If ethanol was so effective as an anti-knocking agent why didn’t gas stations just mix ethanol with petrol and sold that fuel with profit? Ethanol is cheaper and much safer to manufacture then tetraethyllead. But they didn’t…
I am not an expert on combustion engines but the biggest problem with ethanol in the early days was it polluted the engine with water that it absorbed as a water soluble organic compound. Those days engines were not made from Aluminium but iron so it destroyed motors over time due to the formation of rust. Furthermore, production of tetraethyllead got much cheaper once its synthesis was automated. Knocking itself is bad for motors so people actually wanted to use anti-knocking additives to improve the longevity of their cars (aside of better fuel economy).
So in the end tetraethyllead prevailed as an anti-knocking agent because of its technical and economical advantages and not because of a conspiracy of oil companies as the article suggests.
Actually mixing ethanol with petrol is a pretty common thing...
The main issue stations won't do it unless compelled is that it will reduce gas mileage slightly. You don't want to be the company selling gas that has a lower mileage. If they could sell it at a lower price that would be something.
The thing is that you need a lot more ethanol than tetraethyllead, so it actually does end up being more expensive, for the same energy.
And actually cast iron blocks are still being used nowadays.
Ethanol also sucks in water from the atmosphere which causes big problems if not adequately managed. Especially ‘back in the day’, the technology to do so was very poor - even keeping a gas tank somewhat sealed against rain was difficult and often didn’t happen well.
Modern plastics, better valves, better treatment chemicals all mean it’s less of a problem now - but it is still a major problem and kills a lot of small engines in particular in states where all gas is some kind of ethanol blend.
We did have the tech in the 1960s to make gas tanks that were sealed against the rain, actually.
While yes ethanol is hygroscopic, 10% ethanol won't cause issues even in old vehicles (see people with old motorcycles) unless you keep it in for a long time without use.
Against the rain is not sufficient - it has to be sealed against atmospheric moisture at higher concentrations. 10% ethanol isn’t terrible at this - but the discussion was running on ethanol vs gas right?
If running ‘pure’ ethanol, it’s still really hard to not have engines die or fuel handling not contaminate it. It’s not an easy thing to keep pure enough, and is even a bit corrosive compared to gasoline.
No, the discussion isn't about ethanol vs gas. It's about adding some ethanol to gas in order to reduce knocking. That means 10-15% ethanol.
I agree that 100% ethanol would require hermetic seals, but this is about ethanol as an additive.
GM were considering using ethanol as an additive, not 100% ethanol fuel. That would require massively changing up the engine anyways and wouldn't be compatible with straight gas.
And at least in small engines, it's common to have an aluminum block with cast iron sleeves, so the combustion chamber is still walled with rustable metal.
Conspiracy: n. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
The word conspiracy doesn't mean the same as "conspiracy theory" and even that doesn't necessarily imply something wacky like reptilian aliens secretly controlling the government.
I am not an expert on combustion engines but the biggest problem with ethanol in the early days was it polluted the engine with water that it absorbed as a water soluble organic compound. Those days engines were not made from Aluminium but iron so it destroyed motors over time due to the formation of rust. Furthermore, production of tetraethyllead got much cheaper once its synthesis was automated. Knocking itself is bad for motors so people actually wanted to use anti-knocking additives to improve the longevity of their cars (aside of better fuel economy).
So in the end tetraethyllead prevailed as an anti-knocking agent because of its technical and economical advantages and not because of a conspiracy of oil companies as the article suggests.