Bio-gasoline available anywhere?

Bob,
I agree with you that there should be widely available Bio-fuel. Kudos to your partner for actually making it; that's pretty hardcore! When I was home in Santa Fe for break, our Subaru Forester had a leaky tire- I got it fixed. I needed fuel after that, so I went across the street and that gas station by chance had this blue pump between the regular pumps. It said, "B20, E10, E85"; I was so excited! I ran inside to talk to clerk, unfortunately he was clueless, but he referred me to a series of information sheets; if you go to e10unleaded.com there are some interesting facts. I filled up the Subaru with 89 octane E10 gasoline (90% petroleum gas, 10% ethanol) for $1.99 (Regular 86 octane was $1.99). Right away I noticed that the car had a significant bit more power, but that there was a noticeable drop in gas mileage. For me, the verdict is still out- I know using fuel from Nebraska is better than the middle east, the emissions were lower (Ethanol burns cooler), but the gas mileage was lower. E10 gas yields no financial savings to the driver, and in fact lowers efficiency. I guess if you keep in mind that it's socially and environmentally better, it's better... We'll see what happens when I put it in the Prius...

Does your partner make B20 or another ratio? It's funny you say that he has a Jetta TDI wagon, because the guy in front of me at the pump had a Jetta TDI wagon. I didn't even think to hassle him for a second and ask him what he thought.
By the way, my two cents.... If HUMU is totalled; wait for another Prius. Hasn't your partner had a lot of reliability issues with the Jetta? I worked at a VW dealership this summer; they are terrible reliability wise! Plus, the diesel has sulfur in it, it's PZEV's antithesis! Those are just my thoughts... By the way I am not sure if the Seattle area has biofuel, but considering who lives in Seattle, I would be surprised if there isn't any.

I wish you happy driving and good luck with both of your highly efficient cars!

 

Since I have used over 187 gallons of ethanol in my two Prius, it's safe to say I'm familar with the stuff. E10 has been required in Minnesota year-round since 1997 and in the winter for many years before that.

It works well locally, where the crops are grown. In other states, ethanol is less likely to be financially feasible. It does reduce efficiency, but the tax difference balances that out.

I've never heard the power claim. Can you support it?

As for biodiesel, I am strongly against it until NOx emissions can be dramatically reduced. Regular diesel emissions are really bad in the first place. The fact that biodiesel is even worse makes it a horrible choice. Someday the prototype technology to make diesel achieve a SULEV rating may actually be made available in a production model. Then, I'll endorse it. Until then, forget it. Increasing NOx emissions (smog) is not a good idea.

 

John can we run on E-85 in the Prius? We have the ethanol stations in Colorado, but none that I pass on a regular days drive.. I'd love to go the extra step if my car will be ok with the fuel..

Bob here is a map from the National Ethanol Coalition, looks that they are as close as Idaho to you.

http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/E85/E85.html

Bob Andersen

 

Prius is not a FFV, so it cannot use a ethanol mix above 10%.

FFV is a bit of a farce. Minnesota is the national testing area for E85. Yet over all the years it has been here, I have only seen one person ever actually using it. And I have never seen an automaker advertisement for it. In fact, most people buying a FFV here don't even realize it. The automaker just builds it, then collects the emission-credit when the vehicle is sold. They couldn't care less if E85 is ever used in it. That's sad.

And since ethanol isn't a fuel used in Japan, nor is it even common in the US, it makes sense that Toyota hasn't seen a need to invest in it. They have found more effective ways to reduce emissions & consumption.

 

Here in Manitoba, I run Mohawk Ethanol Plus 90, primarily to avoid MMT in regular unleaded sold in Canada.

Performance wise and MPG wise, my Prius appears to be in line with what other forum members are reporting. I do know with my 2000 GMC Sierra, once the computer compensated for the higher octane, it got the same MPG on Mohawk gasoline as any other regular unleaded I purchased elsewhere.

Some antiknock additives, such as MTBE, appear to increase PM10 (Particulates 10 micron absolute) and/or decrease fuel economy. Makes you wonder at the rationale.

In the end I find it ironic that some "winter" blend fuels can increase fuel consumption or certain pollutants, such as PM10. How is that better for the environment??

I think biodiesel has a lot of potential, but it isn't fair to compare the biodiesel sold in North America to the biodiesel sold in Western Europe. First of all, our sulfur levels are +100 ppm, approaching 300 ppm, which renders any sort of post-combustion treatment iffy.

Diesel fuels sold in Western Europe have sulfur at 25 ppm, down to 5 ppm. At those levels, combined with a water-cooled EGR to control NOx, you can use a suitable oil crop source plus suitable cosolvent and not increase emissions, even manage to decrease overall emissions.

As an example, you can use rapeseed with methyl ester as a cosolvent. Or you can use ethyl ester as a cosolvent as well. Tests have shown an overall decrease in most emissions, with a slight increase in particulates (Treatable with post-combustion devices like catalyzers or filters):

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/produc...?osti_id=449147

Moderate heating of biodiesel can produce emissions of organics such as alkenes, dienes, aldehydes, methyl acrylate, and aromatics like benzene. The benzene can contribute to organic smog and the methyl acrylate is toxic in higher amounts. Of course, MTBE in gasoline is pretty nasty stuff too, along with MMT.

One thing that biodiesel shares in common with ethanol gasolines is that regular use promotes a very clean fuel system and motor. As an example, you won't get deposits in the injectors, and the intake valves and piston crown stay spotless. This helps maintain low emission performance for much longer.

One thing I don't see mentioned by opponents and proponents of "regular" vs "bio" fuel debates is the environmental source effects eg refining. You know, the refinery release of MTBE and/or MMT.

 

The one advantage of biodiesel is that it adds no net carbon to the atmosphere. This hardly seems to compensate for all the other pollutants. And at present I am in favor of global warming. It's COLD here, folks! So I say, lets get more carbon into the atmosphere, and do it quick!

As noted above, the Prius cannot burn E85. But that's no reason not to move toward vehicles that can burn 100% alcohol.

Consider the Stirling-cycle engine. Very high efficiency, and since it's an external-combustion engine, it can be designed to burn anything that burns, from hydrogen to alcohol to your grandmother's rocking chair. Its main drawback is a VERY slow response time. Well, you and I are driving a solution to slow response time: the hybrid. Of course, this would be a series hybrid: the engine would produce electricity and electric motors would propel the car. The battery (or maybe some day ultracapacitors?) would balance the load to compensate for the slow response.

You could have clean burning, very efficient transportation. Bio-alcohol or wind-generated hydrogen would add no net carbon to the atmosphere.

 

> global warmingglobal warming

Unfortunately, global "warming" is a very misleading term. It really means greater fluctuation in weather systems... which translates to storms being more frequent and more violent as well as lows being even colder.

> VERY slow response time

That's actually true for fuel-cells too. It's the reason why a pure fuel-cell vehicle is a poor design. Something else is needed, like a battery-pack or ultra-capacitor, to compensate for the lack of speed... exactly as you stated for the Stirling.

 

I think we all know that the fuel-cell car is a boondoggle. For GM it's a public-relations ploy against Toyota, trying to appear to be doing something, and playing down the Prius as a temporary answer (which we know it is: Toyota will be light-years beyond the '04 Prius decades before fuel-cell cars are more than a toy). And for the Shrub, fuel-cells are a way to divert attention and funding away from renewable energy.

The Stirling-cycle engine is a reality, and can easily be converted to burn whatever is available. Alcohol today, wind-generated hydrogen if that ever becomes available, or even coal when the oil and natural gas become too expensive to extract.

And you might as well wait until spring to try to convince me that global warming is a bad idea. Sheesh! Maybe I need to move back to Mexico. Alice Springs, Australia seems like a really nice place from where I sit right now.

 

"Biggest problem" is a question of perspective. Your partner weighs carbon high, and so uses a fuel that produces no net carbon. Some folks are more concerned about particulates and NOx, and so prefer to stay with gasoline for the time being. There's no right and wrong to this. Each person does what s/he can to address the issues he/she thinks most urgent, in a way s/he can live with.

If we were totally committed to being eco-friendly, we wouldn't drive at all.

I'm not willing to give up driving, but I live in a small city where I drive a lot less than many others. I lose the bragging rights on mileage (short trips kill mileage, and there are no long trips in Fargo) but I burn a lot less gas and pollute less than big-city drivers, with their long commutes.

 

I didn't. I was saying a Stirling-cycle engine could be powered by your grandmother's rocking chair. Assuming it's made of wood. And what self-respecting grandmother would use any other kind? Of course, soaked in 200-proof alcohol, the chair would burn even better.

 

I had a great-uncle who was himself powered by alcohol.

 

Harness him up and hitch him to the car, and you'd have an alcohol-powered car.

 

I don't know if it's just a rumor, but is there any truth to the story that as far as oil/gas company's go, BP is the most environmentally conscious? (Or should that be least environmentally damaged) I've had more than one friend tell me that they alwayls stop for gas at a BP for that reason. Are they full of huey?

 

Dumb (and slightly daffy) question:

As shown in this PDF article on biodiesel Nitrogen Oxides. (NOx)

Ummm... is NOx the same as nitrous oxide? ("Laughing gas"?)

I suspect not; but it does paint a rather rosy picture for the future. "Happy Americans", indeed!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bookrats\";p=\"86823)</div>

Jeff:

Sorry to say they're not. NOx, such as NO2, are acidic components that are the primary component of Acid Rain. They are toxic to humans.

Nitrous Oxide or N2O is used as an anesthetic and also to boost power in motors. It decomposes into oxygen and nitrogen, and the oxygen is what improves power in the motor.

You get more NOx emissions with higher combustion temperatures. You can reduce NOx by slightly delaying injection timing (Diesel motor), and with both gas and diesel motors you can dramatically reduce NOx with EGR.

Jay