Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumMileage (mpg) Using Ethanol Seen 20% Higher Than EPA Says - Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-06/mileage-gains-using-ethanol-seen-20-higher-than-epa-says.htmlA tweak to an automobile’s engine software can improve by as much as 20 percent the estimated fuel efficiency when using gasoline with ethanol or methanol, according to a non-profit group pushing gasoline alternatives.
A Fuel Freedom Foundation study showed that setting the engine to run at an optimal setting for the higher octane in so-called alcohol fuels can cut the greenhouse gases emitted on average by 17 percent to 20 percent, making it better for the environment than estimated by independent analysts and the Environmental Protection Agency.
“Alcohol fuels are not getting a fair treatment,” Eyal Aronoff, a founder of the non-profit group and co-author of the study to be released soon, said in an interview. With the correct analysis, “the greenhouse-gas emissions look really, really appealing.”
Fuel Freedom is an independent non-profit based in Irvine, California, that doesn’t have financial ties to the ethanol industry. It advocates for policies to build a distribution system for alternatives to gasoline in order to cut drivers’ costs and spur economic growth.
(more)
link ti the study: http://www.fuelfreedom.org/white-papers-temp
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Mileage drops. My truck loses 1mpg using ethanol blend. Race cars burning alcohol have to richen mixture substantially...100% alcohol burns about twice the fuel as 100% gasoline. Do the chemistry.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)They aren't comparing to gasoline, they're just saying that they've found a way to improve ethanol burning.
But you're right. The energy density of ethanol is lower than gasoline. You can't change that.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)methanol allows when they are blended with gasoline.
now, once you are getting better mileage with ethanol/methanol - gasoline blend you can compare that to straight gasoline.
EPA and dept of Energy are on record saying that the Heat value of the fuel is all you need to consider in calculating fuel efficiency. That is nonsense. The octane rating is important in internal combustion engines because you are burning the fuel under compression. Higher octane fuel won't pre-ignite as easily so you don't have to use retarded spark timing and you can use higher compression ratios.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Thats the ratio of fuel to air. Yes, you can advance the spark a bit more with alcohol, which adds HP, but doing so doesn't double the fuel economy which is what would be required just to equal gas.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)to compute ethanol's fuel efficiency. Spark advance and compression ratio are both critical inputs to internal combustion burning of fuels.
Using HV only, EPA holds that Ethanol has a fuel efficiency (in terms of miles per gallon) that is about 65% of gasoline's.
Gasoline's HV (lower heating value) is about 116,000 BTUs per gallon. Ethanol's HV (lower HV) is about 76,000 BTUs per gallon. Dividing 76,000 by 116,000 gives you a fuel efficiency for Ethanol relative to gasoline of .66. Therefor you would have to increase ethanol' fuel efficiency be ratio of 1.53 to equal gasoline's.
Optimizing an engine for Ethanol operation
In 1998 the Dept of Energy issued the Ethanol Vehicle Challenge. The challenge was to optimize a 1998 FF Malibu for operating on Ethanol 85% blend to see how much the engines performance could be improved. A number teams of college Engineering students took on the challeenge. All the teams finishing the challenge (one dropped out) achieved better fuel efficiency in the city driving cycle test. The best three teams achieved over-all fuel efficiency (combing results for the city & highway tests) of 13% to 15% BETTER than the stock Malibu operating on gasoline. (the three top teams were: Wayne State Univ. (Detroit, MI), Univ. of Waterloo (Canada) and Univ of Illinois, Chicago.
THis is what modestly funded teams of College Engineering students could achieve in a few months time.
NOTE: this increase in fuel efficiency (in terms of miles per gallon) was acheived without DOWNSIZING. When you supercharge or turbocharge an engine you increase the power output enough to allow you to get by with a smaller engine. This increases the possible improvement in Miles per Gallon.
Honda Motor Co.'s FFV vehicles for sale in Brazil only get comparable MPG to Gasoline's
The new Honda system adapts to different ethanol-to-gasoline
ratios by estimating the concentration of ethanol in the ethanol-gasoline mix
in the fuel tank based on measurements of exhaust gas concentration in the vehicle's
exhaust system. This provides the flexibility to adapt to ethanol-to-gasoline
ratios of between 20 percent and 100 percent, while achieving outstanding fuel
economy and dynamic performance on a par with a 100 percent gasoline-powered
vehicle.
(more)
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Both cars and boats, including alcohol racing engines. In straight mpg comparison, twice as much alcohol is burned vs gasoline. Yes, an engine can be optimised for alcohol...but you don't double the power, nor can you double the economy thus equaling gas. It just doesn't happen. Ethanol is just a bad deal all around, its only promoted to boost agriculture interests (which is why food prices have gone up). Methanol is only suitible for race engines, as its corrosive. Race cars flush fuel system with gas afterwards to remove the methanol.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)than typical ICE on gasoline. But only about 5% of the total fuel usage is ethanol (it is directlly injected into the combustion chamber).
Ethanol injected into the combustion chamber enables higher boost from the turbo - not just because of higher octane rating (~113 vs gasoline's 86-94) but also because of ethanol's higher latent heat of vaporization cools the air-fuel charge in the combustion chamber. This enables higher boost pressures (the higher latent heat counter-acts the heating induced by higher compression).
see: Ford E85 Direct Injection Boosting Study: A Less Expensive Alternative to Diesel
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/04/ford-e85di-gasolinepfi-20090426.html#more
Here's a paper by mssrs Cohn, Bromberg and Heywood:
Direct Injection Ethanol Boosted Gasoline Engines: Biofuel Leveraging For Cost Effective Reduction of Oil Dependence and CO2 Emissions
http://www.ethanolboost.com/LFEE-2005-01.pdf
Now, one thing to be considered in any new technology is cost - because that affects how readily adopted it will be. The marginal cost of the Ethanol Direct Injection engine they estimate to be from $1,000 to $1,600 mass produced. This is about 1/3rd to 1/4th the cost of a conventional hybrid while offering similar mileage gains. This would be much more readily (read quickly) adopted by consumers.
And time is of the essence. We don't have 20-30 years to weight for a 25% reduction in aggregate gas consumption by the light transportation sector. By substituting ethanol and methanol for gasoline we can get to a 255 reduction in gas consumption much much quicker than weighting for people to buy enough electric cars (including conventional hybrids) to achieve that much gas consumption reduction.
The cost of oil/gas will sink our economy much sooner than we can get enough electrics on the road to get enough of a gas consumption reduction.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 19, 2013, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)
The Ethanol enabled Direct Injection engine designed by the three MIT scientists (mentioned above) increases fuel efficiency (as miles per gallon) by 30%. So, relative to gasoline, ethanol used in the Ethanol Direct Injection engine has a fuel efficiency relative to gasoline of [font size="3"]1.3[/font].
According to the EPA ethanol's fuel efficiency relative to gasoline computed based solely on Heating Value of the two fuels is [font size="3"]0.65[/font].
Dividing Ethanol's mpg used in the MIT Ethanol DI engine (1.3) by the EPA's number for ethanol's mpg relative to gasoline's (.65) you get:
[font size= "4"]1.3/.65 = 2 [/font]
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)The Congressional Budget Office looked into this after the huge run-up in food prices from Sept 2007 to early summer 2008. Note that the price of oil/gasoline (and of course, diesel) exploded over the same period.
From April 2007 to April 2008, the consumers index for retail price of food went up 5.1%. Ethanol's share of that increase according to the Congressional Budget Office was 9.8% (0.5 percentage point) to 15.7% (0.8 percentage point). Energy portion of the 5.1% increase was 1.8 percentage points or 36% of the total increase in retail food prices.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/04-08-ethanol.pdf
"From April 2007 to April 2008, the increasing demand for corn to produce ethanol contributed, in CBO’s estimation, between 0.5 and 0.8 percentage points to the 5.1 percent increase in the price of food overall as measured by the component of the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) that measures food prices."
page 8:
" The cost of (farm) commodities - (e.g. corn, wheat, meat, etc .. Bill USA) makes up about 19 percent of the price of food that originates on U.S. farms and that is sold in stores (see Figure 2). Consequently, an increase of 10 percent in the cost of all commodities would push retail food
prices up by approximately 2 percent.
Note: 0.5 and 0.8 percentage points computes to 9.8% and 15.7% of the total Food Price increase of 5.1%
the CBO also noted, on page 10 of their report, that:
"The impact on food prices resulting from hikes in the price of corn related to ethanol production was smaller than the effect of higher prices for energy.."
"...the producer price index for intermediate energy products could be used as a measure (and may better reflect the costs that the retail food sector faces for energy). Using that measure leads to an increase in energy prices between April 2007 and April 2008 of 25 percent, which implies a direct increase in the CPI-U for food of 1.8 percentage points ([font size="3"]36 percent[/font]) of the increase in food prices during that period."
one thing the CBO did not consider is that ethanol by providing an additional supply of fuel, caused a reduction in the increase in the price of oil/gasoline. Merrill Lynch put ethanol's impact on the price of oil at a ~20% REDUCTION. When you consider that ethanol reduced the price of oil/gasoline/diesel by approximately 20% the NET impact of ethanol on the price of food is more like 1% to 7% of the total increase in the price of food of 5.1%. IF increased demand for corn for making ethanol can drive up the price of corn then by the same laws of supply and demand the increased supply of fuel provided by ethanol decreased the price of oil/gasoline - which is a bigger part of the price of food than the cost of one commodity: corn.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)
House of Roberts
(5,167 posts)But for high-tech engines, particularly high compression engines with knock sensors and turbo or superchargers, the effect is offset by the octane increase the alcohol enables. Only engines with high compression can gain from the aggressive mapping.
Race engines using ethanol are allowed to run higher compression because the fuel burns cooler, hence the likelihood of predetonation is less. They make up the difference with the compression and advanced ignition timing.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)
RGinNJ
(1,019 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I'm happy to read about any improvement in efficiency, but this article should not be construed to mean that Ethanol is more energy dense than gasoline. It is not.
FWIW, Electric vehicles will soon make these conversations moot.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=27&t=4
Energy density by weight and by volume:
Fuel (MJ/kg) (MJ/L)
Gasoline 46.4 34.2
Ethanol 30 24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)with higher compression and proper spark advance you can get as good fuel efficiency with ethanol - or better - than gasoline.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And ethanol is not a fossil fuel, but until they find a fully fossil-fuel-free way to produce it, I'll be a skeptic.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)National Laboratory. His work is accepted by all rational people. He has shown since about 1996 that ethanol produced more energy in the fuel than is consumed in making it.
Updated Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Results of Fuel Ethanol
leveymg
(36,418 posts)with alcohol-based fuels unless the engine is designed with such a high CR that it would not operate safely on gasoline.
Unless the CR is also bumped up to burn ethanol or a mix most efficiently, you won't even be able to match the MPG of the same engine running on gasoline, regardless of how you tweak the spark and fuel-air curves.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)controls boost. Waste gate opened when using low octane gasoline. NOt that big a deal.
Honda has been selling two FFVs (only in Brazil where the supply of ethanol is adequate to make manufacturing these engines worth the investment) with engine controls which monitor the concentration of ethanol and adjusts accordingly (i don't think they are even using turbo-charging approach - probably use variable valve timing to control compression - intake valve opens a fraction of a second longer and you end up with a higher CR.). They can handle ethanol concentrations from 20% to 100% and get comparable mpg to gasoline only cars. Honda could teach "The Big Three" - LOL!
http://world.honda.com/news/2006/4060925FlexibleFuelVehicle/
The new Honda system adapts to different ethanol-to-gasoline ratios by estimating the concentration of ethanol in the ethanol-gasoline mix in the fuel tank based on measurements of exhaust gas concentration in the vehicle’s exhaust system. This provides the flexibility to adapt to ethanol-to-gasoline ratios of between 20% and 100%, while achieving outstanding fuel economy and dynamic performance on a par with a 100% gasoline-powered vehicle.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It only follows that at the same effective level of boost (in bars), the engine will get better MPG running gasoline because the laws of thermodynamics still apply in the same way at the same boost level, whether it be atmospheric or 1.5 bar of a current Indycar on a road course.
In the 1980s, F-1 teams were running upward of 2.5 bar using a gasoline-based concoction, and 1.5 liter engines were putting out 1100hp in qualifying tune. Of course, these grenades only last 3 laps. But that was enough for pole position if you were Senna or Mansell.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 23, 2013, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)
lower octane fuel (e.g. gasoline). Just the laws of physics.
Don't take my word for it read what the experts say:
Effective Octane And Efficiency Advantages Of Direct Injection Alcohol Engines -L. Bromberg*, D.R. Cohn*,**,
*MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center
**MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment
Cambridge MA 02139
http://www.ethanolboost.com/LFEE%202008-01%20RP.pdf
Direct Injection Ethanol Boosted Gasoline Engines: Biofuel Leveraging For Cost Effective Reduction of Oil Dependence and CO2 Emissions-
D.R. Cohn*
L. Bromberg*
J.B. Heywood‡
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
*Plasma Science and Fusion Center
‡Mechanical Engineering Dept. and Sloan Automotive Laboratory
http://www.ethanolboost.com/LFEE-2005-01.pdf
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 20, 2013, 09:33 AM - Edit history (1)
while Indy series alcohol engines are limited to 1.5 bars. By comparison, modern high-performance diesels routinely pull 30 peak pounds (2.0 bar.) Part of the reason that diesels can pull more boost is that diesel fuel contains 11% more energy than gas and diesel engines generally favor torque production and have much longer strokes and heavier reciprocating components with resulting lower rpms (and horsepower potential) than a similar boosted gasoline engine. Alcohol by comparison has 33% less energy potential than gasoline, so I would think an an alcohol fueled engine that operates at 2 bars plus to compensate for the lower energy potential would be very highly stressed (and short-lived), indeed.
Gale Banks has a very informative article on diesel turbocharging and he goes into some of this, here: http://www.bankspower.com/techarticles/show/27-why-diesels-make-so-much-torque
On edit: While we're in a practical vein, here's an article in HotRod about a comparison of using E85 vs 104 Octane racing fuel. Indeed, it does allow one to bump the ignition curve and increase compression/boost levels, but it does come at a cost of a 25% loss in fuel milage compared to gasoline. Some older cars will need attention to fuel system components to run E85. Flame travel is slower with E85 so there may be a problem with detonation, but that can be managed by shaping the combustion chamber and piston tops to reduce hot spots. Otherwise, this article says the 85/15 alky/gas mix works remarkably well for high performance engines. http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/hrdp_0801_e85_ethanol_alternative_fuel/viewall.html
PamW
(1,825 posts)Bill,
As a physicist with a doctorate from MIT, I object when someone attempts to bolster the credibility of their failing argument by stating, "Just the laws of physics", when it is clear that they have a very tenuous grasp of same.
The key factor here is that gasoline just has more energy than does alcohol. The hydrocarbon bonds in gasoline are just plain stronger and have more energy available than those in alcohol.
You seem to be confusing and conflating "octane" with "efficiency", which is a common misunderstanding.
The octane rating is merely a metric of how slowly the oxidization reaction takes place. Higher octane fuels can be burned with higher compression ratios without the pre-detonation that gives rise to "knocking". However, that doesn't mean that the higher octane fuel will be more efficient, or more powerful; it just means it burns slower.
Yes, the higher effective octane of alcohol means that you can use a higher boost and get more air into the cylinder. That just means that you can also add more fuel to get more horsepower from an engine of given displacement. But please, do not confuse or conflate that with efficiency. You only get that increase energy by putting in more fuel to be burned. That doesn't increase efficiency.
I concur that one can certainly get improvement in the burning of alcohol by modifying the software. Clearly software that is optimized for the combustion properties of gasoline will not be optimal for alcohol; which is what the team from MIT has shown.
However, that doesn't mean that alcohol is a "superior" fuel to gasoline in terms of energy content. It just is NOT; attempts to portray it as such by playing "fast and loose" with the laws of physics and thermodynamics, notwithstanding.
PamW
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)You sted: "However, that doesn't mean that alcohol is a "superior" fuel to gasoline in terms of energy content. It just is NOT; attempts to portray it as such.."
I think you misunderstood what I said in 33: I believe I stated in one of my comts the HV of alcohol and gasoline and stated that gasolinle's in higher.
what I did say in 33. was: "a higher octane, higher latent heat fuel (ehtanol, methanol) will always enable higher boosts than a
lower octane fuel (e.g. gasoline). Just the laws of physics."
I guess I should have said "latent heat of vaporization" or "ethalpy of vaporization" .. I was trying to keep it from getting too technical and with too much ergot.
The heat of vaporization is the amount of heat required to take a fluid from liquid to a vaporized state. This is something entirely different than Heating VAlue of a fuel.
I sure I stated several times here that ethanol (alcohol) has a lower heating value than gasoline. and I amaware this has to do with the strength of the electron bonds of the molecule under consideration. THank you for making sure I understood that though.
There is nothing "fast and loose" about pointing out that fuel's with higher octane ratings can burn at higher presseres without detonating - vs fuels with lower HVs.
I suggest you avail yourself of the writings of mssrs Cohn, Bromberg & Heywood. here: http://www.ethanolboost.com/Literature.htm
(links I formerly provided) before venturing to comment any more. IT's always a good idea to be familiar with the issue being discussed before commenting on any part of the discussion. Don't you agree?
singing off now.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 22, 2013, 08:14 PM - Edit history (1)
Bill_USA states:
singing off now.
Whatever you are singing; I hope it's a better tune to the nonsense you're attempting to peddle above.
Contrary to your condescending statement above; when you said "latent heat"; I knew EXACTLY that you meant "latent heat of vaporization". It' just doesn't make your case.
I have ZERO need for the remedial writings you link to above; I know this material and can computationally simulate it in more detail than is available in a web posting meant for the general public.
I completely understand that the higher octane rating allows higher pressures without predetonation.
However, one thing that the article in question fails to address is the changes in exhaust gas pollutants, as I see no measurements of those. Students of automobile history are familiar with the reduction of compression ratios, as well as the simultaneous introduction of Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) in the late '60s and early '70s. These were both done for the same reason; to reduce combustion chamber temperatures as a way of combating the emission of oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Although the reduced combustion chamber temperatures reduced NOx, they also increased the amount of unburned hydro-carbons (HC) produced. However, the industry had a solution for the latter; catalytic converters.
So the proposed scheme of effectively increasing compression ratios will also increase combustion chamber temperatures and the emission of NOx. The authors do not address whether their modified engine meets NOx emission standards which is doubtful.
As long as one is willing to allow violation of the rules concerning NOx emission, then Detroit and Japan can accomplish what the MIT scientists did in any number of ways. However, they can't put those vehicles on the street; so such a "solution" is pretty meaningless.
However, the place where you made your ERROR is in linking that to efficiency. The other posters were talking about efficiency and "fuel economy" which is NOT 1:1 correlated with octane rating.
In fact, there's less energy in high octane gas than there is in low octane gas. Provided you can burn it effectively; you will get better economy i.e. better mpg with the low octane vis-a-vis the high octane. The high octane gas has components with lower heat value.
You have to learn to disentangle your confused logic. You are equating things such as "latent heat" and "fuel economy"; when there isn't a 1:1 correlation.
Again, that higher octane lets you run your engine at higher pressures with higher boost, hence more air. However, you only get more energy out if you put in more fuel. So the higher octane gives you more energy per piston stroke; but at the cost of using more fuel.
The fact that you use more fuel to get more power doesn't necessarily mean you get better economy or "mpg" which is what the discussion was about.
You are in ERROR, 100% WRONG, and MISTAKEN. Accept that your ego is writing checks your abilities and knowledge can't cash.
PamW
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)What I said was that higher latent heat cools the air fuel charge and allows for a additional combustion chamber pressure (in this case supplied by the turbo-charger).. I have stated that higher octane allows the fuel to be burned at higher combustion chamber pressures without detonating. There is nothing incorrect in these statements.
Now, as far as the efficiency claim goes, I am referring to the work of Mssrs Cohn, Bromberg, Heywood, for that... it is their claim .. which Ford Motor co. confirmed when they made a prototype of their own. Cohn, Bromberg and Heywood state in the documents I provided you links to, which I believe you referred to a 'remedial writings' that the increased turbo-boost provides higher combustion combustion chamber pressures. The directly injected ethanol enables combustion at these higher pressures without detonation .. and as they state, enabling the achievement of greater efficiency (note downsizing plays a part with lower friction).
NOte, the achievement of greater efficiency is simply based on Cohn, Bromberg and Heywood's modeling and by empirical testing by Ford Motor co.
I refer you to the source material:
[link: http://www.ethanolboost.com/LFEE-2005-01.pdf|Direct Injection Ethanol Boosted Gasoline Engines: Biofuel Leveraging For Cost Effective Reduction of Oil Dependence and CO2 Emissions]
D.R. Cohn*
L. Bromberg*
J.B. Heywood‡
http://www.ethanolboost.com/LFEE-2005-01.pdf
[font size="3"]Abstract
Ethanol biofuel could play an important role in reducing petroleum consumption by
enabling a substantial increase in the[font size="5"] fuel efficiency [/font]of gasoline engine vehicles. This ethanol boosted engine concept uses a small amount ethanol to increase the efficiency of use of a much larger amount of gasoline [font color="blue"](relative to the volume of Ethanol being used_Bill USA)[/font] by approximately 30%.
...The concept uses appropriately controlled direct injection of ethanol
into the engine cylinders. The direct injection provides suppression of engine knock at
high pressure. This allows high pressure operation of a much smaller, highly
turbocharged engine with the same performance as a larger engine. The engine can also
use a higher compression ratio. The engine downsizing and higher compression ratio[font size="5"]
results in a large increase in fuel efficiency[/font].[/font]
NOte that increase fuel efficiency is stated as the[font size="3"] result[/font] of engine downsizing and higher compression operation.
All I am doing is reporting on the claims of Cohn, Bromberg and Heywood (confirmed by Ford Motor Co.). If you think they are all wet, or confusing octane and latent heat with efficiency - why don't you scream at them.
If we are agreed that higher octane rating allows for combustion at higher pressures and that higher latent heat cools the combustion chamber - which enables greater combustion chamber pressures (by soaking up someof the heat induced by higher pressures) and if you can see that I am just reporting what the three eminent professors at MIT have said, then I don't see what the problem is.
...unless, you just have a need to have the last word....
PamW
(1,825 posts)Bill,
The problem I have is your interpretation. The other posters were claiming this doesn't give greater efficiency; and you countered their claims with the latent heat argument. THAT is where you are effectively claiming that efficiency and latent heat go together; otherwise the latent heat argument is not a counter to the claims of efficiency.
Again, I have no problem with the claims of the scientists. What I am pointing out is that we KNOW we could have better gasoline efficiency with greater compression ratios; but BY LAW we purposefully SACRIFICED that potential increase in efficiency because it comes at a cost of great NOx emissions.
So for the noble cause of reducing NOx emissions; we sacrificed efficiency. Sure we could get it back in any of a number of ways; alcohol coupled with turbo-chargers being just one. However, we aren't going to get that without changing the Clean Air Act regulations to allow the production of more NOx.
PamW
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)you say I said that I "countered their claims with the latent heat argument."
.. you mysteriously missed the fact that I first pointed out the higher compression combustion without detonation was possible with ethanol because of its higher octane number. THis was long before I also added that ethanol's higher heat of evaporation helps with compression because it cools the air fuel charge in the combustion chamber (something also mentioned in Cohn etal paper). Notice Heat of evaporation and octane are two different properities..
First, when I provided a link to the Cohn etal paper, you referred to it, contemptuously, as "remedial reading". Now you do not question their findings but state my contentions are wrong. The only problem with your criticism is that my statements are identical to what they assert in their paper. - as well they should be as I am reporting on the findings in the Cohn etal paper.
here's my comment 22
[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #000000;"]
22. three MIT scientists designed a DI turbocharged engine with ethanol (DI) that gets 25-30% better mpg
than typical ICE on gasoline. But only about 5% of the total fuel usage is ethanol (it is directlly injected into the combustion chamber).
Ethanol injected into the combustion chamber enables higher boost from the turbo - not just because of higher octane rating (~113 vs gasoline's 86-94) but also because of ethanol's higher latent heat of vaporization cools the air-fuel charge in the combustion chamber. This enables higher boost pressures (the higher latent heat counter-acts the heating induced by higher compression).
see: Ford E85 Direct Injection Boosting Study: A Less Expensive Alternative to Diesel
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/04/ford-e85di-gasolinepfi-20090426.html#more
Here's a paper by mssrs Cohn, Bromberg and Heywood:
Direct Injection Ethanol Boosted Gasoline Engines: Biofuel Leveraging For Cost Effective Reduction of Oil Dependence and CO2 Emissions
http://www.ethanolboost.com/LFEE-2005-01.pdf
and here's a quote from the paper I referred to by Cohn etal:
Abstract
Ethanol biofuel could play an important role in reducing petroleum consumption by
enabling a substantial increase in the fuel efficiency of gasoline engine vehicles. This
ethanol boosted engine concept uses a small amount ethanol to increase the efficiency of
use of a much larger amount of gasoline by approximately 30%. ...
Page 1
Ethanol biofuel could play an important role in meeting these goals by enabling a
substantial increase in the efficiency of gasoline engines.
A substantial increase in gasoline engine efficiency can potentially be achieved by use of
a strongly turbocharged small engine to match the performance of a much larger engine.
The aggressive turbocharging (or supercharging) provides increased boosting of naturally
aspirated cylinder pressure. The engine thus produces increased torque and power when
needed1. This downsized engine at the loads used in typical urban driving has a higher
efficiency due to its low friction while providing the maximum torque and power
capability of a much larger engine. Engine efficiency can also be increased by use of
higher compression ratio.
~`
~~
page 3
Ethanol has a high fuel octane number (a blending octane number of 110) 2. Moreover,
appropriate direct injection of ethanol can provide an even larger additional knock
suppression effect due to the substantial air charge cooling resulting from[font size="red"] its high heat of
vaporization[/font].
The large increase in knock resistance and allowed inlet manifold pressure can make
possible a factor of 2 decrease in engine size (e.g. a 4 cylinder engine instead of an 8
cylinder engine) along with a significant increase in compression ratio (for example, from
10 to 12). This type of operation could provide an increase in efficiency of 30% or more.
Mssrs Cohn, Bromberg an Heywood seem to be making a connection between higher combustion pressures enabled by Ethanol's high octane and high heat of evaporation and higher power output allowing downsizing with friction and weight reductions all producing gains in efficiency of operation. Conclusions I accurately characterized in my comments.
Your personal brand of logic seems to allow you to assert "A" and "not A" simultaneously. The rest of us have to be content with conventional logic that does not allow asserting two mutually contradictory propositions at the same time.
madokie
(51,076 posts)it has direct injection and a 12 to 1 compression ratio so this should really make a difference with it. Its a flex-fuel engine and I tried it with E85 but it didn't seem to get as good of gas mileage. I'm not sure what to make of this article.
http://www.ford.com/cars/focus/specifications/engine/
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)studied to take advantage on the highoctane of ethanol. The reason the ignition timing had to be altered is that none (so far as I know) of the FFVs coming out of detroit are designed to do this. Thus, don't expect your Focus to achieve better fuel effiency (Then what the DOE and EPA says it will - not this does NOT say the study showed you could get better fuel efficiency with ethanol than gasoline if you make the same adjustments they did... only that the fuel efficiency of ethanol can be improved by dialing in spark advance.
NOte that most (if not all) cars sold for some time now, have RETARDED spark timing. This is to achieve more complete combustion to reduce GHG emissions while using low octane gasoline.
madokie
(51,076 posts)but the miles per dollar went up slightly. E85 is around a buck a gallon cheaper here than 10% ethanol is.
I was hoping that since this engine has a 12 to 1 compression ratio that the miles per dollar would have been better than it was. We're getting 31 mpg in our all around driving with ethanol so I'm pretty happy with that. Our Explorer was only getting around 16 - 18 mpg so this focus is a nice change
The last tank we were getting 9.73 miles per dollar where with the E85 it was 10.17 miles per dollar.
I'm more of a miles per dollar kind of guy as it gives a better picture of what it cost to drive than mpg does
My wife can go to work and back for three days on 1 dollar of gas.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)manufacuterers would set up the timing to change as ethanol increases in the fuel mixture. The table (I THOUGHT) I gave you a link to shows how much improvement they got with the cars they studied.
You will note that a small car, similar in weight to Focus experienced the greatest gains in miles per gallon - +37%.
Without modifications to spark timing you will not get the improvements gained in the study.
sorry, the system again screwed me by not including the link. here is the link 'raw' --
study link: http://www.fuelfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/White-Paper_GGE-Scientific-Report-final.pdf
go to page nine to see table showing results for ethanol powered cars.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Don't all modern engines with OBDII work on the same timing principal - advancing the timing until the knock sensor sends a signal to back off?
I live in the Midwest, and the majority of the gas I buy has at least 5% ethanol, and there is an E85 station, which I've tried. My car goes through a lot of gas - over 300k miles...one day the fuel line rusted through, from the inside, where it bends to the fuel rail. Re-stringing fuel line was a tad bit frustrating...and I blame the ethanol, quite frankly.
My other list of problems I blame on ethanol: two pushmover fuel bladders, riding mower carb gasket, chain saw fuel pickup tube, weed eater fuel pickup tube, practically new generator carb, and probably some other stuff I've missed. I bought a brand new mower, and the owner's manual stated that ethanol laced gas was only stable for one week! Good grief.
I wish ethanol worked out better...but frankly it doesn't. It does have less energy than gas, and it does give you lousy mileage. Yes, if manufacturers started making cars with higher compression, to essentially run Only on E85, that would change the mileage - but that will never happen. Here's why - ethanol will never be available in large quantity in some of the larger car markets, like California or the east coast. That's because it does not move very well in pipelines...so its mostly moved by truck...and mostly consumed geographically close to where the corn was grown. So, if the major markets couldn't all convert to ethanol, manufacturers aren't going to produce fleets that are specialized to run on ethanol.
I am intrigued by diesel...biodiesel can be traced back to origins of the concept of diesel. Biodiesel can be piped easily, the same pumps that dispense normal diesel can dispense biodiesel, as far as I know there is not limit to the proportioning and mixing of bio vs non bio, it is not more corrosive than normal fuels, and there have been some advancements in the fuel economy of diesels.
I really think the future will see more biodiesel and natural gas...but ethanol will never be a major player.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)this way we could get to say 20% to 25% reduction in oil consumption the cheapest and quickest way possible. You can replace the fuel cars burn faster than you can replace the cars that burn the fuel.
Now before you go ballistic, yes, of course all the cars made would have to be FFvs to take the 10%-15% methanol - this is not a technical killer. It can be done and much cheaper than it takes to build a hybrid - and to buy one!
We currently make quite a bit of methanol, spot price around $1.45 gal. We could invest in additional production capacity and make much more methanol.. Methanol is made from Natural Gas, but it can be made from many organic feedstocks (forestry products waste, agricultural waste materials - yes, only those quantities of materials NOT needed to be kept on the fields after harvest) - and it would be a renewable fuel. ORiginally getting a fast start making it from Natural gas would get us more energy security (mideast is sliding into chaos) more quickly than waiting for electrics to save us. Given a bit more time, we could make more from biomass sources.
In time we could replace a much larger percentage of gasoline than the 25% figure mentioned above, but with methanol and ethanol blended with gas we could protect our economy from the relentlessly rising price of oil and perhaps start to see some real economic growth. This would improve the employment situation and we would have more people well off enough to buy the more expensive options like hybrids and plug-ins.
Even though I write about this, I do not expect this to happen. People are too easily fooled by disinformation. We will wait for electric cars to cut into gasoline usage perhaps 25%, in say 25 yrs. Of course, the price of oil will have killed our economy years before that could happen and the planet will be blazing and the ocean fish populations will crash long before that will happen. but I like to write this stuff so I can say later: "I told you so!"
wercal
(1,370 posts)And go stright to the source - natural gas. This is a proven (decades) technology. Locally a NG truck fueling station is in thenworks.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Honda sells a NG Civic for about [font size="4"]$9,000 more[/font] than a standard Civic. any NG powered car involves more engineering challenges than one running on methano/ethanol/gasoline blends. For one thing it needs a tank that can handle NG under very high pressure (so that you don't get a fireball when you have a collision). You need the pressure to have enough NG to give you reasonable range.
Building the infrastructure to supply NG to millions of drivers would be a very expensive and time consuming operation. Far cheaper and easier to handle (distribution wise and in the vehicle using it) NG turned into a liguid fuel - methanol.
I am just going on memory here (couldn't find it by googling) but I read, some time ago, that Waste Management was building a distribution facility for a number of trucks they are going use that will be powered by NG. I think the cost was something like $17 million to build the facility - just going on memory.
The cost of the vehicles and time required to build distribution facilities works against you in the same way it does for hybrids and plug-ins. HIgher cost options mean people will adopt them more slowly. And we don't have 20 to 30 years to achieve a appreciable cut in oil consumption. We really are just about out of time as far as Global warming is concerned and the acidification of the oceans may lead to problems even before the planet's heating takes off on it's own - i.e. unretrievable no matter HOW MUCHGHG REDUCTIONS you can come up with.
USing methanol and ethanol to reduce oil consumption can occur faster because it's so much cheaper. There are no technical hurdles to be cleared making methanol and building cares which can handle it. It's relatively cheap (compared to hybrids and esp. plug-ins) to make FFVs which can use methanol/ethanol blends.
wercal
(1,370 posts)A coworker's brother had a NG kit put in his car for $2,000....and I've explored it for my car - would be about the same, 2 grand.
There really aren't any 'engineering challenges'. You put a pressurized tank in the trunk, and presto - you've got a dual fuel vehicle.
NG has become popular with people who off-road in their rock climbing vehicles - no problems with pickups in the fuel tank going dry when the vehicle is at a steep angle.
It is also becoming enormously popular with trucking fleets. They are realizing radical savings on maintenance, since the NG burns so clean and doesn't foul the oil. The oil change interval can be quadrupled, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Distribution is actually incredibly easy. Wherever there is a NG utility for heating, you can make a station. My company teamed up with a contractor, in an effort to procure and develop a local site, to become a NG fueling station for a factory trucking fleet. Our site lost out...but we were not at all limited in our site selection, by distribution problems. In fact, I can't think of many products in this world that have such a well developed distribution. BTW, wherever you live, if you google it, you can probably find a car fueling station....these are usually cardlock style stations, often at the offices of the local gas company.
I'm sorry but you last paragraph just struck me as not true at all. Ethanol is most definitely not cheaper than gasoline. For years federal excise tax subsidized gasohol over gasoline artificially, and any significant increase in ethanol use has been met with rising corn prices and shuttered ethanol plants. The whole reason you don't see millions of people using e85 is precisely because ethanol costs more. Period.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)CNG as an auto fuel[edit source]
CNG, or compressed natural gas, is stored at high pressure, 3,000 to 3,600 pounds per square inch (21 to 25 MPa). The required tank is more massive and costly than a conventional fuel tank. Refueling stations are more expensive to operate than LNG stations because of the energy required for compression. Time to fill a CNG tank varies greatly depending on the station. Home refuelers typically fill at about 0.4 GGE/hr. "Fast-fill" stations may be able to refill a 10 GGE tank in 5–10 minutes. Also, because of the lower energy density, the range on CNG is limited by comparison to LNG.
2012 Honda Civic - Natural Gas
Starting at $26,305[1]
2012 Honda Civic - Edmund's http://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/2012/
DX - $13,320
LX - $14,498
EX - $16,362
[font size="4"] okay, $10,000 to $13,000 extra for NG Civic[/font]
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Cost of Installation
Costs of installing natural gas infrastructure varies based on size, capacity, and the type of natural gas (LNG, CNG, or both) it dispenses. It also varies in the way the natural gas is dispensed (fast-fill, time-fill). According to a 2010 report published by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy, costs for installing a CNG fueling station can range from $10,000 to $2 million depending on the size and application. According to the Energy Information Administration, an LNG fueling site can range from $1 to $4 million.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Everything costs alot of money...doesn't seem out of whack with a conventional station. You know why a truck fleet fueling station is being built in my town? The owner determimed that the increase in oil change interval alone will pay for it in 7.5 years. NG is viable....your own link stated there were fourteen million cars in the world running on it. How many are running e85?
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)The major modification is a fuel tank. Thats it. I suspect the tank in the Honda is molded into an incredibly specialized shape to still provide trunk room. If I.settle for a round tank, the cost is as low as two grand...I've priced these things (thats if I.do my own installation),
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)
wercal
(1,370 posts)Safer than gasoline, right? You need a link - you already gave it..its in your Wikipedia article.
Now remember - I already know how to replace a gasoline line....errr...thanks to ethanol. I think I can handle strapping in a tank and threading some high pressure lines.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)in the Popular Mechanics article I referenced earlier they advise people pay a professional to do the installation if you do go that way. Replacing a low pressure gasline isnt' quite the same as installing a CNG system handling NG at considerably higher pressures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_vehicle
CNG, or compressed natural gas, is stored at high pressure, 3,000 to 3,600 pounds per square inch (21 to 25 MPa). The required tank is more massive and costly than a conventional fuel tank.
I just think buying a Honda Civic NG car is a better way to go than an add-on kit. (IMHO)
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)But there are some pretty extraordinary initial setup costs. A properly installed conversion will run anywhere from $6500 for a basic system to $12,000 for a top-of-the-line installation with a high-capacity, composite fuel tank. If you want a home fueling compressor, tack on another $3500 minimum. Even at the low end, you're looking at spending enough on the conversion to buy more than 1800 gallons of gasoline at today's prices.
Read more: How to Convert Your Car to Natural Gas - CNG Conversion - Popular Mechanics
Follow us: @PopMech on Twitter | popularmechanics on Facebook
Visit us at PopularMechanics.com
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)NDCF report: the hidden cost of imported oil
[font size="3"]
The National Defense Council Foundation (NDCF), an Alexandria, Virginia-based research and educational institution has completed its year-long analysis of the “hidden cost” of imported oil. The NDCF project represents the most comprehensive investigation of the military and economic penalty our undue dependence on imported oil exacts from the U.S. economy. Included in this economic toll are:
Almost $49.1 billion in annual defense outlays to maintain the capability to defend the flow of Persian Gulf Oil – the equivalent of adding $1.17 to the price of a gallon of gasoline;
The loss of 828,400 jobs in the U.S. economy;
The loss of $159.9 billion in GNP annually;
The loss of $13.4 billion in federal and state revenues annually;
Total economic penalties of from $297.2 to $304.9 billion annually.
If reflected at the gasoline pump, these “hidden costs” would raise the price of a gallon of gasoline to over $5.28, a fill-up would be over $105.
One striking figure was the cost of the periodic oil shocks the U.S. has experienced over the past three decades which NDCF estimates at from over $2.2 Trillion to almost $2.5 Trillion.
Prior to completion the study underwent an exhaustive peer review by a panel comprised of seventeen individuals with a broad range of expertise including representatives from government, industry and major environmental organizations.
In addition to detailing the costs of America’s import dependence, the NDCF report also outlines the benefits of shifting the U.S. transportation sector to non-petroleum derived fuels.
Also see:
How much are we paying for a gallon of gas?
Comparing the cost of ethanol in America to the Real Cost of Gasoline shows that ethanol is a bargain. This doesn't even take into account the cost of Global Warming as they come in now ( recoveries from disasters exacerbated by GW) and will only become much worse.
[hr]
[/hr]
Costs of Oil Dependence: A 2005 Update (prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/ORNL_TM2005_45.pdf
Abstract
For thirty years, dependence on oil has been a significant problem for the United States. Oil
dependence is not simply a matter of how much oil we import. It is a syndrome, a combination
of the vulnerability of the U.S. economy to higher oil prices and oil price shocks and a
concentration of world oil supplies in a small group of oil producing states that are willing and
able to use their market power to influence world oil prices. Although there are vitally important
political and military dimensions to the oil dependence problem, this report focuses on its direct
economic costs. These costs are the transfer of wealth from the United States to oil producing
countries, the loss of economic potential due to oil prices elevated above competitive market
levels, and disruption costs caused by sudden and large oil price movements. Several
enhancements have been made to methods used in past studies to estimate these costs, and
estimates of key parameters have been updated based on the most recent literature. It is
estimated that oil dependence has cost the U.S. economy $3.6 trillion (constant 2000 dollars)
since 1970, with the bulk of the losses occurring between 1979 and 1986. However, if oil prices
in 2005 average $35-$45/bbl, as recently predicted by the U.S. Energy Information
Administration, oil dependence costs in 2005 will be in the range of $150-$250 billion.
(more)
NOTE that $150 to $250 Billion for 2005 would translate into approximately an additional $1 up to an additional $2 the price of gas. Added to today's prices that would come to a final price for gas of from $4.60 to $5.60 per gallon.
Again, this makes ethanol a bargain in comparison.
[/font]
wercal
(1,370 posts)The price of ethanol at the pump is more. Period. Ergo, we dont have 150 million drivers buying e85.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)gallons of ethanol produced reduced greenhouse gas emissions from on-road vehicles by 33.4 million tons. That's equivalent to removing 5.2 million cars and pickups from the road for one year.
It also lowered the price of gas (according to Merril Lynch) at least 20%.
http://ethanolrfa.org/page/-/rfa-association-site/studies/MerrilLynchJune2008.pdf?nocdn=1
"On our estimates, retail gasoline prices would be at least $21/bbl higher on average without the incremental biofuel supplies. In particular, the surging ethanol output has contributed to temper prices in the Midwest (by $32/bbl) and in the East Coast (by $24/bbl) due to the greater availability of ethanol and the lower price elasticity of demand in these regions."
Since Oil was trading at around $110.00 in April of 2008 (rising from $103 at the beginning of April to $114 in the third week of April) (allowing at least six weeks of lead time to write and print the World Energy Weekly) that would mean Merrill Lynch was estimating that Ethanol was lowering the price of oil, on average, about 19%. In the Midwest that percentage would be 29% while on the East Coast it would be about 22% by Merrill Lynch's estimate.
we currently make a good deal more ethanol than we did in 2008, so the above estimate can be considered conservative.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 23, 2013, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)
Big Oil's Big Stall on EthanolAt the same time the industry is collecting a 51 cents-per-gallon federal subsidy for each gallon of ethanol it mixes with gas and sells as E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gas), it's working against the E85 blend with tactics both overt and stealthy. Efforts range from funding studies that bash the spread of ethanol for driving up the price of corn, and therefore some food, to not supporting E85 pumps at gas stations. The tactics infuriate a growing chorus of critics, from the usual suspects—pro-ethanol consumer groups—to the unexpected: the oil industry's oft-time ally, the auto industry.
Those who criticize the industry's stance see it as reminiscent of its attempts to discredit the theory that human use of fossil fuels has caused global warming. Mark N. Cooper, research director at the Consumer Federation of America, authored a recent paper characterizing the situation as "Big Oil's war on ethanol." The industry, he writes, "reacted aggressively against the expansion of ethanol production, suggesting that it perceives the growth of biofuels as an independent, competitive threat to its market power in refining and gasoline marketing."
~~
~~
One prong in the oil industry's strategy is an anti-ethanol information campaign. In June the API released a study it commissioned from research firm Global Insight Inc. The report concludes that consumers will be "losers" in the runup to Congress' target of 35 billion gallons of biofuel by 2017 because, it forecasts, they'll pay $12 billion-plus a year more for food as corn prices rise to meet ethanol demand. The conclusions are far from universally accepted, but they have been picked up and promoted by anti-ethanol groups like the Coalition for Balanced Food & Fuel Policy, made up of the major beef, dairy, and poultry lobbies. Global Insight spokesman Jim Dorsey says the funding didn't influence the findings: "We don't have a dog in this hunt."
Academia plays a role as well. There is perhaps no one more hostile to ethanol than Tad W. Patzek, a geo-engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley. A former Shell petroleum engineer, Patzek co-founded the UC Oil Consortium, which studies engineering methods for getting oil out of the ground. It counts BP (BP), Chevron USA, (CVX) Mobil USA, and Shell (RDS) among its funders.
Big Oil vs Ethanol - Consumers Union
Keeping the refining sector tight is not the only way Big Oil battles against ethanol.
The oil companies have substantial market power over the distribution of alternative fuels, as
a Wall Street Journal headline pointed out: “Fill Up With Ethanol? One Big Obstacle is Big
Oil.”
Yet so far, only a tiny fraction of U.S. service stations let a driver fill up with
ethanol. There are a number of reasons, but one big one is resistance from oil
companies…
Oil companies lose sales every time a driver chooses E85, and they employ a
variety of tactics that keep the fuel out of stations that bear the company name.
For instance, franchises sometimes are required to purchase all the fuel they
sell from the oil company…
Contracts sometimes limit advertising of E85 and restrict the use of credit cards
to apply for it. Some require that any E85 pump be on a separate island, no
under the main canopy.2
The reaction of the oil companies to the ethanol policy suggests that it could pose a
challenge to their market power. If so, consumers have a huge stake in the outcome of this
struggle. The stakes for consumers in Big Oil’s battle against biofuels is measured not only in
prices at the pump, but in the broader problems that the nation’s “oil addiction” causes
including dependence on oil imports and global warming.5 This paper reviews the serious
problems in the petroleum refining sector and examines some of the key aspects of expanding
ethanol production with an eye toward assessing the potential impact on consumers.
The oil industry threats to offset increases in ethanol production with cutbacks in
refinery expansion plans and policies to restrict ethanol distribution are serious and
demonstrate their unchallenged market power and their ability to limit competition which
could help consumers obtain lower prices for gasoline and diesel fuel. Refining and
wholesale markets have become so highly concentrated as a result of the merger wave of the
past decade that the companies do not behave in a competitive fashion.6 Eighty percent of
refining markets and 90 percent of wholesale markets in America are concentrated, according
to the Guidelines used by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC).7 Big Oil has the market power to impede the growth of ethanol or to make the
consumer pay the price in the Washington D.C. and on Main Street.
~~
~~
The fact that U.S. refiners are taking a larger share of the rents or profits is highlighted
by the much higher margins being earned on U.S. refining compared to the rest of the world,
The Wall Street Journal Noted, “Lately American refiners have made a pre-tax profit of
roughly $30 on each barrel of oil they use to produce gasoline, more than three times the
margin in Singapore, a major Asian refining center.”16 This gap has been growing over the
past half decade, as can be seen by comparing the income the U.S. majors earn on their U.S.
refineries to the income they earn on their non-U.S. refineries (see Exhibit 3). The gap has
been growing steadily as the industry tightened the screws on the U.S. refining market. The
difference has everything to do with the lack of competition in the US versus greater
competition in foreign markets.
2 Laura Meckler, “Fill Up with Ethanol? One Obstacle is Big Oil: Rules Keep a Key Fuel Out of Some stations; Car Makers Push Back,” Wall Street Journal, April 2, 2007, p. A1.
Laura Meckler, “Fill Up with Ethanol? One Obstacle is Big Oil: Rules Keep a Key Fuel Out of Some stations; Car Makers Push Back,” Wall Street Journal, April 2, 2007, p. A1
Exxon Mobil Corp.'s XOM -1.03% standard contract with Exxon stations bars them
from buying fuel from anybody but itself, and it doesn't sell E85. A spokeswoman for Exxon Mobil says it makes exceptions case by case.
Even if one is granted, the station must follow rules including one that says E85 must be dispensed from its own unit, not part of an existing multihose dispenser. "This minimizes customer confusion around vehicle compatibility issues and maintains product quality integrity," says the spokeswoman, Prem Nair.
A ConocoPhillips COP -0.59% memo to franchisees says the company doesn't allow
E85 sales on the primary island, under the covered canopy where gasoline is sold. Stations must find another spot. As a result, it isn't quite as simple for a driver to decide on the spur of the moment to fill up with E85. ConocoPhillips declines to comment.
A Chevron Corp. CVX +0.48% agreement with franchisees also appears to
discourage selling E85 under the main canopy. It says dealers offering alternative fuels cannot "deceive the public as to the source of the product," a phrase that some gas-station interests interpret to mean that E85 can't be sold under the main canopy. Chevron says it recommends, but doesn't require, that E85 pumps be outside the canopy.
(more)
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)The costs of Global Warming which fossil fuel usage produces is several orders of magnitude greater than Brazil's (oranybody's) subsidy costs of renewable fuels. Think of the cost of rising sea levels when they begin to make cities .. New York, London, Hong Kong, Baltimore, .... all those cities that will be threatened by a rise in sea level of 3 to 6 ft. The costs are going to be vast.
You are of the opinion that the current cash, or accounting costs of fuels is the complete picture and the only way needed to compare different fuels. You want to pretend GHG emissions don't matter. IF you believe this, there is no point talking to you. You are beyond the reach of rational argument.
We can hardly begin to comprehend the costs of rising seas, loss of fish in the oceans (ocean acidification) and the resultant loss of food for billions of people and the many other changes produced by rising temperatures (increased intensity of storms and drought periods).
The value of renewable fuels goes far beyond whatever the costs of subsidies are.
Just because some people don't want to see the connection between production of Greenhouse gases and Global Warming doesn't mean it does not exist. It does exist in the world that rational people live in.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)use it.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)to loan you the money.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)gasoline: all grades $3.63
E85 $2.95
http://e85prices.com/
http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/corn.aspx?timeframe=1y
http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/corn.aspx?timeframe=1yrn
Corn Prices over the last year are down 30%
corn Prices now are just a bit below where they were 5 yrs ago.
wercal
(1,370 posts)The.secret is out - people know the mileage is alot less. A per gallon cost comparison.is insulting to my intelligence, quite frankly.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)auto manufacturers don't do what the OP refers to in study. But at 20% less mpg and 20% less cost it sorta balances out.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)[font size="3"]Oak Ridge National Laboratory put hidden costs for gas of from $1.00 to $2.00 a gallon.
as OP makes evident, if the Detroit auto makers could make their FFVs more efficient with not that much effort. AND if the Detroit automakers could do what Honda has done with the two FFVs they sell in Brazil, the mpg would be comparable and the cost - even just using the stated prices on the pumps - would be cheaper for ethanol.[/font]
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)If our auto manufacturers were as clever as Honda then you would even see a savings from the ostensible prices that appear on the pumps - which in gasoline's case do NOT include all the costs of obtaining oil.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x276258
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Honda makes two FFVs for sale in Brazil that get comparable power and miles per gallon to gasoline only versions. ha-ha-ha.. what funny joke - ON US.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Miles per dollar on E85 went up compared to gasohol. With gasohol we went 9.73 miles per dollar, with E85 we went 10.17 miles per dollar. Pretty simple for anyone to figure out which is the better bargain by figuring their fuel mileage as miles per dollar rather than miles per gallon.
E85 is a quiet a bit cheaper by the gallon here in northeast Ok.
If our car could advance the timing a bit more for the E85 that figure would go up even more.
What the article is getting at is very true, the thing being if the car companies would build in more advance in the timing into the engine computer controls for the corn fuel we'd get better miles per dollar. Thats really what we're after after all, miles per dollar.
Our car has direct injection and a 12 to one compression ratio.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Ethanol lowered the price of gas (according to Merril Lynch) at least 20%.
http://ethanolrfa.org/page/-/rfa-association-site/studies/MerrilLynchJune2008.pdf?nocdn=1
"On our estimates, retail gasoline prices would be at least $21/bbl higher on average without the incremental biofuel supplies. In particular, the surging ethanol output has contributed to temper prices in the Midwest (by $32/bbl) and in the East Coast (by $24/bbl) due to the greater availability of ethanol and the lower price elasticity of demand in these regions."
Since Oil was trading at around $110.00 in April of 2008 (rising from $103 at the beginning of April to $114 in the third week of April) (allowing at least six weeks of lead time to write and print the World Energy Weekly) that would mean Merrill Lynch was estimating that Ethanol was lowering the price of oil, on average, about 19%. In the Midwest that percentage would be 29% while on the East Coast it would be about 22% by Merrill Lynch's estimate.
[font size="3"] we currently make a good deal more ethanol than we did in 2008, so the above estimate can be considered conservative.
on an annual basis that's about 134,000,000,000 gallons of gas at $3.60 for roughly, [font size="4"]$97,800,000,000....SAVED[/font] on all gasoline .
Or another way to put it: since ethanol brought the price of gas down at least 20% then the price, without ethanol supplying about 8% of the fuel supply, would have been $3.60(1/(1-.2)) = $4.50, giving us a savings per gallon of $.90.
Kindof makes the price of E85 seem like chicken shit doesn't it?[/font]
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)NYT said we should be paying much more for gas if all costs were in the price.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)adding methanol to the mix is the quickest and cheapest way to reduce our use of oil and increase our energy security and strengthen our economy. In the longer term, more methanol could be made for biomass feedstocks to make it a renewable fuel.
http://www.fuelfreedom.org/the-real-foreign-oil-problem/replacement-fuels/methanol/
◾Oil is the only source for gasoline we use today. However, methanol can be produced from an almost endless variety of materials, including natural gas and municipal waste, as well as renewable resources such as biomass.
◾Methanol can be most quickly produced at a large scale using abundant U.S. natural gas.
◾Methanol from natural gas can be produced close to dispensing centers in large metropolitan areas, reducing the need to transport fuel.
◾Methanol can be made from any carbohydrate, including biomass.
postulater
(5,075 posts)of 10% alcohol when I drove two hours to see my mother. Then bought regular unleaded and got 52mpg on the way back. Seems like the blend did better for me.
NickB79
(19,224 posts)I didn't see that mentioned in the article.
The reason I ask is that, if it is E85 ethanol, very few stations carry it outside the Midwest. If I, living in Minnesota, tweaked my car to run best on E85 ethanol, can it be easily switched back if I want to drive to, say, Florida for a vacation? If I run regular gas in an engine set up for E85, will it just get bad gas mileage, or will it cause any long-term detrimental effects?
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2013, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)
was the blend used.
see table at link:
IS THE GASOLINE GALLON EQUIVALENT AN ACCURATE MEASURE OF MILEAGE FOR ETHANOL AND METHANOL FUEL BLENDS?
wercal
(1,370 posts)It does not move very well in pipelines (because the water and fuel separate). So, its mostly moved by truck, and primarily sold in the region where the corn is grown. This is a huge hurdle to its ever becoming a primary fuel nationwide - which is what would be required, before manufacturers started making cars specialized to run on ethanol.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Ethanol from being more available. The more ethanol being sold (and blended with gas) means the oil companies are selling something they don't control the price of. They hate that - plus the fact that the more ethanol is made it cuts into the gasoline they sell.
Oil is moved around through pipelines, but all your gasoline is delivered to gas stations by tanker trucks. no different than for ethanol 85%.
Cars can be made to optimize for ethanol, and when not running ethanol they can adjust timing and turbo-boosting (if so equipped) for low octane, low power gasoline. .. But there has to be a market for it. THere has to be more ethanol. and we should be adding methanol to the ethanol gasoline mix.
but we won't. and before too long we will see our economy hurt more and more by the increasing high price of oil/gasoline. With constrained growth there will be stubbornly high unemployment rates. Under these conditions it will be even harder to get people to adopt the more expensive technologies of hybrids and plug-in hybrids. And while we are waiting for those to produce a significant impact on gas consumption the Earth will burn and the ocean food supplies will collapse.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Stopping an ethanol plant, because from where I sit (and I sit as somebody involved in attempting to get zoning and water rights for a plant a few years ago), communities were giving tax incentives for plants.
And bang, the bottom dropped out when the price of corn went up. The plant I was working on was abandoned...and other plants closed.
Corn prices stunted ethanol production...not lobbying. And how would lobbying explain the regionalization of ethanol anyway.
As to piping, oil can be piped across the land to local refineries. No aspect of ethanol production except water can be transported by pipeline...making it a very local product...a flaw that will never change...and a flaw that gasoline does not suffer from.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)time. This is a rather big subject which really deserves a thread of its own but I'll give you a couple links to articles in the press that touch on this:
Big Oil's Big Stall on Ethanol - BusinessWeek
Those who criticize the industry's stance see it as reminiscent of its attempts to discredit the theory that human use of fossil fuels has caused global warming. Mark N. Cooper, research director at the Consumer Federation of America, authored a recent paper characterizing the situation as "Big Oil's war on ethanol." The industry, he writes, "reacted aggressively against the expansion of ethanol production, suggesting that it perceives the growth of biofuels as an independent, competitive threat to its market power in refining and gasoline marketing."
The industry collects the subsidies, but didn't lobby for them—Congress created them to encourage a larger ethanol market. While oil reps say they aren't anti-ethanol, they are candid about disliking E85. Says Al Mannato of the American Petroleum Institute (API), the chief trade group for oil and natural-gas companies: "We think [ethanol] makes an effective additive to gasoline but that it doesn't work well as an alternative fuel. And we don't think the marketplace wants E85."
One prong in the oil industry's strategy is an anti-ethanol information campaign. In June the API released a study it commissioned from research firm Global Insight Inc. The report concludes that consumers will be "losers" in the runup to Congress' target of 35 billion gallons of biofuel by 2017 because, it forecasts, they'll pay $12 billion-plus a year more for food as corn prices rise to meet ethanol demand. The conclusions are far from universally accepted, but they have been picked up and promoted by anti-ethanol groups like the Coalition for Balanced Food & Fuel Policy, made up of the major beef, dairy, and poultry lobbies. Global Insight spokesman Jim Dorsey says the funding didn't influence the findings: "We don't have a dog in this hunt."
Academia plays a role as well. There is perhaps no one more hostile to ethanol than Tad W. Patzek, a geo-engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley. A former Shell petroleum engineer, Patzek co-founded the UC Oil Consortium, which studies engineering methods for getting oil out of the ground. It counts BP (BP), Chevron USA, (CVX) Mobil USA, and Shell (RDS) among its funders. A widely cited 2005 paper by Patzek and Cornell University professor David Pimentel concluded that ethanol takes 29% more energy to produce than it supplies—the most severe indictment of the biofuel. Michael Wang, vehicle and fuel-systems analyst at the Energy Dept.'s Argonne National Laboratory, says among several flaws in the study is the use of old data and the overestimation of corn farm energy use by 34%. Pimentel defends the study. In a recent update, he and Patzek hiked the estimate of ethanol's energy deficit to 43%.
(more)
..NOTE: Pimentel and Patzek's 'studies' have been roundly debunked and they have been exposed as frauds by legitimate researchers (Bruce Dale, Michigan State University, Michael Wang, Argonne National Laboratory - U.S. Dept of Energy, to name a couple) but they created a lot of confusion which still exists in the minds of those lacking the time of inclination to look into this fairly technical issue. Rational people know that Ethanol has a positive energy balance (i.e. positive net energy gain) but the disinformation continues.
Big Oil vs Ethanol - Consumer Federation of America
http://www.consumerfed.org/elements/www.consumerfed.org/file/Ethanol.pdf
The oil industry threats to offset increases in ethanol production with cutbacks in
refinery expansion plans and policies to restrict ethanol distribution are serious and
demonstrate their unchallenged market power and their ability to limit competition which
could help consumers obtain lower prices for gasoline and diesel fuel. Refining and
wholesale markets have become so highly concentrated as a result of the merger wave of the
past decade that the companies do not behave in a competitive fashion.6 Eighty percent of
refining markets and 90 percent of wholesale markets in America are concentrated, according
to the Guidelines used by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC).7 Big Oil has the market power to impede the growth of ethanol or to make the
consumer pay the price in the Washington D.C. and on Main Street.
THE REFINERY BOTTLENECK
The problem that regulators and policy analysts have been exploring in the refining
sector for over half a decade has finally broken into the popular press. The problem in the
refining sector was succinctly summarized in the New York Times
Refineries are a choke point in the nation’s supply of fuel. Because they have
not invested enough in refineries to increase gasoline supplies, oil companies
have been unable to meet the country’s growing demand in recent years. That
has forced them to rely on imports, which are more expensive than fuel refined
domestically…
Until the mid-1990s, the United States had significant spare refining capacity.
But because of consolidation in the industry, the number of refineries decline
while unprofitable operations were shut. As demand, grew however, and
capacity remained flat, the picture changed. In recent years, refineries in the
United States have been running at or close to full capacity.
Domestic refineries can now process about 17.5 million barrels of crude oil
each day, much of it imported. But with consumption no close to about 21
million barrels a day, more imports of refined products are also needed.
~~
~~
The Department of Energy also noted that price setting was taking place in the tight
U.S. market. Things have gotten so bad in the U.S. gasoline market that even the Energy
Information Administration, in one of its weekly reports recognized that the tight U.S.
gasoline market may be “pulling up” the price of crude. “In other words, if U.S. gasoline
markets are tight, they may ‘pull up’ crude oil prices to a degree, given that tight downstream
capacity makes each gallon of product produced that much more valuable, increasing the
value of the crude used to produce the refined product.”15
(more)
Big Oil Wages War on Ethanol - Wired magazine
In case you think big oil is no more or less evil than any other industry, consider this: though its profits for the last three years have been the highest in human history, it currently collects $3.5 billion in taxpayer subsidies for mixing small amounts of ethanol with gas (E10). Those subsidies will double in three years. And yet the industry is doing everything it can–covert and overt–to kill off ethanol. "Business Week’s" David Kiley explores how it is funding academic studies that bash ethanol for driving up the price of corn and other foods. Failing that, oil companies refuse to support E85 gas pumps at stations. Oddly, automakers are usually the handmaidens for Big Oil’s wishes. Yet the Big Three have pledged that one-half of all vehicle sales should be flex-fuel by 2012. "Big Oil is at the top of the list for blocking ethanol acceptance by consumers and the marketplace," according to Loren Beard, senior manager for energy planning at Chrysler.
(more)
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2007/09/big-oil-wages-w/
The price of oil and farm commodities like corn, wheat, hogs etc has more to do with what the speculators are betting on than anything else.
http://brownfieldagnews.com/2013/04/01/ethanol-gaining-profitability/
Ethanol gaining profitability
April 1, 2013 By Bob Meyer Leave a Comment
Last week’s stocks and planting intentions reports from USDA pushed corn prices down on the Chicago Board of Trade and that could be a real shot-in-the-arm for ethanol. Bloomberg reports the cheaper corn widened the price gap between ethanol and gasoline to 72.69 cents per gallon in New York on Monday morning.
The price for May-delivered denatured alcohol dropped 6.4 cents to $2.369 on the Chicago Board of Trade. The April contract which expires Wednesday fell 4 cents to $2.411 a gallon.
The increased profitability of ethanol should prompt companies to restart at least some of the more-than-20 ethanol plants that have been idled around the country. On March 22nd, Valero announced they were going to restart their Linden, Indiana plant.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Spending by oil and gas companies lobbying politicians on Capitol Hill jumped a whopping 57% between 2007 and 2008.
The oil and gas sector paid out a total of $128.6 million in 2008, compared to only $82 million in 2007. According to research we compiled using OpenSecrets.org's database, this is an unprecedented rise in US lobbyist expenditures by the oil and gas sector.
In terms of lobbyist expenditures, the top 5 companies accounted for $72.6 million of this spending in 2008. In the year previous the top 5 spent only $38.76 million - a 53% increase in spending in a single year.
One Washington, DC insider says this unprecedented rise in lobbying activity is due the oil and gas industry feeling that they're in an "end game" with Congress considering a nationwide cap and trade policy and President Barack Obama turning his attention to alternative energy policies:
"This is an endgame for an industry that has fought tooth and nail for the better part of decade to ward off federal climate change and renewable energy policy. They're backed in the corner and there are lobbyists totally infesting the backrooms on Capitol Hill at the moment. This is an unbelievably powerful lobby and they're going all out."
(more)
wercal
(1,370 posts)Can you cite an example of when an ethanol plant was stopped by the oil lobby?
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)can detail it better than I can, they focus on keeping their stations from installing E85 pumps, and fighting RS2 and they trying to get the mandate of ethanol of 10% killed. This is one hell of a lot more efficient than focussing locally on ethanol plants.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=54348
and here for article from Wall Street Journal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=54460
wercal
(1,370 posts)Why does this surprise you. Burger King doesn't sell the Big Mac, does it? Seriously. If E85 is so economical, why doesn't an ethanol company open up an E85 station of its own.
It doesn't take a lot of active lobbying for an oil company to decline from putting E85 at their own stations. Its the reverse, in fact - it takes a lot of active corn lobbying to mandate that ethanol get sold at the oil company's stations.
"and they trying to get the mandate of ethanol of 10% killed."
How is this possible? You just posted link after link to studies telling me that ethanol makes gas cheaper. Wouldn't consumers be clamoring for E10? Why is the mandate needed, then?
The oil companies will not be able to stop a viable competitor any better than the print media has been able to stop the internet. If and when ethanol truly becomes more economical, people will fall all over themselves to use it. We aren't there yet...don't believe me - I'll take a photo of the empty E85 pump just down the road. And frankly I don't think we'll ever be there. I live in the Midwest...and the reality is that water is becoming more and more scarce. This isn't a seasonal thing - the aquifer we pump out of for irrigation is dropping quickly. Looking long term, say 30 years, our corn production will be down. And, as somebody who has actually applied for a water right for a failed ethanol plant project, I am very much aware of how much water the actual processing of the ethanol takes. The ability to secure and hold onto those rights for ethanol will become more difficult over time.
As I've indicated before, any meaningful increase in ethanol usage is met with built in factors that restrict its own growth.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)YOu are affecting ignorance as to the enormous costs of going into a separate industry - retailing a new fuel while operating the production facilities. Any business involved in growing its production operation isn't going to take on another whole task of setting up retailers at the same time. Big Oil started buying up retail outlets in the last couple of decades but that was after almost 100 years of operating the manufacturng/refining end of the business. Finally, in mid 1980s when they paid Congress to pass a low allowing them to integrate vertically they then began buying the pesky independent reatailers. The obvious benefit is to have tighter contro over pricing the product.
... also the Government made a decision that it would be more efficient to employ the already existing infrastructure for distributing fuel for light transportation than build a seperate infrastructure costing billions. THis would also be much much quicker way of making the new fuel available to buyers.
THe lowering of the price of gas is not apparent as we can't run reality for the last ten years - without ethanol - and then back up time and rerun reality with ethanol being in the mix. People do not have way of seeing what the price would be with ethanol present and with ethanol not present.
The oil companies are supplying a commodity - fuel to run autombiles and trucks. IF an alternative commodity is available it should be able to compete with other commodities (gasoline from petroleum) . Just as Microsoft was taken to court for not making browsers other that Internet Explorer readily availalbe to those who bought PCs. If Microsoft did not make these other browsers as available to consumers of their computer operaing system this is considered a restraint of trade. THus, Big Oil should make competing fuels available. THat's for E85. For blending the Government forced the issue on the basis that the ethanol was needed to bring down GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks.
wercal
(1,370 posts)The analogy is worthless.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)I think what you meant to say was "microsoft doesn't MANUFACTURE and sell computers"
.. In any case you would be wrong. The hardware manufacturer was IBM, the hardware was known as the 'personal Computer' . IBM contracted with Microsoft to write the operating system for the PC.
wercal
(1,370 posts)I'm going to let you in on a little secret:
Until very recently, Microsoft did not sell computers.
Got that?
Dell and Gateway sell computers. They opt to manufacture computers that run Windows...and they buy a product for Microsoft (Windows) to install on these computers.
Got that?
So what was the lawsuit about?
1. Microsoft was bundling IE with Windows, so that it was virtually impossible to by a PC without IE.
2. Microsoft was writing code to make other browsers less than optimally compatible with Windows.
I've tried to re-write your analogy several different ways...but its so very wrong, it can't be salvaged. But suffice it to say, contrary to your deluded belief, Microsoft (the gas station) was not forced to sell other company's browsers (E85) as part of their settlement. Rather, they had to make their code available, so third part browser vendors could make their products more compatible with windows.
My earlier analogy was much, much better. They don't sell Big Macs at Burger King. And nobody should force them to.
Now you seem to be fixated on the oil company's better distribution. So lets look at another analogy. There is a small chain in Kansas called 'Spangles'. It started here, and they probably have a half dozen burger stores. They have opened two in my town in recent years.
Why did they open their own stores?
To sell hamburgers, or course.
But why couldn't some judge force Burger King to give them floorspace? Its only fair - they already have the network of stores set up, they already have a brand name established...it would be just too difficult for Spangles to compete with them toe to toe. Spangles should sue, to get a little corner of every Burger King, for their own use. Then when they 'get off the ground', they can open their own stores.
That is ridiculous of course. Just as ridiculous as your belief that oil companies should be forcibly compelled to sell a competing product in their own restaurants.
Now Spangles continues to grow, competing directly against Burger King...the restaurants are only a few hundred feet apart in my town. How on earth does little old Spangles compete with the likes of big oil Burger King? Well, their prices are low and their product is as good or better than Burger King's. Two things - match 'em on price, and match 'em on quality. Ethanol does neither 
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)"The hardware manufacturer was IBM, the hardware was known as the 'personal Computer' . IBM contracted with Microsoft to write the operating system for the PC."
this is how IBM got into the desktop computer industry after Apple made it apparent that there were a lot of people prepared to pay a couple thousand dollars for a computer of their own.
Microsaft called their operating system "Windows"
in cmt 81. I stated the basis of the governments legal action against microsoft was that: [font color="red"]".. Microsoft did not make these other browsers as available to consumers of their computer operating system this is considered a restraint of trade."[/font]
you copied verbage that was appropriate "bundling IE in Windows" ... but the point was that they made it more difficult to access anybody elses browsers. Differeent terminology, Same meaning.
i guess I shoud thank you for repeating with some additional data re Dell and others. but it is 'entertaining' that you are pretending to tell me what I just told you.
You keep getting more imaginative I'll say that.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)81: obtuse arguments ignoring realities of starting a new product or integrated product delivery system (referring to your comment 80).
you said:
"If E85 is so economical, why doesn't an ethanol company open up an E85 station of its own."
YOu are affecting ignorance as to the enormous costs of going into a separate industry - retailing a new fuel while operating the production facilities. Any business involved in growing its production operation isn't going to take on another whole task of setting up retailers at the same time.
Big Oil started buying up retail outlets in the last couple of decades but that was after almost 100 years of operating the manufacturng/refining end of the business. Finally, in mid 1980s when they paid Congress to pass a low allowing them to integrate vertically they then began buying the pesky independent reatailers. The obvious benefit is to have tighter contro over pricing the product.
... any retailer of light transportation fuels must allow fuels competing with gasoline (e.g. ethanol) a fair opportunity to be sold. The retailer cannot refuse to make ethanol available without being guilty of restraint of trade.
your statement that ethanol should set up a whole system of retail outlets just for ethanol as well as building a manufacturing base for it - is of course ludicrous. We already have fuel retailers. They can make ethanol as well as gasoline available for people to buy.
But all this says nothing to refute the information I provided which attests to the fact that ethanol can give as good as mileage or better mileage than gasoline if the engine is optimized to run on ethanol. Engines can be set up to adapt to ethanol or gasoline with proper sensors operating with the ignition controls adn kept off if low octane gasoline is too large a component of the blended fuel) and if present, turbo-charger controls. (that is the turbo-charger can be engaged if the engine sensor indicates ethanol blend is being used.
Regarding mandating ethanol blends be made available the rationale for that law was to increase our energy security which is considerably compromised by our great dependence on imported oil as well as to reduce GHG emissions from cars and light trucks.
Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007
The stated purpose of the act is “to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.”.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Microsoft OWNS computers. they need them to write and test the software they are writing on.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)This is, at least in theory, not allowed in our system (although there of much of this going on that the government can't get to - due mostly to manpower needs).
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)From the first day that Jim and Bruce Vollan, owners of Midway Vollan Oil Company, Baltic, SD, installed blender pumps six years ago, E30 and E85 began “flying out the door,” Bruce Vollan told attendees at this week’s American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) Conference in Des Moines, IA.
And soon after the EPA approved E15 for sale in June 2012 (for vehicle models 2001 and newer), the South Dakota fuel station, located just north of Sioux Falls, began offering that as well. “It was an overnight success. We give customers a choice. That’s what it takes,” Vollan said. Offering E15 for a little over a year now, the Vollans report that it has become the second best seller after super unleaded (E10) gasoline.
The Vollans are independent or “unbranded” fuel retailers. In addition to the retail station, they own a bulk fuel delivery business. They sell unleaded gasoline, diesel and biodiesel blends as well as ethanol blends.
(more)
NOte this independent is much larger than most. They have a bulk fuel delivery business and are in a much better position to go their own way. They are much bigger and the fact that they handle a bulk delivery business puts them in better position than a strictly retailer of fuel. They could shift to another oil company if one gave them a hard time about selling Etanol 85%. So, any push-back from an gasoline supplier fails to materialize.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)the Consumer Federation of American
Big Oil's Big Stall on Ethanol
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-09-30/big-oils-big-stall-on-ethanol
At the same time the industry is collecting a 51 cents-per-gallon federal subsidy for each gallon of ethanol it mixes with gas and sells as E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gas), it's working against the E85 blend with tactics both overt and stealthy. Efforts range from funding studies that bash the spread of ethanol for driving up the price of corn, and therefore some food, to not supporting E85 pumps at gas stations. The tactics infuriate a growing chorus of critics, from the usual suspects—pro-ethanol consumer groups—to the unexpected: the oil industry's oft-time ally, the auto industry.
Those who criticize the industry's stance see it as reminiscent of its attempts to discredit the theory that human use of fossil fuels has caused global warming. Mark N. Cooper, research director at the Consumer Federation of America, authored a recent paper characterizing the situation as "Big Oil's war on ethanol." The industry, he writes, "reacted aggressively against the expansion of ethanol production, suggesting that it perceives the growth of biofuels as an independent, competitive threat to its market power in refining and gasoline marketing."
(more)
Oil vs Ethanol - Consumer Federation of America
http://www.consumerfed.org/elements/www.consumerfed.org/file/Ethanol.pdf
(emphases my own)
Keeping the refining sector tight is not the only way Big Oil battles against ethanol. The oil companies have substantial market power over the distribution of alternative fuels, as a Wall Street Journal headline pointed out: “Fill Up With Ethanol? One Big Obstacle is Big Oil.”
Yet so far, only a tiny fraction of U.S. service stations let a driver fill up with ethanol. There are a number of reasons, but one big one is resistance from oil companies…
Oil companies lose sales every time a driver chooses E85, and they employ a variety of tactics that keep the fuel out of stations that bear the company name. For instance, franchises sometimes are required to purchase all the fuel they sell from the oil company…
Contracts sometimes limit advertising of E85 and restrict the use of credit cards to apply for it. Some require that any E85 pump be on a separate island, no under the main canopy.2
2 Laura Meckler, “Fill Up with Ethanol? One Obstacle is Big Oil: Rules Keep a Key Fuel Out of Some stations; Car Makers Push Back,” Wall Street Journal, April 2, 2007, p. A1.
NOte that the words in the excerpts above are not mine. THey are the words of reporters for the Wall Street Journal and Busineessweek
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)(emphasis my own)
"The use of all natural resources, including water, in ethanol production is an issue the U.S. ethanol industry takes very seriously. That is why ethanol producers are researching ways to reduce water use. Those efforts are paying off. The average dry mill ethanol biorefinery uses 2.7 gallons of water per gallon of production - that's 47% less than in 2001. By comparison, it takes 40 gallons of water to produce one cup of coffee; 4 gallons for a pound of hamburger; 11.6 gallons to produce a pound of chicken; and 300 million gallons to produce just one day's worth of the newspapers across the country. (Waterfootprint.org) As the industry commercializes advanced and cellulosic ethanol, its benefits to the environment will improve further, protecting the planet and future generations."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_water_does_it_take_to_make_1_gallon_of_gasoline
(emphasis my own)
[font size="3"]HOw much water is used in making a gallon of gasoline?
This question can be answered in three ways. It takes 1851 gallons of water to refine a barrel of crude oil. One barrel of crude oil produces 19 gallons of gasoline and 10 gallons of diesel fuel, in this respect it takes 97 gallons of water to produce a gallon of gasoline. If you combine gasoline and diesel, it takes 63 gallons of water to produce a gallon of "fuel." [/font]
Oh, and regarding growing corn - 15% of the corn crop is irrigated. As more and more farmers are going to "low-till", or "no-till" farming techniqes this percentage will go down.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Its a matter of WHERE the water is used. And I have to tell you that I personally experience the tug of war between the very farmers who grow the corn and the ethanol plant. Locally the two needs compete with each other.
Having experienced devastating drought last year...I am skeptical that corn will magically become less irrigated.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)to supplant gasoline than we can get quickly from ethanol. we first can make methanol from natural gas, as has been done for decades. At the same time, expansion of manufacture of methanol from any organic source of material, forestry waste, agricultural waste should be expanded to replace fossil fuel methanol withe renewable methanol.
This is the quickest and cheapest way to cut our consumption of gasoline and petroleum, increaseing our energy security and reducing GHG emissions from the light transportation sector.
using natural gas in cars directly is problematic due to methanol emissions form BG vehicles.
Natural Gas vehicles Methane Emissions raises their CO2e emissions to >2x diesels - PennState
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112754698
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Proposed Hyperion tar sands oil refinery sparks cross-border controversy
http://iowaenvironmentalfocus.org/2010/10/12/proposed-hyperion-tar-sands-oil-refinery-sparks-controversy/
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)[font size="3"]"The list of participants' names and when they met with administration officials provides a clearer picture of the task force's priorities and bolsters previous reports that the review leaned heavily on oil and gas companies and on trade groups -- many of them big contributors to the Bush campaign and the Republican Party."[/font]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701987.html
(emphasis my own)
At 10 a.m. on April 4, 2001, representatives of 13 environmental groups were brought into the Old Executive Office Building for a long-anticipated meeting. Since late January, a task force headed by Vice President Cheney had been busy drawing up a new national energy policy, and the groups were getting their one chance to be heard.
Cheney was not there, but so many environmentalists were in the room that introductions took up "about half the meeting," recalled Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth. Anna Aurilio of the U.S. Public Interest Group said, "It was clear to us that they were just being nice to us."
A confidential list prepared by the Bush administration shows that Cheney and his aides had already held at least 40 meetings with interest groups, most of them from energy-producing industries. By the time of the meeting with environmental groups, according to a former White House official who provided the list to The Washington Post, the initial draft of the task force was substantially complete and President Bush had been briefed on its progress.
In all, about 300 groups and individuals met with staff members of the energy task force, including a handful who saw Cheney himself, according to the list, which was compiled in the summer of 2001. For six years, those names have been a closely guarded secret, thanks to a fierce legal battle waged by the White House. Some names have leaked out over the years, but most have remained hidden because of a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that agreed that the administration's internal deliberations ought to be shielded from outside scrutiny.
(more)
[font size="3"] Watch out those farmers they'll get us into a war to Free Iraqi Oil!!!!
P.T. Barnum said it: "There's a sucker born every minute."[/font]
Yeah, Right, LOL
DJ13
(23,671 posts)I imagine changing the timing could pose a problem in a state like California with their tougher emission regulations.
4dsc
(5,787 posts)Anyone have an answer?
newblewtoo
(667 posts)I suspect a hybrid diesel/biodiesel with direct injection of propane or natural gas for trucks and commercial vehicles. The upside to this? Proven technology that is non corrosive with a reduction of NOx, see the link below. Infrastructure is already in place. Willie Nelson and Hank Hill will be doing the Snoopy Dance soon. 
http://papers.sae.org/2002-01-1630/
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Similarly, the CH4 emissions are nearly 100 times higher for CNG, and methane has 10 times higher global warming effect than CO2. The CH4 emissions from the CNG vehicle lead to CO2 equivalent emissions of 1890 g/mi, compared to the 1785 g/mi of CO2 emitted by the diesel vehicle. If one uses the current EPA estimate for the GWP for methane of 20,3 then the CO2 equivalent emissions for the CNG vehicle are 3780 g/mi.
the SAE presentation was considering a blend of NG and diesel (for commercial applications only), so emissions would depend upon what the blend ratio was. But, methane emissions from NG combustion in ICEs is something that doesn't get much attention and seems like it should.
This sounds like it could be technically challenging in real world situations, requiring tighter maintenance requirements (esp. using propane). Truckers run very high miles and are known to push maintenance schedules to the max.