Shitty Texas fuel!

[s8v4o]

Burning ethanol still produces carbon dioxide afaik. Thats at least partly why its an issue for environmentalists.

Can we even produce enough ethanol to achieve energy independence? I read sugar cane is much better for it than corn but we have limited areas to produce cane in this country. Climate isn't right for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatwat

Most people don't realize that ethanol is almost carbon neutral. Corn or any plant used to make ethanol spends it's whole life scrubbing CO2 and locks that carbon in the plant. That same carbon is then released during the burning of ethanol. This cycle just happens over and over again.

Meanwhile this doesn't happen with fossil fuels. When we pump crude oil out of the ground and burn it we just keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. There's no give and take relationship there.

Why e30 and e50?

Depends on the application. Right now I use E85 and don't fully utilize it from an octane standpoint. I would love to have a blender pump nearby that allowed me to run something like E50. That way I would get great octane and increase my mileage over E85 since I don't have a 14.0:1 compression engine.

 

[Sky Render]

Most people don't realize that ethanol is almost carbon neutral. Corn or any plant used to make ethanol spends it's whole life scrubbing CO2 and locks that carbon in the plant. That same carbon is then released during the burning of ethanol. This cycle just happens over and over again.

Meanwhile this doesn't happen with fossil fuels. When we pump crude oil out of the ground and burn it we just keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. There's no give and take relationship there.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703574604574500013927534676

 

[Dubstep Shep]

Most people don't realize that ethanol is almost carbon neutral. Corn or any plant used to make ethanol spends it's whole life scrubbing CO2 and locks that carbon in the plant. That same carbon is then released during the burning of ethanol. This cycle just happens over and over again.

Meanwhile this doesn't happen with fossil fuels. When we pump crude oil out of the ground and burn it we just keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. There's no give and take relationship there.




Depends on the application. Right now I use E85 and don't fully utilize it from an octane standpoint. I would love to have a blender pump nearby that allowed me to run something like E50. That way I would get great octane and increase my mileage over E85.

That's not exactly true... The concept is spot on though.

The issue is that other fuels are burned in the production of ethanol. Think about how much diesel is used to grow that corn.

That's the reason it costs more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than it actually contains. Not so with oil because the production was done inside the earth naturally. All we have to do is extract it, which in and of itself is actually a very efficient process.

 

[Sky Render]

E85 makes awesome 100-octane race fuel, though!

 

[stkjock]

105 Actually

 

[Dubstep Shep]

E85 makes awesome 100-octane race fuel, though!

Indeed. No argument that it's a fantastic high performance fuel

 

[s8v4o]

That's not exactly true... The concept is spot on though.

The issue is that other fuels are burned in the production of ethanol. Think about how much diesel is used to grow that corn.

That's the reason it costs more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than it actually contains. Not so with oil because the production was done inside the earth naturally. All we have to do is extract it, which in and of itself is actually a very efficient process.

Let me know where I can find naturally occurring gasoline that needs no processing and transportation.

... Not so with oil because the production was done inside the earth naturally.

Isn't that like me saying the corn or switchgrass was done naturally and free because of the sun? The oil doesn't get itself out of the ground and process itself.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703574604574500013927534676

The theory is sound, the article doesn't disprove it in any way. Also, that article is all speculation and no science. Ethanol does "recycle the CO2" as the article even mentions but the article says in not carbon neutral because of the "destruction of rain forests" to grow plants for ethanol. You don't have to cut down rain forests to grow ethanol friendly plants.

 

[Dubstep Shep]

It's a lot cheaper to get the oil out of the ground and refine it per x amount of energy then it is to grow and produce ethanol per x amount of energy.

The difference is that ethanol is renewable, though not fully sustainable.

 

[Riptide]

If theyll slash and burn rain forests for cattle then its not a big stretch to think they would do it for ethanol production. If there was a way to produce it that made such production economically unfeasible then that might help. Too many unknowns at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatwat

 

[s8v4o]

If theyll slash and burn rain forests for cattle then its not a big stretch to think they would do it for ethanol production. If there was a way to produce it that made such production economically unfeasible then that might help. Too many unknowns at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatwat

Plants used for ethanol production can be grown in areas not viable for normal plants and trees. Switchgrass (a weed) can be grown in conditions just not hospitable for corn and normal vegetation. Switchgrass even yields more ethanol per acre then corn does as well. In my opinion it's all about politics and making money.

 

[Dubstep Shep]

Plants used for ethanol production can be grown in areas not viable for normal plants and trees. Switchgrass (a weed) can be grown in conditions just not hospitable for corn and normal vegetation. Switchgrass even yields more ethanol per acre then corn does as well. In my opinion it's all about politics and making money.

There's still not enough farmland to completely replace gasoline as a fuel.

 

[05yellowgt]

That's not exactly true... The concept is spot on though.

The issue is that other fuels are burned in the production of ethanol. Think about how much diesel is used to grow that corn.

That's the reason it costs more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than it actually contains. Not so with oil because the production was done inside the earth naturally. All we have to do is extract it, which in and of itself is actually a very efficient process.

It absolutely takes more energy to produce a gallon of gasoline (pump it, transport it, refine it, transport it again, pump it into you car, then finally burn it in an ICE) than we get out of it. You'd be violating the laws of physics otherwise.

 

[rcm90]

Dubstep Shep vs the world. Round# 3,498,460

 

[Dubstep Shep]

It absolutely takes more energy to produce a gallon of gasoline (pump it, transport it, refine it, transport it again, pump it into you car, then finally burn it in an ICE) than we get out of it. You'd be violating the laws of physics otherwise.

Lol no, you wouldn't.

You're thinking of the laws of thermodynamics I imagine? Specifically that energy is always conserved?

You're correct that's a law of physics and you can't get more energy than you put in.

However, refining, transportation, etc aren't happening to put energy into the fuel. All the energy the fuel will ever had was stored in it long before it was pulled from the earth. That energy is already there; we only need to extract the oil to obtain it.

Where do you think all our energy comes from? If it took more energy to make a gallon of gas than it contains, you realize that energy has to come out of the power grid right? Where do you think the energy on the grid comes from? I'll give you a hint, the majority of it comes from fossil fuels, not wind, water, nuclear, or solar.

 

[Riptide]

I realize slashing and burning existing forests isn't the only place/way to produce ethanol. However it remains to be seen that it wouldn't happen any way because you certainly could produce ethanol by clearing those areas. As they already do for cattle production.

Not saying I know that will happen. But it is not out of the realm of possibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatwat

 

[Deez-67]

How is ethanol hurting your car? What mods do you have?

I only run 100% in my cars. My 67 and 96 it's a no brainer. My 05 I've had to do it a few times but I try to only put in as much as I need to get where I can fill it up with 100%. I've had it throw itself in engine safety mode twice both times after running one or more full tanks of 10%. I can't say if that was way it happen but I have never had it happen again running 100%.

Now my wife's car I'll run the shitties cheapest crap gas I can find. lol

This

 

[Riptide]

I run E10 in every single tank of fuel I get. Zero issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatwat

 

[Sky Render]

Lol no, you wouldn't.

You're thinking of the laws of thermodynamics I imagine? Specifically that energy is always conserved?

You're correct that's a law of physics and you can't get more energy than you put in.

However, refining, transportation, etc aren't happening to put energy into the fuel. All the energy the fuel will ever had was stored in it long before it was pulled from the earth. That energy is already there; we only need to extract the oil to obtain it.

Where do you think all our energy comes from? If it took more energy to make a gallon of gas than it contains, you realize that energy has to come out of the power grid right? Where do you think the energy on the grid comes from? I'll give you a hint, the majority of it comes from fossil fuels, not wind, water, nuclear, or solar.

Sorry, fellows, but as much as I like to disagree with my buddy Shep, he's 100% correct here.

 

[Dubstep Shep]

Sorry, fellows, but as much as I like to disagree with my buddy Shep, he's 100% correct here.

Have I ever told you how much I love it when we agree? Hahahaha

 

[BruceH]

Why e30 and e50?

E30 is right around 96 octane even using the crappiest gas. It has enough cooling to seriously reduce the detonation threshold. E50 (according to a government study I read) will not detonate in an internal combustion engine. I think it would make a nice fuel for my car with low boost. So would E30. A few SRT4 guys I know blend their own E30 at the pumps, they swear by it.

This

I don't understand?


I'm fairly certain that most of the respondent aren't from an agricultural background. The US produces more food than we can eat, sell to other countries, give away, or process.

I've heard so many untrue arguments about ethanol and farming in general over the years. Every time one is proved wrong then it's always another half truth or made up data.

Having a farming background really helps separate the oil company crap from the truth. I've seen rotting grain that couldn't be sold or given away every year I was growing up in eastern SD. The American farmer always produces record crops which brings the price of his product down.

As soon as he gets something going that uses the excess he produces someone has to bitch about it because it's cutting into oil company profits. The American farmer has been trying to get ethanol going since the oil crisis in the early 70's. Congress was always the stopping point. When we finally got gasohol in pumps in the late 70's all the stupid talk started about how it would screw up your car. The thing is it didn't hurt anything. The lead and mtbe were bad. I imagine that most who are reading this weren't around when we had to change plugs every 10k miles or so. Also had to regap points from time to time and a tune up included new points, rotor, and condenser. Back in those good old leaded gas days motors just didn't last like they do now. Carb jets would get plugged, cars had grease zerks, I'm getting off topic.

What I'm trying to get to is that we are in the best times ever for automobiles. I think that part of that is because of e10. It's a much better fuel than the leaded crap we used to use.