E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?

On Fri, 08 Sep > wrote:

>.............
>> You can only get so much energy from combusting a tank of fuel. OK,
>> happier?
>
>That's fine and dandy...except that, as I said, it is irrelevant in response
>to a post that was talking about power...and all it does is serve to deepen
>the confusion that already exists over power and energy.
>Eric Lucas

Selling buy the gallon/liter is a convenient way
to market liquid fuels, but it confuses any comparison
of quantity of mass and the energy contained.

Gasoline may still win over ethanol either way,
but there will be some resolution of the conflicting
statements of "ethanol has more power" and "gasoline
gives better mileage.

I consider the Indy 500 switch to ethanol as
a logical advancement, that is what that particular
is noted for, although all racing and performance
makes advances in future common products and
equipment.

If ethanol has more power (per pound,
or whatever is important about getting the fuel
and oxygen into the cylinder, and has a higher
octane rating, and burns cleaner, then it is
the right fuel for now.

But regardless if ethanol, gasoline, or
diesel is used, for automobiles and trucks and
even farm tractors, it should be a hybrid.
I would prefer all hybrids be made to
use the same voltage as the grid voltage where
they are used, it would be great to have the
backup of a generator without buying one
just to have it sit around 51 weeks a year.

There is lots of opportunity in doing
the things needed to be innovative and have
products and vehicles that are multi-purpose
and standardized.

The difference in the size of the fuel tank
would not be much different except for hydrogen,
and I am to the point where I don't want to use
petroleum at all except as a lubricant.

With the recent price of gasoline I had
to buy a bigger jar of vaseline, is that a petroleum
product too?

Joe Fischer

"Joe Fischer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 08 Sep > wrote:
>
>>.............
>>> You can only get so much energy from combusting a tank of fuel. OK,
>>> happier?
>>
>>That's fine and dandy...except that, as I said, it is irrelevant in
>>response
>>to a post that was talking about power...and all it does is serve to
>>deepen
>>the confusion that already exists over power and energy.
>>Eric Lucas
>
> Selling buy the gallon/liter is a convenient way
> to market liquid fuels, but it confuses any comparison
> of quantity of mass and the energy contained.
>
> Gasoline may still win over ethanol either way,
> but there will be some resolution of the conflicting
> statements of "ethanol has more power" and "gasoline
> gives better mileage.

They're not conflicting statements. "Mileage" is a measure of total energy
content (and the efficiency of the engine), "power" is a measure of how rate
at which that energy can be converted into mechanical work (and the ability
of the engine/vehicle to take advantage of that rate of conversion).
Gasoline has more energy per unit (depending on what unit you choose to
use--volume, mass, molecule, bond, etc.), whereas the kinetics of ethanol's
reactions and the design of internal combustion engines are such that
ethanol can deliver the energy that it has more rapidly.

In any case, neither statement relates to an intrinsic property of the fuel.
Instead of "ethanol has more power", it would be more precise to say "the
engines currently in use are capable of delivering more power when using
ethanol", since it's more a function of the engine design than anything.
Likewise, instead of "gasoline gives better mileage", it would be more
precise to say "the engines currently in use get better fuel mileage when
using gasoline", as that is also strongly dependent on engine design. At
least in the latter case, there is a kernel of an intrinsic truth, in that
the heat of combustion of gasoline (a measure of the maximum total amount of
energy it can deliver in a given engine/vehicle) is greater than the heat of
combustion of ethanol, on either a volume or mass basis. Still, since ICEs
and vehicles are so poorly efficient (I think I recall something lik e30 %
for an ICE, and I'm not sure what the efficiency of the power train or the
vehicle as a whole is), the mileage depends much more strongly on the design
of the engine/vehicle than on the intrinsic energy content of the fuel.
This is my argument with Archie's ridiculous experiment, that CR carried out
without reporting/realizing that it is a meaningless experiment, except to
compare *current* vehicles with different fuels. Unfortunately, people in
this discussion have made the mistake of assuming that the result will hold
true if and when vehicles are designed and optimized specifically for
ethanol.


> If ethanol has more power (per pound,
> or whatever is important about getting the fuel
> and oxygen into the cylinder, and has a higher
> octane rating, and burns cleaner, then it is
> the right fuel for now.

No, because consumers buy fuel almost entirely on the basis of how far they
can go for a given amount of money, and in this regard, clearly ethanol is
inferior to gasoline or diesel.


> But regardless if ethanol, gasoline, or
> diesel is used, for automobiles and trucks and
> even farm tractors, it should be a hybrid.

That improves efficiency some, but my intuition is that hybrids won't be
popular for very long. Having two engines essentially doubles the number of
mechanical systems that can break down as a vehicle ages. While they look
OK out of the showroom, wait until the first ones made begin to age to the
point where mechanical systems begin to need maintenance--for example,
battery replacement. Maintenance costs will then convince people that the
relatively minimal increase in fuel mileage will not be worth the increased
maintenance costs. As such, they will lost value more rapidly than similar
ICE-only vehicles.


> With the recent price of gasoline I had
> to buy a bigger jar of vaseline, is that a petroleum
> product too?

:^) Yup. They get ya coming or going.

Eric Lucas

"Sponsored by OILY INC. Exxon-Koch" >
wrote in message . 17.102...
> > wrote in
> om:
>
> Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV
>
> 26,282 kilograms per year per acre of scrubland in
> sunny southwest USA sunbelt states.
>
> http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
>
> Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day.
> 8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre.
>
> How many gallons of your biofuels **** per acre per year?

It isn't "MY" biofuels ****. I could give a **** less one way or the other
as long
as we look to the future and make plans to have some sort of replenishable
energy.

If we keep criticising without a solution, we or our progeny could be in
dire straits.

Hydrogen is a wonderful fuel, especially if you make it without the need for
fossil
fuels. Fossil fuels may get hard to come by.

At the ONS ( Offshore North Sea) conference a couple of weeks ago, hydrogen
fuel
cars and technology were touted by Statoil and others who are working on the
project. There is now at least one hydrogen fueling station in Norway,
IIRC, and
plans to have a 'Hydrogen Highway' between Stavanger and Oslo.

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
>
> 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

Interesting that the mad scientist hasn't posted any response. A troll
or maybe a sock puppet?

"Solar Flare" > wrote in message
.. .
> How many batteries does it take to store that PV power for a month?
>

Why bother with someone who claims power production in "MEGAWATTS per year"
??

daestrom

> wrote in
. com:

>
> "Sponsored by OILY INC. Exxon-Koch"
> > wrote in message
> . 17.102...
>> > wrote in
>> om:
>>
>> Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV
>>
>> 26,282 kilograms per year per acre of scrubland in
>> sunny southwest USA sunbelt states.
>>
>> http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
>>
>> Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day.
>> 8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre.
>>
>> How many gallons of your biofuels **** per acre per year?
>
> It isn't "MY" biofuels ****. I could give a **** less one way or the
> other as long
> as we look to the future and make plans to have some sort of
> replenishable energy.
>
> If we keep criticising without a solution, we or our progeny could be in
> dire straits.
>
> Hydrogen is a wonderful fuel, especially if you make it without the need
> for fossil
> fuels. Fossil fuels may get hard to come by.
>
> At the ONS ( Offshore North Sea) conference a couple of weeks ago,
> hydrogen fuel
> cars and technology were touted by Statoil and others who are working on
> the project. There is now at least one hydrogen fueling station in
> Norway, IIRC, and
> plans to have a 'Hydrogen Highway' between Stavanger and Oslo.

California now has 24 operational H2 fueling stations and a governator who
is pushing it. There's one bus line driving H2 buses, and numerous
government cars and light trucks are running H2.

"daestrom" > wrote in
:

>
> "Solar Flare" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> How many batteries does it take to store that PV power for a month?
>>
>
> Why bother with someone who claims power production in "MEGAWATTS per
> year" ??
>
> daestrom
>
>

That got Corrected. Typo.

Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV

26,282 kilograms per year per acre of scrubland in
sunny southwest USA sunbelt states.

http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html

Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day.
8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre.

How many gallons of your biofuels **** per acre per year?


http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/towers_prior_ar...prior_art.html
http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:13:14 GMT, "Sponsored by OILY INC. Exxon-Koch"

>http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
>
>Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day.
>8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre.

Is that the corrected typo?

Or the uncorrected typo?

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:13:14 GMT, "Sponsored by OILY INC. Exxon-Koch"
>
>>http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
>>
>>Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day.
>>8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre.
>
> Is that the corrected typo?
>
> Or the uncorrected typo?
>
> Joe Fischer
>

That's some new typo and wasn't even in the original. Did you change it
for laughs?

Is the 300 gallons per acre per year net biofuels **** a typo? Or is the
real number something more like 30,000 gallons to make it competitive to
26,282 GGE (gallons of gasoline equivilent) kilograms of Hydrogen per acre
per year at 72 gallons per day electrolyzed at 12 gallons per hour over 6
sunny hours peak from 13% efficient PV in the USA sunny southwest.

Tell me you are NOT talking 300 gallons per acre per year, PLEASE! Please
tell me that is a typo and the 300 messages in the thread are NOT about
300 gallons per YEAR of biofuels per acre. PLease tell you screwed up in
typing.




Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV

26,282 kilograms per year per acre of scrubland in
sunny southwest USA sunbelt states.

http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html

Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day.
8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre.

How many gallons of your biofuels **** per acre per year?


http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/towers_prior_ar...prior_art.html
http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:48:54 GMT, "Sponsored by OILY INC. Exxon-Koch"
>Joe Fischer > wrote in
:
>> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:13:14 GMT, "Sponsored by OILY INC. Exxon-Koch"
>>>http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
>>>
>>>Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day.
>>>8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre.
>>
>> Is that the corrected typo?
>>
>> Or the uncorrected typo?
>
>That's some new typo and wasn't even in the original. Did you change it
>for laughs?

I didn't change anything, can you post the corrected typo?

Joe Fischer