Exaust Emissions in BioDiesel Jetta vrs Prius

> ethanol IS being subsidized

So is gasoline... in the US anyway.


> you are guilty

If taken out of context... But in reality, I am much heavier supporter of hybrid vehicles... the very things that will reduce consumption of bio-fuels in the end. Interesting, eh?

In other words, we simply cannot terminate our consumption tomorrow. However, we can accelerate the need for gas by substituting ethanol in the meantime.

 

Here's an interesting thought to ponder...

My 2004 Prius has traveled 34,519 miles using only 641.6 gallons of gas. The rest of the power came from the renewable fuel ethanol. If the point is to reduce the number of gallons of gas I consume, my average actually calculates to 53.8 MPG.

In other words, we need to keep the objectives clear. Look at the nonsense & confusion the surrounds hydrogen. It's purpose is a bit of a mystery... unless the goal actually is to eliminate oil use at great expense.

My purpose is listed on my homepage. Reducing consumption is all inclusive. Whether it is gasoline, ethanol, or electricity doesn't matter. The point is to use less overall of all of them. But the non-renewable type is does get a higher priority... for reasons that should be obvious.


All right. I'll climb off the soapbox not. That'll teach you for leaving it there for me! I just can't resist sometimes.

 

John: Ethanol is only a fuel additive; cars made for the US market cannot run on pure ethanol, although I understand they do so in Brazil. So, to rephrase your often stated claim that biodiesel requires some sort of retrofitting...so would ethanol if used above 10% .
I would love to be running HUMU on some sort of renewable fuel. Regardless of their efficiencies, hybrids still use petroleum and no one has come up with a viable bio-fuel for cars that can be run at or near 100% without serious engine modifications.
I believe I posted a link to an article by a guy who claims to have modified a gasoline engine to run on diesel; a mod he claims could be easily done during manufacturing. I'm dubious of this, but at least people are connecting the dots and working on the problems.
Likely, the hybrid technology will continue advancing and the ratio of power between the gasoline engine and the electric motor will move to increase the electric motor's contribution while diminishing the gasoline engine's part. This is exciting technology. All my life, until now, cars were, well, just cars. Apart from making them better and safer, there was no fundamental switch in the powertrain until the advent of hybrids.
By the way, John, I admire and appreciate your efforts at disseminating info about the Prius and I enjoy your commentary. I have several copies of your Prius info card laminated and stored in the seat pockets. They will be on display, along with HUMU at a renewable energy fair this Saturday that I am part of.
Thanks,
Bob

 

Interesting discussion, and IMHO many of the points made by different folks here have merit.

The most important point in my view is to reduce consumption in the first place! I'm with John that this is one of the best aspects of hybrids (at least full hybrids that are non-macho hybrids or not simply hybridized for the sake of increasing motive power).

Next, I think while we are in a transitional state, all alternative fuels, ways to produce energy, and ways to store/transport energy, need to be considered and tested, bio-ethanol and bio-diesel amongst them.
I also like the idea of SOV-modified engines, because (if I understand them correctly), they use what are essentially waste products generated by other processes and for other purposes, so they are essentially recycling machines.

Another consideration is that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, SOx and NOx are as well, if to a lesser extent.

Anyway, just more food for thoughts.

 

9 years ago is when Ford starting selling vehicles capable of running E85 with only minor modifications. It's no big deal. The misunderstandings & misconceptions stem from what it takes to exceed an 85% mix. But at that point, who cares. That would represent a drastic reduction of gas use with only small changes to the engine. And since Daimler Chrysler, General Motors, Isuzu, Mazda, Mercedes, Nissan have all offered that same FFV technology on their own vehicles, it is obviously not a "serious" issue.

Again, the goal needs to be clearly stated. Isn't 85% enough for the moment? What would be the benefit of that extra 15% right away?

And of course, since no modifications whatsoever are needed for the first 10%, why not mandate that nationwide? The gasoline vehicles already on the road can take advantage of that immediately.

[hr:59a3e7dff9]

Anyway, I hope you don't mind the friendly jabs. That's how our best material for supporting hybrids emerges. We get off on a tangent and end up discovering an entirely new way of getting people interested.

The "bio" topic is very new. And since Minnesota just passed the first ever mandate to bump their statewide gas from a 10% mix to 20% last week, I really appreciate getting to practice my rebuttals here rather than the not-so-friendly wild.

Someday, we'll get to the point where that dang engine shrinks to the point where it basically just gets downgraded to a secondary/backup powersource. But for now, we still have to put up with them. Being able to at least utilize more bio fuel would help make getting their a little more tolerable.

 

I'm not convinced ethnaol lives up to all it's claims. It uses considerable energy in production and there are claims it even uses more energy to produce than the finished product contains (this is refuted by ethanol supporters) I haven't seen convincing evidence that's true, but the evidence does show considerable energy is used regardless.

It has a limited supply, since you need lots of crops . As use increases, prices rise and corn farmers get happier and happier. If they rise a lot, it can affect other agricultural supplies and prices, to boot. How many vehicles could we make E85 before we hit out supply limits?

Doesn't the owners manual for Prius specify a maximum 10% ethanol mix? I think my last car was the same. If Minn. goes 20% statewide, do consumer there no longer follow their car manufactures recommendations?

The biggest benefit I can see from ethanol is as an oxygenate. But I understand why it's not 10% nationwide. While I have no problem with it in my gas, there aren't enough proven beneifts for me to be an advocate for it.

 

E20 isn't that far of a stretch. Some vehicles are already capable of a higher blend, but it was a waste to certify for a fuel that isn't even available. In 2013, it will be. They have 8 years to prepare for that. And since the lifespan of vehicles is shorter in this region anyway, it's not as wide of a scope as it would seem.

By the way, I heard of no complaint from any automaker when this was being considered.

Look at it another way. Running E10 for an additional 50,000 miles further in a really old car may provide caparable data to what E20 does. If so, there's enough vehicles already driving around studying the effects it has. Extensive studies have been done for quite a few years now with E85 here too.

Whatever the case, ethanol is decades ahead of hydrogen in real-world vehicle testing. People seem to think that fuel-cells will somehow magically work first try, that none of the issues with something like bio-gas or bio-diesel will apply. In reality, there are always acceptance problems. At least Minnesota is attempting to solve some of them early before everyone else is begging for the data.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gschoen\";p=\"93567)</div>

I've heard that too. Ethanol is similar to Hydrogen as a power source in that it takes more energy to make the product than the product actually gives out, if that makes sense. One of my favorite quotes regarding ethanol is that it is, "government subsidized food burning."

I agree that all avenues of alternative fuel sources need to be examined.

I see one of two extremes happening when oil runs out (or whatever is left is too expensive to extract): 1) Due to our diligent efforts at researching alternative fuels, our transition to one or more of them is relatively painless, or 2) we experience a 70s like energy shortage while governments and the public scramble to adopt other sources of energy.

Hopefully it will be the former, but most likely it will be somewhere in between the two.

 

How exactly is gasoline subsidized in the US and by whom? I'd be most interested in reading a source document on this assertion.

 

i dont think so... we already have enough problems with woodstoves that are out of code...

 

There was an experiment done to run a Prius Classic on E85. It ran fine, though initially it ran rough until it warmed up. They checked the exhaust after warmup and determined that proper burn was being achieved. The issue is the default map table that makes a close guess on the proper fuel/air mixture before it fine tunes it using the O2 sensor. Before the O2 sensor is properly warmed, the ICE runs on open loop best guess, which was not tuned for E85. Eventually the Check Engine light went on after 140 miles, because the ECM had to make such a wide adjustment than it expected.
No long term effects are known.

Assuming the fuel path and seals can handle E85, the only change needed is a modification to the MAP table in the ECM.

Just as diesel and gasoline have their appropriate applications, so does ethanol and biodiesel. As a matter of fact, some ethanol production byproduct is biodiesel. The energy return is very close to energy spent. I tend to side with a slightly favorable outlook. But as we start going down that road, efficiencies in production will make it more and more practical. Even our organic waste can be used for production of both, including paper.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse\";p=\"93833)</div>

How exactly is gasoline subsidized in the US and by whom? I'd be most interested in reading a source document on this assertion.[/b][/quote]

Gasoline is subsidized indirectly because the cost at the pump does not cover the true environmental cost of its use. In Europe, the cost is very high, but that's because the tax structure covers the environmental damage and health problems related to gasoline use.

Gasoline is also subsidized directly because the oil companies are international and for the most part avoid paying US corporate taxes; nor do the oil companies pay the full cost of the infrastructure that supports the distribution of their products. The government has kept oil prices artificially low in order to spur economic development. Cheap oil allowed the expansion of cities into suburbs and the creation of a huge highway and automobile oriented transportation system. The difference in what you pay at the pump and the actual costs involved in getting the gasoline to that pump is a subsidy.


As oil becomes scarcer, however, our economy based on cheap oil will begin to fragment and elements of our social structure will become untenable. We are already seeing this (in Seattle anyway) in the rising values of urban real estate vis a vis the suburbs.

Bob

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bob Allen\";p=\"94322)</div>

How exactly is gasoline subsidized in the US and by whom? I'd be most interested in reading a source document on this assertion.[/b][/quote]

Gasoline is subsidized indirectly because the cost at the pump does not cover the true environmental cost of its use. In Europe, the cost is very high, but that's because the tax structure covers the environmental damage and health problems related to gasoline use.

Gasoline is also subsidized directly because the oil companies are international and for the most part avoid paying US corporate taxes; nor do the oil companies pay the full cost of the infrastructure that supports the distribution of their products. The government has kept oil prices artificially low in order to spur economic development. Cheap oil allowed the expansion of cities into suburbs and the creation of a huge highway and automobile oriented transportation system. The difference in what you pay at the pump and the actual costs involved in getting the gasoline to that pump is a subsidy.[/b][/quote]
That's quite a stretch. Under the same thinking, one could also say that because roads are provided for with tax dollars that all commerce is subsidized.

The fact is, gasoline is not directly subsidized like grain crops (and interestingly only grain crops). Considering that gasoline is taxed per gallon federally as well as by state, only cigarettes compare in tax burden. I don't see how that "has kept oil prices artificially low." There are (obviously) no artificial market constraints on oil/gas and the price, other than the already high tax load, is set by free market.

 

Direct subsidies of gas?...no
But gas does get the largest indirect subsidy ever seen. Its called the Pentagon and the DOD. A huge proportion of all of our tax money goes to the military, and the vast bulk of military efforts go to securing access to oil supplies. To me, that is a subsidy to the international oil companies or oilopolies.

If the middle east had no oil, we would not be there. Plain and simple.

 

nearly EVERY agricultural product is subsidized.