Ethanol

I made a comment in another thread about ethanol and it spurred some discussion. I was wondering what everyone's input was on the use of ethanol. There is a lot to be said about it, so all input is welcome! I'm personally in favor of converting to ethanol, because it is reportedly as effective as gas, and can be very energy efficient. Corn ethanol is no good, I get that, but I mentioned cellulosic ethanol, which I believe is actually a possible solution to decrease demands on oil.

My Ford F-150 has a "flex fuel" engine, which means it can run on E85 or gasoline (usually 10% ethanol around here). Depending on what I'm hauling and where I am, I lose at least 3 mpg, sometimes closer to 5, when running on E85. Ethanol is not particularly efficient.

classysarah82,

There are many issues with ethanol. While, as you suggest, other than corn based ethanol can be useful in some applications, for a transportation fuel it is not practical. Start with the cost to tool up (build factories, etc) to produce enough to make a significant difference in our oil importing/consumption which is roughly 9 million barrels of oil per day (370 million gallons per day).

Currently, after years of government support, corn can supply only 10 to 11 % of our needs.

The good news is that with gas prices heading back up more companies may be willing to invest in cellulosic ethanol. but ONLY if our government quits holding the price of gas artificially low by providing oil companies with insane amounts of tax breaks.

I am NOT opposed to cellulosic ethanol, I think it has a place in our energy future - especially as part of a waste management plan, using human waste to generate ethanol. But I do not believe there is a "silver bullet" technology that is going to replace oil. I think we will need to address/utilize multiple technologies - each optimized to it's targeted end use.

Unfortunately, we have NO visible alternative to oil at this time when just looking at an energy density point of view. A gallon of gas/diesel is the best method of supplying the amount of energy required by our current vehicles. I do think electric is a potential long term solution, but we need vastly improved batteries before that will be viable. Todays electric and hybrid cars are very poor competitors and are more about supporting the idea, than a practical car.

And...places like Brazil highlight our dillydallying-they almost 100% ethanol now. As a workamper I can say for sure it has wreaked havoc on small engines (mowers and such) and boat motors. That's part of the commitment-getting everything to were it'll operate on the stuff. I guess I'm saying I have real mixed feelings about ethanol and most of my long term experiences have been negative.

mdbass,

Agreed about getting things to work with it. <begin sarcasm> the good thing is there are only 300 million cars to modify or replace <end sarcasm>

Frank

mdbass said:

And...places like Brazil highlight our dillydallying-they almost 100% ethanol now.

Click to expand...

We need to be careful in tossing numbers and percentages around.  Brazil does require that 100% of the gasoline sold for fuel be mixed to a minimum of E-25.  That means the mixture is still 75% gasoline.  That's hardly a 100% conversion to ethanol.

Where Brazil is ahead of us, is in their thinking.  Large oil deposits have recently been discovered in Brazil.  And guess what?  They are going to drill for it.  Imagine that!  What a concept!

Ethanol is a big joke, a money maker for some.  When we have to burn more fuel to do the same work, what are we saving?

Brazil derives its ethanol from sugar cane which grows like grass down there on the equator.  (Come to think of it, it is grass.) In any case, it requires less petroleum input than corn which last time I heard needs a gallon of petroleum to produce a bit less than a gallon of ethanol (fertilizer, equipment operation, etc.)

More importantly, sugar cane does not does not divert the use of corn for a food source in an era of increasing demand and rising prices. 

i believe corn ethanol is a negative energy contributor...
More work and fuel usage required to grow corn, more fertilizer used (imported), many times more more soil is being eroded into the gulf depleting Americas rich farmlands, all other food prices increasing, more wheat imported, far worse miles per gallon delivered, so the gov't gives producers subsidies, causes more gallons of fuel sold so they can collect more taxes because of the additional fuel sold... Politics preventing common sense.
Need the current stored strategic reserves left alone for war emergency when it happens..
Better to spend those subsidiees on alternatives... Wind turbines are good .. why not a horizontal turbine on top of every farm silo in the US and many other places... Wind is free...
Believe technology exists for energy plants conversion from trash ( lord knows we have plenty of that) clean burning trash is certainly safer than burying all of it to destroy the water supply over years......
Rest of world is all going nuclear generation... heard there are hundreds of facilities under in constuction in other countries but US has only one in process ??

mdbass said:

And...places like Brazil highlight our dillydallying-they almost 100% ethanol now. As a workamper I can say for sure it has wreaked havoc on small engines (mowers and such) and boat motors. That's part of the commitment-getting everything to were it'll operate on the stuff. I guess I'm saying I have real mixed feelings about ethanol and most of my long term experiences have been negative.

Click to expand...

I have a research type question here: You mention it wrecks havoc with small engines and boat motors.

The question is this: Are the damaged engines mostly 2 stroke (2 cycle), ALL 2 cycle or a mix of 2 and 4 cycle kind of "One gas kills all"

I have a theory as to what's happening and I'd like to know.


As to Brazil.

Research assignment .. The term "Splash and Dash" as it applies to fuel

You might be surprised.

It's my understanding the problem lies with gaskets, seals and hoses not standing up to ethanol.

Since we know ethanol eats up rubber seals and gaskets and it takes more than a gal of petrol to produce less than a gal of ethanol, why not use ethanol free gas? And we need to not only drill n the gulf and on shore, but a real "Manhattan Project" to make us of oil shale. The A-bomb was outrageously expensive and it won a war. We need to win the petroleum war.

I switched last fall.

• better mpg
• takes less petroleum

Here's how to find it: http://www.buyrealgas.com/

I am sorry my figures weren't 100% correct-however there are a lot of countries that SEEM to be more motivated than we are. As far as the question on 2 or 4 cycle, it was a mix, with 2 cycle seeming to suffer the most. I understand that the refineries make "cocktails" according to regional and state requirements-wonder if that has anything to do with it, as we seem to have more problems in Florida?? And...I agree on the Nuke thing-just try to get approval, though.

Bob Maxwell said:

...
I switched last fall.

• better mpg
• takes less petroleum

Here's how to find it: http://www.buyrealgas.com/

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, not everyone can do that. Ethanol supposedly reduces emissions (at least that seems to be the excuse), causing the Denver metro area, for example, to have no pure gasoline. Most places I've been recently have ethanol added (10%, typically), and I can't recall the last time I saw plain gasoline. Your link showed two stations in the whole state of Colorado, one station in the Denver Metro area (I wonder how they get away with it) and one somewhere in the mountains, neither of which is a reasonable place to go for gas from where I live, or even enroute on the trips I typically take. If you have plain gas down there, Bob, that's great -- wish I could.

Ethanol is something that I have been interested in for several years; even as far back as the 1970s.  I dont believe that ethanol is the end all be all in alleviating the energy problems in the USA, but I do believe it can be part of the solution, if for no other reason than as the price of gas increases it makes ethanol more competitive.

There are several misconceptions about ethanol that need to be corrected.  Ethanol is more corrosive than gas, but the problem with it and gaskets and such have been addressed years ago.  I would say that any car made after 1980 can handle ethanol as far as gaskets and seals.  In a vehicle that has not had ethanol blended fuels in it; when first used in such a vehicle, the ethanol will clean the fuel system, and may require changing the fuel filter a time or two until the system is free from all the buildup from the non-ethanol fuel.

The idea that ethanol takes more energy to make than it makes is nolonger true as ethanol production has become more efficient.  Many people try this argument, but if they applied the same principles to gasoline, which would included the billions we are spending and have spent in the middle east on our military, which we would never do if there were no oil in the middle east, gasoline suddenly becomes very expensive!

Ethanol does reduce mileage, as there is less power in a gallon of ethanol that there is a gallon of gas, but with ethanol you can run higher compression in the engine to get the most power out of it, which is a problem with the Flex-Fuel engines as they have low enough compression to run straight gasoline, there is a lot of efficiency lost when you run E-85 at that low of compression.  What you need with Flex-Fuel engines is variable compression to maximize the efficiency from the ethanol.

This year all cars in NASCAR are running E-85 and all the IndyCars are running 100% fuel grade ethanol which is actually 95% ethanol, 5% gasoline which is required by law so that it is not considered booze.

I can see the problem with ethanol blended gasoline and two stroke engines, as you would have to add more oil to the blend to make up for the lack of lubricity of the ethanol, but I would think that this is not an insurmountable problem.

More later

Paul

One of the problems with ethanol and 2 cycle (and other small engines) is the engine mfgs have not kept up.  Some are now finally building small engines that can handle it, but I'm beginning to think some have made a conscious decision to take advantage of the shorter engine lifetime.

[quote author=Paul ]
The idea that ethanol takes more energy to make than it makes is no longer true as ethanol production has become more efficient.  Many people try this argument, but if they applied the same principles to gasoline, which would included the billions we are spending and have spent in the middle east on our military, which we would never do if there were no oil in the middle east, gasoline suddenly becomes very expensive!
[/quote]

Paul, I'm sorry to see you include such a patently biased, misguided and politically motivated statement in the middle of an otherwise intelligently presented post.

Just my patently biased, misguided and politically motivated point of view, of course.

There already is a better solution than ethanol. It's called diesel fuel. Much simpler to refine (no need for 15 different octane or cetane rating blends, oxygenated fuels, and such) and much more energy efficient than gasoline. Unlike with the use of ethanol, a comparable sized diesel engine will get 30-40% better fuel economy compared to a gasoline model.

I find it very curious that most automakers have cars in Europe than can exceed 50 mpg, yet there are none offered for sale here in the U.S.  You don't suppose the U.S. car companies own oil stock, do you? I remember reading that Ford has a model that gets over 60mpg. Yes, it is a small vehicle, but no worse than a Yaris or Aveo. I'm sure that U.S consumers who commute long distance to work would be interested in them. But Ford's excuse was that the engine was only manufactured in England and it would be too costly to import. Hello, Alan Mullaly,... how about building them here? Trust me, the first car manufacturer than can bring one to the U.S. (over 60mpg car) is going to be unable to make enough of them. Folks will someday wake up to the fact that the days of $2.00 fuel are gone...permanently.

I too am not opposed to using ethanol as an alternative fuel, but surely not using corn as we do here. It's just plum stupid to divert our food supply and raising the cost of that grain for all of its other intended (and necessary) uses. And it's even worse that our government subsidizes its production and mandates its use. Another, in a long list, of well intended, but not very well thought out solutions.

Very little corn is diverted from our food supply by making ethanol from it.  Only the starch is removed from the corn during the production of ethanol.  What remains, DDG(Dried Distillers Grains) are high in protein and fed to cattle or hogs, just as most corn is fed to animals, which are then eaten, and very little corn is actually made directly into food.

Paul

Paul is correct, it's not the same corn that we eat that is used in the process of making ethanol.  The problem is that acreage that might be allocated to producing corn for human consumption is diverted to the production of corn for ethanol production and animal feed to take advantage of the higher price, thus driving up the cost of both.