EPA implements E85 testing for 2016 model year

[roosterk0031]

He gave me some more information.

"Abstract
This specification covers nominally anhydrous denatured fuel ethanol intended for blending with unleaded or leaded gasolines for use as a spark-ignition automotive engine fuel. Denatured fuel ethanol shall conform to the specified performance requirements for the following: ethanol content, methanol, solvent-washed gum, water content, denaturant content, inorganic chloride content, copper content, acidity, pHe, sulfur content, sulfate content, appearance, and specific gravity. The only denaturants used for fuel ethanol shall be natural gasoline, gasoline components, or unleaded gasoline at the minimum concentration prescribed. Prohibited denaturants include methanol which does not meet the specified requirement, pyrroles, turpentine, ketones, and tars (high-molecular weight pyrolysis products of fossil or nonfossil vegetable matter). Sampling, containers, and sample handling techniques, and the test methods for determining conformance to the specified requirements are given."

ASTM D4806 - 14 Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark Ignition Engine Fuel

[roosterk0031]

Notice on the price graph how they are all parallel, Big Oil is control of pricing and distribution.

Ethanol Producer Magazine ? The Latest News and Data About Ethanol Production

Producer are starting to take it way from them. Wish the couple in town would set up their own 24 hr pump or start selling direct to stations like Absolute Energy is, $1.38 whole sale right now, whole sale clear gas is $2.82.

Hopefully when Fiberight gets running and turning trash into gas they'll set up some local deals not far out of normal commute.

[Frank Lee]

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.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It's already been shown that ethanol production displaces food crops, which increases food prices. Increased food prices harm the impoverished more than increased prices for any other good.

There isn't enough farmland currently to move all vehicles to E85. Natural land would need to be cleared and cultivated to meet the demands of an 850% increase in ethanol fuel.

My preference would be to cut oil and farm subsidies and pay whomever offers the most energy for the lowest price; whether that is Bubba or Achmed, I couldn't care less.

That said, I'm extremely interested to see what sort of fuel economy and performance can be created to run on E85. If the performance and economy were sufficient, I might be enticed to purchase such a vehicle and fuel.

Speaking of hyperbole...

1. Food price increases are due to far more factors than ethanol. One could even say ethanol has nothing to do with any increases.

2. NOBODY is talking about moving the entire North American fleet to E85. Nobody except those who are being disingenuous, that is.

3. There's a food shortage in N.A.? Then why are the slobs still throwing 40% of it away?

4. Actually it seems the impoverished are burdened most by high health care and housing costs.

5. Several have provided years of real-world data re: ethanol right here on EM. If you really are interested in seeing what E85 performance and economy is, all you have to do is look. P.S. Or better yet, try it.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

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.



Here...

As for the cost... <images snipped>

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.



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.

1. I don't usually endorse subsidies either, but sometimes market forces are such that business cases can't be made for things we think will work in the initial stages of development/introduction. A major ethanol subsidy HAS been dropped. If we want to continue to debate any other subsidies we have to include petrol subsidies and we also have to acknowledge there is damn little "free market" anywhere as it all operates within (or is affected by) a system of regulations.

2. As I noted earlier, attempting to equate dollars to BTUs is rubbish. Just forget it already and look at what happens where the rubber meets the road: CENTS PER MILE COST.

3. Is it the government that causes Everclear to cost that much more than fuel-grade ethanol? Certainly taxes are part of it but I'd wager the biggest part of it is "free market" forces i.e. they're gonna charge what the market will bear. It is the brewer and the consumer that settle on a price.

4. I love the stories about Joe Schmuck filling up his FFV Subdivision with E85 that costs more per gallon than regular then whining about the double whammy of more expensive fuel and less mpg. The key is to not be an idiot. Only buy and run straight E85 when the price spread tells you it's worth it! I don't buy E85 when the spread is too close either. But an important thing to realize is that when running up to 50/50 blends, mpgs are basically unchanged. What this means is the spread doesn't have to be very much at all to cut the cost of the gallons in your tank while still going the same distance.

P.S. 5. Cost isn't necessarily the only purchase decision motivator. One can pick any number of reasons to want to reduce petrol consumption; if these are strong enough there doesn't have to be any ethanol price advantage at all.

[Hersbird]

If some ethonal subsidies are good why not even more? Seems silly to give just enough to get it off the ground but then the whole time hope it doesn't actually go widespread as ethonal can't possibly provide the need. Like Frank said, nobody is pushing for 100% replacement. The solution is an all of the above approach, but I think Redpoint5 is right, you shouldn't subsidize any of them. Things need to cost what they cost. It is also not fair to collect extra tax on one fuel then another when the use of one fuel over another doesn't change the wear and tear on the roads. The government getting involved in encouraging or discouraging behavior is the root of all our problems. How wonderful life would be if we didn't give a rip who was elected to any office anywhere because in the end it didn't effect our lives one way or the other.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

1. Food price increases are due to far more factors than ethanol. One could even say ethanol has nothing to do with any increases.

Nobody could say ethanol has nothing to do with food price increase (and be accurate). Any crop that is used to produce fuel reduces the supply of land that can instead produce food. Economics shows that a reduction in supply must increase price. Or do you argue that demand for food in the U.S. has fallen in the same period of time?

2. NOBODY is talking about moving the entire North American fleet to E85. Nobody except those who are being disingenuous, that is.

That is exactly what I am saying. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. In other words, if E85 has superior properties such as lower cost, environmental advantages, and more power, then it should be used by everyone.

Remove subsidies for both petroleum and bio, and the superior fuel will easily emerge as the market efficiently selects the winner.

Did Edison's light bulbs need a subsidy to overtake sperm whale oil lamps as the dominant source of lighting?

3. There's a food shortage in N.A.? Then why are the slobs still throwing 40% of it away?

I'm just as confused, but according to World Hunger, 14% of US households are food insecure.

It seems as if 85% of Americans are overweight, and the other 15% are wasting away.

4. Actually it seems the impoverished are burdened most by high health care and housing costs.

Funny, when I was in grade school they taught the necessities of life as water, food, shelter, and clothing. How the times have changed.

It appears that the cost of housing has steadily fallen throughout history, according to average household sizes from the US Census.

5. If you really are interested in seeing what E85 performance and economy is, all you have to do is look. P.S. Or better yet, try it.

I had the opportunity to test it for myself back in 2008, when Oregon required me to stop filling with RUG, and instead use E10. To my surprise and disbelief, my records showed a decrease in fuel economy by almost 10%. This didn't make any sense, as the math would suggest I should only loose about 3-4%.

I'm unable to test on my current vehicle, as the only stuff available is E10.

However, I do believe that some vehicles are less impacted by the lower energy content of ethanol than others. Whatever claims are made on this forum, I'm inclined to take on faith as accurate.

As I said, if a vehicle were made to take advantage of the properties of E85 while maintaining a price per mile advantage, I would probably buy it.

[Frank Lee]

Any crop that is used to produce fuel reduces the supply of land that can instead produce food.

You've heard of brewer's grains... right? The byproduct of distillation- makes high quality animal feed. Yeah. All that corn was going to be animal feed in the first place.

In other words, if E85 has superior properties such as lower cost, environmental advantages, and more power, then it should be used by everyone.

Yup- up to our capacity to produce it.

I'm just as confused, but according to World Hunger, 14% of US households are food insecure.

Could be but it's not from a lack food availability. And I'd argue it's not even a matter of food cost.

Funny, when I was in grade school they taught the necessities of life as water, food, shelter, and clothing. How the times have changed.

It appears that the cost of housing has steadily fallen throughout history, according to average household sizes from the US Census.

The impoverished- mainly seniors, right?- often spend so much on health care and meds it squeezes necessities out.

I had the opportunity to test it for myself back in 2008, when Oregon required me to stop filling with RUG, and instead use E10. To my surprise and disbelief, my records showed a decrease in fuel economy by almost 10%. This didn't make any sense, as the math would suggest I should only loose about 3-4%.

I'm unable to test on my current vehicle, as the only stuff available is E10.

However, I do believe that some vehicles are less impacted by the lower energy content of ethanol than others. Whatever claims are made on this forum, I'm inclined to take on faith as accurate.

As I said, if a vehicle were made to take advantage of the properties of E85 while maintaining a price per mile advantage, I would probably buy it.

I haven't had practical access to E0 for almost 40 years yet I handily beat EPA ratings w/o "hypermiling".

I and others have already proven E85 can lower cents/mile costs. Like I told Humongous, you can do it yourself or not; it's no skin off my rear. Just be honest about it.

[samwichse]

Fuel Vs. Food: Ethanol Helps Boost Meat Prices : NPR

[Frank Lee]

What a pantload.

Says nothing about the feed GOTTEN from ethanol plants.

Yup, meat prices among other things have gone up. Here: UPDATE 1-USDA raises beef, pork prices forecasts on drought, disease | Reuters