Ethanol - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

peragro · #31 02-20-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDon

id be happy if they had a dual pumping set up.. with one nozzle.. example

select the amount of fuel total.. then you put the nozzle in and it pumps 85% of what your purchasing as ethanol and the 15% as gasoline.. the same could be applied to biodiesel.. that is the only way i trust im getting my B20 or E85.. ya dig?

I thought the proportion was the other way around, at least with biodiesel. Thus, B20 would be 80% diesel #2 and 20% some kind of grown oil. I'm pretty sure they do the mix by volume vs. weight; i.e. 8 parts diesel to 2 parts canola (for example) in B20.

Biodiesel300TD · #32 02-20-2006, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

I thought the proportion was the other way around, at least with biodiesel. Thus, B20 would be 80% diesel #2 and 20% some kind of grown oil. I'm pretty sure they do the mix by volume vs. weight; i.e. 8 parts diesel to 2 parts canola (for example) in B20.

You are saying the same thing. E85 is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. B20 is 20% biodiesel and 80% petro diesel. The biodiesel in B20 or any other blend is not straight veggie oil. It is veggie oil that has gone through some simple chemical processes, specifically transesterification.

Technically biodiesel refers to B100, and biodiesel blend is any biodiesel-petro diesel blend (B5, B20, B50, etc...). This is according to the national biodiesel board.

peragro · #33 02-20-2006, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biodiesel300TD

You are saying the same thing. E85 is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. B20 is 20% biodiesel and 80% petro diesel. The biodiesel in B20 or any other blend is not straight veggie oil. It is veggie oil that has gone through some simple chemical processes, specifically transesterification.

Technically biodiesel refers to B100, and biodiesel blend is any biodiesel-petro diesel blend (B5, B20, B50, etc...). This is according to the national biodiesel board.

Why is it that the percentage volume is different for gas vs. diesel? For example, as you stated above E85 is 85% ethanol while B85 would be 85% diesel (dino fuel). Seems kind of a confusing way to name these blends. I would have assumed that E85 is mostly made up of regular gasoline (dino fuel) rather than ethanol. Not really a big deal to me though, as all I own are diesels.

Biodiesel300TD · #34 02-20-2006, 10:34 PM

The number next to the letter denotes the percentage by volume of plant based fuel in the mixture. Thus E85 has 85 parts ethanol and 15 parts gasoline. While B20 has 20 parts biodiesel and 80 parts petroleum diesel.

E85 can only be run in a vehicle with a flex fuel system. Some gas stations sell gasoline with 10% ethanol which can be used in any gasoline engine. This would be called E10. Which is kind of the equivilant of B20 for diesel engines. E10 and B20 can be run in the engines without doing anything and without worrying about cold weather problems.

Clear as mud?

peragro · #35 02-20-2006, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biodiesel300TD

The number next to the letter denotes the percentage by volume of plant based fuel in the mixture. Thus E85 has 85 parts ethanol and 15 parts gasoline. While B20 has 20 parts biodiesel and 80 parts petroleum diesel.

E85 can only be run in a vehicle with a flex fuel system. Some gas stations sell gasoline with 10% ethanol which can be used in any gasoline engine. This would be called E10. Which is kind of the equivilant of B20 for diesel engines. E10 and B20 can be run in the engines without doing anything and without worrying about cold weather problems.

Clear as mud?

I guess I'm getting hung up on where the fuel comes from. Ethanol and biodiesel (b100) both come from crops that are grown, while Diesel and gasoline are pumped from underground. So it makes sense to me to have the letter and then the number designate the percentage of fuel thats piped from underground. Evidently this works for biodiesel but not for ethanol mixtures. So, yep, clear as mud

Thanks for the explanation.

aklim · #36 02-20-2006, 11:28 PM

I don't see where the confusion is. E85 means 85% ethanol. How do I know this? Ethanol begins with an "E" so the number next to it denotes the percentage of that product in the fuel. B20 means 20% biodiesel. Again, Biodiesel begins with an "B" and the number after it denotes the amount of the said product in the fuel.

peragro · #37 02-21-2006, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I don't see where the confusion is. E85 means 85% ethanol. How do I know this? Ethanol begins with an "E" so the number next to it denotes the percentage of that product in the fuel. B20 means 20% biodiesel. Again, Biodiesel begins with an "B" and the number after it denotes the amount of the said product in the fuel.

yep, you're right. Brain fart. It's what happens when you're trying to cook dinner, build a table, balance the checkbook and take a kid to boy scouts all at the same time - while trying to post on a forum.

dannym · #38 02-24-2006, 09:30 AM

I found this article interesting:

Quote:

While it's not clear when oil production will peak, or whether the peak is already past, no one doubts oil production is bound to decline--the only questions are how soon and how fast. Opinions vary (boy, do they), but my feeling is, 40 to 60 years? We should be so lucky.

Background: The concept most associated with looming oil shortages is that of the "Hubbert curve," named after the late geophysicist M. King Hubbert. In a prescient 1956 paper, Hubbert drew on more than a century's worth of data to suggest that fossil fuel production followed a characteristic bell-shaped curve, ramping up sharply in the early going, peaking once practical limits were reached, then declining. If you could accurately estimate fossil fuel reserves, Hubbert argued, you could predict when peak oil production would occur. Compiling such an estimate for U.S. oil reserves, Hubbert projected that U.S. oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. In the event, it peaked in 1971.

Hubbert estimated world oil production would peak in 2000. It didn't, but that hardly invalidates his theory. World oil-reserve estimates are inherently fuzzier than those for the U.S.; the oil shortages of the 1970s and resulting conservation may have briefly postponed the inevitable; and anyway it's only 2006 now. Some think that, if we haven't passed the peak already, we're pretty damn close--and I mean by the end of this decade. Optimists say 2020 or later, but the exact date isn't important. The point is, the extraordinary growth of the industrialized nations since 1900 has been disproportionately fueled by a nonrenewable resource that's now roughly one-half to one-quarter gone and that will cease to be a commercially practical energy source within the lifetime of many already born.

You're thinking: We stand at the abyss. Not necessarily. Fact is, the U.S. has been here before and we got through it OK. During the 19th century the chief U.S. fuel source was wood extracted from the country's vast forests, which were logged off at a rate that takes one's breath away even now. As early as the Civil War conservationists warned of a coming "timber famine." The crisis never materialized. Total U.S. wood consumption peaked in 1907 and declined steadily thereafter, yet the economy hummed on. What replaced wood? Why, fossil fuels, mainly coal. (Coal, incidentally, remains relatively plentiful--Hubbert thought peak production might occur in 2150.)

But Cecil, you object, how is this thought supposed to be comforting? Today we don't have any comparable alternative fuel waiting in the wings. I can only reply: Sure we do. What's more, it was waiting in Hubbert's day. The title of his 1956 paper was "Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels." His purpose in writing had been to point out that, in contrast to oil, the U.S. had sufficient reserves of fissionable fuels, chiefly uranium, to last hundreds and likely thousands of years.

We all know what happened to the nuclear-power industry. Yet Hubbert's argument has lost none of its force: the uranium in little more than three square miles of Chattanooga shale contains as much energy as all the U.S. oil reserves known in his day. What's more, his theory offers promise that the shift from oil to something else needn't be the catastrophe some fear. The curve is, after all, a curve. Oil production won't suddenly stop; it'll drift downward as oil fields dry up. Once we've shifted from a buyer's to a seller's market, of course, the cost of petroleum will spike, making today's gas prices look cheap. That won't be pleasant; one recalls the sour 70s. But it will promote, in a way that no amount of hand-wringing up to this point has done, a search for less costly alternatives. Petroleum sources heretofore considered marginal or uneconomic, such as oil shale and oil sands, will look a lot better. But even they won't last long. The pessimists think we've got a trillion barrels of oil left, the optimists three trillion. At present consumption rates, the world will burn through three trillion barrels in 105 years--70 years if consumption increases 50 percent as predicted. After that we're left with wind, solar, biofuels, and yes, nukes. To be sure, people fear nukes and will resist till the last. But they'll come around when it becomes clear, as it will, that the alternative is to freeze in the dark.

--CECIL ADAMS

DAnny

DieselAddict · #39 02-24-2006, 05:32 PM

I don't if it's been mentioned yet, but ethanol has 35% less energy than gasoline which has about 35% less energy than diesel and (or about 30% less energy than biodiesel). What this means is that if you take a 15 mpg SUV and covert it to ethanol, it will burn cleaner and probably with less overall CO2 emissions (because ethanol is renewable) but it will become a 10 mpg SUV if the same power is to be maintained. Can we really produce enough ethanol to feed this frenzy? On diesel or biodiesel it would get 21-23 mpg. Biodiesel, with its much greater energy content and energy balance (energy spent on production vs. output energy), just makes so much more sense and with a de-NOx catalyst diesel cars will run with fewer overall emissions than any ethanol-powered vehicle and will save a lot of fuel and land for other uses, not to mention ethanol is also corrosive unlike other motor fuels. Yet all I keep hearing is ethanol when it comes to alternative motor fuels.

aklim · #40 02-24-2006, 08:46 PM

Well, according to DannyM's source, it probably won't be in our lifetime, when it happens. Personally, I doubt it will even be in our grandchildren's lifetimes, if that.

raymr · #41 02-25-2006, 12:15 AM

How do diesels and biodiesel fuels behave when it 0 degrees out? Maybe E85 works better in those conditions, which exist in the northern states at times.

DieselAddict · #42 02-25-2006, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Well, according to DannyM's source, it probably won't be in our lifetime, when it happens. Personally, I doubt it will even be in our grandchildren's lifetimes, if that.

When what happens? Ethanol is already out there and so is biodiesel. If you mean 100% usage of alternative fuels and no oil-based fuels, it won't happen overnight. It will be a very gradual process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

How do diesels and biodiesel fuels behave when it 0 degrees out? Maybe E85 works better in those conditions, which exist in the northern states at times.

#2 diesel would gel at that temperature, but with a proper additive it would be fine. Biodiesel does gel around the freezing mark and additives are being developed (or maybe they're already available, I don't know) to combat that. For now, enough diesel is blended with biodiesel to prevent gelling. But yeah, that's probably the only advantage ethanol has over biodiesel, that it doesn't gel as easily.

peragro · #43 02-25-2006, 10:19 PM

Found the stuff on biodiesel back from an October thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Ok, just for my own curiosity I decided to figure out if we could go to all rapeseed supplied diesel oil. So I made a few assumptions and gathered some data from the net. If my figures are off then please let me know.

1 acre of rapeseed = 115 gallons fuel oil
1 km2 = ~250 acres = 28750 gallons fuel oil
arable land in the USA 19.13% of 9,161,923 km2 or 1,752,675 km2
0.22% of total land is said to be permanent crops
so, 201,562 km2 in permanent crops
(info comes from )

so, if we use all land attributed to permanent crops we get 5,794,907,500 gallons fuel oil.
If we use all arable land we get 50,389,406,250 gallons of fuel oil.

According to http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petro...istillate.html
we used 63,854,776,000 total gallons of fuel oil in 2003. This was for all types of usage. If we limit the types of usage to commercial and automobiles we used roughly 11,000,000,000.

So, if we farm all current farmland with rapeseed we'll get roughly half of what we need to run commercial vehicles (not highways trucks) and automobiles.
If we farm all arable land we still come up short, by about 10 billion gallons, for providing fuel for all methods of transport and energy production.

Of course, this isn't to say that some supplemental would be a good idea. Especially for the less efficient diesel engines like boats and trains.

Like I said at first; Please correct my numbers if they're wrong. But do provide a link to the sources you use. I would prefer primary sources like DoE and the like and not places like Bushkilledtheenvironment.com

aklim · #44 02-26-2006, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

When what happens? Ethanol is already out there and so is biodiesel. If you mean 100% usage of alternative fuels and no oil-based fuels, it won't happen overnight. It will be a very gradual process.

When we run out of oil or to be more specific, when we run out of easily advailable oil, relatively speaking. There have been too many predictions of oil running out based on TODAY's technology and TODAY's cost. Like I have said before, oil wells that were considered dry in the 70s are being pumped like mad for oil today.

Will we have enough arable land for the amount of ethanol we need without impacting something else? Doubtful. Will hav to be a really gradual process. Biodiesel? Maybe. Not everyone wants to run a diesel. There are some drawbacks to diesel seeing as how free lunches are no longer advailable.

peragro · #45 02-26-2006, 01:59 AM

Seems to me that replacing our usage of fossil fuels with "home-grown" alternatives is a nice pipe-dream. There is room for supplementing current usage, but not total replacement - unless not eating is an option, as all arable land will be used to create fuel for less than all of the vehicles in use today if we go the total replacement route.

I'm also not too worried about oil dissapearing tomorrow. Although this is not to say that we don't need to pursue some althernate energy source today. We do - H fuel cell, better electronic efficiency motors, etc.... This is best for long term.

For short term; supplement with ethanol/biodiesel, whatever flavour you enjoy. Open ANWR and coastal areas on West Coast to new drilling. Increase nuclear power usage and build more nuke power plants. Be nice to our pals the russkies and continue to buy from middle east, Venezuela and Nigeria as long as its economical. BTW, oil isn't just for making cars go, it's also key to technological goodies like plastics.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode