the USA FINALLY catches up to the world!!! Increasing Ethanol Production

[teknotexan]

Flex power is on the way!!

http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/livegreengoyellow/index.html?directEntry=stalk

Been in use for 5 years in Brasil, and much longer in Japan and Europe!
A renewable and cleaner burning fuel that still utilized the simplictiy of the internal combustion engine. Go bye Hybrids! You batteries will someday need replacing, which costs $$$$. Hello FlexPower! And your local mech won't have to be an electrician to work on your car either!!

[funkdaddysmack]

Ford has already jumped the bandwagon last year, I know a few of their new cars are FFV (or whatever) friendly.

[AtmaEdge]

I wonder if older vehicles will be able to benefit from this by retrofit? Maybe a simple electronic module to readjust the fuel maps? it would be faster and simpler than trying to transform the entire economy by having a companies force you to buy their cars...

[teknotexan]

I wonder if older vehicles will be able to benefit from this by retrofit? Maybe a simple electronic module to readjust the fuel maps? it would be faster and simpler than trying to transform the entire economy by having a companies force you to buy their cars...

This I have pondered many times as well! The blocks are the same, even the compression raitos are similar. The exhaust manifold, piping, and fuel tanks are the same. The main difference is in the intake manifold, injectors (maybe), fuel sending unit, ECU, and air/fuel mixture sensors. There is additional hardware in the fuel system, but mechanically, the engine's internals are relatively the same as petrol based engines. I know someone will invent a system of retrofitting petrol engines to alcohol engines in the future. I foresee the day when high performance cars are completly alcohol based, with an electric motor to increase RPM performance throughout the powerband.

[goldstar]

I wonder if older vehicles will be able to benefit from this by retrofit? Maybe a simple electronic module to readjust the fuel maps? it would be faster and simpler than trying to transform the entire economy by having a companies force you to buy their cars...

No, it won't be that simple. Although flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) require only one major additional part-a fuel sensor that detects the ethanol/gasoline ratio-a number of other parts must be modified since alcohol is corrosive. This includes the fuel tank, fuel lines, fuel injectors, computer system and dashboard gauges. Among the mods required are a larger capacity, stainless steel fuel tank and teflon lined fuel hoses.

The fuel sensor is required since FFVs can run on a fuel whose composition varies from 100% gasoline to 15% gasoline/85% ethanol. The larger fuel tank is necessary because of the lower BTU content of ethanol as compared with gasoline. As a consequence, the stoichiometric A/F ratio will vary according to the percentage of ethanol in the mix. For example, stoich for 100% gasoline is ~ 14.7 to 1 while stoich for 100% ethanol is ~ 9 to 1. The PCM must be able to compensate for this.

The addition of 15% gasoline to E85 serves the purpose of aiding cold-starting that can otherwise be a problem with 100% ethanol-fueled vehicles. Also, it makes the flame of burning ethanol more easily seen, a safety factor since an ethanol flame can be barely visible. Finally, it denatures the alcohol and helps prevent its theft, for the purpose of making illegal alcoholic beverages, from both inside the distribution chain and from vehicles' fuel tanks.

Interestingly, while regular unleaded gasoline has an octane rating of 87, E85 has an octane rating ranging from 100-105. As a result, Ford claims their FFVs produce a 5% HP gain when using E85.

Happy Motoring!

[funkdaddysmack]

No, it won't be that simple. Although flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) require only one major additional part-a fuel sensor that detects the ethanol/gasoline ratio-a number of other parts must be modified since alcohol is corrosive. This includes the fuel tank, fuel lines, fuel injectors, computer system and dashboard gauges. Among the mods required are a larger capacity, stainless steel fuel tank and teflon lined fuel hoses.

The fuel sensor is required since FFVs can run on a fuel whose composition varies from 100% gasoline to 15% gasoline/85% ethanol. The larger fuel tank is necessary because of the lower BTU content of ethanol as compared with gasoline. As a consequence, the stoichiometric A/F ratio will vary according to the percentage of ethanol in the mix. The PCM must be able to compensate for this.

The addition of 15% gasoline to E85 serves the purpose of aiding cold-starting that can otherwise be a problem with 100% ethanol-fueled vehicles. Also, it makes the flame of burning ethanol more easily seen, a safety factor since an ethanol flame can be barely visible. Finally, it denatures the alcohol and helps prevent its theft, for the purpose of making illegal alcoholic beverages, from both inside the distribution chain and from vehicles' fuel tanks.

Interestingly, while regular unleaded gasoline has an octane rating of 87, E85 has an octane rating ranging from 100-105. As a result, Ford claims their FFVs produce a 5% HP gain when using E85.

Happy Motoring!

Great post. I did not know about the different octane levels, I had thought I heard somewhere that it's a less-efficient fuel from a combustion standpoint so fuel efficiency and power was slightly down. It must have just been speculation.

[StealthStyle]

but..... it actually takes more energy to make ethanol from corn than what you get from it.

ie you get back 85% of the energy you used to make it. (well i made the number up, but its not too far off).

[teknotexan]

No, it won't be that simple... one major additional part-a fuel sensor that detects the ethanol/gasoline ratio-a number of other parts must be modified since alcohol is corrosive. This includes the fuel tank, fuel lines, fuel injectors, computer system and dashboard gauges...

The addition of 15% gasoline to E85 serves the purpose of aiding cold-starting that can otherwise be a problem with 100% ethanol-fueled vehicles. Also, it makes the flame of burning ethanol more easily seen, a safety factor since an ethanol flame can be barely visible. Finally, it denatures the alcohol and helps prevent its theft, for the purpose of making illegal alcoholic beverages, from both inside the distribution chain and from vehicles' fuel tanks.

Interestingly, while regular unleaded gasoline has an octane rating of 87, E85 has an octane rating ranging from 100-105. As a result, Ford claims their FFVs produce a 5% HP gain when using E85.

Just what I wrote! A new fuel system is needed, in addition to a new intake system, and maybe a slight bump in compression ratio. But, you do not need new gauges! The flex power cars in Brasil all have the exact same gauges and dashboards as the petrol only cars. It would be cost prohibitive to mold two dashes and engineer two gauge sets for the same car. And I must say, the alcool is actually weaker in performance than pertrol when used as a fuel to power a car. I filled up with only alcool and definately felt the difference. But, the alcool did last longer, much longer. Which makes me believe that less alcool produces a slight loss in power, but since it is higher in octane, as you say it is, then less would be needed to produce relatively the same results. Petrol provides more power but is used up more quickly. So, how why would this be the case? Will future engineering provide a more stable and stonger egine that can unleash the full potential of alcool?

[D323]

Moved to general Automotive as its info pertains to automobiles in general.

[goldstar]

but..... it actually takes more energy to make ethanol from corn than what you get from it.
ie you get back 85% of the energy you used to make it. (well i made the number up, but its not too far off).

This may have been the case at one time but the latest figures dispute this, principally due to advances and technological development in both the corn farming and the ethanol producing industry.

Two interesting articles I've found bear on this topic. The first, published by the Institute for Local-Self Reliance is an article titled, How Much Energy Does it Take to Make a Gallon of Ethanol, and can be found at: http://greatchange.org/bb-alcohol2.html
This article presents both a detailed technical and economic analysis of the problem based on two factors: how much energy is used to grow the corn and how much is used to process the corn into ethanol. Also part of the equation is the fact that the conversion process, in addition to producing ethanol, also yields a number of co-products such as gluten feed, gluten meal and CO2 which have both an energy and an economic value. This report, based on actual energy consumption data from farmers and ethanol plant operators concludes that the production of ethanol from corn is a positive net energy generator. More energy is contained in the ethanol and the other co-products of corn processing than is used to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol and its co-products. According to the article, if corn farmers use state-of-the-art, energy efficient farming techniques and ethanol plants integrate cutting edge production processes, then the amount of energy contained in a gallon of ethanol and the other co-products is more than twice the energy used to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol.

The second article is published by the National Corn Growers Association and authored by Dr. Michael Graboski of the Colorado School of Mines. It can be accessed at:

http://ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2001/ethanol/08_22_01b.htm

Citing an earlier study by David Pimentel that it takes 1.7 times the energy to produce a gallon of ethanol compared to its energy content, the article asserts this figure is totally inaccurate. The article points out that agricultural efficiency has improved dramatically in recent times. Since 1980, while planted corn acreage has been a nearly constant 73 million acres, the corn yield has increased from 91 bushels per acre to 137 bushels per acre in 2000. In addition, during the same time period, the energy inputs per bushel have declined sharply. Pimentel used a 1979 estimate for the energy used to manufacture ethanol of 70,000 BTU/gal. In 2000, a state of the art dry mill requires about 38,000 BTU thermal energy and 1kw-h (3413 BTU) electrical energy to manufacture one gallon of ethanol. These United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) figures were first established in 1995 and have since been updated.

The Pimentel analysis is based upon older data not representative of US average farming practice and US industrial efficiency. Pimental also ignores the fact that ethanol manufacture also produces food (the previously mentioned corn oil and gluten).

The latest USDA analysis clearly shows, contrary to the Pimentel paper, that both US farming and ethanol manufacture are very efficient, and that the energy content of ethanol delivered to the consumer is significantly larger than the total fossil fuel energy inputs required to produce it. USDA estimates that ethanol facilities produce at least 1.23 units of energy for every 1 unit of fossil fuel energy input required for corn farming, corn transport, and production, distribution and transport of the finished ethanol.

Over time, the efficiencies should even become greater.

Happy Motoring!

[cablemirc]

not only will the efficiencies become greater over time, the "fossil fuel energy" input levels will decrease as methanol fuels gain acceptance and industry use as replacements for the fossil fuels expended at the current time... for example, the combine that is currently used to harvest the fields could itself be run from ethanol, further improving the ratios. the current research of energy input to energy output is accurate for the current time only, and not necessarily indicitive of future trends as a result of the technology. when exploring the benifit of a newer technology, one must look beyond the short term input to output energy ratios, and look to the future and it's eventual potential.

by current analytical standards, the development of the wright flyer was useless other than a recreational machine. all that work, to fly 12 seconds and 120 feet?

the future of ethanol is bright indeed.

[goldstar]

The Future of Ethanol Production

not only will the efficiencies become greater over time, the "fossil fuel energy" input levels will decrease as methanol fuels gain acceptance and industry use as replacements for the fossil fuels expended at the current time... for example, the combine that is currently used to harvest the fields could itself be run from ethanol, further improving the ratios. the current research of energy input to energy output is accurate for the current time only, and not necessarily indicitive of future trends as a result of the technology. when exploring the benifit of a newer technology, one must look beyond the short term input to output energy ratios, and look to the future and it's eventual potential.

the future of ethanol is bright indeed.

Exactly!
When Pesident Bush gave his recent State of the Union address, in referring to government-funded alternate fuels research, he mentioned the possibility of deriving ethanol from wood and grass. Not being familiar with these processes, I did some research. It's generally held in the industry that if annual ethanol sales were to expand beyond 2 billion gallons (as would be the case if the goal were to power all US and Canadian autos with E85 fuel), a feedstock other than the starch available in corn, would be required. It would be impossible to plant enough corn to meet these new, expanded needs. This is why cellulosic biomass feedstocks are now seen as the basis for new, emerging ethanol technologies.

Cellulosic (cotaining cellulose as their base) feedstocks refer to a number of substances:
agricultural crop residues such as wheat and rice straw, and corn stover (the name given to the stalks, leaves and cobs of the corn plant)

forestry wood wastes including cleared underbrush

mill residues including sawdust

paper manufacturing wastes and waste paper

urban wood wastes and municipal solid waste

the harvesting of fast-growing tree plantations such as those containing certain species of poplar

Current research in this area, although not yet commercially viable in most circumstances, suggests a very large energy gain is possible from converting cellulosic crops into ethanol as compared with current starch-based ethanol technologies. As one example, fast-growing tree crops use relatively little fertilizer and require less energy in harvesting than annual row crops such as corn. Additionally, a major co-product of celulosic crops is lignin, which currently is used only for fuel but potentially has a high chemical value. If it were processed for chemical markets, the net energy gain would be even greater.

Washington state is looking into the possibility of using wheat straw (eastern Wahington is a large wheat producer) as a feedstock for locally based ethanol plants. California, with extensive rice crops, is considering using rice straw as an ethanol feedstock. Currently, after harvesting the rice, the straw is burned and plowed under for fertilizer. New environmental prohibitions against burning make this possibility both more attractive and economic.

Natural Resources Canada points to some societal, economic and environmental benefits from the use of ethanol derived from both corn and wheat:

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/fuels/ethanol/benefits.cfm?attr=8

The article points out that increased ethanol production would provide new markets for both Canadian farmers and forest companies. A number of Canadian farmers, mostly in Saskatchewan, have formed cooperatives to grow wheat specifically intended as feedstock for ethanol production. Additionally, as processes are further developed to manufacture ethanol from forest feedstock such as wood waste, new sources of revenue will be created for Canada's forest industry.

Some interesting environmental data is also provided. Ethanol reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because the grain or other biomass used to make the ethanol absorbs CO2 as it grows. Although the conversion of the biomass to ethanol and the burning of the ethanol produces emissions, the net effect is a large reduction in GHG emissions compared with fossil fuels such as gasoline. The reduction depends on the feedstock and the fuel used to make ethanol. In Canada, plants that produce ethanol from corn and wheat are fueled by natural gas. The GHG emissions from burning natural gas are offset by the carbon absorbed during plant growth. In the US, many ethanol plants burn coal or other fossil fuels that reduces the overall benefit of using ethanol as compared with gasoline.

Finally, according to the Canadian data, E10 from corn produces about 3 to 4% fewer GHG emissions than gasoline and costs the same as gasoline with an EQUIVALENT octane rating. E10 made from wood or other agricultural cellulosic materials would produce 6 to 8% fewer GHG emissions compared with gasoline and E85 from cellulose would produce 75% fewer GHG emissions.

Returning now to the US, one final advantage of converting ethanol production from starch-based to cellulose-based feedstocks is that it would permit the dispersal of ethanol plants throughout the entire country, simplifying distribution and creating jobs in the industry on a national rather than a regional basis. Currently, all or most of the large-scale ethanol plants are located in the midwest where most of the corn crop is located. Cellulosic biomass feedstocks are located everywhere in our country, however, meaning that, eventually, ethanol plants in the northeast could compete effectively with plants in every other part of our country.

And as cablemirc points out, technological efficiencies consistently increase over time.

Happy Motoring!

[StealthStyle]

well i'm all for 110 octane corn, the more the better!