What's wrong with e85 powered vehicles?

[Sovereignman]

So I have seen on several forums and comments on articles people bashing e85 and I don't understand why.

Please educate me. I currently drive a turbo powered vehicle. E85 let's me turn the boost up without worrying about knock/detonation.

E85 is cheaper than race fuel, it's cheaper than that crap pump gas 91 octane.

I have to use 30% more but the performance gains are worth it. The vp race fuel is something like seven or eight dollars a gallon.

Is corn not man made? So if we can make corn whenever we want, why not switch our dependency from a finite resource to an infinite resource?

There's also the politics of it. If we create our own fuel, we don't need to buy it from other countries.

[thokling]

The following might give you some clues to point you in the right direction, Sovereignman:

Quote:https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e...#Emissions

When environmentalists concern themselves with emissions from combustion engines there are four primary types of pollutants scientists study. These emissions are hydrocarbons (HC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2 ). Because E85 is predominantly ethanol the tailpipe emissions are much different than that of regular gasoline. There have been numerous studies done to compare and contrast the different emissions and the effects these emissions have on the environment but the tests have been inconclusive. The tests have shown very little consistency if any at all because there are too many variables involved. The make and model of the vehicle, the way in which the ethanol was produced and the vehicles overall fuel efficiency all play a large role in the overall outcome of each study.[16] To address the problem of inaccuracy engineers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory combined data from all applicable emissions studies and compiled them into one data set. This compiled set of data showed that on average all emissions that are federally regulated showed a decrease or no statistically relevant difference between E85 and gasoline.[17]

[16] Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol. 59(Issue 8)
[17] Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 45( Issue 39)

So if the resulting emissions of 385 are similar to gasoline, and you're using 30% more, your vehicle technically gets less performance and belches out more pollutants. If money is the key for you, though, and you're spending less to put more food on the table, you take what you can get. I say screw the environmentalists, and take care of number one (you) first until the treehuggers rally the industry into focusing on less-polluting, higher performance fuels.

Many environmentalists do more bitching than real good, anyway. No wonder Moore's pissed off with Greenpeace.

[Sovereignman]

Well they did say it showed a decrease or no relevant difference so I'll take the glass is half full perspective.

And yes even though I need to use 30% more I do get better performance from it in terms of knock resistance.

I still think the idea of being able to produce a fuel until the end of times is a much better option than continuing to use a product that is surrounded by a bunch of war and that will eventually run out, and gives less performance to boot.

[nwo2012]

Well if its CO2 that is the 'issue' then fuck them full stop with their BS.

[omniy]

You could never grow enough corn to meet the demand for fuel in the US. And it wears your engine out faster.

[CharliePrime]

(01-26-2012 02:11 AM)Sovereignman Wrote:  Is corn not man made? So if we can make corn whenever we want, why not switch our dependency from a finite resource to an infinite resource?

One problem with using corn as a motor fuel is that it's an artificial market.

The U.S. government uses your tax dollars subsidize giant corporations to grow corn for use as a motor fuel. If not for the artificial subsidy, it would not be naturally profitable to grow the corn.

Basically, ethanol is mainly a way for corporations to use the IRS to rip us off.

I used to believe all the fear propaganda campaigns about climate change, petroleum running out, water running out, over-population, etc. The more I study these things the more I find out they are a scam.

Ten years ago I would have ridiculed anyone who said such things. Then I began to discover how the corporate foundations direct and control what society believes about such things. (Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, Soros, Tides, Gates, et al.)

[MasterChiefa]

(01-26-2012 02:11 AM)Sovereignman Wrote:  Is corn not man made? So if we can make corn whenever we want, why not switch our dependency from a finite resource to an infinite resource?

Since when is corn, or anything for that matter, an "infinite resource"?
Ever heard of algae fuel?

Quote:The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (39,000 km2) which is only 0.42% of the U.S. map, or about half of the land area of Maine. This is less than 1⁄7 the area of corn harvested in the United States in 2000.

Quote:High oil prices, competing demands between foods and other biofuel sources, and the world food crisis, have ignited interest in algaculture (farming algae) for making vegetable oil, biodiesel, bioethanol, biogasoline, biomethanol, biobutanol and other biofuels, using land that is not suitable for agriculture. Among algal fuels' attractive characteristics: they do not affect fresh water resources, can be produced using ocean and wastewater, and are biodegradable and relatively harmless to the environment if spilled.

Quote:Algae can produce up to 300 times more oil per acre than conventional crops, such as rapeseed, palms, soybeans, or jatropha. As algae have a harvesting cycle of 1–10 days, it permits several harvests in a very short time frame, a differing strategy to yearly crops (Chisti 2007). Algae can also be grown on land that is not suitable for other established crops, for instance, arid land, land with excessively saline soil, and drought-stricken land. This minimizes the issue of taking away pieces of land from the cultivation of food crops (Schenk et al. 2008). Algae can grow 20 to 30 times faster than food crops.

Quote:Harvested algae, like fossil fuel, release CO2 when burnt but unlike fossil fuel the CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere by the growing algae.