how do you feel about running your jk on ethonol that obama supports?
06-13-2011, 05:38 PM
#12
JK Super Freak
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've had ethanol added to our gas for years, everyone runs it in winter because it lessens the chance of a frozen fuel line. But I assume most of you guys don't have that problem.
Edit: we have had the 15% for years, e85 is only at a few gas stations
Edit: we have had the 15% for years, e85 is only at a few gas stations
Last edited by mjolnir; 06-13-2011 at 05:45 PM.
06-13-2011, 05:45 PM
#13
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTU comparison:
Regular gasoline/petrol 125,000
Methanol 77,600
Gasohol 121,000
E85 108,878
Diesel 138,700
Aviation gasoline 144,400
Jet fuel, naphtha 153,100
Regular gasoline/petrol 125,000
Methanol 77,600
Gasohol 121,000
E85 108,878
Diesel 138,700
Aviation gasoline 144,400
Jet fuel, naphtha 153,100
06-13-2011, 05:49 PM
#14
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: ILLINOIS
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would rather see us spend our money in the U.S. supporting ethanol instead of sending it to the middle east for foreign oil. Corn production is one of the few industries we have not lost to foreign lands. If we could get rid of some of the tree huggers we would get better mileage and burn less fuel. Ethanol is not perfect-but it's U.S. produced lessening our dependence on foreign oil.
06-13-2011, 09:40 PM
#15
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Belmont, MA
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taxes that's all
Yeah its not like ethanol production started with Obama. The corn lobby (likely the largest in Washington) has been dreaming this up for awhile. They are not content with the profit margins of putting corn into virtually everything you consume.
Corn syrup, starch and/or oil is added to french fries, peanut butter, saltines, steak sauce, table salt, margarine, iced tea, fruit juice (even ones that claim to be 100% juice), "raw" honey, fish sticks, soy milk, wine, beer, liquor, chicken nuggets, flour, barley, caramel, Vitamin C, vanilla extract, vinegar and/or yeast. Corn-derived glycerin is found in almost every soap, lotion, toothpaste and shampoo.
The meat you eat (even fish) is likely to have been corn fed and just about anything you can't pronounce on a label is likely to be corn derived.
Good to know we eat so much of something that is so nearly undigestible that whole kernels will pass through your digestive system unscathed.
Also good to know that more than 5 billion of our tax dollars goes to the US corn industry annually.
All of this has been going on for decades. If you are only now alarmed because they are moving into yet another market you've been asleep at the wheel my friends.
The real answer to the fuel question is something else entirely, but we are unlikely to make meaningful strides towards it until we run out of oil or experience a corn famine (not that far fetched since most corn is the same americanized strain.)
Corn syrup, starch and/or oil is added to french fries, peanut butter, saltines, steak sauce, table salt, margarine, iced tea, fruit juice (even ones that claim to be 100% juice), "raw" honey, fish sticks, soy milk, wine, beer, liquor, chicken nuggets, flour, barley, caramel, Vitamin C, vanilla extract, vinegar and/or yeast. Corn-derived glycerin is found in almost every soap, lotion, toothpaste and shampoo.
The meat you eat (even fish) is likely to have been corn fed and just about anything you can't pronounce on a label is likely to be corn derived.
Good to know we eat so much of something that is so nearly undigestible that whole kernels will pass through your digestive system unscathed.
Also good to know that more than 5 billion of our tax dollars goes to the US corn industry annually.
All of this has been going on for decades. If you are only now alarmed because they are moving into yet another market you've been asleep at the wheel my friends.
The real answer to the fuel question is something else entirely, but we are unlikely to make meaningful strides towards it until we run out of oil or experience a corn famine (not that far fetched since most corn is the same americanized strain.)
06-13-2011, 11:00 PM
#17
JK Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: LA, CA
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There need to be alternative fuels or electric for certain types of vehicles. Mail carriers and Parking officers easily come to mind, meter readers perhaps. The more types of processes you use for different needs, the more fuels will have to compete and bring down prices for all. As for who stasrted this ethanol thing, Henry Ford built an ethanol car sometime around 1900, but gasoline was too cheap. There is a company that uses algae to make ethanol and they say they can do it for about 85 cents a gallon. They are in the permitting process now.
Just wondering could you get arrested for an open container if you left your gas cap off ?
Just wondering could you get arrested for an open container if you left your gas cap off ?
06-14-2011, 03:04 AM
#18
JK Freak
As long as the engine is designed for ethanol it works every bit as good as gasoline (other than having a really high octane that allows it to actually be run at higher compression ratios, thus MORE thermodynamically efficient). The only weak point in pure ethanol is that you require more of it to burn in a stoichiometric spark-ignited engine (hence the less MPG). See representative reactions below for why you need 4 times as many moles of ethanol to have a stoichiometric flame (required for a port injection spark-ignited engine).
C2H5OH (ethanol) + 3 (O2+3.76 N2) ---> 2 CO2 + 3 H2O + 11.28N2
C8H18 (representative gasoline) + 12.5 (O2 + 3.76 N2) ---> 8 CO2 + 4.5 H2O + 47 N2
But take into account that there is 2.75 times the number of moles of ethanol per gallon, you end up requiring about 30 - 40% more all said and done if you run on PURE ethanol (so probably 20 - 30% more for E85 vehicles that are not pure ethanol), seem close to what people see with E85 vehicles?
And actually once you factor in that plus the fact that it is only slightly less energy dense compared to gasoline, you end up with a vehicle that is slightly more powerful at the same time as consuming a little more volume of liquid fuel compared to it's gasoline counterpart. But if you look at the price of E85 usually it is subsidized to be cheaper to make filling up with E85 and gasoline just about the same to the consumer.
Also for those people who say no to it because widespread use will take up too many food crops, check this out:
h ttp://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-wood-digesting-enzyme-bacteria-boost-biofuel.html
If they manage to harness that enzyme that means you could make ethanol out of pretty much anything (trees, leaves, grass clippings, paper, agricultural waste, etc.)
Sorry for the long post but as a fuel scientist and oil reservoir engineer currently working on getting more oil from one of the Alaskan reservoirs, I worry don't realize how quickly we are running out of fuel. Taking ALL available fossil fuels left in the world and taking into account current usage the world will be out of all types of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) by 2100. That is not much time to replace the amount of energy we use with all renewables, so we need whatever we can get.
C2H5OH (ethanol) + 3 (O2+3.76 N2) ---> 2 CO2 + 3 H2O + 11.28N2
C8H18 (representative gasoline) + 12.5 (O2 + 3.76 N2) ---> 8 CO2 + 4.5 H2O + 47 N2
But take into account that there is 2.75 times the number of moles of ethanol per gallon, you end up requiring about 30 - 40% more all said and done if you run on PURE ethanol (so probably 20 - 30% more for E85 vehicles that are not pure ethanol), seem close to what people see with E85 vehicles?
And actually once you factor in that plus the fact that it is only slightly less energy dense compared to gasoline, you end up with a vehicle that is slightly more powerful at the same time as consuming a little more volume of liquid fuel compared to it's gasoline counterpart. But if you look at the price of E85 usually it is subsidized to be cheaper to make filling up with E85 and gasoline just about the same to the consumer.
Also for those people who say no to it because widespread use will take up too many food crops, check this out:
h ttp://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-wood-digesting-enzyme-bacteria-boost-biofuel.html
If they manage to harness that enzyme that means you could make ethanol out of pretty much anything (trees, leaves, grass clippings, paper, agricultural waste, etc.)
Sorry for the long post but as a fuel scientist and oil reservoir engineer currently working on getting more oil from one of the Alaskan reservoirs, I worry don't realize how quickly we are running out of fuel. Taking ALL available fossil fuels left in the world and taking into account current usage the world will be out of all types of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) by 2100. That is not much time to replace the amount of energy we use with all renewables, so we need whatever we can get.
06-14-2011, 11:44 PM
#19
JK Freak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact a Chevy tahoe on gas gets 12-14 mpg in town and 9-10 on E85.
I don't care hat you say but E85 lacks the thermal energy capability of true gasoline.
Also, Corn is not the optimal fuel source for ethenol. It is sugar cane, then followed by sugar beets BEFORE corn. That means it takes a lot more corn to generate an equivelent amount of ethenol than sugar cane does. This is why Brazil is the worlds number one producer of ethenol, and the US won't be able to catch up. The Ethenol subsedies started with Bush (yes, I'm a republican),and have been carried with the current administration.
I hate people harping about Ethenol is the answer. It may be a stopgap, but it won't ever be part of a permanent solution. Why not use Compressed natural gas as an alternative fuel source? It's also readily available in the US.
Ok, I'm off my soapbox now.
I don't care hat you say but E85 lacks the thermal energy capability of true gasoline.
Also, Corn is not the optimal fuel source for ethenol. It is sugar cane, then followed by sugar beets BEFORE corn. That means it takes a lot more corn to generate an equivelent amount of ethenol than sugar cane does. This is why Brazil is the worlds number one producer of ethenol, and the US won't be able to catch up. The Ethenol subsedies started with Bush (yes, I'm a republican),and have been carried with the current administration.
I hate people harping about Ethenol is the answer. It may be a stopgap, but it won't ever be part of a permanent solution. Why not use Compressed natural gas as an alternative fuel source? It's also readily available in the US.
Ok, I'm off my soapbox now.
The US has enough natural gas reserves available with advanced recovery to power everything for the next hundred years. But not enough people actually want that.
06-15-2011, 12:19 AM
#20
JK Freak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as the engine is designed for ethanol it works every bit as good as gasoline (other than having a really high octane that allows it to actually be run at higher compression ratios, thus MORE thermodynamically efficient). The only weak point in pure ethanol is that you require more of it to burn in a stoichiometric spark-ignited engine (hence the less MPG). See representative reactions below for why you need 4 times as many moles of ethanol to have a stoichiometric flame (required for a port injection spark-ignited engine).
C2H5OH (ethanol) + 3 (O2+3.76 N2) ---> 2 CO2 + 3 H2O + 11.28N2
C8H18 (representative gasoline) + 12.5 (O2 + 3.76 N2) ---> 8 CO2 + 4.5 H2O + 47 N2
But take into account that there is 2.75 times the number of moles of ethanol per gallon, you end up requiring about 30 - 40% more all said and done if you run on PURE ethanol (so probably 20 - 30% more for E85 vehicles that are not pure ethanol), seem close to what people see with E85 vehicles?
And actually once you factor in that plus the fact that it is only slightly less energy dense compared to gasoline, you end up with a vehicle that is slightly more powerful at the same time as consuming a little more volume of liquid fuel compared to it's gasoline counterpart. But if you look at the price of E85 usually it is subsidized to be cheaper to make filling up with E85 and gasoline just about the same to the consumer.
Also for those people who say no to it because widespread use will take up too many food crops, check this out:
h ttp://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-wood-digesting-enzyme-bacteria-boost-biofuel.html
If they manage to harness that enzyme that means you could make ethanol out of pretty much anything (trees, leaves, grass clippings, paper, agricultural waste, etc.)
C2H5OH (ethanol) + 3 (O2+3.76 N2) ---> 2 CO2 + 3 H2O + 11.28N2
C8H18 (representative gasoline) + 12.5 (O2 + 3.76 N2) ---> 8 CO2 + 4.5 H2O + 47 N2
But take into account that there is 2.75 times the number of moles of ethanol per gallon, you end up requiring about 30 - 40% more all said and done if you run on PURE ethanol (so probably 20 - 30% more for E85 vehicles that are not pure ethanol), seem close to what people see with E85 vehicles?
And actually once you factor in that plus the fact that it is only slightly less energy dense compared to gasoline, you end up with a vehicle that is slightly more powerful at the same time as consuming a little more volume of liquid fuel compared to it's gasoline counterpart. But if you look at the price of E85 usually it is subsidized to be cheaper to make filling up with E85 and gasoline just about the same to the consumer.
Also for those people who say no to it because widespread use will take up too many food crops, check this out:
h ttp://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-wood-digesting-enzyme-bacteria-boost-biofuel.html
If they manage to harness that enzyme that means you could make ethanol out of pretty much anything (trees, leaves, grass clippings, paper, agricultural waste, etc.)
, but proven) systems that will allow existing processes to provide more liquid fuel. Liquid fuel for vehicles will be on the way out well before we run out of them, they don't compare to batteries overall. Certainly not to batteries in 20 years. Liquid fuels are a necessity for certain things, aircraft etc, but algal mass plants, etc - they will provide enoughSorry for the long post but as a fuel scientist and oil reservoir engineer currently working on getting more oil from one of the Alaskan reservoirs, I worry don't realize how quickly we are running out of fuel. Taking ALL available fossil fuels left in the world and taking into account current usage the world will be out of all types of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) by 2100. That is not much time to replace the amount of energy we use with all renewables, so we need whatever we can get.
The issue with the 100 year depletion (I don't particularly believe that, but it is more reasonable - see reservoir estimations around 1970's) is that it is likely to be irrelevant. Ask yourself how much fossil fuel was used 100 years AGO. Not much. Major technological shift led to massive use of the internal combustion engine. We are on the brink/in process of the next major shift. Battery/fuel cell to electrical motor.
The all electric, hybrid, gasoline-electric vehicles that are being produced now ARE the model Ts of this generation. And they still produce over twice the mileage of most vehicles. 15 years from now, the batteries will be better, the motors will be better, etc. It becomes an engineering problem that will lead to the total refinement of a new idea. Kind of like the pentastar is to an internal combustion engine.
100 year issues at this point in time are scare tactics pure and simple. In a society that is fundamentally incapable of seeing basic and fundamental issues like over leveraging in the housing market and debt which bring immediate consequence, it is silly to believe that society as a whole can plan energy to 100 years - even if some members could. The idea that society needs to be involved at a government level (and is unwilling to just list requirements and pay out to the winners) is the primary reason we have legally mandated corn ethanol.
With a 100 year, 50 year, or even 25 year time frame the fossil fuel issues really diminish to nearly irrelevant. Toss in currently "unrecoverable" reserves (tight sands gas for instance, but 20 years ago), increasing efficiency, new technological developments, embracing of nuclear, refinement and actual INSTALLATION of high temp solar thermal, etc - it is really much worry about nothing.
Things are going to be fine as long as there isn't sudden, unexpected and drastic drops in fuel from many sources. And other than political issues, domestic or otherwise, that isn't going to be the case.