Posted on 03/04/2007 8:01:09 AM PST by Uncle Miltie
E85 is a loser for reduced miles per gallon, as reported in published articles in recent magazines. Stories published in various magazines, e.g., Consumer Reports, CARandDRIVER, Bioscience, Scientific American, American Scientist and Science in 2005 and 2006 question the scientific and economic validity of ethanol (a mixture of gasoline and alcohol) made from corn grain or other fermentable carbohydrates (CHO).
Alcohol made from fermented cellosic material (wood from certain trees, plant materials from plants such as switchgrass or other grasses, etc. may be more feasible. However, cellosic materials are composed of complex CHOs which must be modified to more simple, fermentable CHOs to produce alcohol, and the needed economic procedures are not yet developed.
A significant fact is that gasoline from petroleum has 115,400 British Thermal Units per gallon whereas alcohol (ethanol) has only 75,670 BTUs per gallon, or, alcohol has only .66 the energy of gasoline.
Further, the energy input to produce corn, such as machinery, fertilizer, seed, etc., and the total process of conversion of corn grain to alcohol and by-products requires more energy than is produced in the ethanol, according to researchers at Cornell University (2007 publication) and others. However, others reported a 1.34 gain in energy from the ethanol from the corn when he included the energy of byproducts.
Two publications, Consumer Reports and CARandDRIVER in recent road tests or on an oval track, in 2006 trials found that E85 (gasoline mixed with 85 percent alcohol) has approximately 30 percent less mileage as compared to 87 octane gasoline. At prices of gasoline and E85 in August, 2006, the fuel costs to travel 400 miles (road) with E85 ($3.99) would have exceeded gasoline ($2.49), or a Tahoe Chevrolet went 400 miles on a tankful of gasoline versus the Tahoe going only 290 miles on a tankful of E85.
The author of the story in CARandDRIVER quoted that the Environmental Protection Agency has reported 28 percent reduction in mileage for E85 as compared to gasoline. E85 provided only 0.67 the mileage of gasoline.
Ethanol from corn has required large federal and state subsidies, a 51c/gallon federal subsidy of alcohol blended with gasoline, plus state subsidies and tax incentives to grow to its present 107 ethanol plants producing 5.1 billion gallons of alcohol in 2006, and growing.
The price of corn has increased
50 percent or more in six to nine months benefiting corn growers. The higher price of corn is hurting livestock producers (beef cattle, swine, poultry, etc.) because the price of feeder cattle has decreased significantly and the price of corn for feed has increased 50 percent in six months.
A potentially more efficient producer of liquid fuel energy is thought to be the “cellulosic” system, or production of alcohol from complex CHOs such as wood chips, plant material from corn stalks, and perennial grasses such as switchgrass. However, a basic problem is the development of enzyme(s) to convert complex CHOs to fermentable CHOs.
Economic transportation of such bulky materials also is a problem. Another problem is that the cellulosic plants will use about 500 to 1,000 gallons of water per minute or 1,440,000 gallons per 24 hours with plants closely spaced due to bulk of cellulosic material. (Says Dr. Thomas Robb, in Farm & Ranch Guide, Jan. 5)
The production and use of biodiesel (diesel from petroleum to which are added modified vegetable oils or waste fats) also have economic problems. Canola oil highly publicized for use now has a higher cost per pound or gallon than diesel fuel from petroleum, $3/gallon wholesale versus $2.47/gallon retail. Canola oil is popular for use in cooking or in foods.
Soybean oil has a lower price than canola oil but now has increased to 28.5c/lb. about 10 percent higher than the maximum, 25c/lb. at which using soybean oil in biodiesel will be economic.
The potential users of biofuels are urged to become better informed about their practical and economic feasibility. Stories in the popular press are mostly very favorable to “replaceable, sustainable biofuels” as are corn growers, speculators and most politicians. Other publications are skeptical to negative about the practical and economic feasibility of biofuels now produced from corn grain and other plant sources.
Carter and Nalewaja are professors emeritus in plant science at North Dakota State University.
Both had distinguished careers in teaching and research – Carter in flaxseed for food and fuel, Nalewaja in development of weed control practices. E-mail ImySm@aol.com
Pound for pound, it would be about 80% that of gasoline; adjusting for miles driven, it would about 87%.
Unfortunately, like the ethanol, it is highly hygroscopic which creates delivery problems along with storage problems.
There ain't no free lunch yet.
The reason I suggested moving to the right was not to eliminate the left fence line but to dramatize the perspective by creating a "vanishing point" where the centered cross and the fence right angle change would nearly intersect on the horizon.
A photographer takes thousands of pictures; every now and then he is lucky enough to be carrying a camera.
It obviously isn't tough to be too uneducated or too much of a blow hard to understand simple economics
Would your rather give money to those who would use it to kill you?
Your question is totally irrelevant, since that isn't what's happening with ethanol. I'll try to keep this really simple in the vain hope that you'll understand
Or to look at another way, I can buy 2.50 a 115,000 btu gas, some of which comes from arabs or I can buy 3.83 a 115,000 btu ethanol that was made with the arab gas. Say you aren't channeling Spiro Agnew are you?
Perhaps, but I believe the bigger complaint is how much they pay for gas.
The economic points you raise are not settled questions, and there are a number of professionals on each side of the issue, all of whom make compelling arguments for their side.
As I pointed out upthread, you choose not to answer my direct question only because it doesn't advance your cause.
Thats a sign of weakness on your part. Someone confident would answer the reasonable question honestly, and move on to argue their point further.
Obviously you are uncertain of your positions strength or you would say "of COURSE I want to buy from those who won't kill me...........BUT..............."
I'm not falling for your stipid irrelevant straw man. I'm not switching the "discussion" to your irrelevnacies. Ethanol is a boondoggle to put money in the hands of the politically connected ethanol producers at whatever cost to the american people. You must have stock in pacific ethanol AND ADM. If you were really concerned about energy independence you'd say Lets go for coal synfuel, but you're pushing ethanol
Like global warming,
Ethanol:a farm subsidy called an 'energy program'.
Depends on your daily miles traveled, I think; my neighbor works on cars and he has a Camry, 89, that he okayed about 2-3 years ago for a customer.
They bought it with 165,000+ miles on the clock -- today it's back for power steering hoses and shows 365,778 miles.
It now has one dent per panel but still keeps on ticking.
A little math shows how ridiculous this claim is.
You are forgetting that 1.00MM BTU of the 1.23MM BTU is the delivered product itself. The article is very misleading and disingenuous at best. It doesn't include the 1.00MM BTU of the Ethanol because it isn't a 'fossil' fuel.
The article is using the worst case scenario for gasoline, heavy crude probably produced in Russia, refined in Texas and trucked to Nome, Alaska.(I made up that example) It is also using the most optimistic projections for Ethanol, based on what they might be able to achieve.
I believe that we have the same point of view on this subject.
Thank you, I didn't read it that way. I still believe that is too high. The claim then is it takes 23% of the energy delivered to produce it. I may be wrong but that is a enormous amount of energy that I do not see where the source could be.
The 23 percent (I think) is mostly in the shipping, but I agree. 23 percent is huge. My guess would be in the sub 5% range if pipelines are used and it goes to easily accessible areas.
The article that Wonder Warthog is referencing is very poorly written (or very good propaganda).
I don't think shipping could get close to that. Typical tankers pulled by semi tractors hold ~12,000 gallons. I've seen a variety of mileage figures but 6 mpg seems to be reasonable. To use 10% of the fuel the truck would have to drive from New York City to Los Angeles, back again then halfway back to LA. I know I'm mixing gasoline and diesel but you see my point.
I'll bet you serious money you can't find me 'pushing' alcohol. In fact, go back some time and you will find me saying right here on FR that the free market should be allowed to sort this out.
You've got a pretty big blind spot.
Not exactly easy to find.
Change typical to a few. I was going by memory on tank size. ~9,500 gallon seems to be more common, so only NY to LA and back for 10%.
Would not the 5% "extra efficiency" be explained by the fact that 15 percent of the blend is gasoline?
Also, I'm pretty sure that E85 isn't priced 30% less than regular gasoline, so it's not a more price-efficient fuel.
Ethanol will get worse mileage than gasoline in an engine which is optomized for gasoline. It is possible to optimize an engine for ethanol, but it wouldn't run worth a crap on gasoline. The 105 octane rating of E85 would support about a 14:1 compression ratio, but that engine would knock something fierce if you tried to run it on gasoline.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.