I was watching a program last night on fuel and cars of the future and it was stated that we can run our cars on ethanol even now by switching a few parts. Is this true and if so what exactly has to be done? They said ethanol is about 115 octane with cleaner emissions.

 

All of what you say is true, but there is a lot more that is not said. Ethanol is a strong solvent, which means it will attack many of your fuel system components. If you consider fuel tank, pump, fuel lines, regulators, and injectors as "a few parts", then, yes,that could be done. It is also true that ethanol has a higher octane, but no current cars can take advantage of that without major internal modification. And the heat content, or theoretical energy output, of ethanol is about 40% less than gasoline, so power and mileage would be down significantly. Lastly, ethanol costs more per gallon than gasoline. Without subsidies (that your taxes are paying), it would beeven worse.


When people talk about ethanol, I suggest they consider the work and energy input to make a gallon of moonshine from corn. Compare that to drilling a hole in the ground, andyou'll see what we're up against. Edited by: MrBSS

 

MrBSS is exaggerating. There are only a few rubber compounds that can't stand ethanol, most polymers have a harder time with gasoline. You certainly do not have to change the fuel tank or such, usually it's a matter of fuel hoses and the occasional fuel pump membrane in old cars.

I know people who have run E85 in their modified cars for years, and the only long-term trouble they report is that some oils and fuel additives can react with ethanol to create sludge build-ups. Solution: change brands.

Ethanol over here in Sweden is cheaper per driven mile than gas despite that mileage decrease.

There is a plentitude of cars that draw full benefits from running on high-octane fuels. SAAB flexifuel engines, for example. Or any car that has a modern knock sensor-based ignition advanced turbocharge engine.

In order to convert an engine it just needs to be fed with a richer mixture than with gasoline. This can be accomplished in many ways, the simplest being to just increase the fuel pressure.Edited by: Michail

 

I guess everything is relative. Maybe your components will last "long enough" on ethanol. But, all those items are different in those cars that the manufacturer specifies may be used with ethanol.


You imply that changing the fuel pump (in the fuel tank)is a minor procedure; having just done my '97 Buick, I can assure you that it is not. And, while advancing the timing will help, increasing the compression ratio is usually necessary to get full benefit of ethanol's higher octane rating. Since the heat content is less, that theoretical maximum output will still be somewhat less than gasoline.


Because of government taxes and incentives, the individual's cost per mile can vary greatly. I wouldn't blame anybody for taking advantage of this. The bigger question is whether this is the best use of ourcollective resources. I have found that when the government takesour money to help us, it comes back much deminished.

 

I'm just saying that it is by no means an insurmountable problem to run a gasoline engine on ethanol.

If a random person asks if it can be done the answer is a resounding "yes".

If s/he asks if it is a simple thing, the answer is "depends on the car and level of compatibility with different gas/ethanol mixtures you desire".

If the question is if it is notably cheaper than gas, the answer is "not likely, and dependent on how much you change your engine".

If the question is if it will harm the engine the answer is "unlikely, but possible depending on your engine".

Some would ask if they would get more engine power from ethanol, and I would answer "Properly tuned and modified, definitely."

If the question is whether it is eco-friendly or not the answer would be "depends on whether you consider burning fossile petroleum to be more detrimental than domesticating land".

If the question is if it is sane from a national economy point of view, the answer is "Do you prefer to give your money to local farmers or saudi oil barons?"

I often see an answer given that nobody made a question for: "It is less energy-efficient to produce ethanol", but I guess only the producers are interested in that and I am not one of them.Edited by: Michail

 

You make good points.


Please consider this a friendly debate, and I will only argue the following two areas:


#1:Since the heat content pergm (maximum theoretical energy output) of ethanol iscertainly less than that of gasoline, how will you ever get more total output (combining both peak power and mileage)?


#2: If we werespending the same amount of money, most everyone would prefer to give it to local farmers. The problem occurs when we have to pay our farmers (either directly or through taxes) very much more than we have to pay the oil companies.


We are currently paying about $3.60/gallon of gasoline and ethanol still can't compete without subsidies, while our Mexican neighbors are complaining about the increases in corn prices.


Regards,


Brian

 

I'm sorry if I came across as abrasive, it was not my intent.

#1: The energy content per mass unit in ethanol is less than in gasoline, but it is a higher quality fuel so it can be partially compensated for by increasing compression and ignition advances. You also get some 5% higher performance from the engine which is a boon - especially compared to engines running on natural gas which typically lowers their performance a great deal.

It will never quite reach the mileage of gasoline though, but at best be some 20% lower.

#2: This is a true issue. Gasoline price is low because the extraction is almost costless compared to producing ethanol. Things will change though once oil begins to be scarce in an unknown amount of time. Some say a decade, others several centuries.

What is fairly certain though is that the climate debate will increase the interest in biofuels, supposedly with demands on taxes and whatnot.

Corn is neither the only nor the best source for making ethanol. Almost any carbohydrate can be used, there are already a lot of attempts around the world to produce it in large scale from various sources such as sugar cane and wheat and even leaves.

I think BP recently bought a key patent for making biobutanol from entire trees. Biobutanol is a good idea because it is more similar to gasoline in its properties, so you might not have to modify your engine at all for it, and it also holds more energy per mass unit than ethanol.

http://www2.dupont.com/Biofuels/en_US/
http://www2.dupont.com/Biofuels/en_U...iles/DuPontAni mation.swf

Turning from petroleum to carbohydrate-based fuels will probably require us to domesticate more of the wilderness, which is of course a concern. But the alternative is worse - surplus CO2 and impending oil crises.

My guess is that within one or two decades, a typical gas station will offer a dozen different fuels and our cars (future, new - probably not our beloved Buicks) will run on most anything that burns. So you might stand there by the pump and go "Hm, I wonder what I want to fill up with today? Which is cheapest per mile? I think I want to favour corn producers rather than forest harvesters. E100 it is then."

 

Well, I would question calling ethanol a higher quality fuel just because its octane rating is higher, but otherwise I would agree with much of what you say.


Earlier you said that you would leave it up to the producers as to whether it was energy efficient to produce ethanol. That surprises me, since that question is really the basis of policy. While I am quite aware that there are other methods of producing ethanol, we currently produce much of the USA's supply just south ofhere (Chicago). We use great quantities of labor, diesel fuel, water,corn, and natural gas (for distilling). The only way it can even break even is by not being taxed as gasoline, and, further, being subsidizedat $.50/ gallon. Corn prices have gone up enormously so it will probably need even more tax dollars.


Maybe this is a good use of our resources, but, quite possibly it is not. Frankly, I feel that a much better alternative is CNG (Compressed Natural Gas). It has advantages here and now, and is the perfect precursor to the vaulted "Hydrogen Economy". What is your experience with CNG?


PS: A supercharged Buick is a very good candidate for CNG!Edited by: MrBSS

 

No experience myself but I had a boss who drove a CNG Volvo. He was not happy with the loss of engine performance when driving on CNG.

While CNG is probably a quite good option (it's more of hydrogen power than carbon if I recall correct), it requires a whole lot of new infrastructure and modifying cars is no small task. I believe that the world will take the path of least resistance which is to stay with liquids like alcohols.

I might need to add that here in Sweden gasoline is about $7 per gallon while E85 is about $5. Both fuels cost about $1 to either import or produce, so the price difference comes partly from lower taxes on ethanol, partly from the fact that gas stations balance the cost with regards to mileage so that one fuel should not be cheaper than the other.

If we were to lower the taxes on E85 in order to promote eco-fuels, it would likely just mean that the gas stations adjust the E85 price to the same point and make a bigger profit. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't think we consumers will ever see that it is cheaper to drive on ethanol.

I'm a bit confused about why ethanol producers in USA are using diesel and such for producing ethanol. It does sound a bit counter-intuitive to not use the energy they produce. You can run harvesters and distillers on ethanol.

The efficiency when producing ethanol is low, something along 30% which oil producers claim means that in order to produce three units of ethanol you need to consume seven and such it is some kind of negative effect where you throw away four.

This is oil propaganda, what it really means that in order to produce ten units you need to use up seven of them in the process leaving you with a net gain of three in the end. Assuming that your supply of carbohydrates is endless - not actually the case but it does grow by itself from sunlight so in essence it is free solar energy - then it is practically uninteresting how much energy you spend in the process to finalize the product as it is a closed loop. What matters is what you get in the end and what it costs you.

Gotta run.

 

CNG is much like ethanol in that the energy content is less, but the octane rating is higher. That's why it would work well in a supercharged engine. And yes, CNG has higher hydrogen/carbon ratiocompared to gasoline. That's why the greenhouse gas emission is much less. And that's why I feel it is the perfect pre-cursor for hydrogen.


We use diesel in our tractors because we'd have to by new (or do a major rebuild) to get them to run on ethanol, even if the ethanol were cheaper (which, at least now, it is not). We use natural gas for the distillation because it is even cheaper than diesel, especially when demand is low in the non-heating season.


More when time permits!