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

Google e85, tons of comprehensive info out there ."Mad Scientist Jr" wrote in message

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 =----

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

If you have not tried www.ethanol.org I would make that my first stop.
"Mad Scientist Jr" wrote in message

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

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

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:14:38 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein dannyb@panix.com> 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.

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 dannyb@panix.com> 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

In article , Joe Fischer wrote:

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:14:38 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein dannyb@panix.com> 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?

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

In "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 dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

In article , Joe Fischer wrote:

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

"This probably has more to do with the politics of corn than it does with the actual need for high-performance racing fuel."

On Thu, aarcuda69062 wrote:

In article , Joe Fischer wrote: 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
"This probably has more to do with the politics of corn than it does with the actual need for high-performance racing fuel."

No doubt, in view of the fact that an ethanol group put up a lot of money.
But if ethanol jumps the octane by 6 or 8 points, that means the timing can be advanced, and the same engine will have more pep.
I worked on a Corvair Spider in 1964 that somebody had timed close to top dead center, and being it had a supercharger, it had to be timed way before TDC, at least 35 degrees, which is a lot. The car was sluggish before timing it correctly, and real peppy after.
There are lots of things good mentioned in the article, and not much bad. It mentioned some smoke when ethanol burns, so that will be better than methanol.
Without lead or aromatic additives, gasoline is a real dog compared to ethanol or methanol.
Joe Fischer

aarcuda69062 wrote in news:nonelson- 3C805E.23162806092006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com:

In article , Joe Fischer wrote:
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
"This probably has more to do with the politics of corn than it does with the actual need for high-performance racing fuel."

Re: E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers? This Ad Sponsored by Archer-Daniels-Midland and Koch Industries

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:05:19 -0400, Joe Fischer wrote:
I think Danny's comment is regarding gasoline and ethanol, not methanol and ethanol.
And looking at the paragraph you quoted in a later post, they _may_ be dummies. "Ethanol produces more power, so we need less fuel", makes no sense. If ethanol prodiced more _energy_ then we need that much less fuel to go the distance, provided we only use the same average power as before.
They use (x)thanol because it does allow more power than gasoline (AFAIK) but at the expense of fuel load / miles per gallon.

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:14:38 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein dannyb@panix.com> 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

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.

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.

Totally false. NASCAR is most race cars in this country, and they're just talking about going to unleaded gasoline.

The only reason the gasoline is mixed to make E85 is to keep people from drinking ethanol solutions without paying the tax.

Ethanol doesn't start as easily -- lower vapor pressure. Ethanol by itself would have even less power and mileage and range. Ethanol by itself is a good solvent. Ethanol burns with a nearly-invisible flame.

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.

Very few is the answer. Although most will run on E5, say, very few on E85. The CR report mentions which.

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