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
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.