Another downside to E85

Then we'll start planting drought-resistant crops like hemp.

 

Ethanol is a big smoke screen! When you take into account the lower mpg's you get using enthanol I don't see how this saves any oil. I wish somebody good at math could figure out how much oil is used using regular gas vs. using ethanol. On GM's web site they give figure for using regular gas vs. using ethanol. Most of their cars get about 5 mpg's less using ethanol. I can't see how this is using less oil when the car has to burn more of the product in the tank????? using ethanol

 

Plus another downside is Milk prices, it cost more for a gallon of milk than it does for gasoline.
milk $ 3.87 whole , $3.49 2%, $3.28 fat free/skim



currently gas here is $2.55 a gallon and a barrell is $77 for oil?
the bad part is, I over heard a man in the grocery store say " at least gas is cheap now..." Wth. cheap , just what they want you to believe.

what math are they using now? when a barrell of oil was 65.00 gas was 3.25 now Wth

betcha the auto mfgrs are behind this with their lobbyist

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Aug 13 2007, 11:42 AM) [snapback]494705[/snapback]</div>

I would suspect oil companies have been buying up farmland. One day the crops will be harvested for fuel because there is more money to made compared to selling for food. Then we will have our version of the Irish Potato Famine.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(paprius4030 @ Aug 13 2007, 11:36 AM) [snapback]494778[/snapback]</div>

Using your numbers, and assuming a vehicle gets 15mpg on gasoline the math is pretty straight forward. . . .

After driving 90 miles using gasoline without any alcohol, the vehicle would have used 6 gallons of gasoline.
( 90miles / 15mpg = 6 gallons )

If the vehicle only got 10mpg on E85 (the 5 mpg loss you claim). . . .

After driving 90 miles using E85, the vehicle would have used 9 gallons of E85.
( 90 miles / 10mpg = 9 gallons )

Since E85 is 15% gasoline, the vehicle would have used 1.35 gallons of gasoline and 7.65 gallons of alcohol.
( 9 gallons X 15% = 1.35 gallons)
( 9 gallons X 85% = 7.65 gallons)

If we could assume that no fossil fuel oil was used to create the alcohol, then the amount of fossil fuel oil used to operate the car would have been reduced by 77.5%
( 4.65 gallons / 6 gallons = 77.5% )

That is how less oil can supposedly be used when the car has to burn more of the product in the tank.

Of course, whether or not the 7.65 gallons of alcohol can be produced and delivered to your tank using less oil than the production and delivery of the extra 4.65 gallons of gasoline is debatable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Aug 13 2007, 12:48 PM) [snapback]494784[/snapback]</div>

I'm tired of hearing about E85 and reduced MPG. Yes, with current vehicles from the big 3 the mileage on E85 is lower than with gasoline. However, it doesn't have to be that way. The Big 3 have done a very poor job of making E85 vehicles. Really all they have done is but a sensor in the fuel system so that the engine management system knows to richen the mixture when running E85 compared to gasoline.

To take advantage of the benefits of E85 you need to have a variable compression ratio. E85 has a much higher octane than gasoline and allows for a higher compression ratio. This higher compression ratio allows a great BMEP (Brake Mean Effective Pressure) which allows greater power and efficiency. The easiest way to accomplish this is with a turbocharged that allows variable boost values depending on engine load and fuel type. Do any of the current vehicles sold in the US have turbochargers? NO As has been pointed out, E85 vehicles tend to be large V8 powered trucks and SUV's with low compression engines. They use E85 to take advantage of the CAFE loophole and run quite poorly on it due to reduced performance and mileage.

What's my point? E85 can be a very effective tool used to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It is not the technologies fault the the execution has been poor due to US politics.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Aug 14 2007, 05:40 AM) [snapback]495286[/snapback]</div>

I agree whole-heartedly. In fact, if you have seen any of my previous posts on the topic you will see that I don't see any one technology as the solution to our energy problems. Conservation will have to be a HUGE part of any solution. However, biofuels will also be part of that solution as well. I don't see this as an "either / or" type of decision.

Corn is a poor feedstock for Ethanol and is only used as a handout to agrobusiness. However, it does not "compete with food" As I pointed out many times, 80% of all grain in the US is fed to livestock in a very inefficient process that gives us 99 cent cheeseburgers. We would be in no danger of limiting our food supply even if we were to divert 50% of grain production in the US to biofuels.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Aug 14 2007, 04:08 PM) [snapback]495601[/snapback]</div>

Ah milk, think of the children! Today on NBC had a story about the price of milk just this morning. It has gone from $3.30 a gallon to $3.60 a gallon in a year! It seems that ethanol production isn't the only thing driving up the cost of milk. It seems that as the populations of India and China become more prosperous they are eating more dairy products and we are more than happy to ship it to them.

Other factors:
The end of small local dairies that relied on grass-feed cows
An increase consumption of milk due to a successful "Got Milk" ad campagn
Inflation
Increased transportation cost due to the increase in gasoline and diesel fuel

If your going to blame ethanol don't forget to blame the tens of thousands of homes that are heated in the winter using corn pellet stoves. A friend of mine goes through a couple tons of corn a year heating his house in Tennessee.

If you want to save on milk drink powdered milk. It is just as nutritious and cost 1/2 as much. It also keeps about forever at room temperature until you mix it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 13 2007, 07:32 PM) [snapback]495144[/snapback]</div>

What about cars like the Volvo S40/V50 that are equipped with the T(urbocharged)5 engine? The Volvo S60/V70 also can be equipped with a turbo-charged engine. Oh, and BMW also uses turbo-charging on the 335i cars. Even the Pontiac Solstice GXP (and its Saturn compatriot) have a turbocharged 2.0Liter 4. VW sells a bunch of different models that are equipped with the 2.0Liter turbo 4. Actually, there are a lot of cars that are sold in the U.S. with turbocharging.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 14 2007, 05:52 PM) [snapback]495635[/snapback]</div>

and it tastes like s**t

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 14 2007, 04:52 PM) [snapback]495635[/snapback]</div>

It's weird how we feed our children milk, taken from another species in nearly constant lactation.

Very strange.

The big increase in dairy consumption came after WWII. Children previously were afflicted with rickets and it was a push by the dairy industry and our government to encourage parents to feed their children more dairy products.

Today, our generally overfed offspring are about as far from having rickets as one could get, I'd guess.

Besides, we actually may have to make compromises here. Cheap motion lotion or cheap food...maybe we simply can't have both all the time?

 

Actually, 1% milk is a very balanced drink, nutritionally. It has a good ratio of protein/fat/carbs. We drink loads of milk (1%) at our house. We get it delivered by a local dairy. It is VASTLY superior to the typical grocery store stuff (and it comes in reusable glass bottles). They don't use any of the nasty modifiers that are so common in cattle these days. It costs more, but it's worth it.

That said, ethanol will play an important role. The trick is to use it properly, as has been pointed out. Obviously, the corn approach is fraught with problems. However, like electricity, there are many ways to make the stuff. Dedicated energy crops, agricultural residue (think corn stover and the like), forestry waste, municipal waste, algae... Most of these are far better than corn. The problem is the cost of production. Since corn can't possibly fulfill our needs, we've got to look elsewhere anyways. Once these things are more profitable it seems likely that corn will fall out of favour. We have to get away from corn anyways. It's going to get increasingly expensive to produce as the fossil fuel inputs increase in cost.

Pinto, vitamin D doesn't occur in milk naturally does it? I think it's an additive. I guess the milk industry was the first to add it? If kids drank more milk they'd be a helluva lot healthier than they are now. WAY too many carbs (namely sugar) in their diets.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Aug 14 2007, 06:11 PM) [snapback]495758[/snapback]</div>

What about the FAT content????

 

The fat is bad, but it's not what's making our kids obese and diabetic. There's WAY too much energy in the food that a lot of kids eat. Then they sit on their arse playing video games and they don't burn any of that energy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Aug 14 2007, 05:31 PM) [snapback]495656[/snapback]</div>

I should have said are there any E85 FFV vehicles sold in the US with turbocharged engines. That was my point. I am aware that many manufacturers offer turbocharged engines. These engines would be very good candidates for E85. They would have similar performance and fuel mileage running on E85 as they do on gasoline. In fact, according to "Alternative Fuels Guidebook" by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) an E85 vehicle can achieve 103% of the fuel mileage that a standard gasoline vehicle if it is tuned to run on E85.