E85 what's the point?
03-18-2009, 12:24 PM
#1
Che Guevara
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
E85 what's the point?
Ok just did a little road trip where we calculated our mileage using a GPS. This started as a debate between me and an old college bud. I was talking about how much BS ethanol is as it has roughly 55,000 btu's less per gallon. He thought that was far fetched so we decided to use this opportunity to find out. Went through two tanks of regular 87 octane and two tanks of E85. This was in a 2008 Jeep commander 4x4 with 4.7L v8.
During the two tanks of gas we averaged around 18.3 mpg all highway. We drove speed limits and cruise control. We then filled up on E85. On two tanks of E85 we averaged 12.1mpg.
So we basically saw roughly a 30% decrease in mpg. After doing a little searching we found out we were almost dead on the EPA mpg. They stated 18 and 12 respectively. His has a couple mods which might have helped mpg.
Based on 15k miles a year, now using EPA numbers, the gas would cost you $1778. The E85 would run you $4230. The amount of pollution for the gas would be 13.1 ton and 11.1 tons for the E85. So essentially for a 30%-40% reduction in MPG, a 240% increase in cost, you get around 15% reduction in green house emissions.
What's the point of this junk? You can focus on increasing the utilized power of gas and easily get that 15% back.
During the two tanks of gas we averaged around 18.3 mpg all highway. We drove speed limits and cruise control. We then filled up on E85. On two tanks of E85 we averaged 12.1mpg.
So we basically saw roughly a 30% decrease in mpg. After doing a little searching we found out we were almost dead on the EPA mpg. They stated 18 and 12 respectively. His has a couple mods which might have helped mpg.
Based on 15k miles a year, now using EPA numbers, the gas would cost you $1778. The E85 would run you $4230. The amount of pollution for the gas would be 13.1 ton and 11.1 tons for the E85. So essentially for a 30%-40% reduction in MPG, a 240% increase in cost, you get around 15% reduction in green house emissions.
What's the point of this junk? You can focus on increasing the utilized power of gas and easily get that 15% back.
03-18-2009, 01:35 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 289
Also, don't forget that the increased usage of acreage for ethanol corn is driving up the price of other food products. It gets you from both sides.
Corn based ethanol is a dead end. Time, money, and energy should be funneled into other avenues of research and development.
Corn based ethanol is a dead end. Time, money, and energy should be funneled into other avenues of research and development.
03-18-2009, 01:59 PM
#6
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,275
Originally Posted by aviatorisu
E85 was better when it didn't cost an arm and a leg like regular fuel does. Additionally, if it were easier to transport, it would probably cost a little less.
It did fizzle rather quick though, didn't it?
Z
It did fizzle rather quick though, didn't it?
Z
03-18-2009, 06:29 PM
#7
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
The main driver for ethanol as an automotive fuel in the US is the EPA "CAFE standards" requiring US automakers to meet an average fleet fuel economy for their fleets. EPA made a loophole for automakers if they would produce E85 cars so they did. E85 compatible Escalades and Expeditions flowed from Detroit and there was less of a need to sell small cars. It was not about ethanol, it about the extra money that could be made on large cars. Ironically, the large cars ended up contributing to their nearly going bankrupt but that's another story.
EPA on the other hand was in it for the environment but the truth is that corn based fuel actually does the opposite of what it is supposed to on every count. Ethanol drives up food prices, leads to a net energy loss to produce, is expensive at the pump, it contributes to global warming, and has no redeeming positives other than it is somewhat renewable. I am not sure how EPA would have been influenced by the corn lobby but I have heard that lawmakers from corn states pushed for ethanol and got their way, as Rick said.
EPA on the other hand was in it for the environment but the truth is that corn based fuel actually does the opposite of what it is supposed to on every count. Ethanol drives up food prices, leads to a net energy loss to produce, is expensive at the pump, it contributes to global warming, and has no redeeming positives other than it is somewhat renewable. I am not sure how EPA would have been influenced by the corn lobby but I have heard that lawmakers from corn states pushed for ethanol and got their way, as Rick said.
Last edited by Cubdriver; 03-18-2009 at 07:01 PM.
03-18-2009, 07:16 PM
#8
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
The Ethanol Subsidy Dilemma
Ethanol has been touted as a renewable, alternative fuel of the future for many years, and the hype continues to grow today. Green-energy environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, and farm groups like the American Coalition for Ethanol are all touting E85 as a viable solution to the depletion of fossil fuels.
The claim is that making E85 will help America achieve a reachable, yet seemingly elusive goal of energy independence. Reducing oil imports, stimulating the American economy and reducing toxic emissions are worthy goals, but the ethanol promoters seem to be ignoring some unpleasant facts. Ethanol may not significantly reduce our oil imports; adding more ethanol to our gas tanks adds further complexity to our motor-fuel supply chain, which can lead to higher prices at the pump and most importantly, it has been determined that more energy is required to produce a gallon of ethanol than it actually provides.
There is a major, outstanding question regarding biofuels in general: Does making alcohol from grain or plant waste really create any new energy? The answer, of course, depends upon whom you ask. The ethanol lobby claims there's a 30 percent net gain in BTU's from ethanol made from corn. Other boosters claim that there are huge energy gains (as much as 700 percent) to be had by making ethanol from grass. Ethanol critics have shown that industry calculations promoting the use of ethanol are bogus. A recent report on ethanol production estimates that making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel itself actually contains.
The report calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production — from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer, to the energy needed at the processing plant; the findings determined that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to the report, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTU's per gallon, and producing ethanol from corn requires about 98,000 BTU's. For comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains about 116,000 BTU's per gallon and making that gallon of gas, from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining, requires around 22,000 BTU's. In addition to the findings regarding corn, the report determined that making ethanol from switch grass requires 50 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol yields, wood biomass 57 percent more, and sunflowers 118 percent more. The best yield comes from soybeans, but they, too, are a net loser, requiring 27 percent more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced. In other words, more ethanol production will increase America's total energy consumption, rather than decrease it.
Ethanol poses other serious difficulties for our energy economy. First, even 8 billion gallons of ethanol will do almost nothing to reduce oil imports; America burned more than 134 billion gallons of gasoline last year. By 2012, those 8 billion gallons might reduce America's overall oil consumption by 0.5 percent. In 1997, the General Accounting Office concluded that "ethanol's potential for substituting for petroleum is so small that it is unlikely to significantly affect overall energy security." Adding more ethanol will also increase the complexity of America's refining infrastructure, which is already straining to meet demand, and raising pump prices. E85 is ethanol blended with 15% gasoline which is what will be sold at the corner fuel station. Another issue is that ethanol absorbs water and therefore, cannot be shipped by regular petroleum pipelines. Ethanol has to be segregated from other motor fuels and shipped by truck, rail car, or barge, shipping methods which are far more expensive than pipelines.
There's another problem: Ethanol, when mixed with gasoline, results in a higher evaporation rate. This forces refiners to dramatically alter their gasoline formula to compensate for the increased evaporation. In a report released in 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) underscored the evaporative problems posed by ethanol, saying that compensating for ethanol forces refiners to remove certain liquids from their gasoline: "Removing these components and reprocessing them or diverting them to other products increases the cost of making ethanol-blended gasoline." What frustrates critics is that there are sensible ways to reduce our motor-fuel use and bolster renewable energy, they just don't help the corn lobby. If we channeled the billions spent on ethanol into fuel-efficient cars and solar cells, we would have so much more bang for the buck.
writer unknown
A turbodiesel has the most thermodynamic efficiency of any drivetrain available, my understanding is that it beats the hybrids by any fair measure. Very common in the EU, rare as hens teeth here in automobiles.
Ethanol has been touted as a renewable, alternative fuel of the future for many years, and the hype continues to grow today. Green-energy environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, and farm groups like the American Coalition for Ethanol are all touting E85 as a viable solution to the depletion of fossil fuels.
The claim is that making E85 will help America achieve a reachable, yet seemingly elusive goal of energy independence. Reducing oil imports, stimulating the American economy and reducing toxic emissions are worthy goals, but the ethanol promoters seem to be ignoring some unpleasant facts. Ethanol may not significantly reduce our oil imports; adding more ethanol to our gas tanks adds further complexity to our motor-fuel supply chain, which can lead to higher prices at the pump and most importantly, it has been determined that more energy is required to produce a gallon of ethanol than it actually provides.
There is a major, outstanding question regarding biofuels in general: Does making alcohol from grain or plant waste really create any new energy? The answer, of course, depends upon whom you ask. The ethanol lobby claims there's a 30 percent net gain in BTU's from ethanol made from corn. Other boosters claim that there are huge energy gains (as much as 700 percent) to be had by making ethanol from grass. Ethanol critics have shown that industry calculations promoting the use of ethanol are bogus. A recent report on ethanol production estimates that making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel itself actually contains.
The report calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production — from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer, to the energy needed at the processing plant; the findings determined that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to the report, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTU's per gallon, and producing ethanol from corn requires about 98,000 BTU's. For comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains about 116,000 BTU's per gallon and making that gallon of gas, from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining, requires around 22,000 BTU's. In addition to the findings regarding corn, the report determined that making ethanol from switch grass requires 50 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol yields, wood biomass 57 percent more, and sunflowers 118 percent more. The best yield comes from soybeans, but they, too, are a net loser, requiring 27 percent more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced. In other words, more ethanol production will increase America's total energy consumption, rather than decrease it.
Ethanol poses other serious difficulties for our energy economy. First, even 8 billion gallons of ethanol will do almost nothing to reduce oil imports; America burned more than 134 billion gallons of gasoline last year. By 2012, those 8 billion gallons might reduce America's overall oil consumption by 0.5 percent. In 1997, the General Accounting Office concluded that "ethanol's potential for substituting for petroleum is so small that it is unlikely to significantly affect overall energy security." Adding more ethanol will also increase the complexity of America's refining infrastructure, which is already straining to meet demand, and raising pump prices. E85 is ethanol blended with 15% gasoline which is what will be sold at the corner fuel station. Another issue is that ethanol absorbs water and therefore, cannot be shipped by regular petroleum pipelines. Ethanol has to be segregated from other motor fuels and shipped by truck, rail car, or barge, shipping methods which are far more expensive than pipelines.
There's another problem: Ethanol, when mixed with gasoline, results in a higher evaporation rate. This forces refiners to dramatically alter their gasoline formula to compensate for the increased evaporation. In a report released in 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) underscored the evaporative problems posed by ethanol, saying that compensating for ethanol forces refiners to remove certain liquids from their gasoline: "Removing these components and reprocessing them or diverting them to other products increases the cost of making ethanol-blended gasoline." What frustrates critics is that there are sensible ways to reduce our motor-fuel use and bolster renewable energy, they just don't help the corn lobby. If we channeled the billions spent on ethanol into fuel-efficient cars and solar cells, we would have so much more bang for the buck.
writer unknown
A turbodiesel has the most thermodynamic efficiency of any drivetrain available, my understanding is that it beats the hybrids by any fair measure. Very common in the EU, rare as hens teeth here in automobiles.
Last edited by jungle; 03-18-2009 at 07:30 PM.
03-18-2009, 08:45 PM
#9
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
What's the point? $$
Just like everything else in America, it's about money and special-interests.
Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare
A sugar-coated dog-turd is still a dog-turd.
Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare
A sugar-coated dog-turd is still a dog-turd.
03-19-2009, 05:34 PM
#10
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Originally Posted by jungle
[article]"...A turbodiesel has the most thermodynamic efficiency of any drivetrain available, my understanding is that it beats the hybrids by any fair measure. Very common in the EU, rare as hens teeth here in automobiles."
Last edited by Cubdriver; 03-19-2009 at 06:08 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
alxie
Military
4
11-05-2008 06:53 AM
