Thoughts on ethanol-free gasoline?

Guy,

Just another scattered example of 'current art' with regards to heavy vehicles. I was aware that ethanol was used in heavy diesel buses, I think in Brazil, as part of a mix with diesel and possibly biodiesel. Here's a more current example - ED95.

http://www.sekab.com/biofuel/ed95

ED95 is an ethanol based fuel for adapted diesel engines. It consists of 95 percent pure ethanol with the addition of ignition improver, lubricant and corrosion protection. In a diesel engine adapted for ED95 ethanol’s potential can be up to 40 percent better utilised than in a petrol engine.

Click to expand...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwcbE3RiWC8[/youtube]

One of the engine modifications is the installation of an ignition system (spark plugs, computer, etc.). This is also a requirement when burning LNG.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/32863.pdf

Both fuels have a track record, require engine adaptations, and are cleaner than diesel. Only one emits 'current' carbon.

If you add a ignition system, you are no longer running on the "diesel" cycle. The fuel economy drop from diesel fuel to Ethanol (energy per gallon) and the loss of the efficiency of the compression-ignition diesel cycle would be horrendous.

siai said:

If you add a ignition system, you are no longer running on the "diesel" cycle.

Click to expand...

Correct.

siai said:

The fuel economy drop from diesel fuel to Ethanol (energy per gallon) and the loss of the efficiency of the compression-ignition diesel cycle would be horrendous.

Click to expand...

Happily, this is not correct.

The efficiency improvement doesn't come from the diesel cycle - it comes from running the fuel in a high-compression engine capable of using the energy available in a ~105 octane fuel. That's the difference. Ethanol, when burned in an engine with the proper compression ratio, is about 44% efficient. Diesel is about 40% and gasoline engines are about 20-30%.

But again - the number one problem we have is dumping fossil carbon into the atmosphere. We MUST stop that.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=208514#p208514

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentations/sae-2002-01-2743-v2.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentations/2007-01-3993-alcohol-final.pdf

Guy, I stumbled on this while searching for something completely different - but I'll take it.

http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/47764.pdf

The report discusses the use of acid and enzymes to convert cellulose from corn stover into fuel ethanol. The minimum selling price for fuel is $2.15/gallon in 2007$.

Andy

AndyH said:

Guy, I stumbled on this while searching for something completely different - but I'll take it.

http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/47764.pdf

The report discusses the use of acid and enzymes to convert cellulose from corn stover into fuel ethanol. The minimum selling price for fuel is $2.15/gallon in 2007$.

Andy

Click to expand...

Thanks, Andy. OTOH,

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/02/eia-201302026.html#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As expected, things take a lot longer to be commercialized than the optimistic forecasts. Production in 2012 of 20,000 gallons versus a target of 500 million gallons back in 2007, so they'd only achieved an actual production that's 4 thousandths of a % of the target. And according to :

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/08/epa-20130806.html#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

this year's requirement is only 6 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol, which is reduced from the 14 million originally proposed early this year, presumably because there wasn't anywhere near enough capacity to meet it.

For a cheerier view of what might ultimately be accomplished, there's:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/06/ccst-report-an-integral-role-for-next-gen-biofuels-in-meeting-california-ghg-targets-requires-advanc.html#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GRA said:

AndyH said:

Guy, I stumbled on this while searching for something completely different - but I'll take it.

http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/47764.pdf

The report discusses the use of acid and enzymes to convert cellulose from corn stover into fuel ethanol. The minimum selling price for fuel is $2.15/gallon in 2007$.

Andy

Click to expand...

Thanks, Andy. OTOH,

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/02/eia-201302026.html#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As expected, things take a lot longer to be commercialized than the optimistic forecasts. Production in 2012 of 20,000 gallons versus a target of 500 million gallons back in 2007, so they'd only achieved an actual production that's 4 thousandths of a % of the target. And according to :

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/08/epa-20130806.html#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

this year's requirement is only 6 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol, which is reduced from the 14 million originally proposed early this year, presumably because there wasn't anywhere near enough capacity to meet it.

For a cheerier view of what might ultimately be accomplished, there's:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/06/ccst-report-an-integral-role-for-next-gen-biofuels-in-meeting-california-ghg-targets-requires-advanc.html#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

You really like GCC, don't you? :lol:

The EIA says US production isn't meeting targets? No surprise there - we've already seen examples of this in this thread - along with the reason for it from actual producers. The number one reason ethanol is not the dominant fuel in this country is the same today as it's been since about 1920 - because the gasoline industry is putting more money into fighting ethanol than the ethanol industry makes each year! How many Constitutional amendments has the ethanol or farming industries been able to make happen? :lol:

From a business perspective, the ethanol industry has and continues to be a threat to the petroleum industry at least as 'troublesome' as the power generation monopolies see roof-top PV. It's in their best interest to invest some of their vast fortunes to resist and discredit ethanol at every turn.

From a physics and chemistry perspective, however, it appears even GCC won't acknowledge that ethanol has NONE of what's wrong with gasoline.

Watch Jeremy Rifkin's talk from the sustainability conference from a few weeks back, or give his book "The Third Industrial Revolution" a read. http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=14559 It, along with 'Internal Combustion' by Black and 'Sleeping with the Devil' by Baer and 'The Car That Could' by Shnayerson show just how dysfunctional this country is when it comes to oil and power and the war for control of transportation. Then re-read the story on advanced biofuels and the Energy Security Act of 2007 with new eyes.

AndyH said:

You really like GCC, don't you? :lol:

Click to expand...

It beats searching through innumerable data bases to find this stuff - it's all brought together in one spot, and easily searchable by topic. Ain't that there interweb grand?

AndyH said:

The EIA says US production isn't meeting targets? No surprise there - we've already seen examples of this in this thread - along with the reason for it from actual producers. The number one reason ethanol is not the dominant fuel in this country is the same today as it's been since about 1920 - because the gasoline industry is putting more money into fighting ethanol than the ethanol industry makes each year! How many Constitutional amendments has the ethanol or farming industries been able to make happen? :lol:

From a business perspective, the ethanol industry has and continues to be a threat to the petroleum industry at least as 'troublesome' as the power generation monopolies see roof-top PV. It's in their best interest to invest some of their vast fortunes to resist and discredit ethanol at every turn.

From a physics and chemistry perspective, however, it appears even GCC won't acknowledge that ethanol has NONE of what's wrong with gasoline.

Watch Jeremy Rifkin's talk from the sustainability conference from a few weeks back, or give his book "The Third Industrial Revolution" a read. http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=14559 It, along with 'Internal Combustion' by Black and 'Sleeping with the Devil' by Baer and 'The Car That Could' by Shnayerson show just how dysfunctional this country is when it comes to oil and power and the war for control of transportation. Then re-read the story on advanced biofuels and the Energy Security Act of 2007 with new eyes.

Click to expand...

Sorry, don't have the time right now, and unless Rifkin's talk is captioned it isn't going to do me any good - my hearing has deteriorated to the point that even with my hearing aids, most people on video or TV sound like adults speaking to Charlie Brown ('wah wah - wah wah wah'). ISTR picking up "The Third Industrial Revolution" from the library at one point, but for some reason or other I didn't get to it, so I'll make another attempt.

I have read "The Car that Could" (it's been on my EV bibliography topic from the start - http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9506" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ), and I consider it a textbook example of the numerous pressures that advance/retard the commercialization of a new technology, as well as those competing pressures due strictly to the design/sales/marketing of a car. I found "Internal Combustion" (also on the list) to be much less biased than expected, judging by the conspiracy theories that the jacket blurbs and the subtitle lead you to believe will inevitably follow, but still somewhat overwrought, and the author spends so much time telling us about his _arduous_ search to uncover sources etc. Haven't read "Sleeping with the Devil", but judging by the subtitle I doubt I'll find anything I haven't read many times before going back more than 20 years (although as I said, Black surprised me). I mean, gee, the Saudi Arabian government is corrupt, and their money corrupts us while simultaneously supporting Wahabi fundamentalism (less so since they've been attacked)? Boy, that's news :roll:

GRA said:

Haven't read "Sleeping with the Devil", but judging by the subtitle I doubt I'll find anything I haven't read many times before going back more than 20 years (although as I said, Black surprised me). I mean, gee, the Saudi Arabian government is corrupt, and their money corrupts us while simultaneously supporting Wahabi fundamentalism (less so since they've been attacked)? Boy, that's news :roll:

Click to expand...

No, that's not news. But thankfully it's not the point of the read. The point, as I see it, is that the author is a former CIA operative/analyst that spent most of his career working in the middle east (he knows many of the players by name and after shave) - he's able to provide a very frank view of actions of the US that aren't read in the mainstream media or even GCC. It was the reflection of 'us' and our actions that shook my confidence.

Sorry - forgot about the hearing challenge. I'm finishing the last chapter of the Third Industrial Revolution and it's clear that the book will provide roughly the same info from the talk - it'll just take longer than 45 minutes. Enjoy!

Happy Saturday!

GRA said:

... I have read "The Car that Could" (it's been on my EV bibliography topic from the start - http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9506" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ), ...

Click to expand...

Thanks, BTW - I wasn't aware of your bibliography thread. Nice work!

"The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday proposed reducing the amount of ethanol that is required to be mixed with the gasoline supply, the first time it has taken steps to slow down the drive to replace fossil fuels with renewable forms of energy."

I agree with the EPA's proposal and the rationel behind it...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/us/for-first-time-epa-proposes-reducing-ethanol-requirement-for-gas-mix.html?_r=1&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good read on a test run from San Diego to Vegas using E85 and then Gas.

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/e85-vs-gasoline-comparison-test.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Fred

Wennfred said:

Good read on a test run from San Diego to Vegas using E85 and then Gas.

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/e85-vs-gasoline-comparison-test.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Fred

Click to expand...

There is so much wrong with this article.

To get an accurate comparison, the vehicle should have been run on a dyno, not on streets. There is no way a human driver can maintain even a 'close enough' performance protocol on the road - and that's without unconscious changes in driving because of driver bias. At the very least the road trips should have been done three times and averaged. To be fair, the Southwest Research Institute (one of two federally licensed fuel and lubricants labs) does run fuel economy testing for class 8 (semi) trucks on closed roads. They do multiple runs, adjust for changes in atmospheric conditions, and the drivers are trained and evaluated for precise driving, and the tests are double-blind - the driver has no idea what fuel or lubricant is in the truck.
http://www.swri.org/3pubs/brochure/d08/fuelecon/fuelecon.htm

The crew doesn't know what 'biodiesel' is. Straight biodiesel has zero petroleum in it. Maybe the pump had a blend, but it shouldn't have if this is a legit 'alternate fuel' island as reported.

The truck probably didn't have any prior miles on alcohol, and that means there's carbon on the piston crown, the combustion chamber, and probably deposits on the backs of the intake valves. Additionally, there are very likely to be gum/varnish deposits in the fuel tank. All of this is cleaned during the first 2-5 tanks of ethanol run through the engine. This is enough to change truck performance as it is. But also, the truck's computer takes some time to automatically adjust to the different fuel - the computer continues to learn and tweak fuel injection quantities until it stabilizes. The truck should have been run on at least three tanks of E85 prior to the test for both engine cleaning and computer adjustment. Then it should have gotten an oil change.

One of the ugliest problems with the article is in their CO2 comparison. They quibbled over the tiny difference and declared that it's not worth it to run ethanol - while completely missing the point that 85% of the CO2 emitted was not fossil carbon - it was freshly 'grown' carbon that the corn and sorghum plants pulled out of the atmosphere six months or so before their test drive.

This fail isn't about being for or against ethanol - it's about demanding that writers have a basic CLUE unless the article is labeled 'fiction' - which most of this was.

As long as ethanol is corny, I'm ok with ethanol-free gas. Viable food products shouldn't be diverted to transportation fuels. It's a bad idea.

Of course, this is awkward. I feel like a recovering alcoholic talking about the merits of Vodka over Whiskey. I'M SOBER NOW GUYS, COME ON.

The other issue is that it is not possible with current technology to build a true flex fuel engine. The different compression ratios and other technical tidbits necessary to build an engine that operates optimally on either gas or methanol precludes building one that can operate optimally on both. Flex is an idea that exists purely to fill a political mandate and to take advantage of a tax loophole...

kubel said:

As long as ethanol is corny, I'm ok with ethanol-free gas. Viable food products shouldn't be diverted to transportation fuels. It's a bad idea.

Click to expand...

kubel said:

As long as ethanol is corny, I'm ok with ethanol-free gas. Viable food products shouldn't be diverted to transportation fuels. It's a bad idea.

Of course, this is awkward. I feel like a recovering alcoholic talking about the merits of Vodka over Whiskey. I'M SOBER NOW GUYS, COME ON.

Click to expand...

I am in favor of ethanol as a liquid fuel compared with gasoline. I also agree completely that food should not be diverted to make fuel.

The good news is that the type of corn used for ethanol is the same stuff grown for animal feed, not to ship to a store for corn on the cob. Additionally, because the corn is grown specifically to be an industrial feedstock, it's used for multiple purposes. After making ethanol from corn, the stuff left over is a better animal feed than raw corn - it's also a more condensed feed (animals need less) and it costs less to ship.

The 10% ethanol used in gasoline as an oxygen supplier replaces other chemicals like MTBE - replacing a known carcinogen with a harmless, biodegradable product.

None of this takes our industrial ag system off the hook, however. One example of how warped our system has become - the system that makes too much corn available - is the state of Illinois - some of the most fertile farmland in the country. Even though they grow tons of corn and soybeans, they have to import 97% of their food.

Ethanol is a money maker for small engine mechanics. Heck, even my 2012 Acura warns that if I use more than 10% ethanol by volume, the warranty for my entire fuel system is void.

TomT said:

The other issue is that it is not possible with current technology to build a true flex fuel engine. The different compression ratios and other technical tidbits necessary to build an engine that operates optimally on either gas or methanol precludes building one that can operate optimally on both. Flex is an idea that exists purely to fill a political mandate and to take advantage of a tax loophole...

Click to expand...

yes.

Is: "There ain't no free lunch" appropriate here?

asimba2 said:

<snip>

Ethanol is a money maker for small engine mechanics. Heck, even my 2012 Acura warns that if I use more than 10% ethanol by volume, the warranty for my entire fuel system is void.

Click to expand...

BS propaganda, pure and simple. AAA is in bed with the API when it comes to slurring anything that competes with gasoline.

Your 2012 Acura's misfueling warning is appropriate as 10% ethanol was the highest concentration in 'regular' gasoline when the car's emissions system was certified. Keep in mind, however, that a fuel system safe to use 10% ethanol is also automatically safe for 100% ethanol. You can run your car on 50/50 E85/G90 today and you'll only notice the small fuel economy drop.

My non-flex fuel V6 Ranger runs better on E85 - it runs cooler, stays in gear longer on hills, and is smoother. Starting is normal until the temperature drops to the mid-40s, then it could use a primer. In the winter, I drop back to 50/50 E85/gasoline.

Small engines - especially 2stroke engines, and especially especially 2-strokes that use pre-mixed gas/oil should not use ethanol mixes. The fuel systems are not guaranteed to be alcohol safe (unlike cars - which were updated well before the 2000 model year) - and 2-stroke oil will not stay mixed in alcohol blends. But don't confuse these with cars - small engines can easily be adjusted to run on straight ethanol by replacing or drilling the carburetor jets, but they don't have the automated controls modern car engines have.

There's a legal and regulatory reason why running E85 might be considered 'illegal' but there is no technical reason why any car on the road made since at least 2000 cannot burn E15 without modification.

ebill3 said:

TomT said:

The other issue is that it is not possible with current technology to build a true flex fuel engine. The different compression ratios and other technical tidbits necessary to build an engine that operates optimally on either gas or methanol precludes building one that can operate optimally on both. Flex is an idea that exists purely to fill a political mandate and to take advantage of a tax loophole...

Click to expand...

yes.

Is: "There ain't no free lunch" appropriate here?

Click to expand...

Yet the engines do exist - and modern computer controlled turbo- and superchargers and other tricks to change compression on the fly make it much easier today than yesterday. It's not rocket science - it's been done for years.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. Turbo and Super Chargers can accomplish many things but changing the mechanical compression ratio - which is just an important as the dynamic compression ratio - is not one of them... Engines optimized for high ratios of Ethanol (E85) also use different cam timing and duration profiles, and different lift. Then there are the different injector patterns and ignition requirements... An engine designed to run on both is, by nature, like a camel designed by committee; a compromise.

Unless I had no other options, I would never fuel anything I owned with E15... Thankfully, it appears as if it will never gain traction in the marketplace (and even the EPA is back-pedaling on it) so that likely will not be a consideration...

AndyH said:

Yet the engines do exist - and modern computer controlled turbo- and superchargers and other tricks to change compression on the fly make it much easier today than yesterday. It's not rocket science - it's been done for years.

Click to expand...