AutoblogGreen

What I'd like to know then is if there are any long-term problems like corrosion in the fuel tank, fuel lines, engine seals. I've heard this is a problem for non flex-fuel vehicles.

Nevertheless, if it takes car companies something like $250 to $350 dollars more to make a car flex-fuel, then all cars manufactured should be flex-fuel, allowing the consumer to choose which fuel source/blend to use, once the long-term fuel efficiency results are finally determined.

This reminds me of the book I read several years back called Shuck the Sheiks. In that book, I think they did similar comparisons between using gasoline and ethanol (E85), and E85 yielded similar mileage and slightly less emmissions.

Reply

This is exciting news! I have high hopes for Ethanol as a "gateway" fuel away from oil-based and towards hydrogen. Even here in Mississippi - a state ofted ribbed for acting backwards instead of progressive - farmers are switching to growing corn instead of cotton due to tax incentive programs. In a more ideal world they would still grow cotton and use the stalk byproducts to produce cellulosic ethanol!

Reply

The study basically says it would be better to use E20 or E30 instead of the E10 and E85 sold today.

It's interesting how this defies the energy density trend. I'm still a bit skeptical though, since this study was cosponsored by the AMERICAL COALITION FOR ETHANOL ! How much influence did these guys have on the filtering or biasing of the results?

Reply

Groovy Graphic, LL, unfortunately misleading as the grams of CO2 equivalent per kilometer is poor for ethanol made from corn.

How about a Catchy Cellulosic image, instead.

Reply

@3: I think U.S. law requires them to have the same influence on the filtering or biasing of results as "environmentally friendly" groups are allowed when they report their findings.

Reply

Sure, but at what price?

Companies working on cellulosic ethanol still won't tell you what it costs.

Cellulose is much harder to convert to sugar than is starch, often requiring expensive acid hydrolysis.

Plus the most likely feedstock (wood) has other major components (e.g. lignin) which you don't want.

We can talk about switchgrass all we like but no one's growing it on a commercial scale (unlike corn), so we don't know yet what issues that may raise.

Reply

I have looked through the report (and yes, I am a scientist). The graphs for the 3 regular cars actually show that the overall MPG vs ethanol content trend is close to what is calculated based on energy density. There are a few data points that are out of line, and the report chooses to highlight only the out-of-line points that favor the views of the ACFE. My conclusion is that the data and testing methologies seem valid, although the conclusions of the report are biased by the funding source.

However, the Flex Fuel vehicle consistently shows better MPG than predicted based on energy content across the entire ethanol content range. Clearly , this is a significant result. My take home message from this graph would be that Flex fuel owners should mix their E85 with regular gas to achieve a low-medium ethanol content to get the most bang for their buck.

Reply

What is the mpg rating for corn if I eat it?

Reply

- What is the mpg rating for corn if I eat it?

If you run it's probably not so good, but on a bike you'd do better (it's the most energy efficient form of transportation). I'd worry about emissions though - methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 (and apparently that's a problem for all those cows that east corn - COWS ARE SUPPOSED TO EAT GRASS!)

Reply

Is 25 miles and three [cool] starts enough for a true long term fuel trim adaptation?

It seems like the out of trend data points are either bad data, or just a scaled up EGR optima on the lower energy density fuel [wonderful/beneficial fluke]. This optima varys depending on how exhaust gas recirculation is achieved, so there can't be a new standard for a higher ethanol blend above E10.
How come they didn't further investigate the E30 peak for the Camry, what about testing E25 & E35?
E35/45 for the non flex fuel Impala
E15/25 for the flex Impala
E25/35 for the Ford Fusion
and what about the AKI of the fuels?

Reply

Karkus, cows are supposed to eat plants, and that includes the grasses that produce grains like barley, oats, rye, and corn. Like all ruminants, their 4 chamber stomachs allow bacteria to break down cellulose and multiply, then the cows digest the bacteria. It doesn't matter what the cows eat, the bacteria will always produce methane.

Reply

In defense of Karkus, I have to point out that cows are not meant to eat primarily grain. They are grazers, and by nature do not eat the high levels of starches found in corn grain.

Interestingly, grass fed beefs may actually rpduce more methane, but as in all things, you have to look at the system as a whole. The corn/feedlot system is much more environmentally disruptive and has higher net greenhouse gas emissions than grazing.

Of course, if you want the high fat, perfectly marbled beef, you don't have too many options other than the feedlot.

Reply

With the people I know with Flex vehicales they all report that using the E85 fuel results in about 25% less power and milage. We sat down and calulated the milage vs the lower price of E85 and he was paying more than regular fuel because of the lower milage.

Any one else having those results?

Reply

It can get even better. E85 has an octane rating of 100 to 105, that's racing fuel numbers. If engines were built specifically for e85 only with superchargers and turbos efficiency can further be increased. A high performance 4 cylinder can match a v6's power and torque while weighing less.

Reply

Good point Wildgoosechase, Ford future Twin-Force engine could use E85

Also in France, Renault prepare a Megane 16v to use E85, here a French article about it
http://www.moteurnature.com/actu/uneactu.php?news_id=1885

Reply

corn based fuel has too be one of the stupidist ideas yet no wonder shrub supports it i beleve biodeisel from waste products yes even cow and human waste has greater possibilitys while we wait for practical evs to become reality .

Reply

@16 -
Thanks for the link, Stéphane... my French is pretty bad, but it does appear that the E85 engine-- even though it IS more powerful-- gets poorer fuel economy, based on the second chart.

Maybe the high-performance tuning of that car doesn't lend itself to E85 fuel economy. Perhaps E30+ lends itself better than E85 to the automatic ignition- or valve- timing changes already programmed into the U.S. cars tested above.

It's not the ultimate answer, but E30+ seems like it could be very cost effective if it worked, and would still lower gasoline content by 30%.

Reply

I grew switchgrass commercially as a seed crop for wildlife habitat and land reclamation. Switchgrass is one of the three dominant plants of the tall grass prairie, along with big bluestem and indiangrass. You'll find it in the ditchbanks all over the plains. If you don't mow an old cemetery, it will show up there. There are hundreds of thousands of acres in switchgrass and other native grass mixes for waterfowl dense nesting cover and wildlife habitat in the U.S. and Canada. Switchgrass makes the best upland game bird cover. Talk to Ducks Unlimited.

Lignin is a resin and would be used as fuel. An ethanol plant burning lignin in a co-generation set-up would actually export surplus electricity. As a resin, lignin also has the potential for being a raw material for a biochemicals industry to replace petrochemicals.

The advantages to a farmer of going to a perennial grass crop over annual grains are huge. Less capital costs, less input costs, more flexible harvest schedule, the possibility of three paychecks, one for the crop, another for wildlife habitat, and a third for carbon sequestration.

If we go cellulosic, you people are going to be begging us farmers to grow corn.

At 20 and 30 percent ethanol levels in gasoline, there's a synergistic effect that makes combustion more efficient, compensating for the lower energy density of ethanol. Minnesota State University Mankato has been studying this effect for some time. They've even used ethanol successfully in a diesel blend.

Corn ethanol began as a way to use up piles of surplus corn that couldn't be marketed or moved to market (because of the chronic shortage of railroad hopper cars). Converting corn to ethanol creates a much bigger boost to a local rural economy than just shipping corn hundreds or thousands of miles away. More jobs are created locally and the money stays here. Most ethanol plants in Minnesota are farmer-owned co-ops.

Reply

My 1984 Toyota Pickup gets 28...32 on straight gas and 22...25 on E10 Ethanol gas. Over several tanks of each the difference is 14% reduction in fuel economy with E10. Therefore my truck is burning more straight gas with E10 than when filled with straight gas.

Further even with the subsidized (every taxpayer is paying something for each gallon sold) lower price of E10 the difference in cost is not enough to offset the cost per mile difference. E10 costs more per 100 miles traveled than straight gas in my truck.

I can not find an independent test report that documents the differences in tail pipe gases between E10 and E0 gas. Given that there are studies by Ethanol funded groups that say E anything greater than 0 gets better milage I am suspicious of test reports from such groups because my experiences are vastly different.

Jim

Reply