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
You've got a real problem with math, don't you?
A significant fact is that gasoline from petroleum has 115,400 MIDDLE EASTERN Thermal Units per gallon whereas alcohol (ethanol) has only 75,670 AMERICAN Thermal Units per gallon, or, alcohol has only .66 the energy of gasoline.
Oops! An INCONVENIENT TRUTH.
E85 was never about a more efficient or less expensive fuel. It was touted as a means of reducing dependence on foreign oil. There is no free lunch.
Told everybody that for quite some time, and got a ration of crap back for my statements.
Prius is till advertising their cars as getting 60 mpg, and the tests are showing they don't get over 45.
When will all this false advertising stop?
Alternative fuels might work in some of the newer cars that are mostly designed for city driving, but in my one ton Chevy dually with a load of horses behind, I can tell the difference with just the 10% blend. Mileage and power both drop.
"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."
Which basically says that ethanol is a MORE EFFICIENT fuel than gasoline, based on the BTU/gallon ratios."
Not sure I am following your math here. Please clarify.
I can assure you that the horsepower and mileage on my truck is reduced when I am forced to use the blend. I have had this truck since 1986, and have kept accurate records of it's mielage. Blend doesn't help me one bit.
Not to mention, a significant amount of energy is used in converting corn to ethanol. This is nonsense. We will never successfully deal with our energy problems until we accept a large dose of nuclear power.
What's good enough for jet engines is good enough for my own car, and I've used Mobil 1 for years. The valve train surfaces, after almost 100,000 miles, looks like a mirror...
Wiki has a pretty good primer. Just click here.
> E85 was never about a more efficient or less
> expensive fuel. It was touted as a means of
> reducing dependence on foreign oil.
And it fails to do that if it takes more energy to
produce than it delivers at the carburetor.
E85 could be a thermodynamic scam. The clear fact
that it is politically popular tends to undermine
the scientific case.
And as an added benefit ethanol is a solvent for fiberglass resins.
All those boaters with fiberglass tanks are having seized up engines due to this.
An "inconvenient" seizure just when you need some power to get home/ride out a storm etc your motor is dead.
Butanol at 85 percent strength can be used in cars without any change to the engine (unlike ethanol) and it produces more power than ethanol and almost as much power as gasoline. Butanol is reported to yield 36 MJ/kg (15,500 BTU/lb). This can be expressed volumetrically as 29.3 MJ/l (104,800 BTU/US gal). This compares favorably to Gasoline which is 32 MJ/l and better than ethanol at 19.6 MJ/l.
Butanol can also be produced by fermentation of biomass by bacteria.
The process uses the bacterium Clostridium acetobutylicum, also known as the Weizmann organism. It was Chaim Weizmann who first used this bacteria for the production of acetone from starch (with the main use of acetone being the making of Cordite) in 1916. The butanol was a by-product of this fermentation (twice as much butanol was produced). The process also creates a recoverable amount of H2 and a number of other by-products: acetic, lactic and propionic acids, acetone, isopropanol and ethanol. The bacterium producing butanol is able to digest cellulose, not just starch and sugars.
The difference from ethanol production is primarily in the fermentation of the feedstock — producing butanol rather than ethanol like primary fermentation product and minor changes in distillation. The feedstocks are the same as for ethanol — energy crops such as sugar beets, sugar cane, corn grain, wheat and cassava as well as agricultural byproducts such as straw and corn stalks. According to DuPont, existing bioethanol plants can cost-effectively be retrofitted to biobutanol production.
The fuel in an engine has to be vaporized before it will burn. Insufficient vaporization is a known problem with alcohol fuels during cold starts in cold weather. As the latent heat of vaporization of butanol is less than half of that of ethanol, an engine running on butanol should be easier to start in cold weather than one running on ethanol or methanol.
I'm of the opinion that it would be better to pursue Butanol production over Ethanol.
Yes, but only for those of us who will be FORCED to use (and PAY FOR) this junk.
Which basically says that ethanol is a MORE EFFICIENT fuel than gasoline, based on the BTU/gallon ratios.
Huh?
If you mean efficient at sucking the dollars out of your wallet, I suppose you're right.
Otherwise, I don't see how you say that.
Where does much of that production energy come from? Oil. The American vs. Middle East comment is a myth.
You are not suppose to drink it.
Oops! An INCONVENIENT TRUTH.
There you go again Mr. Gore. This "fact" totally ignores that US gasoline comes primarily from North American Sources. BTW- Ethanol uses fertilizers that are petroleum based.
Love your tagline! Did you make it up, or are you quoting ALGore?
That was part of my point, those inputs could come from the US instead of the ME.
Applications for thermal depolymerization tend to be more promising; sewerage, tires, plastics, discreet municipal waste, medical waste, etc. It's surprising we've only one plant running the system now.
Could-- but won't. We aren't taking advantage of the oil wealth we have in this country, we're merely playing expensive "feel good" mind games.
Congratulations comrades!
This government diktat is the old Soviet Union writ large.
What we have is central planning to force consumers to
buy a product that is:
1. Tariff protected
2. More expensive
3. Less efficient
4. Produced from a taxpayer subsidized crop.
Lenin would love it.
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.