More Ethanol Debate

[SgtMaj]

Re: More Ethanol Debate

Couple things that everyone misses on the ethanol front...

First, when mass produced, it is FAR more efficient than today's processes. Especially when you take more efficient sources into consideration, such as wheat grass.

Second, it's always better for the environment in terms of greenhouse gasses because you start counting when you plant the seed, and count backwards 'til harvest, then you start counting forward. In the end, you have a very slight CO2 loss.

Third, the main point of it is to keep from sending as much of our money overseas as possible. That has a HUGE economic impact. It's amplified by the fact that you then don't have to issue quite so many farm subsidies because there is such a large market being created.

Fourth, ethanol is already cheaper to produce and bring to market than gasoline, those savings are greatly increased when you're talking about ethanol that can be piped to your gas station instead of trucked there. E85 that has to be trucked in instead of piped in, still costs 20 cents less per gallon than regular. Adding more ethanol to the current gas blends doesn't cost anything extra to get it to the station. With just an extra 10% ethanol in the mix, you could be talking about a savings of as much as 10 cents/gal. or more (since the overall crude demand is lessened, so might the prices, which would compound the savings).

Now to answer the original question... a normal engine can easily run E40 without any modifications. Ethanol also burns cooler and cleaner than gasoline, so engines will last longer with higher ethanol content fuels. If modifications did need to be done for E85 (if the govt. wanted to jump to that level), the modification could be done to every vehicle in the USA for about 1/160th of the annual medicare budget.

By the way, most race cars, especially dragsters, use ethanol/methanol.

Oh, and I run a 50/50 mix of e85 and e10 regular in my 1994 Jeep (completely unmodified), and I get better gas mileage on that mix than I do on regular, to the tune of about 3mpg better. The $2 per tank savings at the pump is just a bonus!

Of course, hydrogen is far more efficient... but now you're talking about a huge infrastructure change. Things with a high cost of change don't tend to get done in this country.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: More Ethanol Debate

never seen a dragster burning ethanol, Methanoland Nitro Methane yes but so far not ethanol. there are various drawbacks to alcohol, one is its simply to costly to produce and store on a scale thats needed. however it is a start.
Venezuela uses no alcohol,yet,other than for human consumption. Brazil on the other hand mandated a year or so back that no new cars will be mnufactured or imported that dont run on 100% Ethanol. however they can grow sugar cane year round which is much more efficient than corn.
knowing the fuel charictaristics of alchohol I just wont belive your gas milage improved unless there was already an issue with your engine.
gas A/F ratio is 14.7-1 ethanol and methanol is somewhere around 7-1. takes twice as much alchohol. one advantage to alchohol is the 100 or so octane rting will allow for extreme compresion ratios that we just cant run on regular gasolines without some type of additive to slow down the burn rate.

and thats why you can add nitro-methane to methnol and not to gasoline

nitro-methane,similar to Nitros Oxide is an oxygen bearing fuel.
more oxygen avalible means you cn burn more fuel.

look at the average top fuel car,from green light to finnish line the crankshaft is going to turn 600 revolutions or less. means 300 intake strokes or less.
thay can burn 7-9 gallons of methanol/nitro-methane in that space.

still doesnt mean ethanol is going to be a viable fuel alternative.
kinda like the CNG and LPG craze of the late 70s.
worked well in some areas, not in all. mostly due to distribution.

 

[DJ]

Re: More Ethanol Debate

Couple things that everyone misses on the ethanol front...

First, when mass produced, it is FAR more efficient than today's processes. Especially when you take more efficient sources into consideration, such as wheat grass.

Second, it's always better for the environment in terms of greenhouse gasses because you start counting when you plant the seed, and count backwards 'til harvest, then you start counting forward. In the end, you have a very slight CO2 loss.

That's one of the big fallacys about all of this. What is wrong with C02? It is a completely natural compound.

Third, the main point of it is to keep from sending as much of our money overseas as possible. That has a HUGE economic impact. It's amplified by the fact that you then don't have to issue quite so many farm subsidies because there is such a large market being created.

We have PLENTY of oil here. We just are not allowed to access it. The Chinese will be tapping the oilfields in the Caribbean very soon via Cuba, yet we can't drill off the coast of Florida. Boy that makes sense. There is more oil in Alaska than all the Middle East.

The highest percentage of cost on gasoline is taxes. Why does one think that the government will not do the same to ethanol?

Fourth, ethanol is already cheaper to produce and bring to market than gasoline, those savings are greatly increased when you're talking about ethanol that can be piped to your gas station instead of trucked there. E85 that has to be trucked in instead of piped in, still costs 20 cents less per gallon than regular. Adding more ethanol to the current gas blends doesn't cost anything extra to get it to the station. With just an extra 10% ethanol in the mix, you could be talking about a savings of as much as 10 cents/gal. or more (since the overall crude demand is lessened, so might the prices, which would compound the savings).

Trucking bulk liquids is not an efficient way to move them. Especially when you consider that pipelines are already there.

Now to answer the original question... a normal engine can easily run E40 without any modifications. Ethanol also burns cooler and cleaner than gasoline, so engines will last longer with higher ethanol content fuels. If modifications did need to be done for E85 (if the govt. wanted to jump to that level), the modification could be done to every vehicle in the USA for about 1/160th of the annual medicare budget.

No they cannot. Who is going to pay for all the repairs when they start failing because they were lied to?

By the way, most race cars, especially dragsters, use ethanol/methanol.

No they don't. Methanol Nitro blend.

Oh, and I run a 50/50 mix of e85 and e10 regular in my 1994 Jeep (completely unmodified), and I get better gas mileage on that mix than I do on regular, to the tune of about 3mpg better. The $2 per tank savings at the pump is just a bonus!

You are in for big troubles. Start looking for fuel tank/line delamination.

Of course, hydrogen is far more efficient... but now you're talking about a huge infrastructure change. Things with a high cost of change don't tend to get done in this country.

Hydrogen is very efficient, except the processes to make it. Plus, people wig out when you tell them they have a 5000 psi tank in their trunk. Hydrogen produces water vapor when it is burned. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas!

Rodbolt1.0.,

I stand corrected, I thought it was Venezuela that used so much ethanol. It is Brazil. My counterparts in South America tell me of issues they have with it. It can be used, as you say but it requires a completely different engine philosophy/design. That adds to complexity and cost.

 

[Silvertip]

Re: More Ethanol Debate

I have a few points of disagreement here:

1) Cost of regular vs E85 varies all over the map. In Minnesota it is 60 cents cheaper than E10 and about another 10 cents cheaper than mid grade regular. In some states it is more expensive than regular.

2) You get better mileage on a 50/50 mix of ethanol and regular. Whether you are using E-85 or E-10 you are not getting better mileage. While E-85 has a higher octane rating than regular, it burns faster hence more fuel flow, hence less mileage. My fuel computer proves it. But the engine does perform better as the higher octane allows the computer to advance the timing more but that does not translate to better fuel economy. Flex fuel vehicles have sensors that can determine the ratio of E-85 to gasoline and therefore adjusts injector flow and ignition timing to accomodate that ratio. Without that capability, the faster burn rate of ethanol means you need more throttle to keep the flow rate up. That produces less economy, not more.

3) Unmodified engines can safely run on 40% ethanol. No they can't. If you lived in Minnesota in 1997 and drove a 1980's or older vehicle you found out in a hurry what ethanol does to incompatible fuel systems. They will run for awhile but for the same reason ethanol must be trucked rather than piped is its corrosiveness and ability to attack certain metals, seals, gaskets, and plastics that are not ethanol tolerant. The engine itself with proper ignition and fuel control can run on ethanol. But everything around that engine that comes in contact with the fuel needs to be set up for it.

4) Ethanol smells nice when burned.

Let the debate rage on.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: More Ethanol Debate

actually alchohol burns much slower than gasoline, thats why it tolerates high contents of nitros oxide and nitro methane, both oxygen bearing fuels that would cause even the highest of octne rated gasolines to immediatly detonate.
Higher octane in laymans terms,simply means a slower more controlled burn rate for the given compresion and combustion presures and temps.
but it takes twice as much ethnol to burn the same amount of oxygen as it does gsoline.
means if your engine displaced 14 gallons per crnk revolution you would need 1 gallon of gasoline to maintain the stoimetric ratio of 14 parts air to 1 part fuel.
with 100% ethanol that same 14 gallon displacement engine would need 2 gallons of fuel to maintain its 7 to one ratio.
which is why most alky motors run very large needle seats or injectors as the case may be and much higher fuel pump pressures.
takes twice as much for a given volume of air.
its a simple law of physics.
hevier fuels such as diesel,kerosene nd JP style fuels tend to be able to withstand A/F ratios from about 10/1 to 150+/1. its why diesels normally dont require a throttle. gasoline wont tolerate much below 13/1 nor higher thn bout 16/1
to lean and the fire goes out,to rich and it goes out again.
its the difference between constant volume and constant burn type fuels.
but going back to Ethanol, as Brazil is somewhat smaller than the US in terms of fuel usage,coupled with the fact its soils and climate will produce surgar cane and bout nything else year round. alcohol makes sense there.
that and just think, if it breaks down, siphon the tank,add Ice and ait for a tow .
most places in the US get one corn crop per season, most places here can get 3 or 4 or more simply by rotating planting times.
here in VE in the lowlands the length of the day vries by about 40 min year round, the temp by mybe 20 degrees from midnight to noon.
they say they have a wet and dry season, all I see is wet and wetter.
I used to work on a fleet of trucks in the san francisco rea in the late 70s, most were dual fuel, gasoline and LPG. a few were gasoline CNG.
the only isues were the added maint of the gas diaphram and the total lack of power when pulling a load up a hill.
in my area of the world,Outer banks of North Carolina, storage of blended fuel gets tough as its not uncommon to have weeks on end with humidity levels over 80%.
that alone leads to isues,addressable ones, yet ones.

for automobiles its not so bad as most fuel systems have been vapor tight for many years. for most farm equipment and boats its bad bad.

I like the Hydrogen technology myself, however its scary enough watching joe sixpack at the station on his cell with his smoke in his lips pumping fuel.

 

[DJ]

Re: More Ethanol Debate

I have a few points of disagreement here:

1) Cost of regular vs E85 varies all over the map. In Minnesota it is 60 cents cheaper than E10 and about another 10 cents cheaper than mid grade regular. In some states it is more expensive than regular.

2) You get better mileage on a 50/50 mix of ethanol and regular. Whether you are using E-85 or E-10 you are not getting better mileage. While E-85 has a higher octane rating than regular, it burns faster hence more fuel flow, hence less mileage. My fuel computer proves it. But the engine does perform better as the higher octane allows the computer to advance the timing more but that does not translate to better fuel economy. Flex fuel vehicles have sensors that can determine the ratio of E-85 to gasoline and therefore adjusts injector flow and ignition timing to accomodate that ratio. Without that capability, the faster burn rate of ethanol means you need more throttle to keep the flow rate up. That produces less economy, not more.

Your fuel computer is calibrated to read gasoline. Not alcohol. The flow meter reads gallons, not efficiency. THERE IS A SIMPLE FACT THAT PEOPLE IGNORE. THAT FACT IS THAT THERE IS SIMPLY NOT AS MANY BTU'S (ENERGY) IN A GALLON OF ALCOHOL AS THERE IS IN A GALLON OF GAS.
3) Unmodified engines can safely run on 40% ethanol. No they can't. If you lived in Minnesota in 1997 and drove a 1980's or older vehicle you found out in a hurry what ethanol does to incompatible fuel systems. They will run for awhile but for the same reason ethanol must be trucked rather than piped is its corrosiveness and ability to attack certain metals, seals, gaskets, and plastics that are not ethanol tolerant. The engine itself with proper ignition and fuel control can run on ethanol. But everything around that engine that comes in contact with the fuel needs to be set up for it.

Eighties be gone. You are talking about seventies carryovers built to withstand abuse. The eighties changed everything. Now, you're talking about introducing a corrosive fuel that WILL cause issues.

I lived in MN during the early nineties and was a part of alcohol based fuel testing. Guess what? It doesn't start at -40F and it is because of one reason-SEE ABOVE.

4) Ethanol smells nice when burned.

A personal opinion.

Let the debate rage on.

I suspect the Kool Aid is spiked with ethanol. For your sake I'm glad it's not methanol.

 

[Lou C]

Re: More Ethanol Debate

I see the FAA supposedly makes it illegal to use ethanol in Av-Gas, probably for the same reasons that it's questionable in boats. What I see as common between boats and planes is both have open vented fuel systems, and an engine failure due to bad fuel can put you quickly in harm's way, much more so than in a car. I would love to see the US Coast Guard take the bull by the horns and do the same for boaters.

 

[Silvertip]

Re: More Ethanol Debate

DJ -- there is no fuel transducer in the GM flex fuel vehicles. The computer knows what the mix of ethanol and gasoline is and adjusts the pulse width on the injectors accordingly. Since the flow rate of the injectors is known the fuel flow calculations are very accurate.

 

[DJ]

Re: More Ethanol Debate

DJ -- there is no fuel transducer in the GM flex fuel vehicles. The computer knows what the mix of ethanol and gasoline is and adjusts the pulse width on the injectors accordingly. Since the flow rate of the injectors is known the fuel flow calculations are very accurate.

Agreed. The pulse width varies (usually longer), thus more fuel is injected. Almost all makes do it this way. The specific gravity of the fuel is measured. That is how the computer knows what to do. BTU's are BTU's, that cannot be changed.

I don't have an issue with it as long as people understand what they are getting and what to expect. Some think it is some kind of panacea which it isn't.

 

[edself1950]

Re: More Ethanol Debate

Has anyone ever read the book The Emperior Wears No Clothes? Sounds like our forefathers had the answer to alot of todays problems years ago JMHO

 

[Silvertip]

Re: More Ethanol Debate

I wish I had saved the message I sent to both the Democratic and Republican party HQ regarding the energy situation. While both sides argue back and forth about what should or should not be done to solve it, we continue to pay through the nose for fuel. My message touched on other issues but the energy issue topped the list and I blasted both parties for doing nothing. Regardless what the solution turns out to be, nothing happens as long as the bickering continues. Well guess what happened! It took about two days to get a response from the Democrats. In fact I got two of them. The first one wanted me to donate money to the party so all that happened was that they added me to their database and are now after me for money. They made no reference to my message and there was not even so much as an acknowledgment. The second response came from them a few days later and this time they wanted me to buy a $30 "T-shirt". I about gave up on the Republicans since they did not respond until today. Guess what their response was. It was a very polite thank you, we have forwarded your message to the RNC Chair and if you have anything else to discuss please let us know. No request for money! Guess which way I'm volting come November. I agree we need to get away from our dependance on foreign oil but we have an abundance here. Lets get going on multiple fronts and use the darned stuff until we get an alternative.

 

[edthearcher]

Re: More Ethanol Debate

ethynol is the biggest bull **** story that our goverment has and will shove done our throats in the history of this country. let it set for 30 days and tell me what it is doing to your gas trimmer your chain saws yes even your outboards, the owner of a marina I go to says his repair bussiness hs never been so good since ethynol. I destroyed a chain saw because of ethynol, 2 years old never shook up the tank to mix the water gas seperation. its just like light bulbs no more filmament bulbs after 2012, the new bulbs have mercury in them not much but in 50 years how much mercury is going to be in our land fills, o yes some good dooer will reply recycle them all I can say to you is lol. OF THE PEOPLE BUY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE. bull crap

 

[Don Dickinson]

Re: More Ethanol Debate

just read a related article in teh "Outdoor News" paper here in minneapolis. the headline is:
"Irony at DNR: fleet use of E85 hurts wildlife habitat"

Here's a summary of the article
1. the mn DNR is taking heat because they are using E85 vehicles and the use of the fuel for these vehicles is causing us to lose 1,000,000 acres of forestland to farmers to meet the increased demand.
2. it will take 140 years of ethanol benefit to make up for the "carbon" problem created by the loss of forestland
3. we could reduce our corn use in ethanol by using biomass, but in order to do this we need a massive tax increase so that biomass ethanol is subsidized to the extent of corn ethanol. of course, we'd still need all that land, it just will be used to grow prairie grass or whatever instead of corn.
4. E85 ethanol costs around 10-15% less per gallon here but takes over 15% more to go the same distance.

these people are talking in circles to cover up their economically devastating mistake of mandating ethanol. very good.

 

[Silvertip]

Re: More Ethanol Debate

Nonsense. We don't have one million acres of forest land left in the state to lose. What that article said was we will lose one million acres of CRP land which is land farmers have set aside for wild life habitat. In otherwords it is land not being used for farming and farmers are paid for not using it. Jeez I wish I had a job that I could get paid for not doing.