Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Ethanol - E85 FlexFuel The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol
921 messages, Last post on Oct 07, 2009 at 10:53 AM
You are in the Ethanol - E85 FlexFuel Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: galonga (Jun 13, 2009 4:05 am) The reports I've read mostly claim a 5%-!0% reduction in mileage using 10 blend vs pure dino gas. . Lets use the 10% figure for now. And lets use a vehicle that averages 25 mpg on dino. It would get 10% less on ethanol blend, or 22.5 mpg. To drive 1000 miles the car would use 40 gallons of dino gas. To drive that same distance would require 44.4 gallons of "Blend". Of that "Blend" 90% is dino and 10% ethanol. So the 1000 miles still required 39.96 gallons of dino. Same amount of dino gas used for all practical purposes. Same dino carbon emissions, PLUS the emissions from the 4.4 gallons of ethanol. Can't see how that is any reduction of oil dependence. Actually when you figure the energy required to plant the crops, irrigate them, harvest them, haul them to the refinery to make the ethanol, make the ethanol, haul the ethanol to somewhere to be blended with the dino fuel, energy used to do the blending, and yada, yada, yada, there appears to be a great deal of energy used in the form of electricity, diesel fuel, coal, Natural gas, just to get the blend ready for us to purchase. Read somewhere that it takes about 100 gallons of water from the seed to the gas tank for each gallon of Ethanol produced. While it may be true that ethanol produces less emissions than dino fuels, how much less? And does it favorably compare when all else is considered, ie energy to produce and get it ready for a gas tank, and using more of it in our vehicles? Kip |
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Jun 27, 2009 4:30 am) |
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Jun 27, 2009 4:30 am)  Brazilīs been running half of all its cars on 100% ethanol for over 30 years and that has a proven perfecly viable solution. Yet america insists on doing mathematics to disprove that. Problem is they are all based on corn ethanol (over there is sugarcane), E85 (over there is E100), distance between plants and crop lands (there the plant is located in the sugarcane plantation), etc Of course with those differences the mathematics will indeed be as you show them. So the question remais: why reinvent the wheel?
|
|
|
Replying to: galonga (Jun 27, 2009 5:12 am) I understand that biodiesel has its environmental drawbacks as does any form of fuel, but considering it gets about 45% better MPG over E10, would it not be a better choice? It really is a no brainer, but the money trail goes a different direction. |
|
|
Replying to: galonga (Jun 27, 2009 5:12 am) You are making bold statements you cannot back up with facts. First Brazil depends on Sugar ethanol for about 20% of its vehicle fuel. They are independent because of huge oil reserves found over the last few years. There Ethanol production went to almost ZERO during the late 1980s. Brazil left many people with vehicles that would only run on ethanol stranded. The vehicles that will run on E100 will run on regular gas also. The government offered subsidies to sugar cane growers and forced service stations in every town of at least 1,500 people to install ethanol pumps. By the early 1980s, almost all new cars sold in Brazil ran on 100 percent ethanol. But as the decade progressed and the military government was replaced by democracy, oil prices plummeted and the subsidies granted to ethanol producers were eliminated. Sugar processing plants turned from ethanol to edible sugar, creating a shortage of supplies at service stations. The auto industry, which had dedicated itself to ethanol-only cars, stopped producing them almost entirely. "It was as if from one day to the next, the people who had ethanol cars had a problem on their hands, because no one wanted to buy them," said Henry Joseph Jr., head of the engineering program for Volkswagen of Brazil. "Ethanol cars went all the way from more than 90 percent of sales to less than 1 percent." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900842.- html |
|
|
|
|
Ethanol and water up to 100 proof will run an engine better than pure ethanol. Then you get 2 gallons of fuel for the cost of one gallon of pure 99.9% ethanol. The added water makes up the other gallon. So you run on about 51% ethanol. About 1% below the saturation point. The other benefit of pre-mixing ethanol with water is, should it catch fire you can put the fire out with water. This makes the fuel safer to use also. You could ask any moonshiner about running on 100 proof. I think there are to many people that have oil stock that they are worried about, or maybe they have their head up their you know what. This is old technology that has been hidden under the smoke screen of burning oil. LESS TOXIC: I would rather smell the fumes of something that I could drink without it killing me. Though I personally feel it is safer to burn it than drink it. You do not need to believe me. Here is an old link to information about this. You will need to go down about 9 paragraphs to find the one about water injection. I will copy it for you and post it below the link. Because the rest of the information is common knowledge. http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_manual/manual1-2.html WATER INJECTION During World War II, the military made extensive use of water injection in high performance piston aircraft engines. Later, water injection was used by both civilian and military jet aircraft to provide extra thrust, principally on takeoff. Even today, water injection systems are available that can be installed in automobiles. The fact is that, within certain limits, these systems actually do increase power. Referring back to Figure 2-2, note that the latent heat of vaporization for gasoline is about 140 Btu/lb and for ethanol about 361 Btu/lb. Water has a latent heat of about 700 Btu/lb! Therefore, if a little water is injected into the carburetor in the form of an ultra-fine mist, the latent heat of the water will cool the charge and increase volumetric efficiency. In addition, when the charge is fired in the cylinder, the water will turn to high-pressure steam and provide additional power due to the pressure exerted by the steam. There are definite limits, however, to the amount of water that can be injected. Too much will cause excessive cooling and misfiring. The use of water injection with a gasoline fueled engine requires a separate metering and injection system because water and gasoline do not mix. Ethanol and water, however, do mix and the benefits of water injection can be had simply by adding the desired amount of water to the alcohol in the fuel tank. Get with it people. I am sure that there are some of the 3rd world countries that will be glad to pick up on this oversight. WHY IS THERE NO RESEARCH INTO THIS PHENOMINA. 2 gallons for the price of one. We will be back to 1.00 per gallon fuel. The fuel is safer when mixed with water. You can put out the fire with a garden hose. John EMM
|
|
|
Replying to: everymansmediu (Jun 27, 2009 9:08 am) "It gets 100 miles to the gallon...and it runs on water man!" If you'll recall either the first or last episode of That 70's Show, just keep in mind he was smoking something other than nicotine when he said that. 
|
|
|
Any talk about Brazil's Ethanol program in 1980 was a old news. This is the latest news. All gas sold in Brazil has 23% Ethanol. Also 20 % of all the vehicles on road in Brazil today are Flexfuelled cars which can run on 100% Ethanol. So as of now, 50% of all fuel for private vehicles is Ethanol. Another news is in year-2008, the Oil consumption in US fell by over 6% and Worldwide, it fell by 0.6% even after including Ethanol (which actually grew 40%). Ethanol would have taken some market share from Oil. Ethanol is the easiest and #1 alternative for Petro-fuels. People can talk about food production. With the same amount of land as US, China produces food for 4 times the number of people, so US has lot of surplus land to grow Corn, Switchgrass and other crops for Bio-fuels. So, Ethanol production and consumption will continue to grow in the years ahead. BTW, cellulose Ethanol has already hit the market. It seems there are 2,170 Ethanol stations in US today compared to 500 in 2005. http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/e85-ethanol-in-every-car/?hp http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/10/10greenwire-shell-sells-cellulosic-ethan- ol-blend-in-canada-10074.html Paralelly, E15 may also come to market. http://ethanol-news.newslib.com/story/6938-32647/
|
|
|
Replying to: yerth10 (Jun 27, 2009 8:46 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: yerth10 (Jun 27, 2009 8:46 pm) sugarcane ethanol represented 16.7% of the country's total energy consumption by the automotive sector in 2007.wiki I gave Brazil the benefit of the doubt with 20%. No one here has said that sugar cane ethanol was not a viable product. It is damaging to the environment which ethanol advocates want to gloss over. Every acre of the rain forest that is cut to produce sugar cane will take nearly 100 years to mitigate, if ever. If you have data that refutes what I have posted feel free to share with us. Just because the brain dead in Washington DC have bought into the Corn Ethanol scam does not make it a good thing. I am sure when they kick up the ethanol content to 15% from the current 10% my mileage will go down by another 5%. Kind of like the guy with his car that runs on water. It is an illusion that ethanol from corn is a winner.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Ethanol - E85 FlexFuel The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
