Posted on 03/04/2007 8:01:09 AM PST by Uncle Miltie
Get a diesel-they last longer anyway.
No, it is less than half counting Canada and Mexico.
Simply enough. Ethanol has 35% fewer BTU/volume, but the gas mileage is only 30% less. Which means that it is a more efficient fuel.
Of all the folks who responded, you're the only one with two braincells to rub together---you're right. But what this STILL says is that on a BTU/BTU comparison, ethanol is NO WORSE than gasoline.
The comparison was with E85, not ethanol. Apply those percentages and do the math again.
It is from a game the little woman and I play. You're driving down the road and you see someone doing something strange and you make up wild assumptions about what and why they are doing it. But it does fit algore, LOL
When I can buy E85 for 35% less than gas let me know.
I'm looking at efficiency as miles per gallon, miles per tank, miles per dollar. On just about every comparison E85 looses.
Granted miles per BTU is a wash, but which takes more energy to produce?
Gasoline. The processes to extract and produce a gallon of gasoline take more energy than the processes to produce a gallon of ethanol.
It takes 0.73MM BTU of fossil energy to produce 1MM BTU of ethanol. It takes 1.23MM BTU of fossil energy to produce 1MM BTU of gasoline.
This isn't particularly surprising, because the production steps to get gasoline are far more energy intensive than those to produce ethanol.
Great in good weather, but forget it in rain, snow, or sleet. I'd rather get something more practical like a Honda Fit automobile.
Nah, for bad weather I use my 9 yr old pickup truck
The miles/BTU comparison does not have to do with miles per gallon, nor miles per dollar, but is interesting in its own right. Most of the energy that goes into an internal combustion engine goes out the tailpipe. Less than half of it goes into pushing a car down the road.
For some reason, cars running on ethanol are able to use a larger portion of the energy in their fuel into pushing the vehicle down the road than cars running on gasoline. While this fact may not be useful in and of itself, it would suggest that it might be useful to focus some research on ascertaining the reasons for the differences and using them to improve the efficiency of gasoline-powered cars.
This isn't particularly surprising, because the production steps to get gasoline are far more energy intensive than those to produce ethanol.
What an odd comparison and not true by the way. Why was it framed in terms of 'FOSSIL' energy? Your conclusion is flawed because it takes much less 'ENERGY' to produce a BTU of gasoline than it does to make a BTU of ethanol. BTU's are BTU's it doesn't matter where they come from.
Huh? Ethanol has a lower BTU rating, and its Stoichiometric ratio is 9:1, rather than gasoline's 14.7:1. Given the fact that internal combustion motors are pretty much "pumps," the more air fuel mixture we can pump in and out, increases the amount of work that motor can perform.
When you figure that ethanol contains less potential energy by mass, when compared to gasoline, and the air-fuel ratio is lower, you've got a less efficient fuel.
Mark
I believe that combustion of hydrocarbons always releases CO2, however ethanol releases far lower concentrations of CO (carbon monoxide).
Mark
The CO2 released by ethanol was taken up by the growing plant from which the ethanol was made. The ethanol cycle is carbon neutral.
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.