Is it still progress?

[euromodder]

There are more & better ways to make ethanol than starting from corn.
Just like what happened with biodiesel starting out with rapeseed oil, better crops have been found to produce ethanol.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by tjts1

Here's the real problem.

It'd be better if that graphic was large enough to be completely legible, but even as it is I can pick up some howlers.

On the farming side, most of that 1300 lbs of fertilizer is NOT necessary to grow corn. The 5300 gallons of water is rain, and is going to fall on the fields anyway, and be used by whatever plants are growing there.

On the production side, all that water is NOT waste, it's just water which can be re-used, or put to other purposes. For the heat, any sensible producer would build their ethanol distillery next to a power plant, and use the waste heat from it to do most of the distillation. And of course, the mash that's left is a protein-rich animal food.

And of course the whole thing about the CO2 given off in fermentation & burning of ethanol is worthy of being accepted as denialist propaganda. Since it's part of the ongoing carbon cycle, it does not increase atmospheric CO2.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox

Personally, I think Hydrogen would be considered my "perfect" future fuel, but until that technology catches up with the small space in my car, I need to make what adjustments I can to remove 'oil' out of my equations. I just was wondering if taking a step backwards (efficiency) for three steps forward for oil dependency / environmental awareness / renewable options, was accepted by those here who may think the same way as myself.

I think any reduction in petroleum use is good, IMHO, it's worse than ethanol from fermentation. I'd like to see ethanol production from cellulose, then I would be more supportive of it.

But hydrogen? That is the fuel of the present, contained in petroleum, vegetable oils and alcohols. That is ICE fuel, and is the root of all the current problems - renewable is good, but electrical or mechanical transportation energy gives us the reduced/zero emissions, control of pollution and greater efficiencies we need to move forward in a positive way.

What you may be referring to with "hydrogen" is gaseous, and it flat sucks as a medium for energy storage. It leaks, it explodes, it has horrible energy density and requires stout heavy hardware (high pressure and cryo) to use effectively. It's a costly boondoggle, supported only by petroleum interests because it's cheap to make hydrogen from coal and natural gas. The best way to use hydrogen is bound with carbon in renewable liquid fuels.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox

I had this thought today;

Suppose I have a car that gets 15 miles per gallon of gasoline.

I trade that in for one that gets 30 miles per gallon of gasoline.

But then I switch from using gasoline, to using E85 ethanol.

I lose 10-15% mileage, yet I'm still getting higher mileage per gallon of fuel that I was with the old car.


The question: Is this still considered progress?

I'm going to put this into some numbers that are useful for comparison.

15MPG on Petrol = 2254 Wh/mile

30MPG on Petrol = 1127 Wh/mile

E85(assuming 85% Ethanol/15% Petrol) has 82,294 BTU/Gallon while Petrol has 116,090 BTU/Gallon. So E85 has 71% of the energy content of regular Petrol. Source: AFDC Energy

Convert BTU to watts.
E85= 24,102 Wh
Petrol = 34,000 Wh

If you lose 15% range(I've heard this is typical on non-FFVs and older FFVs alike) than that is 25.5MPG. So your energy consumption per mile would be 945 Wh/Mile. That is a reduction of 57.7% of your original consumption.

I believe it's progress simply because that is a huge reduction in overall Fossil fuel consumption and it significantly reduces energy consumption. The only problem is how much does it cost you per mile? Prices are still too high here, but lately Ethanol prices have gone down while Gasoline is going up.

Tjts, that chart is only useful for purely scientific purposes. A more practical comparison is how much Corn Ethanol costs per unit of energy compared to regular Petrol. Corn Ethanol was cheaper in the near past, before the Biofuel mandate, and more recently the market price of Ethanol has dropped but it's not sustainable.

redpoint5, Ethanol is infact a more efficient fuel than Gasoline, it is simply not as energy dense. Strangely, Octane for blends from E50-E85 is about the same, 95 1/2 octane AKI, still better than pump gas at 93 but not what you'd expect. Plenty of the hotrodders, tuners, and engine builders swear by it. I've heard E85 is just shy of C16 leaded fuel but either way it is vastly underutilized in a FFV.

BTW, according to federal law it is ILLEGAL for manufacturer's to test MPG on anything but test grade Gasoline. The EPA MPG numbers are based solely on energy content, not on real world driving with E70-E85. EPA FAQ

[gone-ot]

...and that "...test grade Gasoline..." is 91-octane (mid-grade), not the typical 87-octane often recommended for most engines! Talk about "gaming" the EPA fuel-economy test system!!!

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...and that "...test grade Gasoline..." is 91-octane (mid-grade), not the typical 87-octane often recommended for most engines! Talk about "gaming" the EPA fuel-economy test system!!!

Actually..when the manufacturers does the EPA MPG testing they are required to use the octane they recommend in the owner's manual. If there are enough reports of less than expected MPG they can get audited and they would be fined for such an action. That is why some companies will infact underrate their MPG.

The thing is they only ever use 100% Gasoline. So even 10% Ethanol you can expect up to 3% less MPG than whatever they tell you. And that is the federal law...

[gone-ot]

...go to the EPA website, they state the mandated use of 91-octane gasoline (unless higher is required)...note that 91 is basically 'midway' between 87(minimum) and 93 octane.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...go to the EPA website, they state the mandated use of 91-octane gasoline (unless higher is required)...note that 91 is basically 'midway' between 87(minimum) and 93 octane.

The mandate octane depends on the vehicle. Where did you see that?

Edit:
I looked around and they didn't* mention such a thing anywhere that I looked. Infact they made a point to emphasize not to use more octane than is recommended. The Low Down on High Octane.

[gone-ot]

...from slide 11 of this presentation:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog...1/alliance.pdf

...it shows, in the right column, the current Federal (EPA) "test fuel" requirements. Note that AKI is always slightly less than the RON number, hence AKI = 91 octane, from RON = 93 octane.

[some_other_dave]

Also, as a point of order: 91 octane (AKI rating) is the highest that is available in many areas--including all of California--without getting "race gas" which is technically not legal for use on the street.

EDIT: And AKI rating is always less than RON, AKI is the average of RON and MON; the MON rating of a given batch of gasoline is from 8-10 points lower than the RON rating of that same gasoline. So the AKI rating will be about 4-5 points lower than RON for most gasoline.

-soD