Should switch gasoline to 100% ethanol
Rich
gasolines.
Bareback Insane O'bungler
> It's cheaper than gas now. It's used as a additive (up to 10%) in
> gasolines.
You switch, retard.
The sane people want noithing to do with your delusions.
Rich
news:4e304a36-f380-4b94...@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
Race cars run on alcohol. Tell us what's wrong with it, nitwit.
Bruce Richmond
> "Bareback Insane O'bungler" <barebackinsaneobung...@gmail.com> wrote innews:4e304a36-f380-4b94...@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On May 10, 7:37 pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> It's cheaper than gas now. It's used as a additive (up to 10%) in
> >> gasolines.
>
> > You switch, retard.
> > The sane people want noithing to do with your delusions.
>
> Race cars run on alcohol. Tell us what's wrong with it, nitwit.
For starters it is only cheaper because of subsidies. It draws
moisture out of the air and can cause corrosion in the fuel system.
When made from corn it raises food prices. As currently produced it
uses nearly as much energy to produce it as it contains. It only
contains 2/3 the energy per gallon as gasoline. Engines designed to
run on gasoline need adjustments made to the air/fuel ratio.
Find a way to actually make it cheaper (without taxpayer's dollars)
than gas and offer it as an option to those the want to try it.
Max
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:382e618c-acd2-4e3c...@j28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On May 10, 11:12 pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > "Bareback Insane O'bungler" <barebackinsaneobung...@gmail.com> wrote
> > innews:4e304a36-f380-4b94...@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > On May 10, 7:37 pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >> It's cheaper than gas now. It's used as a additive (up to 10%) in
> > >> gasolines.
> >
> > > You switch, retard.
> > > The sane people want noithing to do with your delusions.
> >
> > Race cars run on alcohol. Tell us what's wrong with it, nitwit.
>
> For starters it is only cheaper because of subsidies.
Wrong. Ethanol subsidies are paid AFTER the market price. As a kicker,
subsidies are paid to the blender (which is typically the oil refinery)
which means the subsidies are paid to Koch industries, or the oil companies
that blend ethanol into their gasoline.
No wonder these guys are making record profits these days.
Incidentally, I'm all for cutting subsidies on ethanol. It will increase the
price of gasoline a bit, but at least we will be working at a level play
field.
> It draws
> moisture out of the air and can cause corrosion in the fuel system.
Only if you are driving a beat-up old truck. Maybe it's time to get a new
vehicle ?
> When made from corn it raises food prices.
I challenge you to calculate what the price of an ear of corn should be to
produce ethanol at $4/gallon.
Hint : it's an order of magnitude lower than what you pay at Safeway.
> As currently produced it
> uses nearly as much energy to produce it as it contains. It only
> contains 2/3 the energy per gallon as gasoline. Engines designed to
> run on gasoline need adjustments made to the air/fuel ratio.
>
> Find a way to actually make it cheaper (without taxpayer's dollars)
> than gas and offer it as an option to those the want to try it.
It does not need to become cheaper. Free market forces dictate that in the
long run, ethanol pricing will simply follow the price of oil.
That's economics 101. Were you not aware of that ?
Max
Michael Dobony
> It's cheaper than gas now. It's used as a additive (up to 10%) in
> gasolines.
Dear ignorant one. E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) yields only about 70%
the MPG as straight gasoline or E10. It costs about 80% as much as
gasoline. That means it costs MORE to run E85. It is also subsidized and is
still much more expensive. Artificially relying on corn as the only source
of ethanol is also stupid as it is a poor source of alcohol and pulls corn
away from food production, increasing food prices.
matt_sykes
> It's cheaper than gas now. It's used as a additive (up to 10%) in
> gasolines.
Its interesting, if we can produce it in massive quantities. And
there is th eproblem. The associated land use will lead to even
greater surface temperature rises.
Bareback Insane O'bungler
>
> > On May 10, 7:37 pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> It's cheaper than gas now. It's used as a additive (up to 10%) in
> >> gasolines.
>
> > You switch, retard.
>
> Race cars run on alcohol. Tell us what's wrong with it, nitwit.
There is nothing wrong with race cars running on alcohol, shit-eater.
The sane people want nothing to do with your delusions.
Bareback Insane O'bungler
> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:382e618c-acd2-4e3c...@j28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 10, 11:12 pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > "Bareback Insane O'bungler" <barebackinsaneobung...@gmail.com> wrote
> > > innews:4e304a36-f380-4b94...@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > On May 10, 7:37 pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > >> It's cheaper than gas now. It's used as a additive (up to 10%) in
> > > >> gasolines.
>
> > > > You switch, retard.
> > > > The sane people want noithing to do with your delusions.
>
> > > Race cars run on alcohol. Tell us what's wrong with it, nitwit.
>
> > For starters it is only cheaper because of subsidies.
>
> Wrong. Ethanol subsidies are paid AFTER the market price. As a kicker,
> subsidies are paid to the blender (which is typically the oil refinery)
> which means the subsidies are paid to Koch industries, or the oil companies
> that blend ethanol into their gasoline.
Make shit up and lie, eh shit-eater?
Cite your delusions, turd.
> No wonder these guys are making record profits these days.
Your chimp messiah didn't fix that?
LOL!!! retards...
>[other lies flushed]
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
racist nutter
Bruce Richmond
>
> news:382e618c-acd2-4e3c...@j28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 10, 11:12 pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > "Bareback Insane O'bungler" <barebackinsaneobung...@gmail.com> wrote
> > > innews:4e304a36-f380-4b94...@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > On May 10, 7:37 pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > >> It's cheaper than gas now. It's used as a additive (up to 10%) in
> > > >> gasolines.
>
> > > > You switch, retard.
> > > > The sane people want noithing to do with your delusions.
>
> > > Race cars run on alcohol. Tell us what's wrong with it, nitwit.
>
> > For starters it is only cheaper because of subsidies.
>
> Wrong. Ethanol subsidies are paid AFTER the market price. As a kicker,
> subsidies are paid to the blender (which is typically the oil refinery)
> which means the subsidies are paid to Koch industries, or the oil companies
> that blend ethanol into their gasoline.
> No wonder these guys are making record profits these days.
Not sure what you are trying to say here but her are the prices for
E85
100% ethanol contains 66% of the energy of gasoline per gallon. E85
contains about 70%, so it takes 1/.7=1.43 gallons of E85 to equal a
gallon of gasoline. The best price spread shown at that site is $2.89
for E85 vs 4.02 for gasoline. $2,89*1.43=$4.13 and that is after
figuring in the subsidies. If there were no subsidies it would have
been more. At the other end we have 3.77*1.4=5.28 vs $4.03 for
gasoline. If ethanol was in fact cheaper as you say there would be a
lot more people using it.
> Incidentally, I'm all for cutting subsidies on ethanol. It will increase the
> price of gasoline a bit, but at least we will be working at a level play
> field.
The subsidies should be cut and the requirement that it be blended in
our gasoline. Without removing that requirement the end user has to
subsidize ethanol directly since he is required to pay for the
ethanol, whatever the price, in order to get the gasoline.
> > It draws
> > moisture out of the air and can cause corrosion in the fuel system.
>
> Only if you are driving a beat-up old truck. Maybe it's time to get a new
> vehicle ?
I have a new vehicle, and I have vintage cars and motorcycles. The
ethanol is particularly bad for the vintage vehicles where the same
fuel sits in the tank for a long time. I used to make it a point to
fill them at stations selling straight gasoline, even if it cost a bit
more. There aren't any of them around here any more.
> > When made from corn it raises food prices.
>
> I challenge you to calculate what the price of an ear of corn should be to
> produce ethanol at $4/gallon.
> Hint : it's an order of magnitude lower than what you pay at Safeway.
Face it, supply and demand says that using corn to make ethanol raises
demand for corn which raises the price. The countries we used to
export our surplus to feel it more than we do at home. Much of the
increase here is hidden in the cost of meat and things like corn
syrup.
> > As currently produced it
> > uses nearly as much energy to produce it as it contains. It only
> > contains 2/3 the energy per gallon as gasoline. Engines designed to
> > run on gasoline need adjustments made to the air/fuel ratio.
>
> > Find a way to actually make it cheaper (without taxpayer's dollars)
> > than gas and offer it as an option to those the want to try it.
>
> It does not need to become cheaper. Free market forces dictate that in the
> long run, ethanol pricing will simply follow the price of oil.
> That's economics 101. Were you not aware of that ?
>
> Max
Yes I am aware of that. It follows the price of oil because oil is a
big factor in its production. If it didn't require so much external
energy be put in, and it was cheaper as you say, then there is no
reason why it should increase in price along with oil.
Max
Only if you burn it in engines tuned for gasoline.
Ethanol allows you to increase compression, and thus obtain higher
efficiency and power.
Didn't you know that this is the prime reason that ethanol is used in race
cars ?
So your 1.43 number is disputable.
> The best price spread shown at that site is $2.89
> for E85 vs 4.02 for gasoline. $2,89*1.43=$4.13 and that is after
> figuring in the subsidies.
Sorry, but the $0.45/gallon blender subsidy does not apply for E85. That's
why E85 is comparatively more expensive.
Still a bargain (even without the subsidy) if you adjust your engine to E85.
Also, you are confusing end-user pricing with cost to the supplier.
Ethanol prices run at $ 2.48 per gallon (before blending credit) currently.
http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/ethanol/cbot-ethanol.html
RBOB gasoline runs at $ 3.10
http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/refined-products/rbob-gasoline.html
These are numbers before blender subsidies.
> If there were no subsidies it would have
> been more. At the other end we have 3.77*1.4=5.28 vs $4.03 for
> gasoline. If ethanol was in fact cheaper as you say there would be a
> lot more people using it.
Two things :
First, if you drive E85 or higher, you should reconfigure your cylinder head
to adjust for higher compression (and thus higher efficiency) which puts
your 1.43 number in dispute.
Second, if you drive E10 or less (which is what most of us do) then the
effect of ethanol is mostly as oxyginator. It makes your gasoline burn more
complete than pure gasoline, and thus even though ethanol has a lower burn
value, E10 will give you equal or more miles per gallon compared to pure
gasoline.
So there you go. In real life, your 1.43 reduction value does not exist.
Ethanol, either in E10 form in conventional ICEs or E85 in tuned engines is
valued at 1:1 with gasoline.
>
> > Incidentally, I'm all for cutting subsidies on ethanol. It will increase
> > the
> > price of gasoline a bit, but at least we will be working at a level play
> > field.
>
> The subsidies should be cut and the requirement that it be blended in
> our gasoline. Without removing that requirement the end user has to
> subsidize ethanol directly since he is required to pay for the
> ethanol, whatever the price, in order to get the gasoline.
>
Once again, I'm all for cutting subsidies for ethanol.
But as for the requirement to blend it into gasoline, I think ethanol is a
much better opion than the old MTBE as oxiginator, which was phased out
because it is a known carcinogen.
> > > It draws
> > > moisture out of the air and can cause corrosion in the fuel system.
> >
> > Only if you are driving a beat-up old truck. Maybe it's time to get a
> > new
> > vehicle ?
>
> I have a new vehicle, and I have vintage cars and motorcycles. The
> ethanol is particularly bad for the vintage vehicles where the same
> fuel sits in the tank for a long time. I used to make it a point to
> fill them at stations selling straight gasoline, even if it cost a bit
> more. There aren't any of them around here any more.
>
If you have a new vehicle, I'm not sure what you are so concerned about.
Ethanol is a good cleaner, which will potentially cause trouble in old
vehicles.
But newer vehicles do not have rubber or plastic packings in the fuel lines
that could potentially be dissolved by ethanol.
In fact, E10 is approved for pretty much all vehicles (and certainly new
ones), so you should not have to be concerned about issues at the pump.
If you intend to drive E85 or higher, you should get your engine adjusted,
so to take advantage of higher compression capabilities.
> > > When made from corn it raises food prices.
> >
> > I challenge you to calculate what the price of an ear of corn should be
> > to
> > produce ethanol at $4/gallon.
> > Hint : it's an order of magnitude lower than what you pay at Safeway.
>
> Face it, supply and demand says that using corn to make ethanol raises
> demand for corn which raises the price. The countries we used to
> export our surplus to feel it more than we do at home. Much of the
> increase here is hidden in the cost of meat and things like corn
> syrup.
Once again, why don't you calculate the difference ?
It's not that hard, and you will see that the houpla from media reports of
corn ethanol increasing food prices have very little basis in fact if you
think rationally.
>
> > > As currently produced it
> > > uses nearly as much energy to produce it as it contains. It only
> > > contains 2/3 the energy per gallon as gasoline. Engines designed to
> > > run on gasoline need adjustments made to the air/fuel ratio.
> >
> > > Find a way to actually make it cheaper (without taxpayer's dollars)
> > > than gas and offer it as an option to those the want to try it.
> >
> > It does not need to become cheaper. Free market forces dictate that in
> > the
> > long run, ethanol pricing will simply follow the price of oil.
> > That's economics 101. Were you not aware of that ?
> >
> > Max
>
> Yes I am aware of that. It follows the price of oil because oil is a
> big factor in its production. If it didn't require so much external
> energy be put in, and it was cheaper as you say, then there is no
> reason why it should increase in price along with oil.
Au contraire, my friend. Production cost of ethanol is virtually irrelevant.
If we can produce ethanol for $0.10 / gallon, it would still be sold for a
price linked to gasoline. The profits would be higher though, which may
stimulate more production. But gasoline market is so immensely large that
ethanol will not be able to affect the selling price for a long time to
come.
That's also simple economics..
Max
erschro...@gmail.com
Wow, I actually agree with you!
Bruce Richmond
The ethanol only contains 66% of the energy of gasoline. Optimizing
the engine for ethanol doesn't change that fact. Race cars have used
alcohol for a number of reasons. One is that alcohol contains oxygen
which allows the use of a richer mixture to produce more power.
Before the polotics of ethanol got involved the more common choice for
alcohol was methanol because it allows an even richer mixture than
ethanol. In either case more fuel is being burnt to produce the
increased power.
> So your 1.43 number is disputable.
Increasing the compression ratio from 12:1 to 16:1 gives a theoretical
gain of 4% in efficiency. In the real world it works out to more like
3%. So yes, I would go along with a 1.4 factor.
> > The best price spread shown at that site is $2.89
> > for E85 vs 4.02 for gasoline. $2,89*1.43=$4.13 and that is after
> > figuring in the subsidies.
Using a 1.4 factor gets E85 down to 4.04 (rounding down), almost equal
to gasoline in the best case state.
> Sorry, but the $0.45/gallon blender subsidy does not apply for E85. That's
> why E85 is comparatively more expensive.
Whatever, there are other subsidies that went into the growing of the
corn. If E85 is such a good deal why don't we see most every vehicle
that can burn it doing so?
> Still a bargain (even without the subsidy) if you adjust your engine to E85.
The site I listed gave retail prices at the pump. E85 is no bargin
considering the higher consumption, even with an engine optimized for
ethanol. The blender subsidy is not the only subsidy involved in
ethanol production.
> Also, you are confusing end-user pricing with cost to the supplier.
I pay the end user price. That is what I care about, that and how
much more is payed for with my taxes.
> Ethanol prices run at $ 2.48 per gallon (before blending credit) currently.http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/ethanol/cbot-ethanol.html
> RBOB gasoline runs at $ 3.10http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/refined-products/rbob-gasoline...
>
> These are numbers before blender subsidies.
2.48 x 1.4 = 3.47 Looks pretty even. Now figure in how much I paid
in farm sbsidies and higher food prices.
> > If there were no subsidies it would have
> > been more. At the other end we have 3.77*1.4=5.28 vs $4.03 for
> > gasoline. If ethanol was in fact cheaper as you say there would be a
> > lot more people using it.
>
> Two things :
>
> First, if you drive E85 or higher, you should reconfigure your cylinder head
> to adjust for higher compression (and thus higher efficiency) which puts
> your 1.43 number in dispute.
The price of ethanol fluctuates all over the place. Since the
blenders are required to include ethanol when the supply dwindles they
pay whatever it costs and pass the increase on to the consumer at the
pump. Percentage wise the increase isn't to great because the blend
is only 10% ethanol. But if you have modified your engine to get the
most out of ethanol you are stuck paying the much higher prices for
E85 if you can even get it.
> Second, if you drive E10 or less (which is what most of us do) then the
> effect of ethanol is mostly as oxyginator. It makes your gasoline burn more
> complete than pure gasoline, and thus even though ethanol has a lower burn
> value, E10 will give you equal or more miles per gallon compared to pure
> gasoline.
You need to spread some of that BS on your corn field. You can adjust
how much how much oxygen is available by changeing the air/fuel
ratio. You don't need to involve ethanol to do that. And you will
not get as many mpg using an ethanol blend.
> So there you go. In real life, your 1.43 reduction value does not exist.
> Ethanol, either in E10 form in conventional ICEs or E85 in tuned engines is
> valued at 1:1 with gasoline.
>
Like I said, spread it on your corn field. Physics and real world
testing says otherwise.
>
> > > Incidentally, I'm all for cutting subsidies on ethanol. It will increase
> > > the
> > > price of gasoline a bit, but at least we will be working at a level play
> > > field.
>
> > The subsidies should be cut and the requirement that it be blended in
> > our gasoline. Without removing that requirement the end user has to
> > subsidize ethanol directly since he is required to pay for the
> > ethanol, whatever the price, in order to get the gasoline.
>
> Once again, I'm all for cutting subsidies for ethanol.
> But as for the requirement to blend it into gasoline, I think ethanol is a
> much better opion than the old MTBE as oxiginator, which was phased out
> because it is a known carcinogen.
We don't need either one in there. The intent of the law as
originally passed was to add oxygen which would lean out the mixture
on old cars that were claimed to be running rich. In actuality some
were running lean in an attempt to meet the standards in effect when
they were made. Leaning out the mixture further caused them
problems. Newer cars with fuel injection automaticly richen the
mixture to compensate for the extra oxygen.
> > > > It draws
> > > > moisture out of the air and can cause corrosion in the fuel system.
>
> > > Only if you are driving a beat-up old truck. Maybe it's time to get a
> > > new
> > > vehicle ?
>
> > I have a new vehicle, and I have vintage cars and motorcycles. The
> > ethanol is particularly bad for the vintage vehicles where the same
> > fuel sits in the tank for a long time. I used to make it a point to
> > fill them at stations selling straight gasoline, even if it cost a bit
> > more. There aren't any of them around here any more.
>
> If you have a new vehicle, I'm not sure what you are so concerned about.
> Ethanol is a good cleaner, which will potentially cause trouble in old
> vehicles.
So you're going to ignore what I wrote about having vintage vehicles.
I also have a problem with paying more for fuel than I need to.
> But newer vehicles do not have rubber or plastic packings in the fuel lines
> that could potentially be dissolved by ethanol.
> In fact, E10 is approved for pretty much all vehicles (and certainly new
> ones), so you should not have to be concerned about issues at the pump.
> If you intend to drive E85 or higher, you should get your engine adjusted,
> so to take advantage of higher compression capabilities.
How high are you advocating?
> > > > When made from corn it raises food prices.
>
> > > I challenge you to calculate what the price of an ear of corn should be
> > > to
> > > produce ethanol at $4/gallon.
> > > Hint : it's an order of magnitude lower than what you pay at Safeway.
>
> > Face it, supply and demand says that using corn to make ethanol raises
> > demand for corn which raises the price. The countries we used to
> > export our surplus to feel it more than we do at home. Much of the
> > increase here is hidden in the cost of meat and things like corn
> > syrup.
>
> Once again, why don't you calculate the difference ?
> It's not that hard, and you will see that the houpla from media reports of
> corn ethanol increasing food prices have very little basis in fact if you
> think rationally.
>
How about you explain why supply and demand doesn't affect this.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > As currently produced it
> > > > uses nearly as much energy to produce it as it contains. It only
> > > > contains 2/3 the energy per gallon as gasoline. Engines designed to
> > > > run on gasoline need adjustments made to the air/fuel ratio.
>
> > > > Find a way to actually make it cheaper (without taxpayer's dollars)
> > > > than gas and offer it as an option to those the want to try it.
>
> > > It does not need to become cheaper. Free market forces dictate that in
> > > the
> > > long run, ethanol pricing will simply follow the price of oil.
> > > That's economics 101. Were you not aware of that ?
>
> > > Max
>
> > Yes I am aware of that. It follows the price of oil because oil is a
> > big factor in its production. If it didn't require so much external
> > energy be put in, and it was cheaper as you say, then there is no
> > reason why it should increase in price along with oil.
>
> Au contraire, my friend. Production cost of ethanol is virtually irrelevant.
> If we can produce ethanol for $0.10 / gallon, it would still be sold for a
> price linked to gasoline. The profits would be higher though, which may
> stimulate more production. But gasoline market is so immensely large that
> ethanol will not be able to affect the selling price for a long time to
> come.
> That's also simple economics..
>
> Max- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, I see, the greedy ethanol producers are allowed to make huge
profits while we are required by law to buy their product. seems to
me the first thing to do would be to remove *all* subsidies and then
tax the remaining profits. Some of the taxes could be used to promote
research into ways of producing ethanol and other biofuels that don't
compete with food production.
Max
Yes. From 90 % to 94 %.
> In the real world it works out to more like
> 3%.
In the real world we drive ICEs, which run at around 25% efficiency with a
1:10 compression ratio. Due to the shape of the cycle through the
pressure-volume diagram. Study that diagram for an ICE and you find that in
first approximation efficiency increases linearly with compression ratio.
You see that effect with diesel engines : the higher compression allows
efficiencies up to 50%.
To take your example, increasing compression to 1:16 could theoretically
increase efficiency from 25 % to 40 %, more than compensating for reduced
energy content of ethanol w.r.t. gasoline.
In reality, Saab (Saab biopower) built engines that are approaching these
efficiencies and Scania has an even higher compression engine that runs both
diesel and ethanol well above 40 % efficiency.
http://gas2.org/2008/04/15/scanias-ethanol-diesel-engine-runs-on-biodiesel-too/
Point is, an engine properly adjusted for ethanol can more than compensate
for ethanol's reduced energy content, and get to equal mpg's.
And since ethanol burns so well, you can actually get away with a smaller
engine to obtain the same power, which further enhances efficiency. Or you
can just take the extra HPs and outrun your neighbor's gasoline car.
> So yes, I would go along with a 1.4 factor.
So no, reality shows that factor is only applicable when you run ethanol in
an engine with a compression ratio set for gasoline.
>
> > > The best price spread shown at that site is $2.89
> > > for E85 vs 4.02 for gasoline. $2,89*1.43=$4.13 and that is after
> > > figuring in the subsidies.
>
> Using a 1.4 factor gets E85 down to 4.04 (rounding down), almost equal
> to gasoline in the best case state.
>
Once again, that's the worst case state. Not the best.
> > Sorry, but the $0.45/gallon blender subsidy does not apply for E85.
> > That's
> > why E85 is comparatively more expensive.
>
> Whatever, there are other subsidies that went into the growing of the
> corn. If E85 is such a good deal why don't we see most every vehicle
> that can burn it doing so?
Ah. Now we are getting somewhere.
Well, first of all E85 has not been around very long.
And it's price at the start of ethanol production was higher than gasoline.
And there is very little E85 outlet infrastructure in place (outside the Mid
West).
And since you need to rebuild your engine to take advantage of the
ethanol-gasoline price difference.
And since ethanol from corn will not scale to the size of the gasoline
market (simply not enough land available), ethanol so far is best blended
into gasoline instead of setting up a nation wide infrastructure that can't
supply more than a few dozen percent of the liquid fuel market, at best.
This could change once cellulose ethanol becomes cost effective. That fed
with biomass could be a serious replacement for a significant part of the
gasoline market.
So, that's why we don't see most vehicles drive E85.
>
> > Still a bargain (even without the subsidy) if you adjust your engine to
> > E85.
>
> The site I listed gave retail prices at the pump. E85 is no bargin
> considering the higher consumption, even with an engine optimized for
> ethanol.
You mentioned $2.89/gallon for ethanol, and $4.02/gallon for gasoline.
If you would drive that Saab or Scania I mentioned then you sure have a cost
advantage pumping ethanol.
The key is having the right engine, tuned for ethanol.
> The blender subsidy is not the only subsidy involved in
> ethanol production.
You have to be more specific than that. Are you talking about farmer
subsidies ?
And are you deliberately ignoring subsidies for oil exploration and
production or just conveniently ?
>
> > Also, you are confusing end-user pricing with cost to the supplier.
>
> I pay the end user price. That is what I care about, that and how
> much more is payed for with my taxes.
Then I also don't want to hear you complain about profits of ethanol
producers either.
>
> > Ethanol prices run at $ 2.48 per gallon (before blending credit)
> > currently.http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/ethanol/cbot-ethanol.html
> > RBOB gasoline runs at $
> > 3.10http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/refined-products/rbob-gasoline...
> >
> > These are numbers before blender subsidies.
>
> 2.48 x 1.4 = 3.47 Looks pretty even. Now figure in how much I paid
> in farm sbsidies and higher food prices.
Can you do me a favor and tell me which part of an ear of corn is used to
make ethanol ? And what happens with the rest ?
And can you then tell me how you can possibly think that food prices are
affected by corn for ethanol ?
And in case you continue to insist that food prices are higher because of
ethanol, then obviously the farmers still growing food will have higher
profits. So they won't need the farm subsidies any more. So let's eliminate
these as well. Added benefit right there.
Once again, calculate the price of an ear of corn for ethanol at $4/gallon,
and see how irrelevant your remark is.
Cellulose ethanol is the best option there.
But here is the thing : if that really works cost effectively, then it's
cost of production will be lower than ethanol from corn. So, those greedy
ethanol producers will again make huge profits.
Darn. There is no way around it is there ?
Maybe we should use the tax dollars from the greedy ethanol producers to
subsidize domestic and foreign oil exploration by these poor oil companies
that are barely making a living ? Oh, we are already doing that ? Sorry.
Max
Bruce Richmond
Wow, you really like to show off that you don't know what you're
talking about. Those numbers aren't even in the right ballpark. The
theoretical efficiency for the Otto cycle can be calculated using 1-(1/
r)^.4 Or you can use this handy on line calculator
http://www.engineering-4e.com/calc3.htm
Just go down to the Otto cycle, plug in the CR you want and click on
calculate. For 12:1 you get 63% and for 16:1 you get 67%.
> > In the real world it works out to more like
> > 3%.
>
> In the real world we drive ICEs, which run at around 25% efficiency with a
> 1:10 compression ratio.
In the real world those 25% efficient engines were the 7 or 8:1 CR
carburated smog engines. With modern fuel injection and engine
control systems most automotive engines are well up into the 30s with
some in the 40s. The reason I wrote 3% is because the real world
numbers are roughly 2/3 of the theoretical. Both efficiency numbers
are smaller by the same proportion, so there difference is also
smaller.
> Due to the shape of the cycle through the
> pressure-volume diagram. Study that diagram for an ICE and you find that in
> first approximation efficiency increases linearly with compression ratio.
I provided the formula above. It is not a linear equation. It plots
as a curve with deminishing returns, as can be seen in fig 3.11 here.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node25.html
> You see that effect with diesel engines : the higher compression allows
> efficiencies up to 50%.
>
> To take your example, increasing compression to 1:16 could theoretically
> increase efficiency from 25 % to 40 %, more than compensating for reduced
> energy content of ethanol w.r.t. gasoline.
I provided the the numbers above and it only gains you 3% of the 34%
shortfall.
> In reality, Saab (Saab biopower) built engines that are approaching these
> efficiencies and Scania has an even higher compression engine that runs both
> diesel and ethanol well above 40 % efficiency.http://gas2.org/2008/04/15/scanias-ethanol-diesel-engine-runs-on-biod...
>
> Point is, an engine properly adjusted for ethanol can more than compensate
> for ethanol's reduced energy content, and get to equal mpg's.
Thank you for providing that link. It saved me the time of looking
for one to show that you don't know what you are talking about. Here
it is again in case the reader has butchered it.
http://gas2.org/2008/04/15/scanias-ethanol-diesel-engine-runs-on-biodiesel-too/
From that page:
"Scania’s compression-ignition (CI) ethanol engine is a modified 9-
liter diesel with a few modifications. Scania raised the compression
ratio from 18:1 to 28:1, added larger fuel injection nozzles, and
altered the injection timing. The fuel system also needs different
gaskets and filters, and a larger fuel tank since the engine burns 65%
to 70% more ethanol than diesel (whoa! see below). The thermal
efficiency of the engine is comparable to a diesel, 43% compared to
44%."
Note in particular "the engine burns 65% to 70% more ethanol than
diesel" The efficiency is close at 43% vs 44%, but it still uses 65%
to 70% more ethanol because ethanol doesn't contain as much energy per
gallon.
As for how this compares to the gasoline engine in my Prius:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_12_179/ai_58398900/pg_2/
"The result is an engine with a 10% improvement in peak thermal
efficiency (42%) but low peak specific power for an engine of its size
(53 kW). This is the perfect combination for a hybrid where the lost
power can be supplemented by the electric motor."
So the standard engine as used in a Toyota Echo nust have been about
38% efficient for the 10% increase to bring it up to 42%. I would
also note that the 42% is achived running on regular unleaded
gasoline. If they had optimized it for premium unleaded they could
have run a higher CR and matched the 43% or 44% of the diesel at the
link you provided. I assume they didn't do that because the added
efficiency wouldn't cover the 5% to 10% additional fuel cost.
> And since ethanol burns so well, you can actually get away with a smaller
> engine to obtain the same power, which further enhances efficiency. Or you
> can just take the extra HPs and outrun your neighbor's gasoline car.
>
> > So yes, I would go along with a 1.4 factor.
>
> So no, reality shows that factor is only applicable when you run ethanol in
> an engine with a compression ratio set for gasoline.
>
So yes, your own link shows that factor is very realistic.
>
> > > > The best price spread shown at that site is $2.89
> > > > for E85 vs 4.02 for gasoline. $2,89*1.43=$4.13 and that is after
> > > > figuring in the subsidies.
>
> > Using a 1.4 factor gets E85 down to 4.04 (rounding down), almost equal
> > to gasoline in the best case state.
>
> Once again, that's the worst case state. Not the best.
No, that is the "best case state", which happen to be the state of
Iowa with a 28% spread between gas and ethanol prices. The worst case
state was the state of Florida with a 5% spread between gas and
ethanol prices.
> > > Sorry, but the $0.45/gallon blender subsidy does not apply for E85.
> > > That's
> > > why E85 is comparatively more expensive.
>
> > Whatever, there are other subsidies that went into the growing of the
> > corn. If E85 is such a good deal why don't we see most every vehicle
> > that can burn it doing so?
>
> Ah. Now we are getting somewhere.
>
> Well, first of all E85 has not been around very long.
> And it's price at the start of ethanol production was higher than gasoline.
> And there is very little E85 outlet infrastructure in place (outside the Mid
> West).
Gasohol was introduced in the 70s and E85 has been around since at
least 1990. How long does it take for word to get around?
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id36.html
> And since you need to rebuild your engine to take advantage of the
> ethanol-gasoline price difference.
> And since ethanol from corn will not scale to the size of the gasoline
> market (simply not enough land available), ethanol so far is best blended
> into gasoline instead of setting up a nation wide infrastructure that can't
> supply more than a few dozen percent of the liquid fuel market, at best.
And what would be wrong with a regional infrastructure selling to
those that want it. If the price was right they could sell all they
made locally and avoid all the shipping and blending.
> This could change once cellulose ethanol becomes cost effective. That fed
> with biomass could be a serious replacement for a significant part of the
> gasoline market.
Agreed, so back off on the corn.
> So, that's why we don't see most vehicles drive E85.
>
>
>
> > > Still a bargain (even without the subsidy) if you adjust your engine to
> > > E85.
>
> > The site I listed gave retail prices at the pump. E85 is no bargin
> > considering the higher consumption, even with an engine optimized for
> > ethanol.
>
> You mentioned $2.89/gallon for ethanol, and $4.02/gallon for gasoline.
> If you would drive that Saab or Scania I mentioned then you sure have a cost
> advantage pumping ethanol.
> The key is having the right engine, tuned for ethanol.
Already showed you were mistaken about that.
> > The blender subsidy is not the only subsidy involved in
> > ethanol production.
>
> You have to be more specific than that. Are you talking about farmer
> subsidies ?
Google is your friend.
> And are you deliberately ignoring subsidies for oil exploration and
> production or just conveniently ?
>
No, they should be done away with too. But two wrongs don't make a
right.
>
> > > Also, you are confusing end-user pricing with cost to the supplier.
>
> > I pay the end user price. That is what I care about, that and how
> > much more is payed for with my taxes.
>
> Then I also don't want to hear you complain about profits of ethanol
> producers either.
>
Their profits are part of the end user price, so I will complain if I
feel they are getting laws passed that assist them in screwing me. If
I wasn't required to buy their product along with the gasoline I want
there wouldn't be a problem.
>
> > > Ethanol prices run at $ 2.48 per gallon (before blending credit)
> > > currently.http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/ethanol/cbot-ethanol.html
> > > RBOB gasoline runs at $
> > > 3.10http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/refined-products/rbob-gasoline...
>
> > > These are numbers before blender subsidies.
>
> > 2.48 x 1.4 = 3.47 Looks pretty even. Now figure in how much I paid
> > in farm sbsidies and higher food prices.
>
> Can you do me a favor and tell me which part of an ear of corn is used to
> make ethanol ? And what happens with the rest ?
> And can you then tell me how you can possibly think that food prices are
> affected by corn for ethanol ?
I'm not alone on that. From the link you provided:
http://gas2.org/2008/04/15/scanias-ethanol-diesel-engine-runs-on-biodiesel-too/
"The intensifying food vs. fuel debate isn’t taking this issue
lightly, as I’ve written about here and here."
The "here and here" refered to these two links:
http://gas2.org/2008/04/14/perfect-storm-inflating-food-prices-worldwide/
http://gas2.org/2008/04/10/europes-epa-advises-suspending-biofuel-targets/
> And in case you continue to insist that food prices are higher because of
> ethanol, then obviously the farmers still growing food will have higher
> profits. So they won't need the farm subsidies any more. So let's eliminate
> these as well. Added benefit right there.
>
The subsidies should have been done away with long ago.
Sure there is, tax their profits just like any other business.
Bret Cahill
> >> gasolines.
>
> > You switch, retard.
> > The sane people want noithing to do with your delusions.
>
> Race cars run on alcohol.
That's only because the engine only needs to last a few hundred laps
-- not really useful for a every day reliable vehicle.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
almost all of it near TDC -- over a catalyst for the high compression
ratio of diesel at the efficiency of otto.
The 20,000 F combustion temperatures might be a little smoggy and the
rings might not last but they claim it can run efficiently at very
lean [low power] fuel air ratios.
A small car could cruise the freeway at 90 mpg.
Maybe that could work with alcohol.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > gasolines.
> Its interesting, if we can produce it in massive quantities. And
> there is th eproblem. The associated land use will lead to even
> greater surface temperature rises.
The solution is simple:
Pyrolysis cellulose -- basically wood and other structural plant
matter from anything -- into bio char and methanol, acetone, CO and
other gases and liquids that will burn in IC engines.
Sell the bio char to farmers to plow it into fields.
Sell the MeOH, etc. to gas stations.
Transportation fuel and CO2 problems are both solved.
Bret Cahill
Orval Fairbairn
<3a13315f-d157-4a64...@z15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> It's cheaper than gas now. It's used as a additive (up to 10%) in
> > >> gasolines.
> >
> > > You switch, retard.
> > > The sane people want noithing to do with your delusions.
> >
> > Race cars run on alcohol.
Only Indy cars do. That is because you can turbocharge them to very high
boost and use the cooling effect of the ethanol to act as a detonation
suppressant. The fuel/air ratio would be insufferable for day-to-day
street use.
>
> That's only because the engine only needs to last a few hundred laps
> -- not really useful for a every day reliable vehicle.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
Ethanol is a lousy choice for a fuel.
It puts out only 86000 BTU/gal, while gasoline outs out 115000 BTU/gal.
Also, ethanol attracts water and will leach the moisture out of the air.
That moisture attacks metal parts and corrodes them.
Orval Fairbairn
<14041632-d191-4b55...@z15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nope -- alcohol has an equivalent octane rating of only about 75 (lean
mixture).
Gasoline mixtures can reach 130 equivalent octane.
AGW Facts
> It's cheaper than gas now. It's used as a additive (up to 10%) in
> gasolines.
It takes 1 gallon of gasoline to make 1.5 gallons of ethanol, and
uses a hell of a lot of energy to do so. It's a bad idea.
Orval Fairbairn
AGW Facts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
Agreed! And ethanol
has only about 75% of the energy/gallon than gasoline,
is only 75 octane (lean mixture)
leaches water out of the air, which corrodes metal fuel system components
attacks some synthetic components of the fuel system.
It is a LOUSY fuel!