[LordOpie]

(psst, he's trolling like mad)

fock man, I even said it in post #28

 

[LordOpie]

I can't tell if this is trolling or not, but you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Yes, high compression leads to higher efficiency. This is (largely) why Diesels are so efficient.

However, you don't create more compression by putting more load on an engine. Compression is defined by combustion chamber volume and piston stroke and is fixed by engine. Additionally, mid-displacement motorcycles currently have the highest compression ratios out there for conventional normally aspirated engines. Motorcycles are hardly high-load (see high horsepower/torque ratios).

By nature of it's high-octane, ethanol does facilitate a higher compression ratio (which is why it's used as a racing fuel... "alcohol burners"), but that has nothing to do with vehicle size. In fact because larger vehicles tend to run lower compression engines for low maintenance and longevity, they specifically don't get the benefits of E85, only the drawback of lower energy density... from wikipedia:
"In one test, a Chevy Tahoe flex-fuel vehicle averaged 18 MPG [U.S. gallons] for gasoline, and 13 MPG for E85, or 28% fewer MPG than gasoline."

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the concept of load. For example, when a really fat person pushes a cart around Wal-Mart, once they get rollin', they're really hard to stop. Now, imagine them eating an ear of corn?

Are you imagining a really fat person eating pre-E85? I mean the whole damn ear like a tiny chicken wing, just sticking the whole damn thing in their fat honkin' mouth and pulling out a corn-less stalk.

That's the concept, theory and execution behind E85 in a nutshell.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for people?

 

[SPINTECK]

-An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel’s analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.

-The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline.

-Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way", Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU".

-Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels-not ethanol-are used to produce ethanol", Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can’t afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn’t afford it, either, if it weren’t for government subsidies to artificially lower the price".

-Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol".

-The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States. Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace".

-Nickels and dimes aside, some drivers still would rather see their cars fueled by farms in the Midwest than by oil wells in the Middle East, Pimentel acknowledges, so he calculated the amount of corn needed to power an automobile:

-The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix) would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans.

-If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States.

What about hydrogen?? or is it better to use batteries?

 

[jimmydean]

Dino sez cheeeeep oil this winter..

When did they come back? "New" oil hasn't been discovered in 30 years. If we haven't found it by now, well, you figure it out.

 

[N8 v2.0]

E85 mpg estimates:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm

 

[N8 v2.0]

 

[Toshi]

E85 mpg estimates:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm

yikes. E85 is a crock, and its only "purpose" is to let american automakers dodge CAFE regulations. it costs about the same and mileage is substantially lower as verified by N8's rare useful link:

and people wonder why the big 3 are massively in the red...

 

[jimmydean]

yikes. E85 is a crock, and its only "purpose" is to let american automakers dodge CAFE regulations.

It does have lower emissions and is renewable. The key is less driving and lower emissions while having a domestically produced renewable source.

BioDiesel also tends to have lower mileage, but the same positives apply.

Smaller cars, less driving, lower crude addiction.

 

[woodsguy]

But do you not see that we cannot produce enough E85 for even a small fraction of our needs? That is why it is a dead end and will only stall the creation of a viable electric car and drive up food prices.

 

[SlapheadMofo]

Good news. I'm all fired up to go shopping for a new 'burban this summer.

 

[jimmydean]

But do you not see that we cannot produce enough E85 for even a small fraction of our needs? That is why it is a dead end and will only stall the creation of a viable electric car and drive up food prices.

There isn't enough electricity to support our current driving needs either. Food prices are going up mostly because of fuel costs, not because of E85.

I'm all for electric cars, but no matter how hard you try, the best you will get is a hybrid due to the limit on range. Make a hybrid that uses biodiesel or E85 + electricity and now you have an improvement.

Again, consumption is the issue, not the source. As long as we depend on a dwindling finite source, we are screwed no matter what we do.

 

[LordOpie]

There isn't enough electricity to support our current driving needs either.

too bad people are irrationally afraid of nuclear technology.


Also, some dude at MIT found a way to significantly increase the efficiency of solar receptors. Line the roof of a car with solar cells and re-charge the batteries to full while a work. Would make electric cars a lot more viable.

 

[Toshi]

There isn't enough electricity to support our current driving needs either. Food prices are going up mostly because of fuel costs, not because of E85.

what analysis are you basing this on? (serious question, not snarky)

 

[$tinkle]

Also, some dude at MIT found a way to significantly increase the efficiency of solar receptors. Line the roof of a car with solar cells and re-charge the batteries to full while a work. Would make electric cars a lot more viable.

of course, we know better than this

as far as nuke power goes, you'd think we'd be shamed into doing it seeing how france gets most of their power that way

 

[profro]

-An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel’s analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.

-The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline.

-Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way", Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU".

-Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels-not ethanol-are used to produce ethanol", Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can’t afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn’t afford it, either, if it weren’t for government subsidies to artificially lower the price".

-Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol".

-The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States. Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace".

-Nickels and dimes aside, some drivers still would rather see their cars fueled by farms in the Midwest than by oil wells in the Middle East, Pimentel acknowledges, so he calculated the amount of corn needed to power an automobile:

-The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix) would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans.

-If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States.

Well said. The ole' Second Law of Thermodynamics will get you every time. Same rules apply to BioDiesel.

Spitnek,

Hydrogen follows the same rules:

-Hydrogen is reformed from fossil fuels, so it still takes fossil fuels to produce.

-Gases have a poor energy density compared to liquid fuels.

 

[jimmydean]

what analysis are you basing this on? (serious question, not snarky)

I don't have figures, sorry. I could be way off, but that is my perception. Right now in Oregon, the E85 being produced is from non-food grade corn. Before it was being used for E85, it was being shipped out to be made into feed for livestock. Rather than loading it on a truck to go elsewhere, the E85 plant is right next to the river where it travels anyway. Unlike other parts where corn is trucked from the farm to the plant, often requiring more fossil fuel in transport than what fuel is produced by the corn being trucked.

<edit> That's why I focus on consumption right now because that is the most viable option. The second being alternatives, the third being renewable sources.

My next house (or this one if I purchase it) will be converted to use solar as much as possible. Not looking at ROI, but looking at alternatives.

 

[Red Rabbit]

I want a CNG Tacoma. I think Methane is where it is at. Every Dump in world expels thousands upon thousands of cubic feet of methane per year.

Let's put it to good use. Last time I looked, methane is a pretty clean burning fuel. The CNG 2008 Honda civic gets 29mpg (combined) and cost twenty bucks to fill up. Best part is you can fill it up from home.

I may be buying this Honda Civic GX If they made that combined with hybrid technology I would be a very happy human.

Wait, after comparing it to the normal civic and Hybrid civic, it's not really all that great. The only gain is the drop in price of fuel.

But the fuel is less readily available.

Still would like to see a CNG Tacoma.

 

[ohio]

what analysis are you basing this on? (serious question, not snarky)

I also don't have a current analysis handy but he is almost certainly correct if you are talking present day. We do NOT have a significant surplus of electric capacity in sum across the country, and are AT capacity in many regions. If the shift to electric is anything but gradual, we won't have the time to build capacity to react to what is by definition an increase in electric grid demand beyond normal growth.

No to mention an infrastructure of publicly available 220V "filling" stations to make the cars viable. For this reason I think we won't see widespread adoption until the economically feasible introduction of ethanol based fuel-cell electrics, which can be refilled conventionally. 8-10 years out.

 

[jimmydean]

I also don't have a current analysis handy but he is almost certainly correct if you are talking present day. We do NOT have a significant surplus of electric capacity in sum across the country, and are AT capacity in many regions. If the shift to electric is anything but gradual, we won't have the time to build capacity to react to what is by definition an increase in electric grid demand beyond normal growth.

No to mention an infrastructure of publicly available 220V "filling" stations to make the cars viable. For this reason I think we won't see widespread adoption until the economically feasible introduction of ethanol based fuel-cell electrics, which can be refilled conventionally. 8-10 years out.

Carter initiated alternative research during his administration, Regan killed it off. Had it continued, we would have the technologies and resources in place and this would be a non-issue.

Obama has outlined a plan for R&D as well as initiatives to reduce current consumption. It might be what kills his bid because people want someone to save their H2, not encourage them to ride the train!

 

[profro]

I want a CNG Tacoma. I think Methane is where it is at. Every Dump in world expels thousands upon thousands of cubic feet of methane per year.

Local gas turbine or CNG generators as small substations is a much better use of CNG.

 

[Toshi]

I also don't have a current analysis handy but he is almost certainly correct if you are talking present day. We do NOT have a significant surplus of electric capacity in sum across the country, and are AT capacity in many regions. If the shift to electric is anything but gradual, we won't have the time to build capacity to react to what is by definition an increase in electric grid demand beyond normal growth.

No to mention an infrastructure of publicly available 220V "filling" stations to make the cars viable. For this reason I think we won't see widespread adoption until the economically feasible introduction of ethanol based fuel-cell electrics, which can be refilled conventionally. 8-10 years out.

what about charging at off-peak hours? here's a 1999 paper from the UK in J Power Sources (exciting, i know!) that gives a back of napkin analysis. it says that 1% penetration will be ok if charged off-peak, and 10% is iffy.

http://download.yousendit.com/84075BFE2BD18341

i'd be pleased as punch if 1% of the vehicles out there are pure EVs in 10 years.

 

[LordOpie]

Or maybe some enterprising company will bundle EVs with solar panels for your house. If everyone charged their own car, there'd be no issue. And anyone who wants an EV -- at least nowadays -- would probably want solar as well.

heck, ya know how planes refuel in-flight? That same company could have a similar system so when you pull your car into your garage, you connect and automatically recharge without even thinking about it.

 

[Red Rabbit]

Toshi, I am curious about your opinion of CNG automobiles.

Have you researched them at all? Goog / Bad?

Profo, How do you mean?

 

[Red Rabbit]

you connect and automatically recharge without even thinking about it.

That would be simple, maybe a retractable foot under the car? Engages as you drive over a small raised platform. It would have to be off until the foot connected with it.

 

[Toshi]

Toshi, I am curious about your opinion of CNG automobiles.

Have you researched them at all? Goog / Bad?

in the MIT Energy Lab lifecycle CO2 emissions analysis that i like to quote CNG-electric hybrids came out with the lowest/best figures.

that said, i don't see how they'll catch on except for fleet use. i've never seen a retail CNG pump.

 

[jimmydean]

i'd be pleased as punch if 1% of the vehicles out there are pure EVs in 10 years.

I don't think we are anywhere near the technology as far as storage, though. For EV's to be a truly viable option, either the range needs to be increased a great deal, or distances need to be decreased.

The Chevy Volt was an awesome idea, but the cost in batteries alone was a killer, not to mention it was still limited to 45 minutes.

I myself would love an EV with home solar charging system. The EV motorcycle will likely be as close as I get. The ability to charge an EV stand-alone would be a huge bonus. Getting caught without a plug would suck.

 

[ohio]

what about charging at off-peak hours? here's a 1999 paper from the UK in J Power Sources (exciting, i know!) that gives a back of napkin analysis. it says that 1% penetration will be ok if charged off-peak, and 10% is iffy.

http://download.yousendit.com/84075BFE2BD18341

i'd be pleased as punch if 1% of the vehicles out there are pure EVs in 10 years.

The capacity is there at off-peak hours, but the reality is that if you mandate that you can only charge your car between 9pm and 7am, people won't do it. If you can't prevent people from charging when they want to, and electricity is so much cheaper than gas, folks won't mind paying peak rates... could lead to serious brown and blackouts.

 

[LordOpie]

The capacity is there at off-peak hours, but the reality is that if you mandate that you can only charge your car between 9pm and 7am, people won't do it. If you can't prevent people from charging when they want to, and electricity is so much cheaper than gas, folks won't mind paying peak rates... could lead to serious brown and blackouts.

Or they can sell the charging system with a built-in timer. You can manually over-ride it, but make it so it's annoying to do

 

[Red Rabbit]

in the MIT Energy Lab lifecycle CO2 emissions analysis that i like to quote CNG-electric hybrids came out with the lowest/best figures.

that said, i don't see how they'll catch on except for fleet use. i've never seen a retail CNG pump.

Wouldn't to hard to implement. UPS uses a fleet of CNG trucks as does PGE (local gas and electric company) and several fleets of school buses.

The Gas is cheap, I mean really cheap... And we are not really running out of it. As long as I keep throwing crap away we will have plenty of Natural gas for years to come.

How expensive could a CNG pump be? It should be less than a Hydrogen pump...

 

[LordOpie]

How hard would it be to implement a CNG car pump at home? That is, I'm assuming it's the same natural gas that I use to cook with and heat.

 

[Red Rabbit]

How hard would it be to implement a CNG car pump at home? That is, I'm assuming it's the same natural gas that I use to cook with and heat.

pretty easy

Just louder than a hair dryer. Down side? Long refill time...

 

[profro]

Profo, How do you mean?

A locality which is rich in CNG could install gas turbines and subsidize its grid power with local energy.

 

[N8 v2.0]

i installed a cng station back in the late 90's at an air base.. with natural gas knocking on $11/kcf, i think once you do the gasoline gallon equivalent calc's it isnt that cheap once you realize that the range you can go is dimished your mileage isnt quite as good. Ingersol-Rand is the skid mounted compressor station i used. You'll need a storage tank as well.

There used to be a number of fleets that used cng but the idea fell by the way side in around 2000-2001 and is pretty much a rarity now days. The compressor station req's frequent maintence and the savings isnt really there to make it pay off

 

[N8 v2.0]

A locality which is rich in CNG could install gas turbines and subsidize its grid power with local energy.

this is actually a semi better idea.. i am looking at a large array of micro-turbines to be installed on a project. Still, they are more expensive than our $0.04/kwh the utility company charges here.

 

[profro]

The Gas is cheap, I mean really cheap... And we are not really running out of it. As long as I keep throwing crap away we will have plenty of Natural gas for years to come.

check out Fischer-Tropsch process. Yet another way to derive diesel rather than from oil.

 

[Red Rabbit]

i installed a cng station back in the late 90's at an air base.. with natural gas knocking on $11/kcf, i think once you do the gasoline gallon equivalent calc's it isnt that cheap once you realize that the range you can go is dimished your mileage isnt quite as good. Ingersol-Rand is the skid mounted compressor station i used. You'll need a storage tank as well.

There used to be a number of fleets that used cng but the idea fell by the way side in around 2000-2001 and is pretty much a rarity now days. The compressor station req's frequent maintence and the savings isnt really there to make it pay off

huh... according to the website you posted it only cost 19.xx dollars to fill the civic with natural gas . range 250 miles

Compared to a gas civic 42.xx dollars for the gas. range 345

50&#37; savings in fuel, 100 miles less in range.

 

[Red Rabbit]

check out Fischer-Tropsch process. Yet another way to derive diesel rather than from oil.

Sweet. Air Force is using that.

Thanks for the lead. +rep.

If we could set up bank of solar panels in the Midwest and let them do the work.

 

[N8 v2.0]

huh... according to the website you posted it only cost 19.xx dollars to fill the civic with natural gas . range 250 miles

Compared to a gas civic 42.xx dollars for the gas. range 345

50&#37; savings in fuel, 100 miles less in range.

Humm.. more here as well..

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/FillUpFor5DollarsYouCanInUtah.aspx?GT1=33007

Fill up for $5? You can in Utah

Cars that run on compressed natural gas are taking advantage of the lowest prices in the nation, and that's driving up demand for both the fuel and the vehicles that run on it.

It's possible to drive the interstates from Rock Springs, Wyo., to St. George, Utah -- a distance of 477 miles -- and find 22 places to pull off and fill up.

California has more stations, but prices are much higher there, the equivalent of $2.50 a gallon for gasoline.