America Was Wrong About Ethanol – Study Shows [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
It really can be considered more like varnish but it doesn't come from the alcohol itself.
Chemicals like methanol and ethanol do not polymerize whatsoever in your fuel system.
The varnish at the bottom of your tank is the result of long-term gum deposits from the less-stable olefinic content of the gasoline hydrocarbons. These are the reactive components which are subject to self-polymerization and oxidation over time.
The gum which is already formed but still dissolved in the fresh gasoline is known as the "existent gum", and that is measured separately from the additional gum that is expected to form as the fuel ages known as the "potential gum".
If the fuel is not allowed to evaporate very much or be in storage for very long almost all of the limited gum content will never separate from pure hydrocarbon fuel which acts almost as an ideal solvent for these hydrocarbon by-product polymers. The very small amount of the heaviest gums which do end up having a number of grams build up after literally tonnes of gasoline consumption are the varnish that can fully coat the bottom of your tank and it can look pretty ugly, while not causing a problem since it's been largely engineered around for decades.
The fuel pump and fuel filter can handle little pieces of varnish that come loose and the coating can stay harmlessly there, until you add alcohol for the first time.
The alcohol has stronger solvent properties for the varnish and a lot of it can all come loose at once and make the whole tank cloudy, then clog up the fuel filter leading to starved engine performance and low power.
So you change the fuel filter and you get the cleanest tank you've had in a while.
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20061802
From my earlier comment [0]:
> Our modern Civilization is more vulnerable to an average once-a-millennium volcanic eruption than it's ever been, on account of our numbers and our dependency on supply chains for our sustenance.
> From the linked article: "In fact, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimated the 2012 worldwide food storage to last for 74 days." (pg. 9)
> Grains are useful because they store well. Storage is not economical, but it is essential for reducing the suffering which would result from an 1816-like scenario in our modern world.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28595353
/methinks it's much better to have a 7-year supply of grain than a 74-day supply.
Wars also cause tremendous disruption to supply chains. The conflict in Ukraine is going to cause massive problems for food distribution.
What do you do with your corn surplus, when it's just not needed? What do you do with stored grains after they're 7 years old, or if they become moldy? Ethanol seems logical.
If we hit an oh-shit moment (loss of growing seasons due to a volcanic winter/war/etc), we can turn off the ethanol plants and use the corn to supply calories for people.
tl/dr: essential to turn off the ethanol plants until we have 7 years of grains stored up.
The only reason there wasn’t a huge outcry against it was because it was looked at as the GOP finally accepting the reality of climate change and the need to do something about it, even if they still hadn’t come around to hurting their donors even slightly for that cause. But it was looked as a huge step forward.
Let’s not forget that McCain, in 2008, as the GOP Presidential candidate completely accepted both the reality of and need to do something about climate change in his campaign. Here’s a deeper look into his policy:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/mccains...
He was aiming for 1990 levels of emission by 2020!
But what was not predicted was the complete crazification of the GOP following the 2012 election.
And that crazification meant a U-turn which understandably completely erased almost all memories of the context of the Bush ethanol policy.