Right now the EPA allows the oil companies to enjoy a 90% (actually now 85%) mandate. There really cannot be a contender against a product that enjoys that level of policy protection. Ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, algal biodiesel, biobutanol, you name it. None can contend if the government says they don't get market access based on cost competitiveness. Look how mad people get if they cannot sell their extra electricity into the grid because the sine wave is not 'pure'. We mostly agree that anyone who is making electricity should be able to sell the excess, but that is not the case with biofuels.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
The only conclusion I can draw is that the injectors are putting substantially more ethanol in per power stroke, and that would indicate a very wide-band injector, which is entirely likely.
This makes sense, I guess, if the stoichiometric ratios for gas and ethanol are close to each other. If a shorter injector pulse makes the mixture too lean, then engine damage could result. Therefore, it is not possible with that arrangement to take advantage of the higher compression, since lots of fuel is being used to keep the engine from getting lean. Back to the drawing board, I guess. Thanks for the link to that study!
Seriously, you need to read the rest of the thread. I have been talking until I'm blue in the face (fingers?) about the non-relationship between chemical potential in the two fuels to the reality of engine output and efficiency. If you read the rest and still disagree, then we can certainly be human to each other and discuss it a bit more.
Needy nations do grow some crops on a subsistence-basis, and I think that is what you mean by non-high intensity. Not at all what I'm talking about. Subsistence farming is very far removed from actual agrarian economic sustainability. You have a pessimistic view of the ability of third-world nations to innovate, given the proper conditions. Do you think the lack of political stability and the lack of sustainable agriculture might have a causal relationship?
Now, for your last statement, I have to ask...when in history have prices risen sustainably over the cost of production and local economies failed to adjust? I'm not saying this has never happened, but in every instance I am aware of, there were severe extenuating circumstances, like civil war or invasion, impeding the adjustment. Further, your statement makes it sound like you are OK with the idea that these people will never be able to help themselves, so we should not do the right thing and set the stage for them to make those changes.
The sad fact is that in many markets, E85 is a niche fuel. This gives it a 'boutique' status, and gas stations seem to charge more than fair market value for it.
Your comparison of best-tuned gas to best-tuned ethanol is not really workable, since neither ICE would be able to be driven on a daily basis. So far, the manufacturers have shown us that the best they can do with gas cannot keep up with the best they can do with ethanol. Theoretically, that should not be true, but theory often loses out to practice.
The cited article states that in addition to making more HP and torque, the engine will get 15% better highway mileage when burning ethanol than it will when burning gas.
Corn is not the only answer, to be sure, but it is VITAL that we don't hamstring this growing fuel source (ethanol) by giving big oil back it's monopoly. We are learning to make ethanol from other things as we speak, but if the market and infrastructure does not exist, what good is cellulosic ethanol? Who would buy it? With no cars that can burn it and no pumps to dispense it, it is dead in the water, and that would be sad.
Oops, forgot the truck he drove to the market. Also sunshine powered. And his irrigation equipment, and fertilizer...all powered by the sand most people stick their heads in.
You mentioned the EPA study that showed E85 cars getting 25% less mileage. That was with an engine designed with low enough compression to be able to run pump gas. Add a supercharger and a turbo, the way that nifty little Saab engine does, and you can effectively boost compression when running a fuel that can handle it, like E85. That engine does get better mileage with high ethanol blends than it does with gas.
It is difficult to detach hard numbers like energy density from what is actually obtainable in a real-world setting. Granted, most cars are not able to take advantage of the higher efficiency ethanol can provide, but if the incentive was there for the car makers, they have already shown us that they can do it.
Ethanol has of course caused corn prices to go up. It is topic of endless debate how much of the current high prices are due to ethanol and how much is due to other factors like speculation, yield estimates and simple market manipulation. Regardless of how MUCH effect ethanol has had on the price of corn, it is incontrovertable that ethanol has caused corn prices to go up. The real question, then, is why food prices went up so much, when a box of corn flakes has 4 cents worth of corn in it. If the price of corn doubled, that makes it 8 cents. Does that justify the jump from $1.79 to the current $3.29?
Ethanol is a convenient whipping boy for the predatory practices of grocery producers and big oil, in my opinion.
If everyone had your attitude, we'd still be walking, 'cause riding horses has too many negatives.
DDGs are a very good feed supplement, and if you do some looking, you'll be staggered by the amount that is fed every year without issue. Don't just focus on the negatives, please. They may make a compelling article, but reality is that millions of tons of DDG are fed annually to all kinds of livestock.