E85 (flex fuel) optimization

[StageLeft]

It's best optimized by putting gasoline in instead of corn crap.

 

[canadageek]

It's best optimized by putting gasoline in instead of corn crap.

ethanol is a great fuel, but the motor needs to be built for it. Ethanol has an octane rating of 116 (MON) or 129 (RON) even mixed with 15% gasoline, thats at least 100 octane.

yes, ethanol has less energy in it, and the problem is compounded by the lower compression of flex-fuel engines. however, one could build a kick-ass bi-fuel engine by utilizing forced induction. Ethanol loves boost, It's knock-resistant and does a great job of keeping the motor cool. The same gasoline-compatible compression ratio plus boost results in much higher cylinder pressures, thus more power. setting the ECU to run low boost on gasoline and high boost on ethanol would result in an engine that can run on both fuels equally well, and run more efficiently on the E85.

the problem, I think, would be mixed tanks of fuel, say if you have to fill up somewhere with no E85, and you wind up with a tankful of E20 or something.

 

[kalrith]

Link?

http://www.grist.org/article/ethanol-the-net-energy-debate-returns

Nice read. I wish the gov't just wouldn't subsidize ethanol. If it's not even competitive from a price/mile standpoint while being subsidized by the taxpayers of America, then it's not a good product IMO.

OK here's link to the improvement of corn ethanol, so now its up to 2.3 X its energy input. Still a long way from a windmill at 20X or oil 30-40 X

From the USDA June of 2010, so its CURRENT

"This latest report says that "the net energy balance of corn ethanol has increased from 1.76 BTUs to 2.3 BTUs of required energy" since 2004. "

http://www.theatlantic.com/food/arc...nol-more-efficient-still-unsustainable/60026/

They go on to say EROEI of 28 is possible down the road which would put it viable competition with lots of other energy products

So, at its current rate of increase, it should have an EROEI of 28 in the year 2066. The law of diminishing returns makes it unlikely that it will continue at this same rate of increase, so who knows when (if ever) it will be competitive with oil.

 

[desy]

Well the EROEI on oil is going down it used to be 100-1 and yes its says It 'could' get that high , not that it will for corn

 

[kalrith]

Well the EROEI on oil is going down it used to be 100-1 and yes its says It 'could' get that high , not that it will for corn

I think that's the problem with corn ethanol. It could be a great alternative fuel source. It could be a great fuel if a motor were built for ethanol instead of gas.

The reality is that the gov't has been subsidizing it for 30 years, and it still sucks as an energy source. Will we still be saying, "corn ethanol could be a great, cost-effective alternative to oil," in another 30 years.

I wonder what the true cost of ethanol would be if we were to add up all the gov't subsidizing and determine the increase in costs in the food industry from a decreased supply of corn. We likely can't put an exact number on it, but I'm guessing it's huge.

 

[desy]

Oil and Gas is heavily subsidized, but everybody forgets this because its built in systemic so we don't really know the 'true cost' of that either esp if you factor in environmental which Ethanol is and oil and gas is omitted from scrutiny.

Subsidies that stay within the country really just displace money that would have been allocated elsewhere but you still get the advantage of the reciprocity of money because its within. That's a lot better than trade imbalance of oil$ going out and having zero value added internally.
Really though lessons learned with corn will be valuable via cellulosic or algae which is where bio-fuels will utimately go. You say 30 yrs but really its only been the last 5 -10 where any scalable plants were built and not lab experiments

I'm not a huge supporter of the way its done however it won't progress either and the potential of waiting until too late exists. I'd rather have a smoother transition from the oil economy than what may happen. The greater the diversity the greater the resiliance

 

[marvdmartian]

Ethanol takes almost as much fossil fuel to make as it replaces as fuel, while at the same time using a huge amount of land. It's an environmentally destructive SCAM.

There is no reason for anyone to use corn ethanol as fuel, EVER.

E85 pretty much exists because corn farmers have EXCELLENT representation in Washington DC.

Until recently, the job I worked required me to drive a government truck daily. The Department of Defense has pretty much been forced to use E85 and bio-diesel (B20) at all their bases where it's available from local vendors, and we had to fuel our truck with E85.

A Chevy 1/2 ton truck, with tool boxes installed, should still get ~15mpg city driving. Using E85, we regularly got 10mpg. Didn't matter what time of year (so the A/C didn't drag it down much in the summer). Highway mileage was also much worse than with unleaded gasoline. D:

 

[Occ]

Well doesn't bio-diesel make more sense than ethanol? IIRC on the discovery channel they had a segment where a guy made his own biodiesel processor in his garage. he would drive by local food restaurants and pick up their grease/oil for conversion in his homemade refinery plant. The best place was some burrito joint I think. he said the only modification he had to make to his truck was swap out the rubber hoses with synthetic ones, since the bio-diesel eats rubber apparently. it seems like it solves 2 problems at once because the food places need to dispose of the grease and oil from their grills and stuff, and bio-diesel provides a way to do that.

there wasn't a discussion on any power or efficiency differences compared to regular diesel, or how much power the processing required. i would assume since it could be housed in a (large) garage it wouldn't be too bad...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Link?

http://www.grist.org/article/ethanol-the-net-energy-debate-returns

Yep, Pimetal - go figure

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Oil and Gas is heavily subsidized, but everybody forgets this because its built in systemic so we don't really know the 'true cost' of that either esp if you factor in environmental which Ethanol is and oil and gas is omitted from scrutiny.

Subsidies that stay within the country really just displace money that would have been allocated elsewhere but you still get the advantage of the reciprocity of money because its within. That's a lot better than trade imbalance of oil$ going out and having zero value added internally.
Really though lessons learned with corn will be valuable via cellulosic or algae which is where bio-fuels will utimately go. You say 30 yrs but really its only been the last 5 -10 where any scalable plants were built and not lab experiments

I'm not a huge supporter of the way its done however it won't progress either and the potential of waiting until too late exists. I'd rather have a smoother transition from the oil economy than what may happen. The greater the diversity the greater the resiliance

This.

I don't think E-XX is the solution even with cellulosic or algae, but it's what we have within THIS country that is renewable. It has gotten much better and will continue to do so. I don't like the subsidies either but it's just the way our energy policies work in the US. Anyone who dismisses E because of the subsidies either isn't aware that ALL the other fuels are subsidized or just ignores it.
I happen to have a flex fuel so I buy it most of the time as I live in Iowa so most of the money stays here.

 

[desy]

Bio diesel using waste product is fine however there certainly isn't enough to displace diesel to any degree. Also diesel engines cost more, so while more efficient . . . .
Even with the huge amount of agricultural area available it really would take a mountainous effort to build infastructure to replace oil.
Crops are such a thin layer on the earth that a lot energy is lost just transporting it around.
Maybe this is where bio diesel from algae could hold greater promise because you can now add the 3rd dimension of depth so it isn't so spread out and locate the plants closer to the high demand areas

 

[Eli]

The main reason for lower fuel economy isn't optimization, it's because alcohol physically contains less energy than gasoline.

Really, to optimize performance and efficiency, the engine needs to be built from the ground up to run on E85. There will always be a compromise in a multi-fuel vehicle. The ECU can make some changes when it detects E85, but the real gains would be had by increasing the compression ratio of the engine - something software cannot do.

 

[kalrith]

The main reason for lower fuel economy isn't optimization, it's because alcohol physically contains less energy than gasoline.

Really, to optimize performance and efficiency, the engine needs to be built from the ground up to run on E85. There will always be a compromise in a multi-fuel vehicle. The ECU can make some changes when it detects E85, but the real gains would be had by increasing the compression ratio of the engine - something software cannot do.

Has this ever been done before? It would be interesting to see the results.

 

[Eli]

Has this ever been done before? It would be interesting to see the results.

People build engines to run on alcohol all the time. Only minor changes would be necessary to go from 100% alcohol to E85.

I'm thinking easily buildable engines like the 350 though. Very easy to re-jet a carburetor and increase the compression ratio on these engines.

It would be interesting to see a company produce a car that was meant to run E85, with regular gasoline as the alternative instead of the other way around. The E85 infrastructure isn't really there, though. But it could theoretically provide a performance car with a nice kick in the pants when running E85.

 

[43st]

Ethanol has roughly 35% less energy density than gasoline.. nothing you do to an ICE will make up that difference. You may be able to make it more efficient, but it will also make gasoline in that same engine more efficient as well.

 

[Eli]

Ethanol has roughly 35% less energy density than gasoline.. nothing you do to an ICE will make up that difference. You may be able to make it more efficient, but it will also make gasoline in that same engine more efficient as well.

Not true. Why do dragsters run alcohol then? You're still bound by the limitations of the fuel. If we had a fuel that contained twice the energy as gasoline, but only half the octane, you wouldn't be gaining anything because your engine would have a 6:1 compression ratio.

You aren't going to be running Regular Unleaded in an engine with a 15:1 compression ratio, regardless of combustion chamber design, etc.

You could, however, run a 15:1 CR with alcohol with a properly designed combustion chamber and such.

It is most certainly possible to overcome the energy defecit with proper engine design.

 

[43st]

Not true. Why do dragsters run alcohol then?

Not for efficiency..

 

[Eli]

Not for efficiency..

Well, no arguments there. lol

 

[SickBeast]

I personally grew 7' tall corn stalks without the use of any fertilizers or fossil fuels.

 

[RU482]

would changes to the compression ratio and/or combustion chamber be accomplished by changes to the cylinder heads? Or would the piston need to be modified as well? (theoretically)

 

[Throckmorton]

Yep, Pimetal - go figure

You're attacking the source instead of the reality that corn ethanol is a waste of food resources, takes a lot of fossil fuel to produce, and wastes precious land. The best ROI I've seen that factors in every major variable is 1.2, and that .2 comes at the cost of a lot of corn and land.

Here are more articles
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com...thanol-the-emperor%E2%80%99s-new-clothes/

At this point, it is important to point out a bit of accounting sleight of hand utilized by Shapouri, as well as a number of others when calculating EROI for ethanol. Note that the actual energy inputs into the process according to him are 77,228 BTU per gallon of ethanol produced (using the higher heating value, or HHV). The BTU value given for a gallon of ethanol (HHV) was 83,961. Therefore, excluding co-product credits, the EROI would appear to be 83,961/77,228, or 1.09. He includes a co-product credit of 14,372 BTU, which should raise the overall value of the BTU products to (83,961 + 14,372), or 98,333 BTUs. This would imply an EROI of 98,333/77,228, or 1.27. However, Shapouri, like many ethanol advocates, performs a completely illegitimate accounting trick to exaggerate the EROI of ethanol. He uses the 14,372 co-product credit to reduce the energy input of 77,228 and assumes an energy input of just 62,856 BTUs/gallon. Since the co-products are not actually used as inputs in the process, this is invalid. But that is not the most serious issue. When he uses the co-product credit to offset the energy input, it should be removed from the product side. Shapouri includes it on both sides of the equation – reduce the inputs with the co-product credit, and increase the BTU output with the co-product credit.

Consider this analogy. I invest $100, and I get a return of $20 and another $40 worth of goods (co-product). What is my return on investment (ROI)? Most people would say that I got a total return of $60 on an investment of $100, for an ROI of 60%. If we utilize Shapouri-style accounting, we would use the $40 co-credit to offset our initial investment. We would then argue that we only invested $60 to get a return of $60, for an ROI of 100%. So, the answer to the question – “When does a $60 return on a $100 investment amount to a 100% return on investment?” – is “Whenever the USDA is doing the accounting.”

 

[Eli]

would changes to the compression ratio and/or combustion chamber be accomplished by changes to the cylinder heads? Or would the piston need to be modified as well? (theoretically)

You could do either or a combination. Domed pistons could be used to change the compression ratio without modifying the head. Or you could get some tiny combustion chamberered heads and use dished pistons to acheieve the compression ratio you want.

 

[jlee]

You could do either or a combination. Domed pistons could be used to change the compression ratio without modifying the head. Or you could get some tiny combustion chamberered heads and use dished pistons to acheieve the compression ratio you want.

Head gasket thickness can change it a little too.

 

[PricklyPete]

I personally grew 7' tall corn stalks without the use of any fertilizers or fossil fuels.

It doesn't matter how tall you grew a few plants one time. It is ALL about how many you can grow on one acre of land...and how often you can grow the corn on that land. Without nitrogen rich fertilizers, there is no way farmers could get the crop density that they are able to get now...and they get those fertilizers from fossil fuel. They also would have to rotate their crops with legumes or something similar "re-energize" the soil with nitrogen.

 

[desy]

I just linked you a CURRENT article that has it at 200% not 20%, your linking articles from 2006

Other BS is it wastes food, thats one of the great lies, 50% of corn production has always gone to cattle feed. Guess what they do with the byproduct of ethanol production? cattle feed w less starch, so it doesn't really impact the food system at all. Also, it doesn't waste land either, farmers are going to grow something and if there's money in corn, well , they were probably growing corn anyway.

Energy density, yes it has 30% less energy density than gas, however once you turbocharge it is more efficient than gas IC engines, which is why race car drivers use it.
Also, it why 'miles per gallon' is a poor representation of actual driving costs when comparing fuels. If you called it cost per mile that has a lot more meaning, IE around here diesel is cheaper than gas and factor in the mileage 30% gain, cost per mile is very low.

Agreed, in industrial crops all farmers have to fertilize and spray for weeds or bugs, cost of production