Posted on 05/01/2008 4:32:09 PM PDT by clodkicker
"Optimal Blend" Is Likely E20 or E30; Coalition Calls for Further Government Research
SIOUX FALLS, S.D., Dec. 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Research findings released today show that mid-range ethanol blends--fuel mixtures with more ethanol than E10 but less than E85--can in some cases provide better fuel economy than regular unleaded gasoline, even in standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles.
Previous assumptions held that ethanol's lower energy content directly correlates with lower fuel economy for drivers. Those assumptions were found to be incorrect. Instead, the new research strongly suggests that there is an "optimal blend level" of ethanol and gasoline--most likely E20 or E30--at which cars will get better mileage than predicted based strictly on the fuel's per-gallon Btu content. The new study, cosponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), also found that mid-range ethanol blends reduce harmful tailpipe emissions.
(Excerpt) Read more at motortrend.com ...
My reaction is “Well.... duh!”
Once again, some of the facts on ethanol turn out to be rather otherwise from the “conventional wisdom.”
Ehanol ping.
Archer Daniels Midland owns North and South Dakota.
This sort of flies in the face of this posted a little earlier today:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2009906/posts
Follow the money, follow the money.. I think I'll call BS on this one.
great more studies
how about a 20 year bipartisan commison
This is all pro-oil company b.s.!
Everyone knows that ethanol is a joke, that it takes far more energy and costs more to create it than is worth its use.
We need the corn for food! Stop ethonal production in the U.S. NOW!!
Instead, the new research strongly suggests that there is an "optimal blend level" of ethanol and gasoline--most likely E20 or E30--at which cars will get better mileage than predicted based strictly on the fuel's per-gallon Btu content.
There is not one word in that sentence to prove are even come up with a dumb statement that ethanol, in any amount will get better millage than gas.
The actually statement is strongly suggest, means nothing, and better mileage than predicted is the same meaningless phrase.
Yes a professor looking for a grant nothing more.
“I think I’ll call BS on this one.”
You base that statement on having read the study?
OR
You are a Combustion Engineer?
OR
You didn’t like the color of paper the article was printed?
We appreciate you considered opinion.
Lurking’
Now just how many billions in third world country do you propose we starve to death to use subsidized corn products.
If you were really interested in the availability of motor fuel, you would champion domestic drilling - but NO you are more interested in being "green" so you are popular at the automobilia cocktail circuits.
Non-corn ethanol
No have a minor as a mechanical engineer!
Drag racing was a hobby of mine, In short I know how to make horse power. The last time I heard that was BTU's.
The results from Ferrari’s F430 show results that show a) increased HP and b) increased mileage, when running E-85 as opposed to the same engine running straight gasoline. Actual results. Ferrari is undoubtedly running a higher than normal compression ratio than the typical slothful 9.5:1 that most American cars run, but what Ferrari clearly shows is that we could be getting more efficiency out of an Otto-cycle engine than we’re getting - if only we weren’t burning this donkey urine that the refineries are passing off as gasoline.
Ferrari’s results entirely consistent with thermodynamics.
Increased mileage on E20 on conventional cars are entirely possible and consistent with what I’ve observed about conventional gasoline and modern engines.
Drive a modern US car around with a monitor plugged into your OBD-II port sometime. Have a look at how far your ignition timing is retarded.
The results won’t be consistent across all cars, but there are plenty of cars running real crap for gasoline and as a result running high angles of ignition retard. Ethanol, with an octane of 129, is a big octane booster and will allow the car to advance the timing without pre-detonation being detected, which increases fuel economy and power in an Otto-cycle engine.
The results aren’t inconsistent or running contrary to what is possible or what I’d expect.
Sadly, it now seems that the majority of Americans want to shove their fingers in their ears and not listen to anything as they shout “I want my gasoline-sucking V-8!”
I do not believe this report. Even if it is true, I do not want to put ethanol in my tank. The ethanol boosters should renounce corporate welfare (subsidies, mandates, and import tariffs) and let the consumer decide if ethanol is a viable substitute.
I am dreaming. The ethanol boosters are deeply wedded to corporate welfare. They will never renounce the outrageous corporate welfare.
I thought Ted Turner did.
So... when are you going to hold the conventional oil companies to the same standards?
Or the entire alternative electrical generation industry, such as solar, wind, geothermal, etc?
Or the US auto companies themselves? (eg, Chrysler and their bail-out in the 80’s)
How ‘bout the steel industry in the US (given import tariffs by Bush)?
Do you bank or trade with i-banks or money center banks that are taking loans from the Fed because they screwed themselves with their absurd levels of leverage?
Or is this just your personal little grievance against only ethanol?
Not to mention that it is simple a massive welfare bump for farmers - at our expense in several different ways.
What subsidies? The research and development tax credit? You are probably referring to the gulf wars. The ethanol boosters have the ridiculous position that the gulf wars were a subsidy to big oil.
Perhaps you did not see the financial results of the major energy companies. Exxon paid more than $100 billion in taxes on $400 billion in revenue. The traditional energy companies are taxed and regulated at every inch of production. New oil refineries are just about impossible to permit and build. Ethanol refineries go up every week.
There is no comparison of subsidies in other industries to ethanol. The ethanol subsidies are massive and permament. They are especially egregious because consumers are forced to buy the product. Even with overwhelming evidence of the boondoggle, the ethanol boosters just want more subsidies.
MY 2000 Porsche 911 gets 3-4 MPG less on ethanol blends purchased in Houston than the non-ethanol gas purchased in Mathis Texas.
LOL.. exactly...
One of the offical stated reasons for Gulf I was, in fact, the continued free flow of oil.
One thing I haven’t heard about is the use of acetone as a gasoline additive. Widely debated, it is asserted that a small amount of acetone added to a large amount of gasoline does not increase its octane level, but does break gasoline’s surface tension, which allows it to more fully evaporate and combust.
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/
I have been using it in both a 4-door sedan and an economy car for several years now, but only when the price of gas goes over $3/gal. I do notice considerable improvement to fuel economy in both vehicles.
Some will adamantly argue that it can’t work, it won’t work, and I will ruin my engine in the process. But from my own experience, it hasn’t happened.
Importantly, more is *not* better. Not a drop more than 3oz per 10 gallons, or you will start to lose mileage.
It could be because of ethanol's higher octane and slower rate of burn is causing a more controlled "burn" inside the combustion chamber.
(Contrary to popular belief, gas does not explode inside the cylinders, unless you hear "rattling or pinging" noises coming from the engine....)
I had a 1984 Honda XR-350 that ran better and quieter on regular with ethanol than it did on premium without it....but it did boast a CR of 12.4 to 1....
Well mister ME minor,
your equation forgot the expansion of hydrated water on the ethanol (steam) - lots of Btus in steam.
each unit of water expands to 1600 units of steam - doesn’t take much steam to push that piston.
Lurking’
Read “most” for “any” in next to last sentence. oops!
Google “acetone gasoline” and “acetone fuel efficiency”.
The most common criticism is that acetone might attack rubber parts, but most modern automobiles don’t use rubber gaskets or parts in their fuel systems and haven’t for years.
One doubter suggested that in older cars, the acetone dissolves away muck, thus making the engine run more efficiently.
However, the acid test is to try it yourself and compare mileage over time. With gas prices as high as they are now, just keeping your regular routines, you should be able to easily chart how much less you are paying for gasoline on a week by week basis.
If it works, great. If it doesn’t, then the heck with it.
Price—Gallons—Miles driven
Again, remember no more than 3oz per every 10 gallons. And absolutely be sure that it is “pure acetone”.
If we need corn for food how come we are still exporting corn?
Doesn’t the oil industry still get the depletion allowance credit? Isn’t that a subsidy?
Why are we subsidizing these exports ?
I agree. One of the many stated reasons for the gulf wars was the free flow of oil. In any case, SH wanted to sell and control more oil. Invading a sovereign country is not an acceptable way to sell more oil.
Just because one reason for the gulf wars involves oil, does not make a subsidy. Wars are fought to stop tyranny. Unless we want to become subjects of tyrants, we may need to fight future wars. The cost of war is made to defend our freedoms. No oil producer was subsidized as a result of the gulf wars.
And no farmer is subsidized by the 50 cents per gallon on ethanol either,
Depletion for mineral assets is the counter part of depreciation for equipment. Both are valid business expenses. There are many rules about accelerating the expenses that some may regard as subsidies.
Corporate income taxes are a bad idea. Corporations do not pay taxes. They are collectors of hidden taxes. Politicians like income taxes because income taxes are easily manipulated for election purposes. Friends can be rewarded and enemies punished using the tax code.
The ethanol industry should have comparable tax treatment as the oil and gas industry. I would doubt that the overall tax treatment of the two industries is much different.
Ethanol enjoys a trifecta of unique subsidies: 0.51 per gallon tax credit, huge mandates for ethanol in the fuel supply, and import tariffs on foreign ethanol. The existence of the ethanol industry is almost entirely due to these three subsidies. Remove these subsidies and the industry will collapse.
Consumers are directly subsidized by the tax credit. The tax credit lowers the price of ethanol blended gasoline. Without the subsidized price, ethanol demand would drop as well as the price of corn.
Great. E20 will pollute the groudwater twice as bad as E10 does.
I give the average us driver about 30 seconds to roll this egg carton over.
There’s all sorts of octane boosters out there. Many of them are aromatic hydrocarbons like toluene or xylene.
Bang:buck favors ethanol in many cases. Last I looked, toluene was running more than $3/gal when bought in 55 gal drums. Bulk ethanol costs less than that.
What subsidies are people wailing about on ethanol?
A tax credit for blending in gasoline ($0.51/gal) and import tariffs that boost the price of ethanol imported from off-shore. I’m not going to complain about tariffs, since they’re the one form of taxation that is supported in the US Constitution from the get-go.
I’m not talking about the military support of oil access as a subsidy. You want to talk about that, go talk to liberals or Mikey Moore.
I’m talking about EXACTLY the same sort of thing you are, but of which you’re either unaware or are deliberately ignoring: tax credits for oil companies.
Oil exploration trusts, as well as pipeline companies, can set up tax shelters in master/limited partnerships to gain tax credits. By your definition of “subsidy” — the oil exploration and transport companies are receiving a “subsidy.”
Examples of MLP’s with tax advantages: San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (ticker: SJT), Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (ticker: KMP).
Full disclosure: I’ve owned both of these tax-advantaged trusts in the past, probably will in the future. I’ve also owned many other tax-advantaged MLP’s and trusts, both in the US and in Canada, in oil, natural gas and coal exploration/transportation/pipelines. Bought at the right time, and in sufficient amounts to justify the additional tax hassle at the time you file your 1040, they return excellent dividends (from 6 to 10% or more) and some losses thrown off (from depletion, foreign taxes paid, etc) you can use against your other income.
If you’ve never owned a MLP/trust that issues a K-1 instead of a 1099, you should check out the additional complexity BEFORE you buy one of these. Once you hit the “buy” button to buy one, you’re going to get a K-1 and the attending complexities.
You talk of the ethanol subsidies being “massive and permanent.” Let’s put aside the weight and density of money for the moment and deal with the permanence of these subsidies. The latest “farm bill” is already proposing reducing the blending tax credit to $0.45/gal.
Wait? I thought this was supposed to be permanent? How is it that the Congress is already proposing reducing this if this “subsidy” is permanent?
re: Consumers “forced” to buy the product. Consumers are also “forced” to buy cars that meet minimum crash standards that add mass to vehicles, thereby reducing the mileage. Consumers are denied choices of vehicles by emissions laws (eg, the idiotic Californian diesel emissions standards) that results in consumers being denied the opportunity to purchase very high mileage autos (50+MPG) from Europe.
If you want to complain about what consumers are forced to purchase, I’d go after the mass and diesel issues, which are costing consumers far more fuel and money than ethanol is.
Ethanol’s profit margin, BTW, has come way, way down in the last two quarters, both due to the higher price of corn inputs and the rapidly decreasing price (and increasing quantity) of ethanol out there. In some reports I’ve seen, the margins for ethanol are only slightly higher than XOM’s margins now. The oil industry has a PR problem they alone can solve, and not by buying stupid ads on NPR or PBS. Other fossil energy companies are expanding all the time - coal bed methane wells are spreading across Wyoming and Montana like jackrabbits, and new coal mining operations are opening in Wyoming and Montana.
Trouble is octane boosters might give better performance, but not better fuel efficiency. This is why acetone is used. Its purpose is not to boost octane rating, but to break the surface tension of the gasoline. If you add more than the recommended 3oz per 10 gallons, it will raise your octane rating, and your fuel efficiency will go down.
Fair enough. There are ethanol supporters on this site who contend that military support is a subsidy to oil. We have no disagreement on this point.
A tax credit for blending in gasoline ($0.51/gal) and import tariffs that boost the price of ethanol imported from off-shore. I’m not going to complain about tariffs, since they’re the one form of taxation that is supported in the US Constitution from the get-go.
An import tariff is still a tax. I do not want the import tariff on imported ethanol. What is the justification for an import tariff on imported ethanol?
Oil exploration trusts, as well as pipeline companies, can set up tax shelters in master/limited partnerships to gain tax credits. By your definition of “subsidy” — the oil exploration and transport companies are receiving a “subsidy.”
You make a good point about oil exploration trusts. Real estate also has lots of special tax treatments. I suspect that ethanol production including farming has special tax treatments also. I am in favor of starting over on the entire income tax mess. I want to eliminate the corporate income tax or at least substantially lower rates across the board.
On balance, the oil and gas industry has no unfair advantages. The industry pays taxes at every stage of production, has numerous restrictions on development, and has many regulations. I am in favor of lessening these burdens so that supplies of oil, gasoline, and natural gas can increase.
re: Consumers “forced” to buy the product. Consumers are also “forced” to buy cars that meet minimum crash standards that add mass to vehicles, thereby reducing the mileage. Consumers are denied choices of vehicles by emissions laws (eg, the idiotic Californian diesel emissions standards) that results in consumers being denied the opportunity to purchase very high mileage autos (50+MPG) from Europe.
You make some good points. All of these mandates are ridiculous. However, individual consumers want to buy autos and gasoline. I do not see any demand for ethanol except for the mandate. So I see the ethanol mandates as much worse.
Prof— You don’t know a horses rear from a tractor
tire. When Big OIL, speculators, and OPEC oil
ministers sponser hundreds of articles by numbrains
in the last few weeks, you can be sure that ethanol
is the right thing. It is way over a buck a gal less
pump gas prices and its 450,000 barrels of production
per day is holding down prices of the gas it is blended
into. It is a source of competition for OPEC and BIG
OIL and they don’t like. You complain of the tax credit
BIG OIl gets to blend and blame ethanol. That is crazy, blame BIG OIL who buys the congress. You say ethanol don’t need it, it is getting phased out and ethanol will still
be used more. The oil companies get 20-30 times tax
credits for their oil operations as the ethanol credit........why don’t that result in cheap gas....
well it does as gas might be a buck more without it.
The import tariff don’t mean beans as Brazil has hardly
any to spare to import.
My V8s get better miliage with ethanol blend as it
makes for cleaner burn, more efficient. It allows
earlier combustion timing for better power.
I for one want ethanol. I for one like the cleaner
air we have in part because we use oxgenators, and that is mainly the mandate, to clean up emmissions. And it adds
to the fuel supply.Farmers have increased corn production
in 10 years for feed and food 31%, plus the amount used
ethanol. There will be 7 billion gal of ethanol this
year, but the same process will produce high proein animal
feed that will make over 14 billion lbs of meat and other
products. Plus their still is the other 3/4 of the
corn crop for feed and food. There is no shortage just
higher prices driven up by speculators, like they have
done to oil. Granted it makes it hard for taxed types
to buy food to help the starving in Haiti, etc, so they
could take up a collection among speculators, oil execs,
ME terrorists, profs, etc, and deliver the food.......Ed
The inEd
I have no idea what you are talking about. Big Oil is a term of the left and ethanol boosters. The money is on the other side with big corn. Your strong bias is showing.
That is crazy, blame BIG OIL who buys the congress. You say ethanol don’t need it, it is getting phased out and ethanol will still be used more.
Your statement is absurb. If big oil buys congress, why are the rats threatening to impose a windfall profits tax? Why can't the oil companies explore in ANWR and the outer bank? The ethanol tax credit is not being phased out. It may be lowered slightly from $0.51 to 0.45.
My V8s get better miliage with ethanol blend as it makes for cleaner burn, more efficient.
I am not sure about the ethanol blend. I have seen no data to suggest that ethanol blended gas gets better mileage. Typically, the mileage penalty is between 10% to 25%. There is a strong debate about the environmental impact of ethanol. Ethanol is being blamed for smog in Denver. The positive environment impact of ethanol are slight at best.
I for one want ethanol. I for one like the cleaner air we have in part because we use oxgenators, and that is mainly the mandate, to clean up emmissions.
I have no problem with your demand for ethanol. The problem is that people like you force the vast majority like me who do not want to use ethanol. The ethanol boosters and rats are forcing ethanol on the rest of us. The usage of ethanol is going far beyond its original use as an oxyenator. The oxyenator requirement was passed into law in 1996. We now have a mandate for 7 billion gallons going to 15 billion gallons.
You are mistaken if you do not think that the ethanol mandate has not had an impact on the price of corn and other farm commodities. The mandate has shifted the demand curve. There are certainly other factors involved also. Without the mandate, the price would drop substantially over the long run.
Here is the challenge to all the ethanol boosters. If your product is so great, drop the mandates, tax credit, and import tariff. The silence is deafening on this challenge. The corn belt is now living under a huge entitlement. The result is a boondoggle with high fuel and high food prices. Things sure are great on the farm however (at least with corn farmers).
LOL, now you have really proved you don’t know jack!
It will be phased under the political pressure at a dime a year or more. I’m a right wing gun nut, I ain’t a lib.
I feel that as long as the public good can force me
to wear seatbelts, and if I get a new car it has to be
front wheel drive junk, and the costs of the stuff
on the car to get millage and safety, is pushed on
me, then the public good can force the use of fuel
that burns cleaner. My old Regency 98 got an extra
mile per gal with 10% blend. Anybody who ain’t an
egghead, knows that if a car goes down the road with cleaner emmissions that it will be more efficient,
with fuel of nealy the same btus per gal. Reg gas
is 115,000 btus. 10% blend is 111,000 btus per gal.
If the oxygenator gets the blend to burn 8% more efficient
you have gained back any btu difference and gained
4% more.
“Big Corn”-——Geez, the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
There was 14 billion bushels last year. A whole year,
a whole stinking year. There is that many gallons of
oil used up, from foreign and domestic, every 12 days.
And the same value of product comparing oil to corn, used
up every 18 hours. Oil is big corn is dinky.
That is why due to the small amount of value it represents
that the speculating money has affected it so bad.
Oil is big, corn is small, the high oil is what is making
the raising of corn nearly 605 moe in 3 years.
And if tht speculators got out of corn, by geing forced
to risk more on options, and the same for oil the
price of corn and oil would drop. Corn to a median price
so rthat the idle land can be put to use.We could the
3.5 billion bushels of corn ra to get ethanol needed
and more than that for feed/food, and big increases
in wheat, soybeans. etc. Just a median corn price and a
decent price on fuel(oil).
14 billion bu corn at 4.25 dollar average last year, got
farms 60 billion. It cost 50 billion to raise of
which fuel fertilizer, and other inputs affected by
oil , took up 4/5 of that. So you can see who is big,
and it ain’t corn. 3 yrs ago 12 billion bushels at
at about 2.50 price supports and all for 30 billion
of which cost were almost 30 billion, of which oil
got 3/4. No corn ain’t big..... oil is. And oil and
speculators are the driving forces in this country.ED
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.