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

[inspector01]

PSI2HI;223712 wrote:
Rumor has it corn is supposed to rise to $8/bushel which is going to make things interesting.

I see already E85 is up to the $3.30 range around town.

Hopefully they will start doing more with making ethanol from other starches.

[thrash]

I like the idea of ethanol as a cheap replacement for race gas. I think E85 from Corn in the US is probably a bad idea.

It would be interesting to have a corn farmer (Parker?) give his opinion on things, but a book I am reading ("the Omnivore's Dilemma) talks about the development of industrial agriculture in the US.

According to this book, the corn boom in the US took off after World War 2. There were lots of US factories that had been making nitrates into explosives and gun powder. They needed something to do.

To a very large extent, the limit of a piece of earth for producing food is based on the nitrogen extraction potential from that peice of soil. While 75% of the atmosphere is nitrogen, getting it a form that plants can use is tricky, and biologically, depends on bacteria growing on legume root systems.

A clever German guy (Haber, i think) figured out how to suck nitrogen out of the atmosphere as part of the Nazi war effort to make explosives. It didn't take more than a few clever Washington politicians to repurpose all of our ammo factories into making synthetic nitrogen fertilizer.

Once you have artificial fertilizer the yeild of a given peice of land goes way, way up, because you're bring in outside energy into the system. The green revolution is largley a product of industrial fertilizer production.

As it turns out, the Haber process for nitrogen fixing requires... fossil fuels to work. I beleive that specifically they burn natural gas to do it.

It's a bit ironic that the massive over-harvest of corn we have is only possible due to the Nixon era farm bill (that basically said the government would pay a certain per-bushel price irrespective of what the market did, instead of the earlier New-Deal era loan/cover program), and the infusion of synthetic nitrogen, the latter of which is only possible via fossil fuel depletion.

What's the point of turning fossil fuel into E85, via subsidized corn, and then claiming that it's a renewable energy source?

Naturally, if your corn operation isn't using Haber-process nitrogen in its fertilizers, that's a different story.

Anyway, that's what this book is saying about the industrial farming cycle. My post is getting too long for certain peoples tastes, so I'll stop here and see if anyone else wants to chime in on the natural of industrial corn production.

[Rexwagon]

Colin;223684 wrote:
E85 is a terrible idea. Lets turn food, into fuel. Then over charge the be-jesus out of it. Not a good idea.

+1

Yeah it may claim to reduce dependency on foriegn oil, But has it? It costs way more to make a gallon of E85 than regular gasoline. It wasnt the right choice.

Now supposivly they are working on making ethanol from Garbage. But yet again they will probably charge an arm and leg for it.

[MisterCMK]

The E85 haters need to realize that it is at least a step in the right direction. Rome wasn't built in a day. You need to take things one step at a time.

[SPANISH-RICE]

MisterCMK;223765 wrote:
The E85 haters need to realize that it is at least a step in the right direction. Rome wasn't built in a day. You need to take things one step at a time.

exactly, be part of the solution not the problem. there isnt going to be a one clear cut fix all for our energy problems, but supporting the move in the right direction is going to get us somewhere much faster than sitting around spreading hate on whats already WORKING

[quik97GSX]

I have been reading into E85 for the past few weeks, I will be converting my eclipse to it over the winter, hopefully before. I have read many threads on dsmtuners and talk about it. People on those forums and been running it with no longterm effects on the fuel system with the proper upgrades. All that is needed to run E85 is bigger injectors (around 1000cc) to compensate for the amount of fuel that needs to be used, larger fuel pump, upgraded fuel lines, and a good tune. People on talk have been making 450+ horsepower on a 16g.

[inspector01]

quik97GSX;223771 wrote:
I have been reading into E85 for the past few weeks, I will be converting my eclipse to it over the winter, hopefully before. I have read many threads on dsmtuners and talk about it. People on those forums and been running it with no longterm effects on the fuel system with the proper upgrades. All that is needed to run E85 is bigger injectors (around 1000cc) to compensate for the amount of fuel that needs to be used, larger fuel pump, upgraded fuel lines, and a good tune. People on talk have been making 450+ horsepower on a 16g.

The size of injectors depends on how much power you are going to make, you don't automatically need 1000's, you just need a bit bigger injectors then you would on pump gas. And actually all you need is bigger injectors and a fuel pump with a tune. Stock fuel lines will work fine.

[SPANISH-RICE]

true story^

ive been researching e85 for school for 2 years now and ive yet to find anything that makes me not support it

[thrash]

What about the fact that it takes fossil fuels to make the corn tha makes E85? I was hoping to have an enlightened response to what I wrote earlier.

Also, without the outrageous government subsidies, corn wouldn't be anywhere cheap enough to make corn-E85 worth doing. Corn is in absolutely everything because it's so cheap -- artificially.

"Do something" is not a valid reason for political action. I understand the desire to try and develop an alternative energy supply, but corn-based E85 appears to consume fossil fuels right at the start -- during the fertilization stage.

Consider this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn

which is also going on the dakotas.

Note that corn has displaced other grass products all over the US primarly because of subsidies. It turns out that it's worse for cattle, worse for people, and worse for making ethanol, based on the admittedly limited reading I've done.

[inspector01]

You write way to much shit that no one cares to read it all and even consider what you are saying. Shorten it up with just the main points and ppl will get a lot more information from you.

[SPANISH-RICE]

thrash;223776 wrote:
What about the fact that it takes fossil fuels to make the corn tha makes E85? I was hoping to have an enlightened response to what I wrote earlier.

Also, without the outrageous government subsidies, corn wouldn't be anywhere cheap enough to make corn-E85 worth doing. Corn is in absolutely everything because it's so cheap -- artificially.

"Do something" is not a valid reason for political action. I understand the desire to try and develop an alternative energy supply, but corn-based E85 appears to consume fossil fuels right at the start -- during the fertilization stage.

Consider this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn

which is also going on the dakotas.

Note that corn has displaced other grass products all over the US primarly because of subsidies. It turns out that it's worse for cattle, worse for people, and worse for making ethanol, based on the admittedly limited reading I've done.

and what kind of energy is being used to refine fossil fuels for us now? focus that energy into creating ethanol, same difference. everything is being powered by the same stuff right now its just that ethanol isnt as efficient to produce becuase its just getting started. nothing is going to be cheap when you first start making it. it takes a long time to make the production process effiecient. especially with such a small amount of plants making it.

and i didnt say that corn based ethanol was the best route either. im only saying that E85 ( whose ethanol can be from lots of things) should'nt be looked down upon. just because we use so much fuel already and dont have extra space to grow it right now doesnt mean its bad for us. brazil is completly independant on its own ethanol fuel because they embraced it and worked to make it an effiecent process.

the left over biomass from the corn or sugar cane has been used for burning to power refineries and feed livestock. also

[thrash]

inspector01;223778 wrote:
You write way to much shit that no one cares to read it all and even consider what you are saying. Shorten it up with just the main points and ppl will get a lot more information from you.

ok

1. the fertilizer used to grow most of the corn we make is made artificially with fossil fuels.

2. the price of corn is so low because it is subsidized by government. in other words, it's not low at all, your tax dollars are paying for every bushel of corn whetehr you buy/drive it or not

3. If you consider why people say they like E85 -- because it saves us from fossil fuel dependance, and because it's cheap -- it's clear that currently it doesn't do either.

4. There's a great book called "The Omnivore's Dilemma" that talks about the role of corn, fossil fuels, and government subsidies in the modern US economy.

I'm wondering how many people are aware of point #1 and if it changes their view on the usefulness of corn-based ethanol.

[Rexwagon]

It takes fossil fuels to harvest the corn and transport it.
Corn is a plant that is hard on the soil compared to other crops, therefore the soil will be raveged.
Ethanol is driving up food costs.

Just the fact that we make this ourselves and it is still expenisive is bogus.

Ethanol isnt as cheap everywhere else. In some states its only 5 cents cheaper than regular unleaded.

For every $1 spent subsidizing ethanol costs consumers $4.

the costs of growing, distilling and blending ethanol into gasoline makes it 51 cents more per gallon to produce that regular gasoline

Also 31% of our corn this year is going to be used towards ethanol. Thats a lot of corn. You think food prices are going to increase??

Brazil has found a better way of doing this with producing ethanol.

[inspector01]

Rexwagon;223784 wrote:
Brazil has found a better way of doing this with producing ethanol.

Thats what most ppl are saying, they are working on making ethanol using scrap crops and anything else that would be waste like crops that aren't usable for food.

[SPANISH-RICE]

Rexwagon;223784 wrote:
It takes fossil fuels to harvest the corn and transport it.

but its doesnt to transport and refine gasoline?

[Guest]

Rexwagon;223784 wrote:
For every $1 spent subsidizing ethanol costs consumers $4.

Proof?

[Rexwagon]

tjamz;223789 wrote:
Proof?

http://www.ncpa.org/sid/2005/20050605.htm

One report by the U.S. Agriculture department determined that every $1 spent subsidizing ethanol costs consumers more than $4
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

[Guest]

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/10-9-95/oilsubsidy.html

[Guest]

Rexwagon;223791 wrote:
http://www.ncpa.org/sid/2005/20050605.htm

One report by the U.S. Agriculture department determined that every $1 spent subsidizing ethanol costs consumers more than $4
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

I came across that report as well. I can't find another report to back it up...especially not a recent one.

[inspector01]

Rexwagon;223791 wrote:
http://www.ncpa.org/sid/2005/20050605.htm

One report by the U.S. Agriculture department determined that every $1 spent subsidizing ethanol costs consumers more than $4
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

The problem with most Anti-Ethanol website links are they are outdated information, your top link is from 2004, so 4 year old information, and your bottom link is from 1995, a 13 year old source. The cost of ethanol has decreased significantly every year. I will find some papers that i wrote about ethanol that showed how much the cost to produce had decreased in a short period of time.