EPA approves more ethanol in fuel
01-26-2011 | 07:25 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Member
Squid
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 42
From: New Hampshire
EPA approves more ethanol in fuel
http://www.manufacturing.net/News/20...nol-In-Fuel%2f
check this out EPA is going to allow MORE ethanol in fuel.
Like our carbs don't get gummed uo enough as it is.
Jim
check this out EPA is going to allow MORE ethanol in fuel.
Like our carbs don't get gummed uo enough as it is. Jim
01-26-2011 | 11:06 AM
#3
Senior Member
Superstock
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 320
If done right, this isn't a big deal, but our govt doesn't have a good track record of doing things right.
It sounds like the intent is to offer E15 as an option, not making it the standard. But that's a slippery slope.
If cars were made to use the extra ethanol correctly, I don't think it HAS to result in lower MPG. I read about a purpose-built E85 vehicle that was getting better MPG than a comparable E10 or gas only. I think it needs higher compression, right? Something like that.
It sounds like the intent is to offer E15 as an option, not making it the standard. But that's a slippery slope.
If cars were made to use the extra ethanol correctly, I don't think it HAS to result in lower MPG. I read about a purpose-built E85 vehicle that was getting better MPG than a comparable E10 or gas only. I think it needs higher compression, right? Something like that.
01-26-2011 | 11:21 AM
#4
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,871
From: Phoenix, AZ
Burning corn just seems like a bad idea to me... it takes a bunch of energy just to get it to a usable state. Bunch of opinions out there, but any moves to become more environmental should be in the direction of electric vehicles I feel. If we focus on ethanol then we'll be tied to it the same way we're tied to petroleum and be stuck growing sugar crops until we run out of water.
Plus, who wants gummy carbs!?
Plus, who wants gummy carbs!?
01-26-2011 | 12:31 PM
#5
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,132
From: Phoenix, AZ
If done right, this isn't a big deal, but our govt doesn't have a good track record of doing things right.
It sounds like the intent is to offer E15 as an option, not making it the standard. But that's a slippery slope.
If cars were made to use the extra ethanol correctly, I don't think it HAS to result in lower MPG. I read about a purpose-built E85 vehicle that was getting better MPG than a comparable E10 or gas only. I think it needs higher compression, right? Something like that.
It sounds like the intent is to offer E15 as an option, not making it the standard. But that's a slippery slope.
If cars were made to use the extra ethanol correctly, I don't think it HAS to result in lower MPG. I read about a purpose-built E85 vehicle that was getting better MPG than a comparable E10 or gas only. I think it needs higher compression, right? Something like that.
As for MPG, yes ethanol HAS to get lower MPG. The energy density of Gasoline is 34.2 while Ethanol is only 24.0, it simply has less energy in each gallon. (liter whatever, choose your measuring device) Yes ethanol has a higher octane so you can run higher compression etc, but if you get all the energy you can out of a gallon of gas vs a gallon of ethanol, the gas will get you quite a bit further.
01-26-2011 | 04:04 PM
#8
Senior Member
Superstock
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 320
There is no "done right" with ethanol in the North American climate right now. If we could make cellulose ethanol at the production levels it promises in the lab, then perhaps. But that tech has been "5 years away" for decades now. The only crop that can currently sustain ethanol production is sugar cane, and the only places we can grow that is: Florida & Hawaii where land is too expensive to put to that use. It works in Brazil where they can plant sugar cane farms the size of small states, but not here.
As for MPG, yes ethanol HAS to get lower MPG. .
As for MPG, yes ethanol HAS to get lower MPG. .
UPDATE: Nevermind. I think I just found my answer. It's close, but gas engines generally get better MPG when compared to E100 engines, even though E100 has higher octane. There is technology to make E100 as efficient (variable turbocharging, etc), but it sounds complicated to me, and becomes an unfair comparison.
Anyway, I'd like to see U.S. turn towards diesel more. It's already ready to go.
Last edited by evines; 01-26-2011 at 04:17 PM.
01-26-2011 | 05:03 PM
#9
Senior Member
SuperSport
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 805
From: Delmar NY
This summer I burned a piston on my Boat motor. I guess I can't PROVE it was due to ethanol, but the mechanic at the bat dealer told me they are seeing more and more come in.
They are suggesting using super. Ethanol SUCKS
They are suggesting using super. Ethanol SUCKS
01-26-2011 | 05:55 PM
#10
ride it out
SuperSport
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 745
From: NH
funny, they really only have E10 around here, but I've seen a lot of people switching to E85 fuel systems and they make some really good numbers on the dyno (and a heck of an addition of timing!). I had been thinking about making the switch when it becomes more readily available, but as far as our bikes... I put in super anyways.
01-27-2011 | 08:48 AM
#11
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,132
From: Phoenix, AZ
Oh you can make more power more easily if tuned for it out of E85 or E100 due to it's high octane. Quite a few people with my car (mazdaspeed3) have made the switch to get more power. (direct injection, high boost turbo, etc, so it's already got the tech to do it, just reprogram the ECU) But gas does have more power potential, it is just harder to get at, and as for MPG.. well when you are boosting power you generally don't care about MPG.
If everyone drove Mazdaspeed3's, Mini CooperS's (gen2+) or Nissan Jukes and reprogrammed their ECU for E85 and efficiency.. Then we probably could get similar MPG numbers out of it, and even then it is a BAD idea without cellulose based ethanol.
It takes almost as many gallons of fossil fuels to grow corn based ethanol as you get out. So rather than burning the fuel directly to move your car, it gets burned to move the tractor and to run the conversion plant and spread on the ground to fertilize the crop (look up what most fertilizers are made of).. So we STILL USE ALMOST THE SAME AMOUNT OF FOSSIL FUEL when we burn corn based ethanol, we just have more problems and more pollution out of our tailpipes. (ethanol causes more smog)
If everyone drove Mazdaspeed3's, Mini CooperS's (gen2+) or Nissan Jukes and reprogrammed their ECU for E85 and efficiency.. Then we probably could get similar MPG numbers out of it, and even then it is a BAD idea without cellulose based ethanol.
It takes almost as many gallons of fossil fuels to grow corn based ethanol as you get out. So rather than burning the fuel directly to move your car, it gets burned to move the tractor and to run the conversion plant and spread on the ground to fertilize the crop (look up what most fertilizers are made of).. So we STILL USE ALMOST THE SAME AMOUNT OF FOSSIL FUEL when we burn corn based ethanol, we just have more problems and more pollution out of our tailpipes. (ethanol causes more smog)
01-27-2011 | 09:46 AM
#12
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,871
From: Phoenix, AZ
It takes almost as many gallons of fossil fuels to grow corn based ethanol as you get out. So rather than burning the fuel directly to move your car, it gets burned to move the tractor and to run the conversion plant and spread on the ground to fertilize the crop (look up what most fertilizers are made of).. So we STILL USE ALMOST THE SAME AMOUNT OF FOSSIL FUEL when we burn corn based ethanol, we just have more problems and more pollution out of our tailpipes. (ethanol causes more smog)
C'mon we need some farmers who support corn subsidies to join this thread, everyone's pretty much on the same page right now...
01-27-2011 | 11:18 AM
#13
Senior Member
Superstock
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 320
There seems to be compelling arguments for and against using EtOH, and I'm ambivalent. I'm generally very conservative, but our dependence on oil is one area that I'd like to see get stirred up. I'm just not sure that EtOH is the answer. I think our government wants it to be the answer, because we are the leaders in production of EtOH, and there is a strong corn lobby. But we're doing it wrong right now, and cellulose might not be the answer either, although it's certainly better.
I'd like to see electric vehicles work, because then we can use whatever (oil, coal, EtOH, sun, wind, nuclear, water, hyperactive children, etc) as the fuel. But we will need a breakthrough in battery technology before I can rely solely on electric vehicles.
01-27-2011 | 11:42 AM
#14
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,132
From: Phoenix, AZ
It'd need more than a breakthrough, it'd need a total shift. Electric motors are AMAZING motivators, but to get the energy/lb up high enough and recharge rate fast enough to make electric cars competitive is probably going to require something more along the lines of a light SUPER high speed flywheel based battery (think millions of RPM, that might do it) vs any kind of chemical one. But they have their own problems: bearings, friction from air, explosive failures etc.
01-27-2011 | 12:21 PM
#15
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,451
From: San Clemente, CA
It takes almost as many gallons of fossil fuels to grow corn based ethanol as you get out. So rather than burning the fuel directly to move your car, it gets burned to move the tractor and to run the conversion plant and spread on the ground to fertilize the crop (look up what most fertilizers are made of).. So we STILL USE ALMOST THE SAME AMOUNT OF FOSSIL FUEL when we burn corn based ethanol, we just have more problems and more pollution out of our tailpipes. (ethanol causes more smog)
Car and Driver figured it comes out a toss up, at best, for fossil fuel use. But then you factor in the higher cost of groceries and meat, and it's ridiculous that the Feds are still pushing ethanol production.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
