, though. Read the articles, check the posts here and elsewhere, and decide for yourself what you think. If I am right, then changing to a metal tank (stainless or aluminum) will not solve the problem.
In addition both stainless steel and aluminum tanks present certain other issues of their own. Aluminum can become etched in the presence of high concentrations of ethanol, such as one might experience with a phase separation. Aluminum is also more susceptible to galvanic corrosion, since the ethanol blended fuel is conductive of electricity, so brass fittings in aluminum tanks are a bad idea.
Stainless steel is not accepted by the Coast Guard for charter boats, but you can have one in a boat for personal use.

The problem with compatibility of the resins in the fiberglass tanks is NOT universal. Some tanks don't seem to hold up. Others don't seem to have a problem. All fiberglass is definately not effected. In ground storage tanks for service stations dating back to the late 60's have been tested and found to be compatible for use with E-10.
The custom motorcycle crowd has noticed that their fiberglass tanks do not hold up, but I see no mention of the black goo in their postings.
No one in our little group here has yet been able to figure out how to tell the "good" tanks from the "bad."

Lastly get yourself up to speed on the water and phase separation issues. When water gets into ethanol blended gas it stays in the gas, not settling to the bottom until enough collects. Then it all comes out of the gas at once, taking up to 70% of the ethanol with it. When this water is drawn off, the remaining gas is below octane spec and can cause detonation problems that can riun your engine. You can't just drain off the water and go anymore.
Wose is that you may be getting water-corrupted gas from your supplier who may either have a lot of water in solution in the gas in his storage tanks, or maybe even had a phase separation, drained of the water, but didn't realize the gas that was left was out of spec when he sold it to you.

JohnV8r · Post by **JohnV8r** » Jul 7th, '06, 17:10

Wow. Peter, thanks for the very informative post.

I have checked the California Government Emerging Energies website and have found nothing that would contradict the mandate of no more than 5.7% ethanol in blended gas in CA. However to make sure I have the most current information on ethanol blends, I have contacted California Energy Commission's Tom McDonald for verification of the current limits on ethanol use in CA. His phone number is 916-654-4120 for any of you interested in contacting him directly. He is out of his office today, but I left a voicemail. I will post the information I get from him.

I'm curious to know if there are any particular symptoms to the valve intake/carburetion issues that are created by ethanol. I have had a unique amount of white smoke at start up out of my starboard engine in the last six months. However, it seems it disipates once I "goose" the throttles a couple of times after the engines are warmed up to about 140 degrees. Someone at the marina said, "Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. It's probably just some carbon build up on your valves." Another guy told me my carburetor might be running a little rich.

I ran Shambala to Point Reyes two weeks ago to fish for salmon. That was two hours up at 2850 rpms, trolling for about 5 hours at idle, and two hours back at 2850 rpms. She ran so well I actually wondered why I was so hell bent to repower this winter.

This whole ethanol thing makes me a little nervous though. I don't want to be 70 miles offshore and have a problem.

Thanks again.

JohnV8r

JohnV8r · Post by **JohnV8r** » Jul 7th, '06, 18:12

I got a call back from Tom McDonald. He was incredibly helpful.

Here's the scoop on California and ethanol. Refiners in California can at their discretion use up to a 10% ethanol blend. However, California refiners are generally only using 5.7-6.0% ethanol blend because of emissions standards. It is very difficult for refiners to meet CA emissions standards as the amount of ethanol increases.

The next step up for refiners from the 5.7-6.0% blend would be a 7.7% blend. The step up after 7.7% would be 10%.

Tom did indicate that phase separation is not impacted significantly by increasing the amount of ethanol that is blended in from 5.7 to 10%. However, he did say that an increase from 5.7% to 10% could impact the interaction between the ethanol and fiberglass resins.

One other thing I found incredibly interesting that Tom McDonald said was that ethanol does not have the negative impact environmentally that petroleum products do. He pointed out that a tanker carrying 100% ethanol broke up off the East Coast last year and hardly made the news because the ethanol dissapated immediately and cause zero environmental impact.

If a 100% ethanol fuel could ever be developed, it just might be the perfect marine fuel...from an environmental standpoint.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Jul 7th, '06, 20:15

Yep. Pure alcohol is a clean fuel in a lot of regards. The problem is that our engines, vehicles, and our retail distribution system are not set up to handle it...at least not yet. And then there is the question about burning the world's food supply.....Hmmmm

Since you seem interested here is some stuff about Cali not required to use Eth anymore:

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/200 ... /a1614.htm

And here is some stuff about fiberglass storage tanks and ethanol:

http://www.fiberglasstankandpipe.com/ethanol.htm

and here is some stuff on ethanol pollution concerns:

http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=33464

It is a confusing issue driven mostly by politics, lobby money, and not what is actually a carefully considered, well studied plan.

I am for alternative fuels. I think that they should be made available. I just don't think that they should be rammed down our throat in the name of political correctness. I'd love to see an ethanol pump at my service station, right next to the one dispensing gasoline compatible with my older vehicle.
Peter

Rawleigh · Post by **Rawleigh** » Jul 8th, '06, 16:05

John: I think excess fuel causes dark smoke. white = antifreeze or oil (oil is usually has a little blue in it). Rawleigh

JohnV8r · Post by **JohnV8r** » Jul 8th, '06, 23:33

Rawleigh,

There's definitely no blue to it. So assuming it is antifreeze, where is the likely location that antifreeze is entering the system?

I'll try to shoot some pictures of it next time I'm down at the boat.

Thanks in advance.

JohnV8r

mike ohlstein · Post by **mike ohlstein** » Jul 9th, '06, 08:04

I was talking to a local marina owner yesterday, who told me that the 600 gallons of water that he usually carried in his 5000 gallon gas tank had vanished. That means that he had sold the water for $4.00 per gallon.

I'm guessing that there isn't a drop of water left in any gas storage tank in e-states.

So.......what's to stop gas stations and other resellers from adding a few hundred gallons of water to the tank with every delivery? Is there a way to check the water content of the fuel, and is anyone checking?

Mike........the suspicious.

Rawleigh · Post by **Rawleigh** » Jul 9th, '06, 08:50

John: Check your spark plugs to see if any are washed clean. If they are all uniform there can't be much getting in, unless it is getting in one of the manifolds. Have you noticed any change in coolant level or any carbon in the cooling system? This is probably a question you ought to post for Bruce as I am just a hack. Rawleigh

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Jul 10th, '06, 12:48

I was under the impression White could be water or antifreeze. Maybe from engine or perhaps not enough water running thru the dumps and making steam.

If "detergent blending" is the issue why are we not seeing this problem in our cars to the same degree as our boats. I do have to say ethanol did cause my Trucks injectors to clog up pretty badly, but no goo.

NY has been using ethanol in the "Winter Blend" for several years, up to 10%. I have taken the Winter blend for several years for some Late Season Bass trips and other then a bit of hard starting I did not have a problem. But I was adding the 10% mix to my pretty much full tank so the up to 10% was diluted considerably. It was only when I used took 30-40 gallons on an empty tank, I had an immedite problem. My thinking, lower percentages as in CA may not cause a problem.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Jul 10th, '06, 13:13

That is a good question about the detergent blending...and here is another:

If ethanol reacts badly with fiberglass tanks and causing troubles in boats, then why are we not seeing that in our cars too? After all most service stations are using fiberglass underground storage tanks.

MarkS · Post by **MarkS** » Jul 10th, '06, 13:34

Peter,
My guess is we are seeing it. But nobody gives a crap about their 72 ford picup truck, "Oh its just got a jillion miles on it". I spend much time in the Dakotas where the evil elixer is stirred in boiling cauldrons by ugly harry women in black. They say it is beating their farm equipment and older vehicles to an early demise. Wait and see, the fun is just starting with this sh!t.
Mark

mike ohlstein · Post by **mike ohlstein** » Jul 10th, '06, 14:03

Peter wrote:That is a good question about the detergent blending...and here is another:

If ethanol reacts badly with fiberglass tanks and causing troubles in boats, then why are we not seeing that in our cars too? After all most service stations are using fiberglass underground storage tanks.

Most stations in the northeast have tanks that are less than 30 years old. In fact, most stations here in New York are less than 10 years old, and are probably made with resin that isn't affected by ethanol.

MarkS · Post by **MarkS** » Jul 10th, '06, 15:30

In Wisconsin it is state law that undergorund tanks at gas stations be replaced every 10 years. This makes the oldest ones 1996 vintage, and we have pimping(pumping) corn for nearly that long!
Mark

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Jul 10th, '06, 17:14

Here is a link to the Fibergalss tank and Pipe Insitute. They deal mostly with the use of fibergalss tanks and pipes in the automotive fuel distribution industry. i.e. gas stations. They discuss using fiberglass tanks as old as the '60's. My point is that as early as the 60's there were resins and techniques in use that were and are compatible with the Eth. I doubt that in the 60's anyone was expecting ethanol to be in the fuel almost 40 years later, but nevertheless, the resins they used have been tested and found to be compatible with E-10.

http://www.fiberglasstankandpipe.com/ethanol.htm

The pertinant part is below: (ust means underground storage tanks.)

"Thus in 1978, when gasohol was first introduced, there were some 100,000 fiberglass USTs in conventional gasoline service before the UL Listing process included gasohol in their compatibility testing protocol."

"It was determined that the fiberglass components used in pre-1981 tanks and pre-1988 piping were essentially the same as those subjected to UL compatibility testing and there was no technical reason to believe that the older USTs were not gasohol compatible."

" Later in 1992, Owens Corning, the manufacturer of the oldest fiberglass tanks, advised certain major oil companies that tanks were reaching 30-years of age and the warranties were expiring. As a result, the affected companies conducted surveys of these older tanks, including tanks in alcohol service (e. g., Midwest) and confirmed that the tanks were satisfactory for continued service. "

Conclusion: that at least some older fiberglass tanks are OK. Maybe even some of the tanks in our boats. I'd love to know what makes the difference.

This entire discussion has brought out the fact that there are at least two different types of tanks in use in Bertrams. Some are raw glass on the inside, the others have a finished interior surface that looks like gel-coat. I don't know why that is the case, or if that makes any difference, but at the minimum one can draw a conclusion that all Bretram tanks are not created equal.

As for the buildup of deposits in autos,I think one reason they are not as quick to build up in automobile use is because very few people run their auto engine at 75% to 85 % power for prolonged times while driving, as we do in our boats. It seems logical that we just put more fuel/air mixture through the motor in an hour than the average driver, and so there is more stuff to make the deposits, wether that stuff is from the resins or the detergent, or both.

If normal automobiles end up getting killed by the black goo, and/or the petroleum industry starts to have problems with thousands of storage tanks going soft or leaking, then the national ethanol experiment will be over. If they do not experience these problems then how do we learn from them and adapt it to our boats?

I can afford to wait and see what happens and learn. If I had to have my boat on the water tomorrow, I would have already changed out the tank as a precaution. I don't advocate anyone taking chances with their motors or safety. Each individual must decide for themselves what level of comfort they have regarding the decision to change out the their tank now, or to run what they have got, or to wait and see if we can learn what is at the bottom of all the troubles.
Personally I'd hate to change out my tank, then find out that I hadn't solved the problem. That the new tank was going to need to be replaced every 5 or 10 years, and that my old tank would have been just fine.
Peter

bertram31.com

Ethanol Question

Ethanol Question

Who is online