Archives

Ethanol contains less energy than gasoline and will greatly decrease fuel economy in all but flex-fuel engines designed for greater than 10 percent ethanol. (http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2008/feb/24/0224_ethanol/)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/523/E85_-_BioDiesel_fuels_sold_here.jpgJason Subik - The Daily Gazette of Schenectady, New York - Feb 24, 2008

If you remember when unleaded gas vehicles were introduced in 1975, leaded gas pumps were too large to fit - preventing them from damaging the catayltic converter...why don't they make E85 pumps too large for non-flex-fuel vehicles? - Ed

CAPITAL REGION — Albany County Comptroller Mike Conners doesn’t drive a flex-fuel car, but he said he loves using E85 fuel anyway.

The mixture — 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline — is available at two retail gas stations in Albany and two state-owned pumps not available to the public, making Albany the city with the highest concentration of E85 pumps in New York state.

Conners said he likes using ethanol because it’s made in America, it’s less expensive than gasoline and releases less carbon dioxide — which is linked to global warming — into the atmosphere…http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2008/feb/24/0224_ethanol/

From the article, here's what a corn farmer says:

Montgomery County corn farmer Leonard Logan disagrees. Logan said he plans to plant about 1,500 acres of corn this year. After corn prices spiked last year he said it was like winning the lottery, but in his opinion the overall influence of ethanol has been bad for agriculture.

“The people it’s affecting are the people who use [corn feed]. The chicken farmers and the pig farmers, they’re in dire trouble. You notice the price of eggs has gone up from 79 cents a dozen to $2.79 then $3 a dozen,” Logan said. “With ethanol, the best thing they could do is cut all of the government subsidies and put it back in a jar and drink it. It’s a political joke. That’s all it is. It’s tree-hugger food. I don’t like the whole thing because it’s adding to this ****ed price sum and it shouldn’t be there.”

That's pretty powerful stuff, coming from a farmer who is getting rich growing corn.

Harry

Less mpg, using huge acreage of corn to get little gain, running trucks and trains to transport it other than a pressurized pipeline. Net savings over just burning gasoline :confused:

I may have to rethink buying a used gasoline car in minnesota, which has the most or second most E85 pumps in the nation. If idiots like this are corroding their fuel systems with e85 when its not designed for it:Banane40:

From the article, here's what a corn farmer says:

Montgomery County corn farmer Leonard Logan disagrees. Logan said he plans to plant about 1,500 acres of corn this year. After corn prices spiked last year he said it was like winning the lottery, but in his opinion the overall influence of ethanol has been bad for agriculture.

“The people it’s affecting are the people who use [corn feed]. The chicken farmers and the pig farmers, they’re in dire trouble. You notice the price of eggs has gone up from 79 cents a dozen to $2.79 then $3 a dozen,” Logan said. “With ethanol, the best thing they could do is cut all of the government subsidies and put it back in a jar and drink it. It’s a political joke. That’s all it is. It’s tree-hugger food. I don’t like the whole thing because it’s adding to this ****ed price sum and it shouldn’t be there.”

That's pretty powerful stuff, coming from a farmer who is getting rich growing corn.

Harry

Wow! Here is a guy making a fortune on the decision to push Ethanol telling everyone the decision should have never been made in the first place!!

Harry, I think, once again, it all goes back to accountability. Our country elects people who say one thing and do another, or go off and do what they want without fear that someone will say, "hold on, what will this do to the cost of food - what will that do to America"? No repercussions. And, getting re-elected again simply consists of playing the same "no accountability" game again.

I personally think that the "No Accountability Shuffle" actually allows corrupt politicians that have actually been convicted of corruption to be re-elected in spite of their proven corruptibility. It is "par for the course" here in Chicago and I am positive it also takes place nationally.

Until this country demands accountability from those in power, we will continue to be at their mercy. :mad::mad:

I wish someone who knows could explain what happens when a non-flex-fuel vehicle has several fillups of E85 - the results are probably not pretty.

Based on what I know about corn ethanol, I would probably not buy E85. Manitoba uses wheat for ethanol and I don't know how that compares to corn. If wheat ethanol turned out to be more sustainable, I would consider buying E85 and blending it with gasoline to make E10. A second requirement for me to do so would be that E85 has a low enough cost to offset the fuel economy loss.

I'll chime in on this one...

Note: but I'm not going to get into the debate over E85, I'm just going to lay out what I know about the effects of E85 in "Non-E85" vehicles based on my experience.

I have a 1991 Ford Escort. It has been "converted" to run on E85. I put converted in quotes because whats been done to it isn't much. All that’s been done to it, is the replacement of the fuel pressure regulator with an adjustable one, the addition of a fuel rail mounted pressure gauge, and a dash mounted A/F ratio gauge. The car has been run on E85 for several years with no ill effects. The fuel lines are stock, as is everything else except the additions listed above. When the car was "converted" the fuel filter was replaced, and then replaced again after 500 miles of E85 because of the obvious cleaning effects of the E85.

What I know:
Working in the Automotive industry for many years, I know that since 1991 most US made vehicles fuel lines/system is designed to handle ethanol in the fuel (E10), and are tested with much greater quantities (ratios) of ethanol then what is recommended in the owners manual.

So, my experience is, if you can devise a way to inject about 25% more fuel into the engine on a 1991 or newer car you are OK running E85. I just happened to take the adjustable fuel pressure regulator route, but others I know swap out injectors to do the same thing. I know of 4 other cars in my area that have been converted to run on E85 by simply spraying in more fuel. I'm sure some won't agree with this, and I like to see proof of damage resulting from running E85 in a '91 or newer cars fuel system. But, when I looked for real proof of damage resulting from E85 use I never found any. I did find plenty of anti E85 propaganda, but no real proof to substantiate their claims

The old Escort has run for years on the stuff. Its MPG suffers, but the car likes it just fine.

Cheers,
Dave

Interesting. Does the engine run hotter? Cooler? Any other running differences you've noticed?

I had thought that the fuel lines needed to be upgraded, but my info dates back quite a ways...

The only difference I've noticed is exhaust odor (smells like a liquor cabinet). It drives the same as it ever did. I chose to try it on my Escort because it was an inexpensive car, and if something bad did happen, then not much was lost. But, the car just keeps on going. I've not noticed any running temperature changes. If I ran it really lean on purpose or by accident I would expect the temps to rise, but I don't let it run lean.

Mileage did drop as a result of spraying more fuel in. I had to make several increases in fuel pressure to finally get it to run right. I started with a baseline of 35psi of fuel pressure when on the stock pressure regulator. My first tank of E85 I bumped the pressure up to 44psi, and the car was OK around town, but I soon learned that at 55mph the car went into a lean burn mode and thus had to dial in a little more pressure to compensate for the lean burn. I ended up using 50psi of fuel pressure which gave me a safety of a few pounds just incase.

Asking for 50psi from the stock fuel pump is a lot, and I was fully expecting to have it crap out on me in pretty short order, but 3 years later, it's still going.

Cheers,
Dave

The difference between a V-6 Vulcan FFV engine Ford Taurus, and a regular V-6 Vulcan engine Ford Taurus are the fuel injector sizes. Some programming may be different in the ECU, but the only part numbers that are different on the engines themselves are the fuel injectors.

It takes so much energy to produce ethanol - and then it appears to even increase CO2 emissions - the whole thing just seems silly. Why are we doing it? Why is our government pouring so much money into this?
The article quotes Chuck Schumer: "If Iowa weren’t the first [presidential caucus] state, I don’t think we would have done as much for ethanol.”

Our country elects people who say one thing and do another, or go off and do what they want without fear that someone will say, "hold on, what will this do to the cost of food - what will that do to America"? No repercussions. And, getting re-elected again simply consists of playing the same "no accountability" game again.



Bob, I size it up as corruption in the form of taking lobbyists' money and voting their way, against the best interests of the American people. It is corruption, plain and simple.

Harry

Most modern cars you can throw E85 into and they'll run. That's because with the O2 sensors and things, the timing and other things will automatically be adjusted to compensate. However, without it specifically being adjusted for E85, there is a lot of room for gain. There are also some concerns for the fuel lines, though modern gasoline contains as much as 10% ethanol, so there's not too much worry.

The biggest problem with E85 is how heavily subsidized it is. If you look at the total amount per gallon that the government pays getting from corn to ethanol, it's around $1.50 a gallon, meaning that the real price should be at about $4.50 a gallon for E85.

However, Brazil is a great model of the potential ethanol has as a fuel source. If we can get cellulostic ethanol production working, we could have far more ethanol per land area and amount spent than Brazil makes from its sugar cane crops. However current US corn crops don't have nearly the potential. The wiki is really informative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

I'll tell you guys a little secret.... The US government this year has saved tax money even though they subsidise ethanol production. WHY you ask?

The LDP (Loan Deficiency Payments, price support) payments have basically been nothing. This has saved money because the ethanol subsidy has cost less than a typical LDP subsidy. The market price is now supporting part of the actual cost of production instead of the government funneling money from your taxes to pay extra when the price to too low to keep farmers in business. You just now see it in food prices (or think you do). Most of the price raise is not from food cost.

Yes the livestock people are adjusting. I know MANY of them and also work for one. Some are using feed stocks that are a by-product of ethanol and getting along fine. This is a high protien supplement and works well after you figure out how to feed it. Just like any ration you have to do it properly. There are currently some market effects going on and the livestock numbers are adjusting like any free market product. The price at the supermarket is also adjusting. There soon will be a new balance point and things will get back to normal. That's how our market works. However "normal" may be a little higher than it was because your taxes are no longer paying a percentage for your food.

This year was a good profit year for row crops. Ever hear "things go in cycles". The price for fuel, seed, fertilizer, rent, tractors, tires, steel, etc, etc... has gone up significantly. So even with the current high prices the profit per acre will likely be back to what is was before the market raise. For years I always thought the goverment kept food cheap to keep the US citizen happy. Keep 'em fed and keep 'em happy. I see the "corporate farmer" to be the next ax to grind for the public and media, much like "big oil". Fact is most of these "corporate" farms are one or two generation farms (father, father - son) that use the corporate tax protection just as any other business. This is not "big evil" corporate business. These are normal people making a normal living and working very hard for it. Most of the time 60-90 hours a week. Not like your typical 40 hour job. Some even have a normal 40 hour job off the farm and also farm in what time is left.

Just like hybrid cars (tax break anyone?) sometimes the government must kick in a little to get the ball rolling until businesses invest enough to make things work on the free market. Just this week there was a news story on a business to create a new pipeline from IA/IL to the north east US. No more trucking ethanol long distances. It is no suprise to me that no one picked up this story and posted it here because the majority seem to be anti-ethanol. We all (most) realize that the current flex-fuel engines are FAR from being built to take advantage of the 105+ octane of E85, thereby sacrificing efficiency. So yes the mileage could be better than it currently is.

I'm not saying corn based ethanol is the instant fix. I DO think it is a part of the puzzle and ethanol as an industry deserves a chance to get rolling. As time goes on there will be better ways to create it, just as the telegraph led to the telephone, which led to the internet, etc.

I'd think this might make sense to some of you?

I voted no cause I know e85 eats through your fuel lines and other seals if your car is not a flex fuel vehicle.

The poll is flawed - I would have voted, - "No, and I have a flex fuel vehicle."

To use E85 in my flex fuel 99 Dodge Grand Caravan Sport, I think I have to use a flex fuel capable engine oil bought from the Dodge Dealer [probably at ripoff rates].

I get 20.5 mpg tanks on my minivan, and E85 mpg would be depressing!

Hi Rex:

___Someone mentioned the pipeline here the other day but again, just considering E85 in an FFV when we cannot even supply the US with E10? If you have more info on the pipeline, I can help you set it up for a News item tomorrow.

___I am not against Ethanol on the scale it was 4 years ago but the large scale it is headed for costs us all in more ways than $’s at the supermarket or $’s at the pump. I keep seeing the CO2 and Energy ROI at 1.1 – 1.5 to one and on a straight up cost basis ($1.60 per all-in). I than equate that d@mned Dodge Durango at 10 combined on the junk vs. 15 on gasoline and it doesn’t make any sense!!! Not when Brazil is knocking out Sugar Cane based Ethanol at $0.60 per and we are putting up at least a $0.50 + tariff per on its import before it even enters into our country let alone the $0.50 credit per the Ethanol manufacturers receive. Those incentives are beyond the farmer of course but the numbers are being bantered about in such a way I feel like I am in the middle of a Ponzi scheme. There is not enough Ethanol in the country no matter how much Corn is produced and processed to make it yet we are protecting the Ethanol manufacturers with a huge import tariff :rolleyes:

___If there were a real positive Energy ROI and it would reduce our imports, I would be ecstatic! The numbers I am seeing do not make a good case of it is all and I am not even considering the water usage issues.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hi Rex:

___Someone mentioned the pipeline here the other day but again, just considering E85 in an FFV when we cannot even supply the US with E10? If you have more info on the pipeline, I can help you set it up for a News item tomorrow.

___There is not enough Ethanol in the country no matter how much Corn is produced and processed to make it yet we are protecting the Ethanol manufacturers with a huge import tariff :rolleyes:

___If there were a real positive Energy ROI and it would reduce our imports, I would be ecstatic! The numbers I am seeing do not make a good case of it is all and I am not even considering the water usage issues.

___Good Luck

___Wayne



That was me. I'll admit to not reading them, I just caught a blurb on the radio.

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=ethanol+pipeline&ei=UTF-8

I'm not much of a fan of tarriffs, so no arguement there. ;) I think given time the MPG numbers on those cars can improve just as the numbers did from the 80s to the 90s on the average car. The energy ROI will improve with time. The ARK wasn't built in a day. ;)

Ah yes, 1.1 to 1.5 ROI is disappointing. Would be pretty friggn sweet though if it was like a 5.0 ROI. However if that were the case then I'd imagine this ethanol stuff would already be everywhere by now.

Anyways I think this E85 stuff is kind of dumb, seems like they shouldn't focus on E85 until E10 is already everywhere.

Anyways I think this E85 stuff is kind of dumb, seems like they shouldn't focus on E85 until E10 is already everywhere.

Sounds like a logical step doesn't it.

...Anyways I think this E85 stuff is kind of dumb, seems like they shouldn't focus on E85 until E10 is already everywhere.In US metro areas over a million, I'm afraid E10 is your only choice of gas.

I wish Mark E. Smith would chime in...a couple of times he said the E10/MTBE thing was to clean up untuned cars from the 80's era, but today's vehicles won't degrade like that, therefore the justification for E10 to clean up urban smog.

I guess I'm not so much against ethanol, as I am against corn-based ethanol. As Wayne pointed out, the numbers just don't add up. The reason Brazil is doing so well with their sugar cane, is that the EROI on that crop is about 8 (EIGHT).
Purportedly, the EROI for other crops they're looking into like switch grass, while not as good as sugar cane's, will be much better than corn's... When we switch to them, away from corn, I'm sure a lot of us will feel a lot better about ethanol.

--
I eat my corn and burn my oil.
If you make me burn my corn, what am I going to eat?