Ethanol industry demands higher ethanol limits in gasoline.

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

There may be better crops but you are obviously misinformed if you think that ethanol is "barely" energy positive. The corn used in E production accounts for a tiny part of our total corn production so attempts to claim it is ruining water tables or is causing higher food prices are misinformation at best.

Uh, no. I wrote a regional study on ethanol a couple of years ago. Significant percentages (over 15%) of the corn crop goes to ethanol, but it depends entirely on the area. In parts of the country with a lot of ethanol facilities it is a much greater impact. (sorry, don't remember numbers off the top of my head.) The larger issues it has raised are with how it messes with the crop rotation cycle. The attempt by farmers to cash in on the ethanol boom and predict markets/building of facilities really messed with production of other crops the last ~five years.

It has also caused disturbances in the livestock markets are more corn has been diverted (increasing prices). The counter to this by the ethanol industry is that ethanol production creates DDG, but distiller grains can only be used as small parts of livestock intake (though varies a lot with the particular animal).

Oh, I should also add that ethanol takes massive amounts of natural gas to create (which let me tell ya makes it a REAL PITA to site them). I should also note that I don't have much of a problem with blending ethanol for just the midwest and maybe west (more due to the location of the refineries where blending takes place).

So yes, it IS increasing prices at least in the short term.

What increased prices was the cost of oil.

That was part of it, but not all. With everything being connected it is ridiculous to claim any one thing was entirely responsible. Let me give some examples from Wisconsin (which has lots of Ethanol products along with a huge amount of cattle): Dairy Guy A used to get his corn feed from Farmer A for X. Farmer A was overall the cheapest guy to get it from when considering the direct cost, reliability, and distance needed to travel to obtain the feed. Now Farmer A is selling his entire corn crop to the new Facility built nearby. He likes it because they provide price guarantees and long term contracts. Now Dairy Guy A must travel much further and pay a higher direct cost to obtain the feed.

It is things like that which are affecting prices. Other factors were the increasing cost of oil, increasing cost of rail transportation (which was partially caused by ethanol), lousy winters this and last year, massive plantings of corn and soybeans at the expense of other crops, etc, etc.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

There may be better crops but you are obviously misinformed if you think that ethanol is "barely" energy positive. The corn used in E production accounts for a tiny part of our total corn production so attempts to claim it is ruining water tables or is causing higher food prices are misinformation at best.

Uh, no. I wrote a regional study on ethanol a couple of years ago. Significant percentages (over 15%) of the corn crop goes to ethanol, but it depends entirely on the area. In parts of the country with a lot of ethanol facilities it is a much greater impact. (sorry, don't remember numbers off the top of my head.) The larger issues it has raised are with how it messes with the crop rotation cycle. The attempt by farmers to cash in on the ethanol boom and predict markets/building of facilities really messed with production of other crops the last ~five years.

It has also caused disturbances in the livestock markets are more corn has been diverted (increasing prices). The counter to this by the ethanol industry is that ethanol production creates DDG, but distiller grains can only be used as small parts of livestock intake (though varies a lot with the particular animal).

Oh, I should also add that ethanol takes massive amounts of natural gas to create (which let me tell ya makes it a REAL PITA to site them). I should also note that I don't have much of a problem with blending ethanol for just the midwest and maybe west (more due to the location of the refineries where blending takes place).

So yes, it IS increasing prices at least in the short term.

What increased prices was the cost of oil.

That was part of it, but not all. With everything being connected it is ridiculous to claim any one thing was entirely responsible. Let me give some examples from Wisconsin (which has lots of Ethanol products along with a huge amount of cattle): Dairy Guy A used to get his corn feed from Farmer A for X. Farmer A was overall the cheapest guy to get it from when considering the direct cost, reliability, and distance needed to travel to obtain the feed. Now Farmer A is selling his entire corn crop to the new Facility built nearby. He likes it because they provide price guarantees and long term contracts. Now Dairy Guy A must travel much further and pay a higher direct cost to obtain the feed.

It is things like that which are affecting prices. Other factors were the increasing cost of oil, increasing cost of rail transportation (which was partially caused by ethanol), lousy winters this and last year, massive plantings of corn and soybeans at the expense of other crops, etc, etc.

Dairy guy A probably raises his own corn, if not he buys it from the local elevator. He doesn't travel any farther to get his corn. You're full of it.

ST. LOUIS, March 31, 2008 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Today's Prospective Plantings report released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicates farmers are concerned about high input costs, according to the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA). The report says farmers intend to plant 86.014 million corn acres this year, an 8 percent drop from 2007's high acreage, yet the second-highest acreage intention since 1949, NCGA notes.

"We're always cautious when we review the March projections, because they are made before any seeds really enter the ground," said Ron Litterer, NCGA president. "The corn acreage projections also have a tendency to go up. Last year, for example, there was a difference of more than 3 million acres between the March estimate and the final number." Litterer pointed out USDA's March report has underestimated actual corn acres in the each of the last four years.

"One thing farmers have told us this year, and something I've seen myself, are that growers are facing tremendously higher input costs -- particularly for fertilizer and diesel fuel," Litterer added. "We need access to more affordable sources of natural gas for fertilizer production and we're concerned about the impact of higher crude oil prices on farmer profitability."

The March USDA report would indicate approximately 79 million harvested acres. If the average trend yield of 155.5 bushels per acre is realized, corn producers would be on track to produce approximately 12.3 billion bushels in 2008 -- the second-highest production ever. The USDA's June 30 report will provide a clearer view of 2008 corn acreage.

"Based on what we've heard from our growers, and if the weather goes our way, we're confident we will produce another good crop," Litterer said. "We're committed to meeting all needs -- food, fuel, feed and fiber, and we are heartened by the trend toward higher yields that maximizes how much corn is produced per acre. Farmers are becoming more efficient and more productive."

Today's USDA report also noted that many previous corn acres are being planted in soybean, a common crop rotation. The projected 74.8 million acres would be the third-highest soybean acreage in history. Complete information on the USDA Prospective Planting report is available on the Internet at www.usda.gov.

http://www.globenewswire.com/n...oom/news.html?d=139164

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wrong. Just because I live here(the last 8 years) does not mean I'm biased. I just happen to have local information that isn't filtered via media bias. You see, there is tons of information available yet people just go with what they hear on the news or their political herd yaps about.
lol, speaking of ignorance... Ethanol is net energy positive and has been for quite some time. Only Pimental(who has been discredited) continues to claim otherwise.

Since you seem to be the preeminent Iowegian supporter of Corn Derived Ethanol here, I will pose you the question:

If Corn Derived Ethanol is the panacea for all our energy problems, why does it still require Massive Federal Subsidies to remain profitable?

Whoa there junior - no where have I ever suggested E was THE solution. Actually if you people would actually pay attention - the E movement has never suggested it was "THE" solution for our energy problems. They know they are just a small part. It seems only the ignorant on this issue seem to think people who "support" E think it's some all encompassing solution.

Also, just because I'm an E "supporter" does not mean that I think we should only use corn and not look for better alternative sources of stock. But at the moment, the only viable mass production can be done with corn. There seems to be many promising technologies but they are not quite ready for prime time yet. And actually, if you people actually would pay attention to the issue - E "supporters" do support other methods and are actively working towards those ends. But meh... keep whining if you wish....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

There may be better crops but you are obviously misinformed if you think that ethanol is "barely" energy positive. The corn used in E production accounts for a tiny part of our total corn production so attempts to claim it is ruining water tables or is causing higher food prices are misinformation at best.

Uh, no. I wrote a regional study on ethanol a couple of years ago. Significant percentages (over 15%) of the corn crop goes to ethanol, but it depends entirely on the area. In parts of the country with a lot of ethanol facilities it is a much greater impact. (sorry, don't remember numbers off the top of my head.) The larger issues it has raised are with how it messes with the crop rotation cycle. The attempt by farmers to cash in on the ethanol boom and predict markets/building of facilities really messed with production of other crops the last ~five years.

It has also caused disturbances in the livestock markets are more corn has been diverted (increasing prices). The counter to this by the ethanol industry is that ethanol production creates DDG, but distiller grains can only be used as small parts of livestock intake (though varies a lot with the particular animal).

Oh, I should also add that ethanol takes massive amounts of natural gas to create (which let me tell ya makes it a REAL PITA to site them). I should also note that I don't have much of a problem with blending ethanol for just the midwest and maybe west (more due to the location of the refineries where blending takes place).

So yes, it IS increasing prices at least in the short term.

Uh you would have to totally ignore the cost of oil to blame pricing increases on E.
Yes, regionally it has changed markets and rotation but that has nothing to do with what I stated.
Anyway, back to the BS about increasing food prices because we are "burning our food" crap. We produce more corn than we use every year and even manufacturers have done studies on their "costs" due to corn being higher. It affects it to a small extent but the biggest cost increase was energy(fuel/oil/etc) - which also affected the price/cost of the corn itself. So this idea that E is the cause of food price increases is silly at best.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
No, the car has to be configured to run on more than 10% ethanol or else you will get driveability issues including possible damage to the vehicle's fuel system and engine.

Proof of this claim?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Also, most older cars limit the ethanol content that can be used to 10%.

That was based on a Federal additive limit. Any FI car can run more than 10% with no little issue(if any) at all. Also, as usual - the press doesn't actually report factual information. It creates a premise of change due to.... when that isn't the case at all. The fall in gas consuption didn't CAUSE their push for this change - it actually has nothing to do with it. This change has been pushed for quite some time and is not some sudden effort due to gas consuption.

meh... not that correct and factual information regarding ethanol matters much in this forum... since most opine from a position of ignorance.

Province/State: Iowa
As opposed to you that opine from a position of complete bias.

Ethanol needs to die. It take more energy to produce ethanol then you get from corn.

Wrong. Just because I live here(the last 8 years) does not mean I'm biased. I just happen to have local information that isn't filtered via media bias. You see, there is tons of information available yet people just go with what they hear on the news or their political herd yaps about.

lol, speaking of ignorance... Ethanol is net energy positive and has been for quite some time. Only Pimental(who has been discredited) continues to claim otherwise.

Maybe you should try educating your self. The only way you get a positive energy balance with ethanol is to count the waste by-products as energy.

:laugh:
Myths and Facts

 

[miketheidiot]

Text

Abstract

Negative environmental consequences of fossil fuels and concerns about petroleum supplies have spurred the search for renewable transportation biofuels. To be a viable alternative, a biofuel should provide a net energy gain, have environmental benefits, be economically competitive, and be producible in large quantities without reducing food supplies. We use these criteria to evaluate, through life-cycle accounting, ethanol from corn grain and biodiesel from soybeans. Ethanol yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production, whereas biodiesel yields 93% more. Compared with ethanol, biodiesel releases just 1.0%, 8.3%, and 13% of the agricultural nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide pollutants, respectively, per net energy gain. Relative to the fossil fuels they displace, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced 12% by the production and combustion of ethanol and 41% by biodiesel. Biodiesel also releases less air pollutants per net energy gain than ethanol. These advantages of biodiesel over ethanol come from lower agricultural inputs and more efficient conversion of feedstocks to fuel. Neither biofuel can replace much petroleum without impacting food supplies. Even dedicating all U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand. Until recent increases in petroleum prices, high production costs made biofuels unprofitable without subsidies. Biodiesel provides sufficient environmental advantages to merit subsidy. Transportation biofuels such as synfuel hydrocarbons or cellulosic ethanol, if produced from low-input biomass grown on agriculturally marginal land or from waste biomass, could provide much greater supplies and environmental benefits than food-based biofuels.

25% is not good. Using the most energy input dependent corp to make more energy is laughably stupid.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Also, most older cars limit the ethanol content that can be used to 10%.

That was based on a Federal additive limit. Any FI car can run more than 10% with no little issue(if any) at all. Also, as usual - the press doesn't actually report factual information. It creates a premise of change due to.... when that isn't the case at all. The fall in gas consuption didn't CAUSE their push for this change - it actually has nothing to do with it. This change has been pushed for quite some time and is not some sudden effort due to gas consuption.

meh... not that correct and factual information regarding ethanol matters much in this forum... since most opine from a position of ignorance.

Province/State: Iowa
As opposed to you that opine from a position of complete bias.

Ethanol needs to die. It take more energy to produce ethanol then you get from corn.

Wrong. Just because I live here(the last 8 years) does not mean I'm biased. I just happen to have local information that isn't filtered via media bias. You see, there is tons of information available yet people just go with what they hear on the news or their political herd yaps about.

lol, speaking of ignorance... Ethanol is net energy positive and has been for quite some time. Only Pimental(who has been discredited) continues to claim otherwise.

Maybe you should try educating your self. The only way you get a positive energy balance with ethanol is to count the waste by-products as energy.

:laugh:
Myths and Facts

even your own link admits, that many studies do not find ethanol to be a net energy contributor.

I'm glad we have our very own corn industry shill.:heart:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Text

Abstract

Negative environmental consequences of fossil fuels and concerns about petroleum supplies have spurred the search for renewable transportation biofuels. To be a viable alternative, a biofuel should provide a net energy gain, have environmental benefits, be economically competitive, and be producible in large quantities without reducing food supplies. We use these criteria to evaluate, through life-cycle accounting, ethanol from corn grain and biodiesel from soybeans. Ethanol yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production, whereas biodiesel yields 93% more. Compared with ethanol, biodiesel releases just 1.0%, 8.3%, and 13% of the agricultural nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide pollutants, respectively, per net energy gain. Relative to the fossil fuels they displace, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced 12% by the production and combustion of ethanol and 41% by biodiesel. Biodiesel also releases less air pollutants per net energy gain than ethanol. These advantages of biodiesel over ethanol come from lower agricultural inputs and more efficient conversion of feedstocks to fuel. Neither biofuel can replace much petroleum without impacting food supplies. Even dedicating all U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand. Until recent increases in petroleum prices, high production costs made biofuels unprofitable without subsidies. Biodiesel provides sufficient environmental advantages to merit subsidy. Transportation biofuels such as synfuel hydrocarbons or cellulosic ethanol, if produced from low-input biomass grown on agriculturally marginal land or from waste biomass, could provide much greater supplies and environmental benefits than food-based biofuels.

25% is not good. Using the most energy input dependent corp to make more energy is laughably stupid.

Seems you missed #7. There are plenty of studies out there - you should look into them.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Also, most older cars limit the ethanol content that can be used to 10%.

That was based on a Federal additive limit. Any FI car can run more than 10% with no little issue(if any) at all. Also, as usual - the press doesn't actually report factual information. It creates a premise of change due to.... when that isn't the case at all. The fall in gas consuption didn't CAUSE their push for this change - it actually has nothing to do with it. This change has been pushed for quite some time and is not some sudden effort due to gas consuption.

meh... not that correct and factual information regarding ethanol matters much in this forum... since most opine from a position of ignorance.

Province/State: Iowa
As opposed to you that opine from a position of complete bias.

Ethanol needs to die. It take more energy to produce ethanol then you get from corn.

Wrong. Just because I live here(the last 8 years) does not mean I'm biased. I just happen to have local information that isn't filtered via media bias. You see, there is tons of information available yet people just go with what they hear on the news or their political herd yaps about.

lol, speaking of ignorance... Ethanol is net energy positive and has been for quite some time. Only Pimental(who has been discredited) continues to claim otherwise.

Maybe you should try educating your self. The only way you get a positive energy balance with ethanol is to count the waste by-products as energy.

:laugh:
Myths and Facts

even your own link admits, that many studies do not find ethanol to be a net energy contributor.

I'm glad we have our very own corn industry shill.:heart:

1 doesn't show it - and that is the discredited Pimental "study". Try to keep up...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1prophet
No, the car has to be configured to run on more than 10% ethanol or else you will get driveability issues including possible damage to the vehicle's fuel system and engine.

Proof of this claim?

Does this help?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Text

Abstract

Negative environmental consequences of fossil fuels and concerns about petroleum supplies have spurred the search for renewable transportation biofuels. To be a viable alternative, a biofuel should provide a net energy gain, have environmental benefits, be economically competitive, and be producible in large quantities without reducing food supplies. We use these criteria to evaluate, through life-cycle accounting, ethanol from corn grain and biodiesel from soybeans. Ethanol yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production, whereas biodiesel yields 93% more. Compared with ethanol, biodiesel releases just 1.0%, 8.3%, and 13% of the agricultural nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide pollutants, respectively, per net energy gain. Relative to the fossil fuels they displace, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced 12% by the production and combustion of ethanol and 41% by biodiesel. Biodiesel also releases less air pollutants per net energy gain than ethanol. These advantages of biodiesel over ethanol come from lower agricultural inputs and more efficient conversion of feedstocks to fuel. Neither biofuel can replace much petroleum without impacting food supplies. Even dedicating all U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand. Until recent increases in petroleum prices, high production costs made biofuels unprofitable without subsidies. Biodiesel provides sufficient environmental advantages to merit subsidy. Transportation biofuels such as synfuel hydrocarbons or cellulosic ethanol, if produced from low-input biomass grown on agriculturally marginal land or from waste biomass, could provide much greater supplies and environmental benefits than food-based biofuels.

25% is not good. Using the most energy input dependent corp to make more energy is laughably stupid.

True, but alternatives can work very well. Brazil's sugarcane ethanol program has an EROEI upwards of 8:1. People just need to give alternative fuels a chance. Brazil's ethanol program wasn't a success overnight, it took decades to get to where they are today (if only we had done the same after the '73 oil crisis).

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Seems you missed #7. There are plenty of studies out there - you should look into them.

Any credibility that site has dissipates over your item #7:

Reality: Most studies show ethanol to have a positive net energy balance, while all studies show gasoline has a net negative energy balance.

If gasoline has a net negative energy balance in those studies, the studies are entirely FUBAR.

Minnesota's Department of Agriculture must be deep in the Ethanol Industry pocket to claim that Corn Ethanol is a higher yielding process than petroleum refining.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Text

Abstract

Negative environmental consequences of fossil fuels and concerns about petroleum supplies have spurred the search for renewable transportation biofuels. To be a viable alternative, a biofuel should provide a net energy gain, have environmental benefits, be economically competitive, and be producible in large quantities without reducing food supplies. We use these criteria to evaluate, through life-cycle accounting, ethanol from corn grain and biodiesel from soybeans. Ethanol yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production, whereas biodiesel yields 93% more. Compared with ethanol, biodiesel releases just 1.0%, 8.3%, and 13% of the agricultural nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide pollutants, respectively, per net energy gain. Relative to the fossil fuels they displace, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced 12% by the production and combustion of ethanol and 41% by biodiesel. Biodiesel also releases less air pollutants per net energy gain than ethanol. These advantages of biodiesel over ethanol come from lower agricultural inputs and more efficient conversion of feedstocks to fuel. Neither biofuel can replace much petroleum without impacting food supplies. Even dedicating all U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand. Until recent increases in petroleum prices, high production costs made biofuels unprofitable without subsidies. Biodiesel provides sufficient environmental advantages to merit subsidy. Transportation biofuels such as synfuel hydrocarbons or cellulosic ethanol, if produced from low-input biomass grown on agriculturally marginal land or from waste biomass, could provide much greater supplies and environmental benefits than food-based biofuels.

25% is not good. Using the most energy input dependent corp to make more energy is laughably stupid.

True, but alternatives can work very well. Brazil's sugarcane ethanol program has an EROEI upwards of 8:1. People just need to give alternative fuels a chance. Brazil's ethanol program wasn't a success overnight, it took decades to get to where they are today (if only we had done the same after the '73 oil crisis).

Brazil has an ethanol program where the US has a welfare program for lazy farmers in fly over country.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Sure, I was not challenging your observation. I've done my own due to having a flex fuel minivan. I get better gas mileage without ethanol for sure but my fuel cost per mile is relatively stable across the 3(91/92 no eth, 89 10%, and 91? e85) It varies depending on price difference since ethanol seems to not have the wild swings in price that "gas" does.

e85 is between 100 and 105. if engines were built to take e85 and e85 only (not flex fuel), you could get quite a bit more power out of it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Text

25% is not good. Using the most energy input dependent corp to make more energy is laughably stupid.

Seems you missed #7. There are plenty of studies out there - you should look into them.

number 7 doesn't disagree with what he bolded. and 25% increase is piss poor.

Furthermore, the CRS report concluded that there is a net energy loss of 19 percent in the production of gasoline.

production of gasoline from what?


link to study
i just skimmed it and i don't see that 19% energy loss claim

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Text

25% is not good. Using the most energy input dependent corp to make more energy is laughably stupid.

Seems you missed #7. There are plenty of studies out there - you should look into them.

number 7 doesn't disagree with what he bolded. and 25% increase is piss poor.

Furthermore, the CRS report concluded that there is a net energy loss of 19 percent in the production of gasoline.

production of gasoline from what?


link to study
i just skimmed it and i don't see that 19% energy loss claim

Uh... gas from crude?

And I'm not sure the summary you linked states any of that, I'd imaging that the data BEHIND the summary report does if they are making that claim. However, there are MANY studies that show it is net positive. I've linked to them in many of these threads where people try to claim E is net neg.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Sure, I was not challenging your observation. I've done my own due to having a flex fuel minivan. I get better gas mileage without ethanol for sure but my fuel cost per mile is relatively stable across the 3(91/92 no eth, 89 10%, and 91? e85) It varies depending on price difference since ethanol seems to not have the wild swings in price that "gas" does.

e85 is between 100 and 105. if engines were built to take e85 and e85 only (not flex fuel), you could get quite a bit more power out of it.

yeah, sorry - had a brain fart on what it exactly is.

Yes, there are many things that could be done to increase efficiency of use, however there is much that can be done for different levels of blends as well - not just setting 1 level(85). As I noted, currently the optimal "blend" for me is "45-50% blend of e85 which is likely then around 30-35% ethanol. " I'm sure that with better sensors and "programming" they could easily make E much closer to un-E in mileage.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Corn based ethanol is now an economically dead issue in the US and for most of the world. If the ethanol industry is to have a real future, it better be able to talk new technologies like switchgrass or other waste by products. Basing ethanol production on corn is rude, crude, and socially unacceptable. And no one is investing in corn based ethanol anymore and have not been doing so for about a decade. Its an uneconomically unfeasible technology.

This. Nothing like agribusiness pushing for more protection.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its a fact, a gallon of ethanol has less energy than a gallon of gas. Therefore one gets about 10% less milage. This is not a matter of opinion, ask any expert in the field and they all say the same thing.

And if nothing else, overuse of corn to make ethanol has caused the price of corn to rise beyond a an ethanol market sustainability level.

And the other curse of corn based ethanol, after the fertilizer and farm costs of production, both those inputs requiring huge amounts of petrochemicals , one barely get more energy out of the finished ethanol product that one put in, in the production process.

To an extent,
ethanol is great for higher compression motors, as it will not predetonate. So an engine that's made for ethanol can output more energy per gallon compared to 87. That being said, all those FLEX-capable motors are not made for ethanol and the milage/output will suffer.

All in all I'm don't think ethanol is a bad idea, but corn-based ethanol with federal subsidies is. It introduces all sorts of distortions to the corn market (driving up the price of food and what not).

If anything gov't should be pouring money into the switch blade / bacteria research, not subsidizing the old technology to keep people in Iowa employed.

And just by the way, the average cost per job saved in agriculture via subdies and tarrifs is $150k/year

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1prophet
No, the car has to be configured to run on more than 10% ethanol or else you will get driveability issues including possible damage to the vehicle's fuel system and engine.

Proof of this claim?

Does this help?

How about some real proof from the General with instructions for the unbeliever.

Alcohol/Contaminants-in-Fuel Diagnosis (with Special Tool)
Description

Water contamination in the fuel system may cause driveability conditions such as hesitation, stalling, no start, or misfires in one or more cylinders. Water may collect near a single fuel injector at the lowest point in the fuel injection system, and cause a misfire in that cylinder. If the fuel system is contaminated with water, inspect the fuel system components for rust or deterioration.

Ethanol concentrations of greater than 10 percent can cause driveability conditions and fuel system deterioration. Fuel with more than 10 percent ethanol could result in driveability conditions such as hesitation, lack of power, stalling , or no start. Excessive concentrations of ethanol used in vehicles not designed for it may cause fuel system corrosion, deterioration of rubber components, and fuel filter restriction.
Test Procedure

1. Test the fuel composition using J 44175 Fuel Composition Tester and J 44175-3 Instruction Manual.
2. If water appears in the fuel sample, clean the fuel system. Refer to Fuel System Cleaning .
3. Subtract 50 from the reading on the DMM in order to obtain the percentage of alcohol in the fuel sample. Refer to the examples in the Fuel Composition Test Examples table.
4. If the fuel sample contains more than 15 percent ethanol, add fresh, regular gasoline to the vehicle's fuel tank .
5. Test the fuel composition.
6. If testing shows the ethanol percentage is still more than 15 percent, replace the fuel in the vehicle. Refer to Fuel System Cleaning .

If you don't believe the General how about BMW

SI B 13 01 06
Fuel System & Control September 2006
Technical Service

This Service Information bulletin supersedes S.I. B13 01 06 dated March 2006.

designates changes to this revision

SUBJECT
Alcohol Fuel Blends in BMW Vehicles


MODEL
All with gasoline engines


SITUATION
Fuel blends containing a high percentage (above 10%) of alcohol, mainly ethanol, are becoming more commercially available. Customers inquire about the possibility of using alcohol fuels (e.g. E85) in BMW vehicles.

INFORMATION
Fuels containing up to and including 10% of ethanol or other oxygenates with up to 2.8% oxygen by weight, that is, 15% MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) or 3% methanol plus an equivalent amount of co-solvent, will not void the applicable warranties with respect to defects in materials or workmanship.

Although, usage of such alcohol fuel blends may result in drivability, starting, and stalling problems due to reduced volatility and lower energy content of the fuel. Those drivability problems may be especially evident under certain environmental conditions, such as: high or low ambient temperatures and high altitude.

Only specially adapted vehicles (FFV - Flexible Fuel Vehicles) can run on high alcohol fuel blends. BMW, for the various technical and environmental reasons explained below, does not offer FFV models.

Usage of E85, or any other high alcohol content blend (e.g. E30) in BMW vehicles, will cause various drivability complaints (cold start problems, stalling, reduced performance, poor fuel economy, etc.), may cause excessive emissions, and may cause irreversible damage to engine, emission control and fuel delivery systems due to incompatibility of materials with alcohols.

General Notes Regarding E85 Fuel.

E85 fuel contains 85% (by volume) of ethanol and 15% of gasoline. Ethanol can be produced chemically from ethylene or biologically from grains, agricultural wastes, or any organic material containing starch or sugar. In the US, ethanol is mainly produced from corn and is classified as a renewable fuel.

Similar to gasoline, ethanol contains hydrogen and carbon; with additional oxygen molecules build into its chemical chain. This chemical structure makes ethanol's burning process slightly cleaner compared to the gasoline (lower tailpipe emissions).

On the other hand, due to lower carbon content, ethanol provides 27% less energy (for identical volume) then gasoline, resulting in the reduced fuel economy of E85 vehicles (approximately 22% higher consumption). Increased fuel consumption requires the appropriately enlarged fuel tank capacities (usually 30% increase), and the specific DME calibrations for the E85 lower Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio (10 compared to 14.7 for gasoline engines).

E85 fuel volatility is typically lower then gasoline (RVP 6-10 psi, compared to 8-15 psi for gasoline). Lower fuel volatility will reduce vehicle evaporative emissions, but it may cause cold starting problems especially with lower ambient temperatures.

Under certain environmental conditions, mainly lower ambient temperatures, ethanol separates from gasoline/alcohol mixture and absorbs water. The ethanol absorbed water molecules are heavier then gasoline or ethanol, they remain at the bottom of fuel tank and when introduced into combustion process they tend to form an extremely lean mixture resulting in misfire, rough idle and cold starting problems.

Certain materials, commonly used with gasoline are totally incompatible with alcohols. When these materials come in contact with ethanol, they may dissolve in the fuel, which may damage engine components and may result in poor vehicle drivability.

Some metals (e.g. zinc, brass, lead, aluminum) become degraded by long exposure to ethanol fuel blends. Also, some nonmetallic materials used in automotive industry such as: natural rubber, polyurethane, cork gasket material, leather, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyamides, methyl-methacrylate plastics, and certain thermo & thermoset plastics degrade when in contact with fuel ethanol.

In order to safely and effectively operate a motor vehicle running on E85, the vehicle must be compatible with alcohol use. Some manufacturers have developed vehicles called FFV (Flexible Fuel Vehicle) that can operate on any blend of ethanol and gasoline (from 0% ethanol and 100% gasoline, up to 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline). Ethanol FFVs are similar to gasoline vehicles, with main differences in materials used in fuel management and delivery systems, and DME control module calibrations. In some cases, also E85 vehicles require special lubricating oils.

Aftermarket conversions of gasoline-powered vehicles to ethanol-fueled vehicles, although possible, are not recommended due to internal materials and DME software incompatibility, as well, as the high costs of conversion.

In order to correctly diagnose various drivability complaints caused by fuel blends with a high level of ethanol content, BMW is providing you with an alcohol detection test tool (PN83 30 0 420 667).

Refer to S.I. B13 04 06 for operating instructions.

Distribution of the following tool will be through the Automatic Tool Shipment Program. Additional tools may be purchased through your PDC.



Alcohol Detection Test Tool
Order PN 83 30 0 420 667

WARRANTY INFORMATION
Components damage/malfunctions, or any drivability problems caused by use of fuels containing more then 10% ethanol (or other oxygenates with more then 2.8% oxygen by weight) will not be covered under BMW warranties with respect to defects in materials or workmanship.

And last but not least the more alcohol in the fuel the poorer the fuel economy since alcohol has less BTU's per gallon than gasoline, you can verify this yourself by using an E-85 vehicle and recording mileage per tank between different gasoline/alcohol blends. You will get the highest mileage with pure gasoline and the lowest with E-85 under similar driving conditions.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Text

Abstract

Negative environmental consequences of fossil fuels and concerns about petroleum supplies have spurred the search for renewable transportation biofuels. To be a viable alternative, a biofuel should provide a net energy gain, have environmental benefits, be economically competitive, and be producible in large quantities without reducing food supplies. We use these criteria to evaluate, through life-cycle accounting, ethanol from corn grain and biodiesel from soybeans. Ethanol yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production, whereas biodiesel yields 93% more. Compared with ethanol, biodiesel releases just 1.0%, 8.3%, and 13% of the agricultural nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide pollutants, respectively, per net energy gain. Relative to the fossil fuels they displace, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced 12% by the production and combustion of ethanol and 41% by biodiesel. Biodiesel also releases less air pollutants per net energy gain than ethanol. These advantages of biodiesel over ethanol come from lower agricultural inputs and more efficient conversion of feedstocks to fuel. Neither biofuel can replace much petroleum without impacting food supplies. Even dedicating all U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand. Until recent increases in petroleum prices, high production costs made biofuels unprofitable without subsidies. Biodiesel provides sufficient environmental advantages to merit subsidy. Transportation biofuels such as synfuel hydrocarbons or cellulosic ethanol, if produced from low-input biomass grown on agriculturally marginal land or from waste biomass, could provide much greater supplies and environmental benefits than food-based biofuels.

25% is not good. Using the most energy input dependent corp to make more energy is laughably stupid.

Seems you missed #7. There are plenty of studies out there - you should look into them.

it seems you are illiterate.

"Reality: Most studies show ethanol to have a positive net energy balance, while all studies show gasoline has a net negative energy balance."

 

[desy]

You will get better gas mileage with E85 if the engine is turbocharged as its higher octaine

More than E10 is usless unless your engine is built for it
E15 won't hurt fuel systems, E85 can

I don't belive Ethanol from the grain is a good idea, maybe cellulosic so we have the get there somehow, oil/gas had 150 yrs to perfect itself
Still somehow you have to get the nutrients back into the soil even if you use the stover. . . . . .
I'm more fond of algae diesel

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1prophet
No, the car has to be configured to run on more than 10% ethanol or else you will get driveability issues including possible damage to the vehicle's fuel system and engine.

Proof of this claim?

Does this help?

what the hell is the mda doing plugging this kind of research?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1prophet
No, the car has to be configured to run on more than 10% ethanol or else you will get driveability issues including possible damage to the vehicle's fuel system and engine.

Proof of this claim?

Does this help?

what the hell is the mda doing plugging this kind of research?

It wasn't MDA that funded that research, I can promise you that.