Started burning E85

[Martian]

I just saw this thread. I don't feel like reading all the way through it, but my mother is an engineer for GM, so I have a little insight on the subject;

I asked her about it in my own self interest probably a year ago. She said that it is perfectly fine for a car and will not harm it in anyway as long as it is approved for the vehicle. As for cost, she said if E85 is one dollar less than regular, it is more economical to buy E85. Any less than a dollar and the lesser efficiency of the E85 will burn more than it will save. I have bought and used both and see no real difference. I buy whatever is supposed to be cheaper.

 

[rambler]

Rambler, how about switch grass?

I've driven Hwy 60 more times than I care to admit and have seen the ethanol plants go up over time. Nice fertile corn and soy bean area but I would think switch grass would be cheaper to grow and is supposed to have six times more ethanol capability per acre.

I'm for it, but I'm reserved about it.

1. It's a theoretical 6x more ethanol. They said 10 years ago they would develop the right bugs in 5 years to convert the lignen to sugar so it can be fermented. We are still waiting for the right bugs.....

2. It is a very very low amount of sugar produced per lb of product. It will take _massive_ amounts of plant matter to be hauled and stored to/at the production plant. This limits the size of the plants, thus limiting ecconomies of scale. We are talking millions upon millions of big bales to store & haul for just one small plant. As well planting and harvesting large amounts of this on 'not so good' land will create a big struggle between those wanting to produce energy & those wishing to save habitat - we already farm most of the good farm ground for crops, and have left a little marginal ground for wildlife. Think a lot of conflicting results will come from the tree-hugger crowd that currently says they want switchgrass - they will change their tune when they realize what that will really do.

3. Switch grass grows and regenerates in wetter ground because it dies and feeds itself the next year. Once we use it, and cut and haul away the grass, it will need fertilizer just like any other crop.

4. It sounds like the switch grass will yield better sugar content in southern states, so the SE USA might do better with this crop than we do up here in the north.

5. I hear it's a miserable crop to mow & bale. Pay us farmers enough and we will, but I hear it's something else, hard on tires and equipment!

But, it still is promising, and could use some land not so suited for grain crops, so I hope progress continues and it gets half as good as pro-switchgrass folks are promising. It might give the SE area something to grow and ferment into fuel, where they can't grow the best corn.

Hey, maybe we could find the bugs to ferment kudsu, and be able to harvest that suff for some good down that way?

--->Paul

 

[Diamondpilot]

It doesn't cost me any more to run E85 than gas and it's easy to get so it is a no brainer for me regardless of how unpopular it obviously is here. That in itself is the only disappointing thing I have discovered.

Not trying to be smart here but how does it not cost you more? My results from my testing along with my co-pilot testing at the same time equated to about 20% higher operating cost. Yes fuel was cheaper but mpg's were down.

All I care about is cost per mile.

Chris

 

[Iowachild]

I just saw this thread. I don't feel like reading all the way through it, but my mother is an engineer for GM, so I have a little insight on the subject;

I asked her about it in my own self interest probably a year ago. She said that it is perfectly fine for a car and will not harm it in anyway as long as it is approved for the vehicle. As for cost, she said if E85 is one dollar less than regular, it is more economical to buy E85. Any less than a dollar and the lesser efficiency of the E85 will burn more than it will save. I have bought and used both and see no real difference. I buy whatever is supposed to be cheaper.

The real price is hidden is govt. subsidies!

 

[rambler]

The real price is hidden is govt. subsidies!

Not to beat a dead horse, but the ethanol subsidy ended on Jan 1st. So, no more of that.

durning the past 20 years, ethanol use has raised the price of corn 10-15 cents a bu, thus lowering the grain subsidies as well. That was one of the points of ethanol, taking a product we have too much of - corn - and finding a market for it. Farmers around me put up their own money to build the cooperative ethanol plants. So ethanol has reduced subsidy costs in some ways.

Every segment of the USA seems to have some subsidies. Rentals in major cities, I always hear of rent controlled, subsidised. Pipelines to carry perto fuels get subsidised. The Chevy Volt is a clear example of other forms of energy getting subsidised.

When used, as ethanol has been, to get a new infrastructure started to help replace an old, well-subsidised floundering infrastructure, perhaps a subsidy isn't always a 100% bad thing? The ethanol subsidy ended now, and we will see if ethanol continues. We are in strange ecconomic times, and with Americans driving less, using less fuel, it is difficult to sell enough ethanol. Exports to Brazil help, and:

Subsidies have ended on it. What other segment of USA society can say that subsidies have gotten smaller or ended??????????

Time will tell.

--->Paul

 

[dmccarty]

Sugar cane would be more efficient, but cane needs a very special type of climate to grow, and in the USA Hawaii found it more profitable to build hotels and develop that land, and in Florida we just signed a 10 year agreement for the govt to buy out the biggest cane producer and return the cane ground to natural swamp - we value nature more than sugar production.
...

Sugar cane as grown in South Florida was/is? an environmental disaster. All of us pay more for our food that contains sugar because the Feds do not allow the importation of sugar into the US. This is to prop up Big Sugar.

The sugar companies own huge amounts of land in the interior of the state. You can get on their property and drive 35-45 MPH for long periods of time and not leave their land. To grow the cane, the companies pump water out of the canals and onto the fields. Eventually the water is pumped off carrying chemicals and nutrients that the ecosystem is not used too. The water quality is awful. I have been in places in the Everglades seen by very few people. The water was crystal clear and full of fish. I have also been with wildlife biologists on canals next to the sugar cane fields. The water was just dark muck and visibility was a few inches to maybe a foot. The water was full of invasive species which is a problem all over South FLA but I wondered if the poor water quality allowed more walking catfish vs native fish.

When I left South FLA the state was buying up land, or taking land given to the state by the sugar companies, to form buffers to filter the water from the fields before the chemical laden water got to the Everglades. The high level of nutrients caused problems like the grown of Cat Tails vs Sawgrass.

What I have always wondered is how much government money, if any, was spent creating the canals the made the land for the sugar can fields. Drainage canals are all over this part of Florida to create dry land. The problem with creating dry land in this area is that the soil is muck built up from decaying water plants. Farming this soil quickly uses up the soil. I have seen a concrete post that was driven so that the top of the post was level to the ground in the 20's or 30's. When I saw this post decades ago, the TOP of the post was a good six feet above ground. That is how much soil had disappeared. The roads in this part of Florida are also much higher than the surrounding fields. Now, the roads were built by digging drainage ditches and using the spoil to build up the roads. But the roads were not built that much above grade. If one pays attention you can see the soil loss but it is not obvious since plants still grow. At least they will grow for a few more years until the soil is gone and their is nothing but Limestone bedrock.

The Sugar companies used to hire thousands of workers from the islands. I always wondered why they hired all of these men when a tractor could to the work. The answer was that the companies were not paying the men as much money as they were supposed too. When it was discovered that the companies were stealing from the men, the companies mechanized the farms.

At the time, the towns in the sugar growing areas had the highest HIV infection rates in the US due to the men imported to work the can fields. Other STD rates were up there as well.

Air quality suffered because another part of the growing process was the burning of the fields.

People complain about Big Oil which is a crock. Big Sugar in South Fla WAS something to complain about. They were destroying the Everglades but the companies tried to blame the cities on the coast. The sugar companies were polluting the air and degrading the soil as well as water quality. They got huge tax subsidies and protective laws that we all pay/paid. The sugar companies really did exploit temporary workers. I don't know how much of this they do these days, but years ago the Sugar business in South FLA was DIRTY.

While the companies own huge acreage I would find it hard to believe that they could produce but a itty bitty part of the energy needs of the US. In any case, their farming practices are VERY damaging to the environment and certainly not green. The Everglades are certainly far more important that those sugar cane fields.

Later,
Dan

 

[DarkBlack]

C'mon boys and girls, I like to think you are all smarter than lowering yourselves to debating about ethanol.

Two quick point points that are key:

the small and insignificant....
1) dropping the federal subsidy, but at the same time still requiring/ coercing states to maintain laws requiring 10% of it to be in the gas sold to consumers is flim-flam. People with vested interest will say..."see...the subsidy is gone, but the gas price is going up!

Utter foolishness



The bigger picture
2)The internal combustion engine is one of the most wasteful devises ever invented. Anyone looking wanting to 'better' the earth, has to realize ethanol production use is not only more destructive to the planet, but is a short sited non-real non-solution to the 'perceived' problem. The ICE is 20% efficient at best. The engine is the real problem. Don't pat yourselves on the back for using the same old physical ICE technology with a sugar over decompostion substitute. Your still doing the same thing to the planet.

Good greif:

 

[rsewill]

Rambler, I really appreciate you taking the time to educate me about switch grass!!!

I'm for it, but I'm reserved about it.

1. It's a theoretical 6x more ethanol. They said 10 years ago they would develop the right bugs in 5 years to convert the lignen to sugar so it can be fermented. We are still waiting for the right bugs.....

2. It is a very very low amount of sugar produced per lb of product. It will take _massive_ amounts of plant matter to be hauled and stored to/at the production plant. This limits the size of the plants, thus limiting ecconomies of scale. We are talking millions upon millions of big bales to store & haul for just one small plant. As well planting and harvesting large amounts of this on 'not so good' land will create a big struggle between those wanting to produce energy & those wishing to save habitat - we already farm most of the good farm ground for crops, and have left a little marginal ground for wildlife. Think a lot of conflicting results will come from the tree-hugger crowd that currently says they want switchgrass - they will change their tune when they realize what that will really do.

3. Switch grass grows and regenerates in wetter ground because it dies and feeds itself the next year. Once we use it, and cut and haul away the grass, it will need fertilizer just like any other crop.

4. It sounds like the switch grass will yield better sugar content in southern states, so the SE USA might do better with this crop than we do up here in the north.

5. I hear it's a miserable crop to mow & bale. Pay us farmers enough and we will, but I hear it's something else, hard on tires and equipment!

But, it still is promising, and could use some land not so suited for grain crops, so I hope progress continues and it gets half as good as pro-switchgrass folks are promising. It might give the SE area something to grow and ferment into fuel, where they can't grow the best corn.

Hey, maybe we could find the bugs to ferment kudsu, and be able to harvest that suff for some good down that way?

--->Paul

 

[rsewill]

C'mon boys and girls, I like to think you are all smarter than lowering yourselves to debating about ethanol.

Two quick point points that are key:

the small and insignificant....
1) dropping the federal subsidy, but at the same time still requiring/ coercing states to maintain laws requiring 10% of it to be in the gas sold to consumers is flim-flam. People with vested interest will say..."see...the subsidy is gone, but the gas price is going up!

Utter foolishness

The bigger picture
2)The internal combustion engine is one of the most wasteful devises ever invented. Anyone looking wanting to 'better' the earth, has to realize ethanol production use is not only more destructive to the planet, but is a short sited non-real non-solution to the 'perceived' problem. The ICE is 20% efficient at best. The engine is the real problem. Don't pat yourselves on the back for using the same old physical ICE technology with a sugar over decompostion substitute. Your still doing the same thing to the planet.

Good greif:

I agree with you. But I believe that gas ICE are 25% and Diesel are 40% efficient.

Most of us could make good use of a battery car that goes 100 miles like the Nissan Leaf as long as we had a vehicle that we can use for the other, non-commuter purposes. We have two cars and when one dies it will be replaced by an all-electric.

 

[westcliffe01]

One of the reasons for the push towards gasoline turbo engines with direct injection (downsizing as they call it) is that it allows for a variable compression ratio, since the output of the turbo (intake pressure) can be varied. So in future, in areas where more ethanol might be available, engines could run full power with 14:1 compression ratios. If you can't find ethanol, then you run at reduced power 8.5:1 to 10:1 on regular.

Unfortunately, the only way one can efficiently burn ethanol is by taking advantage of its high octane, thus increased power density and the highly boosted engine gains in efficiency by virtue of its smaller size, less exposed surfaces and reduced pumping losses. For someone living in Kansas or other areas in the Midwest, this could be a viable option. For people regularly taking long trips, probably not so good. If we want to make the most of our resources, the same solution is not going to work for everyone.