Running Solaras on ethanol (e85) works!

[MCOjerry]

Like I said earlier, corn isn't the only thing ethanol can be made from. And it's definately not pushing up prices of corn as the government or gas companies would have you think. It can be made from anything that has sugar and yeast. There is a big push right now for making it with trash and surag cane. Just thought I'd let you know again.

In the US, its mostly corn, for now. Research is being done in this field to use agricultural waste to make ethanol, but thats in a 2-3 year timeframe. For now its just mostly corn. It cannot yet be made from yeast efficiently. Sugar cane is Brazil's territory, most of the US doesn't have the correct climate to produce sugar cane.

Since more ethanol is being demanded by the government, they need to make more corn for ethanol, and this displaces fields that were used for corn or wheat for human consumption as well. Wheat in particular has had some crazy inflation because wheat used to be a core cash crop, but cant compete with corn with ethanol subsidies.

And Texas have asked for a reprieve on the ethanol mandate due to raising food and cattle feed prices.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/s ... siteid=rss

Jon is correct. Most of the ethanol produced here is from corn, and there is a mandate that we make a significant percentage of it (vs. gas) which is increasing. It does take feed away from the animals that our our food supply. It is one of the big causes of the increase in food prices (of course there are others).

I don't know how you are getting better mileage from ethanol, because it's pretty much a fact that it produces less MPG than gas. Perhaps your math is off. Are you using your MPG gauge? Perhaps that is messed up from switching to ethanol. Who knows, but it doesn't produce better MPG.

I'm pissed because they are starting to mix 10% ethanol with our gas in FL (something they tried to do back in the late 80s and early 90s in NY and FAILED due to public complaints about car damage). So, you'd think that out gas would be cheaper, right? I mean, they are watering (basically) down the gas with the cheaper ethanol. NOPE...gas just keeps getting more expensive. I don't like being forced to use something that could possibly damage my car (and it could). No one is going to pay me for repairs down the line. They say it's safe, but I doubt they have done real long term studies, because I doubt that any area has done this long enough to know for sure.

I don't think ethanol is the answer, it's a band aid. We need to do more research on other sources of energy/fuel.

[no_escape]

From what I understand, newer cars 96 on up on most models can handle the 10-15% blend. Injectors in older cars get gummed up since Ethanol is abit sticky. Plus you need harder lines since E85 can actually eat through the rubber lines.

Here in Iowa, Mobil 1 uses a Ethanol blend in all the gas they sell. All the others have it in the mid-grade gas.

As for people saying they get better gas mileage with E85... WRONG! It's a higher octane that burns hotter, hence faster. There is no way you can get better gas mileage on a E85 car with the same engine displacment and weight as you would a unleaded gas car.

[hskrsolara]

If our government would expand Alaskan drilling, off-shore domestic drilling, and allow refineries to be built here in America...then ethanol would not be such a controversial topic. However, it is the only way to reduce our foreign dependence on oil at the current time.

The underlying issue we are ignoring is the depreciation of the dollar in the world market vs. asian industrialization. China/Asia is buying up our commodities and ag inputs at alarming rates, thus driving up our fertilizer, chemical prices. With these increased shortages of inputs, our commodity prices must stay at a higher level or else you could bankrupt hundreds of thousands of American farmers.

Cellulosic ethanol is a long ways from hitting the main stage. Corn ethanol has by-products (distillers grain for cattle/pig feed) that are useful, whereas celulosic ethanol is made from waste, and would be creating additional massive amounts of solid waste...where you gonna put it all? Brazilian ethanol production does not have the infastructure/stability/world demand to be the answer. Plus, the tariffs are a huge roadblock as well. (which I am not against, I think we should keep as much of our $ within the borders, supporting American farmers, as possible)

Plus, sugar cane would never be sustainable as a major crop in America, so you're not going to convince farmer's to grow it any cheaper than they do currently with corn. I think it could actually increase the cost of ethanol, seeing its much lower gross income potential and lack of genetic development amongst leading seed companies. Ethanol is simply another market for the American farmer's commodity. They really don't care what their corn is being used for, they just want the best price for a product that is going to be produced no matter what.

Bottom line is, build American oil refineries, expand off-shore drilling and tap into ANWR's oil supply (ANWR exploration would only affect 8% of the 1.5 million acres, with drilling only affecting 2000 acres and could create 700,000 jobs!) and we have potential to drop oil imports by 20%...what would this do for your $/gallon? Until then, ethanol is the only temporary solution.

[Jon11582]

Like I said earlier, corn isn't the only thing ethanol can be made from. And it's definately not pushing up prices of corn as the government or gas companies would have you think. It can be made from anything that has sugar and yeast. There is a big push right now for making it with trash and surag cane. Just thought I'd let you know again.

In the US, its mostly corn, for now. Research is being done in this field to use agricultural waste to make ethanol, but thats in a 2-3 year timeframe. For now its just mostly corn. It cannot yet be made from yeast efficiently. Sugar cane is Brazil's territory, most of the US doesn't have the correct climate to produce sugar cane.

Since more ethanol is being demanded by the government, they need to make more corn for ethanol, and this displaces fields that were used for corn or wheat for human consumption as well. Wheat in particular has had some crazy inflation because wheat used to be a core cash crop, but cant compete with corn with ethanol subsidies.

And Texas have asked for a reprieve on the ethanol mandate due to raising food and cattle feed prices.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/s ... siteid=rss

Jon is correct. Most of the ethanol produced here is from corn, and there is a mandate that we make a significant percentage of it (vs. gas) which is increasing. It does take feed away from the animals that our our food supply. It is one of the big causes of the increase in food prices (of course there are others).

I don't know how you are getting better mileage from ethanol, because it's pretty much a fact that it produces less MPG than gas. Perhaps your math is off. Are you using your MPG gauge? Perhaps that is messed up from switching to ethanol. Who knows, but it doesn't produce better MPG.

I'm pissed because they are starting to mix 10% ethanol with our gas in FL (something they tried to do back in the late 80s and early 90s in NY and FAILED due to public complaints about car damage). So, you'd think that out gas would be cheaper, right? I mean, they are watering (basically) down the gas with the cheaper ethanol. NOPE...gas just keeps getting more expensive. I don't like being forced to use something that could possibly damage my car (and it could). No one is going to pay me for repairs down the line. They say it's safe, but I doubt they have done real long term studies, because I doubt that any area has done this long enough to know for sure.

I don't think ethanol is the answer, it's a band aid. We need to do more research on other sources of energy/fuel.

The 10% in E10 is not to water it down. It is to oxygenate the gas, which is required by law. They used to use MTBE widely, which was found to be detrimental if it leaked into the water supply. Since the government no longer limits the liability from MTBE contamination, they had to use some other form of oxygenating gas to limit the risk to the oil companies.

Ethanol is a better alternative as a gasoline additive to oxygenate gas than MTBE because it takes less energy to make than MTBE, but E85 is creating a higher demand for ethanol, when they are stuggling to make enough for E10 without having a large macroeconomic effect.

Additionally, now it takes about .5 gallons of gas to plant and harvest enough corn for 1 gallon of ethanol. This doesn't include converting the corn into ethanol, producing the fertilizer for the crop, or irrigation, but as a total, I've heard anywhere from .6 gallons to 1.2 gallons of fossil fuel for 1 gallon of ethanol. The fact is that its so close, its not much more efficient at this point.

Its a bunch of tradeoffs, but until they find out how to make ethanol efficiently out of agricultural waste, such as corn husks, leaves, stalks, wood chips, and switchgrass, rather than agricultural goods, I don't believe mass producing E85 it has a net positive effect on the environment.

This research (cellulose or cellulisic ethanol, or making ethanol out of non-starches) should be showing some serious breakthroughs within the next 2-3 years, so it's on the horizon. And once it does, it will be much more efficient, because farmers do not need to go out of their way to create ethanol-producing goods, and the portions that are now waste actually have more energy in them, so they should be able to make much more energy per pound...right now with corn-based ethanol. it takes about 26 POUNDS of corn to make one gallon of ethanol. Thats about 500 pounds of corn to fill your tank.

[MCOjerry]

More drilling is just another band aid, with possible worse effects on the planet.

We need to focus more brainpower and resources to new technologies. The answer is out there, we just need to come up with it.

We also need to re-think how we live. We waste too much. Unless you have a TRUE need for a gas guzzling vehicle (i.e.: work on a farm and need a behemoth of a truck), why do we not tax them heavily to discourage people form buying them for status? waste...waste...waste...

[MCOjerry]

The 10% in E10 is not to water it down. It is to oxygenate the gas, which is required by law. They used to use MTBE widely, which was found to be detrimental if it leaked into the water supply. Since the government no longer limits the liability from MTBE contamination, they had to use some other form of oxygenating gas to limit the risk to the oil companies.

Ethanol is a better alternative as a gasoline additive to oxygenate gas than MTBE because it takes less energy to make than MTBE, but E85 is creating a higher demand for ethanol, when they are stuggling to make enough for E10 without having a large macroeconomic effect.

Great, so it's cheaper; then gas prices should go down a bit instead of up. I am still not convinced that it's not harmful to cars not engineered to handle it. But I am not an expert.

[trdkamuri51o]

that may all be good and true, but higher octane doesnt mean ur just gonna get extra horses.

rofl...

do u floor your car daily?? drive hard to every stoplight?? do u race daily or track it daily???

god watch out i lost 2whp!! its the end of the world!!!!

ill be waiting to hear u whinea bout 5 dollar a gallon gas!!!!

[hskrsolara]

Like I said earlier, corn isn't the only thing ethanol can be made from. And it's definately not pushing up prices of corn as the government or gas companies would have you think. It can be made from anything that has sugar and yeast. There is a big push right now for making it with trash and surag cane. Just thought I'd let you know again.

In the US, its mostly corn, for now. Research is being done in this field to use agricultural waste to make ethanol, but thats in a 2-3 year timeframe. For now its just mostly corn. It cannot yet be made from yeast efficiently. Sugar cane is Brazil's territory, most of the US doesn't have the correct climate to produce sugar cane.

Since more ethanol is being demanded by the government, they need to make more corn for ethanol, and this displaces fields that were used for corn or wheat for human consumption as well. Wheat in particular has had some crazy inflation because wheat used to be a core cash crop, but cant compete with corn with ethanol subsidies.

And Texas have asked for a reprieve on the ethanol mandate due to raising food and cattle feed prices.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/s ... siteid=rss

Jon is correct. Most of the ethanol produced here is from corn, and there is a mandate that we make a significant percentage of it (vs. gas) which is increasing. It does take feed away from the animals that our our food supply. It is one of the big causes of the increase in food prices (of course there are others).

I don't know how you are getting better mileage from ethanol, because it's pretty much a fact that it produces less MPG than gas. Perhaps your math is off. Are you using your MPG gauge? Perhaps that is messed up from switching to ethanol. Who knows, but it doesn't produce better MPG.

I'm pissed because they are starting to mix 10% ethanol with our gas in FL (something they tried to do back in the late 80s and early 90s in NY and FAILED due to public complaints about car damage). So, you'd think that out gas would be cheaper, right? I mean, they are watering (basically) down the gas with the cheaper ethanol. NOPE...gas just keeps getting more expensive. I don't like being forced to use something that could possibly damage my car (and it could). No one is going to pay me for repairs down the line. They say it's safe, but I doubt they have done real long term studies, because I doubt that any area has done this long enough to know for sure.

I don't think ethanol is the answer, it's a band aid. We need to do more research on other sources of energy/fuel.

The 10% in E10 is not to water it down. It is to oxygenate the gas, which is required by law. They used to use MTBE widely, which was found to be detrimental if it leaked into the water supply. Since the government no longer limits the liability from MTBE contamination, they had to use some other form of oxygenating gas to limit the risk to the oil companies.

Ethanol is a better alternative as a gasoline additive to oxygenate gas than MTBE because it takes less energy to make than MTBE, but E85 is creating a higher demand for ethanol, when they are stuggling to make enough for E10 without having a large macroeconomic effect.

Additionally, now it takes about .5 gallons of gas to plant and harvest enough corn for 1 gallon of ethanol. This doesn't include converting the corn into ethanol, producing the fertilizer for the crop, or irrigation, but as a total, I've heard anywhere from .6 gallons to 1.2 gallons of fossil fuel for 1 gallon of ethanol. The fact is that its so close, its not much more efficient at this point.

Its a bunch of tradeoffs, but until they find out how to make ethanol efficiently out of agricultural waste, such as corn husks, leaves, stalks, wood chips, and switchgrass, rather than agricultural goods, I don't believe mass producing E85 it has a net positive effect on the environment.

This research (cellulose or cellulisic ethanol, or making ethanol out of non-starches) should be showing some serious breakthroughs within the next 2-3 years, so it's on the horizon. And once it does, it will be much more efficient, because farmers do not need to go out of their way to create ethanol-producing goods, and the portions that are now waste actually have more energy in them, so they should be able to make much more energy per pound...right now with corn-based ethanol. it takes about 26 POUNDS of corn to make one gallon of ethanol. Thats about 500 pounds of corn to fill your tank.

The corn is going to be grown, regardless of its end use. Ethanol plants are just another market for a commodity, the crop will be produced no matter what. You CAN NOT factor in the cost of farm diesel and ag input costs when computing ethanol's cost of production, because of this very reason. Trucking expense is also the same either way, as the corn must be hauled to an elevator anyways...and the ethanol plant is right next door.

Also, who is going to go out behind the combine and bale corn stalks to use for cellulosic ethanol? Few farmers are going to take the time to do this, as it needs to be done in the busiest time of year, harvest. Plus, it is very expensive as you have to modify your thrasher and baler to handle the tough corn stalks. Then you have the added equipment costs, breakdowns and handling costs of stacking/hauling hundreds and hundreds of corn stalk bales. In this age of minimum tillage and conservational production, farmers want to make the fewest pases possible across the field. So, where are you going to store millions of bales of corn stalks? Look at the extra trucking expense to haul round bales all over the country. You are now making 3-4 times the trips to town and using A LOT more fuel. Cellulosic ethanol isn't as cost effective as it may seem.

[MCOjerry]

hskr, I see what you are saying about not factoring in the cost or production as it relates to the portion that would need to be done regardless of the corn's use. That makes 100% sense, the cost would be there no matter what.

Personally, though; I just don't think ethanol is the answer to our energy issues...just a band aid.

Do you think it's the answer? Just curious.

[MCOjerry]

Oh, I forgot. Why can't the ethanol producers come back behind the harvest and pick up all the waste to use?

I realize this was Jon's post topic, but just curious.

Also, since I don't know much about farming. All the waste...is it usually left on the ground to be tilled into the soil (to enrich it)? If so, how will removing it affect the soil?

[Chinky420]

my area. (Cedar park/Leander/Georgetown)

yikes...watch out for the wilco PD....they're the strictest cops in all of tx. i've had vehicles that i've been in searched twice before (separate incidents) by wilco PD (to no avail), just because they could.

to OP:
it's a good concept, but unfortuately there aren't nearly enough e85 service stations around this part of the country (yet). i give it about 5 years before the general populace catches onto, and starts backing e85.

but it's good to know that a SGer has done adequate research to be able to recommend specific products that have applications for our cars.

~k

[no_escape]

Also, since I don't know much about farming. All the waste...is it usually left on the ground to be tilled into the soil (to enrich it)? If so, how will removing it affect the soil?

Afew things:
More fertilizer, more often
You can only plant certain crops so many times in a row before you strip the nutrients out of the top soil
You can plant other crops that don't use as many nutrients or the same nutrients so those nutrients that you need will be back for next season.

[RDKamikaze]

but it's good to know that a SGer has done adequate research to be able to recommend specific products that have applications for our cars.

Thanks for that. I only posted up this thread to let everyone know that our cars CAN run on ethanol, not that I think "ethanol is the answer." To anyone who drew that conclusion, I'm sorry you thought that. And yes, I have done TONS of research about this stuff.

I do NOT think ethanol is the answer. Anyone who is slightly in with their mind would not say that either. There is NOT WAY the world can replace gasoline completely. I'm just saying that ethanol is a good choice to run ALONG SIDE with gasoline. Competition is key, here. I'm not saying "Run gasoline to the ground!" I'm just saying "Hey look, another great source to run your car on! Maybe people should start trying this stuff a little more often."

Feel free to keep debating and using technicalities and stuff like that, it's interesting to catch everyone's viewpoint. But I just want everyone to know the reason why I posted this thread. It was NOT to argue ethanol is te answer (because it's not), but yet to show that I believe it to be safe and reliable to our cars and many other cars out there. This is a topic that people should look into for themselves and NOT have other people arguing about it make their mind for them. Just go online and do 100+hrs of research like I have (yes, I really have done that much) and draw your own conclusion. I've seen everything from the good to the bad.

Enjoy!

[tito53]

theres no ethanol in jersey ...
i wonder why? maybe because we already have the cheapest prices in the country.

[hskrsolara]

Oh, I forgot. Why can't the ethanol producers come back behind the harvest and pick up all the waste to use?

I realize this was Jon's post topic, but just curious.

Also, since I don't know much about farming. All the waste...is it usually left on the ground to be tilled into the soil (to enrich it)? If so, how will removing it affect the soil?

good questions.

Yes, you will lose some carryover nutrients that we attain from crop residue. Can I attach a definite $ to it, not yet, but I would roughly estimate that you would have to replace up to 15% in additional fertilizer costs. (and we are in a huge fertilizer shortage, prices are 4x what they were 2 years ago)...due to increased corn acres and asian demand for our ag inputs.

Gathering and baling of all the corn stover is a nuisance and takes up a huge amount of time. This is more of an inconvienence than anything, but if the price is right, we can change our minds fairly quickly.

A bigger concern is that the soil is left bare throughout the winter. We rely on that residue to resist erosion during the blustery winters here in the midwest. Topsoil is very valuable and farmers want to ensure that they are protecting their soil for many many years to come and it takes hundreds of years to create. The residue also helps to gather/trap precipitation and keeps the water in the soil held more tightly, resisting evaporation due to sunlight.

Now, all of these thoughts can be quickly negated if the switchgrass market develops a price that can compete with corn and soybeans. However, it is nowhere close. Farmers are conservative and very stubborn. They aren't going to dedicate to planting grasses unless it is more profitable than what they are already doing...and currently there is no reason to even think about changing over to switchgrass.

Is E-85 sustainable...no. Is E-10 sustainable, yes. Ethanol will never truly replace gasoline, it is only a supplement. But if we can lessen our foreign dependance, while maintaing profitability and keeping that $ in America, then why not? Like I said earlier, we need to increase our off shore and alaskan drilling and refineries to really make an impact in prices. If we pursue ANWR, we would really make an impact in the global oil economics. If protecting that 2000 acres is more important to you (which calculates to about .013 % of the total area in ANWR...yes, less than 1 percent!!!), then don't complain about higher fuel costs. We haven't built a refinery since the 70's...we are importing finished unleaded gas...we could be creating that HERE, providing American jobs and keeping our money within our own borders!!! But, our current political masterminds in congress won't support it, in fear of losing the "green" votes.

I am an agronomist/salesman that works with farmers everyday. They understand the need to expand our biofuels to decrease dependance on foreign oil...but if is isn't profitable, then forget it. They are businessmen too, just like you and me. You can't force them to grow a product with relatively no demand on the market and expect all the added labor to come without a fee. They will grow the commodities that are most profitable for them, in their specific geography. We can push pencils all day long, telling how great cellulosic ethanol is on paper, but it is simply not sustainable as the market currently sits. If the house Ag committee really felt that cellolosic ethanol was the answer, we would have already seen change in farm legislation supporting market changes to lure producers in. We have not seen this yet, so we will wait and see what the future holds.