Ethanol Fuel Discussion Here
 

Post any ethanol related stuff here, but read this first. http://www.drivingethanol.org/motors...teristics.aspx

Advantages of Ethanol Enriched Racing Fuels
HORSEPOWER: Because Ethanol contains oxygen, it has a very low power stoichiometric when compared to gasoline fuels (6.5 compared to 12.5). Ethanol must be run at much richer mixtures than gasoline, more than offsetting the lower energy per unit volume. The net energy released per cycle is higher and this results in more horsepower.

For example, if gasoline is run at its preferred max power air fuel mixture of 12.5/1, it will release approximately 19,000 BTU's of energy, where ethanol run at its preferred power stoichiometric of 6.5/1 will release approximately 24,400 BTU's. By comparison, methanol releases slightly more, about 27,650 BTU's. The more ethanol there is in gasoline, the more powerful it is as a motor fuel. Typically, you can expect at least 5% more horsepower at the rear wheels of a vehicle running on E-85 than one burning gasoline only.

INCREASED ENGINE LIFE: Ethanol has a very high MON octane rating, allowing engine builders to run higher compression ratios without fears of destructive detonation. It also has a very high Latent Heat of Vaporization, so the engine is cooled far better than one running on gasoline. This lowers bottom end and oiling system temperatures substantially.

Do you really want to be wrong in more than one thread? I mean seriously give it up.

You are quoting an ethanol website. They will make any results favor them. You are also using the excuse that there is oxygen in it which takes up space. That's a part of the fuel. Remove it. How about quoting an unbiased source for once? Don't quote yourself either. That didn't work in the last thread. Here's one. Read it. Study it. Learn it. Even though it was written when gas prices were lower, the info remains valid.

http://zfacts.com/p/436.html

You try to skew the facts in your favor by saying mileage isn't indictive of efficiency. You try to skew the results by saying that btu content isn't a measure of efficiency. You try to skew the results by removing a certain property of the fuel you are arguing for. If these aren't indicitive of efficiency, nothing is!

The only thing you are focusing on is the fact that at each fuels stoich a/f ratio, that more energy is being released. That's fine but you are ignoring the fact that it takes FAR more ethanol than gasoline to reach stoich which means on an even amount basis by volume, it's less efficient! The really sad part is that in the real world even an engine running on pure ethanol at stoich is STILL making less power than a gasoline engine at stoich, all things remaining unchanged in the engine of course. Yes I am accounting for proper tuning for each fuel.

I'm not too sure how long it's going to take to figure this out but when I was 17 I was equally as stubborn about things I didn't fully understand too. We've all been there.

We don't have the "higher compression ratio" to recover the power lost in the changeover, so net effect is a power loss.

Add the fact that a full tank will take me roughly half the distance, you have a lose-lose proposition.

Unless you work for Archer-Daniels Midland, the biggest winner in the food-to-fuel scam, (and also the biggest government lobbyist) corn ethanol is a dead end on the road to alternative fuels.

Around here we have the same agri-business lobby grabbing the same ethanol subsidies from the our government - except up here the ethanol must, by law, be made from Western Canada Prairie Grain. Because our farmers don't grow corn. If you think this is about energy self-sufficiency you are blinkered......


S

A higher compression ratio will help recover SOME of the losses. It still won't make up for all of it though.

I just don't know, do you have any dyno numbers? The chemistry says it should make more power...

with almost twice the fuel.

We all know you have little knowledge about chemistry. In the previous thread you thought methanol had higher energy density than ethanol. Next you'll tell us that hybrid cars are going to save the environment.

"Should" and "Do" don't always end up being the same thing. This is why things that are based in theory must also be tested to be either confirmed or disproved.

I do think that Ethanol has it's place. I think we should make it from waste which is also known as cellulosic ethanol. This is where I'd like to see the small amount that we blend originate from. This way we are making something from nothing and not from corn. While we don't have a food shortage in regards to corn as most of it gets fed to cows, it is driving prices up and effecting other markets. Even hops for beer have grown more scarce and expensive because farmers are planting corn instead due to prices increasing. Ethanol will never be more efficient than gasoline but it does have it's place if done correctly.

Only cash-cropping corn farmers have waste. Us normal folks use the whole plant sans roots. Silage.

You can make ethanol from any waste that contains sugars or starches. It doesn't have to just be corn. It could be pumpkins, fruit, etc... Waste in general. There is even a special yeast strain that can break down grasses into ethanol but it's a patented product owned by a company whose name I forgot. That company is owned by Chevron though! Can you imagine using grass clippings from mowing your lawn to contribute to ethanol! It wouldn't be much but every little bit adds up. You could get a sizable amount of ethanol from all of our waste products.

Engines are air pumps. Unless you are a top fuel dragster, you aren't limited by the amount of fuel you can deliver.

E10 gas stinks in the US.
Big oil reduces the AKI of the fuel base stock so that the gain in AKI from the 10% ethanol results in no change in fuel AKI. It is still 87,89,91.

That is nuts. It should be raised to 87,90,93.
So no change for the people who purchase regular, Mid-grade is raised so that vehicles with engines that require European mid-grade (95RON) can save 10 cents a gallon by purchasing mid-grade instead of premium.
and the US premium can match European mid-grade, 98RON.

Using corn, a food product, to make our ethanol is ruining our economy. I would rather see grasses use in the process.
Is there any reason the the RX8, with a proper tune, can't use E85? Especially in FI applications?

Oh and I forgot the 3.25+-0.25% drop in mileage from 10% ethanol
Also the 20% drop from E70, 25% drop from E85.

So you it costs you more to drive.

The only performance gains from from turbocharged engines, where you can get more boost because of the higher AKI.

I've read some technical papers that show the drop in mileage using E85 is not nearly as severe when using a motor and tune setup exclusively for the fuel, not a flex fuel system. Ethanol still did not make the same fuel economy as regular gasoline, however.


We need to start developing battery and storage technology so we can start using solar power. It's not renewable but it sure is abundant.

what are you talking about? I do have a fair amount of knowledge in chemistry...

especially stoich.



but, honestly, i dont give two slides of a sandy fuck about this topic anymore.

:pokeowned

Wow,

If you're going to play with the big boys you need to think like the big boys (Or out think them). Internet battling isn't always fun. You are more knowledgeable about fuels than I am but you won't convince anyone of your opinion (Right or wrong) by letting them get to you and getting upset. YOU started this and it's good for general education for us to continue this.

Just my public 2 cents to you my dear friend. Hit um civil-like bro :) .

Seal.

The only thing he knows about fuels is what he's read on drivingethanol.org.

You can love it, you can hate it, that won't matter, ethanol is here to stay.

We did a little dyno testing with various fuels back when we ran shifter karts. Straight up an engine tuned for gas was more powerful on gas, 2 stroke and 4 stroke. Likewise, an engine tuned to ethanol was more powerful on ethanol.

Our test gasoline was Phillips B32 which is the exact same formula as T111 today. We also tried a few others in various mixtures;

• B42 - 3% oxygenated
• Toluene (pure)
• Methanol
• Propylene Oxide
• Lacquer Thinner
• Acetone
• Nitromethane

We used CR125 2 strokes and a 250cc Biland 4 stroke.

The B32 gas has higher octane then the ethanol, but it burns faster. Major advance to the timing (we use a Programmable Ignition system).

Ethanol consistently provided more power then gasoline did. Methanol is even better. Add a little acetone and it burns faster - not as fast as gas, but enough to back off the timing. And viola, even more power.

Toluene is good stuff but as good as Del'Orto carbs are it was downright difficult to tune consistently across the throttle/RPM range. Strong sweet yet acrid exhaust smell.

Propylene Oxide was a great oxygenator but it boils away too quickly.

Nitromethane at 15% should have been incredible. Tuning it was a bitch. It fouled my O2 sensors before I could get a decent reading. It leaves a brown residue on everything so we coudn't go by color. Not to mention melting holes through a couple of CR125 pistons.

Lacquer Thinner? Toluene, Methanol, Acetone and Methyl Ethyl Ketone was the cat's ass. I think someone was really trying to formulate the perfect fuel and realized it was a great paint solvent afterwards. Too bad it has such a strong odor that screams ILLEGAL FUEL.

Back to ethanol & E85. I've not tried it in the RX8, but have mixed a bit in the CX7 to roughly 30% ethanol. Sure enough it drinks more fuel. No real difference in 0-80 MPH time, but it definately is more crisp when pushing the throttle enough for a downshift. Probably more to due with the way Mazda tuned the CX7.

I think we'll see gas hit $5 a gallon long before we see it drop to $2 a gallon. Petroleum prices have no reason to drop by much, and every reason to keep climbing. China and India now have a population that wants to burn gasoline too. Like the US they buy from foreign sources, the same sources we buy from. Small world you say?

Ethanol is hardly a perfect solution. But its been proven to work and relatively easy to adapt the production technology to use. If some great new engine that ran on dogshit was invented today, how long would it take to replace the American fleet of cars? For that matter how long would it take to breed dogs quickly enough for fuel?

It all takes time. There will be no instant gratification on a cheap new motor fuel. Thats why ethanol is here to stay.

Oh, yeah, when folks use the word efficiency they should understand what it means. Basically its a ratio of energy in/energy out. It has nothing to do with the volume of liquid in/energy out.

This is absolutely not an advocation for any type of fuel but what also needs to be considered is the energy put into creating the fuel. The entire segway from natural resource to final exhaust burp needs to be taken into account. What good have you done using a cleaner burning fuel if you've created more polution and used more energy during production?

Use of the fodder is also a problem. You are removing a natural fertilizer that will need to be replaced with an artificial one that is a product of natural gas.

The best use of ethanol is as supplement. Is it not one of the best additives to gasoline for our emissions laws?

Once upon a time there were oil wells so shallow all it took was an hour with a shovel to dig deep enough to ignite a fire pit that would burn for a few days. Those days are long gone. Man has managed to either tap or drain all the "easy" oil.

The next phase of oil is either below 7000 feet of dirt, or the Tar Sands in Ft. McMurray Canada, or even encased in the sandstone on Colorado. Sure there is more oil in the ANWR but its loaded with sulpher. But it ain't cheap and it takes a lot of energy to extract.

Tar Sands are the least costly of the new virgin reserves to extract. That takes shovels capable of 100 tons per scoop and trucks capable of hauling 400 tons across soft wet sand (running 24/7/365) to haul the Tar Sand to a refinery, then large doese of heat and water to remove the oil, then returning the sand to where it came from. Each gallon of oil takes about half a gallon to extract.

There are all sorts of urban legends about how much energy ethanol takes to produce. Here is the bottom line;

At current production costs per BTU, ethanol is less then 75% of oil in production cost. Thats before taxes and profits. Ethanol production cost still has a lot of promising technology to reduce cost further, while oil will only increase.

No one is giving free oil away to manufacture ethanol so that oil it takes to manufacture is already included in the price we pay.

One could argue that other energy sources like coal to fire electrical generation plants are involved in the production of ethanol, and thats true. Keep in mind those costs also are included in the price.

The US won't be shifting to ethanol overnight, it will be slow and gradual, but it will happen. At the same time other oil sources like those mentioned above will come on line.

It won't be the greepeace people behind ethanol, its entirely a matter of economics. Unless of of course, someone invents a dogshit engine.

Ethanol in the US is such political bullshit. Corn is one of the least efficient crops to use for ethanol production but lobbyists and subsidies have caused the average american to think that E85 ethanol is great because it comes from corn. However, I don't know how much Sugarcane production we're capable of. But it seems we'd be much better off dumping a bunch of money in some poor country with a tropical climate to produce our ethanol for us. This statement is mind boggling to me... "fill up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol and you have used enough maize to feed a person for a year".

http://www.economist.com/research/ar...ry_id=10252015

Everyone is looking for a silver bullet in regards to fixing the oil crisis.

I'm afraid currently there isn't one. There's a reason that gasoline and oil based fuels are used so much and that's because of the abundance of the product combined with the high amount of energy stored within oil itself. Whether or not the products "cost" is less than oil, the overall amount of energy used to produce Ethanol either equals or outweighs what Ethanol yields.

A good example would be working for $100 a day and then deciding to work for $50 doing the same amount of work. It makes no sense.

Using Ethanol or other food related sources of energy is simply a bad idea because it drives up the costs of other food related items. Farmers are now switching to Corn instead of growing other food items driving up cost and increasing inflation.

The issue at had is whether Ethanol works as a fuel. It simply fails. Oil is about 5 times more efficient than Ethanol and that process changes very little when it's refined into gasoline.

Ethanol is being pushed because of farmer lobbists and the want of these people to keep selling a product all while being supported by the federal government. It's nothing more than an attempt to make serious cash by selling people on a bogus lie that Ethanol will solve our problems and make us energy independant.

The ONLY way you will see fuel prices come down is for the US government to allow oil companies to expand drilling and exploration, ease restrictions on building refineries, and lower or better use gas tax revenue.

Bio fuel, Ethanol, or anything else that involved burning FOOD for energy is a seriously bad idea and will only result in economic upsets. Oil is the blood of our economy and that's not going to change.

I have never made less power with any of the alcohol or ethanol fuels at the same AFR's/lambda values on both NA or boosted setups for both rotary or piston applications.
I've also never got the same fuel efficency as regular fuel. That will never happen. Now when you're dealing with E-70-85 type ethanol fuels then you're not really say using 100% alcohol/ethanol type fuels so the results are deffinately going to be different. I still don't believe you will ever be able to get the same efficency although some people have gone great lengths to prove that it's possible. It might be if you can run the compression ratio close to what say diesels run since it's very possible and have been done using 100% alcohol/methanol type fuels.
Only one way to find out.:lol:

Here's a 13B-REW at 13psi of boost on E-85 fuel.
http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.ph...&highlight=E85

https://i238.photobucket.com/albums/.../V8killa-1.jpg

Some internet E-85 reading material.
http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.ph...&highlight=E85

I actually have done a lot with fuels. I've done experiments with fuels using a pulsejet engine. I had a simple thrust measuring setup and used gasoline vs. diesel. Diesel made more thrust since it had more energy in it. This is obvious. I've done a lot of research and have done a fair amount number crunching and stoichometry. What you don't seem to understand is that alcohol fuels are more complex because of the attached oxygen.

This isn't a quote, it is a FACT OF SCIENCE.
Ethanol is 34.7% OXYGEN by mass

That's a very large percentage of liquid oxygen. It takes up a negligible volume so it's pretty much free oxygen. Air (air contains oxygen btw (~20%)) is the limiting factor of an engine as i have stated before. The "free oxygen" in ethanol more than makes up for its low energy.




V8 Kila has backed it up with numbers too.

Anything that grows 'can convert into oil'
Company finds natural solution that turns plants into gasoline
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=59402

This isn't exactly about Ethanol, but it is about producing alternate fuels from plant materials.

V8Kila has a turbo!!!!

On a turbo engine it's very easy to make more power on ethanol than gasoline due in part to it's higher octane and better latent heat of evaporation properties. You can run more boost and more aggressive timing. However mileage will never go up. Far from it. You always need more fuel. Looking at only power numbers on a forced inducted car isn't telling you the whole story. It's not telling you why it is the way it is.

Also get over the oxygen by mass argument. Kindly remove it if you want to discount it so we can do an equal comparison under your own terms. I'll wait. By your own admission ethanol is less efficient. Here's what you said: The "free oxygen" in ethanol more than makes up for its low energy. Low energy! Exactly! That's because it's less efficient!!! What it can do when you use more of it is not indicitive of it's efficiency. The fact that it takes more by volume to do the same thing means that it is in fact less efficient. This is backed up by btu and by mileage.

A company called Changing World Technologies has been doing somehting simliar with a process it call "Thermal Depolymerization" for a number of years now with actual production facilities

http://www.changingworldtech.com/who/index.asp

Here's another thought. If ethanol is 34.7% oxygen by mass, if it's so much more efficient, wouldn't you think that it would need to run leaner? It's supplying some of it's own air. It doesn't run leaner though. Not even close. It needs to be much much richer. It's because it's inefficient!

now i just need get some of this bacteria and a gas pump, I wont ever complain about cutting grass again in fact ill love it!

The bacteria converts the waste into oil. You would still need to refine it to make gasoline. But, add this bacteria to a large landfill and see what happens.

yeah, hope this works out and solves to problems at the same time on a large scale.

so on to ethanol-

Have people still not fully read this?

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentation...-isaf-no55.pdf

it and others like it have found that yes- under normal conditions found in normal spark ignition motors gasoline/ethanol mixtures produce less mpg because of the LOWER ENERGY DENSITY vs "pure" gasoline.

HOWEVER the study found that using the alcohol/gas mixtures of 10% to 85% and even 100% alcohol in a spark ignited engien with a 19.5/1 native compression ratio you could achieve the same power and mileage OR MORE than "pure" gasoline at normal spark ignited gasoline motors.

its very clear that at the normal compressions pumping in blends is less efficient and as the paper states

and more importantly - to me at least in terms of extending our fuel availability- it that the use of blends in between E10 and E85 have not be pushed or focused on as much as needed.

using something like E30 would offer a huge advantage in rate of return over E85 but it just isn't being pursued - probably because of some political or "green" agenda

I don't claim to be an expert on fuels at all, but how is a pulse jet engine at all similar to a piston or rotary engine?

it isn't really, I was just trying to show that I've done more research on fuels other than prickhole suggested by saying I just read some website.




RG, if it has oxygen attached to it you would run it richer because the "fuel" part of the AFR ratio would have oxygen ("air") in it.

He said he didn't see any power loss on N/A cars either.

Actually that would be true. I somehow got that messed up in my head. When I was using the term "richer" in my head, I was thinking in terms of richer air not fuel and vice versa with lean.

Please stop with the name calling. It's not needed.

If he has to use more volume of fuel then it's a net loss so even then it would still be irrelevant. This is because it's less efficient. At the end of the day the gas pump dispenses fuel in gallons. You buy ethanol by the gallon. That's the frame of reference that matters. If you need more of it, it's not as efficient.

The term efficiency doesn't really fit then. Defined as the ratio of the output to the input of any system. The automakers use fuel and gallons to define engine efficiency.
The engine's efficiency won't change. You just have different mileage values because ethanol is a different fuel.

It has less energy/volume that's undisputed, but it's oxygenation which is worth more power and "cleaner air".

The fact that it's oxygenated from a "clean air" standpoint would seem to cancel out since it has to run richer and you have to physically burn more fuel. More fuel equals more pollution.

The engine's efficiency won't change from the standpoint that it can only convert so much % of input energy into useful power output. However if you use a less efficient fuel, even if the engine's efficiency stays the same, the output power will also be less. Less energy in= less energy out. The engine's efficiency doesn't have to change. This stays true. With ethanol you have much less energy going in. Less energy in a fuel equals less efficiency in a fuel. This is why it takes more of it to do the same thing.

I know, I know, "but it's oxygenated!". So what? This means absolutely jack squat since a non oxygenated fuel needs to run leaner, which is more air which is more oxygen. It doesn't matter where the O2 comes from. It still gets in the engine somehow.

right, but since the oxygen is being injected by a fuel pump and in a much denser form (liquid) the engine doesn't have to draw in the air which is only 20% oxygen. This mean that the engine will have a lot more oxygen in it, from the oxygen it draws in from the air and the oxygen in ethanol. If it didn't make a difference then there would be reason to port an engine, as I've said before the limiting factor of an engine is how much oxygen you can get into the combustion chamber; fuel is always easily added.

Then why can't you go as far on it and why can't you make the power with it? Keep in mind that flex fuel vehicles do in fact retune for it and their mileage really really suffers. So does their performance. I've never seen anyone with one of those running on E85 say they had better throttle response. They don't.

At the end of the day, it's a less efficient fuel than gasoline. Period. Arguing about it won't change that. If someone has made more power on a naturally aspirated engine with ethanol than they did with gasoline there can only be one of 2 reasons and I guarantee that mileage would still suffer. Problem one is that the engine had too much compression for gasoline and timing had to be severely pulled out. This is an effect of octane only. The other thing that could cause ethanol to be more powerful assuming the 2 engines are the same and that compression is good for gasoline is that the engine tuner quite frankly sucked. Yes I said it and I know it'll piss someone off.

If you specially build an engine for Ethanol, it's performance can be decent with minimal loss compared to gasoline. It'll always suffer from a mileage standpoint though due to it's lower efficiency. That's lower btu's for you. Less energy in equals less energy potential out hence everyone's lower results.

no it wont fred- read the paper :)

Don't you just love it when Admins dissagree? :lol:

I agree with much of what you say here. But keep in mind ethanol is being worked on with different sources to make it less dependent on corn, and more efficient as a fuel. I think we're still at the beginning of the development cycle, Eventually, some equilibrium will take hold.

I think in the end, the consumer will have several different choices- oil, ethanol based, plug in, hybrid, and eventually, hydrogen.

I could care less about mileage from ethanol, it isn't a limited resource. The main waste products of burning any kind of hydrocarbon are CO2 and H2O which are the two main "foods" for plants. Photosynthesis uses the sun to arrange these into a sugar which is converted to alcohol. Ethanol is essentially liquid solar power. The "ineffecieny" of ethanol is related to it's low C:H ratio. You get more exothermic energy from oxidizing carbon than you do from oxidizing hydrogen. This is why you lose power from using things like natural gas (methane CH4) and propane (C3H8) compared to gasoline (basically octane C8H18). The oxygen in an ethanol molecule provides the extra energy in an oxygen starved chamber (our engines) because it requires less oxygen to burn.

The OFR (oxygen : fuel ratio) for ethanol is ~2.1:1 and 3.5:1 for octane (basic stoich calculation by mass). This is conclusive of the 9:1 associated with ethanol and 14.7:1 associated with gasoline. This means 1.63 times more ethanol can be burned than gasoline with the same amount of air. Ethanol has 12,800BTU/lb and gasoline has 18,500BTU/lb. So 12,800*1.63=20864 which is greater than 18,500. The "power" AFRs for ethanol are ~6.5 and gasoline ~12.5 which raises the "BTU multiplier" to about 1.9.

Ethanol cars making less power can be attributed to them probably running leaner AFRs to make the loss of fuel mileage (the only important factor in buying a car it seems...) less.

And this is pretty neat alt fuel website I drop in on from time to time- lots of smart people focusing in this.

http://www.matternetwork.com/

If someone would have told me a few years ago that people are emotionally disturbed that ethanol would one day be used as a fuel, I wouldn't have believed them. Time has proven otherwise.

I love the one-liners:

"Lets just drill for more oil."

OK, where? I recall a great little oil prospecting company named Spectrum 7 that would be happy to have you invest in them for that purpose. Do a Google on Spectrum 7.

"Ethanol takes more energy then it produces."

Sure, SOLAR energy. But if you believe it takes more oil energy to produce an equal amount of ethanol energy, let me suggest a few perpetual motion machines to invest in.

I don't think anyone disagrees that gasoilne has the best phyical properties for automotive fuel. Its not a question physical properties. Its a question of economics, and rapidly becoming one of national security.

We all know how much we pay at the pump.

But how much are we contributing to supplement the cost of oil? What would happen to our oil supply if the Perisan Gulf were blockaded? Oil around the world including Canada and Venezuala would rise in price, not a little, a lot. You might be surpised at how much the US spends to avoid an interrupt to the flow of oil from the middle east.

If you think oil is high now, wait a few more years. Over the last few years I've been to China and India a few times every year. Every year I am amazed at the number of new cars and trucks, even more amazed at the number of people who are looking forward to buying a car. Even India now has an F1 team funded by a billionaire who owns Kingfisher Airlines. Every Kingfisher flight in india is full and every time I visit Kingfisher has many more airplanes. Thats just India. China's sparkplug population is growing at a rate of 3x per year. And both of those countries are just beginning to step into the motorized era.

Where do you think they're buying their oil?

Earlier I mentioned the Tar Sands. China is financing a 350 mile long pipeline from one of the richest deposits in Canada for exclusive port rights.

Personally I'll use whatever fuel makes the most sense to use. When gasoline reaches $4 a gallon, I'll be looking a little closer at the economics to convert the RX8 over to E85. Not because I prefer the superior performance of ethanol, but strictly the economic reasons.