[OT - US/Canada] E-85

Alan Browne wrote:

William Graham wrote:


Also, while pumping pure ethanol through a pipeline may be difficult,
there is no reason why pumping the sour mash before final distilling
can't be done via pipeline, and then do the final distilling
locally......


The mash is pretty "pulpy" so I don't think that would work well.

Google "concrete pump"

Bill Funk wrote:

On Sat, 06 May 2006 20:41:25 -0400, Bill wrote:


I too like the idea of using ethanol, but the government will have to
step in or the oil companies with their massive resources will continue
to derail the use of ethanol.


Why can't the oil companies get into the ethanol business?

They are.

Bill Funk wrote:

On Sat, 06 May 2006 19:57:22 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


Is there any truth to the rumor that the pollution created and energy
used in the manufacture of E85 offsets the savings?

Nope.
http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/85__Et...__ethanol.html

Suggests a net 33% gain (and improving).


But the "savings" aren't there, either.
Ethanol as a motor fuel costs more than gasoline. While this might not
be reflected at the pump in the case of E-85, that would only be true
because of (IIRC) over 50¢ direct tax credit per gallon produced
(which means the pump price reflects over 50¢ less than the actual
cost).
Since ethanol contains less energy per unit, mileage goes down, too.
So, it costs more per gallon, and returns lower MPG. No savings there.

OTOH, at least some of that higher cost could be offset by economies of
scale. As production ramps up, and as initial costs are amortized ...

Rusty Shakleford wrote:

I believe they are studying the financial viability more than the
environmental issues. I am still for it, we need the fuel. We have plenty
of State and Federally owned Forrest in Missouri.

Never enough!

I'll be in KC tomorrow night, arriving too late for the ballgame, however.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

William Graham wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

When you fraction steam, ethanol and the rest, the "rest" ends up in the
runoff water at the bottom of the still. So the methanol can be separated
from the water and burnt in the mash heater.


You know an awful lot about this Alan.....Are you sure you're not from
Tennessee?

Quick study.

no_name wrote:


I've been wondering if anyone has compared E-85 with using the same corn
to make corn oil and using it in a bio-diesel? I know the original
diesel design was created to burn peanut oil.

When the ethanol makers ferment the mash they extract (before or after,
I don't know) the corn oil. The left over mash (post fermentation and
ethanol "cook off") is made into cattle/hog feed.

IOW it's not one or the other, but both.

The corn oil could be used for biodiesel, but is probably more valuable
in food processing.

The manure from the cattle and hogs can be processed into methane and or
diesel (in the later case by some hydrogen process) and fertilizer.
Which goes into the corn field. The corn when growing absorbs more CO2
than the engine emits ... ain't it nice.

Cheers,
Alan

no_name wrote:

Bill wrote:


This may come as a shock to you, but most "gas stations" get their fuel
from a transport truck hauling a tanker.


But that tanker gets its load from a terminal that's filled from a
pipeline.

You put the ethanol stills out there in farm country. Transport the
corn to the crusher/fermenter/distellery, thence to the pumps within 50
- 100+ miles.

Just like gasoline.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

For those of you who wathced "60 minutes" I apologize.

It sucked.

1) It was one sided.

2) It was "over the top". If you think I'm optimistic about this, the
sole proponent they had was completely whacky. Could discredit the
whole thing.

60 minutes sucks. I used to like that show. It's really gone downhill.

Only bright light of the whole thing was the Brazil segment. 40% and
growing conversion to ethanol. Price is less than gasoline by a fair
margine (possibly govenerment controlled, not stated).

Cheers,
Alan


Alan Browne wrote:


For the North American audience
60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels,

Sunday May 7 (19:00 EDT, CBS).

I halfheartedly apologize for the OT posting, but you know how sensitive
I am on this topic.

E-85 is 85% ethanol. The vehicle must have a fuel mix sensor and
controls. This is a growth trend area in North America which, while it
doesn't reduce consumption, it at least displaces it with a renewable
fuel that burns cleaner than gasoline.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

no_name wrote:

Don't know if diesel engines will run E-85.

Nope. No more than they will gasoline.

Bill Funk wrote:

On Sun, 07 May 2006 16:45:22 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


Bill Funk wrote:


On 6 May 2006 11:46:42 -0700, "Rich" wrote:



It's so clean it scours the inside of the engine, causing drastically
increased part's wear.
Of for the days of tetraethyl lead.


Vehicles designed for E-85 use don't have this problem.
Why? Because they are designed for E-85.

You'd be much better off complaining about E-85's real problems.

Which are what?


Several...
Higher cost; where E-85 is on the market, it costs more than gas.
Higher cost; it's costlier than gas *WITH* more than 50¢ per gallon
direct tax credit (meaning the makers of E-85 get more than 50¢ off
their federal taxes for each gallon of ethanol they make, which is
directly paid by taxpayers).

Er, various sources show it as cheaper than gas. See my other post
showing that gasoline gets at least 12 cents subsidy, but more like 96
(yes 96) cents subsidy if cost of defending the oil is accounted for.


Lower energy than gas (meaning: it costs more at the pump, and users
get fewer MPG, for a cost double whammy).

Despite the lower efficiency, the net (with the lower price) is cheaper
than gas. In Brazil this is clear (at the pump). Not sure what their
subsidy is (if any). They have their own oil supplies offshore as well.

E-85 releases more fumes than gas, making for more pollution.

Which fumes? The corn grown absorbs more CO2 than ethanol generates.

The continental US can't raise sugar cane (which Brasil, often cited
as an example the US should follow, uses), which is far more efficient
than corn as a source for ethanol.
The ratio of energy in/out for ethanol, under current technology, is
about 1:1.25 *at best*; this means we gain little in actual energy
efficiency.

Unlike gasoline ethanol is renewable. After three cycles you're at par,
on the 4th cycle you're ahead of whatever oil can ever deliver. The
ratio is 1:1.38 (BTW).


The current move to get away from oil for motor fuel is mostly fueled
(pardon the pun) by a desire to cut energuy costs; E-85 does the
opposite, something that is definitely not being told to the public.
As well, it's seldom mentioned that E-85 requires an expensive vehicle
conversion (or purchase of a new vehicle), further raising costs.

Nope: Ford, GM and Chrysler sell these at the same price as the non FFV
vehicles. (In the beginning there was as much as $2000 difference; now
most of the them are the same price at buy time). This was also
mentioned on 60 minutes last night and on the doe site you can find
which vehicles carry a premium and which do not. Most do not.

Over 6 M vehicles delivered in the US so far from Ford, GM and Chrysler.


While it's possible to push E-85 as a way to cut oil imports, it's
*cost* that will hit the average buyer, and E-85 fails in the cost
department.

Wrong. At worst is close to par. And as production increased,
economies of scale will continue to reduce the cost.

Cheers,
Alan