I've read research before that said blends of ethanol around 30-40% actually provide increased performance over gasoline when used consistently. I think that was some early findings and they are still working on it.
E85
- Thread starter ISU_REV
- Start date
Its true when performance = power. Ethanol (alcohol) has a lot higher octane rating, so the car's computer can boost the ignition timing and other factors to get more power out.
As far as fuel economy, ethanol has about 30% less energy (btu's or calories) in it per volume than gas, therefore you need more volume of it to get the same amount of energy.
Its kind of confusing unless you know a lot about how engines work.
All you ethanol knockers need to read his post over and over and burn it in to your brain!
He is dead on. It is only one part of an effort to keep the middle east from yanking our shorties every time they feel like it with ridiculously high prices.
It's not thee solution but it's the best step in the right direction in a real fricking long time.
I can't find the link right now but I read a study that once you factor in everything like fuel to produce the ethanol, get it out of the ground, and loss of MPG, etc that we actually burn more oil by using ethanol.
I think the 50 cents or whatever that the government has been giving as a tax break for the last decade or so could have been better spent on battery technology.
Between 1995 and 2003, federal corn subsidies totaled $37.3 billion
When you look at the total cost of producing corn-based ethanol (fertilizer, fuel to plant, harvest, etc, fuel to process, water useage, and on-and-on) it is hard to make a business case for its use as a fuel. The net energy gain from producing ethanol is very small.
Other environmental concerns related to water useage and fence row to fence row farming of marginal (erodable) acres is very hard to put a cost on...
If we didn't subsidize ethanol blenders to the tune of $0.52/gallon (tax credit) it wouldn't even get in the market. Guess who gets to pay for the subsidy?
We really need to get out the the corn-based ethanol business and into other methods of production.
Other environmental concerns related to water useage and fence row to fence row farming of marginal (erodable) acres is very hard to put a cost on...
If we didn't subsidize ethanol blenders to the tune of $0.52/gallon (tax credit) it wouldn't even get in the market. Guess who gets to pay for the subsidy?
We really need to get out the the corn-based ethanol business and into other methods of production.
Why does everyone ignore that the bi-product of ethanol is gluten? Gluten is then fed to cattle. So in turn, corn can be used for both food and fuel. Also, back in "the good old days" when horses and cattles did all the work instead of tractors, what do you think was the fuel? Hint: It was corn. Corn has always been used for fuel, and actually a much smaller percent now than those "good old days". I hate to tell everyone that seems to like supporting foreign oil instead of American farmers, but ethanol is a good thing. It's been around for 40 years and the technology and science has made and will make it more efficent every year. Not sure why every uninformed "know it all" decided to blame ethanol for our "world food crisis" that we were in 7 months ago(and has magically ended). All the "science" that proved ethanol inefficient was based on data from 1979. A lot has changed in 30 years, and again it will keep changing for the better. As far as switchgrass, in theory, it's a good idea, but where are we going to store it? Honestly, I'm sometimes ready to throw in the towel on ethanol. I'm tired of trying to show people facts that don't want to see them. Ethanol has been proven for 20 years and then last summer the National Grocery Stores of America hires an advertising firm to put out as much negative spin (data from 1979) as possible on ethanol. Next thing you know, all of you think it's wrong. So just please use to common sense before you bash it, and maybe even a little research (hopefully look up current data instead of that from 1979). I'm really tired of ignorant people, posing as experts. I don't think everyone should being using E85, but there is no reason an Iowan, or American should not be using some ethanol blend. Unless you work for an oil company. Then more power to you.
Sorry for the rant. I just crave common sense.
Last edited:
A study from two months ago raised the bang for buck factor from 1.06-1.2- up to range of 1.7-1.8, so it is not as bad as first thought althought switch grass is better.
Ethanol is not perfect but it is a great start to reducing foreign oil dependency. I think corn ethanol will eventually fade off, but ethanol itself will not disappear because other crops like switchgrass and even more so, miscanthus will be developed into efficient biofuel crops. Obviously nothing is perfected now, but the research is being done and it will become more efficient. I don't think that ethanol will ever replace oil, but it will become a significant contributor to world energy supply in the future.
By boycotting ethanol and all related products, you are slowing down the momentum for research and eventual transition to renewable fuel sources. Please remember that this technology is still in its infancy stage, it will grow - it needs to grow - and it needs our help to get there.
By boycotting ethanol and all related products, you are slowing down the momentum for research and eventual transition to renewable fuel sources. Please remember that this technology is still in its infancy stage, it will grow - it needs to grow - and it needs our help to get there.
Here is an abstract on a journal article from Global Change Biology from 2008. It should give you some insight into current research into alternative crops like miscanthus.
Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus
Abstract
Biofuels from crops are emerging as a Jekyll & Hyde – promoted by some as a means to
offset fossil fuel emissions, denigrated by others as lacking sustainability and taking
land from food crops. It is frequently asserted that plants convert only 0.1% of solar
energy into biomass, therefore requiring unacceptable amounts of land for production of
fuel feedstocks. The C4 perennial grass Miscanthus x giganteus has proved a promising
biomass crop in Europe, while switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) has been tested at several
locations in N. America. Here, replicated side-by-side trials of these two crops were
established for the first time along a latitudinal gradient in Illinois. Over 3 years of trials,
Miscanthus x giganteus achieved average annual conversion efficiencies into harvestable
biomass of 1.0% (30 t ha^-1) and a maximum of 2.0% (61 t ha^-1), with minimal agricultural
inputs. The regionally adapted switchgrass variety Cave-in-Rock achieved somewhat
lower yields, averaging 10 t ha^-1. Given that there has been little attempt to improve the
agronomy and genetics of these grasses compared with the major grain crops, these
efficiencies are the minimum of what may be achieved. At this 1.0% efficiency, 12 million
hectares, or 9.3% of current US cropland, would be sufficient to provide 133109L of
ethanol, enough to offset one-fifth of the current US gasoline use. In contrast, maize grain
from the same area of land would only provide 49109 L, while requiring much higher
nitrogen and fossil energy inputs in its cultivation.
Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus
Abstract
Biofuels from crops are emerging as a Jekyll & Hyde – promoted by some as a means to
offset fossil fuel emissions, denigrated by others as lacking sustainability and taking
land from food crops. It is frequently asserted that plants convert only 0.1% of solar
energy into biomass, therefore requiring unacceptable amounts of land for production of
fuel feedstocks. The C4 perennial grass Miscanthus x giganteus has proved a promising
biomass crop in Europe, while switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) has been tested at several
locations in N. America. Here, replicated side-by-side trials of these two crops were
established for the first time along a latitudinal gradient in Illinois. Over 3 years of trials,
Miscanthus x giganteus achieved average annual conversion efficiencies into harvestable
biomass of 1.0% (30 t ha^-1) and a maximum of 2.0% (61 t ha^-1), with minimal agricultural
inputs. The regionally adapted switchgrass variety Cave-in-Rock achieved somewhat
lower yields, averaging 10 t ha^-1. Given that there has been little attempt to improve the
agronomy and genetics of these grasses compared with the major grain crops, these
efficiencies are the minimum of what may be achieved. At this 1.0% efficiency, 12 million
hectares, or 9.3% of current US cropland, would be sufficient to provide 133109L of
ethanol, enough to offset one-fifth of the current US gasoline use. In contrast, maize grain
from the same area of land would only provide 49109 L, while requiring much higher
nitrogen and fossil energy inputs in its cultivation.
Last edited:
Very informed observation.
