E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?
Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream
credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: For production/hauling/storage/etc, end to end: BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from ethanol vs BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline and Simply burning the stuff: Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of E85 burned vs Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of Gasoline burned Also what car models (SUVs too) will run on E85? People talk about ethanol not being worth using because of the fossil fuel needed to produce it. They are leaving out a couple of factors 1) do you have to burn fossil fuel to produce ethanol? why not run the facilities on ethanol? 2) what is the total return of energy produced vs consumed, of ethanol vs gasoline? 3) what is the total pollution difference when you compare the two BTU for BTU? I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about 118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of gas. Please no flames, just numbers or a balanced mix of web links to reputable / high profile studies ie a couple by academia (plus any info on who funds their research), a couple from the oil industry or their friends, a couple from green friendly studies. Thanks |
E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?
Google e85, tons of comprehensive info out there ."Mad Scientist Jr"
> wrote in message oups.com... > Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream > credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: > > For production/hauling/storage/etc, end to end: > BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from ethanol > vs > BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline > > and > > Simply burning the stuff: > Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of E85 burned > vs > Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of Gasoline burned > > Also what car models (SUVs too) will run on E85? > > People talk about ethanol not being worth using because of the fossil > fuel needed to produce it. They are leaving out a couple of factors > 1) do you have to burn fossil fuel to produce ethanol? why not run the > facilities on ethanol? > 2) what is the total return of energy produced vs consumed, of ethanol > vs gasoline? > 3) what is the total pollution difference when you compare the two BTU > for BTU? > > I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol > produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount > of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of > E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about > 118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of > gas. > > Please no flames, just numbers or a balanced mix of web links to > reputable / high profile studies ie a couple by academia (plus any info > on who funds their research), a couple from the oil industry or their > friends, a couple from green friendly studies. > > Thanks > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?
On 6 Sep 2006 17:20:14 -0700, "Mad Scientist Jr"
> wrote: >Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream >credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: > >For production/hauling/storage/etc, end to end: >BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from ethanol >vs >BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline It isn't that simple, there can be more power from ethanol than from gasoline, only the engine needs to be timed different and other changes made. Almost all race cars will be using ethanol within a year or so, and that would not happen if it didn't have the power. The only reason the gasoline is mixed to make E85 is to keep people from drinking ethanol solutions without paying the tax. But it may also improve starting in cold climate. Flex-fuel vehicles have fuel injection which is able to sense oxygen levels in the exhaust and change the timing and furl-air ratio automatically. >and > >Simply burning the stuff: >Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of E85 burned >vs >Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of Gasoline burned Big difference, gasoline loses, by a big margin. >Also what car models (SUVs too) will run on E85? Look inside the gas fill door or look at the eighth character in the VIN. >People talk about ethanol not being worth using because of the fossil >fuel needed to produce it. They are leaving out a couple of factors >1) do you have to burn fossil fuel to produce ethanol? why not run the >facilities on ethanol? >2) what is the total return of energy produced vs consumed, of ethanol >vs gasoline? >3) what is the total pollution difference when you compare the two BTU >for BTU? Already asked. >I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol >produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount >of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of >E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about >118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of >gas. Probably because E85 is not ethanol, it is 85 percent, and the flex-fuel system has to compromise to run the mixture. >Please no flames, just numbers or a balanced mix of web links to >reputable / high profile studies ie a couple by academia (plus any info >on who funds their research), a couple from the oil industry or their >friends, a couple from green friendly studies. >Thanks Google will give too many links, as usual, too bad they can use the same search engine ebay uses. Joe Fischer |
E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?
If you have not tried
www.ethanol.org I would make that my first stop. "Mad Scientist Jr" > wrote in message oups.com... > Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream > credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: > > For production/hauling/storage/etc, end to end: > BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from ethanol > vs > BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline > > and > > Simply burning the stuff: > Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of E85 burned > vs > Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of Gasoline burned > > Also what car models (SUVs too) will run on E85? > > People talk about ethanol not being worth using because of the fossil > fuel needed to produce it. They are leaving out a couple of factors > 1) do you have to burn fossil fuel to produce ethanol? why not run the > facilities on ethanol? > 2) what is the total return of energy produced vs consumed, of ethanol > vs gasoline? > 3) what is the total pollution difference when you compare the two BTU > for BTU? > > I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol > produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount > of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of > E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about > 118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of > gas. > > Please no flames, just numbers or a balanced mix of web links to > reputable / high profile studies ie a couple by academia (plus any info > on who funds their research), a couple from the oil industry or their > friends, a couple from green friendly studies. > > Thanks > |
E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?
In .com> "Mad Scientist Jr" > writes:
>I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol >produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount >of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of >E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about >118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of >gas. Just addressing this one point, using figures from Our Very Own Federal Gov't: Linkname: EPA - OTAQ - Fuel Economy Impact Analysis of RFG URL: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgecon.htm regular gasoline: 108,500 -> 117,000 BTU/gallon depending on winter vs. summer blends and other factors. ethanol: 76,100 BTU/gallon. If we take the midrange of gasoline there we'll get 112,750. So.. pure ethanol vs gasoline: 76,100 : 112,750 = 67.5 percent I'll let you work out the E-10 and E-85 mixes... NOTE that some folk claim engines designed for the inherent higher octane in ethanol can use higher compression, and thus eke out a bit more efficiency, (and, to a lesser extent, "regular" engines might be able to do so as well), but... there ain't no way that'll compensate for a 1/3rd reduction in BTUs -- __________________________________________________ ___ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] |
E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:14:38 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> wrote: >NOTE that some folk claim engines designed for >the inherent higher octane in ethanol can use higher >compression, and thus eke out a bit more efficiency, >(and, to a lesser extent, "regular" engines might >be able to do so as well), but... there ain't no >way that'll compensate for a 1/3rd reduction in BTUs Ha ha, so the reason methanol has been used for the Indy 500 and they are switching to ethanol is because they are dummys? :-) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12740848/ Joe Fischer |
E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?
"Joe Fischer" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:14:38 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein > > wrote: > >>NOTE that some folk claim engines designed for >>the inherent higher octane in ethanol can use higher >>compression, and thus eke out a bit more efficiency, >>(and, to a lesser extent, "regular" engines might >>be able to do so as well), but... there ain't no >>way that'll compensate for a 1/3rd reduction in BTUs > > Ha ha, so the reason methanol has been used for > the Indy 500 and they are switching to ethanol is because > they are dummys? :-) They aren't but you sure as hell are. This is the second idiotic post you've made on the subject of E85. |
E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:29:04 -0500, "Bob" > wrote:
>"Joe Fischer" > wrote: >> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:14:38 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein >> > wrote: >>>NOTE that some folk claim engines designed for >>>the inherent higher octane in ethanol can use higher >>>compression, and thus eke out a bit more efficiency, >>>(and, to a lesser extent, "regular" engines might >>>be able to do so as well), but... there ain't no >>>way that'll compensate for a 1/3rd reduction in BTUs >> >> Ha ha, so the reason methanol has been used for >> the Indy 500 and they are switching to ethanol is because >> they are dummys? :-) > >They aren't but you sure as hell are. This is the second idiotic post you've >made on the subject of E85. Too bad the ethanol car was in an accident. Joe Fischer |
E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?
In article >,
Joe Fischer > wrote: > On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:14:38 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein > > wrote: > > >NOTE that some folk claim engines designed for > >the inherent higher octane in ethanol can use higher > >compression, and thus eke out a bit more efficiency, > >(and, to a lesser extent, "regular" engines might > >be able to do so as well), but... there ain't no > >way that'll compensate for a 1/3rd reduction in BTUs > > Ha ha, so the reason methanol has been used for > the Indy 500 and they are switching to ethanol is because > they are dummys? :-) > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12740848/ > > Joe Fischer Did you even read the article? |
E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?
On Thu, aarcuda69062 > wrote:
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12740848/ >> Joe Fischer > >Did you even read the article? Why? Doesn't this paragraph say enough? "Slunecka says he does not expect any problems when Indy switches to pure ethanol in 2007. In fact, because ethanol generates more power than methanol, cars in the race will see their fuel efficiency rise by as much as 30 percent next year when they switch, he said." [unquote] Joe Fischer |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AutoBanter.com