Alternate engine fuels

Hi, folks,
I've done a bit of searching through the forum posts, haven't found quite what I'm looking for, so I thought I'd focus my question.
I'm the kind of guy that would love to burn less petro-gasoline if possible (a dumb position if I'm going to be driving a motor home, I know), BUT, there are big engines out there (like the Ford E350/450) that burn something called Methanol (E85) which is made from corn (and therefore supports American farmers and is way better for the environment). I know some folks don't buy into those positions, but leaving aside the question of the environment, the lack of methanol stations (only about 2500 so far nationwide-posted on the web), and also the fact that it is known that methanol gets less MPG's than straight gas (which is offset by the fact that methanol is cheaper, so the $$ are a wash), my question to the forum is this:

Do you know of any motorhomes that are constructed using Flex-Fuel/Methanol engines? It seems to me that any motorhome maker that is building on the Ford 350/450 chassis can offer this, as Ford claims to make that engine to the Flex-fuel standard. I haven't been able to find anything yet that is definite about whether Winnie or others manufacturers offer that type of engine. (BTW, I'm not buying until next summer, so I'm listening to every bit of advice you all can offer. Your opinions/knowledge are GREATLY appreciated.)
I just think it would be nice to be an environmental RV'er, if I can
Thanks, and best regards,
Frank

Ignoring the politics of food based fuel will be difficult for many of us, but I'll try.

85% ethanol has less energy per gallon than the more traditional fuels. So, as miles per gallon goes down, the number of times you're manuvering into a fuel station go up. An inconvenience. One of the commonly mentioned problems people have is getting in and out of fuel stations. Since E85 is not often thought of as a "big rig" fuel, the stations that carry it may not be set up for larger rigs.

As you mention, finding E85 stations is more difficult and so you'll wind up using conventional fuel far more often than you might want. Many times you'll be travelling in unfamiliar areas, so hunting for E85 will take time and maybe more fuel to get to that station rather than the more convenient station on the way.

Ken

All newer engines already burn E10 (the ubiquitous "Ethanol" you see everywhere at the pump) and you don't have to buy anything special. Likewise for diesel - use of bio-blended fuel is a requirement and B10 is becoming common at the pump. This is all because of the Renewable Fuels mandate that began many years ago but is finally making itself felt at the retail fuel level.

GM also has a large block Flex Fuel engine, the Vortec 6.0L, but I don't know of any Class A motorhomes that use it (nobody is building a gas Class A chassis with a GM engine right now). Might be some C's using it, but the vast majority of C's also come on a Ford chassis.

By the way, it is ethanol, not methanol, that these engines burn, and the long-promised alternatives to corn-based ethanol have never materialized. Nor is any coming in the forseeable future. Growing corn to produce fuel is bad economics, since corn production uses a lot of petroleum products, including a lot of fuel. The net savings in petro-products is nil. Plus, the substantially reduced fuel economy results in about the same amount of real gasoline being burned per mile anyway. Political snake oil, in my opinion. I would much rather see the effort and $ invested in making engines more efficient, or developing an alternative to an internal combustion engine.

My big (8.9L) diesel is actually quite efficient at moving the huge weight of a 40 ft coach. I average 8.0-8.1 mpg burning pure petro-diesel. On B10 fuel, the mpg drops about 10%, so the 10% reduction in petroleum per gallon nets less than 1% reduction in actual petro-diesel used per mile. Plus it consumes the ethanol as well, so I suspect there is a net loss overall.

Your best contribution to reduced petroleum consumption is a higher fuel economy vehicle, which probably means a small diesel. One of the Sprinter diesel based coaches can get you 15+ mpg when using real diesel (proportionally less on bio-diesel blends).

Ken and Gary,
Thank you for the feedback. I definitely agree that building more fuel-efficient engines is very, very important, and I hope the engine manufacturers can do that.

And I have no experience in pulling into stations with big rigs, so I appreciate your insight into the hassles of getting fuel! I hadn't thought about having to stop more often, which I would when getting 10% less MPG's.

But I am talking about a stronger ethanol (and sometimes methanol) mix when I talk about E85, which is 85% natural alcohol and derived from the processes already in place when creating corn based feed for animals. (It also comes from almost every plant that exists, as well as wood-scraps.) It is different from the standard 10% ethanol that is currently offered just about everywhere. The flex fuel is a major step up from that and is a way to lessen our dependence on fossil fuel (which, BTW, would free up fossil fuel to power things like jet engines for our military, of which I am a big supporter).

And, Ford already makes an E350/450 that is flex-fuel (therefore it is E85 compliant). And all flex-fuel engines run on regular gas, E10, and E85, without any work on the part of the owner/driver. I'd love to see that type of engine as an option in a motor home.

Websites with info on this include:
http://www.pumpthemovie.com/
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_locations.html

If I were younger, I'm sure I'd see this alternative all over the place in my lifetime. Now that I'm almost old enough to fully retire, it will take some legwork to be a part of the change to not burning a dirty fuel like gasoline. Oh, well.

Again, thanks for the input and new information!
Best,
Frank

But I am talking about a stronger ethanol (and sometimes methanol) mix when I talk about E85, which is 85% natural alcohol and derived from the processes already in place when creating corn based feed for animals.

Click to expand...

Sorry, that simply isn't so. There is no methanol in E85, and as yet no viable ethanol source besides corn. Maybe someday, but not yet. See the E85 spec:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_e85_specs.html

I'm all for reducing our petroleum dependence, native or imported, but E85 ain't it.

Anchors said:

And I have no experience in pulling into stations with big rigs, so I appreciate your insight into the hassles of getting fuel! I hadn't thought about having to stop more often, which I would when getting 10% less MPG's.

Click to expand...

If the mpg penalty were only 10%  for E85 that might be worth it. But, according to the folks that do the tests the fuel mileage is lowered by 27-30%. 10% less MPG is what we already suffer with while using the mandated E10.

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/e85-vs-gasoline-comparison-test.html

http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=fuel&subject=fuelAlt&story=e85

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/ethanol-promises-e85-and-fuel-economy-page-7

According to these guys ( http://www.e85prices.com/ ) the average price spread is 21%. Will 1 motorhome make a difference? Only you can decide.

Ken

Guys, I stand corrected on the content of E85. I mistakenly thought methanol was used interchangeably depending on the supplier, but obviously, the E stands for ethanol (well, duh!). Apparently, even though methanol and ethanol can both be biomass fuel sources, only ethanol is in production in our country for normal use.
But, as all the articles seem to imply, depending on the vehicle and the person's driving habits, the lower cost of E85 (20-25%) can offset the lower mpg (20-25%), making the money factor not an issue. Of course, there are more pit stops required to fill up, so I have to decide if the hassle of stopping more often to get gas offsets the benefits of not burning as much fossil fuel. And, of course, that all depends on finding a motor home that can run on flex fuel!
Luckily, I have time to decide

"But, as all the articles seem to imply,"   ????????

I guess it depends on whose numbers you believe. When I Google it, 27-30% less MPG not 20-25% and 21% average price difference, not 20-25%. That's not a wash on price, and the added difficulty to get it really makes it unattractive.

Ken

Just like the whole idea of Biodiesel which is built on the same idea. Biodiesel has the same failure point of more biodiesel the lower the MPG's. So like over in Oregon its 5% biodiesel but typically high in price than the standard old petroleum product. Like for me it normal to see mid 20's running empty truck and with 5% biodiesel its more like low 20's or high teens for a product that cost more.

Now if you sit down and do some study work on fuels and how they are made you'll end up back to pumping petroleum product. Because in the end petroleum contains the most energy per volume at a lower price typically.

But, as all the articles seem to imply, depending on the vehicle and the person's driving habits, the lower cost of E85 (20-25%) can offset the lower mpg (20-25%), making the money factor not an issue.

Click to expand...

Actually, it IS an issue. My F-150 is flex fuel, and I've used both E-85 and regular (E-10, if you like), and 20%-25% (or a bit more) lower mileage is my personal experience. For instance towing a 4000 lb trailer up U.S. 24 west of Colorado Springs (plus some flatland and such) I got about 11 mpg, or a little under with E-85, vs. 14.5-15 with regular unleaded (E-10). Much additional use, even on relatively level ground wasn't a lot different in relative usage. Given the difference between regular and E-85 prices now, there's only a small (less than $.30) difference when I last looked a week or so ago (in the Denver area). So it actually costs more to use E-85, plus the reduced convenience caused by the shorter range and the harder to find stations.

When gas was $3.50 and up per gallon, the price spread was somewhat greater, but the E-85 still wasn't lower priced.

I'll ignore the other arguments for you, much as I don't want to.

Anchors said:

Ken and Gary,
Thank you for the feedback. I definitely agree that building more fuel-efficient engines is very, very important, and I hope the engine manufacturers can do that.

And I have no experience in pulling into stations with big rigs, so I appreciate your insight into the hassles of getting fuel! I hadn't thought about having to stop more often, which I would when getting 10% less MPG's.

But I am talking about a stronger ethanol (and sometimes methanol) mix when I talk about E85, which is 85% natural alcohol and derived from the processes already in place when creating corn based feed for animals. (It also comes from almost every plant that exists, as well as wood-scraps.) It is different from the standard 10% ethanol that is currently offered just about everywhere. The flex fuel is a major step up from that and is a way to lessen our dependence on fossil fuel (which, BTW, would free up fossil fuel to power things like jet engines for our military, of which I am a big supporter).

And, Ford already makes an E350/450 that is flex-fuel (therefore it is E85 compliant). And all flex-fuel engines run on regular gas, E10, and E85, without any work on the part of the owner/driver. I'd love to see that type of engine as an option in a motor home.

Websites with info on this include:
http://www.pumpthemovie.com/
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_locations.html

If I were younger, I'm sure I'd see this alternative all over the place in my lifetime. Now that I'm almost old enough to fully retire, it will take some legwork to be a part of the change to not burning a dirty fuel like gasoline. Oh, well.

Again, thanks for the input and new information!
Best,
Frank

Click to expand...

If you want to help the environment don't run E-85. Test prove that running Ethanol produces more pollution than the newer engines running strait gasoline. The use of Ethanol was  a political answer not a scientific answer to a non problem.
Bill

Ethanol has a much higher octane rating than gasoline.....and would thus resist detonation much better.  However, to take advantage of this higher octane rating, much higher compression ratios would be needed....somewhere in the neighborhood of 15:1.  Gearheads and racers have been burning alcohol for decades, 1320' at a time.  Running the squeeze point this high would net better mileage and more power.  Here's the problem....with compression ratios that high, the vehicle won't run on conventional gasoline without burning holes in pistons and such.....hence no "Flex Fuel" capability, and zero sales.

As a wide scale replacement for gasoline, ethanol has a ton of problems, not the least of which is negative energy return (more fuel to make it than you get from burning it) and without getting toooo political, it wouldn't exist without subsidies.  Think of ethanol as a PRODUCT of petroleum, not a replacement for it.  As a niche fuel for drag racers, it's great....anything more isn't going to happen...now, or ever.

Here a good read...

Biofuels emit 400 percent more CO2 than regular fuels
http://www.naturalnews.com/029421_biofuels_CO2.html

So we are gaining what from bio fuels? ???

You guys are missing the point. The value of using ethanol-blend fuels is that ethanol is renewable - you can produce more ethanol a lot sooner/easier than you can produce more petroleum. Cost and performance were (and remain) secondary considerations. That's why we have a federal law requiring that we gradually move toward non-petroleum fuels, starting back in 2005.  Enthusiastic scientists and politicians thought we would have a viable substitute for expensive corn-based ethanol by now, but it hasn't happened. Worse, actual experience has shown that it takes as much petroleum to produce the corn/ethanol as is saved by blending it into gas or diesel fuel.  Unfortunately, the politics of big agri-business have overwhelmed common sense. Farmers enjoy the much higher corn prices and billions of dollars have been spent on ethanol production plants that aren't suitable for anything except producing ethanol from corn.

Buying only petroleum-based fuel is not an option any longer. The 2005 Renewable Fuel Standard requires that an ever-increasing percentage of the fuel actually sold/used in the USA be "renewable", which basically means a bio-fuel. You won't be able to buy pure gas or diesel because it is rapidly becoming illegal as a highway fuel.

So, Anchors is trying to be a responsible citizen and go on the leading edge with E85 instead of E10. Sadly, at the present time, the whole bio-fuel thing is a facade that achieves none of its goals. The whole program has taken on a life of its own, though, and Congress isn't any better than anyone else when it comes to admitting they made a mistake. Especially when there is big money at stake.

Learn some more here:

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/RFS.html
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/index.htm

Gary RV Roamer said:

So, Anchors is trying to be a responsible citizen and go on the leading edge with E85 instead of E10. Sadly, at the present time, the whole bio-fuel thing is a facade that achieves none of its goals. The whole program has taken on a life of its own, though, and Congress isn't any better than anyone else when it comes to admitting they made a mistake. Especially when there is big money at stake.

Click to expand...

Congress didn't "understand," or were coerced into not understanding, that crop-based biofuel is solar energy and corn is not all that efficient in capturing it, especially in the corn belt of the country.

Brazil was often used as an example of how well ethanol could work, considering they started using it in the 1970s. Well, when you are on the EQUATOR and use sugar cane, which has MUCH more energy per acre than CORN, of course it works.

The whole debacle is sickening, in my opinion.



Michael

Hi, folks,
Thank you for your answers based on your usage, experience, and/or other knowledge of E85. I still would like to opt to support farmers and the environment, if I can, regardless of slight cost differences. And I would venture that in time the physical laws of using a fuel that actually ingests CO2 as it is growing is bound to work out better than pulling CO2 out of the ground and adding it to the atmosphere.

But, disregarding all of that and everybody's political opinions (including mine), the really insurmountable problem is that factory installed ONAN generators, which pull their fuel from the motor home fuel tank, are NOT flex fuel compatible! So that pretty much shoots to heck the whole idea of running a motor home using E85 as it would screw up the generator (I assume). I just got that news from Winnie themselves.

Oh, well. I'll scratch that idea off my list. Onward and upward to the next obstacle in the way of me being able to RV, which is selling this house!
Thank you again for your replies. They have been most informative.
Best,
Frank

Two part post.

First, what the article says is quite true and makes a valid point.. AT THIS TIME every gallon of oil replaced by alcohol costs more than a gallon of oil to produce.. I did not think it was 4 TIMES as much (4 gallons burned to produce a gallon of booze) but I do know more oil is used to prepare the ground (2 passes) plant (one pass) Cultivate (possibly several passes) harvest (one pass) haul to market,, Haul to distillery,, Ferment and distill. Than are saved.. So the net savings is very negative..

I have known this for years,, So has the scientific community,, Articles on this go back to before the turn of the century and thus the article linked to had only on surprise...400%

Page 2:

Ethanol is not the only alcohol.. It just happns to be drinking booze.

OTHER alchohols can be made from equally renewable substances,, including stuff that is currently waste material,, They can be produced at FAR LOWER energy levels...  And with some of these, there would be a positive savings.

But even though the technology has been proven in small scale... Funds to ramp it up and make it happen are not forthcoming.. Funds for Boozification of our Gasoline are flowing like a river,,but funds for valid alternatives.. drip, drip, drip.

Page 3:

Do not know how true it is. After all this is April, the month of the FOOL,  But there was a facebook post.
Carbon NEUTRAL Diesel..  Seems one of the auto-maker researcher labs made Diesel fuel from Water and CO2.. So for every molicule of C02 Released by diesels buring this fuel.. A molicule of CO2 is removed in the manufacturing process. Giving a Carbon Neutral result.. or so they claim.

I very strongly suspect they are overlooking something.. (I also suspect what but since it is SUSPECT will keep silent as to what till I can research some more).

Seems one of the auto-maker researcher labs made Diesel fuel from Water and CO2..

Click to expand...

Here is an article about Audi making that claim. Who knows whether it'll maintain the "overall energy efficiency of around 70%" under other than lab conditions, though, or whether they're reporting ALL the energy used in the electrolysis.

Anchors said:

Hi, folks,
Thank you for your answers based on your usage, experience, and/or other knowledge of E85. I still would like to opt to support farmers and the environment, if I can, regardless of slight cost differences.

Click to expand...

Cost isn't the issue.

If you're burning a fuel that took two gallons of petroleum to make a gallon of it, I fail to see how that is benefiting the environment.  Seems you're doing twice the damage of someone just burning a gallon of gasoline.  In essence, you're burning two gallons of petroleum to go 8 miles instead of one.

As for the farmers, yes, you're supporting them.....at the expense of the taxpayer (thanks). Why not just subsidize them to NOT produce this energy negative fuel?

Yes, a percentage of this crap is now mandated.  We can stop that nonsense any time we're ready too.....a loud and clear message to our elected EMPLOYEES, whatever their political affiliation.

The only viable true alternative fuel source is the Hydrogen fuel cell. The problem is COST. Toyota is testing a car now that runs on Bullsh*t. look at the link. It is suppose to be for sale in 2016 I am shore they are hoping for some big tax incentives like the Volt had. Price: Costs $58,325 before any incentives and including destination. Lease for $499 a month for 36 months. The big question is it towable 4 down?
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2015/04/toyota-proves-hydrogen-fuel-is-bullsh-t-literally.html
The big problem will be ramping/scaling this up to where you could power a RV.
Bill