Dedicated field? What do you mean by that? Farmers get contracts from ethanol plants, so bushels of corn are earmarked.
E85 - it ain’t over till it’s over.
- Thread starter Snagglefoot
- Start date
dnewton3
Staff member
Biofuels are a sideline show. There's never going to be enough supply to satisfy demand, and when the "total" environmental impact is considered, there's a very, very negligible gain over decades (best case).
This video has been posted before but it brings FACTS into the conversation that are ignored by many.
Summary: BEST CASE SCENARIO is that using E10 would reduce a carbon footprint by a total 2% over 28 years. (not 2% per year; that's 2% total over 28 years). The more realistic estimates would likely go negative in effect; there's no benefit whatsoever.
In the video, he does not address the E85 topic, but we can extrapolate some reasonable conclusions ...
If we switched to E85 for our entire SI fuel supply, the demand for ethanol would be so shockingly high in volume that we would have to cut/slash/burn down every forest and turn over every single acre of grassland, releasing many, many more times (exponentially more) of carbon INTO the air, just to get ethanol source to be able to be grown.
E85 is great for racing engines that specifically need the octane to run really high compression ratios and/or very high density pressures (forced induction). Other than that, E85 is a Ponzi scheme (literally) where we pump more carbon INTO the air than we can reasonably remove in decades of capture/recycling.
This video has been posted before but it brings FACTS into the conversation that are ignored by many.
Summary: BEST CASE SCENARIO is that using E10 would reduce a carbon footprint by a total 2% over 28 years. (not 2% per year; that's 2% total over 28 years). The more realistic estimates would likely go negative in effect; there's no benefit whatsoever.
In the video, he does not address the E85 topic, but we can extrapolate some reasonable conclusions ...
If we switched to E85 for our entire SI fuel supply, the demand for ethanol would be so shockingly high in volume that we would have to cut/slash/burn down every forest and turn over every single acre of grassland, releasing many, many more times (exponentially more) of carbon INTO the air, just to get ethanol source to be able to be grown.
E85 is great for racing engines that specifically need the octane to run really high compression ratios and/or very high density pressures (forced induction). Other than that, E85 is a Ponzi scheme (literally) where we pump more carbon INTO the air than we can reasonably remove in decades of capture/recycling.
No more than any other industry. They are all subsidized. The subsidy that everyone complains about ended years ago.
And the blend credit is the big driver behind e10 being everywhere and e15. Oil companies love to get paid to use a cheap product they can mark up to the point where they will pay midstream companies to expand blending systems.
And that's a good point. To get to some sort of scenario to keep new gasoline cars from being banned, perhaps going to a 50/50 mixture would be required which would result in going from 10% ethanol to say, 50% ethanol. Take the import tariffs off. Brazil is not part of the free trade agreement so it was easy to put a tariff on. Time to take it off.
The primary reason I would see for something common above e15 is to satiate automotive companies desire to require “premium “ fuel
And the oil companies desire to sell light oils, kerosene and straight run gasoline for direct to consumer use.
E50 would greatly reduce the cost of petrochemical fuel production and you could pack more btus and top lube in there while still meeting 87 octane.
To just meet octane requirements would only require e20-e30
Unless we develop cheap methods of making abundant amounts of polybutanol and ethanol from weeds and waste byproducts like switchgrass and corn husks there is little benefit of an pure ethanol economy beyond keeping nasty aromatics out of our air and water.
Don't forget ethanol is seen as the safer alternative to MTBE so I don't expect it to disappear entirely even without the subsidy.
Yeah, a dedicated sugar cane field. Farmers don't get ethanol contracts here. Around here you hope your corn grades out #1, because if it grades out less than that it goes to hog feed etc.
I'm sure there are contracts in some parts of the country, just not here, which is why I stated "around here" in my original post.
Yeah, I saw you say that, but I've never heard of just driving to an ethanol plant without a contract. If you mean just a regular elevator, then that makes more sense.
I agree that E-85 Flex Fuel compatible vehicles will be part of the transition & future makeup of vehicles for a while. They are most likely getting "Credit" from EPA on those fleet sales (XL Only) super duty gasoline engines. Do I think everything is perfect no but I commend the option of having more domestic sources for fuel. I think this was a great post... thanks for digging into it.
The wholesalers may have contracts with ethanol plants..IDK. Some farmers around here have contracts with whiskey distilleries but not with ethanol plants (same process). There is only 1 ethanol plant in the entire state of Virginia (in Hopewell), but there are a whole lot more whiskey and bourbon distilleries that need the same corn to produce the same product.
"IF" we were to design the engine to use only a true 85% Ethanol fuel, the changes can result in superb Thermal Efficiency on par with modern diesels in the low-mid 40% TE range.
Of course true E85 is only 83,000 BTU's per gal, vs Diesel fuel which can be as high as 138,500 BTU per gal.
My point is that we can use E85 fuel quite efficiently due to the high octane and cooling properties. Since fuel is trending to be priced by energy content, it could be reasonably economical.
There hasn't been any farm subsidies for corn production paid out in years. Corn prices have been too high.
Yes-Casey’s used that $5M grant to phase out their E0 pumps and crank up their gasohol sales. E10, E15 (labeled 88 octane), and E85.
Yes as well as the reduced MPG it gives due to less energy vs regular or E10 fuel.
False. Growing & harvesting corn for fuel is nearly 60% more carbon-intensive than drilling hydrocarbons, mainly due to farming stirring up so much dust & soil.
Come on out to flyover country during planting or harvesting time and your vehicles will quickly get a solid coating of carbon-based particles on every external surface…
