Your friend is a fan of Fox News no doubt. Since you are from Indiana you should know better (if only from osmosis). Our government PAYS farmers subsidies NOT to grow corn. Using E85 would not put any strain our grain market, especially if people were paying the rates that they pay for gasoline currently. In fact it would likely cause a resurgence of farming in the mid-west. I wish I had a job where I got paid to do nothing.
Another point is that corn is not the only solution to the problem. Brazil relies heavily on sugarcane (BTW they are completely independant of foreign oil) and Soy beans work just as well.

 

Unfortunately the US's ethanol program is more about buying farm belt votes than a rational energy policy.

With today's technology, corn ethanol, is barely energy positive and not price competitive with oil. Corn ethanol is a poor bet.

If the US gov. was serious about ethanol there would not be a 50 cent a gallon tax on imported ethanol.

Again it's about buying votes and not solving the US's energy problems.

 

This is basically true, corn is the wrong answer. If you want an ethanol based national fuel infrastructure sugar cane is the way to go. It yields much better than corn does.

 

However the problem with sugar cane is that it only grows in tropical & sub tropical climates. The US has a relatively small area where sugar cane can be grown (FL, gulf coast, HI).

Unfortunately, sugar farming in the US has been yet another horrible example of government intervention, farming quotas, subsidies, import tarifts etc. dating all the way back to the early 1800s. The system is little more than massive transfer of wealth to yet another special interest group.

Given the current energy situation, it the US gov. would better serve us citizens by figuring out how to get sugar cane farming ramped up for ethanol production instead of corn.

But it seems there are more votes up for sale in the US corn belt than the in US sugar belt.

 

Very interesting points here. I guess we really got off on another good topic.

I would see no problem with buying foreign ethanol as long as it was only half the cost at the pump of gasoline now.

What I like about E85 is the higher octane rating that goes with it.

Yes, kinda crazy to spend tax dollars on keeping folks from doing something (i.e. farming), especially when ethanol can be made from soy, corn, and cane.

 

This simply isn't the case. First of all E85 was and is a terrible idea that marries the worst aspects of ethanol and gasoline with little of the benefit of either. With respect the fact that you are willing to accept E85 as an accurate indicator of any aspect of the viability of ethanol as a fuel source says that you have likely been influenced the political talking heads you are trying to ignore.

Even worse, you've obviously been influenced by what they have to say about the production viability of the same which is almost always biased and woefully inaccurate. Ethanol seldom gets a fair shake from the goverment or industry because almost every lobby with influence has a reason to rally against it. Greenies don't like ethanol because it isn't radical enough and it doesn't do away with the ICE which they find unthinkable. Big oil doesn't like it because they are smart enough to understand that ethanol is the only viable threat to gasoline. And farmers too often don't like it or are indifferent because it threatens the subsidies so much of their industry has grown dependent upon, or in some cases because of plain ignorance.

The real answers are no further away than you Google button but you will have to do what I did and get all or almost all of the information first and then crunch the numbers. Ethanol is, without question the best short term alternative to gasoline and the only viable long term alternative to gasoline given current techonology. It also has the added benefits of making Americans far richer than they are today and making our cars cleane and more powerful. Did I mention ethanol would single-handidly end the need for farm subsidies? All this and nobody has to starve to death.

Again, this simply isn't accurate. When looked at in terms of how it could and would be produced as a genuine gasoline alternative and not as the afterthought that it is today ethanol stacks up very well to gasoline in virtually all respects. Virtually every piece of research that I have seen conducted on the issue was fundamentally flawed in one aspect or another which is truly disappointing to me. I finally had to look up all the could be's and what if's myself to get a real answer and was surprised to find that, if a gasoline substitute truly must be found, ethanol is by far the most realistic. In fact, the only real advantage gasoline has over ethanol is that it is the established player and reaps the benefits that come with the same. No other alternative can claim the same.

If the U.S. govt wants to solve our energy issues they'll stop looking at unrealistic alternatives like plug in hybrids and hydrogen and concentrate on ethanol.

Sort of. What I like about ethanol is that there are so many answers to potential problems. (this is an indicator of a viable alternative as well) Sugar cane does outperform corn as a production base strictly in terms of yield, but corn employed to produce ethanol still yields usable feed for livestock which is literally and figuratively huge when you consider the vast amount of corn grown for feed in the US alone.

 

I assume the terrible idea you are referring to is the flex-fuel vehicles being produced currently, which can run on E85 or standard gasoline (most of which is now blended with ethanol up to 10 %). It is true that an engine designed to run only on ethanol would perform much better in terms of MPG and performance than these compromised flex-fuel vehicles. From Wikipedia article on ethanol fuel:

"Ethanol is most commonly used to power automobiles, though it may be used to power other vehicles, such as farm tractors and airplanes. Ethanol (E100) consumption in an engine is approximately 34% higher than that of gasoline (the energy per volume unit is 34% lower)[18][19][20]. However, higher compression ratios in an ethanol-only engine allow for increased power output and better fuel economy than would be obtained with the lower compression ratio.[21][22] In general, ethanol-only engines are tuned to give slightly better power and torque output to gasoline-powered engines. In flexible fuel vehicles, the lower compression ratio requires tunings that give the same output when using either gasoline or hydrated ethanol. For maximum use of ethanol's benefits, a much higher compression ratio should be used,[23] which would render that engine unsuitable for gasoline usage. When ethanol fuel availability allows high-compression ethanol-only vehicles to be practical, the fuel efficiency of such engines should be equal or greater than current gasoline engines. However, since the energy content (by volume) of ethanol fuel is less than gasoline, a larger volume of ethanol fuel would still be required to produce the same amount of energy.[24]
A 2004 MIT study,[25] and an earlier paper published by the Society of Automotive Engineers,[26] describing tests, identify a method to exploit the characteristics of fuel ethanol that is substantially better than mixing it with gasoline. The method presents the possibility of leveraging the use of alcohol to even achieve definite improvement over the cost-effectiveness of hybrid electric. The improvement consists of using dual-fuel direct-injection of pure alcohol (or the azeotrope or E85) and gasoline, in any ratio up to 100% of either, in a turbocharged, high compression-ratio, small-displacement engine having performance similar to an engine having twice the displacement. Each fuel is carried separately, with a much smaller tank for alcohol. The high-compression (which increases efficiency) engine will run fine on ordinary gasoline under low-power cruise conditions. Alcohol is directly injected into the cylinders (and the gasoline injection simultaneously reduced) only when necessary to suppress ‘knock’ such as when significantly accelerating. Direct cylinder injection raises the already high octane rating of ethanol up to an effective 130. The calculated over-all reduction of gasoline use and CO2 emission is 30%. The consumer cost payback time shows a 4:1 improvement over turbo-diesel and a 5:1 improvement over hybrid. In addition, the problems of water absorption into pre-mixed gasoline (causing phase separation), supply issues of multiple mix ratios and cold-weather starting are avoided.
Ethanol's higher octane allows an increase of an engine's compression ratio for increased thermal efficiency according to the formula given at [27]. In one study, complex engine controls and increased exhaust gas recirculation allowed a compression ratio of 19.5 with fuels ranging from neat ethanol to E50. Thermal efficiency up to approximately that for a diesel was achieved.[28] This would result in the MPG of a dedicated ethanol vehicle to be about the same as one burning gasoline.
Engines using fuel with from 30% to 100% ethanol also need a cold-starting system. For E85 fuel at temperatures below 11 °C (52 °F) a cold-starting system is required for reliable starting and to meet EPA emissions standards.[29]"

The problem being that the availability of ethanol fuel is currently too limited for ethanol only vehicles to be feasible. Other ways to maximize the use of ethanol as discussed above involve more complex engine designs (direct injection) which could also significantly improve efficiency of gasoline burning engines as well.

See links below to articles which describe the advantage of using cellulosic material for ethanol production as opposed to corn or grain. In particular, the lignin content of cellulosic biomass, which is left over from the process, can be used as a fuel to power the ethanol production process. In the case of traditional feedstocks significant energy goes into the plant from other sources (coal, natural gas, etc.). http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/en...ic_Ethanol.htm
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5518


The statement "I finally had to look up all the could be's and what if's myself to get a real answer " suggests the argument is weak. Another 'could be' is we could figure out how to do nuclear fusion or even cold fusion. In terms of short-term, realistic impacts on energy usage, ethanol has some potential but significant progress in production processes is necessary as well as development of a distribution system. As far as big oil, I saw the head of the US division of Shell interviewed recently. Shell is investing about $1 billion per year currently on R and D for alternative fuels concentrating on cellulosic material based ethanol. I assume some of the others are doing likewise.

 

Did you even read my post? I plainly stated that......
.....I don't know how to make it any clearer. I have no problem with ethanol, gasoline, or a vehicle which can run on either. It is E85 itself which makes no sense. If we are to have flex fuel gasoline/ethanol vehicles then the smarter avenue would be to design them so that they can accept 100% ethanol or gasoline and not gasoline or a mixture of ethanol and gasoline.

While this still potentially brings some of the problems to the table that E85 does in very near term it would present the consumer with far more options than does E85 immediately and would consistently improve in this respect over time. Engines would potentially still be somewhat compromised in order to accomodate both fuels in the short term, although as I will point out later they don't have to be, but it wouldn't be the terrible scenario E85 brings to the table where virtually none of the merits of ethanol can ever be realized no matter which fuel you choose.

Modern engines in general with their ability to detect octane, etc could be designed to adapt to whichever fuel is in the tank allowing consumers who would rather run ethanol to enjoy some of the benefits the fuel provides. But since this still leaves something to be desired the real argument lies elsewhere. For example, turbocharged or supercharged engines would obviously benefit more from this scenario than would other existing designs. Such a solution can, and likely would, be taken advantage of by the manufacturer, particularly since the latest round of fuel price increases ensures that turbocharging will become more popular with automakers and consumers.

The Wiki article you cite touches on this but neglects to mention that a turbocharged flex fuel engine with variable boost could reap nearly the same benefit of a dedicated design running on 100% ethanol since turning up the boost has much the same effect as does raising the compression ratio. Such a design is 100% producion plausible right now, And while alternatives that work as well as the above mentioned turbo design aren't common they do exist. For example, GM has flirted with the notion of producing variable compression engines which bring obvious benefits to the table and without the need for forced induction. Bi-fuel gasoline/ethanol vehicles would make such a design far less of a novelty allowing the full benefit of ethanol to be realized in a bi-fuel engine without the need for forced induction. I am consistently amazed that the research papers I typically see on this subject almost universally avoid the benefits the existing technologies I've mentioned provide, particularly since they lend so much legitimacy to the ethanol argument.

As for the availability of ethanol. The above presents a situation where ethanol has the opportunity to be phased in logically over time actually using the economic advantages alcohol can potentially bring to the consumer to accomplish this. This is obviously the ideal sistuation and no other alternative fuel currently under consideration can make the same claim.

I'm already well aware of the above, but the link is appreciated anyway. And while this would certainly prove a boon to the ethanol production industry there is no need to wait. There are several models for viable ethanol production already in existence, they've just been dismissed.
getting the ball rolling now instead of waiting while research is conducted on other alternative fuel sources would simple accelerate the rate at which development in this field would occur.

Really, when I was a Middle Eastern studies student under some of the best minds in that field we called this the 'scholarly method'. Glad to see the rumours regarding the demise of the educational system in the U.S. are unfounded. Next time I'll be sure to ask people who own a vehicle which uses a fundamentally compromised version of the fuel in question or go to Wikipedia before I do something crazy like research less questionable sources of information for myself. C'mon.

Everything is just another could be until it actually occurs. As stated above one of the major benefits of ethanol is that it can plausibly be phased in over time, and without the need for poorly wrought concoctions like E85, allowing demand for the fuel itself to dictate the development of production and distribution facilities rather than the government mandates every other alternative fuel would doubtless require.

Really? You're sure they are doing this? I'm skeptical because I've got an old acquintance who was once an external auditor for Pricewaterhouse (now PricewaterhouseCoopers) and I've got to tell you they can manage some amazing things with financial statements. Shell likely is investing some money into alternative fuel research, although I seriously doubt it is for the altruistic reasons you obviously believe it to be, but nobody here has so much as a clue of how much they actually are spending on the same.

 

And Chevron's website says "Finding Newer, Cleaner Ways to Power the World"...by purchasing the patents to battery technology that was being used in electric cars and then not allowing anyone to produce these batteries.

I'm no "Greenie" but I'd really enjoy passing by the $3.19 (for Regular) gas station signs on my 54 mile daily commute. Of course I'd still drive my GT like I stole it on the weekends.

 

They still use cams but they don't use springs

 

correct, they use compressed air to return valves this is due to a better response rate than a metal spring. another f1 fun fact. Fuel pumps are mechanically driven.

Now there are systems being tested for electronic valve actuation, the valve is cnotrolled by electric actuators that open and close the valve. There by removing the cam shaft. Could be a very interesting technology indeed. we'll see if it works.

 

How is what I said inaccurate? While ethanol produced from sugar cane in tropical latitudes is a viable alternative to gasoline, the simple fact is ethanol made from corn grown in northern latititudes is barely energy positive making it not a viable alternative to gasoline.

 

Ethanol from corn, while not always the best choice, is more energy positive than it gets credit for and is sufficiently energy positive under the right circumstances to be a viable alternative. (like when the co-product yielded in the distilling process is processed and sold as feed significantly improving profitability and effectiveness) As I stated earlier one of the things I find advantageous about ethanol is that there is more than one right answer and collectively these make it a viable source of fuel.

Don't get me wrong as I agree with much of what you said. While small relative to the total landmass of the Continental US the production potential for ethanol, by way of sugar cane plantations, along the Gulf Coast is good and should be exploited without question. Not previously mentioned is that ethanol production from sugar beets is just as efficient per acre, and per dollar, as is ethanol production from sugar cane and this is a product which can be grown in cold climate, northern states and which should also be exploited. (just seemed like a good place to mention this) Collectively corn, sugar cane, and sugar beets could serve to make the united States the worlds largest producer of ethanol which would be something quite different than what we are no experiencing with crude oil production.

 

The other issue is a national security risk. There are way too many variables, including things like crop disease etc, that could wipe out our supply. It would be very easy for a foreign entity to use. I think we should be looking at natural electricity generation and electric car use. The energy doesn't cost as much and are much more energy efficient, as well cause less wear and tear than any kind of combustion. The technology is there.

Roger

 

Anyone heard any confirmation on whether the new Boss engine are OHC or OHV?

 

OHC
Even if some prototypes were OHV

 

Thats the latest I heard as well.

 

A link to some information explaining why E85 is such a bad thing compared to E100 might make the argument sound more rational and less like the ranting of a lunatic. Forgive me for not taking your word for it.


Resorting to insults is often a sign of an argument lost - ironically I did not receive my education in the USA. It is a matter of opinion as to which sources of information are 'less questionable'. As in other controversial areas of science and technology (such as stem cells), there are credible experts on the subject with diametrically opposed opinions on the near term economic and technical viability of biofuels. At least I supplied some links to support my post.

This little bit of paranoia with a clear anti-business tone again diminishes the entire post and indicates there is an agenda here that is not at all objective. There is nothing altruistic about a large corporation investing in potential new technologies to commercialize. Any company must look to the future to avoid the possibility of becoming obsolete. It actually makes perfect sense for a company which had over $50 billion in pre-tax profit last year to invest a mere 2 % of that in R & D for a potentially lucrative new business. Plus there are R & D tax credits.

 

To be blunt there wasn't an argument to begin with. Most of the links you gave were to cites which wouldn't be taken seriously by any authority on the subject. From a scholarly perspective, and that is what you should be using since this is how things like....well....books, are written, they are genuinely worthless. There is division on the issue, but posting links to things like Wiki makes it sounds as though you don't know enough about the subject to make an argument yourself and are simply letting Google do it for you. I haven't seriously rebutted much yet because there is as yet nothing of substance to rebut. With respect in some cases you could have given a link to Elmo's World and it would have been no less pertinent.

ROFLMAO. I might be the most pro-business person on this forum. However, I'm also aware enough to realize that intelligent businessmen invest in areas which are the most promising. Big oil has little reason to seriously invest in alternative fuel sources at the moment, particularly since the profits they are making from their core petroleum business are literally huge. Frankly, from a corporate perspective it would be irresponsible to divert vast amounts of money away from petroleum production right now given the CEO and Board's real role, which is to legally and ethically make as much money as possible for the business. And since they are smart enough to realize that most alternative fuel efforts right now are poorly run, politically driven drivel that is destined to fail they have very little reason to begin panicking and looking for alternatives to the huge money maker they already have in their portfolio. I'm by no means anti-business, I'm just not so removed from reality that I believe these are philanthropic orgnizations. I think you've seen one too many BP commercials.

Honestly, the fact that you get so much of your info from sources like Wiki might be part of the problem. You assume that because I don't think big oil would go out of their way to develop alternative sources of fuel I must be anti-business. This is just bad scholarship. One has nothing to do with the other and the fact that you drew such a conclusion makes it very clear that you make assumptions based on your thoughts and opinions on these issues and not simply on the actual evidence you have. Honestly, given the eveidence I have seen I don't think you know what you believe.

Rather, I think you simply know what Wiki and CNN have to say on these issues. To really understand an issue you have to go beyond what you think or believe or what the popular thought on a subject is and look into what actually is. And when an argumnet against ethanol as a viable alternative is heavily based on the problems with corn or the issues with arable land/food production generally speaking it gives me a pretty good idea that any research done was superficial at best. Most people can't get past their bias or what they think they are supposed to believe according to pop info sources like CNN. No crime in that, but it does make it difficult to take your seriously.

For example, if your understanding of the issue is so basic that you don't know why E100 is preferable to E85 you don't know enough to bother making an argument. Granted, you did seem to have a grasp on this issue, but I also cannot help but notice that when I provided workable, existing solutions to the issue of actually reaping the benefits of E100 in a bi fuel engine you had nothing to say. As such I can only surmise that you either want to debate simply for the sake of forwarding your opinion on the issue or, since it wasn't sourced from a link, you ignored it. Again, this makes it difficult to take you seriously and makes any time I have spent positing ideas and apporoaches which should provoke seem wasted.

 

Just saw a show on History Ch over the weekend about alternative energy. The show was very postive about corn ethanol, but admitted that presently corn ethanol as grown and refined in the US only creates 1.2 units of energy for every 1 unit of energy consumed to grow, distil and transport it.

That is, corn ethanol is only 20% energy positive. I have read #s saying corn ethanol is anywhere from 20% energy negative to 100% energy positive. Often left out of the equation on ethanol is that it cannot be transported through existing pipe lines and therefore has to be shipped by truck and train which significantly lowers the positive energy aspect of corn ethanol.

On the other hand, sugar cane ethanol as grown in Brazil's tropical climate is 8 times energy postive which over rides transportation costs. In addition, per acre of crop, sugar cane grows 2 to 3 times the energy of corn.

While I have read all sorts of promising things about ethanol from sugar beets, corn husks, switch grass, etc. all of which theoretically contain more energy than corn and almost as much as sugar. The fly in the ointment today is distilling those crops. To economically distil those crops it requires expensive laboratory enzimes which are not widely available and not yet developed into a large scale manufacturing process.

I'm not saying that we should give up on ethanol, but I am suggesting that much of our tax $$ that has been dumped into corn ethanol would have been better spent on developing synthetic oil from coal, figuring out how to process shale oil or into other sources for ethanol such as sugar cane.