Ethanol Causing Engine and Tank Problems

[Stu Fyfe]

Good article in the Cape Cod Times on ethanol and problems with it gumming up marine engines and destroying gas tanks.
http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/fuelfor24.htm

[Nicholas Carey]

Ethanol doesn't "create a sludge that clogs carburetors". Alcohol is a good solvent that may dissolve some existing sludge/varnish/whatever and that might cause a problem. Alcohol is also hygroscopic (absorbs water) and that, too, might cause a problem. Another potential issues is that alcohol destroys rubber. Old rubber components in the fuel system can get attacked and I can see that potentially gumming up the carburator.

But since gasoline is "oxygenated" with only about 10% alcohol (and they've been doing this for cars here in Washington state for about 15 years now without any real issues), I've got to believe the problem is water and other cruft in the fuel system of poorly maintained boats that the alcohol liberates.

[Thorne]

Similar issues with biodiesel -- it has more 'solvent' properties than commercial diesel, and is known to loosen up crud from everywhere from fueltank to engine block.

Time to buy stock in fuel filter companies, mates!

;0 )

[Tom Lathrop]

Nicholas,

I think the issue is with homemade FG tanks. The ethanol can both penetrate most of these and dissolve some resins so that sludge is formed. I have such a tank and am watching for the introduction of ethanol locally, at which time I will have to manage another kind of tank.

This problem has already made itself known in areas where ethanol has been introduced. While I am all for a move to energy independence, I strongly suspect that ethanol from corn is much less than a winning proposition regarding economics or energy in/out considerations. Strong argicultural lobby anyone? Other biomass sources may be more promising in the long run but probably need incentives or gov support. How likely is that?

[Nicholas Carey]

Nicholas,

I think the issue is with homemade FG tanks. The ethanol can both penetrate most of these and dissolve some resins so that sludge is formed.Then the problem is the non-fuel-safe tankage, not the fuel. However, I find it difficult to believe that alcohol (a pretty mild solvent -- manages to dissolve either cured polyester or epoxy. It's certainly not going to dissolve glass.


While I am all for a move to energy independence, I strongly suspect that ethanol from corn is much less than a winning proposition regarding economics or energy in/out considerations.1. Alcohol can be made from just about anything. It doesn't take corn. And,

2. The calculus that producing alcohol is a net energy sink is based on the faulty assumption that you are using "modern" industrial agricultural techniques, all of which are dependent on petroleum, from the pesticides/herbicides used, to the fertilizers, to the fuel used to drive the combines and dry the grain. The amish, to cite one example, produce higher per-acre corn yields than "the English", using draft animals and manure. It's somewhat more labor-intensive, but employment is widely considered to be a Good Thing.

And, there are other techniques for producing alcohol, not all of which require distillation.

But the economics of alcohol production is a discussion outside of this topic. The point of adding 10% alcohol to gasoline is oxygenation: it makes the gasoline burn cleaner. Has something to do with free radicals or some such.

[Tom Lathrop]

Then the problem is the non-fuel-safe tankage, not the fuel. However, I find it difficult to believe that alcohol (a pretty mild solvent -- manages to dissolve either cured polyester or epoxy. It's certainly not going to dissolve glass.

1. Alcohol can be made from just about anything. It doesn't take corn. And,

2. The calculus that producing alcohol is a net energy sink is based on the faulty assumption that you are using "modern" industrial agricultural techniques, all of which are dependent on petroleum, from the pesticides/herbicides used, to the fertilizers, to the fuel used to drive the combines and dry the grain. The amish, to cite one example, produce higher per-acre corn yields than "the English", using draft animals and manure. It's somewhat more labor-intensive, but employment is widely considered to be a Good Thing.

>>>Far from "faulty assumption", I'd call it a realistic asumption. Where do we get all the Amish needed to grow corn without petroleum based fertilizer and machinery? Most producing farmers have never heard of "Mother Earth Magazine"<<<<

And, there are other techniques for producing alcohol, not all of which require distillation.

But the economics of alcohol production is a discussion outside of this topic. The point of adding 10% alcohol to gasoline is oxygenation: it makes the gasoline burn cleaner. Has something to do with free radicals or some such.

>>>It is all about economics. No major alternative fuel source is going to make it in the USA without a viable economic base unless the Amish are willing to take over the problem. For those here that need fuel for their boating, the source of ethanol and its issues are well within the topic range of this forum without trips to the bilge. <<<<<<

[erster]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/Bateau1/Betram33fueltank.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/Bateau1/Bertram33.jpg

Idle time reading

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/history/timelines/ethanol.html (http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/history/timelines/ethanol.html)


http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008528 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008528)


http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2681 (http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2681)

http://reddit.com/info/6dvn/comments (http://reddit.com/info/6dvn/comments)

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/energy/6756226d360ab010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/energy/6756226d360ab010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html)

[Nicholas Carey]

>>>It is all about economics. No major alternative fuel source is going to make it in the USA without a viable economic base unless the Amish are willing to take over the problem. For those here that need fuel for their boating, the source of ethanol and its issues are well within the topic range of this forum without trips to the bilge. <<<<<<The EPA, via the Clean Air Act mandates oxygenated gasoline in certain areas, in order to meet CO targets set via NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards) set in certain areas with particulary filthy air. Oxygenating gasoline makes it burn cleaner/more efficiently.

Originally, these requirements were winter-time only. However, states and cities have started to mandate oxygenated/reformulated gasoline as a full-time standard, even where NAAQS don't apply.

MTBE -- Methyl tertiary-butyl ether -- was (is?) being used as the oxygenating agent of choice to meet the required air quality standards. However, MTBE has some serious health concerns associated with it, especially when it enters the water supplies. And a lot of gas stations have leaky fuel tanks, which gets MTBE into the ground water.

Consequently, regulations are and have shifted to either ban the use of MTBE as a gasoline additive, or to require the use of alcohol as any oxygenating agent rather than MTBE. In either case, refineries as shifting to alcohol from MTBE.

As you might know, 2-cycle engines are dirty -- up to 40% of the fuel used is unburned or incompletely burned. And in outboard motors, that wasted fuel winds up in the water. Which people drink, especially if the boat in question is operated on a lake, river or reservoir that is used as a municipal water supply. Hence the ban on MTBE as an additive for marine fuels.

In this case, alcohol isn't being added to the gasoline as an alternative to petroleum, it's being added in order to meet regulatory standards regarding air quality set by the Clean Air Act and by the several states.

WRT to the issue noted in the article, the question of the economics of alcohol production is outside the scope of this discussion.

Alcohol isn't added to the gasoline as a fuel per se; it's an additive to the fuel, not unlike tetraethyl lead, used in the Bad Ol' Days to increase octane, which, BTW, both alcohol and MTBE do as well. Straight alcohol is about 150 octane or so. Consider the compression ratios you could get w/o detonation (knock) from an internal combustion engine burning straight alcohol: There's a reason Indy cards burn straight methanol.

[johnw]

My old Nissan truck got its lines clogged when it was introduced to oxigenated fuel. The mechanic told me that was typical with old cars and the new fuel, and that once the filters were changed it was unlikely to happen again, because the varnishes unlodged by the alcohol was already gone.

[TMny]

Alcohol in itself isn't a particularly tough solvent. However, there are relatively few elastomers which can simultaneously resist BOTH alcohol AND parrafins/olefins/aromatics plus additives, as found in modern motor fuel... stuff like Viton ,(and?) fluoroelastomers.

In NY boats have been exposed to gasahol for a few years, and the stuff has wreaked considerable havoc. Last year the boatyard mgr told story of how some Japanese (brand-new) outboards seemed particularly susceptible to damage/decay of fuel system components downstream of the primary fuel filter. Both elastomers and aluminum were said to suffer.
Last week at the marina shop there was discussion of how it was a GOOD thing for a two-cycle outboard to stall out, rather than run at partial power when set at high throttle (fuel starvation from clogging filter) ... because the fuel starvation implies/dictates lubrication starvation ... and near immediate demise of powerplant.

And the problems aren't limited to just marine applications. A long-time autoparts retailer has seen (intake) manifolds and other components succumb to new fuel composition ... he speculates that maybe the fuel (refinery?) catylists may be responsible for some damage. In our area, most fuel seems of admirable quality, but some dealers seem to spike it with waste products [i found some carburetor cleaner (distinctive smell/immiscible) in the gas gerry can used for my lawnmower last summer]. That said, condensation, esp of salt-air , and old tanks, would account for a good portion of reported difficulties.
T M.

[Peter Eikenberry]

Let me try to clear up some of this. In my position in the Coast Guard Office of Boating Safety for 20 some years, I was the fuel systems go to guy. As such I sat on ABYC's Fuel and Venitilation Committee, SAE committees, and worked closely with fuel tank, hose and fittings manufacturers and the EPA. Obviously alcohol in the fuel was one of the problems we dealt with.

Alcohol has been in gasoline as an additive for a long time, more than 30 years. Initially it was added as an Oxygenate, that is a chemical that adds oxygen to the fuel and therefore makes it burn cleaner reducing smog. However, it was realized within a short time that this caused problems with boats. First of all it was the fuel hose. Alcohol leeched the parafins that make the hose soft enough to be flexible, out of the hose. The Coast Guard, ABYC, SAE and NFPA with the hose manufacturers got together and created an new SAE standard for fuel hose that was alcohol resistant. Problem solved.

The next problem that became very evident was that alcohol when suspended in gasoline for long periods of time (winter storage) seperates out and attracts water. So you get a layer of water and alcohol that are in the bottom of the tank along with various acids that form. In aluminum tanks this eats holes through the bottom of the tank. The recommendation is don't store your boat with fuel that has alcohol in it (almost impossible these days) or use additives called stabilizers and co-inhibitors that prevent the phase seperation. The alternative is to store the tank dry, but this is difficult to do.

Along came the EPA and California Air Resources Board (CARB), who mandated the use of oxygenates in fuels. Various ones are used but at the time MTBE seemed the best alternative. In California, CARB mandated the use of MTBE long before the rest of the country began using it. To shorten this, it didn't take long to discover that MTBE was insidious. It could leak out of almost anything you put it in and was leeching into the ground water and was a carcinogen. Also in Alaska where it was used almost year round because of the climate, there where reports of the vapors causing severe headaches and other medical problems.

With all the various additives in the fuel, people began reporting problems with carburetors and fuel system gaskets to the engine manufacturers. Apparently these did not affect fuel injection systems and were particularly evident in Florida, where boats when stored got very hot and fuel vaporized inside hoses and carburetors.

Well, CARB changed their mind in 2001 (I think, could have been 2002) and banned MTBE and the EPA picked up the beat a little later. Now good ole ethanol is the main oxygenate used around the country.

Then about a year and half ago BOAT/US began getting reports of fiberglass fuel tanks failing. Now it's been known for a long time that fiberglass tanks are common on diesel boats but not on gasoline because of problems with gas. Gasoline is a wonderful solvent and will dissolve most anything if left to soak long enough (no I don't recommend you use gasoline as a cleaning solvent) One of the things it works on is polyester resins. Not all. Some are more resistant than others. Epoxy resins are very resistant. But for years I told people who inquired about fiberglass gas tanks simply NO. Don't do it unless you can be absolutely sure that the resin is gasoline resistant. ( I've seen fiberglass tanks that dissolved after six months)

Add alcohol to the mix and now you really have a solvent and with the phase seperation problems and the forming of acids in the fuel it all works on the fiberglass.

The reports are all on very old tanks. Tanks that are ten or more years old, in fact the average is around twenty years old. There has been plenty of time for the fuel to work on the laminate.

Fiberglass is a semi-permeable membrane. In other words liquid will eventually work its way through a glass laminate especially if there is dry laminate or voids, or pockets of uncatalized resins. This is what causes blistering. Well, it also is the reason gasoline can eventually destroy a fiberglass tank.

So you only need to worry about this if you have an old boat with fiberglass gasoline tanks. Most boats have polyethylene palstic or aluminum tanks. It's about 50 50. All evidence to date indicates that plastic tanks are not affected. However, the EPA is going to mandate a much lower rate of permeation from plastic tanks. (gasoline vapor migrates through plastic tanks in very tiny amounts that is currently limited by Federal Regulation but the EPA thinks it is too much) This will result in a change to the compund for the plastic tanks so who knows what will result. A few boats out there have steel tanks or even stainless steel, but they are few and far between. They are not affected by the alcohol problem, but have their own problems.

I hope this answers questions you might have. However, if it doesn't ask away.

[Tom Lathrop]

Thanks Peter,

This subject is covered extensively in the latest Professional Boatbuilder Magazine that just came yesterday. There is no room for doubt that ethanol is causing problems in many vehicles. I will have to fix my own problem with my fiberglass fuel tank. It was originally made to get the most efficient use of space in a boat. I want to use one of the plastic belly tanks but will need to check out their viability in teh new ethanol environment. Whether used in small amounts as an oxygenate or higher volume as a gasoline substitute, it seems to be here to stay. I don't want my tank to look like the one posted by Erster or others that I have seen.

Indy cars use alcohol for fuel because they consider it safer than gasoline.

To think that the farmer lobby is not pushing for more ethanol is unrealistic. There are a lot of big farms around here and the local farmer's newsletter tells a much different story. A new ethanol plant is going up about 30 miles away. I see more corn planted this year than ever before and my neighbor's corn dryer will be running full blast day and night to keep up.

[Peter Eikenberry]

You are absolutely right Tom. Alcohol is the big deal today. That, and bio-diesel. The excuse that fuel distributers used for years was that alcohol was more expensive per gallon than gas, is no longer valid. Everyone is planting more corn and potatoes and anything else you can make ethanol from (by the way the Germans used potatoes to make ethanol fuel during WWII)

Ethanol has no known effect on plastic tanks. Yes, ethanol does cause problems in vehicles as well but that's not my area of expertise so I stayed away from it. However, because fuel tends to stand for long periods of time in boats, and doesn't in cars the problems have been more evident in boats. Plus that, if your car stops you can walk home. If the tank fails in your boat it could have fatal consequences!

I can't wait for my issue of PBB.

[George.]

All of our gasoline comes with 25% alcohol.

First of all: it is made from sugarcane. It is incredibly more efficient than corn for producing ethanol. You guys can't get it in the US because your government imposes a stiff tariff, as it apparently would rather import oil from the Middle East than ethanol from Brasil...

Our cars are designed for it, and have no problems. But outboards suffer, a lot. Number one problem is the slow (sometimes not so slow :eek:) dissolution of various fuel line and carburator components. Plastic carburator parts are particularly vulnerable, as are fuel hoses.

Next big issue is water absorption. Leave the fuel sitting in the tank for a few weeks, and you'll pay.

What I can't figure out is why, if they can design and build cars that have no problems with ethanol, gasoline, or any mixture thereof, they can't do the same for outboard motors.

[Peter Eikenberry]

They can. They just don't.

[Ken Hutchins]

What I can't figure out is why, if they can design and build cars that have no problems with ethanol, gasoline, or any mixture thereof, they can't do the same for outboard motors.

The cars nowadays have closed venting systems for the gas tanks, with a bunch of hoses, valves, charcoal canisters, etc.. Boat fuel tanks vent directly to the atmosphere, so every day when the temperature and barometric pressure fluctuates moisture in the air gets effectly pumped into the tanks as the tanks expand and contract, once inside the tank the moisture condenses and settles to the bottom, now to be picked up with the alcohol to cause problems.

So, what needs to be done is rig the boat tanks with a vapor recovery system similar to what the cars have. The outboard manufacturers won't add that complexity, they would just rather sell you a new motor, again and again. It will take EPA type action to make it happen.:rolleyes:

Of course a boat system needs to be explosion proof.:eek:

[TMny]

Thankyou, Peter.

George-
>it apparently would rather import oil from the Middle East than ethanol from Brasil...
Many of our retired government ministers end up on payroll of mideast governments...(?).
Brazil is making a wonderful transition to sustainable solar energy, congratulations !

[Peter Eikenberry]

Ken,

The EPA proposed a vapor recovery system for boats about 5 years ago but we (the Coast Guard) convinced them this is not a good idea on boats. A vapor recovery system requires a closed system which means a pressurized system. Any positive pressure in a fuel system on a boat is not a good idea. even the tiniest leak in a pressurized system will soon empty the entire contents of the fuel system (Yeah, all of the tank), into the bilge of your boat. Not a happy day in a boat owners life!

There have been proposals to have charcoal canisters on the vent system to recover (scrub) fuel vapors which may be workable while still maintaining an open system. It's still in the works.

In the mean time the EPA, CARB, Coast Guard, ABYC, SAE, NFPA, NMMA, a whole mess of manufacturers, have all been working on devising a catalytic converter that will actually work on boats. The biggest problem has been keeping water out of the catalyst. This may have been solved. The EPA recently gave recognition to Indmar for devising a catalytic converter that actualy works http://interestalert.com/story/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/07260002aaa04bdb.prn&Sys=siteia&Fid=CALIFORN&Type=News&Filter=California. Whether it will last (the catalyst) in the marine environment remains to be seen. These catalytic converters cost many times more than automotive catalytic converters so the first time someone has to replace one we'll see what happens. As you know boat owners will spend mega bucks for a boat and refuse to pay $5 to replace a part. So this should be a challenge.