E10 Woes

[Daox]

My experience with E10 is that it drops mileage on the Matrix roughly 2 mpg. IMO this is an acceptable loss considering it burns cleaner.

I do not agree with the current method of ethanol production. However, cellulotic ethanol prodution is much more efficient and I believe should be used to supplement gasoline. This will inevitably be the way we go in the future.

My biggest beef with the whole ethanol thing is these flex fuel vehicles. Engines are (or should be) designed to work with ONE kind of fuel. This enables the designers to optimize the engine for that fuel type. Designing for more than one fuel type makes the designers make compromises that decrease the efficiency of the engine. For example, an engine that runs E85 can run over 17:1 compression ratio! You can't tell me a flex fuel engine that has a 10:1 compression ratio is anywhere near efficient when running E85, even if ignition timing is retimed.

[Will]

Originally Posted by Daox

My experience with E10 is that it drops mileage on the Matrix roughly 2 mpg. IMO this is an acceptable loss considering it burns cleaner.

You are probably right, but I don't think it's enough, and I hate the stress on the food supply.


Ok, here comes the thunderstorm...

I still think that electric cars and nuclear power are the best we have. I know, people are going to shutter at the mere mention of nuclear power. I will stress that we need better disposal and possible neutralization methods for spent nuclear fuel. They we working on neutralization of radiation when I was in the army (not a secret). That was 15 years ago. (Boy, I am starting to feel the passage of time).

I still have high hopes for nuclear fusion as a much better alternative to our current fission.

[cmittle]

I definitely agree with Will, it doesn't seem right to place that demand on the food supply.

Another gripe I have with ethanol is that they claim that ~40% more energy (ethanol product) is made than consumed in the plant, growth, and harvest of the corn to produce it (I believe that University of Michigan was the publisher of this information). As an engineer I have to throw the flag on that one. This is essentially perpetual motion. I believe that the extra 40% is coming from nutrients in the ground and if we keep packing more and more corn on the ground and don't rotate it with beans and whatever else farmers do they are going to deplete the ground of the nutrients needed to grow the corn then all of a sudden we're only harvesting 1/2 the ethanol product that we use during it's creation (read taking more energy to plant, grow and harvest the corn than we get back out of it).

If we're trying to use ethanol to reduce cost problems that's a bs answer, the price of corn changes drastically if you don't get rain for a few days when you really need it, or if it hails in the middle of may.

As far as the "burning cleaner" statement, I've heard that this is actually contrary to the truth. I haven't done any research on this, but I'd advise anyone that thinks this to check on it (read university studies or some scientific evidence not forums/blogs) before you use this as a justification.

In eastern South Dakota we have 3 choices; 87 octane (no ethanol), 89 octane (with 10% E), or premium (91-93 depending on the station; no ethanol). I use 87 in my cars and premium in my motorcycle, I avoid ethanol products, and I would really hate to see ethanol forced into all of our fuel options.

my .02
cory

[SuperTrooper]

France has 59 nuclear power plants that produce 87% of the electricity generated nationwide, 18% of which is exported to other EU nations. They have the lowest electricity rates in Europe. Cities are actually COMPETING to be chosen for the site of the next plant, to be announced in 2009.

In 1973, when the first oil crisis hit, France generated 90% of it's electricity with oil. They built 56 nuclear plants in the next 15 years! The French reprocess most of their spent fuel, and accept spent fuel from other countries, including the US and Japan. They are the #1 reprocessor of spent nuclear fuel in the world.

[cmittle]

How do they reprocess it and what state is it in afterwords? I've heard that France was leading the world in Nuclear production, but I haven't looked into it much. I am interested in the possibilities of nuclear as it seems a very clean and viable option if we can just work out what do do with the waste.

[5 O'Clock Charlie]

Originally Posted by cmittle

Another gripe I have with ethanol is that they claim that ~40% more energy (ethanol product) is made than consumed in the plant, growth, and harvest of the corn to produce it (I believe that University of Michigan was the publisher of this information). As an engineer I have to throw the flag on that one. This is essentially perpetual motion. I believe that the extra 40% is coming from nutrients in the ground and if we keep packing more and more corn on the ground and don't rotate it with beans and whatever else farmers do they are going to deplete the ground of the nutrients needed to grow the corn then all of a sudden we're only harvesting 1/2 the ethanol product that we use during it's creation (read taking more energy to plant, grow and harvest the corn than we get back out of it).

I don't think its perpetual motion were talking about here .... but rather Photosynthesis. Photosynthesis - Wikipedia

Originally Posted by cmittle

As far as the "burning cleaner" statement, I've heard that this is actually contrary to the truth. I haven't done any research on this, but I'd advise anyone that thinks this to check on it (read university studies or some scientific evidence not forums/blogs) before you use this as a justification.

As far as air pollution is concerned, I think you may be right ... Ethanol fuel -Air Pollution - Wikipedia

[cmittle]

Maybe perpetual motion wasn't quite the right term, but I think one can understand what I'm getting at.

As you point out, photosynthesis is probably the major component contributing to the fact that we see 140% return, but it depends on the Calvin cycle which requires Nitrogens and Phosphates. Once the surplus Nitrogen and Phosphorus has been removed from the soil and burned in our cars we are going to have to start fertilizing the fields heavily, and this is where I see production of ethanol relative to the fuel input falling below the 1:1 ratio.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I believe the 140% figure right now, but known sciences applying on Earth lead us to suspect that this figure cannot be sustained for a long period and for all practical purposes we should be looking for more efficient processes as this is a bandaid and we will need a more permanent fix in place some day.

[getnpsi]

I should go look up their infastructure, so I am not typing BS but it sounds like France has their **** together, a lot more than the United States. Their culture is ecofriendly whether they are trying to be or not. It started with the economy. They took advantage of what was available, and apparently their governmnt didnt deadlock, voted to build what was needed. Only vested interest was fixing their own country. In US you cant tell a corporation to "change careers" because something new is going to do its job.

[SuperTrooper]

Originally Posted by getnpsi

I should go look up their infastructure, so I am not typing BS but it sounds like France has their **** together, a lot more than the United States. Their culture is ecofriendly whether they are trying to be or not. It started with the economy. They took advantage of what was available, and apparently their governmnt didnt deadlock, voted to build what was needed. Only vested interest was fixing their own country. In US you cant tell a corporation to "change careers" because something new is going to do its job.

The French nationalized the electric generation and distribution industries long ago, so changing the direction of power generation was simple.

If anything, the US gov't has impeded the change of power generation here by yielding too much influence to the treehuggers and NIMBYs.

[RH77]

Essentially, we send the waste to a "permenant" holding site in Nevada. The half-life of the nuclear waste is decades, if not on the Century-scale.

...And the term "send" involves an elaborate transportation system that is far from vulnerable.
It's just something to consider... Like diamonds, "Nuclear is Forever" (at least for 2+ generations).

RH77