Ethanol E-85 verses Hybrids
 

I caught Autoline Detroit on PBS this weekend. GM, Brazil and E-85...........very interesting stuff.

GM has one up it's sleeve?
http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_detroit_put_tiger/index.htm
Ford has one up it's sleeve?
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1140390609385&call_pag eid=970599109774&col=Columnist971715454851
Related Tech Site:
http://www.infinitebang.com/shepinc.com/

Why does it have to be E-85 versus hybrids? How about a hybrid engine that runs E-85?

Lots of commercials featuring big SUVs...

Face it folks, there aint no free lunch. How much energy and chemicals and farmland to produce that 15% alcohol in the mix?

The reality of the situation is pure Newton. Less mass and you will use less energy.

I think it's 85%, with 15% gasoline to keep it from freezing.

In Brazil they use up to 100% because it does not get very cold down there.

Only two studies out of dozens says there is a net benifit in energy consumption using E-85.

E-85 = Ethanol 85%

Good question.............how about diesel hybrids for that matter?

And they were both funded by the farm lobby. All of the others show a net energy loss.

Mercedes has a prototype diesel hybrid. I guess they're the only ones since they have a clientele that could actually afford such a vehicle.

The big question on E-85 is how much petroleum product does it take to make it.

What do the hybrid owners do in a few years when the batteries die? Anyone have a cordless drill battery work for more than a couple years?

Every time I see those damn commercials, or hear somebody saying that ethanol is the solution, I wonder if anyone does research any more.
Every single research paper I have read says that the production of ethanol for use in automobiles is worse for our ecology than the petroleum alternative.
Ethanol freezes at -40c.

Right, but:

1) It is politically popular. Who cares about actual science. It doesn't get in the way of the hysteria over human-caused global warming, why should it have any place here? Besides, "It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.©"

2) The farm lobby is very powerful and they more or less dictate the farm subsidies they want to Congress and state legislatures. Look at all of the subsidies for ethanol production.

There are a lot of papers that conflict on this. There are so many that say diffrent things. I am starting to think that we would break even.

You can find instructions online to brew your own bio-diesel.

Try it, then you could "reduce YOUR dependence on foreign oil.©"

An acre produces 7110 lbs corn -> 328 gallons of Ethanol @ 77,000 BTU per gallon

Gasoline = 125000 BTU's per gallon

We presently use 221,156,237,500 gallons of gasoline per year

So we would need to replace it with 359,019,866,071 gallons of ethanol

To produce the required ethanol, 1,094,572,762 acres would need to be dedicated to this production.

US land area 9,631,418 sq km total


19.13 % arable land

1,842,490.2634 sq km arable

1 square kilometer = 247.105 381 467 acres

455,289,259 acres for agriculture available

So we have 1/2 the land we need to be self sufficient with ethanol, and this would require turning over _any_ land usable for agriculture to the purpose of fuel production including forests, state parks, areas for houses, San Francisco, New Jersey, etc. The entire Country would be 6 ft high corn stocks and we still wouldn't produce enough to replace half of our gasoline usage.

The above doesn't include fuel electric power generation, heating, or any other fuel source, just gasoline for transportation.

Methanol from Methane might be a better fit, but CNG would be better.

Natural Gas for Transportation (Hybrid electric would be good)
Nuclear Power for Electricity (and everything else)

No, but the Interstate battery in my 911 is 7 years old, and won't die. My plan was to replace it with a lighter battery once it dies, but I am still waiting. Also, I may be wrong on this, but I thought I read something that said the batteries on a new Toyota hybrid last for the life of the vehicle. Whatever that means....

They get new batteries....but it aint cheap. I believe hybrid manufactureres have a pretty comprehensice recycling plan for the consumed pack.

I like seeing people throw up tons of calculations that are geared to indicate we can't outright replace our total gasoline consumption without turning every square inch of land into a corn farm.

Though it may be true, those calculations are based on consumption RIGHT NOW.

With things changing, hybrid and more efficient vehicles, is our consumption going to stay the same? Go up? Go down?

What would happen if a cheaply available battery source were discovered that could enable a pure electric vehicle get several hundred miles on one charge were discovered?

I think the naysayers are only measuring against what exists TODAY, and are not factoring in changing and evolving technology of tomorrow.

Hey, any pecentage bite we take out of OPEC is worth it to me.

If we acted on what we have today, that would be a great start:

If we built more nuclear power plants to the latest design..

If we had a gas tax going up $0.50 per year..

If we gave tax breaks to heat with hard coal & wood..

OPEC would cry.http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/draai.gif

It would be great, but....the power still has to come from somewhere.

If anyone thinks our power consumption is going to go down, think again. Our population is expanding. The world population is expanding, and getting 'richer' which means they use more power.

My point is that you are not going to get all of your power from bio-fuels. Not going to happen. We have a couple of choices, but Nuclear will be essential.

Battery technology hasn't improved markedly in the past 50 years. Americans vote for larger and heavier vehicles with their dollars. Hybrids are false economy...people only buy them because of government subsidies. Hydrogen and Ethanol powerplants are a joke and a big waste of tax/research dollars.

>If we built more nuclear power plants to the latest design..

Waste disposal problems.

>If we had a gas tax going up $0.50 per year..

Tax on the poor.

>If we gave tax breaks to heat with hard coal & wood..

Horrible air pollution.

Face it...there's no cheaper, and relatively clean and safe, energy source than oil. And like Bush says we're addicted to it. That's right folks...WE are to blame.

corn ethanol has been around for decades, and it hasn't gotten anywhere because of the low yield per acre. The current excitement is about cellulosic ethanol, which is fermented from any cellulose (grass, wood, debris) using specialized enzymes.

The National Renewable Energy Lab has gotten the cost of cellulosic ethanol down to about $1.15/gallon.

15% gasoline is added because the flash point of pure ethanol is too high to start a cold engine.

We drive these clunkers at work that run on E85, and they sometimes stall when cold. Otherwise they drive like a normal car.