E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?

Gordon wrote:

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 21:38:50 -0400, Joe Fischer joefischer@invisibleairplane.com> wrote:
On 6 Sep 2006 17:20:14 -0700, "Mad Scientist Jr" usenet_daughter@yahoo.com> 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
Can ethanol be polymerized up to something approximately like octane?

Yes, but increasing the energy density means a loss in absolute energy output. Thats a waste in the case of ethanol but very useful for something like the Fischer-Tropsch reaction where you are taking something like syngas with very low energy density and transforming it into diesel.
Ghostwriter

On 8 Sep 2006 07:01:20 -0700, "ghostwriter" wrote:

Gordon wrote: [snip] Can ethanol be polymerized up to something approximately like octane? Gordon
Yes, but increasing the energy density means a loss in absolute energy output. Thats a waste in the case of ethanol but very useful for something like the Fischer-Tropsch reaction where you are taking something like syngas with very low energy density and transforming it into diesel.
Ghostwriter
I was leading into the school of thought that perhaps in the

future it might be possible to use a polymerization process (Fisher Tropish or something similar) to produce fuels like JP-8 and diesel, by means of energy inputs from, say, nuclear power plants. This might provide means for using nuclear power, indirectly, as aircraft fuel.
If the organic sludge from the deep ocean floor could be retrieved and processed for ethanol, this would provide a nearly endless source of fuel with very little chance of any environmental harm.
Gordon

In article , Joe Fischer wrote:

On Fri, 08 Sep 06 08:30:04 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article , Joe Fischer wrote: On Fri, aarcuda69062 wrote: ........ The last guy who mentioned using pure oxygen in an IC engine here was never heard from again.
A bad thing about pure oxygen, it doesn't need a spark, all it needs is a hydrocarbon.
Totally false. The chemical rxn is a combustion which has an activation energy. Mix a hydrocarbon with oxygen and it will sit there doing nothing.
Please don't make statements that could cause an accident, any welder is aware that oil in oxygen gauges and hose fittings can start a fire or explode.

Only if the oxygen is at a high pressure. The rxn proceeds much more rapidly then.

Perhaps it takes static electricity or friction, but many of use remember the Apollo accident using pure oxygen, and I think subsequent tests and missions use a mixture.
Joe Fischer

Yes, but something set off the Apollo fire.

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message

In article , lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message In article , lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message In article , Joe Fischer wrote: On 6 Sep 2006 17:20:14 -0700, "Mad Scientist Jr" usenet_daughter@yahoo.com> 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.
You cannot get more power from burning something which produces less energy. Unless you somehow repeal the laws of physics.
First you have to understand the laws of physics. Power is the _rate_ of delivery/production of energy, and is not subject to conservation like energy is.
True, but irrelevant.
No, it's not. The post to which you replied was about power, not energy. And you made the statement that "you cannot get more power from burning something which produces less energy"--that is just simply not a correct statement. That's like saying that "you cannot go faster if you're not capable of going further" or "you cannot make water flow faster if you do not have more water to flow." All three statements are just simply not true, since they all make the mistake of comparing a quantity and its rate of generation. This indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what power is, and how it relates to a conserved quantity like energy. There have been a lot of people in this discussion confusing power and total energy content. Your post only served to further the confusion.
You can only get so much energy from combusting a tank of fuel. OK, happier?

That's fine and dandy...except that, as I said, it is irrelevant in response to a post that was talking about power...and all it does is serve to deepen the confusion that already exists over power and energy.
Eric Lucas

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message

In article , Joe Fischer wrote: On Fri, aarcuda69062 wrote:
........ The last guy who mentioned using pure oxygen in an IC engine here was never heard from again.
A bad thing about pure oxygen, it doesn't need a spark, all it needs is a hydrocarbon.
Totally false. The chemical rxn is a combustion which has an activation energy. Mix a hydrocarbon with oxygen and it will sit there doing nothing.

What you say is didactically true, but practically false. The activation energy is so low that unusually mild events can set it off. This is why O2 regulators must not be lubricated with hydrocarbon oils. Just the heat generated by turning the knob can set it off and cause a fire/explosion.
Eric Lucas

"ghostwriter" wrote in message

Can ethanol be polymerized up to something approximately like octane?
Yes, but increasing the energy density means a loss in absolute energy output. Thats a waste in the case of ethanol

Yes, as an example, ethanol can be dehydrated to ethylene, which can be oligomerized to octene (which can be further hydrogenated to octane if necessary).
This increases energy density modestly (about 30 % by the deltaH(combustion) numbers). I'm not sure what you mean "a loss in absolute energy output", but the process I just described does consume considerable energy. Perhaps you meant "a loss in total energy when summed across the cycle." However, that is trivially true for any processing step, even for your F-T example, since the syngas must have come from something lower in energy like methanol. In fact, any conversion step involves a loss in total energy, unless there is some mechanism to introduce energy into the system (for example, plant photosynthesis).
Eric Lucas

On Thu, 07 Sep 06 09:22:09 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Yes you can. You simply burn it faster. The law of physics here is that power is a rate of energy production, not an amount of energy.

You cannot get more power from burning something which produces less energy. Unless you somehow repeal the laws of physics.

On Fri, 08 Sep 06 08:30:04 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article , Joe Fischer wrote: On Fri, aarcuda69062 wrote: ........ The last guy who mentioned using pure oxygen in an IC engine here was never heard from again.
A bad thing about pure oxygen, it doesn't need a spark, all it needs is a hydrocarbon.
Totally false. The chemical rxn is a combustion which has an activation energy. Mix a hydrocarbon with oxygen and it will sit there doing nothing.

Please don't make statements that could cause an accident, any welder is aware that oil in oxygen gauges and hose fittings can start a fire or explode.
Perhaps it takes static electricity or friction, but many of use remember the Apollo accident using pure oxygen, and I think subsequent tests and missions use a mixture.
Joe Fischer

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:34:43 GMT, wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
Can ethanol be polymerized up to something approximately like octane?
Yes, but increasing the energy density means a loss in absolute energy output. Thats a waste in the case of ethanol
Yes, as an example, ethanol can be dehydrated to ethylene, which can be oligomerized to octene (which can be further hydrogenated to octane if necessary).
This increases energy density modestly (about 30 % by the deltaH(combustion) numbers). I'm not sure what you mean "a loss in absolute energy output", but the process I just described does consume considerable energy. Perhaps you meant "a loss in total energy when summed across the cycle." However, that is trivially true for any processing step, even for your F-T example, since the syngas must have come from something lower in energy like methanol. In fact, any conversion step involves a loss in total energy, unless there is some mechanism to introduce energy into the system (for example, plant photosynthesis).
Eric Lucas
That statement about "a loss in absolute energy output" was not

from my previous post. Something got mixed up it seems.
One of my main concerns is that jet engines must fly and the combustion process must be reliable in the upper atmosphere where the temperature can be as low as -65�F. I'm not sure ethanol would be useable under these conditions. Wouldn't it tend to gel in the tanks and fuel lines, and even if this didn't happen, would it ignite in the engines?
But, if virtually unlimited quantities of ethanol could be harvested from the organic sludge in the deep oceans, then converted into JP-8, these problems (if such problems exist in the first place) would be resolved.
Gordon

On Fri, 08 Sep wrote:

............. You can only get so much energy from combusting a tank of fuel. OK, happier?
That's fine and dandy...except that, as I said, it is irrelevant in response to a post that was talking about power...and all it does is serve to deepen the confusion that already exists over power and energy. Eric Lucas

Selling buy the gallon/liter is a convenient way to market liquid fuels, but it confuses any comparison of quantity of mass and the energy contained.
Gasoline may still win over ethanol either way, but there will be some resolution of the conflicting statements of "ethanol has more power" and "gasoline gives better mileage.
I consider the Indy 500 switch to ethanol as a logical advancement, that is what that particular is noted for, although all racing and performance makes advances in future common products and equipment.
If ethanol has more power (per pound, or whatever is important about getting the fuel and oxygen into the cylinder, and has a higher octane rating, and burns cleaner, then it is the right fuel for now.
But regardless if ethanol, gasoline, or diesel is used, for automobiles and trucks and even farm tractors, it should be a hybrid. I would prefer all hybrids be made to use the same voltage as the grid voltage where they are used, it would be great to have the backup of a generator without buying one just to have it sit around 51 weeks a year.
There is lots of opportunity in doing the things needed to be innovative and have products and vehicles that are multi-purpose and standardized.
The difference in the size of the fuel tank would not be much different except for hydrogen, and I am to the point where I don't want to use petroleum at all except as a lubricant.
With the recent price of gasoline I had to buy a bigger jar of vaseline, is that a petroleum product too?
Joe Fischer

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message

On Fri, 08 Sep wrote:
............. You can only get so much energy from combusting a tank of fuel. OK, happier?
That's fine and dandy...except that, as I said, it is irrelevant in response to a post that was talking about power...and all it does is serve to deepen the confusion that already exists over power and energy. Eric Lucas
Selling buy the gallon/liter is a convenient way to market liquid fuels, but it confuses any comparison of quantity of mass and the energy contained.
Gasoline may still win over ethanol either way, but there will be some resolution of the conflicting statements of "ethanol has more power" and "gasoline gives better mileage.

They're not conflicting statements. "Mileage" is a measure of total energy content (and the efficiency of the engine), "power" is a measure of how rate at which that energy can be converted into mechanical work (and the ability of the engine/vehicle to take advantage of that rate of conversion). Gasoline has more energy per unit (depending on what unit you choose to use--volume, mass, molecule, bond, etc.), whereas the kinetics of ethanol's reactions and the design of internal combustion engines are such that ethanol can deliver the energy that it has more rapidly.
In any case, neither statement relates to an intrinsic property of the fuel. Instead of "ethanol has more power", it would be more precise to say "the engines currently in use are capable of delivering more power when using ethanol", since it's more a function of the engine design than anything. Likewise, instead of "gasoline gives better mileage", it would be more precise to say "the engines currently in use get better fuel mileage when using gasoline", as that is also strongly dependent on engine design. At least in the latter case, there is a kernel of an intrinsic truth, in that the heat of combustion of gasoline (a measure of the maximum total amount of energy it can deliver in a given engine/vehicle) is greater than the heat of combustion of ethanol, on either a volume or mass basis. Still, since ICEs and vehicles are so poorly efficient (I think I recall something lik e30 % for an ICE, and I'm not sure what the efficiency of the power train or the vehicle as a whole is), the mileage depends much more strongly on the design of the engine/vehicle than on the intrinsic energy content of the fuel. This is my argument with Archie's ridiculous experiment, that CR carried out without reporting/realizing that it is a meaningless experiment, except to compare *current* vehicles with different fuels. Unfortunately, people in this discussion have made the mistake of assuming that the result will hold true if and when vehicles are designed and optimized specifically for ethanol.

If ethanol has more power (per pound, or whatever is important about getting the fuel and oxygen into the cylinder, and has a higher octane rating, and burns cleaner, then it is the right fuel for now.

No, because consumers buy fuel almost entirely on the basis of how far they can go for a given amount of money, and in this regard, clearly ethanol is inferior to gasoline or diesel.

But regardless if ethanol, gasoline, or diesel is used, for automobiles and trucks and even farm tractors, it should be a hybrid.

That improves efficiency some, but my intuition is that hybrids won't be popular for very long. Having two engines essentially doubles the number of mechanical systems that can break down as a vehicle ages. While they look OK out of the showroom, wait until the first ones made begin to age to the point where mechanical systems begin to need maintenance--for example, battery replacement. Maintenance costs will then convince people that the relatively minimal increase in fuel mileage will not be worth the increased maintenance costs. As such, they will lost value more rapidly than similar ICE-only vehicles.

With the recent price of gasoline I had to buy a bigger jar of vaseline, is that a petroleum product too?

:^) Yup. They get ya coming or going.
Eric Lucas

"Sponsored by OILY INC. Exxon-Koch" wrote in message

HLS@nospam.nix> wrote in news:BKZLg.10487$q63.6338@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV
26,282 kilograms per year per acre of scrubland in sunny southwest USA sunbelt states.
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day. 8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre.
How many gallons of your biofuels shit per acre per year?

It isn't "MY" biofuels shit. I could give a shit less one way or the other as long as we look to the future and make plans to have some sort of replenishable energy.
If we keep criticising without a solution, we or our progeny could be in dire straits.
Hydrogen is a wonderful fuel, especially if you make it without the need for fossil fuels. Fossil fuels may get hard to come by.
At the ONS ( Offshore North Sea) conference a couple of weeks ago, hydrogen fuel cars and technology were touted by Statoil and others who are working on the project. There is now at least one hydrogen fueling station in Norway, IIRC, and plans to have a 'Hydrogen Highway' between Stavanger and Oslo.

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
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

Interesting that the mad scientist hasn't posted any response. A troll or maybe a sock puppet?

"Solar Flare" wrote in message

How many batteries does it take to store that PV power for a month?

Why bother with someone who claims power production in "MEGAWATTS per year" ??
daestrom

wrote in news:sbiMg.23322$kO3.21233@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:

"Sponsored by OILY INC. Exxon-Koch" Exxon_Serial_Murderers@RacketeersR.US> wrote in message HLS@nospam.nix> wrote in news:BKZLg.10487$q63.6338@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV
26,282 kilograms per year per acre of scrubland in sunny southwest USA sunbelt states.
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day. 8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre.
How many gallons of your biofuels shit per acre per year?
It isn't "MY" biofuels shit. I could give a shit less one way or the other as long as we look to the future and make plans to have some sort of replenishable energy.
If we keep criticising without a solution, we or our progeny could be in dire straits.
Hydrogen is a wonderful fuel, especially if you make it without the need for fossil fuels. Fossil fuels may get hard to come by.
At the ONS ( Offshore North Sea) conference a couple of weeks ago, hydrogen fuel cars and technology were touted by Statoil and others who are working on the project. There is now at least one hydrogen fueling station in Norway, IIRC, and plans to have a 'Hydrogen Highway' between Stavanger and Oslo.

California now has 24 operational H2 fueling stations and a governator who is pushing it. There's one bus line driving H2 buses, and numerous government cars and light trucks are running H2.