Live Green, Go Yellow, E85 Ethanol

[007]

I think this is the best idea I've heard in decades. Why there isn't a MAJOR push for this, I don't know...

http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/livegreengoyellow/index.html

 

[Mr.Conley]

I agree that the effort should be expanded, but ethanol is no solution. If you look on the website you linked (look under E85: The 411/FAQs/Does Ethanol only come from corn?) The site notes that we already use 11% of the corn crop for ethanol, and thats for only 2 out of the 80 million vehicles on the road. And I would bet that most of that 2 million has never seen a drop of E85. Basicly, we'd need a lot more land than even we to switch over to ethanol. Even if it was possibly, I would not be surprised if we started seeing a water shortage for all those crops. However, ethanol is not a hopeless cause, it could help to somewhat reduce our oil dependency, but its still just a stopgap measure.

 

[007]

I agree that the effort should be expanded, but ethanol is no solution. If you look on the website you linked (look under E85: The 411/FAQs/Does Ethanol only come from corn?) The site notes that we already use 11% of the corn crop for ethanol, and thats for only 2 out of the 80 million vehicles on the road. And I would bet that most of that 2 million has never seen a drop of E85. Basicly, we'd need a lot more land than even we to switch over to ethanol. Even if it was possibly, I would not be surprised if we started seeing a water shortage for all those crops. However, ethanol is not a hopeless cause, it could help to somewhat reduce our oil dependency, but its still just a stopgap measure.

I disagree. I grew up in the midwest. Born in Iowa and raised in Wisconsin. I know for a fact that the DNR pays farmers to leave the land bare and grow nothing. I know this is also meant to replenish the top soil, but personally knowing quite a few farmers in my life, they abused this regularly. If they had a cash crop like corn to grow, they'd do it.

Land? America has more unused land that is crop friendly than any other country in the world. Land to grow corn would not be a problem. And even the process in which the ethanol is made would no doubt be streamlined and refined. Alcohol also has a higher octane than gas, so higher compression ratios could be used in smaller engines, to make more power with less consumption. Alcohol also burns much cleaner than gas.

This is only the beginning, and a good one at that. Don't you think it's a little early to just poo poo the idea away like you're doing? Especially with how badly this country has to rely on foriegn oil?

 

[misterblu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

Good info on E85. I'd love to have it conveniently available. It's great for turbocharged vehicles.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

i have heard from different sources like auto magazines and newpaper articles, that corn ethanol isn't the greatest in terms of mpg. Meaning, you get fewer mpg than with ethanol/gas mix or just plain gas. so even though ethanol may be cheaper per gallon, you have to fill up sooner, so really it isn't saving any money.

instead of using corn-based ethanol, I read somewhere (i'd have to do some searching as to where) that sugar-beet ethanol (as used in South America) produces higher mpg results, and is easier to produce because topsoil useage is not as bad as corn. i'll check back when i find the info.

 

[dmp]

i have heard from different sources like auto magazines and newpaper articles, that corn ethanol isn't the greatest in terms of mpg. Meaning, you get fewer mpg than with ethanol/gas mix or just plain gas. so even though ethanol may be cheaper per gallon, you have to fill up sooner, so really it isn't saving any money.

instead of using corn-based ethanol, I read somewhere (i'd have to do some searching as to where) that sugar-beet ethanol (as used in South America) produces higher mpg results, and is easier to produce because topsoil useage is not as bad as corn. i'll check back when i find the info.

If it's 'enough' cheaper, one or two mpg in reduced economy won't matter.

IF the stuff allows me to make more HP, then it's all good.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

here are some articles i found...
sugar-beet ethanol
http://www.valleystar.com/articles/2006/02/15/local_news/local_news1.txt

ethanol fuel efficiency
http://www.intellichoice.com/carBuying101/TruckvsFuel

from the above link

...However, it’s important to note that ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, so a vehicle running on this alternative fuel will actually get fewer miles per gallon than when it’s running on gasoline.

 

[misterblu]

here are some articles i found...
sugar-beet ethanol
http://www.valleystar.com/articles/2006/02/15/local_news/local_news1.txt

ethanol fuel efficiency
http://www.intellichoice.com/carBuying101/TruckvsFuel

from the above link

Stoichiometric for gasoline is 14.7:1. For ethanol, it's ~11:1 IIRC. I would guess that E85 would be somewhere in between but more towards 11:1.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Stoichiometric for gasoline is 14.7:1. For ethanol, it's ~11:1 IIRC. I would guess that E85 would be somewhere in between but more towards 11:1.

I have no idea what that is or means.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem looking for alternative fuels, but I also won't switch cars just because of fuel costs. I plan to keep my impala for many more years. Same with our Caddy. It would basically cost me more in the long run because of the need to finance one or both new cars, thus my needing to pay 2 car payments again, be in debt for another 5 years, and all the interest and down payments that go with it. Not worth it when one car is paid for and the other is nearly there. I suspect many others feel the same way.

I hear a lot about using hydrogen for a fuel source. Isn't that what they used in the Hindenburg, and other 'balloons' that spontaneously combusted, sending hundereds to their deaths? I know they also use hydrogen in mass-destruction bombs. So why do we want an engine, less than a foot away from our bodies, powered by this? Sounds dangerous to me.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I disagree. I grew up in the midwest. Born in Iowa and raised in Wisconsin. I know for a fact that the DNR pays farmers to leave the land bare and grow nothing. I know this is also meant to replenish the top soil, but personally knowing quite a few farmers in my life, they abused this regularly. If they had a cash crop like corn to grow, they'd do it.

Land? America has more unused land that is crop friendly than any other country in the world. Land to grow corn would not be a problem. And even the process in which the ethanol is made would no doubt be streamlined and refined. Alcohol also has a higher octane than gas, so higher compression ratios could be used in smaller engines, to make more power with less consumption. Alcohol also burns much cleaner than gas.

This is only the beginning, and a good one at that. Don't you think it's a little early to just poo poo the idea away like you're doing? Especially with how badly this country has to rely on foriegn oil?

I am aware of the DNR payment plan, and we do have a lot of land, but I don't think there is enough to fuel our car fleet. Lets consider:

First we need to establish a few facts,

1. 1 square kilometer = 247.105 381 467 acre
(source http://www.onlineconversion.com/area.htm)

2. There are 9,161,923 sq km of land in the US
(source http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)

3. Of that, 19.13% is arable (Remember- arable land is the amount of land that can be harvested, not being harvested)
(source http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)

4. If we multiply the total landmass by the percentage of arable land, we get 1,752,676 square km of arable land in the entire country.

5. Now multiply 1,752,676 by 247.105 for the total number of arable acres, or 433,095,002.98 acres of arable land

6. Now there are, as of 2000, 225,821,841 cars in the US.
Source: (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2002/html/table_01_11.html )

7. And if a car uses E85, it requires 11 acres to go 10,000 miles, about one years driving. So 11 acres per car.
(source http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99487&page=2)

8. So if multiply the total number of cars by 11 we will find the amount of land required to fuel all our cars with ethanol.
225,821,841 cars x 11 acres/car = 2,484,040,251 acres

9. So we have 433,095,002.98 acres of arable land in the entire country, used and unused, but 2,484,040,251.00 acres are required. Now subtract 2,484,040,251 acres - 433,095,002.98 acres = 2050945248 acres

10. So now we see we need an additional 2,050,945,248 acres or approx. 5 times the amount of arable land we have to fuel the auto fleet on E85.

Now as we can see, ethanol is not the answer to our problems; however, it could be an effective stopgap measure. Also if the nation conserved, used automobiles less, had a greater fuel economy, etc. It could be theoritically possible to use ethanol.

 

[ThomasPaine]

of course resistant to large government, i.e. wasteful, programs, however, energy is a national security issue thus within the federal governments domain. Let us

1. Drill in ANWAR Alaska now. Liberals and environmentalists are scaring people with false interpretations of "damaging our pristine wilderness". Get over it, directional drilling is now a science and can easily be done barely scratching a few square thousand feet for the entire operation.

2. Expand all offshore exploration for oil and gas. Once again when was the last spill associated with an offshore rig?

3. Build extensive nuclear electric powerplants throughout the country. France, yes our buddies the francs, rely on nukes for half their domestic electric production.

4. Expand ethanol experimentation and production. Corn, soybeans, beets, whatever will do the job.

5. Create a "Manhatten Project" like program to explore hydrogen possibilities for the internal combustion engine and fuel cell technology.

6. Burn it into the American consciousness: Energy independence or reliance on Venezuela (Oh boy), Nigeria (Another oh boy), the middle east (Uh duh), or Mexico (socialists). Take your pick of a bad lot. Energy independence. Defeat is unacceptable.

 

[misterblu]

I have no idea what that is or means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometric

Basically, the ideal ratio of air to fuel required for clean combustion. 14.7 parts air for each part of fuel for gasoline and IIRC ~11.0 parts air for each part of fuel for ethanol.

An engine is basically a large air pump. The amount of air that is inducted during each revolution of the crankshaft is fixed (not exactly, but good enough for this discussion). The amount of fuel that needs to be injected for stoichiometric combustion is 1/14.7th this fixed amount for gasoline and 1/11th this fixed amount for ethanol.

1/11th is larger than 1/14.7th. Basically, you need to burn ~30% more fuel to run an engine on ethanol.

However, ethanol has a higher octane rating than consumer grade gasolines. Higher octane allows engines to produce more power via higher compression, higher boost levels(turbo/supercharger), and/or higher ignition timing. It's conceivable that a smaller engine, designed around E85, could make the power of a larger engine running on gasoline. This might equalize/eliminate the lower mpg issue.

 

[Mr.Conley]

1. Drill in ANWAR Alaska now. Liberals and environmentalists are scaring people with false interpretations of "damaging our pristine wilderness". Get over it, directional drilling is now a science and can easily be done barely scratching a few square thousand feet for the entire operation.

2. Expand all offshore exploration for oil and gas. Once again when was the last spill associated with an offshore rig?

3. Build extensive nuclear electric powerplants throughout the country. France, yes our buddies the francs, rely on nukes for half their domestic electric production.

4. Expand ethanol experimentation and production. Corn, soybeans, beets, whatever will do the job.

5. Create a "Manhatten Project" like program to explore hydrogen possibilities for the internal combustion engine and fuel cell technology.

6. Burn it into the American consciousness: Energy independence or reliance on Venezuela (Oh boy), Nigeria (Another oh boy), the middle east (Uh duh), or Mexico (socialists). Take your pick of a bad lot. Energy independence. Defeat is unacceptable.

1. Should be done but won't have nearly any effect on anything. As has been discussed before.

2. Again should be done, but the results would buy time, rather than be a solution.

3. We'd need to triple our nuclear power from approx. 9% of total supply to about 26% to phase out fossil fuels (but not coal) from electricity production. That means we need to construct an additional 206 nuclear plants to the 103 we already have. But at a cost of 2-5 billion dollars a piece and 3-5 years of construction each, its possibley, but its going to be a while

4. Already discussed, although the little known rapeseed has been demonstrated to produce a large amount of energy.

5. Absolutely.

6.Should be done, but Americans are a stubborn bunch, especially with their SUVs. Good Luck.

 

[nbdysfu]

Is ethanol already used in normal gasolines, at a smaller percentage than e85?

 

[misterblu]

Is ethanol already used in normal gasolines, at a smaller percentage than e85?

I believe it replace MTBE in gasoline formulations.

Just googled it. It certainly looks that way (~7%):

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...thanol+replaces+mtbe&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8

 

[ThomasPaine]

1. Should be done but won't have nearly any effect on anything. As has been discussed before.


2. Again should be done, but the results would buy time, rather than be a solution.

3. We'd need to triple our nuclear power from approx. 9% of total supply to about 26% to phase out fossil fuels (but not coal) from electricity production. That means we need to construct an additional 206 nuclear plants to the 103 we already have. But at a cost of 2-5 billion dollars a piece and 3-5 years of construction each, its possibley, but its going to be a while

4. Already discussed, although the little known rapeseed has been demonstrated to produce a large amount of energy.

5. Absolutely.

6.Should be done, but Americans are a stubborn bunch, especially with their SUVs. Good Luck.

1. Every bit helps. Until you drill, I'm in the business, you do not know exactly what you have. All the geologists best guesses are just that, hence the term "dry hole".
2. Again, you don't know for certain till you spud the well and break into the formation. Who knows but there might be a great deal or little.

3. 2-4 Billion sounds very much on the high side to me. If a large program were instituted the economy of scale would bring costs down.

4. Already discussed? Not within this thread. Backyard ingenuity by smart Americans, could deliver alot more than you might imagine. I can see mom and pop businesses throughout the country with their own ethanol stills. Hell you can make ethanol from just about any organic.

5. We seem to be of the same mind on this one. Make it priority one and get it done.

6. Americnas are a stubborn bunch yes, halleluyah!!!!, however, give Joe Excursion a taste of $5.00 a gallon gas and see how fast his SUV is in the garage or for sale. I'm not one for imposing miles per gallon performance on the auto industry. I believe the market, and believe me $5.00 gas will do it, is a more effective influence on auto production.

This can, and with proper leadership, will be done. Hell cancel that. If the price per barrel rises to the $100 mark the iniative will be there for the entrepreneur. As of now the price per barrel is nearing the point where serious money is going to start looking for alternatives. Alternatives that make money sense not just national security sense.

 

[007]

I am aware of the DNR payment plan, and we do have a lot of land, but I don't think there is enough to fuel our car fleet. Lets consider:

First we need to establish a few facts,

1. 1 square kilometer = 247.105 381 467 acre
(source http://www.onlineconversion.com/area.htm)

2. There are 9,161,923 sq km of land in the US
(source http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)

3. Of that, 19.13% is arable (Remember- arable land is the amount of land that can be harvested, not being harvested)
(source http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)

4. If we multiply the total landmass by the percentage of arable land, we get 1,752,676 square km of arable land in the entire country.

5. Now multiply 1,752,676 by 247.105 for the total number of arable acres, or 433,095,002.98 acres of arable land

6. Now there are, as of 2000, 225,821,841 cars in the US.
Source: (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2002/html/table_01_11.html )

7. And if a car uses E85, it requires 11 acres to go 10,000 miles, about one years driving. So 11 acres per car.
(source http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99487&page=2)

8. So if multiply the total number of cars by 11 we will find the amount of land required to fuel all our cars with ethanol.
225,821,841 cars x 11 acres/car = 2,484,040,251 acres

9. So we have 433,095,002.98 acres of arable land in the entire country, used and unused, but 2,484,040,251.00 acres are required. Now subtract 2,484,040,251 acres - 433,095,002.98 acres = 2050945248 acres

10. So now we see we need an additional 2,050,945,248 acres or approx. 5 times the amount of arable land we have to fuel the auto fleet on E85.

Now as we can see, ethanol is not the answer to our problems; however, it could be an effective stopgap measure. Also if the nation conserved, used automobiles less, had a greater fuel economy, etc. It could be theoritically possible to use ethanol.

Nicely done. Good reading. I appreciate the effort.

I'll have to take a second look at the situation as a whole now.

 

[007]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometric

Basically, the ideal ratio of air to fuel required for clean combustion. 14.7 parts air for each part of fuel for gasoline and IIRC ~11.0 parts air for each part of fuel for ethanol.

An engine is basically a large air pump. The amount of air that is inducted during each revolution of the crankshaft is fixed (not exactly, but good enough for this discussion). The amount of fuel that needs to be injected for stoichiometric combustion is 1/14.7th this fixed amount for gasoline and 1/11th this fixed amount for ethanol.

1/11th is larger than 1/14.7th. Basically, you need to burn ~30% more fuel to run an engine on ethanol.

However, ethanol has a higher octane rating than consumer grade gasolines. Higher octane allows engines to produce more power via higher compression, higher boost levels(turbo/supercharger), and/or higher ignition timing. It's conceivable that a smaller engine, designed around E85, could make the power of a larger engine running on gasoline. This might equalize/eliminate the lower mpg issue.

This is exactly right, and the way I was looking at it.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometric

Basically, the ideal ratio of air to fuel required for clean combustion. 14.7 parts air for each part of fuel for gasoline and IIRC ~11.0 parts air for each part of fuel for ethanol.

An engine is basically a large air pump. The amount of air that is inducted during each revolution of the crankshaft is fixed (not exactly, but good enough for this discussion). The amount of fuel that needs to be injected for stoichiometric combustion is 1/14.7th this fixed amount for gasoline and 1/11th this fixed amount for ethanol.

1/11th is larger than 1/14.7th. Basically, you need to burn ~30% more fuel to run an engine on ethanol.

However, ethanol has a higher octane rating than consumer grade gasolines. Higher octane allows engines to produce more power via higher compression, higher boost levels(turbo/supercharger), and/or higher ignition timing. It's conceivable that a smaller engine, designed around E85, could make the power of a larger engine running on gasoline. This might equalize/eliminate the lower mpg issue.

i figured that it had something to do with compression and air/fuel mix.

as far as the higher octane output, what will ethanol do for vehicles that run on plain 87 octane, which is pretty much 99% of the vehicles out there? granted, our Caddy takes 91 octane, though you can use a lower grade in a pinch (no other grade available), but the engine will knock a bit.

won't putting a higher-than-recommended octane level in the car potentially damage the engine?

Unless engine mods to switch the engine over, are fairly inexpensive, I fail to see most of America changing vehicles that quickly.

I look at it this way. We were in a similar situation with fuel prices 20 years ago. Manufacturers produced cars to meet fuel efficiency demands of consumers. Then things got better, fuel was cheap again, and people began to drive cars with bigger engines again. It just seems like history is repeating itself, so I plan to just wait it out, adjust my fuel budget as needed, and not panic. Besides, I have seen more just-purchased trucks on the road recently, than I have in the past 3 years. I saw 4 on the way home from work today. People must not be that panicked about fuel prices going up. We just got our '92 Seville in November, complete with a 4.9l v8. Not the greatest in fuel efficiency (avg 22 mpg), but we still get about a week's worth. Plus the price, the mileage, and the fact it is mint condition (spare a few minor dents/scratches) and fully loaded were a big factor.

 

[Mr.Conley]

1. Every bit helps. Until you drill, I'm in the business, you do not know exactly what you have. All the geologists best guesses are just that, hence the term "dry hole".
2. Again, you don't know for certain till you spud the well and break into the formation. Who knows but there might be a great deal or little.

3. 2-4 Billion sounds very much on the high side to me. If a large program were instituted the economy of scale would bring costs down.

4. Already discussed? Not within this thread. Backyard ingenuity by smart Americans, could deliver alot more than you might imagine. I can see mom and pop businesses throughout the country with their own ethanol stills. Hell you can make ethanol from just about any organic.

5. We seem to be of the same mind on this one. Make it priority one and get it done.

6. Americnas are a stubborn bunch yes, halleluyah!!!!, however, give Joe Excursion a taste of $5.00 a gallon gas and see how fast his SUV is in the garage or for sale. I'm not one for imposing miles per gallon performance on the auto industry. I believe the market, and believe me $5.00 gas will do it, is a more effective influence on auto production.

This can, and with proper leadership, will be done. Hell cancel that. If the price per barrel rises to the $100 mark the iniative will be there for the entrepreneur. As of now the price per barrel is nearing the point where serious money is going to start looking for alternatives. Alternatives that make money sense not just national security sense.

1-2. Agree with you, no ones really sure. But the geologist's guesses are all we have to work with so I'd rather not leave the fate of the nation resting on the possiblity that there are 5 Ghawars sitting off the coast but no one has any clue about.

3. Upon further research it is possible to build a small nuclear plant for as little as 1.4 billion, but the bigger you get the more expensive building becomes, and we need big plants to offset our natural gas dependency. And if you start building breeder reactors than the price just skyrockets. You are correct about the economies of scale, but when we are talking in the billions, 2 billion or 3 billion isn't much of a difference, its still more money than we'll ever see. But irrelevant to cost, my main concern in the amount of time it will take to build over 200 more nuclear plants. I hate to imagine the amount of time, workers, and infaststruture required.

4. As for ethanol, please refer to post 10 in this thread. Your mom and pop stores can do a lot, but we just don't have enough land to grow the corn required.

5. Nothing left ot say except when do we start really.

6. You are correct that at 5$ a gallon/$100 a barrel market forces will get moving. But my concern is the time between the price rise and the implementaion of the solution, probably a period of several months to years. What is Joe going to do if he can't get to work because he can't afford 5$ a gallon gas and doesn't have enough left to make a down payment on a Prius. Joe has to realize NOW before its to late. Then he can plan ahead and work with others to conserve (carpool, insulation, etc.) The problem is getting people to listen. You have no idea how many people I've talked to about this issue would rather go on as if there weren't a care in the world.