Ethanol/E85?
#16
07-15-2017, 04:42 PM
Fleet Mechanic
#17
07-15-2017, 07:47 PM
#19
08-17-2017, 11:10 AM
#21
08-18-2017, 08:31 AM
First of all, the octane rating of any fuel including gasoline has nothing to do with it's energy content. Octane is a measure of the fuel's resistance to knocking under high compression. The higher the compression, the more power (heat) is extracted from the fuel.
Horsepower is created from heat. Heat is measured in British Thermal Units (Btu's). One horsepower is equivalent to 2,544 Btu's per hour.
E10, which is what most of us use contains between 112,114 and 116,000 Btu's per gallon.
E85 contains between 81,850 and 93,050 Btu's per gallon
Straight Ethanol (E100) has 57,520 Btu's per gallon.
Diesel has 128,500 Btu's per gallon. One of the reasons diesel engines are so efficient.
As the percentage of ethanol in the gasoline goes up, the energy content goes down. It is possible to compensate for this in a small amount by increasing the apparent compression ratio since ethanol has a higher octane rating. This is done in flex fuel vehicles by fiddling with the ignition timing.
No matter how you cut it, adding ethanol to gasoline decreases its energy content and therefore your miles per gallon.
But at least the engine won't knock.
Horsepower is created from heat. Heat is measured in British Thermal Units (Btu's). One horsepower is equivalent to 2,544 Btu's per hour.
E10, which is what most of us use contains between 112,114 and 116,000 Btu's per gallon.
E85 contains between 81,850 and 93,050 Btu's per gallon
Straight Ethanol (E100) has 57,520 Btu's per gallon.
Diesel has 128,500 Btu's per gallon. One of the reasons diesel engines are so efficient.
As the percentage of ethanol in the gasoline goes up, the energy content goes down. It is possible to compensate for this in a small amount by increasing the apparent compression ratio since ethanol has a higher octane rating. This is done in flex fuel vehicles by fiddling with the ignition timing.
No matter how you cut it, adding ethanol to gasoline decreases its energy content and therefore your miles per gallon.
But at least the engine won't knock.
Kudos!
As a synopsis, the heirarchy of fuel energy/pound goes like this:
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fu...ison_chart.pdf
That's the facts.
Now, for my opinion ...
I come from a farming family, but I don't farm myself.
I find using a crop food source as a fuel to be incredibly stupid.
It does boost the price of corn; that's why corn farmers like it.
But it also boosts the cost of consumable food and related items for the rest of us; we don't like it. It's not that we "eat" this type of corn directly (this is grain we're talking about and not "sweet corn on the cob"). But corn provides about a bazillion uses in terms of food additives, sweeteners, and base stock feeds for animals, thickeners, etc. Now, with using it as a fuel, that use structure become a bazillion-and-one. There is but only one reason some are adamant about it; it's eco-friendly. That is it's ONLY benefit. It's not that it does not pollute; it certainly does. But it pollutes less than typical fossil fuels. So "greenie weenies" like it. Most of you know, but some may not, so I'll give a few basics about corn:
It steals more than it gives back, to the earth, so it must be "rotated" with other crops. You cannot plant 100% corn in every field every year. You must rotate it with beans, and other crops. It is voluminous; it takes a LOT of storage and special handling to make it viable for many different uses. It's a great raw product, but it's not without challenges.
However, like most "green" things, the side effects and laws of unintended consequences are often overlooked/ignored. Ethanol has these limitations:
- it has less energy per pound, as discussed above, so you burn more of it contrasted to gas or diesel
- it has a detrimental effect in terms of corrosion on fuel equipment (tanks, lines, injectors). Older cars are "OK" with 10%, but even 15% causes big problems. E85 (%) is a total no-no if the equipment isn't rated for it. The cost to convert older vehicles is insurmountable and likely improbable
- it has a degradation effect far greater than pure fossil fuels (it will not keep in storage nearly as well as gas or diesel)
- it drives up the costs of other non-associated products (law of supply/demand)
- it produces a large amount of waste fermentation byproducts
- it is subsidized in terms of on-road fuels by the federal government (you and I pay taxes that go to subsidize the ethanol fuel). And yet if your car does not use it, you're paying for OTHER folks to use your share. The credits are moved around from year to year; they get the money from different places. But make no mistake, they get their subsidies! NOTE that if you took away the subsidies, and considered the lower fuel efficiency of ethanol, it would be MORE expensive to use per mile traveled that gasoline.
- it may be "renewable" but it is NOT sustainable
And let me address this one last point a bit more in detail; that of a "renewable" fuel. Sure, it can be grown annually, but it in no way can supply the total energy demand. It BARELY can supply a fractional portion. Even if we converted all corn grain to fuel (totally ignoring the effects that would ripple through every other industry on the planet), it still could not begin to compensate for the total fuel demand. As much as green-folks like to say that fossil fuels are not renewable, I would argue they are. All things that are either animal or vegetable will eventually turn back into fossil fuels. It's just that it takes WAY LONGER than we can expect it to be sustainable annually. But, on the other hand, "green" fuels are no more viable, because while they can be generated annually, they cannot come anywhere close to supplying the quantity demanded around the world, or even in our own country. So, to be fair, neither source is "renewable" to a degree that will become a self-sustaining fuel source. Fossil fuels are too slow to "grow", and "green" sources cannot be produced in sufficient quantities. The next time some idiot tells you that corn is a "renewable" energy, ask them if they could make it the whole year on about 100 gallons? (presuming 15 billion gallons made annually and 150 million vehicles in operation every year.) If their small 4-cylinder gets 30mpg on "gas", then they will only get about 21mpg on pure ethanol. So, the math is easy; they can drive about 2,100 miles a year. That's it. We could move that figure up in quantity available, but we'd do it at the expense of all other corn-based products like food we eat, clothes we wear, etc:
http://www.bcps.org/offices/lis/mode...t_Use_Corn.pdf
If we converted ALL GRAIN CORN to fuel, we would give up ALL OTHER THINGS IN LIFE, and still not have enough to drive around each year.
We burn about 143 billion gallons of gasoline annually in the US.
We burn about 38 billion gallons of distillate (diesel and related) fuels in the US annually.
That's around 180 billion gallons in the US each year (gas and diesel).
Yet we only make 15 billion gallons of ethanol. And we could never grow enough to make up the missing fuel amount! And even if we tried, we would give up a LOT of other things in the failed attempt!
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...es-since-1992/
I would agree that corn (ethanol) is renewable. But so are fossil fuels. The question is one of sustainability. This is a question of the RATE of re-new-ability and VOLUME of re-new-ability. Both must be present to be "sustainable".
I TOTALLY DISAGREE THAT ETHANOL IS SUSTAINABLE.
And if it cannot be sustained, it's no better than fossil fuels.
Sorry for the rant, but facts make me happy.
Sharing facts make me more so!
#22
08-18-2017, 09:44 AM
Corn is just feed that hasn't been turned into steaks yet, you understand that, correct?
As you note, it's not sweet corn on the cob. It was never meant for human consumption.
Ethanol production means the distillers strip the starch out of the kernals and ferment the starch into alcohol. With me so far?
The remainder is then sold and used as animal feed, same as it always was. It's an "added value" to the farmer. No corn at any point in this operation is diverted from the mouths of hungry babes. Corn bushel prices have ranged from $2 to $4 since the 1930s, it's the same price today.
Note that I'm not saying we should put ethanol fuels into our old jalopies, just that our discussions need to be based on facts.
Fossil fuels are not the bad guy here either. Your entire lifestyle depends on it. Don't ever kid yourself on that. The energy density of a gallon of gasoline is remarkable, nothing else comes close. If there was an alternative we would be using it. Everything - every thing - we buy is based in part on the cost of transportation. The materials that are used to build your home, the clothes you wear, and yes, the food you buy. Fertilizer, plastics, industrial chemicals - the basic input costs for business are predicated on what a gallon of fuel costs. Everybody bitches about the gas station owner, when his profits are razor thin margin, maybe .10c a gallon and he's working 18 hour days.
Meanwhile local, state, and federal tax is sucking up 50c a gallon or whatever it is and it will never be enough, because the REAL diversion goes on here. They take the tax revenue that's supposedly for roads and backfill some other budget crater elsewhere in the finances. There's yer problem.
As you note, it's not sweet corn on the cob. It was never meant for human consumption.
Ethanol production means the distillers strip the starch out of the kernals and ferment the starch into alcohol. With me so far?
The remainder is then sold and used as animal feed, same as it always was. It's an "added value" to the farmer. No corn at any point in this operation is diverted from the mouths of hungry babes. Corn bushel prices have ranged from $2 to $4 since the 1930s, it's the same price today.
Note that I'm not saying we should put ethanol fuels into our old jalopies, just that our discussions need to be based on facts.
Fossil fuels are not the bad guy here either. Your entire lifestyle depends on it. Don't ever kid yourself on that. The energy density of a gallon of gasoline is remarkable, nothing else comes close. If there was an alternative we would be using it. Everything - every thing - we buy is based in part on the cost of transportation. The materials that are used to build your home, the clothes you wear, and yes, the food you buy. Fertilizer, plastics, industrial chemicals - the basic input costs for business are predicated on what a gallon of fuel costs. Everybody bitches about the gas station owner, when his profits are razor thin margin, maybe .10c a gallon and he's working 18 hour days.
Meanwhile local, state, and federal tax is sucking up 50c a gallon or whatever it is and it will never be enough, because the REAL diversion goes on here. They take the tax revenue that's supposedly for roads and backfill some other budget crater elsewhere in the finances. There's yer problem.
#23
08-18-2017, 10:03 AM
Finally - someone uses math and science to answer a question!
Kudos!
As a synopsis, the heirarchy of fuel energy/pound goes like this:
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fu...ison_chart.pdf
That's the facts.
Now, for my opinion ...
I come from a farming family, but I don't farm myself.
I find using a crop food source as a fuel to be incredibly stupid.
It does boost the price of corn; that's why corn farmers like it.
But it also boosts the cost of consumable food and related items for the rest of us; we don't like it. It's not that we "eat" this type of corn directly (this is grain we're talking about and not "sweet corn on the cob"). But corn provides about a bazillion uses in terms of food additives, sweeteners, and base stock feeds for animals, thickeners, etc. Now, with using it as a fuel, that use structure become a bazillion-and-one. There is but only one reason some are adamant about it; it's eco-friendly. That is it's ONLY benefit. It's not that it does not pollute; it certainly does. But it pollutes less than typical fossil fuels. So "greenie weenies" like it. Most of you know, but some may not, so I'll give a few basics about corn:
It steals more than it gives back, to the earth, so it must be "rotated" with other crops. You cannot plant 100% corn in every field every year. You must rotate it with beans, and other crops. It is voluminous; it takes a LOT of storage and special handling to make it viable for many different uses. It's a great raw product, but it's not without challenges.
However, like most "green" things, the side effects and laws of unintended consequences are often overlooked/ignored. Ethanol has these limitations:
- it has less energy per pound, as discussed above, so you burn more of it contrasted to gas or diesel
- it has a detrimental effect in terms of corrosion on fuel equipment (tanks, lines, injectors). Older cars are "OK" with 10%, but even 15% causes big problems. E85 (%) is a total no-no if the equipment isn't rated for it. The cost to convert older vehicles is insurmountable and likely improbable
- it has a degradation effect far greater than pure fossil fuels (it will not keep in storage nearly as well as gas or diesel)
- it drives up the costs of other non-associated products (law of supply/demand)
- it produces a large amount of waste fermentation byproducts
- it is subsidized in terms of on-road fuels by the federal government (you and I pay taxes that go to subsidize the ethanol fuel). And yet if your car does not use it, you're paying for OTHER folks to use your share. The credits are moved around from year to year; they get the money from different places. But make no mistake, they get their subsidies! NOTE that if you took away the subsidies, and considered the lower fuel efficiency of ethanol, it would be MORE expensive to use per mile traveled that gasoline.
- it may be "renewable" but it is NOT sustainable
And let me address this one last point a bit more in detail; that of a "renewable" fuel. Sure, it can be grown annually, but it in no way can supply the total energy demand. It BARELY can supply a fractional portion. Even if we converted all corn grain to fuel (totally ignoring the effects that would ripple through every other industry on the planet), it still could not begin to compensate for the total fuel demand. As much as green-folks like to say that fossil fuels are not renewable, I would argue they are. All things that are either animal or vegetable will eventually turn back into fossil fuels. It's just that it takes WAY LONGER than we can expect it to be sustainable annually. But, on the other hand, "green" fuels are no more viable, because while they can be generated annually, they cannot come anywhere close to supplying the quantity demanded around the world, or even in our own country. So, to be fair, neither source is "renewable" to a degree that will become a self-sustaining fuel source. Fossil fuels are too slow to "grow", and "green" sources cannot be produced in sufficient quantities. The next time some idiot tells you that corn is a "renewable" energy, ask them if they could make it the whole year on about 100 gallons? (presuming 15 billion gallons made annually and 150 million vehicles in operation every year.) If their small 4-cylinder gets 30mpg on "gas", then they will only get about 21mpg on pure ethanol. So, the math is easy; they can drive about 2,100 miles a year. That's it. We could move that figure up in quantity available, but we'd do it at the expense of all other corn-based products like food we eat, clothes we wear, etc:
http://www.bcps.org/offices/lis/mode...t_Use_Corn.pdf
If we converted ALL GRAIN CORN to fuel, we would give up ALL OTHER THINGS IN LIFE, and still not have enough to drive around each year.
We burn about 143 billion gallons of gasoline annually in the US.
We burn about 38 billion gallons of distillate (diesel and related) fuels in the US annually.
That's around 180 billion gallons in the US each year (gas and diesel).
Yet we only make 15 billion gallons of ethanol. And we could never grow enough to make up the missing fuel amount! And even if we tried, we would give up a LOT of other things in the failed attempt!
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...es-since-1992/
I would agree that corn (ethanol) is renewable. But so are fossil fuels. The question is one of sustainability. This is a question of the RATE of re-new-ability and VOLUME of re-new-ability. Both must be present to be "sustainable".
I TOTALLY DISAGREE THAT ETHANOL IS SUSTAINABLE.
And if it cannot be sustained, it's no better than fossil fuels.
Sorry for the rant, but facts make me happy.
Sharing facts make me more so!
Kudos!
As a synopsis, the heirarchy of fuel energy/pound goes like this:
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fu...ison_chart.pdf
That's the facts.
Now, for my opinion ...
I come from a farming family, but I don't farm myself.
I find using a crop food source as a fuel to be incredibly stupid.
It does boost the price of corn; that's why corn farmers like it.
But it also boosts the cost of consumable food and related items for the rest of us; we don't like it. It's not that we "eat" this type of corn directly (this is grain we're talking about and not "sweet corn on the cob"). But corn provides about a bazillion uses in terms of food additives, sweeteners, and base stock feeds for animals, thickeners, etc. Now, with using it as a fuel, that use structure become a bazillion-and-one. There is but only one reason some are adamant about it; it's eco-friendly. That is it's ONLY benefit. It's not that it does not pollute; it certainly does. But it pollutes less than typical fossil fuels. So "greenie weenies" like it. Most of you know, but some may not, so I'll give a few basics about corn:
It steals more than it gives back, to the earth, so it must be "rotated" with other crops. You cannot plant 100% corn in every field every year. You must rotate it with beans, and other crops. It is voluminous; it takes a LOT of storage and special handling to make it viable for many different uses. It's a great raw product, but it's not without challenges.
However, like most "green" things, the side effects and laws of unintended consequences are often overlooked/ignored. Ethanol has these limitations:
- it has less energy per pound, as discussed above, so you burn more of it contrasted to gas or diesel
- it has a detrimental effect in terms of corrosion on fuel equipment (tanks, lines, injectors). Older cars are "OK" with 10%, but even 15% causes big problems. E85 (%) is a total no-no if the equipment isn't rated for it. The cost to convert older vehicles is insurmountable and likely improbable
- it has a degradation effect far greater than pure fossil fuels (it will not keep in storage nearly as well as gas or diesel)
- it drives up the costs of other non-associated products (law of supply/demand)
- it produces a large amount of waste fermentation byproducts
- it is subsidized in terms of on-road fuels by the federal government (you and I pay taxes that go to subsidize the ethanol fuel). And yet if your car does not use it, you're paying for OTHER folks to use your share. The credits are moved around from year to year; they get the money from different places. But make no mistake, they get their subsidies! NOTE that if you took away the subsidies, and considered the lower fuel efficiency of ethanol, it would be MORE expensive to use per mile traveled that gasoline.
- it may be "renewable" but it is NOT sustainable
And let me address this one last point a bit more in detail; that of a "renewable" fuel. Sure, it can be grown annually, but it in no way can supply the total energy demand. It BARELY can supply a fractional portion. Even if we converted all corn grain to fuel (totally ignoring the effects that would ripple through every other industry on the planet), it still could not begin to compensate for the total fuel demand. As much as green-folks like to say that fossil fuels are not renewable, I would argue they are. All things that are either animal or vegetable will eventually turn back into fossil fuels. It's just that it takes WAY LONGER than we can expect it to be sustainable annually. But, on the other hand, "green" fuels are no more viable, because while they can be generated annually, they cannot come anywhere close to supplying the quantity demanded around the world, or even in our own country. So, to be fair, neither source is "renewable" to a degree that will become a self-sustaining fuel source. Fossil fuels are too slow to "grow", and "green" sources cannot be produced in sufficient quantities. The next time some idiot tells you that corn is a "renewable" energy, ask them if they could make it the whole year on about 100 gallons? (presuming 15 billion gallons made annually and 150 million vehicles in operation every year.) If their small 4-cylinder gets 30mpg on "gas", then they will only get about 21mpg on pure ethanol. So, the math is easy; they can drive about 2,100 miles a year. That's it. We could move that figure up in quantity available, but we'd do it at the expense of all other corn-based products like food we eat, clothes we wear, etc:
http://www.bcps.org/offices/lis/mode...t_Use_Corn.pdf
If we converted ALL GRAIN CORN to fuel, we would give up ALL OTHER THINGS IN LIFE, and still not have enough to drive around each year.
We burn about 143 billion gallons of gasoline annually in the US.
We burn about 38 billion gallons of distillate (diesel and related) fuels in the US annually.
That's around 180 billion gallons in the US each year (gas and diesel).
Yet we only make 15 billion gallons of ethanol. And we could never grow enough to make up the missing fuel amount! And even if we tried, we would give up a LOT of other things in the failed attempt!
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...es-since-1992/
I would agree that corn (ethanol) is renewable. But so are fossil fuels. The question is one of sustainability. This is a question of the RATE of re-new-ability and VOLUME of re-new-ability. Both must be present to be "sustainable".
I TOTALLY DISAGREE THAT ETHANOL IS SUSTAINABLE.
And if it cannot be sustained, it's no better than fossil fuels.
Sorry for the rant, but facts make me happy.
Sharing facts make me more so!
It's not a total waste. And the corn they're growing for ethanol isn't the same corn you find in the products on the grocery shelf.
I still, however, agree with you that growing corn for ethanol is a waste...... Unless you're a farmer.
Plus, I'm not crazy about the herbicide farming they're doing these days. It builds up in the soil, IMHO. And may be responsible for the de-colonization of bees...... Among other things. Round Up isn't all they say it is.
Farming communities are dying off and it's a darned shame
#24
08-18-2017, 08:44 PM
Fleet Mechanic
Appears it's racist as well:
An Ethanol Mandate Increase Would Be Bad News For Black America | HuffPost
An Ethanol Mandate Increase Would Be Bad News For Black America | HuffPost
#25
08-19-2017, 07:49 AM
I agree with you guys; it's a complex topic.
I didn't mean to imply that if we used "grain corn" we'd eliminate all other products; we would not. However, by using corn (loosely using that word) for ethanol production, there are some byproducts that are still usable, but a LOT of other products will never be produced because the processes and consumed portions in making the ethanol will exclude other products from being made.
My point is that we could never, ever, not in a reasonable fathoming, make enough ethanol from crops to satisfy our fuel needs. And so, by diverting some of it to fuel, we're not really putting a dent in air pollution, but we are putting a dent in our wallets. 10% ethanol still means 90% fossil combustion byproducts. The real risk is when you "up" the concentration, there exists a very substantial risk of equipment degradation due to corrosion from the alcohol; most of us are aware of that.
Ethanol is renewable; it's NOT sustainable.
There's only one place I know of that ethanol makes good sense; that is racing.
- the high octane level makes high compression engines happy; you can run silly high CRs and not pre-ignite
- the cost of corrosion effects is moot; most engines are torn down every race or every season and the fuel systems are often custom made anyway
- the cost of fuel is inconsequential; it's racing and costs are stupid high for everything, so what's a little more; it's not like you're buying thousands of gallons every year
I didn't mean to imply that if we used "grain corn" we'd eliminate all other products; we would not. However, by using corn (loosely using that word) for ethanol production, there are some byproducts that are still usable, but a LOT of other products will never be produced because the processes and consumed portions in making the ethanol will exclude other products from being made.
My point is that we could never, ever, not in a reasonable fathoming, make enough ethanol from crops to satisfy our fuel needs. And so, by diverting some of it to fuel, we're not really putting a dent in air pollution, but we are putting a dent in our wallets. 10% ethanol still means 90% fossil combustion byproducts. The real risk is when you "up" the concentration, there exists a very substantial risk of equipment degradation due to corrosion from the alcohol; most of us are aware of that.
Ethanol is renewable; it's NOT sustainable.
There's only one place I know of that ethanol makes good sense; that is racing.
- the high octane level makes high compression engines happy; you can run silly high CRs and not pre-ignite
- the cost of corrosion effects is moot; most engines are torn down every race or every season and the fuel systems are often custom made anyway
- the cost of fuel is inconsequential; it's racing and costs are stupid high for everything, so what's a little more; it's not like you're buying thousands of gallons every year
#26
08-19-2017, 08:33 AM
I never said it's a complex topic. In fact it's pretty damn simple. All the BS gets pretty complicated to wade through.
The farmers in Iowa grow corn and beans, raise cattle, hogs, and chickens. They aren't doing it as a hobby or charity. They are subject to all the market forces and regulations that the finest minds in government can produce.
What is it that you want them to grow, that they aren't growing now?
The farmers in Iowa grow corn and beans, raise cattle, hogs, and chickens. They aren't doing it as a hobby or charity. They are subject to all the market forces and regulations that the finest minds in government can produce.
What is it that you want them to grow, that they aren't growing now?
#27
08-19-2017, 09:16 AM
If you look at historical corn prices, at some point corn was around $2 a bushel in the 1930s. And the 1940s. 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and 1980s and 1990s and 2000s and 2010s. As of today Sep. corn is $3.76 a bushel. Can you think of anything else that costs about the same in nominal terms as 80 years ago?
Through mechanization, fertilization practices, genetic engineering, and modernized farming techniques, the time per bushel, yield per acre vs time spent to harvest the same amount of yields has dropped significantly.
I am all for subsidies. I am all for protecting our farmers. They are underappreciated and undervalued.
I just think you could have made your point without implying such "doom and gloom".
#28
08-19-2017, 12:15 PM
You're absolutely right! I didn't factor in the 80 years of monetary inflation that has deflated the value of the US dollar to roughly a penny in that time frame. Thank you.
#29
08-19-2017, 01:07 PM
I never said it's a complex topic. In fact it's pretty damn simple. All the BS gets pretty complicated to wade through.
The farmers in Iowa grow corn and beans, raise cattle, hogs, and chickens. They aren't doing it as a hobby or charity. They are subject to all the market forces and regulations that the finest minds in government can produce.
What is it that you want them to grow, that they aren't growing now?
The farmers in Iowa grow corn and beans, raise cattle, hogs, and chickens. They aren't doing it as a hobby or charity. They are subject to all the market forces and regulations that the finest minds in government can produce.
What is it that you want them to grow, that they aren't growing now?
#30
08-23-2017, 05:34 PM
I don't think Ethenol was ever meant to replace fossil fuels. More of a supplement, replacement for MTBE. Having the option for E85 is a little bazaar but hey the more the merrier. Choice being the key thing. plus we are kidding ourselves if we think Ethenol is the only fuel that's subsidized..
