rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

I'm with Racer23 on E85 being a boondoggle for American corn farmers and the automakers (they get credited with improved MPG towards their CAFE ratings, because Flexfuel/E85 vehicles they sell are treated as if only the 15% petrol-based gas were being burned - regardless of whether they ever even run on E85). Hence why I see a lot of Flexfuel-labelled vehicles here in Calgary, when the nearest station with E85 is about 2000km away in Minnesota. Is there even anywhere you can get E85 in Canada?

Ethanol, as currently produced in North America, is too energy intensive. Depending on who's numbers you look at, the energy yield is close to neutral; ie., very close to a gallon of conventional crude energy goes into producing the energy equivalent in ethanol fuel, and getting it to consumers (since it has to be sent via rail and/or truck, because its hydrophilic properties prevent it being shipped via pipelines).

It's great that research is happening that might make ethanol production a lot more carbon neutral, and less food-crop dependent. However, that has little to do with the current drive to ramp up ethanol production, which is more about farm (and as Racer23 points out, largely corporate farming) subsidies, and the political appearance of both caring for the environment, and reducing dependence on foreign oil. What is happening is that between farm subsidies, CAFE credits for mostly domestic automakers, who are heavily weighted in their vehicle sales and profitability towards gas-guzzling pickups and SUVs, and state/provincial and federal mandates for ethanol-blended gas, we are getting an immature, developing technology accelerated to large-scale commercial use.

The rush to add ethanol to gas doesn't even necessarily help promote alternative fuel research and development. After all, those trying to come up with efficient, cost-effective processes to produce cellulosic ethanol, or bio-diesels, now have to compete with corn-ethanol subsidized through farm subsidies, and CAFE credits for automakers that promote them continuing to make big, thirsty vehicles, as well as competing with petroleum fuels.

I'm very much for alternative, non-GHG energy sources - I think it's retarded, for example, that roughly 25% of Alberta's natural gas output is currently being burned to fuel the oil-sands extraction plants - a massive depletion of a valuable energy and chemical/plastics resource, and a massive source of GHG's. I figured 15 years ago that nukes should be supplying the massive energy needs of the oil sands, but of course NG was dirt cheap in the 80's and 90's, and nukes unpopular here in the land of oil. It's only now that nukes are getting serious consideration - and it'll be another 15 years for them to be approved and built.

As far as decreased mileage: ethanol has 2/3 the energy content of gasoline per unit of volume. So ethanol blends will tend to produce higher fuel consumption. E10 should not lead to an almost 30% drop in mileage, although E85 will. For E10 the reduction should only be about 3% - not quite 1 mpg, if the Jeep gets 28mpg to begin with on straight gasoline. That would be about consistent with my experience with both my Passat and my RX-7 when gassed with ethanol-blended gas here, which has a max of E10.

1.3Ldreamcar

iTrader: (1)

You hit the nail on the head with most of that, except this whole thing goes WAY deeper then most people know....

things like the cause of global warming, and the 'need' for alternative fuels (which, by the way are compleatly pointless, as it takes more energy to produce hydrogen and ethonol then is yeilded from it) are fallacies created by the people in power. In truth, most of the worlds' top environmentalists have known that the cause of global warming to be the earths' natural cycle. This has been repressed as the people who own the news stations/radio/news paper are related directly to those who are making BILLIONS on this type of fallacy.

look it up.

any ohh ya, like you touched on. We had a perfect, working electric car which had absolutly NO problems. The national US government forced saturn to stop production and recall all of the leased vehicles... but in the end that would not matter really, cause the US in the next 3 years will have a power drought, and be forced to drastically cut use of power down by the average consumer.

again. look it up

Black91n/a

Yes the earth naturally heats and cools, as is evidenced by the ice ages, but the fact is that the earth is heating up WAY TOO FAST. It's happening far too quickly for it to be naturally caused (it's orders of magnitude quicker than it's ever been). The fact is there's a lot of money in NOT believing global warming, because all the existing industries that are emitting will have to invest serious sums of money to reduce their emissions. I'm not aware of anyone making billions off of global warming, since the industries behind it are small and develloping and don't have the capacity to create such a conspiracy. Scientists also have a little more integrity than that usually. In truth almost all of the stuff we hear about us not causing global warming comes from the same half dozen or so scientists. The other thousands who are researching all agree that we are to blame, the debate is more about how much, what the exact mechanisms are and what the future holds.

What sounds more likely (regardless of what it's about) a giant worldwide conspiracy, or the truth being reported on?

Hydrogen is not necessarily energy or pollution intensive to produce, there's research into ways of making it doing stuff like having bacteria do it, where the sun fuels it and it uses up waste products.

Electric cars only "fix" the problems if they get their electricity from clean sources, not coal or gas plants. They also have other issues with proper disposal of the toxic battery materials when they die. Then there's the range and recharge rate problems. That's where fuel cells start to sound better.

WHO

Too big of a thread now to catch up, but here's my take:

I can't for the life of me believe that "farmers" who become ethanol-oriented still receive government subsidies (they're still considered agriculture). I'm sorry, but earth is supposed to feed PEOPLE, not CARS!!! If a farmer decides he's going the ethanol route, he's no longer managing agriculture, he's managing an OIL FIELD.

Also, did you know that Ethanol actually produces just as much pollution when burnt, but offers less gas mileage? So it's actually DIRTIER than regular oil. The only argument they use is that, while growing, the crops eliminate CO2 during their photosynthisis (or however that word goes). That's true, but it would also be true if these crops were used to FEED PEOPLE.

Did you know that, for one 100% ethanol fill-up, in a regular middled-size car, the quantity of corn it takes is the equivalent of 353 days worth of food for one human being? If that person was to eat only corn for a year that would give that person the required amount of calories (I believe the norm is 2000 calories a day) per day for 353 days! That is the energy needed for ONE FILL-UP of E100 gas.

Not to mention that most of the "refineries" used to produce the ethanol out of corn are coal-powered, therefore adding more load to their environmental footprint.

This is just another scam for US to lower their exposure to middle-east oil, regardless of the damage it does to not only the environment, but most importantly the PEOPLE who need FOOD TO LIVE.

nik

Ban e-85? It's great fuel for turbo cars! We should definately encourage its production and widespread availability, all for the "wrong" reasons of course.

2Fierce

iTrader: (7)

K, so I just read all this. There is a lot of truth and a lot of crazy going on in here. What really sucks is there isn't much we can do is there?

There's a huge thread on e85 in the single turbo section, where many many many ppl are using it as a cheaper alternative to c16. If we had e85 stations, I'd convert the 7 to run off it. Not for more power, nor the "better" mileage (it actually uses 33% more fuel, so you'd need injectors, fpr, fuel pump, and of course, a standalone ) to handle all this. But because I believe in supporting alternative fuels. I mean, either way the ppl in charge are gonna do what they want, and from what I've seen boycotts rarely work when dealing with auto giants. I do salute you for starting this thread and spreading the awareness and knowledge.

The real question I propose to you is: What do you want to do about it?

nik

Seriously though, I've been trying to get some of this fuel for 2 years now in Ontario. I can now see how the short sightedness of so many has prevented this from happening

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

In my earlier post, I referenced the fact that US ethanol production is roughly carbon neutral or slightly less than burning conventional crude, so it is not correct to say it yields more pollution. (National Geographic, Car and Driver, and Consumer Reports have all had good articles explaining this in the last year or so). Meaning that the coal, natural gas, and conventional crude energy used to farm, produce, and ship the ethanol is somewhat less or equal to the energy, and carbon contained in the ethanol. In Brazil, for example, the ratio is more like five to one ethanol yield to conventional energy consumed to make it, so it makes a lot more sense economically and environmentally

??? The fuel isn't available here because it's expensive, and our government has not (yet, thankfully), gotten seriously into the business of subsidizing it's production. You as an individual can order ethanol by the barrel from an American producer and have it shipped if you want to mix some of your own. It's not a matter of anyone being shortsited, it's a matter that it doesn't make financial or environmental sense.

nik

Sounds like a non turbo owner

The one time these crazy environmentalists are actually helping our rotary cause, we refute them?

2Fierce

iTrader: (7)

Hey, can everyone in here post links to their info for sources. I'm writing a paper on this and don't wanna use rx7club as a reference because U of T will kick my ***.

SERIOUSLY POST UP YOUR SOURCES!

Black91n/a

Carbon neutral would indicate that it adds no net CO2 to the atmosphere, that's not true. What is true is that it's about equal to gasoline in terms of well to wheel (full lifecycle) pollution.

23Racer

Talk about the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing! The emissions and food government agencies complaining that the environmental and fuel people are not allowing for the proper and full impact of bio-fuels.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng...rioaiqpbvseihp

By the way, turbo's are un-natural. So there!!!!!! PFFFTTTTTBBBB!!!!!!!

Ban Turbos!!!!!!!!!!!! Turbo's are like that evildoer Darwin, unnatural. Of course the world has only been here for less than 7,000 years.

Let the flaming begin, LOL.

flipstar

iTrader: (14)

The company that I work for uses wheat stalk to produce bio cellulose ethanol, which is in turn made into E85 fuel.

We operate a demonstration facility in Ottawa, Ontario, that makes 2.5 million Liters of fuel grade ethanol a year. We have just started construction of a full scale plant in central Canada.

What makes us different from the rest of the fuel grade ethanol manufacturers is that we take an otherwise useless product (wheat stalk, not the edible wheat itself -- in other words, hay) and turn it into fuel to power anything from a car to a generator or even your house. So to the original poster, I will agree with you that conventional E85 production from sources such as corn or wheat is not going to be a sustainable source of enery. However, to issue a warrant to ban production of E85 regardless of the method used to produce it would be an ignorant move.

To argue for the production of E85 from wheat stock from another angle, it actually helps our greenhouse gas problem. Farmers typically leave wheat stalk to decompose, either as fertilizer or otherwise, contributing to huge amounts of CO2 pollution. If this stalk is turned into ethanol and burned for energy, we are saving our atmosphere the CO2 that would be produced from buring the fossil fuels for the same amount of energy.

If you want to know more about it our website is www.iogen.ca

23Racer

The issue with using waste from corn stocks, wheat, etc.... is that a lot of farmers use that as cattle feed, or as you said to fertilize the fields. This is again diverting present food stock resources into the fuel stream. I have been privy to a number of studies have been performed that show that the amount of additional commercial field fertilizer required to replace the presently turned over waste stalks, will require more fuel to produce, distribute and lay down in the fields than the E85 that can be produced from the wheat or corn stocks that are used to produce the E85.

I am not saying ban E85 in all of its entities, but in reality slow down the exposive lemming like move towards E85, until we have understood and overcome its impact to the food stream.

I was just in a meting this morning where 2 multinationals said that beef, chicken and pork prices will drop like a stone early this summer because the ranchers and farmers won't be able to afford to feed the animals. As well wheat, soy and corn prices are expected to go through another round of increases (10-15%) within the next 2 months. I love cars, but I would rather eat.

Just so you guys understand what triggered me off is that I actually like the concept of renewable fuels. I love the technology being brought to bear to create a fuel that works so well and can be created from what is presently waste streams. This is all great. I just hate it when I see the multi-nationals running pell-mell into something, supported by vested government interests, before the full impacts of the effort have been considered. There is a lot of money behind this. I have knowledge that a number of, up to this point, agricultural companies are reducing their efforts in developing new food technologies and are restructuring themselves and see themselves as the Exxon's of the 21st century.

01Racing

So I guess Mazda going with hydrogen will make everyone happy other than the oil producing countires and the farmers!

nik

Unfortunately the hydrogen thing makes just about as little sense.

Flipstar do you know of any commercial stations that sell the fuel produced at your facility? I was in ottawa for a while, and apparently one MacEwen had it but dropped it before I got some. Only government vehicles get in now apparently.

Oh and this one station in ottawa "Topia Greenstop" claimed to be the country's first e-85 outlet, but I went there and although they have pumps setup for it, don't actually carry the fuel. I called their head office and as of 2007 they claimed it was not commercially viable to carry it.

Black91n/a

Nope, that's straw. Straw is what you put down in barns for the horses to poop on, hay is made from edible plants, alfalfa around here mostly, and it's what you feed to the horses.

While all that sounds good not to have it decomposing in the fields, the reality is that you're going to deplete the nutrients and organic components of the soil and eventually the land will no longer be able to support farming. It is not a sustainable solution.

turboeric

Uh, not quite. The carbon in the wheat stalk (aka straw) got there from the wheat plants absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and converting it to cellulose via photosynthesis. When you burn the straw or allow it to decompose, that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere, for no net change in CO2 levels. I.e. it isn't fossil carbon being added to the system.

If you hydrolyze that cellulose to its component glucose monomers, then ferment it to ethanol and burn that ethanol, the CO2 is released. I.e. exactly the same as burning the straw. Again, no net addition of carbon to the atmosphere.

As long as we cycle CO2 from the atmosphere to plants to the atmosphere, there is no problem. That's what nature has been doing for millions of years. It's the addition of CO2 from fossil sources (e.g. oil, coal, etc) that is the problem, because it is a net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.

flipstar

iTrader: (14)

To 23racer:
I understand your concerns about taking away animal feedstock and crop fertalizer, but a byproduct of our process is commercially viable fertilizer, including ammonium nitrate. And animals, well, they can go eat some of the grass grown with our fertilizer.

Nik:
The only pump in Ontario USED to be the one at MacEwans on Greenbank and Hunt Club to my knowledge. We used to supply them with our ethanol up until last year. Most of our fuel goes to our own fleet, government vehicles, and sponsorships. We sponsored one of the California cars in the Le Mans 24hr race who ended up coming in second place on our fuel.

turboeric:
You said exactly what I said With bio ethanol, there is no net CO2 addition, however, it is the amount of fossil fuels that we DONT burn that reduce co2 emissions.

2Fierce:
I wouldnt mind converting my NA GXL to use ethanol, and in reality, it wouldnt be all that hard or expensive. The stock fuel pump and injectors would probably be able to handle the required increase in flow (33%) for lower power applications (NA). All you'd really need is an SAFC and a wideband to tune it out.