Why ethanol?

[omgwtfbyobbq]

It seems like nothing more than a big kick back to farmers from all accounts. Sure, we trade some petroleum distilates, natural gas, and coal for the equivalent amount of gasoline, but in terms of energy, from all accounts the energy we gain by growing the corn is offset by the energy needed to refine and distribute. Then I stumbled on this (http://epa.gov/otaq/presentations/sae-2002-01-2743.pdf#search=%22%22pumping%20losses%22%20epa%22 ).

Ironically enough, a vw 1.9L TDI engine was retrofitted with spark plugs and port FI. I'm guessing the turbo and EGR system were the unmodified with different A/F maps. In any event, BTE was greater than the stock 1.9L TDI over a greater rpm range on both methanol and ethanol. On methanol NOx, CO, and HC emissions were low enough to rank it as an LEV in CA, with the only problem being lack of boost at low engine speed, which could be addressed by adding an electric supercharger. Kinda funny that one of the most efficient/cleanest engines out there was based on vw's diesel design. :thumbup:

[rh77]

Diesel is definitely the future. I can't wait for the technology to filter-down from the big rigs into the daily driver.

RH77

[SVOboy]

I think the EV will edge out the diesel in the US, but that's just me. Heck, more little start up EV makers then diesel models for sale, :p

[The Toecutter]

Ethanol, specifically from corn, is supported by lobbyists like Monsanto, Exxon-Mobil, BP, and others. Therefore it gets tax dollars.

Never mind the EROEI from corn is less than 1, the fact that corn strips the soil of nutrients and helps it rapidly erode, or the pitiful amount of fuel per acre of crop compared to other sources.

Ethanol from sugarcane has an EROEI > 2, usually around 4-6. There are some places in the southern U.S. where it can be grown. However, our government instead tariffs sugarcane and its derivative products from other countries to discourage its use.

Turns out that corn has high profit margins. Take both industry and government both hell bent on maximizing consumer spending, and it's no surprise that Joe Taxpayer gets to pick up their tab, at gunpoint no less(eg. what happens if you refuse to pay your taxes? Men with guns are sent to your door. $200 billion/year in corporate subsidies.).

[The Toecutter]

It's no big deal to keep batteries thermally managed. I know EV drivers who retain 99% of their range in below 0 degree weather when using lead acid batteries. A simple 70-100W battery heater with proper insulation does the trick.

IIRC, Ovonic NiMH batteries can operate in temperatures as low as -40 C without suffering any loss in capacity or power. LiIon batteries can generally go down to -20 C.

[DaX]

The news this morning was talking about how ethanol may not be all it's hyped up to be. DOH! What have we been screaming since this board was up?

Everytime I hear a news story about something FE related, I imagine (fantasize?) how awesome it would be for them to say "during an interview with members from the GasSavers website..."

[ZugyNA]

Turns out that corn has high profit margins. Take both industry and government both hell bent on maximizing consumer spending, and it's no surprise that Joe Taxpayer gets to pick up their tab, at gunpoint no less(eg. what happens if you refuse to pay your taxes? Men with guns are sent to your door. $200 billion/year in corporate subsidies.).

It's about gas/fuel taxes. Somebody actually proposed a bill to tax hybrids more because they used less gas.

Industry/govt are pretty much one in the same. The taxpayers are always there waiting patiently to be fleeced again....the govt and big business just need to explain to them why they need to be...and to make them think it's for their own good.

[Sludgy]

Random musings:

We don't have an "energy crisis" in America, we only have a liquid fuels crisis. America has plenty of wind, solar, nuclear and coal resources. All it takes is the political will to develop and use them.

Ethanol and fuel cells are just a distraction created by politicians who want to seem like they're doing something to "alleviate the gas crunch". In actuality, there are much better legislative ways to do reduce liquid fuel usage:

New taxes on vehicle horsepower, engine displacement, and/or vehicle mass.
Increased gasoline taxes
Diesels
Fischer-Troph coal to oil synthesis
Mandated FE standards.

All of the above would reduce the liquid fuels crisis within a few years, but the issue soon will be moot. HEVs and PHEVs, and EVs are going to change everything.

EV's were practical even when using lead acid batteries and brush-and-commutator DC motors. AC inverters and motors, regenerative braking and lithium batteries are about to revolutionize the auto industry. All of the automakers need to get on board, lest Toyota corner the whole market.

[rh77]

I think the EV will edge out the diesel in the US, but that's just me. Heck, more little start up EV makers then diesel models for sale, :p

The reason that D hasn't taken hold "yet" is that people are just now realizing the EPA regs that will make them supah low on the emissions scale, with ULSD and the new catalysts (granted, these scrubbers and emissions converters will be expensive at first, but they've been working on these for the last 5 years and will be required in new models after Jan 1, 2007 -- so expect them to hit the mass market and become more cost-effective). EV tech is definitely the future, but IMHO, not the immediate future. In-between, whilst we work on the technology, take a small, torquey diesel engine and power a hybrid, and/or a stand-alone model with more displacement for the people "afraid" of hybrids. This way, both technologies evolve and we can phase into SVO (boyeeee) :p

RH77

[JanGeo]

Heard that a lot of boaters with 6 gallon tanks and rubber hoses with the bulb priming pump built into the hose are seeing a lot of black gas come out the hose from the "new" gas disolving the hose from the inside.

[Silveredwings]

We don't have an "energy crisis" in America, we only have a liquid fuels crisis. America has plenty of wind, solar, nuclear and coal resources. All it takes is the political will to develop and use them.

Ethanol and fuel cells are just a distraction created by politicians who want to seem like they're doing something to "alleviate the gas crunch".

Agreed. Further, politicians are 'safe' investing taxpayer $ in ethanol & fuel cells because these options don't really threaten their sponsors: pig oil.

[The Toecutter]

It's about gas/fuel taxes. Somebody actually proposed a bill to tax hybrids more because they used less gas.

Industry/govt are pretty much one in the same.

Indeed. The G8 nations make more revenue from oil taxes than OPEC makes in profit.

By definition, the collusion between industry and government for mutual benefit is fascism. The forced dependence on oil seems to be one of its more minor aspects.

The taxpayers are always there waiting patiently to be fleeced again....the govt and big business just need to explain to them why they need to be...and to make them think it's for their own good.

And even when the taxpayers don't think it's for their own good or are outright offended by the prospect, industry and government do it anyway... Thus half the population has quit voting. Nothing like the smell of plutocracy in the morning...

We don't have an "energy crisis" in America, we only have a liquid fuels crisis. America has plenty of wind, solar, nuclear and coal resources. All it takes is the political will to develop and use them.

Indeed. But that would reduce consumer spending, economic growth, profits, and tax revenue. Therefore politicians and industry leaders make sure such a thing doesn't happen as rapidly as needed.

The world is being robbed by industry and government alike. Peak oil is the robber's gun. Will it be fired, or will we adopt alternatives before the point at which we no longer have the available resources to do so? The more of a crisis we have, the higher the oil prices will go, the more profits will be made. If we adopt alternatives before the effects of peak oil kick in and begin reducing oil consumption, oil prices will either remain stable, or plummet. The oil industry doesn't like that idea; I'd hazard a guess that if it came to it, they'd rather there be a dieoff than to see their profits drop, as evidenced by their regard for those in the middle east and elsewhere.

Ethanol and fuel cells are just a distraction created by politicians who want to seem like they're doing something to "alleviate the gas crunch".

Indeed. If mass produced today, fuel cells would be over $300 per peak horsepower. This is for the fuel cell stack alone, and doesn't include motor, inverter, batteries, storage tanks, compressors, or the automobile chassis itself. Toyota hopes to get a mass produced fuel cell car down to around $50,000 by 2020. This goal is cited by the company itself as optimistic. Without mass production, fuel cell cars cost millions. Not to mention the platinum problem and the fact that with today's amount of platinum used per kW, there would only be enough in the world for a few million cars. This may change in the future.

Ethanol from corn is simply a waste of resources. Other sources like sugarcane fare much better and actually have worthwhile EROEI. Not to mention, methanol and biodiesel can be made from hemp with greatly reduced environmental impact over other sources of biofuels, although hemp isn't a viable source for ethanol.

In actuality, there are much better legislative ways to do reduce liquid fuel usage:

New taxes on vehicle horsepower, engine displacement, and/or vehicle mass.
Increased gasoline taxes
Diesels
Fischer-Troph coal to oil synthesis
Mandated FE standards.

Less need for mandates if the automakers are required to pay for the personal and property damage caused by the pollution associated with manufacturing their vehicles and oil/gas companies forced to pay for the damage caused by the pollution associated with manufacturing, shipping, and storing their fuel. Obviously, industry would either have to pass the cost to the consumer making conventional, more-profitable sources unaffordable, or dramatically reduce profit margins to keep conventional sources affordable, thereby making alternatives more profitable. The market would be forced to either work itself out and give consumers the cheap alternatives they've been demanding for years, or collapse outright. Best of all, the free market would still get to decide; the difference is it would be taking responsibility for its actions instead of dumping the negative consequences of its actions onto society as a whole.

Would subsidies to the oil companies were to be removed including all military spending associated with protecting their interests and all of the environmental and property damage caused by the pollution generated in manufacturing one gallon of gasoline, gas would be well over $5/gallon.

Fischer-Troph coal to oil synthesis is extremely dirty and given its costs, may not be competitive until retail gas gets around $4/gallon(~$2.75 wholesale). Better to use that coal in an electric vehicle, to dramatically reduce emissions and dramatically increase overall efficiency. But it's still nice knowing we have it for extreme emergencies. Over 200 years of coal, but if we use it all we'll basically commit ecocide.

All of the above would reduce the liquid fuels crisis within a few years, but the issue soon will be moot. HEVs and PHEVs, and EVs are going to change everything.

EVs aren't going to change anything unless the technology is used. It's many years old. It's simply a matter of politics and greed; government and industry won't budge. :mad:

EV's were practical even when using lead acid batteries and brush-and-commutator DC motors. AC inverters and motors, regenerative braking and lithium batteries are about to revolutionize the auto industry.

Lithium ion and lithium polymer batteries are soooooo 1990s. The new thing that's about to appear is Lithium Sulphur batteries. Triple the specific capacity of lithium ion, lower materials costs, more power density, and greatly increased cycle life. In theory, these would allow 1,000 mile range EVs at real highway speeds. The auto industry would likely still argue it isn't enough range. "People won't ever buy an electric car unless it can go coast to coast on one charge!" or some such rubbish. Observed specific capacity is around 400 Wh/kg(SION). Highest theoretical specific capacity is over 2,000 Wh/kg!

All of the automakers need to get on board, lest Toyota corner the whole market.

Toyota has the hybrid market cornered. But they appear just as unwilling to make the transition to EVs as any other major company. If they really wanted to do it, they could have done it in the 1990s and made an affordable 200+ mile range EV even then.

The most likely chance of acquiring an EV will be from someone like AC Propulsion or Tesla Motors. Given their lack of resources to do a mass production run of 10,000+ vehicles at once, it will take them roughly a decade to get affordable EVs available for you and I. By then, if we haven't made alternatives an everyday sight, the worst of the peak oil scenarios may be reality.

[diamondlarry]

The news this morning was talking about how ethanol may not be all it's hyped up to be. DOH! What have we been screaming since this board was up?

Everytime I hear a news story about something FE related, I imagine (fantasize?) how awesome it would be for them to say "during an interview with members from the GasSavers website..."

Earlier this week, there was a story on the CBS evening news about a test that Consumer Reports did. There probably is a link somewhere but I was too lazy to find it.:p They took a Tahoe and tested it in the city and on the highway with both E85 and straight gasoline. In the city course, they got 9mpg with straight gas and only 7mpg with E85:eek: On the highway course, the Tahoe got 21 mpg on gas and only got 15 on E85. They brought up the fact that E85 burns cleaner but I wonder if that would be offset by the fact that you have to burn more of it.

[zpiloto]

I've noticed a 15-20% FE drop on straight E85 in a non FFV.

What's the cost of E85. Is it less than 20% if not your losing ground unless the emissions are way better.

[diamondlarry]

What's the cost of E85. Is it less than 20% if not your losing ground unless the emissions are way better.

In our area the corn juice is actually around $.30 higher than regular gas. A huge ripoff.:mad:

[SVOboy]

In areas where it's more readily available it's cheaper, :p

[diamondlarry]

In areas where it's more readily available it's cheaper, :p

Hopefully, that will be true because it looks like it may be forced on us anyway. I have heard that people are buying up futures for corn/ethanol in anticipation of it's future use in fuels which is driving up the cost. When Consumer Reports did thier testing, I don't remember much being said about cost. They did say however, that they had to truck the fuel in for thier test because there wasn't any available in thier area.

[SVOboy]

I remember reading an article on it in MN which said it was low enough in cost that it just about broke even with gasoline after the FE drop.

I'm not particularly interested in ethanol, I basically ignore it besides the possibility of making your own, :)

If we spend 20 years wasting time on ethanol will be 20 years behind on our switchover to EV. So let's concentrate on improving hybrid efficiency and battery technology until EV is offered as an option on all hybrid models, :p

[diamondlarry]

If we spend 20 years wasting time on ethanol will be 20 years behind on our switchover to EV.

That's part of why I think the push for ethanol is a bad idea. It was suggested once that even if we planted every square inch of farmland in corn, it would only replace a small percentage of the foreign oil. Something needs to be done but I don't think ethanol is it.

So let's concentrate on improving hybrid efficiency and battery technology until EV is offered as an option on all hybrid models,

Agreed.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

What's really interesting is that these high compression twincharged spark engines could have better efficiency than the most efficient spark engines to date, from what I've read, having greater efficiency than the 1NZ-FXE, but some bsfc maps would be nice in order to verify this. In any event, I think ethanol/methanol aren't the only ways to raise octane and allow gasoline to be run in these engines. The FE of diesels with the emissions of gassers... Almost as good as HCCI's supposed to be.