why did i buy this piece? ok flex fuel.. what's the allternative fuel and where can u find it...and who really cares we won the war right??..*thank you troops*!!!! n e body out there hate there ranger as much as i do??

 

Ethanol is available as an alternative fuel in some states. I have never used it, but I've seen it in Minnesota. Some fleets are also running on pressurized natural gas, but this involves significant modifications.

I think the whole flexible fuel thing was done to keep the EPA at bay for awhile. You'll certainly have no problem if you stick with plain old gasoline

How come you don't like your Ranger? I love mine!!

 

E-85 Flex Fuel (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) is available throughout the midwest. FOr a list of retailers and the benefits, stop by www.e85fuel.com - FYI - the fuel is usually $.20/gallon cheaper than regular gasoline, has an octane rating above 100, and increase horsepower - not to mention the environmental & security benefits of its use. I have over 100K miles on E-85 - love it.

 

Hello, welcome to FTE!

There is some interesting reading on ethanol and other FFV-related stuff under the heading of Alternate Fuels & FFV in the 3.0L Technical Info & Tips Thread.

 

It may be less expensive, but I have heard that fuel economy is significantly lower. Have you noticed a $$ savings kingus?

Also, from what I have read, the major beef about corn-based ethanol production in the U.S. is that it actually takes more energy to produce the ethanol than is yielded in fuels. Here's an interesting link: http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0813012.htm

 

There is a difference in milage (this is what was on the sticker when I bought my 03 Raqnger 3 weeks ago)
Gas...17/21
E85...13/16

So there is a difference....

 

There is a decrease in fuel economy, usually about 10%. It varies with the size of the engine. On a Ranger, the difference may be 1 to 2 mpg MAX! So, if you are saving $.20/gallon, the math does work. I know some folks that drive the Chevy Tahoe for example, and they lose more mpg. It gets a great deal closer on the checkbook then... As far as the net energy balance of ethanol, there are just as many studies showing the opposite, in fact there are more. I work to promote ethanol, but I use the product as well. Let me know if you would like more information, http//www.e85fuel.com is the best place to start!!

 

The website you show is obviously run by a pro-ethanol group, and, as far as I could see, does not list any actual data from a study or any research. If you have some additional objective info, I'd really like to see it.

 

There are several, if you would like I can email one to you. The negative one you see all the time is by a guy named Pimental, or his colleagues. I have a copy of a study done by Dr. Bruce Dale, it breaks down Pimental's study line by line, and shows how the study came up with the conclusions it did - probably the best one I have seen.

 

Actually, I've seen quite a bit of the available data. It seems to me that the results of the studies are almost always interpreted in a way that most benefits whatever result was desired. Funny how that works Check out a pro-ethanol website and the picture is rosy indeed...look at a fossil fuels site and the opposite is true...and both have reams of data to show you why they are right! Of course, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

My main problem with ethanol is that there is no way anyone would be able to afford it if not for the huge tax subsidies given to mega-corporations like ADM. If it was really such a great idea, why does the government have to pump cash into it?

 

I will give you credit, that is by far the biggest beef with ethanol. Several years ago, the big corporations produced all of the ethanol, like ADM. Now, that is not the case. A very high percentage of the ethanol plants being built now, and for the last few years, are farmer owned. As far as the subsidies go, technology has been slow, but take into consideration that 10 years ago, you could create 2.2 gallons of ethanol from one bushel of corn (plus other things), whereas now, you are in the 2.8 gallon range. Everyone has a very close eye on the industry, and now are changing the laws that this subsidy will be from income tax dollars, versus highway trust fund dollars. Before long, the industry will not get any subsidies. What many don't know and understand is just how many industries get subsidies. For example, electricity, oil refineries, railroad, auto makers, etc., all get their own checks in the mail. Ethanol is just something that will hopefully help us cut down on our dependency to the oil gods, clean up our air, and will be around for ever - since it is renewable.

 

Good debate going here guys. I read through the article that oppy referenced and there were some interesting points made and questions raised. I would be just as interested to read Dr. Dale's rebuttal.

online_kingus, is there any way you can send me a copy of the results of Dr. Dale's study?

 

Here's a pro-ethanol summary prepared by some guys at the Department of Agraculture a few years ago.

One thing that I really don't understand is why the authors of the research are taking energy credits for "coproducts" produced after the corn is fermented and the ethanol is extracted.

If we took a look at petroleum "coproducts" made from crude oil other than those used in gasoline (literally hundreds of products), a comparison between the 2 energy sources would be ridiculous - petroleum wins that argument hands-down.

Also keep in mind that the use of grain mash after the alcohol has been removed is not a new idea. It is already being used (and has been for many years) with brewery waste, which is converted into various animal feeds. The byproducts of fermentation are indeed valuable, but certainly not unique to ethanol production for fuels.

I think any study which includes energy credits for coproducts should be viewed with some skepticism.

For the record, I am not at all against the use of alternative fuels, but the bottom line, IMO, is that the use of ethanol, at least when produced using today's technology, just doesn't make economic or environmental sense. It is simply too expensive and takes too much fossil fuel to produce.

For a little counterpoint, check out this link.

 

That one seems like a slam dunk to me too, but I'm keeping an open mind on the overall issue of ethanol being a viable alternative fuel.

oppy, you raise some valid questions, especially with regard to the economics of the situation. But one very important factor regarding ethanol, bio-diesel and other alternative fuels is the current US dependency on foreign oil. IMHO, if we were to better implement these alternative types of fuels into mainstream America we would be much less reliant on the OPECs of the world and therefore in a much stronger position to decide our own destiny without regard to global politics (and lunatics). I think the kind of independence that alternative fuels might provide us with must be viewed as one of the key objectives of the whole alternative fuels program. It's not necessarily just about market economics.

Viewed in that light, the government subsidies don't seem as evil to me as maybe they might otherwise.

 

That would be a much better argument if the industry wasn't using fossil fuels, including foreign oil, to process the corn into ethanol.

I'm sure as technology advances, much more efficient methods will become available to manufacture alternative fuels. Until then, however, the real world runs on economics.