E85 fuel...is it a good thing???

[out there]

just remember, with continued use of leaded fuel, your o2 sensor will die out a lot faster because it will get gunked up

[torbs]

SmitEvo;11229 wrote:
cheaper to buy 110 octane 3.30 a gal

I'm sorry...but i was looking through some old posts and here's what i found...ZOMG!!!

[SPANISH-RICE]

E85 still pwns all and ill stick by at as no one has proved me wrong on this forum.

LONG LIVE TEH E85

[SPANISH-RICE]

but that price of 110 is awesome lol!

[slow90gsx]

back in the day,so what do you think will the gas drop to again....3.00 2.80 2.50???...i at all

[SPANISH-RICE]

i think gas will never see sub $3 costs again. no reason for them to lower it that much after were gonna be used to paying it. just like every other year

[Jim]

Loll... dammn 2004

[Burthwick]

the fuck is the purpose of e85...you burn it faster, it' has more corn so therefore it'll burn quicker than regular fuel. so technically you're spending more $$$ in e85 than regular gas since it's thinner and has more corn.

[gsrEK]

tjamz;11328 wrote:
I think the place in W Fargo sells it for that..can't think of the name of the place though....

you talking about barkers??

i plan on tuning my civic on e85. have heard no bad about it on them. i know a couple friends that are running it and have no probs

[SPANISH-RICE]

Burthwick;223559 wrote:
the fuck is the purpose of e85...you burn it faster, it' has more corn so therefore it'll burn quicker than regular fuel. so technically you're spending more $$$ in e85 than regular gas since it's thinner and has more corn.

you're talking out of your ass and disagreeing just to join the band wagon. you obviously know very little about ethanol and E85 production and use.

the fucking purpose of it is that its a RENEWABLE fuel that is almost a zero emissions to burn. yes i said zero emissions, argue with me.

its also 105 octane so you have a much higher potential for making power. retuning a motor to use E85 is very different from BUILDING a motor to run E85 effectivly. if you utilize the fact that it is 105 octane you can make the motor <u>almost</u> as efficient as regular fuel.

and on top of many many other thigns it helps OUR farming economy around here to make it so whats the fucking point not to have E85?! OHH NOES its gets 15% worse gas mileage!! woa is me! its fucking cheaper

[SPANISH-RICE]

given the average gasoline price in the US is $4.07 and the average E85 cost is 3.13 that makes it 23% cheaper.

now everyone knows that it makes 27-29% less energy than gasoline. which is only like a 4% loss in cost effectiveness.

now assume for the fact that average gas is 87 octane and E85 is 105 thats a 20.6% increase in octane. WHICH HIGHER OCTANE CAN HELP MILEAGE. not taking into account the people who already need to run at least 91 octane and are paying an average of $4.48 only makes it make more sense.

combo that with the fact thats its still renewable, clean burning, and HELPING OUR LOCAL ECONOMY there is no reason not to at least support others to use it

[torbs]

The thing is, there is more energy put into making e85 than what is gotten out of it...big money waster as far as the economy in general is concerned...if we could become more efficient at making it then it'd be worth it.

[SPANISH-RICE]

thanks the thing. if we could just embrace it more rather than have any random person who doesnt know dick hate on we would probly make it for cheaper. or even import foreign sugar cane ethanol, even though were trying to ween our selves off of foreign fuels

[Guest]

torbs;223618 wrote:
The thing is, there is more energy put into making e85 than what is gotten out of it...

Site proof of said statement.

I can find EPA statements proving the opposite of that
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/growandgo/documents/faq.htm#i-08

www.epa.gov wrote:
Does it take more energy to make renewable fuels than is actually in the fuel?

 EPA has concluded that ethanol and biodiesel generate more energy than       the fossil fuel energy used to produce these fuels. Corn ethanol generates       about 30 percent more energy than the fossil fuel energy used to produce       it, while biodiesel generates about 50 percent more energy. 
 It's also important to consider how these fuels compare to the conventional       gasoline and diesel fuels they're replacing. Over the entire lifecycle       of producing and using it, corn ethanol reduces petroleum use by over 90       percent compared to gasoline. Biodiesel reduces petroleum use by about       85 percent compared to diesel fuel.

[amicheze]

Fuck corn based ethanol.

[Jim]

tjamz;223630 wrote:
Site proof of said statement.

I can find EPA statements proving the opposite of that
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/growandgo/documents/faq.htm#i-08

EPA has concluded that ethanol and biodiesel generate more energy than the fossil fuel energy used to produce these fuels. Corn ethanol generates about 30 percent more energy than the fossil fuel energy used to produce it, while biodiesel generates about 50 percent more energy.

From what I've read though, after you calculate in the extra transportation costs and such the net energy is actually LESS then it is for standard fossil fuels.

Production compared solely to how much it energy ethanol contains is different then total net energy used to the consumer...

Not to mention the subsidation costs passed on to us...

[Guest]

Jim;223639 wrote:
From what I've read though, after you calculate in the extra transportation costs and such the net energy is actually LESS then it is for standard fossil fuels.

Production compared solely to how much it energy ethanol contains is different then total net energy used to the consumer...

Not to mention the subsidation costs passed on to us...

Unless you figure in what it costs to transport oil tankers out of the Persian Gulf as well as the military escorts that said tankers receive with our tax dollars. IMO, having military escorts is a subsidization as well.

Here is an interesting article on the net energy value (NEV) for ethanol production.

[Jim]

tjamz;223644 wrote:
Unless you figure in what it costs to transport oil tankers out of the Persian Gulf as well as the military escorts that said tankers receive with our tax dollars. IMO, having military escorts is a subsidization as well.

Here is an interesting article on the net energy value (NEV) for ethanol production.

Corn Harvesting -> Transport -> Storage -> Transport -> Refining -> Transport -> etc etc

I'll try and find the articles I read...

Military Escorts cost < Farm subsidation for biofuels

[torbs]

tjamz;223630 wrote:
Site proof of said statement.

I can find EPA statements proving the opposite of that
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/growandgo/documents/faq.htm#i-08

Very vague website...

Oh and here's what you may be looking for...

Here's some:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354350,00.html (FOX)
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/4636/ (CNN)

A Berkeley study:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:KXBDz0YWyxkJ:petroleum.berkeley.edu/patzek/BiofuelQA/Materials/TWP_cover_story.pdf+corn+ethanol+money+spent&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

and finally:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=corn+ethanol+food+prices (google: corn ethanol food prices)

[DelSlow]

lol @ Foxnews.com And Glen Beck.