Keep on sipping the koolaide. Or the ethanol. Its bad business and doesn't solve any energy issues.

Indy cars aren't what we drive and they damned sure aint running EFI.

 

$700 billion a year ain't koolaid

 

The only energy issue we have is potable fuel----that is fuel that can be poured into a tank and used in a piston engine. We're short of that, which is why gasoline and oil prices have gone up. We have centuries of coal and natural gas right here in the USA. And we know how to build safe nuclear plants also.

Ethanol allows us to use a combination of USA coal and natural gas along with a renewable USA crop to produce a fuel that can be used in all spark ignition cars built today (10% ethanol). As the distilling process develops and other raw materials get used, that % will likely go up (lot's of E85 vehicles available already).

The most important thing is that the $ stay in the USA----they don't get sent to the people in the middle east that don't like us. As Boone Pickens is saying, we are watching the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world as we send our money to the middle east.

While the indy cars may not have EFI, they do have spark plugs and pistons. It is just factually wrong to blame E10 for 17% lower mpg. You need to take thermodynamics 101 again (you have passed the course, haven't you???).

 

Thank you,,, I'm still getting 30+ highway, 18 city. Better than my 4 cyl Malibu

 

Draw your own conclusions. Ethanol may not be a loser but when you figure in the increased cost of food etc. I doubt its helping very much.

"The energy balance of ethanol is found by taking the amount of energy contained in a gallon of ethanol (roughly 76,000 Btu) and subtracting the amount of energy that goes into producing a gallon of ethanol. Critics of ethanol have argued that it has a negative net energy value (NEV), meaning that ethanol requires more energy to make than it actually produces. However, over the years numerous studies have shown that ethanol does indeed have a positive NEV. Most recently, a 2002 study by the US Department of Agriculture that accounts for gasoline and diesel fuel use, fertilizers and a variety of other energy inputs in the production, concluded that the energy balance of ethanol is 1.34:1.1 This means that ethanol “yields 34% more energy than it takes to produce it, including growing the corn, harvesting it, transporting it and distilling it into ethanol.” These data are consistent with a study by Dr. Bruce Dale, Michigan State University (2002), and a study by Argonne National Laboratory (1999). "

"The energy of ethanol relative to gasoline
A. 76,000 = BTU of energy in a gallon of ethanol
B. 116,090 = BTU of energy in a gallon of gasoline
C. .655 = 2/3 = GGE of energy in a gallon of ethanol. A / B.
D. 1.53 = Gallons of ethanol with the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline. D = B / A."

 

While 10% ethanol may not lower mpg much because of the ratio, E85 most certainly will. Haven't taken a thermo class since 94 but this was advanced thermo graduate class. Doesn't matter, you don't have to remember much thermodynamics to realize that the lower specific energy in alcohol will result in much lower mpg when used in significant quantities such as E85. Obviously , alcohol is no panacea and doesn't solve anything. There are other options worth exploring such as coal gasification. We have vast coal reserves in the US and gas can be made from coal for less than refining gas from $120/barrel oil. Of course if this was done, you electrical bill might go up Nuclear energy could take up the slack here. If proper technology and discipline is applied to Nuclear power, it can be safe. The Navy has Nuclear powered vessels sailing all over the World. Just some thoughts, we need to expand our thinking to tackle this problem.

 

Some good information instead of hear-say. One point, however. This data was from 6-8 years ago. The distilling process has been improved and is currently running between 1.6 and 1.8 net additional energy.

Again, ethanol is mostly using energy from coal and natural gas to produce a fuel that is usable in today's cars. And the $ stay in the USA instead of being exported to that part of the world that doesn't much like us.

 

Last I checked politicians don't set gas prices. I think it has a lot more to do with oil companies being publicly traded now.

 

Politicians limit energy exploration and drilling, they also limit (like none in 25 years) new refineries, limit Nuclear power plants, clean coal production, natural gas pipelines etc. Which is all total

China has been bringing new power plants online at the rate of one per month.

 

The move to 10% Ethanol was precipitated by the EPA outlawing MTBE. Many years ago EPA mandated that gas be reformulated to reduce emissions and the solution was to add MTBE. Then they found out that MTBE caused water pollution so it was outlawed. Ethanol turned out to be the replacement and was mandated in 2006. At the time of implementation there was a shortage of Ethanol due to a lack of suppliers and gas prices rose in certain areas of the country because of the shortage of the proper gas formulation. Gas from refineries in areas that didn't have to use Ethanol could not be shipped to areas that required it so some areas had high gas prices and others didn't. Then the government relaxed the regulation on gas supplies to get through the transition period. The fuel in my area has been 10% Ethanol for 2 years now. There is no reduction in performance but I have noticed about a 5% drop in gas mileage. As for E85 the last time I checked there was only one station in all of New York State and it is at least a 3 hour drive from me.

Bill

 

China also has made an abomination of their environment. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a nutcase tree-hugger liberal, but it is still a true statement.

 

Yep I agree. They are doing exactly what we did during the 50s and 60s.

However if they can do one a month. Maybe just maybe we could do one a year?

 

When it comes to power plants, we don't need more coal facilities. We need to start building nuclear plants again so we're not screwing up the atmosphere.

 

They started scamming us with this crap here in FL awhiel ago. I noticed my MPG around town suddenly dropped from 26+MPG to no better than 24MPG. They're diluting our gasoline by 10% but I didn't see a drop in price of 10% and I now have to buy more fuel to go the same distance. There's some logic buried in here somewhere but I can't find it. I tested this on a recent 1,500 mile road trip. With a tank full of the 10% stuff the best I could get on the highway was 26MPH. With a quarter tank left, I filled up with true hi-test and my milage instantly went to 28+MPG. Diluting our gasoline doesn't with 10% ethanol now means we need to use the same volume of gasoline to go the same distance due to the decrease in MPG so why is this good for the consumer????

 

Ummm so what is Octane for?

What I'm saying is Ethanol has no affect on Octane which is the key contributor to Knock.

I think your a little off (respectfully)

 

Someone said the majors want Ethanol to go away. Thats completely false. Remember who I work for (see profile) I can say for a fact the Govt Incentives / State incentives / Political correctness / Profit makes Ethanol very attractive.

I know this for a fact.

 

Sorry Jack, but there aint no other explanation. I monitored every gallon of gas in a 4000 mile road trip so I think Im in a better position to know what caused the bad mileage than you.

The evidence is there. I surmise by your irrational support of ethanol you must have bought into it. Good. I'm happy for you. It doesn't make my factually based experience any less true.

PS..It is common knowledge in the ethanol states that this is one huge boondoogle pork barrel project to appease the farmers and those in agriculture.

 

What evidence---one person's slanted view based on his dislike for ethanol. There's lots of thing that can affect mpg----and the BTU content of ethanol doesn't lead to a 17% mpg reduction. In addition, there is nobody else on this thread that has seen anywhere near this reduction in their experiences. You must just be special.

Gee, that's news to me and I live in a major ethanol producing state. Stick to spreading rumors about the NW where trees are grown instead of corn.

 

Opps.

 

In Colorado where I live we have had 10% Ethanol added to our winter fuel along the Front Range for more than a decade.

I have seen a consistent 2 mpg lower fuel economy during those months, but no driveability issues. Probably a little less performance (though I hear Ethanol has higher octane, so if someone is more versed in this than me, please jump in!)

We see it as a small price to pay for cleaner air in the winter when we get significant temperature inversions that trap smog in the basins where Colorado Springs and Denver sit.