deano

In Brazil they've got cars that run if not 100% very close to it. I guess the engines can be designed better to use this fuel.

I've just finished my 3rd tank of E10, and I can't tell the difference in performance between this and PULP.

Labrat - I believe they are coming up with more environmentally friendly ways to create ethanol from sugar cane. A client of mine has a PHD in ethanol production and was giving me the low down. He is very much in favour of ethanol fuel blends.

Deon.

army_rx8

yes Brazil switched to ethanol in teh 80's adn their dependence on foreign oil went down 70%. that would be amazing if we coudl have that kinda' success. ah well i'm just dreaming there i think :p

e10 isn't that much of a jump from regular gas...since regular gas is allowed to have up to 10% ethanol to begin with (they use it to up the octane rating).

now i wonder how they 8 would react to e85 (85% ethanol 15% gasoline). bet you could run some nice boost with a turbo on that blend (100 octane). hmm perhaps if i get off my lazy *** i'll go find out on of these days:D

army_rx8

yea but like all tests you can always find the flip side of the coin. i dunno about e20 but i know e85 will give you roughly 25% less harmful emissions.

labrat

Deano, I'm not commenting on the actual fermentation process in producing ethanol from sugar cane, I'm commenting on several points:
1. The overall cost and energy balance in producing ethanol by this route.
2. The actual energy derived from combustion of 1 litre of ethanol compared to that of 1 litre of "normal" gasoline/petrol.
3. Emissions

So, point by point:
1. Costs and "energy balance". By this I mean, what does it really cost to produce the ethanol? This is assuming that a cane farmer is growing the cane purely to produce sugar which is then fermented to ethanol. We have costs such as the wages the farmer pays himself and his workers, the capital cost and depreciation of his equipment, the fertilizer he uses, the fuel he uses in his machinery. The cane has to be transported to the mill (which has a cost). Then the sugar has to be extracted and then fermented into sugar, which have their own capital and operating costs too. By "energy balance" I'm using a term familiar to anyone who has worked in industrial processes. You figure out how many kJ of energy it has taken you to produce 1 litre of ethanol and compare it to the kJ of energy you get when you burn it. the difference between the two figures shows you whether energetically the excercise has been worthwhile. Since your PhD friend has studied in this field, he might have these figures available. To date, when these questions have been posed, proponents of ethanol from sugar tend to duck and weave and come up with warm and fuzzy stuff like keeping farmers on the land, and "environmental" arguments which tend to be of doubtful validity.

2. Energy from ethanol. It is a plain fact of physical chemistry that if you burn 1 litre of ethanol, you will get 33% less energy than if you burn 1 litre of iso-octane, the hydrocarbon which provides the "octane" rating (thus my use of the term "standard gasoline").

3. Emissions. If you burn ethanol, you end up with carbon dioxide and water, exactly the same as if you burn petrol. The legislative pressure is on for oil refiners to produce very low sulfur fuels, so emotive arguments about release of sulfur compounds into the atmosphere has decreasing significance. Inefficient combustion of both hydrocarbon and ethanol has negative environmental effects (say at idling after start-up and in heavy traffic). Inefficient combustion of gasoline can produce cyclic hydrocarbon emissions which are carcinogenic. Inefficient combustion of ethanol produces acetaldehyde which is also carcinogenic. The modern use of catalytic converters combined with sophisticated ECU's has had a great impact in reducing emissions from motor vehicles.

Please accept that I am not attempting to impugn the scientific integrity of your PhD friend in any way, but he has spent 3+ years working to convince some very tough examiners that the work that he has done is sufficiently original and of a sufficiently high standard to be awarded the degree. Frequently, people carry on working in the same field in which they earned their degree. It would not be surprising if he was not positive about the work he has done. Scientists are people after all, and objectivity can be compromised. You see it in universities all the time when academics talk up their research in order to win research grants.

One last caveat on this bio-ethanol thing: I have no objection to ethanol being produced from waste biomass (say from cellulose waste from agriculture or silviculture), since this material would be either burnt or buried anyway. However, I believe that this production has to be economically viable without soaking the poor bloody taxpayer by handing out subsidies. What I object to is the intellectual dishonesty of politicians and environmentalists.

Hymee

iTrader: (1)

There are lots of interesting, and sometimes conflicting reports about this.

How cheap is it to make ethanol?

It does contain less energy per litre, like our esteamed Labrat says, but the air/fuel ratio required for running is richer. So you end up getting the same (or even more) power. Methanol has less energy per litre than petrol/gasoline, and Nitromethane is even less again. But they need to run respectively richer, and end up making more power per litre of air consumed, hence their popularity in racing circles.

Here are two articles I stumbled across, after just having a bit of a google.

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_...manual1-2.html

http://www.engin.umd.umich.edu/resea...5-2004.doc.pdf

Both made some interesting points.

I'l like to give E85 a go Wildcard might call me the E85 Bandit
E85 might be a good S/C fuel ??

You would accept it uses more litres. But you have to consider the cost per litre, hence my leading question. It is a bit like LPG. You use more, but it is cheap. It isn't the ultimate for power, but economy was the aim. Methanol and Nitromethane are expensive, and you use shitloads of 'em, but that doesn't matter when you are trying to get to 200 or 300 MPH within 400m of a standing start. Horses for courses like always

Cheers,
Hymee.

Hymee

iTrader: (1)

And I won't appologise for mixing imperial and metric units...

Cheers,
Hymee.