E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?

Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream
credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline:

For production/hauling/storage/etc, end to end:
BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from ethanol
vs
BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline

and

Simply burning the stuff:
Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of E85 burned
vs
Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of Gasoline burned

Also what car models (SUVs too) will run on E85?

People talk about ethanol not being worth using because of the fossil
fuel needed to produce it. They are leaving out a couple of factors
1) do you have to burn fossil fuel to produce ethanol? why not run the
facilities on ethanol?
2) what is the total return of energy produced vs consumed, of ethanol
vs gasoline?
3) what is the total pollution difference when you compare the two BTU
for BTU?

I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol
produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount
of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of
E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about
118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of
gas.

Please no flames, just numbers or a balanced mix of web links to
reputable / high profile studies ie a couple by academia (plus any info
on who funds their research), a couple from the oil industry or their
friends, a couple from green friendly studies.

Thanks

Google e85, tons of comprehensive info out there ."Mad Scientist Jr"
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream
> credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline:
>
> For production/hauling/storage/etc, end to end:
> BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from ethanol
> vs
> BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline
>
> and
>
> Simply burning the stuff:
> Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of E85 burned
> vs
> Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of Gasoline burned
>
> Also what car models (SUVs too) will run on E85?
>
> People talk about ethanol not being worth using because of the fossil
> fuel needed to produce it. They are leaving out a couple of factors
> 1) do you have to burn fossil fuel to produce ethanol? why not run the
> facilities on ethanol?
> 2) what is the total return of energy produced vs consumed, of ethanol
> vs gasoline?
> 3) what is the total pollution difference when you compare the two BTU
> for BTU?
>
> I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol
> produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount
> of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of
> E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about
> 118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of
> gas.
>
> Please no flames, just numbers or a balanced mix of web links to
> reputable / high profile studies ie a couple by academia (plus any info
> on who funds their research), a couple from the oil industry or their
> friends, a couple from green friendly studies.
>
> Thanks
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 6 Sep 2006 17:20:14 -0700, "Mad Scientist Jr"
> wrote:

>Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream
>credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline:
>
>For production/hauling/storage/etc, end to end:
>BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from ethanol
>vs
>BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline


It isn't that simple, there can be more power
from ethanol than from gasoline, only the engine
needs to be timed different and other changes made.

Almost all race cars will be using ethanol within
a year or so, and that would not happen if it didn't
have the power.
The only reason the gasoline is mixed to make
E85 is to keep people from drinking ethanol solutions
without paying the tax.
But it may also improve starting in cold climate.

Flex-fuel vehicles have fuel injection which is
able to sense oxygen levels in the exhaust and change
the timing and furl-air ratio automatically.

>and
>
>Simply burning the stuff:
>Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of E85 burned
>vs
>Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of Gasoline burned

Big difference, gasoline loses, by a big margin.

>Also what car models (SUVs too) will run on E85?

Look inside the gas fill door or look at the eighth
character in the VIN.

>People talk about ethanol not being worth using because of the fossil
>fuel needed to produce it. They are leaving out a couple of factors
>1) do you have to burn fossil fuel to produce ethanol? why not run the
>facilities on ethanol?
>2) what is the total return of energy produced vs consumed, of ethanol
>vs gasoline?
>3) what is the total pollution difference when you compare the two BTU
>for BTU?

Already asked.

>I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol
>produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount
>of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of
>E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about
>118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of
>gas.

Probably because E85 is not ethanol, it is 85 percent,
and the flex-fuel system has to compromise to run the
mixture.

>Please no flames, just numbers or a balanced mix of web links to
>reputable / high profile studies ie a couple by academia (plus any info
>on who funds their research), a couple from the oil industry or their
>friends, a couple from green friendly studies.
>Thanks

Google will give too many links, as usual, too bad
they can use the same search engine ebay uses.

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer > wrote in article
>...
> On 6 Sep 2006 17:20:14 -0700, "Mad Scientist Jr"
> > wrote:
>
> >Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream
> >credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline:
> >
> >For production/hauling/storage/etc, end to end:
> >BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from ethanol
> >vs
> >BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline
>
>
> It isn't that simple, there can be more power
> from ethanol than from gasoline, only the engine
> needs to be timed different and other changes made.


Power in an internal combustion comes from heat, which is measured in
British Thermal Units - or BTU.

On a simple, direct comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains MORE BTU than
ANY gallon of alcohol - methanol or ethanol.....thus the need to run higher
quantities of an alcohol fuel to gain the same amount of work.

Engines can be designed for gasoline or alcohol.

Engines built to take the best advantage of alcohol will have much higher
compression values than those built for gasoline.

A multi-fuel engine is a study in compromise. It cannot be built with the
high compressions that work best for alcohols if one expects to use
gasoline in it, so it REALLY isn't best-suited for alcohol.

"Adjusting the timing....." is a Model A Ford approach to space age
technology.


>
> Almost all race cars will be using ethanol within
> a year or so, and that would not happen if it didn't
> have the power.

"Almost all...." is a neat way to imply what just isn't true.

The most popular racing series in the country - NASCAR Nextel Cup - will
convert to unleaded gasoline next year - NOT alcohol.

NASCAR's two other national series - Busch and Craftsman Truck - will also
convert to unleaded.

There are, approximately, 1,000 weekly, "Saturday Night Short Tracks" in
the USA. Only a very small percentage of them run cars that normally run on
methanol - i.e. Sprints, Midgets, SuperModifieds, etc.


> The only reason the gasoline is mixed to make
> E85 is to keep people from drinking ethanol solutions
> without paying the tax.

Much cheaper solutions are available.


> But it may also improve starting in cold climate.
>

No "may" about it. Alcohol fuels do not like the cold. They don't vaporize
as easily, thus gasoline is needed......and, remember, "cold" to an
internal combustion engine that normally runs above 190°F, is anything
under 125°F.


> Flex-fuel vehicles have fuel injection which is
> able to sense oxygen levels in the exhaust and change
> the timing and furl-air ratio automatically.
>

But there is no way to change copmpression ratio on the fly, so "flex-fuel"
vehicles cannot take full advantage - not by a long shot - of ethanol as
would an engine built specifically to run on alcohol.


> >and
> >
> >Simply burning the stuff:
> >Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of E85 burned
> >vs
> >Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of Gasoline burned
>
> Big difference, gasoline loses, by a big margin.
>

A correctly-tuned car running on gasoline is pretty clean these days. The
term "big margin" is somewhat misleading.

Is 2:1 a "Big Margin"?

Is 10:1 a "Big Margin"?


> >Also what car models (SUVs too) will run on E85?
>
> Look inside the gas fill door or look at the eighth
> character in the VIN.
>

The above-poster does not know what he is talking about.

There is no uniform application of the VIN digits among car makers. Most
professional service manuals have a few pages dedicated to deciphering
different car maker VINs on today's cars.

The eighth digit can mean different things from different manufacturers.
On some cars, it indicates the year of manufacture.



> Google will give too many links, as usual, too bad
> they can use the same search engine ebay uses.
>

INTERPRETATION......

"Google will give you links to information that runs counter to what I am
telling you, and may disprove what I am claiming. DON'T GO THERE! Just
believe what I have to say."



Too much information??????

ROFLMAO!!!!

On Thu, "*" > wrote:

>"Adjusting the timing....." is a Model A Ford approach to space age
>technology.

Modern cars have always had centrifugal advance and
vacuum retardation at higher manifold pressure.

The proper way to time the ignition is to advance it,
drive the car, and advance some more until it pings (a little)
on the most aggressive throttle setting.
And that is how the factory setting is determined
in the first place.

So adjusting the timing is a constant thing, a chore
taken over by the computer on most cars.

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer > wrote in article
>...
> On Thu, "*" > wrote:
>
> >"Adjusting the timing....." is a Model A Ford approach to space age
> >technology.
>
> Modern cars have always had centrifugal advance and
> vacuum retardation at higher manifold pressure.
>
> The proper way to time the ignition is to advance it,
> drive the car, and advance some more until it pings (a little)
> on the most aggressive throttle setting.



Again.....Model "A" Ford technology.

I'd LOVE to see you out there adjusting the timing in a car equipped with a
knock detector........

You're posting in the wrong forum..

Try alt.autos.antiques.

* wrote:

> Joe Fischer > wrote in article
> >...
> > On Thu, "*" > wrote:
> >
> > >"Adjusting the timing....." is a Model A Ford approach to space age
> > >technology.
> >
> > Modern cars have always had centrifugal advance and
> > vacuum retardation at higher manifold pressure.
> >
> > The proper way to time the ignition is to advance it,
> > drive the car, and advance some more until it pings (a little)
> > on the most aggressive throttle setting.
>
> Again.....Model "A" Ford technology.
>
> I'd LOVE to see you out there adjusting the timing in a car equipped with a
> knock detector........
>
> You're posting in the wrong forum..
>
> Try alt.autos.antiques.

Discussion of the applicability of ethanol fuel to 'classic cars' is so far away
from this group's purpose as to be wholly daft it has to be said !

The whole idea of setting timing via a disrtibutor is quite retarded.

Graham

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 06:00:47 -0500, "*" > wrote:

>Joe Fischer > wrote in article
>...
>> On Thu, "*" > wrote:
>> >"Adjusting the timing....." is a Model A Ford approach to space age
>> >technology.
>>
>> Modern cars have always had centrifugal advance and
>> vacuum retardation at higher manifold pressure.
>>
>> The proper way to time the ignition is to advance it,
>> drive the car, and advance some more until it pings (a little)
>> on the most aggressive throttle setting.
>
>Again.....Model "A" Ford technology.
>
>I'd LOVE to see you out there adjusting the timing in a car equipped with a
>knock detector........

Will ethanol knock?

Joe Fischer

In article >,
Joe Fischer > wrote:
>On 6 Sep 2006 17:20:14 -0700, "Mad Scientist Jr"
> wrote:
>
>>Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream
>>credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline:
>>
>>For production/hauling/storage/etc, end to end:
>>BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from ethanol
>>vs
>>BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline
>
>
> It isn't that simple, there can be more power
>from ethanol than from gasoline, only the engine
>needs to be timed different and other changes made.
>

You cannot get more power from burning something which produces less energy.
Unless you somehow repeal the laws of physics.

> Almost all race cars will be using ethanol within
>a year or so, and that would not happen if it didn't
>have the power.

Totally false. NASCAR is most race cars in this country, and they're just
talking about going to unleaded gasoline.

> The only reason the gasoline is mixed to make
>E85 is to keep people from drinking ethanol solutions
>without paying the tax.

Ethanol doesn't start as easily -- lower vapor pressure. Ethanol by itself
would have even less power and mileage and range. Ethanol by itself is a good
solvent. Ethanol burns with a nearly-invisible flame.

> But it may also improve starting in cold climate.
>
> Flex-fuel vehicles have fuel injection which is
>able to sense oxygen levels in the exhaust and change
>the timing and furl-air ratio automatically.
>
>>and
>>
>>Simply burning the stuff:
>>Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of E85 burned
>>vs
>>Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of Gasoline burned
>
> Big difference, gasoline loses, by a big margin.
>
>>Also what car models (SUVs too) will run on E85?
>
> Look inside the gas fill door or look at the eighth
>character in the VIN.
>

Very few is the answer. Although most will run on E5, say, very few on E85.
The CR report mentions which.

>>People talk about ethanol not being worth using because of the fossil
>>fuel needed to produce it. They are leaving out a couple of factors
>>1) do you have to burn fossil fuel to produce ethanol? why not run the
>>facilities on ethanol?
>>2) what is the total return of energy produced vs consumed, of ethanol
>>vs gasoline?
>>3) what is the total pollution difference when you compare the two BTU
>>for BTU?
>
> Already asked.
>
>>I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol
>>produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount
>>of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of
>>E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about
>>118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of
>>gas.
>
> Probably because E85 is not ethanol, it is 85 percent,
>and the flex-fuel system has to compromise to run the
>mixture.
>
>>Please no flames, just numbers or a balanced mix of web links to
>>reputable / high profile studies ie a couple by academia (plus any info
>>on who funds their research), a couple from the oil industry or their
>>friends, a couple from green friendly studies.
>>Thanks
>
> Google will give too many links, as usual, too bad
>they can use the same search engine ebay uses.
>
>Joe Fischer
>

"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Joe Fischer > wrote:
>>On 6 Sep 2006 17:20:14 -0700, "Mad Scientist Jr"
> wrote:
>>
>>>Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream
>>>credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline:
>>>
>>>For production/hauling/storage/etc, end to end:
>>>BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from ethanol
>>>vs
>>>BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline
>>
>>
>> It isn't that simple, there can be more power
>>from ethanol than from gasoline, only the engine
>>needs to be timed different and other changes made.
>>
>
> You cannot get more power from burning something which produces less
> energy.
> Unless you somehow repeal the laws of physics.

First you have to understand the laws of physics. Power is the _rate_ of
delivery/production of energy, and is not subject to conservation like
energy is.

Eric Lucas