E-85. I think I'm a convert.

Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing that gets missed in the equation is the transportation costs to move sugar based ethanol as well. Most sugar based in not processed in the U.S. and equating what they do in foreign countries regarding how they deal with waste, byproduct, etc is not an apples to apples thing. There are a lot more regulatory requirements on ethanol producers in the U.S., right along with everyone else. That is like saying it takes less energy and is more efficient to make something in China than the U.S. Of course it is cheaper there. They don't have nearly the regulatory requirements that we do. Now if only the coastal areas of the U.S. used the sugar based stuff, and transportation costs to get it to them were reasonable, that would be just fine with me. The corn based could be used in the heartland, again keeping transportation costs down to get it distributed.

Now if you can just get the entire southern tier of the U.S. to start growing sugar cane and the entire northern and western tiers to only grow sugar beets, then you might have a valid case and it would run the corn ethanol producers out of business. I would be quite comfortable with that if it happened. Will still be a market for the corn in its various products. But even if sugar based is more efficient, if the cost of the raising the crop is not profitable, then it will not make any real dent on things as they are now. A Farmer is going to grow the crop that is best for that region of the country and provides the best possible return on the investment.

And one of the largest sources of granulated sugar in the U.S. is beet sugar. The residue from that is not a good bio stock for energy to produce ethanol.
 
In the process of making ethanol, grain is first converted to sugar. Starting out with sugar is much more efficient. Brazil makes a great deal of ethanol from sugar at a cheap price, US law prevents us from importing it. So, the production of ethanol is a political more than an engineering problem.
 
Yeah, there are a lot of politics in all of this. The RFS regulations are a maze for sure. One thing is, the max ethanol that can be produced from corn is set in the standard. Right now, that is at roughly 14 billion gallons per year. Last data I saw, the amount of ethanol produced from corn was 13.8 billion gallons in 2012. So in effect, we are tapped out on the amount of ethanol that can be produced from corn. And corn prices are tanking. We can't produce more ethanol, and we are in for a major corn crop this year, so the markets are already reflecting that and corn prices are dropping like a rock.

There is a limit on the amount of ethanol that can be produced from sugar beets, but there is a loophole that producers are fixing to take advantage of. Most sugar beets were produced for food grade sugar. There is a work around in that there is no limit on acreages of "energy" or industrial sugar beet production. So if the beets are solely produced for energy, there is no limit. But you can bet, the FDA would be monitoring that none of the sugar be funneled off to food products.

The problem is the old putting the cart before the horse situation. There is not any major ethanol production facilities that are set up for sugar beets. So the money has to be invested in those plants with no appreciable "energy' industrial beet production being done now. No major farming operation is going to raise industrial grade sugar beets unless there is a market to sell them. And sugar beets that are already being grown, are on acreages that are registered as food grade with the FDA. Right now, the food grade cannot be used for ethanol, and the industrial grade cannot be used for food. Until that distinction gets eliminated, and then ethanol plants that can use sugar beets be brought online, we are stuck primarily with corn ethanol production as the primary source in the U.S.

So you have some merry mix ups going on. Do we generate more ethanol production from sugar beets, and where is the money going to come from to get that all worked out, or do we lift the cap on the corn ethanol production, which existing plants can easily take advantage of, and then recover some of the market corn price? If we promote sugar beet ethanol at this point in time, then we are gong to get hit for subsidies to get that off the ground, and we will get hit for corn support payments, as corn prices may drop to below the basement price in which support prices are paid. Or, we can lift the corn ethanol production cap, and then corn prices will stay above the floor price, so corn price supports will be unnecessary. We already have the capacity in place to produce 15-16 billion gallons of ethanol from corn from existing plants, up from the current 13.8 billion gallons. And corn ethanol blender subsidies have already been eliminated as of a few years ago, so we would incur no direct taxpayer cash payments.

At this stage of the game, whether one likes it or not, the established corn version is the most cost effective. Doesn't mean we shouldn't work toward using sugar beets, which I fully agree with, but that is going to take some time to get going and someone is going to have to pay for it. If we take our time, reduce regulatory restrictions, the private sector will get that done better and more efficiently than having the government micro manage it.

This video covers a lot of stuff regarding engines, RFS, and all the associated stuff regarding ethanol, including the caps on production I mentioned, the RFS standard, how CAFE standards will determine how much more ethanol will be needed and why. Long video but pretty interesting info...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzM3RQp2STg
 
Simple, this way they get more gasoline tax from each purchase at the pump when your vehicle gets lower fuel mileage.

They don't want you to get good mileage, the do want your and my money.
 
Originally Posted By: RedVic
Simple, this way they get more gasoline tax from each purchase at the pump when your vehicle gets lower fuel mileage.

They don't want you to get good mileage, the do want your and my money.


Maybe we can get our roads fixed w/extra revenue. Money has to come from somewhere.
 
True, they will get more fuel tax revenue from lower mpg that something like E85 has. But the price, at least in my area, for E85 is substantially less than gasoline to the point that it is a wash. So, I could send it to the oil company or to my state house for road repairs. Not sure if one is better than the other.
 
Note: The BSFC of a high compression, direct injection, highly turbocharged, heavy duty, E-85 specific engine can be better than a comparable diesel.

However, BSFC is a measure of energy consumption by fuel weight, not by volume. E-85 is considerably lighter than diesel. E-85 sg= 0.7891, Diesel #2 sg 0.851

By "gallons" consumed, the diesel is still better.
 
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Note: The BSFC of a high compression, direct injection, highly turbocharged, heavy duty, E-85 specific engine can be better than a comparable diesel.

However, BSFC is a measure of energy consumption by fuel weight, not by volume. E-85 is considerably lighter than diesel. E-85 sg= 0.7891, Diesel #2 sg 0.851

By "gallons" consumed, the diesel is still better.


And since we do not buy it by the pound... makes sense!

But I do expect great things from that engine GM is developing one day, they are spending big bucks to develop it.
 
Last edited:
I still use and love BSFC, as Sir Harry was using it 90 years ago, and the numbers just plain make sense.

We need to start the move to heat rate.

Particularly with EVs in the modern mix

Heat Rate is a straight ratio...BTU in/BTU out.

Then it still gets back to BTU in the tank, farm, sun, etc.
 
Yeah, the newer E85 engine designs coming from Ricardo (a major GM partner) and Cummins could change how one thinks of ethanol fuels. The one from Ricardo under development, a 3.2L EBDI engine, has as much hp/torque as the 6.6L Duramax diesel and at least as good of fuel economy. The 2.8L Cummins inline 4 E85 engine has roughly same performance as many 5-6L gasoline V8 engines and pretty close to diesel like fuel economy. And both of these engines reach peak torque at substantially lower RPM's than most gasoline engines. Around 2000 RPM compared to, say, the GM 5.3L V8 that doesn't reach peak torque till 4200 RPM. Most folks don't pull their camper at 4200 RPM, but they do in the 2000 RPM range.

It is a little disingenuous to just reflect on BTU content of a fuel. Different fuels have characteristics beyond BTU that makes them a very viable fuel when the engine is designed to take advantage of those characteristics.
 
Originally Posted By: Shaman
Can't wait to install 80 lb injectors and a smaller pulley in my car for E85. Will also be using wood alcohol for cooling. Flame away!


You are talking to Prius and minivan oil changers here. Not enthusiasts. They don't get it.

How are you going to cool with methanol?
 
Originally Posted By: Andy636
Dang...cheap gas got even cheaper...I envy you so much guys.

Fact - Around here lots of cars are converted to LPG due to hi gas price and they are running just fine even after 7-8 years, now the LPG compared to your E85 is bone dry and doing nada for top cylinder lubrication.

If your car is a flex fuel one and you get more miles/$ from E85 I would stick with that.


depends on the brand... Over here fitting LPG is throwing away the warranty on your engine with some brands. they won't go 100k miles on the stuff before you run out of lash adjustment.
 
When I lived in NY, we had two stations that had e85. Both were out of my way, so my flex fuel Grand Marquis barely got to use it.

Now out in TX, there is one station in my whole area that carries the stuff. The spread is not enough to make it worthwhile unless it was a performance application.

Are any new cars coming with flex fuel, or that pretty much a dead technology? You would think if there was demand then the stations would start carrying it.

My toyotas don't take e85, and they have warning signs to not use more than e15 in the engines.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^

I'm sure you can now tell me what I'm thinking...


I'd have to pop a bunch of oxy and drink a six pack......


yes sir, mr. veracity, yes sir...
 
Originally Posted By: 95busa
Would you rather pay a farmer or a haji? Easy question for this guy.


With all the fracking going on how do you know who you are paying for the gas?
Government subsidies or market price?
Grow food for fuel or to eat?
Easy questions for this guy.
Give me pure gas every time.
 
Then there is also the new pipelines being laid to handle the Dakota oil. That is being done with eminent domain laws and such which is screwing up some good farm ground in Iowa. That is a form of subsidy, when you use government to do the tough guy stuff for you and force folks to allow a pipe to go thru their land. This is not the XL pipeline stuff that has been in all the news. This is another pipe that will run diagonally thru Iowa to move oil to Illinois refineries. People pitch a fit that ethanol is forced at the pump, but they have no problem if prime farm land is disrupted for a pipe. Once these folks lay in that pipe, that farm ground will not be as productive as prior to disruption.

That pipe will be running within a few miles of my place. The farm ground it will go thru will experience lower crop yields. Folks pitch a fit over food for fuel when it comes to ethanol, but they are comfortable when less food can be grown where a pipe runs because the soil balance has been disrupted so that crop growth in that area is stunted for years. They are comfortable because they are not inconvenienced. As long as someone else gets screwed, it is ok.

Point being, no matter what we do for fuel, it will cause some negatives and offer some positives. I want it all. I want gas, diesel, NG, propane, ethanol, biodiesel, solar, wind, coal, and good 'ol nuke power. All of these are viable fuels that, used judiciously and in compliment with one another, offer a great value to the American people. All of them provide good paying jobs for thousands and thousands of people. And government needs to step aside and let it all balance out most efficiently. There will still be a market for ethanol without government intrusion. Some folks are quite comfortable using ethanol. Whether it is used here or moved out of the country, it will be made. Primarily because there are many byproducts from the ethanol plants that are in demand as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top