View Single Post
Old 08-01-2011, 08:35 AM   #26 (permalink)
toc
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 179

Sonata97 - '97 Hyundai Sonata GL
90 day: 25.96 mpg (US)

Pulsar - '03 Nissan Pulsar ST
Team Nissan
90 day: 36.09 mpg (US)

Lancer - '04 Mitsubishi Lancer
90 day: 31.11 mpg (US)

Lancer 2.0 - '09 Mitsubishi Lancer
90 day: 27.1 mpg (US)
Thanks: 9
Thanked 16 Times in 13 Posts
Here's some links from some quick searching.
E10 Energy Deficit
Energy density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Control F - Ethanol, note E85 actually has less energy density than E10, and then Gasoline (Petrol). That's energy density,
Ethanol fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows it is just 1.3. That probably excludes transportation.

E10 Farming
Food vs. fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you are really interested in this, there was something we caught on TV recently showing indian farmers being forced off government owned land so they could grow a specific plant which has no use for food and is a fuel only. "Future Of Food" if you are really interested.
Ethanol fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is relevant.

E10 Gases
Ethanol fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Considering our NSW State Government has legislated that the base ULP product here MUST contain 10% Ethanol as of the 1st of July, I laughed at that. Note clearly, 19% more CO2 for the same energy. It's like a water saving tap - you want to fill a 10L bucket, you are going to get 10L of water, it'll just take you longer.

E10 Distance Travelled
Refer to the above points for this, you will get more distance out of pure petrol than you will out of Ethanol as it's density is less. Noted, I read more of the Ethanol_Fuel wikipedia page - and the distance travelled could be greater in an engine designed specifically for Ethanol fuel.

Note: I didn't get the original bits about Ethanol being bad there - it was from other forums and general reading. Security of Food alone is a great reason to not use Ethanol.
__________________
  Reply With Quote