How to pick the right troll motor:

Troll motors are a lot like outboards; there's not one choice that is always the right choice. We have fewer brands to choose from, but models within the brands are many and widely varied not only in power, rated as pounds of thrust, but in voltage. It makes the choice a bit mind boggling, and everyone has their opinions. Here are mine, as unbiased as I can be:

The 15's and 17's really do not need anything more than a 12 volt system. They are produced with up to 55 lb thrust these days and that's pretty good really. I know everyone imagines there will be that time with the strong current and stiff wind they have to beat, but I'm more a go with the flow kind of fisherman. I use the big engine to position the boat upstream or upwind, then use the troller to guide the boat as it's pushed by the elements. My battery lasts longer that way, and so does the troll motor. Do I catch more fish? I don't really know, but it's not about quantity to me, but more about the experience and sharing it with someone I care about. Now a tournament fisherman may have other needs, and a 24 bolt or even 36 volt system may be right for him, but then he's not likely to be fishing from a 15 or 17 these days.

The 18's and up really ought to have a 24 volt system, and in some of the bigger models such as the 230BR or 246BR, maybe even a 36 volt system. They start out around 70 lb thrust and go up to just over 100 lb. I've used the 70lb motor on a 210BR in nasty conditions and found it to be fine. Would more thrust have been better? Rarely, but I can always turn down the thrust just as I can pull back the throttle on the big engine. I've told many people I've never had a boat with too much power, on either end. I know how to adjust it. Remember though that just as there is a price to pay for more engine power in cost, weight, and fuel, there's a price to pay in troll motor power. One of the major considerations is that the higher the voltage, the more batteries they require, and those batteries are heavy and take up valuable space. Consider all this before making your choice.

After the thrust and voltage question we have the shaft length question. This one isn't as difficult as the others but there are some considerations. If you choose a hand control model the shaft should be longer to allow easy access to the handle while standing or sitting. Standing of course requiring a higher handle than sitting. When I go with a tiller control I go with the longest shaft available for that thrust; usually at least 52" and maybe as long as 64". The boat height above the water obviously comes into play as well. The 15's and 17's, as well as the bay series, have a bow that doesn't sit terribly high above the water at rest. This is by design so they can be more easily controlled in a stiff wind that is likely to be encountered in open bays. Remember the higher and deeper boats have a larger 'sail' area for the wind to push. They are harder to control and require more thrust than the models designed around troll motor use such as the bays.

To get an idea of the shaft length you need as a minimum measure the distance from the top of the bow, or the deck, down to the water line. Remember the water line always varies with weight placement, and then add at least eight inches or so. If they prop gets too close to the water line it will grab air and churn so you want some play there. Then consider the method of operation. For instance with a foot control motor I can go shorter on the shaft length than with a tiller because I don't need to reach it. This goes for the remote control models as well. Shorter shaft allows you to fish over the troll motor easier, especially important for the fly fishermen or when throwing a cast net.

We also have the remote control models that have gained so much popularity. I’ve tried these and they do have some features that are very nice. For instance the virtual anchor. On the remote the operator simply clicks the “Anchor” button, and the troll motor holds the boat where it is. That relieves the fisherman of the chore and allows you to work that area without paying so much attention to running the motor.

Some models take it a step further and include a remote deploy and retrieve button. Imagine deploying the motor, navigating the boat, anchoring, then retrieving the motor, while never leaving the rear seat. Guides have got to love this one, not to mention the grandpa taking the kids fishing.

This may not give you an exact answer for shaft length and power requirements but it should give you an idea of where to start in the thought process. What is right for one may not be right for another, like most personal decisions. I hope this helps.

Steering effort and jack plates:

Now and then we have a case where a new owner of a bay boat has a problem with the steering. This is almost always caused by the torque created by the propeller which is neither a boat nor a steering system problem, but because it is so often misunderstood I thought it a good idea to explain how and why this is happening and what can be done to help cure the problem.

First I’d like to comment that steering problems where the steering effort exceeds expectations have been growing steadily in the last few years. In part this is attributable to the consumers themselves. If you think of it, most of them have never driven a vehicle of any kind without power steering. The truck or car they drove to the dealership had power steering and usually every other vehicle in their lives. Then they drive a boat which has of course an outboard motor that can operate at different speeds, trim angles, engine heights, and can use an all but infinite number of varying props. All of these variable can have an effect on steering torque, and the only method of correcting that steering torque is usually the torque tab on the engine’s anti ventilation plate.

I’ve told people for many years there is only one speed, trim angle, engine height, etc where the torque tab can neutralize the steering effort, if any, and all other engine speeds and trim angles will result in some steering torque. The degree of that torque varies tremendously depending on the application going from barely perceptible to impossible to overcome. It is important to remember that all of this torque is created by the propeller rotating through the water. Not the engine, the steering system itself, or least of all the boat. The boat is nothing more than an inert piece of material to which the other parts are attached in this situation.

Notice I said only one set of variables can be neutralized by the torque tab, if any. There are cases, and that number is growing, where the tab simply cannot do that job. Why? Look at the typical tab on let’s say a 50 hp engine. Then compare the size of that tab to the one on a 250 hp engine. Even though there is five times as much power spinning a much larger propeller the tabs are nearly identical in size. If it’s just right on the 50 hp, it’s way too small on the 250 hp.

Another cause of increased steering problems caused by prop torque is the props themselves. In the last ten years I’ve noticed a trend to larger diameter props. Often this results in more efficiency especially at mid range speeds, but it also contributes to the steering torque transmitted from spinning it through the water. This increased prop torque has not been met with increased torque correction in most cases, and I fault the engine builders for that oversight. The technology is there and has been for many years to do so. Going way back to the mid to late 70’s when bass boats were very popular and faster speeds were needed to get to the good fishing spot first the owners and dealers started experimenting with elevated engine heights via jack plates. This resulted in the same increased prop torque we have now as a result of taking the torque tab out of the flow of water.

So why does this elevated position result in more prop torque? It’s really simple physics. One of Newton’s laws regards the natural equal and opposite reaction with regard to a moving object. The prop spins to the right, twisting the engine to the left, resulting in a pull to the right at the steering wheel. When the prop is completely immersed in the water the blade on top partially counters the blade on the bottom, but not quite because it runs behind the engine’s gear case where the water flow is disturbed and the blade doesn’t get quite the bite as the blade on the bottom in undisturbed water.  As the prop is raised the blade on top begins to surface dramatically reducing the drag on that blade and its ability to counter the twisting force of the blade on the bottom. At the same time the torque tab is clearing the flow of water coming from under the boat and it eventually has no effect at all in countering steering torque.

The cure for this is involves is the curved skeg found on the Yamaha SHO 200hp through 250hp and the Evinrude G2 series engines. I first saw this used on the Evinrude Rude Ram in 2000 on what they called their Lightning Gearcase. These high speed gear cases not only include this very effective torque correction in the skeg, but also utilize a low water pickup for the elevated running positions. This is to keep a constant water flow going to the water pump to cool the engine.

After market companies such as TH Marine and Bob’s Machine also offer an add on wedge to be attached to the lower skeg of engines not built this way. These simple and inexpensive devices go back to the early bass boat days and are still inexpensive and effective today. If you have an engine mounted on a jack plate allowing the engine to be raised on the transom, whether it be fixed or hydraulic, I highly recommend these devices if you do not have a SHO engine on the boat.  

Info at this link. http://www.thmarine.com/products/Outboard-Performance/Outboard-Torque-Tabs  and pictures/ pricing at this link http://www.amazon.com/T-H-Marine-Torque-Tab/dp/B0000AXV99/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1410549736&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=the+marine+outboard+torque+tab

Good news is on the horizon with regard to engine porp torque and hard steering. The same torque correction found in the SHO engines is also incorporated again in the new Evinrude G2 engines from 200 hp through 300 hp, and it is standard in all shaft lengths. The SHO engines are currently only available with this technology in the 20” shafts.

Another problem with steering torque is the confusion floating around hydraulic steering. People often confuse hydraulic for power steering. While hydraulic steering can offer less resistance to steering effort than mechanical it is done through the number of steering wheel turns required to move the engine the same distance as compared to the mechanical system. For instance the typical mechanical set up requires around 2.7 turns to go from hard right to hard left. The average hydraulic system requires around 5 turns to do the same thing, and some of them as many as 7 turns. Like changing gears on a winch,  more turns equals less effort to turn the wheel. But even though hydraulic may be easier than mechanical it does nothing to remove the torque from the prop, it only serves to help the driver overcome that torque. As the torque increases from one or more of the aforementioned variables it comes to a point where the operator of the boat is stressed to steer and often times they now assume something is wrong with the steering, or the boat.

Power assist steering can help overcome this complaint. Remember it is an option on most boats equipped with hydraulic steering but it should be offered before the complaint whenever possible. It is up to the dealer to anticipate this need depending on the set up being sold. I personally don’t like this solution since it does not relieve the pressure created by prop torque, it only overcomes it. In extreme cases such as an elevated running height where the top of the prop as well as the torque tab are out of the water flow the torque can be tremendous along with very high hydraulic pressures inside the steering cylinder, hoses, and the helm. If something breaks in the steering it can result in catastrophic results including loss of property and life. Because of this I always recommend that steps be taken to reduce the torque before steps are taken to overcome it.

I hope this dissertation is helpful and can help us all to keep the new owners happy with their Key West Boats. Remember this is not an issue isolated to Key West Boats in any way, but part of high speed recreational boating for many years.  While this article was written primarily for bay boats equipped with hydraulic jack plates many of the facts covered here with regard to prop torque and exaggerated steering effort apply to many other applications as well.

Thanks

Tom Marlowe

Key West Boats 

How can Stainless Steel rust?

The stainless rusting issue pops up now and then and the accusation is often made that cheap material is being used in a money saving effort. Even though that seems to be a logical explanation it’s not really true. When it comes to marine parts made of stainless I’ve never really seen a “cheap” alternative from any of the suppliers.

 Speaking of suppliers, there is a relatively small selection of suppliers of hardware dedicated to boat building, and from that group an even smaller collection of them are what we call preferred suppliers. Most of the major builders of boats in the US use the same group of preferred suppliers and do so as a buying group to better control pricing. Because of that the quality of the cleat, or the hinge, or latch that goes on a Whaler for instance is the same as the one that goes on a Key West. They come from the same source, in the same box, and often on the same shipper, landing in a warehouse where they are distributed to the various builders.

Bottom line, if the material is rusting on one brand and not on another, there’s another explanation rather than quality or cost. While that is a fact having the consumer with rusted material to understand that is the tough part. Since I am obviously susceptible to bias in an explanation I go to the internet for help. In the search box I enter, “How can SS rust”. The following header pops up with over a million results. The first dozen or so are very good explanations. One of the best technical explanations is the second link below.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=how%20can%20stainless%20steel%20rust

http://www.sperkoengineering.com/html/Rust.pdf

While this PDF is directed at industrial applications the chemical properties of stainless apply across the board. Of particular interest is the ferrous material that can be introduced to the surface of the stainless material starting the rust process. How can that apply to the hardware on a boat?

In the water used to wash the boat, surprisingly. Most of us have seen the rust stained sidewalk or driveway where the irrigation water splashes over from the grass. The same iron in that water can end up on the hardware on a boat causing it to rust. In cases where the water has ferrous material suspended it would b better to wash the boat with salt water instead. I’ve seen cases where every piece of stainless on the boat was rusted and it was traced back to the well water used to rinse the boat diligently after each use. That customer was convinced that we used cheap material to save money. Sometimes it’s just the water.

  A discussion forum for Bradenton resulted in the post at this link. http://www.city-data.com/forum/sarasota-bradenton-venice-area/339596-city-water-vs-well-water-2.html and the latest 2014 water quality report for city water listed salt and minerals as contaminants.

How to combat that is the question. Each boat owner’s packet comes with a stainless care instructional in the owner’s bag. I’d also suggest a towel dry concentrating on the hardware, as well as some sort of anti corrosion treatment. To remove the rust I suggest a mild abrasive stainless polish such as AERO disinfectant cream cleanser available from Aero Chemical Co., Atlanta Ga. 

Slow Fill on EPA regulated fuel systems: 

EPA regulated fuel tanks and the supporting parts are one of the most misunderstood yet simplest parts of boats built in recent years. Because of that techs in the marine industry spend lots of time diagnosing problems or complaints, and often more time than is necessary. I will try to help explain the way they work and what to do when they do not function as we expect them.

First the most common complaint is slow to fill. The most common cause of this complaint is the tank is full by design, but it will take more fuel if the operator is persistent enough. In fact the bigger tanks may take another 10 gallons or so after the tank is actually full. Of course this doesn’t make sense, until you understand what is going on. So let’s cover ullage space first.

Ullage is literally an air space maintained in the tank to allow for expansion during a normal heating and cooling cycle of a 24 hour period. This air space is big enough to contain the fuel without it being pushed into the vent line, which prevents the fuel from spilling overboard and contaminating the environment. In some systems there is a charcoal canister in the vent line which could be rendered inoperable when fuel enters the canister, and it can even become a plug in the vent line which would make fueling difficult at any time.

This brings us to the next issue where ullage space is concerned. Most tank builders, or maybe we should say fuel level sender builders, do not allow for that air space in the design of the fuel level sender. Most senders are a straight shaft mounted vertically from the top of the tank. On that shaft is a float which activates sensors in the shaft which in turn send an ohms reading to the fuel gauge. This ohms reading is interpreted by the gauge as a fuel level. Introduce the ullage space and the float can no longer reach the top of the shaft, so the full tank will sometimes result in a ¾ or so reading on the gauge. Seeing that on the gauge encourages the operator to keep on filling. Unfortunately modified senders to allow for ullage are not commonly in use, but they are coming.

Now let’s move on to physical problems that could cause the slow fill situation even when the tank is not already full. The most common physical cause is a venting problem.  A pinched or kinked vent line can be the cause. Test for that removing the vent line at the tank and blowing through it. It should allow air to pass through that line with little effort. Some vent lines will have valves or canisters, but still should allow an easy flow of air since that is what happens during filling. Keep in mind some of the vents are in the fill assembly so best to remove the fill cap to be sure the vent outlet is open.

The least common cause of slow fill is the fill line itself. This is a big and tough hose that is hard to kink or crush so that cause is extremely uncommon, but there have been some cases in older hoses where the inside lining of the hose has bubbled out effectively blocking the incoming fuel. Again, this is extremely rare but when all else is right, remember this one.

And another surprise the EPA tanks threw our way; some of the fill systems will only accept fuel at the rate it comes out of the pump. So the dock caddies, jugs, whatever present a challenge of filling too slow. There are some special funnels out there in the aftermarket designed to overcome this challenge.

In summary, EPA regulations have led to a more complex system with mysterious connections, but the fill process is very much the same as it’s always been. When fuel comes in, the air needs to flow out. Keep this in mind and most of the mystery is irrelevant. 

Fuel Additives

As much as I dislike ethanol in our fuel it seems that it is here for a while so we may as well learn to live with it as well as we can. To minimize the adverse affects of the ethanol many companies have developed fuel additives to protect the fuel. They all claim to be the best and the answer to our needs but I want to know from personal experience which ones work and which ones don't, and maybe even which is the best. To accomplish that goal I started a hands on, side by side test of various brand name additives in known ethanol laced gasoline. That test was started on 10/1/10, so it's been one year to date that the test has been running. The results were interesting.

First step was to verify that I had an ethanol/gasoline mix. I bought a gallon at the local Hess station and poured a small quantity in a glass jar. With an eye dropper I added a few drops of water. The drops fell to the bottom of the jar as beads but as I stirred the fuel the water suspended in the fuel and did not settle out. I repeated the procedure several times before I reached saturation where it would no longer suspend, and then I witnessed phase separation where the ethanol/water mix fell to the bottom of the jar. Sure enough, the quantity of mixed fluid on the bottom of the jar was quite a bit more than the quantity of water I'd added to the fuel assuring me that I had ethanol in the fuel.

Step two: I took seven equal sized jars and added an equal amount of fuel in each jar. Then I took six brands of fuel treatment and added the recommended quantity of each in the fuel, leaving one jar with pure gasoline/ethanol mix. The jars were vented and left in an open air garage as if stored in a vented container, or the fuel tank of the typical boat. After one year I have what I consider to be valuable results.

Brands tested:

Stabil
Stabil Marine
Startron
Valvtect
CRC Phase 4
BRP 2+4 for Ethanol fuel

Symptoms tested for and noted:

Evaporation. As fuel sits it slowly evaporates leaving a sticky residue which can clog carburetors and injectors. If the additive can prevent this you'll save hundreds of dollars in rebuilds and clean up. Evaporation also robs the fuel of needed hydrocarbons and such degrading the fuel of BTU's and octane. It's obviously better if we can prevent this and have a use able fuel after a reasonable storage time. Based on past experience with stored fuel I gave the evaporation protection the highest importance.

Moisture absorption protection. By now most of us know that ethanol fuel is very susceptible to water absorption which creates all sorts of havoc in the fuel systems of any gasoline engine. If we can stop or slow that process the additive is wonderful stuff.

Inhibit organic growth. Most do not know of this phenomenon but when water is absorbed into ethanol the result is an organic based mix quite hospitable to organic growth such as mold and mildew. If you've ever siphoned off the mix from the bottom of a fuel tank after phase separation has taken place and noticed the little flakes floating around in it, that's what I'm talking about here. The best way to slow this is obviously to slow the water absorption but it's important to slow the growth of the organics as well since moisture absorption to some extent is inevitable.

This covers the methods used and the test criteria, now for the results.

Startron came in first with the best protection against evaporation, crystal clarity of the mix after one year suggesting no organic growth, and no phase separation.

Valvtect scored a strong second with only minimal clouding of the mix, no separation, and evaporation protection equal to Startron.

Stabil Marine with excellent protection against evaporation, some clouding, and no separation.

The others were a mixed bag. None of them showed any sign of phase separation. Some were extremely cloudy. One offered no better protection against evaporation than the straight gasoline. No need to name names here since my mission is accomplished. So many folks ask what I would recommend and the three mentioned here get that nod. I'll never store over a year and all of them did a great job up to that point.

Fuel tank clean out procedure.

Since the first fuel tank was introduced there has been the risk of condensation depositing a volume of water in the fuel over time. That still exists today but in reality the volume is minute and the time frame required is generally long. This happens when the contents of the tank goes through the normal heating and cooling cycle of a typical day; in the heat of the day fuel expands pushing air out of the tank. In the evening the fuel cools and contracts pulling cooler and moist air into the tank. Cooling causes condensation of the moisture and the condensation clings to the walls of the tank. The resulting water settles and accumulates at the bottom of the tank being heavier than gasoline. This relatively minor amount of water could be effectively removed with a typical water separating fuel filter, or even harmlessly removed with one of many fuel additives. With ethanol in the mix though those days are gone.

Fuel tanks still go through the breathing process and there is still the same level of condensation but the water doesn't settle to the bottom anymore. Water readily mixes with ethanol, therefore the water is suspended in the fuel, much the same way it used to be suspended with fuel additives. In fact, most fuel additives for straight gasoline are mostly ethanol. The differences is in quantity. We never put as much as ten percent fuel additive in a tank of gasoline so the fuel has much more ability to absorb water than treated gasoline. In addition to the condensation of water ethanol has the ability to absorb moisture directly from the air bypassing the condensation step. This absorption dramatically speeds up the water accumulation process shortening the shelf life of stored fuel to only a few months, or even weeks before a phenomenon called phase separation takes place.

In phase separation the ethanol reaches its water absorption limit where it becomes too heavy to remain suspended in the gasoline, and it simply falls to the bottom of the tank as a water/ethanol mix. The bottom of the tank is where the fuel pick up line is of course, so the next time the engine is run it will be picked up and fed into the engine where the engine will fail to continue running. If no harm is done initially but the water/ethanol mix is left in the engine's fuel system long enough without being flushed, irreversible and/or expensive engine repairs can be needed. If the water/ethanol mix remains in the tank long enough another new problem can develop. As odd as it sounds organic growth can now begin in the fuel tank. If you think about it that's not as odd as it at first sounds. Ethanol is an organic compound, and it's mixed with the source of all life; water. Mold and fungus now have a fertile bed to grow and this stuff can clog the best fuel filter in short order, not to mention the havoc it can cause if it gets into a fuel injection system on the engine.

I've spoke with many individuals with water in the fuel issues through the years but with the instroduction of ethanol in our fuel this problem has increased dramatically. Most people suspect a leaking fuel tank as the cause, or possibly a leaking fuel cap or lines. This can be the cause and should be investigated but it's really not likely. The quantity of suspected water in the tank is usually in the gallons. Think about how long it would take for a gallon of fuel to get into a tank from rain even if the fill cap were left off. A hole in the tank also most often results in a fuel leak instead of water intrusion. The only spot on a tank that occasionally allows a considerable volume of water intrusion is the gasket under the fuel level sending unit on top of the tank.

Curing the problem takes some work but most people can do it themselves. The key is to remove all of the fuel from the system; all being the key word. If only a minor amount is left it can be enough to foul the filter and injectors or carbs again so everything has to be removed from the tank and the tank should be dried out. This can't be accomplished by simply using the fuel supply pick up and hose attached to the tank. You need to go in through the fuel sender hole by removing the sender and angling the tank so that all the fuel can be siphoned from the tank, then the tank should be allowed to dry completely. Angling the tank can be accomplished easily if it is on a trailer by raising the front of the trailer causing the contents to flow to the rear, then you may need to raise one wheel at a time to be sure nothing is trapped behind a baffle. All of the fuel should be properly disposed of. Do not try to separate the gasoline from the water/ethanol mix. Because the ethanol is part of the octane of the gasoline the remaining pure gasoline is not safe to use without risking serious internal engine damage which can result from pre-ignition and detonation. Once the tank is completely clean and dry refill with fresh gasoline, then flush all the lines and install a new filter. Be sure to flush all the lines on the engine as well.

Another common scenario is when the tank is pumped, filled with fresh fuel and flushed, and everything is fine, but comes right back in just a few weeks. This is when most are convinced there is a leak allowing water into the tank, and it can be, but again ethanol may be the explanation. If the tank was pumped but part of the water/ethanol mix was missed, and then fresh fuel is pumped on top of that, you now have enough ethanol in the fresh fuel to suspend the water that is left in the tank, but it is near saturation level where phase separation can again occur. Under these circumstances the time frame it takes for the problem to return is dramatically shortened. If it comes right back, you most likely didn't get it all.

Why is there so much of this mixture? It's got to be a leak to get this much; right?

Remember, ethanol laced gasoline is around a 10/90 % mixture. If your tank holds 20 gallons of fuel for instance, it can contain 2 gallons of ethanol. When the ethanol absorbs enough water and separates out of the fuel in this tank the resulting sediment would exceed two gallons which will appear to be a huge quantity of water. This is a possible logical explanation for the huge quantities I'm hearing of in the fuel tanks.

Is ethanol a logical alternative fuel?

Is ethanol a logical alternative fuel?

I think all Americans can agree that it is important to reduce our dependence on foreign oil to fuel our industry and automobiles, or even our toys for that matter, but the question is what are logical alternatives?

Alcohol, of which ethanol is a form, has been used as a fuel for hundreds of years, and has been used as an internal combustion fuel on and off for the last century or so. There’s no real debate about those facts. Comparing ethanol to gasoline we find that the energy contained in a gallon of ethanol is about 51% of the energy found in a gallon of gasoline. Therefore it’s logical to assume that we will need more ethanol to do the same work when compared to gasoline. Keeping the comparison between the two fuels to that very narrow perspective gasoline obviously comes out way on top, but the arguing point is that alcohol is renewable and can be home grown. Those are again clear facts, but then we become bogged down in the debates over cost to produce, environmental impact, government subsidies, and seemingly endless other arguable facts.

There are two clearly defined sides in the debate. Pro-ethanol and anti-ethanol. Each side will present evidence to support their own agenda, of course, making the truth almost impossible to determine. After quite a bit of research I’m still not at all sure that I have the truth, or the whole truth but this is what I believe to be the unbiased truth with regard to ethanol.

Considering all energy required to produce ethanol including the fuel required to run the tractor to plant it and the fuel required to ferment and distill it; everything conceivably needed to produce ethanol related to energy we net about a 25% gain from the potential energy produced by burning it. Whether 25% is worth the effort is another debate but at least I’m satisfied that there is a gain. I’ve seen numerous claims otherwise. Let’s proceed with the notion that the 25% gain is worth while.

The obvious advantage of this fuel is that we got it primarily from renewable home grown corn, not from a potentially hostile foreign source. The money spent for the most part stayed within the United States. Mixing ethanol in gasoline at a 10% ratio raises the octane level of the mix and causes the fuel to burn with less of some emissions. What’s the down side?

In order to produce the ethanol a portion of the available food lots had to be dedicated to production of the raw material. It takes a bit more than 25 pounds of corn to produce a gallon of ethanol, for instance. It also takes a certain amount of fuel to plant, harvest, and produce ethanol and that fuel is primarily hydrocarbon, which is of course mostly oil based, which comes from those hostile foreigner; so did we really keep the money in the States? The corn requires a quantity of fertilizer to produce and the resulting nitrates pollute the drinking water supply and the run off pollutes the streams, rivers, and oceans. There’s a bigger dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico attributable to this nitrate run off than there is from the record oil spill. Of course most of that runoff can likely be attributed to food production rather than ethanol corn, but ethanol production is adding to it. Another issue with ethanol blended with gasoline is that as the level of ethanol is increased, energy output and fuel economy decrease, even though the octane level increases. And then there are the well recorded harmful affects of ethanol on the fuel system components because of the corrosive and high detergent nature of ethanol. It seems that engines and systems designed for gasoline aren’t necessarily compatible with ethanol even in small quantities. There may be more downsides to ethanol use but this is enough for now. We can see from this short discussion so far that the list of problems exceeds the list of advantages, which brings the question to my mind, is it logical to pursue ethanol as an alternative and renewable energy source?

Surprisingly the answer isn’t a clear and unequivocal no, and I support continued research and development. The need for alternative fuels is so clear and pressing that we as a nation would be foolish not to pursue every possible avenue of energy independence. In the last few years many alternative sources of ethanol have developed and the processing cycle has become more efficient. It is therefore entirely possible and probable that the 25% energy gain will be increased dramatically and the nitrate problem can be reduced considerably as well. Further good news is that the alternative sources of ethanol will not depend so heavily on traditional food sources, and consequently remove the pressure on food lots dedicated to fuel. What about the efficiency though? Remember it only has a fraction of the energy contained in an equal quantity of gasoline. The answer partially lies in the fact that it naturally has a much higher octane than gasoline, without the need for additives. Engines designed around the use of ethanol can be designed with much higher compression ratios and therein lays one of the biggest keys to literally squeezing more performance out of the fuel. With current technology we can obtain approximately the same fuel economy from ethanol as we can from pure gasoline if it is run in an engine specifically designed for ethanol fuel. Pure ethanol. Therefore the logical approach may be to pursue ever more efficient production of ethanol fuel, and engines designed to run on it, rather than trying to force feed ever increasing quantities of ethanol into gasoline engines.

There’s also some interesting research being done on vehicles equipped with dual fuel tanks; one for ethanol and another for gasoline. By injecting the needed fuel into the engine depending on operating conditions efficiency can be maximized, and the phase separation problem associated with the ethanol/gasoline blend can be more effectively controlled. It may work out but I’m betting on the pure ethanol approach mentioned above. It sounds simpler and simple usually equates to reliability.

Another topic of worthy discussion may be biodiesel. With current technology we already have an energy gain of 91% with biodiesel fuel. It’s renewable, home grown, and surprisingly the emissions from cutting edge diesel engines are already lower in most respects than the emissions possible from ethanol, the supposed green fuel. And the fuel economy can be unbelievable.