Like Tree0Likes

Al Gore "Ethanol a Mistake"

Reply
Old 12-08-2010, 01:00 PM
  #21
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
 
CigDaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
My Boats: Cigarette 35 Cafe Racer
Posts: 21,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VetteLT193 View Post
It kills the mileage in my vehicles too. easily 10%, if not more.

I'd say E10 would lower the mileage by 3.4% in a flex fuel vehicle that is designed to accommodate for the fuel blend. In that situation it isn't so bad because it should make a bit more power too.

But... in vehicles that are not flex fuel the engine computer really doesn't know exactly what is going on, what exact blend to use so it does the best it can. that is where you get hosed.
I believe it!

All things being equal - meaning best case - my numbers are valid. They are purely the mathematical relationship between the two combustible's potential energies.

In the real world there are other factors involved such as varying ECU-driven engine management schemes based on what fuel it senses. I'm not surprised that it's a 10% drop. In some situations it may even be more.
CigDaze is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 01:31 PM
  #22
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
 
Tom A.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New Jersey
My Boats: Necessary Evil .............Donzi 38 ZrComp.............
Posts: 4,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T2x View Post
Either way, my point is that we are now forced to introduce piss (real or synthetic) into diesel engines. Another example of politicians believing they are scientests or engineers. Once these "improvements" are made (catalytic convertors, ethanol, death taxes, Obamacare, etc.)...you can't get rid of the nonsense under any circumstances, it seems.
Holy crap! I always used to say that all I needed to do was piss in the tank and my old Isuzu diesel would run..... never thought it would be true!
Tom A. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 02:28 PM
  #23
Charter Member # 545
Gold Member
Thread Starter
 
Beak Boater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Port Tobacco MD/Cape Coral Fl
Posts: 2,151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom A. View Post
Holy crap! I always used to say that all I needed to do was piss in the tank and my old Isuzu diesel would run..... never thought it would be true!
Tom.....I have heard you called alot of things, but never a cow!!!!!!
Beak Boater is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 02:50 PM
  #24
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
 
Tom A.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New Jersey
My Boats: Necessary Evil .............Donzi 38 ZrComp.............
Posts: 4,094
Default

Thanks......Jackazz!
Tom A. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 05:19 PM
  #25
Registered
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ottawa
My Boats: powerquest 522 535/570
Posts: 505
Default

if we could just tap into all that methane at our gov't buildings.........
paintman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 05:33 PM
  #26
T2x
Allergic to Nonsense
Platinum Member
 
T2x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Granite Quarry, NC
My Boats: 1966 !8' Switzer Wing "Miss Diablo" 1968 Switzer Wing "Dust'n the Wind 2",, 1960 Powercat 15C , 1977 17' Molinari w/Evinrude CCC
Posts: 5,004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paintman View Post
if we could just tap into all that methane at our gov't buildings.........
Pelosinol
T2x is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 05:52 PM
  #27
Registered
 
cosmic12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Syracuse N.Y.
My Boats: Dreaming of a 32 AT
Posts: 4,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigDaze View Post
I believe it!

All things being equal - meaning best case - my numbers are valid. They are purely the mathematical relationship between the two combustible's potential energies.

In the real world there are other factors involved such as varying ECU-driven engine management schemes based on what fuel it senses. I'm not surprised that it's a 10% drop. In some situations it may even be more.


You never cease to amaze me with what you come up with.
cosmic12 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 07:48 PM
  #28
Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: LITCHFIELD,IL.
My Boats: SPORTCAT
Posts: 470
Default

Just Think If He Was Pres We'd Of Starved To Death
schnydo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 08:23 PM
  #29
Registered
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Georgia
My Boats: Currently boatless :-(((
Posts: 40
Default

Back in my engineering college days most of my professors would tell us over & over "there are no free lunches".

The analysis of energy required to obtain ethanol in this thread is spot on and the notion of using ethanol just makes most of us engineers just shake our heads. It seems that our Imperial Federal Government is now capable of bending the laws of both physics and thermodynamics.

Chemists, petroleum engineers, mechanical engineers, et. al. have spent their careers looking for the "holy grail" of fuels. And what we have today that we call gasoline is as close as we can come given the constraints of volume carried in cars, volativity in crashes, operating temperatures, etc. But what the hell do we know??

And don't even get me started on electric vehicles.

Tom

ps: Sorry for not introducing myself and just posting. I've lurked here for almost 3 years.
tda3 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 09:18 PM
  #30
Registered
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Here and There
My Boats: 36' Apache
Posts: 1,831
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigDaze View Post
Well, ya!

This whole goddamned ethanol issue just infuriates me! It's preposterous to even contemplate using ethanol as a fuel, yet alone mandate it.

This should truly illustrate to everyone how idiotic our environmental advocates and politicians are!!!!!!

Facts:

Regular gasoline yields 115,500 BTU's of potential energy.
Ethanol yields 76,000 BTU's of potential energy.
That's 33% LESS!!!

That means that:
E10 lowers mileage by 3.4%, and
E15 lowers mileage by 5.1%

And it would take 1.52 gallons of ethanol to drive the same distance as you could on 1.0 gallon of gasoline!

Wow!!!!!

And if that's not bad enough, consider that it costs more to produce a gallon of ethanol than it's worth, and it requires more energy to produce ethanol that it will ever yield!!

Where's the sense in that? There is none! Welcome to the U.S. government.


Between fertilizer, pesticide, farm equipment fuel, irrigation, electricity and bulk transport, it requires about 81,000 BTU's of energy to simply grow the corn.

The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline. This all amounts to an additional 50,000 BTU's of energy per gallon of ethanol.

131,000 BTU's of energy in to get 76,000 BTU's out.

BRILLIANT!!!!!!!


An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol.

But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $385 per acre. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.

In total, Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline.

if it weren't for government subsidies no one would dare venture into producing ethanol. It's a $ loser.

It's no wonder that corn farmers and processors burn gasoline in their equipment and not ethanol. They couldn't afford to.
Great post!!! I knew ethanol was a loser but I never really looked at the energy loss associated with the production.
baywatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06 PM.


Copyright 2011 OffShoreOnly. All rights reserved.