The Threat of E15

[GTS Dean]

See this article:

E85 vs. Gasoline Comparison Test

It claims about 26.5% worse mileage for E85 (so not quite as bad as 50% worse).

Ethanol has a much higher resistance to knock, which allows more spark advance than gasoline. It also has a lower heat of vaporization - which means that it cools the intake charge more than gas in the liquid to vapor phase change. On a straight-up energy comparison basis, ethanol only has about 65% of the heating value of gasoline. It takes 9 parts air to 1 part ethanol for combustion. It takes 14.7 parts air to 1 part gasoline for combustion.

Ethanol-blended fuels also are granted an exemption from federal motor fuel excise taxes, which means less money from user fees to maintain or expand the nation's road system. All gasoline and gas replacement liquid fuels are taxed at the refinery rack at 18.4 cents/gallon. Ethanol in blended fuels are then eligible to get a rebate from the US Treasury of 45 cents/gal for every gallon of ethanol blended. This amounts to a net 26.6 cent/gallon subsidy to the ethanol industry (read: ArcherDanielsMidland - ADM).

 

[Tom F&L GoR]

No matter what side you are on, the USA needs some "bridge" to another fuel that competes with gasoline. Europe has gas and diesel. Brazil has ethanol and gasoline. The US has natural gas... When one goes up, the other becomes attractive. In the US, Ethanol doesn't seem like a long term solution until it can be produced from corn husks rather than just corn. (And when it can afford to pay taxes. )

Given the technology now available, I also encourage everyone to look at diesels. While ethanol seems to incur a ~30% fuel economy penalty, diesel engines provide a ~30% fuel economy improvement. Imagine if the US had the same 50%-50% mix of passenger car engines as Europe; we would lower transportation energy consumption by 15%! The BMW or Audi diesels are amazing; the technology wins at LeMans, have Viper-like torque, don't smell or sound like they are rattling to death, and don't smell.

It is stunning to me in the energy industry that natural gas is not promoted and developed by the current adminstration. It is a known technology, well developed, low emissions, and manageable handicaps. How about using some stimulus money to require every third gasoline station to install nat gas pumps? That would fix the chicken and egg problem of what comes first. It may not be every consumer's choice, but at least having one keeps the cost of other transportation fuels in check.

 

[John N]

Regardless of how you feel about E85 or old fashioned dino-juice, let's not mistake what the government does to help/hinder the two options. I don't know how people buy into all the govt subsidy to oil companies crap, but it is just that, crap. Certain aspects of oil production do get tax deductions like any other business, but this starts from a govt take that is higher than most any other industry in the US. How much severence tax do the timber companies pay? How about the gold, copper, and coal miners? How much royalty to all of those industries pay to the govt when developing federal lands? I can't wait to see the day when ranchers pay 1/8 or more of their revenue to the govt for the privledge of grazing their cattle on federal lands. Overall the oil & gas industry pays more into govt coffers as a percentage of income than almost any other industry, maybe more than all of them but I would have to research before spouting that off.

E85 and ethanol on the other hand have a clear and direct subsidy from the govt, they wouldn't even be produced otherwise. It may be a fine fuel in the eyes of some, but don't fool yourself into thinking it makes economic sense. It is pure social engineering at work.

 

[white out]

It makes economic sense vs. 100-105 octane fuel in performance applications.

Nick

 

[Coloviper]

All this whinning about Ethanol is just complete nonsense.

A change from 10% to 15% causing major changes in equpment storage, etc. is a complete wives tale. In Canada and other places they have used 10% to 20% blends for over 40 YEARS with no adverse effects on storage, delivery systems or even the vehicle set-ups to run them. Will NOT affect anything but performance and mileage and cost savings in some applications.

To run E-85, requires a small change on some vehicles, but these are more for mass transit types then performance cars. No one is going to change their vehicle over to run E-85 for a performance gain, but more for a point that it can be done or a cost savings in certain applications.

Since the E-85 cuts into the food supply, unless it is purely using left over stocks, then it is not long term viable, for obvious reasons with a growing populus, but it will be used as an additive in the fuel, thus extending the oil reserves life and still helping with the problem of oil reserves.

Try living in the Rockies at altitude and run the winter blend "oxygenated fuels". You lose 2 to 3 mpg in ALL vehicles during the winter. Top fuel is only 91 Octane, which is another hit as there is no 93 or 95. Hot rodded cars lose 100hp to 200 hp on a normal 650+ motor. You just live with it.

Bottom line is an extra 5% of Ethanol is absolutely no big deal. Most would not even know the difference, unless you are heavily modified.

 

[white out]

No one is going to change their vehicle over to run E-85 for a performance gain, but more for a point that it can be done or a cost savings in certain applications.

Go do some research on E85 as a performance application. Many, many people convert their cars to run on E85 because it is the equivalent of 105 octane. While mostly stock n/a cars will not see much of a gain from it, boosted cars show significant power gains.

Nick

 

[Lawrenzo]

It is stunning to me in the energy industry that natural gas is not promoted and developed by the current adminstration. It is a known technology, well developed, low emissions, and manageable handicaps. How about using some stimulus money to require every third gasoline station to install nat gas pumps? That would fix the chicken and egg problem of what comes first. It may not be every consumer's choice, but at least having one keeps the cost of other transportation fuels in check.

T. Boone Pickens tried to get CA jumpstarted into Nat Gas, but was rebuked by the treehugging crowd. Saying that he was simply lining his own pockets. True, but that was not the real issue. He wanted to get all the heavy trucks and buses converted to Nat Gas as a way to keep them clean and burning a US resource. I guess it's not ok to get rich with your ideas, unless of course you're part of the whole left-wing money grabbing machine who stand to make Billions when Cap & Trade goes through

The California ballot initiative, funded almost entirely with $3.2 million from Clean Energy, would include about $2.9 billion to rebates for consumers who buy vehicles that don't run on gasoline or diesel, which create more pollution than natural gas.
The measure's critics say the initiative promotes natural-gas vehicles over other technologies. The biggest rebates, of $35,000 and $50,000, would go toward the purchase of heavy-duty trucks and transit buses fueled by natural gas.
The largest rebate for passenger vehicles – $10,000 – would be offered for "dedicated clean alternative fuel vehicles," according to the proposed law. While electric cars would eventually qualify, only natural-gas vehicles are available now.

 

[GTS Dean]

It is stunning to me in the energy industry that natural gas is not promoted and developed by the current adminstration. It is a known technology, well developed, low emissions, and manageable handicaps. How about using some stimulus money to require every third gasoline station to install nat gas pumps?

Democrats in general, and Obama lovers in particular, are rabidly against the SOV (single occupant vehicle). They want all combustion of carbon fuels to stop - immediately and forevermore. They want to increase taxes on all carbon motor fuels and funnel that money into renewable energy initiatives, alternative transportation modes (bus/bike/train/foot) and "Livable Communities" that don't look at all like the America that I live in. They are making efforts to merge the DOT, the EPA and the HUD departments into one omnipotent and opressive super-agency. (I **** you not) They don't like car people, gun owners, or republicans. 3 strikes - I'm out.

I listened to "I'd Love to Change the World" by 10 Years After on the radio today.
Same message, 40 years later: "Tax the Rich, Feed the Poor, 'Til there are no, Rich no more."

Tell me, where is sanity?

 

[EllowViper]

I'd love to see a ROE E-85 tune and timing map...I wonder where in the Tampa area E-85 is offered. Never have seen it locally...ever. Man just think of the possibilities... Dude...With E-85 and W/M I bet I could run like 50 degrees of timing!!!!

 

[Viperless]

I'd love to see a ROE E-85 tune and timing map...I wonder where in the Tampa area E-85 is offered. Never have seen it locally...ever. Man just think of the possibilities... Dude...With E-85 and W/M I bet I could run like 50 degrees of timing!!!!

I may still have my Roe tunes saved somewhere. I turned off the w/m with the E-85 tune. Didn't need it. So I had to tweak the fuel curve a bit to make up for that loss in enrichment. I think I only bumped timing up a degree or two. Any more timing and the power started dropping off. HP at the wheels went from 660 to 710. Nearly an 8% gain.

 

[Coloviper]

White Out;

Agreed! I was referring to the mass transit vehicle types that are non-performance to start with. They are not going to convert for performance reasons.

 

[white out]

okay, that makes more sense.

FYI, the fastest car that I've gone up against is an E85 fueled B4S4. He made more power than me, but gearing saved me.

Nick