Posted on 03/04/2007 8:01:09 AM PST by Uncle Miltie
ethanol will always get worse mileage because it doesn't have as much energy per gallon genius
Read the Argonne National Labs report at the link I posted in #71.
The link was to a SUMMARY of a longer report by Argonne labs. Follow that up if you want the information. It's peer-reviewed and published information.
Heres another link http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/FarrellEthanolScience012706.pdf
from the journal "Science", which says the same thing. This is a "scientifically valid" as it gets.
"I've worked in refineries and I understand how much energy it takes. Nothing near this claim."
What did you do?? Fit pipes?? Because you really have no clue as to the processes involved or the energy they take.
"Do you know that gasoline was originally a waste product? Producing Kerosene resulting in gasoline there originally was no market for."
Yes.
"It doesn't take a huge additional amount of energy.
Wrong.
No. YOU are the one confused. Simply put, in the case of ethanol, you have 1.73MM BTU of "potentially available energy" (some from fossil, some from solar). In the case of gasoline, you have 2.23MM BTU of "potentially available energy" (all from fossil). After both "refining processes" have been done, you end up with 1MM BTU of ethanol and gasoline, having expended 0.73MM BTU to produce the fuel-grade ethanol, and 1.23MM BTU to produce the gasoline.
The link you posted is to a study by a GRADUATE STUDENT, for cripes sake.
See post #145 for a REAL scientific study (which agrees with the Argonne study, BTW).
What, you're too lazy to cut and paste???
When I'm not pressed for time, I will take the extra trouble to make links active. Lately, I've been pretty busy.
This is the big question you are ignoring and proves how foolish your claim is. Such power as you claim is does not exist.
"I've worked in refineries and I understand how much energy it takes. Nothing near this claim."
What did you do?? Fit pipes??
No, I was the lead electrical and instrumentation engineer. I had to provide the main power switchgear, cables and transformers for all the incoming power. I also reviewed all the process flow and instrumentation diagrams for my approval.
"It doesn't take a huge additional amount of energy.
Wrong.
Again and again, where is this power you claim is needed? It doesn't exist because it is not used.
You should reread your own links.
Not only does it count the fuel itself, it also ignores the BTU content of all the other products. And there is a lot of energy in the other products. We do not consume that much energy only for gasoline, we consume that much for gasoline and diesel and jet fuel and kerosene and Petrochem Feedstock and on and on.
Genius.
ADM
I assume that means its always the dam money.
Or in this case Archer Daniels Midland Corp.
Math is hard.
Now lets look at your funny numbers.
After both "refining processes" have been done, you end up with 1MM BTU of ethanol and gasoline, having expended 0.73MM BTU to produce the fuel-grade ethanol, and 1.23MM BTU to produce the gasoline.
Let's pretend for a second that you are right and let us convert the units to gallons to make it easier to understand :) You are stating that it take 1.23 gallons of gasoline to manufacture one gallon of gasoline. So for every gallon sold 1.23 gallons was used to get it to the cars gas tank.
A barrel of crude (let us assume that it all becomes gas) costs 60 dollars and contains 42 gallons that is $1.43 per gallon. If we use your numbers then it takes 1.23 gallons to make the gas and 1 gallon for the gas. 1.23+1=2.23 gallons. At $1.43 per gallon the cost to produce a gallon of gasoline is $1.43 x 2.23 = $3.19. That is for the cost of the raw material alone. Do you really believe that Oil companies sell gas at a loss?
Even with your lack of reading comprehension, I don't think you are that stupid. Take a step back and think about what you are saying. Does it make sense to you that out of a barrel of oil, 70% of it is consumed to make 30%?
I was just making fun of ADM but being serious about politicians. I live a mile from the Mississippi and you can't miss their facilities.
So what? None of this is relevant. If you'd ever heard of the first law of thermodynamics you'd know know too. It takes energy to accelerate mass and overcome friction. Engines are limited in their efficiency by the theoretical limit of their cycle. Changing the compression ration helps a little bit, but the basic limitations are available energy in the fuel and mass of the vehicle. Ie going from 10 or 11 to 1 to 19 to one doesn't make a lot of difference because of the law of diminishing returns. Here
is how compression affects efficiency for an otto cycle. You can read the whole thing at http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/16/16.unified/thermoF03/chapter_5.htm Increase mass = worse MPG, decrease fuel energy = worse MPG. Increase compression over the 10 - 11 range in most modern vehicles = SLIGHTLY increased MPG
That's all fine, but at 19.5:1 compression ration, the engine will operate more efficiently on ethanol than 87 octane gasoline.
As you pointed out you can't operate at 19.5 to one on 87 octane, so yes, but you'll still get better gas mileage at 10:1 on 87 octane than at 19.5:1 on etoh
I should have mentioned that you can Google on something to the effect of "High efficiency Engine Technologies for Alcohol Fuel" to review the EPA's actual results from increasing compression ratios.
At their press release:
Argonne expert addresses energy, environmental impacts of fuel ethanol
There is a short presentation that walks through the comparison of energies required for different fuels. It also compares fuels used for electrical power generation. This makes it clear the 1.23 MMBTU to produce 1 MMBTU includes the BTU of the fuel itself.
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.