Report: Ethanol More Harmful Than Gasoline

[K1052]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Iron Woode
Has less energy than gasoline and therefore much less fuel economy.

apparently the octane rating for ethanol is near that of leaded gas, so you can up the compression and make much more power. engines built specifically for ethanol can use that fact to narrow the gap in fuel mileage.

Turbo charging will be even more popular with E85 since it can take significantly higher compression than regular gasoline. That will close the gap. E85 in existing low compression engines is a waste, especially using corn derived ethanol.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
There may be a small increase in the amount of energy available, however look at what it's done to the price of corn... The price of meat is going to sky rocket because feed prices are rising rapidly. (about a 30 to 40% increase in the price of corn in the past 2 years.)

Which is another good reason why switchgrass should be used instead. Let corn do what it's best at - being a food source.
Switchgrass can also be grown in places where corn might have trouble.

 

[Archvile]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Iron Woode
Has less energy than gasoline and therefore much less fuel economy.

apparently the octane rating for ethanol is near that of leaded gas, so you can up the compression and make much more power. engines built specifically for ethanol can use that fact to narrow the gap in fuel mileage.

Turbo charging will be even more popular with E85 since it can take significantly higher compression than regular gasoline. That will close the gap. E85 in existing low compression engines is a waste, especially using corn derived ethanol.

Ethanol has a 106+ octane rating, I think.

If you're going to complain about ethanol having less chemical potential energy than gasoline, you need to consider that that about 70% of that gasoline's energy is being lost as heat. Ethanol can can be compressed higher, and it burns slower which makes for a more efficient engine.

 

[Toastedlightly]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: 0

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: 0
It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol that you will ever get out of it. That is the real story folks. Tell that to Gore.

Wrong.

Current Corn ethanol production does run at a slight loss, but Brazil has been producing ethanol from sugar cane and other types of plant cellulose with a lower energy input than is contained in the ethanol.

ZV

It is you that is wrong. There have been several high level research reports that indicate this is true. The problem is that high purity ethanol requires the removal of water, which is a very energy intensive ordeal. Check it out before spouting.

Even if there's a slight net gain, which some research shows, it's not worth the amount of land... somehow most people don't think of that.

Aren't fuel expenses for the consumer sitll higher with E85? Worse mileage + higher costs = more money = I"M NOT SWITCHING.

Hybrid is great too but if it comes out to a 10 year break-even economics, I'm not getting it just yet. So like I said, just like there's a bunch of early adopters in BD/HDDVD and HDTV, I'll take my time and wait till the market is at a good saturation point so that I'm not getting prototype crap.

E85 is almost a whole dollar cheaper here.

And what problems happen with ethanol in the winter? Biodiesel is far worse off as it gels at as little as 1-2*C. And, sorry to break it to you, but biodiesel still uses corn or other materials for the manufacture of the esters (out of fatty acids).

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: 0
It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol that you will ever get out of it. That is the real story folks. Tell that to Gore.

No, it doesn't. We have new ethanol producing technologies that do NOT rely on corn and sugar cane. Industry is just too slow to switch.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: 0
It is you that is wrong. There have been several high level research reports that indicate this is true. The problem is that high purity ethanol requires the removal of water, which is a very energy intensive ordeal. Check it out before spouting.

Perhaps you need to catch up on the latest research. You're referring to Pre-2k articles.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: Archvile

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Iron Woode
Has less energy than gasoline and therefore much less fuel economy.

apparently the octane rating for ethanol is near that of leaded gas, so you can up the compression and make much more power. engines built specifically for ethanol can use that fact to narrow the gap in fuel mileage.

Turbo charging will be even more popular with E85 since it can take significantly higher compression than regular gasoline. That will close the gap. E85 in existing low compression engines is a waste, especially using corn derived ethanol.

Ethanol has a 106+ octane rating, I think.

If you're going to complain about ethanol having less chemical potential energy than gasoline, you need to consider that that about 70% of that gasoline's energy is being lost as heat. Ethanol can can be compressed higher, and it burns slower which makes for a more efficient engine.

ethanol has a high octane rating, but far less BTUs. You get worse fuel economy on ethanol, and must burn more of it. How is that efficient?

1 point of compression is worth 4% power gain.

all internal combustion engines waste energy as heat. They are not designed to utilize the heat which is lost due to exhaust, radiator and radiant heat from the engine itself.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: 0

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: 0
It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol that you will ever get out of it. That is the real story folks. Tell that to Gore.

Wrong.

Current Corn ethanol production does run at a slight loss, but Brazil has been producing ethanol from sugar cane and other types of plant cellulose with a lower energy input than is contained in the ethanol.

ZV

It is you that is wrong. There have been several high level research reports that indicate this is true. The problem is that high purity ethanol requires the removal of water, which is a very energy intensive ordeal. Check it out before spouting.

It is you that is wrong. There have been many high level research reports that indicate this is true.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/net_energy_balance.html
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/eth_energy_bal.html

There has in fact been only 1 study showing that ethanol has a negative energy balance and that study was a sham.

(but biodiesel is better nonetheless)