Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dave
Quote:
*Cars don't convert MMBTUs to miles travelled in a directly linear fashion.”
Big Dave says:
If they use the same thermodynamic cycle, that’s a good approximation. The diesel cycle is thermodynamically superior to the Otto cycle, hence they go more miles on a MMBTU.
Quote:
*What? Still goes down the road with more power than I need.”
Big Dave says:
That’s the advantage of being hypermilers. Average Joe finds this unacceptable.
Quote:
“Next time don't try to pass off the rubbing alcohol in your medicine cabinet as being the same as fuel-grade ethanol.”
Big Dave says:
Who said anything about rubbing alcohol (44% isopropanol) being anything like fuel grade ethanol.? At the “ethanol” plant the anhydrous (200proof) ethanol is held in a “in bond” tank supervised by a BATF agent until it is denatured by adding 0.5% methanol rendering it undrinkable. Gasoline is not a good denaturant as it can be fractionally distilled off by any competent moonshiner. You simply cannot distill the methanol out of denatured alcohol.
Denatured alcohol used to be used as the solvent for shellac, among other things.
The demand for denatured alcohol as fuel has crowded out all other uses. “Kilz” primer used to be basically white shellac. Hence its excellent covering power. Today the product uses a different resin and mineral spirits (Stoddard solvent) as the solvent.
In this area, E85 sells for about $2.65/gal vs 3.02/gal for RUG (Indiana has no E10 requirement so real RUG is readily available)
E85: $2.65/0.076 MMBTU = $34.87/MMBTU
RUG: $3.02/0.116 MMBTU = $26.03/MMBTU
E85 costs 34% more per MMBTU (taxed motor fuel) than RUG.
I sincerely doubt any claims of any spark-ignition engines being 34% more efficient than another spark-ignition engine.
With only 2/3 the energy of gasoline, ethanol costs more per mile
The heating values from the link are taken from ASTM and API values.
The late great John Lingenfelter built a special E85 LS7 Corvette engine. 13.5: compression and huge injectors and fuel lines to accommodate the less energy-dense E85. 700 HP normally aspirated. To my knowledge it is still in use.
As for the “food vs fuel” argument, the only way biofuel works is if you use desert land and seawater. Algae. I understand that suitable species of algae have been identified. But you also need a source of concentrated CO2 to promote industrial rate plant growth. A coal-fired power plant makes that kind of CO2.
E10 is the very same product reviled in the 1970s as "gasohol." |
OK, people's A.D.D. may kick in, but I can't let all this garbage go unchecked. :/
1. BTUs don't linearly translate to mpg. Ask anyone who has actually tested it; don't ask anyone who hasn't and has merely sat there theorizing about it.
2. Average Joe and Joan- even though they drive like complete douches- so rarely call upon 100% of an engine's output that it is a non-issue. When you floor it, ya get what ya get in any case.
3. Fuel grade ethanol is denatured with gasoline and/or gasoline components. Googling "denatured ethanol" is not going to point you or anyone else to how FUEL GRADE ethanol is denatured. "Denatured ethanol" is commonly rubbing alcohol.
4. I'm not buying BTUs; I'm buying gallons. As noted, when the price/gallon spread is right, ethanol blends greater than 10% (the default concentration in our regular grade) more than cancel out any mpg loss, the net result being cheaper cents/mile fuel costs as several of us have shown. I disregard what zfacts claims because I've proven it to myself time and time again over many years as have others and because z"facts" has an agenda and to debunk everything in that garbage link would take longer than my A.D.D. will allow.
5. Certainly engines can be optimized to extract more performance and efficiency from ethanol, but then they wouldn't work as well on gas. The nice thing is we can run UNMODIFIED non-FFVs on ethanol and they work and in most cases emissions go down and if you are smart enough to know the break-even price point for using strong ethanol blends you save money.
6. I don't see anyone claiming they have a 34% more efficient engine.
7. IF gasohol was ever reviled, it was because 40 years ago engine management systems did NOT have any feedback loops and there may have been some driveability issues we don't see today. And fuel system materials 40 years ago weren't spec'd to be ethanol tolerant so there probably were failures. Oddly enough, MN has had gasohol ever since the '70s and I've been running collector cars and small-engined equipment on it the whole time. Only fails I've seen were some rock-hard rubber fuel lines.
P.S. Think of all the other things that have been "reviled": EGR systems, decent bumpers, cat converters, seat belts, air bags, EFI, downsized cars...
You go ahead and avoid it at all costs- whatever floats your boat. Just preach facts instead of hyperbole please.