Ethanol industry demands higher ethanol limits in gasoline.

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 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.

thats not the point, why is an ag department doing anything at all related to this subject? why is it even on their website, other that to shill for their farmers products?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: 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."

It doesn't matter the studies that prove ethanol has a positive energy balance get most of the energy from the dead plant stock, and left over distiller grains. Once you take out the waste products all studies show a negative energy balance in the production of ethanol.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
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."

And the only one(actually 2) are from the same guy who's methodology and figures have been discredited - Pimental.

Seems you are the one who is illiterate as I've stated that already in this thread.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 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."

It doesn't matter the studies that prove ethanol has a positive energy balance get most of the energy from the dead plant stock, and left over distiller grains. Once you take out the waste products all studies show a negative energy balance in the production of ethanol.

So do you take crude's other products out of the equation too? and only count the gasoline? seriously - I don't understand why some of you hold onto such irrational hatred of ethanol. It's not perfect, but it sure as hell is adapting and progressing to make better use of technologies.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 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."

It doesn't matter the studies that prove ethanol has a positive energy balance get most of the energy from the dead plant stock, and left over distiller grains. Once you take out the waste products all studies show a negative energy balance in the production of ethanol.

Carbon dioxide from corn ethanol gets recycled. It?s almost carbon neutral. Where as fossil fuels such as gasoline continue to bring up massive amounts of new carbon from deep underground, which is accumulating in the atmosphere and damaging the environment and public health. The impact of burning fossil fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel, and coal are far more dangerous to the environment than biofuels.

Furthermore, the ethanol industry is evolving. Some ethanol plants are becoming self-powered, replacing natural gas with renewables. Corn ethanol plants are beginning to add Algae production, grown on refinery waste products CO2, waste heat, and nutrient rich waste water effluent. Some corn farmers are growing their own oil crops and making their own biodiesel. Some corn farmers will soon have 100% ethanol powered Ricardo type engines in their tractors that get diesel quality efficiency and torque, from cheap local fuel they helped to produce. Compare that with fuels refined from imported oil shipped by burning dirty fossil fuels long distance from foreign countries. With the direction that domestic ethanol is moving, in the near future, it will be totally carbon neutral and half the price of diesel fuel.

Next comes 100% Ethanol Fuel Cells: With the development of non-precious metal catalysts, fuel cells are getting closer to being mass-produced. Future farmers will have direct 100% ethanol fuel cells in their tractors. Or, they will have fuel cells with onboard reformers that process ?undistilled? ethanol, a solution of 2/3 ethanol and 1/3 water, into hydrogen on demand, powering their tractors and long haul trucks. Fuel Cells are over 2 times more efficient than internal combustion engines. This is the development path of ethanol and well worth the investment.

Add to that the fact that all the money spent on ethanol production and development stays right here in the USA providing jobs and decreasing our trade deficit at the same time. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 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."

It doesn't matter the studies that prove ethanol has a positive energy balance get most of the energy from the dead plant stock, and left over distiller grains. Once you take out the waste products all studies show a negative energy balance in the production of ethanol.

Carbon dioxide from corn ethanol gets recycled. It?s almost carbon neutral. Where as fossil fuels such as gasoline continue to bring up massive amounts of new carbon from deep underground, which is accumulating in the atmosphere and damaging the environment and public health. The impact of burning fossil fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel, and coal are far more dangerous to the environment than biofuels.

Furthermore, the ethanol industry is evolving. Some ethanol plants are becoming self-powered, replacing natural gas with renewables. Corn ethanol plants are beginning to add Algae production, grown on refinery waste products CO2, waste heat, and nutrient rich waste water effluent. Some corn farmers are growing their own oil crops and making their own biodiesel. Some corn farmers will soon have 100% ethanol powered Ricardo type engines in their tractors that get diesel quality efficiency and torque, from cheap local fuel they helped to produce. Compare that with fuels refined from imported oil shipped by burning dirty fossil fuels long distance from foreign countries. With the direction that domestic ethanol is moving, in the near future, it will be totally carbon neutral and half the price of diesel fuel.

Next comes 100% Ethanol Fuel Cells: With the development of non-precious metal catalysts, fuel cells are getting closer to being mass-produced. Future farmers will have direct 100% ethanol fuel cells in their tractors. Or, they will have fuel cells with onboard reformers that process ?undistilled? ethanol, a solution of 2/3 ethanol and 1/3 water, into hydrogen on demand, powering their tractors and long haul trucks. Fuel Cells are over 2 times more efficient than internal combustion engines. This is the development path of ethanol and well worth the investment.

Add to that the fact that all the money spent on ethanol production and development stays right here in the USA providing jobs and decreasing our trade deficit at the same time. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Link for ethanol fuel cells? Breaking hydrogen atoms from water is incredibly energy-costly and I don't see any reaction on wikipedia that would result in free dihydrogen - it generally bonds with oxygen to make more water.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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.

that is the report the MDA website claims stated that gasoline has a net loss of 19%. i don't think that claim is there. so now i have a reason not to trust the MDA site, since things it parades as fact are (apparently) unsupported by the documents it cites.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Don't forget the damage being done to the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.time.com/time/natio...0,8599,1815305,00.html

Algae blooms take massive amounts of co2 out of the atmosphere.

And when it dies, it takes massive amounts of oxygen out of the water. That's why there is a 6,000 sq mile area devoid of life.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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.

that is the report the MDA website claims stated that gasoline has a net loss of 19%. i don't think that claim is there. so now i have a reason not to trust the MDA site, since things it parades as fact are (apparently) unsupported by the documents it cites.

Fine, ignore it if you wish. As I stated, I'm not sure where they got that as it isn't in the actual summary report but it very well could be in the data BEHIND the report.

Either way, it's not important since the goal with renewables is to remove ourselves from "fossil fuels"(if that's what you believe they are) for transportation. Sure, E won't fix it alone but it will help, especially when further technologies mature and can be mainstreamed.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

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.

I can't even begin to try to make a smart ass comment....

Lemon Law, I hope you don't actually believe that adding "un" to the front of any word is grammatically correct.

 

[LTC8K6]

Don't forget the cold weather starting problems that ethanol causes as well. More ethanol = more cold start troubles.

Particularly E85 even with the latest vehicles.

 

[LTC8K6]

From a 2009 Chrysler Owner's manual:

Starting
The characteristics of E-85 fuel make it unsuitable for use
when ambient temperatures fall below 0°F (-18°C). In the
range of 0° to 32°F (-18° to 0°C), you may experience an
increase in the time it takes for your engine to start, and
a deterioration in drivability (sags and/or hesitations)
until the engine is fully warmed up.

Cruising Range
Because E-85 fuel contains less energy per gallon/liter
than gasoline, you will experience an increase in fuel
consumption. You can expect your MPG and your driving
range to decrease by about 30% compared to gasoline
operation.

E-85 Usage In Non-Flex Fuel Vehicles
Non-FFV vehicles are compatible with gasoline containing
10% ethanol (E10). Gasoline with higher ethanol
content may void the vehicle?s warranty.
If a Non-FFV vehicle is inadvertently fueled with E-85
fuel, the engine will have some or all of these symptoms:
? operate in a lean mode
? OBD II ?Malfunction Indicator Light? on
? poor engine performance
? poor cold start and cold drivability
? increased risk for fuel system component corrosion
To fix a Non-FFV vehicle inadvertently fueled once with
E-85 perform the following:
? drain the fuel tank (see your authorized dealer)
? change the engine oil and oil filter
? disconnect and reconnect the battery to reset the
engine controller memory
More extensive repairs will be required for prolonged
exposure to E-85 fuel.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
From a 2009 Chrysler Owner's manual:

Starting
The characteristics of E-85 fuel make it unsuitable for use
when ambient temperatures fall below 0°F (-18°C). In the
range of 0° to 32°F (-18° to 0°C), you may experience an
increase in the time it takes for your engine to start, and
a deterioration in drivability (sags and/or hesitations)
until the engine is fully warmed up.

Cruising Range
Because E-85 fuel contains less energy per gallon/liter
than gasoline, you will experience an increase in fuel
consumption. You can expect your MPG and your driving
range to decrease by about 30% compared to gasoline
operation.

E-85 Usage In Non-Flex Fuel Vehicles
Non-FFV vehicles are compatible with gasoline containing
10% ethanol (E10). Gasoline with higher ethanol
content may void the vehicle?s warranty.
If a Non-FFV vehicle is inadvertently fueled with E-85
fuel, the engine will have some or all of these symptoms:
? operate in a lean mode
? OBD II ?Malfunction Indicator Light? on
? poor engine performance
? poor cold start and cold drivability
? increased risk for fuel system component corrosion
To fix a Non-FFV vehicle inadvertently fueled once with
E-85 perform the following:
? drain the fuel tank (see your authorized dealer)
? change the engine oil and oil filter
? disconnect and reconnect the battery to reset the
engine controller memory
More extensive repairs will be required for prolonged
exposure to E-85 fuel.

Yupp, "flex fuel" is nothing but a gimmick. You get 15-30% worse gas milage and the fuel isn't 15-30% cheaper. I still have no idea why people go for it, it's a net loss operation.

That being said, a nice turbo car with upgraded fuel lines will run fantastic on e85, especially if you crank up the boost.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 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."

It doesn't matter the studies that prove ethanol has a positive energy balance get most of the energy from the dead plant stock, and left over distiller grains. Once you take out the waste products all studies show a negative energy balance in the production of ethanol.

So do you take crude's other products out of the equation too? and only count the gasoline? seriously - I don't understand why some of you hold onto such irrational hatred of ethanol. It's not perfect, but it sure as hell is adapting and progressing to make better use of technologies.

Hell lets give ethanol credit for the energy in its atoms to that way it can have an energy balance of 50 billion. Your "study" is a joke, the more inefficient the process is for producing ethanol the higher an energy balance is assigned.

Ethanol is not progress, it is welfare for lazy farmers.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Don't forget the cold weather starting problems that ethanol causes as well. More ethanol = more cold start troubles.

Particularly E85 even with the latest vehicles.

Never had a problem with my 1998 Chrysler T&C on e85 and the last two winters have seen some cold ass days here in iowa.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 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."

It doesn't matter the studies that prove ethanol has a positive energy balance get most of the energy from the dead plant stock, and left over distiller grains. Once you take out the waste products all studies show a negative energy balance in the production of ethanol.

So do you take crude's other products out of the equation too? and only count the gasoline? seriously - I don't understand why some of you hold onto such irrational hatred of ethanol. It's not perfect, but it sure as hell is adapting and progressing to make better use of technologies.

Hell lets give ethanol credit for the energy in its atoms to that way it can have an energy balance of 50 billion. Your "study" is a joke, the more inefficient the process is for producing ethanol the higher an energy balance is assigned.

Ethanol is not progress, it is welfare for lazy farmers.

my? study? Give it up. There are MANY studies that show it and one loudmouthed one(actually 2) by pimental that has been shown to be innaccurate.

Again, you ASSume corn ethanol when talking E. I and others know that there is much more to E than just corn however, it's the most viable process we have for mass production AT THE MOMENT. There have been gains in other areas and soon we will see a shift to the other E production types when they can be industrialized.
So no you are dead ass wrong. E is progress and is definately not "welfare for lazy farmers" no matter how many times you haters try to say it is.

 

[LTC8K6]

"Never had a problem with my 1998 Chrysler T&C on e85 and the last two winters have seen some cold ass days here in iowa. "

So what? Is that supposed to invalidate the mfr's recommendations and the results of all the testing they do?

Likely your supplier used a winter blend of e85 which helps some. And probably costs more.

Unless you can get e85 for significantly less, it makes no sense. Even then, the loss of range can be quite inconvenient.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Don't forget the cold weather starting problems that ethanol causes as well. More ethanol = more cold start troubles.

Particularly E85 even with the latest vehicles.

Never had a problem with my 1998 Chrysler T&C on e85 and the last two winters have seen some cold ass days here in iowa.

iowa knows nothing of cold.

 

[LTC8K6]

"iowa knows nothing of cold. "


And the 98 T&C gets poor fuel economy on gasoline even under the old system. Wonder what it gets on E85?

If we are generous and say it loses only 25% of its economy on E85, it's in the very low teens in the city and only in the high teens on the highway.

 

[frostedflakes]

CAD, you mentioned earlier you dilute it down to about 45-50% E85, correct? That's probably why you don't have cold starting problems. I was messing around on Wikipedia as well and it mentions that in regions of the US with harsh winters, E85 blends are diluted down to 70% ethanol (but still sold as E85, not E70) in the winter to mitigate cold start issues.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 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."

It doesn't matter the studies that prove ethanol has a positive energy balance get most of the energy from the dead plant stock, and left over distiller grains. Once you take out the waste products all studies show a negative energy balance in the production of ethanol.

So do you take crude's other products out of the equation too? and only count the gasoline? seriously - I don't understand why some of you hold onto such irrational hatred of ethanol. It's not perfect, but it sure as hell is adapting and progressing to make better use of technologies.

Hell lets give ethanol credit for the energy in its atoms to that way it can have an energy balance of 50 billion. Your "study" is a joke, the more inefficient the process is for producing ethanol the higher an energy balance is assigned.

Ethanol is not progress, it is welfare for lazy farmers.

LMAO@U, you sound like a lefty version Rush Limbaugh.

Since we overproduce grain in this country, ethanol is a step in the right direction. No one is claiming it's perfect, just that it's a start. Little research will be done on ethanol until/unless there is a market for that ethanol. That is the main purpose of corn ethanol and it's a perfect fit because not only is it energy net positive and carbon neutral, it's something we grow in excess every year.

So I think that you know-it-alls who insult farmers because you think it's somehow immoral to make fuel out of food need top get a clue. Alternative fuels are a good way to decrease this country's dependance on foreign oil and after the fiasco we've just been through with Bush & Co. you'd think the "hidden costs" of foreign oil would be glaringly obvious to everybody.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
LMAO@U, you sound like a lefty version Rush Limbaugh.

I don't think there is such a thing! :laugh:

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: smack Down

Hell lets give ethanol credit for the energy in its atoms to that way it can have an energy balance of 50 billion. Your "study" is a joke, the more inefficient the process is for producing ethanol the higher an energy balance is assigned.

Ethanol is not progress, it is welfare for lazy farmers.

LMAO@U, you sound like a lefty version Rush Limbaugh.

Since we overproduce grain in this country, ethanol is a step in the right direction. No one is claiming it's perfect, just that it's a start. Little research will be done on ethanol until/unless there is a market for that ethanol. That is the main purpose of corn ethanol and it's a perfect fit because not only is it energy net positive and carbon neutral, it's something we grow in excess every year.

So I think that you know-it-alls who insult farmers because you think it's somehow immoral to make fuel out of food need top get a clue. Alternative fuels are a good way to decrease this country's dependance on foreign oil and after the fiasco we've just been through with Bush & Co. you'd think the "hidden costs" of foreign oil would be glaringly obvious to everybody.

The only reason we over produce corn is because of the other welfare (corn subsidies) the lazy farmers receive. The sole purpose of ethanol in the US is welfare for farmers. There is no reduction in fossil fuel usage.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: smack Down

Hell lets give ethanol credit for the energy in its atoms to that way it can have an energy balance of 50 billion. Your "study" is a joke, the more inefficient the process is for producing ethanol the higher an energy balance is assigned.

Ethanol is not progress, it is welfare for lazy farmers.

LMAO@U, you sound like a lefty version Rush Limbaugh.

Since we overproduce grain in this country, ethanol is a step in the right direction. No one is claiming it's perfect, just that it's a start. Little research will be done on ethanol until/unless there is a market for that ethanol. That is the main purpose of corn ethanol and it's a perfect fit because not only is it energy net positive and carbon neutral, it's something we grow in excess every year.

So I think that you know-it-alls who insult farmers because you think it's somehow immoral to make fuel out of food need top get a clue. Alternative fuels are a good way to decrease this country's dependance on foreign oil and after the fiasco we've just been through with Bush & Co. you'd think the "hidden costs" of foreign oil would be glaringly obvious to everybody.

The only reason we over produce corn is because of the other welfare (corn subsidies) the lazy farmers receive. The sole purpose of ethanol in the US is welfare for farmers. There is no reduction in fossil fuel usage.

You couldn't be more wrong. We overproduce all ag commodities in this country. When was the last time we had hordes of people staring to death in this country?

Everything about this country's ag policy is geared to encourage farmers to overproduce. As such farmers are playing the game. Not because they want to but because they have to in order to survive.

I challenge the government to totally shut down the farm program and see what happens. I think then we would have people starving to death and instead of having people like you who are bitching about lazy farmer welfare they would be crying for the government to do something.

Face it, the people in this country spend a smaller percentage of their income for food then anywhere else in the world..... and they eat out MORE!!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
CAD, you mentioned earlier you dilute it down to about 45-50% E85, correct? That's probably why you don't have cold starting problems. I was messing around on Wikipedia as well and it mentions that in regions of the US with harsh winters, E85 blends are diluted down to 70% ethanol (but still sold as E85, not E70) in the winter to mitigate cold start issues.

I've done the testing to figure that out and fill up that way if I think of it. However, there have been many times that I've done full e85 from damn near empty.

:shrug; I don't think it's near the issue some want to make it. Also raising it to12-15% won't come close to having those issues, nor would allowing someone the choice at a blend pump to do up to 85%.