E85 a loser for reduced miles/gallon

[RC]

E85 a loser for reduced miles/gallon

By Jack F. Carter and John D. Nalewaja,
Published Sunday, March 04, 2007

E85 is a loser for reduced miles per gallon, as reported in published articles in recent magazines. Stories published in various magazines, e.g., Consumer Reports, CARandDRIVER, Bioscience, Scientific American, American Scientist and Science in 2005 and 2006 question the scientific and economic validity of ethanol (a mixture of gasoline and alcohol) made from corn grain or other fermentable carbohydrates (CHO).

Alcohol made from fermented cellosic material (wood from certain trees, plant materials from plants such as switchgrass or other grasses, etc. may be more feasible. However, cellosic materials are composed of complex CHOs which must be modified to more simple, fermentable CHOs to produce alcohol, and the needed economic procedures are not yet developed.

A significant fact is that gasoline from petroleum has 115,400 British Thermal Units per gallon whereas alcohol (ethanol) has only 75,670 BTUs per gallon, or, alcohol has only .66 the energy of gasoline.

Further, the energy input to produce corn, such as machinery, fertilizer, seed, etc., and the total process of conversion of corn grain to alcohol and by-products requires more energy than is produced in the ethanol, according to researchers at Cornell University (2007 publication) and others. However, others reported a 1.34 gain in energy from the ethanol from the corn when he included the energy of byproducts.

<SNIP>

50 percent or more in six to nine months benefiting corn growers. The higher price of corn is hurting livestock producers (beef cattle, swine, poultry, etc.) because the price of feeder cattle has decreased significantly and the price of corn for feed has increased 50 percent in six months.

<MORE>
http://www.in-forum.com/Opinion/articles/158363

More people should get a clue when this administration pushes anything. Just another way to suck money out of us commoners.

[Kagemusha]

1. What do you mean, "this administration"? Dems push ethanol too.

It's an equal opportunity boondoggle.

[okoboji]

2. WATER

it also takes a huge amount of water to make ethanol, sorry, I don't have the precise figure. If you are taking large amounts of water to make ethanol and it comes from the underground water table, what will the farmers use to grow that corn that is being produced into ethanol when the water is all gone?

[razzleberry]

3. Hot Rodders love E85

105 octane,
for a price just slighly more than pump 93.

why make political enemies, for nothing?

[RC]

5. Shouldn't that be Methyl Alcohol?

Some things to think about:
This should be required reading for everyone that thinks adding alcohol to gasoline is a solution to our energy problems.
http://www.turbofast.com.au/racefuel2.html
This article applies to Ethanol and especially E-85.

[razzleberry]

8. E85 is not methanol

the article seems concerned with methanol,
not ethanol.

any modern car could probably use 30% E85.

but the people who sell race gas at a track
would claim differently

do not use M85 unless you know what
you are doing

[RC]

9. You missed the point.

The engine has to be setup for any type of alcohol or it will not run as well. It does not make much difference whether it is methanol or ethanol. Both have higher octane, but less btu's per unit volume.

[razzleberry]

10. the carb era is gone

did you know this?

99 percent of cars these days have oxygen sensors,
and can adjust fuel-trim.

various fuels hvva various volumetric-energy-densities. so what?
energy density, just one issue.

edited for spelling

[newyawker99]

7. Hi razzleberry!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[uncle ray]

11. a few do.

but not very many.

yeah, i'm a hot rodder, and i plan to try e85 soon in a supercharged motor.

hot rodders are largely resistant to change for some reason, they were slow to accept fuel injection for example. most of them buy into the talking points against e85 without considering the benefits to high performance motors. they think e85 is some kind of scam to get us off oil dependence and turn everybody into tree huggers.

[Parisle]

4. Some things are gonna have to change,...

--- It seems apparent (and obvious) to me that social, cultural and business habits of the last fifty years are in for some re-tooling, in order that this nation may adapt to the new terrain of fossil fuel scarcity just around the corner,.... and I, for one, welcome some of the envisioned changes. To wit:

--- It is now a technological "done deal" to build houses using a composite of passive solar and geo-thermal technologies for their climate control,.. photovoltaics for their electrical energy,.. and which may actually be cheaper to build. I've done it twice since the late 80's.

--- I've also spent nearly ten years of my life hopping onto an airplane every other week to go somewhere and represent the company that employed me. As needless and foolish as this was in the 80's, it is even more so today. Commercial business air travel needs to decline by 50%, at least.

--- The same could be said for using the family car to visit the grocery store three or four times per week,.. or for "recreational" driving,.. or as entertainment for teenagers,..etc, etc. In the 50's and 60's, the average person drove about 12,000 miles per year,..... nowadays, it's closer to 20,000. No justification for that. Our "mobicentric" culture must get re-oriented to a more decentralized scheme of population centers, less travel and, happily, a slower and less abstract tempo of life. We'll be healthier, safer and more sane, to say the least.

[Deja Q]

6. I try for 6000 mi/yr, myself...

Usually end up around 7500, however... :(

[Major Hogwash]

12. I don't think this article is telling the whole truth about E85.

For instance, in the article it states -

"Two publications, Consumer Reports and CARandDRIVER in recent road tests or on an oval track, in 2006 trials found that E85 (gasoline mixed with 85 percent alcohol) has approximately 30 percent less mileage as compared to 87 octane gasoline. At prices of gasoline and E85 in August, 2006, the fuel costs to travel 400 miles (road) with E85 ($3.99) would have exceeded gasoline ($2.49), or a Tahoe Chevrolet went 400 miles on a tankful of gasoline versus the Tahoe going only 290 miles on a tankful of E85.

The author of the story in CARandDRIVER quoted that the Environmental Protection Agency has reported 28 percent reduction in mileage for E85 as compared to gasoline. E85 provided only 0.67 the mileage of gasoline."

However, the higher price of E85 was not the gist of the article, the gist was supposed to be about the lower mileage. So, the 2 publications that were quoted were talking about the cost, not the supposed lower mileage.

Democrats were ahead of the curve 25 years ago in promoting ethanol.
They even gave tax breaks to the farmers here who helped to produce it.
When the Republicans came into power, one of the first tax breaks they eliminated was that ethanol gas tax break.
So, I don't know what anyone would have against anyone else using it.

The other argument cited in the article about higher corn prices for feeder cattle sounds like an ad placement from the Beef Council. It has nothing to do with the subject the article was supposed to be discussing.

I would like to see more scientific analysis before I condemned the use of E85.
I would have to pay more to use E85 because they charge more for it here, but is it not very widely available here however either.
Only 1 gas station in the entire city offers E85.

This was a decent article to open some discussion of the subject up, RC, so I thank you for that.