GibTG, why are you shooting down E85? Yeah, if you put it in a 9:1 comp motor, it would just be a waste of time. But build a 12,13:1 comp motor. Well build 2. Run one on av-gas, and the other on E85. Jet fuel being 7-10$ a gal, compared to 3.5$ a gal of E85... Who wins? Unless your Bill Gates, you cant run av-gas on the street, but if you have a source of E85 every man can run a high comp motor on the street.  

I can't even begin to describe how much of a hypocrite you are.

You're getting some cheap synthetic oil if seven quarts is costing you a gallon and half of gasoline, wow! Seven quarts for $7. That's usually around the price of a SINGLE quart of synthetic.

Didn't you just get done saying that your alcohol-burning engine is going to smoke my oil burners? Oh yeah, there's a lot of scientific proof backing that statement, that statement isn't broad at all. And you're trying to tell me I'm a making a fool of myself...

Your example is wonderful in all except that a 20% reduction in mileage is on the low end of the spectrum and you aren't considering other costs associated with producing ethanol. Diesel fuel in the use to plant and harvest the corn surely isn't the only cost associated. The ethanol plant that was built 15 miles from my home required the same sized sub-station that could power an entire small town (probably less than 10,000 people -but watch out that isn't highly scientific!). So, wouldn't you think that the electrical costs are also pretty substantial?

If you still want proof, go read some work done by David Pimental...

:
"THACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.

"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."

Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).

In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:

   * corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
   * switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
   * wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:

   * soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
   * sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not included in the analysis.

"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."

Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion." ~Susan Lang of Cornell University News Service

 

Bigblockchris65;
I see you've had the pleasure of communicating with GibTG. He has a problem disagreeing with someone without also disrespecting them. However, he is partially correct. A few years down the road, we will all realize what a giant economic mistake we have made with ethanol. On the other hand, you are right. If you build your car around E85, there are numerous advantages over gas.  

Let's start abobve:

                    David Pimental has been proven wrong with ALL scieist at the department of agriculture because he has numbers from all sorts of years.  You will notice that your article has no dates on the numbers produced, that is because the numbers come from all the places that he wants you to look at and not the bottom line.  When congress asked this guy to produce the real deal before them - HE DIDN'T!  If I were to take numbers from different years and different places I could prove anything!  That is the bottom line with Mr. Pimetal - can you produce more than one guy?  No you can't.  It is funny when thousands say one thing and one guy says another - everyone wants to bieleve the one person - the facts don't add up.  What will happen with this is that in the next five years when gas has gone through the roof you will see ethanol starting to take over.  Right now we are in a panic state with new prices in oil and commodities that we have never seen before.  Taking on a new project is alsways painful and has growing pains, bottom line there is no quick solution.  Pursuing an ethanol track is one of the best answers that we have.  

 The country of Brazil has switched over to ethanol and now enjoys complete oil idependence.  They use sugar cane to produce fuel - this does not have the advantage that corn has in the fact that corn after taking the starch out of it can be used for oil or feed.  They do use there sugar stalks for burning in the ethanol plants, but that is it.  If Mr. Pemental was right Brazil would be way behind - right!  They use diesel to plant, harvest, transport and refine thier sugar cane.  Why arent they in a deficite?  

 We have oppend two plants in the past year that use cow POOP to power the plants.  Once you feed the cattle the distillers grain - they poop and the cycle is very efficent.  NONE of these factors are taken into context of Mr. Pimental's papper - nor are none of the energy saving factors of cattle feed!  Don't get bought into the slanted numbers of an adjenda driven "scientist" that wants his name in print.  The best numbers come from the department of agriculture and transportation.  When the price of corn starts to rise like it has recently you have to look back at the last flood - 93.  The corn prices leveled out because what we found out was that many places had BUMPER crops that made up for the destroyed land.

 When you produce the voice of one person who makes claims from several different years to make thier point - look twice at it.  Go get the hard numbers from the source that he is getting his numbers.  This year - right now - not yesterday!  The facts are that the American farmer is getting better through technology just like everything - you can't compare 1991 to 2008 no way.  If you look at a computer from five years ago and farming from five years ago - you will see what I mean.

 The deal with high performance engines is that ethanol is your best bang for the buck!  Paying $4.50 a gallon for premium gas is stupid.  None of us have gas "friendly" motors.  The gas that you buy can only be used in low compression "performance" motors.  Ethanol is a proven track fuel and will be for years.  I am currently using e85 in a 496 inch big block with 12:1 compression and have no problems.  I could go as high as 14:1 with no problem.  Raising the comp ratio gives you your mileage back and produces much horsepower.  Volvo has just introduced a car in Sweden that gets the same mileage using ethanol or gas through the use of turbo and fuel injection.  taking advantage of the properties of ethanol giving it more mileage.  When I look at these guys pouring money into aluminum heads so that they can get an extra half point of compression I feel sorry for the waste of money.  When I hear about nitrous that burnt a motor - it's a laugh.  We could get back to so much cheapper rodding by using the right fuel.  The guy running square port aluminum trick heads just got out run buy the guy using oval port iron heads using the right fuel and compression.  

 Sorry - not a day off here on the farm     chris  

I'm surprised that you have even heard of Pimental and his work and I'm impressed that you are taking the time to refute it, but...

Do you really think the same congressional committee or branch of government that is spending an insane amount of money on ethanol production is going to agree with claims that put themselves in the wrong? The government is pumping billions of dollars of the federal budget into producing ethanol distilleries/refineries and subsidizing the production of grain fuel, so of course they are going to say to Mr. Pimental, you're dead wrong! You would hope (and many would assume) that someone at an Ivy League university would be "in it" for the sake of philosophy rather than fame, and it wouldn't be the first or the last time the federal government hasn't told the whole truth...

Ask 'BBMAN' who he would side with, the government or a joint Cornell and Berkley university study! And for once, I would be on his side as the government has it's own reputation to look after (much like yourself when you're blabbering about the energy miracle that is ethanol).

I'm not discounting ethanol for high performance engines. In the vast majority of cases a engine burning a large quantity of alcohol will make more power than most types of (especially pump) gasoline and be more economical. But, like others in this very thread have stated ethanol is NOT going to save America in terms of the energy crisis.

By the way, the article I posted was not written by Mr. Pimental and was simply an outline of his report printed in the Cornell University news. If you haven't already I suggest taking a look at the real report.

I completely agree that myself naming one professor is not enough evidence to wholly support my claim and appears as a desperate attempt, but the kick is that I will never convince you regardless of how many university studies I talk about! Maybe 30-50 years time will prove one of our claims and that is probably the only thing that will. I give you my word that I will stop criticizing you for the comments you make on this board in regards to E85/ethanol fuel.  

BRAZIL - BRAZIL - BRAZIL - BRAZIL - BRAZIL -BRAZIL


HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?  

Maybe it's because we are a developed country that uses more than ten times as much oil as Brazil does every day. Obviously it will be easier to create widespread use of an alternative fuel if the primary fuel hadn't had excessive use to begin with...

Maybe it's because Brazil has an abundance of land, millions of not so fortunate willing to do manual labor for low pay, and the climate to grow sugar cane well. Which, regardless of what you say, is a cheaper and better biomass source than corn for ethanol production.

Maybe it's because Brazil showed very little support for their farmers (how about not spending those millions on government subsidies like us) and the cost of sugar cane fell drastically. Which, ironically, is the exact opposite of what is happening here with corn prices skyrocketing.

Haven't you figured this out? No matter how many times you try to tell me I'm not going to bow down and say that ethanol is the answer to all of our problems...

I was trying to put an end to this, and do you just want to keep arguing?