[001sky]

There's nothing wrong with ethanol as a fuel per se.

== This is a completely uneducated comment.

Ethanol has poor energy to mass ratio and is unstable and/or reactive chemically with things that aren't stainless-steel, which make up certain "mission-critical" sub-systems of petrol-designed-combustion engines. Its notorious clogging/eating EFI systems/sub-systems that are not "hardened" or and/or specially maintained. The only really "good use" of ethonal is in applications that have terrible environmental side-effects. For example, e85 is very useful if you want to make a cheap substiture for high-octane fuel in performance applications. But notice in California, "octane" ratings are limited to prevent "high-performance" applications for fuel because as a general rule they are "environmentally unsound". But e85 has terrible gas mileage (1/3 less than e10), which even in everday use means more haulage or more mass==more road wrear, more stops to refuel, etc==more environmental damage.

I could go on, but will spare you the rant =D

TLDR: Petrol is a better store of energy/mass a nd depreciates a motor at a slower rate.

[edit: To answer the GP question, the easiest way to get reliable fuel without ethanol is to buy "race gas" with octane ratings > 100+ at something like 2x the price of normal octane fuel ~87.]

[jasonzemos]

This comment is just 400% wrong. And to make the claim that the OP was uneducated just misleads everyone here on HN. I'm someone who has run E85 blends in my 2006 turbo Subaru for the last 4 years. I can personally attest to E85's increased stability and cooling power from my time personally playing and tuning on a chassis dynamometer and gathering real world data. I would prefer E100 if they could sell that at the pumps too: it simply reduces the chance of pre-ignition or dual flame-front events from the petroleum blend.

I think as scientists and engineers it's extremely important we separate the empirical facts from the political propaganda.

Flagged.

[hcurtiss]

Flagged? Seems to me it's pretty tough to get around the mpg arguments. Likewise, the wear on engines is well known in the marine environment -- which is not all that different from driving on PNW roads in the winter. Most of our cars ran fine on E0, and I'm not at all sure what you're concerned about in terms of pre-ignition or dual flame-front events (my car, like most, was designed to run on 87 octane).

[foobarian]

How do you know it's wrong? The argument is that ethanol degrades an engine more quickly than gasoline; presumably testing this would require studying a whole fleet of engines for a long span of time--probably longer than 4 years.

[tehwebguy]

> I think as scientists and engineers it's extremely important we separate the empirical facts from the political propaganda.

Right but a single anecdote about your own car doesn't move the conversation forward. It sounds like you may know more on this subject than most, give us some details and sources.

[cwkoss]

Your tone isn't helping your argument. Just saying.

[TrevorJ]

And that doesn't even account for all the fossil fule burned to grow corn, which is a notoriously fertilizer and pesticide heavy crop.