Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I wonder if the engineer was fueled by ethanol.
Yes, ethanol is very corrosive, however they are working on the issue.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/16/u-s-ethanol-pipeline-idea-gets-push-from- -poet/
"Then you have drunks with drills going after the pipes and all..."
Really, do we have drunks running up to trucks carrying ethanol trying to get a swig????
Leave them unattended and it's possible. Ethanol = 200 proof vodka, pure and simple (in more ways than one, heh). What happens when its cheaper per gallon than hard liquor?
The reports I've read mostly claim a 5%-!0% reduction in mileage using 10 blend vs pure dino gas. . Lets use the 10% figure for now. And lets use a vehicle that averages 25 mpg on dino. It would get 10% less on ethanol blend, or 22.5 mpg.
To drive 1000 miles the car would use 40 gallons of dino gas. To drive that same distance would require 44.4 gallons of "Blend". Of that "Blend" 90% is dino and 10% ethanol. So the 1000 miles still required 39.96 gallons of dino.
Same amount of dino gas used for all practical purposes. Same dino carbon emissions, PLUS the emissions from the 4.4 gallons of ethanol.
Can't see how that is any reduction of oil dependence.
Actually when you figure the energy required to plant the crops, irrigate them, harvest them, haul them to the refinery to make the ethanol, make the ethanol, haul the ethanol to somewhere to be blended with the dino fuel, energy used to do the blending, and yada, yada, yada, there appears to be a great deal of energy used in the form of electricity, diesel fuel, coal, Natural gas, just to get the blend ready for us to purchase. Read somewhere that it takes about 100 gallons of water from the seed to the gas tank for each gallon of Ethanol produced.
While it may be true that ethanol produces less emissions than dino fuels, how much less? And does it favorably compare when all else is considered, ie energy to produce and get it ready for a gas tank, and using more of it in our vehicles?
Kip
Brazil´s been running half of all its cars on 100% ethanol for over 30 years and that has a proven perfecly viable solution.
Yet america insists on doing mathematics to disprove that.
Problem is they are all based on corn ethanol (over there is sugarcane), E85 (over there is E100), distance between plants and crop lands (there the plant is located in the sugarcane plantation), etc
Of course with those differences the mathematics will indeed be as you show them.
So the question remais: why reinvent the wheel?
I understand that biodiesel has its environmental drawbacks as does any form of fuel, but considering it gets about 45% better MPG over E10, would it not be a better choice?
It really is a no brainer, but the money trail goes a different direction.
You are making bold statements you cannot back up with facts. First Brazil depends on Sugar ethanol for about 20% of its vehicle fuel. They are independent because of huge oil reserves found over the last few years. There Ethanol production went to almost ZERO during the late 1980s. Brazil left many people with vehicles that would only run on ethanol stranded. The vehicles that will run on E100 will run on regular gas also.
The government offered subsidies to sugar cane growers and forced service stations in every town of at least 1,500 people to install ethanol pumps. By the early 1980s, almost all new cars sold in Brazil ran on 100 percent ethanol.
But as the decade progressed and the military government was replaced by democracy, oil prices plummeted and the subsidies granted to ethanol producers were eliminated. Sugar processing plants turned from ethanol to edible sugar, creating a shortage of supplies at service stations. The auto industry, which had dedicated itself to ethanol-only cars, stopped producing them almost entirely.
"It was as if from one day to the next, the people who had ethanol cars had a problem on their hands, because no one wanted to buy them," said Henry Joseph Jr., head of the engineering program for Volkswagen of Brazil. "Ethanol cars went all the way from more than 90 percent of sales to less than 1 percent."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900842.- html
The other benefit of pre-mixing ethanol with water is, should it catch fire you can put the fire out with water. This makes the fuel safer to use also.
You could ask any moonshiner about running on 100 proof.
I think there are to many people that have oil stock that they are worried about, or maybe they have their head up their you know what.
This is old technology that has been hidden under the smoke screen of burning oil.
LESS TOXIC:
I would rather smell the fumes of something that I could drink without it killing me. Though I personally feel it is safer to burn it than drink it.
You do not need to believe me. Here is an old link to information about this. You will need to go down about 9 paragraphs to find the one about water injection. I will copy it for you and post it below the link. Because the rest of the information is common knowledge.
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_manual/manual1-2.html
WATER INJECTION
During World War II, the military made extensive use of water injection in high performance piston aircraft engines. Later, water injection was used by both civilian and military jet aircraft to provide extra thrust, principally on takeoff. Even today, water injection systems are available that can be installed in automobiles. The fact is that, within certain limits, these systems actually do increase power. Referring back to Figure 2-2, note that the latent heat of vaporization for gasoline is about 140 Btu/lb and for ethanol about 361 Btu/lb. Water has a latent heat of about 700 Btu/lb! Therefore, if a little water is injected into the carburetor in the form of an ultra-fine mist, the latent heat of the water will cool the charge and increase volumetric efficiency. In addition, when the charge is fired in the cylinder, the water will turn to high-pressure steam and provide additional power due to the pressure exerted by the steam. There are definite limits, however, to the amount of water that can be injected. Too much will cause excessive cooling and misfiring.
The use of water injection with a gasoline fueled engine requires a separate metering and injection system because water and gasoline do not mix. Ethanol and water, however, do mix and the benefits of water injection can be had simply by adding the desired amount of water to the alcohol in the fuel tank.
Get with it people. I am sure that there are some of the 3rd world countries that will be glad to pick up on this oversight.
WHY IS THERE NO RESEARCH INTO THIS PHENOMINA.
2 gallons for the price of one. We will be back to 1.00 per gallon fuel.
The fuel is safer when mixed with water. You can put out the fire with a garden hose.
John EMM
"It gets 100 miles to the gallon...and it runs on water man!" If you'll recall either the first or last episode of That 70's Show, just keep in mind he was smoking something other than nicotine when he said that. :shades:
This is the latest news.
All gas sold in Brazil has 23% Ethanol. Also 20 % of all the vehicles on road in Brazil today are Flexfuelled cars which can run on 100% Ethanol.
So as of now, 50% of all fuel for private vehicles is Ethanol.
Another news is in year-2008, the Oil consumption in US fell by over 6% and Worldwide, it fell by 0.6% even after including Ethanol (which actually grew 40%).
Ethanol would have taken some market share from Oil.
Ethanol is the easiest and #1 alternative for Petro-fuels. People can talk about food production. With the same amount of land as US, China produces food for 4 times the number of people, so US has lot of surplus land to grow Corn, Switchgrass and other crops for Bio-fuels.
So, Ethanol production and consumption will continue to grow in the years ahead.
BTW, cellulose Ethanol has already hit the market.
It seems there are 2,170 Ethanol stations in US today compared to 500 in 2005.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/e85-ethanol-in-every-car/?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/10/10greenwire-shell-sells-cellulosic-ethan- ol-blend-in-canada-10074.html
Paralelly, E15 may also come to market.
http://ethanol-news.newslib.com/story/6938-32647/
sugarcane ethanol represented 16.7% of the country's total energy consumption by the automotive sector in 2007.wiki
I gave Brazil the benefit of the doubt with 20%. No one here has said that sugar cane ethanol was not a viable product. It is damaging to the environment which ethanol advocates want to gloss over. Every acre of the rain forest that is cut to produce sugar cane will take nearly 100 years to mitigate, if ever.
If you have data that refutes what I have posted feel free to share with us. Just because the brain dead in Washington DC have bought into the Corn Ethanol scam does not make it a good thing. I am sure when they kick up the ethanol content to 15% from the current 10% my mileage will go down by another 5%. Kind of like the guy with his car that runs on water. It is an illusion that ethanol from corn is a winner.
I have several issues with your broad statement. Most are answered by your own link.
If there is a breakthrough in cellulosic ethanol development, that might change the equation.”
Cellulosic ethanol promises larger yields than corn-based ethanol, but processes to produce it in any substantial quantity are still being developed.
“Corn is not the right crop for biofuels,” Mr. Chu has said. Last month, the Energy Department announced that $786.5 million in stimulus funds would be used to speed advanced biofuels research and demonstration projects.
That is exactly what I have posted since this thread was started. Corn ethanol is NOT a good choice for America.
From your second link comes this statement on Cellulosic ethanol R&D. It is FAR from becoming viable. The process is at the same point it was 5 years ago. Not commercially viable. What is so hard to accept about that? It takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get out of it.
Shell and Iogen are no longer pursuing U.S. Department of Energy funding for a second commercial-scale plant, in Idaho Falls, Idaho, but have not ruled out building the facility as part of a broader commercial fuel rollout, noted David Williams, a Shell spokesman in London.
"The vision is large-scale production and significant commercial availability," Williams said. "However, cost-competitive advanced biofuels in substantial quantities we estimate are five to 10 years away."
More R&D should be done before they experiment with peoples cars. So far corn ethanol is a BIG ZERO.
I can provide you with links but they are in portuguese (guess you can still use google translator) as proof.
As for being damaging to the rainforest, it´s just BS for a simple fact: sugarcane does NOT grow well in the amazon, as the land there is sandy and too moist.
So nobody grows it there simply because of that: it does not grow well. period.
Now, if you say they are deforesting for cattle I´ll keep quiet because I know that´s true (even though last year deforestation had a 82% drop).
I do agree however that corn ethanol is financially unsound. America could just import ethanol from Brazil and get it over with.
You probably know that this is at least a 100 year old battle on what to use in our cars. Henry Ford wanted to continue running on alcohol and Rockefeller wanted to use his waste product from heating oil production. That being gasoline. It is very interesting reading how Rockefeller won the battle.
Actually, that's a pretty good reason to keep chipping away at it from an R&D perspective, though it's also justification for not doing so. No, there's no money in it right now so the market doesn't really want to invest in it...one of the reasons is careful manipulation of gas prices by certain countries. The smart thing to do would be to continue research on it so that when someone shuts off the taps again and/or oil gets scarce there is at least one alternative ready to go. Waiting until after the oil is scarce to complete the R&D is a bad move and could be catastrophic to our economy. The market isn't always good at planning ahead, and to be frank, having a sudden loss of our primary fuel source with nothing even remotely in place to replace it has major national security implications as well.
Mind you, I'm talking about stuff like switchgrass and other biomass. Not that whole idiotic corn-ethanol giveaway to big Ag.
Incidentally, that's also a good parallel to today: people are using the same reasoning to justify using waste cooking oil, etc, waste biomass, etc.
The proof is in the pudding. If ethanol were so crucial to our “petroleum Independence” there would not be a $0.50 per gallon subsidy to farmers (because the price would be added at the pump) and we would certainly not have a $0.50 per gallon tariff on ethanol imports.
Another word on corn/ethanol subsidies; Don’t hide the true cost of ethanol in subsidies, put it on the price at the pump so the public can see just how much it is costing them. Patting me on the back and telling me that ethanol is good for the country and then steeling the money out of my pocket is not impressing me.
Ethanol is a negative energy source; with all the energy used to plant, fertilize, harvest, process and transport, the damage to the land and 10% reduction of MPG for E10, it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is gained.
Ethanol is pure politics and until the subsidies and tariffs are removed you will never convince me otherwise.
The real cost to American taxpayers for this totally wrong approach to foreign oil dependence should include the real and total costs of clean-ups and also include the shorter lifespans of boats, boat motors as well as cars. There is nothing good about ethanol in fuels for the US consumer.
... Another news is in year-2008, the Oil consumption in US fell by over 6% and Worldwide, it fell by 0.6% even after including Ethanol (which actually grew 40%).
Ethanol would have taken some market share from Oil. ...
Re: Latest news [yerth10] by jkinzel
... Ethanol is a negative energy source; with all the energy used to plant, fertilize, harvest, process and transport, the damage to the land and 10% reduction of MPG for E10, it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is gained. ...
Corn-based E10 is good for greedy corn conglomerates and crooked politicians, but is very bad for the economy, the environment, worldwide food production, and a fair number of engines (marine, yard equipment, etc.). The Green movement is losing credibility over E10. It's time to admit E10 was a mistake.
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2009/April/Day-21/a9115.htm
The smart thing to do would be to "Drill here and drill now". There are vast amounts of oil under Utah, Montana, and Colorado. We have larger reserves than "Known" reserves in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Yemen combined. I will post the link if I can find it.
Add to that the reserves of Natural Gas that are nearly equal to the oil reserves in energy. Also the Rocky Mountains contain an almost inexhaustible amount of oil shale, similar to what Canada refines their oil from. And least we not forget the coal reserves.
California is whining about being broke while there are vast amounts of oil sitting off their coast. Yet they will not drill. Why?
Kip
And yet they have accepted corn ethanol laced gas with open arms. One of the most destructive mandates ever pushed by Congress.
G-E-M Flex Fuel Cars run on ANY MIXTURE of G-asoline, E-thanol, M-ethanol. A myopic focus on "ethanol" and "corn to ethanol" obscure the opportunity a rapid phase in of Flex Fuel Vehicles offers to avert America and the world's iminent ENERGY CRISIS.
97% of the world's car & plan transporation (not just your car) relies on oil. America imports 70% of it's oil. Eight of nine top oil exporting countries are under control of dictators or autocrats, most of whom don't particularly like America. 78% of the world's oil comes from the OPEC cartel (monopoly). Oil prices have risen with signs of economic recovery. When the economy recovers expect a return of $150 barrel oil. Or in the event of a successful Al queda attack on Saudi's oil processing fields (and there have been numerous unsuccessful attempts) or Iran's threated closing the Straight of Hormuz in the event any country attempts to stop their attainment of a nuclear bomb- gas prices will go to rapidly shot above $200 .
Methanol has been produced from wood waste for about 350 years. Today it is produced from also from forestry waste or other organic waste including municipal waste - at about half the cost of ethanol. True, it has less energy than ethanol or gas but it is still a cheaper cost per mile traveled .
While Cellulosic ethanol production remains at "reserch quantities" we know other crops, like sugar beets, could produce significantly more energy than corn!
Let's strengthen America and weaken the grip foreign oil holds on our country and our future! Watch the 2 minute video at SETAMERICAFREE.org The primary focus must be to ALWAYS keep our vehicles and economy running.
It's 60% and our biggest imports come from Canada and Mexico.
http://www.quoteoil.com/oil-imports.html
If you truly want energy independence, why are you not promoting diesel and bio-diesel a fuel that has 40% more energy than gasoline?
My concerns are that your motivation is not solely based on energy independence.
In my opinion, FLEX Fuel is a sham and one of the reasons GM got in trouble. I will never buy a FF car.
Where did you EVER get this number from my friend? Diesel engines are not even EXPLOSION, but COMBUSTION engines, and that's because oil-based fuels do not even explode, so low is their energy content!
"In my opinion, FLEX Fuel is a sham and one of the reasons GM got in trouble. I will never buy a FF car."
It is so much a sham than an ENTIRE COUNTRY has MORE cars running on ethanol than gasoline (Brazil). And that's been going on for over 30 years! Hard to say anything to that huh?
It looks to me from your misinformation you are drinking the Corn squeezin' rather than running it in your car. Better check your facts on Brazil. I have already posted the facts on the subject for you several times. You just refuse to see the truth. And yes diesel has a lot more BTUs of energy per gallon than Gasoline. And as my friend has posted the FFVs sold in the USA are a joke. I know as I have one. Of course in all of So CA there is only one station selling E85 for about a buck a gallon more than RUG. Kind of a novelty fuel for the totally uninformed wannabe enviro wacko crowd.
I have no problem with people in the midwest running ethanol in their vehicles. I don't like it forced onto the rest of the country with the loss in mileage that is well documented. !0% ethanol equals 10% loss of mileage. Add to that the huge subsidies and it becomes apparent to an educated individual that we are getting screwed as a payoff to the Congress people in the Midwest.
?
Yep!
And amazing to me how the Ethanol crowd can't seem to understand that, with a 10% drop in mileage, we are forced to buy 10% more fuel to go the same distance.
So we are burning the same amount of Dino PLUS the Ethanol.
Does 11 gallons of 10% Ethanol produce less emissions than 10 gallons of pure Dino ?
Kip
See? Now THAT is an interesting question that we'll probably never get a straight answer to because an ethanol proponent's answer would likely be, "You can't compare emissions from different amounts of fuel". But I'm like you. I understand that I'm not burning any less gasoline or doing anything to decrease demand on gasoline production because ethanol has been added to the mix.
Add in the emissions to produce the stuff and we are paying more to pollute more. Somewhat of a Loose-Loose situation for the masses and a Win-Win for the corn producers.
Kip
I happen to live down the street from a few gas stations that have non-ethanol blended fuel, and I always have to remember to fill up if I head eastward - once you get about 10 miles from here, it's all ethanol-blended.
I can't remember the last time I saw even a semi-reasonable argument for ethanol.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
Your lucky, we, i.e. WA State has a 10% law. There is no pure gasoline for sale in Washington State.
What I keep hearing is that the reason we're using ethanol is to reduce our dependence on oil. I already KNOW it does nothing but reduce mileage performance by an amount that guarantees no reduction in our use of or need for oil.
I've asked it before and I'll ask it again, what's the benefit of this nonsense? Green at ANY cost? (And it isn't even all that green)
I have a solid year of experience with ethanol now and the only thing it's proved to me is that a lot of subsidy money has been wasted. But that's not a big change for the folks in DC is it? :sick:
I am certainly pretty green by thinking and this boondoggle is about as bad as it gets from an environmental standpoint. It's corporate welfare. It has nothing to do with environmental concerns.
The entire push seems to be part of this "green at ANY cost" attitude that's developed. Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT for wasting energy or pro-pollution, but the idea that we have to DO something immediately or we're all gonna die isn't the way to approach things.
The "corporate welfare" is a political issue that I'm ignoring because it winds up distracting us from the point that the ONE thing ethanol is touted as doing, reducing dependence on oil, is the one thing I know for a fact it doesn't do.
There's a lot of "bad science" out there that's accepted as general wisdom simply because it's repeated and parroted endlessly.
I believe the “ethanol equals green myth” is marketing that grew out of the fact that ethanol was the least of two evils that is used to replace MTBE in gasoline. (I think MTBE is correct). I assume the EPA and greenies were in favor of it only because MTBE was more harmful than ethanol and it sounded good at the time. I’m sure neither the EPA nor the greenies had any idea of the unintended consequences or the sheer volume of land, corn and resources required to meet these needs.
Then you have the big AG’s and politicians promoting ethanol even farther and it has now grown closer to being an environmental disaster than the salvation it was intended to be.
Just Eat It
Food isn't fuel
Adding 10% ethanol = poorer mileage.
Add in all the equipment (using energy) to produce that ethanol and the net effect could be we actually burn more dino fuel.