EPA implements E85 testing for 2016 model year

[roosterk0031]

XFE Cobalt(non FFV) lost 2 mpg going from 42mpg w/ E10 to 40mpg with E44 last tank. Most people wouldn't even notice. Looking at last 10 tanks it's with in the range of all of them. My previous tanks in July resulted in 40 mpg on E45. Not sure when E70 hits the tanks might already be. So current tank % might be off.

$2.20 a gallon I'll half and half when convenient.

Any testing EPA would do is better than just knocking 30% of E0 numbers.

[Big Dave]

Regardless of where you get the feedstock, E85 is generally a bad deal for the motorist.

E85 has about two-thirds the heating value of RUG. Heating value (not octane rating) is what turns the wheels. Yet E85 costs a good deal more than two-thirds of RUG, usually about 80% of the price of RUG. Bad deal.

Having only 66% of the heating value of RUG your engine will not make the same amount of power as it will on RUG, unless you enlarge the fuel pumps, fuel lines and injectors. Normally, this is irrelevant to a hypermiler/ecomodder until that one time you need some acceleration.

E85 does deliver 100 octane, but even the highest performance cars get by OK on 93 octane gasoline. To take advantage of the 100 octane, you'd have to increase compression to about 13:1 and pour on a lot of spark advance. Increasing compression is an expensive mod.


Increasing spark advance and compression unquestionably improve engine efficiency. According to my Marks' Handbook going from 9:1 compression to 13:1 compression should get you an 11% improvement in engine efficiency. In today's well sorted out engines an 11% increase is huge.

But this increase in efficiency comes at a price. High compression engines emit more NOx than low compression engines on a "per HP-hr" basis. EPA regs forbid manufacturers from emitting too much NOx so they sell you low compression engines. So don't look for high compression E85 engines.

E85 has a low Reid vapor pressure. That is at any given temperature, less of it vaporizes per unit of time. As such, it makes your engine a bear to start in cold weather. Indeed, this is why they cut in 15% RUG. Drag racers know that alky engines are difficult to start. E85 make good aviation gas as (like 100LL) it doesn't boil off in the fuel tanks at altitude, and light plane engines have powerful dual ignitions to get them started. But that is a lousy formula for car and truck engines.

Hotrodders can take advantage of the octane but everyday drivers cannot. Some states vigorously enforce anti-tampering regs. (Indiana BTW does not). The EPA views raising compression as "tampering."

I'm sure you've heard that fuel grade alcohol can eat up seals and diaphragms common in engine fuel systems. The alcohol-resistant materials are mechanically inferior and tend to leak. Higher maintenance costs.

Another thought: Gasoline and alcohol readily part company in the presence of water or water vapor. Fuel grade "ethanol" is actually denatured alcohol or else you'd have to pay liquor taxes on it. So they cut in 0.5% by volume methanol into it so it isn't taxed. As we pointed out methanol and ethanol don't readily evaporate. If spilled it is more like to soak into the groundwater than gasoline does. Ethanol (99.5% of the mix) only gets you drunk and the dosage for that varies. Methanol is toxic in very low dosages. Remember MTBE - an octane booster used int eh 80s and 90s? Everybody turned on it because inevitably somebody spilled some and it got into ground water. That'll happen with any liquid. The MTBE gave the water a funny taste. By doing so it gave away its presence. Methanol has no smell or (I am told) taste, so you could get a dangerous dose and never know it.

To sum up:
E85 costs more on a $/MMBTU basis.
Normal gasoline engines cannot take advantage of the higher octane.
Gasoline engines running E85 have to be de-rated
Seals and diaphragms are an issue
E85 promote hard starting - particularly in cold weather
E85 spilled onto the ground will get into drinking water and is toxic.

IMO, America is brain-dead to even consider E85.

[roosterk0031]

E85 $2.20 vs $3 = cheaper per mile. (74% of cost)

Need to really compare E85 @ $2.20 to E0 & $3.30 (66%)

My research came up with E85 having 72% btu's of E0, 74% of E10.

2010 Impala 29-30 mpg E10, most resent E85 3 tank was 24.4, (85 - 81%)
2002 Suburban 15.2 down to 12.4 (18% loss) (30 E85 tanks vs 35 E10)


It's under $2 in some places as E producers are cutting the Oil company out of the middle and selling direct to the stations.

GM L83 5.3 ffv makes more HP and torque on E85, 11:1 CR.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/l83/#tab-2

E85 is actually E70 during cooler months, no starting problems.

I think ethanol is generally denatured with gasoline before it leave the factory, otherwise it's safe to drink (denaturing is just adding something so it's not consumable, it's 100% same alcohol that people drink. Everclear without the 5% water.


"Ethanol Producers are required to keep all alcohol denaturing records. The Ethanol Producer may denature alcohol by adding gasoline or natural gasoline to it in amounts equal to at least 5 gallons of gasoline for each 95 gallons of alcohol. The alcohol may also be denatured by any other method common in the industry. All alcohol for in-state sale or distribution must be denatured prior to being delivered into a delivery vehicle. Splash blending is not an acceptable means for denaturing alcohol"

http://dor.sd.gov/Motor_Vehicles/Mot...20PRODUCER.pdf

[Frank Lee]

Regardless of where you get the feedstock, E85 is generally a bad deal for the motorist.

Recent fuel price fluctuations caused me to wonder exactly where I stood with my E85 use, so I calculated the cents/mile for E10 and E85, and estimated what E45 (50/50 E10/E85) would cost based on years of experience with it.

For those prices and my mpg:
E10 = 7.8 cents/mile
E45 = 6.9
E85 = 6.3

E10 = 24% more cost than E85.

Sure looks like a good deal to this motorist.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by bd

To sum up:
E85 costs more on a $/MMBTU basis.
*Cars don't convert MMBTUs to miles travelled in a directly linear fashion.

Normal gasoline engines cannot take advantage of the higher octane.
*They automatically run more advance. They aren't optimized but they still run well enough for ethanol to be advantageous.

Gasoline engines running E85 have to be de-rated
*What? Still goes down the road with more power than I need.

Seals and diaphragms are an issue
*Been running E85 for nearly 10 years; E10 for decades. Still waiting for an "issue".

E85 promote hard starting - particularly in cold weather
*This is true, especially below 0F. Above freezing = no problem. The solution is simple: use weaker E-blends in the cold.

E85 spilled onto the ground will get into drinking water and is toxic.
*See below. Next time don't try to pass off the rubbing alcohol in your medicine cabinet as being the same as fuel-grade ethanol.

IMO, America is brain-dead to even consider E85.
*IMO, people are brain-dead to dismiss it.

Originally Posted by interwebs

Denatured Fuel Ethanol

Denatured Fuel Ethanol is ethanol intended for blending with unleaded or leaded gasoline for use as a spark-ignition automotive engine fuel. Denaturants used for blending with fuel ethanol include natural gasoline, gasoline components, or unleaded gasoline at the minimum concentration prescribed. Must conform to standard specification ASTM D4806 plus California Standards.

[roosterk0031]

Drop the food vs fuel argument. Big oil said it enough times people started believing.

The Truth behind Big Oil’s New Ads - Growth Energy

New Report Sheds Light on the Old "Food Vs. Fuel" Bioenergy Debate

Despite Evidence, Food Vs. Fuel Fight Continues - Forbes

Food versus fuel 'debate' falls apart | Star Tribune

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Xist

Is there any compelling reason to not subsidize sugarcane?

Besides, which do you really prefer, high-fructose corn syrup or actual sugar?

There are many reasons not to subsidize sugarcane, along with most anything else. Artificially manipulating supply/demand by taking money from tax payers and re-distributing to special interest groups is inefficient, unethical, and almost always has unforeseen negative externalities.

It distorts the true cost of producing something.

... and yes, I do prefer high-fructose corn syrup to "actual sugar" for most things. I was born and raised in the US, so of course I'm going to like HFCS.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

We did? When?

Here...

Originally Posted by Big Dave

E85 has about two-thirds the heating value of RUG. Heating value (not octane rating) is what turns the wheels. Yet E85 costs a good deal more than two-thirds of RUG, usually about 80% of the price of RUG.

...High compression engines emit more NOx than low compression engines on a "per HP-hr" basis. EPA regs forbid manufacturers from emitting too much NOx so they sell you low compression engines. So don't look for high compression E85 engines.

As for the cost...





Nebraska has the biggest E85 to E10 gas spread, but it too falls short of delivering more energy per dollar. Wackyfornia has only an 18% spread, when the break-even price would need to be more than 30%. In the state I currently live, E85 has only a 5% difference in price with E10.

Since E85 has only 70% of the energy content of gasoline, it needs to cost 70% or less the price of gasoline.

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

"Ethanol Producers are required to keep all alcohol denaturing records. The Ethanol Producer may denature alcohol by adding gasoline or natural gasoline to it in amounts equal to at least 5 gallons of gasoline for each 95 gallons of alcohol. The alcohol may also be denatured by any other method common in the industry. All alcohol for in-state sale or distribution must be denatured prior to being delivered into a delivery vehicle. Splash blending is not an acceptable means for denaturing alcohol"

This is the part that pisses me off the most. A bottle of Everclear costs a small fortune, but a gallon of ethanol for burning in a car is relatively cheap. The gov't has no business making small quantities of alcohol cost a lot, and making large quantities unsuitable for consumption.

It's like I live in an insane as asylum and none of the patients realize they are crazy.

[roosterk0031]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It distorts the true cost of producing something.

100% agree

Next drop corporate taxes to 0%, we the consumer are paying them anyway, might was well know the real tax rate. 20% sales tax and that's it, no income tax, ss, fica........ no taxes till you spend it.

http://www.e85prices.com/?app=ccs&mo...s&folder=&id=5

NE is over 30% if compared to E0 in last 7 prices.

Cheapest whole sale price in Iowa for E85 is $1.38, guess who's making the most of that. Same as that bottle of Everclear or pack of smokes.

[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."

[roosterk0031]

Got a email back from an engineer I work with at a local producer they use natural gasoline.

Read some where a while back that some producers in the Dakotas are using Natural gasoline for the full 15%, no crude required.

Natural gasoline is the liquids that come up with natural gas.