Bought Ethanol Free

[blaquetung]

It is important to check info Posted on this site so members don't get misinformation.  Most of this has been covered on other threads. :)

 

Paul

 

Hi Paul,

 

Thanks for paying attention and replying to my thread.

 

Considering your second comment, I wasn't indicating that engine knocking was occurring.  Even optimized combustion yields a variety of products.  And since the fuels are changing, the percentage combustion and products will change (for example increased acetaldehyde from ethanol).  I was assuming that processes other than ECM timing are engineered into the car to help complete combustion (other than the catalytic converter), and that these may have been optimized for a particular fuel.

 

In reply to your third comment, I was simply comparing fuels at the point of existence, not their "Well-to-Wheels" analysis.  But you are right, how the ethanol is formed, and the impurities within, are important.

 

Argonne National Laboratory actually has created an amazing program that I was previously unaware of and that would answer darn near every question I can even pose, called GREET 2015.  It can be found at https://greet.es.anl.gov/greet/ You can actually look at the "Well-to-Wheels" analysis of hundreds of different car types and the fuels they use and the amount of Energy and Pollutants (Volatile Organics, carbon monoxide, NOx radicals, PM10, PM2.5, etc.).  So, for example, you can directly compare an ICE using E10 vs. an HEV using E10 (Lithium Ion or Nickel Metal Hydride).  And, you can even single effects of components such as body, tires, and fluids!

 

Also, if you go to slide 25 in the following presentation, ( http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/580.pdf) it seems that although Hill, et. al. made some good points, ethanol does show a positive net energy balance in most research which I think supports ethanol fuel (especially cellulosic ethanol).  Hill's previous paper is listed in the graph.

 

Brendan

Edited October 30, 2015 by blaquetung

[fbov]

Actually, demand for oil is not down. The reason oil is cheap is because the OPEC nations are keeping the price down, they are trying to drive the oil shale producers, both here and and in Russia, out of business (and succeeding).

+1

Much more of a flood-the-market strategy than anything involving rational economics. I'm wondering if the Saudis have a plan, see an opportunity to continue to play on the global stage, like they have for the last 40 year. I hadn't thought about Russia, but my son was employed in the petrochemical industry two years ago, when gas was $4/gal. He's been unemployed for 10 months. Cheap gas is a financial burden on some.  

 

But reserves stay reserves, unless you're an Arab state, who retain their reserves, even as they pump them out.

 

Brendan,

Your GREET link has a problematic suffix, not shown on the screen. Let's see if mine is similarly troubled.

https://greet.es.anl.gov/

 

This is a really neat site; the model's public domain. A buddy works in the energy industry and did a presentation on this and the Hubbert theory and Peak Oil, and his talk is what I was thinking about when I wrote that post. The idea is we would need new fuels to bridge the gap between fossil and (presumably) fusion reactions, given fission seems to have fizzled. What Hubbert missed in 1956 was new extraction technology, such as fracking, that are now predicted to yield more of a production plateau than a peak.

 

My other take-away was that it's less carbon impact to drive newer, more efficient cars. I was under the impression that the carbon penalty at the point of new car delivery was so high, the planet was better off if I drove an older, less efficient car, like the many Volvos I ran past 200K miles.

 

I was wrong by a factor of 10. GREET is what tells you that.

 

HAve fun,

Frank

[fbov]

And now we return you to our regularly scheduled programming...

 

I've been running 91E0 since June, so I compared with last year, June-October, when I was using BJ's 87E10.

 

 

I see <0.5 MGP improvement when looking at the bulk data. (same route, temperatures limited to 45F+). This is in stark contrast to the 4 MPG improvement seen when I first switched over... that also went away as quickly as it had come. Curious vehicles, these!

 

I submit this as I'm about to go in for 15B04, and more significantly, 15E03, POWERTRAIN CONTROL MODULE REPROGRAMMING. That could change things, but snow tire season is upon us shortly, and with the cold, far less chance to see the effect of octane or ethanol anyway. I'll be back testing something in the Spring... no, Summer. June is more like Summer. 

 

HAve fun,

Frank

[ptjones]

Hi Paul,

 

Thanks for paying attention and replying to my thread.

 

Considering your second comment, I wasn't indicating that engine knocking was occurring. 

 

"I wasn't saying that you were, ECM will continuously test conditions, (temps , Baro Pressure, load and gas) by advancing the timing until knocking is detected and then back off. More advanced the timing is the more time for complete combustion, maximum efficiency. ECM will adjust timing anytime knock is detected."

 

 Even optimized combustion yields a variety of products.  And since the fuels are changing, the percentage combustion and products will change (for example increased acetaldehyde from ethanol).  I was assuming that processes other than ECM timing are engineered into the car to help complete combustion (other than the catalytic converter), and that these may have been optimized for a particular fuel. If they were it would be for Ethanol Free Gas, because that is what EPA uses.

 

In reply to your third comment, I was simply comparing fuels at the point of existence, not their "Well-to-Wheels" analysis.  But you are right, how the ethanol is formed, and the impurities within, are important.

 

Argonne National Laboratory actually has created an amazing program that I was previously unaware of and that would answer darn near every question I can even pose, called GREET 2015.  It can be found at https://greet.es.anl.gov/greet/ You can actually look at the "Well-to-Wheels" analysis of hundreds of different car types and the fuels they use and the amount of Energy and Pollutants (Volatile Organics, carbon monoxide, NOx radicals, PM10, PM2.5, etc.).  So, for example, you can directly compare an ICE using E10 vs. an HEV using E10 (Lithium Ion or Nickel Metal Hydride).  And, you can even single effects of components such as body, tires, and fluids!

 

Also, if you go to slide 25 in the following presentation, ( http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/580.pdf) it seems that although Hill, et. al. made some good points, ethanol does show a positive net energy balance in most research which I think supports ethanol fuel (especially cellulosic ethanol).  Hill's previous paper is listed in the graph.

 

Brendan

Also traveling around the country I have noticed I get better FE in south east and south west and not as good middle of the country. Using Corn for Ethanol is a waist of a good Food Source, barely energy effective, Cellulose makes a lot more sense.   IMO :)

 

Paul

Edited October 30, 2015 by ptjones