E85 fuel...is it a good thing???
-
Burthwick;223559 wrote:
the fuck is the purpose of e85...you burn it faster, it' has more corn so therefore it'll burn quicker than regular fuel. so technically you're spending more $$$ in e85 than regular gas since it's thinner and has more corn.you're talking out of your ass and disagreeing just to join the band wagon. you obviously know very little about ethanol and E85 production and use.
the fucking purpose of it is that its a RENEWABLE fuel that is almost a zero emissions to burn. yes i said zero emissions, argue with me.
its also 105 octane so you have a much higher potential for making power. retuning a motor to use E85 is very different from BUILDING a motor to run E85 effectivly. if you utilize the fact that it is 105 octane you can make the motor <u>almost</u> as efficient as regular fuel.
and on top of many many other thigns it helps OUR farming economy around here to make it so whats the fucking point not to have E85?! OHH NOES its gets 15% worse gas mileage!! woa is me! its fucking cheaper
here a psht, there psht, everywhere a psht psht
PVC SQUAD MEMBER #2- 95 CIVIC EX- DD 320whp on a mustang dyno
-
given the average gasoline price in the US is $4.07 and the average E85 cost is 3.13 that makes it 23% cheaper.
now everyone knows that it makes 27-29% less energy than gasoline. which is only like a 4% loss in cost effectiveness.
now assume for the fact that average gas is 87 octane and E85 is 105 thats a 20.6% increase in octane. WHICH HIGHER OCTANE CAN HELP MILEAGE. not taking into account the people who already need to run at least 91 octane and are paying an average of $4.48 only makes it make more sense.
combo that with the fact thats its still renewable, clean burning, and HELPING OUR LOCAL ECONOMY there is no reason not to at least support others to use it
here a psht, there psht, everywhere a psht psht
PVC SQUAD MEMBER #2- 95 CIVIC EX- DD 320whp on a mustang dyno
-
thanks the thing. if we could just embrace it more rather than have any random person who doesnt know dick hate on we would probly make it for cheaper. or even import foreign sugar cane ethanol, even though were trying to ween our selves off of foreign fuels
here a psht, there psht, everywhere a psht psht
PVC SQUAD MEMBER #2- 95 CIVIC EX- DD 320whp on a mustang dyno
-
torbs;223618 wrote:
The thing is, there is more energy put into making e85 than what is gotten out of it...Site proof of said statement.
I can find EPA statements proving the opposite of that
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/growandgo/documents/faq.htm#i-08www.epa.gov wrote:
Does it take more energy to make renewable fuels than is actually in the fuel?EPA has concluded that ethanol and biodiesel generate more energy than the fossil fuel energy used to produce these fuels. Corn ethanol generates about 30 percent more energy than the fossil fuel energy used to produce it, while biodiesel generates about 50 percent more energy. It's also important to consider how these fuels compare to the conventional gasoline and diesel fuels they're replacing. Over the entire lifecycle of producing and using it, corn ethanol reduces petroleum use by over 90 percent compared to gasoline. Biodiesel reduces petroleum use by about 85 percent compared to diesel fuel. -
tjamz;223630 wrote:
Site proof of said statement.I can find EPA statements proving the opposite of that
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/growandgo/documents/faq.htm#i-08EPA has concluded that ethanol and biodiesel generate more energy than the fossil fuel energy used to produce these fuels. Corn ethanol generates about 30 percent more energy than the fossil fuel energy used to produce it, while biodiesel generates about 50 percent more energy.
From what I've read though, after you calculate in the extra transportation costs and such the net energy is actually LESS then it is for standard fossil fuels.
Production compared solely to how much it energy ethanol contains is different then total net energy used to the consumer...
Not to mention the subsidation costs passed on to us...
-
Jim;223639 wrote:
From what I've read though, after you calculate in the extra transportation costs and such the net energy is actually LESS then it is for standard fossil fuels.Production compared solely to how much it energy ethanol contains is different then total net energy used to the consumer...
Not to mention the subsidation costs passed on to us...
Unless you figure in what it costs to transport oil tankers out of the Persian Gulf as well as the military escorts that said tankers receive with our tax dollars. IMO, having military escorts is a subsidization as well.
Here is an interesting article on the net energy value (NEV) for ethanol production.
-
tjamz;223644 wrote:
Unless you figure in what it costs to transport oil tankers out of the Persian Gulf as well as the military escorts that said tankers receive with our tax dollars. IMO, having military escorts is a subsidization as well.Here is an interesting article on the net energy value (NEV) for ethanol production.
Corn Harvesting -> Transport -> Storage -> Transport -> Refining -> Transport -> etc etc
I'll try and find the articles I read...
Military Escorts cost < Farm subsidation for biofuels
-
tjamz;223630 wrote:
Site proof of said statement.I can find EPA statements proving the opposite of that
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/growandgo/documents/faq.htm#i-08Very vague website...
Oh and here's what you may be looking for...
Here's some:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354350,00.html (FOX)
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/4636/ (CNN)and finally:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=corn+ethanol+food+prices (google: corn ethanol food prices) -
lol @ Foxnews.com And Glen Beck.
-
ok if you guys are going to factor in the cost of planting/harvesting corn into the cost of making ethanol.... guess what? im going to plant corn no matter what ethanol does... i just get a kick out of it when people try to factor that into the equation... dont ask the farmer what he is going to do....
-
Parker;223652 wrote:
dont ask the farmer what he is going to do....
Hey Parker, what are you going to do???Anyways I think the point Brandon was showing to become less dependant on foreign or non-renewable resources. Until hydrogen becomes more popular in my opinion it would be the way to go. I was about to start my own research on e-85 in a non ffv vehicle.
-
Bookem;223655 wrote:
Hey Parker, what are you going to do???Anyways I think the point Brandon was showing to become less dependant on foreign or non-renewable resources. Until hydrogen becomes more popular in my opinion it would be the way to go. I was about to start my own research on e-85 in a non ffv vehicle.
im going to go clean my guns... monkeys are comin.... -
-
torbs;223647 wrote:
Very vague website...Oh and here's what you may be looking for...
Here's some:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354350,00.html (FOX)
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/4636/ (CNN)and finally:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=corn+ethanol+food+prices (google: corn ethanol food prices)Yet Brazil is energy independent and uses Ethanol as their primary source of fuel.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2006-03-28-brazil-ethanol-cover_x.htmStar Tribune wrote:
*Published on Sunday, April 17, 2005 by the Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) *
**The Future of Ethanol **
by David Morris
Want to see the potential of biofuels? Visit Brazil, as I did a few weeks ago.
In Brazil, by law, all gasoline contains a minimum of 25 percent alcohol. Yet ethanol is so popular it actually accounts for 40 percent of all vehicle fuel.
By 2007, 100 percent of all new Brazilian cars may be able to run on 100 percent ethanol. Brazilian sugar-cane-fed biorefineries will be capable of producing sufficient ethanol to allow the entire fleet, new and old cars alike, to do so.
In Brazil, ethanol is now being used in aviation. Small planes, like crop dusters, are switching to ethanol because it is a superior fuel and is more widely available, even in remote parts of the country, than conventional aviation fuel.
Its stunning success with ethanol has encouraged Brazil to begin displacing diesel fuel with vegetable oils from its vast soybean crop. Within 15 years it expects to substitute biodiesel for 20 percent of its conventional diesel.
One more detail. Back in the mid 1990s, Brazil ended its ethanol subsidies. Nevertheless, with world oil prices hovering around $55 a barrel, the price of ethanol today is only half that of gasoline. Since its inception, Brazil's ethanol program has displaced imported oil worth $120 billion. This is comparable to a savings of almost $2 trillion for a U.S.-sized economy.
Back in Minnesota, our vehicles remain stuck at the 10 percent ethanol level first achieved almost a decade ago. Yet today, ethanol produced within the state could displace 25 percent of gasoline consumed within the state. Without increasing crop acreage, Minnesota could become self-sufficient in passenger-vehicle fuel and significantly displace diesel fuels.
Minnesota arrived at this enviable situation as a result of farsighted state policies. In the early 1980s the state ethanol incentive mirrored the federal incentive -- a partial exemption from the gasoline tax. That incentive increased demand, but every drop of ethanol was imported into the state.
In the mid 1980s, Minnesota's farmers successfully petitioned the Legislature to restructure the state incentive to encourage in-state production of ethanol.
The incentive became a direct payment of 20 cents per gallon. There were limits: The ethanol had to be produced in Minnesota. The incentive was available only for the first 15 million gallons produced each year. The incentive lasted only for 10 years per plant.
The restructured incentive has made Minnesota home to 15 small- and medium-sized ethanol plants (18 by the end of 2005). The biorefineries' relatively small size has enabled a significant proportion of the state's full-time grain farmers to become owners. This dramatically boosts the local economic benefit of such facilities.
Because of the incentive's time limit, within the next year or two, more than half of all state ethanol production will receive no incentive. Several new plants are being built without a state incentive.
Brazil has shown us that biofuels can be a primary fuel rather than simply a gasoline additive. Here are seven policies Minnesota should adopt to imitate Brazil's success.
1. Immediately request a waiver from the federal government to allow a 20 percent ethanol blend in all vehicles. Gov. Tim Pawlenty has indicated his desire to do so. The request should come from many states, not just one, and the cost of all the required testing should be shared by these states. If all 29 states whose governors have joined the Governors Ethanol Coalition chipped in, the cost would be a trivial $100,000 per state.
2. Aggressively expand the number of Minnesota gas stations that offer ethanol as a primary fuel (E85). Adding $15 million to the state bonding bill would enable every gas station in Minnesota to have at least one E85 pump.
3. Require all governments in Minnesota to purchase flexible-fueled vehicles. Several dozen popular models are already available and on the roads.
4. Develop a 20 percent renewable transportation fuels mandate that mirrors the 20 percent renewable electricity portfolio mandate that many states have passed.
5. Inspire a public discussion about redesigning the federal biofuels incentives so that they are tied to the price of oil. If oil rises above a certain level (say, $60 per barrel) the incentive would completely disappear. If it drops below a certain level (say, $35 per barrel) it would be equal to the current incentive.
**6. **Focus on converting the state's abundant cellulosic materials into energy. Brazilian biorefineries are virtually energy self-sufficient because they burn bagasse to power and heat the mill and refineries. Bagasse, the fiber fraction of cane, is brought to the mill along with the sugar cane. In Minnesota the corn stover (stalk, etc.) is not transported to the mill along with the corn kernels. The Chippewa Valley Ethanol Cooperative (CVEC) is developing innovative ways to economically transport the stover to the mill. Given the high price of natural gas, and the resulting pressure on ethanol plants to shift to coal, Minnesota should immediately provide the funds to accelerate the use of cellulose in the ethanol plants (first for heating and later for making ethanol itself).
7. Make farmer ownership the state's ownership preference. New ethanol plants are very large and absentee-owned. The ethanol they produce is welcome, but they do not generate the local and regional economic and social benefits that farmer-owned plants do.
*David Morris is vice president of the Minneapolis-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance. *
2005 Star Tribune -
torbs;10929 wrote:
I recently read a forum on dsmtuner and found it quite interesting...i was wondering how you local guys feel about this stuff...afterall, it is always gonna be 20 cents cheaper than gas, but you burn a lot more...plus, with the right tuning, you can make a bit more power...anywho, jw if u guys think this is a good thing or not...laterE85 is a terrible idea. Lets turn food, into fuel. Then over charge the be-jesus out of it. Not a good idea.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login