Some information on Ethanol

[Atlblkz06]

So the government wants you to believe that Ethanol is the new Gasoline. Well I don't think that's quite true because currently Ethanol comes at the expense of gasoline and I think we're getting RIPPED OFF. The text below is from BUSINESSWEEK.

Please let me know what your thoughts are.
Beyond high gas prices, why is everyone talking about ethanol?

It's becoming an increasingly important part of the fuel supply, and has the potential to become still more crucial. President George W. Bush and members of Congress have expressed support for ethanol use. And this spring, refiners in parts of Texas and the Northeast have been replacing a gasoline additive called MTBE (for methyl tertiary-butyl ether) with ethanol. MTBE, a chemical used to oxygenate fuel, can contaminate drinking water. And Ethanol which does not present the same danger, can serve the same purpose in fuel.

That's not all. The 2005 energy bill requires that the U.S. boost its ethanol production to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012, up from about 4 billion in 2005. This sounds like a whole lot of ethanol, but bear in mind, last year the U.S. slurped up almost 140 billion gallons of gas.

Are there any problems with ethanol?

Oh, yes. Ethanol can't travel in pipelines along with gasoline, because it picks up excess water and impurities. As a result, ethanol needs to be transported by trucks, trains, or barges, which is more expensive and complicated than sending it down a pipeline. As refiners switched to ethanol this spring, the change in transport needs has likely contributed to the rise in gas prices. Some experts argue that the U. S. doesn't have adequate infrastructure for wide ethanol use.

Also, ethanol contains less energy than gas. That means drivers have to make more frequent trips to the pump.

Doesn't producing ethanol on a large scale use a great deal of energy?
Yes. Some ethanol skeptics have even argued that the process involved in growing grain and then transforming it into ethanol requires more energy from fossil fuels than ethanol generates. In other words, they say the whole movement is a farce.

There's no absolute consensus in the scientific community, but that argument is losing strength. Michael Wang, a scientist at the Energy Dept.-funded Argonne National Laboratory for Transportation Research, says "The energy used for each unit of ethanol produced has been reduced by about half [since 1980]." Now, Wang says, the delivery of 1 million British thermal units (BTUs) of ethanol uses 0.74 million BTUs of fossil fuels. (That does not include the solar energy -- the sun shining -- used in growing corn.) By contrast, he finds that the delivery of 1 million BTUs of gasoline requires 1.23 million BTU of fossil fuels.

Producing ethanol could get more efficient soon as new technologies help farmers get more corn per acre of land and allow ethanol producers to get more of the fuel from the same amount of corn. The companies developing new corn technologies include chemical giant Dupont (DD (javascript:%20void%20showTicker('DD'))) and Monsanto (MON (javascript:%20void%20showTicker('MON'))), which sells genetically modified seeds as well as chemicals for protecting crops.

So where can I find ethanol?
There's a good chance you're using it already. It's mixed into gas in many regions of the country including the corn-belt Midwest, and states like California and New York which had already banned MTBE. The regions making the transition this spring are the Northeast and parts of Texas.

Cars in the U.S. can normally drive on E10, a mixture of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline, that is sometimes called gasohol. It's how Americans usually take their ethanol. Relatively few cars available here are "flex-fuel," meaning that they can run on much higher concentrations of ethanol. The fuel E85, which is 85% ethanol, is sold at some gas stations concentrated in the Midwest.

Is ethanol cheaper than gas?
Surprise, surprise, it isn't. The move this spring by more regions to use ethanol means that demand has spiked, driving up prices. On Monday, the New York harbor price was around $3 per gallon compared with about $2.28 for gasoline (before being mixed with ethanol). In other words, for now ethanol is helping to increase prices at the pump, not to push them down.

[alpine_aw11]

The ethanol movement=fail. I don't understand why people were ever so fascinated with it to begin with.

[Atlblkz06]

I've underlined the part that really concerns me. Yes I believe Ethanol is a JOKE unless we find a better way to extract it besides distillation (which involves boiling everything). Maybe the ethanol plants can work with nuclear power plants to use the surplus energy? (Instead of heating up lakes)

To be fair, refining gasoline also takes a huge amount of energy, but not quite as much as distillation of ethanol. Lets take a look at some numbers:

131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. That is a net LOSS of 40% in energy!

In sharp contrast, refining 1 gallon of gasoline takes only 17,070BTUs of energy to produce 125,000BTUs. The energy cost is probably greatly reduced by economy of scale, but the difference is too big to ignore for now.

[Atlblkz06]

Great, more bad news. This is from CBS
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/03/tech/main508006.shtml)

Factories that convert corn into the gasoline additive ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels "many times greater" than they promised, the government says.

In an April 24 letter to the industry's trade group, the Environmental Protection Agency said the problem is common to "most, if not all, ethanol facilities."

Officials in EPA's Chicago office, which oversees nearly half the industry's plants, are planning a meeting with company officials in five states to insist on changes to reduce the emissions.

"So far they've been quite amenable. They're coming in. They're aware of the issues," said Cynthia King, an EPA attorney.

The government's crackdown comes while the ethanol industry presses to significantly expand production as many states phase out another widely used fuel additive, MTBE, because it is polluting water supplies. Last week the Senate passed legislation at the behest of farm groups that would more than double ethanol use by 2010.

"One of the benefits of engaging the industry on this is that they are in a very aggressive growth mode right now," said George Czerniak, chief of the air enforcement and compliance assurance branch in EPA's Chicago office.

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) being released by the ethanol plants include formaldehyde and acetic acid, both carcinogens. Methanol, although not known to cause cancer, also is classified as a hazardous pollutant.

The fumes are produced when fermented corn mash is dried for sale as a supplement for livestock feed. Devices known as thermal oxidizers can be attached to the plants to burn off the dangerous gases.

Recent tests have found VOC emissions ranging from 120 tons a year, for some of the smallest plants, up to 1,000 tons annually, agency officials said. It isn't known whether the chemicals are hazardous to nearby residents, they said.

When the plants were built, many reported VOC emissions well below 100 tons a year, allowing them to bypass a lengthy and stringent EPA permitting process. Plants with emissions above 100 tons annually are classified as "major sources" of pollution under the Clean Air Act and are more heavily regulated.

States started measuring VOC emissions at ethanol plants about a year ago following complaints of foul odors. One small facility in St. Paul, Minn., had to install $1 million in pollution control equipment to reduce the emissions.

"To the extent that this new test procedure is identifying new VOC emissions, the industry has certainly agreed to address those," said Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, the recipient of EPA's letter.

There are 61 ethanol plants, primarily in the Midwest, producing 2.3 billion gallons a year, and another 14 under construction. By the end of next year, the industry's output is expected to reach 3 billion gallons.

EPA's Chicago region oversees 25 plants in Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana. The agency's Kansas City regional office, responsible for Iowa and Nebraska, two other big ethanol producing states, is still gathering test results. Agency officials there have not said what they will do.

Most ethanol facilities are in rural areas. One that's not, the Gopher State Ethanol plant in St. Paul, Minn., has been the target of complaints from nearby residents. A neighborhood group settled a lawsuit against the company last month.

When the plants were built, it was thought methanol and ethanol would be the major pollutants, said Jim Warner, an official with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

As a gasoline additive, ethanol is seen by environmentalists as having pluses and minuses. Because it is more volatile than other additives, such as MTBE, it increases the release of VOCs from cars. At the same time, it reduces tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide and other toxins.

[Black R]

wow, that cbs article is from may of 2002. a LOT has changed since then.

As I posted in that other thread:


How old is that article you posted? It has gasoline at $2/gallon?

So once again I think there are people looking at e85 thinking their mpg will increase or it will be significantly cheaper to run their vehicle on it. I don't see anyone here saying that.

I am saying that I can get 105 octane at the pump, at about the same operating cost, and it isn't as dependant on foreign oil. It is more detonation resistant, and burns cleaner so as to not damage the ozone layer.
I also don't think the price on it will go up as much as say gasoline.

[Atlblkz06]

I hope things have changed! But I've yet to see anything in the papers about an ethanol break-though lol.

I wish they'd give us some numbers to work with but they're so tight lipped about everything.

Damn politicians!

[twinj]

Where are the Ethanol filling stations. I google them and everything.....Nothing

[thegreatfnr]

Where are the Ethanol filling stations. I google them and everything.....Nothinghttp://www.e85refueling.com/locations.php?state=gaGeorgia&PHPSESSID=1d2adcc6ecedd0e793532d9e753a9493

[twinj]

http://www.e85refueling.com/locations.php?state=gaGeorgia&PHPSESSID=1d2adcc6ecedd0e793532d9e753a9493

Thanks my good man!!!

[thegreatfnr]

Thanks my good man!!!
No problem

:boobies:

[Atlblkz06]

2007 Long Term Comparison by Edmunds.com
(http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/article.html)

The Final Score — Fuel Economy and Cost
After refueling we put the fuel amounts and the prices paid into a spreadsheet and compiled a clear, side-by-side comparison for both fuel consumption and cost. Remember, these results apply only to this vehicle and to the prices in effect during our 667-mile test.

Gas Result: From San Diego to Las Vegas and back, we used 36.5 gallons of regular gasoline and achieved an average fuel economy of 18.3 mpg.

Gas Cost: We spent $124.66 for gasoline for the trip. The average pump price was $3.42 per gallon.

E85 Result: From San Diego to Las Vegas and back we used 50 gallons of E85 and achieved an average fuel economy of 13.5 mpg.

E85 Cost: We spent $154.29 on E85 for the trip. The average pump price was $3.09 per gallon

Gas/E85 difference:The fuel economy of our Tahoe on E85, under these conditions, was 26.5 percent worse than it was when running on gas.

A motorist, filling up and comparing the prices of regular gas and E85, might see the price advantage of E85 (in our case 33 cents or 9.7 percent less) as a bargain. However, since fuel economy is significantly reduced, the net effect is that a person choosing to run their flex-fuel vehicle on E85 on a trip like ours will spend 22.8 percent more to drive the same distance. For us, the E85 trip was about $30 more expensive — about 22.9 cents per mile on E85 versus 18.7 cents per mile with gasoline.

The Final Score Card — Performance
We were also interested to see if there was a clear difference in performance. Here, the news was better for the renewable fuel. While the test times were generally slower for E85, the difference was small enough to go unnoticed by most drivers. Despite E85's higher octane rating (103 here) the flex-fuel nature of the Tahoe's 5.3-liter V8 engine prevents it from taking full advantage.


Environmental Comparison
E85 is often heralded as a way to reduce air pollution. Since increasing concern about global warming has focused attention on greenhouse gases, we decided to track our carbon emissions during this test.

By relating our observed fuel economy to CO2 emission figures found in the EPA's Green Vehicle Guide we determined that our gasoline round trip produced 706.5 pounds of carbon dioxide. On E85, the CO2 emissions came to 703.1 pounds. The difference came out in E85's favor, but only by a scant 0.5 percent. Call it a tie. This is certainly not the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions we had been led to expect.

[Member31410]

Interesting info.

[Black R]

2007 Long Term Comparison by Edmunds.com
(http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/article.html)

The Final Score — Fuel Economy and Cost
After refueling we put the fuel amounts and the prices paid into a spreadsheet and compiled a clear, side-by-side comparison for both fuel consumption and cost. Remember, these results apply only to this vehicle and to the prices in effect during our 667-mile test.

Gas Result: From San Diego to Las Vegas and back, we used 36.5 gallons of regular gasoline and achieved an average fuel economy of 18.3 mpg.

Gas Cost: We spent $124.66 for gasoline for the trip. The average pump price was $3.42 per gallon.

E85 Result: From San Diego to Las Vegas and back we used 50 gallons of E85 and achieved an average fuel economy of 13.5 mpg.

E85 Cost: We spent $154.29 on E85 for the trip. The average pump price was $3.09 per gallon

Gas/E85 difference:The fuel economy of our Tahoe on E85, under these conditions, was 26.5 percent worse than it was when running on gas.

A motorist, filling up and comparing the prices of regular gas and E85, might see the price advantage of E85 (in our case 33 cents or 9.7 percent less) as a bargain. However, since fuel economy is significantly reduced, the net effect is that a person choosing to run their flex-fuel vehicle on E85 on a trip like ours will spend 22.8 percent more to drive the same distance. For us, the E85 trip was about $30 more expensive — about 22.9 cents per mile on E85 versus 18.7 cents per mile with gasoline.

The Final Score Card — Performance
We were also interested to see if there was a clear difference in performance. Here, the news was better for the renewable fuel. While the test times were generally slower for E85, the difference was small enough to go unnoticed by most drivers. Despite E85's higher octane rating (103 here) the flex-fuel nature of the Tahoe's 5.3-liter V8 engine prevents it from taking full advantage.


Environmental Comparison
E85 is often heralded as a way to reduce air pollution. Since increasing concern about global warming has focused attention on greenhouse gases, we decided to track our carbon emissions during this test.

By relating our observed fuel economy to CO2 emission figures found in the EPA's Green Vehicle Guide we determined that our gasoline round trip produced 706.5 pounds of carbon dioxide. On E85, the CO2 emissions came to 703.1 pounds. The difference came out in E85's favor, but only by a scant 0.5 percent. Call it a tie. This is certainly not the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions we had been led to expect.


Now THAT is interesting! :goodjob:

If I do the math for local gas prices using their approximate gallons used:
3.00 for e85 x 50gal = 150.00
4.20 for 93 gas x 36.5gal = 153.30

(Remember, there are those of us who have to use premium fuel and can take advantage of it; such as most turbo cars, high compression allmotor cars, supercharged cars, etc.)

E85 does win by a slim margin in cost and by a larger margin in octane rating. I actually expect E85 to be cheaper and cheaper compared to gasoline as a product of the war in Iraq. That remains to be seen, however.

Now if you run your daily driver on 87 octane, and it has a low static compression ratio, and it won't be able to take advantage of a higher octane fuel, then please stick to regular unleaded as there are no benefits to be had for you.

I hope not too many people start using E85, so that those of us who want it purely for a cheap and close 105 octane source can get it easily. :D