Ethanol Fuel NOT What The Government Spin Drs Tell Us !!!

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

i havent read this thread other than the 1st post . but simple mass tells us that 6 tanks instead of for , means 50% less economy . so to get the same economy from .
E-85 it would have to be 1/2 price at the bowser to match .
will this ever happen ???

Your shitten me right?

Instead of saying that 6 vs 4 is 50% less (actually sort of correct not allowing for the fact that its really 7 vs 5 as the cars are full at the start) look at it in terms of % increase........... like 7 tanks of E85 instead of 5 tanks of Ultimate 98 means the consumption is around 40% more AND THEN you dont make an **** by going on to say that the fuel would have to be 1/2 price (thats like saying the consumption is 100% more!)

Facts are that based on Stoichiometric fuel ratio, E85 (with its 9.7:1 stoich point vs gasoline 14.7:1) should be theoretically around 40-50% heavier on the km/litre burn rate than Unleaded, but with the engine tuned for lean running that can be brought down to around 30%, and with optimised compression ratios (15:1 on a NA car) making better use of the higher octane levels and reduced Nox levels, the greater thermal efficiency can get the economy within 12-15% of gasoline products.

Daniel

[ebxr8240]

If they increased the compression the fuel economy would come back somewhat.. It takes MUCH more timing ..
It can be used to get through EPA emissions[yep can vouch for that !!]...Doesn't seem as critical running rich either except for higher usage..The power doesn't fall off as quick..
Some interesting info from a turbo / U.S point of view and engines running on E85..
http://www.theturboforums.com/smf/in...?topic=47094.0

[Bad Bird]

You two should stop messing up the thread with logic and facts. ;)

[BOSHOG]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

The places I have seen said they don't burn them now ??.. Who's scared of snakes anyway.. Lol..
Besides they use the whole plant in ethanol production

i am :

[GavL]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

The places I have seen said they don't burn them now ??.. Who's scared of snakes anyway.. Lol..
Besides they use the whole plant in ethanol production

Thats what I was led to believe too - they don't need to burn the stuff to get the snakes, spiders etc out as its machine harvested rather than by hand.

Also ruins the quality of the sugar if it's burnt, from what I was told when visiting the buderim sugar factory.

[ebxr8240]

I love Cobra's.. Especially on Ford's.. Lol...

QUOTE=Bad Bird]You two should stop messing up the thread with logic and facts. ;)[/QUOTE]
Yea sorry about that...

[xbgs351]

[QUOTE=ebxr8240]If you guys think petrol comes out of the ground and arrives here without too much emissions.. Try running it on crude fuel.. I lived next door shell refinery in Rosehill. Every morning there was soot on our cars etc...
If its extracted from growing Green plants then any C02 generated is well and truly compensated.. It's a by product of sugar making at present using molasis which we used to feed to dairy stock to prevent acidosis after calving..
It's now used along with all the other green parts to make ethanol .. Much the same as spirit production making alcoholic drinks..
I would rather our farmers get the money and the dollar stays here in THIS country..

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

An argument may be that food will rise??
Well, well when companies like mcdonalds, Woolworths, Coles etc Pay less and less for a ton of potatoes WHY wouldn't they change to producing ethanol??
I don't see any other businesses stay in production just to keep the public happy with cheap food?? Why should a farmer be any different ??
He can make 10 times more selling his produce to make ethanol than sell potatoes or other food..
Notice some of these companies now have a mager foot hold on fuel sales also ??? Hmm ??
Yet these retail companies can rip them big time while they take the big profits!!

A stupid argument in your case. It isn't like the potato farmers in Tasmania and Victoria can readily convert their potato farms into sugarcane plantations. :togo:

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

If they increased the compression the fuel economy would come back somewhat.. It takes MUCH more timing ..
It can be used to get through EPA emissions[yep can vouch for that !!]...Doesn't seem as critical running rich either except for higher usage..The power doesn't fall off as quick..
Some interesting info from a turbo / U.S point of view and engines running on E85..
http://www.theturboforums.com/smf/in...?topic=47094.0

Yes, but they could also substantially increase the compression ratio with the old fuel that they were running.

[castellan]

Why are the gov pushing it.
They maybe just getting ready for the day the middle east don't have any to give us.
Hitler Germany made synthetic fuel. i cant find much about it, AND IT MAYBE CLEANER?.
I wonder how much more expensive it was.
The octane.
And why don't we use some thing like that.
I think wheels magazine bought the rights for synthetic fuel.

[castellan]

Is it true our crude oil in the ground in Australia is not as good as the oil in the middle east. i have heard our oil takes more to refine and we can not make bitumen out of it.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Yea they said fractured fuel line!!
They didn't say the alternator wasn't charging and they swapped another battery in there and DIDN'T tie it down properly !!!
It hit the filler tube and obviously caught on fire..
Nothing to do with the fuel they used..

I was yelling at the TV when I saw them just put the battery into the boot without tying it down... I thought WTF? It's going to come loose. In the end, it was much worse.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

If they increased the compression the fuel economy would come back somewhat.. It takes MUCH more timing.

CAT600 and you EBXR8240 are the only ones making any real sense!

Overall CO2 emissions are reduced by about 30% even taking into account the higher fuel burn rate & energy involved in the production.

Gee, what a terrible thing. Increase power and reduce emissions by 30% (at same power level.)

Whether you agree with climate change or not. Governments are talking about reducing emissions by 50% by 2050. Here is something that can reduce transport emissions by 30% now. A damn good start.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by CAT600

Great post, so many have blinkers on and allow themselves to be herded by the media.

E85 is not a "one size fits all application", the fuel has its uses and as it currently stands petroleum is easier to access and more readily available to the western world......... but everybody here knows what "peak oil" is right?

Daniel

If you believe the former GMH head engineer, he has come out this year and said, Australia will be the first modern country to lose it's supply to petroleum...

PS How much to buy a 100% Ethanol 44Gallon drum to make your own 'hippy' fuel?!

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by castellan

Why are the gov pushing it.
They maybe just getting ready for the day the middle east don't have any to give us.
Hitler Germany made synthetic fuel. i cant find much about it, AND IT MAYBE CLEANER?.
I wonder how much more expensive it was.
The octane.
And why don't we use some thing like that.
I think wheels magazine bought the rights for synthetic fuel.

We can make petroleum products from coal, but it takes more energy and hence costs more than making them from crude oil. So at this point of time it doesn't make economic sense to make synthetic fuel. When the price of oil does rise it will be economical and Victoria will be sitting on a volume of coal that is equivalent to the oil reserves of the Gulf states.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by phillyc

CAT600 and you EBXR8240 are the only ones making any real sense!

Overall CO2 emissions are reduced by about 30% even taking into account the higher fuel burn rate & energy involved in the production.

Gee, what a terrible thing. Increase power and reduce emissions by 30% (at same power level.)

Whether you agree with climate change or not. Governments are talking about reducing emissions by 50% by 2050. Here is something that can reduce transport emissions by 30% now. A damn good start.

How about quoting a source for your fairy tale? It sure isn't Cornell University or the University of California-Berkeley.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

We can make petroleum products from coal, but it takes more energy and hence costs more than making them from crude oil. So at this point of time it doesn't make economic sense to make synthetic fuel. When the price of oil does rise it will be economical and Victoria will be sitting on a volume of coal that is equivalent to the oil reserves of the Gulf states.

But whats the point of that... Its still using a non-renewable source.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

How about quoting a source for your fairy tale? It sure isn't Cornell University or the University of California-Berkeley.

Enjoy.

http://www.biofuelsaustralasia.com.a...ning+the+Myths

http://e-85.com.au/e85/environmental-benefits-e85/

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...ns/sub0104.pdf

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by Nikked

But whats the point of that... Its still using a non-renewable source.

So? It is estimated that Victoria has enough brown coal to last almost 500 years. So although it isn't a renewable resource, it will see our grand children's grand children through.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by phillyc

CAT600 and you EBXR8240 are the only ones making any real sense!

Overall CO2 emissions are reduced by about 30% even taking into account the higher fuel burn rate & energy involved in the production.
Gee, what a terrible thing. Increase power and reduce emissions by 30% (at same power level.)

Whether you agree with climate change or not. Governments are talking about reducing emissions by 50% by 2050. Here is something that can reduce transport emissions by 30% now. A damn good start.

That is simply staggering. So the entire life cycle of methanol from production throught to it being burnt in your vehicle produces less CO2 than petrol derived from crude oil. Does this also include the CO2 from the power stations that power the Ethanol plants?

I struggle to see how a fuel which needs more of it to be burnt compared to petrol produces less CO2 emissions than petrol e.g. 10l/100km for petrol vs 13l/100km for Ethanol.

Provide me with some evidence to convince me Ethanol is green.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by phillyc

Enjoy.

http://www.biofuelsaustralasia.com.a...ning+the+Myths

http://e-85.com.au/e85/environmental-benefits-e85/

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...ns/sub0104.pdf

Got anything independant of the ethanol industry and the politicians supporting Ethanol production?

McDonalds food must be healthy for the masses as it has the heart foundations tick of approval too.

[tickford2001]

Originally Posted by vztrt

United sells it, but they only have 1/2 pumps in a state (Vic now has two). Apparently the LS1 boys are playing with it and are getting good power from it.

http://www.unitedpetroleum.com.au/di...-locations.asp

really? there is 2nd united in vic selling e85? do you know where abouts, its not listed on their website. Praying its S.East, im sick of driving all the way to Hoppers Crossing with a stupid number of drums to fill up! :

[tickford2001]

E85 has its place, it is not a one size fits all fuel though.

Current mass produced cars are not designed with E85 in mind (yet), if E85 becomes more mainstream, and cars engines are designed to maximise the benefits that E85 offers then im certain the fuel consumption will decrease.

In my experience E85 offers many things that im interested in: lower operating temperatures, able to increase compression & timing, increased horsepower, INCREASED TORQUE, and VERY forgiving for tuning. In short it offers many of the benefits of running an $8/L or $9/L race fuel, but at less than $1/L

For those running boosted cars, the performance benefits are even more significant.

Obviously this is for race purposes, but there is no reason why some of these benefits cant be explored for road cars in the future if E85 were to become more mainstream.

[GK]

Originally Posted by csv8

Teams are tweaking and tuning and they know a single mistake can cost them an engine, and the race.

Team Vodafone, HRT and Jim Beam Racing have all damaged engines trying for maximum economy in pre-Bathurst testing.

Once the engines run too lean they damage valves.

"We will be keeping the power, because if you've got a car in the right place you will need every ounce of performance," said Adrian Burgess, team manager at Jim Beam Racing.

And Burgess, who is responsible for the Falcon of James Courtney and Steven Johnson.....

For all of this discussion, everyone has missed a key bit of info.

Didn't one of the Jim Beam cars drop a valve yesterday? If so, so much for not going lean.

GK

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by tickford2001

really? there is 2nd united in vic selling e85? do you know where abouts, its not listed on their website. Praying its S.East, im sick of driving all the way to Hoppers Crossing with a stupid number of drums to fill up! :

I've been told its in sunshine.

Originally Posted by GK

For all of this discussion, everyone has missed a key bit of info.

Didn't one of the Jim Beam cars drop a valve yesterday? If so, so much for not going lean.

GK

It was water that caused the problem.

[Spanrz]

Don't know what the problem is, even though it's only e10, but I got 680km's on just over 3/4 a tank from Yass to Melbourne. Still had over 80k's on it to go, before my "amount of reserve" was reached, even though the reading said 120k's to empty.
A 91 octane would only get me 710 max, and that was the smell of an oily rag (just under E)
Same road, but this time, the wagon had a crap load of weight in it. It was on the bump stops most of the way up to and back from Bathurst.
So, all i can say is ethanol is better than the 91 garbage.
(got 9.4lt/100k's from Yass to Melb on e10)

And if I really tried, I could squeeze another few k's out of it still, the Yass to Melb trip wasn't being an old lady driving to Church on Sunday's either.

[dom_105]

So what is the magic price difference that E85 has to be as opposed to 91/92 Octane unleaded in order to come out on top?

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by dom_105

So what is the magic price difference that E85 has to be as opposed to 91/92 Octane unleaded in order to come out on top?

Unless you have an E85 specific motor with an elevated compression ratio the E85 would have to be more than 43% cheaper.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by phillyc

Enjoy.

http://www.biofuelsaustralasia.com.a...ning+the+Myths

http://e-85.com.au/e85/environmental-benefits-e85/

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...ns/sub0104.pdf

Enjoy poking fun at the fact that your three sources are all from the biofuel industry and are inheritable biased?

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Unless you have an E85 specific motor with an elevated compression ratio the E85 would have to be more than 43% cheaper.

More than half the people posting in here that are pro-E85 are basically agreeing with you that the engine needs to be optimised for the fuel.... there are those that will argue facts by misrepresentation but those that understand E85 know that it is a green, high performance fuel that has a justified existance in the modern world.

Can it ever become mainstream in the Western world? Brazil seems to make it happen...... that's a massive real-world example of how it works.

So I say justified existance... hence Ford going down the "Ecoboost" line of thinking by squeezing more power out of less capacity with forced induction and/or higher compression. The "555" prototype (not the 777 race engine) in the states that Ford is playing with uses a common gallery in the engine block that has dedicated E85 running through it which works in conjunction with the engines main DI gasoline fuel system, squirting a small amount of Ethanol into the cylinder JUST prior to main injection, creating a small flame front for the gasoline to propagate from there, it reduces NOX hugely and allows the engine to be run well beyond stoich without the drawbacks that DI-only gives there. There is also plenty of high comp NA engines being tested that are within a small % economy of gasoline-only cars.

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Yes, but they could also substantially increase the compression ratio with the old fuel that they were running.

Hmmm, thats a crap argument, I could also say that all the current vehicles running out there could have 1-2 full points of compression removed along with 4-8 degrees of timing and they would still run.... Not using the full potential of E85 and then writing it off follows the same logic I have give above.

Go build a 15:1-17:1 NA engine with the right components on E85, and I bet it will make more power and torque, run cleaner, be renewable and emit less harmful human-affecting emissions than a maxed out 12:1 equivalent gasoline engine, all the while using almost the same amount of fuel.

Daniel

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by CAT600

Hmmm, thats a crap argument, I could also say that all the current vehicles running out there could have 1-2 full points of compression removed along with 4-8 degrees of timing and they would still run.... Not using the full potential of E85 and then writing it off follows the same logic I have give above.

Go build a 15:1-17:1 NA engine with the right components on E85, and I bet it will make more power and torque, run cleaner, be renewable and emit less harmful human-affecting emissions than a maxed out 12:1 equivalent gasoline engine, all the while using almost the same amount of fuel.

Daniel

Not really as the engines in V8Supercars run 10:1 compression which is extremely low. They really should have something in the range of 12:1 - 14:1.

Even if you were to build two engines with compression ratios optimised to suit the fuel types, the E85 engine would still use a heap more fuel as ethanol has much less energy per litre than petrol does. I may even do the calculations tonight.